Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Al Qeada’s objectives
Posted by: McQ on Friday, September 30, 2005

Most news hounds and blog readers already have a pretty good idea of the long-term objectives of Al Qeada, but in Senate testimony, Gen. John Abizaid reiterated them and we understand them:
"They believe in a jihad, a jihad to overthrow the legitimate regimes in the region," he said. "In order to do that, they first must drive America from the region."
The top regional prize? Well, it's not Iraq:
Al Qaeda believes the most important prize is Saudi Arabia, which is home to the holy shrines in Mecca and Medina. If al Qaeda terrorists manage to take control of Saudi Arabia, they will try to create and expand their influence in the region and establish a caliphate, Abizaid said.
That said, if they can't take it or Iraq, obviously the Caliphate remains a pipe dream.

But, back to the plan. Once they grab Saudi Arabia, then what:
Abizaid said al Qaeda would then apply a very narrow, strict interpretation of Sharia, Islamic law, not believed in or practiced anywhere else in the world today. Such conquest in the Middle East "would certainly allow al Qaeda and their proxies to control a vast oil wealth that exists in the region," he said. "They intend to destroy Israel in the process, as well."
A repressive religious theocracy and the destruction of Israel. Ok no surprises there. The ability to do the former isn't particularly in question, however their ability to do the latter is. However their control of Saudi Arabia would immediately put Israel on a war footing with the immediate objective of destroying any such regime before it could get itself organized. The problem of course, is the rest of the Arab world's reaction to Israel entering the nation with the most holy of Islam's shrines.

Anyway, back to the objectives:
The next goal would be to expand into non-Arab Islamic countries. This would include the middle of Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, the general said. The organization would operate from these areas and also from cyberspace. He said al Qaeda uses to Internet to transmit their hatred. "They aim to take advantage of open societies and will strike at those societies when they are ready at their time and place of choosing," he said.
While reading over this it struck me, I have no idea how well we're fighting the "cyberspace" war, but it seems to me this would be a place our ability and technology should be preeminent. So is it and are we doing all we can do to defeat their propaganda war in cyberspace (or at least take down their sites—it is a war after all)?

Abizaid then made an analogy which gives a better idea of why Al Qeada is a difficult enemy to fight:
In an allusion that is probably distasteful to American companies, Abizaid said al Qaeda is not a monolith like IBM. Rather, it is a franchise operation like McDonald's. This makes it very difficult to cut off the head of the organization. The group uses any and all means to further its goals: drugs, smuggling, so-called charitable organizations and others.

To beat al Qaeda and affiliate organizations requires military action but also "all elements of international and national power to put pressure throughout the network over time in order to squeeze the ideology, defeat its sources of strength, and ultimately allow the good people of the region to have the courage and the ability to stand against this type of organization," Abizaid said.
This goes back to the Criminal Enterprise Armies Ralph Peters talks about in his book "New Glory", which operate outside of any recognizable boundaries which traditional nation states can take advantage of to fight and defeat them. Or said another way, because they have no 'center of power', there's nothing tangible, as we're accustomed to thinking, for us to go after in terms of territory or a capital. When we took Baghdad, the Iraqi ba'athist regime ceased to exist as an entity in control of Iraq. No such "Baghdad" exists for Al Qeada. So we must take on each of the "franchises" as we find them, using the military if necessary, and all other tools available to defeat them. All the while looking for more franchises and more jihadists.

It's probably one of the most difficult scenarios one can imagine for a war. Truly assymetrical in nature. That's not to say Al Qaeda's road is an easy one by any stretch, but as they exist today they have some advantage in the pursuit of their dream. Right now, because of their diffused organization, they dictate the tempo of the decision cycle. Until we find a method of reliably getting inside their decision cycle, the war is likely to drag on for years to come.

But as a part of that war, the following is absolutely vital to winning it:
The key to success is helping the people of the region develop the will and capabilities to challenge al Qaeda. The "long war against terror" will be won by "self-reliant partners in the region who are willing to face the enemy within their own countries," he said.

U.S. and coalition forces must remain in the region long enough to "stabilize Afghanistan, stabilize Iraq, continue to deter Syria and Iran, and protect the flow of oil vital to all the peoples of the world and the economies of the region," he said.
Another in a long line of reasons why pulling out of Iraq is simply not a viable option.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"...or at least take down their sites..."

Why take them down when you can use them as an intelligence source?
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net
Why not do both? Use those which seem to be good sources for that, and for those which seem to be nothing but a propaganda arm, take ’em down.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
U.S. and coalition forces must remain in the region long enough to "stabilize Afghanistan, stabilize Iraq, continue to deter Syria and Iran, and protect the flow of oil vital to all the peoples of the world and the economies of the region," he said.
Since when was that our job?

 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
Since when was that our job?

Since we’ve acknowledged that the free flow of oil was in our national interest ... i.e. for decades.

Do you remember when we reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers and ran escort for them out of the Gulf?

Nothing’s changed since then (or before, for that matter).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Nothing’s changed since then (or before, for that matter).
Then perhaps something should change. Our interests are clearly conflicting....

That anyone is even mentioning oil in the same breath as al-qaeda does us no favors. People over there aren’t going to take us seriously and stand up for themselves against islamic extremism if they think our actual concern is over resources.
 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
While we’re talking about oil: any thoughts on this would be welcome...
 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
Hit "add comment" too quickly, meant to add about that last one that you could respond at the link or by email so as to not sidetrack this post.
 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
Then perhaps something should change. Our interests are clearly conflicting....

That anyone is even mentioning oil in the same breath as al-qaeda does us no favors. People over there aren’t going to take us seriously and stand up for themselves against islamic extremism if they think our actual concern is over resources.


Our first concern, long before there ever was Islamic extremism to contend with, had to do with the free flow of oil from that region. That’s been in our national interest since early last century.

Does this come as some sort of surprise to you? I’m not being snarky with the question. I’m genuinely curious.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I am getting kind of paranoid here.
Al Qaeda believes the most important prize is Saudi Arabia, which is home to the holy shrines in Mecca and Medina. If al Qaeda terrorists manage to take control of Saudi Arabia, they will try to create and expand their influence in the region and establish a caliphate, Abizaid said.
Saudi Arabia is a fairly simple country - it derives 90% of its wealth from oil and is ruled by a monarchy. Any attempt to gain control of SA by revolution requires that Al Qaeda attacks the monarchy and disrupts the oil economy, yet in the last decade they have confined themselves to attacking foriegners and Shia.

If Saudi is their true aim, don’t it make sense to do the same they do in Iraq - attack government and infrastructure. They kill hundreds of people a month in Iraq and no one in Saudi, so why does the General think Saudi is their biggest prize?
Abizaid said al Qaeda would then apply a very narrow, strict interpretation of Sharia, Islamic law, not believed in or practiced anywhere else in the world today.
An interpretation that would ban all alcohol, subjucate women, demand the death penalty for rape victims, execute christians, enforce conformity of dress code, use infidels as slave labour, prevent democracy, rule by holy decree, empower thugs as religious police - in other words continue with existing Saudi practice. Perhaps they would set-up madrassa to promote their brand of islam amoung poor muslims, fund terrorist strikes, attack outside influence in all things, deny the existance of israel, decry Jooos as worse than dogs - again continuing existing Saudi practice. Life for Saudis would change very little, exchanging theocratic dictatorship for theocratic dictatorship.

But maybe, just possibly, they’ll stop sending billions of dollars of defence spending to Boeing & Carlyle and cease the flow of bi-partisan money through Washington & London lobbyists - a very big change of Saudi policy and utterly beyond the pale, totally barbaric scenario that needs to be stopped at all costs.


Saudi Arabian society is the model, Saudi Arabia is the purely Islamic state - Al Qaeda does not fight to overthrow it, but rather to expand this theocratic dictatorship to the world. Al Qaeda does not attack the state of Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda attacks foriegn influence, foreign power and foriegn ideas - Al Qaeda fights as supremicists defending holy ideals. Most likely somewhere in the House of Saud exists the chief funder for Al Qaeda, who uses sacrafices the jihadis to expand the influence Saudi theocracy.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
unaha-closp,

I think you are not aware of the many clashes between Saudi officials and al Qaeda. It happens. It just isn’t reported often by our unbiased press.

On a different note, al Qaeda wants to kill 4 million Americans, of which at least 2 million of them must be children. Supposedly, that is the number of deaths America has inflicted on our Muslim brothers around the world.

Israel says al Qaeda has 40 nukes in the US. FBI and CIA think more like 20. How did they get here? Through the border? What border? Mexico is our little brother who gives us cheap labor. They are nice enough to send us their best. And we are stupid enough to let them. If al Qaeda can manage detonating 7 of those on a coordinated attack on our major cities, they should be able to hit their goal easy. Plus, anarchy would be sure to result. I don’t want to be around when that happens. What say you?
 
Written By: True Blue
URL: http://reformus.org
Our first concern, long before there ever was Islamic extremism to contend with, had to do with the free flow of oil from that region. That’s been in our national interest since early last century.

Does this come as some sort of surprise to you? I’m not being snarky with the question. I’m genuinely curious.
No actually. What shocked me is the ease expressed with the goals crossing paths. Wouldn’t have thought the reaction would be "yeah, so?"...

IMO the focus on oil is overpowering what the more important issue is. Call it idealistic if you want, but the idea of the flow of oil considered one in the same w/ national security just strikes me as awkward, if not offensive. Worrying about our oil dependance is a critical handicap that we really do not need right now.
 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
i think we need to get as nasty and aggressive as they are kill and capture them faster and with more force than they can imagine. we are not fighting this war the way a war should be faught, our faults are a direct result of hesitating and being nice and please the na sayers. there are still too many countries who do nothing and clues that need to be quickly followed up on. we do have the right administration to prevent and properly respond to any future attacks, should they dare again.
 
Written By: 1truepatriot
URL: http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7241445&postID=111932230814312942
I dont care if Osama Bin Laden is entertaining the King of whoever, if we get him in our sites again, take him out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any one with him should know the risk.
 
Written By: Greg
URL: http://:www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?
Why are the muslims the most evil and vile people on the face of this earth? There are other people on earth who have been persecuted far more severly.
 
Written By: Jack Shaw
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider