"Eight Years After 9/11: Why Osama bin Laden is a Failure"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090911/us_time/08599192175800

Interesting TIME piece.

 

...

 

OMG, i'm so sorry. I meant to put this in the OT.

Wow, I feel like an idiot. If you could move it that would be great.

 

Oh, please. We have a stronger influence in the Arab world today than we did 8 years ago, simply because our forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We are leading the global fight against both groups, and today Iraq is getting back on its feet because of the United States' intervention.

Not only that, if al-Qaeda is weaker today, it's a direct result of the U.S. military's campaign against them all over the world.

 

Al Qaeda might be weaker, but US credibility in the Middle East is at an all time low. Ironically, Obama's infamous Cairo speech did more to bolster allies in the Middle East then anything Bush did. Even with Obama's speech the US has far, FAR less influence then it did even 10 years ago. Not that you care about reality or anything, just wrote this for other people.

 

I think what you are saying is true, the situation has improved overall. But I think you can't deny that al queda was not in Iraq before we invaded, and violence did pick up. It got worse, and then it got better. The surge did work in the end.

 

I remember eight years ago today seeing video footage of people all over the Middle East celebrating the attacks of 9/11. Clapping, dancing, singing, and having a good old time.

I guess that was the "high point" of our credibility, and it all went downhill from there. Gee, how awful.

 

Can he be considered a failure if he is dead? He might have been blown to bits years ago in Tora Bora.

 

After 8 years, two wars and an insane amount of spending on our part, do you think the reaction would be any different if it happened again today?

I doubt it.

That alone doesn't completely invalidate the effort, but it sure gives me pause.

 

We have a strong influence, yes. However, you didn't mention if it is a positive or negative influence. Really, it's both. It always depends on who you talk to.

Oh, and we didn't intervene to help Iraq back up. We knocked them down in the first place.

So what? Do you think those videos represent the mindset of the entire Middle East?

 

You remember what is a NOW AN ADMITTED MEDIA MISTAKE. They had footage of Palestinians celebrating but it was a different event. There were no huge demonstrations as was portrayed that day. You are wrong. A lie is put forth and then killed by truth only to be resurrected by perpetual repettition of the same lie. This has been repeatedly debunked.

 

To give him credit, there were videos shot of people celebrating, albeit small crowds. And since it got on American TV, that's what people saw over and over again. Of course there were no large demonstrations, but for the amount it was overplayed, it's not surprising that people think the entire Middle East was partying that day. Although, Shooter's MO is to make wide, sweeping generalizations about an entire population based on a small and extreme sample of that population. So, it could just be him.

 

Yes, I do. Except for a few pockets in the Middle East, such as Kuwait, most of the Middle East has hated us ever since 1948, when we helped establish the state of Israel.

 

Don't know, but it couldn't be any worse. That's the point. And one day, when Iraq has become a full-fledged democracy and people are flocking there to find jobs, freedom, and a higher standard of living, it will be clear that we have helped the Middle East tremendously.

 

Do you have anything to back that up?

 

You're right the US did have less influence in say 500,000 B.C. the Mastadon team of diplomats didn't get a lot of accomplished. I mean that's a really salient point about how our influence isn't lower then when we had absolutely no influence or interaction with the area. I suppose the Jefferson administration could have gotten more done if they hadn't wasted their time with the whole Lewis and Clark thing.

We also could have easily gotten involved in 1970's with millitary force, but diplomacy and covert action were the methods of choice. That was before that whole pre-emptive war thing. You know when, you like had to be attacked to attack someone back?

When I said influence I meant real influence not holding a gun to someone's head. That's not influence it's coercion.

 

The same backing Shooter always has...

 

[video=youtube;r5KeGccP9Jk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5KeGccP9Jk[/video]

STOMP

 

Well one of the worst things that could have happened to the Iranian protests was open backing from the US government. There are pockets of increased US influence now (Pakistan, Iraq, the area around Kabul in Afghanistan), but for the most part the Middle East is still very hostile to US (even when their interests and priorities are aligned).

The biggest thing that improved US-Islamic relations was Bush leaving office. But honestly, those relations shouldn't be that huge a focus. People make the mistake of thinking that we need to be liked for that place to improve. But it can improve on its own while still maintaining its hatred towards us (which is what has happened over the last few years).