The "Al Qaeda" shorthand problem

The Atlantic's James Fallows objects to CNN's use of "Al Qaeda" to refer to the insurgents there. I also heard NPR and the BBC describe an Al Qaeda in Iraq attack as the work of "Al Qaeda" today on the radio. It's a seriously misleading phrase to use.

The problem is that the administration spin tactic of lumping all insurgents together as "Al Qaeda" lines up with the media's desire for a convenient shorthand. Even the generally left-leaning staff at NPR and the BBC need a quick way to refer to insurgents that listeners will understand. Few journalists (a) understand that Al Qaeda in Iraq is a small portion of the insurgency and only loosely affiliated with the Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 and (b) want to explain this each time AQI comes up. As a result, the White House shorthand tends to win.

Comments

[ERF]

Hello Brendan,

The Frederick Kagan article behind the link below is the most detailed description I have read of the history, structure and goals of al Qaeda in Iraq.

To say that Kagan knows more about Iraq than Fallows and The Atlantic's other columnists is, well, an understatement.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/043delki.asp?pg=1

[joenobody]

Al Qaeda will claim and take blame for every horrific thing in the world! It's an easy label for the growing number of sheep paying attention to the news and believing every word as if "carved into stone"! Insurgents denotes Iraq, while Al Qaeda is the supposed reason for being there in the first place.