Study questions US strategy against al-Qaida

[luckydevil]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_al_qaida

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

The United States can defeat al-Qaida if it relies less on force and more on policing and intelligence to root out the terror group's leaders, a new study contends.

"Keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight," said the study by the federally funded Rand research center, an organization that counsels the Pentagon.

Its report said that the use of military force by the United States or other countries should be reserved for quelling large, well-armed and well-organized insurgencies, and that American officials should stop using the term "war on terror" and replace it with "counterterrorism."

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, the lead author of the study and a Rand political scientist.

"The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al-Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy," Jones said.

Nearly every ally, including Britain and Australia, has stopped using "war on terror" to describe strategy against the group headed by Osama bin Laden and considered responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 suicide attacks at the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon.

Based on an analysis of 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, the report concluded that a transition to the political process is the most common way such groups end. But the process, found in 43 percent cases examined, is unlikely with al-Qaida, which has a broad, sweeping agenda, the report said.

The second most common way that terrorist groups end, seen in about 40 percent of the cases, is through police and intelligence services apprehending or killing key leaders, Jones said. Police are particularly effective because their permanent presence in cities helps them gather information, he said.

By contrast, the report said, military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases.

Jones, in an interview, said, "Even where we found some success against al-Qaida, in Pakistan and Iraq, the military played a background or surrogate role. The bulk of the action was taken by intelligence, police and, in some cases, local forces."

"We are not saying the military should not play a role," he said. "But unless you are talking about large insurgencies, military force should not be the tip of the spear."

Among the report's conclusions:

_Religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups but none has achieved victory in the 38 years covered by the study.

_Terrorist groups from upper-income countries are more likely to be left-wing or nationalist, and much less likely to be motivated by religion.

_Large groups of more than 10,000 have been victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory is rare for groups with 1,000 or fewer members.

The report described al-Qaida as a "strong and competent organization," both before and after 9-11. Its goals, the report said, are uniting Muslims to fight the United States and its allies, overthrowing regimes in the Middle East friendly to the West and establishing a pan-Islamic state, or caliphate.

People owe John Kerry an apology.It's amazing that it took this long for people to realize the obvious.

[Slateman]

Ummm . . . the same intelligence that said there were WMDs in Iraq?

[Sarge]

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, the lead author of the study and a Rand political scientist.

This guy work for Klinton? We had 8 years of this "They're criminals, not terrorists" crap and all it got us was a big hole in the WTC, some embassies blown away and an destroyer blown up, among other things.

I'll bet you there are more dead terrorists to show for this eight years than there were for the eight years previous.

And I'll go with "dead terrorist" as opposed "OJ trial terrorist" any day

[Thiebear]

They were treated as a nuisance until 2001.

They were then steamrolled wiped out.

So yes, now that they are no longer standing proud as they were. Int/Pol is fine.

How do you deal with Hamas/Jordan police-wise?

[jpyaks3]

This guy work for Klinton? We had 8 years of this "They're criminals, not terrorists" crap and all it got us was a big hole in the WTC, some embassies blown away and an destroyer blown up, among other things.

I'll bet you there are more dead terrorists to show for this eight years than there were for the eight years previous.

And I'll go with "dead terrorist" as opposed "OJ trial terrorist" any day

There are also a lot more dead civilians, a lot higher debt, and a lot more dead Americans. These past 8 years then there were under Clinton.

You cant fight a tactic.

[gbear]

I always think of the line by Bruce Willis's character in the Siege about why we shouldn't want the army to take over NY to wipe out a terror threat. The army (read military) is a broad sword where you want a scalpel.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I always think of the line by Bruce Willis's character in the Siege about why we shouldn't want the army to take over NY to wipe out a terror threat. The army (read military) is a broad sword where you want a scalpel.

Kind of reminds me of my sig as well...

[SkinsHokieFan]

We are now shifting to that portion of the battle against AQ

But first we had to wipe them out, pound them, and raise hell in their front yards and eliminate that 1st generation of AQ terrorists and masterminds

Now is the time when deep penetration of cells, human intelligence, covert operations, and massive arrests are needed, more so then missles over FATA

[USS Redskins]

Almost 7 years since 9/11 and no terrorist attacks in the US. Someone is doing their job.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

We are now shifting to that portion of the battle against AQ

But first we had to wipe them out, pound them, and raise hell in their front yards and eliminate that 1st generation of AQ terrorists and masterminds

Now is the time when deep penetration of cells, human intelligence, covert operations, and massive arrests are needed, more so then missles over FATA

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the "first generation" of terrorists are the ones still hiding in Afgpak that we have sort of forgotten about? Wouldn't it be fair to say that the Iraq War was not about terrorists that attacked us, but instead created a "second" generation of terrorists for us to attack and wipe out?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Almost 7 years since 9/11 and no terrorist attacks in the US. Someone is doing their job.

Really?

[sacase]

Maybe if we had congressmen who didn't like to run at the mouth and give away capabilities then we would have wrapped things up by now.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the "first generation" of terrorists are the ones still hiding in Afgpak that we have sort of forgotten about? Wouldn't it be fair to say that the Iraq War was not about terrorists that attacked us, but instead created a "second" generation of terrorists for us to attack and wipe out?

The first generation was the Ramzi Yousef's, KSM, Abu Mussawi type guys.

2 captures in Pakistan, Yousef before 9/11, KSM in March of '03 and Mussawi blown up to pieces in Iraq.

That first generation has been effectively wiped out in the fall of 2001, many went into hiding in Pakistan to be apprehended, and now in Afghanistan we are dealing with local Pahtans who are hiding in the FATA and joining ranks with the Taliban who have taken the leadership vacuum in FATA.

AQ made Iraq its main cause from 2003-2006, and we effectively have destroyed them and completely defeated them Iraq since late 2006, and with everything I have posted and read the last few months, have crippled AQ worldwide. We and Pakistan have to figure out a way to deal with the diteroating situation in FATA, and the thing is, it isn't gonna be via missle strikes or 30k more American troops invading FATA

[JMS]

This guy work for Klinton? We had 8 years of this "They're criminals, not terrorists" crap and all it got us was a big hole in the WTC, some embassies blown away and an destroyer blown up, among other things.

I'll bet you there are more dead terrorists to show for this eight years than there were for the eight years previous.

And I'll go with "dead terrorist" as opposed "OJ trial terrorist" any day

Actually anti terrorism under Clinton was much higher profile than under GW Bush prior to 911. Clinton promoted the terror czar to a cabinent level office. He had all his secreataries at the beginning of every meeting present and discuss what was being done to fight terrorism. Bush basically reversed everything Clinton had done, prior to 911.

And after 911, what did George do? He lied to the american people about who was responsible for 911, and then he invaded the wrong country. That's how seriously he took AQ and Osama Bin Laudin.... He basically used the nation's desire to see that group brought to justice as a credit card to seattle old scores...

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The first generation was the Ramzi Yousef's, KSM, Abu Mussawi type guys.

2 captures in Pakistan, Yousef before 9/11, KSM in March of '03 and Mussawi blown up to pieces in Iraq.

That first generation has been effectively wiped out in the fall of 2001, many went into hiding in Pakistan to be apprehended, and now in Afghanistan we are dealing with local Pahtans who are hiding in the FATA and joining ranks with the Taliban who have taken the leadership vacuum in FATA.

I really don't want to argue about this, but weren't they wiped out with "counterterrorism" action as opposed to warfare?

Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm not pretending to have my history facts 100% accurate. seriously.

AQ made Iraq its main cause from 2003-2006, and we effectively have destroyed them and completely defeated them Iraq since late 2006, and with everything I have posted and read the last few months, have crippled AQ worldwide. We and Pakistan have to figure out a way to deal with the diteroating situation in FATA, and the thing is, it isn't gonna be via missle strikes or 30k more American troops invading FATA

Well, those terrorists have to be considered as a product of the Iraq War... no?

[JMS]

Almost 7 years since 9/11 and no terrorist attacks in the US. Someone is doing their job.

1993 World Trade Bombing occured about 8 years before 9/11. Using your logic Clinton was doing a better Job since he averted an attack on US soil longer than Bush has.

Bush has spent 3 TRILLION DOLLARS to defeat a group which spent the price of 19 coach airline tickets and box cutters to attack us. It's hard to streach ones imagination sufficiently to entertain the idea Bush has done a good job.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I really don't want to argue about this, but weren't they wiped out with "counterterrorism" action as opposed to warfare?

Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm not pretending to have my history facts 100% accurate. seriously.

I wouldn't exaclty describe the battle of Tora Bora has "counter terrorism" operations. That was an all out war

Well, those terrorists have to be considered as a product of the Iraq War... no?

Yup, because we had so thouroughly defeated them in Afghanistan by that point, they ran into Pakistan, and AQ made Iraq its main cause, thusly flooding Iraq with new AQ recruits.

Now that we have completely dismantled and destroyed them there, those who are still alive, and playing off the latest provocation of a NATO invasion of FATA are popping up in the border region

[JMS]

They were treated as a nuisance until 2001.

They were then steamrolled wiped out.

So yes, now that they are no longer standing proud as they were. Int/Pol is fine.

How do you deal with Hamas/Jordan police-wise?

:doh: , you should read more current events. Last year about this time; six years after 9/11; The consensus view of all US inteligence agencies was that Al Quada was just as strong as they were before 9/11.

Analysts: Al-Qaeda back to pre-9/11 strength

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-11-us-terror-threat_N.htm

The only place we've made progress against Al-Quada, is reportedly in Iraq, and Al -Quada wasn't a problem in Iraq before we went there.

[SkinsHokieFan]

:doh: , you should read more current events. Last year about this time; six years after 9/11; The consensus view of all US inteligence agencies was that Al Quada was just as strong as they were before 9/11.

The only place we've made progress against Al-Quada, is reportedly in Iraq, and Al -Quada wasn't a problem in Iraq before we went there.

Again, you consistantly bring up old dated articles about AQ and their strength. We have had this discussion before, please update your links and sources

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=702bf6d5-a37a-4e3e-a491-fd72bf6a9da1

These new critics, in concert with mainstream Muslim leaders, have created a powerful coalition countering Al Qaeda's ideology. According to Pew polls, support for Al Qaeda has been dropping around the Muslim world in recent years. The numbers supporting suicide bombings in Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh, for instance, have dropped by half or more in the last five years. In Saudi Arabia, only 10 percent now have a favorable view of Al Qaeda, according to a December poll by Terror Free Tomorrow, a Washington-based think tank. Following a wave of suicide attacks in Pakistan in the past year, support for suicide operations amongst Pakistanis has dropped to 9 percent (it was 33 percent five years ago), while favorable views of bin Laden in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, around where he is believed to be hiding, have plummeted to 4 percent from 70 percent since August 2007.

[JMS]

I wouldn't exaclty describe the battle of Tora Bora has "counter terrorism" operations. That was an all out war

Dude, Tora Bora was the last time Osama Bin Ladin was out in the open. We didn't have the troops in Afghanistan to seige or storm his stronghold so we relied on Afghan warlords to do our work for us.

AND THEY LET BIN LADIN GO!!!... Tora Bora was a huge screw up on our part.

Yup, because we had so thouroughly defeated them in Afghanistan by that point, they ran into Pakistan, and AQ made Iraq its main cause, thusly flooding Iraq with new AQ recruits.

Now that we have completely dismantled and destroyed them there, those who are still alive, and playing off the latest provocation of a NATO invasion of FATA are popping up in the border region

Actually after six years of war in Afghanistan, longer than we fought in WWII or WWI, we didn't many any significant impact on Al Quada as reported by the consensus veiw of our our own intelligence agencies.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-11-us-terror-threat_N.htm

Also the folks who we are fighting in Iraq joined up with Al Quada only after we invaded Iraq. Iraq and Afghanistan have been great recruiting fodder for Al Quada.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Actually after six years of war in Afghanistan, longer than we fought in WWII or WWI, we didn't many any significant impact on Al Quada as reported by the consensus veiw of our our own intelligence agencies.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-11-us-terror-threat_N.htm

Also the folks who we are fighting in Iraq joined up with Al Quada only after we invaded Iraq. Iraq and Afghanistan have been great recruiting fodder for Al Quada.

Again, update your sources and links and stop using stuff from last summer. The situation on the ground has dramatically shifted both in Iraq and Afghanistan within the 6 months from August 07 to February 08

[SkinsHokieFan]

This is from today

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003239_pf.html

Al-Qaeda in Iraq Leader May Be in Afghanistan

By Amit R. Paley

Washington Post Foreign Service

Thursday, July 31, 2008; A01

BAGHDAD, July 30 -- The leader of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq and several of his top lieutenants have recently left Iraq for Afghanistan, according to group leaders and Iraqi intelligence officials, a possible further sign of what Iraqi and U.S. officials call growing disarray and weakness in the organization.

U.S. officials say there are indications that al-Qaeda is diverting new recruits from going to Iraq, where its fighters have suffered dramatic setbacks, to going to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they appear to be making gains.

"We do believe al-Qaida is doing some measure of re-assessment regarding the continued viability of its fight in Iraq and whether Iraq should remain the focus of its efforts," Brig. Gen. Brian Keller, senior intelligence officer for Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, wrote in an e-mail. But Keller said that the reliability of indications that recruits have been diverted has "not yet been determined" and that U.S. officials have no evidence that top al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders have gone to Afghanistan.

A largely homegrown insurgent group that American officials believe is led by foreigners, al-Qaeda in Iraq has long been one of the most ruthless and dangerous organizations in the country. But even some of its leaders acknowledge that it has been seriously weakened over the past year.

The number of foreign fighters entering Iraq has dropped to 20 a month, down from about 110 a month last summer and as many as 50 a month earlier this year, according to a senior U.S. intelligence analyst who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the nature of his work.

Some al-Qaeda in Iraq members blamed the group's troubles on failed leadership by its head since 2006, an Egyptian who has used the pseudonyms Abu Hamza al-Muhajer and Abu Ayyub al-Masri. Some of the fighters said they have become so frustrated by Masri that they recently split off to form their own Sunni insurgent group.

Abdullah al-Ansari, an al-Qaeda in Iraq leader in Fallujah, said in an interview with a Washington Post special correspondent that Masri had traveled to Afghanistan through Iran and designated Abu Khalil al-Souri, the pseudonym of another top leader of the group who came to Iraq in 2003, to run the organization in his absence.

"It's not known yet whether he would come back or not," he said, referring to Masri.

Col. Hatim Abdullah, an Iraqi intelligence official in the Anbar province capital of Ramadi, said Masri and two foreign fighters were believed to have crossed into Iran on June 12 through the border town of Zorbatia. He said the information was based in part on interrogations of al-Qaeda in Iraq members.

One of those al-Qaeda in Iraq detainees, Abu Abeer al-Muhajer, a senior leader in Ramadi whose real name is believed to be Ibrahim Salih Hassan al-Fahdawi, said after his July 9 arrest that Masri had traveled through Iran with 15 leaders, according to a police report and an interview with police officer Nihad Jassim Mohammed Saleh, who has questioned Fahdawi.

Makki Fawaz al-Milehmi, a senior leader of the group north of Fallujah, said in an interview with the Post special correspondent that Masri has left Iraq twice before and was going to meet with "some of our brothers" in Afghanistan. "The rumors now are saying that he escaped and this is not true. He just traveled," said Milehmi, who accused the U.S. government of spreading the rumors to hurt the morale of the group. "He will come back to Iraq anytime he wants, like he has done before."

Masri "did not escape or turn his back to us or abandon al-Qaeda in Iraq," said Ali al-Qaisi, 32, the commander of a recruitment unit who lost a leg during a battle with U.S. troops in Samra. "We have been informed he left Iraq to Afghanistan for several things such as reviewing the situation of al-Qaeda in Iraq with [Osama] bin Laden."

In a Tuesday briefing arranged by the U.S. military command in Baghdad, the senior intelligence analyst said he had not seen any indication of Masri's location since January, when the United States believed he was in Iraq.

Col. Steven A. Boylan, a spokesman for Petraeus, said, "Our current assessment is that he remains in Iraq." Some top Iraqi officials continue to say that Masri was killed last year, but the assertion has never been corroborated by the U.S. military.

A recent communique to al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders, however, suggests that a fighter known as Abdul Khalil al-Souri has taken on an increased leadership role in the group. The document, dated July 10, was signed by Souri instead of Masri, whose name is typically attached to such missives.

Souri, who is largely unknown outside al-Qaeda in Iraq, is part of a group of 33 fighters, known as "the first line," who came to the country in 2003 with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to Milehmi, the leader north of Fallujah. He called Souri "the second personality" in al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Abu Taha al-Lihebi, an al-Qaeda in Iraq leader in eastern Anbar province who recently split from the group, said he believed the communique was proof that Masri had left Iraq and was likely to be replaced.

Lihebi, a former Iraqi air force technician in his 40s, said one of Masri's key errors was fiercely attacking the Awakening movement, former Sunni insurgents who are now paid by the U.S. military, instead of trying to win back their support.

Indiscriminate attacks on civilians also caused the group to lose the support of local Sunni residents, Lihebi said.

"Al-Qaeda losing the Sunni population is like a human being losing the ability to drink water," he said. "Because of Masri's weak personality and leadership, al-Qaeda in Iraq was weakened and split and lost the Sunni population."

Earlier this month, Lihebi said his fighters would no longer pledge obedience to Masri and were withdrawing from al-Qaeda in Iraq because of the "escalating hate against them by Sunnis due to the useless operations that ignored the main enemy, which is the head of evil, the United States."

The splinter group, which named itself after Abu Anas al-Shami, an al-Qaeda in Iraq fighter it said had been killed by U.S. troops, also announced it would suspend suicide operations so that people would distinguish between the new group and al-Qaeda in Iraq.

In a sign of what U.S. officials describe as their success in eliminating Sunni insurgents inside Iraq, the American military has recently identified an al-Qaeda in Iraq leader outside the country as a major target, according to the senior U.S. intelligence analyst.

The leader, Abu Ghadiya, the nom de guerre of a Mosul native whose real name is said to be Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidih, was identified in February as a senior al-Qaeda in Iraq leader based in Syria who controls the flow of the majority of the group's foreign fighters, money and weapons into Iraq, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Keller, the senior intelligence officer, said uncertainties remain about the diversion of fighters.

"We continue to wrestle with the question of whether this represents a strategic shift on the part of al-Qaida," Keller said in the e-mail. "We do know that al-Qaida leaders will never give up entirely on Iraq, but they may in the future see Afghanistan or some other location yet to be determined as a place where their resources may be more effectively employed."

[JMS]

Again, you consistantly bring up old dated articles about AQ and their strength. We have had this discussion before, please update your links and sources

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=702bf6d5-a37a-4e3e-a491-fd72bf6a9da1

Dude how many times do you have to be lied to before you question your sources?

Weakened al-Qaeda delegates to small Islamic groups 2002.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021015-secure1.htm

Mission Accomplished!!! 2003

Al-Qaeda on the Run 2003,

http://op-for.com/2007/08/alqaeda_on_the_run.html

Al-Queda decimated 2004

http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives/2004/07/911_commission_1.html

The Signs Of al-Qaeda’s Decline Being Reported Widely : 2005

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5524

Then in a leaked national Intelligence breif we actually learned what the concensus view of the experts really was.

National Intelligence Estimate: Al Qaeda stronger and a threat to US homeland

The release of a new report Tuesday that says Al Qaeda has reorganized to pre-9/11 strength and is preparing for a major US strike has sparked debate among government officials and observers about the Bush administration's foreign policy and counterterrorism efforts. The National Intelligence Estimate assessment indicates that the Islamic terrorist organization's rise has been bolstered by the Iraq war and the failure to counter extremism in Pakistan's tribal areas.

"The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland" report focuses on the next three years and is the first report to review the potential for terrorist attacks exclusively in the United States, reports The Boston Globe. The nation's 16 intelligence agencies began compiling the report last October and completed their assessment in June.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p99s01-duts.html

[youngestson]

The heart of this argument may be true, I really don't know. However the political fallout from even a partial turing away of military engagement would be huge. Any Democrat advocating such a shift would be slammed.

A Republican might be able to get away with it, but even then the reactionary element of that party, which is now in charge, would likely rally the rank and file against the leader who took away another beloved "War on..."

[JMS]

Again, update your sources and links and stop using stuff from last summer. The situation on the ground has dramatically shifted both in Iraq and Afghanistan within the 6 months from August 07 to February 08

They shifted in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 too didn't they? That's what happens when your administration is writing their own news stories and planting them in the press.

The last creditable news we've had in Afghanistan from the US Inteligence agencies said basically Al Quada was untouched by six years of war.

By your own source.... Washington Post Today!!!

going to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they appear to be making gains.

How exactly do you read the above statement and then claim...

The situation on the ground has dramatically shifted both in Iraq and Afghanistan within the 6 months

Basically the Washington Post story you posted synopsis is we might be doing OK against Al Quada in Iraq... ( Big deal Al Quada was never the primary or even the secondary threat in Iraq. ) But we aren't doing all that well in Afghanistan where Al Quada is just as strong as ever.

In another sign of Al Qaeda’s growing prominence in the area, the network’s operational leader in Afghanistan, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, an Egyptian, gave an interview to the Pakistani television channel Geo that was broadcast this week. In the interview, he claimed that Al Qaeda was growing in strength in Afghanistan and would soon occupy the entire country.

The Pakistani prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, also said recently that more foreigners were in the lawless tribal areas along Afghanistan’s border and warned that an assault like the Sept. 11 attacks could emanate from there.

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who has frequently complained of terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan causing instability in Afghanistan, said some Afghan provinces close to the border were now under serious threat.

Al Quada was always in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Iraq was always a side show. It's not true their is any concensus the war is going well for us in Afghanistan against the real enemy Al queda.