empires tend to go under when corruption and decadence takes over. the united states is corrupt and very decadent...

...as are most other western nations, to lesser degrees. but since they're no empires, they don't need to be brought down.

"And in the end, I don't think they have what it takes to defeat the American empire. I think they're more like the kamikazi pilots of the Japanese empire -- flinging themselves at an enemy they can still hurt, but no longer hope to defeat."

Mmmmm, no, I think they've abandoned that strategy in favor of picking off more accessible targets of opportunity. The haphazard and counterproductive nature of the recent attacks tends to argue against a reorganized al Qaeda; rather it is more suggestive of a diffuse group of small cells left to choose their own targets without any central guidance or overarching strategy.

The haphazard and counterproductive nature of the recent attacks tends to argue against a reorganized al Qaeda;

Haphazard? Counterproductive??? What fucking planet are you living on, pal?

Planet Bush, apparently.

rather it is more suggestive of a diffuse group of small cells left to choose their own targets without any central guidance or overarching strategy.

If you can't see the overarching strategy in attacking British targets in Turkey, the foreign business community in Saudi Arabia and (probably) the Italians in Nasiriya, then you probably need to look the word "strategy" up in a dictionary, since you obviously don't know what it means.

Let's not forget the damage to our intelligence gathering abilities done by the outing of one of our own agents.

If you can't see the overarching strategy in attacking British targets in Turkey, the foreign business community in Saudi Arabia and (probably) the Italians in Nasiriya, then you probably need to look the word "strategy" up in a dictionary, since you obviously don't know what it means.

Actually you don't need to bother with a dictionary. Just go read this.

Biilmon, don't be too upset with David Thompson; he's a unapologetic Bush flunkie. Don't waster your time respoding to any of his rants.

Perhaps they mean to goad the Turkish military into becoming more involved in Iraq?

a sort of flypaper theory for the other side...

Strictly on an objective basis, one must admire AQ's cold execution of what is, in strategic terms, an absolutely brilliant game plan. Not only that, but there is clearly a flair for improvisation within the template.

I hasten to add, again, that that is not a subjective statement of support, merely an objective observation of fact.

Historians may look back on this "isolation" strategy AQ is using on Bush as something akin to Giap's or Mao's successful strategies against more powerful colonial powers.

Strictly on an objective basis, one must admire AQ's cold execution of what is, in strategic terms, an absolutely brilliant game plan.

"Admire" is the wrong word. "Treat it with deadly seriousness" is better. We have GOT to get out of this idiotic habit of underestimating the enemy.

These guys don't have the power or the resources, but they DO know exactly what they are doing -- which puts them light years ahead of the competition.

Historians may look back on this "isolation" strategy AQ is using on Bush as something akin to Giap's or Mao's successful strategies against more powerful colonial powers.

The sad thing is that the strategy probably wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of working if the neocons weren't so fucking determined to HELP.

We are all suffering that old Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times". Thank God that al-Qaeda has not (yet?) been able to strike on Western soil (not that that's much consolation to hundreds of dead Kenyans, Turks, Tunisians, Balians, etc, etc.)

After hearing about the very latest attack, I clicked on CNN - and almost put my fist through the screen when I saw their main story was about Michael f****** Jackson getting arrested. I guess people somewhere actually care...

I clicked on CNN - and almost put my fist through the screen when I saw their main story was about Michael f****** Jackson getting arrested. I guess people somewhere actually care...

They'll care when their own friends and loved ones are getting a shrapnel shower -- and not before, I guess.

Its good to see someone telling it like it is, Billmon, thanks.

"Counterproductive"?!?! It seems to be producing the results they intended. Many countries who even thought about sending in troops to help are definately not now, due to these "haphazard" attacks. These attacks have proven that the claim of a secure and peaceful Iraq is full of B.S. Their chaotic nature is intended, showing that even the Red Cross is not safe. Even Iraqi's who help the US aren't safe. Thats the point.

Hell, they were about 40 feet away from RPG'ing Wolfowitz of Arabia, which I shall refrain from commenting further on...

The reason why they're effective is exactly because they are cells, David Thompson. Catch five of them, big deal, it doesn't ruin the overarching strategy (which does exist, by the way, and it is to get the foreigners and anyone who helps them out of thier country).

David,

I hardly see how any such terrorist attack can be considered counterproductive. Any terrorist attack against any target by definition brings about terror. Which is the point.

If it was a military campaign then sure your comment may be true. But to be critical of a terrorist attack because you don't consider the target to be spot on really flies in the face of decades of experience as to these types of attacks.

For instance might todays attack have been targeted against British interests in turkey on the very day that Bush & Blair were to make a public appearance together to talk about fortitude, mission accomplished and all that jazz?

"Admire" is the wrong word.

Perhaps, but their "low tech/high concept" is a lot more cost effective than our "high tech/low concept."

And the beat goes on... as many as 12 dead in a car bomb attack on a Patriotic Union of Kurdistan party building in Kirkuk (again, most fatalities are bystanders), an Assyrian politician gunned down, one security guard killed outside the Jordanian Embassy, and a car bomb in Ramadi aimed at pro-Coalition politicans - at least 2 dead. Dozens maimed, some for life. Not to mention the daily toll of American soldiers.

The Iraqi people are indeed living in interesting times.

Hi Marie-
haven't heard from you in a while.
welcome back to Planet Schizarro...21st Century version...

assyrian?

It's become the 21st century version of Gallipoli

At least Gallipoli was made into a great movie by Peter Weir.

GPAU! (great post as usual)

I agree that this is turning into a profound strategic defeat for the US, but I'm not at all sure that it's not a long term loss for the Wahabbists as well.

right now, the only way the term "jihadi" makes sense is in the context of the epic (monumental, staggering, astonishing) stupidity of the neocon intervention. that stupidity conceals the disparity between the aims of the Wahabbis and everybody else, by giving them a common enemy.

the strategic defeat for the US is that it has now completely lost diplomatic leverage in two adjacent major Middle Eastern states. the next geopolitical cycle marks the first time since the end of the 19th century that the ability of the Western powers to play Arab states (er, plus Iran that is) against each other is seriously impaired. that's short-term good for Al Qaeda in the sense that some of the heat is off, but long-term bad in the sense that they are now facing the same institutional problem that Lockheed faced with the collapse of the USSR.

it's still possible that deft diplomacy by a non-Bush administration after '04 could salvage some influence out of the wreckage, and it's also possible that the whole powderkeg will blow up in everybody's faces. but really it's kinda down to the Iraqis and whether Sadr, the PUK, Sistani, and various Sunni tribal Sheiks decide to hang together despite their differences. I don't think OBL's people don't have much of a say in that, and just because they manipulated the (epically stupid) neocons into creating chaos doesn't mean that they can manipulate the (hopefully savvier) Iraqis into maintaining it.

If you are comparing America to Rome, then let me give you a history lesson. In the second Caliphate, under the rule of Umar, the Muslims defeated the two super powers -- the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire. And through the grace of God, they'll do it again.

He forgot the part where the Mongols grind the Abbasid Caliphate into fine dust. It's bad enough having to hear the gibberings of neocons, much less their chauvinistic Muslim counterparts.

It was astonishing and depressing to learn that the entire State Department has only 279 people who can speak Arabic. If there aren't enough people studying the humanities, than the millions of Arab-Americans should be an invaluable resource for this purpose. But that would mean squeezing more money out of Bush for homeland security purposes, which he's shown only modest inclination.

To me they look more like the kamikazi pilots of the Japanese empire -- flinging themselves at an enemy they can still hurt, but no longer hope to defeat.

I agree - in fifty years, al-Qaeda will be an unsettling memory, like the Red Brigades (okay, they never did anything like 9.11). At most, they might subvert a handful of Muslim states, but most of those dictatorships are fairly effective at crushing opponents, given enough time. Let's hope they never subvert Pakistan.

Olaf: The Assyrians are a small Catholic minority, mostly in Iraq and Syria, some of whom still speak Aramaic.

Great post.
It is very important to me to be able to go online and see that there are still thinking individuals in this country.
This is a disasterous moment in our history.

If you are comparing America to Rome, then let me give you a history lesson. In the second Caliphate, under the rule of Umar, the Muslims defeated the two super powers -- the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire. And through the grace of God, they'll do it again.

Yeh, but that was the rather decrepit Byzantine empire of the Romaioi; I doubt they would have had much luck against Trajan (e.g.).

Sometimes I really have to wonder whether the Bush administration actually knows exactly what it's doing in foreign affairs. I have personally never been frightened of terrorism before the last couple of months. The theory was that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would cause an unprecedented level of al-Qaeda recruitment. It seems now that that theory was correct.

What I'm really scared of, though, is what the turnaround time of al-Qaeda attacks is like. How long does it take to plan a synchronised truck bomb? How long ago did today's suicide bombers join? Does it only take six months to get from radicalization to a completed attack, or does it take two years? In other words, is this the backlash to Iraq now, or is that not coming for another year?

Does the government know the answer to these questions? Do they care?

Listening to Bush and Blair spout their pompous platitudes this morning -- "we will finish the job," "there must be no holding back, no compromise," etc. ad nauseum -- it seemed more obvious than ever that neither man has the slightest idea what kind of war they're fighting. They're as clueless as the British politicians who fed men into the meat grinder of trench warfare during World War I, or the French generals who tried to hide behind the Maginot Line in World War II. They have no strategy. They don't even have a concept of a strategy. All they have is warmed over Churchillian rhetoric, as uninspiring as it is irrelevant.

Oh they've got a strategy alright, and it's one that I'm sure Tom Friedman is just

Maybe they'll call it "Operation Return of the Prophet" to the peoples of Iraq-kind of a Ayatullah Khomeini rebirth.

I found this new update from Charles Dodgson's The Looking Glass weblog. Sharp guy, that Dodgson.

Oh sorry, link fixed.

Oh they've got a strategy alright, and it's one that I'm sure Tom Friedman is just going to love.

By the way, the introductory sentence to my last post was meant to imply that they know exactly what they're doing: they're propping up global terrorism so they have something to fight with.

I wonder what they would be doing differently if this was their aim? In hindsight, every step seems carefully crafted to appear strong domestically, but to incite violence from the rest of the world, especially the Arab world. Everything from our cowardly, ineffective response to 9/11 (you couldn't take nail clippers on board a plane, but you could take all the plastic explosives you wanted), to the runup to the Iraq war which portrayed most of the world as united against America, to the occupation which gives the Arab world a front-row seat for viewing America's arrogance and cowardice.. we've just been begging for them to, well, "bring it on.." after all, we are vulnerable and they have God and the rest of the world on their site.

I have to laugh every time I see a Freeper pondering about how glad he is that Al Gore wasn't president on 9/11. They can never come up with something more convincing than "he would've just surrendered and made Osama the new president!" Yeah, right.

To me they look more like the kamikazi pilots of the Japanese empire

If you remember back to 9/11, at least one plane's terrorists were described as wearing red headbands. At the time, the word "kamikaze" flashed into my mind, although they were probably wearing them to keep track of each other -- or perhaps they themselves enjoyed the comparison.

And in the end, I don't think they have what it takes to defeat the American empire

It all depends on our definitation of "defeat." Directly, or indirectly through the neocons and their puppet, they have bankrupted our country, turning a surplus into the largest deficit in history. They have caused us to put aside, a la Ashcroft, many of the very freedoms which made America what it is. They have caused us to toss justice out the window, allowing the few in command to alter our legal system at will. They have terrified an entire population, many of whom are willing to pay any price for security; even MY rights. They have caused us to follow a course of action which has made us a pariah to many countries of the world.

At what point are we "defeated?" When none of us are left, or when America merely ceases to be America? I am willing to concede the point that they have defeated us if it turns out Bush is re-elected -- or re-selected, as it were. We will have lost everything. That is defeat.

The real question isn't whether Islamist terrorists can defeat the United States. I mean, that's simply laughable.

The question is whether the presence of a small group of Islamist terrorists will provide enough distraction/cover for the U.S. to be overtaken from within.

There's a decade-old Masterpiece Theatre series called To Play the King about the "sinister prime minister" Francis Urquhart. One point made in passing was the use of the security services to stage conveniently timed "I.R.A." bombings and assassinations. Now, certainly, that's not what is going on here-and-now--the Islamists are real and are more than happy to stage their own bombings and assassinations. But the effect is much the same. If you were trying to institute a slow-motion coup, you'd want to have al-Qaeda out there to keep the citizenry occupied and to use as a rhetorical bludgeon against the few who are keeping their eyes open.

Hell, you'd probably want them to be just a little more effective (or a little more frequent) than they've been to date, if only to provide enough horrors to keep questions to a minimum. Believe me, had 96 shoppers been blown up in a Kansas City mall last August, the Medicaid, Energy and Iraq supplemental bills would already have passed, as would have PATRIOT II and god knows what else.

I'll return to read what y'all say.

We can't just leave town or forget about this.

I have said that I don't want to walk in protest marches, although I did walk in the cold NYC peace march.

Instead I've felt that that I could best serve by communicating my heartfelt feeling for peace one-on-one.

As a recent NYC resident I have the butterflies. Not even close to what a Palestinian or Iraqi resident must have.

I hope it is clear to you that this is not about Dems vs. GOP, this is about we as citizens of the planet.

Thanks for this forum.

- Jon

In chess, in a contained environment, there can be victory and there can be defeat, and these things can be known. War no longer takes place in a contained environment, especially this "war on terror." America cannot possibly "win" this war on terror, but America canot possibly "lose" the war either.

At what point are we "defeated?" When none of us are left, or when America merely ceases to be America?

Good post. You are correct, I believe. The terrorist agenda is not to "defeat" opponents in some sort of slugfest. Their agenda is to destabilize the opponent, to provoke a reaction, and to induce their enemies to waste their energy and resources. And it's all the better for them when the enemy inadvertently helps spread instability.

So, broadly speaking, their goals are being achieved. The war in Iraq is a huge ongoing expenditure and provides new opportunities for terrorist activities. And of course, let's not forget Afghanistan. The odd belief of the Bush administration that terrorism can be curbed with force is simply leading to more violence.

Furthermore, the administration is setting up the country for a weakened future. The tax cuts have created a massive structural deficit. The economy is recovering, yes, but the real pain is in the future when the next recession hits. Maybe not next year or the year after, but eventually it will happen. At that point, whoever is in charge will have their hands tied due to the inherited deficit.

Everything points towards a more turbulent future.

Billmon, I can only shake my head in wonder at how much recharge you seem to get from the smallest vacation (or threat of one)...

Great series of posts.

If you consider al-Qaeda a concept rather than an actual group things make a good deal more sense.

You can attack and destroy the group, but their franchaise continues. Roy Kroc is dead, but the Golden Arches are everywhere.

You don't need communications if you have a 'little red book' for terrorism and money cached all over the world.

The Turkish attacks could be jihadis or Kurds or Gray Wolves. It could be a coalition between groups that want to attack the Turkish government and those who want to attack Britain.

Groups that wouldn't talk to each other, or might actually fight each other normally are coming together over the Iraq War.

There's nothing like a war to bring people together. There's nothing like unguarded ordnance depots to supply the needs of every wacko in the world.

They can't actually defeat the US, but they can convince the US to withdraw into its porous borders. Isolationism is a real possibility.

As Joe Strummer (RIP) mused (pre-9/11):

"If you're after getting the honey
You don't go killing all the bees"

That was in the song Johnny Appleseed, and I can't help thinking about how well that analogy works in describing the pointlesslness of the strong-armed tactics that have been applied in the name of fighting "terrorists" (a word becoming more devoid of meaning than even WMD).

You don't counter a criminal act with a full-scale military response.

...unless you're a neo-conservative, of course.

America cannot possibly "win" this war on terror, but America canot possibly "lose" the war either.

Maybe so - although people used to say we couldn't possibly "lose" in Vietnam, and I'm sure the Russians thought they couldn't "lose" in Afghanistan. Failure is always an option, even if it doesn't involve a formal surrender to the enemy.

What we do know, however, is that lots of innocent people -- including lots of innocent American people -- could "lose" their lives if Al Qaeda (either the organization or the concept) is successful in regenerating itself.

I think you guys are really overoptimistic about what the US can lose in this fight.

Al Qaeda--or at least its leaders--are very savvy about international finance. They recognize the weakness of the United States. And on the periphery of the organization, they probably have a hand or two on our jugular, economically.

By that I mean, given the current dependance the US has on 1) investment from other countries, and 2) really cheap petroleum to keep its industry afloat, the US can be brought down economically. As Paul Krugman points out frequently, it is already precariously balanced on the edge of a cliff, and just a little chaos could put it over that cliff.

Further, the US has vulnerabilities in its communication infrastructure which can be exploited.

I don't think defeat or victory, for Al Qaeda, looks anything like defeat in Vietnam. They're trying to strike at the core of our power, and if we don't get a lot more serious about fighting them, they might succeed.

If you consider al-Qaeda a concept rather than an actual group things make a good deal more sense

This is one of the most difficult ideas for the government to grasp. Al-Qaeda is not an organization with a hierarchy, like a corporation or the Army or the Mafia. The best analogy I can use for illustrative purposes, and I don't mean to smear anyone, is something like the United Fund; a coalition of various charities and individuals who sometimes work together, sometimes work separately, without an actual chain of command to follow down into the lowest ranks. Al-Qaeda also appears to be a loose coalition of various other coalitions, groups and individuals, acting as a clearing house for funds, advice, expertise and recruitment, an intermediary for introductions. They occasionally come together for mutual support and assistance, then separate and go their way to pursue their own goals. I don't see it as being exclusively Islamist either. Terrorists have their own agenda when it comes to mutual aid and participation; and we may find that various groups join together even if nationality, faith, language, ethnicity, race are different. Terror is the goal, and crosses all lines of human experience.

What we do know, however, is that lots of innocent people -- including lots of innocent American people -- could "lose" their lives if Al Qaeda (either the organization or the concept) is successful in regenerating itself.

Absolutely, Billmon.

"Haphazard? Counterproductive??? What fucking planet are you living on, pal?"

This fucking planet, bub. Let's presume for a second or two that your goal as an al Qaeda planner is to attack American and other Western targets, and derive popular support from Muslims and others who dislike American policy. Bombing the UN and Red Cross in Iraq, an Arab compound in Riyadh, and a series of bombings in Istanbul shows no focus on American targets, and kills a whole lot of Muslims (and pisses off a whole lot more) for no good reason.

"If you can't see the overarching strategy in attacking British targets in Turkey, the foreign business community in Saudi Arabia and (probably) the Italians in Nasiriya, then you probably need to look the word "strategy" up in a dictionary, since you obviously don't know what it means."

All right, Mister Smartnuts, you tell me what the overall strategy is, aside from "bomb whoever we don't like and can get to".

Well, Dave
The terrorist actions outside of Iraq and inside seem to have further isolated US. do you think that could have been one of their intentions? Terrorist actions inside Iraq seem to have the same intent. However, the separate INSURGENT actions in Iraq seem more intent on haveing a negative effect on US moral. alqaida has no need to keep their soldiers alive, and they can use them in ways that seem inefficient or inefective, but without knowing their intentions, it's hard to judge how successful they are.

Billmon, I think you're being a little hard on the French and the Maginot Line. The damn thing would have worked if they hadn't run out of money to extend it along the Belgian border to the sea. I mean, who could have foreseen that the Germans would attack through Belgium, just like they did in 1914?

Oh wait. Never mind.

Enough with this talk about winning or losing "the war on terrorism". The whole concept is flawed. You can win or lose a war, by its nature but having a war on an ideology is like having a war on shiny objects. We are better off dismissing this linguistic fiasco imposed on us and talking about things for what they are, a new doctrine allegedly aimed towards preventing terrorist attacks in US soil, based on intimidation by means of pre-emptive war, invasion of privacy, and disregard for international law. Once we are pinned to the ground by the label of "war" we are encased on a context in which we need to talk about winning, losing, fighting, and where they can get on a pedestal and talk about ideals and values and morals and obligations. Once we begin using the right concepts, we can look into motives, results, hipocrisy, and ultimately force the national discourse in a more productive path and begin painfully reconstructing our decimated foreign policy.

All right, Mister Smartnuts, you tell me what the overall strategy is, aside from "bomb whoever we don't like and can get to".

To quote myself:

it should be obvious to any sentient being -- and even many conservatives -- that Al Qaeda has managed to regroup and rebuild its operational capabilities, at least in the Islamic world.

Note that I said "many" conservatives, not "all" conservatives. Clueless party liners like David Thompson are the reason why.

If the Pentagon finds it necessary to cannibalize the WMD snipe hunt to fight the insurgents in Iraq ... then how many intelligence assets have been stripped away from the struggle against Al Qaeda since this fiasco began?

Oh there you go, asking good questions again.

To be honest when Bushco started the drumbeat on Iraq last year I thought Saddam DID have some nasty weapons. I was still against the war. Why? Not because I liked the Iraqi despot. Not because I wanted to keep sanctions going. Not even because I was worried about a quagmire. (Which I argued would happen… But I also argued the war was the right war for the wrong reasons at the wrong time pursued the wrong way.)

Instead I was against the war for three overarching reasons.

1)It was a “wag the dog” kind of war. Busco couldn’t find UBL, the real bad guy, so the had to wave their hands and shout, “Look over here!” Did they honestly believed a couple billion bucks and a kick in the butt and Saddam would be gone, a democracy would flourish and oil would flow. And the US public would forget about UBL.

2)A war in Iraq would tie down the ever-decreasing number of “boots” that the USA has. As Billmon argued so well, if they have to yank people off the WMD hunt what have they had to pull off the real terrorist hunt? Even if the war had gone as planned we would still have about 1/3 of our active troops in Iraq right now.

3)Our allies. Sometimes I think Bushco went to war just to piss off France, Germany and Russia. It should have given our leader pause – only a very small handful of the 165 members of the UN would support us. (Even fewer would eventually send troops.) The rational for this war was the violation of UN resolutions. Yet the UN refused to authorize the use of force. We pissed off the vast majority of our friends. And we need them to pursue an international war on terrorism.

I hate when I’m right. Don’t get me started about the “Freedom Fighters” of Afghanistan…

This discussion suffers from one major thing: a lack of definition of what terrorism is. Personally, I do not believe that the term is defineable. I go by the old adage of "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter." You cannot discuss that what you cannot define. The same terrorists of today were freedom fighters when they were fighting the Soviets during the 1980s. If anything, the US is the terrorists for gathering the most militant of Muslims, financing them, indoctrinating them, and training them in guerrilla warfare to defeat the Soviets in Afstan. I would say Carter and his NSA Zebignew Brezinski are the terrorists. See my point, you cannot define the term, so why use it at all. It is a pointless meaningless term.

Usually, in military policy and strategy, you hope that the strategists will be rational, cautious, and anticipate all possible outcomes, even (especially) unwelcome ones; that they will not be swayed by the militarist rhetoric that speechwriters and journalists use to rally public support for war.

But with the neocons I have the impression that the medium is the message (McLuhan): their militarist rhetoric is their strategy and policy. It’s a disaster.

David Thompson: What Al-Qaeda knows is this:

The economic cost of Gulf War I is estimated to be US$82 billion, of which the US
paid US$18 billion (or 22%), Kuwait and Saudi Arabia paid over 60% of the costs. Now,
contrast this to Gulf War II, costing over US$135 billion, of which the US is probably
paying 90%. (A lot of the Coalition partners are being financed by the US.)

Now coupled with the huge US$550 billion current account and US$455 billion budget deficits, you can see that the US is in real trouble…financially.

Their aim is to bankrupt the US through isolating it from allies either by targetting the allies or by instigating a trade war with them. And guess what they are winning both ways.

David, are you complaining about the NY Times link? Or did I miss one? Registation is free for the NY Times. Use "pointlessregist" as your user name and password if you're feeling lazy...

All right, Mister Smartnuts, you tell me what the overall strategy is, aside from "bomb whoever we don't like and can get to".

Dude, the fact that they went after the brits while Chimpy and Bliar are trying to make like great statesmen should be a clue.

And they were shooting down helicopters to coincide with the sunday morning news cycles wasn't to shabby either.

I mean what is the administration mouthpiece gonna say after that? Schools? What?

Since you seem so intent on lowballing the oppisition so much, it should really really hurt on a deep level that they seem to posses a great deal more sophistication then your no newspaper reading Enron president moron.

Am I admiring the enemy? NO, I am just realistic about the quality of their leadership compared to ours.

That is the single biggest mistake. We are offering up an ongoing workshop on how to counter the USA. It should never have come to this. And thanks for being one of those mindless syncophents that allows it to continue.

I mean, who could have foreseen that the Germans would attack through Belgium, just like they did in 1914?

Huh? You don't know what you're talking about. The German forces feinted in Belgium but put the bulk of their force through the Ardennes where the French lines were weakest precisely because they anticipated the main assault to go through Belgium. What do they teach them in these schools... I verily believe that more rank ignorance about the French defeat in 1940 has been peddled than about any other subject in 20th century European history.

The German forces feinted in Belgium but put the bulk of their force through the Ardennes

Technically, I think he's right -- the Germans DID come through Belgium, but in the Ardennes, in pretty much the same country where my Dad was to have some fairly hair-raising adventures a few years later in the Battle of the Bulge. Then down to Sedan, where, as you say, they punched a hole through the weakest point in the allied line.

But its also true that it wasn't an attack through Belgium that French failed to see coming. What they didn't expect (and didn't understand) was that the Germans would use armored spearheads independently of infantry to break up defense lines and envelop them.

Apparently, the German high command didn't think it would work, either. A historian named Ernest May wrote a book about it several years ago, called "Strange Victory." Only Hitler and a few of the younger Panzer generals thought the plan would succeed. The general staff thought they were going to get slaughtered.

Supposedly, the fact that it turned into a smashing victory was one of the things that convinced Hitler he knew more about waging war than his general staff, which helped get him (and Wehrmacht) into such big trouble in Russia a few years later.

Those comparing the Kamikaze to the Al Qaeda brand of suicide attack don't get it. Kamikaze was a desperate move at the end of a war Japan had virtually no chance of winning. The industrial capacity of the US and its ability to choke oil supplies to Japan were always going to beat them up and they knew it from day one when they didn't get the whole Pacific fleet in Pearl harbour, all the rest was just the turning of the wheels.

Hence Kamikaze. The Japanese had to find and kill Americans all round the Pacific rim and right throughout the Pacific ocean, it was genuine needle in a haystack, the US knew exactly where to find the Japanese, in a country about the size of California. As they slowly brought their pressure to bear on the home base, the suicide option became the last vain hope.

But even then, they could only attack the ends of the US tentacles while the US could strike at the heart of japan.

Now, in Iraq, a country about the size of California, the US has sent the major part of its army to act as bait for attacks, its whole force is effectively available to its enemies, just as Japan's was. The US cannot identify, or find, its enemies to shoot at, let alone defeat, just as japan did.

What is more, they are playing this out in a region that holds the absolute key to the American economy. American enemies have a dagger to its heart called oil. If the US HAS to pull out of Iraq because it can't sustain its occupation, it is finished.

It will no longer be a credible threat, its army is being ground to dust by the dust and the inappropriate deployment, so it wont be able to raise an effective force for some time and by then, all its enemies will have figured out how to fight it, with RPG's, small rockets, remote control explosives and a distributed command structure.

Nor will the US be able to finance or provide protection for its clients in the gulf, they will either have to make a deal with the powers left standing, the Insurgents, al Qaeda etc, or get mown down like a Trent Lott wet dream.

More to the point, the oil will cease to be under US control, it will have to buy it on the market like everyone else. When the US becomes a price taker instead of a price maker, its cheap oil based economy dies. dead.

The point of Islam is depending upon "the god", rather than depending upon the government, or other social institutions. One of the discussions among Islamists is the difference between culture and "the (true) religion." Attacking social institutions anywhere can be seen as effective in getting people to depend upon "the god," if the social institutions are not seen as part of "Islam".

Around the transition from the 19th to the 20th Century, "mad anarchist bombers" who wanted to simply destroy capitalism were the bogeymen. Now we have "al Qaeda", who may be pursuing a similarly anarchist objective.

Bear in mind, we have some folks in the US who propose to "kill them all, and let God sort them out." And they are not anarchists.

As some have discussed, saying "the Muslims defeated the two super powers -- the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire" is very misleading. Both "empires" were shadows of their former selves, weakened by centuries of corruption, constant attack from the outside and wholesale division into Latin and Byzantine halves in the case of the Romans. And as Harrows says, the Arab victory did not last long.

To compare the situation to the current Al-Qaida vs. America is pointless. But it does beg the question of what constitutes an empire? I would classify an empire as a collection of diverse states and peoples governed by a central authority, usually through the threat or actual use of military force. I don't see how America currently constitutes an empire unless you start weakening the definition by saying the ability to influence other states (politically, economically, militarily) is equivalent to controlling them.

Billmon, I'm not saying that America is in a "can't lose" situation as in it's a "win-win" situation. I mean the concepts of "winning" and "losing" in this case are meaningless.

I agree completely that a lot of Americans may lose their lives, as well as a lot of Iraqis, Afghanis, Turks, and who knows how many other people, and that's the loss that is important.

But as long as that loss is framed in terms of a "winning" or "losing" war, then they are acceptable casualties, so long as we have a chance of "winning." But the entire concept of winning this war is bankrupt. There is no winning war. There is only death.

You said it first, Billmon: "U.S. intelligence officials said the United States has diverted more than half the manpower and technology that had been targeted on al-Qaida to the war in Iraq."

Attacks show reinvented al-Qaida remains as lethal as ever

Both "empires" were shadows of their former selves, weakened by centuries of corruption,

Actually, looking around at modern America, you seem to be making the my jihadi commentator's point for him.

I doubt if any contemporary observer (other than the Muslims themselves) would have given Umar's ragtag army of Arab tribesman any chance of defeating the Byzantines -- much less conquering half their provinces, plus the entire Persian Empire.

It was an enormous shock to Christendom -- not to mention Persia.

And as Harrows says, the Arab victory did not last long.

The Arab armies overran Persia in 600 something. The Abbassid Caliphate fell to the Mongols in 1200 something. So it was about a 600-year run (even if the last couple of centuries were pretty run down.)

America hasn't come close to matching that yet.

"the Arab victory did not last long."
Well, sure, Arabs don't rule Persia right now. But Persia was basically destroyed in the process. Now it's Muslim Iran. And they're still muslim there, so a good deal of the conquest is still valid. Same with modern-Turkey, Egypt, N Africa, Near East.

Though indeed both empires in 630AD weren't that strong. The Sassanid Empire has been nearly bled to death and Byzantium, though quite formidable, was in a bit of trouble. Basically, they waged war for the last 20 years, Persians laying siege to Byzantium, then Byzantines taking over all Mesopotamia and laying waste to the Sassanid capital. Byzantium appeared to be the winner, when Arabs came, destroyed what was left of Persia, then went on against the weakened Byzantium.

Now, the problem isn't that AQ will take over the US; they're not a standing army, like Umar's. But as others said, they can weaken the US and wreak havoc to its economy and political and military alliances. Then the US will be as weakened as Byzantium was in 636, if not as weak as Persia was in 634. They can neutralise the US, even if they may not be the ones able to conquer it.

The Arab armies overran Persia in 600 something. The Abbassid Caliphate fell to the Mongols in 1200 something. So it was about a 600-year run (even if the last couple of centuries were pretty run down)

Following the history trail briefly, the Arab armies rolled into Spain in 711 and weren't defeated until 1492, same year as Columbus' voyage, and the same year the Jews were expelled from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabela. That's almost 800 years.

With respect to terrorism; I have to agree with the definition that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and add 'that where the Israelis [and the Coalition] ..resort to incursions and the bulldozing of homes.. there is an act of terrorism.' Until we recognise this equality, we are going nowhere. Furthermore, this war on Terror cannot be won militarily. Just as our leaders keep spouting Churchillian rhetoric [it was that same Statesman who in talking about
Iraq and Palestine in the 1920s , who had taken over the mantle of Britain's colonial policies in the Middle East, was to tell the British government that it was spending millions for the privilege of sitting atop a volcano. Lamenting on the British experience in Palestine and Iraq, the "last lion" was to write, "At first, the steps were wide and shallow, covered with a carpet, but in the end the very stones crumbled under their feet." - that was by the by.], they are entirely being outthought by Al-Qaeda. The illegal invasion of Iraq, the chaos that reigns there is allowing AQ to graft itself onto the legitimate, inalienable right of a people to be free. If we keep creating failed states, far from draining the swamp we are adding highly toxic fertiliser. We need to give the Iraqis one man one vote andlive with the consequences. We need to free the Palestinians. We need to pump in aid so that people have something to lose. Occupations warp a society, people have nothing to lose. If we wish to undercut AQ we need to incentivise those who are harbouring them to give them up.
I really feel we might not lose the war in the classical sense but in cold inancial terms, we have an enormous deficit, Iraq is going to cost north of 200b$ [because the oil is staying in the ground].
Rumsfeld gave the gave away in his memo
'The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.' He has also been fond of demanding that his subordinates think out of the box. Now is the time.
And what is the real difference between the rhetoric of ALQ and the following ?
This centre ground is being squeezed not only by the likes of Osama Bin-Laden but also by the likes of Bush, Blair, Sharon . The architects of 'shock and awe', the champions of the linguistic discourse of 'You are with us or against us', 'They must be beaten.We have to cause them heavy casualties' [Sharon referring to the Palestinians] and then even worse, William Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of Defense for 'intelligence', has claimed that the Muslims’ 'God was an idol' and that 'our spiritual enemy will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus'[I believe he still serves in the Government]; point to the fact that both antagonists now rank equally. The voice of reason is set to become a desperate whisper betwixt these two colliding absolutes, who both nevertheless need each other. Both sides pass off the terrible cost in civilian lives as morally justifiable collateral damage

Found your site through Smirking Chimp. I like the name. I sang that Brecht/Weill song years ago when as a young Brechtian actor. Good article.

Maybe a little late to add this to the thread, but here's a quote from Tommy Franks (via Orcinius) about how useful al-Qaeda could be to would-be authoritarians:

It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.

Yikes. I think there's a potential for this sort of thing, not a firm plan. But when I start seeing insiders opining on ditching the Constitution, it makes my blood run cold.

"Now I think the jihadists give themselves way too much credit when they attribute the collapse of the Soviet empire to the defeat they inflicted on the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. And in the end, I don't think they have what it takes to defeat the American empire."

This is a matter of perspective. The jihadists certainly did not bring down the Soviet empire, but the cost of their Afghanistan War was instumental in accelerating that demise. And of course that war would not have cost so much without the jihadists. Six of one; a half dozen of the other. Naturally, the jihadists prefer their viewpoint.

But a parallel does exist. After Vietnam, the U.S. entered a long period of high inflation that was at times close to getting totally out of control. I'm sure that the Vietcong would like to think that they caused that inflation, and in a sense, the cost of the Vietnam War was being paid down by at least some of that inflation. Wars are expensive, and unlike other expensive items, their wager removes value rather than adds to it.

And now we have Iraqmine. $100 billion and counting in a war we were told would pay for itself. Just inflation this time? Or perhaps the end of the American empire? Only a fool would discount the possibilities.

members, i suggest we try to maintain an open mind on the opinions of all contributers. I feel sorry for dave...

Every time I read these things, I'm reminded of two simple sayings:

1) Bin Laden is playing chess, Bush is playing checkers.

2) When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

So unless you subscribe to the idea that Bush is truly evil (forment terror to get everyone to hand you more and more power) the best analogies are blinders or severe myopia. It's the nearsighted guy crossing a stream on stepping stones - his picture of the other side is very fuzzy, and he can barely see two stones ahead, so he's always just assuming that there's going to be another two stones ... and that he's going to actually like what's on the other side. The ideological blinders one is obvious.

It's just so damn hard to figure out if they were so clueless as to never realize the s***pile of bad potential decisions they would lead us into - or if they just didn't care, any more than Bin Laden cares about the horrible options his actions have given most Middle Easterners.

I'm not 100% sure but aren't the Iraqi people now the most indebted on earth?

The cost of their liberation will be paid for in full - by themselves. The price of war is a debt that will be paid for by Iraq; this is how the US will escape from their economic burden.

Spend $80 billion plus on munitions, secure $20 billion for rebuilding and loan the Iraqi people $600 billion to restore their country.

Thats economic genius!

Now if only the IMF and the World Bank can get it to stick.