The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq.

 

But as the White House and its military commanders plan the next phase of the war, other officials have cautioned against taking what they see as a premature step that could create strategic and political difficulties for the United States. Such a declaration could fuel criticism that the Iraq conflict has become a civil war in which U.S. combat forces should not be involved. At the same time, the intelligence community, and some in the military itself, worry about underestimating an enemy that has shown great resilience in the past.

 

"I think it would be premature at this point," a senior intelligence official said of a victory declaration over AQI, as the group is known. Despite recent U.S. gains, he said, AQI retains "the ability for surprise and for catastrophic attacks." Earlier periods of optimism, such as immediately following the June 2006 death of AQI founder Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. air raid, not only proved unfounded but were followed by expanded operations by the militant organization.

 

There is widespread agreement that AQI has suffered major blows over the past three months. Among the indicators cited is a sharp drop in suicide bombings, the group's signature attack, from more than 60 in January to around 30 a month since July. Captures and interrogations of AQI leaders over the summer had what a senior military intelligence official called a "cascade effect," leading to other killings and captures. The flow of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq has also diminished, although officials are unsure of the reason and are concerned that the broader al-Qaeda network may be diverting new recruits to Afghanistan and elsewhere.

 

The deployment of more U.S. and Iraqi forces into AQI strongholds in Anbar province and the Baghdad area, as well as the recruitment of Sunni tribal fighters to combat AQI operatives in those locations, has helped to deprive the militants of a secure base of operations, U.S. military officials said. "They are less and less coordinated, more and more fragmented," Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, said recently. Describing frayed support structures and supply lines, Odierno estimated that the group's capabilities have been "degraded" by 60 to 70 percent since the beginning of the year.

 

Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head of the Joint Special Operations Command's operations in Iraq, is the chief promoter of a victory declaration and believes that AQI has been all but eliminated, the military intelligence official said. But Adm. William J. Fallon, the chief of U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, is urging restraint, the official said. The military intelligence official, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity about Iraq assessments and strategy.

 

Senior U.S. commanders on the ground, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, have long complained that Central Command, along with the CIA, is too negative in its analyses. On this issue, however, Petraeus agrees with Fallon, the military intelligence official said.

 

For each assessment of progress against AQI, there is a cautionary note that comes from long and often painful experience. Despite the increased killings and captures of AQI members, Odierno said, "it only takes three people" to construct and detonate a suicide car bomb that can "kill thousands." The goal, he said, is to make each attack less effective and lengthen the periods between them.

 

Right now, said another U.S. official, who declined even to be identified by the agency he works for, the data are "insufficient and difficult to measure."

 

"AQI is definitely taking some hits," the official said. "There is definite progress, and that is undeniable good news. But what we don't know is how long it will last . . . and whether it's sustainable. . . . They have withstood withering pressure for a long period of time." Three months, he said, is not long enough to consider a trend sustainable.

 

Views of the extent to which AQI has been vanquished also reflect differences over the extent to which it operates independently from Osama bin Laden's central al-Qaeda organization, based in Pakistan. "Everyone has an opinion about how franchisement of al-Qaeda works," a senior White House official said. "Is it through central control, or is it decentralized?" The answer to that question, the official said, affects "your ability to determine how successfully [AQI] has been defeated or neutralized. Is it 'game over'?"

 

In Baghdad, the White House official said, the group's "area of operations has been reduced quite a bit for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad." Three years of sectarian fighting have eliminated many mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods. Those areas had been the most fertile and accessible places for AQI, which is composed of extremist Sunnis, to attack Shiite civilians, security forces and government officials. But the death of mixed neighborhoods also has made another Bush administration priority -- promoting political reconciliation -- more difficult.

 

The expanded presence of U.S. troops in combat outposts in many parts of Baghdad has also put pressure on AQI, but a major test of gains against the organization will come when the U.S. military begins to turn security in those areas over to Iraqi forces next year.

 

Recent suicide bombings in northern Iraq have convinced some officials that AQI has moved its operations in that direction. But the officials said they do not know whether AQI militants have permanently decamped from Baghdad and Anbar province, or whether they are merely lying low in anticipation of a U.S. departure or the failure of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to end the sectarian divisions that AQI fostered and now feeds upon.

 

While a victory declaration might have the "psychological aspect" of discouraging recruitment to a perceived lost cause, the White House official said, advantages overall would be minimal. "I recognize that there are pros to saying, 'Hey, listen, the bad guys are on the run.' " But if AQI were later able to demonstrate residual capabilities with a series of bombings, "even though it was temporary," he said, "the question becomes: How does this play out in terms of public opinion?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1401245_pf.html

Good. So we can start bringing the troops home?

 

Nope.

 

I'm not trying to take a pessimist, reject all progress approach to this. I do think AQI is a legit threat. But I don't think we need our entire military to address them, and I think the issues in Iraq and our presence there go beyond fighting AQI. Bush has narrowed it down successfully because he wants to distract from other major concerns.

 

Here is what the Bush admin really wants to say: We are winning the war against AQI and have all but eliminated them [meant to say: thereby linking our operations there to something defensible, ie 9/11, and some actual progress], but AQI is still an enormous enough threat and are becoming large and strong so we have to keep our troops there[meant to say: because I need our troops there until I leave office to prevent an all out civil war between the people we were liberating so that my legacy is not tarnished].

 

Part of the greater war on terror. We are winning, but we will never truly win, because then we can't use 9/11 in speeches.

Part of the greater war on terror. We are winning, but we will never truly win, because then we can't use 9/11 in speeches.

God forbid Rudy or Dubya loses THAT ability.

Whatever, it's nice to see some good news though.

Good! Why are people here unhappy with this development?

Good! Why are people here unhappy with this development?

The generals in Iraq that are not working directly for the White House will tell you that AQI causes maybe 10% of the violence in Iraq, at the most. They are a small group in the grand scheme of things.

Good! Why are people here unhappy with this development?

The generals in Iraq that are not working directly for the White House will tell you that AQI causes maybe 10% of the violence in Iraq, at the most. They are a small group in the grand scheme of things.

Remember, I am a Ron Paul supporter, but that does not mean I will ignore good news.

 

If Al Qaeda is gone and the longer it seeps in that neither Iran nor Syria have anything to do with Iraqi instability, the more obvious it is that our presence is not necessary, because the problem is merely between Iraqis. Without other geopolitical interests outside of Iraq, I see no reason why our continued presence there is warranted.

 

Of course, both Hillary (continuing Billy Clinton's policies) and the Neo-Cons would like a permanent military presence in the Middle East. Until we start rethinking our policy of keeping military bases in 120 countries, we are going to go no where every where.

Of course, both Hillary (continuing Billy Clinton's policies) and the Neo-Cons would like a permanent military presence in the Middle East. Until we start rethinking our policy of keeping military bases in 120 countries, we are going to go no where every where.

One reason I don't want Hillary to get the nomination. I am becoming more convinced by the day that she will NOT end the occupation any time soon. She seems to follow the foreign policy of the Neo Cons, although I don't think she would go after Iran like they want. But I do certainly agree that she wants a permanent US presence in Iraq.

Well, at least Obama wins the presidency we can look cool bombing Pakistan and Iran*. Yikes!

 

 

* Referring to this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printed...1,4555304.story

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...s-fly-over.html

Well, at least Obama wins the presidency we can look cool bombing Pakistan and Iran*. Yikes!

 

 

* Referring to this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printed...1,4555304.story

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...s-fly-over.html

I'm not convinced that he would actually do it.

The scary thing is that we don't know what any of these people will do and what they are capable of. Remember, Bush ran on "no nation-building" (a Clinton policy.)

 

Kucinich, Gravel, Paul...the only non-flip floppers...and Gravel wants world government. Yikes!

Whatever, it's nice to see some good news though.

I was gonna post the same pic if you hadn't beat me to it.

 

But onto the topic - ok, we beat the Al-Qaeda in Iraq, now lets get out of there.

Well, at least Obama wins the presidency we can look cool bombing Pakistan and Iran*. Yikes!

 

 

* Referring to this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printed...1,4555304.story

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...s-fly-over.html

I'm not convinced that he would actually do it.

So you support the guy while you don't believe what he says?

 

His attack on Hillary is pretty weak, as I don't think he can point out a single war related vote he took that he took the opposite position from Hillary. All he can do is talk about votes he wasn't there for. And still niether he nor any of the "top tier" guys on either party will commit to leaving Iraq within their first term.

 

They are all CFR cronies.

I'm very suspicious of all politicians, period.

 

However, for now I believe that Obama is the best option of the top-tier DNC candidates. I also line up better with Obama's stances than with Hillary or any others.

I'm very suspicious of all politicians, period.

As are we all...but a few of us have actually found a candidate who appears to be both honest and consistent.

I'm very suspicious of all politicians, period.

As are we all...but a few of us have actually found a candidate who appears to be both honest and consistent.

That's fine, I just don't agree with some of Paul's ideas. I don't think the answer to this country's problems is to gut the government almost completely.

Hillary is triangulating, possibly too early.

Hillary is triangulating, possibly too early.

What does that mean?

 

Is it that she is trying to please everyone too early?

Hillary is triangulating, possibly too early.

What does that mean?

 

Is it that she is trying to please everyone too early?

 

Kind of. I wouldn't say it is pleasing everyone too early. I would say it is taking a centrist position to prevent your opponent from doing so. In fact, by design it alienates your more left or right oriented voters because it assumes they will either vote for you or not vote for the other guy, gets most of the centrists and independants, and prevents the other side from getting their base in gear against a true left or right threat.

 

It's Bill's strategy of somewhat co-opting Republican ideas to prevent Republicans from attacking him in the 1996 election(welfare reform, middle class tax cuts). Hillary seems to be moving closer and closer to the same position that Republicans are taking on war in general without actually taking their positions, thereby forcing them to take positions that are more distinguishable but less centrist.

 

The willingness to call the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization is the perfect example. Note that this was a Lieberman bill she voted with. It prevents her from looking like someone that is unwilling to take strong actions or is weak militarily. In order to call that policy ineffective, Republicans will have to say we have to be more aggressive with Iran than that. In what way? Immediately start another war? If they say yes to that, it seems like Iraq x2, ie rushing into something we shouldn't rush into. If they say no, then they are essentially agreeing with her.

 

It's a great strategy in terms of actually winning if you can do it. But she is really assuming that she has locked up the nomination. Going centrist too early can obviously backfire. There is plenty of time for Obama and Edwards to tell Iowa voters that Hillary is Republican lite. Bill obviously was an incumbent president, so he had a luxury.

True, but I think Hillary is running like an incumbent. Given her name recognition (and the media's absolute obsession with her), it seems like a good strategy.

True, but I think Hillary is running like an incumbent. Given her name recognition (and the media's absolute obsession with her), it seems like a good strategy.

 

Agreed. We will see if this ends up being like past dem elections involving non-Pres or VPs where the early front runner usually falls back. This is the first time the dems have had this large a favorite in this regards as far as I know.

Yes. Usually the Dems are pretty unpredictable.

Yes. Usually the Dems are pretty unpredictable.

And they have had mediocre at best candidates.

 

The smart people don't want to get into the mess that is the Presidential race (see: Mark Warner).

Mark Warner did not run because he doesn't think it's his time. He's smart enough politically to stay away when he's going to get dick slapped by Hillary.

Mark Warner did not run because he doesn't think it's his time. He's smart enough politically to stay away when he's going to get dick slapped by Hillary.

That's not what he publicly said. Maybe that was the real reason, but I remember the stated one being that he didn't want to expose his family to the invasion of privacy caused by running a Presidential campaign. I see that as a perfectly legitimate reason.