Al Qaeda, strategy, and what would be "success"

[dcmdale]

No interesting (to me) threads going on.

A couple of months after 9/11, I read a discussion between several experts who had been following Al Qaeda and Central Asia for years (which admittedly I had not).

Their conclusion at the time was that Al Qaeda’s strategy in attacking was not to strike some death blow against the West, but precisely to provoke a knee-jerk “Pearl Harbor” type response from the United States (indeed, that they are been surprised that previous attacks had not generated that kind of response), that this natural response would be construed within the Muslim community as a “War on Islam,” that the consequences of that war might even mean short-term occupation of certain areas, but in the long term would force Muslims to shed their complacency and rededicate themselves to Allah.

If indeed that was the strategy, it has worked better than could possibly be expected to date. Between American arrogance, European hypocritical stupidity, and complete U.N. ineffectiveness, they have their War on Islam, they have a divided and bickering West, and they have Muslims returning to the faith. We have dissent in the U.S. and Iran provoking further action every day. Assuming that Bush will not chose to leave Iran for the next president to deal with, we can expect to see in three years that the U.S. has occupational and/or political sway over most of Mesopotamia and Central Asia, Europe appalled and angry that the U.S., and a rising resentment in the Islamic community worldwide against the West with the attendant fundamentalism. (Actually, none of this is necessarily dependant on Iran being attacked. That is just my expectation.) If that is what Al Qaeda intended, then they have won. The U.S. cannot occupy Central Asia forever, nor are they terribly likely to succeed in imposing governments on an unwilling people. (A very least, it seems problematic for an outside power to impose a “democratic” government on a people hostile to its occupation.).

If I were to characterize my view of American strategy to date, it would be that there is an underlying assumption that the Al Qaeda goal was a continuing string of terrorist attacks against the U.S. to which there has been an assumption that if we could eliminate bases of operation / top people and also deal with the festering situation with Sadaam (which, because it pinned U.S. troops in Saudi soil was creating a lot of the resentment that feeds Al Qaeda) we could declare victory. If, however, that underlying assumption is wrong and the goal was precisely to involve us in a situation that we could not easily disengage from, we have kind of stepped in it and if may be fairly easy to keep us engaged (especially if we are not recognizing that as their goal).

Assume, arguendo, that this is the strategy and that we are where we are, not making decisions back in 2001. Fencers are a strategic lot. How do you disrupt the opponent’s strategy? Or are we the proverbial bull being led by the ring in the nose. http://www.lifestyleblock.co.nz/arti...nging_bull.htm

Just to throw some fuel on the fire, I will just note in passing that should the U.S. take out Iran, that there will be, at least technically, a fulfillment scenario for Daniel 7:23. <ducking wildly>

[jBirch]

Demonstrate to Islamic nations that military action is not on Islam but rather on specific threats to lives and property.

Doing that involves sacrificing a lot of Christian people for anti-Christian principals merely to show that Christianity has the same amount as Islam to benefit. Further, you have to put into power people who loudly oppose your viewpoints but do agree with your goals. These goals need to be open goals that include greed and are not lofty principal goals. Ie// We invaded Iraq for the oil. It's Iraqi oil though and we'll buy it from you if you get rid of Hussein. And not: "We are here to liberate the Iraqi people from an evil dictator."

If you can convince them that Islam itself is at risk from these groups then you've got the workings of viable counter-strategy.

The other problem is that the American brand is tarnished beyond repair(kind of like selling seal meat at a PETA conference). You have to get other nations to go along with you if you have any hope of getting this strategy to suceed. Key countries like Canada, China and France must take full responsibility so that there is little appearance of collusion or control (the way the UK is perceived as toadying to US interests in Iraq).

James.

[dcmdale]

Changing the “hearts and minds” of the Islamic world certainly would go a long way towards getting us into a different position. I am skeptical of our real ability to achieve that.

I am not going to argue that we have given it a good shot. I completely agree that honesty would be a good thing. While the U.S. has spent over $100M in the last 2 years on foolishness like Al Hurra, a high production value, low content Arabic language propaganda network (or as one former USIA staffer notes: “short on credibility and long on arrogance."), I don’t think that it can be argued we have done anything approaching what we could do to get the American message out in a coherent, credible manner. Even an Arabic language version of CNN would be a vast improvement; however, I doubt that any attempt built around western values to influence perception through the media has any chance at success. If we could point to how we have delivered more common values like peace, prosperity, and happiness to the occupied regions we might have a better chance, but I think that those are non-starters for now given the perceived reality of the situtation.

Indeed, if my first post is accurate, it could be said that the U.S. strategy is to try to deliver the Western values of individual freedom, democracy, tolerance, and women’s rights and the Al Qaeda strategy consists of preventing us from showing progress towards more universally held values like peace, stability, happiness, prosperity, etc. One wonders whether if the U.S. did/would have focused on more core human values at the expense of pushing Western values, the results might be different.

I don’t think that it is just the U.S. brand that has a problem, although it is the undoubtedly the worst. To the mind of anyone starts with the assumption that an Islamic government based on Sharia is a good thing, all Western governments start with the taint of being non-Islamic.

I am not sure that Christians dying for Muslim principles gets us far. There is always the feeling that there is an ulterior motive.

[jBirch]

Indeed, if my first post is accurate, it could be said that the U.S. strategy is to try to deliver the Western values of individual freedom, democracy, tolerance, and women’s rights and the Al Qaeda strategy consists of preventing us from showing progress towards more universally held values like peace, stability, happiness, prosperity, etc. One wonders whether if the U.S. did/would have focused on more core human values at the expense of pushing Western values, the results might be different.

I think the Al Q strategy is, as the paper above said, to coerce the US into acting arrogantly and from there to build a case that the US values of democracy, free speach, women's rights and equality are merely subversive tools to take resources from the people for their own greed. That's the big problem here, everyone opposed is convinced that the US Administration is acting for selfish, greedy, interests. That paints them as the "Nazis" that need to be fought against on principal alone. The only viable strategy is to combat this image effectively.

I don’t think that it is just the U.S. brand that has a problem, although it is the undoubtedly the worst. To the mind of anyone starts with the assumption that an Islamic government based on Sharia is a good thing, all Western governments start with the taint of being non-Islamic.

Right, and instead of working with this problem, they slough it off. Imposing a democracy on a populace that doesn't really care is just another way to eradicate anything unique about that place and to change the rules of the game in your favour. The strategy in Iraq, for example (as different from Afghanistan) seems to be to make over the country so that it is very similar to Texas. Texans can deal very well with Texan rules. Iraqi rules, not so well.

I am not sure that Christians dying for Muslim principles gets us far. There is always the feeling that there is an ulterior motive.

And sacrificing our people is the only real gesture of honest intentions we can make. A Christian Zealot who protects the segregation of women in a mosque would be a good place to start at getting the people to believe our word.

Part of the problem is that winning hearts and minds is diametrically opposed to the concept of a "quick and easy victory". So you have to demonstrate that you are not only there for the long run, but that you are willing to make a place that will be powerful enough and self sufficient enough to turn around and invade you. Every move that the US makes in Iraq (and Afghanistan) seems to be to weaken the state and to make it subservient to US interests.

James.

[dcmdale]

The only viable strategy is to combat this image effectively.

As between you and me, I think we agree that:
1. Fighting this image is important.
2. It has been very poorly done to date.
3. That it should be done better--honesty being an important component of "better."

Question: In your view is this primarily a media/marketing activity? Or other activities?

Where I think we may see less eye-to-eye is in the sufficiency of this (particularly depending on your answer to the question) to disrupt the Al Q strategy.

Right, and instead of working with this problem, they slough it off.

Sloughing off problems that are difficult *does* seem to be a recurring issue.

I guess my question is: even if the current administration could bring true unity (rather than bullied) of Western governments into the campaign (which I am not denying would be a good thing), would that make a significant change in the Al Q strategy.

I *do* doubt that such a unity will occur, even in a future administration. While I see American frustration with how things are going, I don't see that the U.S. vs. rest of the West issues that we saw prior to the Iraq invasion have changed significantly. Could be wrong.

Imposing a democracy on a populace that doesn't really care is just another way to eradicate anything unique about that place and to change the rules of the game in your favour. The strategy in Iraq, for example (as different from Afghanistan) seems to be to make over the country so that it is very similar to Texas. Texans can deal very well with Texan rules. Iraqi rules, not so well.

One does get the impressing that "Create a democracy" was simply a bullet point on some staffer's powerpoint.

It is a Dilbert kind of thing I'm afraid: you get someone who knows what they are talking about because they have spent 18 years dealing with it in the real world, who is internationally respected as an authority in the matter, and who is completely conversant in all of the issues and you've got a guy with a 6 page powerpoint and a marketing degree. The powerpoint always wins.

And sacrificing our people is the only real gesture of honest intentions we can make. A Christian Zealot who protects the segregation of women in a mosque would be a good place to start at getting the people to believe our word.

The fact that we came in on the Muslim side in Bosnia doesn't seem to count for much.

Part of the problem is that winning hearts and minds is diametrically opposed to the concept of a "quick and easy victory".

Absolutely. "Slog through years of headaches" doesn't look good on a powerpoint slide though.

Here is where I think we may disagree. "Hearts and Minds" is a good thing if we can accomplish it. I am skeptical that it will be accomplished to any significant degree. Most likely, we will continue doing more of the same as we have been doing. If "hearts and minds" is the only strategy to disrupt Al Q, are we toast?

I think that many Americans are looking at the developing Iran situation and seeing a big clock ticking away. That is, Iran simply will not be allowed to acquire nuclear capabilities. Europe doesn't seem to see that clock. The clock isn't on Iran, the clock is on the U.S. When does the United States decide that Europe has had enough time with their silly little meaningless negotiations?

We may be pretty bad at winning peace, but we are reasonably successful at winning war.

[jBirch]

As between you and me, I think we agree that:
1. Fighting this image is important.
2. It has been very poorly done to date.
3. That it should be done better--honesty being an important component of "better."

Question: In your view is this primarily a media/marketing activity? Or other activities?

It's an integrated problem. The image needs to be portrayed correctly and then "lived" on the ground by the people. The problem with the US image has been exactly this disconnect: the image and the deeds don't match.

I guess my question is: even if the current administration could bring true unity (rather than bullied) of Western governments into the campaign (which I am not denying would be a good thing), would that make a significant change in the Al Q strategy.

No, not at all. The Al Q strategy is the only one available to them, and they will continue to exercise it. The US though, can choose what it reacts to and how it reacts to it. Anyone brought in or agreeing with the US stance is a US "toady". The trick is to render the Al Q strategy ineffective by neutralising its message in the Islamic market.

The fact that we came in on the Muslim side in Bosnia doesn't seem to count for much.

And, oddly, isn't trumpted as meaning much. By anyone.

Here is where I think we may disagree. "Hearts and Minds" is a good thing if we can accomplish it. I am skeptical that it will be accomplished to any significant degree. Most likely, we will continue doing more of the same as we have been doing. If "hearts and minds" is the only strategy to disrupt Al Q, are we toast?

Pretty much. But the thing is that Al Q isn't that much of a threat on a macro scale. It can only irritate and provoke but it can't coerce. Yes 5000 people died in 9/11 (and yes I knew some of them) but there are 250 million people in the US. The horrific death of 5000 of them can only provoke.

I think that many Americans are looking at the developing Iran situation and seeing a big clock ticking away. That is, Iran simply will not be allowed to acquire nuclear capabilities. Europe doesn't seem to see that clock. The clock isn't on Iran, the clock is on the U.S. When does the United States decide that Europe has had enough time with their silly little meaningless negotiations?

Well, my perspective on this is that it is inevitable that all nations will eventually acquire nuclear weapons (given enough time). Where they are introduced, they increase peace and stability. So the peace inducing aspect of a nuclear Iran is that it no longer needs to support terrorism to protect its interests.

James.

[dcmdale]

And, oddly, isn't trumpted as meaning much. By anyone.

I heard State Dept. people bringing it up in the Arabic/African press in 2001, but there was so much of a "So What" factor in the responses that I think it was dropped.

Actually, again it is a matter of perception, even though there was broad international support, when I gave a presentation to a Arab-American League function in 2000, the Q&A was completely about “American interference” in the region.

Pretty much. But the thing is that Al Q isn't that much of a threat on a macro scale. It can only irritate and provoke but it can't coerce. Yes 5000 people died in 9/11 (and yes I knew some of them) but there are 250 million people in the US. The horrific death of 5000 of them can only provoke.

If the original analysis was correct, the threat is potentially more serious than a 9/11 attack. That was simply a prodding to get us to react the way that they wanted.

Al Qaeda is not a full fledged military organization by any stretch of the imagination, but they have a lot of experience at and are very good at certain things. They are very good at the heart and mind game within a certain community. As Sahaab has been around for more than 25 years promoting the same message. They have had an opportunity to refine it, to hone it, to figure out which markets certain messages play best to. They know the Islamic fears and insecurities and they know where Muslims feel misunderstood and persecuted by the West. They are working within their own community of belief with advantage of knowing the ins and outs of that belief and having a certain degree of acceptance within it. They will be hard to beat.

They are also very good at waiting. They know from the Soviet experience that war is not entirely about guns and bombs. Superpowers do not like to get bogged down in long wars where the news every night is about bodies coming home. Al Qaeda can wait. Jihadists talk a lot about the development of an Islamic superpower that can crush the West "because it is the will of Allah." The immediate goal is to tire us until we leave while using our "War on Islam" to make Muslims get serious about their religion. The vacuum as we leave becomes their goal.

Well, my perspective on this is that it is inevitable that all nations will eventually acquire nuclear weapons (given enough time).

Probably a pretty good bet. I don't expect the process to go smoothly however.

Where they are introduced, they increase peace and stability. So the peace inducing aspect of a nuclear Iran is that it no longer needs to support terrorism to protect its interests.

That we have managed to avoid having anyone (else) push the button for a few years doesn't fill me with hope that nukes bring long term peace. Reading Khrushchev's son retelling the Soviet side of the Cuban Missile Crisis and how it mainly was resolved because the extent of Castro's begging for permission to nuke the U.S. made Khrushchev decide to withdraw doesn't give one a warm fuzzy. That mutually assured destruction worked for the big powers doesn't mean that it will serve to deter every petty dictator.

[dcmdale]

Of course, the biggest issue in rehabilitating the U.S. image in the Islamic world is continued support for the "Zionist oppression in occupied Palestine."

[jBirch]

If the original analysis was correct, the threat is potentially more serious than a 9/11 attack. That was simply a prodding to get us to react the way that they wanted.

Which analysis is this? The Terrorist with WMD angle? The only WMD of interest is biological and there's nothing out there vicious enough right now.

And on that same angle, it is inevitable that some disenfranchised group will get their hands on some WMD or another and attempt to use it in a populated US city. The only way to fight this threat is to figure out how to defuse any positive outcome of that attack for the perpetrators.

Al Qaeda is not a full fledged military organization by any stretch of the imagination, but they have a lot of experience at and are very good at certain things. They are very good at the heart and mind game within a certain community. As Sahaab has been around for more than 25 years promoting the same message. They have had an opportunity to refine it, to hone it, to figure out which markets certain messages play best to. They know the Islamic fears and insecurities and they know where Muslims feel misunderstood and persecuted by the West. They are working within their own community of belief with advantage of knowing the ins and outs of that belief and having a certain degree of acceptance within it. They will be hard to beat.

And this is the meat of the problem. The solution requires a disciplined compassionate response from the US populace at large. A populace who believes in firepower, coercion, payback and "winning" has little chance of making this workable so the probable course is a decent into Israeli style constant fear against an opponent who has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

They are also very good at waiting. They know from the Soviet experience that war is not entirely about guns and bombs. Superpowers do not like to get bogged down in long wars where the news every night is about bodies coming home. Al Qaeda can wait. Jihadists talk a lot about the development of an Islamic superpower that can crush the West "because it is the will of Allah." The immediate goal is to tire us until we leave while using our "War on Islam" to make Muslims get serious about their religion. The vacuum as we leave becomes their goal.

And sadly, the American populace doesn't understand how to fight this threat.

Probably a pretty good bet. I don't expect the process to go smoothly however.

LOL! Hell no! The ramification is that the US would have to give up its pre-eminent place in the world.

That we have managed to avoid having anyone (else) push the button for a few years doesn't fill me with hope that nukes bring long term peace. Reading Khrushchev's son retelling the Soviet side of the Cuban Missile Crisis and how it mainly was resolved because the extent of Castro's begging for permission to nuke the U.S. made Khrushchev decide to withdraw doesn't give one a warm fuzzy. That mutually assured destruction worked for the big powers doesn't mean that it will serve to deter every petty dictator.

I think it will.

The reason is that the source of terrorism lies in its ability to coerce a huge military power to do no more then leave you alone. Nukes do the same thing and with everyone pointing nukes at everyone else, invasion (for example) becomes a losing proposition. Conflict becomes moot because the other side simply holds the same stick over your head. Miltary disputes hold less and less coercive power over the populace simply because the answer is "just nuke 'em" if the conflict escalates too high.

If your goal as a state government is to govern your people, enrich yourself and export your ideals, then protection from foreign invasion is step #1. Protection from foreign interference is step #2. Once that is done, (your house is secure, as it were) ideals can be exported using economic, diplomatic or military might (you can go to work). If your neighbour has the capacity to destroy your house (and you his) then you each have the ability to command respect from the other. This then forces you to coerce by persuasion, which is what peace is all about.

James.

[dcmdale]

Which analysis is this?

As I mentioned, the medium term goals are to evict non-Islamic forces from "Islamic lands" (which include places like Spain) and to fill the void with fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. I don't read Arabic, but I am told that they derive a great deal of inspiration for this in the life of the prophet, progressing from outcast to movement to government.

And this is the meat of the problem. The solution requires a disciplined compassionate response from the US populace at large. A populace who believes in firepower, coercion, payback and "winning" has little chance of making this workable so the probable course is a decent into Israeli style constant fear against an opponent who has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

With the one difference that Israel may get tired, but is going to keep doing it because stopping is seen as a threat to survival. America sees itself as vulnerable to terrorism, but sees no threat to survival. Giving in to tiredness is not perceived as a survival issue.

And sadly, the American populace doesn't understand how to fight this threat.

<sigh> We agree there.

If your goal as a state government is to govern your people, enrich yourself and export your ideals, then protection from foreign invasion is step #1. Protection from foreign interference is step #2. Once that is done, (your house is secure, as it were) ideals can be exported using economic, diplomatic or military might (you can go to work). If your neighbour has the capacity to destroy your house (and you his) then you each have the ability to command respect from the other. This then forces you to coerce by persuasion, which is what peace is all about.

The more people in a position to act stupid, the greater the chance that someone will act stupid.

[jBirch]

As I mentioned, the medium term goals are to evict non-Islamic forces from "Islamic lands" (which include places like Spain) and to fill the void with fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. I don't read Arabic, but I am told that they derive a great deal of inspiration for this in the life of the prophet, progressing from outcast to movement to government.

But to what end? The propogation of Islam? The acquisition of power?

With the one difference that Israel may get tired, but is going to keep doing it because stopping is seen as a threat to survival. America sees itself as vulnerable to terrorism, but sees no threat to survival. Giving in to tiredness is not perceived as a survival issue.

Yeah, but aren't we positing that Al Q *does* pose a threat to the survival of the US?

The more people in a position to act stupid, the greater the chance that someone will act stupid.

Here's a different cliche: best indicator of future performance is past performance. With the exception of the US, which nuclear armed state has ever used a nuclear weapon?

Their possession is pretty much the only thing that defines a state as a state and able to act truly independently. If it is inevitable that other states acquire them, why not hasten the process?

James.

[umbrella]

The stategists have worked out several scenerios, they tried expulsion, and immigration. I think the success story will happen in the future - but I don't think I'm interested in the theory of Wiping off the Plant 'to make it clean' and then repopulating it. The answer is truly to bring people together. But once again, if there is a great population of people, it has to be run correctly. Where people can breathe, work, play, and worship their religions as they choose, where criminals are handled correctly and where people feel safe. It is a mix of both Sparta and Athens. But even those people could not maintain it, and the whole thing colllapsed to the Dorians [Persia].

A population of 300 million needs guidelines and structure and most of all good, honest people to handle affairs of state.

[dcmdale]

But to what end? The propogation of Islam? The acquisition of power?

I wonder if they distinguish between the two. The end goal probably falls under the hazy statement "all the world under Sharia." Shorter term, I think a midterm goal would be Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and nearby countries to have cooperating fundamentalist Islamic governments. Potential next steps from there are significant.

Yeah, but aren't we positing that Al Q *does* pose a threat to the survival of the US?

I am not sure that I am saying that as much as I am suggesting that our current response is sucking us into a more dangerous situation. In fencing terms, I am arguing that our opponent has extended an invitation and I think we have taken it blindly. Whether and how badly we get impaled may depend on how early we recognize the situation and how we deal with it.

The alternative is also in play. The U.S. is arguably far more dangerous to the world than Al Qaeda. An overreaction, whether now or when the danger becomes more apparent, could also be a bad thing. Indeed, I mentioned Daniel 7 in passing in my original posting. The zinger there, that nobody seemed to pick up on, is that under that scenario, the U.S. plays the role of the worst nation in history.

Here's a different cliche: best indicator of future performance is past performance.

I wish we didn't have to find out which of us is right.

[TrainingDummy]

Of course, the biggest issue in rehabilitating the U.S. image in the Islamic world is continued support for the "Zionist oppression in occupied Palestine."

Remove the quotation marks and I'm with you on that. Moderate Muslims are the real "hearts and minds" to be won; no extremist is going to see reason or embrace democracy. Familiar with Norman Finkelstein? A firebrand for the left, to say the least. I've seen him speak and talked to him personally. Whatever you may think about him, he is methodical in his research and 100%sincere.

[Feltan]

Of course, the biggest issue in rehabilitating the U.S. image in the Islamic world is continued support for the "Zionist oppression in occupied Palestine."

I disagree. The biggest issue facing the U.S. is the image created by its own press.

The only way the U.S. will lose this conflict in any normal sense of the word is if national resolve fades. The apt parallel to the Vietnam conflct is that, like the North Vietnamese, the radical fundamentalist Muslims have figured out that the U.S. press is an available multi-billion dollar weapon they could never afford nor hope to create on their own.

If the press, conceived and operated as it is today, was active in times past, the American Revolution would have fizzled in the winter of 1777, and the South would have won by default in the American Civil War -- Lincoln's suppression of the draft riots alone would have ruined the cause of the Union in eye's of today's media.

Regards,
Feltan

[pigeonmeister]

The main problem is in how terrorism impacts on International diplomacy. Every nation currently fighting terrorism is doing so, to put it mildly, with the 'gloves off'. Terrorism drags everybody down to their level, the moral high ground gets obscured when it should be the biggest weapon.

Terrorism can also totaly obscure diplomacy, as the actions of one unknown individual or a fringe element (many Islamic countries have such a mulitlayered government- esp Iran, the Palestinian Authority and Saudi Arabia) can upset 12 weeks of painstaking diplomacy. Look at Iran- things were going well- there was cooperation in Afghanistan and condemnation of 9/11 and Bin Laden by the Ayatollah. But then why, a month later, was Iran on the 'axis of evil' speech? Because elements of the Iranian army/government had packed the Karine A full of weapons and sailed it to Arafat (to be intercepted by Israel). Also because some Qaeda fighters fled into Iran and the government admitted some people could be sheltering them.
So immediately America has three strategies in Iran. To end support for terrorists in Palestine and Lebanon. To arrest Iranian nuclear ambitions and to turn the people against the Clerical establishment to provoke internal regime change. When America, in August 2002, finds out about the facilities in Natanz and Arak they realise that fostering democracy, ending support for terrorism in Palestine, and disarming Iran are very different priorities, requiring different tactics.

But then- wow- Iraq is on the horizon and America realises that Iran could be very unhelpful, so now America has at least 4 or 5 strategies for enagaging with Iran (it is also having to cooperate over another bordering country- Afghaninstan). But now America has launched its Radio Farda programme in Iran to appeal straight to the people that they deserve a better government (and export the delights of Britney Spears). So America is appealing to the Iranian government to cooperate in Iraq and to return downed pilots, whilst encouraging its people to get rid of them. The two governments meet in Geneva to discuss reconstruction in Iraq, a good opportunity to discuss other issues (say WMD). But then what happens?- a terrorist bomb in Riyadh is allegedly linked to elements of the Iranian revolutionary guard. So terrorism, Iraq, WMD and public diplomacy (as 4 distinct entities) collide, obscure and complicate to the point that they start to become incompatable. And that is just the Iran-US dynamic. America also then has to balance the Russian, French, Chinese, N Korean dynamic that consist of disparate economic and strategic aims. At any point one bomb has the power to collide against 3 or 4 seperate strategies and a generation of diplomatic policies. To me that is what the true strenght of international terrorism has become. Before no-one really cared about US ties to Saudi Arabia- now as the impact of Wahabism is truly known that relationship becomes that much more complicated. Terrorism (or the War on Terror) has become an iron weight around the neck of American diplomacy. It has given Russia, China, Iran an extra bargaining tool and reduced Western domestic politics into the politics of fear.

As far as A Q stategy is concerned I think that it is very dangerous to treat such a loose organisation as having any sense of a unified goal, strategy or sense of purpose. Some are just radicalised seperatists, some are ideological caliphatists, some are just criminaly insane. A Q in Iraq have a different strategy to a few bearded old men cut off in a cave in Pakistan/Afghanistan. They vary in their internationalist perpective and they differ hugely in ambition and tactical purpose. A Q was never created to be anything but.

I do agree that the object of 9/11 was not really revenge or 'finaly getting one back on the great Satan'. It was about provoking a reaction. Every one knew that America was going to start bombing Islamic countries within one hour of the Towers going down. It provoked a reactin but, paradoxically, it provided the pretext for America to inact a strategy that already existed. Bin Laden knew this stratgey existed, that Iraq and Afghanistan would be attacked and that the very presense of US military force would create another generation of mujahadeen. Everyone has been proved right, sadly, and whether he is caught or not Bin Laden's strategy is working in the short to medium term.

[pigeonmeister]

I disagree. The biggest issue facing the U.S. is the image created by its own press.

The only way the U.S. will lose this conflict in any normal sense of the word is if national resolve fades. The apt parallel to the Vietnam conflct is that, like the North Vietnamese, the radical fundamentalist Muslims have figured out that the U.S. press is an available multi-billion dollar weapon they could never afford nor hope to create on their own.

Regards,
Feltan

Do you not see how you have become a caricature of the very conflict you analogise? The Left screaming 'You have betrayed our soldiers with your lies' the Right screaming 'the only thing that can defeat us is a few cowardly hippies who spread disullsionment to a few opportunistic Democractic senators who cut the money and run'. Let me gues 'stay the course' is your motto?

I believe that you are totaly incorrect in your analysis of both conflicts. The North Vietnamese were being bank rolled by China and (less so) Russia- they actually could compete with US dollars. Everyone thinks that America was beaten in some gurellia war- it was a largely conventional war in an unconventional (for the US) environment between very large and ideologically and nationaly unified armies. Nothing like Iraq in the slightest. But that is not why they won- they won because Vietnam was a civil war between an unpopular catholic ex French colonial supporting military dictatorship and an (initialy nationalistic) popular movement fighting on the back of a nationalistic anti-colonialist war against the French. The Americans replaced the French (in perceptions of western colonialists).

America lost because, quite early on, it realised that they couldn't turn North Vietnam against communism. Yet allowing the South Vietnamse government to go communist was a non negotiable no. The South govt was so corrupt, despotic, inefficient and (particularly) cruel to buddhists that it was totaly hated by the people and easily infiltrated by commies. The South's government's army was so nepotistic, poorly led, unwilling to fight, corrupt and infiltrated that it was totaly reliant on the US army (who took most of the real fighting). As the SVG got more desperate it became more despotic, less popular and the communist gained support. America's exit strategy lay in either destroying the Communist army (impossible as it could shelter in Cambodia, be fed by China, supplied throught the jungle and resupplied by a huge population) or more importantly getting the South's government in a position to prop up itself without a huge US military cost. Nixon tried to bomb the North into submission (killing a million) Tet showed that he hadn't.

The South could never survive without the US, and was a deeply unpleasant regime itself. The US realised after 15 years the South govt was getting less stable and could never prop itself up- they decided to quit whilst they were behind and predictably as soon as the last US solider left the commies roled into Saigon. It wasn't the political left (even Fonda herself!) that made the US support a Southern govenrment that was so hated and useless that it could never survive without a huge US military cost and never compete for national support with the commies.

Remmber that Ho Chi Minh was never initially a communist- he was a nationalist who America turned to communism because they didn't stick to their ideological principle of supporting anti colonialism.

The idea that liberal instransigence or a lack of national resolve is the reason for the disaster in Vietnam is a laughable right wing theory that has emerged way after the event. For the vast majority of the time Vietnam had popular support anyway -find me one poll that showed a majority supported a US withdrawal.

Vietnam failed because, similarily to Iraq, it was conceptually flawed as a mission/war/whatever.

If America fails in Iraq, then doubtless people like you will blame the left for its lack of national resolve. It will be nothing to do with sectarianism, inadequate or unrealictic post war reconstruction, a porous borders with Syria, an inadequate police force, a poorly considered understanding of Iraq political culture, the basic incompatabilty of US military doctrine and effective 'hearts and minds' operations. The fact that there is no precedent for this kind of mission succeding and no historical precident that could provide optimism that democracy can be imposed across sectarian lines, I assume, will be ignored.

You sound like one of those people who think that it is Al Jazeera not US policy/actions that is the main cause of anti-Americanism. It's not me- its you, but it's also- not them- it's us!

[dcmdale]

Of course, the biggest issue in rehabilitating the U.S. image in the Islamic world is continued support for the "Zionist oppression in occupied Palestine."

Remove the quotation marks and I'm with you on that. Moderate Muslims are the real "hearts and minds" to be won; no extremist is going to see reason or embrace democracy. Familiar with Norman Finkelstein? A firebrand for the left, to say the least. I've seen him speak and talked to him personally. Whatever you may think about him, he is methodical in his research and 100%sincere.

I actually went back and forth on the quotes. I think in the U.S., at least, there is a general view that there *is* a legitimate country of Israel and that the refusal to recognize it is more symbolic. When I read the Arabic press, I don't get the impression that it is symbolic. They certainly would not use the quotes.

[dcmdale]

I disagree. The biggest issue facing the U.S. is the image created by its own press.

I stand by my statement in terms of our image in the Arab world; however, I would not discount the problem you bring up in terms of the overall strategy. Much of the "tiredness" comes from tiredness of hearing daily negative press.

Many people believe that Pham Xuan An, one of the major American reporters during the Vietnam war (Time, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor) and secretly a Colonel in the North Vietnamesse army, was the key to the war. He was named "Hero of the People's Armed Forces" after the war.

[dcmdale]

As far as A Q stategy is concerned I think that it is very dangerous to treat such a loose organisation as having any sense of a unified goal, strategy or sense of purpose. Some are just radicalised seperatists, some are ideological caliphatists, some are just criminaly insane. A Q in Iraq have a different strategy to a few bearded old men cut off in a cave in Pakistan/Afghanistan. They vary in their internationalist perpective and they differ hugely in ambition and tactical purpose. A Q was never created to be anything but.

I would opine that Al Q strategy was more unified, though perhaps still loose, when they were able to operate more openly. Certainly, they talk about meetings where strategy was discussed. Things have changed.

I pulled out a rose bush in my back yard a few years ago, now I have 50 rose bushes.