Honorable Men

I think this is the sound of Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell lying to congress. Meanwhile, here's General David Petraeus responding to the news that Abdul Sattar Abu Risha has been killed:

"This is a tragic loss," Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, said of Abu Risha's death. "It's a terrible loss for Anbar province and all of Iraq. It shows how significant his importance was and it shows al-Qaeda in Iraq remains a very dangerous and barbaric enemy."

The only problem is that Petraeus doesn't have any evidence that Abu Risha was killed by al-Qaeda in Iraq. After all, lots of people had reason to want to kill him. Here's Time from June 1:

Sheikh Sattar, whose tribe is notorious for highway banditry, is also building a personal militia, loyal not to the Iraqi government but only to him. Other tribes — even those who want no truck with terrorists — complain they are being forced to kowtow to him. Those who refuse risk being branded as friends of al-Qaeda and tossed in jail, or worse. In Baghdad, government delight at the Anbar Front's impact on al-Qaeda is tempered by concern that the Marines have unwittingly turned Sheikh Sattar into a warlord who will turn the province into his personal fiefdom.

He could have been killed by one of Anbar's other Sunni groups. He could have been killed by people working for Maliki's government. People die all the time in Iraq, and there are only a tiny number of AQI personnel. This is a classic example of the Myth of al-Qaeda in Iraq in action -- it's convenient to blame this on AQI so that's what's happening even though there's no evidence.

Comments

I bet there's twice as much evidence that al Qaida killed him as there was to call trucks weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 13, 2007 12:42 PM

I think this is the sound of Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell lying to congress.

It's difficult to tell without knowing exactly how the info leading to the German terrorist capture was obtained, but Ackerman's charge looks to me to be bogus.

Seems to me that McConnell was talking about the warrantless wiretapping program, which a court had struck down months ago and the new law ressurrected. The question is, was the info obtained under the warrantless wiretapping program? If so, McConnell seems to me to be right, even if the relevant info was obtained prior to the new law.

Posted by Al | September 13, 2007 12:47 PM

The only problem is that Petraeus doesn't have any evidence that Abu Risha was killed by al-Qaeda in Iraq.

I'm curious how Matthew knows exactly what evidence Petraeus has or doesn't have.

Posted by Al | September 13, 2007 12:49 PM

I'm curious how Al knows that Matt knows that Petraeus doesn't have any evidence of AQI involvement.

Posted by BigBrother | September 13, 2007 12:57 PM

I'm curious how Al knows that Matt knows that Petraeus doesn't have any evidence of AQI involvement.

Isn't that what the line I quoted from Matthew's post (the line in itals) says?

Posted by Al | September 13, 2007 1:00 PM

"Petraeus doesn't have any evidence that Abu Risha was killed by al-Qaeda in Iraq."

Wow. Were you with the General during today's MNF-I video-teleconference? Did they the intel brief include anything else of interest?

Posted by TJM | September 13, 2007 1:01 PM

In Baghdad, government delight at the Anbar Front's impact on al-Qaeda is tempered by concern that the Marines have unwittingly turned Sheikh Sattar into a warlord who will turn the province into his personal fiefdom.

But, but...he was our S.O.B.!

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 13, 2007 1:13 PM

I wonder if Matt understands the utility of emphasizing Al'Qaeda as the enemy in Anbar etc.

No, take that back. I don't actually wonder. But I'll give a hint: it has something to do with fig leaves and honor, and almost zero to do with D.C. politics.

But la-di-da, right Matt?

Posted by JA | September 13, 2007 1:15 PM

Abu Risha was killed by a roadside bomb, not a car bomb or a suicide attack, as is thought to be the standard practive of AQI. Moreover, whoever did this probably had to have had advance knowledge of Abu Risha's intinerary, and it's unlikely AQI would have known that.

Unless the U.S. makes some sort of credible commitment to eventually leave, it's likely rhat the Anbar Awakening will fail in the end, because the Sunni insurgent groups will turn back against us as soon as they think they have the threat of AQI under control.

Posted by RC | September 13, 2007 1:25 PM

Were you with the General during today's MNF-I video-teleconference?

Ah. I love it when people get all retro. They're harkening back to the, "they must know something we don't" argument when we poked holes in and pointed out the weaknesses of the administration's WMD claims in late 2002 and early 2003.

Posted by Tyro | September 13, 2007 1:34 PM

Anyone who still trusts "evidence" presented by the US government, when it cannot be independently confirmed, is simply not worth listening to. Seriously, TJM, have you simply not been paying attention the past five years?

Posted by ML | September 13, 2007 1:51 PM

What Tyro says. I can’t stand this "were you there when the general was hearing his MNF-I conference" bs. I don't care about the general's MNF/CNF/BFF conference. Using acronyms that mean nothing to ordinary folks will not impress us (or fool us) anymore. That ship has long sailed. If the general really knows what AQ is up to then produce he-who-cannot-be-caught.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | September 13, 2007 2:24 PM

I have no words to describe the degree of credulity it takes to presume that General Petraeus has ironclad evidence of al-Qaeda's responsibility, yet declines to describe it for us even though it would clearly bolster the case he's making.

In law, there is a concept known as the "negative inference." This says that if you destroy evidence regarding your position, or if it exists but you refuse to produce it, the jury is entitled to infer that the evidence would have been contrary to your position. Most people simply call this common sense.

Posted by Steve | September 13, 2007 3:12 PM

"I think this is the sound of Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell lying to congress."

Remember when that was illegal? Good times, good times...

Posted by space | September 13, 2007 3:41 PM

It was neither a-Q or any other of the partiular interested parties. It was suicide. He committed it when he shook Dub's hand.

Posted by halfmiler | September 13, 2007 4:08 PM

I think I read something yesterday on MSNBC that pretty well put paid to McConnell's notions that the wiretapping had anything to do with the German case.

Apparently it was some alert security guards or something who noticed something suspicious.

Ah, yes, here it is -in fact, McConnell has now WITHDRAWN his assertion in that respect.

So I guess that's that.

Spy Master Admits Error
Intel czar Mike McConnell told Congress a new law helped bring down a terror plot. The facts say otherwise.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20749773/site/newsweek/

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 13, 2007 10:02 PM

"It shows how significant his importance was and it shows al-Qaeda in Iraq remains a very dangerous and barbaric enemy."

Does anybody see the contradiction in that statement?

If the Sunni tribe leader was so effective, why is AQI still so dangerous?

If that guy can't even protect himself against AQI, how can he defeat AQI?

While nobody is invulnerable and nobody has perfect security, there's just a bit of a problem with this notion that this guy was the "savior of Anbar."

Not to mention that the statement about him becoming a local warlord thanks to American support kind of clearly demonstrates that the POINT of the "surge" - reconciliation and the shoring up of the Iraqi state - obviously has a long way to go.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 13, 2007 10:06 PM

Sheikh Abu Risha might have been done in by the same folks that did this:

http://www.albasrah.net/en_articles_2007/0707/iraqiresistancereport_220707.htm
(July 22, albasrah.net)

Resistance fighter drives explosives-laden minibus into meeting of US-backed “al-Anbar Salvation Council” in Baghdad, killing five collaborationist leaders.

In a dispatch posted at 6:04pm Makkah time Sunday afternoon, Mafkarat al-Islam reported that an Iraqi Resistance fighter drove an explosives-laden minibus into a house and blew up killing five members of the US-backed collaborationist “al-Anbar Salvation Council.”

Mafkarat al-Islam reported sources in the puppet police as saying that leaders of collaborationist “Salvation Council” were holding a meeting in the Jurf al-Milh area near the northern Baghdad suburb of at-Taji, about 20km to the north of Baghdad proper. The pro-American Sunni politicians from al-Anbar Province were discussing how to merge their militias with US and Iraqi puppet regime forces in combat against the Iraqi Resistance.

The source said that by preliminary count, the explosion killed five of the collaborationist leaders, but it was expected that the death toll would increase as 12 other “Salvation Council” leaders were wounded in the attack.

A source in the Iraqi puppet army reported that the Sunday gathering of the al-Anbar collaborationists came after they had met with local Shi‘i collaborationist leaders in at-Taji on Friday. The source said that both meetings were being held under the auspices of the US occupation forces, but there was no word regarding US casualties in the Sunday attack.

The “al-Anbar Salvation Council” was formed at a US-sponsored meeting known as the “Congress of al-Anbar Awakening” held in August 2006. The nominal purpose of the group was to resist al-Qa‘idah, but in fact the group has joined its efforts with those of the US in fighting all opponents of the American occupation.

Posted by Arun | September 14, 2007 7:43 AM

Greetings conspiracy theorists,

From today's Washington Post, "The Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq asserted responsibility Friday for planting the bomb that killed a prominent tribal leader Thursday, calling the assassination a "holy operation" that targeted Abdul Sattar Abu Risha for his alliance with U.S. forces."

I don't expect anyone to recant their earlier posts.

Posted by TJM | September 15, 2007 10:52 AM