Nov 22 2006

Al Qaeda Revels In Democrat Election Win

Published by at 8:17 am under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT

Al Qaeda is very happy with their propoganda success with the help of liberal democrats and the liberal media in the last US elections. I have said this many times but now regional experts have looked over publicized statements and videos from Al Qaeda and provide insight into Al Qaeda’s cheer:

1. Convince the jihadists that the United States is now defeated in Iraq and beyond. While no reversal of the balance of power has taken place on the ground, the jihadi propaganda machine is linking the shift in domestic politics to a withdrawal from Iraq.

2. Spread political chaos at home. Jihadists portray the Democratic takeover of Congress and the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (and maybe others) as signs of American weakening in the resolve to fight jihadism.

3. The terminology used in the videotape is a powerful indicator that al Qaeda’s political network relies on Western-educated minds, familiar with political processes in the United States and serving as advisers to the jihadists. A regular al Qaeda emir does not use the term “lame duck.” It is more likely that a U.S.-based cadre, who understands the impact of political jargon on domestic audiences, had suggested the use of this word.

Al Qaeda is moving to out on many fronts. I cannot link to the report at Stratfor, but Al Qaeda has announced an alliance of groups that span north Africa from Algiers to Libya. We know they operate in alliance with the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And it is clear they have operations in Turkey. So Al Qaeda is deployed and ready to take over the Middle East and North Africa – which includes most of the world’s oil supplies. The liberal Democrats and news media never believed in Al Qaeda and Islamo Fascism. They always had their heads in a fantasy world (one in which they are all-seeing of course). So they were likely oblivious to what they were doing by calling for retreat in Iraq. What worries me more are the ones who knew exactly what the stakes were. I think the head of Hezbollah said it best:

Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah declared: “The Americans are leaving, and their allies will pay the price.”

It doesn’t matter so much what nuances we think about, what really matters is whether the election reinvigorated the Jihadist or not. And it did.

In the Salafis chat rooms, the commissaries explained to their audiences, that the Democratic Party victory in Congress means that America is now divided and al Qaeda can push to create more cracks in the system — as it has successfully done in Spain. The masters of the forum, emulating al Masri’s audiotape, said not only that “we got their soldiers on the run in Iraq,” but “we got their citizens on the run on their own soil” referring to the November electoral outcome.

The one result the Dems and Liberal media explained was that the election could make things much worse – not better. No one in the media allowed a cold look at the downside of electing Democrats who cried for surrender to Al Qaeda. I know surrender was not the intent – but an open debate would have allowed that message to come through. The media, again, has done this country a major diservice. Now the left keeps trying to say that we cannot pull out, the election is over and we need to be serious. Sadly, the time to be serious was prior to the election and being honest about the stakes.

24 responses so far

24 Responses to “Al Qaeda Revels In Democrat Election Win”

  1. crosspatch says:

    Ken, the levels of “bloodshed” in Iraq is probably the lowest of any major conflict the world has seen. I believe it took over 5 years after the German surrender for the murders and political assasinations to finally stop after WWII. There was a major difference there, though, as we removed the leaders of the regime but left the rank and file party members in their positions and rebuilt the existing government institutions so things were a little faster to get rolling.

    In this case a country that has been under a dictatorship for a much longer period than Germany was has been restarted from scratch without any of the former regime rank and file party members. This means that every position in every institution is filled with someone who has never done it before at the same time these same people are attempting to create regulations, procedures, etc. In other words, it is probably going to take longer in Iraq than the 5 years it took in Germany.

    There is another part of the “immediate withdrawal” problem that is never addressed by people who should know better. The current Iraqi army that is being created is pretty much only the “teeth” units. Even when that task is completed, they still don’t have the support structure required to maintain those units. In the meantine, US training units, transportation units, engineer units, supply units, etc. are providing that support structure. So while numbers of US troops might be unchanged, nobody is looking at the change of structure of those troops.

    Getting the Iraqi army combat units trained and up to strength is actually the EASY part of the task. Getting them to a point where they can feed themselves, train themselves, move themselves around, build their own compounds, etc. takes longer and involves a lot more training. Nobody in any position of authority in the Iraqi system has more than 3 years of experiance. How do you provide senior staff officers that are skilled in logistics and intelligence with only 3 years worth of experiance? You can’t. It takes much longer than that.

    People like Ken have unreasonable expectations because they don’t understand the scope of the problem. You can’t just pull out and leave because whilke you might have an Iraqi army division that is ready to fight, you don’t have the units to get food, ammunition, and supplies to them or mechanisms to procure those items and get them distributed to depots so they can be sent out to those units. Running a military is a lot larger job than just fielding a mob with guns.

  2. Nahanni says:

    “Will the Democrats now understand that running from a fight only emboldens the enemy?”

    They understand it all too well, hun.

    The Democratic party, their nutroots like trollboi Ken and their propaganda wing the MSM want us to lose. They are firmly on the side of the Islamofascists.

    They may have a “road to Damascus” moment right before they die in the next attack on the US by their Islamofascist heroes, though. But by then it will be too late.

  3. Ken says:

    Thank God (small favors) Strata has not yet posted on the single
    worst attack by the insurgency since the US invasion. Yesterday in Sadr City. Why the silence AJ-more concern for the unattached fetus than for Iraqi life?

    Strata undoubtedly would tell you “worse is better” with his
    typical amoral disregard for the lives of Iraqis which today, al Sadr
    correctly blamed on the US troops (whose responsibility under Geneva is to keep attacks like these from happening and has utterly failed since the invasion) and, as of my last reading, the young
    clerical nationalist has now vowed to leave the government if Maliki
    follows through with his meeting with Bush next week.

    Strata, in his amoral haze, will doubtless read such a government departure as somehow a victory for Bush and American strategy.

    But when the US leaves in ignominious disgrace, with an anti-American government in place,how will AJ spin that?

  4. Ken says:

    Crosspatch

    If you hadn’t noticed, Baghdad is under seige from both the insurgency and bloody attrition from death squads,kidnappings for ransom a rape epidemic and the flight of huge numbers of professionals to other countries. Only an escapist would compare
    Baghdad to post-war Berlin.

    As for training, we weren’t training enemies after the war in Germany.
    We are training anti-American members of militias in Iraq.