Other Terrorist Organizations

Here's a great catch from Ilan Goldenberg highlighting something I'd missed from HRC's Foreign Affairs article:

As we redeploy our troops from Iraq, we must not let down our guard against terrorism. I will order specialized units to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist organizations in the region.

Other terrorist organizations in the region? Ilan generously suggests that Clinton may mean the PKK. On the other hand, in light of her vote on the Lieberman-Kyl resolution, maybe she means the IRGC. Or maybe Hezbollah. Certainly some clarification seems to be in order.

Comments

If she/her administration gets sufficient questions on this I'm sure she/her administration will explain how that she/her administration" meant "the original al Qaeda". Or she/her administration meant something else. Only she/her administration knows for sure.

Posted by Keith | October 16, 2007 9:32 PM

Well, there's al Qaeda-in-Iraq, and then there's al Qaeda-not-in-Iraq. al Qaeda-in Syria, al Quaeda-in-Jordan, al Qaeda-in-Iran, al Quaeda-in Saudi-Arabia, al Qaeda-in-that-other-country-we-don't-like, and possibly al Vast-Rightwing-Conspiracy.

Don't worry though, we'll only use force when our oh-so vital interests are at stake.

(Actually, this sounds like pretty standard boilerplate to me. Sort of a more elegant way of saying "I will focus my efforts on al Qaeda but it's always possible there will be other threats we don't know about yet, and I may need to apply the same tactics to them."
This is why Matt's point about foreign policy being mostly a matter of temperment is so spot on. The most important decisions the President makes will probably be in situations we can't forsee, so it's a little bit pointless to parse their statements so closely)

Posted by heedless | October 16, 2007 10:37 PM

clearly, she means the Hilltop Youth terror movement, and their terrorist supporters like Avigdor Lieberman.

tjough I wonder if Avigdor is more of a terror aider-and-abettor than a plain old supporter.

the Brooklyn-based financial groups that give comfort and support to the Hilltop Youth terrorists would also, under the executive authority of the C-in-C, be susceptible to financial interdiction, if not surveillance and wiretapping.

stopping terror starts at home, right?

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | October 16, 2007 10:58 PM

Well, much as I distrust Clinton, I think this IS really parsing her vague promises too tightly.

It would be useful to ask for clarifications and scenarios - such as, would she send Special Forces in against Hamas - or try other means of pressuring Hamas? What is her actual opinion of Hamas? Would she support an Israeli attack on Hizballah in the Bekaa Valley in the event of another Israeli soldier captured by Hizballah - or demand an immediate ceasefire and negotiate a prisoner swap?

What is her policy on Pakistan and the FATA? Is she willing to send troops in there - with or without Pakistan's authorization?

More importantly, what is her overall approach to dealing with Al Qaeda? Not just sending in the troops when we see one - but an overall ME policy approach to reduce Al Qaeda's motivations to attack the US.

But this one sentence is too vague to hit her on.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 16, 2007 11:55 PM

clarifiication? you must be kidding! if she clarifies then one might know what sheis thinking. pretty ridiculous. obfuscation now. obfuscation forever. the Clinton way!!!

Posted by della Rovere | October 17, 2007 12:25 AM

I think she just means the other groups in Iraq that use terror tactics against US troops (mehdi army, Badr brigades) but I also think someone should ask her if that's the case.

Posted by Shinyk | October 17, 2007 2:11 AM

RE mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari

Ms. jafaari, in her usual hate Israel comments, attacks Avigdor Lieberman. Admittedly, Mr. Lieberman makes himself a tempting target by some of his ill thought out comments. However, in fairness, it seems to me that Mr. Lieberman has diagnosed the chances of a peaceful solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict correctly. On his blog at Jpost.com, he states quite clearly that there are two requirements for any peaceful solution. Namely security for the Israelis and prosperity for the Palestinians. Without these being met, it is his view that no agreement will stand up. His position, based on several articles in the Israeli press, is that the cart is being placed before the horse, namely, that the international community should focus first on improving the economic conditions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip before the formation of a Palestinian State and not the other way around. This seems to be a reasonable position with which reasonable people can disagree with without being disagreeable. But of course, the Israel bashers on this blog will have none of it. More fun just to bash Israel.

Posted by SLC | October 17, 2007 9:59 AM

Might help if Israel would stop withholding the money it owes the Palestinians...

It's funny how the Palestinians problems with their economy are the problems of the "international community" while Israel has nothing to do with it in SLC's concept.

Israel gets bashed because it deserves it.

And trust me - it's going to get bashed a lot worse as time goes on.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 17, 2007 8:47 PM

So I don't know if you read all your comments anymore but I actually just asked Lee Feinstein your question. He says "other terrorist organizations" only refers to groups linked/aligned with al qaeda. It DOES NOT refer to the PKK or the Revolutionary Guard.

Posted by Jack | October 17, 2007 9:30 PM

Re Richard Steven "bottom" Hack

Our favorite ex-con who bottomed for the brothers sounds off again with his usual crap. Maybe when the Palestinian terrorists stop firing off kassems and sending homicide bombers the Government of Israel will release the tax monies collected on behalf of the PA. As for bashing, the Prime Minister of Israel should ask himself one question. What would the late Hafaz Assad done about Kassems and homicide bombers if he were sitting in my chair? We know the answer to that one, Hama rules.

Posted by SLC | October 17, 2007 10:51 PM