[Rhodes22-list] Political: question Al-Z

[brad haslett]

Ed,  I've been busy as hell the last three weeks
putting together a small construction company - my
oldest son, older brother, and me, to engage in
Hurricane Katrina clean-up.  Last night I dropped them
on the beach at Gulfport, MS (did some fast talking to
get them past the National Guard checkpoint - a story
for another day).  However, I still lurk on the list
and I think this thread started with a comment from
somebody with the implication that if only Bush hadn't
gone into Iraq we wouldn't have all these problems. 
Here are some obvervations you may be enjoy reading.

Brad (soon to be a sailor again)

-------------------------------------------



Zawahiri's Lament
What our enemy thinks about Iraq.

Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:01 a.m.

Ayman al Zawahiri and George W. Bush don't agree on
much. But al Qaeda's No. 2 leader and the U.S.
President are in accord on one thing: Iraq is the
central battlefield. 
This is just one of the many insights into the mind of
the terrorist braintrust gleaned from an extraordinary
document obtained this summer by U.S. forces in Iraq
and released yesterday by the White House. It is a
6,000-word letter from Zawahiri, presumably in hiding
in Pakistan, to al Qaeda's commander in Iraq, Abu
Musab al Zarqawi. 

We're glad the Administration made the decision to
declassify it. It goes a long way toward letting
Americans see what we are up against in Iraq and
elsewhere in the world. The letter's full text is up
on the Web site of the Director of National
Intelligence at www.dni.gov.

Those who want a premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq
will now have to explain why that won't play into the
hands--and plans--of the enemy. Zawahiri makes it
quite clear that al Qaeda's ambitions extend well
beyond the borders of any one country. The goal is a
fundamentalist Islamic regime that begins in Iraq,
extends into the neighboring secular nations of the
region, assaults Israel and moves on from there. And
yes, he uses the word "caliphate."





But let Zawahiri speak for himself. The jihadists, he
writes, "must not have their mission end with the
expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay
down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal."
Plainly said, these boys are in it for the long haul.
Just because the U.S. might decide to pull out of Iraq
hardly means that al Qaeda will stop trying to kill
Americans. 
Notwithstanding Zawahiri's chilling language, the good
news here is that the tone of the correspondence with
his mass murder colleague in Iraq often borders on the
desperate. Zawahiri hardly sounds like a commander on
the brink of victory. He is clearly worried that the
jihadists are losing in Iraq. He devotes a large
portion of his letter to a critique of Zarqawi's
tactics, counseling him to do more to win "public
support" among the Iraqi Shiite majority. 

Don't attack mosques, he advises. Don't target
ordinary people. "Many of your Muslim admirers amongst
common folk are wondering about your attacks on the
Shi'a," he writes. Such strikes amount to "action that
the masses do not understand or approve."

As for the Sunnis, he urges Zarqawi to cast a wider
net--an implicit admission that he's worried about
Sunnis who have been showing signs of interest in the
democratic political process unfolding there.
Afghanistan--and the Islamic democracy emerging in
that nation--is his worst nightmare. "We don't want to
repeat the mistake of the Taliban, who restricted
participation in governance to the students and the
people of Kandahar alone," he says. "The result was
that the Afghan people disengaged themselves from
them. Even devout ones took the stance of the
spectator and when the invasion came, the emirate
collapsed in days, because the people were either
passive or hostile."

Zawahiri's also not feeling too peachy about his
personal situation. He recounts the death of his
"favorite" wife and a daughter after the collapse of
their house during an apparent American bombing. He
admits to a "real danger" from the Pakistani army,
which is pursuing al Qaeda in tribal areas. He mourns
the capture of al Qaeda big shots, and oh by the way,
he asks Zarqawi to send him $100,000. 

The letter is dated July 9, two days after the London
subway bombings, of which there is no mention; this
suggests that life in a cave, or whatever redoubt in
which he is holed up, doesn't include the basic
amenity of daily news access. He asks whether the full
text of a speech he had sent to al Jazeera was
actually broadcast in June. 





Amid these lamentations, however, one area emerges
about which the terror commander exudes great
confidence: the media. The lesson he learned from
Vietnam is that "more than half of the battle is
taking place on the battlefield of the media." He
clearly wants to use the media, in the U.S. and in the
Arab world, to induce the U.S. to pull out of Iraq and
default a position of strength to al Qaeda. 
He actually worries about the possibility that Zarqawi
will blow victory on the media battlefield: Toward
this end, he gently urges Zarqawi to discontinue his
habit of beheading hostages, suggesting that perhaps
instead he could just shoot them. "We are in a media
race for . . . hearts and minds," he writes.

The long Zawahiri letter is a rough roadmap of the
strategic vision for al Qaeda's intentions in Iraq and
the global jihad. If it has a familiar ring, that's
because George Bush has been warning the world about
it for several years.

----------------------------------------

October 12, 2005
Zarqawi's Losing Strategy
By Austin Bay

Perhaps senior Bush administration officials thought
establishing a democratic Iraq would be quick work. In
an essay I wrote for the Dec. 9, 2002, issue of The
Weekly Standard, I described what I thought a very
difficult path to peace: 

"Pity Gen. Tommy Franks or, for that matter, any
American military commander tasked with overseeing a
post-Saddam Baghdad. For in that amorphous, dicey
phase the Pentagon calls 'war termination' ... U.S.
and allied forces liberating Iraq will attempt -- more
or less simultaneously -- to end combat operations,
cork public passions, disarm Iraqi battalions, bury
the dead, generate electricity, pump potable water,
bring law out of embittering lawlessness, empty jails
of political prisoners, pack jails with criminals,
turn armed partisans into peaceful citizens, re-arm
local cops who were once enemy infantry, shoot
terrorists, thwart chiselers, carpetbaggers and
black-marketeers, fix sewers, feed refugees, patch
potholes and get trash trucks rolling, and accomplish
all this under the lidless gaze of Peter Jennings and
Al Jazeera." 

Crammed with the nitty-gritty of governance and
economics, the sentence ends with a caustic reminder
of the importance of media interpretation. 

October 2005: Peter Jennings has passed away, Al
Jazeera is still with us -- though arguably less
antagonistic since the Iraqi presidential election of
January 2005. The terror war within Iraq continues to
pit terrorist hell against democratic hope. A
multitude of economic and governmental challenges
linger. 

But current combat in Iraq is not simply the result of
slapdash postwar planning. The United States has two
strategic goals that have taken years to mesh in terms
of political, economic and military operations.

Goal One: engage Al-Qaida on military and political
battlefields in order to destroy its claim to "divine
sanction" and to "speak on behalf of Islam." 

Goal Two: seed development of modern, democratic
states in the politically dysfunctional Arab Muslim
Middle East. 

Achieving both goals defeats Al-Qaida. Goal Two is a
multi-decade project. Reaching it requires sustained,
courageous effort, but Iraq's January election and its
constitutional process are signs of progress.
Sensational carnage and "expert pessimism" dominated
the international media's January election coverage.
Despite the dour predictions, Iraqi voters responded,
waving ink-stained fingers -- a terror-defying
demonstration of political change. Al Jazeera didn't
miss it. 

Military defeat in Afghanistan dealt Al-Qaida's claim
of "divine sanction" a hard blow. 

However, smashing Al-Qaida's claim to act on behalf of
"all Muslims" is far more complicated than killing or
arresting terrorists. Undermining its megalomaniacal
appeal meant exposing it as the inhuman, ungodly Mass
Murder Inc. it is. The optimal outcome would be to
expose Al-Qaida as a threat to Muslims and detrimental
to the best ideals of Islam. 

When Al-Qaida's zealots blow up trains in Spain or
subways in London, those are attacks of their choosing
conducted on "infidel terrain." The genius of the war
in Iraq is a brutal but necessary form of strategic
judo: It brought the War on Terror into the heart of
the Middle East and onto Arab Muslim turf. In Iraq,
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's theo-fascists have been
spilling Arab blood, and Al Jazeera has noticed that,
too. 

Arabs have also seen the Iraqi people's struggle and
their emerging political alternative to despotism and
feudal autocracy. 

Zarqawi's murder spree has revealed fissures among
Al-Qaida fanatics. Last week, the United States
released a letter coalition intelligence believes
Al-Qaida's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, sent
to Zarqawi. Zawahiri describes Iraq as "the greatest
battle for Islam in our era." But Iraq has become a
political and information battle that Zawahiri
realizes Al-Qaida may be losing. According to The New
York Times, Zawahiri told Zarqawi to attack Americans
rather than Iraqi civilians and to "refrain from the
kind of gruesome beheadings and other executions that
have been posted on Al-Qaida websites. Those
executions have been condemned in parts of the Muslim
world as violating tenets of the faith." 

In February 2004, Zarqawi acknowledged a democratic
Iraqi state would mean defeat for Al-Qaida in Iraq. To
defeat democracy, he has pursued a strategy of
relentless, nihilistic bloodbath. It's a brutal irony
of war: In doing so, he is losing the war for the
hearts and minds. 

---------------------------------------------

October 11, 2005
A New Proposal For Iraq
By Ed Koch

On October 6th, President Bush delivered a superb
speech on international terrorism. It is because our
President has been willing to stand up to
international terrorism and so many leaders in the
Democratic Party have not been willing to do so, that
caused me and millions of others to cross party lines
and support him in the last presidential election and
cheer his victory; notwithstanding that I did not
then, nor do I now, agree with him on a single
domestic issue, ranging from his proposals to reform
Social Security and to changing our tax structure. For
me, the single most important issue the world faced in
2001 and now, trumping all other issues, is
international terrorism. President Bush’s willingness
in the face of all the attacks, so many unfair and ad
hominen, to continue to stand up and exhort the world
to continue the ongoing battle against international
terrorism is why I admire and respect him so much.
Would that my party produced such a leader that I
could similarly follow. I know that will happen
someday.

The President’s recent speech on international
terrorism was magnificent. The text of the President’s
entire speech, delivered at the National Endowment for
Democracy on October 6th, can be obtained from the
White House.

The New York Times in two foolish editorials published
on the next day, October 7, 2005, sought to denigrate
the President instead of trying to add to our security
by strengthening him in his leadership when he has
taken on the ferocious, often insane, Islamic
terrorists who believe they have the right to kill
every infidel -- Christians, Jews, Hindus, et.al. The
terrorists want to reestablish the Caliphate from
Spain to Indonesia and impose militant aggressive
Islam on the world. Osama bin Laden’s top deputy,
Ayman al-Zawahiri, wrote a 6,000 word letter, not
intended for public consumption, to Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, al-Queda’s leader in Iraq, the latter
having earlier called for the killing of civilian
Shiittes in Iraq and the killing of Christians and
Jews worldwide.

Shouldn’t the Times editorials have referred to those
terrorist dangers and, in particular, the grand plan
of bin Laden which the letter describes. The Times
news article quoting the official who provided the
briefing to the Times, reports the letter was a
“comprehensive and chilling strategic vision for
Qaeda.”

The editorials, instead of highlighting the
terrorist’s letter, chose to criticize the President.
The lead editorial hectored, “The president’s
inability to grow beyond his big moment in 2001 is
unnerving. But the fact that his handlers continue to
encourage him to milk 9/11 is infuriating.” The second
editorial denounced him for “talk[ing] so menacingly
about Syria and Iran. It was also maddening to listen
to him describe the perils that Iraq poses while
denying that his policies set them in motion.”

In his letter, according to the Times news story,
Zawahiri wrote that “Iraq had become ‘the place for
the greatest battle of Islam in this era,’” but that
it was “only a stepping stone toward a broader victory
for militant Islam across the Middle East.” The letter
“includes a four-state battle plan, beginning with the
American military’s expulsion, followed by the
establishment of a militant Islamic caliphate across
Iraq before moving to Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. The
final step would be a battle against Israel.”

Both the President’s speech and the letter from
Zawahiri telling the world what is in store for it if
the terrorists win were available on the same day,
October 6th. The Times’ two editorials chose to attack
President Bush, remaining silent on bin Laden,
Zawahiri and Zarqawi. The President’s speech should
have been praised by the Times, not denigrated. I
believe that if Tony Blair had made it, The Times
would have at the very least praised its eloquence.

The President honestly and directly described what is
at stake in the war on terrorism, stating:

“Over the years these extremists have used a litany of
excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the
West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi
Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades
of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a
set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed.
We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable
objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate
the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the
killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of
appeasement would change or limit their plans for
murder.”

“ we're determined to deny radical groups the support
and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like
Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration
with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the
victims of terror. The United States makes no
distinction between those who commit acts of terror
and those who support and harbor them, because they're
equally as guilty of murder. Any government that
chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be
an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must
hold those regimes to account.”

I disagree with the President’s decision to remain in
Iraq and Afghanistan while our allies overwhelmingly
decline to provide combat troops and pay their fair
share of the costs of a war which threatens them even
more than it threatens us in the immediate future. But
my disagreement relates to tactics, not the strategic
outcome.

In Afghanistan, we, with other countries, are present
under a UN mandate, yet we are the only country
performing military operations against the Taliban and
enemies of the Afghan government chosen in an election
monitored by the UN. Other countries provide military
assistance to the Afghan government, but do not
participate in combat. This is unfair and
unacceptable. In Iraq, the situation is even worse.
These countries participating, albeit in a limited
fashion in Afghanistan, e.g., France and Germany, do
not participate at all in Iraq, leaving the dying and
suffering primarily to us and the British. This too is
manifestly unfair.

The Wall Street Journal reported on October 7th that
terrorist attacks against Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi
Arabia are on the rise, placing those countries in
jeopardy.

I propose that we put the UN Security Council on
notice that we will leave Iraq by the end of this
year. My belief is that the UN, particularly France,
Germany and Russia, knowing we will leave, will have a
greater interest in maintaining peace in Iraq than we
have, either a regional interest, e.g., Russia,
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan; or a
commercial interest -- oil and vendor contracts with
Iraq -- e.g., Germany and France. They will then
understand that it is in their interest to have us
remain with them proportionately providing troops and
sharing the costs of war. We should provide them with
these choices. Indeed, whether they come in or not as
a result of our threat of withdrawal, we will be
strengthened on another front. As a result of our
being in Iraq to the extent that the largest number of
our worldwide forces -- 149,000 American soldiers --
are tied down, we are unable to be a vital threat to
North Korea, Iran and Syria. Those countries believe
that, because we are in Iraq and bereft of allies, we
are a paper tiger whose demands and threats can be
ignored with impunity.

The president in his speech stated, “today, there are
more than 80 Iraqi Army battalions fighting the
insurgency alongside our forces.” That may be true.
But according to The New York Times of September 30th,
“In Washington on Thursday, the senior American
military commander in Iraq told Congress that only one
Iraqi Army battalion was capable of fighting without
help from Untied States armed forces. But the
commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., was joined by the
Pentagon’s senior civilian and military leaders in
stressing that growing numbers of Iraqi police and
Army forces are increasingly able to provide security
in their country.”

Clearly, it will be a long time before the Iraqi Army
can stand up on its own, so as to permit the U.S.
Army, in the words of the President in an earlier
speech, to “stand down.” It is simply unacceptable
that the Iraqi Army under the direction of the Iraqi
government two years after the end of hostilities is
still not able to fight the insurgents on their own.
Indeed, the insurgents appear to be growing in
capability. They are suspected by the British, as
stated by Tony Blair, of receiving improved explosives
from Iran which permit them to kill larger numbers of
British troops.

The same arguments apply to our being required to
assume a heavier burden in Afghanistan than is fair.
If the American public believes we are not being
helped by our allies in our efforts to prevent a
victory for the Islamist terrorists threatening the
whole world, the numbers of those tiring of the war
will increase. I urge the President to consider my
proposal. But he should also know that I stand with
him and extol his courage and willingness to stand up
for the U.S. and all peaceful nations.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.




--- ed kroposki <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:

> Chris:
> 	What you heard is equivalent to the 'facts' that
> somebody on this
> list quote with audacity.  The question you ask is
> like when did you join
> the Klan?  I suspect that no one keeps accurate
> records on these
> 'brotherhood' terrorist groups.  If you attend a get
> together and generally,
> speak the same tone and language, you be brother.
> 	Islam considers all to be Muslims, that means you
> too.  Therefore,
> he became a Muslim at birth.  When he became a
> terrorist brother becomes a
> non-factor as far as they are concerned.  However,
> Jordan was a source of
> terrorist against Israel.  He just changed who he
> was attacking, as did many
> others.
> 	Again, I doubt they keep membership roles.  Al
> Qaeda is a loosely
> knit group that wants to create a totalitarian state
> theoretically based on
> the Qur'an.  What they do not say, it is based on
> their narrow
> interpretation of
> what the Profit meant.  Furthermore, for Al Qaeda,
> no other interpretations
> are allowed.
> 
> Ed K
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> www.rhodes22.org/list
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs