A "Referendum on Iraq" (Part three: Cheers and Fears)

Greyhawk

If the 2006 U.S. elections were a "referendum on Iraq" - who won? "The Democrats" of course - that's an easy answer. But here we've always asked the tough questions, and the full answer to that one isn't so obvious. This is part three in a series - part one is here, part two is here. More will follow.

Over the weekend the AP reported al Qaeda's response to the U.S. elections:

Al Qaeda Gloats Over U.S. Election

BAGHDAD -- The head of al Qaeda's Iraq operations yesterday gloated in a new audio tape over the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and praised U.S. voters for punishing President Bush and the Republicans in Tuesday's midterm elections.

Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, in the first public statement by a senior al Qaeda figure since the vote, said in an Internet-posted recording that his group now had 22,000 armed fighters and reserves in Iraq and taunted Mr. Bush not to copy Mr. Rumsfeld and "flee the battlefield."

Al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, urged the United States to stay in Iraq so his group would have more opportunities to kill American troops.

"We haven't had enough of your blood yet," he boasted. "We call on the lame duck not to hurry his escape the way the defense secretary did.

"We will not rest from our jihad until ... we have blown up the filthiest house -- which is called the White House," al-Muhajir said.

But New York Times readers only got part of the story - if they found it on page 8 (see if you notice what's been added, and what's left out...)

Qaeda Official Is Said To Taunt U.S. On Tape

BAGHDAD, Nov. 10 — As five more American servicemen were reported killed on Thursday and Friday, an audio recording purportedly from the new leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq urges the United States to “stay on the battlefield” because “we didn’t get enough of your blood.”

The recording, broadcast on the Internet on Friday but not independently verified, taunts President Bush as a “stupid” leader whose Iraq policy was repudiated by voters, and it warns that the terrorist group now has 12,000 fighters at the ready and 10,000 more who are available but not yet outfitted for combat.

The new deaths occurred in Baghdad and Anbar Province, where an overwhelming majority of American deaths have occurred. Two soldiers from the 89th Military Police Brigade were killed Thursday by a roadside bomb in western Baghdad. A third soldier, assigned to the 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary), was also killed Thursday by a roadside bomb near Haditha.

Two marines were killed in Anbar Province. One of them, from Regimental Combat Team Five, died Thursday from enemy fire. The other, from Regimental Combat Team Seven, died Friday from what the military described only as “nonhostile causes.”

The United States military suffered at least 26 deaths in the first 10 days of November, a pace only somewhat diminished from the violence that killed 105 American troops in October, the deadliest month since the beginning of 2005.

At least 18 bodies were found in the capital on Friday, an Interior Ministry official said. Such reports have become commonplace, but they tend to greatly understate the true measure of violence in Baghdad, where at one point this summer the death rate reached almost 100 per day, according to research by the United Nations.

On that subject, officials from the Iraqi Health Ministry offered a slight correction to an earlier estimate of the number of Iraqis killed since the war began. The true number is 100,000 to 150,000, a ministry official in Baghdad said Friday. The day before, the Iraqi health minister, speaking to reporters in Europe, estimated that 150,000 had been killed.

The audio message, broadcast Friday on Islamist Web sites and attributed to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the new leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, suggested that victory was close at hand for Sunni militants who have called for an Islamic state in Iraq.

The new Qaeda chief, who American officials say took command after American warplanes killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June, urged the Bush administration to “not be in a rush to escape, as your lame defense minister did,” an apparent reference to the departing defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

The Qaeda leader, also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, warned of further American bloodshed and questioned claims by American politicians that they would support a troop pullout. But he said American voters took a step in the right direction by recognizing the “treachery” of the Bush’s administration’s policies associated with Israel.

A translation by The Associated Press of the recording mentioned a threat to blow up the White House. The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, declined comment.

That's all part of the script for al Qaeda's "Working Paper for a Media Invasion of America" - use the American media to "throw fear into the American people's hearts".

There's no denying that plan is working - American media have done little to acknowledge its existence and (wittingly or not) much to help them achieve their goals.

But have U.S. politicians responded to al Qaeda's latest media blitz?

From President Bush's weekend radio address:

The elections will bring changes to Washington. But one thing has not changed: America faces brutal enemies who have attacked us before and want to attack us again. I have a message for these enemies: Do not confuse the workings of American democracy with a lack of American will. Our Nation is committed to bringing you to justice, and we will prevail.

Iraq is the central front in this war on terror. I look forward to listening to ideas from the new leaders of Congress on the best way to support our troops on the front lines -- and win the war on terror. I also look forward to hearing recommendations on the way forward in Iraq from a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton.

In the meantime, I have made an important change to my national security team. On Wednesday, I accepted Don Rumsfeld's resignation as Secretary of Defense, and announced my intent to nominate Bob Gates to replace him. Bob is a proven leader who has served six Presidents -- four Republicans and two Democrats. As a former CIA Director and the current President of Texas A&M University, he has experience leading large and complex organizations, and he has shown that he is an agent of change. As Secretary of Defense, he will provide a fresh outlook on our strategy in Iraq, and what we need to do to prevail.

And here's the Democrats response, from Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

On Tuesday, Americans across the country made it clear that they want a new direction in Iraq and in the war on terror. Voters also made it clear that they want defense policies that are tough and smart. Our agenda includes a new direction in defending America at home and around that world. We will listen to the military, take their advice, and ensure that our troops and agencies have the tools and equipment they need to defend our freedom. And we will keep our promises to our brave men and women when their service is done.

Americans also chose hope and opportunity over fear and cynicism, returning Democrats to power in Congress, state houses and legislatures with a clear call for honest, competent leadership, accountability and change in Iraq, and economic policies that put working families first.

A careful read will reveal that while the President does not definitively argue for "stay the course", Dr Dean is not arguing for "cut and run". Democrats - with an increased say in US policy, are now confronted with the very real fact that they could be perceived as architects of defeat - as opposed to the pre-election "Cassandra" position they no longer enjoy. Still, they've promised "change" - an amorphous concept that is actually a near-daily reality in Iraq, and has no significant current Republican opposition. But while U.S. politicians move slowly towards a new, improved, compromise definition of "change", al Qaeda is able to act fast in declaring victory.

This fits in with another aspect of that "media invasion" - divide and conquer America. Sap the will of half the people, and the other half will not be able to confront a (seemingly) distant enemy while being obstructed on the home front. Until now that split has been defined by political party affiliation. But any upcoming "compromise" will likely have the interesting impact of alienating half of Republican voters and half of the Democrats -each for different reasons, of course, but this promises a potentially interesting variation from the pre-election partisan separation.

But worse than that "new direction" might be the perception of no action whatsoever, and unless American politicians act swiftly, we have months uncertainty ahead - months that al Qaeda is prepared to use to their advantage.

Here's the potential beginning of the death spiral: As Americans debate, Iraqis lose faith that Americans will stand with them long enough to secure their country. This will lead to the strengthening of regional (or in Baghdad, neighborhood) militias at the cost of the government forces - Iraqi Army and Police. American troops attached to those units will be first to see the tipping point. While not seeing the elections themselves as reason for despair, they will recognize the reality of any second- or third-order results on their mission, and the futility of their efforts. "Battles" - primarily for external support of and internal fortitude from their charges - once thought worth the effort will become increasingly hopeless, and less frequently waged. The number of empty spaces in formations will grow...

None of this will be invisible to the Iraqi population - or al Qaeda, whose task will become increasingly easy. Along with their media strategy, it's worthwhile to review their "military" strategy that it complements so well. Its brutal simplicity requires very few "soldiers" to implement, and determined opposition - civil and military - to fail. (Undermining that opposition is the complimentary purpose of the media strategy, and it's working quite well.)

Meanwhile, back in Washington, politicians - and other Americans - will spend precious time debating whose fault it all is. And any hope for solutions will likely be sabotaged by a press that touts al Qaeda successes and body counts without any balance - as the New York Times does above - portrays any tentative steps towards American political compromise as anything but, and immediately discounts any talk of American commitment as lacking credibility, as the LA Times does here:

Top commander in Iraq says U.S. won't abandon its mission
Gen. George W. Casey Jr. may soon be leaving his post. Around the nation, dozens are killed.

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq, voiced confidence Saturday that the United States would not abandon its mission in this violence-racked country amid a postelection reevaluation of Iraq strategy.

"The weeks and months ahead will require courage and determination," Casey said at a Veterans Day naturalization ceremony for 75 U.S. troops at Baghdad's Camp Victory. "But succeed we will."
<...>
Washington political insiders have speculated that both Casey and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who was also at the ceremony, could leave their posts because of the Republican Party's defeat at the polls Tuesday. Both men quickly left the ceremony after reading prepared statements.

At least 40 Iraqis and two European soldiers were reported killed in Iraq on Saturday.

A detailed recitation of the death count follows - less any victories by the good guys. Victory is the bad word. Success is unobtainable. A "war on terror" is un-winnable. Use those terms and your credibility is questionable. - it's only been a few days from the American elections, but thus far that trend in American media has not changed.

A clock is ticking for Americans and Iraqis alike - fast action and concrete statements of intent from politicians is called for. Accurate reporting of progress is essential. If that seems difficult, its because it is.

If that seems impossible, its because you're letting al Qaeda's strategy defeat you.

Update: Opening salvos, from today's New York Times:

Democratic leaders in the Senate vowed on Sunday to use their new Congressional majority to press for troop reductions in Iraq within a matter of months, stepping up pressure on the administration just as President Bush is to be interviewed by a bipartisan panel examining future strategy for the war.

The Democrats — the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware — said a phased redeployment of troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the conduct of the war.

“We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Mr. Levin said in an appearance on the ABC News program “This Week.” In a telephone interview later, Mr. Levin added, “The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to solve their own problems.”

The White House signaled a willingness to listen to the Democrats’ proposals, with Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, saying in two television appearances that the president was open to “fresh ideas” and a “fresh look.” But Mr. Bolten said he could not envision the White House signing on to a plan setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops.

“You know, we’re willing to talk about anything,” he said on “This Week.” “I don’t think we’re going to be receptive to the notion there’s a fixed timetable at which we automatically pull out, because that could be a true disaster for the Iraqi people. But what we’ve always been prepared to do, and remain prepared to do, is indeed what Senators Levin and Biden were talking about, is put pressure on the Iraqi government to take over themselves.”

These are what's known as starting positions.

The clock ticks...