No, I'm talking about Al-Qaeda as if they were a terrorist group based in a friendly state. A state where they had bases, training camps which were very useful to them. They had a significant infrastructure and investment in Afghanistan, which is now lost. Where are they going to train all these new recruits? Pakistan?
> 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.
Huh, where is this book of terrorist theory? Terrorists do things for all kinds of reasons. Blackmail, politics, to raise funds, punishment, to get rid of opposition, or just viciousness in some cases. I mean look at Abu Nidal - he ended up a gun for hire by the end of his charming career. Anyway, Al-Quaida seems to be as much a military operation, as a terrorist one.
> 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.
Except presumably for those leaders who were captured. Has anyone bothered to see how the US invasion was seen in the mythical Middle Eastern street?
Bin Laden's theory seemed to be that the US was too cowardly to respond, or would be easily beaten. Draw the US into Afghanistan, and then destroy them (thereby showing the superiority of Wahabism I guess). Seems to have been a bit of a failure.
Cian