Bush and Osama bin Laden: They Feed Off of Each Other

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

I mean, c'mon, am I the only one who is beginning to think that this might be the case?

How did I get into this mind-set? Well, I began thinking this way in the weeks leading up to the 2004 presidential election in the United States, when bin Laden released one of his "infamous" audiotapes threatening to do this and that. Not only did that help Bush by showing the American electorate — well, those who bothered to vote — that the author of Sept. 11, 2001, was still out there, but it also helped bin Laden when Bush began using that tape as an example of why his administration should remain in power to pursue the war on terrorism (is that trademarked yet?).

Basically, the tape got Bush's supporters — Christian fundamentalists and otherwise — up in a lather and, when Bush used that tape to do whatever it was he did to hit al-Qaida and its allies, it got all the Islamic fundamentalists up in a lather for bin Laden.

Hmm. Does anyone see where I'm going with this? It seems like Bush and bin Laden depend on each other in order to rile up their base, which then ensures that there'll be no end to the war on terrorism in the foreseeable future.

Fast-forward to now. Another bin Laden audiotape surfaces, where he's once again threatening the U.S. and its interests. Now Bush is using this as part of his arsenal for defending the domestic spying program. Odds are operations are under way along the Pakistani border and elsewhere in the world that are riling up Islamic fundies once again, thereby helping bin Laden.

I don't think any of this is intentional by any means, but what it reveals to me is a worrisome picture, one where there's a never-ending war until one side utterly wipes out the other, and you're sh*t out of luck if you're caught in the cross-fire.

It seems folks will be forced into the extremes in order to avoid getting caught in the cross-fire. Which, of course, harkens back to a belief I've held for some time — extremists who turn to subversion, intimidation and violence to get their way, no matter their ideology, are harmful in the long run to humanity's future.

Why can't more folks be like Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.? Sure, they had their personal foilables, but at least they brought about change with something other than the business end of a weapon.

Gatekeeper

P.S. And, yes, I'm aware that I did go off on a somewhat unrelated tangent toward the end.

[Traianvs]

You found out what has been clear to many other people for ages. However I don't think that either one will wipe out the other. That's just impossible. More like the US-USSR situation the whole matter will evolve into something else simply because the world changes through time.

A bit like the FARC and rightwing paramilitary groups in Colombia started on an ideological basis, they are now simply part of the economy and their original goals are not really relevant anymore.

[lord of the mark]

this is not a war between extremists on different sides. Its a war of the entire civilized world, including millions of muslims who want to move ahead, against various jihadist and terrorists forces in the muslim world. Its a war that really has very little to do with George Bush. In fact at this point, whether his policies are good or bad, the association of the war with his personality, both here and abroad, has become a liability. Fortunately after 2008 George Bush will be a private citizen. The war with violent Islamic extremism is unlikely to be resolved by then. Fortunately both major parties in the US have other leaders of iron resolve.

[Sava]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
this is not a war between extremists on different sides.

I disagree with this statement.

Its a war of the entire civilized world, including millions of muslims who want to move ahead, against various jihadist and terrorists forces in the muslim world. Its a war that really has very little to do with George Bush. In fact at this point, whether his policies are good or bad, the association of the war with his personality, both here and abroad, has become a liability. Fortunately after 2008 George Bush will be a private citizen. The war with violent Islamic extremism is unlikely to be resolved by then. Fortunately both major parties in the US have other leaders of iron resolve.

But I do agree with most everything else you say.

Although I think the real conflict is within Islam... between the violent fundamentalists and the moderates.

I don't think this "war" is going to be won by the West's actions against the forces of fundamentalism. In fact, I think the US's policies in Iraq are strengthing the terrorists' cause.

This conflict is going to be won by the rest of the Islamic world choosing the path of peace, rather than one of violence and fundamentalism. And by invading countries that pose no threat to us, killing innocent people, torturing prisoners, and basically trying to impose our will and our morals on the Islamic world, we are only further alienating Muslims and driving them towards the path of fundamentalism...

So in that sense, I think Gatekeeper is right.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava
I disagree with this statement.
But I do agree with most everything else you say.

This conflict is going to be won by the rest of the Islamic world choosing the path of peace, rather than one of violence and fundamentalism. And by invading countries that pose no threat to us, killing innocent people, torturing prisoners, and basically trying to impose our will and our morals on the Islamic world, we are only further alienating Muslims and driving them towards the path of fundamentalism...

So in that sense, I think Gatekeeper is right.

I think those in the islamic world who reject jihadism will need our support. The questions of Iraq, torture, are things we have debated here at length, and I dont wish to enter further discusion of what their implications are. Whatever we do with either policy, we will have a war on our hands. I also dont see us as imposing our morals on the Islamic world - unless you mean attempting to spread democracy in the Islamic world. Which I think is absolutely essential to drawing the islamic world away from fundamentalism. We can and should debate the best way to do that.

But the notion that if only it wasnt for Bush and his policies, radical Salafism would disappear, is incorrect, IMHO.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In fact at this point, whether his policies are good or bad, the association of the war with his personality, both here and abroad, has become a liability. Fortunately after 2008 George Bush will be a private citizen. The war with violent Islamic extremism is unlikely to be resolved by then. Fortunately both major parties in the US have other leaders of iron resolve.

A few months after his election, comedians were already joking about how many nations Bush had alienated by refusing to honor his treaties. "Iron Resolve" may not be enough, we've alienated so many nations, and generated such an insurgency by 2008, it's possible that the only thing that will end this fiasco is Devine Intervention.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by realpolitic


A few months after his election, comedians were already joking about how many nations Bush had alienated by refusing to honor his treaties. "Iron Resolve" may not be enough, we've alienated so many nations, and generated such an insurgency by 2008, it's possible that the only thing that will end this fiasco is Devine Intervention.

what treaties are you referring to?

Which nations are more alienated from us now than they were in 2004?

[Zkribbler]

Usama attacked the US because he concluded it was evil and wanted to change the government to an Islamic republic.

Bush attacked Iraq because he concluded it was even and wanted to change the government to a democratic republic.

What makes you think they are anything alike??

[Sandman]

what treaties are you referring to?

Pulling out of the ABM treaty was a bad move.

[Drake Tungsten]

Pulling out of the ABM treaty was a bad move.

Like any countries give a **** about that besides Russia, China and North Korea. Not signing on to the Kyoto treaty did more damage to views of the US abroad than pulling out of the ABM treaty did.

[Sandman]

It irritated European leaders as well. Some people thought it would lead to more countries leaving the NPT, although whether Iran and North Korea were influenced is anyone's guess.

[Elok]

All evenly-matched (in the sense that neither can actually defeat the other) enemies eventually become interdependent. Remember Orwell's 1984? It's hardly unique to Bush and bin Laden; their situation is just uniquely obvious and absurd about it.

[Sandman]

Out of interest, what would happen to bin Laden if he was caught by a third country, say, Pakistan?

Having him executed by a Muslim country would probably be a reasonably desirable outcome, IMO. Reduces the martyr factor.

[Berzerker]

sometimes I get the impression this is a war of ideology and civilisation, I certainly hear that alot from Repubs on the internet.
but then I consider how many Muslims are actually involved with this war in any significant way. Not very many, in the thousands, maybe 10-20 thousand at most. Does that sound about right? Its more a battle between the world and a really nasty cult.

[Sava]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

But the notion that if only it wasnt for Bush and his policies, radical Salafism would disappear, is incorrect, IMHO.

I don't think anybody here is saying that (at least I'm not).

My feeling is that Bush and his policies are making things a lot worse.