Six years later, terror war leaves unfinished business

[one...two...tree 2,762]

USA Today editorial

The release of a new Osama bin Laden videotape generated breathless analysis of everything from the color of his beard to his crackpot commentary on U.S. politics, global warming and the troubled housing market.

The true importance of the tape, however, is as a reminder of unfinished business in the war against bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror group. As the nation prepares to mark on Tuesday the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, al-Qaeda has mounted a dismaying rebound from its post-9/11 setbacks.

Bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, remain at large and in touch with current events. Al-Qaeda has reconstituted its central leadership and found a new sanctuary in Pakistan to replace the one it lost in Afghanistan. It remains committed to hitting the United States again.

To this continuing threat, the Bush administration responds with oddly mixed messages. On Friday, the CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden, said analysts have "high confidence that al-Qaeda's central leadership is planning high-impact plots against the U.S. homeland." Two days later, White House homeland security adviser Frances Townsend downplayed the danger, telling Fox News Sunday that bin Laden is "virtually impotent" and "a man on the run."

To be sure, the struggle against Islamic extremism isn't about killing one man, just as the war in Iraq wasn't about capturing and executing Saddam Hussein. If it were, Iraq would be at peace. Even so, capturing or killing bin Laden, or his equally menacing partner Zawahri, would serve the cause of justice and remove the men who built al-Qaeda. The hunt deserves renewed focus.

To the extent that there is encouraging news about the war on terror, it's that six years have passed without a follow-on attack in the USA. "We haven't just been lucky, and it isn't as if the terrorists have been lazy," Hayden said Friday. True enough. Security and public awareness are unquestionably better than before 9/11. And American Muslims appear less vulnerable to radicalization than their counterparts overseas. But it's also true that longer periods have passed between major al-Qaeda attacks.

In the interim, the United States has been losing the vital battle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world. The war in Iraq has proved to be a propaganda windfall for bin Laden, drawing recruits, inspiring suicide bombers and convincing some Muslims — however wrongly — that the United States wants to attack and occupy Muslim lands. At home, it has sapped the post-9/11 sense of national unity and purpose. Major holes remain in homeland security, from ports to chemical plants to airplane cargo, and the nation seems to have lost its once razor-sharp focus on who the enemy is.

Revived or not, that enemy has weaknesses. Al-Qaeda is limited in number, plagued with dissension, prone to overreaching. It has no positive message. Yet its has proved it can kill thousands of Americans. Bin Laden makes no secret of his desire to acquire a nuclear weapon and kill millions more. That is why al-Qaeda's reconstitution in the tribal areas of Pakistan is of such urgent concern. No matter how distracted with Iraq, the United States cannot tolerate a sheltered al-Qaeda indefinitely and hope to escape further attack, any more than it could afford to ignore a man with a beard in far-off Afghanistan before that horrific day six years ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070910/...inishedbusiness

Edited September 11, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Sinergy 3]

Thats bc Bush thought it a better idea to go after Sadam instead. i dunno, if a neighbor robbed me or killed my family member i wouldnt go after a different neighbor.

Maybe i just have more common sense then Bush

Edited September 11, 2007 by Ionescu

[Jasman0717 9]

Thats bc Bush thought it a better idea to go after Sadam instead. i dunno, if a neighbor robbed me or killed my family member i wouldnt go after a different neighbor.

Maybe i just have more common sence then Bush

[AtlantiCat 0]

Maybe i just have more common sence then Bush

It may be called "common" sense, but that doesn't mean it's existence is at all common.

[almaty 19]

Bush had thew mandate from the people and blew it...with personal vendattas

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Thats bc Bush thought it a better idea to go after Sadam instead. i dunno, if a neighbor robbed me or killed my family member i wouldnt go after a different neighbor.

Maybe i just have more common sence then Bush

i dunno

[Sinergy 3]

Thats bc Bush thought it a better idea to go after Sadam instead. i dunno, if a neighbor robbed me or killed my family member i wouldnt go after a different neighbor.

Maybe i just have more common sence then Bush

i dunno

bite me, you know im at work and i type it real fast that i dont have time to think of spelling mistakes

typo corrected

Edited September 11, 2007 by Ionescu

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Thats bc Bush thought it a better idea to go after Sadam instead. i dunno, if a neighbor robbed me or killed my family member i wouldnt go after a different neighbor.

Maybe i just have more common sence then Bush

i dunno

bite me, you know im at work and i type it real fast that i dont have time to think of spelling mistakes

typo corrected

i'm just wadding up panties