What Will 2008 Hold?

14 Responses to “What Will 2008 Hold?”

1. Andrew Brehm on December 27th, 2007 12:52 pm

   1. The current peace is not stable and it doesn’t seem to be a peace between the parties affected as much as a peace that exists because the government became unable to attack as much as it wants to. It’s more a cease-fire than a peace. The south will become more independent. I don’t think Sudan can be saved except in a new form, as a federation between four or five countries or a federation of countries that reject Khartoum’s government.

   2. The Democrats do not have convincing candidates. The times of Bill Clinton are over. Nobody likes Hillary and nobody wants a president with no experience, i.e. Obama. Americans are not stupid. It will be like the last elections. It turns out that the anti-Bush crowd are not a majority, but merely louder. The Republicans have some good candidates and some really bad. But at least they have a number of originals.

   4. 2008 will be a year in which Bush will struggle to accomplish something significant so he may at least leave behind him a decent legacy.

   4. George Bush has his legacy in Kurdistan. There he will forever be remembered as the man who brought freedom and prosperity and peace. He also has his legacy among those in America and the west who care. He was also the first American president to promote an Arab state in Canaan and the first who regularly spoke to representatives of Islam while in office. What more could he do?

   6. What do you mean “back”?

   7. If there is such an attack, Republicans will win the elections. The terrorists likely now that and are trying their best to get their violent thugs not to attack anything American in the next few years. Expect more Iraqi and Israli victims though.

   9. I still think the appropriate punishment for Bin Laden would be a sex change operation, a Star of David tattoo on the left hand, life in Saudi Arabia, and an ex-boyfriend looking for “him”.

2. Drima on December 28th, 2007 3:01 pm

   “The times of Bill Clinton are over”

   I doubt that. Hillary has a lot of support.

   “George Bush has his legacy in Kurdistan.”

   And the accomplishment of a peace agreement that stopped our North-South civil war BUT… the mismanagement of the war in Iraq is what will always stand out though. He needs something that can overshadow that. In comes trying to secure peace between Israel and Palestine. I emphasize *trying*.

   “6. What do you mean “back”?”

   LOL

   “If there is such an attack, Republicans will win the elections.”

   This is precisely why next year al-Qaeda will try very hard.

3. Andrew Brehm on December 28th, 2007 3:29 pm

   “I doubt that. Hillary has a lot of support.”

   I meant the times of Democratic candidates that features something other than hatred or pure incompetence or excellent marriage skills.

   Bill Clinton was at least real.

   “This is precisely why next year al-Qaeda will try very hard.”

   I don’t understand. Al Qaeda do not want a Republican administration.

4. Drima on December 28th, 2007 3:49 pm

   Oh, I think they do. They WANT a war. Candidates like Rudy are willing to take a very tough approach. A more intense conflict means more polarization. This is what they want. Pitting us against the West.

   A democrat administration may most probably mean a withdrawal from Iraq, an incident which they will use to position themselves as victors and Americans as losers. That’s about it. Propaganda to their advantage.

   I believe the former is what they want because it fits better with their long term goals.

5. Andrew Brehm on December 28th, 2007 4:01 pm

   “Oh, I think they do. They WANT a war. Candidates like Rudy are willing to take a very tough approach. A more intense conflict means more polarization.”

   I do not think that Al Qaeda actively plan or want conflicts which makes them live in caves.

   Afganistan and Iraq have been great failures for Al Qaeda. They once ruled Afghanistan and are now forced to live in caves in rough terrain.

   And Iraq is now ruled by Shiites (whom Al Qaeda hate even more than Jews or Christians) who are likely to take away Al Qaeda’s support among the idiots of the middle east. Iraq’s Kurds and Arab Sunnis have certainly decided that America is a better friend than Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda did not want that to happen, they even tried to stop the local terrorists from attacking people.

   (Iran also ended up being a good friend of the new Afghanistan. That as well as not part of Al Qaeda’s plan.)

   Al Qaeda know that they will lose direct confrontations.

   “A democrat administration may most probably mean a withdrawal from Iraq, an incident which they will use to position themselves as victors and Americans as losers.”

   Exactly. And that’s why they would want the Democrats to win. A new Republican administration would be a disaster for Al Qaeda.

   Al Qaeda cannot win militarily. And Arab support for them because of Afganistan and Iraq means nothing. The Arab street are not as important as they think. The west will eventually simply ignore the Arab street and expel those Arabs that live in the west. Yes, that would be racist, but that simple move would solve the problem for the west and condemn the Arab world to a few decades of violent civil war fought between the different groups of nutters.

   Al Qaeda needs military power, not civilian support. That’s why they try to take over countries.

6. Drima on December 29th, 2007 6:09 pm

   “Al Qaeda cannot win militarily. And Arab support for them because of Afganistan and Iraq means nothing.”

   You make good points Andrew but I still have my doubts. Al-Qaeda isn’t a typical organization that rationalizes military in normal strategic sense. It has an apocalyptic world view, one in which they’re not fighting alone. In their heads, God fights with them.

   Regardless though, you still make good points.

7. Andrew Brehm on December 30th, 2007 12:50 am

   Here are two articles that might be useful:

   http://denbeste.nu/entries/00001268.shtml

   http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/11/binLadensstrategy.shtml

   “It has an apocalyptic world view, one in which they’re not fighting alone. In their heads, God fights with them.”

   I don’t think so. Not any more. Don’t forget that Al Qaeda’s leadership have seen what we have seen. And while, like our eyes, the media, they blame America, they have no doubt realised that G-d apparently did not help the faithful, what with all the damage except for a few terror attacks happening in Muslim lands and most victims of both sides’ violence being Muslims.

   If G-d is on their side, G-d is simply not as powerful as the Americans and British governments. They must have realised.

   They obviously tell their supporters that G-d is on their side, and in fact, their supporters tell themselves; but by now it is obvious to me and it must be to them, that G-d supports those with the most aircraft carriers.

8. Roman Kalik on December 30th, 2007 5:21 am

   Well, in my opinion, AQ taking over whole countries has little to do with forward planning and everything to do with their own stated goal - the Caliphate. Even AQ realize that creating the Caliphate is up to the “faithful”, and they’ve supported (and merged with) various Islamist groups with the same view for their particular countries.

   Take Iraq, for example. AQ have been trying to unite the various factions under the banner of Islam and killing the Invading Infidel since day one - they just made the critical mistake of merging with a person who hated Shi’a more than he hated any Western infidel.

   But at the end of the day, AQ never built or supported a symmetric warfare infrastructure. This requires too much forward planning - and I must agree with Drima that AQ holds an extremely apocalyptic world view. They simply don’t see states as something permanent enough to support, or as reliable as the “truly faithful”. This is what separates AQ from Hamas or Iran’s regime - AQ can’t truly grasp the concept of Muslim states, even temporary ones. Like Saudi Arabia, they proved too unreliable when faced with the demands of the Faithful for a Great Jihad. Islamic states may be useful for AQ as bases, but in the end the insane demands of the Faithful always clash with the little common sense even most Islamists hold - at which point AQ becomes the Islamist government’s own worst enemy. It says a lot about the Taliban that it found so much common ground with AQ.

9. Nobody on December 30th, 2007 11:59 am

   6. It might also be the year Britney Spears regains back her sanity.

   . . .

   9. 2008 may hopefully become the year Bin Laden gets bombed into pieces.
   
   why did you say this ??? do you think there is a connection ?? that it’s bin laden that’s driving her so mad ???

10. Nobody on December 30th, 2007 12:31 pm

    Andrew Brehm . . .

    They obviously tell their supporters that G-d is on their side, and in fact, their supporters tell themselves; but by now it is obvious to me and it must be to them, that G-d supports those with the most aircraft carriers.

    loool

    though i think that you are all wrong … AQ is not betting on god so much … of course they are sure that allah is on their side but it’s not the point … the bulk of their strategy, including the lack of interest in symmetrical warfare, is based on a certain perception of what is the pain threshold of their opponents …. they think that secular western societies dont have enough stamina to sustain heavy casualties ….

    muslims in general have a tendency to worship force … AQ and others are a bit more subtle than this … they dont worship just brute physical force, they worship willpower … for them it’s a contest of wills … but the idea is the same … they think that they can get it through the sheer willpower… that’s why they dont look for parity in casualties … they are ready to wage a war with the ratio of casualties of 10 to 1 against them because they believe that their western and internal opponents will be the first to freak out … it’s as simple as that

11. Nobody on December 31st, 2007 11:46 am

    i think that it would be right to describe AQ military doctrine as if it’s about global vietnam they are doing to the US and the West across the globe … in vietnam the US won all to the last battle against the vietkong and north vietnamese but nevertheless it has lost the war itself ..

    for AQ iraq and afganistan are just one of many battles in a big war and it’s unlikely that AQ is looking for some spectacular decisive victory … it’s an attrition war … what’s important for AQ in afganistan is that taliban are back and fighting … AQ is looking for persistence, to keep it going .. that’s what’s important for it … not that they have lost all battles in afganistan …

    so i doubt that AQ sees itself as losing the war … quite to the contrary … they seem to be getting pakistan now … from AQ’s point of view if the US does not intervene in pakistan now, it’s a victory for AQ because AQ is not fighting to get the US out of afganistan or iraq … quite the opposite, it wanted to get them there because AQ wants to destroy the whole concept of the US foreign policy .., it wants the US to stop its proactive approach to foreign policy … AQ wants the US to abandon the proactive approach as a whole and not just withdraw from this or that particular country …

    from the point of view of AQ it has miscalculated only once and it was about the pain threshold … one of the two, bin laden or zawahiri, once used the blackhawk incident in mogadshu to make the point about how sensitive to the casualties the US is .. after that incident the US withdrew from somalia …

    it’s clear that the west is progressively losing the ability to fight real wars … in korea the US in three years has lost almost the same number of people as in vietnam and unlike vietnam battles were lost and several times the US had to retreat and even evacuate seoul … yet it stood firm … in vietnam the US lost 50,000-60,000 men, it lost no major battle and nevertheless eventually it has surrendered south vietnam to the communists …

    AQ reasons that the current US pain threshold should be somewhere between these 50,000 lost in vietnam and 19 or something troops who died in somalia … but it’s a very wide range … probably AQ was betting that the US breaking point should closer to the low end, something like a few hundreds … that was miscalculation …. by now the US casualties in Iraq are approaching 4,000 and it’s still there …. i would think that right now AQ is estimating the US pain threshold at 10,000-20,0000 casualties … but in this confrontation between the hedonistic secularism of the west and the islamic cult of death AQ sees its prospects as very bright … as they like to say they love death more than the west loves life … the point is not who got more aircraft carriers or who killed more of his opponents … for them the point is that they dont mind to die but we do

12. Drima on December 31st, 2007 12:15 pm

    “though i think that you are all wrong”

    I don’t believe I am. Although I must admit Nobody… your view is heavily complimentary and extremely thoughtful.

    “for them the point is that they dont mind to die but we do”

    That sentence nails it!

13. Nobody on December 31st, 2007 8:14 pm

    when i said that you are all wrong i was having in mind the concept of al kaida as an apocalyptic movement too .. i did not comment on this but i disagree with this view too (well.. i disagree with most things people say … there is nothing new in this and nothing i can do about this) … i dont think that al kaida is any more apocalyptic than hamas or taliban …

14. Andrew Brehm on January 9th, 2008 12:02 pm

    I think everyone ought to read this:

    http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/01/the-rings-on-za.php

Leave a Reply