Despite everything, al Qaeda is losing.

[rogerashton]

But that is only partly good news for the USA.

The objective of al Qaeda has never been secret: it is to establish a pan-Muslim dictatorship as a world power. The strategy was, by means of terrorism, to provoke the west (US mostly) into attacks on Muslim nations that would force the Muslim nations to unite in self-defense -- under bin Laden's leadership, of course. Despite everything George*W*Bush could do to help them, they have abandoned that objective.

(I don't mean W* is a traitor conspirator -- my theory is he really is a numbskull. But he helped them by 1) declaring "war on terrorism," thus recognizing them as belligerents, a quasi-state position that is at the top of any rebel group's diplomatic wish list, 2) declaring the war on terror is a crusade, and 3) widening the war by invading Iraq. Each of these supported their main objective.)

However, despite all that help, they must no longer see that pan-Muslim war as a real possibility, because the recent strikes are pretty clearly aimed at a different objective: a civil war between Shia and Sunni Muslims. But such an inter-Muslim war contradicts the pan-Muslim objectives of al Qaeda. The most that it could acheive would be a Sanafi dictatorship over other Muslims. But such a dictatorship would be so weaked by its internal conflicts that it would have little impact on the world balance of power and it probably would not last long. And it probably is not attainable, since the Sunni regions are divided by a solid bloc of Shiites in Iran and southern Iraq. Pogroms against Shia where they are vulnerable would lead to war among Muslim nations -- perhaps to a nuclear war between Shiite-nuclear Iran and Sunni-nuclear Pakistan. Saudi Arabia would probably be completely disrupted. This is all bad news for the USA -- and everybody else! -- but it would divide and weaken, not unite and strengthen, Islam. It might lead the Muslim center to assert itself, as it has not done to date, and that is about the best we can hope for.

[400Years]

1. Does "al qaeda" really even exist?

[tatertop]

2. Not like that they don't

Al Qaida is a loosely knit group.
They exist more in the minds of Americans than anywhere
else. Like Zarqawi.

[CJCRANE]

3. The Pan-Islamic spiel is ludicrous

and most people know that.

Osama can't admit that he's just an international gangster and the neocons can't admit that their GWOT is a sham, so they both go along with the idea.

[sam sarrha]

5. the Factor of "REASON" is foreign to Islam, dont give them credit for

thinking things out, Islam never had an Age of Reason.... the absence of reason breeds delusion.. the best example is the Bu$h government, far more dangerous than islamic extremists..

[CJCRANE]

7. Most muslims

aren't holding their breath for a pan-islamic state. We're talking about more than a billion people in hundreds of countries with different cultures and languages. Just like most people they're just struggling to earn a living, pay the bills and "put food on their family".

There's only a small percentage of people on the planet (the global equivalent of us and the freepers) who have the leisure and inclination to discuss such lofty, impractical ideas.

[Union Thug]

8. That's my feeling too...

Besides, isn't Osama more about foreign military presence on Muslim soil...re airbases in S.Arabia (and now in Iraq, I suppose) than some imagined Pan-Islamic war? That kind of rhetoric always struck me more as radical demagogy than a war plan.

[sam sarrha]

4. they didn't learn that if they let their most dedicated fanatics kill

themselves.. it disembowels the entire organization.. ,

[aquart]

6. Who cares?

Jesus H. Christ. Haven't we figured out that terrorism is the LEAST of our problems?

[rogerashton]

9. The idea that "they just don't think"

is very self-destructive. As Hagar the horrible said, you have to look at things from the other guy's point of view -- that way he can't pull any surprise moves on you. The "they don't think" view leaves us open to some nasty surprises.

And y'know -- some of these responses are amazingly arrogant and complacent, for a "liberal" or "progressive" board.