Stratfor dissects the story.

It was a week in which everyone focused on the war, but not one that made a whole lot of sense -- at least on the surface.

... The issue, as always, is how good the gut is.

... Precisely what do we mean when we say al Qaeda?

... When the US government speaks about thousands of al Qaeda fighters, the vision is that the camps are filled with these thousands of men with the skill level of the 9/11 attackers. It is a scary vision, which the administration has pushed since 9/11, but it isn't true.

Week out of Focus: Washington, Iraq and Al Qaeda

After watching the Frontline documentary on the surge, take a second to consider an alternate history. Consider this comment from Kerry during the 2004 Presidential debate:

KERRY: The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror.... You don't take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace... we don't have enough troops there.

Note my comment about his comments here.

If the surge is successful but isn't allowed to continue because it is politically untennable, imagine the irony, as Bush is prevented by the Democrats from doing the thing that might have worked and would have been done had he lost to the Democrats in 2004.

washingtonpost.com - Presidential Debate Between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry

This is one of the most useful things I've read/seen on Iraq. Although the message is clearly driven by Republican commentators, here they aren't speaking to the choir, for once. This program explains what the surge is, what its history is, and what its strategy is, and why Bush wants to wait until September. Watch it.

FRONTLINE: endgame | PBS

XM Radio has me listening to C-SPAN in my car these days. The debate yesterday was challenging.

Fresh off a trip to Iraq, a visibly tired McCain lit into the "liberal left" for advocating retreat in Iraq and then went behind closed doors to brawl with a fellow GOP senator over the war.

In what one senator called "the most serious fight that I have seen in my time in the Senate," McCain clashed with Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, over the Arizona senator's assertion that the most dangerous threat facing U.S. troops in Iraq was Al Qaeda members.

Voinovich, who recently urged President Bush to change his war policy now, shot back that Al Qaeda "wouldn't be in Iraq" if American forces weren't there, according to people who witnessed the exchange.

Partially, thats correct. Al'Z wasn't really associated with Al'Queda until long after the insurgency was in full swing. If there had not been an insurgency, they would not be anyone in Iraq calling themselves Al'Queda. The problem is only partially with "Al'Queda in Iraq". They are a problem which seemed positioned to remove itself from the equation willingly over a year ago. The problem is with Shia militants. Shia militants are even less reasonably considered "Al'Queda" than Iraqi Sunnis. Conservatives seem to like to use the word "Al'Queda" to refer to any middle eastern militant group and its a transparent attempt to overstate the connection between 9/11 and our present problems.

It is doubtless that there will be extremely negative consequences associated with pulling out of Iraq. You cannot take years of arrogant mistakes and make them go away by withdrawing. It is certain that staying in Iraq also has negative consequences. There is no direction from here that is going to work out great. The question is whether the costs of staying in do or do not exceed the costs of pulling out.

The problem is that the voting public will never hear a straight answer on that question from anyone, just as they have not heard a straight answer from anyone about anything related to this war.

The conservative base is interested in a hard line because they like them some killn'. Their candidates are going to have to insist on taking a hard line regardless of how reasonable it is, and so the conservatives are going to insist that staying in Iraq is a good idea long after it is completely obvious that leaving would cost less, both because it speaks to their base, and because its a perspective that avoids admitting that they were wrong before. Some day the United States will pull out of Iraq, and for the rest of time there will always be some conservatives who think it was a bad idea regardless of what the circumstances are.

The liberal politicians believe that they were elected to get the US out of Iraq. This is only partially true. They were really elected because of the federal mismanagement of the immediate aftermath of Katrina. However, ... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Iraq Debate Prompts Senate Cloakroom Clash, Presidential Hopeful Defends Bush As White House Lobbies GOP Senators - CBS News

Amid the clamor, it is difficult to figure out what is actually going on.

Fareed Zakaria's weekly column.

People in the Muslim world travel to see the glitz in Dubai, not the madrassas in Tehran.

By and large, radical Islam is not winning the argument, which is why it is trying to win by force.

...

How to open up and modernize the Muslim world is a long, hard and complex challenge. But surely one key is to be seen by these societies and peoples as partners and friends, not as bullies and enemies. That is one battle we are not yet winning.

True or False: We Are Losing The War Against Radical Islam

The truth of the matter is that the administration cannot name one individual who has been released from Guantanamo that was found on the battlefield, dead or alive.

The Blog | H. Candace Gorman: Return to the Battlefield: The Number One Guantanamo Myth | The Huffington Post

Reports of fighting between al Qaeda in Iraq and Sunni militants surfaced Tuesday, the latest hints of rising tensions between the two allied groups.Other reports have emerged this year of tensions between Sunni fighters and the Sunni-dominated al Qaeda in Iraq, particularly from Anbar province, long a favored turf for indigenous Sunni insurgents and foreign fighters infiltrating Iraq from Syria.

This story is interesting in light of PNW's assertion that experts think this is a non event. Of course, giving up Zarqawi was perhaps the start of a trend that may be growing now. Unfortunately, it won't matter without reciprocal sacrifices on the part of the Shia.

Is al Qaeda in Iraq fighting a Sunni backlash? - CNN.com

In a recent poll of international travellers, 70 per cent of respondents said they feared US officials more than terrorists or criminals. Another 66 per cent worried they would be detained for some minor blunder, such as wrongly filling out an official form or being mistaken for a terrorist, while 55 per cent say officials are "rude."

The poll results... rate the US by a 2:1 margin as the world's "most unfriendly" destination for foreign travellers.

Overseas travel to the US has slumped 17 per cent since 2001, even as world travel to other countries reaches historic growth levels. The decline has cost US$94 billion ($127 billion) in visitor spending, US$16 billion in tax receipts, and some 194,000 American jobs.

A 7.6 per cent drop in travel from Britain, a 23.3 per cent fall from Japan, 19.2 from France and 20.7 per cent from Germany - the top US tourist origin markets - between 2000 and 2005.

America's war on tourists - 28 Apr 2007 - NZ Herald: World / International News

The parliamentary report featured a handful of cases of mistaken identity, the most prominent of which was the ordeal of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen suspected of terrorist ties and packed off to his native Syria in 2002.

“But the Canadians say there’s absolutely no evidence,” countered Edward J. Markey, D-Mass.

“I would certainly not apologize to him, sir.”

The CIA, he added, is not “in the business of cleaning up afterwards. We’re in the business of pre-emption.”

But, Delahunt persisted, “What about those who are clearly eventually determined to be innocent?”

“Mistakes are made, sir.”

“Mistakes are made.”

“That’s right,” Scheuer said. “They’re not Americans, and I really don’t care.” He spread his arms, smiling. “It’s just a mistake.”

Maybe I can't handle the truth, but is it really necessary for you to be an asshole?

CQ Homeland Security - A CIA Man Speaks His Mind on Secret Abductions

An Egyptian court this week sentenced blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman to four years in prison. He is the first person in Egypt to be jailed for internet-based journalism. He was charged with "inciting hatred of Islam" and insulting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on his blog, where he wrote under the pseudonym of "Kareem Amer".

Snip from AP coverage of the sentencing on Thursday:

Nabil [Kareem Amer], wearing a gray T-shirt and sitting in the defendants pen, gave no reaction and his face remained still as the verdict was read. He made no comment to reporters as he was immediate led outside to a prison truck.

Seconds after he was loaded into the truck and the door closed, an Associated Press reporter heard the sound of a slap from inside the vehicle and a shriek of pain from Nabil.

This is deeply wrong. Egypt, frankly, is not supposed to be some Talibanesque backwater governed by ignorant religious radicals who are so afraid of the transparent flaws of the belief system they are promoting that they have to go around cracking down on anyone who criticises them. The problem of statist Islamic radicalism, from which Egypt has suffered more than any western country, simply cannot be resolved unless people in muslim communities are able to stand up and tell these people just how stupid and wrong they are. By throwing this person in prison, the Government of Egypt sides with the ideological goals of Al'Queda and Islamic Jihad. It is time, unfortunately, for the International Community to start looking at Egypt sideways. They are not running a free country and they are not contributing to a positive future for the world.

Boing Boing: Egypt: blogger Kareem Amer gets 4 years for insulting Islam