The Lethality of Suicide Bombers makes the News

A new story about the suicide bombers of Iraq on MSNBC is remarkable in that it acknowledges how deadly they have been in Iraq and that they are the foreign foot soldiers of al Qaeda. I realize that both facts are as obvious as the sky is blue, but that's not the case for many on the left (and that's where MSNBC lies on the political spectrum). To the left, al Qaeda in Iraq is a big ol' neocon myth, or, at a minimum, the threat it poses is grossly exaggerated because only 2% of the insurgency is made up of foreign fighters. It's fascinating to me how the left-leaning mind can be tripped up by a true fact about the number of al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. Although they make up only a small part of the insurgency in terms of sheer numbers (2% sounds about right to me), they matter because they are ones who are killing everybody. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp? Nonlethal insurgents are not a big problem even if they number in the tens of thousands.

In any case here is the new story:

Suicide bomber is al-Qaida's deadliest weapon

BAGHDAD - The suicide bombers who have killed 10,000 people in Iraq, including hundreds of American troops, usually are alienated young men from large families who are desperate to stand out from the crowd and make their mark, according to a U.S. military study.

As long suspected, most come from outside Iraq. Saudi Arabia, home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, is the single largest source. And the pipeline is continually replenished by al-Qaida in Iraq's recruiters.

Can you believe that? MSNBC is finally catching up with my blog! If only they would say a few words about who the suicide bombers generally target and what their goal is, people might finally begin to break out of the misguided "civil war" scenario that has long been pushed by the mainstream media and by the Democratic candidates for president. It never was a civil war in the sense that everyone seemed to think. It was, instead, a war against al Qaeda, and that war is still underway. The left has trouble appreciating this fact because they predicted that an invasion would do little more than unleash a civil war that Saddam Husssein, although a bad guy and everything, managed to hold in check. When the fighting in Iraq spiraled out of control, they saw apparent confirmation of their prediction, and they are still stuck on that faulty analysis.

Here is more detail from the article about the number of people killed by al Qaeda's suicide bombers (i.e., by that 2% of the insurgency):

According to the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington, 949 suicide bombers killed 10,119 people and wounded 22,995 from the beginning of 2004 until now. Data compiled by the AP through its own reporting found that between April 28, 2005 and March 13, 2008 there were 708 incidents involving suicide bombings, with a total of 14,633 Iraqis wounded and 7,098 killed.

The National Counterterrorism Center says that the suicide bombers of Iraq killed 10,119 people from the beginning of 2004 until now. When I use the Iraq Body Count database, I come up with a number of 8500, which is in the right ballpark. The difference may be that IBC tracks civilian casualties, whereas the Counterterrorism Center may include casualties among U.S. and Iraqi security forces. But the point is that the suicide bombers have been extremely deadly no matter which source you rely on.

With respect to the AP count (7098 Iraqis killed since April 28, 2005), the IBC database yields a figure of 7751. Not exactly the same, but the level of agreement is again pretty good, and this gives me confidence that my much more detailed analysis of the IBC database is based on reasonable data. The point is that the suicide bombers are very deadly despite the fact that the left constantly tries to minimize the role played by al Qaeda in Iraq.

Another article from the U.S. Department of Defense adds a few key points about a recent analysis of 48 would-be suicide bombers:

The overwhelming point from the 48 (foreign terrorists in custody) is they came to Iraq expecting to see Americans get killed, yet what they primarily saw was Iraqis getting killed, and it bothered them,” Bacon said. “They did not come to kill Iraqis.”
...
Additionally, he said, officials found out that most of the foreign terrorists had signed up to be fighters but were pressured by al Qaeda to become suicide bombers.

“They were told, ‘This is your duty. This is what we need you to do for the Jihad. You could be more useful as a suicide bomber than you could be a fighter. You’ll be a martyr and this is what we need you to do to win,’” he said.

Fascinating. They thought they were coming to Americans, but like the left in America, they knew nothing of Zarqawi's wicked but ingenious plan to defeat America and destabilize Iraq by slaughtering Shiites. By slaughtering Shiites, al Qaeda hopes to once again goad Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army to start executing Sunnis in Baghdad. An outcome like that looks like "civil war" and completely demoralizes weak willed Americans, which is just terrific for al Qaeda.

As I have said many times before, to understand Iraq, you have to understand the suicide bombers of Iraq (who they are, how many people they have killed, what they are trying to accomplish). That's why I was happy to see that new story on MSNBC. At least it tells part of the story. The New York Times, on the other hand, has long been on a mission to convince its liberal readership that al Qaeda in Iraq is a small part of a "complex" story, one that is heavily exaggerated by Bush and his like-minded war-mongers. But when they push this myth onto to their uncritical and incurious readership, they never point out that the suicide bombers (and their leaders) are almost exclusively foreign. They also do not mention how deadly the suicide bombers have been compared to the rest of the insurgency, presumably because that inconvenient fact does not fit the narrative. Moreover, like the poor misguided souls drawn to Iraq to fight Americans (but who end up killing Shiites instead), they seem absolutely clueless about what the suicide bombers are trying to accomplish, as if they never read Zarqawi's letter. The Times was at it again just the other day:

The sea of oil under Iraq is supposed to rebuild the nation, then make it prosper. But at least one-third, and possibly much more, of the fuel from Iraq’s largest refinery here is diverted to the black market, according to American military officials. Tankers are hijacked, drivers are bribed, papers are forged and meters are manipulated — and some of the earnings go to insurgents who are still killing more than 100 Iraqis a week.
...
In fact, money, far more than jihadist ideology, is a crucial motivation for a majority of Sunni insurgents, according to American officers in some Sunni provinces and other military officials in Iraq who have reviewed detainee surveys and other intelligence on the insurgency.
...
Although many American military officials and politicians — and even the Iraqi public — use the term Al Qaeda as a synonym for the insurgency, some American and Iraqi experts say they believe that the number of committed religious ideologues remains small. They say that insurgent groups raise and spend money autonomously for the most part, with little centralized coordination or direction.
...
“It has a great deal more to do with the economy than with ideology,” said one senior American military official, who said that studies of detainees in American custody found that about three-quarters were not committed to the jihadist ideology. “The vast majority have nothing to do with the caliphate and the central ideology of Al Qaeda.”

All true, and if were not for the simple fact that the small number of al Qaeda suicide bombers are the ones who are killing everybody, this would be a relevant point. You can see why the Times chooses not to delve into the inconvenient facts about the lethality of the suicide bombers in Iraq (and says absolutely nothing about their strategic purpose). The tiresome technique of virtually every liberal analyst is to focus on the number of insurgents instead of on their lethality. There are, perhaps, 20,000 insurgents in Iraq, but there are only about 40 to 50 foreign suicide bombers entering the country each month (i.e., the foreign fighters are a tiny fraction of the insurgency). This is what the New York Times is focusing on, and all other liberal analysts seem to take their marching orders from this news organization. But look at how many people have been killed by the suicide bombers in just this month alone compared to the number killed by the rest of the insurgency. So far this month, 444 civilian deaths have been recorded by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. Of those, 124 were dug up from mass graves and may have been killed a long time ago, which leaves 320 killed by violent acts that occurred this month. Of those, about 134 were killed by suicide bombers, and another 40 or so were killed by car bombs (often the work of al Qaeda as well). Thus, at an absolute minimum, 42% (134 out of 320) of the civilian deaths this month can be attributed to al Qaeda's suicide bombers. If you add in deaths from car bombs and the like, it comes to over 50%. Remember that the next time someone tells you that al Qaeda amounts to only 2% of the insurgency. That's true, but who cares? They account for as many as 50% of the civilian casualties. And, right before your incurious liberal eyes, they are still carrying out Zarqawis wicked plan:

Bombing kills at least 43 in Karbala

Dozens of Shiite worshippers wounded in attack near mosque

BAGHDAD - A female suicide bomber struck Shiite worshippers in the holy city of Karbala on Monday, an official and a witness said, killing at least 43 people and leaving pools of blood on the street leading to one of Iraq's most revered mosques.
...
The U.S. Embassy and military issued a joint statement blaming al-Qaida in Iraq for the Karbala attack.

If you hail from the left, ask yourself: why did this suicide bomber target innocent Shiite worshippers? What's the point? Raw hatred? That's as deep as the standard liberal analysis typically goes. But read Zarqawi's letter, which makes it all completely clear for anyone who is willing to absorb the truth:

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 who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands of these Sabeans, i.e., the Shi'a.
...
As far as the Shi'a, we will undertake suicide operations and use car bombs to harm them.

Get the picture? Al Qaeda wants to drag the Shiites into a sectarian war against the Sunnis, and the plan is to do that by using suicide bombers and car bombs. This is not complicated. Despite the fact that the New York Times has not the slightest clue about this elementary information, they gleefully jumped on McCain's misstatement about Iran training al Qaeda (when he presumably meant that Iran was training rogue elements of the Mahdi Army):

Dems pounce when McCain misspeaks on Iraq

GOP candidate erroneously claims Iran is training Al Qaida in Iraq

JERUSALEM - Senator John McCain’s trip overseas was supposed to highlight his foreign policy acumen, and his supporters hoped that it would showcase him in a series of statesmanlike meetings with world leaders throughout the Middle East and Europe while the Democratic candidates continued to squabble back home.
...
Mr. McCain said several times in his visit to Jordan — in a news conference and in a radio interview — that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group.

McCain obviously meant to say something else, which sets him apart from the Times (which actually misunderstands Iraq -- they don't just accidentally misstate what is going on). If only the New York Times would jump on themselves for their much greater ignorance about what is happening in Iraq, a huge swath of liberals in this country might awaken to the fact that they are openly agitating for defeat at the hands of al Qaeda in Iraq by advocating a quick withdrawal of our troops.

If you lean left, let me just acknowledge that you can blame George Bush for al Qaeda's war in Iraq. Barack Obama likes to do that, and it seems to make him feel better. Back before the war, there was good reason to believe that Saddam was cooperating with al Qaeda, and he was to some extent. But the degree of cooperation may have been less than it seemed. One piece of evidence for a cooperative relationship was the fact that Zarqawi -- who later headed al Qaeda in Iraq and devised the wicked plan that nearly crushed America's will to fight -- was in Iraq well before the war. Colin Powell famously cited his presence there as evidence for Saddam's association with al Qaeda:

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.
...
Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of northeast Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.

This offered good reason to believe that Saddam was working with Zarqawi, but the other theory was that Zarqawi came to Iraq in preparation for the coming U.S. invasion. I have never seen any actual evidence bearing on this issue, but I came across some the other day at freerepublic.com. There, someone named "jveritas" sometimes translates documents that were captured in Iraq. He just translated a new document posted on an al Qaeda web site that suggests that Zarqawi (referred to as Abou Mussab in the document) came to Iraq to fight America. Here is how he described the document:

On February 17 2008, Al-Ekhlaas which is the largest terrorist forum on the internet published an Al Qaeda document that talks about the life of Abou Musaab Al Zarqawi and indicates that Zarqawi came to Iraq before the war to prepare the terrorist insurgency against the US troops. According to the document Zarqawi arrived to the Sunni areas in central Iraq. This document was written by one of Al Qaeda top leaders called “Saif Al Adel”.

And here's the translation:

We started the work and the contact with the leadership, and we began to support and help the leadership again, and this was our goal after we left Afghanistan. We began establishing the fighter groups. On one hand to return to Afghanistan and conduct planned operations there, and on the other hand we began to study the situation of the groups and bothers to find new places for them.

After long discussions, brother Abou Mussab with his Palestinian and Jordanian companions decided to go to Iraq because of their dialects they can quickly mix and assimilate in the Iraqi society. Our analysis was that the Americans were going to make the mistake sooner or later to invade Iraq, that this invasion will lead to the fall of the regime, and that we should play an important role in the confrontation and resistance, and that this is our historical chance to establish the Islamic State who will have the biggest role in removing injustice and establish justice in this world allah willing. I was in agreement with brother Abou Mussab regarding this analysis. There were no relation between Al Qaeda and Saddam regime that is worth mentioning, as opposite to what the Americans are saying so they can create excuse and legal justifications according to their laws that they imposed on the world that is enslaved by the West, the Israelis and the Anglo-Saxons.
...
The goal was to reach the Sunni areas in central Iraq and the beginning of the preparation to confront the US invasion and defeat it allah willing. The choice was not arbitrary but a studied one.

When he said goodbye to me leaving for Iraq, Abou Musaab has added a new dimension to his personality. This new dimension focused on punishing the Americans for the crimes that they committed in their bombing of Afghanistan and that he witnessed in his own eyes, the hate and hostility that Abou Mussab had for the Americans guaranteed to form new traits to Abou Musaab personality.

This document is not necessarily gospel truth, but it rings true to me. Al Qaeda had some relationship with Saddam long before our invasion, but it seems clear that al Qaeda elevated Iraq to priority status precisely because we did. Thus, you can blame George Bush for the fact that we are now fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Of course, if we were not fighting them there, we would be fighting them in Afghanistan (which is where all Democrats preposterously think the "real terrorists" are). Thus, the idea that everything would be fine on the al Qaeda front if only Bush has not invaded Iraq is downright silly. Still, it's true that al Qaeda came to Iraq in a big way because of our presence there, and now it's war (like it or not). You can blame George Bush all you want, but he is not running for president. What matters now is how the current crop of presidential candidates plans to defeat al Qaeda in Iraq. Obama and Clinton plan to defeat al Qaeda by withdrawing our troops, which is a plan that I am sure would be endorsed by Osama bin Laden. McCain, by contrast, plans to complete the job that has been started by the troop surge.

Finally, I'd just like to remind you that al Qaeda does not care -- at all -- about this:

Iraqi provincial elections law approved

BAGHDAD - Iraq's presidential council has withdrawn its objection to a provincial elections law. The announcement on the fifth anniversary of the war gives a major boost to U.S.-backed efforts to promote national reconciliation.

The move comes three weeks after the law was rejected because of concerns by Shiite Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi.

Wednesday's statement says the council approved the bill after talks with legislators and political blocs. The decision paves the way for a national vote on Oct. 1 that the United States hopes will give the Sunnis more political power.

That's nice, and if this were a civil war, it would be huge news. But it's not a civil war. Instead, it is a war against al Qaeda in Iraq, and that terrorist organization is not fighting for political reconciliation. Don't you get it by now? They are fighting for the exact opposite.