The Zawahiri Letter
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (62) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Ayman al-Zawahiri isn’t calling the shots in Iraq and it doesn’t look like he’s calling them anywhere else.
In July or August, US forces intercepted a letter from Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, erstwhile second-in-command and philosopher-in-residence of al-Qaeda to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda’s emir of Iraq.
The message that virtually screams from the pages of the letter is that al-Qaeda, as the organization existed in 2001, is either finished or very close to being finished.
Read on.
We know little of the provenance of the document and it tells us nothing about the prognosis for the war in Iraq but, if it is legitimate, it offers a significant insight into how al-Qaeda’s top leadership views the war in Iraq and on the al-Qaeda’s state of health.
Al-Qaeda is Broke and Broken.
This is not to say they are harmless or finished but the al-Qaeda that launched the decade of attacks upon US interests that culminated on September 11, 2001 is broken.
Far from being a unitary organization, al-Qaeda was much more a holding company or, as one official styled it, “the Ford Foundation of terrorism.” Local terror groups would essentially make a grant application and the board of al-Qaeda would provide money and technical expertise to carry out the attacks. It was only with the movement of bin Laden to Afghanistan after the failed attempt by the Sudanese to betray him that al-Qaeda took on the trappings of an organization or a demi-state.
To carry out its basic function it must be able to provide funds. The evidence is that this is no longer within al-Qaeda’s grasp:
The brothers informed me that you suggested to them sending some assistance. Our situation since Abu al-Faraj is good by the grace of God, but many of the lines have been cut off. Because of this, we need a payment while new lines are being opened. So, if you're capable of sending a payment of approximately one hundred thousand, we'll be very grateful to you.
The pressure Zawahiri is under is emphasized by him being reduced to corresponding by messenger because he realizes the danger of corresponding otherwise. Lest there be any doubt, he mentions the capture of Abu al-Faraj>Abu Faraj al-Libby three times. Al-Faraj’s capture was brought on by the use of a cell phone.
The proponents of Fourth Generation Warfare regularly tout al-Qaeda as a prototype of this style of warfare. We have been regaled with stories of their technical sophistication. But 4GW insurgencies (if they even exist) don’t use messengers and rely on secondhand reports of al-Jazeera television broadcasts:
Likewise, I made sure in my last speech-that Aljazeera broadcast Saturday, 11 Jumadi I, 1426h, (18 June 2005)-to mention you, send you greetings, and show support and thanks for the heroic acts you are performing in defense of Islam and the Muslims, but I do not know what Aljazeera broadcast. Did this part appear or not?
Zawahiri’s letter paints a picture of an organization battered into Stone Age methods rather than choosing those methods as being the most efficacious for its goals. In fact, Zawahiri acknowledges several times that he does not have specific knowledge of the situation in Iraq.
In short, the al-Qaeda of 2005 is attempting to orchestrate an international strategy without the means – communications - or resources – money - to accomplish the task.
Iraq Is Central To The GWOT
Zawahiri also bolts from the Democrat party line in that he does not believe the war in Iraq to be a distraction from the GWOT, if, that is, we believe that al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization:
I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era, and what will happen, according to what appeared in the Hadiths of the Messenger of God about the epic battles between Islam and atheism.
So we have to ask ourselves, who knows more about terrorism? Zawahiri or Howard Dean and Wes Clark?
Zarqawi is Dangerous to Zawahiri
Clearly Zawahiri thinks Zarqawi is pretty much a loose cannon. He chastises him for working independent of the Ba’ath insurgency:
But you and your brothers must strive to have around you circles of support, assistance, and cooperation, and through them, to advance until you become a consensus, entity, organization, or association that represents all the honorable people and the loyal folks in Iraq. I repeat the warning against separating from the masses, whatever the danger.
for accentuating doctrinal differences between Muslim groups at the expense of unity of effort:
From the standpoint of not highlighting the doctrinal differences which the masses do not understand, such as this one is Matridi or this one is Ashari or this one is Salafi, and from the standpoint of doing justice to the people, for there may be in the world a heresy or an inadequacy in a side which may have something to give to jihad, fighting, and sacrifice for God.[…]
The ulema among the general public are, as well, the symbol of Islam and its emblem. Their disparagement may lead to the general public deeming religion and its adherents as being unimportant. This is a greater injury than the benefit of criticizing a theologian on a heresy or an issue. […]
I do not know the details of the situation where you are, but I do not want us to repeat the mistake of Jamil al-Rahman [Note: I haven’t a clue as to who this guy is, any info would be appreciated]~, who was killed and whose organization was shattered, because he neglected the realities on the ground.
for his declaration of war on the Shi’a:
We must repeat what we mentioned previously, that the majority of Muslims don't comprehend this and possibly could not even imagine it. For that reason, many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia. The sharpness of this questioning increases when the attacks are on one of their mosques, and it increases more when the attacks are on the mausoleum of Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib, may God honor him. My opinion is that this matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue.
and for his gratuitous brutality:
Among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you will never find palatable - also- are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages. You shouldn't be deceived by the praise of some of the zealous young men and their description of you as the shaykh of the slaughterers, etc.[…]
However, despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma. […] And we can kill the captives by bullet. That would achieve that which is sought after without exposing ourselves to the questions and answering to doubts. We don't need this.
Zawahiri’s Vision for Iraq
Zawahiri’s vision for Iraq is predicated upon expelling US forces but he needs more work in defining step two of the process. Apparently, he, like Ted Kennedy, visualizes another Vietnam scenario with refugees hanging from the skids of helicopters as the embassy in Baghdad is evacuated:
Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the
collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them.
Indeed, he is certain enough of the outcome that he assumes away the problem of how Zarqawi’s organization is going to survive until we leave. Lest there be any doubt, Zawahiri is relying on the “Bring Our Troops Home Now” crowd to win his war. Maybe we should call Dennis Kucinich and the rest of these clowns ask them how it feels to have Zawahiri on their side.
In the aftermath he cautions Zarqawi that he must be prepared to accept rule by the Iraqis:
The Muslim masses-for many reasons, and this is not the place to discuss it-do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish, and secondly American.
If the matter is thus, we must contemplate our affairs carefully, so that we are not robbed of the spoils, and our brothers did not die, so that others can reap the fruits of their labor.[…]
And it doesn't appear that the Mujahedeen, much less the al-Qaida in the Land of Two Rivers, will lay claim to governance without the Iraqi people. Not to mention that that would be in contravention of the Shura methodology. That is not practical in my opinion. […]
Therefore, I stress again to you and to all your brothers the need to direct the political action equally with the military action, by the alliance, cooperation and gathering of all leaders of opinion and influence in the Iraqi arena.
The conquest of Iraq would be the first stage in the reestablishment of that islamofascist pipedream: the Caliphate.
The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.
Rank Speculation
Speculation is one of the privileges of blogging. I try not indulge myself too often but in this case it is simply too tempting to resist. The letter possibly offers clues to the location of Osama bin Laden.
There have been persistent rumors since December 2001 that bin Laden is located in Iran, either under house arrest or with limited movement (here | here | here).
Little had been heard and nothing seen of bin Laden since the 2002 video in which he appeared to be wounded on his left side. Then came his shout-out to John Kerry in October 29, 2004 in which he appeared hale and hearty. So how did a wounded man, probably in need of dialysis, with the civilized world on his heels make this miraculous recovery? Obviously in a sanctuary.
Zawahiri notes:
However, the real danger comes from the agent Pakistani army that is carrying out operations in the tribal areas looking for mujahedeen.
None of this looks promising for a man who needs regular visits to either a hospital or a very well equipped clinic.
Later on, when chastising Zarqawi for browning off the Iranians by his war against the Shi’a, Zarqawi reminds him:
And do the brothers forget that we have more than one hundred prisoners - many of whom are from the leadership [my italics] who are wanted in their countries - in the custody of the Iranians?
Iran sheltering bin Laden and periodically allowing him to communicate with the outside world to stir the pot makes much more sense than a man with severe medical problems evading capture for three years.
Bottom Line
- Using a messenger, the fear of using cell phones and probably an equal fear of using computers and satphones, and a lack of situational awareness in its critical theater of operations speaks to an al-Qaeda leadership that is effectively isolated from the forces that would carry out its orders or implement its strategic direction.
- Zawahiri is effectively a client of Zarqawi, not a patron. He has neither money nor resources to contribute to Zarqawi and is reduced to begging for money and making suggestions rather than dispensing largess and speaking with authority.
- When reading the grand strategy portion of the letter it is all too easy to envision Zawahiri ensconced in some dystopic fueherbunker moving phantom jihadi divisions around the map plotting the overthrow of sundry Arab regimes.
- Zarqawi and Zawahiri are in diametric opposition in how to prosecute the war in Iraq but it is difficult to see where Zawahiri’s strategy offers any chance of success whatsoever while Zarqawi could theoretically achieve a partial victory.
- It is also abundantly clear from the tone in the letter that Zawahiri knows he is no longer calling the shots in the campaign that will decide al-Qaeda’s future. In addition to asking for money, he essentially asks Zarqawi to act as his literary agent and he shamelessly lies to Zarqawi about the al-Jazeera television broadcast in which he does not mention either Zarqawi or his actions in Iraq and seeks to blame al-Jazeera for omitting the mention
So while al-Qaeda, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi are not finished the tenor and substance of the letter indicate that they are clearly fighting from a position of strategic and tactical disadvantage and if the current level of pressure continues to be exerted over the next year to 18 months they could be finished as a military or political threat.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Shiite Lite: Recipe For Success In Iraq — Comments (12) »
The Zawahiri Letter 62 Comments (0 topical, 62 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...there is no doubt that there is a possibility that this letter is in fact genuine, but this has fake written all over it. the first person that i heard mention that it might be a fake was bill gertz (washington times) on foxnews yesterday. i hope that it is real and it accurately describes the struggles of al qaeda, but real or fake, al qeada is far from over.
bin Laden's Jihadists in Iraq are claiming it's a fake.
Then again, what would you expect them to say.
"what would you expect them to say"
Quit stabbing me? Please stop shooting me in the face?
Well, I guess that's what I hope they are eventually saying.
But the fact that it strongly promotes the position of the administration will certainly make many people quesiton its authenticity.
Jamil al-Rahman, Mawlawi Husayn. Formed the Salafi Jama`at Ahl-al-Kitab wal-Sunna that dominated Kunar province after defecting from Hekmatyar's Hizb in 1985. Was assassinated by an Egyptian gunman in 1991.
Jama`at Ahl-al-Kitab wal-Sunna. A salafi organization that dominated Kunar province after its leader Jamil al-Rahman defected from Hekmatyar's Hizb in 1985. It enjoyed strong Arab Gulf support but was later defeated by the Hizb after the assassination of Jamil al-Rahman
Hekmatyar, Gulbuddin. Ghilzay Pushtun born in a Tajik majority area in the north of Afghanistan. Could not finish his engineering studies because of political reasons. He was a founder of the Muslim Youth branch of the Islamic movement in the late 1960s. He left Kabul after being released from jail in the early 1970s and became active in Islamic politics in Peshawar. He formed the Hezb-i Islami after a 1975 Islamic revolt in Afghanistan failed. He was a shrewd and very ambitious political entrepreneur with great oratory talents that strived to create a dynamic and centralized organization that would overwhelm less structured rival groups. But the organizational loyalty he tried to infuse into his followers did not overcome their loyalty to clan and tribe and he was ultimately routed by the Taliban in the mid-1990s.
Hizb-i Islami (Islamic Party) of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. An Islamist party organized in a centralized fashion. Had a relatively efficient bureaucracy and propaganda machine, a two-year military academy and organized tank units that were later included in Lashkar Ithar. Mostly strong in Pushtun areas but commanded support in other regions as well. Relied much more on ideological appeal than on clan and tribal affiliation for recruitment. Had substantial stocks of weaponry and following in the refugee camps. Tried to bring down the Kabul regime by manipulating its Khalqi segment but failed. Was trounced by Taliban in the mid-1990s.
I say we use the cBS standard, "even if it's fake, it's accurate" - Dan Rather
in Afghanistan from 1978 forward can be found at: www.sinno.com/Afghanistan/GLOSSARY_OF_PARTICIPANTS.doc
alleged fakosity here. It has quotes arguments for both sides.
Including:
Several experts said the letter contained far fewer Koranic references and quotations than other Zawahri statements.
The letter was released days before Iraqis were to vote in a referendum on a new constitution in which U.S. authorities hope for a large turnout among Sunni Muslim Arabs.
given the political tying of terrorism announcements to make me question authenticity - I agree with the comments posted above, this letter has odd information and is written in such a different style that it is likely a fake - the question is obviously who produced it, al Qaeda or someone else?
The Muslim masses-for many reasons, and this is not the place to discuss it-do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish, and secondly American.
that an American withdrawal would cut off their ability to recruit from the "Muslim masses"?
that Zarwahri's statements and letters for public consumption amount to a combination pep rally and propaganda statement for the masses. They are carefully crafted to send a specific message in a certain manner.
This, on the other hand, was private corespondence, and is in effect a business letter, not a puff piece.
...or it's fake. Either one.
Jamil al-Rahman, Mawlawi Husayn. Formed the Salafi Jama`at Ahl-al-Kitab wal-Sunna that dominated Kunar province after defecting from Hekmatyar's Hizb in 1985. Was assassinated by an Egyptian gunman in 1991.
I found that particular person but the context in which he is mentioned in the letter lead me to believe that the person he referenced is a historical figure from the early days of the Islam.
The context of that particular paragraph cautions Zarqawi against trying to become an overlord over people who are not his people. This is followed up with at least two additional cautions on the same subject and a lecture on elected Iraqis ruling and the importance of not alienating the "Muslim masses."
At least that was my reading. YMMV.
Just noting that there are some doubts. Unfortunately we don't have the Crimson Tide "message is authentic" system to work on.
It's certainly not uncommon for Muslims to take on the name of popular Muslim historical figures (hence the prevalence of Mohammed Mohammed Mohammed and variations thereof) so this al-Rahman could easily be named after an historical figure.
On the other hand, your quote from the letter reads:
I do not know the details of the situation where you are, but I do not want us to repeat the mistake of Jamil al-Rahman, who was killed and whose organization was shattered, because he neglected the realities on the ground.
al-Rahman defected from Hizb-i Islami and formed Jama`at Ahl-al-Kitab wal-Sunna but was assassinated in 1991 after which time Hizb wiped out his organization. Considering that the assassin was an Egyption, it gives the appearance anyway that this was something more than a local squabble and he ignored his masters and got capped for it, so the reference isn't necessarily an ancient one.
you could very well be right. I couldn't find an ancient al-Rahman in my Google search but all that means is that I couldn't find one.
other than there were a couple of other Jamil al-Rahman's running around, which lends credibility to the theory that the original Jamil al-Rahman may be a moderately well-known historical figure if you happen to be Muslim.
claim that this letter proves that Iraq is central to the war on terrorism. I don't think many people are claiming that Iraq has not become a central staging ground for terrorist activity since the U.S. invasion. But if it is central strategically it is because we made it so (and obviously fulfilled the wishes of people like Zawahiri in the process). They don't think of it as a distraction because it is their goal to destabilize areas like Iraq. It is a distraction for us because it creates local terrorists that we must fight when we are trying to undercut terrorism on a global level.
like arguing points that are BS.
But as to the context, read the letter. Zawahiri says that the Caliphate must begin in the Levant and he specifies which countries those include. You are free to take the statement anyway you wish. I stand by my interpretation on all counts.
I'm sure there was an upsurge in Japanese/Nazi recruitment when we entered wwii, and especially after we killed many of their soldiers. Life-saving surgery risks life.
But in Iraq we also have removed a terrorist safe haven and nation-state ally of terrorists; made positive a wmd threat was removed; bonded with millions of purple-finger voters who hate the terrorists and love their new freedom and are now muslim allies against terrorism and made the message clear that vietnam paper tiger america is no more.
How many terrorists were recruited by our feckless inaction in the 90's?
We let Hitler violate the versailles prohibition of re-arming.
if we were transported back to March 2003 and it was your choice to invade, knowing what we know now would you send in the troops?
me the answer would be a resounding yes. In fact, if I were transported back to June 1993 the answer would have been yes.
Leaving Saddam in power was a historically ignorant and fatal mistake. The message sent was that Saddam beat us by staying in power. Bin laden includes this in his list of paper tiger qualities that made him think victory over us was possible.
What do we know now that we didn't know, except that saddam did something with the wmd either before of after the 18 month un lobbying, and lied about it. We also have the Duelfer report confirmation of his intent and stealth. The history of the 90's is there.
He was a defiant terror haven and terror supporter in 2003 and was on Clinton's terrorist state sponsor list for a decade.
And was openly defying us after 911.
And if we have to go after Iran, its shorter trip.
You say that you would still agree to go into Iraq - why is this?
gamecock, but I appreciate the response nonetheless.
if we were transported to Gulf War I, all our coalition partners agreed to take part, Saddam did not use his WMD that he undoubtedly had at that time on our troops, and we had a plan for the post-war occupation of Iraq (preferably involving lots of arabic speaking non-U.S. troops). Sadly, that was not the case back then, as I don't think we would have gotten such cooperation from said coalition, arabic troops or the U.S. public/Senate for that matter (remember, the vote was something like 52-48).
And I don't think Bin Laden needed the "Saddam beat them so they're a paper tiger" excuse as motivation. I think his real motivation was (a) that the Saudis refused his offer to oust Saddam with his mujahadeen and instead accepting the US offer; and (b) the presence of U.S. troops on the Saudi peninsula. He may have gained some succor from the fact that we ran from Lebanon and Somalia (both based upon the U.S. trying to help out but ultimately doomed to failure because we eventually took sides), but the but the Gulf War and US troops on Saudi soil were much bigger (and from that perspective, the historically ignorant and fatal mistake was ousting Saddam from Kuwait in 1991; though I personally don't think so).
He was a defiant terror haven and terror supporter in 2003 and was on Clinton's terrorist state sponsor list for a decade.
And was openly defying us after 911.
I don't think either of those is a justification for invading, especially given what we know today. There are a long list of countries that have done one or both that we haven't invaded including:
And if we have to go after Iran, its shorter trip.
If your goal is the destruction of the American military as currently constituted, the Republican party and the U.S. economy, then by all means go ahead.
Wouls send in the troops again. But I would not declare WMDs as the reason. Saddam's refusal to follow UN Requirements and his Human-Rights abuses would be my big reasons. It Was justified. It Was and Still Is the right thing to do.
America created and placed that madman into power. We have finally made a neccessary correction in that area.
create him. He was there, and a b*stard and madman, long before we tripped over him. The United States didn't create him. We did make use of him and his war against Iran however.
... such slaves to the leftist's tinfoil hat ideas and the MSM and their nonsense that we examine everything from the standpoint of "conspiracy" and "convenient timing" and "who benefits" etc?
As Sigmund probably wishes he had said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
governments use propaganda to further their agenda. Yes, including even ours.
It's happened too many times in our history to say it is improbable.
I never claimed it was impossible. But there seems to be a tendency in some quarters to reach the "fake" conclusion very quickly, almost to the exclusion of rational analysis.
Al Queda in Iraq™ says the letter is a fake. Guess that settles it; if you can't believe them then who can you believe?
that will assume that the choice that best fits their political biases is the right one.
To say this is definitely a fake is just as silly as saying this is definitely authentic.
So we are to believe:
1.) This is a hoax
2.) By the Bush administration
3.) To strengthen the President's war policy in Irag by linking it more closely to the war on terror.
OK. It's possible.
But if this is an operational tactic of whipping up fear to shore up the Pres, why did the Feds undercut NYC's over reaction to what proved to be a hoax with the subway baby-cart bombing? Why virtually no public Fed reaction to the Norman OK bombing (if a suicide bomber blows up outside a packed stadium and nobody hears does it make a sound?)?
Unless...its the old switcheroo...yeah that's it.
The letter is perfectly consistent with what we've known about Al Queada's goals and objectives to establish the Caliphate and return the umma to united islamic (sunni) rule.
Look, my brother's been a missionary in central Nigeria for twenty years and I can tell you these folks are for real. They really do want to bring pack the glory days.
The timing of this letter's release is no more suspect than Bin Laden's endorsement of Kerry and his "Curse on the Redstates" in the closing days of the Presidential campaign. But I suppose that was filmed between takes of the moonwalk and Delaney Plaza.
If the letter WAS authentic, it would be embarrassing to Zarqawi and his goons, criticizing them for killing Shia and beheading hostages. It would be to the advantage of Al Qaeda in Iraq to call it a fake, even if it were authentic. So we don't really know.
Everybody here knows Al Qaeda guys are liars. When they call another Al Qaeda guy a liar, where is the truth?
The timing of this letter (shortly before the Iraqi election) seems to indicate that it is authentic. Bin Laden made his video just before the American Presidential election, and trains were bombed in Madrid just before the Spanish election in March 2004.
Whether it's fake or not, Zarqawi probably hates hearing this stuff read over American TV!
- It wouldn't be considered a hoax. It would be considered propaganda.
- Is there a reason to believe that this administration is any less likely to use propaganda than any other past administration during war?
- Well that would be the general purpose. The other purpose would be to strenghten support of the Sunnis in Iraq days before a major referendum.
There are two kinds of conspiracy theories.
A. Those based on tying multiple unexplained events into one grandiose conspiracy. The various 9/11 conspiracies fall into this category.
B. Conspiracies based on unforseen events occurring at the most propitious time for a group being too unlikely to have occurred naturally.
This falls into category B. That doesn't mean that the conspiracy is valid. But it is reasonable.
It isn't that any of the specifics are unreasonable. But it is somewhat odd that Zawarihi would say so many things in one letter that would support the Bush Administration's claims.
Thanks and yeah. Don't you hate when you leave the most obvious illustration out of a sarcastic sceed?
I agree and was too sarcastic and over the top in my reply.
As an historian I get so weary of knocking these down when we do know (after 30 to 3000 years) which theories have no basis in fact. So few ever have any merrit.
I doubt it's propaganda because the administration has already gotten burned trying to do far less than this would represent.
It does REALLY underscore the admin's case which seems to good to be true but the Bin Laden tape in 04 was unbelievable in its political tin ear. Good points about delineating conspiracy and psyops.
in sort of a callous disregard for history?
Saddam put himself into power and he was a Soviet client state (MiG aircraft, T-62/72 tanks, D-30 tube artillery, BM-21 rocket launchers should have been a dead giveaway).
As an historian I get so weary of knocking these down when we do know (after 30 to 3000 years) which theories have no basis in fact.
And if there is one thing that has proven, at least so far, to be true is that the more complex the "conspiracy" the less likely it is true.
I guess that's why I'm willing to at least accept the possibility that this is a fake. It really wouldn't take much to perpetrate this. And very few people would need to be involved.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/addenda.pdf
(broadband required for pdf format)
The addendum to the Comprehensive Report was released in March 2005. It was all but ignored by the MSM and everyone else using the 'No WMD's in Iraq' argument in a misleading effort to discredit President Bush and the decision to remove Saddam Hussein.
A large part of Saddam's WMD program was likely moved to Syria just before the invasion of Iraq by coalition forces. The report concludes it was not likely that the transfer of WMD's was done through official chanels, but rather it was done "unofficially." Satellite photos of suspected weapons sites, taken just before the invasion, seem to concur.
The report also indicates that the Iraq Survey Group was unable to complete its mission (the search for WMD's) due to conditons on the ground in Iraq. The ISG stated that it would be willing to return to Iraq and resume the search for WMD's when the conditions on the ground warranted its return.
It goes a little further in depth regarding Iraq's dual use facilities and the ability to easily change those facilities over to produciton of WMD's with little or no notice. The precursors for WMD production were readily available, and some were already on site. This is also documented in the original and subsequent releases of the Comprehensive Report.
"The absence of large stockpliles of WMD's does not mean the absence of WMD's." - rbdwiggins
Thought you might enjoy.
bits and pieces, etc. I'm with you man. On 9/10, UBL had no wmd's!
put this together because he knows the left and their MSM buddies would think it's a fake. But he knows that they know it is. But they know that he knows that they know ...
Bin Laden's mother wears combat boots and my al Queda leader can beat up your al Queda leader. So there!
"If you want to surprise the world, tell the truth." Otto Von Bismarck
I can't comment on the authenticity of this letter without further information, I don't think.
I did want to comment on the remark concerning the "bring them home now," crowd. (and related comments concerning Ted Kennedy, Wes Clark, and Howard Dean.) Having followed the news reports concerning American support of the Iraq War over the past four months or so, the "bring them home now" crowd is quickly becoming an overwhelming majority of the population. (those involved in their government that is.) However, the majority favors a gradual withdrawal of the troops, not a full pullout. (for obvious reasons) So, to imply that Kennedy, Clark, and Dean are alone in wanting the troops recalled is pretty silly.
It's not that they don't believe in spreading freedom and democracy. Four years ago, almost the entire population of this country, and its government officials supported going to war. The support was nearly unanimous, with the only dissenters being those who are purely pacifistic anyway. However, that's immaterial, as bipartisan majority overwhelmed the miniscule dissenting minority. Why? At that time, we knew we were fighting those who had conspired against us. The basis for the war against Afghanistan, as well as Bin Laden, was much less questionable than the war in Iraq.
The bungling, or willful ignorance, of intelligence in the Iraq war, as well as the continued denial of responsibility for these failures, is eventually going to reflect in public opinion. (not to mention the rewarding of those responsible for the failures/ignorance.) Further, the ever-amorphous reasons for our entry into Iraq and continued presence, as well as the rising death toll of American soldiers, does not encourage the people. Finally, the publicizing of other terror-supporting regimes that have been virtually ignored in the GWOT is a problem for war support as well. (Iran and North Korea, in particular.)
People can only take so much before it starts to seem like it's not worth it.
...
Having followed the news reports concerning American support of the Iraq War over the past four months
Do you mean the stuff that's in the papers or on TV news, or do you mean the truth? They are not the same.
---------------------
The truth is not some unfathomable concept that exists independently of the media. Sometimes the truth and the media are not the same, but nor are they mutually exclusive. There are simply different interpretations and presentations of the same events.
Obviously, negative reports are going to sell more. Does that make it untrue? Hardly.
There have been major stories on several networks and print sources that are reporting on this. Regardless of the media reporting, this administration has managed to alienate a significant number of its war supporters, and has further alienated its detractors. How is this accomplished? A high death toll, a rising war cost during a time of excessive deficit spending and domestic crisis in the states, the continuing freedom of Osama Bin Laden, and the emphasis (by the President, no less) that there are terrorist-supporting states that have been virtually ignored in support of the preemptive ware against a benign military dictatorship. Not all of these influence public opinion, but you'll find a lot of people that are concerned about (at least) one of these issues.
The truth here is that people are starting to lose their fervor for the war in Iraq. They've got good reason to feel reserved about it. The media reporting likely has an effect on it, but as you know, correlation does not equal causation.
Further, insisting that this is obviously untrue because it's reported by the news seems pretty silly. Scott McLellan has his voice, and those who prefer a purely positive side to the Iraq War know precisely where it can be found. Or do I listen to Bill O'Reilly, who expresses reservations about the operation of the war? Should I check RedState before deciding which source is unbiased and objective? (because, not all conservative sources are unilaterally supportive of the war.)
The thing is, you can only bury the reports of soldier casualties on page 17 of the A-section for so long. People, as busy with their lives as they must be, eventually take notice.
Re: But as to the context, read the letter. Zawahiri says that the Caliphate must begin in the Levant and he specifies which countries those include.
I wonder why? The original Caliphate began in Mecca of course, and the second Caliphate was founded by the Ottomans in Constantinople. There's no historical reason why it should start anywhere specific except maybe for Mecca again.
I would keep Saddam on ice and work instead to overturn the regime in Iran, which I believe is (and was) the more dangerous of the two.
that he is focusing on the Umayyad and Abassid caliphates for reasons known only to him. This, however, is not the first time in his writings that you find this opinion expressed.
I've read the whole letter (english translation) and I'm not sold on it being legit, but there isn't enough to outright call it 'fake' either, a term I think is not appropriate to this document. My belief is that if not authentic, it is disinformaiton directed at the jihadists in Iraq and the surrounding area, and not a conspiracy to influence the American populace as the left would have you believe. Gathering and evaluating intelligence is not the only function of the 3 letter agencies and MI.
Remember that Zawahiri has been entrenched in Afghanistan's troubled history for over 20 years.
Also, Jamil al-Rahman's al-Kitab party was Wahhabi, like Zawahiri. Naturally, he would tend to feel some regret at it's failure.
As I posted here
http://crymeariverii.blogspot.com/2005/10/glossary-for-reading-zawahiris-le
tter.html:
"Jamil al-Rahman: The leader of the Afghanistan Wahhabi party Jama`at Ahl-al-Kitab wal-Sunna (in 80s-90s Afghanistan, "party" means army) who split off from the Hezbi Islami party in 1985. He was assassinated by an Egyptian gunman in 1991, and al-Kitab, subsequently defeated by the the Hezbi Islami, fell apart. Z. says al-Rahman was killed and his "movement shattered" because it failed to address "the realities on the ground." Hmm...it was an assassin. Granted he didn't see that one coming, but...whatever.
You know what, Zawahiri? Here's a news flash from the ground:
IT'S NOT THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY!!"
of arguing this point beyond emphasizing your background, post notwithstanding, gives me little reason to think your analysis is either more correct than mine or the other poster, who are in agreement that we simply are not sufficiently versed in the arcania of of medieval Islamic history to determine it.
It seems curious that this person, not an Arab, would be the sole 20th/21st century figure mentioned in the letter and uses his case as axiomatic when there is a good chance Zarqawi would not have heard of it.
So it may be the case but that is far from proven and is actually irrelevant anyway.
Thanks for posting and good blog.
That's a good point, however when I first read the letter, based on context, I presumed it was a figure Zawahiri was personally familiar with.
Anyway, sans another likely jamil al-Rahman being identified, I think this is the safe harbor.
that that letter is a fake.