Al-Masri declares victory in Iraq, Iraqi Army strikes at al Qaeda leader in Rawah
|
|
|
Abu Ayyub al-Masri. |
Al-Qaeda in Iraq has weighed in on the U.S. midterm elections. Abu Ayyub al-Masri (a.k.a. Abu Hamza al-Muhajir), the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, has released an audiotape. In the tape, al-Masri praised the results of the midterm election, threatened continual attacks against the United States and Israel, declared allegiance to the Iraqi leader of the Mujahideen Shura, and devoted a large force to fight under his banner.
“The al-Qaida army has 12,000 fighters in Iraq, and they have vowed to die for God’s sake… We haven’t had enough of your blood yet… We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have blown up the filthiest house – which is called the White House… The American people have put their feet on the right path by … realizing their president’s betrayal in supporting Israel… So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections… I say to… the ruler of believers (Abu Omar Baghdadi, the leader of the Mujahideen Shura) I vow allegiance to you… I put under your command 12,000 fighters who are the army of the al Qaeda… The victory day has come faster than we expected… Here is the Islamic nation in Iraq victorious against the tyrant. The enemy is incapable of fighting on and has no choice but to run away. We have to be unified by the sword, even though disagreements exist between us [between al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent groups]… Go where God has ordered you to go and know that we are with you. We are your soldiers and your men.”
The tape highlights the very real fact that al Qaeda works to influence elections in the West, and has a real preference in their outcome. This was true in Spain in the spring of 2004, when the Madrid rail suicide bombings killed over 200 commuters just days before the election, and led to the subsequent victory of the current Socialist government and immediate withdrawal of Spanish forces from Iraq. Over the summer, U.S. intelligence uncovered a 66 page document that explained al Qaeda strategy to manipulate Western elections. The document, which was published on the web in a private al Qaeda forum, has yet to be declassified.
To influence the American elections, the U.S. mainland didn’t need to be hit. The schwerpunkt of American public opinion was in Iraq. The terror attacks and sectarian killings were ratcheted up to achieve the desired effect: weaken the resolve of the American public, create a sense of hopelessness and despair in the mission. Now, the question is: will the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress hand al Qaeda a real military victory to accompany the propaganda victory by prematurely withdrawing from Iraq before the security has stabilized?
As al-Masri’s speech hit the news wires, al Qaeda in Iraq’s leader in Rawah and a senior lieutenant were killed in a raid, and another was captured. Abu Muhayyam al-Masri (the Egyptian), the leader in Rawah, a farming town in the western Euphrates River Valley, was killed along with Abu Isam al-Libi (the Libyan). Abu Zaid al-Suri (the Syrian) was arrested with nine other members of al Qaeda in Iraq. The assaults were planned and carried out by the 7th Iraqi Army Division. An American intelligence source informs us that a captured al Qaeda leader identified only as the “prince of princes” continues to provide tremendous intelligence on al Qaeda’ network.
The identity of the Rawah al Qaeda leadership explains al-Masri’s desire to put an Iraqi face on al Qaeda’s operations. The Mujahideen Shura was created to explicitly “Iraqify” the jihad, however the senior leadership continues to be made up of foreign al Qaeda. Al-Masri himself is an Egyptian.Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Masri’s predicessor, was Jordanian. Al-Masri contunies to be the primary target for Task Force 145.
10 Comments
This is clearly propaganda. Al Qaeda is dedicated to destroying America (among other things), not to getting the Republicans out of power. The only reason they can possibly tout this as a “victory” is if they believe the Democrats are too weak to fight them. I don’t believe that’s true. Call me cynical but I think most of the “cut and run” talk is for domestic consumption; it’s just a way for them to get votes. Not all Democrats are cut and runners, and I don’t think it would be a popular move despite appearances to the contrary (“Americans love a winner” – Patton). It’s not impossible that they will do something stupid, especially if a Democrat president is elected in 2008, but despite the silly things many of their members have said, I just can’t see a unilateral withdrawal as being good for them in terms of votes among Americans at large. For example, even if it’s popular with Democrat voters (whose vote they already have, anyway) it may enrage Republican voters sufficiently to vote in droves at the next election. No, I think it would be a bad political move as well as a bad move in general.
Unfortunately, all the banter for domestic consumption these days is broadcast around the world. Things that US politicians say can impact wars overseas, and clearly does. Unfortunately, either they don’t realize that things they say hurt their country’s cause overseas, or they don’t care. So while the political environment in the US may bolster terrorist morale, I don’t think it’s any kind of actual victory for them. They will continue to take battlefield losses for the foreseeable future.
Al-Masri’s victory, along with Hamas’, reminds me of The Princess Bride. Please forgive my butchering the quote:
“Vassini – you keep using this word – ”Victory”. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
I think we need change war plan in Iraq , We need more use AirForce and Special Force .
Call me cynical but I think most of the “cut and run” talk is for domestic consumption; it’s just a way for them to get votes. Not all Democrats are cut and runners,”
Yes, and the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. But far too many are terrorists, and they’re the ones controlling events. Likewise with the Democrats. What you are saying is that we shouldn’t take Democrat leaders like Murtha at their word. The Dem leadership has called for pullout too many times.
Tom the Redhunter,
Jack Murtha has lost all confidence in the Iraqis. He thinks that no amount of American intervention can stop Iraqis from killing each other. Therefore, he wants a redeployment out of Iraq while Iraqis kill each other off, an assertive policy to prevent Iraq’s civil war from sparking a general middle east war, and occasional strikes by American forces (still based in the middle east) on any Al Qaida sanctuaries that form in Iraq.
If you believe what Murtha believes, there is a logic to his recommendations. The problem with Murtha’s assumptions is that it is very unlikely that a civil war in Iraq will not spark a general middle east war, and it is far better to enable Iraqi allies take out Al Qaida sanctuaries than be forced to keep a large amount of US forces in the middle east (outside of Iraq)indefinately. We saw how angry some Middle Easterners were about only 5,000 US troops in Saudi Arabia. I think a large middle east presence in the Gulf states would fuel anti-Americanism.
The only power the Democrats will have to force premature withdrawal is by cutting funding for the war. That won’t happen because 1) it is politically unpopular and 2) there are enough Democrats opposed to it (like Joe Lieberman) to kill any such measure. The Democrats may try to manipulate Bush through political blackmail (think endless investigations), but I think Bush is made of sterner stuff.
I’ve maintained since Bush’s re-election that the mission in Iraq had at least until January 2009 to succeed. That’s not much time left, but much has been accomplished so far (read Bill’s archives). Al Qaeda can boast all they want, but they have no hope of winning as long as we remain to finish the job.
I think the next two years will see the mission continue as it has. Tactics and strategy will change, of course, but the fundamental mission will remain the same. Had Republicans retained control, the outcome in Iraq would have been seen as strictly as a Republican affair. Now the Democrats are in charge and must either fish or cut bait, and I don’t see them taking any precipitous action WRT Iraq. But all bets are off after 2008, depending upon the outcome of the elections. In the meantime, the battle of perceptions will continue here at home, with some new twists:
1) The war is won because of the Democrats efforts at turning defeat into victory.
2) The war is lost despite the Democats efforts at turning defeat into victory.
3) The war is won despite the Democrats failure to support the effort.
4) The war is lost because of the Democrats failure to support the effort.
Tom: No, I think you should take him at his word. I’m sure he means it. But my point is that his view is not necessarily a majority view within the party, and I think the party operators are too politically astute to actually go through with it, as they realize it could turn out making them look very bad. Complaining about Iraq makes the Republicans look bad, so that’s safe. But doing something about it is a much more risky proposition because if it makes matters worse, they could take the blame for that. It’s safer to stick with status quo, or else tweak it a little.
Enigma has some good points.
Please keep in mind I am not a US citizen so I don’t have as much invested in the political process as others may have. I do have my opinions of course. But, perhaps I can provide a slightly different perspective.
Lisa,
Why your words are strong! Just hearing them scares the Bjesus out of me. I just hope that I don’t burn with them 😉
I think the noble goal of making Iraq a stable, democratic state is a good one, but should not be pursued to the extent of dangering America.
At this point, we should target the few places where most US troops have been getting killed (Fallujah, Ramadi, certain districts of Baghdad), and obliterate them from the air. No more worrying about ‘innocents’ dying – most of them approve of killing US troops. Destroy these few key areas.
Then, destroy Sadr and his Mehdi Army. No more wasting time with him.
By this time, we might have killed about 100,000 people, most of whom wished us ill.
After these two things are done, we say to Iran : We have had enough and this is what we have done. If you interfere any further, you’re next. They will desist.
Then, we proceed to help the Iraqi Army take over, and we withdraw. Hopefully, they can succeed.
Bill you said “al-Qaeda works to influence elections in the West, and has a real preference in their outcome. This was true in Spain in the spring of 2004, when the Madrid rail suicide bombings killed over 200 commuters just days before the election, and led to the subsequent victory of the current Socialist government and immediate withdrawal of Spanish forces from Iraq” and have several times recently said similar things.
While “al-Qaeda works to influence elections in the West, and has a real preference in their outcome” is clearly true, I don’t think the link from the Madrid bombings to the change of government was direct. The Spanish government lied about the bombings, falsely blaming the basques. For a government that was already disliked (and I think it had been accused of dishonesty), and already at risk of losing the election, this was very unwise. I suspect the government being caught lying about the rail bombings substantially enhanced their political impact.
Would it be fair to say “the Madrid rail suicide bombings panicked the Spanish government into being caught lying to their people about the bombing, a few days before an election, contributing to the victory of a socialist government already committed to withdrawal of Spanish forces from Iraq” ?
I guess that doesn’t mean that the bombings didn’t contribute to the withdrawal of Spanish troops, I just suspect that they wouldn’t have been that significant without the government’s deceit. I’m in Australia so I don’t hear much Spanish politics. Is there evidence that contradicts this?
Lisa talks about Satan… I have been saying the same thing for years. It is good to see that others are saying the same thing. It is important that muslims start talking about their Satan. It is important that we in the West talk more about how Satan is using Muslims. Even if you don’t belive in Satan it doesn’t matter, they do. If enough people connect Satan with the insurgence then support for them will decline. They may even get targeted for stoning by the faithful.