Al Qaeda Strikes Back
April 25, 2007 2:41 PM Subscribe
Al Qaeda Strikes Back. By Bruce Riedel. From Foreign Affairs. Al Qaeda has more bases, more partners, and more followers today than it did on the eve of 9/11. Now the group is working to set up networks in the Middle East and Africa -- and may even try to lure the United States into a war with Iran.
So the investment into the global war on terror is paying off for the military industrial complex. The once small group has been blown into a giant - a giant idea and movement. A war on a idea can only be eternal - so let's buy defence stocks ...
posted by homodigitalis at 2:57 PM on April 25, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by homodigitalis at 2:57 PM on April 25, 2007 [2 favorites]
I vaguely remember some crackpot named Doward Hean or something like that telling me the same thing four years ago.
posted by 3.2.3 at 2:58 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by 3.2.3 at 2:58 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
Surrender is Not An Option. Sign The Petition Today. Paid For By McCain 2008.
(You folks with ad block won't get the contextual joke.)
posted by william_boot at 3:04 PM on April 25, 2007
(You folks with ad block won't get the contextual joke.)
posted by william_boot at 3:04 PM on April 25, 2007
How many posts until someone who has read the article comments on it?
posted by stbalbach at 3:05 PM on April 25, 2007
posted by stbalbach at 3:05 PM on April 25, 2007
How many posts until someone who has read the article comments on it?
Three. Already read it before it was posted here.
Not that it says anything new.
posted by 3.2.3 at 3:15 PM on April 25, 2007
Three. Already read it before it was posted here.
Not that it says anything new.
posted by 3.2.3 at 3:15 PM on April 25, 2007
TAPG beat me to the point, but honestly, does this surprise anyone? (Well, anyone here anyways?)
Al Qaeda thrived prior to the WTC attacks because they were a magnet for disaffected Muslims who were looking for an ideology to get behind. One that suggested that their problems were the direct result of another countries tampering was even better, as it lay the responsibility for their unhappiness on someone else's shoulders.
Fast forward to now, where our little war has created an enormous instability in the region, and rather than having to be brainwashed into thinking that the US is bad, they can look out their window and see the destruction. They no longer need faith that we are the bad guys, theyknow we are.
I bet Al Qaeda's membership started swelling withing weeks of American boots hitting the ground in Iraq.
And anyone who didn't see AQ spinning this into their advantage, clearly hasn't been paying attention. Their whole trick is to do something with very little. And fortunately for them, we have given them a lot.
posted by quin at 3:22 PM on April 25, 2007
Al Qaeda thrived prior to the WTC attacks because they were a magnet for disaffected Muslims who were looking for an ideology to get behind. One that suggested that their problems were the direct result of another countries tampering was even better, as it lay the responsibility for their unhappiness on someone else's shoulders.
Fast forward to now, where our little war has created an enormous instability in the region, and rather than having to be brainwashed into thinking that the US is bad, they can look out their window and see the destruction. They no longer need faith that we are the bad guys, theyknow we are.
I bet Al Qaeda's membership started swelling withing weeks of American boots hitting the ground in Iraq.
And anyone who didn't see AQ spinning this into their advantage, clearly hasn't been paying attention. Their whole trick is to do something with very little. And fortunately for them, we have given them a lot.
posted by quin at 3:22 PM on April 25, 2007
The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a "false-flag" operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception. In the event of an attack, accurately assigning blame will require very careful intelligence work.
Assuming "accurately assigning blame" is a consideration.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 3:25 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
Assuming "accurately assigning blame" is a consideration.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 3:25 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
Actually eliminating al Qaeda wouldn't be in the interests of the Administration.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:26 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:26 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
Three. Already read it before it was posted here.
Four, actually. I read it in my oh-yes-I'm-a-subscriber copy. Personally, I prefer Foreign Policy. At least their depressing articles have pictures and charts.
Also, we could have done far more damage to Al Qaeda simply by ignoring them after 9-11. It's not like the administration has actually brought anyone to justice. Pretending he didn't exist would have driven Osama batty.
posted by william_boot at 3:29 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
Four, actually. I read it in my oh-yes-I'm-a-subscriber copy. Personally, I prefer Foreign Policy. At least their depressing articles have pictures and charts.
Also, we could have done far more damage to Al Qaeda simply by ignoring them after 9-11. It's not like the administration has actually brought anyone to justice. Pretending he didn't exist would have driven Osama batty.
posted by william_boot at 3:29 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
Pretending he didn't exist would have driven Osama batty.
And it's always good to have batty terrorists around. (I think our policy is unbelievably wrongheaded to, but, c'mon, do better than that).
posted by jonmc at 3:33 PM on April 25, 2007
And it's always good to have batty terrorists around. (I think our policy is unbelievably wrongheaded to, but, c'mon, do better than that).
posted by jonmc at 3:33 PM on April 25, 2007
This brings back memories of that documentary series "The Power of Nightmares" which isn't a good thing since that documentary series was perceived by many to be an overly cynical take on the whole.
Foreign Policy is great for realist/centrist takes on issues. There are also decent foreign policy articles in the "New York Review of Books", although from a more leftist perspective.
posted by bhouston at 3:34 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
Foreign Policy is great for realist/centrist takes on issues. There are also decent foreign policy articles in the "New York Review of Books", although from a more leftist perspective.
posted by bhouston at 3:34 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
eliminating al Qaeda wouldn't be in the interests of the Administration.
Eliminating Al Qaeda isn't in the competency level of this administration. I'm not sure Bush is capable of eliminating his bowels without shoving his head up there first.
posted by tkchrist at 3:34 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
Eliminating Al Qaeda isn't in the competency level of this administration. I'm not sure Bush is capable of eliminating his bowels without shoving his head up there first.
posted by tkchrist at 3:34 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
We should step our Torture of Innocents operations immediately if we hope to counter this rising threat.
posted by EatTheWeek at 3:36 PM on April 25, 2007
posted by EatTheWeek at 3:36 PM on April 25, 2007
How does this guy know all this and why is he so sure of what he knows, if Al Qaeda is a secretive, clandestine organization? I always wonder about this when I read "AQ is stronger..." or "AQ is weaker..." or "AQ is in X, Y or Z." Citing AQ propaganda here doesn't really work, because its aim is to mislead (or at least spin). So how the heck do you get the info necessary to make global claims about AQ? And if confidence in that info is low, what can we actually say about the "War on Terror?"
posted by MarshallPoe at 4:02 PM on April 25, 2007
posted by MarshallPoe at 4:02 PM on April 25, 2007
How many posts until someone who has read the article comments on it?
I read it prior to it's posting, prior to posting TIMSF.
What is there to discuss? Anybody who has done any significant reading on the Middle East knows that we're in an unwinnable war, and every day we spend over there just makes our enemy a little more popular.
As such, I have nothing to say, except mock surprise at the obvious findings of the article.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 4:15 PM on April 25, 2007
I read it prior to it's posting, prior to posting TIMSF.
What is there to discuss? Anybody who has done any significant reading on the Middle East knows that we're in an unwinnable war, and every day we spend over there just makes our enemy a little more popular.
As such, I have nothing to say, except mock surprise at the obvious findings of the article.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 4:15 PM on April 25, 2007
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
posted by champthom at 4:16 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by champthom at 4:16 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
After all, Bush is a uniter, not a divider.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:31 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:31 PM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
It was a good article, but his plan for Iraq was a little short on details. He suggests that Al-Qaeda is scared of facing an unrestrained Shiite/Kurd army after a US withdrawl. But given the Iraqi army's training if they tried to destroy Al-Queda they would have to massacre a lot of Sunnis in the process, which would only fuel further violence and possibly draw in Saudi Arabia.
The other option (which he does not address) is that a US withdrawl would prompt Sunni nationalists to turn on Al-Queda, but this would be far from a certain result. Is this really what he has in mind when when he writes "let Iraqis settle their conflicts themselves."?
posted by thrako at 4:46 PM on April 25, 2007
The other option (which he does not address) is that a US withdrawl would prompt Sunni nationalists to turn on Al-Queda, but this would be far from a certain result. Is this really what he has in mind when when he writes "let Iraqis settle their conflicts themselves."?
posted by thrako at 4:46 PM on April 25, 2007
Interesting read. These next few years are going to be fascinating with regards to the war on terror. Fascinating in a completely fucked up fashion.
posted by dazed_one at 4:54 PM on April 25, 2007
posted by dazed_one at 4:54 PM on April 25, 2007
Jesus God when will Fucktard Yachtboy be out of office so the United States can go about repairing itself.
posted by four panels at 5:54 PM on April 25, 2007
posted by four panels at 5:54 PM on April 25, 2007
OK there are a couple things to parse out guys. There's
a) What the U.S. has done to play into Al-Qaeda hands, by invading Iraq, increasing disaffection among muslims etc... gitmo, torture, Iraq everything.
b) the fact that Al-Qaeda as an organization on its OWN, was going to get stronger, more disciplined, and more dangerous, as it spread ITSELF around the world. These guys get better at technology, they get better at media presentation, and perhaps most importantly and most tied to a) they get better at recruitment, ideologueing, and picking up disaffected youth.
I think that a) has at the very least, radically sped up Al-Quaeda's ability to be THE radical organization that folds everyone else under it...
But don't think for ONE SECOND think that the latter wasn't going to happen in absence of the former....
a little off topic, does anyone know how the organization has managed to not have a whole bunch of smart 15 year olds hacking it's online networks all the time?
posted by stratastar at 5:59 PM on April 25, 2007
a) What the U.S. has done to play into Al-Qaeda hands, by invading Iraq, increasing disaffection among muslims etc... gitmo, torture, Iraq everything.
b) the fact that Al-Qaeda as an organization on its OWN, was going to get stronger, more disciplined, and more dangerous, as it spread ITSELF around the world. These guys get better at technology, they get better at media presentation, and perhaps most importantly and most tied to a) they get better at recruitment, ideologueing, and picking up disaffected youth.
I think that a) has at the very least, radically sped up Al-Quaeda's ability to be THE radical organization that folds everyone else under it...
But don't think for ONE SECOND think that the latter wasn't going to happen in absence of the former....
a little off topic, does anyone know how the organization has managed to not have a whole bunch of smart 15 year olds hacking it's online networks all the time?
posted by stratastar at 5:59 PM on April 25, 2007
Actually eliminating al Qaeda wouldn't be in the interests of the Administration.
They have a symbiotic relationship these days.
posted by IronLizard at 6:26 PM on April 25, 2007 [2 favorites]
They have a symbiotic relationship these days.
posted by IronLizard at 6:26 PM on April 25, 2007 [2 favorites]
One of Al Qaeda's central messages is that the West, especially the United States, is as war with Islam and wants to occupy Islamic countries and exploit the people and their resources. Invading Iraq on false pretenses and not coming up with an alternate explanation for the invasion plays right into their hands. I'm not saying the West actually is at war with Islam, but the lack of a solid reason for the invasion and occupation of Iraq makes Al Qaeda's claim more plausible.
There is no Shiite/Kurd army, really. The Iraqi army co-opted the Shiite and Kurdish militias, which were controlling the northern (Kurds) and southern (Shiite) parts of the country. The Shiites might continue to fight the Sunni, but the Kurds would most likely protect the autonomy of their territory.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:35 PM on April 25, 2007
He suggests that Al-Qaeda is scared of facing an unrestrained Shiite/Kurd army after a US withdrawl.
There is no Shiite/Kurd army, really. The Iraqi army co-opted the Shiite and Kurdish militias, which were controlling the northern (Kurds) and southern (Shiite) parts of the country. The Shiites might continue to fight the Sunni, but the Kurds would most likely protect the autonomy of their territory.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:35 PM on April 25, 2007
There is no Shiite/Kurd army, really. The Iraqi army co-opted the Shiite and Kurdish militias, which were controlling the northern (Kurds) and southern (Shiite) parts of the country. The Shiites might continue to fight the Sunni, but the Kurds would most likely protect the autonomy of their territory.
Yeah, I was a little surprised by his inclusion of the Kurds, but I believe he must be thinking about Kirkuk.
posted by thrako at 7:00 PM on April 25, 2007
Yeah, I was a little surprised by his inclusion of the Kurds, but I believe he must be thinking about Kirkuk.
posted by thrako at 7:00 PM on April 25, 2007
rather than having to be brainwashed into thinking that the US is bad, they can look out their window and see the destruction. They no longer need faith that we are the bad guys, theyknow we are.
Yes, we inform, they brainwash. You're probably right; they probably weren't looking at documentation of a hundred years of slaughter and torture in Latin America, but "brainwash" makes me laugh. Bitterly, mind.
posted by dreamsign at 2:19 AM on April 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yes, we inform, they brainwash. You're probably right; they probably weren't looking at documentation of a hundred years of slaughter and torture in Latin America, but "brainwash" makes me laugh. Bitterly, mind.
posted by dreamsign at 2:19 AM on April 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
four panels asks Jesus God when will Fucktard Yachtboy be out of office so the United States can go about repairing itself.[?]
634 days
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:43 AM on April 26, 2007
634 days
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:43 AM on April 26, 2007
From the article:
The truth is that, for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [to go to war]. [Wolfowitz, 5/9/03]
I can clearly remember thinking that invading and attempting to occupy Iraq [even alongside British forces, who actually have experience in this area] was the worst idea any leader of the United States has ever had. Boy, do I hate being right all the fucking time.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:53 AM on April 26, 2007
Wow, that's a shocker. Peep this:
'But thanks largely to Washington's eagerness to go into Iraq rather than concentrate on hunting down al Qaeda's leaders, the organization now has a solid base of operations in the badlands of Pakistan and an effective franchise in western Iraq. '
The truth is that, for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [to go to war]. [Wolfowitz, 5/9/03]
I can clearly remember thinking that invading and attempting to occupy Iraq [even alongside British forces, who actually have experience in this area] was the worst idea any leader of the United States has ever had. Boy, do I hate being right all the fucking time.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:53 AM on April 26, 2007
Who could have foreseen any of this?
Oh, wait practically everyone outside of the Administration and the ever-hopeful mainstream media did.
posted by psmealey at 6:43 AM on April 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
Oh, wait practically everyone outside of the Administration and the ever-hopeful mainstream media did.
posted by psmealey at 6:43 AM on April 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
"Actually eliminating al Qaeda wouldn't be in the interests of the Administration.
They have a symbiotic relationship these days."
al Qaeda in it's current form is essentially a construct created by this Administration.
posted by stenseng at 10:35 AM on April 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
They have a symbiotic relationship these days."
al Qaeda in it's current form is essentially a construct created by this Administration.
posted by stenseng at 10:35 AM on April 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
Poaching for Bin Laden: In the jungles of India, local animal trappers have a new breed of client: Islamic militants using the trade in rare wildlife to raise funds for their cause.
posted by homunculus at 12:52 AM on May 5, 2007
posted by homunculus at 12:52 AM on May 5, 2007
« Older Wait a minute: your mom pays you to give her... | Now that the shoe phone is obsolete... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 2:47 PM on April 25, 2007