RSSUsing PayPal
TERRORISM SALON: Fourth (and Final) Prompt -- OBL and Al Qaeda
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Thursday, Jul 31 2008, 8:27AM
CLOSE 
SOCIAL WEBSITES
http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/07/terrorism_salon_30/&title=TERRORISM SALON: Fourth (and Final) Prompt -- OBL and Al Qaeda&topic=political_opinion" target="_blank">Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Newsvine
Stumble UponEMAIL THIS ARTICLE
Is Osama bin Laden still relevant? Or rather, is the threat more from a reconstituted, centralized Al Qaeda, or from more local groups radicalized by preachers or outside forces? (See the recent arguments between Marc Sageman and Bruce Hoffman). Also interesting to consider is how centralized Al Qaeda was before September 11, looking at the scope of its attacks both prior to and after September 11.
Which is more dangerous, a decentralized Al Qaeda operating as a symbol, or a centralized Al Qaeda still ordering attacks from a mountain redoubt?
-- Steve Clemons
This week long terrorism salon will continue to be hosted by The Washington Note and UN Dispatch.
« Previous Article - Brzezinski Says. . .
» Next Article - Promoting Democracy: Lessons From Turkey
Reader Comments (2) - post a comment
The answer lies within the after action reviews of the WTC bombing, and the 9-11 commissions recommendations not being fully obligated.
Contrast those two items with the Aug.6th PDB.
Now let's consider Bushco.'s use of INTEL for political expediency at election times, letting people know we have sources within certain cells or wings of the terror infrstructure, for the purpose of making hollow victories in shaping perception at home.
If we wanted Bin laden he would be ours right now.See also Noriega.
Henry Kissinger once said: “There is no politics quite as vicious
as academic politics . . . because in academia there is so little at
stake.â€
This is certainly not the case here. We should not underestimate
the (geo)political implications of the disagreement between
Hoffmann and Sageman; it touches the core of Obamas foreign
policy strategy in the so called "war on terror".
Hoffmann, who sees the threat more from a regrouped,
centralized al Qaeda, says in the end of his "Foreign Affairs"
review of Sagemans new book that "the United States and its
allies must refocus their attention on Afghanistan and Pakistan".
This is completely in line with Obamas strategy, and his
suggestions to remove troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Sageman`s "bunches of guys" theory requires a different
strategy that is not represented by any of the candidates. For
McCain, this is probably nothing more than a typical academic
issue with little at stake, since he seems obsessed with winning
the Vietnam war in Iraq, or even in Iran.
It seems like it`s easier to get political support for fighting a
tangible enemy with clear contours; ideally an evil, cartoon-like
individual - Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, "Hitler"... - than
a more abstract network or a multitude of groups with complex
or loose connections and differences.
Thus it`s no surprise that the New York Times article linked to
in Steve`s post also focused on the individual fight between to
academic figures, and not on the obvious implications for the
policy strategies in the current fight among the presidential
candidates.
Leave a comment: