Questions for all youse smart foreign policy folks out there...

[TwilightGardener]

Petraeus and Lieberman are saying that Iraq is now the "central front" of our battle with Al Qaeda, and that there is no actual civil war. When, exactly, did this happen? They also say Al Qaeda is trying to instigate civil war. Thus, here are my questions:

1) If Al Qaeda actually wanted to instigate civil war, why would it "claim" so much responsibilty for suicide attacks? Why not blame it on either the Sunnis or Shia, to make them retaliate against each other? Seems counterproductive.

2) Al Qaeda has been causing trouble in Anbar Province for quite some time now--we are all familiar with the fact that they've had a presence since we invaded. But ever since the "surge" started, AQ or groups with "ties" to AQ are reportedly stirring the pot everywhere, including Baghdad. Why? What changed, all of a sudden?

3) If Al Qaeda's terror acts are responsible for so much of the violence, as Petraeus and Holy Joe assert, then obviously there is little actual sectarian violence--all sects and tribes will thus get along just fine when we pull out, right? Because the argument was, we have to stay, or they will slaughter each other. That seems not to be the case anymore--there IS no civil war. apparently. There is no insurgency--it's mostly AQ. In fact, the Iraqi sects are fighting Al Qaeda pretty well. We can continue to offer counterterrorism support--that is in the supplemental that Chimpy vetoed, in fact. But why do they need us surging and kicking in doors in Baghdad, rooting out "insurgents" if insurgents aren't the main problem? (The word "insurgent" would imply a native fighter, not a foreign fighter, right?)

4) Who is setting IED's? Who are the gunmen who fire on buses? Who's firing mortar rounds? Who's dumping the bodies in the streets? Is this AQ-linked shit as well? Or that other boogeyman, Iran? Do Petraeus and Joe think the Iraqis aren't responsible for ANY of their own violence?

5) If many of the individuals causing the terrorism are foreign fighters coming from Syria, as Petraeus says, why wouldn't it be better to get our troops out of the "non" civil war in Baghdad, and put the Surge troops to use instead on Syrian/Iraqi border patrol?

[Make7]

1. The American public is more likely to support a war against Al Qaeda.

Trying to referee a civil war makes little sense to most people. Basically, it's a PR campaign designed for a target market.

- Make7

[TwilightGardener]

2. But then that's saying that Petraeus is blowing smoke up our skirts, right?

How do we know where the truth ends and the PR begins?

[madokie]

3. simple enough, if the bush* cartel is pushing it it is bullshit

but thats just me typing

[Make7]

4. I think it's more akin to cherry picking evidence.

There are many things happening in the chaos that Iraq has become - the Administration tries to emphasize whatever information they believe will be most favorable to them at the moment.

It's similar to what they did in the run up to the War in order to sell it to the American public - they are still trying sell it. Fortunately that becomes more and more difficult for them with every passing day.

- Make7

[TwilightGardener]

5. Agree--I have been suspecting a giant PR campaign. But

I am also wary of knee-jerk rejecting what the media is reporting, even after the Moyers thing. My fear is that the AQ story takes hold, and then the Iraq war becomes a "good war" like Afghanistan, and then we NEVER leave. I do, however, reject anything LIE-berman says, automatically.

[Rex]

6. Well, Lieberman is a total loser; an embaressment to the party.

And I don't know about the Newest Flavor of the Day. I'm sure he is a toady, like all the other yesmen.

[Strelnikov_]

7. I expect this out of Joe Lovethewarman, but if Patreaus is saying this

it is discouraging.

Based on his performance up until this current position, he appeared to me to be a very capable general.

Everything I have read and heard indicates to me that the alleged 'Al Queda' involvement is a relatively small number of foreign fighters, Islamists, aligned loosely with the Sunni insurgents.

Recently Juan Cole wrote that 150 foreign fighters had been killed in the preceding six months. I seriously doubt the foreign Islamists are more than a minor part of the current strife.

If Patreaus said what you claim, sadly the only conclusion I can come to is that he has become a 'political' general.

[TwilightGardener]

8. I am hesitant to come to the same conclusion as well, but he seems

pretty politicized already. His "promising" good results to GOP Senators to convince them to buy into the surge for a while longer made me suspect him, and now this stuff with AQ. In his press conference a few days ago, he said the number of foreign fighters were in the "dozens", and that's a pretty small number. Apparently, though, the most high-casualty attacks are attributed to them. So is our overall problem essentially still civil war between sects and insurgency, which we really can't fix, or terror from outside groups, which our current strategy doesn't seem to be fixing either?

[Canuckistanian]

9. And where are you hearing about Al Qaeda claiming so much responsibility?

I rest my case.

[whoneedstickets]

10. A bunch of half-truths assembled to bolster a failed policy..

..yes AQ is in Iraq. Yes they are trying to expand the sectarian conflict by attacking Shi'a targets. Yes, there has been a letup in sectarian violence from Sunni and Shi'a militias....but don't believe their reasoning as to why and what it means.

The sectarian conflict (civil war) has not gone away. It is just is not 'hot' now because it has become a cold war. Both sides are simply waiting until the US comes to its senses and leaves. They know the occupation is unpopular in the US. The two sides will not cooperate toward 'progress' and are instead waiting for the status quo to collapse as we all know it will in time. AQ is trying to accelerate this and also needs a sustained insurgency for recruitment and training. Iran is bolstering the power of selected Shi'a forces in anticipation of withdrawal. What we are seeing is just the calm before the storm. The sides are bracing themselves for the next round and the struggle to control Iraq (which started after it became clear it wasn't going to be US -- say, right after the post-invasion looting) is only set to enter a new chapter.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Sounds as reasonable an explanation as any I've heard--

I figured they didn't all suddenly love each other, and I knew the militias were laying low, especially Sadr's. My big question, which you helped answer, was--did the nature of the conflict change somewhere in the last two months or so, due to the surge? In other parts of Iraq, violence is up, and most of it seems to be blamed on AQ or Sunnis with ties to AQ--this would dispute what everyone thought would happen, which was that the Baghdad insurgents would move to other areas. Maybe the various sects are too busy fighting AQ to fight each other. Or, our military is calling any Sunni-caused violence as being tied to AQ. Either way, we introduced AQ to Iraq by opening a vacuum for them to fill, and now we reap what we sow, I guess. I just don't want AQ to be used as an excuse against the start of withdrawal, which is what I fear is going on now.