News “The Base” My Ass
posted by on January 3 at 3:45 AM
Al Qaeda fooled us. Yes, they are a deadly menace. And they must be defeated. But they fooled us into believing they are something that they are not. And that was their first victory over us. And, taking the bait, falling for their ruse, we’ve been blowing it ever since.
Ethiopia’s recent rout of the Islamists in Somalia should clear things up for us.
Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi said the port city of Kismayo fell after the government and its allies drove its rivals from the capital Mogadishu, where he ordered residents to turn in their weapons or face forced disarmament.“Kismayo is already in the hands of the government. The Islamists have run away … the airport and the seaport are free. They are still some mopping up operations,” Gedi told AFP in Mogadishu on Monday.
He also urged the African Union (AU) to deploy peacekeepers, a move that was opposed by the Islamic Courts Union after its fighters took Mogadishu in June and extended a hold over the south and centre of the lawless country.
“The Islamists were so angry at people who were shouting ‘We don’t need you, we need the government’ … they opened fire and killed the two,” said Leileila Sheikh Adam, a resident of the town.
She added that Kismayo was very tense, since local clan militia looted the Islamists’ headquarters and took weapons.
“We now see government forces and the Ethiopians in Kismayo … they have taken control of the town and there are celebrations everywhere,” said Mohamed Bini, another resident. Agence France Press, Jan. 1, 2007
Why are the Somalis celebrating in Kismayo and Mogadishu? They are celebrating in Somalia for the same reason they were celebrating in Afghanistan in late 2001.The Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, like the American invasion in Afghanistan 5 years ago, liberated a country from an illegitimate government: A Sharia government of fanatical young men that rule through shot gun intimidation and weirdo moralism.
Taking out the Islamic Court Union, like taking out the Taliban, was a relatively easy military mission. Which unveils Bush’s lie that the war against Islamo-Fascism needs to be a long, long war. Unfortunately, his vague, ill-advised “war on terrorism” is an endless mission (complete with unconstitutional wire tapping). In contrast, a focused mission on the illegitimate buffoons who declare jihad (as the ICU did from Mogadishu against Ethiopia) and as Qaeda did from Taliban controlled Afghanistanis clearly not much of a task. The Ethiopians proved this in their weeklong rout of the ICU. The U.S. proved the same thing in Afghanistan, and had we stayed focused on Afghanistan…
All the booming rhetoric of people like bin Laden and Zawahiri rings hollow when we seeas the Ethiopians have shown (and as we once showed in Afghanistan)how flimsy these military cults really are.
The ICU, with the typical, hollow bluster of macho goon squads, have now retreated to the far-flung woods of southwest Somaliain a nowhere land between Somalia and Kenya. The Taliban, similarly, retreated to the mountainous netherworld between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
There’s something symbolic about these retreats to uninhabited places. Check it out: In contrast, the popular Viet Cong “retreated” to the cities in South! Vietnam. Certainly, legitimate guerrilla movements begin in the hills. They must build up and trainfar from the purview of tyrannical, watchful governments. But once they begin their move into the towns and cities, where oppressed populations cheer them in secretit’s there they are supposed to stay.
Last week’s public cheers at the ICU’s slinking exit doesn’t bode well for world jihadist revolution. And, my god, the public was welcoming back the warlords! (Hopefully, the African Union will heed Somalia’s call for back up.)
There would be similar celebrating in Khartoum, and a similar retreat, if former bin Laden ally, Sudanese President al-Bashir and his Janjaweed acolytes in Darfur, came under fire from liberators. Am I advocating invading Sudan? I wish I could. Too bad about that Iraq thing.
Iraq. Iraq is nothing like Somalia or Afghanistan. In Iraq, with the exception of some staged CIA celebrations and statue smashing, the country immediately degenerated into more war. Why? Well, I’m certainly not going to make the case that Saddam Hussein’s government was legitimate, but his government was a governmentas opposed to the (obviously) fake bluster that props up the fakey-fake Islamo fascist movement.
If we were really serious about taking on al Qaeda, we would seek out, attack, and isolate their unpopular, “bases” of operation.
Bases of operation? Like all put onscorporate slogans, TV commercials, Bush’s No Child Left Behind Actyou can simply look to the language and then safely conclude that the exact opposite is true. As in: Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda means “the base.” The base my ass. Even funnier. When Al Qaeda began in August, 1988, they called themselves al-Qaeda al-Askariya, “the military base.” The movement has no legitimate base. Military base? These are little boys playing army.
The jihadists have a fantastical military strategy. It is this: Create jihadist military fronts and bog down the apostates in wars of liberation. The fantasy is based on bin Laden’s “experience” in Afghanistan “fighting the Soviets.” There are a few flaws in this “strategy,” which is precisely why it failed them in Afghanistan in 2001, and why al Qaeda was in complete disarray after the U.S. invasion there.
Flaw #1: Bin Laden’s jihadists played a miniscule, after-the-fact role in the nationalist, Afghan war against the Soviets. Bin Laden superimposed his jihadist agenda on the massive, nationalist Afghani fight against the Soviets, retroactively writing himself into its history. (At the time, in the mid-80s, Bin Laden’s jihadists were actually nicknamed the “Brigade of the Ridiculous” by the legit Afghan forces, under leaders like Abdul Rasul Sayyaf.)
Flaw #2: They don’t have enough pull to get “jihadists” from all over the Middle East to show up and support them. If it was a legitimate movementthey would. The ICU in the bin Laden modelcalled for expats to come join them. This is redolent of bin Laden’s original lie. He didn’t draw a significant number of non-Afghanis to the anti-Soviet war.
Flaw #3: (And this is a big one) The reason Afghanistan beat the Soviets? The U.S. military backed them. The only “jihadist” movement with state backing is Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria. But let’s be honest. Hezbollah does not share al Qaeda’s fantasy of world domination. Hezbollah is caught up in a provincial power struggle for Lebanon. And Hezbollah’s popular support comes more from its cultural Shiite identity politics and its ground war with Israel.
Bin Laden’s rap has always been that the U.S. is a paper tiger. That the U.S. does not have the stamina for a toe-to-toe war with the jihadists. Unfortunately, we’ve “proven” him right by instigating this mess in Iraq and losing control. But Iraq is not really a war with the jihadists. The U.S. is trying to manage a civil war. As in Afghanistan during the 1980s, the jihadists are peripheral.
The Ethiopians have shown us that we were stupid to take our eyes off the real war: A war against an ephemeral, illegitimate movement that collapses in a week.
Yes, the ICU will eventually attack from the woods, but with little legitimacy. Had we stayed focused in Afghanistan and helped Karzai, the Taliban’s attacks would have also proven illegitimate. And so would any Qaeda attacks on America. Unfortunately, our off the mark war in Iraq has lent future attacks on America an air of legitimacy.
Let us give Josh some credit for superb analysis. Apparently, your brother might have a point.
1)You've only just figured out that Al Queda is not a force you are going to fight on any battle field?
2)The global importance of a shitty little war is bwing way overstated here
3)Throwing yourselves behind the provisional goverment or the Ethiopians is a bit weird. They're all insane criminal maniacs there.
4)Afghanistan will have reset itself in ten years.
This is pretty damn good stuff, Josh. You might add that bin Laden is just the latest in an almost endless series of bullshit wanna-be-caliphs or rulers over the Arab Nation. None of this is new. Larry of Arabia fell in love with an earlier version, which is where Iraq, and Syria, and Jordan, came from -- the so-called Hashemites. Nasser is another. Ibn Saud is another (though his aims were more regional; but there is absolutely zero historical justification for Mecca and Medina being ruled from Riyadh).
The whole history of the Arab regions is the history of tinpot dictators thinking they can unite the un-unitable. The Arabs (and not the mostly hapless Western countries) are the would-be grand empire builders. And all they ever do outside their own lands is muck things up, because there is never any basis for "Arab Unity" than the dreams of the latest megalomaniac.
But you have to give bin Laden some credit: he's smarter than most of the ones who went before. He sucker-punched us on 9/11, but the victims of those attacks were not the thousands who died on that day, but the rest of us who felt the terror and acted on it in ways that play directly into bin Laden's hands. Bush is doing bin Laden's work for him. It's not going to WORK, mind you, because he doesn't have any real backing, or any actual plan for running a modern state. But of all the damage that has been done to US interests overseas, bin Laden's guys only did a relatively small portion of it. Bush has done the rest: he's bankrupted the nation, and sold off the Treasury to the Chinese, and turned the world against us, and made it impossible for us to accomplish any serious foreign policy goals for at least thirty more years.
Vietnam was a tragedy; Iraq is a farce. The US is now the laughingstock of the world, and we continue to be played by goofballs who live in caves.
The important thing isn't that "our off the mark war in Iraq has lent future attacks on America an air of legitimacy"; it's that it has lent our future actions on the global stage ridiculous and impossible. The beneficiary ultimately is China, who now own our economic future. Iraq, Afghanistan, none of that shit matters. This defeat is ours alone.
Outstanding analysis, Mr. Feit.
9/11 was a one in a milllion long shot, and its consequences have been blown way out of proportion. Even if Al Quaeda could dream up another way to kill 3000 Americans with nothing more than a set of box cutters, which is extremely unlikely, the idea that such an attack poses a serious threat to our way of life is pure hysteria. Oh my god, they knocked down two buildings!! Big deal, tell that to the people of Hiroshima or Dresden.
Bush is a profound idiot, and he reacted to 9/11 accordingly. That should have been obvious to everyone from the beginnning. Dan, I don't see how you possibly could have missed this, but I'm sorry you and so many other seemingly intelligent people did.
But Sean, I have five ounces of shampoo here that says THE THREAT CONTINUES.
"Vietnam was a tragedy; Iraq is a farce."
It's gems like this that separate the Fnarfs from the non-Fnarfs.
The comparrison of Afghanistan and Somalia doesn't work that way.
The Taliban did not retreat to a no-man's land following the US invasion. It did stay in some cities in the South, retreating to ethnic enclaves from which they've rebuilt. Its revival is not just a response to the US getting diverted in Iraq. There never was a reconstruction plan in Afghanistan to get distracted from. This was just another bombing of the country, followed by a reinstallation of the totally dysfunctional warlord government that preceded the Taliban, with a former CIA operative put in place to oversee it no less.
Also, the ICU, like the Taliban, replaced an utterly corrupt form of government run by tribal warlords, one which could easily be confused with anarchy. That doesn't make the ICU or the Taliban into positive forces for change. But it certainly helps explain where these groups come from better than when you write them off as marginal movements who rule by fear alone.
If Ethiopa doesn't demand reforms from the "transitional government" in Somalia, and if Somalia's warlords, like in Afghanistan, get more caught up in payback against the Islamists than rebuilding their war-torn country, there will be an Islamist resurgence there as well. And it will be no less discredited than the the failed state, which is only alternative to "islamofascism" these countries have experienced the last couple decades.
What does any of this have to do with Darcy or the Viaduct? Please stay on message!
All I know is I had to throw away 3 ounces of toothpaste in an 8 ounce tube at the Santa Barbara airport while the luggage - as always - was easily within reach of real threats.
The farces CONTINUE. Time to pull the plug and draft the Bush twins.
You sure about that? The FBI hasn't accused him of it.
Why haven't we charged him with this crime?
See also:
Washington Post, "Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?"
Shut up, Phil.
Actually, Sean, three towers fell at the World Trade Center on 9/11. About seven hours after buildings 1 and 2 fell, building 7, another steel-framed high-rise, one that was not hit by an aircraft, dropped straight into its footprint at near-freefall speed. Do you remember that one falling?
Do some research:
Anyone care to avoid name-calling and debate the facts?
Nanny-nanny-boo-boo, to you, too, Fnarf. Have you anything to say about why we have not formally accused him of this crime?
Come on, Fnarf, dismiss all the unanswered questions and call me a conspiracy theorist. You know you want to.
All this "please investigate 9/11" stuff is just a bunch of conspiracy theory, right? Conspiracy theory like secret CIA prisons, undocumented flights to nations that use torture for investigation, torture in American military prisons, and spying on Americans without warrant, right?
Oh, but we know what happened on 9/11, so there's no need for a credible investigation, right? We'll just take the current administration's word for it. I mean, what are the stakes, really? Just the thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, suspension of habeas corpus, etc., that have come as a result? That's cool. Whatever they say. Who are we to question our leaders, anyway? Let's go kick some more ass now, and we'll all think about the 9/11 cover-up 50 years from now after everyone involved is long gone.
@11,12,13,14 - yeah, you're a kook. Now STFU.
Yeah, there's the name-calling. Now, care to discuss the evidence rather than jumping to character assassination?
I'm confused. So you people really believe that Bush/Cheney DON'T have a (barely concealed) hidden agenda in Iraq? That we're there simply to strike back at the "bad guys"?
If you can understand how important control of oil is to the US hegemony, how implausible is it for us to do whatever it takes to gain support within this country to invade Iraq? Have you heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Operation Northwoods, or Pearl Harbor?
I've seen some comments here like "Bush is doing Bin Laden's work for him", "9/11 was a one in a million long shot", and "we continue to be played by goofballs in caves". Ask yourselves: is this more plausible than a planned operation to ensure US/UK control of Iraqi oil?
And by the way, it really doesn't look good to call people kooks when you aren't willing to debate the evidence itself.
Al Qaeda didn't fool us. We fooled-- and continue to fool-- ourselves.
âIn contrast, a focused mission on the illegitimate buffoons who declare jihad (as the ICU did from Mogadishu against Ethiopia)â
To be fair, the ICU didnât declare jihad on Ethiopia until after Ethiopia had had thousands of troops in Somalia (itâs historical enemy) for months.
.
âHopefully, the African Union will heed Somaliaâs call for back upâ
Donât count on it, only Uganda was prepared to offer troops to back the UN mandated peacekeeping mission there, and they have revoked that until clear guidelines are established.
Josh also fails to mention that in conjunction with the cheering (and the blasting of western music) in Mogadishu there were violent counter demonstrations against the Ethiopian occupation and the overthrow of the ICU.
.
"Bin Laden superimposed his jihadist agenda on the massive, nationalist Afghani fight against the Sovietsâ
Iâm not so sure you can characterise the Afghani resistance to the Soviet invasion ânationalistââŚ
.
"The reason Afghanistan beat the Soviets? The U.S. military backed them.â
While the U.S. supplying missiles that kept Soviet helicopters and fighter bombers at bay certainly helped, this didnât happen until fairly late in the 10 year conflict. I donât believe you can characterize the reason for the Afghaniâs winning as because the US backed them. You give them and guerilla warfare far too little credit. It was 10 years of resistance, with no end in sight, and itâs effects on the Soviet soldiers morale combined with the collapse of the Soviet Union that led to the USSR pulling out of Afghanistan, NOT U.S. support of the Afghanis.
.
FNARFâs analysis of the situation of the US in post #3 and âwestern fascismâ in post #7 are dead on.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).