Al Qaeda: We’ve got the three U.S. troops missing in Iraq
posted at 12:22 pm on May 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Not much news yet, but if you’ve seen the video of Tucker and Menchaca, you know what’s coming.
Update: Actually, the statement didn’t give a specific number of troops.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Find whatever town the GIs are being held (If they are actually being held) and then call in Arty and Air Strikes on said town until the rubble bounces or the GIs are returned.
Jack.
Jack Deth on May 13, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Bodes ill
Spirit of 1776 on May 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Any combat vet knows this is a superb time for a Death Blossom. Which is why I’m sure JAG types are right now threatening careers. And so we will see more and more of this.
Stephen M on May 13, 2007 at 12:54 PM
How are those conventional Tridents coming along?
Kid from Brooklyn on May 13, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Waiting to hear Sen. Durbin ask a.q. to treat our Soldiers humanely … waiting … still waiting …
God bless our Troops!
Tony737 on May 13, 2007 at 1:06 PM
How much evidence is required before the donks stop saying that Iraq is a civil war and not a fight against al Qaeda?
JackStraw on May 13, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I’m sorry to say, I believe funding has been cut to zero.
Pray for our guys…
Zorro on May 13, 2007 at 1:13 PM
We went into Iraq because it was a safe heaven for Al Qaeda to launch attacks on the U.S.; now we have to stay in Iraq because it could become a safe haven for Al Qaeda to launch attacks on the U.S.
Oh, the sad pathetic irony.
Nonfactor on May 13, 2007 at 1:15 PM
We did? We went in there to get rid of Saddam and his (ultimately nonexistent) WMD threat and to build a democracy that would give Arabs in the region another option besides fascist stagnation and jihad. We went into Afghanistan because it was a safe haven for AQ.
Allahpundit on May 13, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Would you prefer we allowed them the safe haven of Warizistan to train or would you rather we engage and kill them? Or is there a third way the rest of the world is unaware of?
JackStraw on May 13, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Don’t you see Bush did it… to distract us from his affair with Condi Rice. I heard it on the Rachel Maddow show,
/end moonbat mode
Rachel Maddow really did have a guest talking about said affair, it was the most disgusting piece of trash I had ever heard on the radio, worse than nappie headed ho.
Gwillie on May 13, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Oh, I’m sorry. An alleged connection to Al Qaeda had nothing to do with it.
Nonfactor on May 13, 2007 at 1:27 PM
It didn’t have nothing to do with it. The suggestion was made at various times that Saddam might have had connections with AQ, but it was never suggested — as you just did — that Iraq had become a “safe haven” for AQ.
Allahpundit on May 13, 2007 at 1:32 PM
I’ve honestly never understood why this arguement matters unless you suffer from pure Bush hatred. After 9/11 it was our clearly stated mission to hunt and kill al Qaeda wherever they appeared. They are in Iraq now, when and how they got there is irrelevant.
So they are there and according to Patreaus are now the single biggest threat we face in Iraq. Simple question. Do we stay and fight them now or do we allow Iraq to become a safe haven for al Qaeda? It’s not as if they are planning on leaving if we do.
All this other snark is just stupid.
JackStraw on May 13, 2007 at 1:44 PM
“We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” -George W. Bush
We will pursue nations that provide a “safe haven” for terrorism, we pursued Iraq; it does follow that Iraq was viewed as a “safe haven” for terrorism, thus we pursued them for that reason (and others).
But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered al Qaeda safe haven in the region. After we swept al Qaeda from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today. -Colin Powell
But you’re right. Nobody ever suggested that Iraq had become a “safe haven” for AQ.
I mean, common, man. Just do a google search of “safe haven Iraq Al Qaeda” in the news archives.
Nonfactor on May 13, 2007 at 1:50 PM
“We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.” -Dick Cheney
I could keep doing this, but I think it’s obvious that it was never suggested that Iraq had become a “safe haven” for AQ…
Nonfactor on May 13, 2007 at 1:56 PM
So the hikers on Mt. Hood had electronic locators, but our Troops in Iraq don’t?
Tony737 on May 13, 2007 at 2:06 PM
And as more information trickles out, it appears that it was indeed.
But why would Saddam send senior IIS agents to work with jihadists? Because they were already working with Islamic jihadists long before the start of OIF. This Dar al Hayat article, “The Resistance In The “Sunni Triangle”, makes clear that because the Iraqi economy was strangled by UN sanctions. Saddam’s senior military officials, many of them with land grants in Fallujah – where Zarqawi teamed up with them – had smuggled oil in cooperation with Islamic extremists. These Islamic extremists were joined to Anbar province by religious and tribal affiliation.
I could keep doing this all day, but you’re boring me.
JackStraw on May 13, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Okay.
Nonfactor on May 13, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Nonfactor;
You do understand that Al Qaida is not the only terrorist organization that threatens us right? That Al Qaida (the list) its self is a coalition of terror groups right?
Saddam did provide a safe haven to terrorist. That was a threat to us! There were camps in Iraq where terrorist planed and trained for attacks, the threat that Saddam would give WMDs to them was real… I know what you’ll say, but read Tennets book, he makes it clear that the US and our allies truly did believe the WMDs were there… We can separate the threat and understand that Al Qaeda is only one of the many terrorist threats we face. Hezbollah has claimed to have cells here waiting for the command to attack; Hamas too is call for our destruction, both of those groups had undeniable support from Saddam’s Iraq.
What about that statement is not true… and how does that relate to us. We know Ansar Al-Islam had a base in Iraq it was one of the first places we bombed. Go Air Force!!! This statement does not claim that Iraq (at that time) is a safe haven, only that safe haven had been offered and that at some level AQ had taken up that offer. Does the name Zarqawi mean anything to you?
Gwillie on May 13, 2007 at 2:28 PM
If they had the type of locators that climbers have, the terrorists could target them. They would need an encrypted and secure locator, which I believe is possible. After the first Persian Gulf War, Pat Shroeder (Democrat – CO) was in charge of the Congressional committee to reduce fratricide. Personal transponders were brought up back then. Congress went on to never fund research for these.
cmay on May 13, 2007 at 2:32 PM
We need to release the Dogs of War, and bring these Men back.
KCtheKat on May 13, 2007 at 2:38 PM
May they be found alive. Unleash the hounds, I say!
SouthernGent on May 13, 2007 at 2:41 PM
I’m sure Al Qaeda is trying to get a propaganda video out of the missing U.S. soldiers, but our soldiers are not the British.
januarius on May 13, 2007 at 3:33 PM
If there is ever a time to suspend our rules of engagement, this is it. Our troops need to be cut loose to do whatever it takes to find those guys, including flattening the entire area.
infidel4life on May 13, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Thank you. You saved me the trouble.
RobertCSampson on May 13, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Nonfactor: just to look at this exchange on the meta-level for a sec. Do you realize that you’ve had several back and forths with regulars on this thread, and no one has called you any words that start with f, nor have they questioned the legality of your parents marriage at the time of your birth? In fact you have not even been called one single name of any kind? Go back to DU and do thou likewise.
As for the “safe haven” quibble–it’s all Monday morning quarterbacking and completely academic. I could concede you every single point, and it wouldn’t change the only important question–what do we do now? The Dems want to pull out because mistakes were made in the past? Well you don’t fight wars in the past. Well, the Dems do. They’re still fighting the Vietnam War.
smellthecoffee on May 13, 2007 at 4:36 PM
You’ll notice I haven’t been “Monday morning quarterbacking;” I pointed out a sad irony of going into Iraq because it was a safe haven for Al Qaeda and us needing to stay in Iraq because if we leave it will become a safe haven for Al Qaeda. AP stated that “it was never suggested — as you just did — that Iraq had become a “safe haven” for AQ” and sine then I’ve simply pointed out that it was indeed suggested that Iraq was characterized as a “safe haven” for Al Qaeda.
Nonfactor on May 13, 2007 at 6:58 PM
God help them, please
Chuck on May 13, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Loosen the rules of engagement. F–k the JAG types. We need to punish very, very severely this kind of thing. The only way to do that effectively won’t make the JAG types happy, but we need to be the “strong horse.” It is the only way with the enemy, which is radical Islamism and specifically al Qaeda. This is coming from a lawyer who is also the father of a U.S. First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab) serving as a platoon leader in Iraq.
Phil Byler on May 13, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Words cannot express the level of utter anger I am feeling over this. It makes me want to strangle the life out of those that took our soldiers! It makes me want to grab Pelosi, Reid, and the rest and shake the living daylights out of them! It makes me want to sell everything I own and go over there and kill as many of those bastards as I can! It makes me want to urge our leaders to let the military carpet bomb the entire Godless population!
csdeven on May 13, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Nonfactor is commited to show the World that he/she has sh*t for brains:
What irony?
Was a safe haven without the U.S. = we went in, ergo is not a safe haven anymore.
It is not a safe haven with the U.S. in = we leave, ergo it becomes a safe haven again.
Get a life!
Ropera on May 13, 2007 at 7:57 PM
And ya know what nonfactor? Your petty complaints about who knew what when has nothing to do with the realities today. There are members of HA who have family over there and you have the nerve to make your assinine complaints more important than their feelings.
When in goodness name are you going to get off your soapbox and give someone elses feelings some consideration?
csdeven on May 13, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Stop these idiotic under-manned patrols and unleash hell from the skies on any area that harms or threatens.
Flatten “troublesome zones” until the terrorists cease to trouble our troops.
This candyassed engagements wastes lives, time and only encourage more terrorists by failing to react seriously when they strike.
This is supposed to be a war, not a police action.
Kill the s.o.b.’s or come home.
profitsbeard on May 13, 2007 at 8:24 PM
We’re gonna have to end that streak, smell…
Funny.
No, it was not a safe haven; if you have any evidence to contradict this statement of mine (that hasn’t already been contradicted–see nytimes article I linked) feel free to post it (from a reputable source please, not liberalssuck.net).
Did you not see the point where I said this exact same thing. That is why it is ironic.
Nonfactor on May 13, 2007 at 8:57 PM
I’m not allowed to say anything about how horribly ironic this entire situation is because some members of HotAir have family stuck in this ironic situation? Does my making comments on an online blog somehow jeopardize the “mission”? As if I have no friends or relatives who have served in Iraq either. Give me a break with your quasi-emotional appeals.
Again, am I not allowed to point out how ironic the situation currently is because someone else’s feelings might be hurt? Am I not allowed to point out how top government officials claimed (falsely) that Iraq was a “safe haven” (yes, they used those words) for Al Qaeda before we invaded and now they’re claiming that it will be a “safe haven” for Al Qaeda if we leave? Should we forget about the past or governmental screwups because someone might take offense? I thought conservatives were supposed to be anti-PC.
Nonfactor on May 13, 2007 at 9:03 PM
With strategic analysis of this one-dimensional quality, we can all thank God you weren’t in charge of post-war Europe in 1946, or even Spain would have been a Russian satellite.
If we leave, Iran our sworn enemy for the last 20 years, moves in. Unlike the USA, Iran does meglomaniacal designs on world domination, and taking over Iranian, Iraqi, Kuwaiti, Dubai,Saudi oil fields will be just the route to take to that end.
Second, notice how the media is using this to wring phoney pathos out of Mother’s Day in order to drive down popular support for the Good Fight? Disgusting hardly captures the magnitude of the callous opportunism they are displaying.
naliaka on May 13, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Talking about not hurting feelings, that sounds like some new-age liberal humanist propaganda…
But seriously, if you let anonymous posters on Internet blogs hurt your feelings you might want to consider getting a life.
JaHerer22 on May 13, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Wherein my post was I advocating leaving Iraq? I’ve done three things in this post: 1) Point out the irony of why we entered/why we must stay in Iraq according to the Bush Administration 2) Argued that the Administration did indeed use the words “safe haven” to describe Iraq before we invaded and 3) Explain that I have only done the above two things.
Nonfactor on May 13, 2007 at 10:19 PM
From what I have read, it doesn’t seem like a patrol was ambushed, but instead a fixed location – i.e., an observation post. This is the same place where another small group at a checkpoint came under attack and two of them ended up in enemy hands – with predictable results.
Some important lessons are not being learned here:
1. If you’re going to adopt a “Fort Apache” strategy of deploying small units into known enemy hangouts, you need to post enough troops to hold out until help arrives. In this case, the “Quick Reaction Force” took almosst an hour to show up – obviously, a squad-size element wasn’t strong enough to stand alone for that long.
2. We need to put the “Quick” back into “Quick Reaction Force.” An hour to get to the scene? We can forget about finding those missing soldiers. They’re long gone before the cavalry showed up.
3. Related to the above, the enemy is obviously adapting its tactics to take advantage of the fact that we’re leaving small units exposed in stationary penny-packets. Assuming that both of the “burning vehicles” were car bombs, then this is the second recent instance where multiple car bombs were used sequentially to attack an outpost: the first to punch a hole in the outer barrier, the second to ram the attack home; in both instances the double-whammy car bombs were followed by a group of attackers on foot who tried to get inside the post.
The key distinction between the two instances was that in the first one the enemy attacked a platoon-sized element of about 35 men. Although the platoon took several casualties, it retained enough strength to resist the attackers until help arrived. In the second instance, a squad-sized element got overrun.
Upshot: We need to either abandon the “Fort Apache” strategy in favor of mobility, or if we’re going to leave our troops in fixed sites, practically beggng the enemy to try to overwhelm them, then they need to have sufficient strength to withstand an organized attack that comes in multiple waves until help arrives an hour later.
Spurius Ligustinus on May 13, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Irony, sad or otherwise, is the province of post-moderns. We who live in the real world know that what happens today or tomorrow is what matters in Iraq, not whether the present is in an ironic interaction with the past. If you haven’t worn underwear for three years, and then the day you decide to wear underwear you almost get blown up in a bus-bombing, and so you crap your underwear, the salient point is not the underwear, the crap, or the irony, but the bus-bombing.
Get it?
smellthecoffee on May 13, 2007 at 10:44 PM
I’m refering to your lack of tact.
1.a keen sense of what to say or do to avoid giving offense; skill in dealing with difficult or delicate situations.
csdeven on May 13, 2007 at 11:24 PM
See above you tactless jerk-off.
csdeven on May 13, 2007 at 11:25 PM
After reading this thread, I was struck by the tone of our resident leftists here at Hot Air….
How come I don’t see these leftists posting here calling for the release of our soldiers?
How come I don’t see JaHerer22, nonfactor, or Honora, gmcjetpilot, etc., DEMANDING the safe and humane treatment of OUR soldiers held prisoner by Al Qaeda with at least as much ferver as they undoubtedly did over Gitmo and Abu Gahrib?
NOT ONE post from these leftists expressing sympathy, or concern, much less righteous anger and the fate that undoubtedly awaits them (a videotpaped torture and beheading).
Instead we get some self-righteous screed about “irony.”
Or silence.
You leftists say you “support the troops” but WE KNOW that means you really want to see them lose and then spit on them when they return.
You liberals posting here can all get screwed!
georgej on May 14, 2007 at 4:13 AM
No, it was not a safe haven; if you have any evidence to contradict this statement of mine (that hasn’t already been contradicted–see nytimes article I linked) feel free to post it (from a reputable source please, not liberalssuck.net).
Again? If you are allowed to quote the NYT (aka Conservatives Suck) then surely you will allow me to quote the Weekly Standard which is doing nothing more than reporting on a CIA report. Denying the obvious doesn’t make you edgy or tough/smart. It just makes you oblivious to the obvious.
JackStraw on May 14, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Because that will not win their side any political points here in the US. Deep in their heart of hearts, the left is smug and arrogant, believing that they know better than anyone else and they know what is best for other individuals. They have no illusions that these brave GIs will be treated well, and they figure if something bad happens to them, they can trot out the Gitmo or Abu Gahrib card to score political points. It would also dovetail nicely with their cut and run sentiments.
coyoterex on May 14, 2007 at 10:54 AM
What good will my typing on a website where my opinion is often discarded anyways “pweaze mr. tewowwists, wewease the twoops”? Of course I’m hoping they’re found alive, but begging for their return in print is of no use. The Gitmo and Abu Gahrib statements are red herrings.
Again, some of us would rather hope for the release of the troops in silence than beg for their release on an online blog or attempt to prove to others just how mad we are at the terrorists.
Yes, georgej, you KNOW exactly what the “leftists” are thinking and are in no way influenced by your own political bent.
Firstly, if you read the nytimes article you’d see that there is no political bent, and you’d see that it was written by a pretty distinguished journalist, Mark Mazzetti. Secondly, the Weekly Standard article you’ve quoted was published in 2003, we’re talking about an event (the CIA repudiation of AQ links with Saddam) that didn’t take place until two years after the Weekly Standard article was published.
Ha.
P.S. I love it how every conservative here seems to know just what “the left” is thinking.
Nonfactor on May 14, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I pray for our soldiers.
PS nonfactor, anyone who has any experience with a two year old knows what “the left” is thinking. Not. That. Difficult.
KelliD on May 14, 2007 at 1:02 PM