John Kerry claims it will take a much shorter period to "neutralize" the Islamic State than it did for Al Qaeda

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters the United States would be able to "neutralize" the Islamic State or Daesh much more quickly than it was able to do so with Al-Qaeda.

+ Add Image

Kerry told reporters:"We began our fight against al-Qaida in 2001 and it took us quite a few years before we were able to eliminate Osama bin Laden and the top leadership and neutralize them as an effective force. We hope to do Daesh much faster than that and we think we have an ability to do that,"Al-Qaeda hardly seems neutralized. Al-Qaeda-linked groups are still quite active in many parts of the world including AQAP or Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula that has advanced considerably in Yemen since the Saudi-led mission against the Houthi. The Al-Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front in Syria is one of the key rebel groups fighting against the Assad regime and also Daesh.

Wikipedia outlines the development of Daesh, ISIS, ISIL, or Islamic State(IS) from an Al-Qaeda-linked group in Iraq: The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004... In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in October 2006. After the Syrian Civil War began in March 2011, the ISI, under the leadership of al-Baghdadi, sent delegates into Syria in August 2011. These fighters named themselves Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Shām—al-Nusra Front—and established a large presence in Sunni-majority areas of Syria...In April 2013, al-Baghdadi announced the merger of the ISI with al-Nusra Front and that the name of the reunited group was now the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, Abu Mohammad al-Julani and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al-Nusra and al-Qaeda respectively, rejected the merger. After an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL on 3 February 2014, citing its failure to consult and "notorious intransigence".

In one form or other the U.S. has been fighting what is now Daesh since 2004 at least already over a decade. The Islamic State as such came into existence only in 2013. It obviously had a long period of growth as part of Al-Qaeda. No doubt Kerry will want to begin counting from 2013 when he counts how long it takes to "neutralize" Daesh. Nevertheless Kerry continued to be upbeat:"President Obama has already ordered increased efforts. He has been doing that before the Paris attacks, over the course of the last months -- increased efforts, and we are seeing the results of those in ways,and I am confident that if we stay steady, keep our heads in thinking creatively, but also being strong and committed to our fundamental values, we are going to defeat Daesh."

Kerry's view contrasts with the view of retired General John Allen, Obama's envoy to the global coalition battling Daesh, who said at a forum in Doha, Qatar:“This will be a long campaign. Defeating Daesh’s ideology will likely take a generation or more. But we can and we must rise to this challenge. In an age when we are more interconnected than at any other time in human history, Daesh is a global threat.”Allen said even though he had served many years as a U.S. marine, he had never seen the types of depravity and brutality that Daesh practiced and even celebrated. He noted Daesh had lost some ground in Iraq and was weakened by airstrikes.

Richard Barrett, a former senior intelligence officer in the UK M16 intelligence agency, also held that the struggle against Daesh would take many years, perhaps generations. Barnett says that air strikes will not eliminate Daesh. While it is imaginable that attacks could weaken Daesh so much they might need to go underground, Barrett claims this would not really neutralize them:"But the idea that ISIL thrives on - the idea behind ISIL - I don’t think is going to be defeated any time soon at all, that requires much more work and a much longer term, much more generational-type struggle."Barrett claimed, as well, that the whole point of attacks such as that in Paris is to polarize society. Barrett agreed there was a very clear link between the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the rise of Daesh. Air strikes in Syria, he said, would not stop Daesh attacks in France or elsewhere and might not even reduce its capacity for attacks. Kerry appears wrong in claiming that Al-Qaeda has been neutralized and also in claiming that Daesh will be neutralized any time soon.

Khorasan a mixture of reality and intelligence agencies' propaganda

When the U.S. began bombing the Islamic State in Syria it turns out that they were also targeting Khorasan. This is a group that is linked with Al Qaeda. The name for the group is actually a creation of intelligence agencies.

Khorasan refers to Greater Khorasan, which consists of Eastern Iran-Northern Afghanistan-Tajikistan-Uzbekistan-Turkmenistan-region. Intelligence agencies used the term to refer to high-ranking members of Al Qaeda within the Khorasan Shura. However, the group in Syria has members from other areas such as Yemen. A good description of the historical associations of the term to Al Qaeda is given in this article.
The rebels on the ground working in the areas where Khorasan operates have never heard of the group. The group themselves are not known to use the name to describe themselves. While the group exists and may even have some vague plans of the sort ascribed to them by western intelligence they are in reality simply a group of foreign fighters in Syria linked to Jabhat al-Nusra, which Al Qaeda recognizes as their official branch in Syria. Many analysts of jihadist movements are annoyed at the whole idea of Khorasan. Pieter van Ostayen, a historian and follower of jihadist movements, wrote in an e-mail that "in all of the official Jihadi accounts I follow(ed) the name was never mentioned." Ostayen claims the name clearly has a U.S. origin and said he believes that the US has blown up the whole story of their being a huge threat to the west in order to justify their attacks on the Nusra Front in Syria.
 One might wonder if it matters whether Khorasan is part of Jabhat al-Nusra or not since even the US regards both as linked to Al Qaeda. One difference is that Jabhat a-Nusra cooperates with other rebel groups in fighting against Assad and the Islamic State as well. Khorasan is defined as a small splinter group that is supposed to be a huge and imminent threat to the west: At an intelligence gathering in Washington, D.C. on 18 September 2014, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stated that "in terms of threat to the homeland, Khorasan may pose as much of a danger as the Islamic State (IS)."
 Attacks on Jabhat al-Nusra are extremely unpopular with rebels off all stripes, because they are great fighters in the war against Assad. Instead of bombing Assad, the US is simply bombing radical groups it opposes as jihadists even though those jihadists may be key to fighting Assad. It is hardly any wonder that so far the Assad government has applauded the strikes even though at first they were opposed as against Syrian sovereignty and the UN charter. They still are but they obviously are seen by Assad as a great help against radicals fighting his regime.
Using the Arabic term Daesh for the Islamic State, Ali Bakran, commander of a Free Syrian Army brigade, the moderate rebels in western eyes, said to the Washington Post: “If they hit Daesh and the regime, it’s okay. But why are they striking Nusra? Nusra are from the people — they are the people.”
 Now the press has a new threat and group to talk about —the Khorasan — and the U.S. has a new justification for bombing radical jihadists in Syria other than the Islamic State. The rebels in Syria know what is going on but who are they except pawns to be used as western interests see fit? Some of them may be picked for training in Jordan or Saudi Arabia to become paid proxies fighting against Assad unless the west, Russia and Iran decide it is time for a peace deal. As of now, the US does not seem interested in seeing rebel groups militarily defeat the Assad regime. The Arab nations that were part of the coalition that attacked Islamic State positions did not take part in the bombing attacks upon Jabhat al Nusra and Khorasan as the map on the appended video shows

Assad demands Syrian approval for US attacks on Islamic State in Syria

Ali Haidar, a Syrian government minister, warned that any action in Syria such as the bombing contemplated by president Obama against the Islamic State needs the approval of the Syrian government.

Al Haidar said:"Any action of any type without the approval of Syrian government is an aggression against Syria. There must be cooperation with Syria and coordination with Syria and there must be a Syrian approval of any action whether it is military or not." Haidar said that attacks on the Islamic State in Syria could be used as a pretext for attacking Syria. The US and its allies have refused to ask for approval of the Syrian government to mount any actions against the Islamic State in Syria. The US and many of its allies recognize the western-sponsored Syrian National Council as the legitimate voice of the Syrian people. Beyond the Free Syrian Army few rebel groups recognize the Council including the main rebel umbrella group the Islamic Front. 

 Wherever the US thinks it interests are threatened or its allies endangered it claims that it has the right to intervene militarily. You can imagine the howls of rage from the west if Russia openly started bombing Ukrainian units advancing against pro-Russian rebels on the grounds that the attacks were a threat to its interest and to its allies. Maybe they could even suggest that they had a responsibility to protect civilians in rebel-controlled cities from the Ukrainian shelling. 

 The US has decided at the same time that it will be bombing the Islamic State in Syria it will bolster support for moderate rebels. US involvement so far has been from "operations rooms" in Jordan and Turkey run by US intelligence officials. They have provided limited amounts of light arms, ammunition, and some antitank missiles to groups they have vetted. So far this has not resulted in any great advances for rebel groups or stopped the Islamic State advances.

 US State Department spokesperson Marie Harf claimed that military action by the US in Syria would be aimed only at the Islamic State and not Assad. She added that there could not be a military solution to removing Assad from power but it had to be done by a political transition. At the same time however the US intends to spend more on arms and training for the rebels.

 Staffan de Mistura, UN-appointed mediator said that it was necessary for the international community to take action against radical militant groups in Syria since they were a threat to everyone. However not everyone sees the issue this way including many of the other rebels against Assad. Syria has said that it would work with Mistura. The mediator said: "Syrians, wherever they are, and the government should be helped by the United Nations and the international community to find a Syrian-owned all-inclusive, positive, political process." 

Even some rebel leaders who are in favor of fighting ISIS gave first priority to the fight against Assad. Ziad Obeid leader of a rebel group in Aleppo said: “The priority is the regime. But it is ISIS that is preventing any progress on the ground, so we have to get rid of it, too...People on the fronts with the regime can’t leave to fight ISIS,That won’t work.” The western-backed Free Syrian Army are now a much-reduced force in comparison with the Islamic Front umbrella group. Even the moderates fight along with radical jihadists such as the Jabhat al-Nusra Front linked to Al Qaeda.  

Aron Lund who blogs for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace writes: “You are not going to find this neat, clean, secular rebel group that respects human rights and that is waiting and ready because they don’t exist, It is a very dirty war and you have to deal with what is on offer.” A commander linked to an FSA group on the Lebanese border, Bassel Idriss, went even further to suggest that at times, the rebels should form tactical alliances with ISIS against Assad:“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in ... Qalamoun. " Another FSA commander from the town of Arsal, Abu Khaled took a similar view: "We have reached a point where we have to collaborate with anyone against unfairness and injustice. Let’s face it: The Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values.” Idriss noted that many former FSA members were joining ISIS and the Al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front because the groups had food, funding and weapons. 

Many FSA fighters are refugees in Lebanon and often receive poor treatment causing them to turn to radical groups. The result of the US providing arms and training to "moderate rebels" and at the same time weakening the Islamic State through bombing may be the growth of other radical Islamic rebel forces such as the Al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front. It would not be the first time US policies have actually helped jihadists. After all there are good jihadists such as those who fought against the Evil Empire in Afghanistan and bad ones such as the Islamic Front or so the western narrative seems to go.

The James Foley execution video was probably staged to enhance its propaganda value

Most responses to the video posted on line that depicts an IS executioner beheading journalist James Foley are complete outrage. However, a few responses question whether a genuine execution is taking place.

Many of these responses are from conspiracy theorists who often have limited credibility. A Google search for "Foley execution video a fake" will provide plenty of links to explore the range of opinions. Some posters go to quite a bit of trouble to try to establish their point. I have appended a You Tube posting that claims that the person allegedly beheaded in the video is not James Foley. He has audio of Foley and then of the alleged victim in the video and also comparison of the facial features of each. At the end the poster suggests that if you want to know who is in the video that one should ask the CIA.

 However, this video was claimed to have been posted by the Islamic State as a warning to America. The Islamic State has not denied responsibility for the video. If the CIA made the video surely IS would deny this.

 Even well-known journalist Eric Margolis has doubts about the video and titles his article on the video "Cautious outrage". Margolis begins: The alleged beheading of freelance journalist James Foley by the shadowy ISIS (or Islamic State) has sparked outrage and horror around the globe.I say “alleged” because we are not sure if the decapitation was real or faked. Margolis also suggests that perhaps the US is mounting this deceptive horrifying video to demonize IS: Was Foley’s head really cut off? Hard to tell. We have been fed so much fake government war propaganda in recent decades – from Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators to Saddam’s hidden nukes – that we must be very cautious. Again, I must ask if this is so, why would IS not deny it as Saddam Hussein denied the incubator and nuclear weapons stories? The Islamic State has posted many other violent videos online showing executions and also a member holding up a severed head. IS seems to deliberately post shocking videos.

 My own conclusion is that at least parts of the video are staged. Certain aspects of the video suggest this. As one article puts it: Video experts observed that the video showing the actual beheading of US journalist James Foley was so professionally produced and well-scripted, to the extent that portions of it appeared to be just being acted out. One expert who had viewed many videos of beheadings notes that in the seconds before the executioner uses the knife there is not a single sign that Foley is terrified as usually happens. Many observers note that the knife held by the executioner is quite small and is not the same knife that is on the ground next to Foley's corpse in the next scene in which his decapitated head is shown on the body. Other observers note that as the knife is drawn across Foley's neck no blood is to be seen but if the knife were really used blood should be seen gushing out.

  Prof. Peter Neumann, of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization at King's College in London claims that the executioner who has a British accent was specifically chosen to create the utmost impact in the west and said: "This is significant because it signifies a turn towards threatening the west. They are saying we're going to come after you if you bomb us." There are a number of interesting comments on this article that has a link to the video. One comment notes the quality of the production: I've never seen such perfect framing, flawless costumes, resolution, panning, cuts, white balance, or exposure from one of these savage videos. This was clearly shot from a tripod using a prosumer camera with some clever touch-ups in post production.  

Another comment suggests that there was no execution: No blood comes out when the beheading starts. You do not actually get to see the beheading. When the video returns, you see a headless mannequin with a tiny amount of blood. People with a badly cut finger lose more blood than that. If the video is partly staged or even a fake it is intended to portray the beheading of James Foley and as a warning to Americans. The result of course is not only to evoke horror but demands that IS be wiped off the face of the earth. Here are a couple of typical comments: Burn these ISIS scum into the ground. Send them to their virgins.These scums will die, let's make a raid every hour, don't let them sleep.  

 As Margolis points out, westerners have a particular aversion to beheadings but said virtually nothing about 19 beheadings in Saudi Arabia the same day Foley was allegedly beheaded. One beheading was for sorcery. He also notes that air warfare in the west is seen as clean. Killing people from the air using bombs, rockets, napalm, and cluster munitions is the American way of war. Slitting someone's throat, thrusting a bayonet through them, or cutting off their head is barbaric. It is not a question of being clean I should think. Air attacks particularly when there are no air defenses as in Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Libya has no cost in casualties a huge political advantage in a democracy.

 In my opinion the aims of IS propaganda and US and its allies propaganda are in alignment. IS wants to be seen as the prime opposition to the US which has joined in bombing the IS in Iraq and arming Kurds and Iraqi forces.The savage killing videos are designed to provoke the west and in particular the US to further involvement in a war against them in Iraq and Syria. This can only enhance their standing among jihadists globally. The US and its allies want to demonize the IS in order to justify more extensive intervention in Iraq and Syria. This is the same result that IS wants and explains why some think that the video must somehow be a CIA-linked production even though this goes against the fact that IS claims the video.

Margolis suggest IS is carrying out a plan similar to that of Al Qaeda: Could it be part of Osama bin Laden’s clearly expressed plan to drive the US out of the Mideast by luring it into a number of small wars, slowly bleeding the American colossus? So far, by invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and parts of Pakistan, the US may have stumbled right into Osama’s carefully laid trap.

UN requests plan for military intervention in Mali

The U.N. Security Council has approved a motion that provides regional groups 45 days to draw up specific plans for military intervention designed to oust rebels in northern Mali

The northern region of Mali, sometimes called Azawad, is now occupied and governed by militant Islamists who are linked by many to Al Qaeda. The region was lost by the central government after a coup by U.S. trained Captain Sanogo in March of this year. Ironically, the coup was defended on the grounds that the central government had not ousted rebels in the area. The resolution was unanimous, no doubt because of the association of the rebels with Al Qaeda.

The leader of the coup stepped down in May and transferred power to a civilian government but the coup leaders still have considerable influence in the new government. Originally, much of the north was captured by Tuareg rebels who proclaimed an independent Azawad. However, no country recognized Azawad and shortly thereafter, the Tuareg were ousted in turn by radical Islamists.

The Security Council also urged the transitional government and the rebel groups to find a peaceful solution, even while African nations are being asked to prepare detailed recommendations for deployment of an international force within Mali. Mali had agreed to stationing of troops earlier, as reported in Digital Journal. The recommendations are to include the number of forces needed and the estimated cost.

The radical Islamists in northern Mali are imposing a strict version of Sharia law in areas they control. There are many reports of human rights violations. Some historic religious artifacts have been destroyed in Timbuktu. Women found to be pregnant and unmarried are subject to severe punishments.

There are reports that children are also being bought to serve as soldiers with the families being paid as much as $600. More than half the population in Mali live on just over a dollar a day. The Islamists also ban drinking, smoking, watching sports on television, and listening to music.

The UN has been calling for detailed intervention plans for six months already. Even after the details are submitted, a second resolution will be needed to authorize the deployment. The rebels will have plenty of time to consolidate their positions and prepare their defenses.

Saudi Arabia donates $2.2 billion in oil products to help Yemen

At a donor's conference in Riyadh the Saudi Arabian minister for external affairs announced a gift of oil and oil products to Yemen worth $2.2 billion to meet domestic demand in the country. The Saudi deputy minister said the donation was necessary to keep Yemen running. Yemen has oil and gas resources of its own but much production has beenj shut down because of the security situation.

Unknown attackers just recently blew up a gas pipeline that fed liquefied natural gas to an export terminal. The pipeline had been repaired just a few days ago after previous sabotage had shut it down in August. A bomb was planted underneath the pipeline and exploded.

Saudi Arabia has called for aid to help Yemen which is in dire economic straits. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council with the support of the U.S. brokered a deal that saw former president Saleh step down. His vice-president Hadi then took power and eventually was elected president unopposed. Hadi has the support of the Saudis, GCC, and the U.S. The U.S. has been active in actions against Islamic militants often linked to Al Qaeda in Yemen. However the economy is in ruins and there is a humanitarian disaster as many people have fled from areas of conflict.

Saudi Arabia asked for up to $11 billion in aid to support the country in its planned transition to democracy. The meeting is at the level of experts and ambassadors. In May Saudi Arabia pledged $3..25 billion in aid and other donors pledged a sum total of $4 billion. Yemen's Planning and Internaitonal Cooperation MInister said that Yemen requires $11 billion in aid. Mohamed al-Saadi said:“Our needs are $14 billion. The Yemeni government can cover some part, but there remains a gap of $11 billion.”

Wael Zakout World Bank manager for Yemen said:“We hope to raise U.S. $6 billion during the donor meeting to cover the transition period lasting until the middle of 2014..We will hold another donor conference after 2014 to raise the rest of the needed funds." The donors meeting will discuss reconstruction, humanitarian needs, as well as security.

Yemen faces separatist movements in both the north and south as well as conflict with Al Qaeda-linked Islamic radicals. There are plans for political dialogue and elections. There will be a meeting in New York of the Friends of Yemen next month. One can judge who is helping run Yemen by the locations of donor conferences! For more seethis article. I

Average number of Britons killed in a year by terrorists same as that from bee and wasp stings 5

David Anderson is the U.K. Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. He claims that U.K. anti-terror laws could be relaxed as no one has been either killed or injured in a terrorist attack in the last two years.

Anderson wrote:"Whatever its cause, the reduction of risk in relation to al-Qaeda terrorism in the United Kingdom is real and has been sustained for several years now," Average deaths per year over the period studied by Anderson in England and Wales was 17,201 killed in traffic accidents, 29 people drowned in bathtubs.

The number killed by terrorists was five the same number killed by bee and wasp stings. However an average of 102 British personnel were killed in Afghanistan as well. No doubt critics of Andersen would say that the stringent laws and sacrifices in Afghanistan are responsible for the very few deaths by terrorist activity.

Anderson was critical of new anti-terror laws passed almost incessantly since 9/11. The director general of M15 countered Anderson by claiming that at 200 Britons were known to be currently receiving training at terrorist camps in the Middle East. Perhaps M15 should tell president Obama so he can send in some drones to help get him reelected in November. For more see this article.

CIA helping transfer arms through Turkey to Syrian rebels

The New York Times reports:“The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar,” Turkey denies the claims in response.


According to the Times CIA operatives have been in Turkey for several weeks now. Their aim is to aid the flow of weapons but also to see that they do not end up in the hands of Al Qaeda operatives and other terrorist groups. There were reports back in May that the U.S. was planning such an operation.


In May the Washington Post said that rebel fighters“have begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States.” The exile group the Syrian National Council has claimed that the Turkish army has provided them with anti-tank weapons. They also claim that the U.S. was consulted about these transfers. What in effect is happening is that the U.S. is fighting a proxy war against Assad.


Given that Russia and Iran and perhaps China will arm Assad there will be all out civil war. Perhaps it will spread to Lebanon and now that Syria shot down a Turkish jet more conflict in the area is likely. For more see this article.. As long as the rebels think that the west will provide them with material aid there is no reason for them to give up on their plan for regime change. Western countries too support regime change. Any peace plan seems doomed in that situation.


Joshua Lanids from the University of Oklahoma an expert on Syria wrote:: “Let’s be clear: Washington is pursuing regime change by civil war in Syria. The United States, Europe, and the Gulf states want regime change, so they are starving the regime in Damascus and feeding the opposition.” Another expert Marc Lynch from George Washington University argues that "arming the Syrian opposition, would likely spread the violence and increase the numbers of Syrian dead without increasing the likelihood of regime collapse.” and notes also “fighting groups will rise in political power, while those who have advocated nonviolence or who advance political strategies will be marginalized.”


The best the UN can hope for is to be allowed to provide some humanitarian aid. Given the constellation of forces peace seems off the radar for now. For more see this article.

Russia accuses U.S. of arming Syrian rebels

At a new conference in Iran, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused the U.S. of interfering in Syria and “providing arms to the Syrian opposition which are being used against the Syrian government.” Lavrov's volley could be in response to Hillary Clinton's remarks yesterday to the effect that Russia was supplying weapons and even attack helicopters to the Syrian government. Both parties are no doubt helping arm the side they support although in the U.S. it may be indirect through helping Qatar and Saudi Arabia deliver weapons through Turkey.

Lavrov insisted that the Russian weapon shipments were for air defense. The Russians will make it difficult and costly for any attempt to set up a no fly zone without the agreement of Syria. Lavrov argued that Russian shipments to prop up an existing government were in accordance with international law while providing arms to rebels was not.

The situation seems to get worse rather than better in Syria. Both sides appear to be involved in atrocities although with its superior fire power most of the killing of civilians is probably through continual Syrian attacks upon urban civilian within rebel controlled areas. There seems little hope left that the UN peace plan will work and both sides are routinely ignoring its terms. The situation is made even worse by the actions of Al Qaeda type terrorists. For more see this article.

Tuareg rebels announce ruling council while differences still exist with Islamic radical alllies

During and after the recent military coup in Mali Tuareg rebels in the north drove out the central government forces joined by Islam rebels from mountain areas who are called Anser Dine. The Tuareg rebels are called the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad.

Azawad is an area that covers parts of several countries but the Tuareg have declared an independent state in the Mali portion. They have now named a council which will be responsible for defense, security and education. They will also deal with foreign policy and land management. No country has recognized the area as independent. The Mali coup leaders overthrew the elected president on the ground that he had not worked hard enough to drive out the rebels. It is most likely that once politics is sorted out in the south that the army will again move north.

Since Anser Dine are radical Islamists who are claimed to have links to Al Qaeda the U.S which already has a few special forces in Mali will be anxious to help retake the north.

The Tuareg rebels in the NMLA want a secular state. Some come from Libya where they fought for Gadaffi. Of course Gadaffi suppressed Islamic militants. Although the two groups announced a merger the NMLA says the agreement is now under review. Anser Dine was the north to be an Islamic state under Sharia law. In spite of their radical differences the two groups will no doubt try their best to form a common front to resist any government attempts to retake territory. For much more see this article and even more depth here.

Syria accepts UN peace plan

Kofi Annan praised Syria's acceptance of the six point plan. However, it remains to be seen if Assad will carry out the requirements. In the past he has often simply continued with his crackdown. Annan said that acceptance of the plan was a first step to creating a dialogue between the government and opposition.

There is to be a cease-fire by the government forces and a two hour halt to allow humanitarian aid in conflict areas. There are also to be talks to attempt to agree to a political solution.

The opposition in the form of the Syrian National Council welcomed the plan and the Assad government's response. Bassma Kodmani a member of the group said: “we welcome all acceptance by the regime of a plan that could allow the repression and bloodbath to stop.”We hope that we can move toward a peace process,”

For his part Assad said:"Syria is ready to make a success of any honest effort to find a solution for the events it is witnessing." But Assad added that he cannot stop protecting his citizens. Translated that might mean he cannot stop shelling rebel held areas. I hope my translation is incorrect. Assad said:"No political dialogue or political activity can succeed while there are armed terrorist groups operating and spreading chaos and instability,” Given that Al Qaeda linked groups will keep on with terror attacks Assad's statement is not a good omen. He will use any violence to maintain his own violence.

Both Russia and China support the UN initiative and so there will be considerable pressure on Assad to comply. For more see this article.

Iraq VP accuses government of torturing his bodyguard to death

The Iraqi Vice President al-Hashemi blamed the death of one of his bodyguards on the Iraqi government. The body of Amer al-Batawi was given to his family last week. No cause of death was listed on his death certificate. The government arrested al-Batawi in a sweep of his staff three months ago.

The government accuses al-Hasehmi and his staff of supporting or even engaging in terrorism. Al-Hashemi was able to flee to Kurdistan where he remains. Many think that Maliki is simply trying to consolidate his power

Meanwhile violence continues in Iraq as Al Qaeda seems to be coordinating numerous attacks. The other day 22 Iraqis were killed and 30 wounded. For more see this article. There is conflict both within the Iraqi government over Maliki's increasing dictator-like acts and in the streets as Islamic radicals step up attacks hoping to increase sectarian strife.

Pakistani Taliban face deep divisions in leadership

 Some analysts think that open warfare may break out within the TTP (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan) the umbrella group of militants formed in 2007 to unite radicals. One main split is said to be between Hakimullah Mehsud head of the group and his deputy Wali-ur-Rehman.
   Rehman is concerned that Mehsud is taking the group closer to Al Qaeda and its Arab fighters. Other commanders are trying to end the dispute between the two leaders. There are also disagreements between Mehsud and other leaders about the groups relation to the Pakistani armed forces. Some commanders have avoided conflict with the Pakistani military in order to concentrate on the war in Afghanistan while Mehsud regards the group as at war with the Pakistan armed forces as well.
   Although militant attacks were down considerably last year there is still constant conflict between the military and some factions. Recently the Pakistani Taliban killed 15 Pakistani soldiers they had captured and vowed further revenge. See this article.  A former TTP commander in one tribal region Fazad Haggani left the TTP last year. He is close to the militant Afghan Haqqani network. The militants have formed a five member commission to try to work out differences between the groups and unify them once again. Given the differences among the groups this may be a difficult if not impossible task. No doubt foreign operatives will be attempting to ensure that the divisions remain, For more see this article.

Scott Ritter on the use of drones

This is part of a much longer article by Scott Ritter at Truthdig.com. The ratio of militants to civilians killed in these attacks is discussed at zmag.com The ratio of Al Qaeda operatives to civilians killed is about 1 to 50! Given that the military seems to claim that they are quite successful it is obvious that the military must not assess the value of civilian lives very highly.


The “war on terror” has shredded the concept of the rule of law, at least as applied by the United States within the context of this struggle. While Obama has made moves to fix some of the symptoms of the flawed policies of his predecessor, the underlying foundation of American arrogance and exceptionalism from which such policies emerged remains unchanged. There is no more telling example of this than the current program of targeted assassination taking place under the guise of armed unmanned aerial drones (also known as remotely piloted vehicles, or RPVs) operating in the Af-Pak theater of operations.

All pretense of either Afghan or Pakistani sovereignty disappears when these drones take to the air. Ostensibly used for intelligence gathering and lethal direct-action operations against so-called high-value targets (i.e., senior al-Qaida or Taliban leadership), RPV missions have become increasingly popular within the U.S. military and intelligence communities as a risk-free means of bringing maximum harm, in highly discriminatory fashion, to the enemy. Expansion of the United States’ RPV effort in Af-Pak has become a central part of the surge ordered by Obama, complementing the 30,000 combat troops he has ordered deployed to the region. But exactly who is targeted by these RPV operations? While the U.S. military and intelligence community maintains that every effort is made to positively identify a target as hostile before the decision to fire a missile or drop a bomb is made, the criteria for making this call are often left in the hands of personnel ill-equipped to make it.

In the ideal world, one would see the fusion of real-time imagery, real-time communications intercept and human sources on the ground before making such a call. But in reality this “perfect storm” of intelligence intersection rarely occurs. In its stead, one is left with fragmentary pieces of data that are cobbled together by personnel far removed from the point of actual conflict whose motivations are geared more toward action than discretion. Often, the most critical piece of intelligence comes from a human source who is using the U.S. military as a means of settling a local score more than furthering the struggle against terror. The end result is dead people on the ground whose demise has little, if any, impact on the “war on terror,” other than motivating even more people to rise up and struggle against the American occupiers and their Afghan or Pakistani cohorts.

Supporters of the RPV program claim that these strikes have killed over 800 “bad guys,” with a loss of only about 20 or so civilians whose proximity to the targets made them suspect in any case. Detractors flip these figures around, noting that only a score or more kills of “high-value targets” can be confirmed, and that the vast majority of those who have died or have been wounded in these attacks were civilians. In a conflict that is being waged in villages and towns in regions traditionally prone to intense independence and religious fundamentalism, distinguishing good from bad can be a daunting task. Given the U.S. track record, under which tribal gatherings and family functions such as weddings have been frequently misidentified as “hostile” gatherings and thus attacked with tragic results, one is inclined to doubt the official casualty figures associated with the RPV strikes.

Rather than furthering the U.S. cause in the “war on terror,” the RPV program, which President Obama seeks to expand in the Af-Pak theater, in reality represents a force-enhancement tool for the Taliban. Its indiscriminate application of death and destruction serves as a recruitment vehicle, with scores of new jihadists rising up to replace each individual who might have been killed by a missile attack. Like the surge that it is designed to complement, the expanded RPV program plays into the hands of those whom America is ostensibly targeting. While the U.S. military, aided by a fawning press, may seek to disguise the reality of the RPV program through catchy slogans such as “warheads through foreheads,” in reality it is murder by another name. And when murder represents the centerpiece of any national effort, yet alone one that aspires to win the “hearts and minds” of the targeted population, it is doomed to fail.

Why doesn''t Al Qaeda attack the U.S.

This is from anti-war.com. (Anti-war.com needs donations or it may close up shop). I have often been surprised that there are not attacks on the continental U.S. This article gives some of the reasons. As I recall there have been threats to attack the U.S. Threats without any actual backup hardly give Al Qaeda any credibility. In fact Al Qaeda's seeming inability to attack the U.S. gives credibility to the U.S. official position that the U.S. will fight in Iraq and elsewhere to avoid having to fight them in the U.S.


Why Doesn't al-Qaeda Attack the US?
by Michael Scheuer
With daily television coverage of suicide car-bomb attacks, ambushes, drive-by shootings, stabbings, and other Intifada-type attacks around the world, the question arises as to why al-Qaeda does not stage such small-scale but deadly operations in the United States. From Washington and the presidential campaign trail comes a cocky, multi-part answer: our massive homeland security spending has worked; al-Qaeda is on the run and hiding; and/or the U.S. military is fighting the Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan so they cannot come to America. There may be a mite of truth in each claim, but the correct answer would be frankly to acknowledge that al-Qaeda would have no trouble mounting the kind of attacks made against Israel in America – guns, cars, militant Muslims, and open borders for other needs are all readily available – but that, at this time, it has no interest in staging Intifada-type attacks in the United States.
There are at least three solid reasons why al-Qaeda is not running an Intifada-like campaign in the United States:
1.) Al-Qaeda does not want to fight the United States for any longer than is needed to drive it as far as possible out of the Middle East, and its doctrine for so doing has, in Osama bin Laden's formulation, three components: (a) bleed America to bankruptcy; (b) spread out U.S. forces to the greatest extent possible; and (c) promote Vietnam-era-like domestic disunity. Based on this doctrine, al-Qaeda leaders have decided that attacks in the United States are only worthwhile if they have maximum and simultaneous impact in three areas: high and enduring economic costs, severe casualties, and lasting negative psychological impact. Such an attack, they believe, would require significant U.S. military participation in the post-attack phase – especially if the weapon used is the nuclear device they have sought since the early 1990s – and thereby reduce the military's ability to operate overseas. They also believe that a greater-than-9/11 attack would greatly undermine the confidence of Americans in Washington's ability to protect them. (NB: The usually deft Osama bin Laden also has put himself in something of a box regarding another attack in America because he pledged the next attack will be more destructive than 9/11. Paradoxically, a spate of Intifada-type attacks by al-Qaeda in the United States could well be good news because it probably would signal an admission by bin Laden, et. al that they no longer have the capability to match or exceed the attacks of 9/11 inside America.)
2.) Al-Qaeda appears to recognize the huge difference between attacking Israel and attacking the United States. For Palestinian and Hezbollah insurgents, Intifada-style attacks have sufficed; over the decades, the limited number of casualties the Palestinians and Hezbollah have inflicted on Israel's small population has repeatedly won concessions. Suicide attacks, ambushes, and stabbings against America's 300-plus-million population would cause outrage, a few casualties, and some panic, internal confusion, and perhaps limited inter-ethnic-group violence. They would not, however, shift the strategic balance in al-Qaeda's favor. Intifada-style attacks could not satisfy any of al-Qaeda's three-part doctrine: they would not (a) cause U.S. bankruptcy, (b) require large numbers of U.S. troops to clean-up after, or (c) significantly undermine political cohesion. Indeed, there is reason to surmise that al-Qaeda's leaders have concluded that attacks like those used against Israel – which intend to cause deaths of women, children, and the elderly – would unite Americans rather than divide them.
3.) Al-Qaeda leaders probably think, for the moment, that it would be counterproductive to stage any but a larger-than-9/11 attack in America. Currently, Bin Laden and his senior lieutenants are clearly off balance vis-à-vis the United State because so much substantive success has accrued to al-Qaeda's interests so quickly since 9/11. Neither al-Qaeda nor the Taliban were destroyed in 2001; both escaped with most of their forces largely intact. Each has regrouped, rearmed, and retrained in safe havens in the Pashtun tribal lands that straddle the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The Pakistan army's incursion into the tribal zone was defeated; the new, less-pro-U.S. government in Islamabad is suing for peace with the tribes; and the Islamization of Pakistan continues unabated. The Muslim world perceives that the U.S. military is being defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has been further alienated by the U.S. treatment of captured mujahedin. Finally, the U.S. economy is slowing, Americans are severely divided over Washington's activities overseas, and none of the three major presidential candidates are likely to drastically alter the foreign policies all polls show are hated by up to 80 percent of Muslims. This embarrassment of riches advances each part of al-Qaeda's doctrine for fighting America – casualties, costs, and disunity – and it has been accumulated without a follow-up-to-9/11 attack. While bin Laden might well risk this good fortune for a chance to detonate a nuclear device in the United States, he certainly would not risk it now for the sake of shooting up a half-dozen theaters, coffee shops, and pizza parlors.
So, Americans can relax a bit, go to the movies or the mall, and stop afterwards for coffee or pizza without worrying too much about al-Qaeda launching small-scale attacks. For now, Americans should see themselves as being in standby mode for the larger-than-9/11 attack bin Laden eventually will trigger because the last two U.S. administrations and Senators McCain, Clinton, and Obama have warned about the severe Islamist threat, while knowingly encouraging its worldwide growth by championing status quo foreign policies that degrade U.S. security, as well as by supinely appeasing their Saudi and Israeli masters.

Al Qaeda claims responsibility for Bhutto death.

This is from this site. It is not surprising that Bhutto was killed.
The accounts vary. Some say that she was first shot when she stuck the top of her body through her SUV to wave at the crowd. Immediately afterward there was a suicide bomber who badly damaged her vehicle.
Both the extreme Islamists and some in the government wanted her dead. Al Qaeda probably did it but just claiming responsibility doesn't clinch the matter. Both Musharraf and the US want to blame it on Al Qaeda of course. Bhutto was widely seen as the US candidate for president and that did not help her at all. Sharif's party also experienced attacks on a rally that killed several people.
Bhutto certainly did not fear death but perhaps it would have been better if she had been more careful as is Musharraf. I am reminded of Aristotle's concept of courage as a mean between cowardice (too much fear of danger) and foolhardiness (too little fear of danger). Bhutto tended toward the foolhardiness end of the scale.
Pakistan: Al-Qaeda claims Bhutto's death


Karachi, 27 Dec. (AKI) - (by Syed Saleem Shahzad) - A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.

It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October.

Death squads were allegedly constituted for the mission and ultimately one cell comprising a defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer succeeded in killing Bhutto.

Bhutto had just addressed a pre-election rally on Thursday in the garrison town of Rawalpindi when the bomb went off.

She had come to Rawalpindi after finishing a rapid election campaign, ahead of the January polls, in Pakistan's volatile North West Frontier Province (NWFP) where she had talked about a war against terrorism and al-Qaeda.

Reports say at least 15 other people were killed in the attack and several others injured.

As news of Bhutto's death spread throughout the country, there are reports that people have taken to the streets to protest the death of the leader of the PPP, which has the largest support of any party in Pakistan.

In the southern port city of Karachi, Bhutto's hometown, residents reportedly threw stones at cars and burnt tyres.

The New Al-Qaeda Central

One always has to be a bit suspicious of any description of Al Qaeda but this article has quite a surprising wealth of detail and is often quite critical of US policy. For example Whitlock notes that the alleged killing of several Al Qaeda leaders in a drone attack turned out to be wrong. No doubt using torture false intelligence was extracted from a captured Al Qaeda operative. The result was killing a number of locals in the tribal areas. As Whitlock says later such attacks and bombings assure that civilians will not help reveal Al Qaeda leaders.
The immorality of these drone attacks barely registers if at all on the immorality meters of the world press corps.

The New Al-Qaeda Central
Far From Declining, the Network Has Rebuilt, With Fresh Faces and a Vigorous Media Arm

By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, September 9, 2007; A01



PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- When Osama bin Laden resurfaced Friday in a 26-minute videotaped speech, his most important message was one left unsaid: We have survived.

The last time bin Laden showed his face to the world was three years ago, in October 2004. Since then, al-Qaeda's core leadership -- dubbed al-Qaeda Central by intelligence analysts -- has grown stronger, rebuilding the organizational framework that was badly damaged after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, according to counterterrorism officials in Pakistan, the United States and Europe.

It has accomplished this revival, the officials said in interviews, by drawing on lessons learned during 15 years of failed campaigns to destroy it. In that period, bin Laden and his followers have outfoxed powerful enemies from the Soviet army to the Saudi royal family to the CIA.

Dodging the U.S. military in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, al-Qaeda Central reconstituted itself across the Pakistani border, returning to the rugged tribal areas surrounding the organization's birthplace, the dusty frontier city of Peshawar. In the first few years, Pakistani and U.S. authorities captured many senior leaders; in the past 18 months, no major figure has been killed or caught in Pakistan.

Al-Qaeda Central moved quickly to overcome extensive leadership losses by promoting loyalists who had served alongside bin Laden for years. It restarted fundraising, recruiting and training. And it expanded its media arm into perhaps the most effective propaganda machine ever assembled by a terrorist or insurgent network.

Today, al-Qaeda operates much the way it did before 2001. The network is governed by a shura, or leadership council, that meets regularly and reports to bin Laden, who continues to approve some major decisions, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official. About 200 people belong to the core group and many receive regular salaries, another senior U.S. intelligence official said.

"They do appear to meet with a frequency that enables them to act as an organization and not just as a loose bunch of guys," the second official said.

Operatives are organized into cells with separate missions, such as fundraising or logistics, and may know the identities of only a few individuals in their circle to prevent infiltration, Pakistani officials said. Most leaders are based in Pakistan, although many travel to Afghanistan and occasionally farther afield, to Iraq, Turkey, Iran, the Caucasus region and North Africa.

Counterterrorism officials were slow to grasp the resurrection of al-Qaeda Central. For years, many U.S. and European intelligence officials characterized it as a spent force, limited to providing inspiration for loosely affiliated regional networks. Bombings in Europe and the Middle East were blamed on homegrown cells of militants, operating independently of bin Laden.

On June 24, 2003, President Bush declared al-Qaeda's leadership largely defunct. At a Camp David summit, Bush praised Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf, crediting his country with apprehending more than 500 members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

"Thanks to President Musharraf's leadership, on the al-Qaeda front we've dismantled the chief operators," Bush said. Although bin Laden was still at large, his lieutenants were "no longer a threat to the United States or Pakistan," Bush added.

Six months later, Musharraf was nearly killed in an assassination attempt by al-Qaeda operatives. Shortly afterward, a group of al-Qaeda leaders held a summit of their own in the Pakistani region of Waziristan, where they plotted fresh attacks thousands of miles away in Britain, including targets in London and financial institutions in the United States, according to Pakistani officials.

Many U.S., Pakistani and European intelligence officials now agree that al-Qaeda's ability to launch operations around the globe didn't diminish after the invasion of Afghanistan as much as previously thought. Further investigation has shown, for example, that al-Qaeda's leadership, with bin Laden's direct blessing, made the decision to activate sleeper cells in Saudi Arabia in 2003, prompting a wave of car bombings and assassination attempts that the Saudi government has only recently brought under control.

From hideouts in Pakistan, according to court testimony and interviews, bin Laden's deputies ordered attacks on a Tunisian synagogue in 2002, a British consulate and bank in Istanbul in 2003, and the London transit system in 2005.

U.S intelligence officials also blame the al-Qaeda brain trust for orchestrating dozens of other failed plots, including a plan to blow up transatlantic flights from Britain in August 2006.

"All this business about them being isolated or cut off is whistling past the graveyard," said Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst who led the agency's unit assigned to track bin Laden. "We're looking at an organization that is extraordinarily adept at succession planning. They were built to survive, like the Afghans were against the Russians."

A Failed Strike

After nightfall on Jan. 13, 2006, an unmanned Predator aircraft guided by the CIA fired missiles at two houses in the northwestern Pakistani village of Damadola, a few miles from the Afghan border.

The target was a dinner celebrating the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha. CIA officials had received intelligence that Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's deputy leader, had been invited to attend.

The missiles destroyed the houses and killed more than a dozen people. Zawahiri was not among them, but Pakistani officials soon said the fatalities included several other high-ranking al-Qaeda leaders.

Musharraf identified one of the dead as Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, an Egyptian who had overseen al-Qaeda's research into chemical weapons and carried a $5 million U.S. government bounty on his head.

Musharraf and other Pakistani officials said those buried in the rubble also included Abu Obaidah al-Masri, the Egyptian chief of the al-Qaeda military wing that plots attacks in the West; Khalid Habib, a field commander for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; and Zawahiri's son-in-law, Abdul Rahman al-Maghribi.

U.S. and Pakistani officials now say that none of those al-Qaeda leaders perished in the strike and that only local villagers were killed. The $5 million reward for Umar's capture remains on offer. Masri has continued to rise in the al-Qaeda structure, U.S. officials say, and six months after his supposed death was helping in the failed effort to put bombs aboard airliners flying from Britain.

Mahmood Shah, who at the time of the strike was Pakistan's security chief for the region, said intelligence for the Predator mission stemmed in part from the interrogation of another al-Qaeda leader, Abu Faraj al-Libi, who had been captured eight months earlier in the city of Mardan, also in Pakistan's northwest.

At the time, Shah said, U.S. and Pakistani officials thought merely that the timing of the strike was slightly off and that they had barely missed Zawahiri. Now, he said, he thinks Zawahiri and the others were never there. "I just think the information was not correct," he said.

The only publicized success in the nearly 20 months since the Damadola attack came on April 12, 2006, when Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah, an Egyptian al-Qaeda operative indicted for involvement in the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa, was killed in North Waziristan.

Otherwise, the search for al-Qaeda's leaders in Pakistan has hit a wall. Shah said information concerning their whereabouts has grown scarcer and less reliable. By his account, Pakistani security officials haven't come across a single trace of bin Laden in the tribal areas. Occasionally, they have received tips regarding Zawahiri and others, he said, but only several weeks after the trail has run cold.

"We'd hear about their presence two months after the fact. It's just not actionable intelligence," Shah said. "This inner core has absolutely stopped using electronic technology to communicate with each other. That is why the Americans have such trouble finding them."

On Jan. 30, 2006, two weeks after the Damadola missile strike, al-Qaeda released a videotape on the Internet in which Zawahiri taunted his pursuers. "Bush, do you know where I am?" the Egyptian radical said. "I am among the Muslim masses!"

Al-Qaeda's 'Deep Bench'

A major factor in al-Qaeda's resurgence has been its ability to swiftly replace fallen or captured commanders.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told Congress in November that the core leadership had benefited from a "deep bench of lower-ranking personnel capable of stepping up to assume leadership responsibilities." Many are veteran jihadists who have fought in Afghanistan and conflicts elsewhere for decades.

Intelligence officials and analysts said al-Qaeda's central command remains dominated by Egyptians, primarily associates of Zawahiri, who formally merged his Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization with al-Qaeda in 1998.

One Egyptian who has taken on a bigger role is Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, an accountant by training who served as bin Laden's financial manager during his exile in Sudan in the 1990s. In May, al-Qaeda announced that Yazid had been appointed its overall leader in Afghanistan and liaison with the Taliban.

Yazid, 51, was an original member of al-Qaeda's Shura Council and served time in an Egyptian prison with Zawahiri in the early 1980s after both were convicted of participating in the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

Although he disagreed with bin Laden over the Sept. 11 attacks -- calling them a tactical mistake that resulted in the Taliban's fall from power -- Yazid remains close to the Saudi emir and is trusted by other jihad groups, said Yasser al-Sirri, an Egyptian political exile and director of the London-based Islamic Observation Center.

"Bin Laden appointed him as a conciliatory figure," Sirri said in an interview. "It's because of his credibility. He gets along well with the Pashtuns, with the Taliban -- he gets along well with everybody."

Several other fresh faces in the leadership are former members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a now-defunct network that used to operate at arm's length from al-Qaeda.

Among them is Abu Laith al-Libi, the nom de guerre of a longtime jihadist who fought Soviet troops in Afghanistan, spent two years in prison in Saudi Arabia for covert activities there and organized a failed plot to overthrow Libyan ruler Moammar Gaddafi in the mid-1990s.

He began to work closely with bin Laden in 1999 and impressed al-Qaeda's command by leading the retreat from Kabul in 2001 after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, said Noman Benotman, a former member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

"The Saudis and others said, 'Who the hell is this guy?' They were impressed," Benotman said in an interview in London. "He can create operations. He can lead on the front lines. He knows when to attack, when to withdraw."

Abu Laith al-Libi has run training camps in Afghanistan in recent years for al-Qaeda and orchestrated a suicide attack on the U.S. air base in Bagram, killing 23 people, during a visit by Vice President Cheney in February, according to U.S. military officials.

Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, a Libyan believed to be in his late 30s, has meanwhile acted as a liaison between al-Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan and al-Qaeda in Iraq, a predominantly Sunni insurgent movement that is believed responsible for some of the deadliest bomb attacks on Shiite civilians in Iraq and is one of the U.S. military's fiercest foes. The group professes loyalty to bin Laden; intelligence analysts are divided as to whether he exercises real control over it.

Rahman has also operated as a bin Laden emissary to militant groups in North Africa that joined forces in January to form al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Words From 'the Clouds'

Much remains unknown about the internal workings of al-Qaeda Central. As with the old Soviet leadership in the Kremlin, U.S. analysts scrutinize public statements issued by the network for clues on who wields influence.

One figure attracting interest is a Libyan known as Abu Yahya al-Libi, who gained notoriety after he and three other al-Qaeda prisoners escaped from a high-security U.S. military prison in Bagram in July 2005.

Since then, he has appeared on more than a dozen videos produced by al-Qaeda's media arm. His speeches and treatises are so numerous that some analysts speculate he is being groomed to join bin Laden's inner circle. "Abu Yahya al-Libi is now the most visible face of al-Qaeda, surpassing al-Zawahiri, and in fact all of the jihadists," said Ben Venzke, chief executive of IntelCenter, a private terrorism research group that does work for the U.S. government.

In his videos, Abu Yahya al-Libi dresses the part of a gun-toting holy warrior but has made his reputation as a religious hard-liner. He frequently criticizes other Muslims as heretics; favorite targets include Shiites, Hamas and the Saudi royal family.

"He's young, but he's very smart," Benotman said. "For his career, the sky's the limit."

Since 2000, al-Qaeda has run its own media production company, al-Sahab, which means "the clouds" in Arabic, an allusion to the misty mountain peaks of Afghanistan.

Until two years ago, al-Sahab was dependent on broadcasters such as the al-Jazeera satellite television network to air its videos and could distribute only short clips on the Internet. But then it achieved a spectacular breakthrough. Taking advantage of technological advances and bandwidth expansion, it began posting videos directly on the Internet, relying on an anonymous global network of webmasters to shield their electronic tracks.

In 2005, al-Sahab released 16 videos. This year, it has produced four times that number. Quality has improved markedly, with most videos now including subtitles in several languages and sometimes 3-D animation.

"If you want to stop al-Qaeda on the communications front, you should concentrate on their IT manager instead of Osama," said Muhammad Amir Rana, director of the Pak Institute for Peace Studies, a research group in Lahore, Pakistan, that studies militant groups.

Al-Sahab can now record and release videos with astonishing speed. When Pakistani forces stormed Islamabad's Red Mosque on July 10, resulting in more than 80 deaths, Zawahiri responded the next day with an audiotaped speech, calling the raid "an act of criminal aggression."

Al-Sahab mixes low-tech and high-tech tricks to prevent spy agencies from blocking its releases or tracing videos back to their source, said Evan F. Kohlmann, a New York-based counterterrorism analyst.

The videos are routed through a chain of couriers who hand-deliver them to computer gurus, probably in Pakistan, he said.

They, in turn, electronically send the files to others around the world who upload them to free or hijacked Web sites.

"The process of tracing this stuff back is not that easy," Kohlmann said. "They've created breaks in the distribution chain, both electronic breaks and human breaks."

A Protective Network

In July, U.S. intelligence agencies published a report concluding that al-Qaeda Central had regrouped in remote northwestern Pakistan, aided by a 2005 decision by the Pakistani government to declare a truce with Taliban forces and withdraw troops from the tribal area of Waziristan.

Latif Afridi, a Pashtun tribal elder, said that many places along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan have been effectively taken over by foreign militants, mostly Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens and Arabs. Although they are not all associated with al-Qaeda, bin Laden's network has been able to rely on them for protection, he said.

"We have al-Qaeda, we have Taliban, we have foreigners, and we have Pakistani-trained militant groups that have been banned," Afridi said in an interview in Peshawar. "They're running the show."

Pakistani and U.S. intelligence officials said the number of militant training camps has surged along the border. But unlike al-Qaeda's fixed camps in Afghanistan before 2001, they consist of small groups that gather for a few days for firearms or bombmaking practice before disbanding, making them hard to detect.

The truce between the Taliban and the Pakistani military collapsed in North Waziristan in July and in South Waziristan a month later. Since then, Pakistani forces have reentered the tribal areas and resumed clashes with the Taliban and other militants.

But Asad Durrani, a retired chief of Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence bureau, said it would take more than military intervention to capture al-Qaeda leaders.

Durrani said U.S. bombing campaigns along the Afghan-Pakistani border had thoroughly alienated civilians who otherwise might help root out al-Qaeda commanders. "The first instinct you Americans have is military power -- dropping bombs," he said. "This was absolutely 100 percent guaranteed not to succeed, and it's continued that way for the past six years."

He said it would take a concentrated, methodical approach to find bin Laden and his deputies, relying on human intelligence and simple detective work.

"If they are there, sit back, be patient," Durrani advised. "The good hunter hunts on foot."

Special correspondent Munir Ladaa in Berlin and researchers Alice Crites and Julie Tate in Washington contributed to this report.


Post a Comment