[Note: part two will focus on “Weapons and Balance of Forces.“]

THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE -

By al Qaeda’s own words, the Palestinian issue is al Qaeda’s main motivation and mission. Everything hinges on the treatment, by Israel and the West, of Palestinians who were displaced and are still being squeezed in places like Gaza in order to make room for Israel, its Settlers and its Wall. This is basically why al Qaeda says it is the sworn enemy of Israeli “Zionists” and their American “Imperialist” supporters. Since many Middle East governments don’t do enough for the Palestinian cause, they are also on the enemies list of al Qaeda.

The main stated objective and operating credo of al Qaeda and its loose associates is to destroy Israel and punish those who wish to make peace with or accommodate Israel. That’s why Anwar Sadat was assassinated and why Osama Bin Laden turned against Saudi Arabia for accommodating an Israeli peace accord. Bin Laden tolerated Saudi Arabia selling off “Islamic” oil at cheap prices but couldn’t stand it when Saudi Arabia gave a tacit nod to peace with Israel. The U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabian “holy lands” also displeased him greatly.

AF-PAK -

Some say al Qaeda is hand-in-glove with the Taliban---others say they and their aims are different. There is talk of a “moderate Taliban“---no talk of a moderate al Qaeda. But for the moment, al Qaeda and the Taliban are kind of working together against the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and its encroachment into Pakistan.

In Iraq, the Sunni put up with al Qaeda---until their indiscriminately violent tactics became too much for them. Aside from the fact that the U.S. paid off the Sunni to drive al Qaeda out of Iraq as part of the “surge“ strategy, the Iraqi Sunnis identified with and were concerned about the fate of their country---the al Qaeda were not. Although some Taliban leaders now sound like al Qaeda, I’m guessing the majority of the Taliban care more about Afghanistan than do the terrorists without borders.

Al Qaeda would love to have Afghanistan as its base for further expansion. Another stated goal is to destabilize Pakistan and take over its large army (7th largest in the World) and its nuclear weapons in order to establish the legendary “Caliphate“---a resurgence of united Islamic nations.

As a realistic possibility, the “Caliphate” is closer to “The South Shall Rise Again” category than it is to a still rather unlikely Middle East version of the European Union (which has been like herding cats).

We tend to forget that the Middle East suffers far more from al Qaeda terrorist attacks than the U.S. Most governments in the Middle East have even more reason than the U.S. to fear al Qaeda---those countries are unstable, corrupt, oppressive and ripe for overthrow from within. These governments include U.S.-supported regimes such as the Afghan government, the Pakistani government, the Saudi Arabian government, the Egyptian government, the Jordanian government and the Yemeni government. Indeed, U.S. military strategy in both Iraq and Afghanistan (and now in Yemen) involved taking advantage of internal divisions by supporting one side or another (sometimes alternately) in latent or overt civil war situations.

AL QAEDA STRATEGIES, SUCCESSES AND BLOWBACK -

Al Qaeda’s stated objective of 9/11, which they call the “Manhattan Raid,“ was to provoke the U.S. into overreaction; to cause the U.S. to engage in “bleeding wars;” to get the U.S. to invade nations and then get bogged down in quagmires and fall apart---just as the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan. Again, this is what al Qaeda has clearly stated as its strategy.

The successful rout of the Soviets in Afghanistan---and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Empire---is the signal success of Osama Bin Laden. It is also the al Qaeda template for dealing with other great powers like the U.S.

Al Qaeda has succeeded in getting the U.S. to overreact and is counting on the Americans to continue “bleeding” rather than withdraw their troops. Al Qaeda believes it will benefit from a continued U.S. military presence in Muslim countries because this stirs up resentment against America and brings new recruits to al Qaeda’s cause.

U.S. OBJECTIVES---THE NEOCONSERVATIVE DREAM -

U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been domestically sold as a means of responding to and preventing terrorist acts; to deny terrorists “bases“ from which to operate; to protect our biblical ally, Israel; to “spread democracy;” to bring women's rights to the misogynist Muslim World; and to overthrow despotic governments. The vast energy and other resources of the Middle East---if they are addressed at all---are portrayed as some sort of collateral benefit or reward for our noble efforts and intentions. [You may recall that Iraq invasion, according to the Bush Administration, was supposed to pay for itself with Iraqi oil.]

A young Army Lieutenant on leave from Iraq was more direct when he recently told an Alaskan innkeeper: “It’s all about oil!”

While the American public “knows…but doesn’t want to know“---neoconservatives have never been shy about their true intentions and motivations. Driving U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is the neoconservative dream to take advantage of our sole superpower status in order to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, and then Iran and Syria in order to bring that troublesome region in line with our “interests” and our destiny. It’s no secret---it’s on the internet and they’ve been saying it ever since the Soviet Union was dismantled in 1991.

I’m not making this stuff up: You can Google it yourself. Try “neoconservative,” “Carlyle group” and Project for the “New American Century.” It’s all there in their own words---the plan to use sole U.S. superpower status to establish military and political control over the Middle East and Caspian regions in order to shut out Russian and Chinese influence. In simple words, they believe it is all there “for the taking“ and something we have to do. Check out the names of former Presidents and other top U.S. officials associated with neoconservative think tanks.

You can read for yourself that the stated objective of neoconservatives was to take advantage of another “Pearl Harbor…surprise attack” on the U.S. in order to use it as an excuse to militarily consolidate the vast oil and other resources in the Middle East-Caspian regions and stick it to the Chinese and the Russians. In simple words, the neoconservatives had been dreaming of an excuse to invade Middle Eastern countries since well before 9/11. [Keep an eye on the British inquiries into their Iraq involvement---it has already been learned that George W. Bush was already talking to the British about invading Iraq seven months before 9/11.]

In the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations, the more rabid neoconservatives were known as “the crazies.” Nevertheless, the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush Administrations were awash in foreign policy neoconservatives and so is the Obama Administration. Alaska, by the way, is crawling with neoconservatives.

[Note: I will discuss the “neos”---the neoconservatives and the neoliberals---in a forthcoming blog on the dwindling differences between liberals and conservatives.]

Americans love to think of themselves as above Empire, above economic colonialism and above imperialism. Obama even said it in his Cairo speech: We are not an imperial nation.

What then, are neoconservatives like Bush holdover, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, doing in Obama’s Administration?

Neo-conservatism in the Obama Administration appears to come in a more “moderate” format. But you can be certain that this slow boil, “crock pot” Middle East policy of Barack Obama is unsatisfactory to diehard neoconservatives who are still convinced the U.S. is destined to militarily control the entire region. As with everything else Obama has done with a rightward slant, it will never be enough for right-wing extremists.

And let us not forget the other howling dogs of war in this country. Jewish Zionists believe in an Israeli political/religious imperative for further U.S. military involvement---and the Christian Dominionists believe in a religious imperative for eternal warfare against the infidels.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO AL QAEDA -

Al Qaeda is still a very small group; has been shot-up pretty good; is on the run; is vilified and shunned around the World. However, given the tendency of the U.S. to hysterical overreaction, al Qaeda remains extremely dangerous. Another “raid” on the scale of 9/11 could drive America completely over the edge.

Al Qaeda believes America is morally corrupt and ripe for a fall. Because of astronomical debts owed to China, Saudi Arabia, Japan and others, America is growing weaker by the day---it takes a billion dollars a day of borrowed money just to keep the ship afloat. Al Qaeda can see that America, with or without the threat of terrorism, is “free marketing” its economy into the toilet. Our social, political and financial structures are fraying and many of our citizens appear militantly clueless. Americans have already quietly accepted a double Supreme Court whammy to increase corporate rights and to diminish their own rights to effectively criticize our corporate-based military policies. American have accepted blatantly illegal acts by our government in the name of fighting “terror”---and don’t even seem to care about giving up more and more of their precious freedoms for the fool’s dream of “security.“

Al Qaeda is not responsible for all of this economic meltdown and political dissension, but benefits immensely in the long term. Its strategy of occasional jabs is keeping an already nervous nation on edge and increases our tendency to make costly and dangerous errors in judgment.

Provoking this divided, confused and frightened nation is the best chance al Qaeda has of achieving its dream of destroying America as we know it---because only America has the power to do itself in. Our al Qaeda “enemies” can only make attacks (“raids”) against the U.S. They do not posses the capability to invade us, much less destroy us directly, as we shall see in part two.

Rudy Wittshirk

Next: “Part Two - Weapons and The Balance of Forces in the Resource-Terror Wars”