U.S. Warns Of Stronger Al-Qaeda

[Kilo]

U.S. Warns Of Stronger Al-Qaeda

Administration Report Cites Havens in Pakistan
By Spencer S. Hsu and Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 12, 2007; A01

Six years after the Bush administration declared war on al-Qaeda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Al+Qaeda?tid=informline), the terrorist network is gaining strength and has established a safe haven in remote tribal areas of western Pakistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Pakistan?tid=informline) for training and planning attacks, according to a new Bush administration intelligence report to be discussed today at a White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline) meeting.
The report, a five-page threat assessment compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center, is titled "Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West," intelligence officials said. It concludes that the group has significantly rebuilt itself despite concerted U.S. attempts to smash the network.
Although the officials declined to discuss the assessment's content because it is classified, the CIA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Central+Intelligence+Agency?tid=informline)'s deputy director for intelligence, John A. Kringen, told a House committee yesterday that al-Qaeda appears "to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan."
"We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications," Kringen said.
U.S. counterterrorism officials said that the implications for U.S. domestic security are not immediately clear, despite a warning Tuesday by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Michael+Chertoff?tid=informline) that reports of heightened al-Qaeda activity and public threats gave him a "gut feeling" that the country faces an increased chance of a terrorist attack this summer.
Chertoff clarified those remarks in a telephone interview yesterday, saying that what he meant to convey was "a more general, strategic sense of the threat environment," based on publicly reported information rather than secret intelligence.
It "was designed to drive strategic or policy actions, not result in some immediate operational step," Chertoff said of his warning in a Chicago Tribune (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Tribune+Company?tid=informline) interview, and "to remind people that the best on-the-ground asset we have is individuals' vigilance."
White House spokesman Tony Fratto (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Tony+Fratto?tid=informline) declined to sound any alarm yesterday. "There continues to be no credible, specific intelligence to suggest that there is an imminent threat to the homeland," he said in response to questions about Chertoff's remarks.
At the same time, authorities worldwide are investigating leads arising out of the failed bombing attempts in London (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/London?tid=informline) and Glasgow (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Glasgow?tid=informline) two weeks ago, which British authorities are combing for links to al-Qaeda. Since the attempts, the FBI (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Federal+Bureau+of+Investigation?tid=informline) has assembled a team of agents and analysts to focus on potential summertime threats.
The mixed messages underscore the administration's ongoing struggle to communicate timely security warnings at a time of widespread political controversy over its past handling of terrorism-related intelligence matters.
" 'Gut feeling' doesn't help any of us," said Kerry Sleeper, homeland security adviser to Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas (R) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/James+Douglas?tid=informline), who has worked for months with federal authorities to improve intelligence sharing as co-chairman of a National Governors Association (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/National+Governors+Association?tid=informline) panel. "A gut feeling is not the way to convey information to hundreds of thousands of first responders across this country that are responsible for identifying, interrupting or responding to a terrorist attack."
"Nearly six years into the war on terrorism, you would hope that we would be basing our security decisions on more than somebody's gut feeling," said Georgetown University (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Georgetown+University?tid=informline) terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman.
An aide to Chertoff declined to say if the secretary's warning was based in part on the new intelligence report. On Tuesday, Chertoff cited al-Qaeda's revived activity, recent threats and attacks the past three summers as a reason to worry that "we are in a period of increased vulnerability." But on a list of 32 suspected al-Qaeda attacks since 1995 compiled by the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, nine occurred from June to September.
Chertoff's warning was not matched by an increase in the domestic security threat level, using the government's often-criticized color-coded advisory system. His department's posted threat level is at "yellow," or elevated, for the country as a whole and at "orange," or high, for the aviation industry, where it has been since August.
Several federal officials, along with counterterrorism authorities in New York City (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/New+York+City?tid=informline) and Los Angeles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Los+Angeles?tid=informline), said they had picked up recent evidence of suspicious activity in the United States and some intercepted e-mail communications by al-Qaeda members and sympathizers about a possible attack here. None of these threats has been deemed credible, they added.
A U.S. counterterrorism official said the new intelligence report, whose existence was first reported by the Associated Press (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Associated+Press?tid=informline), did "not really" differ from recent statements by Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Mike+McConnell?tid=informline); his predecessor, John D. Negroponte (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Negroponte?tid=informline); and CIA Director Michael V. Hayden (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Michael+Hayden?tid=informline).
Those officials have cited heightened concerns that al-Qaeda is regrouping, reorganizing and -- based on recent threats delivered by Osama bin Laden (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Osama+bin+Laden?tid=informline)'s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ayman+al-Zawahiri?tid=informline) -- increasingly confident of its ability to conduct similar relatively low-scale attacks against U.S. or other Western targets.
While asserting that al-Qaeda is still considerably weaker than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the new report concludes that the group is stronger than it has been in years. "There is heightened concern given al-Qaeda's operational activity [and] . . . operational levels" along the Pakistan-Afghanistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Afghanistan?tid=informline) border, the U.S. official said.
Appearing at the same hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, Robert Cardillo, the Defense Intelligence Agency (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Defense+Intelligence+Agency?tid=informline)'s deputy director for analysis, traced al-Qaeda's resurgence in Pakistan to an agreement last year that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Pervez+Musharraf?tid=informline) made with the tribal chiefs when he withdrew army units from the northwest area.
In return, the tribal leaders were to prevent the Taliban (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Taliban?tid=informline), bin Laden and al-Qaeda from carrying out training and sending terrorists and arms into Afghanistan and elsewhere. But, Cardillo said: "At the end of the day, we see a worse condition than [there] was before the agreement."
Citing news reports about the intelligence assessment, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Harry+Reid?tid=informline) said in a statement that "it is a travesty that Osama bin Laden remains at large . . . and appears to have found new sanctuary to operate freely in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions." Several House lawmakers at the hearing also expressed frustration that the Pakistani government, despite receiving billions of dollars in U.S. aid, has been unable in the past five years to capture or kill the al-Qaeda leaders.
Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence for analysis, responded that al-Qaeda's security precautions for its top leaders are "very good," and in the tribal areas "they're in an environment that is more hostile to us than it is to al-Qaeda." He added that "the appeal of the ideology . . . exceeds the appeal of money or any other blandishment that we've been able to offer" to local tribal leaders who in some cases have protected al-Qaeda members.
"It's not that we lack the ability to go into that space," Fingar said, "but we have chosen not to do so without the permission of the Pakistani government." Attempts by Pakistan army units last year to capture or kill bin Laden with the assistance of CIA officers and U.S. Army Special Forces (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Army+Special+Operations+Command?tid=informline) had been "costly for [Pakistan's] security forces and has caused the government concern over tribal rebellion and a backlash by sympathetic Islamic political parties," Fingar said.
He added that "sooner or later, you have to quit permitting them [al-Qaeda] to have a safe haven there," and he warned that "it is not too great an exaggeration to say there is some risk of turning a problem in northwest Pakistan into the problem of all of Pakistan."


Staff writers Dan Eggen and Joby Warrick and research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102443.html?sub=AR

[Freibier]

So it's official - GWOT = failure.
Well done Georgie :roll:
All that blood and money for nothing

[Aeroflot]

So it's official - GWOT = failure.
Well done Georgie :roll:
All that blood and money for nothing

It wasn't for nothing. Now Americans can locate Afghanistan, Iraq, AND Iran on a map. A great leap for mankind I should think.

[Jobu]

So it's official - GWOT = failure.
Well done Georgie :roll:
All that blood and money for nothing

It's over already? I didn't get the memo.

[Freibier]

It wasn't for nothing. Now Americans can locate Afghanistan, Iraq, AND Iran on a map. A great leap for mankind I should think.
Oh, haven't thought of that :D

[Createdeemcee]

They ar no stronger than they were, noting but another means to keeps us on pins and kneedles.

[Kilo]

Read It and WeepEven Bush's intelligence report says the war in Iraq is making us less safe at home.

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, July 17, 2007, at 6:15 PM ET


The National Intelligence Estimate (http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf) that was released today—titled "The Terrorist Threat to the Homeland"—amounts to a devastating critique of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq, Iran, and the terrorist threat itself.
Its main point is that the threat—after having greatly receded over the past five years—is back in full force. Al-Qaida has "protected or regenerated key elements" of its ability to attack the United States. It has a "safe haven" in Pakistan. Its "top leadership" and "operational lieutenants" are intact. It is cooperating more with "regional terrorist groups."
As a result, the report concludes, "the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years" and is, even now, "in a heightened threat environment."

This is bad enough news for President Bush, who has tried to bank support for his policies on the claim that the terrorist threat has diminished.
Worse news still is the report's further observation—never stated explicitly but clear nonetheless—that the threat has re-emerged as a result of the war in Iraq.
The report—the unclassified version of a consensus product by the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community—also notes that the threat will grow still larger if we appear to threaten Iran.
One major reason for al-Qaida's resurgence, according to the report, is its "association with" al-Qaida in Iraq. (Note, by the way, that these two organizations are said to be "associated" or "affiliated" with each other; contrary to what Bush has said in recent speeches (http://www.slate.com/id/2170145/), they are not the same entity.) This affiliation "helps al-Qaida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks." (Italics added.)
Al-Qaida in Iraq—or AQI, as the report identifies it—is not merely al-Qaida's "most visible and capable affiliate." More significant, it is "the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland." (Italics added.)
Let's put together the syllogism: Al-Qaida is more inclined to attack the United States because of its affiliation with AQI; AQI is the only affiliate that wants to attack the United States; therefore, if there were no AQI, the danger of an attack would be far less severe, if it existed at all.
Let's add one more link to the logical chain (which the NIE leaves out but which is self-evident): If there were no U.S. occupation of Iraq, there would be no AQI. (Certainly the organization didn't exist until well into the occupation. It has gained a foothold in Iraq—energizing "the broader Sunni extremist community"—by playing off their anti-American sentiments.)
Many times, President Bush has said that we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. It is an absurd argument in many ways (http://www.slate.com/id/2160225/). But the NIE reveals that the opposite is the case—that because we're fighting them in Iraq, we are more likely to face them here.
Does this mean that we should stop fighting AQI or negotiate some separate peace? No, the organization's presence in Iraq—however exaggerated by some officials—is genuinely dangerous, and there is no negotiating with any al-Qaida affiliate in any event.
But it does mean we should do more to co-opt the Sunnis—even some of the Sunni extremists—that serve as AQI's base of support. (We have started to do just that (http://www.slate.com/id/2168400/), with some success, in Anbar province.)
And it also means—for yet one more reason, beyond the many others—that we should start to get out of Iraq. (The question, as always, remains how to do so without unleashing catastrophic chaos. One reasonable inference of the NIE is that we should seek a regional resolution of the crisis as a matter of great urgency to the security not only of the Middle East but also of the United States.)
It's worth recalling that, back in the spring of 2003, as the war was getting under way, Paul Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense (and one of the war's outspoken architects), told Vanity Fair that one reason to invade Iraq was to allow U.S. troops to leave Saudi Arabia. The presence of "infidel" soldiers on holy soil had been "a huge recruiting device for al-Qaida," Wolfowitz said (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm). (Osama Bin Laden had publicly cited their presence as a rationale for the attack on the World Trade Center.) Yet the troops couldn't safely leave Saudi Arabia as long as Saddam Hussein was still in Iraq. Hence, Saddam had to be removed first. (Though Wolfowitz didn't say so, another element of the plan was to relocate the U.S. bases from Saudi Arabia to the new, presumably pro-Western Iraq.)
Now, in a horrible irony, the troops in Iraq have become no less "a huge recruiting device for al-Qaida." (Some of Wolfowitz's erstwhile comrades insist he never wanted an occupation (http://www.democratiya.com/interview.asp?issueid=4); perhaps he didn't grasp that occupations often follow the forced toppling of a government, especially when the entire social structure collapses as a result.)
Some hawks and neocons want to deepen the involvement and attack Iran—either simply to destroy its bourgeoning nuclear program or (in a more fantasy-drenched scenario) to overthrow its unfriendly regime, too.
The NIE warns against this adventurism in only the most slightly veiled terms. While discussing other threats besides al-Qaida, the report states that Lebanon's Hezbollah—which, till now, has confined its attacks to targets outside the United States—"may be more likely to consider attacking the Homeland … if it perceives the United States as posing a direct threat to the group or Iran." (Italics added.)
This amounts to a direct warning to the White House: Don't attack Iran, the entire U.S. intelligence community is saying—and, if you do, you should expect to get hit back.



source: http://www.slate.com/id/2170564/nav/tap1/

[BugHunt]

Wow this cant be true afterall one of Bushes election pledges was to make the US safer!


And didnt he invade Iraq to attack Al Qaeda? (2nd "reason" after WMD was such a bust). Or was it that democratic BS? I forget which spurious reason were on atm....


Perfect FAILURE....

[ElHombre]

It wasn't for nothing. Now Americans can locate Afghanistan, Iraq, AND Iran on a map. A great leap for mankind I should think.

Americans can find those countries on a map? Maybe they know about them, but finding is still a stretch. ;-) Nonetheless, this will be great news for the Bush admin.*

*I know it doesn't make any sense, but that's the way the dolts in the media always seem to say it. :lol:

[afreu]

Nothing really new. I'm just wondering why the f*uck Bush doesn't at least admit his failure and take responsibility. Isn't he the commander in chief the only one ultimately responsible for the important decisions and therefore responsible for the mess with iraq?

And what are the consequences for the current policy?

[ElHombre]

Nothing really new. I'm just wondering why the f*uck Bush doesn't at least admit his failure and take responsibility. Isn't he the commander in chief the only one ultimately responsible for the important decisions and therefore responsible for the mess with iraq?

Look at his life's history. He's never had to accept responsibility for any of his other failures. If anything, he's been rewarded despite them. Why should the Presidency be any different in his view? He is just a poiled man-child picked to play President while the Rs continue theiur usual policy of looting the Treasury for their rich friends and doing whatever the hell they want and get away with it.


And what are the consequences for the current policy?

It's said that the sucess or failure of the next four or five administrations will be measured almost solely on how much they clean up the messes the Bush admin will leave behind.

[number nine]

If U.S. is in war with Al Qaeda, they are trying to kill a fly with a handgun.

Israeli had the similar problem with Palestinians after 1972. murder of Israeli athletes during Olympic games.

They used different approach. I can say better one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spring_of_Youth

Current U.S. approach might well achieve nothing, I'm afraid. Guess we'll have to wait and see.