Negroponte Casts Resurgence Of Al Qaeda In ‘Afghanistan And Other Areas’ As ‘Good News’
Negroponte Casts Resurgence Of Al Qaeda In ‘Afghanistan And Other Areas’ As ‘Good News’
Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that some military generals are advocating a “declaration of victory” over al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), claiming that the U.S. has dealt “perhaps irreversible blows” to the group.
Interviewed on the Charlie Rose Show, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte agreed with the Post’s reporting, claiming that “al Qaeda is getting discouraged in Iraq.” While he refrained from declaring “victory” over AQI, he claimed AQI is now shifting their efforts towards Afghanistan due to the Iraq war.
When pressed by Rose on whether this growth of al Qaeda in South Asia is a positive development, Negroponte simply said that it’s “good news” that they are no longer as strong in Iraq:
NEGROPONTE: It’s getting better. It’s definitely getting better. And I’ve heard some people suggest, go so far as to suggest, that al Qaeda is getting discouraged in Iraq and is thinking more of concentrating their efforts on Afghanistan and other areas.
ROSE: That good news or bad?
NEGROPONTE: Well, I think it’s at least good news that their wings have clipped somewhat in Iraq.
Watch it:
That AQI is now refocusing its efforts from Iraq to “Afghanistan and other areas” is a troubling development. U.S. officials have warned time and time again that al Qaeda is resurging in South Asia due to the war in Iraq. “Primary concern is al Qaeda in South Asia, organizing its own plots against the United States,” said National Intelligence Estimate author Edward Gistaro in July.
Today, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto attributed the attempted attacks on her that killed nearly 150 civilians to al Qaeda.
Negroponte’s assertions imply that al Qaeda is not being “crippled” in Iraq but is merely being displaced. Ironically, while the war in Iraq introduced al Qaeda elements to Iraq, the war may now be directly increasing the threat that originated in Afghanistan.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
42 Responses to “Negroponte Casts Resurgence Of Al Qaeda In ‘Afghanistan And Other Areas’ As ‘Good News’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yep — it’s good news that we got this portion of the forest fire under control. Never mind that our efforts have caused flames to rage uncontrollably everywhere else.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pmAQI has always been exaggerated for effect. There’s no political movement, and the place is in turmoil. One way or another, the U.S. needs to step aside and let the Iraqis figure it out. It is their sovereign nation, right?
October 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pmAl Quaeda don’t even need to operate in Iraq. Can these idiots even remember why they started this war anymore?
October 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pmNegroponte is an extremely evil person, who should have gone to jail years ago for running death squads in Central America as US official.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pmSo a bunch of guys that said “hey what should we call our selves? I know, Al Quaeda of the two rivers!” (what they actually call themselves), are the wings that got clipped? Strange since they were never really connected to the bird to begin with.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:55 pmoceania, orwell
October 19th, 2007 at 1:55 pmDamn. I’m having a nightmare - and I can’t wake up.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pmThis is such bullsh*t. My bet’s on there never was an AQI. All that happened was our government started calling Sunni insurgents AQI and because they thought it would make them “bigger and badder”, they were only too happy to take on that moniker. Now that it really has no meaning, they are back to being insurgents. It’s all just a shell game this administration is playing and anyone who falls for thinking that there was ever anyone affiliated with Osama’s brand of AQ, is a fool and easily duped.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pmIn the words of Bil Maher, this is nothing more than a game of Whack-a-Mole.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pmResurgence is good. War is peace. All hail the Decider.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pm“death squad” negroponte…
whodduthunkit…
October 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pm.
It’s almost as if he were on the board at Al Qaeda. He seems to know that they are getting “discouraged in Iraq and they are “thinking more about” concentrating their efforts in Afghanistan”. Just what is his connection to that terrorist outfit?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:08 pmI’m a big fan of ThinkProgress and am thankful that it keeps me informed of the truth, but I don’t like it when the ‘headlines’ or ‘captions’ for an item are misleading because it reminds me of the tactics used by the lying right. From what I am reading above, it takes some real twisting of words - usually only don’t by Bill O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and the likes - to make is sound as though Negropante is saying the the Al Qaeda resurgence in Afghanistan is ‘good’.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:10 pmQuit being so misleading. There is so much real dirt, lies and disgusting behavior to report that there is no need to stoop to the level of the right and spin things around as much as this author has.
Can these idiots even remember why they started this war anymore?
Comment by Loonie — October 19, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
I think they’re counting on Americans forgetting! Now they’re trying to position themselves so they can declare victory. Meanwhile, AQ wasn’t even in Iraq before we invaded Iraq and Hussein was no threat to the U.S. and had nothing to do with 9/11.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:11 pmThis man is evil and should be given a straight jacket and a padded cell and not microphone and a credulous interviewer.
Every day this administration is in office, more harm is done to our country. We haven’t even begun to uncover all of the evil that these people have committed.
We must stop pretending that these are honorable people. They lie with every syllable they utter and rob us blind while we smile and nod.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:17 pmI’m a big fan of ThinkProgress and am thankful that it keeps me informed of the truth, but I don’t like it when the ‘headlines’ or ‘captions’ for an item are misleading…..rjpape
Sorry, but the article quite clearly said that Negroponte it was “good news”. There was no misrepresentation:
If you are such a “fan” of TP, why have you not posted before? Why do you feel the need to post a lie accusing TP of being “misleading”?
October 19th, 2007 at 2:25 pmWe must stop pretending that these are honorable people. They lie with every syllable they utter and rob us blind while we smile and nod.
Comment by Peter C — October 19, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
I agree. I think it’s time to stop playing nice and “progressive” and play hardball! We need to wrestle our country away from these awful people.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:26 pmnegroponte is a war criminal
submit your criminals to the justice system otherwise there will never be democracy or justice in the US
October 19th, 2007 at 2:29 pmMission Accompli…oh, wait…
October 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pmThe Al Qaeda situation is like metastatic cancer. We’ve made great progress agains one tumour, but the remaining cancer grows happily on. We left the original tumour in place, and it grew happily on. Mr. Negroponte is happy that the cancer is growing. The Lunatics, truly, have taken over the Asylum.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:34 pmPlease Impeach Bush and Cheney and Save the Constitution.
The Repukes already know they have lost the 2008 election. They want America to be attacked after the new president is sworn in so they can say to the American people: “I told you so.”
October 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pmMaybe when Hillary Clinton and Benazir Bhutto are both in charge of their respective nations we’ll finally capture/kill Osama Bin Laden and show al Queda how adults protect their freedoms. Pervez Musharraf and George Bush are either complicit with AQ or just don’t care. Bhutto, like Clinton, face serious oppositions in their own countries but wouldn’t it be amusing to watch them take Musharraf and Bush to school? Former PM Bhutto has a strong desire to show her country that she can make a difference and she obviously has an abhorent attitude toward AQ, unlike Musharraf who thinks he can actually balance trying to act like an enemy of terror while at the same time looking the other way to the buildup on his side of the border.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pmThe Repukes already know they have lost the 2008 election. They want America to be attacked after the new president is sworn in so they can say to the American people: “I told you so.â€
Comment by dim wit — October 19, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
You know, you’re probably right! They keep claiming that liberals don’t want us to “win” in Iraq so that we can say, “See - we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place.” How many bitter right-wingers would secretly be glad if we were attacked when there’s a Democrat in the White House?
October 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pmSo, let’s see. Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan when they attacked us on our own soil; we went to Afghanistan and “defeated” them there and moved on to fight them in Iraq. Now we’ve “defeated” them in Iraq and they are gaining strength in Afghanistan.
In summary, we’ve spent 600 billion, killed or displaced about 15% of Iraq’s population, lost almost 4,000 of our own young men and women and we’re back where we started. Oh, for you trolls–yes, that bad guy Saddam is gone-wow, now he was a REAL threat to us.
All in all, a real success when compared to the rest of Shrub’s accomplishments.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:07 pmAt the Little Big Horn:
scout: “General Custer, there’s lots more Indians coming over the ridge.”
Custer: “That’s good news. Bring them on.”
sarcasm.-the devil made me do it.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:10 pmNEGROPONTE: Well, I think it’s at least good news that their wings have clipped somewhat in Iraq.
Except for the little fact that the Real Al Qaeda was never in Iraq, but still in Afghanistan and the border of Pakistan, while we invaded Iraq for lies.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pmFor all the talk from the neocons about a new sort of war, this once again shows that they don’t get it.
Negroponte is again talking as if we are fighting a fixed infrastructure of an enemy. The fixed infrastructure limits the ability of the enemy to move around.
Al Q is not fixed to location. They can move around. They can move out when needed and move in when they want to. They don’t have to stick around to defend their roads and pipelines.
Of course, that strongly presupposes that Al Q is the problem to begin with.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:15 pmNegroponte is as evil as they come.
∞
October 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pmAl Q is not fixed to location. They can move around. They can move out when needed and move in when they want to. They don’t have to stick around to defend their roads and pipelines.
Comment by MapleStreet — October 19, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
I agree with your assessment, but I am curious what the Progressive approach to fighting this enemy is? I’ll assume everything Bush has done is bad, so you don’t have to waste time repudiating him, but what positive, proactive steps would a liberal strategist take to destroy AQ? It is a good thought exercise, the question is certain to come up again and again for the 08 election.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:57 pmI agree with your assessment, but I am curious what the Progressive approach to fighting this enemy is? I’ll assume everything Bush has done is bad, so you don’t have to waste time repudiating him, but what positive, proactive steps would a liberal strategist take to destroy AQ? It is a good thought exercise, the question is certain to come up again and again for the 08 election.
Comment by Keltoi
If I was President, the first thing I would do would be to get out of the Middle East and stop meddling in their affairs. That would start with removing all troops from Iraq and shutting down the Embassy and all the bases. When you have a burr in your pants that is rubbing you raw, the first thing you do is remove the burr.
The second thing I would do would be to apologize to all the people in the Middle East that Bush offended.
Then I would appoint Dennis Kucinich as my Secretary of State and send him to broker peace in the ME. That would be his sole job until he was done. And I would have him start by bit*ch slapping Israel and their hostile aggressive attitude towards the Palestinians and towards Iran.
October 19th, 2007 at 4:15 pmI agree with your assessment, but I am curious what the Progressive approach to fighting this enemy is?
Comment by Keltoi — October 19, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
IMHO, and from my experience, treat them (terrorist) as what they are. Criminals. Go after them with US and International (Interpol) Law Enforcement. If needed send in Special Forces for surgical strikes, as the US has been doing since Special Forces were created.
Invasion should be a last resort and only if the state is supporting and harboring said criminals, in reality, not in some neocon wet dream.
Sending a greeting card (missle) at Ghadafi stopped his crap pretty quickly. We didn’t need to invade.
Thats why I think Afghanistan was needed, but not the way Bushco did it and FUBARed it.
Bush is breaking the law, not enforcing it. Big, big difference
October 19th, 2007 at 4:17 pmI am curious what the Progressive approach to fighting this enemy is? I’ll assume everything Bush has done is bad, so you don’t have to waste time repudiating him, but what positive, proactive steps would a liberal strategist take to destroy AQ? It is a good thought exercise, the question is certain to come up again and again for the 08 election.
Comment by Keltoi — October 19, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Keitol, I’m not sure if you’ve just never paid attention or if you dismissed, for instance, Kerry’s plans when he was the Democratic nominee because he was, well, a Democrat. But basically the progressive approach to fighting al Qaeda is to make it more of a law enforcement operation rather than a military one, and to recognize that our involvement in the politics of the Middle east, not “our freedoms” is the reason they hate us. Basically, Peace through Justice, not through Conquest.
It’s more complex than that, of course, but the tragic thing is that virtually every policy stance taken by this administration has been counter-productive in this effort because they had a hammer and saw the problem as a nail.
October 19th, 2007 at 4:18 pmWhat scares me is that Al Qaeda is building strength in Pakistan and Pakistan has about sixty nukes (http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/8B5FD6F8-E7F2-99DF-3349E548E4D3AE3F_13.jpg) at this time. They also have a submarine force which could deliver a weapon to any major harbor by simply slipping in and hitting the fuse. Allah would be producing virgins at a rate that equals Santa toy production.
October 19th, 2007 at 4:32 pmKeltoi # 29 - I agree with your assessment, but I am curious what the Progressive approach to fighting this enemy is?
First of all, I never said that everything Bush did is wrong. So lets not start this discussion on a falacy.
Some other folks have posted some of their ideas.
As a starting point, we need to build a strategy on truth. Not faked WMDs. Not cherry-picked assessments.
We also need to build an assessment based on an appraisal of the relative risks. Interestingly, when I was in the environmental field, the companies were clammoring that policy be made on a reasonable level of risk (as opposed to the 1 in a million risk of cancer, etc.) and to bracket that in “real day” risks such as being hit by a car, airplance crash, etc. Yet in the “WAR ON TERROR!!!!” the fearmongering runs rampant while the actual risk is relatively low.
We also need to stop the saber rattling. True diplomatic efforts take us much further. Invasion of a sovereign nation just fans the flames.
If we can start with that basis, we may have a way of proceeding forward.
October 19th, 2007 at 5:25 pmbut what positive, proactive steps would a liberal strategist take to destroy AQ? It is a good thought exercise, the question is certain to come up again and again for the 08 election.
Comment by Keltoi — October 19, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
it’s really quite simple. Stop killing their people, stealing their resources and remaking their borders. that’s all. they don’t hate us for our freedoms; that’s always been a load of horseshit. they hate us because we are savage, inhuman monsters who will stop at nothing to get at the oil.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:54 pmTo bilbobaggins:
So why are you attacking me? I’m doing nothing but trying to assure that TP maintains the highest level of objectivity and truth so that it can’t be compared with right-wing blogs. If I’m mistaken about my interpretation of the text, then I certainly don’t have to apologize to you. I see absolutely no need for you to be calling me a liar. What’s wrong with you?
October 19th, 2007 at 7:43 pmThere is no need for you to answer any of the above, but I would like a clarification of your ability to read: the sentence quotes Negroponte as referring to AQI (al qaeda in Iraq) taking some hits as ‘good news’. The headline connects ‘good news’ with resurgence in Afghanistan and other areas. Please explain to me, bit by bit if you have to, how this is not misleading. ‘hits’ in Iraq = ‘good news’. The quote does not say that ‘resurgence’ in Afghanistan is ‘good news’.
I’m am not an enemy of TP, so don’t attack me. And if I don’t comment often enough for your judgement, I’ll plead guilty as charged.
As I mentioned above: I’m hoping that we, those who are seeking truth, honesty and accountability from our government do not ever fall to the level of those on the right, but you would fit right in since your first reaction is a misguided attack and name calling. Maybe you should switch sides.
And finally, I in no way support this bastard Negroponte. Don’t get my politics mixed up with just trying to add a construction criticism of TP.
IMHO, and from my experience, treat them (terrorist) as what they are. Criminals. Go after them with US and International (Interpol) Law Enforcement. If needed send in Special Forces for surgical strikes, as the US has been doing since Special Forces were created.
Comment by Wayne — October 19, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
You mention the ‘86 raid on Gaddafi. That was not law enforcement, that was military. I remember when it happened I thought, “Oh Boy, are we in for some tit for tat now!” Instead, he rolled over and today Libya is on the Security Council.
Question: What is the lesson here vis a vis Iran?
If we send in SF, is that law enforcement? There are large swaths of the ME that are law-less to put it mildly.
>>
Keitol, I’m not sure if you’ve just never paid attention or if you dismissed, for instance, Kerry’s plans when he was the Democratic nominee because he was, well, a Democrat. But basically the progressive approach to fighting al Qaeda is to make it more of a law enforcement operation rather than a military one, and to recognize that our involvement in the politics of the Middle east, not “our freedoms†is the reason they hate us. Basically, Peace through Justice, not through Conquest.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — October 19, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Of course I listened to what Kerry had to say.
Peace through Justice. Nice thought. Whose Justice? Justice implies a moral certitude. We are far, far apart from a fairly large proportion of radical Islam on what is Just. I refer you to Sharia law and the MANY Muslims who either do or would like to impose it if you doubt me.
>>
First of all, I never said that everything Bush did is wrong. So lets not start this discussion on a falacy.
We also need to stop the saber rattling. True diplomatic efforts take us much further. Invasion of a sovereign nation just fans the flames.
If we can start with that basis, we may have a way of proceeding forward.
Comment by MapleStreet — October 19, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
Sorry bout the Bush comment, I just wanted to short circuit a flood of what we shouldn’t do’s. Kerry talked a lot about diplomacy, but I never heard the plan if diplomacy failed. “Pull together the International community” sounds good, but doesn’t mean a hell of a lot. Why would China and Russia help us?
What do you all really think China and Russia’s initial reaction to 9-11 was? Do you think the authors of Tianamen or the former KGB agent gave a DAMN about the loss of life? I don’t. Why would they? I think their intial reaction was Fear about what we would do. And they set about making sure that whatever we did, we would be hindered. Yes, they allowed the Taliban to be deposed, that was no skin off their nose. But why were there newly minted Russian weapons in Iraq when we invaded? Why does China protect Iran and Sudan at every turn?
Please don’t hit me with the American exceptionalism thing; I believe in it, but that isn’t my point. My point is, when you talk about “bringing together the international community” you are whistling past the graveyard. It is all about the Security Council. We have picked up France, but we’ll never get Russia and China, talk all you like.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:36 pmFirst off, he did not say the spread of Al Qaeda was a good thing. He said their reduction in Iraq was good news. Next, we need to stabalize Iraq so we can move on. Leaving now will allow Al Qaeda to take over Iraq and establish a new stronghold. Once Iraq is stabalized, then we can concentrate once again on Afghanistan. Then we can move on to Iran with surgical strikes. Once Iran is stabalized, then we can take out the next biggest target. We just continue this on and eventually we will weaken global terrorism enough that Al Qaeda will be too fractured to contiue the fight. Sure, there will always be terrorism, but local terrorism and global terrorism are two far different things. Local terrorism can be stopped only by the people of the area, but global terrorism can be stopped by the world powers or in this case, power.Al Qaeda is global terrorism that the U.S. can beat if we continue on in a stabalization aproach. Strike, stabalize, then move on.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:36 pmIf the foreign extremist groups can’t even maintain a foothold in Anbar province without getting the shit kicked out of if by the Sunni tribal groups, how exactly are they going to overthrow the Shia-dominated central government if the US leaves?
Did it ever occur to the war supporters that the majority of Iraqis are against ANY foreigners trying to exert control in their country?
The only reason AQ was, and still is, able to operate in Afghanistan is because the Taliban allowed them to, not because bin Laden took over the country.
And how will “surgical strikes” stabilize Iran?
October 20th, 2007 at 1:20 amThere is no way that the United States is going to stabalize Iraq as a whole. We may have some success in one part, but the insurgents just move to somewhere else and cause disruptions there.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:42 amWhy is it so difficult for supporters of the war to understand that this is not a military problem, nor is there a military solution?
The United States is viewed as an arrogant, greedy, imperialist nation…and George Bush and his Bushies, including Negroponte, have reinforced that belief to the utmost extreme.
I remember 30 years, or so ago, when the first airliners were being hijacked. The people in the mid-East, even then, were telling us that they were unhappy about something, but we have always failed to listen. They are unhappy about the US being in their part of the world supporting corrupt, totalitarian governments at the expense of the average person because we needed their oil. We’d switched allegiances and back-stab our former allies in a heartbeat if it suited us - not for moral purposes, but for economic interests.
Look, of course, we need to protect our supply of oil, but occupying a country, killing their citizens, and generally acting as a 1000 pound bully only increases by 1000 fold those young men who hate and despise us.
We cannot kick the shit out of these guys and hope that they’ll throw downs there arms and say they are sorry. They will be on a mission for ever and ever. They band together in small groups and continue the jihad until their deaths.
For Iraq, first we have to completely remove and disrupt the cowboy image and power of GWB. This man is a icon of hatred around the world. Even we hate him passionately in the US. Then we must use our very best efforts, and send our very best newly elected representatives to help work out political solutions. Immediately, though, we must signal the the Iraq people that we are going to start to pull back and respect their decisions. In the long run, most people repsond to the truth and respect.
RickS, when I said surgical strikes, I meant taking out the terrorist camps, nuclear and weapon facilities, and various other institutions supporting terrorism. I am against invading Iran right now because I know that the next president is likely to be too afraid to continue any war. Without an invasion, the best thing to do would be surgical strikes.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:35 pmrjpape, I did not propose a purely military solution. I am proposing stabalizing the Middle East by using military action to kick the terrorists out of an area, and then using political means to stabalize it.
there are some stalinist crazy people that leave comments in here if the current trend continues maybe we can get them out of there and then investigate all we want after they are safely home……some of the conspiracy talk on here might make some of u feel smart…but it turns off anyone who thinks fairly ur gonna burn out like real soon
October 20th, 2007 at 10:35 pm