Iraqis say they have al-Zarqawi battle plan
Al-Qaeda 'treasure' reveals plan to start war between United States and Iran
PAUL KORING

Friday’s Globe and Mail

-----

It just doesn’t make a lot of sense? See the article I posted in my dairy From Atlantic Monthly

It’s a very detailed article about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It claims Zarqawi was only a symbol–that he never was the leader of al-Queda in Iraq. His goal was to unseat the monarchy in Jordan. Zarqawi and Bin Laden didn’t get along with each other from their first meeting.

The last paragraph is particularly salient:

“Zarqawi had the ambition to become what he has, but whatever happens, even if he becomes the most popular figure in Iraq, he can never go against the symbolism that bin Laden represents. If Zarqawi is captured or killed tomorrow, the Iraqi insurgency will go on. There is no such thing as ‘Zarqawism.’ What Zarqawi is will die with him. Bin Laden, on the other hand, is an ideological thinker. He created the concept of al-Qaeda and all of its offshoots. He feels he’s achieved his goal.” He paused for a moment, then said, “Osama bin Laden is like Karl Marx. Both created an ideology. Marxism still flourished well after Marx’s death. And whether bin Laden is killed, or simply dies of natural causes, al-Qaedaism will survive him.””

The people who get their news from the "Fair and Balanced" did not have a cue and more people will die because of the house of cards and lies. -VZ

decide to start using perfect english these days? And no praise Allah to be found.

As I read the article, it sounds like the document was found before the raid on a computer somewhere:

We can verify that this information did come off some kind of computer asset that was at a safe location," he said. "This was prior to the al-Zarqawi safe house."

It sounds to me like there are two major possiblities here - it's propaganda, probably put together by CJTF-7 as part of their IO on Zarqawi, or it's real (god forbid, it could be a mixture of both - my little brain isn't up to that this morning). I particularly love how there's a little in here for everyone, depending on their perspective:

Me, I lean towards the notion that this is an IO document; in my world that would mean that the Iran element is something that's intended primarily for an Iranian audience, so that they'll think twice about the logistic support they may be providing to elements of the insurgency - this is I think a smart move and very much in line with a lot of the other IO stuff that was pulled involving Zarqawi (remember that doc supposedly from Zawahiri to Zarqawi that some folks thought sounded awfully western in its outlook, notably the pretty sharp Pat Lang). All of this stuff seems designed to strip off support from the core Sunni wingnuts and come to a negotiated settlement with the mainline Sunnis, which beats the hell out of continuing fruitlessly to kill them without any end or objective in sight. If it's actually real, in my world this is blowback against the Iranians - as I mentioned earlier a number of times, I figured any support offered to the Zarqawis of the world (and clearly they gave at least a small amount and may have given much more) would come back and bite them in the ass.

In Juan Cole's view it would seem that the document is accepted as genuine and a indicator that the notion that the Iranians are providing support is insane. This may be correct, but my worldview argues against it. I don't know what he's going to say if it proves out to be false. I suspect that most folks'll just take it as another indication that something's fishy in what the government has to say on Iraq and leave it at that.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

our government never said that false stories could not be foisted on the American public or the Iraqi population. Until they say that it is wrong and that they will stop it will be impossible to ever take them at their word.