The Daily Caller:
Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol remarked on Sunday that President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign rhetoric on foreign policy stood in stark contrast to the turmoil in the Middle East stirred by threats from al-Qaida, pointing out that the U.S. closed 22 embassies throughout the Muslim world.
“Four years ago President Obama gave a much heralded speech as outreach to the Muslim world,” Kristol said. “And now, four years later we are closing embassies throughout the Muslim world. A year ago, the president said al-Qaida is on the run. And now we seem to be on the run.”
“I’m not criticizing the decision to close the embassies. That’s probably the right thing to do for the sake of trying to save American lives and others, but it’s a terrible thing,” he added. “That you know, just a year ago boasting al-Qaida is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.”
@MataHarley: I checked the online definitions of decimate. They are split as to which is the #1 definition is. If I recall the past comments made here about AQ or its leadership being decimated, they clearly didn’t indicate 1/10th. To the best of my recollection, the comments led one to believe decimated as in destroying a significant number. I even remember cautioning at least once that it was way to soon to be counting them down and out. From Obama’s twitter:
It doesn’t seem to me he meant 1/10th.
Here are the recent findings of a Rand study. I don’t know how you feel about them. I’ve never used them for research so I have no idea if they are slanted.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP362.html#abstract
The events of the past week and even before, clearly shows that AQ has not been decimated or if it was, it has reconstituted itself. They remain a threat and will most likely stay that way for the rest of Obama’s time in office and probably for most, if not all of his successor’s time in office.
AV, focusing on an absolute “1/10″… which by any logic would have to be an estimate when referring to AQ membership… is less important than the extreme attempts at interpretation. It does not mean to defeat utterly, annihilate or erase, as has been suggested by those attempting to redefine the English language for political purposes.
You can argue about “decimate” until you’re blue in the face, and how close to “1/10th” it may be. The point is that in no part of *any* definition does it mean that AQ has been defeated or eliminated. No one has said that, and no sane person ever will. Only the desperate will attempt to argue that using the word “decimate” means total elimination.
I don’t know why you would attempt to convince me that AQ has not been “deciminated”, in the interpretation you prefer to use. How many times have I said they will never be eliminated? However I will say that both Bush and Obama have put huge dents – “deciminated, if you will – in their leadership by ground and drone warfare. But as I also said, like cockroaches, for every one you kill, another 10 are born.
@retire05, #50:
My error. It doesn’t say that. I was thinking of another article, dating from July, concerning the elimination of Saeed al-Shihri, al Qaeda’s second-in-command in Yemen, by way of a drone strike.
According to FOX News, the strike a few hours ago is one of 5 conducted in Yemen in during the past 2 weeks.
I wanted to address this in it’s own answer. The reason being the same Rand analysis was reference in a CSM article by Mark Sappenfield a few days ago. He was suggesting that AQ (which I include loosely tied ideological affiliates by nature) had “shrinking” ambitions.
He was partly correct, but for all the wrong reasons. They aren’t reduced to this refocus. It was planned.
I’ve continually referenced Zawahiri’s interview from 2008-09 in multiple comments in the past. I still have Part One of that interview as a PDF, but it is now only available via a book by Laura Mansfield, the interpreter. AQ/Islamists ambitions haven’t shrunk. They’ve only decided to focus in a different direction. i.e attacking US/western interests and presence in Muslim lands, and overthrowing “apostate” Muslim leaders like in Libya and Egypt. AQ had no love for Mubarek, Gaddafi or even the Muslim Brotherhood for that matter. He softened his criticism of the MB because of common goals, but he detests they choose to accomplish their jihad thru the electoral and governing structure. “Pure” Islamists consider the electoral process un-Islamic.
Point is, Zawahiri predicted the Arab Spring and more focused attacks on embassies and private companies years ago as their path and goal. Only those who never read Zawahiri’s own words could be surprised.
One other point… Zawahiri uses the media as part of their tools, and states they do that. They made no attempt to hide their “conference” from known intercepts. This is an indication they were looking for a response to threats.. whether to demean the apparent strength of the US in the media, or to clear out areas to make it easier for attacks. But it was deliberate and part of more than just that intercepted conference call. Again, no surprise for anyone who’s read Zawahiri’s own plans.
On the flip side, it would be foolhardy for the US and other western nations (like Britain and France) not to remove non essential personnel from diplomatic locations as prevention for unneeded loss of life. Will it look “weak” to the Islamists? Of course. The appearance of weak is their goal But the alternative of being stubbornly unresponsive is also irresponsible for unnecessary loss of life. What would be the ultimate of “weak” is to close the diplomatic stations and bug out permanently.
Forgot to mention, Rand Corp is a libertarian leaning think tank.
@MataHarley: I agree 100% with your last paragraph. You weren’t the one I was referring to as the one using decimate as in utterly destroy. It was Greg. That was based on having seen him in the past exaggerate facts to prove his point (not that he is the only one, I’ve seen the conservative side do it as well) as well as the comments he had made in the posts I was referring to. In those posts he was boasting about Obama and downplaying Bush as if nothing was done under Bush. Given that at least 10% of AQ and its leadership had been killed during the Bush years, in order to prop up Obama, decimate would have had to been used to mean something a lot more than eliminating 10%, more in lines of “cause great destruction or harm”. My bad if you read it as though I was referring to you. I should have been more specific as to whose comments I was referring to.
I would also note that in the military, if an enemy unit were to lose 10% of its personnel strength, it would still be considered to be very much combat effective. I would not want to be the one briefing a general telling him that an enemy unit had been decimated when they their losses were 10%. And I wouldn’t use the term if their losses were more than 10% if they were still a threat. This goes along the lines of how the meaning of the word has evolved.
@MataHarley: They will no doubt make it out to be that we are weak by closing our embassies. Not doing so would be utterly stupid on our part. One thing about GWOT people don’t seem to get is that it is dynamic. AQ will change their strategies and tactics, then we will change ours to counter them and then they will change theirs to counter our counter. It will be an ongoing cycle just like every war, only this one may never really end in the traditional sense.
@another vet: Well, if we deny there is a GWOT, then we have no tactics to change and they win by default. That seems to be the objective of this president!
@another vet, “ditto” to all that. A long war, no discernible or stationary battlefield, no stinkin’ rules, and enemies that blend in with the masses in broad daylight. It truly does beg a hybrid type/combo of military, intel and diplomatic skills, unlike historic wars of the past century.
BTW, I like to keep abreast of reasoned and relatively balanced “long war” news from The Long War Journal. Thomas Joscelyn – via Bill Roggio – has the most cogent analysis on the reasons for the increased and more stringent chatter (piling on to previous chatter, lending it more credibility). Also why the overt and apparently deliberate media presence of Zawahiri. That reason my be a “coming out party”, so to speak, for AQ’s newly appointed #2, Yemeni AQ leader Nasir al Wuhayshi. Yemen is, of course, near the top of their list as Muslim countries under an apostate leader, lending aid to the evil US.
While some think AQ has been somewhat neutered to large scale operations, they have actually been very busy on their more focused goal to help remove apostate rulers, simultaneously amassing their numbers in the States surrounding Israel. As Joscelyn points out, they didn’t have to be at the center in starting the revolutions… they just need to add fuel to the fire and learn how to move it in their favor. All in all, their primary prize is seizing territory, and building an Islamist empire.
@MataHarley: Joscelyn’s assessment was about as close to being right on the money as any. Another thing to consider is that Zawahiri appears to have a lot more brains than his predecessor who made a serious mistake by trying to challenge us in Iraq. The new strategy they have adopted is a lot more realistic. It could actually lead to their cherished “Holy War” should it spark a large war between Israel and its neighbors. I still wouldn’t rule attacks on our soil. If they were to ever hit some targets in the heartland, it’ll cause a lot more panic than the attacks in NYC and Boston did because the heartland isn’t considered as vulnerable as the coastal cities are. It’s a psychological thing.
@another vet: again we are in total agreement. And while attacks are US soil are far from a thing of the past, I suspect they will be as we’ve seen since Sept 11th… more smaller operatives and offshoot individuals than large scale.
I might also add that those who are doing the “speculating” that this is all just a distraction, and that the intel and events are being hyped, might want to consider the latest not-so-political closure as a precaution. Israeli’s have closed their Eilat airport until further notice because of the increased security concerns. I guess the rest of the free world wants to engage in an Obama cover up/distraction, eh? LOL
BTW, AV… if you’d like me to send you the PDF of Part One of the 2008-09 Zawahiri interview/conference, I’d be happy to.
@MataHarley: All of this an indication that if anything AQ is or has strengthened their hand, at least in that part of the world. The operation they had planned for Yemen would have required a lot more than eighteen hijackers. The fact that there are threats in other countries, such as the one in Israel you mentioned, points to something even bigger. Yemen may have just been one part of a larger scaled operation. Given the reaction, it’s obvious the intel community (and not just the U.S. intel community) feels as though AQ’s operational capabilities could carry this out even it was a bluff by Zawahiri just to test the West’s reaction or to gain attention.
As for the strikes here, I don’t think we’ll see another 9/11 sized one unless they go for a nuke plant or have somehow managed to smuggle WMD into the country. They will be smaller and more focused. Think about the impact a half a dozen or so Boston Marathon strikes in the heartland directed at shopping centers, theaters, and other places that people frequent on a daily basis would have. People would be afraid to leave their homes or send their kids to school.
@MataHarley: That would be great. The old intel analyst in me may just come out.