Posted on 09/14/2005 7:26:38 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
AS THE WAR between the United States and Al Qaeda enters its fifth year, the nature of the armed, transnational Islamist group's campaign remains misunderstood. With the conflict viewed largely as an open-and-shut matter of good versus evil, nonmilitary engagement with Al Qaeda is depicted as improper and unnecessary.
Yet developing a strategy for the next phase of the global response to Al Qaeda requires understanding the enemy -- something Western analysts have systematically failed to do. Sept. 11 was not an unprovoked, gratuitous act. It was a military operation researched and planned since at least 1996 and conducted by a trained commando in the context of a war that had twice been declared officially and publicly. The operation targeted two military locations and a civilian facility regarded as the symbol of US economic and financial power. The assault was the culmination of a larger campaign, which forecast impact, planned for the enemy's reaction, and was designed to gain the tactical upper hand.
Overwhelmingly centered on the martial aspects of the conflict, scholars and policymakers have been too focused on Al Qaeda's ''irrationality," ''fundamentalism," and ''hatred" -- and these conceptions continue to color key analyses. The sway of such explanations is particularly surprising in the face of nonambiguous statements made by Al Qaeda as to the main reasons for its war on the United States. These have been offered consistently since 1996, notably in the August 1996 and February 1998 declarations of war and the November 2002 and October 2004 justifications for its continuation.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Yeah right, any talking at this point should be about the process for their unconditional surrender. We have had them on the run for the last 4 years, and now we have to talk? Why would the winning side in a war have any motivation to talk other than to discuss their enemy's surrender? As I don't think that they will ever give up the fight, any talking is useless anyway.
Really? Let's see how well the tactics of cowards fares in the upcomming elections in Iraq. Freedom wins elections - not bombings. It's really that simple.
The academic left relies on total misrepresentations of radical Islam like that quoted above. Radical Islam is, as its name implies, a religious movement. The ultimate goal is the same in Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Africa, Europe, and America. The next thing in the USA will be "Teach In's" to spread this leftist, intentional misunderstanding of Islam. Osama has been defeated militarily but has gained strength on America's left.
"check the byline: Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou"
Can you imagine an arab paper printing an article by Rush Limbaugh about Al-Qaeda?
I cant believe I still live in Massachusetts.
This state sucks. The Globe sucks. Boston sucks.
As sick as it might sound I would love to see Boston hit, just because then all the freakin libs might get pissed and actually do something.
They disgust me.
As a prelude to the proposed love fest, we should send them "the gift that keeps on giving"..Plutonium, sent air express!
You do not "talk to" vermin, you exterminate them!
An oldie, but a goodie:
http://love.gg/osama.swf
(Warning: "f-bomb")
The writer has a serious problem with reality.
1. No nation can end its military presence anywhere that terrorists (unambiguous or not) are killing their citizens. Solution for Al-quaeda? Stop.
2. The USA hasn't supported Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories uncritically for since 1973. Solution for Al-quaeda? Read the news.
3. If we were to withdraw our support of corrupt and coercive regimes in the Arab and Muslim world, we would have no need for an Arab desk in Foggy Bottom. Solution for Al-quaeda? Stick to blowing up muslim thugs and princes and let the devil sort it out.
This writer has obviously never counselled the mentally deranged.
When will these people ever learn? Making concessions to terrorists only results in more terrorism. Demonstrating that terrorism works means that other people will try it as a strategy again. Negotiate with a group of lunatic extremists who declared war on us and carried out a sneak attack that killed 3,000 civilians? Negotiate after we've asked other nations to stand with us, in some cases at the risk of their leaders' lives? This is insanity.
We should be fighting this war to destroy Al Qaeda, kill its leadership, and discredit its philosophy.
If this is "assymetrical warfare," then that term is nothing more than a euphemism designed to sanitize that was heretofore recognized by all the civilized world as barbarism.
A jihad hamster(they are indigenous to the ME)by another name..
Yes, and our leftist academics assured us that Saddam and Osama could never get along with each other. Another piece of academic BS.
They have already told us that. We should give them the answer that they deserve and are overdue in receiving..
This argument conveniently confuses short term interim goals with long term strategic goals. Getting the US out of the middle east is an interim goal on the way to having al qaeda control the middle east. At that point, it controls the oil trillions. Then it uses that money to buy nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them from our craven 'allies' in Europe and to build modern armies. From there, the conquest of the world proceeds with the long term strategic goal of imposing Islam on the whole world.
At that point, we have a barbarian empire on the flanks of Europe and Asia with the express goal of conquering the world. Would they succeed? No. Would the loss of life defeating them be horrendous? Yes. So why not fight them now instead of letting them become a nuclear armed empire?
BTW, there is nothing novel about this. Sadaam's strategy was to build a barbarian empire also.
But back to the article. The article advocates surrendering to al qaeda's short term interim goal as if it were their long term goal. The author is probably not a fool. He wants to see the barbarian empire emerge in the middle east just like al qaeda.
He's related to Sheik Khazir abu Hidethesalaam..
There are only four words that I want to hear about any pahkin Al Qaeda member-"This one's dead too!
That rates an "Allahu fubar!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.