2
Jan

2007: The Year Al Queda Lost The War

Posted by: Mike's America @ 6:45 pm in War On Terror  | 0 views

TERROR ON THE RUN
THE YEAR THE TIDE TURNED
By Lt. Col. Ralph Peters
New York Post
Jan. 2, 2008

January 2, 2008 — AS 2007 drew to a close, embarrassed journalists sought to play down American military successes and avoided questioning Democratic presidential contenders about their predictions of inevitable failure in Iraq.

Magically, Iraq disappeared from the headlines – except on those rare occasions when a problem could be reported. At the close of a year of stunning progress, media stories on New Year’s Eve leapt to report that 2007 had been the deadliest year for US troops.

You had to read deep into the columns to learn that those casualties occurred in the first half of 2007, as we battled and defeated the terrorists and militias – or that, in recent months, American and Iraqi casualties have plummeted as a relative peace broke out.

Still, all that was just hushing up dirty family secrets in the media clan and an effort by left-leaning journalists and editors to protect the politicians they favor.

The greatest media story of 2007 was the one you never read (unless you read The Post): The year was a strategic catastrophe for Islamist terrorists – and possibly a historic turning point in the struggle against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

While al Qaeda in Iraq can still launch suicide missions, such acts now serve only to further alienate the Iraqi people, who’ve come to hate the grisly foreign interlopers with a passion you have to encounter first-hand to appreciate.

That fundamental change in outlook, especially among Sunni Arabs, may well mark last year as Islamist terrorism’s high-water mark, the point at which fellow Muslims by the tens of millions publicly rejected the message and methods of self-styled holy warriors who revel in the slaughter of the innocent.

Tens of thousands of fellow Muslims, previously allied with al Qaeda, turned their weapons against the fanatics. It was the biggest global story since 9/11. And it was buried on Page 14, if mentioned at all.

Many factors came together to transform Iraq, including the fierce and incisive leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, the effectiveness of a new breed of subordinate commanders honed by war, the psychological impact of the troop surge and the pervasive Iraqi weariness of violence and destruction – a strategic mood swing.

Yet, for all that, the greatest strategic development – which will reverberate for years to come – was the Arab-Muslim repudiation of al Qaeda, an organization that claims to be the champion of Sunni Islam.

Islamist terrorism isn’t going to go away, of course. Countries from Algeria to Pakistan are newly endangered as fanatics turn from futile attempts to defeat America to punishing local populations. We’ll still see decades of bombings and assassinations.

But Islamist terrorism is no longer viewed as a solution by the masses of the Middle East.

That self-tormented region will struggle for decades with its religious civil wars. And terrorists may still muster the ability to strike the American homeland again in the hope of reinvigorating their cause.

But 2007 may have been to the struggle against Islamofascism what 1943 was to the Second World War: the year in which it became clear that, no matter how long the war lasted, civilization’s enemies couldn’t win.

The lack of attention paid to the disaster that befell the terrorist cause – essentially acknowledged by Osama bin Laden’s “holiday” audio tape – is as if, in 1943, the Allied media hadn’t reported any Axis defeats.

Instead, as Iraq improved, we only heard how things were turning bad in Afghanistan. Political and media critics of our efforts to defeat Islamist terror attempt to discourage the American people (and voters) by downplaying progress anywhere and by raising the bar for success impossibly high.

As this column has maintained for years, Afghanistan is never going to become Iowa. Much of the country is still decades away from the electric light. Impoverished, backward and torn by three decades of war, it just isn’t going to meet civics-class norms anytime soon.

But the essential question regarding Afghanistan isn’t how closely Kandahar resembles Des Moines this week, but simply this: “Is Afghanistan a better place today, for the Afghan people and for our own security, than it was 9/10/01, when religious fanatics ruled the country and al Qaeda had a homeland?”

The answer, of course, is “Yes!”

But that won’t do for journalists or pols who’ve staked their reputations and careers on America’s failure. And now we’re seeing a shift to declaring all our efforts in vain because of the rising terror threat in Pakistan.

Well, we helped create that situation – not because we supported Gen. Musharraf, but because we undercut him by insisting that his government share power with some of the most corrupt politicians in the world, including the cynical, unscrupulous and incompetent Benazir Bhutto.

(How many chances does a political leader deserve to wreck his or her country? Bhutto had two and left an astonishing legacy of malfeasance.)

was another disaster for the United States, it was the worst year for the terrorists since 2001.

Much could still go wrong, of course, in Iraq and elsewhere. We should never underestimate the genius for self-destruction ingrained in Middle-Eastern mentalities. And Islamist terror, to some degree, will be with us throughout our lifetimes.

But in 2007 we saw how superficial Muslim support really was for al Qaeda and its ilk. We learned that bloodthirsty fanatics who invoke religion can – and will – be defeated.

And we should have learned the utility of fighting, instead of letting liberal-elite America-haters inflict their defeatist agenda on our country and the world.

If the forces of civilization and freedom do as well in 2008 as they did in 2007, we’ll all have a great deal to celebrate next New Year’s Eve.

2007 may turn out to be the year that the Bush strategy with Iraq as the keystone to defeating Islamists worldwide began to bear fruit.

I don’t expect the defeatists, the appeasers, the peaceniks or the naysayers to recognize that reality any more than they did when Reagan’s visionary plan for strategic missile defense ended up winning the Cold War and opening the gates of freedom to Eastern Europe.

But then, the defeatists, the appeasers, the peaceniks and the naysayers have never been right about anything, EVER and history proves that point over and over and over.

  • Share/Bookmark
Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008 at 6:45 pm and is filed under War On Terror. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

18 comments so far

Scott Malensek
 1Reply to this comment  

http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/print/07172007.htm

January 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 am
Philadelphia Steve
 2Reply to this comment  

Re: “The year al Qaeda lost the war”.

?????

Al Qaeda is stronger than ever in its homelands, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The US Military’s own estimate is that they have rebuilt to “pre-9/11″ strength.

“Al Qaede in Iraq”, which according to the US military is less than 10% of the total insurgency is now unpopular in Iraq, mainly because the US is now training, equipping and paying the same Sunni insurgents who until this year were blowing up Americans.

And the violence levels in Iraq are “only” back to their 2005 levels, compared to the prediction of Donald Rumsfeld (the man Dick Cheney said was the “greatest Secretary of Defense in History”) that the occupation would last “six months” at the maximum.

Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda’s spiritual leader is nowhere near to being brought in “dead or alive”. He is safe and living the same life he lead before 9/11, in the rural mountains of hte Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

And Conservatives are high-fiving themselves over their brilliant military victory. I bet the White House will hand out another round of Medals of Freedom for this one.

Until next year, when Conservatives will declare “victory” as something else.

Why do Conservatives hate America so much?

January 3rd, 2008 at 6:19 am
Scott Malensek
 3Reply to this comment  

Nice cherry picking, misquoting, and half truthing of reports Steve. Very impressive. I particularly liked the part about how Al Queda is only 10% of the insurgency in Iraq because it ignores the other half of that report (the other half of the truth) that Al Queda was only 10% of the manpower in the insurgency BUT was doing almost all of the suicide attacks which made up for 70-80% of the killing.

Why do faux liberals close their minds to the full truth so much?

January 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 am
 4Reply to this comment  

Philly Steve is being consistent as always in his insistence that we have lost, we cannot win, we are losers.

When in reality it is he who has lost, he who can never win and he who is a loser!

Even Al Queda has figured out that they lost the battle for Iraq and their plans for the great caliphate with Baghdad as the capital is finished.

President Bush drew a line in the sands of Iraq and guess what? When Al Queda tried to step over it they got KILLED!

Poor Steve. It must be a miserable way to live insisting every day that your nation is a loser when in fact it’s just him.

January 3rd, 2008 at 7:33 am
Scott Malensek
 5Reply to this comment  

I’ve started to notice that a lot of Steve’s responses are identical, and I’m not sure if it’s some sort of psychosis like a Pavlovian thing (ring the bell, the dog salivates, say “Al Queda in Iraq” and he kicks out the same half quotes as usual), OR it could just be his head spinning every time he tries to rationalize why he’ll vote for Hillary (a candidate who promoted the war, had better intel access than anyone, authorized the war, supported the war, funded the war, called for more troops and a change to a new strategy, etc). It’s gotta be an Excedrin moment for Democrats who have to face that reality. They have to live in a fantasy world where Kucinich wins, or envision themselves pulling a lever for Bush Lite when it comes to Iraq policy.

My favorite part about Steve’s comment was that somehow or another he’s got the audacity to suggest that he knows more about Iraq than Lt. Col. Ralph Peters-the guy who wrote the article.

Another Excedrin moment for the open-minded people who can’t open their minds to whole truths. Here’s a whole truth: when Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Edwards etc tell us that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror (or only 10% of it does as Steve suggests), the WHOLE TRUTH is that 1.5million Americans have been over there. They’ve seen the terrorism, and they know a war on terror when they see one.

That might require Excedrin migraine. Sorry.

January 3rd, 2008 at 7:45 am
ChrisG
 6Reply to this comment  

Steve,

The only losers worse off than AQ are those leftist traitors like you who lie, defamed, stabbed us in the back, and betrayed us again, and again and again.

I believe the LTC’s article was what the MILBOLGs have been saying for months. I was there to see this unfold and am happy to say I am still working to ensure AQ is crushed (even though it breaks Steve’s and other leftists’ little seditious heart).

“Why do Conservatives hate America so much?”

You are projecting again Steve. The only people holding up signs saying “death to America” besides the islamists are the leftists. The only ones who hate and despise America are the leftists.

Seek mental help for your projection issues.

January 3rd, 2008 at 7:48 am
 7Reply to this comment  

Yep Yep, I read the story buried on page 14 of the New York Times of all papers!

Gee, The media sure has slacked off on it’s coverage of Iraq lately. Could it be because the situation has turned to OUR favor? And the Iraqi’s are fed up and turning in terrorists every day? And Iraqi’s are streaming home?

I guess we have to conclude that when Britney Spears, Anna Nicole, or any of the other hollyweird crap captures the main story, all must be going well in Baghdad!!

January 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 am
 8Reply to this comment  

To be honest, I don’t think Al Qaeda is winning, but they haven’t lost yet! Which means we haven’t finished the fight yet either.

January 3rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Scott Malensek
 9Reply to this comment  

The point of a war is to force one’s political will upon another. The use of terrorism is to force a change in political will through terror. Americans are no longer terrified of Al Queda. Osama Bin Laden is a Saturday Night Live character of ridicule. Threats from Zawahiri do little more than get people to get off the couch and grab some potato chips. Too many people have gone too far and fully dismissed the threat, but I think the majority of Americans recognize the threat posed by Al Queda for what it is: a death cult that’s on the defensive and has to talk tough, but a death cult that can’t pull off another 911 as easily because we now have millions of Americans in all kinds of uniforms with their eyes open…and keen. On the night of September 11th, 2001 people had a tough time getting to sleep. They were concerned, worried, and had nightmare images in their minds. Today, the American people rest. They rest because they are assured that our defenses are no longer down or absent. They rest because of the cops on watch, the Marines in the field, the spooks on the loose, and so many more who are committed to no end to prevent another 911; to protect us. We rest so assured that we feel comfortable making jokes about the head-sawer-offers. Rather than ask if we rest too assured, it would be better to constantly, continuously, and emphatically thank every cop, every border guard, every firefighter, everyone who does anything to help combat and guard against the Islamic Holy Warriors. To them I again say thank you. Your efforts make us sleep at night and give us the comfortable courage to laugh when Adam Ghadan makes threats in “the latest video message.”

We are not terrorized, and they are not imposing their political will.

January 4th, 2008 at 4:49 am
Philadelphia Steve
 10Reply to this comment  

Re: “The only losers worse off than AQ are those leftist traitors like you who lie, defamed, stabbed us in the back, and betrayed us again, and again and again.”

Treason is a federal crime that carries the death penalty.

Are you saying that I should be put to death for my political beliefs?

January 4th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Scott Malensek
 11Reply to this comment  

“Treason is a federal crime that carries the death penalty. Are you saying that I should be put to death for my political beliefs?”

Punishment should reflect the scale of the crime. In your case, fifty lashes with a wet noodle for being naive enough to believe promote DNC talking points as if they were truth rather than the half truths they really are. Half a truth…is simply not the truth.

Lacking 50 lashes, I think it’d be nice you have to face reality and vote for a candidate who-like President Bush-promoted the invasion of Iraq, authorized it, supported it, funded it, called for more troops, and vows to continue it till 2013 if conditions warrant (ie if President Bush’s objectives are not met). Yeah, that’s a good punishment that fits the crime.

January 4th, 2008 at 8:12 am
 12Reply to this comment  

50 lashes with a wet noodle wouldn’t knock any sense into Steve, he is beyond any common sense.

January 4th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Scott Malensek
 13Reply to this comment  

You’re right. Making him vote for Hillary would be better. In effect it’d be his vote in support of a person who:

promoted the invasion of Iraq
authorized the invasion of Iraq after seeing as good or better intel than GWB
supported the war in Iraq
funded the war in Iraq
called for more troops in Iraq
and will continue the war until President Bush’s objectives are accomplished.

Having him pull a lever in support of such a person is my idea of the perfect punishment for his “crimes”

January 4th, 2008 at 9:22 am
 14Reply to this comment  

No need for us to put you to death Steve. You’ll do that to yourself if you are ever successful in handcuffing those who are doing everything they can to save your miserable life from the jihadis!

Next time you visit the Library Tower in L.A. or Fort Dix or JFK Airport just keep in mind that those places are still standing and still targets.

January 4th, 2008 at 9:34 am
ChrisG
 15Reply to this comment  

Steve,

The only one talking about killing Americans with different political beliefs here is, and has been YOU. However, YOU project it onto us.

Please get some mental help for your projection issues and start taking some medication for your paranoia.

Also, no one has been executed for sedition and treason in years. In fact, several who committed these acts are now serving (and still serving) in Congress on the Democratic side. Even fools who attack US Soldiers/Marines and our families have virually NOTHING happen to them, so a useful idiot like you has nothing to worry about.

January 4th, 2008 at 9:46 am
 16Reply to this comment  

I think calling the DNC talking points as half truths is a complete overstatement. They’re not even close to being half of the truth.

January 4th, 2008 at 11:35 am
ChrisG
 17Reply to this comment  

Good point SealPatriot. I wish someone would take the Democratic Party back from the far left which now owns it (according to Move-On and others). Maybe then they might be someone I could vote for.

The thing about the DNC talking points (”screaming points” actually) is that they are also the islamofascists’ talking points. Yet very few in the Democratic party or their base seem concerned by this. In fact, looking at video and pictures from the left’s “anti-war” protests, they seem to welcome the islamofascists as allies while stabbing us in the backs.

January 4th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Scott Malensek
 18Reply to this comment  

“I think calling the DNC talking points as half truths is a complete overstatement. They’re not even close to being half of the truth.”

SO TRUE

“I wish someone would take the Democratic Party back from the far left which now owns it”

And which potential President can do that? If the half-truth or less talking points are to be destroyed and replaced by full truth, if future threats (every President fights wars) are confronted, which potential President has the best chance at uniting the nation vs fueling another partisan divide over “another Vietnam” or “another Iraq”? I think Huck’s the best Republican for that, and O’s the best Dem for it.

January 4th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

If your comments get caught in spam a lot please log into your registered account before trying to comment again. You can email me if your comment is caught in spam

 

Identity Verification: If you wish to verify your commenter identity, so no one can steal it, click the below button: