Redstate

they are ignoring al Qaeda's influence and pushing the false meme that iraq is in an out-of-control civil war

By Charles Bird Posted in War — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

When it comes to Iraq, there are two vitally important messages that Redstaters should communicate to the rest of the country: the civil war has subsided and al Qaeda is causing a significant percentage of the murder and mayhem. Muqtada al Sadr ordered his Mahdi militias to stand down and, combined with Operation Enforce the Law, extra-judicial killings have dropped substantially since January. However, the net number of civilian casualties hasn't changed much because al Qaeda has chosen to mount a suicide-bombing killing spree. The numbers don't lie (more on the surge statistics here).

In his last trip to DC, General Petraeus plainly stated that right now, al Qaeda is "public enemy #1", al Qaeda has chosen Iraq as its "central front" in their war, and the top jihadist leadership in the nether regions of Pakistan are in communication with their fellow extremists in Iraq. But what do we hear from our Democratic "leaders" about this? Bupkis. Our own Jeff Emanuel saw no civil war in the Baghdad borough of Abu Dischir, and here is what he said about a "hotter" neighborhood:

Read on...

The area has seen a high number of extrajudicial killings (EJK), with bodies being found regularly in abandoned houses (when they weren’t simply dropped on street corners). The primary culprit for these EJKs is thought to be Shi’a who are affiliated with the NPs, as a principal weapon used in these murders, I was told, is a Glock 9mm pistol – the issued handgun of the national police. The more grisly murders, though – and there have been some horribly gruesome corpses found in the area – are generally chalked up to al Qaeda in Iraq (AQIZ), who have become known far and wide for their unthinkably inhuman brutality. While the JAM in the south appear to have a goal in mind of what they wish to achieve – namely an independent, secure, prominent Iraq, free of western interference, which follows al Sadr’s brand of radical Islam – the goal of the AQI is very simple: to cause as much havoc, to create as much turmoil, and to kill as many people as possible. "There may be some reconcilables" in JAM and other sects, the Quarter Cav’s commanding officer, Lt. Colonel Crider, told me, "but the bottom line [on AQI] is that these are very bad guys who want to create as much chaos as they can."

What the West simply doesn’t seem to grasp, he said, is that these terrorists cannot be appeased or negotiated with. "They’ll kill all of the Shi’a they can," he said, "and then they’ll kill all of the less-radical Sunni. And then, when there is nobody else left to kill, they’ll start killing each other." In other words, the actions of al Qaeda in Iraq and their counterparts in various cells and sects are not – as is argued by some – simply a result of the US’s actions; no amount of appeasement, of apology, or of attempted reconciliation will cause them to renounce their brutal ways. Terrorizing, torturing, and killing are simply what these people do; they are rotten to the core, and the only recourse the civilized world has is to destroy them.

Despite al Qaeda's rash of suicide bombings, Reid, Pelosi & Co. are advocating a phased cut-and-run strategy from the central front in this War Against Militant Islamism. Here is a typical Reid statement:

The President may be content with keeping our troops mired in the middle of an open-ended civil war, but we are not; and neither are most Americans.

Senator Reid is mischaracterizing the current situation and he is lying by omission. Reid is invested in his timetables-for-defeat proposals, and he's going to spin Iraq his way so that the timetables will make the barest modicum of sense. Personally, I think his political calculus is about as ugly as it gets. But his spin doesn't match the reality, and Reid isn't the only culprit. On FoxNews Sunday, Senator Chris Dodd was engaging in the same charade.

WALLACE: Let's talk about one aspect of that. The Democrats now seem in a race to try to come up with a plan to get out of Iraq.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two Al Qaida leader, says the bill that you Democrats sent the president is proof of the American defeat in Iraq. And we'll talk about the details in a moment.

But does your party run the risk of being seen by the American people, as they were after Vietnam, as soft on national security?

DODD: Not at all here. Again, this is a civil war going on in Iraq. This is not the United States versus Al Qaida. It's Shia versus Sunnis tearing each other apart. It's gone on for centuries, but particularly here right now.

Well, yes it is the United States versus Al Qaida, Mr. Dodd, and it's happening in Iraq as we speak.

What Reid, Dodd, Pelosi & Co. also won't talk about is the turnaround in Anbar province. A sectarian civil war can't happen there because it is practically all Sunni. Even the Los Angeles Times couldn't ignore the progress made in Ramadi, even though AP tried its best to spin that a recent suicide bombing was "dealing a blow to recent U.S. claims of success."

It is becoming clear to me that we are not only in an Information War against militant Islamists such as al Qaeda, we are in an Information War against those Democrats who would rather flee from a central front in this Long War than make a stand. Instead of giving the Petaeus plan a chance, our leading Democrats are clamoring for Bush to "change course" (where "change course" = flee Iraq in an orderly fashion). As Tom Elliott noted, our media is complicit by not accurately describing the situation and by not asking the hard questions, such as these:

» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory — or defeat?

» If victory, how will withdrawal help?

» If defeat, how will that help national interests?

» How will abandoning Iraq’s burgeoning government affect America’s reputation in the region?

» A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to simultaneously fight the war on terrorism but not insurgents in Iraq?

» What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from Iraq?

» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats’ contingency plans?

» The bill mandates the last of Iraq-stationed U.S. troops to leave by September 2008. What’s significant about this date other than being two months prior to the next presidential election?

The media aren't going to ask these questions, so we must. After all, the enemy gets a vote in this Long War, and the enemy is voting for Reid:

This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader Harry Reid who previously said, "The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam."

The communique is from the Islamic State of Iraq, a like-minded affiliate of al Qaeda (hat tip to Back Talk).