« Obama Far Ahead in Internet Sophistication |
Blog Home Page
| The demonic Father Pfleger »
May 30, 2008
US Cites Big Gains against Al-Qaeda
Rick Moran
CIA Chief Michael Hayden, in an interview with the Washington Post, updates us on the war against al-Qaeda and there was much to cheer about:
"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.
The sense of shifting tides in the terrorism fight is shared by a number of terrorism experts, though some caution that it is too early to tell whether the gains are permanent. Some credit Hayden and other U.S. intelligence leaders for going on the offensive against al-Qaeda in the area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where the tempo of Predator strikes has dramatically increased from previous years. But analysts say the United States has caught some breaks in the past year, benefiting from improved conditions in Iraq, as well as strategic blunders by al-Qaeda that have cut into its support base.
"One of the lessons we can draw from the past two years is that al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy," said Robert Grenier, a former top CIA counterterrorism official who is now managing director of Kroll, a risk consulting firm. "Where they have succeeded initially, they very quickly discredit themselves."
Others warned that al-Qaeda remains capable of catastrophic attacks and may be even more determined to stage a major strike to prove its relevance. "Al-Qaeda's obituary has been written far too often in the past few years for anyone to declare victory," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. "I agree that there has been progress. But we're indisputably up against a very resilient and implacable enemy."
Each message released by al-Qaeda over the last 6 months has sounded more and more desperate as Muslims around the world are rejecting their bloody call for jihad. Couple that with our agressive tack in Afghanistan and there is little doubt that al-Qaeda is on the run.
But like a wounded animal, the terrorists are more dangerous than ever and now is probably the time to be most vigilant against the group. But regardless of what happens, our fight against al-Qaeda has to be deemed a success to this point.
|
|
|
Comments
Muslims around the world may reject al Qaeda's methods but do they reject its goals? Are they prepared to give up on the US becoming ruled by sharia law? It isn't clear that the answer is yes.
al Qaeda in Iraq was defeated only when it began to attack Iraqis. Were they rejecting al Qaeda or merely its attack on THEM? They had no problem cheering AQ along when it was attacking US forces.
We should see this victory for what it is: temporary and in the best interest of all concerned but by no means an indication that the war is even close to being won.
After al qaeda, there's Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and many other groups with their own agendas, none of them favorable toward the US.
Posted by: pmk | May 30, 2008 04:41 PM
I see many parallels between Islam and Marxism. Essentially both require submission. Ask the question; "why do they care what we do"? Muslims and Socialist are like nosy neighbors, always worried about what you are doing. I am always amazed how Islamic cultures are essentially technologically stagnant. Show me a Muslim nation that is technically moving forward? There is none because advancement requires Freedom and under Islam and socialism Freedom is not allowed.
I wonder how long we are going to tolerate these insane children of Hamas, etc? Totally wiping them out requires nothing but will. Something apparently totally lacking in both the political circles and the media. It seems it is easier to attack Israel than to confront the issue. Typical intellectual laziness of the left.
As Kerry said today; "We were at peace on 9/10/2001". Well duh John, how about 12/6/1941?
Posted by: DaveT | May 30, 2008 06:59 PM
Dave T. & pink are absolutely spot-on. The issue is not the form that our enemies take, but the substance that makes them who they are. There ae always those who envy and hate us and seek to destroy what we have and enslave us for their own ego. Even as the Soviet Union was crumbling, there were other forces on the rise to take their place--Islamofascism and Communist China. Even today, Putin has arisen to fill the void in Russia, sounding and acting just like the old Party bosses of decades ago.
Freedom is the precious character that makes US who we are. It requires eternal vigilance and a willingness to fight to preserve it. It also requires that we not lose it through sloth or a perverse self indulgence that would change freedom into license.
Posted by: Dan C. | May 31, 2008 09:00 AM
What gains? There have been none, besides Iraq.
Afghanistan is a failed state, NATO is refusing to help the US, the Jewish state is being besieged, and OBL is at large, as is Adam Gadahn, Ayman al-Zawahiri and 2000 British terrorists.
Dubya promised to capture OBL. He hasn't. He hasn't even captured Gadahn or al-Zawahiri. He's one of the worst wartime US presidents. Even John McCain could perform better. This is not a praise of McCain.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 31, 2008 09:07 AM
ZM
Word is, Adam G. may be dead. He's been MIA for a while and some intel suggests he was killed in a predator drone attack last year.
Zawahiri is said to be turning his back on the cause - renouncing violence and the takfiri version of Islam he helped create. Big news, and if it pans out, disasterous to OBL. Check out Lawrence Wright's article, (author of the Looming Tower), in the New Yorker.
As to Iraq - that was to be AQ's centerpiece. Jihadi's from all corners of the caliphate rushed there to kill the infidel, only to have there ass kicked and their organization destoryed, ironically by defections from the very Sunni Muslims they claimed to represent. This is a psychological, (which is 75% of this battle), blow to their brand name that they will most likely never recover from.
Where do you think we'd be if John Kerry took over in 2004, or if Mr. Gore was in the driver's seat in 2001?
Posted by: David Bueche | May 31, 2008 07:47 PM