Russian airliner crashes in central Sinai - Egyptian PM

[grumbler]

I guess it's a matter of perspective.

What's your main metric of success? You got Bin Laden and a number of senior Al Qaeda people, for sure. What else do you reckon goes into the plus column?

Also I'm including the Iraq invasion as part of the calculus as I think it's unlikely it would have happened without the 9/11 attack.

My perspective from the unbombed US is that post-"'retaliatory adventurism' against AQ" is safer than pre-"'retaliatory adventurism' against AQ."  Your mileage may vary.

I think that the Iraq invasion would have happened pretty much as it did if Al Qaeda had never existed.  I think that the rationalization that it was part of the "War on Terror" was transparently false and am surprised you found it persuasive (to others, at least).

[KRonn]

Our "retaliatory adventurism" against AQ worked out pretty damn well.

I guess it's a matter of perspective.

What's your main metric of success? You got Bin Laden and a number of senior Al Qaeda people, for sure. What else do you reckon goes into the plus column?

Also I'm including the Iraq invasion as part of the calculus as I think it's unlikely it would have happened without the 9/11 attack.

Hard to say as once the pressure is off then these groups continue recruiting, hard to stop an ideology. But for a good while AQ and its leadership overall had been seriously depleted to the point where it was mostly unable to plan and  carry out large scale attacks. In Iraq's Anbar province where AQ had gained control the Suunis became angry enough with them to fight back to oust them with help during the surge where US, Iraqi military and the Sunni militia fought AQ. AQ leaders there put out communications to stop sending fighters as they were pretty much defeated in Iraq. However, I don't think just war can stop the radical movement but it seems it can certainly drive it down, eliminate leaders and capability, with the resulting losses removing a lot of incentive for new recruits. AQ seemed to be pretty quiet until ISIS showed up but this is a battle that the people of the region need to come to terms with more so than outsiders. US and others can help, provide support and weapons, but the real battle needs to happen with fellow Muslims vs the radicals.

[Berkut]

I think it is hard to imagine that if you talked to the people who executed the 9/11 attacks on 9/10, and were able to tell them the overall result, that they would be anything but ecstatic at the results.

I think we played straight into their hands, and reacted almost exactly in the manner they wanted us to react.

[Razgovory]

Nothing ISIS does makes any sense.  I don't find the claim that ISIS or an ISIS affiliate bombed a plane in retaliation for Russian interference in Syria unrealistic.  If they did do this, I doubt it would produce a result ISIS would be happy with.

I don't know. The 9/11 bombings worked out pretty well for Al-Qaeda. I don't think Russia is going to have more success with retaliatory adventurism against extremist Muslims in the Middle East than the US did.

Well, the leader along with large numbers it's personnel are now dead, they lack a safe haven in which to operate, it's no longer clear if the leadership has any power over its cells, the group has failed to pull off large scale attacks on American soil since and the group has yet to achieve it's goal of driving out western influence in the Muslim world..  More recently it has been marginalized by ISIS.  That doesn't seem like a strong showing.  What did you have in mind.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Well, the leader along with large numbers it's personnel are now dead, they lack a safe haven in which to operate, it's no longer clear if the leadership has any power over its cells, the group has failed to pull off large scale attacks on American soil since and the group has yet to achieve it's goal of driving out western influence in the Muslim world..  More recently it has been marginalized by ISIS.  That doesn't seem like a strong showing.  What did you have in mind.

Arguably ISIS is an AQ splinter, and much of their growth outside their immediate area has come from flipping AQ affiliates.  It might have been inevitable or just bad timing, but ISIS was there to take over the psychological mantle from AQ after we capped the Big Bad.

[grumbler]

I think it is hard to imagine that if you talked to the people who executed the 9/11 attacks on 9/10, and were able to tell them the overall result, that they would be anything but ecstatic at the results.

I think we played straight into their hands, and reacted almost exactly in the manner they wanted us to react.

I disagree.  AQ as a political movement has been pretty much eliminated, with none of their goals accomplished.  There are some regional splinter groups that use the AQ name, but they don't have the same goals as AQ.    ISIS has replaced AQ as the Sunni resistance de jour, and whole sections of AQ affiliates are flipping to ISIS.  ISIS is not an ideological successor to AQ at all; in fact, armed local AQ-affiliated factions fight ISIS where they don't join them.

If AQ was attempting to commit the organizational equivalent of "suicide by cop," then "we" reacted exactly as they wanted "us" to react.  Otherwise, the West reacted far more strongly than they wanted.

[grumbler]

Arguably ISIS is an AQ splinter, and much of their growth outside their immediate area has come from flipping AQ affiliates.  It might have been inevitable or just bad timing, but ISIS was there to take over the psychological mantle from AQ after we capped the Big Bad.

ISIS is a movement hostile to AQ and with very different goals.  It is not at all a splinter.  ISIS is to AQ as Buddhism was to Confucianism, not as Calvinism was to Lutheranism.

[Liep]

So the same day the British allows flights to Sharm el Sheik again the Russians cancel them. I hope we never figure out what happened, watching these guys change their minds about what the best outcome is is more fun.

[Berkut]

I think it is hard to imagine that if you talked to the people who executed the 9/11 attacks on 9/10, and were able to tell them the overall result, that they would be anything but ecstatic at the results.

I think we played straight into their hands, and reacted almost exactly in the manner they wanted us to react.

I disagree.  AQ as a political movement has been pretty much eliminated, with none of their goals accomplished. 

I look at this more generally - the goal of AQ was to drag the US more directly into the ME conflict, and in that they succeeded admirably. The entire point, IMO, of terrorism is to hit the target and force them to over-react.

Now, it is certainly the case that it is a ridiculously blunt tool. You cannot know HOW your target is going to react, so the goal isn't really to get them to do some specific thing, since there is no way to control the reaction.

Rather, the goal is to simply create more chaos, more violence, more uncertainty - the idea is to upset the apple cart, because you don't like the apple cart. What replaces it is likely unknown and unknowable, but if your position is that the status quo is not acceptable, then what replaces it isn't as important as making sure that you destroy that status quo.

I think AQ knew there was a pretty good chance that whatever happened, their own freedom to act would be incredibly curtailed, since they would certainly be targeted with prejudice. But the overall goal of a Islamic state is still served, even if it means some other organization will be the one that runs with it. The key is creating the space to allow that to happen by fomenting the political chaos necessary.

I don't buy the idea that IS is NOT the ideological successor to AQ. I think they clearly are, even if the particulars of each group might mean that they fight or join them. That is just detail.

[Razgovory]

The goal of AQ was always to drive Westerners and Western influence from the Muslim world.  In this, they failed.  AQ was of the opinion that the war in Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Union.  The believed they could cause the same collapse of the US.  Again, this did not happen and is unlikely to happen. Their goals were always unrealistic so they were pretty much set up to fail.

[Josquius]

Speaking to Ukranian co-worker today: The Russians did it.

[Jacob]

We fucked up the people who fucked with us.

My perspective from the unbombed US is that post-"'retaliatory adventurism' against AQ" is safer than pre-"'retaliatory adventurism' against AQ."  Your mileage may vary.

I think that the Iraq invasion would have happened pretty much as it did if Al Qaeda had never existed.  I think that the rationalization that it was part of the "War on Terror" was transparently false and am surprised you found it persuasive (to others, at least).

Fair enough in both cases.

I guess my question is "at what cost". If AQ (or ISIS on their part) are coming at it from a perspective of "provoke them into expending too many resources, stoke resistance, our losses don't matter, our people will break them in the end" then it could very much still be a success from their POV even while what you say remains true - AQ got fucked over and the US is safer than it was.

Ultimately it's a disagreement with Raz's position that ISIS - if they are responsible - will not like Russia's response. I think it's very possible that they're hoping to provoke a heavy handed response that'll cause Russia to over-commit and get a bloody nose in the Afghanistan vein.

As for AQ and al-Qaeda, the US has done a good job of wrecking it. I don't know (not rhetorical, I'm genuinely not sure) to what extent the larger war in Iraq contributed to that, but it seems to me that the results of that war are still being played out. To the extent that AQ is/was radical in their beliefs (as opposed to being inclined towards worldy power and only using radicalism as a tool), I think AQ's goal was to stir up shit.

[Jacob]

Well, the leader along with large numbers it's personnel are now dead, they lack a safe haven in which to operate, it's no longer clear if the leadership has any power over its cells, the group has failed to pull off large scale attacks on American soil since and the group has yet to achieve it's goal of driving out western influence in the Muslim world..  More recently it has been marginalized by ISIS.  That doesn't seem like a strong showing.  What did you have in mind.

Fomenting radical Islamic revolutionary opposition to the US (and other secular powers, incl. Russia), showing that the US is not untouchable, and draining US treasure and ultimately US will to fight Muslims in the Middle East.

The pot got stirred pretty thoroughly in the Middle East, and for radical Islamic revolutionaries the chaos is more beneficial than a more peaceful status quo. Sure, ISIS isn't AQ, but it isn't over yet either. And if the agenda is something other than "AQ must rule" - e.g. encouraging radical Islam as a political force on a global scale, undermining Western global standing, or affecting the religious and political landscape in the Middle East to be more favourable to radical Sunni Islam - they got some pretty good results out of 9/11.

I think it's very possible that ISIS - and AQ before them - are happy to spin the wheel. So yeah, provoking Russia to strike heavily against ISIS may be exactly what they're looking for, thinking they can pull off an Afghanistan situation.

Like I said, a matter of perspective. It may not be how AQ/ ISIS look at things - or how individuals within those organizations look at them - but I don't think it's that far-fetched either.

[The Minsky Moment]

ISIS is a movement hostile to AQ and with very different goals.  It is not at all a splinter.  ISIS is to AQ as Buddhism was to Confucianism, not as Calvinism was to Lutheranism.

Depends what you mean by "splinter" - my understanding is that it traces its origins to the old Al-Qaeda in Iraq organization, which was as per its name affiliated with the Al-Qaeda brand, albeit with some misgivings and concerns on the Al Qaeda side.  I would say it qualifies as a splinter, but agree that there are serious differences as to goals and methods.

[Razgovory]

Well, the leader along with large numbers it's personnel are now dead, they lack a safe haven in which to operate, it's no longer clear if the leadership has any power over its cells, the group has failed to pull off large scale attacks on American soil since and the group has yet to achieve it's goal of driving out western influence in the Muslim world..  More recently it has been marginalized by ISIS.  That doesn't seem like a strong showing.  What did you have in mind.

Fomenting radical Islamic revolutionary opposition to the US (and other secular powers, incl. Russia), showing that the US is not untouchable, and draining US treasure and ultimately US will to fight Muslims in the Middle East.

The pot got stirred pretty thoroughly in the Middle East, and for radical Islamic revolutionaries the chaos is more beneficial than a more peaceful status quo. Sure, ISIS isn't AQ, but it isn't over yet either. And if the agenda is something other than "AQ must rule" - e.g. encouraging radical Islam as a political force on a global scale, undermining Western global standing, or affecting the religious and political landscape in the Middle East to be more favourable to radical Sunni Islam - they got some pretty good results out of 9/11.

I think it's very possible that ISIS - and AQ before them - are happy to spin the wheel. So yeah, provoking Russia to strike heavily against ISIS may be exactly what they're looking for, thinking they can pull off an Afghanistan situation.

Like I said, a matter of perspective. It may not be how AQ/ ISIS look at things - or how individuals within those organizations look at them - but I don't think it's that far-fetched either.

Remember they have very grand goals, they don't want to just drain the US treasury they want the US and the Western world to collapse.  It's questionable that even the limited goals you outline.  Radical Islam is not force on a global scale, it's still confined to the Muslim world.  I don't think Western standing has been undermined much in the last 15 years, and what has been undermined has little to do AQ.  I don't know if Radical Sunni Islam has a more favorable standing then it did prior to 9/11.  Iraq has fallen into Shia Iran's sphere and Yemen's government is beset by Houthi rebels so it's a bit of a wash.

If you consider AQ's goal as "Cause chaos and kill people" then yeah, they won.  If you use AQs own publicized goals then no, they haven't gain much.  Not only have they failed, but their capacity to attain those goals has been diminished.

ISIS has a somewhat different goal the AQ.  They intend to set up a viable Islamic state.  At this point they have succeeded.  Their position is precarious, however, and if their enemies coordinate their actions then will lose their territory and cease to have a functioning state.