Why America is safe now.
Back at Iraq the model I wrote once about the changing priorities for the terrorists. I expected that there would be no attack on America before the American elections and that the attacks would be focused mainly on Iraqi civilians and American soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Now I see that I was partially wrong. No attacks happened in America and attacks increased on American soldiers and Iraqi civilians in Iraq, that was true, but what was wrong is that attacks on America not are only unexpected before the American elections but they are unexpected at all!
Yes America is probably the safest country in the world when it comes to terrorist attacks. Anyone who watched Bin Laden's message just before the American elections should've noted a difference in the terrorists' God father's attitude. I must admit I didn't see what it actually was at that time, as my mind was focused on its relation to the elections only and I couldn't think further than that. Now I can see that that speech determined a difference in the whole strategy of the terrorists towards America, and that that change was not dictated by a short term issue like the American elections but rather by the whole strategy of America towards the ME. Bin Laden has always referred to American people as an "evil" nation that is directly responsible for its government "crimes" and thus deserves an equal punishment. In the speech before the elections Bin Laden and for the first time recognized two Americas; one that is "evil" and which was going to vote for Bush and thus makes itself subject for attacks and one that's innocent (not voting for Bush) and is going to be safe. That statement declared Bin Laden's loss of initiative, and I'll try to explain my theory.
Every terrorist or radical group or organization starts as an independent one but as it grows its responsibilities as well as its enemies grow too. This growing financial and political responsibilities force this group to seek the help of a larger entity, usually a neighboring dictatorship. Some examples are Hizbollah with Syria and Iran, Hamas with Syria, most Arab nations Iran and Saddam previously, PLO with Syria, most Arab nations, Saddam' Iraq and Nassir's Egypt. Each of these dictatorships while fighting terrorism on its land can afford and would benefit from supporting terrorism outside and use it as a tool to pressure someone or to do its dirty work. Such protection while offer the terrorist group a much needed support that keep it alive and functioning does at the same time limit its options and restrict its fields of operations and cause it to mimic to a great degree the ones of the supporting government(s). Plus it does affect its popular support in a negative way.
In Iraq the agenda of the Arab and Muslim dictators came to lie in Parallel with that of Bin Laden. He found himself in great need for their support in order to fight the "infidels" in Iraq and they found him useful to hinder America's plans there. This makes the question about America's security on its own land not what the terrorists want, but rather what those dictatorships want. Any attack on the American soil will only result in the American people asking for justice and favoring an operation similar to what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is what the American administration wish for but can't find the necessary support inside and outside America. The reaction of the international community would be not very important at such circumstances, but America is expected to get some good support if it's attacked again. Now the terrorist are stupid and insane people, but their leaders and most importantly their financier are not that stupid when it comes to risking their power and control over their countries. So if the terrorist decide to act alone they would not only lose the support of these dictatorships but also would risk that those regimes might well, hunt them down in their countries and hand all the info they have about the terrorist to America just to prove their innocence and avoid a very probable serious American strike.
Bin Laden realized that his hands are cuffed now and he has lost the initiative and thus came his reactionary speech just before the elections in trying to retrieve some initiative or to excuse his cowardice for other Muslims who might still support him, saying that he's not Attacking America because now there are two Americas and one of them is friendly! All he could do and all he can do as long as he's depending on Arab governments in his finance and logistic support is to keep threatining America but he knows that he can never turn these threats into asctions. This makes Bush's repeated statements that American troops are in Iraq to fight terrorism so that Americans won't have to fight it in America very true with only slight error.
American troops are actually fighting dictatorship now in Iraq and terrorism has become just a tool in a war that was directed against it in the first place. Once America leave Iraq without finishing the job, the war would stop being a war on dictatorship and would be again a WoT with the difference that it would be a war against a phenomena rather than its origin. The terrorists would be free to attack America again, as Arab and Muslim dictators won't fear a military strike similar to what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan after seeing America recognize Iraq war as a mistake.
The remaining question is, what are the intentions of the American administration? There seems to be two possible options: one is continue the fight in Iraq for few more years and the other is to transfer the battle soon after the elections to another base for terrorism in the ME ( as I mentioned in a previous post). The first means more loss for America in term of lives of soldiers and money, it's good for America's safety for as long as the battle continues but it's bad for Iraq and would make America lose most of her Allies there. Besides it is not realistic to expect that the battle in Iraq is going to defeat terrorism for good and future plans are still needed. The other option means probably even more sacrifices in both lives and money but would be good for Iraq, leave a friendly government and nation there and it's also good for America's safety and interests on the long term.
If I were an American I would never worry about a terrorist attack on America as long as American troops are in Iraq. I'd rather worry about my government plans about the future of this war. The presence of American troops in the ME is needed until all dictatorships fall with force or without it and this will declare the end of both wars.
Yes America is probably the safest country in the world when it comes to terrorist attacks. Anyone who watched Bin Laden's message just before the American elections should've noted a difference in the terrorists' God father's attitude. I must admit I didn't see what it actually was at that time, as my mind was focused on its relation to the elections only and I couldn't think further than that. Now I can see that that speech determined a difference in the whole strategy of the terrorists towards America, and that that change was not dictated by a short term issue like the American elections but rather by the whole strategy of America towards the ME. Bin Laden has always referred to American people as an "evil" nation that is directly responsible for its government "crimes" and thus deserves an equal punishment. In the speech before the elections Bin Laden and for the first time recognized two Americas; one that is "evil" and which was going to vote for Bush and thus makes itself subject for attacks and one that's innocent (not voting for Bush) and is going to be safe. That statement declared Bin Laden's loss of initiative, and I'll try to explain my theory.
Every terrorist or radical group or organization starts as an independent one but as it grows its responsibilities as well as its enemies grow too. This growing financial and political responsibilities force this group to seek the help of a larger entity, usually a neighboring dictatorship. Some examples are Hizbollah with Syria and Iran, Hamas with Syria, most Arab nations Iran and Saddam previously, PLO with Syria, most Arab nations, Saddam' Iraq and Nassir's Egypt. Each of these dictatorships while fighting terrorism on its land can afford and would benefit from supporting terrorism outside and use it as a tool to pressure someone or to do its dirty work. Such protection while offer the terrorist group a much needed support that keep it alive and functioning does at the same time limit its options and restrict its fields of operations and cause it to mimic to a great degree the ones of the supporting government(s). Plus it does affect its popular support in a negative way.
In Iraq the agenda of the Arab and Muslim dictators came to lie in Parallel with that of Bin Laden. He found himself in great need for their support in order to fight the "infidels" in Iraq and they found him useful to hinder America's plans there. This makes the question about America's security on its own land not what the terrorists want, but rather what those dictatorships want. Any attack on the American soil will only result in the American people asking for justice and favoring an operation similar to what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is what the American administration wish for but can't find the necessary support inside and outside America. The reaction of the international community would be not very important at such circumstances, but America is expected to get some good support if it's attacked again. Now the terrorist are stupid and insane people, but their leaders and most importantly their financier are not that stupid when it comes to risking their power and control over their countries. So if the terrorist decide to act alone they would not only lose the support of these dictatorships but also would risk that those regimes might well, hunt them down in their countries and hand all the info they have about the terrorist to America just to prove their innocence and avoid a very probable serious American strike.
Bin Laden realized that his hands are cuffed now and he has lost the initiative and thus came his reactionary speech just before the elections in trying to retrieve some initiative or to excuse his cowardice for other Muslims who might still support him, saying that he's not Attacking America because now there are two Americas and one of them is friendly! All he could do and all he can do as long as he's depending on Arab governments in his finance and logistic support is to keep threatining America but he knows that he can never turn these threats into asctions. This makes Bush's repeated statements that American troops are in Iraq to fight terrorism so that Americans won't have to fight it in America very true with only slight error.
American troops are actually fighting dictatorship now in Iraq and terrorism has become just a tool in a war that was directed against it in the first place. Once America leave Iraq without finishing the job, the war would stop being a war on dictatorship and would be again a WoT with the difference that it would be a war against a phenomena rather than its origin. The terrorists would be free to attack America again, as Arab and Muslim dictators won't fear a military strike similar to what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan after seeing America recognize Iraq war as a mistake.
The remaining question is, what are the intentions of the American administration? There seems to be two possible options: one is continue the fight in Iraq for few more years and the other is to transfer the battle soon after the elections to another base for terrorism in the ME ( as I mentioned in a previous post). The first means more loss for America in term of lives of soldiers and money, it's good for America's safety for as long as the battle continues but it's bad for Iraq and would make America lose most of her Allies there. Besides it is not realistic to expect that the battle in Iraq is going to defeat terrorism for good and future plans are still needed. The other option means probably even more sacrifices in both lives and money but would be good for Iraq, leave a friendly government and nation there and it's also good for America's safety and interests on the long term.
If I were an American I would never worry about a terrorist attack on America as long as American troops are in Iraq. I'd rather worry about my government plans about the future of this war. The presence of American troops in the ME is needed until all dictatorships fall with force or without it and this will declare the end of both wars.
posted by Ali | 4:57 PM
<< Home