by Damozel | With the economy not yet in free fall but on the brink, you might think things can't get worse for the incoming administration. They can, though perhaps not as bad as they would have been if McCain (and Palin) had prevailed.
First, here is the Times of London [via memeorandum] with a warning to President-Elect Obama to brace himself. CAVEAT: As The Impolitic points out, this story is a tale of "generalized foreboding" rather than an account of specific threats, though the presentation would tend to conceal this from the sort of reader who stops after a couple of paragraphs. But make no mistake: whether general or specific, the threat is there, and we are clearly more vulnerable than we've ever been.
The ToL reports that "leaders on both sides of the Atlantic" are telling Obama to brace himself "for an early assault from terrorists." Bush bangs the gong of acute vunerability during transitional phases: 9-11 was within a year of his first taking office; the first WTC attack was within a month of Clinton's becoming president; the foiled attack on Glasgow airport was within the first days after Gordon Brown took over from Blair. (ToL) There are a lot of reasons why those three examples are not the same, but never mind that.
There's a threat and maybe we're hitting one of the windows where the probability is heightened.
So.... whatever you say about Biden, his prediction may well prove to be correct---though the right wingers being what they are, their tendency will be to reframe his remark to suggest that the threat was exclusive to Obama and that the same thing wouldn't have occurred whoever had been elected. Case in point: Michael van der Galien says at Poligazette:
The warnings will make many alarm bells ring considering the fact that America’s next vice president, still Sen. Joe Biden, warned Obama supporters shortly before the presidential election that America would be faced by a major international crisis shortly after he and Obama would take office which would try to “test” the newly elected president. Importantly, Biden said, many would believe that Obama’s reaction would be wrong. (Poligazette)
I don't think Biden meant what Michael seems to imply (?) he meant and it doesn't matter anyway what "many believe." Biden is often verbally inept as everyone knows, and what he ought to have said---and doubtless meant---was that any incoming president (though he was speaking specifically of Obama, who he rightly believed had it in the bag) would be tested.
And whoever we had elected, "many" would "believe" that his response was wrong. If, for example, he decided to invade a country other than the one from which the threat was emanating, and devoted trillions in resources to it, I and other liberals would say: "WRONG."
I for one am tired of an administration that does AQ's work for it by trying to keep citizens in a state of perpetual fear of outside terrorism. If we're more vulnerable than we've ever been---as this article would certainly suggest--- the responsibility can be laid at the door of eight years of Republican fiscal irresponsibility and misdirected aggression under America's Lord of Misrule.
Americans are supposed to be a brave as well as a free people and to stand for something besides feeling safe. If there is an increased threat, you brace yourself. And, as the Brits---who've had long experience with terrorism---would tell you, you carry on.
And thank whatever gods there be that we elected someone with a cool head and a rational brain.
And anyway:
Intelligence chiefs on both sides of the Atlantic have indicated that such warnings refer more to a general sense of foreboding than fear of an imminent or specific plan.(ToL)
While, on the other hand:
Lord West of Spithead, the Home Office Security Minister, spoke recently of a “huge threat”, saying: “There is another great plot building up again and we are monitoring this.”(ToL)
That's good because the Brits are clearly very good at this and have had a lot of experience.
This account---which I believe---explains about halfway down that Al Qaeda remains "intrigued" with the idea of using airplanes as weapons of mass destruction and that they are experimenting with with chemical, radiological, nuclear, and biological weapons. (ToL) They get anthrax from dead animals and culture it. They are busy trying to work out how to inflict major damage.
In other words, they are busy doing what they have always done.
In the meantime, Al Qaeda is reportedly "elated" by our economic troubles. Yes, we knew that already.
But many government and private terrorism experts say the financial crisis has given al-Qaeda an opening, and judging from public statements and intercepted communications, senior al-Qaeda leaders are elated by the West's economic troubles, which they regard as a vindication of their efforts and a sign of the superpower's weakness.
"Al-Qaeda's propaganda arm is constantly banging the drum saying that the U.S. economy is on the precipice -- and it's the force of the jihadists that's going to push us over the edge," said Bruce Hoffman, a former scholar-in-residence at the CIA and now a professor at Georgetown University....
Whether terrorist leader Osama bin Laden is technically capable of another Sept. 11-style attack is unclear, but U.S. officials say he has traditionally picked times of transition to launch major strikes. The two major al-Qaeda-linked attacks on U.S. soil -- the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the 2001 hijackings -- occurred in the early months of new administrations.(WaPo)
But we're heading toward one of those periods when the threat level on both sides, here and in Great Britain, is especially high....a period which they might regard as a particularly opportune moment to make their point.
James Lewis, a security expert with the Centre of Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that al-Qaeda may wish to provoke a reaction from the next US Administration designed to show the rest of the world that “America is still the evil crusader”...“It is hard to fathom the level of sophistication of their operatives and whether the chatter we intercept is dissent or intent. If they are going to do something, they may wait until after the inauguration. (ToL)
Though by the way:
In Britain, security officials say that there is genuine concern that alQaeda will attempt a “spectacular” in the transition period, but suggest that it may be aimed more at Mr Bush than Mr Obama. (ToL; emphasis added)
The Brits say that the threat is "at the severe end of severe." But wherever it stands, it's ongoing, constant, and not going away any time soon.
The CIA seems less concerned about an imminent threat than the ongoing one.
General Michael Hayden, director of the CIA, this week acknowledged that there were dangers during a presidential transition when new officials were coming in and getting accustomed to the challenges. But he added that no “real or artificial spike” in intercepted transmissions from terror suspects had been detected....
Referring to the attacks in 1993 and 2001, General Hayden told a Washington think-tank on Thursday night: “For some people two data points create a trend line. For others, there may be more hesitation to call it that.” He said that the chief danger comes from remote areas in Pakistan that border Afghanistan.
“Today virtually every major terrorist threat that my agency is aware of has threads back to the tribal areas. Whether it’s command and control, training, direction, money, capabilities, there is a connection to the Fata [Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas].”
General Hayden said that al-Qaeda remained a “determined, adaptive enemy” operating “from its safe haven in Pakistan”. He added: “If there is a major attack on this country it will bear the fingerprints of al-Qaeda.” (ToL; emphasis added)
Which shows that Obama has been right all along about where the threat lies. Whether you think Bush has been right or wrong to launch airstrikes depends on whether you think (1) it's possible to eliminate the threat by eliminating key players who are behind it; (2) it's possible to do that without making more people even angrier; and (3) whether you think the "collateral damage" from killing the innocent with the guilty is morally defensible. That you may decide for yourself.
Hours after [Hayden] spoke, a suspected US missile attack killed 12 people in Pakistan, including five foreigners. Such strikes are hugely controversial, with Islamabad claiming that they fuel anti-American extremist groups. But Mr Obama has been clear that he wants to pursue al-Qaeda aggressively across the Afghan border.(ToL; emphasis added)
In the meantime, the economic downturn is creating a greater opening for the terrorists to achieve their objectives. There's not the money there used to be. It takes money to pay for security. As we all know, we've pissed away approximately $572,000,000,000 to date on the Iraq War instead of using it to secure the "Homeland."
U.S. government officials and private analysts say the economic turmoil has heightened the short-term risk of a terrorist attack, as radical groups probe for weakening border protections and new gaps in defenses. A protracted financial crisis could threaten the survival of friendly regimes from Pakistan to the Middle East while forcing Western nations to cut spending on defense, intelligence and foreign aid, the sources said.....(WaPo)
Thanks in part to eight years of fiscal irresponsibility by the Bush administration (including, but not limited to, the profiteering of its friends the military contractors) and 20 years of globalization, we---and the world, though we're speaking for the moment at the West---are more vulnerable to AQ than we've ever been.
The underlying problems and trends -- especially regional instability and the waning influence of the West -- were already well established, but they are now "being accelerated by the current global financial crisis," the nation's top intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, said in a recent speech. McConnell is among several top U.S. intelligence officials warning that deep cuts in military and intelligence budgets could undermine the country's ability to anticipate and defend against new threats.(WaPo)
Sadly, the Pentagon Board has announced that it has to cut its budget. (Buck Naked Politics) As my colleague Deb Cupples has repeatedly suggested, they would do well to stop pouring the resources they do have into the pockets of feckless military contractors who have cheated American taxpayers , but those already lost billions have floated away with all the water under the latrine.
That money's gone. And we don't know where we're going to get more of it.
"I worry where we'll be five or 10 years from now," Charles Allen, intelligence director for the Department of Homeland Security, said in an interview. "I am deeply worried that we will not have the funding necessary to operate and build the systems already approved. (WaPo)
Meanwhile, Pakistan---current terrorist haven---is hotting up as the result of severe economic pressure.
U.S. officials are following developments with particular concern because of Pakistan's critical role in the campaign against terrorism, as well as the country's arsenal of dozens of nuclear weapons. Al-Qaeda has appealed directly to Pakistanis to overthrow their government, and its Taliban allies have launched multiple suicide bombings, some aimed at economic targets such as the posh Marriott hotel in Islamabad, hit in September.
Economic and social unrest has helped drive recruiting for militant groups that cross into Afghanistan to attack U.S. troops.
The Bush administration has counterpunched by striking unilaterally at al-Qaeda-allied militants in the autonomous tribal region along the Afghan border.
More than 15 such strikes, using unmanned Predator aircraft piloted remotely by the CIA, have killed dozens of suspected insurgents since late August. (WaPo)
Will it work? It will work better, I imagine, than killing thousands of people who are not insurgents by invading a country that isn't host to Al Qaeda. Other than that, I don't think it will work, except to make even more people even angrier. Doubtless if they are pushed out of Pakistan they will eventually go somewhere else. But I am not a military strategist and my religious beliefs make me a pacifist. I say this is wrong.
So, I guess, brace yourselves for the worst and then carry on like citizens of the land of the free and the home of the brave. I believe America will find the way out because America always does. But we are going to have to accept that the world is changing and change with it. Time to start breaking out of your cocoons...
Things are likely to get worse for awhile before they get better. Be thankful that the guy at the helm is a cool-headed and careful reasoner who is as prepared as anyone can be to cope with the mess Bush created.
Memeorandum has commentary on the ToL article here.
RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
Intelligence Officers Hayden & McConnell Think Obama will Fire Them: WaPo Thinks it's Just Politics?
Al-Qaeda Rejoices Over Economic Crisis; McCain Picks Up an Unwelcome "Endorsement"
Cross-Border Missile Attack in Pakistan Aimed at Prominent Taliban Family Kills 23 Civilians
I never thought of it like that, but is it really true...
Posted by: Term Paper | February 25, 2010 at 12:02 AM