| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Perpetuating the al-Qaeda-Iraq Myth |
| 2008-06-04 |
| God forgive me, but I so enjoy reading the crap that comes out of these twisted minds. It's just so strangely fascinating. Like watching a guy set himself on fire or drive nails into his brain. Another article by yet another moonbat/denier. Enjoy. By ROBERT BAER In an interview with the Washington Post last week, CIA Director Michael Hayden claimed we're beating al-Qaeda. As Hayden put it: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia." I'll defer to Hayden on Saudi Arabia, but when it comes to Iraq, Hayden betrayed his belief in the neo-con lie that Iraq was one of al-Qaeda's bases before the 2003 invasion and still is today. Can no one drive a stake into a lie that suckered us into a war we didn't need? Probably not. For a reason, Robert. For a reason. Especially if there's even one conservative in the audience that has a mouth. A I know because I run around the country with Michael Yon. It should be clear by now, but apparently it isn't: al-Qaeda is an idea, a way of thinking. Al-Qaeda thinks the world is divided between believers and nonbelievers, and the believers are divinely obliged to destroy the nonbelievers. It is a simple idea that has attracted tens of thousands of Muslims, but it is neither a political prescription nor the makings of an army. The Sunni Arabs who drifted into Iraq after the invasion and the Iraqis who embraced al-Qaeda were never an organization. They were never an army. They were never the main enemy. They numbered, what, a couple of thousand? They nearly triggered a civil war, but even that they failed to accomplish. Thanks to what? The success we're seeing today in Iraq has nothing to do with rooting out terrorist cells. What we're seeing instead is a shriveling of grassroots support, Sunni Muslims turning against al-Qaeda and its messianic, dualistic way of looking at the world. It hasn't gone unnoticed in the Middle East that al-Qaeda has killed more Muslims than nonbelievers. Or that al-Qaeda has failed to take an inch of ground in the name of Islam. With this kind of record how could the Iraqis not turn against al-Qaeda? And just how were Iraqis supposed to kill these people themselves? None of this, of course, is to take away from the turnaround in Iraq. Last month we saw the fewest American casualties since the invasion in 2003. Basra, Sadr City, and Mosul are coming back under Baghdad's control. Many Iraqis feel safe enough to move back into their houses. And none of it should take away from General Petraeus; our troops, who are bleeding and dying to hold together a country vital to American interests; or the Iraqis, who have backed away from civil war. So why should we now mischaracterize the enemy? Ah, the obligatory tip o' the hat to the folks that accomplished this. It's supposed to lend some credibility to the rest of your $hit, I presume? The tendency will be to leave it at the lie: We fought and beat al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it's a lie we'll pay for later. By mischaracterizing the enemy in Iraq, we mischaracterize the enemy in Pakistan. Whether the car bomb that destroyed the Danish embassy in Pakistan on Monday was the work of an actual member of al-Qaeda or not does not matter - what does is that al-Qaeda's way of thinking is not defeated. Get out of the bar and back into your office, Robert. You have a deadline to meet. View this article on Time.com Old Spook, you can pop this a-hole it the choppers for me too if you ever get to meet him. Use a tire iron because he isn't worth a bruised knuckle. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #6 Baer is creating a strawman or he's a moron. Hayden never claimed Al Queda was in Iraq prior to 2003. It's irrelevant if they were or not. We arrived in 2003 and Bin Laden sent in his warriors to fight us. They are now near a strategic defeat after giving us a tough time in 2004-7. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-06-04 17:00 |
| #5 Point of information: as far as I know, only the New York Times and their fellow travellers have ever used Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia instead of in Iraq. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-06-04 16:03 |
| #4 Al-Qaeda in Iraq ran a website for years. They published daily accounts of attacks on both Shiites ("apostates") and Coalition troops. As with original al-Qaeda, they operate on the basis of a co-ordinated plan, but by means of disconnected units. US field troops could have shown Baer captured black-flag banners of AQI (originally referred to as: al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The group led early fighting, and commenced use of suicide terror. Other Sunni groups followed and joined with AQI for a while. Following the negotiations in Jordan, Sunnis agreed to work with US troops against AQI, in exchange for $300 per Sunni combatant per month and with the end of consolidating Sunni territories in face of Shiite encroachment. (Baghdad became a Shiite city, during the first years of terror). The current situation is somewhat a status quo ante, with Shiites demanding a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), affirming a time table for US withdrawl. Meanwhile the US runs the largest military airport in the world, 50 miles north of Baghdad, and maintenance of same is integral to long term US regional strategy. President Bush and Senator McCain fear that the Shiites could re-open the 1400 year old civil war, should SOFA fail. Unfortunately, I believe that will happen by August. And Obama will exploit the situation. Iraqis don't deny AQI's existence. Neither do field troops. What else does Baer deny? |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-06-04 13:46 |
| #3 "By mischaracterizing the enemy in Iraq, we mischaracterize the enemy in Pakistan." Baer’s use of the word “lie” may tip his cards that this is another one of his self-serving commentaries but he may have it right on the larger point. It’s hard to argue that the “AQ brand” hasn’t been overemphasized in this conflict. The practice of the MNF to periodically misidentify the enemy may be effective in the short term for domestic consumption but enables the greater problem to fester in the long term. Tell it like it is…and the “Get out of Iraq cause it’s a Civil-War” crowd be dammed! Moreover, it’s time the enlightened world identifies “Islam the Ideology” as the root cause… and the “Hijacked Religion” crowd be dammed! |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2008-06-04 10:18 |
| #2 Whether the car bomb that destroyed the Danish embassy in Pakistan on Monday was the work of an actual member of al-Qaeda or not does not matter - what does is that al-Qaeda's way of thinking is not defeated. That's not necessarily true. In fact, all indications are that al-Qaeda's way of thinking IS being defeated, bit by bit. At least all the more recent polls show that their popularity and their methods (e.g. suicide bombing) are losing favor with the people of the Middle East. The drop has been rather precipitous between now and 2002. Rather than creating a whole new generation of jihadi martyrs, as most Liberals and the MSM would like us to believe, our policies in the Middle East seem to be mitigating the problem overall. Victory against aQ is not going to happen with a bang but rather a whimper. |
| Posted by: eltoroverde 2008-06-04 09:32 |
| #1 Al-Qaeda thinks the world is divided between believers and nonbelievers, and the believers are divinely obliged to destroy the nonbelievers. This is a definition of Islam, not just AQ. None of this, of course, is to take away from the turnaround in Iraq. Bullsh*t. That's your whole point. Are you suggesting that we should go after AQ (and other jihadi groups) world-wide? Pakistan? Iran? Paleostine? Syria? etc. That's where your logic leads - are you willing to say so openly or just piss and moan about the Administration? |
| Posted by: Spot 2008-06-04 08:33 |