Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture

[Undertoad]

AQI has been the main insurgency at least since they bombed the dome of the golden mosque at Samarra, in order to create the conflict boiling towards civil war.

[deadbeater]

The Sunni and Shia were all set for civil war anyway. The Shia used the golden mosque bombing as reason to really go after all the Sunnis, including Sunnis who happen to be members of al-Qaeda.

[Undertoad]

And now Shia and Sunni are uniting against AQI, having found their rule to be repugnant and unacceptable.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

AQI has been the main insurgency at least since they bombed the dome of the golden mosque at Samarra, in order to create the conflict boiling towards civil war.

The only reason we *know* that is the same wacko extremist propaganda by George Jr's administration. It is not known who did most of what. But we do know from reporters that the actual war is not what American extremists promote.

From the Wall Street Journal of 31 October 2007 entitled "In Baghdad Neighborhood, A Tale of Shifting Fortunes":

In many neighborhoods across the Iraqi capital, Shiite Muslims have defeated their Sunni cousins in the civil war that's raged here over the past two years. Shiites ... have been able to seize real estate, businesses, and municipal services from Sunnis. A mafia-like network of Shiite militias has engineered the takeover of entire neighborhoods. Of the 51 members on Baghdad's City Council, only one is Sunni; the police are almost entirely Shia.

The central government here says the violence is winding down, and the US military point out that civilian deaths have declined recently. But a new, quieter chapter of the civil war is unfolding. Shiite groups are trying to consolidate their on-the-ground gains and push into neighborhoods that have so far eluded their control. The Sunnis, pressed into a corner, are looking for new ways to fight back.

As the report demonstrates, Baghdad is mostly 'ethnic cleansed' of Sunni. Al Qaeda had near zero responsibliity for that. In America, all this was instead blamed on Al Qaeda - since Americans so easily believed George Jr propaganda (even six months ago) rather than learn what reporters have actually been reporting. Fewer remaining Sunnis means diminished violence. Does that mean the civil war is ending? Does that mean Americans are stopping this war?

Nowhere is this dynamic more evident than in the city's Sayidia section, a majority-Sunni enclave where Sunnis and Shiites had lived in relative peace. ...

In February, a white sedan swerved and flipped over in front of Ryad Obaidi's home in Sayidia. ... Hearing tapping sound, Mr Obaidi ... opened the trunk. ... Shocked by the man's story, he decided to join a local band of Sunni fighters. ...

Other unemployed military officers from the area joined the insurgency, but the neighborhood remained peaceful. ... But all around the district, other neighborhoods were falling under the sway of Shiite militants. ... American officials stationed here have watched as Shiite militias made steady inroads. ...

Apparent are no American actions to halt or change this onslaught before or during the 'surge'.

The idea of reconciliation is indispensable to making Iraq into a functioning state - and a key condition for the eventual withdrawal of US troops. But as Baghdad's few mixed areas yield to Shiite forces, that goal becomes harder to achieve. ... It was fast becoming the only safe haven for Sunnis in West Rashid.

Things weren't that way for long. Shiite militants started infiltrating Sayidia from adjacent areas under their control. According to US military officials, their movements were often aided by the Shiite-dominated Iraqi police. ...

Gen Abdul-Karim Khalaf, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, says the accusations that the police are working with Shiite militants are unsubstantiated. "The police forces represent the government, and the government doesn't support one side against the other," he said.

And yet evidence repeatedly says otherwise. Maliki's government has even quashed investigations on government corruption. What is America doing when protecting and financing Maliki's government?

Shiite forces also targeted basic services in the neighborhood, according to US military officials. Electricity lines were cut. Water delivery became erratic. Trash collectors were murdered.

Sunni shop owners were ordered to close down. Shiite gunmen raided Sunni mosques. Last month, only one of 11 mosques remained open. Sunnis started to leave Sayidia.

But some Sunni residents also started fighting back. ... "Almost every night we fought", said Riyad. Gunfire became so frequent and indiscriminate that local resident Abu Hassan observed that fronds of a palm tree in front of his house had become shredded by bullets.

Still, Shiite militant gained ground, and a new band of combatants entered the fray early this year: extremist fighters from al-Qaeda in Iraq, a fundamentalist Sunni group known for slaughtering Shiites. Al-Qaeda fighters trickled in to Sayidia through a neighboring enclave called Dora. ...

Sayidia's desperate Sunnis were initially happy to see the new fighters, hoping they would help fend off the Shiite onslaught. "The Sunnis had no choice but to receive al-Qaeda because nobody else was protecting them" says Mr Ibrahim, the Sayidia dentist.

Instead, the Sunni extremists embarked on a simple but brutal strategy: kill any Shiite they could get their hands on. A peaceful Shiite population had always resided in the neighborhood. They were now targets.

The murder rate in Sayidia went through the roof. "You'll see people walk by a body, and it's like they are immune to it", says US Army 1st Sgt Todd Carlsurd, who has spend months patrolling the neighborhood. ... Far from being any sort of ally, al-Qaeda was living up to its reputation for inciting violence.

Sayidia's Sunni residents regrouped. Recruited by a major Sunni political party, some 300 Sunni fighters joined an ad-hoc police unit ... The Americans patrolling Sayidia, desperate for a solution, went along with the plan. ...

Early this month, the Iraqi government issued an order banning the Sunni [volunteer police] battalion from the streets.

Again, Americans had no choice but to go along with another plan that really does not solve anything. Whereas murder rates across Baghdad decrease during 'a surge' (since most neighborhoods were finished being ethnic cleansed), in Sayalia, deaths increased during the 'surge'. What caused the reduction of street deaths? Ethnic cleansing has completed in most of Baghdad. Where ethnic cleansing is not, violence has been increasing - despite the 'surge'.

Meanwhile where is this world wide Al Qaeda enemy that would threaten America (according to our extremist who promote fear, orange alerts, evil Muslims hiding in America to kill us all) or be responsible for all that violence? Al Qaeda is just another almost irrelevant insurgency group representing just another faction in a multi-party civil war. Of course, many still believe our president's propaganda. But facts about Al Qaeda say otherwise. Each Al Qeada is simply another small militia of fundamentalists who kill who? Shiites. Why does George Jr and the propaganda forget to mention who these Al Qeada really target?

But again, "Mission Accomplished" is a civil war; not a threat to America as our wacko extremists still promote it.

This Wall Street Journal report is a story of the past two years. During that time, American wacko extremists in the US government and in the Cellar have repeatedly posted fears of an 'all consuming' Al Qaeda. Rush Limbaugh rhetoric of fear and hate is still widespread in America among the American 20% that rabidly supports a mental midget. These same Americans who so love violence will even misrepresent Al Qaeda as some worldwide international threat. And yet observe what Al Qaeda really is - in Sayidia.

A trivial Al Qaeda is just another insurgency in the "Mission Accomplished" civil war. Also apparent is how little Americans have influence over this civil war. Even an American puppet government apparently supports Shia 'ethnic cleansing' at the expense of Sunni. So who are Americans really protecting? Americans are stopping Al Qaeda? Yes, just as Sherlock Holmes was stopping Moriarity.

Nothing new here. This summary is what Iraq was three years ago when America created this problem and denied what "Mission Accomplished" was really about. Contrary to so many posts in The Cellar, Al Qaeda is not this massive threat so hyped by wacko extremist. Ethnic cleansing would be a more accurate appraisal. But that would make the mental midget appear to be a liar.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

AQI has been the main insurgency at least since they bombed the dome of the golden mosque at Samarra, in order to create the conflict boiling towards civil war.

Since when does one bombing constitute 'the main insurgency?'

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And now Shia and Sunni are uniting against AQI, having found their rule to be repugnant and unacceptable.

Did I miss a major part of the war? When was AQI in charge? When did they ever have the people's support?

AQI has never held much sway over the Iraqi people, and for the most part succeed in few successful attacks or IEDs. Every time AQI goes up against another insurgent group, they lose. Every time AQI goes into a new town, they are sold out to the US (if the US is there). Every time AQI moves out of an area, the people are happy.

AQI is to the Iraq war as Italy is to WWII. They're involved, and need to be considered, but are in no way a central threat.

[Undertoad]

By the beginning of this year, homegrown but foreign-led, foreign-funded AQI controlled most of the cities in Anbar and elsewhere; basically half the area of non-Kurdish Iraq, through a program of extreme violence and fear.

Don't take my word for it. There are only two things you have to read. I beg of you to take my little homework assignment and report back to the thread your thoughts.

Read the National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq's Prospects for Security as excerpted by the New York Times.

And then read Michael Yon's Bless the Beasts and Children.

[queequeger]

I don't mean to be contrary (and I will likely read Yon's book... it's in my queue ), but all my coworkers and I laugh when people (or new guys) say AQI 'controls' a city. Usually that simply equates, in real terms, that AQI has a presence there. In any city with any significant Shiite population at all (and no or limited US), JAM or a similarly organized group is usually the one providing security, the one that actually has 'control.' Most places, AQI guys can't move about freely during the day because they'll get shot. You don't much control a city if you can't walk outside, IMHO.

AQI tries their best, they set up checkpoints and flee when anyone with a gun approaches. They did have some tribes working with them for a few months, but they never had a viable claim of land or resources. The ONLY reason they still exist as a threat at all is because no one can secure the damned borders, so they continuously get resupplied and new manning. (yet another argument for put out sufficient troops or get out...)

I'm not contesting that AQI can pull of large scale attacks on civilians. I'm contesting that they're a threat to US forces, and that they are Al Qa'ida. So, if the reason we stay is 'to eliminate Al Qa'ida strongholds,' we can leave. In sincerity, as soon as we walk out the door, AQI will be completely eradicated.

If we want to win this ugly war, we need to pick a friggin goal and work toward it. If the goal is creating a peaceful prosperous nation, we're simply not going to be able to do it unless we take our efforts up about 10 notches. If our goal, as it's now stated, is to make sure that Al Qa'ida doesn't have a foothold... we never needed to stay.

[tw]

Originally Posted by queequeger

If we want to win this ugly war, we need to pick a friggin goal and work toward it. If the goal is creating a peaceful prosperous nation, we're simply not going to be able to do it unless we take our efforts up about 10 notches. If our goal, as it's now stated, is to make sure that Al Qa'ida doesn't have a foothold... we never needed to stay.

Which brings us right back to the question that UT could never answer. What is our strategic objective?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by queequeger

I don't mean to be contrary (and I will likely read Yon's book... it's in my queue ), but all my coworkers and I laugh when people (or new guys) say AQI 'controls' a city.

This is some sort of appeal to authority I don't understand. Your coworkers are whom I should give a fuck about? Apparently they take a counter-opinion to the National Intelligence Estimate you couldn't be bothered to take my homework of. Can you ask them on what basis, and report back to the thread, or something?

I'm not contesting that AQI can pull of large scale attacks on civilians. I'm contesting that they're a threat to US forces, and that they are Al Qa'ida.

Maybe we can ask for membership cards before we kill them.

So, if the reason we stay is 'to eliminate Al Qa'ida strongholds,' we can leave. In sincerity, as soon as we walk out the door, AQI will be completely eradicated.

They killed everybody in the town, if you'd have bothered to read my links.

They killed everybody in the town.

[Rexmons]

Does anyone ever get the feeling like the only reason we don't pull out of Iraq is to save face? We went there on the premise of disarming WMD's and after we discovered there was none we would be admitting being wrong by leaving. It's like almost tripping when you're walking and acting like it was all part of your plan, maybe doing a spin and and scoring that invisible 3 pointer.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Your coworkers are whom I should give a fuck about?

My coworkers (and I) are military intelligence collectors and analysts, and fluent arabic linguists (among other things).

The fact is, while I do make a point of reading about this subject A LOT, so much of the things I've read distort the information they receive or receive previously distorted information. A lot of the time we're told by some local schmo 'those al-qa'ida guys over there are killing everyone,' and it turns out to be some other group. A lot of the time, we never get a chance to verify the information before we, well, kill everyone that's shooting.

The number of attacks on US forces that can be verified to come from Al-Qa'ida are slim to none. We're talking single percentage points. The number against civilians is somewhat higher, which is why I say if we're actually trying to stabilize the country we do need to count them amongst our enemies. But, that being said, they have a pretty tedious hold on what little ground they actually DO control, and the whole of Iraq is against them.

[Undertoad]

Oh cool. So why do you think it is they disagree so strongly with the National Intelligence Estimate?

With all your voluminous reading, did you get to that one yet? It's not that long.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Oh cool. So why do you think it is they disagree so strongly with the National Intelligence Estimate?

Learn from history. The summary of a 2003 NIE said Saddam definitively had WMDs. But the classified full text NIE said something completely different. Never forget what happened to reality when rewritten by White House lawyers. Why do you believe a declassified excerpted summary that is first vetted by whom?

Anything from the White House is automatically a lies until otherwise first proven by independent sources. Your NIE has no credibility as demonstrated previously in 2003. George Jr's administration routinely justifies lies by their political agenda.

Your NIE is in direct contradiction to too many other and far more trustworthy sources. First, you must prove that the White House did not subvert the NIE. Why? This administration has a long history of being that corrupt - even rewriting science to fit their political agendas.

Let's see. The science repeatedly demonstrated there was no proof of Saddam's WMDs. So why did the NIE say otherwise. Deja vue WMDs. How often do we ignore these lessons from history?

This is George Jr. Anything from this adminstration is a lie until proven otherwise. A fact so well proven in these part seven year history.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Oh cool. So why do you think it is they disagree so strongly with the National Intelligence Estimate?

With all your voluminous reading, did you get to that one yet? It's not that long.

I *did* read it, it's required if you want to know what's NOT true. Look, if we wanted to make it look like the Badr corps controlled the entire southern third of the country, we could. Not going into specifics (which is annoying as hell, for all parties involved) the intelligence business is kind of fluid, in that you get a lot of contradictory evidence. You can see this from any sensationalist or newsworthy attack, everybody and their brother claims to have done it.

The problem is, when al-Qa'ida claims every damned attack in Iraq, we could technically attribute it to them. On a tactical level, we would NEVER assume that someone who claims responsibility IS the actor without extra or collateral info. But, on a strategic level, the lists are given in a way that just about any conclusion can be made if you look for it. While tw here is over reaching about deliberate large scale changes by an administration, picture this:

Your boss tells you, find all the attacks on our troops in the last year, and tell me who did them. When you've got 100 incidents, 60 of which are CLAIMED by AQI, that's the number you give, with a little caveat saying "sorta.' It goes further and further up the chain and in each little report it gets edited re-edited, comments get added and deleted, etc. The problem is, when you're LOOKING for attacks made by al-Qa'ida four steps up the chain, you'll find a lot more than are actually there. So when each person in the chain is looking for AQI attacks, the number gets inflated and inflated.

It's a big problem with big intelligence, but rumor has it (I wouldn't know personally) that it got really bad *about* when Rumsfeld got the keys to the pentagon. Apparently he would go from person to person until someone found the supporting evidence he wanted and give THAT person a promotion. So, every general went from person to person, every colonel did the same, so on and so forth.

Once again I'd like to point out that AQI are bad dudes who've done some major things (like the mosque in Samarra), they do help to destabilize the country, and they do have ties to the 'big' al-Qa'ida. They're just not NEARLY as major as they're made out to be.

[Undertoad]

OK cool, thanks.

I back my thoughts up with the direct words of people honestly reported last year and the year before, who are there right now bringing back what they personally see and hear. The afore-mentioned Michael Totten, who predicted the breakout of the Lebanese war a month ahead of time by simply going there and talking with both Hisballah and Israel forces. And Michael Yon, who made the call of civil war in Iraq right at the peak of that violence graph, by embedding and watching who was fighting and why, and with intelligent discussions with mid-level military.

Their articles are dispatched directly from Anbar and Ramadi and Baghdad and Fallujah. The mid-level military guys are referring to al Qaeda. The people on the street are referring to al Qaeda. I was skeptical at first but those guys are getting their info directly. If it was just Yon alone I wouldn't buy it, but I was reading Totten even before he decided to devote his time to the M.E., and he's always been a very sensible, honest gent.

But I'll add your own skepticism to my "pool of trying to vainly understand how things might be". All data points are of interest to me, unlike tw who openly admits to dividing the facts and throwing away the half he doesn't like. Create your own reality, it's easy if you try.