The Iraq War Narrative is Slowly Changing

I came across a new article in the New York Times on the nationalities of the foreign suicide bombers who have been streaming into Iraq over the last few years:

Foreign Fighters in Iraq Are Tied to Allies of U.S.

By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Published: November 22, 2007

BAGHDAD — Saudi Arabia and Libya, both considered allies by the United States in its fight against terrorism, were the source of about 60 percent of the foreign fighters who came to Iraq in the past year to serve as suicide bombers or to facilitate other attacks, according to senior American military officials.

Where the Fighters Are Coming From The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid’s target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq.

The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006.

Here is a graphic showing the geographic breakdown of where they are coming from:


Nothing new here, except that the number from North African countries (like Libya) is higher than previously thought. To me, the most interesting thing about the article is its hesitation to name these suicide bombers as the foot soldiers of al Qaeda. The reporter tip-toes around the issue by first briefly associating them with the "homegrown" organization Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and then quickly assuring its worried liberal readership that this organization claims only a "loose" association with Osama bin Laden.

A loose association? Here is an article from back in June that provides some context:

Al-Qaida front group airs video glorifying Osama bin Laden

BAGHDAD: An al-Qaida front group aired a nearly hour-long video Friday showing dozens of masked men singing religious and patriotic songs and brandishing automatic weapons as they praised Osama bin Laden and the leader of the Taliban.

The Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group that includes the terror network, included footage with excerpts from old speeches by the al-Qaida leader and slain al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who died a year ago Thursday in a U.S. airstrike northeast of Baghdad.
...
"Our leader bin Laden, with power of faith, made America tremble .. Our Emir Mullah Omar .. We destroyed America .. Baghdad, the cradle of esteem, is calling on us .. hurry up to head for paradise . we are the soldiers of God," the militants chanted.

This article refers to the Islamic State of Iraq, which is the umbrella organization that includes Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (which, outside of the New York Times, is usually called Al Qaeda in Iraq). An informative Wikipedia article about these organizations can be found here. But my point is that the "loose association" to which the New York Times refers seems pretty tight to me. And unlike me, the New York Times reporter offers no evidence to justify his claim that the association is loose.

The New York Times has often tried to minimize the role of al Qaeda in Iraq, so their painfully slow awakening to the issue is not really all that surprising. In contrast to them, other left wing outlets are finally starting to get the details right. For example, a reader sent this link to a story in the far left Mother Jones magazine. The article is dripping with standard anti-Bush snottiness (they have to keep their readership up, after all), but it gets the story of al Qaeda in Iraq exactly right (down to the gory details):

Al Qaeda in Iraq: Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Bush administration propaganda notwithstanding, Al Qaeda was not a factor in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. But it is now—and any withdrawal plan needs to deal with the demons we helped create.

Actually, al Qaeda itself decided to declare war on America in Iraq. Bush did not force them to do that. They made a strategic decision -- a brilliant one -- according to which an engineered civil war in Iraq would cause the American public to start clamoring for a troop withdrawal. They knew that if they could fill TV screens with the blood of innocent Iraqis, America would surrender and then venomously attack its own president (while scarcely saving any outrage for al Qaeda itself). It is frightening to think how close al Qaeda came to realizing this evil, but brilliant, vision. It's an even more frightening awakening when you, yourself, realize that you were one of al Qaeda's pawns (if, that is, you have been demanding a troop withdrawal). Let me repeat that: if you wanted our troops withdrawn when George Bush ordered a troop surge, you were an unwilling pawn of the terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11. If Osama bin Laden could have a conversation with you, he'd undoubtedly say "good doggie!"

In any case, I blame al Qaeda for what al Qaeda did, but you are certainly free to blame George Bush for what al Qaeda did. Who gets the blame does not really matter all that much (although I know it matters a lot to you if you hate Bush, so go for it). Regardless of who you blame, here is what happened in Iraq, according Mother Jones:

Before joining forces with bin Laden, Zarqawi's group, though only a relatively small part of the overall insurgency, undertook a series of strategically significant operations that deterred the international community from taking on a greater role in stabilizing Iraq. In August 2003 his group bombed the Jordanian embassy and the United Nations' headquarters in Baghdad, killing the U.N. special envoy to Iraq and prompting the United Nations to withdraw. And in November 2003, one of Zarqawi's suicide bombers killed 19 Italians, mostly paramilitary police, in the southeastern town of Nasiriya. Zarqawi's ability to deploy suicide bombers allowed his organization to launch more ambitious attacks than other insurgent groups and was a key contribution to Iraq's slide into chaos.

But Zarqawi's biggest impact in Iraq was in provoking sectarian warfare between its Sunni and Shiite communities. On August 30, 2003, his group exploded a massive car bomb outside a Shiite mosque in Najaf that killed 125, including one of Iraq's top Shiite clerics, Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim. In early 2004, the U.S. military released a letter it said had been written by Zarqawi to Al Qaeda associates that noted that provoking Shiite attacks on Sunnis was crucial to bolstering the Sunni insurgency. Sunnis in Iraq, the letter stated, "have little expertise or experience" in fighting and "for this reason…most of the groups are working in isolation with no political horizon." It went on, "The Shia in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting them and hitting them in [their] religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their hidden rancor. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger and annihilating death at the hands [of the Shia]."

Zarqawi's strategy to attack the Shiites—which was continued by his successor Abu Ayyub al-Masri after he was killed in June 2006—has, unfortunately, proven wildly successful. The tipping point in the slide toward full-blown civil war was the February 2006 attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a sacred shrine for the Shiites, which triggered a more intense cycle of sectarian strife that has killed tens of thousands and caused more than a million to flee their homes. According to the U.S. military, that attack was masterminded by Haythem Sabah al-Badri, a former member of Saddam's Republican Guard who joined Al Qaeda after the U.S invasion and rose to become the Al Qaeda leader for the Samarra area. Badri was killed in a U.S. air strike in August.

By George, I think he's got it! However, completely missing from this article is any analysis of the role played by Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army. As you know (but only if you read my blog), the Mahdi Army started its anti-Sunni execution campaign in Baghdad in an effort to put a stop to the relentless mass-casualty suicide bombings orchestrated by al Qaeda. As I explained in great detail here, that campaign succeeded where the U.S. military campaign against al Qaeda had failed. The detailed quantitative analysis I provided is unknown to anyone who does not read my blog. It amazes me that it has not been figured out by anyone else, but it someday will be as the false "civil war" scenario that previously clouded thinking about Iraq slowly fades away. In fact, here is the liberal BBC getting the outlines of the overall story exactly right. In the part of the story discussing al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army, it says this:

"There is no part of Baghdad in which al-Qaeda has a stronghold any more," said Brig-Gen Joseph Fil, commander of the Multinational Forces in Baghdad.

"But Baghdad is a dangerous place. Al-Qaeda, although on the ropes, is not finished by any means. They could come back swinging if they're allowed to, in fact, we've seen it," he added.
...
Markets in Baghdad are said to be booming now security is better

But there is no doubt that it has lost out massively in Baghdad.

One resident of the mainly-Sunni area of Dora, in the south of the capital, summed it up.

"The Islamic State in Iraq (the umbrella name adopted by al-Qaeda groups) used to control most of the area like a phantom presence. I know Shia shopkeepers who were shot dead in their shops."

"They put up notices warning people to wear strict Islamic dress. Everybody was frightened. When we called the police to report bodies on the street, they said it was a no-go area and they couldn't come."

"Now, the Islamic State elements have disappeared. Shops have reopened. My daughter can walk to school without wearing a headscarf. Some Shias who fled have come back. And most important of all, we haven't heard of anybody being killed since July."

The setback dealt to al-Qaeda and affiliates has had a knock-on effect in the Shia communities too.

The often massive, indiscriminate bomb attacks for which they were blamed, and which used to hit Shia areas on a daily basis, have now become a rarity.

The huge drop in bomb attacks has removed one of the main raisons d'etre for the Mehdi Army, the most active Shia militia in Baghdad.

Since neither the state nor the coalition forces had been able to stop the bomb attacks before, the Mehdi Army could pose as the only saviour of the Shias from slaughter at the hands of fanatical Sunni extremists.

Well, as I showed in my quantitative analysis, they did not merely "pose" as the savior of Shias. They actually were the saviors. Now, U.S. soldiers (with crucial help from Sunnis) are doing the job, but only because George Bush ordered the troop surge.

The world is awakening to the truth about Iraq. Al Qaeda was the main cause of violence there (by far), and the apparent defeat of al Qaeda is the main reason why violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. If you are still a left-wing denier of the central role played by al Qaeda in Iraq (because, in your mind, it's all so "complex"), then you don't really have any way to conceptualize the drop in violence (which is why you don't believe the good news will continue). But if al Qaeda can be kept at bay, the good news will continue. And whether or not Iraqi leaders pass the political benchmarks, al Qaeda has suffered a defeat of historic proportions. In addition, Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror (because nearly 100% of its population now hates terrorism in general and al Qaeda in particular). I hope the Shiites and Sunnis don't decide to fight it out down the line, but that's their business. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. For their own sake (but not so much for our sake), let's hope they decide to take a big drink.

UPDATE: The Shiites and Sunnis were supposed to be in a civil war against each other, and the US invasion was supposed to do nothing more than create more terrorists around the world. Here is how things are going in Iraq now:

29 killed as Sunnis, Shiites battle al Qaeda in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Al Qaeda in Iraq insurgents disguised as members of a Sunni alliance council attacked the council's headquarters outside Baghdad on Thursday, leaving at least 18 people dead, police said.

Another gunbattle involving al Qaeda in Iraq militants, in a Shiite village near Baquba, left 11 people dead, eight of them insurgents, police said.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is not dead yet, but the Shiites and Sunnis are united against them (and united with us). Go figure.

Meanwhile, the English version of al Jazeera reports this news:

Iraqi refugees 'returning home'

About 1,600 Iraqis who fled the violence in their country are returning home every day, according to Abdul Samad Sultan, the country's displacement and migration minister.

The Iraqi government has suggested some of the estimated four million people displaced are heading back because of an improvement in the security situation in recent months.

However, international aid agencies said the number of people being displaced in Iraq still exceeds the number of returnees.

I seriously doubt that last point given the overall low level of violence (and the so-called "aid agencies" are not even named), but there seems to be no doubt that Iraqis are flooding back home now that al Qaeda is being taken out of the equation.