Now that we are killing more Al Qaeda (as witnessed by our own press releases), doesn't it stand to reason that there are more Al Qaeda in Iraq than there were before the war? Way to go Bushies. If you believe our press.

War is such a sloppy undertaking.

It's not that our infantry and Marines are trying to participate in "wholesale slaughter" as one breathless Salonian wrote at Joan Welsh's blog. It's that for the most part, the Iraq war takes place in densely populated places. Ordinance doesn't stop killing and maiming once it passes the intended target. Most of our vehicle-mounted firepower goes right through cinder block and mud brick like a hot knife through butter. Civilian homes are the backstop in this shooting gallery.

An Iraqi family sitting down to dinner a kilometer away from a firefight could suddenly be visited by a burst of 20mm depleted uranium rounds coming right through their wall and splattering them all over the room.

Nobody wants to talk about these casualties. Not the Iraqi provisional government (such as it is) nor the American military. It's the by-product of war. Collateral Damage. But the temptation is almost irresistible not to count these deaths as enemy.

Nobody meant it to happen. But when a firefight starts, a massive amount of ordinance is expended in the direction of attack. Our soldiers are not monsters, but they are human. The first reaction to being shot at is to shoot back fast and with everything you've got.

Best solution: Bring our troops out of Iraq. Elect leaders who think of war as a failure of diplomacy and the very last resort of self-defense, rather than an oil-grab and a means for a very sad, fucked-up little boy to try to please his mommy and daddy and build a legacy for himself.

Glenn,

You know this is nothing new for the administration. They have been engaged in blurring these lines from the very beginning, and the press has failed to catch them on this ‘transcendence of rigor’, also from the very beginning. Thanks for pointing it out, but the public has likely been rendered pretty much punch drunk on this business. Either that, or they just don’t pay any attention any more, having accepted by now that it's all lies, and are stoically waiting for the chance to dismiss Bush et al in 2008. One can only hope.

When the military itself starts mislabelling the enemy for propaganda purposes--an enemy in a guerrila war, whom we can't possibly defeat if we don't understand them--that is not just an instance of the tail wagging the dog. It's proof positive that we've given up on winning the war.

That's the good news, I guess: at some level they've realized the war can't be won. So now it's exactly like Vietnam. Getting poor kids killed so that rich men can "save face."

It used to be that the standard media scare phrase used to describe such fighters or groups was "with ties to al-Qaida", something that sounded nicely ominous, but was so vague that you could have just as easily said "with ties to Kevin Bacon" and not been much further off the mark. Apparently even that qualified phrase is not longer necessary for the volunteer army of Bush administration propagandists in the MSM. The ease with which people lie and deceive any more is truly frightening.

Scott Stoeffler

If Glenn is right, this is very significant and Salon owes it to America to get coverage beyond Salon readers. I suggest Salon send it to the New York Times, Washington Post, other major papers, the wires and TV media and ask them to reply to Salon confirming or refuting his position. Salon should run all replies and also list those who have not replied. Then, Glenn on his book tour can tell viewers/listeners the results. The media asked for a response should be given a short deadline and told that America will be told about those who do not meet the deadline. If more time is needed, the media should be required to ask for it so that can be noted in the listing. Of course the question should also be asked at the White House and DOD press briefings.

Secretary of Defense Gates should also be asked to reply. He seems to be a man of integrity something very rare in the Bush administration. This would verify or nullify that assumption.

How swiftly and seamlessly the message-du-jure shuttles between the Administration and their obedient media-minions. It seems to get more and more efficient. All the more reason to support the spirit and efforts GG represents. Thank you, Glenn. But how DO you keep from cursing these foul beings?

... when everyone we fight in Iraq is now Iranian.

particularly as we increase air strikes ... too bad we killed off Zackari.

There was a genuine boogie-man void in the marketing plan, what with our efforts to reach out to Sunni's and since, arch-nemesis, Moktada Al-Sadr has become a recognized player, despite out best efforts to demonize him.

Too bad it's a re-tread.

Holy crow, Glenn. Come to think of it, I HAD noticed that 'Qaeda' was being used to describe Iraqi fighets a lot recently. Didn't stop and think about it, though.

To amplify slightly but not insignificantly: since Odierno in your benchmark NYT citation ties our current exploits against the eternal enemy to the grand battle of Fallujah II, "anyone we fight" also means anyone we ever fought.

The moving finger writes, and having writ, -- every word of it is subject to re-write until just the one story remains.

I wish I could find the article I was reading online the other day that noted that even some of the Iraqi militias are starting to turn on the Al-Quaeda forces, essentially becuase the Al-Q's are such total dickheads to everyone.

I watched C-Span this morning for all of about five minutes. The reason I turned it off is because they introduced a military spokesman to speak to the capture of "al- Qaida" leaders in Iraq. The spokesman's first words out of his mouth was a flippant and patent lie about the military capturing or killing "al-Qaida" fighters in Iraq "everyday".

Couldn't tolerate being lied to like that and having this Bush liar, supposedly representing the military, being given a propaganda forum on C-Span.