Zawahiri spells it out
My friend at CENTCOM sends word of this along, and for those precious few well-meaning liberal ostriches out there, it’s a must-read. Unfortunately, for those same ostriches it’ll also end up as a won’t-listen, or so I’d guess:
Zawahiri clearly is worried they (al Qaeda – ed) are losing public support in Iraq, and is attuned to the role of the media in the battle for such support. Zawahiri emphasizes that the struggle is ideological, with each side competing for the popular support and loyalty of the Muslim world. Zarqawi’s methods are backfiring by alienating the Iraqi people with attacks against the Shia.
Quote: “…[W]e will see that the strongest weapon which the Mujahidin enjoy…is popular support from the Muslim masses in Iraq , and the surrounding Muslim countries. So, we must maintain this support as best we can, and we should strive to increase it…”
“…I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our nation.”
Even the terrorists know that there’s only one way for them to win this war — and the Left/media Axis of Weasels* is their one true hope for victory.
Just don’t question their patriotism, ‘kay? They hate it when you do that.
*As opposed to the old-guard EUrabian one, which seems to have just about shot its wad with the arrest of one of their noble number, with (hopefully) plenty more to follow
- Entries
Which they don't.
It's only become fashionable since the opening of the Iraq campaign for liberals to claim that they were for taking the war to the terrorists by taking out the state sponsors of terrorism in Afghanistan, the Taliban, all along; at the time, they (and, I suspect, you) squealed like stuck pigs over it, and even used several of the same tired Vietnam-rehash arguments against it that you did when we finally, belatedly went after Saddam. If you don't believe me, there's over four years' worth of posts in the archives here complaining about that very thing, with plenty of quotes from anti-war liberals to make the case; in fact, my fear and outrage that liberal-Democrat appeasement would govern our response to 9/11 is the reason I started this site in the first place. It's surely too bad things have come to this pass, but liberals can't espouse a foolish and inconsistent pacifism and then turn around and hope to be thought of as national-defense hawks too.
If they aren't, I'll be seriously surprised.
Military force is not infinitely fungible.
You can't use armor or mech infantry in Afghanistan. Even artillery has a limited use.
Those who say that Iraq drained resources that would help us in Afghanistan either know better, or they don't. In the first case....
"Iraq wouldn’t have been converted to the terrorist haven it is now,"
Could you please remind me when Zarqawi arrived in Iraq, and where he arrived from?
Also, does the name Abu Nidal mean anything to you?
Most everyone I hang around with feels the same way as I do vis a vis the Afghanistan war. I myself haven't encountered anyone who was flat-out against it. That person would have a hard time convincing me that it wasn't warranted.
I would like to see those links you mentioned, because based on what I've read, intelligence assets and special forces, at least, were being drawn down in Afghanistan and sent over to Iraq when the buildup for that operation was underway.
"Could you please remind me when Zarqawi arrived in Iraq, and where he arrived from?
Also, does the name Abu Nidal mean anything to you?"
Would you be trying to argue that Iraq isn't a bigger terrorist haven because of our actions? Before the war there were a few Ansar al Islam camps being run in northern Iraq, but that's about the extent of it. Now the entire country (minus, perhaps, the Green Zone) is terrorism central. You can bet that hands-on clinics are going on right now all over the country, teaching everything from building IED's (advanced class: how to build shaped charges) to kidnapping, assassinations, and who knows what else. And upon graduation these terrorists will slip back over the porous border to their home countries where they can put into practice what they've learned. It's far worse situation now than at any time in the past.
Afghanistan is primarily a Special Forces/Air campaign. Iraq is a much more conventional campaign, being centered around armor/mech. infantry forces, with of course Air support.
As for the effects of that campaign, I trust Micheal Yon's analysis much more than I trust yours.
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/
Why don't you go read the reports of someone that's actually been outside the Baghdad Hilton, instead of the amazingly simple minded garbage you've so obviously ingested until now?
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/10/battle-for-mosul-iv.html
Money shot:
"When I first stepped off the plane in Iraq, the three most dangerous places were Baghdad, Al Anbar province, and Mosul. Somewhere in the span of nine months Mosul fell off that list."
Now get thee hence and don't come back until you're educated!
"Would you be trying to argue that Iraq isn’t a bigger terrorist haven because of our actions?"
No. But when you state that if we hadn't invaded, "Iraq wouldn't have been converted to the terrorist haven it is now", it is reasonable to read your words as implying it wasn't a haven before the invasion that did the converting.
So I thought it appropriate to point out that the al Qaeda operative heading up the fight against us over there arrived in Iraq, having fled our forces in Afghanistan, in 2002. I think it's also relevant that Iraq was already a haven for some already-famous terrorists, of whom I picked just one.
Now why would you read that as denying that terrorist operations there have intensified since, and as a result of, our invasion? Of course they have. It's the idea that things would have been better if we'd just left Iraq alone, that I dispute.
"Before the war there were a few Ansar al Islam camps being run in northern Iraq, but that’s about the extent of it."
Oh! Just a few Ansar al Islam camps. Geez, and I thought Iraq had been a state sponsor of terrorism; don't I feel stupid. Listen: At those training camps, what do you think they were they being trained to do?
"Now the entire country (minus, perhaps, the Green Zone) is terrorism central."
You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. As I read it from people in the know, some parts of the country are indeed terrorism central; others are relatively peaceful. I suppose now you'll ask if I'm denying the chaos and carnage in Iraq, but remember: "entire country" was your choice of words.
Off-topic, Gradus, can I just ask: Did you take your handle from Pale Fire?
Heh. Good one, Fabio.
And not much of a haven, then, is it, Gradus?
You're going to split hairs on me, eh? Ok. For the few hundred Ansar Al Islam members in the mountains of northern Iraq, it was a secure place for them. A mini-haven, if you will. The main reason they existed is that the no-fly zone prevented Saddam's forces from going in there and clearing them out. Now there are many areas throughout nearly the whole of the country that provide a haven for tens of thousands of insurgents/terrorists. It's a matter of scale.
As for the flypaper strategy several people have mentioned here... There was a study done that found that Saudi fighters who joined the insurgency were radicalized by the invasion, and would likely not have become terrorists had it not happened. We're creating more terrorists by our invading and occupying a Muslim nation than we can possibly kill.
And yes, I took my handle from Pale Fire... I'm a big Nabokov fan.