Comment: I agree with the premise. I disagree with the way the operations in Afghanistan are being conducted. It is not being conducted as a war, it's a "feel good" mission, "win hearts and minds" and other such claptrap. We have the superior force and the wherewithal to annihilate the Taliban. If we're to stay there, then we should let loose the dogs and fight not propagandize.
The finest military in the world has one hand tied behind its back in the interests of PC. How disgusting. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7813/pub_detail.asp November 3, 2010 Allowing Al-Qaeda to Reassert Itself? <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/id.27/author_detail.asp> James Carafano, PhD As the White House rolled into the 2010 mid-term elections, it was probably grateful that foreign policy made so few headlines, thereby masking <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/08/Defining-the-Obama-Doctrin e-Its-Pitfalls-and-How-to-Avoid-Them> how ineffective the Obama Doctrine has been in dealing with America's adversaries. Then late last week news broke of the most recent al-Qaeda plot to attack America. According to <http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nationworld/stories/DN-ter rorparcels_01int.ART.State.Edition1.4b3377d.html> press reports, "The two package bombs intercepted by authorities in Britain and Dubai last week appear to have been built to detonate 'in flight' and to bring down the planes carrying them, President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser said Sunday." The plot was successfully foiled-the 33rd thwarted terrorist attack aimed at the U.S. since 9/11. The aborted attack did little to move the debate over national security front and center in the U.S. elections. The President also missed another "teachable" moment, as this attack provides a clear reminder that al-Qaeda is still out there-and it is dangerous. Every attempted strike should be a firm reminder of the importance of fighting and winning in Afghanistan. The brutal truth is that the shortest route to the next 9/11 is for the United States to cut and run in Afghanistan. No matter how the critics try to justify running away before the job is done, the reality is that the wilds of Afghanistan and Pakistan are al-Qaeda central. Unless they are rooted out, we would be handing al-Qaeda not only a propaganda victory of immeasurable value, but allowing them to reestablish a sanctuary from which they could strike at the West with virtual immunity. The latest threat from Yemen is an extension of the problem in Afghanistan-Pakistan. Al-Qaeda knows it can lose this war. It is for this reason that this group has been trying to build-up an alternative base of operations in Yemen-and why it is desperately seeking any means to strike at the West from "terrorism tourists" aimed at the capitols of Europe to the underwear bomber, the aborted Times Square attack, and the mail bombs recently sent to the U.S. The good news is that, from al-Qaeda's perspective, these plots have all been a grave disappointment-ineptly organized or thwarted by good intelligence, law enforcement, and military operations. But we can't bank on being so lucky next time. Or the time after that. The President should have used the occasion of the latest attack to remind Americans forcefully why it is important to fight the Long War to the finish. He did not. The President also should have been making the case that not only does al-Qaeda know it can lose, most Americans know we can win. He did not do that either. True, America is <http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obama-needs-to-embrace-hi s-wars-1398039-106408708.html> not of one mind on this war. "A recent study by Gary Jacobson from the University of California at San Diego reveals some stunning trends. Published in Presidential Studies Quarterly, Jacobson argues it's wrong to think of Iraq as Bush's war and Afghanistan as Obama's war. 'Large majorities of self-identified Republicans have continued to support both wars,' he finds, with support for each conflict registering over 70 percent. In contrast, 'the difference among Democrats was much wider, with support averaging 30 percent for the Afghan war compared with 16 percent for the Iraq War." Most Americans also oppose cutting defense spending. They know the Pentagon's budget is not the real source of our fiscal woes. They also know it is stupid to try to balance the budget by making us less safe. In the aftermath of the failed attack the President could have put those fears to rest and <http://bigpeace.com/jcarafano/2010/11/01/national-security-the-morning-afte r-the-election/> outlined a real national security post-election agenda. He did not do that either. This latest aborted attack gave Obama an opportunity to send a message that most Americans wanted to hear. Again, he failed to do that. His grade for the week is "B" for just bad performance. This week the President also gets a grade at the ballot box with the mid-term elections; we'll see how he does. <http://www.fsmarchives.org/> FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor <http://www.fsmarchives.org/authors/id.27/author_detail.asp> James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is a leading expert in defense affairs, intelligence, military operations and strategy, and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [email protected]. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [email protected] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [email protected] Unsubscribe: [email protected] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
