Al-Qaeda has changed; Bush strategy also needs to shift
By Weasley Knob Clark
As the follow-up reports emerge from the strikes on the London transit system, it's not too early to begin drawing the implications for our own security efforts.
Not too early? If we draw useful conclusions from this attack it is way too late. Nothing useful is learned from what happened. It only reinforces what we should already know. It only affirms that we should be doing certain things that we perhaps aren't because of insufficient funding or manpower. What happened in London...shouldn't have.
In the first place, whatever the merits of the war in Iraq, it should be clear that we still face a threat at home.
Gee, thanks Einstein.
Relentless pressure by the CIA, Special Forces and many other national intelligence and police efforts has made the old, centralized structure of al-Qaeda unworkable.
Another way would be to say the old, centralized structure has been 'destroyed'.
And we need to keep up the pressure.
He's on a roll!
But al-Qaeda's new threat is decentralized.
But? Don't you mean 'therefore'? Or do you mean the threat is decentralized in spite of the unworkability of centralization....you half-wit.
Thursday's attacks in London have all the earmarks of such a "franchise" operation, locally planned and resourced with relatively modest means, emulating al-Qaeda
without the vulnerabilities of centralized resourcing and direction.
You know something we don't know yet there Weasley?
Preventing attacks probably can't be accomplished by the administration's preference for taking out "state sponsors."
Why not? Care to elaborate? Guess not.
And it's going to be very difficult to employ military means.
I dunno, seems to be working so far...
National intelligence efforts, special police activities and local community policing efforts, which focus on identifying and targeting terrorist individuals and organizations, are required.
Wow, why didn't the Administration ever think of that!?!?! Wait...
But fighting terrorism at home isn't just a matter of "killing terrorists." Terrorists aren't born that way. They are created by their interaction with their surroundings. To win this war, we must defeat the ideology of terrorism, depriving angry young people of their ability to justify their hateful actions in the name of Allah.
Like, say, promoting freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Great idea Weasley! We should try that....
This will require not only strong Islamic condemnation of terrorists and their acts, but also a winning dialogue within Islam to defeat Koranic interpretations seeking to justify the use of force against innocent people. We need to encourage "moderates" in Islam to debate, to proselytize and to win over potential terrorists. They are the only ones who can do it.
And you're telling us this why? Do you want to tell them what to say, or are you content to tell us what we should tell them to say? Or how about....you know what, let's move on.
The latest example: directing the Department of Homeland Security to submit a national strategy for the protection of U.S. transportation by April 1, 2005. The strategy still hasn't been delivered.
You're right. Let's just put out whatever, just so long as it makes the deadline. Who cares if its effective, workable, or even well thought out.
And we are long overdue in forming a volunteer civil defense effort that would not only strengthen our security but also give Americans an opportunity to contribute. Volunteers would be recruited to serve part time on an unpaid basis. They would be trained in emergency response, security procedures and assist in a terrorist incident.
Here you go numbnuts.
http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/content/programs/citizencorps/index.asp
You really are a moron.
Both here at home and in the global community, there can be no spectators in winning the war against terror.
That sounds suspiciously like "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" there Weasley. Careful.
Salaam, Tanzania
