Greener Pastures

Well, looky what we have here - could it be that al Qaeda is actually....on the run?:

Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda’s allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group’s core leadership.

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with the Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.

“On balance, we are doing pretty well,” he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: “Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally — and here I’m going to use the word ‘ideologically’ — as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam,” he said.

Hmmm; what has changed between now and a year ago?  Let's see...what could it be...oh, yeah: This all started with the American surge in Iraq.  A fact now so thoroughly and indellibly undeniable that the Dhimmicrats have begun their inevitable campaign to steal credit for it.

And that's not all.  Seems the Brits have just about finished kicking the Taliban's teeth in over Afghanistan way:

Missions by special forces and air strikes by unmanned drones have “decapitated” the Taliban and brought the war in Afghanistan to a “tipping point”, the commander of British forces has said.

The new “precise, surgical” tactics have killed scores of insurgent leaders and made it extremely difficult for Pakistan-based Taliban leaders to prosecute the campaign, according to Brig Mark Carleton-Smith.

In the past two years an estimated 7,000 Taliban have been killed, the majority in southern and eastern Afghanistan. But it is the “very effective targeted decapitation operations” that have removed “several echelons of commanders”.

The few...the proud...the Marines have also gotten in on this action:

Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan are fleeing to the Pakistani border after being routed in recent operations by the United States Marines, the American commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan said on Monday.

Marines of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit have been clearing Taliban and foreign fighters from the district of Garmser, in southern Helmand Province, an important infiltration and drug trafficking route used by the Taliban to supply insurgents farther north.

“The insurgents, after experiencing these several weeks of pressure below Garmser, are trying to flee to the south, perhaps to go back to the sanctuaries in another country,” said the NATO commander, Gen. Dan K. McNeill.

He did not name Pakistan, but Helmand Province shares a border with Pakistan, and the Taliban and drug traffickers have long used refugee camps across the border as a sanctuary from American firepower.

Now what could the catalyst for this eerily similar turnaround have been?  Here's a hint: it's not one that Barack Hussein Obama ever would have chosen:

The NATO effort had begun to stall in 2006, mirroring the American/British efforts in Iraq. NATO had attempted to negotiate with local Taliban commanders to see if accommodation would end the war. Instead, the Taliban used the cease-fires to seize control over villages, especially in Helmand, and conduct offensive operations against NATO.

In the winter of 2007, American commanders decided on a much more aggressive policy, using NATO’s advantage in close air support. The military no longer just defended against Taliban attacks, but used air power to chase down and destroy Taliban forces once they withdrew. NATO also significantly increased the attacks across the border in Pakistan, and has increased them more in 2008.

As a result, the Taliban has failed to conduct spring offensives for two years in a row.

No more diplomacy; no more negotiations; no unconditional presidential summitry with terrorist kingpins; rather, a renewed laser-focus on pure ass-kicking.  Remembering that we're at war and in time of war the objective isn't to talk your enemy to death, but KILL him to death.

And it worked.  Well what you know 'bout that?

This, as an aside, is precisely why it DOES matter who gets the credit for these twin turnarounds.  The Dhimmicrats had NOTHING to do with either one.  They tried to block, obstruct, impede, and tear down the twin "surges" in Iraq and Afghanistan with withdrawal resolutions and defunding game-playing and unconstitutional power grabs.  They INSISTED upon defeat and strategic disaster.  It was the Bush Administration and the GOP which stood fast, refused to buckle to the angry, triumphalist demands of the anti-war crowd and their elected catspaws, adjusted strategies, and persevered over the course of the past eighteen months.  Credit for the success that courage has yielded should ABSOLUTELY be claimed as the EXCLUSIVE property of conservatives, both on general principles and to indellibly link the Donks with the stigma of cowardice, defeatism, "lack of patriotism," and having been PROVEN WRONG once again on the policy area from which they should be permanently barred from wielding influence over in perpetuity: national security.

That is not the thinking of the devil-may-care Allahpundit and one of his commenters, though:

A good point in the comments from Spirit of 1776: “I’ve said before, and still believe, the dems will be happy to win in Iraq if they can spin it their victory. And for the most part, I think Bush is happy to let them spin it, as long as we win.” Indeed. Nothing but nothing is going to get the left excited about possibly winning the war if it redounds in any way to conservatives’ advantage. If Bush wants to encourage them to stay the course, he should grit his teeth and start congratulating them in his speeches for having provided the funds that paid for the surge and for the new chance Iraqis are getting. No time for pride.

It's not about "pride," AP.  It's about doing everything possible to keep a pro-victory war policy in place.  The Dhimmicrats do not believe in victory, they believe in, nay LUST after, defeat.  Whether that's out of treasonous impulses or puerile partisan cynicism (more likely a synthesis of the two) is beside the point.  Allowing the party of appeasement, weakness, and defeat to abscond with the credit for war victories they did everything they could to prevent bolsters it politically, and marginalizes the Republicans who actually favored and fought for the policies that produced those victories.  Bolstering the party of appeasement, weakness, and defeat and marginalizing the party of strength and victory makes it more likely that policies of appeasement, weakness, and defeat will be implimented in place of policies of strength and victory.

Let's say I'm building my dream house.  I do all the work myself, I buy all the materials, I even self-finance it.  Let's also say that my biggest obstacle to getting my dream house built is the local city government, which inflicts all manner of red tape, permits, environmental impact statements, etc., etc., etc. on me, almost as if there's somebody down at City Hall that is bound and determined to deny me my new home.  Hell, let's say there is that somebody, and he tells me so to my face.  Repeatedly.  Profanely.  At the top of his lungs.  The Bureaucrat From Hell.  But I stick with it, persevere, and eventually, against all odds, my dream house is complete.  And it is magnificent; it has everything I ever wanted: four bedrooms, two offices, a home gym, indoor swimming pool/jacuzzi, game room, rumpus room, living room, two-car attached garage plus more storage space than I'd ever need, the works.

Now let's say that the Bureaucrat From Hell shows up at my dream house with a moving van, tells me that I wouldn't have gotten this house built were it not for his indispensible assistance, and that entitles him to move in himself and his family with us.  And if I utter so much as a peep of complaint, he'll have me and my family evicted.

Sounds outrageous, doesn't it?  It's also no different, not one single, solitary smidgen, from letting the party of retreat and defeat glom credit for a victory they wanted no part of until they could no longer pre-empt it.

The phrase "strike while the iron is hot" comes to mind, particularly given Ensign Ed's caviat....:

[T]he massive return to Pakistan may have another purpose. This comes as Pakistan has decided on appeasement as a strategy for dealing with the native Taliban leadership headed by Baitullah Mehsud. That seems more than coincidence.

Could Mehsud have decided that the Afghanistan operations are too costly and brought his forces back into Pakistan for shelter? If so, what would that mean? He may be looking to consolidate power in Pakistan rather than bleeding his forces unnecessarily in Afghanistan. [emphases added]

....in correlation with this story:

A suicide car bombing outside the Danish embassy in the Pakistani capital Islamabad on Monday killed at least eight people and wounded nearly thirty others, state media and officials said.

The blast left a huge crater outside the embassy, damaging the building and a nearby development agency. Dozens of cars were wrecked by the force of the explosion and some were on fire, an AFP reporter said. ….

Pakistan has experienced a lull in suicide attacks since a new government came to power in March and began peace talks with Taliban militants based in Pakistan’s tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

Pakistani Taliban movement spokesman Maulvi Omar said he had “no knowledge” about the blast.

“I have no information, I am not in a position to immediately comment. I cannot say who is responsible for this,” Omar told AFP by telephone fom an unknown location.

Maybe the Talibanis are full of it and maybe they aren't.  Maybe their al Qaeda allies did it.  Or maybe it was a third faction and all three are working a Pakistani variant on the Fatah/Hamas/Islamic Jihad "triangle offense" of Palestinian infamy.  Or maybe the bombing is unrelated to the larger war.

But I wouldn't count on it.  It does seem to be a bit too convenient that the terrorist "insurgents" are moving away (i.e. "retreating") from a strong, determined foe that is systematically annihilating them in Iraq and Afghanistan and toward a weak, vaccillating one in the regime of a bigger, more developed country that has as its ultimate prize a small but far from insignificant arsenal of nuclear weapons that appears hopelessly wedded to the Barack Hussein Obama approach.

C'mon, if you were Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, with your forces "on the run" on every front, what better end-around to run, what better way to pull victory from the jaws of defeat, and what more effective means of sending the U.S. war strategy reeling into total disarray, than to take over Pakistan and turn it into the Sunni Islamist answer to the Iranian mullahgarchy?  Think about it: would President Rodham or President Obama REALLY order a full-scale invasion of Pakistan, or any smaller-scale military action, to keep its nukes out of al Qaeda/Talibani hands?

Of course not.

And this would be the same President Rodham or President Obama who, along with her/his party's veto-proof congressional majorities, would have gotten elected in no small part because President Bush, nominee McCain, and the GOP didn't let "pride" get in the way of "bipartisanizing" the credit for the victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus neutralizing the one remaining political advantage the Stupid Party still possessed.

It's a depressing fact of the times in which we live that we cannot win shooting wars abroad if we don't win the political wars at home.  If we're not willing to fight to win in the latter, the former will become a fait accompli.

In this war, that's a death warrant.