Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Jihadist Meltdown

BY NIBRAS KAZIMI

There is always a moment during a raging battle when one side realizes that the field has been won, and the other side collapses in retreat and confusion. The curious thing about the Iraqi insurgency is that this moment has arrived, yet both the victors, in this case the Americans and the Iraqi government, and the losers, Al Qaeda and the other jihadist groups, are reluctant to acknowledge it.

But make no mistake, the battle has been turned and we are witnessing the beginning of a jihadist meltdown.

Six months ago, many of the strategists behind the Sunni insurgency, faced with a more effective counterinsurgency effort, began to wonder just how long they could keep their momentum given their diminishing resources and talent. These strategists realized that their “resistance” would just peter out over time, as classical insurgencies tend to do. Some argued that, given one last push, the Americans would be sufficiently distressed to grab at cease-fire negotiations that would end with a hasty American withdrawal, leaving the insurgents to work things out with a much-weakened Iraqi government on more favorable terms.

Others, like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the organization founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, saw that there was no future for their vision of establishing a Taliban-like state should these negotiations with the Americans get underway, which would only serve to strengthen the hand of the rival insurgent factions that counsel this course.

This sense that they were running out of time compelled Al Qaeda to take a bold initiative of declaring the establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq four months back, appointing the hitherto unknown Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as its head. This was no propaganda stunt for Al Qaeda. This was the real thing: the nucleus state for the caliphate, with al-Baghdadi as the candidate caliph.

But this was a fatal strategic mistake for Al Qaeda, a mistake that threatens to pull down all the other jihadist insurgent groups along with it. Al Qaeda tried to leap over reality, but it was a leap into the abyss of uncertainty. Trying to pick a caliph is fraught with historical and judicial complications since there is no historical precedent — not even from the time of the Prophet Muhammad — that would serve for an uncontroversial transfer of power. It is one of the most delicate ideological matters among jihadists, a matter so sensitive that most of them have decided to leave it aside for the time being lest it result in splintering off dissenters.

[...]

Now if only the American press would report on this jihadist meltdown so that policymakers in Washington can rally the martial spirit to bring this battle to a crushing end for the enemy.

Read the whole thing.

In light of this article, it is even more puzzling why the Dems have become so animated in their efforts to declare defeat for us in Iraq.  Maybe their desire to “Get the President” is stronger than their desire to promote the interests of the US and the rest of the free world.  Could be.

Comments

Proof
Proof
11127 comments
Send a private message

why the Dems have become so animated in their efforts to declare defeat for us in Iraq

Simple. Any thing good comes out of Iraq or US intervention there and the Dems have to day, “We were wrong.” (I mean, for God’s sake, don’t actually wait for them to say it! Not in my lifetime I’d wager!)



For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Proof on March 18, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Avatar for lisa

In England were most of Iraqis have fled from the war are actually wishing that Saddam was back in power !! yes here we are talking about the Bagdad Kurds who hapen to not mund saddam and were not involved in the Kirkuk uprising. then you get the Shias who equaly were not involved with the Shia uprising.Some are actually saying at leasy under Saddam we were able to go out and do shopping without being blown up, had electricity , clean water ...They were originaly happy to rid of Saddam THINKINK they would be free but NOT. Even the Judge in saddam’s trial fled Iraq rear for his life.

Let us not pretend that America CARES about the Iraqis and were Only trying to free them from a TYRANT,BULL he has been one since he came to power and was America’s BEST FREIND while he was Gassing the KURDS and Shiats.

If this was abbout Tyrany then US should have Nuked MGABI firs as he has far more blood on his hands.Then if they did their will be a RACE riot in America with blacks refusing to kill fellow Black.Any way they got NO OIL.

lisa on March 19, 2007 at 10:30 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.