Thanks, Tonkin!
Posted on 09/21/2003 6:19:22 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
Al-Qaida: Is it gaining or withering?
Walid Phares
September 20, 2003
When asked the most intriguing question on the morning of September 11, 2003, “why didn’t al-Qaida strike again inside the US since 9/11 my answer had to draw the global picture: Al-Qaida has still tried, is still trying and will be still trying to hit American mainland. It is in their ideology, in their strategic doctrine and available on their web sites. Bin Laden’s intention to strike, even bigger then before, is crystal clear. The question is not ponder on their will to repeat the aggression, but on what precluded them from striking till now.
At first, let’s put factor time in historical perspective. Al-Qaida bombed the US embassies in Africa in 1998, attempted to sink the USS Cole in 2000 and brought down the towers in 2001. Its major operations are not necessarily separated by months but by years. The world Jihadist matrix has focused on earth shattering operations on America’s mainland instead of numerous and repetitive smaller size attacks. Bin Laden, his deputy al-Thawahiri and their spokesman Abul-Ghais have constantly reserved the worse threats to the US. As such, the time spacing of the Jihad terror strikes is normal and fits al-Qaida’s strategy, designs and psychological vision of the American “battlefield.” The question is this: Was al-Qaida under pressures since its last attack or was it its deliberate choice to wait for the greater opportunity?
September 11 changed America, but has certainly changed the world of al-Qaida as well. Here are the shifting grounds that have affected the organization and its Jihad against the “American infidels.”
The surprise effect
In one shot, al-Qaida burned all of its blitzkrieg ammunition. It was on that apocalyptic morning of September that Bin Laden surprised Americans with his unconventional and inhumane tactics to mass kill civilians with civilians. But the weapon of mass surprise has been used. It can only be fired one time in these geo-political conditions. Al-Qaida can surprise America in as much Hamas blows up buses in Jerusalem, but cannot reuse the 9/11 choc and awe of Terror. The men of global Jihad made their decision in 2001 and risked their entire first strike capability on US mainland. This was their Pearl Harbor thrust into America. After 9/11, there could be strikes but no more era opening coups. It was evident, that Bin laden expected several outcomes. One of which was a general American retreat into isolationism and fall into chaos. Usama had one shot to cause that result. Instead his Jihad in the skies produced different results. Not only he lost the surprise effect, but also the grounds further.
March on Jihad
Instead of battles in New York and Washington, al-Qaida had to fight those infidels in Kandahar and Tora Bora. Instead of cells ravaging the Midwest, US forces are pursuing the Jihadists in the Middle East. Instead of boiling the world against “Washington’s Imperialism” as was the case in Durban in August of 2001, an international consensus against al-Qaida’s Terror groups stretches from Los Angeles to Vladivostok. On the issue of Terrorism, more countries then ever are cooperating against the Jihadist onslaught. Even as Iraq’s campaign is debated within the US and the West, when it comes to al-Qaida, one fact is secure. The group may well be fighting in Mesopotamia against the Anglo-American infidels, but it will be soon increasingly fighting other Arabs and Muslims. While Ben Ladin’s subversive tactics aim at widening as much as possible the battlefields of engagement wit his enemies, the down side of this fantasy is to rally the civilized world against one single organization. It may not be intimidating to a highly ideological faction such as Bin Laden’s, but when dozens of Governments confederate against al-Qaida, the balance of power will slowly shift against its interests.
Homeland defense
Perhaps the most unexpected shift since September 11, 2001 was the reconstruction of America’s homeland security. Not only the US Government created a specific department for that purpose and dedicated billions of dollars for that task, but also a significant metamorphosis is sweeping the American public. Despite the resistance by the intellectual elites to criticize Jihadism as an ideology, ordinary citizens are increasingly suspicious of Islamic Fundamentalism and of its organizations. Even outside the Government sponsored Homeland Security, Americans are developing anti-Jihadist instincts. In such public environment, it is becoming harder to al-Qaida operatives to be recruited and or to roam within the national community, undetected.
Will this mean that al-Qaida lost all of its cards and is in retreat? Not at all: the neo-Wahabi movement is still on the offensive, even though many doors have slammed. An ideological entity that recruits endlessly will only wither when it’s beliefs are abandoned by a wider enlightened community. And that is the real challenge of the war on Terror.
Walid Phares, Ph.D, is a professor of Middle East Studies and an MSNBC analyst. He's reachable through www.benadorassociates.com.
Post Bin Laden / pre-Hussein:
"We are currently working with over 90 countries and have dealt with over 3,000 terrorists, who have been detained, arrested, or otherwise will not be a problem for the United States." ~ Pres. Bush, Mar.8, 2003
A man of his word.
If you want on or off my PRO-coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).
No, they're simply waiting for a Democrat to become President of the United States.
An ideological entity that recruits endlessly will only wither when it’s beliefs are abandoned by a wider enlightened community. And that is the real challenge of the war on Terror.
The Dems. think it's difficult to appease their meanspirited special interest groups now, wait until they're dependent on the terrorist-thug-bully-thief-rapist-mass-murderer vote.
Never mind.
This would be the premise of the essay if the essay weren't written upside down. Unfortunately the sentence stating the premise is a syntactical horror.
WorldNetDaily.com: "CANADIAN IMAN SUPPORTS JIHAD AGAINST U.S." by Art Moore (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "A North American Muslim leader says he supports Saddam Hussein's call for jihad and believes Middle East Muslims should take up arms to expel U.S. troops from Iraq. "If I were there, I would fight with them," said Gamal Solaiman, imam of the mosque in Canada's capital, Ottawa. "I would fight the Americans with my nails and teeth," he declared Sunday in an interview with the CanWest News Service.") (April 8, 2003)
I have this. That the Clintons refused bin Laden from Sudan was stated in Robert Baer See No Evil and Lt. Col. Robert Patterson Dereliction of Duty and others.
Are the Clintons engineering the next terrorist attack on CONUS for the critical thirteen months remaining until Election 2004?
How else are they going to get Hitlery Das Butch Von Buchenvald into the White House?
...the neo-Wahabi movement is still on the offensive, even though many doors have slammed. An ideological entity that recruits endlessly will only wither when it’s beliefs are abandoned by a wider enlightened community. And that is the real challenge of the war on Terror.
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.