T Nation

Bush and Blair Have Done Bin Laden's Work


Is Osama Bin Laden winning after all? Until recently I would have derided such a thought. How could a tinpot fanatic who is either dead or shut in some mountain hideout hold the world to ransom for five years? It would stretch the imagination of an Ian Fleming.

Now I am beginning to wonder. Not a day passes without some new sign of Bin Laden?s mesmeric grip on the governments of Britain and America. His deeds lie behind half the world?s headlines. British policy seems obsessed with one word: terrorism. The West is equivocating, writhing, slithering in precisely the direction most desired by its enemy. He must be roaring with delight.


It's in "the times". I know, that's not Fox, so it must be leftist and not objective.

But still, "the times". These people actually have brains and use them you know.


Another useless rambling opinion piece.


Another predictable replu by one of Bush's cheerleaders.

Do you ever THINK before typing and hitting the reply button? EVER?



This isn't an editorial, it's an op-ed, so I don't really think you can attribute its message to the Times. I don't think they vet the arguments of op-eds for either correctness nor consistency - mabye that its grammar was up to par and it wasn't promoting anything illegal...

At any rate, the argument that OBL is just a bogeyman is the backbone of this piece - and though the offer was nice enough to offer as an aside that it just might be that increased vigilance might be responsible for the relative lack of terrorist attacks against the U.S. and G.B., he didn't even address the idea that offense against al Queda worldwide, and particularly in its former home-base area, might just be affecting them as well. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The rest was pretty much just a diatribe against those evil villians, Bush & Blair, who apparently haven't done enough to convince spoiled youths worldwide to win a BBC popularity contest, err, survey.

This actually reminds me of rehashed Cold War opinion pieces blaming the U.S. for driving the Cold War and making moral equivalence arguments about the dictatorships behind the Iron Curtain compared with the U.S. and its allies. Those were bad, and this is too.


If you want something to discuss find something interesting to post.

Just trolling the news sites for Op Ed pieces that are critical of the admin is incredibly lame.

Do you think before you do it? It certainly doesn't take much effort or thought.

At least find something original instead of the same old recycled bullshit.


Seems to me that the winner of the Iraq war is going to be radical Islam. We leveled Iraq and we can't stabelize it and we havn't rebuilt it. We have inlamed a lot of hatred against the US, radicalized a lot of moderate Iraqis, and provided them a training ground where they can practice blowing up car and busses.

I would say that is doing Bin Laden's work for him. Now we have US elections coming up in 6 months and I will be shocked if Bush doesn't start pulling US troops to coincide with that. There are ZERO Iraqi battalions who can fight without US troop assistance... we are going to leave Iraq destabelized and in a mess.

The war was planned by ivory tower academics (not by military planners) most of whom had no military background and had never stepped foot in Iraq even once. (I'm talking about Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz... three of the main planners for the Iraq war).

According to their theory, if you remove a dictator the people will automatically welcome you, they will all join together and then they will vote for democracy. None of those things are very realistic for Iraq and none of them have come true.

Now even Bill OReilly is calling for troop withdrawal.

Bill's not conservative enough for ya?
Then here's William F. Buckley

"It Didn?t Work"



Interesting comment from Francis Fukuyama on this in the Guardian:

Neoconservatism has evolved into something I can no longer support

The US needs to reframe its foreign policy not as a military campaign but as a political contest for hearts and minds

Francis Fukuyama
Wednesday February 22, 2006

"[...]Promoting democracy and modernisation in the Middle East is not a solution to jihadist terrorism. Radical Islamism arises from the loss of identity that accompanies the transition to a modern, pluralist society. More democracy will mean more alienation, radicalisation and terrorism. But greater political participation by Islamist groups is likely to occur whatever we do, and it will be the only way that the poison of radical Islamism can work its way through the body politic of Muslim communities. The age is long gone when friendly authoritarians could rule over passive populations[...]"


Interesting thought. Any views?



That's a good article, I read it somewhere else (NYT or Washington Post) recently, he makes a lot of sense about how the laudible aims but foolish means of the neo-cons have run into reality in Iraq.


Agreed, but you think we should just leave now? You really think the 130,000 troops there, who are admittedly far too few to kill the insurgency, aren't preventing a civil war?