[I've been out of town.]
On 24 Jul 2003, "Jon Gabriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said
Honorable, brave men would have attacked military targets ....
This does not follow. After all, the goal in war is to gain an unfair
advantage: to win, not to lose. Honorable, brave men do not intend
to bring defeat on themselves and their supporters.
An enemy decision maker could well figure that in asymmetrical
warfare, an attack on a highly symbolic target that kills civilians
would would more likely bring victory to him than an attack on an
enemy military. (I don't think the Pentagon was the primary target of
the third airplane.)
However, I do think the decision makers in Al Qaeda made a mistake
from their point of view. The US had a choice of two responses to the
attack on the World Trade Center. It could flee or fight. It could
withdraw from the Holy Land (i.e., from the land of the two holy
cities, Arabia), as it had done from Vietnam, the Lebanon, and Somalia
when faced with asymmetrical, symbollically managed warfare, or it
could fight.
The attack resulted in the US fighting rather than retreating.
(Also, Caleb Carr has argued that terrorism always fails in the long
run, since the terrorized may surrender for a moment, but continue
bitter. "The Lessons of Terror", Caleb Carr, Random House, 2003)
The question is whether the next stage of US fighting will be done
competently.
One problem the Bush Administration faces is that to fight a war that
involves long times between publically visible action it must organize
its support through words. It must be able to say that intelligence
indicates that the US government should spend money in Africa that
would otherwise not be borrowed. Ideally the Bush Administration will
be believed when it says that; but even if it is not believed, the
Bush Administration must be perceived as borrowing and spending that
money competently.
In the past, Al Qaeda has often waited two years or more between
attacks. This is a long time for Americans. Indeed, I have heard
some Americans wonder whether Al Qaeda still has forces left since it
has not undertaken a symbollically significant attack against the US
in the last 23 months.
There are two issues here:
* First, the Bush Administration has often said that Al Qaeda is
dangerous. Will Americans continue to believe the Bush
Administration? Or will they disbelieve and then be surprised if
another attack occurs?
As I said, I don't think that many Americans are bothered by a
President who lies on topics of foreign policy. However, if
Americans stop believing in a President altogether, they may
ignore even truths.
* Second, Bush Administration attention to Al Qaeda must please its
backers and `semi-neutral supporters' since it suggests that Al
Qaeda is as important as they hope. Al Qaeda is fighting an
asymmetrical war; that is why it attacks symbolic targets and
kills civilians instead of attacking the kinds of military targets
that might lose it the war.
Because of this attention by the Bush Administration, Al Qaeda has
not had to make a recent attack in order to carry its symbolic
message to its supporters and enemies.
(However, from their point of view, I do think Al Qaeda will need
to make another symbolically important attack within a year, and
perhaps within a few months, to avoid being judged defunct. They
can depend on people believing the Bush Administration only so
long.)
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
