The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Winning the war on terror vs. having won the war
German journalist Dirk Laabs writes in the Los Angeles Times that the threat posed by al-Qaeda is exaggerated. Noting that "Al Qaeda was once centralized, structured and powerful ... before before the U.S. pulverized its camps and leadership in Afghanistan," Laabs suggests that "this battle in the war on terror might already be over." I have no doubt that al-Qaeda is weakened, that their strength and scope might be exaggerated and that their ability to hit the United States is severely diminished. But all of that is because the Bush administration and the Coalition of the Willing has al-Qaeda on the run and has scared away al-Qaeda's state sponsors. It is difficult to be centralized, structured and powerful when you have to continuously move camps, when you can't operate freely because the whole world is watching what happens in the shadows and when your operatives and top leaders are being arrested or shot dead/blown up. The battle is not over, but it is being won. That victory will be snatched from the United States and its allies if it succombs to Laabs' way of thinking that the terrorist enemies no longer need to be dealt with.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Winning the war on terror vs. having won the war:
The comments to this entry are closed.