AQI flees Baghdad in advance of the new plan!

**Shek** · 01-18-2007, 09:45 AM

An interesting report.

Quote:

Pajamas Media: Al Qaeda flees Baghdad

New AQ is more Dangerous than Zarqawi, Military Intelligence Says.

By Richard Miniter

Al Qaeda terrorists are fleeing Baghdad in advance of President Bush’s 21,500-man troop surge, a senior military intelligence officer told Pajamas Media today. Under orders from the al Qaeda commander in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, fighters are streaming toward the Diyala region of Iraq.

This confirms reports posted on Iraq the Model, which cited al-Sabah, an Iraqi government-owned newspaper.

In speaking with Pajamas Media the military intelligence officer supplied several new details of the al Qaeda retreat.

The apparent evacuation of Baghdad by al Qaeda forces comes from direct orders issued by al-Masri, the former soldier who took control of the Iraqi wing of al Qaeda following the June 2006 bombing death of Zarqawi.

Initially, the intelligence officer informed Pajamas, the Baghdad-based AQ fighters did not want to leave. Al-Masri had to send unequivocal orders for their retreat, adding that one of the lessons from the Fallujah campaign was that Americans have learned how to prevail in house-to-house fighting. Masri said that remaining in Baghdad was a ‘no-win situation’ for the terrorists.

“In more than ten years of reading al Qaeda intercepts, I’ve never seen language like this,” the intelligence officer said. Usually, al Qaeda communications are full of bravado and false confidence, he added.

Al-Masri’s evacuation order – assuming that it is authentic – reveals that al Qaeda in Iraq leader has a good grasp of a tactical situation. “He is far more formidable than Zarqawi was,” the intelligence officer said, because of his training at Soviet special warfare schools.

Al-Masri has ordered al Qaeda forces to regroup in the Diyala province. This might be an attempt to lure American troops away from the Iraqi capital, forcing America to hunt al Qaeda in the province while the terrorists slowly slip behind them and return to Baghdad, he said.

Baqubah in the Diyala province was the city near which Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was tracked down and killed last year.

This last situation is perhaps the reason behind several intense US/Iraqi combined military operations in Diyala over the past week. Reuters reported this morning that

Hundreds of people have been trying to flee the eastern Iraqi province of Diyala, close to the Iraqi-Iranian border, following a recent offensive by US and Iraqi troops in the area.
The operations combine ground forces and airstrikes.

U.S. commanders are well-aware that a trap may be set for them. Even with the raids in Diyala in progress, there are no plans to deploy large numbers of the “surge” forces outside Baghdad. Instead it will be the job of the Iraqi army to chase down militants, assisted by U.S. aerial reconnaissance and predator spy planes.

Swift Sword · 01-18-2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shek

An interesting report.

Sir,

IMO,

This article is in and of itself a short course in guerilla warfare.

Whole textbooks have been written on the subject but few of them have summed up the guerilla, how he operates and how to fight him as succinctly as this piece.

William

**Parihaka** · 01-18-2007, 16:29 PM

Isn't it to the US's and Iraqis advantage to move the battles out of the cities and into less heavily populated areas?

**Shek** · 01-18-2007, 16:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Isn't it to the US's and Iraqis advantage to move the battles out of the cities and into less heavily populated areas?

Yes. It plays in favor of our technological advantages. A signal hit in downtown Baghdad may give a 1:500 apartment room chance of pinpointing the source. A signal hit in a lesser populated area allows for a higher probability of pinpointing something of interest (plus less traffic means its harder for those getting out of Dodge to blend into the population).

TheChosenOne · 01-18-2007, 19:45 PM

Yup, just as I had stated in a earlier post that is what AQ does. We come into a town, they either stay and fight like in Fallujah and get their ass kicked or run and find an easier target of oppurtunity. I'd imagine with so many troops being put into an area that they will run. So this is why I think the "surge" will be a good short term goal to achieve but once we leave from Baghdad, they will just come back in unless the Iraqi government and Army is able to secure it themselves. So for the long term, there needs to be a plan in place to hold the city and all I've seen so far is short term goals. That is why I have never been in agreeance with Rumsfields original war plan of only bringing in a relatively small number of troops. It is physically impossible to hold ground when the enemy moves on you. We seriously need 500,000 here, now or the accountability of the Iraqi army needs to step up! Then I believe we could reign in the security situation.

But here is another problem. Intel reports that a lot of the militia's, specificially the Shia' militia's are gearing up to engage us in Baghdad. So AQ is going to run but we may be faced with fighting the militia's in Baghad and that will be bloody and ugly.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Win for the Troops	Shek	Political Discussions	22	01-19-2007 20:09 PM
U.S. had secret 1930 plan to invade Canada	Officer of Engineers	The World Wars	66	10-28-2006 16:12 PM
PLAN Analysis	rickusn	Naval Forces	9	06-12-2006 15:05 PM
So who moved the WMD? Someone did...	Anon	The War in Iraq	53	03-16-2006 11:54 AM
Destroying Baghdad	sparten	Warfare in the Modern Age	9	02-20-2006 16:22 PM

01-18-2007, 16:29 PM	#3 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,465 Country:	Isn't it to the US's and Iraqis advantage to move the battles out of the cities and into less heavily populated areas?

01-18-2007, 19:45 PM	#5 (permalink)
TheChosenOne *Military Professional* Join Date: 01-12-07 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 142	Yup, just as I had stated in a earlier post that is what AQ does. We come into a town, they either stay and fight like in Fallujah and get their ass kicked or run and find an easier target of oppurtunity. I'd imagine with so many troops being put into an area that they will run. So this is why I think the "surge" will be a good short term goal to achieve but once we leave from Baghdad, they will just come back in unless the Iraqi government and Army is able to secure it themselves. So for the long term, there needs to be a plan in place to hold the city and all I've seen so far is short term goals. That is why I have never been in agreeance with Rumsfields original war plan of only bringing in a relatively small number of troops. It is physically impossible to hold ground when the enemy moves on you. We seriously need 500,000 here, now or the accountability of the Iraqi army needs to step up! Then I believe we could reign in the security situation. But here is another problem. Intel reports that a lot of the militia's, specificially the Shia' militia's are gearing up to engage us in Baghdad. So AQ is going to run but we may be faced with fighting the militia's in Baghad and that will be bloody and ugly.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)