|
But's that what he does.
I'm not saying the letter is real, but let's not assume Ledeen's spot-on accurate because we want to say the letter is false. Zarqawi wasn't writing for Ledeen, the US, or DU. He was writing for the people he led, whatever you take that to mean. It's possible for Ledeen to be wrong *and* for the letter to be fake.
Zarq-dude was arguably in charge of part of the resistance; grant me that, for argument's sake. A big point with everybody is that killing him, indeed wiping out his entire organization, would have a non-spectacular effect on the insurgency? One could argue that some spectacular or strategic attacks are his, but not the majority. Maybe it'll affect the course of the occupation, but maybe not.
Ask yourself this: Would Zarqawi be complaining that he has to do things that he has no control over? I.e., does 'resistance' mean SCIRI's group? Ba'athist groups? Naw. Not the way to bet. He's talking about his folk. You know, that percentage that everybody downplays.
Since he's most likely talking about that small portion of the resistance, there are ways in which Ledeen's comment on assaults/casaulties may well be a non-sequitur: assaults are down, the letter says; no, no, Ledeen replies, the number of assaults and casualties are up. (1) The number of AQ-related assaults may be down, and the number of casualties may indeed still rise with increasing lethality, but we only really count casulaties here; (2) the overall number of AQ assaults may be down, but the number of successful AQ assaults may have increased; (3) the number of AQ assaults may be down, but the number of assaults by the other resistance groups may still be up. We simply can't tell from the information: his statements may be true, they may be false.
And that's ignoring the very possibility that the document predates the May blitz, and the upturn Ledeen discusses is a consequence of the letter. If that's the case, this turns from a problem to a feature.
Countries supporting the occupation? Are they using the same language? I seem to recall a few diplomatic folk from an Arab country being killed, with an AQ announcement saying it was because their country "supported the occupation". Those from another counter were kidnapped and released for their country's 'support'. The Islamists' saying mere relations were "support" was certainly an extreme view; but there it was. No troops; no money; no PR. Just having diplomatic relations ... it's very much 'if you're not with us, you're with them' thinking. Do we have the same usage here? Yes, no, maybe? Have you been keeping track of who has diplomatic relations with Iraq? Positive statements from the OIC or other countries about the Iraqi government? Anybody ready to say that Ledeen's right, using not what Ledeen wants the word to mean, but what may be Zarqawi's meaning of the word? I'm not. I have no idea. His points may be verifiable, but he doesn't even bother the attempt, and he's crucially pitching right into gaps from what I recall from the MSM and blogs.
And so it goes. Ledeen wants the letter to be false because if it's there, then there's an opportunity to embarrass the * administration into backing off from confrontation with Iran. Ledeen wants confrontation with Iran. That's stupid reasoning.
Some DUers disagree with the idea of confrontation with Iran. So Ledeen's quibbles presumably must be false. Indeed, they're indeterminate, as far as I know. There may be evidence showing that diplomatic support's dropped, that the letter was dated late last week, and that specifically AQ attacks actually increased, etc. Haven't seen it. Ledeen's claims aren't evidence.
Others disagree strongly with the claims that AQ, and in some funny logic, by extension the entire resistance, is struggling. So they want Ledeen's claims to be true, because then there's no evidence that AQ (or the resistance, whichever) is faltering. But Ledeen's claims are still indeterminate.
I read this letter, and knew that both dems and repubs would be split internally over this letter--some would want it to be false, some true, depending whether Iran or the insurgency ranked higher. What they believe it means depends on what they want to believe.
Anybody have some actual evidence the letter's fake, something linking to a person who's claiming an observation? Some conclusion that's deducible from a set of observations or generally agreed upon facts? Or, more importantly, does anybody have evidence that it's not fake, since the default assumption is that it isn't, IMHO?
Anybody? Anything?
|