Atomic City Talk

I recognize that there have been many discussions on this subject, but I like to research on my own and use it as a platform for discussion as time permits rather than attempt to verify and dissect what other’s have posted when time isn’t so abundant. I’ve pieced together a timeline of some of the events involving bin Laden’s attacks on Americans and was intrigued at what I found. It certainly appears, as I’ve alluded to in the previous thread, that the Clinton administration had more than ample reason to suspect Sadam Hussein of WMD activities and that they, too, not only linked his activities to bin Laden, but also responded to some of his (bin Laden's) attacks by going after Hussein (although quite ineffectively).

Whether or not you find this to be true, you certainly can’t underestimate the fact that we remain a nation at risk. I look forward to your responses, or at least those that are civil.

Timeline of Events

Feb 1993 – 1st WTC Bombing
6 killed, 1,042 injured

June 1996 – Khobar Towers Bombing in Saudi Arabia
19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi killed, 372 injured

connection to bin Laden speculative, but,

Aug 1996 - bin Laden issued Al Qaeda’s first “declaration of war” against America

Feb 1998 – Bin Laden, with the Front’s council, publishes the fatwa, calling all Muslims to “kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military,” wherever they may be.

Aug 1998 – Al Queda bombed 2 U.S. embassies in Africa
200 killed, including 12 Americans

Dec 1998 – Op Desert Fox – Clinton’s 4 day campaign on Iraq

Oct 2000 – Al Qaeda bombed USS Cole
17 U.S. servicemen killed

9/11/01 – Al Qaeda initiates its largest attack yet on American soil
2,974 fatalities

Sources:
http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_L.asp
http://www.wikipedia.com

T,

Useful timeline. If one considers the events in the decade prior to the 1st WTC bombing and the years since 9/11, the epicenter is the western portion of the old Silk Road: Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan.

From the perspective of the Taliban and their al-Qa'ida allies, their enemy was constant: Caucasians who had intruded into their lands (from the Russians in Afghanistan [1979 through 1989] to the Americans in The Land of the Two Holy Mosques).

While some believe that Arab (and ostensibly Persian) discontent is solely based on the Israeli-Palestinian question, I agree with you that there is more.

The heart of the conflict is whether or not the forces of globalization and the secular marketplace (with its tolerance of diversity and egalitarianism) can mesh with a traditionally Bedouin culture that is under assault from extremist, intolerant forces.

A useful reference for those interested in the changing face of warfare (from the Fulda Gap and REFORGER-style scenarios you lived with in Germany to the counterinsurgency-based "small wars" that are at the core of General Petraeus's "Surge") is the Small Wars Journal website:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/

It's edited by a couple of my colleagues from Joint Forces Command and Marine Corps University, and features a 'blog with contributors who have spent a lot of time in theater training the troops on counterinsurgency operations.

Trina, your time line lists facts that occurred on a certain date but includes data that was only ascertained later. If we are to use it for the purpose that you claim, we need the information that was known on the event and when more was known about it as separate data points on the time line. For example, at the end of the Clinton administration, it was clear that al-Qaeda was becoming a real threat for attacks on the US but attention to this matter was dropped by Condi et al. With regard to the Cole, the pieces didn't come together until late 2001. Perhaps if the Cole story had been known earlier, the Bush team might have made an attempt to secure the country. To put it on Clinton is disingenuous, especially any Iraq/al Quaeda connection. That is purely the result of the Bush incursion.

Without the extremist, intolerant forces (internal to the ME?), is the traditional Bedouin society void of hositility towards Caucasians, non-Muslims, etc?

CN – Your point that my timeline doesn’t address who knew what when is taken – it is also highly debatable and we may never know. But, given just the occurrences I listed, I’d have to ask, why didn’t they?

Again, because of the events that occurred prior to the USS Cole bombing and because it occurred under his watch, I think it more than fair to find fault with the Clinton administration on the matter.

The current war and the history of the ME are by no means simple matters. I don’t claim even a complete surface-level understanding of them (I can’t even keep up with some of the discussions that have gone on here). However, based on just these attacks, which are indisputable in having happened, I am somewhat perplexed at the notion that we should just end the current war. Have we not learned that there is a real threat to our national security? For all its faults, has not the war proven somewhat of a deterrent given that we’ve had no other attacks on our soil since 9/11?

Again, I’m not trying to oversimplify the war. But we do KNOW that bin Laden, et al, are not going to just go away quietly. Diplomacy is not their desire. If we were to abandon our efforts in Iraq, what alternatives do we have in protecting our country [from their declared intent to kill us]?

While Bedouin culture is distinct from Western culture in their codes of honor and loyalty ("Tribe über Alles" with the Sheikh as the undisputed decision maker), our capitalist society has much in common with their mercantilist roots.

I find it ironic that today's extremists who profess to be Muslim are fighting the very same forces that the prophet Muhammad sought to increase: namely, cross-border trade. Muhammad was a proponent of "globalization".

The rift is not racial or theological as much as it is cultural. The greatest fear in the Arab street is the collapse of their families and their societies. While we can profess the same "pro-family" fealty as Arabs, their culture is also very anti-individualistic. Their culture of "shame" (vice our culture of "guilt"), tied to their patriarchical tribal hierarchy and their unification of Church and State (vice our separation of such), and their basic learning styles that favor rote memorization over critical thought (look up what "Hafiz" means for an example) create challenges for policy makers who seek to influence the Middle East.

The good news is that, given the tremendous economic growth in China and India, "globalization" is no longer synonymous with "Americanization". The operative question for our nation's policy makers is how we can achieve our objectives (Realpolitik) while simultaneously promoting modernization in the Middle East.

Dubai is perhaps the best example of positive economic growth in collaboration with (vice at odds with) western interests. The Kurdish Autonomous Region in northern Iraq may soon become another such example.

Assigning blame for decisions/actions/non-actions based on flawed knowledge is hardly fair. The shift to electronic surveillance after the cold war did not suit an enemy that was small, compact and often did not communicate electronically. To act on the lack of knowledge is a half cocked foreign policy which results in punishing the innocent. That is not what I want for America.

Isn't that akin to blaming the victim? We know what we know when we know it. Looking back and wishing we knew more earlier and blaming inaction then on what we know now is not useful.

The only reason al Qaeda is in Iraq is because they can kill Americans relatively easily there. Iraq is where we should disengage as quickly as reasonably possible. I don't think anyone wants to stop the war against al Qaeda and the patrons, the Taliban, in Afghanistan. The desire is to refocus on our enemies and quit investing in distraction. Remember than none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi.

So, with all of our intel, we were oblivious to his declaration of war against us in '96 and the fatwa in '98?

Its no different than what some say about Bush and WMDs.

Do you think that the majority of Americans who are against the war in Iraq would support a complete move of all of our troops from Iraq to another location, like Afghanistan?

Nor were any Afghani.

Risk assessment is imperfect but it should never be oblivious. However, rantings of mad men are often considered low risk until they show some substance.

Except he acted not only without knowledge but also in opposition to what was known then.

I don't think the field officers are asking for 140K extra troops in Afghanistan. I bet that most Americans support bringing bin Laden and his organization to justice. We could meet a substantial boost and still bring 100K servicemen home. The real benefit would be to get the tour of duty rotations under control and start rebuilding our military resources.

That's the most difficult part of this whole situation; the enemy is not a particular country, but a rather a group of people from several different countries. We've never fought a war quite like this one, and the usual rules we're accustomed to don't work very well.

Rolling over and doing nothing is not an acceptable option. Rather than just repeating the mantra about getting out as soon as possible, how about some suggestion about how to better solve the problem?

I don't buy the notion that the problem is caused by our presence in Iraq. We weren't there when this thing started, nor all the way back to Trina's timeline beginning in 1993.