Good morning, all!
I have followed TM virtually since it started yet, until today, I have never posted. I've appreciated the fine work you have all been doing but, frankly, until the London bombings had really not believed a massive attack on the U.S. was imminent. After those bombings, though, my internal barometer has shot way up. Allow me to explain why before I address the issue of 'if AQ has nukes, why haven't they used them.'
Seen in isolation -and I don't mean to sound callous about this- the London bombings are a disaster for AQ. Indeed, there's an article, "AlQueda's latest strategic mistake," running on FR right now about this very topic. Essentially, the London bombings by themselves result in two negative outcomes for AQ. First, they indicate a relative slide into impotency on the part of AQ. Four years ago they were able to sieze the world's attention with a spectacular attack on NYC. They held the world's attention for weeks. Stock markets plunged, economies tanked. Today, their actions take second fiddle after just a few days to a space shuttle launch, events in Aruba and Karl Rove. For all the loss of life, and I don't mean to minimize this, but for all the loss of life in London, the bombings simply failed to truly 'terrorize.'
Second, from the standpoint of world politics, all the bombings achieved was to steel the determiniation of the West, making AQ MORE vunerable and isolated than it was previously. To take but one example, the London bombings totally undermine the erosion of support for Bush which was occuring over our actions in Iraq. Suddenly, people got a reminder of why we are there in the first place.
Taken in isolation, then, the London bombings are a spectacular political failure. One even senses the radical Islamists themselves are somewhat disappointed and depressed over the relative impotency AQ seems to display four years after 911.
Now, one could argue this simply indicates the new nature of AQ; that AQ is now simply a set of 'franchise' operations in which small, independent cells will be conducting a low level of operations of scattered random violence. Under this view there is no central control, no game plan, guiding Islamist actions. Rather, according to this view, we have so successfully decapitated AQ that, for the next few years, at least, all we have to fear are a few nut jobs getting together to plot uncoordinated actions to kill people.
Frankly, I hope this is the case. But I fear it is not.
There are two reasons for this fear.
First, precisely because of a lack of such attacks in the past. Until now, AQ has been very strategic in the use of its resources. Basically, since 911 AQ has conducted two operations. First, AQ conducted the Madrid bombings. So similar are the London and Madrid bombings that most folks have failed to notice the key difference -the Madrid bombings had a distinct political purpose. Timed just before a close election, the Madrid bombings were designed to effect a regime change in Spain -and at that they were highly successful.
Similarly, the second area in which AQ has been active has been Iraq. Again, AQ has poured resources into Iraq for a distinct political purpose -to tie down the US and prevent the establishment of a peaceful, democratic government in the heart of the Middle East. And, again, here they have been somewhat successful.
Other than these areas, though, and with the exceptions of some operations in places like Indonesia, there really haven't been a number of random, AQ strikes designed to just sow violence. There haven't been a half-a-dozen random car bombings on American streets. There haven't been a couple of gunmen bursting into movie theatres, etc. Until now, AQ's operations have been conducted to achieve tactical or strategic objectives, not just to sow random violence.
What, however, is the political purpose in the London bomgings? Again, taken in isolation, there doesn't seem to be one. Indeed, from a political standpoint, London appears a dramatic failure.
The second reason the London bombings don't seem to indicate they were the result of just some 'franchise' operation sowing random violence lies in some of the details of the operation, itself. First, the quality of explosives used. A small cell operating independently probably would find it difficult to obtain high-quality explosives on their own. Indeed, they'd be much more likely to go the ammonium-nitrate, C4 route. The high-quality of explosives used indicates some form of tactical support from someone with a wider variety of resources. Second, current reports indicate the British government is searching for the 'ringleader' of the bombings. Reports indicate they've had the tape of the bombers since Monday night. The British are good. If they haven't been able to catch this 'ringleader' by now then I would suggest this 'ring' had support from an organization with a much wider array of resources than the 'independent-franchise' paradigm would suggest. Hence, we're left with something of a paradox. On the one hand, the London bombings -including the use of home-grown Brit terrorists to actually carry out the bombings- appear to be the act of an independent cell on the surface. However, the quality of explosives used and the ability of the ringleader to allude capture would seem to indicate a much broader, more coordinated organization was behind the bombing, i.e. AQ, itself. But if this is the case, then why did AQ strike now when in the past they've shown a remarkable ability to use terror for distinct political purposes? Why not hit before the May elections in Britain? Why not wait and use the resources at some point where they can have maximum impact? As outlined above, taken in isolation this attack -from a political standpoint- makes no sense at all.
No, the only way the London bombings make political sense is if they are part of some larger operation. Specifically, if they are a prelude to a massive attack on the U.S. Then, the bombings make total sense.
Consider the scenario. The U.S. suffers a massive attack. AQ then announces Britain will face a similar attack if they don't abandon the US as their ally. Prior to the London bombings, such an announcement might not achieve the desired effect. After these bombings, though, every Brit will believe AQ. Even if they really don't have the capability for a massive strike on Britain. Put simply, the London bombings make sense if their desired purpose is to deliver the message, "We can and will hit you, too."
Thus, we face two possibilities. Either the London bombings indicate AQ has degenerated to the point to where they are only capable of carrying out random acts of violence to no political purpose -indeed, acts of violence which actually mitigate against their desired political outcomes. Or, the London bombings represent the prelude to a massive strike at the US, in which case their political purpose was to lay the ground work for isolating the US internationally after such a strike. As I say, I hope the former is true, but evidence would seem to indicate the latter is true.
Let me conclude, then, this first part of the essay with a few remarks about bin Laden, specifically, for who he really 'is' is as important to determining just what the London bombings are all about as anything else which may be speculated.
Since 911, it has become commonplace to view the radical Islamists generally and bin Laden, specifically, as bloodthirsty nuts. Killing infidels is all their really about under this view. If this is correct, then the London bombings make total sense. And, if this is correct, then we really have little to fear at the macro level from radical Islam other than random death, as horrible as that me be. Nut jobs as a general rule eventually self-destruct and movements led by nut jobs tend to do the same. They over reach and implode.
Allow me to suggest, however, that the situation is actually far worse. bin Laden and his associates, I believe, are actually quite competent and sane. In their minds, there goal is to establish peace -a peace based on world-wide submission to Islam. Hence, their goal is not necessarily to kill every infidel but, rather, to convert them. To do this, they have to destroy not necessarily the US, but rather the power weilded by the US on the world stage. This may seem a crazy goal, but remember, they've already done it once. People forget it was AQ which was primarily responsible for driving the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. And they also forget it was the Soviet Union's defeat in Afghanistan which significantly contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union. Hence, in their minds, and not without some justification, they have already destroyed one superpower.
The question now becomes 'how do they destroy the other one?' And I don't believe they think random acts of violence such as the London bombings will really do it. Instead, I think they believe they need, acurately, by the way, some massive attack on US soil which will destroy the US's international power. So, then, what might such an attack look like? Well, first, it would begin with something akin to the London bombings, an act which sends the signal that US allies can and will be similarly hit. Second, it would need to strike a psychological vulnerability of the US in world public opinion. And it is here the August 6th date has me so concerned. Hit the US with nukes on, say, May 10th and you make of the US a victim in the court of public opinion. Hit the US on Aug 6th and you mitigate this result with the psychological emphasis that the US is simply getting back what it gives, essentially. You have a nice, neat little date which in places like France, Germany, CHina, etc., says, "Sixty years ago, today, the US became a world superpower by nuking the Japanese, today, sixty years later, the US as a superpower is ended using the exact same means." Couple this with the demonstration thirty days earlier that US allies can expect the same treatment and you've provided a powerful incentive to minimize sympathy for the US on the world stage.
Frankly, in some ways I always view bin Laden in the same light I view Hitler. The ends he seeks seem crazy, but the course he pursues to achieve those ends are, unfortunately, usually rational.
Also, like Hitler, he usually can't help but be upfront about what he intends to do. Hence, his 'American Hiroshima' letter I believe is a precise presentation of what he intends to do. The question is, 'can he do it?' If I'm reading the London bombings right, the answer would seem to be "yes."
Also, this letter gives us something of a clue as to the "well, if he has them, why doesn't he use them" conundrum. The answer would be, 'he's waiting to use them when they will have the least (and greatest) impact on world public opinion -ie, on August 6th, 2005.
But there's something else in that letter that has me bothered, to wit, his obssession with killing '2 million adults and 2 million children.' Now, it may be he is simply unfamiliar with US demographics. But the fact is, given birth control and abortion, if one seeks to kill four million people in the US, it would be difficult to have it work out that you would kill 2 million adults and 2 million kids. Hence, I'm concerned he has devised some method for targeting kids, specifically. Something in the food-chain perhaps, or some disease which strikes children at higher rates than adults.
This, too, then might explain why, if he has nukes, he hasn't used them, he's waiting to get the other operations targeting kids specifically in place. Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but it seems when he's writing and when he was seeking his fatwa, he had something specific in mind targeting children. Note his reasoning doesn't just say he has the right to kill kids if they get in the way, instead, he goes out of his way to justify specifically targeting a specific number of kids. Hence, that's just what I expect him to do.
Its common place here on FR for people to rant, "well, if he hits us with nukes, Mecca and Medina will be turned to glass." I strongly suspect bin Laden is considering just this possibility and is planning for it. Indeed, there's another article here at FR which holds the reason why bin Laden hasn't used WMD is because he knows we would wipe out Islam.
Would we really? Consider. Suppose bin Laden lights of ten nukes in ten cities. Then, he releases and audio tape saying if we don't get our forces out of the ME or worse, if we try to retaliate against the ME, he will retaliate with means 'that will lay waste to the US, etc.' You're Bush, what do you do? If you pull out of the ME, you've just given into blackmail and you can expect you'll get another demand such as 'pull all US troops out of every country' or whatever. Let's say, instead, you call his bluff and take out Mecca. This wouldn't hurt Islam. Indeed, Islam's end-time prophecies predict such a thing will happen. So, instead, you take out Tehran. Ten day's later, kids suddenly start coming down with some killer flu. A new audio tape says "pull out of ME or we'll lay waste to your country even more." Again, you're Bush. What do you do? People are screaming, their kids are dying, etc. Even if you try to retaliate a second time, ten more nukes go off in ten more cities. Again, OBL says 'withdraw or more of your kids will die.' At this point, its game, set, match.
Reading back over this, it sounds like fantasy political fiction. Lunacy, really. And until the London bombings, that's what I would have considered it.
Now, however, given all I've outlined in this essay, I believe such things just might be what's in our future. I'm pretty sure this is all way off base. I pray that it is. But as I said at the start of this essay, my internal barometer his risen considerably in light of the London bombings.
I think I'll go get some groceries.
I'll throw in the other $0.98: I agree 100%