Superb analysis, but might there be additional reasons as to why the war on terror is being pursued to incompetently and illogically.  The strong US-ISI connections (regarded by many in Pakistan as a CIA outpost) may be significant, and that the early ISI activity carried out in Afghanistan was done with the US. 

Another factor may be the industries (and political ideologies) facing the wall at the end of the Cold War, which are now back on the gravy train with the clash of civilizations and Global war on Terror.

Owing to the geopolitical and strategically dominant position of Pakistan that it enjoys in the wider Middle Eastern theatre; this has always been a matter of concern for all the western intrusion forces assailing the area, to entice Pakistan and lure her in; in some sort of alliance; to act as proxy for them. This strategic domineering poise of Pakistan has earned her a good relations and preferred positions among the western allying forces. Pakistan has also been minting a good ‘Strategic rent monies’ in return for her services and assigned ventures, working as proxy. The record shows that in Afghan war against Soviet Union as well as in, on going American Adventurism; to keep the US terrorism agenda high; Pakistan is paid heftily for the jobs.
Assigned jobs to Pakistan demand a sure success and only a strong Army and its hardy, witty and courageous people can bring forth the desired success to get paid. No wonder; Pakistan has proven to be a special gun for hire.
Right from its inception; Pakistan geo physical existence and its survival has remained threatened from its arch rival; India. So much so that under the dire requirements, in order to save guard its security and sovereignty; very covertly; Pakistan acquired her Nuke armaments to be at par with India. As per information floating in the press; Pakistan has some 80-100 nukes in her valet ensuring her security. It is absurd to say that Pakistanis may not be able to guard their endeared assets that they guard so jealously.
From the prevalent impasse in the Middle East; this can be easily envisaged that the entire Middle East is some how under virtual occupation by the US lead forces. Iraq and Afghanistan have since fallen and Iran is being strangulated very viciously to concede. What could be the choice left for country like Pakistan; except to be on the right side of the US and relish its alliance?
When we try to high light the heftily payouts of rents monies to so called, the hirelings like Pakistan; we must not keep our eyes shut to look at the paymasters; standing behind in the shadows as oppressors with their illicit designs and what are these transactions for? In the present day; in the context of USA adventurism that US is seen riding the beast of Terrorism; exterminating any one in her way to secure a hegemonic hold in the economic resources ‘rich lands’ of Middle East and Central Asia. The manipulators and assailants like USA be observed closely for their rampage. They are targeting the poor defence less countries; by the means of isolating them and bombing them from above and subjugate them by force. US are very vehemently perusing her rapacious greed to attain a sole dominance in the area and bring it into her folds.

This is much more worrying some for all of us, if at all we care…that this wisdom less pursuit is turning the entire world against America; rather than trailing the sheer absurdity that how the rents money is spent by Pakistanis?

Mind you with all the tittle-tattel in the media to discredit Pakistan or its internal political turmoil; it has not made Pakistan to dither even an inch in its resolve…of a good ally in the war against terrorism.
————————& #8212;—————
Love for all, Hatred for none

This pretty much explains the basics, and fairly well.

Well Tony,

I guess it is sort of fun, in a rather frantic sort of a way. (I mean, the part about them having the nukes just really does sort of shake me up).

HOWEVER, it’s no secret that Dick Bush has given Musharraff 10.7 billion since 9/11 to supposedly ‘advance the war on terror” there on the alleged home front of it. And, I’ll have to dig through my stuff to find that source for you. I don’t know if it was some ‘special package’ or if it was included in all of the billions that Congress has continued to authorize for the ‘war on terror’ or the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now the OTHER part you mentioned, (which is sort of fun) is the funds that Pakistan may have received, (actually DID receive) to finance 9/11. Now I didn’t really make that connection myself. But, it has come up on the thread with the Scott Ritter piece on Iran. According to John Hanks, (on that thread, and it’s old, so you’ll probably have to search the archives) Pakistan served as the money launderer for that 9/11 operation. Some of the comments on that particular thread served as quite an ‘epiphany’ for me, and kind of helped me ‘seal’ in my mind, what I’d already surmised. I’m just really not at all convinced that OBL had a thing to do that operation, and I’m not convinced it was a ‘suicide’ operation by Arab terrorists either. (but then, I never did believe that 19 Wahhabists had been able to take over 4 cockpits and the 8 pilots in them). Nope, nope, nope,….not buying that at all.

As for the Saudis, I’m sure they’ve provided much of the financing, (which probably includes the 9/11 operation) but it’s really hard to know how much they’ve provided to the al-Qaeda group in general, and even WHICH ‘branch’. I mean, to read the neoconner controlled media of the past 6 years, they’ve just got franchises sprouting up all over the place.

But the ‘original’ al-Qaeda, as put together by Osama bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, I suspect ran out of money a long time ago. So, my guess is the more ‘active’ branch, the Taliban connected al-Qaeda, is being funded by US, via Musharraff and his goons in the ISI. At least that’s what this article leads me to believe, now that Scott has made those connections. I know we’ve given a whole bunch of money to Musharraff, like more than any other country in the past 6 years, save maybe Israel..since they get what, about $3billion a year?

Now, when OBL and Zawahiri first hooked up their starter branch, (in conjunction with the Taliban) it was because Zawahiri had the ‘smarts’ and the militant ‘vision’ and OBL had the bucks. But, I think they ran out of money a while back. So, I don’t know where else it could be coming from, other than from the Saudis, and like I said…our tax dollars, and the kids’ college funds, and the rent money, and the grocery money,  and whatever else we’ve borrowed from China.

As for Osama, I agree that it’s a nice enough name, though I don’t know that it’s similar sounding version is doing much more than giving grief to Barak. Then again, I never had anything against his name, but if he keeps talking about Reganomics as something of a model, his name is gonna be the least of his problems.

Meantime, I think the OBL that we’re talking about probably is exactly what you’ve said, since I still think he’s dead. I mean, how long can a tall skinny guy like him survive in some cave, dragging a dialysis machine around with him? It’s true that he was a hypochondriac, but part of it was legit. He did have a bunch of health issues, and kidney failure can really put a dent in the average terrorist’s lifestyle.

Still, I do like the name. It sure beats Jamal. I remember back a couple of decades ago, when tons of black folks were naming their kids “Jamal”. That was OK for a minute, until it got to be really old, and worn. I think Osama is a lot better. Not likely to become ‘dated’ anytime soon.

Wowie Zowie, thanks, great maps and especially Asia 1801.  I agree, my how things have changed.

So who is this tough professional army loyal to?  Musharraf? What about the ISI? Haven’t they supported the Taliban for years? Why have we been sending Musharraf all those billions? How do you know there aren’t all sorts of Islamic militants high in the Pakistani army. Can’t Islamic militants be “tough professionals” too?

If some secret part of our government has been funding Al Qaeda through Musharraf since 2001, it also must have funded them to do 9-11, and helped the attack succeed from this side in other ways as well.

On the other hand, I thought Al Quaeda was funded by various rich Sunni Arabs. After all, Osama is very popular in some parts. Lots of parents are naming their kids “Osama”. It is a nice name. He’s a legend in his own time, dead or not. He is idolized in some places as much as hated in others. If he is dead, he has metastisized. He is a spirit now. But it seems to me like the Al Qaeda - Taliban alliance is still there, and it is not too far away from taking over Pakistan and controlling nuclear weapons.

Your “go” is much appreciated as I don’t actually expect to hear from Ritter.  Thanks a bunch; you obviously have been paying attention.  Thanks for the link; I’ll read it.  I had no idea the Saudis had far reaching influence outside of the U.S. and it’s oil addiction.

Cyrena,

Thanks for not taking my “freedom and democracy” sarcasm literally.

I’ll be looking for those titles you recommend.  And you certainly see that we share a deep disdain for the GWOT.  Why not start a think tank, it doesn’t seem that most of those people have any qualification beyond having listened to themselves for so long that they know they must be right.

Cheers

Expat,

While i cannot answer for Mr. Ritter, i’ll give your question a go…with a lot of help from Steve Coll and his book “Ghost Wars”.

“After the upheavals of 1979, Crown Prince Fahd, soon to become king, saw Pakistan as Saudia Arabia’s most muscular reliable ally on its eastern flank.  He authorized his intelligence service to open its bountiful treasury to Akhtar’s ISI.” (p. 73)

Prince Turki al-Faisal took over the Saudi GID in the mid-79’s and his reign lasted more than 20 years.

“As much as any individual, Prince Turki became an architect of Afghanistan’s destiny—and of American engagements with Islamic radicalism—in the two decades after 1979.  He picked winners and losers among Afghan commanders, he funded Islamist revolutionaries across the Middle East, he created alliances among these movements, and he paid large subsidies to the Pakistan intelligence service, aiding its rise as a kind of shadow government.” (p. 73)

Ahmed and Saeed Badeeb, two of Turki’s aides played a prominent role.  After the Soviet invasion, “...President Zia [sent a message] warning that Saudi Arabia itself faced danger if the Soviet incursion wasn’t checked.  Soon Badeeb began his shuttle to Islamabad and Peshawar, sometimes hauling his wooden boxes of cash.” (p.81)

“Geographically, Turki thought, Pakistan offered the best path to confront Soviet ambitions.  Aid to the Afghan revels channeled through Pakistan’s army and intelligence service would also helpfully strengthen Pakistan as a regional ally after the devastation of its war with India in 1971.” (p. 81)

In 1980, the US and Saudi Arabia formally agreed to match funds to the mujahedin.  The money was funneled to Swiss accounts via the Saudi embassy in D.C., and it was controlled by Bandar bin Sultan. (and there was/is speculation that he played with the money to turn a personal profit)

“Turki took a personal interest in the Afghan program, traveling to Pakistan up to five times a month.  Turki ‘did not object [to] entering Afghanistan,’ Ahmed Badeeb recalled.” (p. 82)

”...it became clear to both Turki and Badeeb that Pakistani intelligence had decided to back the Taliban at Hekmatyar’s expense.  Saudi intelligence had no objection to this betrayal: Hekmatyar had angered Turki by denouncing Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War.” (p. 296)

“As the Taliban grew in military strength, so did the breadth and depth of its leaders’ contacts with Saudi Arabia.  Saudi intelligence maintained a close and direct relationship with ISI, allowing it to bypass the civilian government of Benazir Bhutto.  Hamid Gul and other former ISI generals consulted with Prince Turki, traveled frequently to Saudi Arabia, and encouraged Saudi intelligence to support the Taliban.  By one account Saudi intelligence paid annual cash bonuses to senior ISI officers designated by the Pakistani intelligence chief.  Financial aid and discounted oil supplies from Riyadh buoyed the treasuries of Pakistan’s army and intelligence service during these lean years of American economic sanctions.  The Saudi liaison strengthened ISI as a shadow government within Pakistan and helped it to resist civilian political oversight.” (p. 296)

The amount of Saudi payments has never been disclosed, but is estimated that in some years it was in the hundreds of millions.  This allowed, and promoted, the ISI to fund its proxy forces in Kashmir and Afghanistan. (p. 296)

I hope that helps…

You might also want to check out this article in the NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/world/asia/15isi. html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

It seems that the ISI may have lately lost control of those proxies.

I hope you review your post comments.

Scott writes:
“The al-Qaida-Taliban connection was also seen by the ISI as a means of maintaining contacts with Saudi and other Gulf Arab sources of funds needed not only to sustain stability inside Afghanistan but to promote instability inside Indian-occupied Kashmir.”

Scott, I don’t understand the connection.  Afghani’s and Pakistanis are not Arabs, so what’s the connection, Bin Laden?  Because he’s Arab?  Do the Arab interests go that far from Arabia?  Please explain this if you will, I’m a bit confused.
That said, I read everything you post; very informative.  Thanks in advance.

The problem with formulating coherent strategy in a complex region, is that only a small group of experts will understand the issues. Politics tends to look at all problems as simple one dimensional issues, and those whose actions can be painted as not supporting the simplistic one-dimension solution can be easily vilified. So unless the problem is off the radar of the voters, policies consistient with the complexities are impossible.

Ah yes…the continuation of the GWOT. Without those ‘terrorists’ al-Qaeda or otherwise, we’d have little reason to continue it, eh? Because of course, WITHOUT THEM, we’d have little reason to ever have begun it to begin with. So, which came first, the terrorists, or the GWOT, and are they not both creations of a sort? What caused the terrorists, since ‘terrorism’ based on an ideology is certainly as old as dirt, and we need only look to Hilter’s Germany, or Russia’s Stalin, or Mussolini’s Italy, to see that. So, when did it become Global, and is it really only perpetrated by this little group of folks called al-Qaeda, or are they just a result of terror that has come long before them? Indeed, a cycle.

So, indeed I do believe in freedom and democracy, at least for the US, since that’s been what we’ve claimed as guiding light for this experiment we’ve been working for nearly 300 years. That’s not to say that ‘democracy’ for every other nation state needs to take the same form as American democracy, since ‘democracy’ by it’s very nature, has to be decided by the people who intend to be governed by it. And yes, I’m really big on ‘freedom’ as well.

As for the GWOT, you can probably ascertain my personal distain in all of that. What a most grotesque joke. “Terrorists” are created, so that we can have a global war against a concept or a tactic that has been in use since the beginning of time. Wanna be ‘terrorized’? Check out the Old Testament.

I’ll read the book you recommended. Another one is by Richard Falk, entitled simply enough, “The Great Terror War”. I also highly recommend “Terror in the Mind of God” by Mark Juergensmeyer. And there’s a film, produced in Britain, (I THINK) that I was able to see a couple of years ago, as part of a special event here. It’s called the Power of Nightmares. It’s a good look at the origins of this most recent phenomena of “Global Terror”, though I don’t know how easy it would be to come by.

Meantime, we’ll just keep reading and writing, and we’ll be able to start our own ‘think tank”. (we can hire each other).

Excellent quote by the way. Terror is a requirement to fullfilling any totalitarian order.

Benazir Bhutto’s assassination; a little will be understood, what it truly means;till the phenomena of Arab-Nationalism is not very well perceived in it’s true context; which is revered so earnestly in Arab lands and it is sprawling fast in the broader Middle East which begins in Pakistan and ends on the Atlantic Ocean coast.

The famous pathology of Arab Nationalism was initiated, soon after; when the Arabs revolted against Ottoman Empire. It created a split of Arab world from the Greater reins of Islam under Turk. The Centuries old connections with the traditional aspirations of knowledge, wisdom, sciences; the hallmarks and true founding essence of glory of Islam, emanating from the lands of– Persia and Turks, were severed. In pursuance of the pathology of Arab Nationalism; new motives were worked out to build up the ‘Arabists culture’ and various other practices in Islam were infused in society. A famous motto; “There is something more important than ‘money and learning’ for preserving the honour of a nation and for keeping humiliation at bay”, it emphasised that, “That is strength; Strength….means to excel in the Profession of Death.” It was vigorously cultivated among masses by the radicals.

‘When the greatest values are set as to preach and glorify death by the radicals; what kind of ideology, what kind of society, what kind of values; could such priorities produce? We need to look and see’.

‘And what can be achieved when those who are the most forward-looking and most creative, who want to break with the ideas and methods creating a disastrous mess, the stagnant system which characterizes so much of the Broader Middle East, are systematically murdered like ; Benazir Bhutto, who met her tragic end while trying to step out of the line?’

‘There is long list of victim of these radicals: king Abdullah of Jordan, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon, bold author Farouk Fawda in Egypt, Iraqi Sunnis who dare seek compromise, Palestinian moderates, Algerian modernists, and thousands of women who seek a moderate degree of freedom.’

Can anyone really expect a stable society capable of progress in Pakistan when a large majority of the population expresses admiration for Bin Laden and Saudi favoured radical system is found well infused into society in Pakistan?

‘These radical forces in the region are not expecting to retain or gain power by negotiating, compromising, or being better understood. They believe they are going to shoot their way into power or, just as good, accept the surrender of those they have intimidated.’

Possibly; who needs enemies; when you got friends like our radical brethren at hand?

A couplet:
*Your adversaries may not be that vehement free to inflict pain upon you.
*When ever it happens; one finds; they were our own ‘nears and dears’ at their play.
————————& #8212;—————-
Love for all, Hatred for none
(** text excerpt from speeches of Pan-Arab nationalists such as Satia Al-Husri and Sami Shawkat- 1933)

I could believe the U.S. arms contractors

This might have been the dire requirement of Pakistan that in the face of typical conventional threats from its long term arch-adversary; India; in order to achieve the desired depth in Pakistan Defences; Pakistan was keeping its Afghan borders porous. Later on same porous borders served very well during Afghan war against Soviet Union to facilitate the movements of troops (Mujahideen), as well as their logistic arms, and ammunition.

Soon after the end of Afghan war; with out an ample warning and time given to Pakistan that it was still stuck with the aftermath mess of Afghan War; USA (which was now a sole super power) launched an offensive in Middle East and physically moved in and gained a foot hold in Iraq; US had a deferred plan to finally move into Afghanistan to achieve a full control of Broader Middle East i.e. (Pakistan, Central Asia and Middle East) and beyond.

The incident of 9/11 in USA enabled a wide range escalation and a boost in the operations in the Middle East war theatre. A splinter organisation of Old Mujahideen Forces; Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was declared as Terrorist and US enemy in context of 9/11 incident. An extensive carpet bombing of selected areas in Afghanistan was carried out. This unwarranted provocation was seen without any justification and resulted into mass migration of people from Afghanistan to Pakistan. These unprovoked attacks turned the people in Afghanistan and the migrants against USA.

In Middle East; Iraq has now successively been manipulated with to shed its sovereignty; and finally it is emerging as American mega base; a well defined American Launching Pad for its subsequent offensives to secure Afghanistan and Central Asian states. But after Iraq the hurdle of Iran is proving to be a hard case to tackle. Afghanistan is the priority followed by the next target Pakistan. Pakistan is a sole nuclear power in Islamic world. This monster needs to be tamed and subjugated along with its nuclear assets as well as the communication deep sea ports, to form a secured American Strategic border line against the emerging world powers of future in the region like china and India. 

In Afghanistan US is already there along with the NATO forces. In view of the toilsome situation being experienced with Iran that it is taking too long to concede; it is most likely that Iran is by passed and US moves on.

After 9/11; Pakistan although accepted US terms in good faith to go along with USA in its war against Terrorism but it has been very difficult for Pakistan to change the realities on ground and achieve a 100 % successes to convince and subdue the angered Taliban in Afghanistan as well as their old affiliates living in Pakistan Tribal belts; not to turn against USA.

It is but imperative for Pakistan that it sends back all the Afghan migrants (in millions) back to Afghanistan; clears out all the Taliban-Al Qaeda elements from its troubled tribal belt along the Afghan border, where Taliban elements have also infiltrated and farmed havens; and also make it sure that Pakistan attains a water tight security of its border to take out remnants of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates and make the clearing up operation a success.

Benazir Bhutto assassination is a major blow for Pakistan and it has thrown Pakistan in to a thick of turmoil and anarchy. But Pakistanis are very versatile and resilient lot. They know how to meet the difficult goals even in the direful and precarious situations. To tackle the odds and turn the failures into success are the traits and hallmarks of their dynamism which distinguish them from others.
————————& #8212;————
Love for all, Hatred for none

You said:

“The fundamental flaw is that military might will not, because it cannot, quell terrorism.”

You know you are so right about that and I actually already knew that and now I am sitting here wondering how the hell I failed to apply that fact to my reading of this! I am constantly muttering to myself every time I read or hear those infernal words “Global War on Terror.” Aside of the other good points you make this one pretty much should have bitten me. Geez I can be thick.

It is pretty much unanimous that going into Afghanistan was justified and necessary, but only because questioning the invasion of Afghanistan would necessitate questioning 9/11 as a whole.  It would require bringing up embarrassing little tidbits like UBL not having 9/11 on his FBI rap sheet.  Or the fact that the Bush administration was trying to work with the Taliban previous to 9/11 for building a little pipeline.

The rest of the world was pretty well horrified by 9/11 too, and since the Taliban didn’t have many fans around the world they were easy to pick on.

But ask any great power, Afghanistan is not the place you want to put your troops.  It looks good on the map, pivot point for controlling Eurasia and all that, but reality on the ground is a far cry from reality on a map.

The fundamental flaw is that military might will not, because it cannot, quell terrorism.  It did not work for the British in Ireland.  It did not work for the Israelis.  And it most especially does not work in harsh countries made up of constantly warring tribes.

My take on Ritter’s statement is that the military invasion of Afghanistan was flawed, and i have agreed with that from the beginning.

Here’s an interesting little side note: when we were supporting the terrorists, er, freedom fighters, the University of Nebraska printed a bunch of school books that taught Afghan kids math by using AK-47’s and dead Russians instead of apples and oranges.  When we invaded, George Bush talked about how the schools were “indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry.”  Guess what books they were using?

Ritter says:

“Does this mean that the appropriate policy direction of the United States should be to wage war against Pakistan, as we have against the Taliban in Afghanistan?  Absolutely not.  The experience of Afghanistan shows that without a doubt the policies embraced by the Bush administration in pursuing its war on terror were fundamentally flawed.”

I thought it was pretty much unanimous that going into Afghanistan was justified and necessary. It appears he is saying that it was the same as would be going into Pakistan which would be to me - hard to believe! - a worse idea than Iraq. So first of all, am I understanding him and is he right do you all think? I can see how maybe I’m misunderstanding him and perhaps he is saying that the prosecution of the occupation of Afghanistan was the blunder. The “as we have” is what gets me. It could mean either! That or my brain isn’t handling the language which I have to admit is possible.

Scott Ritter addresses the Pakistan problem very maturely.

After all, “God has a special providence for Jihadies, I.S.I of Pakistan, fools like Musharraff and the policies of United states of America.

Well, Cyrena, we “know” that Al-Qaeda is still in operation because it has to be; if it were not then we would have little reason to continue the GWOT.  And the only way to preserve freedom and democracy is to fight a global war on terror.  The presence and operation of al-Qaeda is a necessary prerequisite for freedom and democracy to stand strong.  Consequently, Al-Qeada exists because it must exist, and if it didn’t exist then we would, in order to preserve freedom and democracy, have to create it.  You do believe in freedom and democracy, don’t you?  If so, then you must also believe in Al-Queda and the grave threat that it poses.

(Ahem, sorry, i’ve been thinking that it would be fun to apply for some jobs at DC think tanks, so i’m practicing my essay questions…)

I read this quote in a book called “The Infernal Machine” by Matthew Carr (excellent, highly recommended history of terrorism):

“The state can’t let terrorism die.  It’s the only thing keeping it afloat.” ~an Algerian government official to the journalist Adam Shatz in 2002.

This article is an excellent expose of our BFF in Central Asia, and yet another example of those famed, short-sighted foreign policy decisions that come back to bite America on the ass.  We can be sure that when it happens, the government officials will all look shocked.  They will wring their hands, gnash their teeth, and cry out, “Why us, oh Lord, why is our benevolent innocence so hated?”  And then of course, we’ll prove our benevolence and innocence by sending the B-52’s and funneling money to some other nefarious character who promises to hate our new worst enemy with a vehemence that outstrips ours.  And the cycle repeats itself…

Excellent piece from Scott, except of course that I still think Osama bin-Laden is dead. So, if in fact his al-Qaeda operation lives on, it’s obviously supported primarily by the ISI. Aside from al-Zawahiri, the co-chair of the original organization, the Arab numbers of that organization were obviously never overwhelming…no more than a few hundred sent into Afghanistan for the mujahedeen effort against the Soviets. And, despite OBL’s grand fantasies from 2 decades ago, (such as taking on Saddam when he had the 4th strongest army in the world) al-Qaeda has never been that big of a force without support from the Taliban and the ISI. I mean, how many Arabs did al-Zawahiri bring to the operation? OBL had the money, but who’s funding them now?

Is that where the $10.7 billion we’ve given to Musharraff has gone? One would have to assume, that if we’ve given all of these billions (since 2001) to Musharraff, to fight the so-called ‘global war on terror’, and the ISI is supporting al-Qaeda and the Taliban, (or at least protecting them) then we must be funding them. Why have the DC Thugs given them so much of our money? And it’s NOT a ‘secret’ that Pakistan has been protecting them, as Scott points out, but of course we’ve already seen that in these past 6 years.

So, we’re funding the terrorists (or at least the ones that we claim to be the attackers on 9/11) via Pakistan, and our continued military presence in the region is contributing to the instability, as Musharraff continues to play both ends against the middle, with georgies help, and our money. I mean, isn’t that what it pretty much boils down to?

Meantime, I still think Osama is dead, and we haven’t heard from Zawahiri since the beginning of the ‘surge’. How do we even know al-Qaeda is still in operation?