Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Home Front: Politix
VDH: The Swamp Fights Back
2019-03-10
[National Review] Trump was warned by friends, enemies, and neutrals that his fight against the deep state was suicidal. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, just a few days before Trump’s inauguration, cheerfully forecast (in a precursor to Samantha Power’s later admonition) what might happen to Trump once he attacked the intelligence services: "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community ‐ they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."

Former administrative-state careerists were not shy about warning Trump of what was ahead. The counterterrorism analyst Phil Mudd, who had worked in the CIA and the FBI under Robert Mueller, warned CNN host Jake Tapper in August 2017 that "the government is going to kill" President Donald Trump. Kill? And what was the reason the melodramatic Mudd adduced for his astounding prediction? "Because he doesn’t support them." Mudd then elaborated: "Let me give you one bottom line as a former government official. The government is going to kill this guy. The government is going to kill this guy because he doesn’t support them." Mudd further clarified his assassination metaphor: "What I’m saying is government ‐ people talk about the deep state ‐ when you disrespect government officials who’ve done 30 years, they’re going to say, ’Really?’"

It was difficult to ascertain to what degree Mudd was serious or exaggerating the depth of deep-state loathing of Trump.

A writer for the London Review of Books, Adam Schatz, seemed even more direct. He reported a supposed conversation that he had with an American political scientist knowledgeable of the Washington permanent caste. He purportedly had assured Schatz that if Trump were elected, he would likely not survive his full term: "He will have to be removed from power by the deep state, or be assassinated."
They are living in too insular a community if they think much of D.C. would survive his assassination. I hope to hell they are not that stupid! That said, they have not been showing a lot of sense. Hubris seems to be their mantra.
Link


Government
Former CIA officer Phill Mudd: Tired of Selective Amnesia on Gina Haspel
2018-05-10
[CNN] Phil Mudd slams senators for "selective amnesia" when grilling CIA Director nominee Gina Haspel over interrogation techniques that were legal; "We didn’t do it, America did it."
Link


-Lurid Crime Tales-
John Brennan's Thwarted Coup
2018-03-21
[American Spectator] As his plot to destroy Trump backfires, his squeals grow louder.

It was the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky who coined the phrase the "dustbin of history." To his political opponents, he sputtered, "You are pitiful, isolated individuals! You are bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on ‐ into the dustbin of history!"

It is no coincidence that John Brennan, who supported the Soviet-controlled American Communist Party in the 1970s (he has acknowledged that he thought his vote for its presidential candidate Gus Hall threatened his prospects at the CIA; unfortunately, it didn’t), would borrow from Trotsky’s rhetoric in his fulminations against Donald Trump. His tweet last week, shortly after the firing of Andrew McCabe, reeked of Trotskyite revolutionary schlock: "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America... America will triumph over you."

America will triumph over a president it elected? That’s the raw language of coup, and of course it is not the first time Brennan has indulged it. In 2017, he was calling for members of the executive branch to defy the chief executive. They should "refuse to carry out" his lawful directives if they don’t agree with them, he said.

Trump has said that the Russians are "laughing their asses off" over the turmoil caused by Obamagate. No doubt many of the laughs come at the sight of Brennan, a supporter of Soviet stooges like Gus Hall, conducting a de facto coup from the top of the CIA and then continuing it after his ouster. Who needs Gus Hall when John Brennan is around? This time the Russians don’t even have to pay for the anti-American activity.

Another hardcore leftist, Samantha Power, who spent the weeks after Trump’s victory rifling through intelligence picked up on his staff, found Brennan’s revolutionary tweet very inspiring. "Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan," she wrote. Sounded pretty dark and grave. But not to worry, she tweeted later. She just meant that the former CIA director was going to smite Trump with the power of his "eloquent voice."

Out of power, these aging radicals can’t help themselves. They had their shot to stop Trump, they failed, and now they are furious. The adolescent coup talk grows more feverish with each passing day. We have a former CIA director calling for the overthrow of a duly elected president, a former attorney general (Eric Holder) calling for a "knife fight," a Senate minority leader speaking ominously about what the intelligence community might do to Trump ("they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Schumer has said), and assorted former FBI and CIA officials cheering for a coup, such as CNN’s Phil Mudd who says, "You’ve been around for 13 months. We’ve been around since 1908. I know how this game is going to be played. We’re going to win."
Link


Home Front: Politix
Former CIA Counterterrorism Official Threatens Trump, Saying
2018-02-04
[WeaselZipper] "You’ve been around for 13 months. We've been around since 1908. I know how this game is going to be played. We're going to win"
I hope "Former" can be taken in this case to mean "Bat$hit Crazy." Vid at link.
Phil Mudd
Click on his name. He has quite a history of threats like this.
Hayden isn't protecting Mudd so much as he is attempting to insulate the real architects of Deep State corruption, Brennan and Obama.
Phil Mudd:
Link


Home Front: Politix
Former Mueller deputy on Trump: 'Government is going to kill this guy'
2017-08-12
[The Hill] CNN counterterrorism analyst Phil Mudd warned that President Trump is agitating the government, saying during a Thursday afternoon interview with CNN anchor Jake Tapper that the U.S. government "is going to kill this guy."

Mudd, who served as deputy director to former FBI Director Robert Mueller, said Trump's defense of Russian President Vladimir Putin has compelled federal employees "at Langley, Foggy Bottom, CIA and State" to try to take Trump down.

"Let me give you one bottom line as a former government official. Government is going to kill this guy," Mudd, a staunch critic of Trump, said on "The Lead."

"He defends Vladimir Putin. There are State Department and CIA officers coming home, and at Langley and Foggy Bottom, CIA and State, they’re saying, 'This is how you defend us?' " he continued.
Link


-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Uh-oh, CNN staffer may have caught on
2017-07-25
[DonSurber] With a tip of the cap to Breitbart, Toobin went on the Situation Room on Wednesday. Brianna Keilar filled in for Wolf Blitzer. She hosted a panel of Toobin, Nia-Malika Henderson, Phil Mudd, and Rebecca Berg. They had this exchange:

KEILAR: Phil, this -- what do we take from this? So many people are paying attention, right, because of -- now it becomes this drama in a way that is beyond just folks who pay a lot of attention to politics.

MUDD: I think that's right. I think you have to step back in the emotion in Washington and look at facts. I want to pick up on what Rebecca said. If I read into what we're seeing on the cover of "People" magazine, I've got to start subscribing if I want to learn about what's happening in Washington.
Within weeks you have to fire your national security adviser. If you -- look at what the president said. The peace process, Arab-Israeli, is easy. Health care, who could have thought -- think this would be so hard? I've got to believe they're stepping in and saying this ain't a business deal; this is really tough.

And meanwhile, all of them have had to hire lawyers, because there's a federal investigation that could lead to indictments, and we're not even seven months in yet. I can't believe anybody looking at those facts, regardless of whether you like the family or not, says, "This is what we banked on, on inauguration day." No way.

BERG: Right.

KEILAR: But Jeffrey Toobin, he had a lot of support.

TOOBIN: He won, right? I mean, he won the presidency. We sit around here saying...

KEILAR: When I say a lot of support, I mean, he has some support that it can -- almost can't be eroded. He has support that can't be eroded, it seems.

TOOBIN: Yes, well, I don't know that it can't be eroded. I mean it has eroded somewhat.

But, you know, we sat around that table for a year saying, oh, Donald Trump, he can't say this, he can't say that, and this is a disaster. And he proved all of us wrong and he won the presidency. And who is to say that he's not going to win it again in three and a half years?

I just think, you know, all of us in the news media need to have a lot of humility about predicting anything about Donald Trump since we have a record -- and I don't mean everyone but certainly, I include myself -- a record of underestimating him. And, you know, we should keep that in mind.

KEILAR: It is a good lesson. We all should have more humility. Thank you so much, Jeffrey Toobin, Nia-Malika Henderson, Phil Mudd, and Rebecca Berg.

Oh no!

They are catching on.

But then Toobin's moment of clarity ended, and Keilar went back to faking the news.
...
Link


Home Front: Politix
Deep State 'Team Klingon' becoming angry and frustrated with Trey Gowdy
2017-05-25
[Free Beacon] Former CIA Agent Phil Mudd said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) "ought to have his ass kicked" while discussing Gowdy questioning former CIA Director John Brennan about collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's campaign.

CNN's Alyson Camerota and Chris Cuomo spoke with Mudd on Wednesday morning to discuss Brennan's testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee.

CNN played a clip of Gowdy questioning Brennan over whether he had "evidence" rather than "intelligence" of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors.

When Gowdy asked if there was evidence of the collusion, Brennan said, "I was aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign."

"Did collusion exist?" Camerota asked Mudd. "That's the burning question everybody wants answered."

"Trey Gowdy ought to have his ass kicked," Mudd said. "He knows the difference between intelligence and evidence."

"If you are an American citizen and the National Security Agency collects intelligence that is intercepts of Russians, who report what you've said, do you think it's fair to go to court and say that is evidence that you did something wrong?" Mudd asked rhetorically.
Just for the record: The term 'former Klingon Agent' is a misnomer.
Link


Terror Networks
Osama was living some version of the 'Kardashians in Abbottabad'
2012-04-02
Osama Bin Laden fathered four children while on the run in Pakistan in the nine years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to his youngest wife while skipping from safe house to safe house among family.

'I can only begin to imagine that that looked like American reality TV,' Phil Mudd who helped lead the CIA's hunt for Bin Laden told ABC. 'That he was living in some version of the Kardashians in Abbottabad.'
At least Bruce Jenner is clever enough to have married only one of them.
During that time, the former Al Qaeda leader moved between five safe houses and at least two of the four children were born in a government hospital.
Link


Home Front: Politix
How blame games are costing spy agencies
2009-06-19
By Michael Hayden

Recently we were able to see in a painfully visible way the impact of today's climate in Washington on the ability of the nation's intelligence services to defend us. Rather than go through what promised to be a painful and distracting public confirmation process, Phil Mudd withdrew his name from consideration to be the undersecretary of homeland security for intelligence and analysis. If he had been confirmed, Phil would have followed the iconic figure of Charlie Allen, another CIA veteran, in a post charged with some of the most important work in the American intelligence community -- being a key interface between national capabilities and the needs of our state and local defenders and first responders.

Phil Mudd is a thoroughgoing intelligence professional, a career CIA analyst with superb credentials and extensive experience in the counterterrorism mission. As deputy director of national intelligence in 2005, I thought so highly of Phil that I personally pressured him to leave the CIA and his comfort zone there to take on a challenging new task as deputy head of the FBI's fledgling National Security Branch. Phil's task there was to dramatically expand the office and move the FBI's forensics-based and law enforcement-focused analysis toward a true intelligence function -- predictive, disruptive and working the "spaces between cases." This was no mean task in an organization whose dominant culture was law enforcement, whose historical legacy was catching criminals and whose core professionals wore badges and carried guns.

But Phil thrived. He earned the respect of the broader FBI and tirelessly moved his workforce toward the mainstream of the intelligence community. Along the way he also became knowledgeable of and accepted by American law enforcement officers at all levels of government -- attributes that Charlie Allen did not have when he moved to the Department of Homeland Security and attributes that would have enabled Phil to tighten the linkage between local needs and national capacities. A national intelligence professional with credentials among federal and local law enforcement officers, Phil was made for the DHS job.

It will not be. Rather than go through the gantlet that we call the confirmation process, Phil decided to skip what he feared would be a "circus." The blogosphere had already begun to light up with commentary about his unsuitability for the post. His sin? Phil had been the deputy director of CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center and its chief analyst at the height of the agency's counterattack against al-Qaeda -- those first years after Sept. 11, 2001, when the agency felt it had to use all the tools at its disposal to learn more about and eventually disrupt follow-on al-Qaeda attacks. Phil's personal involvement in the most controversial tactics was no more than "modest engagement," but he was conscientiously tasking all possible sources of information and faithfully connecting the dots as everyone expected him to do.

As he made the rounds of Hill staffers and was told that this aspect of his past, rather than his credentials for the proposed post, would probably become the focus of his hearings, he calmly (and wisely) said no. He would not become the "meat in the sandwich," being badgered to answer what was his definition of torture, or whether he agreed with President Obama's description that this had been a dark period in our history, or with the former vice president's assertion that hundreds of lives had been saved, or with the speaker of the House's judgment that they "mislead us all the time" or with my public statements that the CIA interrogation program produced valuable intelligence. Beyond what personal psychic costs such an inquiry would impose, Phil would simply not feed the partisan beast and create yet more distractions for the community he loved and served. And so the republic will do without the officer clearly most qualified to fill the head intelligence position at DHS.

Phil's fate is symptomatic of a larger and even more troubling reality. A whole swath of intelligence professionals -- the best we had, the ones we threw at the al-Qaeda challenge when the nation was in extremis -- are suffering for their sacrifice, being held up to recrimination for many decisions that were never wholly theirs and about which there was little protest when we all believed we were in danger.

During our Civil War, in the fog of battle, the best officers would lead their men to the "sound of the guns." It was a simple way to deduce where you were needed most. People like Phil Mudd went dutifully to the "sound of the guns" after Sept. 11, and elements of the republic they selflessly served are now prepared to punish them for it. And it seems that few are willing to defend them. The White House issued a short, pro forma statement of regret at Phil's decision, and the Director of National Intelligence, the nation's senior intelligence officer, offered no public comment. Phil's veteran colleagues in the counterterrorism fight are now drawing their own conclusions about their work and their futures. Even more important, those officers coming after Phil and his generation, the products of that massive post-Sept. 11 hiring surge, are surely looking hard and taking notes.

Phil was a visible casualty of today's atmosphere. There are other losses less visible. Pray that the safety of the republic is ultimately not among them.

The writer was director of the CIA from 2006 until February.
Link


Terror Networks & Islam
The evolution of al-Qaeda
2005-06-23
Over the past year, essentially since the Madrid train bombings on March 11, 2004, U.S. intelligence and policy-makers have had a changed view of al-Qaida. Instead of the hierarchical organization portrayed by the president — with his scorecard of how many leaders have been killed or captured — those closest to the counterterrorism effort see a network that while less capable of mega-attacks like Sept. 11 is more capable of a long-lasting war against the United States and the West.

The capture or killing of Osama bin Laden would be a major event in the war on terrorism, one with positive — and even some negative — consequences for the United States and its allies, but it would not signal the end of al-Qaida, the end of Islamic terrorism or even the reconfiguring of the network. "Certainly, the al-Qaida organization represents the embodiment of some kind of a network of global terrorism," Porter Goss, the CIA director, recently told NBC News. "And it's dangerous. It's dangerous in a lot of places. But we think in sort of an organized Western mind about what a network would look like. It's not. It's very amorphous. Some of it is self-starting. There are cells here and cells there that are loosely related. There are associations."

In interview after interview with officials of the U.S., French, Spanish, British and Saudi counterterrorism efforts, that is now the accepted wisdom. No one is optimistic the death or capture of bin Laden would significantly change the landscape of terrorism, although on a positive note, no one is complacent either. As one British diplomat put it, "The U.S. is winning the war on al-Qaida but losing the war on terrorism — and the reason is Iraq."

Roger Cressey, who was the National Security Council's deputy director of counterterrorism in the Clinton and Bush administrations, agrees. "Al-Qaida, as we knew it, is pretty much on its death bed now. I mean, we've had real successes in attriting its capability, so the organization that attacked us on 9/11 no longer poses the same type of threat," said Cressey, now an NBC News consultant. "That's the good news. The bad news is we've seen a growth in this global Sunni extremist movement, partly driven by Iraq, but also by other events, which is much more difficult to track, follow and ultimately disrupt. So as we're doing really well against what was al-Qaida, we've got a new threat — this movement, which is much more of a challenge."

Madrid is cited as the key turning point in the evolution of Islamic terror. Initially, Spanish and U.S. counterterrorism officials sought links between al-Qaida (or, as the CIA now describes it, "al-Qaida Central"). But quickly they realized there weren't any. The attack was put together in eight weeks, using stolen explosives and cell phone detonators put together by one of the conspirators. It required no central direction from the mountains of Pakistan, simply a charismatic leader with links to men trained in the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. For motivation, though, they had Spanish help for the U.S. war in Iraq, and for inspiration they had bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks. The Madrid bombings killed 191 people, the third-largest death toll from Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.

And Spain is not alone. There is no evidence to suggest that attacks that killed dozens of Westerners in Casablanca, Morocco, for example, were carried out with the knowledge of al-Qaida leadership. And while earlier attacks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were ordered by al-Qaida Central, the later ones were not. Al-Qaida is becoming what its earliest architects had hoped it would be: a support "base" for Islamic radicals around the world. Even al-Qaida in Iraq, the new name for Abu Musab al Zarqawi's forces, does not take orders from bin Laden or his No. 2, Ayman al Zawahiri, rather just inspiration, technical support and military guidance.

It is this change in strategy that is now driving intelligence-gathering by the United States and its Western allies, requiring a switch in both intelligence-gathering and analysis. Phil Mudd, the deputy director of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center and the man Goss most relies on for his analysis of the al-Qaida threat, agrees that things are changing and that tracking Islamic terrorism as a general threat, rather than as al-Qaida specifically, can make it harder to find out what's really going on out there. "I think in some ways it does," he said. "One of the few advantages of operating against an organization as capable as al-Qaida was we had a hierarchy, a central unit that we could go against. What we now have is a sense of localization of groups, of the threat so in some ways, so it does make it more difficult to chase the target. In other ways, though, the advantage that it gives us is, we're fighting groups that don't have the strategic capabilities of al-Qaida, so advantages in some areas, disadvantages in others."

Now, Mudd notes that more important than lists of top people in the hierarchy are the "influence nets" derived from interrogations and the detritus left behind by or found with terrorists: the laptops, jump drives, CD-ROMs, DVDs, notebooks and phone books. It is this gold mine of information that shows who in the Islamist movement knows whom, who trained whom, who fought with whom, who likes or doesn't like whom. It was no accident that al-Qaida's No. 3, Abu Farraj al-Libbi, was trying to destroy a paper notebook when captured in the Pakistani city of Mardan in early May.

What is retrieved from interrogation now approaches or surpasses any other intelligence on the subject of al-Qaida and the construction of the network, say senior U.S. intelligence analysts. And while rarely operational intelligence — al-Qaida is now too compartmentalized, too diffuse for that — it becomes the basic building blocks for the influence nets. And that in turn is crucial to breaking the networks.

Also critical is cooperation among the nations fighting al-Qaida, whether they be European, Arabic, other Islamic or otherwise. France, for example, has been America's most effective partner in counterterrorism, according to several U.S. officials — in spite of disagreements over the war with Iraq. "We have a very, very good relationship and very good cooperation between United States and France in intelligence as well as law enforcement, you know," said Jean Louis Brugiere, France's chief counterterrorism judge, who describes the United States as his "best partner." "Even before Sept. 11 and of course after, we have reinforced this cooperation."

But Brugiere also admits that Iraq remains a major, if not the major problem now for the United States in combating terrorism. "We think the level of threat is very high right now," he declared. "And for many, many reasons, but especially Iraq. The problem has a direct law of attraction for the loose conglomeration of Islamic cells and groups scattered in Europe."

The CIA has a new name as well for the Iraqi effect on public opinion — and terrorist recruiting — in Islamic nations: "bleed back." This unartistic term is meant to capture the anger Muslims, particularly young Muslims, have about the war in Iraq and the United States. Goss, a Bush appointee, admitted as much in recent Senate Intelligence Committee testimony, saying, "Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."

Is bin Laden likely to have been upset by this turn of events? No, says a senior U.S. intelligence analyst. "It was his plan all along to have al-Qaida as a base of broader operations. Al-Qaida, after all, means 'the base.'"

Al-Qaida's evolution began in the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, according to several Western intelligence and counterterrorism officials. Al-Qaida first realized that it had underestimated the attack's chances for success. "They didn't expect the buildings to come down," said a U.S. analyst. "They didn't anticipate the economic effects." Moreover, he says, most of al-Qaida's leadership did not expect the U.S. response to be as fulsome and as effective as it was. "They had seen what we had done in Beirut and Mogadishu. We pulled out. They expected that at worst, we would go into Afghanistan, where they would bleed us as they had the Soviets."

But things moved too quickly. As the Taliban regime collapsed, bin Laden made a tactical decision that would ultimately result in a strategic change in direction. The leadership of the group was sent to Pakistani cities to hide. The management was sent to Iran. Cells around the world found themselves trying to get direction from both centers.

Al-Qaida leaders suddenly found themselves bundled onto a CIA Gulfstream V or Boeing 737 jet headed for long months of interrogation. Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaida's "dean of students," who directed training and placement for the group, was captured in Faisalabad, Pakistan, in February 2002, Ramzi Bin al Shibh, the organizer of the Hamburg, Germany, cell that formed the core of the Sept. 11 hijackers, was captured in Karachi, Pakistan, on the first anniversary of the attacks, leading ultimately to the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of Sept. 11 and the financier of the first World Trade Center attack, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, in March 2003 and Tawfiq Attash Kallad, the mastermind of the USS Cole attack, a month later in Karachi.

In the midst of this, says Spanish counterterrorism judge Baltasar Garzon, al-Qaida convened a strategic summit in northern Iran in November 2002. Without bin Laden present, but with many of the top leaders, the group's "shura," or consultative council, met secretly to decide how to operate within the new restraints and confinements. Leading the discussion was a Syrian, Mustafa Setmariam Nasar. He looked unlike most Arabs, being fair-skinned and red-haired, and carried a Spanish passport, having married a Spanish woman in 1987. Setmariam Nasar, derisively called a "pen jihadist" by some at the CIA but a "strategist" by Spanish counterterrorism officials, said it was time for al-Qaida to carry out the February 1998 fatwa bin Laden wrote and transmitted widely across the Arab and Muslim world. "He told the shura that al-Qaida could no longer exist as a hierarchy, an organization, but instead would have to become a network and move its operations out over the entire world," said Garzon, the prosecuting judge who investigated the role of Spanish citizens in Sept. 11 as well as the Madrid attacks. "He pointed to the Feb. 23, 1998, fatwa for inspiration."

The 1998 fatwa was in the words of the 9/11 commission "a declaration of war" on the United States. But more important, in the context of Setmariam Nasar's argument, it set down the parameters of what the new al-Qaida needed. It was signed by bin Laden and Zawahiri, as well as the leader of another Egyptian terrorist group and Bangladeshi and Pakistani terrorists. In the document, bin Laden called for a worldwide jihad on Americans, whether man, woman or child, military or civilian. Killing Americans became an individual duty of all Muslims everywhere, he wrote. "We — with Allah's help — call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it," bin Laden declared. "We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

The fatwa, with its call for individual, not organizational, responsibility, should be the driving force behind the new al-Qaida, it was decided. Al-Qaida had provided $80,000 to Indonesian terrorists to carry out the Bali nightclub bombings in Indonesia the month before. Now, a similar amount would be sent to Turkish terrorists who went after British and Jewish targets in two Istanbul attacks a year later. Other experienced fighters, working without orders from al-Qaida Central, planned and carried out al-Qaida-style multiple, simultaneous attacks on Western targets in Casablanca, killing 33 in May 2003. That attack, in turn, became the inspiration, again without direction from al-Qaida leaders, for the Madrid attack 10 months later.

It also did its best to help the remnants of the Taliban regain Afghanistan, as one U.S. counterterrorism official noted. "Home base is still very important for them." Top al-Qaida leaders operated in small cells, attacking Afghan National Army and U.S. troops. Abu Laith al Libbi and Abu Hadi al Iraqi, two top bin Laden lieutenants, have been seen in recent months in Afghan combat videos distributed to Arab satellite TV channels to emphasize its importance.

Another home base is Saudi Arabia. British intelligence picked up a lively debate between "al-Qaida in south Waziristan [Pakistan] and al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia" on the value of carrying out attacks on bin Laden's native land, said a senior British counterterrorism official. "Al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia feared attacks would foul their own nest and that the Saudi government would react aggressively," said the official. Al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia lost the debate, and attacks against Western and Saudi targets began in Riyadh in May. The predicted response quickly followed, and al-Qaida lost most of its top leadership in Saudi Arabia and, more important, others who were responsible for bombings elsewhere. In April 2005, Saudi officials discovered among the bodies of those killed in a shootout with their security forces the remains of Karim al Mojjati, the mastermind of the Casablanca attacks.

But the biggest success of the new strategy has been in Iraq. Abu Musab al Zarqawi has created a mini-al-Qaida using all the hallmarks of bin Laden's operations: the preference for multiple, simultaneous attacks, often using suicide bombers; high body counts; assassinations of "collaborators"; disregard for distinctions between military and civilian targets. After initially failing to make the connections with Zarqawi in the months after the November 2002 shura, al-Qaida succeeded in early 2004, leading to eight months of negotiations and then in October 2004, Zarqawi's "announcement of good tidings" — his alliance with bin Laden.

"There have been contacts between Shaykh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — may Allah protect him — with the brothers in al-Qaida for 8 months. After an [initial] exchange of viewpoints took place, a catastrophic dispute occurred," said the statement, sounding much like a diplomatic discussion of an exchange of frank and candid views. "However, Allah has been benevolent to us in resuming those contacts, and now our noble brothers from Al-Qaida understand the strategy of the Tawheed wal-Jihad Movement in Mesopotamia - and their hearts are pleased by the methods we have used." Bin Laden, he said, was his "commander." He swore "bayat," or personal fealty, to him and added a recruiting pitch to join "the leading unified brigade of the mujahideen."

[What was the catastrophic dispute? U.S. intelligence won't say, but one official hinted at "bad blood" that developed between Zarqawi and, ironically, Setmariam Nasar, the architect of the new al-Qaida. "They don't like each other," said one official.]

Bin Laden was soon providing money and other help to Zarqawi. When Zarqawi left behind communications gear in an escape from American troops six months later, the U.S. military was not surprised to find a bagful of jump drives, small computer drives that can be hidden in shoes or passed by handshakes and yet contain tens of thousands of pages of documents or thousands of maps or hundreds of short videos. They are an al-Qaida trademark. Zarqawi, for two years in the top ranks of terrorists worldwide, was now joining the top leadership of al-Qaida as well. "He is ambitious," said the senior U.S. intelligence analyst. "He wants a presence in the larger Middle East and Europe — and he is very good."

What's next if bin Laden is killed or, less likely, captured? Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's No. 2, is his designated successor, but he too appears to be out of the operational loop. Other top leaders, Abu Laith al Libbi or Abu Hadi, who brokered the deal with Zarqawi, might step up. Al-Qaida as an entity might morph further, with its leadership shifting to Zarqawi and its base of operations to Iraq. Jemaah Islamiya, the Indonesian group, might rise to be the main Islamic terrorist group. Most intelligence services see it as the most dangerous group after al-Qaida or the Iranian-backed Hezbollah. "We are also starting to see al-Qaida operations in West Africa, particularly Nigeria, among indigenous Muslims in South Africa, and in Western Europe. The record shows that the recruits for al-Qaida in Western Europe are not immigrants but among second and third generation, like those captured in Britain and those captured in Spain.

Cressey also believes the next attack on the United States may come not from a central al-Qaida plan, but one formed by those who are fighting U.S. troops in Iraq. "One of the greatest unintended consequences of the war is the development of the new generation of jihadis who have developed their training inside Iraq," he said. "And [they] are now looking for new targets. So as this new cadre grows and becomes more capable, they may look at the United States as the next target for them. So we're not going to know the answer to that question for several years. But they could become a very important threat to us."

No matter what, however, said the senior U.S. intelligence official, "al-Qaida the group is in decline, but al-Qaida the movement — the like-mindeds and affiliates — is on the rise. The lines crossed that morning in Madrid. Everything changed that day. Whether we can stop the movement is something that is beyond our military or intelligence capabilities, and we are at the beginning. This struggle will be with us for a generation or more."
Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-10 More