« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Al Qaeda: Partying Like It's 2001
If you checked out yesterday's Worldwide Threat briefing, you could be forgiven for checking your calendar to see if it was still September 10, 2001. Discussing al-Qaeda, John McConnell, the new director of national intelligence, described a metastasizing threat coming from... the lawless Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
This year will be "pivotal" for Afghanistan, McConnell said. From the NYT:
Mr. McConnell’s assessment was grim: “Long-term prospects for eliminating the Taliban threat appear dim, so long as the sanctuary remains in Pakistan, and there are no encouraging signs that Pakistan is eliminating it. ‘’
Thanks in large part to Pakistan's toleration of al-Qaeda's growing presence in North Waziristan, it's questionable whether the western troops will be able to even arrest what McConnell called the "resurgence" of Taliban and allied (read: al-Qaeda) forces. Last month, the outgoing U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Lt. General Karl Eikenberry, said that cross-border Taliban raids for December were up a staggering 200 percent. And a new report from the Jamestown Foundation finds that, although their effectiveness is questionable, there were nearly as many suicide-bombing attacks in the first seven weeks of 2007 as in all of 2005.
The response from the White House? Earlier this month, President Bush announced plans to extend the tours of 3,200 troops in Afghanistan for four months. This makes the U.S.-Nato troop presence the largest it's been since the 2001 war. But nearly all analysts consider Afghanistan to be an undermanned war -- and, worse yet, a winnable war whose prospects are deteriorating in the face of compounding, unforced errors.
It's surely too extreme to say that the system is blinking red, as it was in the fateful summer of 2001. But McConnell declared himself "very concerned" that al-Qaeda's presence in Pakistan presents the "most likely" gestation of the next 9/11-style attack on America. In other words, after two wars, we're in some sense right back where we were before 9/11 itself: unable to invade the territory where al-Qaeda possesses a stronghold and groping for alternatives, while the intelligence community puts out warnings about the urgency of the threat. Except this time, our entire national-security apparatus is overtaxed from the strains of two wars -- wars that were supposed to significantly diminish, if not remove, the very threat that's regaining strength.
Comments (10)
Th wrote on February 28, 2007 10:31 AM:A "winnable" war? Who has ever "won" in Afghanistan other than Afghanis? What does a "win" look like there? I could see some sort of loose confederation that is mostly stable evolving there, but not a truly unified country anytime soon. There are too many independant players with competing interests for Karzai to gain control of the political factions through military operations. I remember a Russian veteran of their misadventure there say after our invasion something to the effect, you can't defeat the Afghanis, but you can buy them and we know who has the most money.
MC wrote on February 28, 2007 10:50 AM:"In other words, after two wars, we're in some sense right back where we were before 9/11 itself … Except this time, our entire national-security apparatus is overtaxed from the strains of two wars -- wars that were supposed to significantly diminish, if not remove, the very threat that's regaining strength."
Why do I keep thinking ... Manchurian Candidate?
AWR wrote on February 28, 2007 11:22 AM:While we are busy being distracted from the true threats of Saudi Arabia funneling untold monies to terror groups and al qaeda is gaining momentum in Waziristan our military and intel is groaning under the stress of Iraq and the throttling up of the Iran "threat". Unfortunately it ooks as if Europe or the U.S. will have to endure another catastrophic attack before the realization occurs that we need to force Pakistan to do something to quell the threats on their side of the border.
Sagrilarus wrote on February 28, 2007 11:27 AM:. . . and soon George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will be on their lecture tours, landing $100k per stop and speaking to throngs of adoring crowds.
Anonymous wrote on February 28, 2007 12:08 PM:And yet when the next attack occurs, the finger of blame won't point at the MORONS who failed to capture Osama bin Laden. It won't point at the guy who said he "wasn't worried" about bin Laden, or the party that unquestioningly supported him. It won't point at the guy who pulled troops off the hunt for bin Laden to sent them into Iraq on a fantasyland mission to magically transform the region into a liberal democratic paradise by deposing Saddam, and then kept pouring in troops even when it became painfully obvious that, by every objective measure, his half-baked plan had been a catastrophic failure that had left the nation in greater peril than it was before.
Nope, the blame is going to go to lesbians, feminists, abortion doctors, and anyone who thought it was reasonable to expect the administration to get a retroactive warrant from a secret court within 30 days of executing a wiretap.
This is what happens when leading Democrats put their own political interest in looking "bipartisan" ahead of the nation's foreign policy interests.
It's long past time that leading Democrats did something. Enough of this "kumbayah, we're all bipartisan, don't you love us Washington Post" crap.
Pull the troops out of Iraq. Put them--ALL OF THEM--in Afghanistan. Put the screws to Pakistan. Hold a goddamned press conference every day asking "where is Osama bin Laden." To hell with the chem-nuclear lobbies, put in the strongest, toughest security bills imaginable. Send Waxman after the trillions stolen by war profiteers in Iraq.
NO wonder the American people think Democrats are wimps. They'd rather compromise our national security than take on the Republicans. AUGH!
robster wrote on February 28, 2007 12:36 PM:We can negotiate with Pakistan. Understanding Pakistan is a clear and present danger, we can give India a missile defense system to punish Pakistan for not turning over Bin Laden. We can threaten to give India the necessary missiles for a preemptive strike against Pakistan if they don't turn over Bin Laden and take control of the tribal areas. We must be very tough because this is what they respect, anything less and we've already lost. Now see, no shots.
dannyinla wrote on February 28, 2007 12:44 PM:And in those weeks and months before al Qaeda attack the United States, our news media was focused primarily on one thing - who killed Chandra Levy? It dominated our media to the exclusion of nearly everything else substantive.
It's a good thing our media has learned a lesson and isn't wasting it's time on non-stop stories about dead blondes or shaved pop stars.
pappy86us wrote on February 28, 2007 4:52 PM:The unfortunate thing about the rising reemergence of the Taliban in Arghanistan is when the spring arrives and they start getting in their spring offensive, we will start to more dead service men coming home. Because of the war in Iraq, americans are going to want to get out of Afghanistan soon too. Which in turn gives the terrorist the feeling of accomplishment.
Jason wrote on February 28, 2007 5:01 PM:Funny, we're supposed to be "rooting" (gwspeak)out them terraists. We know where they are. They even tried to kill Cheeeeeny. THEY KILLED AN AMERICAN SOLDIER!! for crying out loud. Yet, nothing. Come on Bush, grow some.
freepatriot wrote on February 28, 2007 8:14 PM:I agree with th, who the fuck has ever won a war in Afghanistan cept the Afghanis ???
Imperial Russia couldn't do it
Imperial England couldn't do it (here's a clue, Afghanistan is that portion of India that England never conquered)
Soviet Russia couldn't do it
the "Northern Alliance" couldn't do it
so who's gonna win in Afghanistan ???
the Afghanis, of course