Yesterday I read a fascinating article over at Daily KOS which the author titled - terrorist strategy 101. Now before a certain portion of the political aisle starts groaning about this being from Daily KOS, please read it. There was a lot of thought put into it and I think some new perspectives on the situation.

The article asks several common questions that all of us have and I think that the author gives some very insightful and plausible answers as far as Bin Laden's motivation goes. Just to pique your interest these are the questions:


It is also worth quoting the conclusion of this analysis here:


Questions for debate:
1. The article suggests that actions like a bloody conflict in Iraq play directly into Bin Laden's hands in terms of recruitment and inciting muslim anger - do you agree or disagree with this analysis? Why or why not?

2. The article cites that Bin Laden beat the Soviet Union largely because they bankrupted them in an expensive 10 year guerilla war - given the current state of affairs, the cost of the Iraq war, and the potential for more conflicts could the United States be marching down this same path?

3. The overriding theme here is that the cool head prevails and will win the day and that extremists (i.e neo-conservative hawks) only make the situation worse - would you agree or disagree with this conclusion? Why or why not?

4. Given the conclusions and analysis in this article as well as the current situation and your view on things - who is winning the War on Terror at this stage of the game the United States or terrorists? Why do you feel that side is winning?

1. The article suggests that actions like a bloody conflict in Iraq play directly into Bin Laden's hands in terms of recruitment and inciting muslim anger - do you agree or disagree with this analysis? Why or why not?

While I agree with much of what the article posits, I am not sure that Bin Laden predicted Iraq. On the one hand, it was one of the best gifts the US could have ever given Bin Laden. On the other hand, Iraq could become, however improbable at this point, a beacon of peace, stability and democratic values. I do agree though that wars (military actions) against Islamic nations serve to produce radicalization in the populace and the greater Islamic community.

2. The article cites that Bin Laden beat the Soviet Union largely because they bankrupted them in an expensive 10 year guerilla war - given the current state of affairs, the cost of the Iraq war, and the potential for more conflicts could the United States be marching down this same path?

This may be Bin Laden's stated goal but I believe it would be a long time coming. In order for the US to be bankrupted, the world market would have to significantly divest itself of US assets. Until this occurs, the weak US dollar should it continue its decline will be propped up by international banks. This means that significant debt incurred by war-making will not be reflected domestically. Again, once the world market begins a divestiture of US assets, then we will see the beginning of Bin Laden's stated goal coming to fruition.

3. The overriding theme here is that the cool head prevails and will win the day and that extremists (i.e neo-conservative hawks) only make the situation worse - would you agree or disagree with this conclusion? Why or why not?

Extremism/fanaticism is in my book evil. It is the one thing that civilized society must reject. It is also a very easy trap to fall into. Neo-conservatism may not in and of itself be extremist, however it contains the correct set of ingredients to foster such behavior. I could go on at great lengths about my personal experience with this but I'll shelve that for another time.

4. Given the conclusions and analysis in this article as well as the current situation and your view on things - who is winning the War on Terror at this stage of the game the United States or terrorists? Why do you feel that side is winning?

If we are really engaged in a War on Terror, it certainly doesn't appear that way. Numerous treasonable activities have occurred which have not been prosecuted. There is no sense of sacrifice in the US to support this fight (with the possible exception of families of soldiers buying gear for their loved ones on the frontlines). Finally, terrorism is a nebulous thing. Even if we narrow the definition to jihadis, it's still a nebulous thing. Yes, we've caught some members of Al Qaeda (which is a good thing™). The hubris comes from assuming that this means we've reduced the number of Al Qaeda members. It would be poor strategy indeed to assume that terrorist networks have not been recruiting and training new members in excess of our "capture rate".

1. The article suggests that actions like a bloody conflict in Iraq play directly into Bin Laden's hands in terms of recruitment and inciting muslim anger - do you agree or disagree with this analysis? Why or why not?

This conclusion ignores the fact that the previous situation both provided the same, and was in fact the very thing that 'created' Bin Laden to begin with (his initial concerns were with the Saudi Government for allowing infidel troops into the Muslim Holy Land). This conclusion also takes only a short term perspective, ignoring the fact that instituting fundamental change in the region could (yes, I only said could) drastically reduce the root causes leading to the terrorism.

So, my answer is that it may play into his hands in the short term, although not necessarily to any greater degree than the previous situation did. For the long-term, it depends completely on the outcome.

2. The article cites that Bin Laden beat the Soviet Union largely because they bankrupted them in an expensive 10 year guerilla war - given the current state of affairs, the cost of the Iraq war, and the potential for more conflicts could the United States be marching down this same path?


No, for several reasons. The most basic one being we have much, much more money available than the Soviet Union did. Enough money so that we would never have to curtail activities solely for that reason, under any circumstances. Also, we have a path forward that puts the onus on Iraqi troops to provide for the own security, further reducing the liklihood of that path. To bring this scenario into play we would have to be forced into similar situations in other areas (Indonesia?)...spreading our resources...I don't see that happening.

3. The overriding theme here is that the cool head prevails and will win the day and that extremists (i.e neo-conservative hawks) only make the situation worse - would you agree or disagree with this conclusion? Why or why not?

I don't disagree with the premise, I remain unconvinced that this (application of neo-conservative principles) is the driving factor in Iraq. If the movement spreads elsewhere, I think it would be a fair assumption, but I see (and have posted) many many reasons why I think action here was both necessary, and different than anywhere else.

The main issue here is not the invasion itself (which is where the neo-con hawks would have had their influence), but in our ability to get out. For that, cool heads and pragmatic thinking, examining all relevant factors, needs to be the case. FWIW--I also think that is how things are being approached, at least from those at the tactical level (whose advice I think Bush is following).

4. Given the conclusions and analysis in this article as well as the current situation and your view on things - who is winning the War on Terror at this stage of the game the United States or terrorists? Why do you feel that side is winning?

I think its a draw. To be winning the WoT, there needs to be a reduction of the liklihood of an attack. I don't know that that is the case. And that's not even really related to the War in Iraq at all. For Iraq itself, I'd also say its a draw. Although terrorist attacks are increasing, with the attack on Fallujah, and likely follow up assaults, their bases of operation and areas of control will be shrinking. so, I'd say let's examine this question again periodically.

How could the invasion, subjugation, and occupation of their land and homes not anger Muslims? How could that not benefit Bin Laden, jihad, and the Caliphate?

Increased recruitment to armed struggle is bad enough, but polls in the region show serious antipathy to the US, at the center. Bringing democracy to these people could turn out badly for us - giving them power.


The USA is not the USSR. In addition to our formal Separation of Powers, and regulated Checks & Balances, we also have informal structures that play similar roles. The Stock Markets, Wall Street, and our networks of independent analysts and advisors can bring down Kings. Even at our current level of indulgence in the Middle East, there are warnings from the professional money communities. To further jeopardize our fiscal health will lead to effective domestic countermeasures.

The article discusses the political costs of this question's reference to "more conflicts", i.e., the draft. To broaden our military interventions on the backs of draftees would require several years lead-up, even with an Adolf Hitler breathing down our neck. So far, of course, nothing indicates that terrorism can be address at all, with conventional military forces. Meanwhile, America would be in full domestic meltdown over a draft.


The Neo-Conservatives have been around for decades. They are useful in the halls of power. They have taken some political damage lately for intemperance and incompetence, but that too suits many who have use of them.

In recent centuries, the status of the common person has steadily risen. That makes it hard for isolated points of view - the Castle - to continue unChecked in destructive paths. The objections of social classes who have little going for them beyond common sense, means the role of common sense is larger than in the past.

"The Hawks" appear to be about 50% plus one or two of the American electorate.


I agree with the essential premise and conclusion of this excellent article: both sides are winning handsomely.

It is hard to overstate the importance of the Bogeyman role of Communism and the USSR, throughout the Cold War. The possibility that the Muslim jihadi movement can be molding into an acceptable substitute for the legendary Soviet menace is an opportunity of the first magnitude.

An interesting read, Cube. I was a bit suspicious about a Daily KOS link, but this one was worthwhile.

That said, I think the assumptions and therefore the conclusions the author makes are flawed.

1. The article suggests that actions like a bloody conflict in Iraq play directly into Bin Laden's hands in terms of recruitment and inciting muslim anger - do you agree or disagree with this analysis? Why or why not?

I believe this may be true. A bloody conflict in Iraq does play into the hands of radical Muslims--IF the US is seen as being the cause of the civilian deaths.

No one will deny that the US military killed Iraqi civilians. However, I think most reasonable people view them as collateral and not direct casualties. In the continuing conflict, who is seen as the cause of dead Iraqi civilians? I would hope that it is the insurgents, who are targeting these people and not the US military, who is not.

It all depends on the press over there, of course.

There is a fundamental flaw in this theory. I don't think bin Laden predicted the US invasion of Iraq. Since he did not produce the event, I would hardly describe it as being part of the "master plan". That isn't to say that he can't take advantage of the US actions in Iraq, but he did not cause them, in my opinion.

Similarly, we don't see Afghanistan being used as a recruitment tool (at least it isn't publicized as such in the US press). The attack on Afghanistan was predictable and probably part of bin Laden's plan. However, it did not produce the results that the author says that bin Laden is after.

We always tend to give the enemy credit for things that are really out of his control. Lucky happenstance becomes brilliant strategy. Frankly, bin Laden is lucky to be alive and in a cave somewhere. I think ascribing extraordinary planning, patience, tactical thinking or global strategy to him is giving him more credit than is his due. As the article said: Tim McVeigh was no genius and yet he was able to carry out a large scale attack. Why hasn't bin Laden? Oh yeah...that isn't his plan .

2. The article cites that Bin Laden beat the Soviet Union largely because they bankrupted them in an expensive 10 year guerilla war - given the current state of affairs, the cost of the Iraq war, and the potential for more conflicts could the United States be marching down this same path?

War is not going to bankrupt the US. The US (unlike the Soviet Union) has the strongest economy in the world. Its GDP is growing at the fastest rate of any industrialized nation. Instead of being a burden on the US economy, the war is boosting it in the short term. It is causing a slight rise in the national deficit. But this deficit is still well within the percent of GDP that has been historical over the last few decades. There is no undue burden here. The US economy is unlikely to collapse anytime soon.

The Soviet economy, on the other hand, collapsed due to factors unrelated (directly) to Afghanistan. In short, bin Laden got lucky with his timing.

3. The overriding theme here is that the cool head prevails and will win the day and that extremists (i.e neo-conservative hawks) only make the situation worse - would you agree or disagree with this conclusion? Why or why not?

The other side is always "extremist", isn't it? I am sure that if Kerry won, he would be an "extremist". If Jimmy Carter got back in the White House, he would be extremist (to radical Muslims). Bin Laden seeks to demonize Americans, not just Bush. It is propaganda.

The statement that "cooler heads prevail" is simply an oversimplification. It has no real meaning without context. Have these "hawks" continued invading countries? Have they been belligerent with North Korea or Iran, for example? So the "hawks" aren't so hawkish after all.

4. Given the conclusions and analysis in this article as well as the current situation and your view on things - who is winning the War on Terror at this stage of the game the United States or terrorists? Why do you feel that side is winning?

Bin Laden is on the run. The Middle East is calming down. Afghanistan has gone from being ruled by thugs from the Middle Ages to a government where women can vote. Iraq, although not perfectly peaceful, will have elections next month. I see no pan-Muslim leader stepping up to oppose the US.

If bin Laden's goal is a united Muslim world, then he is losing badly. He has no hopes of winning because the very rulers of the Muslim world will not allow it. If bin Laden's goal is to personally become the ruler of the new Caliphate, then he is deluding himself.

Given the positives on our side and the negatives on bin Laden's, I would say that we are winning the war on bin Laden's brand of terrorism.

First let me state that I loved the article. It was nice to see someone thinking like a terrorist in their analysis of the situation.


I would disagree, all we needed to do was invade a sovereign Arab nation and occupy it. He just needed to bring the face for potential radicals to hate closer to home.


With the US declaring a "war on terror", including Iraq as part of the axis of evil, and with the son of a President who participated in the last attack on Iraq currently in power; it wouldn't have been a stretch to think that Iraq was on the list for invasion, if not next on the list. And as we planned it and threatened it, Bin Laden took advantage of it. He called for Muslims to come fight in Iraq against the US aggressors. The fact that we were unilaterally and preemptively invading a sovereign Arab nation must've made his mouth water.


Another way to play into his hands is to underestimate him. Timothy McVeigh was a high school graduate who worked at Burger King before landing a job driving an armored car. He managed to blow up one building and got caught escaping. Bin Laden studied management and economics at university, organized a well funded network of terrorists, has orchestrated several attacks all while remaining seemingly uncatchable -- not to mention the fact that he fought in Afghanistan for 10 years against a superpower and won, what does that take to succeed? I would say you aren't giving him credit enough.


For an example of how long terrorists can sustain a conflict, look to the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is next door, which decreases the costs dramatically in terms of deployment. Can the US sustain a conflict for 30 years? Will the US population allow it to go on for that long. I don't think so.


The article states this fact. Bush is the current demonic representation of America. If Kerry didn't appear to be a demon to the people Bin Laden wanted to radicalize, he would have to do something to create that image -- like mounting another attack.

1. The article suggests that actions like a bloody conflict in Iraq play directly into Bin Laden's hands in terms of recruitment and inciting muslim anger - do you agree or disagree with this analysis? Why or why not?

Sure it "plays into his deck of cards" in terms of recruitment and inciting muslim anger. Though it's more complicated than that. What's intriguing about the article is that it makes the case for pre-emption without realizing it.



In other words, "good intelligence and good police work" put a band-aid on the problem, it's not the solution.

Let's flip the coin. To defeat the uni-lateral evil zionist fascist war mongering Bush empire hegemony™, Al-Qaida and it's ilk employ the same tactic's they use against the country of the occupying power. In other words, they enrage the population just as they enraged the Americans -- through terrorist attack's on it's population. Yea, I caught the 22 on that as well.

2. The article cites that Bin Laden beat the Soviet Union largely because they bankrupted them in an expensive 10 year guerilla war - given the current state of affairs, the cost of the Iraq war, and the potential for more conflicts could the United States be marching down this same path?

Just for arguments sake let's suppose the US has the same resources of the former Soviet Union. The problem is that they have been forced to attack the very population they are supposedly defending. So unlike the war in Afghanistan vs. the Soviets, not many people like them. Of course they don't like the Americans, but they don't like their children being blown up while they are receiving candy from the Americans. There's also the factor of Democracy that comes into play. In this particular guerrilla war (Iraq) physicological impact is the primary factor. Who is the lesser evil? I think fear is a major factor, when the average Iraqi see's a masked gunmen with an AK-47 as opposed to an American soldier, who do they fear? Who would they rather see roaming the street's at night? I think the Americans are winning in this regard. Sort of a love-hate relationship. Another key difference between the two war's is that a Muslim/Arab came to Afghanistan to gain experience, as opposed to Iraq, they come to die.

3. The overriding theme here is that the cool head prevails and will win the day and that extremists (i.e neo-conservative hawks) only make the situation worse - would you agree or disagree with this conclusion? Why or why not?

Cool heads, as in someone that put's a band-aid on the problem? Isn't that what the article cited as a solution that ultimately will not progress to a long term solution?

4. Given the conclusions and analysis in this article as well as the current situation and your view on things - who is winning the War on Terror at this stage of the game the United States or terrorists? Why do you feel that side is winning?

Well let's see... Afghanistan is well on it's way to a viable Democracy, Saddam is in jail (a terrorist himself), UBL's network has taken a beating, Islamic terrorism has come into the spotlight and being fought globally, Iran is completely surrounded by major US military bases, and Iraq, if successful, given their encounter with terrorist idealogy, will most likely fight against terrorism. I would conclude that the major fruits will be reaped from the result of Iraq by either side, as of now, both side's have made gains, though the terrorist's haven't fared well as far as additional "power".

As of now the terrorist's seem to be losing traction.





http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/myths.htm