Getty Images
Deputy al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi
There have been sardonic jokes for years about the job security -- or lack thereof -- for al Qaeda's #2 leader, and you can expect to hear a lot more of them today.
Over the weekend, U.S. officials launched drone strikes in Pakistan, targeting Abu Yahya al-Libi, a leading al Qaeda official seen as a top candidate to succeed Osama bin Laden last year. It was initially unclear, however, whether the terrorist leader was killed in the attack.
Today, multiple accounts report that al-Libi was, in fact, killed.
Deputy al-Qaida leader Abu Yahya al-Libi was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan, U.S. officials told NBC News.
A U.S. drone struck a militant compound early Monday morning in North Waziristan, part of Pakistan's northwestern tribal area. Pakistan security reports indicated the pre-dawn strike killed 15 insurgents. That brought the total killed in three attacks over the past several days to nearly 30.
Libyan al-Libi was no small player. The New York Times profiled the terrorist leader in 2008, and quoted Jarret Brachman, a former CIA analyst who became research director of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, who said of al-Libi, "He's a warrior. He's a poet. He's a scholar. He's a pundit. He's a military commander. And he's a very charismatic, young, brash rising star within A.Q., and I think he has become the heir apparent to Osama bin Laden in terms of taking over the entire global jihadist movement."
Today, a U.S. official told NBC News al-Libi's death is "a major blow" to al-Qaida -- "removing the number two leader twice in less than a year, further damaging the group's morale and cohesion and bringing it closer to its ultimate demise than ever before."
In the larger context, as the debate over the Obama administration's reliance on drone killings continues, the list of al Qaeda leaders killed in recent years continues to grow. Some are more notable than others, and Abu Yahya al-Libi is certainly one of the most high-profile al Qaeda leaders to have been killed since 2009.
In a purely political context, al-Libi's demise is unlikely to have a major electoral effect -- Mitt Romney recently argued counter-terrorism isn't an issue "people care about" -- but as the president's re-election team makes the case that the Obama administration has "decimated" al Qaeda, it now appears to have another example to bolster the argument.
I don't doubt the right will still insist that the president is "weak" on counter-terrorism -- remember when Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) argued terrorists would be "dancing in the streets" if Obama won the presidency? -- but under the circumstances, it's an attack that's hard to take seriously.
Leave a Comment:
Obama - The smart player
I always said that the British model of sustained police work and intelligence is a more effective way to fight terrorism than rolling tanks and wasting American lives .
Those terrorists have to know , there is no safe haven and they must live their lives looking over their shoulder.
Another one gone and no American lives put at risk
Well said! That's exactly how that journalist escaped when he was kidnapped by the Taliban. He said they were all in a tent and all of a sudden he just seen asses and elbows running everywhere. He then was able to escape. The drones have a certain sound when they are above. The Taliban knew this from experience.
It is wonderful that Pres. Obama is taking the high ground when it comes to terrorism.
As odd as it sounds, drone strikes like this are the leverage that is required to get political leaders to get control of their own countries, like Pres. Asif Ali Zardaria.
Pakistan can't complain too loud about the drone strike without giving back the foreign aid money.
Pres. Obama has absolute control.
Republicans can't figure out how to criticize him without sounding like idiots.
Funny situation.
Exactly.
We've had over ten years to figure out the problem of "asymmetrical warfare"--that is, suicide bombers and IEDs against conventional troops. We started out sending million-dollar cruise missiles to blow up empty caves.
The best answer so far is definitely the precision drone strike.
Yes, there are sometimes collateral civilian casualties, but that happens in every war. Certainly it is better to target your exact enemy and occasionally miss, than to simply carpet-bomb the entire area.
Exactly. And the drones are getting more precise as they are being developed.
Dancing in the streets works for me. They make better targets that way...
MikeinMichigan and others: While I support Obama on many counts, collateral murder is not acceptable to me. It is all well and good to say that "there are sometimes collateral civilian casualties..." until your loved ones are counted among those. One might say that the thousands of causalities from the 911 "attacks" were collateral civilian casualties. The provocateurs were sending a message and it was delivered via 4 highjacked commercial jets aimed at strategic U.S. targets. Although we don't know the exact content of the message, we may presume that it was to destabilize the U.S. and global economies. "Mission Accomplished," as one of our favorite "leaders" declared. The world changed dramatically on 911, and we have all been digging out of the debris of that watershed day. Today, we may choose, again, to change the course of our lives with new decisions. It is still up to each of us to decide our new course.
I'm a pragmatist.
I would have been absolutely fine with not sending a single soldier or missile anywhere near Al-Qaida. Frankly 3,000 murders in NYC did make a blip in the statistics but terrorism even in 2001, even in NYC, was not the #1 cause of death. I think our country would have been better off to spend those trillions of dollars on healthcare instead of warmongering.
That said, I would prefer that if my country is going to kill terrorists, it should do it in the way that causes the least amount of unintended deaths, including our soldiers. Period.
"collateral murder is not acceptable to me."
If you can figure out how to avoid this in a war, I'm all ears.
Then tell me how we can get a superpower nation to avoid war all together.
Neither of these are impossible, but neither of these things are going to happen. It's human nature, we will wage war until the end of human existence.
Ah yes, the Global War on Terror, it's everywhere, all the time and will never end. I just can't help but wonder if AQ is as monolithic and ominous as the Bush and Obama administrations claim. With the shroud of "State Secrets" blocking the public view, I doubt we will ever know.
There will always be people who want to kill us. The real question is: can they do it and is it worth waging "war" (and all the baggage that comes with that term)against them?
Also, although we are killing "high value" targets, will the drone strategy produce a net reduction in terrorism?
Civilians do not just walk past a terrorist hideout and get blown-up bt a drone strick.
When you associate yourself with a terrorist group you know who and what they are. The reason that you are there is, because you have a part in their safety or being a supplier of some sort.
When you swim with alligators you are going to get bit. If you do not wish to die stay away from these terrorist groups.
Amen! You couldn't have said that any better.
Whether war is conducted through drones or conventional warfare, there will always be collateral casualties. When a terrorist group moves into a community, the people in that community know that they are potential casualties. Our drone strikes are not a secret.
I agree. Minimizing the number of deaths while removing those who direct the killing of our own, our military, humanitarian workers, our allies, and innocents, as well, should be laser sharp, unlike the wide swath of damage and death caused by bombing from 10,000 feet in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. Continued improvement in size of the drone explosion and its collateral damage should be part of refinement of these weapons, but don't stop using them altogether. Yes, it's tragic when some are killed just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am sorry for their lives lost.
Thank God he was killed, now he doesn't have to worry about being water boarded. Whew, that was close.
Actually, until recently, the joke was about the number three man in al-Qaeda, which the Bush administration kept claiming as big successes. Then the Obama administration got bin Laden. Now we're getting the #2's, which doesn't seem so silly.
This is big! And excellent news. This guy was actually more involved than bin Laden in actively planning attacks agains us. A big Thank you to the Obama Administration, CIA and other intelligence for keep us safe.
Steve Benen's blog post is a classic example of political partisanship trumping reality, and it's one reason so many are alienated from politics in this country -- people have learned that they WILL be lied to.
To trumpet Obama's success with the drone strikes while ignoring his deliberate mass murder of civilians in the vicinity is morally grotesque. And even if you disagree with this assessment -- as articulated so clearly and powerfully by Jeremy Scahill on Chris Hayes' show last weekend, for example -- it is simply outrageous to ignore it.
Shame on you, Steve.
As for the commenters blithely dismissing the deaths of civilians, these comments show no awareness of what is actually happening. Do some research, people. When the president decides to bomb a target once, wait a short time, then bomb it again as rescuers show up to help the wounded, that is not merely unfortunate "collateral civilian casualties." And when the president bombs a funeral, it is a deliberate attack on civilians.
AKA: murder.
Frank - couple of thoughts.
1. Obama has championed and carried on Bush's foreign policy without any criticism from the left.
2. Wonder how many of those who posted above would be howling if McCain did this?
3. Where is the ACLU outrage on this? Shouldn't they be screaming about due process and civilian collateral damage?
Has anyone else noticed that we kill the "second in command" about once every six months? What does it really accomplish besides making great recruitment for terrorists and killing innocent lives. I think it's time we stop fighting this was of aggression.