So let's say the threat is real

Given the Department of Homeland Security's shaky record on such matters, it's understandable that more than a few people will roll their eyebrows at the latest reports of an increased threat from al Qaeda. But today's story about the National Intelligence Estimate makes it seem like there's something more serious than most previous instances. So, for the sake of argument, let's say that the NIE is right (yes, I know it's been wrong before, especially when it's rushed) and that al Qaeda has regained the power that it had in the summer of 2001. What happens next, especially if there is an attack?

Do we launch a full-scale invasion of the lawless tribal lands on the Afghan-Pakistani border, since that's where al Qaeda's new base/sanctuary is? In doing so, we'd likely doom the Musharraf regime, which would leave a power vacuum that would likely be filled by folks far, far worse than Musharraf (and believe me, I'm not a fan of Musharraf), perhaps leading to an Islamist government that would love to put the work of A.Q. Khan to good use.

Or do we back off for the reasons we've backed off in the past -- namely, that the region in question is so hostile and geographically vexing that a foreign power would have little hope of meeting its objectives? Of course, if we do that, we allow al Qaeda's nerve center to flourish indefinitely.

This is the dilemma that has hung over the War on Terror since 9/11. We can argue all day about Iraq and how it's diverted resources and attention from the real jihadist threat (and exacerbated that threat), but once the bickering stops, the question remains: What the hell do we do with Pakistan?

 

Honestly, I didn't know there was a new threat. Does anyone have any links? I have been covering track and field all day, every day recently and haven't caught the news in a while.

 

That's my sense, too, despite the fact that such an operation has the potential to be far more costly than Iraq. But unlike Iraq, this one would be a war of necessity.

Angola, the story is on the front page of msnbc.com. The basic gist is that intelligence sources are saying that al Qaeda is basically as strong as it was in the summer of '01, and that news, combined with increased chatter and a more brazen PR campaign by Zawahiri, has raised concerns that something big is in the works.

 

What threat? The phantom specter that always seems to appear when Bush needs a boost in the polls?

Sorry, but this group's prediction accuracy is much lower than any weatherman or ESPN "expert." Yep. That low. And this group's stomach to actually go after bad guys, rather than create them, is even lower. Not gonna buy it.

 

Everything is fine as long as Bush is in charge.

 

Were this the case, wouldn't we be told of an impending nuclear war with North Korea by now?

 

Well, now we know what the W. in George W. Bush stands for.

 

AP is reporting an intelligence department report states al Queda is back to pre-9/11 strength and operational capability.

 

Thank you to both Boomer7 and Inky_Wretch. Looks like I have some news stories to read tonight.

 

But I thought we were fighting them there so we wouldn't have to fight them here.

 

I've got a brilliant plan. Let's invade Iran and embroil that country in chaos. Then Al-Qaeda, which has little presence there, if any, right now, can roll in and establish more training bases, thus clearing out their bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the ones they established in Iraq thanks to our well-thought out invasion there. I mean, shit, since we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, they and the Taliban are virulent as ever ... empty them into Iran.

It can't fail.