From The Economist:THE “Islamic State of Iraq”, as al-Qaeda and its jihadist allies in that country like to call themselves, pumps out a stream of triumphant videos showing its fighters blowing up American Humvees. But these days the swagger has gone as the jihadists have been greatly weakened by the Americans and Sunni tribesmen. Their predicament was summed up in an interview by a man calling himself Abu Turab al-Jazairi. Described as one of al-Qaeda’s leaders in northern Iraq, the movement’s last bastion, he acknowledged losing several cities “because a large number of tribal leaders betrayed Islam”. And some of al-Qaeda’s fighters “got carried away with murdering and executions”.
Read more ....
My Comment: I read this article three times, and it still does not make any sense. The title of the article states that Al Qaeda is failing in Iraq, but is increasing in North Africa (i.e. The Maghreb). But the content of the article is saying something completely different. The Economist pumps out that this is a "Special Report", but when you read it you will come to the same conclusion that I did .... this article is just an opinionated piece that provides little (if any) factual or newsworthy information.
WARNING: Prepare For A Rant From Me.The following is "my summary" of just the first four paragraphs.
Paragraph 1
"
Some of al-Qaeda’s fighters in Iraq “got carried away with murdering and executions”
My Comment: Al Qaeda never gets carried away ..... they do what they have always done. To them their behavior is normal not abnormal.
2nd Paragraph
One of America’s justifications for invading Iraq in 2003 was that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda. That claim, like the one that he had weapons of mass destruction, has been discredited.My Comment: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was Al Qaeda's man in Iraq. He was there after the fall of Afghanistan and before the war of 2003.... Iraqi Intelligence knew who he was when he entered Iraq. As for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, 550 tons of Uranium yellow cake was just shipped out of Iraq. Iraq does not have a nuclear reactor .... this nuclear material could only be used for something else .... the production of enriched uranium.
3rd Paragraph
The war in Iraq has cost the lives of more than 4,000 American soldiers, done grievous harm to the country’s reputation and run up a bill of hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions of dollars.My Comment: Wars are never free .... they always cost lives and treasure. Everyone knew it at the time .... I knew it, the politicians who voted for the war knew this, the American people and their allies knew this, and the soldiers on the ground knew this. But the decision was made to go to war .... and as a democratic society we accept the consequences of it. It is easy to always second guess or have hindsight .... but such an exercise is (for me) intellectually dishonest.
Everyone also knew that Saddam Hussein and Iraq ..... through wars with Iran, Kuwait and supporting terrorism against Western allies like Israel ..... was and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands (if not more), and at a cost that still has not been measured. After 9/11, perceptions and altitudes changed .... the fear was that another war with Iraq would be even more bloodier that the last one .... and that cost was not acceptable.
4th Paragraph
"In June 2006 American forces tracked down the organisation’s leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and killed him in a bombing raid on his hideout north of Baghdad. Even so, a bleak Marine Corps intelligence report in the summer of 2006 found that American and Iraqi troops were “no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in Anbar”.
My Comment: There were numerous reports at the time .... if not hundreds .... that painted a difficult picture of the conflict in Iraq. But many also painted what needed to be done and the steps that were necessary for success and victory. Bloggers like Michael Yon who reported from the region at the time always pointed out that while Al Qaeda enjoyed free movement in the region, the majority of the population never had any desire to support them. It was only when American forces moved in with the surge (a surge that was based from General Petraeus report on what was needed for victory) that the groundwork for victory was being laid. Once Iraqi citizens felt safe, they not only confidently pointed out Al Qaeda fighters and their allies, but they also started to engage and kill them.
There is no point to continue paragraph by paragraph ..... the rest of this article by the Economist veers into the ridiculous.
At the bottom of this "Special Report", Algeria is finally mentioned. There is some mention in the article that there were some organizational changes in Algeria's terror groups, that this new offshoot of Al Qaeda then committed some terrorist strikes, kidnapped a few foolish tourists, and liked to do some training in the desert. An Al Qaeda fighter disagreed with this strategy .... which then leads to another sentence that gives the impression that Al Qaeda will soon jump into Europe and do the same thing that they have been doing in the Middle East.
End of RantIn the many wars and conflicts that are now occurring, information and analysis is no longer happening within the major news organizations. This ..... as you can tell from my rant ..... upsets me. The Economist is a large and successful news organization that has a huge audience and readership. To pass off a one page article as a "Special Report", and then provide opinionated context to this "Special Report" .... (heavy sigh) .... this is why print media is dying.
