al-qaeda is rooting for dubya

WE WANT BUSH TO WIN

The statement said it supported President Bush (news - web sites) in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

sez who? If the reasoning was to change the administration in Spain (as the article suggests; it's unclear whether this is also the opinion of "anonymous"), perhaps the motivation was to separate the US more fully from Europe, a strategic play by a group that would like to dominate a region that is much closer and better-tied to Europe?

Is the goal of Al Q to keep us in Iraq or get us out?

I think that their goal is to preserve our role as an anti-Muslim bogeyman. Keeping us in Iraq goes a long way, but is subsumed within the general scheme. Admittedly, I think that another goal that may (but not at all necessarily; it's a balancing act) run at cross-purposes to the first is to attack us in spectacular fashion and show us to be weak in our response. I think that Kerry would respond more effectively than Bush, because he and his people will be smarter technocrats. But I can't say for sure that this is Al Qaeda's perspective (though I note perhaps unfairly that mujahideen might fear a guy with 20+ KIAs more than a chickenhawk). To be honest, I hate to think about what they want, because then "the terrorists win." But this doesn't stop me from thinking about whether one administration or another would be good for them, and I agree that Bush has and would continue to be good for their recruiting, or the creation of new groups.

The long term goal of al Qaeda is to catalyze an Islamic revolution, uniting the Islamic world into a force that will eclipse the power of the west.

The mid-term goal would appear to be the overthrow of as many western-leaning governments in Islamic countries as possible. These governments are mostly oppressive and rarely enjoy much popular support. Their main support comes from the USA, which supplies them with weapons and military expertise. Al Qaeda is especially interested in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The first controls the world's oil and the second is the only Isalmic nuclear power.

To achieve this multi-pronged goal, they have studied Iran and the downfall of the Shah and are using that as their text. The strategy they are employing is fairly simple. Their acts of violence, such as 9/11 or Madrid, are intended to precipitate acts of counter-violence. In response, the USA will, naturally, make demands on the many governments they sponsor in the region to crack down. This will greatly increase the tension in those countries and greatly increase the opportunities to foment revolt and overthrow.

The day-to-day tactics of how to exploit the tensions and seize their openings must be decided as each new chance arises. The main thing is to drive a wedge between the west and the common muslim living under a western dominatation, to focus resentment and use it to drive a local revolution.

By raising the banner of revolt and positioning itself as the alternative to the foreign and infidel oppressors, al Qaeda will increase in power throughout the Islamic world and become a force far stronger than it is today.

So, to answer the much smaller question, yes, al Qaeda wants us in Iraq very very much. They welcome the opportunity. Every ham-handed use of open force, every innocent Iraqi killed, every tone-deaf decree from Paul Bremer or jingo speech from Bush just drives the ball deeper toward the goal.

As most of Europe knows, but Bush and Rumsfeld cannot see, the only way to neutralize al Qaeda is to forebear the use of open and massive force. Covert, minimal and sharply targeted force is the right tool for this job. Every time we use the big hammer, we expose ourselves as unjust, uncaring, indiscriminate criminals. This tends to undermine our position that al Qaeda are the criminals in this affair.

xpost

Like you suggest, it's hard to take apart their reasoning via a scalpel, as they seem to conviently shift to "justify" whoever they've just killed. I hardly think Queda will think differently of America with Kerry in office. But, yeah, I am on the same page as you thinking Kerry couldn't possibly do worse in terms of diplomacy with the rest of the world, something we desperately need in fighting Al Q and their like.

Aimless - "The mid-term goal would appear to be the overthrow of as many western-leaning governments in Islamic countries as possible. These governments are mostly oppressive and rarely enjoy much popular support."

That's true enough, but what is Qaeda offering in response? A completely repressive and backwards thinking society?

As most of Europe knows, but Bush and Rumsfeld cannot see, the only way to neutralize al Qaeda is to forebear the use of open and massive force. Covert, minimal and sharply targeted force is the right tool for this job. Every time we use the big hammer, we expose ourselves as unjust, uncaring, indiscriminate criminals. This tends to undermine our position that al Qaeda are the criminals in this affair.

Problem is, Europe often makes the alternative to the US's hammer seem like a passive head in the sand approach.

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

This, BTW, is remarkably good propaganda. It is built around the truth, then candy-coated with an appeal to existing bias, so it goes down easy. I swear, we should not underestimate these guys. Four more years of Bush and the only stunning victories we can look forward to are those over our freedoms.

I don't give a rip what it looks like. Good police work doesn't feature planeloads of bombs, but it's a damned sight more effective against a minimalist network of conspirators. Bombs are big, noisy and make good television, therefore good politics... for the pig-ignorant. A better leader would not pander to this weakness of the hoi polloi, but would explain reality in clear, patient language.

(I.e., the same thing some Israeli radicals lean toward west of the Jordan, and the same thing some Christian radicals have learned not to actually say out loud in the U.S.)

(Of course, all of this may become moot if it turns out that a bin Laden associate handed us the yellowcake intel.)