Looks like President Obama will be escalating the war on terror/war against Islamist extremists….just like that crazy ol’ George Bush. Well maybe the former president wasn’t so crazy after all with all this “war on terror” stuff; and now that the D team is in the White House, they’re experiencing a reality check, that just maybe global warming isn’t the #1 threat to civilization [Hat tip: Steve Schippert]:
The Sunday Telegraph has learned that the need to prevent a repeat of the September 11 attacks has become the driving force behind the review, which could be published as early as this week.
Mr Riedel, who served on the NSC under three previous presidents, believes that unless serious action is taken, Pakistan will become a “terrorist university”, posing a far greater threat to the security of the US and Europe than Afghanistan before the September 11 atrocities.
Recent “apocalyptic” intelligence on the situation in Pakistan has sent shockwaves through the upper echelons of the Obama administration and convinced Mr Riedel’s review team that radicals trained in Pakistan are the greatest threat to Western security.
One White House aide emerged from an intelligence briefing on Pakistan three days after Mr Obama’s inauguration to exclaim: “Holy s–t!”
Predator drones will be winning hearts and minds by stepping up attacks on Taliban targets within the Pakistan border. and has done so as recently as this past weekend. So far, since President Obama took office, the U.S. has conducted 9 reported airstrikes in Pakistan’s tribal northwest area.
Back to the Telegraph:
A source who knows the substance of the White House policy review discussions said: “Bruce is on record saying that a failed state in Pakistan is America’s ‘worst nightmare’ in the 21st century.
“What we’ve been seeing in recent weeks is truly apocalyptic warnings from the analysts, which suggest that that is now a live possibility. The Pakistani government seems unable to control its own military or intelligence people. The tribal areas are already a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists.
“If that spreads the whole country will become a terrorist university. The chance of a spectacular in the US, or Britain, is exponentially increased. And Pakistan has nuclear weapons.”In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph in January Mr Riedel argued that British al-Qaeda or Lakshar-e-Taiba militants, trained in Pakistan, are the likeliest source of a new terrorist spectacular in America.
The threat from Pakistan was a centrepiece of discussions between Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, and US Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano in Washington on Friday. Ms Smith also met Robert Mueller, the head of the FBI, who has publicly voiced fears about British-born Pakistani militants entering the US under the visa waiver scheme.
Amid fears that Pakistani militants have already entered the US to radicalise and recruit terrorist cells, US officials have been invited to visit the UK to observe the Home Office’s anti-radicalisation programme.
A British diplomat said that British and American intelligence experts have concluded that while Pakistan used to be blamed for destabilising Afghanistan, the process has now been reversed and risks plunging the nuclear power into lethal chaos.
The US official agreed: “Everyone’s calling it the Af-Pak report, but really it ought to be Pak-Af.” US intelligence reports have expressed concern about the recent decision of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to allow militants to set up Shariah law in the strategic Swat Valley in the tribal areas of the northwest frontier.
The Riedel review will conclude that seven out of 10 Taliban and other militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan are “reconcilables” who might be bribed, cajoled and persuaded to turn away from extremism.
As Jihad Watch warns:
The Taliban who might come to negotiate may think twice about dying in an airstrike, but not at all about the ultimate imperative to impose Islamic law by any means necessary.
“Moderate Taliban” sounds like an oxymoronic term. But yeah, if there are reconcilables amongst them, let’s bribe them off so that they can live to radicalize another day while we slaughter their dead-ender brothers-in-fanaticism.
The review, due to be circulated to senior officials early this week, will recommend that non-military aid to Pakistan quadruple. In return, the Pakistani government will be expected to agree to a wholesale overhaul of its military which will see US special forces re-train Pakistani soldiers in counter insurgency warfare.
The army is currently configured to fight a conventional war with India. The US has 200 special forces ready to deploy and there is even talk of taking Pakistani officers to training camps in the US.
CIA and FBI chiefs are also demanding greater cooperation from Pakistan’s ISI intelligence agency in locating militants in the region and potential terrorists who may already have travelled to the US.
President Obama will explain his new approach to Afghanistan at the Nato summit in Strasbourg next month. The Riedel review is recommending increased payments to Afghan tribal chiefs and moves to improve economic development and a clamp down on corruption in the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai., European nations, excluding Britain, will be asked to help train the Afghan armed forces.
Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a co-chair of the Riedel review, has warned that “there is no way that the international effort in Afghanistan can succeed unless Pakistan can get its western tribal areas under control”.
David Miliband, Britain’s foreign secretary, appears to agree with the expected conclusions of the Riedel review. In an interview last week he said that Pakistan’s government needs to realise that it is not just the West that is threatened by the militants, but its very own survival that is at stake. “The situation in Pakistan is extremely dangerous,” he said. “I would say it’s very grave. I think Pakistan faces a mortal threat, not from India, but from domestic terrorism.”
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Odummer’s teleprompter told Odummer that if another 9/11 happens it will be blamed on him — HAH, smart teleprompter.
Predator drones will be winning hearts and minds by stepping up attacks on Taliban targets within the Pakistan border.
Sarcasm? For someone who appears to have read a fair bit about counterinsurgency, you seem unreasonably optimistic about the effect of these strikes. To the extent that they’re useful at all I expect that they represent a tradeoff where we achieve short-term operational degradation of the Islamist radicals’ infrastructure, but lose ground in the court of public opinion.
@bbartlog:
Yup. Aimed at the anti-war Kucinich fringies and peacenik libs and ArPee non-interventionists who embraced Obama as the face of “bring the troops home”/”no more wars/can’t we just all co-exist” belief. President Bush was criticized by them for “radicalizing” moderates and creating more jihadis by “bombing the hell out of them”. But here we have Obama carrying out “Bush’s” war against Islamic terrorists, including border-crossing/invasion of a sovereign nation for which the Bush Administration was also roundly criticized.
I do see the need, though, to distinguish between reconcilables and the irreconcilables– the “7 out of 10” who we might be pursuaded into turning away from the “3 out of 10”:
Wordsmith,
Good post, Word. You’re far too smart and thoughtful to be engaging in polemics on this issue. But since you’ve chosen to throw down the rhetorical gauntlet in your post, I will gladly pick it up.
First, as a mere matter of linguistic house-keeping, you cannot have a war against terrorism, which is an idealogy. I know you understand that. We fight real flesh and blood terrorists and their support network. That’s why we went into Afghanistan. But then we turned aside from the front in Afghanistan and attacked Iraq, a country with minimal connection to AQ pre-war. That was a huge mistake. Even if we had turned Afghanistan over to NATO in a move toward multi-lateralism, we should not have abdicated our responsibility in that pivotal country.
Because we left the job in Afghanistan unfinished, the Taliban were able to reconstitute. At the same time we were giving Musharaf 10+ billion dollars to fight terrorism, AQ and the Taliban
were setting up shop in western Pakistan.
Pakistan, our purported ally, has been in bed with Islamic militants for a very long while. To continue the metaphor, since 9/11, Musharaf had been telling us effectively “Honey, I broke it off. I’m not seeing her anymore.” Meanwhile, he had set up an apartment for his mistress.
I’ll concede that it’s not clear to what extent Musharaf was consciously consorting with Islamic fundamentalists and to what extent a better metaphor would be to an infestation of cockroaches he just couldn’t control. IMHO, both metaphors have an element of truth to them. And even if Musharaf was doing his best to be a good ally, his intelligence service, the ISI, were burning up the sheets with the bearded ones. And now Zadari seems even less inclined or able to stand up to the them.
The bottomline is our 10+billion didn’t buy us much.
“One White House aide emerged from an intelligence briefing on Pakistan three days after Mr Obama’s inauguration to exclaim: “Holy s–t!””
How I wish Sec. Rice had walked out her transition briefing with Richard Clarke and others in the Clinton Administration feeling that way, and then acted on it. Instead, the Bush administration turned its foreign policy focus elsewhere until the planes smashed into the towers.
Dennis Kucinich is not the prototypical Democrat. Many Democrats believe in a strong national defense and in particular an aggressive stance against AQ and the Taliban. I number myself in that group. I also number myself among those who wanted a careful withdrawal from Iraq. As we accomplish the latter, we will be better able to achieve the former.
Finally – 7 out of 10 Taliban are reconciliable? A very short while ago, I went back and forth with Mata on this very issue. I have no idea whether that number is correct. But even if the ratio were reversed that would seem to contradict Mata’s statement that Mullah Omar IS the Taliban and that it was foolish for Obama to talk about splitting members off from the Taliban. Not meaning to talk past you, Mata. Please respond.
Hey I got a great idea Let’s have a land war in the middle of Asia in a country that is surrounded by our enemies. And let’s stay there for a really long time.
Ah yes.
The jacuzzi of stupid known as John ryan has slithered through again.
Maybe it’s 7-10 taliban prefer goats to women?
Reading ryan’s comments is like being bukkakied with stupid.
But it *is* a war against ideology, Dave. It is *not* a war against a state government and their sanctioned forces. You may wish to call it anything your little heart desires. But it is still a war against a stateless enemy with an ideology that seeks to implement Shariah law via violence. And the only difference between the “reconcilables” is that they don’t seek a large Caliphate, but are content with that Shariah law in their ‘hood…. contrary to an elected process via a centralized government.
No problem “talking past me”, Dave. I’ve been MIA because I’ve been busy. Just tapping in now for a short time and trying to catch up with the FA doin’s.
I too have no idea how Riedel came up with this assessement. Nor can I find this Af-Pak report text online anywhere yet. But of course, no articles seem to provide the link to the original source. grrrrr But I did find an interesting interview with Riedel on CFR back in Sept of last year, prior to the election.
So first, let’s go back to your willing suspension of disbelief that Mullah Omar is the Supreme Leader of the Taliban. That is a fact, and undeniable. What you may be referring to is the different degrees of support for Mullah Omar in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Omar is, of course the Afghan leader of the Taliban. The de factor Pakistan leader is Baitullah Mehsud, who has pledged his loyalty to Omar (after a rocky year of in fighting tho) and his Afghan cause.
Which brings us to the supposed “reconcilables”… whatever that number may be. They are local tribal leaders who share the same ideology as the Taliban for Shariah law in their individual territories. They could care less what the neighboring province does. They are only concerned with their own back yard. So it’s first to deal with province by province, and find out if their tribal leader will agree to cooperate with the centralized Afghanistan govt. That isn’t easy since they don’t give a flying fart about Kabul. The second is will they yield their Sharia law control to laws of a centralized government. Again, this isn’t likely, as they do share that hard line Islamic belief with their more violent counterparts, the Taliban.
No harm, no foul in trying. But don’t count on it doing anything except possibly arresting violence province by province for a time…. and they are vunerable to easy take over by a more well armed Taliban militia at any given time. It is a precarious truce at best, and built on those that have no nationalized identity. Afghanistan may as well be made up of individual countries.
What it comes down to is can the Taliban offer more to these “reconcilables” than a centralized Afghan government? And you are not making any deals with the “Taliban” (since only Mullah Omar can do that), but you are making deals with local tribal leaders, trying to get them to renounce the Taliban (who live in their midst) for Afghan nationals in Kabul.
Right… and I’m going to win the lottery tomorrow.
Now, I’m going to take issue with your revisionist history… again… Dave Noble. INRE:
First of all, it’s not “even if we had turned Afghanistan over to NATO…”… we *DID* turn that country *completely* over to NATO leadership in summer of 2006. At that time, the country’s security was under control. It started deteriorating under NATO ROE at the same time Iraq started spiraling out of control with stepped up attacks.
It was a “huge mistake” only in your mind. Think that way if you wish, but that doesn’t make you correct. And I have no intention of fighting the Iraq yes or no issue with you yet again. But I fully resent the implication that the US military “abdicated our responsibility” in Afghanistan. We have been fully engaged with our troops, acting under NATO command. We have also had a certain amount of independence in our operations there.
But what you fail you understand is you could take all 150K plus Iraq troops, put them into Afghanistan then… or now…. and the “success” will be no different. In fact, with that high a US footprint in the country, you would have NO “reconcilables” on which to speculate. Afghanistan-Pakistan is a completely different battle and problem.
Then, of course, there’s your fantasies about Pakistan and Musharraf. Almost two years ago I was warning against this demonization of Musharraf, and the resultant canonization of Benazir (even pre-assassination), hubby Zardari, and Nawaz Sharif. None of these players are new on the Pakistan political field. The hideous history of Bhutto-Musharraf-Sharif is always a demented triangulation at best. But there’s a few things I believe about Pakistan. Frankly, we were better off with Musharraf.
Pre 911, they were a nuke armed enemy. Post 911, they became a nuke armed quasi-ally. This is some sort of improvement. But to accomplish that, Musharraf had to give Bush and the US a tacit nod to perform attacks, and assail and chastise him publicly. That is a ploy that Zardari still does to this day. And notice that Musharraf was tut tutted by the world for firing the judges and putting in a martial law to control the riots. Zardari promised to reinstate them… OVER A YEAR AGO! Never had. What happened Sharif and his minions orchested the same violence that they pulled on Musharraf just these past few weeks. In the past couple of days, Zardari caved and reinstated Chaudhry after the violence got out of control. Not, however, without Zardari using the military with the same vehemence as Musharraf did pre-election.
Same game… different leader. Only this one with less balls.
In Pakistan, the true power is the military. Which is one reason why I was sorry that Musharraf relinquished his command and only kept the Presidency. Nothing’s changed. The military still wields the most power, and has jihad infilterers. Zardari and Sharif have completely abandoned any semblence of “coalition” government and are now in open political war. Zardari has a price on his head via the jihad movements in his country.
Now, back to Afghanistan, as this relates. Even as Riedel states, there is no cure for Afghanistan until Pakistan is under control. We cannot invade Pakistan and cleanse it. And no matter how many troops you put in Afghanistan, they will merely drive the AQ and Taliban jihad groups back into Pakistan. As long as that safe harbor exists, there is nothing to do for Afghanistan.
And this doesn’t even bring up the differences between Afghanistan and Pakistan over the Durand Line.
The major problem is not winning the “hearts and minds” of the Pakistan civilian government. The problem is winning the same over the military…. the true power. When Zardari tried to put the ISI under his control (perhaps to help weed out the corruption), the military thwarted it. The military is openly against any US cross border activity… drone or otherwise.
Now we have a weak civilian government in Pakistan, who hands over prime territory to the militants in hopes they focus their violence on anywhere other than Islamabad, Lahore, etc. The military is the true front, but they’d rather amass on the Indian border. And their ranks are filled with jihad members, or friends of the Shariah law movement.
Frankly, I don’t know the cure for Pakistan, but it sure isn’t Zardari and these “truces”. Nor is it stepped up military attacks which will further isolate the few half-hearted attempts by the military to clean these nests of vermin out.
Iraq was a different story all together. The Sunni-Shia-Kurds have come to a power sharing agreeement under a centralized government. Took time, but it happened. Their influence in the area as a growing democracy, along with India and Turkey, is a very positive event. But they are a nation rich with resources, and have a more educated population than Afghanistan.
In contrast, unless the Pakistan military can be brought to bear on their own violent elements, Afghanistan – unlike Iraq – is just a waste of resources. It is a war that cannot be won without Pakistan’s ultimate cooperation. And there’s no one in power there that can do that.
BTW, Dave Noble. In order for the Taliban to be “reconstituted”, they would have had to have been pretty much destroyed. They never were. The Taliban Afghanistan and Pakistan have always been around prior to Dubya Bush. They were knocked out of – and remain out of – ruling power, but never knocked out of existance. Unlikely they ever will be.
You might as well try eliminating cockroaches from the planet, Mexican drug cartels, or gangs from LA. So discontinue your myth that they “reconstituted”. They were never gone.
But, on the flip side, they have also not regained ruling power in Afghanistan. They are a pesky, well armed street gang.
Interesting discussion here, esp. between Mata and Dave;
On one not-so-niggling point…terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy or an ideology; many guerilla armies use it when it suits their purpose, then renounce it when it doesn’t (such as the IRA in Ireland or the FMLN in El Salvador).
And like the IRA, the solution here is not going to be a WWII style total victory- it seems more likely that it will be a lolng slow slog of a campaign, using low level anti-insurgent tactics, political, economic and diplomatic methods.
Unfortunately, that sort of patient long work doesn’t give the firm instant gratification of either “nuke ’em all” or “lets get out NOW”, and the American people have shown that they are notoriously impatient.
Finally, the definition of “victory” is going to need a bit of changing, maybe even a couple of times- even if the Taliban could be defeated as a military or political force (a very tall order) the underlying desire on the part of the Afghan/ Pakistani people for an Islamic society will mean that what we leave behind will never resemble Sweden, or even Lebanon for that matter- it will probably remain a struggling, Islamic/ Sharia culture for another century and no amount of dollars or napalm can change that.
Aye Chi,
How in the flying hell does a jacuzzi slither? I appreciate your effort to be creative and step up the sophistication of your insults. But, Dude, they still need to make sense.
Mata,
“U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus said on Wednesday that negotiations with some members of the Taliban could provide a way to reduce violence in sections of Afghanistan gripped by an intensifying insurgency.”
ww.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE497AIT20081008
I see no mention there of tribal leaders. I read in very plain English “members of the Taliban.” Not Mullah Omar, “members of the Taliban.” Bruce Reidel uses the same language – 7 of 10 of the “Taliban” are reconcilable.
I possess no special expertise with respect to Afghanistan. I am an informed layman who obtains his information from others who possess that expertise. I suspect the same is true of you. What then qualifies you to correct Gen. Petraeus and Bruce Reidel? We know about Gen Petraeus. These are Bruce Reidel’s qualifications:
“Bruce Riedel is a Senior Fellow in foreign policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution, a former CIA Analyst, a counter-terrorism expert, and an author. He retired in 2006 after 29 years with the Central Intelligence Agency. Riedel served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East Affairs on the National Security Council (1997-2002), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs (1995-97), and National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Intelligence Council (1993-95). His areas of expertise include counter-terrorism, Arab-Israeli issues, Persian Gulf security and India and Pakistan.
Riedel has a B.A. from Brown, a Masters in Diplomatic History from Harvard, and has studied at the Royal College of Defense Studies in London. He received the Secretary of Defense Distinguished Service Medal in 1997, the Distinguished Intelligence Medal in 2001, and the Department of State Meritorious Honor Award in 2006 for his work in the intelligence and defense community.
He is the author of Al Qaeda Strikes Back, May/June 2007, which is a study in contemporary counter-terrorism and Foreign Affairs that focuses on the International terrorist organization al-Qaeda.”
You will have to forgive me if I don’t look to you to explain how has gotten it wrong or how he doesn’t really mean Taliban when he says “Taliban.”
Why did we attack Afghanistan in the first place? For revenge, with no hope of affecting any lasting change? I remember the President and the First Lady rightly lauding the fact that Afghani girls could now go to school. They can’t anymore, because the Taliban throw acid in their faces.
Why did we let the Taliban be reconstituted, revived, recalibrated, reinforced or whatever term suits your fancy? They have more influence now than they did right after we invaded. Why did we let that happen?
I don’t want to get into a debate on whether Musharaf or Zardari is worse. Neither of them is a reliable ally of the United States.
In sum, whatever we have been doing for the last eight years in Af-pak is not working.
Hasn’t Pakistan been a terrorist university for some time now what with it’s Madrassas, Sharia Law being implemented and support for the Taliban.
Dave, we’ve gone thru this with the Musa Qala tribal leader, Mullah Abdul Salaam and now appointed district governor of Musa Qala. He is the poster child of the “reconcilables” to which all refer. He was a “Taliban” commander and governor of the Herat province until the Taliban lost power in 2001. As a tribal leader, if you want to survive in Taliban held territory, you either join them, or dodge assassination attempts all day long. Salaam does that to this day.
The point is these guys are tribal leaders who are alive because they incorporated themselves into the Taliban to survive. But they are first and foremost, tribal leaders. Salaam’s defection only happened after the US and British troops again began fighting to retake Musa Qala, and showed progress in doing so.
In short, these tribal leaders (at least the one’s who are alive) are opportunists… not Taliban. So they pick up a Taliban badge to wear when they are the big shots in the ‘hood. However they only choose the winning side. If the Taliban start winning in their back yard, they will not be “reconcilable”. If the NATO coalition starts getting the upper hand, they will be more flexible.
Even now, I wonder how long Salaam will hold with his alliance with the centralized government. He’s quite disgruntled with reconstruction efforts promised by the government, calling them liars. It is still premature to call Salaam and Musa Qala a success since the denizens are caught between the two warring powers. The Taliban think they are traitors, the Afghan government thinks they are Taliban. If he goes down under the most ideal conditions to date, there goes the rest of the so-called “moderate Taliban”.
Like I said, convert all that you want. I’m sure that NATO and Obama would love any kind of agreement that would allow them to extricate themselves with some modicum of honor and dubious success. But you still end up with Shariah law enforced via violence and, at best, a temporary truce in each separate part of the country. When the centralized government fails to do it’s gig, they will revert to the Taliban once more, and we’re back to square one. For the locals, it’s who can offer them the best opportunity in their own back yard. And sometimes that opportunity is merely the ability to live.
And I don’t care if Petraeus and Reidel call them Mickey Mouse… they are genuinely dealing with tribal leaders, not the Taliban. If you want to nit pick on the “members of the Taliban” bit, feel free. You are being somewhat anal and narrow focused in reality. Petraeus and Riedel know very well those who they would target. And they would not be Mullah Omar’s circle of fighters, but the tribal leaders with local power, sucked into their net for survival. To reconcile anyone else other than the leaders is worthless because they have no ability to assume leadership, and command allegience by the locals in their area.
But for the public consumption, they don’t spell out these details. The American or western public thinks in simple terms. You’re either Taliban, or AQ, or you’re not. They think of jihad as only Sunni and Wahabbism. They don’t realize that the Iranians also have their jihad movements, who fight the Sunni-Wahabbis, but also join with them for common enemies… Israel and the west. I personally will not paint that broad of a brush merely to suit you. But they do that for snippy ass types who process information in broad categories, I guess. So, when speaking with the uninformed press, they try to keep the words and concepts simple.
And I know who Riedel is… don’t need your cute little google/wiki search result, thank you. I was not looking for his credentials, but the specific report Wordsmith refers to in this post. duh…
Really? So they went from ruling control over all Afghanistan provinces to taking what they can get and hold locally… and *you* think they are wielding “more influence now than they did right after we invaded”? Wow. That’s like saying you stole my apple pie, I snuck 3 pieces back, and now I have more apple pie than when you stole it originally.
Forgive me if I don’t look to you to explain your rationale on the absurd.
Than’s true, Chip. But I wasn’t talking about “terrorism”, but discussing the phrase, war on terror. Always a bit weak in defining the enemy in the face of reality. But part of the PC life in the 21st century is not calling a spade a spade. Identify the enemy as the global Islamic jihad movement, and the world goes into a victim-like tizzy… accusing us of waging a war on Islam in general. In Dave’s context, he was completely wrong IMHO. This is a war against an ideology/sociopolitical theory – both militarily and diplomatically. This is what Bush was trying to convey with the phrase. Not just AQ, but their (meaning the co-op jihad movements’) quest to change the culture of the world. It’s a very big battlefront.
I also notice he didn’t offer much of a better description of the enemy against whom we will be fighting for quite some time. And yes, I agree with what you have said, other than the “niggling”… LOL
I think the picture of Afghanistan has yet to be painted. Were it possible for both Pakistan and Afghanistan to hold the jihad movements at bay and thrive as more liberated Islamic nations (think UAE), it’s a nation that could become an agricultural supplier to the region. Was watching a special with the Nebraska guard teaching them farming, explaining that they’ve lost two generations of such knowledge to wars. Let’s face it… growing poppies is much easier than food. And more lucrative for the Taliban, who love having slave farmers, reaping crops that fund their jihad.
But I don’t expect any nation to resemble another. Iraq is it’s own Arab/Islamic creation, as is India, Pakistan, UAE, Kuwait, Lebanon and Turkey. It’s not about how they “look” to us. It’s about whether they are an ally with the int’l community against jihad movements, and a peaceful partner in trade with the world.
O’Dumbo and crowd have spent the past two years on the trail and 55 days in the white house doing everything possible to assure another successful 9-11. Close your eyes and pretend the democrats haven’t spent the past 4 years having a hissy fit because they lost two elections and the net result is they have aided the terrorists by every means possible. If America was the America of 60 years ago the Congressional democrats and current white house clowns would face a firing squad at dawn. If humans evolved from the ape, evolution has reversed itself and we’re going backwards fast. Ape’s in the zoo are smarter than the average democrat.
I think Obama understands that he is already not doing well on the economy(he is an “incompetent socialist”), and if there is a big terror strike on US soil, it will be very bad politically for him, something he won’t be able to throw off no matter what soaring rhethoric he uses. And with Cheney(cleverly) setting him up, the public mentality is being primed to blame Obama if there is a terrorist strike which there almost surely will be in the next 4 years.
I’m not saying Cheney is playing politics, more likely he is genuinely worried about americans. But the effect politically will be as said, Obama will be responsible in the eyes of the public, so he is crazily desperate to avoid one, but with his idealogy and basic incompetance, he won’t be able to prevent it. Expect his popularity to sink to new lows later, when people realize that it was his new incompetant policies that allowed the strike, and also at his weak and ineffective response.
This guy will never do anything forceful or effective, because he will always be worried about his popularity, and usually the right path is the unpopular one. He’s also too dumb to do the right thing.
I predict Obama will end his first term with a very low approval rating, below that of GWB, and he will see one term only.