Booted out of Baghdad?
[Guest post by DRJ]
The US military commander in Baghdad announced yesterday that the most extreme insurgent group in Baghdad, the Sunni group known as “al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia,” has been routed from the city:
“American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the “surge” to depart as planned.
Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of United States forces in Baghdad, also said that American troops had yet to clear some 13 percent of the city, including Sadr City and several other areas controlled by Shiite militias. But, he said, “there’s just no question” that violence had declined since a spike in June.
“Murder victims are down 80 percent from where they were at the peak,” and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70 percent, he said.
General Fil attributed the decline to improvements in the Iraqi security forces, a cease-fire ordered by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, the disruption of financing for insurgents, and, most significant, Iraqis’ rejection of “the rule of the gun.”
Obviously not all news from Iraq is good but good news deserves mention, too.
— DRJ
–and, most significant, Iraqis’ rejection of “the rule of the gun–
I was hoping that someone would point out that since everyone was dead and nobody was untouchable that perhaps the Iraqis were deciding that maybe civil war was a bad idea.
EdWood (c2268a) — 11/9/2007 @ 1:31 pmThis is obviously only a lullin violence, which is why the story was relegating to page A19 or wherever the Times sruffed. Rhe war was lost a long time ago, just ask Harry Reid. Glenn Greenwald has secret sources in Iran who can tell him the war is a quagmitr and there is no truth to the rumors of Iranian involvement in Iraq. These false rainbows of hope will nor last.
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/9/2007 @ 1:35 pmOf course, “al qaeda in mesopotamia” is just NYTese pseudospeak for the more common “al qaeda in iraq” name.
anon (3f9d10) — 11/9/2007 @ 1:48 pmIf Gen Petraeus’ tactics are working and they have cleared Al Q- from Bagdad and more troops are better then why not keep them there or send them to “surge” another part of the country?
EdWood (c2268a) — 11/9/2007 @ 1:53 pmThe strategy is “Clear and hold“. When the Iraqis can do the holding (which is also part of the strategy) then we will indeed move on to clearing other parts of Iraq.
Why is this not obvious to you?
LarryD (feb78b) — 11/9/2007 @ 2:12 pmI was asking the question because the article above said that the surge troops (or, we hope, the long termer already there that they would be replacing) would be coming home. It seemed odd to me to bring them back when (apparently) having them there was a good thing.
EdWood (c2268a) — 11/9/2007 @ 2:19 pmAnd the New York Times put this good news on page A-19.
It’s not like it’s Abu Ghraib or anything.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/9/2007 @ 3:02 pmWill you be citing the bad news as well? The incessant trumpeting of non-representative factoids by conservatives is really starting to piss me off. I thought we were supposed to be the party of Buckley? You dittoheads and mushy thinkers need to join the Democrats.
TCO (3b23ad) — 11/9/2007 @ 4:05 pmAnon #3, actually, “Al Queda in Mesopotamia” translates more directly as “Al Queda in the Land Between the Two Rivers.”
It is not NYT speak for anything. Infact, Iraq itself is a Western construct, imposed upon the middle east arbitrarily. The chances of Al Queda actually referring to Iraq are slim, as that place ain’t in the Koran. Mesopotamia is. AQ has no use for anything not in the Koran.
Which is why you are of the Great Satan (the US of A ain’t in the Koran either).
If you want to destroy this enemy, you have to know him very well. And knowing what he calls himself and why is pretty good place to start.
Robert C. J. Parry (2fc153) — 11/9/2007 @ 4:32 pm“AQ in Mesopotamia” is the same group as “AQ in Iraq”, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq.
Perhaps the Times doesn’t want anyone to know that Al Qeada is in Iraq.
kaf (956c0f) — 11/9/2007 @ 5:56 pmIraq is very much the three Ottoman vilayets of Shia dominant Basra, Kurdish Mosul and Sunni
narciso (d671ab) — 11/9/2007 @ 6:55 pmBaghdad; with some minor details. Baghdad the longtime seat of the Abbasid Caliphate, has a long history in the muslim world and in the pre-Moslem dhaliyah period.
Perhaps the Times doesn’t want anyone to know that Al Qeada is in Iraq.
Know the last time alQaeda wasn’t in Baghdad?
Back when Saddam was running things.
steve (76fec8) — 11/10/2007 @ 3:13 pm