Al Qaeda's True Target

Great Debates
1

I’ve spent some good amount of time reading various theories on Al Qaeda’s motivations.

I’ve come to the conclusion that they aren’t interested in destroying America or any of their other rhetoric. While they are indeed upset at America, and forcing American (and other Western) withdrawl from the ME is part of their plan, it is only one step.

I’ve come to accept the theory outlined here

Summary:

Basically, Al Qaeda’s goal is revolution in Saudi Arabia, not necessarily replacing the Saud monarchy entirely, but at least replacing it with Al Qaeda friendly branches. I’m not convinced that their goal is a larger pan-Muslim state, but I am fairly convinced that they think they can take Saudi Arabia.

With this new goal as a given, America’s strategy for the “War on Terror” (specifically, war on Al Qaeda) may be entirely misdirected, and playing into their hands. We’ve been uninvesting ourselves of Saudi resources and moving our military to Iraq. Also, we have overthrown the only secular regional power capable of threatening Saudi Arabia, and keeping them in check. Indications are that, even if they can, it may be a decade before they are able to stabilize (or worse, that they are vulnerable to revolution by extremists).

In the event that we see this scenario played out, we will see grass roots terrorism ramp up in Saudi Arabia, possibly using Iraq as a base. The American presence in the region and connection with the Saudi royals will be used to rile up the population of Saudi Arabia, something that has already happened. Eventually, key elements of the Saud monarchy are assassinated or removed from power, and AQ-friendly replacements take power.

If that happens, America (and maybe the West) is almost forced to intervene, and that could result in a prolonged regional (maybe global) conflict between a popular insurgency/terrorist movement and occupiers. This, in turn, polarizes the Muslim world against the “Western invaders.”

The insurgency in Iraq may be a mere preview of what is to come. Those in Iraq are untrained, loosely organized groups that have different goals and fight each other as much as the US occupiers. The revolution in Saudi Arabia would be much more focused.

At best, hundreds of thousands die, and we lose the world’s largest oil reserves for the length of the fighting. At worst, the entire Islamic world from Egypt to Afghanistan erupts in violence, and we face what amounts to WWIII. We may lose access to most of the Middle East’s oil supplies for a good amount of time, and likely face international terrorism.

In short, we’re playing the game like their goal is to destroy America. It isn’t. The goal is to destroy Saudi Arabia, and in that game, we’re playing on losing terms.

Within Saudi Arabia, they have to accomplish several things:

  • Destroy the links between the House of Saud and the West (America)

  • Undermind the Saud’s political and religious authority

The question remains - how can we possibly combat this? Strengthening ties with the House of Saud weakens their position. Coercing the House of Saud to cooperate with the War on Terror compromises their political position. Abandoning the House of Saud makes revolution less likely, but makes it more vulnerable to revolution if it happens.

My conclusion… and believe me, this pains me more than anything to say because of the possible repurcussions… is that the House of Saud needs to be removed from power voluntarily, and replaced with a constitutional government NOT affiliated or created by the West.

That is, obviously, not very realistic. Nonetheless, I think that paying very close attention to Saudi Arabian politics would be in the best interests for the region. We have to handle the situation very carefully, though I have not the slightest clue how to progress.

Flame on.

2

Why are you not convinced that their ultimate aim is an Islamist state attempting to replicate the ancient Muslim kingdoms?

(btw your link isn’t working, apparently temporarily)

3

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
Why are you not convinced that their ultimate aim is an Islamist state attempting to replicate the ancient Muslim kingdoms?
I don’t think they have the power to do that. At least, not this generation. Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt aren’t exactly pushovers. Then there is Israel…

[www.stratfor.com/corporate/index.neo%3Fpage%3Dbasicsample]TYry](http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:s-PkG4ZAOSwJ:[url) this Google cache

4

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:s-PkG4ZAOSwJ:www.stratfor.com/corporate/index.neo%3Fpage%3Dbasicsample

5

Since when have terrorist groups had rational objectives? That’s their ultimate aim. Obviously, their plan involved the foundations of an Islamist state. They were foiled in Afghanistan, but then again it wasn’t natural territory for them. Saudi Arabia is natural territory for them, with plenty of homegrown fundamental Muslims and a general simmering discontent. And the large and prominent presence of Westerners in that country provides sitting-duck targets, as has been seen in recent weeks.

6

Oh, and that page lost my respect in the second paragraph: “Stratfor accurately predicted in October 2002 that a war in Saudi Arabia would erupt between al Qaeda and the ruling House of Saud” - errrrrrrrr that means they predicted it many years after many other people predicted it. :dubious:

7

I chose the page for its overall concept, not for Stratfor’s specific capabilities

8

Al Qaeda never had the goal of establishing an Islamist state in Afghanistan. One already existed, set up by us.

I’m saying that their specific goal is taking over Saudi Arabia, and we should be operating on that principle, not on the “they hate Freedom and want to destroy America” principle.

9

I certainly agree that the “they hate our freedom” line is moronic.

10

Although they do. It’s just not relevant to the problem at hand is all.

11

Why do you think they hate our freedom? Has AQ ever specifically said, “we hate the freedom of the USA (or western world)”?

I think some people confuse “our freedom” with “our freedom to control the entire planet because we know what’s best for it.”

The latter I know AQ has a big problem with— so does most of the rest of the world. As for the former, how does that affect AQ one bit?

12

In the sense that the system of governance that they would use would be much more restrictive than the system of government used in the west. They would not use democracy, women would be forced to wear burkha whether they wanted to or not, there would be no freedom to disagree with the prevailing system, there would be no freedom of religion or press or politics etc.

I didn’t say that they would want to export all this to us, just that they hate our system. Which is true.

But it’s not relevant, as I said. Bush and co try to claim that they wish to attack our freedoms and then they use this as a justification for attacking them. The idea that we are defending our freedom - this is all incorrect. They don’t wish to attack our freedoms. Ultimately, they don’t care what system we use. But they still hate our system.

In fact, the opposite is true - rather than our system being under threat from their system, they think that their system is under threat from our system. And they’re right.

They think that western values are seeping into the middle east via hollywood and McDonalds and democracy and religious freedom etc. Hence their stern version of islam is under threat. Their version of islam may be stern but they think it’s the right version so they think that they are the ones under attack, and by a far stronger force than what they can muster. They may be able to plant a bomb here and there but that is nothing compared to a constant daily barrage of cultural imperialism coming out of the west.

Undermines their system by tempting people away from the true path.

If they established strict islamic regimes in middle eastern countries then they would be able to control what comes into their countries and hence mount a defence.

So they hate our freedom because they don’t want it in their world but they can see it coming in anyway, in sneaky ways. They don’t particularly want to destroy our freedom, just stop it entering their world. They would destroy our freedom if they could but they can’t. That step is a long way away. They are taking it one step at a time.

They have enough problems trying to stem the tide entering their world without worrying about what we do.

13

They can’t even begin to comprehend our way of living. All they know is what they see on Western television. They are as informed about our way of life as Joe Six-pack is of their’s.

But you’re right, Jojo about one thing. Many of them are very uneasy about our values polluting their culture. To them, the only answer is a strict theocratic Islamic State. Where better than SA? Quite frankly, I don’t have a problem with that.

Sooner or later, oil will go the way of steam engines. The sooner the better-for us, and that should be our focus.

14

Oh, I wish.

Nothing would make me happier than to be able to say, “Hey, all you Gulf states. Keep your freakin’ oil, and have fun living in the 12th century as far as human rights go. None of our business any more, and if you ever pull a stunt like 9/11 again, we’re gonna teach you what “cruise missiles” are all about.”

But as long as Big Oil is firmly plugged into our politics, it just ain’t gonna happen. If the steam engine manufacturers had been as influential to yesteryear’s politicians as Big Oil is to ours, we’d still be taking choo-choos everywhere we wanted to go (although perhaps the Stanley Steamer automobile would have been more popular…)

15

I don’t agree with the OP:

A. I don’t A-Q has a mission statement, nor is there likely to be unity among its members regarding its goals.

B. Its goals, in any case, are not rational. They are not even sane.

C. Although they do seem to want to overthrow the current Saudi government, no evidence has been provided that this is their sole or primary goal.

16

Aeschines, Al Qaida has made many mission statements. The most famous is probably this one, Osama’s “letter to America”. However, this site has many more public statements, including cassette transcripts.

Al Qaida’s main goal is the destruction of corrupt and Western-inspired governments throughout the Islamic world and their replacment with states run by the law of God. Their ‘policy’ with regard to the US is a function of this main goal.

So, for the USA and other world powers, their aim is to get them out of the Middle East and thus prevent further attacks (of the cultural and military type) on Muslim people, as well as stopping them from supporting various governments in the Middle East. This is roughly what Osama states as the prcondition for ending their attacks:

17

It frightens me when people say that AQ is a group with no goals or is insane and therefore doesn’t have an objective. They are vastly, vastly underestimating “the enemy” by trying to discredit them. Align with your viewpoints or not, they are clearly (largely) sane, clearly have a goal, and can clearly convince a fair number of people that that goal is worth dying for. You’re also doing yourself a disservice by not expecting them to have a plan. The first rule of warfare is to know your enemy, not discount them.

18

Ok, but if you read the letter, you will see that the existance of Isreal, the existance of the governments of many Middle Eastern countries is what they consider attacks. That is, America is attacking them simply by trading with governments in the middle east and acknowledging an Isrealy right to exist.

They don’t hate America for the sake of hating America. That is, they don’t hate our freedoms simply because they hate freedom. But they do hate our freedoms because they see those freedoms as a threat to them and their ability to exercise power over their own people. Let’s face facts for a moment. AQ is a group of religious fanatics who do not limit thier goals to the politically feasable. They feel that their mission is granted sanctity from god, and they can, therefore, justify quite a lot of nasty behavior.

I agree that we cannot dismiss the capabilities of AQ by saying that they are insane. We must not fall into the trap of assuming that their ruthlessness is the same thing as incompetance. At the same time, it is disengenuous to think that they are rational enough to deal with in the same way we might deal with other international entities. They may not be insane in the sense that they are foaming at the mouth and quietly hittine their heads against the wall. But they are insane in the sense that they care very little (or not at all) for rational discourse. It stretches the meaning of sanity to the breaking point to suggest that hoodlums who kidnap and later behead a person simply because he is a citizen of a country with which they have a disagreement are sane.

I understand the American foriegn policy is not blameless in many of the problems which exist in that part of the world. However, to suggest that if we simply stop attacking the terrorists they will lay down their arms is just silly.

19

Well, the term “trading with” is a little bit of an understatement for the level of commercial interaction between the West and the ME.

20

Right. That’s why I suggested at the end of my post that US foriegn policy is indeed to blame for some of the misery in the Middle East. I did not mean to suggest that the US trades equitably and never gets involved beyond that.

I was responding to several items in the link posted by lambchops (thanks BTW, for the links)

The point being, that they are not simply calling for America to withdraw troops or some other such mundane actions. They truly want all Americans to submit to their interpretation of Islamic law. Nothing short of that will do for them.

Personally, I believe that they are much simpler than their goals suggest. They inflict limited and anonymous damage whenever they can for the simply expediant reason that it allows them to crow about how they can damage the great Satan. If America were to truly withdraw from the middle east (not just remove troops, but actually stop trading with them and stop interfering with their affairs as well) some of their problems would be reduced. Many of them (perhaps most) would get much worse. Imagine the regime of the Taliban spreading throught the region. This is what AQ wants. They will not be satisfied (and they will not be convinced that America is the primary hinderance to this goal) unless they achieve this.

If the entire middle east were to suddenly fall under a Taliban like regime, AQ would still undertake international terrorist activities. They would do so in the name of oppressed (or perhaps merely offended) muslims in America if no where else. They are possible sane in the clinical sense. But they are clearly insane in the political sense.