There was a discussion about Osama Bin Laden on MSNBC (i think it was), and where he may have gone wrong. Here are the factors that I have gleaned from that broadcast, as well as others, including newspaper articles.
1) Technological Superiority: This is a given, despite the losses incurred by the Americans at Vietnam, as well as the losses by the Soviets in the earlier Afghan War.
2) Vietnam: Of course, the Americans had their butts whipped in Vietnam. Osama was betting heavily on an encore.
3) The Soviets: The Afghans pushed back the Soviets, and the Soviet Union self-destructed afterwards. Again, Osama was betting heavily on an encore against the Americans.
4) Pakistan: Perhaps the most important blunder was the underestimation of Pakistan. People were saying that Pakistan would stand defiant against the Americans and fight with the Taliban (after all, where DID the taliban come from anyways?)
5) Unity among Americans: Osama Bin Laden said in many occasions that the Americans were the most corrupt people in the planet and that blahblahblah..... you know the rest. What Bin Laden was hoping to accomplish was a deathblow that would leave America forever reeling. Americans would wander around dazed and confused, infighting would occur on who to blame for this tragedy, the country would destabilize into chaos, making it prime for another deathblow against the States. Who would have expected that the United States would emerge with renewed resolve? Obviously he did not expect a good portion of the Muslim world to side with the States.
He let his own pride get in the way. And he lost. Big time. Any other comments?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh...in deciding that wahhabism was the most rational interpretation of Islam available?
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Actually Vietnam and Soviet involvement in Afganistan is a lot different then now.
In Vietnam, the Vietnamese have full support from Russian and Chinese in equippments, intellegence reports, and training. Plus, the American lost the war largely because of what was happening at home.
Soviet with Afganistan is very much the same story as the one with American in Vietnam. Also, Soviet was using their version of "blitzkrieg" with mass armors and infantry, which was design for European battlefield with realtively low and flat land formation. Again, on paper wise, the Soviet won the war, but in reality they lost because of drain of resources and uncertainly and lack of total victory.
With American's "war on terror", U.S. learn the mistakes of Soviet and Vietnam and decide not to invade instead using air raid to destory infractures and moral of Afgan army. Also, Afgan army are poorly funded with limited resources to fight a war.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Ozzie went wrong when he thought he was superior to the Western countries. His ego, like his beard, is just too big.
Anyone who thinks he can acomplish anything by crashing airplanes into towers needs serious counceling.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
On the other hand, guerilla warfare tactics (whether you call them 'terrorism', 'freedom fighting' etc.) can effect political change ... or at least make people feel like they're making a difference. Aside from the scale of the events, how is smashing a plane into a building any different from Polish partisans sabotauging the German war machine? Both Bin Laden and the Partisans viewed the (Americans/Germans) as their enemy, occupying their country (Saudi Arabia/Poland).
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
If Bin Laden/Omar was counting on an encore of the Soviet invasion and/or Vietnam, then they forgot to factor in the Northern Alliance. That's essentially been the US strategy, to beat the bad guys up from afar and let the people who know the territory do the real fighting. And it's worked.
Probably, they just got overconfident and wrote off the Northern Alliance as nearly finished off. Instead, they came back and overran the country.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yes, with massive military assistance from the U.S.
Of course, its an old story. Without French troops and warships, the American Revolution would've ended in bitter defeat.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Bin Laden went wrong by being a fanatical nut job in the first freakin place.
A massive response was called for, a massive response is what he's getting. Heck, the Japanses killed less than 3,000 people in their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and we went to war with them. The only thing preventing a like reaction today is that we don't have a nation state to point the finger at.
Which seems to be Bush's major problem. As far as the actual bombing and military action, war is hell and the military is doing fine. But the war rhetoric by Bush is not working and is too disjointed to really do any good.
Posted by Battle Damage Chest Insignia MIB (Member # 426) on :
I agree. Has anyone heard Bush get any more specific about the war? All he seems to be doing is giving these very vague comments about slaying the evil doers and what not.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I'd hardly call the current 'war' a 'massive' one. Besides, what would be to gain?
1). There is not much *left* to destroy or capture in Afghanistan. 2). It won't make the job of finding OBL any easier. 3). It would only extend the suffering of the *innocent* Afghanian population.
[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
NEVER be specific about what you're going to do next, and how, outside of your innermost, utterly trustworthy circle.
It keeps your enemies and potential enemies off balance.
Saddam Hussein, if he's at ALL rational, should be pooping bricks wondering if he's next on the list.
So should Arafat, and so should all the leaders of all the terrorist organizations, everywhere. They should all be wondering: "Is a cruise missile already on its way to my house/cave? Who walking past me is a FBI agest?"
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I'd call the current military reaction massive in light of the recent past.
Firing cruise missiles or a fly over bombing of a dictator's tent is not massive. And massive might not have been taken very well at that time anyway.
The 10th Mountain Division, a Expeditionary Marine Force, large numbers of aircraft bombing and unknown numbers of Special Forces do not WWII make; however, they do put a significant number of American in harms way.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
I think that his first problem was an under estimation of the American people. He didn't count on a calculated attack but counted on kneejerk reaction of lobing bombs all over the middle east and helping him to start the revolutions in the Islamic countries which his groups have been trying to do for 30 years. This was not so much an attack on the western way of life as some have been saying but an attempt to start revolutions in the islamic world to turn them into more fundalmentalist governments. He was hoping that the US. would start dropping cruise missles all over the place and then he could say to the people in the middle east "Look how your western friends are killing moslems, you should help us throw off the yokes of the pro-western governments." Instead all he got was a calculated response which centred on one country(not a middle eastern one). And his revolutions failed. I think we can give credit to Dick Cheney(spelling) and Colin Powel and their aides for having a good understanding of the middle eastern situation from their experience in the Gulf War. We can also give credit to George Bush for being just smart enough to take their advice. If Bush was any dumber who knows what would have happened.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
"5) Unity among Americans: Osama Bin Laden said in many occasions that the Americans were the most corrupt people in the planet and that blahblahblah..... you know the rest. What Bin Laden was hoping to accomplish was a deathblow that would leave America forever reeling. Americans would wander around dazed and confused, infighting would occur on who to blame for this tragedy, the country would destabilize into chaos, making it prime for another deathblow against the States. Who would have expected that the United States would emerge with renewed resolve? Obviously he did not expect a good portion of the Muslim world to side with the States"
Japan made the same mistake when they attacked pearl harbor(I'M NOT BASHIN THEM OR ANYTHING, JUST STATING A POINT). They believed that if they struck hard enough, the US would be too dazed to mount an offensive. As history shows they were wrong... (I had this discussion with my friend, he thought i was bashing the japanese. I just want to say, i'm not, and i hold no animosity towards them, except for inventing pokemon) Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
quote: I had this discussion with my friend, he thought i was bashing the japanese. I just want to say, i'm not, and i hold no animosity towards them, except for inventing pokemon)
Plus they changed the history about how it happened and what did happened during WWII.
Which I believe is the reason why the vast majority of Chinese still hold a grudge against the Japanese to this day
[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
On the plus side, they are responsible for lots and lots of cartoons where you get to see girls panties.
On the negative side, they are directly responsible for one of the biggest atrocities of all time. Pearl Harbour. The film.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Plus they changed the history about how it happened and what did happened during WWII.
The Japanese have a time machine ... ? This is news to me.*
And there is no 'u' in Pearl Harbor, given that it is a proper name without the afore-mentioned 'u' ...
*Yes, yes, I know he's talking about the way the Japanese Government teaches history ...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You're right. I wasn't paying attention. Sorry.
I was correct about the panties though.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
The Toronto Star published a summary of Al Qaeda and the Taliban's Blunder here Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Basically, The Taliboys forgot a basic lesson that we thought everybody'd learned by now...
The Americans are Insane.
Hell, I practically expected to hear someone paraphrase Londo Mollari:
"Is it true? They say the Americans have gone mad! That they are destroying every place that has been touched by the terrorists!"
The US, as a country, is like that mentally ill guy who sits in a chair, unmoving, staring into space... and you can talk to him, or scream in his face, or even paint his toenails... but don't poke him, 'cause he'll leap out of that chair and break all your arms.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Which is why, although we invite you to parties, no-one ever offers you a lift home.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
but don't poke him, 'cause he'll leap out of that chair and break all your arms.
All... two of them?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
In case everyone missed this, it rather got burried in the news...a page 4 brief in the Times:
quote:EGYPT Official Says Tape Is Bin Laden 'Confession' From Times Wire Reports
In the first official Egyptian reaction, the police minister said a videotape in which Osama bin Laden is shown rejoicing over the Sept. 11 attacks amounts to a "complete confession."
"This tape is a clear and complete implication of Osama bin Laden, contrary to what he had said earlier about having nothing to do with the attacks," Interior Minister Habib Adli, in charge of Egyptian civilian security forces, was quoted as telling the weekly magazine Al Mussawar.
Many in the Middle East doubted the authenticity of Bin Laden’s tape, released by the Pentagon on Dec. 13.
But Egyptian security forces "consider it a clear confession of Bin Laden’s responsibility in all that happened. . . . It is a complete confession that implicates him," Adli said.
That seems to me that's a rather inportant statment for a Arab country to make.
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well, hardly a change of position for the Mubarak government, really. They've been very anti-fundie since, um, forever. Egypt's been routinely disintegrating members of Islamist movements since they assasinated Sadat.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
True enough that is, however, the Dubya propaganda machine seems to be asleep at the switch on this one.
Egypt is an important member of the Muslim world, moderate as it may be on some issues. This should be got out just as loudly as some of the schmoes said he was innocent.
That and I don't see any other member of the Muslim world, like say Jordan or even Kuwait saying anything about the guilt of Bin Laden. To be sure, many have expressed support or condolences have been quiet beyond that.
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
A little surprising from Jordan, perhaps, but one must take into account that few governments in the Arabic world are popular, or elected, for that matter. Bin Laden has the potential to become a sort of folk hero, not so much for striking back against the Great Satan as for suggesting that nations like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait are corrupt through and through and need to have their current leaders kicked out and replaced, which is a position many people in those nations can agree with.
