By Brigitte L. Nacos

While the first anniversary of Osama in Ladens death is reason enough to assess the status quo of the terrorist organization he founded and chaired, President Obamas claim that the defeat of Al Qaeda is now within reach deserves a closer look.

There is no doubt that the demise of bin Laden was the most devastating blow against the original Al Qaeda organization or Al Qaeda Central, a close-knit group of extremist Arabs, some of whom had fought in Afghanistan against Soviet troops during the 1980s--with covert support by the CIA.  Targeted relentlessly by pilotless drones in the mountains of Pakistan, the bulk of Al Qaeda Centrals core of sub-leaders serving under bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri, now the sole Al Qaeda boss, was decimated.

Although the presidents opponents, most of all in the neo-conservative camp, try hard to paint him as another Democrat who is weak on defense and national security, the truth is that Obama has been far more decisive in fighting Al Qaeda militarily than his Republican predecessor. The lethal raid against bin Laden was merely the exclamation mark on a successful military campaign against Al Qaeda Central members and their Taliban allies.

So, if President Obama meant to say that the defeat of Al Qaeda Central is within reach, his optimism is justified.

But Al Qaeda Global is another story.

The problem here is that Al Qaedas ideology has proven far stronger and more durable than Al Qaeda Central. Al Qaeda as powerful idea has spread like a virus around the world. While fanatic Arabs and Muslims, terrorists and insurgents in many countries claim to have direct ties to Al Qaeda Central and have sworn allegiance to the original group, what they mostly or solely share with the original bin Laden clique is the idea of fighting U.S.-led Western powers and their allies in the Muslim world, what bin Laden repeatedly described as a Huntingtonian clash of civilizations, cultures, and, most of all, religions.

President Obama is surely aware of this. After all, he himself has authorized increased drone strikes against self-proclaimed Jihadists and Al Qaeda allies in Yemen and against Al Shabaab in Somalia. While these and many other groups in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and in the Western diaspora articulate the same ideas as Al Qaeda, they are autonomous and not at all affiliated of the original group.

Unlike Al Qaeda Central, the cells and nodes in the global network of terrorists which are inspired by bin Laden and Al Qaeda present a far greater problem for counterterrorist strategies and tactics than the hierarchically organized original group.

Al Qaeda Central may be on the verge of defeat. But the defeat of Al Qaeda as inspirational force is not within reach.

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Spending all of last week at a conference in Ankara I did not have an opportunity to follow the news media as closely as I normally do. Yet, channel surfing early in the morning and late at night in my hotel room was enough to conclude that the prominent and massive coverage of Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breiviks trial afforded him a global stage to explain and promote his anti-Islamic ideology and try to enlist supporters in the process.

After describing the gruesome details of his killing spree that took the lives of 77 persons last year, Breivik claimed that he studied Timothy McVeighs Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and Al Qaedas 9/11 attacks for instruction and inspiration. Calling Al Qaeda the most successful revolutionary movement in the world, he said he had learned from the organizations successes and failures. Obviously sticking to his claim that he is not a lone wolf but part of a group of likeminded comrades determined to defend Christian Europe against the onslaught of Muslims, he told the court, "We want to create a European version of Al Qaeda.

Obviously, the Norwegian court was well aware that Breivik would exploit the trial to spread his messages of hate. But in democratic systems, where citizens need to be fully informed in order to make educated decisions when they participate in the political process, public information is a highly esteemed value. Rightly, so--even in the face of occasional misuse and abuse.

Although cameras and microphones were banned from the court room, journalists reported at great length and detail Breiviks exploitations of the global media stage. To be sure, the coverage was prominent and plentiful after the attacks. But at that time, the focus was more or at least equally as much on the victims rather than the perpetrator. This time around, it has been the Breivik show so far.

The  Oklahoma City bomber McVeigh received fan letters and marriage proposals as he awaited first his trial and later his execution; Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda won supporters and recruits after 9/11. Breivik, too, may have endeared himself and his convictions to some people who already shared his extremist views.

As Matt Pearce reported in the Los Angeles Times, 23-year old American Kevin Forbes of Massachusetts exchanged letters with Breivik and told Norwegian TV, I believe that Breivik is a rational man who committed atrocious but necessary actions.

To be sure, the majority of people in Europe and elsewhere reject everything that Breivik has said and done in disgust. But it is not unusual that highly publicized acts of terrorism and crime result in copy-cat deeds. Moreover, successful methods of attacks used by terrorists and criminal are sometimes carried out by individuals or groups already committed to violence.

Nearly three years ago, taking into account the dramatic advances in communication technology in the beginning of the 21^st century, I published an article in the on-line journal Perspectives on Terrorism that revisited media contagion theories--mostly in the context of terrorism and to a lesser extent concerning crime. My conclusion was that when it comes to international and domestic terrorism, various kinds of media figure quite prominently in both tactical and inspirational contagion. The pro-copycat conclusion seems as relevant today as it was earlier. Indeed, Breiviks terrorism may well qualify as a case of contagion since he himself revealed in court that he studied and learned from 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

By Brigitte L. Nacos

The news media and social networks blew up one sentence spoken by one political strategist into a major political controversy and handed the Romney campaign a convenient weapon to intensify their attacks on liberals and especially President Obama as the real enemies of mothers and wives and daughters in the war on women in America.

What happened? Hilary Rosen, a Democrat, political strategist and analyst for CNN, commented during a CNN program on the fact that Mitt Romney cannot connect with women, is clueless as to womens concerns, and has of late told audiences that his wife Ann is better at articulating his real concern for womens well-being.

Rosens statement was this: His wife has actually never worked a day in her life, she said. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids? How do we send them to school? And why we worry about their future.

What is so offensive here? For starters, cable TV, other media outlets, and social media honed in on the first sentence, His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. That is a wonderful sound bite for media that strives on conflicts and clashes. In most instances, the rest of the explosive remark was omitted and thereby the whole context of the discussion.

There was no need for the president, his wife, former first lady Barbara Bush, Ann Romney, the Romney campaign and supporters to defend stay-home moms as women with the most heavy and difficult workloads. The real issue here is whether women with the extraordinary financial means as enjoyed by Ann Romney have any idea about the struggles of ordinary women with modest or low incomes. Rosens criticism was not at all targeting all mothers who make the choice to stay home and raise their children. But it reminded us that many women do not have a choice, even if they would love to stay home, they need to work to put food on the table.  

If a candidate defers publicly to his wife as the expert on womens issues, especially economic ones, why would it be wrong to point out that Mrs. Romney, given the familys wealth and plush life style, is as detached from average women (and men) as is her husband?  

This morning, I saw a clip of Ann Romneys response on FOX News. I can tell you and promise you that I have had struggles in my life." Promise us? I am sure that Mrs. Romney like all mothers had her struggles with five active sons around. I am sure that she had and has her struggles with her illness. But she did not have the economic struggles and worries of so many mothers (and fathers) about the daily necessities of life, food, housing, health insurance, the education of their children.

In short, this is once again a case of much ado about nothing, media feeding frenzy and political opportunism at a time when the nation is faced with real and urgent domestic and foreign policy issues.

By Brigitte L. Nacos

The other day, Cjrystia Freeland of Reuters wrote, With hindsight, we may find that the 2016 U.S. presidential race began last week, when Hillary Rodham Clinton made a politically electrifying point. Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me, she said at the Women in the World conference in New York. But they all seem to. It doesnt matter what country theyre in or what religion they claim. They want to control women. Actually, the Secretary of State made another important point. It is hard to believe that even here at home, we have to stand up for womens rights and reject efforts to marginalize any one of us, because America needs to set an example for the entire world, she said.

Albert Hunt of Bloomberg News predicted earlier, On Nov. 7, the day after the presidential election, she will be the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic nomination, regardless of who wins the presidency this time or whether she plans to run."

Bill Keller, the former executive editor of the New York Times, addressed the idea of Hillary Clinton replacing Joe Biden as President Obamas running-mate in this falls campaign. Its time to take it seriously, he wrote and gave three specific reasons for the Hillary as candidate for the vice presidency: One: it does more to guarantee Obamas re-election than anything else the Democrats can do. Two: it improves the chances that, come next January, he will not be a lame duck with a gridlocked Congress but a rejuvenated president with a mandate and a Congress that may be a little less forbidding. Three: it makes Hillary the partys heir apparent in 2016.

Like others with less prominent media platforms Keller envisioned Biden to replace Clinton as  secretary of state.

But Maureen Dowd is convinced  that such a switch--however compelling--is not on the radar screen at the White House because Hillary Clinton would not be able to navigate past two powerful men who would find her elevation problematic: Obama and Biden.

When the first Hillary for vice president suggestions surfaced in the blogosphere, I dismissed them as pipe dreams. But the prospect of having any of the remaining GOP candidates duping enough independent voters and moderate Republicans (if there are any left) to score a victory over President Obama in November has changed my view.

Whether Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum end up with their partys nomination, I wouldnt be surprised to see them pick a female running mate to score points with womenin spite of their participation in the religious rights relentless attacks on womens rights and dignity.

It will not be Sarah Palin or Michele Bachman. But I think Nikki Haley, the governor of South Carolina, who is widely regarded as an upcoming GOP star. She won her office as darling of the Tea Party and was endorsed by Palin. Imagining any of the remaining competitors in the GOPs primaries as future president is a nightmare. Imagining a female Tea Partier as vice president and loyal supporter of the male top dog is worse.

I agree with Bill Keller that Hillary, more than Biden or any other Democrat, would go a long way to help Obama to win reelection.

As vice president Biden has done as good a job as anyone in this office. His opposition to the troop surge in Afghanistan was right. The additional troops that General David Petreus pushed for and President Obama agreed to, did not improve the situation on the ground. Depending on the considerable skill and effectiveness of Special Forces to continue the fight against terrorists in Afghanistan and the region that Biden wanted, would have been the better choice.

During his long tenure as U.S. Senator and his time as vice president Biden has shown expertise and good judgment, especially with respect to foreign policy. Moving to the State Department would be a perfect fit for him.

So, the ball is now in Joe Bidens court.

This is the script: Biden volunteers to move to Soggy Bottom. Clinton agrees to join the Democratic ticket. Obama blesses the switch.

Recent images of the Secretary of State confirm reports that she is exhausted from the grueling schedule she keeps. But a few weeks of rest would refresh her for the fall campaignnot to mention the bright prospect of using the vice presidency as springboard for the 2016 presidential race.                                                                

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Sarah Palins public support for Limbaughs right of free speechand by extension for male chauvinism and gutter language directed at womendid not stop the exodus of advertisers from the Russ Limbaugh radio show. As Media Matters reports based on yesterdays (March 8^th) 3-hour Limbaugh program:

86 ads aired during New York based WABC's broadcast; 77 of those ads were public service announcements donated free of charge by the Ad Council; and of the nine paid spots that ran, seven were from companies that have said they have taken steps to ensure their ads no longer air during the program.

ThinkProgress reports that on Thursday, listeners in the nations largest media market [New York] were treated to over five minutes of radio silence where Limbaughs advertisers once stood.

The talk show hosts claim that the withdrawal of about 50 advertisers has not impacted his show and the 600 stations around the country that air the program is not credible. While it is possible that he will win new deep pocket advertisers that share his views and his style, it may not be as easy as he pretends.

Palin is right, when she reminds us that the First Amendment guarantees Mr. Limbaugh the right of free expression. Indeed, he can say what he wants. If he defames a private person, and I think this was the case in his outbursts against law student Sandra Fluke, he could be sued for libel (as an aside, while private persons have only prove that they have been defamed to win libel cases, this is very different with respect to public officials/public figures: Since the New York Times vs. Sullivan ruling, the actual malice clause makes it next to impossible for public figures to win libel cases even if they have been defamed).

Fox News star Bill OReilly has seconded Limbaughs attacks on Sandra Fluke accusing her to ask the government to pay for her social life. Why hasnt there been an anti-OReilly protest? The diffence is simply that OReilly does not have the influence that Limbaugh has for many years within the Republican Party. His coronation by the Republican Party came in 1994, when the GOP finally won a majority in the US House of Representatives and Newt Gingrich became Speaker. Limbaugh was celebrated by a united Republican front as Majority Maker.

Nearly 18 years later he remains the single most influential voice of conservatives, the Republican Party and its powerful Tea Party wing. Thats why GOP leaders and especially the contenders for partys presidential nominations do not criticize Limbaugh--regardless of what he says.

Obviously, they all hope that he will be their majority maker.

For Sarah Palin to call anti-Limbaugh protests the definition of hypocrisy is disingenuous in that she insists on Mr. Limbaughs free speech right without granting the same liberty to his critics.