[Southack]

"It's only a matter of time before they successfully pull off something like this." - oolatec

Nope. For one thing, Al Qaeda reveals that they are so powerless now in Iraq that they have to depend upon Iraq's government to make mistakes to enable some attack like this (e.g. Iraqi bureaucrats signing off on paperwork)...and even then it didn't happen.

For another, Al Qaeda's best personnel have probably already been transfered to other areas such as Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc...simply because U.S. casualties have fallen by 60% since the October Iraqi referendum. A declining U.S. casualty rate is a sign of Al Qaeda weakness, after all (Al Qaeda could just move en masse to Somalia if they only wanted to destabilize a government rather than shoot at Americans).

So this sort of thing isn't going to happen in the future. Al Qaeda grows weaker every day, per the casualty stats.

This was their "Big Bang" in Iraq...and it fizzled.

[Marine_Uncle]

Good response. For all we know zman and his remaining lieutenants may already be out of country. We could be witnessing the desperate acts of those that remain that want a last chance at martydom. I really think Al Qaeda Iraq is in far worse condition then some portrait.

[Ditto]

For another, Al Qaeda's best personnel have probably already been transfered to other areas such as Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc.

I'm thinking the "best" of them have been transferred directly to hell.

[woofie]

Suicide bombers are a dwindling resource

[SueRae]

Wow, I sure hope your version is correct. That would be great news. The media is just foaming at the mouth for a civil war or any semblance of additional causalties to lay on the administration. In fact, this is the first account of this stroy that I've seen that supposes that maybe, just maybe, some of the bad guys bought the farm today. Most of the reporting is just about the body count.

Btw, I enjoyed reading your site.

[lentulusgracchus]

Al Qaeda grows weaker every day, per the casualty stats.

Maybe not, if they're actually redeploying out-of-area to seek other, softer targets. If so, then our presence in Iraq is devalued dramatically for our purposes of seeking more-favorable confrontations with the jihadis.

Bush has finally admitted that part of our rationale was that our presence in Iraq would act as a magnet for the most-susceptible and most-voluntary of Al Q'aeda's manpower resources, and lure them into not hard-on-soft attacks like the WTC, but hard-on-armorplated confrontations that they would for the most part lose, and in so doing die like flies. They've obliged, so far.

Maybe they've decided to abandon the attrition battle and go back to embassies and schoolyards and apartment-blocks.

Just an alternative explanation for the falloff in casualties. Which is good per se.

[HardStarboard]

>>>>,i>A declining U.S. casualty rate is a sign of Al Qaeda weakness,.... <<<

Partially: however it is also a result of turning over more of the patrolling responsibility to the Iraqi forces and having them participate heavily in most operations with just a small cadre of US advisers.

Reading between the lines, they have at least 421 fighters willing to take part in a huge martyrdom operation. I don't think Zarqawi is done yet!

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"U.S. casualties have fallen by 60% since the October Iraqi referendum."

Thank God.

"This was their "Big Bang" in Iraq...and it fizzled."

Thank God again.