A Grim Anniversary

Seven years later, Al Qaeda still lives—and its new host is a nuclear-weapons state.

Michael Hirsh

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Updated: 12:44 PM ET Sep 11, 2008

Let's take stock: How well have we done against Al Qaeda?

Here's one measure. Seven years ago today, on September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman Zawahiri—two men who have dedicated their lives to killing as many Americans as they can—were living in Afghanistan. Their hosts, the Taliban, possessed only primitive weapons and rode around in Toyota pickup trucks.

Today, bin Laden and Zawahiri are almost certainly living in Pakistan. Their hosts, the Pakistanis, have an arsenal of nuclear bombs and missiles with which to fire them. And the Pakistanis, including many in the military and ISI  (its intel service) are becoming more anti-American as the Bush administration embraces their mortal enemy, India, with a technology-rich new strategic partnership. Under this deal, Washington will forgive India's decision to go nuclear and not even require that it abandon nuclear testing. And we will inadvertently send a message to every other major would-be nuclear power in the world (like Iran): You too can rejoin the international community if you wait long enough! So keep at it.

After 9/11, Democrats and Republicans alike agreed that the nation's No. 1 strategic challenge was to prevent Al Qaeda suicidists from getting hold of a nuclear bomb. Now the Al Qaeda suicidists live closer to a bomb. And our policies are creating enough angry Pakistanis to increase the likelihood that Al Qaeda-linked groups will gain access to the knowhow, material and technology that could deliver to our shores, some years hence, our worst national nightmare—far worse than anything we saw on September 11.

Why, you might ask, are we doing this India deal at a time when Pakistan has become so dangerous and unstable? When its fragile civilian government and military are at loggerheads ...

We know Iraq has been the scene of several wars in recent years. But it seems increasingly clear that it has been a set of dirty wars.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that Ali al-Lami, an Iraqi politician, protege of Ahmad Chalabi,and member of the Debaathification Committee,is being charged by a high unnamed American official with providing information on Iraqis to the "special groups" (Iranian-run cells within Iraqi Shiite militias like the Mahdi Army), which was useful to them in assassinating these individuals.

Now that is "debaathification" with extreme prejudice!

The official said al-Lami made regular trips to Iran, Lebanon and Russia (?!) in support of the aims of Iranian intelligence.

So what is being alleged is essentially that the United States (Rumsfeld & Paul Bremer) installed on the Debaathification Commission a secret agent of Iran who was running Iran-backed death squads based on the information to which he became privy by virtue of being on the commission! The same article carries allegations by Ahmad Chalabi that the car used in the attempted assassination against him last week came from an Iraqi government ministry.

This isn't a government,it is a mafia movie: The Godfather IV!

So you've been having Iran-backed assassination teams running all over the place killing Sunnis and helping ethnically cleanse them so Iran can nail down Baghad as a Shiite city, extending the region of Shiite dominance in Iraq west and north. And they have been working out of government ministries and agencies!

Of course we knew about the Sunni Arab death squads, which the US calls "al-Qaeda" if they are anti-American and "Sons of Iraq" if they take our money.

Now for yet another set of death squads. It is increasingly clear from press reporting, and from Bob Woodward's new book, that the Surge was not just 30,000 extra troops building blast walls.

The Surge was a dirty war. It was a vast effort at identifying, finding and assassinating the leaders of the Sunni Arab resist...

By Mohammed Abbas and Waleed Ibrahim

BAGHDAD, Sept 5 (Reuters) - Al Qaeda remains a dangerous force in Iraq despite a general decline in violence and U.S. troops must continue to confront the militant group, the outgoing top U.S. general in the country said.

General David Petraeus told al Arabiya television he believed recent success in reducing violence had restored the United States' image with Iraqis. Troops initially greeted as liberators but later viewed as occupiers were now again accepted as friends. In the interview recorded on Monday and scheduled for broadcast later on Friday, Petraeus was asked whether al Qaeda had been defeated in Iraq.

"You will not find any military leader who will say this ... all we can say is al Qaeda is still dangerous," he said.

Petraeus' comments were translated into English from an Arabic transcript of the interview sent to Reuters.

"It is certain more of these crimes will be committed, and we must continue working to confront these attacks," he said.

Petraeus and his former deputy and designated successor Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno are together credited with implementing a military strategy that helped reduce violence in Iraq, which slid towards sectarian civil war after the bombing of a revered mosque in early 2006.

Pentagon sources said this week that Petraeus had recommended the United States move slowly to draw down troops in Iraq, removing one combat brigade early next year.

A combat brigade consists of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.

"There are many missions that have not been achieved ... Any person who replaces me and who is honest with himself must admit these facts," Petraeus said.

FOUR-YEAR LOWS

Violence in Iraq has fallen to four-year lows, and the future of the more than 140,000 U.S. troops in the country is a key issue of November's U.S. presidential elections.

A U.N. mandate for the U.S. military presence in Iraq ex...

Baghdad's misguided crackdown on the Sons of Iraq

Prime Minister Maliki's Shiite-dominated government risks security gains by taking on U.S.-backed Sunni forces.

By Shawn Brimley and Colin Kahl
August 26, 2008

» Discuss Article    (4 Comments)

Much of Iraq's dramatic security progress can be traced to a series of decisions made by Sunni tribal leaders in late 2006 to turn against Al Qaeda in Iraq and cooperate with American forces in Anbar province. These leaders, outraged by Al Qaeda's brutality against their people, approached the U.S. military with an offer it couldn't refuse: Enter into an alliance with the tribes, and they would turn their weapons against Al Qaeda rather than American troops.

Throughout 2007, U.S. commanders capitalized on this Sunni movement, the so-called Awakening, to create an expanding network of alliances with Sunni tribes and former insurgents that helped turn the tide and drive Al Qaeda in Iraq to near extinction. There are now about 100,000 armed Sons of Iraq, each paid $300 a month by U.S. forces to provide security in local neighborhoods throughout the country. In recognition of the key role the Awakening played in security improvements, President Bush met with several Sunni tribal leaders during his trip to Anbar ...

By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD — Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki said Monday there would be no security agreement between the United States and Iraq without an unconditional timetable for withdrawal — a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which insists that the timing for troop departure would be based on conditions on the ground.

"No pact or an agreement should be set without being based on full sovereignty, national common interests, and no foreign soldier should remain on Iraqi land, and there should be a specific deadline and it should not be open," Maliki told a meeting of tribal Sheikhs in Baghdad.

Maliki said that the United States and Iraq had agreed that all foreign troops would be off Iraqi soil by the end of 2011. "There is an agreement actually reached, reached between the two parties on a fixed date, which is the end of 2011, to end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil," Maliki said.

But the White House disputed Maliki's statement and made clear the two countries are still at odds over the terms of a U.S. withdrawal.

"Any decisions on troops will be based on conditions on the ground in Iraq," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in Crawford, Tex., where President Bush is vacationing. "That has always been our position. It continues to be our position."

Fratto denied Maliki's assertion that an agreement has been reached mandating that all foreign forces be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

"An agreement has not been signed," he said. "There is no agreement until there's an agreement signed. There are discussions that continue in Baghdad."

Maliki also said the dispute has not been resolved over immunity for U.S. troops and contractors when they are off their bases. He said this was one of the most divisive issues under negotiation.

"We can't neglect our sons by giving a...