I am aware that there are several threads around this topic, but I would like to focus on the practicalities of the situation. This could be a GQ thread, but given the nature of the question, it’s probably better to post here.
Having read the answers to my “What do Al-Qa’ida want ?” GQ thread, I am struck with the problem “What can The West do to remove Al-Qa’ida, before they impose Shariah Law on everyone”, as Bin Laden claims is his eventual aim. Everyone knows the problems with fighting a terrorist enemy - so what can we do to defeat this threat ?
One might as well ask; “what can be done about psychopathy?”.
All that a civilised nation can do is examine the origins of psycopathy and identify psychopaths so that they cannot harm innocent people.
Similarly, even though every effort might be made to educate young Muslims that the philosophy of Al Qaeda is a perversion of the peaceful religion of Islam, there might still emerge sadistic psychopaths who value human life not at all. These people must be pursued wherver they may be in the world and prevented from commiting murder.
Note that I do not append the phrase by any means necessary, since that is how they seek to acheive their misguided and abhorrent ends.
In the very short term, existing cells must be traced through existing intelligence channels, broken up and arrested through law enforcement mechanisms, and have their finances cut off. This is not particularly glamorous work, or even a solution, but it is necessary in order to stop whatever attacks are planned in the next year or two.
In the medium term, worldwide law enforcement and intelligence operations must be stepped up, with the aim of not only breaking cells but also arresting or killing leadership. This will be easier in countries that are known to have al-Qaeda cells but are committed to fighting them. For countries that have al-Qaeda leadership (or, in the worst case, sponsor al-Qaeda or let them have bases) but are uncooperative, political inducements against not fighting al-Qaeda must be maintained (econ sanctions, diplo sanctions, etc, all the way up to targeted strikes against AQ bases and even regime change).
In the long term, political reformation in the MENA is necessary. Transition to liberal democracy in the Arab world (and related Muslim countries, e.g. Iran and Pak) means Arabs will have a non-violent means of political expression, costing AQ its main recruiting strategy, and also means Arab gov’ts will have an interest in stopping AQ other than cynical preservation of power for secular autocrats like Assad and Mubarak. Important steps include free independent press, market economies, free trade, full voting rights for all political offices close to the final step; as Fareed Zakaria argues, if you want liberal democracy, liberalism has to come before democracy.
Of course, sometimes these goals conflict. For instance, Pakistan’s intelligence service is widely known to have heavy infiltration by Islamist elements, along with a significant AQ presence inside the country. Invasion (or most political sanctions), however, is not a possibility. If Musharraf is weakend, the Islamists take over, and they’ll have nukes. Then we are all in a world of shit. The difficult question is how to balance these goals out.
Well, they have already acheived the only feasible, real-life end that they demanded before 9/11, which was the withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia. Their other, less clear-cut goals such as those given in the GQ thread are quite obviously halal pie in the sky.
Seriously, my opinion is that the western international intel communities need to share their info as much as possible (as I believe they now are); both between allies and within individual countries, and recruit sympathetic Arabs to infiltrate the groups, both in the West and throughout the ME and Asia - this is one criticism I’ve read of pre-9/11 intel; that there were almost no native Arabic speakers on the ground in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Also, refraining from invading Arabic countries unconnected to Al Qaeda would help.
Some other points are STOP supporting Israel so blatlantly. Do it undercover or with military treaties. Israel and unflinching US support of every attrocity they commit is ruining US image.
Stop giving Dictators in the MENA support too. At least openly. This might be good for oil supply… but it certainly helps terrorists too. It creates a hypocritical situation that clearly sets the stage for dual allegiance of Saudi elite. Their pro-US and give money to AQ too !
Use UN endorsement more. Even if you cajole people into accepting your ideas and actions through the UN it is more palatable. When the UN “acts” its harder to paint the US as the devil.
Pressure European and South American Allies to participate more in peacekeeping missions. (I feel ashamed of how timid Brazil is about sending troops in good peacekeeping missions.) Europe certainly should acquire more capabilities with long term military commitments. This stops AQ from advertising US unilateralism... different countries also give locals a better image of peacekeeping efforts.
Law enforcement... law enforcement... law enforcement... collaboration... collaboration... collaboration... diplomacy... diplomacy... diplomacy
In the early 90s he lived in London for a while. Whilst there he went to see Arsenal football club several times. Specifically, he saw them beat Torino and Paris Saint-Germaine in the Cup Winners Cup in 1994. Bin Laden, according to eye-witnesses, was literally stricken by the atmosphere in the stadium. He was enthralled by this atmosphere and said that he had never seen such passion as that shown by football fans.
He even bought an Arsenal shirt from the shop to give to his son.
To this day he is known as “Dave with the beard” by Arsenal fans. After the 9/11 attacks, Arsenal’s manager, Arsene Wenger said that Osama was no longer welcome at Highbury (Arsenal’s stadium).
Oh yeah, and apparently (according to thos links)there was some plan to massacre the England team on the pitch at the 98 world cup in France whilst silmultaneously bursting into the American teams hotel room and killing them. The plot was prevented by the arrest of several Algerians in Belguim.
I don’t know how true this all is. But if there was such a plot, and if it had been carried out successfully, one can only shudder to think of the repercussions that would have been visited upon the (moderate, peaceable) muslim community in Britain.
Football fans aren’t noted for their ability to understand the subtleties of international politics and religion. But they do tend to be noted for their ability to carry out mindless herd violence against anyone and everyone who they see as an “enemy”. Especially (unfortunately) English football fans.
No, bin Laden does not claim this as his ultimate aim. This has been discussed in your earlier thread. There’s a big difference between a Caliphate of all Muslims and world conquest, with everyone forced to submit to Islam. Both are pretty damned unlikely though.
Take a deep breath; get a good night’s sleep. = “Al Qaida” is a media toy invented by the people who own the world to distract, confuse and bring fear to todos nos peones. (IMHO)
It’s working well, so far, neh?
Nano, your grasp of reality is worse than your grasp of Spanish. What makes you think, against all evidence, what you said?
There are two large holes in Manhattan and several busted train coaches in Madrid that sure enough are not part of some media plot, are you suggesting that was staged?, a large conspiracy perhaps?
A cite would be interesting.
With apologies for both my poor Spanish my weak grasp on reality, I offer this short cogent article by mainstream British journalist Brendan O’Neill: Does al-Qaeda exist?
Nano, you haven’t read your own cited article there. It’s not saying that al Qaeda (note spelling) doesn’t exist at all, it’s saying it’s actually a loose confederation of different groups and cells with similar mindsets and goals. Al Qaeda is a convenient label for these groups.
Its power may be exaggerated by those in power for political reasons, but that is a different debate. It exists, it’s not just a “media toy” invented by a giant conspiracy.
Ahhh. semantics, just peachy. :rolleyes:
A full description of the terrorist organization responsible for, but not limited to the bombings of the USA embassies in Africa, the first WTC attack, the USS Cole, the 9/11 attacks, the more recent bombings in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, etc, it´s a bit too lenghty for news releases and the like. Personally I don´t have a problem if that organization is labeled as al Qaeda or Osama´s Boys, it´s very real and very dangerous.
Besides it´s been repeated ad nauseum the disgregated nature of that organization, consisting of many semi-autonomous cells.
So I really don´t have a clue of what did you mean with:
Either you are saying that an evil cabal invented al Qaeda and its deeds out of thin air, or they just asigned a name to the organization in question here. The former is ridiculous and the later, well, that´s ridiculous too.
That al Qaeda in particular, and terrorism in general have been used by some goverments as convinient boogeymen to get support from the masses is old news already, but that doesn´t mean they created the threat to then use it as a political tool.
Terrorism has been going on as long as man has been on this planet (Link). However, it has gotten more violent with bigger casualty totals through the use of modern weapons and easy access to bomb making instructions and materials.
This is not something that is stoppable. It’s like trying to plug the proverbial dyke with your fingers, which is why Bush’s war in the name of ending terrorism is a joke. As I heard somewhere else, terrorism is like a the mythical creature Hydra. You cut off one of its heads and another springs forth to take its place.
There will always be people unhappy with the status quo, people who are so fanatical in their beliefs, people who believe that someone else is doing something so grievously wrong (to them, to their god, to their religion, to their lifestyle), that they are willing to sacrifice their lives and the lives of others to fight against this thing.
To repeat, terrorism cannot be stopped (at least with today’s technology) but one way to reduce the possibility and effects of terrorism would be for countries, like the USA for instance, to stop selling arms and munitions to just about anybody who has the cash.
And Britannia continues to valiantly fight Oceania…
Capitulation seems like the best course to me. Sure this would give Osama bin Laden a cultural victory for a while, but having won, it would be harder to find people willing to die for the cause, and he’d be mired down in trying to unite Arabia and the bureaucracy would swallow him up before he ever got to our shores, in the meantime over the 200 years that the Caliphate shores up it’s support the world has continued it’s rate of philosophical and ideological evolution brought about in the 19th, 20th, and 21st century by advances in communication technology and more effective means of distributing resources due to proactive problem solving presented by a populace now more capable of getting in touch with people all over the globe than ever before, and the new fashion trend for Middle class Caliphites of fucking non-Arabs has rendered the idea of world domination completely obsolete as no one can really tell the difference between “US” and “THEM” anymore.
Terrorism often accused of being a misapplied term has been declared universally meaningless, and is being replaced by a new more accurate word, “Murder”, we’ve got Moishe Abdullah at Informational Retrieval bringing us this breaking news story.
Bush Urges COLOR=Green Iraq-War Allies to Stick with U.S.
Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:01 AM ET
By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Tuesday called on Spain and other allies in Iraq to stick with the United States and not cave in to pressure from al Qaeda by withdrawing their troops.
The White House said it may seek a new U.N. resolution that could help persuade Spain not to withdraw its forces, as threatened by its newly elected Socialist prime minister in the wake of a suspected al Qaeda-linked strike in Madrid.
“It’s essential that we remain side-by-side with the Iraqi people,” Bush said during a meeting with Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende. “Al Qaeda understands the stakes. Al Qaeda wants us out of Iraq because al Qaeda wants to use Iraq as an example of defeating freedom and democracy.”