The Jihad Blotter

So, what is one supposed to make of the report that al Qaeda has rebuilt its capabilities to a level not seen since before 9/11? Well, consider first that this information was published as a result of a leak of classified information to a journalist. Is this report accurate and on the mark? The intelligence agencies haven't exactly had a sterling record on predicting what would happen on high profile issues in the past, and I wonder whether they're right in this case.

Is it possible that they're engaging in a bit of CYA in order to present the worst case scenario just in case something does happen that they did not anticipate - a terror plot that they did not have any clue about?

With that in mind, is this the worst case scenario to be offered in the National Intelligence Estimate, the middle case, or the best case? That's important, since the NIE presents a range of intel opinions. If this is the worst case scenario, what is the best case option? Have we destroyed al Qaeda's capabilities by 75%? 50%? 25%? What's the middle scenario? That's a pretty important question that is unresolved because the NIE is not a public document and we've only been fed one part of the whole.

Accepting this at face value, how is this actually possible? What could possibly have happened that enabled al Qaeda to reconstitute itself? Was it Democrats and anti-war leftists providing talking points to al Qaeda and calling for defeat and retreat from the field of battle - both in Afghanistan and Iraq? That may play a role, but the far more serious problem is what is going on in Pakistan. Musharraf had basically decided to leave the border region with Afghanistan alone, and made deals with the border tribes.

A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the document — titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West" — called it a stark appraisal. The analysis will be part of a broader meeting at the White House on Thursday about an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

The official and others spoke to The Associated Press on condition they not be identified because the report remains classified.

The findings suggests that the network that launched the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil has been able to regroup despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at dismantling it.

The threat assessment focuses on the terror group's safe haven in Pakistan and makes a range of observations about the threat posed to the United States and its allies, officials said.

Those deals left the region unpoliced and al Qaeda and Taliban and the Islamists in general were able to flourish and reconstitute themselves there. The Lal Masjid siege showed the ultimate folly of appeasement and forced Musharraf to adopt a hard line position against al Qaeda and the Islamists, which in turn forced Zawahiri to release yet another tape in the past week that calls for jihad against Pakistan and Musharraf. That's not a coincidence.

UPDATE:
Musharraf has responded to Zawahiri is very strong terms. He's promised to eradicate the Islamists. Well, I'd start with the region adjacent to Afghanistan, and if the US asks to send its forces into that area to go after al Qaeda, let them and give them all the support they ask for. It's in his best interests as you have to believe that the Islamists are likely to try assassinating Musharraf at the earliest possible opportunity to thwart his efforts:

President Pervez Musharraf says he is determined that extremism and terrorism will be eradicated in Pakistan.
He was speaking in a televised address to the nation after officials said 75 bodies had been found at the radical Red Mosque in Islamabad.

Troops launched a 36 hour attack on the mosque early on Tuesday to flush extremists out of the mosque complex.

For months clerics and students had been defying the authorities in their campaign for Sharia law in the capital.

Students had kidnapped police as well as Islamabad residents they considered to be engaged in un-Islamic activity.

UPDATE:
Congress can't help themselves.

Not quite party line, but almost. Four Republicans voted yes, 10 Dems voted no. It’s the Reed-Levin plan in essence: withdrawal to begin within 120 days of passage and to conclude by April 1, with a small combat force retained in country to target Al Qaeda plus advisors to train the Iraqi army. It’s also a non-starter since Bush has vowed to veto any plan that involves a timetable.

They keep voting for cut and run aka defeat and retreat at every turn, knowing full well that the President will veto any such bill presented to him, and his veto will survive any attempts. Democrats are playing politics with national security. Pure and simple.

They also have paid lip service to the troop surge, which is still coming to bear on al Qaeda and the insurgency, and are more than willing to pull the rug out from under Gen. Petraeus and the US Armed Forces. They are also more than willing to cut and run, leaving millions to a fate that is uncertain at best but all too likely to end in genocidal massacres if history is a guide.