al-Libi
 

I'm surprised no one started a topic on the death of Abu Laith al-Libi, apparently #3 with al-Qaeda.

News reports suggest we blew his ass to hell with a drone fired Hellfire missle.

That's great, but the more interesting part is that he was in Pakistan. So, it appears we are going to toughen up on our great friend and ally, Mushy.

Or maybe it was just some lucky intel.

The war on terror is so passé. ;)

Another "senior A.Q." guy killed. Fine and dandy. They still can't get the ONE senior A.Q. guy that matters. Until they do that, I swear every 10th A.Q. guy they kill is reported as "senior" because it keeps the "War on Terror" propaganda machine going.

seeing how Rudy was treated by voters everywhere and the economy is in the tank, the Admin will make a concerted effort to capture/kill/publicize AQ to scare the American people into a "it's the terrorist threat, stupid" mindset and help the Republican candidates, cause God knows they need a major successful terror attack to get elected at this point.

One by one down they go.

That would be Hillary winning the Democratic nomination.

So, have they named his replacement yet? Somehow, I think they haven't had too many problems filling their job vacancies. Perhaps we need to improve our comprehensive approach to winning the War on TerrorTM.

I was in that camp a few weeks ago Jeff, and have a serious dislike for her. But I no longer misunderestimate her.

the Democrats are going to label any Republican with "has the same mindset as Bush," the one that got our country into this mess we're in now, and that one message is going to mire them down more than the Nation's distrust and dislike for Hillary/Team Clinton.

QUOTE: "...approach to winning the War on TerrorTM."
__________________

There will be lulls ...and there will be claims made of successes, but the "war on terror" will N E V E R truly end. It is how people with grudge's against ANY country/government will always rebel.

To think that we (USA) will eradicate terrorism by some 'claimed victory' in Iraq (or any other place) is just mental masturbation.

Welcome to your/mine/our future.

QUOTE: "They still can't get the ONE senior A.Q. guy that matters."
__________________________

ONE?
SENIOR?
All propaganda ...even if B L is captured/killed.

Who's next????

Lovely, isn't it?

Strategically, it makes sense to take out the infrastructure of the enemy, else another picks it up and wrecks you with it.

I agree, but far as I'm concerned, taking out "senior" operatives doesn't matter too much if OBL is still out there. He'll simply promote someone else to fill the void and we'll be back where we started.

Also, bit of a minor point, but isn't the whole thing with Al Qaeda supposed to be about how individual cells are "decentralized" and can act autonomously? If so, how much does it really matter if they kill one of OBL's buddies?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they're finding and killing these nutcases, but I think the benefit is overstated for political gain.

"overstated" ..hmmm. This news has hardly been hyped. More like a"BTW..."

As dd sez: The war on terror is so passé.

+1. The US is in a new era, where terror on our own soil is a realistic proposition. That's unlikely to change for a long, long time.


That said, it's always good to kill bad guys. Granted, it's not terribly challenging to find a replacement, but there is a finite number of replacements, and none of them are quite as good as the guy who was doing the job (else the smarter, stronger, meaner guy would be doing the job, instead of the guy who we killed). While it isn't as big of a deal as some politicians might make it out to be, it's still a serious hassle for the bad guys, and a real bummer for one in particular (the guy who got nailed).

If we could do this more often, we'd eventually burn through the collection of guys who are excited about stepping up to take the reins of power. I seem to recall a serious leadership void in West Bank terrorism a few years back after a particularly serious sequence of rocket assassinations carried out by Israel. The international community cried foul play because rockets have collateral damage, but the bad guys floundered for quite a while because nobody wanted to step up and be the next rocket target.

The finite number is still a fairly large number and I don't think you can safely assume that the replacements are inferior. Some probably are, but some may prove an upgrade over the schmuck they replace.

History would take issue with this statement. but it does sound comforting, almost like we are "winning."

You're right. We should stop fighting immediately. Shaun, go get fitted for a burka.

And one by one they get replaced. It never ends, #4 goes to #3, #76 goes to #75. etc.etc.etc.

All except Ron Paul want to stay the course.

FYI: the Democratic nominee will be called a “defeatist.”

Rove previews strategies against Clinton, Obama
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 01/16/08 02:55 PM [ET]
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/rove-previews-strategies-against-clinton-obama-2008-01-16.html

I think you guys are missing the larger issue here, which is that we infiltrated Pakistan's sovereign airspace to conduct a targeted assassination, ala Israel. Good! I'm always happy to turn the news on and hear about us killing another bad guy. The larger issue here is that we sent a few messages - one to Musharraf that we're going after AQ in his country with or without his public consent - two that AQ can run, but they can't hide. I also like the sniper-esque uncertainty that these Predator kills must instill in the enemy. I doubt the guy ever saw or heard what hit him. Just hanging out in the tent, cursing all infidels and boom! He's gone. The Bush-haters will always find an excuse to downplay such kills and ignore the fact that we haven't been hit at home since 9/11. Did anyone think that would be the case on 9/12/01? I don't think so.

And Obama is not even president yet.:D

I was refering to one of the early debate issues where Obama said he would have us go into Pakistan if that's where Osama bin ladden was.

That wasn't the first time. There have been a few attacks over the past couple of years.

That would be B HO to the homies.

I would too. It's easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission. If I had to traverse Pakistan for a shot at killing OBL, damn right I'd order it.

Pakistan needs to either ***** or get off the pot when it comes to getting serious about these extremist nutcases living in "tribal regions". If they won't crack down on them hard and serious, we're going to do it ourselves. If that's disrespectful to their sovereignty then so be it. Respect is EARNED, not gratuitiously given. Besides, we transgressed Iraq's sovereign territory for far less (not that should become the basis of comparison, but just sayin').

Point is, if Obama actually said that, he gets a few points in my book.

"the Democrats are going to label any Republican with "has the same mindset as Bush," the one that got our country into this mess we're in now, and that one message is going to mire them down more than the Nation's distrust and dislike for Hillary/Team Clinton"

I gotta disagree with that.

As if she didn't already have the highest negatives in history, Hillary continues to remind people why they disliked her so much. Bill's helping. Of course you can be sure the Republicans will add some assistance of their own. Further, Hillary already tried the same ***** on Obama (oh my God he's a Reagan supporter). That angered more Democrats than Republicans.

Finally McCain isn't Bush- the charges will backfire. He really is a hero and Hillary's never been near a warzone (well, not counting the White House lampthrowing skirmishes back in the ninities).

If Hillary and McCain get the nod McCain will win hands down. If Obama gets the nod it's a tossup. I don't think Hillary will make it past super Tuesday but I'm not going to bet on that one.

I'm guessing you didn't see the Dem debate last night. It was a frickin love-fest, almost tossed my cookies. BUT, it showed Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama (I pray for the former) will roll over any other candidate combination.

If Obama really meant that as a signal that he would be a hard-as$, then he gets points in my book too. However, I suspect he said it only as an attempt to differentiate himself from the others and, worse yet, I suspect that statement was a tactical suggestion from one of his handlers and not a well thought out policy white paper kind of thing. Invading a sovereign nuclear sometimes ally is not the kind of thing I'd throw around in a primary debate just to score political points. It warrants serious consideration and some back channel diplomacy.