Al Qaeda Admits They're Losing In Iraq

They're not only worried about the fact that their efforts in Iraq are increasingly disorganized. Al Qaeda can't even get its groups or alligned groups in Iraq to talk to each other. They're worried that they're losing Iraq in a big way. They simply don't have the manpower; they don't have a ready supply of suicide bombers, and the ongoing US and Iraqi efforts are eliminating stronghold after stronghold. While they're able to inflict casualties, they're a nuisance compared to what the media has portrayed. Iraqis continue to go about their business - and are increasingly turning against the insurgency and terror operations.

The hoped-for sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite groups hasn't happened, and al Qaeda has failed to ignite the conflict. Further, as Ed Morrissey notes of the al Qaeda documents recovered by US forces:

The author of this analysis acknowledges two truths. First, rather than representing any real existential threat to the government, the insurgency only rises to the level of a "daily annoyance". This clashes with the depiction in the American media of the Zarqawi network as a mass destabilizer, a description that even AQ rejects. The terror analyst also recognizes that the tactics used by the terrorist network have largely alienated even the Sunnis by killing those who represent no threat to AQ -- the "scared and the hiding ones". AQ, he says, needs an image makeover.

Ed provides a step by step analysis, which is far more than the big media outlets have done. The problem is that these documents need to be disseminated better than the DoD has done. These documents - and others captured by the military - showcase the support the fact that the coalition and US efforts have been successful in eliminating al Qaeda forces, have used Iraq to eliminate al Qaeda on a battlefield of our choosing, and that Iraq is a quagmire - for al Qaeda. Ranting Profs has more on the media coverage angle and how the Administration and Defense Department have to do a much better job.

So while it's all well and good to do a little press bashing now and again, the military has to meet them half way, explaining why material of this sort is important and flashing the way to it in big neon lights. Sometimes I think there's such fear of engaging in (illegitimate) Info Ops that the military almost intentionally holds itself back when engaging in Public Affairs, being purposefully equally low key regarding all sorts of things, lest there be any influencing of anyone. But jumping up and down and pointing, yelling, "important story! important story!" if done explicitly hardly strikes me as illegitimate.

As I say, maybe the trail to the text is clearly marked and I'm just missing it. But my point is that if I'm missing it, it ain't that clearly marked, is it?

The thing is that one can't help but note that the New York Times went to the defense of Zarqawi, whose video outtakes undermine his claims of proficiency and make a mockery of his ongoing terrorist operations.

Not that proficient terrorists have to be good to kill. They only need to get lucky. After all, history is replete with terrorists who have managed to get lucky despite their stupidity, including the 1993 WTC bombers who used a rental truck as the bomb delivery instrument, and then tried to get the deposit back from the rental company where law enforcement was waiting.

So who's winning in Iraq? We are. Al Qaeda admits as much. So, if you have a beef with that - take Powerline's advice and address your complaints to al Qaeda.