I've been critical of the Iraq strategy since before the infamous Congress vote. Bush himself has changed his justification numerous times:
1.) WMD, 2.) Iraq-Al Quaeda link (fight 'em over there) 3.) Evil dictator gone. 4.) Democratic Imperialism 5.) Iraq-Al Quaeda link (it's an oldie, but a goodie) Well, it looks like this latest bust may finally be giving the Administration the data points they need to see things my way. At least according to this WSJ Article (abridged by me): ------------------------- Al Qaeda or Not? U.S., U.K. Differ On Its Likely Role Gap Reveals Basic Questions About the Group's Strength And Its Possible Evolution By ROBERT BLOCK August 12, 2006; Page A1 WASHINGTON -- As details of the London airliner plots emerge, counterterrorism experts are reconsidering what they once thought they knew about al Qaeda. While they had believed that the terror network was on the ropes, they are starting to think it simply has changed shape and grown more complex. Even senior U.S. law-enforcement officials say they aren't sure what form al Qaeda takes these days, or what its precise relationship is with a network of sympathetic and cooperative jihadist groups. That helps explain the gap between American and British descriptions of the bomb plot that was disrupted this week. U.S. officials have said they saw signs of an al Qaeda link, and British officials have pointedly declined to finger al Qaeda. However, blaming al Qaeda also could undermine the administration's argument that it is waging a war over in Iraq and Afghanistan partly in order to avoid having to fight the terrorists in America and Western Europe someday. The idea of an explicit link to al Qaeda also underscores the U.S. failure so far to crush the organization, nearly five years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. An official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation says, "We are clearly going to have to rethink some of our assumptions. This one certainly appears to hark back to more structure and more planning and more expertise than we thought they could muster." The U.S. approach to destroying al Qaeda has primarily used a "kill or capture" strategy to try to eliminate the group's leaders. The thinking has been that the experience, charisma and organizational skills of the top men would be difficult or impossible to replace. But this "decapitation strategy" appears to be failing against the organization -- especially as it grows into a social movement that links like-minded groups feeding off anti-American sentiment to attract new recruits and sources of funding. [HERE IT IS - THEY JUST MIGHT BE GETTING IT!] U.S. and British intelligence officials now are concentrating on finding ways to undermine al Qaeda by disrupting the means by which new terrorists are recruited and imbued with violent zealotry. "Islamic radicalization is something that is a subject of significant interest and study within the intelligence community," says Charles E. Allen, intelligence chief of the Homeland Security Department. -------------------------------------------------- And what causes such radicalization? Hmmm ... what could it be ... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:213081 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
