It's About Time

Well, it certainly does take the media long enough. This should be old news by now, but this is one of the first stories of its kind I've seen:

Insurgency 'hijacked' by terrorists
Washington Post

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The top U.S. military intelligence officer in Iraq says foreign terrorists, long an element of the insurgency, now have essentially commandeered it.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born terrorist who leads the al-Qaida in Iraq group, has become the driving force of the insurgency, taking over that leading role from Saddam Hussein's loyalists, said Army Maj. Gen. Richard Zahner.

"I think what you really have here is an insurgency that's been hijacked by a terrorist campaign," Zahner said.

U.S. intelligence, always keen to know the enemy, has long struggled to understand the inner workings of the insurgency, a constantly shifting mix of Iraqi and foreign elements. Zahner's remarks reflect a shift in view among U.S. military commanders since this spring, when violence - especially against civilians - began a dramatic rise.

Even though al-Zarqawi's role has grown, Zahner and other officers stressed that the insurgency remains a complex mixture of factions, not all of which have the same goals.

The "Saddamists," as military reports call them, are now considered less a military threat than a longer-term political danger, because of their desire to return to power and their potential to subvert democracy.

By contrast, al-Zarqawi's group, although its numbers are small in the insurgency, is said to orchestrate a large share of the violence. Its suicide bombings in particular have killed the most and done the most damage to American public support for the war, the U.S. officers say.

U.S. commanders see an opportunity to exploit a split they see between al-Zarqawi's approach of inciting Shiite-Sunni warfare and the main current of Sunni opinion, which appears to favor participation in the politcal process.

On the other hand, intelligence officers have noted such divisions before. So far, the insurgency has suppressed its differences enough to carry on.

President Bush, in recent speeches about the war, also has sought to capitalize on al-Zarqawi's rise within the insurgency by depicting the U.S. effort in Iraq as an essential war against international terrorists, not merely local guerrillas.

Say What?

My university is certainly not typical, meaning it is not this bastion of leftist anti-American preaching, but it does still have some of it. In the school paper, there was recently a story about some anti-war protests that I found rather revealing in terms of what it showed (unintentionaly) about the protesters. Two quotes in particular caught my attention.

The first was from an "international speaker", or something to that effect. And what did he say about the US in Iraq? He feels that the US is hindering democracy there. That's right, the US is hindering democracy. Hello? I believe Saddam was a fairly big democracy inhibitor. This is perhaps the most ludicris thing I have heard, maybe even worse than Cindy Sheehan's "Reich-wing" remark. (Plus all her other bone headed ones). In fact, I don't think I should even have to explain this one. Any rational person can see how blatently moronic the statement is.

The other was by a professor. In effect, he was upset that the anti-war movement wasn't getting enough press. They weren't covering it. This, too, shows considerable detatchment from reality (as does the professor's resume). The anti-war movement is getting press way out of proportion to its influence. Cindy's Sheehan's protest down in Crawford was essentially a media creation, and the AP chronicled her activities in Washington virtually minute by minute. Contrary to not covering the movement, they are in effect creating the movement. They crop pictures so that you don't see that its mostly reports at these protests. Here we have a professor illustrating the absurdity of the movement for all to see.