| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Boston Globe Editorial - 'Time to Talk to Al-Qaeda?' |
| 2005-09-14 |
| Fifth Column trumps Short Attention Span Theater. Via LGF. AS THE WAR between the United States and Al Qaeda enters its fifth year, the nature of the armed, transnational Islamist group's campaign remains And why should we do otherwise against a neo-fascist movement bent on installing a religious dictatorship? Yet developing a strategy for the next phase of the global response to Al Qaeda requires understanding the enemy -- something Western analysts have systematically failed to do. Sept. 11 was not an unprovoked, gratuitous act. It was a military operation researched and planned since at least 1996 and conducted by a trained commando in the context of a war that had twice been declared officially and publicly Given Binny's rout in Afghanistan, I'd say he failed in those regards. Overwhelmingly centered on the martial aspects of the conflict, scholars and policymakers have been too focused on Al Qaeda's ''irrationality," ''fundamentalism," and ''hatred" -- and these conceptions continue to color key analyses. The sway of such explanations is particularly surprising in the face of nonambiguous statements made by Al Qaeda as to the main reasons for its war on the United States. These have been offered consistently since 1996, notably in the August 1996 and February 1998 declarations of war and the November 2002 and October 2004 justifications for its continuation. Seems to me that an enemy's 'irrationality', 'fundamentalism,' and 'hatred' make them valid points for, you know, fighting back? Since the attacks on New York and Washington, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have delivered, respectively, 18 and 15 messages via audio or videotape making a three-part case: The United States must end its military presence in the Middle East, its uncritical political support and military aid of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, and its support of corrupt and coercive regimes in the Arab and Muslim world. In other words, retreat, abandon a long-term ally and otherwise capitulate to our demands. Oh, and that Caliphate thing that wasn't mentioned? Kneel before Zod. Al Qaeda believes that the citizens of the states with whom it is at war bear a responsibility for the policies of their governments. Such democratization of responsibility rests, it has been argued by bin Laden, in the citizens' ability to elect and dismiss the representatives who make foreign policy decisions on their behalf. So cause (them blowing up civilian targets) and effect (you get your ass kicked in response) get tossed out the window, how Palestinian of him! Al Qaeda is an industrious, committed, and power-wielding organization waging a political, limited, and evasive war of attrition -- not a religious, open-ended, apocalyptic one. Over the past year, it has struck private and public alliances, offered truces, affected elections, and gained an international stature beyond a mere security threat. If you mean 'affected elections' and gaining 'international stature' as 'more countries cowering before your threats', unfortunately you're probably right. And I don't think we buy these deceptions at 'truce and reconciliation', no matter how well you're dressing it up. I'll save the group hug for Zarqawi's hanging. It has implemented a clearly articulated policy, demonstrated strategic operational flexibility, and skillfully conducted low-cost, high-impact operations (Riyadh 1995, Dhahran 1996, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam 1998, Yemen 2000, New York and Washington 2001, Bali 2002, Istanbul 2003, Madrid 2004, and London 2005). Of late, this versatile actor has exhibited an ability to operate amid heightened international counter-measures. For what it's worth, these point to 1 major worldwide terrorist attack each year; it looks like a constant until al-Queda is eradicated. This guy seems to have an metaphorical erection by the end of this paragraph. No longer able to enjoy a centralized sanctuary in Afghanistan after 2002, Al Qaeda's leadership opted for an elastic defense strategy relying on mobile forces, scaled-up international operations, and expanded global tactical relationships. It encouraged the proliferation of mini Al Qaedas, able to act on their own within a regional context. I thought it was a given that al-Queda's always been decentralized subcontractors, or did I miss the second coming of Jack Welch? Consequently, and aside from the war in Iraq, between 2002 and 2005 the United States and seven of its Western allies were the targets of 17 major attacks in 11 countries for a total of 760 people killed. In 2001, Ayman al-Zawahiri had explained the cost-effective rationale of these measures, namely ''the need to inflict the maximum casualties against the opponent, for this is the language understood by the West, no matter how much time and effort such operations take." Last month, he reiterated that commitment and announced new attacks against the United States. Yes - against civilian targets. Somehow that gives al-Queda superior moral authority here? How can the war be brought to an end? Neither side can defeat the other. Right. The United States will not be able to overpower a diffuse, ever-mutating, organized international militancy movement, whose struggle enjoys the rear-guard sympathy of large numbers of Muslims. Likewise, Al Qaeda can score tactical victories on the United States and its allies, but it cannot rout the world's sole superpower. The U.S. is in a far better position to not just minimize Al-Quesadilla's impact, but to eliminate it altogether than they are to do to us. I highly suspect similar lines of reasoning were used to defend the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Detente doesn't work in the long run; Bush just cut to the chase. Though dismissed widely, the best strategy for the United States may well be to acknowledge and address the collective reasons in which Al Qaeda anchors its acts of force. Al Qaeda has been true to its word in announcing and implementing its strategy for over a decade. It is likely to be true to its word in the future and cease hostilities against the United States, and indeed bring an end to the war it declared in 1996 and in 1998, in return for some degree of satisfaction regarding its grievances. In 2002, bin Laden declared: ''Whether America escalates or deescalates this conflict, we will reply in kind." Thereby blithely and piously washing his hands of any responsibility whatsoever. Data's logic circuits would've been fused together by now, trying to reconcile the 'We, the Mighty Al-Queadaa started this, but it's up to the Great Satan to roll over'. I think we're more inclined to roll over them instead. Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou is associate director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University. Harvard - I'm just so surprised, aren't you? |
| Posted by:Bob Seger |
| #10 As they've said in Israel for a long time, no Arabs=no terrorism. |
| Posted by: mac 2005-09-14 19:07 |
| #9 I'd like somebody to ask Biden, Dean, Boxer,(somebody help her with it), Pelosi, etc. if they believe that should be the strategy in the war on terror. |
| Posted by: macofromoc 2005-09-14 18:50 |
| #8 Yes WE HAVE A WINNER!! The STUPIDEST editorial of the year. Despite FIERCE competition from the NY Times (especially Krugman and Dowd) - the award goes to the Boston Globe. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-09-14 18:02 |
| #7 Folks, the MSM (including the Boston Globe) surrendered long ago to Binny. They are just stating the obvious now. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-09-14 17:20 |
| #6 "Though dismissed widely, the best strategy for the United States may well be to acknowledge and address the collective reasons in which Al Qaeda anchors its acts of force." Fuck that. A far better strategy is for us to motivate them to acknowledge and address the collective reasons in which we anchor our acts of force. Grab them by the nuts and yank HARD-- and their hearts and minds will follow eagerly. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-09-14 17:02 |
| #5 As I left Boston on Sunday, I randomly turned the car radio to an NPR station which was broadcasting a sermon, which after a long wander through the parable of the unforgiving slave, got to the heart of the matter: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were evil! Un-Christian! The minister seemed to be arguing that al-Queda wasn't worth a war, let alone two. That we should, instead, be forgiving them their evils, not seven times, but seventy plus seven times. (Has anyone been keeping track of the numbers of al-Queda terrorist attacks? I'm pretty sure they've long since passed 77, but I haven't done the reckoning, so I can't be positive... This is the quietism being broadcast on a publicly supported broadcaster on the anniversary of September 11th. It isn't that the left is uniformly not religious - it's that those which *are* religious are either Islamic converts or seem to have devolved into some lowest-common-interdenominational form of Quakerism! |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2005-09-14 16:32 |
| #4 Harvard and many, many other elite institutions have become breeding grounds for terrorist apologetics and cultural nihilism. There is a simple reason for this: the elitists in the media and the academic world are more afraid of terrorists and rioting leftists than they are of Americans. This must change. We bomb and shoot low-level jihadis in Afghanistan and Iraq in wholesale numbers. Yet far more important enemy operatives not only work freely in this country, they are rewarded for doing so. The fifth column is right about one thing: This is a class war, but the opposing classes are almost the direct opposite of what the professional liars in academia and the media represent them to be. The terrorists and their apologists represent the ruling class of cultural elitists and academic activists; as well as the sizable portion of the business community that has been bribed or coerced into supporting elitist and Islamic goals. The opposition, the loyalists, are the working and middle classes of this country. The popular resistance continues to take shape as alternate media like LGF and Rantburg work to clarify the actual nature of the conflict. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-09-14 16:17 |
| #3 By Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou. That explains it all. Just like Martin Borman writing editorials for the Washington Post in 1943. What, our grandfathers had a better survival skills than to do that? Deport his ass. Congrats old money, tired, blue blooded America. You send your kids to Harvard and pay $40,000 per year for the priveledge so that people like Mohamedou can destroy you. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-09-14 15:36 |
| #2 In the Boston Globe's little fantasy world, this is considered doable. And it'll get done just about the same time gay marriage is legalized in Afghanistan. Could be why the last time I bought a Globe was when I was paper training one of my German Shepards... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-09-14 15:15 |
| #1 Nuts! |
| Posted by: JackAssFestival 2005-09-14 15:14 |