Guess What Theory Might Be Confirmed
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The idea that al Qaeda will follow us to Western shores if we do not fight it in Iraq has been widely ridiculed by the bien pensant community. Perhaps, however, the idea ought to be given a bit more credence:
British intelligence services increasingly believe that the failed car bombings in London and Glasgow bare the fingerprints of al Qaeda in Iraq, CBS News has learned.
Intelligence sources tell CBS News that the people behind the attempts were directly recruited by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, the present leader of the terror group's Iraq franchise.
Police investigating the plot had arrested eight people Tuesday, including at least six suspects trained as doctors, including a man of Indian nationality arrested in Australia. Sources close to the investigation told CBS News on Tuesday that another two or three arrests were likely to be seen in Britain, but that two of the people already in custody were likely to be released without charge.
Sources tell CBS News that al-Muhajir recruited the men between 2004 and 2005, while they were living in the Middle East, upon orders from then-al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Al-Muhajir was told to recruit young men who could easily move into Western countries, assimilate and lay low until the time came to attack. Britain has a fast-track visa program for medical students which makes it easier for them to enter the country.
The belief that this small cell of militants was recruited purposely by a major terror organization for their specific qualifications differentiates the group from the cell of "homegrown" attackers who were behind the bloody July 7, 2005 attack that left 52 people dead on London's transport network.
If this is true--and thus far, we have little reason to doubt that it is--perhaps more people will see that we have a vested interest in dealing a decisive military defeat to al Qaeda in Iraq lest our own internal security be threatened. Given the attention paid to Iraq on a daily basis, I would hope and expect that attention would be paid to this development. I would hope and expect as well that there would be a lot of discussion about the need to continue to reconstruction and military efforts in Iraq and that there would be a pushback against those who wish to short-circuit those efforts. The theories of the short-circuiters appear to have taken a serious hit, after all.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Whither Loyalty? — Comments (21) »
Guess What Theory Might Be Confirmed 24 Comments (0 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The point is that an enemy fighting on two fronts (Iraq, the West) has to split his forces, where if we just run away from Iraq like the Democrats want, AQ can divert people and resources from Iraq to here, Europe, and Australia.
Run like Reagan!
training program to replace top leadership that keeps falling to accidents and stuff.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Haven't we seen that the terrorist can walk and chew gum at the same time? they have been successful in the UK & Spain, and THANKFULLY some near misses in the UK, US and Canada.
We can't, for a moment, let our guard down and think they are so pre-occupied in Iraq that we won't get hit here.
Of course we can't let our guard down. But since we have been in Iraq, we are not the ones crapping in our pants when we hear a plane go over - are we?
I like it better that way.
Same as in Britain.
I don't know if we have been lucky or our guys are just that good. I suspect it's a bit of both.
All I'm saying is that we can't take anything for granted. That's all.
Simple beautiful and obvious only upon reflection. Why is it the liberals just don't get it ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
>>Why is it the liberals just don't get it ?<<
because things might get nasty if we answer it honestly... ;-)
Of course we can't let our guard down. But since we have been in Iraq, we are not the ones crapping in our pants when we hear a plane go over - are we?
And it's because we're in Iraq that you're not crapping your pants? We have foiled post-Iraq terror plots that targeted the US. The same is true in the UK. They're still working us even though we're in Iraq.
You seem to think the terrorists need to fight in Iraq. They don't. Attacks can (I hope this is obvious) occur in the US and UK no matter what's happening in the Middle East.
Ask yourself: what's stopping all the terrorists from quitting Iraq tomorrow and heading into the US via Mexico?
al Qaeda was never in Iraq until we made Iraq their recruiting poster.
Peace!
Mark
USN, Ret.
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" - Mahatma Gandhi
This is what is know as a KnownFact™ and it has been SO discredited in SO many places by SO many people as to make it ridiculous. You know this of course, and merely present it to arouse the ire of the RS regulars.
Thanks for participating, and welcome back to dKos
Had the imperial japanese made it to india.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Do the recently attempted terrorist attacks in the U.K. repudiate the current Administration's claim that fighting the terrorists in Iraq prevents us from fighting them here?
----
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."
- Barry Goldwater
First of all, bold the word "attempted", and consider what that means.
Then, think of the Clinton administration making nice to the coward thugs and treating it as a law enforcement issue after the first bombing of the WTC. That path led to 9/11.
Chasing them into their caves and and putting bullets in their heads seems to have kept us safe thus far, and has cut down on leisurely visits to strip joints and flying lessons.
British intelligence services increasingly believe that the failed car bombings in London and Glasgow bare the fingerprints of al Qaeda in Iraq, CBS News has learned.
(insert bare/bear joke here)
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
...a decisive victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq. However, at what cost? We're losing two or three soldiers per day. We're spending about $2 billion per week right now. From all I've read, our military simply cannot sustain the level of commitment some suggest is needed. Our choices are not good at this point. Nor am I convinced that the price we're paying as a nation is the most economical (in lives and dollars) way to fight this war at this point. I hope that someone much smarter than me is finally, at long last, coming up with alternate strategies. We're going to need them.
I thought at the time and still think that it was a good idea to take out Saddam. However, I blame Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld far the absolute incompetence and tonedeafness in forming a strategy (or lack of strategy) that bleeds our country dry in several unacceptable ways.
really upset about the losses and cost of D-Day then. Two or three soldiers a minute was more like it then ...
The loss of any soldier, sailor, Marine, airman or Coast Guardsman is important, but in real terms the losses in this engagement are miniscule. And what is the alternative? Surrender in Iraq carries a high price down the road.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
...our own military experts are the ones saying that we can't keep up this level of commitment. Those aren't liberal talking heads saying that. And I assume we had a draft back in WW2, so perhaps the sheer numbers of available troops was higher.
Personally, ANY loss of life due to the absolute pig-headed buffoonery of our civilian leaders is shameful. What have we gained in losing those lives? Is Al Qaeda weaker? I don't know. If they are, it's probably more because of fed-up Sunnis than us. Does Iraq now have a cohesive government that won't collapse? I don't know. I'm not optimistic, though.
If you think that leaving Iraq anytime before Al Qaeda is completely vanquished can be called "surrender" or if you think that leaving Iraq before Sunnis and Shias solve their differences and form one unified Iraq is "surrender", then you're just going to have to prepare yourself for "surrender". I'm not being defeatist by saying that. I'm stating the obvious. We cannot solve all of Iraq's problem with our military. Unless they step up in a huge way -- and fast -- things are going to get ugly.
In addition, it has been established that all eight suspects in the UK attacks were employed or otherwise associated with the National Health Service. I wonder what Michael "Sicko" Moore thinks of that?
Three French boys, ages six, seven and eight, were walking down a street in Paris. The youngest happens to glance into a basement window and exclaims "Look, a man and a woman are fighting." The seven year old looks and says "No, they are making love." The eight year old looks and says "Yes, and badly too."
I don't know rightonpeachtree from Adam but I am willing to bet that I have a better grasp on military theory and strategy. The GWOT is something completely different than any other conflict that we or any country has faced. We are still in the early learning phase and, although we are making progress, mistakes have been made. That is to be expected but, in spite of the mistakes, out casualties remain low and troop morale high.
I do not consider the "surge" to be the be all and end all that some are hoping for. The "surge" is a specific response to a particular tactic that some of our opponents are using in Iraq. That tactic is being persued, not for it's military advantages, but for it's perceived political advantages.
I agree with those who state that this GWOT will be won or lost here in the political arena. We have barely begun the opening moves in a long term strategic operation that will last decades if we are to win or mere years if we are to lose. I believe in a "smaller footprint" and do not support this current buildup even though I see the political necessity.
Our long term position is to be a facilator and enabler to local governments who will directly engage the terrorists operating in their own countries. Iraq and Afganistan are the test labs for the development of new doctrine, strategies and tactics.
Our biggest danger, in this period, is that we prove to be sunshine patriots and/or summer soldiers. In other words, the American people, in their collective wisdom, decides that they do not want to fight "no more, forever."
"I don't know rightonpeachtree from Adam but I am willing to bet that I have a better grasp on military theory and strategy."
I imagine you do have a better grasp. That and $3.25 will get you a cup of latte at Starbucks.
Donald Rumsfeld supposedly had a grasp on military theory and strategy, too. Where did that get us? He favored the "smaller footprint" like you (against the advice of many, including Colin Powell). Where did that get us?
Again, my main contention is that we CAN'T sustain what we're doing now for very long -- unless, of course, every military expert is wrong. Therefore, we absolutely have to have serious and workable alternatives that are less taxing on us militarily and monetarily. We have been in Iraq for four years now (longer than WWII, if I recall correctly). Are we just supposed to keep losing people and spending $2B a week ad infinitum? We can't do it. We're borrowing money from the Chinese now to fund our war efforts. How smart is that from a strategic standpoint?
In WWII we, the free, had a common, identifiable nation to fight and win. I've seen comparisons between the current battle in Iraq and D-Day and there is no comparison. We are not now fighting a nation, we are fighting a political belief and in many respects a religious belief. What country is Al Qaeda based in? If, as some have stated, Al Qaeda quits in Iraq and moves, say to Iran will we drop what we're doing in Iraq and attack Iran? Where is Al Qaeda based? Is there a base for Al Qaeda? or could the problem be erased by outlawing a religious belief?
I do not support the war in Iraq. I did at first because Saddam had to be taken out and should have been the first time we went over there. The reason we stopped short of Bagdad is beyond me and I still haven't heard any resonable explanation why we did stop. I understand that once we got rid of Saddam that we needed to help get the government set up and their army rebuilt but that's been done. Wheather our military leaders over there think they're military is strong enough or not, we've done the job, it's time for them to take charge of they're own country. It's time for our troops to be re-deployed to another area, possibly Afghanistan or wherever it is we need to be to fight terrorism. There comes a time in everyone's life where we either stand up and face life as it comes at us or we fall. It's time for Iraq to stand on it's own free will or fall. If it fall's and becomes a haven for terrorists then we go back in and bomb the hell out of them and let God sort them out.
Internal security in this country is amazing! Dont be fooled by the resolve of terrorists to get through our walls and attack us, it can happen, it has happened and it will happen, but, it could be a whole hell of a lot worse, look at current day Iraq! We have the best security forces in the world! From the Department of Homeland Security/FBI/Secret Service down to the smallest municiple police officers. At this point there is only one area that I dont applaud and that is our southern border! Millions have come into this country with little effect by border patrols, which by the way, are doing everything possible to stop these people, but they dont have the manpower. Our border security is like a firefighter trying to stop a forest fire with a squirt gun! Nobody wants a Berlin type wall on our border, fine, pull the troops out of Iraq and station them along our southern border and stop illegal immigration. This, I believe is the biggest threat to our national security! The government seems to know how many people have come across but do they know who has come across? Do they know how many sleepers are here just like the one's found in England? We need to stop student visas, let them go to college in some other country! There would probably be arguments about tagging anyone that enters this country for any length of time but we've got the electronic capibility of doing that. We could require that an electronic tracking devise be worn, and it might not be any bigger then a wrist watch. Sure, it would cost a lot and the government would have to hire more people, COST, COST, COST, What's it costing us in Iraq?
Today is the birthday of our freedom, what will tomorrow bring?
"he idea that al Qaeda will follow us to Western shores if we do not fight it in Iraq"
It's too late. It's already been on our shores - since 1993. It will continue to come to our shores if we fight in Iraq or not. I never bought the idea that if we fought them in Iraq the States would magically be safe.