Tuesday, January 24, 2006
What we've maintained all along:Juan Cole writes: On September 11, 2001, the question was whether we had underestimated al-Qaeda. It appeared to be a Muslim version of the radical seventies groups like the Baader Meinhoff gang or the Japanese Red Army. It was small, only a few hundred really committed members who had sworn fealty to Bin Laden and would actually kill themselves in suicide attacks. There were a few thousand close sympathizers, who had passed through the Afghanistan training camps or otherwise been inducted into the world view. But could a small terrorist group commit mayhem on that scale? Might there be something more to it? Was this the beginning of a new political force in the Middle East that could hope to roll in and take over, the way the Taliban had taken over Afghanistan in the 1990s? People asked such questions.
Over four years later, there is no doubt. Al-Qaeda is a small terrorist network that has spawned a few copy-cats and wannabes. Its breakthrough was to recruit some high-powered engineers in Hamburg, which it immediately used up. Most al-Qaeda recruits are marginal people, people like Zacarias Moussawi and Richard Reid, who would be mere cranks if they hadn't been manipulated into trying something dangerous. Muhammad al-Amir (a.k.a Atta) and Ziad Jarrah were highly competent scientists, who could figure the kinetic energy of a jet plane loaded with fuel. There don't seem to be significant numbers of such people in the organization. They are left mostly with cranks, petty thieves, drug smugglers, bored bank tellers, shopkeepers, and so forth, persons who could pull off a bombing of trains in Madrid or London, but who could not for the life of them do a really big operation.
The Bush administration and the American Right generally has refused to acknowledge what we now know. Al-Qaeda is dangerous. All small terrorist groups can do damage. But it is not an epochal threat to the United States or its allies of the sort the Soviet Union was (and that threat was consistently exaggerated, as well).
[...]
Because they exaggerate the scale of the conflict, and because they use it cynically, Bush and Cheney have grossly mismanaged the struggle against al-Qaeda and Muslim radicalism after September 11. There's much more to Cole's post. Worth reading.
posted by Quiddity at 1/24/2006 05:53:00 PM
2 comments
> Over four years later, there is no doubt.
Great, both Bush and Juan Cole have no doubt.
> Al-Qaeda is a small terrorist network...
With vast funding and now, due to Iraq, lots of friends and recruits.
> They are left mostly with cranks, petty thieves, drug smugglers, bored bank tellers, shopkeepers, and so forth...
Knock on wood, and whistle in the dark, walking past the graveyard.
>...persons
The plural of 'person' is 'people.' Maybe not anymore, but it was.
> But it is not an epochal threat to the United States...
Combine al Qaeda buying and using a nuke with George Bush's willingness to cancel the Constitution (and use nuclear weapons), and that's an epochal threat to America and the world.
> Because they exaggerate the scale of the conflict, and because they use it cynically...
They're cynical, but the scale of the conflict is serious.
>... Bush and Cheney have grossly mismanaged the struggle against al-Qaeda and Muslim radicalism after September 11.
Amen to that! So true. But it's sad that Juan Cole is an icon of faith among Bush critics. Think for yourselves please.
brainhell wrote, But it's sad that Juan Cole is an icon of faith among Bush critics. Think for yourselves please.
If by "thinking" you mean that of the quality displayed in your comment, no thank you.
|