Osama is weak. He wants to make a truce with America. Why? Because his popularity is declining in the Muslim world. They are tired of seeing their brothers blowing themselves up and looking as stupid as donkeys. And the fact that America is in the Muslim world to stay. And destroy the Islam religion and it's false teachings. Even Osama knows this now. He is old, tired of running and broken. Too bad. He will not get his wish. America is in the Middle East to stay. And take all the oil.
. February 10, 2006 SouthAmerica: Osama Bin Ladden â a man with no army â has forced the United States into a "New Cold War." Pentagon officials are relieved that they finally found a new theme to justify the Pentagon pissing away over $ 500 billion dollars per year â even though today there is no army around the world that can be a threat to American national security. Most Americans will buy the new theme â "The New Cold War" â since a terrorist attack does not sound right when the threat is coming only from a hand full of individuals â the US looks foolish spending $ 500 billion dollars per year to defend themselves from just a small bunch of people. But the âNew Cold Warâ reminds us that the Soviets are coming â and according to the Pentagon this time around the Chinese are also coming. These days Rumsfeld and the Pentagon are very scared of the Chinese army since they are catching up to the US so fast. Defense Budget for year 2005: United States = $ 469 billion dollars plus Iraq and Afghanistan. The real total is away over $ 500 billion dollars per year. China = $ 30 billion dollars per year. The United States is spending $ 17 billion dollars for each $ 1 billion dollar the Chinese is spending. According to the military industrial complex in the US - for America to be safe the Defense Budget should be increased to a total of $ 3 trillion dollars per year. And now, here is the Pentagon and itâs latest theme â âThe New Cold War.â ************** The Australian âIt's the new cold war, and it may go on even longerâ National security editor Patrick Walters February 11, 2006 THE "long war", as the Pentagon now calls the global struggle against Islamist terrorism, has now become the decisive factor in US defence planning, fundamentally shifting the strategic direction of America's armed forces. This week's quadrennial defence review released by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld starkly illustrates just how far the challenge of terrorism is recasting US defence policy and, in turn, those of its closest allies including Australia. The intensity of the US global effort is only barely appreciated in Australia. On any given day nearly 350,000 men and women of the US armed forces, deployed or stationed in approximately 130 countries, are engaged in the global struggle. "They are battle-hardened from operations over the past four years, fighting the enemies of freedom as part of this long war," the review says. Critical to US military strategy in the long war will be the assistance rendered by its closest friends. Washington now expects Australia will be there for the long haul -- in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The Pentagon's equivalent of Australia's defence white paper outlines for the first time a considered US military strategy for prosecuting the war on terrorism. It cites, also for the first time in a public defence document, the great store the Pentagon places on its "unique relationships" with Britain and Australia, whose forces "stand with the US military in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other operations". Implicit in the Pentagon's thinking is that Canberra will become even more closely intertwined with US military operations against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates across the globe. We can expect to be called on to contribute to a wider range of missions, including covert and special operations missions in the years ahead. "Currently, Iraq and Afghanistan are crucial battlegrounds in this war, but the struggle extends far beyond their borders and may well be fought in dozens of other countries simultaneously and for many years to come. Al-Qa'ida and its associated movements operate in more than 80 countries," the review notes. Rumsfeld this week compared the long war against terrorism with the cold war rather than traditional military conflicts such as World War II. "This war - like the cold war before it - will be a struggle against a hateful ideology that has attempted to hijack Islam for its nefarious purposes. "It's not going to be settled with a signing ceremony on the USS Missouri," Rumsfeld said, emphasising that the US was now in the fifth year of a conflict "that is perhaps unprecedented in its complexity". According to Rumsfeld the long war is transforming the way US forces "fight and defend our country." The review outlines progress in the global war on terrorism reflecting the Pentagon's view of a world markedly changed since 2001 when the last review appeared just weeks before 9/11. It cites four priorities as the new focus of US defence planning: defeating terrorist networks, defending the homeland, shaping the choices of countries at strategic crossroads, and preventing hostile states and non-state actors from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Earlier this week, Rumsfeld trumpeted real successes in the war to date including the "liberation" of more than 50 million Afghans and Iraqis from "despotism, terrorism and dictatorship". Attacks against al-Qa'ida had resulted in the death or incarceration of the majority of its top leadership with the US working in a global coalition with more than 75 countries to defeat terrorism. The review promises a US military that will be both more agile and more expeditionary, able to deploy even more rapidly to trouble spots across the globe. The shift in emphasis is from a peacetime tempo to a "wartime sense of urgency" with the accent on truly integrated land, sea and air forces capable of dealing with a more diverse range of threats. According to the review, enemies of the US are likely to pose asymmetric threats, including "irregular, catastrophic and disruptive challenges. Some states, and some non-state actors will pursue WMD to intimidate others or murder hundreds of thousands of people". New capabilities will be introduced. The air force will establish an unmanned aerial vehicle squadron under the command of US Special Operations Command and the navy will develop a riverine warfare capability. It foreshadows long-duration, complex operations with allies around the globe waging irregular warfare including clandestine operations using special forces and other agencies. The defence review proposes a 15 per cent boost in special operations forces and a 33 per cent increase in the Pentagon's psychological operations and civil affairs units or an increase of 3700 personnel. It aims to increase drastically the number of defence personnel proficient in Arabic, Farsi and Chinese languages. "The department must foster a level of understanding and cultural intelligence about the Middle East and Asia comparable to that developed about the Soviet Union during the cold war," the document asserts. At home the Pentagon will fund a $1.5 billion initiative over the next five years to develop broad-spectrum medical counter-measures against the ongoing threat of genetically engineered bio-terror agents. The review is realistic in acknowledging that the long war cannot be won solely through military force. "The United States, its allies and partners, will not win this long war in a great battle of annihilation." In the long-run, victory will depend on effective strategic communication by the US and its international partners. As Canberra contemplates a fresh troop deployment to Iraq, the review is candid about just how high the stakes in the crucial struggle still under way in Iraq really are. "Al Qa'ida and its associated movements recognise Iraq as the place of the greatest battle of Islam in this era... Success in building a secure, free Iraq will deal the enemy a crippling blow." The Bush administration has refrained from putting public pressure on Australia to contribute more forces to Iraq and Afghanistan. But, according to military sources, there is a clear expectation that Australian ground forces will still be involved in Iraq long after the projected pullout of the Al Muthanna task force later this year. Rumsfeld this week also warned of the risk of WMD finding their way into the hands of terrorist groups, noting that the expanded special operations forces would have a role to play in countering the terrorist/WMD threat at home and abroad. The intensely debated notion that Islamist terror groups such as al-Qa'ida would conceivably deploy nuclear weapons against the US and its allies was an argument advanced by coalition leaders for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Bush and Howard have called this WMD scenario the ultimate nightmare for Western nations. This week in Canberra Alexander Downer told a seminar on terrorists and WMD that Australia and its allies could no longer depend solely on "traditional approaches" to contain the spread of WMD. At the same forum, one of Britain's leading defence thinkers, Lawrence Freedman, questioned the practical difficulties and strategic utility of groups such as al-Qa'ida deploying such "hyper-terrorism" weapons. "This might meet some grand ideological purpose but the effects would be so cataclysmic and unpredictable in their consequences that this would hardly be strategic in the narrow sense or military means geared to define political ends. "The various narrower objectives proclaimed by terrorist groups - chasing the Americans out of Iraq, undermining and even eliminating the state of Israel, overthrowing apostate regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere - do not necessarily need WMD," Freedman argued. While it is important never to lose sight of the possibility that a terrorist group might choose the ultimate weapon it is also important to keep in mind that the most likely terrorist threat will be much more ordinary and familiar, he concluded. .
You really believe OBL is a âman without an army.â Sounds romantic to you, just like your beloved Che Guevara. And when the governments are problematic to begin with, these people rise to influence because of their popular civilian support. This often leads to revolutions, new armies and new nations that spread their way of life at the detriment of ours. America did not âmakeâ bin Laden, the Sunni Muslim world made bin Laden. We only reacted to it because we had to. Bin Laden is a symbol of what a popular movement in the Muslim World wants to be, and it cost us 9/11, and all the shit that happened in Europe since then. What do you expect us to do now? Understand their feelings even more? Perhaps Bush should publicly condemn the millions of Muslims who love bin Laden. But that is not a smart political strategy, since a lot of Muslims are sitting on the fence. Itâs not about bin Laden, or going after him; Itâs about the popular momentum that made him happen, and how we are forced to deal with it.