Posted on 05/23/2007 5:08:34 AM PDT by nuconvert
Report: 70 Percent of Insurgents in Iraq Come From Gulf States Via Syria
May 23, 2007
KUWAIT CITY — Seventy percent of insurgents fighting in Iraq come from Gulf countries via Syria where they are provided with forged passports, an Iraqi intelligence officer alleged in a published report Wednesday.
"They, according to their own confessions, gather in mosques in the said (Gulf) states to travel to Syria using their passports, taking with them phone numbers of individuals waiting for them there," Brig. Gen. Rashid Fleih, the assistant undersecretary for intelligence of Iraq's Interior Ministry, told Kuwait's Al-Qabas daily in an interview.
Fleih did not provide more specific details about the alleged insurgents or which countries they come from. But he said once in Syria, the alleged insurgents are transported to the al-Qaim border area. Individuals provide the men them with new passports after destroying the old ones, Fleih alleged in an interview from Baghdad.
American and Iraqi officials claim Syria does not do enough to prohibit people of different nationalities from crossing its 380-mile border with Iraq to join the ranks of Al Qaeda and other insurgent or terrorist groups there. Damascus denies the allegations and says it is doing all it can to stop them.
The Iraqi intelligence officer did not say where the other 30 percent of insurgents come from. Iraq's other neighbor Iran, is suspected of aiding Iraqi Shiite fighters with training, money and weapons. Tehran denies the accusations.
Once in Iraq, the insurgents are provided with forged Iraqi documentation and "lots of money which they use to buy cars and booby trap them," Fleih told the newspaper.
He also accused Baathist followers of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of offering the foreign insurgents information about targets.
"In brief, there is clear intelligence cooperation between them,"
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I definitely hope not. I seriously hope that the two carriers we just took into the gulf to perform unannounced maneuvers aren't there just for show, because it should be obvious to everyone that Iran is not going to give up their nuclear program just because Europe asked nicely.
However, if the president orders an attack against Iran in opposition to congress and against public opinion he would likely face Congress cutting off funds for the operation before the military has a change to do more than a couple waves of bombing, which aren't likely to set Iran back very much. Iran has taken the time and spent the money this time to make sure their nuclear program is well protected in bunkers and distributed across a large number of sites.
Bush miscalculated in how quickly the media would be able to turn the public against him after 9/11. He thought he would have the support to do what needed to be done, and there was every indication that he did have that support.
Even thous thing are not going well in Iraq, and the loss of ever life is tragic, our losses have been minor, yet the public no longer supports the efforts in Iraq. The public has been worn down by the media amazingly quickly and has already tired of fighting.
Obviously the country can't be run by public opinion controls, otherwise our government is effectively being run by the media.
However, our government is also not a monarchy, and the lack of support from Congress is something that should give any President pause. The President is the Commander in Chief, but he does not have absolute control over the military. It is Congress that is supposed to declare war, and it is Congress that controls the purse strings. This is intentional. It is not in the interests of our Republic to put absolute control over an army as powerful as our in the hands of one man.
So I guess I am instead hoping that our media wakes up and quits trying to take us down a suicidal path, and that Bush chooses the right opportunity and goes before a closed session of Congress to demand support for strikes against Iran's nuclear program, including ground operations if necessary.
I suggest a closed session of Congress because a large portion of our representatives, and not all of the Democrats, have consistently put the politics before the good of our nation, and as much as I would like to see them forced to publicly vote for or against such strikes, I think we are much more likely to get the needed votes if they are held in secret. Going after Iran's nuclear capability is simply more important than the political benefits of forcing such a vote in the open.
It’s a civil war because they don’t wear uniforms to identify them as cult wackos.
One more thing to add to your list.
3. It’s the same model used against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Statistical problem here. This is not 70% of the insurgents, it is 70% of the ones who were CAUGHT. The foreigners are much more likely to be caught, since they have accents, do not know the country as well, and are probably bolder than native Iraqis (since they don’t have families in Iraq to protect). The real number is probably significantly less, though still high enough that it is very stupid for Iraq not to have closed its border with Syria.
Easy........the “civil war” is the Dims and MSM standard template...........how could the truth be otherwise.
People talk about closing Iraq's borders as if there's one road and a gate, and all we need to do is close it
From what I've read, just the border with Syria would be more like trying to fence off the Rocky Mountains - it would take at least as many armed forces as the combined US/Iraqi effort currently engaged, and then that again just to try to keep them supplied.
Actually, it sounds like they’re entering Iraq legally. The article mentions passports. They wouldn’t care about that if they were sneaking in. We still need to mark Iraq’s borders with minefields.
Not really. It’s less than 400 miles long, you could station a soldier every 100 yards and still require only 7000 soldiers — multiply by 5 to allow for multiple shifts and support personnel. With cameras, checkpoints, and armored vehicles, you could do even better, 1 outpost of 3 soldiers every 1/2 mile would be plenty, that’s 2400 on duty at a time, 12000 after you multiply by 5. That’s much less than 1/10 of the forces we have there, assuming we were doing it all by ourselves, but the Iraqi army would contribute at least as much manpower as we would.
Bump!
Take a look at it from the air on Google Earth.
Isn't all the resistance in Iraq from Al-Anbar Province, where there are an estimated 100,000 Insurgents?
ARRGH!...please don't remind me.
;>)
Current Iraqi DBE is 30,000 and growing.
Larger than the US Border Patrol and trained to Iraqi Army Standards.
Armed with AKs and pickup mounted LMGs.
Over 400 forts provide their static positions.
44 per fort.
Rest is patrol and support elements.
not meaning to quibble really but foreign fighters notwithstanding
I am hearing from folks who have been there that it is sort of a civil war in the central part of the country tween Sunni and Shia
and if they get their way with Kurdish mineral rights then , the Kurds will get in too
no doubt Al Quaeda is there but this has the earmarks of civil war as well
not like ours....more like northern Ireland with more bombs and less manners
nation building only works when children are starving and women are wailing amongst the rubble of what was...
hate to be harsh about it but that’s it....and I don’t think all cultures are ripe for representational governance and I think Bush was naive to think so....I though that then.
just another PC sensibility they have demonstrated that has not gone swell
Then Bush has lost.
The answer is obvious. Put the troops along the border with Syria. Anyone who tries to cross without authorization or has forged documents is immediately shot dead.
But like you said, the Bush administration won't confront Syria militarily. The US won't do that because our enemies, abroad and at home, won't like it.
Getting Serious About Syria
From the December 20, 2004 issue: By Bush Doctrine standards, Syria is a hostile regime, so we have a Syria problem.
by William Kristol
Bill highlights the December 2, 2004, London Daily Telegraph, on page 14, by Jack Fairweather, datelined Damascus. Its headline: “All aboard the terrorists’ bus to Iraq. Mujahideen mosques are springing up all over Syria to arm militants and send them across the border to do battle with the hated Americans.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5020&R=EF21708
We can at least try.
Right now it seems the US and Iraqi forces aren’t even trying to close the border. But then again it should be no suprise since we don’t even try to close our own border to invaders!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.