Does it really matter if we kill al-quedia in in Iraq's #1?

Question

Since Al-Quedia is a horizontally integrated organization, does it really affect them much if their #1 is taken out?

Does our use of the language of "#1" speak to our own lack of understanding of horizontal organizations and how to combat them and how to measure success? Are we fighting against a new paradigm in combat using old world tactics? As a former pirate, I can speak to the strength of horizontal and parallel organizational structures when opposed by vertical structures. The riaa and mpaa have failed and will continue to fail at combating piracy just because of the organizational structures they're built upon. There is no "top" to take out, merely a collection of loosely arranged cells. Is our military fighting the same kind of fight?

How do you measure success? In today's issue of the Wall Street Journal, it was reported that global terrorist attacks were up 25% in frequency over the past year. Is that a metric we should be using to determine our effectiveness?

Answer 1

It does matter. As you correctly point out, taking out a leader doesn't bring the organization down (any more than taking one of our leaders out would end the Army), but it does destabilize their operations. While it's true that AQI (Al-Quedia in Iraq) is responsable for a relatively small percentage of the attacks, their attacks have devastating effect. Someone posted how most of the violence is sectarian, and that's true. However when a Sunni kills a Shiite, that doesn't have the same effect on the population as a well coordinated mass vehicle borne IED attack. AQI tends to stage attacks for maximum fear effect and maximum propaganda advantage. Not to mention they usually tape their attacks, so an even wider audience gets exposure to their operations. As a result, the leadership structure that helps plan and disseminate the orders as well as fund these major operations must not be taken lightly. Without effective cell leadership, you are just fighting a couple of people with rudimentary weapons at a time (which is easier to cope with). I'm presently deployed to Camp Taji in Iraq with 1/7 Cav, and believe me when I say that you can clearly see and feel the difference bewteen a coordinated attack, and a hasty offensive action.

Answer 2

As a liberal, I do believe that taking out #1 will always mean something. How much, that remains to be seen. That's why I really thought that we should have taken care of Bin Laden after 9/11. This might not speak much for the effect of taking out a #1 to the complete mission, but, #1 is number 1 be it horizontal or vertical.

You measure success by the number of attacks and the simplicity of those attacks. The number of attacks you are able to stop as well.

You are darned right that we should gauge the current war's effectiveness on the current number of attacks. There is some success because the attacks are simple, usually fewer than 50 people are killed, and located in one area of the World for the most part. A Major failure is when those attacks spread, do not decrease, and become more elaborate.

What's really an interesting trend I think is the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq BEFORE the US invaded as compared to at almost any point after. That tells you that the US has failed the world, not miserably, but we could have done ourselves a favor and focus on Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and our own borders until Iraq really needed us over there.

Answer 3

I doubt it. What would obviously be effective is to kill them all. Failing that, it should be so costly to be involved with such organiztions that they simply die. These are obviously harsh tactics in the extreme but this is fight that should not be occurring in the first place. Moral issues aside, the fight exists and it no longer matters how or why the only sensible plan is to bring it to an end ASAP, and the most likely method to succeed is to do like they have and throw the rule book out the window. Rules in warfare seem to do nothing but prolong the agony anyway.

Answer 4

When you read the paper lately Al Quida is mentioned as follows:
1) "Al Quida in Iraq"
2) "Al Quida Linked" Terrorist group.

The importance of both of these descriptions is that before this war there was no "Al Quida in Iraq" and not even any "Al Quida linked" terrorist groups operating in the country.

Therefore almost every terrorist we capture or kill in Iraq is one that didn't exsist before this conflict started.

So my answer is yes it does matter that we kill "Al Quida in Iraqs" #1. Because what we have created in Iraq is quickly becoming the worlds best training camp for terrorrists. It is definitely our fault, but if someone doesn't continually disrupt it then there is no doubt in my mind that it will be stronger then when this war started.

Answer 5

You missed the point.

It wasn't Iraqi army or coalition forces who took him out.

It was Sunni insurgents who took him out.

And having the insurgents finally turning on the foreign and home grown al-quida, is big news.

Thats what turned Ramadi's around.

It used to be a hot bed of al-quida, but after the Tribal leaders decided enough was enough, their fighters started going after al-quida. The violence level in Ramidi dropped overnight.

Answer 6

The great thing about this piece of trash taking the eternal dirt nap is that he wasn't killed by US Soldiers but by Iraqi fighters.

Clearly it shows that the Iraqi people are no longer tolerating terrorist in their own country and that the path to democracy is working.

Answer 7

Nope, because Al Qaeda is like a many headed Hydra, there will be a replacement by the end of the day IF in fact he is dead.
Besides our own estimates indicate that Al Qaeda in Iraq is responsible from anywhere from 2%-10% of the violence there. Our problem is the other 90%-98% of the fighting that is sectarian.
The increase in terrorist attacks globally does not bode well for this so called "war on terror". It is starting to look like that vaunted "war on drugs" which we all know how that one went.

Answer 8

#1
#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2#2

Get the picture? For every #1 removed, dozens of #2s are waiting in the wings.

It will be a war without end, without victory. Until the mindset of the terrorists change, there will always be someone willing to kill for their religion, their clan, their tribe.

Answer 9

First they claim that we are not hurting Al Quaeda in Iraq. Then when we kill a senior leader in Iraq they claim that it 'doesn't matter.'

No matter what we do we are going to get criticisms from people who cannot come up with a better plan themselves.

Answer 10

We just took out another #1. How many #1's do they have?