Is this gist of what you’re trying to say?
aQ doesn’t like the change happening in Iraq.
Therefore, they must have liked how Iraq was before the changes began.
If by “Afghanistan” you mean “Kabul,” and by “Iraq” you mean “a few square blocks of downtown Baghdad,” then yes, Afghanistan and Iraq are certainly “occupied.” If, on the other hand, you notice the substantial lack of control that U.S./British/“coalition” troops have over those two countries, and notice further that they provide great recruiting tools and training opportunities for jihadist groups, then I don’t see why al Qaeda would be all that displeased about the current situation.
This could be a interpretation of the ‘gist’ of what I’m trying to say. I would say a better way to put it is A-Q appears to want us out of Iraq, therefore they have some perceived advantage to having us out (or appearing like they want us out).
I can understand your point, I do think they think ‘liberation’ is a bad thing however (allowing people to stray from the path to Alah and the like), so in my little world it could fit for A-Q also.
So are you in the camp that A-Q doesn’t care a rat’s rear end about the occupation, but just wants to appear that they do? Or are you saying that the ‘occupation’ is so ineffective that it doesn’t effect them plus they get new recutes? Or something else?
From a Congressional Research Service report – Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology:
As has already been pointed out in this thread, Al Qaeda’s stated purpose is to cleanse Muslim nations of Western troops and influence, and to establish virtual theocracies in those states. In Iraq, we’re trying to set up a democracy which wil be heavily influenced and allied with the West, and which will house U.S. armed forces for decades to come.
Hence, it’s not that Al Qaeda sees an advantage to getting us out of Iraq, it’s that getting us out of Iraq is their very raison d’etre.
I agree. In much the same way, the stated goal of the invasion of Iraq was to “fight terrorism.” However, given what we know about Al Qaeda’s motives (above) and methods, it should have been thunderingly obvious that the occupation would lead to a surge in terrorist activity (in the Middle East, if not also on the home front).
So what about the discussion you made about links between Iraqi dictatorship and aQ, between 9-11 and Iraq, and between terrorism and Iraq?
How does these all tie into your realization that aQ doesn’t want Western armed forces in an Arab country?
Are you trying to imply that aQ wants to have Hussein re-installed?
Are you trying to imply that aQ thought of Hussein as something other than “an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the Middle East?”
Just where are you trying to take your realization that aQ doesn’t want Western armed forces occupying an Muslim country?
I’d like to hear more about how aQ sees the US led invasion of Iraq as “liberation” rather than oppression.
Please, do go on.
I think you need to put the word “liberation” in quotes.
Zarqawi, in his first letter to Bin Laden, pleaded for help against the Americans BECAUSE they were liberating the country. He said, “This is the Democracy, and we must stop it.”
Al-Qaida desperately wants to spin the war in Iraq as an occupation, so as to gain support for the insurgency. Once it becomes a democracy and the shots are being called by an elected Iraqi government, they can no longer do this. Then they stop being seen as muslims fighting foreign invaders, instead being seen as muslims trying to impose their will on other muslims.
Al-Qaida has absolutely no interest whatsoever in democracy. Democracy is anathema to them. They want a strict totalitarian society. One of the reasons the Iraqi insurgency is turning against al-Qaida is because when they have managed to control an area such as Fallujah, they have run it despotically.
Bin Laden’s big fear is that democracy will come to the middle east, and with it will come western decadence, materialism, secularism, etc. Thus, the war in Iraq and the effort to turn Iraq into a model democracy in the region is a shot right in the heart of al-Qaida’s master plan.
So, you’re saying that aQ see themselves as oppressors fighting liberation? And that they view democracy as liberation rather than an aberration of God’s intended order of government?
I mean, I’m well convinced that you and kanic see the incvasion and democracy both as liberation. Yet I remain unconviced that aQ et al would describe either that way.
I’m not sure I understand what you are asking. 9-11 was a terrorists act done by A-Q. We invade Iraq and overthrew the Dictatorship. A-Q makes other attacks trying to drive forces out of Iraq.
Perhaps it’s just because they planned to conquer Iraq themselves in the future and we beat them to it. Or perhaps they are afraid that this western seed of democracy will take root and spread throughout the ME. If this happens, people may be educated differently and that may not make the ideal environment for future A-Q operatives. Perhaps it’s something else.
If they see Iraq as already theirs I would say then the link is proven.
I understand the point that A-Q doesn’t want us in any Muslim country, but it does show some (unwritten) alliance between A-Q and muslem countries, and A-Q just lost one of their allies.
It is not important to the OP, I think we agree with how A-Q views the US ‘occupation’ we are just defining terms differently.
I don’t think so, if it had to be in quotes, A-Q wouldn’t be so P’off about it, again perhaps a matter of definition (though A-Q spuns it as a occupation as that plays better in the press)
I don’t think they see themselves as ‘oppressors’ any more than the Taliban did. Which doesn’t change the fact that they ARE oppressors.
I think they see themselves as religious purists fighting to prevent the Muslim world from moving in a secular, ‘modern’ direction. This isn’t just about the U.S. and its interference. Look at the Taliban in Afghanistan. Or the radical clerics in Saudi Arabia. Their enemy isn’t the U.S., it’s what the U.S. represents. Freedom, women as equals to men, religious equality, free speech, racial tolerance, etc. If the U.S. packed up and left the Middle East tomorrow and built a big wall around it and left everyone there to their own devices, al-Qaida would begin attacking moderate muslims in Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Afghanistan, or anywhere else they found them.
In short, al-Qaida is a religious fascist movement. They aren’t liberators. They aren’t underdogs fighting back the oppression of the rich and powerful. Many of them ARE rich and powerful. They’re brutal fascist thugs who want everyone in the Muslim world to live under their notion of religious purity at the point of a gun.
What bothers me is that so many on the left are so busy with their hatred of George Bush and their reflexive desire to recast conflict into ‘root causes’ and blame-the-west that they’ve lost sight of the fact that the enemy is truly evil and stands for everything Liberals oppose.
Brush getting too big there Sam, and into insulting territory.
The enemy is truly evil but OTOH we have a president that has decided to do this war on credit and not willing to put America in serious war footing, a footing that will require raising taxes to beat the axis, to investigate how to get AQ instead of opening the unnecessary Iraqi second front. Playing into the enemies’ hands is not the doing of the Liberals.
These things didn’t seem to be factored into your gist.
I suppose it could if the definition of alliance does not necessarily involve a willing cooperation on the behalf of one of the parties.
Then we have abandoned interest in the motivations of aQ regarding Iraq.
No doubt some of them would. However, their appeal and recruiting power would be greatly diminished. This in turn would diminish their ability to act.
For a great many of those who either directly, indirectly, actively or passively support aQ the motivation is opposition to US foreign policies.
It is important to understand the appeal that aQ has to new recuits. Without cutting off the reinforcements the GWoT is merely incredibly expensive and counterproductive butchery. The struggle for hearts and minds is not only a part of the GWot, it’s central to the conflict.
Perhaps some of conversations you hear and find bothersome are not actually related to a reflexive hatred of GWB but rather are made in awareness of the necessity of the central struggle of the GWoT.
Have you given the Pentagon’s Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication a glance yet?
It’s all “Global Test” and “sensitive war” crap.
“Strategic communication requires a sophisticated method … … [it] will build on in depth knowledge of other cultures and factors that motivate human behavior. It will adapt techniques of skillful political campaigning … It will engage in a respectful dialogue of ideas that begins with listening and assumes decades of sustained effort.
“[Global] opinions must be taken into account when [US] policy options are considered and implemented.
“The Task Force recommends that the President issue a directive to: (a) strengthen the U.S. Government’s ability to understand global public opinion, advise on the strategic implications of policymaking, and communicate with global audiences ...
“The strategic environment has changed radically since the October 2001 Task Force report. We face a war on terrorism, intensified conflict within Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. ***Worldwide* anger** and discontent are directed at **America’s tarnished credibility**[!] and ***ways* the U.S. pursues its goals**[!].
"The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective ... But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.
**American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically *elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists*** ...
• **Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies.
**
• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.
• Therefore, **the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars**. **American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims**. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah ... **to broad public support**.
• **What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups.** Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.
Perhaps I’m wrong and these authors are also merely motivated by a hatred of George Bush.
Gollly, that’s a pretty ridiculous sentiment. Seems to me that one hell of a lot of Democrats – including a rather prominent guy who beat the snot out of Dear Leader in last year’s debates – were highly critical of Bush for “taking his eye off the ball” regarding the threat posed by al Qaeda. Tora Bora – remember that one, Sam? A great and shining moment in the War on Terror, wasn’t it?
Feh.
I didn’t mean to be insulting. I’m not suggesting that the left is excusing al-Qaida, or even tolerating it. Just that it seems like their priorities are a bit out of whack, clouded by their hatred of Bush.
And you’re right that I was painting with too broad a brush. I should say “SOME on the left”. Certainly not all. There is certainly a legitimate discussion to be had over whether we’re pursuing the war in a way that’s most likely to lead to victory. But there are many on the left who seem to get particularly passionate when they can find fault with the west and especially with the Bush administration, and seem to react to the faults of the enemy with significantly less zeal.
Last night I was watching a show broadcast live from London in which a member of the Muslim community appeared to condemn the terror attacks. But every time he opened his mouth he tried to turn it around as a criticism of Bush, Blair, and the West in general, and all he could do was to keep prattling about the ‘legitimate grievances’ of the people who carried out the bombing.
All I’m saying is that while you’re busy criticizing Bush, the Patriot Act, the strategy of the War on Terror and al the other things you’re riled up about, it might be worth keeping focused on the fact that we’re all trying to defeat the same enemy, and that enemy is orders of magnitude worse than the worst elements of the Bush administration on their worst day. It would be nice to see the outrage that comes from some on the left be just a little more balanced.
Tora Bora seems, in hindsight, to have been a big mistake. No question. On the other hand, the same strategy of relying on Afghnistan locals to pursue the war worked spectacularly elsewhere in the country. Were you under the impression that wars can be fought perfectly?
As for ‘taking their eye off the ball’, you feel free to see it that way. The other position is that al-Qaida had been dispersed, Bin Laden gone to ground, and spending huge resources essentially wandering aimlessly around the mountains of Afghanistan wasn’t going to do much good. And for all you know, your favorite strategy might have been exactly what Bin laden was hoping for. After all, that’s how he fought the Russians. He went to ground in the endless series of caves in the Afghanistan mountains, forcing the Russians to fight on his terms. Perhaps the U.S. commanders were just a little smarter than that. So instead they bottled him up, cut him off, neutralized him, then shifted strategy to undercut him elsewhere.
But I’m not going to argue the Iraq war on this message board any more, and this is heading in that direction, so I’m done with this thread.
Hindsight? I was criticizing it while it was still going on.
Nonsense. By the time of Tora Bora, it was already quite obvious that the warlords were unreliable allies serving their own agendas. The only reason they beat the Taliban at all was because of the American/Coalition air campaign (in conjunction with the limited number of boots on the ground, of course), which devastated the Taliban’s fighting capability and left their opponents pretty well able to do as they saw fit. A fitting prologue for today’s Afghanistan, which is nothing more than Kabul and a thousand lawless fiefdoms.
And I will, thanks.
I fail to see “dispersal” as a good thing. Destruction would have been far, far better, but oops! we’re stuck in Iraq instead because Dear Leader really doesn’t give a damn about al Qaeda. Terri Schiavo, now there’s a matter worthy of being awakened in the middle of the night! I’m sure all those ports and chemical plants and subway stations will take care of themselves, in fact, they’ll be even better than before as soon as we cut their taxes again.
Alive and well and living in a nation Georgie Boy is too chicken to touch. “Dead or alive, unless you’re in Pakistan.”
Yes, I’m sure he’s hoping for a martyr’s death. I’d be happy to oblige him, unlike the twits in charge of this clown act.
What a brilliant strategery! Let’s go undercut al Qaeda someplace where they’re not even there!
Don’t let the door & etc.
I assume you’re talking about recruitment here. So: recruitment to what end? It’s not that Western-style democracy in the ME would get in the way of their plans. It’s that stopping Western-style democracy from spreading is is a means to their end – it is itself their ultimate goal. See my first post (#24).
No, not at all. For example, Al Qaeda desperately wanted us out of Saudi Arabia, but they hated the Saudi government almost as much as they hate us. The Saudis hated them, too. How can that possibly be described as an “unwritten alliance”?
The same dynaminc applies to Iraq (and all other secular Muslim nations), to a somewhat lesser extent.
Should read: Stopping the spread of Western-style democracy in the ME is not a means to their end – it is, itself, their ultimate goal.
Not everyone agrees with this, it seems to be the belief of the left in general, while the right believes we are at the point that we are overtaxed and raising taxes lowers revenue through slowing the economy. I would like to know the taxes now compared to WW2, I would wag that they are more after all adjustments.
Again it depends who you ask, many on the right see some liberals and the anti-war stance of the left as a bigger danger then the enemy.
Again it is a new type of war, conventional terms don’t work and new ones are needed. With a enemy who does not have defined boarders, but lives off other countries, so perhaps we can define A-Q as a parasitic ‘country’ or a ‘symbiotic’ country depending if the ‘host’ country supports them or opposes them w/i their boarders. IF there is support then that does suggest a willing cooperation on both parts and a conventional alliance holds. If A-Q is a parasitic country in Iraq then I would have to say that A-Q wants to conquer Iraq for there own. Now I don’t think they would do so openly in a conventional sense, but more like (re)infect the country.
Directly no,but indirectly I believe it does. It raises suspicious at the least, and one has to ask why A-Q might do what it does (know thy enemy). Also remember that mil. intel is not perfect even when it comes to a conventional country (remember that not only Bush, but basically the world knew Sadam Husane had WMD) we can expect less in the case of this new type of boarderless country.
Then it is time for you to explain.
Yes, to provide a stead flow of A-Q fighters. One problem with western style democracy ( is their a Eastern Style? Northern? Southern? If not why not just call it democracy) is that A-Q seem to want to use democracy against themselves, and I wonder if a democracy can successfully fight off such a ‘parasitic country’ (A-Q), without destroying the democracy in the process.
Answered above.