Followed by “Don’t Blame Me. I Voted For Cthulhu.”
>Yes, because Bush has done such a number on al Quaeda.
Well…look here
I concede that Al Qaeda has been able to recruit from the Iraq war, however, I think that almost any anti-AQ action will be percieved by many (though perhaps not most - still more than enough to be an ample recruiting base) to be an attack on Islam, especially with their eminently fair Al Jazeera news sources.
Apropos al-Qaeda’s stated support of why they support Bush’s re-election:
Well, sure. However, their reasons for why a Bush presidency is good for them are pretty damn credible.
Frankly, that analysis, or at least the portion you have quoted here, sucks. It presents only one side of the story. Would not a scattered Al Qaeda also have trouble communicating and coordinating amongst the cell members? Would this not have a definite negative effect on their ability to carry out their operations? Would not an Al Qaeda driven underground have greater difficulties moving men and material and provisioning themselves that didn’t exist when they were able to operate openly as they were in Afghanistan? Would not an Al Qaeda forced to extremes of secrecy have additional recruiting and vetting hurdles to overcome? Would not an Al Qaeda deprived of many of their means of transferring funds and having had large monetary assets confiscated find trouble financing operations?
All these, too, are outcomes of Al Qaeda being driven from Afghanistan where they operated relativlely openly with near impunity and without such a great need for secrecy. Shoddy analysis.
I note that report also says that Al Qaeda operatives now “potentially number 18,000,” which is apparently down from 20,000 trained. If Bush’s stupid invasion and occupation of Iraq is helping to recruit men, and yet the number of AQ operatives is declining, then Bush’s policies and actions are most certainly not of any net positive help to AQ. It would seem then that the war in Iraq is, in no way, shape, or form, “swelling the ranks” of AQ as the report supposedly states. AQ would seem to be in a net decline.
Also interesting, that report indicates that AQ operatives are focusing on and concentrated in Iraq in an effort to assist the Iraqi insurgents. If this is true, then they’ve been successfully drawn out - and to a place where their very lives are in peril. I find it damned hard to view this as a negative. And it also contradicts the report’s claims that AQ has been driven further underground and is “almost invisible.”
Brutus? Was that you?
Let’s see…
US forces out of Saudi Arabia.
Al Qaeda recruitment on the rise.
American soldiers caught in an Iraqi quagmire.
Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden’s long-time enemy, has been overthrown.
Muslems worldwide rallying against the United States.
With results like these, I expect Al Qaeda to endorse the notion of G.W. Bush as President-for-Life of the United States…
Re: UncleBeer’s posts, that report now being discussed in GD thread, Al-Qaeda boosted by Iraq war, warns think-tank
On the one hand, AQ has been scattered. On the other hand, it has greatly gained popularity. Net outcome too early to definitively judge, but had the U.S. policy been better thought out and executed, then the latter factor would have been much less significant.
That 18,000 / 20,000 “AQ operatives” seems just an accounting of terrorist camp alumni, not a measure of effective AQ “membership”. I agree the presentation of that part is kinda weak.
This story at Slate.com points out that Ashcroft has implied the same thing in discussing planned attacks:
As Noah points out, the general conclusion is that the bombings “advanced their cause” by leading to a defeat of the pro-war incumbent government, and Ashcroft is saying that the aim of any bombings between now and the election would have a similar goal in mind.
I think a lot of people will say that Noah is stretching the meaning of Ashcroft’s statement, but I don’t really see what other conclusion one can draw from it. I don’t think it’s malacious; I just think it’s a foregone conclusion among the administration, and among many Republicans, that Bin Laden and associates would want Bush to be out of office.
I think Bush is the ideal President to further Al Qaida’s goals. His rhetoric inflames anti-American sentiment among potential AQ recruits, his our-way-or-the-highway attitude isolates us from other potential worldwide sources of anti-terrorist muscle, his willingness to use the war on terror to further other goals (like, say, Iraq) provides a distraction from them, and his administration’s utter incompetence thus far in executing the war in Iraq is enough to make them feel safe for quite some time.
Why would they want to replace that with someone who believes in a reasoned and focused approach, who is interested in building a cooperative effort instead of browbeating other countries into supporting our effort, and who might even be willing to change his tactics or correct his assumptions when they turn out to be mistaken?