« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
House Panel Asks: Is Al-Qaeda in Iraq Part of Al-Qaeda Proper?
There's been no shortage of controversy and confusion -- to say nothing of manipulation -- over what the relationship is between al-Qaeda in Iraq and the al-Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan's north Waziristan tribal region. Judging from testimony given by intelligence and Pentagon officials this afternoon at a joint House intelligence and armed services committee hearing, it might be best to think of al-Qaeda in Iraq as loosely connected to the main entity, but nevertheless a part of it.
Edward Gistaro, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats -- a principal author of last week's National Intelligence Estimate on al-Qaeda -- called AQI an "al-Qaeda affiliate," which is as good a term as any. al-Qaeda exists around the world as a series of franchise organizations united by a shared ideology, not as an organization with a clear command structure between franchisees and the senior leadership. In response to a question from Rep. Bud Cramer (D-AL), Gistaro clarified that he didn't want to portray al-Qaeda as a "monolithical" entity, in which the al-Qaeda senior leadership calls all the shots over its franchisees. That was probably the furthest Gistaro went to contradict President Bush's contention that al-Qaeda in Iraq is essentially the same organization that attacked the U.S. on September 11.
The amount of decentralization is also significant. Gistaro stated that "we do not see" communications between al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Qaeda in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, though that doesn't necessarily mean such communication doesn't exist. Retired General James Clapper, the chief of defense intelligence, conceded that of the "several thousand" members of AQI, "90 percent of the foot soldiers are going to be Iraqis," even as the U.S. military has emphasized that its leadership is entirely foreign-based. (A prominent AQI detainee told U.S. interrogators that its "Iraqi face," an operative called Omar al-Baghdadi, is fictional.) AQI's current focus befits the composition of most of its membership, if not its leaders. "The bulk of AQI's resources are focused on Iraq," Gistaro told the joint committee. Similarly, al-Qaeda in Waziristan doesn't exhibit "tactical control over AQI," he said.
But it goes way too far to conclude that AQI and AQ are separate organizations without a relationship to one another. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the first AQI leader, whom the U.S. killed in 2006, swore a loyalty oath to Usama bin Laden in 2004, which Gistaro said is when the intelligence community begins referring to the organization as "al-Qaeda in Iraq." Similarly, in a July 2005 letterto Zarqawi from bin Laden deputy Ayman Zawahiri, Zawahiri asks Zarqawi to send cash back to the al-Qaeda senior leadership, as well as to pass along a message to the "Algerian brothers," a reference to a terrorist group that now calls itself al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Greg Miller in the Los Angeles Times reported in May that AQI is still kicking money up to al-Qaeda in Pakistan.
There's a lot that remains unclear after the hearing -- probably because it remains unclear to U.S. intelligence. How can money be traveling from AQI to AQ but not communications? Has the relationship between AQI and AQ changed after the death of Zarqawi, who planted AQ's flag in Iraq? Judging from the hearing, it's fair to conclude that both organizations benefit from the association with one another: al-Qaeda gets to say it's participating in the jihad against the U.S. in Iraq, and AQI can associate with something larger than itself to claim prestige and outside support. That may not turn out to be such a bad thing from a U.S. perspective -- as even Sunni Iraqis are turning against AQI, raising the prospect that the association with Iraq will go from being a "cause celebre" for AQ (in the language of the 2006 terrorism NIE) to a strategic miscalculation.
Comments (15)
Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 7:03 PM:Are you kidding me?! As if the lack of a signed franschise agreement makes them any less dangerous or less willing to kill Americans? Thank God there were REAL Democrats and AMERICANS in charge during WWII!
ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 25, 2007 7:22 PM:I remember when there were real Americans in the Republican party. For instance, Dwight Eisenhower warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex.
And the Republican Representatives and Senators who joined with the Democrats to rein in Nixon.
Their like has been replaced by Chris Cannon and Orrin Hatch and the other hypocrites who have sold their souls to the bush-cheney crime family.
What a shame, for all of us.
M M wrote on July 25, 2007 7:32 PM:who got their hands on the $250m from the Baghdad bank heist reported recently? it's scary to think what those funds are being used for now
regular lurker wrote on July 25, 2007 7:55 PM:George W. Bush: "...the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize..." Where previously there was no Al Qaeda, now there is - fully materialized out of nothingness.
Up shot: Bush beat Al Qaeda to Iraq by invading first.
Or something like that.
Bill wrote on July 25, 2007 8:57 PM:If Al Qaida calls them part of Al Qaida on their videos, then that's a big hint that they're part of Al Qaida. Maybe Bush should just get a ouija board instead.
Wendell wrote on July 25, 2007 9:24 PM:I analogize the AQ prime - AQI relationship to early hip-hop or Crips and Bloods. There's an original, rooted group (in Brooklyn or LA--or Afghanistan-North Waziristan), and then franchisees/pretenders/wannabes who take on the glamourous name, even though the local leadership is different, the aims at least somewhat divergent, and the local affiliate probably causes the 'parent' to sigh a lot.
James' Conscience wrote on July 25, 2007 9:54 PM:
Roberta wrote on July 25, 2007 11:46 PM:Is the house troll retarded? I'm new here and can't decide if he is someone playing Stephen Colbert and laughing his ass off or just an elderly old man who is narrow minded, stubborn, opinionated and has never learned the art of debate.
"Gistaro stated that 'we do not see' communications between al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Qaeda in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, though that doesn't necessarily mean such communication doesn't exist."
It is bad enough that a new al Qaeda organization has sprung up in Iraq (filling the vacuum the US's lack of follow-up to the invasion left) without insisting there's communication between them. Since "al qaeda" translates as "the base," a group with this name can be an organization that adheres to the mission and principles established by bin Laden's template group as "the base" for a fight to achieve these goals in Iraq.
I'm not saying that any of this is good. It's very bad. But I think it's important to remember that this offshoot exists only because of the opportunity Bush's "Mission Accomplished" left open.
Claims of communication between them do not mitigate this causal connection, no matter how they're spun.
Roberta wrote on July 25, 2007 11:51 PM:Oh, and James' Conscience? I can't definitely speak to what he is, but I am certain that he's not playing Stephen Colbert. We should be so lucky.
ChasingTheDollar wrote on July 26, 2007 1:02 AM:I have a friend living just outside of Charleston, South Carolina. His name is Jesus, and he is deeply religious. This story is entirely true.
Does that mean that Religious Organizations around the world should bow to him because he is Jesus of Charleston? He tithes, which based on administration claims means that he supports a larger organization.
The end result, and the result we should all understand, is that just because someone shares a name - and donates to the original cause - does not mean they are the same. Under the administration's logic, I would expect they should take my friend's word and position whenever they claim a "Higher Power."
I am not saying my friend is some all-powerful being. Sure, he once drank me under the table, but that still doesn't justify the claims of the administration. My friend is (possibly not the only) Jesus of Charleston. He shares a name and he tithes to a being he feels is superior. The only difference between him and AQI is that one is classified as a terrorist organization, and the other is a widespread religous group. Otherwise they share a name and an ideology. If AQI is the same as AQ, shouldn't Bush also heed the advice of my friend in Charleston?
OCPatriot wrote on July 26, 2007 1:13 AM:Lotta speculation, lotta "if's", lotta fear being generated, isn't there? Let's face it, we know didly about al Qaeda, we keep harping on their "decentralized" organization, which has no clear form. That's what FIVE GODDAMN YEARS of intelligence has brought us. Throw the Inteliigence experts out and replace them with people who can assemble facts. The price tag for this wishy washy BS is probably stunningly high, and the Bush Administration likes to use this foggy ambiguous information to scare us into giving them fascistic powers to fight the phony "war against terror." Until everybody realizes this, we are doomed to be at war for the forseeable future, in Iraq, maybe with Iran, with countless American soldiers dying for nothing.
RBS wrote on July 26, 2007 5:25 AM:I've posted this on another thread, but it's applicable at almost any Comments section on TPM.
Jake D's unrelenting attempts at hijacking the discussion are, unfortunately, successful--the thread always ends up being about him and his inane diversions (which is exactly what he wants) rather than about the subject matter at issue--and I, for one (or two or three), am ready to forego TPM's comments entirely rather than having to slog through such massive amounts of troll shit.
Legitimate expressions of "other" viewpoints are fine, but when Jake's "expressions" disproportionately and egregiously hog the bandwidth, with the intent to disrupt the actual thread of the conversation and prevent real discussion of the issues, there's no reason for TPM to put up with it (the First Amendment only restricts the government from censoring expression, Jake) and legitimate reasons not to put up with it (losing readership).
Enough is enough.
If there's a TPM moderator, please get rid of this guy; he adds nothing and only disrupts the true flow of the commentary. Too many people "bite" and feed this guy, which is understandable, but the tipping point has been reached.
Could others who feel the same way pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease let TPM know how you feel?
Thanks.
(We now resume our regularly hijacked programming . . . )
RBS
Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 8:32 AM:Wow, RBS. ONE post on this thread is too much for you?
James' Conscience wrote on July 26, 2007 9:19 AM:re: Roberta @11:51
bjobotts wrote on July 26, 2007 4:40 PM:You are so right!
Thank you George W. Bush. Thanks to you we now have al qaeda organizing all over the world, funded and supported by your Iraq blunder. Does the oil mean that much to you and your corporate handlers to sacrifice the security of the US?
Your "bring it on" General George Custer war/occupation policy has brought the ire, resentment, and even hatred of the world on all of us. You are not America Mr. Bush but merely an elected representative who has gone wacko. You have done more to make al qaeda a threat than Osama Bin Ladin could ever do. You have been bullied right into their plans.
The terrorists don't say "Look at what we did to them", They say "Look at what we made them do to themselves". Take a good look Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney(what ever they call the president these days).