Here’s Christian Taylor’s take at The Conversation on where Al Qaeda stands today:
Al-Qaida is no longer a hierarchical organization taking orders from its famous, charismatic leader, as it was on 9/11.
But it is stronger and more resilient than it was under bin Laden. And the “war on terror†has helped, not hurt it.
Read the whole thing. I take that as a complete vindication of the positions I’ve staked out over the last 18 years and a nearly complete repudiation of the positions of our political leadership and punditry. Sometimes the only way to win is not to play.
I think the guy makes a good case, but without details he doesn’t provide, my recollection from other studies on this topic is that it was Iraq that set things in motion. Russia had been fighting in Afghanistan for years without an international response from Muslims. The Taliban weren’t all that sympathetic. However, the unprovoked attack on Iraq really made bin Laden’s dreams come true.
Steve
When attacked, play dead.
As I quote B.H.O, this IS a Muslim nation.
Mr. Shambler:
Playing possum only works when the predator walks away in disgust. If it decides to eat you, you need a new plan of action. Al-Qaeda wants to eat the world and won’t be satisfied with anything less.
The world that Al Qaeda wishes to devour is primarily Saudi Arabia. Attacks on the U. S. are merely a means to that end. If you really want to remove the threat posed by Al Qaeda, you have your work cut out for you.
Violent fundamentalist groups of Al Qaeda’s type are endemic in Islam. Nothing like a majority of Muslims but endemic. To actually remove the threat, you’ll need to eradicate Islam itself. I’m not recommending it, just pointing out the reality of it.
Both 9/11 and the first attack on the World Trade Center could have been prevented simply by enforcing immigration laws already on the books. Tougher laws would be even better. So, for example, I don’t think we should give visas to people from Saudi Arabia at all. We don’t need them or want them. Wahhabism is genuinely awful.
It would certainly be a lot more cost effective. We’ve already spent $5 trillion. That could have paid for a heckuva lot of enforcement.
My “play dead” was jokingly in response to Dave’s “not to play”.
9/11 never should have happened. These hijackers entered the country with the knowledge of the CIA. Who’s leaders had just been hauled in front of congress to explain why they had been spying on Americans.
So when they crossed onto American soil, the CIA said basically, “they are the FBI’s problem now”. And did not inform the FBI.
Keep in mind the CIA had no foreknowledge of 9/11, and many suspects and suspected plotters to watch.
Particularly egregious was the entry of Mohamed Atta, a man who had been Osama Bin Laden’s step’n’fetch’it for 20 years, important because Bill Clinton had made two attempts on Bin Laden’s life.
I guess I believe the CIA felt treated unfairly and inter-agency rivalry and hard feelings toward the FBI led to this lapse.
And, if 9/11 hadn’t happened, Afghanistan wouldn’t have happened.
G.W. Bush responded by creating an entirely new agency, Homeland Security, and I can’t argue with 18 years of no major re-occurrence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta