Posted on 04/26/2007 2:42:07 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
Al Qaeda is a more dangerous enemy today than it has ever been before. It has suffered some setbacks since September 11, 2001: losing its state within a state in Afghanistan, [and] having several of its top operatives killed....
But thanks largely to Washington's eagerness to go into Iraq rather than concentrate on hunting down al Qaeda's leaders, the organization now has a solid base of operations in the badlands of Pakistan and an effective franchise in western Iraq. Its reach has spread throughout the Muslim world, where it has developed a large cadre of operatives, and in Europe, where it can claim the support of some disenfranchised Muslim locals and members of the Arab and Asian diasporas....
Bin Laden's goals remain the same, as does his basic strategy. He seeks to, as he puts it, "provoke and bait" the United States into "bleeding wars" throughout the Islamic world; he wants to bankrupt the country much as he helped bankrupt, he claims, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s....
The U.S. occupation of Iraq helped move his plan along, and bin Laden has worked hard to turn it into a trap for Washington. Now he may be scheming to extend his strategy by exploiting or even triggering a war between the United States and Iran.
Decisively defeating al Qaeda will be more difficult now than it would have been a few years ago. But it can still be done, if Washington and its partners implement a comprehensive strategy over several years, one focused on both attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions that allow them to thrive. Otherwise, it will only be a matter of time before al Qaeda strikes the U.S. homeland again.
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignaffairs.org ...
Actually I think nuking Iran would pretty much show the barbarians that we mean business. Iran is the kingpin here.
They have the money and the income from oil.
They have an economy that can support jihad with weapons and funds.
Iran is the kingpin. Hit them. Reduce their cities to smoldering glaze. Warn the population first as a humanitarian gesture, which they would probably ignore anyhow. The whole Islamic revolution started in Iran with the taking of the US Embassy and holding the prisoners. For almost two years America twiddled their thumbs with diplomacy that was laughable.
I think the rest of the Islamic world would suddenly see the flash.
America is going to be criticized regardless of what kind of military action it takes or don’t take against the Islamic Revolution. So if we are going to be criticized, lets give the world something to really chew on. Something that will make them step back on their heels and take notice. Tell them that America is no longer accepting barbarian bulls#it. And shake a finger a North Korea while we are at it. Just in case they have other ideas.
Fair enough.
As for myself, I favor a surgical approach.
That is, I’d like to perform surgery on the Middle East (a sand-ectomy?) by whatever means necessary, to cause the world map to look like the one posted by Asa Vet in #13.
The world would be a better place minus about three quarters of a billion Islamofascists.
Of course, it’ll never happen. The Western nations don’t have the will.
Having shown that I have nothing intelligent to add :-) I’ll go back to work now. I’ll check in later to see how this unfolds. Do me a favor, ping me when you post your learned response.
We have “won”. However, the length of the conflict is eroding American patience, and may very well snatch defeat from the arms of victory.
Thank you for such a reasoned answer. I'm relieved that you reject the premise.
I like that you said "We have won." I feel the same way about Iraq -- which is why I excluded it in my first comment. We did win.
I wonder if you agree that we are not there to fight a handful of AQ fighters. We are performing a security operation, only -- and if we kill the occassional AQ, that's just fine. I, for one, think we are smarter than that.
I listened to Petraus today, and he's not pretending to be at war with Al Qaeda. He spoke mostly about providing security so that Iraq can stabilize itself. Something very much in US interests.
Consequently, I don't see entering Iraq as being the big mistake that this article suggests. Indeed, I think it is a fair question as to whether Saddam Hussein, had he still been in power and the UN sanctions be lifted as was the trend, would have gleefully reestablished his turnkey WMD program (see Dulfer Report) and shared some of his product with Al Qaeda...
Destroying the regimes in Iran and Syria would be a great start. I’m talking destruction that would make Gen. Curtis LeMay wince and feel a modicum of pity for the troglodytes.
the world is a million people in the water screaming for help and the US is a relief ship working diligently from one stranded person to the next. The west and it’s goodness and openness and freedom of expression is at one of it’s low points in history. We are a couple of years before the nuclear battle of Lepante synthesized with a Tet offensive behind our lines. Throw in a little Potiers desperation for good measure. Whose going to be our modern Charles Martel? Regardless of what the stock market is saying (because I guess the consensus is we aren’t attacking Iran now), longterm it doesn’t look good.
We can still rectify that by doubling or tripling our forces there and actively cleaning out that country. How can we ever say we won the war on terror if the guy who killed our folks on 9/11 still walks the face of the earth?
Whether or not Osama walks the earth, I think you are right about Afganistan. I am concerned about Pakistan, as well. There's just too much BS going on with them behind the scenes.
In intelligence circles, they talk about Al Quaea Core. That Core is not in Iraq. We need to strike the core.
You asked — “How to win what?”
—
Well, that should have been plain. But, as it seems it isn’t — it’s in terms of what was stated here —
Bin Laden’s goals remain the same, as does his basic strategy. He seeks to, as he puts it, “provoke and bait” the United States into “bleeding wars” throughout the Islamic world; he wants to bankrupt the country much as he helped bankrupt, he claims, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s....
The U.S. occupation of Iraq helped move his plan along, and bin Laden has worked hard to turn it into a trap for Washington. Now he may be scheming to extend his strategy by exploiting or even triggering a war between the United States and Iran.
That is how the article is relating to that question. And I might add win in terms of stopping his continued attacks on the U.S. (not simply “drawing them in”), either overseas and/or here in this country — where officials say that we have virtual certainty of having another major terrorist attack like 9/11, once again.
In addition to that, I was also reading where it was stated that the U.S. has a 50% chance of having some kind of terrorist nuclear attack, inside this country, in the next (ummm... I think it said) several years, like a decade.
That kind of winning.
Or, is it that we’ll not “win” but simply wait for them to come here and just continually take defensive actions (which is not a good position to be in). It sort of looks like the public and the Democrat Congress is pushing to get us out of Iraq pretty soon. It’s probably an accurate bet that we’ll be out of there, either by the next election or shortly after that election.
Oh and it’s not Al Qaeda that is hostile towards the Bush Admin. It’s all muslims, USA ones and otherwise. What the hell does that say? I mean it’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? They tacitly dig their style of governance or are too cowardly to question it while taking us to task for trying to moderate a very immoderate region of the world. Their style of governance being the classic eastern synthesis (theres that word again) of religion, culture and government joined intentionally at the hip. Sickening and sad for the descendants of Leonidas, to be sure.
You know, in some ways, this is smart since the Middle East is not too fond of them and their Shia majority.
Although, I don't think Al Qaeda (sunnis) are headquartered in Iran.
I guess a treaty with Al Qaeda is off the table, huh?
Security independence and stability is the focus. Corruption will be the main enemy of this, as criminal gangs, general skimming and assassinations of the incorruptible make it hard to get anything done. Also, Shiite militia’s will continue to be a problem, especially is Iran is not brought to heel. However, Iraq seems far closer to something resembling “stability” than is commonlyknown, since the press is clearly on the side of defeat.
And that is???
LOL on the sand-ectomy. Okay, I'll ping you later.
You said — “Retreat from Iraq! That will defeat Al Qaeda once and for all./s”
—
Well, at one time, it was thought that this was “Fortress America.” Not sure if that was really so, or not. But, I guess for the nature of the weaponry and that nature of wars, it was essentially so, for a while. That did change.
The weaponry has changed (of course we do remember the Cold War) and the nature of war has changed (in terms of these Islamic terrorists). We have basically a two-front war now — one that is the military arm and one that is the political arm.
Now, the political arm is being defended as “freedom of religion” in terms of Islam and in terms of its participation in our political system. It really should be considered like Nazis were considered in World War II — it’s an idealogy meant to overthrow the U.S. Government and oppress its people. And the political involvement (along with the religion) is only meant for “subterfuge” so that these elements can *weaken* our system to the point where the “military arm” can make advances in this country. And they will do that.
By the public and certain members of Congress not recognizing the other element of Islamic terrorism (namely the religious and political aspects), they are actually doomed to failure in stopping further attacks on this country. They can ever “go after” these terrorists elsewhere — but what good does that do when we allow Islam here and allow them to participate in the political system, to the point where they can “bring it down”?
Islam and any political involvement needs to be outlawed as a religio-political system, specifically designed to bring down and *overthrow* the government of the United States. It is only a “religion” in name only — while it’s acting as a full=fledged political/legal/cultural system, independent of any other laws or any other government.
Sir, you are 100% right on. I’m with you and understand everything you posted. Thanks for saying it right to the point.
So all we have to do, is go to Pakistan, western Iraq, some parts of Europe and find these bad boys.
Thanks for the heads up. Care to give up any more information?
Fair enough. However, this article is not really about whether it was a mistake to enter Iraq. Unfortunately, the frist three paragraphs that were excerpted suggest that. The article is about what Al Qaeda is doing now, where they are, and how to defeat them.
We currently have a huge military presence smack in the middle of the Middle East. Something we never had before. It just might be that Iraq the smartest thing we ever did. But not for the reasons we think.
The premise of the discussion is that we are NOT fighting Al Qaeda there. We are playing the Ninetendo version. I, for one, am interested in neutralizing Al Qaeda at the Core. The Core is not in Iraq or in Iran. But if we don't go after it for real, we could be in big trouble.
We're fighting the terrorists there, just like GW said we would be doing.
Is he a smart guy, or what?
This guy is using the argument the rats have used to get their war cred.
Teh sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!!
You liberals are so predictable and transparent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.