Terrorists Killing Themselves in Gaza

Christmas has come early:

RAFAH, Gaza Strip (Reuters) – Palestinian Islamists Hamas struck back at an al-Qaeda challenge to their hold on the Gaza Strip by storming a mosque in battles that left the leader of the "Warriors of God" splinter group among up to 28 dead.

When fighting ended in the town of Rafah early on Saturday, Hamassaid the preacher-physician who led the group and who had proclaimed an al Qaeda-style Islamic "emirate" from a mosque on Friday was dead -- blown up by his own hand along with a Syrian ally and killing a mediator trying to negotiate a truce.

Long War Journal has more:

Heavy fighting broke out between Hamas and an al Qaeda linked group that called for the creation of an Islamic state in Gaza. Thirteen people, including the leader of both groups' military wings, were reported killed and 85 more were wounded after Hamas attacked following sermon at a mosque in Rafah.

Abdel Latif Moussa, the leader of the Jund Ansar Allah, triggered the violent clashes after he said Hamas is insufficiently Islamic and created an Islamic emirate, or state, in Rafah which would eventually spread throughout the Palestinian territories.

Moussa, who goes by the name Abu al Nour al Maqdissi, swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden during his controversial Friday sermon, which was attended by several hundred followers. Moussa surrounded himself with five masked gunmen armed with assault rifles; one wore what appeared to be a suicide belt.

Bin Laden in America

The New Yorker:

"The question of whether Osama bin Laden has ever visited the United States, a subject on which I have expended an unhealthy amount of energy in the course of various journalistic and biographical research, has now seemingly been settled. Osama was here for two weeks in 1979, it seems, and he visited Indiana and Los Angeles, among other places. He had a favorable encounter with an American medical doctor; he also reportedly met in Los Angeles with his spiritual mentor of the time, the Palestinian radical Abdullah Azzam. All this is according to a forthcoming book by Osama’s first wife, Najwa Bin Laden, and his son Omar Bin Laden, to be published in the autumn by St. Martin’s Press."

Read the rest.

Communications: Us and Them

Michael Yon writes:

"We’ve been at war in Afghanistan since 2001, and the enemy has figured out some things over that time. Tracking cell phones is no more difficult than tracking strobe lights. Anything that radiates can be tracked. Osama bin Laden, for instance, realized that having any electronics around him could be a death sentence. He reportedly used an intentional deception plan using his own phone, by sending it off with a decoy while he escaped in another direction."

As many journalists, writers and military leaders have pointed out, this is not a war that will be won by firepower alone.

Al Qaeda's Mistakes

Among its many blunders: Videotaping decapitations, the overzealous killing of Muslims (resulting in Sunni's and Shi'ites rejecting its murderous ways), and of course perpetrating 9/11, which awoke the sleeping giant, al Qaeda has fumbled again.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's number two "boasted that the U.S. was being defeated in Afghanistan, Iraq and other fronts."

Interesting that Zawahiri should state this position when Muslims in Iraq are now offering bounties for the capture of al Qaeda leaders.

But as Gateway Pundit noted, Zawahiri stole Harry Reid's talking points. In fact, he stole the Democrats' talking points on the war. In preaching America's defeat, Zawahiri is only reinforcing the well-established Democratic Party line, and strengthening the resolve of those who are determined to see through to victory.

When Zawahiri says:

"The Crusaders themselves have testified to their defeat in Afghanistan at the hands of the lions of the Taliban," he said. "The Crusaders have testified to their own defeat in Iraq at the hands of the mujahideen, who have taken the battle of Islam to the heart of the Islam world."

...he is speaking specifically of Harry Reid's "war is lost" comments from April 2007.

Ironically, as Zawahiri professes America's "failure," regurgitating Harry Reid's shameful politicking, the AP reports:

The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq said Thursday that a seven-month-old security operation has reduced violence by 50 percent in Baghdad but he acknowledged that civilians were still dying at too high a rate...

On Thursday, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters that car bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their lowest level in a year, and civilian casualties have dropped from a high of about 32 to 12 per day.

(H/T Gateway Pundit)

The AP beat me to it. I was on the website Iraq Coalition Casualty Count earlier today, and noted that September's total Iraqi Security Force and Civilian deaths stood at 530 so far, whereas the entire month of August totaled 1,674.

Additionally, a look at U.S. military fatalities reveals that as of today, September deaths are the lowest this year by far, and at the lowest pace since August 2006.

The effectiveness of al Qaeda's killing machine is clearly diminished. I can't wait to see what DailyKos writes about the casualty count... probably something to the effect of "Iraqi civilian deaths greater in September than September 2002 under Saddam!"

Then again, Kos bloggers have already declared that they don't support the troops, what more needs to be said?

It is at least heartening that some liberal bloggers are openly disgusted with the Demcorats' weak opposition and squandered opportunities. Democrats can hardly lead a majority in Congress, how would they fight a war? For these reasons, many political observers are asking: Who bears blame for anti-war failures?:

For many in Washington, the biggest unanswered question from Army. Gen. David Petraeus’ high-profile, low-satisfaction testimony last week was not about military strategy but about political tactics. Why has the anti-war movement been unable to translate the clear public mandate they claim into any clear change in our government’s Iraq policy?

To most war opponents, the blame increasingly lies with the Democratic leadership in Congress, for not taking a hard enough line with President Bush and not fighting to cut off war funding. And their frustration is visibly bubbling over — the provocative group Code Pink, for example, has actually taken to protesting outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home in San Francisco in recent days.

But there is a growing feeling among many Democrats, particularly within the D.C. establishment, that just the opposite is true. They may not say it publicly, for fear of arousing the grass roots’ wrath, but the realist wing of the party seems to think the Democrats’ biggest problem on Iraq these days is not that there’s too much Bush Lite but that there’s too much Bush Left.

Under this view, too many anti-war activists, not satisfied with berating the president, have too often wound up behaving like him. They have gone beyond fighting back and holding the Decider accountable to adopting the same divisive, dogmatic and ultimately destructive style of politics that Democrats have been decrying for the past seven years, with the same counterproductive results.

H/T Instapundit.

And what "change in course" do the Democrats even propose? Answer: Stop training the Iraqi Police and Army.

We also learn that al Qaeda, in its hubris, has decided to open yet another front in its war: Al Qaeda Bin Laden Message Declares War on Pakistan President Musharraf.

Enemies of al Qaeda should welcome this declaration. If bin Laden and Zawahiri are delusional enough to think that while losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, they can open a third front in their war, American and Pakistan should seize the opportunity and welcome the excuse to kill more terrorists.

The convergence of al Qaeda's goals, and that of the pusillanimous Democrats is as ironic as it is sad. Worse, still for the Democrats, they don't even appear aware that they are being played.

Technology Can Be A Scary Thing

We learn that there is very good reason to doubt the most recent Osama bin Laden videos timed for release around the sixth anniversary of 9/11. The doubt does not stem from bin Laden's fake looking beard or nonsensical left-wing remarks.

Rather, it is because others have proven just how easy it is to create a phony bin Laden video. No wonder bin Laden's a miserable failure.

But there are far more shocking developments in the war on terror yet. This time - good news for the good guys. The Belmont Club writes: The Wizard War

The National Science Foundation's "Darkweb" project is developing a variety of technologies to automate what only a few online sleuths can do: find Jihadis online and track them, even when they post under different names. It can perform content and traffic analysis and "profile" the style of authors.

Read the rest.

Some Bank On Withdrawal And Defeat

Obama wants American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible:

CLINTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.

The presidential hopeful would have us relinquish the advantage built on hard fought victories, just as AQI miscalculates:

If al-Qaeda hoped to win the Sunni tribes in western Iraq back to their banner, they severely miscalculated in their assassination of Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha.
Instead of cowing his tribesmen and intimidating them back into submission, 1500 of them defiantly lined the road for his funeral, swearing revenge on AQI

To heighten the degree of America's successful pursuit of victory since 9/11, Larry Kudlow writes:

Since September 11, the economy hasn’t suffered a single down quarter. In fact, it has notched 23 straight quarters of economic growth … Overall, the American economy is, adjusting for inflation, $1.65 trillion bigger than it was six years ago. To put that gigantic number in some perspective, the U.S. economy has added the equivalent of five Saudi Arabias, eight Irans, 13 Pakistans, or 15 Egypts, depending on your preference. And while 9/11 did cause the stock market to plunge, the Dow is 37 percent higher than it was on Sept. 10, 2001, creating trillions of dollars of new wealth for Americans. What’s more, the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent today vs. 5.7 percent back then. Not bad at all.

H/T Dr. Sanity


Even the marginally liberal Economist argues that the United States must stay.



However, for a Democratic presidential victory, those who would downplay American success in the war on terror have not only ignored the fact that al Qaeda is on the run around the world and in Iraq, but even resort to launching a character assassination attack on the General. Hillary Clinton is guilty as well.


My party, the Democrats, need Petraeus to lose. It's unfortunate, although perhaps a necessity within the political sphere that one side take the contrary view for the sake of it. And in doing so, they group themselves with American enemies such as Iran and the ousted Iraq Baath party.


Too bad for Democrats this view banks on American defeat. Too bad for America, as well.

Mainstream Islamic Imperialism

Christopher Hitchens:

When I went to Ramadan's event in the Palazzo d'Arco, I had just finished reading Osama Bin Laden's latest anniversary prose-poem. Here, too, are signs of an act being cleaned up. He brags of the murders of Sept. 11, of course (thus inconveniencing all those who attribute them to Mossad or some mysterious other agency), but he does not forget to cite Noam Chomsky, CIA maverick Michael Scheuer, and the Oliver Stone theory of the JFK assassination. He also exhibits concern for the global-warming crisis, the fate of American Indians, and even the recent collapse of the subprime mortgage market. Everything he says about the war in Iraq, right up to the affected concern for the civilian and military casualties, is presented as if he had hired one of Michael Moore's screenwriters as a consultant. Most unctuous of all, he reminds his audience that the Quran has a whole section in praise of the Virgin Mary, an ecumenical point that I had noticed before. (It is typical of monotheisms to plagiarize each other's worst features, from Abraham onward.) I think that this pitch is probably too crude and crass to work, but it's exactly the crudeness and crassness of Bin Laden that require the emergence of more "credible" middlemen to allay anxiety and offer reassurance. Only six years on, and already the soft mainstreaming of Islamic imperialism is under way.

9-11-2001

Michelle Malkin remembers.

Glenn Reynolds remembers.

Bryan from Hot Air remembers.

Gateway Pundit remembers.

Classical Values remembers.

A Hint Of Progress

Despite the fact that liberal bloggers and Democrats contend that "no progress" has been made with the surge, The New York Times: Hints of Progress, and Questions, in Iraq Data

The most comprehensive and up-to-date military statistics show that American forces have made some headway toward a crucial goal of protecting the Iraqi population. Data on car bombs, suicide attacks, civilian casualties and other measures of the bloodshed in Iraq indicate that violence has been on the decline, though the levels generally remain higher than in 2004 and 2005.

Not great news, but encouraging. Osama bin Laden's new tape has frankly only helped bolster my view that he is increasingly marginalized and weak. The passing shots he took at Democrats and suggestions for the direction or national and domestic policy should take also read like Democratic talking points. The bin Laden tape was essentially a victory for the White House.

And I don't know about you, but so far this September, I haven't read many reports of car bombs and troop fatalities. But that may only be due to the fact that many have been scrambling to discredit Petraeus and his report.

Update: Another NY Times report says the surge has failed. (H/T Hot Air)

Osama Bin Hidin'

Rather than take him seriously, bin Laden's latest video is being met with ambivalence, derision and sarcasm.

John Podhoretz links to a Family Guy episode which satirizes the sheik.

Time's Rober Baer writes that Bin Laden Fights to Stay Relevant.

Even fellow Muslims have criticized Osama:

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — A doctor who treated wounded al-Qaida fighters at Tora Bora in Afghanistan has confirmed Osama bin Laden was at the mountain stronghold as U.S. and Afghan forces attacked — and said the al-Qaida chieftain seemed concerned about only his own welfare.

Victor Davis Hanson adds:

And often friends supposedly asked bin Laden why after 1988, he did not locate to the West Bank or Gaza to wage his war against the hated Israelis, whom he had identified as the real enemies. The unspoken answer, of course, is that he thought it safer to attack the U.S. in the 1990s than to strike head-on Israel from next-door, something perceived tantamount to a death sentence.

And

even a brief scan of Peter Bergen’s The Osama bin Laden I Know will reveal dozens of various reasons why al Qaeda (in bin Laden’s own words) chose to attack—Jewish women walking around in Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, a general Western decadence, supposed massacres of Muslims in Burma, Kashmir, Somalia, and the Philippines; the arrests and detentions of Muslim “scholars;” attacks on Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan; theft of petroleum; support for the Saudi and Egyptian governments. In Raymond Ibrahim’s recent The al Qaeda Reader we even learn of furor over our financing of elections, and failure to sign Kyoto.

Others suggest bin Laden's new look places him in the category of "metrosexual."

Among conservatives, bin Laden's tape is even being derisively compared to rants by "lefty bloggers" or even Keith Olbermann: "Does Osama bin Laden sound like a Democrat, or do the Democrats sound like Osama?"

Meanwhile, "progressive" blogs whine that the media "continue to equate progressives with terrorists." and complain that:

Right-wing bloggers have also joined in. At Hot Air, Allahpundit claimed bin Laden sounded like a “socialist icon,” invoking many of the same passages Brooks did. At Political Vindication, Uncle Seth the Noble went further, claiming bin Laden sounded like Daily Kos’s Markos Moulitsas. Frank J, a Pajamas Media blogger, concluded “Kos has to get this guy as a diarist before HuffPo does.”

Two things in all this discussion are clear. 1) Whether bin Laden was sending a secret message, or has picked up some new fashion tips, he has now become a failure and a laughing stock. And 2) Osama (and al Qaeda) monitors Western media and commentary, which makes it all the more critical that the United States present a united front on the war on terror, rather than give moral comfort or aid to the enemy.

Update: More from Instapundit here, and the Beltway Blogroll here.

It's Cool To Be 'Highly educated people'

...just like Mos Def.

Why is the truth so hard to come by for celebrities? Perhaps when one's livelihood is predicated on convincing others to suspend their disbelief, blind credulity comes easy.

In a series of incredulous, half-baked, moonbatty conspiracy theory nonsense on Bill Maher's show, rapper/actor Mos Def declared himself the poster child for irrational "9/11 trutherism" and the like:

DEF: I don't believe it was bin Laden today, I don't believe it was never him. I think it's some dude just standing, I don't even, I can't even believe. I don't even, I'm sorry, I'm from the projects, I know danger. I don't feel no danger from that shit, those mother-fuckers.

BILL MAHER: But you don't think bin Laden knocked down the Word Trade Center?

DEF: Absolutely not.

MAHER: Come on.

DEF: I don't. I don't. You know what, I don't.

MAHER: That's where you lose me, my friend, and I'm so on your side, but you know what.

DEF: In any barbershop I am so not alone, I'm so not alone.

MAHER: That doesn't mean you're right.

DEF: That don't mean it is not valid neither. Highly-educated people in all areas of science have spoken on the fishiness around the whole 9/11 theory. It's like the magic-bullet and all that shit.

MAHER: Then what happened?

DEF: I don't believe these mother-fuckers have been to the moon either, but that's just me.

Yo, yo, yo, dats mos def da troof, yo.

He laughably views himself as a circumspect, adroit observer. The guy is 'mos def' far from the truth.

I give Maher credit for calling him out, and somehow keeping himself from choking the fool across the desk.

For any 'highly educated people' out there, there is much more to be learned about 9/11, and even the moon landing from Bill Whittle.

Reaction To The New Bin Laden Tape

Pajamas Media has a ton of reactions from the blogosophere. I've added more.

Osama claims victory in Iraq (which, of course, is untrue). Do the Democrats still want to argue that we should leave because it's not part of the war on terror?

Even bin Laden is disgusted with the Democrats' weakness. He must at least savor Bush as a worthy opponent. Can any American legitimately feel that we will be closer to catching Osama or beating back Islamic terrorists if a Democrat is elected president?

Well, inexplicably, some do, while others gloat. But on occasion when it comes to the war on terror, even liberals have some good ideas: let’s ignore the bastard. (Although at the same time arguing that Bush has downplayed bin Laden). In any case, others point out that whether or not he is ignored, "Broadcasting bin Laden's speeches, in whole or in part, are far less dangerous than the radical, hate-filled sermons that fill many mosques in London every week, as the Times of London documents."

Yes: "Second, the affinity between Muslim extremism and Western leftism has never been so clearly displayed."

Bin Laden then and now from Gateway Pundit.

More Updated transcript and links from CounterTerrorism Blog. And the full, uncut tape from Hot Air. Other good links at Instapundit.

Reports Of A New Osama Bin Laden Tape

...on or around the 6th anniversary of 9/11.

Counterterrorism Blog: 9/11 6th Anniversary: New Bin Laden Video Coming and Islamist "Special Gift" Promised:

The SITE Intelligence Group reports that a new Osama Bin Laden video message is forthcoming. SITE states that the new Osama Bin Laden message will be "addressing the American people on the sixth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001."

And a "Special gift":

In a potentially related story, FOX News is reporting that "Federal counterterrorism officials are analyzing a posting on an Islamic forum Web site that warns of "a special gift" to be given on the sixth anniversary of Sept. 11".

The Blotter: Al Qaeda Announces New Bin Laden Video:

Osama bin Laden will soon send a video message to America, according to a Web site regularly used by al Qaeda.

A posting late this afternoon said, "Soon, with the permission of God, a new visual tape, the Sheikh, the Lion, Osama bin Laden. May God protect him."

Jawa Report: The "Blessed invasion of Manhattan."

On a side note, as Pat Dollard writes: 75 Taliban Killed Today - Two Week Death Toll Reaches 300

Update: Video report from Fox News.

H/T Hot Air.

100-to-1 Kill Ratio

Good or bad?

U.S. Special Operations Forces have had considerable practice by now chasing jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The JSOC headquarters at Baghram is so full of high-tech listening and tracking equipment that it resembles "something out of 'Star Wars'," says a Pentagon official who has seen the place. In recent months, says John Arquilla, a Special Ops expert at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., the U.S. military has achieved a 100-to-1 kill ratio (100 dead guerrillas to every American). But by calling in airstrikes, the Americans also kill a lot of civilians, which breeds more jihadists. And according to Thomas Johnson, also at the Naval Postgraduate School, the military's continued fixation on body counts and kill ratios is irrelevant and even counterproductive. "When you kill a person it's a multiplication factor. It demands that all the male relatives join the fight."

A tough question: To kill, or not to kill for fear of continuing the cycle of violence.

Failure To Communicate

"What we've got here is... failure to communicate... So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men."

Ominous words, portending Cool Hand Luke's doom to failure because he didn't follow the rules.

When foreign governments, diplomats, politicians, and even domestic political opponents decry America's "heavy-handedness," they should recall this snippet from Newsweek's piece on the ongoing hunt for bin Laden:

Whenever he and his men moved within five kilometers of the safe house, he says, they had to file a request form known as a 5-W, spelling out the who, what, when, where and why of the mission. Permission from headquarters took hours, and if shooting might be involved, it was often denied. To go beyond five kilometers required a CONOP (for "concept of operations") that was much more elaborate and required approval from two layers in the field, and finally the Joint Special Operations Task Force at Baghram air base near Kabul. To get into a fire fight, the permission of a three-star general was necessary. "That process could take days," Rice recalled to NEWSWEEK. He often typed forms while sitting on a 55-gallon drum his men had cut in half to make a toilet seat. "We'd be typing in 130-degree heat while we're crapping away with bacillary dysentery and sometimes the brass at Kandahar or Baghram would kick back and tell you the spelling was incorrect, that you weren't using the tab to delimit the form correctly."

As I've written in the past, the United States follows strict rules of engagement. Far more rigid than those by which Afghanistan's last foreign visitors, the Soviets, operated under.

The U.S. military's dutiful adherence to the rule of international law, policy, procedure and documentation has saved innocent civilians' lives, but also spared many terrorists, and perhaps Osama bin Laden himself.

The military is exceedingly judicious in its use of force, and the left should remember that when assailing seemingly random "air raids" that have on occasion killed civilians (civilians terrorists have put into harm's way, more often than not).

Update: Some think the war on terror and our fight with al Qaeda would be over if we caught bin Laden. I disagree. Witness the rise of Qaeda acolytes Zarqawi and Dadullah.

It Is About Islam

From the last paragraph of Victor Davis Hanson's In Their Own Words - Newly translated writings of the al Qaeda leadership:

The Al Qaeda Reader, simply by letting our enemies speak in their own voices, explodes the popular delusion that Western crimes and policies are responsible for the “distortion” of Islam that al Qaeda represents. As Ibrahim writes, “This volume of translations, taken as whole, prove once and for all that, despite the propaganda of Al Qaeda and its sympathizers, Radical Islam’s war with the West is not finite and limited to political grievances — real or imagined — but is existential, transcending time and space and deeply rooted in faith.” This means that the fight will be long and hard, that leaving Iraq or creating a Palestinian state will not buy peace, and that the side that accurately understands its enemy and has confidence in its own beliefs will ultimately triumph. Thanks to Raymond Ibrahim’s The Al Qaeda Reader, we have the means for achieving that understanding.

What kind of words? Bin Laden:

“As if one of the foundations of our religion is how to coexist with infidels!” Quite the contrary: the traditions and foundations of Islam urge believers to “wage war against the infidels and the hypocrites, and be ruthless against them” (Koran 66:9), a verse Zawahiri quotes along with the commentary of al Qurtubi, 13th-century author of a 20-volume exegesis of the Koran: “There is but one theme — and that is zeal for the religion of Allah. He commands the waging of Jihad against the infidel by use of sword, sound sermons, and the summons to Allah.”

On "working together"

Indeed, bin Laden has a strong case, for he appeals for evidence to the life and practices of Mohammed and his companions — along with the Koran the Muslim’s guide to every aspect of life — and asks sarcastically, “What evidence is there for Muslims for this [dialogue and shared understanding]? What did the Prophet, the companions after him, and the righteous forebears do? Did they wage jihad against the infidels, attacking them all over the earth, in order to place them under the suzerainty of Islam in great humility and submission? Or did they send messages to discover ‘shared understandings’ between themselves and the infidels in order that they may reach an understanding whereby universal peace, security, and natural relations would spread — in such a satanic manner as this?”

History shows that bin Laden has the better understanding of Islam than do Western apologists; as Ibrahim summarizes the argument, “‘radical’ Islam is Islam — without exception.” In this same vein, Zawahiri argues in his “Loyalty and Enmity” that the only relationship one can have with the infidel is enmity. Zawahiri buttresses this argument with numerous quotations from Islamic theology, the most important coming from the Koran 60:4: “‘We disown you and the idols which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone.’” On this authority comes the necessity to wage jihad against the infidel.

Let's recall the words of al Qaeda's leaders the next time a liberal professes that there is no conflict between Islam and the West, or that if we just left their country, everything would be just fine. These men have clearly laid out a theological excuse for their mayhem and murder, irrespective of American actions to protect its strategic interests in the region.

That is false, as bin Laden and Zawahiri themselves prove in their own words.

Pre-9/11 Intelligence and the CIA

NRO, from the report, which reviewed the CIA's anti-terrorism activities before 9/11:

"counterterrorism funds and personnel were diverted from FY '97- FY'01 to "other Agency priorities." It notes that the DCI on 6 occasions in the 5 years prior to 9/11 used his authorities to move IC funds and personnel but none of these transfers supported programs to counter Osama bin Ladin or al Qaeda. The report is especially hard on the "former DCI" (George Tenet)."

Captain's Quarters has more:

"Despite Tenet's claims that he had sounded the alarm on Osama bin Laden, the CIA hadn't produced a comprehensive report focusing on bin Laden since 1993. Osama and AQ conducted a number of attacks on American assets around the world over the next eight years prior to 9/11, and yet they never revisited their analysis of bin Laden after the first World Trade Center attack."

This isn't good for George Tenet, but neither is it good for American national security, or the intelligence community. Have we learned from our mistakes?

Muslim Terrorists Demonized Like US Gov't Demonized... Nazi's?

This isn't a very strong argument, for obvious reasons. Here is why there should be no fear of Islamic terror ...according to a Blogger at DailyKos (and, I'm sure, much of its readership):

Reinventing The Huns

"The right has struggled mightily to keep fear as high as possible. They've resurrected dead academic terms like "islamist" and coined new ones like "Islamic fascists" (along with the laughable "Islamofacist") to instill the proper levels of revulsion. It's no accident that the terms used are reminiscent of those used in World War I and World War II recruiting posters -- the kind where Germans are "Huns," Japanese are "Japs," and both of them have fangs. That we face an enemy as powerful and implacable as those of the "greatest generation" is exactly the image they seek."

We're demonizing Muslims like our forefathers demonized... Nazi's? The Blogger, going by the name of Devilstower, even goes on to endorse the findings of Robert Pope, who contended that:

"Islam -- even "radical" Islam -- had little relationship to terrorism."

Fascinating.

A terrorist is not even a "freedom fighter" anymore, but an "occupied."

So much so, that:

"The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland."

Not driven by religion? I suppose "Jihad" is simply a hip, new, mod phrase.

Strangely, Osama bin Laden's own words contradict that idea:

In our religion, there is a special place in the hereafter for those who participate in jihad.

Osama bin Laden
In Time magazine May 6, 1996

or

To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

Osama bin Laden
In Fatwa entitled Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders World Islamic Front
Statement, February 28, 1998

It sounds like religion is pretty close to the heart of Islamic terrorists. And how about those 72 virgins?

If you buy this argument, then it's not Islamic terror when they behead someone, videotape it, and then publish that tape for the world to see. In the name of Allah.

If you buy this argument, then it's not Islamic terror when they explode a fuel-filled truck, killing none of the "occupiers," but plenty of innocent civilians. In the name of Allah.

If you buy this argument, then it's not terror when an airliner filled with innocent civilians is flown into a skyscraper filled with innocent civilians. In the name of Allah.

Somewhere, there is a disconnect. Only two weeks ago, a leading Saudi Cleric said:

Sheik Muhammad Al-Munajid: This is a nation of monotheism, and this is the Islam that Allah wants to spread throughout the world, and to rule the land it its entirety. Allah wants this. He sent down the Koran and the hadith for that purpose.

I can't imagine how a mujahideen, -er, I mean, freedom fighter, -er, I mean, "occupied," could possibly be led to Jihad against the West.

Preventing Future Attacks

WSJ: The Cheney Imperative

With intelligence officials in Washington increasingly alarmed about the prospect of another major attack on the U.S. homeland, and public support for the Bush administration's anti-terror efforts reclaiming lost ground, we need more Dick Cheney.

The policies he has advocated have been controversial. But they have also been effective. Consider the procedures put in place to extract information from hardcore terrorists. Mr. Cheney did not dream up these interrogation methods, but when intelligence officials insisted that they would work, the vice president championed them in internal White House debates and on Capitol Hill. Former CIA Director George Tenet--a Clinton-era appointee and certainly no Cheney fan--was asked about the value of those interrogation programs in a recent television appearance. His response, ignored by virtually everyone in the media, was extraordinary.

"Here's what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the president of the Untied States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. . . . I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us."

Surveillance may come at a modest price, but it pays dividends...

And what about the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program? Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush instructed his top intelligence officials to be aggressive in their efforts to track terrorists and disrupt their plots. Michael Hayden, NSA director at the time, took that opportunity to propose changes to the ways his agency monitored terrorist communications. A little more than a year before the 9/11 attacks, while Bill Clinton was still president, Mr. Hayden dramatized the NSA's dilemma in congressional testimony.

"If, as we are speaking here this afternoon, Osama bin Laden is walking . . . from Niagara Falls, Ontario, to Niagara Falls, New York, as he gets to the New York side, he is an 'American person.' And my agency must respect his rights against unreasonable search and seizure as provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution."

Once President Bush took office, Messrs. Hayden and Tenet took the problem to Dick Cheney. The vice president walked them in to see Mr. Bush and in short order the changes were implemented. The results were almost immediate. The New York Times article that exposed the surveillance program in December 2005 also reported that "the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program."

H/T: Pat Dollard.

Hitchens: Myths About al Qaeda

Christopher Hitchens: "Foolish Myths About al Qaeda In Mesopotamia"

The founder of al-Qaida in Mesopotamia was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who we can now gratefully describe as "the late." The first thing to notice about him is that he was in Iraq before we were. The second thing to notice is that he fled to Iraq only because he, and many others like him, had been driven out of Afghanistan. Thus, by the logic of those who say that Afghanistan is the "real" war, he would have been better left as he was. Without the overthrow of the Taliban, he and his collaborators would not have moved to take advantage of the next failed/rogue state. I hope you can spot the simple error of reasoning that is involved in this belief. It also involves the defeatist suggestion—which was very salient in the opposition to the intervention in Afghanistan—that it's pointless to try to crush such people because "others will spring up in their place." Those who take this view should have the courage to stand by it and not invent a straw-man argument.

It was only a matter off time

To say that the attempt to Talibanize Iraq would not be happening at all if coalition forces were not present is to make two unsafe assumptions and one possibly suicidal one. The first assumption is that the vultures would never have gathered to feast on the decaying cadaver of the Saddamist state, a state that was in a process of implosion well before 2003. All our experience of countries like Somalia and Sudan, and indeed of Afghanistan, argues that such an assumption is idiotic. It is in the absence of international attention that such fight them, the more such cancers metastasize. This appears to be contradicted by all the experience of Iraq. Fallujah or Baqubah might already have become the centers of an ultra-Taliban ministate, as they at one time threatened to do, whereas now not only have thousands of AQM goons been killed but local opinion appears to have shifted decisively against them and their methods.

Hitchens' last point about the thousands of "AQM goons" having been killed or overruled by tribal leaders is clear when noting recent reports that Major Attacks Evaporating In Iraq, as Pat Dollard noted.

Which means now is not the time to withdraw, as Democrats are calling to do, rather we should press on and finish the job.

If we are to take Obama's uninformed, inaccurate, ignorant narrative:

"We've to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.''

...then surely we will lose by the sheer lack of a coherent strategy Obama cannot even articulate. Worse than being soft on terrorism (as some critics suggest, terrorism is a law enforcement problem... huh?), Obama falsely smears our military while writers in Europe praise the progress by our troops.

A sad, strange day in American when a U.S. Presidential candidate is less supportive and much more highly critical of U.S. policy than a German newspaper: "The US military is more successful in Iraq than the world wants to believe."

Does this sound like American troops simply "air-raiding villages and killing civilians?":

The "Battle of Donkey Island," named after the wild donkeys native to the region, lasted 23 hours. The Americans forced the enemy to engage in trench warfare in the rough brush, eventually trapping them in the vast riverside landscape. It wasn't until later, after the soldiers lost two of their own and killed 35 terrorists, that they realized the scope of the disaster they had foiled.

Three of the captured attackers, who claimed to be members of al-Qaida in Iraq, revealed their plan to plunge Ramadi into chaos once again by staging multiple attacks in broad daylight. By unleashing a devastating series of suicide attacks on the city, they hoped to destroy the delicate peace in Ramadi and bring the war back to its markets, squares, streets and residential neighborhoods.

I think not. Although it's funny to see the other Democratic candidates scramble to now get on the "right side" of this issue, as Jules Crittenden writes.

(H/T, Hot Air)