Pakistan Update: Musharraf out?Foreign fighters okay...

With the DNC bent on taking over all branches of US government, fulling overdue promises of "tough love" by yanking the US troops out of Iraq, ignoring Lebanon, and Pakistan's peace deals further inflaming Afghanistan under NATO's command, it can be said that Middle East allies for the US might be getting to be an endangered species.

Quietly behind the scenes, and out of the western media spotlight, Pakistan is steadily traveling the yellow brick road to rogue and defiant ally-in-name-and-money-only status... content just to silence bombs in their back yard while allowing Taliban/AQ and fellow ilk militants to ping pong back and forth across the Afghanistan border at will.

Two deals were cemented over the past month, involving exchanging of prisoners and, in theory, either exiling or handing over foreign militants. However S. Waziristan Taliban leaders have made it abundantly clear that they have no intentions of halting their jihad battles on Afghan soil.

“First, we will not accept such a ban. But we hope the peace deal will be inked without a clause that puts restrictions on mujahideen to cross the border (into Afghanistan),” Abu Zakwan, Taliban commander in the Kotkai area of South Waziristan, told Daily Times on Saturday. Using the alias of Abu Zakwan, the commander said that government negotiators are asking for a pledge to stop cross-border attacks, but the Taliban were not committing to such an agreement.

Jihad centre: He said Waziristan was serving the region as “centre for jihad” and people from across the country were being trained for holy war “against the United States”.

To date, the peace deals have not resulted in any militants of note being either expelled or turned over to the Pakistan govt. Indeed, all they've done is add to the terrorists in the region, using their get-out-of-jail-free cards as an exchange for Pakistan Army hostages. As predicted, the militants deny knowing of any foreign fighters' whereabouts. Mehsud claims they are not harboring Zawahiri, OBL or ilk. Indeed, he insists Bin Laden is dead. I've seen this story on quite a few blogs, however not one link to the original story works. Take away what you wish from that note.

Meanship Nawaz Sharif continues his pressure on PPP's Zardari to not only oust Musharraf, but calls for trials for sedition. In today's Khaleej Times, he suggests that Zardari's party has agreed to expel Musharraf from the Presidency. Thus far, there has been no comment or confirmation from the PPP representative, nor PM Gilani.

One can safely say that Pakistan's efforts to curb jihad violence may offer temporary benefits for them... however making deals while they continue to foster jihad against the US doesn't benefit us, or the war on Islamic jihad movements, one bit. This would be the same US/Uncle Sam who's shelled out incentive cash, hand over fist, to Pakistan. And now, to add insult to injury, we're about to lose the rare military general ballsy enough to give a silent nod to US operations over Pakistan soil, and incur/endure the wrath of his country.

Pakistan, however, sees Obama with his incentive packages and "talk nice" coming. They have their hands already outstretched, whining that their anti-terror efforts on the behalf of the US costs twice what the US pays in the Coalition Support Fund.

A US Government Accountability Office report issued last week said that of $5.8 billion in US support for anti-terrorism efforts in the Fata between 2002 and 2007, about 96 per cent had gone towards reimbursing the Pakistani military, three per cent on border security and one per cent on development aid projects.

Talking to Dawn, sources said the $5.8 billion Pakistan received from the CSF was reimbursement of what the country had already spent.

“It is not easy to deploy 100,000 troops in a troubled area,” said one diplomatic source. “Look, how the Americans are spending billions of dollars on maintaining troops in Iraq. If the Americans feel that the Iraq war is draining their resources, imagine how it affects Pakistan.”

I have to ask... just how many times has Pakistan has deployed troops, especially in that number? Last year was filled with western media, accusing Musharraf of not doing anything. Yet now we are to believe that they're in the red, deploying troops on our behalf at every turn? Apparently the Pakistanis believe the US should carry the financial load of maintaining peace in their own tribal regions.

There is a smidgen of validity in that argument, of which they will have no problems in convincing a naive POTUS Obama that smidgen is much larger in US dollars. Tho many tribal elders may not seek war against the US or the west, they do harbor and benefit from those who do. However Pakistan's internal battles did not begin with America's more prominent presence in the Middle East. Nor will they end when we withdraw and come home. Jihad was there before we came, and will always be there.

Come the era of a possible President Obama in the WH, there are very different positions on the ME political chess board now. NATO falters in Afghanistan, and NATO alliance countries refuse to pony up the needed troops. Iraqis and US forces in Iraq are making headway, but live under the threat of having their progress reversed the moment a DNC leader takes the oath of office. Lebanon is morphing before our very eyes, with the Hezbollah shadow puppet government becoming more powerful with their legislative veto powers just acquired. Last year, Iran has no nuke program via an NIE - a report Obama buys hook, line and sinker. But today even the IAEA is concerned. Still the int'l community that makes up the corrupt and anti-semite UN, dances around significant action. And Obama will make sure US actions are blessed by the corrupt before implementing.

Pakistan, already proving the appeasement path benefits only their own backyard, and that terrorists will not budge on the bigger battle of training jihad, will be perhaps the next President's biggest problem. A President Obama will make nice, pass over more cash, and terrorists and dictators will continue to smile.

Fasten your seat belts, because we're in for a bumpy ride...

Zawahiri... in his own words Visions for the Middle Eat

HT to Laura Mansfield of The Mansfield Report, via Gateway Pundit.

Read the full text of open interview with Zawahiri.

There is little excuse for liberal denial anymore. I speak of their naive promises that US exit from Iraq (and even Afghanistan) will appease the global Islamic jihad movement. I have oft pointed out that were we to exit both Iraq and Afghanistan, we are merely sitting with the identical presence in the Middle East as we had on September 11th.

The jihad movement demands far more than withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan. And those demands are not limited to the withdrawal of US military, but even "Crusader" influence.... which could be interpreted as anything from democratic governments in Arab countries to the McDonalds or Starbucks on the corner of a Dubai or Kuwait City street.

Thus, reprinted below, are some excerpts of Zawahiri... in his own words.. that substantiate the naivety of our DNC candidates and their promised foreign policy gaffes in the works.

First, some cut and paste of questions/responses from the 48 page translation. First INRE the future of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran... plus the jihad movements' visions for their future.

“The first question: what do you expect to happen in Iraq after America’s withdrawal with Allah’s permission? And do the Rejectionist’s armed militias represent a worry to the Mujahideen? And how will the Mujahideen deal with these militias?

First: I expect the Jihadi influence to spread after the Americans’ exit from Iraq, and to move towards Jerusalem (with Allah’s permission). As for the militias mentioned, they have failed to eliminate the Jihad with the help of what is called the strongest power in the history of mankind, so will they succeed by themselves or with the help of Iran?

Zawahiri's promise of the jihadis making a "move towards Jerusalem" does not mean, in my opinion, they will immediately set out to attack Israel. Instead it may mean that with clearing out the infidel, they can concentrate on their long term strategy to eliminate Israel and their occupation of territories the jihad movement claims for their Caliphate. More on this below... keep reading.

Zawahiri also scoffs at the notion that if the jihad movement cannot be defeated in Iraq with America's superpower, then Iraq has no chance of defending itself.. even with help from Iran. But he reserves a special message for the Awakening Council in Iraq, and probably for any future similar movement.

“2 – Is there a word you would like to direct, our Shaykh, to the apostates of the Awakening Councils?”

Second: As for the apostates of the Awakening Councils, I tell them: the Mujahideen will – with Allah’s help and will – deal with you according to the tradition of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (with whom Allah was pleased): a war which ousts or a peace which humiliates.

Simply translated, they will fight to the death to in war, or they can surrender and endure the humiliation of their cowardice.

And speaking of Iran...

“The second question: what is Your Eminence’s opinion about the American threats to Iran? And does America really intend to strike Iran? And if that happens, what do you expect will happen in the region? And will it be in the interest of the Mujahideen or not?

Second: the dispute between America and Iran is a real dispute based on the struggle over areas of influence, and the possibility of America striking Iran is a real possibility. As for what might happen in the region, I can only say that major changes will occur in the region, and the situation will be in the interest of the Mujahideen if the war saps both of them. If, however, one of them emerges victorious, its influence will intensify and fierce battles will begin between it and the Mujahideen, except that the Jihadi awakening currently under way and the degeneration state of affairs of the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq will make it impossible for Iran or America to become the sole decision-maker in the region.

Zawahiri seems content to let Iran and the US duke it out, and take on whoever is left standing. But the hope is that any conflict will weaken both, so as to be beyond any influence.

“The third question: What is your evaluation of America’s situation now? Has it really begun to collapse? And what do you expect if the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq? Will you be satisfied with this state of affairs, or will you attempt to drag American into a new war?

Third: There is no doubt that the American collapse has begun, and the myth of unipolarity has ended. And the raids on New York and Washington were identifying marks of this collapse, but I point out that the collapse of empires doesn’t come in a single moment, but rather, may take decades, and the collapse of the Soviet Union is the nearest example of that. And the withdrawal of America from Afghanistan and Iraq will be in the interest of the Muslims with Allah’s permission, and the Jihadi vanguard has announced that its objective on which it will not compromise – at this stage – is the withdrawal of all unbelieving forces from the lands of the Muslims.

Zawahiri's translation uses an odd and irregular form of the word, unipolar... which means a manic depressive disorder. "...myth of unipolarity has ended". To analyze it in the context of a form of "polarity", meaning attraction and/or opposition of two extremes or poles, then adding the "uni", meaning one, it merely nullifies the push/pull of extremes.

Truthfully, this translation doesn't clearly convey Zawahiri's message for is confusion of term. However what is clear is that Zawahiri marks 911 as a major turning point in America's collapse. And my guess he probably means collapse from within.. perhaps by setting the nation into deep, "manic" divide. But that is merely my speculation.

INRE dragging America into another war. Zawahiri simply states that US forces are not the only intruders on his desired Caliphate. *Any* forces and influences that are unbelievers must go. That will include NATO forces (see UN comments further below). And extending to "influence", any western business influence they consider "unIslamic".

“The fourth question: I request Your Eminence to give us a look at the future of the Jihadi march: i.e. after five or six years, how will the situation be in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, the Land of the Two Sanctuaries, the Islamic Maghrib, Chechnya, Somalia and Darfur? (Mata Note: I believe the Land of Two Sanctuaries is Saudi Arabia)

Fourth: I expect – by the grace of Allah – the spreading of the Jihadi tide and an increase in its influence corresponding to the receding of the influence of the Crusaders, Jews and their agents in the places I mentioned.

Note carefully, the goal is to eliminate the influence of Jews and Crusaders entirely. And Zawahiri sees a rise of Islamic law in ratio to a decline of western influence over the next five years.

He states again the goals more clearly in another question/answer section. This in regard, not to western occupation and influence, but directly against what he considers "apostate" regimes.... or Arab regimes that abandon or renounce Islam in their rule.

“8: What is the usefulness of Jihad combat actions against the apostate Arab regimes, which usually target the regimes’ lackeys without severing the heads? And how do you evaluate the results of these actions, especially in Algeria, Egypt and the country of the two Sanctuaries?”

Eighth: I talked before about the Jihadi actions in Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula, and I referred to our practical discretion at this stage, but I would like to add here three notes:

1) The clash with the corrupt regimes must occur sooner or later if we want to set up the Muslim state and liberate the lands of Islam.

2) The overall position is open to adjustment from one territory to another. So for
example, in Algeria the brothers pair targeting of Jewish and Western interests with waging a guerilla war against the hireling government, because their circumstances make it possible for them to do that.

3) Severing the heads isn’t the objective: rather, the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government. And the means of change differ from one territory to another.

I repeat... "the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government." So in the first stated goal above, it was to see receding influence of Jews and Crusaders. But there is a second stated goal. Once the jihad movement can bring American resolve to her knees, their next target are the Arab governments themselves - those who do not implement and rule by Islamic law.

These governments are also marked for demise by mere cooperation with the west on intelligence.Even perhaps, by trade. And it is this phrasing that makes me believe the "move towards Jerusalem" is actually the quest to surround Israel with the Islamic Caliphate.

Which brings us to the first volume of pages where Zawahiri was pretty beat up by numerous questions (taken in advance and answered in bulk later...) on their disregard towards killing fellow Muslims.

His responses are vast and repetitive over the oft answered subject. But they ever followed the same theme.... Muslims who cooperate with Crusaders are infidels, and thereby fair game in jihad. They do not kill "innocents", however do admit that there are times when they die because they are used as a "human shield", as the infidel situates himself amidst the Muslim community.

I would like to clarify to the brother questioner that we don’t kill innocents: in fact, we fight those who kill innocents. Those who kill innocents are the Americans, the Jews, the Russians and the French and their agents. Were we insane killers of innocents as the questioner claims, it would be possible for us to kill thousands of them in the crowded markets, but we are confronting the enemies of the Muslim Ummah and targeting them, and it may be the case that during this, an innocent might fall unintentionally or unavoidably, and the Mujahideen have warned repeatedly the Muslims in general that they are in a war with the senior criminals – the Americans and Jews and their allies and agents – and that they must keep away from the places where these enemies gather.

Using the inherent belief that any association and cooperation with those the jihad movement considers infidels and the enemy, Muslims who indulge in democracy, elections, anything with western influence, are targets. But there will be no international presence in the jihadi's Caliphate either... For Zawahiri has specifically targeted the United Nations as an enemy, and taunted them for their fast withdrawal in Iraq upon confrontation.

The operation on the 11th of December was against the headquarters of the United Nations and the Constitutional Assembly and Police Academy, not against children’s schools or women’s hospitals. And the United Nations is an enemy of Islam and Muslims: it is the one which codified and legitimized the setting up of the state of Israel and its taking over of the Muslims’ lands. It is the one which considers Chechnya an inseparable part of Crusader Russia, and consider Ceuta and Melilla inseparable parts of Crusader Spain. And it is the one which codified the Crusader presence in Afghanistan through the Bonn conference, and codified the Crusader presence in Iraq through its various resolutions, and approved the separation of East Timor from Indonesia, while it doesn’t recognize that [right] for Chechnya, nor for all the Muslim Caucasus, nor for Kashmir, nor for Ceuta and Melilla, nor for Bosnia.

Allah granted success to the heroic Amir and – as we consider him – martyr Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi (may Allah have mercy on him), and he blew up the headquarters of the United Nations in Baghdad at the beginning of the Crusader invasion of Iraq, and its remnants turned back in flight. And thus he ruined the Crusaders’ plans to cover the Crusader invasion with international forces which wouldn’t provoke Arab and Islamic sensitivities. This is the same ruse which the Crusaders used in Lebanon, and so the forces of Hizbullah withdrew 30 kilometers to the rear and approved an international Crusader presence to occupy the lands of the Muslims on Lebanese soil, and the leadership of Hizbullah even promised to preserve the safety of those Crusader forces occupying the Muslims’ lands.

There is much much more here - giving us an unedited view into the enemy's mind and goals. The question is, will our media blind the electorate to the truth by ignoring and minimizing Zawahiri's words? And next POTUS even bother to listen?

More quiet success in war on Islamic jihad WaPo article from Saudi journalist

No sensationalist headline. Not even a modicum of an "atta boy" in success attached to Faiza Saleh Ambah's WaPo story today, "Out of Guantanamo and Bitter Toward Bin Laden".

On the surface, the story seems simple and detached from the political battles of triumphs or failure against the global Islamic jihad movement. Khalid al-Hubayshi, 32yrs old, was one of Bin Laden's fighters captured in Tora Bora, and held at Camp Gitmo until 2006. Today he's back in his native Saudia Arabia, working as a controller at a utilities company. And per this article, quite embittered with a less than glorious call to jihad. Thank goodness.. because were he still a jihad warrior, the last place he needs to work is at a utilities facility.

Woven thruout his story as a naive and impressionable 19 yr old, who idolized Bin Laden, are startling documentations of success in the war of ideology with jihad.

He was released in 2006 into a world radically altered by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Muslim fighters were no longer viewed in Arab countries as larger-than-life heroes, and clerics had stopped urging young Muslims to fulfill their religious duties by fighting on behalf of their brethren.

Hubayshi had also changed. He had grown disillusioned with bin Laden, whose initial idealism had turned into terrorism, he said, adding that his family, "not bin Laden," had suffered when he was at Guantanamo.

Muslim fighters no longer viewed as heroes? What hasn't this remarkable change made major headlines?

al-Hubayshi still feels betrayed by OBL at Tora Bora.

Weeks later [after 911], an associate of bin Laden came seeking experienced fighters, and those without families left for Tora Bora. In the trenches there, the fighters ate and slept and cleaned their weapons, surrounded by the distant sounds of bombardments.

"Bin Laden was convinced the Americans would come down and fight. We spent five weeks like that, manning our positions in case the Americans landed," he said.

As the airstrikes moved closer, and with the United States' Afghan allies advancing, bin Laden decided to retreat and left one morning. His aides told 300 Arab fighters to make their way to Pakistan and surrender to their embassies.

Pakistani authorities stopped the fighters near the border and handed them over to the U.S. military, which sent them to Guantanamo Bay.

Hubayshi then states, "The whole way to Cuba, I prayed the plane would fall," he said. "There was no dignity in what he made us do."

Hubayshi said he is sorry that Muslims carried out the Sept. 11 attacks because they targeted civilians: "That was wrong. Jihad is fighting soldier to soldier."

snip

In all the years he spent trying to help Muslims, Hubayshi said, he regrets he did not do more.

"My dream was that I would fight when there was fighting, and teach children when there was peace," he said. "I'm sorry we left Afghanistan with so much war and death. I wish we had built hospitals or schools."

The Arab world's increasing rejection of the Islamic jihad movement's tactics, combined with increased awareness, as demonstrated by Habayshi, are landmarks in a battle against a stateless enemy. Landmarks that, sadly, would not have been possible but for the resulting war in Iraq. Given the chance to brazenly demonstrate their brutal warfare, the wanton killing of fellow Muslims, innocent women and children included, became the foundation for Iraq's The Awakening bond. Outside of Iraq, it has greatly diminished their respect in the Muslim world who once considered them "heroes".

Quiet success? Absolutely. Had we not liberated Iraq, and the cards fell as they may, it is most likely that the jihad fighters still would be idolized as heroes today, and more young men as Habayshi ensnared in their delusions of glory.

From the "HUH?" files

IHT's Bernd Debusmann has one absurd article today, "Hypocrisy never makes for good foreign policy". It's mostly a story of Michael Scheurer, the former head of the "get Bin Laden" unit under Clinton, bemoaning the fact that US leaders - present and past - don't understand the "whys" of the Global Islamic Jihad Movement.

In his recently published book, "Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq," Scheuer argues that the United States faces more trouble because its leaders refuse to recognize what drives terrorism.

President George W. Bush argues that terrorists "hate our freedoms, our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote." But polls show that the bedrock of support for militancy among the world's 1.3 billion Muslims is the detestation of U.S. foreign policies.

Scheuer faults U.S. leaders for failing to acknowledge the grievances that bin Laden laid out in precise detail, which were adopted by the followers he inspired. They were: the U.S. presence in the Arabian Peninsula; unqualified support for Israel; U.S. support for states oppressing Muslims, especially China, India and Russia; U.S. exploitation of Muslim oil; U.S. support and financing of authoritarian Arab regimes.

Were one to use Scheuer's route to peace, there would be no US embassies - nay, even a Mickey D's - present in the Middle East, we'd be cut off from Middle East oil supplies, and our trade with China and India would be no more. That's the price, right Scheurer? Just adopt Middle East isolationist policies in order to appease those miffed jihadists, and we're safe?

Well blow it out your ear, Bubba. No wonder we never got Bin Laden under Clinton, with bozos like this at the helm. And to think there was a moment in one article in the past where I thought he might make strategic sense??? Shame on me for that moment of gullibility.

But WAIT.. there's MOOOOOORE! Get this next excerpt.

Polls show that radicals - potential suicide bombers and hostage takers - and moderate Muslims are in favor of moving toward more democracy, a process stifled in many places by authoritarian rulers who enjoy the backing of the United States.

HUH???... try this quote from AP's Cairo division, Jan 12, 2005 on for size:

In a 33-page address last month, bin Laden, the Saudi-born millionaire-turned-terrorist, called for turning Iraq into an Islamic state that would eventually be part of a worldwide Islamic empire.

snip

Bin Laden's message also scoffed at plans for Iraqi elections, saying democracy was un-Islamic.

Just to show that OBL's not the lone wolf on the "democracy is un-Islamic" front:

From The Sidney Morning Herald's Iraqi rebels decree democracy is un-Islamic:

A statement, posted on the website of the Ansar al-Sunna group on Thursday and co-signed by the Islamic Army in Iraq and the Army of the Mujahideen, told Iraqis not to take part in "the farce of democracy and elections". It described democracy as "un-Islamic" and polling booths as "centres of atheism".

Or how about the more recent Dec 28th article in the Daily Times (Pakistan), quoting the Taliban leader (who asked not to be named) when battling JUI-F's Maulana Fazlur Rahman over boycotting the Pakistan elections:

BANNU: A senior Taliban leader warned parties on Thursday against “using religion for electoral gains”, saying they would join parties urging boycott of January 8 polls.

“In Shariah, democracy is un-Islamic. Our movement is completely against what you call democracy in which a small majority can decide irrespective of the fact whether what they have done was good or bad,” the Taliban leader, asking not to be named, told Daily Times in an interview here.

He said the Taliban were “against elements who are using Islam for electoral gains”.

For the definition-of-terrorist-challenged, it can be said that all Muslim jihadists (i.e. "radicals") are seeking implementation of Shariah/Islamic law.

Now let's revisit that inane statement... "the polls show radicals - - potential suicide bombers and hostage takers - and moderate Muslims are in favor of moving toward more democracy..."

Either one must admit the poll results are utterly worthless. Or that this author, or Scheuer... probably both... about dumber than dirt about the global jihad movement. You guys want believe the idiots who conducted that poll? Well, I got some swamp land to sell ya in Baghdad....

Subtle praise for Bush Doctrine from WaPo?

Granted, the WaPo columnist here is Reuel Mar Gerecht, a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, categorized by Wikipedia as a "conservative" think tank. That is if, by some bizarre chance, anyone wants to lend credence to anything on Wikipedia.

But seeing anything in WaPo print that offers a quiet praise for the Bush Doctrine - i.e. aggressively pursuing the Global Islamic Jihad Movement on Iraqi land - is a day that will forever live in infamy.

Gerecht dissects the popular, media fed notion that Iraq has significantly increased the amount of "holy warriors" in both number and intensity by comparing it to the decade long Soviet-Afghan conflict.

Regarding the Iraq war and jihadism, two facts stand out. First, if we make a comparison with the Soviet-Afghan war of 1979-89, which was the baptismal font for al-Qaeda, what's most striking is how few foreign holy warriors have gone to Mesopotamia since the U.S. invasion in 2003.

Admittedly, we don't have a perfect grasp of the numbers involved in either conflict. But the figure of 25,000 Arab mujaheddin is probably a decent figure for those who went to Pakistan to fight the Red Army. Most probably did so in the last four years of the war, when the recruitment organizations and logistics became well developed. In Iraq, we see nothing of this magnitude, even though Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is in the Arab heartland and at the center of Islamic history. Moreover, for Arabs, getting to Iraq isn't difficult, and once there they speak the language and know the culture. And of course the United States, the bete noire of Islamists, is the enemy in Iraq.

But according to the CIA and the U.S. military, we are now seeing at most only dozens of Arab Sunni holy warriors entering the country each month. Even at the height of the insurgency in 2006-07, the figure might have been just a few hundred (and may have been much smaller).

I would have some argument with Gerecht because the nationality of the Islamic militant enemy is not important. Whether they are Iraqi militants, or foreign, they are still the enemy of not only the west, but of the Iraqis themselves. For it must be remembered, Iraqis voted in this form of rule and their representatives in impressive numbers, and risking their lives to do so.

It still puzzles me why so many were eager to desert Iraq using the retreating rally cry of "civil war". Would they also be so dismissive if we had a fraction of US denizens, violently rebelling against our own elected government, murdering innocents by the hundreds weekly? Or would we not just label them thugs, gangs and criminals and take control? In the same vein, why should we stand by idly and watch native *or* foreign thugs thwart the Iraqi majority after American blood was shed to give them this opportunity?

Pundits will still stubbornly argue that Iraq is creating jihadists left and right, despite Gerecht's history recap pointing to the contrary. There is no doubt that the popularity of jihad has suffered large setbacks, with Iraqis bonding to rebel against radicalization. The brutal rules of engagement of the 21st century militants has worked it's own peculiar magic... that of isolating them from their Muslim brethern. This attitude, happening in the heart of the historic Muslim Caliphate, is a tremendous, strategic victory that pundits and pols are unwilling to give to GWB in an election year.

Evidence of their failure to inspire world wide jihad from the majority of Muslims lies in the events and behaviour of the jihad movement today. Terrorists (i.e. Taliban and AQ, or Sayd Imam vs Zawahiri) now fight amongst themselves about rules of engagement. They work as rogue cells and divided, independent fighters. And evidently they are running out of willing suicide bombers, since they are absconding mentally unstable women as their walking bombs. None of these are indicators of a congealed movement, flush with enthusiastic new fighters.

But I digress... back to that unheralded and faint praise for Bush. Buried deep at the bottom of the article comes the subtle zinger:

It's way too soon to call Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda spiritual outcasts among Arab Muslims, but they have in fact sustained enormous damage throughout the region because of Iraq. The lack of holy-warrior manpower coming from the Muslim Brotherhood is surely, in part, a reflection of this discomfort with al-Qaeda's violence, the complexity of Iraqi politics and America's not entirely negative role inside the country. If bin Ladenism is now on the decline -- and it may well be among Arabs -- then Iraq has played an essential part in battering the movement's spiritual appeal.

Iraq could still fall apart (and if an American president starts withdrawing troops haphazardly, it probably will). The country's descent into chaos and renewed sectarian strife would likely reenergize Islamic extremism. But it is certainly not too soon to suggest that Iraq could well become America's decisive victory over Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and all those Muslims who believe that God has sanctified violence against the United States.

It's going to be hard to un'educate the American population after the BS they've been fed for so many years about the big "Iraq failure". The misinformation campaign was carried on with a vengence by self absorbed media pundits, fancy'ing themselves as strategic analysts. Any military historian can tell you that individual battles, won or lost, is not indicative of the entire game plan. And were the punditry versed in American History, they would have remembered that when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, we went not to Tokyo, but to North Africa.

Most citizens agree that a change of heart for Muslims - distancing themselves from Wahabbism mentality - was necessary to curtail the jihad movement. Certainly the opportunity for the jihad movement to show their use of wonton violence against not only women and children, but their own fellow Muslims indiscriminately, has achieved that distancing as effectively as the Iraqis creating their own Arab democracy. A two for one whammy, if you will.

No doubt, had these "atta boy" paragraphs floated to the top - or heaven forbid to the headline - it most surely would have been buried deeper in the paper, or rejected totally as another "fairy tale". Praise for this President - even deserved - is taboo.

Bin Laden threatening Saudi Arabia? Possible long term strategy in new video tape

This is a lot to digest. But this Asia Times article by Michael Scheuer, "Bin Laden turns heat on Saudi Arabia", is great insight into what may be Bin Laden's long term (and somewhat desperate) strategy for his global jihad. Fodder for this article comes from a 56 minute tape issued Dec 29th, 2007.

And, if true, Saudi Arabia is working behind the scenes as a stealth ally, enticing Sunni support for a national unity govt in Iraq. OBL, according to this article, feels it is Saudi standing in the way of success in Iraq. It not only is actively working to support a nat'l unity govt, but is helping to further divide the jihad leaders.

This author suggests Bin Laden may deem it necessary to launch an all out assault on his homeland in order to disrupt Saudi oil production. In Bin Laden's eyes, this is a catch 22 for the US. Stand idly by and the US economy takes a hit. Engage in combat on Saudi soil, and OBL hopes it unites Arab Muslim against West jointly.

An accurate prediction? Who knows. Only time will tell.