Bush's Decidering Leads to "bin Laden's Greatest Victory" (Newsweek)

[kpete]

The Myth of Al Qaeda
Before 9/11, Osama bin Laden’s group was small and fractious. How Washington helped to build it into a global threat.
By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
..................

But there was substantial evidence showing that, up to 9/11, Al Qaeda could barely hold its act together, that it was a failing group, hounded from every country it tried to roost in (except for the equally lunatic Taliban-run Afghanistan). That it didn't represent the mainstream view even in the jihadi community, much less the rest of the Muslim world. This is the reality of the group that the Bush administration has said would engage us in a "long war" not unlike the cold war—the group that has led to the transformation of U.S. foreign policy and America's image in the world. The intelligence community generally agrees that the number of true A-list Al Qaeda operatives out there around the time of 9/11 was no more than about 1,000, perhaps as few as 500, most in and around Afghanistan. It is also fairly well established that bin Laden and his No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were engaged in a fierce pre-9/11 struggle with their own meager band of followers over whether it was wise to take on the "far enemy"—the United States—when many jihadis really wanted to engage the "near enemy," their national regimes, like Egyptian autocrat Hosni Mubarak.

The ultimate tragedy of the Iraq war was not only that it diverted the U.S. from the knockout blow against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan—the deaths of bin Laden and Zawahiri would likely have persuaded most jihadis it was wiser to focus on the near enemy—but that Iraq also altered the outcome of Al Qaeda's internal debate, tipping it in bin Laden's favor. "Iraq ended that debate because it fused the near and the far enemy," as Arquilla puts it succinctly. America ventured into the lands of jihad and willingly offered itself as a target in place of the local regimes. And as a new cause that revived the flagging Al Qaeda movement. It is, no doubt, bin Laden's greatest victory.

more at:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13600653/site/newsweek/page/2/

[AzDar]

1. K&R..... n/t

[acmavm]

2. This story needs to be rubbed, physically rubbed, in the face

of every brain-dead bush** supporter in this country.

[Clark2008]

3. Oh - they'll just allege that it's more "liberal media" bias -

not paying attention, of course, to the fact that all the media is owned by six conservative corporations.

:eyes:

[nxylas]

31. They already do

Check out FreeRepublic to see the zombies' take on this. Actually, I'll save you the trouble, it basically boils down to "if Al Qaida isn't real, then who destroyed the twin towers?" repeated approximately 300 times with slightly different wording.

[progressoid]

5. They won't understand it...too many big words.

[William Seger]

10. They wouldn't understand it with small words, either

If they could understand it, they would already understand it -- without a Newsweek article. This is the result people with common sense expected when Bush*Co first started talking about invading Iraq.

[Roland99]

4. Jason Burke's "Al Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam" tells that story

and was used in that incredible BBC documentary: The Power of Nightmares and even in the latest PBS Frontline: Dark Side

Al Qaeda and the Taliban were virtually destroyed by the end of 2001 but that low-hanging fruit in Iraq was too tempting to the chickenhawk neocons to prove their ideology.

[dug2006]

35. Watch THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES: here's where to find it

If you haven't watched it yet, I assure you that it's really worth your time. This 3-part BBC series will probably never be broadcast in the US, but it's the most essential program made so far this century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_nightmares

The wikipedia page has links to where you can download and watch it for free, even without a P2P program. For instance, archive.org has it available from http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares.

Watch, learn, spread the knowledge...and vote!

[Raydawg1234]

36. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[bvar22]

6. Less than 1000 radicals,

brought this once great country to its knees under the Bush*/Republican leadership.

Bush*/Republicans have given Osama EVERYTHING he wanted.

[zonmoy]

38. still assuming that they did it

I think it is more probable that the cia or some other espionage organization actually did the deed.

[Straight Shooter]

7. bush has given bin Laden everything he wants. Whose side is he on? n/t

[jwirr]

27. *ss is squarely on the side of war profiteers and oil barons.

[KansDem]

8. Bush "killing" Osama is like Tom killing Huckleberry...

Or Huckleberry killing Tom, however you look at it...

The sad fact remains that Bush never intended to "kill" Osama, considering he is a member of the Saudi Royal Family who have been business partners with the Bush Family for decades.

But let's look at the facts (I'm typing these off my head so please correct me if I'm wrong):
1) 15 of the 19 attackers on 9/11 held Saudi passports, yet Bush invades Iraq (?)
2) Some of the attackers were being watched by FBI prior to (up to a year?) before the attack;
3) Various intelligence services had warned Bush of an impending attack (France? Israel?);
4) Bush was warned several times about al Qaeda and Osama but did nothing to spy on them (at least, not nearly as much spying as he did on Americans);
5) Bush DID NOTHING when told by Andy Card that the US was under attack on 9/11;
6) Bush flew Osama's relatives out of US before they could be questioned by FBI;
7) Bush invades Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11, and lies about the need to invade;
8) Bush lets Osama escape at Tora Bora;

and the list goes on and on...

Bush has no intentions of putting a stop to Osama's activities. He and his gang of thugs and cutthroats are making too money money off this congame...

[Hamlette]

9. k&r....and another recommendation for the book. . .

one percent doctrine

[orwell]

11. Mission Accomplished...

...again.

As al-Qaeda is largely a construction of various black bag intelligence operations, its "miraculous rise" as the current "Goldstein-de-jour" was highly predictable. The War Party needed a new bogeyman when Gorbachev masterfully set the US Media Military Industrial Complex on its heels by "surrendering."

As the WOT didn't exist, they would construct it. As al-Qaeda was already on the payroll, it was a small matter to water the garden and let the thousand flowers bloom.

And it worked like a charm. The propaganda addled bloodthirsty US Imperium ate it up like home made apple pie.

Quite predictable...

[CatWoman]

12. what a wonderful headline

:D

[endarkenment]

13. It is the flip side of the *ihop coin.

If there were no al qaeda engaging the far enemy, there would be no causis belli for the neocon long war. Draw your own conclusions.

[Wonk]

14. k & r

[Senator]

15. k&r

[Swamp Rat]

16. The truth will be known.

[Sad4world]

17. Projection

According to Freud, projection is when someone is threatened by or afraid of their own impulses so they attribute these impulses to someone else.

History will show that "GWB" was the terrorist that killed America.

[Disturbed]

18. The Bush Regime and al Q are

parasites of this planet. Both feed off of each other and destroy America.

[annabanana]

21. Welcome to DU, Sad4world

Over and over again, the projection shown by this administration is staggering.

[Sad4world]

23. Thanks

for the welcome annabanana.

You are correct in that nearly ALL of this administration are suffering from some sort of mental disorder. Sadism comes to mind.

[mwb970]

19. The US government is a much bigger threat than al Qaeda.

As this article makes clear, al Qaeda was/is a disorganized bunch of goofs who attacked us once. In response, the Bush administration attacks America one way or another every single day.

I am much more afraid of Dick the Prick Cheney than I am of Osama or any other foreigner.

[CJCRANE]

20. Bushco always had their sights on Iraq -

Al-Qaeda were just useful idiots, used to provide the "New Pearl Harbor" needed to implement the pre-emptive war policy.

[enough]

22. k&r

[leftofthedial]

24. the coup of 2000, 9-11 and everything after is a scam

a con run by thieves who will stop at nothing to keep on stealing

the bush gang have been doing this for generations

[me b zola]

25. k&r

[European Socialist]

26. The USA exaggerated the Commie threat too for$$$. K&R

[jwirr]

28. After the fall of the Soviet Union, we saw just how poor they were.

That always made me ask "Were they ever the enemy we thought they were? Or was it just a way to keep the weapons industry working? To satisfy the war profiteers?" I still wonder that.

[Alcibiades]

29. The capability was real

The USSR did have an awesome army, a decent air force, and, of course, the bomb. They didn't have anything like our navy, however, and their naval forces were designed (apart from the parts of the Navy for use in the atomic war that never happened, i.e. the submarine fleet) for defense, as was widely acknowledged at the time but largely ignored by the public.

What we never understood about the USSR, or what we pretended to ignore, was that its awesome land-based strength was largely there to prevent another WWII, which was disastrous for the USSR. Thus, the strength of the Red Army didn't matter, as they didn't intend to enact any of the Fulda Gap scenarios envisioned by the US brass.

[jwirr]

30. Thank you. We need to look back to see what is happening now.

[erpowers]

32. Great Article

Many more people need to read this article.

[pinto]

33. Great piece. This has become a tragedy of Shakespearean proportion.

A palace cabal's near paranoid tunnel vision blinds it to reality and in an ironic denouement permits the very thing to happen that they so fear. Once their ideological fervor became the only justification for their actions and objective criticism and independent review became heresy, they lost it. Osama, at least for now, has come to accomplish much of his goal: make our presence in the Middle East come at a crippling price at home. Almost 3,000 dead, tens of thousands wounded and a disabling national deficit driven by defense expenditures - the latest al Qaeda "press release" says it pretty succinctly. They don't have to fight us here. They are crippling us by effectively allowing the cabal to leave us enmeshed in a costly quagmire there that it refuses to recognize. The infuriatingly sad part is the Bush cabal chose the quagmire, not al Qaeda.

[alvarezadams]

34. As an introduction

I am an American historian living in Spain. While my specialty is ancient history, I've had some success in medieval history - having published works on the coexistence of the "three cultures" in Spain (Muslim Xtian and Jewish). Also, I have had the opportunity of living in 6 countries including Tunisia, and have travelled extensively throughout N. Africa and the ME for both business and historical reasons.

I don't claim to be an expert on Islam however, merely an educated observer.

As a child (an airline brat, travelling and living in a different country every year) I can remember visiting shops in Tunis, Cairo and Beirut. As is traditional, anyone meaning to buy is invited into the "back room", where they are invited to a coffee, tea or lemonade. In the early 1970's I was always surprised to see portraits on the walls of all shops - amongst which were (in approximate order by repetition):

- JFK
- Nasser
- Woodrow Wilson

Over the years I've seen all three visages replaced by anything from Arafat to OBL.

How can it be that the defender of self-determination (Wilson), one who identified himself with the downtrodden (JFK) and the representative of a "third way" in a bipolar world (Nasser) could be replaced by a marginally-sane Saudi millionaire with a 13th century agenda?

At risk of being declared a BAFer, I have to say that the West in general and the US in particular have a lot to blame for the success of Al Qaeda and OBL. Back when we were supposedly battling communism by supporting repressive regimes, we helped ME dictators to overcome liberal moderates, socialists and the compendium of rebels against the thousand-year-old oppression of the common mullah's and fellahin. Name a nation and I'll name a fascistic dictator that we supported in order to guarantee a strong-willed defense against communism... and any reform that would make the common Joe in Tunisia, Morrocco, Jordan, Israel or Iran a potential beneficiary of "democratic dominoes".

For decades our government supported Islamic fundamentalists as the greatest defender against any reforming menace, be it communistic, socialistic or democratic. In the face of moderate socialism that would have made the 1960's GOP look like the German Christian Democrats, the US supported parties that made Franco's falangists look like girlscouts.

So why are we suddenly surprised that the monster we created has turned against us? Are we stupid or just insane?

That's not a rhetorical question. So much navel-searching and self-centerdness has left us blind as to the effects of our actions. Yet we carry on as if we were just another reactionary movement going against the minimal common denominator of social decency.

Gimme a goddam break.

Are we in so much of a need of an Emmanuel Goldstein that we need to justify military expenditures that dwarf Cold War budgets.... because of the actions of two dozen mad extemists? Is there no end to propaganda and manipulation?

Every country has the government it deserves. The US made it clear - by choosing between a GOP figurehead and a DLC GOP clone, that it deserves what it has. Only the Deaniacs, the followers of Wellstone and a few others - escape this crude reality.

Until we wake the fvck up and stop looking at token talkingpoint issues (guns, abortion, gay marriage, flag-burning) as opposed to what REALLY matters, we're utterly and royally fvcked.

IPSO DIXIT

[Vidar]

37. Not bad for Newsweek.