Is The U.S. Really About To Defeat Al Qaeda?

Leon Panetta

Leon Panetta

No doubt there will be naysayers who claim that Al Qaeda was a convenient fiction for the U.S. Government in the first place, but in any event it is certainly a change of tune to hear the U.S. Defense Secretary talk about victory over the bad guys. No doubt it means a change of strategy – but what? Mary Walsh reports for CBS News:

The United States is “within reach of strategically defeating al Qaeda,” Leon Panetta declared, as he traveled to Afghanistan for his first visit there as Secretary of Defense.

Speaking to reporters aboard a government flight to Kabul, Panetta said intelligence gathered during the raid at Osama bin Laden’s compound has lead the United States to target 10-20 key al Qaeda leaders.

“If we can go after them, I think we really can strategically defeat al Qaeda,” Panetta said.

The success of the May raid on the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan where bin Laden was killed, along with “operations that we conducted at the CIA,” has undermined the terror organization’s ability to conduct 9/11-type attacks, he added.

“I think we have them on the run,” Panetta said. “I think now is the moment, following what happened with bin Laden, to put maximum pressure on them, because I do believe that if we continue this effort we really can cripple al Qaeda as a threat to this country.

“Is it going to take some more work? You bet it is. But I think it’s within reach,” Panetta said.

Panetta also said he believes Aymin al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s new commander, is living in the tribal areas of Pakistan, known as the FATA…

[continues at CBS News]

, ,

  • GoodDoktorBad

    CBS news is just so incredibly credible, it must be true. 

  • Anonymous

    CBS news is just so incredibly credible, it must be true. 

  • smooth_operator

    Elections.

  • Anonymous

    Elections.

  • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

    We can’t give up now, we’re just about to win…. for real this time…

  • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

    We can’t give up now, we’re just about to win…. for real this time…

  • Krobertson1270

    There is a election in a year, Obama wants to get reelected he’ll do whatever it takes.

  • Krobertson1270

    There is a election in a year, Obama wants to get reelected he’ll do whatever it takes.

  • SF2K01

    You can’t defeat an ideology that easily. I’m guessing no. Plenty of other terror cells up and running, but because they don’t have a brand name like Al-Qaeda, they’re not a threat.

  • Anonymous

    You can’t defeat an ideology that easily. I’m guessing no. Plenty of other terror cells up and running, but because they don’t have a brand name like Al-Qaeda, they’re not a threat.

  • Mr. Coffee

    “I know you have come to kill me. Shoot coward, you are only killing a man”
    - Che Guevara

    We all know how that went, because clearly no nation in the world is calling itself communist 50 years later, and there are totally not people advocating it or some form of it worldwide.

    I expect the same to be true of Islamic terrorism, but instead of disaffected people calling for reform (and being ignored) it will be disaffected people killing themselves and others with suicide vests (and being ignored)

  • Mr. Coffee

    “I know you have come to kill me. Shoot coward, you are only killing a man”
    - Che Guevara

    We all know how that went, because clearly no nation in the world is calling itself communist 50 years later, and there are totally not people advocating it or some form of it worldwide.

    I expect the same to be true of Islamic terrorism, but instead of disaffected people calling for reform (and being ignored) it will be disaffected people killing themselves and others with suicide vests (and being ignored)

  • MoralDrift

    The enemy has shifted, AQ is no longer relevant to the agenda. I’d put my money on China as future bogeyman.

    Also; After 10 years of entrenching the police state, there really isn’t much more to take as far as surveillance powers go, or detention powers for that matter. I think with the US fiscal position being in the dumps, someone high up realized the mileage gained from these AQ shenanigans is diminishing.

    • GoodDoktorBad

      If we attack China, we’re really fucked…

      • MoralDrift

        I doubt we would, but as with the USSR the mere threat is enough to serve the purpose. Witness the proxy battles shaping up in South China Sea

        • GreyMatterTripp

          I am inclined to follow the same line of thinking as MoralDrift, given history and the available information.

        • E.B. Wolf

          The U.S. isn’t in a position to even use China as a large scale propaganda tool. We ‘re too economically bound to them to pull it off like with the Soviets. The Cold War would have been a much tougher sell if we were importing their products and borrowing huge amounts of money from them like we currently do with China.. 

          • MoralDrift

            Certainly not right this moment, I’m just lining up the likely future. US suspension of Pakistani Military aid should have been done years ago….but the timing now is curious. Pakistan has been making overtures to China and China has stated that they will not tolerate US war on Pakistan. There is the South China sea issue which I already mentioned, which features the US now backing Vietnam against China.

            So there is the economic situation which is very unbalanced. There is the geo-political “encirclement” going on with the US and China both attempting to court and turn allies to their side(Karzai was courted, but reportedly refused). Don’t forget the Korean peninsula. Strangely enough…both the US and China benefit from N Korea’s continued existence. Any major changes in any of these areas could result in dramatic public policy changes while it is evident that a secret policy of maneuvering has been going on in both countries for years (which is always the case amongst great powers..but so many forget we fought a shootin’ war with China in the 50′s, more than I can say about the USSR)

            It’s not inevitable to see the US-China relationship take a nose dive, but its as close as it could be.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Hmmm I don’t really see how the US benefits from N Korea’s existence.  The US would still be able to have army bases in South Korea for quite some time even after the war / reunification.  N Korea poses no threat to the US and can’t be used as a “big bad”, certainly not more than China or Iran, and the case for those two are already stretching credibility.  As for an “ideology” to use as a foil to our own, there are already better countries to use for that.  

            Given these facts, how does the US benefit from N Korea existing?  

          • MoralDrift

            Well, I do not agree with the assertion that the US would be able to maintain bases after reunification. The entire justification for the bases being there now is the protection of S. Korea from the North. China made it clear during the Korean war that they will not allow a US sponsored state to share its border. That position is definitely softened as S. Korea and China relations have greatly improved but recently there has been a little stir over the fact that China refuses to renounce mutual protection provisions signed with DPRK. Either way, China would not accept US troops on the Chinese border…..ever. After reunification the US troops would have to go on some kind of timetable, in my opinion, although Korea as a US ally would probably continue.

            I would also go a step further and say that (although I hate to go down this line of thinking) reunification is not economically beneficial for the South and by proxy the US who benefits from trade with S. Korea, heck its not good for China either as they trade with the South as well. The task of not only de-brainwashing but integrating millions of people who have very distorted views of the world into our current global clusterfuck is an enormous task. Of course, I feel it has to be done eventually and the sooner the better, but for the sake of argument, the status quo is best for all concerned players right now…(except the suffering and shut-in Korean people who live above the 38th parallel)

            To sum it up though, the US benefits by keeping the lid on a huge fucking can of worms.

  • Anonymous

    The enemy has shifted, AQ is no longer relevant to the agenda. I’d put my money on China as future bogeyman.

    Also; After 10 years of entrenching the police state, there really isn’t much more to take as far as surveillance powers go, or detention powers for that matter. I think with the US fiscal position being in the dumps, someone high up realized the mileage gained from these AQ shenanigans is diminishing.

  • DeepCough

    Clearly, Al Qaeda just isn’t as marketable as it used to be; probably why their brand name is being retired for something edgier and more……….apocalyptic.

  • DeepCough

    Clearly, Al Qaeda just isn’t as marketable as it used to be; probably why their brand name is being retired for something edgier and more……….apocalyptic.

  • Anonymous

    If we attack China, we’re really fucked…

  • GoodDoktorBad

    Soon, the Kraken will be unleashed once again. Who will we offer for sacrifice this time around?

    • Krobertson1270

      casey anthony? 

    • Mr Willow

      Well, we already dumped Bin Laden’s body in the ocean, so. . .

  • Anonymous

    Soon, the Kraken will be unleashed once again. Who will we offer for sacrifice this time around?

  • Malk

    “strategically defeat” just means gain the upper hand and continue to sit on your butt because you really can’t do anything but fuck up innocent nations one after another.

    • Malk

      I mean how many times can you say “I think” in one interview?
      “Mr. Panetta, do actually -know- anything?”
      “I think I know a lot!”
      They just want more blood and more guns to further the gun/soldier trade in which they have huge investments. Nothing to do with peace, a better future, or any sort of “victory”.

  • Malk

    “strategically defeat” just means gain the upper hand and continue to sit on your butt because you really can’t do anything but fuck up innocent nations one after another.

  • Malk

    I mean how many times can you say “I think” in one interview?
    “Mr. Panetta, do actually -know- anything?”
    “I think I know a lot!”
    They just want more blood and more guns to further the gun/soldier trade in which they have huge investments. Nothing to do with peace, a better future, or any sort of “victory”.

  • Krobertson1270

    casey anthony? 

  • Anonymous

    I doubt we would, but as with the USSR the mere threat is enough to serve the purpose. Witness the proxy battles shaping up in South China Sea

  • http://obaidkarki.blogspot.com/ Obaid Karki

    Is The U.S. Really About To Defeat Al Qaeda?
    who are you kiddn’? al qaeda is the only customer pentagon can earn their living

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Obaid-Karki/521768286 Obaid Karki

    Is The U.S. Really About To Defeat Al Qaeda?
    who are you kiddn’? al qaeda is the only customer pentagon can earn their living

  • Hadrian999

    you can’t beat an enemy like al qaeda in a military fashion, they aren’t an army in controlling territory with bases and supply lines, you can root them out of every camp they have seize every cache, kill 90% of them and they will  still be there with willing recruits. you have to beat their message and remove the conditions that leads so many hopeless people down that path.

  • Hadrian999

    you can’t beat an enemy like al qaeda in a military fashion, they aren’t an army in controlling territory with bases and supply lines, you can root them out of every camp they have seize every cache, kill 90% of them and they will  still be there with willing recruits. you have to beat their message and remove the conditions that leads so many hopeless people down that path.

  • Hadrian999

    you can’t beat an enemy like al qaeda in a military fashion, they aren’t an army in controlling territory with bases and supply lines, you can root them out of every camp they have seize every cache, kill 90% of them and they will  still be there with willing recruits. you have to beat their message and remove the conditions that leads so many hopeless people down that path.

  • Guest

    Al Qaeda is a Patsy Group invented in a right wing think tank to justify fulfilling the Biblical prophecies and kill brown people.

    The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear 2004
    http://stagevu.com/search?for=The+Power+of+Nightmares%3A+The+Rise+of+the+Politics+of+Fear+2004&in=Videos

    • Guest

      ^ Not to mention nobody even flinched when it was openly stated that the UN was working with Al Qaeda in Libya leading the rebels, then BOOM “Ladies and Gentlemen we Got Him, we got Osama Bin Laden”.

      Most ppl in the world know whats going on its just the West that cant figure it out.
      http://jpgmag.com/photos/2514247

  • Guest

    Al Qaeda is a Patsy Group invented in a right wing think tank to justify fulfilling the Biblical prophecies and kill brown people.

    The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear 2004
    http://stagevu.com/search?for=The+Power+of+Nightmares%3A+The+Rise+of+the+Politics+of+Fear+2004&in=Videos

  • Guest

    ^ Not to mention nobody even flinched when it was openly stated that the UN was working with Al Qaeda in Libya leading the rebels, then BOOM “Ladies and Gentlemen we Got Him, we got Osama Bin Laden”.

    Most ppl in the world know whats going on its just the West that cant figure it out.
    http://jpgmag.com/photos/2514247

  • Guest

    ^ Not to mention nobody even flinched when it was openly stated that the UN was working with Al Qaeda in Libya leading the rebels, then BOOM “Ladies and Gentlemen we Got Him, we got Osama Bin Laden”.

    Most ppl in the world know whats going on its just the West that cant figure it out.
    http://jpgmag.com/photos/2514247

  • Guest

    ^ Not to mention nobody even flinched when it was openly stated that the UN was working with Al Qaeda in Libya leading the rebels, then BOOM “Ladies and Gentlemen we Got Him, we got Osama Bin Laden”.

    Most ppl in the world know whats going on its just the West that cant figure it out.
    http://jpgmag.com/photos/2514247

  • http://twitter.com/GreyMatterT GreyMatterTripp

    I am inclined to follow the same line of thinking as MoralDrift, given history and the available information.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Shit, just in time for the upcoming election season.  What a completely unexpected boost to the incumbent’s campaign.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    Shit, just in time for the upcoming election season.  What a completely unexpected boost to the incumbent’s campaign.  

  • cakey pig

    It’s just bullshit. You can’t ‘strategically defeat’ a nebulous organisation, especially when your country’s actions act as a massive recruitment campaign for it.

  • Anonymous

    It’s just bullshit. You can’t strategically defeat a nebulous organisation, especially when your country’s actions act as a massive recruitment campaign for it.

  • Mr Willow

    Well, we already dumped Bin Laden’s body in the ocean, so. . .

  • E.B. Wolf

    The U.S. isn’t in a position to even use China as a large scale propaganda tool. We ‘re too economically bound to them to pull it off like with the Soviets. The Cold War would have been a much tougher sell if we were importing their products and borrowing huge amounts of money from them like we currently do with China.. 

  • Anonymous

    Certainly not right this moment, I’m just lining up the likely future. US suspension of Pakistani Military aid should have been done years ago….but the timing now is curious. Pakistan has been making overtures to China and China has stated that they will not tolerate US war on Pakistan. There is the South China sea issue which I already mentioned, which features the US now backing Vietnam against China.

    So there is the economic situation which is very unbalanced. There is the geo-political “encirclement” going on with the US and China both attempting to court and turn allies to their side(Karzai was courted, but reportedly refused). Don’t forget the Korean peninsula. Strangely enough…both the US and China benefit from N Korea’s continued existence. Any major changes in any of these areas could result in dramatic public policy changes while it is evident that a secret policy of maneuvering has been going on in both countries for years (which is always the case amongst great powers..but so many forget we fought a shootin’ war with China in the 50′s, more than I can say about the USSR)

    It’s not inevitable to see the US-China relationship take a nose dive, but its as close as it could be.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Hmmm I don’t really see how the US benefits from N Korea’s existence.  The US would still be able to have army bases in South Korea for quite some time even after the war / reunification.  N Korea poses no threat to the US and can’t be used as a “big bad”, certainly not more than China or Iran, and the case for those two are already stretching credibility.  As for an “ideology” to use as a foil to our own, there are already better countries to use for that.  

    Given these facts, how does the US benefit from N Korea existing?  

  • Anonymous

    Well, I do not agree with the assertion that the US would be able to maintain bases after reunification. The entire justification for the bases being there now is the protection of S. Korea from the North. China made it clear during the Korean war that they will not allow a US sponsored state to share its border. That position is definitely softened as S. Korea and China relations have greatly improved but recently there has been a little stir over the fact that China refuses to renounce mutual protection provisions signed with DPRK. Either way, China would not accept US troops on the Chinese border…..ever. After reunification the US troops would have to go on some kind of timetable, in my opinion, although Korea as a US ally would probably continue.

    I would also go a step further and say that (although I hate to go down this line of thinking) reunification is not economically beneficial for the South and by proxy the US who benefits from trade with S. Korea, heck its not good for China either as they trade with the South as well. The task of not only de-brainwashing but integrating millions of people who have very distorted views of the world into our current global clusterfuck is an enormous task. Of course, I feel it has to be done eventually and the sooner the better, but for the sake of argument, the status quo is best for all concerned players right now…(except the suffering and shut-in Korean people who live above the 38th parallel)

    To sum it up though, the US benefits by keeping the lid on a huge fucking can of worms.

21