What next for Al-Quaeda?

[Darth Wong]

Has Al-Quaeda grown stronger or weaker after two and a half years of the so-called "War on Terror?" Did the invasion of Iraq hurt them or help them? What effect will the bombing of the Spanish train and the subsequent election of an anti-war socialist government have on their long-term prospects? Will they hit another big target? A cruise ship perhaps?

Just curious what anyone else thinks. Personally, I think they're getting stronger and that they will successfully hit another big target in a year or two. I don't think it's possible to shut down a movement like that as if it were a conventional enemy.

[SirNitram]

AQ definately suffered a nasty setback in Afghanistan, but the amount of time elapsed since means that, almost certainly, they've rebuilt. With the attack in Spain rather destroying the 'Flypaper theory', we've probably got the AQ back at normal strength, bolstered by more angry people from the US's inability to think before it shoots.

[Joe]

I'm resigned to the fact that there's going to be another major attack within the next year or two. It will probably be a major target; I think, however, a much more effective strategy would be attacking a number of small targets, perhaps in Smalltown, USA, but that sort of goes against al-Qaeda's modus operandi.

[The Dude]

I would not be surprised if there was another big-time attack in a year or two. I would be surprised if it took place in the US, rather than in Europe (or possibly Israel).

[Luzifer's right hand]

They are even more decentralised than before the war on terror which makes them more dangerouse and their actions even harder to predict.

[Stormbringer]

I think that we've actually made real progress in catching the top officers which hopefully will have a lot of effect on their ability to conduct big operations. Unfortunately that hasn't done much to disrupt either the cash flow to them or their ability conduct simple but deadly attacks.

The invasion of Iraq hasn't really helped them but nor has it helped us. They're suceeding in creating a lot of turmoil and resentment but it seems pretty doubtful that the Iraqi people will embrace them now, if they ever would have. Basically, both sides have alienated a lot of people.

Spain pussying out of Iraq is frankly going to encourage them (not to mention it's going to only fuel more hatred as they quite rightly see countries abandoning their moral commitments to fix the mess they helped create). Regardless of what people have said about popular support, the simple fact is to the world at large it's going to look like the terrorists caused Spain to knuckle under.

[Joe]

AQ definately suffered a nasty setback in Afghanistan, but the amount of time elapsed since means that, almost certainly, they've rebuilt. With the attack in Spain rather destroying the 'Flypaper theory', we've probably got the AQ back at normal strength, bolstered by more angry people from the US's inability to think before it shoots.

Desperate acts of suicide bomber depravity do not equal full strength. There's no way AQ is back at "normal strength," if by normal you mean pre 9/11 strength, but that doesn't mean they can't do a lot of damage and cause a lot of suffering.

[Ma Deuce]

There's no doubt in my mind that the war in Afghanistan and the subsequent arrest and death of several key al-Quada leaders did hurt them badly, but they are licking their wounds and adapting to the new situation, becoming more decentralized and harder to track down and kill, with individual cells operating almost indepentantly of OBL and his cronies. Right now, OBL is pretty much irrelivent to AQ operations because of this (of course, GWB will tout it as a great victory if they do get him).
As for Iraq, I dunno. On the one hand, the war has inspired many Muslim fundies to join al-Quada where they otherwise might not have, but on the other, it's drawing many al-Quada fighters to the same place...

They are going to hit again, of that I'm sure. Only this time, there will be little we can do to actually retalliate. Even if al-Quada fades away, Islamic fundie terrorists in one form or another are going to be with us for a very long time...

[SirNitram]

AQ definately suffered a nasty setback in Afghanistan, but the amount of time elapsed since means that, almost certainly, they've rebuilt. With the attack in Spain rather destroying the 'Flypaper theory', we've probably got the AQ back at normal strength, bolstered by more angry people from the US's inability to think before it shoots.

Desperate acts of suicide bomber depravity do not equal full strength. There's no way AQ is back at "normal strength," if by normal you mean pre 9/11 strength, but that doesn't mean they can't do a lot of damage and cause a lot of suffering.

What is your basis for insisting they cannot be back at full strength? Let's face it, what got destroyed in Afghanistan wasn't exactly cutting-edge, takes-ten-years-to-rebuild technology.

[The Dude]

They are even more decentralised than before the war on terror which makes them more dangerouse and their actions even harder to predict.

Decentralization will make them harder to apprehend, but it will also isolate them from training, funding and planning.

[BoredShirtless]

Desperate acts of suicide bomber depravity do not equal full strength. There's no way AQ is back at "normal strength," if by normal you mean pre 9/11 strength, but that doesn't mean they can't do a lot of damage and cause a lot of suffering.

Madrid wasn't a desperate suicide act. It was planned and coordinated with some professionalism; multiple bombs were triggered with mobile phones. What evidence do you have suggesting Al Quaeda is weaker? They may not be able to hijack anymore commercial planes, but one can argue that's because airport security has gotten stronger, not that Al Quaeda is weaker.

[Dahak]

Apart from being a highly popular publicity stunt, I don't see what good this alleged "War on Terrorism" has brought up. But it managed to get civil liberties down the drain...

[Stormbringer]

What is your basis for insisting they cannot be back at full strength? Let's face it, what got destroyed in Afghanistan wasn't exactly cutting-edge, takes-ten-years-to-rebuild technology.

The simple fact that most of them are now reduced to little cells with little to no funding from the organization as a whole. Big attacks like September 11th take trained people, planning, and funding. Things a tiny little cell is unlikely to be able to muster.

Madrid wasn't a desperate suicide act. It was planned and coordinated with some professionalism; multiple bombs were triggered with mobile phones. What evidence do you have suggesting Al Quaeda is weaker? They may not be able to hijack anymore commercial planes, but one can argue that's because airport security has gotten stronger, not that Al Quaeda is weaker.

True, but the phone in bomb is not at all a new technique and the only reason Madrid was more significant than those that are set off in Israel on depressingly regular basis is the fact that they were done at one time. They doesn't take much more effort, just a more balls. One thing thing lunatics have in abundance.

[Darth Wong]

The simple fact that most of them are now reduced to little cells with little to no funding from the organization as a whole. Big attacks like September 11th take trained people, planning, and funding. Things a tiny little cell is unlikely to be able to muster.
...
True, but the phone in bomb is not at all a new technique and the only reason Madrid was more significant than those that are set off in Israel on depressingly regular basis is the fact that they were done at one time. They doesn't take much more effort, just a more balls. One thing thing lunatics have in abundance.

Is it just me, or does the first paragraph seem to argue that small cells can't pull off another big attack while the second paragraph turns around and argues that they could do it easily?

[Stormbringer]

Is it just me, or does the first paragraph seem to argue that small cells can't pull off another big attack while the second paragraph turns around and argues that they could do it easily?

That depends on what you mean by big attack.

By big attack I'm talking something like the September 11th attacks, the previous suicidal airliners plot, or the seemingly favored hijacking/bombing. Those require a fair amount of resources and planning. Detonating a few bombs at rush hour does not, while it may kill a fair number of people.

[Sharp-kun]

Detonating a few bombs at rush hour does not, while it may kill a fair number of people.

True. My friends and I could, if we were sufficiently twisted, carry out a bombing on the same scale as Madrid. All we would do is simply arange that at 9AM exactly tommorow, we'll all blow ourselves up at various central commuter areas in Glasgow. Bombs made out of common household materials would suffice. No great effirt needed. Something like 9/11 we could not do, as none of us can afford flying lessons etc.

[Admiral_K]

Apart from being a highly popular publicity stunt, I don't see what good this alleged "War on Terrorism" has brought up. But it managed to get civil liberties down the drain...

Well, you can argue that the cost may not be worth it, but civil liberties "going down the drain", WILL likely be a great help in preventing terror attacks.

As far as AQ being hurt or not by the "war on terror", all I can say is we haven't had a single attack on American soil since it started. And its also put the fear of God in those islamic countries that had previously supported Terrorism.

And say what you will, but the loss of their planners and financiers will stop many major attacks. The attack in spain proves they still have the capability of doing that, but then we aren't through with them yet either. Big terrorism takes big money. You cut off the money, you greatly restrict the kinds of attacks they can do.

[0.1]

The real issue with Al Qaeda is its adaptability. As a centralized organization, it has definitely suffered. There are advantages with a centralized organization that you just can't match when you have diverse groups running around on their own. By the nature of the effort being put in around the world against this organization, decentralization means limited coordination for fear of compromise, and probably more smaller actions based on local cell structure rather than a well organized pattern of attacks.

However, the concept behind Al Qaeda seem to be that of a venture capitalist firm. Drop in enough seed money and funds to start recruitment efforts and get a local organization going. After that, the local organization runs on its own schedule and time frames. The advantage of this setup is security. The disadvantage is the lack of worldwide coordination with other components of the network. The fact that the U.S. and its allies are trying to disrupt the financial networks now will hopefully roll back some of the organizations future efforts in startup terror organizations. But it does nothing against organizations that received seed money throughout the 90s.

Now the most fortunate part is that as an enemy, Al Qaeda is... for the lack of a better terminology unsophisticated in its objectives. Or rather, if you read their training manual, their objectives do not provide a good overall framework for their people on the ground. The objectives are truly vague, and there is no end game scenario that are realistic, at least none that has been clearly articulated. Kind of like a company saying we're going to be going after telecommunications market, but then does not actually get specific on which part of the telecommunications market they're going after. People on the streets, the Al Qaeda shooters who are doing the actual attacks seem to be going after symbolic targets rather than real vulnerabilities in a systematic way. Whether its a lack of capabilities or a lack of coordination or understanding or even the success of anti-terrorism effort is unclear.

The unfortunate side is that the Europeans have paid more or less lip service to combating terror, and the events in Spain puts up the idea that a terror organization can and do in fact influence real life events. If Al Qaeda ever get someone in charge that has a clear and achievable end game scenario in mind and get that instilled into the entire organization, they would be so much more dangerous.

The issue with the Europeans comes back not so much to the lack of willingness to deal with terror but the needs of other nations to achieve greater status. Think France and Germany... in fact, hasn't the Germans been making noise about a permanent seat on the security council. That probably is a divide that would be most opportune for Al Qaeda to exploit.

Summary: Al Qaeda finds it more difficult to operate at the present as a functioning organization. Al Qaeda has gone decentralized as a response to the attention they've been getting. But fortunately, their organization currently lack a clear objective (think IRA when we talk about clear objective) and thus aren't nearly as effective or dangerous as they could be.

[Knife]

Has Al-Quaeda grown stronger or weaker after two and a half years of the so-called "War on Terror?" Did the invasion of Iraq hurt them or help them? What effect will the bombing of the Spanish train and the subsequent election of an anti-war socialist government have on their long-term prospects? Will they hit another big target? A cruise ship perhaps?

Just curious what anyone else thinks. Personally, I think they're getting stronger and that they will successfully hit another big target in a year or two. I don't think it's possible to shut down a movement like that as if it were a conventional enemy.

Its actually a hard call. We've supposedly either captured or killed 2/3rds of their leadership since Semptember 11th and thats got to hamper shit for them.

It is more or less easier to recruit the mindless drones that comprise the 'army' than it is to recruit the planners so in that sense I'm sure they have recovered their numerical strength. But I'm curious as to who they filled the leadership positons with. Will they prove as cunning and effective as past managment?

And I think that is the question, they will probably have enough foot soldiers to do what ever they wish to do but do they have the 'head shed' to effectively plan and execute operations on the scale of September 11th?

If I had to take a guess, I'd say that they'll continue with smaller, simpler attacks as their middle managment gets some experience under their belt. I guess it also depends on if they can get sucked into or stay in secondary campaigns like Iraq and Afganistan that can tie up some resources and troops.

[Dahak]

Apart from being a highly popular publicity stunt, I don't see what good this alleged "War on Terrorism" has brought up. But it managed to get civil liberties down the drain...

Well, you can argue that the cost may not be worth it, but civil liberties "going down the drain", WILL likely be a great help in preventing terror attacks.

When we start to change our way of life, reduce the civil liberties, we're giving the terrorists what they want. A moral victory.
If one is really determined, one will succeed, no matter how strict and draconic you'll make the laws.
Terrorism happens. But I won't trade my liberties and freedoms for a perceived,, illusional safety.

[Dahak]

The issue with the Europeans comes back not so much to the lack of willingness to deal with terror but the needs of other nations to achieve greater status. Think France and Germany... in fact, hasn't the Germans been making noise about a permanent seat on the security council. That probably is a divide that would be most opportune for Al Qaeda to exploit.

It might be pointed out that many European countries, unlike the US, do have a long history of terrorism in their country. Spain and the ETA, the UK and IRA, Germany and RAF...

[Sharp-kun]

Apart from being a highly popular publicity stunt, I don't see what good this alleged "War on Terrorism" has brought up. But it managed to get civil liberties down the drain...

Well, you can argue that the cost may not be worth it, but civil liberties "going down the drain", WILL likely be a great help in preventing terror attacks.

When we start to change our way of life, reduce the civil liberties, we're giving the terrorists what they want. A moral victory.

So the Nazi's had the moral victory in WWII then?

There is such a thing as a reasonable reduction of liberties during a period when it is necessary. To do otherwise could give the terrorists more than just a "moral victory". Yes, some may still get through, but it is at least trying.

[Master of Ossus]

I think that Al Qaeda has been damaged fairly seriously over the course of the last few years, but I am resigned to the fact that they're still more than strong enough to launch large-scale attacks, and that if anything they're even more motivated since they're trying to prove that they can still operate. I think there will be more major attacks in the future. I assume that the US and Israel is a fairly likely target, but I have no way of predicting what they're going to decide to strike.

[Nathan F]

Has Al-Quaeda grown stronger or weaker after two and a half years of the so-called "War on Terror?"

Weaker. Putting them on the run and driving them out of their base of operations has hurt their abilities to coordinate large scale attacks such as 9/11.

Did the invasion of Iraq hurt them or help them?

Double edged sword, really. It couldn't have helped them any, as that is one less country that they can freely operate in (assuming that they operated there in the first place). It couldn't have hurt them much, either, seeing as though it never was a huge power base for them, and has pulled troops out of the hunt for them.

What effect will the bombing of the Spanish train and the subsequent election of an anti-war socialist government have on their long-term prospects?

That's something we'll have to wait and see on. It's too soon to tell what the anti-war socialists will do if al Quaeda hits again, or if they are going to do anything in retaliation to this attack.

Will they hit another big target?

I'd have to say that the odds are for it. They did it once, there's nothing to say that they won't do it again. All we can do is be alert, and hope and pray that they don't do it again.

A cruise ship perhaps?

Possibly, but I don't really know.

Now, what's your say on those questions?

Just curious what anyone else thinks. Personally, I think they're getting stronger and that they will successfully hit another big target in a year or two. I don't think it's possible to shut down a movement like that as if it were a conventional enemy.[/quote]

[Howedar]

There is such a thing as a reasonable reduction of liberties during a period when it is necessary. To do otherwise could give the terrorists more than just a "moral victory". Yes, some may still get through, but it is at least trying.

Can you provide evidence that the US is any safer because the FBI can get my library records?