Panetta says U.S. is 'within reach' of defeating Al Qaeda

[Gerald]

The new defense chief says intelligence uncovered in the Bin Laden raid showed that 10 years of U.S. operations against the terror network had left it with fewer than two dozen key operatives. Panetta is visiting Afghanistan for the first time as defense secretary.
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/4058/63116701.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/63116701.jpg/)
Then-CIA Director Leon Panetta with President Obama in May. Panetta's assessment of Al Qaeda comes in the wake of Obama's decision to withdraw 30,000 troops from Afghanistan over the next year.

KABUL, Afghanistan—
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared Saturday that the United States is "within reach" of "strategically defeating" Al Qaeda as a terrorist threat, but that doing so would require killing or capturing the group's 10 to 20 remaining leaders.

Arriving in Afghanistan for the first time since taking office earlier this month, Panetta said that intelligence uncovered in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May showed that 10 years of U.S. operations against Al Qaeda had left it with fewer than two dozen key operatives, most of whom are in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and North Africa.

"If we can be successful at going after them, I think we can really undermine their ability to do any kind of planning to be able to conduct any kinds of attack on this country," Panetta told reporters on his way to Afghanistan aboard a U.S. Air Force jet. "That's why I think" that defeat of Al Qaeda is "within reach," he added.

Panetta's comments were the most detailed recent assessment of Al Qaeda's strength by a senior U.S. official, and it comes in the wake of President Barack Obama's decision to withdraw 30,000 troops from Afghanistan over the next year and a half, a move that he said was possible in part because of the damage inflicted on Al Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Panetta, a former California congressman who headed the CIA before being chosen by Obama to replace Robert M. Gates at the Pentagon, provided no estimate for how long it might take to defeat Al Qaeda, and he acknowledged that it would take "more work." He was speaking to reporters for the first time since taking over the Pentagon.

Panetta said during his confirmation hearings last month that Al Qaeda had been severely damaged, but he has not claimed before that it was nearing defeat. The CIA and the military's Joint Special Operations Command have kept lists of senior terrorist leaders for years, adding new names as individuals on the list were killed or captured. It was unclear whether Panetta was indicating that the U.S. now believes it is nearing the end of the known terror leaders.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-panetta-kabul-20110710,0,5988043.story


Note: July 9, 2011, 5:20 a.m.

[MH]

Defeat is a far stretched concept here.
Having them under control is more like it but it means that US has to keep doing whatever is doing for unknown period of time into the future.
If its just a spin for withdrawal from Afghanistan that different story

[Gerald]

Maybe .. but much of this fit together .. and this need not be farfetched, I would say that it is his vision .. and stuff like that is always needed.

[mookiemookie]

Its this idea that there's a finite number of terrorists and all we have to do is kill them all and we win that's so maddening. The whole "War on Terror" is lunacy. You can't fight a war on an idea...there's no way to kill an idea. It's a war without end. It was designed from the very start as a power grab..."oh well we need to do that because we're in a war, you see!" :nope:

[FIREWALL]

Terrorists are like MOLD. You never can kill all the Spores and it grows back.

[MH]

Its this idea that there's a finite number of terrorists and all we have to do is kill them all and we win that's so maddening. The whole "War on Terror" is lunacy. You can't fight a war on an idea...there's no way to kill an idea. It's a war without end. It was designed from the very start as a power grab..."oh well we need to do that because we're in a war, you see!" :nope:

Agree on the first part.
Disagree on the second:
War on terror is real and its purpose is to defend your country against terrorist attacks.
The effective strategy is another thing-intelligence,troops in Afghanistan or not....etc.

[Gerald]

It is right that these are like sponges, and grows and grows, but you have to look forward to, mine more and not let the weeds grow, because then the authorities have lost controls to, so steps can be done to reduce the spread.

[Feuer Frei!]

Of course it's too hard to put a time line on this.
Him delivering a speech in his new job, nothing surprising there.
A vision is needed to have a goal.
All i can say is: good luck. May the vision be realised and the world will be a safer place to live in.

[gimpy117]

within reach? somehow my thoughts drift back to a carrier deck with a banner in 2003.

[TLAM Strike]

Terrorists are like MOLD. You never can kill all the Spores and it grows back.
and it spreads with the wind too. Leaked documents show that Hamas is now operating in Arizona of all places. :o

[Onkel Neal]

Let's see... no war on terror, Al Queda... shrinks? Weakens? Gives up? No, that doesn't sound right.

The last 10 years of operations has killed and imprisoned a large segment of the first stringers. True, you cannot wipe it out completely but not fighting back is not much of an option.

[Gerald]

Authorities, and international organizations, has a wide cooperation on terror and other global threats, and the U.S. is part of the piece, including the CIA, NSA, and other operating units.

[Platapus]

Seems like this war on terrorism has always been "just another six months" type of war... and may always remain so. :nope:

[Dowly]

Seems like this war on terrorism has always been "just another six months" type of war... and may always remain so. :nope:

Indeed.

[Gerald]

If it is "only" six months ... so breathe sure many, but this is more so, around the clock, and basically anywhere on the Globe.

[mookiemookie]

Let's see... no war on terror, Al Queda... shrinks? Weakens? Gives up? No, that doesn't sound right.

The last 10 years of operations has killed and imprisoned a large segment of the first stringers. True, you cannot wipe it out completely but not fighting back is not much of an option.

True that you have to fight it, and I'm not advocating a head in the sand approach and just ignoring it. I am all for a strong intelligence network and surgical strikes to take out high value targets as we find them.

But what gets me is the classification of this as a war. It's being sold to the public as a fight that we can win one day with a surrender treaty being signed on the deck of the USS Missouri. It's all a scam to keep up public support for a populace weary of 10 years of war. Constantly telling people "we're winning!" or "almost done!" It's justification for any sort of power grab the executive branch wants to make, and there's been plenty over the past two administrations in that arena.

The truth is there's no "winning" this. It's an idea and and an idea doesn't have a uniformed army or supply lines or a head of state. How do you measure progress in the war against an idea?

[Dowly]

"Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof." - V

[Onkel Neal]

True that you have to fight it, and I'm not advocating a head in the sand approach and just ignoring it. I am all for a strong intelligence network and surgical strikes to take out high value targets as we find them.

But what gets me is the classification of this as a war. It's being sold to the public as a fight that we can win one day with a surrender treaty being signed on the deck of the USS Missouri. It's all a scam to keep up public support for a populace weary of 10 years of war. Constantly telling people "we're winning!" or "almost done!" It's justification for any sort of power grab the executive branch wants to make, and there's been plenty over the past two administrations in that arena.

The truth is there's no "winning" this. It's an idea and and an idea doesn't have a uniformed army or supply lines or a head of state. How do you measure progress in the war against an idea?


Fewer skyscrapers toppled? No dirty bombs set off?

I agree, it's not a conventional war. Bush made that clear many times in public addresses. But to say it cannot be won, or we can't be winning... I don't agree.

[Jimbuna]

I doubt terrorism will ever be totally eradicated but at best held in check sufficiently to keep them within the boundaries of their own countries borders.

The hardest part in the future will not be the above but more a case of keeping the support of the electorate in allowing our personnel to continue the fight.

There are those in the UK who advocate withdrawing to our island borders and form an inpenetrable 'ring of steel' from which we could more easily defend......the problem being, who could sit idly by and watch the cancer of terrorism spread across other countries and sit idly by awaiting the next country to get its turn.

I thought the US came to the right decision after the outrage carried out against the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, "enough is enough" and "we'll take the fight to your own front garden" were decisions I applauded and continue to do so.

Better to try than do nothing at all.

[MH]

Fewer skyscrapers toppled? No dirty bombs set off?

I agree, it's not a conventional war. Bush made that clear many times in public addresses. But to say it cannot be won, or we can't be winning... I don't agree.

That's the whole point that people forget when the balance of the war in on their side.
That's the exact time when strong criticism starts since well....nothing bad happens.The government just scares the hell out of every body to keep people in line while unneeded casualties are being taken or given.
Don't trust your government well...or whoever currently needs to be trusted on the issue lol .
Edit.
Bush was much better at calling things by their real names.

[Gerald]

Just like Jim, mentioned here above, the countries that make it much more difficult in the future that these "cell formation takes hold," and it will also eventually be formed networks against terrorist networks and the like that will make it harder for these groups, and that the country's borders strengthened.