Our success must never be an option!

Kudos to the Philadelphia Inquirer for running this story:

BAGHDAD - The number-two leader of al-Qaeda called on Muslims in Iraq to unite against their enemies, in a lengthy video released yesterday, at a time when rifts have opened among some Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq and as the U.S. military has detained individuals it says are senior members of the organization.

The bearded, white-turbaned Ayman al-Zawahiri, the top deputy to Osama bin Laden, spoke for more than an hour and a half about the need to press on with the fight against the "Zionist Crusader project" and to coalesce around the efforts of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq.

And more:
The speech is perhaps most significant for its admission that Sunni militants have grown divided over the usefulness of the alternative regime that the Islamic State of Iraq claims to offer.

In recent weeks, U.S. soldiers have formed partnerships with Sunni insurgents, in places such as western Baghdad and in Baqubah north of the capital, to track down al-Qaeda in Iraq members and find their weapons.

I think this reflects a major success in the war against al Qaeda, and while I was glad to see the report appear in the Inquirer, I don't think the MSM in general like reporting success in the war against al Qaeda in Iraq, because there's a strong desire on the part of the anti-war crowd to characterize the enemy in Iraq as "insurgents." The MSM are not comfortable with al Qaeda, because they cannot easily be characterized as insurgents. I think this goes a long way towards explaining the seemingly inexplicable, stubborn failure to report the story of recent al Qaeda atrocities (including the beheading of children), despite the fact that it was documented by Michael Yon. The al Qaeda atrocity stories have been linked by countless bloggers (see Confederate Yankee and Pajamas Media; this morning Glenn called it a "blog swarm" as he linked Ron Coleman.)

I especially agree with Dean Esmay said:

This is what Al Qaeda in Iraq is all about.
And it's what the MSM don't want most Americans to know.

Because, the more the ignorant "little people" are allowed to read about al Qaeda's butchery, the more they'll tend to think entering Iraq might not have been a bad idea after all.

They might not be in as much of a hurry to pull out and leave the Iraqi children to the tender mercies of the beheaders.

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link.

Don't miss Dean Barnett's post (especially the picture of Baghdad Harry). And J's Cafe Nette's thoughts about trust:

I will stick to those who I tend to believe. The boots on the ground, the military blogs and Michael Yon.
I'm reminded of what Arnold Kling said recently:
Sometimes, trust is based on experience that leads one to believe that someone else is virtuous.
(Via Glenn's link.) This is especially true in war, where the first casualty tends to be truth.

MORE: I almost forgot about Gene Kranz's evil twin brother. (I'm not sure but I think he coined the phrase "Our failure must never be in doubt!")

AND MORE: Glenn also links John Hinderaker's analysis of the Zawahiri video:

I've never understood the theory that Iraq is somehow unrelated to the broader war on terror. It would not be possible to read what al Qaeda's leaders have written and listen to their tapes, and hold that view. At one point, Zawahiri exhorts his followers to "[h]urry to Afghanistan, to Iraq, hurry to Somalia, hurry to Palestine, and hurry to the towering Atlas Mountains." If we were to abandon Iraq, can anyone doubt that the flow of jihadists to those other regions, and more, would increase?

UPDATE: Interested readers might enjoy today's post on terrorist doctors' travel plans.

MORE: Commenter "Zoe" takes me to task for "congratulat[ing] the Inquirer alone for being brave enough to run" the Zawahiri story and notes that the it originated with the Washington Post. Fair enough, although I don't think I praised the Inquirer for being brave. Nor did I say that the Inquirer was alone in running the story; I just don't think the MSM is especially delighted with it.

I can't look everywhere, but I do subscribe to the Inquirer. However, Googling the news, I do see that the report not only appears in the Washington Post and the Inquirer, but also in the Boston Globe. And the Concord Monitor.

What that means is that in addition to congratulating the Inquirer, my congratulations should go to the Washington Post, and these other two newspapers!

posted by Eric on 07.06.07 at 10:12 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5215






Comments

More than anti-Bush hysteria is involved in the MSM's current failure of reporting in Iraq. One of the most enduring falsehoods the MSM has spread is that Iraq is not crucial to the War on Terror. The presence of al Qaeda in Iraq severly erodes that argument. It also reminds us of the fact that there were ties between Saddam and al Qaeda - something else the MSM has lied about.

Mwalimu Daudi   ·  July 6, 2007 04:53 PM

CV: "Because, the more the ignorant "little people" are allowed to read about al Qaeda's butchery, the more they'll tend to think entering Iraq might not have been a bad idea after all.

They might not be in as much of a hurry to pull out and leave the Iraqi children to the tender mercies of the beheaders."

Saw this via Instapundit. I think you got it half right. AQI's campaign in Iraq is a good argument for us to fulfill our commitment to Iraq until we can solve at least the AQI problem (... unless you buy the proposition that our withdrawal from Iraq will be the impetus for Iraqis to unite against AQI, rather than precipitate conditions within which AQI can gain a scary level of power and influence not only in Iraq but globally).

However, AQI can be used to argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq have facilitated the conditions for AQI. If we believe AQI is the worst thing in Iraq, even worse than Saddam's regime, then it follows that either we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in 2003 (or even gone to war in 1991, if you want to trace it back). At least, it follows we should have been far more competent as a nation-building, sovereignty-restoring, transition-oriented occupier.

Analogy: even when discussing life-saving surgery, if a patient suffers from complications related to the surgery (eg, infection), as opposed to the original disease or injury, we do blame the doctors and the hospital. There's a very good reason that we have low tolerance for incompetence in doctors in general and surgeons in particular - the consequences for their incompetence are too many and the costs too high.

If a patient suffers as a consequence of a surgeon's mistakes, however, the priority is still the well-being of the patient. We hold the surgeons and the hospital responsible for fixing their mistakes and healing the patient. If they can't do the job, then it's necessary to find doctors who can.

Do our politicians, particularly those who advocate we abandon our commitment to Iraq and the Iraqi people, prioritize the well-being of Iraq? It sure doesn't seem so to me. There seems to be an almost cruel disregard for the fate of Iraq on their part.

As well, even assuming that it's best for Iraq and the US to end our OIF relationship, who other than us has the potential and will to 'heal' Iraq? I just don't see anyone else in the world. To beat the surgery analogy to death, if we've been poor surgeons in Iraq, the alternative to us look a lot more like faith-healing than medicine.

Eric Chen   ·  July 6, 2007 05:05 PM

CV: "Because, the more the ignorant "little people" are allowed to read about al Qaeda's butchery, the more they'll tend to think entering Iraq might not have been a bad idea after all.

They might not be in as much of a hurry to pull out and leave the Iraqi children to the tender mercies of the beheaders."

Saw this via Instapundit. I think you got it half right. AQI's campaign in Iraq is a good argument for us to fulfill our commitment to Iraq until we can solve at least the AQI problem (... unless you buy the proposition that our withdrawal from Iraq will be the impetus for Iraqis to unite against AQI, rather than precipitate conditions within which AQI can gain a scary level of power and influence not only in Iraq but globally).

However, AQI can be used to argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq have facilitated the conditions for AQI. If we believe AQI is the worst thing in Iraq, even worse than Saddam's regime, then it follows that either we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in 2003 (or even gone to war in 1991, if you want to trace it back). At least, it follows we should have been far more competent as a nation-building, sovereignty-restoring, transition-oriented occupier.

Analogy: even when discussing life-saving surgery, if a patient suffers from complications related to the surgery (eg, infection), as opposed to the original disease or injury, we do blame the doctors and the hospital. There's a very good reason that we have low tolerance for incompetence in doctors in general and surgeons in particular - the consequences for their incompetence are too many and the costs too high.

If a patient suffers as a consequence of a surgeon's mistakes, however, the priority is still the well-being of the patient. We hold the surgeons and the hospital responsible for fixing their mistakes and healing the patient. If they can't do the job, then it's necessary to find doctors who can.

Do our politicians, particularly those who advocate we abandon our commitment to Iraq and the Iraqi people, prioritize the well-being of Iraq? It sure doesn't seem so to me. There seems to be an almost cruel disregard for the fate of Iraq on their part.

As well, even assuming that it's best for Iraq and the US to end our OIF relationship, who other than us has the potential and will to 'heal' Iraq? I just don't see anyone else in the world. To beat the surgery analogy to death, if we've been poor surgeons in Iraq, the alternative to us looks a lot more like faith-healing than medicine.

Eric Chen   ·  July 6, 2007 05:05 PM

Your title "Our success must never be an option!" can be taken 2 ways. The sad truth is that success in Iraq really isn't an option. There is nothing that can be done to achieve a military success in Iraq.

Chocolatier   ·  July 6, 2007 05:51 PM

Just tell us the truth!

woof   ·  July 6, 2007 05:51 PM

"Your title "Our success must never be an option!" can be taken 2 ways. The sad truth is that success in Iraq really isn't an option. There is nothing that can be done to achieve a military success in Iraq."

I get so tired of hearing this stupid little canard that it makes me want to spit. By know, nothing quite says, "Small minded", like dragging out that old sow about how achieving a military success is impossible. What are we, Paraguay? Geez.

It may well be true that political success in Iraq is impossible, and that makes for an interesting discussion; or it may be true that achieving military success would be a Pyrrhic victory that would do more harm to America than it would achieve, but merely achieving military success is achievable in any number of ways simply by throwing more force at the problem.

When it comes to throwing more force at the problem, we've barely begun to fight. The real question is not whether we could do it, but whether we would be hammering the wrong nail.

I often wonder what people who claim we aren't achieving military success in Iraq and throw around words like 'disaster' think military defeat looks like. There are countless examples of forces which enjoyed victory that would have traded it for what is being labelled defeat. To my knowledge, no pattoon sized or larger element of the coalition has yet been overrun or destroyed in more than three years in Iraq. I invite the critics to look at what real military defeat or disaster looks like before the use the term so lightly.

celebrim   ·  July 6, 2007 06:23 PM

To my best knowledge, we kill about fifteen bad guys for every one of us they kill.. and the death toll of innocent Iraqis has for years now been almost entirely from bad guys murdering citizens, not from our 'collateral damage'...

if it weren't for the unhelpful nasties in Tehran and Syria and so forth, the bad guys would have run out of bad guys a long time ago.

Much as the left can't stand to hear it, this thing might have to get bigger before we wrap it up.

Or, um, we could just 'chart a different course', as in cut and run.

And God help us in a few years, when a state-run middle-eastern missile program (helped by RUssian and chinese opportunists) goes out to launch.

Dave   ·  July 6, 2007 10:30 PM

Separating the military from the political aspects of the situation - and vice-versa - is plain silly. Either influences and ties into the other - they're not separate.

If I had to order it, I would say in this war, the military aspects drive the political aspects.

Eric Chen   ·  July 6, 2007 11:05 PM

Mwalimu Daudi - this is a very ethnic name and I wouldn't normally make an inquiry such as this out of personal respect.
But there is a local talk show host who has been flogging the "Americans are so stupid that 48% still believe that Saddam had something to do with 911."
I would love to whipe the smirk off his face with information such as is contained in your link. How much better if it is a link provided by an Iraqi?
It would shut him down once and for all, I think.

So are you from Iraq?

Papertiger   ·  July 6, 2007 11:24 PM

"Separating the military from the political aspects of the situation - and vice-versa - is plain silly."

Perhaps. As Clauswitz said, "War is politics continued by different means." I certainly am in no hurry to separate them. I'm merely upset by the fact that there is a meme going around that in its various forms boils down to the illogical, irrational, and anti-historical claim that "violence never solves anything". That is a dangerously ignorant thing to think, and if your argument proceeds from that notion then you've not got much interesting to say.

To the extent that I do separate the two, its only to point out that the biggest and most intractable problems aren't military in nature, but political. Even those problems would become tractable if we were willing to apply more force - certainly there is no reason to suspect that Iraqi's will resist assimilation harder than the Japanese or the Germans if we beat them down sufficiently. The problem of course is that applying more force not only calls into question the justness of the war, kills more children than we are willing to stomach killing at this time, but also might cause bigger long term problems than the minor problem Iraq represents at present.

"If I had to order it, I would say in this war, the military aspects drive the political aspects."

That depends on what you mean by 'political aspects'. The percieved military success or lack of it certainly does drive the domestic political situation, but I think from the standpoint of someone actually in Iraq, you would order them the other way around. The political aspects of Iraq are driving the military effort. It's a failure to cope with the political problems of Iraq, or even to anticipate thier scale, that is the real problem with the war effort - not any military failing. As is usual in US history, the State Department and the CIA proved far less compotent than the military. The military has been forced into on the job training in statecraft, Arab culture, etc. We are seeing real improvements in how the military meshes the political and military aspects of the war, but its a big question as to whether or not its too late from the political standpoint of either America or Iraq. It could be that these things just take time. Or it could be that its too late. We'll know in the next year or so.

celebrim   ·  July 7, 2007 12:32 AM

The story you congratulate the Inquirer alone for being brave enough to run was written by the Washington Post. Or so it says right at the top.

Zoe   ·  July 7, 2007 08:55 AM

The story you congratulate the Inquirer alone for being brave enough to run was written by the Washington Post. Or so it says right at the top.

Zoe   ·  July 7, 2007 08:55 AM

You are so right. Recently, it may be the case of the kidnapped US soldiers 2 yet to be found, the initial reports indicated that Al Qaeda was behind this attack.

On CNN within two hours the headline changed to "insurgents". It was clearly an editiorial decision to down play the Al Queda.

At some point in the future, I hope the media is held responsible by the American people for our likely defeat in the War on Terror.

Their performance has been disgraceful.

kate   ·  July 7, 2007 09:02 AM

Celebrim's last paragraph is the sort of comment we don't get enough of: one that actually shows some informed perspective on the scale and character of tactical events.

Not only has no platoon-size American unit been in serious jeopardy since May 2003, but U.S. casualties have been trivial in relation to the forces engaged, the size of the home population, and losses sustained in previous small wars. In Vietnam, U.S. platoons were overrun with some frequency; in Korea, companies.

The level of U.S. troop morale in Iraq compared to Korea/Vietnam is an obvious tipoff to the difference, but it seems invisible (along with much else) to those determined to force this conflict into a "disaster" template. The actual military situation in Iraq is one that should be indefinitely sustainable for a serious country with the resources of the U.S.

BillBefort   ·  July 7, 2007 12:20 PM

Take a look at the different 2008 Presidential Candidates and decide who to vote for then. People moan about policies but more of you vote for the american idol than the president. so stop moaning, start researching the 2008 Presidential Candidates and VOTE!

2008 Presidential Elections   ·  July 7, 2007 05:37 PM

Barack Obama is against the war and has set a proper timeline to get the troops back. Let’s stop wasting money in a war we can’t justify and spend that at home. Barack Obama has a plan to provide you better healthcare and education for your kids. Barack Obama is more concerned about American children than he is about Iraqi children. Vote Barack Obama.

2008 Presidential Elections   ·  July 15, 2007 10:10 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



July 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits