The Myth of AQI (Al Qaeda Iraq) - Ex Stars and Stripes Reporter Exposes

In March 2007, a pair of truck bombs tore through the Shiite marketplace in the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar, killing more than 150 people. The blast reduced the ancient city center to rubble, leaving body parts and charred vegetables scattered amid pools of blood. It was among the most lethal attacks to date in the five-year-old Iraq War. Within hours, Iraqi officials in Baghdad had pinned the bombing on al-Qaeda, and news reports from Reuters, the BBC, MSNBC, and others carried those remarks around the world. An Internet posting by the terrorist group known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) took credit for the destruction. Within a few days, U.S. Army General David Petraeus publicly blamed AQI for the carnage, accusing the group of trying to foment sectarian violence and ignite a civil war. Back in Washington, pundits latched on to the attack with special interest, as President Bush had previously touted a period of calm in Tal Afar as evidence that the military's retooled counterinsurgency doctrine was working. For days, reporters and bloggers debated whether the attacks signaled a "resurgence" of al-Qaeda in the city.

Yet there's reason to doubt that AQI had any role in the bombing. In the weeks before the attack, sectarian tensions had been simmering after a local Sunni woman told Al Jazeera television that she had been gang-raped by a group of Shiite Iraqi army soldiers. Multiple insurgent groups called for violence to avenge the woman's honor. Immediately after the blast, some in uniform expressed doubts about al- Qaeda's alleged role and suggested that homegrown sectarian strife was more likely at work. "It's really not al-Qaeda who has infiltrated so much as the fact what happened in 2003," said Ahmed Hashim, a professor at the Naval War College who served as an Army political adviser to the 3rd Cavalry Regiment in Tal Afar until shortly before the bombing. "The formerly dominant Sunni Turkmen majority there," he told PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer soon after the bombing, "suddenly ... felt themselves having been thrown out of power. And this is essentially their revenge."

A week later, Iraqi security forces raided a home outside Tal Afar andarrested two men suspected of orchestrating the bombing. Yet when the U.S. military issued a press release about the arrests, there was no mention of an al-Qaeda connection. The suspects were never formally charged, and nearly six months later neither the U.S. military nor Iraqi police are certain of the source of the attacks. In recent public statements, the military has backed off its former allegations that al-Qaeda was responsible, instead asserting, as Lieutenant Colonel Michael Donnelly wrote in response to an inquiry from the Washington Monthly, that "the tactics used in this attack are consistent with al-Qaeda."

This scenario has become common. After a strike, the military rushes to point the finger at al-Qaeda, even when the actual evidence remains hazy and an alternative explanation—raw hatred between local Sunnis and Shiites—might fit the circumstances just as well. The press blasts such dubious conclusions back to American citizens and policy makers in Washington, and the incidents get tallied and quantified in official reports, cited by the military in briefings in Baghdad. The White House then takes the reports and crafts sound bites depicting AQI as the number one threat to peace and stability in Iraq. (In July, for instance, at Charleston Air Force Base, the president gave a speech about Iraq that mentioned al-Qaeda ninety-five times.)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html

while you all are arguing about stores checking shoppers receipts.

:kick:

The author actually talked to regional and intelligence experts -- not to be confused with "political" or "military" commentators -- including names you probably recognize, like Juan Cole, Pat Lang, and Larry Johnson, as well as some you won't but should, like Malcolm Nance, a twenty-year intelligence veteran and Arabic speaker. Nance is also the author of The Terrorists of Iraq, which is easily the best book written on the Iraq insurgency and a must-read for anybody seriously interested in the issue.

The size and impact of al Qaeda in Iraq is hugely overblown by the media, elected figures, and military officials. Further, and perhaps even more importantly, its purported strength is essentially the only security-related reason claimed by the administration for maintaining our occupation. Political manipulation by government and military leaders -- combined with a lack of knowledge of situational specifics on the part of commentators and the public -- results in a profound general misunderstanding of the facts on the ground.

http://www.americablog.com/2007/09/false-hype-of-al-qaeda-in-iraq.html

with/reinforces the psywar line-of-attack that if we leave Iraq, it'll become an AQ haven (they'll follow us here; AQI is the core of the problem; it's not a civil war; etc).

And it's standard fare for initial, widely-publicized "reports" to make some (frequently evidentially unfounded) assertion, which later dies a quiet death.

With the neocons, their flunkies and fellow-travelers, it's all about manipulating people: eg, pounding crap into their heads that plays to their weaknesses -- and can be used to drive them like sheep... or lead them around by the nose.

:kick: & R

Very important reading.

which is there are not half the foreign fighters that Bush claims are in Iraq. I believe it is pure propaganda to repeat, Al Qaeda, over and over again in each speech. Bush is still trying to marry, Bin Ladin, 9/11, and the big Iraq threat. I have my doubts about Al Qaeda being any more than a list of militants who went to Afghanistan to train in the camps. In fact, I, think most all the 'bad guys' were called Teleban or the M-word (that I can't spell) before 9/11. (and we trained them) I wonder how many references were made to 'Al Qaeda' prior to 9/11, anywhere? I think it's a Bush creation, myself. He made, Al Qaeda, a boogie man, so his cronies could sell arms and get rich. How many Iraq prisoners were tortured into saying they were Al Qaeda? And never forget, the biggest percentage, of any foreign fighters they can dig up, are Saudi Arabian. Notice Bush doesn't have one problem with that country, even though 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Bush lied us into this war and he is still lying. Going to lie us into Iran, next.