Bloggers are wondering if al-Qaida's influence in Iraq is decreasing, criticizing U.S.-based bloggers who spread jihadist messages over the Internet, and enjoying Stephen Colbert's stab an op-ed column.
Al-Qaida on the wane? The military is confident that the influence of al-Qaida in Iraq has been curbed, but administration officials are a little too wary to hang any "Mission Accomplished" banners. Suicide bombings, a favorite tactic of AQI, are down to 30 a month, from 60 in January.
"So we won and the troops can come home now, right? right?" asks Steve M. at liberal No More Mister Nice Blog. At Needlenose, liberal Swopa quibbles over the military's definition of victory: "Hell, they're down to just one suicide bombing a day! Why, it's like you'd hardly even know they're there."
At Reaction, liberal Edward Copeland finds wisdom in the administration's hesitation: "In a rare instance of learning from past mistakes, the Bush administration is reluctant to declare victory prematurely (or is it they are reluctant to have their main argument for staying gone and have the U.S. military be purely baby sitters to a civil war?)" Liberal Steve Benen at the Carpetbagger agrees the right has lost a powerful bogeyman: "If AQI has effectively been routed, it's that much more difficult for Bush and his allies to insist we stay the course to defeat our 9/11 attackers. Al Qaeda in Iraq is the rallying cry; it's the raison d'etre of our occupation; it's the basis for right-wing advertising; it's the reason congressional Republicans can rationalize voting in lockstep with the White House on every Iraq measure for years."
At Wired's national security-focused Danger Room, Noah Shachtman, who was just in Iraq last month and says the WaPo story "matches" what he saw, points out that AQI is just one of many insurgent groups: "[G]uerrilla groups in Iraq have played possum for months, only to rise again; hell, that's part of the nature of an insurgent threat. Also -- and this is what's particularly hair-pulling about Iraq -- while American forces have largely concentrated on Sunni groups like 'AQI,' there are plenty of other insurgent types out there. And they are from the country's Shi'ite majority."
At Contentions, Commentary's blog, Peter Wehner chalks this victory up to Gen. Petraeus' leadership: "We now have a decent shot at a decent outcome in Iraq, something few thought was possible ten months ago. It is a reminder that having the right man in the right post—in this instance, having David Howell Petraeus as the commanding general in Iraq—can make a world of difference. See Lincoln and the Civil War for more." And conservative Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters credits the surge: "The US forces had insisted for the past two years that AQI presented the deadliest challenge in Iraq. Critics claimed that the Pentagon and the administration were lying, and that the AQ forces only represented 10% of all insurgents in Iraq. Yet now, with AQI dispersed, demoralized, and mostly defeated, the plunge in casualties has been far greater than the 10% number critics and skeptics tossed around so casually as late as this summer."
Read more about al-Qaida in Iraq.
Web of jihad: A New York Times piece on the rise of English-language Web sites promoting Islamist views profiles a young Saudi-born Muslim who spreads jihadist messages from his parents' North Carolina home. Saudi-born Samir Khan translates Arabic videos into English and posts bloody insurgent videos from Iraq. Bloggers argue with the New York Times' assertion that there is no evidence that Khan, who has no affiliation with al-Qaida, has broken any laws.
At conservative Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer is seething. "Isn't there anything this fellow can be charged with, or is he completely free to aid the global jihad from North Carolina and give interviews to the New York Times? In 1942, would a young Nazi have been allowed to propagandize freely for Hitler in Hoboken or Sioux City?"
At the Jawa Report, Rusty Shackleford says his site is one of the "vigilante groups," mentioned in the NYT story, that has tried to get Khan's site taken down. Shackleford says Khan is guilty of treason and is upset that the NYT ran the story, saying the author "has a right to out Inshallahshaheed as Samir Khan, but doing so has jeopardized an ongoing investigation into a terror ring which begins in the US and ends in Somalia."