Excellent essay. I would only point out that the people you voted for Will, don't want to kill them, they want to appease bin laden and zarqawhi. http://slate.com/id/2122246/ -- People Power The terrorist plot to destroy democracy from within. By William Saletan Posted Friday, July 8, 2005 Bin Laden still doesn't get it "Britain is burning with fear and terror, from north to south, east to west," the Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe crowed after yesterday's London bombings. "We warned the British government and the British people repeatedly." Sound familiar? In a video released four weeks after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Osama Bin Laden boasted, "Here is the United States. It was filled with terror from its north to its south and from its east to its west." The terror talk and the compass points are just two of the patterns in al-Qaida's post-attack messages. A third is the pairing of Iraq with Afghanistan. A fourth is the punishment theme, which deflects blame from them to us. But the most telling pattern is a constant distinction between the "people" of the West and their governments. Last year, the bombers hit Madrid, hoping to turn Spaniards against their government and force a pullout of Spanish troops from Iraq. It worked. Now they're trying to do the same to the Brits and the rest of the G8. In April 2002, al-Qaida took credit for bombing a Tunisian synagogue. It said the attack was in part "a reprisal for [Arab] governments' refusal to allow their peoples to launch jihad against the Jews." In October 2002, al-Qaida claimed responsibility for blowing up an oil tanker in Yemen. It charged that the U.S. government and its allies had "deluded themselves and their people." A month later, Bin Laden touted "the killing of Germans in Tunisia and the French in Karachi, the bombing of the giant French tanker in Yemen, the killing of marines in [Kuwait] and the British and Australians in the Bali explosions, the recent operation in Moscow." He asked citizens of these countries, "What do your governments want from their alliance with America in attacking us in Afghanistan?" In October 2003, Bin Laden told Americans that they were "enslaved by your richest" and that President Bush had "deceived you into invading Iraq ... Bush has sent your sons into the lion's den, to slaughter and be slaughtered ... regardless of the harm that will happen to your people and your economy." He urged Americans to "rein in your fools." Five months later, after the attacks in Spain, al-Qaida demanded, "The people of the U.S. allied countries have to put pressure on their governments to immediately end their alliance with the U.S." In April 2004, Bin Laden told Europeans, "Vigilant people do not allow their politicians to tamper with their security" by pursuing policies that provoke al-Qaida attacks. "Injustice is inflicted on us and on you by your politicians, who send your sons, although you are opposed to this, to our countries to kill and to get killed," he said. "Therefore, it is in both sides' interest to check the plans of those who shed the blood of peoples for their narrow personal interest and subservience to the White House gang." Bin Laden even cited "opinion polls, which indicate that most European peoples want peace." A month later, his point man in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, took credit for wounding an Iraqi official. The attack "conveyed a strong political message to Washington's allies," he bragged. "Such operations have a destructive effect on the psychology and morale of the enemy soldiers inside and on their relatives and peoples outside." Now comes the message to "the British people" that "the British government" has brought more death on them. It's Blair's fault. It's Bush's fault. Turn against them, and the pain will stop. But it won't. As yesterday's message made clear, the bombers want us out of Afghanistan as well as Iraq. Bin Laden's whole game plan is to turn the people of the democratic world against their governments. He thinks democracies are weak because their people, who are more easily frightened than their governments, can bring those governments down. He doesn't understand that this flexibility—and this trust—are why democracies will live, while he will die. Many of us didn't vote for Bush's government or Blair's. But we're loyal to them, in part because we were given a voice in choosing them. And if we don't like our governments, we can vote them out. We can't vote out terrorists. We can only kill them.
Good article overall, but to just contradict one thing he said, I disagree with him (or anyone else) claiming that what Al-Qaeda really wants is "one thing" because that's not true; they want many, many things, and have many demands. Besides, what does turning the people against their democratically elected leaders accomplish? By definition, a democracy allows the populace to turn against their leaders through elections, so that's a normal recourse for dissatisfaction with the leadership. If, for ex, we in the US disliked Bush or Clinton after their first terms in office, we could have just voted them out, it's not like we are going to revolt. So I am not sure what "turning the people against their governments" means in this case. For ex: did Bin Laden really believe that a Kerry administration would withdraw troops from Iraq or Afghanistan and leave him and his organization alone? If he did, then he is a damn fool.
i believe that's exactly what a kerry admin would have done. his most rabid supporters would have demanded it, much like rabid conservatives are now demanding a particular type of justice for the supreme court. the differences are, Bush has more spine than kerry does, and the supreme court arguement is not one of life or death, unless you're a fetus or a convicted murderer.
It's truly sad if you actually believe this. Kerry has always been at the head of the "now that we're there, we have to do it right" argument. He could have won tons of votes by demanding withdrawal times or saying he'd get us out, yet he never did that.
I voted for Bush not once, but twice. However, I seriously disagree with you. All that crap Kerry was saying was just to rally the Dean supporters and match Dean's rhetoric regarding Iraq and the "war on terror". However, to think that Kerry has "less spine" (apparently you are unaware of Bush's military record when contrasted to Kerry's service) is quiet foolish to say the least. The bottom line is that Bush initiated the Iraq conflict and for better or worse we were now stuck there, ANYONE who would come to office after Bush would basically have to complete the two missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq is NOT Vietnam, because what we have to gain and lose in Iraq is a LOT more than we had to lose by leaving Vietnam; basically abandoning Iraq would have been a concession of defeat in the "war on terror" and nothing less, since Al-Qaeda are now in full force in Iraq. So I completely disagree with you on that front.
then why all the calls now from the democrats for a "date certain" for w/drawal? isn't that exactly what bin laden wants?
Those calls weren't just from Democrats. Why don't ask the inventor of "freedom fries" who is one of many Republicans asking for withdrawl as well. It may not be as much fun for you to try and slam the other side that way, but oh well, it is still the truth.
Of course Kerry has never said that he wants to appease anyone, and has repeatedly said that he wants to kill OBL, and other terrorists and wouldn't hesitate to use our military or even pre-emptive military strikes to do that. It might be easier to try and propogate that kind of misinformation, or maybe you can creatively edit some quotes to make it look like the truth. This is the kind of propaganda one might expect from Saddam's information minister, or Dick Cheney, but not what I would expect from a plain old American citizen. Disappointing...
and Kerry would have given every terrorist a hug on the way out of Iraq. Kerry make htis a part of every stump speech, I 'm sure.
The terrorist plot to destroy democracy from within. I think Will has lost the plot here. OBL is taking a sharp stick and poking it in everybody's eye. OBL wants both sides itching for a fight. OBL wants to have a big tent where all are invited to take part in the fight.
You mean to tell me that you don't know that many of those calling for a set-date to withdraw ARE Republicans? How about Lugar or Lindsey Graham, didn't hear of them? No, the reason why more and more politicians in Congress are now calling for a set-date to withdraw from Iraq is, in case you haven't noticed, the growing public disapproval of the war (near 60% as of today). Don't forget that these politicians have constituents afterall, and many of them are preparing for next year's elections, and if their constituents largely disapprove of the war, they will have to take a stand or otherwise they will suffer. Bush isn't going to win them elections if his policies are unpopular back in their districts/states.
That’s a poor article IMO, poorly thought out and poorly supported points. Bin Laden’s focus has always been on the Middle East. He’s stated years ago that he wants the US out of Saudi Arabia and essentially all his actions relate to ME issues. Suggesting that his objective is to overthrow world democracy smacks of one of these grand Republican conspiracy theories that they use to deceive and manipulate the American public. I sure hope Will hasn’t become another one of these journalists on the take. Clearly Bin Laden’s primary purpose was not to spread terror throughout the US, although it has also clearly been a rhetoric that has been useful to him in some contexts. If he was really trying to spread fear throughout the US he wouldn’t have hit only specific, isolated targets. Most Americans felt relatively safe after 9/11 because it was clear that he was only hitting highly symbolic targets. If he wanted to terrorise the people in the north, south, east and west he would have hit Austin, Fargo, Seattle and Boston to demonstrate that no one was safe. No, his targets were selected to provoke the US government in the most extreme way possible. First and foremost he was baiting the US government. Pairing Iraq with Afghanistan has been the mission of this administration from almost the beginning, not Bin Laden's. I don’t recall any mention of Iraq by Bin Laden before the US brought it into the equation. Doing this was a pure gift to Bin Laden because the US has done what he couldn’t have done on his own, and that is to create a second Afghanistan in Iraq. Now, however, it’s clearly in his interest to make this linkage. Why would he look a gift horse in the mouth? Again, all this relates to ME issues or Muslim state issues. Nothing here suggests that his focus is an attack on world wide democracy. It does appear that he’s trying to isolate the US in Iraq. I suspect that there’s a little reverse psychology in some of these comments too. If he really wanted the US to withdraw then he would surely have hit targets in the US to put pressure on the US people. That fact that he hasn’t is telling us something. But why on earth would he want the US to withdraw from Iraq at all? Think it through. What scenario would benefit him the most? Clearly the optimal situation for him would be to have the US, by itself, stuck in a quagmire in Iraq. That situation works to accomplish many of his objectives at once. Again, this is all primarily ME related, not democracy related. Again, there isn’t anything here that suggest that this is primarily an attack on democracy. Now, out of the blue, without any supporting evidence, he makes his claim that this all been about turning “the people of the democratic world against their governments.” Why would Will say such a thing? To answer this we need to look at what the effect saying it is. It’s a grand conspiracy theory that will frighten many people. It will cause them to, in fear, turn their brains off and give blind support to the people who have said they will protect them. Unfortunately these people who have said they will protect them are actually endangering them. Even the US military now admits that for every terrorist they kill in Iraq they create 3 more. So in truth this isn’t a war against terrorism at all. It is a war that is producing terrorists, which is why Bin Laden doesn’t want the US to leave Iraq and why he intervened in the last US election to make sure Bush was re-elected.
Great post, Grizzled. Hey Will, save space and use the old familiar. "They hate freedom" would have done the trick and saved a bunch of bandwidth. Of course, it also wouldn't have made sense. And neither did your article. I understand responding with emotion to the attacks, but it's your job to be better than that. Disappointing, indeed. The small drag is you know better. The big drag is the media has sucked gigantic ass ever since 9/11 and you're becoming a major part of the problem. You know what's REALLY working in OBL's plan? He has singlehandedly neutered democracy by neutering the free press. You are part of the problem. Wake up. Please. We need you to do the job you're paid for.
It kind of has to do with freedoms and whatnot so I will throw it in this thread. I heard Jesse Jackson on television the other night and he had a good point. Talking about Gitmo, AG and other recent scandals he was against that kind of behavior. But I like the way he phrased it. Paraphraising he said: Our strength comes from holding true to our morals and taking the moral high ground. It does not come from lowering our standards. If people believe the line that the terrorists hate our freedom they should be the ones fighting the hardest against expanding and extending the patriot act, they should be the ones fighting the hardest against holding folks without trial, or giving them a chance to defend themselves.
If you are seriously trying to argue that Bush is less apt to make policy according to the fringe elements in his party than Kerry, I have a massive bridge in Arizona that I think would be a fantastic investment opportunity for you.
Moon you can't even get cliches right. The saying is that you have beachfront/oceanfront property in Arizona. Here's a nice bridge in Arizona for ya, though:
For many people in the U.S., this is the truth. But, for many people in the ME, this is also the truth. That's how wars are fought. The wealthy and powerful want more wealth and more power, or they want to keep their wealth and power secure, so they swindle their population into killing the other's population. They try and make it palatable by sweetening the batch with some ideals; a sprinkle of patriotism here, a dash of religion there, a few heartfelt speeches and a promise that they will be considered heroes for defending our way of life, for which they will be richly rewarded in the afterlife (in lieu of being rewarded in this life). Geographical borders, languages, religions, and cultures play very little practical part in this interchange, other than acting as the turrets where the powerful place the canons of their people. The fact is, we who are not wealthy and powerful, whether in Iraq or the U.S., have far more in common with one another than we ever will with either OBL or GWB.
Bingo. Heck, in Vietnam, Kerry tucked tail and ran at the first opportunity. As soon as he could get sign off on three minor wounds (comparable to fingernail scrapes), he was gone (after only 4 months). You better believe he'd do it again. Cowards don't lead countries. The Vietnam Vets knew that, which is why they were moved to organize and rally against Kerry. Ultimately, they defeated him.
