Did Osama Bin Laden Win the "War on Terror"?

Bismillah said:

Also the article I linked discusses Hitler and how the two cases vary slightly as Hitler brought whole countries to war (led his own to ruin) and allowed the U.S to escape the depression whereas OBL has largely acted within a paramilitary organization but still managed to entangle the U.S into two wars as well as the fact that the massive amount of military and defensive spending have not done much good.

Click to expand...

Thinking more about this, I'm not sure how much "credit" goes to Bin Laden for goading the U.S. into invading Iraq. If we had a president less inept than George W. Bush, I don't think the astounding overreaction that was the invasion of Iraq would have occurred. Bin Laden was lucky we had such an incredible blunderer as Bush in power at the time.

Al-Qaeda was defeated in Iraq? You realize they were nonexistent in Iraq prior to the invasion, that is not true today.

As for the number of operatives killed, the nature of the beast expects this. It aims at mass amounts of pinprick attacks by suicide bombers no less, the death of their operatives is of no concern. Even the deaths of their leaders fails to have any significant impact on the groups discordant inner-workings.

The Taliban and AQ are effectively one in their goal to eject Coalition forces in any way possible. I don't think OBL paid any more than he expected and the one thing that may pay off is the amount of data extracted from his hideout.

Thinking more about this, I'm not sure how much "credit" goes to Bin Laden for goading the U.S. into invading Iraq. If we had a president less inept than George W. Bush, I don't think the astounding overreaction that was the invasion of Iraq would have occurred. Bin Laden was lucky we had such an incredible blunderer as Bush in power at the time.

Click to expand...

There had been sanctions in Iraq for over a decade and increasingly bellicose responses from D.C directed towards Baghdad. I think OBL knew that the invasion would most likely occur, he certainly expected no less of America after their Gulf War and deployment on KSA soil. As for Afghnistan, I think he was the sole reason for the war in that country.

I don't think this will change anything with the Terror War

dmgdnooc said:

Nobody wins a war.
Except the banks that are financing it.
And the corporations who manufacture the weapons.
And the Generals who recieve promotions.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to agree with dmgdnooc.

Revoltingest said:

You're quibbling. To say he won or lost is a perspective, rather than a matter of fact. Its a perspective that was asked for in the OP

You might want to be clearer about that in the future. I will indeed


Again, you quibble. One can win a battle or even a war without vanquishing one's foe. Usama caused a huge loss in the US, exceeding a
$trillion, that could be called a victory for a single guy to orchestrate. If you disagree, then so be it. You're welcome to your perspective.

Click to expand...

Alqueda have not attained any of there stated goals they have lost many leaders including their esteemed sheik Bin laden. Due to the violence they have orchestrated against many many muslims and the Arab Spring they are losing their support base and the recruiting demographic will soon be down to the psychotic only.

Bin Laden didnt and couldnt have Orchestrated the 9/11 attack on his own, it wasnt even his idea , yes he took responsibility but only as head of the organisation. Bin laden is not Alqueda, Alqueda is an ideology and Bin laden was an exponant of it.

If he and Alqueda have won anything or are even holding their own i am missing something. I guess if you take it by cost alone ,then you were thrashed soundly in WW2 .

dmgdnooc said:

Nobody wins a war.
Except the banks that are financing it.
And the corporations who manufacture the weapons.
And the Generals who recieve promotions.

Click to expand...

Jeremy Mason said:

I'm going to have to agree with dmgdnooc.

Click to expand...

Arnt all those banks corporations and generals in the coalition?

Mr Spinkles said:

Thinking more about this, I'm not sure how much "credit" goes to Bin Laden for goading the U.S. into invading Iraq. If we had a president less inept than George W. Bush, I don't think the astounding overreaction that was the invasion of Iraq would have occurred. Bin Laden was lucky we had such an incredible blunderer as Bush in power at the time.

Click to expand...

There is evidence, such as the testimony of President Clinton, that Bush was set to invade Iraq come hell or high water from at least the day he was elected. If true, then Bin Laden had very little to do with Bush's decision to invade, beyond providing a convenient political excuse for it.

Mr Spinkles said:

So Bin Laden did succeed in hurting the U.S. politically and economically, but he paid a high price for this.

Click to expand...

Basically, I would agree with your conclusion, Spinks: Bin Laden did a lot of damage -- a little of it directly (for instance: The attacks of 9/11), and much more of it indirectly, by goading the US into committing stupid blunders under the exceedingly stupid leadership of Dick Cheney and George Bush (For instance: The Patriot Act and the War in Afghanistan). But whatever he accomplished, he did so at a huge cost to his organization and to its ability to do anything further.

Overall, I think it might come down to mere semantics whether one wants to call the damage Bin Laden caused the US a "win" for Bin Laden. Some might want to think of it as a win, some might not. I suppose it depends on what one thinks of as winning. I go with the notion that winning is accomplishing your goals at a price that you consider affordable.

But even if we accept my definition of winning, part of the problem here is that we do not really know what Bin Laden's goals were (unless we are trusting enough of Bin Laden to believe what he publicly declared to be his goals), and we don't really know what Bin Laden considered an affordable price for achieving them.

It is too bad Clausewitz, Hart, and Sun-Tzu are all dead. Their comments on whether or not Bin Laden won would most likely be interesting.

Bismillah said:

Considering that was his goal, to cause as much physical and economic damage as possible, I think we can say he excelled in what he wanted.

Also the article I linked discusses Hitler and how the two cases vary slightly as Hitler brought whole countries to war (led his own to ruin) and allowed the U.S to escape the depression whereas OBL has largely acted within a paramilitary organization but still managed to entangle the U.S into two wars as well as the fact that the massive amount of military and defensive spending have not done much good.

Click to expand...

Ah, so you're saying that Bin Laden is really as big of a winner as Hitler. Got it. Yay, murderous sociopaths!

kai said:

Arnt all those banks corporations and generals in the coalition?

Click to expand...

Yes.
Which doesn't mean that the coalition is winning, just that there are profits to be had from sustaining a high level of hysteria in the minds of Western citizens.
And, to the great misfortune and impoverishment of the West, those who profit most from the 'war' have the greatest control over its continuation and the least interest in its cessation.
　
The 'war on terror' is essentially unwinnable, imo.
Terrorism is a tactic of warfare, widely employed by all militaries, and a war on war (which is what we have) is an oxymoronic event that serves no other end than to perpetuate war.
Seems to me that it is achieving its desired result, perpetual global warfare resulting in ever greater profits for the few.

Honestly, the terrorists are pretty abismal at carrying out their agenda. The negative effects of terrorism instituted by our government far outweigh anything those half-wits were ever capable of. And giving them credit for planning these results is giving those idiots way too much credit. It's sort of like being in war against Forest Gump. Any results are accidental and incidental.

I honestly don't know what Bin Laden's real strategy was. But, if part of his strategy was to provoke the US into responding in ways that would hurt it economically, he certainly did not need to be a genius to come up with that strategy. All he had to do was notice what had happened to the Soviets, something he appears to have done:

Sunstone said:

I honestly don't know what Bin Laden's real strategy was. But, if part of his strategy was to provoke the US into responding in ways that would hurt it economically, he certainly did not need to be a genius to come up with that strategy. All he had to do was notice what had happened to the Soviets, something he appears to have done:

Indeed, bin Laden has spoken of how he used “guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt.” He has compared the United States to the Soviet Union on numerous occasions — and these comparisons have been explicitly economic. For example, in October 2004 bin

Laden said that just as the Arab fighters and Afghan mujahidin had destroyed Russia economically,

Click to expand...

al Qaeda was now doing the same to the United States, “continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.” Similarly, in a September 2007 video message, bin Laden claimed that “thinkers who study events and happenings” were now predicting the American empire’s collapse. He gloated, “The mistakes of Brezhnev are being repeated by Bush.”
​

Click to expand...

But thats not true is it? comparing the US to the Soviets suited Bin Laden, but in reality there is no comparison. which raises the question of just how important was Bin ladens contribution in that war? was he as big a player as he would like people to think.

kai said:

But thats not true is it? comparing the US to the Soviets suited Bin Laden, but in reality there is no comparison. which raises the question of just how important was Bin ladens contribution in that war? was he as big a player as he would like people to think.

Click to expand...

I suspect he is to the people who disturbingly want to turn him into some kind of folk hero.

But yeah, comparing the Soviet Union to the US is like comparing wiping your butt with your hand to using toilet paper, or somesuch.

kai said:

But thats not true is it? comparing the US to the Soviets suited Bin Laden, but in reality there is no comparison.

Click to expand...

There are obvious differences between the Soviet economy of the 1980s and the American economy circa 2000. For instance, the Soviet economy was far more fragile than the American economy.

But, having stated the obvious, wouldn't it still be counter-factual to deny that the American economy was damaged by the attacks of 9/11? And wouldn't it also be counter-factual to deny that the American response to 9/11 cost the country a great deal of wealth?

There have been attempts to quantify in dollars the cost of Bin Laden's attacks on the American economy. While one might dispute the precise costs, or even which costs should be included, it seems that the estimates typically run into the trillions.

I do not believe Bin Laden won, but I also do not believe in denying that he partly succeeded -- and that a large part of his success could have been prevented by a wiser American response that the response mustered under those two clowns, Cheney and Bush.

Ah, so you're saying that Bin Laden is really as big of a winner as Hitler. Got it. Yay, murderous sociopaths!

Click to expand...

Maybe even bigger...the war in Germany is done, can't say the same for the "War on Terror".

Bismillah said:

Maybe even bigger...the war in Germany is done, can't same the same for the "War on Terror".

Click to expand...

You're right. Hitler failed utterly.
Usama is still winning even after his death.
Differing goals is the key.

there will never be an end to war on terrorism. terrorists exist in every country throughout the world. Think of the many various street gangs in the united states that use terrorist tactics everyday to control their "turf"