Al-Qa’eda’s having more problems!
Yes, despite current talk of the Global War on Terror being a breeding ground for new bin Ladens, the organization’s leadership sees it as weak and beset by problems. A document recently released by CENTCOM explores some of the problems. The document was discovered in a safe house in Iraq used by ex-terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Like the letter to him from Ayman al-Zawahiri that was discovered a while back (you know, the one begging Zarqawi to send a donation since the senior leadership of the organization was short on cash), the newly-released document passes on advice from senior management to Zarqawi in the form of politely phrased criticism.
Now that he’s been shuffled off this mortal coil with extreme prejudice, Zarqawi is no longer able to heed that advice, of course, but what makes the letter fascinating is what it reveals about the weakened, damanged state of al-Qa’eda.
It also seems to indicate that the senior leadership of the organization is, or at least was, in Waziristan, just as many have suspected.
The document reveals a view of American and coalition forces that is quite heartening: "the enemy isn’t easy, for he is great and numerous and he can take quite a bit of punishment as well." And it indicates that the boys in Waziristan are themselves " occupied with vicious enemies" and that "all the mujahidin are still weak" and that they "have not yet reached a level of stability" after our attacks.
YEE-HAW!
Hit ’em again! Harder! Harder!
GET THE STORY.
A special thanks to all our men and women in uniform, without whom this would not have been possible.
Here here! God bless our military.
Is this a Python-esque attempt at humor?
And that Wikipedia sight is wrong. Our Fearless Leader says the central front against the turrists is in Iraq.
Good news for America is evidently bad news for some.
I wonder how much press this will get. I am guessing zilch.
Jimmy, you’re bending the template!
There is no good news in the war on terror, everyone knows that. Don’t you watch CNN?
“Is this a Python-esque attempt at humor?”
Not hardly. If Jimmy really wanted to be funny, he would have wrote about Nancy Pelosi’s plans for fighting Al-Qa’eda.
If Jimmy really wanted to be funny, he would have wrote about Nancy Pelosi’s plans for fighting Al-Qa’eda.
That’s simple. Her plans are:
That’s right. Nothing. Or perhaps maybe a hug.
I’m glad to hear there is at least a sense of fear of our military on the part of Al-Qa’eda.
Of course three cheers for our troops.
Jimmy, I think you should point out the difference between theology and prudential judgments (even if with very big practical consequences) of political, historical, military events.
This seems like good news, but when our generals are calling Afghanistan (after us) a “narco-state”–there is a big problem.
Afghanistan (the invasion of) was absolutely necessary following 9-11 because we had a link to a definite enemy and cause–Iraq is more convuluted. I am uncertain if Iraq is necessary or good (it does not seem good in the short term but I have hope for the long term) I served in Iraq I. Didn’t see a lot but our troops there are seeing a whole hell of a lot.
I have grown deeper in my faith and don’t have a lot of “faith” in politics or our government, and sometimes even in our “institutional” (I am not a theological liberal so don’t like using the term) Church–but I do think we should all pray and study more and in our own individual lives show love through practical acts (the Jesuit concept of affective vs. effective love I forget which one is which and I only like the traditional Jesuits) Prayer, fasting, penance, good works (hope a Fundamentalist doesn’t read the last one) are the keys and not all the political discussions. I personally think Bush is taking us for a ride and not to sound liberal or conspiratorial–but it is big money anti-Catholics–and I believe this more and more.
I am not a member but I do want to comment on the bad confirmation class—Usually the Opus Dei crowd, whatever there other faults, have very good programs for kids and good catechism–they have some parishes so as not to be outside the Archdiocese system.
Again, good for our troops, I hope the war on terror is going well, I hope the media plays this story but
1. I still have doubts
and
2. Make a distinction between being for or against the war (or any candidate or historical or political perspective) and theological and moral issues that are not prudential.
Best wishes and prayers.
Well said, Anthony Pellegrini. Afghanistan was a direct threat to American security, but Iraq is a whole different kettle of fish, and simplistically talking as though supporting the occupation of Iraq were conditonal to being a good Catholic is seriously irresponsible (step foreward, George Weigel!).
American troops have conducted themselves with great courage and honour, but that doesn’t mean their leadership isn’t mislead.
Traditionalist Catholic,
talking as though supporting the occupation of Iraq were conditonal to being a good Catholic is seriously irresponsible (step foreward, George Weigel!).
I don’t know why I bother, but here goes. Do you have any evidence that Weigel believes you have to support the occupation of Iraq to be a good Catholic? And if so, would you mind sharing?
I’m glad to hear it, and I’m going to forward it to my son who just finished up a year in Iraq. He tells me the soldiers’ only source of news is CNN, believe it or not.
Good golly, Annalucia. Someone get those soldiers access to Fox News. Or jimmyakin.org.
CHT: Steve Ray
What does CHT mean?
CHT = cowboy hat tip.
Brother Cadfael,
okay, Weigel hasn’t to my knowledge said quite that. But two points:
1. He fiercely advocated the war in the months leading up to it, referring Catholic Just War theory (and the non-existant WMD’s). He said the invasion of Iraq would usher in “the world envisioned by John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris, a law-governed international political community.” He said the foreign policies of the UN security council members opposed to the war were “conducted on entirely amoral grounds”. He advocated a war in the name of a concept of “freedom” which he made out to be central to Catholicism.
2. I have a lot of respect for Weigel, and was very impressed by his book The Courage to be Catholic. But it is precisely this talent which makes his neo-conservatism so unfortunate. Imagine a Lebanese or Palestinian Catholic noting, to his dismay, that every single reference to Palestinians in the JPII biography is negative (check the index!), and that Weigel and other Catholic journalists are fully paid-up supporters of neo-con imperialism, and of wars condemned by the Pope as unjust. My point is that neo-con Catholics should be aware that there are other faithful Catholics who disagree with them on Iraq and Palestine.
P.S. It’s interesting to compare (a) Weigel’s enthusiasm for the neo-con world order with (b) his indifference to the traditional Mass. In The Truth of Catholicism he calls trads a “minority” who “still find the changes difficult to accept” and dismisses their attachment to the Mass for all time as “nostalgic”. Could there be a connection between (a) and (b)? Dale Vree of the New Oxford Review has written good stuff on this.
“(and the non-existent WMDs)”
You mean those 500 non-existent WMDs that were found in Iraq several months ago?
bill912,
Which ones would those be?