In response to:

Defining al Qaeda

rfriedman Wrote: Oct 19, 2012 10:43 AM
Not a relative to George. Allow me a botanical analogy. There are many trees and plants that establish taproots. Once that taproot is established, they will send out runners, often subterranean, that will sprout at distances from the taproot. Those sprouts can often emerge through asphalt and even concrete earth coverings. Hence the question, Is al Qaeda a 'taproot' or a a 'sprout'? A rhetorical question, for in no way is al Queda a 'taproot'. And destroying a' sprout' will not prevent the source, the taproot, from generating additional 'runners' and sprouts. I note that George Friedman carefully avoids mentioning any of the 'runners' developing in the USA, or in Western Europe.

The Obama administration's efforts to counter the threat posed by al Qaeda and the wider jihadist movement have been a contentious topic in the U.S. presidential race. Political rhetoric abounds on both sides; administration officials claim that al Qaeda has been seriously crippled, while some critics of the administration allege that the group is stronger than ever. As with most political rhetoric, both claims bear elements of truth, but the truth depends largely on how al Qaeda and jihadism are defined. Unfortunately, politicians and the media tend to define al Qaeda loosely and incorrectly.

The jihadist threat will persist regardless...