A Question of Motives - Al Qaeda

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Wezil


Would this be the same "intel" that spoke of Saddams WMD's?

American "intel" isn't worth the toilet paper it is written on.

that is a crappy assessment.

you have to understand how intelligence works, and know that sometimes it will be wrong.

also, the CIA is not part of the leaking biased info process. The pentagon / white house is.

[Berzerker]

Yes...about stopping opium production ...to which they said "no"

The Taliban were far tougher on the opium trade than either their predecessors or successors, but they were talking to us about setting up bin Laden and the AQ leadership in exchange for our support regarding UN sanctions. According to Afghans who knew what was going on, the Taliban even jokingly offered to pay for the fuel for the missiles since we were so slow to act.

Sometimes there is a clear reson for military intervention. The Taliban controlled Afghanistan is the clearest example of it since the end of WWII.

We had to invade Afghanistan, not doing so would make our invasion of Iraq stink to high heaven. Bush didn't care if the Taliban wanted to cooperate, as a result we got 9/11 and AQ got away. And dont try to change the subject on me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The majority of Pashtuns in Afghanistan were happy to live such lives, and they non-Pashtuns and anti-Taliban Pashtuns were not able to push them out. A similar regime managed to survive in Sudan for some time. AQ was quite ok with the KSA regime, until it let Americans in, and AFAIK all they ask of KSA is that it toss the Americans out. AFAICT AQ is capable of moderatings its domestic policies to some extent to increase its ability to survive in power.

After 20 straight years of war, which reduced most of the country to rubble, why wouldn't anyone want some peace and quiet, even if the guys providing it were nuts?

Besides, the taliban also had active foreign patrons willing to bankroll them. And Afghanistan was always very conservative - why the revolt against the communists broke out in the first place.

As for Sudan, I never hear any evidence that their regime was any more fundy than say KSA, our great ally. Oh, and Al Qaede did not exist prior to the US coming to KSA, so it seems quite impossible to say they were OK with something prior to their very existance.

A govt dominated by radical Islamists with links to AQ also briefly took power in Somalia, before being driven out by Ethiopian troops.

You mean that some fundimentalists were able to, much like the taliban, finally bring and end to ceaseless chaos in a failed state (and like in Afghanistan they also had the support of a major clan or tribe)? These fatcs seems to be inogred in your analysis most of the time - you act as if these governments came out of nowhere. All the AQ allies I can see in power were bands of people who rose up amongst the ruins of some desperately poor failed state.

The real problem creating a Caliphate is not that there are no places where it would have sufficient popularity to take power, but that neighboring states are prepared to stamp it out as soon as it arises.

Interesting, given that there has been no single Caliphate for what, 900 years? Heck, even the Crusaders had Muslim allies. The Ottoman sultan considered himself the caliph, but he sure didn;t have power over all Muslims. Somehow questions of tribe and language and power seemed to bring all these fancy notions of Caliphate to naught. Care to give a single reason why this history has changed? Especially in the face of the simple fact that AQ and its ilk have been able to gain control only over the ruins of places devastated by war?

What would happen if it took power in a state too big for that (and the only immediate prospect is Pakistan, about which Ramo and I are not in complete agreement) is unclear.

Well, before you get to that question, it would be nice for you or anyone else to show radical islamists being able to take over any actual functioning state that had not been "bombed back to the stone age." Heck, the islamist won an election in Algeria and they couldn;t win the civil war that followed. The only islamic republic is Iran, and as Agathon has stated, it is far more democratic than Saudi Arabia, in fact, more democratic than Egypt, or the gulf monarchies, or Jordan.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Berzerker


The Taliban were far tougher on the opium trade than either their predecessors or successors

Wrong.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

After 20 straight years of war, which reduced most of the country to rubble, why wouldn't anyone want some peace and quiet, even if the guys providing it were nuts?

Besides, the taliban also had active foreign patrons willing to bankroll them. And Afghanistan was always very conservative - why the revolt against the communists broke out in the first place.

As for Sudan, I never hear any evidence that their regime was any more fundy than say KSA, our great ally. Oh, and Al Qaede did not exist prior to the US coming to KSA, so it seems quite impossible to say they were OK with something prior to their very existance.

There are always unique circumstances, that make sense in retrospect. Certainly I agree the likelihood was greater in Afghanistan than in Pakistan today - in Afghanistan it was almost overdetermined. But I dont think you can say the chances everywhere else are neglible.

As for KSA, yes it is just as fundy in its domestic policies as Sudan. Which makes yet one MORE example, after Afghanistan and Sudan and Somalia, of countries where the populace will tolerate that style of Islamic rule. We accepted KSA, and not Sudan, because of differences in their foreign policies, not domestic policies. Even so, Im not a big fan of relying on an "alliance" with KSA.

A govt dominated by radical Islamists with links to AQ also briefly took power in Somalia, before being driven out by Ethiopian troops.

You mean that some fundimentalists were able to, much like the taliban, finally bring and end to ceaseless chaos in a failed state (and like in Afghanistan they also had the support of a major clan or tribe)? These fatcs seems to be inogred in your analysis most of the time - you act as if these governments came out of nowhere. All the AQ allies I can see in power were bands of people who rose up amongst the ruins of some desperately poor failed state.

Clearly failed states are a big factor helping AQ to take power. I never said they came out of nowhere. If one were to take power in Pakistan, it wouldnt come out of nowhere either, despite Pakistan not being a failed state like Somalia or Afghanistan.

The real problem creating a Caliphate is not that there are no places where it would have sufficient popularity to take power, but that neighboring states are prepared to stamp it out as soon as it arises.

Interesting, given that there has been no single Caliphate for what, 900 years? Heck, even the Crusaders had Muslim allies. The Ottoman sultan considered himself the caliph, but he sure didn;t have power over all Muslims. Somehow questions of tribe and language and power seemed to bring all these fancy notions of Caliphate to naught. Care to give a single reason why this history has changed? Especially in the face of the simple fact that AQ and its ilk have been able to gain control only over the ruins of places devastated by war?

I was using caliphate in the above sentence to mean any islamist govt that both identified with the caliphate movement and actually declared itself part of the caliphate, not one that had de facto control over the whole muslim world. Sorry for my unclear wording.

Well, before you get to that question, it would be nice for you or anyone else to show radical islamists being able to take over any actual functioning state that had not been "bombed back to the stone age."

actually I think its nicer that that not happen, and would rather it didnt than have my point proven.

Heck, the islamist won an election in Algeria and they couldn;t win the civil war that followed.

In part because the west, and the arab neighbors, gave strong support to the govt of algeria to prevent an Islamist victory. I agree, that if we give that kind of support to Pakistan, an Islamist victory is most unlikely.

The only islamic republic is Iran, and as Agathon has stated, it is far more democratic than Saudi Arabia, in fact, more democratic than Egypt, or the gulf monarchies, or Jordan.

See Ramo, this is exactly what I meant.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


It's worth pointing out, though, that Likud in the interregnum has generally been more extremist than in power. Begin of the Irgun made peace with Sadat. Even Bibi at least nominally came over to Oslo after vociferously opposing it during Rabin's tenure. Maybe I'm wrong in some of the specifics; my knowledge of Israeli political history is pretty limited. Feel free to enlighten me.

Herut historically asserted no territorial claims in Sinai that I know of. Sinai simply fell into Israels lap in '67. While Herut/Gahal/Likud was expected to take a harder line in Sinai, insisting on keeping some of it, so was Labour. The actual shock of Sadats visit, the reality of possible peace, and Israels difficult strategic situation had more to do with it than any moderating of Likud.

As for Bibi, he is something of a special case - some would say he was always a pragmatist - others, simply that hes an opportunist, willing to move to the center or to the extremes as it suits his ambition.

Also the reality was that the US would not accept Israeli disavowal of Oslo, and despite what some people around here think, the govt of Israel, even under Likud, is highly deferential to the US. The parallel would be if Iran and Syria insisted Hamas recognizing Israel. I wouldnt hold my breath.


I would certainly say that Likud in opposition prior to 1977 gave no hint that they intended to march to beirut in 1982 and insert a new Lebanese govt by force. Circumstance can lead a party in power to more extreme actions, as well as more moderate ones.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Oh, and Al Qaede did not exist prior to the US coming to KSA, so it seems quite impossible to say they were OK with something prior to their very existance.

Excellent catch. I should have said "bin laden and Zawahiri were ok with it" not Al Qaeeda. And that they have stated (IIUC) that they WOULD be ok with KSA, if it stopped hosting American troops.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


That's fair enough. I imagine Osama might have a potential sale to the Kalahari bushmen or the Pygmies of the Ituri Forest.

I don't think it will be popular in Cairo.

undoubtedly less popular in Cairo, than among muslims in the villages of upper Egypt, where there is ongoing violence between muslims and christians, and lifestyles are much more conservative, IIUC. And less popular among the established Cairenes, than among recently arrived, culture shocked rural in-migrants.

Fairly hardline Islamism also seems to have quite some appeal in Kano State, Nigeria, though I havent followed that all that closely.

[Berzerker]

Wrong.

Okay, the Taliban saw lower production than their predecessors and successors 6 out of 7 years .

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Okay, the Taliban saw lower production than their predecessors and successors 6 out of 7 years .

Are you confusing the words "lower" and "higher," or what?

[Berzerker]

just lookin at the graph, in the years before and after the Taliban production was higher than 6 of the 7 years the Taliban was in control. And it would appear the Taliban had nearly wiped out production by 2001. Does that qualify as "lower"?

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Berzerker
just lookin at the graph, in the years before and after the Taliban production was higher than 6 of the 7 years the Taliban was in control. And it would appear the Taliban had nearly wiped out production by 2001. Does that qualify as "lower"?

Production under the Taliban was higher than production under the warlords and Soviets, and just about the same as production now under Karzai.

[Berzerker]

no it wasn't, the warlord era saw annual increases culminating in higher production than 6 out of 7 years under the Taliban while production was nearly eliminated by the Taliban after 6 years. What happened to production in 2001? Was it lower or higher than the people who came before and after the Taliban? Wtf are you talking about?

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/report_2001-10-16_1.pdf

The Taliban banned opium production under their jurisdiction and according to the article(s) production fell about 90%

just go away

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Berzerker
no it wasn't, the warlord era saw annual increases culminating in higher production than 6 out of 7 years under the Taliban while production was nearly eliminated by the Taliban after 6 years. What happened to production in 2001? Was it lower or higher than the people who came before and after the Taliban? Wtf are you talking about?

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/report_2001-10-16_1.pdf

The Taliban banned opium production under their jurisdiction and according to the article(s) production fell about 90%

just go away

Are you not a native English speaker or do you have Downs?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear

The graph pretty clearly shows that the average for both the Soviets and the Warlords is smaller than the average for the Taliban. I'm not really sure how you can interpret the graph any other way.

Also, it is more than a little misleading to take the figure immediately before the Taliban were in power and hold it up as the "Soviet/Warlord" average, and then take the figure immediately after the Taliban were deposed, and then hold up 2001 as being the "representative average" of the Taliban when there were obviously political and economic circumstances that were at play in 2001.

Again, I'm not really sure what would possess you to think that such a presentation of the data will in any way support the contention that your conclusion corresponds at all with reality, given that you've just distorted the data to the point where it is entirely useless.