We should intervene in Syria

[Loki]

The Economist suggested allowing Turkey to create a massive safe haven in northwestern Turkey and use that as a base to train the rebels. I'm not convinced that would work, but it's probably better than any other alternative involving the use of force.

I do wonder how al-Qaeda's endorsement of the Syrian rebellion (and possibly being responsible for several suicide bombings in Syria) affects Western calculation. Presumably, we don't want to stand on the sidelines while al-Qaeda helps the Syrians overthrow Assad.

[Being]

The Economist suggested allowing Turkey to create a massive safe haven in northwestern Turkey and use that as a base to train the rebels. I'm not convinced that would work, but it's probably better than any other alternative involving the use of force.

I do wonder how al-Qaeda's endorsement of the Syrian rebellion (and possibly being responsible for several suicide bombings in Syria) affects Western calculation. Presumably, we don't want to stand on the sidelines while al-Qaeda helps the Syrians overthrow Assad.

WTF do you mean by al-Qaeda?

[Loki]

WTF do you mean by al-Qaeda?

The guys in turbans, hiding in caves...or something.

http://news.yahoo.com/al-qaeda-leade...070506698.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/wo...r-debt.html?hp

[Being]

The guys in turbans, hiding in caves...or something.

http://news.yahoo.com/al-qaeda-leade...070506698.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/wo...r-debt.html?hp

Are they the bad guys?

[Loki]

Well they haven't spammed up these forums, unlike I someone I know, if that's what you're asking.

[Being]

Well they haven't spammed up these forums, unlike I someone I know, if that's what you're asking.

Like you...hmm...still wondering why you have a hard on for promoting these folk as an adversary. Maybe you see ideology as something without common grounds??

[Loki]

And Being's trolling hits a new low.

[Being]

And Being's trolling hits a new low.

No trolling going on here Loki. You insist that al-Qaeda is our enemy. Prove it.

[RandBlade]

No trolling going on here Loki. You insist that al-Qaeda is our enemy. Prove it.

Seriously what the fuck!?

[Aimless]

No trolling going on here Loki. You insist that al-Qaeda is our enemy. Prove it.

I'm confused. Aren't they in fact the ones that occasionally post videos saying things like "we will kill you because you are our enemies"?? Do we have completely different news sources?? Or do you simply mean to say that they're inconsequential?

[Being]

The point I'm making is that al-Qaeda, as defined by the US in 2001, doesn't exist now and never really existed as a formal organization. In fact it didn't exist as anything other than a legal concept created by the DoJ to bring charges against certain individuals. See The Power of Nightmares by Adam Curtis.

[Wraith]

9/11 was an inside job?

[Being]

9/11 was an inside job?

That's not it at all.

http://www.adamcurtisdocumentaries.c...f-the-politics

Probably too long and uneventful for most people here.

[Aimless]

However, the film argues that in order to prosecute bin Laden in absentia for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, US prosecutors had to prove he was the head of a criminal organisation responsible for the bombings. They find a former associate of bin Laden, Jamal al-Fadl, and pay him to testify that bin Laden was the head of a massive terrorist organisation called "al-Qaeda".

[...]

Peter Bergen, writing for The Nation, offered a detailed critique of the film. Bergen wrote that even if al-Qaeda is not as organised as the Bush Administration stressed, it is still a very dangerous force due to the fanaticism of its followers and the resources available to bin Laden. On Curtis's claim that al-Qaeda was a creation of neo-conservative politicians, Bergen said: "This is nonsense. There is substantial evidence that Al Qaeda was founded in 1988 by bin Laden and a small group of like-minded militants, and that the group would mushroom into the secretive, disciplined organisation that implemented the 9/11 attacks."[45] Bergen further claimed that Curtis's arguments serve as a defence of Bush's failure to capture bin Laden in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and his ignoring warnings of a terror attack prior to September 11.[45]

No doubt the film raises good points about the political value of FUD, but, er

[Steely Glint]

Well, I've literally read interviews with bin Laden where he talks about founding al Qaeda and how it came by that name so it's pretty spurious to say the DoJ just made it up. I'm not sure it really exists as a terrorist organization in the same way Eta or the IRA does. It is not necessarily meaningful to say "how many fighting men does al qaeda have" so there may be the glimmerings of a legit point in there somewhere. But it definitely exists as an entity.

[Loki]

Just because something is decentralized doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or perhaps Switzerland doesn't exist.

[Steely Glint]

Yeah, but a lot of people talk about it as if it were, especially back at the beginning, so as I said there may be the kernal of reasonable point in there somewhere. And I've never actually seen power of nightmares so I don't know if Being is accurately summarizing what it says.

[Loki]

Yeah, but a lot of people talk about it as if it were, especially back at the beginning, so as I said there may be the kernal of reasonable point in there somewhere. And I've never actually seen power of nightmares so I don't know if Being is accurately summarizing what it says.

I really don't see why the public should care if there's one centralized al-Qaeda group or if there are a bunch of smaller groups that occasionally carry out the orders of the headquarters. The results are the same.

[Being]

No doubt the film raises good points about the political value of FUD, but, er

Yeah, I can't call fault on your lack of desire to watch the thing yourself because it is long and it is boring. But it's a bit annoying to get an "er" from you based on someone else's critique. I really believe if you watch it that your critique will not be the same as Mr. Bergen.

[Loki]

Are you going to link to "Loose Change" next? Or perhaps David Icke podcasts?

[wiggin]

It's clear AQ acts somewhat on a franchise model, and the core organization run by OBL and company has never been very large - that's part of why they have been difficult to track absent an enormous expenditure of resources. Notable offshoots of AQ - such as AQ in Iraq, AQ in the Arabian Peninsula, etc. - often have little actual connection with the main AQ organization except in name and ideology.

That being said, it seems fairly clear on the basis of the evidence that as early as the late 80s there was a group of jihadists going by that name who planned and financed attacks on Western targets (as well as Saudis/etc.). The actual operatives may or may not have had very strong affiliations with the AQ central command, but it's clear that the core organization has been around for over two decades and has been up to no good for all of that time. It's also clear that this organization was responsible for the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks.

For some years now, the main organization has been on the ropes, with much of its leadership assassinated, many of their operatives apprehended, and very few effective attacks carried out. Their offshoots have been somewhat more successful. But I don't get where Being is coming up with this 'prove AQ is the enemy' nonsense. To suggest that AQ 'never existed as anything other than a legal concept' is simply wrong. One can have a reasonable argument over what degree of control the central AQ leadership has over its operations - it's clear they work on a franchise model - but to discount it exists at all is, er, silly.

[Being]

No Wiggin, the name of the group you are referring to is Islamic Jihad. The name al-Qaeda didn't exist before 2001.

[Being]

Are you going to link to "Loose Change" next? Or perhaps David Icke podcasts?

You won't go far in IR with an attitude like that. Good luck in acadamia...austerity is coming your way.

[wiggin]

No Wiggin, the name of the group you are referring to is Islamic Jihad. The name al-Qaeda didn't exist before 2001.

1. It doesn't matter what you call it, the organization existed.

2. OBL claimed in a 2001 interview that the name had been adopted a long time ago by chance. It appears from documents found at BIF that this indeed is the case, and the organization was named AQ as early as 1988 or 1989.

3. I assume you're talking about Egyptian Islamic Jihad (the other ones are either much more recent or have little connection to AQ). It is true that both organizations had some mixing of ideologies and members, notably Zawahiri and funding by OBL, but it seems they did not merge until 2001, and even after that they may have acted somewhat independently. The organizations were tightly allied, and it's tough to separate where one started and the other ended by the late 90s. This nomenclature semantics, though, does not change the fact that there was a jihadist organization funded and directed by OBL and a small cadre of other commanders, largely based in the AfPak area, which carried out attacks on Western and pro-Western targets in the last two decades.

[Being]

Since you seem to be okay with stating facts without anything to back them up well,

1. OBL was never a commander of any organization. He was a money man. He did not organize, he funded.

2. OBL only affiliated himself with the name al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. The DoJ had affiliated him with the name in January of that year in order to associate him with a criminal organization so they could prosecute him under current law.

3. I'm not saying there are no Islamic extremists that hate Western individualism, I'm saying they are not a coherent group that we can track down and eliminate. They exist in every country that allows Muslim religion to exist.

Loki, on the other hand, would have you believe that al-Qaeda is a force to be reckoned with...even when some splinter group uses that name while supporting Rand's idea that we should interfere in Syria.

I really believe that watching this documentary will change some minds about what our role in Syria should be.

[Lewkowski]

You know this kind of stuff makes me long for the local "strong man" who was loyal to America and we would help prop them up. I really hate dictatorship because I believe in freedom but I'm not convinced this is a better model where we half hazardously support areas without a firm guiding principle.

I used to be a strong proponet of Iraq and Afghanistan. I still think those wars were justified however I think the national building aspect proved to be futile with such a backwards group of cultures still stuck in the stone age. I don't think we should help in Syria unless one faction proves to be pro-Western.

[Loki]

Ironically, the groups that are most likely to support the US - Christians and Kurds - are also the ones most dependent on Assad to protect them from Sunni fundamentalism.

[Lewkowski]

Ironically, the groups that are most likely to support the US - Christians and Kurds - are also the ones most dependent on Assad to protect them from Sunni fundamentalism.

Which is why I have issues with jumping into more conflicts. Afghanistan housed terrorists and openly defied us. Yeah take them out. Iraq had a dictator who was vile AND a constant enemy of American interests.

Libya and Syria? Less clear. Libya's Gaddafi was a bad guy but one who rolled over already on the WMD issue.

[Being]

Ironically, the groups that are most likely to support the US - Christians and Kurds - are also the ones most dependent on Assad to protect them from Sunni fundamentalism.

Might be good to have some Iranian counterbalance now, eh?

[wiggin]

Since you seem to be okay with stating facts without anything to back them up well,

I didn't bother since most of my sources are from the government (since they get all of the intelligence on AQ), and you're likely to say it's fabricated in order to fit your conspiracy theory. If you want, there's reams of court documents that refer to operational intelligence about AQ that seem to indicate you're wrong.

1. OBL was never a commander of any organization. He was a money man. He did not organize, he funded.

There is a difference between an operational commander and a leader. I agree that OBL was not involved in operational command of AQ; on the other hand, he was far more than just a financier. He was the most influential man in the leadership, and he had a lot to say about both ideology and operations (e.g. deciding on strategy, running the operational commanders, etc.) since at least the late 1990s.

2. OBL only affiliated himself with the name al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. The DoJ had affiliated him with the name in January of that year in order to associate him with a criminal organization so they could prosecute him under current law.

You're probably thinking about an interview OBL gave in October 2001 where he talks about how they adopted the name AQ. Actually (based on the translations I've seen) he didn't imply that his affiliation with the name AQ was new... all he said was that it was happenstance from a long time before from their establishment of military training bases in Afghanistan (hence 'al-Qaeda', or 'the base'). Furthermore, the aforementioned BIF documents corroborate his story. You're living in a fantasy world constructed by Adam Curtis, but that doesn't make it true.

3. I'm not saying there are no Islamic extremists that hate Western individualism, I'm saying they are not a coherent group that we can track down and eliminate. They exist in every country that allows Muslim religion to exist.

I don't see why you think this is even remotely true. We have tracked down and eliminated nearly the entire original AQ organization. The organization OBL and Zawahiri founded is pretty much not a threat any more. Does that mean that Islamic extremism is solved? Obviously not; that requires a much longer and more comprehensive fix. But the specific threat posed by the original AQ is pretty much dealt with through a combination of heavy investment in intelligence and military strikes.

Most of these Islamic fundamentalist groups have coherent structures - Hezbollah, Hamas, various AQ branches, al-Shabab, Jamaah Islamiah, Abu Sayyaf, Lakshar-e-Taiba, etc. all have pretty coherent organization and can be fought on this basis through a combination of police work, intelligence, and military action. The specifics of each group are different, of course - some adopt more cell-like structures, while others are organized more along military lines. But they all have leaders, funding sources, chains of command, etc. These can be disrupted.


Honestly, I don't get where you're coming from, and I also think this digression has pretty much nothing to do with our policy on Syria.