I don't like the rhetoric of 'defeating al-Qaeda'

[bigtree]

President Obama in announcing his Afghan plan:

"I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you."


Al-Qaeda is more of an ideology than it is an organization. It's an ideology of resistance to the military and economic advance of the U.S. empire across the sovereign borders of the Middle East. Al-Qaeda is an organizing principle which is a blank slate for displaced and disaffected individuals to apply whatever resistance they can contrive, wherever they are, against whatever they're resisting or perpetrating.

There are certainly dangerous individuals who had some part in the 9-11 killings in America, either supporting the original perps or aligining with them. Those individuals need to be brought to justice or killed in the pursuit. Killing those perps and their accomplices, however, won't 'defeat al-Qaeda'.

There will always be an al-Qaeda as long as there is some displaced, angry youngster willing to identify his or her cause or resistance with America's 7-year nemesis. The prospect of that ready-adoption of the terrorist organization's moniker by disaffected youths is made all the more likely in the face of our frontal military assaults on the resisting populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I would prefer more of a strategy and effort to 'discredit' al-Qaeda and their organizing philosophy than I would choose the counter-productive and destabilizing, self-perpetuating attempts to score some series of military victories and to intimidate the populations into some sort of obliging submission through the force of our weaponry.

It shouldn't be forgotten that the original justifications used for the unjustifiable 9-11 killings centered on opposition to our presence in the Middle East. I'm not buying, or even interested in, the babble from bin-Laden and company about the U.S. empire-building, military aggression as a reason for their treachery. U.S. empire is a fact, but it's neither an excuse for the 9-11 violence and the subsequent orchestration of the rest of the devastating attacks which have occurred in its wake, or even a believable concern of the perpetrators tucked away, imperially, in their 'safe havens'.

Yet, American's tolerance and support of empire-building and imperialism is what the perpetrators counted on as they worked to generate as much hatred and resentment as possible against the U.S., even as they drew our military forces into their region with the sure expectation of face-to-face reprisals and retaliation in response to their despicable plotting and recruiting of these young men (and women) to sacrifice their lives in resistance against the American invaders.

It's hard to believe that our military and administration are still susceptible to that lure - still invested in the belief that al-Qaeda can be intimidated into submission by attacking and killing every Afghan or Pakistani who dares identify their resistance to our military presence and activity across their sovereign borders. Did our commanders and leaders forget that they've been creating more 'terrorists' with their arbitrary attacks than they've been able to stifle or eliminate?

NATO may well 'stabilize' Afghanistan enough for the protected regime to continue in their assumed power and authority. Or, through some dumb luck, or brilliant plan, our military may find and take-down the original mouthpieces from the original Sept. 11 killings. If that improbable feat actually happens, the martyrdom will outmatch any intimidation which would lead to some defeat of al-Qaeda - in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or anywhere else.

Al-Qaeda will only begin to become irrelevant and outcast when the populations in these countries cease to have any reason to align with and support them. Right now, I can't help but believe that our president has just given them 21,000 more reasons to covet and animate their pernicious al-Qaeda monikers.

[JeffR]

1. Well said.

Great post.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Sure - if that's the only part of what he said one looks at.

[bigtree]

8. I'll acknowledge that

. . . in his rhetoric and initiative, Pres. Obama has made an extraordinary bid to advance diplomacy, humanitarian and economic assistance, and 'democracy' (through defending the election process) in Afghanistan. But, his military leadership is also committed to even more assaults in the provinces south, east and along (and across) the border with Pakistan. I don't see how the (commendable) assistance he's providing the regime in Kabul, the aid to Pakistan, nor the bribes he's prepared to offer cease-firing Afghan warlords are going to block out the negative, counterproductive effects of that militarism any more than similar efforts have so far. One group is motivated by the carrot, the other the stick . . . there's no mystery in our military occupations anymore. Maybe our forces can change hats again.

[BlooInBloo]

14. The "2 different kinds of AQ members" bit is what I had in mind, but yah.

[Time for change]

28. I'm with you on that

"It's hard to believe that our military and administration are still susceptible to that lure - still invested in the belief that al-Qaeda can be intimidated into submission by attacking and killing every Afghan or Pakistani who dares identify their resistance to our military presence and activity across their sovereign borders."

It's very disappointing to me that the Obama administration is going along with the Bush/Cheney "War on Terror" concept. I doubt very much that Obama would ever have dreamed up such a thing himself.

[ro1942]

33. control

it's all about gaining control of the middle east, iran for Israel oil for america. obama is the new face of empire and terror is the selling card.

[dflprincess]

35. I think he's letting Cheney control the message

A couple weeks ago Cheney was running around saying Obama had made us "less safe" and now Obama is rattling sabers and babbing about 9/11 and "the homeland".

[LWolf]

3. Excellent points, thank you.

And here:

[soothsayer]

4. al qaeda is more of CIA invention that some generals and I don't even believe in

Tho is IS a convenient boogey man

[rampart]

34. osama bin lauden

if he ever did exist he was a cia creation

[patrice]

5. In current terms, the only means of effectively defeating "al-Qaeda" is Genocide

Killing them stimulates and nurtures them. It's like fertilizer. In order to be effective, the logical extension of our present course of action, the only thing that will actually work is Genocide, a moral and human

CRIME

[datasuspect]

26. we would need to kill every muslim

[bigtree]

27. and, perhaps, their offspring

[katandmoon]

6. I don't like it either. And I HATE hearing Obama sound EXACTLY like Bush.

It really makes me wonder who is pulling HIS strings.

[scarletwoman]

7. Very well-said. You can't kill off an ideology with guns, you can only kill it off by making

it irrelevant.

sw

[G_j]

9. K&R

[ladjf]

10. Excellent post. Our leaders need to differentiate between an organization

and a "political-religious" movement. For every member of the Al Qa eda killed or imprisoned, geometrically group is ready and willing to be ready to replace the losses.

[anonymous171]

11. LOL Al-qaeda is just your run of the mill religious extremist group.

They resist US imperialism because it is hindering their own theocratic ends. I honestly don't care about them. I just want to end our empire. If they attack us again (after the empire is dissolved) then we should definitely annihilate them.

[sandnsea]

16. And we chased the abortion clinic bomber too n/t

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

17. Why not just annililate them now then? I mean we're already there.

I do care about them. They have demonstrated that they can hit hard. There is also the issue of justice. As far as I'm concerned we haven't finished handing that out yet.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. when the populations in these countries cease to have any reason to align with and support them.

Yup... it's called draining the swamp... and it is the only tactic that will work.

[bigtree]

18. yup, I remember they talked about Vietnam like that

. . . worked real good with Ho Chí Minh and the 'communists'

In 1976, Saigon was 're-liberated' by the communist 'Socialist Republic of Vietnam' and merged with the surrounding province of Gia'nh and was officially renamed Ho Chí Minh City.

wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-insurgency


With regard to tactics, the terms "drain the water" or "drain the swamp" involves the forced relocation of the population ("water") to expose the rebels or insurgents ("fish"). In other words, relocation deprives the aforementioned of the support, cover, and resources of the local population. The name is taken from Mao Zedong's advice to his rebels to "move through the people like a fish moves through water".

A somewhat similar strategy was used extensively by US forces in South Vietnam, initially by forcing the rural population into fenced camps, referred to as Strategic Hamlets, and later by declaring the previous areas as free-fire zones to remove the rest from their villages and farms. Widespread use was made of Agent Orange, sprayed from airplanes, to destroy crops that might possibly have provided resources for Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops and their human support base. These measures proved ineffective, as the Viet Cong often relocated activists and sympathizers inside the new communities. In any event, the Vietnam War was only partly a counter-insurgency campaign, as it also involved conventional combat between US forces and the North Vietnamese. After the US withdrew from Vietnam in 1973, the North Vietnamese rebuilt their forces and conducted a conventional invasion of the South two years later.

[JohnnyLib2]

21. Yup.

That piece of history can't be erased.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

20. I agree, but how do you drain the swamp of Afghanistan without being there?

Afghanistan is a law-less frontier, comprised of fiefdoms. What exactly can we do from the outside that will convince the population to not aligned themselves with folks standing right next to them with guns?

[arcadian]

31. That's just what Rumsfeld said.

You agree with him?

[Mari333]

13. agree completely its just whack a mole. nt

[sandnsea]

15. The people and the ideology need defeating

At least he's moving away from fighting every terrorist group in the world.

[Odin2005]

19. AQ are theocratic thugs that need to be wiped off the face of the planet.

[smiley_glad_hands]

22. You prefer "axis of evil" or "war on terror"?

"defeating al qaeda" seems more reasonable to me.

[Demeter]

23. Ideology Is Not Defeated By Force

It is defeated by better alternatives, by it being shown up as the foolishness it is, by people getting the life they want, not the one an outside force tries to reduce them to.

[Vattel]

24. One should keep in mind

that the majority of Afghans want our help defeating the Taliban. If we leave, what motivation will the various local Pashtun leaders have to reject the Taliban insurgency? I may well be missing something here, but I guess I don't see how we can drive a wedge between the Taliban insurgents and local Pashtun leaders without a combination of military aid (to clear and hold Pashtun areas) and economic aid (to provide Pashtuns with incentives to reject the insurgency). The insurgency will lose steam if and only if enough local Pashtun leaders reject the insurgency. And only if the insurgency loses steam will Afghanistan have a chance to achieve the stability and security and unity necessary to develop democratically and economically. In short, I don't see how one can render the Taliban and Al Qaeda irrelevant in Afghanistan without an effective military response to the Taliban insurgency. Can Obama's cocktail of military force, diplomacy and economic aid do the trick? I hope so, but I really don't know.

[bigtree]

25. Obama and his generals say military force isn't sufficient

But, I don't think they have, or can, credibly account for the counterproductive nature of the counter-insurgency.

Also, I don't think the president will be able to manage that diplomacy as efficiently as the military conducts their operations.It will be a challenge to allow the diplomacy to take precedence there, especially since the president has insisted his 'enduring' fight against the 'terrorists' is his primary reason for doubling down on our military presence and activity.

[Vattel]

29. I too am worried

by Obama's emphasis on the fight with Al Qaeda, but there are political reasons for it. Indeed, the AUMF that authorizes the use of force in Afghanistan authorizes military action only against Al Qaeda and her allies. What we are really doing in Afghanistan is fighting the hideous ideology that the Taliban and Al Qaeda embrace. For national security reasons (and, I would lie to think, for altruistic reasons as well) we don't want that ideology to succeed in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As for the counter-productive aspects of the counter-insurgency, I think you have put your finger on the biggest reason to be wary of the use of military force by the U.S. in the middle east. I also think that one needs to distinguish operations in Afghanistan from operations in Pakistan. A drone attack in Pakistan that kills a dozen or so innocent people and maybe kills one or two Al Qaeda operatives is apt to be immoral and may well be counterproductive. In Afghanistan we can put lots of boots on the ground and so we may be able to rely less on bombing and, as a consequence, fight the Taliban more discriminately. One of Obama's stated reasons for increasing our troop numbers in Afghanistan (he was stupidly attacked by McCain for this during the campaign) is that such an increase is necessary to avoid relying too heavily on bombing raids that kill lot's of civilians. How discriminately he can fight the Taliban in Pashtun areas remains to be seen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Now we have an escalation in Afghanistan coupled with "incursions" into Pakistan.

Both far too reminiscent of another war against an ideology.

Obama's warnings about Al-Queda and the Taliban echo the "Falling Dominoes" bogeyman of the '60s when we were supposed to be frightened of the "spread of Communism" all over the world. Now we're asked to panic about the "spread of Islamic extremism" that will bring about the downfall of all that's good and pure in world.

The unavoidable irony is that the more we "do" to conquer the unbelievers in the American Dream, the closer we come to real defeat on an international scale.

We are, literally, bankrupting ourselves fighting an ideology that only gains adherents because of (not, in spite of) our efforts to destroy it.

And now, through the brilliance of the politician and generals, we are spreading the war to truly dangerous proportions in Pakistan.

[jakeXT]

32. Better than saying Eurasia is the great price and denying China energy through Pakistan

China has been
researching options
to bypass the Strait of Malacca by constructing a pipeline to Myanmar as well as
Bangladesh, Pakistan or Thailand.

...

Geographically and logistically, Pakistan would be an ideal choice. However, a pipeline
through that country could be subject to terrorist attacks. Despite this, China and
Pakistan have been progressing in their discussions on energy cooperation. Pakistani
President Pervez Musharraf was discussing the possibility of giving China direct access
to Gwadar port, which is located near the Strait of Hormuz through which 40 percent of
the world’s oil passes.40 China had contributed $198 million while Islamabad contributed
$50 million to the port’s construction, the first phase of which was completed in April
2005. China reportedly will finance phase two as well. In order to give China direct
access to Gwadar port, Pakistan is researching the prospect of transporting crude oil
through its mountainous terrain to China’s border. This could be accomplished via
railway or pipeline. Musharraf is also trying to convert Pakistan into an energy corridor
for China through Gwadar seaport by developing new rail and road networks.
Musharraf said that by linking the two countries by rail and gas pipeline it would ensure
rapid trade and energy development, which would be mutually beneficial.41
Should a crisis occur that disrupts the flow of oil into China, it could prove to have a
powerful negative impact. With China’s exploding economy, fueled by an increase in oil
demand and decreasing domestic supplies of oil, China could be faced with an
economic and socio-economic crisis if it is not able to obtain the resources necessary to
support it.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/chinasquest0107.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products.htm

[Threedifferentones]

36. And here it is in practically undeniable truth

Congrats, bigtree, of all the OP's discussing whether and how to bash Obama, I think this thread gets it the most. Of course Obama is going to talk like Bush sometimes, because the Democrats endorsed his narrative of good vs. evil along with the wars it justifies. Coincidentally enough, they have also, like republicans, been getting rich, and spending most of their time talking to rich people.

I voted for Obama, but long before he ran for office I realized that every day I lose a little faith in the Democratic party. I guess, like so many other people, I just get caught up in choosing the lesser of the two known evils, rather than risking real change. Obama hasn't altered my outlook.