What Al Qaida Wants

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 05:44:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Rudy Giuliani expressed a view common to the GOP:

I think that if we've learned any lessons from the history of the 20th century, one of the lessons we should learn is stop trying to psychoanalyze people and take them at their word. If we had taken Hitler at his word, Stalin at his word, I think we would have made much sounder decisions and saved a lot more lives.

An Al Qaida in Iraq leader said:

Abu Sarhan's views suggest[] a more restrained view of the United States, which he considers an occupier but one that should not leave immediately. . . . "The real enemy for the resistance is Iran and those working for Iran," he went on. "Because Iran has a feud which goes back thousands of years with the people of Iraq and the government of Iraq."

(Emphasis supplied.) Today, a Maliki lieutenant said:

[T]he U.S. was treating Iraq like "an experiment in an American laboratory." 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.

(Emphasis supplied.) I think if we take these statements at face value, staying in Iraq means staying mired in an intractable and increasingly vicious sectarian civil war. What do you think Rudy?

< Weekend Open Thread | RIAA Subpoena Request Denied >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What Al Qaida Wants | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Al-Qaeda in Iraq would rather fight us (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 06:43:13 PM EST

than Iran? I think that really does say something about the usefulness of us staying in that country.

I think maybe (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Edger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 06:54:44 PM EST

Rudy & The WingNuts should stop psychoanalyzing and take some people at their word:

A few others should as well.

Staying in Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by vcmvo2 on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 06:56:02 PM EST

Is a foolhardy enterprise. And yet even when support literally fell away for the War in Vietnam, we stayed and stayed. It's a nightmare that we are repeating. Vietnam was a civil war, and so is Iraq- but I'll be darned if I see any real movement to get us out. I see plenty of excuses for why we have to stay a little longer, wait for another benchmark that the Iraqis apparently have no plan to meet.

Disheartening as the casualties on both sides mount!

Historical references (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Al on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 07:17:34 PM EST

If we had taken Hitler at his word, Stalin at his word, I think we would have made much sounder decisions and saved a lot more lives.

It would be very interesting to know precisely who Giuliani means by "we" in this statement.

: That sound you hear (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by andgarden on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 07:26:52 PM EST

is Robert A. Taft rolling over in his grave.

Whats Wrong With the Title to This Post (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by john horse on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:39:36 PM EST

What Al Qaeda wants is for us to overexagerrate the threat and overreact. They hit the jackpot in both areas with George Bush.

I do have a bone to pick with Big Tent Democrat about this post. The Bush administration and Maliki are doing their darndest to link Al Qaeda, the group that attacked us on 9/11 with the insurgency in Iraq for obvious political reasons.

There is an organization in Iraq called Al Qaeda in Iraq but it is not the organization that attacked us on 9/11 and that is controlled by Osama Bin Laden. That is why I think the title to this post was wrong. It wasn't about What Al Qaida Wants but about What Al Qaeda in Iraq wants. They are different and distinct organizations.

Regarding Al Qaeda in Iraq, it is also not the main source of violence and instability in Iraq. ((see this post from think progress.)

At his word... (none / 0) (#7)
by Gabriel Malor on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:03:55 PM EST

It is an interesting thing, to look in hindsight and say, "See, if only we'd just believed him." The historical example of Hitler is, of course, most apt since he was quite explicit in his plans for Europe.

BTD, I find it interesting which part of Abu Sarhan's interview you chose to elide. According to the Washington Post he said:

"I personally don't have a hatred of the American people, and I respect American civilization," he said. "They have participated in the progress of all the nations of the world. They invented computers. Such people should be respected. But people who are crying over someone who died 1,400 years ago" -- referring to Shiites and their veneration of a leader killed in the 7th century -- "these should be eliminated, to clear the society of them, because they are simply trash."

I imagine you omitted it because if we were to take him at his word, we would have to give more credence to the view that the situation in Iraq could get worse if we left. I noticed that you've already dismissed that view as "possible" but "not very likely." You also wrote that the idea that the discord in Iraq could spread to other places in the Middle East is "nonsense."

I think if we take his statement at face value, staying in Iraq means keeping folks like Abu Sarhan from "eliminating" the "trash." What do you think, BTD?

al Qaeda (none / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:20:07 PM EST

is about 3 - 3.5% of the insurgency in Iraq. The remainder is Iraqis fighting to kick the occupiers out. al Qaeda was not in Iraq until Bush's invasion enabled them. al Qaeda has repeatedly called for continuance of the occupation.

The occupation gives al Qaeda American targets, while at the same time keeping the Iraqis 'occupied' with trying to take their country back from the US, which they are slowly accomplishing.

Iraqis won't have any problem eliminating al Qaeda from Iraq once US troops are out of their way. It'll probably take them a week or so. The problem for Bush is that allowing the Iraqis to do so will also undercut all of Bush's stated justifications for occupying Iraq.


More (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:26:11 PM EST

Ned Parker of the LA Times reports that of 19,000 "insurgents" held by the US military in Iraq, only 135 are foreigners.
Think about that when you hear Bush say that the US is fighting "al-Qaeda" in Iraq or that "al-Qaeda" would take over Iraq if the US left. The foreigners just are not that important to the guerrilla war. Only .7% of detainees are foreigners, and unless they run faster than Iraqis, that is likely their percentage share in the "insurgency," too.
snip
Foreign "al-Qaeda" is almost irrelevant to it. Iran is entirely trivial to it. The Baathist, Allawi-dominated Syrian government is trivial to it. The Lebanese Hizbullah may not be involved at all, as an organization. Certainly it is not involved in any significant way.
Which country is providing a lot of foreign suicide bombers? US ally Saudi Arabia. Has any general or Bush administration official called a press conference to denounce Saudi Arabia? No. Has Joe Lieberman threatened it with a war? No. Everything is being blamed on Iran because powerful American special interests want to get Iran, regardless of the facts.

Juan Cole


: OK (none / 0) (#10)
by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:31:10 PM EST

I forget where I got the 3.5% figure. I saw it yesterday somewhere but can't recall where. Coles numbers sound about right. al Qaeda attempts to recruit Iraqis so their numbers might be slightly higher than the number of foreigners. Either way they are such a small minority of the insurgency, and so hated by Iraqis, that the US presence is the only thing keeping Iraqis from eliminating them,.

AQ's wet dream ... (none / 0) (#11)
by Sailor on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:23:36 PM EST

... is bush.

The Taliban and AQ hit the trifecta when bush got elected:
In Afghanistan they control most of the country, and reap record profits from the record numbers of poppy production.

In Pakistan they control the border region by the grace of our supposed ally mushariff.

In iraq, even tho they have no connection to OBL, they contribute 3% to 10% of the civil war. And bush calls them the 'greatest danger.'

Clash of civilization (none / 0) (#13)
by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 07:27:38 PM EST

Wingnuts on one side, Humans on the other side.

face value (none / 0) (#14)
by diogenes on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 09:28:38 PM EST

So at face value we should get out of Iraq and fight a war against the root cause of the problem, Iran?

: The root cause is in the White House. (none / 0) (#16)
by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:49:05 PM EST

You have it upside, backwards and inside out again.
Use a mirror next time.