Dem talking points on al Qaeda lead new story

The NY Times has a long story on al Qaeda's attempts to adapt to their changed situation after the Taliban were defeated. It follows the tired old line about Iraq as a distraction ignoring the significant strategic defeat al Qaeda has suffered there and in the Muslim world as a result of their excesses in Iraq.

Al Qaeda is now trying to regroup for a last stand in Pakistan with its Taliban allies and it has been aided by the incompetence of the Pakistan Frontier Corps and the new government that insists on attempting the failed policy of the past seeking a truce with guys who think they are on a mission from God.

The assertion that al Qaeda can launch the kind o attacks it did before 9-11 is belied by the facts. The group is basically down to back pack bombs and human bomb attacks that do not have the capacity of their earlier attempts at mass murder for Allah. It is also short of funds needed for its high profile multiple attacks.

The organization has lost its command and control ability on any kind of timely basis because of fear of intercepts of its communications. Their main ally of late has been the Democrats in Congress who have shown great concern for al Qaeda privacy rights as well as a strong desire to punish those who helped the US intercept those communications.

The military in Afghanistan is naturally frustrated by Pakistan's double game and there is a genuine loss of confidence in the Pakistan leadership. There has been some evidence that the Pakistan military is actively assisting the Taliban in attacks in Afghanistan. There is a delicate balance between pushing the Pakistanis to do more but still keeping the main supply route open and the Predator bases operating. That tension is probably why the US has been more tolerant than many would like.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Is the F-35 obsolete?