Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"Triumph of the Will". Where did I hear that?

Mind you, even Cheney might look better if in something produced by Leni Riefenstahl. Genius is genius, and she had it.

I'm not sure what she could have done with GWB's critical insight.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

But isn't it more likely that Al-Qaeda intends to draw the United States into unending battles that drain our treasury, weaken our military, distract our foreign policy, and yet never reverse our willingness to go on fighting. It's the American will to fight without end and arguably without judgment or flexibility that Al-Qaeda is counting on, isn't it?

Documents captured after 9/11 showed that bin Laden hoped to provoke the United States into an invasion and occupation that would entail all the complications that have arisen in Iraq....Bin Laden also hoped that such an entrapment would drain the United States financially. Many al-Qaeda documents refer to the importance of sapping American economic strength as a step toward reducing America’s ability to throw its weight around in the Middle East.

All Hail, MiniPax!!

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

Documents captured after 9/11 showed that bin Laden hoped to provoke the United States into an invasion and occupation

Anyone paying attention during the 90s knew that. Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al Qaida's theoretician) made no secret of his "far-enemy" strategy. The evolution of this strategy during the 80s was quite well know within the CIA but was one of those analytic nuances that politicians shy away from.

What other lesson could they have taken from the Soviet/Afghan war?

Every item in Reed's list is well taken.  I'd only add another motive in prodding America to act: polarizing the world, radicalizing Islam, and thus recruiting for the cause. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

J. McCutchen

We've been functioning just as they anticipated.

That's why US NIE tells us that AlQaeda Intl is back and why the Taliban are set for more gains when the snows melt in the Hindu Kush in the next few weeks and why, ominously, Pakistan with its nuclear weapons may be vulnerable

why in a word George Bush and Dick Cheney have spent nearly $1 Trillion of your grandchildren's money and accomplished precisely nothing, actually less than nothing

Mr. Hundt, a little off topic here, but you are infinitely closer to the actual governing process than I ever will be. How long do we have to wait before the Senate Democratic Majority begins to hold hearings on the corruption, lies, deception, mismanagement of the Bush thugs? I thought a majority could do this? What am I missing?

Forget Cheney, the reality is that we are in a rare period in American political history, in which the battlefield alone will determine the next election, perhaps not seen since 1864.

Cheney's demeanor, Bush's lies, the economy, scandal, social issues, domestic spending, jobs, all these usual criteria and more pale in comparison to what happens in Iraq, where a few thousand brave American soldiers will determine our collective future.

Hillary can only await the result.

You mean that Osama is smarter that Dubya? Who'd a thunk it?

Maybe it's because Osama actually reads books and Dubya doesn't. Oh, well, It's just a thought.

Would anyone like to speculate about the outcome of an Osama-Dubya chess game?

Jan Knaus

Perhaps all originating from a Nietschean "Wille zur Macht" only at the level of banality.

Kache thinks pointing out that bin Laden made a chump of Cheney is the place to begin, I think it's the place to end.

Cheney loves to tell us how WE are embarassed, and how we are defeated if we leave Iraq now.

I say we point out how Cheney's real fear is that his war will be proven fruitless. Cheney is not worried about the reputation of the US, Cheney is worried about the reputation of Cheney. The reason there can be no change of course in Iraq is not for the sake of the US but for the sake of Cheney.


Once we establish that this is Cheney's war then we can let Cheney lose the war. And when we jetison Cheney, only those who cling to Cheney will be lost.

America can emerge victorious.

Nyah, nyah! Dick made more money than you did too! Is there a single person on this planet who thinks Dick is where he is for any other purpose?

Hoppy in Sacramento

No, not nearly enough time has been spent trying to get the facts about this administration out where they can be seen.

This Congress cannot begin to solve the problems facing this country as long as Bush is president. Don't forget, just because Bush hasn't used the veto doesn't mean he can't or won't. And, there aren't nearly enough votes in the Senate to override a Bush veto. The most productive thing this Congress can do is to lift up the curtain around the Bush administration and let people see what's back there.

Hoppy in Sacramento

... But isn't it more likely that Al-Qaeda intends to draw the United States into unending battles that drain our treasury, weaken our military, distract our foreign policy, and yet never reverse our willingness to go on fighting. It's the American will to fight without end and arguably without judgment or flexibility that Al-Qaeda is counting on, isn't it?

Um ... no. All one has to do is read any of the many communiques issued by al-Qaeda leaders and propagandists over the past several years to see exactly what they want. The message is quite consistent, direct and widely shared. Haven't you ever read these missives Reed?

It's very simple: they want us to leave. Now, which specific place they want us to leave most depends on which leader is speaking. Sometimes it is Iraq they want us to leave; sometimes it is the land of the two holy places. More often and more gnerally it is the whole land of Islam - the lands which have traditionally been ruled by Muslim peoples. They want us out ... it's not so hard to understand.

The only thing they didn't count on, perhaps, is that American don't read and don't pay attention. There is no ingenious rope-a-dope stategy, no secret long-term plan. It's more simple and obvious than that. They assume that if you kill a bunch of people, and then send a note or tape to the countrymen of those people and say, "get the hell out of my country", then eventually the people you send the note to will say, "yeah, it's not worth it. Let's get the hell out of there." The only thing they didn't count on, perhaps, is that American don't read and don't pay attention. No matter how many notes they send, a lot od Americans remain in the dark. It must be a bit mysitifying to them that no matter how many times they tell us precisely what they want, a number of American "thinkers" will run around bitting their fingernails and say "What does al Qaeda want."

Where both Cheney and some liberals like you seem to agree, Reed, is in your common assumption that since al Qaeda and its spinoffs are so damned evil and "subhuman", then whatever al Qaeda wants, we should do the exact opposite. Cheney thinks they want us to leave, and so argues we should stay. Some of the administration opponents have developed the oh-so-clever line that al Qaeda really wants us to stay and spend ourselves to death, and so we should leave.

Maybe you're both wrong. They want us to leave, now, and we should leave.

It may also be important to ponder that the wish to get the holy places of Islam cleansed from infidels is widely shared, that what often is labeled as al-Qaeda ideology, extremist views or terrorist demands to a certain extent is shared by mainstream Arabs (and also mainstream Muslims around the world). The connection to generic anti-imperialism currents also oughtn't be underestimated.

The way the occupation of Iraq has been (mis-) handled, it's not surprising if the locals there want all and every foreigner to disappear. That, however, doesn't relieve the occupation forces of responsibility for the security of the civilians. Also if they leave, the blame for detoriating security will rightfully fall on the former occupants. It's their duty to ensure intensely promote stabile conditions and security.

/Tuomas

Of course, it's Cheney himself who is sapping the will of the American people to oppose al-Qaeda. That's why they love him and Bush so much. Osama even made an election eve statement to help Bush in 2004!

Cheney and Bush are far greater enemies to our way of life and core values than Osama and al-Zarqawi could ever have hoped to be. They praise Allah every day for giving them Cheney and Bush!

The soldiers will determine the election by either succeeding in Iraq, and proving Bush right, or failing, and vindicating congress.

Hillary's future, and Pelosi's for that matter, depend on the results in Iraq. The soldiers better not accomplish their mission in the next several months or the course of the 2008 elections will swing wildly.

No resolutions from congress will matter. We can only pray for the result we desire.

It's very simple: they want us to leave.

It is not that simple. The idea that the "far enemy" must be struck now developed amongst groups who insisted upon the primary importance of the "near enemy". Fawaz A. Gerges focuses upon this element in his book "The Far Enemy" where he speaks of the importance of Mohammed Abd al-Salam Faraj:

If Qutb provided an overarching intellectual architecture for the contemporary jihadist movement, Mohammed Abd al-Salam Faraj (who coordinated the 1981 assassination of President Sadat and was the ideologue of the Jihad Group, which later evolved into Tanzim al-Jihad (widely known as Egyptian Islamic Jihad) translated the meanings of jihad into operational terms. While Qutb produced an ideological manifesto, Faraj was an activist who preached jihad in local mosques, recruited jihadis, and plotted underground to overthrow the regime along lines similar to those of the Islamic revolution in Iran. Faraj, whose colleagues describe him as a fiery and charismatic orator, defined jihad in a small booklet titled “al-Faridah al-Ghaibah,” or “Absent (or Forgotten) Duty,” which became the bible and operational manual of all Egyptian jihadis in the 1980s and 1990s, including the two leading organizations – Jihad and its much bigger sister, al-Jama’a al-Islamiya.

Several points are worth highlighting about this critical document. To begin, the title of Faraj’s booklet refers to the jihad duty, which is no longer observed and is even contested and denied by some ulema. He aimed at reviving jihad by reminding Muslims of the significance of this concept to the establishment of an Islamic government, to which all Muslims are obliged to strive. Here Faraj presented a new idea: that jihad was the way to establish an Islamic state, while the classical conception of jihad required the existence of an Islamic authority to do so. Next, Faraj makes the case for jihad as a personal, not just collective, duty because now the near enemy (Muslim rulers) occupies the country. Historically, the classical view held that jihad was a collective duty that could be activated only if outside enemies threatened or invaded Muslim lands. But Faraj turned the classical view on its head and asserted that present-day Muslim rulers, particularly Egyptians, forsake their religion by not applying the Shariah and by taking unbelievers as their allies: “The rulers of these days are apostate. They have been brought up at the tables of colonialism, no matter whether of the crusading, the communist, or the Zionist variety. They are Muslim only in name, even if they pray, fast, and pretend that they are Muslims.” Therefore, waging jihad against these apostates is a personal duty of every Muslim who is capable of fighting, until the former repent or get killed.

The importance of Faraj’s operational dictum does not lie in defining jihad as an individual and permanent obligation and refuting the classical view regarding the collective and defensive nature of jihad. Qutb and others had already made that argument very eloquently and powerfully. Rather, Faraj posited a new paradigm, assigning a much higher priority to jihad against the near enemy than against the far enemy. According to Faraj, a young activist who came from a middle-class family and who graduated from Cairo University with a degree in electrical engineering, not even liberating Jerusalem (the occupied Palestinian capital and the most important place for Muslims after Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia) takes precedence over the struggle against local infidels. Why? Faraj advances three arguments in support of his position. First, “fighting the near enemy must take priority over that of the far enemy.” Second, liberating Jerusalem must be waged under the banner of Islam, not the internal impious leadership, lest the impious leaders be the main beneficiary of such a victory. And finally, the colonial presence in Muslim lands is the fault of these Muslim rulers. Faraj concludes by saying that jihad’s first and foremost priority must be to replace these infidel rulers with a comprehensive Islamic system. Any other external agenda would be a waste of time, Faraj said.

There was considerable debate inside Al-Qaeda about whether attacking the U.S. would help or hinder the primary goal of defeating the near enemy. The die has been cast but the game is not simple.

Laura, you are correct about America being blamed if Iraq descends into chaos. Democrats are walking a minefield here, because if they force the troops home early and there is a bloodbath in Iraq -- they will be blamed in the next election. The ghosts of Vietnam still loom over the party. They've got to be very careful of not overplaying a hand here.