The Wall Stret Journal claims the U.S. Foiled a New Jetliner Bomb Plot
The U.S. thwarted a bomb plot by al Qaeda's Yemeni branch aimed at bringing down a jetliner with a more advanced version of an underwear bomb used in a failed 2009 Christmas Day attempt, officials said Monday.
The Central Intelligence Agency, working with foreign security services, was able to seize the bomb—which they believed was intended for a U.S.-bound flight—before the would-be suicide bomber was able to move ahead with his plot, officials said.
But according to the LA Times the U.S. wasn't involved in the "foiling":
…the explosive device, which the CIA obtained from another government, demonstrates …
According to CNN the Saudi's were the ones who actually stopped the plot:
A plot to bomb an airliner that al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen hatched was thwarted two weeks ago through a tip that Saudi intelligence officials provided, a source familiar with the operation said Tuesday.
The Saudis also provided intelligence for a 2010 plot that involving printers packed with explosive toner cartridges.
It seems that the stenographers at the Wall Street Journal just wrote down what the "officials" told them: "The CIA is GREAT!" Yes, it evidently can pick up the phone when the Saudis' ring it up.
But the real issue is more complex. It is very much in the interests of the Saudis to claim that there is great danger from Al Qaeda in Yemen. The Saudis very much want the U.S. to fight their enemies there. One needs to question how honest they are when they come up with this or that primitive bomb set and allegations that these are from Yemen and aimed against U.S. targets.
And what does this plot say about the wider "war on terror"? On 9/11 Al Qaeda was believed to have some 300 members mostly in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now Al Qaeda in the Arabic Peninsula (AQAP) alone is believed to have 1,000 members. Could there be something wrong with a war which after 10 years has trippled the number of enemies?
The WSJ writers don't think so. They also writes:
The threat posed by the Yemeni branch has grown in the past six months, despite the killing of American-born AQAP cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
Neglecting the fact that there has never been any proof that al-Awlaki had any operational role at all in Al-Qaeda, why would the WSJ assume that more or less random murder by drones would actually reduce the hostility against the killers? Especially when the facts say the opposite?