Al Qaeda is on the run!!

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
From the Wall Street Journal.


Lest I forget, my heartfelt thanks to all Democrats for their support in the War On Terror.

A year ago in July, a National Intelligence Estimate warned that al Qaeda had "protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability," meaning it could be poised to strike America again. The political reaction was instantaneous and damning. "This clearly says al Qaeda is not beaten," said Michael Scheuer, the former CIA spook turned antiterror scold.

What a difference 10 months – and a surge – make.

CIA Director Michael Hayden painted a far more optimistic picture in an interview yesterday in the Washington Post. "On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said. "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."

What happened? To certain sophisticates, this is all al Qaeda's doing: By launching suicide attacks on Shiite and even Sunni targets, and ruling barbarically wherever they took control, the group has worn out its welcome in the Muslim world.

There's some truth in this. The Sunni Awakening in Iraq was in part a reaction by local clan leaders against al Qaeda's efforts to subjugate and brutalize them. The Arab world took note when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ordered the November 2005 bombing of three hotels in Amman, Jordan, in which nearly all of the victims were Sunni Arabs. Extremist Islamic parties took an electoral drubbing in Pakistan's elections earlier this year following a wave of suicide bombings, one of which murdered Benazir Bhutto.

It's also true that al Qaeda finds itself on the ideological backfoot, even in radical circles. As our Bret Stephens reported in March, Sayyed Imam, a founder of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and once a mentor to Ayman al Zawahiri, has written an influential manifesto sternly denouncing his former comrades for their methods and theology. This was enough to prompt a 215-page rebuttal from Zawahiri, who seems to have time on his hands. Lawrence Wright in the New Yorker and Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank in the New Republic have recently written about similar jihadist defections.

But the U.S. offensives in Afghanistan and especially Iraq deserve most of the credit. The destruction of the Taliban denied al Qaeda one sanctuary, and the U.S. seems to have picked up the pace of Predator strikes in Pakistan – or at least their success rate. This has damaged al Qaeda's freedom of movement and command-and-control.

As for Iraq, Zawahiri himself last month repeated his claim that the country "is now the most important arena in which our Muslim nation is waging the battle against the forces of the Crusader-Zionist campaign." So it's all the more significant that on this crucial battleground, al Qaeda has been decimated by the surge of U.S. forces into Baghdad. The surge, in turn, gave confidence to the Sunni tribes that this was a fight they could win. For Zawahiri, losing the battles you say you need to win is not a way to collect new recruits.

General Hayden was careful to say the threat continues, and he warned specifically about those in Congress and the media who "[focus] less on the threat and more on the tactics the nation has chosen to deal with the threat." This refers to the political campaign to restrict wiretapping and aggressive interrogation, both of which the CIA director says have been crucial to gathering intelligence that has blocked further terrorist spectaculars that would have burnished al Qaeda's prestige.

One irony here is that Barack Obama is promising a rapid withdrawal from Iraq on grounds that we can't defeat al Qaeda unless we focus on Afghanistan. He opposed the Iraq surge on similar grounds. Yet it is the surge, and the destruction of al Qaeda in Iraq, that has helped to demoralize al Qaeda around the world. Nothing would more embolden Zawahiri now than a U.S. retreat from Iraq, which al Qaeda would see as the U.S. version of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.

It is far too soon to declare victory over al Qaeda. Still, Mr. Hayden's upbeat assessment is encouraging, and it suggests that President Bush's strategy of taking the battle to the terrorists is making America safer.


< I feel your hate - But Clinton for V.P. | Obama's Compromise >
 Display:
even have to read this. Shut up you idiot.

by z1p101 on 06/01/2008 03:50:10 AM EST


even write the article.

It came from the Wall Street Journal, and some from the Washington Post.

by KenTX on 06/01/2008 04:05:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]

since we are friends I am telling you that I an link to your own words and you should shut the fuck up. I could easily make an MrFred style anti acroso post here.

Stick to what you know. Living in the past as a west Texas high school football player for some po dunked town with a graduating class of about what? 70 students? Did it feel good playing under the "Friday Night Lights" in front of a bunch of losers who's lives revolve around their high school team winning?

Is that the glory you seek here again day in and out?

I think we now understand one another.

by z1p101 on 06/01/2008 04:28:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Ken, find a new argument(any new argument for god sakes) or go away.

Even the the bloggers here who well out date me are tired of your recycled crap.

by z1p101 on 06/01/2008 05:01:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
But slurred posting is a zippy phenomenon . You're either boozing again or smoking crack again.

by KenTX on 06/01/2008 06:25:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Not likely. C'mon Ken. Tell us all about your glory days. Tell us what it is like being a Foot Ball starter for a one horse town High School team in West Texas that has a total of 80 male students tops on campus at any given time. Trust me, I would have killed for a no competition situation like that. Tell us what you did to the band geeks. Tell us what it was like to play ball in front of 700 looses every fall Friday night who can't let go of their own glory days.

Then I will tell you about my own New Jersey HS and who showed up for the games and who I played against who eventually made it to the pros.

You brought it up so lets hear it. It is a science thing and I am curious.

by z1p101 on 06/03/2008 11:28:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I'm giving you an open opportunity to brag about your big Texas high school football career here so tell us about it.

When you were equipment manager did the real players let you wear the jacket in the hall way or did you really play?

Tell us all about it. 

by z1p101 on 06/04/2008 01:31:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The world waits. The world wonders.

It sounds like if Obama ever does actually go to Iraq, McCain plans to follow him over there and stalk him around the country.

It would be a pretty funny sight!

by KenTX on 06/01/2008 04:14:44 AM EST


to get the troops out of iraq not have obama go there and vist them.

McCain was there yet doesnt know who we are fighting.

From WaPo:

Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran.

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

You are all such morons  

by Chinese Democracy on 06/01/2008 04:32:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Can you get Barack Obama to make your exact quote?

"The point is to get the troops out of iraq not have obama go there and visit them."

I would love to hear him say: "There's no need for me to visit any troops, because I'm bringing them all home on Day One! The War on Al Qaeda is stupid!"

I think that everybody who supports Barack Obama would cheer. The problem is that his support represents 50% of the Democrat Party, which adds up to only 25% of American voters.

by KenTX on 06/01/2008 06:32:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"This week brought yet more proof that John McCain's grasp of his signature issue -- the war in Iraq -- is less than firm. "I can look you in the eye and tell you [the surge] is succeeding," he told a town hall crowd. "We have drawn down to pre-surge levels." Only we haven't. There are currently 155,000 troops in Iraq; there were 130,000 before the surge. He also announced that Mosul is "quiet" -- even though earlier that day three suicide bombings rocked Mosul and a nearby town, leaving 23 dead. The day before, McCain mocked Obama for declining to accompany him on a trip to Iraq, saying: "We've got to show him the facts on the ground."Which facts are those, Senator -- the ones you're making up as you go?

by Chinese Democracy on 06/01/2008 05:28:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Than will Obama ever visit Iraq is will McCain ever visit the senate.

by ProfRich on 06/01/2008 05:04:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]

...those Right Wing columnists get everything ass-backwards, don't they? I guess it helps when you have the ability to completely ignore whichever facts refute assertions.

by MedfordTim on 06/01/2008 08:30:50 AM EST


Al Qaeda IS on the run.

They're running straight to the hundreds of thousands of (as a result of the Iraq War) enraged, desperate and impressionable youth out there looking for direction, if not vengeance for the death of their friends and family.

Mission Accomplished.

by ihavenobias on 06/01/2008 06:11:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama would bring all military forces back to America immediately. Why  fight Al Qaeda on the ground in Aghanistan, and from the air in Pakistan, if Obama is unwilling to fight al Qaeda in Iraq.

If Obama's goal is to turn Iraq into a safe haven for al Qaeda, why not do the same in Afghanistan and Pakistan and throughout the Middle Eastern theatre? 

Like the signs at the Obama rallies say: "BRING THEM HOME NOW!!!"

by KenTX on 06/01/2008 06:25:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the beast and its logic how can you defeat it? If you think that Al Q can be defeated by reinforcing the same policies and actions that created it in the first place, you got another thing coming! It's like trying to beat lung cancer...by smoking more.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/01/2008 09:07:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Ever notice it is ONLY people with right wing thinking who believe it's even possible for Al Qaeda to have a "stronghold" in Iraq, or even more ridiculous, that they will somehow take over the whole country and control the oil.

All with about a thousand or two fanatics.

Damn, them boogeymen is scary, ain't they?

by MedfordTim on 06/01/2008 10:17:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are there more al Qaeda in Afghanistan than Iraq?

Should we just abandon both allies and let them deal with al Qaeda by themselves?

by KenTX on 06/01/2008 11:20:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
iran will deal with them.

You can stop posting now. I solved the problem

by Chinese Democracy on 06/01/2008 11:35:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Al Q is not even the major issue in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Iran...Al Q is being used as Medfordtim stated...a boogeyman, to scare the uninformed into automatic jingoism. Al Q is only a problem in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, thats where the US should do something but IS NOT. Again...as long as Americans fan the flames in the Middle East and ignores the SOURCES of radicalism in the Middle East, wait, not even ignore...ENABLE sources of Islamism, the US will never overcome it. This is assuming, that policy makers do indeed even care about destroying Al Q. 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/01/2008 11:47:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Shows you haven't listened much to what Obama says if you have to question his stance on Afghanistan - one I think is still too strongly geared towards a "military" solution, but better than the alternatives as part of an overall candidate package.

Yes, the real Al Qaeda is in Pakistan and Afghanistan - as they always have been, and thus their numbers are naturally greater in that region.

One of the things which the media has still not accomplished between the invasion of Afghanistan and now is the separation of AL Qaeda and the Taliban. They are always lumped together and shouldn't be. One is a group trying to regain political power of a country and localized in their fight, the other an internationally recognized terrorist organization ready to spread havoc wherever possible. We should not be in a military struggle with the Taliban fighters. That is not our fight.

I agree with Obama - we should concentrate on the part that Bush abandoned 6 years ago; the pursuit of the Al Qaeda leaders behind 9/11.

by MedfordTim on 06/02/2008 10:37:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Define allies.

by 1xx3xy on 06/03/2008 01:47:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Allies
allies

Not an ally.
no 

Allies
allies

Not an ally.
no

by KenTX on 06/03/2008 02:05:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Allies.

Really?

Not so much any more

Real Allies.

What happened?

Gangsters know one another when they see each other. 

by z1p101 on 06/04/2008 12:12:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Damn, them boogeymen is scary, ain't they?

Fear is Texas's official state pastime.  There is no little league.

by OneHitKill on 06/02/2008 08:12:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAhAHAhA! Oh that is a good one, and I thought Pravda was effective propaganda! Take that neoconservative SHIT off the website!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/01/2008 11:05:19 AM EST


Ken, gotta question.

Didn't they say just last week that AQ had regained it's former strength?

Every election cycle we receive "good" news from Iraq, complete with promises of troop withdraws (proviso's attached).

One of the main reason Pubs may lose everything this year, is because the people are tired of "we are winning but...."

4 years ago the Bush administration orchestrated terror alerts to influence the election. the timing of these releases and the questionable causes were never truely followed up by the MSM. Even after Tom Ridge admitted to it.

We all have seen pundants who say we are winning because violence is "down" in Iraq. Only to watch those same pundants, 6 months later, say that we are winning the war because the violence is "up" in Iraq.

No mention of Afganistan, no mention of Pakistan and no mention of Bin laden.

How much more propaganda can you swallow? I wonder if Bush announced that he had to "raise" taxes to pay for the war, you would suddnely be against furthering the conflict?

You're the oil man, how mush has this conflict contributed, to the cost of oil? How mush of our hard earned dollars are helping to support AQ though those prices?

It was 7 years between the attacks in 1993 and 2001 (Clinton kept us safe without war, without a patriot act and without a Dept. of Homeland Security)

McCain has not offered a new direction or a new strategy.


We need new leadership and a new direction

In my view this is not a left or right issue, it is an American issue.

by LORD FOUL on 06/02/2008 10:07:34 AM EST


Perfect!

Goebbels 

Dr. Goebbels, Reich Minister for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, would like to congatulate Ken on yet another post packed full of relevant truths and urges him to continue on his unrelenting quest to rid the world of the liberal-bolshevik conspiracy.

by Cogitor on 06/02/2008 10:50:11 AM EST


http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Organizers_of_the_Septemb er_11,_2001_attacks


Do you see any mention of Iraqi or Afghani terrorists?&nb sp; Oh yeah...all the hijackers were part of the SAUDI ARABIAN AQ...convenient that 7 years later we still are allies with the Saudis, and bush is still "Jawboning" them into giving us a good deal on the oil...

by chrisandyasemin on 06/02/2008 12:03:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]

The first six paragraphs of this article goes on and on about how our success has nothing to do with the Surge and then it randomly credits the Surge even though it admits that the Surge targetted Baghad. Where they primarily fought the Mahdi army.

Then without quoting or citing anything it says that the Surge gave confidence to the Sunnis even though the awakening happened before the surge.

It then further contradicts itself by citing the Al Qaeda attacks on Sunnis being the reason behind their decline in popularity and then says it couldn't have happened without the surge.

I love you Ken, you cite the funniest stuff to make your points. See most people start with the facts, then form their idea around that. Since you're a cultist, you start with an idea and then form your facts around that.

Also, how do you guys get credit for the offensives in Afghanistan? Your forces are hanging out in secure Kabul. While friends of mine do the real hard fighting against the real Taliban.

 

by Randomambusher on 06/03/2008 12:12:51 PM EST


 Display: