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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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".

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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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.

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.

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:like an old joke

[RazorSharp]

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

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)

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".