Is Al Qaeda trying to break us just as they broke the Soviets?

[brokendolly]

I know it's been said often enough, and it's more than obvious, but is it possible Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda forces think THEY broke the Soviets by drawing them into an unwinnable quagmire in Afghanistan and that they can break us by drawing us into the Middle East and Afghanistan in the same way? Break us and bankrupt us, I mean. It sure looks like what Bush wants us to do. He looks as blindly stupid as his Soviet counterparts in their ruinous war of choice.


Some choice words from AQ on how we have played right into their plans it seems:

A July 9, 2005, letter attributed to al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri warned that a rapid U.S. pullout could cause al-Qaeda's new recruits, who traveled to Iraq to wage war on the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home.

"The mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal," wrote Zawahiri, who worried that a premature departure of the Americans also might leave the depleted ranks of al-Qaeda foreign fighters at the mercy of angry Iraqis.

Another internal communiqué revealed that al-Qaeda's real wish was for the United States to stay in Iraq indefinitely, so the terrorist group could continue recruiting and training young jihadists while buying time to overcome the hostility of Iraqis toward outsiders.

In a letter to Zarqawi, dated Dec. 11, 2005, "Atiyah," another top aide to bin Laden, described the hard work needed to overcome the animosity of Sunni tribal leaders. In that context, Atiyah said the continued American presence was crucial.

"Prolonging the war is in our interest," Atiyah wrote in a letter captured when Zarqawi was killed in June 2006.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

No, Al Qaeda uses America's strength against it from the standpoint of, if your going to have a bogeyman pick a good one.

Al Qaeda pushed too hard with 9/11. While they got the reaction they expected in the Middle East I don't think they expected Bush to actually come after them and their allies in Afghanistan in such force. Nor did they expect Iraq.

Unlike the Soviets of the late 70s and early 80s America can project an incredible amount of force and do it rapidly. The soviets defeated themselves in Afghanistan because they didn't focus on it. They still had the majority of their forces locked up in Warsaw pact countries. If they had had the operational freedom the US enjoys they could have made short work of Afghanistan. Instead it became a dumping ground for officers and the like no one wanted...

The terrorist groups need a US presence because the people are too afraid, some are just apathetic, of their own governments. Focusing on an outside enemy makes it easier. The local government will not look at them as hard, let alone try to squash them. In Saudi Arabia when AQ acted up it got a decidely harsh response, yet when AQ turned their attention outside of SA they are apparently allowed to exist.

America needs to get back to the pre-Vietnam/pre-Kennedy days. Where our strength was recognized and not used. Remember back to Teddy Roosevelt. Carry a big stick and walk softly. When America does that we all win. We got to damn imperialistic in the 60s and never looked back.

 

[brokendolly]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

America needs to get back to the pre-Vietnam/pre-Kennedy days. Where our strength was recognized and not used. Remember back to Teddy Roosevelt. Carry a big stick and walk softly. When America does that we all win. We got to damn imperialistic in the 60s and never looked back.

Although I have issues with your interpretation of Soviet-Afgani war I do agree with this statement above.

Would be nice to see Reps as the ones trying to keep us out of wars again.

Really makes no sense how a party supposedly so conservative would be so gung-ho to empty the treasury on failed imperialist grabs.

'specially since history has shown that this path is a dead end again and again.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
No, Al Qaeda uses America's strength against it from the standpoint of, if your going to have a bogeyman pick a good one.

Al Qaeda pushed too hard with 9/11. While they got the reaction they expected in the Middle East I don't think they expected Bush to actually come after them and their allies in Afghanistan in such force. Nor did they expect Iraq.

. . .

I disagree. I've read many, many statements that Osama and Al Qaeda were surprised at the (initial) US response in Afganistan-they expected a military response within hours if not days. I will agree to some extent in that our initial military response in Afganistan was well planned and executed (with the exception of the failure to capture or kill Osama) but would argue that we dropped the ball on the follow through, the nation building, when our attention and troops were distracted by Iraq. As such, we stand a very real danger of Afganistan easily returning to what it was. In addition Pakistan (a nuclear power) is incredibly unstable and could very easily turn radical Islam.

I do think we played right into Al Qaeda's hands by invading Iraq, which had been governed by a secular tyrant. Soley as a result of our invasion it is now a breeding ground and training area for terrorists where it was not before. The only downside (and not an insignificant one) to Al Qaeda resulting from our invasion of Iraq is the massive Shia v. Sunni warfare that has resulted. The Shia faction is primarily aligned with Iran and opposed to Al Qaeda, which is derived primarily from Sunnis originating from Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, and now Iran). Before Iraq Al Qada's vision was for a world dominated by their version of Islam, the mess made in Iraq is fracturing that vision. Overall, though, Al Qaeda could have hardly hoped for a better blunder than our invasion of Iraq.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: Shivetya
No, Al Qaeda uses America's strength against it from the standpoint of, if your going to have a bogeyman pick a good one.

Al Qaeda pushed too hard with 9/11. While they got the reaction they expected in the Middle East I don't think they expected Bush to actually come after them and their allies in Afghanistan in such force. Nor did they expect Iraq.

. . .

I disagree. I've read many, many statements that Osama and Al Qaeda were surprised at the (initial) US response in Afganistan-they expected a military response within hours if not days. I will agree to some extent in that our initial military response in Afganistan was well planned and executed (with the exception of the failure to capture or kill Osama) but would argue that we dropped the ball on the follow through, the nation building, when our attention and troops were distracted by Iraq. As such, we stand a very real danger of Afganistan easily returning to what it was. In addition Pakistan (a nuclear power) is incredibly unstable and could very easily turn radical Islam.

I do think we played right into Al Qaeda's hands by invading Iraq, which had been governed by a secular tyrant. Soley as a result of our invasion it is now a breeding ground and training area for terrorists where it was not before. The only downside (and not an insignificant one) to Al Qaeda resulting from our invasion of Iraq is the massive Shia v. Sunni warfare that has resulted. The Shia faction is primarily aligned with Iran and opposed to Al Qaeda, which is derived primarily from Sunnis originating from Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, and now Iran). Before Iraq Al Qada's vision was for a world dominated by their version of Islam, the mess made in Iraq is fracturing that vision. Overall, though, Al Qaeda could have hardly hoped for a better blunder than our invasion of Iraq.

You act as if we cant possible fight and conduct operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This we are pre-occupied with Iraq idea imo is silly and unfounded. Our military is more than capable of dealing with both situations.

And tell me which nation in the ME isnt a breeding ground for terrorists, honestly. Every one of them has some kind of home grown network.

I'd say we played right into Irans hands, not AQs. Iraq most likely will fight AQ just as much as they fight us. In fact they often do target AQ members with their death squads.
Anyways now that we are stuck with Iraq and have a pissed off world and a divided populace. Iran can go on their merry way and build the bomb without much interference from us or the world.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Unlike the Soviets, the U.S. can afford a lengthy war. Whether you agree with the war or not, our ability to fight a massive war on the other side of the world with our economy not so much as blinking is pretty remarkable.