Al Qaeda is losing in Iraq

The New York Times reports on a 17 page memo seized in Badhdad in mid-January that was allegedly written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian Al Qaeda operative who the Bush administration argued was the main conduit between the terrorist network and Iraq. Glenn Reynolds links to the story and is concerned about media coverage. I’m more interested in the substantive implications. This story makes me feel better about the security situation in Iraq than anything since Hussein’s capture. Why? Because it’s clear that the Al Qaeda-backed portion of the insurgency is running into serious difficulties:

[The memo] calls the Americans “the biggest cowards that God has created,” but at the same time sees little chance that they will be forced from Iraq. “So the solution, and only God knows, is that we need to bring the Shia into the battle,” the writer of the document said. “It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands” of Shiites…. The Iraqis themselves, the writer says, have not been receptive to taking holy warriors into their homes. “Many Iraqis would honor you as a guest and give you refuge, for you are a Muslim brother,” according to the document. “However, they will not allow you to make their home a base for operations or a safe house.” The writer contends that the American efforts to set up Iraqi security services have succeeded in depriving the insurgents of allies, particularly in a country where kinship networks are extensive. “The problem is you end up having an army and police connected by lineage, blood and appearance,” the document says. “When the Americans withdraw, and they have already started doing that, they get replaced by these agents who are intimately linked to the people of this region.” With some exasperation, the author writes: “We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases. “By God, this is suffocation!” the writer says. But there is still time to mount a war against the Shiites, thereby to set off a wider war, he writes, if attacks are well under way before the turnover of sovereignty in June. After that, the writer suggests, any attacks on Shiites will be viewed as Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence that will find little support among the people. “We have to get to the zero hour in order to openly begin controlling the land by night, and after that by day, God willing,” the writer says. “The zero hour needs to be at least four months before the new government gets in place.” That is the timetable, the author concludes, because, after that, “How can we kill their cousins and sons?” “The Americans will continue to control from their bases, but the sons of this land will be the authority,” the letter states. “This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts.” (emphasis added)

Assuming that the memo is real (and the Times does a good job discussing its provenance; I particularly love the circumlocution used to indicate that this didn’t come from the INC: it “did not pass through Iraqi groups that American intelligence officials have said in the past may have provided unreliable information.” See the Washington Post story for more) then U.S. efforts at statebuilding have been more successful than media coverage would have suggested to date. Iraq might not have proven to be as hospitable to American troops as was previously thought — but it’s not fertile soil for Al Qaeda either. [But would the Shia strategy work?–ed. Unlikely — even Juan Cole points out that “So far most Shiites have declined to take the bait.” Now that the strategy has been made public, it will be that much more difficult to implement.] UPDATE: Josh Chafetz has further thoughts. Greg Djerejian thinks I’m being over-optimistic. Spencer Ackerman doubts the memo’s provenance and logic. FINAL UPDATE: Here’s a link to the full text.