• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
9,171
Points
1,260
...and since I'm on a roll today, here is another common misconception that I've consistently argued against; Iraqis waiting for democracy while evil terrorists from somewhere else (Syria/Saudi/Iran) interrupt their quest for freedom and liberty.

Iraq has its own way of doing things (whether it be the Mahdi Army or Ansar al-Sunnah) and the West is now in the middle of it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters

Report by US think tank says only '4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq "feed the myth" that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the incurgency flames, they only comprise only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis comprise the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says "Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent)." CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence services in the Gulf region.


The CSIS report says: "The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathisers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion."

The average age of the Saudis was 17-25 and they were generally middle-class with jobs, though they usually had connections with the most prominent conservative tribes. "Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country. These feelings are intensified by the images of the occupation they see on television and the internet ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantánamo Bay also feed into the pathology."

The report also gives credit to the Saudi government for spending nearly $1.2 billion over the past two years, and deploying 35,000 troops, in an effort to secure its border with Iraq. The major problem remains the border with Syria, which lacks the resources of the Saudis to create a similar barrier on its border.

The Associated Press reports that CSIS believes most of the insurgents are not "Saddam Hussein loyalists" but members of Sunni Arab Iraqi tribes. They do not want to see Mr. Hussein return to power, but they are "wary of a Shiite-led government."

The Los Angeles Times reports that a greater concern is that 'skills' foreign fighters are learning in Iraq are being exported to their home countries. This is a particular concern for Europe, since early this year US intelligence reported that "Abu Musab Zarqawi, whose network is believed to extend far beyond Iraq, had dispatched teams of battle-hardened operatives to European capitals."

Iraq has become a superheated, real-world academy for lessons about weapons, urban combat and terrorist trade craft, said Thomas Sanderson of [CSIS].

Extremists in Iraq are "exposed to international networks from around the world," said Sanderson, who has been briefed by German security agencies. "They are returning with bomb-making skills, perhaps stolen explosives, vastly increased knowledge. If they are succeeding in a hostile environment, avoiding ... US Special Forces, then to go back to Europe, my God, it's kid's play."


Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that President Bush, in a speech Thursday that was "clearly designed to dampen the potential impact of the antiwar rally" this weekend in Washington, said his top military commanders in Iraq have told him that they are making progress against the insurgents and "in establishing a politically viable state."

Newly trained Iraqi forces are taking the lead in many security operations, the president said, including a recent offensive in the insurgent stronghold of Tal Afar along the Syrian border - a key transit point for foreign fighters and supplies.

"Iraqi forces are showing the vital difference they can make," Bush said. '"They are now in control of more parts of Iraq than at any time in the past two years. Significant areas of Baghdad and Mosul, once violent and volatile, are now more stable because Iraqi forces are helping to keep the peace."

The president's speech, however, was overshadowed by comments made Thursday by Saudi Arabia's foreign minister. Prince Saud al-Faisal said the US ignored warnings the Saudi government gave it about occupying Iraq. Prince al-Faisal also said he fears US policies in Iraq will lead to the country breaking up into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite parts. He also said that Saudi Arabia is not ready to send an ambassador to Baghdad, because he would become a target for the insurgents. "I doubt he would last a day," al-Faisal said.

Finally, The Guardian reports that "ambitions for Iraq are being drastically scaled down in private" by British and US officials. The main goal has now become avoiding the image of failure. The paper quotes sources in the British Foreign department as saying that hopes to turn Iraq into a model of democracy for the Middle East had been put aside. "We will settle for leaving behind an Iraqi democracy that is creaking along," the source said.

It is commonly said that a good thing about Iraq is that Coalition forces are killing terrorists in Iraq rather than having to deal with them here.   I think the opposite can be derived from the above highlighted passage - Iraq is serving as a training ground for global militant Islam; what they lost in training camps in Afghanistan they are getting in real time by fighting the US in Iraq.   However, the crux of the article (most insurgents are Iraqi) gets to the fact that there is no half-measures and "liberation" in the Middle East, you either go in prepared for total victory and the actions required for such (which I'm convinced we haven't done) or you stay away.
 
Even if you ignore the complete moral repugence of the "fight them over there" argument. It's only intuitive that the Invasion has spawned new centers of radicalism. A moderate Arab who does not feel the inclination to fight us "over here" may very well deem it perfectly acceptable to fight in the war of Iraqi liberation, and if he keeps getting frustrated, who knows what next?
 
Britney Spears said:
Even if you ignore the complete moral repugence of the "fight them over there" argument. It's only intuitive that the Invasion has spawned new centers of radicalism. A moderate Arab who does not feel the inclination to fight us "over here" may very well deem it perfectly acceptable to fight in the war of Iraqi liberation.

Good point Brit - this was a key early departure point in the Global Salafist movement - Shaikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam was Osama bin Laden's mentor; he was the one who issued the original fatwa calling for jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan.   To meet this end, he set up Maktab al-Khadamat to act as a pipeline to get Arab fighters, resources and money to Afghanistan to aid the local mujihadeen.   This is where bin Laden and his gang got their spurs.

Fast forward to the Soviet withdrawl.   Azzam is satisfied with his victory and wishes to turn his the attentions to another "near" enemy, Israel, in his native Palestine (near being within Dar al-Islam, far being outside of it) while bin Laden (who by now has arisen in status in the movement) wishes to take the fight to the "far" enemy, the United States.   Emboldened by the victory over one superpower, he feels that the mujihadeen can triumph over the other and sets up "The Base" (Al Qa'ida).   This is an ideological fallout between the two, and it turns into a dispute within the Salafist movement.   Azzam is assassinated in 1989 in Peshawar, and although there are a few suspects, both Sheuer and Sageman present cases that it was bin Laden himself in an attempt to overcome internal dissent against his planned offensive against the US.   And the rest is history.

Anyways, the point is that a we in the West have become the "near" enemy now for many - those that weren't onboard for bin Laden's quest against the "far" enemy probably got pissed with Afghanistan but definitely got pissed with Iraq (the article says as much about the Saudi militants).   It remains to be seen if the occupation of Iraq is an effective strategy, but I still remain skeptical of making ourselves the enemies of the "near" crowd (who are militant Islamists as well, and probably would have had to have been confronted anyways) before dealing with the "far" crowd hiding in the mountains of Pakistan (who have proved that they are still a very dangerous foe).
 
I saw a picture (at lightfighter I think) which illustrates my point perfectly. It was a Marine officer giving a lecture with the following written on a board:

Three reasons why we are in Iraq:

1) Bring security and democracy to the Iraqis

2) Fight them here so we don't have to fight at home

3) WMDs (or some such)


:eek: ;D

Damn, If I can only find it again.....
 
Britney Spears said:
Even if you ignore the complete moral repugence of the "fight them over there" argument. It's only intuitive that the Invasion has spawned new centers of radicalism. A moderate Arab who does not feel the inclination to fight us "over here" may very well deem it perfectly acceptable to fight in the war of Iraqi liberation, and if he keeps getting frustrated, who knows what next?
Doesn't sound very moderate, to me. But I mean, that's just me, I guess. Maybe I should be angry there are so many Arabs invading Caucasian and Black countries? (Of course I shouldn't, that would make me a racist.) Although, I suppose the racial component of your sympathies don't play into any accordance as they certainly do for your protagonist. Perhaps his frustration is a good thing if he deems it acceptable to fight to "liberate" Iraq from the Coalition of Doom (or whatever you wish to call it) and save it for the Arab supremisists.

That and there is nothing "morally repugnant" about fighting our enemies on their ground rather than ours. Unless, of course, they're not your enemies.
 
Dare said:
(Of course I shouldn't, that would make me a racist.)

<posting loadied>

racist or realist?
 
Maybe I should be angry there are so many Arabs invading Caucasian and Black countries?

What?

save it for the Arab supremisists.

Huh?

That and there is nothing "morally repugnant" about fighting our enemies on their ground rather than ours.

OK bud, let's try some role playing here. Pretend I am an Iraqi who has just seen her country destroyed in a blatant war of agression, and now being run either by foreign soldiers, or foregn muslim extremists,  seen loved ones killed, dwellings destroyed, and now must live daily with the risk of insurgent attacks and coalition firepower. Explain to me why the war which I had nothing to do with must be fought in my backyard and not yours? Am the lives of me and the rest of the brown  untermensch worth so little in your eyes that we must be kept in a constant state of terror just so your security moms can save money on duct tape to fill up their SUVs?

I said nothing about race in my previous post, because my points would have been true regardless of race. Any Canadian in the same position would do the same thing. You're the one with an apparent fixation on "race" and I think I see why.  If you at this point still insist on "fighting them over there" then you really are nothing more than a racist, and I'm afraid we haven't enough common ground to continue the discussion.
 
Quote from: Britney Spears on September 23, 2005, 16:01:59
Even if you ignore the complete moral repugence of the "fight them over there" argument. It's only intuitive that the Invasion has spawned new centers of radicalism. A moderate Arab who does not feel the inclination to fight us "over here" may very well deem it perfectly acceptable to fight in the war of Iraqi liberation, and if he keeps getting frustrated, who knows what next?

Moral repugnance ? Perhaps you think the old adage "the best defense is a good offense" is also morally repugnant ? The invasion of Iraq did not spawn new centers of radicalism, it just exposed the one's that were already there. The problem with the arab world is the lack of democracy and lack of economic opportunity. The more of each is the best way to reduce the hold the radicals have. Right now in Iraq we are seeing the classic war of attrition. The losers are the radicals because its getting harder and harder to find martyr's for their cause.
 
Britney,

Are we to assume that you would prefer the US military to be duking it out with Muslim extremists in the streets of North America?

Tomahawk,

While the bad guys may be suffering from a war of attrition, the US and Coalition Body Counts are still rising, at much the same speed they have been since the "end of major combat" was proclaimed by the C in C. How do you explain this?
 
Actually US losses are down. But you cannot measure success in US losses, rather the net effect that coalition operations have had on the enemy. The enemy is on the defensive and are less capable of any type of offense. Look at Iraqi losses, they have been alot higher than ours and yet there is no shortage of volunteers to join the Army and IP a very good sign. Under Saddam it was a draftee force held together by fear. Slowly but surely the Iraqi's are becoming more self confident. No police stations have been overrun by the terrorists a sure sign of success.
 
Moral repugnance ? Perhaps you think the old adage "the best defense is a good offense" is also morally repugnant ?

Meaningless.  If your neighbour's dog poops on your lawn, then by your reasoning the best course of action would be to go slash his tires and set fire to his garage?  The best defence, right?  Succesful foreign policy is not generally run on these principles.

The losers are the radicals because its getting harder and harder to find martyr's for their cause.

Well, since I now support the war, I hope you're right. I suppose based on population,, Iraq will run out of martyrs before the US does. God help us now if it doesn't.

Are we to assume that you would prefer the US military to be duking it out with Muslim extremists in the streets of North America?

No, because such a scenario is completely ridiculous. Was there fighting in the streets on Sept. 11th?  There's fighting in the streets in North America already (see Katrina), but it had nothing to do with the Arabs. How exactly has invading Iraq stopped terrorists from attacking the US anyway? The fact that there are terrorists  in Iraq and no attacks on the US (yet) is just proof that it's the moderate Arabs who are being radicalized.

If Bush had invaded Iraq on Sept 10th 2001, would that have stopped OBL and Sept. 11th?
 
Britney Spears said:
Meaningless.   If your neighbour's dog poops on your lawn, then by your reasoning the best course of action would be to go slash his tires and set fire to his garage?   The best defence, right?   Succesful foreign policy is not generally run on these principles.

Your response itself is meaningless...now, if I knew my neighbour was making bombs he and his co-horts were going to use to blow up the mall down the street (or my house for that matter) I should just sit back and let that happen? Gimme a break. I think I'd take it to his house and let him blow the sh%$ out of his own infastructure first. That's reality.
Apparently you assume that the whole polulation of Iraq is willing to become a martyr. Absolutely not the case. Only the radicals go there...and not themselves mind you...they recruit the poorest of the poor to blow themselves up instead the chicksh$%ts. When was the last time we witnessed Ayman Al-Zawahri or Osama et al strapping the mortars around their waists on Al-Jazeera?

"Was there fighting in the streets on Sept. 11th? "

No...because the bast%^ds died in the planes too!! Then they arrested those co-conspirators that were in 'our home' then they took the fight to the rest of them BEFORE they come over here. Which is the whole point. I think it's pretty simple.

"There's fighting in the streets in North America already (see Katrina), but it had nothing to do with the Arabs."

Which is why it's ridulous that you bring this up it has absolutly nothing to do with Iraq. The only ones who've previously connected these two things are the muslim radicals claiming it was "Allahs work."

"The fact that there are terrorists  in Iraq and no attacks on the US (yet) is just proof that it's the moderate Arabs who are being radicalized."

Really? I think it's just proof that us taking it to them over there....is working!!

"If Bush had invaded Iraq on Sept 10th 2001, would that have stopped OBL and Sept. 11th?"

Not. But had his predecessor acted as Bush has done, when embassies were attacked etc prior to Sept 10th...and OBL first began his rantings, Sept 11th may very well never have occured. It's all a guessing game now....


 
Your response itself is meaningless...now, if I knew my neighbour was making bombs he and his co-horts were going to use to blow up the mall down the street (or my house for that matter) I should just sit back and let that happen? Gimme a break. I think I'd take it to his house and let him blow the sh%$ out of his own infastructure first. That's reality.
Apparently you assume that the whole polulation of Iraq is willing to become a martyr. Absolutely not the case. Only the radicals go there...and not themselves mind you...they recruit the poorest of the poor to blow themselves up instead the chicksh$%ts. When was the last time we witnessed Ayman Al-Zawahri or Osama et al strapping the mortars around their waists on Al-Jazeera?
No...because the bast%^ds died in the planes too!! Then they arrested those co-conspirators that were in 'our home' then they took the fight to the rest of them BEFORE they come over here. Which is the whole point. I think it's pretty simple.

Newsflash: OBL wasn't Iraqi. None of the 9/11 Hijackers were Iraqi. Women could drive cars and go to University in Iraq. Iraq was the most secular, non-radical Arab country of them all. Better go get some more Kool-Aid.


Not. But had his predecessor acted as Bush has done, when embassies were attacked etc prior to Sept 10th...and OBL first began his rantings, Sept 11th may very well never have occured.


Do you seriously believe that it was CLINTON, and not Bush's incompetence, that caused 9/11? Do you actually know ANYTHING about this matter other than the fact that Bush came after Clinton?
 
Yep OBL was/is Saudi....

Newsflash...you really think Mr. Hussein didn't funnel any of that Oil for Food money (that he obviously didn't distribute among his people) towards getting rid of the great American scourge?? Please.

Yes the women could go to University....well certain women anyway....some (insert Kurd or other choice here) could also be shot, gassed, tortured at the whim of Mr. Hussein himself. Now if you want to continue to call that secular and non-radical that's up to you. PS I don't do Kool-Aid..the Timmies will suffice fine.

Yes..you must be right... Bush's incompetance must have caused 911 after all, during their years of planning for it the *******'s that did it just KNEW he was the one who was going to be elected 2 years hence when Clinton left office.

So I guess you are right again...As you say You, and not I, must be the only one to know anything about this matter. I must go watch Blackhawk down again...learn something.....
 
Britney Spears said:
What?

Huh?
I gather that was all too confusing for you.
OK bud, let's try some role playing here. Pretend I am an Iraqi who has just seen her country destroyed in a blatant war of agression, and now being run either by foreign soldiers, or foregn muslim extremists,  seen loved ones killed, dwellings destroyed, and now must live daily with the risk of insurgent attacks and coalition firepower. Explain to me why the war which I had nothing to do with must be fought in my backyard and not yours? Am the lives of me and the rest of the brown  untermensch worth so little in your eyes that we must be kept in a constant state of terror just so your security moms can save money on duct tape to fill up their SUVs?
Firstly, if the Iraqi's had nothing to do with the Iraq war, I would be amazed, as empires are not built upon a vacuum. Secondly, not everyone in Iraq is "brown", so your racial sympathy line falls flat. My mom doesn't own an SUV, although I wouldn't have a problem if she did. Your hyperbolic response doesn't really surprise me, but you usually fancy up your posts with militaristic rhetoric. Thirdly, this is not a "blatant war of aggression". Not every Iraqi has seen loved ones killed by Coalition forces. Although many Iraqis can say they have lost loved ones to Saddam Hussain. Maybe there is a reason that in a country with 26 million people and twice that in rifles hasn't risen up. Maybe there is a reason that 8 million Iraqis braved death by waiting in vulnerable lineups for a chance to vote. Maybe it has something to do with this "war of aggression". PERHAPS, we should have waited for Saddam to break through U.N. sanctions and aquired some serious capabilities to cause us harm.. AND the Iraqi people harm. Then we wouldn't have to fight this "repugnant war of aggression" on our terms, we could fight it on their terms! What a GREAT idea. We could be a part of a "lovely war of passive defence"! We could even send Iraq some planes to "even the playing field". My not-so-security mom could fire up her invisible SUV of aggression and we could launch our Just War knowing that we're fully sanctioned by the Holy U.N. and the always impartial/morally superior France (who never ever, ever, occupies countries).

I said nothing about race in my previous post, because my points would have been true regardless of race. Any Canadian in the same position would do the same thing. You're the one with an apparent fixation on "race" and I think I see why.  If you at this point still insist on "fighting them over there" then you really are nothing more than a racist, and I'm afraid we haven't enough common ground to continue the discussion.
Read the article. Replace the words "Arab" with "White". "Saudi" with "American". Suddenly, it all changes, doesn't it  (your sympathies towards the protagonist, that is)? The poor Saudi fighters are angry at their racial nation being disrupted. I'm surprised (well, not entirely) that one with left leanings would tolerate racists.

Read it. Read it carefully. It may be hard, but I'm sure you can manage.
"Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country."

I suppose we were racist when we chose to fight the Nazi's "over there" and the Korean's "over there" etc. etc..
 
I gather that was all too confusing for you.


Yeah, I'm easily confused by BS. Why don't you enlighten me about all the "Caucasian countries" currently being subjugated by Arabs? I'm afraid my liberal media has said nothing about it.

Read the article. Replace the words "Arab" with "White". "Saudi" with "American". Suddenly, it all changes, doesn't it

Read my post. Replace the words "Arab" with "White". "Saudi" with "American". Suddenly, it all changes, doesn't it?

I suppose we were racist when we chose to fight the Nazi's "over there" and the Korean's "over there" etc. etc..

Nope, we weren't. What exactly is your point here?
 
Britney Spears said:
Nope, we weren't. What exactly is your point here?

Why weren't we? Because they were not Arab?? Well ain't that the pot calling the kettle black. Perhaps we should invite the Americans to invite the insurgents over to fight in the backyard of your very own permanent residence...apparently that would make you feel better?
 
Britney Spears said:
Yeah, I'm easily confused by BS.

It seems to me that anyone with a view other than that of your 'enlightened self' is accused of spouting BS and you feel the need to question their integrity or intelligence...while you honestly believe that you are the only one who KNOWS and SPEAKS the truth.

Aren't you glad you have the opportunity to live in a democracy (NOT the former Iraq) that allows you to do so?
 
Back
Top