Popular Guy

Local children of Abu Atham crowd around and talk to U.S. Army Spc. Daniel Fusco, from C Troop, 2nd Strykehorse Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Stryker Combat Brigade Team, 25th Infantry Division, during a mission in Abu Atham, March 5, 2008. Photo by Tech Sgt. William Greer, Joint Combat Camera Center.

Are We Safer?

On the stump, Barack Obama usually concludes his comments on Iraq by saying, “and it hasn’t made us safer.” It is an article of faith on the left that nothing the Bush administration has done has enhanced our security, and, on the contrary, its various alleged blunders have only contributed to the number of jihadists who want to attack us.

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful. What follows is a partial history:

1988
February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.

December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.

1991
November: American University in Beirut bombed.

1993
January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.

February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.

1995
January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden’s plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.

November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.

1996
June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.

June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.

1997
February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.

November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.

1998
January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.

August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.

1999
October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled “Allahu Akbar!” as he steered the airplane into the ocean. [UPDATE: Note correction below.]

2000
October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.

2001
September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill around 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

December: Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber,” tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.

The September 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al Qaeda, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden’s cause and that more such attacks would follow. In fact, though, what happened was quite different: the pace of successful jihadist attacks against the United States slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq war, and has now dwindled to essentially zero. Here is the record:

2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam’s government.

2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.

October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

I have omitted from the above accounting a few “lone wolf” Islamic terrorist incidents, like the Washington, D.C. snipers, the Egyptian who attacked the El Al counter in Los Angeles, and an incident or two when a Muslim driver steered his vehicle into a crowd. These are, in a sense, exceptions that prove the rule, since the “lone wolves” were not, as far as we know, in contact with international Islamic terrorist groups and therefore could not have been detected by surveillance of terrorist conversations or interrogations of al Qaeda leaders.

It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field. Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere.

There are a number of possible reasons why our government’s actions after September 11 may have made us safer. Overthrowing the Taliban and depriving al Qaeda of its training grounds in Afghanistan certainly impaired the effectiveness of that organization. Waterboarding three top al Qaeda leaders for a minute or so apiece may have given us the vital information we needed to head off plots in progress and to kill or apprehend three-quarters of al Qaeda’s leadership. The National Security Agency’s eavesdropping on international terrorist communications may have allowed us to identify and penetrate cells here in the U.S., as well as to identify and kill terrorists overseas. We may have penetrated al Qaeda’s communications network, perhaps through the mysterious Naeem Noor Khan, whose laptop may have been the 21st century equivalent of the Enigma machine. Al Qaeda’s announcement that Iraq is the central front in its war against the West, and its call for jihadis to find their way to Iraq to fight American troops, may have distracted the terrorists from attacks on the United States. The fact that al Qaeda loyalists gathered in Iraq, where they have been decimated by American and Iraqi troops, may have crippled their ability to launch attacks elsewhere. The conduct of al Qaeda in Iraq, which revealed that it is an organization of sociopaths, not freedom fighters, may have destroyed its credibility in the Islamic world. The Bush administration’s skillful diplomacy may have convinced other nations to take stronger actions against their own domestic terrorists. (This certainly happened in Saudi Arabia, for whatever reason.) Our intelligence agencies may have gotten their act together after decades of failure. The Department of Homeland Security, despite its moments of obvious lameness, may not be as useless as many of us had thought.

No doubt there are officials inside the Bush administration who could better allocate credit among these, and probably other, explanations of our success in preventing terrorist attacks. But based on the clear historical record, it is obvious that the Bush administration has done something since 2001 that has dramatically improved our security against such attacks. To fail to recognize this, and to rail against the Bush administration’s security policies as failures or worse, is to sow the seeds of greatly increased susceptibility to terrorist attack in the next administration.

CORRECTION: A reader who has done considerable investigation into the Egypt Air crash called to say that the initial reports of the incident were wrong. Current thinking is that this was not a suicide/terror incident, and likely was caused by an airplane defect or malfunction. I’m not sure how much of this has been reported, but if it has been, I missed it. My apologies to the Egypt Air pilot.

U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda
Group Is Facing Setbacks Globally, CIA Chief Says
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 30, 2008; A01

Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda’s allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group’s core leadership.

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.

“On balance, we are doing pretty well,” he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: “Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally — and here I’m going to use the word ‘ideologically’ — as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam,” he said.

The sense of shifting tides in the terrorism fight is shared by a number of terrorism experts, though some caution that it is too early to tell whether the gains are permanent. Some credit Hayden and other U.S. intelligence leaders for going on the offensive against al-Qaeda in the area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where the tempo of Predator strikes has dramatically increased from previous years. But analysts say the United States has caught some breaks in the past year, benefiting from improved conditions in Iraq, as well as strategic blunders by al-Qaeda that have cut into its support base.

“One of the lessons we can draw from the past two years is that al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy,” said Robert Grenier, a former top CIA counterterrorism official who is now managing director of Kroll, a risk consulting firm. “Where they have succeeded initially, they very quickly discredit themselves.”

Others warned that al-Qaeda remains capable of catastrophic attacks and may be even more determined to stage a major strike to prove its relevance. “Al-Qaeda’s obituary has been written far too often in the past few years for anyone to declare victory,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. “I agree that there has been progress. But we’re indisputably up against a very resilient and implacable enemy.”

A landmark study last August by the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies described the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area as a de facto al-Qaeda haven in which terrorist leaders were reorganizing for attacks against the West. But Hayden said counterterrorism successes extend even to that lawless region. Although he would not discuss CIA operations in the area, U.S. intelligence agencies have carried out several attacks there since January, using unmanned Predator aircraft for surgical strikes against al-Qaeda and Taliban safe houses.

“The ability to kill and capture key members of al-Qaeda continues, and keeps them off balance — even in their best safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border,” Hayden said.

But terrorism experts note the lack of success in the U.S. effort to capture bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Intelligence officials say they think both are living in the Pakistan-Afghanistan tribal area in locations known only to a few top aides. Hayden said capturing or killing the pair remains a top priority, though he noted the difficulties in finding them in a rugged, remote region where the U.S. military is officially forbidden to operate.

The Bush administration has been watching political developments in Pakistan with apprehension, worried that the country’s newly elected leadership will not be as tolerant of occasional unilateral U.S. strikes against al-Qaeda as was the government of President Pervez Musharraf, a close ally in the U.S. fight against terrorism.

Hayden declined to discuss what agreements, if any, have been brokered with Pakistan’s new leaders, but he said, “We’re comfortable with the authorities we have.”

Since the start of the year, he said, al-Qaeda’s global leadership has lost three senior officers, including two who succumbed “to violence,” an apparent reference to Predator strikes that killed terrorist leaders Abu Laith al-Libi and Abu Sulayman al-Jazairi in Pakistan. He also cited a successful blow against “training activity” in the region but offered no details. “Those are the kinds of things that delay and disrupt al-Qaeda’s planning,” Hayden said.

Despite the optimistic outlook, he said he is concerned that the progress against al-Qaeda could be halted or reversed because of what he considers growing complacency and a return to the mind-set that existed before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“We remain worried, and frankly, I wonder why some other people aren’t worried, too,” he said. His concern stems in part from improved intelligence-gathering that has bolstered the CIA’s understanding of al-Qaeda’s intent, he said.

“The fact that we have kept [Americans] safe for pushing seven years now has got them back into the state of mind where ’safe’ is normal,” he said. “Our view is: Safe is hard-won, every 24 hours.”

Hayden, who has previously highlighted a gulf between Washington and its European allies on how to battle terrorism, said he is troubled that Congress and many in the media are “focused less on the threat and more on the tactics the nation has chosen to deal with the threat” — a reference to controversial CIA interrogation techniques approved by Hayden’s predecessors.

“The center line of the national discussion has moved, and in our business, our center line is more shaped by the reality of the threat,” Hayden said.

On Iraq, he said he is encouraged not only by U.S. success against al-Qaeda’s affiliates there, but also by what he described as the steadily rising competence of the Iraqi military and a growing popular antipathy toward jihadism.

“Despite this ’cause célebrè’ phenomenon, fundamentally no one really liked al-Qaeda’s vision of the future,” Hayden said. As a result, the insurgency is viewed locally as “more and more a war of al-Qaeda against Iraqis,” he said. Hayden specifically cited the recent writings of prominent Sunni clerics — including some who used to support al-Qaeda — criticizing the group for its indiscriminant killing of Muslim civilians.

While al-Qaeda misplayed its hand with gruesome attacks on Iraqi civilians, Hayden said, U.S. military commanders and intelligence officials deserve some of the credit for the shift, because they “created the circumstances” for it by building strategic alliances with Sunni and Shiite factions, he said.

Hayden warned, however, that progress in Iraq is being undermined by increasing interference by Iran, which he accused of supplying weapons, training and financial assistance to anti-U.S. insurgents. While declining to endorse any particular strategy for dealing with Iran, he described the threat in stark terms.

“It is the policy of the Iranian government, approved at the highest levels of that government, to facilitate the killing of American and other coalition forces in Iraq. Period,” he said.

By Rush Limbaugh: 

 I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the
September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform
are profound .

No one is really talking about it either, because you just don’t
criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can’t let the
numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the
entitlement mentality of this country.  If you lost a family member in
the September 11 attack, you’re going to get an average of $1,185,000.
The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000 all the way up to $4.7
million.

If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in
action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half
of which is taxable.

Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs.  If you are the surviving spouse,
you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there’s a payment of $211
per month for each child under 18.  When the child hits 18, those
payments come to a screeching halt.

Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of
$1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it’s not enough.
Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong
place at the wrong time.  Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL
OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.

We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the
Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same
deal that the September 11 families are getting.  In addition to that,
some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for
compensation as well.

You see where this is going, don’t you?  Folks, this is part and parcel
of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country.  It’s just
really sad.  Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they
usually receive next to nothing of a raise.  Now the green

machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to
survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing ..   Make sense?

However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise.   Many of you
don’t know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a
pension that is more than $ 15,000 per month.  And most are now equal to
being millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on
retirement because they didn’t have to pay into the system.  If some of
the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may
receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed
them in harm’s way receives a pension of $15,000 per month.

I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join
ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our
sons and daughters who are now fighting.

Op-Ed Columnist

Remember to Remember

By WILLIAM KRISTOL

Published: May 26, 2008

Last Thursday, the soldiers of the Third United States Infantry Regiment (the Old Guard) placed a small American flag in front of each of the 260,000 or so grave markers in Arlington National Cemetery. The soldiers remained on duty throughout the weekend, replacing flags that had fallen or been removed, to ensure that each grave was appropriately decorated and honored on Memorial Day.

Skip to next paragraph

William Kristol

Go to Columnist Page »

Related

Times Topics: Memorial Day

This decades-old tradition exemplifies the attention the military pays to honoring its veterans and, above all of course, its fallen warriors. But what of the rest of us? Most of us in the Washington area didn’t visit Arlington this weekend. Most of us across America aren’t participating in Memorial Day services or commemorations.

This doesn’t mean Americans are indifferent to the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. In fact, I suspect that many of us feel so much in debt to our servicemen and women, and so much in awe of the ultimate sacrifice some of them have made and all of them are willing to make, that we worry any effort to honor them wouldn’t be commensurate with their deeds.

One retired general I know urges civilians to go out of their way to say thank you to servicemen and women they happen to encounter. At first I thought such a gesture might be intrusive, or awkward, or unwelcome. I was wrong. When civilians walk over to express appreciation to men and women in uniform, in airports or restaurants or the like, the recipients seem a little embarrassed — but grateful. So perhaps we all should be less shy about thanking our troops for their service.

The men and women in the military know their fellow citizens are grateful to them. Many of them say, though, that they’re not confident their countrymen are aware of what they’re accomplishing.

Gen. David Petraeus testified Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He noted that the number of security incidents in Iraq in the past week had fallen to the lowest level in over four years. And he held out the prospect, despite “tough fights and hard work” that lie ahead, of “an Iraq that is at peace with itself and its neighbors, that is an ally in the war on terror, that has a government that serves all Iraqis.”

Meanwhile, political progress in Iraq has picked up, and provincial elections will likely occur before the end of the year. From Basra in the south to Mosul in the north, the overall situation has improved more than anyone thought possible even a few months ago — let alone a year and a half ago, when President Bush ordered the surge of forces, and Petraeus, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno and Ambassador Ryan Crocker began implementing the new counterinsurgency strategy.

This past weekend, a friend forwarded an e-mail message from a Marine helicopter pilot who has done tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Because he’s on active duty, I’m not naming him.) He’s now stationed in the U.S., training pilots who are about to deploy to Iraq:

“I was in Iraq from the 2nd to the 12th this month. In my current job I go over there twice a year for two weeks to collect lessons learned and fly a few sorties …

“The biggest deal for me was the fact that even after we have pulled out thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops, peace continues to hold in Anbar. In fact, I was shocked by two things when flying over Ramadi and Fallujah. First, the streetlights are back on. It is crazy to see Iraqi cities lit up completely, and since they are all on grid power now, you don’t see the crazy black/brown outs when you fly over and the generators pop like you would back in 2005/6. The power now seems to extend even into the suburbs and light industry on the edges of the major cities as well.

“Second, there are people, regular civilians, walking the streets at night. That was very unusual and got the visitor (me) laughed at when I told our terminal controller that I had personnel walking down a street on the radio.”

The Marine major concluded: “May has been ridiculously quiet everywhere.”

“Ridiculously quiet everywhere” is Marine-like hyperbole, of course. And even though May has been very encouraging, there will be upticks of violence and occasional setbacks over the next months. It would be great if the future were in fact “ridiculously quiet” for our men and women in uniform — and for the people of Iraq. This is too much to hope for. But we are on course to win the Iraq war.

This success, if we sustain the will and ability to bring it to fruition, will be an important national achievement. It will be due above all to the remarkable efforts of the men and women of our armed forces. We should stop to thank them — and to pay tribute to their fallen comrades whom we honor this day.

Change That Matters
Iraq has changed. Why can’t the Democrats?
by Matthew Continetti
06/02/2008, Volume 013, Issue 36  Weekly Standard

 May 27, 12:54 AM (ET)

By LIZ SIDOTI and BARRY MASSEYALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - Republican John McCain on Monday sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for not having been to Iraq since 2006, and said they should visit the war zone together.

“Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost,” the GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting told The Associated Press in an interview, noting that the Illinois senator’s last trip to Iraq came before the military buildup that is credited with curbing violence.

“He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time,” the Arizona senator added. “If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn’t had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly.”

McCain, a Navy veteran and Vietnam prisoner of war, frequently argues that he’s the most qualified candidate to be a wartime commander in chief. In recent weeks, he has sought portray Obama, a first-term senator, as naive on foreign policy and not experienced enough to lead the military.

(AP) Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., second from right, says the pledge of… Full Image

The Iraq war, which polls have shown that most of the country opposes, is shaping up to be a defining issue in the November presidential election.

McCain, who wrapped up the GOP nomination in March, supports continued military presence in Iraq though he recently said he envisions victory with most U.S. troops coming home by January 2013 if he’s elected. Obama, who has all but clinched the Democratic nomination, says he will remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office, though sometimes he shortens it to 11 months.

“For him to talk about dates for withdrawal, which basically is surrender in Iraq after we’re succeeding so well is, I think, really inexcusable,” said McCain, who has been to Iraq eight times, most recently in March.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton declined to respond directly to McCain, saying only: “Senator Obama thinks Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation’s veterans, not a day for political posturing.”

Over the weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of McCain’s top surrogates, laid the groundwork for McCain’s criticism in a television interview in which he noted Obama’s absence from Iraq and floated the idea that Obama and McCain should go together to be briefed by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

(AP) Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., right, walks to his chartered plane… Full Image

Asked whether he’d be willing to take such a trip, McCain told the AP: “Sure. It would be fine.”

“I go back every few months because things are changing in Iraq,” he said. McCain questioned whether Obama has ever been briefed by Petraeus. “I would also seize that opportunity to educate Senator Obama along the way.”

Both McCain and Obama spent part of Memorial Day in New Mexico, a general election battleground that was decided by razor-thin margins in 2000, for Democrat Al Gore, and in 2004, for Republican President Bush.

Obama addressed veterans Monday in Las Cruces while McCain used a speech at the New Mexico Veterans Memorial in Albuquerque to press his case against withdrawing troops from Iraq, saying they must continue their mission even though he’s “sick at heart” by mistakes at the outset of the war.

McCain also defended his opposition to Senate-passed legislation that would provide additional college financial aid to veterans, a measure Obama supports.

The Republican made no direct mention of the Democrat but seemed to poke at him nonetheless.

McCain said his opposition to the bill was the right rather than the politically expedient position, suggesting Obama was on the wrong side of the measure sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate. Lawmakers blocked a more limited version that McCain supported.

“I am running for the office of commander in chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. And this is why I am committed to our bill, despite the support Senator Webb’s bill has received,” McCain said. “It would be easier, much easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation.”

However, McCain said he opposed Webb’s measure because it would give everyone the same benefit regardless of how many times they enlist. He said he feared that would depress reenlistments by those wanting to attend college after only a few years in uniform. Rather, McCain said the bill he favored would have increased scholarships based on length of service.

McCain spent the early part of the holiday weekend at his retreat in Sedona, Ariz., where he entertained some two dozen guests, including three fellow Republicans who have been mentioned as possible vice presidential running mates: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

“It really was just a social occasion,” McCain told the AP. Asked whether he did any vetting of the three, McCain said: “None. Zero. There is plenty of time for that kind of thing.”