Could al-Qaeda possibly have found a better publicist than President Bush?

[Cypress]

Sometimes one runs across an editorial, and you just have to nod your head and say "ditto". I can't add anything else. This is brilliant:

Could al-Qaeda possibly have found a better publicist than President Bush?

Like any terrorist organization, al-Qaeda wants attention. It wants to be perceived as powerful. And it particularly wants Americans to live in fear.

Could al-Qaeda possibly have found a better publicist than President Bush?

At a South Carolina Air Force base yesterday, Bush mentioned al-Qaeda and bin Laden 118 times in 29 minutes, arguing that the violence unleashed by the U.S. invasion in Iraq would somehow come to America's shores if U.S. troops were to withdraw.

But the majority of that violence in Iraq is caused either by Iraqis murdering each other for religious reasons or by Iraqis trying to throw off the American occupation. The group that calls itself al-Qaeda in Iraq is only one of a multitude of factions creating chaos in that country, and the long-term goals of its Iraqi members are almost certainly not in line with those of al-Qaeda HQ (which is safely ensconced in Pakistan).

Furthermore, the administration's own intelligence community has concluded that the war in Iraq has helped rather than hurt al-Qaeda.

What effect would a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq really have on al-Qaeda? Is it true that "surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaida would be a disaster for our country," as Bush admonished yesterday?

Bush's predictions about the region have been uniformly abysmal, so the opposite may be at least as likely. And in that scenario, a U.S. troop withdrawal would rob al-Qaeda of its greatest recruiting tool. It would also free American and Iraqi fighters to hunt down bin Laden and his fellow vermin wherever they are and give them what they deserve -- which is not publicity, but ignominy and extinction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/25/BL2007072501313_pf.html

 

[Beefy]

Come on, get rid of that avatar.

Anyhow, I agree with the premise of this article. I heard a very interesting interview yesterday morning on "Your World" with an historian who is studying the history of Al Qaeda and the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq adopted the name "Al Qaeda" because of its notoriety. The invasion unified the different radical islamist factions against the "far enemy" (the US) as well as the "near enemy" (Israel, the Jordinian moderates...)

It seems as though we are now in the midst of a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Cypress]

Come on, get rid of that avatar.

Anyhow, I agree with the premise of this article. I heard a very interesting interview yesterday morning on "Your World" with an historian who is studying the history of Al Qaeda and the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq adopted the name "Al Qaeda" because of its notoriety. The invasion unified the different radical islamist factions against the "far enemy" (the US) as well as the "near enemy" (Israel, the Jordinian moderates...)

It seems as though we are now in the midst of a self fulfilling prophecy.

Exactly. Some Iraqis have appropriated the name, "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia", for brand name purposes. They evidently don't have any significant logistical ties to Bin Ladin's al qaeda, or neccessarily even the same goals.