Al Qaeda as Chick-fil-A: If only
AEIdeas
Dana Milbank in The Washington Post trivializes the threat from the global al Qaeda movement. Noting Katherine Zimmerman’s report on al Qaeda, he concludes, “these guys must have more franchises than Chick-fil-A,” compares al Qaeda franchises to “Jihadi juice stands,” and says, “Americans could be forgiven for thinking bin Laden mini-me’s are running around Yemen, Syria, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, and in much of Africa and the Near East.” Indeed, Americans could not only be forgiven for thinking that, but rather praised for their acuity were it not for the fact that the US government and intelligence community have long ago designated groups and leaders in all of those countries as parts of the al Qaeda network.
Milbank opines that “in all but a couple of cases, the original, ‘core’ al Qaeda has no control over—or coordination with or financial ties to—these organizations.” It would be nice if he had offered some support for that sweeping declaration. It would be nicer if it were true—then, indeed, we might not have to worry so much about the fact that al Qaeda in Iraq has killed thousands of Iraqis this past year, that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has attempted three attacks on the US homeland (as has the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan), that published documents show that the “al Qaeda core” has in fact worked to coordinate the activities of several affiliates, and that anyone familiar with the various threat-finance programs designed to deprive al Qaeda of cash knows the degree to which all of these groups raise cash from a common donor pool.
But Milbank seems oblivious to all of that, citing Larry Korb—a noted expert on al Qaeda—to dismiss the threat and tying the whole discussion to Benghazi. For the record, Zimmerman’s report does not claim that Ansar al Sharia in Libya was an al Qaeda franchise, although it is very clear that it is part of a larger collection of groups working with al Qaeda, and neither she nor I have waded into the Benghazi controversy. That is because we are focused on providing objective assessments with clear definitions of the terms we’re talking about based on solid evidence, which we cite, rather than engaging in partisan political polemic. It’s a practice I commend to Milbank.
Follow AEIdeas on Twitter at @AEIdeas.
This distinction between an al Qaeda franchise and a confederated group seems like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If a nuclear bomb is detonated in a US city in 5 years, I don’t think most Americans are going to be relieved to hear the President tell us reassuringly that it was done by Islamists, who were not actually al Qaeda members.
You are correct. It would seem only logical that a country that has widely supported terrorism-and is ardently pursuing nuclear weapons-would make those weapons available to terrorists once they become viable. To not even consider this proposition-as the White House and the left obviously are not-is not only reckless and irresponsible-it’s immoral. It’s akin to being an accomplice to mass murder, should such an event take place. Honestly, the lack of any contingency planning by this admin is amazing.
To the liberal scribblers of the mainstream media the Fort Lee traffic jam is a more serious threat than al-Qaeda.
Milbank is the master of the cheap shot. What he knows about al-Qaeda would fill a thimble, maybe. He is best ignored.
Dana Milbank is a metrosexual pajama boy at the Post. He is NOT a foreign policy guru or national security savant. I’m not sure why Kagan would waste his time on him.
Al-Qaeda, Ansar-al-Sharia, Islamic Jihad, PLO, PA, Boko harem, they are all one! They are Muslims.
Until the USA, and all other western civilized people are unable to identify the enemy, which is Islam, there will be no peace.
In our military strikes, by drones mostly, we should stop trying to sort out good guys from bad – and just kill them. Forget how much territory they take, or where they are, if they are interrupting oil etc…
Just go in like Dresden and obliterate 2-3 strongholds, and it will get their attention – and the US respect. Shut off the flow of any immigration of Muslims. Kick out all of the Muslim students in the US – and only allow Muslim countries to have one embassy in D.C. Consisting of no more than 25 Saudi nationals (for example).
Then the enemy will know you are serious. Until then we will have to seethe under our breath at the cowards in our government – as we remove our shoes before the flight.
Is Al Qaeda a threat to American prosperity?
Much, much less so than the old USSR, when it had several million men in uniform, a blue-water navy, supersonic bombers, ICBMs, a KGB, satellites, and an aggressive foreign policy. They were also building tanks and subs like crazy.
Al Qaeda has none of that. It is a small heinous terrorist organization. They have not a single supersonic aircraft, not one tank, not one oceangoing war vessel. They are not a military threat to the USA.
So, perspective is needed.
If the DoD and DHS cannot limit Al Qaeda’s threat to the USA for the hundreds of billions of dollars they take out of taxpayer’s pockets, then we need to seriously, seriously, revamp our military.
Which is what Bob Gates is actually saying in his book that I am reading….