Article answering several questions about Al Qaeda: Think Again: Al Qaeda
I think it would be very instructive for some SMDB members to read and to learn more about AQ.
I think the debate will arise naturally from the questions and answers offered. Especially the AQ as ideology and not an organization and the last question:
Come on, Rashak, it’s GD - what’s your point of view? If you’re agreeing with the stuff in your link, say so…
Well, if it’s all the same to you, I’d be perfectly happy with Osama being blendered to death. His successors can be dealt with as they appear.
Nobody would be sorry to see Osama go. However, it will make little difference as there are thousands to take his place. The movement formed Osama, not the other way around. We can’t think in western terms that there is a capital somewhere or a leader great enough that when they fall, the movement stops. It doesn’t work that way, it only fans the flames.
A very informative article IMO, thanks.
The article makes a good point. AQ is a MLM scheme just like friggin’ Amway.
It automatically organises into cells and levels, isn’t disrupted by the removal of any cell or level, and can’t be stopped by anything that the assholes currently in Washington are capable of coming up with.
Even worse - it thrives on what the assholes shit out.
While this is probably true, there’s no question that bin Laden had been the most effective guy to date at gathering the many disparate groups which purportedly make up the Al Qaeda network. He appears to be a superb organizer. That, and the guy controls the purse strings to an extent not previously seen. All this makes him a worthwhile prime target and removing him from the scene will almost certainly show a positive net effect, both in the short run and the long run. One need look only to the U.S. efforts to eradicate the Mafia to see evidence of this. The mafia was largely crippled by using the same strategic methods - go after the known leaders through their subordinates and then pick off the remaining members and the new guys that crop up as the opportunities become available.
I generally like Foreign Policy, but the author of that article, while it’s good, doesn’t really present any new information. What’s there is pretty common knowledge among people who are even modestly informed about this issue already. Burke also seems to be implying that the U.S. is going after bin Laden almost to the exclusion of other terrorists and their organizations - this is patently untrue.
Another gripe I have about that article, is that the author seems to contradict himself on a very fundamental point. He claims it is false that:
Yet on the next page he says, “Radical militants such as bin Laden want to destroy the state and replace it with something based on a literal reading of the Koran.” How is this not an obvious contradiction?
So, tell us, Rashak Mani, what is it you expect us SDMB members to learn from that article? As I said, there’s nothing at all new in it. If you would point out what you think is unknown to us, a more profitable discussion might take place. As it now stands, you appear to be simply “preaching” to us.
Yes I agree with the stuff there.
Yes its sort of a Terrorist Amway… worse actually. Its like a self service franchise. No one has to bring you into the scheme. Want to be AQ ? Just blow up some “coalition bitches” and claim your an AQ subsidiary.
My main intention was posting an interesting article more than anything.
He says:
Your equation of “state” with “global state” is in error.
When the author refers to the “state” in your second quote, I believe he means the local, Middle Eastern governments, not the West. The author mentions that the goal is to only weaken the West so as to reduce interference on its part, not take over the Western governments.
Uh. Okay. Maybe I read more into that word “state” than was intended. However, are there really all that many people in the United States, or more specifically here at the SDMB (remember Rashak Mani says we SDMB’ers can learn something from this article), who believe what Burke claims—that the militants really do want to impose a global fundamentalist Islamic theocracy? I think not. In which case Burke is simply setting up strawmen for himself to poke holes in and Rashak Mani doesn’t know his audience.
Snort. Or, less delicately put, advancing an agenda.
Again, tell us what it is that us we’re supposed to be “learning” from that article. And what, exactly, is so interesting to you about a dull recitation of what are largely commonly-known facts?
If AQ freaks think they can make heaven on earth who am I to doubt they sincerely beleive its possible ? Maybe some do. Some people think of creating a liberal democracy in Iraq through military invasion… Fanatics are fanatics.
I would like to know where Burke got that idea from though. Still he is saying AQ “thinks” like this… not that its a serious consideration by itself.
The utility of the article is not in the “dull recitation of what are largely commonly-known facts”. It’s been demonstrated that you weren’t familiar enough with these “commonly-know facts” not to make a major mistake in interpreting them.
The article presents an alternative model for analysing what AQ is about, and how it functions. A model that can explain why AQ didn’t shut down when Osama was huddling in a cave.
And incidentally, a model which can explain why the Iraqi resistance didn’t shut down when Saddam was captured.
And a model which suggests that the capture of Osama, like the capture of Saddam, will achieve precisely nothing in terms of reducing attacks.
An alternative to what? A model that doesn’t even exist among the membership here? As I said, a strawman. And one that has nothing to do with my misinerpretation of the author’s use of the word “state.”
But you have posted this article under the guise of educating the SDMB members; what you’re saying here has not one damned thing to do with the SDMB membership. Again, and I’m really getting tired of asking this what is it that you expect us to learn from this article? What’s in there that you think we don’t know?
I thought it was a good article. Thanks Rashak. I think you are reaching too far if you assume that everyone here at SDMB has an equal understanding of all the nuances of terrorism (or anything else, in fact). I’m confident that at least some people got at least one new piece of information from this article or that the article helped bring the big picture into focus. Now, some will take that information and further disseminate it to other places. Knowledge is power. Knowledge will get Bush voted out of office come November.
Well, there’s the misconception that al Qaeda is campaigning for a global Islamic state. This is quite a common mistake - I have seen it and attempted to respond at least 5 or so times on the SDMB, often from fairly well-informed and rational posters. I believe Islamism and “world empire of Islam” often get conflated in the news, and this leads to these incorrect assumptions.
Also, there is a very common misconception that al Qaeda is a united organisation, with a single overall leader and solid chains of command leading down to a bunch of henchmen, bit like a Bond flick. The article addresses this one, too.
Are you saying that you haven’t seen these two misconceptions amongst friends / family and in the media? I see them all the time…
Well, it’s interesting the article makes no mention of freedom. As in “Al-Queda hates us because of our freedom”. That is a motive commonly thrown up by war enthusiasts.