Glenn Greenwald: Everyone we fight in Iraq is now "al-Qaida"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

Everyone we fight in Iraq is now "al-Qaida"

Josh Marshall publishes an e-mail from a reader who identifies what is one of the most astonishing instances of mindless, pro-government "reporting" yet:

It's a curious thing that, over the past 10 - 12 days, the news from Iraq refers to the combatants there as "al-Qaida" fighters. When did that happen?

Until a few days ago, the combatants in Iraq were "insurgents" or they were referred to as "Sunni" or "Shia'a" fighters in the Iraq Civil War. Suddenly, without evidence, without proof, without any semblance of fact, the US military command is referring to these combatants as "al-Qaida".

Welcome to the latest in Iraq propaganda.

That the Bush administration, and specifically its military commanders, decided to begin using the term "Al Qaeda" to designate "anyone and everyeone we fight against or kill in Iraq" is obvious. All of a sudden, every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as "Al Qaeda."

But what is even more notable is that the establishment press has followed right along, just as enthusiastically. I don't think the New York Times has published a story about Iraq in the last two weeks without stating that we are killing "Al Qaeda fighters," capturing "Al Qaeda leaders," and every new operation is against "Al Qaeda."

The Times -- typically in the form of the gullible and always-government-trusting "reporting" of Michael Gordon, though not only -- makes this claim over and over, as prominently as possible, often without the slightest questioning, qualification, or doubt. If your only news about Iraq came from The New York Times, you would think that the war in Iraq is now indistinguishable from the initial stage of the war in Afghanistan -- that we are there fighting against the people who hijacked those planes and flew them into our buildings: "Al Qaeda."

What is so amazing about this new rhetorical development -- not only from our military, but also from our "journalists" -- is that, for years, it was too shameless and false even for the Bush administration to use. Even at the height of their propaganda offensives about the war, the furthest Bush officials were willing to go was to use the generic term "terrorists" for everyone we are fighting in Iraq, as in: "we cannot surrender to the terrorists by withdrawing" and "we must stay on the offensive against terrorists."

more...

about here in a respected (and justfully so) print/internet media publication.

It's damn well about time.

Maybe they'll point out the 'war' is really an 'occupation' soon as well.

Where's the proof of any of this? I guess it doesn't matter though; as long as the media plays along, the propoganda wins. If they say it loud enough and often enough, it becomes truth.

From now on there are no more Insurgents. That term is not menacing enough.

Freesom hater Goldstein is behind all our ills....

It's because of Goldstein you must drink victory gin....


(1984)

are mortal enemies with al qaeda. They do not need us in Iraq to fight al qaeda. There are enough other things we can do with other governments in a cooperative way to fight AQ

They never learn do they? You'd think after going along with pre-war intelligence lies, they would take a minute to examine everything they now put out there.

It has everything to do with who owns the media.

The broadcast of propaganda is purely intentional.

Thursday, May 03, 2007
http://www.juancole.com/2007_05_01_juanricole_archive.html

The US military and politicians made a key mistake when they saw the North Vietnamese Communists of Ho Chi Minh as primarily Communists, when in fact they were Vietnamese nationalists. It was the nationalist component that proved so attractive to many of their collaborators in the south. After the North Vietnamese Communists took over they almost immediately had a firefight with Communist China. It would be tragic if the US makes another such error in Iraq. Bush and Cheney speak as though the enemy there is a terrorist international, a stateless al-Qaeda dedicated to establishing an Islamic superstate and bringing down the United States. That is 99.99 % wrong. Almost all those fighting in Iraq are Iraqi nationalists. Just as Communist Vietnam posed no real threat to the US and was of little use to other Communist states as an ally, so a post-US Iraq would be a country of Iraqi nationalists (with, admittedly, ethno-religious subnationalisms playing either a decisive or an important role).

. . .

Al-Qaeda is technically defined as persons who have given their fealty to Usama Bin Laden and who have been given an operation to do by him. It is sort of like being a "made man" in the Cosa Nostra. Not every two bit gangster is a mafioso, and not every violent Salafi is al-Qaeda. A recent study by Gen. Barry McCaffrey suggested that there are in fact 100,000 insurgents (I prefer the term guerrilla) in Iraq, not the 20,000 to 25,000 usually estimated by the US military. Iraq's previous interior minister estimated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq at less than a thousand. Most of these are Salafi Jihadis of one sort or another (revivalist Sunnis). So 99,000 insurgents are Iraqis. And none of them is al-Qaeda in the sense of being loyal to the organization or fighting for Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They are fighting for some vision of the Iraqi nation, whether inflected by religion or not.

. . .

One reason for which Baathists and Sunni Arab nationalists are most often ignored as key components of the insurgency is that it suits everyone. The Baathis are doing horrible things, and don't want the credit for them. The radical Sunnis are small groups and do want credit, so they claim it and the Baathis don't contradict them. And, the Bush administration is ecstatic every time "al-Qaeda" takes credit for the violence in Iraq. That makes it easier for them to claim the Iraq War as part of their 'war on terror.' When al-Zarqawi was killed in spring of 2006, it didn't have the slightest impact on the vigor of the insurgency. Ipso facto, he wasn't behind that much of it.

. . .

Iraqi Sunni fundamentalists such as the 1920 Revolution Brigade are not al-Qaeda. In fact, their name shows them to be Iraqi nationalists, since it refers to the 1920 revolution against British colonialism. Al-Qaeda is against country nationalism, emphasizing the Islamic ummah or community rather than individual nation states. The actual 1920 revolt, led by Shiites, would mean nothing to Bin Laden. This point is important because self-conception tells you about the scope of action of a group. The 1920 Revolution Brigade is all about getting rid of foreigners from Iraq. It isn't about international terrorism or hitting the US mainland. We don't have to worry about it if US troops leave Iraq. Its members will just heave a sigh of relief and go back to their ordinary jobs. If it or others keep trying to hit Shiites after the Americans leave, they will likely get themselves massacred. They aren't a danger to skyscrapers on the east Coast in the US.

My thread, of course, was not a 10th as articulate as Greenwald's, but I remeber it was the reporting that made me scratch my head and wonder when did this phenomenon begin?

Have you noticed this lately? Suni insurgents=al qaeda, Shia insurgents=Iran:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=742893

which described Sunnis and Shia as "the two arms of al Qaeda". When did that propaganda start? Soon al Qaeda will refer to nothing less than the mythical vast Islamic conspiracy - forget about extremism, our right wingnuts are the extremists.

This time period sticks out for me because of the fairly good reporting that the Aussie reporter had been doing (sorry, can't remember his name). Then he blasted McCain, ripped him a new one actually. Soon after that is when I noticed not only the Aussie, but Arwa Damon(sp),who had been a fairly good corespondent, begin to describe every hostile action as Al Qaeda v coalition troops.

I wish that someone who has access to cnn's videos of those reporters would go back and see if there was that sudden shift in reporting that many of us percieve, and if so when did it begin. If it was immediatly after the Aussie blasted McCain for his idiotic remarks about how "safe" Baghdad is, then it would be difficult not to think that those reporters were not leaned on by the Pentagon. BTW, I haven't seen hide nor hair of either of those two reporters in a while.


And yes, our rw is the very definition of dangerous extremists.

When a problem seems without a solution, change the names around. 3 card monte....:bounce:

The originators of Jihad were the Muslim Brotherhood
from Egypt who joined forces with the Saudi Wahabbis.

Neither group, including the so called mastermind OBL
call themselves al-Qaeda. In fact OBL has never used
the term in his videos.

and I think it's a Front line article that describes al Quida as the list that men signed after they attended training camps for a couple of weeks, and headed back home. It was as close as they came to any organization. It's mostly a western attempt to put a name and face on 'terrorism'. It's all propaganda. Now, its all al Quida and Iran shipping in weapons, all the time. i read something lately that just called them Qaeda.

it has gone from insurgents to Al Qaida overnight... Must of been Rove's spin on it to make it more acceptable....