Strategy I
For al Qaeda, Iraq is not a distraction from their war on America -- it is the central battlefield where the outcome of this struggle will be decided. -- President George W. Bush in a speech to the Military Officers Association of America, Sept. 5, 2006
As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else. It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States. -- Sen. Rick Santorum (R., PA) in an interview with the editorial board of the Bucks County Courier Times, October 17, 2006
So I guess I would rather fight them there than here. I know I would rather fight them there than here, and I know would rather fight them there than in other remote parts of the world, where it may be more difficult to find them. -- President George W. Bush in an interview with Brit Hume (Fox News) Sept 22, 2003
All warfare is based on deception. -- The Art of War By Sun Tzu, 6th century BC
Frodo Baggins and Sam Samwise Gamgee don’t seem to fit the profile of agents of the massive Department of Homeland Security, if we are to realize Santorum’s analogy. They are portrayed as profligate gourmands, however – perhaps that’s some sort of clue that they’re a metaphor for DHS. On the other hand, hobbits don’t wear shoes.
Our mission in the war on terror is to prevent a repetition of the 9/11 attack, an operation involving perhaps a few dozen people and about $500,000. Various studies from credible sources indicate that the Iraq War is increasing the number of terrorists, at least in Iraq. In addition, much of the violence in Iraq is not emanating from groups espousing some sort of pan-Islamic caliphate; it is violence by sectarian and tribal warlords in the simple quest for local and regional power.
So, is it realistic to assume that US involvement in Iraq is somehow using up Al Qaeda resources to the extent that they cannot plan or launch another terrorist attack in America? It seems likely that Bin Laden still has a half million dollars and the services of at least 19 fanatics ready to give their lives for him. And he seems to have regained a stable base for his operations in that netherworld along the Afghan-Pakistani border. Al Qaeda-type cells have certainly been able to launch attacks in Madrid and London.
So let’s consider the “fight them there” strategy from Bin Laden’s point of view. The US is tied down in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Our military is overextended. We are bleeding money. In fact, the US military has been handing over control of Afghanistan operations to NATO forces, further removing us from Bin Laden’s theater of operations. Our “eye” is on Iraq and not on the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
The real reasons that the Bush Administration chose to go into Iraq have been much debated. Their own stated reasoning has been extremely malleable: beginning with the now debunked WMD and Al Qaeda connections, the reasoning has morphed into bringing democracy and “fighting them there”. It is impossible to know whether they believe what they are saying, or whether it is mere public relations.
Perhaps the evidence that the Administration believes what they are saying is that they also seem to believe Bin Laden’s pronouncements about Iraq being Al Qaeda’s central front, rather than realizing that Bin Laden’s strategy and statements may also change with the situation.
But it doesn’t matter what the Administration believes, at least from Bin Laden’s point of view. Not only does the US have insufficient forces to pursue him directly, but our perceived incompetence and weakness has forced Musharraf to make a tenuous deal with the Taliban. It is safe to assume that Bin Laden is simply ecstatic about our venture in Iraq. We have played into his hands. And who knows which Mount Doom he has chosen for his next target?
As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else. It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States. -- Sen. Rick Santorum (R., PA) in an interview with the editorial board of the Bucks County Courier Times, October 17, 2006
So I guess I would rather fight them there than here. I know I would rather fight them there than here, and I know would rather fight them there than in other remote parts of the world, where it may be more difficult to find them. -- President George W. Bush in an interview with Brit Hume (Fox News) Sept 22, 2003
All warfare is based on deception. -- The Art of War By Sun Tzu, 6th century BC
Frodo Baggins and Sam Samwise Gamgee don’t seem to fit the profile of agents of the massive Department of Homeland Security, if we are to realize Santorum’s analogy. They are portrayed as profligate gourmands, however – perhaps that’s some sort of clue that they’re a metaphor for DHS. On the other hand, hobbits don’t wear shoes.
Our mission in the war on terror is to prevent a repetition of the 9/11 attack, an operation involving perhaps a few dozen people and about $500,000. Various studies from credible sources indicate that the Iraq War is increasing the number of terrorists, at least in Iraq. In addition, much of the violence in Iraq is not emanating from groups espousing some sort of pan-Islamic caliphate; it is violence by sectarian and tribal warlords in the simple quest for local and regional power.
So, is it realistic to assume that US involvement in Iraq is somehow using up Al Qaeda resources to the extent that they cannot plan or launch another terrorist attack in America? It seems likely that Bin Laden still has a half million dollars and the services of at least 19 fanatics ready to give their lives for him. And he seems to have regained a stable base for his operations in that netherworld along the Afghan-Pakistani border. Al Qaeda-type cells have certainly been able to launch attacks in Madrid and London.
So let’s consider the “fight them there” strategy from Bin Laden’s point of view. The US is tied down in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Our military is overextended. We are bleeding money. In fact, the US military has been handing over control of Afghanistan operations to NATO forces, further removing us from Bin Laden’s theater of operations. Our “eye” is on Iraq and not on the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
The real reasons that the Bush Administration chose to go into Iraq have been much debated. Their own stated reasoning has been extremely malleable: beginning with the now debunked WMD and Al Qaeda connections, the reasoning has morphed into bringing democracy and “fighting them there”. It is impossible to know whether they believe what they are saying, or whether it is mere public relations.
Perhaps the evidence that the Administration believes what they are saying is that they also seem to believe Bin Laden’s pronouncements about Iraq being Al Qaeda’s central front, rather than realizing that Bin Laden’s strategy and statements may also change with the situation.
But it doesn’t matter what the Administration believes, at least from Bin Laden’s point of view. Not only does the US have insufficient forces to pursue him directly, but our perceived incompetence and weakness has forced Musharraf to make a tenuous deal with the Taliban. It is safe to assume that Bin Laden is simply ecstatic about our venture in Iraq. We have played into his hands. And who knows which Mount Doom he has chosen for his next target?
posted by balto at 4:56 PM
1 Comments:
That's a great point -- that not only is Iraq a diversion because it is using up our military resources, but because Iraq is also using so much money we can't protect the homeland properly. That's just like the other part of the equation for Al Qaeda. We lack the resources to find Al Qaeda leadership, and we also lack the resources to protect us from an attack.
Post a Comment
<< Home