Al Qaeda's Strategic Failure
Is I have noted previously on this Blog, the Bush Administration chose to fight the war on terror on a battlefield of our choosing. The battlefield chose was Iraq. Iraq is an ideal battlefield because 1) it has good terrain for the modern army (desert and urban); 2) it has a population with resources that could take over the fight; 3) we had reliable indiginous allies (the Kurds). Iraq is a place that America could not only win tactically, but win strategically by totally crushing Al Qaeda as a movement.
The mistake Al Qaeda made was goving battle in Iraq. It would have been much easier for Al Qaeda to continue spending their resources bombing malls, bridges, and pizza parlors. Instead they went into Iraq and are losing miserably. As of yet there is no single operational victory for the terrorists in Iraq. If Al Qaeda loses in Iraq and abandonds its operations there, it will never recover. It will lose its effectiveness and recruiting power. Countries following group think, will throw their lots in with the U.S. Al Qaeda will cease to be a movement in Islam in only a few years.
UPDATE: Austin Bay writes on the same subject here.
The mistake Al Qaeda made was goving battle in Iraq. It would have been much easier for Al Qaeda to continue spending their resources bombing malls, bridges, and pizza parlors. Instead they went into Iraq and are losing miserably. As of yet there is no single operational victory for the terrorists in Iraq. If Al Qaeda loses in Iraq and abandonds its operations there, it will never recover. It will lose its effectiveness and recruiting power. Countries following group think, will throw their lots in with the U.S. Al Qaeda will cease to be a movement in Islam in only a few years.
UPDATE: Austin Bay writes on the same subject here.
posted by Sloanasaurus | 10/11/2005 11:35:00 PM
Everyone seems to overlook one of the very good things about the battle in Iraq: We are killing thousands of committed jihadists from all over the Muslim world. These are men who have been convinced to travel from their home country with the expressed intent of killing Americans and our soldiers are sending them to Allah. I understand that not all of them could easily get to the US or Europe and try to fight us there, but surely some would have.
The only counterargument I can think of regarding why this killing of jihadists is anything but good is that somehow by killing one, you are creating more than one. But this seems pretty farfetched. That is, 16 year old Ali wasn't going to become a jihadist until he sees that the awful Americans killed his brother WHO WAS TRYING TO KILL THEM. Seems more likely Ali will see that trying to kill Americans doesn't accomplish much.
Yes, I think the argument you refer to is the Arab Street argument. The Arab street rising up and filling the ranks of Al Qaeda was part of Osama's plan. Unfortunately, the Arab Street failed to rise up, and it is pretty obvious that the Arab street isn't going to rise up. The successful Iraq elections put an end to any hope for the Arab street.
The other part of the argument, which I assume you reject, is the appeasment argument. The idea that we will create more terrorists by attacking them.
Appeasment never works.
Post a Comment