THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Influx of Al Qaeda, money into Pakistan is seen Arduous search
Nevertheless, U.S. intelligence and military officials said, the surge has yet to produce a single lead on Bin Laden's or Zawahiri's location that could be substantiated.

"We're not any closer," said a senior U.S. military official who monitors the intelligence on the hunt for Bin Laden.

The lack of progress underscores the difficulty of the search more than five years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Despite a $25-million U.S. reward, current and former intelligence officials said, the United States has not had a lead on Bin Laden since he fled American and Afghan forces in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in early 2002.

"We've had no significant report of him being anywhere," said a former senior CIA official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing U.S. intelligence operations. U.S. spy agencies have not even had information that "you could validate historically," the official said, meaning a tip on a previous Bin Laden location that could subsequently be verified.

President Bush is given detailed presentations on the hunt's progress every two to four months, in addition to routine counter-terrorism briefings, intelligence officials said.

The presentations include "complex schematics, search patterns, what we're doing, where the Predator flies," said one participant, referring to flights by unmanned airplanes used in the search. The CIA has even used sand models to illustrate the topography of the mountainous terrain where Bin Laden is believed to be hiding.

Still, officials said, they have been unable to answer the basic question of whether they are getting closer to their target.

"Any prediction on when we're going to get him is just ridiculous," said the senior U.S. counter-terrorism official. "It could be a year from now or the Pakistanis could be in the process of getting him right now."

In a written response to questions from The Times, the CIA said it "does not as a rule discuss publicly the details of clandestine operations," but acknowledged it had stepped up operations against Bin Laden and defended their effectiveness.

"The surge has been modest in size, here and overseas, but has added new skills and fresh thinking to the fight against a resilient and adaptive foe," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in the statement. "It has paid off, generating more information about Al Qaeda and helping take terrorists off the street."

The CIA spies are part of a broader espionage arsenal aimed at Bin Laden and Zawahiri that includes satellites, electronic eavesdropping stations and the unmanned airplanes.

Pakistan pullout Contributors mobilized

Soft Targets
Al Qaeda's new strategy.
by Olivier Guitta
Daily Standard
05/18/2007 12:00:00 AM

WHILE THE April 11 suicide bombings in Algiers struck at hard targets--the government palace and a police station--soft targets are most likely the preferred point of attack for terrorists in the region.

Just a few weeks earlier, the U.S. Department of State had issued an updated travel warning for Algeria. It urged American citizens there to evaluate carefully the risk posed to their personal safety due to the increased frequency of small-scale terrorist attacks, including bombings, false roadblocks, kidnappings, ambushes, and assassinations. This warning is just the latest sign of a troublesome trend: terrorist groups now seem intent on striking at Western nationals.

Since the Algerian Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) officially changed its name to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb late last year, it has made clear its intention to attack foreigners. The group's first such attack targeted a bus transporting Halliburton employees in December, killing one and injuring nine more. On March 3, the group staged another attack, this one targeting Russian contractors.

The CIA recently beefed up its presence in both Algeria and Morocco. And, most likely, it was CIA intelligence data that spurred U.S. embassy officials in Algiers to issue a specific warning on March 12 of a threat to aircraft transporting Western workers to Algeria. Incidentally, the two suicide attacks "foiled" (only the bombers died) in Casablanca on April 14 were aimed at the U.S. consulate and the American language Center.

Numerous Western governments have recently warned their citizens of potential attacks, and, according to

a recent article in the Moroccan Al Bayane, partially translated by The Croissant, Spanish officials in the Maghreb no longer allow visitors to carry their cell phones onto consular property. But Algeria and Morocco are not the only dangerous places for foreigners.

On February 26, al Qaeda murdered four French nationals in Medina, Saudi Arabia. This attack came on the heels of a February 8 message put online at the Sawt Al Jihad (The Voice of Jihad) website calling for "cleaning up the Arabic peninsula of the presence of the Crusaders." Sawt Al Jihad also posted a text in June 2006 entitled "How to kill a Westerner."

Since 2003, Saudi authorities have drastically increased security around public buildings and vital infrastructure making it much more difficult for al Qaeda to attack government targets. On March 7, Saudi authorities warned all embassies in that country of the likelihood of further attacks against Western targets in yet another indication that al Qaeda has changed its strategy in response to those new security measures. The group may also be focusing on soft targets, such as foreigners, in order to create panic in the Western community. This shift could have a great effect. Indeed, by pushing Westerners to leave, al Qaeda achieves two objectives, crippling the Saudi economy and purging the peninsula of infidels.

Still, al Qaeda remains popular among Saudis. Even Prince Nayef, the minister responsible for fighting terrorism, recently acknowledged: "We are facing 10,000 people potentially ready to commit a terrorist act and behind them one million sympathizers ready to help them."

The Saudi military, too, seems to be at the very least sympathetic to al Qaeda's hatred of foreigners. According to Le Figaro, the military will exempt from training with U.S. instructors those officers who are unable to bear the presence of "infidels."
The Muslim World League condemned the February 26 attack against those four French citizens on the basis that one should not kill Muslims--the French nationals were indeed Muslims. But issuing such a statement obviously implies that it is okay to kill infidels.

The New York Sun recently revealed that the Saudi Ministry of Education's website states as one of primary goals "to arouse the spirit of Islamic jihad in order to fight our enemies." And how could it be any other way when the minister of education once headed the Muslim World League.

In this environment, from the Maghreb to the Gulf, attacks against Western targets are only likely to increase in frequency.

Olivier Guitta is the founder of The Croissant, a foreign affairs and counterterrorism newsletter.

How do you come about these conclusions?

Then you guys must be reading some different news and post war reports then the rest of us.

They did not know "knew almost for certain there were no wmd"

Bush never tried to associate Saddam to 9/11 other then express concerns for further terror attacks

Iraq is a central front in the war on terror "so defeating terrorism doesnt hold water" is just plain wrong.

Freeing the Iraqi people and bringing democracy are mere benefits we provided in making our country safer from future terror attacks. You guys should read about the Bush Doctrine.

Then you guys must be reading some different news and post war reports then the rest of us.

They did not know "knew almost for certain there were no wmd", Bush never tried to associate Saddam to 9/11 other then express concerns for further terror attacks, Iraq is a central front in the war on terror "so defeating terrorism doesnt hold water" is just plain wrong.

Freeing the Iraqi people and bringing democracy are mere benefits we provided in making our country safer from future terror attacks. You guys should read about the Bush Doctrine.

If you want a clear answer to your question, read the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

It explains it pretty well.

I'm sorry, but I have stopped reading cycloptichorn's rantings because I find them pedantic and tiresome.

Upon reviewing his post I find my choice to be wise.

It's easy to look at the results of the war and see where mistakes have been made and where intelligence turned out to be incorrect. Much like a scientific experiment where the results prove or disprove the working hypothesis.

Results do not make the hypothesis a lie though and that seems to be what so many anti-Bushites want to do . Prove that he lied because the war showed them to be wrong... doesn't make any sense.

... where intelligence turned out to be incorrect....

Intelligence is a property of mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn