Al-Qaida wanted: 1. United Arab opposition to the US 2. US forces out of Saudi Arabia 3. Saddam Hussein deposed from power 4. Religious regime in Iraq 5. Split between the US and Europe And the US wanted: 1. Saddam Hussein out of power 2. Iraqi oil (?) 3. Friendly government in Iraq 4. Friendly government in Iran, Syria, Saudi.... 5. The end of terrorism 6. Destruction of Iraq's WMD (I do laugh about this one - I suspect the US knew Iraq was never a threat to anyone except Iraqis) So where are we now? I've got to say al-Qaida are doing pretty well since 9-11. Bin Laden still at large, more anger than ever aimed at the US, US forces out of Saudi, a shot at an anti-US government in Iraq, but one that ain't run by Saddam. US is doing okay - at least Saddam's gone even if they can't find him. Chance at a US friendly government in Iraq, but to get that they'll need to do it un-democratically I'm afraid. Iraqi oil? I actually think the French and Russians are still in strong positions. The US cannot sell a drop of Iraqi crude without French or Russian say so in the UN. Can't be too quick to judge but my belief that the whole thing is detrimental to the West still stands as strongly as ever. There is much more trouble ahead. One thing I've got to say though is that this terrorism threat has never really bothered me, and doesn't greatly at this moment. Look at US government stats. There is a trend indeed - terrorism has declined through the 1990s. That could now start to change. A proviso on the whole issue though. I recall a question once being asked (unfortunately the names escape me) in the 20th century: 'What were the consequences of the French Revolution?' The response: 'It's far too early to say' the ripples of history extned many years - just ask the Palestinians and the Jews. Lets not rush to judgement.
Inefficiency It pains me to be so inefficient as to resort to mere cheerleading, but that's one hell of a post, and one that I would estimate our little community very much needed. Good show. Thanx much. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
a factual corrective... http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/121/nation/Worldwide_terrorism_down_in_2002_US_says .shtml
I'd like to see real statistics on terrorism. What is included and what is excluded from these numbers?
Well, there is something of a breakdown in the article, but yes it doesn't give much of the criteria used. Here's an article on this story that puts the figure as a "30-year low," so that would cover decades prior to 9/11. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/americas/view/38739/1/.html
Kind of like how the US cannot attack another country without French or Russian say-so? They’ve been reduced to knob-sucking status. I think the US will soon be filling the tankers and the flow of money will be classified.
How so? Perhaps I should have used "which" instead of "that"? (That's something I'm going to need a bloody copy editor for in the long run. I'm less consistent on that point than the difference between "who" and "whom".) In what way does the sentence not make sense? Sure, I can see someone contesting the basic assertion, but other than that ... give me a hint .... :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nice summary. I'd say the most relevant points are for Al queda: 4. Religious regime in Iraq and the US: 3. Friendly government in Iraq 4. Friendly government in Iran, Syria, Saudi.... Its too early to tell what that portion of the mideast will become, but we should know something in 5 or 10 years. Any predictions? I personally do not think it looks good for U.S. interests. But true democracy can be a bitter pill to swallow, eh?
A couple of points to add to this: Taissa Thanks for your comments, I'm more than happy to have a little cheerleading! AlanH Regarding your comments on terrorism and its relative decline/increase. I apologise for not providing a link to back up my claim. Somewhat sloppy of me. The latest US State Department report here illustrates what I'm trying to say. Look at the trend since 1987, it is one which is downwards. September 11 was a 'spectacular' success, if one can call it such, that obviously had a huge psychological impact. Yet overall we should not lose sight of the bigger trend. This is perhaps something which has been lost in the public clamour since 2001. I would argue the threat has been significantly overplayed. I would rather have a small, relatively inactive group out there that chances its hand at the big one then lots of little individual attacks. Easier to negate the risk. But if that's the risk, the US response has been completely over the top and not in keeping with the nature of the threat. Zanket It's a little different this time round. I know that no one out there can stop the US and, as your post indicates, few in the US appear to the outside world to have little regard anymore for international law, but the situation is different. Unless the UN recognises a legitimate government in Iraq, there is no legal entity to sell Iraqi oil. If the US imposed a government that the UN was not happy with, any oil company buying Iraqi crude would be subject to substantial fines from the International Court and the US would be in breech of the Genva Convention. While the US may happily now ignore such outdated concepts as international law, the UN or the Geneva Convention, I can categorically tell you that no oil company would be safe from prosecution and heavy fiscal penalties. There will be no buyer without UN consent. What do you suppose the price placed on that consent by Russia, China and France is? Lets be clear on this, the US has not thought through the consequences. This is just one of many mistakes made.
Canada: I don't know if we can do a risk assessment based on the cold stats of how many attacks and size of attacks, without considering the psychological impact of these attacks, and their political consequences. I think we also have to take into account the possibility of more attacks, as we witness what goes on in the Muslim world. The politics of "jihad" should play in at least as much as following trends evidenced just by numbers.
alanH: Surely the statistics are one of the key indicators of the threat. Admittedly, the stats do not make mention of thwarted or attempted attacks, but it does offer some base line from which we can judge and assess trends. The stats suggest to me that the incidents of terrorism have been in steady decline since the late 1980s. The anomoly is al-Qaida. Yet their attacks have been rather infrequent, if devastating. The solution to my mind would be not to remove freedoms and impose some creeping form of the big briother state, but to focus the attack on the clear problem - al-Qaida. Do this militarily and with a political effort aimed at denying the group a willing and steady flow of supporters. The threat is specific and limited. Terrorism is not the threat, al-Qaida is. That's what the statistics tell me. And al-Qaida will of course ultimately lose, that's what the stats tell me, because terrorism is in the end ineffective. That's why it has declined since the 1980s. But the response can accelerate or prolong the end of al-Qaida. You say the psychological impact of the attack is important. This is true. But does it then make sense to exaggerate the scale of the threat? What purpose does this serve? Beyond, perhaps, somewhat skewed political beliefs prevalent in the current White House. And should we act on psychological eeffects if the facts do not back them? Do we pander to madness in mental homes or attempt to treat it?
Well, I think we need to separate the apples from the oranges. Al Quaeda is a terrorist entity; "terrorism" is a means, not the enemy itself. I think that we've actually done pretty well in thwarting al Quaeda, and in drying up much of their funding and making it clear to those harboring them that it will not be tolerated. I think too that the level of fear over terrorism is subsiding some. It's not so much a case of treating the unreasonable fear as watching it reasonably decline as the months go by without another major attack.
Oh I quite agree. But I'm not sure Bush and his 'war on terrorism' is fully aware of that distinction. So is Bush fighting the wrong thing, as you suggest?
Cap: no, I think the "war on terrorism" was so named for two reasons. One is that the term "terrorism" is how most people consider what we are fighting. The second is that it would have been too impolitic to call it the "war on radical Islam."
