|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2001 : 06:25:39
|
I heard a report on National Public Radio that featured an interview with an expert on Islamic extremism. He made the following points:
The canonical explanation for the 9/11 attacks is that Al Qaeda wanted to further several publicly-stated goals, including: getting the infidel US off holy Saudi Arabian soil, ending the no-fly zones and economic sanctions on Iraq, and getting Israel out of the Palestinian territories.
However, it's difficult to see how the 9/11 terrorism would have furthered those goals, or how even the most distorted reading of the Western psyche on Al Qaeda's part would have deluded them into such a view. Instead, they must have known that the US would have to respond militarily.
So what ultimate goal could they have had in mind?
Consider this scenario:
1. Al Qaeda attacks the U.S.
2. Immediately, thousands of potential recruits see the "victory" and are motivated to join the cause.
3. The U.S. responds, as it must.
4. Still more recruits come pouring in, and serious unrest occurs in various parts of the Islamic world.
5. Popular uprisings topple various "westernized" governments, notably in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt.
6. Fundamentalist Islamic regimes are established in these countries.
7. Success!
This sounds frighteningly plausible to me. In fact, I think it explains the attacks better than simple motivations such as "hatred of the West", "fanatical Islamic fundamentalism", and the like. Those always left me with the uncomfortable feeling that we were underestimating the adversary.
However, Al Qaeda may have miscalculated the West's determination and its ability to build coalitions (especially with Pakistan and other Islamic countries).
What do you think?
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!"
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2001 : 06:52:51 [Permalink]
|
I dunno about Al Qaeda caring about Iraq at all. Iraq is a secular Arab state of the sort the fundamentalists despise.
I do think they wanted to attack the US and destroy the Trace Center buildings and probably the White House. The rest is conjecture. I wouldn't give the terrorists too much credit for having some bigger plan though it's possible.
There is a real danger of some mid-east regimes falling. There has been for some time. I think the Saudi royal family's days are numbered. With the US action I think the days are even fewer.
The thing about this "coalition" is that the Arab states involved are with us only at the highest levels of their governments. The people in those nations do not like the US and if it were up to them they would have no part in any "coalition". Most Arab coalition members are desperately looking over their shoulders and they should be very, very nervous.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 07:46:34 [Permalink]
|
Which is precisely the point that the expert was making -- Al Qaeda wanted to hasten the fall of those governments and, so far, it looks like they might very well be succeeding.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2001 : 14:10:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Which is precisely the point that the expert was making -- Al Qaeda wanted to hasten the fall of those governments and, so far, it looks like they might very well be succeeding.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!"
I think you're right, and there may be a hidden agenda in "our" policy as well, at least in terms of the Bush Administration's ultimate political objectives. From where I sit, as a veteran and a civil liberties activist, it seems that the administration is much more interested in suppressing civil liberties here than in killing terrorists abroad. Why have we not carpet-bombed the Taliban front line against the Northern Alliance? Why has there been only one ground incursion? Why are only 3 (out of 12) carriers committed to this? Why only 20 or so (of 200) heavy bombers? We can't find all of the Taliban/Al Qaeda, or any specific people, but we can find some of them, by simply asking the Northern Alliance to point to their positions. Why have terrorist bases in Somalia not been hit? North Yemen? The Sudan?
This wobbly coalition against terrorism isn't necessary for our purposes, and it will almost certainly hasten the collapse of "friendly" Muslim regimes like SA and Egypt. The Bush gang has to know that. What are they doing?
I think it has to do with domestic politics, and the likely effect that this will have on secular society, civil liberties, and the fortunes of the religious right.
Unlikely as it seems, I think Bush can escape being blamed if the "moderate" regimes collapse. He can point out that he took military action, and nobody could expect him to intervene against popular revolutions.
Bush is not, himself, a religious rightnik, but he has been careful to court them, hedging his bets against a sudden improvement in their fortunes. The RR itself, meanwhile, is going all out to use the terrorist war in its own war against secular society and Enlightenment values. Everything from school prayer to creationism has received a mighty boost from their exploitation of the war. If it goes badly, and Bush escapes blame, I don't have to spell out who will get the blame.
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980. |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2001 : 18:30:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Which is precisely the point that the expert was making -- Al Qaeda wanted to hasten the fall of those governments and, so far, it looks like they might very well be succeeding.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!"
I think you're right, and there may be a hidden agenda in "our" policy as well, at least in terms of the Bush Administration's ultimate political objectives. From where I sit, as a veteran and a civil liberties activist, it seems that the administration is much more interested in suppressing civil liberties here than in killing terrorists abroad. Why have we not carpet-bombed the Taliban front line against the Northern Alliance? Why has there been only one ground incursion? Why are only 3 (out of 12) carriers committed to this? Why only 20 or so (of 200) heavy bombers? We can't find all of the Taliban/Al Qaeda, or any specific people, but we can find some of them, by simply asking the Northern Alliance to point to their positions. Why have terrorist bases in Somalia not been hit? North Yemen? The Sudan?
This wobbly coalition against terrorism isn't necessary for our purposes, and it will almost certainly hasten the collapse of "friendly" Muslim regimes like SA and Egypt. The Bush gang has to know that. What are they doing?
I think it has to do with domestic politics, and the likely effect that this will have on secular society, civil liberties, and the fortunes of the religious right.
Unlikely as it seems, I think Bush can escape being blamed if the "moderate" regimes collapse. He can point out that he took military action, and nobody could expect him to intervene against popular revolutions.
Bush is not, himself, a religious rightnik, but he has been careful to court them, hedging his bets against a sudden improvement in their fortunes. The RR itself, meanwhile, is going all out to use the terrorist war in its own war against secular society and Enlightenment values. Everything from school prayer to creationism has received a mighty boost from their exploitation of the war. If it goes badly, and Bush escapes blame, I don't have to spell out who will get the blame.
Why do I get the feeling that if you're not agreeing with the RR, you all of a sudden have a big target just slapped on your back?
Prayer is nothing more than "spiritual masturbation". -theatheistknight |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2001 : 18:43:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
However, Al Qaeda may have miscalculated the West's determination and its ability to build coalitions (especially with Pakistan and other Islamic countries).
My point was that our fancy coalition is not that strong and so there isn't much of a miscalculation. If we had a real coalition it wouldn't just be the US doing the bombing. Looking more closely at the teeth of this coalition one will just find one big tooth.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2001 : 19:18:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why do I get the feeling that if you're not agreeing with the RR, you all of a sudden have a big target just slapped on your back?
It's been there for quite a while, but only as a vague outline. It's starting to take on primary colors.
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2001 : 19:19:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
However, Al Qaeda may have miscalculated the West's determination and its ability to build coalitions (especially with Pakistan and other Islamic countries).
My point was that our fancy coalition is not that strong and so there isn't much of a miscalculation. If we had a real coalition it wouldn't just be the US doing the bombing. Looking more closely at the teeth of this coalition one will just find one big tooth.
@tomic
Ah, now I get it. Well, so far the Pakistani government is holding.
I do imagine that the US is more than willing to handle the hardware alone. Military coordination with other armed forces is very messy. Furthermore, it can lead to command issues (the US does not readily place its forces under command of foreign officers, and other countries feel the same way).
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2001 : 19:28:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think you're right, and there may be a hidden agenda in "our" policy as well, at least in terms of the Bush Administration's ultimate political objectives. From where I sit, as a veteran and a civil liberties activist, it seems that the administration is much more interested in suppressing civil liberties here than in killing terrorists abroad.
1. Why have we not carpet-bombed the Taliban front line against the Northern Alliance? Why has there been only one ground incursion?
2. Why are only 3 (out of 12) carriers committed to this? Why only 20 or so (of 200) heavy bombers? We can't find all of the Taliban/Al Qaeda, or any specific people, but we can find some of them, by simply asking the Northern Alliance to point to their positions.
3. Why have terrorist bases in Somalia not been hit? North Yemen? The Sudan?
I took the liberty of numbering your (possibly rhetorical) questions, and the risk of offering some speculations...
1. Because we don't trust the NA much farther than we can throw Kabul. They aren't exactly the most glowing example of good government.
2. Because we have commitments all over the globe, not just in the middle east. Besides, you can't operate all 12 carrier task forces simultaneously. At least some of them need to be in port for refitting. It also takes time to reposition. Besides, they've surely assessed the military objectives and have determined that the 3 task forces are adequate. Similar arguments apply to other military assets. 200 bombers would require massive ground support and logistics. And what would they hit? You can't level the mountains, and there just aren't that many military targets in A'stan.
3. "One thing at a time" would be the operative word. They'll keep.
But, as I said, it's just my opinion... I'm not privy to the high councils.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2001 : 19:39:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ah, now I get it. Well, so far the Pakistani government is holding.
I do imagine that the US is more than willing to handle the hardware alone. Military coordination with other armed forces is very messy. Furthermore, it can lead to command issues (the US does not readily place its forces under command of foreign officers, and other countries feel the same way).
Yes, Pakistan's government is holding but let's face it, the Pakistani government is basically one man. One very nervous man.
Yes sure it's logistically difficult to have a combined force but it's not just a matter of whether we can bomb alone, it's the fact that no one else is going to. That's my point about this coalition. There is no coalition. Just some lip service we see in periodic press conferences with the exception of Britain. Do you see what I mean yet? Our coalition ain't nothin but talk. Do you really think there's any real committment from our islamic "friends"?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 01:11:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I took the liberty of numbering your (possibly rhetorical) questions, and the risk of offering some speculations...
1. Because we don't trust the NA much farther than we can throw Kabul. They aren't exactly the most glowing example of good government.
2. Because we have commitments all over the globe, not just in the middle east. Besides, you can't operate all 12 carrier task forces simultaneously. At least some of them need to be in port for refitting. It also takes time to reposition. Besides, they've surely assessed the military objectives and have determined that the 3 task forces are adequate. Similar arguments apply to other military assets. 200 bombers would require massive ground support and logistics. And what would they hit? You can't level the mountains, and there just aren't that many military targets in A'stan.
3. "One thing at a time" would be the operative word. They'll keep.
But, as I said, it's just my opinion... I'm not privy to the high councils.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!"
1. And the Taliban is?
2. Correct me if I'm wrong - but didn't we have more ships in the IO during Desert Storm? Um, it took MAG-70 six days to inflate, deploy, and hand over the reigns to MAG-11. The military can move fast when required. And our TASVAB ships were in port within a week after being rerouted. (Carriers are big - but they can haul ass.)
3. Sage advice. But, I would seriously worry at the RR gaining any form of power. (Though, I must wonder if the RR won't suffer from a lot of in-fighting - we can only hope!)
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 01:22:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But, I would seriously worry at the RR gaining any form of power.
I worry about our very own Taliban here in the US but where I live they are just extremely vocal but not that numerous. This will sound terrible, but there are times I wish the North had not won the civil war 
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 03:53:56 [Permalink]
|
I'm not sure it as conspiratorial or as calculated as is being suggested here, but I do think we're on the wrong road regarding abridgement of freedoms on the domestic front. The more I hear from the Right Honoroable Sec. of Homeland Security, the more I dislike it.
And I still haven't read the actual text of the new anti-terrorism bill but all the news reports I've heard about it make me think it's WAY too broad.
Wow, @atomic. Sorry the North won? Actually, I understand the sentiment. I'm not sorry the north won but I have wondered which side I'd be on if it recurred ("Kentucky-as-swing-state" redux; THE WAR WAS WON AT PERRYVILLE!! HOORAH!)
Final point, I tend toward Donnie B.'s take on the military issues.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 14:42:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
1. And the Taliban is?
2. Correct me if I'm wrong - but didn't we have more ships in the IO during Desert Storm? Um, it took MAG-70 six days to inflate, deploy, and hand over the reigns to MAG-11. The military can move fast when required. And our TASVAB ships were in port within a week after being rerouted. (Carriers are big - but they can haul ass.)
3. Sage advice. But, I would seriously worry at the RR gaining any form of power. (Though, I must wonder if the RR won't suffer from a lot of in-fighting - we can only hope!)
1. Of course not. My point was, I don't think our govt. wants to replace the Taliban with something equally nasty (or nearly so). Hitting the Taliban front lines now might allow the NA to take Kabul, producing an NA government "fait accomplis", before we're ready with some better alternative.
2. Well, I don't purport to be a military expert. But I still think they've probably made a judgement that the current force levels are "good enough" to do the job... at least for now.
3. Hear, hear.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 14:53:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Do you see what I mean yet? Our coalition ain't nothin but talk. Do you really think there's any real committment from our islamic "friends"?
Well, consider the alternative: an Islamic world openly siding with the Taliban and actively opposing US military intervention. The way I see it, all we wanted, and hoped for, from the "coalition" is for the Moslem states to quietly stand aside while we take care of business. And that's exactly what we're getting... with the added bonus of Pakistan's semi-passive cooperation (use of airfields, partially opening of the border to refugees).
So in that respect, I stand by my OP: if the speculation on al Qaeda's goal is correct (or close), they must be rather disappointed in the results so far. The Taliban is more isolated than ever, and not a single moderate Islamic country has fallen to the extremists. Yet.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 14:57:12 [Permalink]
|
Woohoo! I got my blue star! 
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
