I think Glenn is right that this is useful propaganda for Bush, but there is also a more complex reality underneath these headlines. The claims that we are killing al Qaida are not entirely spurious.

The US Army is now cooperating with the 1920 Revolution Brigade, to the extent of fighting alongside them with helicopters overhead giving support. The 1920 Revolution Brigade is a major part of the Sunni insurgency, named after the revolution that threw the British out. Their ultimate goal is to throw out the Americans, but in the short term they've decided to cast out the al Qaida elements they used to collaborate with, and the US Army has decided to help them. This is a short-term alliance of debatable (and debated) wisdom, and the Army presumably realizes that as soon as al Qaida is knocked down our new allies in the insurgency will go back to shooting at us. In the meantime, they are enjoying newfound intelligence that lets them act more effectively against al Qaida, and Bush is enjoying the propaganda windfall of killing someone in Iraq who is one degree closer to bin Laden than Kevin Bacon.

What? Ignore the civil war, and it will go away!

"Here's a different idea about that....

Perhaps you should consider the idea that labeling those killed Al-Qaeda serves the purpose of not being at war with all of Iraq.

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

That's a legitimate question except that you're off on a tangent in a couple of places.

1) AlQaida is Sunni. Thus, if we were to ally with the Sunni faction (after invading and basically destroying their political organization) we would be allying with those who we allegedly invaded to overthrow. It would also mean that we're taking sides in a civil war and that's a good way to really bollock things up (as if we haven't already done that).

2) The other problem is that our press isn't supposed to be a propaganda arm of the government. If the government were to announce that sugar no longer causes cavities, would you expect the press to pass that along with no question regarding its legitimacy?

If not, why would you expect the press to pass along obviously incorrect descriptions of what is going on in Iraq. I can understand the desire to NOT report anything at all if it will truly (and legitimately) pose a danger to our troops, but this type of thing is a far cry from that.

In anycase, the press can paint this anyway they want and they'll still not be able to make a silk purse from this sow's ear.

In today's Times article, Gordon cites a military spokesman comparing the flight of al Qaeda from Baquba with "the escape of Qaeda leaders from Falluja ahead of an American offensive that recaptured that city in 2004."

Funny, that.... In an April 2004 article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/09/international/middleeast/09FALL.html?ex=1182744000&en=9ccd44786cd1aef1&ei=5070),a week after the four American "contractors" were killed, Gordon writes about all the reasons Fallujah is a hotbed of insurgent activity. Not once did he use the term al Qaeda.

Something else: An Agence France-Presse article (http://rempost.blogspot.com/2006/06/most-foreign-fighters-in-iraq-come.html) published almost exactly one year ago quotes Army spokesman Major General William Caldwell claiming al Qaeda "is very disorganised right now and very disrupted right now. The reason we were able to pick up and track some of the middle-level people is because their system is so disrupted and that has given us the opportunities to find them, track them and go get them."

So, last year al Qaeda was on its heels and now nearly every insurgent captured or killed is al Qaeda. Someone should ask Bush what happened in the past twelve months and why his policy in Iraq is breeding al Qaeda fighters.

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

Kinda reminds me of how it was a "good thing" to put goggles on Padilla when he was brought out of his cell so he couldn't "blink code" to his terrorist buddies. Similar logic.

Which people are we trying to "help" in Iraq now? I've gotten confused. And who are we fighting? And how do we tell the difference? For that matter, how do we tell when we've "won"?

But I can see how labeling all "bad guys" as Al Qaida does simplify matters. Guess those dang Iranian fighters we were hearing so much about are now Al Qaida as well -- clever fellows, pretending to be Sunnis. But you know them dark skinned middle easterners, tricky little bowl-beating savages.

Labeling all Iraqi deaths as enemy combatants is merely an attempt by the military to paint a pretty picture of itself for the public to gush over. It is just a matter of time before the next military version of General Curtis LeMay, comes out of the woodwork to announce that we are going to bomb these people back into the stone age. Unfortunately for the rest of us, this just might presage a desperation attempt by George Bush to salvage his entire Presidency and his already failed legacy. The people who have brought us to this point will not go quietly back into the night. The neocons and their supporters will not take the death of their philosophy and the repudiation of everything that they have stood for lightly. They are aware that bombing Iran will confound the possibility of withdrawal and will make an exit virtually impossible to achieve. So when you see George Bush speaking out about a new policy like Richard Nixon‘s “peace with honor” you can pretty much head for the exits and run for cover.

The only thing that can stop this from happening is the threat of criminal charges against the Executive, and a press willing to get off its dead ass and do some serious reporting for a change.