Don't look now but
The CIA is declaring al-Qaeda defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia:
Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership.
While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.
All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.
"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.
Why the success? As Galrahn at Information Dissemination points out, the "surge" was certainly a major factor. However, when this type of ideological victory is achieved, the Iraqis and Saudis themselves are responsible for victory. They made the choice. Now, the surge in security forces allowed them to make that choice by providing a security overlay in Baghdad but most of the security in places that archived such stunning success, like Anbar province, was done at the tribal level where military officials created a loose alliance with tribal militias who, in many cases, were supplied by the United States but were also part of the insurgency. These local leaders had to decide to cast there lot with the United States, which required trust. Tactical revisions by the Petraeus squad put troops into the communities where they were able to attain that trust by winning hearts and minds but without those local leaders making the choice, we'd be dead in the water. General Petraeus always understood this, others, sadly, did not.
On a political note, it will be interesting to see how the candidates handle this assessment. Could Obama declare victory in Iraq? It would certainly provide a reason, albeit a misguided one, for pulling US forces out.
Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership.
While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.
All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.
"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.
Why the success? As Galrahn at Information Dissemination points out, the "surge" was certainly a major factor. However, when this type of ideological victory is achieved, the Iraqis and Saudis themselves are responsible for victory. They made the choice. Now, the surge in security forces allowed them to make that choice by providing a security overlay in Baghdad but most of the security in places that archived such stunning success, like Anbar province, was done at the tribal level where military officials created a loose alliance with tribal militias who, in many cases, were supplied by the United States but were also part of the insurgency. These local leaders had to decide to cast there lot with the United States, which required trust. Tactical revisions by the Petraeus squad put troops into the communities where they were able to attain that trust by winning hearts and minds but without those local leaders making the choice, we'd be dead in the water. General Petraeus always understood this, others, sadly, did not.
On a political note, it will be interesting to see how the candidates handle this assessment. Could Obama declare victory in Iraq? It would certainly provide a reason, albeit a misguided one, for pulling US forces out.
posted by Will at 7:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home