Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- Obama's Globetrotting
- DNC Sees Cindy McCain's Wealth as Fair Game
- Crypto-Gramm
- Night of the Gun
- Michelle Obama Fair Game for Another State GOP
- All the World's Obama's Stage
- The McCain Campaign's Anti-Obama Video
- Rahm: Bush and McCain Are Following Obama's Foreign Policy Lead
- Thanks for Nothin', Joe!
- Comedy Is Not Pretty
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« More on the Fish story | Main | Poverty Podcast »
Terrifying reading
July 18, 2007 6:31 PM
Every American really should take the time to read the key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate's summary released this week. Not the coverage of it, but the public report itself (LINK)
It's really quite terrifying. And it's not only because of al-Qa'ida.
Al-Qa'ida's the big threat, of course, the NIE states: "We judge the US Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, especially al-Qa’ida, driven by their undiminished intent to attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities."
How? By looking for "political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the US population. The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices" and "will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material."
Interestingly, the NIE assesses al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI) to be a separate group -- despite the President's claims that they're the same people who attacked us on 9/11 -- and that "its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks."
Translation -- the fact that the US is fighting AQI is giving al-Qa'ida credibility.
And guess what…there's another enemy to worry about attacking the US at home.
"We assess Lebanese Hizballah, which has conducted anti-US attacks outside the United States in the past, may be more likely to consider attacking the Homeland over the next three years if it perceives the United States as posing a direct threat to the group or Iran," says the report.
A former Reagan administration official once told me that Reagan's biggest mistake was pulling US troops out of Lebanon after Hizballah killed the Marines there. It showed Islamists that we would run, the official told me. Horrible if Hizballah emboldened al-Qa'ida who then emboldened Hizballah in return…
And there's yet another enemy... The one within.
The NIE says "the spread of radical—especially Salafi—Internet sites, increasingly aggressive anti-US rhetoric and actions, and the growing number of radical, self-generating cells in Western countries indicate that the radical and violent segment of the West’s Muslim population is expanding, including in the United States." These are "violent Islamic extremists inside the United States who are becoming more connected ideologically, virtually, and/or in a physical sense to the global extremist movement."
If you were put in charge of counterterrorism right now, what are the first three things you would do?
-- jpt
July 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (11)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/20149254
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Terrifying reading:
Remember diversity is what everyone wanted. Go ahead let in all those electrical engineers ,doctors, college boys with visas with out a check in date at expiration for deportation.
Posted by: Vernon Page | Jul 20, 2007 4:55:46 PM
White Mountain - How can we use special ops when you people say we should not have troops there, last time i checked special ops were specialized TROOPS.
Million people , last I heard from the Lib organizatrion it was 65,000 dead.
Do you know how many people will die in America if the terrorist win in Iraq's front, millions see an atomic bomb kills a lot in one shot.
Your right we all are Americans - Pro and Anti!
with Isreal, Last I checked because of there "anti-war" citizens they now have two terrorist organizations controlled countries surrounding them, so actually that proves my point, they tried to appease and see what happened? Appeasement does not work.
As far as Pakisten we did not go in because they asked us not to that they will do it for us, and yes they are allies, but we will be in there soon because the tribal leaders broke the truce with their President.
But what does that have to do with Iraq, I thought they were different.
Creating more terrorists, I love that line from Libs, see as we just found out that Al Qeada in Iraq was just a front for Al Qeada to hide the foreign fighters that arguement is mute.
So Iraq war created Al Qaeda, but were we not attacked in 1993, 94, 95, 96, 98, 2000, and 2001 by them.
More history, see appeasement does not work, Carter created the mess with Iran because he appease them. Then you had us pull out of Lebenon which gave strength to Hezbolah, Isreal Land for peace is giving Hamas and Hezbolah strenght.
Clinton - Black Hawk Down??, First Trade center bombing.
See appeasing them gives them strength, because the people who live there in Iraq and others see it as join them or be fed their children. When the citizens of Iraq hear from our senators (not knowing they are Marxist) they want to cut and run out of Iraq, they see no choice but to hide or join because when we pull out they will need to be on a side they think will not kill them. See Bin Laden even stated he needed just to hold out until America loses political support. that we can not stomach conflict. All these Senators/congressman are the recruitment tools not the Troops or War, actually if the troops were allowed to do what needs to be done, without the libs here attacking our troops this probably would be over at least in the Iraq front.
Posted by: spock | Jul 20, 2007 11:11:50 AM
Spock
Now we should bomb Pakistan to get Bin Laden?
Pakistan is an ally. When we had Bin Laden surrounded at Tora Bora - we let him go. He fled to Pakistan and now the western border of Pakistan is infiltrated with terrorists and Taliban. Nice way to repay that country, we just created another mess!
So after you bomb all of these places the rats will only scurry somewhere else!
Ever heard of "special Ops"?
You do not blow up a house to get rid of rats and you can't keep blowing up countries to get rid of terrorists. You build a better trap. The Israli government is A-1 in special ops, that is how they have survived this long. Live and learn.
We are simply creating more terrorists,Iraq must be able to move forward in government and ammenities, when war drags on for years, the youth only know war - they don't know how to live in peace or what it is! This has to stop.
Clearly this policy of bombing is not the solution or all would be resolved,
you must come to grips with reality - it isn't working!The Iraqi death toll is almost a million people and this does not count the displaced and wounded! They may have been living in tyranny but they were LIVING. This whole operation has been a disaster and don't start with your labels-we are all americans and we are all responsible.
Tora Bora Bora
Tora Bora a li
Tora Bora Bora
is Osama's lullabye!
We have yet to capture our 1st objective!
Posted by: White Mountain | Jul 20, 2007 3:42:00 AM
"If you were put in charge of counterterrorism right now, what are the first three things you would do?"
Easy...
1) Impeach Cheney
2) Impeach Bush
3) Get out of Iraq.
Posted by: A Hermit | Jul 19, 2007 2:36:07 PM
chuck - to win a war first you need to ignore liberal website and actions since all they know is to surrender.
Now whether or not the group in Iraq is or is not the same Al Qeada in Afghanistan is no longer the question, we are against any group or country that supports and aligns themselves with Bin Laden period. When victory comes in Iraq and the surrounding people especially Iran see it, Democracy will spread.
The foreign fighters in Iraq are trying to start a civil war, that needs to be be stopped.
This report is so broad it is sad.
I find it sad that the libs are poising themselves for when a terrorist attack happens on our soil again they can blame Bush.
Here is a plan that will work - Pull our Troops out of every foreign country in Europe, Especially those who do not support us. Then Dust off our B52, B1's and so forth and release them from one border of Syria to right over the border of Pakisten where Bin Laden is, This will level everything in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanstan, and that part of Pakisten. See this will accomplish the job.
Oh and also round up all illegals that are NOT Mexicans and deport. Send Troops to both our borders and close them.
Throw CAIR out of this country also.
Posted by: spock | Jul 19, 2007 11:00:47 AM
1. End the war in Iraq by following the four-point recommendations of former National Secvurity Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski
2. Shift military focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan to root out and eliminate AlQaeda's presence there.
3. Review all immigration laws and policies to find gaps, enforce the laws on the books, and secure the national borders, including intensive inpection of goods from overseas.
Posted by: chuck | Jul 19, 2007 10:32:42 AM
I had been meaning to read the NIE summary, so thanks for the push.
Just a small point on what you wrote. "Interestingly, the NIE assesses al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI) to be a separate group -- despite the President's claims that they're the same people who attacked us on 9/11.." The quote from the NIE says, "AQ will probably seek to leverage the contact and capabilities of AQI, its most visible and capable affiliate." There is a lot of latitude in that word affiliate. Bush's claim that they are the same people who attacked us on 9/11 was recently given during his speech in Cleveland on July 10th. He was speaking about the sectarian violence in Iraq that began in 2005/2006. He had to decide whether to leave Iraq at that point or not. AQI had just blown up the Samarra mosque. To leave at that point would be to leave Iraq to AQI - the same who had attacked us. Those, he felt, with the same ideology, the same strategy, the same goal, and the same name. At that point in time the head of AQI, Zarqawi, had already sworn allegiance to Bin Laden (Oct 2004). Zawhiri and Zarqawi were exchanging letters and discussing strategy. Within that context I think he wasn't being dishonest in blurring the lines. It is just one viable view of the relationship between AQ and AQI.
I find it very difficult to keep track of the shifting groups and alliances in Iraq and the Islamic world. Case in point,today Reuters had a story on "Senior Qaeda figure in Iraq a myth: U.S. military." The AQ/AQI intermediary, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, was made up to give an Iraqi flavor to AQI when it is really a foreign run group. We still don't know all the facts to make a 100% correct assessment.
Two articles that illustrate the difficult in understanding AQ's role in Iraq are smallwarsjournal.com - "Al Qaeda in Iraq – Heroes, Boogeymen or Puppets?" and a response to that article, Billroggio.com - "Al Qaeda and its Role in the Iraq Insurgency."
Posted by: JH | Jul 18, 2007 11:54:03 PM
note to self: must read less news
Posted by: cordelia525 | Jul 18, 2007 8:34:13 PM
I'd cut spending and start paying down the debt, because the financial crisis looming is a bigger threat to our national security than even a terrorist with a nuclear bomb (and I live near a probably target city).
A financial collapse would be like a national Hurricane Katrina, with rapid and complete breakdowns of social order in every community. It would result in more fatalities than a nuclear detonation. Germany lived through it after World War I, but that then-primarily agrarian society was better suited to cope with useless currency than are we.
Posted by: dutch1314 | Jul 18, 2007 8:16:48 PM
1. I would intensify the patrols of our borders,coast line, ports, and air traffic. We need to step up inspections of truck and container freight. The appropriation for this was defeated in the senate today, simply because it was supported by the democrats, so much for bi-partisian support.
2. I would begin a national registration for driver's license renewal requiring proof of citizenship, this has already been inacted in most states. If you are not a citizen, or in this country without proper visas or green cards you will be deported post haste.
All those who are not citizens will have this printed on their license - just like non-driver. If you are not a citizen you will not make demands on this government,go home and make demands on your own government.
3. We need to begin civil defense drills in every state, county and town and prepare for rapid response. The guard needs to be at home for this measure to be successful. If you have ever traveled abroad you know that this is just the basics of what all other countries do!
This is not living in fear, this is living in reality. We have had 6 years to prepare for this, are we prepared?
Posted by: White Mountain | Jul 18, 2007 7:37:35 PM
I would seal the borders, north and south. I would institute a national ID system that would require every citizen to prove his/her citizenship to get the ID, without which no one could get a job, any type of government assistance, or enroll their kids in school. And I would institute a draft to provide hundreds of thousands of additional troops to handle border security, temporarally do work formerly done by illegals, seek out and deport those without IDs, and be ready for deployment at home or abroad in case of an attack on the homeland or any American interests abroad. That's three. All of them would require political cooperation, so none will be done. We still can beat any world force brave enough to wear recognizeable uniforms. These three things would go a long way toward showing those not brave enough to wear uniforms that we mean business. We don't mean business, though, and I am afraid for the future of our country.
Posted by: SteveW | Jul 18, 2007 7:34:44 PM
Post a comment