03-14-2004, 06:42 PM
Analogies are slippery. Let's dispense with them, lest we end up talking about everything from here to ancient Babylon.
The kind of terrorism that is most dangerous from an international standpoint, the Al Qaeda brand of terrorism, has a few key features. First, it is religiously based. That means they recruit their leaders from the terribly rich, and their agents from the lost and the angry. They are rational only from their own absurd assumptions.
They are too dangerous for most countries to support. Afghanistan was anomalous in that it is less a country than a collection of hill tribes. Like Colombia, anyone who can shoot a gun can be a force in Afghanistan.
Motives are also key. What is Al Qaeda angry about? A few things. First, the state of the Arab nations, something I agree with them about, although their solution, to return to fundamentalism, is insane. Specifically, the Saudi monarchy is odious. To Al Qaeda, they are decadent hypocrites occupying the holy sites. Second, they're pissed off about Israel.
So long as both Saudi Arabia and Israel are clients of the USA, undercutting Al Qaeda support is basically impossible. Further, any attack from that angle is, by the current "war on terror" ideology, giving in to terrorism. Now, that suits Mr. Bin Laden just fine, since he doesn't really want to make peace with anyone anyway; he wants to blow up infidels in the name of Allah.
If the options to undercut them are off the table, that leaves us with preventing each operation to minimize the harm done. Intelligence is our only weapon. Infiltrate what we can, buy agents if possible, try to keep a close eye on them. Whatever you do, don't popularize them. Downplay their importance on the outside, keep at them covertly. Don't do their recruiting for them.
Invasions and whatnot only present exactly the image Bin Laden is trying to reinforce: Westerners are arrogant infidels who don't know how to stay out of Islamic business. Now, if you'd like to get into a guerilla war spanning the Middle East with newly recruited soldier-fanatics, you're welcome to it. I'd recommend not doing that.
Now, that's just dealing with Al Qaeda. The problem only gets more complicated if you add other groups. My advice: focus on Al Qaeda. Don't bite off more than you know you can chew. But, hey, I thought you should have stopped at Afghanistan. Why didn't you? My contention is that your Administration is more interested in their NeoCon wet dreams than in actually winning the fight against Al Qaeda.
Jester
The kind of terrorism that is most dangerous from an international standpoint, the Al Qaeda brand of terrorism, has a few key features. First, it is religiously based. That means they recruit their leaders from the terribly rich, and their agents from the lost and the angry. They are rational only from their own absurd assumptions.
They are too dangerous for most countries to support. Afghanistan was anomalous in that it is less a country than a collection of hill tribes. Like Colombia, anyone who can shoot a gun can be a force in Afghanistan.
Motives are also key. What is Al Qaeda angry about? A few things. First, the state of the Arab nations, something I agree with them about, although their solution, to return to fundamentalism, is insane. Specifically, the Saudi monarchy is odious. To Al Qaeda, they are decadent hypocrites occupying the holy sites. Second, they're pissed off about Israel.
So long as both Saudi Arabia and Israel are clients of the USA, undercutting Al Qaeda support is basically impossible. Further, any attack from that angle is, by the current "war on terror" ideology, giving in to terrorism. Now, that suits Mr. Bin Laden just fine, since he doesn't really want to make peace with anyone anyway; he wants to blow up infidels in the name of Allah.
If the options to undercut them are off the table, that leaves us with preventing each operation to minimize the harm done. Intelligence is our only weapon. Infiltrate what we can, buy agents if possible, try to keep a close eye on them. Whatever you do, don't popularize them. Downplay their importance on the outside, keep at them covertly. Don't do their recruiting for them.
Invasions and whatnot only present exactly the image Bin Laden is trying to reinforce: Westerners are arrogant infidels who don't know how to stay out of Islamic business. Now, if you'd like to get into a guerilla war spanning the Middle East with newly recruited soldier-fanatics, you're welcome to it. I'd recommend not doing that.
Now, that's just dealing with Al Qaeda. The problem only gets more complicated if you add other groups. My advice: focus on Al Qaeda. Don't bite off more than you know you can chew. But, hey, I thought you should have stopped at Afghanistan. Why didn't you? My contention is that your Administration is more interested in their NeoCon wet dreams than in actually winning the fight against Al Qaeda.
Jester