-Caveat Lector-

From
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north58.html

>>>A map is at the site<<<

}}}>Begin
The Poster and the Map:
Bin Laden vs. Congress
by Gary North

A
              terrorist group needs recruits. A terrorist movement
needs recruits. If your strategy of terror involves the extensive use
of suicide
              missions, you need very dedicated recruits.
To
              get such recruits, you need the following: (1) a cause
that is greater than any individual; (2) a sense of destiny
associated with your
              cause; (3) the perception that a sacrificial act on
behalf of your
              cause is never wasted or futile; (4) a vision of
victory; (5) publicly
              visible events that demonstrate the power of your
movement.
From
              what little I have read about Osama bin Laden, his
movement possesses
              all five factors. He is especially skilled with respect to point five. 
He understands symbolism, and he understands Western media. This man is a formidable 
enemy of Western civilization.
I
              believe that Americans have completely misunderstood the events
              of 9-11. The attack was not a direct assault on the United States
              primarily for the sake of making us fearful. It was part of a recruiting
              campaign. The response of the street people in Palestine was what
              he had in mind. He gave alienated Palestinians an event to celebrate.

It
              also gave the Establishment Palestinians a chance to speak out against
              terrorism. That, too, was part of bin Laden's positioning. He is not 
Establishment. An extremist, especially a terrorist, must position himself as a member 
of the non-loyal opposition. Nothing I can imagine
could have accomplished this better than the events of 9-11.
The
              Poster
If
              you want to understand what happened on 9-11, visualize a poster with 
bin Laden in a turban and flowing robes, pointing a his index
              finger at you, with a slogan underneath: Uncle Osama Wants You.
              That poster is aimed at the alienated folks back home. For Americans,
              the slogan is different: Uncle Osama Wants You Dead.
I
              have studied the history of terrorism, on and off, since 1963, when
              I took an undergraduate course in modern Russian history. In that
              class, we studied the terrorist groups the preceded the Bolsheviks
              by three decades.
What
              caught my attention then, and what has been reinforced by follow-up
              studies on terrorism that I have read, is the motivation of these
              groups. You might think that their goal is to bring down a government
              directly through acts of sporadic violence. On the contrary, their
              goal is to make the government do tyrannical things, thereby losing 
legitimacy and causing an uprising. Theirs is an indirect procedure.
The
              Russian terrorists who in 1881 killed liberal Czar Alexander II (who 
liberated the serfs) with a tossed bomb got what they wanted:
              the oppression of Alexander III. He suppressed terrorist groups
              with a vengeance. Six years later, there was an attempt on his life.
              The government hanged the six conspirators. One of them was Lenin's 
older brother. This radicalized Lenin. This led to the overthrow
              of Czarist Russia thirty years later. The tactic worked. It just
              took time. People who have given up hope for victory in their lifetime
              have plenty of time.
The
              terrorist also wants to create uncertainty in the mind of the public. 
Widespread confusion over citizens' safety on the streets, the terrorist believes, 
undermines a government's legitimacy. If the public pe
rceives that the government cannot protect its citizens, the government
              faces a loss of confidence. This weakens the government, making
              a revolution more likely.
Acts
              of terrorism are part of a larger strategy. A government cannot stop all 
individual acts of terrorism. A government's task is to
              thwart the larger strategy. It can do this two ways: provide widespread
              justice, thereby strengthening the resiliency and legitimacy of
              the society, or else adopt ruthless counter-terrorism. Anything
              in between will fail, once a society becomes a target of terrorists.
              Think of Nicholas II. Think of Louis XVI.
The
              acts of 9-11 were symbolic attacks on American finance capital (the
              towers) and American military might (the Pentagon). The terrorists
              knew better than to imagine that a nation can be undermined by terror
              alone, especially terror that hits only sporadically. They were making a 
statement: America's government cannot protect its people or itself from men who are 
willing to die. This statement was primarily for
the folks back home, not for us. The message is this:
              if you are willing to die, you can help undermine the Great Satan's 
seeming indestructibility. I am convinced that this attack was
              part of a recruiting program.
The
              conspiracy attracted skilled men who became pilots of jet planes. These 
men were not buffoons. They will find imitators. That's the problem we now face. 
Imitators.
Symbols
              make a difference. On April 18, 1942, Jimmy Doolittle led his force
              of B-25's off the deck of the U.S.S. Hornet to launch a surprise attack 
on Tokyo. They knew that there was no possibility that the Japanese would be set back 
militarily. The raid was a statement:
              "You are not invulnerable." This attack was an assault on their
              honor and self-esteem. It led to Japan's retaliatory attack on Midway
              on June 4-6, in which they lost all four aircraft carriers, while
              we lost one of our three: the greatest naval victory in American
              history. Meanwhile, the two-carrier feint at the Aleutians led to
              the 180-degree nosedive of a Zero. The plane was intact, and American
              engineers were able to discover the plane's strength and weaknesses.
              All in all, Doolittle's raid turned out to be a master stroke. But
              it had nothing to do with physical damage inflicted on the Japanese
              war machine. It was a statement, not a strategy. It said, "we can
              reach you."
This
              was the statement made on 9-11. More important, it was this: "We can 
reach them." It was for the folks back home. We are responding just as the Japanese 
did: emotionally. We are not thinking through
              what we want done. We are ignoring Al Pacino's line in Godfather
              III: "Don't get angry. It distorts your judgment."
No
              group took credit for the attack. These are not tactical terrorists who 
are using terror to make a name for themselves or their cause. These are strategic 
terrorists who understand that if they
              cannot be positively identified, and if they are operate in a sanctuary,
              they can do it again. They are recruiting now-optimistic fanatics
              who will help them do it again. They don't need millions of followers.
              A hundred would do it if they play the
              anthrax card. They need new volunteers whose identities are
              not in the authorities' computer files.
This
              is why, long-term, 9-11 was brilliantly conceived and executed. The 
American public doesn't get it yet. The Palestinian man in the street does.
No
              matter which group launches the next attack, if it does so anonymously,
              bin Laden will get the credit. His legend will grow. This is a rich,
              cunning, dangerous, and evil man. Congressional rhetoric will not
              deter him.
The
              Map
To
              win a war, you had better begin with a map. Here is the CIA's official
              map of Afghanistan:

Afghanistan
              shares borders with the following nations (clockwise): Iran, 
Turkmenistan,
              Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China, and Pakistan. This is now our "stan"
              problem. The only non-Muslim nation's border is China, and it is
              a corridor about 20 miles wide and maybe 100 miles long over the
              Himalayas, at the extreme western edge of China. Forget about it.

To
              fly a bomber over Afghanistan legally, according to international law, 
the United States will have to obtain permission from a Muslim nation. What are the 
odds of gaining such permission? From what
              base will we safely launch our planes? What Muslim government will
              allow a non-Muslim nation to use its soil in order to launch an
              attack on a Muslim nation? This would be suicidal, and not just
              politically. They take their religion seriously over there.
My
              prediction: there will be no air strikes. Even if there are, with
              what effect? The country is mountainous. Bin Laden and his men are 
mobile. The country is the size of Texas.
To
              fly a bomber that is carrying anything but several nuclear bombs
              is militarily useless. But a hydrogen bomb is just about useless
              in a terrain like Afghanistan's. There are caves everywhere. The
              Hiroshima bomb did not kill anyone in one of the underground walk-in
              shelters, if the person had rounded one corner.
To
              drop nuclear weapons on a Muslim nation after ignoring the no-fly zone 
of a Muslim nation would make this nation a target for terrorism on a scale beyond our 
wildest imagination. There would be waves
              of suicide squads, and not just bin Laden's. Nuking a Muslim nation
              would turn hundreds of law-abiding American Muslim citizens into
              fanatics.
Let's
              review a little well-known history. In 1989, the Soviet Union retreated
              from Afghanistan. Within two years, there was no longer any Soviet
              Union. The shock of that defeat undermined the legitimacy of the
              Soviet Empire. A decade earlier, their tanks had rolled down the highway 
from the border into Kabul. They surrounded the city of
              Kabul with their tanks in one day. What good did this do them? None.
              It cost them their empire.
Now
              let's review a little unknown history. Think about maps again. How
              did the Soviet Union drive 30-ton tanks from the edge of what used
              to be the USSR into Kabul in just one day? How did tanks get through
              the mountains? Did they drive down a paved highway? Well, as a matter
              of fact, they did. It had been built 13 years earlier by 8,000 Afghans
              under the supervision of Russians. Here's the capper: the project
              was paid for by the United States. It was a joint construction project.
              This was reported in the November 3, 1966 issue of the Engineering
              News-Record, "Rugged Afghan Road Jobs Fill Gaps in Trans-Asia
              Network." (I may be one of only two people in the world who clipped
              that article for his files in 1966. The other was the person who
              sent me the photocopy.)
So,
              while 55,000 American troops were dying in Vietnam, battling a tiny
              nation funded by the USSR, President Johnson was building the road
              that the Soviets used in 1979 to invade Afghanistan. There should have 
been a sign at the side of the road: "Americans' tax dollars
              at work."
As
              it turned out, that was the best money this country spent on the Cold 
War. It was like a giant neon sign that read, "Come and get
              it!" The Soviets came, and they got it. Now it's our turn.
I
              don't believe that more than a dozen Congressmen and Senators sat down 
with a map of Afghanistan before delivering the floor speech
              for the folks back home. A wise man would have structured his rhetoric
              by thinking carefully about this map. But wisdom was in short supply
              on September 14.
Rhetoric
              vs. Reality
bin Laden got exactly what every strategic terrorist wants. He got the enemy 
government to escalate a war which the terrorists inherently control, for they pick 
the battlefields, the weapons, and the escape routes. The te
rrorists establish the terms of engagement.
              The initiative lies with the terrorists. The government reacts.

We
              will be victorious, Congressmen assured us, one by one, on C-Span,
              in their speeches on September 14. Well, politicians also tell us there 
will be meaningful tax reform. There hasn't been for twenty years. They tell us Social 
Security is solvent. It isn't. They tell
              us there are trust funds with money in them. There aren't. Now they
              tell us that bin Laden is as good as dead. He isn't.
I
              have never heard such rhetoric as I heard on C-Span regarding the 
President's authorization to use all resources to strike against
              terrorism. In one-minute segments, Congressmen and Congresswomen
              kept saying that we will impose our power to show the terrorists
              that we are strong. The problem is, if we don't get them, this will
              expose us as weak. Bluster is a liability. "Speak softly
              and carry a big stick" is more than a slogan; it is a strategy for
              keeping enemies off balance. Now we have thrown down the verbal
              gauntlet. We have said that we will get them. If we fail, it will
              make the terrorists even bolder.
With
              respect to bin Laden, our leaders speak loudly and carry a weak reed. 
Loud talk will not do us any good. "We are coming after you,
              and the fury of hell is coming with us," one Georgia Congressmen
              said on the floor of the House on September 14. He pretended to
              direct his remarks to bin Laden. In fact, they were for his constituents.
              It would be best to link our cause to a likely outcome. It would
              also be wise not to link our fury with hell's. To invoke hell as
              your model when you are challenging a Muslim terrorist group is
              not the best way to get your message across to a Muslim nation that
              your military strategy requires to provide a base of operations.
Rep.
              Brad Sherman issued a challenge during September 14's hours of one-minute
              speeches supporting the President's legislation. He said that we
              must not allow European banks' secrecy laws to thwart our identification
              of those who financed the attack. He also announced that we should
              declare war on Afghanistan if the Taliban refuses to turn over bin Laden 
to us. We stand with "the Northern alliance," he said. I guess
              he meant NATO. I wonder how NATO will provide the air fields we
              will need to fight in Afghanistan.
The
              Democrats couldn't get on board the war on terrorism fast enough. 
President Bush on Thursday was ready to ask Congress for $20 billion to fight 
terrorism, which also included money for unnamed victims
              of the bombing. Then he met with unnamed New York politicians .
              . . sorry, "lawmakers." New York lawmakers are not generally Republicans.
              After the meeting, he upped it to $40 billion. This was just the
              beginning. Senate Majority Leader Daschle said, and I quote, "There
              is a unanimous understanding that whatever we do this week is a
              very minimal down payment to what will be required and what we will
              do in the days and weeks ahead." Sen. Daschle cut off his sentence
              too early. He should have added, "and months and years and decades."

I
              don't think our Congressmen understand how weak this nation is militarily
              in a mountain campaign, or how unbeatable the Afghans are. No invader
              has ever defeated them. The British lost 16,000 men while trying
              to escape on the Khyber Pass in 1842. The Soviets lost an empire,
              and they were on its border. You must fight Afghans in their mountains.
              Those who try this rarely return, even in body bags.
If
              you try to fight them on the plains, you face an estimated 10 million 
land mines that the Soviets left behind.
What
              good will money do to stem this form of conspiratorial, anonymous
              warfare? We know where to find the answer. The State of Israel lives
              with this daily, year after year. Americans seem unaware of the
              fact that Ariel Sharon doesn't go on television to demand that the 
Knesset take immediate action "so that an attack like this will
              never happen again." Another one just like it will probably happen
              before the weekend is over. The war never ends. It just escalates.
Terrorists
              from the Middle East cannot attack us daily, as they do in the State
              of Israel. To make terrorism work here, they must go for one-shot,
              large-effect displays of our vulnerability. Home-brew biological
              warfare is the weapon of mass destruction of choice for movements
              that cannot afford nuclear weapons. Congress has not looked carefully
              at another map – our map.
The
              question of 9-11 is not this: "What can we do to prevent something like 
this from ever happening again?" The answer is obvious, and
              we all know it. "Nothing." The question is this: "What can we do
              to prevent a series of biological warfare attacks on the West's
              cities, each of which will dwarf the death of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
              combined?"
I
              suggest letting a Muslim government remove bin Laden without visible
              arm-twisting from the United States. I also suggest prayer. September
              14 was a good start in this area, despite Congressional rhetoric.
              We must put our faith in God before we put our faith in Congress.

Conclusion
If
              Bin Laden did it, then he is recruiting. Even if he didn't do it,
              he is recruiting. He has taken the initiative. This is a classic
              terrorist operation. The model goes back at least to the Russian
              terrorists of the nineteenth century. We have seen it all before,
              or at least historians have. America is reacting predictably. Except
              for widespread public prayer, ours has been the classic response
              to classic terrorism.
It
              is the response which the terrorists work hard to achieve. The man who 
understood this best was the non-violent revolutionary, Saul Alinsky. He provided the 
slogan that encapsulates the revolutionary's strat
egy: "The action is in the reaction."
There
              are only two ways to fight terrorism with any hope of success: (1)
              implacable, unrelenting counter-terrorism through endless law-breaking;
              or (2) unrelenting, implacable justice and the rule of law and liberty.
              The first approach can bottle up terrorism for a time, but any perceived
              slackening of the campaign leads to defeat. This nation had better
              choose the second way.
Just
              about every national politician has called on God to bless America. If 
Americans expect His blessing, they had better do it God's way:
              by the rule of law (Exodus 12:49). Otherwise, calling on God is
              a misuse of God's name. There is a commandment against this.
September
                17,
                2001
For a subscription to Gary North's free e-mail newsletter, send
              an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
©
              2001 LewRockwell.com

End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
                                     German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to