Interesting read from The Strategy Page regarding Al Qaeda. Not right-wing nut job stuff (unless of course you’re a left-wing nut job) but rather very matter-of-fact, clear, concise, and logical like all of James Dunnigan’s stuff. Too bad its too much of these things (not to mention too optimistic) to sell papers or garner ratings…
I see what he’s saying, and I agree that AQ is turning off the people it wants to support it by killing them. That was never going to work. “Al Qaeda admits defeat” sounds like a case of the author deciding what he wanted these things to mean.
Somewhat over-optimistic, but he makes excellent points. But I’ve always felt that the extreme pessimism about the war shown by so many folks on the left has never been justified.
I kinda see his point of view, but I think that he’s extrapolating too far from some (admittedly positive, but limited) information.
Al Qaeda’s “goals”* were never achievable- the west was not going to fall, no matter how many terrorist attacks they carried out- but one could equally argue from this info. that Al Qaeda is merely undergoing a temporary hiatus- or even that they have been strengthened by recent events. I’d also like to point out that, politically speaking, the “War on Terror” has only strengthened the radical islamist’s argument- he wouldn’t be referring to Hamas as a political party of great significance, nor the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, had both of their support not been greatly strengthened in the last 5 years. Also, I believe that last year’s Egyptian bombing, and last week’s, were the first to affect the (much better policed) tourist regions since the 1997 massacre at Queen Hatshepsut’s tomb (that might be wrong, feel free to correct me). It seems to me that Islamic radicalism (not necessarily terrorism) is undergoing a revival, even if one facet of that group (Al Qaeda) is not so successful as the others at this moment.
*Except for westerners out of Saudi Arabia, which looks as though it will come true once American troops move their permanent bases to Iraq.
Fails to distinguish between the Invasion of Iraq and the ‘War on Terrorism.’
Fails to distinguish between the insurgency/resistence to occupation and ‘terrorists’
Therefore suitable only to be dismissed out of hand.
I am not sure what you mean by the “extreme pessimism about the war.” Any pessimism about the effort to safeguard the US against terrorist attacks is a result of governmental slow motion on things like port security. Such pessimism is, in my opinion, not unjustified.
If you are referring to pessimism about the war in Iraq, it is only tangentially related to terrorisim in general and Al Qaeda in particular.
There is no distinction to be made there. They are one and the same. Please do not make the mistake of assuming that the insurgents in Iraq are in any way legitimate. They are beasts who must be brought under control, not patriots defending their homeland.
Well that’s an interesting point of view. Let’s review the facts:
Unlawful and deceitful invasion by foreigners? Yes.
National of the invaded country taking action against occupying forces? Yes.
Succesful targetting of the unlawful invaders? Yes.
In a simple form: On which side does right reside? The unlawful invader, or the national taking military action in response. Clearly the latter.
Therefore right and bravery is with the insurgency and evil and cowardice with the US forces. Your choice is simple: Support evil and cowardice, or support the insurgency.
I would agree 100% but for one fact. There appear to be several different forms of “insurgents.” Many of them don’t target the “deceitful foreign invaders” and appear to be part of a Sunni-Shia conflict. They are not all defending agains invasion.
BZZZZZTTT Thank you for playing.
It is precisely the targeting of the attacks against civilian targets (e.g. the various mosque bombings) that identify the “insurgency” as terrorists rather than national resistance.
Entirely appropriate and correct. I should state that I was confining my rebuttal to Lonesome Polecat’s claim that that the insurgency was not in any way legitimate. It happens like this in debate, the issues become confined.
To the larger picture, it does seem impossible to disentangle the two: the resistance of Iraqis to the foreign-installed government and; the venting of ethnic rivalry, now possible after the fall of the Hussein government.
To the OP: Knowing what we now do, it is impossible to give any credit to commentary on Iraq that does not acknowledge the unambiguous wrong the US has committed. The dishonour with which the US has conducted itself is incontestible and remains a stain on that nation. Any such commentary which evades this fact is only to be dismissed out of hand.
Iraq is one issue but the west has other problems. The Madrid and London bombings were not carried out by AQ but people claiming some form of loose connection in the case of Madrid and no connection at all other than influence in the case of London.
There was a big problem before Iraq but now thanks to actions carried out by the allies and also a strong PR campaign in the ME and beyond the allies have further tainted the west in the eyes of many millions who while not having a great love of the west were pretty neutral. These people while not actual active in the fight provide the support that is necessary for these people to do their thing.
I will also note that for 30 years the British claimed victories over the IRA and yet this relatively tiny group of people were able to almost kill at will in NI and GB.
Amid all the “facts” you are so quick to declare, it is quite humorous that you handwave the intentional murder of civilians, women and children, as the mere “venting of ethnic rivalry”. Tell me, where does the beheadings of journalists fall into your equation. They’re certainly not part of the “ethnic venting” are they? And you don’t mean to imply that journalists are part of an “occupying force”, do you?
While some of your estimations may, in fact, be correct, to present them as “facts” is beyond ridiculous. And when you give the murderous terrorists more benefit of the doubt than the U.S., who, misguided as it might be, is expending it’s own blood in the removal of a mass-murdering dictator and helping millions live in a more free society, your strong bias is more than evident. Any analysis of the war that has such a foundation of bias and equates opinion with facts is only to be dismissed out of hand.
Well, from the Sunni’s point of view, the foreign occupiers’ attempt to foster a superficial democracy that would inevitably lead to a Shiite-controlled probable-theocracy makes them part of that conflict and therefore legitimate and necessary military targets. It would be more useful to call that type of combatants “guerrillas”.
Or maybe, to Lonesome Polecat, *anyone * resisting oppression is a “beast who must be brought under control”, not just the Sunnis who he’s somehow declared the enemy while choosing to support the Iran-hostage-taking Shiites?
No matter how you look at it, the beasts we are fighting in Iraq are trying to either to restore a brutally repressive regime or install an equally repressive theocracy. They are not fighting for any cause that could remotely be considered honorable or respectable; they are not “resisting oppression.” They are guerrillas only in the same sense that the Ku Klux Klan in 1870 could be considered guerrillas, and attempting to justify what they do as “resisting oppression” is every bit as asinine as calling the KKK patriots and freedom fighters.
That assessment would include, well, pretty much all of Iraq. Why not just nuke it and get it over with, then? :rolleyes:
This is really sick stuff. What is wrong with you?
Really. What has happened to you that would cause such a dramatic and insane loss of all perspective?
Well, no, it wouldn’t. If you believe that almost everybody in Iraq hates the Yankees and wants the insurgency to win, you are seriously out of touch with reality.
Why not just admit the insurgency doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on and quit demonizing the United States?
I would have doubts about the abilty to “kill at will”, their tally of kills reaches a little over 1800. Really, that’s not much for an organisation able to “kill at will”. A few hundred of their victims were pathetically easy targets, I wouldn’t credit them with that much success. As soon as the hunger strikers died, it was clear that politicians were the Irish Republicans that would do best.