| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| U.S. military paper warns about losing "war on terror": report |
| 2006-02-21 |
| A U.S. military paper warned about losing the "war on terror" to al-Qaida if "traditional allies prefer accommodation" to the terrorists, The Washington Times reported Monday. U.S. military planners are worried that "Islamic extremists maybe supported by 12 million Muslims worldwide," the report quoted a27-page briefing made by U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff planners as saying. Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, the document states, "is absolutely committed to his cause. His religious ideology successfully attracts recruits. He has sufficient population base from which to protract the conflict. ... Even support of 1 percentof the Muslim population would equate to over 12 million 'enemies.'" The unclassified briefing, titled Fighting the Long War -- Military Strategy for the War on Terrorism, is a component of the Pentagon's ongoing campaign to explain that a lengthy struggle requires patience from the American people and Congress. It holds up the 1930s as an example of how not to respond to extremism, noting Europe's appeasement of German dictator Adolf Hitler. The briefing was prepared for Rear Adm. William D. Sullivan, vice director for strategic plans and policy within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is under Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman. Bin Laden, the paper says, wants to "expand the Muslim empire to historical significance." It said Iraq "has become the focus of the enemy's effort. If they win in Iraq, they have a base from which to expand their terror. ... Extremists now have an Emirate in Iraq that serves as a base of operations from which they can revive the Caliphate (Islamic rule) ... Baghdad becomes the capital of the Caliphate. The revived Caliphate now turns its attention to the destruction of Israel." The briefing contains a map that shows the bin Laden-style caliphate conquering North and East Africa, the entire Middle Eastand Central and South Asia. This dire scenario can only happen if the U.S. is defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the document. "The United States cannot be defeated militarily," the briefingsays. "the enemy knows this. But consider ... terror attacks weaken the world economy. Continued casualties weaken national resolve. Traditional allies prefer accommodation." |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #12 phuque the chinks |
| Posted by: bk 2006-02-21 10:28 |
| #11 And, bk just got TROLLed for his racist comment above, which I just noticed. Come on folks, I know it's a tense time. Lots is going on, lots is at stake. But we do not need - and will not tolerate - that kind of thing here at the Burg. period. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-21 15:33 |
| #10 Besoeker, don't keep pushing, okay? You're trolling for a permanent ban and frankly the mods aren't in a mood to play escalation games with you today. And yes, I know you changed IPs and are coming through a RIPE server at the moment. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-21 15:26 |
| #9 An emotional day? Didn't catch whiff of it until I saw that from bk. LOL -- thanks for the "cold shower" motivator, .com :) |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2006-02-21 14:20 |
| #8 Yall certainly have my full attention... |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-21 14:19 |
| #7 Hell, I nominate that this receive a "Master of the Obvious" picture to accompany it. |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2006-02-21 14:14 |
| #6 Fuck off, bk, ya little dipshit. GTFO It ain't "grain of salt" if The Washington Times reported the same too, just a different source on that original post link. Hell, Robert Crawford got it right. |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2006-02-21 14:14 |
| #5 Aside from Oz, I can't think of a single country that would be behind us "no matter what." Nor should they. Nations have permanent interests, not permanent allies. Our interests are generally consonent with those of several other countries, but we would be fools to think they would go anywhere with us. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-21 13:06 |
| #4 ...Well, there are allies and there are Allies. Frankly, I think there are maybe about a half-dozen capital A Allies who will be beside us no matter what, and everybody else comes under the lower case group. What everybody should keep in mind is this: if the rest of the world goes down in screaming Dhimmitude, we are not going to roll over without a fight. (Our government and leaders might want to, but the vast majority of the American people will have something else to say about it.) The thing to keep in mind is this - until around 1992, we had contingency plans to use nuclear weapons on NATO territory that had been occupied by the Soviets. And the Soviets were rational compared to what we face now. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-02-21 12:29 |
| #3 Any sign of a slow down in the number of Saudis volunteering to direct bombs 'cos they are tired of masturbating? |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2006-02-21 12:28 |
| #2 Misleading title. The warning is that if our allies surrender, we might lose. Well, no shit.g |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-02-21 10:22 |
| #1 Take with a ton of salt from a Chinese source and a report like this has been around from 2002. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2006-02-21 10:15 |