Has Bush outfoxed bin Laden?

The terrorist atrocities inflicted on the US have give rise to a new rumor mill that grinds out stories that range from the banal to the bizarre. But a story out of the Middle East has more credibility than most, particularly in certain quarters. Some cooler and more intelligent heads in the Arab world have concluded that Bush has outfoxed the fanatical bin Laden.

Like all fanatics bin Laden is narrowly on his mission while being disconnected from the real world. Far from being the educated man he is said to be he, like his suicide-bombers, is remarkable ignorant of the West, specially the US. Although some of his followers have been educated at Western Universities their education has been confined to technical subjects like engineering. Those, for example, who attended US universities learnt nothing of US history or cultural values, confusing topless bars, which some of them enjoyed, with moral decay and lack of will. The sad fact is that what little they knew of US history and policies came entirely from the country’s anti-American left, which has painted a grossly dishonest picture of America that neatly fitted in with these terrorists’ anti-American dogma thus blinding them further to the political and military consequences of their actions.

As our editor pointed out at a recent seminar in Australia, being narrowly focused to the exclusion of all else is part of the terrorists’ Achilles heel. And so it is with bin Laden. Believing himself to be the hand of God and a follower of the one true faith, or his fanatical version of it, means he operates with an open loop. Therefore there is no negative feedback mechanism to correct his distorted picture of the world. There are no advisers to council restraint or retreat because like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., he literally believes himself to be the only one capable of interpreting events and predicting their consequences.

Now we have bin Laden’s fundamental weakness. Being truly ignorant of American history and knowing nothing of the country’s political system he has made the mistake of drawing the wrong lesson from a narrow range of fairly recent events by interpreting it in terms of his world view: the refusal of George Bush senior’s to finish off Saddam Hussein, the hasty retreat from Somalia, the successful bombing of US embassies and military bases in Saudi Arabia, the attack on the Cole and Clinton’s self-serving pinprick responses to terrorism.

In bin Laden’s fantasy America would either respond in a Clintonesque way and so demonstrate to the world its cowardly nature or it would blindly strike out, killing hundreds if not thousands of innocents and so inflame the whole of the Islamic world. (Notice how closely his apocalyptic vision resembles the extreme left’s one of a world-wide revolution against capitalism).

He got neither. Instead of grabbing the initiative he made a terrible blunder. His actions pulled the US together, awakening in it a steely resolve that can have only one outcome. Instead of retreating or immediately striking out, President Bush set about building up a mighty military force not only to destroy bin Laden but to demonstrate to the rest of the world the consequences of attacking America. Afghanistan has been isolated, it’s borders sealed.

Battle lines have been drawn and are being supported with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Russia, Tajikstan. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, even Iran, Pakistan and China are cooperating. British special forces (SAS) are already operating in the country while American special forces are moving in. A coordinated plan consisting of concentrated air attacks on terrorist camps and Taliban installations, special forces assault teams, and the cooperation of the Northern Alliance is being put into action. None of this, so the story goes, is supposed to be happening.

Moreover, there are rumors that the scale of the forces that bin Laden has unleashed has caused subterranean cracks to appear within the Taliban’s ranks, with some of them wondering why they should have to take the fall for bin Laden. The smarter ones know they are not popular among the mass of Afghans, and that if properly equipped and supported by Western powers the Northern Alliance would drive them back to their mountain villages — that is if the locals don’t hang them from cranes and artillery barrels first.

Afghan refugees are relating tales of an increasing number of Taliban acts of banditry and rape as order collapses in the towns and cities. The wholesale kidnapping of non-Pashtun males aged between 15 and 30 for ‘military’ service smells of panic because the Taliban knows these males belong to hostile ethnic minorities. These are not the actions of men who believe in their own invincibility.

So to some Arab observers Bush has already won. But surely if bin Laden is killed other bin Laden’s will arise. There is only one bin Laden, thank God. This latter-day Mahdi is just another religious millenarian who promises paradise by driving out the infidel, the cause of the faithful’s misery. Such people have been a curse throughout history.

I’m not saying that terrorism will end with bin Laden, only that his head must be the first to roll if victory is to be achieved. Once this is done, the invisible war against terrorism will accelerate, from the freezing of bank accounts to the assassination of terrorist organizers and the smashing of their networks.

The strategy, as explained to me, is basically simple. Make an example of bin Laden, demonstrate overwhelming military power and the will to use it against states that harbor and train terrorists; isolate the terrorists physically and squeeze them psychologically. The ultimate aim is the elimination of state-sponsored terrorism.

I posted a large book excerpt on that topic in this very thread.

I read the post and the excerpt, too bad you didn't.
Not a whole lot there, they had a business deal that made them some money (not a lot but not bad) and Gore Sr introduced Hammer as his friend and helped him with some legislation.
Imagine that, what a heinous crime - a Senator helped a constituent with some legislation. Oh the horror!

There wasn't a single illegal thing outlined in the article. Lots of perjorative wording but no real substance. In short, all smoke and no fire. No charges, indictments, arrests or convictions. Nothing, nada, zippy!

We also tell them it's the President's obligation to conduct foreign policy and not be interfered with by meddling congresscritters.

Yeah, I know - those damn pesky LAWS kept getting in the way of Reagan/Bush. Good thing they could use the power of the pardon to show everyone that the laws don't apply to them.

Heh, pretty funny. Of course, the Boland Amendment was the biggest joke of all, by virtue of its turning legitimate policy disagreements between Republicans and Democrats into criminal violations. Apparently, the Democratic playbook back then was to just figure out where your opponents stand and then criminalize their stance.

Make your political opponents acting on their opinions and beliefs a criminal offense. Oh yeah, they really seized the moral high ground there, you bet.

Oh, Please...............

Laws worship by Liberal. What an oxymoron. The highest(?) form of Liberal action is flaunting of laws and societal convention. For every "law" that Reagan/Bush/whomever broke or stretched, one can find a corresponding instance of Liberal 'illegality' to counter.

Since it appears that you worship the "law", perhaps you'd have insisted on the arrest and conviction of Rosa Parks. After all, she violated the "law".

Sanctimonious whining is very unbecoming. Have a tissue. It's free.

Pure supposition. He's got all the markings of the new-money social stigma... coming from bad pedigree and romping with royals? That's not easy, particularly 30 years ago. He probably couldn't deal with it. Rebellion seems to have welcomed him as one of its own.

This means nothing & changes nothing other than to disagree with the idea that he hates the West for having been exposed to its evils, etc. etc. Seems to me he's a social runt who didn't have the balls to stick up for himself.

Too bad. I was hoping for more.

I read the situation completely differently. I don't think he comes from a bad pedigree. To the contrary. Nor can we make a direct comparison with the British.

Nor am I convinced he's estranged from his family. To the contrary again. I think his expulsion from Saudi Arabia was strictly political and there's a very good chance that their elite is playing a double game - critisizing him while secretly financing him.

Even worse, after reading his statements and those of Mullah Omar I find him to be possessed of a noble spirit. I know this is hard to accept but I'm sure he thinks his cause is as just and his actions as justified as we do ours.

In sum, unless I can find evidence to the contrary, I find him to be a very dangerous adversary. If we catch him quickly, we'll do ourselves a very great favor.

Bush won the election OVERWHELMINGLY, I might add. You sore losers should really get over it....that was a year ago. Bugsy Dailey would never rig an election, would he.

Gwhore and family got money from selling tobacco, but claimed to be against it.

Clintoon was seen by the world as WEAK and made America look like an easy pushover.

The Taliban needs replacements for all the defecting officers, perhaps you would serve your masters better if you return home to meet the same fate as your friends.

Oh I see them alright but not from your perspective. President Gore is not an unelected, ne'er do well, 3rd generation member of a crime family.

Words mean things. Ne'er do well means he has never done anything well.

You can blame the President if you want to for the sins of his fathers (which I don't concede). But I don't. I do blame the former VP for the crimes he committed himself. You did get one thing right, though. Bush is not unelected. Gore is.

See I told you that if you kept poking you were going to get a fight.

I never get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Shalom.

OK, I gave you attribution for all my Bush Crime Family charges. Now send me your attribution for this quote (and I use the term loosely) of Gore's.

You also use the term "attribution" loosely. You didn't attribute anything, you just threw out charges. At a town meeting during the campaign a woman asked Gore something very much like:

As a father, how do you explain to your daughter the allegation of rape - and as a social worker I think the allegation is credible - how do you explain the allegation of rape against the President and your continued working with him.

Gore's answer was much like what I said. He told the woman that he hadn't paid any attention to that because it hadn't been proven (although he paid a lot of attention to the Bush cocaine charge which hadn't even been alleged). He told her that, even if true, men make mistakes and you have to look at all the good Bill Clinton has done. It was broadcast at the time and had very limited play in the news. I'll bet there are those on Free Republic who can still point to an article.

Guys and Gals? A little help?

Shalom.

Did someone mention the word "treason"?

Look, Bouncer suggests that President Bush's father was engaged in treason and you come back suggesting tha Al Gore's father was engaged in treason and none of that was the issue. I was comparing Gore's character to Bush's, not the character of their fathers. I would not suggest that Bouncer was talking about Iran-Contra anyway. That may have been illegal but it sure wasn't treason, as I suspect Bouncer knows.

But back to the issues. Nobody has accused President Bush of treason. Gore is implicated in treason by his support of the Clinton Administration's sale of our nuclear secrets to China. That's treason. Gore has also broken the law, at least by making fundraising phone calls from his White House office and by attending a fundraiser at a Buddhist Temple. I'm sure there is more.

The cap on the Gore character issue is his defense of Bill Clinton as a possible rapist. He doesn't mind if Bill is a rapist, as Juanita Broderrick (?) has alledged, because he has done so much good that he has more than made up for it. If Al Gore were president then rape wouldn't be a crime as long as the rapist contributed to charity afterwords.

(BTW: If you have a link to articles about the town hall meeting where he said that, Bouncer has asked.)

Stick to the subject, please.

Shalom

Now send me your attribution for this quote (and I use the term loosely) of Gore's.

First, go to the menu at the top of the screen (not the browser menu) and select Archives. Then in the Search tool type "Gore rape" without the quotes and click the Go button. You'll get several articles. One interesting article appears here. If I recall from my days as a NH resident, the Union Leader isn't exactly a right-wing fanatical rag. Take a look and enjoy.

Shalom

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.