Posts Tagged ‘iraq’

al Qeada and a loss of morale

Tuesday, May 27th, 2008

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt has an interview with Lawrence Wright from Friday with more on this subject.

The Democrats are convinced the war in Iraq is either lost or not worth winning. Obama says we are “not safer.” The leaders of al Qeada may not agree with him and there are signs of dissension and even a loss of morale. This essay by Lawrence Wright, author of The Looming Tower and an expert on radical Islam, is well worth the time to read it.

The two principle characters in the essay are Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s second in command, and another radical physician and spiritual guide of radical Islamists who calls himself “Dr Fadl.” His premise was developed in the Afghan war against the Soviets.

In Peshawar, Fadl devoted himself to formalizing the rules of holy war. The jihadis needed a text that would school them in the proper way to fight battles whose real objective was not victory over the Soviets but martyrdom and eternal salvation. “The Essential Guide for Preparation” appeared in 1988, as the Afghan jihad was winding down. It quickly became one of the most important texts in the jihadis’ training.

The “Guide” begins with the premise that jihad is the natural state of Islam. Muslims must always be in conflict with nonbelievers, Fadl asserts, resorting to peace only in moments of abject weakness. Because jihad is, above all, a religious exercise, there are divine rewards to be gained. He who gives money for jihad will be compensated in Heaven, but not as much as the person who acts. The greatest prize goes to the martyr.

Things may have changed.

Last May, a fax arrived at the London office of the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al Awsat from a shadowy figure in the radical Islamist movement who went by many names. Born Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, he was the former leader of the Egyptian terrorist group Al Jihad, and known to those in the underground mainly as Dr. Fadl. Twenty years ago, he wrote two of the most important books in modern Islamist discourse; Al Qaeda used them to indoctrinate recruits and justify killing. Now Fadl was announcing a new book, rejecting Al Qaeda’s violence. “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that,” Fadl wrote in his fax, which was sent from Tora Prison, in Egypt. Fadl’s fax confirmed rumors that imprisoned leaders of Al Jihad were part of a trend in which former terrorists renounced violence.

His defection posed a terrible threat to the radical Islamists, because he directly challenged their authority. “There is a form of obedience that is greater than the obedience accorded to any leader, namely, obedience to God and His Messenger,” Fadl wrote, claiming that hundreds of Egyptian jihadists from various factions had endorsed his position.

What is going on ? Maybe the Iraq War, and the Afghanistan campaign are winning the war on Islamism. They did not expect the response they got from us. Also, the rejection al Qeada has suffered from the ordinary people in Iraq, who want peace and who are horrified at the tactics of the vicious boys recruited by Islamist leaders in Iraq, may have shaken their confidence. At least the confidence of those who are not complete sociopaths, like Zawahiri.

This may be a trend. His conclusions ?

It is, of course, unlikely that Al Qaeda will voluntarily follow the example of the Islamist Group and Zawahiri’s own organization, Al Jihad, and revise its violent strategy. But it is clear that radical Islam is confronting a rebellion within its ranks, one that Zawahiri and the leaders of Al Qaeda are poorly equipped to respond to. Radical Islam began as a spiritual call to the Muslim world to unify and strengthen itself through holy warfare. For the dreamers who long to institute God’s justice on earth, Fadl’s revisions represent a substantial moral challenge. But for the young nihilists who are joining the Al Qaeda movement for their own reasons—revenge, boredom, or a desire for adventure—the quarrels of the philosophers will have little meaning.

Those of his interlocutors ?

“Dr. Fadl’s revisions and Zawahiri’s response show that the movement is disintegrating,” Karam Zuhdy, the Islamic Group leader, told me one afternoon, in his modest apartment in Alexandria. He is a striking figure, fifty-six years old, with blond hair and black eyebrows. His daughter, who is four, wrapped herself around his leg as an old black-and-white Egyptian movie played silently on a television. Such movies provide a glimpse of a more tolerant and hopeful time, before Egypt took its dark turn into revolution and Islamist violence. I asked Zuhdy how his country might have been different if he and his colleagues had never chosen the bloody path. “It would have been a lot better now,” he admitted. “Our opting for violence encouraged Al Jihad to emerge.” He even suggested that, had the Islamists not murdered Sadat thirty years ago, there would be peace today between the Palestinians and the Israelis. He quoted the Prophet Muhammad: “Only what benefits people stays on the earth.”“It’s very easy to start violence,” Zuhdy said. “Peace is much more difficult.”

Now, for what Bush got right

Saturday, April 26th, 2008

I’m not happy with Bush on the domestic front but he did get one thing right; the Iraq War. As I get farther into the Doug Feith book, it is apparent that most of the folklore about how we came to invade Iraq is wrong. Time will take care of most of that although the fact that most historians are leftist politically may delay the final reckoning. Maybe when the climate turns colder, they will begin to doubt a few of the liberal pieties that so consume them.

Anyway, Bush has made huge gains with our allies in Asia as a result of America’s steadfastness in prosecuting the war. That is all the result of Bush having the courage of his convictions. The next president could screw it up but we are probably so far along that not even Obama could lose it.

A look at Lanny Davis’s Huffington Post piece is reassuring on that score. If Hillary does pull it off, she will cause the black vote to stay home. If Obama wins the nomination, the Reagan Democrats will return to the fold.

Hopefully, our victory in Iraq is secure.

The New York Times cannot tell the truth.

Saturday, April 19th, 2008

The Times is so hostile to the Iraq War, and the president, that it has been waging a campaign in its news coverage. One example, is in today’s paper. It says:

There has been heated debate since the start of the war about the nature of the threat in Iraq. The Bush administration has long portrayed the fight as part of a broader battle against Islamic terrorists. Opponents of the war accuse the administration of deliberately blurring the distinction between the Sept. 11 attackers and anti-American forces in Iraq.

I am currently reading the Douglas Feith book, War and Decision in which he discusses what was known and how the decisions were made to respond to 9/11. It is clear that they did not at first know who the planners were but everyone assumed it was Usama bin Laden and al Qeada. They had been at war with us for years and we had made ineffective pin pricks as our only response. As time went on and al Qeada records were captured in Afghanistan, it became clear that Iraq was NOT part of that conspiracy. However, they had to decide what to do with Saddam. He was hostile and had WMD (chemical) that he had already used on enemies (the Iranians) and on his own people (the Kurds). He was evading the cease fire terms that had ended the First Gulf War and  was shooting at US and British planes that enforced the “no-fly zone.

The Times is so desperate to discredit the war we are now fighting in Iraq, they lie about who the enemy is.

The entity Mr. McCain was referring to — Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, also known as Al Qaeda in Iraq — did not exist until after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. The most recent National Intelligence Estimates consider it the most potent offshoot of Al Qaeda proper, the group led by Osama bin Laden that is now believed to be based on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

This is true and we have always known it although Zarkawi is known to have lived openly, and therefore with the approval of Saddam, before the invasion. He later became the leader of al Qeada in Iraq until we killed him. He was a Jordanian.

It is a largely homegrown and loosely organized group of Sunni Arabs that, according to the official American military view that Mr. McCain endorses, is led at least in part by foreign operatives and receives fighters, financing and direction from senior Qaeda leaders.

This first clause is not true. The Sunni insurgency is now ended except for a few terrorists who fight for money and not ideology, similar to the gangs that infest Los Angeles. The suicide bombers, the last and most difficult to eliminate, are nearly all foreigners, some exceptions being involuntary such as the mentally retarded women who were blown up in a pet market in Baghdad a month ago.

The Times even   twists its news coverage to emphasize the negative.   Michael Gordon is a respected reporter but his editors in New York decide where, and with what emphasis, his stories are placed in the paper.

Juan Cole is a far left professor who was turned down as a possible department chair at Yale. He is a ferocious critic of the war and therefore a favorite of the far-left. Here he is as the sole authority for the Tmes.

But some students of the insurgency say Mr. McCain is making a dangerous generalization. “The U.S. has not been fighting Al Qaeda, it’s been fighting Iraqis,” said Juan Cole, a fierce critic of the war who is the author of “Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi’ite Islam” and a professor of history at the University of Michigan. A member of Al Qaeda “is technically defined as someone who pledges fealty to Osama bin Laden and is given a terror operation to carry out. It’s kind of like the Mafia,” Mr. Cole said. “You make your bones, and you’re loyal to a capo. And I don’t know if anyone in Iraq quite fits that technical definition.”

That is simply not true. The leaders of the Islamists know what the Times is saying and try to help by inventing names to suggest they are correct. They made up a person called Omar al Baghdadi to make it seem as though the insurgency was homegrown. And the Times fell for it. Of course, the wish is often father to the thought.

Anyway, don’t believe what you read in the Times. Maybe that’s why their stock has fallen by 2/3 since the war began.

You saw it here first

Sunday, April 13th, 2008

Today on Meet the Press, James Carville suggested General Zinni as a potential Obama VP candidate. You saw it here first.

Senator Rockefeller doesn’t know this

Saturday, April 12th, 2008

Senator Rockefeller, a left wing Senator from West Virginia who never served in the military, accused Senator McCain of ” dropp[ing] laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet in Vietnam. The fact that laser guided missiles had not been invented when John McCain was shot down in 1967 was only a slight impediment to Senator Standard Oil’s fantasy. However, in the interest of education, I thought I would offer to show Senator Rockefeller what laser guided missiles look like in action.

Enjoy.

A few bits about our military

Friday, April 11th, 2008

This letter by an Australian soldier is nice as it gives an image of our military that we don’t often see. Too bad so many people in this country can’t see it.

This video of the new prosthetic arm that has been invented for wounded soldiers is fantastic.

Just a couple of things of interest.

Then, there is an explanation by someone who really knows and has no political ambitions although, if he did, I would be a contributer, just as I am now.   Then, of course, there are the silly vanities of the left who know nothing of the military or any serious institution.

The last goalpost

Thursday, April 10th, 2008

UPDATE # 3 The London Times acknowledges that the Iraqi Army has cleared Bsra of militias and wonders why Maliki won when the British Army couldn’t.

UPDATE #2: The Iraqi Army has now rescued a kidnapped British journalist who had had been held two months by Shia gangs. It looks like they are still cleaning out Basra and Kevin got his hopes for defeat up too soon. This report also contradicts the defeat lobby.

UPDATE: Mickey Kaus Fisks that NYT report that got Kevin Drum so excited and it looks like the Times was wishing too much and reporting too little. Poor Kevin.

This could be the last goalpost in Iraq. If Sadr disbands the Mahdi Army, the civil war may be over. Maliki has stood up to the militias and the Sunnis are ready to join the government in earnest. Kevin Drum will be terribly disappointed.

McCain, Iraq and Iran

Wednesday, April 9th, 2008

The Democrats seem to be pursuing a strategy of implying that Senator McCain is getting senile. They tried it with Reagan and it backfired in one debate. The latest is a series of statements disputing a comment McCain allegedly made confusing Sunni and Shia. Everybody paying attention knows that al Qeada is Sunni and Iran is Shia. The subtleties of radical jihadism seems to have eluded the masterminds of the Democratic Party. We know that the new chair of the House Intelligence Committee, a Democrat from Texas, doesn’t know the difference between the two divisions of Islam. If you look at his website, it’s easy to learn what is important.

4/2/2008 – The federal government has awarded more than $1 million in federal funds to the El Paso community for programs at UTEP, the El Paso Collaborative, and the Opportunity Center for the Homeless.

The issue is whether Iran is assisting the al Qeada Sunni terrorists in their war against us. The NY Sun   agrees with McCain. Certainly, we know that Iran assisted al Qeada fugitives when they were fleeing from Afghanistan after we defeated them and the Taliban in 2002. The NY Times, true to its agenda of opposing the war, attacks McCain for “misspeaking.”

This report from 2005 on connections between Iraq and Afghanistan attacks does not mention how the jihadis travel between Iraq and Afghanistan. Do they fly ? What is between Iraq and Afghanistan ? Iran.

In 1996, after the Taliban seized power, Osama bin Laden relocated to Afghanistan where he established a number of terrorist training camps. Al-Qaeda training attracted a steady stream of young Islamists, many of whom transited Iran. While Iranian border officials normally stamp passports, they made an exception for many Al-Qaeda terrorists. The 9-11 Commission explained how this facilitated Al-Qaeda operations.

The 9/11 Commission seemed to think Iran and al Qeada cooperated.

Between 1991 and 1996, Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan where he was protected by Hassan Abdullah at-Turabi, the leader of Sudan’s National Islamic Front, an Islamist movement. According to the 9-11 Commission, Sudanese officials facilitated meetings between al-Qaeda operatives and Iranian officials, a relationship which blossomed into tactical training: Turabi sought to persuade Shiites and Sunnis to put aside their divisions and join against the common enemy. In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives.

In the fall of 1993, another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983. The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations.

So who is senile ? McCain or the people who get their intelligence from the NY Times?

The return of appeasement

Monday, April 7th, 2008

Candidate Obama says he is in favor of withdrawal from Iraq in spite of the consequences although he recently said he would want to keep a “strike force” ready, presumably to reinvade if necessary. The theoretical basis for this sort of thing seems to be coming from the leftist blogosphere and an entire generation of isolationists and appeasers. A common theme is hatred of “neocons.”
International Herald Tribune columnist Roger Cohen, for instance, notes that “neocon has morphed into an all-purpose insult for anyone who still believes that American power is inextricable from global stability and still thinks the muscular anti-totalitarian U.S. interventionism that brought down Slobodan Milosevic has a place, and still argues, like Christopher Hitchens, that ousting Saddam Hussein put the United States ‘on the right side of history.’

The theory seems to be proclaimed in a book by Matt Yglesias. The similarity to the 1930s is striking.

The long tradition of liberal anti-totalitarianism thus appears to have come to an end, at least in mainstream political rhetoric. What about human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch? Largely staffed by leftists, these days they escape the neoconservative charge because they generally presume moral equivalence between democracies and anti-American thuggocracies. Amnesty, for instance, has referred to Guantánamo as a “gulag” and Human Rights Watch has issued more press releases about the lack of gay rights in the United States than any other country on earth.

Iran, of course “has no gays” so it is not a problem there. Only here.

We’ll see how it plays out over the next six months. If the American people are ready to retreat from the world, Obama will be the next president.

McCain genes breed true

Saturday, April 5th, 2008

John McCain was not my candidate this year although I worked for his primary campaign in 2000. Immigration and campaign finance reform were two reasons. One reason to support him is the family genes he carries. His father and grandfather were Navy admirals. Now, his son, in his inimitable way, is carrying on the family tradition in more ways than one. Even through their anti-war sniffpeckery, you can hear the NY Times reporters trying to understand this kid and respecting him tremendously. He sounds like presidential material in about 2027 to me.