You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Newsweek's rather odd take on the killing of Abu Azzam
2005-09-29
U.S. intelligence officials and counterterrorism analysts are questioning whether a slain terrorist—described by President Bush today as the “second-most-wanted Al Qaeda leader in Iraq” — was as significant a figure as the Bush administration is claiming.

In a brief Rose Garden appearance Wednesday morning, Bush seized on the killing of Abu Azzam by joint U.S-Iraqi forces in a shootout last Sunday as fresh evidence that the United States is turning the tide against the Iraqi insurgency. “This guy was a brutal killer,” Bush told reporters in remarks that were also carried live on cable TV. “He was one of [Abu Mussab al-]Zarqawi’s top lieutenants. He was reported to be the top operational commander of Al Qaeda in Baghdad.”

Bush’s comments came one day after Gen. Richard Myers, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon that the U.S. military considered Abu Azzam the “No. 2 Al Qaeda operative in Iraq, next to Zarqawi.” But veteran counterterrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann said today there are ample reasons to question whether Abu Azzam was really the No. 2 figure in the Iraqi insurgency. He noted that U.S. officials have made similar claims about a string of purportedly high-ranking terrorist operatives who had been captured or killed in the past, even though these alleged successes made no discernible dent in the intensity of the insurgency.

“If I had a nickel for every No. 2 and No. 3 they’ve arrested or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’d be a millionaire,” says Kohlmann, a New York-based analyst who obviously reads Rantburg tracks the Iraq insurgency and who first expressed skepticism about the Azzam claims in a posting on The Counterterrorism Blog (counterterror.typepad.com). While agreeing that Azzam—also known as Abdullah Najim Abdullah Mohamed al-Jawari—may have been an important figure, “this guy was not the deputy commander of Al Qaeda,” says Kohlmann.

Three U.S. counterterrorism officials, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, also told NEWSWEEK today that U.S. agencies did not really consider Abu Azzam to be Zarqawi’s “deputy” even if he did play a relatively high-ranking role in the insurgency.

The characterization of Abu Azzam as No. 2 to Zarqawi is “not quite accurate,” said one of the officials. According to this official, it would be more correct to describe Abu Azzam as a “top lieutenant” to Zarqawi who was involved in “running” terrorist operations in Baghdad—not all of Iraq. Other top lieutenants operate in other parts of the country, the official indicated. Two other officials agreed that Abu Azzam was a senior figure, perhaps the emir (leader), of Al Qaeda operations in Baghdad, and that he was of critical importance in moving funds to insurgent operatives in the Iraqi capital area. “He’s a money guy,” one official said. “He is significant but not No. 2 [to Zarqawi],” said another official.

One reason to question the official Bush administration portrayal of Abu Azzam is that we can't help ourselves recent Al Qaeda statements and audio recordings have described another Iraqi insurgent leader—a man who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Abdelrahman al-Iraqi—as the group’s “deputy commander,” Kohlmann says. Another Iraqi national, known as Abu Usaid al-Iraqi, has been described in these statements as directly under him in the Qaeda structure as the commander of the group’s military wing. Neither man has been reported to have been captured or killed by U.S. or Iraqi forces, Kohlmann adds. Even the U.S. military in recent months have seemed to attach greater significance to other figures in Zarqawi’s network. Last July, for example, Coalition forces in Iraq issued a statement asking for help in finding yet another insurgent leader—Abu Thar al-Iraqi, who was described as “Al Qaeda’s chief bombing coordinator for Baghdad.” As Kohlmann sees it, the Zarqawi network in Iraq is far more amorphous and loosely structured to accurately place any particular figure in a hierarchical structure. “These aren’t Fortune 500 corporations,” he says.
Posted by:Dan Darling

#12  Mitch is on to ssssssomething
Posted by: SSSSShipman   2005-09-29 16:23  

#11  Hell, if I were the actual #2 of al Queda, I'd invent two or three "seconds-in-command" for the Americans and their running dogs to go chasing around. I'd probably meet with fellow-travellers and insurgents of dubious reliability under one or another of those names every once in a while, just to add some versimilitude.

Nobody eludes capture like a phantom. You just have to hope that the enemy doesn't figure it out, and starts inventing fictional raids that "captured" both abu Illuminati and al-Bilderberg. Although I suppose you could just keep on inventing new abu Smokeandmists and al-Rheinwatches, and let the authorities multiply their fake captures and shootings until someone in the media twigs to the whole charade.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2005-09-29 14:08  

#10  I QUIT reading TIME AND NEWSWEEK decades ago. They are just a hop-skip-and-jump from PEOPLE maybe a tad dumber as they think they are intelligent.
Posted by: 3dc   2005-09-29 11:40  

#9  1) Kohlmann does not give us his pick for #2.
2) Unnamed sources - always sets off the BS Meter.
3) Previously mentioned articles discuss us nailing 'right hand man' and 'top leaders', which doesn't seem to be in dispute but portrayed as badly as possible. It also escapes the writer's notice that 'top leaders', after getting captured or waxed, get replaced so there are always 'top people' to be had.
4) Al-Quesadilla's denial of Azzam as its #2 is obvious disinformation / icing on the cake.

Nice try, though, guys...
Posted by: Raj   2005-09-29 09:35  

#8  

The characterization of Abu Azzam as No. 2 to Zarqawi is “not quite accurate,” said one of the officials. According to this official, it would be more correct to describe Abu Azzam as a “top lieutenant” to Zarqawi who was involved in “running” terrorist operations in Baghdad—not all of Iraq. Other top lieutenants operate in other parts of the country, the official indicated.

So he was A #2, just not THE #2.

Christ, these people would have bitched that Yamamoto being shot down was meaningless, since he wasn't actually in command of a fleet in the middle of battle at the time, and besides, why haven't we gotten the Emperor yet?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-09-29 07:29  

#7  MSM lead some time in the future:

KANDAJAR (ROOTER) In telligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, doubt that the capture of Osama bin Laden and several top aides along with approximately 67.3 gigabyte of files and saved emails dating back to 1999, will have much effect in the war on terrorism.

"We can't win this war," said intelligence official M Albright, whose name has been change to protect her identity...
Posted by: badanov   2005-09-29 07:01  

#6  PS

Iraqi national security adviser Muwaffaq Rubaei estimates Azzam “must have killed 1,200 Baghdadis” via car bombings and other attacks.

This alone is quite significant, so shove it deep where the sun don't shine, Newsweek!
Posted by: Whavigum Phiter9098   2005-09-29 03:01  

#5  Newsweek,

We just want to know who he was, where from, and what he did, then we'd know the signifigance.

Thanks

Newsweek creates controversy within their stories, when there's a much more interesting battle happening at this moment. Newsweek's narrow stories are just a tidbit of what's happening in this struggle for freedom, it's sales above journalism, because attacking the government is so damn interesting to readm, however I'm tired of it, but it's a good chuckle.

I recommend this blog entry:

Who was Abdullah Abu Azzam al-Iraqi?
By Bill Roggio

http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/09/who_was_abdulla.php
Posted by: Whavigum Phiter9098   2005-09-29 02:57  

#4  there are ample reasons to question whether Evan Kohlmann was really a veteran counterterrorism analyst of worth and many important high up important people who wish to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the matter, question whether anyone really reads NewsWeak or cares if their made up experts are real or just figments of their weak imaginations.
Posted by: Angang Cragum9045   2005-09-29 02:55  

#3  Agree with redneck: One less Islamo-cockroach to procreate, and breathe good oxygen. I hope he is enjoying his first week in Hell with allan.
Posted by: anymouse   2005-09-29 02:03  

#2  The notion that anyone would take Newsweak as anything other than "odd" is, well, rather odd.

No offense, but MSM jurnos look at everything through an anti-administration prism.

Evan K is a credible source and I agree that knocking off #2 or whatever will not diminish the number of bombings (which are performed by the fungible).

Still, doing in Abu Azzam is a positive development on two fronts: (1) disrupting command and control, and (2) positive PR to counteract the constant drum beat of bombing deaths, etc.

BTW - References to "two other officals" and other such unnamed sources raises by bullshit meter signficantly.
Posted by: Captain America   2005-09-29 01:56  

#1  General, Colonel, Lt Colonel, Major, Captain, Leutenant or common foot soldier.

Who gives a damn, he's dead, and that's good
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2005-09-29 01:21  

00:00