Review May Shift Terror Policies (from WashPost)

[kentuck]

How big a change is this? And why? Is it because we have defeated al Qaeda but the other terrorists or "extremists" have more than taken up the slack and we're looking for a way to backtrack just a bit? Maybe they are starting to see that this is a committment that we do not have the stomach or the money to fight at the level the Bush neocons would like? The real "reality" is intruding on their fake "reality"? Or do they want to expand their present operations and need a new defintion for their enemies??

=====================================================================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/28/AR2005052801171_pf.html

<snip>
The Bush administration has launched a high-level internal review of its efforts to battle international terrorism, aimed at moving away from a policy that has stressed efforts to capture and kill al Qaeda leaders since Sept. 11, 2001, and toward what a senior official called a broader "strategy against violent extremism."

The shift is meant to recognize the transformation of al Qaeda over the past three years into a far more amorphous, diffuse and difficult-to-target organization than the group that struck the United States in 2001. But critics say the policy review comes only after months of delay and lost opportunities while the administration left key counterterrorism jobs unfilled and argued internally over how best to confront the rapid spread of the pro-al Qaeda global Islamic jihad.

President Bush's top adviser on terrorism, Frances Fragos Townsend, said in an interview that the review is needed to take into account the "ripple effect" from years of operations targeting al Qaeda leaders such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, arrested for planning the Sept. 11 attacks, and his recently detained deputy. "Naturally, the enemy has adapted," she said. "As you capture a Khalid Sheik Mohammed, an Abu Faraj al-Libbi raises up. Nature abhors a vacuum."

<snip>
A new campaign targeting "violent extremism" could also prove controversial, given disputes in the Middle East about how to categorize groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank that act as political parties while also supporting what the United States calls terrorist activities. "You can't start drawing very precise lines -- security/counterterrorism versus the broader efforts to deal with the roots of terrorism," the intelligence official said.

[annabanana]

1. a far more amorphous, diffuse and difficult-to-target organization

That means us, anti-war activists, Iraq Veterans Against the War, ACLU, all environmentalists,

Well, just about everyone who's figured out what a massive load of crap we've been sold.

[kentuck]

2. The "war on terrorists" is not enough for them?

You may be right.

[annabanana]

3. (still having trouble targeting Democrats directly). . . . . n/t