An incredibly interesting blog post takes a close look at Rumsfeld’s strategy in Iraq and shows how it has brought the US to this point of continuing success in Iraq today. It uses letters from Al Qaeda leaders to expose their strategies and to show how Rumsfeld’s counter-strategy was the most effective imaginable. Incredibly interesting and thought-provoking. (If you disagree with the logic or facts in the post, please drop a comment there along with one here pointing to your comment on the post. I’m still processing the post.)
Why did the Iraqis turn against al Qaeda and Iran? Because al Qaeda and Iran were murdering them en masse. And why were al Qaeda and Iran murdering Iraqis en masse? Because Defense Secretary Rumfeld’s small-footprint force-protection strategy meant that they couldn’t attack American troops without getting immediately annihilated.
In order to get the “continuing violence” that their allies in the Western media could use to create American defeat on the home front, the Saudi and Iranian proxy warriors in Iraq had no choice but to wage war on the Iraqi people.
They understood the risks: that playing for a media victory would cost them the war on the ground. This is clear in the letter that al Qaeda #2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, wrote to al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the Fall of 2005:
The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction.
This direction has large positive effects; however, being preoccupied with it alone delays more important operations such as taking control of some areas, … That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad.
Read the whole thing.
5 Responses
January 28th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Just thought I’d comment on it appearing that you admire a warmonger. Certainly is no Gospel.
BTW Huckabee’s temporary office was in my building for the day, thought you might have enjoyed a chance to meet him and watch other people meet him.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Admire? No.
I am a student of history and enjoy analyzing it both in the past and in the making.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Thanks for the backfill. Obviously you have better analytical skills than I do.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Not necessarily. One of the reasons I posted this was to get feedback from others. I’m not sure whether this guy is right or not. He goes so much against conventional wisdom, I have a lot of built-in doubt about his analysis. As I said at the end of my opening comments, I’m still processing the post.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I think he’s probably on track. I have yet to understand the bigger picture, that of why Iraq was used to be the catalyst of American policy in the Middle East. That is a strategic question I cannot answer.
I suspect it was some sort of manipulation of Iranian government, but do not understand the benefit.
Leave a Comment