Site logo

Prometheus 6

All respect and no restraint

I'd give them credit, but the guys who believe the stories don't read the public editor


Recent Times stories from Iraq have referred, with little or no attribution — and no supporting evidence — to “militants linked with Al Qaeda,” “Sunni extremists with links to Al Qaeda” and “insurgents from Al Qaeda.” 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.

For the president, an emphasis on Al Qaeda has political advantages at a time when powerful former allies, like Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are starting to back away from his war policy. Al Qaeda is an enemy Americans understand, in contrast to the messy reality of an Iraq where U.S. troops must also deal with Sunni nationalists, Shiite militias and even criminal gangs.

Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner
By CLARK HOYT

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.

Bush mentioned the terrorist group 27 times in a recent speech on Iraq at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. In West Virginia on the Fourth of July, he declared, “We must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq.” The Associated Press reported last month that although some 30 groups have claimed credit for attacks on United States and Iraqi government targets, press releases from the American military focus overwhelmingly on Al Qaeda.

Why Bush and the military are emphasizing Al Qaeda to the virtual exclusion of other sources of violence in Iraq is an important story. So is the question of how well their version of events squares with the facts of a murky and rapidly changing situation on the ground.

But these are stories you haven’t been reading in The Times in recent weeks as the newspaper has slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda’s role in Iraq — and sometimes citing the group itself without attribution.

And in using the language of the administration, the newspaper has also failed at times to distinguish between Al Qaeda, the group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an Iraqi group that didn’t even exist until after the American invasion.

Iraq and al Qaeda

Though I really can't speak on the size or nature of al Qaeda figures currently in Iraq I can say that if the definition of al Qaeda is drawn too narrowly it's going to only include Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and a few others.  It wouldn't include KSM, Zarqawi and many other guys who regardless of if they are "officially" al Qaeda or not they are threats to America and need to be dealt with in one way or another.

 

al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, GIA, Ansar al Islam, EIJ, is there really a big difference in terms of what they really want to accomplish?  Not if you ask me but what do I know though asking the tough questions about all this are certainly imporant.

 

Nice blog by the way. 

if the definition of al

Thank you Mark. 

if the definition of al Qaeda is drawn too narrowly it's going to only include Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and a few others.

By talking of 'ties to Al-Qaeda' the six degrees of seperation factor means if it's drawn too broadly, it will include you.

They've diluted the Al-Qaeda brand to the point that Americans can't nail it down anymore. That was intentional, but it would only have worked to Bush's benefit if they could hold the public' trust...which means, so much for that plan.

This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye