QandO

Just one of several problems that I have with your analysis, Bruce:

If the whole thing is about symbols -- which I don't argue in general -- then how is it remotely possible to discount the symbolism of an American individual getting his head chopped off with all the imagery distributed worldwide on the Web?

Look: several weeks ago, I heard one of those "Jersey Girls" moaning about Rumsfeld's perfectly flawless statement that "there is no such thing as 100% security".

"I don't want to hear that," she said. "That doesn't make me feel safe."

Tell me why the beheading of a Paul Johnson is less symbolic to her than a major bombing. I have a whole train of these questions. Tell me why the beheading of a person in Dryden, New York, would be less than symbolic to her. Explain the same lack of effect of say, two of those murders a month. Tell me that whole huge swathes of the American population don't have the same fear that she does.

"Terror"? If the thing is really what you're saying it's about, and nothing but that, then somebody needs to cable the White House right now and let 'em know that "terror" isn't the problem.

I "look at the targets", and, in the past three years, I see individual Americans getting dead like they're infomercials instead of big-ticket actions.

Can you hear that sound outside your window? It really doesn't matter how this is playing to the Arab street, if that's the thing. The sound you hear, if you listen for it, is howling outrage, at the moment, right here in America. Let's see how long it takes for the terror to start seeping into the story.

Now, if I were one of these animals, I would have half the country terrorized to unprecedented levels in no time flat, with actions like the Johnson murder right here in America. Nevermind the "back home" factor for them. The soccer-moms would beat your ass flat on their way to Washington to get something -- anything -- done about it.

And here is another necessary implication that I see:

You might be right about their "strategy" (my word, if we should call it that). But if you are, then they simply don't know what they're doing. They are nearly too stupid for words.

That's possible. If it's true, then I would say that would be a crucial factor ("know your enemy") that we should, somehow, put to work in this whole thing.

Posted by: Billy Beck at June 18, 2004 09:03 PM

Billy ... If you want to terrorize the population of the US, then behead someone here. If your aim is to demonstrate your power over the American's symbolically, then Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia will do just fine.

You are under the impression that because we are calling it a war on terror, that the aim of the jihadists is "terror". I don't agree that's their aim at all.

We're the one calling them that, and thus we expect them to act a certain way. Then we're puzzled when they don't do what we deem to be the obvious.

Well maybe that's NOT their aim. Maybe their aim is precisely what I've outlined.

Posted by: McQ at June 18, 2004 09:16 PM

I see a course to an aim, but not the aim.

What, exactly, is the point of a "demonstration of power over the Americans symbolically"?

Where are they going with this?

I have to tell you: if it's really a culture clash, then they're born-losers if that's the best they can do.

Posted by: Billy Beck at June 18, 2004 09:21 PM

Its about proving their "religion" is right.

Listen to their tapes (or read the transcripts). Filled with symbology and paens to Allah to help them triumph over the "evil satan".

How can you better graphically demonstrate in an undeniable way that they are receiving that "help"?

And what does that do? It solidifies their hold on Islam. IOW, it keeps 'em dumb, scared and firmly planted in the 9th century where these yahoos want them.

It about preserving their power, Billy, by getting the west to butt out.

Posted by: McQ at June 18, 2004 09:44 PM

Do you believe that they would be content to see the United States leave the Middle East to them?

Posted by: Billy Beck at June 18, 2004 09:55 PM

Right now?

Yes.

Posted by: McQ at June 18, 2004 10:03 PM

from what i have observed the last 25 years,
the jihadis usually match the means of attack to the target of attack.

they use spectacular means against spectacular targets.

this is how they allocate resources and assign priorities to targets.

They attemot to scare certain civilians away from certain regions by making numerous random mid-range attacks, or small horrifying ones. as in saudi arabia.

against the USA, they want three things - none of which is really accomplished by small to mid-range attacks here in the USA:
1 - they want us to abandon Israel
2 - they want us out of the Caliphate
3 - they want to destroy us utterly and completely and forever.

in fact, numerous small attacks here could actually make the public even more enraged and lead to vigilante actions.

as Kruathammer points out, Israel has not been defeated by these tactics. May I add that this in spite of once porous borders, and a population that includes 20% Arabs/Muslims. And without sacrificing their statutory liberties or democracy.

other countries have also done well against repeated mid-range tyopes of terrorist attacks.
this augurs well for the house of saud, and the new Iraq.

therefore, what remains TRULY frightening is that the jihadis know this too.

this can ONLY increase their desire for a massive simultaneous WMD attack against the centers of our federal government and military, our energy, and our finaicial centers.

the FACT that the multiple-hijacked jet otpion is pretty much been taken off the board - (and now, it seems that it was taklen off the board by binladen, because he wanted to strike in 2001 and the 10-jet plan would have taken another year or so) - leads me to conclude that as of 2001, ANOTHER MASSIVE ATTACK PLAN WAS ALREADY IN THE WORKS! oneusing an entirely different means of attack, and perhaps different weapons, entirely, too.

YES: WMD - bio/chem/rad/and nuke.

against dozens of sites in the USA - all at the same time.

If our offensive activities against the jihadis have not already broken up this plan, i fear it will happen before the election.

from the standpoint of the jihadis, it would seem to me to be most likely to occur during the GOP convention. Which is also around the time of the anniversary of 9/11/01.

i hope these musings prove stimulating. perhaps you will find that they explain why we haven't had the types of attacks that Israel and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Iraq and other countries have had.

We are a different kind of target.

Especially after what we have done to them after 9/11 - the jiahdis knows they need to bring us down all at once.

Posted by: dan at June 18, 2004 10:05 PM

It's a very interesting question- a vital one- and some damn good thoughts here.

Of course, they can ALREADY be here biding their time, waiting for something to give them a reason to attack In fact, you KNOW they are. So what are they waiting for? Maybe an election?

Or maybe they're still convinced that the "old ways" of making us withdraw can work (The Blackhawk down scenario). They've shown a willingness to change strategies and attack different targets as warranted (the target of choice in Iraq now are Iraqi police) Lets see how it plays after the election. That's really pivotal. If it becomes obvious that we're staying the course, and they face a real loss in Iraq, they may very well decide to resort to plan B. Which could be some asshole blowing blowing up the #5 bus during rush hour...

Posted by: shark at June 18, 2004 10:15 PM

Dan: I completely and emphatically agree with your bullet #3. I believe Bruce is wrong about this. I have my crack research team out looking for statements of doctrine from the animals' mouths, and I think I can prove this to Bruce.

Meanwhile: if that's really true, then the whole "symbols" argument is completely incomprehensible to me. They are never going to destroy this country with action against "symbols". Never. And I take your point about serious attacks if the thing is not just about symbols. It could very well be that they don't have time or resources to fool around with the sort of thing that I've asked about while they cranking up that sort of attack.

If that's the case, though, then I think the tides are running our way, and not theirs. Slowly, it's true, but surely. Over time, their room for maneuver on that scale in the world is getting smaller.

I would point out one considerable difference between American and Israeli culture: those people, on the street level, are girded for battle in ways that Americans cannot hope to match. Probably for generations. For one obvious example: no place in America would permit handling of personal weapons the way they do over there.

Posted by: Billy Beck at June 18, 2004 10:58 PM

Just my opinion...

The goal is to get the US out of the Middle East, not to take over America. At least, not yet.

Our presence there stands in the way of their utopian Caliphate.

No need to attack us here unless it advances their cause. At this point it doesn't. Perhaps, given our past, they thought 9/11 would cause us to tuck tail and leave the ME. They know better now.

Should a Carteresque man become president, that may change. Don't know. At this point I don't think the average Joe is ready to placate the jihadis' wishes.

CBK

Posted by: cbk at June 19, 2004 06:37 AM

Someone may have mentioned this. If I'm being repetitive, for give me.

This war is as much a war within Islam as it is a war outside of Islam. The jihadists want to intimidate non-jihadist muslims as much if not more than they want to intimidate us. Their targets in Iraq are Iraq civilians who wish a democracy in the hopes of undermining the infant government and its relations with the US, creating a vacuum where their caliphate dreams can flourish.

The attacks in SA are designed to intimidate US contractors and the people who work with them, to undermine relations between SA and the US, to undermine the royal family, again, attack that which stands in the way of their pan-Islamic caliphate.

The attacks in Spain succeeded in getting the Spaniards out of Iraq. The attacks in Turkey and Morroco were to punish westerinzed Muslims who don't sufficiently hate westerners and our wicked influence in the ME, to intimidate them to see the light of the jihadist cause.

Get ME govts to cave. Get the populace to choose between corrupt regimes and the jihadists. Undermine any govt that doesn't show signs of waffling toward or appeasing the jihadist movement. That's the goal. Again, exploding buses in DC won't accomplish that.

Posted by: cbk at June 19, 2004 06:51 AM

shark, et al:

since the human assets of the jihadis IN THE USA are limited, they do not want to "waste them" on small stuff.

19 jihadis can die attacking the Captal, the Pentagon and the WTC - or 19 can die trying to take out malls. which do you think UBL prefers?

it will probably take a few hundred jihadis (including their handlers/financiers etc) to pull off what they want to pull of here - a multi-strike mega-attack using various WMD.

it took five years to plan 9/11.
i imagine it would take between 8-10 years to plan a jihadi armageddon against the USA.

that adds up to this year or anytime in the next two, once one realizes that the plans were probably begun more-or-less simultaneously.

(the 2nd WTC/Pentagon attacks were planned beginning in 1996 - LONG BEFORE the second intifada, or even the attacks on the supposed VX plant in the Sudan! THIS PROVES that what we do HAS NOTHING to do with their ultimate aims and strategies and tactics.)

TODAY, authorities in nyc have annouced that all doorman and supers will receive training in anti-terror from the cops - probably to recognize certain tell-tale signs.

this is LONG OVERDUE.

nukes don't have to arrive in planes or boats.
they can be assembled anywhere. like in small apartments in 20 major cities all over the USA. and they can be set to go off simultaneously.

even as another 20 locales simultaneously deal with small pox, antrax, VX, Sarin, dirty bombs, and conventional attacks on energy and financial centers.

while the likelihood of this - OR ANY OTHER multi-strike mega-attack is low, i believe it is the aim of our enemy, and steps MUST be taken to stop it.

here - and WHEREVER they are.
defense. AND OFFENSE.
faster please....

Posted by: dan at June 19, 2004 07:45 AM

CBK: We agree. Its about kicking us out of the ME and retaining the feudal power they now hold over the population.

Billy: Then answer your own question: Why aren't they here? Where do you get the idea that they want to 'destroy this country'?

You asked, why Johnson? The butchers who murdered Johnson made the following statement:

"To the Americans and whoever is their ally in the infidel and criminal world, and their allies in the war against Islam, this action is punishment to them and a lesson to the to know that whoever steps foot in our country, this decisive action will be his fate".

Sound like a group bent on destroying the US or getting them out of the ME?

Posted by: McQ at June 19, 2004 08:00 AM

Dan: If such an attack is planned, where do you suppose it will be focused?

In Beaumont Texas or Dallas? In Valdosta Georgia, or Atlanta?

Which are more symbolic of the power of the west? Which will give the most graphic bang for the buck? Which will go further in demonstrating their power?

Hitting big cities of course. So why haven't they do so? Why aren't there any indications that what you are concerned with is actually in the works?

Oh, we hear reports all the time about 'something big' being in the offing, but it never seems to come to fruition, does it?

Perhaps that's because rumors planted in a calculated disinformation plan are just as effective in keeping the American public appropriately "terrorized" and keeping the dissenters barking and whining than an actual terrorist attack.

Do you believe, for instance, given the reaction of the US after 9/11 that another terrorist attack and its obvious aftermath in terms of American reaction would be in the best benefit of these people?

Or is it more likely that they recognize that encouraging dissent here is much more likely to weaken our resolve than anything they can do here?

I believe its the latter. I believe that Somolia and Viet Nam still loom large in their thinking. Did we or did we not back out of each of those places and leave them alone?

Posted by: McQ at June 19, 2004 08:10 AM

McQ: I largely agree with your analysis, but the topic remains somewhat confusing to me. Frankly, I just don't see much evidence of any larger "strategy" on the part of Al Qaeda. In fact, there is a fair amount of dissension within their own ranks about whether they should focus elsewhere, or focus within Saudi Arabia.

I don't know if that is causing strategic drift, or if it's just the usual debate, though.

The reason they attack "symbols" is that it demonstrates their power, while costing them next to nothing. If you're going to expend a life, you may as well make the expenditure "pay off".

Attacking civilians in a mall demonstrates their impotence, more than their power. In fact, that's why I'm somewhat conforted by their recent concentration on assorted car-bombings in the Middle East. If that's what they are doing to demonstrate their power...good. They are demonstrating that this is all the power they can demonstrate.

What confuses me, though, is this: if it does cost them so very little--and let's face it, they want to die...lives are cheap among the Islamic fundamentalists--why are they not trying to expend more of them?

That is my biggest question.

One answer (and I'm drifting topics here) to the question of why they are attacking there, but not here, is that they know attacks in the US will only steel our resolve. Attacks in the Middle East will lessen our resolve.

Another answer--but in line with the first--may be that they know attacking the US is counter-productive, but they can still hold some sway in the Middle East.

It might also be instructive to spend some time trying to understand how their actions will attract more fundamentalists, in order to make the Muslims of the area make a choice....but I don't understand the dynamics well enough.

Posted by: Jon Henke at June 19, 2004 10:04 AM

Nothing on the scale of Atocha has been tried in the USA - yet.

if such an attack were planned i belive that it would be in proportion to the size of our population our electorate and our military.

in other words: about 50 times BIGGER than Atocha.

everything the jihadis HAVE EVER DONE
proves that they are proportional - they match ttheir means of attack to their targets: they use spectacular means against spectacular targets.
against bigger targets they will use bigger meaqsn.

the USA is bigger than Spain.
They will use bigger means.

This is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the fact that they do use smaller means against smaller targets and for relatively smaller strategic goals: as when they attack us or our allies in the mideast or in Iraq. There their aim is to merely get us out of the mideast, iraq and the caliphate.

they also want to DESROY the great satan. This is what they have clearly and repeatedly avowed.
go to any major UBL statemnt from 1998.

to me this means destroy the USA -
NOT merely get us to retreat.

Posted by: dan at June 19, 2004 11:45 AM

NEED MORE PROOF OF THE JIHADIS
OVER-ARCHING/GLOBAL AND PROACTIVE AIMS????????

The Buddhas of Bamiyan.

The destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan had NOTHING to do with Israel or Zionism or "USA HEGEMONY" or the USSR or Kashmir or the Moro Islands or Nigeria or the Sudan or Algeria or Morocco or anywhere else the Jihadis are waging AN OFFENSIVE WAR AGINST THE WEST.

The destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan proves that theirs is a religious war - and when they say they want to destroy the Great Satan - MEANING THE USA!!!!!!!!! damn it! - THEY MEAN IT AS MUCH AS WHEN THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DESTROY THE BUDDHAS OF BAMIYAN!

Is that too tough for you to understand?

Really. Cheesh.

All of you - the bloggers at this FANTASTIC SITE -and I am sure your loyal readers - are WAY TOO SMART NOT TO GET THAT!

Stop wallowing in denial.

We are in WW4.

It was declared against us in 1979, in Tehran.
It was a one-way battle until 9/11.
When Bush - and most of America -
FINALLY "got it."

DON'T FORGET IT!

Posted by: dan at June 19, 2004 11:56 AM

What are the odds of a massive meg multi strike being successful?

Probabl;y LOWER than the odds they would have succeeded in taking down BOTH TOWERS OF THE WTC!

But they did that - even tho' the origianl plan called for twn jets. Whiuch - in way- says that they succeed ewven though only 30% of their asset proved useful. Not bad odds. They built in for it, I guess

Why do you thin the last plane was so far west!?!?!?!?!?!?!? They were waiting for confirmation that the WTC was hit before going down to other targets!!!!!

these guys are smart. If we do not take EVERY EFFORT to prevent another massive attck - IT WILL BE WORSE THAN 9/11.

I believe that this administration is making every effort. They are erring - but that is human: We erred straight through to 1950 when it came to WW2 and Western Europe! Through 1980 - if you throw in the Cold War - which the
status-quoists and containment-appeasers would have let run on forever, but which Reagan ended - through his aggressive use of stregnth.

We are only human. We will not always do the right thing.

I've been wrong in the past: I voted for Carter!

YUP: I am a Dem. Now, I am a DEM who will vote Bush because he gets it, and now the majority of the Dems - including Kerry - DO NOT GET IT.

The DNC is again controlled by the folks who brought us McGovern and Carter. The folks who trusted the USSR more than the Pentagon.

Let's not make the same mistake.

Let's win this war, too.
And you win by defeating your enemy, not by making a deal with them.

Certainly not by underestimating them.

Posted by: dan at June 19, 2004 12:07 PM

NIGHTMARE SCENARIO #1:

The AQ Khan ring has finished its work.

Kaddafy has completed his assigned portion of the project, too. (Why else give it all up? He did his job, and now has deniability.)

Between Iran and North Korea, and Libya -- and
G-d knows where else -- the Jihadis now have more than enough enriched Uranium to arm the 50 bombs that have been under construction over the last 5 years in the USA and the UK and Israel. Little contraptions built in situ near their rich targets.

All that remains is to smuggle the uranium in.

They have extra so that even if some is found, more than enough will get through. (All they have to do is mix it in with some drugs - they'll get through...)

All that will then remain form them after that is to coordinate the moment of detonation.

They will psychopathologically pick a date and a time full of meaning in order to vest their attack with the aura of predestination, and with their evil, twisted version of theology.

Perhaps 9:11 am on 9/11/04. Or '05.

And these explosions will be coordinated with a release of smallpox and anthrax and VX.

And also with the broacast of a videotape which will have been conveniently held at ALJAZEERA since a few weeks before that dark day...

Why else would AQ and Kim and Kaddfy be smiling, now?

These other small attacks in Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan and everywhere else, are proof - (in the sick minds od the Jihadis) - that they gave us fair warning.

Their consciences are clear.

Posted by: dan at June 19, 2004 12:50 PM

Why aren't they here?
I should think that simple; We're THERE. This has always been part of the genius of our puling down the Taliban and Saddam;

Instead of being concerned with attacking the US, the terrorists are fighting as they can, an enemy who has shown up the last place they expected us to be; In their own living room.

And in that light, that they're NOT here, is a strong indication that the places we went after were in fact where these terrorists were coming from.

Overly simplistic say some, I'm sure, particualrly among those seeking to remove Mr. Bush from office. Well.... Fine. I await the answer to Beck's question. Barring a solid answer to the question, one must consider the possibility that Bush and his people had it right all along.

Posted by: Bithead at June 19, 2004 02:37 PM

Your doing precisely what critics of Bush have done ... make the case that if we're in Iraq we can't be effective in chasing bin Laden in Afghanistan. IOW, we can't do simultaneous operations effectively.

Is it really your belief that every asset AQ has is voluntarily tied down "there"? That they are unable to carry on simultaneous operations?

Spain would point to that being an untrue assumption.

Is it at all possible that they could see no further utility in action HERE (and not because we're THERE but because it does nothing positive toward the goal of geting the US and its influence out of the ME)?

Posted by: McQ at June 19, 2004 02:43 PM

McQ, I'm inclined to agree with your assessment, that the Islamicists are more concerned with how their attacks play to the populations in Muslim countries than in the psychological impact on Westerners. Dan, you make good points about the high cost of planting a sleeper in the US, and their need to save them for big jobs.

But in trying to understand the psychology of the enemy, don't make the mistake of assuming that they will make smart decisions. They will often make poor decisions for irrational reasons, which we can't always predict. Hopefully, they will screw up worse than our governments.

Whether or not they actually try to stage more attacks, we will spend a grossly disproportionate amount of money and time on deterrence. They may be satisfied with this, as well as wanting to sow dissent and erode sympathy for the US by concentrating elsewhere. But, I doubt it. I expect they will try more spectacular hits.

Posted by: Robert at June 19, 2004 03:07 PM