Cracking Elusive AQI Nut(s)
Big win for good guys in Iraq. It’s depicted in AP’s effort to grasp the resilience of elusive al-Qaeda in Iraq, Down but Not Out. Valiant effort leaves some key details for last, omits others that might aid to understanding:
BAGHDAD — Darkness had fallen across the desert when U.S. soldiers in Humvees noticed two tractor-trailer rigs stopped on a roadway. A closer look revealed 40 to 50 men dressed in white robes and new white running shoes huddled beside the trucks.
Startled by the nine Americans, the men opened fire with AK-47 rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, kicking off a 23-hour gunbattle that killed two Americans.
The fight was a dramatic reminder, U.S. commanders told The Associated Press, of the resilience of al-Qaida in Iraq. The shadowy organization has been run out of some parts of the country yet still has the will, financing and fighters for significant attacks — and not only in Baghdad.
Twelve paragraphs on the remarkable resilience of al-Qaeda later, we learn that this poster-child resilient AQ unit will not fight another day:
When the guns fell silent on the evening of July 1, the American casualties totaled two killed and 15 wounded. They had killed 35 of the enemy and captured seven, according to Lt. Col. Miciotta Johnson, commander of Task Force 1-77, who oversaw the battle.
Sounds like a dramatic reminder that al-Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent groups have always lost in direct confrontations with U.S. troops, confrontations which are increasingly being forced. Also, a dramatic reminder that AQI and the insurgents have always died at a far higher rate than Americans.
We learn later that this no-longer remarkably resilient AQ unit was unable to execute its plan to undermine U.S. successes in Anbar by murdering pro-government Sunni leaders in now largely quiet Ramadi:
In a telephone interview this week, Johnson said all of the white-clad fighters were armed to the teeth and aiming to attack U.S.-backed Iraqi leaders in nearby Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. They had masked their approach by hiding inside the tractor-trailers, where they used hay to conceal a false bottom that contained improvised bombs, homemade grenades and other arms.
The article cites support among Iraq’s Sunnis for AQI as a line of defense against Shiite militias, in what appears to be a somewhat dated assessment that fails to note that support has been collapsing wholesale as tribal leaders, Sunni insurgent leaders and emboldened ordinary Iraqis throw in their lot with the government and turn on AQI:
One Sunni adviser to Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie, speaking on condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution, said most Sunnis do not support al-Qaida. His explanation for why Sunnis nonetheless have largely tolerated — and in many cases helped — the group tells a lot about the depth of sectarian divisions in this country and how that split helps al-Qaida.
The adviser said ordinary Sunnis are convinced that the group is their only hope for protection against rival Shiite militias.
Here’s Burns’ quick assessment of what AQI is:
The homegrown Sunni extremist group, comprised mainly of Iraqis but in some cases led and financed by foreigners, has been forced to retreat from many of its former strongholds. Last year it lost its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian. Yet it fights on.
It’s a quick take that overlooks a great deal of intelligence cited by the president and reported by the AP the other day, as well as the predominance of evidence reported over recent years: That al-Qaeda in Iraq is in whole an al-Qaeda subsidiary, its top leadership exclusively foreign, al-Qaeda led, receiving direction and seeking guidance from AQ mission control in Waziristan. Never mind the frequent reports in recent years of foreign jihadis coming in from Syria, discovery of Saudi, Chechen and other foreigners among the AQ dead, and last week’s entertaining news that AQI leader “al-Baghdadi” was a fiction designed to convince Iraqis that AQI is an Iraqi organization.
Not clear to me why a serious article about the nature and viability of AQI, examining its appeal to Iraqis, would ignore those elements. They are eluded to only briefly toward the end in a discussion of whether AQI is more of a threat to the United States or Iraq. The article presents that question as an either/or, though it is not clear either Bush or Odierno were that definitive on the subject. In case you missed it, here’s the president on the nature of AQI the other day, by the way, AP via International Herald Tribune.
Bush cited intelligence reporting that:
– Al-Qaida in Iraq was founded not by an Iraqi, but by Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had deep relations with al-Qaida leaders. The president said Zarqawi, who was killed by U.S. forces last year, set up operations with terrorist associates in Iraq long before U.S.-led forces arrived, and that in the violence and instability following Saddam Hussein’s fall, was able to expand the “size, scope and lethality” of his operation. Zarqawi formally joined al-Qaida in 2004 and pledged allegiance to bin Laden, he said.
– The merger of bin Laden and Zarqawi in Iraq fostered “prestige among potential recruits and financiers.” Intelligence says the merger also gave al-Qaida senior leadership “a foothold in Iraq to extend its geographic presence and to plot external operations and to tout the centrality of the jihad in Iraq to solicit direct monetary support elsewhere.”
– Zarqawi was replaced by another foreigner, an Egyptian named Abu Ayub al-Masri, who has deep and long-standing ties with al-Qaida senior leadership. The president said that before Sept. 11, 2001, al-Masri spent time with al-Qaida in Afghanistan, where he taught classes indoctrinating others in al-Qaida’s radical ideology.
– Many of al-Qaida in Iraq’s senior leaders are foreign terrorists. They include a Syrian, who is al-Qaida in Iraq’s emir in Baghdad; a Saudi who is al-Qaida in Iraq’s top spiritual and legal adviser; an Eqyptian who fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s and has met with bin Laden; and a Tunisian, who is suspected of playing a key role in managing foreign fighters.
– Most of al-Qaida in Iraq’s rank-and-file fighters and some of its leadership are Iraqi, but al-Qaida in Iraq is led largely by foreign terrorists loyal to bin Laden. “Our intelligence community concludes that ‘al-Qaida and its regional node in Iraq are united in their overarching strategy’ and they say they that al-Qaida’s senior leaders and their operatives in Iraq ’see al-Qaida in Iraq as part of al-Qaida’s decentralized chain of command, not as a separate group.’”
The article is primarily about AQI’s resilience, not its defeats, however, and about AQI’s Iraqiness, not its foreignness, which might explain why those factors play a less prominent role in the discussion.
Welcome Instapundit, Jawa, etal. Peace be with you! Don’t forget the big ”Get Naked for America” campaign this weekend. It’s your duty! Meanwhile, how about some naked hypocrisy? Meet Mrs. Carbon Sasquatch. But seriously, when you abandon hope and embrace genocide, do it thoughtfully. On that subject, here are some good ideas, bad ideas. Oh yeah, and buy my cousin’s book. And be sure not to miss the latest towering cinematic offering of the new Truffaut, the Dissident Frogman’s Islamic Rage Boy epic, 72 Virgins. Everyone likes a show. No show without Punch!
Topics: Iraq, al qaeda, military
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:40 am on Thursday, July 26, 2007
24 Responses to “Cracking Elusive AQI Nut(s)”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:59 am
If we had instead lost 35 KIA to AQI’s two in that firefight, would the AP agit-prop machine have cranked out a story about the resilience of America’s presence in Iraq?
July 26th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
This is really important work you are doing, Jules. Many people complain about the “MSM” but you are providing great analysis, with clear evidence, of exactly how things are being skewed. Really useful, and heartening.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I agree with Sarah, Jules, and again I thank you. We complain a lot about the coverage, mainly about the majority class of journalists. But that isn’t the whole story. We are able to know the good, the bad and the ugly about this war only because of a handful of true reporters.
It is sad, and to the everlasting shame of those pros who seem not to understand that it is their job to report the news, that amateur outsiders, be they bloggers or members of the military, have had to take on the job of reporting to their fellow Americans.
As iffy as the situation in Iraq is, I begin to have some hope–tempered by the knowledge that too many in Congress (re)lives in the “quagmire” of Viet Nam.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Too bad the bad guys in Iraq don’t get the latst wingnut talking points, eh, salty?
That way they’d know what to call themselves.
July 26th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Then you’d know, by name, who to cheer for, al-Phie.
July 26th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
So, alph…you’ve come by yet another blog to drop your rancid little pellets.
Folks, alph is a troll of the first order. Beware of responding, he/she’ll just gobble bandwidth without adding one whit to the discussion. Please don’t feed.
Trust me, you want him/her gone.
July 26th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
“Too bad the bad guys in Iraq don’t get the latst wingnut talking points, eh, salty?”
Yes, it is. Because we do know that they watch the American MSM. We know this because the enemy reference MSM narratives in its propaganda, refers to specific journalists, and borrow phrases from Western media.
And what, if they read this story would they learn? They would learn from this story that the loss of 40+ of thier comrades proved that America was close to the breaking point, that Americans had come to fear the fighting spirit and determination of the Islamist fighters, and if they could only achieve a few more ‘victories’ like the one describe that they might achieve victory.
Isn’t that what you believe?
July 26th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Maybe they could start calling themselves “WMD” so the whole fiasco could be justified, stumbley?
July 26th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Is Everybody in al Qaeda This Stupid?
With the Taliban on the verge of murdering 22 more civilian hostages, even as it releases propaganda videos where they pretend they call off attacks because of too many civilians in the area, I thought I’d bring you up to…
July 26th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
The Talibs are smart enough to know their target audience in America, Rusty. There’s a post from one right above yours.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
I don’t think the Taliban give a rat’s ass what Americans think, Jeffy.
We’re just another paper tiger to them.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Alphie, when they show up to take out your rat’s ass, it’s because I sent them your way. Hope you don’t mind. And if you do, well I don’t care what you think.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
The Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to us after 9/11, Forbes.
Too bad we turned them down.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I dunno, Crittenden, please explain why we went into Iraq to overtopple the Sunnis, and now we’re worried about saving their sorry asses.
Ya know, if you don’t know what yer fightin’ for, you’ll probably get somethin’ else.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Speak for yourself, surrender monkey. The Talibs, like AQI, know the war can only be won in America with the help of useful idiots such as yourself. More than obliged, aincha?
July 26th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Wrong, al-Phie. They offered to try Osama in an Islamic court if we turned over all of our intel and evidence to them. Like that’s gonna fucking happen.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/index.html
July 26th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
‘The Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to us after 9/11, Forbes.
Too bad we turned them down.’
Every time I think this moron has benchmarked his stupidity, he finds a way to simultaneously raise the bar and meet it. The above statements are so ignorant that if they came from anyone else, I’d immediately assume they were tongue in cheek. Yet with this guy, my first assumption is that this is actually something he believes.
I’ve said this before and another poster notes it above - this moron offers absolutely nothing but noise to any discussion he wanders into. Other sites have had enough of him and banned him. Jules should do the same. It’s inevitable. Why wait?
July 26th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Yes, they would have tried him first, jeffy.
Then either turned him over to us or executed him.
The juiciness of our intel, having failed to prevent 9/11, is doubtful.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Assuming a guilty verdict, that is, about as likely as John Kerry actually eating that bowl of chili he and the missus got at Wendy’s. So let’s recap:
* We turn over scads of intel to a pack of theocrats from the 7th Century;
* They spend months combing through the Koran and hadiths to see if their “guest” violated something when he massacred the infidels;
* They put on a show trial where they expose our intel and methods to the entire world;
* Then they acquit the defendant because the dead were, after all, only kaffir;
* Finally, they use our intel to slaughter the few resources we have in Afghanistan.
Just brilliant, al-Phie. When the mufti overseeing Osama’s trial demands expanded discovery, do we let him and his jihadis depose the DCA, too? Maybe let them all traipse through the CIA for a few days?
Just when you’ve said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin;.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Why you guys want to ban Alphie? How else you going to know what and how they think? is ‘think’ the right word? Emote? Rationalize? Whatever.
I like to read lefty trolls on good sites much more than anything else. I feel it helps me to predict the next round of moonbattery. It’s clear that global warmening is in its death throes, so what’s next?
Pay attention to the Alphies and you’ll get advance warning. Whatever new lunacy he espouses has a good chance of being the next new thing that requires hatred of America, freedom and liberty and vast new government programs to implement the said new lunacy.
So I say three cheers for Alphie.
July 27th, 2007 at 11:30 am
[...] has the story of a meeting engagement between 9 US soldiers in two HMMWV’s and 40-odd al Qaeda jihadists - goombahs described by [...]
July 27th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
We’re just another paper tiger to them.
Thank to people like you of course.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I see Alphie is lying again.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:51 am
“I see Alphie is lying as always.”
Fixed that for you.