Americans have a penchant for the simplistic. They see complex foreign interactions as an us vs them battle. Sport metaphors abound. O.K., let's see whose winning. To understand what religious fanatics like OBL want is not very difficult. They want us to go away. They don't want our presence (bases, puppet governments, etc), or even our culture.
So now that we know that OBL and pals want the Muslim people to rise up and throw out the foreign infidels, we can look at the box score. OBL bemoaned the fact that Muslim youth was being subverted by the west, and that US bases existed in his holy land of Saudi Arabia - homes of the prophet, Mecca and Medina. So he poked Bush in the eye, and got his desired result. The Saudi bases are gone, and the Muslim world is inflamed with anti-western loathing. Score two for OBL.
Now, with Iraq as an open wound, OBL has a "target rich environment". Recruitment is up. American forces in Iraq can serve as targets in what is a much better terrorist "traing ground" than Afghanistan ever was. Plus, he has additional state targets that he can label as "crusaders". With 9-11 such a success, we now have 3-11. And guess what - another success. From your post, "Spain's Incoming Leader Says Troops Will Leave Iraq". Bush loses a major ally. And OBL can proclaim victory in the Arab world, boosting both recruitment and funding. Score: OBL 3, Bush (west) 0.
Now is OBL this good? In the game of international politics, is he some later day Metternich that can think three steps ahead of everyone else in moving his "chess pieces". I don't think so. I don't think that OBL has so much won as Bush has lost. By stupid myopic moves, he consistently squanders his (more precisely, the west's) advantages. For reasons that have more to do with mindset and domestic politics, Bush repeatedly plays into OBL's hands.
JMO
lurqer |
