Al Qaeda On The Run

[Fieldmouse]

I'm posting this for all of you who hate Bush and think Iraq was a mistake. I ask you to look back and remember him standing on the fire truck saying "I hear you, the world hears you and those who did this will hear you". That day changed his Presidency and the world. There is no one you could mention that would have taken on this war and produced a better result. GW, will be remembered well in the history book and if Hillary or Obama gets in the White House, mark my words, it will make him look even better.


http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121218707586633975.html
Al Qaeda on the Run
May 31, 2008;PageA10
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.

[don128]

I think we are safer from some of the al Qaeda, but with the way things are going, mabey we should be more versatile and watch alittle closer to home also. Any small group or indavidual from all around us, or within us, could be a bigger threat, like open borders, that hav'nt been closed forever. The Iraq war is not the only reason that the majority of americans dis-like Bush's plan, leadership, what ever you want to call it. I'm not convinced that Al-Qaeda will not become bigger, the country has a total diff beleif religion wise. And besides all that, if a country can't afford what it's doing, then forget it, you might just bring greater problems on with your own country.

[shamlin]

Bush did eradicate most..... of Al-Queda. If he is to take the credit for elimnating most of them then;it can be noted that he hasFAILED to get OSAMA The president that is in office will that happens will go down in the History books.
Bush wont be remembered in history; just another president in a flash card game.

[JoeA]

The threat Al Qaeda represents is not just their actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. AQ is one of several Islamic fundamentalist groups operating in the world today. All have some overlap in their basic beliefs.

A huge threat to the west that is often overlooked is the growing population of fundamentalist Muslims and their supporters in Europe. France, Denmark and the Netherlands are three countries that will have a big identity crisis in 20-25 years.

Each of these countries have large populations of muslim citizens are who have self-segregated themselves, their children are born in the host country, and when they're 4-6yrs old, they "go to live with family" back wherever. Then they're educated in the "old country", in a "school"where they learn to quote the Koran, other "facts", and very little else. Then they're 16-18, and they move back to Europe, "home"if you will. They're citizens of whatever country, but often can't function in the larger society around them and don't want to understand it. The same phenomenon is happening in the U.S. too, just at an earlier stage of development.

And then, they push for representation by people who look like them, sound like them have the same concerns & wishes; like supplanting the current legal system of their "home" country with Sharia (Koranic law). Internet search these words together: Denmark 2025 then we take over Very scary.

AQ's on the run, but we must be vigilant against those who would continue their struggle.

[vc1111]

*scratches head...

Before we invaded Iraq, I don't exactly remember it being a hotbed of Al Qaeda activity. So we've beaten back the few that were there...so what? We're still sitting smack in the midst of a corrupt people who hate each other and hate anything American, a people who will eventually be turned over to the remnants of Sadam's Revolutionary Guard, or whatever those jack-booted slugs called themselves, led by yet another inept, corrupt government whose ideas are founded in religous zealotry. In a matter of years with their newfound "democracy" and billiions and billions of our falling dollars, they will probably once again begin torturing and eating each other, led by yet another monster dicator.

And we will have accomplished what? For whom?

And read the last line in the post...it shows the spin inherent within...Bush's strategy in Iraq had zero to do with "taking the battle to the terrorists." It was about WMD's, Sadam, and violations of the UN stuff, remember those small details? The "taking the battle" stuff was cooked up later and yet another "reason du jour."

And let's not pretend that he wasn't wrestling with the tail of the snake instead of the head...who remains at large to this day. As Shamlin said, the president who gets Bin Laden will be the one who truly gets to declare "Mission Accomplished."

Good work, Fieldmouse.

[Fieldmouse]

And read the last line in the post...it shows the spin inherent within...Bush's strategy in Iraq had zero to do with "taking the battle to the terrorists." It was about WMD's, Sadam, and violations of the UN stuff, remember those small details? The "taking the battle" stuff was cooked up later and yet another "reason du jour."

I couldn't help but notice you left out Sadams ties to terrorism, his funding of it and increasing boldness despite his surrender agreement and sanctions in place. Oh by the way that it was up to him to prove he didn't have WMD. Instead of doing that he admitted to a complex rouge that included bugging the rooms of UN inspectors, delaying access to key sights as trucks were being loaded and driven out the back. Also the fact he still maintain all his core materials to rebuild all his WMD's once the sanctions were lifted. I guess just minor details.

[heavy hitter]

bombing pakistan? boy, when obama suggested that several months ago people said he was crazy. seems to be working though, wierd.

[JoeA]

I couldn't help but notice you left out Sadams ties to terrorism, his funding of it....

There's a bit of confusion here. Saddam did "fund" terrorism, by giving $$ ($10k/family, I believe) to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and those families who had their homes destroyed by the IDF. These families were not and are not functionally connected to AQ or the guys who flew the planes into the WTC and the 'gon. Other aspects of his terrorism were based on Iraq's long time aspirations to be a regional power. Interesting note here, much of the basis for Iran's terrorism, and support for such in the region are for the same thing. Iran wants to be the regional power as well. (note of interest: Iranians are Persians, and they consider themselves a superior race to the Arabs, like the Iraqis. This is the root of the animosity of these two countries.)

I'm not defending Saddam, but don't confuse who was supporting who. Labeling someone as a terrorist doesn't make them instantly connected with others who've received the same tag. The terrorists we're fighting in Iraq now, are trying to destroy the democratic gov't the coalition has helped establish. They have nothing to do with Saddam or the Baathists. Saddam and AQ (and other Islamists) were diametrically opposed. Sure they committed terrorism, but for different ultimate goals. The differences are important.

[boysda]

i might be slow, but i'm having a hard time figuring out how this could not have been accomplished simply by focusing on afghanistan.moreover, a state department report issued earlier in the spring stated unequivocally that al qaeda is gaining strength.

[Champlain Islander]

Bush wanted to fight a war on terrorism and Al Qaedaand picked Afghanistan and Iraq to wage the battle. Facts remain thatAQ wasn't located there in large numbers at that time but are there now taking up the fight. I still feel that the Iraqi invasion and resulting occupation were merely a way to get a soft target in the Middle East with a secondary benefit of removing Saddam. The end result has been a war on terrorism since they have rallied to fight us on that turf.He got his war on terrorism at great cost in both bodies and moneybut in all probability it was far less than if we had invaded either Iran or Syria to take them head on in their home lands. The end justifies the means and it is mission accomplished if you look at the goal of fighting terrorism. Now that we are in the fight and let"™s assume we are winning since we are killing more of them than they are killing us. What is next and when does it end? Most wars end when one side gives up and the other is declared a winner. That is where the dilemma occurs. We are clearly superior and will eventually kill most but not all of them. They won't give up because it isn't a country we are dealing with it is a fanatical religion that doesn"™t care if they are killed in battle. Politically, the end may come soon after the election if the Dems win. Unfortunately since we waged war on AQ they won't stop the fight just because we left that battle zone. No matter whom gets intothe White House we will still be fighting them although not necessarily in Iraq. In retrospect, 9/11 had to be answered for and Iraq was the battlefield we chose. How do we leave and still win is the question the next POTUS or the one after that will have to answer. I suppose seeing a self sustaining democratic government would be a start but I doubt that will happen. I wasn"™t in favor of the invasion in the first place but now that we are there I don"™t see a way to retreat without going all the way to win. World opinion is low for us since many countries were against our invasion. It will be even worse if we suddenly pull out because of politics with the resulting genocide from AQ taking control. I would like to see our continued involvement be more in the support and advisory roll with boots on the street being all Iraqi. It is way past time for them to assume responsibility for their own country.