Al Qaeda and its sister Islamo Fascist groups are now in pitched battles against the very Muslims ready to fight for a free and democratic Iraq. The SurrenderMedia has yet to ‘connect the dots’ but the Iraqis are not so slow and are very clear about what is happening:

Two suicide car bombers killed 20 people and wounded more than 40 near Iraq’s city of Ramadi on Monday in separate attacks that police blamed on al Qaeda.

…

The town is home to many of the Sunni Arab tribal leaders who formed an alliance against al Qaeda last year.

“They are terrorists. They are from al Qaeda,” Thiyabi said, when asked who he thought was behind the twin blasts.

…

The tribal chiefs oppose al Qaeda’s campaign of indiscriminate attacks on civilians and the imposition of an austere form of Islam in the areas where the group holds sway.

Recent big suicide attacks in Anbar, an overwhelmingly Sunni province west of Baghdad, have been blamed on al Qaeda.

Tribal leaders have sought to expel al Qaeda from Anbar, and have had some success, pushing some of the al Qaeda militants out, U.S. military officials have said.

This is not sectarian civil war, as the SurrencerCrats like to pretend. The Arab/Muslim street is rising up against al Qaeda and al Qaeda’s answer is to kill and kill and kill – as they did this weekend. They are Islamo Fascists in every sense of the word. They had plenty of opportunity to win over Iraqis and instead they tried to violently enslave them. And here is the result of their bloody madness:

Nonetheless, it is clear that Al-Qaeda, which currently operates under the name Islamic State of Iraq, has been increasingly at odds with homegrown Iraqi insurgent groups in recent months.

…

In the months that followed, the Mujahedin Shura Council, which largely comprises foreign fighters, faltered in terms of legitimacy and support inside Iraq. This faltering was part of a downward spiral that began in 2005 under al-Zarqawi, under whose leadership foreign fighters terrorized civilians, seized their money and property, and killed clerics and community leaders that opposed him.

Al-Zarqawi ignored the warnings of Sunni Islamist thinkers that his group’s actions were in violation of Islamic law and were alienating the Islamic and Iraqi communities.

The fact that al-Muhajir, like al-Zarqawi, was a foreigner who appeared willing to sacrifice Iraqi civilians in his quest to kill coalition forces, was a red line for many Iraqi insurgent groups. It was also a red line for Al-Anbar’s Sunni Arab chieftains who had once given shelter to the Mujahedin Shura Council.

…
The Islamic State’s insistence that Iraqi groups subordinate themselves to its hierarchy and vision only increased after November, leading to a number of documented clashes between the Islamic State and homegrown insurgent groups. When the Islamic State began targeting Iraqi insurgent leaders with attacks and assassinations, the Iraqi groups responded with vigor.

The response of insurgent groups prompted al-Baghdadi to apologize to Iraqi insurgent groups and to caution his fighters to control their behavior. At least one insurgent group, the Islamic Army in Iraq, appeared unwilling to accept the apology. Islamic Army in Iraq spokesman Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al-Jazeera television in an April 17 interview that the Islamic State of Iraq should first prove they have changed their ways before an apology would be accepted.

The military is not running from al Qaeda, they are hunting them down. Nazi Germany was not going to be defeated by the allies sitting in Paris to watch Hitler re-group and re-arm. And the same is happening in Iraq. And the military and administration is – again – being honest about what to expect on the path to eventual success:

A senior U.S. commander said Sunday that the military was bracing for a rise in the casualty rate in the coming months, as a security offensive attempts to tame the catastrophic violence and stabilize Baghdad.

“All of us believe that in the next 90 days, you’ll probably see an increase in American casualties because we are taking the fight to the enemy,” Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the Army’s Task Force Marne, told reporters Sunday. “This is the only way we can win the fight.”

Even as insurgents take aim at U.S. troops, they have stepped up their attacks on “soft” targets, especially in Shiite areas of Baghdad, in an apparent attempt to stoke sectarian warfare.

al Qaeda is clearly attacking the moderate Muslims, trying to fulfill the Surrendercrats fantasies. But while the military pushes forward, the Democrats sit around confused and paralyzed and NOT funding the military’s efforts or providing them equipment to keep them as safe as possible. Instead they are trying the impossible – to support the troops and the anti-troop left:

But now top House Democrats, sent back to the drawing board by President Bush’s veto, are floating a new proposal to meet the White House request for more war funding, and they’re looking again to Grijalva and other liberal lawmakers for support.

The new plan lacks the withdrawal dates which Bush found unacceptable, and provides two months of assured combat funds for Iraq with a second two months dependent on new congressional approval.

Whether anti-war Democrats can warm to this new idea remains unclear.

“I think there are a number for whom no timelines create a lot of ‘No’ votes,” Grijalva said. He had yet to be briefed on the new plan, he said, but remains wary of any proposal lacking a withdrawal schedule.

“At least for myself, I can’t support it,” he said. “I’m not equivocating. That’s just the way it’s going to be. And some of my colleagues that didn’t agonize over [the earlier bill] are now saying they can’t be there.”

The Dems can pass the funding easily with Rep and moderate Dem support. But they will not because they will get hurt politically. Well too damn bad. It is easier to be hit politically than to take a hit by a roadside bomb or suicide bomber with a truch full of explosives. Stop dawdling Surrendercrats and pass the funds. Our troops need them and deserve better than this.