Understanding al Qaeda, or, More Intimate Friendships Through Headlines

A Copy-Paste Job, and...They're Best Friends!

This morning, news cameras cut away from John Roberts' dorky, reassuringly caucasian face, jumping right back to Baghdad, where hundreds of people died before the work day even started. A Times article reports:

Terrorists loyal to al Qaeda claimed responsibility for a wave of deadly attacks across Iraq that left more than 100 people dead today, saying they were retaliating for a military offensive against insurgents in the northern city of Tal Afar.

The Washington Post, meanwhile, says:

Insurgents killed at least 141 people Wednesday in at least 10 separate bombings and rocket attacks that made for one of Baghdad's deadliest days.

So, who did it? Al Qaeda? The "insurgency?"

It seems unfair to the reader to just drop in the ol' "loyal to al Qaeda" modifier these days. A bit more explanation of that tidbit seems to be in order. Are all 'terrorists' 'loyal to al Qaeda,' at least in the sense that they agree that blowing people up is a good idea? Is al Qaeda simply shorthand for people who oppose the U.S. occupation and the new constitution? Or are these terrorists really loyal to Iraq?

It seems reasonable to be suspicious of any mention of Iraq and al Qaeda in the same sentence, given how the U.S. has had a few "oops!" moments with that kind of thing. The Planner would love any legitimate articles exploring different factions of the Iraqi insurgency and their loyalties. Not that there is no connection between Zarkawi and bin Laden, but news sources need to practice extreme caution when giving a tangible face to a nebulous concept like 'al Qaeda.'