Christopher Hitchens, on the nuttiness of people who cannot bring themselves to believe that we are fighting Al Qaeda. In Iraq.

The discussion on Christopher Hitchens' exploits on the slate boards is actually pretty interesting reading.

Eh, it's just the usual arguments that you'd expect attached to an article that takes a strong position (one way or another) on the Iraqi Invasion. Shill somewhere else.

One of the worst sides of current foreign policy is the philosophy that all of America's enemies are equivalent; and likewise that America is part of a coalition of equivalent allies. As Bush said, "you are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror." Even some are willing to acknowledge that, for example, Sunnis are different from Shiites, it is often only to brush away the distinction as irrelevant. "I get an A on this pop quiz in current events; now back to the with-us-or-against-us program."

As you might expect, this white-hat-black-hat mentality has served some to unite adversaries, and done nothing whatsoever to rally allies. And it is of a piece with both American arrogance and Christian belief. In Christianity there is only one God and only one Satan. God is THE coalition, Satan is THE axis of evil. Meanwhile if America is the most important monument of world history, then naturally whether you are for or against it is your defining political trait.

Christopher Hitchens could hardly be less Christian, but he does lately cater to both crowds. He huffs and scoffs at the "myth" that Zarqawi's group, which he renamed from Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Group of Monotheism and the Holy Struggle) to Tanzim Qaidat Al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers) is organizationally separate from Al Qaeda. But he doesn't provide any real evidence of a structural connection. He claims speciously that Zarqawi asked for "permission" from Al Qaeda for the name change; but no real permission was ever needed. And he said that Zawahiri has sent advice to Zarqawi; but that is also fatuous evidence, since al Qaeda has issued advice to all kinds of parties, including to the White House.

The important point is that Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq don't share money and don't share a command structure. They have no more in common than Java and Javascript. Adding a period to make either part look the same is inane. Even if you called it "Java. Script.", it still wouldn't be Java.

Meanwhile, back in the real Iraq, there is plenty for the US to fight against, but nothing for it to fight for. The Iraqi government is full of Islamists who hate the American way of life, even though they may humor America for opportunistic reasons. Last week Prime Minister Maliki laid flowers at the grave of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Since this site often likens the war in Iraq to World War II, one fundamental difference is that Churchill wasn't a Nazi.

No-Name, you sound the the guy who argues it wasn't Homer who wrote the Iliad, but another guy of the same name. Did you even read Hitchen's piece? Rather than try to argue how many Al Qaedas can dance on the head of a pin, perhaps you should read what Zawahiri says about it. Zawahiri seems quite convinced that his Al Qaeda is the one in Iraq, and he is in a position to know. You, on the other hand say: "The important point is that Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq don't share money and don't share a command structure." Unless you're doing their time cards, you don't have the slightest clue of that. Perhaps that's true in general.

I mean really, why wouldn't Zawahiri try to claim the credit, especially when he is holed up in a cave somewhere?

Wasn't Bush responsible for the stock market hitting a new high of 14,000 recently. Come on, take credit when available.

The best thing we could do for the Iraqis is partition the country. Clearly Anbar is one step in that direction. Now Petraues should make nice with Moqtadr. How much worse is he than the Sunni militants?

I think there are two issues: first, Al Queda is an irregular terrorist organization. To a certain extent, joining Al Queda can be accomplished as easily as saying "I agree with them" and trying to acomplish their goals. Others want to draw a line somewhere, and say that in order to have joined Al Queda, you must agree with them and also have spoken to Osama Bin Laden. Others say that you must be drawing a paycheck - which is silly, of course, for an (at least partially) volunteer organization.

The second issue is the appropriate response to someone that says they are Al Queda, and espouses their ideals. That is a point of contention between liberals and conservatives, but it can at least be discussed.

Who cares about the etimology of Al Queda in Iraq? It exists, it is a terrorist organization that is bent on the destruction of the US way of life. Kill it. That simple.

AQI acts like AQ.
AQI sounds like AQ.
AQI claims to be part of AQ.
AQ claims AQI to be part of AQ.

Mr. Summers put it perfectly above:

"Who cares about the etimology of Al Queda in Iraq? It exists, it is a terrorist organization that is bent on the destruction of the US way of life. Kill it. That simple."

Yes, Mr. No Name is a perfect example of the kind of ideologically-driven irrationality that Hitchens was describing. If it walk like Al Qaeda, looks like Al Qaeda, quacks like Al Qaeda, it's Al Qaeda.

In other news, we may be on the verge of selling Saudi Arabia JDAM technology that could be used against Israel:

Senior defense officials praised the decision to increase military aid but said that the JDAM sale to Saudi Arabia was still enough to destabilize the strategic military balance in the Middle East. The advanced weapon, these officials said, would grant Saudi Arabia the capability to accurately fire missiles at strategic sites and installations in southern Israel.

"We do not have a way to defend ourselves against this weapon," a senior Defense Ministry official said, warning that the Saudi regime could be toppled and the advanced American weaponry fall into the hands of Islamic extremists.

In other news, we may be on the verge of selling Saudi Arabia JDAM technology that could be used against Israel:

Senior defense officials praised the decision to increase military aid but said that the JDAM sale to Saudi Arabia was still enough to destabilize the strategic military balance in the Middle East. The advanced weapon, these officials said, would grant Saudi Arabia the capability to accurately fire missiles at strategic sites and installations in southern Israel.

"We do not have a way to defend ourselves against this weapon," a senior Defense Ministry official said, warning that the Saudi regime could be toppled and the advanced American weaponry fall into the hands of Islamic extremists.

BW: "In other news,"

Or in other words: "can we change the subject since my party has no leg to stand on in the current discussion".

To a certain extent, joining Al Queda can be accomplished as easily as saying "I agree with them" and trying to acomplish their goals.

So you're saying that many of those in the "AQ insurgency" aren't so much fighting for an organisation as an ideal?

The second issue is the appropriate response to someone that says they are Al Queda, and espouses their ideals. That is a point of contention between liberals and conservatives, but it can at least be discussed.

That depends who we are at war with. If we're at war with Iraq then they are illegal combatants. If we're at war with "Terror", being "Terrorists" (which are AFAIK the army of Terror) they are now entitled to the protections afforded them by the Geneva convention.

If we're at war with "Terror", being "Terrorists" (which are AFAIK the army of Terror) they are now entitled to the protections afforded them by the Geneva convention.

I don't think that's correct. We will afford them the Convention rights, because that's the way we operate. They don't automatically get assigned those rights for being an army, because they are not an army as envisioned by Convention rules.

Haha. Very funny Adrasteia. The sovereign nation of Terror. Haha.