Top 3 reasons why Al Qaeda is more dangerous than ever

On the one-year anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death, defense analysts say that there are plenty of reasons to think that a resurgence of the perniciously resourceful Al Qaeda is not out of the question.

3. Afghanistan is still an Al Qaeda safe haven

AP Photo
US soldiers walk to pass a makeshift bridge on a patrol in Parun, the capital of Nuristan province, east of Kabul, Afghanistan, in this July 2008 file photo. Nuristan and the province of Kunar are areas in Afghanistan where Al Qaeda groups may be gaining ground.

The aim of America’s war in Afghanistan was to make sure that the country was never again used as a safe haven from which terrorist groups might launch attacks on the US or its interests around the world. But a decade later, there are areas in northeastern Afghanistan, including the tough mountainous provinces of Nuristan and Kunar, where Al Qaeda groups are once again “establishing a foothold,” Jones says.

As the US prepares to end its combat role in the country by 2014 – and Pakistan continues to push for an end to drone strikes that have targeted top Al Qaeda leadership in its ungoverned tribal regions – the pressure on the terrorist organization is waning. “The growing concern I have is that as we cede control of more territory, Al Qaeda can use that territory for a resurgence,” Jones adds.

Indeed, after each wave of US successes against Al Qaeda – in western Anbar Province in Iraq, following the Sunni uprising, for example – “there have been predictions that Al Qaeda is largely dead,” Jones says. At the moment, however, as the Pentagon shifts its strategy towards Asia and, concurrently, prepares to send US Marines to bases in northern Australia, while pulling them out of southern Afghanistan, the US military is “in a bit of a bind,” he adds.

The solution may be working with tribal leaders through “village stability operation” teams of US Special Forces partnered with Afghan forces. “You don’t need large numbers of Special Operations Forces,” Jones says. “Just enough forces to maintain some influence on the ground – I think that’s frankly our best shot.”

3 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.