Al Qaeda: Its Own Worst Enemy
Yet another set of articles in a major newspaper / magazine / etc. implies that the war against the West isn’t going well for Al Qaeda or at least not as well as Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen hoped 7 years ago, when they attacked the World Trade Center in New York City. We, the West, are winning while they, Al Qaeda extremists, are making increasingly more enemies. Additionally, Al Qaeda has been weakened by the war on terrorism and by its own actions.
Nearly seven years into America’s “global war on terror”, the result remains inconclusive. Al-Qaeda lost a safe haven in Afghanistan, but is rebuilding another one in Pakistan; Mr bin Laden is at large, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who masterminded September 11th, has gone on trial in Guantánamo Bay; many leaders have been captured or killed, but others have taken their place; al-Qaeda faces an ideological backlash, but young Muslims still volunteer to blow themselves up…
Al-Qaeda’s ideology was forged by one big victory and two decades of failures. Disparate Arab fighters who helped Afghan ones evict Soviet forces from Afghanistan in 1989 were initially elated, but became dejected by the ensuing civil war and the failure of violent campaigns in Egypt, Algeria and elsewhere. Many extremists decided to end the bloodletting. But a cadre of wandering jihadists gathered in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban and decided to redirect their ire from the “near” enemy to the “far” one.
The rationale was explained by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s co-founder, in his memoirs, entitled “Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner”. The “Jewish-Crusader alliance”, as he called the West, would never allow its local allies to be toppled. The answer was to attack America directly…
So terrorism experts are now debating whether al-Qaeda is starting to burn itself out. “On balance, we are doing pretty well,” Michael Hayden, the director of America’s Central Intelligence Agency, told the Washington Post in May. “Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally—and here I’m going to use the word ‘ideologically’—as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam.”…
If you click on the link given in the first paragraph you will be redirected to an article at the Economist which serves as an introduction to a special series on the War on Terrorism and, especially, Al Qaeda. I advise you to read the articles in their entirety.
The impression I got after reading those articles is as follows: yes, there are problems for the West, but overall, Al Qaeda is in big trouble. It is losing support among Muslims in the Middle East and it has been severely weakened by the aggressive war on terrorism (which OBL et al. did not expect).
When your children are blown up at market. When your business is destroyed by henchmen that detonate car bombs or body bombs the repercussions go well beyond the news on ABC and the rants and raves of the Antiwar crowd.
People whose friends, relatives, associates who lose their property, cars, livelyhood, Wives, fathers, brothers, sisters, children, Friends…..etc are all effected by such acts.
The fact that America has not found itself the victim of massive protests tells me that they are trying hard to establish peace and tranquility and that 90 percent of the people in both Iraq and Afghanistan understand the need to blame those responsible.
It is this prolonged death and destruction that has revealed to the Muslim world just what it is that these terrorists stand for. Their own agenda of death and destruction that will destroy anyone that gets in their way.
This cannot be popular and they are bound to lose the overwhelming support of those they are trying to influence. That is why I have maintained that we should continue on in Iraq in reduced form to work with these people and help them understand that America is not their enemies.
We are constantly admonished that we do not know our enemy because we do not walk in their shoes. I propose that we have been walking in their shoes now for years and that as we get to know them and THEY get to know us that their is hope that together we and they can build a lasting peace in the middle east based upon trust.
When a car bomb explodes in Iraq. That is not Americans blowing up Iraqis that is one more nail in the coffin of groups like Al Sadr and Al Quida. When shown the contrast of peace and hope and hate and car bombs it will not take these people long to make the right decisions.
Obama on the other hand has a judgment. We should flee Iraq and Flee Afghanistan because its been hard up to now.
Rocks, I don’t think you have been listening to Obama. He has NOT said we should flee Afghanistan. In fact, his main complaint (almost from the beginning) has been that we were not putting enough effort in there.
You can fault him for not wanting to stay long in Iraq, although his argument is not that it is hard, but that it is irrelevant. But he has an entirely different take on Afghanistan. And is, if anything, even more agressive than the current administration about attacking into pakistan, if that’s where al Queda is setting up currently.
wj
I don’t think you have been listening to the antiwar. They will not tolerate a war in afghanistan any longer then necessary. They will force us out of Afghanistan as soon as Obama is in power. Once the first Brigade starts coming home they will turn their attentions to Afghanistan.
THE ANTIWAR which has absolutely destroyed the George W. Bush presidency will turn their wrath on Afghanistan and Barak Obama will not tolerate their attentions long. He will put his tail between his legs and start pulling out there as well.
Anyone. And I mean anyone who thinks the antiwar will accept a war in Afghanistan is deluding themselves.
RRRocks, there is the anti-war lobby, and then there is Barack Obama. Only one of them would be president in that case. There is no proof that Obama would listen to them and leave Afghanistan. None. Only speculation.
And if you’re talking about Congress, last time I checked, even some of the more liberal Reps and Senators were for Afghanistan, and never have really changed their tune. Sure, there were some that didn’t want to go into Afghanistan, but you’re always going to get that with such a diverse population of Reps.
You say the anti-war people have destroyed the GWB presidency. Maybe, but we’re still in Iraq. If I can give him one positive, he’s stayed consistent on wanting to stay there, though the winds seem to be changing a tad.
On the main subject, yes, Al-Queda may have received a blow by the surge/local Iraqis not putting up with it. Yet, I’m hesistant to say we’ve seen the last of them. If Al-Queda’s shown one thing, it’s that they’re patient, waiting years before attacking some place. Al-Queda in Iraq is perhaps severely crippled, but consider that the modern group is more of a global network than a centralized base of power.
I find it amusing how the antiwar has suddenly disappeared since Barak Obama has won the democratic primary. However does anyone not remember the protests. People standing at funerals slinging insults.
Do you not remember the Heir, Oberfuhrer, Shrub, Komrade, American Taliban, the hate filled rhetoric that filled the internet and spilled out into the streets. Thats the antiwar Im talking about.
Its there. simmering under the surface and it is these people who just wont let Obama fight another war in Afghanistan for long. However mabey they will. Maybe Ive misjudged the absolute hate for Bush winning two close elections for the antiwar sentiment.
Perhaps my initial estimate was correct and the democrats simply used the war to gain power. Embracing an antiwar sentiment and running freakin amuck. Either way. We will know when they start grumbling louder and louder at Barak obama for being in Afghanistan. Time will tell but I do not believe that an antiwar base that supported Obama will tolerate an escalation in Afghanistan.