IF you think the US markets have problems, look at the value of al Qaeda shares throughout the Muslim world: A high-flying political equity just a few years ago, its stock has tanked. It made the wrong strategic investments and squandered its moral capital.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Osama bin Laden was the darling of the Arab street, seen as the most successful Muslim in centuries. The Saudi royal family paid him protection money, while individual princes handed over cash willingly: Al Qaeda seemed like the greatest thing since the right to abuse multiple wives.
Osama appeared on T-shirts and his taped utterances were awaited with fervent excitement. Recruits flocked to al Qaeda not because of "American aggression," but because, after countless failures, it looked like the Arabs had finally produced a winner.
What a difference a war makes.
Yes, al Qaeda had little or no connection to Saddam Hussein's Iraq - but the terrorists chose to declare that country the main front in their struggle with the Great Satan. Bad investment: Their behavior there was so breathtakingly brutal that they alienated their fellow Muslims in record time.
Fighting enthusiastically beside the once-hated Americans, Iraq's Sunni Muslims turned on the terrorists with a vengeance. Al Qaeda's response? It kept on butchering innocent Muslims, Sunni and Shia alike. Iraq exposed al Qaeda as a fraud.
Where do Osama & Co. stand today? They're not welcome in a single Arab country. The Saudi royals not only cut off their funding, but cracked down hard within the kingdom. A few countries, such as Yemen, tolerate radicals out in the boonies - but they won't let al Qaeda in. Osama's reps couldn't even get extended-stay rooms in Somalia, beyond the borders of the Arab world.
And the Arab in the (dirty) street is chastened. Instead of delivering a triumph, al Qaeda brought disaster, killing far more Arabs through violence and strife than Israel has killed in all its wars. Nobody in the Arab world's buying al Qaeda shares at yesterday's premium - and only a last few suckers are buying at all.
Guess what? We won.
The partisan hacks who insisted that Iraq was a distraction from fighting al Qaeda have missed the situation's irony: Things are getting worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan not because our attention was elsewhere, but because al Qaeda has been driven from the Arab world, with nowhere else to go.
Al Qaeda isn't fighting to revive the Caliphate these days. It's fighting for its life.
Unwelcome even in Sudan or Syria, the Islamist fanatics have retreated to remote mountain villages and compounds on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border. That means Afghanistan's going to remain a difficult challenge for years to come - not a mission-impossible, but an aggravating one.
But we all need to stand back and consider how much we've achieved: A terrorist organization that less than a decade ago had global appeal and reach has been discredited in the eyes of most of the world's billion-plus Muslims.
No one of consequence in the Arab world sees al Qaeda as a winner anymore. Even fundamentalist clerics denounce it. For all of our missteps, Iraq's been worth it.
How is it that the media missed this stunning victory? Will they start to admit it after Nov. 4?
Yes, al Qaeda remains dangerous. It's a wounded hog still grunting down in the canebrake: More innocent people will be gored - and it's going to take a lot of pig-sticking to finish it off.
But I'm proud of one call I made last year: The prediction that the "Sunni flip" in Iraq's Anbar Province marked the high-water mark for al Qaeda. Increasingly, that call looks correct.
Democrats make a great fuss over the Bush administration's failure to capture Osama (although they themselves have no idea how to do so). But it now looks like the judgment of history - after the political rancor has settled into the graves of today's demagogues - will be that the administration of George W. Bush defeated al Qaeda.
There's plenty of work still to be done. Al Qaeda will behave viciously in its death throes. Other terrorist groups await their turn to appall the world.
But the second-greatest irony of our time is that, fumbling all the way, the Bush administration did what it set out to do after 9/11: It exacted vengeance on those who attacked us and toppled their towers - al Qaeda's fantastic dreams of global jihad.
So what's the greatest irony? The president's oft-mocked declaration of "Mission Accomplished" wasn't wrong, after all - just premature.
While the world looks elsewhere, Somalia is in flames. The nation just topped a list of the world's most unstable countries by Foreign Policy magazine, and the United Nations has declared the humanitarian situation there "worse than Darfur."
In the next three months the number of people requiring immediate food aid will reach 3.5 million. Over one million refugees have fled their homes. Due to a raging insurgency against the current transitional government -- which has support from both the West and Ethiopia -- Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, has earned the nickname, "Baghdad on the sea."
In Somalia, there are no diplomatic superstars like Condoleezza Rice or Kofi Annan, who rushed to Kenya to settle its election crisis; there are no celebrities like Mia Farrow or Jim Carrey to urge international action and awareness as they did in Sudan and Burma.
Instead, Somalia's crisis has elicited a collective yawn of indifference. Just mentioning the country's name is enough to cause even the most dedicated diplomat or aid worker to throw up their hands in desperation.
Or indifference. What exactly have the Somalis done to earn any help?
Ironically, unlike the above conflicts, the current crisis in Somalia has developed in part due to America's "war on terror" and failure to grasp some of the nuances of Islam.
The Muslim world is not a monolith; there is an ongoing struggle among Muslims with differing interpretations of the religion. Somalia is a traditionally Sufi country -- the mystic, open form of Islam distinct from more conservative interpretations as those seen in places like Saudi Arabia.
But in Somalia, a more conservative movement developed under the secular dictatorship of President Siad Barre and during the anarchy that followed his ouster in 1991. The resulting Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) implemented Shari'a law, and although its stricter tenants were opposed by many Somalis, the grassroots movement gained strength because people sought order and justice in a country marred by starvation, warlord violence, and tribal conflict. Despite internal differences in the interpretation of Islam, the UIC created a state of relative stability that led to the return of Somali businesses, united conflicting tribes and ended piracy off Somalia's perilous shores.
But the ascension of the UIC worried the United States, which believed the group was sheltering Al-Qaeda members seeking a safe haven in Somalia. The United States intervened by backing secular warlords -- reportedly some of the same individuals it had fought during 1993's "Black Hawk Down" incident -- against the UIC, strengthening, rather than isolating, extremism in Somalia. Despite their ample firepower, the warlords were defeated by the UIC in mid-2006.
In December 2006, UIC extremists threatened Somalia's traditional archrival Ethiopia, which they accused of intervening in Somali affairs. Already concerned the UIC would support a domestic ethnic Somali insurgency, Ethiopia invaded. The United States backed Ethiopia's invasion and its ensuing occupation with intelligence, air strikes, Special Forces, and rendition of terror suspects to Guantanamo Bay.
An Iraq-style insurgency soon began inside Somalia, mainly drawn from UIC elements but also members of the Hawiye clan, the tribal base of the UIC. These tribesmen believe the United States and Ethiopians are attacking them by supporting the Somali transitional government, run largely by tribal rivals the Daarood. Because they are Muslim, they believe Islam is under attack and seek to defend it.
Somalia faces many profound challenges, but a recent ceasefire -- which calls for an end to the insurgency ahead of an eventual Ethiopian troop withdrawal in favor of U.N. troops -- has brought some hope.
Ceasefire has worked well, except for the kidnapped aid workers ... the piracy ... the shooting at the Aethiops ... the clan warfare ...
The recent momentum in Somalia for a shift to religious conservatism -- and sometimes militant extremism -- mirrors similar shifts around the Muslim world. However, with quick and responsible action, the United States can still help shift it back.
The United States should first pressure Ethiopia to withdraw and bring all Somali factions to the negotiating table.
Oh sure, that's going to work. Negotiating is what Somalis do best ...
It can also work within traditional tribal structures to reach out to Somalia's people, effect political change and distribute aid. By reaching out to Somali moderates who would be happy to challenge the extremists themselves, and funding development programs that show a renewed respect for local customs and religion, the United States can help swing the pendulum away from extremists who preach that Islam is under attack from the West.
Anybody at Newsweek read 'Blackhawk Down'?
To do this, the United States must immediately change a failed policy. Instead of effectively fighting those individuals who wish America harm, it has taken on the Somali people. The United States should learn from its disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan that using force to myopically crush "terrorists" at the expense of entire populations only strengthens extremists.
It's just too bad that the Newsweek editors and university perfessors don't run for President and the Senator. Think how much better off we'd be if only we listened to our betters in the MSM and academia ...
These days any attention given to Somalia is encouraging. But to create a stable society that would alleviate the suffering of Somalis and address Western security concerns, something more is required: a true understanding of what has gone wrong and the will to effect positive change.
Frankie Martin is Ibn Khaldun Chair Research Fellow at American University's School of International Service in Washington, DC. He did field work among Somalis in Kenya for the book Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization by Akbar Ahmed (Brookings, 2007). This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Posted by: Fred ||
07/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic Courts
#1
"its disasters in Iraq, "
Hmm completely crushing Al Qaeda after drawing them in, inflicting massive casualties, demoralizing their organzition, and ultimately destroying their credibility....
#2
I still think the best take on Somalia was done years ago in the Onion.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/19/2008 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Time to cut off aid. I think the USA provides 2/3 of the food aid for Somalia. By stealing a portion of that aid, that allows the support of a few hundred thousand gunmen. Cut off aid and the support those gunmen will evaporate. Let them use their bayonets and now idle time to turn the earth and raise their own food.
Posted by: ed ||
07/19/2008 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The nation just topped a list of the world's most unstable countries
WoW! Who was the previous winner?
Otherwise this is agenda driven trash. There is no mention of the 2 de facto functioning and largely peaceful states occupying twothirds of what used to be Somalia. This is a description of the south where the UN is f%%king things up per usual.
Among the many challenges facing the United States in an election year is the issue of arms sales to Taiwan. Before he leaves office, President Bush must decide whether or not to approve various major sales to the island, including 60 additional F-16s, Patriot PAC III missiles and Apache and Blackhawk helicopters. At present, the Department of State and the National Security Council are holding up these sales. This is an issue which deserves President Bush's immediate attention.
A little history helps illuminate what's going on. In 2001, shortly after President Bush took office, he approved in principle several billion dollars in new arms sales to Taiwan. This decision reflected the President's concern for China's military build-up and a continuing U.S. commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act, which obligates the U.S. to provide the island with weapons to defend itself.
During the eight-year tenure of former Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian, political infighting between the ruling Democratic Progressive Party and the opposition Kuomintang stalled the funding for these weapons purchases. At the same time, Mr. Chen's independence-leaning policies angered China's leaders. Washington was displeased by Mr. Chen's inability to push through the arms purchases, and because his actions and outspokenness interfered with improving U.S.-China relations.
The damage those eight years did to U.S.-Taiwan relations was considerable. Taiwan's relative air, missile defense and antisubmarine warfare capabilities fell further behind as important Taiwan military acquisitions were postponed. China, however, purchased advanced weapons from the Soviet Union and increased funding for its own military research and development programs.
Equally important, mutual confidence between Taipei and Washington may have been permanently weakened. U.S. leaders lost confidence in Taiwan's leaders at a time when the U.S. was becoming increasingly dependent on improved U.S.-China relations. In Taiwan, more than ever, domestic political considerations took precedence over national security issues. And although last year the Kuomintang-dominated legislature in Taipei finally passed a defense budget funding many new arms purchases, the damage to U.S.-Taiwan relations already had been done. The U.S. had become increasingly reluctant to take the heat from China over weapons sales it was not confident Taiwan would follow through on.
When Taiwan's current president, Ma Ying-jeou, assumed office in May, he ushered in a policy of Taiwan-China détente and subsequently has expressed his desire for resumed purchases of U.S. arms. Still, the lingering fallout from the previous eight years and President Bush's personal reluctance to anger Beijing continue to hold up various pending arms sales.
Whether or not President Bush approves some or all arms sales after the Beijing Olympics in August -- he will attend the opening ceremony -- remains an open question. High-ranking officials at State and the White House fear major U.S. arms sales, even then, would undermine Taiwan-China détente and do major damage to U.S.-China relations. They also ask why Taiwan needs more weapons packages now. Why not let the next U.S. President address this issue, while the sale of other, less provocative systems, training and spare parts continue?
Herein lies the crux of the problem. How much risk can the U.S. take with Taiwan's security? If it was certain that Taiwan-China détente would go forward without sacrificing Taiwan's young and still fragile democracy, none of this would be of concern.
Beijing has proven all too often, however, that it will demand much and give little and that it sees the use and threat of force as an instrument of diplomacy. Has it demonstrated otherwise? Taiwan democratically elected a president who ran on a platform of détente with China. What has changed on the China side of the equation?
Until Beijing removes short- and medium-range ballistic missiles targeting Taiwan and reduces the number of combat aircraft and troops on its side of the Taiwan Strait, why should the U.S. delay in responding to Taiwan's requests for arms purchases? It will take months for the next administration to sort out its China/Taiwan policies, only delaying important decisions further. In the meantime, China's pressure on the U.S. will only increase as it continues to finance U.S. debt and leaves Washington worried that it won't cooperate with it in the international arena if the U.S. proceeds with major arms sales.
As Taiwan enters this challenging period of détente with China, it needs strong U.S. moral and material support more than ever. By taking action on U.S. arms sales to Taiwan before he leaves office, President Bush would bolster a democratic Taiwan and make it much easier for his successor to withstand pressure from Beijing as arms sales contracts are concluded and weapons systems are delivered. At the same time, President Ma must assure Washington that he is committed to Taiwan's defense and that if Washington approves the sale of F-16s and other major weapons, Taiwan will follow through with signed contracts and adequate funding.
It is time to demonstrate clearly that, while the U.S. supports Taiwan-China détente, it stands firmly behind Taiwan's democracy.
Spook86 at In From the Cold points out that for the first time, China has a qualitative edge on Taiwan in the arms race, largely because of the eight-year hold on arms purchases. Allowing Taiwan to upgrade their fighters and defense missiles will redress that balance and is needed to keep China in check.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
THAT smirking Bali bomber Amrozi woke this morning and prayed to his god. It's a good thing that his god won't be able to stop Indonesian justice wiping the smile from that face.
Amrozi today is on an ever-thinning precipice of life. One morning soon, a dozen Indonesian marksmen will march him, his bother Ali and their mate Imam Samudra, into the jungle, place targets over their hearts, and fire into their upper bodies. They will die quickly, but not soon enough.
You can already hear the wailing - unquestionably sincere - of those in Australia opposed to capital punishment. But the Bali bombers' deaths will be a long way from the judicial executions that create so much debate here. You cannot compare extinguishing the lives of Amrozi and co with, say, hanging Melbourne's jailed serial killers Peter Dupas or Paul Denyer.
While killing the Bali bombers will hardly be a deterrent to other Islamist extremists - those who boast they love death as much as we in the West love life - it will be an insurance policy of sorts.
Indonesia is the only living proof that free thought - the administrative expression of which is democracy - and Islam can cohabit.
And although its pluralist society, with 200 million Muslims, the greatest number living anywhere on earth, can call itself a qualified democracy, its strained economy and fractured Islamic groupings don't guarantee a stable future. The illiterate poor of Indonesia - like everything in a nation of 250 million, there are plenty - are hardly beyond the grasp of locally grown Islamist fanatics whose beliefs are probably being shaped by Arab language classes funded by harder-line and monied Middle East states.
Jemaah Islamiyah survives and its many members are sure to be taking heart from that malevolent cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, who described us non-Muslims on March 24 as "worms, snakes and maggots", and justifiable targets for extermination. Bashir is insane and his high profile since being linked to the Bali bombs cramps his style. But he's not alone.
The balance of the oil equation for Indonesia recently slipped into the red, which is why it quit OPEC - that "E" standing for "exporting".
And with its huge population spread across many of the archipelago's 17,000 islands, and the logistical expenses involved in transport, communications and power generation, Indonesia does not have the growth potential of China or India. Indonesia remains an unsettled democracy, stricken by corruption, with many tens of millions of its inhabitants earning less than $2 a day, fertile ground for resentful Islamists pushing for it to become a theocracy. And should that ever happen, the Bali bombers would be liberated, hailed as heroes, and given positions of influence to spread their black agenda.
Just look at the reception in Lebanon on Thursday for returned terrorist Samir Kantar. He shot Israeli Danny Haran in front of his daughter so that it would be the last thing she'd see. Then he smashed her skull against a rock with his rifle butt. His countrymen lined the streets waving banners, flying flags and singing to welcome him home. A national holiday was declared.
Killing the Bali bombers is not so much capital punishment, as a strategic, surgical strike against Jemaah Islamiyah. Alan Howe is HWT executive editor
Posted by: Fred ||
07/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Jemaah Islamiyah
#1
DAMN FOOLS, Do NOT "March them into the jungle"
You do and you'll find a couple of hundred killers waiing for you
Execute them right there in the compound, give them NO chance to escape.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/19/2008 18:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
kill em in their cells
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/19/2008 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
When I caught up with Al Gore at his home in Nashville last December, the former Vice President--turned-green-guru was in a pensive mood. I was surprised -- he was just finishing his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, which he was due to give in Stockholm a few days later. For a man who had lost the Presidency in the most agonizing way possible, winning the Nobel should have offered some consolation. But when I asked Gore if he felt vindicated, he shook his head. "It's hard to celebrate recognition of an effort that has thus far failed," he said. He was referring to his work not only to awaken the world to the danger of climate change, but to get us to really do something about it. "I'm not finished, but thus far, I have failed. We have all failed."
I'm mighty daggone glad the 2000 election came out the way it did. This guy's weird.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/19/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I know what Gore is really talking about. It all makes total and complete sense if you replace word planet with the words "Gore's Ego."
#2
Someone should tell AL that many people were personal witnesses to the so-called SIRIUS EVENT(S) > ISN'T IT KINDA DIFFICULT, AL, TO ARGUE THAT MAN IS THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING AFTER ONE WITNESSES SOLAR EXPLOSIONS AND AFTEREFFECTS???
#3
and the hypocrite's home energy consumption (astronomical by anyone's definition) is actually UP 10% this year
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/19/2008 7:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Poor supid bastard, the planet doesn't need saving. Its simply natural cycles, between the sun (whcih is why the other plantts warmed as well) and deep ocean currents.
#7
Gore is an eco hustler just as sharpton and jackson are race hustlers. As long as he gets his swag, it does not matter to him or his followers that he not only gets no results, but actually stands in the way of progress for the cause he claims to espouse...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
07/19/2008 13:26 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Gore's Bold, Un>/del>realistic Plan to Save the Planet his finances
#11
The idea that we can drill our way out of this is just so absurd, he said, comparing the push for offshore oil drilling which has gained popularity and put environmentalists on the defense to dealing with a hangover by having another drink.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/19/2008 22:18 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I bet he's secretly happy about his "failure". If he does it right, he can be securely employed for years, if not decades.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/19/2008 22:55 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Gore's only plan is to make another $30 million bucks.
Far more than that. He owns big chunks of firms that trade carbon credits. Pass a cap-and-trade law and Al Gore becomes the next George Soros but without having to average 30% returns for 30+ years to do it the way Soros did.
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.
