Convictions and Kills
Here's a Michele Malkin post that wraps up some statistics on the number of Al-Qaeda members captured and killed since 9/11. Worth looking at, since it's very rare that anyone talks about metrics at all in the war on terror.
Here's a Michele Malkin post that wraps up some statistics on the number of Al-Qaeda members captured and killed since 9/11. Worth looking at, since it's very rare that anyone talks about metrics at all in the war on terror.
Lee Smith in Slate argues that understanding Arab culture is necessary to understand how Islamists and Arab-nationalists view each other? Is that important? Yes, since those groups are the two major political forces in the Middle East today.
Captain's Quarters provides analysis of related reports from the AFP and from the AP on captured Al-Qaeda personnel.
Somewhat frustrating is the fact that Pakistan is working hard to re-capture terrorists who were released from Guantanamo and who went straight back to the terror theaters.
From the AP article, an interesting statistic:
Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror, has arrested more than 600 al-Qaida suspects, but no senior figures have been caught in the border region.
"Senior diplomats from France, Britain and Germany will meet top Iranian officials in Vienna on Thursday to offer Tehran a final chance to halt uranium enrichment plans..."
If they don't guess what?
Diplomats in Vienna say most European states would back U.S. demands that Tehran be reported to the U.N. Security Council when the IAEA meets in November.
The best in-person summary of the successful Afghan elections comes from oxblog's correspondent.
[Al-Qaeda's and the insurgents] failure [to disrupt the election] is a major blow to the credibility of the insurgency, and for all its flaws, this election is a heartening victory. The Afghans are rightly proud and excited; they deserve much praise for this imperfect but important step toward stable democratic government. I’ve also talked to Afghans who feel that the U.S. government deserves more credit than I’ve been inclined to offer.
Via Captain Ed, a foreboding article on Al-Qaeda's focus on Pakistan and Musharraf's tactics for fighting terror.
Via Michele Catalano's blog, here are a couple of pages which list terror attacks on the US and on Israel.
Looking at the Israeli list (which is sobering), keep in mind that Saddam Hussein used to pay $25k to the families of suicide bombers, as did a charity fund set up by Saudia Arabia. Since that money flow has been stopped, I wonder if there's less incentive for poor Palestinian men and women to strap on bombs and explode themselves in Israeli pizza parlors?
For my co-bloggers who may not believe that root causes are being addressed, and doubt that soft power is being used effectively, the WaPo reports (with some surpise) on some recent successes.
David Adesnik at oxblog has a quick post on why Russia, China and France are stalling the UN on Sudan. He says it's not because of oil, but rather:
My sense is that China and Russia oppose intervention in Sudan because their own national interest (and flagrant violation of their citizens' human rights) compels them to defend the notion that national sovereignty is inviolable.
I think it's a shallow reading of the current approach to the war on terror that doesn't see many of the exact "soft-power" activities already taking place. Michael writes:
I simply can't envision that after some number of years of overthrowing some governments and bullying others, bombing wherever we see fit without international support, and attempting to install democratic governments where they have never existed, somehow we will reach a promised land of peace and security.
A must-read article in the NYT Magazine, ostensibly a paean to Kerry. However, the sub-theme is the liberals search for an alternative to the Bush doctrine:
What Kerry still has not done is to articulate clearly a larger foreign-policy vision, his own overarching alternative to Bush's global war on terror.
Inside liberal think-tanks, there are Democratic foreign-policy experts who are challenging some of Bush's most basic assumptions about the post-9/11 world -- including, most provocatively, the very idea that we are, in fact, in a war. But Kerry has tended to steer clear of this conversation, preferring to attack Bush for the way he is fighting terrorism rather than for the way in which he perceives and frames the threat itself.
Fundamentally, Bush sees the war on terror as a military campaign, not simply to protect American lives but also to preserve and spread American values around the world; his liberal critics see it more as an ideological campaign, one that will turn back a tide of resentment toward Americans and thus limit the peril they face at home.
Iran somehow has become a hot topic. Is it because Iran parliament begins push for resumption of uranium enrichment? Is it because Iran Says It Has Increased Missile Range? What about internal uprisings? Or maybe everyone is noticing because Iranian hardliners cancel embassy music concerts?
So now Iran is coming to the fore. Here's the question: will we look at them tactically or strategically. Michael Ledeen writes:
Like Afghanistan before it, Iraq is only one theater in a regional war. We were attacked by a network of terrorist organizations supported by several countries, of whom the most important were Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. President Bush's original analysis was correct, as was his strategy: We must not distinguish between the terrorists and their national supporters. Hence we need different strategies for different enemies, but we need to defeat all of them.