The "super patriots supporting the Troops":

The following link is a short post over at the VetVoice interactive blog by Matthew Alexander, an Air Force Interrogator who wrote "How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq"

This is his post subject title: Coulter Insults Hundreds of Combat Veterans starting off with this:

On Hannity on April 30th, Ann Coulter criticized me for speaking out against torture, mocking my service and stating "I did not know the Air Force had interrogators."........find the rest at link.

I placed the link to this on my facebook page, one of the lady friends, who works with the military, came back with this:

Steven K. O'Hern's book: The retired AF COL was director of the Strategic Counterintelligence Directorate of the Multi-National Force in Baghdad, Iraq, from April to September 2005

"Intelligence Wars: Lessons from Baghdad"

Description:
Since the first heady months of the war in Iraq when President Bush celebrated aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln under a "mission accomplished" sign, US forces have been bogged down in a frustrating war of attrition against a largely unseen insurgency that attacks with ambushes and roadside bombs. In this revealing insider's look at the US intelligence community's efforts to fight the insurgency, author Steven K. O'Hern, who served in Iraq in 2005 as a senior intelligence officer, offers a critical assessment of our intelligence failures and suggests ways of improving our ability to fight an often elusive enemy.

O'Hern criticizes America's military leaders for being enamored with high-technology solutions for all situations, including intelligence operations. Essentially, we are still relying on an intelligence system that was designed to beat the Soviet army........More at the book link

Before 9/11 - Taliban - al Qaeda

The National Security Archive has just released a Load of Files Electronic Briefing Book No. 253 Posted - August 20, 2008 under the title: 1998 Missile Strikes on Bin Laden May Have Backfired with a subtitle: Extensive 1999 Report on Al-Qaeda Threat Released by U.S. Dept of Energy,
Taliban Told U.S. They Wanted to Bomb Washington


With backlinks to the PDF's and more links in the sidebar on the left.

On the tenth anniversary of U.S. cruise missile strikes against al-Qaeda in response to deadly terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, newly-declassified government documents posted today by the National Security Archive (NS Archive) suggest the strikes not only failed to hurt Osama bin Laden but ultimately may have brought al-Qaeda and the Taliban closer politically and ideologically.

I've just glanced through some but the same questions come up that have with the remembering the reports on the Taliban and al Qaeda prior to 9/11, the many unanswered questions from the commission on 9/11, the dodging of questions and outright lies from some within the government, especially the administration, at the time and since, with more added as the policies of the administration exploded into the negatives for this country and it's national security and now negative standing amoung nations on this planet.


One question keeps growing, "With all this country must have known, through it's extremely well financed and technology advanced Intelligence Agencies, how were the acts of 9/11 allowed to happen?"!


The reasons given, intelligence sharing etc., are just to simplified to carry any weight, not after being told, and shown some, for years what our monies were buying and suspecting much more that was not told in the interest of National Security.

A 400-page Sandia National Laboratories report on bin Ladin { this is a big pdf download }, compiled in 1999, includes a warning about political damage for the U.S. from bombing two impoverished states without regard for international agreement, since such action "mirror imag[ed] aspects of al-Qaeda's own attacks" [see pp. 18-22 {pdf}]. A State Department cable {pdf} argues that although the August missile strikes were designed to provide the Taliban with overwhelming reason to surrender bin Laden, the military action may have sharpened Afghan animosity towards Washington and even strengthened the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance.

Following the August 20 U.S. air attacks, Taliban spokesman Wakil Ahmed told U.S. Department of State officials {pdf} "If Kandahar could have retaliated with similar strikes against Washington, it would have." Such an attack, although unfeasible at the time, was at least in part actualized by al-Qaeda on 9/11.

Following the 1998 embassy bombings, the U.S. sought to extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia or possibly Egypt, but failed to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan because, at least according to the U.S. Department of State {pdf}, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were unable or unwilling to apply enough pressure to coerce Taliban Supreme Leader Mullah Omar to surrender bin Laden.

The lengthy Sandia report compiled by Dr. Gary W. Richter {pdf} synthesizes an impressive volume of public-source information available on bin Laden into a coherent summary of the al-Qaeda terrorist threat following the August embassy bombings. The report concludes that the bombings did not take U.S. intelligence and diplomatic services by surprise, as the U.S. in 1998 had capable counterterrorism intelligence gathering and interdiction capabilities. However, according to the report, in retrospect, the August 20 retaliatory cruise missile strikes may have caused long-term political harm to U.S. national security and counterterrorism interests [see pp. 18-22 {pdf}]. The report contains extensive timelines, biographies and issue summaries and is useful for researchers interesting in the evolution of al-Qaeda and the American response.

The see pp. 18-22 above are small pdf's giving some quick interesting bullet points.


Read the Documents. This link is the same as the very first above. There are a number of documents at the bottom of the page to sort through.
Note: The following documents are in PDF format. You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.


Under Document 1 dated December 6, 1999 ou will find some information and backlinks along with these bullet points:

* The "war" against terrorism will never be "won," as terrorism will always be a global problem.

* The August 7, 1998, embassy bombings should not be taken as an indication that U.S. counterterrorism efforts are entirely ineffective.

* The August 20, 1998, retaliatory cruise missile strikes did little to help solve the problem posed by bin Laden and may ultimately prove to have done more harm than good.

* The risk of future attacks by Osama bin Laden or his associates using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) is not insignificant.

* The root cause of the militant threat is the widespread and deep-seated discontent among a large segment of the Islamic world, as opposed to the actions or agitation of any one individual or group of individuals. As such, diplomatic options are likely to be the most effective strategies at reducing the threat.

And:

* The U.S. was not "blindsided" by a new threat, as much was already known about al-Qaeda, including its anti-American aspirations and the existence of an East African al-Qaeda cell. [page 18]

* Members of this East African cell had been identified before August 7, and were under "intense scrutiny." It is likely "that this campaign of disruption had done much to dissipate the threat." [page 18]

* In response to the ongoing surveillance, threat evaluation and disruption operations, the members of this cell "felt themselves to be at "100% danger." [page 18]

* "In retrospect there were also specific indications of a bomb plot," however "it seems as if threat assessment personnel in Washington did not take the warning signs as seriously as did the embassy personnel in Nairobi." [page 19]

* The number of bombings prevented far exceeds the number of bombings that were not stopped by U.S. security efforts. [page 18]

And:

* High cost

* International criticism

* Questionable justice in that the strikes "killed only (or nearly only) individuals who were innocent of the embassy bombings"

* Reputational damage from disregarding alliances

* Questionable effectiveness in destroying or disrupting al-Qaeda or perspective terrorists

* Possible diminished impact for any future U.S. strikes by "demonstrating how little [the U.S] could achieve (e.g., limited physical damage)," by depleting ammunition, providing adversaries with an opportunity to observe and reformulate strategies based on observed vulnerabilities, and convincing bin Laden that the U.S. is unwilling to use higher-cost forms of force that would put U.S. personnel at risk

* "The attack provoked a new round of terrorist bombing plots."

* Bin Laden received a good deal of publicity and "appeared to many as an underdog standing firm in the face of bullying aggression."

* The Taliban's poor control over Afghanistan "may mean that they shouldn't bear responsibility for the acts of those on their soil."

* The U.S. may have given away the moral high ground by mirroring certain aspects of bin Laden's strategy with the attacks, and the U.S. bombed targets in independent third-world countries without concern for the sensitivities or sovereignty of those nations.

And:

* Justified under domestic law

* Calling attention to the bin Laden-Taliban connection, which complicated the Taliban's ability to gain international recognition as well as their future ability to justify support for Muslim fundamentalist groups

* Demonstrated U.S. resolve, dedication to dealing with terrorism as a matter of national security, and the reach of U.S. military power

* Provides incentives for nations to cooperate in U.S. counterterrorism activities, if for no other reason but to avoid unilateral action

* May deter terrorists and nations from harboring terrorists

There's alot of reading and research that can be found and added to the already known and suspected.


Where Iraq fits into all this sits only in the minds of those who wanted an invasion an regime change for years before, those who once supported that dictatorship, and saw wealth and extreme power in toppling their once friend and allie, and controlling a country in the center of the region to grant expansion of that extreme wealth and power.


What the invasion and occupation of Iraq has accomplished is far beyond what any extremist anywhere in the region or not hoped for, total unrest and hatreds. One needs only look at Afghanistan today, the Pakistan border region and Pakistan, the continuation of actions in the Iraq theater, the push back by the Iranians and their preparations to ward off attack by anyone, Guerilla Insurgents reportedly flowing into the border region from all over and waging growing destructive attacks on Nato forces and the Afghans, and the growing Criminal Terror attacks in other points outside of these theaters.


Where we once might have had friends an allies we created enemies.


Where we had the chance to better relations with the other powers they are ignoring us and recently sticking our own actions right back in our faces, they will allie with the region those few wanted to control, against us.


And we as a Nation will move on in our Apathy, holding No One Accountable, an with no knowledge of what the future brings, only knowing it will not be what it should have been!

War on Terror? Criminal Terrorism!! The Rand Report

On the 29th of July an extremely important think tank report, paid for by the government, came forth from the Rand Corporation, a favorite of the Pentagon on National Security matters.

I heard the report early that morning on a news blip on NPR and went over to the Rand Site and found the report. I than posted about it on a number of sites as well as sent it out, all with back links.
There was also a link for a Congressional Briefing to be held on that day on the report.

At first I was shocked that very few picked up on the importance of this report, that day and the next, as well as the hearing. Than thinking about it later maybe I shouldn't have been surprised that few political boards saw the need to report and most certainly fewer MSM outlets as well. There's an Awful Lot of sheepish guilty consciouses that supported this criminal administration, and criminal it is, in the direction it started selling this 'War on Terrorism', and the MSM, purely for commercial profit, would love to see what their advertisers were paying for ads than, happily went along, War Sells Big Time! Hell these political people, the boards, the MSM, the majority of the voters even fear bringing charges and accountability, fear of what that may mean on the political front, to hell with the Constitution the Politics are more important!

There were a few people who like me tried to rattle the cages of these boards to pay attention, sadly they to were ignored. This morning truong son traveler had another great report posted on a couple of boards, after the MSM finally started to Get It, such as Keith Olbermann, after two days:

{ had to edit the end, didn't need the two reports prior and uploading, even with those cut off his last words, so I edited and put them in as closing text plus }

War on Terror? Criminal Terrorism!! The Rand Report

Other News outlets have also started grasping the importance of the Conservative Rand Corporations report and it's real meaning and have written it up, like these:

U.S. News and World Report

Since 2001, al Qaeda has conducted a greater number of attacks across a larger geographic area than at any time in its history. "We find it hard to agree that al Qaeda has been significantly weakened since Sept. 11, 2001," says Seth Jones, coauthor with Martin Libicki of the report titled "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaeda."

The authors evaluate al Qaeda since 2001 as being both "strong" and "competent."

What's needed, the report suggests, is a "fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy" to focus on minimizing overt military action and increasing intelligence collection and partnerships with law enforcement agencies around the world.

The report couldn't have been clearer in its refutation of one of the central tenants of the Bush administration's strategy against al Qaeda: the characterization of the conflict as a "global war." The administration has frequently attacked critics—especially Democrats—who say that counterterrorism should be built around law enforcement strategies.

As well as this:

Countering al Qaeda, a must-read for Pakistan from Reuters.

It’s probably unusual to link to a report by the RAND Corporation and an op-ed on Foxnews.com in the same blog, but since both address the same subject – tackling al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region – here goes.

The first is a detailed report by RAND called “How Terrorist Groups End”.

Its analysis of 648 groups that existed between 1968 and 2006 concludes that ”military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory.” Calling for a rethink of U.S. strategy, it argues that policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.”

And this:

Kerry Was Right from the Atlantic

As you may recall, back during the 2004 campaign John Kerry said something about counterterrorism being primarily a question to be dealt with through law enforcement and intelligence rather than something that should be understood as primarily a kind of war. George W. Bush was eager to pounce:

Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. My opponent said, and I quote, "The war on terror is less of a military operation, and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation." I disagree—strongly disagree.

After 9/11 many were saying exactly what this Rand Report is now saying, seven years into this so called 'War on Terror', as well as our allies and even countries considered our foes or rather not friendly towards us, in going after al Qaeda and international criminal terrorism. We, the United States, had universal support from all corners of this planet after the devastating attacks on our country, that support would have brought the intelligence, the law enforcement agencies, and the militaries, if needed, to our aid in tracking down these criminal terrorists. This administration saw it differently and much more dangerously, wage a War on unknown factions, label them all terrorists, kill and destroy, thus creating the hatreds needed to enhance the threat leading to a replacement for the phony 'Cold War' by a 'War on Terrorism' for the wealth and power of the few and a long lasting destructive endeavor for the World to handle, and soon they will walk away with their profits and we as a Nation will hold no one Accountable!

Let me tell a little story here. After we invaded Afghanistan and ousted the Taliban, still not catching the leaders of al Qaeda, Veterans started planning an action of a Teach In to take place in Washington and called Operation Dire Distress, we saw the writing on the wall, what we 'Nam Vets especially had promised we would never allow to happen again was about to do just that. The talk changed from Afghanistan to Iraq and invading that country and toppling that leader, though the Iraqi people had nothing to do with 9/11. As the drums of war with Iraq were beating louder the planning went on. The Teach In took place, at American University in DC, on Saturday March 22nd 2003, some two days after 'Shock and Awe' started destroying the country of Iraq and it's people, there were some 300 to 400 Veterans, from World War II to the 1st Gulf War, as well as family and friends of some, from around the country.

This link is a PDF of the VFP Newsletter from that time, after that weekend Veterans For Peace Newsletter

THE TEACH-IN - Saturday, March 22
The Kay Chapel at the American University, Washington, D.C.,
teach-in was packed all afternoon as speaker after speaker, with
solid knowledge and passionate eloquence, expertly laid out the fallacies
and falsehoods driving the war in Iraq, the ways it could have
been averted, with honor, and the need to end it quickly.
I was impressed by the sanity with which people who have
earned the right to speak as soldiers and citizens and patriots of the
highest order confronted the insanity of the actions of the Bush
administration. It was a long and illustrious list of combat nurses,
intelligence experts, academics, clerics, citizens of all stripes - people
like Bobby Muller, Daniel Ellsberg, Ray McGivern, Charles
Sheehan-Miles, Jamie Vasquez, Jonathan Schell, Charley
Richardson and Nancy Lessing of Military Families Speak Out, our
president, David Cline. C-Span saw fit to broadcast it for four solid
hours.

A number of the speakers listed above, and there were more, were saying almost the exact same thing this Rand Report is now saying and much more, and we along with a growing voice of millions, in this country and around the world, have said since!

The next day a wreath laying was planned for all the monuments to those lost in our previous conflicts in Honor to their Service as our Brothers and Sisters in uniform, at the time the World War II monument had just started to be constructed

Two things happened that next day that I'll never forget, one really moved me and others, the other showed us 'Nam Vets how far this country hadn't come and hos sheepish it's citizens truly are, first a cut from the newsletter:

THE PROCESSION - Sunday,
March 23
The day of the march was brisk and
sunny. Veterans and Military Families
from all over the country collected on a
knoll near the Vietnam Memorial. We listened
to a few, short speeches. Most of us
had our messages firmly placed in our
hearts and minds. In solemn procession
we made our way from one war memorial
to another.
At each, a small delegation of veterans
walked in and placed a wreath in
memory of those we knew and didn’t
know that were lost to their families.
Peter Shaw played his bagpipes on
each occasion but one; when he joined the
delegation to the Korean War memorial.
There we laid our arms on each others’ shoulders and kept a short
silence.
We visited the Office of Veterans Affairs. The Gulf War I vets,
of a war not yet memorialized, laid their wreath at the doorstep. In a
short speech, Erik Gustafson of EPIC and a member of VFP, noted
how the Congress voted out a resolution supporting the troops, yet,
at three the next morning, voted to cut billions from the budget of
the Office of Veterans Affairs over the next ten years.
The final official delegation delivered the VAIW statement of
purpose, signed by over 3000 veterans, ranking from Admirals and
Generals to PFCs, Airmen and Seamen, to the Whitehouse.
The President’s people refused to accept it.

The first, never to be lost memory, the one that moved me.

I had gotten to the Mall early in order to take some pictures of the War Memorials before the crowds started and the rest of the Veterans and friends showed up. There was a stage setup at the Lincoln Memorial didn't go over there and didn't know what it was for but was soon to find out. While there taking a few shots and waiting for the Vets I noticed people started showing up and heading down towards the stage area, none would look at me or if they did and I caught their eyes they would quickly look away. I asked a DC cop that was near by what the stage was for, it was a planned Clear Channel 'support The Troops' rally, now I understood why the no looks, I had my Veterans For Peace T-Shirt and Ballcap on, I'll explain in a moment.

The vets started coming to the mall, as we were talking DC park personal started showing up with crowd control tube barriers, they look like bicycle racks without the center bars, They set them up in a line along the hill between us and the Vietnam Memorial, i.e. the Lincoln Memorial. While this was taking place we were joined by some other Vets, from around the area, that hadn't been at the Teach In the day before. While talking I noticed one guy running towards us from the corner of the Mall. When he got up to us, out of breath, he asked who he should talk to to join VFP. Come to find out he had watched the Saturday Teach In on C-Span, jumped on a Red Eye out of Chicago and flew down to join us for Sunday's Wreath laying, he was a 'Nam Vet who hadn't been active prior to the debacle that had started a few days before.

Now to the second occurrence, the state of this Nations Citizens, and the Treatment of Veterans, though us 'Nam Vets had already lived with it for years.

See the picture above, see the horses, well about 8to10 of DC's finest showed up riding them and took a line along the barriers. They were extremely nice to us but told us we couldn't pass over, especially in masse to lay one of the Wreath's at the Vietnam Memorial as we planned, only a small group of 3 to 4 would be allowed to do that Honor. Now as there were Veterans from WWII, through Korea, to 'Nam and up to Gulf War I the majority were Korea to 'Nam and we weren't allowed to honor our Fallen Brothers of 'Nam because the police thought there might be trouble if we Veterans got to close to the Rally 'Supporting The Troops', it was at the rally organizers request to keep us Veterans Away! No one was approached by any attending this rally, some 200 or so, so not one Vet was asked if they wanted to attend a rally in Support Of Our New Generation Of Coming Conflict Veterans! They were waving American Flags, playing Patriotic Music, singing along with the Patriotic songs and making speeches of 'Supporting The Troops' while Spitting Once Again On The Veterans Who Had Served Them In Protection Of Their Freedom, supposedly, and Democracy, supposedly!

A problem arose, if we couldn't walk near this Patriotic Rally for our Service Members how does one get from the Vietnam Memorial and the others on that side of the reflecting pool to the Korean Memorial on the otherside, there was a fence up at the opposite end from the Lincoln Memorial for the WWII Construction, why one allows the DC Police to lead, enmasse, a walk through the reflecting pool which just happened to be empty for a well needed cleaning, like a miracle only the water didn't need to part!!

Think about the above and if you've ever been to DC you can get a picture of how we were treated and the Honor Wreath laying, about 400 Veterans Shunned by the Patriotic Americans they served and our brothers and sisters died for!!

You know, those Clear Channel Rallies were never attended by huge crowds nor did they last long, they sort of went quietly away as the cheap magnetic ribbons took over, they too have pretty much disappeared.

We were saying, and have since, Exactly what this Rand Corporation report is saying now, and Think how many have died, been maimed physically and mentally, not just soldiers but civilians of another small country and how much damage has been done and the hatreds now that have been created!!


you can get the press release here, you can get the full document here or a summary of the research brief here.

"How Terrorist Groups End"

The title above comes from a new Rand Corporation Report

After 7 years of conflict and occupations, with 893 coalition deaths -- 556 Americans, in Afghanistan and increasing, and 4,438 coalition deaths -- 4,124 Americans in Iraq and increasing, with tens of thousands of injured and maimed, physically and mentally, and millions of innocents in both countries killed, maimed, living as refugee's, fighting each other in sectarian civil wars, living in ethnically cleansed neighborhoods and area's in Iraq behind huge concrete blast walls, this "Think Tank?" comes out and says:

U.S. Should Rethink "War On Terrorism" Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida

Current U.S. strategy against terrorist organization al Qaida has not been successful at limiting the group's capabilities. Since Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks than ever before and over an increasingly broader range of targets.

No F'in Shit!!!!!

Millions of us, here and around the world, before the invasions and occupations, were saying exactly the same and more, and we weren't called a "Think Tank" we were labeled as "Focus Groups" not to be listened to, those here were labeled as "Unpatriotic", "Traitors", "Enemy Sympathizers", you name it "We Were In The Wrong" and the lying bastards of power Were Right, over seventy percent of this countries people Said So, and now hide from that support and tune out what the reality is!

And what does this "Think Tank" think we should do, not only this country but the world, well according to their press release:

Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group's capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.

Oh if you click the link directly above they'll sell you the study in paperback. But you can download the Full Document (File size 3.1 MB, 13 minutes modem, 2 minutes broadband) in PDF or download the Summary Only (File size 0.1 MB, 1 minute modem, 1 minute broadband) also in PDF.

From the site page linked above, a short description:

All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members (40 percent). Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory. This has significant implications for dealing with al Qa'ida and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-9/11 U.S. counterterrorism strategy: Policymakers need to understand where to prioritize their efforts with limited resources and attention. The authors report that religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups and rarely achieve their objectives. The largest groups achieve their goals more often and last longer than the smallest ones do. Finally, groups from upper-income countries are more likely to be left-wing or nationalist and less likely to have religion as their motivation. The authors conclude that policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al Qa'ida. And U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase “war on terrorism” since there is no battlefield solution to defeating al Qa'ida.

If you noticed in the above the terms "leftwing" and "nationalists" are used. While both so called ideologies, across many spectrum's not only political have their extremists I would argue that we recently became witness to a terrorists attack, on innocents, in a church, that from the reporting of it coming out hardly shows this terrorists was of a "leftwing" ideology, a "nationalists" maybe, but I doubt he even knows what that is.

And those we presently label as "Terrorist", any we wish as those naming wage terror, are hardly "leftwing", more of the extreme "rightside" of political, religious, and corporate entities.

If you also noticed, near the end of the above, it says, "U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase "war on terrorism" since there is no battlefield solution to defeating al Qa'ida."!

Now where have I heard that before, oh ya, from the Millions of us in the "Focus Groups" for over seven years! And what do they suggest we call it exactly, why "CounterTerrorism" instead, and why, because Terror is a Criminal Act and can only be gone after as a Crime finding and arresting, and if a fight ensues possibly killing, those carrying out these crimes, breaking up the organizations big and small, and I'll add change the policies the powerful practice to suppress any need for the disenfranchised to rebel against that power and those failed policies!

From the Press Release:

Among the other findings, the study notes:

* Religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups. Since 1968, approximately 62 percent of all terrorist groups have ended, while only 32 percent of religious terrorist groups have done so.

* No religious terrorist group has achieved victory since 1968.

* Size is an important predictor of a groups' fate. Large groups of more than 10,000 members have been victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory is rare when groups are smaller than 1,000 members.

* There is no statistical correlation between the duration of a terrorist group and ideological motivation, economic conditions, regime type or the breadth of terrorist goals.

* Terrorist groups that become involved in an insurgency do not end easily. Nearly 50 percent of the time they end with a negotiated settlement with the government, 25 percent of the time they achieved victory and 19 percent of the time, military groups defeated them.

* Terrorist groups from upper-income countries are much more likely to be left-wing or nationalistic, and much less likely to be motivated by religion.

"The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy and keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight," Jones said.

It took over seven years for this thinktank to come up with the obvious.

We waged War, mostly on Innocent Human Beings, using such catch phrases as "They hate our Freedom and Democracy", "They want to convert all to Islam", the so called leader? of the pack even used a term describing it was another "Religious War" and called himself a "War President" and "The Decider".

What we have done is create not only new generations of Hatred, we have made New Enemies of us and the World, tens of thousands if not millions, by the Failed Policies, the Death and Destruction, the Want To Control Them. And the generations behind us will be left dealing with the New World We Have Given Them!!

Once again, you can get the press release here, you can get the full document here or a summary of the research brief here. There is also a link for a Congressional Briefing to be held today:

Speakers: Seth Jones Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 Time: 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Location: 210 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C.

If televised I'm wondering if I should watch it, I'm afraid I might either start pulling out my hair or throw something into the tv screen, as I think of All that has been Done these past seven years and none can be taken back!!!!!!!