US Predator Strikes Decimating al-Qaeda

American use of unmanned drone aircraft seems to be a resounding success:

Reporting from Washington -- An intense, six-month campaign of Predator strikes in Pakistan has taken such a toll on Al Qaeda that militants have begun turning violently on one another out of confusion and distrust, U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials say.

The pace of the Predator attacks has accelerated dramatically since August, when the Bush administration made a previously undisclosed decision to abandon the practice of obtaining permission from the Pakistani government before launching missiles from the unmanned aircraft.

...Because of its success, the Obama administration is set to continue the accelerated campaign despite civilian casualties that have fueled anti-U.S. sentiment and prompted protests from the Pakistani government.

"This last year has been a very hard year for them," a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said of Al Qaeda militants, whose operations he tracks in northwest Pakistan. "They're losing a bunch of their better leaders. But more importantly, at this point they're wondering who's next."

Credit where it's due to Obama for keeping up these attacks. He may be screwing up the economy more every day but at least has the sense to stick with a Bush plan that works.

But of course, the liberals are wringing their hands that we are being so mean to little old al-Qaeda. Matt Yglesias quotes a Rand study that says that 43% of terror threats were ended by "political accommodation" and Yglesias himself worries that our actions will have a backfire effect:

The impact of these strikes on public opinion in the Muslim world writ large, and specifically on political dynamics inside Pakistan, can easily outweigh the gains from killing even a bona fide bad guy. The fact that Miller’s intelligence sources deem the program an unqualified success based on what look to be pure body count considerations is disturbing. There’s no use in killing a terrorist if in the course of doing so you accidentally kill a civilian whose two sons grow up dreaming of avenging their father’s murder, or if it makes it impossible to stay politically viable in Pakistan while publicly cooperating with the United States. This is a delicate balance in which all the considerations need to be taken seriously.

Nut up, Matt! Believe me, they want us dead and it isn't because of an airstrike by a predator. This is what liberals have never understood about the War on Terror; there's no accommodating Muslims who believe it is their religious duty to attack us. They will look at any attempt to strike a deal as weakness, it's their culture. We didn't wipe al-Qaeda in Iraq out by talking with them, we won over hearts and minds of those who were terrorized by them. The elders of the communities wanted the terrorist's out and we won them over by doing so. We didn't ask al-Qaeda nicely, we went door-to-door and either arrested or liquidated them. We're doing that now in Pakistan.

Hand-wringing liberals always believe there's an agreement that can be reached to make driven, hateful people into allies. That's why they are pro-Hamas because they believe that if we just play nice with them and Hezbollah, they'll build a nice, vibrant nation and we'll all live in harmony...that is, once the libs let Israel get erased but they don't say that in polite company. They would be wrong as they always are on issues such as this.

Keep hitting them with extreme prejudice and decapitate the entire organization so they are left with no leadership, no direction and no money. Plus, they're attacking each other, which means they'll leave us alone for awhile.

One last thought, do people like Yglesias realize that we are taking out the heart of al-Qaeda while keeping our troops safely out of harms way? No, I didn't think so.