They might just as soon call them al-Mousquateers. For over 50 years now, no national based insurgency has lost. There's a first time for everything but I don't think Iraq is going to be it.

Glenn Greenwald, in the update:

Interestingly, in addition to the one quoted above, there is another long article in the Post today, this one by the reliable Thomas Ricks, which extensively analyzes the objectives and shortcomings in our current military strategy. Ricks himself never once mentions Al Qaeda.

Ricks could get the COLD treatment:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003588819

Bureau Chief John Walcott and current and former McClatchy Pentagon correspondents say they have not been allowed on the Defense Secretary's plane for at least three years, claiming the news company is being retaliated against for its reporting.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called such assertions "absurd."

or the HOT treatment:

LAWRENCE KUDLOW: this guy says at a big conference in Davos that the U.S. military is deliberately targeting and assassinating American journalists. Huh? He still has a job, huh? You got a take on that?
ANN COULTER: Would that it were so!
- - Kudlow & Cramer, CNBC, February 7, 2005

One of our "problems" with having "won" the invasion and becoming an occupying force so quickly -- all those years ago -- is that we were then expected by international law to behave like an "occupying force" ... a burden the neocons never planned for and which we have managed ... well, you know.

Obviously this democratically elected monstrosity of a government isn't getting us anywere --but maybe if we declared "war" against al-Qaeda ... an old-fashioned honest-to-gosh WAR (with US and our pals the Sunnis and the Shiia standing up against evil-incarnate al-Qaeda) we might be able to gain operational latitude, iykwim. You know, sorta like the Jessica Lynch rescue story ....

I often imagine Cheney and ilk thinking wistfully back to the OLD DAYS, when our CIA-backed military strong men would formally ask our "help" in controlling their unruly domestic problems. It was so much simpler then ... when we had a strong man... If we only had a strong man we might be able to get out from under this "occupying force" yoke of obligation permanently ... let them clean up their own mess. Sigh, it WAS so much easier when we just had to deal with our "guy" .... Sigh, I guess some people just aren't ready for democracy ... (sarcasm)

Another six months of this non-stop campaign against al Qaida, then Bush will put on his jumpsuit and declare Iraq to be free of al Qaida. Conveniently ignoring the fact that they never really were there in the first place.

This tactic has a lot of potential - think of Iran, Venezuela, or evil blue states. Just bomb everything to bits to chase out al Qaida fighters. Since there are none there to begin with, victory will come whenever the president's poll numbers call for it. Kind of like a capital reserve.

Glenn, thanks for using this term, which I've long viewed as probably the most descriptively accurate way to call what most people (myself included, since it's easy to type) still call the MSM, or MainStream Media. There's nothing "mainstream" about dishonest, lazy and unethical reporting. Nor is it fair to call it the "traditional media", for the same reasons. Nor is it fair to call it the "corporate media", since there are a number of very ethical and reliable media outlets that are corporations (TPM, McLatchey, Ha'Aretz). And while it's fair to call it "big media" or "old media", somehow "establishment media" sounds most accurate and descriptive, because it essentially serves as a mouthpiece for and endorser of the political, economic, ideological, religious and military establishment, and not all of them are big (Drudge) or old (Politico).

Incidentally, a minor criticism, but I think it's fairer to call it "establishment media" than "establishment press", because the latter technically refers to printed media, whereas the former encompasses all media, past, present and future.

And yes, I've noticed the trend towards making Iraq seem like it's modern civilization (including "good", peace and America-loving Iraqis) vs. Al Qaida, but while it might have been ramped up lately, it's been a basic theme coming from the administration and its surrogates for quite some time now. In fact, from before the war even started--i.e. the fake Saddam-AQ links.

How would you propose allying with the Sunni if is trumpeted that the US just killed a bunch of Sunni? The same goes for the Shia. That is the whole of Iraq right there. Isn't trying to cause the least offense to the people we are trying to help a good thing?

-- shooter242

Bless yo' lil' heart, Shooter. Whatever makes you think that "we are trying to help"...in Iraq? Think the Roman Empire. They invaded Britain. Did the Romans do so because they wanted to "help" the people living in Briton at the time?

"Al Quaeda", "insurgents"....you name "them". The only thing all have in common is their desire to resist the American empire (a global empire) from taking over their country and exploiting its PRIZE (oil). Tearing stuff up, read shock and awe, then reconstructing it is big business. And our military serves at its pleasure.

The intentional incompetence of the Bush adminstration can be glimpsed in the misuse of the word "terrorist." By conflating true terrorists with anyone who fights with our fighting men and women, they have confused the issue in a way that is ultimately pernicious to us in unintended ways.

After all, by the definition of terrorist that the Bushes are using, George Washington was a terrorist! When words like "terrorist" are deliberately misused, it robs them of the power to define what a group like al Qaeda truly is.

For the record, the clearest definition of "terrorist" I've seen is one that refers to someone who deliberately targets civilians in order to affect political activity by that citizenry. Militants attacking US Army and USMC forces are not terrorists; Muslims flying airplanes into our buildings are. This definition has the added benefit of helping us understand how to deal with terrorism. Here's a hint: trying to ascertain "Why do they hate and attack us?" is not the right response.

So naturally the criminally incompetent Bush regime will seek to conflate al Qaeda with every single person opposing our fighting men. It's ugly and stupid and should be resisted whereever possible. Good work, Glenn.