Here's to the confusion of our enemies.

Where the hell are the Iraqi guards? Are the Iraqis unable to distinguish foreigners with Saudi or Syrian accents? Something's fishy here and it ain't ice cream.

I second Mark's toast. Geez, they couldn't even bump off a few ambassadors simultaneously. We're a long way from 9/11, folks, and these yutzes definitely look like the second string.

Replacing top-tier folks with second and third stringers has serious consequences over time (Google "Marianas Turkey Shoot" sometime). I would imagine one of the assessments being used involves a sense of how many second stringers are making al-Qaeda less competent vs. how many quality first-stringers are being created (combat experience alone won;t do this).

Trent forwarded some interesting stuff the other day, too, noting that Muslim governments, who are NOT eager to welcome back another set like the Afghanistan jihadis of the 1990s, are starting to imprison returnees... this may also be part of the motivation behind the attacks on diplomats, as prison swaps are also a time-honoured al-Qaeda tactic.

See StrategyPage's Welcome Home, Your Jail Cell is Waiting

"But there are several differences this time around. In Afghanistan, most of the Afghans backed the Islamic militants that came to their aid. In Iraq, it's quite the opposite. Also, the chances of the Islamic militants surviving combat in Iraq are much lower than they were in Afghanistan. The most important difference is that, when these Islamic militants do come home, they are now often arrested. Governments saw what trouble makers the Afghan veterans were, and do not want to go through that again. So while the Americans are told, "we can't do anything," it is noted who is traveling to Syria, and when they return. Those who survive their jihad are hauled in for questioning, and often arrested for planning to overthrow the state. The Islamic terrorists have noted this trend, and many are going to Europe instead, where it is easier to operate underground."

And, apropos of your article yesterday about Saudi terrorists in Iraq...

"Islamic militancy has seized the imagination of a generation of Moslem men. Not all of them, but a significant minority. Millions of men, actually. Most are poorly educated and lack useful skills, but many are well educated and capable. Their belief in terrorism is grounded in religious faith. So their minds are hard to change. Based on historical experience with this sort of thing, the generation of Islamic terrorists will only be gone when it grows old and dies, or members are killed in action."

The level of coordination of these attacks and the apparent intelligence which allowed them to occur concerns me.

Were these attacks simply a matter of careless diplomats who allowed themselves to fall into a pattern (and therefore made the attacks "easy")?

Or does al queda have HUMINT in place inside the new Iraqi government which will support similar attacks in the future?

Fightin' Aggie:

I'd suggest the following:

1.) While possible (though highly unlikely) that AQ has any assistance from within the Iraqi gov't, the intel required to (successfully or unsuccessfully) pull of the latest spate need not come from within the halls of gov't. All that is needed for such actionable intel are a few sets of observant eyes on the ground noting patterns of behavior by targeted diplomats. Pretty easy.

2.) The only thing really coordinated about these attacks was the timing of each. It is readily apparent that the individual attacks tehmselves, while chronologically coordinated, were disorganized cluster*&%^s. The failure to achieve mission success when the tactical initiative and element of surprise is in your favor does not bode well for our jihadi friends. Look for a swift return to the old reliable IED/Car bomb and the choice of dath over abduction. They are more reliable than the operatives in place, apparently. It may come as a surprise to the vast majority of the media, but we are winning (decisively) the battle of attrition with al Qaida inside Iraq.

3.) With regards to the carelessness of diplomats, I would imagine that there is always room for more alertness on the part of diplo's and their security attachments. But, short of riding in an armored personel carrier to pick up the paper, there is neccessarily an element of risk involved. Remember, only one attempt was successful.

In short, don't let yourself get too riled up over these developments.

Look closely at the disorganization within the individual attacks rather than the chronological coordiation among them. The unpleasant reality (for al Qaida and the rest of the 'insurgency' supporters) lies here.

The media will miss that cold hard reality every time. You should not.

Aggie,

To add to USMC_Vet's comments, in one case a diplomat did not follow practice security. Read the entire article on the Bahraini diplomat's follies

Gunmen aboard a pickup truck opened fire on Hassan al-Ansari, the Bahraini charge d'affaires, while he was travelling in his car with diplomatic-license plates in the upscale Mansur district, an interior ministry source said.

and:

The Iraqi government's spokesman expressed surprise Sharif was traveling on Baghdad's perilous roads without much protection and said that his security may have been compromised by contacts he may have had with political groups with ties to insurgents.

Despite the stupidity of the diplomat, the 'gunmen' still couldn't complete their mission. al Qaeda certainly didn't send their best and brightest, or this is the best they had to offer.

...or...

The above referenced may have been nothing more than an improptu attack on a target of opportunity...unplanned, uncoordinated...and well advertised by the Diplomatic Plates. (Remember also that the Mansur District was home to Saddam's cronies once upon a time.)

THe Bahraini diplo may haev simply been like found money...except that the Jihadis who 'found the money' in the street promptly dropped it down a sewer drain.

That remains a possibility.

I agree that this is a great development in terms of causing things to swing in our favor.

Seeing how it has come on in such a flurry (or at least news about it has), I believe this strategy, if you can even call it that, was very much planned.

Gives you a pretty good indication of the kind of bozos who run al Qaida. Maybe we should keep bin Laden on the loose. After all, Napoleon said "never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake."

Bahrain has just made the number two man the ambassador.