When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
40 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
road warrior
15 years ago
If anybody actually believed this propaganda it would be effective because it’s about the scariest this you could toss out there. BUT nobody believes this, this is why the liberal illuminati haven’t even address it, it’s almost laughable.
Real American Patriot
15 years ago
Where have we heard this BS before??? the same old crap that was thrown at us by the Bush camp…. we all know better…
nice try Mike
Craig
15 years ago
If Obama wins, the U.S. will become a sanctuary for the terrorists. Only naive people like Real American Hater ignores that. I really pity him.
Real American Patriot
15 years ago
Craig,
YOU are so full of yourself.. what scares me the most is I think you might actually believe the bull you sling.
And C.R.A.P: Apparently it’s only a secret to YOU that terrorists and thugs all over the world are pulling for an Obama win. It’s no secret to me.
A short list: FARC, HAMAS, IRAN, CHAVEZ, CASTRO, KIM JONG IL.
Here’s the captured FARC emails outlining how jolly an Obama presidency would be:
“6. Los gringos pedirán cita con el ministro para solicitarle nos comunicara su interés en conversar estos temas. Dicen que el nuevo presidente de su país será Obama y que ellos están interesados en sus compatriotas. Obama no apoyara Plan Colombia ni firma de TLC. Aquí respondimos que nos interesan las relaciones con todos los gobiernos en igualdad de condiciones y que en el caso de Estados Unidos se requiere in pronunciamiento público expresando su interés en conversar con las Farc dada su eterna guerra con nosotros.
Es todo, Abrazos, Raúl.”
(translated)
6. The gringos will ask for an appointment with the minister to solicit him to communicate to us his interest in discussing these topics. They say that the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support “Plan Colombia” nor will he sign the TLC (Colombian Free Trade agreement). Here we responded that we are interested in relations with all governments in equality of conditions and that in the case of the US it is required a public pronouncement expressing their interest in talking with the FARC given their eternal war against us.
There you go… terrorists who have killed thousands of innocent Columbian peasants routing for Obama…
Well Mike, bin Laden’s video from 2004 was undoubtedly orchestrated to influence the election, so I think its important to differentiate between the official “statements” and the chatter.
But just think about the logic of it for a second. Do you suppose that an internationally popular and transformational figure like Obama would help their cause or hurt it? I would think that it would serve to further illegitimize their efforts in the eyes of the world, making recruitment a lot more difficult and harder for them to demonize us. Also, they know that their only chance is to win by attrition, and in their eyes McCain probably represents their best odds of continuing what we’re doing with prolonged foreign engagements and likelihood of being baited into them.
Whatever shenanigans they have up their sleeve, I’m not sure the American people are going to fall for it this time around. In fact, the moment we allow a web video from al Qaeda to influence our vote is the moment they win. In that regard, its almost too bad we’re even pointing fingers and debating it.
Al Queda has been eviscerated by George Bush and we’re constantly being told that “McSame” would keep that train rolling down the tracks.
Al Queda is already having trouble recruiting, especially since there are so few places in the world they can go once they are recruited.
Bush has rolled up their networks one by one.
And polling in the Arab world shows a remarkable shift away from support for the idea of a violent jihad.
You cannot possibly be serious in suggesting that Al Queda would fear Obama more. Why should they be any different from the terrorists in FARC, HAMAS, and the crumb bums in Iran, Venezuela and North Korea who would feel emboldened by an Obama victory.
Chen: tell me you were just making all that stuff up!
BarbaraS
15 years ago
Mike
He’s not only making this stuff up but he is paid by the Obama campaign to come here and push this garbage. That is one of their goals to discourage us from voting and manipulate facts to their advantage. In other words lie.
Craig
15 years ago
Chen must be kidding. Everybody knows that terrorists think that with Obama, the door will be widely open for them to come to the States. They like to destroy the States from inside, like they did on the 9/11 with American airplanes. They are anxious to do it again. But with Bush, they couldn’t do it anymore and they won’t be able either under McCain presidency.
I’m not sure ChenZhen is suggesting that al Qaeda would fear Obama more. But I think there is some merit in some of what he points out. I’m sure you saw this, recently.
The thing is, if you asked al Qaeda who they’d fear most as terrorist hunter and killer, they’d choose McCain over Obama. The dichotomy is that al Qaeda wanted this war to happen between the West and Islam; they foresaw their own demise, but hoped that their actions would spur the Islamic world to rise up and answer THEIR call to “jihad”. It didn’t happen. However, thanks to the media circus around “abu ghraib” and the negative coverage of Iraq, for a while, al Qaeda enjoyed new life and recruitment. But it’s also thanks to the war in Iraq that al Qaeda has lost legitimacy in the eyes of many Muslims. They’ve been exposed for their brutality and violence against fellow Muslims who can’t possibly live up to their narrow standards and interpretation of Islamic law.
Not only that, but in Lawrence Wright’s words, al Qaeda became just as “bogged” down in Iraq as us, if not more so. And we have attacked them on a number of fronts in countries all over the globe, keeping them off balance from being able to plan and execute the next terror attack. We’ve disrupted much of their network and continue to kill and capture many of their operatives. Senior leadership is difficult to replace.
al Qaeda wants war. They want martyrdom. I say, give it to them in spades and send every each and last one of them to hell, do not pass go, do not collect your 73 virgins.
John McCain is the right man to deliver that request.
Craig
15 years ago
What Chen doesn’t understand, is that terrorists do not dislike us because of our foreign policies, they just hate our way of life. They hate our democracy, our freedom and our rights. For them, we are all infidels and we should all be killed. It has nothing to do with politic nor economy… it is about religion. They want to install Sharia law all over the World. They want to establish a Caliphate. That is their goal.
“reverse psychology”, Chen? You musta lifted that little tidbit of analysis direct from Huffpo, eh?
I know you want to go for the obvious by saying McCain helps their recruiting efforts… yada yada. Majorly flawed logic.
If you go the “recruitment” argument, then you must think Dubya’s *the man* to them. Yet under Dubya, they are ostracized from Iraq, their methods of warfare (trying to incite Iraq civil war) and their murders of Iraq Muslims have de’legitimized their particular brand of jihad globally with the Muslim world. Recruitment is being rejected by Muslim clerics, and so sorely suffered they’ve taken to using the disabled and women. Let’s face it… they’re having a tough time filling the suicide bomber ranks, Chen.
AQ has not been decimated, but has been severely fractured. And this is not new news. Perhaps to you, but not to the rest of us who’ve followed the global jihad movement more closely than McClatchys, NYTs and HuffPo readers.
With AQ and the Taliban strong only in Obama’s talking points, the truth is installing another George Bush in office is the last thing they want. What they need is a break from a new POTUS, who thinks the US shouldn’t be in their back yards (Arab lands *is* their back yard).
You say they are using “reverse psychology”. I say they don’t give a whit as to who the POTUS is, America will still be an enemy. But they could use a break…
On the flip side, there’s Obama. He promises that he’ll empty Iraq of troops on a timetable, regardless of ground conditions. (a promise I’m sure he’ll break if he wins the election) He prefers diplomacy… a sign of weakness to the jihad fighter. If you want to know how “talks” go with the jihad Taliban, ask Pakistan how they’ve fared over the past decade or so. And if you’ll remember, AQ wanted to call a truce in Afghanistan… and used that opportunity to slip into the mountains. When the jihad movements want to talk, it means they need to stall because they are losing.
They’ll love Obama because he may provide them with the break they need… a chance to regroup – quite likely back in Iraq. This has been al Zawahiri’s plan all along. Wait for the US to exit, and re’enter.
As long as there is US presence in Arab lands, a possible President Obama will be sitting in exactly the same position as Bill Clinton was in the 90s. If Obama wants AQ to leave the US alone, he’s got to shut down the Saudi base, and remove all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan at least. If Obama does that, he’s even more of a a fool than I already believe him to be.
But Obama hasn’t got that as his plan. He figures he’ll leave Iraq to the Iraqis, and send everyone to Afghanistan instead. The jihad movements, like cockroaches, will merely flee back to a fledging Iraq, abandoned prior to being able to stand up to the terrorists on their own, and regroup there.
Ever try to get rid of cockroaches? Terrorists are much the same.
So no… AQ and Bin Laden don’t “want McCain” in the Oval Office. They probably won’t like Obama either, but with Obama’s promised diplomacy and less inclined to use military strength, they may buy some much needed regroup time, and some new territory to do it in.
Whatever shenanigans they have up their sleeve, I’m not sure the American people are going to fall for it this time around. In fact, the moment we allow a web video from al Qaeda to influence our vote is the moment they win. In that regard, its almost too bad we’re even pointing fingers and debating it.
ChenZhen,
I’d say the converse also holds true: the moment we don’t take their terror threats seriously and buy into the anti-war propaganda that terrorism is mere scaremongering by Republican warmongering neocons to win votes by a cowering public, is “the moment they win”, in your words.
We were asleep through a at least a decade’s worth of escalating terror attacks, culminating in 9/11.
Don’t ignore their rhetoric and capability to do us harm; don’t dismiss it as “rightwing neocon propaganda” or paranoia.
Look, what I’m suggesting is that, in order to effectively combat the threat, we need to read between the lines and take a serious look at what they’re trying to do with things like this.
Suppose they are trying to influence the election. Let me ask, does anyone really believe that AQ thinks that America will vote Obama if they say so? C’mon. Surely they know that a high-profile endorsement of Obama doesn’t help him, so why would anyone here consider it ridiculous that I would suggest that it’s reverse psychology?
So, I could say that Mike has either a) fallen for AQ propaganda hook, line and sinker, or b) disingenuously used the story to push a partisan narrative, complete with silly visual aids like a variation of an Uncle Sam poster and a cartoon. Perhaps both. In any case, the exercise isn’t exactly productive, and in the very least one can probably imagine that they get a kick out of pushing our collective buttons. It must feel very empowering to them.
At the end of the day, it only matters how we as a nation engage them, regardless of who is president. So to that…
Wordsmith says;
al Qaeda wants war. They want martyrdom. I say, give it to them in spades and send every each and last one of them to hell, do not pass go, do not collect your 73 virgins.
John McCain is the right man to deliver that request.
That’s debatable. We could spend trillions of dollars over decades entangled in foreign engagements, occasionally being poked, prodded, and otherwise baited into tangential conflicts by a bombing here and there, all the while creating 2 jihadis for every one we kill if we’re not careful with this “rah rah” approach. Bankrupting and demoralizing ourselves while we chase ghosts. I think that’s ultimately the way AQ wants it to play out, at least according to the aforementioned internet chatter.
Or, there may be a smarter, tactical gameplan that quietly eliminates the threat through a multi-faceted strategy of tried and true counterterrorism efforts combined with delegitimizing their ideology and utilizing our networks and international support. That would be Obama.
Chen: I AM pushing a partisan narrative. But it’s certainly not disingenous. It’s not even debateable that A.Q. prefers Democrats over Republicans. Not that it makes a whole heck of a lot of difference in their overall outlook, they’ll still kill you even if you vote for Obama.
Do you deny that terrorist groups all over the world have made positive statements about a possible Obama presidency and what they think it would mean for them?
Have you not seen the statements coming from Iranian officials expressing hope for change with Obama?
Attacking and belittling my motives here certainly does unmask yours does it not?
Or do you want to claim some sort of objectivity here?
That’s debatable. We could spend trillions of dollars over decades entangled in foreign engagements, occasionally being poked, prodded, and otherwise baited into tangential conflicts by a bombing here and there, all the while creating 2 jihadis for every one we kill if we’re not careful with this “rah rah” approach.
First, let’s get a grip on the cost. And you toss around “trillions” pretty darned easy without assigning a genuine concept to that amount of money.
The costs of Iraq/Afghanistan is approx $5 billion monthly. That $4.3 trillion represents 71.6 years of Iraq/Afghanistan conflict. I repeat… SEVENTY ONE POINT SIX YEARS! And I doubt we will be as “entangled” as we are in the beginning with Afghanistan and Iraq, because now… instead of jihad being folk heroes, they are viewed as unwelcome agitators.
Put quite simply, Chen, the battle of hearts and minds everyone wants is in our favor. No, they don’t love the US and never will. But they do love their own future potential as a free nation, and reject the jihad quest for Shariah rule and a return to 3rd world conditions. In theory, with more and more rejecting jihad, the battles become more localized with less US boots as the front line. The US coalition and NATO train, the locals protect their own.
And obviously your “create two jihadis for every one we kill” comment is based only on Obama campaign talking points, and not in reality.
Or, there may be a smarter, tactical gameplan that quietly eliminates the threat through a multi-faceted strategy of tried and true counterterrorism efforts combined with delegitimizing their ideology and utilizing our networks and international support. That would be Obama.
Actually, that would be Bush and Petraeus. You can’t have “tried and true” counterterrorism without previous failures. This urban warfare against global jihad is officially six years old now. We went in not knowing the tactics and learned from mistakes in prosecution. So look at each of your points:
1: multi-faceted strategy of tried and true counterterrorism efforts:
Done. In case you didn’t notice, it’s called The Surge with “clear and hold” methodology, combined with working with the Iraq lawmakers and elected officials, plus funds for rebuilding/reconstruction
You’ll also notice “that one” opposed this successful strategy… and still does
2: combined with delegitimizing their ideology
Done. This, however, was jihad’s own doing when they brutally assaulted fellow Muslims in attempts to turn Iraqis against each other and fall. Nothing the west can do will “delegitimize” the wahabbi and more fundamental practice as Islam. This is something between Muslims themselves. We are merely benefiting from them proving themselves to be the brutal animals they are.
3: utilizing our networks and international support
In case you haven’t noticed, there’s a plethora of countries that do support our efforts in Iraq. And also, in case you haven’t noticed, NATO has been pleading for the NATO countries to supply more troops to Afghanistan since late 2006… a few months after NATO took over complete security command for Afghanistan… and coincidently about the same time all the security took a major dumb.
Would this be the “int’l” support you want? The NATO countries who don’t kick in? The “Supreme Commanders” who are hampered with rules of engagement that are absurd? Talk about PC warfare… geeez.
BTW, the difference beween Obama and McCain on the lack of NATO troops since 2006? Obama just wants to send in US soldiers to fit the bill. In other words, Obama’s ready to escalate Afghanistan, and threaten Pakistan. Yeah… that’ll be a disasterous decision the history books will record.
McCain said back in 2006 that increasing the US footprint in Afghanistan was only a last ditch option. That the int’l NATO force must be viewed and equipped as NATO countries, not the US. So he was first for putting pressure on the NATO countries to honor their pledges, and only at last resort supplying US soldiers.
Again “that one” is wrong on foreign policy.
Rocky_B
15 years ago
Chen;
I can understand what you are driving at and there might be some merit in your premise, but it would hardly benefit the Obama-Biden campaign at any rate. The ONLY reason Al Qaeda might try such “Reverse Psychology” is so they may continue touting America as the “Satanic Empire” to flunkies and would-be future terrorists. But even then it would be lost on their pawns, comprised mosty of ignorant poor who only believe their religious leaders who are true audiences for their rhetoric.
Hence, I sincerely doubt they are THAT sophisticated and calculating. Many only know the world through the eyes of their Fundamentally Extremist Imams. Most are not deep thinkers with years of university education. They wear their emotions, hearts, and anger on their sleeves and state what they truely believe.
Regardless, a strong American resolve is more fit to answer the terrorist challenge than one with weak leadership that would cave under “testing”. We saw how a single domestic threat resulted in Spain pulling their support of NATO forces. Would Dems have America do the same? That would be a coward’s path unworthy of this great nation.
Do you deny that terrorist groups all over the world have made positive statements about a possible Obama presidency and what they think it would mean for them?
As myself and wordsmith linked above, we have seen positive statements about a McCain presidency, but I guess that I’ve yet to see anything about Obama. Why not enlighten me with a link or something?
Have you not seen the statements coming from Iranian officials expressing hope for change with Obama?
I guess I wouldn’t be surprised by that. “Axis of Evil” certainly doesn’t rank too high in the annals of diplomacy.
Attacking and belittling my motives here certainly does unmask yours does it not?
Or do you want to claim some sort of objectivity here?
I’m always up for another good laugh!
As it turns out, I’ve brought up the subject a few times on my own blog, and my attempts at initiating a discussion on the matter haven’t really been of the rub-your-face-in-it variety. Yea, I’m an Obama supporter. But I’m more interested in exploring the AQ motives and effective counters than spreading something akin to “Vote for the GOP is a Vote for AQ”.
Mata-
A couple things.
And obviously your “create two jihadis for every one we kill” comment is based only on Obama campaign talking points, and not in reality.
I’ve followed Obama more closely than most people, and I can’t recall any variation of that theme coming from him or the campaign surrogates. I was actually referring to ’06 NIE. My point is that we can grunt platitudes about “sending ’em to hell”, but if we find the number increasing it’s pretty hard to argue that we’re getting anywhere with the strategy.
Done. In case you didn’t notice, it’s called The Surge with “clear and hold” methodology, combined with working with the Iraq lawmakers and elected officials, plus funds for rebuilding/reconstruction
I think you’re confusing our counterinsurgency operations in Iraq with global counter-terrorism (which is what I was referring to). Sure, Kilcullen has compared an effective global counter-terrorism approach to a sort of global counterinsurgency (as certain aspects of the methodology are similar), but its not like The Surge has much of anything to do with disrupting terrorist plots against the homeland or our interests outside the region. Its something we tried only because the situation in Iraq went sour (to put it mildly).
Do you deny that terrorist groups all over the world have made positive statements about a possible Obama presidency and what they think it would mean for them?
As myself and wordsmith linked above, we have seen positive statements about a McCain presidency, but I guess that I’ve yet to see anything about Obama. Why not enlighten me with a link or something?
Actually, if you go down to the bottom of my link, you’ll find:
The message is credited to a frequent and apparently respected contributor named Muhammad Haafid. However, Haafid is not believed to have a direct affiliation with al-Qaeda plans or knowledge of its operations
Contrast this with al Qaeda videos by Zawahiri with statements that sound like a copy/paste of DNC talking points. Or bin Laden’s video in 2007:
In the tape, bin Laden criticizes Democrats for failing to stop the Iraq conflict that the “vast majority” of Americans want stopped.
“You elected the Democratic Party for this purpose,” he says, according to a translated transcript of the tape. “On the contrary, they continue to agree to spending of tens of billions to continue the killings and the war there.”
Reverse psychology? Propaganda?
I just disagree that Senator Obama will be more “cerebral” in his approach in how to deal with the threat of Islamic terror, when neither he nor anyone in the Democratic Party can even bring themselves to include the term “Islamic” when talking about the threat of terrorism which we find ourselves at war with. Which the entire world is threatened by.
The notion that Bush has done nothing more than execute “cowboy diplomacy” is absurd to me and is a misperception. The war has been waged on many fronts. It’s neither unilateral, nor strictly military.
Bush deserves credit for keeping America safe for the last 7 years. Alliances with countries that matter, remains strong. We have pro-American, conservative party leaders elected in several countries in recent years, Sarkozy and Berlusconi being among the ones who are also pro-Bush.
Have you not seen the statements coming from Iranian officials expressing hope for change with Obama?
I guess I wouldn’t be surprised by that. “Axis of Evil” certainly doesn’t rank too high in the annals of diplomacy.
Same was said about “evil empire”.
But I’m more interested in exploring the AQ motives and effective counters than spreading something akin to “Vote for the GOP is a Vote for AQ”.
That’s reasonable.
So how should the next American president take on al Qaeda and Islamic terror networks?
Well at least Chen Zen admits that the Iranians who have been killing Americans for YEARS are excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency so they can go on developing a nuclear weapon and threatening Armageddon on a massive scale.
“6. Los gringos pedirán cita con el ministro para solicitarle nos comunicara su interés en conversar estos temas. Dicen que el nuevo presidente de su país será Obama y que ellos están interesados en sus compatriotas. Obama no apoyara Plan Colombia ni firma de TLC. Aquí respondimos que nos interesan las relaciones con todos los gobiernos en igualdad de condiciones y que en el caso de Estados Unidos se requiere in pronunciamiento público expresando su interés en conversar con las Farc dada su eterna guerra con nosotros.
Es todo, Abrazos, Raúl.”
(translated)
6. The gringos will ask for an appointment with the minister to solicit him to communicate to us his interest in discussing these topics. They say that the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support “Plan Colombia” nor will he sign the TLC (Colombian Free Trade agreement). Here we responded that we are interested in relations with all governments in equality of conditions and that in the case of the US it is required a public pronouncement expressing their interest in talking with the FARC given their eternal war against us.
It would appear to me that Chen buys the appeasement point of view that if we are just nicer to these terrorists they will not kill us. How many times has history shown that to be a tragic mistake which only results in increased violence, loss of human life and war?
According to Obama, “from a strategic national security perspective, Al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001.”
Is “resurgent” and “stronger” in anyway related to AQ membership and recruitment? If there recruitment is down, as all news (other than Obama media) reports, how can they be “resurgent” and “stronger”?
Guess you missed a few days in your “following more closely than most people”.
The point here is, if Obama admits that AQ is weakened, NATO in Afghanistan is getting stronger, and recruitment is down, that supports the supposedly “failed” Bush strategy on the global war against the jihad movement…. which is *more* than AQ.
Doesn’t do much for his foreign policy campaign talking points, eh? So he has to play up the strength of AQ and the Taliban in order to bolster himself.
I think you’re confusing our counterinsurgency operations in Iraq with global counter-terrorism (which is what I was referring to).
Lord have mercy. Don’t you click on any links provided to see where the perspective I present comes from?? Let’s try again… a link to the Military Times embedded in the Taliban threat overblown article I linked above:
KABUL, Afghanistan — NATO’s top commander in Afghanistan is tired of negative headlines, and he is on an offensive to counter what he sees as a wave of unwarranted pessimism in news reports coming out of the country.
~~~
McKiernan highlighted an event last week witnessed by NATO troops in Farah province in which insurgents planting a roadside bomb grabbed two children and used them as human shields when they were attacked by NATO forces.
The four-star general also pointed to a protest last week by about 1,000 Afghans in Laghman province over the slaying of 26 local workers by Taliban militants who stopped a bus in Kandahar and killed many onboard.
“That’s a rejection of the brutality of the Taliban by the people of Afghanistan, and that needs to be heard,” McKiernan said in the interview Sunday. “What happens sometimes in reporting is that there’s this idea that the Taliban is at the gates of Kabul, or after [the June prison break], they’re about ready to take control of Kandahar, or they’re resurgent in Uruzgan or Helmand, and it’s just not true,” he said.
While the increase in troop numbers known as the surge has gotten much credit for the decline in combat and civilian deaths in Iraq one key component of the effort has been underplayed — the changed role of intelligence teams operating in both Iraq and in Afghanistan.
In an exclusive interview with DoDBuzz, the director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Robert Murrett, said his people are working in teams with DIA, NRO, FBI and other intelligence agencies in theater and those teams are providing improved actionable intelligence to troops.
For example, every brigade combat team has NGA and other intelligence community personnel embedded to provide analysis and information on a 24-hour basis.
“It’s those intelligence community interagency teams that are working hand in glove with the forces that we have deployed forward that are making a difference,” Murrett told me. While he was very cautious in discussing examples of just how those teams have operated, he offered two details: they are embedded with troops, often on the front lines; and the intelligence community teams have been a major factor in helping find IED caches.
~~~
This new approach, building these teams into operational units, “has really increased our effectiveness in ways that are going to have implications for how we operate as a nation and a coalition for many, many years in the future,” Murrett said.
Now, since I anticipate your “but but, I’m talking about *counter*intelligence” comeback. Let’s come from a common framework of what counterintelligence is, and it’s history in context. For this, the CIA has an excellent article on both the sometimes vague understanding, and the administrative structure that inhibits better efficiency… from last summer, and updated this year.
CIA historian Don Steury has written:
In thinking about intelligence, Sherman Kent began with an understanding of national power that was well within the mainstream of contemporary American strategic thought. Kent’s contribution was to apply thinking about strategy and national power to an ordered conception of intelligence analysis as an intellectual discipline. 2
By contrast, “strategic counterintelligence” remains a relatively undeveloped concept, in theory or implementation. Isn’t this curious? For if strategic intelligence takes as its touchstone the whole of state interests and the sources of state power, then understanding the purpose and manner in which other states use their intelligence resources to gain advantage and mastering the capability to counter them would seem to be the other side of the strategic intelligence coin.
Yet to the extent strategic counterintelligence (CI) is addressed within CI or intelligence circles, it is controversial, poorly understood, and even more poorly executed because it does not fit comfortably within the existing architecture and approach to counterintelligence as it has developed within the United States.
~~~
The meaning of “strategic counterintelligence”
Counterintelligence has its own distinct logic as an intellectual discipline. As defined at law, counterintelligence embraces both “information gathered” and “activities conducted” to counter foreign intelligence threats.[b]More specifically, it is the job of US counterintelligence to identify, assess, neutralize and exploit the intelligence activities of foreign powers, terrorist groups, and other entities that seek to harm us. Sound security measures are unquestionably vital, but they can only carry protection so far. One can pile on so much security that no one can move, and still there will be a purposeful adversary looking for ways to get what he wants. 3 The signature purpose of counterintelligence is to confront and engage the adversary.
HUMINT (human intel) and electronic intel have improved vastly. Both are integral for counterintelligence, for you can’t identify, assess and neutralize events (counterintelligence) without the intel gather process running efficiently.
Our Nation has painfully learned lessons regarding the value of intelligence in the Global War on Terror. In particular, we have come to collective agreement that human intelligence support is vital for prosecuting the GWOT. Penetration of terrorist networks, and obtaining essential information on the plans and intentions of terrorists can best be accomplished by thorough, coordinated network of human sources. We must be able to ascertain the plans, capabilities, and intentions of other countries vis-à-vis terrorism, and we can best accomplish this through HUMINT operations, spanning the spectrum from overt liaison with host nation law enforcement elements, to penetration of host nation security organizations.
Again, the concept of counterintelligence is wholly dependent upon intelligence gathering. The later has improved immensely because of the clear/hold/embed with host Iraqis Surge strategy.
In short, you cannot have efficient counterintelligence without thorough and efficient intelligence gathering (HUMINT, electronic… all facets).
As far as the former, Clinton created the NCIX with Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 75 just a couple weeks before leaving office…. ala an intelligence director/czar. It subsequently was moved under control of the DNI in 2006.
NCIX seems to focus heavily on the cyber threats and vunerabilities. Ala one of our freedoms is our open society. The enemy views this as a weakness to exploit… the ability operate unnoticed in our back yards. (enter FISA and the data sifting programs such as Echelon and Able Danger)
This is where your correct statement of “disrupting terrorist plots against the homeland or our interests outside the region” comes into play. In the past, our national security strategy was reactive… a “who done it” and a manhunt. Today, the quest is to prevent the terrorists from striking, and to amass intel on their activities prior to an attack.
From all I understand from NCIX Congressional hearings, we still suffer from the same 90s maladies of intercommunication. While the FBI and CIA have improved their lines of communication, the NCIX is still somewhat disjointed in the process. In fact, with the mass NCIX/DNI resignations in 2006 it appears the competitive nature of the US intelligence agencies is alive and well. Yet the law is quite clear on how CI is supposed to operate under the direction of the NCIX/DNI.
I do agree that our intel interdepartment communications can always be improved. However I disagree with you that Obama is the best choice for that task. With Barney Frank stomping his foot, demanding a defense budget cut of 25%, something has to suffer. And the intelligence departments are already working on a deficient budget for the work load and monitoring.
McCain also promises a cut, but he intends to do so by more efficient purchases of equipment.
Obama: Calls for increase in special operations forces, language training and human intelligence to improve capability to conduct counterinsurgency operations and to help stabilize conflict zones.
McCain: Calls for restructuring the military to reduce emphasis on conventional models of heavy tank warfare and territorial control, to stress instead counterinsurgency, information warfare, counterterrorism and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
In one way, they sound remarkably similar. But when you consider the amount of the budget the Dems want shave off, then add in Obama’s Dept of Peace and Non-Violence that he and Barney Frank want to create – which will fall under the defense spending – the ability for Obama to “increase” and “improve capability to conduct counterinsurgency operations” has less to work with.
This department would house agencies such as the Office of Peace Education & Training, the Office of Domestic Peace Activities, the Office of International Peace Activities, the Office of Technology for Peace, the Office of Arms Control and Disarmament (ACM — notwithstanding that Barnie seems to have that covered already), the Office of Peaceful Co-Existence and Non-Violent Conflict Resolution, and, of course, the Office of Human Rights and Ecomic rights.
Creation of this department has already been proposed in the House, and it seems likely that it will indeed be created if Democrats expand their majorities in both houses of congress (as they will) and win the presidency (more than likely). [Mata Note: No bias there, eh?]
Although liberal Democrats argue that the department could accomplish a lot for minorities and in favor of peace and development, critics rightfully argue that the plan would cost the American tax payer many billions of dollars while the U.S. federal government already struggles with a tremendous deficit, and Barack Obama and his allies in Congress also want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on other new plans.
Democrats and Barack Obama himself suggested other plans in recent weeks, which would cost the federal government approximately $1.1 trillion extra. This means that, under Obama, the U.S. will spend at least $1.1 trillion and, if the department is created, much more than than more than what the Bush administration spends, which is already more than it receives in (tax) revenues.
This means that Obama and the Democratic congress will have to cut spending in other areas, and raise taxes. Democrat Barney Frank agreed yesterday explaining that they would cut defense spending by 25%, which would, in his own words, mean that the U.S. would have to withdraw from Iraq soon. “The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection. It’s extraordinary,” Frank said.
~~~
Cuts in defense spending will, of course, not be enough to cover the planned extra spending. Therefore, Frank admitted, “tax hikes” will “eventually” come. ”We’ll have to raise taxes ultimately,” Frank said. “Not now, but eventually.”
The economic plan the Democrats seem to have in mind is a truly progressive one; it aims at “spreading the wealth,” as Barack Obama put it rather well, helping those “in need,” and taxing those with higher (or in the long run probable middle) incomes more.
Although Frank’s plans may sound attractive to fiscal liberals, it seems to me that these plans will have many negative consequences:
1. Cutting defense spending means a significant loss in jobs in the defense industry. Fewer jobs, means less income for people, means they will need more “help” from the government, driving up spending even more.
2. Raising taxes, especially on reasonable small businesses but also on middle and higher income households will result in less consumption, which results in fewer jobs, which results in more people being dependent on the government “for help,” the economy will shrink, or at least not grow, the capability of the economy to rebounce after trouble will be negatively affected.
In short, although Frank’s, Pelosi’s, Reid’s and Obama’s plans may make sense to fiscal liberals, they do not seem to be very wise and effective from a fiscal conservative perspective.
Therefore, let me say this. I believe your thinking is on the right track. However your analysis as to whom will actually be able to accomplish what you believe is correct is financially flawed.
David101
15 years ago
Ok seriously ENOUGH with the fear mongering.
Its getting pathetic!
I Personalty find it ammusing that you guys say that Osama Bin laden who wants The demorcrats to win.
When its the REPUBLICANS who have weakened our milatary {thanks to the war in Iraq}.
Who let 9/11 happen and still 7 years later the republicans still HAVE YET to cacth Osama Bin Laden and Alqeada.
Who instead of keeping their eye on the ball with Afganastan.
The Republicans sent our troops to a country that HAD NOTHING TO DO with 9/11!!!!!
And we have accomplashed NOTHING in the country dispite spending TRILLIONS of dollars there and losing thousands of troops.
And after all that, Osama Bid Laden is still on the lose and Alqeada is now gaining strenth in the borders of Pakistain and Afganastan.
And now yall are saying that the Alqeada and Osama Bin Laden want Obama to win??
Dispite the fact that Obama wants to END THE WAR IN IRAQ!
And wants to put more troops in Afganastain and Pakistain border instead.
Were he KNOWS Osama Bin Laden and Alqeada are hiding and are ploting for ANOTHER terroist attack.
So he can track them down and make sure they NEVER strike again.
Are you people even listening to yourselfs????
*SMDH*
Look, Come Nov. 4th America WILL pick Obama and the Democrats.
And finally say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH with the Republican fear mongering, smears and lies.
Basically, Jong says her fear that Obama might lose the election has developed into an “obsession. A paralyzing terror. An anxious fever that keeps you awake at night.” She also says that her friends Jane Fonda and Naomi Wolf are extremely worried that Obama will be sabotaged by Republican dirty tricks, and that if an Obama loss indeed comes to pass, the result will be a second American Civil War.
Here’s a translation of Jong’s more spirited quotes to the Milan-based Corriere, as selected by Rocca.
“The record shows that voting machines in America are rigged.”
“My friends Ken Follett and Susan Cheever are extremely worried. Naomi Wolf calls me every day. Yesterday, Jane Fonda sent me an email to tell me that she cried all night and can’t cure her ailing back for all the stress that has reduces her to a bundle of nerves.”
“My back is also suffering from spasms, so much so that I had to see an acupuncturist and get prescriptions for Valium.”
“After having stolen the last two elections, the Republican Mafia…”
“If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it’s not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets.”
“Bush has transformed America into a police state, from torture to the imprisonment of reporters, to the Patriot Act.”
She also laments that not all of America’s men of letters share her devotion to Obama.
“Tom Wolfe and John Updike are men of the right and Philip Roth is at this point a hermit who leads a monastic life in Connecticut, far from everything and everybody.”
Luckily, she said there is her and Michael Chabon, who, she says, have “taken the place of Susan Sontag and Norman Mailer respectively.”
Need more or your “fear mongering” campaign tactics that if the US doesn’t vote for Obama, we will have “riots”? Click here, if you know how….
Other than that, tread lightly on your “racism” charges against us, girl. You not only do yourself disservice, but you reflect badly on your Messiahship.
BTW, Jasmine/David/David101… beware of treading in areas beyond your abilities… I understand “reading” is a “2nd language” to you, but no need to emphasize your flaws in public, right?
Yes, you’ve been pathetic since you showed up here with your, what is it, seven personalities?
I Personalty find it ammusing that you guys say that Osama Bin laden who wants The demorcrats to win.
Of course bin Laden wants the Dims to win (if he’s still alive that is). If the military of a foreign country were kicking your ass all over the desert and to the mountains and back for the last five years you’d want it to stop too.
When its the REPUBLICANS who have weakened our milatary {thanks to the war in Iraq}.
Really?
The US military is weakened because it has been put to work doing what it was designed, created, and built to do.
Yeah, that makes total sense.
Who let 9/11 happen and still 7 years later the republicans still HAVE YET to cacth Osama Bin Laden and Alqeada.
Let 9/11 happen?
Let it happen?
Clinton was in office for 8 years. The planning, plotting, and execution of the plan began long before Jan 2001. As much as you may wish you could blame 9/11 on President Bush, no soup for you.
Clinton had multiple opportunities to capture and/or kill bin Laden. In fact, bin Laden was offered to him by Sudan before he was expelled from their country.
Clinton passed.
Later Clinton had the opportunity to kill bin Laden when the CIA had his location pinned down.
Guess what, he passed.
He was too busy getting a Lewinsky to be really concerned with the security of the US.
OBL may or may not be dead. Regardless of the fate of that miserable sack of shit, Al Qaeda has been decimated. They have lost their fighters by the thousands. They are on the run and, considering what has not happened in the US since 9/11 their effectiveness has suffered as well.
Who instead of keeping their eye on the ball with Afganastan.
I guess you’re one of those people who feel that the fine men and women of the US military cannot do more than one thing at the time.
Study history much?
Obviously not.
You should do some reading about the involvement of the US military during WWI and WWII. You may just get your eyes opened.
The Republicans sent our troops to a country that HAD NOTHING TO DO with 9/11!!!!!
Nothing to do with 9/11,
Right.
You truly need to do some reading so that you can educate yourself. Currently you are opening your mouth and making it apparent to everyone what a fool you are.
On this blog alone there are volumes of information about 9/11 – Iraq – Al Qaeda – Hussein.
You should read it.
And we have accomplashed NOTHING in the country dispite spending TRILLIONS of dollars there and losing thousands of troops.
Accomplished nothing.
Hmmm…
I would say that the freedom of 40 plus million people is a significant accomplishment.
Through the brave service, and sometimes the ultimate sacrifice, of some of the finest men and women who have ever served our country, people who have never tasted freedom are now free.
The right to vote that you and I enjoy and will take part in on Tuesday is now extended to people in countries who NEVER had that right before.
That’s nothing you say?
I say you’re full of dog squeeze.
And after all that, Osama Bid Laden is still on the lose and Alqeada is now gaining strenth in the borders of Pakistain and Afganastan.
Again, we don’t know if OBL is still alive or not. His rotting corpse may never be found.
Enemy strength ebbs and flows in any armed conflict and is not something to be truly concerned with.
The US will be victorious as long as the defeatocrats don’t pull the troops out before the job is done.
And now yall are saying that the Alqeada and Osama Bin Laden want Obama to win??
Again, the enemy is not stupid. Of course they want a weaker leader as the head of the US.
They tried Clinton and found that nothing happened. OBL, because of Clinton’s lack of response, declared the US to be a paper tiger.
When they tried Bush they found out that the cowboy from Texas would not hesitate to kick their asses.
Now they want a weaker leader again.
It’s common sense on their parts. They want to be able to lick their wounds and restrengthen.
Dispite the fact that Obama wants to END THE WAR IN IRAQ!
And wants to put more troops in Afganastain and Pakistain border instead.
Were he KNOWS Osama Bin Laden and Alqeada are hiding and are ploting for ANOTHER terroist attack.
So he can track them down and make sure they NEVER strike again.
Obama will prematurely withdraw our troops and create havoc in the Middle East.
By doing so, the blood and treasure we have invested in that region will have been invested for naught.
Are you people even listening to yourselfs????
That’s a question you should ask of yourself.
Look, Come Nov. 4th America WILL pick Obama and the Democrats.
You can keep telling yourself that, but it won’t make it true.
You should do the same thing that Sky is doing and go get some beer to dull the pain.
You’re going to need it.
PS—Download some spell checker software. Your spelling makes you look like an uneducated idiot just as much as your uniformed opinions.
Oh good grief “David.” You get the moonbat star award for working in more libtard talking points per comment than anyone this week (and that’s saying something).
And when you talk about “fearmongering… smears and lies” you are surely referring to the uninterupted campaign of hate, abuse and disinformation directed at the very people trying to save your worthless ass from being incinerated.
It would appear to me that Chen buys the appeasement point of view that if we are just nicer to these terrorists they will not kill us. How many times has history shown that to be a tragic mistake which only results in increased violence, loss of human life and war?
Please, save the straw. I happen to think that there’s a hundred yards between “send ’em to hell” and “appeasement”, and I think its about time that everyone start recognizing that the correct answer lies somewhere in between, that’s all.
I think the “cowboy shoot from the hip” reputation of Bush has been largely overblown. From day one, he’s gone out of his way to make sure people understand he was not going to war against Islam itself. He doesn’t get credit for the diplomacy that has occurred, for getting allies to kill and capture al Qaeda operatives all over the world, for getting nations to cooperate in such things as the Swift program and rendition program (whether you feel it to be right or wrong, it wasn’t begun under his administration); forget that media outlets like the NYT and WaPo have undermined all of that, making our allies hesitant to cooperate with our mutual best interests, since the U.S. appears not to be able to keep secrets, thanks to media who do not put “Country First”, let alone common sense.
Bush, himself, has said he regrets some of the “bring ‘im back, dead or alive” rhetoric of his early days in the post 9/11 aftermath.
I think there is a difference between “diplomacy” and “appeasement”. And yes, sometimes, I do go in for the “tough talk”.
After 9/11, I think some of it was warranted. I think “you’re either with us, or against us” was largely misconstrued by a complicit media, all too willing to take it in a direction that wasn’t meant.
Wordsmith: The problem is that the Obamatons don’t even believe in “tough talk.” It’s all about understanding our enemies point of view in a vain and misquided attempt to appease them.
Didn’t Obama say about the jew hating Khalidi that he gave Obama “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases?”
One may assume that Khalidi re-educated Obama to a view more sympathetic to the Palestinians, despite their establishment of a culture of death which praises war, terrorism and bloodshed.
It’s doubtful that Obama would demand any accountability from the Palestinians while putting greater pressure on Israel to appease and compromise with the Pallys.
That’s not a recipe for progress in the Middle East peace process. It has been tried multiple times and has failed.
If anybody actually believed this propaganda it would be effective because it’s about the scariest this you could toss out there. BUT nobody believes this, this is why the liberal illuminati haven’t even address it, it’s almost laughable.
Where have we heard this BS before??? the same old crap that was thrown at us by the Bush camp…. we all know better…
nice try Mike
If Obama wins, the U.S. will become a sanctuary for the terrorists. Only naive people like Real American Hater ignores that. I really pity him.
Craig,
YOU are so full of yourself.. what scares me the most is I think you might actually believe the bull you sling.
Here RAP, just for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nligvgv3Rfw
courtesy embed by Mike
Great find Missy.
And C.R.A.P: Apparently it’s only a secret to YOU that terrorists and thugs all over the world are pulling for an Obama win. It’s no secret to me.
A short list: FARC, HAMAS, IRAN, CHAVEZ, CASTRO, KIM JONG IL.
Here’s the captured FARC emails outlining how jolly an Obama presidency would be:
There you go… terrorists who have killed thousands of innocent Columbian peasants routing for Obama…
OBAMA COMMUNIST TERRORIST RACE WAR
If they’re trying to influence our elections, they’re using reverse psychology. They want McCain in there.
Thanks ChenZen.
I needed the laugh!
Well Mike, bin Laden’s video from 2004 was undoubtedly orchestrated to influence the election, so I think its important to differentiate between the official “statements” and the chatter.
But just think about the logic of it for a second. Do you suppose that an internationally popular and transformational figure like Obama would help their cause or hurt it? I would think that it would serve to further illegitimize their efforts in the eyes of the world, making recruitment a lot more difficult and harder for them to demonize us. Also, they know that their only chance is to win by attrition, and in their eyes McCain probably represents their best odds of continuing what we’re doing with prolonged foreign engagements and likelihood of being baited into them.
Whatever shenanigans they have up their sleeve, I’m not sure the American people are going to fall for it this time around. In fact, the moment we allow a web video from al Qaeda to influence our vote is the moment they win. In that regard, its almost too bad we’re even pointing fingers and debating it.
What? You are SERIOUS?
That’s even FUNNIER!
Al Queda has been eviscerated by George Bush and we’re constantly being told that “McSame” would keep that train rolling down the tracks.
Al Queda is already having trouble recruiting, especially since there are so few places in the world they can go once they are recruited.
Bush has rolled up their networks one by one.
And polling in the Arab world shows a remarkable shift away from support for the idea of a violent jihad.
You cannot possibly be serious in suggesting that Al Queda would fear Obama more. Why should they be any different from the terrorists in FARC, HAMAS, and the crumb bums in Iran, Venezuela and North Korea who would feel emboldened by an Obama victory.
Chen: tell me you were just making all that stuff up!
Mike
He’s not only making this stuff up but he is paid by the Obama campaign to come here and push this garbage. That is one of their goals to discourage us from voting and manipulate facts to their advantage. In other words lie.
Chen must be kidding. Everybody knows that terrorists think that with Obama, the door will be widely open for them to come to the States. They like to destroy the States from inside, like they did on the 9/11 with American airplanes. They are anxious to do it again. But with Bush, they couldn’t do it anymore and they won’t be able either under McCain presidency.
I’m not sure ChenZhen is suggesting that al Qaeda would fear Obama more. But I think there is some merit in some of what he points out. I’m sure you saw this, recently.
The thing is, if you asked al Qaeda who they’d fear most as terrorist hunter and killer, they’d choose McCain over Obama. The dichotomy is that al Qaeda wanted this war to happen between the West and Islam; they foresaw their own demise, but hoped that their actions would spur the Islamic world to rise up and answer THEIR call to “jihad”. It didn’t happen. However, thanks to the media circus around “abu ghraib” and the negative coverage of Iraq, for a while, al Qaeda enjoyed new life and recruitment. But it’s also thanks to the war in Iraq that al Qaeda has lost legitimacy in the eyes of many Muslims. They’ve been exposed for their brutality and violence against fellow Muslims who can’t possibly live up to their narrow standards and interpretation of Islamic law.
Not only that, but in Lawrence Wright’s words, al Qaeda became just as “bogged” down in Iraq as us, if not more so. And we have attacked them on a number of fronts in countries all over the globe, keeping them off balance from being able to plan and execute the next terror attack. We’ve disrupted much of their network and continue to kill and capture many of their operatives. Senior leadership is difficult to replace.
al Qaeda wants war. They want martyrdom. I say, give it to them in spades and send every each and last one of them to hell, do not pass go, do not collect your 73 virgins.
John McCain is the right man to deliver that request.
What Chen doesn’t understand, is that terrorists do not dislike us because of our foreign policies, they just hate our way of life. They hate our democracy, our freedom and our rights. For them, we are all infidels and we should all be killed. It has nothing to do with politic nor economy… it is about religion. They want to install Sharia law all over the World. They want to establish a Caliphate. That is their goal.
“reverse psychology”, Chen? You musta lifted that little tidbit of analysis direct from Huffpo, eh?
I know you want to go for the obvious by saying McCain helps their recruiting efforts… yada yada. Majorly flawed logic.
If you go the “recruitment” argument, then you must think Dubya’s *the man* to them. Yet under Dubya, they are ostracized from Iraq, their methods of warfare (trying to incite Iraq civil war) and their murders of Iraq Muslims have de’legitimized their particular brand of jihad globally with the Muslim world. Recruitment is being rejected by Muslim clerics, and so sorely suffered they’ve taken to using the disabled and women. Let’s face it… they’re having a tough time filling the suicide bomber ranks, Chen.
Even back in June, the London Times noted this jihad fall from grace in the Muslim world. It’s been going on since late 2006, and slowly growing… sans much US/western press.
AQ has not been decimated, but has been severely fractured. And this is not new news. Perhaps to you, but not to the rest of us who’ve followed the global jihad movement more closely than McClatchys, NYTs and HuffPo readers.
For an interesting perspective on the AQ v Obama or McCain, try this from one of my favorite military analysts, Ray Robison about the status of AQ and the Taliban today. You might as well also know that the Afghanistan commanders aren’t any happier about the news reports on their front either. Apparently NATO is getting stronger, but still losing in the western media front.
With AQ and the Taliban strong only in Obama’s talking points, the truth is installing another George Bush in office is the last thing they want. What they need is a break from a new POTUS, who thinks the US shouldn’t be in their back yards (Arab lands *is* their back yard).
You say they are using “reverse psychology”. I say they don’t give a whit as to who the POTUS is, America will still be an enemy. But they could use a break…
On the flip side, there’s Obama. He promises that he’ll empty Iraq of troops on a timetable, regardless of ground conditions. (a promise I’m sure he’ll break if he wins the election) He prefers diplomacy… a sign of weakness to the jihad fighter. If you want to know how “talks” go with the jihad Taliban, ask Pakistan how they’ve fared over the past decade or so. And if you’ll remember, AQ wanted to call a truce in Afghanistan… and used that opportunity to slip into the mountains. When the jihad movements want to talk, it means they need to stall because they are losing.
They’ll love Obama because he may provide them with the break they need… a chance to regroup – quite likely back in Iraq. This has been al Zawahiri’s plan all along. Wait for the US to exit, and re’enter.
As long as there is US presence in Arab lands, a possible President Obama will be sitting in exactly the same position as Bill Clinton was in the 90s. If Obama wants AQ to leave the US alone, he’s got to shut down the Saudi base, and remove all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan at least. If Obama does that, he’s even more of a a fool than I already believe him to be.
But Obama hasn’t got that as his plan. He figures he’ll leave Iraq to the Iraqis, and send everyone to Afghanistan instead. The jihad movements, like cockroaches, will merely flee back to a fledging Iraq, abandoned prior to being able to stand up to the terrorists on their own, and regroup there.
Ever try to get rid of cockroaches? Terrorists are much the same.
So no… AQ and Bin Laden don’t “want McCain” in the Oval Office. They probably won’t like Obama either, but with Obama’s promised diplomacy and less inclined to use military strength, they may buy some much needed regroup time, and some new territory to do it in.
ChenZhen,
I’d say the converse also holds true: the moment we don’t take their terror threats seriously and buy into the anti-war propaganda that terrorism is mere scaremongering by Republican warmongering neocons to win votes by a cowering public, is “the moment they win”, in your words.
We were asleep through a at least a decade’s worth of escalating terror attacks, culminating in 9/11.
Don’t ignore their rhetoric and capability to do us harm; don’t dismiss it as “rightwing neocon propaganda” or paranoia.
Look, what I’m suggesting is that, in order to effectively combat the threat, we need to read between the lines and take a serious look at what they’re trying to do with things like this.
Suppose they are trying to influence the election. Let me ask, does anyone really believe that AQ thinks that America will vote Obama if they say so? C’mon. Surely they know that a high-profile endorsement of Obama doesn’t help him, so why would anyone here consider it ridiculous that I would suggest that it’s reverse psychology?
So, I could say that Mike has either a) fallen for AQ propaganda hook, line and sinker, or b) disingenuously used the story to push a partisan narrative, complete with silly visual aids like a variation of an Uncle Sam poster and a cartoon. Perhaps both. In any case, the exercise isn’t exactly productive, and in the very least one can probably imagine that they get a kick out of pushing our collective buttons. It must feel very empowering to them.
At the end of the day, it only matters how we as a nation engage them, regardless of who is president. So to that…
Wordsmith says;
That’s debatable. We could spend trillions of dollars over decades entangled in foreign engagements, occasionally being poked, prodded, and otherwise baited into tangential conflicts by a bombing here and there, all the while creating 2 jihadis for every one we kill if we’re not careful with this “rah rah” approach. Bankrupting and demoralizing ourselves while we chase ghosts. I think that’s ultimately the way AQ wants it to play out, at least according to the aforementioned internet chatter.
Or, there may be a smarter, tactical gameplan that quietly eliminates the threat through a multi-faceted strategy of tried and true counterterrorism efforts combined with delegitimizing their ideology and utilizing our networks and international support. That would be Obama.
Chen: I AM pushing a partisan narrative. But it’s certainly not disingenous. It’s not even debateable that A.Q. prefers Democrats over Republicans. Not that it makes a whole heck of a lot of difference in their overall outlook, they’ll still kill you even if you vote for Obama.
Do you deny that terrorist groups all over the world have made positive statements about a possible Obama presidency and what they think it would mean for them?
Have you not seen the statements coming from Iranian officials expressing hope for change with Obama?
Attacking and belittling my motives here certainly does unmask yours does it not?
Or do you want to claim some sort of objectivity here?
I’m always up for another good laugh!
Chen said:
First, let’s get a grip on the cost. And you toss around “trillions” pretty darned easy without assigning a genuine concept to that amount of money.
Take, for example, the $4.3 trillion that Tax Policy Center has noted Obama will add to the debt… and that’s an incomplete cost since they could only evaluate 70 some programs out of his proposed 170 some new government depts or other taxpayer funded programs.
The costs of Iraq/Afghanistan is approx $5 billion monthly. That $4.3 trillion represents 71.6 years of Iraq/Afghanistan conflict. I repeat… SEVENTY ONE POINT SIX YEARS! And I doubt we will be as “entangled” as we are in the beginning with Afghanistan and Iraq, because now… instead of jihad being folk heroes, they are viewed as unwelcome agitators.
Put quite simply, Chen, the battle of hearts and minds everyone wants is in our favor. No, they don’t love the US and never will. But they do love their own future potential as a free nation, and reject the jihad quest for Shariah rule and a return to 3rd world conditions. In theory, with more and more rejecting jihad, the battles become more localized with less US boots as the front line. The US coalition and NATO train, the locals protect their own.
And obviously your “create two jihadis for every one we kill” comment is based only on Obama campaign talking points, and not in reality.
Actually, that would be Bush and Petraeus. You can’t have “tried and true” counterterrorism without previous failures. This urban warfare against global jihad is officially six years old now. We went in not knowing the tactics and learned from mistakes in prosecution. So look at each of your points:
1: multi-faceted strategy of tried and true counterterrorism efforts:
Done. In case you didn’t notice, it’s called The Surge with “clear and hold” methodology, combined with working with the Iraq lawmakers and elected officials, plus funds for rebuilding/reconstruction
You’ll also notice “that one” opposed this successful strategy… and still does
2: combined with delegitimizing their ideology
Done. This, however, was jihad’s own doing when they brutally assaulted fellow Muslims in attempts to turn Iraqis against each other and fall. Nothing the west can do will “delegitimize” the wahabbi and more fundamental practice as Islam. This is something between Muslims themselves. We are merely benefiting from them proving themselves to be the brutal animals they are.
3: utilizing our networks and international support
In case you haven’t noticed, there’s a plethora of countries that do support our efforts in Iraq. And also, in case you haven’t noticed, NATO has been pleading for the NATO countries to supply more troops to Afghanistan since late 2006… a few months after NATO took over complete security command for Afghanistan… and coincidently about the same time all the security took a major dumb.
Would this be the “int’l” support you want? The NATO countries who don’t kick in? The “Supreme Commanders” who are hampered with rules of engagement that are absurd? Talk about PC warfare… geeez.
BTW, the difference beween Obama and McCain on the lack of NATO troops since 2006? Obama just wants to send in US soldiers to fit the bill. In other words, Obama’s ready to escalate Afghanistan, and threaten Pakistan. Yeah… that’ll be a disasterous decision the history books will record.
McCain said back in 2006 that increasing the US footprint in Afghanistan was only a last ditch option. That the int’l NATO force must be viewed and equipped as NATO countries, not the US. So he was first for putting pressure on the NATO countries to honor their pledges, and only at last resort supplying US soldiers.
Again “that one” is wrong on foreign policy.
Chen;
I can understand what you are driving at and there might be some merit in your premise, but it would hardly benefit the Obama-Biden campaign at any rate. The ONLY reason Al Qaeda might try such “Reverse Psychology” is so they may continue touting America as the “Satanic Empire” to flunkies and would-be future terrorists. But even then it would be lost on their pawns, comprised mosty of ignorant poor who only believe their religious leaders who are true audiences for their rhetoric.
Hence, I sincerely doubt they are THAT sophisticated and calculating. Many only know the world through the eyes of their Fundamentally Extremist Imams. Most are not deep thinkers with years of university education. They wear their emotions, hearts, and anger on their sleeves and state what they truely believe.
Regardless, a strong American resolve is more fit to answer the terrorist challenge than one with weak leadership that would cave under “testing”. We saw how a single domestic threat resulted in Spain pulling their support of NATO forces. Would Dems have America do the same? That would be a coward’s path unworthy of this great nation.
Mike-
As myself and wordsmith linked above, we have seen positive statements about a McCain presidency, but I guess that I’ve yet to see anything about Obama. Why not enlighten me with a link or something?
I guess I wouldn’t be surprised by that. “Axis of Evil” certainly doesn’t rank too high in the annals of diplomacy.
As it turns out, I’ve brought up the subject a few times on my own blog, and my attempts at initiating a discussion on the matter haven’t really been of the rub-your-face-in-it variety. Yea, I’m an Obama supporter. But I’m more interested in exploring the AQ motives and effective counters than spreading something akin to “Vote for the GOP is a Vote for AQ”.
Mata-
A couple things.
I’ve followed Obama more closely than most people, and I can’t recall any variation of that theme coming from him or the campaign surrogates. I was actually referring to ’06 NIE. My point is that we can grunt platitudes about “sending ’em to hell”, but if we find the number increasing it’s pretty hard to argue that we’re getting anywhere with the strategy.
I think you’re confusing our counterinsurgency operations in Iraq with global counter-terrorism (which is what I was referring to). Sure, Kilcullen has compared an effective global counter-terrorism approach to a sort of global counterinsurgency (as certain aspects of the methodology are similar), but its not like The Surge has much of anything to do with disrupting terrorist plots against the homeland or our interests outside the region. Its something we tried only because the situation in Iraq went sour (to put it mildly).
Actually, if you go down to the bottom of my link, you’ll find:
Contrast this with al Qaeda videos by Zawahiri with statements that sound like a copy/paste of DNC talking points. Or bin Laden’s video in 2007:
Reverse psychology? Propaganda?
I just disagree that Senator Obama will be more “cerebral” in his approach in how to deal with the threat of Islamic terror, when neither he nor anyone in the Democratic Party can even bring themselves to include the term “Islamic” when talking about the threat of terrorism which we find ourselves at war with. Which the entire world is threatened by.
The notion that Bush has done nothing more than execute “cowboy diplomacy” is absurd to me and is a misperception. The war has been waged on many fronts. It’s neither unilateral, nor strictly military.
Bush deserves credit for keeping America safe for the last 7 years. Alliances with countries that matter, remains strong. We have pro-American, conservative party leaders elected in several countries in recent years, Sarkozy and Berlusconi being among the ones who are also pro-Bush.
Same was said about “evil empire”.
That’s reasonable.
So how should the next American president take on al Qaeda and Islamic terror networks?
Well at least Chen Zen admits that the Iranians who have been killing Americans for YEARS are excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency so they can go on developing a nuclear weapon and threatening Armageddon on a massive scale.
As for FARC, there’s one tidbit:
It would appear to me that Chen buys the appeasement point of view that if we are just nicer to these terrorists they will not kill us. How many times has history shown that to be a tragic mistake which only results in increased violence, loss of human life and war?
Chen, INRE the strength of AQ, and your comment that for every jihadi we kill, we create two, you said:
Really? Oct 2nd, 2008… Obama quote from Front Page Mag
Is “resurgent” and “stronger” in anyway related to AQ membership and recruitment? If there recruitment is down, as all news (other than Obama media) reports, how can they be “resurgent” and “stronger”?
Guess you missed a few days in your “following more closely than most people”.
The point here is, if Obama admits that AQ is weakened, NATO in Afghanistan is getting stronger, and recruitment is down, that supports the supposedly “failed” Bush strategy on the global war against the jihad movement…. which is *more* than AQ.
Doesn’t do much for his foreign policy campaign talking points, eh? So he has to play up the strength of AQ and the Taliban in order to bolster himself.
Lord have mercy. Don’t you click on any links provided to see where the perspective I present comes from?? Let’s try again… a link to the Military Times embedded in the Taliban threat overblown article I linked above:
From DODBuzz in July of this year
Now, since I anticipate your “but but, I’m talking about *counter*intelligence” comeback. Let’s come from a common framework of what counterintelligence is, and it’s history in context. For this, the CIA has an excellent article on both the sometimes vague understanding, and the administrative structure that inhibits better efficiency… from last summer, and updated this year.
HUMINT (human intel) and electronic intel have improved vastly. Both are integral for counterintelligence, for you can’t identify, assess and neutralize events (counterintelligence) without the intel gather process running efficiently.
In particular, with this warfare, HUMINT has become of particular import. Per the Sept 2006 work report found on the Ramstein AF Base, headquarters for USAFE site
Again, the concept of counterintelligence is wholly dependent upon intelligence gathering. The later has improved immensely because of the clear/hold/embed with host Iraqis Surge strategy.
In short, you cannot have efficient counterintelligence without thorough and efficient intelligence gathering (HUMINT, electronic… all facets).
As far as the former, Clinton created the NCIX with Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 75 just a couple weeks before leaving office…. ala an intelligence director/czar. It subsequently was moved under control of the DNI in 2006.
NCIX seems to focus heavily on the cyber threats and vunerabilities. Ala one of our freedoms is our open society. The enemy views this as a weakness to exploit… the ability operate unnoticed in our back yards. (enter FISA and the data sifting programs such as Echelon and Able Danger)
This is where your correct statement of “disrupting terrorist plots against the homeland or our interests outside the region” comes into play. In the past, our national security strategy was reactive… a “who done it” and a manhunt. Today, the quest is to prevent the terrorists from striking, and to amass intel on their activities prior to an attack.
From all I understand from NCIX Congressional hearings, we still suffer from the same 90s maladies of intercommunication. While the FBI and CIA have improved their lines of communication, the NCIX is still somewhat disjointed in the process. In fact, with the mass NCIX/DNI resignations in 2006 it appears the competitive nature of the US intelligence agencies is alive and well. Yet the law is quite clear on how CI is supposed to operate under the direction of the NCIX/DNI.
I do agree that our intel interdepartment communications can always be improved. However I disagree with you that Obama is the best choice for that task. With Barney Frank stomping his foot, demanding a defense budget cut of 25%, something has to suffer. And the intelligence departments are already working on a deficient budget for the work load and monitoring.
McCain also promises a cut, but he intends to do so by more efficient purchases of equipment.
Here’s an article comparing Obama and McCain on their defense budget ideas.
In one way, they sound remarkably similar. But when you consider the amount of the budget the Dems want shave off, then add in Obama’s Dept of Peace and Non-Violence that he and Barney Frank want to create – which will fall under the defense spending – the ability for Obama to “increase” and “improve capability to conduct counterinsurgency operations” has less to work with.
Therefore, let me say this. I believe your thinking is on the right track. However your analysis as to whom will actually be able to accomplish what you believe is correct is financially flawed.
Ok seriously ENOUGH with the fear mongering.
Its getting pathetic!
I Personalty find it ammusing that you guys say that Osama Bin laden who wants The demorcrats to win.
When its the REPUBLICANS who have weakened our milatary {thanks to the war in Iraq}.
Who let 9/11 happen and still 7 years later the republicans still HAVE YET to cacth Osama Bin Laden and Alqeada.
Who instead of keeping their eye on the ball with Afganastan.
The Republicans sent our troops to a country that HAD NOTHING TO DO with 9/11!!!!!
And we have accomplashed NOTHING in the country dispite spending TRILLIONS of dollars there and losing thousands of troops.
And after all that, Osama Bid Laden is still on the lose and Alqeada is now gaining strenth in the borders of Pakistain and Afganastan.
And now yall are saying that the Alqeada and Osama Bin Laden want Obama to win??
Dispite the fact that Obama wants to END THE WAR IN IRAQ!
And wants to put more troops in Afganastain and Pakistain border instead.
Were he KNOWS Osama Bin Laden and Alqeada are hiding and are ploting for ANOTHER terroist attack.
So he can track them down and make sure they NEVER strike again.
Are you people even listening to yourselfs????
*SMDH*
Look, Come Nov. 4th America WILL pick Obama and the Democrats.
And finally say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH with the Republican fear mongering, smears and lies.
ITS TIME FOR A CHANGE!!!!!!
Obama/Biden 08!
Examples of the “fear mongering” by
GOP…. er, I mean PROGRESSIVE SOCIALISTS Jasmine/David/David101 speaks of:Jane Fonda “cries” all night. Erica Jong says “blood will run in the streets”….
Need more or your “fear mongering” campaign tactics that if the US doesn’t vote for Obama, we will have “riots”? Click here, if you know how….
Other than that, tread lightly on your “racism” charges against us, girl. You not only do yourself disservice, but you reflect badly on your Messiahship.
BTW, Jasmine/David/David101… beware of treading in areas beyond your abilities… I understand “reading” is a “2nd language” to you, but no need to emphasize your flaws in public, right?
@David101:
Telling the truth is fear mongering now?
Yes, you’ve been pathetic since you showed up here with your, what is it, seven personalities?
Of course bin Laden wants the Dims to win (if he’s still alive that is). If the military of a foreign country were kicking your ass all over the desert and to the mountains and back for the last five years you’d want it to stop too.
Really?
The US military is weakened because it has been put to work doing what it was designed, created, and built to do.
Yeah, that makes total sense.
Let 9/11 happen?
Let it happen?
Clinton was in office for 8 years. The planning, plotting, and execution of the plan began long before Jan 2001. As much as you may wish you could blame 9/11 on President Bush, no soup for you.
Clinton had multiple opportunities to capture and/or kill bin Laden. In fact, bin Laden was offered to him by Sudan before he was expelled from their country.
Clinton passed.
Later Clinton had the opportunity to kill bin Laden when the CIA had his location pinned down.
Guess what, he passed.
He was too busy getting a Lewinsky to be really concerned with the security of the US.
OBL may or may not be dead. Regardless of the fate of that miserable sack of shit, Al Qaeda has been decimated. They have lost their fighters by the thousands. They are on the run and, considering what has not happened in the US since 9/11 their effectiveness has suffered as well.
I guess you’re one of those people who feel that the fine men and women of the US military cannot do more than one thing at the time.
Study history much?
Obviously not.
You should do some reading about the involvement of the US military during WWI and WWII. You may just get your eyes opened.
Nothing to do with 9/11,
Right.
You truly need to do some reading so that you can educate yourself. Currently you are opening your mouth and making it apparent to everyone what a fool you are.
On this blog alone there are volumes of information about 9/11 – Iraq – Al Qaeda – Hussein.
You should read it.
Accomplished nothing.
Hmmm…
I would say that the freedom of 40 plus million people is a significant accomplishment.
Through the brave service, and sometimes the ultimate sacrifice, of some of the finest men and women who have ever served our country, people who have never tasted freedom are now free.
The right to vote that you and I enjoy and will take part in on Tuesday is now extended to people in countries who NEVER had that right before.
That’s nothing you say?
I say you’re full of dog squeeze.
Again, we don’t know if OBL is still alive or not. His rotting corpse may never be found.
Enemy strength ebbs and flows in any armed conflict and is not something to be truly concerned with.
The US will be victorious as long as the defeatocrats don’t pull the troops out before the job is done.
Again, the enemy is not stupid. Of course they want a weaker leader as the head of the US.
They tried Clinton and found that nothing happened. OBL, because of Clinton’s lack of response, declared the US to be a paper tiger.
When they tried Bush they found out that the cowboy from Texas would not hesitate to kick their asses.
Now they want a weaker leader again.
It’s common sense on their parts. They want to be able to lick their wounds and restrengthen.
Obama will prematurely withdraw our troops and create havoc in the Middle East.
By doing so, the blood and treasure we have invested in that region will have been invested for naught.
That’s a question you should ask of yourself.
You can keep telling yourself that, but it won’t make it true.
You should do the same thing that Sky is doing and go get some beer to dull the pain.
You’re going to need it.
PS—Download some spell checker software. Your spelling makes you look like an uneducated idiot just as much as your uniformed opinions.
Aye, Aye…. if you’re trying to reach the mentally challenged and disabled, you broke the golden rule. You used too many big words!
That means over two letters… as in ME ME ME!
Oh good grief “David.” You get the moonbat star award for working in more libtard talking points per comment than anyone this week (and that’s saying something).
And when you talk about “fearmongering… smears and lies” you are surely referring to the uninterupted campaign of hate, abuse and disinformation directed at the very people trying to save your worthless ass from being incinerated.
You know what you are?
Powered by Podbean.com
Mike-
Please, save the straw. I happen to think that there’s a hundred yards between “send ’em to hell” and “appeasement”, and I think its about time that everyone start recognizing that the correct answer lies somewhere in between, that’s all.
“I think its about time that everyone start recognizing that the correct answer lies somewhere in between, that’s all.”
That’s a total non answer devoid of anything specific.
But it sounds good.
Sort of like Obama. Empty and meaningless.
ChenZhen,
I think the “cowboy shoot from the hip” reputation of Bush has been largely overblown. From day one, he’s gone out of his way to make sure people understand he was not going to war against Islam itself. He doesn’t get credit for the diplomacy that has occurred, for getting allies to kill and capture al Qaeda operatives all over the world, for getting nations to cooperate in such things as the Swift program and rendition program (whether you feel it to be right or wrong, it wasn’t begun under his administration); forget that media outlets like the NYT and WaPo have undermined all of that, making our allies hesitant to cooperate with our mutual best interests, since the U.S. appears not to be able to keep secrets, thanks to media who do not put “Country First”, let alone common sense.
Bush, himself, has said he regrets some of the “bring ‘im back, dead or alive” rhetoric of his early days in the post 9/11 aftermath.
“Bush, himself, has said he regrets some of the “bring ‘im back, dead or alive” rhetoric of his early days in the post 9/11 aftermath.”
I don’t regret any of that.
What is so bad about wanting to defeat your enemies?
When you are dealing with Al Queda it’s kill or be killed. No diplomacy will solve the problem.
And diplomacy, even by our vaunted ever so sophisticated European allies hasn’t budged Iran’s intentions to build a bomb.
Diplomacy without the credible threat of military force is meaningless.
As T.R. said: “speak softly and carry a big stick”
As Obama would say it: “speak softly and throw the stick away.”
Most likely Chen would approve of that approach.
Right Chen? Do you support Obama’s stated goal to gut the U.S. military?
The thing is, Mike…it’s hardly “speaking softly”.
I think there is a difference between “diplomacy” and “appeasement”. And yes, sometimes, I do go in for the “tough talk”.
After 9/11, I think some of it was warranted. I think “you’re either with us, or against us” was largely misconstrued by a complicit media, all too willing to take it in a direction that wasn’t meant.
Wordsmith: The problem is that the Obamatons don’t even believe in “tough talk.” It’s all about understanding our enemies point of view in a vain and misquided attempt to appease them.
Didn’t Obama say about the jew hating Khalidi that he gave Obama “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases?”
One may assume that Khalidi re-educated Obama to a view more sympathetic to the Palestinians, despite their establishment of a culture of death which praises war, terrorism and bloodshed.
It’s doubtful that Obama would demand any accountability from the Palestinians while putting greater pressure on Israel to appease and compromise with the Pallys.
That’s not a recipe for progress in the Middle East peace process. It has been tried multiple times and has failed.