Well the news is in. the two missing US soldiers have been found, dead, with evidence of torture. I was just wondering why the insurgents didn’t display these me (alive) and use it to display how Al-Zarquari’s group was still very much alive. Does this mark a turning point for the insurgency? Or is it evidence that these men could not be held (as they were the object of an intensive search)? Either way, it is not a good day for bush-the action seems to be a riposte to his visit the other day. :eek:
I suspect that’s the case. And in my opinion, the search for “turning points” should be called off.
Al-Qaeda is not a significant part of the insurgency anyway. If they disappeared from Iraq completely it would barely be noticed.
Yes and no. They are a small part of the insurgency, but they go for very high profile acts of violence. Most analysts I’ve heard from recognize that their impact is disproportionate to their size. Still, your point is well taken that if Al Qaeda in Iraq were eliminated tomorrow there would still be a big uphill battle to quelling the violence there.
My WAG: They were just feeling irritable. You know, moody. Impatient. They just lost their leader, you have to make allowances.
I hope they feel better now.
The stories I’ve read say the group was ‘linked’ to AQ not AQ.
A lot of serious commentators (from this side of the pond anyway, like Robert Fisk and John Simpson) are constantly saying the AQ are basically a spent force. Their power now is that anybody can claim to be allied to them and instantly gain a level of importance to the eyes of the west that in reality just doesn’t exist.
There was a very good BBC documentary on this very subject(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3970901.stm). If you can get your hands on it, it’s a very interesting prog.
Or else we may find ourselves going in circles. Oh, wait…
”serious commentators” and ”Robert Fisk” are words that should never be used in the same sentence.
Al-Qaida has claimed responsibility. But that might just be like whenever there is a terror attack in Israel, and a swarm of terror organisations rush to claim responsibility. And what is Al-Qaida anyway? Anybody and his grandmother Gertrude can claim to be Al-Qaida. Hell I’m Al-Qaida too. I claim responsibility for the hurricane that laid waste to New Orleans! Hah hah eat that yanks!
A turning point in what sense or what direction?
Al-Qaeda is dead, at least according to USPTO:
So the trademark’s in public domain now, is it?
This suggests possibilities . . .
Meh, this man is much much much better (Peter Taylor)
You may disagree with a lot of what the man says because of his/your political view but to say he isn’t a serious commentator with regards to the middle east says more about you than it says about him.
Still doesn’t paint AQ out to be anything like the RL force that seems to be in the mind of a hell of a lot of people.
It also doesn’t declare Al Queda as the ‘spent force’ in the links you provided.
The fat lady hasn’t sung yet. Video might still come out.
From what I’ve read, the attack which lead to the capture of those two soldiers left a third member of their party dead. Could it be that the captured soldiers were in very bad shape to begin with, and perhaps killing them was the “better” option for the captors, rather than nursing seriously wounded Americans in captivity?
This may make it more difficult to make the case to withdraw in the near future - “what, and leave those monsters unpunished?”. The desire for revenge may, and may be intended to, draw us deeper into the mess of reprisals and revenge and notions of honor that have already taken hold.
I agree. Every day we stay in Iraq helps Al Quaeda’s cause. Perhaps they feared we’d use Al-Zarquari’s death as an excuse to declare victory and go home.