Two Experts Weigh in on the Subject of Iraq

Hugh Hewitt just posted a long interview with New York Times reporter John Burns. Who is he? I'd like to make that clear before I summarize what he had to say. Here is the Wikipedia entry about the man:

John F. Burns (born October 4, 1944) is an American journalist, winner of two Pulitzer Prizes. He gives international reporting for The New York Times and frequently appears on PBS.

Born in Nottingham, England, his family emigrated to Canada when he was young where he later studied at McGill University. In the early 1970s, Burns wrote for the Canadian (Toronto-based) newspaper Globe and Mail, covering both local stories and later serving as a China correspondent. Burns joined The New York Times in 1975 and has written since for that publication. He has been assigned to and headed several of the Times foreign bureaus. He along with fellow Times journalists John Darnton and Michael T. Kaufman won the 1978 George Polk Award for foreign reporting for coverage of Africa. Burns was also the Times bureau chief in Moscow from 1981 to 1984.

In 1986, while chief of the Times Beijing bureau, Burns was incarcerated on suspicion of espionage by the Chinese government. Charges were dropped after an investigation, but Burns was subsequently expelled from the country. Burns was awarded the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting citing "his courageous and thorough coverage of the destruction of Sarajevo and the barbarous killings in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina." Burns's reporting in Bosnia and Herzegovina was criticized in 2007 for using sources who later recanted their claims. [1]

Burns received his second Pulitzer in 1997, this time "For his courageous and insightful coverage of the harrowing regime imposed on Afghanistan by the Taliban." Burns was based in Baghdad during the lead up to the Iraq war in 2003 and has written extensively on the war and the subsequent occupation. In July 2007, Burns will succeed Alan Cowell as bureau chief in London. In September 2007, Burns will receive the Elijah Parish Lovejoy Award as well as an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Colby College.

As you can see, John Burns is an extremely prominent reporter for the New York Times, having won two Pulitzer Prizes (along with many other awards) and having served brilliantly in Africa, Russia, China, Europe and, now, Iraq. He spends a lot of time in Iraq these days, so his opinion matters. What amazed me about his interview with Hugh Hewitt was the casual, almost matter-of-fact, way that he describes the situation in Iraq with respect to al Qaeda. This is the key issue of the day because clarity on this point is going to determine what happens in Iraq. Burns understands the issue so well that he discusses it as if it were obvious (which it is). Still, many on the left will deny that al Qaeda is a big problem in Iraq, and their denial is going to increase as we get closer to the day when General Petreaus testifies to Congress (in mid-September).

Here is Burns on the state of the surge:

JB: I think there’s no doubt that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference. They’re definitely making a difference in Baghdad. Some of the crucial indicators of the war, metrics as the American command calls them, have moved in a positive direction from the American, and dare I say the Iraqi point of view, fewer car bombs, fewer bombs in general, lower levels of civilian casualties, quite remarkably lower levels of civilian casualties.

Tomorrow, I'll bring you a casualty update for the month of July. As you know, for the month of June, overall casualties in Iraq were down by 30% relative to the prior 7-month period (during which time casualties were high and stable). In July, they will be down by 12% or 13% compared to that 7-month period. Not as good as June, but progress is evident.

Here is Burns getting to the issue of al Qaeda in Iraq:

HH: Speaking more broadly now, in the American higher command, is there optimism that the surge, given enough time, will bring the kind of stability to Iraq that we all hope it achieves?

JB: You know, optimism is a word which is rarely used around here. The word they would use is realism. You have to look at what the plan is. The plan is that with the surge, aimed primarily at al Qaeda, who are responsible for most of the spectacular attacks, the major suicide bombings, for example, that have driven the sectarian warfare here, the belief is, or the hope is, that with the surge, they can knock al Qaeda back, they can clear areas which have been virtually sanctuaries for al Qaeda, northeast, south, west and northwest of Baghdad, and in Baghdad itself, and then have Iraqi troops move in behind them.

Can you see how Burns has casually packed into his response the analysis that I have been harping on for almost a year now? (a) Al Qaeda is responsible for the major suicide bombings, (b) these suicide bombing have driven sectarian warfare (i.e., the goal is incite civil war, not win a civil war), and (c) the major goal of the troop surge is to defeat al Qaeda in Iraq. This is not arguable, but our Democrat leaders will just ignore all of this or will explicitly deny it. When they do, you should ask yourself this question: who is the "John Burns" for them? That is, who is the credible analyst that offers support for their eerie code of silence on the issue of al Qaeda in Iraq?

Here is more from the interview:

HH: HH: Now John Burns, a military historian was writing this week that he fears a Tet-like offensive by al Qaeda’s fighters, as well as perhaps radical Shiia militias prior to the Petraeus report. Have you heard warnings or concerns about such a thing?
...
JB: Yeah, it’s not an original thought. As a matter of fact, it’s a thought we've heard expressed by General Petraeus and other commanders here, and you don't have to be a crystal ball gazer or a seer to understand the risks in that. Indeed, there have been one or two attempts to pull off exactly that. The fear has been among the generals here that a major, spectacular attack, aimed for example at the Green Zone, the government and military command complex in the center of Baghdad, of the kinds that was mounted during the Tet offensive when, as you'll recall, Viet Cong or North Vietnamese troops got right inside the American embassy. That kind of attack would have an…whatever its consequences here, would have an enormous impact and possibly fatal impact from the American military point of view on the balance of opinion in the Congress.

I've got news for you: the Tet offensive is underway. In July, al Qaeda's suicide bombers had what may be their best month ever in terms of inflicting civilian casualties (as I'll detail tomorrow). If it happens again in August, the Democrats will be emboldened in their demands that we immediately surrender to the terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11.

Or do you think it is a completely different terrorist organization, one that we need not worry about? Many Democrats will try to make this claim. Here is what John Burns says about this:

HH: In his recent speech in Charleston, President Bush argued that to withdraw would be to empower al Qaeda in Anbar Province, and to allow them to set up a base there. What do you make of that projection, John Burns?

JB: Well, I think it’s self-evident. Whatever we may make of the original intent of coming here, if the United States did not have a problem with Islamic extremism in Iraq before 2003, it certainly does now. You only have to look at the pronouncements of Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahiri, his deputy, to see that they regard Iraq now as being, if you will, the front line of the Islamic militant battle against the West. And so if American troops were withdrawn, I think that there would be a very serious risk that large parts of this country will fall under the sway of al Qaeda linked groups.
...
HH: Now given that you covered Afghanistan from the Taliban era, would they have a greater lethality anchored in Iraq than they did when they were anchored in Afghanistan, John Burns, al Qaeda I mean?
...
JB: I would say it would probably be greater, and for these reasons. Let’s remember that the Afghanistan, that was a sanctuary for al Qaeda and bin Laden, is a very, very underdeveloped, I dare say primitive country. Iraq is not. Iraq is a country that had and potentially still has a major industrial base, it has among Middle Eastern countries one of the most highly educated corps of scientists and engineers, people who were on their way, certainly in the early 1990’s, to developing nuclear weapons, even if that program, as we now know, fell by the wayside after the first Gulf War. Many of these people have left, but would some of them come back? You would then have to add to that the fact that this is an oil country, which even in the situation of a civil war, is exporting billions of dollars of oil to the world, and could potentially export much more. So I would say add to that the question of geography. We’re a thousand miles closer here in Baghdad to Western Europe and the United States than Mr. bin Laden and his followers were when they were in Afghanistan. So I think yes, it could be a serious problem.

Any questions?

Another serious analyst of Iraq, one who has actually been to Iraq (and just returned), is Michael O'Hanlon of the relatively liberal Brookings Institution. Here is some information about him:

Michael E. O'Hanlon
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair

Expertise
Arms treaties; Asian security issues; Homeland security; Iraq policy; Military technology; Missile defense; North Korea policy; Peacekeeping operations; Taiwan policy, military analysis; U.S. defense strategy and budget

Current Projects
Taiwan Strait military issues; Iraq and North Korea Policy; defense strategy and budgeting; homeland security

Education
Ph.D. (1991), M.A. (1988), M.S.E. (1987), A.B. (1982), Princeton University

Background
Current Position(s): Visiting Lecturer, Princeton University

Previous Position(s):
Defense and Foreign Policy Analyst, National Security Division, Congressional Budget Office (1989-94); Research Assistant, Institute for Defense Analyses; Peace Corps Volunteer, Congo

In short, he has a Ph.D. from Princeton University, and he is a former Peace Corps Volunteer in the Congo. He also heads up the incredibly detailed Iraq Index. It is, by far, the most detailed compilation of military and economic statistics about the situation in Iraq. O'Hanlon may know more about what is happening in Iraq than any other American. You might think that this is an overstatement, but go read the Iraq Index before you formulate an opinion about that.

All of this is just background about the authority of the person who just wrote a column for the New York Times, one that you should definitely read. Here is some it:

A War We Just Might Win

By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Published: July 30, 2007

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
...
In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

There's that talk about al Qaeda again, as if al Qaeda in Iraq is not just a figment of George Bush's imagination. As if al Qaeda in Iraq really is the enemy.

Who am I? Nobody, really. I have no special expertise or training on the subject of Iraq. And I've never been there. John Burns and Michael O'Hanlon have incredible expertise, and both have been there. So don't believe me. Believe them instead. And when critics of the surge deny that we are in a war against al Qaeda in Iraq (instead, it's all just a big ol' civil war), ask to see the credentials of the analyst who supports that unsustainable point of view.

UPDATE: Michael Yon just interviewed General Petraeus, and you'll see that the general offers the exact same analysis of al Qaeda in Iraq that John Burns (and yours truly) advocate (AQI = al Qaeda in Iraq):

I asked General Petraeus last night for his opinion of the current situation. General Petraeus responded with: "Our assessment at this point is that we have begun to achieve a degree of momentum on the ground in going after AQI sanctuaries and in disrupting the activities of some of the militia extremists; however, AQI continues to try to reignite ethno-sectarian violence and clearly still has the capability to carry out sensational attacks that cause substantial civilian loss of life. And the militia elements certainly continue to pursue sectarian displacement in certain fault-line areas and to cause trouble in some Shia provinces as well. So there’s clearly considerable work to be done by Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces. Beyond that, the spread of Sunni Arab rejection of AQI is very important and is a development on which we are still trying to capitalize beyond Anbar Province, where the effects are already very clear."

Everyone who examines the relevant evidence comes to the same conclusion. Either that, or we have a new vast right wing conspiracy on our hands.

Understanding the Suicide Bombers of Iraq

As President Bush and General Petraeus try to clarify the role of al Qaeda in Iraq, others are sure to claim that this is just a feeble and deliberately misleading attempt to justify Bush's misbegotten adventure in Iraq. Who has the better argument? The more I think about, the more I realize that the key to understanding what is happening in Iraq involves understanding the suicide bombers of Iraq. Here are some questions (and some answers) about that:

1. Who are the suicide bombers of Iraq? Are they foreigners, or are they Iraqis? This is the key question.

Answer: 80% to 90% of them are foreigners. [source: U.S. military, independent mainstream media reports]

2. If they are foreign fighters, why are they coming to Iraq? To join the Sunnis in their civil war against the Shiites?

Answer: no, they are coming to wage jihad against Americans. [source: mainstream media reports]

3. If they are coming to join the jihad against Americans, why are they killing so many Shiite civilians?

Answer: they are directed to kill Shiites to provoke a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis in Iraq. [source: intercepted letter written by former head of al Qaeda in Iraq, Zarqawi]

4. How many Shiites and other civilians do these foreign suicide bombers kill every month? This is another key question because many claim (rightly) that they are small in number, as if that implies they are a minor force in a much more complicated "insurgency."

Answer: Between 200 and 400 innocent civilians (out of roughly 1500 civilians killed) every month. In July so far, the number is approximately 450. [source: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count]

5. What is the organization that brings these suicide bombers to Iraq, equips them, and then sends them on their missions to kill Shiites?

Answer: al Qaeda [source: U.S. military, independent mainstream media reports]

6. Why does al Qaeda want to provoke a civil war?

Answer: because they can't defeat the U.S. military directly, nor can they directly stop progress by attacking Iraqi security forces. Thus, their plan is to render the Americans irrelevant and bring down the Shiite-led Iraqi government by sowing the seeds of chaos. That is the environment in which al Qaeda believes it can thrive. [source: intercepted letter written by former head of al Qaeda in Iraq, Zarqawi]

As you can see, some of the evidence I cite comes from mainstream media reports. I do not find these reports to be more credible than the information provided by the U.S. military, but, if you are on the left, you might. Below, I cite 3 mainstream media articles about the suicide bombers of Iraq. I have cited two of these before, but I discovered a new one a few days ago (which set the occasion for this post). The first article listed below profiles a Saudi suicide bomber (this is the new article), the second profiles an Iraqi suicide bomber (yes, some of the suicide bombers are Iraqi), and the third provides an overview of the suicide bombers of Iraq (mostly, they are Saudis).

If you pay careful attention, you might notice a common denominator in these 3 articles. Specifically, they all refer to the organization that is responsible for bringing the suicide bombers to Iraq and for directing them once they are there. That organization is al Qaeda.

As you read through these articles, think about this question: does it make sense to assume that foreign suicide bombers are being funneled into Iraq by al Qaeda just to participate in Iraq's civil war? Or does it make more sense to assume that al Qaeda is focusing its resources on Iraq for a different reason (such as the reason they, themselves, give for doing that)?

To me, this is an easy question to answer, but you might not even think to ask it if you don't realize that the large majority of the suicide bombers are foreign. In fact, if you are on the left, you might even be reluctant to believe that they are largely foreign because, in your view, you are a such a good lie detector that you believe you have caught the U.S. military in a brazen lie about this. To you (perhaps), the suicide bombers are just indigenous Iraqis caught up in a civil war, and the U.S. military is falsely claiming that these killers are foreign fighters just to hype the al Qaeda threat. If that's what you think, you should read through these articles, which were not written by the U.S. military.

Here is my collection of 3 independent mainstream media articles on the suicide bombers of Iraq (with the third being the most informative). One other thing to note about these articles: the people they highlight are all deeply religious. You might have inferred that already, but it is interesting to see it confirmed in these reports. Also worth noting is the fact that the jihadists almost never admit to killing Muslim civilians even though that's what al Qaeda sends them to do (mostly). As I have noted before, the suicide bombers themselves are motivated to kill Americans, so that's what jihadist web sites emphasize (not the fact that they actually target Muslim civilians and their places of worship):

1. case study of a reluctant Saudi suicide bomber (he survived his attack):

Truck bomber turns against jihad in Iraq

Disfigured and feeling cheated, Saudi denounces al-Qaida mind-set

July 29, 2007

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - The last time Ahmed al-Shayea was in the news, he was in the hospital at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, being treated for severe burns from the truck bomb he had driven into the Iraqi capital on Christmas Day, 2004.
...
At the time he was first approached to join the insurgency, al-Shayea was already becoming a devout Muslim in his ultraconservative town of Buraida. He grew a beard, prayed five times a day and stopped listening to Arabic love songs he used to enjoy. He was 19 and jobless.

Then he was contacted by a school friend whom he doesn't identify.

“My friend started telling me about Iraq, how Muslims are getting killed there and how we should go there for jihad,” said al-Shayea. “He told me there were fatwas (edicts) and DVDs issued by Saudi and Iraqi clergymen that called for jihad.”

“We didn’t think of jihad as something that would lead to our death. It was a fight against occupiers,” said al-Shayea.

Finally the friend told him he was going to Iraq, and invited al-Shayea to join him.
...
He and his friend flew to Syria, a favored transit point for Iraq-bound fighters because Syria doesn't ask visiting Arabs for visas, and its 360-mile border with Iraq is thinly policed. A network of al-Qaida operatives sheltered him in Damascus, Aleppo and the border town of Abu-Kamal, and about two weeks later he and 23 other men were smuggled into Iraq.

Four Iraqi teenagers guided them to the Iraqi border town of al-Qaim. They saw Syrian border guards in the distance who fired in the air. “They didn’t try to stop us. We were already in Iraq,” al-Shayea said.

At al-Qaim, the men were split into two groups. Al-Shayea said his group of 12 met an al-Qaida leader who had direct links with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida chief in Iraq who was later killed by a U.S. airstrike. He took the men’s money and gave each $100.

2. Case study of an Iraqi suicide bomber:

Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber

Sunday, Jun. 26, 2005
By APARISIM GHOSH / BAGHDAD
...
At 20, Marwan is already a battle-hardened insurgent, a jihadi foot soldier in Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi's terrorist group, al-Qaeda in Iraq. Like the bulk of insurgents, he is a Sunni Muslim from the former ruling minority community. In his hometown, Fallujah, he is known for his ferociousness in battle and deep religiosity.
...
The sincerity of his desire to make himself a "martyr" was attested to by several figures-- a member of his organization, al-Qaeda in Iraq; a Baghdad-area commander of an insurgent unit that provides logistical support for al-Qaeda bombers; and a Sunni imam who is sometimes brought in to counsel bombers during their premission spiritual "purification"--whom TIME consulted through Iraqis with contacts inside the insurgency. His account provides a rare glimpse into the mind-set and preparation of one aspiring suicide bomber.
...
Marwan seems certain he is on a "pure" path. Unlike many other insurgents, who reject the terrorist label and call themselves freedom fighters or holy warriors, Marwan embraces it. "Yes, I am a terrorist," he says. "Write that down: I admit I am a terrorist. [The Koran] says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim." He quotes lines from the surah known as Al-Anfal, or the Spoils of War: "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
...
"It doesn't matter whether people know what I did," he says. "The only person who matters is Allah--and the only question he will ask me is 'How many infidels did you kill?'"

3. A more general account of the suicide bombers of Iraq:

'Martyrs' In Iraq Mostly Saudis
Web Sites Track Suicide Bombings

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 15, 2005; Page A01

Before Hadi bin Mubarak Qahtani exploded himself into an anonymous fireball, he was young and interested only in "fooling around."

Like many Saudis, he was said to have experienced a religious awakening after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and dedicated himself to Allah, inspired by "the holy attack that demolished the foolish infidel Americans and caused many young men to awaken from their deep sleep," according to a posting on a jihadist Web site.

On April 11, he died as a suicide bomber, part of a coordinated insurgent attack on a U.S. Marine base in the western Iraq city of Qaim. Just two days later, "the Martyrdom" of Hadi bin Mubarak Qahtani was announced on the Internet, the latest requiem for a young Saudi man who had clamored to follow "those 19 heroes" of Sept. 11 and had found in Iraq an accessible way to die.

Hundreds of similar accounts of suicide bombers are featured on the rapidly proliferating array of Web sites run by radical Islamists, online celebrations of death that offer a wealth of information about an otherwise shadowy foe at a time when U.S. military officials say that foreign fighters constitute a growing and particularly deadly percentage of the Iraqi insurgency.
...
Who are the suicide bombers of Iraq? By the radicals' account, they are an internationalist brigade of Arabs, with the largest share in the online lists from Saudi Arabia and a significant minority from other countries on Iraq's borders, such as Syria and Kuwait. The roster of the dead on just one extremist Web site reviewed by The Washington Post runs to nearly 250 names...
...
Many of the Arabs, according to the postings, were drawn to fight in Iraq under the banner of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the group run by Jordanian militant Abu Musab Zarqawi that has taken credit for a gruesome series of beheadings, kidnappings and suicide attacks -- many of them filmed and then disseminated on the Internet in a convergence between the electronic jihad and the real-life war.

The suicide bombers of Iraq are foreigners (mostly), and they are killing between 200 and 400 civilians every month. They are doing that for some reason, and they are supported by some organization. When you discover the reason for their actions and the organization that supports them, you'll understand Iraq a lot better than you do now.

Iraq has been a Propaganda Disaster for al Qaeda

Did you know that the Pew Research Center just released a new poll of how Muslims feel about Osama bin Laden and his penchant for intentionally slaughtering innocent civilians using suicide bombers? The results are worth noting because it is often said that Bush's invasion of Iraq has been a propaganda boon to al Qaeda. For example, in an article in May/June 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, Bruce Reidel said:

The U.S invasion of Iraq and the chaos that followed were a boon to al Qaeda's propaganda efforts, as they offered tangible evidence, al Qaeda's leaders could argue, both that Washington had imperialist plans and that the jihad against U.S. forces was working.

In an article in the New Republic, Bradford Plumer said:

There's a broad consensus among terrorism experts that the GOP's signature policy issue--the Iraq war--has been a boon to Al Qaeda.

At Truthout.org, Robert Parry said:

Cheney surely knows that U.S. intelligence analysts have reached the opposite conclusions on both points - that there was no operational relationship between Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda...and that the U.S. occupation of Iraq has been a boon to al-Qaeda that the terrorist group wants to extend, not end.

And in the Washington Post, Richard Cohen said:

As for terrorism, the president made no mention of the apparent fact that the war in Iraq has proved a boon to terrorists. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the war has been a recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

The invasion of Iraq has, indeed, served as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, but it has been a propaganda disaster for them nonetheless. Many have overlooked this key point because they are so myopically focused on the fact that our invasion has caused religiously deranged fanatics from throughout the Muslim world to pack their suicide belts and head off to confront the Great Satan in Iraq. But when they get there, al Qaeda sends them to slaughter innocent Shiite civilians instead, and that has cost al Qaeda dearly. Just look at the Pew polling figures for confidence in Osama bin Laden in 2003 (the year in which the U.S. invaded Iraq) compared to 2007:


Does that look like a propaganda victory to you? According to opponents of the invasion of Iraq, it wasn't supposed to happen this way. Instead, the invasion was supposed to inflame the passions of the Muslim world and push them closer to al Qaeda. Instead, they have turned against al Qaeda. They have also turned increasingly against al Qaeda's method of fighting their war against America, which consists of suicide bombings that target innocent civilians:


Can you imagine how interested the mainstream media would be in these results if the trends had gone in the opposite direction (like they were supposed to, darn it all)? Very, very interested. But because the results went the opposite way, it is a minor curiosity to them, and I suspect that most people are unaware of the trends. But regardless of what news professionals think, it is major news. The whole idea behind the invasion of Iraq was to turn the Muslim world against terror by offering democracy to them. As it turns out, they are turning against terror because of the methods used by al Qaeda to evict American forces from Iraq. It wasn't supposed to happen this way, but it is happening.

This is important to think about because, to my way of thinking, these poll results clarify the difference between the left and right on an extremely important issue. I believe that the thinking of those on the left is nicely summarized by this quote from Richard Clarke in his book Against All Enemies:

We and our values needed to be more appealing to Muslims than al Qaeda is. Far from addressing the popular appeal of the enemy that attacked us, Bush handed that enemy precisely what it wanted and needed, proof that America was at war with Islam, that we were the new Crusaders come to occupy Muslim land."

According to this way of thinking, the idea to get the Muslims to like us, hopefully more than they like al Qaeda. I think that might be why so many on the left seem to favor the Palestinians in their dispute with Israel (note that the Palestinians are still in love with Osama bin laden). Whether or not that is true, I do not know why people think it is important to "win the hearts and minds" of the Muslim world. So long as we support Israel's right to exist, the Muslim world will hate us, and that's fine with me. We don't need them to like us (much as I would like them to) any more than we need the French to like us. What we need is for the Muslim world to turn against terrorism, and that is precisely what has been happening since our invasion of Iraq.

But try to imagine what these poll results will show if al Qaeda succeeds in its efforts to defeat America in Iraq (i.e., if the Democrats get their way). That will be a real propaganda boon, the very propaganda boon that many on the left think they have detected all along. If, on the other hand, al Qaeda fails to achieve its objectives in Iraq, its reputation throughout the Muslim world is likely to sink even farther than it already has. They will have slaughtered thousands of Muslims and destroyed many of their mosques, all for naught. It will be their Vietnam.

You can blame Bush all you want, but the choice now is to surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq or to stay until they are defeated. To help you think through the consequences for al Qaeda, I'll quote from two sources that those on the left generally regard as credible. First, if we choose to lose by withdrawing our troops now, the Iraq Study Group depicted the consequences this way:

Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world.
...
Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory.

That's what a propaganda boon to al Qaeda will look like, and I further predict that the next Pew poll would show al Qaeda's standing to be massively elevated throughout the Muslim world. On the other hand, if we remain in Iraq until al Qaeda is defeated (and the trends right now are certainly against them), the declassified National Intelligence Estimate that was once wildly celebrated by Democrats said this:

Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

And I further predict that al Qaeda's standing in the Muslim world would fall even more dramatically than it already has. How anyone can believe otherwise (e.g., that it will harm al Qaeda if we leave Iraq on their terms) is a real mystery to me.

The choice is pretty clear, and the consequences for al Qaeda seem pretty clear as well. Al Qaeda's war against America in Iraq has been a propaganda disaster for them, and it is sure to hurt their cause in the long term. The question now is whether you want to complete that process so that "...fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight" or to withdraw now so that al Qaeda can "...depict our withdrawal as a historic victory." That's your choice; take your pick.

Who Wins if we Lose in Iraq?

Peter Galbraith has a new article in which he says:

The Iraq war is lost. Of course, neither the President nor the war's intellectual architects are prepared to admit this.
...
Iraq after an American defeat will look very much like Iraq today—a land divided along ethnic lines into Arab and Kurdish states with a civil war being fought within its Arab part. Defeat is defined by America's failure to accomplish its objective of a self-sustaining, democratic, and unified Iraq. And that failure has already taken place, along with the increase of Iranian power in the region.

You can define defeat that way if you wish, but I don't. I hope the Iraqis choose not to have a civil war when we leave, but if they decide to kill each other until one side succumbs, that's their decision. And if that's how it turns out, it will mean that Bush's vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East was, at best, premature and, at worst, completely wrong-headed. But it won't mean that we lost any war. On this point, I even differ from Hugh Hewitt, who says:

Victory in Iraq --the creation of a stable, functioning representative government protected by a strong Iraqi military capable of and committed to the suppression of terrorism and sectarian violence-- would be a vindication of the Bush Doctrine, and although it would also be in the very best interests of the country as a whole, the left sees a political disaster in such an outcome, and has hence redoubled its efforts to tarnish not just the president who ordered the war, but also the generals who lead it, and the soldiers who fight it.

Such an outcome would, indeed, be a vindication of the Bush Doctrine, but, in my view, it is a mistake to equate that outcome with victory (and the absence of that outcome with defeat). Victory involves quashing an enemy upon whom we have declared war (e.q., the Iraqi army in 2003) or who has openly declared war on us (e.g., al Qaeda in Iraq in 2007).

Just to briefly recap the basics:

1. we invaded in Iraq to eliminate the WMDs we thought Saddam possessed and to offer democracy to that country (on the theory that this would help to counter the warped ideology that currently dominates the Middle East).

2. Saddam had no WMDs, and democracy was progressing in Iraq despite a low-level but futile insurgency waged by the former Baathists. Some called this a civil war.

3. then al Qaeda decided to wage war against America by sending their suicide bombers to Iraq. Once they did, everything changed (e.g., civilian casualties tripled), and we found ourselves in a new war against them, one that we will either win or lose.

Al Qaeda could have chosen to wage war against America in Afghanistan (which is where Democrats oddly think that all the "real terrorists" are), but they didn't. They chose Iraq instead, and that's why dozens of foreign suicide bombers stream into that country (not Afghanistan) every month. Their brutal but ingenious method is to slaughter innocent Shiites and destroy their mosques because the ensuing chaos demoralizes Americans and suits al Qaeda's jihadist objectives. Once you appreciate this, you realize that defeat is defined not by Iraq's failure to embrace democracy but by America's armed forces being evicted from Iraq by al Qaeda's suicide bombers.

The most interesting point Gailbraith makes -- the one that most reveals what I consider to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening in Iraq -- is this:

But there will be no Saigon moment in Iraq. Iraq's Shiite-led government is in no danger of losing the civil war to al-Qaeda, or a more inclusive Sunni front. Iraq's Shiites are three times as numerous as Iraq's Sunni Arabs; they dominate Iraq's military and police and have a powerful ally in neighboring Iran.

Implicit in this claim is the mistaken belief that al Qaeda is on one side of this civil war (namely, the Sunni side). I have long marveled at how critics of the war in Iraq are stuck in the civil-war quagmire. As I have mentioned many times before, and as Zarqawi clearly explained in his intercepted letter, al Qaeda is not fighting on one side of this civil war. This is true even though al Qaeda and their foreign suicide bombers are made up of Sunnis and even though they are, in fact, killing Shiites in large numbers. Instead of fighting on one side of the Sunni-Shiite civil war, al Qaeda's goal is to incite civil war. That is, they attack Shiites and their mosques, not to defeat them, but to provoke the Shiite militias into killing Sunnis. Why? Because they know that it will cause people like Galbraith to join the likes of Harry Reid in declaring that this war is lost. Sadly, they are right about that. In a post from almost a year ago, I called this the world's most dangerous theory:

One of the more strategically important reasons to liberate Iraq was to eliminate, once and for all, a theory once shared by the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other tyrants in the Middle East. According to that theory, America is a paper tiger that will crumble in the face of adversity. As such, its mighty military need not be feared.
...
After 9/11, I thought that this theory would be put to rest forever. But it is not so. In fact, I'm stunned at how accurately Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein sized up approximately 45% of the American public. A much higher percentage of our population is willing to reinforce that dangerous theory about America than I ever thought possible. They want to withdraw from Iraq now that the going is tough, and they want to treat captured terrorists like favored guests at a tea party. That's precisely the America that Osama bin Laden thought he detected, and it is the world's most dangerous theory.

It might also turn out to be the world's most accurate theory, but the last chapter of the story has not yet been written.

Galbraith has the wrong idea about al Qaeda in Iraq, but he is not quite as misguided as the mainstream media is:

Media Derides Bush Focus On Al Qaeda

To considerable skepticism from the media and Hill Democrats, President Bush yesterday made the case that Al Qaeda In Iraq and the terror network that attacked the US on 9/11 are closely connected.
...
The AP says Bush presented his case "in broad strokes," and goes on to assert that despite Bush's argument, "Al Qaeda had no active cells in Iraq when the US invaded in March 2003, and its operation" in Iraq "is much larger now than before the war, US intelligence officers say." UPI runs a similar, brief dispatch on Bush's comments yesterday. MSNBC's Hardball called Bush's speech "one of the most provocative...of his presidency." He spoke "about al Qaeda, the terrorist organization that attacked America on 9/11. Today...Bush said that some group -- the same group, is making its stand not in Pakistan but in Iraq." The Washington Post also casts doubt on Bush's conclusions, noting "Democrats and others" instead believe "al-Qaeda is not running the war" in Iraq, "but is instead benefiting from it."
...
The New York Times says Democrats "accused Mr. Bush of overstating" the ties between Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Iraq "to provide a basis for continuing the American presence in Iraq." The Los Angeles Times notes Sen. John Kerry called Bush's case "a phony argument," and said that 'the principal threat' in Iraq is not Al Qaeda but a civil war that pits Sunni against Shiite and an Iraqi government that is not joining the fight."

Isn't that just amazing? The evidence supporting Bush's position on al Qaeda in Iraq is absolutely overwhelming, and I have been making the case on this blog for a long time before Bush or the U.S. military started to make the case publicly. If you have any doubt about the strength of that case, please read through my detailed posts here, here and here. I know perfectly well that you are not actually going to read them, but you should at least know that a mountain of relevant evidence is reviewed in those posts. By contrast, the evidence weighing against Bush's position is non-existent. All you really have on that side of the debate is expressions of skepticism. Haven't you noticed that?

Why do Democrats and reporters keep pointing out that al Qaeda is a bigger problem in Iraq because of our presence there? Obviously, al Qaeda's presence in Iraq is much larger than it was before we invaded. That's because al Qaeda has declared war on us there. In a similar way, our own military presence in Iraq is much greater than it once was because we declared war on Iraq's army. That's how it works when one side declares war on another. They send their armies to fight. After that happens, one side usually wins and the other side usually loses. Is this complicated?

I assume that Democrats and reporters say things like that because they believe that listeners will reason as follows:

"Gee. If al Qaeda increased their presence in Iraq because our soldiers are there, maybe they'll simply decrease their presence and become less of a problem if we just leave."

Is that what you think? If so, you should spell out the rationale behind this fantasy (one that no Democrat will actually spell out for you). Al Qaeda does not share this rosy analysis. Instead, they have detailed plans for Iraq, and I'd like to know who you think is going to stop them. After all, right now, 160,000 American troops, the Shiite militias and the Sunni tribes of the Anbar Province are all fighting against al Qaeda in Iraq. Despite that, their suicide bombers kill hundreds of Iraqis every single month (including this month, unfortunately). The idea that al Qaeda will run short of suicide bombers when we hand them a propaganda victory of historic proportions is not credible. Unless we withdraw completely, which no one is recommending, we will still have soldiers in Iraq drawing the jihadists like flies. And even if we did depart altogether, we'd still have soldiers in Afghanistan. The crazed jihadists do not make a big distinction between the two countries, so the primary motivator will still be there. Is there some fantasy according to which any of this is not true? If so, I'd like someone to spell it out for me. Better yet, I'd like someone to point me to the Democrat who has thought through these details and explained his or her vision of al Qaeda in post-withdrawal Iraq. Unfortunately (and incredibly), there are no such Democrats.

No blogging for a few days

I'll be away for the next 5 days or so, and I probably will not have internet access during that time. How will the world survive without my daily essays? The human species may soon find itself on the brink of extinction without my periodic pearls of wisdom, but fear not! I'll be back before you know it. The question is, will you be back? I guess I'll find out soon enough.

The Economics of the Euro Area

According to some economic statistics, the Euro Area is likely to do as well as the United States in 2007. This is major news because, ordinarily, there is simply no comparison. However, the Economist has a new article suggesting that Europe's recovery is unlikely to last without major reforms. Still, if you read the article, you could walk away with the impression that the Euro Area, despite its cloudy future, is currently doing much better than it really is relative to the U.S:

Unnoticed by the audience, Europe, under new political leadership first in Germany and Italy and now in France and Britain, has changed the plot. Since the end of 2006 euro-area GDP has outpaced America's: in 2007, it should grow by 2.7%, ahead of both America and Japan. The euro is at new highs against the dollar and the yen. Unemployment has fallen to 7%, the lowest since the euro started life in 1999.
...
In truth the picture of an entire continent in a slump was always distorted. Several countries in Europe have been doing well for some years. Britain and Spain have grown consistently. Ireland has produced the nearest thing to an economic miracle outside Asia; smaller east European economies are seeking to emulate it. Scandinavia boasts three countries that top most league tables for competitiveness.

Note that the source of the economic figures is not provided. By contrast, I always cite my sources (as I will again today). By doing so, I allow you to verify my claims for yourself. I don't know why reporters so rarely do that. Also, note the ever-changing comparison group. Initially, the reporter refers to the Euro Area (namely, the 13 nations that use the euro currency). Later, the reporter instead picks a few individual countries in Europe that happen to be doing well (Britain, Spain and Ireland). Britain is not even one of the 13 Euro Area countries.

Changing the comparison group does not make any sense, but reporters do it all the time. The trick is hard to notice, and it can always be used to make things appear to be better than they really are. That's because, on whatever economic measure you happen to be talking about at the moment, there is some European country that is doing well.

If you want to make a comparison to the American economy, you have to pick a comparison group (e.g., one particular European country, or the EU-4, or the 13 nations of the Euro Area, or the 27 nations of the European Union), stick to it, and then make a comparison based on multiple economic measures. That's the only way to get a clear picture of the relative economic performance of America vs. Europe. Curiously, reporters never do that, but I always do. Today, in response to this article in the Economist, I will use the Euro Area as a comparison group (and I'll stick to it and look at multiple economic indicators). As usual, my data source is the International Monetary Fund.

First, let's look at the percent change in GDP over the years, including projected values for 2007 and 2008:


The numbers are a bit variable (which makes trends a little hard to see), so let me show you the same figures averaged over 4-year blocks of time:


Does anything jump out at you? As you can see, growth in the U.S. almost always exceeds that in the Euro Area.

The reporter for the Economist says that GDP growth will be 2.7% for the Euro Area in 2007, but I don't know where he came up with that figure (and he does not say). The IMF predicts 2.3% growth in 2007, and that's the figure I used in these charts. But my main point is that no one can look at these charts and seriously suggest that the economic performance of the Euro Area is competitive with the economic performance of the U.S. (or that anything about the difference between them has been overblown). Averaged over the entire 16-year period (1992 to 2007), GDP growth in the Euro Area has been 1.96%. In the U.S., it has been 3.16%. Still, occasionally, the two areas grow at about the same rate, and that is likely to be true in 2007.

But even this does not tell the real story. The "percent change" measure is useful, and I refer to it all the time, but it can obscure what you really want to know. What you really want to know is how well the average person is doing in the two areas. For example, if everyone in the Euro Area was making 2 million dollars a year, whereas everyone in the U.S. was making $50,000 per year, who would really care that the percent increase is typically greater over here than it is over there? A 3% increase over $50,000 takes you to $51,500 (an increase of $1500), whereas a mere 2% increase over $2 million takes you to $2,040,000 (an increase of $40,000). In this example, a smaller percent increase for the richer individual actually leaves that individual much better off than the poorer individual who received a larger percent increase.

The reason why this is important is that, in truth, people in America generally experience larger percent increases in GDP and they make more money to begin with. When you put those two facts together, you realize that the percent change story told in the chart above is only half the story. To really see what is happening, you need to look at GDP per capita, which is a better indication of how the average person is doing:


This chart tells the real story. As you can see, the Euro Area is well behind the U.S., and the gap is growing considerably, not shrinking. This fact can be obscured by the otherwise useful percent increase measure. Consider the year 2007. The percent increase in GDP is likely to be about the same for the U.S. and the Euro Area in that year. However, because the U.S. economy is substantially larger, the absolute increase will still be larger for the U.S. that year. As such, the gap between Americans and Europeans on the per capita GDP measure will increase still further in 2007.

In 1992, the average American was about $5600 ahead of the average person in the Euro Area. This value has already been adjusted for inflation. In 2007, the difference had risen to more that $13,000 (and is likely to be almost $14,000 by 2008). That's how far behind the Euro Area is, and that's how much it has changed in a mere 16 years.

To better appreciate how far behind the Euro Area really is, let's assume that from 2008 on, GDP growth in percentage terms is .5% greater in the Euro area than it is in the U.S. I picked 2.7% growth in the Euro Area vs. 2.2% growth in the U.S. (every single year from now on). It is impossible to imagine that this will ever happen -- instead, growth in the U.S. is likely to generally exceed that in the Euro Area -- but let's assume that it will happen. Under those conditions, when would per capita GDP in Europe catch up to per capita GDP in America? In 2080:


Remember, this assumes that GDP growth will be .5% greater in the Euro Area than in the U.S. for more than 70 years in a row (2008 through 2080). Generally speaking, though, GDP growth in the Euro Area is about 2%, whereas it averages 3% in the U.S. What if that remains true until 2080? Here is what things would look like under that scenario:


Of course, Europeans are not stupid, and they can perform these calculations as easily as I can. Odds are, their economies will be structurally modified in due course to make them more competitive. In fact, the election of Sarkozy in France is a sign that the French are ready to reform. Still, no one should underestimate how very difficult it will be for them to catch up. Even that rosy unemployment story told by the Economist is not really that rosy:


As you can see, it's not much of a contest, although it is true that the Euro Area unemployment disaster is becoming less extreme relative to the U.S. as time goes by. But there is still a considerable difference.

My point is just that it is very easy for a reporter to write an article that makes it seem as though Europe's economy is suddenly competitive with the American economy even though it isn't. Still, this particular reporter is right about one thing: Europe's apparent economic recovery is not likely to last unless they make significant structural changes (ones that will make their social welfare states more like America's free market system):

The unpalatable truth remains that Europe's economies need substantial further reform if they are to prosper in an ever more competitive, globalised environment. And the recent upturn may make it harder for political leaders to get their voters to understand this.

Well, sooner or later, the Europeans will get the picture.

The Left Attacks General Petraeus

There is an amazing new column by Hugh Hewitt on his recent interview with General Petraeus. In it, he illustrates the reaction of left wing bloggers to that interview. Amazingly, instead of considering the facts and entertaining the possibility that what Petraeus says is true, they have decided, in their infinite wisdom, that the general has gone over to the "dark side" and is now part of the right wing noise machine. Here is some of what Hewitt says in his column (but you should really read the whole thing):

The decline of the leftwing netroots into one great, venomous snarl is far advanced, well-known, and much remarked upon by political observers from across the spectrum. But even given its deserved reputation for poisonous invective, the assault mounted against General David Petraeus surprises.
...
And any member of the military who speaks candidly about the necessity of victory and with confidence in our forces and with facts about their increasing success is going to get slimed by the extremists, even if it is General Petraeus. That’s just the cost of defending the country these days –exposure to all the many dangers war brings, and a relentless smear campaign from the very people you are keeping safe from terrorists and the religious extremists who would stone them the first week they had power over them.
...
The ear-splitting shrieks of outrage at General Petraeus’ interview with me should be a huge signal that this is what the anti-war extremists fear most: The calm presentation of facts at length by those in a position to know them, engaged in an interview the unpredictability of which makes the exchange interesting.

That seems right to me. And I can't help but think that if the Democratic leadership steps into the same swamp, they will pay a price. After all, here is the level of confidence the public has in congress:


And here is their level of confidence in the military:


I did find a different poll (without details) suggesting that most people don't trust what the military says about Iraq, and they trust the media even less than that. I suspect that they trust politicians still less, but the poll did not say. If so, they might not fully trust the military's assessment, but they probably trust it more than the assessment provided by anyone else (including Democrats, I would assume).

The Democrats are being maneuvered into openly endorsing their natural anti-military attitudes. Right now, their base appears to be rabidly anti-military, reflexively accusing General Petraeus of being a liar (even though all evidence clearly supports his position). I can't help but think this is a good thing. The Democrats are at their best when they are out of power, standing on the sidelines, constantly carping and saying "you're doing it wrong." If they embrace the anti-military stance of their rabid base, it seems reasonable to think that they might once again assume that role after the elections of 2008. Time will tell.

Charitable Giving by Americans, Part II

In an earlier post on charitable giving, I noted this snarky comment by a UN official:

In a news conference at U.N. headquarters in New York, Egeland called for a major international response -- and went so far as to call the U.S. government and others "stingy" on foreign aid in general.

I also showed this graph of direct foreign aid given out by various governments that seems to make us look quite stingy:


This is direct aid -- akin to welfare checks -- handed out to poorer nations of the world, and it is expressed as a percentage of each nation's GDP. Is it generous to give such aid? It might be generous, but it may not be very smart:

Economists see aid to poor nations as ineffective

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Aid to poor countries has little effect on economic growth, and policies that rely on such claims should be reexamined, two former International Monetary Fund economists wrote in a paper released this month.

"We find little evidence of a robust positive correlation between aid and growth," wrote Raghuram Rajan, who stepped down as IMF chief economist at the end of 2006, and Arvind Subramanian, who left the IMF this year, said.
...
"One of the most enduring and important questions in economics is whether foreign aid helps countries grow," they wrote.

"There is a moral imperative to this question: it is a travesty for so many countries to remain poor if a relatively small transfer of resources from rich countries could set them on the path to growth."

But if there is no clear evidence that aid boosts growth, then handing out more money makes little sense, they said.

In a telephone interview, Subramanian said the aid money would be better spent on a research and development fund to get the private sector to make products to help poor countries.

Private companies have little financial incentive to develop a malaria vaccine, for example, but if rich nations pledged to buy the product for impoverished countries, firms would be more inclined to invest in the research.

"The challenge is, how do you harness this good intention and good motives into better results?" Subramanian said.

I found their actual report here, and I read through it. I didn't understand everything in it, but they seem to be saying that direct foreign aid aid (i.e., the infusion of capital into a poor country) is not merely useless but is actually counterproductive. For example, they present evidence that the more aid a poor country receives over a 20-year period, the less its economy depends on manufacturing over that period. That's bad because an increase in manufacturing is almost always seen in poor countries that manage to achieve growth.

Why does foreign aid seem to have a negative effect on manufacturing? Because, they suggest, manufacturing is dependent on a government that functions well, and providing direct cash aid to poorly functioning governments reduces any incentive to perform better:

Here is where aid could hurt. By expanding a government’s resource envelope, aid reduces its need to explain its actions to citizens, which may reduce its need to govern well (Brautigam and Knack (2004)). In particular, the government could falter in its responsibilities to maintain rule of law, ensure a predictable judiciary and contract enforcement, and limit corruption.

And later they put it this way:...aid inflows reduce the need for governments to tax the governed or enlist their cooperation. Sounds pretty plausible -- almost obvious -- once it is pointed out.

As I indicated in my last post on this topic, foreign assistance amounts to much more than direct financial aid to poor nations, but liberals in general and the UN in particular generally focus on direct cash aid to make their cherished stinginess case. Here is how the Center for Global Development defines foreign aid more generally:

Rich and poor countries are linked in many ways—by foreign aid, commerce, migration, the environment, and military affairs. The Commitment to Development Index (CDI) rates 21 rich countries on how much they help poor countries build prosperity, good government, and security. Each rich country gets scores in seven policy areas, which are averaged for an overall score.

And here is the chart showing where the various countries of the world stand in this regard:


The United States falls in the middle range on this aggregate measure, but look at the top (dark purple) segment of each bar. That segment represents direct cash aid. Thus, the size of each purple segment pretty much corresponds to the direct cash aid chart shown above. The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway get high marks in direct aid in both charts (i.e., they are near the top of the first chart, and they have large dark purple segments in the second), but the U.S. and Japan get low marks in both. However, because direct aid is, if anything, harmful, that segment of the bar should actually be subtracted away. Once you lop off the top segment of each bar, things look a lot more equal.

Denmark, Norway and Sweden have their hearts in the right place, but their heads are in the wrong place. The U.S. approach to foreign aid tends not to rely much on direct cash assistance. As with welfare checks to individuals, that well-meaning approach has deleterious consequences for those receiving the aid. The U.S. learned this lesson with respect to welfare to individuals some time ago, and now everyone else is learning that a similar principle applies to direct foreign aid (according to the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, anyway).

All of this is worth keeping in mind the next time some self-righteous, starry eyed do-gooder idiotically declares that America is "stingy."

Suddenly, Everyone is Talking about al Qaeda in Iraq

It's odd, but for the longest time I felt like a lone voice in the wilderness hammering away on the idea that the problem in Iraq was mainly al Qaeda (yes, the same al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11). Back then, everyone else was suggesting that Iraq had simply fallen into a predictable state of civil war. The Democrats in particular were of this mind set, and they either ignored al Qaeda in Iraq altogether (which I repeatedly called the "eerie code of silence") or they explicitly denied that we are in a fight against al Qaeda (which I called the "eerie code of denial"). All of a sudden, everyone is talking about al Qaeda in Iraq, and as the obvious facts begin to break through the brick walls of silence and denial, Democrats are now scrambling to reframe the argument as best they can in their continuing effort to minimize the threat. Their initial attempt, back in November, flubbed badly, as this transcript of a response by Nancy Pelosi reveals:

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place fomented, in my opinion, because of these attacks by uh -- by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal.

THOMAS FERRARO, REUTERS: (INAUDIBLE) blame the surging violence in Iraq on al Qaeda deny the country is in the midst of a civil war?

NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE: My response on the president's representations are well known. But the 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again.

Note the complete absence of logic in her response. In this exchange, Bush said that, in 2006, al Qaeda is inciting sectarian violence, and Pelosi responds by saying (effectively) that it is simply not true because, before 2003, al Qaeda was not in Iraq. It is a non-sequitur that shows that Bush's factually accurate statement was news to her (so she was unprepared to respond in a coherent way).

The current variant of this way of thinking goes something like this:

The first, represented by many congressional Democrats, argues that it is past the time for America to leave. The best thing that could happen now is for the U.S. to pull out as quickly as possible, force the Iraqis to take control of their destinies and compel the oil-rich gulf states in the neighborhood to get off the sidelines. In this view, leaving Iraq would deny al-Qaeda its best recruiting tool, a large U.S. military presence in the Middle East.

You've probably heard that a lot. According to this way of thinking, al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we invaded, so the best thing we could do now would be to leave and deny them their best recruiting tool. The obvious response is contained in a report that Democrats usually praise, namely, the Iraq Study Group report. It said:

Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world. Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden, has declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda: they will seek to expel the Americans and then spread “the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.”
...
Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

What's that you said about our presence in Iraq serving as the best recruiting tool for al Qaeda? Now that we are there, it's actually our absence that would serve their purposes best (obviously). Or do you actually cling to the hope that a victory by al Qaeda over America in Iraq would be bad news for that terrorist organization? Al Qaeda certainly doesn't think so. Their stated goal is to evict America. What do you know that they don't?

Yet another floundering attempt to minimize the al Qaeda problem involves the claim that al Qaeda in Iraq -- which they suddenly prefer to call "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" now that they are finally talking about al Qaeda in Iraq -- is not really under the direction of the foreign al Qaeda organization headed by Osama bin Laden. A veritable mountain of evidence already disproves this escape maneuver, but this news from yesterday really blows a hole in it:

U.S.: Senior al Qaeda in Iraq leader held

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military on Wednesday announced the arrest of a senior leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, an insurgent who, the military said, is casting himself as a "conduit" between the top leaders of al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq.
...
"He served as the al Qaeda media emir for Baghdad and then was appointed the media emir for all of Iraq," said Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner, Multi-National Force-Iraq spokesman, who briefed reporters.
...
He said al-Mashadani is a close associate of al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri and served as an "intermediary" between al-Masri, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second-in-command of al Qaeda.

"In fact, communication between senior al Qaeda leadership and al-Masri frequently went through al-Mashadani," Bergner said.
...
Bergner emphasizes that that there is a "clear connection between al Qaeda in Iraq and al Qaeda senior leadership outside Iraq."

The arrest of al-Mashadani was announced amid controversy over President Bush's contention that al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq are one and the same. The evidence has been not been significant about the extent of the relationship.

The reporter's last point is mind boggling. The evidence has not been significant? If that's what you think, then you haven't been paying attention to the words of Osama bin Laden (al Qaeda's #1) or Zawahiri (al Qaeda's #2) or the Islamic State of Iraq (al Qaeda's main organization in Iraq). If you haven't been listening to them, at least you are in good company.

Still another escape maneuver on the part of Democrats involves the claim that we can withdraw most of our forces from Iraq and leave a few soldiers behind to effectively "fight terrorists" (though they won't say how many soldiers are needed). That really is what they claim, but the fact that they scarcely mention al Qaeda in Iraq (excuse me: al Qaeda in Mesopotamia -- must not associate the words "al Qaeda" and "Iraq") does not inspire confidence that they have carefully thought through the problem. A more knowledgeable person to ask about this particular idea is General Petraeus. In fact, Hugh Hewitt did just that in an interview yesterday (DP = David Patraeus):

HH: Some of the arguments about Iraq in the United States argue that it’s possible for American troops to withdraw to their bases and just strike at al Qaeda, sort of an Anbar only option, I guess. Does that make any sense to you at all, General Petraeus?

DP: Well, first of all, al Qaeda-Iraq is throughout pretty substantial parts of Iraq, and it is a significant enough network in capability that it is not going to be dealt with just by certainly, if you will, classical counterterrorist operations. Indeed, we are doing those. Our best operators in America and in the world are here in the largest number of anywhere in the world by several multiples, and conducting a very, very high operational tempo, and doing extraordinary operations. When I think back to the operations that we did, for example, going after war criminals in Bosnia, or something like that, you know, and one of those would be a big deal, and you'd dine off that for the next several months. On a nightly basis here, you know, ten or twelve serious operations are going down by those forces.

HH: Wow.

DP: And any one of those is far more significant than we conducted for decades. They are very sophisticated, very complex, very lethal sometimes, and very effective. Having said that, although they may be the most important operations, because they can take down, as they did the senior Iraqi leader in al Qaeda-Iraq, or kill the three al Turkey brothers, or what have you, it is also the weight of the operations conducted by the, if you will, the regular special forces, the Green Berets and the others that make up the special operations task force, and operate throughout the country as a very high operational tempo, and of our conventional forces. I mean, it is conventional forces who cleared Western Baquba. Certainly, augmented by, again, our special forces and our special mission unit elements, but they’re the ones that, you know, killed the 80 or 90 confirmed kill, and perhaps another 80 or so more, and captured a couple of hundred in addition to that as well. And they’re the ones who will hold that area against attempts that have already taken place by al Qaeda and their affiliates to try to get back into those neighborhoods.

In other words, "fighting terrorists" is what we are doing already at a high operational tempo with more than 150,000 troops. General Petraues is clearly (but diplomatically) saying that it is downright dopey to think that we can effectively fight al Qaeda in Iraq with just a few remaining forces in Iraq. But the Democrats are saying dopey things because they are not thinking through the details. Instead, they are simply emoting, and that's not very helpful in a time of war. Leaving a few troops behind to "fight terrorists" leaves behind the al Qaeda magnet (i.e., what the Democrats think of as al Qaeda's best recruiting tool) while reducing their ability to do anything about it. As the Iraq Study Group report indicated, a partial withdrawal will also serve to fire up Islamic jihadists around the globe. It's just a terrible idea. America needs to stay and fight or get out altogether. And if we get out altogether, we need to get out of Afghanistan as well (100%) because, if we don't, al Qaeda's "best" recruiting tool remains (i.e., the presence of U.S. troops on Muslim land).

By the way, that captured al Qaeda operative revealed some fascinating information about the Islamic State of Iraq. Democrats want to believe that this is mainly an Iraqi organization having nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. As it turns out, that's exactly what al Qaeda wanted everyone to believe:

Al Qaeda in Iraq Duped Into Following Foreigners, Captured Operative Says

By Fred W. Baker III
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 18, 2007 – A captured al Qaeda in Iraq leader has admitted the network’s followers have been duped into following the direction of foreign leaders, not Iraqis, a military spokesman in Baghdad said today.
Coalition forces captured Khalid Abdul Fatah Daud Mahmud al-Mashadani, thought to the most senior Iraqi in the al Qaeda in Iraq network, in Mosul on July 4, Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a spokesman for Multinational Force Iraq, said.

Bergner said Mashadani is in coalition forces custody and providing “significant insights” into the al Qaeda in Iraq network.

Mashadani, who rose through the al Qaeda network ranks directing media and communications operations, helped create a virtual organization, called the Islamic State of Iraq, on the Web in 2006, Bergner said.

It turns out, Bergner said, that the organization is simply a front for foreign influence into al Qaeda in Iraq. Mashadani partnered with Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born head of al Qaeda in Iraq. The two went as far as creating a fictitious leader, Umar al Baghdadi, as a symbolic political head the ISI, whose role is played by an actor. This allowed the two to work in conjunction with foreign leaders to funnel direction to al Qaeda in Iraq, while its followers believed they were following the directions of Iraqi leaders.

“The rank-and-file Iraqis in (al Qaeda in Iraq) believed they were following the Iraqi al Baghdadi, but all the while they have actually been following the orders of the Egyptian Abu Ayub al Masri,” Bergner said. “Mashadani has said in his own words that the Islamic State of Iraq should be free of foreign influence, but that is not the case.”

In fact, Bergner said, Masri relies solely on the direction of foreign leaders and doesn't trust or seek the advice of Iraqis in the network.

Isn't that amazing? Al Qaeda has been fooling jihadists in Iraq and Democrats in America into believing that the Islamic State of Iraq has little or nothing to do with the "real" al Qaeda. I, myself, have not been fooled for a moment. There are two theories that should be considered:

1. People like me are willing dupes of the Bush administration who will chose to believe any and all nonsense about a fictitious threat posed by al Qaeda

2. Democrats are willing dupes of al Qaeda who will chose to believe any and all propaganda designed to make George Bush's war in Iraq seem like a misguided adventure

Which theory makes more sense to you?

Meanwhile, back in Baghdad, coalition forces are also trying to quell the Shiite murder spree against Sunnis that al Qaeda deliberately sparked more than a year ago with their bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra:

Officials Identify Captured Militia Leader; Car Bombs Kill 14 in Baghdad
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 18, 2007 – Officials in Iraq today identified a detainee alleged to be a key leader of a rogue militia element who has been in coalition custody since June 28, and a pair of car bombs killed 14 Iraqis in Baghdad yesterday.

Sheikh (Ahmed) Mohammad Hassan Sbahi al-Khafaji, believed to be an important figure in radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Jaysh al-Mahdi militia, was captured during an operation in Nasiriyah, officials said.

During the operation, Iraqi special operations forces, with coalition forces present as advisors, detained Khafaji without incident and also detained five other suspicious individuals.

Khafaji allegedly is responsible for attacks on coalition forces and bases, and has been implicated in the kidnappings and murders of Iraqi citizens. It is also believed he provides financial support to weapons trafficking networks that supply terrorist groups in the Baghdad area that have received training, arms and funding from Iran's Quds Force.

These rogue elements of the Mahdi Army are apparently not under the control of Muqtada al Sadr, and they continue to kill a lot of Sunnis in Baghdad. Unfortunately, getting that aspect of the problem resolved is proving to be a hard thing to do. In fact, although overall civilian casualties in Iraq for the month of June were substantially down, they have climbed right back up in July. So far this month, 928 civilian deaths have been recorded by the media. Here is how they break down:

Number killed by al Qaeda suicide bombers: 339

Number killed Shiite death squads in Baghdad: 338

Number killed in other ways (mortar rounds, shootings, etc.): 249

The relatively high rate of casualties is good news for al Qaeda and equally good news for Democrats here at home who seem intent on surrendering to them. July is going to be a bad month, casualty-wise, even though our troops are making a great deal of progress in their fight against al Qaeda.

Americans appear to be slowly waking up to what is happening in Iraq. If that process continues, that will be bad for al Qaeda (and bad for electoral prospects of Democrats). But a very deliberate media effort to downplay al Qaeda in Iraq coupled with a high casualty rate (which the media will gleefully hype to no end) will undoubtedly provide a shot in the arm to Senator Reid's effort to immediately accept al Qaeda's terms of surrender.

The AP Misrepresents a Poll of Republicans

The AP has a new story that is so hysterically off the mark that I had to laugh out loud when I read it. If ever a story unwittingly reflected the wishful thinking of a liberal reporter, this one is it:

Poll: 'None of the above' leads GOP field

WASHINGTON (AP) -- And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.

I found the actual poll results here, and I plotted them up for your consideration:


The "none of the above" choice is shown in red. Look at this chart and then look again at the headline of the story. Do they match? Umm, no. In fact, a vastly more accurate headline would be:

Poll: 'None of the above' trails GOP field

In other words, the truth is the exact opposite of what the blaring headline and the opening line of the story suggest.

How did the AP reporter get this so wrong? By sleight of hand. Not shown in the chart is the fact that another 15% of the sample stated they did not know who they would support. If you add that 15% to the mere 8% who said "none of the above," and if you falsely designate that combined sample as "none of the above," then presto! You have a headline that seems to imply that Republicans are unhappy with their choices. But you also have a headline that is demonstrably untrue.

To see how ridiculous this conclusion is, imagine that Republicans very much liked all 4 of the leading candidates and would VASTLY prefer any one of them to the Democratic nominee (whoever that might be). What would the poll results look like under those conditions? Well, they'd look very much like the poll results charted above. Because Republicans like all 4 candidates, they'd be roughly evenly divided if forced to choose between them. And some people, instead of choosing, would just say that they don't yet know because they like all 4 so much (not because they dislike all 4). In fact, if I were a Republican, that's what I'd choose right now for that very reason. The results of this poll merely show that no single candidate has taken a big lead over the others. But to a (presumably) liberal reporter who can't imagine anyone being satisfied with these Republicans, the results can only mean one thing: Republicans must be as dissatisfied with the field as this reporter would be.

The fact that Republicans are pretty pleased with all 4 of the leading candidates could also help to explain why the Republican candidates are, for the moment, raising less money than their Democratic counterparts. I happen to be pleased with all 4 because my main issue is national security, and not one of these 4 is inclined to surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq. Because I don't really care that much who wins, I'm not highly motivated to send a check to any one of them. But that could change fast if, in the general election, the choice is between Barack Obama (who favors surrendering to al Qaeda in Iraq right now) and one of the 4 Republicans. I like Obama as a person, but I don't want him to have the power to obey al Qaeda on my behalf.

Regardless of what the poll results actually mean, it is an outright falsehood to assert that Republicans prefer "none of the above." Only 8% said "none of the above," whereas 92% said something other than that.

Using the Death Penalty to Deter Minor Crimes

Jonah Goldberg had an interesting column on the death penalty over the weekend that I wanted to address. In it, he discusses using the death penalty to deter relatively minor crimes:

This utilitarian calculus is not only understandable but rational and deeply seductive. Death penalty opponents understand this, which is why they insist that deterrence has no effect. I think this is poppycock, the studies saying otherwise be damned. It defies common sense to think that Chinese officials won't be deterred at all by Zheng's demise. At minimum, this will raise the price of bribes in China - which, as any economist will tell you, means that at the margins there will be fewer bribes. That the statistical evidence in the U.S. allegedly doesn't support the deterrence argument is more of a commentary on the inefficiencies of our criminal justice system.

Actually, people only think that the statistical evidence suggests that capital punishment does not deter crime. That's because we get our news from the media we have, not the media we would like to have (or so I assume). In truth, virtually every study conducted since the mid-1990s suggests that the death penalty does deter murder. As far as I know, only one mainstream media news story has let the public in on this closely guarded secret, and that story came out only a few weeks ago:

Studies Say Death Penalty Deters Crime

Sunday June 10, 2007 7:16 PM

By ROBERT TANNER

AP National Writer

Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.

The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations - pointing out flaws in the justice system - has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.

What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument - whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.
...
A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) - what am I going to do, hide them?"

Readers of my blog have been privy to this news for a lot longer than that. Also, everyone interested in this subject should look at the chart I show in this post, especially if you strongly believe that the death penalty does not deter murder. The chart I show there is the kind of stunning news that is of no interest whatsoever to the media. They much prefer anti-death penalty stories in which they just make stuff up while ignoring the actual data (e.g., see, for example, here and here).

Ironically (but understandably in light of the media we have), just as an increasing body of scientific research has suggested that the death penalty deters murder, public opinion has gone the other way:


Like Jonah Goldberg, most people now seem to believe that the evidence shows that the death penalty does not deter crime even though the evidence actually suggests otherwise. This must be due to the way in which the media covers this subject, though perhaps some explanation for this curious phenomenon can be found. Look at that graph and consider that the research attesting to the deterrent effect of the death penalty has been published between 1996 and 2004 (right when public opinion shifted in the opposite direction). It's really an amazing phenomenon, and it is a sad comment on our well-meaning but often misguided liberal media. Just because they don't want the death penalty to deter crime is no excuse to keep the relevant research top secret.

Goldberg then makes a point that I don't really resonate to:

But the point is that it shouldn't matter whether capital punishment is a deterrent. The death penalty cannot be justified by the deterrence argument alone. As the late sociologist Ernest van den Haag wrote, "Deterring the crimes, not yet committed, of others does not morally justify execution of any convict (except to utilitarians, who think usefulness is a moral justification)." It is child's play to make the utilitarian case for executing shoplifters, but as all but the most morally stunted should see, hanging one shoplifter cannot be justified by the argument that it will deter another.

Well, maybe, but I don't think that many people would argue that the death penalty is warranted because of its deterrent effect alone. After all, few would dispute that the punishment has to fit the crime. Applying the death penalty to shoplifting violates this principle. A better way to think about the issue is this: certain crimes are such that everyone would agree that the criminal deserves the most severe penalty that society is willing to mete out. That penalty is either life in prison or the death penalty. In such cases, the argument in favor of the death penalty is stronger if its use would decrease the murder rate.

My own view is that the most severe crimes warrant the death penalty, but only if the regular use of that penalty likely serves as a deterrent to other would-be murderers. If it would not deter anyone from committing murder, we might as well adhere to a "culture of life" and spare the lives of even the worst criminals. My reading of the evidence suggests that executions do reduce the murder rate (probably, though not definitely), which is why I favor capital punishment, especially for murder committed under "special circumstances".

In the U.S., about 16,000 murders and about 60 executions occur each year. You might worry that once every few years, an innocent person could be executed. But if the death penalty deters only 1% of murderers, then 160 innocent people would effectively be sentenced to death every year because we refuse to execute guilty murderers (and, on rare occasions, an innocent person). Why don't you worry about those 160 innocent people? Just because they are not victims of the "state," whereas someone who was mistakenly found to be guilty and sentenced to death would be? Obviously, the state should make every effort to avoid making such mistakes. On that, everyone is in agreement. Just as obviously, rare mistakes will always occur. But I just don't understand the reasoning that can effectively be summed up like this:

Because of my fear that the state might execute one innocent person every 10 years or so, I prefer to effectively sentence to death 160 unknown innocent people every single year. That's because 160 people being unnecessarily killed every year by undeterred murderers is much more desirable than the state making the mistake of killing an innocent person once every decade or so.

I don't think like that. If the death penalty serves as a deterrent to murder (as the evidence suggests), then the options would seem to be these: (a) the state putting an innocent person to death over some long period of time vs. (b) undeterred murderers killing hundreds (maybe thousands) of innocent people over the same period of time. That's your choice; take your pick. To me, it's an easy choice.

The Washington Post joins the New York Times Misinformation Campaign

As I noted in response to a comment yesterday, the troop surge is designed to (a) stop al Qaeda from slaughtering innocent civilians in an attempt to incite sectarian conflict and (b) to get uncooperative members of the Mahdi Army to stop execution-style killings of Sunnis in Baghdad (killings that started when al Qaeda deliberately provoked them into joining the conflict). If you are opposed to the troop surge, you should say which of these objectives you specifically oppose. There is, unfortunately, much work to be done on both fronts. When the surge got underway in full force last month, al Qaeda was, to a large extent, chased from Baghdad, and now they are wreaking havoc elsewhere in Iraq. Meanwhile, remnants of the Mahdi Army continue to kill Sunnis in Baghdad, but at a lower rate than they were previously.

Today, al Qaeda decided to strike out at the Kurds:

Police: Bombs kill dozens in northern Iraqi city

BAGHDAD - At least 80 people were killed on Monday in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk in a coordinated attack by a suicide truck bomber in a crowded market and a separate car bomb parked on a busy street, police said.

Remember, mainstream media reporters are unaware of it, but the suicide bombers of Iraq are almost all foreigners who are associated in one way or another with al Qaeda (under the banner of the Islamic State of Iraq). Do you really think that these foreign suicide bombers are killing civilians because they are unhappy with the oil deal that is being worked out in Iraq's parliament? That's ridiculous, but it is the narrative that you'll see in one story after another (almost none of which will mention the possibility that the suicide bombers are foreigners under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq). Once you realize who the suicide bombers are, your conception of what is happening in Iraq will change a lot. Al Qaeda is not looking for a better oil deal. They are dedicated to provoking widespread sectarian conflict. That's how they plan to defeat America in Iraq.

Meanwhile, back in Baghdad, our troops are trying to reduce sectarian killings against Sunnis. The Washington Post has a page 1 story about that, but it appears mostly designed to convince you that al Qaeda is not the big problem in Iraq:

Mahdi Army, Not Al-Qaeda, is Enemy No. 1 in Western Baghdad

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, July 16, 2007; Page A01

In the 10-square-mile district of West Rashid, the Mahdi Army also controls the housing market, the gas stations and the loyalty of many of the residents, according to the soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division's 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment.
...
West Rashid confounds the prevailing narrative from top U.S. military officials that the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq is the city's most formidable and disruptive force.

Confounds the prevailing narrative? This story is apparently designed to join the New York Times in its effort to minimize the role played by the suicide bombers of Iraq, and it is simply breathtaking in its inaccuracy. The fact that the Mahdi Army is the most disruptive force in Baghdad has been true for a long time. Moreover, it does not confound the prevailing narrative offered by U.S. military officials concerning al Qaeda. What this reporter (Joshua Partlow) incredibly fails to mention is that the primary reason why the Mahdi Army joined the fight is because al Qaeda relentlessly provoked them until they did, with the final straw being al Qaeda's bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra back in February of 2006. Partlow appears to be completely unaware of this fact, even though his own paper once reported the relevant news:

Iraq Cites Arrest of a Top Local Insurgent

Officials Call Detainee No. 2 in Al-Qaeda Group

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 4, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD, Sept. 3 -- U.S. and Iraqi forces have captured a top al-Qaeda leader who ordered the bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra that triggered a wave of ferocious sectarian killings, Iraqi officials said Sunday.

As you can see, al Qaeda is intimately connected to the Mahdi Army's extermination campaign in Baghdad. Thus, the Mahdi Army's killing spree against Sunnis does not "confound" the current narrative concerning al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda deliberately brought the Mahdi Army off the sidelines, and they'll do it again if the troop surge does not put a stop to it. I am simply amazed that a reporter for the Washington Post is ignorant of these basic considerations. But I guess you have to be willfully ignorant of certain inconvenient facts if you think your job is to convince the American public that al Qaeda is not the real problem in Iraq (and that the U.S. military is lying about that).

The inaccuracies in Partlow's page-1 story do not end there, and I guess it's up to me to correct them. Here he is trying to challenge another narrative and, again, getting it all wrong:

The brazen attacks on U.S. soldiers also appear to challenge the idea that the Mahdi Army has been lying low to avoid confrontations with Americans.
...
Sectarian killings dropped to their lowest level of the past four months in June. But the downturn in violence in Shiite-dominated areas was not necessarily encouraging, said Wink, the intelligence officer.

"Now that the Sunnis are all gone, murders have dropped off," he said. "One way to put it is they ran out of people to kill."

Wrong. All wrong. We know for a fact that the Mahdi Army has been lying low, and that's why their execution-style killing dropped by almost 50% instantaneously when the troop surge started to unfold back in January. Here is a story about that:

Mahdi militia cuts back activity in Baghdad

U.S. troop announcement sparks change in tactics

By Leila Fadel and Zaineb Obeid
MCT NEWS SERVICE

January 14, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Mahdi army militia members have stopped wearing their black uniforms, hidden their weapons and abandoned their checkpoints in an apparent effort to lower their profile in Baghdad before U.S. reinforcements arrive.

“We have explicit directions to keep a low profile . . . not to confront, not to be dragged into a fight and to calm things down,” said one official who received the orders from the anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

And here are the relevant casualty statistics that would appear to corroborate this (computational details here):


The blue segments of the bar show execution-style killings by the Mahdi Army (probably) against Sunni males. As you can see, those killings had climbed into the 800 range back in December and January, but they instantly dropped to the 400 range when the troop surge began. Since that time, the numbers have crept back up to the 600 range. None of this fits with the theory that the Mahdi Army has simply run out of Sunnis to kill and that's why sectarian killings are down. They are obviously down because of the troop surge and because Muqtada al Sadr decided to cooperate with it. Whether or not our troops can keep these killings down remains to be seen (because al Qaeda is still doing everything it can to get them back up again).

The Mahdi Army is cooperating, but they are not a uniform force under the full control of Muqtada al Sadr. That's the problem. Muqtada is cooperating (that's why sectarian killings are down), but other members of his militia are not:

American commanders attribute much of the current violence to what they are now calling "special groups" or "secret cells" of Iranian-backed militiamen who may be acting independently of, or against, Sadr and his followers. But taken together, they say, militiamen acting as criminal power-brokers seeking profit and the perhaps more moderate Sadr loyalists constitute a formidable challenge for the soldiers who arrived in the capital in March as part of President Bush's troop buildup.

The mainstream media is, apparently, going to try to persuade you that (a) al Qaeda is not a big problem in Iraq and (b) it's all just a bunch of sectarian killings based on ancient Shiite-vs.-Sunni sectarian animosity. That's an incorrect and simplistic analysis, but reporters who think they are catching the U.S. military in a lie are going to push that interpretation ayway.

Looks like it's me against the New York Times and the Washington Post. I like my chances! Guess I'm feeling a little grandiose today...

Obliviously Demanding that we Surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq

My head spins when I read stories like this:

Obama: Shift troops to fight al-Qaida

OELWEIN, Iowa - The U.S. should shift troops from Iraq to pursue al-Qaida along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday.
...
"We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we're on the wrong battlefield," Obama said. "America must urgently begin deploying from Iraq and take the fight more effectively to the enemy's home by destroying al-Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border, eliminating their command and control networks and disrupting their funding."

The wrong battlefield? Less than a week ago, al Qaeda killed over 200 people in Iraq (150 in a single suicide bombing attack). They've been killing thousands of innocents there over the last few years. Foreign suicide bombers are headed to Iraq (not to Afghanistan) at a rate of 60 to 80 per month, and they are just wreaking havoc. Al Qaeda has declared Iraq to be the central front in the war with America, and they have put their money (and their suicide bombers) where their mouth is.

Do you have any doubt about this? If so, let's start by considering what Osama bin Laden had to say about it:

A second Bin Laden tape, released on December 27, 2004, underscored Al Qaeda's interest in Iraq and support for the ongoing insurgency. In this recording, Bin Laden personally welcomed and endorsed Jordanian-born terrorist leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi as an Al Qaeda affiliate and leader of Al Qaeda operations in Iraq.19 Bin Laden identified the insurgency in Iraq as "a golden and unique opportunity" for jihadists to engage and defeat the United States, and he characterized the insurgency in Iraq as the central battle in a "Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation."20 Describing Baghdad as "the capital of the caliphate," Bin Laden asserted that "jihad in Palestine and Iraq today is a duty for the people of the two countries" and other Muslims.

That seems pretty clear to me. Not convinced? Then let's consider what al Qaeda's deputy chief, Zawahiri, stated in a letter to Zarqawi back in 2005:

So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

More recently, in a video taped message released last week, Zawahiri had more to say:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Al-Qaida's No. 2 has issued a new video tape calling on Muslims to unite in jihad, or holy war, and support the Islamist movement in Iraq, a U.S.-based intelligence monitoring group said Wednesday.
...
In the tape, al-Zawahri encouraged Iraqis and Muslims in general to show greater support for the Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaida insurgent front in the country, even though it lacks "necessary qualifications", the SITE group quoted al-Zawahri as saying.

In case you don't know, the Islamic State of Iraq is the al Qaeda terrorist group that is responsible for the spectacular suicide bombings that occur on a regular basis in Iraq. Al Qaeda's global leadership seems to approve of them. What do they think of al Qaeda's leadership? They made that crystal clear in their own video released a few weeks ago:

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.

Do these people need to hit you over the head with a tire iron before you get the picture? Al Qaeda's leaders are endorsing operatives in Iraq and those operatives in Iraq (namely, the Islamic State of Iraq) are swearing allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And their suicide bombers are waging an extremely deadly war by doing things like this:

Around 150, Death Toll in Iraq Attack Among War’s Worst

BAGHDAD, July 8 — The death toll from a suicide truck bombing in a remote village in northern Iraq rose to around 150 on Sunday, making it one of the deadliest single bombings, if not the deadliest, since the 2003 invasion.

They also recently did this:

Car Bomb Kills at Least 87 at Shiite Mosque in Baghdad

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

BAGHDAD — A truck bomber attacked a revered Shiite shrine in the heart of Baghdad on Tuesday, killing at least 87 people and wounding more than 200 in a resumption of Iraq's relentless sectarian slaughter.
...
Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a military spokesman in Baghdad, said the truck was loaded with propane tanks and that a suicide driver detonated his bomb when the vehicle became stuck trying to drive over a curb.

A few weeks before that, they did this:

Suspected Qaeda bombs kill nearly 200 in Baghdad
Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:42 PM EDT

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Suspected al Qaeda militants killed nearly 200 people in a wave of car bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday, including one that was the single deadliest attack in the Iraqi capital since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

That's just a little sample of what the suicide bombers are doing, and I've only gone back to April 18, 2007 (less than 3 months ago). There are many, many more stories like this. Do you cling to the hope that these suicide bombers really aren't al Qaeda? If you do, then read this again:

'Martyrs' In Iraq Mostly Saudis
Web Sites Track Suicide Bombings

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 15, 2005; Page A01

Who are the suicide bombers of Iraq? By the radicals' account, they are an internationalist brigade of Arabs, with the largest share in the online lists from Saudi Arabia and a significant minority from other countries on Iraq's borders, such as Syria and Kuwait. The roster of the dead on just one extremist Web site reviewed by The Washington Post runs to nearly 250 names...
...
Many of the Arabs, according to the postings, were drawn to fight in Iraq under the banner of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the group run by Jordanian militant Abu Musab Zarqawi that has taken credit for a gruesome series of beheadings, kidnappings and suicide attacks -- many of them filmed and then disseminated on the Internet in a convergence between the electronic jihad and the real-life war.

This fits with what the U.S. military reports (in case you, like reporters for the New York Times, preposterously suspect that the U.S. military is prone to lying):

200 suicide belts found in lorry at Syria-Iraq border

IRAQI security forces seized 200 explosive belts yesterday during a search of a lorry that had crossed into Iraq from Syria at the Waleed border station.
...
Brigadier-General Kevin Bergner, a spokesman for the US military,, said that 60 to 80 foreign fighters enter Iraq "in any given month" - 70 per cent of them through Syria. He said up to 90 per cent of the suicide attacks in Iraq were carried out by "foreign-born al-Qaeda terrorists".

The suicide bombers are the foot soldiers of al Qaeda, and there is, unfortunately, no getting around it. They are flocking to Iraq every month (along with truckloads of suicide belts), and they are incredibly lethal. But they are mostly killing Shiites, not Americans. Why are they doing that, again? Zarqawi explained that quite clearly in a letter that was intercepted in 2004:

The Shi'a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religious, political, and military symbols, will make them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis . . . .

So I say again, the only solution is to strike the religious, military, and other cadres of the Shi'a so that they revolt against the Sunnis. Some people will say, that this will be a reckless and irresponsible action that will bring the Islamic nation to a battle for which the Islamic nation is unprepared. Souls will perish and blood will be spilled.

This is, however, exactly what we want...
...
As for the Shi'a, we will undertake suicide operations and use car bombs to harm them.

Is any part of this analysis unclear to you? Foreign suicide bombers are not streaming into Iraq to participate in a civil war. They are coming to Iraq to defeat America, and their method is to slaughter Shiites. Unfortunately, that method works like a charm. Don't believe me? Then consider again this suicide bombing attack, and note the date:

Suspected Qaeda bombs kill nearly 200 in Baghdad
Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:42 PM EDT

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Suspected al Qaeda militants killed nearly 200 people in a wave of car bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday, including one that was the single deadliest attack in the Iraqi capital since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

In response to this attack by al Qaeda, Harry Reid had this reaction (again, note the date):

Iraq war is 'lost': US Democrat leader

Apr 19 02:45 PM US/Eastern

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.

Al Qaeda kills in an effort to drive America out of Iraq, and Herry Reid responds with precisely the reaction they are trying to elicit. That is not good.

How did the Islamic State of Iraq respond to this announcement from Reid on their English-language web site? Like this:

This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader Harry Reid who previously said, “The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.”
...
This is how the cross worshipping occupiers and their henchmen live. Their morale continues to collapse as the result of the increasing strikes of the Mujahideen, carried out by the grace of Allah.

That's al Qaeda, folks, and they are paying close attention to what Harry Reid says (and they are rejoicing when he speaks). It is not an exaggeration at all to say that the Democrats are demanding that we surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq. It is, instead, an accurate summary statement that is based on a veritable mountain of factual evidence (some of which I have considered in this post). The U.S. military generally points to the same evidence when offering their assessment of Iraq. If you suspect that the military is lying, then ignore what they say and think through the evidence yourself. You'll arrive at the same conclusion. If you are not interested in what the U.S. military says or what the factual evidence suggests, then read the New York Times instead (and stop reading my blog because my posts are always full of evidence).

In light of all of this, it is downright surreal that Barack Obama doesn't even think that al Qaeda in Iraq is worth mentioning (because he thinks all the terrorists are in Afghanistan, where they doing next to nothing by comparison with Iraq). Isn't that remarkable? He's like a lot of other Democrats in that regrad, almost all of whom have adopted an eerie code of silence on al Qaeda in Iraq. I found a bit more from Obama's speech here:

"It's time to say to the president the time is up, enough is enough, our men and women have done what we asked of them, they got Saddam Hussein, they have shown that there are no weapons of mass destruction, now it's time to bring them home."

That's it? Al Qaeda in Iraq is such an utterly inconsequentual terrorist organization that it does not even warrant so much as a fleeting comment? That seems to be what Barack Obama thinks, and it is incomprehensible to me.

On those rare occasions when Democrats do mention al Qaeda in Iraq, they generally say something like "Al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq before George Bush decided to invade that country." Whether or not that is true, al Qaeda is there now, and they have an excellent plan to defeat us. The only question is whether or not you want to cooperate with that plan. I don't, but that's just me.

Americans Arming the Sunni Insurgency

This story caught me by surprise today:

Iraqi PM insists peace is possible without U.S.

Al-Maliki claims ‘full confidence’ if coalition forces withdraw ‘at any time’

BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave “any time they want,” though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.
...
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned earlier this week of civil war and the government’s collapse if the Americans leave.

But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, “We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want.”

But he added that Iraqi forces are “still in need of more weapons and rehabilitation” to be ready in the case of a withdrawal.

Such bravado is not going to help Bush maintain any popular support for our efforts in Iraq. In the past, Maliki has insisted that American forces are needed for a bit longer, but he seems to have suddenly changed his tune. In fact, he almost seems to be goading the Americans to leave (he just wants more weapons before they do).

What's going on? A possible clue comes from one of Maliki's top aids:

He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with “gangs of killers” in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.
...
He also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, who works along a “purely American vision.”

He criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. “These are gangs of killers,” he said.

It's pure speculation on my part, but it seems as if matters may have unfolded along these lines over the last few months:

Being unhappy with the refusal of Shiite lawmakers to come to political terms with rival factions, Bush has decided to become more pro-Sunni. If the Shiites are going to remain politically intransigent, which means that they are determined to have a civil war with the Sunnis once we leave, then we are going to work with the Sunnis to fight our main enemy in Iraq (namely, al Qaeda), and we are going to do so by arming cooperative Sunnis to the teeth. Unfortunately, a better armed Sunni insurgency will diminish prospects for peace when we leave, but if the Iraqis are hell-bent on having a civil war, there is not much we can do to prevent it. To ensure that al Qaeda does not prosper from that civil war, we need to create an irrevocable rift between the Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda before we leave. And that's just what we seem to be doing. Prime Minister Maliki is understandably unhappy about this turn of events because, if it comes to civil war, he wants the Shiites to eradicate the Sunnis. Our practice of arming Sunnis who join the fight against al Qaeda is going to make that considerably more difficult. But that's his problem.

Again, all of this is pure speculation on my part. If my interpretation is anywhere near accurate, I hope that the prospect of a U.S-armed Sunni insurgency is sufficiently ominous to get Shiite lawmakers to finally come to political terms with the Sunnis.

Emoting about vs. Thinking about Iraq

Bill O'Reilly has a new comment posted on Fox News that I believe captures the feelings of most Americans concerning the situation in Iraq:

All the polls show most Americans do not believe the war is going well and want to wind it down, feeling the effort is not worth much more American blood and treasure.

The president's argument for sustaining the war is largely theoretical and he is correct: A defeat in Iraq would harm the United States and could lead to a greater conflict down the road.

But there comes a time when enough's enough. The U.S. military did not lose the Vietnam War, the country just became exhausted by it and a deal was made to get out of there. Same thing is happening in Iraq. After four years many Americans are just sick of it.

Doesn't help the Iraqi government is incompetent and the people themselves largely ungrateful. A poll taken by D3 Systems asked Iraqis if they supported the coalition. Just six percent "strongly support" it. Sixteen percent "somewhat support" our efforts, 32 percent "somewhat oppose" us and a whopping 46 percent of Iraqis "strongly oppose" the coalition.

Numbers like that many Americans say, "See ya."

As an emotional reaction to events in Iraq, this is perfectly understandable. As an intellectual stance, however, it's insane, one that could be aptly summed up like this: "Iraq is a mess, the Iraqis want us out, therefore, America should immediately surrender to al Qaeda."

Of course, like all proponents of withdrawal, Bill O'Reilly neglects to mention al Qaeda. That's because his position would not make any sense if he did. Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Bill O'Reilly solves this problem by simply adopting an eerie code of silence about al Qaeda in Iraq. I wonder if history will record this inexplicable phenomenon or if it will remain forever unnoticed?

As the U.S. military and President Bush both become increasingly clear that al Qaeda is the primary enemy in Iraq, others are graduating from the "eerie code of silence" stage of development to the "eerie code of denial" stage of development. The New York Times is the prime example. A few days ago, their public editor announced that the paper would henceforth attempt to engineer doubt in the minds of their readers about the role of al Qaeda in Iraq -- just because they can (not because they have any evidence to justify their skepticism). Yesterday, they published a news article to do precisely that:

July 13, 2007
Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JIM RUTENBERG

BAGHDAD, July 12 — In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

You should read this article from start to finish and then, if you have the time, you should contrast it with one of my prior posts on the same subject (such as this one). If you do, you should notice a glaring difference. The difference is that the New York Times article is utterly devoid of evidence that bears on their central thesis, which is that Bush is hyping the al Qaeda threat. Instead, the article amounts to nothing more than the reporters saying "I'm skeptical." By contrast, I (and others) point to mountains of evidence bearing on this issue.

Let's consider some of what the reporters say:

“The president wants to play on Al Qaeda because he thinks Americans understand the threat Al Qaeda poses,” said Bruce Riedel, an expert at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and a former C.I.A. official. “But I don’t think he demonstrates that fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq precludes Al Qaeda from attacking America here tomorrow. Al Qaeda, both in Iraq and globally, thrives on the American occupation.”

Note the complete absence of any evidence about (or even reasoning behind) the notion that fighting al Qaeda in Iraq will have no consequences for their later ability to attack America and our allies. There is no discussion whatsoever about the obvious considerations, such as the perceived (and actual) victory over America that al Qaeda will have achieved when we withdraw our troops in ignominious defeat. What, for example, will that do to al Qaeda's reputation in the Muslim world? How would their victory in Iraq fit in with al Qaeda's stated plans for Iraq? Who is going to stop al Qaeda when we leave and how are they going to do it? Not one peep about any of this. Instead, the reporters just went out and found someone to quote who shares their skepticism. The mere expression of skepticism is not newsworthy.

I strongly believe that most reporters do not appreciate what evidence-based reasoning looks like. Evidence-based reasoning involves citing evidence, not quoting someone who shares your opinion. I don't quote what Bush says as evidence that al Qaeda is in Iraq (although I do quote him to show that he understands the problem). Instead, I track casualties caused by suicide bombers, I refer to U.S. military reports about who the suicide bombers are, I cross-validate those reports by citing mainstream media articles that have investigated that very issue, I cite letters written by al Qaeda's leaders, I visit al-Qaeda-affiliated web sites to see what they are saying, and on and on. No single piece of evidence amounts to proof that al Qaeda is a major force in Iraq, but each piece of evidence is relevant to the debate. By contrast, the New York Times article does not cite one shred of evidence to support their case. In fact, ironically, the only evidence they cite supports Bush's position (but the reporters announce their skepticism about that evidence without explaining why).

Here's more:

The heated debate over Iraq has spilled over to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as well. Mr. Bush has played up the group, talking about it as if it is on a par with the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks. War critics have often played down the significance of the group despite its gruesome record of suicide attacks and its widely suspected role in destroying a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February 2006 that set Iraq on the road to civil war.

War critics have "...played down the significance of the group despite its gruesome record of suicide attacks and its widely suspected role in destroying a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February 2006 that set Iraq on the road to civil war"? Well, why have they played it down given that it is so obviously true? No reason is given. Not one. As such, "war critics" are merely expressing an attitude toward the compelling evidence that supports the position advanced by the Bush and the U.S. military. More still:

Just last week, Mr. Zawahri called on Muslims to travel to Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia to carry out their fight against the Americans and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, an umbrella group that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has established to attract broader Sunni support.

Well, that's right. And, again, Zawahiri's statement is evidence in support of George Bush's theory. The fact that a "war critic" can express skepticism about the relevance of the evidence (while presenting no evidence of their own) is not really newsworthy. It only says something about the psychology of the war critic. Here is more evidence-free skepticism:

The broader issue is whether Iraq is a central front in the war against Al Qaeda, as Mr. Bush maintains, or a distraction that has diverted the United States from focusing on the Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan while providing Qaeda leaders with a cause for rallying support.

Can you imagine radical Muslim critics complaining that Osama bin Laden's adventure in Iraq is a "distraction" that has diverted that terrorist organization from focusing on America's leadership in Washington D.C.? Well, if radical Muslims have a liberal wing, maybe they are doing just that.

Our presence in Iraq is certainly drawing jihadists there, but you need to ask yourself a simple question: why are the foreign suicide bombers flocking to Iraq and then attacking -- Iraqis? What's that all about? Why aren't they just attacking the soldiers of the Great Satan? This is an important question to answer if you want to think clearly about Iraq. In fact, it is the single most important question to answer. But if you just want to express a skeptical attitude about evidence that points to a critical role played by al Qaeda in Iraq, then you need not bother your delicate mind with the issue. The New York Times doesn't bother.

Everyone knows that al Qaeda's leadership is likely to be in Pakistan. Everyone also knows that America's leadership is in Washington D.C. Both of their army's are fighting in Iraq, and only one will emerge as the victor. That's the point. It would be nice to kill al Qaeda's leaders in Pakistan, but I don't see how the 160,000 troops in Iraq are going help us to do that unless we are prepared to invade Pakistan. Is that what the New York Times reporters are suggesting we do? No, they are just expressing skepticism, one that is devoid of both evidence and logic. In that sense, their position is a lot like the one taken by Bill O'Reilly.

Fortunately, Bush still seems clear about this issue:

He marveled at one of the media’s lines of questioning at his Thursday press conference, “They asked me yesterday ‘Are you sure it’s al Qaeda [in Iraq]?’ ‘Yeah, how do you know?’ ‘Because they swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden is how I know. Yeah, it’s al Qaeda.’ My point though to people is that it is the same crowd that killed 3,000 that is trying to drive us out of Iraq.”

To back his position, Bush cites one piece of evidence (and he has cited many other pieces of evidence in the past). That sets him apart from his critics at the New York Times, and you should think about what it means that one side of this debate relentlessly cites evidence (and then reasons from it) while the other side merely expresses an attitude.

GDP Growth Around the World

I found an interesting chart showing world GDP growth here. The size of the circles show each country's share of GDP, and the chart compares 1973 vs. 2005:


As you can see, the U.S. share has increased over the years, and so has the share of the two largest developing nations (India and China). Several other nations of the G7 (Japan, German, France, and Britain) have remained roughly constant in their share. This is just another way of showing that the U.S. economy has been very strong over the years -- stronger than the other advanced economies -- and that China and India are zooming up as well (though they remain comparatively small).

The article that presents this chart includes a line that drives me crazy:

Now the emerging markets are running fastest, along with Europe, which has - for the first time in years - pulled ahead of the U.S. in GDP growth.

This makes it sound like it's a race and that the U.S. is finally starting to slip behind Europe. Lines like this show up all the time in news articles, and it always seems like the European economic model is the one to emulate. It isn't really the right way to think.

Just so you know, the real GDP story is that the U.S. economy has been outperforming the economies of Europe for many years, but, occasionally, Europe's growth matches or slightly exceeds that in the U.S. (because growth is variable in both regions on a year-to-year basis). In 2007, it seems likely that GDP growth in the U.S. and in Europe will be about equal. Does that mean that Europe is catching up in the race and is finally about to take a long-term lead? Not likely. Let's look at GDP growth in the U.S. vs. the EU-4 (Britain, Germany, France and Italy) dating back to 1990 and projecting through 2008 (with 2007 and 2008 both being projected figures taken from the IMF database):


Generally, though not always, U.S. GDP growth exceeds growth in the EU-4. In 2007, however, it looks like growth will be similar. Reporters are sure to make a big deal out of that. In 2008, it seems likely that things will return to normal (though no one knows for sure, of course). The same conclusion is reached if you use the 13 nations of the Euro Area as a comparison group:


My point is that anytime Europe's GDP growth is similar to that of the U.S., a reporter can claim that Europe is pulling ahead. If you zoom out a bit, though, you can see that the real story is different. The real story is that, by and large, the U.S. economic model is the one that the advanced industrialized nations should seek to emulate (if, that is, they are interested in sustained GDP growth, low unemployment, and low budget deficits).

The HUGE Federal Deficit is a Figment of the Mainstream Media's Imagination

New deficit figures for fiscal year 2007 (which ends in September) were just released, and the value comes to $205 billion:

Bush sees deficit falling to $205 billion

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will estimate that the U.S. budget deficit for fiscal year 2007 will come in at $205 billion, a drop from last year, U.S. administration officials said on Wednesday.

Is that big or small? You can't tell, and that's my point today. The absolute size of the deficit is simply not that informative. Same goes for an individual's credit card debt. Is a credit card bill of $10,000 big or small? The answer depends on whether you are Bill Gates or a hotel maid. For Bill Gates, it's a drop in the bucket. For a maid, it's huge.

So, back to the main question: is a federal deficit of $205 billion for 2007 big or small? The only way to tell is to look at the size of the deficit relative to the size of the economy. This is an elementary consideration, but mainstream media reporters very often focus only on the deficit's absolute size anyway. And that's why so many people mistakenly think our federal deficit is HUGE when it is actually pretty small. This is not a debatable issue. Reporters are just wrong to do this, and I don't know if they are being intentionally misleading or if they just don't understand the basics. Here are some stories from the past that are extremely misleading:

From CNN:

Posted 8/11/2004 3:09 PM
How much higher? Federal deficit hits new record

WASHINGTON (AP) — With two months still to go in the government's budget year, the federal deficit has hit a record $395.8 billion.

From the Washington Post:

Record '05 Deficit Forecast
War Costs to Raise Total to $427 Billion

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 26, 2005; Page A01

Additional war spending this year will push the federal deficit to a record $427 billion for fiscal 2005, effectively thwarting President Bush's pledge to begin stanching the flow of government red ink, according to new administration budget forecasts unveiled yesterday.

From the Boston Globe:

Bush's plan to halve federal deficit seen as unlikely
Higher spending, lower taxes don't mix, analysts say
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | December 2, 2004

WASHINGTON -- With new bills for Iraq and Afghanistan, and President Bush pushing tax cuts and an expensive remaking of Social Security, the administration seems to have little chance of significantly shrinking the budget deficit, despite Bush's promises to halve it within five years, according to independent analysts and legislators.

From MSNBC:

Federal budget deficit sparks worries
Higher borrowing costs could slow economic activity

Updated: 3:05 p.m. PT Jan 15, 2006
WASHINGTON - Like a person packing on pounds, the United States keeps adding to its flabby budget deficits, endangering the nation’s economic health and the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans.
...
The government’s budget deficit last year was $319 billion. While smaller than the record $413 billion in 2004, it still was the third-highest ever.
...
A White House budget official now predicts that the deficit in the current budget year will top $400 billion, pushed up by the costs of the Gulf Coast hurricanes. The red ink is expected to keep flowing for years.

Stories like these tell you nothing, but readers walk away convinced that spending under Bush is simply out of control. This is completely wrong, and it is not debatable. In truth, the federal deficit never reached anything near record levels under Bush, and the size of the deficit has already been cut in half relative to 2004. No one who has been reading the news over the last few years would appreciate this. Instead, they'd think that Bush's handling of the economy has been dismal, in part because of record deficits.

How large is the federal deficit relative to GDP (i.e., relative to the size of our economy)? That's the question that you'd like to have answered. For example, the federal deficit in 1968 was a mere $25 billion. If you are like a mainstream media reporter, you should react to this number in the following way:

"Wow! Those were the good 'ol days! Back then, the deficit was really low. But now, with George Bush in charge, we are celebrating a deficit of $205 billion, which is a whopping 8 times greater than it was in 1968. What a disaster!!"

This, of course, is ridiculous. The overall size of the economy was much smaller in 1968 than it is today. Because of that, the absolute deficit figures ($25 billion vs. $205 billion) get the story exactly backwards. Relative to GDP, the deficit today is about half of what it was in 1968 (2.9% of GDP back then, but 1.5% of GDP in 2007). Get the picture? The absolute value is not a relevant statistic. Even so, reporters focus on it all the time, and that makes you think our deficit picture is really bad. You are wrong to think like that.

In any story on this topic, the absolute size of the deficit should be reported as a secondary figure, not as the primary figure. Every once in a while, a story in the mainstream media presents the more useful statistic. Even then, it is presented as dire news. Here is an example of that:

The budget: worse than you think

Recent CBO estimates have made headlines, but they could be overly optimistic.
August 27, 2003: 5:15 PM EDT
By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money Staff Writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Congressional analysts say the federal budget deficit will soar to record levels in coming years, but some analysts said Wednesday they're probably being too optimistic -- deficits could be much worse than expected.

This story talks mostly about the irrelevant statistic -- the absolute size of the deficit -- but then shows this useful chart:


This is how the deficit figures should be presented (i.e., as a percent of GDP). You can see the budget surplus we had under Clinton (owing largely to the stock market bubble and reduced defense spending), and you can see the return of deficits that coincided with Bush taking office beginning with that last green bar (owing to the bursting of the bubble that began in the months before Clinton left office, the attacks of 9/11 that occurred soon after Bush took office, and the subsequent recession). But you can also see that the size of the deficit as a percent of GDP was never at record levels under Bush and was projected to be quite low by 2007 and 2008. The average deficit over the last 40 years has been in the 2.4% range. Back in 2003, the CBO projected that, under Bush, it would drop to about 1.5% by 2007 and 2008 (well below the historical average).

So, what actually happened? The figures through 2007 are now in (though 2007 is not over, so it is still an estimate, albeit a good one), and here is a chart I made up so that you can compare it to the projections shown above:


As you can see, the CBO had it right and the CNN reporter (who helpfully explained that things would really get much worse) had it all wrong. We've never had anything close to record deficits under Bush, and the deficit we see today is really quite low. If you ask around, you'll find that people mistakenly believe otherwise. The reason they do is that the mainstream media reporters who bring them the news almost invariably write misleading stories about the deficit.

A Tale of Two Letters

While the Democrats steadfastly maintain an eerie code of silence on the issue of al Qaeda in Iraq (more on that at the end of my post), and while the New York Times tries to help them out by seeking novel ways to deliberately downplay the al Qaeda threat in Iraq (see my post about that here), everyone else should try to base their understanding of what is happening in Iraq on factual evidence. Of the many lines of evidence that could be considered, two intercepted letters between al Qaeda's leaders offer some of the most relevant information.

The first letter -- one that I have referred to many times before -- was written by Zarqawi in 2003. It was intercepted in 2004, and it lays out his diabolical, but ingenious, plan to incite civil war in Iraq by maliciously attacking innocent Shiites and the mosques in which they worship:

The Shi'a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religious, political, and military symbols, will make them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance...Then, the Sunni will have no choice but to support us in many of the Sunni regions.

Pure (evil) genius. The world has seen many civil wars in the past, but I'm not sure we have ever seen one deliberately engineered like this one. To even conceive of this idea, much less to turn the plan into reality, requires a very special (albeit severely warped) mind. Al Qaeda put this plan into action by relentlessly bombing innocent Shiites (which they continue to do, including their major terrorist attack last weekend), and they finally brought the Shiite militias into the fight when they bombed the Golden Mosque in February of 2006. Only after this event unleashed a dramatically higher level of sectarian violence did I go back and study what had happened, and only then did I awaken to al Qaeda's brilliant plan for Iraq. As it happens, al Qaeda had been attacking Shiites and their mosques for some time, but I was not aware of it because the attacks had not yet become as sensational as they later would. All that changed in February of 2006.

The second letter was written by al Qaeda's current deputy chief, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and I was reminded of it when John McCain mentioned it yesterday in a speech on the Senate floor that I happened to catch on C-SPAN. Zawahiri's letter to Zarqawi was intercepted in 2005, and it is interesting for several reasons. First, Zawahiri gently expresses some reservations about Zarqawi's ingenious plan to attack Shiites in Iraq, though he acknowledges that he does not have all of the details (and, so, does not forbid Zarqawi to continue with his plan). Here is what he says:

...many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia. The sharpness of this questioning increases when the attacks are on one of their mosques, and it increases more when the attacks are on the mausoleum of Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib, may God honor him. My opinion is that this matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue.
...
In summation, with regard to the talk about the issue of the Shia, I would like to repeat that I see that matter from afar without being aware of all the details, I would like my words to be deserving of your attention and consideration, and God is the guarantor of success for every good thing.

Indeed, these attacks have not been acceptable to the Muslim population, which is why (I presume) al Qaeda's reputation has been damaged throughout the Muslim world. On the other hand, those attacks have served to greatly demoralize Americans and their representatives in Washington. Remember: al Qaeda is not participating in Iraq's civil war; instead, they are provoking it, in part because it demoralizes Americans (and, predictably, makes them want to leave).

The bombing of the Golden Mosque occurred after the deputy chief's letter was written, and I suspect that he now appreciates the genius of Zarqawi's vision. In fact, he probably now understands how Zarqawi's strategy, which continues to this very day, will be essential in achieving the specific goals that Zawahiri set forth in his own letter:

So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

In other words, the Democratic plan to withdraw American troops from Iraq corresponds precisely to Zawahiri's first objective. There is no getting around this. You might want to withdraw our troops anyway, but you should not deny that you favor implementing the first stage of al Qaeda's plan for Iraq. I'll never understand how anyone could favor doing that, but perhaps someone will explain it to me.

In another part of the letter, Zawahiri explains his thinking:

What drives me to broach these matters while we are in the din of war and the challenges of killing and combat? My answer is, firstly: Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us...

As you can see, what al Qaeda is doing today is informed by what America did in Vietnam (something that is also clear in comments made by Osama bin Laden). It seems reasonable to suppose that the way in which al Qaeda will behave in the future will be similarly informed by what we do now in Iraq. The troop withdrawal plan -- that is, the plan to run and leave behind America's agents in Iraq -- is exactly what al Qaeda expects us to do.

And what does Zawahiri envision after our troops are gone? This:

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before unIslamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.
...
The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

That's the vision. The debate in America is all about whether or not we should concede the first stage to al Qaeda. I say no. By contrast, Nancy Pelosi eerily ignores this issue altogether:

“Six months after the President escalated the war in Iraq, American troops have plunged even deeper into that country’s civil war, with no end in sight or a clear exit strategy. The President wants more of the same and he refuses to acknowledge the facts on the ground – violence remains high and political reconciliation is non-existent."

I encourage you to visit her web page and read the whole thing. You won't find a single reference to al Qaeda, and that's just creepy. It's as if al Qaeda in Iraq is so utterly inconsequential that it need not even be mentioned --- not even in passing -- when debating what to do about Iraq or how to conceptualize what will happen when we leave. I think it's because she is aware that most Americans are oblivious to the threat, and she does not want to contribute to their awakening (for fear of helping Bush). And the New York Times is gearing up to help her out.

Wake up, America. No one is "hyping" the threat posed by al Qaeda in Iraq, but many are in a state of denial about it (including the entire Democratic leadership). And because of the media we have today, they can easily get away with it.

The Rift between the Islamic Army and the Islamic State of Iraq

While the New York Times preposterously tries to convince its readership that al Qaeda in Iraq is a minor force, I thought I'd take another tour through the English-language web site for the Islamic State of Iraq, Jihad Unspun, to see what's new. I was immediately surprised to see a plea for funds due to the loss of revenue from British Muslims following the terrorist attacks of 7/7:

From the time of 7/7, we have seen our funding cut by 70% as UK Muslims were our strongest supporters. With the draconian laws implemented by Blair, even the strongest of Muslims have gone underground even though nothing came come against us unless Allah chooses it for us and for our benefit.
...
In the meantime, we are fighting for our survival. Our regular readers will notice that the site is not updated as regularly as it used to be. This is because I have had to return to Europe to regroup, our team remains spread up throughout the globe, most have had to undertake other work to generate income and this of course affects our ability to publish regularly. Alhamdulilah, our team remains strong even under these circumstances and we are employing every means possible to raise enough money to locate in a central facility in Malaysia where the Muslims of active, and can assist us to reach the next step.

All of this said, Brother and Sisters, we at JUS are at a very important crossroads. Our situation is frankly critical and we can not keep up under the current financial pressure.

The British seem to be getting serious about cracking down on radical Muslims in their midst, and this has placed Jihad Unspun in danger of closing down. I was almost tempted to donate to this radical web site because I find the information they provide so valuable. I don't know where else to go to get English translations of postings in Arabic by the al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq.

Suicide bombings (called "martyrdom operations") carried out by al Qaeda jihadists are always chronicled on this web site. They only present attacks against soldiers and police (generally ignoring attacks against civilians), and they almost invariably exaggerate their successes. Still, many of their stories seem to have a kernel of truth. Here's one like that:

All praise be to Allah, The Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds. Peace and prayer be upon our prophet, Muhammad, his family, and his companions.

On Sunday July 1, 2007, the martyrdom operation carried out by the Mujahid from the Islamic State of Iraq against the apostate police location in Fallujah city in Anbar province destroyed a larger number of vehicles than first reported, killed no less than 20 apostates and wounded 25 others, all praise and gratitude be to Allah.

May Allah accept our brother among the righteous martyrs and grant him the highest level in Paradise.

This operation was part of the Al-Karama (Dignity) Plan, declared by Sheikh Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi, Amir of the Islamic State of Iraq, may Allah protect him.

Allahu Akbar!

This attack on July 1 was covered in the mainstream media like this:

FALLUJA - A suicide truck bomb blew up at a police checkpoint killing two policemen and wounding four officers in Falluja, 50 km (32 miles) west of Baghdad, police said.

All of this just reinforces the already obvious notion that the suicide bombers of Iraq are under the direction of the Islamic State of Iraq (of which al Qaeda in Iraq is a major part).

A really interesting article on Jihad Unspun that I referred to yesterday discusses the rift between the Islamic Army in Iraq (the non-jihadist former Baathist insurgents) and the Islamic State of Iraq (the al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadist group of terrorists). This rift is separate from the other rift you may have heard about between al Qaeda and the tribes of the Anbar Province. Both are positive developments that most Democratic and, now, some Republican senators seem intent on short-circuiting. According to the article, the Islamic Army went to Saudi Arabia in an effort to get certain sheiks to issue fatwas condemning al Qaeda after that terrorist organization killed some of the Army's field commanders. The Army apparently failed to get these fatwas issued. The article goes on to say that the Army is weakening and losing members to the Islamic State:

The Conflict Between The Islamic Army Of Iraq And The Islamic State Of Iraq
Jul 09, 2007
By Dr. Akram Hijazi | Translated By Abdullah Al-Muntaqim, Jihad Unspun
...
The Army’s aim is to take exclusive possession of the political representation. Its contacts, its wide relationships, its national orientation, its alliances, its rapprochement with the various Iraqi political forces that have national inclinations are accepted regionally and internationally, have all attempted it to play the role of the resistance spokesperson in Iraq. But, the real problem lies with its weakness on the ground and its limited effectiveness in dramatic contrast with what have been promoted about its bravery. The question is why has the Army slide into weakness from its previous strong force?

In reality, most of the groups have shown a decline, not just the Army, following the announcement of the Islamic State of Iraq, and the many jihad groups that joined it, especially Al Qaeda that is respected for energetic and strong young men that dare to challenge to the most powerful nation in the world and who have been able to impair their (USA) prestige and respect.

The Army’s strength has effectively been damaged by some of its members and battalions, in Al Anbar and Haditha, leaving the ranks and joining the new State. At the same time, other groups have also joined in; to the extent that some writers have described the presence of the Army in Diyala as nonexistent. Small numbers are said to be present in Kirkuk and Mosul. Most of its operations are now concentrated in the southern parts of Baghdad, like Doura, Abu Dushair, Allatifiya, Yusufiya and Al Mada’in. This decline explains the merger of the Islamic Army and the al-Mujahideen Army; which purpose is to bring to a halt the migration of its members to the Islamic State of Iraq. Additionally, the Al-Mujahideen Army itself has lost approximately 60% of its soldiers who have joined the State that has reduced their operations in the months of Zu Al Qa`dah, Zu Al Hijjah and Muharram to less than 30 actions from an average of 80 in previous months.
...
One other hand, the statement from the Al-Jihad Al-Islam front came as a surprise to everyone. In it, they publicly accuse Al-Qaeda of killing twelve field commanders. It is this statement that is the most troublesome, particularly because it mentioned that some of the members of the leadership were together at one time; something that raises doubts about the whole incident. The statement is an Army style announcement about the failure of reconciliatory efforts between the two sides; more than an announcement about a deaths.

I cannot be sure that any of this is true, but it is intriguing to see this discussion about the problems the various factions are having. They seem even more severe than the problems that various factions are having in Washington D.C.

Meanwhile, the Islamic State of Iraq has threatened Iran:

CAIRO, Egypt: The leader of an al-Qaida umbrella group in Iraq warned Iran in a new audiotape released Sunday to stop supporting Shiites in Iraq, giving leaders in the neighboring country two months to severe ties or they would face a "severe war."

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who leads the Islamic State in Iraq, said his Sunni fighters have been preparing for four years to wage a battle against Shiite-dominated Iran.

"We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran, a two month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shiite government and to stop direct and indirect intervention ... otherwise a severe war is waiting for you," he said in the 50-minute audiotape. The tape, which could not be independently verified, was posted on a Web site commonly used by insurgent groups.

Sunni al Qaeda and Shiite Iran are natural enemies. The Iranians have been supporting the Sunni insurgents (i.e., the Islamic Army) as well as the Shiite militias by giving them IEDs to use against American troops. But I doubt that Iran has been offering any support to the Islamic State of Iraq (e.g., they are not providing them with suicide belts or truck bombs).

If I were an Iranian official, I'd take this threat from the Islamic State very seriously. After all, as Bush has said repeatedly, al Qaeda's plan is not just to send American troops home in defeat (a plan that seems to be proceeding very nicely now that Republican senators seem to be joining with the Democrats in calling for the withdrawal of our forces from Iraq). It is also to destabilize the entire region. Now that al Qaeda has made so much progress in breaking America's will, the second part of their plan could become operational sooner rather than later. Even before the first American soldier is withdrawn from Iraq in ignominious defeat, this turn of events will bring us closer to the day that American troops will have to return to the region. After all, the debate really isn't about withdrawing our troops from harm's way vs. keeping them there. Instead, it's about making a stand against al Qaeda today vs. making a stand against them later, when they are in a vastly stronger position and can inflict a much greater number of casualties. The only way to deny that likely reality is to downplay the threat of al Qaeda in Iraq. That's what the New York Times has apparently decided to do, and it's a really bad idea.

Someone has the Baghdad Body Count Wrong

Washington Post (July 5, 2007):

Nearly five months into a security strategy that involves thousands of additional U.S. and Iraqi troops patrolling Baghdad, the number of unidentified bodies found on the streets of the capital was 41 percent higher in June than in January...

General Petraeus (July 9, 2007)

"In Baghdad for example, June was the lowest month for sectarian deaths in a year."

My own analysis suggests that the number of sectarian deaths for June was well below that of January but was not the lowest of the year. Still, my analysis is much closer to what General Petraeus said than what the Washington Post erroneously reported.

I'm still waiting for the Washington Post to correct their error. Either that, or they should explain why they believe that General Petraeus has information that is so very far from the truth.

The New York Times is Skeptical of al Qaeda in Iraq

Yesterday, I puzzled over why the mainstream media is so reluctant to identify al Qaeda in Iraq as the perpetrators of mass-casualty bombings like the ones we saw over the weekend. I speculated that reporters are on guard against being duped by the military and by Bush, so they will act as if the perpetrators are simply unknown until their identity could be proven in a court of law. It turns out that I was right about this. John Hinderaker of Powerline linked to this remarkable article by the New York Times' Public Editor, Clark Hoyt:

Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner
By CLARK HOYT
Published: July 8, 2007

AS domestic support for the war in Iraq continues to melt away, President Bush and the United States military in Baghdad are increasingly pointing to a single villain on the battlefield: Al Qaeda.

He gets right to the point, doesn't he? In Hoyt's mind, Bush is exaggerating the role played by al Qaeda in Iraq in an effort to shore up support for an increasingly unpopular war. It is easy to think along these lines if you remain ignorant of the basic facts about what is happening in Iraq. Not surprisingly, Clark Hoyt does not exhibit the slightest understanding of even the most basic elements of the story pertaining to al Qaeda in Iraq, so it's easy to see why he is so skeptical.

Hoyt wants to argue that the situation is all very complicated (which it is, of course) and that al Qaeda is just one small factor to consider. That's an inconvenient stance to take on a weekend in which that small factor killed 150 people in Iraq, as even his own paper eventually got around to mentioning:

Around 150, Death Toll in Iraq Attack Among War’s Worst

BAGHDAD, July 8 — The death toll from a suicide truck bombing in a remote village in northern Iraq rose to around 150 on Sunday, making it one of the deadliest single bombings, if not the deadliest, since the 2003 invasion.
...
Tahsin Kahea, a member of the provincial council and a prominent member of the Turkmen community, said he believed that the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and religious extremists had “started to attack the Shiite towns outside the main cities after they have been suffocated in Baghdad and Diyala.”
...
As he arrived at work in Amerli on Sunday, Imad Abdul Hussein, a policeman, said: “I came to do my job and to take revenge for my uncle killed yesterday. We will fight Al Qaeda organization to the last drop of our blood; we will destroy them or they will destroy us.”

Of course, Hoyt would be skeptical that al Qaeda was involved. That's the whole point of his article. After all, maybe al Qaeda in Iraq really wasn't behind this attack (where's the proof?), or maybe al Qaeda in Iraq is an altogether different al Qaeda from the one that attacked us on 9/11 (where's the proof that it isn't?). Good reporters like Hoyt remain skeptical about these matters, and they do so by remaining ignorant of the basic facts.

To drive home his main point, Hoyt quotes Anthony H. Cordesman, who argues by mere assertion (with no facts whatsoever to back his claims):

“Nobody knows how many different Islamist extremist groups make up the insurgency” in Iraq, said Anthony H. Cordesman of the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Even when you talk about Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the idea of somehow it is the center of the insurgency is almost absurd.”

Absurd, is it? Well, I don't know what he means by "center of the insurgency," but he seems to be suggesting that al Qaeda is relatively unimportant, so let's ask a few relevant questions (unlike Hoyt, who took that unsupported assertion by Cordesman to be newsworthy):

(a) Who are the suicide bombers of Iraq? You know, the ones who just unleashed a wave of violence in Iraq? Are they former Baathists?

(b) What, exactly, are they trying to accomplish? Are they just part of the civil war? Or do they have something else in mind?

(c) How many people have they killed over the last six months? Just a few?

Answers:

(a) they are al Qaeda foot soldiers (the Baathists don't have suicide bombers, and neither does the Mahdi Army)

(b) they are trying to incite a civil war (not participating in a civil war)

(c) they have killed thousands of innocent civilians (about 200 of which were killed over the weekend in several different attacks)

Hoyt exhibits no understanding whatsoever of who the suicide bombers are, and he exhibits no curiosity about that either. He might want to read this story from the Washington Post to begin his education:

'Martyrs' In Iraq Mostly Saudis
Web Sites Track Suicide Bombings

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 15, 2005; Page A01

Who are the suicide bombers of Iraq? By the radicals' account, they are an internationalist brigade of Arabs, with the largest share in the online lists from Saudi Arabia and a significant minority from other countries on Iraq's borders, such as Syria and Kuwait. The roster of the dead on just one extremist Web site reviewed by The Washington Post runs to nearly 250 names...
...
Many of the Arabs, according to the postings, were drawn to fight in Iraq under the banner of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the group run by Jordanian militant Abu Musab Zarqawi that has taken credit for a gruesome series of beheadings, kidnappings and suicide attacks -- many of them filmed and then disseminated on the Internet in a convergence between the electronic jihad and the real-life war.

Is that clear enough for you? That's who was probably behind the yesterday's suicide bombing as well. Or does Hoyt offer a more likely suspect? Of course not. He's just expressing an attitude, not analyzing the situation. He does not seem to know who the suicide bombers are and seems equally oblivious of their mission in Iraq. His lack of understanding about al Qaeda's mission in Iraq leads Hoyt to make this incredible statement of skepticism:

The Times has stated flatly, again without attribution or supporting evidence, that Al Qaeda was responsible for the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque in Samarra last year, an event that the president has said started the sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shiites.

The mind simply boggles. No evidence that al Qaeda bombed the Golden Mosque? None whatsoever? How could Hoyt write an article like this without knowing any of this evidence?

1. Zarqawi, al Qaeda's #1 in Iraq at the time, clearly stated his intention to destroy Shiite mosques (and he was clear about why he wanted to do that):

The Shi'a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religious, political, and military symbols, will make them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance...Then, the Sunni will have no choice but to support us in many of the Sunni regions.

2. In exact accordance with this plan, the Shiite Golden Mosque was bombed in February of 2006. Hoyt thinks there is no evidence that al Qaeda was behind this, except for the slightly inconvenient fact that the al Qaeda operative who organized this attack has been captured and identified by name:

BAGHDAD, Sept. 3 -- U.S. and Iraqi forces have captured a top al-Qaeda leader who ordered the bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra that triggered a wave of ferocious sectarian killings, Iraqi officials said Sunday.

The arrest of Hamed Jumaa Faris Juri al-Saeidi, described by Iraqi officials as the No. 2 leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, was the latest in a series of blows to the Sunni Arab insurgent group, believed responsible for numerous suicide attacks on civilians and other deadly violence. The group's former leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed by U.S. forces in June and replaced by Abu Ayyub al-Masri.

But Hoyt is skeptical, which tells you something about the state of Hoyt's uninformed mind, not about the situation in Iraq. Hoyt also seems a little skeptical of the idea that this attack (by al Qaeda) on the Golden Mosque triggered the sectarian violence we see today. He is skeptical because, again, he has carefully protected mind from the facts that would allow him to appreciate why Bush made this claim. Prior to this attack, civilian casualties in Iraq were running at about 500 per month according to statistics at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. After that, the Shiite militias (especially the Mahdi Army) took off their gloves and started killing Sunnis at a very high rate. Just look at the statistics (details on how I get these numbers are available here). Here are the 6 months prior to the bombing of the Golden Mosque:


Civilian casualties were stable, as you can plainly see. Now here is a comparison of the average number of casualties in the 6 months before vs. the 6 months after the bombing of the mosque (with error bars showing the standard deviation):


Obviously, the bombing of the Golden Mosque was a significant event that almost instantaneously unleashed a higher level of sectarian violence (just as Bush claims). There is nothing in Hoyt's article to suggest that he aware of any of this. Of course, being unaware of the facts and having a suspicious liberal mind is the recipe for an article like this. He is not interested in facts, but he is interested in quoting his liberal friends in the news media:

Jonathan Landay, a friend and former colleague, wrote a sharply skeptical story for the McClatchy newspaper group after the president’s June 28 speech. Bush called Al Qaeda “the main enemy” in Iraq, but Landay reported that “U.S. military and intelligence officials” reject that characterization.

Do they? Here is what General Petreaus has to say (I assume he counts as a U.S. military official, doesn't he?):

What is your priority in the surge operation?

"It is to disrupt al-Qaeda and its ability to conduct sensational attacks and to try to continue the cycle of violence, which they have been trying to do all along. In addition, they are attempting try establish a real al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq, a caliphate."

What about the leadership in Iraq?

"It is still led by foreigners called al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL). Our assessment is that this is the central front for al-Qaeda. They have a global war of terror, and Iraq is the central front. Whether you like it or not. That is something that the leaders of the intelligence community in the West and our joint special operations commander agree on and that is why he is here two thirds or three quarters of his time. It is certainly one very important consideration in looking at Iraq."

Is Petraeus just making this up because he wants to have some fun by ordering our soldiers to kill people in Iraq? Doesn't it seem far more likely that Petreaus is accurately communicating what he believes to be true (based on detailed knowledge of the situation), whereas Jonathan Landay (Hoyt's friend and former colleague) is just spouting liberal nonsense?

Hoyt's lack of analytical prowess becomes absolutely staggering when he tries to make the case that the situation in Iraq far more complicated that America vs. al Qaeda:

Indeed the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, representing the intelligence community’s consensus assessment, summed up the situation this way:

“Iraqi society’s growing polarization, the persistent weakness of security forces and the state in general, and all sides’ ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremism.” Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia, were mentioned as “very effective accelerators for what has become a self-sustaining intersectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.”

In other words, the story of Iraq isn’t the story of all Al Qaeda all the time.

Gee, now there's a penetrating insight. It's only "all al Qaeda all the time" in Hoyt's fevered interpretation of how Bush and others think about Iraq. Start, again, with Zarqawi's letter. The plan -- for those of you who, like Hoyt, have remained willfully ignorant of the basics -- is for al Qaeda to strike Shiite civilians and mosques (as they are still doing) in an effort to bring the Shiite militias into the fight. The Mahdi Army was not in the fight until the Golden Mosque was bombed by al Qaeda in a deliberate effort to get them involved. It worked like a charm. That's why those casualty charts presented above look as they do, and it's why casualties increased to even higher levels in the Fall (which prompted Bush to order the troop surge).

How is it that Hoyt could have the audacity to write a sophomoric piece like this for the New York Times? He is revealing his own internal distrust of Bush and the U.S. military, but that distrust is born of ignorance. When you get the facts, you realize that al Qaeda really is the problem.

Despite these facts (all unknown to a skeptical Hoyt), the New York Times will now be on guard against what the head liar in Iraq (General Petraeus) has been saying lately. Here is what Hoyt did in response to his big insight about al Qaeda in Iraq:

I went back and read war coverage for much of the month of June and found many stories that conveyed the complexity and chaos of today’s Iraq. Times reporters wrote that Iraq’s political leaders were failing to meet benchmarks that would show satisfactory progress to the American government, that a formerly peaceful Shiite city in southern Iraq was convulsed by violence as rival groups fought for control, and that Sunnis feared their own country’s army because it is dominated by Shiites.

But those references to Al Qaeda began creeping in with greater frequency. Susan Chira, the foreign editor, said she takes “great pride in the whole of our coverage” but acknowledged that the paper had used “excessive shorthand” when referring to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. “We’ve been sloppy,” she said. She and other editors started worrying about it, Chira said, when the American military began an operation in mid-June against what it said were strongholds of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

Actually, the Times appears to have suddenly awakened to the fact that a withdrawal from Iraq is a lot more difficult to defend once you appreciate that we are in a war with al Qaeda. Therefore, the thing to do is to pretend that we aren't in that war. Presto!

The Islamic State of Iraq (or al Qaeda in Iraq or al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, if you prefer) is a collection of jihadist organizations that have declared themselves to be affiliated with al Qaeda. No one thinks they are 100% under the control of Osama bin Laden in the same way that our soldiers are 100% under the control of General Petraeus. But Zawahiri (al Qaeda's #2) just referred to the Islamic State of Iraq, and the Islamic State of Iraq has made it clear that they are with al Qaeda.

Since Hoyt is (supposedly) interested in the complexities of the situation in Iraq, he might want to read this article on the English-language web site of the Islamic State of Iraq. It concerns a new dispute between the Islamic Army in Iraq (the former Baathists trying to regain the control they once had -- they are not jihadists, and they don't use suicide bombers) and the Islamic State of Iraq (they are jihadists, and they do use suicide bombers). Like the tribes of the Anbar Province, the Islamic Army has turned against the Islamic State of Iraq. First, the author of this long article says something that corresponds to what Hoyt wants you to believe:

Few if any Al-Qaeda supporters (a propaganda term used by the media and the US military to refer to the Islamic State of Iraq that is made up of several different Mujahideen groups, scholars and ordinary Muslims) or the Islamic State of Iraq (State) would have the desire to listen to the news of the Islamic Army of Iraq (Army) following its fierce attack on the State and in particular on its Amir, Sheikh Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi. The Army has accused Sheikh Al-Baghdadi of killing thirty of its members, claiming all Sunnis are unbelievers and carrying out executions on the basis of mere suspicion.

Here, we see reference to the dispute between the Baathists ("the Army") and the jihadists. We also see that the author bristles at equating the Islamic State of Iraq with al Qaeda because the Islamic State also includes ordinary Muslims. Fine. But let's see what else he says. Here, he describes how the Army is losing members and how the Isalmic State is growing in membership:

The question is why has the Army slide into weakness from its previous strong force?

In reality, most of the groups have shown a decline, not just the Army, following the announcement of the Islamic State of Iraq, and the many jihad groups that joined it, especially Al Qaeda that is respected for energetic and strong young men that dare to challenge to the most powerful nation in the world and who have been able to impair their (USA) prestige and respect.

There you have it. The Islamic State is a collection of jihadist groups that now includes al Qaeda. That's precisely why the group is so much more deadly than it was before, and it's why Bush and others are talking about al Qaeda in Iraq. The Islamic State and al Qaeda are not one and the same, but they allied against us (and are much more deadly now that al Qaeda is involved). The fact that "al Qaeda in Iraq" is used as a shorthand to refer to this movement is just not a big deal because it is largely accurate.

Hoyt ends his article with this:

On Thursday, she and her deputy, Ethan Bronner, circulated a memo with guidelines on how to distinguish Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia from bin Laden’s Al Qaeda.

It’s a good move. I’d have been happier still if The Times had helped its readers by doing a deeper job of reporting on the administration’s drive to make Al Qaeda the singular enemy in Iraq.

A "deeper job?" I'm not sure Hoyt would recognize one if he saw it. Perhaps he'll read my post today, and that might help him to tell the difference between a deep analysis and a superficial expression of attitude. Unfortunately, I expect to see more of the latter from the New York Times now that they realize the predicament they are in (which is that an appreciation of al Qaeda in Iraq is problematic if you want to oppose Bush).

Al Qaeda Strikes Back; Mainstream Media Sound Asleep

You've probably heard this news by now:

Bombings leave 162 dead in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 162 Iraqi civilians have been killed in two days of bomb attacks targeting heavily trafficked commercial areas, Iraqi officials said Sunday.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military said coalition forces picked up 10 suspected terrorists during raids targeting car bombing networks across the capital Sunday.

A suicide bombing at a marketplace in northern Iraq on Saturday killed 150, a government official said. About 250 people were injured in the blast.

A truck laden with two tons of explosives detonated in an outdoor market in Amerli, officials said. The truck resembled an Iraqi military truck, according to an official at the Joint Coordination Center in Tuz Khurmatu.
...
The first car bomb exploded at about 10:30 a.m. (2:30 a.m. ET) on a busy commercial street in central Baghdad's Karrada district. Six people were killed and seven were wounded.

Minutes later a second car bomb detonated outside a restaurant in Baghdad's Jadriya district, killing three civilians and wounding eight others, the ministry said.

In the busy Shorja market in central Baghdad a roadside bomb explosion killed three people and wounded five others, according to a Baghdad police official.

Who is behind these attacks, and what are they trying to accomplish? Most people reading this story will probably just assume that these are just the latest attacks in a civil war that George Bush foolishly uncorked. But the Sunni insurgents (i.e., the former Baathists trying to regain power) don't use suicide bombers, and neither do the Shiite militias. Who are these "bombers" then? You already know, of course. Only al Qaeda and their affiliated jihadists that make up the Islamic State of Iraq use suicide bombers. And they are not doing it to help the Sunnis in their civil war against the Shiites. They are doing it to provoke that civil war, in part because it demoralizes you (and your representatives in Washington D.C.). The Islamic State of Iraq is the organization that Zawahiri just endorsed in his latest video communique to jihadis around the globe (so don't think it's a different al Qaeda that we are fighting in Iraq).

Why doesn't this CNN reporter appreciate any of this? And why don't mainstream media reporters turn on al Qaeda with the same vehemence with which they have turned on George Bush? All they'd need to do is report the truth (i.e., al Qaeda -- our enemy -- is trying to defeat America by slaughtering innocent men, women and children in an effort to incite civil war in Iraq) and then show pictures of these atrocities with, say, one ten-thousandth of the zeal with which they showed pictures of the infinitely less serious instances of abuse at Abu Ghraib. Pictures like these:


Why don't they do that? It would help America to defeat its enemy by helping to ruin al Qaeda's already tarnished reputation in the Muslim world. But the media generally won't name the perpetrators and won't even go so far as to call them terrorists (this despite the fact that the "bombers" intentionally targeted and then slaughtered a large number of unsuspecting, unarmed, and completely innocent men, women and children).

Well, maybe the Arab media is already reporting the truth that CNN carefully chooses not to report. Let's check by seeing how this story was covered at al Jazeera:

Up to 150 feared dead in Iraq blast

Up to 150 people are feared to have been killed by a lorry bomb in a crowded market in the northern Iraqi village of Emerli.

Many homes in the small community were destroyed when a suicide bomber detonated a powerful bomb on a lorry loaded with bricks, security and administration officials said on Saturday.

Emergency workers in northern Iraq told Al Jazeera the death toll could reach as high as 150.

Lieutenant colonel Saman Hamid, security forces commander in nearby Tuz Khurmatu, told the AFP news agency, "105 Iraqis were killed and five are missing ... there are more than 250 wounded."

The casualty toll was confirmed by Dr Wissam Abdullah, the director of a local hospital.

Not the slightest indication of who behind this attack anywhere in the article. Here is another story from al Jazeera referring to several "blasts" carried out by ultra-mysterious perpetrators:

Deadly blasts hit Iraq

A suicide truck bomber has killed 23 Iraqi army recruits and wounded 27 others after he rammed into their vehicle while they were travelling on a road south of Baghdad, police and an army official said.

They said the incident on Sunday took place near the town of Haswa.

Two other blasts, nearly simultaneous car bombs, left at least eight people dead in Baghdad's Karrada district.

The twin car bombs struck around 10:30am (07:30GMT). The first exploded near a restaurant that was closed at the time.

Stalls and soft-drink stands were destroyed by the explosion. Two passers-by were killed and eight others wounded, a police official said.

Karrada, a predominantly Shia area in central Baghdad, had been relatively calm in recent weeks after the so-called US security crackdown in the capital.

I am sure that many in the Arab world know perfectly well who carries out suicide attacks like these, and I assume that's why al Qaeda's reputation has been so badly tarnished among Muslims. But their reputation -- and the Muslim infrastructure that supports them -- would be much more severely damaged if al Qaeda was regularly named as the terrorist organization responsible for these atrocities. The Western media should step up to the plate. Al Jazeera seems likely to follow.

Here is how MSNBC covered the story:

Iraq truck bombing kills 100

TUZ KHORMATO, Iraq - A suicide truck bomber blasted a Shiite town north of Baghdad on Saturday, killing more than 100 people, police said, in a sign Sunni insurgents are pulling away from a U.S. offensive around the capital to attack where security is thinner.

The marketplace devastation underlined a hard reality in Iraq: There are not enough forces to protect everywhere. U.S. troops, already increased by 28,000 this year, are focused on bringing calm to Baghdad, while the Iraqi military and police remain overstretched and undertrained.

The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told The Associated Press he expected Sunni extremists to try to “pull off a variety of sensational attacks and grab the headlines to create a ‘mini-Tet.”’

I wish I could find the transcript of this interview because I seriously doubt that General Petraeus referred to "Sunni extremists" when discussing the new Tet offensive. Look who he was talking about the last time he discussed the Tet offensive (back in April):

Joining us is General David Patraeus, who is the man in the hot seat in Iraq, the commander of U.S. forces there. And General, you've only been there a short time, but some people are already wondering why there isn't more progress faster given the new strategy that you put in place.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, CMDR., MULTINATL. FORCES IRAQ: Well, Jamie, first of all, good to be with you. It is an exceedingly complex and challenging environment. We have only been at the new plan a couple of months. We won't have all of our additional surge forces on the ground until -- and in their operational areas until about mid-June.

There have been areas of progress. Certainly the reduction in the -- in a very important category, sectarian murders and executions in Baghdad, they have been cut by about two-thirds, in fact, since December and January. So again, some progress.

On the other hand, clearly there have been setbacks in the form of the efforts of al Qaeda to try to reignite sectarian violence and even ethnic violence by horrific suicide and car bomb attacks and by almost indiscriminate attacks really. In fact, Secretary Gates said when he was in Baghdad last week, correctly, that al Qaeda has declared war on all Iraqis.
...
MCINTYRE: To what extent is this still a test of wills, a tet of U.S. resolve? And if it is, what effect does it have when political leaders in the United States say things like the surge is not working, the war is lost? Does that become a self-fulfilling prophecy?

PETRAEUS: Well, certainly any endeavor like this is a test of wills. And frankly, the most important demonstration of our will is on the ground. And what we're doing on the ground right now is reinforcing our forestructure very substantially. Adding five army combat brigades, two marine battalions and marine expeditionary unit, and a number of different enablers as they are called.

Do mainstream media reporters doubt what General Petraeus says? I assume so, and that must be why they say nothing along these lines when reporting horrific terrorist attacks from Iraq (and they don't even refer to them as terrorist attacks). The analysis offered by Petreaus happens to exactly match the one that I independently arrived at once I started looking into the relevant evidence when I first started blogging almost one year ago. I was shocked by what I discovered, and that's because of the way in which the media covers the news from Iraq. It's perfectly fine for reporters to be opposed to the war, but it would be better if they reported the truth so that more Americans were aware of what was happening. As matters stand, I am sure that most Americans would be shocked to hear the analysis offered by General Petreaus (because most Americans just think of Iraq as a "mess").

Unfortunately, this is a war against al Qaeda, but mainstream media reporters are incredibly reluctant to say so. I'm not sure why that is. I guess they just want to make sure that they don't get duped by our military even though it is transparently obvious that what Petraeus says is true. To gaurd against the possibility that General Petraeus is a flagrant liar, they just report the news about suicide bombings and leave it to your imagination to figure out what might be going on.

To its credit, the MSNBC story eventually got around to mentioning al Qaeda:

Abdullah Jabara, deputy governor of Salahuddin province where the town is located, told Iraqi state television that 115 died—nearly three-quarters of them women, children and elderly—and blamed al-Qaida. Police gave a similar death toll, along with more than 200 wounded, though Tuz Khormato’s police chief, Col. Abbas Mohammed Amin, put the toll at 150 dead.

The attack’s location suggested it was carried out by Sunni extremists fleeing the three-week old U.S. offensive centered at the city of Baqouba, 60 miles to the south on Baghdad’s northern doorstep. The sweep aims to uproot al-Qaida militants and Sunni insurgents using the area to stage car bomb attacks in the capital.

The story could have added that Abdullah Jabara's claim, according to which this was an attack by al Qaeda, corresponds to the analysis offered by General Petraeus. It could have also mentioned that the attack was not part of a civil but was designed to provoke a civil war, in part because sectarian violence causes American politicians to call for our troops to be withdrawn. But at least readers of this story know that some Iraqi who they never heard of thinks that this attack was carried out by al Qaeda. That's something, I guess.

To its further credit, the story also briefly discusses how things are turning against al Qaeda in Iraq:

Dozens of Sunni Muslim sheiks and tribal leaders met Saturday in the western city of Ramadi, pledging to fight terrorism and restore peace to Anbar province—for years the heart of the insurgency.

Among them were members of the Anbar Awakening, which was formed in April by more than 200 Sunni sheiks whose followers are now cooperating with U.S. forces against al-Qaida and other insurgents. The meeting also called for the release of security detainees who had not been convicted of crimes and for a bigger role for their group in representing Sunni interests.

This is an extremely important development for those who appreciate the glaringly obvious (but nevertheless top secret) fact that we are in a war against al Qaeda. But this recent change will surely be short-circuited if we withdraw our forces.

General Petraeus is trying to quell the suicide bombers of al Qaeda in Iraq, but the suicide bombers themselves are trying to influence Harry Reid and other senators. Unfortunately, they are doing a very good job of achieving their objective :

Sensing a Shift, Reid Will Press for an Iraq Exit

By CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENY
Published: July 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 7 — Democratic voters are not the only ones bitter over their party’s failure to use new Congressional power to force a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Senator Harry Reid, the occasionally obstreperous Democratic leader, is seething as well.

“We haven’t done enough,” said Mr. Reid, a onetime moderate who has evolved into one of the party’s most fervent critics of the war.
...
Sensing momentum from the new Republican defections, Mr. Reid and other leading Democrats intend to force a series of votes over the next two weeks on proposals to withdraw troops and limit spending. Democrats are increasingly confident they can assemble majority opposition to administration policies.

Harry Reid never talks about al Qaeda in Iraq. Don't you think that is just a little bit peculiar? And if you pay attention, you'll see that any proposal to withdraw our troops will briefly mention that some troops should be left behind to target terrorists. I've got news for you: that's exactly what the troop surge is doing right now, and you can see what al Qaeda is capable of doing anyway. If we leave some troops behind, we'll leave in place the magnet that draws al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists to Iraq while greatly reducing our ability to do anything about them. Does anyone imagine that al Qaeda will be less capable of provoking genocide under those conditions? If so, I'd like to see that analysis. Such an analysis will never appear because it would make no sense. Deep down, everyone knows perfectly well what will happen when we leave. Everyone knows, but many won't say. The pull-out-now crowd will presumably feel good about themselves if they get what they want, but only if they ignore what comes next:

No one can know for sure whether President Bush's "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq will succeed. But those who believe that human rights should play a central role in international affairs should be doing everything in their power to maximize the chances that it will. For one of the consequences of failure could well be catastrophe.

A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces could lead to a bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by comparison. Without U.S. troops in place to quell some of the violence, Iranian-backed Shiite militias would dramatically increase their attacks on Sunnis; Sunni militias, backed by the Saudis or others, would retaliate in kind, drawing more and more of Iraq into a vicious cycle of violence. If Iraq descended into full-blown civil war, the chaos could trigger similar clashes throughout the region as Sunni-Shiite tensions spill across Iraq's borders. The death toll and the displacement of civilians could climb exponentially.

Perhaps the greatest irony of the political debate over Iraq is that many of Bush's critics, who accused his administration of going blindly to war without considering what would happen once Hussein's regime was toppled, now blindly support a policy of withdrawing from Iraq without considering what might follow.

In this respect, the debate over Iraq is beginning to look a lot like the debate about the Vietnam War in the 1960s and '70s. Then, too, the argument in the United States focused primarily on whether U.S. forces should pull out. But many who supported that withdrawal in the name of human rights did not foresee the calamity that followed, which included genocide in Cambodia, tens of thousands slaughtered in Vietnam by the North Vietnamese and the tragedy of hundreds of thousands of "boat people."

Good heavens. Maybe the critics have been right all along. Iraq really is another Vietnam, but only because the Democrats in America (with some help from the Republicans, apparently) are going to make it so.

Fred Thompson is a Man of Substance

A few days ago, a reporter for the Associated Press expressed this personal opinion in what was cleverly disguised as a news article:

Thompson strong on style, not substance

WASHINGTON - Fred Thompson's easygoing, no-nonsense style is clearly his strength and undoubtedly has helped him soar in presidential polls. It may only get him so far.

Sooner or later, the all-but-declared candidate will have to answer the question: What else do you offer?
...
Thompson also has been forced to defend his lobbying career amid questions about some of his clients, including deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

In response to such inquiries, Thompson told reporters: "Nobody yet has pointed out any of my clients that didn't deserve representation." That kind of statement is not likely to deter reporters from looking more closely any more than it did in 1987 when Gary Hart dared people to investigate him amid allegations of philandering. They did and he ended up withdrawing from the race for a time when an extramarital relationship was discovered.

Can you think of anything less substantive for reporters to inquire about than Thompson's lobbying career? The issues we face today -- issues that he'd have to confront as president -- are vastly more important than that. To check on Thompson's substance (or lack thereof), I decided to look into a particular issue to see what he had to say about it. How he thinks about the issues -- not how he handles the questions of reporters asking about his past lobbying career -- is what determines whether or not he is a man of substance. The issue I selected for today was capital punishment. The AP reporter didn't do anything remotely approximating that, which is one reason why the AP story is so completely lacking in substance.

If you read my blog, you know that research studies conducted since the 1990s have suggested that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to murder. Only recently did this news finally make into the mainstream media (in an AP story, no less). An airhead politician who was utterly lacking in substance would not know about this and would therefore make no mention of it when explaining his or her stance on the issue. Here is what Fred Thompson has to say about capital punishment:

In the last few years, however, serious researchers have applied themselves to finding the evidence. Criminologists and economists have gathered and analyzed a mountain of data, and many of them were surprised by what they found. Now, they've published papers in respected academic journals that are establishing an unexpected consensus.

The reliable two-thirds of Americans who have always supported the death penalty probably wouldn't be surprised to find out that study after study has shown that the death penalty deters murders. Some studies show really dramatic effects, with each execution of a murderer deterring as many as 18 or more murders. That’s according to Emory University professors, who found as well that delaying execution also leads to further murders. Most studies have concluded that some number of murders between three and 18 are prevented for every application of capital punishment.

Is there any other candidate for president whose position on the issue of capital punishment is as substantive as this one? I could not even find Hillary Clinton's position, but I did find this description of Barack Obama's position:

Obama wrote in his recent memoir that he thinks the death penalty "does little to deter crime." But he supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

Why does he think that the death penalty does little to deter crime? Is there any substantive reasoning behind that view, or is it merely an expression of his attitude, one that he would like to be true? Does he specifically disagree with the research on this issue, or is he completely unaware of it? I'd consider his position be more substantive if he'd say one way or the other.

I was surprised to see that Obama supports the death penalty for heinous crimes even though he believes that it does not deter murder. Lots of people have that view, but they are usually conservatives. Liberals often think it is morally repugnant to take a human life for purposes of revenge. I wonder what they will think about Obama when they hear about this?

I never thought I'd find Barack Obama to be to the right of me on any political issue, but he is to the right of me on this one. My own view is that capital punishment should be used for heinous crimes (here, I agree with Obama) but only if it serves as a deterrent to murder (here, I disagree with him). The evidence suggests that executions do deter crime, which is why I support capital punishment. But Barack Obama supports capital punishment even though he is convinced that it does not deter crime. As such, on this important issue, he is out there on the right wing. I respect that position, but I'd consider it to be more substantive if he were not unaware of the relevant research. Then again, the news about this research only recently came to the attention of the public, so perhaps he'll update his views soon (I'll keep an eye out for that).

I suspect that Fred Thompson is far more conservative than I am (my views generally seem to be closer to those of people like Rudy Guiliani and Joseph Lieberman), but my impression of him is far different from the impression of that AP reporter who expressed his personal opinion in a so-called news article. Our differing views of the man can be explained by the fact that I have actually read some of what Thompson has written, whereas the reporter seems to have mostly diagnosed his own internal feelings and then egocentrically presented those feelings as news.

UPDATE: Another AP reporter has decided to write an article that helpfully points out that, more than 30 years ago, Nixon thought that Thompson was not very smart:

Fred Thompson gained an image as a tough-minded investigative counsel for the Senate Watergate committee. Yet President Nixon and his top aides viewed the fellow Republican as a willing, if not too bright, ally, according to White House tapes.

This is major news, isn't it? If it turns out that someone in the last 30 years stated that Thompson was very bright, don't look for this reporter to rush out and write a story about it. Thompson is obviously bright (no matter what Nixon once said), and he's pretty funny, too:

"The New York Times and the Hillary Clinton campaign have got us number one on their target list, so I want to report that and say I appreciate all their help," Thompson said. "If nothing else, we’ve apparently convinced the Clinton’s that it really is a bad thing to lie under oath," he said as his line was greeted with laughter from the audience.

Now that's newsworthy.

A Glaring Error in the Washington Post

Readers of my blog know that I do not hesitate to bring you bad news about casualties in Iraq when the news actually is bad. But when the news is good, I will not hesitate to tell you about that either.

At Powerline, Paul Mirengoff linked to this new Washington Post article on casualties in Iraq:

Body Count In Baghdad Up in June

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 5, 2007; Page A01

BAGHDAD, July 4 -- Nearly five months into a security strategy that involves thousands of additional U.S. and Iraqi troops patrolling Baghdad, the number of unidentified bodies found on the streets of the capital was 41 percent higher in June than in January, according to unofficial Health Ministry statistics.

During the month of June, 453 unidentified corpses, some bound, blindfolded, and bearing signs of torture, were found in Baghdad, according to morgue data provided by a Health Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

The number of unidentified bodies found in Baghdad was significantly higher in June than in January, the month before the deployment of additional U.S. and Iraqi forces began in the capital. However, the overall number of civilians who died in violence in most Iraqi provinces has generally declined since January.

In January, 321 corpses were discovered in the capital, a total that fell steadily until April but then rose sharply over the last two months, the statistics show.

Did the Washington Post forget about their own story from April that reported this information about body counts from January?

U.S. commanders say sectarian murders fell from 1,200 in Baghdad in January to fewer than 400 in March. Markets are reopening, and a few thousand families have trickled back to areas they had fled.

But they agreed that among the most troubling trends in Iraq has been the proliferation of suicide bomb attacks, because they risk reigniting sectarian revenge killings and undermining the government. Suicide bombings have increased 30 percent over the six weeks that ended in early April, according to military data.

As it happens, I think that the number of sectarian murders supplied by the US military for January (1200) might be too high, as I discussed in detail here back in April. But the number in the new story (321) is absurdly low, so the Washington Post needs to print a retraction. In fact, according to the most reliable numbers available, the body count in Baghdad is down by 27% in June compared to January. As such, the headline of the story needs to be changed from Body Count In Baghdad Up in June to Body Count In Baghdad Down in June. I covered those statistics in detail here in the context of a larger discussion about declining civilian casualties in Iraq, but today I'll focus only on the daily body count in Baghdad.

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count keeps track of casualties in Iraq based on deaths reported in the media (you can find their reports here). Every single day, they register the body count for Baghdad. They may not catch every murder, but their methodology is consistent and is therefore able to capture genuine trends. Here, for example, is the article that formed the basis of their report for 1/10/07:

BAGHDAD - Police recovered the bodies of 60 people with gunshot wounds and signs of torture from various parts of Baghdad in the 24 hours to Wednesday evening, an Interior Ministry source said.

There is a report like that for virtually every day in January and every day in June. It is a much more objective way to track trends than relying on anonymous officials who do not explain the basis for the numbers they provide to over-eager reporters. When you add up the numbers reported by the police, you find that the number of dead bodies found on the streets of Baghdad was 735 in January and 540 in June (a 27% drop). This is much like the overall drop in casualties throughout Iraq for the month of June. Here is a graph showing the daily body counts provided by the police and reported in the media:


The Washington Post instead reports a 41% increase between January and June. This is simply an error, and it needs to corrected (see my earlier complaint about how this paper tracks casualties here). The same article also reports these additional Baghdad casualty figures:

But even before the plan went into effect, the number of bodies discovered had fallen well below the levels of last fall. In October, for instance, 1,782 unidentified bodies were found in Baghdad, according to the United Nations, citing official statistics provided by the Health Ministry.

By January, the total dropped to 321 in the capital, according to the statistics provided to The Washington Post, followed by 294 in February, 272 in March and 182 in April. But the figure spiked upward to 433 in May and 453 last month. A Health Ministry spokesman could not be reached for comment on the statistics despite several attempts.

These numbers, which are all over the place, are simply ridiculous. The Washington Post reporters clearly have no sophistication in these matters. The mistake they make -- and it is a huge mistake to make if you are attempting to measure a trend -- is to compare figures that are based on different methodologies. The figure of 1782 for October is based on an unreliable morgue report supplied to the UN by some anonymous official (morgue figures are untrustworthy, they have been seriously challenged, and they are no longer routinely provided, except by unauthorized, anonymous officials). The other casualty figures appear to be provided by different anonymous officials (not by the UN) using an unknown methodology. That is not a sensible way to track trends. To track trends, you need to adopt a single methodology, validate the numbers it provides (my most recent effort along those lines can be found here), and then stick to it. Contrast that approach with the one used by those reporters for the Washington Post. They just grab numbers wherever they can find them, cobble them together, and then imagine themselves to be tracking trends. It isn't sensible to do that.

To get a feel for how inaccurate their numbers are, look at that figure of 182 for April. I don't know where that came from (because the reporters do not say), but it is ridiculously low. For example, here is a story in USA Today that relies on the same UN figure for October (which they should not have done) but comes up with a much different figure for April, again by relying on someone who was not authorized to speak to the media:

The number of unidentified bodies found in Baghdad — an indicator of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims — dropped from a high of 1,782 in October to 411 in April, according to an Interior Ministry official who declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

So which is it, 182 or 411 for April? According to Iraq Coalition casualty Count, 425 bodies were found in Baghdad in April. These are based on reports provided by officials who are authorized to speak to the media and who do so every single day. Unless you think the media reports that document these deaths are lies, the number supplied by the Washington Post (182) is way off base.

Here is the New York Times weighing in on the subject:

In Baghdad, 730 civilians were reported killed in June from assassinations, bombs or small-arms fire. That was down from 1,070 in May, a decline of almost 32 percent, an Interior Ministry official told The New York Times.

However, the number of dead bodies found in Baghdad, a measure of sectarian killings, while lower in June than in May, was still higher than in April, according to the Interior Ministry official. In April, there were 411 dead bodies found in Baghdad; in May, there were 726; in June, the number dropped to 540.

The numbers in this article for April, May and June are quite close to the numbers you get from Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (ICCC), which are 425, 649, and 540, respectively. I suspect that these are official statistics of the Iraq Interior Ministry (because the source is not identified as being unauthorized), but I can't be sure. In any case, let's look at the numbers for the month of April from 4 different sources:

Washington Post: 182 ??
USA Today: 425
NY Times: 411
ICCC: 425

Does one number stand out as being different from the others? The new Washington Post story is way off the mark. That being the case, you simply cannot trust the overall analysis provided by that story, and you certainly cannot trust the headline: Body Count In Baghdad Up in June. This headline has it exactly backwards, and it really needs to be corrected.

The Washington Post story also said this:

But the number of unidentified bodies found on the streets is considered a key indicator of the malignancy of sectarian strife. While the declining number of bombing victims suggests that efforts to control violence are showing some success, the daily slayings of individuals, in aggregate, speak to an enduring level of aggression.

As it happens, this "key indicator of the malignancy of sectarian strife" dropped by 27% in June compared to January. How many people are reading the page 1 story in the Washington Post that got it exactly backwards and how many are going to get the rest of the story that I provide here? I shudder to think, so I will do my best to get the Post to correct their mistake. If they do, the correction will probably appear in some isolated paragraph on page A17, and it will simply say that it is hard to get reliable casualty figures from Iraq because various sources of information yield different conclusions. That's what a correction is likely to say in the unlikely event that a correction is made. The truth is that reliable figures can be obtained (read my detailed explanation here), and I have gone to great lengths over the years to demonstrate that this is true. I doubt that any reporter at the Washington Post has put in anywhere near the effort that I have on this issue. I am quite confident that sectarian murders in Baghdad declined significantly in June relative to January. At a minimum, I am certain that the method I use is vastly more reliable than the method used by the Washington Post in their page 1 story.

Senator Harry Reid vs. General David Petraeus

Senator Reid and General Petraeus have fundamentally different views about whether or not al Qaeda has made Iraq the central front in the war on terror. Who are you going to believe?

You might think that I spend too much time on the issue of al Qaeda in Iraq, but it's only because the entire Democratic leadership and a large segment of the American population are either in denial about or are unaware of the problem we face. Not knowing that we are in a war against al Qaeda -- yes, the very same terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11 -- accounts for why many Americans are ready to pull out now. They simply don't realize that such a move is tantamount to surrendering to the Islamic radicals that attacked our homeland not so very long ago.

Here is al Qaeda's second-in-command with a 4th-of-July message that you should pay attention to:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Al-Qaida's No. 2 has issued a new video tape calling on Muslims to unite in jihad, or holy war, and support the Islamist movement in Iraq, a U.S.-based intelligence monitoring group said Wednesday.
...
In the tape, al-Zawahri encouraged Iraqis and Muslims in general to show greater support for the Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaida insurgent front in the country, even though it lacks "necessary qualifications", the SITE group quoted al-Zawahri as saying.

The Islamic State of Iraq is a collection of jihadist groups known to be affiliated with al Qaeda. They are the ones who are responsible for the suicide attacks, many of which are directed at Shiite civilians -- not because they are in a civil war against the Shiites but because they are trying to goad the Shiite militias into killing Sunnis. For al Qaeda, only good things come from a civil war in Iraq. For example, in response to a civil war, Americans become predictably demoralized and want to leave, which would allow al Qaeda to rightly claim victory (thereby restoring their tarnished reputation throughout the Muslim world). Also, a civil war will lead to a failed state, which is the environment in which al Qaeda thrives. Creating failed states and then using them to launch jihadist operations around the world is the whole idea. Zawahiri is quite clear about that:

Regarding al-Qaeda's plans for the future, Zawahiri referred to a second half of a long-term plan, consisting of using Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia as camps for jihadi preparation and training.

Well, no kidding. First, they'll use their suicide bombers to crush the feeble will of the American people so that our soldiers are pulled from the conflict in Iraq. Then they'll send their suicide bombers to Afghanistan. You can predict how the Democrats will respond to that, can't you? So can al Qaeda. Iraq and Afghanistan will both become failed states, which is when al Qaeda can really get down to business.

I went to Harry Reid's web site to get his latest analysis of the situation in Iraq. Here it is:

As Iraq becomes a breeding ground for terrorism, the Bush Administration has become distracted from fighting al-Qaeda along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding. It’s time to refocus our nation’s efforts on a strategy to effectively fight terrorism.

In other words, Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror. Instead, it is merely a breeding ground for terrorists, one that keeps us distracted from the real central front, which lies along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.

Al Qaeda's leadership is most likely inside Pakistan, but they have sent their foot soldiers (i.e., the suicide bombers) to fight a war in Iraq. Our own leadership is in Washington D.C., but we have also sent our soldiers to fight a war in Iraq. Why? Because Iraq really is the central front in this war. You can blame Bush for creating that situation, but it doesn't make sense to deny it. Compare Harry Reid's analysis with the one provided by General Petraeus in an interview from a few weeks ago:

What is your priority in the surge operation?

"It is to disrupt al-Qaeda and its ability to conduct sensational attacks and to try to continue the cycle of violence, which they have been trying to do all along. In addition, they are attempting try establish a real al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq, a caliphate."

What about the leadership in Iraq?

"It is still led by foreigners called al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL). Our assessment is that this is the central front for al-Qaeda. They have a global war of terror, and Iraq is the central front. Whether you like it or not. That is something that the leaders of the intelligence community in the West and our joint special operations commander agree on and that is why he is here two thirds or three quarters of his time. It is certainly one very important consideration in looking at Iraq."

I assume that the foreign leadership that Petraeus refers to is the very same leadership that Senator Reid refers to as residing in Pakistan. I further assume that they are talking about people like Osama bin Laden (al Qaeda's #1) and Zawahiri (al Qaeda's #2). What they disagree about is where the central front in the war on terror lies. The reason for the disagreement is that Harry Reid completely ignores blindingly obvious developments on the ground in Iraq, not because Petraeus is in denial about what is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

If you read Senator Reid's analysis, you'll see that he strongly believes that the real problem involves the growing activities of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That might very well be a growing problem, but what is truly bizarre about that way of thinking is that al Qaeda's suicide bombers have killed thousands of innocent people in Iraq and have scarcely killed anyone in Afghanistan. Even so, Reid (but not Petraeus) completely ignores the carnage sewn by al Qaeda in Iraq. About that he only says that Iraq is a "breeding ground for terrorists." That's his entire analysis of al Qaeda in Iraq. And that's simply bizarre.

The Taliban does seem to be trying to make a comeback in Afghanistan, probably with some (but not much) help from al Qaeda. However, their efforts are not going very well at all:

Due to rising Taliban insurgency, over 2,500 persons, mostly Taliban militants, have been killed in Afghanistan.

In other words, it is the Taliban that is suffering the large majority of the casualties. By contrast, al Qaeda kills about that many innocent civilians in Iraq every 6 months or so with their spectacular suicide bombing. Here is more about that from the interview with General Petraeus:

What about al-Qaeda?

As they were run out of Euphrates river valley they moved east. There will be big fights in some of these areas. An awful lot of their foreign fighters come through Syria. Eighty or so foreign fighters come through a month. That does not sound like much but every one of those is a potential suicide bomber. We think that 80 to 90 per cent of suicide bombers are foreign fighters.

Those suicide bombers represent al Qaeda's army, and they have been devastatingly effective in sewing the seeds of civil war in Iraq.

Although Reid is eerily ignoring what is happening in Iraq with respect to al Qaeda, no one disputes Reid's point that al Qaeda's senior leadership is likely to reside in Pakistan. But what does Reid propose to do about that? I question the wisdom of invading that country (if that's what Reid proposes) or withdrawing our support for General Musharraf, who would be replaced by Islamic radicals (if that's what Reid propose to do instead). Of course, Reid doesn't propose to actually do anything because he is not being serious (at all). Instead, he is just standing on the sidelines complaining. That's because it is hard to know what to do about Musharraf, but it is very easy to complain. Here is a very interesting analysis in the Washington Post provided by Stephen Cohen (a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program of the Brookings Institution and author of "The Idea of Pakistan"):

Musharraf receives unstinting American support because of his turnabout after Sept. 11, 2001, regarding support for the Taliban and al-Qaeda. No one doubts his sincerity regarding al-Qaeda; as he writes in his fanciful autobiography, these were the people who several times tried to kill him.

But there is room for skepticism about Pakistan's role with regard to the Taliban. Pakistani officials freely admit that their main concerns in Afghanistan are Indian penetration (which would mean encirclement for Islamabad) and Afghan President Hamid Karzai's dependence on New Delhi. Given this strategic compulsion, it is not surprising that Pakistan tolerates, if it does not directly support, the Taliban; it has no other instrument available to it than this Pashtun tribal hammer.

Should we turn against Musharraf because of this? The problem is that the alternative may be a nuclear-armed Islamic state. It is a tough problem with no easy solution, and it all reminds me of that famous paragraph written by Charles Krauthammer some years ago:

The essence of foreign policy is deciding which son of a bitch to support and which to oppose--in 1941, Hitler or Stalin; in 1972, Brezhnev or Mao; in 1979, Somoza or Ortega. One has to choose. A blanket anti-son of a bitch policy, like a blanket anti-ethnic cleansing policy, is soothing, satisfying and empty. It is not a policy at all but righteous self-delusion.

And so it is today with General Musharraf. Pakistan is a problem, but acknowledging that does not make the problem of al Qaeda in Iraq disappear (unless you are Harry Reid, that is).

Tolerating al Qaeda

In an earlier post, I argued that the mainstream media should target al Qaeda in Iraq. To do so, they would merely have to report the truth (which is always good). Here was my argument:

In the long term, it is essential that we win the propaganda war so that the countries that spawn these jihadists become less tolerant of them. Al Qaeda knows that. For example, I've noticed that they quickly claim credit for attacks on US and Iraqi security forces (which Muslims around the world just love), but they never claim credit for mass casualty attacks on Muslim civilians in Iraq (because ordinary Muslims are less pleased about that). To me, that's very interesting. It means that al Qaeda clearly recognizes the propaganda losses they have suffered because of the brutally effective strategy they have adopted in Iraq. They want to kill Shiite civilians to infuriate the Shiite militias so they will once again enter the civil war (because that suits al Qaeda's purposes), but they don't want to be blamed for doing so.
...
Which brings me to the main point of my post today: the mainstream media in the US is missing the opportunity to more severely damage the reputation of al Qaeda in Muslim countries around the world. Although our news is presented in English (not Arabic), the message pushed by our media makes its way around the world. In order to further tarnish the reputation of al Qaeda -- and to also report the news more truthfully (which is an added benefit) -- reporters should not hesitate to label the suicide bombers of Iraq as probable al Qaeda terrorists, as they sometimes do...Too often, though, in a truly pathetic attempt to remain "objective," they refer to these attacks as being carried out by Sunni "extremists" or "insurgents." They should instead always attribute these attacks against innocent civilians as likely having been carried out al Qaeda terrorists. They should further remind their audience, much more clearly than they do now, that the purpose of these attacks is to infuriate Shiite militias so they will begin to slaughter Sunni civilians. That's al Qaeda's stated plan.

This is the message that the Muslim world needs to hear, and it has the added benefit of being true: al Qaeda is working to ensure that Muslims kill Muslims in large numbers.

The mainstream media appears not to be up to the job, but Michael Yon certainly is. His latest dispatch from Iraq describes unbelievable atrocities committed by al Qaeda that, for some reason, the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge. This is the same hysterical media that treated Abu Ghraib like it was 10 times worse than Auschwitz.

Why doesn't the mainstream media declare war on al Qaeda in Iraq? Glenn Reynolds provides the answer -- one that you have probably already seen by now -- in this truly amazing post:

WHY DON'T AL QAEDA ATROCITIES GET MEDIA ATTENTION?

Because that might help Bush.

UPDATE: A journalist whose name you'd recognize emails:

Yon's story doesn't get attention because it is humiliating.

It is humiliating because it is obvious that we media – and our allies in the state department, the legal trade, the NGOs, the Democratic Party, the UN, etc., - can't do squat about such determined use of force.

Our words, images, arguments and skills can't stop the killing. Only the rough soldiers and their guns can solve the problem, and we won't admit that fact because the admission would weaken our influence and our claim to social status.

So we pretend Yon’s massacre – and the North Korean killing fields, the Arab treatment of women, the Arab hatred of Israel, etc. - doesn't exist, and instead focus our emotions and attention on the somewhat-bad domestic things that we can ‘fix’ with our DC-based allies. Things such as Abu Ghraib, wiretapping, etc. When we ‘fix’ them, then we get status, applause, power, new jobs, ego, etc.

Please don't be surprised. We media are an interest group not much different from the automakers, the unions, and the farmers.

Perhaps there is some other explanation for why a media that was so ridiculously absorbed by Abu Ghraib is so utterly silent about the vastly worse atrocities committed by al Qaeda, but this is the best one that I have heard. If you need more evidence that the mainstream media is an "interest group," read this hysterical depiction of our finest reporters in action.

But my main point today is that I disagree with this honest reporter when he or she says "...we media...can't do squat about such determined use of force." Oh yes you can. You can damage al Qaeda's reputation throughout the Muslim world, and you can do it by reporting the truth about that wretched terrorist organization more often than you do now. Even without the media's help, al Qaeda is slowly losing the propaganda war in the Muslim world. If reporters would put half as much effort into truthfully portraying al Qaeda as they do into ludicrously proving that Bush is the root of all evil, the propaganda war against al Qaeda would be a rout.

We don't really need to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world (much as I'd like to do that). Instead, we need al Qaeda and like-minded terrorist organizations to lose the hearts and minds of the Muslim world because of what they are doing against fellow Muslims in Iraq. Helping that process along (by reporting the truth) is how the media can do something about "...such determined use of force."

The New York Times is Upset about Libby

Imagine you had a brother who had once been a heroin addict and who you feared was prone to relapse. He seemed to be doing OK because he always stayed away from his former drug scene, but then you learn, to your dismay, that he made a trip last night to visit his former heroin supplier. You call the drug pusher to bitterly complain about this, but the pusher tells you that no sale was made because the police are monitoring him closely these days. One of your brother's friends, who thinks you are butting in where you don't belong, jumps to your brother's defense and says you are crazy to be worried about him. After all, he didn't get any heroin last night. What's the problem? This friend then starts telling people that you are a liar because of your claim that your brother was trying to acquire drugs last night. As proof that you are a liar, he bizarrely states that no drug sale took place (as if that exonerates your brother).

In this hypothetical example, it would probably seem very likely to you that your brother was falling off the wagon because of his obvious efforts to once again acquire heroin. His failure to actually get his hands on the drug this one time would probably not make you feel a whole lot better, and his lies about what he was up to (e.g., "I was just visiting and old friend") probably wouldn't help much either. Unless you were a fool who knows nothing about what drug addicts are like, you'd be very concerned about your brother's actions (and rightly so).

Saddam Hussein was like that drug addict, but his addiction was to yellow cake. George Bush was like that concerned sibling, and Joseph Wilson was like the friend who preposterously thought that everything was OK because the drug sale did not actually take place.

I used this analogy because I believe that many are confused about a basic point in the Joe Wilson-inspired "Bush lied!" hysteria. The confusion involves the distinction between seeking WMDs and actually acquiring WMDs on a particular occasion. In a nutshell, Bush said that Saddam was once again seeking yellow cake, which was a real cause for concern. Joe Wilson wrote an infamous editorial -- one that got the whole "Bush lied!" canard rolling -- in which he claimed to have debunked the notion that a sale of yellow cake had taken place. What has been largely overlooked, so far as I can tell, is that Joe Wilson's claim about a transaction is unrelated to Bush's claim about Saddam's efforts to once again acquire WMDs.

What prompted my interest in this subject (one that I have covered before) was an editorial in the New York Times yesterday in which they completely blur this critical distinction, as if it doesn't matter at all. Here is what the editors said:

Mr. Libby was convicted of lying to federal agents investigating the leak of the name of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson. Mrs. Wilson’s husband, Joseph Wilson, was asked to investigate a central claim in Mr. Bush’s drive to war with Iraq — whether Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa. Mr. Wilson concluded that Iraq had not done that and had the temerity to share those conclusions with the American public.

This is flat out wrong, and I am amazed that the editors of the New York Times have overlooked a critical detail about a column by Joseph Wilson that appeared on their own editorial pages. It is, of course, true that Bush claimed that Saddam tried to purchase uranium from Niger (the point highlighted in bold above). Here again are the famous 16 words from Bush's State of the Union Address (this is the ostensible "lie" that Bush told):

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

According to Bush, Saddam -- sought -- uranium (subject -- verb -- object). That is the core underlying point in these 16 words. Whether or not he succeeded in acquiring uranium from Niger is a separate issue that Bush did not address in his speech. Try to hang onto this thought.

At the time of Bush's State of the Union speech, the CIA still believed that Saddam might have made an actual transaction with Niger, whereas the State Department seriously doubted that. That is, there was a debate about whether or not Saddam actually acquired uranium from Niger. But neither disputed the idea that Saddam--sought--uranium from Niger, which is what Bush was talking about.

Did Joseph Wilson debunk the idea that Saddam sought uranium in Niger? To find out, you have to read his infamous New York Times column. Let's look at what his says about the background for his trip:

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

Be clear about this. Wilson refers to a report that supposedly documented the sale of uranium to Saddam. The basic structure of the message contained in the report was this:

Saddam -- purchased -- uranium (subject -- verb -- object).

That's the essence of what this report apparently said. And that's what Wilson set out to verify. He was not sent to verify the claim that Saddam was shopping for uranium (like a drug addict shopping for heroin). Unlike the CIA report, Bush claimed that Saddam went on a shopping trip, not that he had purchased uranium. In other speeches, Bush was very clear that he simply did not know if Saddam had succeeded in getting any uranium.

Wilson goes on to say:

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

In other words, the idea that Saddam--purchased--uranium is false. Fine. That conclusion tells you something about the validity of a CIA report that suggested otherwise.

Wilson goes on to say:

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

Note the shift in emphasis. Now we are suddenly talking about the first issue again (Saddam -- sought -- uranium). What did Joe Wilson find out about Saddam's intent to purchase uranium? Incredibly, he says not one word about that in his infamous column. Not one single word. Read his column, and you will see what I mean.

If you think that Bush claimed that Saddam successfully purchased uranium in Niger, and if you think that Joe Wilson successfully debunked that claim, then it is reasonable for you to believe that Wilson "blew the whistle" on Bush (and that Bush lied). But if that's what you think, you need to think again. You might want to start by reading Wilson's column. If you do, you'll discover that he debunked a CIA report -- one that the State Department never believed was true -- suggesting that Saddam had actually completed a transaction with Niger to acquire uranium.

Now here again are the words from yesterday's New York Times editorial:

Mr. Libby was convicted of lying to federal agents investigating the leak of the name of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson. Mrs. Wilson’s husband, Joseph Wilson, was asked to investigate a central claim in Mr. Bush’s drive to war with Iraq — whether Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa. Mr. Wilson concluded that Iraq had not done that and had the temerity to share those conclusions with the American public.

No, Mr. Wilson did no such thing. He learned that Saddam did not succeed in purchasing uranium. It is amazing to me that people think that this proves that Bush's 16 words were a lie. Only a confused mind would think along those lines.

Casualties in Iraq for the Month of June

A few days ago, I noted that civilian casualties in Iraq for the month of June -- the first month during which the troop surge became fully operational -- were suddenly way down. Surprisingly, U.S. military deaths were down somewhat as well compared to the prior month, though they remain higher than they were in prior years. I wondered if this good news would get wide coverage in the mainstream media. The coverage appears to have been fairly light, but I was pleasantly surprised to see this story:

Iraqi civilian deaths down amid crackdown

U.S. officials cautiously optimistic that Baghdad operation is working

BAGHDAD - Iraqi civilian deaths dropped to their lowest level since the start of the Baghdad security operation, government figures showed Sunday, suggesting signs of progress in tamping down violence in the capital.

But American casualties are running high as U.S. forces step up pressure on Sunni and Shiite extremists in and around Baghdad.

At least 1,227 Iraqi civilians were killed in June along with 190 policemen and 31 soldiers, an officer at the Iraqi Interior Ministry’s operations room said. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the figures.

That represented a 36 percent drop from the ministry’s May figures — 1,949 civilian deaths along with 127 policemen and 47 soldiers.

This fits with the figures I reported a few days ago and that I am updating today. Using casualty figures found in media reports as tabulated by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, here are the numbers for June in perspective (important details about how I arrive these figures can be found here):


As usual, the black bar shows the month in which al Qaeda bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra -- a critical event that triggered the upsurge in sectarian violence (which was al Qaeda's goal, in case you didn't know). The blue bars represent the months during which the troop surge has unfolded, with June being the first month during which the surge became operational.

My figures are similar to those reported in the MSNBC story, which were supplied by an anonymous Iraqi official. My chart shows 1752 casualties in May (compared to 1949 cited by that Iraqi official) and 1146 in June (compared to 1227). The numbers in the chart show a 35% drop from May to June (about the same at the change noted by that Iraqi official), which means that the method I use to track casualties is sensitive to change. It's always that way, and that's why I have come to trust the figures supplied by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. These numbers are all the more remarkable given that the Golden Mosque was bombed yet again this month, presumably by al Qaeda (though we don't yet know that for a fact). I thought we might see another explosion of violence (again, that's al Qaeda's goal), but it didn't happen.

Harry Reid declared that the troop surge was a failure on the basis of a single bombing attack -- by al Qaeda, no less -- that occurred back before the troop surge became operational and before we had barely half of the new troops on the ground. On April 19, he said "...this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday." The violence he was referring to (which had occurred on the previous day) was this:

Suspected Qaeda bombs kill nearly 200 in Baghdad
Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:42 PM EDT

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Suspected al Qaeda militants killed nearly 200 people in a wave of car bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday, including one that was the single deadliest attack in the Iraqi capital since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Jihadist web sites celebrated this premature declaration of surrender and defeat, as Reid must have known they would. Now that the troop surge is finally operational, civilian casualties are way down. What does Harry Reid -- the man who declares a one-day attack by al Qaeda as proof of our defeat -- have to say about this development? I could not find anything, except for this:

Democrats to focus on Iraq as polls sag
...
Over the weekend, Reid called on Republicans to support legislation that will force the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Starting next week, Democrats are planning weekly votes on the issue.

Pathetic.

We are at war with al Qaeda in Iraq, and Harry Reid needs to wake up to that fact and then choose sides. When al Qaeda bombs unarmed civilians in an attempt to incite civil war, he should not immediately cooperate with them by declaring that we have been defeated. And when successes are achieved against al Qaeda by the U.S. military, as they were in June, he should cooperate with America's efforts and say something positive about that. And make no mistake about it: our success in June came at the expense of al Qaeda in Iraq, as I will now explain.

First, let's look at civilian casualties in Baghdad:


You can see that casualties in Baghdad are down somewhat. Why? Let's take a closer look:


This is the same graph as the one above, except that I have broken down casualties by type. The blue segments of the bar show execution-style killings by the Mahdi Army (probably) against Sunni males. As you can see, those killings came back down somewhat after spiking up a bit last month. But what really dropped were "other" killings in Baghdad (shown by the red segments). The reason is that spectacular mass-casualty attacks by al Qaeda against innocent men, women and children of the Shiite sect were quite limited this month. Harry Reid didn't notice this (instead, he takes notice when al Qaeda succeeds), but I did. Casualties outside of Baghdad were also way down in June:


Again, the figures improved largely because al Qaeda was unable to pull off the usual number of mass-casualty attacks against Shiite civilians. Why is al Qaeda having trouble? Because a major component of the troop surge is directed against them:

10,000 troops launch assault on al-Qaeda

June 19, 2007

ABOUT 10,000 US and Iraqi troops today launched a major air and ground assault on al-Qaeda networks in and around the restive city of Baquba, northeast of Baghdad.

Stories like this must seem odd to you if think of Iraq as being one big civil war. If that's how you think, you need to wake up to the fact that there is another force operating in Iraq. It happens to be the major force underlying sectarian violence there, and it is the same force that attacked us on 9/11. Wishing it were not true is not going to make the problem go away. But the troop surge might. As a result of the troop surge, al Qaeda's ability to pull off suicide bomb attacks have been seriously affected. I do not know if it will last, but look at the number of suicide bomb attacks that occurred in June compared to the prior months:


Virtually all of these attacks are by al Qaeda (it is their method, along with the truck bomb), and it seems that they are being hit hard. What do the Democrats say about this good news? Their silence is thundering, and I'll never cease to be amazed by that. The mainstream media lets them get away with it because -- well, I just don't know why, really. If the Democrats were in charge, they'd go fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan (it's where they think the "real terrorists" are) even though al Qaeda has chosen to fight us in Iraq. I have trouble understanding how Democrats think on the issue of national security, and I guess I always will.

Finally, U.S. military casualties were down by 20% in June compared to the prior month (101 killed in June, compared to 126 in May), which is remarkable given that the offensive against al Qaeda began in June. Still, overall casualties are up in the 6 months since the surge began. Here are those casualties averaged over 3-month blocks (with the last two points representing the 6 months of the troops surge):


Our casualties are higher because we are fighting back hard against al Qaeda in Iraq. Our choice is to win that war or to accept defeat at their hands. It is extremely painful to see more U.S. soldiers killed in action, but it would be even more painful to prove to al Qaeda that we do not have the will to fight them. Al Qaeda already believes that to be true. God help us if we prove them right once again.