Al-Qaida has rebuilt, U.S. intel warns

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#1
war on terror doesn't seem to be doing so well

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070711/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_terror_threat

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned. The conclusion suggests that the group that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to regroup along the Afghan-Pakistani border despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it.

Still, numerous government officials say they know of no specific, credible threat of a new attack on U.S. soil.

A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the new government threat assessment called it a stark appraisal to be discussed at the White House on Thursday as part of a broader meeting on an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the secret report remains classified.

Counterterrorism analysts produced the document, titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West." The document focuses on the terror group's safe haven in Pakistan and makes a range of observations about the threat posed to the United States and its allies, officials said.

Al-Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.

At the same time, this official said, the report speaks of "significant gaps in intelligence" so U.S. authorities may be ignorant of potential or planned attacks.

John Kringen, who heads the CIA's analysis directorate, echoed the concerns about al-Qaida's resurgence during testimony and conversations with reporters at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.

"They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven and the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan," Kringen testified. "We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications. We see that activity rising."

The threat assessment comes as the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies prepare a National Intelligence Estimate focusing on threats to the United States. A senior intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity while the high-level analysis was being finalized, said the document has been in the works for roughly two years.

Kringen and aides to National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell would not comment on the details of that analysis. "Preparation of the estimate is not a response to any specific threat," McConnell's spokesman Ross Feinstein said, adding that it would be ready for distribution this summer.

Counterterrorism officials have been increasingly concerned about al-Qaida's recent operations. This week, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" that the United States faced a heightened risk of attack this summer.

Kringen said he wouldn't attach a summer time frame to the concern. In studying the threat, he said he begins with the premise that al-Qaida would consider attacking the U.S. a "home run hit" and that the easiest way to get into the United States would be through Europe.

The new threat assessment puts particular focus on Pakistan, as did Kringen.

"Sooner or later you have to quit permitting them to have a safe haven" along the Afghan-Pakistani border, he told the House committee. "At the end of the day, when we have had success, it is when you've been able to get them worried about who was informing on them, get them worried about who was coming after them."

Several European countries — among them Britain, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands — are also highlighted in the threat assessment partly because they have arrangements with the Pakistani government that allow their citizens easier access to Pakistan than others, according to the counterterrorism official.

This is more troubling because all four are part of the U.S. visa waiver program, and their citizens can enter the United States without additional security scrutiny, the official said.

The Bush administration has repeatedly cited al-Qaida as a key justification for continuing the fight in Iraq.

"The No. 1 enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday. "Al-Qaida continues to be the chief organizer of mayhem within Iraq, the chief organization for killing innocent Iraqis."

The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq. A progress report that the White House is releasing to Congress this week is expected to indicate scant progress on the political and military benchmarks set for Iraq.

The threat assessment says that al-Qaida stepped up efforts to "improve its core operational capability" in late 2004 but did not succeed until December of 2006 after the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with tribal leaders that effectively removed government military presence from the northwest frontier with Afghanistan.

The agreement allows Taliban and al-Qaida operatives to move across the border with impunity and establish and run training centers, the report says, according to the official.

It also says that al-Qaida is particularly interested in building up the numbers in its middle ranks, or operational positions, so there is not as great a lag in attacks when such people are killed.

"Being No. 3 in al-Qaida is a bad job. We regularly get to the No. 3 person," Tom Fingar, the top U.S. intelligence analyst, told the House panel.

The counterterror official said the report does not focus on al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, his whereabouts or his role in the terrorist network. Officials say al-Qaida has become more like a "family-oriented" mob organization with leadership roles in cells and other groups being handed from father to son, or cousin to uncle.

Yet bin Laden's whereabouts are still of great interest to intelligence agencies. Although he has not been heard from for some time, Kringen said officials believe he is still alive and living under the protection of tribal leaders in the border area.

Armed Services Committee members expressed frustration that more was not being done to get bin Laden and tamp down activity in the tribal areas. The senior intelligence analysts tried to portray the difficulty of operating in the area despite a $25 million bounty on the head of bin Laden and his top deputy.

"They are in an environment that is more hostile to us than it is to al-Qaida," Fingar said.
 

queeby

Irrelevant Liberal
Jun 12, 2004
396
1
0
Columbus OH
#2
So I guess since it is not working, they will give us our civil liberties back. Right?

Can we count how many posts until someone blames the "liberal media"?
 

pure_waves

© Steven Carr Industries, 2014. Grrrrrrrr
Dec 9, 2004
1,406
1
513
Upper West Side, NY
#3
i blame the liberal media :action-sm

anyway, not a big surprise here. there's no way we can ever win this thing unless we use massive force, on the ground, on all fronts.

leaving the safe haven on the afghani-paki border, is the equivalent of leaving ex-nazis to mingle in austria in 1946. either wipe them out completely and totally or dont wage the war. theres no nice way to war...its a horrible bloody mess. you just have to get nasty and fight thoroughly if you are going to get into it at all. thats it.
 
#5
You mean all this time in Iraq and al Qaeda has "rebuilt?" Kinda like the Taliban has rebuilt in Afghanistan. Boy oh boy I sure thought that "surge" ( massive sucking of the treasury dry to give to defense contractors better known as 'the war on terror' ) would have paid off.

One day they'll learn.
 

MrAbovePar

En Taro Anthony
Mar 14, 2005
13,782
3,176
678
Covington. La
#6
You mean Al Qaeda was able to adapt to our tactics and rally? Who knew people could do this? Why this must mean that we've lost. Quick! Everyone run around screaming and wailing!!!
 
Dec 18, 2005
5,795
0
0
Huntington, New York
#7
What I found funny about the reports is that we know the training camps have geared up, we know where they are, and specific shit about them because we undoubtedly have CIA spies on the inside, but we don't send about a dozen missiles into those mountains to close these places down because we want to hit a precise target or some shit.
 
#8
Do you guys honestly believe that what is going on over there. As a whole has anything to do with stopping al Qaeda and terrorism? Seriously?

God bless the innocent service men and women there doing their duties valiantly, but the ones orchestrating this thing could give a fuck about terrorism, terrorists, or bin Laden.

And we all know this.
 

talljimmy0

Registered User
May 10, 2007
97
0
0
#9
Al-Qaeda has rebuilt!

This only means they bought an extra box of plastic box cutters, explosion resistant passports, and conveniently placed flight manuals in locations the FBI could easily find them. :rolleyes:
 

Six-Pack

Registered User
Feb 25, 2004
330
0
0
#10
Amazing, a day after a handful of Republicans pledge to join the anti-war legislations the White House supplies us with a report for why we NEED to be fighting the war in Iraq. So convenient.

Taking from AmishDaddys idea, I'd have to ask "Mr. President, if Al-Qaeda is building their bases in Pakistan, why are we fighting them in IRAQ???"
 

SKEPTIC

Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
May 12, 2007
3,221
1,885
488
1060 W. Addison St., Chicago, Illinois, 60613
#16
You mean all this time in Iraq and al Qaeda has "rebuilt?" Kinda like the Taliban has rebuilt in Afghanistan. Boy oh boy I sure thought that "surge" ( massive sucking of the treasury dry to give to defense contractors better known as 'the war on terror' ) would have paid off.

One day they'll learn.
Although I disagree with you on some issues relating to different topics (satellite radio merger, etc.), YourAmishDaddy, I'm with you on this one. Oh yeah, and also I'm with you on Ron Paul. :action-sm

Keep up the good fight, sir. :clap:
 

mendozathejew

Registered User
Mar 12, 2005
6,749
0
0
jersey
#18
Do you guys honestly believe that what is going on over there. As a whole has anything to do with stopping al Qaeda and terrorism? Seriously?

God bless the innocent service men and women there doing their duties valiantly, but the ones orchestrating this thing could give a fuck about terrorism, terrorists, or bin Laden.

And we all know this.
what in your opinion is going on then?( in in afghanistan, not iraq. )
 
#19
what in your opinion is going on then?( in in afghanistan, not iraq. )

When we first got into Afghanistan our initial move to corner and surround bin Laden in those mountains went like this. "You cover this side, you cover this side, and you this side"

Now that's three sides. One was left right open. And bin Laden supposedly escaped through that very side. Since then we've backed off the hunt for bin Laden, outsourced the search to people who would kill us if we let them, and focused a lot on the drugs there, which instead of decreasing dramatically after the invasion have astoundingly gone up in production.

We've disbanded the CIA unit charged with tracking down bin Laden's whereabouts. And massively taken away from the initial force there to deal with the resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda forces. To send them to iraq.

This was never the way to do the job. And Afghanistan seems pretty much like the false front to get into Iraq because time after time Afghanistan has been drastically mishandled.
 

Taintkisser

has anyone seen my NAZI Helmet?
Feb 15, 2006
216
7
233
Dix Hills
#20
When we first got into Afghanistan our initial move to corner and surround bin Laden in those mountains went like this. "You cover this side, you cover this side, and you this side"

Now that's three sides. One was left right open. And bin Laden supposedly escaped through that very side. Since then we've backed off the hunt for bin Laden, outsourced the search to people who would kill us if we let them, and focused a lot on the drugs there, which instead of decreasing dramatically after the invasion have astoundingly gone up in production.

We've disbanded the CIA unit charged with tracking down bin Laden's whereabouts. And massively taken away from the initial force there to deal with the resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda forces. To send them to iraq.

This was never the way to do the job. And Afghanistan seems pretty much like the false front to get into Iraq because time after time Afghanistan has been drastically mishandled.
:clap::clap::clap: abso-fuckin-lutely!!!!!!! Thats why bin laden was never found, only because the assholes in charge saw this aS A way to get into iraq probably from 9/12 on.
 

mendozathejew

Registered User
Mar 12, 2005
6,749
0
0
jersey
#22
This was never the way to do the job. And Afghanistan seems pretty much like the false front to get into Iraq because time after time Afghanistan has been drastically mishandled.
I agree on there being a complete failure of strategy in several regards. But are you saying we only went in because we eventually wanted in iraq as well? Meaning 3k killed on 9/11, and if it happens again, eeeh who cares is the attitude.

I think you are extremely jaded and let your bitterness get the better of you too often.

Im far from one to compliment this shitty administration at this point but lets paint a more complete picture here, there hasnt been another terrorist attack since 9/11, and there are reasons for it. the fbi actually has a clue whats its doing now. the cia has gone through several leaderships changes to try and do the same. clearly small amounts of special forces in afghanistan has not been enough, but at the same time we've got to coddle musharraf and prevent him from getting a grenade tossed in his lap
 

robertkeys

there is a lot of gash walking around today
Dec 3, 2004
648
0
0
#23
i say we just drop a giant bomb or better yet have a nuclear war head suspended from blimp like the sword of damocles and say behave or else!
either they do and bush can give all the treasury to his pals for reconstruction efforts or they dont and are decimated and bush then gives all the treasury to his pals for reconstruction efforts.
 
#24
I agree on there being a complete failure of strategy in several regards. But are you saying we only went in because we eventually wanted in iraq as well? Meaning 3k killed on 9/11, and if it happens again, eeeh who cares is the attitude.

I think you are extremely jaded and let your bitterness get the better of you too often.
I understand 9-11 happened. 3,000 people died. I know, and since 3,000 more have died, and pretty much people say "well it could have been more, but we're doing good" Which is another version of the who cares attitude.

I can only come to that conclusion not because I'm bitter but because no one ever fails this badly with something so simple. That's all.

I'm simply saying I can't base every aspect of my life on the feeling I have because of 9-11. There are lots of stuff I believed should have happened. And believe me I was a lot more rabid than most of you after it. But the rush to get into Iraq and seeing the billions of dollars go to these contractors, and the events that have taken place since are the reasons I feel like I feel.


9-11 was a tragic event. Nothing will take that away. But I can't use 9-11 to justify the added insult to injury that has happened since. Basically some people are telling me that because a tragedy as big as 9-11 happened I am supposed to excuse lesser tragedies like the massive bleeding dry of our treasury, and the war profiteering going on. And other greater tragedies like 3,000 more innocent lives gone since 9-11. For what reason?
 

mendozathejew

Registered User
Mar 12, 2005
6,749
0
0
jersey
#25
I can only come to that conclusion not because I'm bitter but because no one ever fails this badly with something so simple. That's all.

I'm simply saying I can't base every aspect of my life on the feeling I have because of 9-11. There are lots of stuff I believed should have happened. And believe me I was a lot more rabid than most of you after it. But the rush to get into Iraq and seeing the billions of dollars go to these contractors, and the events that have taken place since are the reasons I feel like I feel.


9-11 was a tragic event. Nothing will take that away. But I can't use 9-11 to justify the added insult to injury that has happened since. Basically some people are telling me that because a tragedy as big as 9-11 happened I am supposed to excuse lesser tragedies like the massive bleeding dry of our treasury, and the war profiteering going on. And other greater tragedies like 3,000 more innocent lives gone since 9-11. For what reason?

First off, I am not talking about the disaster in Iraq, only Afghanistan. Once we destroyed their operations, put them on the run, basically eliminated their effectiveness (in the relative short term), the effort has been half assed ever since. Whats surprising about that? Thats pretty typical, especially for this administration. we thought we could do the rest on the cheap.

as for dealing with something "so easy" which would be tracking down this group along the pakistan afghanistan border is easy? its one of the most brutally awful landscapes on the planet, with some of the most savage people on the planet, and we have to balance out going after bin laden with not tipping the boat for musharraf, who is just barely not a dead man at this point already.

Im not sure anyone has ever called that operation easy. you are probably the first. ever.