Hat tip to Drudge:
After months of insisting he had done nothing wrong, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham tearfully acknowledged taking $2.4 million in bribes, saying: "The truth is I broke the law." The eight-term Republican and former Vietnam fighting ace pleaded guilty to graft Monday and resigned, admitting he took money mostly from defense contractors in exchange for government business and other favors.
Forgive me if this is a repeat but I don't remember seeing it at Rantburg. Duke Cunningham was a great fighter pilot but it turns out he was also a crooked politician. The mantra from the left is that the Republicans are the party of corruption and Duke just gave them a big fat point on their scoreboard. I hate to put it that way but they are framing the debate and our leadership needs to jump all over Duke for the pain he will cause over the next years elections.
Yes I respect his service to our country but I cannot excuse his behavior and if the leadership doesnât start to frame the debate this will grow into something very big by next November. Can a commercial that claims that Duke was only the beginning and not the end, be far from the minds of the LLL? The RNC needs to hang Duke out to dry and offer no quarter for his actions. Be as severe as possible and let the Democrats call for leniency. IMHO if we donât go this route the LLL will most certainly use this against us next year. Also forget the dirt on that side because itâs clear the MSM is not interested in digging up dirt on the left even when it is plain sight.
#1
The Duke was/is my congressman. I was proud to have him and defending him initially against the charges (he bought a house at a low price right after the San Diego fires). I'm sad to hear he was guilty all the time. It's shame and a sad end to an honorable career of service.
Duke will be mostly forgotten on a National Level by next year just as Trafficant and others were forgotten. Congressmen don't like pointing fingers at other Congressmen so its only the pundits and Duke has such a glorious record it will take the sting out of a lot of the bashing. At least that's my take.
#2
Put him away forever. And when he is rotting in prison - a real prison, please - let it be known that the next sob to try this sh*t can expect the same, war hero or not.
#3
Wretchard had a very interesting post about the young Duke Cunningham. He was a heck of a fighter pilot. And I thought his letter of resignation was pretty good. None of that 'mistakes were made by my staff' BS. Other than that, good riddance, he was a corrupt idjit.
#4
I'll say one thing for Republicans. For the most part, when they get bagged, they do the right thing and quit. Right Senator Kennedy? President Clinton?
#7
This is the same Duke Cunningham that shot down Colonel Tomb, right?
Posted by: Mike ||
11/29/2005 14:16 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I was unaware any Republicans were defending him.
RC, I think you've missed Cyber Sarge's valid and very important point. It isn't that Republicans are defending this corrupt moron, it's that are not slamming this jerk for tainting their party's reputation. If the GOP cannot rise up and denounce this vile arrogation of power, then they rightfully deserve a thorough lambasting.
I have never seen an administration such as this one that is so entirely immune to the notion of conflict of interest. It is one of a very few factors that continues to inhibit any possible admiration upon my part for the oval office.
Common Cause has found that contributors to the 2000 Bush campaign frequently received rulings or legislation in their favor whether it was in the public interest or not.
"In each case, the Pioneer [$100,000 campaign contributor] has helped Bush win election and Bush Administration policies have benefited the Pioneer - in many cases, at the expense of the public interest."
Watching Bush condemn insider corporate loans rings awfully hollow when you consider that he derived a significant portion of his wealth through loans obtained from Harkin. Cheney's affiliation with Haliburton, whether it is illegal or not still remains a conspicuous relationship. Before any of you begin ranting, mind one thing. I am not attempting to construe wrongdoing by making mention of these issues.
What I am doing is attempting to illustrate how this administration seems utterly immune to the notion that, not only should a politician avoid conflict of interest, but that politicians should avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.
This is why I applaud Cyber Sarge for his courage in seeking strong and unequivocal condemnation from the GOP with respect to Cunningham. I feel the republicans have done themselves far too much damage in terms of appearing like a "good old boy" network.
While it is up to the republicans as to whether or not they functionally address this, it grieves me that this administration has taken substantive action in fighting terrorism and yet has hobbled itself with repeated appearances of conflict of interest. I further contest the validity of Bush's faith based initiatives. Hundreds of thousands of American taxpayer dollars are lining the pocket of Sun Myung Moon, convicted felon and self-proclaimed messiah. The hypocrisy of America fighting theocracy abroad and installing it at home is simply revolting.
Many of you consider me to be anti-Bush, or to have some secret agenda. I do not. I let the facts speak for themselves. My hypocrisy meter pegs too often for me to admire Bush. Please try and remember that neither do I admire a swine like Kerry. Right now, I am sick to death of America's money driven politics and await some sort of true leadership to arise out of the ashes.
#9
Again, I'm unaware of any Republicans defending Cunningham. I'd have thought that was sufficient.
Apparently not. Apparently one party has to be held to the standards of sainthood while the other is allowed to solicit campaign money from foreign governments, conspire to have people murdered, collude with unions largely run by organized crime, openly embrace racists, and commit treason on a regular basis.
I'm certainly not happy that there are Republican politicians on the take. But until the freaking lumber yard is pulled from the eyes of the Democrats, it's sufficient for me that no one attempt to defend him.
(Oh, and I forgot the Democrats selling presidential pardons.)
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/29/2005 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Many of you consider me .... to have some secret agenda.
#11
With respect, Robert, I don't think that expecting leaders to not take a bribe is expecting "standards of sainthood". Yes, the Dems are a bunch of treasonous criminals. That is irrelevant to the topic of Cunningham's behavior. As far as I am concerned the Dems can all go to hell, so I'm going to concentrate on the party that remains.
Glen Reynolds quotes Max Boot: "There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight." That's where I am. I don't quite trust the Republicans, but they're at least willing to kill the people who need killing. It would help a lot to see this guy disowned by his party.
#12
Jeesh. The moment I found out he was guilty, was the moment he admitted it and resigned.
What exactly is it that you want us to do? Get naked and sit in a cold tub of water and whip ourselves with a cat of nine tails. Maybe we can tar and feather him, stone and kick him and then light him on fire.
The guy is a disgrace. Good riddance. If we were democrats we'd be arguing over the meaning of the word "is guilty" but we are not. We are shocked, saddened, and outraged. But he's already gone, so why the need to wail and rip our clothes?
So, spout it out, phil_b. What are you so afraid of? You act like I have some secret alphameric sequence that, once typed in here at Rantburg, will make you all want to go out and get sex changes.
You keep accusing me of maintaining some sort of secret agenda. I'd sure as he|| love to hear what you think it is, because it would be a big surprise to me. I call 'em like I see 'em. Go ahead and speculate to your heart's content, just be sure to note that it is your own speculation.
I've done my best to be straight forward here, right down to my dislike for Bush's faults, which are a bit too serious for me to overlook. My feelings about this administration are pretty well summed up by the quote in post #11 by BH. If Bush could just drop the faith-based sandbag, his position might be "where I am" too. Instead, there has been a near-continuous erosion of the separation of church and state under his watch. I'll repeat, if we had a Muslim president that was putting in place the sort of faith-based initiatives that favored Islamic charities in the same way the current program favors Christian ones, you'd all be in an uproar. Since it's not your ox being gored, you think nothing of it. Ptah had the good sense to figure out what I meant about this, sadly too few others around here seem to get it. Anyone ready for the church of Satan getting some tax dollars? That is the logical conclusion of the faith-based initiatives.
Separation of church and state is one of the prinicipal features of our constitution that has made America the fantastic super power it is today. The erosion of it is nothing short of treasonous in my own eyes. Call that a secret agenda if you will, but I seek a nation free from such blinkered theism.
Recently, the democrats have been hitting the âBush Liedâ mantra hard and heavy. The basic argument is:
âMaybe Bush didnât say Saddam and al-quaida-9/11 are connected, but he made people think they were because so many people think they were connected.â
I think there is another reason why people think Saddam and 9/11 were connected. Itâs called common sense.
It has been years now since the 9/11 attack and the near simultaneous anthrax attack. Who did the anthrax attack?
What do we know now compared to what we knew at the time of the attacks? Almost nothing new. We have had years of the FBI going after American defense scientists. Let me clarify that: The FBI has been pursuing U.S. citizens with high level clearances, years of professional experience and demonstrated loyalty to this country. The FBI has found nothing.
What do we, the public know about the anthrax attack? This became public knowledge after the attack to anyone who could read a webpage.
1. We know the anthrax came from U.S. labs. We also know the labs released this strain to foreign countries for research. We also know it takes a strain that has particular characteristics that make it useful for weaponizing. Not any old anthrax will do.
2. We know from media sources that weaponizing anthrax can not be done by Joe Blow in his kitchen. We know it takes expensive, specialized equipment. We also know it takes a serious education in bio-warfare.
3. We know, and most people realized immediately, that Saddam had the capability to create it, weaponize anthrax because he had previously done so, and AQ had the ability to smuggle it in and release it.
To sum up: most Americans realized immediately that Saddam could make it and AQ wouldnât hesitate to use it. Why wouldnât they? Therefore, there was a link and most of us believed it.
So, most people at the time (everyone that I knew) believed the anthrax attacks were a continuing, near simultaneous attack with the plane hijackings. My military friends even found reason to believe this was a version of the combined arms attack, a fundamental of modern warfare. But then, enter the FBI.
To understand the motives of the FBI, we must look at their responsibilities. Before 9/11, they were the chief counterterrorism agency for attacks in the U.S. That means they blew it big on 9/11. But, with video of the perps, there was absolutely no way for the FBI to cover up their failure and AQ success, not to imply they wanted to. I think they took it on the chin like they should have.
Now enter the anthrax attack. Was this another successive terrorist attack from abroad targeting the U.S. from AQ? Another FBI failure? What would happen to the counterterrorism branch of the FBI if it were discovered AQ hit us twice with simultaneous attacks? Sort of makes me think that this counterterrorism function would have been ripped away and handed to another branch of government. So, it is not so hard to see that jobs were on the line here, careers even.
So, the FBI focused its investigation on a U.S. scientist because he supposedly padded his resume? This so soon after the high profile Richard Jewel fiasco? Didnât they just learn a tough lesson about perp walking a guy before they had hard facts? Yet they consistently had the media covering their investigation of a U.S. scientist.
For anyone working at a government facility, you know that after 9/11, the security was tight. It is hard to believe that a scientist could have snuck out weaponized anthrax after 9/11. So this means they would have had to have it lying around at home before 9/11. But waiting for what? For AQ to attack the WTC? This doesnât make sense in any way.
Anybody get the picture yet?
The FBI knew it would lose part of its reason to exist, careers, and respect if AQ did the anthrax attack. So they went after a U.S. scientist. And after about 3 years of this and the media extolling the lack of concrete evidence, people are now convinced that Saddam and AQ had no link and nothing to do with the anthrax attack.
Now I ask, do you find it easier to believe that a cleared, professional, educated, patriotic, U.S. scientist did this attack. Or Saddam, who did have anthrax, could have given some to an AQ agent? What makes more sense, unless you have another theory?
Posted by: Ray Robison ||
11/29/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I know of a man (link) who has done a fair bit of thinking on the subject of anthrax, Saddam, and September 11.
There's a scene in Dr. Strangelove that comes to mind. The Soviet ambassador has just revealed the existence of the Doomsday Device. President Muffley asks for the good Doctor's opinion on whether such a weapon is feasable. Dr. S. goes on for sometime about technical arrangements, and then observes, "Of course, the entire point of such a weapon is lost... if you keep it a secret. Why didn't you tell the world, EH?"
The letters weren't attacks, really, but an advertisement of a credible deterrent.
And this link is a useful technical primer. The most significant thing wasn't the anthrax, really, but the advanced coating on the spores in the Daschle and Leahy letters.
At this stage it is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of the hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything. This attack might not necessarily be launched by the Islamists. It might be done by the Zionists or any other party through an agent. The viruses easily spread by air, and people are affected without feeling it.
Date published? September 20th, 2001.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/29/2005 7:35 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Don't forget this could be a rope-a-dope. Might not Iran supply the anthrax if it could be pinned on Saddam.
Posted by: bruce ||
11/29/2005 7:39 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Don't forget this little bit of info before it disappears down the memory hole: Report raises question of anthrax, hijacker link A memorandum issued by a prestigious research center concluded that one of the September 11 hijackers might have been infected with cutaneous (skin) anthrax when he sought treatment at a Florida hospital before the attacks.
The first anthrax attack occurred in Florida.
Posted by: ed ||
11/29/2005 8:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The main problem with the information which we have is that it requires us to accept that the FBI was correct in some of its analysis but not in all of it. For example, we believe that they got the strain of anthrax correct but that Drs. Hatfil and Berry had nothing to do with the attacks. Once we get to a place between "the FBI is entirely wrong" and "the FBI is entirely correct", what we choose to believe is a matter of faith and not fact.
The Florida attack suggests someone with little knowledge of America, a letter mailed to the American Media, Inc. An attack upon American media, surely a terror target if there ever was one.
The deaths of Kathy Nguyen and Ottilie Lindgren remain unexplained as do the many similar hoax letters received by all of the original targets around that time.
America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.
BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m.
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.
Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.
There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.
It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.
Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.
In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.
None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.
The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.
Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.
We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.
Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.
The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.
These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.
I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."
Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.
Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut.
And maybe the lone voice of sanity left in his party.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/29/2005 11:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Someone close to me was invited to join PaJamasMedia. We declined when we saw the likes of David Corn, and some Catherine Crier wannabee in a suit, advertising the fact, apparently, that she's a lawyer and a lesbian, (as if that is something sooo verrrry important, you know- "I'm a chic yuppie lesbian lawyer and yoooooo, apparently are not!) and all the rest of that kind of Happy Horse Shitâ¢. The premise, that "we should be inclusive", and "have a dialogue", and so on, is wrong. That kind of language is a leftist sucker punch. The Left is only interested in silencing opposition. Period. Otherwise why is it that in 2005, that you can be fired for saying "Merry Christmas"? And you face a firing squad if you inquire about the "mass graves" we were promised would be found, as cause for bombing Serbia, And how many Christmas's have come and gone since that great lie? The Serbians, our allies in World War ll, had not seen bombers since 1943, when they were bombed by the Wehrmacht. Sheeesh!
And with whose "leadership", whose "authority" is the region now under? Oh yes, the UN! The UN "peace"keepers! You know, the same rapist who did such a charm in Rwanda. The same rapists who now sell the used ex-virgins into the sex-trade with the help of the revitalised and protected Albanian Mafia!
Its not just about the garbage, lies and propaganda the blues media engages in to feed their insatiable vanity; its about how they paper over the truth with their self-serving, committee approved narrative. Rough draft of history my ass!
If the premise is wrong, buy these delusional hypocrits another brand new god damned bong! And stuff it full of that same happy horse shit they're peddling to get everyone else hooked on as well. We're working this side of the street! We're not buying it! We won't sell it for you either.
Check out the blogs written by soldiers in Iraq. Whenever they bust up the latest al kaeduh HQ, they find tons of heroin (from Aphganistan, Pakistan), amphetamines (from domestic speed labs), and cocaine, from Columbian cartels. These are not the sacraments of any peacefully practising religion, but the capital from your average ordinary international crime syndicate. One posing as an "insurrgency", a "freedom
movement", an "anti-colonial anti-imperialist fill-in the-blank vittims rights group. Kiss my unwashed, pajama-clad ass!
That we dance around the war on terror as though it were an abstract debate along the lines of "is this a war against Islam?, or "is it only a troubled minority strengthened by our aggressive approach...?"etc. etc. only shows that the big fat well fed boys are winning. And that we had bloody well sharpen our rhetoric, and our nomenclature. Because you had also bloody well pick your mafia. Albanian, Russian, Chinese, or Colombian.
Personally, I miss the old sicillian one; they never bothered me about my "religion", or about whether I am a Zionist or not, or even that I don't patronize them in the first place. But I digress...
The point, then, as in World War lll, when we fought the old Soviet Union, is that we are at war. Period. And the only valid majority critcism of it, is that we are not fighting it hard enough, we are not fighting to win. And that means torture, when neccessary. ( The left considers what we do as torture, anyway) On the battlefield, and at home. We still seem to be indulging the moonbats in there narcissistic fantasies. They suck. And no one should be given the chance to suck.(Thanks Butt.Head.)
And, as with the Soviet Union, or the Japanese and the Germans before them, sometimes it requires we fight it dirtier than they do. They started it, and they started the dirtiness of it. Such as the civilian targets and civilian casualties, the rules of which the Geneva Convention was designed, and drafted to deter.
All the rest just serves the Left behind.
If they had any guts or brass, they would have called it Pajamas Mafia. The left be damned!
After Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's November 9 attacks in Amman, Jordan, public discussion and official statements in the West carried a clear sense of the tide turning against al-Qaeda and its allies. Some media headlines even smacked of triumphalism: "Zarqawi misjudges impact of killing Muslims;" "Amman attacks show al-Qaeda can only hit soft targets;" "Zarqawi's Big Mistake;" and "thousands of Jordanian damn al-Qaeda" are a few examples. Two week's after al-Zarqawi's strike, much public and official commentary in the West concluded that al-Qaeda had suffered a self-inflicted strategic defeat because of the Amman attacks.
This article is not meant to refute these conclusions, but rather to suggest that on the basis of al-Qaeda's strategic design for war against America and its allies, an assessment of the facts pertinent to the Amman attacks can yield a result far different from that so far arrived at in the West. In the first instance, al-Qaeda's organizational strength appears to have emerged unscathed from the attacks. The post-attack period finds, for example, that the group has suffered no significant manpower loss, no telling blows to its logistics, communications, or procurement capabilities, no loss of the safe haven in Iraq from where the attack was staged, no retaliatory offensive against its Afghan strongholds, and no loss of hard-to-replace leaders. In terms of volunteers flowing to al-Qaeda and its allies, nothing that occurred in Amman can put more than a minor dent in the religious inspiration and drawing power derived from the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.
In regard to public attitudes toward al-Qaeda, al-Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda superiors surely judge that they suffered no great loss because of the Jordan attacks, especially after al-Zarqawi publicly apologized for the loss of Muslim lives and clearly explained that, in terms of the attack's intention, Muslims were not targeted. True, al-Qaeda's assumptions may be wrong; it is possible that the attacks will yield a permanent loss in public sympathiesâonly time will tell. From al-Qaeda's perspective, however, the days after the Amman attacks found Iraq still occupied and no changes in U.S. foreign policies toward the Islamic world andârightly or wronglyâbin Laden, al-Zawahiri, al-Zarqawi, et. al believe that as long as these realities stand, the appeal and popularity of the mujahedin fighting their impact can only rise. It also is reasonable to think that al-Qaeda's leaders are getting a good laugh over the belief of Western governments and media that the hundreds of thousands who turned out to demonstrate against al-Zarqawi in Jordan represent the true sentiment of Jordanians. All the mujahedin, leaders and foot soldiers alike, know that the security services of every Muslim king, dictator, and coup-installed general can produce "angry-crowds-on-demand," ranging in numbers from hundreds to hundreds of thousands. Indeed, bin Laden and others would welcome the West continuing to delude itself by believing such Potemkin demonstrations as those in Jordan are meaningful expressions of Muslim opinion.
In terms of advancing al-Qaeda's strategic agenda, it is unlikely that the organization's leaders and its allies look at the Amman attacks in isolation. Instead, they probably view the Jordan attacks as the latest in a six-month string of successful offensive operations that show the emerging Western view that al-Qaeda and its allies are spent forces. Most satisfying is the West's consensus that al-Qaeda has been so weakened that it can only hit such "soft targets" as hotels, restaurants, buses, open-air markets, subways, etc. While there is no denying these facilities have been struck, the more important reality is that the series of attacks since July 2005 have occurred in places where intense and effective internal security networks had to be defeated before the soft targets could be accessed and attacked. Al-Qaeda and its allies struck twice in London in July; at Sharm al-Shaykh, Egypt, later in month; in Bali, Indonesia and New Delhi, India in October, and in Jordan in November. It seems likely that al-Qaeda leaders are satisfied with an operational capability that produced three attacks in well-policed capital citiesâtwo of which are, in fact, the capitals of police statesâand two heavily protected resorts which are important foreign exchange-earners for their countries. The second London attack, on July 21, may have been the most satisfying because it showed that the best urban security force in the West could be beaten at its highest level of alert and fullest state of deployment.
From al-Qaeda's perspective, a second yield from the attacks can be viewed as a significant strategic advance. In each of the countries attacked since July 2005, the governments have adopted stricter anti-terrorism legislation and/or engaged in severe security crackdowns. In India, Jordan, and Egypt large groups of the "usual subjects" were rounded up and face an uncertain fateâthe new, fragile rule of Jordan's King Abdullah II can ill afford thisâwhile new laws in Britain and Indonesia have elicited opposition from a broad spectrum of Muslim organizations, and, at least in Britain, an increasing sense that the government is discriminating against Muslim citizens. The recent, serendipitous occurrence of three weeks of nightly rioting in Franceâmany rioters were Muslim immigrants or their childrenâalso complement al-Qaeda's London attacks by increasing anti-Muslim attitudes in France and across Europe, a trend that has been developing since the al-Qaeda attack in Madrid, Spain, in March, 2003. If the rioting produces new anti-terrorism legislation in France and elsewhere in Europe, as have previous al-Qaeda attacks in the UK, Spain, and Turkey, so much the better because they are likely to be deemed anti-Islamic by European Muslims.
If, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the foregoing is a plausible alternative analysis of the results of the al-Qaeda-associated bombings since July 2005, a possible conclusion is that the West is analyzing those events from its perspective, not al-Qaeda's, and is thereby missing some important points. The most obvious mistake is to judge that popular demonstrations in Jordanâor elsewhere in the Middle Eastâmean what they would mean in North American or European societies. It is more likely that the Jordanian crowds were nothing more than an impressive demonstration of a talented and ruthless security service's ability to turn out large crowds, complete with professionally made banners and placards, when the king wants them. Moreover, the West's beliefânow close to being the always-dangerous "common wisdom" âthat al-Qaeda's capabilities are diminished because of its strikes on so-called "soft targets" tends to forget or even ignore the reality that al-Qaeda's access to such targets in the last half-year has been possible only after operatives have beaten skillful, pervasive, and often brutal security services. From this angle, al-Qaeda's clandestine operational capabilities remain formidable.
Finally, and most dangerous, the United States and the West may be mistaken to conclude that the 2005 attacks mean anything regarding al-Qaeda's ability to attack inside the United States. Each of the 2005 strikes fit nicely as a continuation of al-Qaeda's secondary campaign against states assisting America in the Iraq and Afghan wars, the start of which bin Laden and Zawahiri announced in 2002. From this perspective, there is no logical reason to believe al-Qaeda's attacks on what the West deems "soft targets" indicate an inability to attack in America. Indeed, it would be a classic and possibly fatal piece of analysis to conclude that al-Qaeda and its allies have chosen to attack in the UK, Indonesia, Egypt, India, and Jordan because they cannot attack in the continental United States.
The war against al-Qaeda and its allies is likely to not only be a long one, but also a subtle one. It behooves the West at all times, therefore, to analyze the war's events with one eye focused on the enemies' perspective of how the struggle is unfolding. While it is true that there is no certainty that the enemies' perspective is accurateâand it does not merit empathy of sympathyâthe fact remains that he and his allies will plan and act on the basis of their analytic conclusions not ours. As always, the ability to consistently think like the enemy remains an indispensable component of the West's ability to wage war successfully.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/29/2005 16:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
