Posted on 04/26/2007 2:42:07 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
Al Qaeda is a more dangerous enemy today than it has ever been before. It has suffered some setbacks since September 11, 2001: losing its state within a state in Afghanistan, [and] having several of its top operatives killed....
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. Its reach has spread throughout the Muslim world, where it has developed a large cadre of operatives, and in Europe, where it can claim the support of some disenfranchised Muslim locals and members of the Arab and Asian diasporas....
Bin Laden's goals remain the same, as does his basic strategy. He seeks to, as he puts it, "provoke and bait" the United States into "bleeding wars" throughout the Islamic world; he wants to bankrupt the country much as he helped bankrupt, he claims, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s....
The U.S. occupation of Iraq helped move his plan along, and bin Laden has worked hard to turn it into a trap for Washington. Now he may be scheming to extend his strategy by exploiting or even triggering a war between the United States and Iran.
Decisively defeating al Qaeda will be more difficult now than it would have been a few years ago. But it can still be done, if Washington and its partners implement a comprehensive strategy over several years, one focused on both attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions that allow them to thrive. Otherwise, it will only be a matter of time before al Qaeda strikes the U.S. homeland again.
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignaffairs.org ...
This thread is for Freeper war strategists and strategic thinkers, who want to discuss what's really going on with global terrorism.
Is there a way to win this? (Not in Iraq, of course, but in the world where it's taking place.)
Is "win" the right word?
If you were Commander-in-Chief, how would you protect the United States from the global Al Qaeda network?
How to win what? I winning changing the sedition and defeatims of your Liberal friends? If a fire cracker were to go off in Iraq, the Liberal establishment would say the war is lost.
“If you were Commander-in-Chief, how would you protect the United States from the global Al Qaeda network?”
Retreat from Iraq! That will defeat Al Qaeda once and for all./s
Stephan -- this does not refer to me. I am Al Qaeda's worst nightmare and greatest threat. You know why?
Because "I know my enemy." -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
You know me better than that.
Thanks, will read later tonight.
Steven Wright, Pulitzer prize-winning author of the “Looming Tower” and most knowledgeable person I’m aware of that knows anything about Al Qaeda, does not share this assessment...
Because if they know you're on the scene they'll laugh themselves to death? Maybe you, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi can run toward the Al Qaeda camp waving right flags and say that this you terrorists abused children.
Glad that's sarcasm, because we're going to stay in Iraq. It's our primary base of operations in the Middle East.
Well lets see. Pakistan has been less than co-operative by giving sanctuary to AlQueda and Taliban.
Western Iraq AlQueda operations are probably being assisted by Syria.
Syria also supports hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad.
Iran is developing nukes and constantly making threatening and abrasive statements. Iran is also assisting AlQueda and other fighters in Iraq by supplying weapons and funding that kills Americans.
So we have 3 Islamic nations surrounding Iraq that are in part supplying terrorists fighting against the US.
Bush said either you are with the terrorists or you are with the cause of peace, but cannot be both.
Pakistan may have outwardly friendly gestures to the west, but the climate politically is very fragile. And they also have nukes. What is the threshhold that Paki can fight terrorism without becoming a victim of islamic revolution that could potentially take over the military and the nukes?
I hate to say it, but there is one simple strategy the US could take that would effectively reduce aid and comfort to terrorists. NUKE EM!!!!!! Better destroy them first than us being slowly bled to death by mini conflicts and nuclear posturing by rogues.
If we wait, barbarians will be the ones in control of everything and I don’t think we have the willpower to resist long term conflict. We can’t even get through 4 years of fighting a ragtag, improvised, poorly trained group that inflicts a few casulties and scares the peace loving Iraqi’s into submission. The current crop of congressional wussies is sickening. They are leading us straight to hell.
His name is LAWRENCE Wright -- and he DOES share this assessment.
1. Order an immediate pull out of all US military, government workers and contractors from all Rag nations.
2. ADVISE, all US persons and our allies to get out now.
3. As soon as our folks are out, then do what president carter should have done on Nov 5, 1979,
and what President Bush should have done Sept 12, 2001.
Sleeping Beauty>> I am Al Qaeda’s worst nightmare and greatest threat. You know why? Because “I know my enemy.”
and, from your homepage...
Sleeping Beauty>> I’m a war strategy enthusiast from San Diego, the ONLY truly conservative city in California.
Very well. Having such impeccable credentials, why don’t YOU tell US what YOU would do?
I reject the premise of this article, ESPECIALLY as a thinking, well-researched global strategist.
AQ has been crushed and scattered. They are unable to mount effective operations outside of the ME. If any of this baloney were true, we would be seeing dozens of attacks outside of theater in SA, Europe, Asia, and especially the US.
Instead, they are on the run in Afganistan, with forbidding, rural Pakistan as nearly the only safe haven on the planet. Their popularity plunges with each civilian killing car bomb and governments unite against them. Everywhere, US intelligence on them improves, as locals drop the dime thru better cell coverage and US methods and allies improve.
They are a ghost of their former selves, paranoid about communications and unable to train for or fund operations.
Real technical analysts find chatter about “more terrorists than ever” completely laughable. They know that only academic idiots scoring political points believe that. Professional Operators know better. True terror operations require complex training, funding and logistics. Even the terrorists themselves need shelter, support, income and benefits for their families. They had all this pre-9/11.
Many in the Islamist movement condemn AQ for moving too soon, before nukes could have made the attacks a truly fatal blow.
We have “won”. However, the length of the conflict is eroding American patience, and may very well snatch defeat from the arms of victory.
Western Iraq AlQueda operations are probably being assisted by Syria.
Syria also supports hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad.
Iran is developing nukes and constantly making threatening and abrasive statements. Iran is also assisting AlQueda and other fighters in Iraq by supplying weapons and funding that kills Americans.
Good zarkman. You've got your eye on the ball. I'm going to digest your comments.
Meanwhile, without doubt Iran is assisting the (shia) insurgents, but I believe they are not friendly with Al Qaeda -- since Al Qaeda is targeting shias and arming the sunnis.
I, too, and worried about Pakistan. Far more worried than I am about Afganistan. They have nukes.
When you say, "nuke em" who do you mean? How wide spread?
Hmm. You don't say? More dangerous than on 9/10/2001? Right out of the gate, that sentence makes it hard for me to take the article seriously.
Of course, I have never made it all the way through Sun Tzu, so what do I know?
"...But thanks largely to Washington's eagerness to go into Iraq rather than concentrate on hunting down al Qaeda's leaders..."
I have heard that before somewhere...let's see...hm. Evades me.
"...if Washington and its partners implement a comprehensive strategy over several years, one focused on both attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions that allow them to thrive..."
This DOES sound typically liberal. This is the old "PID (Poverty, Ignorance and Disease) as Root Causes of All Strife" approach. It is liberal in its simplistic approach. Of course, we are trying it in Iraq, and it may or may not work. But we have to do it because we took out the previous ruler. Our responsibility...so we have to do it. This we accept. However, it only might work because we are there. Giving money to these other countries to address "the local conditions that allow them to thrive" is going to give us more of Pakistan and Egypt. They will gladly accept our largess with one hand and give it to radical groups as tribute money with the other.
Well, the article IS from Foreign Affairs. I had a subscription to them for years, but given that they are clearly catering to the Foggy Bottom people, that tells me all I need to know. Canceling that subscription was a sound choice. I did not enjoy my money supporting them and their adherents.
Nothing personal against you, it is just my opinion. Over time, I came to dislike all they stand for over there at Foreign Affairs.
I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear some opinions from others before putting myself forward and side-tracking the discussion. Besides, there are some super-smart people here who have informed my opinions in the past.
I promise I'll get to that.
Also, it's okay to reject the article I cited.
Nuke, nerve gas, and biostrike absolutely every other country in the world.
When they are all wastelands, we would finally have peace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.