Photo by Air Force Staff Sgt. Lorie Jewell
July 22, 2008
Gen. David H. Petraeus gives an aerial tour of Baghdad to Sen. Barack Obama July 21.
During the first Presidential debate in Mississippi Senator Obama claimed that “...al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001.” By what measures has the Senator come to this conclusion? Let's look at this question.
The terrorist organization has been unable to launch a single terrorist attack in the United States in seven years. But that doesn't tell the entire story. Prior to 9/11, al Qaeda had ties to the previous 1993 bombing of the WTC (it is arguable whether al Qaeda was directly involved with that attack or came together with the perpetrators later, although I think they were already closely connected). It took al Qaeda eight years to launch another attack of that scale. This is an indication of the patience of its' leaders and we can't say the threat is gone. But we can certainly conclude it is diminished simply by the fact that the US has killed or captured dozens of al Qaeda leaders and international cooperation against these terrorist network increased greatly.
The threat of another large scale al Qaeda attack in the US is low, but not for lack of desire. Although the next attack will probably be of a much smaller scale, one or two men can still do a lot of damage. However, the threat to mainland US is decreased not increased as Obama asserts.
But what about the threat against US overseas interests and our allies? The threat there is much greater than at home right now. But even there that threat has been reduced, not strengthened.
We just came out of several years in Iraq with al Qaeda terrorists attacking US forces with some impunity because it was very difficult to identify and target them as they blended in with their Iraqi supporters. The flipping of the Sunni tribes to our side left al Qaeda fighters exposed and they have been mostly dealt with. Although the threat is still high in Iraq al Qaeda suffered a horrendous defeat at the hands of coalition forces.
The psychological impact of this defeat cannot be measured but it cannot be ignored either. Al Qaeda gained strength in the early 90's by claiming credit (where none was deserved) for driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan and helping to bring about the dissolution of the USSR (that credit goes mostly to the native Afghani fighters not Arab interlopers).
But people love even a perceived winner. Al Qaeda ranks swelled with young jihadis in Afghanistan, Sudan and Pakistan. In the 90's it sent fighters to Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Horn of Africa, Asia and established sophisticated cells in Europe and the United States.
The 1990's was al Qaeda's peak. Obama's assertion that they are stronger now is pure fantasy. The loss in Iraq has substantially reduced the number of young Muslim men willing to 'go to jihad'. It has handed al Qaeda a political, strategic, and public relations disaster. Former jihadis and even religious leaders in Saudi Arabia now decry al Qaeda.
The real damage to al Qaeda is evident when you consider its' desired endstate. Al Qaeda wants to emulate the Shia revolution in Iran. It wants a caliphate established across the Middle East, Southwest Asia and Northern Africa. To start with, it needed to establish an Islamic state to stage and prepare for war and drive Western powers out. In fact, they got the opposite. Al Qaeda lost the Islamic state it held in Afghanistan (or rather the Taliban held as a close ally) and the West is far more involved in the Middle East, Southwest Asia and the Horn of Africa than it has ever been.
Some claim that what al Qaeda lost in Afghanistan it regained in Pakistan - thus the resurgent myth. But al Qaeda already had a strong presence in the frontier areas of Pakistan before 9/11. It staged in those areas while fighting the Soviets just as it and the Taliban are doing now. There were already training facilities and sympathetic madrassas in the frontier region. Al Qaeda has experienced a vast net-loss in territory and influence by losing Afghanistan.
Of course, al Qaeda does have a presence still in the border regions. Along with the Taliban, it is launching successful attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan. But a large measure of that increase in activity is because NATO and Afghani forces are now pushing into regions that were left to Taliban control up until 2006. Instead of waiting for them to come down from the hills the coalition is going into the hills to find Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in their lairs.
Add to that the stepped up drone activity in the border area and the loss in Iraq, al Qaeda has been dramatically reigned in from a global territory perspective. Last year it turned its' focus on securing its' last sanctuary in Pakistan. This is why al Qaeda and the Taliban assassinated Bhutto. To stop the alignment of the Democratic forces of Pakistan with the military dictatorship of Musharref, which was a US driven initiative that failed, but had a positive outcome none the less. Some will ask how a positive outcome can come out of the death of Bhutto, but I would inform them that Bhutto created the Taliban in the first place (something the media likes to keep hidden) so my sympathy is low.
Ultimately, events have driven Musharref from office in what was seen as a defeat for US foreign policy. In his place, Bhutto's widower has become the power man. Many saw this as a disaster as he was viewed as being weak against the extremists in the frontier regions.
As soon as his party took power in Pakistan it started negotiating with the Taliban. Many shook their heads at a new policy of appeasement that failed miserably the last time it was tried by Musharref in 2005. Observers had good reason to be doubtful. The peace accords under Musharref had allowed the Taliban to fester for another two years until Musharref began a military offensive against them in 2007. He did some damage to them by driving them from the Swat Valley, but not much. Then Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto's widower replaced a disgraced Musharref as President last month.
When Zardari's party started to negotiate with the Taliban I counseled caution to the nay-sayers. In my view, any new Pakistan government would first have to legitimize combat operations by attempting to negotiate first. I think that this man whose own wife was murdered by al Qaeda allied Taliban would understand that he must eliminate them but he would first have to legitimize the fight to a population that is generally sympathetic to the Taliban (although that sympathy plummeted with the assassination of Bhutto as I predicted at the time).
Which brings us to the present. The new government of Pakistan has been fighting sporadically with al Qaeda and allied Taliban tribes all summer although media coverage has been low. Now it appears, Zardari must feel he has legitimized a broader war because he has increased offensive operations according to recent reporting. Strategy Page has an interesting assessment.
According to Strategy Page the Pakistan military is taking the fight to the Taliban in the frontier region. Strategy Page claims that a large Pakistani force has identified Taliban strongholds and is taking them down with air and indirect firepower. The Pakistani military seems to have learned that just sending truck loads of troops in to get captured is a really bad idea. Now it is preparing the objectives with overwhelming firepower and following that with overwhelming force. Somebody in Pakistan is learning from the US military.
If Zardari holds his nerve better than Musharref, we might have the beginning of a full scale invasion into Taliban territory, an envelopment of al Qaeda' last strongholds in the Taliban fortresses of the frontier. Strategy page reports that the particular Taliban tribe under attack has been putting out distress calls and that no other Taliban tribes are responding. In addition, al Qaeda fighter have been arriving to fight but have been destroyed along with the Taliban.
The pressure is on al Qaeda every which way it turns and it is losing, not winning.
The overarching point being that the Al Qaeda is not stronger now by any conceivable measure that Obama could put forward, unless he is simply looking at casualty numbers as the one and only metric. They go up, we are losing, they go down, we a winning. But that's a rather silly way to measure success in war. In that case, I regret to inform you that the allies lost WWII on D-Day because we suffered over 4,000 KIA on the beaches of France, the greatest one day loss up until that invasion and probably after.
The truth is as it has always been, we cannot go to war with Pakistan to get Usama bin Laden. That means either Pakistan has to get him or we get lucky with a drone or special operations mission. The only sure way to get him is to substantially reduce his support among the Taliban tribes. We do that by discrediting him as a “hero” to the locals by defeating al Qaeda forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. When he loses his mythic proportions and becomes 'just a man' and his presence causes the tribes more problems than he is worth, someone will decide to claim that 25 million dollar bounty and give up his location.
They best way to make sure that happens is to turn the Taliban tribes against each other and make them jocky for an alliance with the Pakistan government. Then one of the tribes may give up his location to gain support. It's yet to be seen if that plays out. Before Bhutto's death, the Taliban tribes were beginning to war with each other but Musharref lost his nerve along with his credibility.
It is clear that Obama wants to make it look like the Bush administration has lost to al Qaeda and the only one who can beat al Qaeda is Obama. I find it dispiriting that the Democratic Party's candidate is so willing to twist the truth and run down the accomplishments of our soldiers just to score a cheap political shot. Really, he could surely win the presidency without making up this nonsense.
Comments
You should stick to making sure you know the facts everything you said in this article is not true
Wow..."Tammie" sure showed Robison with that one. I think we might be dealing with the ghost of Plato with counter-arguments like: "everything you said in this article is not true."
How so Tammie? It's easy to make bold accusations such as yours but more difficult to back them up with facts of your own. So, by all means, enlighten us.
Russ
Obama is constantly lying, exaggerating, or ducking responsibility for one comment or another. However, he comes across as so genuine & the media is so biased -- that Obama is almost never challenged on any of his numerous falsehoods, questionable friendships or misguided votes!
Obama is constantly lying, exaggerating, or ducking responsibility for one comment or another. However, he comes across as so genuine & the media is so biased -- that Obama is almost never challenged on any of his numerous falsehoods, questionable friendships or misguided votes!
Well written and logical. However, I have a problem with a professional writer who uses "its'" which is a construct that does not exist in the English Language. You and your editor, if any, should have your apostrophes forcibly extracted.
Your misuse of this word, which is maddeningly common, irritates purists like me as well as most literate people.
I have tried to picture Obama as our "Commander in Chief" and I can not do it. The thought scares me to death!! He is the anti-thesis of strong military. I hope all Americans are really thinking about this election. I see so many of our young people thinking about who is "cool" and not much past that. Who really knows Obama other than his wife? Who comes forth and sticks up for him on a personal level? Nobody knows him and the little bit of knowledge we have about his past associations really puts up some red flags!!!
Why isn't this story top of the fold and headlining all news programs? Because most of the media are in the tank for Obama, and want him in the White House. The American people do not elect the President, the media does. And the media wants Obama. That's why the negative stories are about McCain and Palin. America will pay the price.
Obviously "Tammie" is one of Axelrod's astroturfers. However, since this isn't likely to be widely read (until Hot Air linked it), they sent in the fourth stringer.
Obviously "Tammie" is one of Axelrod's astroturfers. However, since this isn't likely to be widely read (until Hot Air linked it), they sent in the fourth stringer.
Obviously "Tammie" is one of Axelrod's astroturfers. However, since this isn't likely to be widely read (until Hot Air linked it), they sent in the fourth stringer.
Rats, sorry about the extra posts, it didn't show up, then three did.
Rats, sorry about the extra posts, it didn't show up, then three did.
Thank you for this insightful article. Must thank HA, too, for linking this great piece which, to be honest, made me more fearful of an Obama win to the White House. He only seems to say half-truths and lies all the time. Where are the investigative journalists of the MSM, those who are supposed to expose truths and untruths? Partying with Obama, I guess.
Is this the first time you noticed that Obama is a pathological liar? Did you not read his books? Just one quote was enough for me.
From Audacity of Hope:
'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
Having read the Looming Towers, I am thankful that objective reporting still exists because we cannot afford to put our heads in the sand over this issue.
CNN & MSNBC PLEASE EXPLAIN TO AMERICAN PUBLIC! WHY ITS RACIST WHEN WHITE VOTERS DO NOT AGREE OR SUPPORT THE INEXPERIENCED MEDIA MADE OBAMA, BUT IT’S NOT RACISM WHEN 90% PLUS BLACK VOTERS ARE ONLY SUPPORTING THE BLACK CANDIDATE? LIKE OPRAH ETC…
Barack Obama privately tried to persuade Iraqi political leaders to stall an agreement on scaling back American troops in Iraq while publicly campaigning for a speedy withdrawal, Obama’s campaign is not a train wreck; it’s Chernobyl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKqHFk-3yQM
Obama campaign seems to have hit the wall. Also has ramped up the dirty politics-as-usual theme that has been playing ever since the announcement of Sarah Palin as McCain’s Vice Presidential selection, sending a wild horde of Obamabots to Alaska in search of dirty underwear and soiled linens. Campaign also beset with some troubling scandals and stormy political foreboding. We’re not talking about Rezko and Ayers stuff which have been known since the primaries and continue to expand. We’re talking about a vast surge in scrutiny surrounding Obama’s beloved ACORN, about alienating half the voting populace in America by having surrogates question whether a mother should work. More, we’re talking about Obama’s potential violations of the Logan Act by tampering with U.S. negotiations with Iraq in order to impact the elections. The New York Post reported Barack Obama privately tried to persuade Iraqi political leaders to stall an agreement on scaling back American troops in Iraq while publicly campaigning for a speedy withdrawal, Obama’s request for a delay was a major theme of his talks with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said in an interview with the Post. Obama said that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of American troops, excluding the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion,” according to the report. Obama also reportedly tried to persuade the U.S. commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to offer a “realistic withdrawal date.” They declined, the Post said. As mentioned early this morning on American Sentinel, allegations that he attempted to tamper with negotiations in Iraq in order to benefit his campaign could, lead to actual prosecution. Obama’s selection of Biden over Clinton, followed quickly by McCain’s selection of Palin, solidified Obama’s reputation as someone who was immovable, selfish and lacking in judgement. Slamming Palin on her experience only wizened up the public about Obama’s own lack of credentials. In fact, polls now show that people feel both Obama and Palin are about equally qualified, despite a 24 hour Palin-is-an-idiot watch being conducted on nearly every major network. Combining poor judgment and an overwhelming ego with scant experience is not a way to carry your party to victory. And don’t forget the tasteless sexism and the community organizer’s organization being targeted for investigation all around the country for committing voter fraud. Obama’s campaign is not a train wreck; it’s Chernobyl Taheri quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari in accusing Obama of attempting to block the negotiations between the US and Iraq on a status-of-forces agreement (SOFA). MAFPAC has its first issue, and its first ad will hit the airwaves this week:
Proven Obama has most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. Obama is to the left of Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy and Barbara Boxer. That's extremely difficult to do. Obama is a textbook big-government, tax-and-spend liberal. He plans to raise income tax rates, capital gains tax rates, Social Security taxes (by virtue of eliminating the cap), dividend taxes, inheritance taxes, and introduce a slew of new taxes. His plan will destroy this country
To ALL the obamakins and of course the bias CNN & MSNBC I have one simple request. Please spare me the hope and the change bull, and the Bush's third term, McSame etc… Please just tell American voters what qualifies Barack Obama to run this country. What qualifies him to oversee our $14 trillion economy, the largest on earth? What qualifies him to be commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces in a time of war? Please just give me one single solid qualification. And race does not qualify!! That would be one more than anyone including cable media has provided to date. WE ALL HAVE GROWN EXTREMLY TIRED OF MEDIA SAINTED OBAMA….
Aug. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Nigerian Stock Exchange Chief Executive Officer Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke is being investigated after holding a fund-raising event linked to U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama, Agence France-Presse reported.
U.S. electoral laws forbid donations from foreigners to electoral campaigns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ0cq4Nytu8
Obama keeps reaching back to Chicago political past for policy advisers, and pulling one despicable, vile, and even evil “rabbit” after another out of his hat.
The list of Barack Obama’s radical associations is long and it keeps getting longer. Some are now well-known, but many are not. They need to be.
23 years at TUCC with Jeremiah Wright and James Meeks. racist sermons on Youtube.
He chose the most radical church in the country; chose to immerse himself in hard-core ideological radicalism. Never before has this country considered such a radical leftist for its chief executive.
Michael Pfleger and his hateful and race-hating ramblings, Obama met while carrying out his own radical social activism as community organizer at ACORN, (radical organization)
Penny Pritzker, heads Obama camp National Finance Committee was president of Superior Bank - massively failed and she literally bought her way out of jail paying $460 MILLION fine; was the very epicenter of subprime loan scandal” that would come to eat this nation’s financial system alive.
Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson, former head of Obama’s vice presidential selection committee, discovered he benefited from sweetheart loans from subprime king Countrywide.
Tony Rezko certainly and his federal indictments and financial dealing with Obamas of course and William Ayers, US terrorist bomber, Obama-co-lecturer, fellow board member, neighbor, and friend.
Communist Frank Marshall Davis, obama mentor; Saul Alinsky and Gerald Kellman (Kellman’s Woods Fund is how Obama hooked up with terrorist William Ayers)
Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, appointed as Obama camp national coord for Muslim n affairs also stepped down after news about his stint on the fund’s board - which includes fundamentalist imam - prompting The Wall Street Journal inquiries about relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood and his long personal relationship with Hamas Jamal Said.
Obama desperately needs voters to forget hes the son of a Muslim father who served an incredibly brutal and corrupt Kenyan government; to forget he attended a madrassa in Indonesia and practiced Islam; forget that he campaigned in Kenya on behalf of Raila Odinga, who relied upon chaos, corruption, and violence in his campaign; numerous associations with radical Muslims; forget the photographs of Obama in traditional Muslim clothes, hanging with Muslim radicals such as Mazen Asbahi and anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi.
The mainstream media has frankly put the security of our great country at risk with an Obama coronation media like CNN & MSNBC is the only way Obama managed to steal the Dem nom. It’s extremely concerning that so many Americans could care less about who their candidate really is?? simply amazing and frankly scarey.
BHO, is an empty shirt and will say any thing to get elected. He would not know facts if it bit him on his a--. He has no intentions of fighting the enemy, for he is the enemy.
All of america should wake up to this fact and not vote for him, for he will take this country down the wrong path, just look what we have in cong. and senate, there is a bunch there to help him destroy this wonderful country.
I have a question to all you Democrats out there. I've posed the same question to my Democrat Colleagues: In light of Obama's subtle references to being Muslim (quote: ''My Muslim faith'' immediately corrected by George Stephanopolis; ties to Muslim radicals such as Mazen Asbahi and Rashid Khalidi; quote: ''I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.''), what chance are YOU willing to take by voting for him? A 5% chance that he allies with our enemy? A 10% chance that he really would side with the Muslims from the Oval Office? A 20% chance that he understands better than anyone the comings and goings of al Qaeda? A 25% chance that he has lied about religious leanings all along? What?
I know discussion of this angle of Barack Hussein Obama has been strictly off limits througout the campaign, but the subject has now been breeched. So this is not a rhetorical question. I really would like to know before the media establishment shuts down any further communication on this topic.
I've been reading alot of blogs lately, with the economy and the campaign so heavy these days. I'm a Democrat, and I also found this article interesting, because I am curious about some real and current information about al Quaeda. As I normally do, I will seek other information also, to confirm or enhance, or deepen the understanding I gained here. But, I must say that the comments here are full of fear that seems very irrational to me. What's been scary is that our economy is in this horrible mess - who knows how it will manifest? But you guys are scared of a guy just because his middle name is Hussein! Or, could it really be because you have limited contact with people who are not just like yourselves - same race, same geographic origins, same socioeconomic status, same, same, same.... I recommend that every young person in this country have an opportunity to visit another country of their choice before finishing college. Get out of your rut. The USA is in a mess and what is really scary is that it would be in the hands of reactive anti-intellectuals who believe that dinosaurs and humans so-existed on earth because they only communicate with people who believe the same things they do! Please open your eyes!
Note to HopeandPeace1 - check out Snopes (which debunks urban legends) on your "Muslim" quote - it is a rewording of something he wrote into something he didn't write. Obama's actual words in his book are listed here - go to the end of the page.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ownwords.asp
Great article, thanks.
O'Bama doesn't know what he's talking about. He is a typical career politician who will say what the people want to hear at the time in order to get elected.
I REALLY BELIEVE O'BAMA NO WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT I WOULD NOT LET HIM DOWN
I REALLY BELIEVE O'BAMA NO WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT I WOULD NOT LET HIM DOWN
I REALLY BELIEVE O'BAMA NO WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT I WOULD NOT LET HIM DOWN
I think Obama is a Foolhardy man and what he says is glib and scares me to death.
interesting, i'll be back later http://recompostaje.com/img/sexy/
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!