This came up in a conversation with a friend the other evening. I’m honestly not trying to be provocative here, or to bash Bush; I’d like honest, thought-out responses.
Short of saying: “You’re absolutely right - we’re corrupt and are turning over our nation to you immediately to turn into an Islamic theocracy,” what could American leadership have done that would have suited Osama bin Laden better than what we did do when we invaded Iraq? I’m not claiming in any way that this was the administration’s intention in going into Iraq; I’m sincerely asking. Is there anything we could have done that would have been better for Al Qaida and bin Laden?
I’m sorry; I know this will come across as provocative. That’s not my intention. I really want to know.
Well, it is my understanding that ObL wants to make the west fall. I don’t think he is particularly interested in a kinder gentler west that treats the world with respect (he may, but I doubt it, I think he gets something personally out of the anger and the fight).
For this, he needs an army of willing and motivated volunteers, so anything we do that greatly angers average muslims has gotta be fine by him.
OK, so you think the US withdrawing support from Israel entirely.
Yes, certainly that would have been a victory for bin Laden. I guess what I’m thinking is more along the lines of policies that would not have appeared to be immediate capitulation. I’m sorry; I’m not trying to dismiss your answer, because it’s quite valid. It’s just that I didn’t phrase my opening well enough.
Rather than eliminating the sole possibility of the US becoming an Islamic theocracy, what I really should have said was, eliminating those actions that would have been immediate capitulation to bin Laden’s stated goals; i.e. the withdrawl of all support for Israel. I’m trying to come up with anti-bin-Laden actions that would have been better for him than what we actually did when we went into Iraq.
Does that make sense? I don’t want to sound like I’m trying to fix the result here. It’s just that I don’t think any American leadership would have considered responding to 9/11 by immediately withdrawing all support for Israel (I could be wrong, but that’s my take on it). I’m trying to come up with actual likely responses that would have suited bin Laden better (or hurt him less, if you prefer that phrasing) than going into Iraq.
Alternatively, I’d also be interested in hearing if people think we could have made a response that would have suited bin Laden worse (or hurt him more, if you prefer).
First off, on re-reading my first post, I hope that didn’t come off as snotty. That wasn’t my intent at all.
Back to the topic. I don’t see any American Leadership, after the events of 9/11, hearing Bin Ladens wants (read: demands) and conceding to them. So giving up Israel, even if we thought it was the right thing to do, wouldn’t be done. The US would consider doing that as negotiating with terrorists which has been something that Bush wouldn’t do.
I absolutely agree with you, stpauler. And you didn’t come across as snotty, at least not to me. I’m just afraid of coming across as opening this thread as an indirect way of trying to bash Bush. That’s not what I’m looking for.
What I’m looking for is, as I said, any realistic approach we could have taken post 9/11 that would have made bin Laden *happier * than the one we actually took (vis a vis Iraq specifically). I’ve tried to think of something short of outright capitulation, and I can’t come up with anything.
What bin Laden wants as his overarching goal is interesting, but again, I’m asking for politically realistic US actions. So, obviously we’re not talking about handing over sovereignty of Saudi Arabia, withdrawing all support from Israel, nuking England, or having all Americans shave their heads and become Hari Krishnas.
Is there any politically realistic policy the US could have followed post 9/11 that would have been better for Osama bin Laden than our invading Iraq?
Osama would be tickled pink if he was the spiritual and political leader of a unified Middle East, with the rest of us Western infidels either barred from muddling up the place or gone all together. Not unlike some other extreme religious fundamentalist groups, actually.
It is consistent, he’s a fundamentalist who wants to see the world draped in an Islamic flag.
He’s playing us all, at first he’ll seem reasonable, but if you look deeper you’ll realise every compromise leads to another and another, just like Hitler the Sudetenland just wasn’t enough, and neither will the Arabian peninsula and Palestine for him either.
Dreams can’t come true, besides I don’t like rationalising madmen. Please, no Bush jokes, he’s not mad, he’s dumb.
Are there any Bush supporters out there who can come up with some ideas? I am not trying to trap anyone, although I may disagree with a viewpoint and thus argue it.
Surely someone who supported the invasion of Iraq can come up with an alternative that would have been worse for bin Laden, can’t you? Please - I’m not setting any traps here. I’d really like to know what we could have (politically realistically) done worse, and why you think so!
I’m not 100% sure that I understand the question, but I think you’re asking, “What bone-headed move could we have made to play even more into the hands of bin Laden?”
If that’s the question, that’s easy. Attacked somewhere other than Afghanistan first. Used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Iraq. Immediately placed sanctions on Saudi Arabia. Declared openly that strict interpretation of Islam is the moral equivalent of Communism, and urged all Christian nations to embark on a new crusade to stamp out those beliefs. Encouraged Israel to carry out more aggressive anti-terrorism operations in the Occupied Territories, and declared an end to the Middle East peace process until terrorist attacks against democratic countries come to an end. Declared that Pakistan is an enemy, not an ally, in the war on terrorism, and called for the end to the military dictatorship there. Publically demanded that the Saudis interrogate and turn over anyone suspicious who was going to the Hajj in Mecca.
There’s a whole long list of things. Attacking Iraq was basically a big mistake, but there were many more catastrophic errors that could have realistically been made.
I am no Bush supporter but I’m sure as hell not an Osama fan.
I think what Osama bin Laden wants is that the west should simply be irrelevant. Islamic culture and Islamic nations should dominate the world. The US is an affront to that. It’s not because “we’re free” it’s because we’re the current primary representative of western/nonIslamic power and our existence spoils their dream of hegemony.
Whether we get out of the way via economic and societal collapse, from a sudden upswing in Islamic fundamentalism spurring a conversion from Constitutional to Sharia law, or from getting our ass seriously kicked by an up-and-coming Islamic superpower probably doesn’t matter much.
He’s a fucking religious fundamentalist fruitbat for whom fulfillment of his fundie dreams outweighs any other concerns. I wish that made him unique, or uniquely dangerous, on the face of the earth, but it kind of doesn’t.
Yes, that was exactly what I was asking, and thank you, you’ve suggested several things that hadn’t occurred to me. Not that I want to implement them, mind you, but at least I don’t have to believe we did just about the worst thing we could realistically have done!
