[NMshooter]

As I make my way through Robert Taber's War of the Flea (Robert B. Asprey's War in the Shadows is next) a couple questions popped into my head. I thought I would share them.

1. Is Osama bin Laden a "point failure sorce", or simply one of several leaders?

2. Is Al-Queda a revolutionary group or a counter-revolutionary group?

Bin Laden seems to me to be one of several leaders, the one chosen to serve as spokesman. This would be useful to his group, making him look more important than he actually is.

Al-Queda could be a reaction to the slow subversion of Mideast culture by American culture (Hollywood's "Weapons of Mass Distraction" for example). An attempt to put America on the defensive, since in any conflict waged in the media the offensive is generally the best choice. See our recent presidential elections for examples of that.

This would put America in the strange position of being the revolutionary without our government actually intending to be.

Any comments?

[Standing Wolf]

Is Al-Queda a revolutionary group or a counter-revolutionary group?

Thugs, killers, perverts, and wannabe tyrants. Calling oneself a "revolutionary" is supposed to cloak all manner of vicious, inexcusable crimes.

[Hkmp5sd]

Bin Laden is the leader and founder of Al Qaeda. He is a billionaire, making his money originally from the family owned construction buisness. He is not a revolutionary. He is a terrorist. He has radical beliefs in his version of Islam and as decided to use terrorist tactics to force his beliefs on others. He got his start by fighting against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and Saudi Arabia invited the US military into the country to both protect them and retake Kuwait, bin Laden went off the deep end. He was kicked out of Saudi Arabia and ultimately ended up in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban government. His goal is the complete removal of all "infidels" from what he considers the holy land, including the Israelis. As the US is the primary problem in reaching his goal, he has chosen the mass murder of Americans in order to frighten the US into giving in to his desires.

[Arc-Lite]

one small correction HK....Bin boy never did any on line fighting in Afghanistan..he just financed arms, and had pictures taken...with his PR man.

[carebear]

His goal is the complete removal of all "infidels" from what he considers the holy land, including the Israelis.

Not entirely accurate. what he and the other Wahhabists want is the realization of the "umma," the universal dominion of Islam and Sharia Law over the entire earth. As in the past, "infidels" would not necessarily have to convert, but they could not rule.

This is not a war over "the Holy Land," this is a war over the future of all mankind. The "Holy Land" argument opens the idea that some sort of accommedation or negotiation with these folks is possible. It is not. Any capitulation or compromise on the part of the West and secular liberalism will be taken as weakness and used as a mere stepping stone to their end goal. The only middle ground is "their way."

Like any struggle against ardent fanatics (gun-grabbers anyone? :evil: ) this one is and must be to the knife. No quarter asked or given.

[thorn726]

1. Is Osama bin Laden a "point failure sorce", or simply one of several leaders?

yeah, as stated above, leader and founder. he took down all the names originally, the 30,000 who came to fight in afghanistan against Ussr. if he died tomorrow, al qaeda would continue though.
i think at this point its a loose organization , and going to the second part,
not a revloution , but a religous movement.
they dont really run nations, just drive out infidels. i'd agree with the other poster and call them no more than terrorists. they just want to cause trouble and misery wherever people are succeeding without islam, and encourage others
to blame non muslims for their problems

[NMshooter]

So nobody thinks large numbers of the younger generations in the region are starting to look at their situation and demand change?

I am thinking that from the Al-Q point of view that Iraq is slipping out of their influence and Iran is next.

In Syria things might be a little different, I don't know. Pakistan does not look too great either, but I do not have enough information to figure them out.

I guess I am asking if the general situation seems to be slowly moving in a direction favorable to us.

Well, that and if blowing bin-Laden to bits would provide more than temporary satisfaction. :evil:

[tulsamal]

So nobody thinks large numbers of the younger generations in the region are starting to look at their situation and demand change?

I don't know what is or isn't happening on the ground in Iraq. But what you are stating is one of the core reasons for the war. There had been people in the US for decades who had argued that it was in the US national interest to promote democracy in the ME. They argued that aligning ourselves with governments that were represive (like the Shah in Iran) would only serve to make us the eventual bad guy when the oppressive governments fell. The whole situation provides a fertile ground for recruitment of terrorists. The counter-argument was that such a policy would be destabilizing for the entire region. We might not like the governments of Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. but the alternative might be worse. At least things _seemed_ stable.

Then came 9/11. Suddenly people were forced to accept the idea that what we were doing wasn't going to work. People were going to see us as part of the problem and attack us. The decision was made to attempt to make Iraq into a functioning democracy. This is the number one reason we DIDN'T get help from Saudi Arabia or other Arab countries. Countries that did NOT see Saddam as an ally and really wanted to see him gone. But those countries felt even more threatened by the new US policy. A successful democracy right in between Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia could put all the "wrong kinds of ideas" into the heads of the common people. The leaders of those countries do NOT want to see the US succeed in Iraq. It would probably be the beginning of the end for their own governments.

I'm not making a judgement on whether or not the US will be successful. It is a big gamble and it is still too early to tell. But you have to remember that we only went down this road because the alternative was worse! If we "did nothing" after 9/11 we would be attacked again. Probably more and more frequently and in increasingly deadly ways. We _might_ be attacked more and more in the future because of what we are doing in Iraq today. Or we might not. We KNEW we were screwed with the pre-9/11 status quo. So we opted for the big gamble. Now we have to find a way to make it work.

Gregg

[duckslayer]

Very interesting analysis tulsamal.

[NMshooter]

Thank you for your posts! I don't mind criticism, so long as it is constructive. If I am wrong I like to know how and why.

From what few sources I have come in contact with I get the feeling that major changes are possible. One Iranian girl who described herself as very conservative (in a different sense than the current American "conservative") did not feel the need to wear a veil or other traditional dress, and was taking college courses along with her sister. She was not supportive of the regime in Iran.

I have no idea what the future may bring, but every friendly or neutral country is one less to worry about.