The al-Qaeda Factor

George Packer notes that while the White House likes to assert that al-Qaeda is primarily responsible for the violence in Iraq, the CIA's internal government reports say otherwise. Joe Klein also tackles this issue:

Recenntly, in his desperation, starting with his speech at the Naval War College on June 28, [Bush] has been telling an outright lie, and he repeated it now, awkwardly, in Cleveland: "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is the crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims, trying to stop the advance of a system based upon liberty."

That is not true. [...]

No, it isn't.

Comments

But Michael Moore fudged facts!! But John Kerry made a botched joke about the troops!! But Nancy Pelosi needs to fly cross-country in an airplane!! But Hillary Clinton has a high-pitched voice!!

Sorry, channeled a cable news producer there for a second.

Posted by Media Glutton | July 13, 2007 5:49 PM

are Al Qaeda in Alabama and Al Qaeda in Texas also part of the same crowd that attacked us on September 11th?

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 13, 2007 6:05 PM

Ya know, when I was in the third grade, me and my friends started a baseball team. We called it the Yankees.

Using President Bush's logic, we WERE the Yankees. Looking back, the Yanks won a world series that year. I'm totally gonna call Steinbrenner and demand a ring. After all, I was ON THE YANKEES that year. We were called THE YANKEES!

This may, in fact, be the most pathetic lie from this President that our press has yet fallen for. The good news is, I'm sure they'll recover their skepticism the moment a Dem takes office. Hell, that in and of itself is the best reason to vote Democratic: "the Press lets the President get away with less lying and criminality when it's a Democrat. And they commit less, too. Vote Democratic."

I'll post when Steinbrenner sends the ring.

Posted by anonymous | July 13, 2007 6:26 PM

Well, Michael Gordon's NYT piece didn't have the bravery to say outright that Bush is a liar. Instead, he has to weigh it against what 'Bush's critics' assert.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 13, 2007 6:37 PM

"I did not have sexual relations.."

"The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is the crowd that is now bombing people..."

The latter was barely more than a footnote today, will be forgotten tomorrow. The other gave David Broder bad, dirty dreams. God help us.

Heckuva job MSM.

Posted by Andruw | July 13, 2007 7:36 PM

Yeah, given the amazing track record of the CIA, I'm sure we should take their word. On anything.

Posted by James Robertson | July 13, 2007 7:38 PM

This is a dumb point. Strictly speaking, if you play as dumb as ya'll are playing and do not allow the sort of association Bush was - quite obviously - making, then "the people that attacked us on September the 11th" are all dead and so we vanquished the enemy on that glorious day.

Dumb.

Posted by xmath | July 13, 2007 8:59 PM

I suspect a lot of commentary from pundits, military officers and government officials about the relationship between the al-Qaeda issue and what is happening in Iraq is confused by the multiple uses of the term "al-Qaeda", and consists of people talking past one another. To evaluate their claims, you have to know whether they are talking about (a) al-Qaeda as an organization, putatively organized and directed by Bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and various proteges and lieutenants; (b) al-Qaeda as a category of self-identification for people who don't necessarily function as part of the Al-Qaeda organization, such as it exists; or (c) al-Qaeda as a generic global brand.

The insurgency is a variegated affair consisting of many elements. Some of those who participate in the insurgency explicitly regard themselves as part of "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". Others do not think of themselves as part of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but do in some way strongly identify with the Salafist jihadist movement, and aim toward the creation of an Islamic state on a Salafist model in all or some of Iraq. Still others are not jihadists in any really strong sense at all, but are primarily Iraqi nationalists, or neo-Baathists, or just community or tribal loyalists with a sense of Sunni identity attempting to topple the Shia and Kurd dominated government in Baghdad, and eject its US backers.

Now who are the people causing most of the civilian casualties? Well since a good part those casualties seem to be caused by suicide bombs, I have tended to assume that those casualties are caused by hard-core jihadists, among whom suicide bombing has become a popular tactic. Perhaps this is wrong, but I haven't read many clear discussions of the issue. Does that mean these people take direction, other than in the way of general moral inspiration, from some guys in the mountain country of Pakistan? That is, does it mean that they are formally or behaviorally part of the Bin Laden/al-Zawahiri organization? Not at all.

One thing that has been clearly reported is that only a small percentage of those who regard themselves as jihadists, or particularly as part of Al Qaeda in Iraq, are foreigners. The vast majority are Iraqis.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 13, 2007 9:58 PM

Yeah, given the amazing track record of the CIA, I'm sure we should take their word. On anything.

So, James, you're saying the President and General Hayden are incompetent at protecting America? Good to know.

Posted by mds | July 13, 2007 11:17 PM

That lie is much worse than "I did not have sex with that woman."

Bush is beneath contempt.

Posted by Rich | July 14, 2007 4:19 AM

If al Qaeda is so interested in killing Americans that a large number of operatives who would otherwise be attacking civilians are attacking American soldiers in a chaotic country like Iraq (and of course Baathists and disaffected Iraqi sectarians seem to be behind most of the violence as you suggest), it is unclear that withdrawing these military targets would in fact lead to "fighting them here" on any particularly serious level.

Now to troll, al Qaeda (meaning those who do whatever bin Laden says, whether or not they have ever met him) is not mentioned in the quote of Bush by Klein. "That crowd" could just as easily be Islamic extremists in general.

Down with the internet! Except my blog!

Posted by Wido INcognitus | July 14, 2007 5:02 AM

Even if you accept the sublime lunacy of the "over there instead of here at home" logic, you are then left with the immorality of using another country as the battleground for your own distinct conflict. It's as if Bush's newest incarnation of the Iraq war rationale is that it was indeed designed all along to lure al Qaeda or "that crowd" into a more-convenient place to duke it out. I'm not sure how this can be read as anything other than the ultimate "fuck you and your stupid little sovereign nation" if you're an Iraqi.
And if we are all supposed to be making sacrifices and girding up our loins for a long long war, why exactly should we NOT be willing to fight this enemy here at home?

Posted by tinisoli | July 14, 2007 9:28 AM

you are then left with the immorality of using another country as the battleground for your own distinct conflict.

exactly. which puts the lie to all the talk about caring for the fate of the Iraqis themselves.

the people who now shout about the horrible consequences, for the Iraqis, of a quick US withdrawal cannot logically also buy into the "we have to fight 'them' there" idea. it's one or the other: either you care so much about the fate of Iraqis that you're willing to sacrifice American lives to defend them, or you care so much about American lives that you're willing to sacrifice Iraqi lives to defend them.

Posted by cleek | July 14, 2007 9:39 AM

This does seem like a fairly weak point.

It seems to me that there are clearly ideological similarities between the group that carried out 9/11 many of the foreign militants who are murdering Iraqis every day. Both groups seem to adhere to a particularly violent interpretation of Islam, both see mass civilian casualties as legitimate military objective, etc. While I don't think those similarities prove anything about the larger strategic calculus of US foreign policy, it strikes me as folly to denounce as lies milquetoast formulations which aim to highlight those obvious similarities.

Posted by southpaw | July 14, 2007 9:41 AM

Why not simply expand to make "al Qaida" mean anyone George Bush wants to do away with? Then, he becomes correct by default?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 14, 2007 10:43 AM

It seems to me that there are clearly ideological similarities between the group that carried out 9/11 many of the foreign militants who are murdering Iraqis every day.

You are talking about a vanishingly small number of people, whose impact in the present Iraq is a total tangent.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 14, 2007 10:53 AM

southpaw, it's not a "milquetoast formulation," it's a deliberate lie intended to further the thought process jeffrey davis outlines.

but really, i write to note to cleek that at this late date, expecting the war enablers to employ this exotic quality called "logic" isn't very realistic....

Posted by howard | July 14, 2007 10:56 AM

howard: oh, i know that.

and the fact that you can here both excuses from the same person (eg. Bush) tells me that the real reason is something else entirely, and what we're really hearing are superficial post-facto rationalizations, tailored to the audience.

but i think the giant contradiction between Flypaper and Humanitarian Concerns shouldn't be allowed to go without comment.

Posted by cleek | July 14, 2007 12:55 PM

I really don't understand the great relevance people seem to attribute to how many of the various kinds of insurgents are foreign, and how many are Iraqi-born. Surely the more important issue is what their motivations are and what they are fighting for.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 14, 2007 3:37 PM

Dan:

I think the question of whether the insurgents in Iraq are, in fact, Iraqi arose in the context of questions about whether there was actually any threat in Iraq before we created one. If the fighters are foreign, the idea that Iraq represented any kind of threat is, well, we know what it is.

Posted by THS | July 15, 2007 12:48 AM