Cenk Uygur notes the 50th birthday of Osama bin Laden. Uygur asserts that bin Laden is alive and "living in relative comfort in Pakistan." Uygur fails to provide evidence of this -- his links, which are mostly self-referential, don't support Uygur's statement.
But we should assume that bin Laden is alive, if not well. So the question becomes how (if he's thinking rationally) he views his current position and that of al Qaeda.
One of bin Laden's main goals is to terrorize Americans by attacking U.S. civilians, especially here at home where we've always considered ourselves invulnerable. One can debate whether bin Laden sees this as a means to an ends (driving the U.S. out of the middle east) or an end in itself. But one cannot debate the fact that since 9/11, bin Laden has failed to accomplish this goal, something I suspect few Americans on 9/11 expected to be the case five and half years on.
But there it is -- no successful terrorists attacks by al Qaeda on our homeland. Indeed, al Qaeda has had no real success attacking American civilians anywhere in the world. And successful al Qaeda attacks on western civilian populations as a whole have been limited.
Bin Laden's larger goal is to drive the U.S. out of the middle east and to bring about revolution, and al Qaeda control, in countries he thinks have betrayed Islam, especially Saudi Arabia, his oil-rich native land. Here too, bin Laden has failed utterly. The U.S. remains a presence (an increased presence, actually) in the Middle East. And American influence in key countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and of course Iraq is as great as or greater than it was on 9/11.
Al Qaeda has not come to power in any state that I know of, nor have the hoped-for revolutions materialized. The only significant regime changes have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, al Qaeda's close ally the Taliban was driven from power, and (as far as appears) the country is no longer a base for successful terrorist attacks on the west. In Iraq, a state supporter of terrorism with significant WMD know-how has been overthrown. In his place is a popularly elected constitutional government that is beholden to the U.S. That government faces very serious difficulties, as does the U.S., when it comes to stabilizing the country. However, there is no realistic prospect that al Qaeda or its allies will come to power in Iraq, though if the Democratic party and the American left have their way, al Qaeda could end up with a base of operations in Al Anbar province.
So, while bin Laden may have a ray of hope on his birthday, he has little to cheer about.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. Osama's joyless 50th, is joy??
(No thanks to Bush).
He succeeded on 9-11, and then reminded all Arabs how dangerous the U.S. is to their daily lives, including it's ability to support and plot with Israel, against Arab interests, such as a possibly Israeli role in Iraq in 07?
STEPHEN CROSSON at 6:40PM on Mar 10th 2007
2. From globalsecurity.org:
The Prince Sultan Air Base is located 80km south of Riyadh. During the decade following Operation Desert Storm, it was host to upwards of 4,500 US military personnel and an undisclosed number of aircraft. During mid-2003 the roughly 4,500 US troops at Prince Sultan redeployed from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, leaving about 500 in Saudi Arabia, primarily at Eskan Village.
So not an increased presence in Saudi Arabia.
Al Qaeda attacked here in '93. Again in '01. That's over eight years. People feared we were set for more attacks soon because our president, et al conflated Saddam (and his nuclear stockpiles) with Al Qaeda. About 40% of Americans polled still say Saddam was responsible for 9-11. We know why they think this.
The "overthrown" Taliban. Check the June 19, 2006 USA Today. It's back, and it's big.
"Oceans no longer protect us," was one of the dumbest things I heard in '03. No reasonable American has ever considered himself invulnerable and 9-11 wasn't even the first time we have been attacked here. Or credibly threatened--USSR.
I don't think this was your best effort Mr. Mirengoff.
lil_turk at 10:08PM on Mar 10th 2007
3.
I would love to see some evidence that Saddam was a supporter of terrorism. Unless you are broadening the definition of terrorism to the atrocities he laid on his own people then that statement is completely without merit. There is no concrete evidence that Saddam ever had a working relationship with Al Qaeda. If you have some please show it or stop trying to make that connection.
Peter2 at 11:38PM on Mar 10th 2007
4. Saddam Hussein paid money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers... that sounds like "supporting terrorism" to me...
I still haven't been able to understand why some insist that every time "terrorism" is mentioned it must be Al Qaeda and only Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is part of a broader Islmaic fundamentalist movement which has been brewing for decades. If the US is serious about winning the "war on terror", it needs to address the broader problems with middle eastern society which fuel that movement.
Ed at 12:00AM on Mar 11th 2007
5.
So the most effective way of dealing with Islamic fundamentalism is removing the stabilizing, secular, comparatively moderate governments, creating a power vacuum ripe for the picking by terrorist organizations?
Peter2 at 12:19AM on Mar 11th 2007
6. I've never heard Saddam's government called "comparatively moderate" before. Its not as if we're talking about Turkey here... (and even the Turks have their own problems)..
Saddam's regime was a natural target for a post 9/11 america: he was perfectly willing to work with Islamic terrorist when it suited his interests; he was a tyrant who proved perfectly willing to use WMD; his state was openly hostile to the USA; he broke the post Gulf-War peace treaty and ordered his armed forces to fire on american soldiers; he was a world pariah.
Are the above actions really ones of a "stabilizing, secular, comparatively moderate" country?
Ed at 9:57AM on Mar 11th 2007
7. I can't believe that AOL would even give Osama any coverage, that is just what he wants. How about all the people who he murdered on 9/11 who won't have birthdays.
The USA is a country without a leader. Because the majority of the population is against the globalist policies, the politicians import the Mexican people who will vote for them by ignoring our borders.
sunny at 10:01AM on Mar 12th 2007
8. how dumb, actually. Mirengoff raps Uygurfor not sourcing his contentions about Osama's state of mind or comfort level, so where's his citation for Osama's alleged inability to atack US territory again? How does he know? Short answer is, he doesn't.
I think osama cracked the Salafist equivalent of a bottle of champagne on his birthday, celebrating the ever-worsening American disaster in iraq, the escalating instrability of American client regimes throughout the Middle east, and indications that the madmen in the white house will soon attack is other great Satan, iran. It was only every single US intelligence agency that concluded that Iraq was generating more recruits for al-queda and their fellow travelers than any other issue, and that America was less ecure as a result. Mirengoff conveniently forgets about that inconvenient little truth though, as it just happens to blow his argument right out of the Persian Gulf!
Nick at 12:20PM on Mar 12th 2007
9. hell really be happy if the democrat party wins in 08,so he can start bombing here because he knows theyll do nothing
steve england at 1:09PM on Mar 12th 2007
10. Osama bin Laden's joyless 50th when he could have walk in the pathway to God as the Apostle Paul did"(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.
Stand fast in the Lord Jesus and be "born-again" (birthday) in the Spirit of truth from God our Father.
Alan Klaus at 2:37PM on Mar 12th 2007
11. CORRECTION:Cenk Uygur notes the 50th birthday of Osama bin Laden. A small affiar attended by a few (armed) friends and family, including Paris Hilton, Kid Rock, David Spade, and RIchie Sambora to name a few. Catering was done jointly by Wofgang Puck and Mario Batali. Everyone was entertained by Jamie Fox telling a few awkward jokes, making up for it by singing a couple of popular songs, as the party wound down just before sunrise in the hidden mountain lair. Uygur asserts that bin Laden is alive and "living in relative comfort in Pakistan in a 2 bedroom condo with panoramic mountain views." Decor is southwestern motif, with splashes of some South American artifacts throughout. Uygur fails to provide evidence of this -- his links, which are mostly self-referential, don't support Uygur's statement.
But we should assume that bin Laden is alive, if not well, and hopefully finishing the long promised screenplay, "Dude, Where's My Toyota Jihada?" So the question becomes how (if he's thinking rationally) he views his current position and that of al Qaeda.
One of bin Laden's main goals is to terrorize Americans by attacking U.S. civilians, especially here at home where we've always considered ourselves invulnerable. One can debate whether bin Laden sees this as a means to an ends (driving the U.S. out of the middle east) or an end in itself. But one cannot debate the fact that since 9/11, bin Laden has failed to accomplish this goal, something I suspect few Americans on 9/11 expected to be the case five and half years on. Surprisingly, the 36 troops sent to apprehend and/or kill him were unsuccessful in doing so. Ironically, the 150,000 troops sent to Iraq, a place with no real signifant threat nor tie to al Qaeda, have been just as victorious. Come on Ohio and Florida! Can't we get four more years out these guys? Yay, Team!
randy at 10:49PM on Mar 12th 2007