You know we have been through this before. Some 35 years ago every poor damned Vietnamese peasant who turned up dead was transfigured and transformed into a Viet Cong Fighter. There was always some trouble in explaining how we could have killed 150 VC but only picked up three weapons but that was only a minor problem. Such, my friends, is war.
The difference between an Al Quaida fighter and an Iraqi insurgent is clear as a bell to anyone who looks carefully.
Surely you’ve heard the old quote that goes : “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out to get you.”
In any event, glad to hear I wasn’t the only one noticing the trend. Also, it appears, someone at the NYT read Greenwald’s article as well. Take a look at this article from today and compare it with the quotes Glenn brings up on his own – from the same source of course:
U.S. Plan to Capture and Kill Insurgents in Baquba Fell Far Short of Goal, Officer Says
The article itself, IMHO, is just more of the same blah blah blah we’ve been hearing for years (ages?) now, how no mission is ever ‘really accomplished due to this or that,’ but what strikes my funny bone is that, all of a sudden after the two/three week rush, it is no longer ‘just’ Al Qaeda terrorists that are included in the list. I mean, really, duh, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned and cited.
But what’s sad, really sad, is Squink’s post on the matter. For it apparently only took three to four weeks of this ‘new’ rethoric to confound 5% of your population yet once again.
Fuck, if taxi-drivers (no put-down, quite the opposite) in Europe can see right through the Bushit, what the heck is the matter with your ever so-fickle countrymen and women?
Seriously and as you obviously know, this isn’t exactly rocket science. It simply requires a bit more attention than a gnat might give it.
And yeah, Spivined Gelding’s correct. All the more reason to take these “news” with more than a grain of salt.
Can the public be maneuvered that easily?
Themselves
At least they’re planning ahead.
This recent BBC News story highlights the same question
Short version :
Even if we accept the dubious notion that “foreign fighters” = “Al Qaeda”, these guys were clearly locals. Obviously this doesn’t prove they were non-hostiles, but local shiites as Al-Qaeda seems kind of improbable.
On the other hand, it’s hard to figure out what the hell is going on in Iraq. The official position is that the coalition has occupied Iraq since 2003, but what exactly does that mean ? In the last couple of weeks 10,000 coalition troops along with tanks and air-support have been thrown at Baquba, which is 60 km from Baghdad, a major military offensive. So who actually controls the territory ? What made the Baquba guys stand out as insurgents ? Were they wreaking havoc ? Were they flying insurgent flags ? Had they previously driven out US troops from Baquba ? The number of coalition troops and in particular the number of coalition casualties seem to indicate that large parts of Iraq aren’t really occupied.
So, who’s the enemy ? Are the Baquba insurgents the same guys who are planting the roadside bombs ? It seems like it would be counter-productive for a clandestine bombing operation to advertise its whereabouts, so maybe not. What’s the relationship between the Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda ? How about the US-armed Sunni insurgents ? Are the Sunni insurgents fighting amongst themselves, or do they get together once year in Atlantic City to divide up the territory ?
It seems to me there are only two viable options to restore the peace :
-
saturate Iraq’s cities and infrastructure with troops, and accept the casualties and cost
-
alliances (however unsavory) and a highly effective intelligence network
Absent either of these, we’re back with the body-count paradigm, and Al-Qaeda is flavor du jour - COALITION FORCES KILL 17 AL-QAEDA GUNMEN NEAR KHALIS
Of course, it wouldn’t occur to you that al-Qaida is being mentioned more now because the shift in tactics is targeting al-Qaida, and because numerous native insurgent groups have turned on al-Qaida and are now helping the coalition.
If you want to read something actually informative instead of the latest glurge from the ‘underground press’, you could read Understanding Current Operations in the Small Wars Journal, written by one of the architects of the current strategy:
The guy is honest that the strategy could fail, and that the enemy will no doubt have counter-ops that will have to be dealt with. But it’s a pretty good description.
It appears from this LA Times account about Baqubah, that the words “insurgents” and “Al Qaeda” are interchangeable. And yep, that is news to me too.
– highlights and question mark mine.
So, as you can see, we now have “insurgents”, “militants” and “Al Qaeda” all bunched together as one. But for the purpose of MSM headlines, as your own BBC article points out, they’ve obviously found it best to bunch them all into that old bogeyman, “Al Qaeda.”
Kill them all and let Allah sort them out. And keep those lies coming for as Squink’s pol numbers show, they still work.
Once again, you are trying to blur the distinction between insurgents and Al-Qaeda. Your cite does it as well: he admits we are fighting "al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups. ", yet all the reports of operations only identify adversaries as “the enemy” or “terrorists”, ambiguous terms that include the much more numerous Sunni and Shiite fighters with no link to Al Qaeda.
And far be it from me to contradict Dr Pangloss and his Blog of Truth but how about this Associated Press report.
Iraq security forces not stepping up to the plate
Some Iraqi units appear competent? Well, get the flags out. :rolleyes:
Relying on an incompetent, sectional, corrupt and cowardly army with a 25% absentee rate sounds like a real sound basis for the surge. Just like relying on the ARVN was.
Double-post. Had a “connection timed-out” message.
It’s not just the OP, try readin the BBC article right above you, Sam. Besides the fact that I placed “underground” in quotes with tongue firmly planted cheek, that’s hardly an apt description of Salon – other than it being the devil to you tighty-righties.
And even then, you weak-ass, military propaganda blog (now that’s what I would seriously count as “underground” press) has this to say:
– my bolding.
So how come all the MSM headlines only mention Al Qaeda?
Only confirms what my own LA Times article had to say: namely that AQ targets are few and hard to come by. Therefore, I feel that I can safely call “Bushit” (as does the very BBC) on the new surge of “killed AQ operatives.” You’re simply killing Iraqis. Whether they are “insurgents” or not, is a question we might never know the answer to. But as posted here on a regular basis, one thing we DO know is that American forces are NOT wanted there by a large majority, be they active insurgents, Sunnies, Shiias, or not.
In the meantime, you’re welcomed to keep feeding on the Bushit…I expect nothing else from you.
Anyway, I see that my point has already been made quite concisely by Fear Itself.
You know, don’t you Sam, that you’re not exactly dealing with a bunch of trained chimps here, right? Then quit trying to bullshit us.
Woof, woof.
Uh huh. No conflict of interest there.
“We are adjusting our tactics in order to kill more al-Qaeda and only al-Qaeda. And lookit all the al-Qaeda we’re killing!”
Whatever.
Psst, Sam?
How’s about you give this a read and get back to us with more “military strategy”?
Commies they’re everywhere!
Social Democrat, actually. And I certainly hope we are. 
I’ve been against the war from the beginning and I’ll go on record as saying that the current US strategy of helping Sunni insurgent groups will backfire down the road. As one insurgent leader said (which I unfortunately couldn’t find a quote for now), they hate the Al-Qaida more than they hate the Americans and the Shiites, which is why they are cooperating. So we are helping people who were shooting at us get rid of their enemies so that after the enemies are gone, then they can go back to shooting us?
From the article:
One could only have wished that David has addressed the comments from the generals on the ground.
So we’re back to the inevitable Vietnam comparisons, where the US would clear an area only to find that the SVN army couldn’t hold it, so we would clear it again and again.
The other major flaw here is that the necessary political and economical development would take far longer than the US has patience for, not to mention that the US would require far more forces that The Surge is providing.
Joke from that era. “ARVN rifle for sale. Like new, never fired, only dropped once.”