The Sunday Times published a rather shocking article on May 13 with the headline, “Al-Qaeda Planning Militant Islamic State Within Iraq” (h/t LGF, emphasis added throughout):
A RADICAL plan by Al-Qaeda to take over the Sunni heartland of Iraq and turn it into a militant Islamic state once American troops have withdrawn is causing alarm among US intelligence officials.
A power struggle has emerged between the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq, an organisation with ambitions to become a state which has been set up by Al-Qaeda, and more moderate Sunni groups. They are battling for the long-term control of central and western areas which they believe could break away from Kurdish and Shi’ite-dominated provinces once the coalition forces depart.
In reality, this shouldn’t be a huge shock, as the White House announced the following on May 3 in a press release entitled “Setting the Record Straight: Iraq is the Central Front of Al Qaeda’s Global Campaign”:
"All Americans are entitled to their own opinions about Iraq, but they are not entitled to their own facts. We all wish al Qaeda were no longer a threat, but the reality is Gen. Petraeus calls them 'probably public enemy number one' in Iraq. It is impossible to completely segregate al Qaeda's attacks in Iraq from sectarian violence because al Qaeda's explicit goal is to create sectarian violence to destabilize the government so they can establish a safe haven within the country. Considering Gen. Petraeus' comments, the National Intelligence Estimate, and news media reports, al Qaeda's role in fomenting violence in Iraq is ignored at our own peril." – White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, 5/3/07
Those familiar with this announcement should be aware that Snow was referring to statements made by General David Petraeus at a special Pentagon briefing on April 26. Those unfamiliar shouldn’t feel ignorant, for most media completely ignored Petraeus’ words.
Fortunately, the Sunday Times appears more interested in reporting the news rather than censoring it like so many press outlets here:
According to an analysis compiled by US intelligence agencies, the Islamic State has ambitions to create a terrorist enclave in the Iraqi provinces of Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Salah al-Din, Nineveh and parts of Babil.
“Al-Qaeda are on the way to establish their first stronghold in the Middle East,” warned an American official. “If they succeed, it will be a catastrophe and an imminent danger to Saudi Arabia and Jordan.”
Is it any wonder why our antiwar press don’t want Americans to know about this? After all, such a revelation might change public sentiment concerning the war, and move a decent percentage of citizens to question whether an expeditious and capricious withdrawal is a good idea.
In the end, this isn't about whether there was any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq prior to 9/11, or whether Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on our nation that day.
Instead, and significantly more important, if al Qaeda are indeed hoping that they can create such a militant Islamic state within Iraq after we leave, shouldn't that be part of the discussion rather than being buried and/or ignored?
Or, am I being too idealistic in expecting such from our press representatives?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel,We won't see a peep from
May 13, 2007 - 15:37 ET by BlondeNoel,
We won't see a peep from the MSM about this. It doesn't fit with their agenda.
Nor about Murtha's "slow bleed"...it's already affecting the troops, and is bound to get worse. Here it is in Murtha's own cowardly words.
I've never seen anything so disgusting in my life as playing politics, as the dems are doing, attempting to usurp the President's role as Commander in Chief, with troops deployed in-theatre. And the liberal media providing cover, and actually cheering on the dems' efforts. All the while lying through their teeth that they "support the troops". There aren't words to describe how despicible these people are.
The most distrubing aspect of the report
May 14, 2007 - 06:56 ET by SportPoliticsThe most disturbing aspect of the report is that the Pentagon source says the bad guys were "pushed out" - instead of claiming "they're all dead".
' The mood is positive but not foolishly so,” said a Pentagon source last week. “The marines are confident they’ve pushed the bad guys out. There is an element of propaganda about the all-powerful Al-Qaeda.” '
Ok, great, and as usual, after they are pushed out, they will come back another day. The secure and hold ideas are ever present.
I guess it's too much to hope for kill, murder, and stamp out, decimate and destroy, dead only, take no prisoners, even though that should be the policy.
In many senses, Osama was correct, we have a very strange way of war nowadays.The coddling of Al Sadr and his Sadr City militia turned out to be a huge error, but of course, the very same kind of thing is still going on.
I have no idea how impossible it is to actually stamp out the targets, but certainly the idea is capture before it is kill, in the hopes that more and more intel can be gleaned.
Funny, the Islamic State is calling for their prisoners to be released. I suspect execution of all underlings caught would stop the whole thing in several months, but then the gentler, civilized world cannot bring itself to do what it did in WW2, not anywhere near it.
I keep hearing how our soldiers and special forces are still hamstringed, and read the demoralizing crap about the Haditha marine that did the initial investigation there being charged or courtmarshalled or something, for not coming up with the PC answer,and convicting his fellow soldiers.
Frankly, I'd much prefer the message being sent that anyone in the area of insurgents and terrorists could reasonably expect to die, but the opposite message has been sent, and the families of those killed get a nice hefty sum paid to them I understand. Pretty amazing.
Maybe I'm entirely incorrect, and it's going as it should go. I hear the big mistake was dismantling the Batthist forces, but of course that 20/20 crap leaves no idea what would have happened if they hadn't been dismantled.
Now of course, I hear the terrorist forces have been pushed out. Last time I heard about Al Sadr, he had sanctuary in Iran. So, somehow, our modern eggheaded morons think that after some gang banging cleric piece of crap, whose Dad was murdered by Saddam, murders the west leaning Shia leader Imam, and grabs all the power he can, and goes on a murdering rampage, he should be "talked toand brought into the fold" - and for YEARS, that is attempted, and Maliki, it has been said, got elected because of him...
LOL - I'm having a hard time understanding, to be sure... except with that easier softer, don't kill them idea, that was so popular under Clinton, and so often seems to be the prevailing policy of how to handle Iraq.
The horror of Harry S. Truman dropping two nukes would have apparently most everyone on their knees sobbing like a bag of jelly nowadays. Certainly those various bring into the fold ideas leave me with no other conclusion.
Ahh, so if you kill one, two more pop-up - so no use killing them, play watch and rout, and talk happy happy joy joy, spread that win, the only way it can be done - by "psychology" - the minds and hearts... LOLOLOL
Yes, the mind of a terrorist, the heart of a terrorist, talk some western psychology, spread the good news, the people themselves will take care of them. even when our military has not - the greatest war machine ever known to man, and we can't kill them, but their neighbors and in country enemies will changer their heart...and minds...
Somehow, this picture isn't looking correct to me.
I want search, and destroy, kill and take no prisoners, everyone with them dies.
That of course would change the right minds and hearts quickly, and they would be found standing alone, with the shrinking violets surrounding them pointing toward the center of the circle while running away.
Maybe I'm wrong.