Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[OttoVonBismarck]

My recollection is that the US went into Afghanistan in 2001 to hunt bin Laden and the AQ leadership as a direct response to 9/11.

Which I addressed in my post. The decision to embark on a long term nation building quest was a decision made by the Bush Administration, and perpetuated by Obama. Nothing about 9/11 caused it. Saying that suggests that Bush didn't make that decision, which is not historically accurate.

[alfred russel]

I think the German campaign against France in 1940 can most reasonably be called a success, even though Germany was in ashes and Hitler dead just a few years later. My guess is that we won't see any end result of 9/11 to fully judge in our lifetimes, and I don't think it would necessarily be very meaningful to do so.

When it comes to more immediate effects of 9/11, let's not forget that it directly dragged the West into Afghanistan, a war that it eventually lost in humiliating fashion.

Hitler was attempting to establish a restored and great german empire in europe, and to that end the campaign against France put him closer to that goal, both because it gained territory in the west access to industry and (imperfect as time would show) security on that border which would make a campaign in the east easier.

Osama bin Laden led a non state organization that wanted to set the stage for a caliphate to be created that repudiated western morality and behavior. He wasn't launching a military campaign: the idea was that 9/11 would create a series of events provoking a west vs. islam conflict that would result in the caliphate. Tactically, 9/11 succeeded in bringing down the WTC, but al qaeda is further from its aims than it was in 2001. Conservative islam is not resurgent; I think in the grand scheme of things it has faded. The Taliban is in charge in Afghanistan, but if that was their aim they didn't need 9/11 and 20 years of war: the Taliban was already in charge there.

I said above what my impression is regarding the aim of 9/11. My impression is not that AQ thought that 9/11 was to be the final blow in the struggle to bring about their long term goals.

You seem to be saying the goal of 9/11 was to start a big fight with the West, and because they did that it was a success. I find your definition of success to be extremely limited.

In playground terms, if I'm the loser in the corner that the cool kids don't let play on the fun equipment, and i embark on a strategy to:
1) sucker punch the leader of the cool kids to start a fight,
2) when they see the fight the other loser kids will join in,
3) all the loser kids will beat the cool kids and take over the playground

If I sucker punch the cool kid, the fight starts, i get killed in the fight, and in the end the loser kids end up still in the same corner and the cool kids still run the playground, if you define the sucker punch as a success because it started the fight that seems to be missing some important context.

[Tamas]

Not to push things off topic here, but according to Ukraine, 30% of their power plants have been destroyed by Russian missile strikes this month, which does not sound good at all.

[Legbiter]

Apparently the guy in charge of the mobilization effort has had a tragic window-related accident and is dead. 

[Legbiter]

Quite possibly yes. But he also very much needs the EU grants which are being withheld, and one would think going openly against the EU in what is effectively a war is not helping with that cause.

Maybe he's like Schröder, once he's bought, he stays bought. It's not just a rental deal.

[Legbiter]

Not to push things off topic here, but according to Ukraine, 30% of their power plants have been destroyed by Russian missile strikes this month, which does not sound good at all.

Ukraine is enormous, about the size of Texas. Mitigation is all one can do realistically.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Not to push things off topic here, but according to Ukraine, 30% of their power plants have been destroyed by Russian missile strikes this month, which does not sound good at all.

That's problematic.
But we've known from the start that this is a war of genocide.

[crazy canuck]

I think the German campaign against France in 1940 can most reasonably be called a success, even though Germany was in ashes and Hitler dead just a few years later. My guess is that we won't see any end result of 9/11 to fully judge in our lifetimes, and I don't think it would necessarily be very meaningful to do so.

When it comes to more immediate effects of 9/11, let's not forget that it directly dragged the West into Afghanistan, a war that it eventually lost in humiliating fashion.

Hitler was attempting to establish a restored and great german empire in europe, and to that end the campaign against France put him closer to that goal, both because it gained territory in the west access to industry and (imperfect as time would show) security on that border which would make a campaign in the east easier.

Osama bin Laden led a non state organization that wanted to set the stage for a caliphate to be created that repudiated western morality and behavior. He wasn't launching a military campaign: the idea was that 9/11 would create a series of events provoking a west vs. islam conflict that would result in the caliphate. Tactically, 9/11 succeeded in bringing down the WTC, but al qaeda is further from its aims than it was in 2001. Conservative islam is not resurgent; I think in the grand scheme of things it has faded. The Taliban is in charge in Afghanistan, but if that was their aim they didn't need 9/11 and 20 years of war: the Taliban was already in charge there.

I said above what my impression is regarding the aim of 9/11. My impression is not that AQ thought that 9/11 was to be the final blow in the struggle to bring about their long term goals.

You seem to be saying the goal of 9/11 was to start a big fight with the West, and because they did that it was a success. I find your definition of success to be extremely limited.

In playground terms, if I'm the loser in the corner that the cool kids don't let play on the fun equipment, and i embark on a strategy to:
1) sucker punch the leader of the cool kids to start a fight,
2) when they see the fight the other loser kids will join in,
3) all the loser kids will beat the cool kids and take over the playground

If I sucker punch the cool kid, the fight starts, i get killed in the fight, and in the end the loser kids end up still in the same corner and the cool kids still run the playground, if you define the sucker punch as a success because it started the fight that seems to be missing some important context.

Your analogy misunderstands what was happening.  If you sucker punch the big kid that the other kids percieved as a bully, you win - even if you subsequently get the shit kicked out of you.

Your view that the US would have ever been viewed as the "cool kid" by the people the terrorists were trying to impress is hard to understand.

[Berkut]

I think the German campaign against France in 1940 can most reasonably be called a success, even though Germany was in ashes and Hitler dead just a few years later. My guess is that we won't see any end result of 9/11 to fully judge in our lifetimes, and I don't think it would necessarily be very meaningful to do so.

When it comes to more immediate effects of 9/11, let's not forget that it directly dragged the West into Afghanistan, a war that it eventually lost in humiliating fashion.

Hitler was attempting to establish a restored and great german empire in europe, and to that end the campaign against France put him closer to that goal, both because it gained territory in the west access to industry and (imperfect as time would show) security on that border which would make a campaign in the east easier.

Osama bin Laden led a non state organization that wanted to set the stage for a caliphate to be created that repudiated western morality and behavior. He wasn't launching a military campaign: the idea was that 9/11 would create a series of events provoking a west vs. islam conflict that would result in the caliphate. Tactically, 9/11 succeeded in bringing down the WTC, but al qaeda is further from its aims than it was in 2001. Conservative islam is not resurgent; I think in the grand scheme of things it has faded. The Taliban is in charge in Afghanistan, but if that was their aim they didn't need 9/11 and 20 years of war: the Taliban was already in charge there.

I said above what my impression is regarding the aim of 9/11. My impression is not that AQ thought that 9/11 was to be the final blow in the struggle to bring about their long term goals.

You seem to be saying the goal of 9/11 was to start a big fight with the West, and because they did that it was a success. I find your definition of success to be extremely limited.

In playground terms, if I'm the loser in the corner that the cool kids don't let play on the fun equipment, and i embark on a strategy to:
1) sucker punch the leader of the cool kids to start a fight,
2) when they see the fight the other loser kids will join in,
3) all the loser kids will beat the cool kids and take over the playground

If I sucker punch the cool kid, the fight starts, i get killed in the fight, and in the end the loser kids end up still in the same corner and the cool kids still run the playground, if you define the sucker punch as a success because it started the fight that seems to be missing some important context.

ACtualy, using that analogy, I think the context is that the loser kids are also thinking "Hey, if we do nothing, then there is no chance we get to play, so even if starting the fight is not sure to succeed, at least trying is better then doing nothing."

Then in fact the sucker punch was a success. It started the process that you considered to give you the best chance of achieving your goal, and was superior to what you saw as the alternative (doing nothing).

However, you are missing something important - the ability of the cool kids to choose a response.

If there is a step 1A - Cool kids decide to fight back, or 1B - Cool kids decide to ignore the punch or laugh it off, then step 2 becomes much more of a risk, and if the cool kids choose 1B, then in fact Step 1 will have failed to achieve its goal.

But in our case, the cool kids decided to fight, which means the loser kids did in fact achieve what they set out to do. Not the final goal for sure, but the initial goal.

[alfred russel]

Your view that the US would have ever been viewed as the "cool kid" by the people the terrorists were trying to impress is hard to understand.

The US is the cool kid. The US is the leader of the western world and western culture is the cool culture. They watch our movies and TV shows and listen to our music. They pay a fortune for our entertainers and athletes to play for them. Al Qaeda wanted to reverse the creeping secularization in the Islamic world; but 20 years on it has continued. What would Osama think if he knew about a gulf state hosting the World Cup and signaling the LGBT fans were welcome? Hell, women can even drive now in Saudi Arabia!

[Barrister]

You seem to be saying the goal of 9/11 was to start a big fight with the West, and because they did that it was a success. I find your definition of success to be extremely limited.

In playground terms, if I'm the loser in the corner that the cool kids don't let play on the fun equipment, and i embark on a strategy to:
1) sucker punch the leader of the cool kids to start a fight,
2) when they see the fight the other loser kids will join in,
3) all the loser kids will beat the cool kids and take over the playground

If I sucker punch the cool kid, the fight starts, i get killed in the fight, and in the end the loser kids end up still in the same corner and the cool kids still run the playground, if you define the sucker punch as a success because it started the fight that seems to be missing some important context.

The problem with this analogy, and a lot of analogies, is Al Qaeda is a non-state actor.  They aren't even a kid in the playground at all.

To try and strain your analogy, AQ is like a kid standing outside the playground who wants to throw a rock at the biggest kid to cause the biggest kid to start fighting the other kids - all while hoping to cause enough chaos and confusion the outside kid can sneak into the playground.

The AQ kid succeeded in the first part of his plan - the kids in the playground did start fighting.  That the second part of their plan did not I don't think takes away from the success of the first part.

[grumbler]

Al Qaeda was trying to foment a confrontation between the US and Saudi Arabia with 9/11, with the avowed purpose of getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia.  The short-term goal was having the US invade a Muslim country, sparking a widespread revolt by Muslims against the US (and the West).  Longer-term the hope was that the instability caused by such a conflict would crash the world economy which would allow AQ to lead the Muslims to total victory and a global Islamic Caliphate.

9/11 succeeded in its immediate goals but the longer-term consequences were not what AQ hoped.

[crazy canuck]

Your view that the US would have ever been viewed as the "cool kid" by the people the terrorists were trying to impress is hard to understand.

The US is the cool kid. The US is the leader of the western world and western culture is the cool culture. They watch our movies and TV shows and listen to our music. They pay a fortune for our entertainers and athletes to play for them. Al Qaeda wanted to reverse the creeping secularization in the Islamic world; but 20 years on it has continued. What would Osama think if he knew about a gulf state hosting the World Cup and signaling the LGBT fans were welcome? Hell, women can even drive now in Saudi Arabia!

Your view that the US would have ever been viewed as the "cool kid" by the people the terrorists were trying to impress is hard to understand.

The US is the cool kid. The US is the leader of the western world and western culture is the cool culture. They watch our movies and TV shows and listen to our music. They pay a fortune for our entertainers and athletes to play for them. Al Qaeda wanted to reverse the creeping secularization in the Islamic world; but 20 years on it has continued. What would Osama think if he knew about a gulf state hosting the World Cup and signaling the LGBT fans were welcome? Hell, women can even drive now in Saudi Arabia!

If that helps you sleep at night.

[alfred russel]

ACtualy, using that analogy, I think the context is that the loser kids are also thinking "Hey, if we do nothing, then there is no chance we get to play, so even if starting the fight is not sure to succeed, at least trying is better then doing nothing."

Then in fact the sucker punch was a success. It started the process that you considered to give you the best chance of achieving your goal, and was superior to what you saw as the alternative (doing nothing).

However, you are missing something important - the ability of the cool kids to choose a response.

If there is a step 1A - Cool kids decide to fight back, or 1B - Cool kids decide to ignore the punch or laugh it off, then step 2 becomes much more of a risk, and if the cool kids choose 1B, then in fact Step 1 will have failed to achieve its goal.

But in our case, the cool kids decided to fight, which means the loser kids did in fact achieve what they set out to do. Not the final goal for sure, but the initial goal.

You are ascribing a defeatist mindset to Al Qaeda that is projecting onto them your knowledge that they are dumb and have no prospect of success. However, in their mindset, if they trust in Allah and dedicate themselves to jihad, I think they would tell you that ultimate success is assured. Or they would if they weren't already dead.

[Berkut]

Your view that the US would have ever been viewed as the "cool kid" by the people the terrorists were trying to impress is hard to understand.

The US is the cool kid. The US is the leader of the western world and western culture is the cool culture. They watch our movies and TV shows and listen to our music. They pay a fortune for our entertainers and athletes to play for them. Al Qaeda wanted to reverse the creeping secularization in the Islamic world; but 20 years on it has continued. What would Osama think if he knew about a gulf state hosting the World Cup and signaling the LGBT fans were welcome? Hell, women can even drive now in Saudi Arabia!

Indeed.

This is, of course, complicated. Looking at any terrorist act and evaluating its success based on the overall progression of the core desire of the actors is not invalid, but it likely defines "success" in a way that may not be achievable regardless of the outcome, because the actors when it comes to attempting to promote jihadism are likely doomed to fail no matter what they do (at least I hope they are).

Going back to other analogies, it's like saying the attack on Singapore in 1942 was a failure because Japan lost the war it started. I guess, but that means there is no outcome of that attack that could be considered a successful attack - Japan was doomed to lose that war because they badly miscalculated on some fundamental variables. 

But given that they were ready to go to war, eliminating the British from Singapore was a hugely beneficial move that made the war much harder for the Allies to win - clearly it was a success, and it seems odd to try to argue that it failed, because the overall goal it was meant to help ensure failed.

AQ wanted (still wants?) to turn the US into the bad guy. To show that they could be hurt, and would respond violently, and hopefully create greater solidarity among Islamists against the western liberal order. I think AR's analogy of sucker punching the "cool kid" is right on. The loser kids spent a lot of time fighting amongst themselves, and the idea was that the sucker punching the cool kid, and getting the cool kid to fight back, would help unite the losers behind the sucker puncher, or at least unite enough of them.

I disagree with him that it did not work - it certainly did work. The rise of ISIS and the prominence of AQ (not that the two are buddies by any means) and their fight against the West was, IMO, a nearly direct result of how the US chose to respond to the 9/11 attacks. It was a terrible error on our part, but almost entirely inevitable. 

The better argument would be that 9/11 failed not because it didn't work to force the US to over-react, but because the inevitable chaos of the resulting fight ended up with someone else coming out of the fight as the "leader" of the losers - ISIS, rather then AQ. But that is simply the result of chaos - it is hard to predict what will happen. But from AQ standpoint pre-9/11, chaos is better then the status quo.