What's the point? (Click image for video)
As the news media have almost endlessly repeated, yesterday there was a fairly sophisticated attack of three al Qaeda bombers in or near Firdos Square, Baghdad. This was the square where US Marines pulled down a statue of Saddam Hussein on April 9, 2003 (here and here and here).
Near the square is the Palestine Hotel, where before, during and after the war international journalists stayed in large numbers. It remains the hotel of choice for reporters who were imemdiately convinced that they themselves were the targets. The AP reported, "Baghdad hotel bombing targets journalists."Three massive vehicle bombs exploded Monday near the Palestine Hotel, home to many Western journalists, killing at least 20 people. Dramatic TV pictures showed one of the bombers driving a cement truck through the concrete blast walls that guard the hotel, then blowing up his vehicle.
Iraq’s national security adviser, Mouwafak al-Rubaie, said the attack – which appeared well-planned – was a ‘‘very clear’’ effort to take over the hotel and seize journalists as hostages.
One of the car bombs exploded near the police position on the northeast side of Firdous Square, where a statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled in April 2003 shortly after the fall of Baghdad, and more than 100 yards east of the hotel. Security officials said a third bomb struck the area around the same time. All three were believed to be suicide attacks.
Other Iraqi government officials contradicted Mr. al-Rubaie's assertion, though, for which he could offer no evidence.
There were three vehicles used in the attack, two cars (one of which blows up in the video) and a cement truck. Reports say that the other car was shot up by Iraqi police as it entered the square and blew up near a police post, killing four or five policemen. The first car reportedly blew a hole in the barrier wall between the square and the hotel's grounds. Following the first car was the cement truck. Reports say that it attempted to drive through the breach the car made but apparently couldn't make headway or was oriented in the wrong direction. It was seen to drive fore and aft a few times, then it blew up in a colossal explosion.
No one in the hotel was reported injured, though there was some light blast damage to part of the building.
Why would al Qaeda target journalists?
The question is begged as to whether the Palestine Hotel was actually the target. (There is also a Sheraton Hotel near the square.) There's nothing of military significance near there, nor any Iraqi government offices, so it seems likely that the hotel was the target. So why would Zarqawi (who claimed credit today) attack there?
Ed Strong quotes Patrick Cockburn's column that the hotel, "... is also used by contractors and is defended by a detachment of US troops. Both facts are enough to make it a target." True, but not a very good target. And if al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi didn't actually intend the reporters to be the targets, but the troops and contractors, then he made an unbelievable error in judgment in risking massive media casualties collaterally.
Some snarks have said that if any reporters had been injured in the bombings it would have been a case of "friendly fire." However much many of us consider the mainstream media's reportage from Iraq has ranged from incomplete at best to openly biased against the US at worst, al Qaeda does not think consider the media their fifth column nor even useful fools. In his July letter to Zarqawi, al Qaeda's number two man, Abu Muhammed al-Zawahiri wrote,... the general opinion of our supporter does not comprehend that [i.e., the justification for al Qaeda's actions], and that this general opinion falls under a campaign by the malicious, perfidious, and fallacious campaign by the deceptive and fabricated media.
Hence, wrote Zawahiri,
[W]e are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma.
Al Qaeda sees the media, especially the Western media, as their enemy. It may be (and we may never know) that they believed that by striking the Palestine Hotel and injuring or killing reporters they would accomplish a couple of things positive for their side.
One would have been to greatly reduce the number of Western media representatives in Iraq. Once reporters had deliberately been murdered by al Qaeda, there would may have been a strong exodus of reporters from the country. There may yet be a number of reporters who choose to leave because of the bombings. In al Qaeda's view, the news from Iraq is bad - bad for them. As I have explained a number of times before, al Qaeda, from bin Laden on down, see the Muslim ummah as their natural allies. If the corrupting influences of Western media are reduced or better yet, eliminated, then the ummah will no longer waver in support of the Islamist cause. Zawahiri admitted they are in a battle for hearts and minds, but he believes that the ummah's hearts and minds are his to lose. So while the intended target of violence may have been reporters, the intended audience was the Muslim masses, especially those of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria, three strongholds of al Qaeda support.
At the same time, Zarqawi may have thought (not unreasonably) that once they managed to kill reporters inside the reporters' own safe haven, reportage would have turned immediately and strongly against the US and Iraqi governments. Claims of "Iraq the quagmire" would have been promulgated even harder and media commentary would have lambasted the inability of the authorities to maintain security.
So the attack, has it succeeded in reaching the hotel itself, might have been seen by al Qaeda as a three-fer:
1. Announce to al Qaeda's supporters and the general ummah that al Qaeda can hit sensitive Western targets in Iraq and to symbolize to them that the Western media are inimical to Islamist interests.
2. Garner immediate and severe negative coverage of the Iraqi government and American military authorities.
3. Reduce the number of Western reporters in Iraq.
That's my take, anyway.
There is a better explanation why they attacked the Hotel. They told the media that they were going to attack there so that they'd have great coverage. This was obviously done to offset the impact of their failure to undermine the election.
There weren't many attacks during the election either. I'd guess that al Qaeda, as a paramilitary organization, has suffered some economic/structural damage as a result of the earthquake in Pakistan. If this is true, than al Qaeda may be more centralized than we thought. (Which is something that happens to any organization after time)
As a terrorist organization that targets local civilians and provides few services, al Qaeda is incapable of winning many hearts and minds, so they settle for inflicting terror. It's difficult to terrorize many Iraqis with one attack but it's very easy to terrorize the press. The avian flu has them peeing their pants, and the avian flu isn't even trying.
Al Qaeda/the insurgents may be working on a recently restricted budget, so they figured that this was the best bang for their buck. Of course, this is just a guess.
Hans, what better way to maximize casualties than that? It guarantees they'd be crowded around the windows, more exposed to the bombs, cameras rolling to video their own destruction.
According to American military officers interviewed Tuesday on cable news, including Lt. Col Gary Luck, the security commander of the area, had the cement-truck-borne bomb reached the hotel, the results would have been catastrophic for the building. Apparently, the only thing that prevented the cement truck from getting past the breach in the barrier was concertina wire that wrapped around its axles. That explains why the truck was seen to move rapidly fore and aft a few times before it blew up. It's fortunate that barbed wire and its military cousins are remarkably resistant to explosives.
I think that there is a simplier explanation. Fight a war is hard and it requires tremendous skill and judgement to prosecute one successfully. A review of the military commanders of history finds that none of them were flawless and always masterful. A review of history finds that the winner often succeeded despite his mistakes rather than because of an absense of them. In focusing on the mistakes made by our own leadership, its easy to forget that their leadership is also fighting in a fog with imperfect knowledge, imperfect judgement, inadequate resources, and an imperfect grasp of the situation.
In short, there is no need to attribute to cleverness what is adequately explained by stupidity. It's entirely possible that there was no grand well thought out plan. What were they thinking? They are probably asking the same question.
However, I'm convinced that there is nothing that Zaqari could do to turn the media against him. In the comments of the post Hansmeister linked to, someone talked about Reuters attempts at moral equivication. This is a misnomer. Reuter's position on the war is not that both sides are equally immoral actors. Reuter's position on the war is the US is the bad guys and anyone who is against them is on the other side. I believe that certain media outlets like The Guardian, Al-Reuter's, LA Times, etc. would literally rather hand out Burka's around the office than see the US achieve its strategic aims. To the extent that any rational calculus entered into the equation, it may be that understanding upon which Zarqawi is operating.
Let's see, the 'rule of law' being evidenced by a trial for Saddam Hussein, a constitution having been adopted, even an investigation of suspicious voting having been conducted - how could insurgents not need a boost in press attention? Not good publicity? as many U.S. politicians say, "just spell my name right". (Al Quada? Queda? Quiada?)
M.Sensing has a good point - when they tumbled out to report, the cement mixer would be about to explode. Thank heavens not.
Many high ranking visitors also stay at the hotel.
The AP story quoted in the body of the post paints a picture of al Qaeda success:
The more careful time line assembled by Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail paints a different picture.
In other words, what's missing from the first account is that while the bombers managed the murder of 20 people, the attack failed because of the actions of the Iraqi and American security forces.
The Beeb report was rather funny even if a bit pathetic. They first assured us that no Beeb journos were hurt and that no other journos were badly injured then they mentioned in passing that a few Iraqis were killed.
International journalists are drinking the blood of ordinary Iraqis. These are the real vampires of the world. Their desperate hope is that more Iraqis will die, and that they will get good footage of the blood and mayhem.
I think they were purely looking for headlines after getting their tails kicked out west and having some slow news weeks do to lack of big media coverage in the hinterlands.
I think that either way you cut it, the operation was a success in that it conveyed the image of uncontrolled mayhem, though downing the hotel would have been preferable to the jihadis.
Kidnappings usually result in ransoms being paid. No one thinks this might have been a money-making project?
I have to agree with the reverend here. After reading Zawahiri's letter in full, it is quite clear that he thinks the constant reporting of shi'ites being murdered and Zarqawi spending so much time trying to enforce "sharia" as he sees it where ever he goes has done more to harm their situation than help. They are getting bad publicity all around.
Zawahiri did state that the western media was damaging the Jihadist's cause. Not the first time he's written that either. He complained bitterly in Knights Under the Prophet's Banner that western media had deliberately misled people about their movement or ignored it all together. He's doing the same in his letter. Whenever their tactics don't play as well in the media, they blame the media for their failure in public relations.
Sometimes, we do the same thing. However, unlike these folks, US soldiers are not going to shoot or blow up reporters (deliberately) as opposed to these guys who may have taken Zawahiri's complaints literally and decided to attack the media directly. They may feel that their new Jihad TV can effectively take the place of the traditional media and that reducing the number of reporters will help eliminate additional reporting, leaving jihad TV as the main source for terrorist activity.
And, since AQ came out and claimed it right away, I imagine that the hidden message from Zawahiri (that many folks claimed was a fake) was to undertake just such an activity. Zawahiri not only referred to publishing his books (which we took as some sort of plea to get his ideas out to the other mujihadeen), but he specifically referred to sections in them. Knights and Bitter Harvest both had serious complaints about the media.
If I was a reporter, i would think twice right now about meeting individually with anyone that was part of the insurgency. Carroll's abduction aside (which was clearly some local militia for a political party and not the "insurgents"), I don't think they are going to be welcomed with tea and honey.
According to "Major E." in Baghdad (quoted at Power Line):
Here is an alternative theory. I am not endorsing it, I am merely reporting it.
The Baghdad Hotel Attack: The Real Targets
Not journalists, say Zarqawi and al-Qaeda, but a private security firm
By CHRISTOPHER ALLBRITTON/BAGHDAD
Monday's deadly attack on Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, a large, well-coordinated assault claimed by al-Qaeda involving truck bombs which killed at least six people, was thought to target the many foreign journalists who stay there. But sources inside the Iraqi insurgency tell TIME that the real target was a security firm based in the hotel.
The raid was a joint operation between al-Qaeda in Iraq, the organization headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Jaysh al-Muhammad, one of the largest Ba'athist groups. Al-Qaeda claims Iraqis from a suicide group called the Lions of Bara'a bin Malik drove the actual vehicle bombs. In a statement, al-Qaeda claimed the attack went after "the intelligence agencies, American, Australian and British security companies and the thieves of the treasures of Iraq," referring to contractors. The insurgents believe the targeted security firm is actually a Western or Israeli government intelligence agency.
The Rush Limbaugh Show
TIME's Terrorist Sources Wrong
Wednesday October 26, 2005
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We got an e-mail from a subscriber at Rush 24/7 ... :
"Dear Rush,
Keep my name and such between us. I'm a civilian contractor on a government mission at a hotel in Baghdad. The insurgents believe that my compound is the headquarters of the CIA and the Mossad. We are not. We have been attacked many times over the last two years and this latest bombing was directed at us, not the media. From what we gather, the first car bomb was supposed to get past our front line. The second car bomb was supposed to get to our rear security and a cement truck was supposed to get inside our perimeter to cause the most damage. Good news for us, the first car was shot up and stopped at the outer perimeter, and the second two, unable to see or get close, blew themselves early. We are on the east side of the street. The media is on the west side. Since the truck blew while it was on our side, the reporters incorrectly believe that they were the target. This is just their arrogance. They want to believe they are high profile targets. They are not. They are bugs on the ass of a rock. I'll tell you more, but please leave names out, just that you have an inside in Baghdad."
- Subscriber to Rush 24/7
When I see the media being attacked, I think back to the anthrax letters and them being mailed to media outlets and government offices.
By attacking the media (if that indeed was the intent) they will amplify to no end the story because...they are the story and have the means to communicate it.
A 'neutral' eye can soon become an enemy if the attacks continue. Thus, the enemy must strike a balance between just how much they want to attack the media and how much the media can absorb.
The media is also an important tool to the terrorists. Without a well functioning and 'neutral' media, the terrorist attacks lose their ability to psychologically impact the consumer of the media.
If a tree falls in a forest, would anyone hear it?
If a terrorist's bomb goes off and the media is not there to film it, did it really happen?
The email from the Rush Limbaugh listener gives credence to this line of thought: that the media may not have been the intended target, but rather the contractor's across the road. The media in the hotel across the street would have a front row view, to record the bomb going off and making sure 'it happened'.
Hansmeister stole my thunder - I was going to make the same point he did. The terrorists are trying to score propaganda points by making themselves look stronger than they are to a Western press corps living up to Dylan McDermott's brilliant line in Hambuger Hill - "waiting around for someone to die so you can take a picture; I got more respect for (the enemy), they take a side, you just take pictures."
Just as Ho Chi Min admitted that for this war to be successful it will have to be won by the American press. The left-wing media won it for their buddy Ho. Al Quida is just giving the American hating journalists a first hand view of how bad things are going.
Do you think these leftists will ever come out from under their beds again?