Anniversary

Gordon Fitch gcf at panix.com
Wed Sep 18 17:11:53 PDT 2002


Gordon Fitch said:
> > I don't see much evidence that bombing Afghanistan stopped al-Qaeda,
> > except maybe in Afghanistan. Terrorism isn't conventional war, and
> > while destroying a lot of stuff may defeat a nation-state, it may
> > have no effect on terrorists, or actually advance their program.

Cian:
> It certainly damaged them. They lost their host country, many of their
> training camps and were forced to flee to Pakistan where the US (or more
> probably Pakistani intelligence) has had some success in capturing some of
> their enemies. It clearly wasn't a decisive blow, but its too early to say
> whether this has advanced Al-Quaida's program. A huge part of Al-Quaida's
> power came from their mystique and seeming invulnerability. Now that they
> have lost this, they may have lost much of their appeal to the disaffected
> youth of the Middle East. Nobody much wants to join a gang of losers.

You're talking somewhat as if al-Qaeda were a conventional nation-state. Terrorists are too weak to hold territory or even harass the enemy with any regularity, like a guerrilla force. Hence they work by creating exemplary _scenes_ which have no particular strategic relation to one another in a military sense, but which teach a lesson or illustrate a principle. Inspiring the U.S. government to military action in Afghanistan which killed thousands of innocent bystanders while enabling members of al-Qaeda to die as heroes and martyrs (or quietly steal away to Pakistan) can probably be accounted a great success from their point of view.

Since the USG almost certainly had many other fish to fry besides Osama and his gang, perhaps they, too, can account the exercise a great success. Once again, the winners win.

-- Gordon



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list