[Changleen]

This was a good article on the Beeb today:

Monday's bombings in Egypt fit in with the philosophy of war laid out in a 7,000-word document by Osama Bin Laden which appeared recently in the form of an audio tape.

And in turn, the tape came within weeks of the publication in February of the Pentagon's "Quadrennial Defence Review" which stated: "The United States is a nation engaged in what will be a long war."

We therefore now have two almost simultaneous documents from the leading forces in the war and they are worth comparing.

There will be those who say that any comparison is odious but no professional intelligence officer I know would allow emotion to obscure analysis and it is on that basis that I proceed.

(Update: A video has also appeared of the al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I will comment on this below.)

The most striking thing about the Bin Laden statement is its wide ranging nature. One counter-terrorism commentator, Walid Phares of the Florida Atlantic University, called it a "state of the jihad address".

The struggles

The al-Qaeda leader lists about 20 struggles worldwide. It is important to know what they are. Among his declarations:

* There can be no apology for the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, which he dwells on at length, saying those "responsible" must be punished - and he leaves no doubt as to what that punishment should be

* The West is at war with "our nation", defined as Islam as a whole, which amounts to a "crusade"; the West's hostility towards Hamas is evidence of this crusade

* The UN Security Council is a "crusader movement along with pagan Buddhism"; the Buddhists are represented by China in his view

* Islamic fighters should resist any attempt by the West to cut Darfur off from the rest of Sudan, and he rejects the settlement with southern Sudanese rebels

* Iraq is the central struggle: "The epicentre of these wars and attacks is Baghdad"

* The fight in Iraq is a "crusader-Zionist war against Muslims"; so, too, are or were the conflicts in Bosnia, Chechnya, East Timor, Somalia and Kashmir

* He attacks France for banning the headscarf in school and the writer Salman Rushdie is still "the infidel"

* He calls for the death of "Bush's lackey in Pakistan", meaning President Pervez Musharraf

* King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is responsible for "submissiveness and humiliation"

* The global war is not a clash of civilisations but an attack "by their civilisation against our civilisation"

* He condemns the use of Nato troops in Afghanistan

* The people in the West are as guilty as their leaders: "War is a common responsibility among people and government"

* No dialogue is now possible with the West as it rejected his own offer of a truce "after the withdrawal of their armies"

Bin Laden's manifesto does not mention Egypt, but has no real need to since Egypt has always been a battlefield for al-Qaeda.

It is evident that Bin Laden has lost none of his determination in the years since 11 September 2001 ("the Manhattan conquest").

His manifesto is characterised by absolutism. Even the fight in Iraq is pitched in terms of protecting "monotheism", which is an implied rejection of the Iraqi majority, the Shias, according to Islamic scholars.

Whether his gathering in of just about every known conflict involving Muslims is a sign of his strength or a sign that he is trying to raise morale in sometimes weakened forces remains to be seen.

But his ambition remains undiminished.

Now the Zarqawi video. It was posted on a site well known for giving statements from the insurgency. There can be no doubt it is Zarqawi and he is introduced and describes himself as the al-Qaeda leader in the Land of the Two Rivers. He also announces a new "Mujahadeen Council" to make Iraq an "Islamic country".

The tape lasts for 34 minutes and pays homage to Bin Laden, with his picture shown and an old audio tape of him playing in the background.

Zarqawi uses many of the same words, in particular "crusader". And he is more specifically hostile to the Shias. He also warns against Sunni collaborators. Two rockets, said to be newly designed, are also shown.

Again, whether this video was made out of confidence or out of a need to rally support is unclear. Perhaps both.

The Pentagon approach

Against this, the Pentagon is preparing its own plans.

These were partly revealed in the four-yearly document it is required to produce looking ahead towards the next 20 years.

The new document gives it own definition of the struggle and it is also couched in global terms.

"Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, our nation has fought a global war against violent extremists who use terrorism as their weapon of choice and who seek to destroy our free way of life.

"Our enemies seek weapons of mass destruction and, if they are successful, will likely attempt to use them in their conflict with free people everywhere. Currently, the struggle is centred in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we will need to be prepared and arranged to successfully defend our nation and its interests around the globe for years to come."

In his usual blunt style, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says in an introduction: "Now in the fifth year of this global war, the ideas and proposals in this document are provided as a road map for change, leading to victory."

The main points

The ideas and proposals are then listed in general terms. The principle is to make the US armed forces more flexible and to shift the emphasis:

* From a peacetime tempo to a wartime sense of urgency

* From a time of reasonable predictability to an era of surprise and uncertainty

* From single-focused threats to complex challenges

* From nation-state threats to decentralised network threats

* From conducting war against nations to conducting war in countries we are not at war with (safe havens)

* From large institutional forces (tail) to more powerful operational capabilities (teeth)

There is a lot more like this in the 92-page document.

The practical effects are going to be an increase in special forces and more US forces stationed in perhaps smaller groups around the world, sometimes clandestinely and even without the knowledge of local US diplomats.

There will be more unmanned drone aircraft.

There will even be special teams trained to disarm nuclear weapons. The threat of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction is partly what lies behind the overall commitment.

Critics are already saying that the Pentagon will no doubt also demand the big-ticket items like new jet fighters and heavy equipment for the army.

But the thinking behind the review is to configure forces to better prevent or counter the kind of surprise attacks launched by al-Qaeda and its network of networks.

What the review does not get into, because it is not meant to, is the place that military tactics occupy in the wider strategy in such a long war.

The document does allude to this at the end by stating: "The United States will not win the war on terrorism... by military means... simultaneous, effective interaction with civilian populations will be essential to achieve success."

And of course the lesson from the Cold War is that it was not won by military means, though military strength certainly played a key role. It was won by one system collapsing.

I know some of you probably think I am so anti-US that I'd rather A-Q won this 'war' but let me assure you I'm not. I would like OBL and the fanatics he inspires to dissolve into nothing as much as anyone.

However I seriously believe that the current US administration actively goes out of it's way to enflame this situation as much as it can, in order to manufacturer an enemy that it needs to promote it's shortsighted and ignorant policy goals. Bush has created this war on terror more than OBL or A-Q ever could have done. It is a ridiculous situation that the American public needs to wake up to and address. Apparantly the clamouring of the rest of the world is not loud enough to hear in the midwest.

 

[blue]

I agree. Bush and his cronies are wholly unable to deal with AQ and Muslim fundys. Instead of searching for a solution, they bomb the problem and hope it goes away, when in reality the problem is a mindset that needs to be mitigated. You can't bomb a mass mindset that the US is on the warpath for oil and money (which, with the current administration, it is).

This dude sounds like a Muslim Jerry Falwell.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I agree. Bush and his cronies are wholly unable to deal with AQ and Muslim fundys.

while i love to bash el dubya every chance i get...
i believe dealing with fundies is pretty much a lost cause.

 

[BurlyShirley]

while i love to bash el dubya every chance i get...
i believe dealing with fundies is pretty much a lost cause.

Yeah, how exactly do you "deal" with complete irrationality? Appeasement? No. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
I say just keeping bombing them for now...

 

[Changleen]

while i love to bash el dubya every chance i get...
i believe dealing with fundies is pretty much a lost cause.

So fundies vs. fundies is especially magnificently fvcked up.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Yeah, how exactly do you "deal" with complete irrationality? Appeasement? No. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
I say just keeping bombing them for now...

but they gotta bomb smart, not killing more kids who survive to be more fighters.
even on a machiavelical level, being completely oblivious to others right to life and yiddi yadda; you fight against your cause if you put more coal to the fire.

i say, a undercover assasination here, an "accidental" assasination there, supplying a friendly guerrilla an anti-bunker missile and stuff like that....... it would be way cheaper in terms of US soldiers than having an all out war against an invisible enemy.

 

[LordOpie]

at least we'll vote (hopefully) our fundies out of office.

That said, while I hate this admin, really, how do you deal with irrational terrorists other than blowing 'em up.

 

[BurlyShirley]

but they gotta bomb smart, not killing more kids who survive to be more fighters.
even on a machiavelical level, being completely oblivious to others right to life and yiddi yadda; you fight against your cause if you put more coal to the fire.

i say, a undercover assasination here, an "accidental" assasination there, supplying a friendly guerrilla an anti-bunker missile and stuff like that....... it would be way cheaper in terms of US soldiers than having an all out war against an invisible enemy.

I think that's what they're hinting at in that huge thing ChangKaiShrek just posted up. The Iraq thing, well, hey, it is what it is, but Id like to see some more deaths in Afghanistan.

 

[LordOpie]

but they gotta bomb smart, not killing more kids who survive to be more fighters.

I fvcking hate zombies.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I fvcking hate zombies.

yeah, their head-chomping ways are despicable.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I think that's what they're hinting at in that huge thing ChangKaiShrek just posted up. The Iraq thing, well, hey, it is what it is, but Id like to see some more deaths in Afghanistan.

i think the us should be stealthy, more like israel.
support a local guerrilla just enough to kill the head guy. then support another guerrilla to keep in check the former, and so on.

every 10-15 years or so you´d need to poke the horse a little to keep it straight.. but in the end it wouldnt suck as much. you guys have been doing stuff like that in latin america and while "we" kinda hate you, we dont have a jihad yet.

but seriously, my hope on mankind as a whole is extremely small. even if you get a democracy to work and stuff like that..... what if people want to go back to the good ol´ ass kicking? i believe some people really just like and understand from getting kicked....
and dont give me the education crap, that just DONT work for good overall, unless reinforced by a good ol´ ass kicking.

how can you keep people from going back to neanderthals, without being a neanderthal yourself???
thats a paradox for which i see no realistic answer.

 

[Toshi]

Yeah, how exactly do you "deal" with complete irrationality? Appeasement? No. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
I say just keeping bombing them for now...

what makes you think they are irrational? from their perspective, how else to fight the encroachment of western culture and the military presence of the U.S. in particular throughout the middle east? Iran is doing things the "right" way, as a state vs. through terrorist actions, and they are probably going to be bombed and invaded for their impudence... with such shining examples i don't see how you can simply claim that Al Qaeda is irrational.

 

[Changleen]

how can you keep people from going back to neanderthals, without being a neanderthal yourself???
thats a paradox for which i see no realistic answer.

Look on the bright side, in the last 13,000 years thing have definately got better. Even though it seems crazy sometimes, more and more people live without fear of imminent death from stupid causes.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

what makes you think they are irrational? from their perspective, how else to fight the encroachment of western culture and the military presence of the U.S. in particular throughout the middle east? Iran is doing things the "right" way, as a state vs. through terrorist actions, and they are probably going to be bombed and invaded for their impudence... with such shining examples i don't see how you can simply claim that Al Qaeda is irrational.

the fair and square solution for the jihad would be disbanding israel and couple other minor things.

but c´mon, seriously, anybody who asks for that can´t be really rational.

and not talking because of the temple, or the israelis right to the land or whatever, am talking on the less romantic grounds that the israelis would wipe out the middle east before giving up the land.

 

[Changleen]

what makes you think they are irrational? from their perspective, how else to fight the encroachment of western culture and the military presence of the U.S. in particular throughout the middle east? Iran is doing things the "right" way, as a state vs. through terrorist actions, and they are probably going to be bombed and invaded for their impudence... with such shining examples i don't see how you can simply claim that Al Qaeda is irrational.

I agree their approach the problem as they percieve it is not irrational, however their fundamental belief system pretty much is.

 

[blue]

while i love to bash el dubya every chance i get...
i believe dealing with fundies is pretty much a lost cause.

I sort of didn't make it clear, sorry...

They need to get the Muslim world to again think that Islamists are radicals, not heroes/saviors.

 

[BurlyShirley]

what makes you think they are irrational? from their perspective, how else to fight the encroachment of western culture and the military presence of the U.S. in particular throughout the middle east? Iran is doing things the "right" way, as a state vs. through terrorist actions, and they are probably going to be bombed and invaded for their impudence... with such shining examples i don't see how you can simply claim that Al Qaeda is irrational.

Uh...did you not read what chang posted? Mohammad Cartoons, etc? That's rational to you?

 

[BurlyShirley]

I agree their approach the problem as they percieve it is not irrational, however their fundamental belief system pretty much is.

Exactly. How do you satisfy such a group?

 

[Silver]

We have to be careful with funding military forces that happen to be fighting our enemies. That seems like a good idea sometimes, but sometimes it comes back to bite you.

If we find Osama, ask him about it

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

We have to be careful with funding military forces that happen to be fighting our enemies. That seems like a good idea sometimes, but sometimes it comes back to bite you.

If we find Osama, ask him about it

thats why i propose the "support/get another militia to keep the former in check ad infinitum" plan.

it would be just like el dubya handles the debt payments, with the minor inconvinient of dead people.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Exactly. How do you satisfy such a group?

relocating israel to europe or new york.
now, that is a rational demand.

 

[Changleen]

I sort of didn't make it clear, sorry...

They need to get the Muslim world to again think that Islamists are radicals, not heroes/saviors.

And what I was trying to say is that I think that Bush and the Neocons understand that (that by not reacting so overtly and vociferously they will erode the base of support for these hardliners) but they DO IT ANYWAY. It is in the interests of Bush's agenda to enflame the situation in the middle east. They want Americans and as much as the rest of teh world to think these people are all crazy psychos. It gives them more leeway to pursue their agenda.

Look at the recent (pre-9/11) history of dealing with terrorist organisations. It's all cloak and dagger. If at all possible you don't even mention the name of the terrorist group in public. You deal, as has been said, with the odd assasination here, the odd arrest there. It has been very effective in the past. It's why we have the secret service and MI5 and the SAS and so on.

Now Bush and co. are going out of their way to highlight these people, taking actions in the region that are enflaming support for them. The Neocons are not that stupid. They know what they are doing, but the American public don't seem to grasp it. The Neocons get their 'eternal war' and their agenda is furthered.

 

[Changleen]

Exactly. How do you satisfy such a group?

A highly simplified version would be 'Ignore them and they'll go away.' Of course in reality you don't ignore them, you continue to covertly harrass and destabilise, but by removing their 'reasons to get mad' (say for example, by NOT invading one of their countries) they have less domestic support and eventually will return to the marginalised group they once were.

"What about 9/11?" I hear you cry. "Wasn't that the result of us ignoring the problem?" Well, I don't think that a bunch of Arabs planning from a cave in Afghanistan pulled that off that stunt on their own. It was the start of the Neocon agenda. Probably AQ had the idea and the CIA found out about it, and a certain group of people decided it would be best if it went ahead, with a little dramatic flourish.

The other day when I said 'you were attacked by denial' I meant America was in denial about the true situation. There is no such thing as a war between good and evil.

 

[The Amish]

i think the us should be stealthy, more like israel.
support a local guerrilla just enough to kill the head guy. then support another guerrilla to keep in check the former, and so on.
.

Isnt that how we made Osama

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Isnt that how we made Osama

hmmm, the "plan for opposite guerrilla-funding ad infinitum" and the "minor inconviniece of dead people" was a tongue in cheek comment.

 

[BurlyShirley]

A highly simplified version would be 'Ignore them and they'll go away.' Of course in reality you don't ignore them, you continue to covertly harrass and destabilise, but by removing their 'reasons to get mad' (say for example, by NOT invading one of their countries) they have less domestic support and eventually will return to the marginalised group they once were.

"What about 9/11?" I hear you cry. "Wasn't that the result of us ignoring the problem?" Well, I don't think that a bunch of Arabs planning from a cave in Afghanistan pulled that off that stunt on their own. It was the start of the Neocon agenda. Probably AQ had the idea and the CIA found out about it, and a certain group of people decided it would be best if it went ahead, with a little dramatic flourish.

The other day when I said 'you were attacked by denial' I meant America was in denial about the true situation. There is no such thing as a war between good and evil.

Well, this post is a clusterfvck of speculation and paranoia, but because Im bored, I'll respond.
When you say 'removing reasons to get them mad' or whatever, are you saying we should give in to their demands? I mean, we could potentially be safe ourselves in the US with that line of thinking, though I doubt it, but think of the bigger picture and the current state of the mid east. Is appeasment of these fools really your solution? Do you support the destruction of Israel? Honestly?
What we're dealing with here is an irrational hate of all things that dont follow their super religious line of thinking. In my book, I classify that as evil if it causes unnecessary deaths to make political statements. I think its a war that NEEDS to be fought, whether or not its EVER won, simply because legitimizing such actions by allowing them the most MINOR of victories would lead to exponentially larger and more cases of terrorism, because it would have proven itself effective.

 

[Changleen]

Well, this post is a clusterfvck of speculation and paranoia, but because Im bored, I'll respond.
When you say 'removing reasons to get them mad' or whatever, are you saying we should give in to their demands? I mean, we could potentially be safe ourselves in the US with that line of thinking, though I doubt it, but think of the bigger picture and the current state of the mid east. Is appeasment of these fools really your solution? Do you support the destruction of Israel? Honestly?
What we're dealing with here is an irrational hate of all things that dont follow their super religious line of thinking. In my book, I classify that as evil if it causes unnecessary deaths to make political statements. I think its a war that NEEDS to be fought, whether or not its EVER won, simply because legitimizing such actions by allowing them the most MINOR of victories would lead to exponentially larger and more cases of terrorism, because it would have proven itself effective.

Really? It's proven itself effective? It's only been 'effective' since 2001, and only against one target. Are you really scared that terrorism is a threat to you?

 

[Changleen]

And really, what I was talking about had nothing to do with 'appeasement'. Read it again.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Really? It's proven itself effective? It's only been 'effective' since 2001, and only against one target. Are you really scared that terrorism is a threat to you?

No. Read it again. I said it "Will have proven itself effective" if we give an inch.

 

[BurlyShirley]

And really, what I was talking about had nothing to do with 'appeasement'. Read it again.

It does actually.

 

[Changleen]

No. Read it again. I said it "Will have proven itself effective" if we give an inch.

By responding like you have you already gave SOOO much more than an inch. You must see that.

 

[BurlyShirley]

By responding like you have you already gave SOOO much more than an inch. You must see that.

I disagree. Though they may have expected such a response, it's still more effective than saying "Okay, you guys go ahead and do what you want, the US will stay out of your way. Please dont fly planes into anymore stuff"

 

[Changleen]

It does actually.

Appeasement implies a gift to placate the monster. I spoke of no such thing.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Appeasement implies a gift to placate the monster. I spoke of no such thing.

If 'giving them no reasons to get mad' or whatever isnt a gift, I dont know what is. Esp. when you consider the importance of the region in which they're entrenched.

 

[Changleen]

I disagree. Though they may have expected such a response, it's still more effective than saying "Okay, you guys go ahead and do what you want, the US will stay out of your way. Please dont fly planes into anymore stuff"

1) I didn't say they'd be free to 'do what they want'.

2) The point was also you don't say anything. Publically. How does your enemy know he is effective? What gives him hope of victory? When you spend all your time concerned about him. When he smells your fear.

 

[Changleen]

If 'giving them no reasons to get mad' or whatever isnt a gift, I dont know what is. Esp. when you consider the importance of the region in which they're entrenched.

Not giving people a reason to be mad at you isn't "a gift", it's common courtesy. You seem unable to detach the idea of the 'terrorist' from 'the general Arab population'.

 

[BurlyShirley]

1) I didn't say they'd be free to 'do what they want'.

2) The point was also you don't say anything. Publically. How does your enemy know he is effective? What gives him hope of victory? When you spend all your time concerned about him. When he smells your fear.

He cant smell fear if he is dead. We have more guns, more money and more soldiers. It really is only a matter of time. They can produce more terrorists, but eventually the freezing of assets, creation of democracies and bunker busters night and day will prove effective.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Not giving people a reason to be mad at you isn't "a gift", it's common courtesy. You seem unable to detach the idea of the 'terrorist' from 'the general Arab population'.

So its common courtesy to let fundamentalist muslims destroy israel, kill people who make mohammad cartoons, stone chicks who get raped, etc.. gotcha!

 

[Changleen]

He cant smell fear if he is dead. We have more guns, more money and more soldiers. It really is only a matter of time. They can produce more terrorists, but eventually the freezing of assets, creation of democracies and bunker busters night and day will prove effective.

Do you seriously believe that? Once again you seem to be in complete denial about what causes these people to want to fight you. You can't kill people without making their family and frinds hate you. What you lazily call 'terrorists' are in reality mostly people whose lives have been ripped appart by US actions. There are only a tiny handful of self-starters, and without the excuse of the US's actions they are a marginalised fringe.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Do you seriously believe that? Once again you seem to be in complete denial about what causes these people to want to fight you. You can't kill people without making their family and frinds hate you. What you lazily call 'terrorists' are in reality mostly people whose lives have been ripped appart by US actions. There are only a tiny handful of self-starters, and without the excuse of the US's actions they are a marginalised fringe.

Its not really about who hates us, its about who has the supporting infrastructure to harm us. Their fundamentalist culture IS INCAPABLE of peaceful coexistance with ours, something has to give.