Has al-Qaeda lost? It's starting to look that way

OK, the intelligence community has me beat. So tell me, what have we gained as a country by fighting this "war on terror"?

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/fallows_victory

 

Nothing. That's something else I and at least one other person has posted about before:

<blockquote><b>Abstract</b>

How do terrorist groups end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process. This suggests that the United States should pursue a counterterrorism strategy against al Qa'ida that emphasizes policing and intelligence gathering rather than a “war on terrorism” approach that relies heavily on military force. </blockquote>
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

 

Except they came into our home and killed 3,000 people on 9-11.

The recent news reports are very encouraging, especially about Muslims turning on Al-Qaida. They are the true peace-loving Muslims.

 

This would be encouraging news if it is true (and I certainly hope it is). Unfortunately, my skepticism prevents me from dipping a nurse in Times Square just yet.

 

See the film The Power of Nightmares.

 

Al Qaida is simply one of many manifestations of anti-Western, anti-imperialist ideology in the middle east. It is one of dozens of anti-west extremist groups out there. It would be a mistake to think that the erosion of the Al Qaida "brand" in any way equates an end to radicalized anti-western sentiment in the region.

Al Qaida may have "jumped the shark" in the eyes of middle easterners at any of a number of points. Most likely, it was when people who many in the region look at as low-level criminals and thugs started to "borrow" the name in relation to their terrorist activities (as in Al Qaida in Iraq). Remember, Al Qaida's roots were as "freedom (use that term loosely) fighters" in Afghanistan. That kind of noble cause was something common people could relate to. Striking at America on American soil is something common people could relate to. Two-bit thugs blowing up middle eastern children in Baghdad...well that's a different story.

It's Al Qaida's own lack of structure that killed its brand. Anybody can do whatever they want in the name of Al Qaida.

But please don't think that Al Qaida's erosion equals the end of terrorism in the region.

 

Some other group with a similar religious ideology will replace them. The PLO to Hammas to Islamic Jihad to al Queda to some next Islamic fundementalist group with violent tendancies with emerge. It will ebb and flow.

 

Whatever replaces al-Qaeda won't be on the same scale and won't have the same scale of multinational organization.

 

If they weren't passing out business cards...

 

There will always be terrorist groups. They were there before 9/11. The key question is does that terrorist group have the means to attack the US on US soil?

I don't see that happenning again on the scale of Sept. 11 for several reasons, mostly because we're awake to the possibility now.