US War On Terror Losing Ground In Pakistan

Although the "war on terrorism" remains a consuming focus of the U.S. government, the Bush administration appears poised to leave behind a situation not unlike the one it inherited nearly eight years ago: a resurgent Al Qaeda ensconced in South Asia, training new recruits, plotting attacks against the West, and seemingly beyond the United States' reach.

In dozens of interviews, senior U.S. national security, intelligence and military officials described a counter-terrorism campaign in Pakistan that has lost momentum and is beset by frustration.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[VictorLudorum]

Hummph! another vietnam is over ...............

[Ammobob]

Can't have anything to do with the new government? Hands off style treaties with warlords in the mountainous regions have provided the Taliban and others carte blanche to attack cross border in Afghanistan. But, Musharraf was a thug and needed to go..........replaced by other proven corrupt officials, oh well.......

[esgabel]

We never gained ground in Pakistan...they were playing both sides against the middle...we were too distracted fighting an ill conceived war that has left 4400+ of our military dead and countless numbers of the Iraqis we were supposed to be saving lifeless.

[brainuser]

Well, duh.

[esquire07]

"War on Terror" = Absolute joke.

It is simply a business transaction led by the mercenary US Military to ensure Oil and Arms profits go into the pockets of BUSHco.

Wake up America. So many lies... your nation is being plundered while "The Decider" lies to you about the so called 'Terrorists."

[brainuser]

""War on Terror" = Absolute joke." That's GLOBAL war on terror--GWOT--to you.

[darthdarcy]

Why did Bush refuse to send the 6-800 Troops our CIA and Special Forces were begging for to get bin-Laden and Zawahiri at Tora Bora..

Tora Bora should be examined closely by everyone..

Why did Bush allow so many Taliban and al-Qaeda to be flown out of Afghanistan by the Pakistani ISI from a city nearby Tora Bora and let a 1,500 car caravan full of Taliban and al-Qaeda drive right out of Afghanistan..?

That is all key to the situation we face now..!

How was this not a betrayal of every victim of 9/11..?

[Robert59]

This falls under high crimes and misdemeanors. Should have been the first charge under the articles of impreachment.

I believe he wanted Bin Laden to escape. If he had been captured or killed invading Iraq would have never been possible.

[danoj]

Bush did not refuse to send the troops into Torra Bora. The request for troops was made by CIA on the ground to military commanders and due to long standing rules imposed by the previous admin the request was denied. Moreover, what do you want to do start a war in Pakistan, a country with like 100 mil people with just over 50% support of these terrorist murders.

[Nonamnesiac]

This kind of hysterical, fearmongering headline, on a progressive blog, exaggerates an incredibly minor threat to the interests and lives of Americans to absurd, untrue levels. The time is long past for progressives to expose the absurdity of the fearmongering. Here we are, in the safest, most secure country in the history of the world, our citizenry more threatened by getting hit by lightning than by being hit by any terrorist attack, manufacturing reasons to attack countries whose militaries and economies are infinitestimal compared to ours, because media, even progressive media, continue to pour out lying stories about how these weak countries threaten our existence.

Even if bin Laden, Mullah Omar and company have found shelter among some feudal tribes on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, they do not pose a threat to the vital interests of the U.S. Yeah, we need to get them and bring them to justice. But we don't need to invade the country they're staying in, or conduct wholesale war against those countries. We need to keep on the heat, win the support of those who run those countries and the leaders of the tribes in the areas and get them -- period.

According to McCain and Obama we must spend billions and fight half the world to contain the threat. They've used fear to make us a nation of cowards, justifying torture and ridiculous force against much weaker opponents to stop a threat less likely to harm Americans than lightning.

[trollsbwild]

The real war has been treated as nothing more than a distraction. Iraq did not have Al Queda or OBL. The perpetrators of the worst attack on our soil are still alive and well.
So tell me again how we have been successful by any rational standard in the war against terror?

[danoj]

Rational standard = dead terrorists.

[gcallaghan]

Republicans = Military Failure

[danoj]

Dems = Military haters.

[research]

rethugs = cut military benifits

[research]

So BushCo has driven Al Qeada and the Taliban and Bin Laden from Afghanistan where the country had no military to worry about, to Pakistan, which has welcomed them and has nukes.

All part of BushCo's terrorist apprentice and mentoring program.

[bascombe]

war is a great solution for everything if you are a military contractor.

[cdembrey]

"the problem was amplified by not doing the work in Afghanistan when the opertunity was there and invading Iraq.

The problem was trying to do the job with War Lords (as mercs) and relying on Special Ops teams as our troops. Rangers, Marines and Mountain troops (BTW several NATO countries have superb mountain troops) should have replaced the mercs. But the administration didn't want American casualties, which would have made selling Iraq much harder.

[zippywpinhead]

we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them, er, uh, umm, at the other over there...

[Nonamnesiac]

If we're going to try to take out the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/01 and who will attack us and others whom they oppose, we will get international cooperation and assistance to defeat them. If we are going to try to take out all who agree with those terrorists generally or who oppose us for legitimate or illegitimate reasons, including many who live in areas hostile to us but do not in any way partake in terrorist activity against us, we're going to get the enmity of the countries where those non-combatant opponents live and create opponent combatants who will join terrorists opposed to us. 9/11 was horrible and I'd do bin Laden myself, but the attack force was 19 terrorists who had found and used a glaring weakness in our airline security apparatus. It makes no sense to magnify their attack into a mortal threat against the US or grounds to wipe out whole populations. That kind of reaction will create mortal treats to the US.

[danoj]

That's the way the previous admin treated terrorism too. That's why we had 9/11. It's right to say if you harbor terrorists to any country friend or foe we might jus be knocking on your door next.

[bascombe]

will create?

[biwee]

Because Pakistan has the BOMB, you do not see many Pakistani civilians being killed by the US military. Of course, Afghanistan does not have the BOMB, and Afghan civilians are being slaughtered by aerial attacks controlled by the US military. The so-called "collateral damage" garbage is simply poor targeting and carelessness about human lives.