Dying to Win by Robert Pape

[Reuben Gant]

"Own" or "owned"?  I thought the Japanese pretty much broke them up.

 

They worked with a lot of stuff, I know; anthrax was the only one I distinctly recalled.  But Aum Shinryko (for those who don't know) had a $2B war chest and one of the better bio labs in Japan.  One would assume it wasn't just for anthrax.

420433[/snapback]

They had a pretty good business model too. They brainwashed college aged kids and had many of them assembling computers 16 hours a day. They would then sell these things at very good discounts, but there was no labor overhead. You could buy these things in every major city in Japan.

 

Fortunately they were just trying to foster the end of the world, and didn't have a good game plan past that.

[Ghost of BiB]

Nice job!!

 

You hit in something that seems to be lost on some here. The fact that if we were to pull out now, it is not going to stop attacks against Americans.  In fact, it will just make organizations like AQ more powerful. As you mentioned, they "beat" the Russians. If we leave, they "beat" us as well. Two superpowers, two defeats of superpowers.

 

That will do more for recruiting into organizations like AQ than Bush could do by invading Iraq.

420479[/snapback]

 

There are many who would vehemently disagree with that. The one's who don't know any better I can understand, but those who are elected officials who are riding that horse for political capital are the ones who bother me. I almost dread what is going to happen over the next two major elections. They will back themselves into a policy corner from which they can't get out of and things will probably get pretty ugly. The current administration may screw up in the execution, but the strategy is sound. I don't think that unless something drastic happens, a democratic ticket, or a moderate republican one is going to go far without a major anti-war platform (in so many words). A lot of great meaningless rhetoric and vague plans will be spoken, but the political strategy will be to withdraw and put our heads in the sand in favor of "diplomatic solutions" and increased homeland security spending.

[KRC]

There are many who would vehemently disagree with that. The one's who don't know any better I can understand, but those who are elected officials who are riding that horse for political capital are the ones who bother me. I almost dread what is going to happen over the next two major elections. They will back themselves into a policy corner from which they can't get out of and things will probably get pretty ugly. The current administration may screw up in the execution, but the strategy is sound. I don't think that unless something drastic happens, a democratic ticket, or a moderate republican one is going to go far without a major anti-war platform (in so many words). A lot of great meaningless rhetoric and vague plans will be spoken, but the political strategy will be to withdraw and put our heads in the sand in favor of "diplomatic solutions" and increased homeland security spending.

420885[/snapback]

 

I am afraid you are correct. You will see it start with 2006 and get even worse in 2008. They need to play to the lowest common denominator, not to what is best. Winning the election and keeping poll numbers are of the utmost importance. Doing what is right is secondary. We have seen it before and we will see it again.

[Mickey]

"The fact that if we were to pull out now, it is not going to stop attacks against Americans"

 

 

I am not so sure that is in fact correct. I also think maybe the issue isn't which course will lead to no attacks. There may not be such a course. Being in Iraq certainly isn't stopping them and as many here believe, leaving won't stop them either. Therefore, stay or go, we still get attacked. The question is really, what makes it harder for OBL, having troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraq or not? What course will lead to the fewest attacks?

 

Pape's point, and I think his research shows that, is that suicide terrorism is almost always done against democracies to compel them to withdraw from territory the bad guys view as their own. It is not just a bunch of crazies wanting to kill free people because they are sick whackos. They have a political goal they are using terrorism to achieve. That doesn't mean that AQ isn't something new and different or that they don't have an appetite for new goals as time goes on.

 

I am not sure what the strategy is that Bib refers to as being "sound". I don't think much of the "we fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here" stuff. Tell that to the British. Besides, captured documents indicate that AQ has made a tactical decision to attack our allies and not to attack in the US, for now.

The plain fact is that if AQ wanted to run a suicide bomber into a school somewhere in the US, they would. We wouldn't be able to stop them. We can't stop a Mexican housewife from coming across the border, how are we going to stop an AQ suicide bomber?

 

Transforming the entire ME by building a democracy in Iraq? Is that it? Couldn't we have transformed the ME by doing that in Afghanistan first? Leaving OBL alone somewhere on the border with Pakistan? Is that sound? Even the administration is backing off the idea of there being much of a democracy in Iraq when this is all over. I know its easy to pick but seriously, what exactly is the plan here? I hear the administration talk and talk and all I hear is that we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here and that kind of thing. I certainly haven't heard any democrats propose anything all that sane either by the way.

[Ghost of BiB]

I know its easy to pick but seriously, what exactly is the plan here?

 

 

National Strategy - Terror

 

National Security Strategy

 

National Strategy to Combat WMD

 

National Strategy for Homeland Security

 

National Military Strategy

 

Issue Brief to Congress

 

IFPA Report-National Security Strategy and Policy

 

And, obviously anything with any real meat to it can not be posted here, but they reflect the basic precepts of the strategies.

 

Besides, captured documents indicate that AQ has made a tactical decision to attack our allies and not to attack in the US, for now.

 

This is absolutely inacurate.

[Wacka]

There are now fledgling democracies and American presence on both sides of Iran now, which will help in the long run to change them or at least help to rein them in.

[Mickey]

Besides, captured documents indicate that AQ has made a tactical decision to attack our allies and not to attack in the US, for now.

 

This is absolutely inacurate.

421289[/snapback]

Actually, I am afraid that it is absolutely accurate, from the interview with Robert Pape I linked to start the thread:

 

"Al-Qaeda appears to have made a deliberate decision not to attack the United States in the short term. We know this not only from the pattern of their attacks but because we have an actual al-Qaeda planning document found by Norwegian intelligence. The document says that al-Qaeda should not try to attack the continent of the United States in the short term but instead should focus its energies on hitting America’s allies in order to try to split the coalition.

 

What the document then goes on to do is analyze whether they should hit Britain, Poland, or Spain. It concludes that they should hit Spain just before the March 2004 elections because, and I am quoting almost verbatim: Spain could not withstand two, maximum three, blows before withdrawing from the coalition, and then others would fall like dominoes.

 

That is exactly what happened. Six months after the document was produced, al-Qaeda attacked Spain in Madrid. That caused Spain to withdraw from the coalition. Others have followed. So al-Qaeda certainly has demonstrated the capacity to attack and in fact they have done over 15 suicide-terrorist attacks since 2002, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. Al-Qaeda is not weaker now. Al-Qaeda is stronger.

 

Here is a link on some of the history of that document:

 

Cracking al Qaeda's code

 

I do want to note that I was wrong to call it a "captured document". I got the info from Pape's interview and he didn't go into detail about the document's history, he just says that it was an AQ planning document "found" by Norwegian intel. I should have checked the claim more deeply but frankly, I had heard of this before and didn't think it was controversial.

 

Had you not heard of this or do you simply question its authenticity? Given the attacks in Egypt, Madrid and London, obviously, the fact that we are attacking them there has not stopped them from attacking elsewhere. Again, if we can't stop Mexican nationals from crossing a barren, desert border and then getting jobs here in the US, how in the world are we going to stop some AQ trained suicide bomber from walking into a McDonalds at lunch hour? "Attacking them there", inmho, is not a sound strategy to keep them from attacking elsewhere.

 

Such a strategy, on their part, makes sense in the short term. To separate us from our allies they need to avoid generating sympathy for us among our allies. Another 9/11, God forbid, is the type of thing that would make us many more friends, even among secular Arabs.

 

I haven't had the time to go through all those links but thanks for providing them. I will try to absorb them. I do note that most of them are from 2 1/2 to 4 years old. Are there any updates available? I think a sober assessment of the national security situation should probably have the benefit of what has and is happening in Iraq. Not to mention Iran and its invigorated nuclear aspirations.

[Ghost of BiB]

Actually, I am afraid that it is absolutely accurate, from the interview with Robert Pape I linked to start the thread:

 

No, it's not accurate, in terms of the total story. But, you'll just have to trust me on this one. I know that's hard to do in "provide a link central", but think about it.

 

I haven't had the time to go through all those links but thanks for providing them. I will try to absorb them. I do note that most of them are from 2 1/2 to 4 years old. Are there any updates available? I think a sober assessment of the national security situation should probably have the benefit of what has and is happening in Iraq. Not to mention Iran and its invigorated nuclear aspirations

 

For the most part, they are current. The actual plans based upon the strategies may have some differences, but it takes a long time to create and vet a policy document through everyone it needs to go through. When you read them, at first blush it sounds like a lot of rhetoric, but these are actually very, very carefully wordsmithed to put a certain meaning across. Actual operational documents are much more specific and are written as "evolving" plans, using an adaptive more than a deliberate process. Parts are almost always under an update or a re-write and are dated well into 2005. The National Military Strategy for the War on Terror is currently classified, for example, but a non-classified version should be released shortly. By contrast, the former administration was operating in 2000 off strategic documents published around 93-95. That's not a Clinton "slam", it's just how things work. A strategy, sort of by definition is a long term thing. If everyone in government is going to base what they do on a particular strategy, you can't change it on a whim. That's why that particular type of document is written in what might seem on the surface like vague terms. As an example, if the National Policy is to do A-B-C, the Defense Department has to organize and structure itself to meet those goals. That doesn't happen in a week.

[Mickey]

No, it's not accurate. But, you'll just have to trust me on this one. I know that's hard to do in "provide a link central", but think about it.

For the most part, they are current. The actual plans based upon the strategies may have some differences, but it takes a long time to create and vet a policy document through everyone it needs to go through. When you read them, at first blush it sounds like a lot of rhetoric, but these are actually very, very carefully wordsmithed to put a certain meaning across. Actual operational documents are much more specific and are written as "evolving" plans, using an adaptive more than a deliberate process. Parts are almost always under an update or a re-write and are dated well into 2005. The National Military Strategy for the War on Terror is currently classified, for example, but a non-classified version should be released shortly. By contrast, the former administration was operating in 2000 off strategic documents published around 93-95.

421454[/snapback]

Isn't it true though that they did attack Madrid as part of a strategy to separate us from our allies and that in the case of Spain, it worked?

 

My point on this issue is that I don't really buy at all this idea that attacking them there stops them from attacking elsewhere. The number of suicide attacks linked to AQ since we invaded Iraq has pretty much skyrocketed and plenty of attacks have been against targets outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the lack of an attack in the US has been the result of luck, better security and because they have chosen not to attack us here, for now. If 160,000 troops can't stop a suicide bomber in Iraq then I just don't see how in the world we could prevent a similar attack here against a school, a stadium or some other place with large numbers of people concentrated in a small space. We can't stop a gang-banger selling crack in South Central for goodness sakes.

[Ghost of BiB]

Isn't it true though that they did attack Madrid as part of a strategy to separate us from our allies and that in the case of Spain, it worked?

 

No. They were attacked because they were involved in the "war". Not to purposely separate them from the coalition, and there is a distinction. The election effects were a by-product of that, not a strategy. Unexpected windfall to AQ. But, they learned from that.

[Ghost of BiB]

My point on this issue is that I don't really buy at all this idea that attacking them there stops them from attacking elsewhere. The number of suicide attacks linked to AQ since we invaded Iraq has pretty much skyrocketed and plenty of attacks have been against targets outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the lack of an attack in the US has been the result of luck, better security and because they have chosen not to attack us here, for now.

 

Read the documents I linked. You're a smart guy, you can read behind the lines as to the implications. No one is saying that attacking them will prevent attacks. Part of the strategy is to deny them safe haven to organize and build up regional partnerships. To answer an earlier question, yes, remaining in the M/E makes it much harder on them. Sorta-kinda why we're there. Eventually, things are going to fizzle in Iraq for AQ, and AQ will move into the the Horn of Africa as a base. However, THIS time we are actively engaged in cutting off that alternative.

 

Like I said, read - and think it through. There are going to be plenty more attacks outside the M/E. Count on several ala 90's style in the Horn and East Africa. Count on more in Europe and Asia. But at the same time, figure in the factor of scale. Don't think for a second that there is some "mandate" for AQ not to attack the US right now. For one thing, what sense would that make? The visible allied military support to the US is pretty small in proportion to what we ourselves provide to the effort. Don't think either that Spain has quit being an ally just because they withdrew a few troops. That is a tip to the iceberg as to what this "coalition" is all about. Things like guys in body armor look good on the news, and it's a propoganda victory to see them board an airplane to leave. But it's not that important. Everyone in Europe knows that they are not going to be safe as long as the present a perceived threat to the "great plan". Those with some more balls, like Great Britain, Italy and Poland have to watch their back a lot harder. Folks like France have a long history of playing both sides, and are safer.

 

As crappy as it sounds, just because someone writes a book, it doesn't make them automatically right (unless, around here your name is Darwin...). This guy's opinions are probably shared by many other academics and ex-officials, but are also probably not shared by a large majority of working operators that most likely have access to better information than he does. Too bad many of them don't have time to write books. His basic precepts may have had merit in the 90's, but don't reflect the realities of today. Sorry, I'm not saying you are agreeing with him, but still, they don't.

 

Vacating the M/E now would be a strategic, political, psychological, informational, tactical and ultimately an economic disaster. Once again, as I have screamed from the rooftop many a time, there is a big picture and most people tend to focus on a few pixels, for whatever their own reasons.

[KRC]

Read the documents I linked. You're a smart guy, you can read behind the lines as to the implications. No one is saying that attacking them will prevent attacks. Part of the strategy is to deny them safe haven to organize and build up regional partnerships. To answer an earlier question, yes, remaining in the M/E makes it much harder on them. Sorta-kinda why we're there. Eventually, things are going to fizzle in Iraq for AQ, and AQ will move into the the Horn of Africa as a base. However, THIS time we are actively engaged in cutting off that alternative.

 

Like I said, read - and think it through. There are going to be plenty more attacks outside the M/E. Count on several ala 90's style in the Horn and East Africa. Count on more in Europe and Asia. But at the same time, figure in the factor of scale. Don't think for a second that there is some "mandate" for AQ not to attack the US right now. For one thing, what sense would that make? The visible allied military support to the US is pretty small in proportion to what we ourselves provide to the effort. Don't think either that Spain has quit being an ally just because they withdrew a few troops. That is a tip to the iceberg as to what this "coalition" is all about. Things like guys in body armor look good on the news, and it's a propoganda victory to see them board an airplane to leave. But it's not that important. Everyone in Europe knows that they are not going to be safe as long as the present a perceived threat to the "great plan". Those with some more balls, like Great Britain, Italy and Poland have to watch their back a lot harder. Folks like France have a long history of playing both sides, and are safer.

 

As crappy as it sounds, just because someone writes a book, it doesn't make them automatically right (unless, around here your name is Darwin...). This guy's opinions are probably shared by many other academics and ex-officials, but are also probably not shared by a large majority of working operators that most likely have access to better information than he does. Too bad many of them don't have time to write books. His basic precepts may have had merit in the 90's, but don't reflect the realities of today. Sorry, I'm not saying you are agreeing with him, but still,  they don't.

 

Vacating the M/E now would be a strategic, political, psychological, informational, tactical and ultimately an economic disaster. Once again, as I have screamed from the rooftop many a time, there is a big picture and most people tend to focus on a few pixels, for whatever their own reasons.

422078[/snapback]

 

 

CNN Thingy

[Ghost of BiB]

CNN Thingy

422587[/snapback]

 

I wouldn't turn my back on South America, either.

[KRC]

I wouldn't turn my back on South America, either.

422605[/snapback]

 

They are making good inroads there. Perfect environment to breed and sustain that type of stuff.

[Ghost of BiB]

They are making good inroads there. Perfect environment to breed and sustain that type of stuff.

422609[/snapback]

 

I'd be concerned if I didn't know for a fact that this is all about making money for Halliburton.

[KRC]

I'd be concerned if I didn't know for a fact that this is all about making money for Halliburton.

422629[/snapback]

 

Friggin Bush and his big oil buddies!!

[VRWC]

Very interesting and intelligent Posts BiB.

 

What concerns me is that AQ/OBL know exactly how to manipulate the American public and media and is doing a great job of it. They are playing us against ourselves by having our own people calling us the “Bad Guys” and therefore bringing the focus of attention NOT on them but on our own Government and policy makers. AQ is counting on the U.S. to basically defeat ourselves and have us self destruct from within. They know we can defeat them on any battlefield anywhere but they also know that battles of this nature are not won on the traditional battlefield. This is a war of propaganda and perceived notions. AQ knows how to play the US media and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to maximize their goals. They have however made some big mistakes as you have stated and are not without some very poor policy decisions themselves. We have weakened their leadership and structure possible too much so that now we have a very fragmented network working independently of each other for some common goal. This makes fighting them even that much more difficult.

 

I don’t believe they will attack the American Homeland any time soon because that will harm their short term goal. It would bring the war back to the pubic conciseness and bring the American resolve in fighting terrorist to the forefront just like after 9-11. Another massive attack will validate the Presidents war policy and harm them more in the long run. Only after they achieve a pullout of troops and America has fallen back asleep will they attach with such vigor as 9-11 on our soil. They will however continue to attack across the world in places and countries that the average Joe American will not care about.

 

Most people in this country have lost their backbone and memory. We (meaning most democrats and left wingers) are so isolated in this great country of ours that people have a tendency to become complacent and to forget about the past. All they seem to care about are their houses, cars, family and when their next vacation is. They feel better criticizing ourselves rather than confronting evil dictators and human rights violators. They would rather turn a blind eye rather than confronting “them” directly and heaven forbid have “them” not like us. They would rather give people handouts from our good nature and humanitarian efforts than to give them the tools and their dignity to do the work themselves.

 

I think most people would come to the same conclusions you have stated but they are not getting the facts. It’s easy for them to listen to the liberal media and take their potion as if it’s the facts than to really investigate what this struggle is really all about.

[Ghost of BiB]

I don’t believe they will attack the American Homeland any time soon because that will harm their short term goal. It would bring the war back to the pubic conciseness and bring the American resolve in fighting terrorist to the forefront just like after 9-11. Another massive attack will validate the Presidents war policy and harm them more in the long run. Only after they achieve a pullout of troops and America has fallen back asleep will they attach with such vigor as 9-11 on our soil. They will however continue to attack across the world in places and countries that the average Joe American will not care about.

 

One could also make the argument that another 9/11 scale attack or worse would be used to validate the idea that this administration can not protect them.

 

This is more a question of assets and capabilities. If/when AQ has the pieces in place to execute another 9/11 scale attack, they will pull the trigger.

[Black Panther]

Very interesting and intelligent Posts BiB. 

 

 

Another massive attack will validate the Presidents war policy and harm them more in the long run. 

422765[/snapback]

 

I disagree, If we were attacked again now, Bush would look silly for attacking Iraq and putting all our resources there (at least for the people who still don't realize it). Even more people will wake up and say "I thought they wouldn't attack us here if we invade Iraq"

[Black Panther]

One could also make the argument that another 9/11 scale attack or worse would be used to validate the idea that this administration can not protect them.

 

This is more a question of assets and capabilities. If/when AQ has the pieces in place to execute another 9/11 scale attack, they will pull the trigger.

422977[/snapback]

 

I agree.