Al-Qaeda in Iraq "public enemy No. 1"?

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said that al-Qaeda in Iraq is now "public enemy No. 1". Think about that for a minute, or less. Al-Qaeda is NOW public enemy No. 1? Seriously, just WHO is the enemy? He stated that new al-Qaeda are coming into the country by the 'dozens'. Dozens?

The might of the American military can't handle 'dozens' of al-Qaeda? Al-Qaeda's numbers have been estimated somewhere between between 1,000 and 5,000. Compare that number to the number of Sunni and Shia in Iraq, and to the number of Iranians and other foreign fighters in Iraq. Compare that to the countries who hate us, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, just to name a few in the region.

Petraeus said "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al-Qaida's global campaign." I have no doubt he's right about that. I give you some straight-talk commentary from various sources on Iraq and the Middle East in general. See what you think.

Jihad Watch: "Future historians will sum it up this way: Never have so few done so much damage to so many."

It has all failed. And that is despite the enormous efforts of American soldiers, who were never taught about Islam, and yet persevered, and were puzzled when the Muslims of Iraq did not behave, as those soldiers expected them to, as a grateful "Iraqi people," but rather as a collection -- with a handful of exceptions -- of grasping, whining, greedy, meretricious people, eager to have the Americans do everything for them, eager to have them lavish them with aid money (thrown around, by the billions, like confetti), and distinctly indifferent to American losses when not taking outright pleasure in such losses, yet always willing to blame the Americans for everything.

Iran's envoy to Saudi Arabia: US unable to guarantee security, via Internet Haganah:

The Peace of the Safavids

An Iranian diplomat said today that the US is not capable of guaranteeing Middle East security, peace and stability due to its support for Israel. Iran's Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Mohammad Hosseini had said in a meeting with chief editor of Saudi daily "Algiers." Hosseini said that a brief look at the past will reveal the role and influence of foreigners, especially the US, in growing tension, discord and conflicts in the region. He said that Iran and Saudi Arabia are seeking a common objective, which is to attain an ever-lasting security in the region without foreigners' intervention. He added that Iran and Saudi Arabia have always been a thorn in the eyes of enemies for having many economic, historical and cultural potential. "Enemies of Islam have dragged regional states into wars and bloodshed through their satanic plots," he noted, adding that more deplorable is that some people in the region shed blood of Muslim brethren by fanning religious differences...

From the Iraqi Stock Exchange, and Iraq Update, "Politicians share power rather build state in Iraq-Symposium (Voices of Iraq)

In a symposium organized by the interior ministry on Wednesday, Iraqi media men and writers criticized the means and steps taken by influential Iraqi political forces to share power at the expense of building a state in the war-torn country. [snip]

"Iraq, in its modern history, has never been a true state, rather it has only been a state for serving the ruler," Hussein al-Aadli, a writer, said in the symposium organized today by the interior ministry on the role of the media in obtaining security and stability.

Al-Aadli added, "what happened in April 2003 was the collapse of the regime and not the state, as the former regime swallowed the state for the sake of power, since it had tailored it according to the desires of the ruler, leaving the state to collapse as soon as the regime’s power went down."

My friend Rastaman has an excellent rant at his place, which he ends with "To paraphrase Bismarck, “The whole of the Middle East is not worth the bones of a single American soldier.” You really need to go read his post, leave a comment and let him know how you feel.

For Bush and the Saudis, the Honeymoon’s Over, from Cantonrep.com

So the White House was mightily perplexed when it was informed that the king’s schedule didn’t allow for a spring visit to Washington. Then, at an Arab League summit in Riyadh last month, Abdullah denounced the U.S. war in Iraq as an “illegitimate occupation.” He also used the occasion to make up with Bush’s bete noire, Bashar al-Assad, the brash Syrian president who had previously denounced the Saudi leader as “a dwarf.”

What was going on? Simply put, the Bush administration had been listening to the wrong Saudi. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other senior U.S. officials had grasped at a grandiose regional game plan being pushed by Prince Bandar bin Sultan, formerly the Saudi ambassador in Washington and now Abdullah’s national security adviser. But Bandar wasn’t calling the shots; Abdullah was, and he has a very different way of doing business. [snip]

To kick off his grand anti-Iranian design, Bandar encouraged the weak but moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to confront Hamas. But Bandar’s boss, Abdullah, had another idea: Instead of sending Abbas the fat aid check that Bandar had promised, Abdullah invited Hamas’ leaders to Mecca to forge a new Palestinian unity government, including the moderate Abbas and his challengers in Hamas. Bandar’s plan was in shambles. The Bush administration, which had led a year-long boycott of the Hamas government, felt as though it had been sucker punched.

On Iran, Gen. Petraeus said:

Iranian backing for insurgents in Iraq is better understood as the result of interrogations of captured Iranian paramilitary forces. "They were provided substantial funding, training on Iranian soil, advanced explosive munitions and technologies as well as run-of-the-mill arms and ammunition, in some cases advice and in some cases even a degree of direction," he said.

U.S. forces also recovered a 22-page memorandum from a captured Iranian computer that provided details on attack planning, preparation, approval process and conduct that led to five U.S. soldiers being killed in Karbala, he said. (more)

A failure in generalship, by Army Lt. Col. Paul YinglingARMY in the Armed Forces Journal

For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. ...

These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general officer corps. America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America's generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress.

For those of you who did not read my book review and interview with Al J. Venter, author of "Allah's Bomb, The Islamic Quest for Nuclear Weapons", I am reprinting the following, which I think EVERYONE needs to read:

5. Since WMDs weren't found in Iraq, was this due to the fact that U.N. sanctions and weapons inspections had been effective?

Where contemporary Iraq is concerned, it is important that we very clearly differentiate between Gulf War 1 of the early 1990s and Gulf War 2 of four or five years ago.

After the Coalition Forces under General Colin Powell went into Iraq and almost destroyed the Iraqi Army, the United Nations sent in its own people under the banner of UNSCOM [United Nations Special Commission]. For some years these specialists uncovered troves of weapons of mass destruction, the full gambit - chemical, biological and nuclear, as well as missiles. It is all detailed and in the public domain: a Google search will reveal much of it.

It took a few years before the full extent of Saddam's nuclear weapons program was exposed - together with the 20,000 scientists, technicians and others who were involved. It took even longer to bring to justice scores of foreigners - many from Europe - who were involved in supplying this massive effort which cost billions, the majority motivated by greed, as are some of the foreigners now working in Iran. Many were Europeans. So was the Pakistani rogue scientist A.Q. Khan: he traveled several times to Baghdad. As for the lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction following the second invasion of Iraq in the new millennium, we now know that a lot of it was moved out of the country, by road through Syria. It was an obvious move: Saddam was aware of what the U.S. could do with its military and while he might have been a buffoon, he wasn't stupid. (more interview here)

So you tell me, WHO IS ENEMY NUMBER ONE?
______________________________________________________________________
Navy Simultaneously Destroys Ballistic Missile, Cruise Missile Targets and White House dismisses Tenet’s criticism from Peace and Freedom
Check out Political Pistachio Radio, sounds like a good program Mr. and Mrs. Pistachio have lined up.
123Beta, Open Trackbacks
Woman Honor Thyself, Defunded,Defeatist DHimmicratS OpenTrackback Weekend
The HILL Chronicles, Finkelstein’s views are disgusting

Comments

[Douglas V. Gibbs]

Thanks for the link regarding Political Pistachio Radio. Mrs. Pistachio makes the show. She rocks.

[A.C.]

Rastaman, if AQ is nothing but a paper tiger then who pulled off 9/11 and the other notorious attacks on our assets?

The only viable alternative is to say "state sponsorship" and if that's the case we've got to somehow address those states. If not, then it seems we have to assume AQ is still formidable and are laying in wait due to the Democrats' current strategy.

[Stormwarning]

Rasta, if you don't read the mainstream media, and instead read a few of the counterterrorism blogs, you will find that al Qaeda is quite clearly a global, and spreading problem. People like Doug Farah to start with is quite aware and concerned, but he is only one of the many who are.

[Rastaman]

This has got to be one of your best posts. You've really raised an excellent question deserving of serious thought.

The answer depends on which way the question is approached, that is, which public. For me, Public Enemy #1 is Islam, as the overall enemy. Within the US, I choose George Bush. In the Middle East, it would be King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as our worst enemy, while regarding Iraq it would have to be Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad.

Al Qaeda is apparently still a global problem if the MSM is to be believed, which I don't, much. I've been finding it suspicious that there's suddenly been so much reporting on Al Qaeda lately that coincides with the military spending bill Bush promises to veto. Now Gen. Petraeus gets into the act. Al Qaeda is the Monster In The Closet that Bush keeps telling us bedtime stories about to keep us scared and compliant.

Gen. Petraeus is in charge because all the other generals QUIT, he's Bushs "Toby", going yassuh, nossuh and saying what Boss wants said. I would put Al Qaeda near the bottom of the Public Enemy list.

BTW, thanks for the mention and compliment.

Rastaman