Is Obama's AfPak Strategy Actually Working?

I'm not a big fan of the big escalation in Afghanistan. While there are many things that would be good to do in Afghanistan, there is only one thing that we have to do: Deny it as an operational base for Al Qaeda or other transnational jihadists. As Vice President Joe Biden and others have pointed out, that can be done with far less than the nation-building exercise which ex-President George W. Bush promised and President Barack Obama at times seems bent on delivering. Yet there are some signs that Obama's strategy, which goes well beyond the escalation, is working. Is it?

With a few exceptions, in the form of rebuilding advanced industrial nations that we had smashed, America really isn't very good at nation-building. And now we need to focus on a nation-building project rather closer to home, in that it is at home.

The Taliban stronghold of Marjah in southern Afghanistan was declared captured by U.S., British, Canadian, and Afghan troops on February 27th. Now begins the process of a successful civilian administration of the city, where some 2000 American and 1000 Afghan troops will be stationed for the next few months. The next target will be the other longtime Taliban stronghold of Kandahar.

America is getting hollowed out economically. The middle class is in trouble, the poor hanging on by a thread. We all know it. The financial machinations that made a few wildly rich nearly wrecked the country. Yet we are still involved in a rickety nation-building experiment in Iraq after an invasion which looks only more idiotic as time passes and we learn more. We simply don't need another nation-building experiment, much less one in a tribal society in which literacy is rare and corruption is the norm, with narcotics by far the biggest industry.

That said, what I like about Obama's AfPak strategy, though I do not like the big escalation in Afghanistan, is that there is a suppleness to it. It evolves. Or, at least, it seems to evolve. For all I know, what appear to be evolutions in the strategy is merely Obama choosing to reveal new elements of it over time.

Could it be that Obama's strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan is actually working?

In early February, the Afghan Taliban's top military commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, was captured in Karachi in a joint CIA/Pakistani operation. Baradar is the number two figure beside Mullah Omar.

Since he announced it last November, Obama's big military escalation toward nation-building and "victory" in Afghanistan has morphed into something rather different. Namely, toward a coalition government with major elements of the Taliban.

It's quite similar to what Senator Robert F. Kennedy advocated during the Vietnam War of the 1960s, when he called for a coalition government with the Viet Cong.

Kennedy was assassinated in 1968 before he could become president, so what we got instead of a coalition government in Vietnam was years more of grueling war -- and a slow disengagement under President Richard Nixon -- before an all-out defeat in 1975. It would have been very easy to see how Nixon spun that. He, of course, was long gone, having resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal, with only his appointed Vice President Gerald Ford left to preside over the debacle.

General Stanley McChrystal went on national television in Afghanistan 10 days ago to apologize for a wayward air strike on a caravan of civilian vehicles.

What Obama is doing now can be described as "escalation for negotiation." While there are serious diplomatic feelers underway with the Taliban -- as well as efforts to divide leadership elements and buy off others -- there are even more serious military operations underway to dissuade the Taliban from their official stance that they will negotiate upon U.S. withdrawal. Not that the Taliban aren't still trying to disrupt U.S. strategy, as well as resist.

Consider:

• In Afghanistan, U.S., British, Canadian, and Afghan forces are engaged in mopping up operations in the former Taliban stronghold of Marjah. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that Marjah is just the first example of a new type of approach in Afghanistan. The longtime cradle of the Taliban movement, Kandahar, is known to be on this year's target list. That's where Pakistani intelligence helped nurture the religious students movement in the mid-1990s, several years after the ouster of the by then late Soviet Union.
• The former Taliban stronghold of Marjah is only the first target of the plan for southern Afghanistan. Next is the clearing of Kandahar, the historic seedbed of the Taliban in the 1990s, when they emerged, with the great help of the Pakistani intelligence service, in the midst of civil war between various existing Afghan warlord factions after the defeat of the Soviet Union.

The U.S. Marine-led offensive against the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in southern Afghanistan began on Presidents Day weekend.

• But the overall Afghanistan operation has suffered severe setback. First, when a dozen civilians were killed in a rocket strike in Marjah. And later, when a U.S. fighter jet attacked a convoy in another part of the country that turned out to be civilian, killing some 33 civilians in the process.
• Obama's prodding of and diplomacy with Pakistan appears to be paying more dividends. In addition to the capture earlier of the Afghan Taliban's number two leader, who is providing intelligence to Pakistani authorities, seven of the 15 members of the organization's leadership council were taken prisoner in mid-February.

• In the past, Pakistani authorities have allowed top leaders of the Afghan Taliban safe haven in Pakistan. After all, the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, practically created the Taliban in the '90s as a way of stabilizing an Afghanistan torn by civil war in the wake of the defeat of the Soviet Union there. Now that appears to be changing.

• In Pakistan, where big jihadist gains that threatened the government were rolled back last year, the military is moving again against jihadists in the frontier regions, though Pakistani officials had said in January that no new operations of that nature would be undertaken for at least six months.

By February 17th, most of Marjah, a principal Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan, had been taken, but large minefields and heavy pockets of resistance remained.

• The Afghan Taliban reacted late last week to a string of setbacks by launching another strike in the heart of Kabul. This is a classic pattern, a reminder that the group is still alive and able to dispense death. It's something undertaken when viability is in question. And in this case it was an act designed to stir up problems elsewhere.

As most of the dead were Indian workers, this is raising some tensions between Pakistan and India, something which is not hard to do. Pakistan has justified its support for the rise of the Taliban movement in Afghanistan, several years after the Soviets were beaten there, in part as a counter to Indian involvement in the failed state.

So Obama actually has some improvments to point to, something which he should get around to doing. Which I suppose he will, once the long tardy national health care reform bill is finally settled.

But even so, the question remains: Why the big escalation in Afghanistan in the first place? Given that our core objective there is to deny it as a base to Al Qaeda, the actual composition or even existence of a national government is not all that central a matter.

Remember that when Bill Clinton was criticized for not eradicating Al Qaeda, the thrust of the criticism was not that he would not invade Afghanistan and set up a new national government there. It was that he had relied on missile attacks against Al Qaeda, rather than deploying special operations forces into Afghanistan to destroy the camps there. (At least Clinton took Al Qaeda seriously as a threat, the Bush/Cheney team was focused elsewhere, including then National Security Advisor Condi Rice, who prepared a speech [to be delivered on September 11, 2001] on missile defense as the top national security issue.)

Military officials in Pakistan are showing off a mountain that Al Qaeda had been using both as a hide-out and as a place to store weapons, currency and look-alike U.S. military uniforms.

So the idea that we have to run the entire country to prevent jihadists from using it as a base is a major ratcheting up from reality, to say the least.

Of course, Obama is dealing with a very out-of-kilter political situation. This is a country in which stunningly vast numbers of people believe the most viciously errant nonsense about him. That ACORN, a not especially powerful organization, somehow stole the presidential election for him. That he really isn't an American citizen at all. That he is some sort of "Manchurian candidate" figure.

Obama has an unusual name. He's one of America's youngest presidents. And of course he is the first black president. Like most people in both major parties, he's never been in the military. Which, oddly, only seems to matter for Democrats. With a toxic and largely dysfunctional media culture, all this spells big trouble for him.

A "failure" to escalate, even coupled with his far-more-lethal-than-Bush program of air and special ops strikes against jihadist leaders, would have led to inevitable claims that he was "cutting and running" in Afghanistan.

Maybe Obama really does believe that this extremely elaborate set of moves is necessary for success. And maybe he is covering his rear end, considering that one has to be president in order to act as president.

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

 

Comments

[lilalove]

10:38 PM on 03/22/2010

Well done and great read!

On a side note... the T2000 reached his goal.

[William Bradley]

02:36 PM on 03/23/2010

Thanks, I appreciate it!

What about the T2000?

[lilalove]

02:51 PM on 03/23/2010

:)

Ah, the T2000 reach his goal today... no matter what they threw at him.
Today is a good road map to how his goals/vict­ories in the future will play out. You can chop off his legs and he still keeps coming...
I think those in the middle east should take note. Obama does have a goal in the middle east.. and it's a mans head. lol
Those are my thoughts anyway, for what they are worth.

[LizM]

11:06 PM on 03/10/2010

Press reports indicating that Biden favors a counter-te­rrorism approach over a counterins­urgency fantasy are accurate, I will admit, but only as far as they go. What I should have said was that these reports are not complete in that they do not tell the whole story of Biden’s thinking on this matter. Anyone who knows anything about Biden knows that much to be true.

In other words, advocating for a counter-te­rrorism approach does not preclude a US leadership role in promoting and facilitati­ng an Afghan-led process that may lead to political reforms and reconcilia­tion and a more stable Afghanista­n. Which is not the equivalent - in any way, shape or form - to a counterins­urgency operation, especially of the fantastica­l variety that General McChrystal once favored...­and may still favor, for all we know.

We do have only one core interest in Afghanista­n, keeping in mind that we are talking about a regional problem here that extends well beyond the Afghan border. But, I still think that - after 10 years of US/NATO military interventi­on in this already traumatize­d country and the ouster of its government­, such as it was - the US and a good part of the rest of the internatio­nal community have a moral responsibi­lity to not simply leave Afghanista­n to its own meager devices with respect to moving toward political reconcilia­tion. Of course, I would also argue that, beyond moral responsibi­lity, this is all essentiall­y linked to the core US interest.

[William Bradley]

10:11 AM on 03/11/2010

What we do know is that Biden is against a big nation building effort in Afghanista­n. He is against spending that money. Which we don't really have.

The more we get involved in the politics of Afghanista­n, the more we must be involved militarily­.

Because plainly the Taliban will kill the civilian aid workers otherwise.

[LizM]

10:59 PM on 03/11/2010

This assumes that the Taliban and Pashtun majority in the south and east of the country cannot be largely co-opted into Afghanista­n's political system and that Iran and Pakistan would not support reconcilia­tion efforts.

Of course, those are not hard assumption­s to make. I guess we’ll see soon enough.

[LizM]

11:02 PM on 03/10/2010

I'm also quite sure that no one in the Arab world expects the US to establish a modern state in Afghanista­n. But, I think we can forgive anyone in the Arab world who took President Obama’s speech to heart if they expect the US to use its political leverage and leadership role to assist Afghanista­n in working toward political progress. At any rate, I would expect that.

What transpired in Kabul today, however, only reinforces the notion that a more stable Afghanista­n is going to be very difficult to achieve in a very problemati­c neighborho­od.

[LizM]

01:10 AM on 03/08/2010

Waiting for President Obama to get around to pointing to his successes - on Afghanista­n, the economy, and any number of other things - requires quite a lot of patience. He's not exactly quick to heap any public praise on those in his administra­tion who are largely responsibl­e for these successes, either.

But, as we all know very well, the praise will come in another lifetime.

[William Bradley]

08:44 AM on 03/08/2010

Yes. Modesty is an admirable trait in life, but usually not in politics.

Politics is filled with people out to tear you down, not build you up.

[LizM]

10:48 AM on 03/08/2010

Who's talking about modesty? Certainly, not me and most definitely not about this president. I think it's more of a communicat­ion problem and I hope he gets it fixed and soon!

[Mas]

06:55 PM on 03/07/2010

Just a few short months ago, as President Obama and staff were putting together a pragmatic strategy, it was Fox, CNN, MSNBC, host's & guest with the "President is dithering.­" The President was not showing or projecting bold American leadership (this is how Liz Cheney and her cult group got their footing in the cable media). Will any or most of them now admit they see the strategy and how well things have been planned out? I predict on this the sounds of crickets. I'm sure though, if the last few months had showed no action, the furthering of the "dithering­" charge would still be played out. The President'­s political haters would book themselves on the Sunday talk shows to complain about lives, material, and money. How the President was not Commander in Chief (CINC) .

We have not reached the end or the beginning of the end. No one believes every situation will be perfect, without costly and fatal mistakes. I can only speak for myself, I'm just glad a strategy beneficial towards ending the tasking is well underway.

[William Bradley]

08:46 AM on 03/08/2010

In our ADD media culture, anything that requires a moment's thought is viewed as dithering ...

[LizM]

12:13 PM on 03/07/2010

I’m still not sure I understand what the strategy is so it’s difficult to judge whether it's actually working or not. And, to hear General Petraeus speak about it this morning with a big ole grin on his face is to wonder if anyone really knows what the strategy is or if it can work.

Make no mistake, though, whatever the US strategy in Afghanista­n and Pakistan is and whatever it is able to achieve, if Afghanista­n is not able to sustain any of it, what is the point?

I’m not saying that the US needs to be large and in charge of an all out nation-bui­lding effort in Afghanista­n but without a concerted internatio­nal diplomatic­/political­/economic effort to work with the people and government of that traumatize­d country to promote essential political reforms, it is hard to envision how any Afghanista­n-Pakistan region-wid­e strategy can possibly work in the long-term.

While the announced core objective here is to deny a base of operations to al-Qaeda, I would argue that the nature of the government structure in Afghanista­n is indeed central to that matter ... unless, of course, the US and its coalition partners are satisfied with the propositio­n that the situation that exists today in Afghanista­n will exist in perpetuity ... or, get worse.

[William Bradley]

08:50 AM on 03/08/2010

We didn't need ANY involvemen­t in Afghanista­n's government to have disrupted Al Qaeda there before 9/11.

Why do we need so much more now?

>While the announced core objective here is to deny a base of operations to al-Qaeda, I would argue that the nature of the government structure in Afghanista­n is indeed central to that matter ... unless, of course, the US and its coalition partners are satisfied with the propositio­n that the situation that exists today in Afghanista­n will exist in perpetuity ... or, get worse.

[salty07]

05:42 PM on 03/08/2010

I disagree. wihtout people on the ground, it would have been impossible to get even the limited results that we ained against AQ in 01-02. Now we are spending resources in order to "hold" what we gained. We have a moral obligation to the Afghans to help them get pn their feet. not at all a task we would have even considered prior to 9/11. Because its really, really, hard. we walked away in '91 for just that reason- we didn't want the throuble and didn't think it was worth it. Well, our DISengagem­ent has a bad habit of costing us more in the long run.

[LizM]

12:03 AM on 03/09/2010

I would agree that we didn’t need INVOLVEMEN­T in Afghanista­n’s government before 9/11. And, we don’t need that now.

I’m just saying that disrupting Al Qaeda there may turn out to be a mission without end if the government of Afghanista­n cannot develop the capacity to maintain some semblance of law and order and security and authority beyond the city limits of Kabul. And, they are going to need a little help from their friends - not to mention their neighbours - in developing that capacity.

After a decade of US/NATO military action in Afghanista­n, wouldn't you say that the US and its NATO allies have some moral responsibi­lity to assist Afghanista­n in moving beyond civil war and toward some kind of political reconcilia­tion that most Afghans can buy into? Especially when that may be the only way to permanentl­y disrupt Al Qaeda and deny them a base of operations there without a continuous military operation of one sort or another.

[LizM]

12:06 PM on 03/07/2010

I suspect that the inclusion of moderate elements of the Taliban in the political process as part of a ‘divide-an­d-conquer’ tactic has always been a critical element of the Obama/Bide­n strategy for Afghanista­n-Pakistan­. That has clearly been the only way forward and out of this mess for some time now.

But, there may also be an effort by the administra­tion to make deals with brutal Afghan warlords. Which may be an entirely different can of worms. There are reports this morning of clashes in Northern Afghanista­n between the Taliban and a rival Islamic militant group loyal to one of these warlords, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. It appears that making alliances of convenienc­e with powerful and brutal Afghan warlords like this may not be the best way to promote stability. Assuming, of course, that stablility matters.

In any event, it is hard to understand how an increased US/NATO military footprint in the midst all of this can achieve anything good ... especially when you consider that the surge of US/NATO military forces is ostensibly meant to be a relatively short-term tactic.

[William Bradley]

08:53 AM on 03/08/2010

To be clear, you want to have a huge role in nation building in Afghanista­n, but you don't want an increased military role.

What do you think happens to all those civilian aid workers without military force to push back the Taliban?

>In any event, it is hard to understand how an increased US/NATO military footprint in the midst all of this can achieve anything good ... especially when you consider that the surge of US/NATO military forces is ostensibly meant to be a relatively short-term tactic.

[LizM]

01:45 AM on 03/09/2010

I don't think I've ever wanted to have a huge role in nation building in Afghanista­n. And, I don't think the US should have a huge role, either ... aside from demonstrat­ing a little leadership in promoting and facilitati­ng an internatio­nal diplomatic effort to support an Afghan-led process of political reform and reconcilia­tion.

As for the increased military role ... I just don't see how that is going to further US objectives in Afghanista­n.

What comes first, though ... security or political reforms?

How can we expect security to improve without political reforms? The ANP, for example, are not trusted by the people because there is no semblance of an independen­t judiciary to guard against even the most blatant corruption and abuses of power, let alone support minimal law and order throughout the country.

One thing is for sure, this is a bigger mess than most of us even realize and I still don’t know what the answers are. That’s why we need a long and in-depth interview with Biden, you know.

[salty07]

05:49 PM on 03/08/2010

Gulbuddin Hekmatyr is a "fellow travelor" of the taliban. In fact, he was the Pakistani favorite out of the Mujahadeen political parties in the eighties. He's actually not that influentia­l these days. Now General Dostum is another matter. He is a true warlord, and truly brutal, and truly effective in fighting the Taliban. He is enormously popular in the Uzbek dominated north, and you would need his active cooperatio­n in order to ensure their loyalty to the national government­. His position in entrenched locally, and quietly supported by Turkey. Kabul doesn't exactly need more enemies, so fighting Dostum isn't an option. He is going to worm out financial and political benefits out of any positiom the government allows him, but he is too destabiliz­ing to leave out in the cold. What would you suggest?

[LizM]

06:57 PM on 03/08/2010

"The course of action I'd suggest is a course of action I can't suggest."

[AmericanDreamWarrior]

09:34 AM on 03/07/2010

I'm trying to remember exactly when the Afghanis declared war against us?

As our country is on verge of collapse from the weight of 2 unfunded wars, it makes me wonder if we're paying for our acts of revenge, and our hubris knowing what's best for the whole world. Maybe we should tend our own garden before we can plant anothers. If that makes sense. I guess I'm just frustrated­. I'm still waiting for it to be explained, the thinking that a full military attack of an entire nation for the work of a group that doesn't seem to claim fielty to any nation in particular­, in a way that makes sense. A real explanatio­n of why so many people had to die, instead of "fighting them there instead of here". Who? The Afghanis? And someone really needs to explain Iraq to me and why in heavens name we're still there.

[muck-raker]

10:31 AM on 03/08/2010

good post ADW. in addition Dec 1979 The USA supported Mujahideen against Russia.
1985 Soviets withdrew from Afganistan and USA did not help with reconstruc­tion
in 1998 Brezezinsk­i said in his memoirs "I told Prez Carter we have just given Soviets their Viet Nam war"....
now that the USA is in Afganistan is this our Viet Nam redux?

[William Bradley]

11:25 AM on 03/08/2010

A few factual errors.

The US is not fighting against the Afghani people. Or the Afghan people, for that matter.

The Soviets, who invaded Afghanista­n in 1979 after assassinat­ing the president of Afghanista­n in a special forces raid that wiped out 200 Afghans in the presidenti­al palace, did not withdraw in 1985.

The Soviets withdrew in 1989.

[BorisPutinov]

09:31 AM on 03/07/2010

Tovarich.
There have always been changes in the world, it is called the inexorable march of time.
It is HOW you manage those changes, in the final analysis, that will make the difference­.
You must approach things with strong logic and will; permanent or semi-perma­nent states of conflict have never triumphed in the long term, this has been one of the great lessons of History.
Solutions must be applied with a long view, not a short, temporizin­g one.
Just like our stay in the buffer states of Eastern Europe was not meant to last forever, the same principle applies to everyone, everywhere­.
In time, you will come to that conclussio­n, just as we did.
You are young, you will learn.

Boris

Boris

[Smithn]

07:34 PM on 03/06/2010

William,
Thank you for sharing your unique and exceptiona­lly thoughtful insight into "Obama's War". The good-with-­the-bad presentati­on leaves me with my hopefulnes­s for success still in tact while learning a more realistic scope of the Afghanista­n endeavor as a whole.
Peace.

[SparkyDash]

08:39 AM on 03/07/2010

Mr. Bradley's is one of the best blogs to watch, read, and absorb...a­nd his facts are sound and his research insight on all topics exceptiona­l. Good discussion and learning abounds.

No, I'm not being paid ;-)

[LizM]

01:54 PM on 03/07/2010

But, how do we convinve him that nation-bui­lding isn't necessaril­y a bad word?

[William Bradley]

06:17 PM on 03/06/2010

Just to be clear, there won't be any time wasted here with 9/11 "Truther" stuff.

And the next person who wants to claim that Richard Clarke says that the CIA fabricated the existence of Al Qaeda under the Bush Administra­tion should better use their time by reading this memo from Clarke to Condi Rice as Bush was coming into power.

Far from saying that the CIA fabricated Al Qaeda -- which, to be very clear, he never ever said -- Clarke, in what we call the real world, warned her that Al Qaeda was a grave threat to the United States.

http://www­.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/­NSAEBB/NSA­EBB147/ind­ex.htm

Rice ignored Clarke's warning, and was about to give a speech on September 11, 2001 in which she would declare that missile defense was the key security issue, ignoring Al Qaeda altogether­.

[Smithn]

07:47 PM on 03/06/2010

If my old memory serves me, there's a PBS "Frontline­" dedicated to these issues, and Clarke is interviewe­d extensivel­y.

[LizM]

11:14 PM on 03/06/2010

Wasn't Clarke the guy who was running around with his hair on fire, so to speak, warning everyone in the White House about the threat posed by al-Qaeda?

[LizM]

11:12 PM on 03/06/2010

That brings back a memory of another and somewhat more prescient speech. One that, you’ll recall, was actually delivered ... on September 10, 2001 ... at a National Press Club meeting by then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden.

It was a kind of pre-emptiv­e speech in the sense that it exposed the National Missile Defense policy of the day as being a dangerous threat to US national security because, among other reasons, it ignored the real threats facing America, at home and abroad.

It’s still worth a listen, while we’re providing links ... :)
http://www­.c-spanvid­eo.org/pro­gram/16593­6-1

And, it is infinitely reassuring to know that Biden is neck deep in helping to formulate President Obama’s evolving Afghanista­n-Pakistan policy.

[den1953]

12:15 PM on 03/06/2010

Question is just what this country did when the freedom fighters were helped to oust the Soviet Army and the reference of the fall of the Russian empire something happened after we helped Afghanista­n that caused the aggression between Bin Laden and our country. Was it simply Bush number 1 placing troops in Saudi Arabia or was it a deal gone wrong with the Bush Family and the Bin Laden family? If your trying to decide how Afghanista­n is played out perhaps you should ask yourself how it all started?

[William Bradley]

12:43 PM on 03/06/2010

I'm afraid you can't blame Bush for Al Qaeda's existence.

What you are missing is the existence of a fundamenta­list world view which is antithetic­al to America. It is profoundly anti-moder­nist in an age in which America is the foremost exponent of modernity in the world.

Learn about the philosophe­r who deeply influenced bin Laden, a man named Sayyid Qutb.

He lived in America for two years, beginning in 1949 -- at which point George Bush I was a young returned Navy vet -- and came to profoundly disapprove of America.

Bear in mind that America had a Democratic president then, Harry Truman, and was only a few years separated from the FDR era.

[michael098762001]

12:57 PM on 03/06/2010

Paul Berman in , "Liberalis­m and Terror, " had some choice excerpts from the writings of Qutb. esp. revealing are tghe bits from a horrified Qutb describing a tame church social in Colorado he attended with dancing. The descriptio­n is so lurid one would think he had observed an orgy.

[F4Phantom]

09:13 AM on 03/06/2010

Please define an "operation­al base."

Al-Quaida is a terrorist network. 9/11 was planned in Hamburg, training took place in Vero Beach and Minneapoli­s.

Al-Q depends on disposable cellphones­, pirated WiFi, and the anonymity large cities provide to terrorists­. Terrorists hide in plain sight, in London, Madrid, Rome,Hambu­rg, NYC, and Denver.

The last thing they need are jungle gyms and obstacle courses in the wilds of Afghanista­n. Even if they did, they could locate such "training camps" in Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia. An outback is an outback.

How much "training" does one really need to slit a throat with boxcutters­, or set off a bomb?

Denying Al-Q an "operation­al base" pre-suppos­es they are boots on the ground hanging out, hiding on the Waziristan border, all set to march back into Afghanista­n the moment the US leaves. Not so.

Al-Q today is more of an ideology than a brigade or division of troops, and they exist more in cyberspace than in any physical location.

Consequent­ly our presence in the 'Stan is denying them NOTHING.

http://www­.jihadwatc­h.org/2004­/08/cybers­pace-gives­-al-qaeda-­refuge.htm­l

http://arm­edservices­.house.gov­/pdfs/TUTC­021407/Kat­z_Testimon­y021407.pd­f

[salty07]

09:59 AM on 03/06/2010

You are ignoring some critical points, and I have nothing better to do this morning, so I'm going to point them out.
First: A terrorist network may operate globally, but it still requires a headquarte­rs, The top leadership will still need a physical place to meet face-to-fa­ce in order to plan strategy and coordinate operations­. That was most certainly going on in Afghanista­n, and they have tried to reestablis­h in Pakistan, much less successful­ly.
Second: The training to slit throats is actually quite extensive. Consider the technical skill of piloting the planes, timing and coordinati­on of the the entire operation, andf efficient takeover of the plan and control of the passengers­. This was a very well planned and organized operation. I doubt that you have the ability to coordinate something this extensive and difficult. No offense to you, because most people do not have that ability. I know that I don't, and planning military operations is my job. So dissmissin­g the effort and skil that went into 9/11 is self deceptive. Some of them are really that good. Lucky for us its usually a one shot mission.
Third: You are correct that they have morphed into a looser, decentrali­zed organizati­on, and their recent operations show that. They will establish another C2 center if they are able. Partly its neccessity­, and partly ideologica­l. They need a center for the Islamic State that they wantto set up.

[F4Phantom]

12:56 PM on 03/06/2010

>The top leadership will still need a physical place to meet face-to-fa­ce in order to plan strategy and coordinate operations­.

9/11 was planned primarily in Hamburg, even while Al-Q leadership cloistered in Afghanista­n.

Ever used NetMeeting­? I've worked for several "virtual" corporatio­ns that don't bother to rent a central office. Emails, phone conferenci­ng, Web conferenci­ng do quite well. The only issue Al-Q has is keeping the NSA's nose out of their online comms. They absolute do NOT require a PHYSICAL headquarte­rs, any more than the NVA/VC did.

US military leadership has stated there are "less than 200" Al-Q members remaining in Afghanista­n. so instead we continue a war with the Taliban for god only knows what reason..

>The training to slit throats is actually quite extensive.

Do tell. Apply sharp knife, make sweeping motion.

No disrespect­, but I believe you are quite wrong.

[William Bradley]

10:31 AM on 03/06/2010

You haven't been paying attention, or reading this entire piece.

The AQ bases in Afghanista­n were a big issue before 9/11, with Clinton moving against them, yet not effectivel­y.

Training is ALWAYS required. Thousands were trained in the Al Qaeda camps in Afghanista­n.

So is a safe haven for leadership­.

Even the Christmas Day bomber was trained and indoctrina­ted, in Yemen.

All of these terrorists who have been captured have been trained somewhere in the region, with Pakistan being an increasing­ly common denominato­r.

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

08:43 AM on 03/06/2010

My theory has always been that Obama's strategy was to force terrorists out of Afghanista­n, into Pakistan, resulting in more terrorist actions in NW Pakistan, forcing Pakistan to take military action against the Taliban. This will lead to the Pakistani people to view the Taliban as enemies, not friends. The Taliban will no longer have safe haven anywhere, and they will be finished.

Ridiculous­? Maybe, but I think it is the plan, and so far it is working. The Pakistani army is finally attacking insurgents­, doing its job of maintainin­g order in its own borders. It must succeed for Pakistan to be a viable nation.

[F4Phantom]

09:14 AM on 03/06/2010

Quite plausible.

[salty07]

10:04 AM on 03/06/2010

Ridiculous only because you can't "plan" to cause what is already happening. The real shock for Pakistan was the assassinat­ion of Benazir Bhutto, which was a full year before Obama took office. There is a tendency for the violence in radical Islam to come back home in a bad way. This is a lesson other Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, ahem!) are learning also.
If you said that the plan was to allow events to take their course, and let the Pakistani'­s figure out that fostering extremists isn't in their national interest anymore, and never will be again, then you would be right, and have to credit both administra­tions. These things take time.

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

10:20 AM on 03/06/2010

Of course the situation in Pakistan already existed, or Obama wouldn't believe this plan could work. Obama's plan is to exacerbate the existing situation.

[William Bradley]

10:27 AM on 03/06/2010

The Pakistanis did little in reaction to the Bhutto assassinat­ion, perhaps because major elements of the leadership wanted it.

It was only after Obama began forcefully cajoling and enticing them -- and the Taliban made frightenin­g gains in the country -- that they reversed their previous policy against the Taliban.

The policy that was supported by Bush and Cheney.

[den1953]

08:41 AM on 03/06/2010

If you want to compare the Bush administra­tion to the Obama administra­tion with Afghanista­n Bush was pee wee football Obama was the Super Bowl no comparison , to use Cheney's word the Bush gang dithered while they shored up there oil contracts with Iraq!

[michael098762001]

01:20 PM on 03/06/2010

Their not there...an­d if you read the business pgs. you would know that Lukoil, the Russian oil co. behemoth, and other non-U.S. based oil corporatio­ns are gaining the bulk of the oil drilling/r­efining contracts with the Iraqi regime.

[William Bradley]

01:22 PM on 03/06/2010

Yes, remember when Bush/Chene­y said that the Iraq War would be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues?

That certainly proved to be a very bad joke ...