Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul_philp who wrote (69048)	1/27/2003 11:18:11 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Two things wrong with this Andrew Sullivan post, Paul. 1. He does the deceptive slide between Iraq and Al Qaeda, as if the ties between Iraq and other ME groups that were not linked to 9-11 are sufficient grounds for an invasion of Iraq. So, familiar tactic, those ties become ties to terror become ties to Al Qaeda, without substantiating the jump. It's more than a little like Wolfowitz' attempt to substitute "weapons of mass terror" for "weapons of mass destruction". That sort of rhetorical device works, as, much to my surprise, Peggy Noonan argues in this morning's Wall Street Journal, if the evidence supporting it is on the table. If it's not, it tends to undermine the rest of the argument. 2. Sullivan's objections to attacks on Bush is, also, a bit much. Bush dishes it out, regularly; it's only a part of the political strategizing that he be prepared to receive it. And he's been given a huge pass by much of the press. Compare this with what happened to Clinton.

To: paul_philp who wrote (69048)	1/30/2003 3:14:52 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Goes along with Andrew Sullivan's second point: THE ALTERNATIVE. M strategypage.com Know Your Enemy by Austin Bay January 29, 2003 In 2003, America knows a lot more about Al Qaeda than it did on Sept. 11, 2001. We've a clearer strategic picture of Al Qaeda's goals and methods. Captured terror kingpins have spilled their guts. Videotapes found in Afghani caves have helped stop Al Qaeda operations in Southeast Asia. Electronic eavesdroppers monitor Al Qaeda chatter. If you know your enemy, the strategic challenge is to use that knowledge to force him to fight on your terms. It's even better if that fight on your terms is a fight he cannot refuse. Strategy is always about applying one's own strength to an opponent's weakness. Al Qaeda's historical pattern is to wait patiently, for years if necessary, and carefully prepare a terror operation until it's certain of success. Prior to 9-11, with little pressure on its hidden network (succored by the Taliban, Wahhabi petro-dollars and, yes, Iraq), Al Qaeda could take its time to spring a vicious surprise attack -- surprise and visionary viciousness being its strengths and the gist of its "asymmetric" challenge to America's "symmetric" power. "Fear us, America," was the message, "because Al Qaeda chooses the time and place of battle, and when we do you are defenseless." 9-11's strategic ambush sought to force America to fight on Al Qaeda's terms, to suck the United States into a no-win Afghan war, to bait the United States into launching a "crusade against Islam." Osama bin Laden believed he possessed an edge in ideological appeal, "faith based" strength against what he perceived as U.S. decadence. U.S. failure in Afghanistan would ignite a global "clash of civilizations" pitting all Muslims against America. Bin Laden's strategy flopped, for a slew of reasons. Chief among them, American liberty remains an ideologically powerful idea. The United States also pulled an "asymmetric" military move of sorts, using Green Beret-guided Afghan allies and hi-tech airpower to topple the Taliban. Since the loss of its Afghan base, Al Qaeda has experienced extraordinary pressure. Time to plan is squeezed. The United States has used diplomacy, police work, better intel and military presence to exert the pressure. Al Qaeda has attempted to adapt, with talk of a sleeper cell strategy while aggressively attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Which leads to the subject of decisive U.S. military action against Iraq and its role in defeating Al Qaeda. The massive American build-up around Iraq serves as a baited trap that Al Qaeda cannot ignore. Failure to react to the pending American attack would demonstrate Al Qaeda's impotence. For the sake of their own reputation (as well as any notion of divine sanction), Al Qaeda's cadres must show CNN and Al Jazeera they are still capable of dramatic endeavor. This ain't theory. Al Qaeda's leaders and fighters know it, and the rats are coming out of their alleys. In Afghanistan, several hundred Al Qaeda fighters in the Pakistani border region have gone on the offensive. They specifically link their attacks to America's pending assault on Baghdad. Al Qaeda terror teams are reportedly moving into Western Europe. Al Qaeda's offensive thrust in Afghanistan produces open targets for the 82nd Airborne Division. Moving and communicating terror cells are terror cells more vulnerable to police detection. Moreover, the terrorists are no longer operating on their time line, but on America's time line. The United States creates a situation where Al Qaeda either loses ideological credibility or must risk operations during a time of focused U.S. intelligence activity. But the big blow to Al Qaeda will be the loss of Baghdad. Baghdad is a counter-terror intelligence trove. Saddam's fall will loosen knowledgeable tongues. Al Qaeda will have fewer alleys to inhabit. But the big loss will be access to Saddam's WMD. A WMD spectacular is the kind of operation that can reverse Al Qaeda's international propaganda decline. That ain't theory, either. Al Qaeda's leaders know it, which is why they seek nukes and nerve gas. It's why American strategists who know Al Qaeda know the axis of evil must be utterly broken. To find out more about Austin Bay and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2001 - 2002 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.