Panetta Says Defeat of Al Qaeda 'Within Reach'

Hugh Pickens writes "Newly installed Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, on an unannounced trip to Afghanistan, says the United States was "within reach of strategically defeating Al Qaeda" and that the American focus had narrowed to capturing or killing 10 to 20 crucial leaders of the terrorist group in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. Panetta, who rarely spoke on the record as CIA director, offered few details to bolster his assessment but intelligence officials say that computer files retrieved from Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, showed that the organization was in dire need of money and struggling under persistent American drone strikes on its leadership."

Comments

also

[Anonymous Coward]

And we're also *this close* to winning the war on drugs...

Re:also

[gweihir]

An have been for decades! Just as we have always been at war with Eurasia!

Re:also

[wonkavader]

I think these are fundamentally different things. Al Qaeda is a fairly small, traditionally top-down led group. (Though there are a bunch of "Al Qaeda" groups which popped up on their own around the world which don't fit this pattern -- they're also not really Al Qaeda.) The war on drugs, as ill-conceived as it was in the first place and ill-executed it continues to be, is a war on a huge, flat structure, if you can call market forces on everybody a structure of any sort. We could win the war on drugs, but we'd have to stop thinking it was a war and start seeing it as the economic and social problem it is. We won't do that, of course.

Panetta may be either lying of deluding himself, but we should compare these things.

On the other hand, if tomorrow he says that we're close to beating the Taliban, who are broad and flat, A. it'll be OBVIOUS he's lying or deluding himself and B. the war on drugs would be a really good comparison.

Re:also

[bashibazouk]

Except Panetta used to represent Santa Cruz, California when he was in the house. I think he knows better as far as the war on drugs go...

Re:also

[ydrol]

And Jesus is coming soon.

Re:also

[slick7]

And Jesus is coming soon.

Muad'Dib is here!

Re:also

[S.O.B.]

That's an unfair comparison. They are not saying they are close to defeating terrorism but that they are close to defeating a terrorist group.

Just like you can defeat a drug cartel without stopping drug trafficking, you can defeat a terrorist group without stopping terrorism.

Re:also

[Timtimes]

A war we will win once we've incarcerated every medical marijuana patient in America if need be. Only then can we really free ourselves of the scrounge of the Taliban....or something... Enjoy.

Re:also

[camperslo]

He's pretty smart, give him credit. He's certainly already been more successful than those that preceded him. He also did an excellent job when he was a representative for California. Who knows what secrets he has up his sleeves? Wish him luck.

And a surprising observation, re-arrange "a Patent" and you may find "Panetta"! If only all patents could be turned into Panettas!

Re:also

[camperslo]

And we're also *this close* to winning the war on drugs...

Unless you want to try and make a case for terrorist groups having strength from drug sales, that's an irrelevant conclusion.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Re:also

[hairyfeet]

"the Viet Cong has been defeated" and that "He can't get food and he can't recruit. He has been forced to change his strategy from trying to control the people on the coast to trying to survive in the mountains."....Gen Westmoreland before the Tet Offensive.

The problem is there really isn't any way to "win" against religious wackos short of wiping out the religion. We won WWII by basically wiping out the religions of our enemy, Nazism and by removing Shintoism as the dominant religion in Japan which was decreed by the state. Compare this to Islam, where they have been slaughtering each other for over 700 years over which of Muhammad's relatives should have led when he bought the farm. And I'm sure I'll get hate for pointing this out but as long as the moderates tolerate and give shelter and aid to the extremists there is NO "religion of peace" when it comes to Islam, as it is the tolerance of hatred and aid to killers that gives Islamist extremists their power.

So with all due respect to Panetta I don't see it happening, not as long as hatred is allowed to be taught in mosques and tolerated by the masses, as long as having a different belief system is not a protected right on Muslim soil, not as long as basic human rights are ignored. You simply can't make peace with a group the refuses to acknowledge your right to exist and that is what we have now with Islam.

Read the Hadiths, read what the Mullahs are preaching, for they make it quite clear: There shall be NO PEACE until Muhammad is acknowledged as the prophet and Sharia as the law of Allah upon the entire earth. This is in direct opposition to our western right to believe as you will and the protection of minorities under the law. Personally I believe it is only a matter of time before a terrorist gets the bomb (which they WILL use) and then the west will turn in mass against Islam and it will be total war as in WWII.

Re:also

[Plugh]

Wars on poverty, social diseases, immigration, and hunger, however....

Re:also

[couchslug]

The War on Some Drugs is a war on the public.

Re:also

[raind]

We could win the "war on drugs" when we legalize drugs.

Re:also

[dave420]

Hardly. You seem to be making the same mistakes as a whole bunch of important people - the problem isn't Islam, or even the teachings of Mullahs, but of the persecution of Islam perceived by Muslims. It's not hard to figure out why so many perceive such issues, what with the support of Israel, wars on Muslim soil, the foreign military bases across Muslim holy land, and so on. Just read the Al Qaeda manifesto, and you'll see what they're on about. Pretending they don't have legitimate grievances and just labelling them "whackos" is never going to solve the actual problems. Hatred is taught in some mosques, as there is legitimate reason for many Muslims to really, really, really not appreciate all that the western world has done "for" them. Unfortunately for the US, the western world's doctrine of simply not owning up to selfish behaviour encourages dislike to turn to hatred as each generation passes.

There will be no peace until people are stopped being fucked with. It doesn't matter what religion said people hold (be it Islam in the middle east, or Catholicism in Northern Ireland), as long as they perceive themselves as being brutally fucked, they will act that way. Peace in Northern Ireland wasn't attained by wiping out Catholicism, but by simply talking to those with grievances, realising that everyone's shit stinks to various degrees, highlighting actual grievances, and also highlighting bullshit grievances that are simply not true. Refusing to even admit the possibility of being wrong is clearly not going to help that.

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem would seem to be much older than that, Islam is just another variation of it. The previous variation was the greco persian wars - again, the east (persians) warring the west to try to spread their religions/beliefs etc.

Fortunately, the east sucks.

Re:also

[SpongeBob Hitler]

And we're also *this close* to winning the war on drugs...

Unless you want to try and make a case for terrorist groups having strength from drug sales, that's an irrelevant conclusion.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Logical_fallacy

*ahem*

Re:also

[CorporateDrew]

Does this mean we can keep our shoeson at the airport now?

Re:also

[hairyfeet]

So your answer is...what? "Drive the Jews into the sea" (quote from the president of Iran) and bow before Sharia? News Flash: Appeasement NEVER works, it has NEVER worked and will NEVER work since it mearly emboldens the one being appeased while making the appeaser look like a weakened enemy with no will to fight.

Want proof? Look to Europe. They have been following a path of appeasement for over a decade now. has the violence gone down? Are the Muslims there living happily in harmony with others? NO, instead you have women attacked in London for not wearing the Burqa and if anything MORE attacks and MORE terrorism, not less.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Until Islam as a religion, through the Mullahs and the teachings of the Mosques acknowledge the right for those of differing views and sexual orientations and creeds to exist? There can BE NO PEACE. To say that there can be would be like saying intellectuals could make peace with Pol Pot or Jews and gypsy with the SS. As long as you are seen as a Dhimmi (look it up) and considered a subhuman? Then there can never be peace because you are but a dog in the eyes of their religion, which controls everything there.

Perhaps you might wish to read The Hadiths and then perhaps you might understand. And realize this is taught almost from the time of birth, just as the Japanese were taught the emperor was divine and they were the pure and chosen race. A few choice quotes " slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. " "And fight with them until there is no more persecution, and all religions are for Allah.

Again how EXACTLY is your appeasement plan gonna work when all that are not for Allah are fair game? How can your plan work without driving Jews into the sea? How can your plan work when even in countries that are 100% Muslim they slaughter each other over whether they are Sunni or Shia? The other religions grew up, Islam stayed with stonings and chopping off of body parts. Other religions through their priests accepted that other faiths have the right to exist, Islam hasn't. How can your appeasement change these things?

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what the article reminded me of, too.

Now I look to my right and the ads are: "Why Israel?", "Ultimate Iraq War Website" and "Is Jesus Really God?"

WAR IS PEACE.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Re:also

[AJWM]

And Westmoreland was pretty much right. For all the publicity, the actual outcome of the Tet Offensive was pretty much a disaster for the insurgents.

The Viet Cong lost badly, overall. The war was won by the North Vietnam (regular) Army, not the Viet Cong guerrillas -- and that because the US got tired of playing, gathered up their marbles, and went home. (Although as Sun Tzu says, defeat occurs in the mind of the enemy. From that POV the US was defeated - but not by the VC).

That said, you raise some fair points about the ultimate outcome of the current conflict.

Re:also

[dave420]

So justice is an idea you disagree with, I take it. That's what you're preaching. You seem to imagine the western world is somehow immune from being wrong. Western infallibility? Is that it?

I'm not talking appeasement. I never once mentioned it. I'm talking figuring out exactly what's being claimed by both sides. Surely you're in favour of actually learning, rather than just assuming? If we don't take that first step, how do you expect anyone, on either side, to be able to have constructive dialogue? You don't even know what's being argued, and you don't seem to even care. You have assumed that Islam is bad, and needs to be eradicated, hopefully based on a bullshit education of Islam and a disgusting dose of hubris, rather than the only other alternative, which for the sake of brevity I will describe below:

Your staggering misrepresentation of Islam, most likely due to your ridiculous ignorance of Islam (either that or you're some sort of hate-filled bigoted cunt), doesn't help your argument. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Islam and world politics can see your points are full of shit. If people with your ridiculously naive understanding of Islam are defining the policy on this subject, no wonder the western world is treating Islamic extremism this way.

Auf wiedertschüÃY ;)

Re:also

[caitsith01]

Hardly. You seem to be making the same mistakes as a whole bunch of important people - the problem isn't Islam, or even the teachings of Mullahs, but of the persecution of Islam perceived by Muslims. It's not hard to figure out why so many perceive such issues, what with the support of Israel, wars on Muslim soil, the foreign military bases across Muslim holy land, and so on. Just read the Al Qaeda manifesto, and you'll see what they're on about. Pretending they don't have legitimate grievances and just labelling them "whackos" is never going to solve the actual problems. Hatred is taught in some mosques, as there is legitimate reason for many Muslims to really, really, really not appreciate all that the western world has done "for" them. Unfortunately for the US, the western world's doctrine of simply not owning up to selfish behaviour encourages dislike to turn to hatred as each generation passes.

There will be no peace until people are stopped being fucked with. It doesn't matter what religion said people hold (be it Islam in the middle east, or Catholicism in Northern Ireland), as long as they perceive themselves as being brutally fucked, they will act that way. Peace in Northern Ireland wasn't attained by wiping out Catholicism, but by simply talking to those with grievances, realising that everyone's shit stinks to various degrees, highlighting actual grievances, and also highlighting bullshit grievances that are simply not true. Refusing to even admit the possibility of being wrong is clearly not going to help that.

While I agree with you that western intervention in the domestic affairs of middle eastern nations is a factor in terrorism, your rant does not explain why people in many muslim countries behave in such an utterly appalling manner to one another.

Pray tell, how has western intervention led to:

- stonings

- honour killings and executions for 'adultery'

- canings for minor offences

- severe punishment for 'blasphemy'

- the widespread suppression of free speech on the basis of religious dogma

- most of what the Taliban did

- women being treated as second class citizens

- non-muslims being treated as second class citizens

You can draw a parallel with religion in the west - 1000 years ago. And if anyone was practising that type of stuff as a Christian they would deserve condemnation too.

Re:also

[Belial6]

Given that I have met maybe 1 or two adults in my life that have not done recreational drugs, I would have to agree.

Re:also

[BenJCarter]

Interesting concept. Fighting a flat enemy seems like trying to smash an invasion of locusts with a hammer. You have to change the rules or the tools. To me, decriminalization and regulation seem like an excellent approach to the war on drugs. I'm having a hard time applying that to the current struggle against murderous assholes though.

My question is: What should we do about them?

Right now we're killing 'em, but that seems inefficient. We have hammers, bu as you say, they are flat. What if we change the rules?

Pay more than the Taliban for the Afghan's Poppies right at the source. We're already there and have a strong presence? 2 birds, one stone. People like customers, Al Qeada loses $$, we get some smack to control as we see fit.

What's not to like?

Re:also

[jenningsthecat]

And we're also *this close* to winning the war on drugs...

Yeah, and if Taliban prisoners continue to escape in large numbers, ( http://www.zimbio.com/Afghanistan/articles/GaEeVLxwmLg/Taliban+prisoners+escape+through+extensive ), then winning the war on drugs will be a cakewalk compared with defeating Al Qaeda. Panetta is talking nonsense.

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot "we are only withing 40 years of nuclear fusion reactors". That line has been used since the 1940's (now 70 years ago). The ideas and ideology behind Al-Queda are as strong as ever. They may have killed most of the senior Mujahideen that they trained in 1986 to fight against the Red Army (see Charlie Wilsons War), but the ideals are still there, and the 25 or so courses are available on the internet. They don't have Stinger(tm) missiles, but they are determined and can always be dangerous. Give the youth nothing to do, no hope for the future, and a reason to be angry with US foreign policy, and you will see Al-Quedas ranks swell like never before.

Re:also

[Demonoid-Penguin]

And we're also *this close* to winning the war on drugs...

Meanwhile - the people on drugs are winning(?)

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a shoeson?

Re:also

[hairyfeet]

Wow, way to ignore every single thing while piling up the bullshit? I am impressed! You still haven't answered the question, allow me to rephrase without wiping out the Jews and without bowing to Sharia, how can there be peace between the east and the west? Are you saying the Muslims in London are being beaten and whipped? How about in France, are they being abused? no yet the violence goes up because from birth the are taught about Dhimmis (I bet you didn't even have the balls to look it up, did you? Might burst your bubble) and how to the "religion of peace" you are nothing but a single word...infidel. That is all you are, you are a dog.

So lets hear it, we're waiting. Lets hear this big plan on how you will make peace with countries that have declared they will drive the Jews into the sea, who have declared that there will be no peace until all are under Sharia (If you don't believe me most of the mullahs happily post their translated diatribes on YouTube, help yourself) and who believe that stonings, penis removals, chopping the hands off and wholesale murder are not only acceptable, but are rewarded with divine gifts? Perhaps you might want to read a little history, maybe start with the empire of Japan for which I see many parallels, for like the Islamic religion the Japanese were taught they too were divine and that non believers were less than human.

So if you are not talking of appeasement lets hear it, we're all ears. But just remember in Mosques all over the world they are actually using Nazi propaganda to teach their children about Jews. look it up, I dare you. If you teach your children blacks are like rats, do you think they would have a problem lynching them? Now replace black with infidel and you might just catch a clue.

Re:also

[Garwulf]

And I fear that you're being caught up in the Salafi smokescreen. In a lot of cases, they don't have legitimate grievances, but it is in their best interests for creating their totalitarian Caliphate that we believe that they do.

There's a very good book on this subject titled War of Ideas, by Walid Phares. Basically, there is a section of Islam called the Salafi Jihad, which is the most conservative form of Islamism (as opposed to Islam - one is a religion, the other is a totalitarian political ideology, and while there is occasional overlap the two are not the same thing). Based primarily in Saudi Arabia, it has spent a lot of oil money to create a smokescreen with the goal of presenting the Muslim world as a unified whole (it isn't) that has been the victim of Western imperialism (it has been, but not nearly to the extent that they claim), and that the Muslim complaints by the Mullahs should be seen as a reaction to Western actions, with the West at fault (it isn't).

And, so long as we believed this, they were free to attempt to impose religious totalitarianism without us taking any measures to stop them. They would talk up issues such as Palestine so that we wouldn't look at atrocities in places like Darfur and try to stop them. They worked very hard to prevent us from engaging with Islamic countries so that the people of those countries wouldn't see democracy or liberalism as an option to Islamism.

They are very good at propaganda too. Take those big anti-west demonstrations that pop up whenever an incident such as the Danish Mohammed cartoons occurs. They don't happen because lots of Muslims have a hair-trigger temper whenever anybody criticizes them. They happen because a number of Islamist news stations grab onto them, propagandize them, and keep building them up as more than just an isolated incident until enough Muslims are upset enough to come out. And there's a clear message being sent to the West: back off.

So, while there are some areas who have legitimate grievances, it is also very important to understand that the Salafi ideology coming out of countries like Saudi Arabia is NOT a reaction to Western imperialism - it is an expansionist totalitarian ideology that has existed since the 1920s, and it is advancing itself through propaganda and psychological warfare. We are the enemy to them, and we are in the middle of a war of ideas. Fighting and winning that war must be part of any solution.

Re:also

[Skywolfblue]

I'd agree with you that appeasement isn't going to bring about perfect peace.

But the way you're post is worded, it's militantly anti-Muslim.

If extermination or force indoctrination (Yay let's force everyone to obey western thinking!) is the only way to attain perfect peace, then fuck "perfect peace". It's as bad as being a extremist like the Al-Qaeda, only in reverse.

Re:also

[Skywolfblue]

Ah but there is still a much larger terrorist group still at large. I think it's called "The American People" or something like that...

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

You needn't cite the hadiths - the qur'an itself has that quote you cited above "And fight with them until there is no more persecution, and all religions are for Allah' - 8:39 and 2:193.

dave420 should go on a vacation to Mecca, or Somalia, or Pakistan, and find out for himself how wonderful Muslims really are!

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

If you follow the link you get a whole pile of Qu'ran quotes that are clearly hate-filled and bigoted. I think it's similar to looking at Leviticus or Deuteronomy and coming to the same conclusion about Christianity, if not a bit worse because the Qu'ran was written more recently.

I think the main problem is that religions have these old books and stories that they once claimed are infallible, so they're really hard to change. In order to change they're forced to make up new interpretations (God creating the Earth in 7 days is a metaphor for the Big Bang! See? We were right all along!), or simply ignore certain parts (most of the Old Testament except the parts about Commandments and gays and stuff).

To atheists the solution is pretty simple. But if we must keep religion around, maybe they need to get their shit together and rewrite their holy books a little bit. Christianity does it all the time: the latest version of the Bible softens up the language in Ephesians to make it seem like the original idea of marriage didn't involve a subservient wife.

Re:also

[Cyberax]

"Pray tell, how has western intervention led to:
- stonings ..."

Easy. Once there was a secular government in Iran, moving towards more-or-less civilized society. West helped to depose it and replaced it with a brutal dictator. Which had been later in turn replaced during a religious revolution.

See, easy!

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, it has to be that. Anything short of it will be acquiescing in the Muslim plans to wipe out all Infidels first from their region (be it Jews, Maronites in Lebanon, Copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Iraq, et al) and after they demographically take over Europe, acquiescing in their plans to re-create the Ottoman and the al Andaluz (Islamic Spain) empires.

We need to get rid of the notion that all cultures are equal. One needn't buy into the notion that Western culture is superior to all others, but the idea that it's equal, or worse inferior, to all others is equally ridiculous. Muslim culture, for one, is incomparably barbaric, and inferior to all others, and nobody should feel remotely embarrassed in pointing out the obvious. Pointing it out is not equal to saying that Western culture is superior to all others, but it's definitely superior to Muslim culture.

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Shah was pretty secular as well, and it was Jimmy Carter who encouraged his destabilization and replacement w/ the Ayatollahs. And the US had nothing to do w/ the removal of Mossadegh - popular as that canard might be.

Anyway, your response doesn't address w/ things like stonings, honor killings, death sentences for apostasy, imprisonment for blasphemy is widespread and common in most Muslim countries, not just Iran. The Taliban did their stuff in Afghanistan (and no, they were not backed by the US, as some trolls have mentioned). In 'moderate' Malaysia, temples & churches are routinely demolished to make way for mosques & malls. Things like honor killings are making a comeback in Turkey. Oh, and when did the US do anything to any Somalian government?

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

"win the war on drugs by addressing as an economic and social problem"

If your suggesting we could get people to ever want to or actually stop taking drugs, I think you are gravely mistaken.

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

I know lots of Moslems. As people, I can't see that they are any better or worse than anyone else.

None has ever discussed their religion with me, much less indicated I should convert.

My wife is Jewish, she and our Moslem friends have no problems with each other.

So, it seems to me your views of the Moslem religion are not consistent with my experience with Moslems.

Do you know any Moslems, or are these ideas you picked up from crazies?

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

...woosh!

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

Peace in Northern Ireland wasn't attained by wiping out Catholicism

The English learned that the hard way as they tried killing the Catholics again and again and not succeeding. The English Catholics and the Irish probably didn't appreciate this approach. Then again nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Re:also

[Anonymous Coward]

I follow the news - what goes on in countries as diverse as Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Lebanon.

I'm assuming that you live in a Western, or at least a non-Muslim country? That would explain why your Muslim neighbors don't try converting you, or battling your wife. They're not in a majority, and they don't usually try these sort of things in countries where they aren't. Unless they're living in ghettos, like in France or Malmo.

Do you actually expect someone to tell you, assuming he thinks that, 'Hey, AC, you are an Infidel and are going to hell, and your wife is a daughter of apes & rats'? But that's what they're more likely to think, depending on how devout they are.

As for whether they're worse than others, that's easy - in every Muslim country, non Muslims are persecuted. Otoh, in every Christian country, non-Christians do fine, while in Israel and India, Gentiles & non-Hindus do fine. In the sense that there isn't an ongoing 'crusade' against the minorities there, the way there is institutionalized discrimination in Shariah in most Muslim countries.

That is the stuff to go by, not what some Muslim friends or colleagues that you may have!

Re:also

[dave420]

Oh for fuck's sake. You are blinded by your hatred.

You are conflating radical, extremist Islam with all of Islam. The two are not the same. Just as Christianity has a shit-tonne of laws in its holy books that call for all sorts of nut-case hatred, so does Islam. The difference is that Christianity has a very solid grip on the world, and most predominately-Christian countries have not been fucked with, repeatedly, for decades, meaning there is not a false assumption that there is a war against them.

So no, I'm not talking appeasement with radical/extremist Islam, just to take a look at the grievances listed by one single group - Al Qaeda - and seeing how they stack up against reality. That's not appeasement - that's learning.

You assume Christianity and Islam's supporters are equal across the world. Clearly they are not. If only you could open your eyes one iota more to see that, you'd be able to have a slight understanding of what you're talking about. But you won't, as it's all to easy to just sink into a well of hatred, get your hubris all Astroglided up, and refuse to learn anything about your world which might make you feel a bit uncomfortable, such as the incessant wars and conflicts that have been waged in your name, against countries that are predominantly Muslim, the effects of which are still being felt to this day.

I've already highlighted how learning is not appeasement, but you seem to willingly want to ignore that - a great hallmark of ignorance if ever I've seen one.

Re:also

[dave420]

Easy. Western intervention made the very things the West claims to stand for seem unpalatable to those being intervened against. It's not accurate, but it's hardly a mystery that it happens. The west claims to love freedom and democracy, yet all many Muslims have seen of the West is occupying armies, toppling of democratic governments, massive aid to countries which certainly act like they don't deserve it, etc. etc. etc. No wonder many people turn their backs on the good things the west has to offer, if their introduction is so fucked up.

We can see that before the west started heavily fucking up places, those offensive acts you rightly point out were in the decline, and indeed were eradicated from massive swathes of the Muslim world. But then the west started fucking with people, and the ideas of Mullahs, Islamic doctrine, and independence became confused, leading to massive abuses.

Yes, this is clearly just my opinion, but if we swapped Christianity and Islam overnight, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the exact same thing happening, but the "bad guys" were wearing different hats and saying different prayers. A people who perceive themselves to be threatened will turn to whatever gives them hope, and immerse themselves in it. For folks who are religious, their last hope will be religion.

Re:also

[dave420]

You ignored everything I wrote. Thanks.

Re:also

[dave420]

Nothing to do with it, eh? Apart from the massive amounts of documentation that links both the CIA and British intelligence to his ousting?

And Somalia? Really? Read some fucking history. Seriously. It's embarrassing. You really should at least make the effort to appear educated when you wade into a discussion, otherwise you end up looking like you do - misguided, ignorant, and borderline dangerous.

Re:also

[dave420]

I've lived in many predominantly-Muslim areas. I know how Muslims, free from external pressures, are just as normal as everyone else free from external pressures. Funnily enough, when you have a country that has been fucked with for decades, the people in said country don't particularly appreciate those who have been doing the fucking. Weird, huh?

Re:also

[Garwulf]

There's a difference between ignoring something and contesting it. Your post had some merit, but it also missed the Salafi ideology and the war of ideas, both of which have a tremendous impact on this discussion.

When you leave Muslims alone to govern themselves in a democratic system, they do tend towards liberalism and secularism. That's the actual trend - you can see it in the Muslim majority democracies in the Pacific Rim. The Salafi ideology out of Saudi Arabia does not want either - they want a totalitarian Caliphate based on the Koran. It's no accident that Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive countries on Earth. The Arab Spring is one of their worst nightmares - it's a popular movement valuing democracy and liberalism over theocracy.

You cannot solve the problems leading to Islamist terrorism without confronting the ideology behind it, and part of that is recognizing that there is a war of ideas, that there is a well-funded and vocal totalitarian ideology behind the Salafi Jihad, and that issues like Israel are being used as a smokescreen to keep Western democracies from interfering with them. The more you get caught up in the smokescreen, the harder it is to get at the heart of the issues in play, and the easier it is for the Salafi Jihad to indoctrinate new members and keep the violence going.

The way I see it.

[mhh91]

There's no way to defeat Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda isn't just a bunch of people, it's an ideology.

As V says, "Ideas are bulletproof".

If the US really wants to defeat Al Qaeda, I think they should help countries that aid them get on their feet, that way they'll stop hating the US and start thinking about whether Al Qaeda is good for them or not for themselves.

Re:The way I see it.

[kestasjk]

Yeah! The US should start sending aid to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and help get them on back their feet so they can take care of themselves! Why has no-one thought of this before?!

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they should help countries that aid them get on their feet...

Get on their feet?

Al Qaeda exists today (after their CIA support) because of centuries of what the Arab people and Muslims believe was oppression - which they do have a point. As far as the Muslim World is concerned, they have been "disrespected" to use an American term. If you look at the Arab countries, they have been shit on for centuries by Western powers and there is a lot of bitterness and resentment about that.

Then there's the other side. The Arabs and Muslims in general for that matter are stuck in this victimization mentality. And they need to look in the mirror and admit to themselves that they're part of their own problem; which I think is starting to happen - the Arab Summer with all these revolts and protests are a sign that they're saying enough is enough.

What we need to do is support them when we can and stop this horseshit of supporting the assholes of the Middle East or even the semi assholes in Jordan.

We can start by getting rid of the Saudi "royals".

Re:The way I see it.

[mhh91]

No, people have thought of this a lot, but the US government seems to enjoy blood money too much.

If those nations had peace, the US won't be able to sell arms to those countries.

And if that happens, the US is going to be broke in no time.

Re:The way I see it.

[kestasjk]

Yeah! Damn the US, addicted to all the huge profits it makes selling weapons to Afghanistan and Pakistan! If the US wasn't fighting a war in Afghanistan and Pakistan they would be broke so fast.

I think they're only there for the oil, frankly. If the Afghan / Pakistan areas weren't so rich in oil and lucrative weapons contracts the world would be a much safer place.

Re:The way I see it.

[AngryDeuce]

If we would have taken the money we spent on fighting the 'War on Terror', and instead applied it to actually helping people get access to food and clean drinking water, helped them set up schools, the amount of good will we would have in the region and around the world would be enormous. Al Qaeda would not be able to exist because the people would not allow it to.

But as with anything, it's easier to destroy than create.

Re:The way I see it.

[MemoryDragon]

Not the US mentality... shoot first ask questions later, if at all..

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way to defeat Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda isn't just a bunch of people, it's an ideology.

As V says, "Ideas are bulletproof".

If the US really wants to defeat Al Qaeda, I think they should help countries that aid them get on their feet, that way they'll stop hating the US and start thinking about whether Al Qaeda is good for them or not for themselves.

If being an ideology was sufficient to make a group invincible, then the Argentinian Montoneros or the Peruvian Shinning Path would still exist. To defeat Al Qaeda is not necessary to annihilate its members or even the ideology behind them. It is simply sufficient to exterminate their global and regional reach and reduce them to strategic insignificance. Then local governments can dispatch them, or let the remains disperse into the wind.

And that, ladies and gents, that's a defeat for them, and a good enough victory for those that oppose them. Victory is not necessary to be total, just sufficient according to the victor's context.

The trick would be to maintain and obtain intelligence from that point on to squash them into oblivion once again should they attempt to raise the group to a significant threat.

Re:The way I see it.

[RazorSharp]

What you fail to realize is how unorganized this 'group' is, especially since we've been killing them nonstop for the last decade. You also fail to realize how unorganized their ideology is. The only idea that holds them together is Islam, which isn't necessarily anti-western. The senior leaders such as Bin Laden used their money and power to dupe ignorant and poor individuals into sacrificing their lives for their bullshit cause. Without the senior leaders there's no one smart or resourceful enough to propagate these dumbass ideas. Furthermore, foreign aid is exactly what these extremist don't want. It's a western influence.

So I think you're wrong on all points. A large portion of the Muslim world will continue to hate the U.S., but that has more to do with our support of Israel than their lack of foreign aid (which we do give -- not to mention all the oil money we pour into the middle east). Obama has taken a fairly pro-Palestinian stance, he's dark skinned, and his middle name is Hussein. They may not love him, but just by being president he's quelled some of the hate.

Also, "V for Vendetta" was a horribly immature movie. It was a pathetic attempt to justify terrorism, it's no wonder that cyber-terrorists rally behind it. One of the worst films I've ever seen.

Re:The way I see it.

[Lazareth]

Oh wonderful. Deployment of troops and prolonged warfare on foreign soil == humanitarian aid. Suddenly the world is beginning to make sense. I can see how that tidbit of logical information makes it all fall into place.

Re:The way I see it.

[Sam Andreas]

"V" may be right, bullets may not be effective against ideas, but that doesn't make ideas any less vulnerable to far more mundane threats like a lack of money or leadership.

Re:The way I see it.

[kestasjk]

US aid to Pakistan over the last 10 years: 11.740 billion in military aid, 6.08 billion in economic aid

Re:The way I see it.

[Keruo]

Maybe the problem is excessive aid?
Constant flow of aid prevents the local economy from growing to self-sustaining healthy levels.
Since the food is being airlifted in, the farmers might aswell grow poppy.

Re:The way I see it.

[Ihmhi]

Because if we do that without any real oversight, it'll be a huge fuckup. We sent food into Somalia during the early 90s and it was just stolen by the warlords as they gunned down starving civilians. It probably wouldn't be that much different in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and we'd end up supplying our enemies instead of the civilian populace.

Re:The way I see it.

[kestasjk]

Yeah! The US has no interests in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and should leave them to their own devices and only return if / when they collapse and become a safe-haven for terrorists! Why has no-one thought of this before?!

Re:The way I see it.

[cyber-vandal]

How was it a pathetic attempt to justify terrorism? It was about a rebellion against an oppressive state and quite often people die in these kind of things. See the American Revolution for a real world example.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess all the billions of dollars we've poured in to the region doesn't count, eh? Sure you can defeat terrorism. Make it bloody impossible to join without dying. The next generation will shun those groups. The real strategy is for the US to reduce petroleum imports and stop meddling in other countries affairs.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there's the other side. The Arabs and Muslims in general for that matter are stuck in this victimization mentality. And they need to look in the mirror and admit to themselves that they're part of their own problem

So they're just like American blacks then? Everything is Whitey's fault, you know. The fact so many of their youth think being a violent thug is COOL has nothing to do with it, neither does their absurdly high (around 80%) rate of out-of-wedlock children. Sorry but let's use some logic here. If a black father doesn't want to be with a black mother to help her raise their black children, how does that involve white racism in any way whatsoever? Or if black-on-black crime is higher than white-on-black crime has ever been how does that involve white racism? Do white people have thought-control devices they use to keep blacks down?

Fact is so long as USA has a giant race relations problem and everybody is so hypersensitive about group identities, never individual identities, this is politically useful. If you run for office you can pander to one side or another and capture voting districts that way. As long as a significant minority feels oppressed you can be their hero if you can pull off the trick of making them ignore the way nothing ever really changes because the status quo is too beneficial to you. If we had real racial harmony in the US people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have to get real jobs and so would many of our politicians.

I imagine the idea scales up. Maybe international politics demands ill will and dividie-and-conquer and oppressor-versus-oppressed too. Otherwise there just isn't enough going on for exploitation to advice political power. Real international harmony would mean the US has one less excuse to try to be the world's police. It would mean the UN has a lot less to do to justify its existence. You see the tendencies and patterns or you think this is just my opinion. Your choice.

Re:The way I see it.

[TouchAndGo]

But it does absolutely nothing about the issues, both real and perceived, that caused Al Qaeda to exist in the first place. It's attacking the symptoms and ignoring the cause. So how long will it be before there's another group comprised of exactly the same disenfranchised people under the same ideology?

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid consumer! The US doesn't sell weapons to Afganistan and Pakistan. Boeing, Raytheon, Halliburton et all sell weapons *to* the US to use *in* AfPak.

Re:The way I see it.

[RazorSharp]

How was it a pathetic attempt to justify terrorism? It was about a rebellion against an oppressive state and quite often people die in these kind of things. See the American Revolution for a real world example.

I consider the U.S. to be an oppressive state with things such as the Patriot Act, the oligarchy in control of things, the prohibition of marijuana, the military industrial complex, and the prison industry. That doesn't mean that, were I to start blowing things up, I'd be a 'rebel' rather than a 'terrorist.'

V = Timothy McVeigh

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is your 3rd sarcasm-heavy post that starts off with "Yeah!".

Give it a rest.

Re:The way I see it.

[Dachannien]

I think they're only there for the oil, frankly. If the Afghan / Pakistan areas weren't so rich in oil

Yeah, that 60,000 barrels of oil per day from Pakistan and 0 barrels of oil per day from Afghanistan really makes an impact compared to the US's 9,000,000 per day.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2173.html

(While Afghanistan has an estimated roughly 2 billion barrels of oil reserves, this is puny compared to the oil available in Iraq or even the US. Afghanistan lacks the technological expertise required to extract this oil, so the government is contracting with outside companies to drill for it.)

Re:The way I see it.

[TouchAndGo]

So it's terrorism because it's not QUITE oppressive enough, but there's a certain tipping point where it becomes rebellion? I

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

not to mention all the oil money we pour into the middle east

Just want to point out that the "Middle East", much like South America, is made up of many different countries... just because Venezuela sells a buttload of oil does not mean that Bolivia benefits from the money...

Between the gulf wars in the early 90s and now the war on terror in the 00s there are two generations that are growing up with bombs and bullets flying around them courtesy of the United States and its allies. I'm sure there are some who are told that the US are the good guys and believe it, just like in Vietnam... others will always see them as villains because of their viewpoint, personal experiences or propaganda... but the majority probably would just like to get back to whatever semi-peaceful life they had, those are the ones that could be persuaded either way and those are the ones who are lost when Western intervention comes in the faceless forms of precision smart-bombs from 40,000 feet, unmanned drones and food dropped from parachutes...

But in the end, as a Westerner, you have to ask yourself--do I /really/ want to help these people? Or do I just want to stop hearing about them? I guarantee your politicians believe the latter, or at least that you are satisfied enough with it for them to maintain their positions, and frankly they are correct...

Re:The way I see it.

[Rufty]

Bullets may not be effective against ideas, but swords did quite a number on the idea of Catharism.

Re:The way I see it.

[kestasjk]

So US companies sell the US government arms which the US government pays US citizens to use in other countries, and this is somehow keeping the US from going broke?

(But I will admin Halliburton makes some damn fine weaponry. I hear Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and BP are partnering up to make the next generation of super-sonic fighters)

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way to defeat Al Qaeda.

sure there is, treat this for the worldwide clash of civilizations that it really is.
Next time there is a major terrorist attack in a western country, retaliate with a week of round-the-clock carpet bombing of a major Muslim city. They'll get the message eventually.

Re:The way I see it.

[shoehornjob]

To defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan the government needs to negotiate with the Taliban and intigrate them into the government. They need to keep their friends close and their enemies closer.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevertheless, oil also has to be transported, and some think that the trans-Afghan pipeline was one of the mayor reasons for the invasion. timeline A specific piece of interest is that a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Niaz Naik, claimed to have known by mid.-July 2001 that there was a plan to attack Afghanistan before winter 2001.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is broke...

Re:The way I see it.

[kestasjk]

I really think people wouldn't realize I was being sarcastic if I didn't make it painfully obvious. (Some can't tell anyway)

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is quite a hopeful sentiment. However it doesn't often work out. For example, how is that policy working out in Pakistan? If this doesn't ring a bell, you need to gather more information on what has been going on lately.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Argentinian Montoneros still exist, only that they are in government now.

Re:The way I see it.

[Culture20]

This is your 3rd sarcasm-heavy post that starts off with "Yeah!". Give it a rest.

Sarcasm is useful on slashdot; the moderators who regularly mod down tend to be stupid, so if you say something the agree with (literally), but write it facetiously, they'll mod you up instead.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

We've dug lots of wells and built lots of schools. But, you do know that the Taliban burn schools down and murder the kids going there? The Taliban are evil and we are the good guys. We don't intentionally kill innocents, they do. Involuntary martyrdom is what the Taliban call their murders. A very interesting term; isn't it?

Back on topic. Military actions aside, the literacy rate in Afghanistan is low enough that most of the men there have only two skills - farming and carrying a gun. Employment opportunities are very limited and raising the literacy rate takes time; maybe a generation. Schools, wells, hospitals, and dams have to be protected. The Afghan army is starting to match the need, but (again literacy) it takes time.

Re:The way I see it.

[ShakaUVM]

>>instead applied it to actually helping people get access to food and clean drinking water, helped them set up schools, the amount of good will we would have in the region and around the world would be enormous

You think we haven't been doing that?

A friend of mine was a Lt. in the marines (this is ~2003 or 2004) and was assigned a CNN reporter who was going to follow him around for the day. She showed up, asked what they'd be doing today, and he said they'd be visiting a couple schools that the marines built, where the reporter would get to interview the children, and then on to a place where they'd fixed up the water infrastructure.

She said: "That's boring." And left.

Re:The way I see it.

[poity]

But it does absolutely nothing about the issues, both real and perceived

Very good point right there. Even if you deal with the real issues, you'll still have to deal with the perceived. The US can totally pull out of the middle east, and there will still be terrorism aimed at it from the middle east just for the sake of having association with another entity, e.g. Israel, Turkey, India, allies who interfere in Africa, etc. Perceived injustice is a personal opinion, and those don't go away just because you make concessions.

Re:The way I see it.

[nitehawk214]

And thus we find the real reason for the wars. American companies don't care where we get oil from, since any cost increases are passed directly to the customer. Any cost decreases are pocketed by the executives.

The real reason is to get American companies involved in the extraction of resource, and the creation of new infrastructure. Those lucrative no-bid contracts are wroth untold billions for the companies involved.

Re:The way I see it.

[shoehornjob]

Yeah! The US has no interests in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and should leave them to their own devices and only return if / when they collapse and become a safe-haven for terrorists! Why has no-one thought of this before?!

I sincerely hope you are joking. Time for a history lesson. The US helped the Afghan rebels take down the invading Soviet army back in the mid to late 80's. When the russians left, the Afghan people inherited a country torn apart by decades of war. The USA decided it didn't have any interests in the country so we left. If we had invested in the infrastructure and helped the country create a strong central government we wouldn't be fighting another war there. In other words, you can't always achieve peace through strength. Sometimes you have to lend a hand because it's the right thing to do.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just depends on perspective. If you are on the side being oppressed, then you're seen as a rebel. If you are on the side doing the oppressing, then you are seen as a terrorist. If there isn't a large enough group that understand why you are rebelling, then its more than likely the state propaganda machine will be able to convince even those you are rebelling for that you are a terrorist.

Also, history is written by the winner. So if you are on the losing side, you will more than likely be labeled a terrorist forever.

Re:The way I see it.

[nospam007]

"If the Afghan / Pakistan areas weren't so rich in oil "

There is no oil nor gas there.
That's much more to the north, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan etc.

Re:The way I see it.

[nospam007]

"Constant flow of aid prevents the local economy from growing to self-sustaining healthy levels."

Are you talking about US Agriculture?

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not "If we would have taken ...". It's "If we had taken ...". Don't be an idiot.

Re:The way I see it.

[AngryDeuce]

Of course we've been doing that, the problem is that in the months leading up to that, we killed thousands of innocent civilians.

Maybe next time, before they bomb out half the cities of whatever country our current "enemies" live in, they could try helping the people first. We have to win over the people if we ever want to win the war, and by killing the wrong people (as we can't seem to stop doing) we do nothing but ensure another generation of people with a deep-seated hatred of us. All the good will we've created by building school and handing out MRE's is quickly eroded when we accidentally kill non-combatant women and children.

If we actually show the people that we are there to help them, they will go out of their way to turn over these operatives to us. Clearly we're not showing them that we're there to help, and the fact is, a lot of people in these countries see us in the same light as the horrible dictators that have abused them for so long...

Re:The way I see it.

[KingBenny]

As V says, "Ideas are bulletproof". that's like it, i shiver at the thought, these people are still looking for 'leaders' to demoralize the troops ... anonymous and lulzsec proved the admins don't have a clue about what they're admin-ing ... this is way more dangerous but these people don't have a clue about what they're fighting. Am i the only one who perceives it this way ? Don't answer, just think ... please ...

Re:The way I see it.

[Dachannien]

I think you missed the point that because there's not a great deal of oil there, the oil is far more valuable to Afghanistan (which would be going from 0 barrels of oil production to substantially more than 0) than it is to an average oil company. Your argument might work better in a country like Iraq, which has orders of magnitude more exploitable reserves than Afghanistan does.

Re:The way I see it.

[jbeaupre]

By that logic, we still haven't defeated the Nazis.

And maybe if the US would help those countries that still have Nazis (like the US), those countries would stop hating us and decide to ditch Nazis.

Brilliant!

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

As V says, "Ideas are bulletproof".

Ideas require a brain as the working medium. You can transfer them brain to brain with writing, video, etc....but in the end it requires a brain to act on. Brains are notoriously non-bulletproof.

Re:The way I see it.

[corbettw]

Maybe next time, before they bomb out half the cities of whatever country our current "enemies" live in, they could try helping the people first.

I have a better idea: let's leave them the fuck alone completely and let them find their own way in the world. Not only are we not the global police, we're also not the global parent.

Re:The way I see it.

[corbettw]

A rebellion means you have an army and you're fighting another army. V was just a lone individual blowing up buildings. There's a huge difference between those two actions and the actors behind them.

Re:The way I see it.

[1u3hr]

I have a better idea: let's leave them the fuck alone completely and let them find their own way in the world. Not only are we not the global police, we're also not the global parent.

You did that in the 90s. Then Osama set up shop there, and so you had to go back in 2001, not now as a friend as you had been after you helped get rid of the Russians, but as as an enemy invader.

You broke Afghanistan, Now you have to fix it. What other option? Genocide?

Re:The way I see it.

[cyberchondriac]

Well, all definitions are delineated at some point, beyond which they are something else. Rebellions are sometimes depicted as "just", terrorism is not. It's largely a matter of perception, but not entirely.
It's also a matter of intent: terrorists are defined by those who deliberately go after innocents and civilians - or at least, those not involved in the war or battle in some direct support capacity or other (like a bomb factory)- simply to induce fear and chaos. (say what you will about "collateral damage", but that is not intentional and therein lies the difference; it works against those causing the damage, not "for" them). Those such as McVeigh, or Al Qaeda, therefore are considered terrorists by all but their supporters. Rebellion, such as depicted in say, Star Wars, ( I know, not the best example) is an attempt to topple the current regime that doesn't necessarily include terrorism. Luke and Han didn't go blasting anyone and everyone, only Stormtroopers, who represent and fight for the Empire. However, if rebels should start deliberately targeting innocents simply to induce fear and chaos, they then become terrorists.

I admit that historically, in reality, it's indeed a very blurry line. I could not argue with someone that the attack on Hiroshima was not terrorism; by a strict definition, it was, as the US was attempting to terrorize the Japan gov't into surrender by leveling an entire city, most of the people of which were not directly involved in the war effort. However, in the first two World Wars, random carpet bombing of cities and thus civilians was a frequent element of war, engaged in by all countries involved, including Japan.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Afghanistan lacks the technological expertise required to extract this oil, so the government is contracting with outside companies to drill for it.)

Or - could it be? - that that is a great opportunity for those outside companies, leaving much less money for the Afghans than if they hired the expertise...

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no negotiating with religious zealots, it's like trying to come to a middle ground with anti-abortionists. They want it as Allah has spoken...infidels aside.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"And they need to look in the mirror and admit to themselves that they're part of their own problem..........We can start by getting rid of the Saudi "royals".

Maybe it would be better and easier in the long run if they got rid of them on their own?

Re:The way I see it.

[misexistentialist]

With state sponsors of terrorism like Pakistan and Iran and USA-backed terrorist incubators like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, reducing terrorism seems unlikely. Luckily the threat would be pretty negligible if the US did nothing, so success has and will always be assured!

Re:The way I see it.

[hedwards]

The issue is that we have a tendency to hand out money without strings attached because we don't want to piss off the dictator. Aid should come with strings attached in terms of promoting a stable democracy and should be closely eyed.

It was a really stupid idea on our part to hand weapons over to Pakistan knowing full well that most of those weapons weren't being used for their intended purpose.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The senior leaders such as Bin Laden used their money and power to dupe ignorant and poor individuals into sacrificing their lives for their bullshit cause. " ...Sounds like the US military, too

Re:The way I see it.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

and the fact is, a lot of people in these countries see us in the same light as the horrible dictators that have abused them for so long...

According to a survey from about a year ago, something like 90% of afghanis in the most war-torn provinces don't know about 9-11 and 40% think the reason the US is in their country is to destroy islam.

Its ridiculous just how badly we've failed to make our case to the people over there.

Re:The way I see it.

[LrdDimwit]

Besides which, you can defeat an ideology. It happens all the time. How many people still worship Zeus? What happened to old Zeus? He wasn't defeated by war; when the Romans conquered Greece, they simply merged Zeus with their own King of the Gods, Jupiter.

What did defeat Zeus? Christianity, a new ideology. When it became the state religion of the Roman empire, it displaced the traditional Roman state religion; which still included Zeus.

So yes, it is very hard to defeat an ideology with bullets. But that doesn't mean you can't defeat an ideology. You defeat an ideology by convincing people that it's not a good ideology. Why do people become terrorists? Well, there's a lot of complex religious legal theory involved ... but most of that takes a back seat to what REALLY drives most terrorists: Anger, hatred, desperation.

Terrorists hate their enemies. They hate them so much that massacring busloads of schoolchildren seems like a good idea. That is a very severe sort of loathing. Terrorists also generally come from disadvantaged backgrounds; there are exceptions to this (Bin Laden was from a wealthy family; most US-citizen terrorists had relatively normal lives before radicalizing).

How do you defeat terrorism? You attack the current membership, while also addressing these two points. Why do so many people in the Middle East hate us? Can we do something to make ourselves less unpopular? And is it possible to get people out of poverty in those regions? These are the things that will cut down on Al Qaeda's ability to recruit new members.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, the ideological creator of Al Qaeda was an Egyptian cleric who visited the US and didn't like what he saw. Al Qaeda might have taken another form and focus eventually anyway, depending of the US geopolitical intrigue.

Re:The way I see it.

[hairyfeet]

Uhhhh...haven't heard about the minerals reports from Afghanistan have you? You might want to read this then simply replace oil with mineral rights. of course We, the People won't see any of that, it'll go to groups like Halliburton.

You see you haven't figured out how the "banana scam" works. here is how it goes: Company A wants land for bananas but country B doesn't want to play ball. A few big fat checks are written to the right people and suddenly it becomes a "national interest" and country B is now the enemy. When all is said and done the USA loses a ton of money but Company A gets their banana and with them massive amounts of MONIES. Yay for massive profits woo hoo!

And THAT is how it works my friend and has been since the end of WII when the MIC saw their massive MONIES were gonna dry up at the end of hostilities and needed a way to keep the cash flowing. The way it is now they make money on both ends, by supplying the weapons AND by picking the corpse of the enemy clean for "national interests".

Re:The way I see it.

[DragonWriter]

There's no way to defeat Al Qaeda.

Wrong.

Al Qaeda isn't just a bunch of people, it's an ideology.

True.

As V says, "Ideas are bulletproof".

It's true that you can't shoot an idea in the head to kill it. But ideas come from and are spread by people.

Ideologies usually emerge from social circumstances such that an ideology which has any impact won't usually be eliminated just by fighting the particular people holding it at the moment (and that's particularly true of an ideology which is centered around the existence of a particular conflict if you fight it in a way which validates the ideology with the target population.) On the other hand, if you can drive a real distinction between the people selling the ideology and the audience they are trying to sell it to, and take other steps to mitigate the social circumstances which fuel the ideology, then dealing directly with those trying to keep the ideology alive can hasten its demise. An idea may be bulletproof, but its quite possible to strategically defeat an organization centered around an ideology, and even to eradicate, or at least render so limited in influence as to make no difference, the ideology itself.

Re:The way I see it.

[couchslug]

The Soviets weren't "taken down". That turned out to be a myth.

They left because the Afghans would NEVER be useful allies, and the government the Soviets installed lasted a couple of years after the fall of the Soviet Union.

"In other words, you can't always achieve peace through strength. Sometimes you have to lend a hand because it's the right thing to do."

No. That is logically insupportable because it requires effort be expended on lost causes. It's a commitment to perpetual war.

The Afghans don't want anything but tribalism. We bribe everyone who works for us with aid. The Taliban are perfect for a Muslim nation.

Re:The way I see it.

[dave420]

You seemed to have missed the point entirely. You can eradicate a group of people holding an idea, but the idea will still persist - especially if said idea (in this case the fucking of Muslims by the west) is clearly demonstrably after said group is eradicated. If you killed all the terrorists in the world in a heart-beat, tomorrow there would be more, as the grievances the original terrorists had would still not be addressed.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

good job missing the sarcasm there.

hint - the weapons we're giving those countries aren't exactly lucrative either

Re:The way I see it.

[TouchAndGo]

It's a pretty poor rebellion that is seeking to fight the army of the opposing side.

"Rebellion, uprising or insurrection, is a refusal of obedience or order.[1] It may, therefore, be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors aimed at destroying or replacing an established authority such as a government or a head of state"

Re:The way I see it.

[SpongeBob Hitler]

Yeah! The US should start sending aid to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and help get them on back their feet so they can take care of themselves! Why has no-one thought of this before?!

Try talking to people who have actually been to Afghanistan to :rebuild". What we are doing there is a joke and only for show. Afghanistan is the same shit hole we and the Soviet Union left it. (In Soviet Russia, Osama bin Laden fights YOU!)

Re:The way I see it.

[dave420]

But if you at least admit that they have grievances, they can be addressed and shown to be either legitimate or not. That's what happened in Northern Ireland, and it's working.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanna bet?

Re:The way I see it.

[hey!]

Ideas may be bulletproof, but they aren't dangerous until they're supported with a training and funding infrastructure. It doesn't take *much* training and funding to turn a handful of disgruntled guys hanging out in a radical mosque into a dangerous terrorist cell, but it takes *some*. As in every other field of human endeavor, the number of dreamers vastly outnumber the number of doers. It's a good thing too, because we'd have been over our heads after 9/11 if everyone who cheered at that decided to become a majority of one and strike a blow themselves.

Sure, Ted Kacyznski managed to conduct a solo terror campaign, but he had a lot more brains and energy than your average radical malcontent. Look around you at all the people who have ideas about how the world should be changed. Now start counting the number who do *anything at all* to act on those ideas.

So, yes. The organization matters. In fact it matters more than the idea. There are people with radically different ideas that would be amenable to the same general practical program.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not "If we would have taken ...". It's "If we had taken ...". Don't be an idiot.

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge; idiocy is the lack of intelligence.

Physician heal thyself.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

but my freedoms to: speach, religion, press, assembly not have troops garrissoned in my home, and countless others are given to me by an oppressive state? they prohibit something that alters your state of mind? OH NO!(for the record I wouldn't object to prohibition of alcohol again so this subject is kinda moot to me) Patriot act? most all american's will never be directly affected by this act. military industrial complex? wait what are you going on about?(seriously im a Sailor and i have no clue what your talking about) and prison industry I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU!(no sarcasm, im serious the prison system is fucked) but the others im thinking "ummm..............huh?"

Re:The way I see it.

[RobertLTux]

even not counting "special" weapons i think we have the assets to LEVEL a good sized city in about 3 days (and if we wanted to be nasty we could make it uninhabitable for months even quicker)

Re:The way I see it.

[Chicken_Kickers]

No, you can start by getting rid of Israel. This is the root of all of your problems with the Muslim world. Stop supporting it, stop condoning its ethnic cleansing and genocide and maybe we will listen to you with a straight face when you preach about peace and democracy. And no. Various American talking heads, including your infamous Bush had declared victory before. The enemy is almooost defeated.It never will be. I do not support al-Qaeda. What it is doing is wrong and against my religion. I also do not like the American Government and its sometime ally and political master, Israel.

Re:The way I see it.

[Belial6]

The All Father Odin would like to have a talk with V.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lithium. (Yay "Green"!)

Re:The way I see it.

[cavebison]

You can't compare Montoneros & Shinning Path with Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Montoneros was a single small group, around for only a few years, and had a specific political goal. Perhaps more like the Red Shirts in Thailand, but of course much more militant. They just wanted their leader to come back.

Shining Path, around for about 10 years, was also provincial in its concerns, regardless of the "global" rhetoric. They collapsed after the capture of 2 main leaders, so also did not have a strong foundation. Also, contrary to your statement, "Shining Path" is still around and have bombed here and there - although it can be argued those using the same are not the same organisation.

Al Qaeda and Taliban, on the other hand, are *religious* movements and so completely different animals. They stem from religious fundamentalism and so will probably always be around in one form or another. Al Qaeda and Taliban are just recent manifestations of things which have been taking place for hundreds of years, or probably as long as religion itself has been around.

As long as religion is around, fundamentalism will also.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no oil nor gas there

No, just possibly the largest lithium deposits in the world. Useful in making batteries to, you know, transition from our dependence on foreign oil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Qaeda is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood - which Obama has just accorded legitimacy & recognition. So any claims of being against al Qaeda is fraudulent & hollow.

Let Obama start putting pressure on Hamas to end attacks on Israel, and he can start proving that he's not a Jeremiah Wright disciple after all.

Re:The way I see it.

[unsolicited]

To defeat Al Qaeda
Rewrite Quran

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

All quite true, but one thing you forgot to link together: The powers the 'Arab Summer' is revolting against are those that we Westerners support.
One reason our beloved leaders did not directly (or not at all) endorse the revolutions is that we still wanted to be friends with our beloved dictators in case the revolution failed.
Bahrain and Yemen are prime examples.

Which again leads us back to your first point, they do not like us because we support the mob that is oppressing them. I mean the hypocrisy in the Libyan, Iraq or Afghanistan issues are just blatant jokes.

Maybe, if we really want to win the hearts and minds of the world, we should stop supporting their oppressors. Even if it means our gas prices will rise!
That might just show we value people and freedom above natural resources.

But sadly, our actions continue to do the opposite of what our mouth is saying.

Re:The way I see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone hunt down this asshat and castrate him before he breeds.

"It's your gene pool - help keep it clean!"

Re:The way I see it.

[jwhitener]

"If the Afghan / Pakistan areas weren't so rich in oil "

There is no oil nor gas there.
That's much more to the north, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan etc.

True.

But how are you going to get the oil/gas to market, and who is going to control that export route? Wouldn't it be nice if Afghanistan were more under our control and we could put a pipeline in to bring the oil/gas from the North down south and out to sea?

Re:The way I see it.

[jwhitener]

Yeah, but how much?

Making some numbers up, I'm guessing it is like 97% was the cost of the military campaigns and 3% was spent on schools, roads, etc...

Further up someone posted that the total economic aid to Pakistan for the last 10 years has been 6.8 billion. The 'war on terror' is passing 1.5 Trillion now.

Mission Accomplished?

[number17]

Once these 10 to 20 leaders are dead i'm sure all those people in death squad training camps will go right back to working in McDonalds or some other type of desk job. They definitely have the hunger and skillset to become a corporate executive.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[syousef]

Once these 10 to 20 leaders are dead i'm sure all those people in death squad training camps will go right back to working in McDonalds or some other type of desk job. They definitely have the hunger and skillset to become a corporate executive.

Working in McDonalds is a deskjob? Well I guess if you call the grill your desk it would still be cleaner than some slashdotters desks ;-)

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[RazorSharp]

You mean those death squad training camps that we blew up?

What the hell do you think we've been dropping all these bombs and predator drones on? Al Qaeda's been relegated to nothing but some guys with AK-47s. We've killed almost anyone with money or power. Once we take out the remaining 10-20 leaders, it won't matter who's left. We can pack our bags and go home because everyone who remains loyal to the cause will be too poor to do anything about it and if they try the Pakistani/Afghani governments will deal with them. If they happen to pool some resources together the CIA will take care of it.

Because of 9/11 we've constantly overestimated these fucks. We never should have sent the military to deal with this. The CIA could have dealt with it fine. We should have done what the Israelis did after the '72 Munich murders: assassinate, assassinate, assassinate, and assassinate some more. Sending in ground troops was a gross tactical error. It gave them something to fight. The only military forces should have been the Airforce/Navy dropping bombs and maybe some rangers taking on assassination missions like what we did to Bin Laden. Al Qaeda was nothing but a rag-tag bunch of morons. Bush empowered them by trying to turn them into Emmanuel Goldstein.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

One man's tactical error is another's post cold-war reboot of the military industrial complex. Really, the error is so obvious and so blatant how could you take it at face value?

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[RazorSharp]

One man's tactical error is another's post cold-war reboot of the military industrial complex. Really, the error is so obvious and so blatant how could you take it at face value?

The error was on the part of the public support that allowed it to happen and reelected him in 2004.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of 9/11 we've constantly overestimated these fucks. We never should have sent the military to deal with this.

Just like the Vietnam War wasn't meant to be won, but rather just prolonged into a stalemate, the War on Terror isn't meant to be won, just prolonged as well. The military-industrial complex wants these wars to be a never ending cash cow so they can reap the profits at the expense of our military and innocent "collateral damage". Obviously even a Nobel Peace Prize winner can't do much about it, even if he's President of the USA.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[devent]

So you mean you should react on acts of terror with more acts of terror? That is really civilized. No wonder the USA is the "defender of truth, justice and democracy". Just go in and kill'em all, and their children.

Fuck America. The USA is the modern British Empire, that killed millions of Indian people under the disguise to bring them civilization and democracy.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Megane]

...and apparently re-elected him (or what is in many ways a near-clone) again in 2008 as well.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly my thought.

The biggest terrorist organization ever on this planet: The CIA and DHS.

I do not understand how people can think: "Those guys did something horrible to my people... So I will become exactly like them and do the same!"
Could it possibly get any dumber and more ignorant that that train of thought?

And of course, the other "side" will react the same, resulting in endless deaths.

The only good thing about it, is that those retards wipe each other out in the process.
The bad thing is, that we'll end up as "collateral damage" (what a nice euphemism for mass-murder).

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[LongearedBat]

No, assassination is not terrorism. Terrorism is killing randomly (bombs are pretty random) so that everyone should feel threatened. Assassination is killing specifically so that no one else should feel threatened.

(I don't disagree with the rest though.)

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[DaMattster]

Well, actually we have grossly underestimated Al Qaeda. They are not a bunch of rag-tag morons but have a communication system which is almost a paradox because it is simple yet so sophisticated the CIA has difficulty tracking them. If anything, the CIA are almost a bunch of rag-tag morons. We have been fighting Al Qaeda for damn near nine years and, at best, have made marginal progress. The genius behind Al Qaeda is that it basically consists of semi-autonomous, splinter cells. These splinter cells wait for their commands and do their thing. Al Qaeda has shown some resilience to US methods. Also, if history is any predictor, the Soviet Union fought a long, costly, and losing war against Afghanistan. Despite the Soviet Union's superior fire power and technology, they still lost with an exacting toll.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

Steady on old boy . We didnt want to kill them at all - it was bad for business and far easier to find some other native ruler who would do business and supply him the means to remove the competiton.

Dont they teach history to MBA's any more?

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[corbettw]

Fuck America. The USA is the modern British Empire, that killed millions of Indian people under the disguise to bring them civilization and democracy.

Come on, be fair. Americans killed millions of Indians, too. Just a different kind of Indian.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Bob9113]

Love the idea.

"Once we take out the remaining 10-20 leaders, it won't matter who's left. We can pack our bags and go home"

I sincerely hope that is the case. I also understand that Leon may not be able to tell us who those 10 - 20 leaders are.

So here's what I think We The People deserve: A countdown clock. Put a big "20" counter up somewhere, and count it down to zero. If that number doesn't go down by at least 1 per month, I want a very good reason (and for the number to fall the next month), or I want Leon to admit he is not the right guy for the job and to step aside for his replacement.

I have no problem with military action with concrete objectives, victory conditions, and a clear path to the return to normalcy (where perpetual war is not considered normalcy). I also have no problem with a particular leader admitting he is not the right guy for the job. I even have no problem with spending as much as the rest of the planet combined on our military while we have a mission and are making progress.

What I do have a problem with is spending $700b per year and always being told that victory is just over the next hill. $700b per year should be enough to get the job done -- and if it is not, we cannot afford to continue. Now get it done, or bring in the next guy, or change the victory conditions to something that is attainable.

Then, two years from now, I want the peace dividend. We cannot afford to continue on this path (same for health care and social security, and I want my taxes raised).

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Qaeda's been relegated to nothing but some guys with AK-47s.

If they've upgraded from a few box cutters to AKs then we're in trouble, no?

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, now they've built the Tata car! so, overall a good benefit

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[rubycodez]

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban that hosted them fled Afghanistan years ago. Now any disgruntled Afghan who is sick of foreign invaders is labeled a Taliban. We have NOT been bombing the current training camps of the real al-Qaeda, those are not located in Afghanistan. We've been bombing and killing other kinds of people, called citizens. Instead of pursuing those who attacked us, we've largely just been lining pockets of the military-industrial complex and making sound bites for our politicians and political coin to take away our rights, all the while spawning more enemies, it's "The Waaaaaah on Terrrah". What we have is not a strategy or noble purpose, but a religion of mass murder and mayhem for power and profit. Using your logic, who would we have been assassinating in the last decade? we only found bin Laden this year, comfy in his millionaire mansion, NOT in any country we're at war. But I guess you think as long as we''re stacking up corpses of brown muslims like corkwood, guilty or not, we're doing good?

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

"So you mean you should react on acts of terror with more acts of terror?"

that's not really what the parent post said, but you know that.

Instead of bombing Iraq after 9/11, the post is suggesting that the CIA would have been better equipped to go after Bin Laden quietly and effectively.

Seems people have a short memory of immediate history.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you mean you should react on acts of terror with more acts of terror? That is really civilized. No wonder the USA is the "defender of truth, justice and democracy". Just go in and kill'em all, and their children.

How is killing a group of people that are trying to kill us an act of terror?

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

At first I was totally going to argue with you but...you're right. Ive always said that everything we've accomplished in Iraq we could've done with a pair of Blackhawks and 2 teams of SEALs. I mean, let's recap:

  - We got no Oil (or actually, we got very little Oil, and it has been diverted 100% to Oil Companies based entirely in Europe, so the US got no Oil.)
  - There are no WMDs
  - We did actually get one single human being we wanted to get, Saddam Hussein.

So yeah, we didn't need an army to accomplish this. At all. In fact, the CIA is very good at installing puppet dictators. The ideal solution would've been to string this out over the same 10 years we've taken anyway, but rather than an invasion, simply sent in 1 man and had him infiltrate the Baath party, slowly rising up the ranks until Saddam elected that this infiltrator be his successor. Then, assassinate Saddam and TADA, puppet dictator!

As to the other discussions above...V for Vandetta is a good movie if you take the movie aspect with a dose of salt. The moral point being made is spot-on. that is, YES, the people should always rise up and overthrow their government when it is too oppressive. We've seen recently with other events in the middle east that this can be done with little or no bloodshed, but then again, in places like Libya, violence seems like it was more or less required to make the whole rebellion thing work, so violence isn't to be avoided in this process if peaceful solutions fail. As to the whole "Ideas are bulletproof" point...well...not really. Communicated ideas are bulletproof, but killing an idea that hasn't been shared is pretty damn easy - just shoot the one person who currently is the sole possessor of the knowledge in question. As it applies to the argument at hand, though, I believe there is a LOT of confusion here. We have two different things here - Terrorism and Al Qaeda - and they are not one and the same. Al Qaeda is an organization, made up of people, and if you kill all of the people within it, you will kill the organization. Whether or not we can kill ALL of them is debatable, but it's not impossible. Terrorism is the idea, not Al Qaeda, and Terrorism is pretty much bullet, bomb, drone, and nuke proof. The concept of using fear to make a political statement, which is what Terrorism really is, is an idea that has been used by the minority to impact the majority for centuries. During the middle ages, the Vikings would fling the corpses of their enemies dead into their cities instead of boulders. This is pretty damn terroristic if you ask me. The idea that you can eradicate Terrorism by killing one man, one group, or even wiping every living human being off the map is pretty laughable. Terrorism even exists in the animal kingdom! If you don't think a bear tearing down a tree to get to it's prey is frightening, you clearly aren't the prey.

And...I think that's all I wanted to respond to.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[RazorSharp]

So it's not terrorism when we bomb them, invade their land, and destroy society as they know it; it's terrorism when we assassinate the same targets without the collateral damage?

A better analogy is Thomas Jefferson, who reduced the U.S. military to almost nothing because he had no interest in fighting wars. Pirates perceived U.S. trade ships as vulnerable and thus attacked them. Instead of raising an army, Jefferson sent a couple ships to hunt down the pirates and put bounties on their heads. Armies are for grandstanding. An enemy is an enemy. Sending in the army is the equivalent of trying to fight a battle with chivalry.

Whenever a country engages in armed conflict they should ask themselves one thing: What would Sun Tzu do? The first concerns The Art of War addresses is the problems with maintaining a military. The larger the army, the more mouths there are to feed. The more immobile they become. The more predictable they become.

Assassinating enemies isn't terrorism. It's war. Killing civilians is terrorism.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[RazorSharp]

Well, I don't think we should have touched Iraq. I didn't expect oil or WMDs and I didn't consider either to be valid justifications for war. Saddam was actually doing a fairly good job running that country, as far as corrupt dictators go.

I think we should have left the Taliban alone, let Al Qaeda feel safe in Afghanistan, which would then make them vulnerable to assassination. Instead we sent in a massive military to take out the Taliban, which gave Al Qaeda time to flee to Pakistan. We took out the secondary target first, which made absolutely no sense.

Concerning V: V was a terrorist b/c he didn't have public support. Of course, the conditions were set to try and perfectly justify why he had to act alone, but that was my other beef with the movie: everything was hyperbolic and nonsensical. At least in 1984 one could understand how society became the way it was. Same with Brave New World. In V for Vendetta, things were evil and oppressive on the most shallow pretenses. It seemed to be a weak slippery slope argument: "If things continue the way they are, next thing you know society will be like this and only the terrorists can save us!" 1984, on the other hand, was a strong slippery slope argument because it connected the dots in between point A and Z.

I totally agree with the sentiment that we can defeat Al Qaeda but not terrorism. Terrorism isn't the type of thing that can be defeated as it's a tactic. Al Qaeda is an organization. Organizations can be defeated by killing the members.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

So? we did it under a disguise to bring them to civilization and democracy? shut the fuck up you know nothing. what about 9/11 there were men women and children in those planes and in those buildings. but forget what they did right? fuck america right? WRONG. the second grade was the hardest 4 years of your life. wasnt it? you know nothing. we didn't Kill the Indians under the disguise to bring them civilization and democracy. we killed the Indians and drove them from their lands because we believed it was our God given right and also because of the resources on Indian land. Yeah I know its not pretty but there is no reason to hide from it. Sir do not talk unless ....well fuck it dont talk. you spew out shit.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, fuck those guys for something a slashdot commenter said they should do!

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, assassination is not terrorism.

So, why are the people who assassinated the Lebanese prime minister some years ago labelled "terrorists" then? Methinks you should at least read up on the definition of those words you use online, it can't be that hard.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[devent]

A war against individuals? A war against maybe 100 people? By that logic the USA government can declare any individual as "enemy" and declare war on him, and get their Navy Seals and kill him and his family.

There was and are laws against piracy, there are laws against terrorism. The right thing to do were to arrest the people, and put them on a trial. Like the German government which put Somalia pirates on trial. We didn't just shot them down and we are not sending drone attacks to Somalia. By the same logic the UK should declare war on the IRA and send drones to Ireland.

Terrorism is if you kill people without any laws. There is no difference if you bomb a school or send your Navy Seals in. That is why we think of our self as a civilized country, because all people have rights and not the state nor any other person can kill without a court ruling, without the right of a defense, without a fair trial.

Al Qaeda have won the same day the American troops invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. The Al Qaeda are celebrating the day the USA use drone attacks to kill people and they are more then happy when the USA make assassinations. Because by that the USA is proving that they are think they are not bound to any laws anymore, that they can use their military against anyone and by that the Al Qaeda have shown to the rest of the world how evil the western empire really is.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving them something to fight may have been the point.

Re:Mission Accomplished?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You mean those death squad training camps that we blew up?"

A death squad training camp is nothing more than a fucking mud-hut and maybe some monkey bars made out of wood. Blowing up a training camp is doesn't do much except putting a really expensive crater in the ground. These guys just move 500 feet to the side, rebuild the mud hut and they're back in business. Get bombed again? Repeat above steps.

Defeat of an idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't see how you can defeat the idea of Al Qaeda, I agree that funding is crucial for everything in today's world, but the idea of Al Qaeda, and other such organizations can survive even after the money runs out - it is not that expensive to strap to someone a bomb (home made or otherwise) or have him use a M16 against "enemy" forces - with very little to no funding.

I like Panetta

[Anonymous Coward]

I like Panetta and think that his chain of restaurants/bakeries makes some of the finest bread that I've tasted.

http://www.panerabread.com/

Re:I like Panetta

[nitehawk214]

I like Panetta and think that his chain of restaurants/bakeries makes some of the finest bread that I've tasted.

http://www.panerabread.com/

Pancetta is delicious.

Are you really that sure...

[rvw]

Panetta, are you really that sure that you can announce this before executing those people? This sounds as a buttload of PR bullshit, or one hell of an ego who wants his 15 minutes of fame. Shut them down first, then have an interview. That's the way it should be done.

Now back to work! Pronto!!!

Re:Are you really that sure...

[Joce640k]

It's just propaganda from the ministry of "defense"(sic).

By announcing this they'll keep the rednecks and conservatives happy for another tax year while they work on the next announcement.

Twas Porn that killed the Beast

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it wasn't predator drones. They have fewer frustrated males to recruit, outcompeted by 72virgins dot com.

Re:Twas Porn that killed the Beast

[spaceplanesfan]

What?!? 72virgins.com isn't registered... Going to register it now, WOW what a name for a porn site.

Re:Twas Porn that killed the Beast

[Anonymous Coward]

What, would it just be a bunch of women without burqas or hijabs?

Defeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the one hand, I have the same comment I've been using for years now: how can defeat an I'll-defined, amorphous enemy?

On the other hand, if he thinks we're close to defeating them, then he should think "the war" is almost over, and I'm glad to see someone looking at this whole debacle with something like an end game, or some sort of realistic checklist of "success".

Re:Defeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooray. With Al Qaeda defeated the emergency measures instituted will surely be removed. Bye bye patriot act and having my balls cupped at airports!

Re:Defeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a faggot and I like having my balls cupped at airports! In fact, I often arrive hours in advance just so I can pass through the checkpoints multiple times and get my balls cupped over and over again!

sand niggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Arab summer will only get rid of the dictators and replace them with SHARIA law under an Iman. So we will have the stoning of women, the cutting of fingers, etc. That's PROGRESS !!!

The moslems have a religion that is shit.

Re:sand niggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Christians do, too.

Re:sand niggers

[dave420]

Idiot. At least wait for the new governments to find their footing before claiming with 100% certainty what that footing will be.

like an old joke

[roman_mir]

it's like an old joke, about a computer programmer, who is being pulled away from his computer by a bunch of mental hospital nurses, while he is looking at the screen, where there is an infinite loop running, and he is yelling: -It's only going to take a little longer!

War on terrorism, on drugs, on poverty, on anything that government does, it's not only futile, it actively causes more of what they are fighting against.

Re:like an old joke

[RazorSharp]

He didn't say that terrorism would be defeated. He said Al Qaeda would be defeated.

Re:like an old joke

[cyber-vandal]

That's why people are still dying in of cholera and typhoid in filthy slums in the US and Europe isn't it.

Re:like an old joke

[Anonymous Coward]

from the CDC webpage..
Typhoid fever is a life-threatening illness caused by the bacterium Salmonella Typhi. In the United States about 400 cases occur each year, and 75% of these are acquired while traveling internationally.

So where is this epidemic in the USA you speak of?

Re:like an old joke

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the joke.

roman mir said "War on terrorism, on drugs, on poverty, on anything that government does, it's not only futile, it actively causes more of what they are fighting against."

cyber vandal responded "That's why people are still dying in of cholera and typhoid in filthy slums in the US and Europe isn't it."

In other words, government programs to eliminate some diseases have been extremely effective.

Re:like an old joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in a Hospital and for the record getting cholera and typhoid is unheard of in America. Hell our education system is so shitty most people couldn't even tell you what those are. So if we had a problem then even the morons could tell you what they were. :D have a nice day.

Re:like an old joke

[cffrost]

it's like an old joke, about a computer programmer, who is being pulled away from his computer by a bunch of mental hospital nurses, while he is looking at the screen, where there is an infinite loop running, and he is yelling: -It's only going to take a little longer!

So, how does the joke go? Or is what you wrote above supposed to be interpreted as a "joke?" If that's the case, you need to do some research into what does and does not constitute a joke. What you've written is at best, an unconvincing parable of negligible utility.

There is no "Al Qaeda"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Al Qaeda" is simply a Mossad list of their enemies in the Middle East.

Give it all a break, folks. Everybody and his goldfish knows that Israel did 911. Just Google: thermate

Re:There is no "Al Qaeda"

[beppu]

9/11 Missing Links should show you all the evidence you need to know this and more.

s/of/by//

[AliasMarlowe]

So that would make the title of TFS: "Panetta Says Defeat by Al Qaeda 'Within Reach'". The way the US has been careening down the slippery slope, he'd be right.

New Boss, Same Old Bullshit

[damn_registrars]

Our previous POTUS declared victory how long ago? And what changed as a result? Now we have a new POTUS, who is changing nothing and what do we get?

Re:New Boss, Same Old Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you high? Obama changed a good damn bit of everything. Did you not miss the uberninja assassination of Osama bin Laden that GWB wasn't even attempting to kill any more?

Re:New Boss, Same Old Bullshit

[FatLittleMonkey]

Now we have a new POTUS, [...] and what do we get?

Bin Laden shot in the head? Withdrawal of troops from Iraq? A deadline for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan?

Re:New Boss, Same Old Bullshit

[damn_registrars]

Now we have a new POTUS, [...] and what do we get?

Bin Laden shot in the head?

Can you point to something that was somehow changed by that happening? We went to the other side of the world to murder somebody; so what?

Withdrawal of troops from Iraq?

Most of whom have been replaced by contractors, or other people who do similar jobs - often at higher pay - but aren't directly responsible to the US military.

A deadline for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan?

I hope you're also not holding your breath to see that war actually end.

Re:New Boss, Same Old Bullshit

[damn_registrars]

Obama changed a good damn bit of everything.

I wish that were true, however reality tells me otherwise. We have many of the same advisors that we had under the previous POTUS, and are making many of the same decisions that we were making then. I challenge you to name one thing done by the Obama administration that would not have been done by the Bush administration.

Did you not miss the uberninja assassination of Osama bin Laden that GWB wasn't even attempting to kill any more?

I did not miss the murder of Bin Laden. I heard about it on the news like everyone else. I saw Obama give his victorious press conference about the murder.

But yet what did that accomplish? What changed as a result? We still have the two ground wars going on that were started under Bush, with no real end in sight for either. We still keep people from those wars in indefinite detention in Cuba, we still make people take off their damned shoes to go through invasive airport screening to fly within our own country.

Re:New Boss, Same Old Bullshit

[rubycodez]

Obama has changed nothing, continuing wars without purpose, started yet another one. He has continued the taking away of american rights started under Bush. He only follows the orders of the mega-corporate elite with all our government in its pockets. He is every bit as evil as Bush/Cheney, and has broken each and every campaign promise. Even his health plan is a sellout, no robust public option but instead continues the big pharmy/big insurance/big healthcare cost spiral. What a piece of dung on two legs, Barack Obama.

Re:New Boss, Same Old Bullshit

[Ksevio]

I don't think you can pin Libya on any corporate interests - Oil prices would be much more stable had we just let their army slaughter all the rebels and protesters.

Re:New Boss, Same Old Bullshit

[rubycodez]

Sure I can

1. oil companies make record profits when price goes up, and Gadaffi was impeding certain oil contracts
2. billions of dollars in Libyan assets seized
3. global defense industry sales and stocks go up

Al Qaeda was a reaction.

[the_raptor]

Al Qaeda was a reaction to Arab tyrants propped up by the American government. What has defeated Al Qaeda is the "Arab spring". If there are no corrupt tyrants and those Arab countries can actually develop their economies Al Qaeda have nothing to offer except religious extremism. Which most people don't want. Most people no matter their religion just want to be able to provide for their families and live in peace.

While "Al Qaeda" will be around for decades, without a support base of poor Arabs their ability to carry out any serious attack is nullified.

Re:Al Qaeda was a reaction.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this "Arab spring" that you speak of? The controlled release of information via the "Wikileaks"? The NATO bombings of Libya? Or the appearance of revolt instigated in Syria by who knows who? Or Mubarak's overdue retirement and his replacement with a coalition of miscellaneous terrorists? Or the resource-rich Sudan finally separating from its populated parts and striking deals with China and Western Europe?

Idiot.

Re:Al Qaeda was a reaction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's why the USA must still prop up Arab tyrants.
Like Kharzai in Afghanistan. A tyrant so cruel, that the Taliban looked like the better alternative. (That's how the Taliban came to power in the first place.)
And I wouldn't be surprised if half of ex-Soviet and Arabic countries' tyrants would be propped up by the CIA. (And the other half by the ["ex"-]KGB. :P)

Re:Al Qaeda was a reaction.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot Tunisia. Now go and write another cynical post!

Re:Al Qaeda was a reaction.

[Garwulf]

"Al Qaeda was a reaction to Arab tyrants propped up by the American government."

No, it wasn't.

Al Qaeda is part of the violent arm of Salafi ideology. It wants to institute a totalitarian world Muslim state with the Koran as its constitution and Taliban-style rule. This ideology has existed since the 1920s - Al Qaeda is just one of the more recent wrinkles.

They were never a reaction to Arab tyrants. If they reacted to anything, it was secularization. They hit the United States in part to try to drive it out of the Middle East, so that the Arabs there would not see democracy as an alternative to totalitarianism. And a lot of oil money has been provided in the last few decades to create this image of the Muslim world as victims of American policy, so that when the Salafi Jihad pushed, the West would not push back. They were almost successful too - right now there is a split in academia with Middle Eastern Studies being heavily compromised and Security Studies (a new branch that deals with Salafism without the smokescreen they put up) being very new and controversial.

There's a very good book on this subject titled "The War of Ideas," by Walid Phares. If you want to know more about this, it is very worth checking out.

How will you know

[rongage]

OK, since Al Qaeda folk don't exactly have a uniform that is distinguished from the local fashion, how exactly will we know if they are either dead or hiding? If Al Qaeda were to stop fighting tomorrow, would we believe them defeated, or are they just waiting for us to leave so that they can resume their activities?

As much as I hate to say it, we are fighting a war based on ideology and have absolutely no way to know if we have won.

Re:How will you know

[vvaduva]

You mean, the "US Government" is fighting a war...I am not, so your "we" is not exactly accurate with its collectivist implications.

Looks like lessons have been learned

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mission accomplished"!

Cut off the head

[Anonymous Coward]

The Israeli Defense Force has been unofficially targeting "outlaws" & "wanted criminals" for quite some time. almost every leader of every terrorist group has been shot at, blown up with missiles, rigged cars & explosive phones. Where has this lead? there were systematically fewer and fewer people to deal with. Instead of 3-5 large terrorist groups there are now dozens of small cells with even less cohesion and less leadership.

Every time you kill one of these "leaders" there are mass funerals and more people vow to kill in their name. Think of it this way, if someone killed the president, who would take over? there will eventually be a new one, if we kill him and the PM then there stil lteh vice president etc. If we then kill the President, PM, vice president, secretary of state, head of the CIA AND a couple of senators, what will hapen? there will be a shit storm with people siging up in droves for anything from finding out who murdered them to those will to "die in the line of duty".

Once you start killing the enemy, be prepared to kill them all, and their relatives. After all, what sort of brother will not avenge his brother? a son not avenge his father?

So you pound a rock into smaller rocks, the small rocks into pebbles, the pebbles into sand...where does it end?

What Al Qaeda?

[vvaduva]

This is idiotic...there is no Al Qaeda. "Al Qaeda" was a CIA creation back in the days of Mujaheddins/Russia in Afghanistan, and it's not a specific group of people, it's rather an anti-American sentiment that runs throughout the Muslim world. Some people buy into it, others don't. You don't defeat things like that with bullets and bombs. Stop invading, bombing, and manipulating governments in foreign countries...when you give people no reason to hate you, they will likely stop wanting to kill you.

Good cause I hate taking off my shoes at airports

[Anonymous Coward]

nuff said

Under what law?

[devent]

Under what law can the USA kill "10 to 20 crucial leaders of the terrorist group"? Why is there nobody who actually asks what jurisdiction the USA can claim or what international law there is that the USA can do that? What if you replace Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen with Germany, Italy and France? ... that the American focus had narrowed to capturing or killing 10 to 20 crucial leaders of the terrorist group in Germany, Italy and France.

There is no deceleration of war and they are not captured to be put in front of a court. We saw what happens with terrorists if the USA has captured them, they rot in a prison and are tortured by the US military.

Re:Under what law?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming that the US government sees themselves as beholden to someone. Why should they follow the law?

Re:Under what law?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no deceleration of war and they are not captured to be put in front of a court.

Right. No deceleration, only acceleration. Faster, faster, faster!!!

Re:Under what law?

[the eric conspiracy]

Actually there is a law. It is the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" act passed by Congress Sept 18 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Re:Under what law?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Why is there nobody who actually asks what jurisdiction the USA can claim or what international law there is that the USA can do that?

At the end of the day jurisdiction is determined by who has the biggest guns. You may not like that answer. That may not measure up to all of mankind's noble ideas about equality, and law, and so on. But that is the way it is. Unless/until someone is capable of standing up and telling the United States military to stand the fuck down, they can pretty much do whatever they want.

Welcome to the real world.

nation building...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you want to engage in nation building. Just like in Iraq. Nation building there has cost $1 trillion so far.... I think that is a bad idea.

Re:nation building...

[Belial6]

No, Iraq has been an attempt to NOT build a nation. It is the helping hand while the nation tries to build itself. Nation building is like in Japan. Worked pretty good there.

There are like 20 of them left

[HangingChad]

I think we've already defeated them.

I don't care if the military said they'd give everyone in America a pony if we just leave our guys there another six months. Get out. Turn over anti-terrorism activities to the special forces and bring the rest home.

Re:There are like 20 of them left

[Eunuchswear]

Al Qaeda were defeated before they existed.

Mr. Panetta, would you say...

[dpbsmith]

... that we've turned the corner and are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel? Perpetual optimism is neither helpful nor constructive.

"A year ago none of us could see victory. Now we can see it clearly, like light at the end of the tunnel."--Lieutenant-General Henri-Eugène Navarre, 1953."

"Dien Bien Phu has fulfilled the mission...." --French Army spokesperson, 1954

"Victory is in sight."--General Paul D. Harkins, 1963

"I didn't just screw Ho Chi Minh, I cut his pecker off." President Johnson, 1964

"At last there is light at the end of the tunnel." Joseph Alsop, 1965

"The North Vietnamese cannot take the punishment any more in the South. I think we can bring the war to a conclusion within the next year, possibly within the next six months." --General S. L. A. Marshall, 1966

"I believe there is light at the end of what has been a long and lonely tunnel." --President Johnson, 1966

"We have reached an important point where the end begins to come into view."--General Westmoreland, 1967

"We have the enemy licked now. He is beaten."Admiral John S. McCain, 1969

"The enemy is reeling from successive disasters. We are, in fact, winning the war." --William F. Buckley, 1969

"If we just keep up the pressure, these little guys will crack."--U. S. General Earl Wheeler, 1970

(The U.S. continued fighting for three more years. The end of the war is often given as 1975 with the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese)

Re:Mr. Panetta, would you say...

[DaMattster]

I understand that this is somewhat off-topic but it needs to be said. I am sure every one of you remembers your parents raising you to tell the truth and not to lie. If you lied, you would be admonished. All the while, if adults lie, it is okay. It is the lies that are colored as "PR bullshit" that have kept us in foolhardy wars for too long at too high of a cost.

Re:Mr. Panetta, would you say...

[DNS-and-BIND]

(The U.S. continued fighting for three more years. The end of the war is often given as 1975 with the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese)

No, wrong. The US was out of Vietnam by 1972. The Democrats in Congress cut off all funding to South Vietnam in a fit of spite after Watergate. They would be damned if Nixon would have any positive legacy whatsoever. They succeeded. The South Vietnamese were removed from any sources of supply and had to scrounge on the black market. They were hollow as a bell when the North Vietnamese broke the peace treaty and invaded in 1975.

Re:Mr. Panetta, would you say...

[petman]

Well, he's not exactly wrong. His last quote was from 1970, and according to you, the US was out of Vietnam by 1972 - so that's two years, plus or minus a few months. His math might have been a little off.

And what law US Army adheres to ?

[boorack]

And do you believe those drone attacks in Pakistan are backed by any form of international law ? They bomb anyone they call "suspected terrorist" without any court order. It turned out that most of casaulties of drone attacks are just civilians. I've read somewhere that weddings were among their favorite targets as muslims often shoot into the air from their kalashnikovs on weddings but drone operators didn't give a shit about this.

If I'm disilusioning you than I'm sorry. For me it seems that US army and their proxy (IDF) did so many war crimes in so many muslim countries that muslim terrorism has to be logical consequence of this. It is basically state sponsored terrorism (USAF and IDF with some help from other NATO countries) versus muslim terrorism and it will not end until some vested interest in prolonging this war will cease (or western taxpayers will be sucked dry by those war profiteers).

Re:And what law US Army adheres to ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Besides, America is following the USSR's path in Afghanistan - to finacial implosion.

Re:And what law US Army adheres to ?

[the eric conspiracy]

Do you believe those airliners slamming into the World Trade Center were backed by any form of international law?

Re:And what law US Army adheres to ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that was done by terrorists filled with hatred.

So, your standard of action is to follow such
obviously deranged people? I guess that
explains a lot about how people like you felt that
the Iraq war was justified by the 9/11 terrorism

Exactly.

[WindBourne]

We need to continue hitting inside of pakistan. The fact that AQ is attacking Pakistan gov. is because they are upset that we are destroying them and pakistan gov. has been helping. Always keep in mind that AQ has the same mind set of neo-cons (two sides of the same coin): If you are not with us, you are against us. Simple as that.

Yeah, right.

[Anonymous Coward]

And there are no Nazis left in the world either. Ideals are a lot harder to kill than people.

News for nerds?

[Eunuchswear]

No.

Stuff that matters?

No.

Boring.

Re:News for nerds?

[itchythebear]

You know, I agree this story isn't news for nerds, but there really aren't that many "nerds" on slashdot anyways. Case in point, the amount of comments for political stories(usually over 200), as opposed to the amount of comments for science related stories(usually less than 50). Pretty unfortunate if you ask me.

Slashdot: "News for politcal zelots, pointless stuff to argue about."

You can kill a person...

[DemonGenius]

... but you can't kill an idea. Otherwise, the earth would still be flat.

oh really?

[slick7]

Panetta Says Defeat of Al Qaeda 'Within Reach'

Yeah and the checks in the mail and I won't come in your mouth.

H/T to the "Freidman Unit"

[Timtimes]

Thomas Friedman also (and perpetually) thinks it's only about six months til we win. Enjoy.

We're not totally screwed if the war ends.

[Timtimes]

It's not like war is the only growth industry left in America. There's always the prison industrial complex to soak up the job losses of the returning American soldiers. Either as guards or inmates. Enjoy.

What would he say?

[ChilyWily]

Panetta Says Defeat of Al Qaeda 'Within Reach'

If my employment depended on "defeat being close at hand for the enemy", I too would make such statements.

What I want to know is - will the drone attacks that fuel so much resentment and hatred now stop? Will the 600 nightly raids by the military/blackwater(xe) mercenaries end? Will the so-called War now need any less lives (both american and afghani)? Will the so-called War now need any less money? Will we finally stop supporting the Afghan drug lords?

If the answer is no, then there is no change and this is really just a PR stunt to pacify the american people who don't want to wage war and bring misery on innocent people in a far far away land while pumping up the troops. If violence is being used to justify that the enemy is close to be defeated then the cynical side of me says "this is not over by a long shot, keep the money bags rolling in".

"...on an unannounced trip to Afghanistan..."

[k.a.f.]

Ten years of counter-terrorism and nation building in Afghanistan, and targeted assassinations in the region around it. And U.S. officials are *still* unable to make visits there unless they are unannounced... for security reasons. Is that really what near victory looks like?

And the Sicilian says:

[Antique Geekmeister]

Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Beyond Disgusting

[rubycodez]

That new propaganda monkey blathers on about Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda ISN'T, but we continue our war on the Afghani people and the New Taliban (the label slapped on any Afghani who acts against foreign invaders, while we slaughter innocent citizens and breed more enemies). We continue to use U.S. troops to guard and move Afghani poppies to fund CIA and other operations, for we fight both sides of the War on Drugs, just as we fund both sides of The War on Terror. We continue to line the pockets of the defense industry and private contractors of mayhem and death. But "victory" in Afghanistan and the defeat of Al Q is just around the corner.

Don't let yourself get mnd-screwed by PR.

[Anonymous Coward]

Old conventional wisdom: President Bush is so stupid. Doesn't he realize that assassinating terrorists will just lead to more terrorists? We have to win hearts and minds to prevail over Al Qaeda.

New conventional wisdom: If we just assassinate a couple of dozen terrorist leaders, the whole Al Qaeda problem will go away. President Obama is a genius.

Ha!

[Type44Q]

This is sure to make their CIA handlers' day. :p

Slashdot + Politics =

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarity Ensues

Staged

[Anonymous Coward]

Because she knew it was staged.

Re:Staged

[ShakaUVM]

>>Because she knew it was staged.

Pfft. That's actually what his unit had been doing for the previous month. Building schools and so forth.

But the news media don't want to report on it, because it's not sexy. So it creates a false perception that idiots like you buy into.

Islamist propaganda (Re:The way I see it.)

[Garwulf]

Israel is no saint - frankly, there are no good guys there at this point - but it is NOT the root of our problems with the Muslim world. And Israel is not the political master of the United States - that's just Islamist propaganda.

You talk about its ethnic cleansing - but I know at least a bit about that situation, and I cannot think of a single Israeli example. So, WHAT ethnic cleansing? Where are the mass graves of Palestinians murdered because of their race? And what about Darfur? What about all the Islamic ethnic cleansings, which are far greater, and for that matter, REAL (remember the Armenians in Turkey during WW1, or the Kurds in Iraq, or the 120,000 murdered by Salafi Islamists in Algeria in the 1990s)? What about the fact that the Salafi Jihad wants to create a totalitarian caliphate with Taliban-style rule, and uses Israel as an issue to create a smokescreen so that the world won't take a close look at the totalitarian nature of Islamism?

Put simply, our problem with the Muslim world comes from the Salafi Jihad, which is an aggressive, expansionist, and totalitarian political ideology that wants to create a caliphate with Taliban-style rule. Israel is very much a convenient sideshow for it that allows it to play the victim role when it is anything but one, and keep promoting liberalism and democracy as bad guys when the reality is that they are the threat.

END US aid to Pakistan!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Read yesterday somewhere that the US is either delaying or cancelling $800m in military aid to Pak. About time - even those golden toilet seats in the US would be better, if not other more useful things.

Sooner or later, the US will have to recognize that it has no allies in the region, and just send ICBMs their way. A few on Lahore, Karachi, Faisalabad, Islamabad, Peshawar, et al, and the Pakis will be in line. Oh, and toss in a nuke or 3, for special effects - it will have a salutary effect on the Mohammedans!

unannounced visit

[Anonymous Coward]

right. when you can announce your visits, then you will be close to winning.

Paying more

[wonkavader]

Paying more than poppies for something would be a great start. Providing decent education would be a good second step.

But realize we don't have to pay more for poppies. We could pay more than the taliban pay for poppies for anything they can grow. Then they'd stop growing poppies. But from pictures I've seen of Afghanistan, that means we'd have to buy rocks. What else grows there?

Re:Paying more

[BenJCarter]

As I understand it food crops such as wheat can be grown, but they pay only 1 tenth what poppies do. Speaking of rocks, I heard rumblings about lithium deposits in Afghanistan last year, but nothing seems to have come of it.