how much more good news can we take?

Today, the Pentagon announced that American troops had killed Abu Qaswarah, the No. 2 leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, in a raid in Mosul. U.S. military officials hailed the death of Qaswarah, also known as Abu Sara, as “a major disruption to the terror network, particularly in northern Iraq,” according to the AP.

However, this is at least the third time that U.S. officials have announced the capture/killing of a “No. 2″ leader of al Qaeda in Iraq in the past few years. On each occasion — including when they killed the No. 1 leader — they similarly hailed it as a major victory:

Sept. 2005: U.S. and Iraqi officials announce that they killed al Qaeda in Iraq’s No. 2 leader — Abdallah Najim Abdallah Mohammed al-Juwari, known as Abu Azzam. A spokesman for Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said that Azzam’s death was a “painful blow” to al Qaeda.

June 2006: U.S. and Iraqi officials announce that they have killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the No. 1 leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. President Bush called his death a “severe blow” to the terrorist group.

Sept. 2006: Iraqi authorities capture Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, al Qaeda in Iraq’s No. 2 leader. Iraqi national security adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said that the arrest left the terrorist organization suffering a “serious leadership crisis.” “Our troops have dealt fatal and painful blows to this organization,” he added.

Al Qaeda continues to remain resilient in the face of these attacks from the U.S. military, who are trying to undo a situation created by Bush’s invasion. No matter how many times troops kill top leaders, new ones emerge, because the insurgency continues to be, in part, fueled by the U.S. occupation. As counterterrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann said in 2005, “If I had a nickel for every No. 2 and Nov. 3 they’ve arrested or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’d be a millionaire.” (Think Progress, "For at least the Third Time, Officials Take down a 'No. 2' leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq," 15 October 2008)

it is victory in America!...

...or something. Never mind that the Iraqi political process is creaking to a halt. Never mind that Awakening Councils are not going to be happy that al-Maliki's government has assumed control of Anbar. Gen. Petraeus is worried about the continued existence of al-Qaeda there.

• Al Qaeda remains a dangerous force in Iraq despite a general decline in violence and U.S. troops must continue to confront the militant group, the outgoing top U.S. general in the country said. General David Petraeus told al Arabiya television he believed recent success in reducing violence had restored the United States' image with Iraqis. Troops initially greeted as liberators but later viewed as occupiers were now again accepted as friends. In the interview recorded on Monday and scheduled for broadcast later on Friday, Petraeus was asked whether al Qaeda had been defeated in Iraq. "You will not find any military leader who will say this ... all we can say is al Qaeda is still dangerous," he said. Petraeus' comments were translated into English from an Arabic transcript of the interview sent to Reuters. "It is certain more of these crimes will be committed, and we must continue working to confront these attacks," he said.(from Democracy Arsenal, originally story, from "Qaeda undefeated in Iraq, work to be done -Petraeus," 05 Sep 2008,
  Reuters, By Mohammed Abbas and Waleed Ibrahim)

just in case we all forgot

(I guess it isn't vacation time, and time for loony attack ads in that part of the globe.) Thanks and a tip of the hat to Mr. Linkins and the Washington Independent.

• Here's another one for your Stuff You'll Be Surprised No One's Talking About file, a story from the Washington Independent, "Taliban, al Qaeda Unchecked in Pakistan." Note the word Taliban! That's right people, they are getting the band back together!
• Here's the mothereffing lede!

• Al Qaeda and the Taliban are executing suspected U.S. informants in Pakistan in a campaign to terrorize potential spies and reinforce the authority of the militant organizations across the country's vast and volatile tribal belt.

• I mean: wow. If I had Robert Gates across the room from me, this is the sort of KABOOM I'd lay on the man, if i were a reporter!
• Here's a pull that Spencer Ackerman highlighted in his tout of this piece:

• CIA operatives are shackled by a Pakistan restriction requiring them to work under its ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence - the largest intelligence organization in Pakistan] directorate, according to Keller and other former agents. CIA and ISI relations have been marred by mutual distrust in recent years. U.S. intelligence is particularly concerned that ISI elements are sympathetic to the Taliban -- if not Al Qaeda.

• Brother, there is your state sponsorship of al Qaeda Nation, right there! I mean to tell you people, there are few predictions that I am willing to make in this life. I'm not a betting man by nature. But if we are ever so lucky to get some sort of final analysis done on our post 9/11 partnership with Pakistan, it is going to come out that the ISI was, at all times, LOUSY with not just al Qaeda sympathizers, but with de facto agents of al Qaeda as well. (Jason Linkins, HuffPost Reporting From DC, "TV SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads," August 17, 2008)
  

"enemies with benefits"

thanx and a tip of the helmet to Washington Independent for pointing to Army of Dude for the following (the full article is worth visiting):

• Don't tell the pathetic non-serving members of the old media (and new media), but the surge wasn't wholly responsible for the drop in violence seen in Iraq over the last year. I have outlined the three main reasons violence has subsided, but one of the more important aspects is still largely misunderstood and mischaracterized by the punditry across the country.
• The 'awakening group' movement first appeared in Anbar in late 2005 (or if you're John McCain, it started in a time warp before and after the surge) and has since grown to a large, lethal force that battles elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq. That is usually where the media narrative leaves you, insinuating that these groups are patriotic volunteers casting out the demons of al-Qaeda. What they don't mention is both the original motivations for these groups and their history of battling American soldiers. One of the latest to operate (and propped up by my unit in Diyala Province) is the 1920 Revolution Brigade. I covered their nationalist history a year ago, citing their name was a throwback to the 1920 revolution to oust British influence. So this group in particular didn't start in 2005, 2006 or even 2007, but in 2003 for one reason: to attack and kill Americans. (Army of Dude: Reporting On Truth, Justice And The American Way Of War, Sunday, July 27, 2008, "Enemies With Benefits")