Al Qaeda’s ability to plan and launch strikes abroad has been degraded since Sept. 11, due both to the war in Afghanistan and a loss of support among Muslims in the region. They’ve maintained power by merging with smaller networks such as the TTP), al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQ-AP), al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQ-IM), al Qaeda in Iraq, and Al-Shabab in Somalia and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the 2008 attack in Mumbai. (Though weakened, al Qaeda remains attractive to smaller groups because of the 9/11 attacks and Osama bin Laden’s emeritus status, their centralized communications network, and their dedication to radical global jihad.)

It was the TPP that originally claimed credit for Shahzad’s attempt on May 2, before retracting it on May 6. “There are any number of different reasons for that,” Venzke says. “Both, we believe, are credible claims — they’re not mutually exclusive. They say they did it in some quarters and deny it in others, partly because there are disagreements among the different factions on how to do things.”

“The TTP is lethal,” Jenkins adds, “but they don’t have the degree of sophistication that L-e-T and al Qaeda have.” But their stated goal of striking within the US may explain why the group’s leaders would take credit for a dud bomb.

“In the past, jihadis would not want to be associated with failure,” Jenkins says. “But they are on the move. They see that even small-scale events and failures can cause panic and alarm and can possibly bankrupt the US. So they urge: ‘Do what you can.’ “

David Sanger in the New York Times wrote a similar article, U.S. Pressure Helps Militants Overseas Focus Efforts:

Now, after the bungled car-bombing attempt in Times Square with suspected links to the Pakistani Taliban, a new, and disturbing, question is being raised in Washington: Have the stepped-up attacks in Pakistan — notably the Predator drone strikes — actually made Americans less safe? Have they had the perverse consequence of driving lesser insurgencies to think of targeting Times Square and American airliners, not just Kabul and Islamabad? In short, are they inspiring more attacks on America than they prevent?

It is a hard question.

I don’t buy this spin. If the United States is degrading the capabilities of Al Qaeda that’s a good thing. True, Al Qaeda may be adapting, but the way Sanger presents it, it makes Al Qaeda more dangerous. It’s as if they are arguing “that which kills Al Qaeda makes it stronger. That makes no sense.

Some years ago, Thomas Friedman described Hamas as a “…ragtag terrorist group.” His point was that Israel should stop fighting Hamas, because it only served to make them stronger. This is nonsense. Hamas (and Al Qaeda) may not be IBM (as Friedman noted) but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have some organizational structure. Those in leadership positions have specific skills in terms of their abilities to recruit and plan. Killing of the leaders necessarily degrades those capabilities.

What Sanger and Friedman do is ascribe as much importance to motive as to means and opportunity. If Al Qaeda is forced to failed bombing attempts instead of intricate terror plots that kill thousands, clearly the former is preferable. That doesn’t mean that that the latter isn’t possible, it just means that it is now a lot harder for Al Qaeda to pull off.

I don’t buy the spin that fighting Al Qaeda only makes them stronger.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Mr. Biden said the new president’s actions “reverse the policies that in my view and the view of many in this agency caused America to fall short of its founding principles and which gave Al Qaeda a powerful recruiting tool.”

Apparently no one informed Al Qaeda members in Iraq last year of that.

A growing number of foreign fighters are leaving or attempting to flee Iraq as U.S. and Iraqi forces have weakened al-Qaeda and forced its members from former strongholds, U.S. military officials say.

The trend reflects a broad disenchantment among foreign fighters, particularly since al-Qaeda has lost sanctuaries in parts of Baghdad and Anbar, a Sunni province west of the capital, U.S. military intelligence officials say.

Fighting back effectively actually discourages the Jihadis.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Within a year and a half, Barak, who had promised to be more forthcoming in negotiations with the Palestinians, found himself facing the Arafat led “Aqsa intifada,” and ultimately lost power when he could no longer hold his government together.

In a sense we are seeing a replay of that scenario this year in America.

Seven years ago Al Qaeda attacked us here. In the interim President Bush led the United States in two wars in response. The first in Afghanistan and the second in Iraq. While there have been mistakes along the way, the upshot is that Al Qaeda, while still dangerous, is on the run. Al Qaeda was unable to strike at the United States again. Americans feel secure and are elected as President Bush’s successor, Sen. Barack Obama, a man with no significant foreign policy experience.

In addition Sen. Obama opposed the war in Iraq. He considered it a mistake. Even with the success of the surge, he considers it a mistake. If he gave any serious thought to whether bringing down Saddam Hussein might have played a role in protecting the United States, Sen. Obama has given no indication.

Sen. Obama talks about how he would use all “tools” at his disposal to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

“No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table,” Obama said in a speech covering broad national security issues, including Iraq and Iran.

He (and his allies) act as if President Bush didn’t exhaust all diplomatic options before going to war against Iraq. But President Bush did try to get Saddam Hussein to come clean about his WMD program. Saddam never verified that he had disposed of his forbidden weapons.

And while Sen. Obama talks about restoring America’s standing in the world, he forgets (or wants us to forget) that many of those nations who objected to the war in Iraq did so because they were bought off by Saddam. What will happen if President Obama finds himself stuck between using his “tools” of diplomacy and acting to defend the United States. Will the feelings of our allies take precedence? Or will he act decisively regardless?

Keep in mind that Sen. Obama’s own Vice Presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Biden recently warned that there will be nations who will test the new president. How will he act?

For seven years Al Qaeda’s been on the run. As it was with Israel in 1999, the electorate felt safe enough to try a new approach. I hope we – and the world – don’t pay a price for letting up on the fight.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.