Here is a related thread on Winds of Change concerning the assassination reports:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/004570.html

The assassination reports from the WOC thread's opening article tie into this part of the NY Times story leading this thread:

"Yet mounting an attack on Iraq's Shiite majority could rescue the movement, according to the document. The aim, the document contends, is to prompt a counterattack against the Arab Sunni minority.

Such a "sectarian war" will rally the Sunni Arabs to the religious extremists, the document argues. It says a war against the Shiites must start soon — at "zero hour" — before the Americans hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis. That is scheduled for the end of June."

The WOC thread has this ominous statement:

"... 'an exchange of Iraqi Sunni Arabs for Syrian Shiites of the Alawite sect within about five years. Perhaps two million of the former will flee Iraq for Syria, and a million of the latter will go the other way.'

Understand that this is like those old TV brake repair commercials -- "You can pay me now or you can pay me later...and later will cost a whole lot more". We can be sufficiently brutal now to reconcile the Iraqi Sunni to Shia majority government, or a year after American ground troops leave Iraq, 1/3 of Iraqi Arab Sunni will be dead, 1/3 will be fled to other nations and 1/3 will be a throughly repressed and despised minority who would envy the Palestinians their Israeli occupiers.

Either path will serve American interests. A horrible example of opposing American power will work for us as well as Sunni reconciliation."

I've serious doubts about the provenance of the memo. So far, we have only limited proof of Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq. Yet, suddenly we get a nicely crafted memo describing Al Qaeda's planned actions in Iraq ?

The memo to me reads like clever propoganda. Note that it says that "the Americans cannot be driven out of Iraq, that the insurgents are failing, that a democractic Iraq will not be vulnerable to Al Qaeda. It also suggests widespread attacks on Shia to bring about sectarian violence". In short, its exactly the sort of memo that would increase support for America, for its mission in Iraq, and reduce support for anti-American activities (whether Al Qaeda organized or not).

The most suspicious points are the comments about democracy. Al Qaeda has attacked democracies before (Turkey and Indonesia). It is not likely to be deterred by the presence of a democratic government. Also, while Al Qaeda has had little problem with murdering Muslim's before, this idea of sectarian war isn't something that seems to fit in with Bin Laden's goals -- his other speeches seem to talk of a grand alliance against infidels.

This could be a clever way to get top Al Qaeda operatives to respond to a fake memo, and thereby locate them ...

Jon Juzlak,

I too have doubts about the providence of this document but the idea that Al Qaeda would kill Shia is quite plausible. Shia Islam is one of the primary targets of Wahabist hatred. Arguably, they hate the Shia more than any non-muslims. They do not view Shia as fellow muslims but rather as hypocrites and defectors who have perverted the true faith.

If this is a manufactured document I bet it is based on a real one but altered just enough make their situation seem more dire.

“Assuming that the memo is real...then U.S. efforts at statebuilding have been more successful than media coverage would have suggested to date.”

I most certainly hope that this memo is legitimate. It provides abundant evidence that President Bush and the other coalition leaders are to be congratulated. The Oldman Republicans and Democrat “mainstreamers” have made fools of themselves. Bernard Lewis also deserves to take a bow. He has long argued that the Muslim world can be persuaded to embrace a more moderate social milieu. If this memo can be sufficiently verified---doesn’t it virtually guarantee President Bush’s reelection?

If the terrorists are feeling "suffocated" I'm sure they're praying to allah hard for a Kerry victory. Because after all, Terrorism is a lwe enforcement matter...

_If_ this document is genuine, it is incrediably important. If any of this is true, we have been far more successful in Iraq than we think we have. Better yet, some of the aspects that have been most critical, yet most doubtful are coming to fruition, to the consternation of our enemies.

"When the Americans withdraw, and they have already started doing that, they get replaced by these agents who are intimately linked to the people of this region."
"The Americans will continue to control from their bases, but the sons of this land will be the authority," the letter states. "This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts."

We couldnt produce better propoganda than this (so if we have produced it, kudos boys). It is something to remember about war, perhaps the most important thing to remember. War is always a battle of wills, and you can rarely know how your enemy is holding out. If this sentiment is indeed widespread in Iraq, and elsewhere if this guy is right about this:
We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases.
"By God, this is suffocation!" the writer says."

we may be on the verge of a real breakthough.

People suspicious of the memo "conveniently" turning up just now obviously aren't aware that their usual news sources don't report everything, so they certainly aren't looking at other sites like debka.com that have followed such leads for all this time. How can you believe in clever propaganda yet also believe in the completeness and veracity of a few news sources?

I agree with Jon's observation that this memo is framed in a way that suggests it may be propaganda. What do we know about the way Al Qaeda normally communicates? I don't have any specific knowledge, but it seems odd to that an organization whose members are disciplined enough not to use the same cell phone too many times are now communicating with 17-page letters -- which contain uncensored laments about their strategic situation (suffocation!)

Even so, except for some questions of emphasis, I found little of substance in the letter that surprised me. What I get from the Post and the NewsHour is that there are demonstrations in the streets, led by Sistani et al, but these are meant to speed elections the Shia believe they will win. Attacks on American troops continue, and continue to be lethal, but are fewer in number. One has the impression of a small, hard core of terrorist operatives, with limited public support, and not a mass uprising. Obviously, too, someone is attempting to destabilize the region's politics by attacking key political targets (Kurdish party HQs; Sistani).

So, wherein is the substance of the letter surprising? Is it the author's pessimism about the consequences of attacking Iraqi security forces half a year from now? That's certainly a plausible outcome, but again I don't see the surprise.

I doubt anyone really knows right now what the effects of a transfer of power are going to be, or how the process will be perceived. What I read in the media are signs of possible chaos, and more hopeful signs as well. What's said in this letter seems well within the sphere of possible outcomes I've seen described in the media.

My understanding is that we own the night time there and that is when a lot of heavy lifting get's done. Thus a sentence such as:

"We have to get to the zero hour in order to openly begin controlling the land by night, and after that by day, God willing,"

makes me wonder how in touch with the situation the author, if genuine, is. On the other hand, it is so clearly at variance with reality that I doubt we would put it in a misinformation piece.

What I find interesting is the support the letter seems to give for the decision to hand over control in June. There's been a lot of hue and cry in the blogosphere about how the determination to hand over sovereignty in June amounts to "cutting and running". Yet this letter seems to give a lot of credence to the decision to stand firm on the hand-over date:

"That is the timetable, the author concludes, because, after that, "How can we kill their cousins and sons?"

"The Americans will continue to control from their bases, but the sons of this land will be the authority," the letter states. "This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts."

So, it not only looks to me that our military strategy is more successful than otherwise thought, but it may also be true that our POLITICAL strategy may be working out better than thought as well.

So Al Quida is running out of steam in Iraq and we know where Bin Ladin is but we're waiting to nail him as an October surprise. Bush may not look good in unrehearsed settings, but with this going for him who cares?

If the memo is genuine, it offers some nice reassurance of what our enemy is up to, and on a tactical level, it may help us track them down by linking them to specific operations, that sort of thing. But on the "grand" level, it only reinforces what we already knew.

1) Al Qaeda doesn't like Shiites.
2) The American military wasn't quite what Al Qaeda was expecting.
3) Their best hope is to provoke a civil war, the crisis (in the old sense -- as in, decision point) won't come until the US cedes sovereignty, an event that has been (unwisely, in my view) scheduled for this summer.
4) Iraqi police and army are better at locating and infiltrating foreigners than Americans are.

for a more pessimistic view than dan's on this story click on the link. as they say, let the debate continue!
cheers,gd

"So the solution and God only knows, is for us to bring the shia into the battle". I don't know if the document is legit, but the MO sure is familiar.
Translation of the above statement, 'Allah came to us in a dream and commanded us to avoid armed soldiers'. God sure is a handy thing for these people. Plan A once again,attack unarmed civilians. Allow me to mention something y'all seem to be too worldly to point out.

THESE PEOPLE ARE A BUNCH OF PUNKS!

If Dubya continues to remain unimpressed with this dying for Allah cr@p, these ladies will fold like new mown grass.

It does make me a little suspicious that they realize they lose any moral cover when they attack civilians because; since when have they been that smart? But as far as them getting their butts kicked, that's no surprise at all and in fact I think this whole thing might be over faster than most are predicting.

Ray
If you take away the hype and the hoopla - your post says it all. I agree with Mark - if it is propaganda, it's the ultimate example of the greatest lie contains real truths. If it is propaganda, it's brilliant.

Richard..
"We have to get to the zero hour in order to openly begin controlling the land by night, and after that by day, God willing,"
....if it's true that we rule the night as you say, wouldn't this imply that they are simply acknowledgeing that fact?

.

The point I take from the captured document is that Al Qaeda is having difficulties establishing itself in occupied Iraq. Gee, I thought we were told there was some serious connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda before 9/11. What does this mean - was there no such connection?

Becky,

They are much more likely to take back the day before the night and it is much more important to them. Terror will be their main weapon. For both domestic and international reasons, they will want the media to give their terrorist acts the broadest coverage possible and this requires daylight. Thus the day is our relative weakness and their opportunity. It is generally a good idea to attack weakness, not strength.

Ultimately this shows that the author is out of touch or misleading depending on how good you believe the boan fide of the letter to be.

S wapiti:
What it means is that the Iraqi people are NOT Saddam's government. Al-Q doesn't make connections with a country, it makes connections with people within that country. With the Ba'athist out, there are few left who will aid and abet them.
JLB

It really does not matter that we are winning. It remains that we were wrong to invade Iraq. Doing so violates the basic American philosophy of non-intervention. All the arguments for the invasion of Iraq could be applied in spades for the invasion of North Korea.

Edward:

"All the arguments for the invasion of Iraq could be applied in spades for the invasion of North Korea".

And your point was...?
Oh yeah,"we were wrong to invade Iraq. Doing so violates the basic American philosophy of non-intervention".

Just curious, were we also violating this "basic American philosophy", when we invaded Kosovo, Somalia and Haiti?

I'm sure you've heard of the Monroe Doctrine and the Bush Doctrine. So
which 'basic American philosophy' would you be referring to ?

Or rather which episode did Star Fleet issue this directive in?

"Doing so violates the basic American philosophy of non-intervention"

No you're thinking of Federation of Planets. America doesnt have a Prime Directive.

And if we did we'd have violated it in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia, and the Liberia just to name a few. You were against all of these?

I'm sorry but this document, even if true, does not show "we are winning" by any stretch of the imagination. It's precisely the sort of exhortative document and speeche typical of al Qaeda - filled with flowery and whiny rhetoric about the enemy "outsmarting us." Fact is, if they're behind the chaos in Iraq then they're having a pretty good time of it. By saying that the US is a mighty force they're just calling in reinforcements. This is nothing new. And even though we SHOULD stay there for decades, we WON'T, because it will become too politically unpopular to remain in large numbers. Witness the withdrawal from Baghdad. As Tacitus has rightly pointed out, there is nothing strategic about that move, especially considering the woeful state of Iraqi security forces. "Zero hour" will be a critical moment, indeed. It may not mean much for al Qaeda, per se, but it will be a very chaotic moment for Iraq.

Elrod,I've never scene an Al Qaeda missive that wasnt brimming with bombast and certainty of victory and Americas destruction. If you can come up with a link to something similar to this that would be interesting to know.

Rocketman and Mark

Without that philosophy we and Sadam are alike. Even more so as Bush and company violate our constitutional rights.

Not that the constitution has an article against preemptive invasions of other nations. But, there are articles that protect our rights to free speech and a right to trial by a jury of our peers. Just the oposite of the Bush doctrine.

Is not the constitution our prime directive?

Aside: What nation did we invade under the Monroe Doctrine?

Edward:

I doubt that Reagan bothered to cite the Monroe Doctrine, but Grenada("attacked by Cubans") would be a legitimate example of the Doctrine's use. Dominican Republic(Communists), Panama( a dictatorship that wouldn't sell us rights to the canal-hey I can handle the truth).

In any case I'm not sure what your point would be.

Mine was that there is no "policy of non-intervention" that I know of. I also missed your answer to my questions concerning Somalia, Kosovo and Haiti. Would those invasions make Clinton and Saddam "alike"?

As for any comparison to any US presidents foreign to Saddam, believe it or not that charge has actually been made though not seriously on this blog. I'm not going to bother to rebut it, just gently suggest that "you need to get out more".

Edward:

I doubt that Reagan bothered to cite the Monroe Doctrine, but Grenada("attacked by Cubans") would be a legitimate example of the Doctrine's use. Dominican Republic(Communists), Panama( a dictatorship that wouldn't sell us rights to the canal-hey I can handle the truth).

In any case I'm not sure what your point would be.

Mine was that there is no "policy of non-intervention" that I know of. I also missed your answer to my questions concerning Somalia, Kosovo and Haiti. Would those invasions make Clinton and Saddam "alike"?

As for any comparison to any US presidents foreign policy to Saddam, believe it or not that charge has actually been made though not seriously on this blog. I'm not going to bother to rebut it, just gently suggest that "you need to get out more".

"Even more so as Bush and company violate our constitutional rights. "

Which one of your constitutional rights has been violated by Bush?

"Not that the constitution has an article against preemptive invasions of other nations"

Is that not or note? Because here is what our constitution has to say about war:

"Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

Thats it. Congress declares war. Nothing about preemption or nonintervention or anything else.

" But, there are articles that protect our rights to free speech and a right to trial by a jury of our peers. Just the oposite of the Bush doctrine."

It is? You lost your rights to trial by jury and free speech? Would you please document that so we can help.

"Aside: What nation did we invade under the Monroe Doctrine?"

Mexico
Panama, twice
Cuba, twice
Puerto Rico

Rocketman and Mark

The United States entered Kosovo as part of Nato after the failure of European forces to quell the war.

The United states entered Somilia as part of the United Nations Peacekeeping forces.

In both cases nonpreemtive and by invitation.

The Monroe Doctrine was expressed to keep Eurpoean powers out of the western hemisphere.

Cuba, Grenada, Hati, Panama, Mexico, Pueto Rico, and the United States are all in the westwrn hemisphere and the Monroe Doctrine does not apply.

Note: that was NOT, not NOTE. So what I said is what you said, only different.

At the monent my rights of free speech and trial by jury have not been violated. But, the potential is now there where it was not before.

As for getting out...

I have been out all my life.

Edward, this isnt meant to be offensive, but I dont think you are very well informed on these matters.

"The United States entered Kosovo as part of Nato after the failure of European forces to quell the war."
Yes. But Nato doesnt have any special standing under international law to invade soveriegn countries. Nato is a defense organization, even its charter doesnt allow for this. Whats the difference between that and 37 nations invading Iraq? Should we have signed some sort of treaty?

"In both cases nonpreemtive and by invitation."
Eh? Nonpreemtive? What imminent threat did either cause to the US? Who's invitation? Certainly not the Serbs. Sorry, you are just making arbitrary distinctions.

"The Monroe Doctrine was expressed to keep Eurpoean powers out of the western hemisphere."
Yes

"Cuba, Grenada, Hati, Panama, Mexico, Pueto Rico, and the United States are all in the westwrn hemisphere and the Monroe Doctrine does not apply."

They certainly did apply, and they certainly were used as justification.

The _Spanish_ American War? That gives you a preemptive invasion of Mexico, Cuba, and Puerto Rico right there.
The Bay of Pigs was justified because Cuba was deemed a soviet satellite. Same with Grenada.
You'll also find that the Monroe Doctrine morphed into the Roosevelt Corallary and the Truman Doctrine which dictated that we would use military force to promote stability in the hemisphere. That is the justification for carving out the nation of Panama in 1903 and removing Noriega in 89, as well as Haiti.

"In asserting the Monroe Doctrine, in taking such steps as we have taken in regard to Cuba, Venezuela, and Panama, and in endeavoring to circumscribe the theater of war in the Far East, and to secure the open door in China, we have acted in our own interest as well as in the interest of humanity at large. There are, however, cases in which, while our own interests are not greatly involved, strong appeal is made to our sympathies.... In extreme cases action may be justifiable and proper. What form the action shall take must depend upon the circumstances of the case; that is, upon the degree of the atrocity and upon our power to remedy it."

Theodore Roosevelt, 1904

To summarize, I dont think you have a very clear definition of 'non-intervention'. The Balkans were clearly and obviously an intervention into a non-critical US interest that we had not UN authorization for. But it was a good deed nonetheless. The constitution absolutely does not create any limits on US force, with the exception of giving the power to declare war to Congress. The War Powers Act that the Congress enacted gives widespread legal authority to the president in this field. In the case of Iraq, congressional approval was attained.

As far as the potential violation of your rights, thats why we have a judicial system. Maybe if you tone down the panic and the hyperbole people will really start looking into our new laws and figure out if they really are so egregious. But considering the ACLU and Dianne Fienstien together couldnt find a single case of abuse you may be hard pressed to convince people, especially huffing about the end of the constitution as we know it. I've studied both, and imo the McCain/Fiengold campaign finance law is a much more awful violation of our rights.