They turned the United States into an outlaw nation that invades sovereign states without cause, tortures its captives, and thrown away its own civil liberties. It wasn’t the harm that they did, it was the harm that Bush’s response has done.
“To [Mohamed Atta], Saddam Hussein was an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the Middle East.”
…and their cause would be essentially ignored by the world. And as far as losing their sanctuary, UBL doesn’t seem to mind living in a cave, and the AQ inspired movement is tremendously more powerful since it has been scattered to the winds: it’s pretty much everywhere and nowhere.
Talk about a double standard! In one breath you say that AQ could continue killing Americans a few at a time, and then you dismiss what is probably the most significant single terrorist attack in history as “a flea bite?” I think you sorely misunderstand AQ’s motivations if you think that they think that 9/11 would defeat the United States. I believe they got what they wanted out of the attacks: UBL’s ideology became a subject of worldwide interest and motivate a whole generation of radical Islamists to persue a long struggle against the United States. Not to mention that those attacks have quite literally had a real effect on everyday life as we know it here in America: homeland security, airport security, Patriot Act, and so on… I’m not even talking about torture, wiretapping, and the like.
Look, the point of whether a pan-Islamic state is realistic is a matter of faith and twisted idealism, not logic. The question of logic here isn’t whether we agree with someone’s beliefs, but whether they pursue their ideal through actions that show a calculation of risk and reward and act according to their perceived best interests. For rationality to be measured, you don’t have to agree with the calculation, but you have to understand the values of the other side to see and understand that what they’re doing isn’t random, pointless, chaotic acts.
To make a comparison, the Soviet Union had a bizarre ideal (worldwide revolution) and went after it in a rational way (armed themselves to the teeth, inspired communist revolutions in the Third World, launched Sputnik, etc). Just because I don’t agree with communism doesn’t mean that the Soviets were irrational. The Soviets were rational based on their values (I’m reminded of Fred Thompson saying, “The Soviets don’t take a dump without a plan”), and AQ is also rational based upon their twisted values.
Robert McNamera said in order to win a war, you have to see the enemy as they see themselves. I think you’re signing up to a jingoistic interpretation of what the enemy is supposed to be, not as they are.
“The attacks on September 11th were low-hanging fruit; easily executed by a bunch of amateurs with little coordination and financing.”
I don’t know about that. It took them two tries over ten years to get the World Trade Center although its quite possible they exceeded beyond their expectations there.
In any event the implication isn’t that jihadist’s will have suceeded in all their goals when we stand down, withdraw to the border or whatever happens. But they will certainly claim the credit for any lessening of Western presence there.
Since we know so little about how he’s living, of course, that’s hard to say.
I think of this as the counterpart to the hysterical “if we do , the terrorists win,” although it’s less crazy. The invasion of Iraq other things did play into Al Qaeda’s hands, but they’re capable of using almost any situation and I just don’t see the evidence that they planned to draw the U.S. into a larger war that they obviously didn’t have the capability to fight.
Despite their ostensible inability to fight this sort of a war they seem to be fighting this sort of a war.
What makes you think that they can’t engage in the global guerrilla campaign they are currently engaged in?
Most of the people fighting us aren’t Al Qaeda. They don’t need to fight us much, because we seem determined to create as many other enemies as possible.
And that means what to the observation that al Qaeda is engaged in a war that thet ostensibly lack the ability to engage in?
That they aren’t. It’s the new enemies that we’ve made that are.
Well, they have gotten a large beast to commit massive resources that could be used elsewhere to an extended campaign that involves a relatively small amount of risk to them, while gaining in recruitment tools thanks to a renewed image of America as a drunken giant stomping on innocent peasants.
They are very much engaging in a war, they’re just having unrelated people do the fighting and dying. Think of it as the “watchmaker” theory of warfare. Just set the enemy in motion, and let them bleed themselves for a while.
I meant successfully, of course, but I admit my wording could have been better. The way I see it, the group of terrorists that was based in Afghanistan six years ago expected to achieve its goal by virtue of one major attack on the U.S. which killed a lot of people, hurt the economy and destroyed national symbols of power. I don’t think they were relying on a prolonged struggle, and I think they expected more people to rally behind them.
Al Qaeda now is not that same group - it’s a much larger and fragmented group, as has been discussed, and could arguably be called a movement instead of a terrorist network. While they have been able to use stupid moves like the Iraq invasion to their benefit, I don’t think that was the origial idea. I think that idea was to get the West out of the Muslim world and then, with the support of all the people who were thrilled at what they’d done, watch or aid as today’s governments were overthrown and replaced by ones more to their liking. I don’t think they wanted to spend the rest of their lives on the run.
Come on, the likelihood of getting caught up in a terrorist incident in the UK has to be many many times lower than it was a decade ago, thanks to the great improvement in the Northern Irish situation. Living in Manchester, you ought to appreciate that. How many Islamist terrorist attacks have we had? And how many IRA attacks, year in, year out, in the bad old days?
So instead of “Most of the people fighting us aren’t Al Qaeda,” you meant to say “NONE of the people fighting us are Al Qaeda?”
What brought you to that conclusion?
Their experience with the FSU certainly wasn’t a one off proposition.
Why do you suppose that they assumed that it would be a one off deal to sink the other super-power?
So aQ did get larger,but you think they expected grwo even more than they actually did?
And you’re citing this growth into a “movement” as an example of how they have not been “successful”?
I’m of the opinion that their experience w/ the FSU heavily influenced their strategic thinking and that they knew they wouldn’t sink a super power in a day.
I think that the jihadist terrorists WILL strike inside the United States again, not just once, but many times. The very fact that a target in the United States has been hit will grab the world’s attention.
There are so many targets in the U.S. that, no matter where or what they strike, they’ll get publicity for their cause all out of proportion to their target’s importance.
They not only want to inflict physical damage on the U.S., but also to destroy our sense of security as well, by striking at many targets where ordinary Americans live, work and play.
Even individual homes could be targeted at random.
Most military installations are still pretty easy to enter, and even a car bomb right at the main gate or in a base commissary parking lot, or an individual with explosives on his or her person walking into the base hospital or even an aircraft hangar could inflict a lot of damage.
The terrorists could totally disrupt daily life in the U.S., at the cost of only a relatively small number of their own people.
And yet, in the last six years, they haven’t. Hmmmm…either they’re already getting what they want, or they don’t have the organization and resources to carry out these nefarious plans. Or, more likely, both.
Stranger
What makes you think they are on the run ? It’s not like we’ve ever seriously gone after them; we’ve just used them as an excuse to do other things, like attack Iraq. I expect Osama is in some nice house in Pakistan, not ‘on the run’.
No, just that they are a small factor. Kill every last Al Qaeda memeber, and it would make little difference.
It seems one non-sequitur follows another…
Originally Posted by Marley23
… a larger war that they obviously didn’t have the capability to fight.
Originally Posted by PatriotX
Despite their ostensible inability to fight this sort of a war they seem to be fighting this sort of a war.
Originally Posted by Der Trihs
Most of the people fighting us aren’t Al Qaeda.
Originally Posted by PatriotX
And that means what to the observation that al Qaeda is engaged in a war that thet ostensibly lack the ability to engage in?
Originally Posted by Der Trihs
That they aren’t. It’s the new enemies that we’ve made that are.
Originally Posted by PatriotX
So instead of “Most of the people fighting us aren’t Al Qaeda,” you meant to say “NONE of the people fighting us are Al Qaeda?”
Originally Posted by Der Trihs
No, just that they are a small factor. Kill every last Al Qaeda memeber, and it would make little difference.
All of which leaves the original assertion that al Qaeda is fighting the US using guerrilla / insurgency style tactics totally unassailed.
Who was trying to assail it ?
I thought your posts were intended to be relevant to the posts of mine you had quoted.
Apparently I was mistaken on that point, but correct on the non-sequitur aspect.