Spinning al Zawahri’s latest rant

Over the weekend, Ayman al Zawahri, al Qaeda’s No. 2 man, released the latest in a series of bizarre videos, this time discussing his barely coherent “insights” on the war in Iraq. The video was quickly seized upon by partisans on both sides on the U.S. political divide, but one side seems wrong.

I should note from the outset that Zawahri is a madman, whose opinions are not to be taken too seriously. But therein lies the rub — the White House believes Zawahri is credible and takes his public comments very seriously. The president, vice president, and top WH officials quote Zawahri with surprising regularity, especially when he talks about fighting U.S. troops in Iraq.

But if Zawahri’s comments are important when they bolster White House talking points, then they’re equally important when they don’t.

In a new video posted today on the Internet, al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al Zawahiri, mocks the bill passed by Congress setting a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq.

“This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap,” Zawahiri says in answer to a question posed to him an interviewer.

Continuing in the same tone, Zawahiri says, “We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson.”

Conservatives seized upon this as proof of Democratic folly. Far-right blogs argued that the video is proof that al Qaeda prefers the Dem withdrawal plan. Fox News’ Chris Wallace said Zawahiri “says the Democrats’ troop pull-out bill is proof of a U.S. defeat.”

They seem to have this backwards. Zawahiri wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq so he can kill more American troops.

At a certain level, the entire exercise is misguided. I understand the temptation — if we know what terrorists say they want, all we have to do is the opposite. It is, to put it mildly, a flawed approach. Our policy should be based on evidence and wise decision making, not a constant game-theory contest with Osama bin Laden.

But if we are going to take al Qaeda’s wishes into account, so that our actions counter their wishes, withdrawal appears to be the smartest course of action. Zawahiri’s sees Iraq as a “trap” for the United States, one in which he hopes we stay for a long time.

It’s not the first terrorist communique to make this argument.

A recent private letter between senior al Qaeda leaders declared their “most important” goal was “prolonging the war” in Iraq. The letter, confiscated in the fatal June attack on the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and translated by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, argues that pinning the United States into an open-ended commitment in Iraq will strengthen jihadists around the world.

On that score, al Qaeda apparently agrees with the administration’s famous National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is a ” ’cause celebre’ for jihadists,” inspiring new terrorist enemies around the world.

If our strategy is going to be based on giving al Qaeda the opposite of what they want, then it’s time to go.

These people make my head hurt, they really do.

This is an administration that in addition to being wrong about pretty much everything about this was, has never been able to settle on a definition of victory – so why are we allowing them to define defeat?

Yes, I know we have the wider region to be concerned about – which is allegedly what vigorous diplomacy is for, and unfortunately, we don’t seem to be able to get that machine oiled up and working overtime to help get us out of this mess.

But in the end, I would consider it a victory if not one more American soldier or MArine was killed, and not one more ended up in the morass of bureaucracy trying to recover and rehab from injuries suffered in Iraq. Saving lives is not a defeat; allowing the deaths to continue unabated is.

The truth about Zawahiri’s comments is evident when you consider that if they really wanted us gone, all they would have to do is lay low, stop the killing, and allow a semblance of democracy to take hold long enough to convince us we could leave. Instead, they are using their own resistance to forming any reasonable coalition to keep us in the middle of the killing, and in killing us off one by one, are making progress on their stated goal of killing as many Americans as possible. We are only sinking further into defeat as they get closer to victory.

We need to get out, the sooner the better.

  • I would hope policy-makers hear the inherent message Zarqawi is giving when he wants to kill 200,000 – 300,000 Western soldiers in Iraq. He is admitting that without the occupation of Iraq, al-Qaeda would not be able to suffer such loss upon the West. He is admitting the battlefield in Iraq benefits his forces, and Mr. Bush seems all too happy to oblige him. -Kevo

  • “…al Qaeda’s No. 2 man…”

    What is that? A joke? I guess the extent to which we listen to and analyize this man’s words is a function of his status of “al Qaeda’s No. 2 man.”

    First of all- What these people say should not influence US policy. Secondly- Whatever “al Qaeda’s No. 2 man” says is moot. He’s be dead next week and then a new “al Qaeda’s No. 2 man” will be on the videos.

  • Zawahiri will do the same thing our idiot leader does, namely declare victory no matter what happens.

  • Unfortuneately, Zarqawi seems to understand the Bush brain all too well. Zarqwi is daring Bush to stay in Iraq, and like the playground numbskull he is, Bush will accept the dare.

    If only we could force Bush to watch the Back To The Future trilogy so he could learn the difference between standing up to bullies and useless posturing.

  • But therein lies the rub — the White House believes Zawahri is credible and takes his public comments very seriously

    Naaaiiled iiiit.

    The favorite right-wing meme, led by St. McCain is: “That’s not my words, those are Zawahiri’s words”, or “Don’t believe me, I’m just quoting Zawahiri”

    The ideal response should be “So you would enable Al Qaeda leaders to have input into our foreign policy decisions?” To date, I haven’t heard the MSM or the Dems respond on TV to that effect. Maybe Jon Stewart did once, but that’s it.

  • The madness of Zawahri’s insanity is like Dr. Doolitle’s “Pushmi-Pullyu.” Half of it is holed up in an Afghan cave—and the other half of it is holed up in the Oval Office. It’s bad enough that we’re stuck with “half of the insanity” in the WH—but to be stuck with the A$$-end half of the insanity shows just how cruel the gods’ sense of humor can be.

    The argument of “we fight them there so we won’t have to fight them here” is totally bogus. We’re already “fighting them here,” for crying out loud, given that “half of the madness” is the current POTUS….

  • Sure… Zarqawi is biting mad.

    But… I bet his portfolio has Halliburton stock in it too…

  • Zawahri could have said that he was looking forward to a trip to Disney World and having “a glass of juice” with Mickey Mouse and the neocons would explain that it was further proof of the need to prolong the U.S. military occupation of Iraq.

    P.S. Gas prices on the rise, but oil prices falling. Freaking pirate ReThug monsters.

  • IIRC, one of the intercepted AQ communiques laid out the strategy — and there was one, beyond just striking at the heart of American capitalism — behind the 9/11 attacks: provoke America into attacking Afghanistan (as we did), and then bleed us in a prolonged war, just like the jihadis did to the Soviets, thereby leading to the collapse of our society (just like the USSR collapsed). It’s not an incoherent strategy: while reasonable people may disagree over what caused the USSR to collapse, it’s understandable that, from the point of view of the Afghan guerillas, the prolonged and unsuccessful war in Afghanistan is seen as the crucial factor.
    The strategy didn’t quite work; we got in – and more or less out — of Afghanistan without the sort of prolonged, massive commitment of troops that was such a disaster for the Soviets. And the world everywhere turned against AQ. Bear in mind that even Pakistan (at least overtly) and Iran (covertly) gave us aid and assistance against the jihadi cause.
    But then Bush and co. gave AQ a completely unexpected gift: the same disastrous type of war AQ had wanted in Afghanistan, but in Iraq instead. Looked at from this point of view, you can even see the war in Iraq as the real reason (but not in the way righties think it is) why there hasn’t been another 9/11 type attack in the U.S.: AQ doesn’t need one right now. Everything is already going the way they would want it to, just as if their plan to trap us in Afghanistan had worked: we’re losing troops, wasting money, breaking the army, dividing our country politically, alienating our allies, and turning Arabs everywhere into recruits for the jihadi cause. Why waste resources on another 9/11-type attack when they don’t need one to further their aims?

  • Anyone else notice that the production value of these videos has gone up i the past six years?

    They go from a camcorder outside of a cave, to a studio setting that reminds me of a local news channel.

    How’s that for success in the GWOT?

  • If ever there was proof that reading comprehension was imprtant, this would be it. I would like to see Pelosi/Reid take these righty opinions and bash the GOP over the head. I would suggest something along the lines of “The Democratic party does not allow insane terrorist leaders to drive American foriegn policy”!

  • 2Manchu, I’ve kinda always believed they’re US gov’t propaganda, anyway…

    Has anyone ever heard JJ Green of Federal News Radio do his spot on “The Hunt for Osama bin Laden?” It sounds so fake. Last week, he was interviewing a general in Iraq, asking him if he saw signs of success in Iraq, as a result of the surge? The general said, yes, he did. Green asked him where he had seen it, in Baghdad, or all over Iraq? The general said, “I would say we’ve seen it all over Iraq.”

    The whole interview sounded kind of like the interview Paul McCartney did with Chris Farley on Saturday Night Live.

  • To let anything this man says influence our foreign policy is just plain stupid. I keep saying the terrorists don’t say, “look what we did to the Americans”, they say “look what we made them do to themselves”. This General George Custer, George Bush war plan where they slap us and we chase them right into an ambush, or call them “Chicken”, and we send more troops into the shooting gallery, has got to stop. These yahoo cowboys are so damned predictable and the press falls for it every time. Fox says,” don’t show yourself ‘weak’ on defense, stand up like real men and get shot…that ‘ll teach ’em”. What idiots, so easily manipulated. Yeah, “look what we can make them do to themselves…chickens”.

  • Comments are closed.