Christopher Hitchens writes “Al-Qaeda is losing”:
I have been attacked for callousness and worse for saying that Bin Laden did us a favor on 9/11, but I am increasingly sure I was right. Until that date, he partially owned Afghanistan and his supporters were moving steadily toward the Talibanization of Pakistan as well. There were al-Qaida sympathizers within the Pakistani intelligence services, armed forces, and nuclear establishment (which then included the A.Q. Khan network). There was also an active Saudi support system, consisting mainly of vast tranches of money, for jihadism worldwide. Now, Afghanistan is lost to Bin Laden and Pakistan has had, at least officially, to modify its behavior considerably. The A.Q. Khan network has been shut down. The Saudi ruling class identifies its state interest with a repudiation of al-Qaida, inside and outside its own borders. And the one remaining regime that openly preached holy war and helped train jihadist forces like the "Fedayeen Saddam"—the pseudo-secular terror state in Iraq—has been irretrievably smashed. Wherever Bin Laden is now, it cannot be where he wanted or hoped to be four and a half years ago.Only one side is offering a “truce” and it’s the guy huddled in a cave.
Follow-up – Others beg to differ. From the NY Times (natch) here’s “Al Qaeda’s big boast”: “Yet, while Osama bin Laden has seldom used the word "truce," the vision outlined in the rest of the message is not new: a withdrawal of the United States from Muslim lands and a rebalancing between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. (One Qaeda spokesman has insisted that only when America has lost four million people would the field be even.) In other words, this "truce" must be preceded by total capitulation.”
3 comments:
Yea he is in a cave, sure that's right...
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2006/01/desperate-voices.html
How idiosyncratic! How droll! How outré! That zany provocateur Hitchens is correct as always. Thanks for everything, Osama!
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-bilmes17jan17,1,7287470.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
...the likely cost of the war in Iraq.... will be much higher than previously reckoned — between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, depending primarily on how much longer our troops stay.
Even more fundamentally, there is the question of whether we needed to spend the money at all. Thinking back to the months before the war, there were few reasons to invade quickly, and many to go slow. The Bush policy of threatened force had pressured Iraq into allowing the U.N. inspectors back into the country. The inspectors said they required a few months to complete their work. Several of our closest allies, including France and Germany, were urging the U.S. to await the outcome of the inspections. There were, as we now know, conflicting intelligence reports.
Had we waited, the value of the information we would have learned from the inspectors would arguably have saved the nation at least $1 trillion — enough money to fix Social Security for the next 75 years twice over.
Hey,
Blogging is really fun but I need to enhance my incredible blog
Yours is eye catching and will definetly get on my favourites...
I wish you and yourincredible blog good luck..:)
Regards,
incredible blog
Post a Comment