Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intercepted letter from Al Qaeda: "As War Over Leak Grips Washington, Al Qaeda Quails"
NY Sun ^ | Sept 27,2006 | ELI LAKE

Posted on 09/27/2006 2:49:00 AM PDT by The Raven

On a day when much of the capital's attention was focused on leaked excerpts of an intelligence estimate report that suggested the Iraq war was creating more jihadists, the military quietly released an intercepted letter from Al Qaeda complaining that the terrorist organization was losing ground in Iraq.

The letter, found in the headquarters of Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, after he was killed on June 7, was sent to Zarqawi by a senior Al Qaeda leader who signs his name simply "Atiyah." He complains that Al Qaeda is weak both in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and in Iraq.

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; iraq; nieleak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: The Raven

They were talking on Fox and Friends about this earlier this morning


41 posted on 09/27/2006 6:35:07 AM PDT by Kaslin (No matter what the left says. G.W. Bush will be remembered as the best president of this century)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Axhandle

Did the Japanese make more enemies of Americans when the bombed Pearl Harbor? I ask this because it's silly to think that when one country attacks another or when a country that's been attacked reacts defensively, that this doesn't make more enemies then you had previously.


42 posted on 09/27/2006 6:36:16 AM PDT by ShandaLear (So there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Raven

The letter, should have been sent to McCain instead of Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda could have asked for funding. John would want to make sure it's a fair fight.


43 posted on 09/27/2006 6:39:10 AM PDT by JIM O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Atiyah also confirms that a letter publicized last fall to Zarqawi from Ayman al Zawahiri was authentic, even though Zaraqwi's organization and some intelligence analysts here said at the time it was a fake.

At the tail end of the article the writer slips this in. This should have been front and center, in my opinion.

44 posted on 09/27/2006 6:46:18 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (I would never belong to any club that would have someone like me as a member.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas
It's quite possible that Al Qaeda itself is becoming a less important participant in Iraq even as the potential dangers posed by jihadist influence increase there and elsewhere.

That's because al-Qa'ida is changing from a simple group into a global philosophy.

Small groups of individuals in areas with no history or links to terrorism can become radicalized with AQ inspired propaganda. They can go to jihadist websites and put together their own plots with their own resources. The term 'home grown terrorists' is a dismissive and naiive way of portraying what will be an increasingly commong threat. It's the jihadist equivalent of yelling "I am Sparticus"

Insofar as we defeat al-Qa'ida proper, that doesn't end the threat anymore. It's too late for that. The next generation al-Qa'idas are already in the incubator.

For example many in the US are still thinking in terms of "body counts" (the "Terrorst Magnet" theory).

In a war of this type, body counts are almost entirely irrelevant. The center of gravity in this kind of warfare isn't in units, manpower, or equipment. It's the social makeup of the Muslim communities themselves. As a U.S. doctor serving in the Korean war commented, on the Chinese, "The womb may yet prove to be the most effective weapon of all". So long as those communities are inclined to support extremism, or, more commonly, to not actively combat it, enemy reinforcements will never be far behind.

In this light, our position in Iraq appears particularly unfortunate.

It's unfortunate only in that we tried to use the military as a crutch, in light of a poor post-war political reconstruction effort. We are effectively invincible from a military standpoint, but unable to attain victory. That enduring stalemate provides ample propaganda to recruit new jihadists the world over.

And when we do the, Jihadists will take credit for our "expulsion", and many will believe them, further increasing their influence. (This is exactly what happened in Afghanistan - Al Qaeda played a very minor role in that conflict, but Al Qaeda successfully trafficked in inflated accounts of its importance in expelling the Russians for a decade thereafter.)

At this point, even if it ends in a draw, with both sides able to claim some sort of partial success, it will be a Phyrric victory. Al-Qa'ida may be broken in Afghanistan and Iraq, but a new generation of terrorists have cut their teeth on the U.S. military. The new jihadists will take home lessons that will be taught again, posted on the internet, and preached in mosques.

The idea of Arab resistance to foriegn aggression is a romantic one that sells very well in the Middle East. There doesn't have to be much tangible gain for the myths to be spread, and for Arabs to feel pride and motivation over it.

Meanwhile, we have 100,000 plus high-tech troops, at a cost of 30-50 billion dollars a year, fighting a shadowy enemy who is successfully attacking them with roadside bombs made for $10 or less from a salvaged artillery round.

Coming soon to a roadside near you. Iraq, if nothing else, has taught jihadists how easy and inexpensive it can be to fight us, even at our strongest.

Under these conditions from the Jihadist prespective – and more important to many in the Islamic world - our victories are the result of the criminal application of massive fire power – the frustrated lashings out of a wounded giant – while any Jihadist success against our troops is a valiant act of resistance successfully undertaken again enormous odd.

It's a romantic myth of battle and courage, but it's what they want to believe. Those tales inspire religious Muslims into radicalism, by playing upon their pride, sense of community, and religious faith. The mosques will radiate these myths into their members, and networks will form.

But as the situation has actually developed, whatever Al Qaeda’s role in Iraq at the end of our involvement in that sorry country, in the battle with “Islamic Terrorism” writ large we are almost certainly going to “lose” in Iraq.

Victory is not yet out of our grasp, but, unless we really get our act together and turn Iraq around, the jihadists will also walk away with considerable winnings. Those spoils many not be much more than experience, credibility, and terrorist contacts, but it'll be enough to nurture a global jihad still in it's infancy.

I don't think that current leadership of either party can admit this, or formulate realistic plans to extract us from this mess - their reputations are on the line, and it's just to tempting to "kick the can down the road" and hope the next guy will take the blame.

We're going to be in this war for decades.

But in the meantime, we can continue to educate ourselves about the history, aims, and strengths and weaknesses of the Radical Islamic movements that have turned to terrorism and how they relate to the broader course of Islamic thought (and I'll say it again "The Looming Tower" is a good place to start).

The best chance we have of winning is in understanding the problem, and I completely agree with you there. Informed debate and clear thinking is the only way out of this maze. That said, prepare to be flamed, and flamed hard, for seeking answers outside of the party line.

45 posted on 09/27/2006 6:55:10 AM PDT by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
Atiyah also confirms that a letter publicized last fall to Zarqawi from Ayman al Zawahiri was authentic, even though Zaraqwi's organization and some intelligence analysts here said at the time it was a fake.

No serious analysts thought it was fake. At least, none that knew where we got it. Some scholarly types who call themselves 'intelligence analysts', perhaps, but that would be all.

AQI media simply denies anything that sounds negative; they're not interested in the truth, or held accountable by their constituency for it.

46 posted on 09/27/2006 7:00:37 AM PDT by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative
The root cause for the development of jihadists are the teachings of the Imams in muslim schools/Churches. It could fairly be argued that our foreign policy over the years may have incited a few to act out on the teachings, but none the less, the teachings are the root cause. The would be jihadis are taught from birth to spread Islam by the sword.

In conventional warfare, advantageous terrain is considered to be high ground, choke points, and otherwise important terrain. In the GWOT, the mosques and Islamic communities themselvs are the hills and bridges.

Firepower won't change that. In fact, too much force plays into the hands of our enemies. The teachings of Islam by themselves are pretty harsh, and will always generate some real crackpots like bin Laden. Wen whipped up into a frenzy over things like the long Iraqi occupation, large numbers of Muslims can be easily pushed into militancy.

47 posted on 09/27/2006 7:07:43 AM PDT by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative

The left and appeasers never get serious. Ordinary realists have always been the ones to have to face the guns of tyrants after the left and appeasers sit by and watch and try endless "diplomacy" while the tyrants advance. . then, after enough people die, ordinary realists have to take the wheel and the great unwashed realists have to shoulder the burden - while narcissists like Clinton dodge the draft and plan their own personal advancement . . that is what the burden is about . . "The Task and the Burden" as so well described by Marjorie Noon in her book written 50 yrs. ago.


48 posted on 09/27/2006 7:58:07 AM PDT by Twinkie (Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sure_fine
Iraq is the ice-cream truck in the radicals neighborhood

A 60-ton ice-cream truck with a 120mm Rheinmetall cannon.

Come and get it, kids.

49 posted on 09/27/2006 8:02:43 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
That said, prepare to be flamed, and flamed hard, for seeking answers outside of the party line.

I don't know... is there still a "party line"?

There is an administration position, "stay the course", and there are various positions on the alternatives, but the sense I get is that increasingly people have a desire for some realistic, straight talk about viable alternatives to just sitting there, taking casualties, and waiting for the various factions in Iraq to somehow resolve their political problems. And it seems to me that more and more people would settle for de facto partition (“Those are just the facts on the ground”), or total chaos or a functioning coalition government composed of members willing to agreed to disagree long enough to ask us to leave (“You can’t save people from themselves”) or a more pressing crisis that required out troops elsewhere (if we discovered that North Korea was selling nuclear weapons to terrorists, would anyone care much what happened once they left Iraq if our troops there were needed in NK to deal with an imminent threat to the mainland US?) – that is for just about any resolution that gave us a face-saving way out, petty much irrespective of what we left behind.

Meanwhile, though we don’t know what’s next, it’s not clear to me that a “party line” is left to follow which can unite people either here or elsewhere as we search for a “next step”.

And it’s in this light that IMO you have to look (for example) at the various geopolitical arguments often made by those who consider themselves pragmatic supporters of a continued occupation - the “unsinkable aircraft carrier” and “access to oil” arguments and so on – unless we find leadership better able to unite the country behind the means to such ends, they are fantasy.

50 posted on 09/27/2006 8:16:42 AM PDT by M. Dodge Thomas (More of the same, only with more zeros at the end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: elli1
"That's how I see it, too."

That's how Tony Snow sees it and said it just now in his presser. Words to the effect "It was reported as a deal with the Taliban. In fact, it was the opposite." I loathe the press...

51 posted on 09/27/2006 9:25:11 AM PDT by eureka! (Heaven forbid the Rats get control of Congress and/or the Presidency any time soon....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
"Methinks the 'deal' Pakistan made with the Taliban was more a 'deal' with us. That is, sure, the Pakistanis won't militarily operate in that area, indeed, will totally withdraw. Withdraw so much that the allies may, ahem, accidentally cross the border chasing bad guys but the Pakistani government cannot confirm. In other words, I think we got a green light to go get 'em..."

Shhhh...

52 posted on 09/27/2006 11:27:13 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Just speculatin'. On reflection, I believe the MSM. The Talibunnies are safer than ever. ;^)


53 posted on 09/27/2006 12:07:45 PM PDT by eureka! (Heaven forbid the Rats get control of Congress and/or the Presidency any time soon....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: The Raven

jihad bump


54 posted on 09/27/2006 7:37:29 PM PDT by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShandaLear
Yours is the first I've seen that gets close to a PROPER
response to the false "debate" being hyped and inflated.

What does the leaked NIE say about the impact of 9/11 on creating more pissed off Americans?

What does the NIE say about the impact of Gulf War I on
creating a universally understood NEED to remove Saddam?

What does the leaked NIE say about what happens if Iraq becomes a prosperous functional democracy, able to handle its OWN defense, AND able to help us take on terrorists elsewhere?

What does the leaked NIE say about the impact of a free and
democratic Iraq fielding a modern air force with 4th generation capabilities?

What does the NIE say about what happens if, after that time
when Iraq can handle its own security, the U.S. withdraws to
remote desert barracks... in Iraq... maybe near the border with Iran... and sets up a desert warfare training center?

What does the NIE say about the impact of the Popes speech
in helping Europeans with rediscovering that they once had backbones?

And not JUST Pearl Harbor, what did the leaked NIE say about the impact on Japanese resolve of the Americans capturing Okinawa?

Did it MATTER that our success pissed them off?

You bet it did... but it didn't matter ENOUGH.

Finally, what does the leaked NIE say about the outcome of the last WAR we were involved in, in which we DIDN'T make the enemy angry with us by killing them in numbers large enough to "diminish recruiting".. or about the last war in which the presence of American fighting men on the ground,
DIDN'T tend to attract enemies wanting to attack them?

What did the leaked NIE say about how much dope an analyst has to smoke before simple definitions like "we're in a war" don't penetrate the simple brains of "intelligence" analysts, who expect our conduct of war to produce results that look like fun afternoons in amusement parks... instead of producing... warfare... with bad guys, morts and a body count?

Etc.
55 posted on 09/28/2006 12:20:56 AM PDT by Sense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: The Raven

He complains that Al Qaeda is weak both in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and in Iraq.


Oh NO! More bad news for the deomcrats. When will it ever end?


56 posted on 09/28/2006 5:39:03 AM PDT by Valin (http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sense

Completely agree. When any country goes to war with an enemy, it's going to rally those on both sides. In the case of Iraq, it's a good thing that it's become a magnet for our enemies. It brings them out in the open where where it's easier to target them.


57 posted on 09/28/2006 6:32:39 AM PDT by ShandaLear (So there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson