Al Qaeda isn’t dead yet, FBI director says

It seems that US government officials are beginning to come around to the fact that al Qaeda isn’t quite as dead as the Obama administration would have you believe. In an interview with FOX News, FBI Director Robert Mueller answered “no” when asked about the demise of al Qaeda:

As for a reported conference call among terrorist leaders, Mueller, said, “we are seeing dialogue between core Al Qaeda and the affiliates …. As countries are going through the Arab Spring that will, territorially, present a substantial threat down the road.”

When asked if Al Qaeda was dead, Mueller responded with a single word: “no.”

For more on this topic, see Threat Matrix report, So, is al Qaeda still defeated?


Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD's Long War Journal.

Are you a dedicated reader of FDD's Long War Journal? Has our research benefitted you or your team over the years? Support our independent reporting and analysis today by considering a one-time or monthly donation. Thanks for reading! You can make a tax-deductible donation here.


  • Prism says:

    Muller talks… NOW! Typical politician!!!

  • . says:

    The Arab Spring played right into the hands of al Qaeda.

  • irebukeu says:

    Is this the “groundhog day” topic on the LWJ? This keeps reappearing again and again. In one form or another Often with the accusation that the Obama administration is taking the position that “al queda is dead. I have yet to see a claim that al queda is ‘dead’ from the administration.
    I have seen “decimated” ‘al queda core decimated’ “on the run” “path to defeat” “on the road to destruction” and various other phrases attempting to establish a trend line. At the same time the threat from affiliated and franchise groups is often mentioned as either growing or persistent and otherwise is cited for the reason there is work still to be done .
    If the question to Mueller was “Is al queda on the road to defeat” the answer would have been either a “yes” or a long explanation equaling a qualified “yes” because that IS the position of the Obama administration
    This is nothing new in either politics or war, as controlling the conversation/media/propaganda is as important as seizing the moral high ground.
    There a are a dozen reasons why one would want to argue that al queda is on a path to defeat, all of which center around actually trying to defeat al queda
    The presidents administration has to be in effect team captain, coach and team cheerleader for the US cause.
    Often focus group tested and applied with slick marketing. Other times done on the ‘fly’
    Offered for example
    George Bush stated in 3-13-2002 in response to a question about Bin Laden, as he was shifting focus away from Afghanistan and preparing for the campaign against Iraq “Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”
    Turns out Bush had Bin Laden on his mind everyday of his presidency since 9-11-2001. He really was concerned. But we knew that then, right?
    In light of the rhetoric increasing at the time about Iraq and with the focus moving from Afghanistan coupled with the governments inability to capture/kill Bin Laden its easy to understand the reason for moving attention away from the importance of one man,”Bin Laden”, or ‘defaming’ him ( just as Obama has done in regards to the NSA contractor hiding in a Russian airport lounge).
    On a politically oriented website I would expect either a defense of Bush defending the claim that ‘yes bin laden is not important, never was and Bush has to be reminded of even who Bin Laden is’, or on the other side a belittling opinion of Bush using a twisted version of his statement to attempt to score cheap political points with the uninformed or under informed
    What I would not expect from such websites is accurate and honest reporting on what was said by whom and an honest analysis of why it was said and the strategy employed for doing so.
    That’s why I don’t frequent those websites and instead have this website up every day.
    Offered for example
    During the Benghazi situation this site was providing factual information absent of political opinion while everyone and their cousin was using Benghazi for their own political aims. While for most, Benghazi was a political cudgel to swing blindly, this website was discussing the connections between the attack in Libya, the protest in Egypt, training camps in Libya and the connection through Nasr city, with mullahs using the “innocence of Muslims” trailer in Nasr city to incite people to both protest and violence seemingly in both Egypt and Libya
    Arrests made in Nasr city with connections to Benghazi where reported here but where else?
    One need only look at this post from the LWJ posted the day after the Benghazi attack. In light of all the claims of cover up and of various other charges made on various 24 hour news shows for the last year this Sept 12 2012 article still holds up well.
    The whole “Obama thinks al queda is dead” ongoing discussion thread makes me a a bit queasy.
    Its a topic worthy of discussion,………..
    I say that here because I have the highest regard for this website and the valuable information it provides all of us


Islamic state



Al shabaab

Boko Haram