Experts: War on Terrorism Has 'Crippled' Al-Qaida

[rushmc 23]

Reuteres (found on NewsMax)

I don't know who the "experts" are but, I was wondering what you all thought about the small part I made bold. What do you think is the cause? No correct or incorrect answers, just looking for opinions.


Experts: War on Terrorism Has 'Crippled' Al-Qaida

Tuesday, April 3, 2007


WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush's administration has crippled al Qaeda's ability to carry out major attacks on U.S. soil but at a political and economic cost that could leave the country more vulnerable in years to come, experts say.


Even as al Qaeda tries to rebuild operations in Pakistan, experts including current and former intelligence officials believe the group would have a hard time staging another September 11 because of U.S. success at killing or capturing senior members whose skills and experience have not been replaced.


"If the question is why al Qaeda hasn't carried out another 9/11 attack, the answer I think is that if they could have, they would have," said a former senior U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity.


Tighter U.S. airport security, greater scrutiny of people entering the United States and better coordination between the CIA, FBI and Department of Homeland Security also have made it harder for extremists to enter the country, experts said.


Home-grown extremists in the United States are believed to be isolated and lacking the will or ability to carry out large-scale operations.


"Make no mistake about it, however, our enemy is resilient and determined to strike us again," said Charles Allen, chief intelligence officer at the Department of Homeland Security.

this could be some of it?
Some experts warn that the successes of Bush's war on terrorism have been undercut by huge security costs, strains on the U.S. military from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and resentment of the United States abroad.


"Look at al Qaeda's plans," said Michael Scheuer, who once led the CIA team devoted to finding al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. "They're very simply defined in two phrases: spread out America's forces and bleed the United States to bankruptcy. I'd argue America has been under attack successfully every day since 9/11 from that perspective.


"If you're looking at it from the cave, or wherever al Qaeda is hiding at the moment, you have to be pretty happy with the way the world is moving," he said.


The Iraq war has been described by U.S. intelligence as both a cause celebre for new al Qaeda recruits and a militant training ground in explosives and urban guerrilla tactics.


"There may be individuals they've been able to recruit in Iraq who might have the credentials and capabilities to deploy elsewhere, even though the core al Qaeda has been damaged," said John Brennan, former acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center.


U.S. intelligence believes that bin Laden and his second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri, driven from Afghanistan when U.S.-led forces ended Taliban rule there in 2001, are now trying to reestablish operations in remote, semi-autonomous tribal areas in Pakistan.


But experts view recent attacks in Europe such as the July 2005 London transport bombings as evidence that al Qaeda-linked groups, while dangerous, lack the advanced skills and organization of militant groups like Hezbollah.


"What al Qaeda's left with is a bunch of Sunni radicals in various capitals who get their orders and technology on the Internet. But their contact with home base is not very strong and they're not very disciplined," said former CIA official Robert Baer.


Islamist groups have killed about 1,600 people in 53 attacks overseas since 2001, according to IntelCenter, an Alexandria, Virginia-based intelligence contractor.


The number and lethality of the attacks have fallen off since 2004. Last year, there were five attacks and 28 deaths, according to IntelCenter statistics, which do not include attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan or other war zones. Thank You President Bush!


But IntelCenter chief executive Ben Venzke said the chance of an al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil has grown based on the militant network's increasing references to the American homeland in public messages.


"Our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11," Venzke said.


© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[akarunway 1]

sounds like a bunch of usa propaganda shit if you ask me

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

sounds like a bunch of usa propaganda shit if you ask me

Ok, Thanks

I will put this in my "I learned something today" file

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

sounds like a bunch of usa propaganda shit if you ask me

Really? I thought that the article had a pretty negative tone overall. If they're describing the war on terror as a victory, they are describing it as a Pyrrhic one.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Skyrad 0]

The very small group of UBL's followers have been scattered but they haven't been beaten. More dangerously Al Quaeda have gone from a small group of fighters to a global philosophy. Al Quaeda is now a technique for individuals and small groups of extremists and consequently the world is a more dangerous place for it. Especialy when you couple that to the damage done to the middle east and the instability that the war in Iraq has caused in the region.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

"Our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11," .

You do realize the article is saying we (the US) are now less safe than at any point since 9/11. That is saying the "war on terror" is failing.
I happen to agree.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

"Our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11," .

You do realize the article is saying we (the US) are now less safe than at any point since 9/11. That is saying the "war on terror" is failing.
I happen to agree.

That is not exactly what it is saying. I did not read that the war on terror was failing but I can see how some could conclude that.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11," .

You do realize the article is saying we (the US) are now less safe than at any point since 9/11. That is saying the "war on terror" is failing.
I happen to agree.

That is not exactly what it is saying. I did not read that the war on terror was failing but I can see how some could conclude that.

When the closing clearly states we are more likely to be attacked on American soil than at any point since 9/11, I guess I'm not seeing how that can be viewed otherwise.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

When the closing clearly states we are more likely to be attacked on American soil than at any point since 9/11, I guess I'm not seeing how that can be viewed otherwise.

So, then was Akarunaway calling this "USA Propoganda" - meaning it is anti-war propaganda or pro-war propaganda?

It's hard to keep straight the knee jerk proclamations

(in any case, I think Skyrad's thoughts are likely closest to the situation. Al-Q has been crippled and unable to respond, the methods and theories are likely now even more decentralized and that means any nut can just unilaterally cause another attack. More terrorists balances out less resources and organization for each - there will always be nuts, so knocking out the big well funded organizations is better than not doing it, but it doesn't make defense any easier. Kill the bear, now deal with a beehive.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

That is not exactly what it is saying. I did not read that the war on terror was failing but I can see how some could conclude that.

There are a variety of different opinions presented in the article. The most optimistic is that we are safer right now but will be in more danger from attacks in the future. Other opinions represented are that we are playing into Al Qaida's hands in the way that we are conducting the war, and that Al Qaida is planning another big attack on the US homeland right now.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

There are a variety of different opinions presented in the article. The most optimistic is that we are safer right now but will be in more danger from attacks in the future. Other opinions represented are that we are playing into Al Qaida's hands in the way that we are conducting the war, and that Al Qaida is planning another big attack on the US homeland right now.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

When the closing clearly states we are more likely to be attacked on American soil than at any point since 9/11, I guess I'm not seeing how that can be viewed otherwise.

So, then was Akarunaway calling this "USA Propoganda" - meaning it is anti-war propaganda or pro-war propaganda?

It's hard to keep straight the knee jerk proclamations

(in any case, I think Skyrad's thoughts are likely closest to the situation. Al-Q has been crippled and unable to respond, the methods and theories are likely now even more decentralized and that means any nut can just unilaterally cause another attack. More terrorists balances out less resources and organization for each - there will always be nuts, so knocking out the big well funded organizations is better than not doing it, but it doesn't make defense any easier. Kill the bear, now deal with a beehive.)

I don't think the bear ever really existed, it was a few bees that flew up a trouser leg and into three buildings. A sting on the balls can feel like a bears bite. All we did is destroy the hive and remove a few bees close to the queen but their places are filled again and the swarm is pissed. Something had to be done but I don't think it was done proportionatly or rationally and could have been handled better.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Why, what would be this to be the case?

Sentence structure is important, mm'kay? I think I know what you mean, but honestly I am not at all sure what you were trying to ask.

In any case, here are the relevant quotes from the article.

1) Playing into Al Qaida's hands; "[AQ's plans are] very simply defined in two phrases: spread out America's forces and bleed the United States to bankruptcy. I'd argue America has been under attack successfully every day since 9/11 from that perspective. "

2) Increased risk of attack right now; "But IntelCenter chief executive Ben Venzke said the chance of an al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil has grown based on the militant network's increasing references to the American homeland in public messages."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Sentence structure is important, mm'kay? I think I know what you mean, but honestly I am not at all sure what you were trying to ask.

In any case, here are the relevant quotes from the article.

1) Playing into Al Qaida's hands; "[AQ's plans are] very simply defined in two phrases: spread out America's forces and bleed the United States to bankruptcy. I'd argue America has been under attack successfully every day since 9/11 from that perspective. "

2) Increased risk of attack right now; "But IntelCenter chief executive Ben Venzke said the chance of an al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil has grown based on the militant network's increasing references to the American homeland in public messages."

[Botellines 0]

I think that the biggest asset that terrorism can have is human capital, and not economical capital. After the Madrid and London bombings it is quite clear that you don´t need much money to kill a lot of people. However you do need radical crazy extremists to do the deed in order to kill that much people.

The Iraq war may have hinder AQ economically a bit, but in the other hand has giving them a bunch of nuts to inmolate themselves so terrorism is now alive and well, and IMO with more resources to keep killing people.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I think that the biggest asset that terrorism can have is human capital, and not economical capital. After the Madrid and London bombings it is quite clear that you don´t need much money to kill a lot of people. However you do need radical crazy extremists to do the deed in order to kill that much people.

The Iraq war may have hinder AQ economically a bit, but in the other hand has giving them a bunch of nuts to inmolate themselves so terrorism is now alive and well, and IMO with more resources to keep killing people.

So, thinking of the 911 attack and AQ, what do you think would have been to correct response?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I know the article, I see the quotes. I am asking why? What are the issues that cause the liklyhood of an attack on US soil to increase?
What things are happening that would give this enemy the confidence to strike again?

The US has:
more enemies
fewer allies
weakened military
economic strain
and probably the most important of all, a patient and adaptable adversary. For example, even without all of the money/programs that we've recently thrown at homeland protection, how many years was it between attacks on the WTC? Seven?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So, thinking of the 911 attack and AQ, what do you think would have been to correct response?

Go after them in Afghanistan, and pursued them aggressively as opposed to squandering the vast majority of our military, economic, and foreign good will resources in an unrelated nation building exercise.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Go after them in Afghanistan, and pursued them aggressively as opposed to squandering the vast majority of our military, economic, and foreign good will resources in an unrelated nation building exercise.

But -- but -- but... Junior had to show papa that he was all grown up and could score more points at the family war games!

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Something had to be done but I don't think it was done proportionatly or rationally and could have been handled better.

That is a very good take on this..... the Neo-Con War in Iraq will ensure at least several generations of instability in the world. Mr Bush has his endless war... too bad he and his family wont participate in it.

[shropshire 0]

Actually, I think that the biggest/best asset that terrorism has is time.
A relatively small number of people have caused a couple of large nations to expend vast amounts of money (and unfortunately people) to prosecute this military action. Now, if it's true that the terrorist attacks have reduced, it's also true that our countries have not reduced the fincancial cost.. so, by doing nothing (or very little) the terrorists have tied up a far higher proportion of resource than they have... That's a significant equation and it's not in our favour!!
They can fade into the background and play the waiting game.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Actually, I think that the biggest/best asset that terrorism has is time.

If the goal is to maintain fear, time is their enemy. Look at all the posturing and would be threats made by AQ in the time after 2001, trying to provoke condition Magenta-Tango and get everyone in a tizzy. It worked the first few times (served DC's interests in passing Patriot Act and other bullshit), but now I don't think people care about 'chatter' anymore.

On the the goal to waste a lot of money, time is the ally. I view this approach as similar to how Reagan 'beat' the Soviets. The US spent like there was no tomorrow and the USSR saw no choice but to follow, even knowing that they had little chance of keeping up with the Jones.

Unfortunately, AQ != the USSR. When the Russians gave up, the US became the single superpower for a couple decades. But AQ is just the most prominent of a lot of tiny groups of enemies.

[shropshire 0]

Their main weapon is Fear and surprise...

Their 2 main weapons are Fear, Surprise and ruthless efficiency.....

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

I agree, good analysis.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,116]

---------------------------
BBC:
Al-Qaeda 'rebuilding' in Pakistan

The head of US spying operations says the leaders of al-Qaeda have found a secure hideout in Pakistan from where they are rebuilding their strength.

National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said al-Qaeda was strengthening its ties across the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.

. . .

Mr Negroponte told a Senate committee that al-Qaeda was still the militant organisation that "poses the greatest threat to US interests".

"They are cultivating stronger operational connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders' secure hideout in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe," he said.

"We have captured or killed numerous senior al-Qaeda operatives, but al-Qaeda's core elements are resilient. They continue to plot attacks against our homeland and other targets with the objective of inflicting mass casualties," Mr Negroponte added.
--------------------------------
NYT:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 — Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Until recently, the Bush administration had described Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri as detached from their followers and cut off from operational control of Al Qaeda.

The United States has also identified several new Qaeda compounds in North Waziristan, including one that officials said might be training operatives for strikes against targets beyond Afghanistan.

American analysts said recent intelligence showed that the compounds functioned under a loose command structure and were operated by groups of Arab, Pakistani and Afghan militants allied with Al Qaeda. They receive guidance from their commanders and Mr. Zawahri, the analysts said. Mr. bin Laden, who has long played less of an operational role, appears to have little direct involvement.

Officials said the training camps had yet to reach the size and level of sophistication of the Qaeda camps established in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. But groups of 10 to 20 men are being trained at the camps, the officials said, and the Qaeda infrastructure in the region is gradually becoming more mature.