So once again we have to suffer through yet another one of Al Qaeda's anti-American diatribes -- this one constituting a pre-inaugural attack on our president-elect by Al Qaeda's propogandist and ideologue-in-chief "Dr. Evil" Ayman al-Zawahiri. When, pray tell, are we going to put al-Zawahiri out of his misery once and for all? Insha'allah
In its first "official" reaction to Barack Obama's election Al Qaeda's propogandist used a sure-to-backfire demeaning racial epithet against America's president-elect, likening Barack Obama to a "house slave" or "house negro." Given the fact that he hasn't even been inaugurated, Al Qaeda's attack on the president-elect reveals a certain appetizing panic and desperation in the face of worldwide acclaim over Obama's election.
There is no doubt that Barack Obama's election is going to go a long way in helping to rebuild America's tarnished image in the Muslim world. And Al Qaeda is clearly worried that with his election, Barack Obama will make it infinitely more difficult to convince Al Qaeda's Muslim base from which it must continuously recruit that the America under George Bush will be the same America under Barack Obama.
The U.S. intelligence community clearly fears that through indifference, neglect and policy misstep Al Qaeda's command and control structure has reconstituted itself inside Pakistan's war-torn western frontier provinces. And given Obama's campaign commitment, reitereated in his "60 Minutes" interview last Sunday, that under his presidency, stamping out Al Qaeda once and for all will be a top priority, the next administration faces a battle against Al Qaeda on many fronts: in the battle of ideas against extremists, in denying their funding, sanctuaries and recruits, in forging stronger Muslim allies, in executing a responsibly swift withdrawal from Iraq, in taking the battle to Al Qaeda's re-established bases in Pakistan and on the Afghani-Pakistan border, and developing an effective strategy to redress our relationship with Pakistan.
Despite the continuing debate within the intel community about where best to concentrate our resources against Al Qaeda, one thing is for certain, fulfilling a pledge to dismantle Al Qaeda will not be possible without coming up with an effective multi-tiered strategy to stabilize Pakistan and rebuild America's image with this essential ally.
Pakistan is not only ground zero against Al Qaeda's command structure, it is a nuclear-armed country that is teetering on financial collapse. Fortunately, Pakistant was able to negotiate an IMF loan of $7.6 billion this week to temporarily stave off economic chaos. Unfortunately, this financial band-aid is insufficient to restore Pakistan to long-term economic stability, without which the struggle against Al Qeda will prove even more daunting for President Obama.
Just a few days ago, the venerable Center for American Progress (CAP) issued an inciteful and highly probative report on Pakistan entitled "Partnership for Progress" detailing an innovative policy approach to help reverse Pakistan's deteriorating fortunes. I commend the report to our readers, which can be found at "www.americanprogress.org."
The Report outlines a daunting series of policy challenges facing Democratic national security experts in the months ahead to maintain Pakistan's democracy and support. But the Report also delineates a responsible roadmap to helping restore Pakistan's poitical and economic foundation.
There is no doubt that unilateral military operations against the Taliban and Al Qaeda will defeat Pakistan's militant groups. The Report recommends a reversal fo the Bush administration "military only" policy by proposing the adoption of a diverse strategy, including strengthening governance and rule of law, creating economic opportunities and exploring political negotiations with non-Al Qaeda-oriented militant groups.
I realize that chaning the Pakistani equation is easier said than done. I recall that right after 9/11, Pakistan appealed to the U.S. to help its internal economic crisis by reducing U.S. tariffs on Pakistan's textile industry to help it garner domestic support for U.S. policy, only to find textile-state lawmakers dead set against the idea.
Ultimately, the war against Al Qaeda will not be won on the battlefields of Waziristan alone. Ayman al Zawahiri's unwelcomed reemergence from his cave today is a sad reminder how much the Bush Administration's failures are being dumped into Barack Obama's lap.
This is a rightwing talking point. In other words, there is no truth to it.
The fact is that Obama naively campaigned on the idea that Afghanistan is the good war, and some even claim that Obama is going to keep Gates and Mullen and Petreaus. If he does, which would be a colossal blunder, then that is a clear sign that US foreign policy is status quo. This would be music to al-Qaeda's ears. Why? Because the more US troops in Afghanistan, the more Afghan civilians killed. The more Afghan civilians killed, the more recruits for jihad.
I concede that al-Qaeda is a very complicated subject, not least of all because its very existence is debateable, but your analysis that Zawahiri insulted Obama because they are worried about recruiting for jihad is a half-truth, which is typical for a right-wing talking point. Yes, Obama's persona would seemingly make it harder to project the US as the big bad bogeyman, but then just read the paragraph above again to show why your statement is not true.
The amazing thing about Bush having protected us from any terrorist attacks on his watch? 9/11 happened /on/ his watch. And if your idea of "amazing results" are an Iraq still in tatters with daily bombings and shootings, and Taliban threat that has metastasized from Afghanistan into Pakistan as well, I'd hate to think of what merely "satisfactory results" would be for you.
2. Somali pirates are not Islamic terrorists. Thank Darwin for that, they're plenty of the latter running around the world.
3. Bush administration began with a bang, quickly rooting out the Taliban from control of the country,, but the Iraqi invasion undid some of that success. This is a fact, long accepted by all.
4. Yes. things improved dramatically in Iraq. Yes it was because of Gen. Pet-us savvy moves and deals. Time to wind down.
5. The fate of Central Asia will be decided is the A-stan/P--stan border and indeed P-stan itself. More troops, intel support is needed. The yapping of Za-ri is largely irrelevant. The world needs to approach AQ with a calm determination of a pest controller.
2. Indeed, I imagine you find one under every stone you turn, given the alarmist nature of your posts.
3. "with a bang"... how disturbingly ironic. While you're delicate to the point of euphemism, what you're saying here, for once, is actually basically true.
4. ...which is a nice way of saying General Petraeus bought off a large segment of the population that we were previously labelling as "terrorist insurgents" with millions of dollars in war appropriations. Oh! But we don't negotiate with terrorists. Of course. I suppose Baghdad's a nice place to live if you can avoid the car bombs, the mortar fire, the house to house raids and the internecine violence in neighborhoods where different ethnic and religious groups used to live in perfect peace.
5. Strangely enough, we find one more little nugget we can agree upon: Zawari's irrelevance. The whole "pest control" strategy which we're already taking -- you know, exterminating crowds of people we come across that approach or exceed the size of your average Afghani wedding party -- yeah, that's working just /fantastic/.
Has the Amb. Ginsberg become a cheerleader for the Pakistani government? Lobbyist? Does he fear that President elect Obama will act tough with the Pakistanis and finally hold them to their commitment? Either Amb. Ginsberg chooses to be blind, deaf and mute to the problems of Aghanistan and Pakistan or just does not get it. Pakistan has always had a troubled relationship with democracy.
Gen. Musharaff over threw the elected govt. in a coup. He did nothing to catch Al Queda. But he did love our green backs, so much so that he generously helped himself to it. He provided great lip service and did nothing else. You will have to look and dig deep into the nebulous structure of the Army and its spy wing, the ISI.
"Negotiate with non-militant...."!!
Is the Ambassador out of his mind? That is a fringe of the radical Islam. They do not, in any which way constitute a major population of the country. Essentially, his advise is to negotiate with terrorists. As long they are not Al- Queda, he finds no problem!! What kind of reasoning is that? If you do not root this plague out now, it is going to spread.
Bin Laden can be caught. The terrain might be tough but not impossible to operate in. More troops are needed. Pakistan has to actually honor its commitment.
Peace. Insha'allah indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMf9oBpvI0o
"...strengthening governance and rule of law..."
By which Mr. Ginsberg asserts that the Koran and Sharia are insufficient for the task. So how exactly do we replace the Koran and Sharia in a culture that feels they are a supernaturally empowered Constitution above Western secular law? The imposition of "crusader" values CAUSES the popular resentment that Al Qaeda exploits, yet Ginsberg recommends a policy of imposing yet more Western values and expects, what? Different results?
"...creating economic opportunities..."
Many, many economic opportunities have been created in and for Pakistan, by the US, the EU, China, Russia, the World Bank, the UN.... Again, do we keep doing the same old thing and expect different results?
"...and exploring political negotiations with non-Al Qaeda-oriented militant groups..."
Great idea: Empower militants! As if empowering militants to fight the Soviet Union shows us that they DON'T grow up to become Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership. As if negotiations with militant groups in a sovereign nation might NOT be criminal under international law. Put another way, would it be lawful for Pakistan to negotiate with the KKK, street gangs, and PETA to fight adultery, alcohol sales, and females dressing immodestly in the US?
With questionable advice such as this from an Ambassador, no wonder Mr. Bush dishes out counterproductive foreign policy.
1observer
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"
. "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. The FBI coverup of an Israeli spy ring would tend to confirm this, no?
How about we make a "Declaration of Independence" from this pariah country that is the cause of most if not all this grief instead of thinking killing some different Muslims than the couple of million Iraqis in the last 16 years will change anything? Isn't our 'policy' also the definition of insanity?
For those who might not be aware, this is what I think he's referirng to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6059-2005Apr20.html
the wiki page points to a number of additional sources as follow up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal
As far as cover up goes... proverbial show of hands, who knew about this until Paladin2 mentioned it?
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/AAisraeli.html
we have heard enough when Mr Obama gave a speech at AIPAC and also at the Israeli Knesset we know where his heart is . we wont be misled by some skin color .