The rats lose another round
AllahPundit has this at Hot Air:
He was captured July 4, and my first question in these things is always "Why are we hearing about this now?" Meaning, it's typical to delay announcements like this so the good guys can exploit any useful intelligence from targets like this. So, what have Coalition forces been doing since July 4? When news like this is released, it typically means there is no longer value in keeping the news quiet. (And certainly the bad guys would've already noticed that al-Mashhadani wasn't showing up for work.)
It's nigh unto impossible to tie any of these to the capture of al-Mashhadani just using what's available open source, but just looking back at MNF-Iraq press releases since July 4, here are some notable ones.
July 18
July 18
July 17
July 14
July 13
July 5
Of particular interest to the intelligence folks will be what al-Mashhadani knows about the communications trail back to Zawahiri and Al Qaeda in Pakistan. I believe US Intelligence has used this trail before to track down Zawahiri.
Also, a tape attributed to Abu Umar al-Baghdadi surfaced around July 9. It said:
Why put that tape out if al-Baghdadi/al-Mashhadani had been captured five days before? Is it even remotely possible that Coalition intelligence had al-Baghdadi make this tape, and got it out through jihadi-related channels? That doesn't seem likely given this:
Given yesterday's news about how Al Qaeda operates in Iran, it doesn't make sense for AQI to antagonize Iran.
The Daily Times said:
Was this a bizarre way for the US to tell Iran to cease and desist its meddling in Iraq, or military action might result? And if not, why put out that tape? An indication of some bad blood between Iran and Sunni extremists in Iraq?
The U.S. command said Wednesday the highest-ranking Iraqi in the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq has been arrested, adding that information from him indicates the group’s foreign-based leadership wields considerable influence over the Iraqi chapter…
Bergner said al-Mashhadani served as an intermediary between al-Masri and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri…
He was captured July 4, and my first question in these things is always "Why are we hearing about this now?" Meaning, it's typical to delay announcements like this so the good guys can exploit any useful intelligence from targets like this. So, what have Coalition forces been doing since July 4? When news like this is released, it typically means there is no longer value in keeping the news quiet. (And certainly the bad guys would've already noticed that al-Mashhadani wasn't showing up for work.)
It's nigh unto impossible to tie any of these to the capture of al-Mashhadani just using what's available open source, but just looking back at MNF-Iraq press releases since July 4, here are some notable ones.
July 18
Members of the 1/6th Iraqi Army Scout Platoon, with Coalition Forces advisors, detained two suspected al-Qaeda leaders July 16 during an intelligence driven operation in western Baghdad.
July 18
During the first precision operation, Coalition Forces approached a vehicle believed to contain a terrorist weapons facilitator connected to al-Qaeda in Iraq senior leaders. Nearby, Coalition Forces conducted a second precision operation targeting associates of high-level al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders and detained two suspected terrorists.
July 17
The top target for al Qaeda in Iraq south of Baghdad was killed July 14 in Arab Jabour by precision-guided munitions, the Excalibur.
July 14
One suspected al-Qaeda in Iraq senior leader surrendered to Coalition Forces during a raid in Mosul. The individual is the alleged security emir of Mosul, operating terrorist cells in the area and maintaining connections to other high-level al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders.
July 13
U.S. Special Forces and Iraqi Security Forces detained an alleged high-level Al-Qaeda in Iraq terrorist cell leader July 13 at Baghdad International Airport. The alleged cell leader turned himself in to U.S. Special Forces and Iraqi Security Forces without a struggle and is currently in U.S. custody for questioning.
July 5
Coalition Forces killed one terrorist and detained nine suspected terrorists during raids around the country Wednesday and Thursday targeting al-Qaeda in Iraq senior leaders and operatives.
Of particular interest to the intelligence folks will be what al-Mashhadani knows about the communications trail back to Zawahiri and Al Qaeda in Pakistan. I believe US Intelligence has used this trail before to track down Zawahiri.
Also, a tape attributed to Abu Umar al-Baghdadi surfaced around July 9. It said:
The leader of an umbrella group of Iraqi insurgents linked to Al-Qaeda has threatened to wage war against Iran unless it stops supporting Shi’a in Iraq.
The warning came in an audio recording posted on the Internet and attributed to Abu Umar al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State in Iraq, an alliance of Sunni groups led by Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
The voice in the recording said the group would give Iranian leaders two months to end all of its support for Iraq’s Shi’ite-led government and to stop intervening in Iraq. Otherwise, it said, a "severe war" awaited.
Why put that tape out if al-Baghdadi/al-Mashhadani had been captured five days before? Is it even remotely possible that Coalition intelligence had al-Baghdadi make this tape, and got it out through jihadi-related channels? That doesn't seem likely given this:
Bergner said al-Mashhadani had told interrogators that al-Baghdadi is a "fictional role" created by al-Masri and that an actor is used for audio recordings of speeches posted on the Web.
Given yesterday's news about how Al Qaeda operates in Iran, it doesn't make sense for AQI to antagonize Iran.
The Daily Times said:
The self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq has given Iran a two-month ultimatum to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs or face all-out war, according to an audiotape posted on the Internet on Monday.
“We give... the leaders of Iran a period of two months to stop all forms of support to the rejectionists of Iraq, and stop direct and indirect interference in the affairs of the Islamic state,” said a voice attributed to the group’s leader Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. The term rejectionists is used by Sunni militant groups to refer to Shiites, who dominate the government in Iraq and are in a majority in both Iraq and neighbouring Iran.
“Otherwise, expect a fierce war that will annihilate you, which we have been preparing for over the past four years and just waiting to issue the orders to wage the campaign,” the voice said. The tape was posted on a website usually used by militant groups but its authenticity could not be verified. The Islamic State of Iraq is an alliance of Sunni groups led by Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Was this a bizarre way for the US to tell Iran to cease and desist its meddling in Iraq, or military action might result? And if not, why put out that tape? An indication of some bad blood between Iran and Sunni extremists in Iraq?










9 Comments:
At July 18, 2007 11:03 AM, NYkrinDC said…
It makes sense. Shiite Iran and the Sunni Salafi movement are natural enemies. Unfortunately, we have failed to exploit that to our advantage and instead have at times driven them to cooperate with each other against us.
When we invaded Afghanistan, Iran aided us in doing so. When we went after Hussein in Iraq, the only other player in the region that benefited as much as the US and Israel was Iran. Right now, however, Iran feels more threatened by the US than they do by the Salafis so they cooperate with them in Iraq to make our life miserable there, and to bog us down, thereby preempting any American attempt to invade Iran.
We need a different approach to Iran, that takes into account their natural adversarial relationship with the Salafist movement, and the stagnant autocracies in the Middle East to suit our purposes.
At July 18, 2007 1:05 PM, Jeff Kouba said…
Hi, thanks for the comment.
I agree that there is no love lost between Shiites and Sunni Salafi.
And I agree that because they share a common enemy, as you say "Iran feels more threatened by the US than they do by the Salafis so they cooperate with them in Iraq to make our life miserable there."
So, I am puzzled why that tape threatening Iran appeared. You'd think Al Qaeda in Iraq would do all it could to preserve cooperation from Iran.
They can go after the Shiites and Iran later, after the US is dealt with.
And I think you're right, we could be much smarter about how we deal with Iran.
At July 18, 2007 9:10 PM, Anonymous said…
AQ has lots of ancient issues w/ the Persians and its all wrapped up in the Sunni antaganism towards the Shiites there.
You can bet there is lots of activity, some violent, going on between each other.
In that sense, the west and US are bit players on the side of their perceived issue of struggle over the 'true' version of their religion. Ex; the 1980s war was seen as the Sunni(Saudi) righteous fight against the apostate Shiites and worse, Persians. Their struggle is over Mecca.
At July 18, 2007 10:43 PM, Jeff Kouba said…
I just get the impression these days that AQ and Iran hate the US more than they hate each other, and so will hold their noses and use each other where they can. And when it's all over, they can start killing each other.
At July 19, 2007 7:43 AM, NYkrinDC said…
At the moment yes...that is why part of our strategy should be to speed the killing past us, and to where it is naturally heading, to a confrontation between Sunni and Shiite Islam. The longer we are caught in the middle, the longer that war is postponed.
At July 19, 2007 9:00 AM, Jeff Kouba said…
If it were just radical Sunni militants killing radical Shiite militants, I wouldn't be terribly saddened.
It's when average citizens and families are slaughtered that I worry. The US can't just abandon the common folk in the ME to be massacred. It would set back US credibility in the region a generation.
At July 20, 2007 7:49 AM, NYkrinDC said…
It's when average citizens and families are slaughtered that I worry. The US can't just abandon the common folk in the ME to be massacred. It would set back US credibility in the region a generation.
We made many mistakes in the region, and while tragic that is happening right now. The truth is that American military force can only postpone not prevent the direction where things are now headed.
As for our credibility, that has already been shattered. Our credibility can only be restored by crafting a new strategy for addressing the problem, not continuing with a strategy that continues to fail.
At July 20, 2007 10:28 PM, Jeff Kouba said…
Don't know that I agree that our credibility in the region has been shattered, but I do agree a new direction was needed.
Sure would've like to have seen this surge two or even three years ago.
I'm not sure what happens next though. I worry the Democrats won't allow us to build on what the surge accomplishes.
At July 21, 2007 12:35 PM, NYkrinDC said…
I'm not sure what happens next though. I worry the Democrats won't allow us to build on what the surge accomplishes.
I agree, the political will to continue in the absence of any progress, or hint that the administration is willing to compromise with the opposition to achieve to gain political space to continue is unlikely to happen. However, rather than blame the Dems solely, I think this is a failure of leadership on the part of the commander in chief, who continues to fail to recognize that a little compromise with political opponents (particularly those like Sen. Biden and other moderates) goes a long way to preventing the more radical elements from setting the tone of the debate.
Post a Comment
<< Home