There is an idea floating around the blogosphere that I have ignored until now because I thought that it was restricted to left-wing nutcases.
Unfortunately it seems to have captured Kevin Drum so I suspect it has gone mainstream:
“And Osama bin Laden got exactly what he wanted too: a Western occupying force in the heart of the Arab world to act as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda. The neocons played their assigned role in this drama to perfection.”
Everywhere I turn I seem to see the idea that Al Qaeda wanted the US occupying an Arab country taken seriously.
It is an uncommonly silly idea.
This is the Western/Che concept of terrorism to provoke overreach. It has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Bin Laden has said time and time again that America’s big crime is in its intervention in the Middle East. His beef with the West is that our presence tempts Allah’s followers into sin. He hates that Western troops protected Saudi Arabia from Saddam. He thinks that the Jews ought to be expelled from Israel as part of an effort to reclaim all lands ever held by Islamic power. His whole plan is about getting the West OUT of the Middle East. Look at his recent offer to Europe. He will agree to stop bombing them if they agree to get OUT of the Middle East. Bombing the WTC wasn’t about tricking the US into Afghanistan. He believed that we were so weak that we would not attack him in retaliation.
Everywhere I turn I seem to see the idea that Al Qaeda wanted the US occupying an Arab country taken seriously.
To the point, Sebastian: While I mistrust (as I’ve said to you before) any public statements made by al-Qaeda about their strategy, the one thing that Osama bin Laden has consistently said he wants is the non-Muslim military out of Saudi Arabia. The other thing he has been fairly consistent about, long-term, is his loathing for the secular government in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
You can justify the invasion of Iraq plausibly in half-a-dozen different directions – I’ve seen it done, and some of them I half agree with if there were a competent Commander in Chief and a competent Secretary of Defense in charge. (Shame there isn’t. Roll on November.) Some of these justifications are looking shopsoiled, and some of them were plausible once but have long since been proven unlikely or untrue.
The one justification which has never looked plausible is the claim that invading Iraq had anything to do with the war on terrorism. It did not. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was what Osama bin Laden wanted after 9/11, it has certainly proved strategically good for him and for al-Qaeda, and deeply damaging for the US. And while I’m doubtful (as I am of all conspiracy theories) that this is what Osama bin Laden planned, it is certainly the kind of thing Osama bin Laden wants.
Jesurgislac:
The one justification which has never looked plausible is the claim that invading Iraq had anything to do with the war on terrorism. It did not.
I believe you’re overreaching here but I presume you’re arguing that resources in the WoT could have been better applied. If, indeed, you’re arguing that there was no relationship whatsoever between Iraq and terrorism, that’s simply hooey. For a start see Dan Darling’s comments on WoC here and here. For your argument to stand you must not merely deny Dan’s claims but refute them.
Now I believe a reasonable argument can be made that Iraq’s involvement with terrorism did not rise to the level required for the attention it’s received. However, that argument changes the burden of proof to you. What is an acceptable level of support for terrorism? Definitions, please. Don’t just say you know it when you see it. That’s an advocacy position for a zero tolerance policy.
BTW don’t look to me to support GWB. I didn’t vote for him. And don’t expect me to defend the war in Iraq—I’m a skeptic. But I know a poor argument when I see one.
I’m a VRWC supporter of the war. But I find some validity in that idea.
Maybe OBL did want to provoke a wider war. It still may have been to best/correct option.
I’ll make my chess analogy. When your opponent checks your king, and the only option is to put the rook in the way, and he then captures the rook, moving the rook in the way was still the best move.
If, indeed, you’re arguing that there was no relationship whatsoever between Iraq and terrorism, that’s simply hooey.
I am arguing that there was no relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda: nor was there any link whatsoever between Iraq and the September 11 attack.
Claims that there was such a relationship have repeatedly been made by pro-war supporters, but the “facts” on which they rest their claims are invariably – to use your expression – hooey.
I’ll make my chess analogy. When your opponent checks your king, and the only option is to put the rook in the way, and he then captures the rook, moving the rook in the way was still the best move.
Doesn’t work, though. To use the chess analogy, Bush’s invasion of Iraq was as if your opponent had put your king in check with a queen, a bishop, and rook. You can escape from check and still win the game by using your queen to take your opponent’s queen, forcing your opponent to take your queen, and then putting your opponent’s king in check with your knight.
Instead (Bush’s solution) you use your rook to take your opponent’s knight, because you’ve always hated the knights and you like getting your opponent’s knights off the board as fast as possible.
Dumb way to play chess.
Deadly way to “fight” a war.
I’ve felt for a long time that Osama wanted, as declared, a war of cultures East and West. Judeo Christain vs. Islamic.
Instead of understanding the dynamic, the Bush administration gave him exactly what he wanted and, in turn, that proved to be an effective recruiting tool.
It should have been civilized countries vs. terrorists. Instead it became a unilateral ‘crusade’ which provoked even moderate Middle Easterners and international Islamics to rethink what Osama was saying because his views concerning the US were appearing to be correct.
Free Advice Monday: Don’t start a war of choice until you’re sure you can win it (and by win, I mean totally, strategically, thematically, ideologically).
Of all the convoluted justifications out there (and it’s difficult not to find one you can almost stomach in the grab bag being offered), not one is even remotely convincing with regards to the timing. The total s&*t for post-combat planning reveals clearly we rushed into this.
Regarding Osama…I’m stunned that the nation hasn’t responded more angrily to the fact we don’t have him yet. Right after 9/11 there were conspiracy murmors that we were better off not picking him up (his captivity potentially spurring rescue attempts or retaliation attacks) and of course there’s the long-held belief he’ll be “produced” with Rovian timing and flair…
I remember dreaming the night of 9/12 that I had some vicious winged demon creature I controlled that I sent into Afghanistan to pick up bin Laden…it simply walked into OBL’s camp and picked him up, its talons pierced OBL’s shoulders and the lifted him (all the AQ bullets bounced right off), the beast then purposedly dragged him through tree tops and dunked him in turbulent ocean waves and then finally dropped him, barely breathing, in the Rose Garden.
I wanted that monster to pay more than any human has ever paid for what he had done and I wanted to piss on his grave.
There was a time when Bush convinced me that he too wanted bin Laden to pay. “Dead or Alive”: remember that?
I know, it’s been suggested he may already be dead, but the only way I can interpret the WH’s seeming lack of interest in catching him/finding his corpse is either they can’t find him and don’t want to look ineffective or they know his fate and need to keep it secret for longer-term goals…I do want someone to smack that smirk right off Bush’s face when he quips “How do you know he’s not dead already?” This may all be fun and games to him, but some of us are still waiting to celebrate the news that bin Laden’s in hell.
Jesurgislac:
Denial is not refutation.
Denial is not refutation.
Nothing you have posted has convinced me that I should waste my time refuting a blatant falsehood. FWIW, I wouldn’t bother refuting the moon-landing-is-faked meme, either, no matter how many websites you linked to that claimed to “prove” it was.
Dave Shuler,
Jesurgislac hardly needs any help for me, I’m not sure why you think the burden of proof should be on those who don’t think we should begin a war of choice, rather than those who do, and there’s a certain futility in any of us debating the extent of Saddam’s connections to terror, but all of that said, how about this as a test– to the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge, Saddam had not engaged in any terrorist attacks against the U.S. since his assassination attempt on GHWB.
Therefore, it made little sense to invade his country to fight “the war on terror,” particularly since we had not even finished what we started in Afghanistan– a place which was a source of terror attacks on the U.S.
Sebastian:
Classical revolutionary terrorism theory in the West says that the goal is to trigger a crackdown, so as to stir the populace to widespread revolt. That has its roots in the dialectics of International Socialism.
Your point that Al Quaeda is not western, and so may not follow the same strategy is well-taken: but what do you see as their route to their goal?
“Your point that Al Quaeda is not western, and so may not follow the same strategy is well-taken: but what do you see as their route to their goal?”
If you look at bin Laden’s speeches to his own people you see that taking war to the infidels is supposed to prove to Allah that they are pure. And once you get Allah on your side, you win.
But people on this board aren’t likely to take religion seriously enough to realize that could very well be a completely adequate sounding strategy to his followers.
If you look at bin Laden’s speeches to his own people you see that taking war to the infidels is supposed to prove to Allah that they are pure. And once you get Allah on your side, you win.
OK, that’s possible, but doesn’t that rather contradict this: He believed that we were so weak that we would not attack him in retaliation ? After all, if he has Allah on his side, then it doesn’t matter whether America is weak or strong.
Doh:
Jesurgislac hardly needs any help for me, I’m not sure why you think the burden of proof should be on those who don’t think we should begin a war of choice, rather than those who do, and there’s a certain futility in any of us debating the extent of Saddam’s connections to terror, but all of that said, how about this as a test– to the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge, Saddam had not engaged in any terrorist attacks against the U.S. since his assassination attempt on GHWB.
Jesurgislac is changing is argument.
Here’s what he first said:
The one justification which has never looked plausible is the claim that invading Iraq had anything to do with the war on terrorism. It did not
He then revised his argument:
I am arguing that there was no relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda: nor was there any link whatsoever between Iraq and the September 11 attack.
The reasonable inference from this revision is that Jesurgislac believes the War on Terror is solely on al Qaeda. This is incorrect as a statement of fact. Remember GWB’s speech before Congress on September 20, 2001:
“Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”
It could be reasonable to deny that this is a valid objective but it’s simply incorrect to claim that defeating al al Qaeda is the sole objective of the War on Terror.
And my comment about burden of proof referred solely to the conjecture that Jesurgislac believed that the level of Iraq’s involvement with terrorism did not rise to level of requiring war which I acknowledged was a feasible argument. But it’s an argument that’s sufficiently affirmative that the burden of proof falls to the proponent.
But apparently Jesurgislac believes that Iraq had no involvement with terrorism whatsoever. In the face of the obvious controverting facts that must be considered a religious belief on Jesurgilac’s part—not subject to rational refutation.
Blog Rolling
*** Jane Galt finds a pretentious academic twit… Sigh. the anthropologist wears blinders That’s an interesting question: should a public intellectual have the right to be a right-winger? Actually, I don’t even know how to respond to that. By definiti…
Everywhere I turn I seem to see the idea that Al Qaeda wanted the US occupying an Arab country taken seriously.
It is an uncommonly silly idea.
Are you referring to Iraq or Afghanistan?
No one is saying that Al Qaeda’s purpose was to get the U.S. to occupy Iraq. Rather, the point is that invading Iraq was an extremely bad way to fight Al Qaeda, and probably was a great propaganda victory for Al Qaeda.
But as to occupying Afghanistan, they may well have been hoping for it. The defeat of the USSR was a critical point in the Islamic jihad history. In Al Qaeda’s view, they defeated one superpower in Afghanistan and could do it again. (Heck, they probably thought defeating a superpower from the other side of the world would be easier than beating the USSR.)
You think OBL thought we would not retaliate for flying planes in the WTC? Baloney. The guy is evil and crazy but not stupid. Just before 9/11, Al Qaeda assassinated the leader of the Nothern Alliance. They knew we would retaliate and probably welcomed the fight.
I think the entire topic of “What Osama Wants” should be put up for a Carnak award.
If Osama wants us out of Saudi Arabia, he really ought to take it up with the House of Saud. Because we’re there with the permission (and at times, at the behest of, IIRC) the Saudi government. I have no doubt that we’d leave in a hearbeat if they decided they didn’t want us there anymore.
So, if that’s what Osama really wants, I’d think that attacking any random structure in Riyadh would have made a lot more sense. If you’ve got an expectation of rationality, that is. If you don’t, projecting what he wants (even using what he says he wants) is probably an exercise in futility.
“OK, that’s possible, but doesn’t that rather contradict this: He believed that we were so weak that we would not attack him in retaliation ? After all, if he has Allah on his side, then it doesn’t matter whether America is weak or strong.”
This is not a contradiction because we are using ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ in two different contexts. America is physically strong. Bin Laden knows and admits this. That is why he needs to prove the moral worth of his people to get Allah on his side.
According to bin Laden, the U.S. is morally bankrupt. It has the physical might to take action but it does not have the moral will. He believed Afghanistan would not be seriously attacked because we would not have the will to do so, not because we failed to have the capability to do so. He sees the lessons of Carter and the hostages, Reagan and Lebanon, Bush I failing to destroy Saddam, and Clinton throwing around a couple of cruise missiles from time to time as proof that America was too afraid to take real action.
From the viewpoint of bin Laden it makes perfect sense. He is a person who is ruthless in his willingness to use any capability in his possession. For America to have all of these capabilites and not use them would clearly indicate (to him) that there was a lack of moral will.
So the contradiction is resolved by realizing that weak in spirit and weak in might are two different things.
As for taking it up with Saudi Arabia, bin Laden is a conspiracy theorist. He is sure that the true power behind almost all evil is the U.S. Why talk to Saudi Arabia?
Now you’re moving toward the irrationality argument. Conspiracy theories aren’t rational. The House of Saud has, to anyone unfriendly to the US, become an accomplice (at the least) to the US presence in Saudi holy cities. I’m thinking violent overthrow of the Saudi government would be certainly preferable to an ass-kicking at the hands of non-Arabs. But I’m drifting into Karnak territory again.
Dave Shuler,
I think you may be the one who is switching arguments now. The issue of whether there was any connection at all between terrorism and Iraq is something of a strawman that you created out of Jes’ comment– even as you admitted it probably wasn’t what he meant.
And are you saying that just because the statement “Iraq’s involvement in terrorism did not rise to the level of justifying war” is in the “affirmative” then the burden of proof is on the statement’s proponent? That seems fairly silly, not least because the argument isn’t really in the affirmative– the statement should read “Iraq’s involvement in terrorism rises to the level of justifying war,” but that of course would shift the burden of proof back to proponents of the war.
Finally, you asked “What is an acceptable level of support for terrorism?” I suggested that where no attacks were made against the US in approx. 10 (?) years, that “level of support” is “acceptable” in the limited sense of not justifying an invasion. Do you disagree on my “definition,” my factual premise, or neither?
I don’t particularly believe bin Laden wanted us to invade Iraq–I don’t, unlike either Sebastian or some people on the left, claim to understand what bin Laden believes or wants beyond what he’s made obvious. So the main thing I know is: he wants me, or my family, and/or several million others of my kind, dead. In the shorter run, he wants the means to do this–the money and the weapons and the recruits.
I guessed before the Iraq war that it would make this outcome more likely, and am now pretty sure I was right. Whether bin Laden thought that before the war, or thinks so now, is unknowable and irrelevant.
The US/Osama relationship is as kind of a host/parasite thing. He needs us being seen doing bad things to Muslims in order to thrive. As such, it may not have been part of his grand master plan that we invade Iraq per se, but he sure can figure out how to benefit from it and keep us from succeeding there.
“but he sure can figure out how to benefit from it and keep us from succeeding there.”
I’ll almost agree. He sure can figure how how to benefit from it if he keeps us from succeeding there.
Sebastian:
You are playing a game here that misses the mark. I seriously doubt that Drum or any of the many others who repeat the “what Osama wanted” line regarding Iraq are literally arguing what Osama’s intentions were. Instead, the point is that the Iraq debacle becomes the Al-Queda recruitment poster for the next decade. Since it boosts Al-Queda membership, it must be something Osama “wanted.”
I think you are literally correct — Osama does not think along the lines of “I hope Bush invades Iraq because it will boost membership.” But no one who uses this phrase means it in that literal sense either.
And the lefties are basically correct — the Iraq mess has worsened our security and hurt our efforts in the war against Al-Queda sponsored terrorism — whether or not that is literally how Osama wanted events to play out.
Oh, jeebus. I can imagine anything at all used for an Al-Qaeda recruiting poster, including our failure to react assertively to terrorist attacks.
Let’s not confuse propaganda with tactics. Tactics deals with reality; propaganda only accents portions of reality. Are you thinking we ought to tailor our tactics in an attempt to minimize AQ recruiting potential?
“Are you thinking we ought to tailor our tactics in an attempt to minimize AQ recruiting potential?”
If part of those tactics result in the destruction of the Islamist terrorism, sure. If the tactics result in Islamist terrorism going mostly unchecked, no. Which is why I am not a French diplomat.
Actually, I meant without eliminating the recruiting body altogether, which is where dmbeaster is apparently wanting to go.
Are you thinking we ought to tailor our tactics in an attempt to minimize AQ recruiting potential?
Wasn’t that the rationale behind calling the Spanish “appeasers”?
Dave Schuler: “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”
Except that this claim was patently false: Bush did not shut down the “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation” (formerly known as “The School of the Americas”) which was and is a terrorist group of global reach that was well within his power to stop.
Next point: Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator (as many people in Bush’s administration know first-hand from their support of him in the 1980s). But the Ba’athist government of Iraq is not, and never was, “a terrorist group of global reach”.
For the rest, I think your arguments have been sufficiently exploded by others.
Wasn’t that the rationale behind calling the Spanish “appeasers”?
I must have missed it when Colin Powell made that accusation.
I must have missed it when Colin Powell made that accusation.
I must have missed it when Colin Powell appeared in this discussion.
Joseph Stalin was an evil dictator (as many people in Roosevelt’s administration know first-hand from their support of him in the 1940s). But the Soviet government of Russia is not, and never was, “a terrorist group of global reach”.
My instincts are correct — it doesn’t sound any less dumb that way. Unless M. du Lac is now prepared to argue — in the interests of parallelism — that because we once supported Stalin, we were wrong to ever defy him; and that the Soviets, despite not being a “terrorist group of global reach”, were not nevertheless destabilizing.
Yeah, yeah, yeah — terrorism-is-not-the-Cold-War-contained-sanctions-inspectors-blah-blah-blah-cakes. I just wonder if you’ll ever post something that couldn’t have been as easily produced by a random-paragraph generator fed the collected writings of Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky.
I must have missed it when Colin Powell appeared in this discussion.
I’m sorry. We were talking about foreign policy, and all of a sudden someone was calling Spain appeasers. My first thought was you were referring to Powell, but maybe there’s someone else that speaks to foreign policy that’s calling names, that you can point to?
We were talking about foreign policy…
Really? I thought you were still talking about “What Osama Wants” (or, more generally, what Al Qaeda wants); my bad.
My first thought was you were referring to Powell, but maybe there’s someone else that speaks to foreign policy that’s calling names, that you can point to?
I wasn’t referring to anyone in the administration, if that’s what you mean. What’s more, I think you and I essentially agree on this point, as I argued at some length here. All I meant was that the same logic that led people to call the Spanish “appeasers” should lead them to call this response “appeasement” as well.
Really? I thought you were still talking about “What Osama Wants” (or, more generally, what Al Qaeda wants); my bad.
Which makes it completely mystifying why you said:
Wasn’t that the rationale behind calling the Spanish “appeasers”?
to begin with. My comments on that had to do with who was doing the name-calling (which, as far as I know, is NOT the U.S. government) and how that relates to tailoring our tactics to what might affect AQ recruiting.
Now, if you took my (admittedly unclear) references of “we” and “our” to mean the commentors at Obsidian Wings, your comments might have made some sense. But I’m pretty sure any plans we might have made here at OW don’t have much of a chance of getting executed. Nor should they.