Daily Kos

Al Qaeda Declares Victory in Iraq

Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:38:26 AM PDT

NPR is reporting (podcast) that al Zawahiri, the Egyptian strategist from al qaeda has released a new recording, claiming victory in Iraq.  Five years have passed, the recording, still unsubstantiated by US intelligence, says, and the US is still bogged down. He mocks Bush as a failure, remaining in Iraq only because he does not want to be the one who has to withdraw.

Now you may recall that one of the reasons we are given by president, and now John McCain, is that if the US withdraws, it will be tremendous propaganda victory for al qaeda.  It looks like remaining in an indefinite quagmire is also a tremendous propaganda victory for al qaeda.

This is deeply ironic.

It's, of course, ironic because the pretext for remaining turns out to come about as a result of the policy. But it's also ironic because it is just what happened in Afghanistan when the Soviets were defeated. As in Iraq, al qaeda played a trivial role in the defeat of the Soviet Army. US and Saudi supplies of Stinger missiles to other, more effective native rebel forces.  Al qaeda played little to no role in the victory of the Afghan opposition.  Bin Laden greatly exaggerated the role of al qaeda in that war, propagandizing his role, while ingratiating himself with the Taliban, which is discussed in detail in Steve Coll's Ghost Wars.

In Iraq, US policy has actually enhanced the reputation of al qaeda by relentlessly exaggerating the role of al qaedain the opposition to the occupation, and its role in inter-faction fighting.  There not only aren't that many of them:

"They'll just say al-Qaida," Venzke said of the U.S. command, "and the media frequently simplify it to that level because they think nobody thinks there are other groups."

Terrorism analyst Lydia Khalil, of Washington's Jamestown Foundation research group, said something more complex may also be going on.

"I talked to a lot of guys over there (U.S. officials in Iraq) and they are aware that the majority of fighters are not al-Qaida," said this former U.S. political adviser in Baghdad.

Bush's warning about al-Qaida and Iraq "serves mostly to buttress the administration's claim that Iraq's problems are the work of outsiders, and not the result of the administration's mismanagement of the occupation and internal Iraqi factionalism," said Steven Simon, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

But they are also not closely affiliated with bin Laden's group:

The University of Michigan's Juan Cole questions how strong the links are between international al-Qaida and the local Iraqi variety, which he describes as Salafists — fundamentalist Sunnis — "who style themselves al-Qaida."

Just as bin Laden found it in his interests to endorse Bush before the 2004 election, Bush has found it in his interest to inflate the risk that al qaeda represents, both in Iraq and in the rest of the world.

Now that particular collection of lies and distortions has, as so many other failed policies have, backfired on the Bush administration.

Tags: Iraq, al qaeda, occupation in Iraq, war in Iraq, George W. Bush (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 38 comments

  •  Bin Laden/AQ made ONE demand (4+ / 0-)

    remove US armed personnel from Holy Saudi Soil.

    Before the Iraq invasion, make NO mistake, Shrub caved in.

  •  Al-Qaeda declared Mission Accomplished? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    bugscuffle

    LOL.  

    Iraq will frustrate their aims as it has done those of BushCo.

    You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

    by A Mad Mad World on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:47:49 AM PDT

  •  Bush and bin Laden are the... (5+ / 0-)

    indispensable allies of each other.  Bush gets the instability in the Middle East that fuels oil company and MIC profits.  bin Laden gets unmerited recognition and an incredibly effective recruiting tool.  They both win.  The only losers are the American, Iraqi, and Afghan people, and the soldiers who are forced to play in the Bush-bin Laden Bowl.

    America - FUBBBAR (Fucked Up By Bush Beyond All Repair)

    by George Gould on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:09:13 AM PDT

  •  Bin Laden's status of being alive (4+ / 0-)

    is greatly exaggerated.

    Of course "al queda" has had trivial effect in Iraq, and of course, Salafists from Iraq or travelling to Iraq from places like Libya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. never really had anything to do with Zawahiri's group in Afghanistan.  But the leadership of the democratic party never had the nerve to call out Bush for his blatant lies.  

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:10:06 AM PDT

    •  the leadership... (2+ / 0-)

      One has to wonder. Can they really be so ignorant of the facts, of the truth? If so they have no business being in the positions they are in.

      If, on the other hand, they do know (my guess) and, for one reason on another, never call out the lies, sometimes support them and only occasionally provide us with a dog and pony show of fake opposition, then we are truly screwed.

      Any thoughts? Anyone?

      "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people..." Henry Kissinger

      by truong son traveler on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:24:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's pretty clear (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        truong son traveler

        that effective foreign policy is not high on the list of their motivations.

        Come see Karen Tumulty discuss the MSM at Virtually Speaking on July 31st.

        by JayAckroyd on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:36:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think they know, and we are screwed (2+ / 0-)

        Most people don't vocalize this, but they feel it.  Iraq has shown that we have widespread endemic problems in the DC establishment.  The braintrust, on both sides of the aisle, should have never let this happen the way it did.  Allowing the president and his administration to dumb things down to 'we are fighting the bad guys, al queda' and actually set policy that haphazardly.  This should have never, ever went down.  

        "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by duha on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:06:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It worries me, actually (3+ / 0-)

          I've believed, for some time, that there has been a consensus, across the aisle and among non-partisans in State, DoD and the think tanks that the occupation has to continue. They don't see an alternative, and they keep wishing for the pony.  As atrios says, leaving is losing, and not just for Bush. It's also a slap in the face delivered to the entire foreign policy apparatus in washington, almost all of whom supported this, or at least did not publicly oppose it.

          I think that sense may finally be shifting, oddly enough, because of the extended democratic nominating process. Clinton and Obama have moved light years in their positions, purely because the campaign forced them to respond to the poll numbers.

          I don't know where that leaves O'Hanlon, or what it takes to fire his ass and hire Scott Ritter.  And that's a big problem, because there are (clearly) personal and institutional factors that are keeping these guys in these jobs.  Jobs they, by any objective measure, failed to perform effectively.

          Come see Karen Tumulty discuss the MSM at Virtually Speaking on July 31st.

          by JayAckroyd on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:23:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think what is also slowly changing their minds (2+ / 0-)

            is the fact that Patreus' plan won't work, even if it ever did 'work' for another 5 or 6 years.  They know they can't sell this war to the American people for that long.  They can barely sell it now, and that's with totally freezing out news from Iraq and basically dropping it from the news channels across the board.  The political will just isn't there, but I think if it was the DC braintrust would be all for staying in Iraq in the same way that Mccain described.

            "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

            by duha on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:53:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I don't believe they think it will either (2+ / 0-)

              One of the most frustrating elements of this occupation is that there has been almost no honest discussion of what is going on and why.  The people who advocate remaining write things that are manifestly false, while the people who want to leave aren't given a forum.

              McCain's definition of success is laughable--not worth a tinker's dam. But it is allowed to hang in the public discourse as if it means something, while dire, worst case predictions are trotted out at the mention of a drawdown.

              That's why I'm a big fan of the responsible challengers http://www.responsibleplan.com/

              The actual state of affairs is laid out. The objectives are laid out. The language is clear, and the steps the US can take, on its own, are described very clearly.

              Come see Karen Tumulty discuss the MSM at Virtually Speaking on July 31st.

              by JayAckroyd on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:59:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  It also exposes the hegemony program (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Phil N DeBlanc

          The invasion and occupation in Iraq cannot be disguised as something other than what it is--a naked act of imperialism. Gulf War I could be spun as defense of an ally. All the Cold War proxy wars, and the placement of bases in Korea, Germany and Japan could be attributed to the evil communist threat.  Other bases could be justified because of proxy wars being waged by both the US and the USSR. Afghanistan was actually a justified response.

          But this naked aggression for no plausible reason other than putting bases smack dab in the middle of the Middle East exposes these other acts of occupation as imperialist.  The continued build up of armaments in a world with no enemy also exposes the imperialism that is the consensus foreign policy view in Washington.

          Come see Karen Tumulty discuss the MSM at Virtually Speaking on July 31st.

          by JayAckroyd on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:37:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Are you saying (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler

          we're bitter? Good call.

          [-6.25, -5.59] "The love you take is equal to the love you make." - J. Lennon, P. McCartney

          by Phil N DeBlanc on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:44:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  My guess (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    the fan man

    is that they will end up as victorious as Bush.

    Common Sense is not Common

    by RustyBrown on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:15:56 AM PDT

    •  Sorry, you're missing the point (3+ / 0-)

      They aren't trying to win in the sense of establishing an Islamist government. They're declaring that the US has been defeated--that the quagmire itself represents defeat, and that withdrawal is inevitable.

      They can repeat that talking point indefinitely, because it's clear the pony paradise that Bush and McCain have defined as "victory" or "success" are unattainable. So if the US remains an occupier, opposed by local groups, the US has lost, and if the US leaves, the US has lost.

      This is about propaganda, not facts--and Bush has made this propaganda both possible and powerful by inflating the importance of al qaeda.  In Afghanistan, bin Laden had to this himself. In Iraq, Bush has done this for him, in order to fearmonger his way into the 2004 election, and to continue his pointless, failed occupation.

      Come see Karen Tumulty discuss the MSM at Virtually Speaking on July 31st.

      by JayAckroyd on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:20:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Al Qeada agrees with your POV. (0+ / 0-)

        You must be right.

        Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them - T Paine

        by breezeview on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:31:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Inflating the importance of AQI (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe that's an understatement. Crocker and Petraeus both acknowledged that AQI is less of a threat than the real AQ along the Pakistan - Afghanistan border. Those along the border, by one informed estimate, "a few dozen people on the run" perhaps 150 people all told.

        AQI is little more than a ghost opponent, used - as you write - for propaganda purposes. The mention of al-Qaeda still scares people and the Bush gang and their media enablers are going to play that song until the bar closes.

        "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people..." Henry Kissinger

        by truong son traveler on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:36:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They've been winning the propaganda war for (0+ / 0-)

    some time. In Iraq, they've probably outlived their welcome except in some Sunni areas I would imagine.

    Here's what disturbs me. As we see more chaos with food in the mid east and elsewhere, those door to door Al Kida salesman will have another flyer and maybe even a sample to give out.

    "Tired of corrupt pro-American government? Try Al Kida, we get the dirt out! Just one low intensity war and poof, no more dirt! The bomb is yours for free and if you choose to buy, we'll double our offer!"

    Testimonials:

    "The infidel Soviets would not leave until we used Al Kida" - Afgan militaman and former goat herder

    "The Americans and Shiite collaborators were everywhere until we found Al Kida, then Allah be praised, they were defeated." - Sunni tribesman and father of eight

    I have an irrational faith in reason.

    by the fan man on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:36:01 AM PDT

  •  Osama endorses the Republicans (0+ / 0-)

    As indicated above, the Republicans/Bush is playing right into Osama's hand. I can't believe more people can't clearly see this. Osama's says Iraq is important, so Bush says we need to stay with 140K troops to fight a few thousand OR LESS so called Al Queda fighters. For one, these are converted Sunni insurgents who call themselves Al Queda so they have a big time name for more recognition. Second and more importantly, did it ever occur to Bush that Osama says Iraq is important in a effort to keep the real heat off his main group in Afgan/Pak. I urge people to use this argument to get their point across and the fact that recently our intelligence community said we are no safer than on Sep 11, 2001 and our military is just about broke, we lost 4K soldiers, Iraq lost hundreds of thousands of citizens including many children and we've spent as much as 3 trillion dollars. Stuff that cost-benefit analysis down anyone who thinks this war is goods throat.

Permalink | 38 comments