That is the problem with a three four year old manuscript
Some things have changed! From LG:
"Also, you say that Al Qaeda is defunct and that it committed suicide. As someone who was in London the day before the July 7th attacks and has recently watched the coverage of the attempted attack in Glasgow, it feels like there is some life in them yet.
Finally, do you feel that the issues discussed in your manuscript are applicable to other countries or do they relate only to the US as a superpower?"
After the fall of Berlin, Nazis continued to fight for several years, and, people who believed in the vision of the Third Reich actively pursued that vision. Similarly people who were part of Al Qaeda or who believe in the vision of Al Qaeda will continue to "soldier on". So when the manuscript was first written, the statement was accurate. Unfortunately what is now occurring is that 1) the ongoing conflict in Iraq is feeding the radical fundamentalist base 2) The failure to close the deal in Afghanistan has allowed a resurgence of Al Qaeda and Taliban 3) The cause is taking on a "Think globally, act locally" sort of philosophy. They are realizing that they do not need central command and control to carry out acts. (That will hurt their efforts in the long run).
I think the views apply universally--but it becomes more and more imperative with strength, as it is that very strength that can be turned against you.
"Also, you say that Al Qaeda is defunct and that it committed suicide. As someone who was in London the day before the July 7th attacks and has recently watched the coverage of the attempted attack in Glasgow, it feels like there is some life in them yet.
Finally, do you feel that the issues discussed in your manuscript are applicable to other countries or do they relate only to the US as a superpower?"
After the fall of Berlin, Nazis continued to fight for several years, and, people who believed in the vision of the Third Reich actively pursued that vision. Similarly people who were part of Al Qaeda or who believe in the vision of Al Qaeda will continue to "soldier on". So when the manuscript was first written, the statement was accurate. Unfortunately what is now occurring is that 1) the ongoing conflict in Iraq is feeding the radical fundamentalist base 2) The failure to close the deal in Afghanistan has allowed a resurgence of Al Qaeda and Taliban 3) The cause is taking on a "Think globally, act locally" sort of philosophy. They are realizing that they do not need central command and control to carry out acts. (That will hurt their efforts in the long run).
I think the views apply universally--but it becomes more and more imperative with strength, as it is that very strength that can be turned against you.
posted by Tom at 4:07 PM
3 Comments:
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind expanding on a couple of things.
They are realizing that they do not need central command and control to carry out acts. (That will hurt their efforts in the long run). Why will this hurt them? In the news we are frequently told that the fact that they operate with a high number of small cells, which are not connected to each other, makes them difficult to track. As long as each of the cells is successful in it's mission why does this lack of central command hurt them? Is it because there is no one with the 'big picture' guiding them and therefore the potential exists for the cells to actually work in opposition with each other?
Also, when you talk about strength that can be turned against you is that the same as your view that while the terrorists can't win, America can lose?
You've got me curious: I read that the exact opposite way ~ that terrorists now understand that a centralized command will hurt their efforts ... I'm seeking clarification too.
FtCotF challenges every American to reexamine their beliefs about terror and should be published for the mass market.
Your text fascinated me but left me with questions. I appreciate this forum for them.
You said "If the United States continues to consistently react as if terrorists are an imminent threat to the survival of the nation than we may very well create the global and domestic environment that the terrorists need to succeed." If the terrorists cannot win, then can you explain the environment and the terms of their success? Or is their success merely psychological, "fear and coercion"? Or is there a specific reaction they hope to produce through their fear and coersion? Your example of the Doolittle Raid showed the use of Psychological methods as a catalyst for a specific reaction. Is there a specific response or is the goal an erosion of the country?
Speaking of "apocolyptic events" you say "During the First Continental Congress there was a smallpox plague in Philadelphia—in a crowded city with nothing resembling the health care that we enjoy today the death toll ran into the "hundreds."" What percentage of the population did this represent at the time?
"The fundamental argument of this book is that since terrorists are inconsequential in real terms and operationally inept, they should not receive the level of attention or funding that they currently enjoy." Is there a viable external threat to the US at this time? What/who is this threat? Should we fight this threat, how?
Although you have repeatedly said the terrorists are inept, you have also described a mode of action that would undermine the US that dovetails with the current climate. Sow discord with other nations, form allies, instill fear. Can you explain why the very setup you describe is not a threat to us...or is it?
To whom do you believe the task of preparing a national strategic plan should be given? You pointed out the short terms of politicians and the foibles of partisanship. Should the entire US citizenship vote for the acceptance of the plan?
And finally (for now anyway), what role do you believe the media has played concerning terrorism and divisiveness in the US?
Thank you for your time, talent and responses.
Laura
Post a Comment
<< Home