Al-Qaeda’s New Problem
For years now, liberals have had to put up with basic points about the value of not doing stuff that’s hugely unpopular around the world caricatured as the idea that if we just act nicer, al-Qaeda leaders will lay down their arms. The reality, as Joby Warrick reports for The Washington Post is that when American leadership is popular and respect, al-Qaeda keeps on keeping on. But they have a much harder time getting anyone to follow them:
The torrent of hateful words is part of what terrorism experts now believe is a deliberate, even desperate, propaganda campaign against a president who appears to have gotten under al-Qaeda’s skin. The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.
ad_iconWith Obama, al-Qaeda faces an entirely new challenge, experts say: a U.S. president who campaigned to end the Iraq war and to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who polls show is well liked throughout the Muslim world.
The post quotes Paul Pillar, formerly a CIA counterterrorism analyst, as saying that “For al-Qaeda, as a matter of image and tone, George W. Bush had been a near-perfect foil.” With Obama, things are different. Or, more to the point, with Obama we get a chance to make things different. Absent the right policies, Obama’s appeal will fade. But moving back toward the rule of law, and appointing George Mitchell were steps in the right direction. Moving forward with plans to take our troops out of Iraq will do more.
35 Responses to “Al-Qaeda’s New Problem”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 25th, 2009 at 9:48 am
So when is Mr. Yglesias going to comment on the appointment of blue dog Democrat Gillibrand to the NY Senate seat to replace Hillary Clinton?
January 25th, 2009 at 9:51 am
What the Mitchell Report tells us about the new Mideast envoy
by David Bedein
Following President Obama’s appointment of former Senator George Mitchell as his middle east envoy, it may be instructive to remember the tendentiousness of George Mitchell’s 2001 Report, entitled “The Mitchell Report on the Al-Aqsa Intifadeh ”
The report stemmed from President Clinton’s October 2001 appointment of an international investigatory commission to determine the causes of the Palestinian insurrection at the time, deemed the second Intifada – the Arabic term for “shaking off” – in this instance, shaking off Israel.
Preisdent Clinton named an Arab American and former US Senator, George Mitchell, as the commission chairman, along with a Jewish-American, the former US senator, Warren Rudman, in addition to three prominent European diplomats.
Initial reaction in Israel to the publication of the Mitchell Commission report in May, 2001, evoked a sigh of relief when the Mitchell commission did not blame Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for instigating the riots in September, 2000 when he visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which some said set off the rioting.
However, even with the Sharon Temple Mount accusation out of the way, the Mitchell Commission report accepted all of the PLO premises for the violence at the time.
The Mitchell commission accepted as a given that the PLO-led riots were based on a movement for “independence and genuine self-determination”, without giving any credence to the Palestine Liberation Organization’s goal, stated in all PLO publications, maps and media outlets, even during the current Oslo process, which consistently and clearly states that “liberation” of Palestine, all of Palestine – in stages – remained the goal.
For some reason, the Mitchell Commission characterized the rioters armed with molotov cocktails as “unarmed Palestinian demonstrators” — a term that they apparently borrowed from PLO information reports that were published at the time.
The Mitchell Commission took the position that Israel’s security forces did not face a clear a present danger when faced with a mob trying to kill them with rocks and firebombs.
The Mitchell Commission made no mention that the PA has amassed 50,000 more weapons than they are supposed to have, in clear violation of the written Oslo accords.
The Mitchell Commission surprisingly accepted the notion that the Palestinian Authority security officials are simply “not in control” of their own tightly controlled security services.
The Mitchell Commission would not consider reliable li intelligence reports which documented that the Palestinian Authority had planned the uprising, and did not relate to documentation which showed that the PA spent past seven years preparing its media, school system and security services for a violent confrontation with Israel. Indeed, in late May, 2000, a senior official of Israeli intelligence conducted a press briefing in which he revealed intelligence information that the PLO was planning riots for late September, 2000.
The Mitchell Commission described only as an Israeli “view” the fact that the PA leadership had made no real effort to prevent anti-Israeli terrorism, ignoring consistent incitement that Arafat had conveyed to his own media for the previous seven years.
The Mitchell Commission also condemned the IDF killing of PLO combat officers during a time of war, without giving an alternative as to what actions the IDF is supposed to take in any such military confrontation.
Instead of issuing a clear call to the PLO to stop sniper attacks on Israel’s roads and highways, the Mitchell Commission simply “condemned the positioning of gunmen within or near civilian dwellings”, leaving the observer to assume that PLO attacks from empty embankments would be acceptable.
The Mitchell Commission suggested that “the IDF should consider withdrawing to positions held before September 28, 2000 …to reduce the number of friction points”, ignoring the fact that this would leave entry points to many Israeli cities without appropriate protection during a time of war.
The Mitchell Commission also demanded that Israel should transfer to the PA all tax revenues owed, and permit Palestinians who had been employed in Israel to return to their jobs, strangely recommending that Israel once again pay salaries of armed PLO personnel who were at war with Israel.
Meanwhile, the Mitchell Commission took a page out of Arab propaganda when it called on Israeli “security forces and settlers to refrain from the destruction of homes and roads, as well as trees and other agricultural property in Palestinian areas”, and would not relate to the possibility that some of the trees and agricultural land had been razed may have been provided cover to PA security forces during combat.
The Mitchell Commission also accepted the notion that “settlers and settlements in their midst” remains a cause of the Palestinian uprising, because these Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria violate “the spirit of the Oslo process”, even though not one word appears in the actual Oslo accords would require the dismemberment of a single Israeli settlement.
In conclusion, the Mitchell Commission drew a strange comparison between “settlement activities” and the Palestinian inability to resume negotiations, so long as “settlement activities” continue, providing an excuse for the PLO to continue its armed conflict.
In short, the Mitchell Commission Report drove a nail into the coffin of any credibility that George Mitchell could ever have to serve as a potential middle east envoy.
David Bedein directs the Israel Resource News Agency, Center for Near East Policy Research Ltd, Beit Agron International Press Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
The appointment of Israel basher Mitchell is a wet dream for the Don Williams of the world.
January 25th, 2009 at 10:01 am
I drink your tears, SLC. I wish I was as confident as you that you have some reason to be unhappy, but I’ll take cold comfort in your misery.
January 25th, 2009 at 10:20 am
The Mitchell Commission would not consider reliable intelligence reports which documented that the Palestinian Authority had planned the uprising, and did not relate to documentation which showed that the PA spent past seven years preparing its media, school system and security services for a violent confrontation with Israel.
Amusingly, Israeli intelligence just came out with a long investigation concluding that all these “reliable intelligence reports” of theirs had in fact been complete bullshit, designed to fit with the various lies of Israeli leaders.
However, SLC will be glad to know that reliable intelligence reports have demonstrated that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is overflowing with WMD.
January 25th, 2009 at 11:43 am
But… But… This is impossible!
George W. Bush Jr. was a manly, manly, manly foe of Al Qa’ida! They are afraid of him! He killed lots of terroriss! People used to comment on this blog all the time about how the war in Iraq had dealt Al Qa’ida a severe blow!
January 25th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Re wrw
Would Mr. wrw care to post a link to the alleged report from the Israeli intelligence services that repudiates the claims of Mr. Bedein.
January 25th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
“This is Obama, whom the American machine of lies tried to portray as the rescuer who will change the policy of America,” Zawahiri said, according to a translation provided by Site Intelligence Group, a private company that monitors jihadist communications.
This is roughly the same argument my building super in Morocco made about Obama after the election. I don’t think we can overestimate how much Bush has poisoned the well during these eight years. No matter what Obama does, many people in the Middle East will still stubbornly believe that he is somehow just a puppet of the malevolent forces of the Bush administration.
January 25th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Would Mr. wrw care to post a link to the alleged report from the Israeli intelligence services that repudiates the claims of Mr. Bedein.
Nah. As a matter of policy, I don’t do research for psychopaths.
January 25th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Re wrw
Then we can conclude that Mr. wrw is a fucking liar and that the alleged report is a figment of his imagination. Either that or it doesn’t say what fucktard Mr. wrw claims that is says.
January 25th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Then we can conclude
Yes…I’ve known for some time that there are several people inside your head. Clearly it’s quite loud in there.
Anyway, SLC, your total obliviousness to things that anyone knows who reads Israeli newspapers is a standard sign of the psychopath. I’m also not interested in researching for you the name of the president of the United States.
January 25th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
That’s exactly right. And this is why closing Guantanamo is not just right but also smart politics. And that is why Obama will indeed pull out of Iraq with roughly the timetable that he promised. This is so because he wants to succeed in his foreign policy, and in order to succeed he has to have credibility with the Muslim world, and if he goes back on any of those very public promises his credibility is gone. Actually, closing Guantanamo and leaving Iraq appear the easier part right now. His real test will be Afghanistan. The instant he sends there more troops, it’s his war.
January 25th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Close Guantanamo is the right police if US want peace. Peace is an aspiration that need a sincere vision of a desire of PEACE. Be careful with the contradiction of message and the tramp of customs and uses.
January 25th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
One thing I really hated about Bush is that he allowed Osama to dictate US policy.
January 25th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
is there a pillar to post joke in there, matt?
January 25th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Matt: “Absent the right policies, Obama’s appeal will fade.”
Guaranteed to happen. How does Matt see an expansion of the war in Afghanistan, bombing people in Pakistan, and threatening Iran – while saying nothing about the Israeli war crimes in Gaza – keeping Obama’s appeal up?
Closing Gitmo while supporting warrantless wiretaps sends a rather mixed message, no?
January 25th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Good thing Al-Qaeda wasn’t around before Bush was in office. And it’s good for them they only attacked us after Gitmo had been established and after we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. And good thing their only goal was replacing Bush with Obama, rather than re-establishing a fundamentalist Islamic caliphate across the Middle East. And good thing they don’t have to worry about being killed in a missile strike, or running training camps in Afghanistan and Africa. And good thing the Iraqi people never turned against them after the surge. Otherwise, this Obama fellow could be real trouble for Al-Qaeda.
January 25th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
The jihadists weren’t hanging around in caves in Afghanistan because they were popular with the middle east masses. They were pariahs in their own lands.
January 25th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
God, but you Muslims-under-every-bed idiots are tiresome. Why on Earth are you shouting about what a piss-pants coward ignoramus you are?
Please god tell me you’ve never expressed fear that you’d soon be forced to obey shari’a law in America or have to pray toward Mecca.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:37 am
My sincere apologies. As a Muslim-under-every-bed idiot, I confess that I find it challenging to keep pace with your advanced rhetorical skills and thereby appreciate the nuances of your argument.
Was there an argument in there some where? Or were you just calling me names? Or are you the bearer of the good news that a worldwide terrorist movement inspired by fundamentalist Islam that has attacked the United States and European countries at home and abroad has renounced its stated goals? I sincerely hope you are right.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:00 am
El Cid, just call them directly gutless punk parrots spouting bullshit they don’t even comprehend themselves.
As long as the US supports the Nazis of Israel and the corrupt monarchies of the Middle East, so shall the US be a target of Islamic militants – and deservedly so.
The obvious solution – which could be undertaken tomorrow by Obama – to change US policies toward the Middle East is the only solution.
But the evidence is pretty clear that Obama won’t be doing that. Not with Joe “I’m a Zionist” Biden as his Vice President, Rahm “I Fought With the IDF” Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff, and Hillary “Obliterate Iran” Clinton as his Secretary of State.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Tell me, calm idiot, is there any empirical evidence whatsoever that there is a real-world threat of a Middle Eastern Islamic “Caliphate” being established, such that it be worthy of mention by those who aren’t raving idiots and prefer to deal with real world threats as they actually are?
And please, as an American who doesn’t want to live the rest of his live in shame at the pissing-in-their-pants cowardly other fellow Americans raging in fear at the possibility that crazed murderers will occasionally try to kill us, try to grow up just a little bit.
I know you think you’re one of the good guys, trying to keep us all safe by repeating how the crazy bad Muslims wanna killus and get all het up and bothered ’cause the Muslim crazees got websites where they got a new Caliphate and whatnot, but, no, please don’t delude yourself and think that you’re making a point when you blurt “buh ar u denyin’ there are people what wanna killus?”
It really embarrasses me that so many Americans want to live in perpetual frightened announcement that people want to kill us. God.
And I don’t give the slightest, tiniest little bit of sh*t whether or not you think you’re getting the discourse you deserve, nor that you fail to see you lack the judgment to determine which amount of either is applicable.
January 26th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
What do you propose to do about the situation in Pakistan? The jihadists aren’t trying to overthrow the Pakistani government because of its ties to the US. They really believe in what they are fighting for. Have any of you actually studied the Taliban government of Afghanistan? Throwing acid in the faces of small girls who want to attend school isn’t the act of lone sociopaths. It is part of their stated policy, and it has nothing to do with the US policy towards Israel. I guess Saudi Arabia should have taken Bin Laden’s advice to let him defeat Sadaam instead of inviting in the Americans. I’m sure that would have went over very well. Nah, every crime committed in the 20th century is America’s fault.
That said, the US does need to alter our policy towards Israel. Israel is not a “Nazi-state”, but they do not have their hands clean and neither do the Palestinians or the US. Btw, I’m with Khadaffi on his proposed One-state solution. The only long-term answer to this intractable situation.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Great blog! Most blogs on this topic are not even close in detail as yours is. If you keep posting I’ll definatly be comming back.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:12 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 14th, 2009 at 4:56 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:50 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:18 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:50 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:58 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:38 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra