A Comprehensive Overview of the War Ahead
For those with time to read (or re-read, possibly), I've collected articles and posts (some link to articles) from some of the theorists, wonks, first-hand reporters, and even a darn good conspiracy theorist that cover the spectrum of possbilities and likelihoods for our war. Some, I dug up on my own. It's fairly comprehensive, so if you've got a couple hours, check it out.
If you read the 2 or 3 threads much of this is drawn from, you probably have seen 90% of this already. Thanks to all of you who provided this stuff.
******************************
Was it Bin Laden? And if he's eliminated, won't the other terrorists fill the void and continue the aggression?
stratfor.com
But let's have a deeper look at Bin Laden. Does he even believe in killing innocents?
In an ABC interview:
John Miller: Mr. Bin Ladin, you have issued a fatwa calling on all Muslims to kill Americans where they can, when they can. Is that directed at all Americans, just American military, just Americans in Saudi Arabia?
Osama Bin Ladin: As we mentioned before, Allah ordered us in this religion to purify Muslim land of all non-believers, and especially the Arabian Peninsula where the Ke’ba is. After WWII, the Americans became more aggressive and oppressive, especially in the Muslim world.
We are surprised this question is coming from Americans. Each action will solicit a similar reaction. We must use such punishment to keep your evil away from Muslims, Muslim children and women. American history does not distinguish between civilians and military, and not even women and children. They are the ones who used the bombs against Nagasaki. Can these bombs distinguish between infants and military? America does not have a religion that will prevent it from destroying all people.
Your situation with Muslims in Palestine is shameful, if there is any shame left in America. In the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, a cooperation between Zionist and Christian forces, houses were demolished over the heads of children. Also, by testimony of relief workers in Iraq, the American led sanctions resulted in the death of over 1 million Iraqi children.
All of this was done in the name of American interests. We believe that the biggest thieves in the world and the terrorists are the Americans. The only way for us to fend off these assaults is to use similar means.
We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are all targets in this fatwa. Especially since American officials were released after the Khobar bombing, asking all American civilians to contact the security department in the embassy with information on Muslims and activists. The fatwa includes all that share or take part in killing of Muslims, assaulting holy places, or those who help the Jews occupy Muslim land.<<
but he says later in the interview:
>>Our religion forbids us to kill innocents—children, women who are not combatants. Women soldiers who place themselves in the battle trenches receive the same treatment as fighting men.<<
So either people of his religion did not attack the US on September 11, or..... he's a liar.
This site provides a wealth of info about him:
pbs.org
Frontline- Bin Laden
***************************************
Some have made the case that Iraq is involved. Despite these tantalizing mysteries, I suspect Saddam's heavy-handed ways might restrict his role to that of financier or arms provider:http://www.thenewrepublic.com/092401/woolsey092401.html The mysterious case that fingers Iraq? Ramzi Yousef fas.org
If nothing else, Bin Laden has been a very successful organizer, bringing together splinter groups into a coalition that threatens the world:
foxnews.com
The risk to America from 'sleepers'
Message 16370114
Now let's get updated on Iran's surprise support:
Message 16369450
As it's shaping up, Pakistan is likely to provide intelligence and logistical support. It comes with a price and a risk:
Message 16369474
And I'm betting Uzbekistan will provide airspace and a home base. Uzbekistan has good reason to help; the Islamic extremists tried to assassinate their President Karimov, and the mastermind of the attempt fled to the Afghani Taliban afterward.
The Taliban is among the very few that will kill other Muslims; this is forbidden to most believers. They are viciously opposed to the Shi'ites, which explains why Iran is a big time opponent. In fact, the Taliban are not well-liked by most of the mainstream Islamic world... their appeal comes from the claim that they not only defeated the superpower USSR but caused the USSR collapse, which is, at best, partly true.
Likely, they believe they can do the same to the US, if they can lure them into a similar mountain war. When Bush said we'd go after states sponsoring terrorists, it's likely he meant the Afghani Taliban, first and foremost. Even if they handed over Bin Laden, he probably intends to take them down too, and well he should.
The most heartening thing I've discovered is that the US may be able to accomplish it with surprising haste. Pakistani support is critical and its extremists could put a kink in the plan if the Pakistani leadership does not remain vigilant against the threat from within.
The Taliban is supported via a Mafia-like web of opium growers and black-marketeer smugglers. Quite a nice bunch of holy men, no?
foreignaffairs.org
In addition to those funds, there's fresh speculation that Bin Laden also manipulated the stock market just before the attack:
quote.bloomberg.com
I suspect the financiers of the suicide squad may have done so, not Bin Laden.... but who knows?
On a more positive note, our technology held up as the trading infrastructure handled the extraordinarily high volume of trading.
Message 16368331
But the trading was pretty ugly despite the Fed cutting 1/2 pt and the European Central Bank following suit: >> Volume was heavy with 1.96 billion shares traded on the Big Board and 2.08 billion shares changing hands on the Nasdaq. Breadth was deeply negative with losers far outpacing winners on both exchanges - 2,820 to 459 on the NYSE and 3,173 to 804 on the Nasdaq. <<
Now let's address the critics of past US policies. Even among more moderate Muslims, the cry is heard over and over that it's all about our support for the Zionists in Israel who threaten and kill Muslims. I suspect that's because the Israeli's have proven damn good at defending themselves, winning every war that different Islamic countries launched against the Jews... and we provide a lot of financial and materiel support. To an extent, however, the anti-US rant is propaganda driven by various folks for various reasons.
Let's consider some historical facts:
>>In the early days of the foundation of Israel, while the United States maintained a certain distance, the Soviet Union granted immediate de jure recognition and support, and arms sent from a Soviet satellite, Czechoslovakia, saved the infant state of Israel from defeat and death in its first weeks of life. Yet there seems to have been no great ill will toward the Soviets for these policies, and no corresponding good will toward the United States. In 1956 it was the United States that intervened, forcefully and decisively, to secure the withdrawal of Israeli, British, and French forces from Egypt -- yet in the late fifties and sixties it was to the Soviets, not America, that the rulers of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and other states turned for arms; it was with the Soviet bloc that they formed bonds of solidarity at the United Nations and in the world generally. More recently, the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran have offered the most principled and uncompromising denunciation of Israel and Zionism. Yet even these leaders, before as well as after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, when they decided for reasons of their own to enter into a dialogue of sorts, found it easier to talk to Jerusalem than to Washington. At the same time, Western hostages in Lebanon, many of them devoted to Arab causes and some of them converts to Islam, are seen and treated by their captors as limbs of the Great Satan.<<
theatlantic.com
And how can they believe we are so anti-Muslim, committed to their destruction? In recent years, we've pressured Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians and brokered deals that have won ground for the Palestinians, which has allowed them to set up a government and civil authority structure.
Led by the US, NATO sent its troops to Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia, where they fought on the side of the Muslims against the Christians, and we also aided the Muslim resistance in its battle to maintain independence from Russia's control over Chechnya. Where's the rationale to support that anti-Muslim claim?
I think it's time we get more vocal about all we've done in support of Islamic peoples, which also includes liberating Kuwait.
Which begs the question whether there's more that irks Muslims. For Bin Laden there's a real motive: oil
Message 16363685
which he admits in his Declaration of War
vitrade.com
>>5Destruction of the oil industries. The presence of the USA Crusader military forces on land, sea and air of the states of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest danger threatening the largest oil reserve in the world. The existence of these forces in the area will provoke the people of the country and induces aggression on their religion, feelings and prides and push them to take up armed struggle against the invaders occupying the land; therefore spread of the fighting in the region will expose the oil wealth to the danger of being burned up. The economical interest of the States of the Gulf and the land of the two Holy Places will be damaged and even a greater damage will be caused to the economy of the world. I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for the soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and Grace. We also warn the aggressors, the USA, against burning this Islamic wealth (a crime which they may commit in order to prevent it, at the end of the war, from falling in the hands of its' legitimate owners and to cause economical damages to the competitors of the USA in Europe or the Far East, particularly Japan which is the major consumer of the oil of the region).<<
I found this amusing, because his sacred texts indicate part of jihad is putting the jihad above material wealth and needs. His hypocrisy is showing.
************************************************
For most of the rest, I'll turn to some SI experts. The first, Iqbal, is, I think, a Pakistani who has travelled throughout the Middle East and has seen much firsthand. Here's some of his takes on events past, and to come:
Message 16369443
Pakistan readies to get Bin Laden
Message 16368460
Predicts the US/Pakistan alliance will return Afghanistan to the people, explains why Saudis, Kuwaitis, United Arab Emirates, Iran and Turkey are major players on our side. And he predicts Bush will get Saudi Arabia & Kuwait to add oil and bring oil prices down, to help spare the economy from tumbling completely.
Message 16368540
And the Saudi minister is meeting with Bush this week
Message 16369535
Tekboy's a self-described foreign policy wonk. This piece he posted is a good overview of the strategy options, though I think the author is overlooking a few critical points: Message 16370673
And then there's George. His editorial asides may make you laugh, cringe or anger you, but his insistence that behind every alliance is some serious horsetrading is probably true. Two rationales he reminds us of often: Kashmir and oil. George is crazy, no doubt, but the more I learn, the less nuts he sounds (I recommend not letting him come close to your laundry):
Message 16370689
If you go back to the previous stuff about Pakistan, you'll see that Kashmir is stating to be mentioned by analysts. George's oil theory may take awhile before the proof comes in. First, there's a war to win.
Based on this, it seems clear that Bin Laden and the Taliban must be brought to justice. At least 3 or 4 of the other better organized terrorist organizations should also be crippled.
We've been getting these warnings from some of the worst criminals our world has to contend with. Most of them state something like this:
"Do not attack innocent citizens or make the error of lumping all Muslims together or you will ignite a holy war that will defeat you."
In response, I'd say:
We won't make that error. How could we possibly mistake many communities and nations of devout religious practitioners with gangs of sociopathic murderers and sewer rats? |
