Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, April 20, 2008

McCain, the Retired Military "Analysts" and the Myth of al-Qaeda in Iraq

I am quoted in this NYT piece today on John McCain's allegations that the US is fighting "al-Qaeda" in Iraq and that there is a danger of "al-Qaeda" taking over the country if the US leaves.

Those allegations don't make any sense. McCain contradicts himself because he sometimes warns that the Shiites or Iran will take over Iraq. He doesn't seem to realize that the US presided over the ascension to power in Iraq of pro-Iranian Shiite parties like Nuri al-Maliki's Islamic Mission Party and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. So which is it? There is a danger that pro-Iranian Shiites will take over (which is anyway what we have engineered) or that al-Qaeda will? It is not as if they can coexist. Since the Shiites are 60 percent and by now well armed and trained, and since the Sunni Arabs are only 17 percent of the population and since only about 1 percent of them perhaps supports Salafi radicalism--how can the latter hope to take over?

Even if McCain only means, as his campaign manager tried to suggest, that "al-Qaeda" could take over the Sunni Arab areas of Iraq, that doesn't make any sense either (McCain has actually alleged that al-Qaeda would take over the whole country.) The Salafi radicals have lost in al-Anbar Province. Diyala Province, one of the other three predominantly Sunni areas, is ruled by pro-Iranian Shiites. That leaves Salahuddin and Ninevah Provinces. Among the major military forces in Ninevah is the Kurdish Peshmerga, some of them integrated e.g. into the Mosul police force. Hint: The Kurds don't like "al-Qaeda", i.e. Salafi radicalism. Jalal Talabani is a socialist.

So the Shiites and the Kurds among the Iraqis, now more powerful than the Sunni Arabs, would never allow a radical Salafi mini-state in their midst. They would crush them. And substantial segments of the Iraqi Sunni population have already helped crush them.

Moreover, Shiite Iran, secular Turkey, Baathist Syria and monarchical Jordan would never put up with a Salafi radical mini-state on their borders. They would crush it. Jordan's secret police already appear to have played a role in killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist who had his own "Monotheism and Holy War" organization that for PR purposes he at one point rechristened "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" (he actually never got along with Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri).

McCain's whole discourse on Iraq is just a typical rightwing Washington fantasy made up in order to get you to spend $15 billion a month on his friends in the military industrial complex and to get you to allow him to gut the US constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The NYT revealed today that the Pentagon and the Bush administration has been propagandizing retired military "analysts" who appear frequently as talking heads on television, to ensure that the Bush point of view has hegemony on the airwaves. Bill Maher has joked that we have heard from two sets of analysts, the generals and the retired generals. It is these secret networks of corrupt agents of influence that have Orwellized our society in recent years. And it will go on unless the public wakes up and demands a change. If you see a network or cable news segment with *only* Establishment commentators (i.e. two retired generals, or one and someone from the American Enterprise Institute), then get up an email campaign to complain to the anchor. Threaten an advertiser boycott. Our country is in danger from this stuff. McCain gets his ridiculous talking points on Iraq from these corrupt "analysts" and people like them inside the Pentagon.

In fact, it is well known that Defense Intelligence Agency analysts face trouble in writing reports on Iraq because they get stung by the Pentagon's own propaganda machine! The Pentagon hired the Lincoln Group which in turn deployed secret agents for someone like Michael Rubin of AEI to manufacture sermons and other material and attribute them to Iraqis. So then the analysts read Rubin in Arabic translation and report him back to their bosses as Iraqi public opinion! Then Rubin defended this sort of thing to the NYT without revealing his links to Lincoln (just as the retired generals did not tell CNN about their secret links).

The kind of political pressures for conformity and 'good news' analysis of Iraq faced by the analysts is illustrated in Alex Rossmiller's book, Still Broken (note: I make a cameo).

At the moment no guerrilla group in Iraq even calls itself al-Qaeda. Zarqawi's organization appears to have collapsed in Ramadi with his death, which is a part of the story of the rise of pro-American 'awakening councils' there that no one mentions.

Here are the Open Source Center headlines about Sunni guerrilla activities in Iraq. These are found and translated by US intelligence:


' Ansar Al-Islam Claims Attack on Oil Tanker in Iraq

Al-Rashidin Army Claims 16 Apr Attack on US Hummer . . . ["The statement was attributed to Abu-al-Abbas Isa Bakr al-Iraqi, the Media Bureau, the Al-Rashidin Army, the Jihad and Change Front."]

Iraqi Armed Revolution Comments on Government Clashes with Al-Mahdi Army . . . [says "both sides want to seize power"]

Shield of Islam Brigade Claims Attack on Iraqi Forces in Baghdad

1920 Revolution Brigades Claims Attack on US Stryker Vehicle

Sa'd Bin-Abu-Waqqas Brigades Claim 3 Attacks on US, 'Enemy' Forces

Naqshabandi Order Claims 23 Operations Against US Forces 1-15 Mar'


Note that the 1920 Revolution Brigades fights against the Islamic State of Iraq and some of its cells have joined US-backed Awakening Councils. The Naqshbandi Order is a Sufi brotherhood and not radical Salafis at all. Some of these groups are probably fronts for Izzat Ibrahim Duri's neo-Baath. None of these communiques mentions anything about "al-Qaeda" or Usama Bin Laden. Aside from the 'Islamic State in Iraq,' which seems to be a front for a small group of foreign fighters who have some local support in Diyala province, they are just Iraqi Sunnis, folks. A lot of them were in the Baath army six years ago. Opinion polling shows that a majority of Iraqi Sunnis says that a separation of religion and state is desirable, which is what you would expect from a population ruled by the secular Arab nationalist Baath Party for 25 years. The US has 24,000 or so Iraqis in custody but less than 150 foreign fighters. Doesn't that tell you something?

McCain can't come out and say we need to crush the Armed Iraqi Revolution, because that would be an admission that the US has been fighting Iraqis for 5 years and still hasn't defeated them. So he and the Republican strategists and the retired generals and their Pentagon handlers make up this "al-Qaeda" business, as though people in Baquba would be gunning for Americans if Americans hadn't invaded their country and turned it upside down.

It is the US military occupation of Iraq that is producing "al-Qaeda" wannabes, and if it is ended the Iraqis and their neighbors will polish those off tout de suite. Keep the military occupation going, as McCain desires, and you are running an incubator for terrorism against the US and its allies that has already produced hits on Madrid and the London Underground.

In other words, elect McCain, my friends, and you are summoning the awful genie of another 9/11. I said it. I mean it. I'm not taking it back. That man's announced policies could well produce a blowback that will lead to the end of democracy in the United States. It is a momentous decision.

Labels:

17 Comments:

At 11:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take Al-Queda out of the ecuation and you are left whith an iraki army and an iraki people that never surrendered to the invading american soldiers . That would make all anti american violence legitimate . So washington really needs al-queda .The real question in irak today is the battle between the americans and allied militias disguised as iraki army whith the Mahdi army , the last important player who is pro-independence from usa and still survives . The future of irak as a free country or as a colony will be decided in this battle . A lot of american soldiers will die , tough measures (war crimes they where called in the past) as closing or attacking sadr city hospital will have to be taken by the occupation army , and intense bombarding of three milllion people will be necessary just in Baghdag alone. Bush really needs al-queda and the 11-s phantoms to justify the incoming blood bath , the fiercest battle yet in which the iraki people will try to free their country against the mightest army of the world .

 
At 11:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately the NYT marginalized Professor Cole's assessment and gave General Petraeus the last word: Al Qaeda “is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago . . .The area of operation of Al Qaeda has been greatly reduced in terms of controlling areas that it controlled as little as a year and a half ago.”

To MCCain's stupid charge that after any US pullout "Al Qaeda in Iraq would proclaim victory" the NYT came back with a clarification from a McCain "senior foreign policy adviser:" “you might not necessarily see a single entity taking charge.” Not necessarily. And then came a quote from an AEI apparatchnik: "you can’t properly talk about Iraq without talking about Al Qaeda in Iraq."

The title of the piece is McCain, Iraq War and the Threat of ‘Al Qaeda’. That, and the closing words from Petraeus, keep the New York Times along with the Washington Post as the nation's leading cheerleaders for war, using the 'al Qaeda' bogeyman, Professor Cole's valued efforts notwithstanding.

 
At 11:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The complexities of the Sunni-Shiite-Baathist-Kurd etc. interrelationships and their often conflicting interests is beyond the grasp of many people and it's certainly beyond the grasp of John Wayne McCain. All he knows is he wants to defeat them A-rabs. Thus he simplifies things -- guerrillas in Iraq fighting against American troops, whether it be for nationalist or tribal motivations are all classified as al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is American shorthand for "anyone shooting at us for any reason."

To McCain, the definition of victory means reaching a point where no Iraqi national, regardless of personal loyalties and motivations is fighting against U.S. troops. That will ultimately require killing or imprisoning probably one quarter of the population, maybe more.

.

 
At 12:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In marketing, they say "sex sells". You find pretty women in ads that have nothing to do with women, but they provide the appeal.

Al-Qaeda provides the appeal for war mongers in the US, because of 9/11. I can't beleive for one second that McCain is confused, he is just selling the Iraq war, that's all, and a big minority of the Americans are buying.

 
At 12:07 PM, Blogger searp said...

Well, I love this blog, but I found the tag line here a bit overdone.

What could we do in Iraq going forward that we haven't already done?

I guess to me the possibility of blow back is already here, in spades.

Would another terrorist attack end democracy here? Well, in my opinion no, although our democracy might become a bit more security-centric.

None of this has me jumping for joy, and of course Prof. Cole's comments on the Salafi presence in Iraq are correct.

 
At 1:02 PM, Blogger Joseph Sixpack said...

I come here for alternative viewpoints and the views that you presented today are certainly an alternative to everything else that I read. I had no idea that we were on the cusp of becoming an Orwellian society that will soon be destroyed by a combination of military-industrial complex overspending and terrorist blowback resulting from our efforts to restore security in Iraq, with all of this unpleasantness hinging on whether McCain gets elected. Keep up the good work.

 
At 1:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prof. Cole's deep concerns about the possibility of McCain being elected underscore the ultimate importance of blogs like Informed Comment. Many young people seem to have been drawn into the political process recently and I read an article today about a new book whose authors argue that the population cohort born between 1982 and 2003 is very concerned about the present and future. These young people are also very much at home with the Internet. (This cohort represents about 100,000 individuals.)

Based on my own experience as a father, I think there is a case to be made that these young people learn how to find and vet information efficiently and share it with their friends (and parents). Thus, bloggers who provide accurate reports of today's events coupled with expert commentary should keep in mind that they are leaving a real treasure for these young people.

There seem to be gaps in the blogosphere, e.g., a great economic blog (not finance), while constitutional law gets some good coverage, e.g., Glenn Grenwald at salon.com. As time passes, I suspect that it is blogs like these that will have the greatest positive impact (as opposed to very popular generalist blogs).

Perhaps as blogging matures, a practice will develop that will encourage and make visible more blogs like Informed Comment. Perhaps other Universities will encourage and support faculty efforts to publish blogs like Informed Comment. It does not look like there is any "business" model that can really support what is needed. The most advertising and "the market" will support are a few "stars" who are generalists. It takes a great deal of time to become an expert and to stay on top of an area and it takes a special skill to communicate to the general public. Academics fill the bill. Remember, they have to teach freshmen and sophomores.

Academics should take this activity seriously. It would not take much to add a feature like "comments" where something like peer review can occur both immediately and over time, e.g., a self-managed peer group where peers can nominate new peers. These are not really technical problems. They are organizational problems that remain to be addressed. This media is still new.

I repeat, academics should take this activity very seriously and so should the universities and college administrations. Prof. Cole has broken ground and shown what is possible. This reflects well on the institution that supports him. There is a generation coming of age who is likely to begin to demand support for this form of publication.

 
At 5:06 PM, Blogger sherm said...

Rice praises the attacks on Sadr militias. I don't know if our primary policy slogan is Machiavelli's - its better to be feared than loved, or Mao's - political strength comes from the mouth of a gun. Probably both.

Slogans aside, it's clear that military violence is our one and only solution in Iraq. Rice has no problem with Iraqis killing Iraqis, and no interest in suggesting a peaceful negotiation with al Sadr. This is consistent with the administrations approach toward Israel during the recent Lebanese war - bomb as long as you please, negotiation is for sissies.


Prof Cole, I'd like to hear your take on what Ambassador Crocker said at the meeting:
The Badrists, he (Crocker) said, “made a choice a while back” that they would “step away” from militia activity and “step into” the political process.

This is the administrations answer to those who claim the Madi militia is not the only one.

 
At 6:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

my Teacher,

you said:

Diyala Province, one of the other three predominantly Sunni areas, is ruled by pro-Iranian Shiites.

I believe the Governate is
about 60-80% Sunni Arab,
5-15% Sunni Kurd, mostly in the Khanaquin and Kifri Districts that used to be formally part of the Kurdish Zone,
10-25% Shi'a Arab mostly south of Balad Ruz and in a pocket right around Al-Khalis,
while Diyala remains more "ethno-sectarianally" integrated than Baghdad,
and the Persian Mohajeddin el-Khalq in Ashraf City and scattered near the Iranian border accounts for less than 2%.

I believe the Diyala River valley, in the Districts of Baqoubah and al-Miqdadiyah,
where al-Zarqawi was dispatched,
hosts the 1920 Revolutionary Brigades, the Ansar al-Islam, and maybe 20 more loosely organized militias.

Despite the anointing by and military support of the Coalition Forces,
and despite the "elections" of December 2005,
I question whether pro-Iranian Shi'as really rule the Governate.

Due in large part to the demographics above,
I expect this Governate to be the last to be subdued by US military force.
Actually, I don't think its possible at all.

your avid student

...............................
oh,
and do you see a trend toward acknowledging that "insurgents" might be more accurately described as "Resistance,"
and the US military enterprise acknowledged as a form of military occupation ?
Reframing the discussion can lead to other possibilities and alternatives.
.

 
At 8:03 PM, Blogger Patrick Freeman said...

How can these complex issues be simplified to the extent that they can be understood by the undecided American voter? By "undecided" I really mean "ignorant." Apparently, according to the geniuses at ABC and other media outlets, these clowns hold the key to our future.

I think I just scared myself. Again.

Paidric Freeman

 
At 8:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All the US has to do is elect Barack Obama, and all those "military analysts" will be growing their hair, wearing sandals and brandishing "peace" signs.
As soon as a Democrat is elected, every day the War On Iraq goes on will be called an impeachable offense, and every offensive a "war crime".

Don't fall into the trap of thinking there is actually some situation in Iraq, or Pakistan or Afghanistan which can be ameliorated by US military action, or anything which comprises a threat to the US.

Cause you can be sure the neo-cons and Republicans won't! As soon as the War can be used as a political weapon against the Democrats, that is what it will become.

 
At 8:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paidric said...
How can these complex issues be simplified to the extent that they can be understood by the undecided American voter

Real simple: Americans will have to understand that the entire thing, all 4000 US lives, all the wounded, the millions of Iraquis killed and suffering, was all a big hoax, as far as any threat to us.

That seems to cover it pretty well.

 
At 8:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>Those allegations don't make any sense.

This is true only if you assume that logic and practical information hold any relevance for rightwing politicians and pundits or the people who take them seriously. Of course we know by now that such people exist in a "faith-based" universe.

This is nothing but another exercise in frightening the children. It has worked very well for George Bush for seven years, despite the grumblings of the better informed.

 
At 10:43 PM, Blogger Steve said...

One of the problems with the argument that the mainstream media was duped by the military analyst propaganda machine is the fact that there were plenty of military analysts who weren't so high on the war in Iraq. What happened, for example, to Norman Schwarzkopf. They basically disappeared that guy. Why don't they ever have him on anymore (I admit I stopped watching television 2 years ago, but I assume he is still not put up as an analyst).

 
At 12:44 AM, Blogger felix culpa said...

Professor Cole,
What are we to make of “Maliki was deliberately undermining the US objective of eliminating the Mahdi Army by using US and British troops.”
in the Asia Times?
As noted among the comments yesterday, it suggests an entirely other arrangement of power than is publicized as a matter of course— apart from the Pentagon’s effort to rule the meme waves; and their anointed acolyte.
Is this story a plant? My searching skills seem inadequate to find the cited WaPo and NYT stories. IIRC this CNN interview with al-Maliki is one source. If it’s true it implies an underlying stability resisting American efforts to control. It would be good news of a sort, that Iraqi nationalism is growing stronger.

 
At 3:06 AM, Blogger larkrise said...

AEI is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the Far-Right Republican Party. It is funded by wealthy old farts, who inherited their money, and want to be sure they keep it, plus get yours, too. The more they can steal, the merrier. This "Institute" is housed in fancy digs and purports to be a serious fact-finder for government policy. Instead, it spews out "studies" that generate unreliabel and invalid statistics, skewed to support any travesty the Far-Right wishes to perpetuate upon the public. This BS is dolled up in bureaucratic solemnity, with big words and ill-concealed threats to the well-being of all humanity. The Media then eagerly trots this out as the word of the Almighty from Heaven on High. A gullible and intellectually lazy public reads it; and buys the snake-oil with nary a question. But, in a not too distant future, they will find that the price of buying poison pills is going to be too high. The fact of the matter is, that if McCain is elected, the well WILL run dry. He wont be able to fund a can of spam, much less 3 wars going on simultaneously. His economic proposals are ludicrous: more tax cuts for the wealthy, more trickle-down economics. "If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got." What he will have is a destroyed economy. He can rattle sabers at Iran; feed the military-industrial complex our last thin dimes in Iraq; and flail around in Afghanistan. It will all come to naught, other than a repeat of history, i.e. The Great Depression. You cant get blood from a stone; and you cant get money from an empty vault.

 
At 6:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

Their son was having psychological problems after coming home from Iraq. He tried to get help at the VA. The red tape, run-around and long delays in being able to get help ended when they came home to find their son dead -- he had hung himself. They told us how the night before, their son asked his dad if he could sit on his lap. His father rocked his son, a combat Marine, on his lap as they held on to each other. It was his son's last place of refuge.

In his suicide letter, their son apologized to his parents and asked them to please remember him as the happy kid he was before he went into the Marines.

They spoke about how when their was in Iraq they worried and prayed for his safety. They thought once he got home he would be fine. The son who came home was different from the son who left and he had more psychological pain than he could live with. They never realized that their son's psychological damage could be fatal.

It does not matter what you think or believe about a war or what your intentions are before you get there. Once you are there and the reality of war hits you, you change.


We all accept the Clinton/McCain/Obama are not going to end the wars in the Middle East. That they may well expand them. Certainly the present regime is not going to end any wars, anywhere. We're all thoroughly disappointed.

But other Americans are more than disappointed. Others are dying everyday because of our inaction. Other Americans will continue to die everyday for years to come because of the things they've seen, the things they've done, the things they cannot forget, things done because we haven't found the conviction to force a change in their orders.

Try to imagine how many Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians are joining them in the dusk, the twilight, the pitch black of the eternal night.

Nothing can be done. Heads it's Hillary, Tails it's Barack. Let's just hope everything they've actually laid out in their policy papers is all lies, crafted to get them the billion they "need" to run and win. Let's just hope that when the chips are called in they'll reverse the habits of a lifetime and for once just say no.

Bullshit.

A vote for Clinton/McCain/Obama is a vote for war as far as the eye can see. You know it and I know it.

Don't vote for more war.

Something must be done.

Gravel/McKinney/Nader. If anyone of them wins these wars WILL END!

If they don't win, but get 10% or 15% or more of our votes, the duopoly will be exposed as vulnerable and we'll be one giant step closer to taking back our government.

We wasted four years last time. Let's not waste four, or more years again.

Too many people will suffer the consequences of our rote stupidiity.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home