Bombings and Incompetence

Listening to the radio on the way home from work, I heard the chairman of the Intelligence committee questioning a Bush Admin spokesman about who was behind the attacks in Iraq yesterday. His response: We don't know.

What the f@#$!

Are you kidding me? It's obvious: Zarqawi. He's an organizer, he's gaining support and he's got mentors, OBL and Ramsi Yousef, his uncle. He made a phone call to the Baathists and gave them a date to coordinate attacks. This is the perfect example of what the Bush administration was trying to argue prior to the war: the coordination between seemingly different groups - the secular Baathists and the Islamist Al Queda. Now we see they're capable of teaming up. One can argue that we instigated that teaming up by going into Iraq, but I think it's better that it happens there, on our terms, rather than happening in shadowy backrooms in Prague while we sleep.

The tactics are the hallmarks of Al Queda - the timing and coordination and leads me to believe that these groups are going to be soon run by Al Queda (or some mutant form of it), if not already. Just like the Taliban were being run by Al Queda, the remaining Baathists are falling into line.

I do think if we were to lose in Iraq, and a more democratic government fails, that we might see a fight between the secular Baathists and Al Queda. But that's the irony, that Baathists and Queda types will only fight with each other when one of them is in power. If they are both removed from power, they become allies, flip sides of the same coin, trying to fight freedom and fairness for the regular joe Iraqi.

What does the world think is going on in Iraq? Isn't it clear that the US WANTS to leave the country? We are trying to hand over the state to the governing counsel. What are they trying to achieve with the attacks? Are they trying to get the United States to stay? I think not.

Clearly they are trying to show that democracy and secular self government cannot and will not work in the country and the region. Why isn't the world more outraged by this? Why isn't the UN helping? Why isn't the world standing up together to fight this menace? Is it spite for the US? Spite for Bush? Aren't we doing exactly what the world wants by trying to step away from Iraq?

And how freaking incompetent is our intelligence? Ok, I'm willing to give a pass on pre-9/11 to Clinton, Bush, the CIA, everyone. But it's been three years since then and we seem to have no more good information that prior to 9/11 on how Queda operates or where they're leaders will be. This headline tells it all: Falluja Strike Almost Kills Zarqawi. Are you kidding me? That's like: I almost got pregant. Who gives a shit, almost. Since when is almost worth anything in war. Almost is for losers. I cannot imagine losing this war. I cannot fathom it, really. But I fear we might for a couple of reasons...

1) The Bush admin and our intelligence communities incompetence. I think Bush has the right idea - taking the fight to terror and not just the simple organ of Al Queda, but the states that create the opportunity and cover for terror to thrive. But the poor diplomacy and poor what I will call "smart fighting" is a nightmare. We can win in big battles and take over Iraq and Afghanistan without too much effort. That is impressive. But I'd be more impressed if we caught or killed Bin Laden or Zarqawi. There has to be a way to get Bin Laden. Somewhere, somehow, in his chain of command, there is a weak link, and we need to find it, nudge it, exploit it and find him at any and all cost. FDR understood the importance of hitting the Japanese back hard and fast in the Doolittle raid. We've hit back, but nothing as symbolically large as the 9/11 attack yet. The only thing we can do as symbolically large is to get Bin Laden. We get Bin Laden and we deal a huge blow to Queda and terrorist everyone. (Look at what killing the Blind Sheik did for Israel and Hamas. Have they attacked recently?)

2) The second reason is the attitude of far left. Anyone who would rather see Bush be out of office than Osama Bin Laden caught or killed worries me.
I can't articulate this position any better than James Lileks, so I'm just pasting his words:

I mean, I’m reading “The Connnection” by Stephen Hayes, the book that spells out all the information and intel about Saddam and Al-Qaeda. I’m old enough to remember when this was conventional wisdom. Why, I even remember back to the end of 2001, when the general mood seemed to favor bold action to forestall future catastrophe. If we hadn’t deposed Saddam, and Bush had won a second term, and there had been a terrorist attack in 05, this book would be the Democrat’s brief for impeachment. BUSH KNEW and did nothing.

And it’s not going to get better. I don’t think the next attack will bring us together like 9/11. Last time a small portion of the nation went straight to blaming us for enflaming poor Mo Atta and his motley crew; the last three years have seen that poison spread and flourish, and blaming America for the ravings of medieval theocrats is now a legitimate argument in polite society. I’d almost venture to say that a third of the country would conclude that a radiological device exploded in Manhattan would be Bush’s fault, because he made the “evil doers” (roll eyes) super-extra-fancy-grade-AA mad.

For the last few weeks I’ve had this gnawing belief that bin Laden got lucky by attacking during Bush’s term. Conventional wisdom says the opposite, because Bush fought back. But he’s the enemy now. I ask my Democrat friends what they’d rather see happen – Bush reelected and bin Laden caught, or Bush defeated and bin Laden still in the wind. They’re all honest: they’d rather see Bush defeated. (They’re quick to insist that they’d want Kerry to get bin Laden ASAP. Although the details are sketchy.) Of course this doesn't mean they're unpatriotic, etc., obligatory disclaimers, et cetera. But let's be honest. People are coming up with websites that demonstrate ingenious technology for spraying anti-Bush slogans on the sidewalks; it would be nice if they sprayed "DEFEAT TERRORISM" or "STOP AL QAEDA" now and then. Wouldn't it?

Is that too much to ask?

Perhaps this is why I haven’t written much about the subject lately with the usual chest-thumping brio: I think it’s going to have to get much worse before we get clarity. Most days I just don’t know what to say anymore. There are fiends out there chopping off the heads of Americans for their god, and we have cartoonists who think it’s the height of insight to show the Neocon cabal as port-swilling fat men bothered by baggy pants on insolent teens.

I understand the desire to whistle when passing the graveyard; it’s human nature. I don’t understand climbing down into the hole, crossing your arms on your chest, feeling the first few warm clumps of dirt on your face, and puckering your lips for the first few bars of “Happy Days Are Here Again.”

Or "Le Marseillaise."
------------------
He writes good.

Oh and Also: The news media concerns me. We were hoping some Iraqi leaders would step forward out of the morass left by the Baath party. The most headlines to Iraqi leaders, however, have been for Zarqawi and for Sadr, not exactly what we were hoping for. Chalabi, the neocon's guy, got caught spying for Iran, so that was a bust.

But then there's this, maybe Allawi will step up and fight Zar and Sadr, leading Iraqi's towards the type of self-government they deserve. As you can see, my mood changes drastically on this sitution, even within a post.