I just wish Iraq were not such a distraction on the War on Terror:
A 30-year-old Minnesota man has been indicted on charges of supporting al Qaeda, the group blamed by the United States for the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the Justice Department said on Wednesday.
Mohammed Warsame, 30, of Minneapolis, gave “material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization, namely al Qaeda” beginning in March of 2000 and continuing until his arrest in Minneapolis in December, the indictment alleged.
The indictment from a federal grand jury in Minneapolis did not say exactly how Warsame is alleged to have aided the group headed by fugitive Islamic extremist Osama bin Laden.
But Attorney General John Ashcroft said the action “demonstrates this nation’s iron resolve to detect, disrupt and dismantle the networks of terror.”
Christopher Wray, an assistant attorney general, added that “This case is a stark reminder that the threat from terrorists and those who help them exists across the country, not just in New York City and Washington, D.C., but also in places like Buffalo, Tampa, Portland, San Diego and, now, Minnesota.”
Warsame has been described in published reports in Minneapolis as a college student. He appeared in federal court in New York and was ordered held without bond pending his return to Minneapolis, the announcement said.
I want the details- this story was too vague.
drew
Well, since this is particular bust has NOTHING to do with the military portion of the war on terror I fail to see your point.
Dodd
Ah, that lovely Reuters neutrality. I mean, really! Was I hallucinating when al-Qaeda admitted they did it?
Would it be too much for Reuters, if they must be so infernally ‘objective’ to say “the group that claimed responsibility for the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington”?!?
HH
Yep, we all know how the US military is surrendering en masse to al Qaeda… the Justice Dept. is really all that’s left.
drew
The distraction argument was as follows. We are fighting the terrorists in Afganistan and there is a potentially explosive situation in N. Korea, Iraq will tie up a very significant portion of our forces for 2 years. This bust was the work of the justice department, not the military. I don’t see how this bust proves or disproves the whole distraction argument.
Dodd-
I aggree that the words used by Reuters were chosen poorly, but you are reading way too much into it. LGF is the place for that kind of insanity.
Dean
Drew:
On North Korea, exactly what forces in Iraq right now would make a difference?
Not one add’l soldier can move Seoul one inch further south.
Not one add’l soldier would dissuade North Korea from choosing to attack, if it were to choose to attack. Remember, we continue to provide a NUCLEAR umbrella to South Korea, so any North Korean attack holds at least the potential of a nuclear response. So, a North Korean attack presumes that they are willing to risk nuclear response.
Which they might be, but that begs the question: Which conventional forces would make North Korea less likely to attack?
Not to mention the years and years of liberal whinging about how we didn’t need to plan for a two-war scenario, because we had plenty of allies to hold the line. Indeed, I believe Les Aspin and company regularly cited Korea specifically as an example of where American warplans and force requirements were excessive, b/c of the size and capabilities of the ROK Army.
Now, if we decided we needed to head north, we’re screwed. But, as I’m sure you know, a “unilateral” American attack (because no amount of LSD could lead one to hallucinate that France would lend troops for an invasion of North KOrea) is unbecoming and would be opposed domestically anyway, so the inability to launch one ought to please you?
capt joe
Current south korean plans are to reduce the space for US troops. US bases are moving to a different location because the SK govt wants to develop the land held by the current base. The new base is samller and the SK want the americns to pay more for it. Rumsfeld wants to gradually completely pull out. The SK govt which had been making noises against US troops sudenly decided that US troops leaving was a bad idea for them and asked them to stay. I think they should leave the SK’s to their own devices. It is clear the younger generation does not want them. Let them eat kimchee
drew
Hey I just put the argument out there, not that I totally agree or disagree with it. I am playing devils advocate with the assertion that we are not distracted.
Dodd
Insanity?!? I’m just irritated by the preciousness with which they demonstrate their devotion to “objectivity.” I didn’t say they support al-Qadea or something.
Dean
Drew,
Papers just flew off my desk from the amount of wind that last spin generated.
drew
Dean,
I NEVER EVER EVER heard anybody say “The war in Iraq will distract the DOJ” NEVER NEVER not once. The agrument was that the military would become distracted, whether that is correct or not isn’t important to this discussion. Since this guy was caught by law enforcement NOT the military it is safe to say the distraction argument isn’t relavant to this case.
Dean
Drew says, in comments on this thread:
>>The distraction argument was as follows. We are fighting the terrorists in Afganistan and there is a potentially explosive situation in N. Korea>Hey I just put the argument out there, not that I totally agree or disagree with it. I am playing devils advocate with the assertion that we are not distracted.
wallster
Drew’s point is still valid, guys. If the situation in Korea did deteriorate and we wanted to support the South militarily, we would not be as prepared if we weren’t wasting our troops’ time in Iraq.
Maybe we’d choose not to support the South, as Capt Joe says, “let them eat kimchee”. But saying that additional forces wouldn’t be helpful if we did choose to defend is silly.
Dean
Wallster,
There is a big difference between defending and deterring.
My point was that the explosive situation on the Korean peninsula, in and of itself, will not be affected by the addition of more troops. At the end of the day, the NK’s calculations are not driven by much that we understand (its willingness to starve its own people by the millions would seem to confirm this).
For that matter, the addition of American troops to Korea was always pooh-poohed by the Left side of the house, since there was no apparent need to be able to fight “two major regional conflicts near-simultaneously.” (Take a look at the Brookings Institution’s various publications, if you’re not familiar w/ the debate.) For years, the argument was that the South Korean army surely could hold its own, so that if we were tied down elsewhere, it wouldn’t matter.
‘Course, this was when giving the military more resources was a BAD thing.
NOW, all of a sudden, we need to have the forces to fight two MRCs? The Korean army can’t do the job anymore? Where did this sudden fear come from?
Leaving aside that small issue, the point remains that the American forces, other than 2ID, weren’t going to the front-line in Korea, in any case. They’re going there for the counter-attack. You might remember that under Clinton I, there was a huge debate about win-win, versus win-hold-win.
This Administration is following what Clinton I wanted to do—go for win-hold-win.
All of which, btw, doesn’t even take into account whether the new generation of weapons currently in the field changes the calculus much. Nobody can KNOW, of course. But experience now in the Gulf and in Afghanistan suggests that the available American forces, perhaps, are a little more effective than we’d generally planned.