Iraqi insurgency leader surrenders

THE reputed head of the Iraqi insurgency surrendered to US forces at dawn yesterday, Al-Arabiya television reported last night.

The reported surrender of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, the highest ranking member of the former regime still at large, follows the arrest at the weekend of two leaders of the insurgency along with Saddam Hussein.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8189683%255E401,00.html

"We were targeting a local HVT (high-value target) on the third brigade list -- that would be a mid-level financier in the national network," she said. She described the main target as a cell leader of the Fedayeen, a militia made up of diehard supporters of captured dictator Saddam Hussein, which is blamed by U.S. officials for some of the deadly attacks against American soldiers.

now the nationalist and others take over, while the ba'athist go
into the dustbin of history

This is based on Iraqi history folks

report the capture from Baghdad, via their closed office?

I hope that this is correct - but why do I feel we may have had him, like Saddam, for a while?

...whose family US troops kidnapped last month.

You know, by the time they've arrested all the members of the remaining secular groups in Iraq, there won't be anyone left organized but the fundamentalists.

I can't wait to hear the media tonight!

:-)

who kept getting their victory rally on the CableVids all day Sunday.

I wonder when someone finally figured out that all those celebrating Iraqis were waving red flags with Hammer & Sycle emblems weren't exactly George Bush's Best Friends.

There was another thread here over the weekend, with a link to the ICP proclaiming themselves the largest secularist party in Iraq.

So now Saddam, this guy and some others were leading attacks on US? Funny, I've never heard that until they were arrested. I guess it doesn't matter. Throughout the whole war they have been making crap up as they go. So why not some more lies and b/s to support their theories. Just like Saddam is found in a hole not big enough for him to sneeze in but he supposively has a bunch of docs w/ minutes to meetings w/ insurgancy leaders. Riiiiiiiight. Sure he did. I suppose Saddam also had a canceled check showing he contributed to Howard Dean's campaign too! I mean we can all tell the way Saddam looked he "obviously" was in great command of Iraq!

Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri has been in the news for months. When we thought we captured or killed him a few weeks ago it was big news. Actually getting him is huge. From an operational standpoint, the short-term effects may be more important than the capture of Saddam, since he was actually leading the day to day operations of anti-coalition forces and is in a position to do real harm to them to save his own neck. On the US most-wanted list, he was second only to Saddam in recent days and the number one target after Saddam was captured. He had a ten million dollar bounty on his head and was the King of Clubs in the deck (sixth most wanted overall, behind only the Husseins, al-Tikriti and Chemical Ali).

Just because you never heard of him, doesn't mean his capture wasn't extremely important.

Good news.

I'll bet you about a bazillion dollars it's psyops and the Iraqi's aren't going to believe a word of it for a heartbeat but I'd love to be wrong.

The results will show or they won't.

How about a hundred bucks says that he actually is in custody and, when his mug is on the front pages, the Iraqis will believe it.

And no, it's not all over, but it's a big step in the right direction. Depending on what you mean by "it," it won't be all over for years or even decades.

FYI, here's a link to another major breakthrough (which seem to be coming faster and faster now:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/16/sprj.irq.main/index.html

And some important info from that link:

TIKRIT, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. troops captured what the military calls a "high-value target" and 73 other Iraqis during a massive raid early Tuesday in the north-central Iraqi town of Samarra, coalition officials said.

Officials said the high-value target was captured at his home, where he was apparently having a meeting. All 74 Iraqis were captured at the house in Samarra, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) south of Tikrit, officials said. The suspects were young men of military age, and no women were present, officials said.

Coalition officials described the top man as a midlevel official, a member of the paramilitary group Fedayeen Saddam and a financier of attacks on coalition troops. Officials said they believe he can lead them to some insurgents involved in the attacks.

:silly:

there simply IS NOT ANY IRAQI NATIONALISM LEFT.

I continue to wonder how total morons reach command positions in the military.

It was reported in the Washington Times last month that the CIA doubted his involvement in the resistance because he was probably too sick to participate. But, I guess those facts don't really matter in propagandaland.

eom

Suspect in attacks said to be very ill

BAGHDAD — Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a top aide to ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, is dying of leukemia and cannot be playing any major role in orchestrating the current wave of attacks on U.S.-led coalition forces and their Iraqi allies, according to sources familiar with the old regime's functioning.
In Washington, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday appeared to pull back from earlier comments by U.S. defense officials that al-Douri had been masterminding strikes such as last week's wave of suicide attacks in downtown Baghdad, reportedly working with an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group that had operated before the war out of a small enclave in northern Iraq.

(more) http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20031030-094619-1532r.htm

I was mistaken about the source (CIA) but Rumsfeld came back and said that he didn't think al-Douri was behind the attacks.

There is a balance between discarding every gov't statement out of hand and believing every word is put forth with the purest intent. Washington will play events and doll them up for their own purposes, but sometimes what they say will be correct or accurate. In this case, I think they just want to build some momentum behind the capture of Saddam, and are using whatever stories they can for that purpose.

This article is not about Saddam. Not a very good advertising for the thought put into your "political rants."

Kremer's previous post made this point:

"Who said they were leading the insurgancy?

So now Saddam, this guy and some others were leading attacks on US?"

I thought it relevent.

rather than to the original message. It avoids confusion. Oh well, live & learn. Welcome to DU, btw.

I finding all these boards have different nuances. They're like dialects.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I've been lurking for a while.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The post that you respond to has not one word from me. Only a quote from the article. Nice to see that you believe the speculation of Bremer and senior military officers. A step in the right direction, I'd say.

So if it is a step in the right direction, why aren't you stepping in that direction, since you don't believe Bremer or senior military officers (and others, but I didn't mention them) when they say al-Douri is a nobody?

Have fun squaring that circle.

Regardless, the post (sans sarcasm):

"Blitz, even Bremer admits Al Douri is dying and not in charge. As do senior officers from 4th ID, and the CTJF command."

...remains accurate, but you're free to think this is a resounding success for the glorious US military if you like. Doing so won't enhance the credibility of your arguments, but that is obvious.

Oh, and it was a general reponse to you in this thread, not the article. I would have thought this was clear, given the use of your usename in the post.