How Long Will It Take For A Terrorist Attack?

[Wezil]

I'm not so sure. US in Iraq is a great recruitment tool across the mid-east.

Wrt Afghanistan - He may have miscalculated but the end result wasn't disastrous for AQ. The quagmire was created and NATO bleeds daily.

[Patroklos]

I'm not so sure. US in Iraq is a great recruitment tool across the mid-east.

So they say, but it also seems the lion's share of those recruits were wasted in Iraq. There really isn't any indication that AQ is any stronger, in fact the opposite is true to the extreme.

Wrt Afghanistan - He may have miscalculated but the end result wasn't disastrous for AQ. The quagmire was created and NATO bleeds daily.

NATO "bleeds" is relative. As tragic as every indivicual death is, our military strength is for all intents and purposes unscathed. Even public support isn't wavering, as most want us to get out of Iraq to focus MORE on Afghanistan. The Soviet experiance has not been replicated in any way shape or form.

Don't get me wrong, things haven't turned out as expected for either side, but they never do. But looking at the state of the two sides today, AQ has definetly taken the brunt of the punishment.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Patroklos


So they say, but it also seems the lion's share of those recruits were wasted in Iraq. There really isn't any indication that AQ is any stronger, in fact the opposite is true to the extreme.

"Wasted"? No more so than US soldiers killed in Iraq were "wasted". Do you want to go there?

NATO "bleeds" is relative. As tragic as every indivicual death is, our military strength is for all intents and purposes unscathed. Even public support isn't wavering, as most want us to get out of Iraq to focus MORE on Afghanistan. The Soviet experiance has not been replicated in any way shape or form.

You need to distinguish US NATO feelings from the rest of the NATO partners. Read some of our media. NATO has been diminished.

Don't get me wrong, things haven't turned out as expected for either side, but they never do. But looking at the state of the two sides today, AQ has definetly taken the brunt of the punishment.

And you are bogged down now for years in two unwinnable wars.

[Patroklos]

"Wasted"? No more so than US soldiers killed in Iraq were "wasted". Do you want to go there?

The difference is that, as the last six-seven months have showed, success is still in the realm of possibility for us.

AQ interests in Iraq have been roundly defeated. If the bulk of their resources hadn't been squandered there then I guess you could say that the simple fact that 4000 soldiers died there was a "victory," but as things are the very best they can claim is a Pyrrhic victory.

To make it clear, increased Irainian influence is NOT an AQ victory, especially given the interests of Osama himself.

You need to distinguish US NATO feelings from the rest of the NATO partners. Read some of our media. NATO has been diminished.

European/Canadian NATO don't want the US to focus more on Afghanistan?

Lets be clear, the waivering of most NATO members (you know the exceptions) have little to do with what has actually happened in Afghanistan but rather are symptoms of their military resolve in general. Germany/France have not been bloodied in Afghanistan by any realistic use of the term and waiverd long before the situation there deteriorated. In fact, it remains in its current state in large part because of that wavering. NATO is dimished, but it happened before Afghanistan and not because of it.

In any event, the situation in Afghanistan now can not be considered an AQ victory anyway.

And you are bogged down now for years in two unwinnable wars.

Hardly.

[Arrian]

They know what a Republican reaction to another attack will be. That is the last thing they want.

On the contrary. That's *exactly* what they want.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wezil
I guess that is a matter of opinion. US status and stature has dropped considerably in the last half decade. The US is now stuck in Iraq indefinitely (and the "West" is stuck in Afghanistan indefinitely). It seems they were quite successful. All you need now is to elect another GWB.

QFT

[Arrian]

The Soviet Union withdrew in humiliation from Afganistan why? Military defeat? I dunno about that. It seems to me that it was the expense + weariness.

We're spending money (and blood, of course, though as has been noted, so far the casualties are low in comparison to past conflicts) we don't have to fight a war in which there is no clear vision of victory. An endless war (or series of wars, or whatever).

It seems to me that some people still think that wars are won solely by military force. The side that takes the most losses is the loser... except, wait, no, that's not it. Lots of times the side that takes more casualties (lots and lots more) ends up winning... because they care more and are willing to tolerate an insane (to us) level of death, destruction and hardship to prevail.

That doesn't mean they will win. It means, however, that they very well may (and I think they do) want us to go on as many overseas adventures as possible. Their goal is to exhaust us, not to defeat the US military in detail. For that reason, we ought to pick our battles carefully.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SpencerH

An interesting theory, but I doubt that Al Queda's goal was to lure the americans into taking Afghanistan from their supporters, the Taliban. Not to mention that due to their actions, "crusaders" now control Baghdad, an important city in Islam, and there has been no general Islamic outcry over that occupation. If Al Queda's plan was to lure the USA into a quagmire where it could be defeated, then it has failed utterly.

You don't get it. Al Qaeda were over the moon about Iraq. They hated Saddam more than you did. Al Qaeda is an Islamist organization. It's goal is, and always has been, to bring Islamist governments to power in Arab countries. Unfortunately, most Arab countries are run by brutal autocrats whose response to legitimate attempts by Islamists to gain political representation is to torture them and throw them into jail. You removed one of them.

Al Qaeda's attacks against the US had basically two goals. (1) to goad the US into attacking Afghanistan, a country which no invading army has ever managed to occupy successfully. (2) to delegitimize the US backed Arab regimes of the Middle East by showing that they were in cahoots with a foreign country that was attacking and massacring Muslims.

Osama bin Laden doesn't really give a **** what we think. He does, however, care a great deal about what Muslims think. The more that the Muslim in the street regards his government as a tool of the US, the more bin Laden wins.

If the US withdraws from Afghanistan and Iraq (and it will have to sooner or later), then the US public is going to be against further interventions, in particular an armed revolt by Islamists.

The problem is that bin Laden and his friends haven't worked out how they are going to get ordinary Arabs to sign up for an Islamist government. Most ordinary Arabs have absolutely no desire to live in the kind of puritanical state that bin Laden wants for them. The US woke up to this rather late, when it decided to arm Sunni militias against Iraqui Islamists. That might have worked if not for the fact that the Shia majority in Iraq now sees itself has entitled to power, and they have no love for the US either (that business in 1991 put paid to that).

The winner out of Iraq is of course Shia Iran. Take some consolation that bin Laden will be really pissed off about that. In his eyes the Shias are apostates and the enemies of God.

If there is another terrorist attack, I'd expect something audacious in the Middle East, probably in Iraq. Europe is already doing more or less what bin Laden wants, so there would be no point in setting another bomb off there.

[Agathon]

double penetration

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian
The Soviet Union withdrew in humiliation from Afganistan why? Military defeat? I dunno about that. It seems to me that it was the expense + weariness.

That's called a defeat. North Vietnam handed you your asses in a similar manner. Trying to claim that you weren't militarily defeated is pointless. The other guys weren't fighting the war you wanted them to, and you lost.

That doesn't mean they will win. It means, however, that they very well may (and I think they do) want us to go on as many overseas adventures as possible. Their goal is to exhaust us, not to defeat the US military in detail. For that reason, we ought to pick our battles carefully.

They know you are weak. The US won't be able to enforce conscription again. If I was bin Laden, I'd be trying to open up a third front. Problem is there is nowhere to do it.

[Arrian]

That's called a defeat.

Which is precisely what I said in one of the paragraphs you didn't quote (the third of my post).

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

The Soviet Union withdrew in humiliation from Afganistan why? Military defeat? I dunno about that. It seems to me that it was the expense + weariness.

Correct in part, but they also suffered military loss far more significant than we have. As of right now, we have neither a military defeat of a weariness defeat in Afghanistan.

We're spending money (and blood, of course, though as has been noted, so far the casualties are low in comparison to past conflicts) we don't have to fight a war in which there is no clear vision of victory. An endless war (or series of wars, or whatever).

As I said, it certainly did not work out the way we expected either. However, none of that changes the fact that AQ was in fact rooted out of Afghanistan and is on the whole is a far worse material and financial position than before.

It seems to me that some people still think that wars are won solely by military force. The side that takes the most losses is the loser... except, wait, no, that's not it. Lots of times the side that takes more casualties (lots and lots more) ends up winning... because they care more and are willing to tolerate an insane (to us) level of death, destruction and hardship to prevail.

That’s all well and good, but that is not what I said. Politically, at least in the US, the commitment to Afghanistan is not wavering. Nobody talks about pulling out of Afghanistan, they talk about FOCUSING on Afghanistan.

That doesn't mean they will win. It means, however, that they very well may (and I think they do) want us to go on as many overseas adventures as possible. Their goal is to exhaust us, not to defeat the US military in detail. For that reason, we ought to pick our battles carefully.

No, it is completely ridiculous to assume that AQ's thought process was so labyrinthine that it planned for it sole open government backer and main base of operations to be destroyed and itself to be scattered to the wind as part of some vast COBRA type conspiracy.

The 9/11 attacks were exactly what they looked like, an attempt to scare us into pulling out. Saying the opposite is about as retarded as saying the Japanese wanted us to invade their Pacific dominions so they could "tire us out."

They hated Saddam more than you did. Al Qaeda is an Islamist organization. It's goal is, and always has been, to bring Islamist governments to power in Arab countries.

Sunni, Agathon, SUNNI Islamic governments. Iraq is a disaster for them no matter which way it goes for them now, Iranian or US. There efforts there failed, they have lost all support from millions of Sunnis.

Al Qaeda's attacks against the US had basically two goals. (1) to goad the US into attacking Afghanistan, a country which no invading army has ever managed to occupy successfully. (2) to delegitimize the US backed Arab regimes of the Middle East by showing that they were in cahoots with a foreign country that was attacking and massacring Muslims.

Again, this is simply you are Monday morning quarterbacking.

If the US withdraws from Afghanistan and Iraq (and it will have to sooner or later), then the US public is going to be against further interventions, in particular an armed revolt by Islamists.

There is no call for the US to withdraw from Afghanistan, the opposite is in fact the case. Given that a draw down in Iraq is pretty much a sure thing right now, that just frees up resources to send there.

The winner out of Iraq is of course Shia Iran. Take some consolation that bin Laden will be really pissed off about that. In his eyes the Shias are apostates and the enemies of God.

Which is what I said. A defeat for the US in a particular arena doesn't automatically translate to a victory for the AQ.

[Arrian]

Politically, at least in the US, the commitment to Afghanistan is not wavering. Nobody talks about pulling out of Afghanistan, they talk about FOCUSING on Afghanistan.

Agreed, for now. I'm with you on that (see the Afganistan thread). But we're talking about the "WoT" not just Afganistan, right?

No, it is completely ridiculous to assume that AQ's thought process was so labyrinthine that it planned for it sole open government backer and main base of operations to be destroyed and itself to be scattered to the wind as part of some vast COBRA type conspiracy.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all to think that 9/11 was done to provoke us into invading/bombing Muslim countries, including Afganistan. Their base of operations can move (and has, as far as I know, to Pakistan).

The 9/11 attacks were exactly what they looked like, an attempt to scare us into pulling out. Saying the opposite is about as retarded as saying the Japanese wanted us to invade their Pacific dominions so they could "tire us out."

We disagree, though I won't call you retarded.

I don't find A-Q and Imperial Japan in any way comparable, except that both were our enemies. Further, I don't think the 9/11 attacks looked like an attempt to scare us into pulling out. To me, they seemed to be very well designed for the purpose of getting us to show up in the ME guns a'blazing.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

I don't think it's ridiculous at all to think that 9/11 was done to provoke us into invading/bombing Muslim countries, including Afganistan. Their base of operations can move (and has, as far as I know, to Pakistan).

They must have known we would respond militarily on some level even of overall we withdrew from the ME somewhat, we would have to to maintain appearances. It is a stretch, however, to thing they fully expected us to invade/overthrough/occupy a muslim country and Afghanistan specifically.

We disagree, though I won't call you retarded.

I meant the idea, not you, but it was uncalled for. You are not retarded

I don't find A-Q and Imperial Japan in any way comparable, except that both were our enemies. Further, I don't think the 9/11 attacks looked like an attempt to scare us into pulling out. To me, they seemed to be very well designed for the purpose of getting us to show up in the ME guns a'blazing.

Thats not what many take away from Vietnam/Lebenon, and even now people constantly talk about how weak willed the West is and how they can't take casualties (which is correct in some cases). It seems far more likely AQ thought the casualties from 9/11 would break our will because of the mannor they were inflicted. It was a horrible miscalculation.

Though really, does it matter? Even if AQ expected/planned for everything that happend they are still the losers. They are a shadow of their former selves.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Agathon


You don't get it. Al Qaeda were over the moon about Iraq. They hated Saddam more than you did. Al Qaeda is an Islamist organization. It's goal is, and always has been, to bring Islamist governments to power in Arab countries. Unfortunately, most Arab countries are run by brutal autocrats whose response to legitimate attempts by Islamists to gain political representation is to torture them and throw them into jail. You removed one of them.

Al Qaeda's attacks against the US had basically two goals. (1) to goad the US into attacking Afghanistan, a country which no invading army has ever managed to occupy successfully. (2) to delegitimize the US backed Arab regimes of the Middle East by showing that they were in cahoots with a foreign country that was attacking and massacring Muslims.

Osama bin Laden doesn't really give a **** what we think. He does, however, care a great deal about what Muslims think. The more that the Muslim in the street regards his government as a tool of the US, the more bin Laden wins.

If the US withdraws from Afghanistan and Iraq (and it will have to sooner or later), then the US public is going to be against further interventions, in particular an armed revolt by Islamists.

The problem is that bin Laden and his friends haven't worked out how they are going to get ordinary Arabs to sign up for an Islamist government. Most ordinary Arabs have absolutely no desire to live in the kind of puritanical state that bin Laden wants for them. The US woke up to this rather late, when it decided to arm Sunni militias against Iraqui Islamists. That might have worked if not for the fact that the Shia majority in Iraq now sees itself has entitled to power, and they have no love for the US either (that business in 1991 put paid to that).

The winner out of Iraq is of course Shia Iran. Take some consolation that bin Laden will be really pissed off about that. In his eyes the Shias are apostates and the enemies of God.

If there is another terrorist attack, I'd expect something audacious in the Middle East, probably in Iraq. Europe is already doing more or less what bin Laden wants, so there would be no point in setting another bomb off there.

I "get it" quite well actually, and I agree with much of what you've written. I agree that initially Al Queda may have been "over the moon" at the prospect of what might happen with US intervention but the Jihad to throw out the crusaders has not happened. I dont believe that they are happy with the direction events have taken, however.

I dont ascribe such altruistic behaviour (from an Islamic perspective) to Al Queda. IMO the goal of Al Queda is to restore the Caliphate with Bin Laden at the top.

My disagreement is with the concept that the goal of Al Queda's attack on 9/11 was to trigger a US invasion of the ME which would in turn trigger a Jihad against the crusaders. I'm not refuting the likelyhood it was discussed at some point. There are simply too many variables in such a process to justify any reasonable chance of success so I find it unlikely to be the reason for the attack. Bin Laden and his followers believe that the USA is morally weak (we are "the great satan" because, from their viewpoint, we have become a secular society) and that we have no will to fight. The less complicated, and therefore more likely, reason for the 9/11 attack was simply as an act of terror in order to demonstrate our weakness.