Posted by D. Cupples | From Memeorandum: the Washington Post reports that some military officials believe al Qaeda in Iraq has been "crippled" -- but that military leaders have conflicting views on the situation. Al Qaeda in Iraq formed after the U.S. ivaded Iraq and may not have direct ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda. 
People who read only the first paragraph of WaPo's article may get the impression that we've had a major victory:
"The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group."
The sixth and seventh paragraphs, however, indicate that some military heavyweights don't buy it. Rare as it is, General David Petraeus and his boss Admiral William Fallon agree that this is no time for wishful optimism:
"Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head of the Joint Special Operations Command's operations in Iraq, is the chief promoter of a victory declaration and believes that AQI has been all but eliminated, the military intelligence official said. But Adm. William J. Fallon, the chief of U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, is urging restraint, the official said. The military intelligence official, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity about Iraq assessments and strategy.
"Senior U.S. commanders on the ground, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, have long complained that Central Command, along with the CIA, is too negative in its analyses. On this issue, however, Petraeus agrees with Fallon, the military intelligence official said." (WaPo)
The Bush Administration should be cautious about declarations of victory, given that its May 2003 "Mission Accomplished" declaration turned out to be as empty as the Weapons of Mass Destruction claims.
Side consideration: why do Administration officials' (even intelligence and military) claim they aren't supposed to talk to the press then go ahead and anonymously leak like collanders? If lower officials don't have permission to leak stuff, can't they face a court martial or jail for doing so? If higher-ups are giving subordinates permission to blab, why do they pretend they have to speak anonymously? None of this bolsters the crediblity of this Administration -- or of the newspapers that habiltually rely on anonymous quotes.
Comments