Reflections From a Murky Pond » Iraq

Libya – Looking Back

jonolan — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:03:01 +0000

On Thursday, March 17, 2011, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for the use of force if deemed to be needed by the UNSC, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 1973.

President Obama promptly gave the orders for American forces in the region to begin attacking Mu’ammar Qaddafi’s loyalists in Libya.

This is not a course of action that, at first pass, makes a great deal of sense to me. It makes even less sense to me when I look back to the start of Obama’s campaign for the Presidency of America.

It’s time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else’s civil war.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
Candidacy Announcement, February 10, 2007

This is not like Obama’s reversing his decisions about Gitmo and Military Commissions; that was bowing with some small grace to necessity. Having his regime’s UNSC delegate vote in favor of Resolution 1973 was an unforced act.

So what, if anything, changed? Why has Obama committed our forces to a type of war that he previously stated he believed could not be won?

I think Americans require an answer to that question before we get too much further into the 2012 Election season.

Obama’s Foreign Policy

jonolan — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:04:18 +0000

So what exactly is the foundation of Obama’s foreign policy? What are Obama’s goals for America’s international relations? Nobody seems to know those answers, not our State Department, not Congress, not the People, not our Enemies, and certainly not our Allies.

With no apparent rhyme or reason to Obama’s statements, occasional half-measures, and string of inactions in response to any of the situations in the Mid-East, Africa, Asia, and Latin America people keep searching for some deeper game that he’s playing and ascribing various and sundry motivations to him.

There’s a far simpler and, I believe, much more likely rationale for Obama’s foreign policy inconsistencies:

Infographic: Obama’s Foreign Policy Goals

There are two rules one should always remember: “The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one” and “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

I firmly believe that Obama already displayed the extent of his foreign policy. He apologied to all and sundry for America’s status as a superpower, vilified the actions of his predecessors, and thought that our enemies would now begin to like, if not America, at least him.

Beyond that, I don’t think that Obama has any foreign policy goals.

As the international situation grows ever more fluid and we in America move towards the 2012 Elections this is something to keep firmly in one’s mind.

Petraeus v. Jones

jonolan — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:34:03 +0000

General David Patraeus, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander of the US Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) recently told the Wall Street Journal that he wasn’t too pleased with Rev. Terry Jones’ and his Dove World Church’s plan to burn a pile of Qur’ans on September 11, 2010, the 10th anniversary of the Muslims’ terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

General Petraeus’ concerns seem to be over the probable additional risks to our troops stationed in the Muslim World the burning of the Qur’ans by the Gainesville, FL church would cause.

It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort. It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.

Firstly, let me say the General Petraeus is quite accurate in his claims that Muslims will respond violently to the burning of Qur’an and that such a violent response would explicitly increase the dangers faced by our soldiery stationed within the Muslim World, especially those serving and fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Stimulus: Burning A Qur’an

Response: Muslims Riot And Go On Violent Rampage

It’s simply a proven fact that a great number of Muslims respond to being offended by either targeted or mass acts of violence. Their responses to insulting cartoons of their Prophet proved that point to the world. Therefor it’s hard to blame Gen. Petraeus for being against such a public burning of Qur’an. It will, without a doubt, make his job and the jobs of the troops he commands that much harder and that much more dangerous. Simple.

But this whole situation is more complex than that and, along with risks, it also calls to my mind SCOTUS Justice William O. Douglas’ opinion upon the case of Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949).

Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.

Terminiello v. City of Chicago is quite applicable to this situation. Father Arthur Terminiello, a suspended Catholic priest, racist, and anti-Semite, sparked a violence in Chicago when his vitriolic speech at a rally resulted in a riot by 1000+ people outside the auditorium.

I’m also reminded of the oath that then-Cadet Petraeus swore in 1974 when he as a graduate of West Point accepted a commission in United States Army.

I, David Howell Petraeus, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of 2nd Lieutenant do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.

I can and do certainly sympathize with Gen. Petraeus’ feelings and I appreciate the horrible situation that he is currently in and how Jones’ planned burning of 200 Qur’ans would just make it worse. I’m not, however, completely sanguine about a 4-Star General publicly speaking in an official capacity – therefor under at least the appearance of the Color of Authority – against a small group of American civilians exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights of speech, expression, association, and religion.

How is that supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States as he once swore an oath to his God to do without reservation?

Frankly, I see little or no use for Dove World Church’s book burning whatsoever but I’m more worried about Gen. Petraeus’ and the Obama Regime’s responses to it than those of the Muslims. That’s because I’m worried about our government and military saying that we should censor ourselves because we might offend someone, Muslims in this case, and I’m even more worried about them wishing to censor Americans because they fear the likely violent response of those offended Muslims.

Creative Cartography

jonolan — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:18:12 +0000

For ages cartographers have tried to describe our world with maps. They’ve tried a variety of projections in or to do so: the Albers Equal-Area, the Azimuthal Equidistant, the Bonne, the Mendeleev-Conic, and the ubiquitous Mercator projections to name but a few.

Some times though, when trying to map things more complex and fluid than geographic features, they have to resort to creative cartography in order to do so.

No Wonder The Middle-East Is In Deep Shit

I believe this should be called the Colorectal-Sinusoidal Projection. I also believe that cartographers have finally managed to illustrate the reason for so many of the world’s ills.

Betraying Our Troops

jonolan — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:14:32 +0000

Once again the domestic enemies of America, who have though Americans’ unhealthy addiction to uncontrolled and unmitigated tolerance for anti-American sentiments, beliefs, and activities, have struck at our servicemen. Three US Navy SEALS successfully captured the subhuman, Muslim terrorist vermin, Ahmed Hisham Abed. Instead of receiving praise and gratitude for their actions, they’ve been charged as criminals!

From Fox News:

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called a captain’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

So what has happened, if the report given to Fox News’ Rowan Scarborough is accurate, is that a group from a SEAL team apprehended one of the most vicious of the Islamist vermin in Iraq and it got a bit roughed up in the process of it’s capture. For this the terrorists’ allies, the Liberals, have somehow coerced the US Military into bringing charges against the three Americans involved in the operation.

Being Americans, servicemen, and especially SEALS, the three have refused the safety of Administrative Punishment – in the Navy it’s called a Captain’s Mast – and demanded court-marshals. As always, the SEALS are willing to put themselves in harm’s way and offer themselves up as sacrifices in order to defens America against its enemies. Sadly, this time those enemies are the traitors within our nation.

The Charges Concocted By Traitors

Petty Officer 2nd Class (PO-2) Matthew McCabe is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer 2nd Class (PO-2) Jonathan Keefe is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer 1st Class (PO-1) Julio Huertas faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

Those are fairly serious charges that have been trumped up by the Islamists’ allies lurking within America’s own government and arrayed against these SEALs.

The filth who instigated these charges and any who prosecute them are traitors to their Oath, to America, and to humanity. They do not deserve the clean deaths of gunfire. Fire is called for.

The same holds true for anyone who supports these traitors’ attack upon our military personnel and our nation. They should be burned to death, sent unshriven unto the Gods, and their corrupt flesh left unmarked to rot on unhallowed ground.

Please pray for these three brave men. Please pray for our military, which does not enjoy the support of the current regime. Foremost, please pray that our servicemen have the courage to remember and abide by their oath to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Pork Processing Plant

jonolan — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:42:58 +0000

In April, 2009, President Obama’s Defense Secretary, Robert M. Gates, drafted the proposed 2010 Defense Budget. It was definitely both a wartime budget and one that placed an emphasis on projecting and supporting troops in foreign theaters and fighting the asymmetrical wars that the US is currently engaged in prosecuting. Since it took both the changing face of warfare and America’s current financial situation into account, it was both painful to some and highly pragmatic.

Then it was submitted to Congress…

The US Capitol: Largest Pork Processing Plant In America

Senators, in a frankly treasonous orgy of earmarks, diverted $2.6 billion in funds from the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill into various various pet projects. Most of the monies diverted were stolen from the US military’s Operation and Maintenance accounts (O&M).

The O&M accounts are not for projects or new technologies; those are the accounts that pay for for: troop training, repairs, spares & supplies for vehicles, weapons, ammunition, ships and planes, food and fuel – the day-to-day operating expenses that are needed to maintain the operational efficiency and survivability of our servicemen and women.

From the Washington Times:

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, “in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

– Shaun Waterman
The Washington Times

Mr. Winslow Wheeler, Senior Fellow at the Center for Defense Information, described the US Senate’s ransacking of Defense Appropriations bill as amounting to “rancid gluttony.” Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) called the looting, “a disgrace.” I call it what it is truly is – Treason.

TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115, § 2381 of the US Code clearly and unambiguously states:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The United States is currently at war in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. There are two additional threats looming on the horizon, Iran and North Korea. The Senate’s raping of those parts of the Defense Appropriations bill pertaining to supporting American troops in those combat zones is giving aid and comfort to the enemy; indeed, it is an overt attempt to murder the men and women in the US military.

Traditionally treason during time of war is punishable by death. While such retribution would be satisfying to every American, I’ll settle for having the filth removed from office permanently.

President Obama’s administration’s budget requested $156 billion for the regular O&M account and $81 billion for O&M for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill passed by the Senate cut $2.4 billion from the regular account and $655 million from the war O&M fund.

In addition to the $2.6 billion in earmarks the filth in the Senate added, the bill now includes $2.5 billion for 10 Boeing C-17 cargo planes that the military says it does not need or want, and $1.7 billion for an extra DDG-51 destroyer never requested by the Pentagon.

President Obama, while campaigning, had said that he wouldn’t sign any bills that contained earmarks. This bill currently has 778 of them and raped America’s armed forces in order to fund them! So the question devolves to will President Obama refuse to sign the bill or was his promise not to do so just one more jabbering mouthing drooling from his mendacious face?

I’m Against Dumb Wars

jonolan — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:36:29 +0000

Back in October, 2002, when Barack Obama was a neophyte Senator from Illinois and attacking then President Bush’s attack upon the brutal and despotic regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Obama said that he wasn’t against all wars; he was just opposed to dumb wars.

Now, truth be told, Obama’s outburst had more to do with scoring political points by attacking President Bush then with any firmly held convictions Obama might have possessed, but his point about “dumb wars” had a certain validity.

War is a dirty, bloody, horrific enterprise that should be undertaken, when possible, only after careful planning and with a clear goal and a exit strategy kept firmly in mind.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.

– Sen. Barack H. Obama (D-IL)
October 2, 2002

It’s easy to argue that going into Iraq the second time was unneeded at that time, but harder to describe it as “dumb.” The operation was well-planned and we had clear objectives – though our exit strategy and the preconditions for such involved a time-frame that is largely unpalatable to the modern, “half-hour sitcom” format populace. It is also largely immaterial at this time; we’re pulling out of Iraq close to on schedule and the Administration that launched the war are no longer in power.

What About Afghanistan?

There’s a “dumb” war, if ever I saw one, and one that is growing more and more reminiscent of our protracted and ultimately failed engagement in Vietnam. What started out as a reasonably clear-cut punitive expedition by the US and NATO has become a quagmire.

General Stanley A. McChrystal, Commander of US & Allied Forces in Afghanistan, has pleaded for 40,000 more troops in order to prosecute the war there. President Obama and his administration seem very reluctant to provide those troops. The resulting schism between the US Military and the White House has become fodder for the media and various pundits.

For myself, I find this argument between the troops on the ground and the politicians in Washington D.C. to be ridiculous and a lethally stupid case of “putting the cart before the horse.” How can any decisions be made about the disposition of personnel and materiel before we have decided what the objective is?

What War Are We Fighting?

It’s rally a simple question and one that should have a relatively simple, if not necessarily easy, answer. I haven’t heard anyone – President Obama or Congress – provide that answer though.

What are our strategic goals?
What is the scope of our military’s mission?
What constitutes the victory conditions?
What is our exit strategy?

President Obama, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armies of the United States of America, is required to answer those questions; that is his job. So far he hasn’t done so and every day our soldiers, allied Afghan militiamen, and even those who we’re currently fighting against are dying for no defined purpose whatsoever.

On one lone point I agree with what Obama said before he was elected President; I’m opposed to dumb war as well.

The Bourne Solution

jonolan — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:38:38 +0000

We’ve all learned by now that you can do almost anything faster, easier and better with computers. Perhaps the War on Terror can be approached the same way. Of course, you’ll need need to understand the Unix command line and shell scripting to achieve the best results…

One of my wives, Eve aka jmochagrrl, sent me this solution to the US’ ongoing war on terror and terrorism, specifically the dangers arising out of the Middle-east.

The War On Terror

As viewed from the Bourne shell

$ cd /middle_east
$ ls
Afghanistan Iraq     Libya      Saudi_Arabia UAE
Algeria    Israel   Morocco    Sudan         Yemen
Bahrain      Jordan   Oman       Syria
Egypt Kuwait Palestine Tunisia
Iran         Lebanon Qatar      Turkey

$ cd Afghanistan
$ ls
bin Taliban
$ rm Taliban
rm: Taliban is a directory
$ cd Taliban
$ ls
soldiers
$ rm soldiers
$ cd ..
$ rmdir Taliban
rmdir: directory “Taliban”: Directory not empty
$ cd Taliban
$ ls -a
. .. .insurgents
$ chown -R USA .*
chown: .insurgents: Not owner
$ cd ..
$ su
Password: *******
# mv Taliban /tmp
# exit
$ ls
bin
$ cd bin
$ ls
laden
$ cd ..
$ rm -r bin/laden
bin/laden: No such file or directory
$ find / -name laden
$
$ su
Password: *******
# mv bin /tmp
# exit
$ pwd
/middle_east/Afghanistan
$ cd /opt/UN
$ ln -s /Bad_Guys/Al_Qaeda /middle_east/Iraq/.
ln: cannot create /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda:
Permission denied
$ su
Password:*******
# ln -s /Bad_Guys/Al_Qaeda /middle_east/Iraq/.
# cd /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda
Al_Qaeda: does not exist
# rm /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda
# mkfile 100g /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda
mkfile: No space left on device
# rm /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda
# cd /opt/Coalition/Willing
# mkfile 1b /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda
# chown -R USA:Proof /middle_east/Iraq/Al_Qaeda
#exit
$ cd /middle_east/Iraq
$ ls
saddam
$ ls
saddam
$ ls
saddam
$ ls -a
. .. saddam
$ find / -name [Ww][Mm][Dd]
/Korea/North/wMd
$ wall Propaganda.txt
Broadcast Message from USA (pts/1) on USS_Abraham_Lincoln Th May 1st
Mission Accomplished!
$ rm saddam
saddam: No such file or directory
$ find / -name saddam
/var/opt/dictators/spiderhole/saddam
$ wall NewsWorthy.txt
Broadcast Message from USA (pts/1) on Time.Magazine Sat Dec 13
We Got Him!
$ mv /var/opt/dictators/spiderhole/saddam /opt/jail
$ cd /opt/USA
$ cp -Rp Democracy /middle_east/Iraq
$ cd /middle_east/Iraq/Democracy
$ ./install
Install Error: Install failed. See install_log for details.
$ more install_log
Installed failed!
Prerequisite packages missing
Conflicting package Wahhabism found in /midde_east/Saudi_Arabia
Packages Church and State must be installed separately
File System /PeakOil nearing capacity
Please read the install guide to properly plan your installation.
$

Eve got this from The S Word Blog over at Sun Microsystems.

Of course there are still some issues with the “operating system” used in the above example; as has been pointed out, everything in /bin should be “executable.”

Also note that this must be done from the Bourne shell. Using the slowly deprecated Bourne Again shell ($bash) will accomplish the goals faster, but may result in the destruction of all files in /middle-east.

Raped By Dogs

jonolan — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:15:40 +0000

Some creatures that infest this world defy easy classification. They dress in a close approximation of humans and have learn to mimic our speech with their foul mouthings, but cannot truly be said to have anything inside of them that is even vaguely reminiscent of humanity. They are bipedal vermin that are somehow – for reasons that totally escape me – allowed to live among people.

A Case In Point

The disgusting and pernicious maggot-in-vaguely-human-form, Samira Jassim, aka “Um al-Mumenin”, The Mother Of The Believers, was recently captured in Iraq.

This thing has confessed to organizing the rapes of 80 Iraqi women so that it could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.

Before it was caged Samira Jassim worked with Sunni militants from the Ansar al-Sunnah group in Diyala province of central Iraq. It helped them rape women so that it could convince them that being a suicide bomber was the only way to remove their shame for being raped. It admits to being successful in creating 28 female suicide bombers in this fashion and delivering them to their targets.

This dangerous mockery of a human should not be tried in any court of law. One should no more extend the justice system to it than one would extend it to a mad dog, a plague rat, or a Guinea worm. But, since it has a form of intelligence and self-awareness, exterminating it out of hand does not properly serve the needs of justice either.

A Fitting End

It should be stripped of the clothes it disguises itself in and brought to a public place. There, it should be hamstrung so that it can no longer mock mankind by walking as one of us. Its thumbs should be cut off as well so that it knows it can longer ape mankind by using tools. Then its tongue should be excised so that it can no longer foul our language with its crude mimicry.

After that is accomplished and its wounds cauterized, it should be raped – by dogs, since it would be wrong to force men to foul themselves in it – from sunup to sundown. Then it should be exterminated by giving it a blood transfusion from a pig. After the induced acute hemolytic reaction has done its gruesome work, the thing that called itself Samira Jassim’s corpse should be dumped in the nearest cesspit.

Then mankind should deliver a similar fate to the rest of the nest of Ansar al-Sunnah. The sooner their breed is made extinct, the sooner their foul stench will clear from Earth’s atmosphere. Remember always, war is waged against other men; this would be cleansing, a needful currettement that eliminates an infectious disease.

A Tacit Endorsement

jonolan — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:20:56 +0000

It seems that Sen. Obama has received an endorsement – though a very tacit and roundabout one – from a much unwanted quarter. An October 30th, 2008 video received by Reuters in Dubai shows Al-Qaeda giving their tacit endorsement to Senator Obama.

From DUBAI (Reuters):

An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be “humiliated,” without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting.

“O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him,” Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.

Libi, a top al Qaeda commander believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God’s wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history.

The remarks were the first from a leading al Qaeda figure referring, albeit indirectly, to the U.S. elections. Muslim clerics often end sermons by calling on God to guide and support Muslims and help defeat their enemies.

Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain.

Some posters have also argued over the merits of trying to attack the United States before the election or waiting until later, the report said.

But SITE said it did not expect al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden or deputy Ayman al-Zawahri to openly favor a candidate.

“To support a particular candidate would debase al-Qaeda’s long-standing argument that the United States government is a corrupt institution no matter who is at the helm,” SITE director Rita Katz said in the group’s November newsletter.

In 2004 bin Laden issued his first video in more than a year just days before the U.S. elections. It derided Bush and warned of possible new September 11-style attacks.

Bin Laden made little mention of Bush’s Democratic challenger, John Kerry, telling Americans: “Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe.”

Kerry has attributed his loss in part to the video’s high-profile reminder of the terrorism issue.

In 2006, after Democrats captured Congress, Zawahri issued an audio message saying all Americans remained al Qaeda’s enemies regardless of party, SITE said.

SITE said militant postings on al Qaeda-linked websites typically discuss Obama in terms of his race, or his religion and foreign policy. Some forecast a racial crisis dividing the United States if he wins. Others say his planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda’s affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been portrayed as likely to allow “the continuation of Republican control and aggressive policies toward the Islamic world.”

H/T to Bold Color Conservative

It must be noted that this is at best – or worse – a tacit endorsement. However it does seem that Al-Qaeda views Sen. Obama as “the lesser of evils.” One wonders if the media will bury this story. One also wonders what effect Al-Qaeda’s tacit endorsement will have on Obama’s chances of being elected.

Some Intel Analysis

There’s not a great deal of insight into the mind or workings of Al-Qaeda that can be taken away from this article; it’s too short and too filtered to provide good intelligence for analysis. A few points can be inferred though:

Bush & The War on Terrorism
Al-Qaeda doesn’t like and probably fears President George W. Bush and anyone that they feel will continue to prosecute the war against them in a similar fashion to how it’s been prosecuted so far.

We have hurt them and continue to hurt them. That is something worth knowing, no matter who is elected on November 4th.

Iraq
Al-Qaeda still has active operations in Iraq, but those operations are currently in disarray. Al-Qaeda needs the US to pull out of Iraq before it can further its agenda within within that region. The Surge has achieved – or come close to achieving – it aims.

Afghanistan & Pakistan
This is is much harder to analyze because I’m forced to analyze the meaning of an absence of rhetoric rather analyzing the content of existent rhetoric. I see a couple of possibilities:

Possibility #1
Al-Qaeda isn’t worried about Sen. McCain’s or Sen. Obama’s approach to prosecuting the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan because they have few if any assets in those areas.

There has always been some debate on how Arab-centric Al-Qaeda was. Osama bin Laden may have – or have had – close ties to the Taliban and to the Afghans and Pashtun Pakistanis, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Al-Qaeda as whole has similar ties.

Possibility #2
Al-Qaeda prefers Obama’s more hawkish and unilateral approach to prosecuting the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan over McCain’s more cooperative approach to that theater.

Al-Qaeda may hope that Obama will will follow through on his promises and that this will embroil the Us in an open war with Pakistan. This would further galvanize the Muslim world against the US and keep the Waziristani region of Pakistan as a relatively safe haven for Muslim extremists such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Please understand that this analysis has a fairly low Confidence Factor. Most of it is nothing but inference substantiated by general analysis of the long running situation as it has been reported over the years.

I think that the important point to take away from this analysis is that Al-Qaeda is hurting and hoping that America will back off on direct military action in the Middle-East and approach that theater in a softer and more diplomatic manner. If they favor Obama – as the video by Abu Yahya al-Libi suggests – it is for that reason.