The Battle of Sharm el-Sheikh
From Strategic Forecasting:
No doubt. Though I would hesitate to use so grandiose a terms as "global offensive" and "counterattack," at least in their strategic sense. I think these attacks would be happening with or without the GWOT - probably on a significantly vaster scale given the damage we've done to their networks, financing, and leadership.
The London attacks seem more symbolic than strategic, since Prime Minister Tony Blair is past his recent election and his political opposition generally supports his GWOT policy. Yesterday's bombings in Egypt are of greater concern since their focus was that country's economic and political stability:
With Talibanic Afghanistan a fading memory, Iraq liberated and democratizing, Libya having given up its WMDs, and Syria having retreated from Lebanon, the last thing al Qaeda needs is Egypt getting swept up in that tide of modernization and liberalization. It is therefore in bin Laden's (or whomever) interest to provoke, even compel, a fresh crackdown by the Mubarek regime that defers or snuffs outright even a token move toward democracy, all the better to set the stage for alienation from the U.S. and eventually its overthrow and replacement by an Islamist caliphate. On the chessboard of the Middle East, this would be AQ's answer to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and would create a hellishly worse predicament for the Israelis, whose southwestern flank, quiet for a generation, would be imperiled once more.
This does put the Bush Administration in the potentially sticky spot of needing to back Hosni Mubarek if he does retrench from his tentative commitment to quasi-free elections because the AQ-sought alternative would be even worse. But I would think that "pre-emption" has application to diplomatic as well as military strategy, and that we and the Egyptians have planned for just such contingencies.
In any case, the particular pattern, if any, of this series of bombings doesn't affect the overall strategy of the GWOT. Suicide attacks against civilian targets is all the enemy has, and they can't defeat us unless we choose to surrender to them. Unless those attacks get a helluva lot bigger, or the electorates of the Anglosphere suddenly get a helluva lot more wobbly, I don't see that happening any time soon.
[HT: CQ]
At least two car bombs exploded in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh and nearby Naama Bay hotels resort area at around 1 a.m. local time July 23. Initial reports indicate at least 20 dead and more than 100 wounded.
The bombings come close on the heels of the July 7 and 21 London bombings and the July 22 Beirut bombing. Taken individually, each operation has local characteristics that appear separate from one another. Stepping back, however, it becomes clear that there is a global offensive under way by militant forces - whether specifically arranged by a single core leadership or not.
We can no longer ignore a global upsurge of operations by al Qaeda and like-minded militants. The U.S. and international offensive against al Qaeda and other Islamist militants is now facing a widespread counterattack; further attacks will follow.
No doubt. Though I would hesitate to use so grandiose a terms as "global offensive" and "counterattack," at least in their strategic sense. I think these attacks would be happening with or without the GWOT - probably on a significantly vaster scale given the damage we've done to their networks, financing, and leadership.
The London attacks seem more symbolic than strategic, since Prime Minister Tony Blair is past his recent election and his political opposition generally supports his GWOT policy. Yesterday's bombings in Egypt are of greater concern since their focus was that country's economic and political stability:
The attacks dealt a fresh blow to the tourism industry so crucial to Egypt's economy, which was still recovering from the fallout of last year's bombings.
There have also been several attacks in tourist areas in Cairo in recent months, as Egypt prepares for its first multi-candidate presidential election in September.
With Talibanic Afghanistan a fading memory, Iraq liberated and democratizing, Libya having given up its WMDs, and Syria having retreated from Lebanon, the last thing al Qaeda needs is Egypt getting swept up in that tide of modernization and liberalization. It is therefore in bin Laden's (or whomever) interest to provoke, even compel, a fresh crackdown by the Mubarek regime that defers or snuffs outright even a token move toward democracy, all the better to set the stage for alienation from the U.S. and eventually its overthrow and replacement by an Islamist caliphate. On the chessboard of the Middle East, this would be AQ's answer to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and would create a hellishly worse predicament for the Israelis, whose southwestern flank, quiet for a generation, would be imperiled once more.
This does put the Bush Administration in the potentially sticky spot of needing to back Hosni Mubarek if he does retrench from his tentative commitment to quasi-free elections because the AQ-sought alternative would be even worse. But I would think that "pre-emption" has application to diplomatic as well as military strategy, and that we and the Egyptians have planned for just such contingencies.
In any case, the particular pattern, if any, of this series of bombings doesn't affect the overall strategy of the GWOT. Suicide attacks against civilian targets is all the enemy has, and they can't defeat us unless we choose to surrender to them. Unless those attacks get a helluva lot bigger, or the electorates of the Anglosphere suddenly get a helluva lot more wobbly, I don't see that happening any time soon.
[HT: CQ]
posted by JASmius at 12:29 PM
<<< Home