George W. Bush = failure, John McCain = more failure
Posted by T2 at March 20, 2008 11:10 AMI simply do not listen to any of this administration's assertions anymore. Their version of reality is not based on facts.
How can you tell when GWB is lying? His lips are moving.
Posted by brisa at March 20, 2008 11:40 AM"Six years after the Bush administration declared war on al-Qaeda, the terrorist network is gaining strength and has established a safe haven in remote tribal areas of western Pakistan for training and planning attacks..."
"...a five-page threat assessment compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center...concludes that the group has significantly rebuilt itself despite concerted U.S. attempts to smash the network."
"... fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan."
"We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications..."
"...traced al-Qaeda's resurgence in Pakistan to an agreement last year that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf made with the tribal chiefs when he withdrew army units from the northwest area.
In return, the tribal leaders were to prevent the Taliban, bin Laden and al-Qaeda from carrying out training and sending terrorists and arms into Afghanistan and elsewhere. But, Cardillo said: "At the end of the day, we see a worse condition than [there] was before the agreement."
"...it is not too great an exaggeration to say there is some risk of turning a problem in northwest Pakistan into the problem of all of Pakistan."
U.S. Warns Of Stronger Al-Qaeda by Spence S. Hsu and Walter Pincus
Washington Post, Thursday, July 12, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102443.html
Good thing we crammed $10 billion into the ISI over the last few years.
Last thing we'd want is AQP with its hands on some thermonuclears.
Our ISI pals speak their lingo good and know how to parlay with them.
McMission Accomplicated.
Turkana, AQI is a tiny organization of perhaps a thousand people. The sunnis of western Iraq turned on it (with the money and arms we gave them) and have dealt it (and the other takfiri groups) severe blows, according to our military and other sources. It is not an existential threat to Iraq, and Iraq will have to deal with it over time.
Can AQI be utterly extinguished, with not a single operative existing in Iraq, the way the situation was before we invaded? It seems unlikely.
So adopting this AQI meme justifies the McOld/Repub claptrap that we "must" stay in Iraq forever or else AQI will "take over" and get the oil, as Bush has openly "threatened". AQI is NEVER going to take over Iraq, it's simply ridiculous.
What the good Sgt Luce "means" is that the sunni resistance forces, which are a completely different matter than AQI, are better equipped, trained and motivated than the largely shi'ite "Iraq" Army.
Well, who the hell has been responsible for "equipping and training" the Iraq Army? Oh yeah, that'd be us, supposedly----except we apparently we gave up on that. Wonder why?
Al Qaeda resurgence in Pakistan is a whole 'nother matter.
And BTW pinhead lying George, secularist Saddam was "against" Osama, as all the intelligence said, and as every document examined proves. So you can't get anything right, as usual, history especially.
Posted by euzoius at March 20, 2008 12:15 PMeuzouis:
And who is responsible for equipping the Sunni resistance forces?
We are, indirectly through the Saudis (see Seymour Hersh).
So to go full circle on your point in response to Turkana's post, we are responsible for inadequately equipping and training the Iraqi Army to stand on its own; and we are similarly responsible for well-equipping the Sunni resistance through the Saudis to fight the Shiites, the Iraqi Army, and yes, our own forces.
All of which is a prerequisite to keeping our forces in Iraq for years, by design.
Posted by Steve Soto at March 20, 2008 12:27 PMYes, I agree---and thanks for "closing the circle" for me, steve!
America must be tricked into thinking that we have to occupy Iraq for decades. To this end, every argument and excuse in the book has to be deployed to bamboozle the citizenry.
The Iraq invasion was intended to be a strategic shift of bases and forces into a new, previously "off-limits" sector of the oil region---it just ended up costing much more than was "envisioned", but it was never meant to be a temporary excursion. That's the Great Lie.
Posted by euzoius at March 20, 2008 01:14 PMAnd lest we forget, the very man responsible for "training" the Iraqi Army, sans armor, helicopters, armored vehicles and any hope of success, was none other then THE General Who MUST be Loved. From June 2004, to 2005, THE General oversaw the training and, apparently, the looting of more than 100,000 AK-47s and pistols, plus body armor and uniforms, from under his patrician nose.
I can't recall any other period in colonial history when it took five years to UN-train the local version of your Sepoy army. Most colonizers seemed to think it was important for YOUR guys to be able to beat the BAD guys. I guess the neocons know something we simply don't.
But Hey! I guess he must know what he's doing. He's had 3 promotions (stars?) in five years.
Posted by DeminNewJ at March 20, 2008 01:18 PMAgree completely with your main point, Turkana. However, some of your details are not accurate:
"the significance is overstated by simply attempting to attribute to it any significance at all.:"
100% agreed!
"Because Osama bin Laden's murderous network wasn't even in Iraq, before Bush invaded Iraq, so there was no need for any scale of uprising against it."
Osama bin Laden's murderous network is not in Iraq now, either - at least not in any significant numbers. There may be a few tens or even hundreds of people who are genuinely from bin Laden's Al Qa`eda, but not more than that.
The overwhelming majority of the very small group they are calling Al Qa`eda in Iraq have as much connection to bin Laden's group as a Prada knockoff has to do with the real Prada. It might have the same name, and it might even bear a somewhat convincing resemblance, but it is not the real thing.
"Bush also failed to stop Abu Musab Zarqawi, in 2002, before he'd even had a chance to develop Al Qaeda in Iraq."
Zarqawi is and remains largely a myth whose feats and accomplishments were greatly exaggerated. He was a semi-literate thug who managed to gain some notoriety by being a handy P.R. tool. More importantly, he was NOT, despite all the propaganda, part of bin Laden's al Qa`eda. In fact, if anything, in his grandiosity he saw himself as a rival to bin Laden, whom he had barely met.
Zarqawi's significance has been hugely overplayed.
From AP: "Al-Qaida is in Iraq to stay."
No it's not, not in the opinion of most Iraqis, not in the opinion of most people who actually have a clue about Iraq and what is going on there.
"It's not a conclusion the White House talks about much when denouncing the shadowy group, known as al-Qaida in Iraq, that used the U.S. invasion five years ago to develop into a major killer."
Al Qa`eda in Iraq is not bin Laden's Al Qa`eda, and has no real association with bin Laden. They borrowed the name, that is all. They are a knockoff of Al Qa`eda.
Al Qa`eda in Iraq is NOT in reality a "major killer" by any means. It is a very small group consisting of perhaps one or two thousand, and is not responsible for the majority of attacks in Iraq despite the fact that the U.S. propagandists name them as the perpetrators of almost every bombing.
"they weren't there before Bush invaded..."
Very true - Saddam would not ever have allowed them into the country.
"they are there now..."
They do NOT have a significant presence there.
"they're not going away."
They will go away once the United States goes away and leaves Iraqis free to deal with them. They have no place in Iraq, and Iraqis will not put up with them.
"a report in today's New York Times, about the continuing problems in creating a viable Iraqi Army, included this telling quote:
"'The I.A. is getting mutilated out here,' said Sgt. James Luce as the Americans prepared to go on a joint mission with the Iraqis. 'Al Qaeda is better equipped and better trained than they are. Without us out here, they don’t stand a chance.'"
I agree that it is telling. Can you clarify what, in your view, it tells us?
Posted by Shirin at March 20, 2008 02:01 PM"Zarqawi's significance has been hugely overplayed."...(Shirin)
True. And the rumor that he was a member of the fierce Fucqawi tribe has been debunked.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 20, 2008 02:31 PMPS The U.S. military have created the illusion that
1. Al Qa`eda has a significant presence in Iraq.
2. Al Qa`eda are major killers.
They have done this by attributing virtually every action by an "insurgent" (sic) who is not clearly from Muqtada Sadr's group to Al Qa`eda, by claiming that virtually everyone they - the United States and their Iraqi proxies - go after is Al Qa`eda, and by insisting that every time they raid or bomb a house or a neighborhood it is an "Al Qa`eda safe house" or something like that. That makes it sound as if Iraq is simply swarming with Al Qa`eda, and the only major resistance they are getting now is from Al Qa`eda. It's just not true.
I don't know whether they actually have themselves convinced they are fighting Al Qa`eda everywhere in Iraq, or whether they are intentionally lying. I don't doubt that most of the rank and file U.S. military really do think they are fighting Al Qa`eda every time they attack someone, but I am betting that the higher up you go, the more you'll find people who really do know the score.
Posted by Shirin at March 20, 2008 02:36 PMTurkana, AQI is a tiny organization of perhaps a thousand people. The sunnis of western Iraq turned on it (with the money and arms we gave them) and have dealt it (and the other takfiri groups) severe blows, according to our military and other sources. It is not an existential threat to Iraq, and Iraq will have to deal with it over time.
Good points, all.
Of all the points of confusion around 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq, perhaps none is greater than the concept of Al Qaeda.
First, Osama bin Laden did not use this term in any public pronouncement prior to 9/11 -- only in post 9/11 videos is it used. The term orignated in a US Intelligence document describing his organization.
Second, although the term Al Qaeda has been used to describe an organization "operating in with sleeper cells in 60 countries", the model described actually resembles the model of Soviet and East Germany spy agencies in the cold war. In reality, these are not one organization controlled from a single source, a la the KGB. Few, if any, of these "sleeper cells" used the term Al Qaeda before 9/11, and most do so now only because it bestows instant prestige. The relationships between them are weak at best -- essentially different groups with shared world views who do not fight factionally because they each have distinct territories. They are more similar to the various Neo-Nazi groups throughout the first world than the are to the KGB "sleeper cell" model.
The operations that have been conducted, post-9/11, under the Al Qaeda brand name have had different goals, methods, and approaches, indicating that they are in fact different groups with different leadership.
The leadership of the US, UK and Australia have had a vested interest in exaggerating the threat from Al Qaeda as a means of pumping up the popular support for the politicians in power. It's not clear just how much the leadership knows they are exaggerating the threat, and how much of the exaggeration is due to their own self-reinforcing group think. (Similar to the pre-Iraq WMD "intelligence".)
But, understand that Osama bin Laden's peak of influence was in the summer of 2001 when he had those 5000 or so (the number was very possibly exaggerated) in those pretend-warrior camps in Afghanistan. Today the group known as the Taliban has staged a recovery in Afghanistan and western Pakistan -- such is the history of Afghanistan for almost forever -- but the Taliban is not Al Qaeda. They share a world view with bin Laden, but their goals are locally focused. And it is doubtful that their leadership is very happy that bin Laden invited the US to invade and occupy Afghanistan.
Posted by ren at March 20, 2008 02:48 PM"AQI is a tiny organization of perhaps a thousand people."
True, and as I have said, it is NOT, repeat NOT connected with bin Laden's al Qa`eda.
"The sunnis of western Iraq turned on it (with the money and arms we gave them)"
This yet another example of David Petraeus's sole talent - self-promotion. He makes it sound like it was all his brilliant idea, and that it has turned the situation 180 degrees. The fact is that the Iraqis, including the Iraqis of western Iraq, had turned on so-called "Al Qa`eda" way back in 2004, and even before that. Of course, at that time the American propagandists were not claiming they were Al Qa`eda, but had dubbed them "foreign fighters" or "foreign jihadists" (thus denying that the overwhelming majority of the "insurgency" (sic) was and still is Iraqi). The Iraqis had tried to approach the Americans more than once in an effort to get their cooperation in fighting those elements, and the Americans had refused to even meet with them (we don't talk to "terrorists", you know!).
The ability of the Iraqis to fight so-called "Al Qa`eda" improved because the Americans backed off from its constant attacks on them, so they no longer had to waste so many resources fighting the Americans. And of course, it helped too that the Americans were giving them arms and money.
"It is not an existential threat to Iraq, and Iraq will have to deal with it over time."
Very true that it is not an existential threat to Iraq. It really isn't much of a threat at all, and Iraqis WILL deal with it quite quickly and effectively.
"adopting this AQI meme justifies the McOld/Repub claptrap that we "must" stay in Iraq forever or else AQI will "take over" and get the oil, as Bush has openly "threatened"."
Yup!
"AQI is NEVER going to take over Iraq, it's simply ridiculous."
Yes it really is quite ludicrous - as so many of the U.S. claims have been in regard to Iraq.
"What the good Sgt Luce "means" is that the sunni resistance forces, which are a completely different matter than AQI, are better equipped, trained and motivated than the largely shi'ite "Iraq" Army.
Well, who the hell has been responsible for "equipping and training" the Iraq Army? Oh yeah, that'd be us, supposedly----except we apparently we gave up on that. Wonder why?"
Actually that WAS one of the great "accomplishments" of David Petraeus. It is only one of his many failures in Iraq. In fact, about the only thing he has succeeded at has been self-promotion.
Posted by Shirin at March 20, 2008 03:18 PM