The Times reports on the resilience of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia:
Insurgent Group in Iraq, Declared Tamed, Roars
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
BAQUBA, Iraq — This spring, United States military commanders said that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia was a group in disarray, all but finished as a formidable enemy after American and Iraqi troops had killed or captured more than three-quarters of its leaders.
But even as officials in the United States and Iraq made public pronouncements that reveled in Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia’s demise, the Sunni insurgent group vowed “dark days colored in blood.”
This summer, as if to make good on its pledge, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia embarked on a wave of terror that managed to shake even an Iraqi public inured to violence: during the past two months, Iraq has witnessed some of its highest casualty tolls in more than two years, according to the government.
How Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has managed this unlikely turnaround — from a near spent force to a reinvigorated threat to Iraq’s democracy in a little more than two months — is a puzzle to both the Americans and Iraqis who study the insurgent group, some of whom now wonder whether the organization in Iraq can ever be entirely defeated.
Troubling - the resurgence of the Taliban was also something of a longer-term surprise. Although Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia never governed the country, like the Taliban it is mostly home grown at this point:
The group, thought to be made up almost entirely Iraqis because the stream of foreign jihadists into the country has been cut to a trickle in recent years, is overseen by its third generation of leaders, who by all accounts are as ruthless as their predecessors, and possibly more cunning and capable.
Obviously, the plan is that Iraqi security forces will be able to deal with this level of insurgency. That still seems likely.
STEADY ON, LADS: Excitable Andy,or whoever is writing at the Daily Dish, decries the failed Petraeus surge. Hmm. Petraeus' role in the surge was to stave off a civil war and buy time for the Iraqi "leadership" to stand up a government and some security forces. As Thomas Ricks (and no doubt others) noted, Petraeus implemented some awkward trade-offs. For example, empowering local Sunni chieftans was helpful in the short run against Ao Qaeda in Mesopotami but not helpful with the longer run goal of empowering a strong central government.
Years later, the Iraqi elites have yet to form a government, and they may yet fritter away the opportuity the surge created. But it is far to early to declare the surge a failure, and not appropriate to blame Petraeus (I think it is Petraeus' boss who is keen to get US troops out of Iraq post-haste).
And since the current level of violence looks nothing like a civil war, let's reprise Michael Yon's declaration of victory from July 2008:
The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.
It took a long time to subdue the IRA in Northern Ireland, but there was never a danger of their overthrowing either the British or Irish government.
I thought Al-Queda was dead and combat operations have ceased and that Afghanistan is the priority. Hmmm, maybe the answer to this is to send Uncle Joe over to get to the bottom of this insurgency thingy.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 28, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Tammy Baldwin assured me via her email newsletter that after her recent trip to Afghanistan, she was convinced that al Qaeda was no longer there.
Problem solved in the war of choice.
Posted by: PD | September 28, 2010 at 12:59 PM
--That still seems likely.--
With Iraq unable to form a government, the increasing Sunni/Shia friction, Iran as a neighbor and the feckless Barry at our helm I wish I were so sanguine.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 28, 2010 at 01:08 PM
-That still seems likely.
It depends on how they go about it. Didn't Hussein have little to no domestic terrorism?
Posted by: steve | September 28, 2010 at 01:23 PM
I now have the same aversion to this war that I developed about Viet Nam once it became clear to me that it was all costume and no victory. Bring everyone home. I don't want a single boy killed while Obama tries to placate the "entire Democrat party," by pretending to fight.
Bring them home; wait for the next disaster and have someone with courage fight the fight. Let this little liar go down in history properly.
Posted by: MarkO | September 28, 2010 at 01:56 PM
I tend to agree with you Mark. Altho I would never have guessed I would end up feeling that way.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | September 28, 2010 at 01:59 PM
Is there a journalistic precept hidden in here somewhere?
The NYT has to present the case there is more in Iraq than that which meets the eye because, if there weren't, you wouldn't need to read the NYT.
Posted by: sbw | September 28, 2010 at 02:03 PM
If I knew how to search JOM archives, I'd show you my post after the election of The Won saying bring them home.
Posted by: Sue | September 28, 2010 at 02:24 PM
OT
The Raleigh News & Observer has the first "Who are you" ad against Bob Etheridge at their Under the Dome column... sorry I do not know how to do the LUN. Ad may also be on YouTube
Posted by: BB Key | September 28, 2010 at 02:24 PM
Ditto what Jane said.
Posted by: centralcal | September 28, 2010 at 02:27 PM
Obviously, the plan is that Iraqi security forces will be able to deal with this level of insurgency. That still seems likely.
"Americans and Iraqis who study the insurgent group ... now wonder whether the organization in Iraq can ever be entirely defeated." But you know better, based on--what? The conciliatory moves the Shiites have made toward the Sunnis who provide the al Qaeda manpower, such as stripping the Anbar Awakening guys of their ranks (h/t myself)? Those are hardened and experienced killers, although for a time they were our bought and paid for killers. Now that they've been armed and trained by us they should be that much more effective, but on the other side again. Thanks again, Bushie. Mission freakin' accomplished. Go visit some more troops. It's the least you can do.
Posted by: anduril | September 28, 2010 at 02:37 PM
Here's BB's ad in the Raleigh News and Observer:
">http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/the_who_are_you_ad_finally_arrives"> The "Who Are You?" Ad finally Arrives.
Full disclosure---I used to deliver this rag of a paper in High School:( Sorry.
Posted by: daddy the "Extremist" | September 28, 2010 at 02:42 PM
It depends on how they go about it. Didn't Hussein have little to no domestic terrorism?
Well, if you exclude terror inflicted by the "government".
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 28, 2010 at 02:42 PM
I tend to think my reason for wanting them home is different from the Won's reasons. First off, he's letting them be killed as a mere political position. Second, I still believe if we are unwilling to use overwhelming force, we don't mean it and there is no point in my son or your son dying as a political gesture.
I'm for killing the bastards, not what we are up to now.
Posted by: MarkO | September 28, 2010 at 02:46 PM
From daddy's link:
Heh! I'd like some more of that please.
Posted by: glasater | September 28, 2010 at 02:49 PM
If I knew how to search JOM archives, I'd show you my post after the election of The Won saying bring them home.
Sue,
I looked and I can't find it. But I remember that post.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 28, 2010 at 02:52 PM
OT,
College rallys by Zero and bite-me.
Rush is delayed an hour out here, but he just took a call of some guy saying Biden's speech is to an almost empty theater and they can't give away the tickets.
Then ">http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/09/right-now-nietzsche-is-little-more.html"> Ann Althouse, who went all gaga over Feingold over the weekend, does a post on Obama's Madison Campus Lecture with links saying that " ...there are some students who are asking teachers to cancel class so they can attend...."Right now Nietschze is a little more important," said Justin Marita, a senior from River Falls, who said he plans to vote in November but won't go to the rally."
Ann avoided saying anything about Feingold today so nobody's bashing her over the head about "feelings".
Posted by: daddy the "Extremist" | September 28, 2010 at 02:54 PM
Porch,
I can never find anything. Well, never is not quite right, I have accidentally found a thing or two.
Posted by: Sue | September 28, 2010 at 02:57 PM
Didn't Hussein have little to no domestic terrorism?
Mass graves FTL
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 28, 2010 at 02:57 PM
And concerning the Ground Zero Mosque.
I think it was on FOX earlier, tho' I can't find it right now, but they said there already is a Mosque just a few blocks away from Ground Zero and showed it on a map, so the reasoning that you have to build a new one at Ground Zero in order to service the lower Manhattan Muslim community who need a place to do their Musliming, is bogus. I'll keep trying to dig that up.
Posted by: daddy the "Extremist" | September 28, 2010 at 03:03 PM
From the Wash Examiner--Stern's not the only SEIU member under investigation:
UPDATE — Gateway Pundit makes a huge catch. Looks like the FBI recently also raided the home of an SEIU leader for possible connections to overseas terrorist groups:
Over the weekend the FBI announced that it was investigating Joseph Iosbaker for possible connections to overseas terror groups. Iosbaker and his wife Stephanie Weiner, both anti-war activists, are suspected of activities “concerning the material support of terrorism.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/fbi-reportedly-investigating-the-former-seiu-leader-andy-stern-103934568.html#ixzz10qv0xIr4>Look for the union label
Posted by: Clarice | September 28, 2010 at 03:04 PM
Sue,
It's really difficult. Even the google technique of
[thing you're looking for site:justoneminute.typepad.com]
doesn't bring up posts that I can remember clearly.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 28, 2010 at 03:06 PM
So how does this contradiction come about:
Election Panel Dismisses Complaint Against SEIU, Clears Way for Union to Amass War Chest
Posted by: glasater | September 28, 2010 at 03:08 PM
glasater,
I do not know, but I still think the real fireworks are going to be in the Presidential Pardons on the day when Obama finally walks out of the White House for the last time.
Posted by: daddy the "Extremist" | September 28, 2010 at 03:15 PM
OT
Thanks daddy
I delivered it too in the 60's
Posted by: BB Key | September 28, 2010 at 03:26 PM
I agree Ex - starting with Rezko and all the way down to Eric holder who I expect will be servint time within 2 years.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | September 28, 2010 at 03:36 PM
Wow. http://lollarforcongress.com/index.php/home>Lollar for congress? Ace pointed him out over at his site and I followed some links to get to his. Wouldn't it be awesome if he beat Hoyer? Maybe a money bomb is in order? How sweet would it be to take out Reid and Hoyer, since we can't get to Pelosi?
Posted by: Sue | September 28, 2010 at 03:42 PM
This is unbelievable:
Gaffney:Hamas Operative Gets a Tour of the National Counter Terrorism Center
Posted by: glasater | September 28, 2010 at 04:48 PM
Forbes has a pretty coherent article on:
FBI investigates prominent labor leader Andy Stern
Posted by: glasater | September 28, 2010 at 04:51 PM
Mexico Asks U.S. To Stop Deporting Serious Criminals
Posted by: glasater | September 28, 2010 at 04:58 PM
Another Believable Book.
"President Bill Clinton’s Senior Military Aide Robert “Buzz” Patterson tells Newsmax that a fundraiser and “close acquaintance” of Barack Obama should be prosecuted for treason for aiding America’s enemies.
IMO, he says a lot more than most.
Posted by: Pagar | September 28, 2010 at 05:01 PM
daddy, there's this place, but it's got to be twice as far from Ground Zero as where the victory mosque is supposed to go.
Literally hundreds of feet further uptown.
Posted by: bgates | September 28, 2010 at 05:06 PM
Reference Glasater's fine link at 04:48PM.
That link needs to be read with this: OIC meeting in Chicago to impose Sharia islamic law via UN.
Put the two stories together and try to figure out how America is supposed to survive.
Posted by: Pagar | September 28, 2010 at 05:16 PM
Thanks Pagar!
Did you see this link from Stephanie in the comments from your article?
Posted by: glasater | September 28, 2010 at 06:02 PM
http://www.cafepress.com/+no-sharia+bumper-stickers
Posted by: PD | September 28, 2010 at 08:15 PM
Glasater, you're ahead of me tonight.
I had missed Stephanie's link before, thanks.
Now I see you've found another outstanding link. Mayor thinks we should keep his violent criminals, so he can lower his crime rates. It is impossible to make this stuff up, no one would believe it.
Posted by: Pagar | September 28, 2010 at 08:30 PM
Thanks bgates,
That's probably it, but it was reported by one of those knockout FOX blonde foxes, so I didn't quite catch all the particulars.
Posted by: daddy the "Extremist" | September 28, 2010 at 10:56 PM