[Dean's World] Dave Price: The Myth Of AQI?

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dave Price:
The Myth Of AQI?
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1189110728.shtml


   Speaking of myth, Andrew Tilghman has a [1]piece in Washington Monthly
   claiming the threat from Al Qaeda in Iraq is exaggerated. The analysis
   is interesting, but ultimately argues a moot point: it's not
   especially important whether Al Qaeda is 5% or 15% of the overall
   insurgency, or was responsible for this or that attack. Regardless of
   numbers, 9/11 proved we cannot leave them safe havens, because they
   will use them as bases to train, plan, and equip in order to carry out
   attacks here at home. That means U.S troops will need to continue to
   hunt them down until Iraqi forces are capable of handling the job.
   It's probably true that given attacks of uncertain provenance, the
   Iraqi and U.S. governments would rather blame the AQI boogeyman than
   Baathists, just as the left-leaning MSM and Democrats preferred to
   blame Bush rather than Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin for the inept
   response to Katrina; everyone has their favorite situational
   scapegoat. And the fog of war has always guaranteed there will be some
   confusion about who did what. And, of course, some people just [2]make
   stuff up.
   Unfortunately, after making some good initial points in that vein, the
   analysis becomes rather weak.

     AQI's presence is tolerated by the country's Sunni Arabs,
     historically among the most secular in the Middle East, because
     they have a common enemy in the United States.

   This is misleading at best. Many if not most Sunni tribes are now
   allied with the United States against Al Qaeda. Based on their
   preferred targets (Iraqi security forces and civilians), the remainder
   do seem to share a common enemy with AQI: a free, democratic, peaceful
   Iraq.

     After a strike, the military rushes to point the finger at
     al-Qaeda, even when the actual evidence remains hazy and an
     alternative explanationâraw hatred between local Sunnis and
     Shiitesâmight fit the circumstances just as well.

   That's more than a little insulting to our troops. These reports tend
   to originate at the company level, where little political influence
   from Washington could reach. U.S. soldiers are simply making their
   best estimate based on the information they have available.
   Tellingly, the article ends with a common antiwar trope:

     Five years ago, the American public was asked to support the
     invasion of Iraq based on the false claim that Saddam Hussein was
     somehow linked to al-Qaeda.

   Oh really? Besides the fact there were quite a few other valid reasons
   [3]given, those "false claims" were good enough for military action
   [4]in the Clinton days -- and there are enough to [5]fill a book.
   There are quite a few dots there to connect.
   As we approach the anniversary of 9/11, we should be mindful of the
   terrible consequences of underestimating Al Qaeda's capabilities --
   consequences we've already suffered too many times.

References

   1. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html
   2. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/964phazj.asp
   3. http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
   4. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp?pg=2
   5. http://www.amazon.com/Connection-Collaboration-Hussein-Endangered-America/dp/0060746734