Ten Years After September 11: Who’s Really Winning the War On Terrorism

“And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!”

–Francis Scott Key, “Star-Spangled Banner”

By Barry Rubin

Ten years after September 11, when the very phrase “war on terrorism” is barred from U.S. government usage by the president, we are told that the United States has won or is already victorious. After all, there has been no major attack on U.S. soil in a decade and al-Qaida is weaker with many of its leaders, including Usama bin Ladin, dead.

“Where is that band”? According to the official line, pretty much destroyed. We won, perhaps except for a few “lone wolves.” But before the victory parades are held, let’s understand this: The war on terrorism, like that phrase itself, has been largely defined out of existence, not won.

Let’s be clear. Al-Qaida attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon to achieve several goals:

–To become the leader in a worldwide jihad.

–To persuade Muslims that America is weak and can be defeated.

–To stir far more Muslims to jihad, that is a Holy War that today can be defined as an Islamist revolution.

–To mobilize forces in order to challenge and eventually to overthrow all of the existing regimes in the Sunni Muslim areas, replacing Arab nationalism in many of those countries with Islamism as the main ideological force.

I would suggest that al-Qaida’s September 11 attacks largely succeeded in three of those four goals. Only in the first did it fail, and for a very good reason. Precisely because it carried out the attacks, al-Qaida became the main target for U.S. efforts and repression by leaders in Muslim-majority countries. Consequently, it has suffered greatly from losses.

By the same token, however, other Islamist forces have largely been left alone by the West or faced far less pressure. Such groups include the Muslim Brotherhood groups, Hamas, Hizballah, and the pro-Islamist regimes in Syria and Iran. In fact, Islamist groups and Islamism as an ideology have advanced impressively, especially in the last few years.

Another reason for al-Qaida’s relative eclipse is its own rigidity. Al-Qaida has been a purely terrorist group. It doesn’t carry out social welfare programs or participate in elections. As a result, being so tactically intransigent, al-Qaida is at a major disadvantage in comparison to its more flexible competitors. After all, Islamist groups have won elections in Iran, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and Turkey. The Brotherhood is set to become the largest single party in Egypt.

Even having said all that, al-Qaida is not dead yet. Its ally, the Taliban, is making a comeback in Afghanistan and has spread to Pakistan. Al-Qaida’s affiliates still carry out attacks in Iraq, Morocco, and Algeria. It now has small but deadly forces in the Gaza Strip. And it plays a major role in Yemen and Somalia, not to mention its terrorist affiliates in Asia, with Islamist terrorist activity especially significant in southern Thailand, the southern Philippines, and Indonesia.

What’s most important of all is to remember that terrorism is a tactic to achieve a goal. The goal is that of Islamist revolution. There might not be a single Arabic-speaking country where Islamists aren’t in a stronger position now than they were on September 11, 2001. The same applies to Turkey (though terrorism isn’t an issue there) and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan. Here are some examples:

Today, the Gaza Strip is under the Islamist rule of Hamas, which is also a terrorist group. The U.S. government pressed for Hamas to participate in elections, and then more recently pressured Israel to reduce sanctions. The world helped save Hamas from being overthrown by Israel in 2009, and the UN produced an anti-Israel report that basically rationalized Hamas’s behavior. Many groups in Europe have participated in sanctions-breaking activity that has objectively helped Hamas. Hamas, a terrorist and Islamist group, is much better off than a decade ago.

Lebanon is under the rule of a regime whose most powerful single component is Hizballah, a revolutionary Islamist and terrorist group. When Hizballah launched several cross-border raids against Israel in 2006, leading to a war, a lot of the international community was objectively acting in a way that benefitted Hizballah. Hizballah, a terrorist and Islamist group, is much better off than a decade ago.

The Muslim Brotherhood, a pro-terrorist group, and Salafist organizations often willing to use terrorism (a few of which are close to al-Qaida) is far stronger in Egypt and might dominate the country politically. It is also stronger in Syria, though its precise influence over the opposition is hard to gauge.

Where is terrorism weaker? Other than Algeria, where it was defeated in a bloody civil war, it is hard to find any such example though in other places—like Morocco and Saudi Arabia—terrorism has not made gains.

n many places in Europe, the Brotherhood and even more radical groups have made important strides in gaining hegemony in neighborhoods and over Muslim communities. Governments have not combatted this and even have encouraged it, arguing that the organizations are not presently using terrorism. But with growing radical Islamist ideas, the level of terrorism and intimidation also increases.

A key factor is the failure of the U.S. government, which basically defines anything that isn’t al-Qaida as not being a threat. Within the United States, a major terrorist attack has been averted, though luck seems to play a role here (underpants bomber; Times Square bomber). At the same time there have been many more small-scale attacks. One way the U.S. government achieves good-lucking statistics is to redefine specific events—a shooting at the El Al counter in Los Angeles, an attack on a Jewish community center in the Pacific Northwest, the murder of a military recruiter in Arkansas, and even the Ft. Hood killer—as non-terrorist, non-Islamist criminal acts.

So are things much better a decade after the September 11 attacks? Aside from the very important aspect of avoiding a huge successful terror attack on the United States, the answer is “no.”


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com> 

An Islamist Terrorist Takes Command of Libyan Rebel Forces (and that's OK with the U.S.?)

Finally, we have evidence that Islamists and even al-Qaeda supporters will play a central role in Libya’s new regime. Up to now there has been reasonable speculation that the U.S. government and NATO might be installing an anti-Western, Islamist government in Libya. Now there’s proof that this is so.

The actual government remains in the hands of non-Islamists, technocrats, ex-regime officials, and moderates. But the armed rebels who actually made the revolution have voted and their idol is…an al-Qaeda guy. Political power, said Mao Zedong, grows out of the barrel of a gun and in Libya’s case this seems a very reasonable expectation.

According to Al Jazeera, the network recommended by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as fair and balanced, Abdul al-Hakim al-Hasadi, also known as Abdelhakim Belhaj, has been named commander of the Tripoli Military Council. He was formerly head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an al-Qaeda affiliate. Moderates are understandably nervous.

In 1999, the group’s spokesman praised Osama bin Laden (remember him?) and said: “The United States no longer relies on its agents to constrict the Islamic tide; it has taken this role upon itself.” One of its former leaders worked to plan the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, resulting in massive loss of life. In 2003, members were involved in an al-Qaeda terror attack in Morocco.

In November 2007, al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri announced that the two groups were merging. True, a number of the group’s activists in prison denounced terrorism and made a deal with the Gaddafi regime in order to be set free. But since the organization broke its pledge to Gaddafi in order to overthrow him, presumably that deal no longer stands.

At any rate, the group was still designated as terrorist by the U.S. government. Here it is on the terrorism list (number 26, in alphabetical order) released by the State Department last May.

Of course, the appointment of one leader in an al-Qaeda affiliated group does not an Islamist regime make. But it is an omen and, again, the people who control the guns are more important than those who control the desks. We will have to see how things develop.

But another indication is that there’s more. Who put him in this post? The armed rebels chose al-Hasadi as their commander, not leaving that selection to the NATO-backed Transitional National Council government. Remember, I pointed out that the guys with guns don’t care what the guys in suits say. Some council members complained that al-Hasadi is sponsored by Qatar, which gave a lot of the money and whose rulers like to play radical sheikhs who often align themselves with Iran.

In fact, we can quote on this point Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who told a U.S. official in 2007 — as we now know thanks to Wikileaks– “He was extremely worried about Qatar and its continued support for Hamas and other Islamist organizations in the West Bank and Gaza…claiming that they provide ‘more support to fundamentalists than Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.’”

U.S. policy has given no sense that it is aware of this problem.

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, chairman of the council, said he introduced al-Hasadi to his group’s NATO allies to show that he poses “no danger to international peace and stability.” Well, that’s reassuring.

We can assume that al-Hasadi said that he was merely young and impulsive, was driven to extremes by Gaddafi’s undeniably horrible dictatorship, and is now mature. But that argument would miss the point. Even if he has outgrown al-Qaeda, does he favor the transformation of Libya into an anti-Western Islamist state? Or perhaps he’s been “bought off” by the Western aid money. What do you think?

But let me explain to President Barack Obama, the U.S. government, and NATO how this thing is supposed to work. Your key liaison, be it the CIA or State Department, goes to see Jalil and says:

“As you know our soldiers, supplies, advisors, and warplanes have put you into power. Therefore, you either get rid of all of the al-Qaeda types—at least in positions of any authority—or we stop all of our support and find someone else to head the Transitional National Council. No, TLC [Tender Loving Care] for our interests; no TNC.”

Now, you could call that bullying or imperialistic if you want, but the TNC doesn’t have a right to being supported. NATO backing is not an entitlement. The purpose of U.S. and European policy is supposed to be to protect those countries’ legitimate interests. When you give the money, diplomatic support, and air strikes, that entitles you to some say in the outcome. For example, on the eve of the tenth anniversary of the killing of 3000 Americans by al-Qaeda, you don’t accept the appointment of an al-Qaeda supporter to run the new Libyan military.

True, in Turkey the Obama administration has supported an elected anti-American Islamist regime; in the Gaza Strip it saved an anti-American Islamist regime; in Syria, it did everything possible to avoid condemning an anti-American pro-Islamist regime; in Lebanon, it stood by and didn’t help the real moderates as an anti-American Islamist-dominated regime came to power; in Iran, it engaged an anti-American Islamist regime; and in Egypt, it said that it had no problem with an anti-American Islamist regime coming to power.

But actually installing an Islamist regime with Western weapons? That’s crossing the line.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at <http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com> 

New Libya. An Islamic Caliphate Supporting Terror?

Now that it appears that the rebels have pushed out Qaddafi we may be on the verge of a new Libya.  The big question is what shape will this new Libya take. There is much evidence pointing toward a new government supporting terrorism and imposing Shariah law.

Remember the United States committed to helping these rebels before even knowing who they were.  Back in March, Admiral James Stavridis, NATO’s supreme allied commander, said in testimony before Congress that U.S. intelligence suggested there may be “flickers” of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah in the rebels.

We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaeda, Hezbollah — we’ve seen different things. But at this point, I don’t have detail sufficient to say that there’s a significant al-Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence in and among these folks.

 Flicker's? What the heck does that mean? Did we help a group of rebels take over Libya who will use it as a terrorist staging ground? Did we trade in an anti-American Libyan government that could be controlled for an anti-American Libyan government that could not be controlled.

It certainly looks that way, many of the leaders of the Libyan rebel fighters have admitted past allegiances to al-Qaeda. One of the rebel leaders Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, even fought for al-Qaeda against US troops in Afghanistan till he was arrested in 2002.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.

US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.

Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.

The WSJ reported that two former Mujahedeen in Afghanistan and a terrorist who spent 6-years in  Guantanamo Bay  were training and recruiting rebel forces.

The presence of Islamists like these amid the opposition has raised concerns, among some fellow rebels as well as their Western allies, that the goal of some Libyan fighters in battling Col. Gadhafi is to propagate Islamist extremism.

Think about this for a second, on one hand our heroes overseas are fighting against al-Qaeda in the war against terrorism, on the the other hand we are backing an al-Qaeda related group of Islamist terrorists in Libya.  Am I missing something here?

But for some reason the US is turning a blind eye to Al Qaeda’s involvement with the rebels. In addition to supporting the rebels at war through NATO the US has allowed the Libyans rebels to take over Libya’s embassy in the US. Holy Cow! We now have a al-Qaeda ambassador to the United States.

As you look at the videos of the cheering rebels entering Tripoli proclaiming freedom from Qaddafi understand that the Libyan people may have traded one despot for another.  The Heritage Foundation got a hold of the draft constitution created by the rebels (embedded below).  While it contains nice sounding elements like rule of law, freedom of speech and religious practice, and a multi-party electoral system it begins with a very ominous clause.



The highlighted area reads: 

“Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” Under this constitution, in other words, Islam is law.

Putting it all together we have a rebellion connected to  al-Qaeda, aiming to install Sharia Law on its people.  Something tells me that long-term both the United States and the citizens of Libya are going to regret supporting this rebel movement.

 62823350 Libya Draft Constitutional Charter for the Transitional Stage

UPDATED: Al Qaida Attack In Israel! Eight Dead, Terrorists Infiltrated From EGYPT

Southern Israel was attacked by four different terrorist cells today resulting in at least seven dead six were civilians (two young children aged 6 and 4) and one was a soldier (Staff Sergeant Moshe Naftali, a 22 year-old soldier from Ofra). At least another 40 have been injured.

The coordinated terrorist attack hit buses taking vacationers to the Israeli resort city of Eilat It is believed that the attack originated from Gaza but the terrorists infiltrated from Egypt an indication that unlike the Mubarak government, it is open season on terrorists using the Sinai peninsula as a terrorist staging ground. In fact some of the murderers were wearing Egyptian Army uniforms.

According to sources inside of Israel the attacks began when gunfire was opened at an Israeli bus. 14 people were injured as a result and evacuated to nearby hospitals. Simultaneously, fire was opened on an additional bus and two civilian vehicles, injuring several people.

Another terrorist was wearing a homicide belt, blew himself up near IDF soldiers arriving at the scene a short while afterwards, injuring several of them.



Apparently (according to the Prime Minister's office) the purpose of the attack was to kidnap an Israeli solder.

The Popular Resistance Committee (PRC)  has claimed credit for the attack. The  PRC,  is a terrorist group which calls for a worldwide Islamic Caliphate.  Its actions have at times been funded by  al-Qaeda, which in recent times has created a presence in Gaza and the West Bank and the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt

Below is a chronology of the terrorist incursion (in Israeli time)

12 p.m. – At least three terrorists open fire at Egged Bus 392 traveling on Road 12 between Eilat and Mitzpe Ramon. The terrorists, apparently infiltrated into Israel from Egypt and wore what appeared to be military uniforms. Some 14 people are injured.

12:30 p.m. – An IDF vehicle that arrived at the scene starts chasing after the terrorists who detonated a roadside bomb next to the vehicle, injuring a number of soldiers. Mortar shells and light gunfire follow, possibly fired from terrorists still in Egypt.

1:30 p.m. – Another cell of terrorists fire an anti-tank missile at a civilian vehicle and open fire at another bus. Five people were killed in this attack.

2:00-4:00 p.m. – IDF soldiers and members of the police’s elite YAMAM counter-terror unit located the terrorists and gun battle ensued, during which seven terrorists were killed.

3:00 p.m. – Defense Minister Ehud Barak claims that the terrorists originated in the Gaza Strip and that Israel will respond “forcefully and decisively.”

6:30 p.m. IDF strikes terror targets in Rafah in the Gaza Strip in response to the terror attacks. Three Palestinians reported dead in the air strikes.

7 p.m. One person injured in an additional shooting attack near Eilat.

According to witnesses the driver of the first bus averted a greater tragedy. Benny Belevsky, the 60-year-old driver continued to drive through the hail of gunfire, doing his best to escape the terrorists. Passengers on the bus also reported a few soldiers on board fired back at the terrorists as the bus sped away.

Just before Netafim junction I heard gunfire," the driver told Ynet. "The bullets hit the bus and two of them shattered the window near me, passed just above my head and hit the ceiling. I am experienced enough to know that I should keep driving and that I mustn't stop so that the damage doesn't get worse."

Belevsky added that the passengers panicked, and that some of them were hurt, but he knew he had to get to the IDF checkpoint at Netafim. "It was scary – you never think something like this will happen to you. But I did what I had to do," he said.

The packed bus was filled with passengers, mostly on their way to a pleasant summer vacation. "The driver accelerated and was able to prevent a much more serious outcome," one said.

Witnesses are now saying that those that fired on the buses were dressed in Egyptian Army uniforms! Egypt is denying that they were involved.

An Egyptian security official has denied Thursday that Egypt had any involvement in the terror attacks in the south of Israel. The official, told Egyptian media that the armed terrorists operated from within Israel's borders.
"Egypt was in no way involved in the incident, since it is difficult to penetrate the Egypt-Israel border. Moreover, it is impossible to open fire from the Egyptian side to Israel because of the distance," said the source.

Several mortar shells were simultaneously fired from the Gaza Strip at soldiers conducting routine maintenance work on the security fence on the Israel-Egypt border.

According to Historian and Middle East Expert, Dr.  Barry Rubin :

This isn’t just another terrorist attack—it’s a major escalation, a new phase in the Arab-Israeli conflict in two ways. First, it is the bitter fruit of the U.S.-backed downfall of the government of President Husni Mubarak in Egypt, opening the Egypt-Israel border as a new front in the war. Second, it is probably the first successful al-Qaida attack on Israel. (The Palestinian Popular Committees, a Gaza-based al-Qaida affiliate is the prime suspect.)

Reports are coming in that Israel's "Peace Partners" are already celebrating (H/T Elder of Zion):

Palestine Press Agency, which is a Fatah-leaning site, has commentators saying

"God praise the [Hamas] Al-Qassam Brigades" (they have not taken responsibility)

"Our Lord is with the heroes"

"[I] call for resistance in the Gaza with rocket fire and suicide bombings and the Glory of God and His Messenger"

"Tribute to the Heroes of each attack and no matter what their affiliation"

"God is great and victory is coming"

By far the most popular comment in the Hamas-oriented PalTimes is "God is great."

Firas Press has a numbr of "God is Great" comments as well as one referring to the victims as "monkeys."

The popular Paldf.net forum site has hundreds of messages of praise as well as digging up every possible scrap of rumor they can find.

I have yet to find a single expression of sadness or condemnation for the attack. One person thought that it was "suspicious" and implied it was a Zionist false flag attack to be a pretext for invading Egypt or Gaza; that's the closest I could find to a reservation about the attack. Everyone else is pouring out happiness and congratulations to the heroic terrorists.

An Israeli friend Roni on summer vacation from the Guyus pro-Israel information sharing network wrote,

Democratic elections are yet to be seen in Egypt, but the direct result of the revolution is that anarchy rules in Sinai. The local Egyptian police is afraid of the armed Bedouins that rule the area and the smuggling route to Gaza is open to all.

Such anarchy is the perfect breeding ground for radical Islam. Today's terror attack is proof of that.

The beautiful town of el Arish in Sinai is known for its beaches and luxury resorts. But in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, el Arish is becoming known for something far different from tourism. A well-armed jihadist group is making its presence felt on the dusty streets here, intimidating opponents and demanding Egypt becomes an Islamist state.

If the Egyptian authorities do not move quickly to crush the extremists and regain control, the Sinai Peninsula could soon become a separate Islamic emirate run by Salafis, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.

The Arab revolution is creating fast paced changes in the Arab world. Sadly these fast paced changes will not lead to democracy and freedom for the Arab people.

Instead radical Islamic groups are quick to hijack the winds of change aiming to create Islamic regimes instead of democratic ones.

The United States condemned the attack, but tomorrow our anti-Israel President will most probalby resume his pressure for Israel to make major concessions to these terrorists.

Today's terror attack represents a major escalation in the war to destroy Israel. It is the first successful terror attack by an Al Qaida affiliated organization, and it was an attack where the terrorists infiltrated from Israel. Since the fall of Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian Army has ceded control of parts of Sinai, unfortunately today's attack is a result of that cession.

A few hours  after the attack, Israeli warplanes attacked suspected terrorist targets in the Gaza Strip . As many as six Palestinians – including the chief of the Popular Resistance Committees – were reportedly killed in the Israeli attack on the Gaza city of Rafa. IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Ganz that Israel targeted that area because it is “where we believe the planners of the attack are based.”



Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu went on Israeli TV at about 1PM EST. He announced the deaths of the people who planned the attack.

Firstly, I would like to express my condolences to the families of the civilians murdered, and to those of the soldiers who fell while responding to today's terrorist attacks.

I share their pain. I know that their lives will never be the same. I also want to express my hopes for a speedy recovery to those injured in these attacks and are currently undergoing treatment in hospital.

We all witnessed today an attempt to escalate the terrorist war against Israel by launching of attacks from the Sinai. If there is someone who thinks that the State of Israel will let this pass, he is mistaken.

I have set out a principle - when the citizens of Israel are attacked, we respond immediately and with strength.  That principle was implemented today.  Those who gave the order to murder our citizens, while hiding in Gaza, are no longer among the living.

I commend the IDF and the security services who eliminated today in Gaza the senior figures of the organization which carried out the terror attacks in the south. I commend the soldiers, police, and members of the security services who acted swiftly, determinately and bravely against the terrorists, and who thereby prevented an even greater tragedy.

If the terrorist organizations believe that they can attack our citizens and get away with it, they will soon learn how wrong they are. We will exact a price, a very heavy price.

UPDATE: 1am Israel time- Hours after  the initial attack , terrorists who had apparently gone undetected attacked again, and a member of an elite police counter-terrorism unit was killed, the eighth Israeli fatality, according to Chief Inspector Alex Kagalsky, a spokesman for the Israel police.

Gunfire continued on both sides of the  border late into the evening. After nightfall, Israel’s “Iron Dome” anti-missile system intercepted a rocket fired by Gaza militants at the city of Ashkelon, the military said.

Mortars have been fired from Egypt and Gaza intermittently through out the day. 

Norway Terror Attack: Lessons and Illusions

 by Barry Rubin

Once one gets beyond the polemics and clichés, there is a huge amount that could be learned from an honest discussion about the mass murders in Norway. Let’s look at some of them.

An editorial in the New York Daily News contains both valid points and dangerous silliness. It begins:

In his ravings, Anders Behring Breivik, confessed to having murdered 76 people, repeats a familiar refrain: He killed to save his country, his continent and Western civilization itself from an attempted takeover by Islam.

The trouble with a 1500-page manifesto is that one can find almost anything in it. For example, people, groups, and sites who have been cited once or twice in that manifesto are now being called complicit with the murders. In the case of one group in that position, Breivik actually attacked them for being non-violent! Another author in the United Kingdom had two articles footnoted by the killer that didn’t even deal with Islam. Now people are being incited to go after her in revenge.

Of course, Breivik did see Islam as a threat, but he didn’t attack mosques, he attacked two government targets: a camp of the ruling party and a government building. Thus, the main target was not an “Islamic takeover” but his view that the country was being destroyed by left-wing policies, of which unlimited immigration is one. I have no agenda in making that point, but it is surprising that this hasn’t been a bigger focus of the discussion. Breivik was not a single-issue guy.

A second question is whether his violent action “proves” that there is no such problem regarding Islam. Radical Islamist violence is not mindless. It is a response to a problem. Many view this problem as the oppression of Muslims. My opinion is that it is a strategy for revolutionary takeover, a radical Islamist government, and the fundamental transformation of society. Of course, this is far more likely in Muslim-majority societies.

The Daily News continues:

Breivik’s belief is the photo negative of al-Qaeda’s contention that the United States and its allies are hell-bent on destroying Islam.

That’s a clever point and has some merit. But after studying Islamism for 30 years, I’d say that equally or more important — and certainly the one used more in inner and sophisticated Islamist circles — is the idea that the real crime of the West is “preventing” Islamist revolutions by supporting existing regimes. On this one, they are right generally. The first argument is propaganda; the second is programmatic.

To argue that Western governments want the Islamists to win and take over their societies is paranoid. To argue, though, that Western governments follow bad policies that make it look that way has a lot of merit. Left-wing movements — as in Norway — hope that the Islamists will benefit them. They are wrong. An analogy here is the Communist Party in Germany (at Stalin’s orders, of course) arguing that the growth of the Nazis would benefit them at a certain point. They were dead — literally — wrong. That doesn’t mean the Communists were pro-Nazi, it meant that they were disastrously stupid.

But the next contention of the editorial is more questionable:

The belief, that Islam at large conspires to triumph over all Judeo-Christian society, is a delusion.

Of course, the trick here is to say “Islam at large,” that is all the Muslims, everywhere and all the time. So yes the extremists on the Breivik channel do help the people who say that the threat is a “delusion.” But if radical Islamism gains hegemony and then largely controls the dominant devision of contemporary “Islam,” then it will be no illusion at all.

For now, we know that large elements of Muslims — especially revolutionary Islamists and notably the Muslim Brotherhood as well as the far less significant al-Qaeda — want that triumph because they say so all the time. So do Hamas and Hizballah and Iran’s government, less often perhaps but often a lot. They can quote extensively from Islamic texts — the same ones that “counter-jihadists” point out — and thus persuade Muslims a lot more easily that they represent “authentic Islam” than can moderate Muslims.

That’s one big reason why “reform” or “moderate” Islam is so weak. Others include the fact that the radicals are willing to kill and intimidate people, have more supporters, and have more money.

What most decidedly isn’t a delusion is:

• Revolutionary Islamist movements seek to take over all Muslim-majority countries.

• Where they have taken over they seek to transform those societies permanently into Islamist-run dictatorships. Iran and the Gaza Strip are the two most prominent current examples.

• Revolutionary Islamists seek to wipe Israel off the map and expel Western influence. In practice, they also seek to get rid of Christians. Their seizure of power is against Western interests.

• In Western countries, Islamists seek to gain hegemony over Muslim communities both ideologically, religiously, and through instituting Sharia.

• More speculatively, they dream of total conquest. Of course, that is more speculative, less likely, and far longer-term.

The fact that the last paragraph is pretty unlikely does not invalidate the previous four paragraphs.

A lot of the discussion among “anti-jihadists” is based on quoting from Muslim religious texts, clerical interpretations, and political statements by Islamist groups. The mass media simply refuses to deal with this evidence. That’s why the arguments can easily be labeled fantasies. Yet if you can provide dozens of quotes and hundreds of actions as examples, who is it engaged in “paranoid and poisonous fantasies”?

I partly agree with the editorial’s statement that:

Demonizing a religion rather than those who pervert it is destructive and only wins sympathies to radical fanatics.

I wouldn’t use the word “pervert,” which implies the Islamists are lying. They are using material that actually is in Islam and if one doesn’t understand that then one is powerless to deal with it. But there’s also a nice irony in the quote: which “radical fanatics” are we talking about? The editorial no doubt wants to refer to radical fanatics like Breivik. It is also true, however, that it wins sympathies for the “radical fanatics” who deny that there’s a problem. And those people are far more powerful than the murderous Breiviks, a group that one can count so far on the fingers of one hand.

In fact, the editorial then proves my point:

Counterjihadists are fighting an imaginary enemy. In the United States Muslims constitute less than 1% of the population. In Europe, it is about 7%….[Muslim immigrants]…seek to practice their faith and to assimilate.

The editorial — and the mass media generally — defuses a serious discussion by making the only issue as to whether Muslims will take over. But the immediate dangers are different.

First, will the pool of potential terrorists and their supporters grow? We can add up attacks that total far more than the one in Norway. When, for example, a convert is inspired to murder a military recruiter in Arkansas or a radicalized Muslim opens fire at Fort Hood, this should be a warning bell. Will the number of attacks steadily increase?

Second, will Muslim communities be taken over — or at least the most energetic activists in them — by radical Islamists? There is real reason to believe this has been happening in many places. While one can show to a far more limited extent that “creeping Sharia law” in the West is affecting non-Muslims, it is certainly affecting Muslims.

And when, to cite just two examples, the Archbishop of Canterbury and a leading judge support the imposition of Sharia law on Muslims in Great Britain, can anyone call that a delusion?

Third, Muslims who want to “assimilate” may be targeted or even killed by Islamists, who might be receiving state subsidies. Virtually every “honor killing” is against a woman who wants to assimilate. And since moderate Muslims are few, subject to intimidation, and receive little or no support from the Western establishments, those who often control these communities inhibit assimilation and teach people not to do so.

Any Muslims who are secular in their behavior, want to stop being Muslims, or who believe themselves properly religious but disagree with the extremists are being victimized.

When a woman is murdered in an “honor killing” or has her rights trampled on by Sharia as radically interpreted, she is also a Muslim. Often, governments have turned these people over to control by the radicals. They also finance the radicals, either because of the looseness of Western laws, misguided “multiculturalism,” or a conscious belief that helping radicals who aren’t committing terrorism this week will ensure there won’t be terrorism in future.

Fourth, there are real decisions to be made: Should public schools allow prayer (only, in the US) for Muslims? Can women wearing a veil have that picture on their driver’s license? Are cab drivers going to be allowed to refuse seeing-eye dogs? Will governments register polygamous marriages and give social welfare benefits on that basis? What is the definition of practicing their faith?

And then non-Muslims are being affected by being forced to observe Sharia law in an increasing number of cases, small in the overall extent of society, yet narrowing the freedom of those who experience it.

The final sentence of the editorial says:

Those who see “Muslim domination” and “creeping Sharia law” around every corner are imagining things. Their fictions only feed extremism.

True enough. Nobody should see anything “around every corner.” But saying that the problem is only imaginary and ignoring the real problems is also a fiction that will “only feed extremism,” including Islamist extremism, the triumph of the most radical interpretations of Islam, and extremists who want their own societies to decline.

The Obama Administration’s “Mission Accomplished” Fallacy in the War on Terrorism

By Barry Rubin

Leon Panetta, leaving the CIA directorship post to become secretary of defense, and General David Petraeus, leaving the job of commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to become CIA chief, have just come close to declaring victory in the war against terrorism, though that’s a phrase the Obama Administration refuses to use.

Good news, says Panetta. Once the United States knocks off about 20 al-Qaida leaders currently in Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and North Africa, that organization will be out of commission. And while the Taliban cannot be quickly wiped out, says Petraeus, it can be “neutralized” so that it won’t cause much trouble in future.

Oh, and Panetta said that the U.S. goal is to force the Taliban to negotiate a deal to allow for national conciliation in Afghanistan. Here’s my proposed headline: Obama Administration Says: Make Deal with September 11 Accomplices. How’s that sound? That’s what’s really going on, a deal with the terrorists and not their defeat.

Uh-oh. Let’s assume that they are correct. So the forces that carried out the September 11 attack will not matter any more. So the Obama administration won’t have to worry about Hamas, Hizballah, and the Muslim Brotherhood– which it seems to think are now moderate, democratic-oriented groups. Nor will it have to be much concerned about all those other revolutionary Islamist organizations out there. Perhaps it can then focus on what seems to be the White House’s main priority, the “War on Islamophobia.”

Presumably, without those defeated threats, Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Iran, and Syria won’t be a problem for U.S. interests and security. Iraq and Afghanistan will be stable and friendly polities.

One can only think of the lines from the satirical songwriter Tom Lehrer:

“Once all the Germans/were warlike and mean/but that couldn’t happen again!/We taught them a lesson in 1918/and they have hardly bothered us since then!”

In other words, the Obama Administration will lull itself even more into a false sense of security as the revolutionary Islamists advance in their effort to overthrow all the region’s regimes, take over the Middle East, and expel Western influence.

But let’s not assume they are correct on the specifics. The most basic principle of counter-terrorism is that just because the leaders are killed (and despite efforts to assuage grievances) broad-based terrorists groups don’t disappear. Obviously, the administration wants to play off its successful killing of Osama bin Ladin to imply that a few more such operations will do the trick. But al-Qaida is a very decentralized group.

Local affiliates continue to exist especially in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Algeria. They aren’t going away so easily. I’ll bet that parallel, albeit non-member groups, will soon appear in Egypt and elsewhere. Preventing terrorist bombers from blowing up U.S. airliners and embassies is a worthwhile task, but that’s not the same thing as stopping terrorist groups–even if they momentarily aren’t using violence–from seizing control of countries and then using violence to intimidate opponents and launch attacks on neighbors.

The fact that Petraeus has become a national hero because of being right on Iraq should not obscure the fact that he was wrong on Afghanistan. Petraeus has long believed that the United States could defeat the Taliban, use civic projects to win Afghan hearts and minds, and to build Afghanistan into a stable democratic polity. The idea that the United States can depend on the Afghan government and military to hold off radical Islamists isn’t going to work. Afghanistan isn’t Iraq.

As for the Taliban it isn’t going to be “neutralized” in any real sense. It might just lay low and let the U.S. forces leave the country, then go into action again. Indeed, it has been revealed that the secret negotiations between the U.S. government and the Taliban seek to obtain precisely that outcome. Does anyone seriously believe–other than the Obama Administration–that the Taliban is going to live up to its commitments? Can one imagine “conciliation” in Afghanistan?

I want to be clear that I do not favor a continued U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. But a withdrawal must be accompanied by ensuring that local anti-Taliban forces keep up that battle in their own self-interest. Pressing them to make a deal with the Taliban, which can then use any such gains in trying to seize state power, is the worst possible policy. Remember that the United States is withdrawing from Iraq with a strategy of helping the Iraqi government defeat the al-Qaida allied terrorists there, not making a deal with the insurgents.

The underlying problem is that Panetta and Patraeus are articulating two of the many myths held by the Obama Administration: that revolutionary Islamist groups aren’t a threat unless they are trying to blow up American skyscrapers and that they can be moderated by killing a few terrorist leaders or making a deal with them.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com    

The Myth That the Mainstream Media Helps Us Understand The World

By Barry Rubin

People ask me why I write so much and I explain that I don’t want to do so but keep coming across such important events, missed stories, and outrageous nonsense that I feel compelled to say something. So it is in this case.

Here’s the problem: a remarkable amount of what's written on the Middle East in the mass media—and certainly the efforts to analyze it as opposed to reporting events—is nonsensical. It makes the region harder to understand. It misleads the reader.

An example is Anatol Lieven, “5 Myths about Pakistan,” Washington Post, June 5, 2011. Lieven is a professor at Kings College London and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. He has just written a book on Pakistan.

One of the techniques often employed in the creation of the Fantasy Middle East is to misstate totally the issues at stake. Note the use of that technique in Lieven's article.

Alleged Myth One: Pakistan is a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.”

Pakistan, he writes, just follows its own interests. Sometimes it’s helpful and sometimes it isn’t. Fair enough, that’s what allies generally do. But the policy question is: whether Pakistan is helpful often enough to merit being treated like an ally and given huge amounts of aid. The answer is”no.” Neither the question nor the answer is addressed.

Incidentally, it’s pretty outrageous that Lieven suggests that Pakistan supports the Taliban because India is inciting other groups in Afghanistan to seize power. Yet since Pakistan’s policy has been the same for 30 years--it has long supported radical Islamist forces in Afghanistan--how can India be to blame for relatively recent policies? To bash India for Pakistan's behavior in Afghanistan is absurd.

If a country supports to a major degree the two groups that attacked America on September 11—the Taliban and al-Qaida—plus is a major sponsor of terrorism against India, the answer to question 1 isn’t “Sometimes” but "Definitely not!"

Alleged Myth 2: ”Pakistan is an ally of the Taliban.”

Again, Lieven turns this into a “straw man” argument. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t, he says. But the real answer is "yes," if one is talking about the Afghan Taliban, which is what the United States is mainly concerned about! It is only an enemy of the [Pakistani] Taliban that tries to take over Pakistan. So, again, Pakistan IS an ally of the [Afghan] Taliban, the group--along with al-Qaida--that the United States gives it billions of dollars to fight against!

Alleged Myth 3: “Islamist revolution is coming to Pakistan.”

Why is this a myth? Because, says Lieven, less than one-fifth of Pakistanis view the Taliban favorably in a poll. As if, that’s the only Islamist group! He cites one Pew poll number but other polls and other questions show a remarkably high level of support for Islamism among Pakistanis. Putting such a spin on one item and leaving out others verges, to put it politely, on deliberate dishonesty.

Indeed, a recent Pew poll shows that Pakistanis support Islamism by a whopping 47 to 15 percent margin. Thus, this argument that Pakistanis don't want Islamism is a total myth. That's why Lieven misrepresents the issue to "prove" that Pakistanis don't want the Taliban's specific brand of Islamism.

I'm not saying that Pakistan will have a radical Islamist revolution. But it is certainly possible. If Turkey and Egypt can become Islamist, surely Pakistan could do so.

Alleged Myth 4 “Massive U.S. aid lets Washington dictate Pakistani policy.”

This one really made me angry. Nobody seriously argues such a thing. The real issue is whether the large amount of aid and support the United States gives Pakistan provides some American leverage to get Pakistan to do things that the United States wants and needs to be done. If this aid does no good at all then it shouldn’t be given in the first place.

The correct formulation is: Does giving Pakistan massive aid provide Washington with any ability at all to have the slightest effect on Pakistani policy.” If billions of dollars cannot even get them to help find Usama bin Laden what good are they?

Alleged Myth 5 “Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the front in the war on terrorism.”

The front? I don’t know anyone who says this either. That's just a phony issue. The real question is: Does Pakistan provide really positive aid in fighting terrorism or not? But if one frames the question in that way the answer is not likely to be in the affirmative, which is presumably why this question isn't asked.

So what’s the bottom line? The author writes what he's been setting up for that entire misleading essay:

“None of this means that the United States should pursue more aggressive policies against Pakistan to win the war on terrorism….Any U.S. action that endangered the stability of the Pakistani government would be insane.”

In other words, U.S. policy is just fine and there's no need to change anything. Who cares if they support the Taliban, hide al-Qaida leaders, and launch terrorist attacks on India? Just keep sending them money and keep giving them support.

Precisely the same argument has and will be used to rationalize such things as:

U.S. aid and support to the Palestinian Authority (even if it refuses to negotiate or make peace and brings Hamas into the government);

Turkey (despite its regime's growing support for Iran,

Syria (the regime supposedly wants to reform itself and you can't expect it to abandon the alliance with Iran so who cares if they shoot down thousands of unarmed citizens and help terrorist groups along with opposing U.S. policies and interests);

Lebanon (even if Hizballah will be in the government and the country is dominated by Syria and Iran);

and no doubt soon Egypt (with a radical nationalist-Islamist regime that will be against the United States.

You can easily adjust the five "myths" to suit each circumstance. Indeed, if Iran's leaders didn't keep "stubbornly" refusing to make some phony deal on their nuclear program the Obama administration and many "experts" would no doubt be advocating the same ideas about Iran, too.

Why was that article written? Like so many, to turn something obvious through "sophistication" into a brain-dead conclusion. Let's state it briefly to make the point stand out:

High-ranking elements in Pakistan have just got caught hiding Usama bin Ladin, the world's number-one wanted terrorist who killed 3000 Americans on September 11and have repeatedly been caught helping bin Ladin's enablers, the Afghan Taliban, and terrorists murdering people in India. No apology, no investigation, no change of policy by Pakistan.

The expert recommendation? U.S. policy toward Pakistan shouldn't change at all.

This is the foolishness dressed up with deception and double-talk that so often substitutes for serious debate in America's mass media today.

I would call the kind of article I'm analyzing here not only “misinformation” but ”anti-information.” In other words, the person reading it would be worse informed afterward than they were beforehand!

And the same goes for much—most? Almost all?—of the material of this nature in the mass media. Not only do we face this propaganda barrage but contrary opinions are generally  barred from mass media publication or broadcast altogether.

What I've done with this article and others can be done with many of the items on the Middle East that appear daily in prestigious publications. It's not just about getting details wrong, it's about total misdirection. A few minutes of serious analysis can totally demolish what they are saying while exposing their hidden (wrong) assumptions.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

Newsbusted: American Al Qaeda Member Invited to the White House

If you were one of those American's who were upset that the White House invited cop-hating rapper and actor Common to perform, hang on because you are about to blow a major fuse.  According to Jodi Miller, Newsbusted Anchor, the White House has followed up with an invite to an American-born Member of Al-Qaeda. Other exclusives covered in today's edition of the twice-weekly feature from Newsbusters.org include Mitt Romney's plan to replace Obamacare, the real reason a San Fransisco mom injected her 8-year-old daughter with botox, what Ashton Kutchner is doing to prepare to replace Charlie Sheen in Two and a Half Men and much, much more.

This episode of Newsbusted is the the funniest two and a half minutes seen on the internet  since Newt Gingrich changed his position about Obamacare's individual mandate over ten thousand times in 0ne 24 hour period.

Please don't let yourself miss this issue of  Newsbusted.  Because should you miss it, the CIA will crop your image into Osama Bin Laden's porn movies. Click play below and remember, this is going to hurt the liberals much more than you.

Oh, and if you cannot see video below click here 

New Poll Numbers Show Obama's Post-Bin Laden Bump is Over

Sorry Mr. President, the party is over. Less than two weeks after Osama Bin Laden was killed by a squad of hero Navy Seals, the bump in Obama's ratings has disappeared, in fact the latest Rasmussen poll shows that some of his numbers are worse than before.

For example the chart below reflects the President's approval index from the day the Bin Laden news was released though today.  Approval index represents the people who strongly approve of the President's performance minus the people who strongly disapprove. So it is an indication of the people most passionate about President's performance, these are the people who are most likely to work toward/against Re-election of the present POTUS.

Keep in mind, the Bin Laden news was released well after the May 2nd sample was taken and released. Rasmussen numbers reflect three days sampling ending with the day prior to the numbers being released so, for example for the May 4th numbers only one third of the sample was questioned after the Bin Laden death was reported.  It was not until May 6th that the entire sample had the possibility of being aware of the death of Bin Laden.

On May 2nd, the day Bin Laden was killed the President's approval index was at a -12. From there it generally rose through May 7th, and started falling through today's report which shows him back at a -12.


Overall approval and disapproval numbers show the same pattern.

Prior to Bin Laden's trip to hell, Rasmussen reported that President's overall approval/disapproval numbers were both at 49%, today his disapproval stands at 52% and approval stands at 48%

What should be even more troubling to the President should be the fact that his numbers among independents are not promising (the Oth column in the chart below)

Among independents, the president's approval index is at a minus 22, and almost 70% of independents believe that the country is on the wrong track.

Over-all President Obama received (and frankly deserved) an approval bounce based on the Navy Seals heroic action eliminating Osama Bin Laden as a threat to this country.  As the saying all good things must pass, but nobody expected things to pass so quickly.

But this is a nation which is on the precipice of a financial abyss. As soon as the joy that Bin Laden is no longer a threat passed, the weekly new unemployment claims figure shot up and the monthly unemployment percentage rose back to 9%.  These number shocked America out of its post Bin Laden euphoria and back into the reality that Barack Obama has mis-handled the economy.  Look for his numbers to continue to fall as long as the economy continues to falter.

Schumer's Call For a Amtrack Do Not Ride List, Nothing But A Publicity Move

It happens each time he is not in front of a TV Camera for 20 minutes, NY York State Senator Chuck Schumer finds something to say, anything that will put his face on TV. If Chuck Schumer was not a United States Senator, he would be one of those slimy lawyers who chase ambulances and funeral processions ignoring the feelings of crash victims and/or their families just so he can hand off his business cards and gain more business.

But Politics is the NY Senator's chosen profession, instead of chasing ambulances he chases TV camera's so he can get air time. With all the news about Bin Laden last week, Schumer  did not receive much attention so the poor progressive senator must have been suffering horrible camera withdrawal.  So as he usually does in this situation, he came up with something unworkable, that will cost too much money and will help out the unions.

In short, Schumer decided that there should be a "no-ride list" for Amtrak. The list would be similar to the no-fly list that keeps those suspected of terrorism from flying into or out of the United States.

“Anyone, even a member of al-Qaida could purchase a train ticket and board an Amtrak train without so much as a question asked,” Schumer said. “So that’s why I’m calling for the creation of an Amtrak no ride list. That would take the secure flight program and apply it to Amtrak trains.”

On first glance, one would think that it would be an easy project after all Amtrak is hemorrhaging money because not enough people want to ride on it.

"Circumstances demand we make adjustments by increasing funding to enhance rail safety and monitoring on commuter rail transit and screening who gets on Amtrak passenger trains, so that we can provide a greater level of security to the public," the New York Democrat said at a news conference.

U.S. officials last week said evidence found after the raid on bin Laden's compound in Pakistan indicated the al Qaeda leader or his associates had engaged in discussions or planning for a possible attack on a train inside the United States on September 11, 2011.

Schumer, citing U.S. intelligence analysts, said attacks were also considered on Christmas and New Year's Day and following the president's State of the Union address.

He called on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to expand the Secure Flight monitoring program, which cross-checks air travelers with the terror watch list in an attempt to prevent anyone on the "no-fly list" from boarding, for use on Amtrak.

Such a procedure would create an Amtrak "no-ride list" to keep suspected terrorists off the U.S. rail system, he said.

The September 11 Commission recommended in 2004 that the government check travelers' names against terror watch lists before they board passenger trains or cruise ships, but such a program was not adopted.

 There's the point, people have been calling for heightened security on the nations rails ever since 9/11.  Along with the 9/11 commission Al Qaeda's attacks on British and
Spanish Trains have also served as warnings.

Yet Senator Schumer woke up yesterday saying "Ooh, lets create a no ride list" and lets get more money to do it.  According to the Senator it was those documents seized from  Bin Laden's  compound last week indicating that Al Qaeda, was thinking about  a 9/11 anniversary plot to derail a U.S. passenger train over a valley or a bridge that spurred him into action even though he ignored all of the other warnings.

I hate to sound cynical, but perhaps this little announcement by the Senator has more to do with being able to tell New Yorkers he brought new money into the state, and of course created brand new TSA union jobs across Amtrak's footprint, than national security.

Perhaps if the Senator truly wanted to add security to America's railway's he should also demand they be self funding.

A report in The Blaze showed that Amtrak lost $1.2 billion in 2010

According to the Pew report, only 3 of Amtrak’s 44 lines are making any money. That statement alone might inspire the CEO of the failing rail service to consider cuts and changes. Of course, having more than 20,000 union employees (85% of those folks are covered by collective bargaining) makes it difficult to change anything that might cause a job to be lost, or a benefit diminished.

Perhaps before he suggests that we spend more money on a failing rail business,  he should suggest that we cut some of those unprofitable lines to fund his "johnny-come-lately" ideas. Maybe he is saving that for his next TV camera withdrawal.

Bin Laden's Many Posthumous Fans

By Barry Rubin

As so often happens, a peripheral issue has taken over the Western debate regarding the killing of Usama bin Laden. Whether or not the U.S. government releases a photo of the body isn't so important. If bin-Laden isn’t dead let him prove it by sending a video to al-Jazira. The issue is whether or not killing him was a good thing.

As for photos, those who believe that bin Laden isn't dead won't be convinced by photos. Ironically, many of them will simultaneously say that the United States didn't kill bin Laden but the fact that the United States killed bin Laden is a crime for which revenge should be taken.

We should have learned this from September 11, since many say that al-Qaeda wasn't responsible and it was done by the U.S. government and Israel while, at the same time, saying that it was an operation that made Muslims and Arabs feel proud and America deserved it.

Welcome to the Middle East!

Today--and for some years now--people in the Middle East haven't hated America because of its policies so much as defining whatever it does as hateful because America is already an enemy.  If you don't want revolutionary Islamists to take over countries, repress all freedom, suppress women, wipe Israel off the map, and expel all Western influence from the region then you are their enemy. You can be a weak, contemptible enemy or a strong bullying enemy but that's about the extent of your choice.

The reaction to the killing of UBL takes place in this context, Those Islamists and radical nationalists who saw bin Laden as a rival in life are finding him a useful martyr in death. Again, the issue is not whether bin Laden is dead but whether the United States was bad in killing him.

So far Hamas, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the highest Muslim cleric in Egypt, and Western favorite phony moderate Tariq Ramadan have all basically endorsed UBL as a great guy, a real martyr, and the victim of an evil United States.

The al-Aqsa Brigades of Fatah also apparently said so though it quickly withdrew the statement when it made the public relations’- conscious Palestinian Authority leadership uncomfortable. Yet the idea that this is just another American atrocity--one more reason to hate the United States--is a powerful force among Palestinians and also in public opinion in Egypt and Jordan.

And so the killing of UBL will enter the long list of U.S. policies for which America is disliked by many Muslims and Arabs in particular. There is a lesson here: whatever the United States does will be criticized because America as a great power, a civilization, a set of policies, and a presence internationally is hated by many, especially by revolutionary Islamists.

Consider the very “moderate” and sophisticated Mr. Ramadan, or perhaps I should say Professor Ramadan since he’s currently at Oxford University and Notre Dame wants to hire him. That’s pretty good for the grandson of a Nazi collaborator and the son of an agent working for a Nazi collaborator (Amin al-Husaini, the mufti of Jerusalem).

Not only did Ramadan criticize the killing of UBL but also called the burial at sea “against all the Islamic rituals.” Well, was bin Laden behind the September 11 attacks, Ramadan replies: "We don't know. Nobody knows—even the Americans." So much for moderation.

The killing poses a complex issue for Iran, Syria, and Hizballah. Iran is harboring scores of al-Qaeda leaders but the Tehran government—and also Hizballah—are Shia Muslims, a group that bin Laden despised. So no tears will be shed though perhaps some anti-Americanism can be stirred up in the Sunni Arab world by Iran.

Syria worked closely with al-Qaida in Iraqi terrorism but Damascus has also blamed al-Qaeda for internal attacks (ranging from possible regime hoaxes to democratic demonstrations) and so it isn’t well placed to cheer UBL now.

Regarding Pakistan, it has been an open secret—even published in the mass media—that the Pakistani government has sponsored terrorism and collaborated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Yet the U.S. government continued to pour money into the country.

Consider the murderous attack on Mumbai, India that took hundreds of hostages and killed so many people in cold blood. The group that conducted it operates from Pakistan with the knowledge of the authorities there. That government refused to cooperate with investigation or to extradite terrorists. We’re now supposed to be surprised that bin Laden was sheltering there?

In an official press release, the Pakistani army simultaneously claims credit for killing UBL and criticizes the United States for doing so. An official statement from the chief of staff of Pakistan’s army states:

“[We have] made it very clear that any similar action, violating the sovereignty of Pakistan, will warrant a review on the level of military / intelligence cooperation with the United States.

“The Corps Commanders were informed about the decision to reduce the strength of US military personnel in Pakistan to the minimum essential.

“As regards the possibility of similar hostile action against our strategic assets, the Forum reaffirmed that, unlike an undefended civilian compound, our strategic assets are well protected and an elaborate defensive mechanism is in place.”

So the U.S. killing of bin Laden is a cowardly attack on “an undefended civilian compound;” if the United States tries something like that again the Pakistani army will fight America; and the Americans are to be punished by expelling some of their personnel.

That’s quite a highly subsidized ally you have there!

Speaking of allies, a lot of the European media coverage revolved around whether the U.S. government broke international law by killing UBL. See previous paragraph.

And, once again, let me point out that al-Qaeda is a terrorist threat but not a strategic threat. The real problem is with revolutionary Islamists: Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, Syria, and the Muslim Brotherhood. If U.S. policy goes soft on these groups—even helping them at times—terrorism, anti-Americanism, and instability are going to get worse.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.