Open Thread (12/1/2009)

"Democrat Party" pretty much says all you need to know right there.

"Only a Dem President can win the war" was something stated by many pundits before the election.  It just might be true.  Obama can defang the Dem congress and the protestors simply because of his party affiliation. 

I wasn't aware that the hardcore anti-war crowd voted for Obama.

So then we should expect protests after Obama's surge speech? 

well, silly me...

AWARE is on the case

McChrystal: No Major Al-Qaeda Signs In Afghanistan
MIKE CORDER | 09/11/09 10:48 AM |
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The top commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan said Friday he sees no signs of a major al-Qaida presence in the country, but says the terror group still maintains close links to insurgents.

"I do believe that al-Qaida intends to retain those relationships because they believe it is symbiotic ... where the Taliban has success, that provides a sanctuary from which al-Qaida can operate transnationally," he added.

Read the Article

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

Al-Qaida Showing Smaller Presence In Afghanistan

ROBERT H. REID | 10/ 6/09 09:46 PM

U.S. national security adviser James Jones said last weekend that the al-Qaida presence has diminished, and he does not "foresee the return of the Taliban" to power.

He said that according to the maximum estimate, al-Qaida has fewer than 100 fighters operating in Afghanistan without any bases or ability to launch attacks on the West.

Read the Article

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

Al-Qaida Showing Smaller Presence In Afghanistan

Ok, I read the article and let me start by pointing out a number of things in your source.  I've excerpted several parts of the article from the HufPo

"The group is left with fewer than 100 core fighters, according to the Obama administration"  The use of the word core implies that there are other AQ personnel potentially in Afghanistan.

"But Bryan Glyn Williams, a University of Massachusetts associate professor who monitors militant Web sites, told The Associated Press he has collected reports of large numbers of al-Qaida fighters in various provinces in addition to across the border in Pakistan."  A conflicting assessment, albeit one which could very well be some propaganda or hyperbole on the part of AQ to give the impression of greater strength.

"Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst who tracked bin Laden for three years, believes the administration may have underestimated al-Qaida's role here because the organization prefers to work in the background providing logistics, propaganda and training to local allies."  Another conflicting assessment, this time emphasizing that AQ is more than a set of "core" fighters and that they work with local allies-read Taliban.  My point in previous posts.

"Most of the foreigners fighting against NATO in Afghanistan are believed to be Pakistani Pashtuns and Uzbeks, who are harder to identify than Arabs because of ethnic similarities to Afghans"  Remember my point about the AQ affiliate, IMU, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan?  AQ is more than a ecclective collection of Arabs from the Arabian peninsula.  The fact that Afghanistan is composed of Tadjiks, Uzbeks, Pashtuns and serveral minorities means that it will be harder to differentiate the AQ and AQ affiliates who are native to south-central Asia.

"When you see less and less of al-Qaida in an Islamist insurgency, it almost certainly means that it is more effective than when you saw more of it," Scheuer said. "I am sure that al-Qaida is still fielding some field-grade cadre to toughen the Taliban's ranks."  Again the integration and coordination of AQ with the Taliban.

Finally, just look as some of the many sources available on the internet.  Example-From Wikileaks is a U.S. Army pdf (March 2009) which says AQ strength in Afghanistan was estimated at 2,000 with the total of major insurgency groups in Afghanistan numbering about 60,000.  I think the preponderance of information suggests a larger problem than 100 AQ fighters and a very weak Taliban.  After all, if that isn't the case, why did the President announce his new Afghan strategy with the troop surge?  Is he a tool of defense contractors too?

I did not knowingly call National Security Advisor James Jones an anonymous political hack, nor would I have used that phrase in my previous post had your anonymous buddy identified him as the source in your referenced article with respect to the "only 100 AQ in Pakistan" comment. That figure is inconsistent with what I understand to be reality and I wanted a source. Too many of the posters on this site throw around "truthy" or patently false statements to support their arguments.

But now you have! Are we to bow to your superior knowledge of National Security affairs and reject the idea that General James L. Jones may have access to the best intelligence available? What are your National Security credentials? How long have you served in the national security establishment? Your aptly selected pseudonym cloaks you with as much anonymity as the poster you attacked. I don't claim any expertise in National Security affairs. I'm just a country lawyer who reads. When you took your shot I recalled that reading and took 5 minutes to Google the question and find the AP articles.

You say you wanted a source. Well now you have it.

Having said all that, my personal opinion after reading your referenced article is that National Security Advisor James Jones is a political hack.
...He is a political appointee and I know from experience the picking and shaping of intelligence assessments and information to favor some desired outcome.

Here is the Wikipedia biographical sketch of the man that you say is a political hack:

James Logan Jones Jr. (born December 19, 1943) is the current United States National Security Advisor and a retired United States Marine Corps four-star general.
During his military career, he served as Commander, United States European Command (COMUSEUCOM) and Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) from 2003 to 2006 and as the 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps from July 1999 to January 2003. Jones retired from the Marine Corps on February 1, 2007, after 40 years of service.
After retiring from the Marine Corps, Jones remained involved in national security and foreign policy issues. In 2007, Jones served as chairman of the Congressional Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, which investigated the capabilities of the Iraqi police and armed forces. In November 2007, he was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of State as special envoy for Middle East security. He served as chairman of the Atlantic Council of the United States from June 2007 to January 2009, when he assumed the post of National Security Advisor.

You may note that his history of service is bipartisan and includes significant roles in the Bush administration. You owe General Jones a public apology.

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

"But now you have!"

Keith, you have a keen grasp of the obvious.  Yes, I did say that it was my personal opinion that James Jones was a political hack because he apparently has done a 180 degree turn on his assessment of the AQ/Taliban threat in Afghanistan in less than 60 days.  If he knew or believed that the AQ/Taliban were toothless tigers in early October, but his boss (The President of the United States) says the opposite in early December, then it must be obvious that Jones is either incompetent in his job (which I don't believe), or the Afghanistan situation has precipitously deteriorated since early October (ditto), or that he said different things at different times for political expedience.  Now before you literalists get all excited, I know President Obama is the one who articulated the AQ/Taliban threat as the rationale for his new Aghan strategy.  However, as Jones is the National Security Advisor, I can't believe he would knowingly allow the President to speak falsely about the threat, if AQ/Taliban were as toothless as he portrayed in October.  Therefore, unless President Obama ignores the advice of his National Security Advisor (unlikely since he picked Jones), James Jones must have advised the President about the nature and strength of the AQ/Taliban threat, which is counter to what he said 60 days prior, and thus, he says different things to support political aims.  Q.E.D.

"Are we to bow to your superior knowledge of National Security affairs and reject the idea that General James L. Jones may have access to the best intelligence available?"

First of all Keith, you've presented a false dichotomy-a logical fallacy.  It's not one or the other.  While I do think I'm conversant in national security affairs because of my education and experience and reading (I'm not a simple country lawyer, but I read too), it is your choice to accept or reject my expertise in this area.  I know James Jones has access to the best intelligence available; the question remains whether he chooses to accept or reject the expertise of those who formulated the reports.

"How long have you served in the national security establishment?"

I have had a 30-year career in the "national security establishment" with "access to the best intelligence available."

"Your aptly selected pseudonym cloaks you with as much anonymity as the poster you attacked."

Yes, it provides me with a certain degree of privacy, which is what I desire.  However, my complaint about anonymous posters is that I never develop a picture in my mind of the person(s) with whom I'm discussing matters, so I'm not sure who is speaking.  I get the impression that some of the people on this blog like to pretend to be several different people to add some sort of false validity to their arguments.  So, it annoys me, but that's my problem.

"You may note that his history of service is bipartisan and includes significant roles in the Bush administration."

My history of service is bipartisan as well-it is for every career federal employee or military personnel with some longevity in their career field.

"You owe General Jones a public apology."

I believe James Jones has subordinated his personal integrity for political expedience.  If he were to explain his sudden conversion and fervor for a troop surge when he seemed to be pooh-poohing it earlier, I might just admit I was wrong for believing him to be a political hack.  I did not disparage his service as a commissioned officer, nor did I insult him personally (you might want to look up a few definitions of "political hack" to understand my perspective before claiming I was personally insulting).  He is a public, political figure.  I can disagree and think less of him then you do-it's called freedom of speech.  By the way,  James Jones is a retired officer and there is no requirement for me to refer to him as "General" in his position as National Security Advisor.

I hope you can understand my perspective without it being too "annoying."  Not good for the digestion, you know.