Oh please - at least half his "points" are weenie-pacifist hand-wringing.

Others are outright lies - like the one about:

American Muslims, a heartening story of success and assimilation, are now harassed and denigrated for merely trying to build houses of worship.

Well, yeah, if the "house of worship" is a stealth icon of cultural dominion built in lower Manhattan.

And we've uncovered a lot of ties between the "successfully assimilated" Arab-American community and organized terror.

I think you should've vetted this link a bit better.

Bottom line: it is a GOOD thing that America - traditionally ignorant of events outside its borders - woke up sooner rather than later to the Islamic threat.

9-11 broke through to the American consciousness after a decade-long string of smaller attacks on our soldiers and civilians didn't make it to prime time.

So?

Author is an idiot.

He didn't want just "war" with the west, he wanted a victory that would see it collapse and Islam expand to fill the void.

He didn't want a Democracy in Iraq, or the collapse of the Taliban, or his organization's leaders dead or arrested. Its true he wanted conflict, but only because he thought his side could win.

I repeat, the author is an idiot.

I dispute a number of his points as well, but to dismiss Radley Balko as an idiot is ridiculous.

Many people in this country are enormously uninformed about the nature of Islam, including many Muslims, who want to believe it is just another flavor of religion (strawberry to Judaism's vanilla and Christianity's chocolate). It is not. It is practiced by many as a religion, but it is a totalitarian system masquerading as a religion, and there's a failsafe switch in the Quran -- that it is to be taken literally and unquestioningly as the word of Allah. The Hadith -- Mohammed's words and deeds (and those of his close followers) are to be emulated...which is why you have all these old men in Muslim countries marrying and fucking children. (Mohammed was a pedophile who married Aisha at 6 and had sex with her at 9.)

The alternative is what, exactly? Ignoring them didn't work. Killing them by the thousands seems to have slowed them down.

Exploiting our supplies of natural gas, oil and nuclear power would be a start, but the greens don't want that. Jerry Pournelle suggested this before the invasion of Iraq.

I have not read the book yet. However, anyone who wishes hate or destruction upon another usually ends up bringing it upon themselves. Yes Osama succeeded in causing a war between factions of Islam and the "West". However, it is to the detriment of both. In the end, the groups that spur the violence meet their end by violence. "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword".
The issue for both sides is whether there can be any common agreement or terms that can be reached. Certainly Osama has been a great agitator and his demise may help. However, both sides need to find a figure or symbol of peace and reconciliation. Otherwise, the messages of hate, division and violence will continue. Who is there that can stand in the gap for both sides? That is the question.

The issue for both sides is whether there can be any common agreement or terms that can be reached.

Simple answer: no.

However, both sides need to find a figure or symbol of peace and reconciliation. Otherwise, the messages of hate, division and violence will continue.

How do you reconcile our particular differences? Their demand: "Convert, submit, or die". Our reply: "Fuck off."

Irreconcilable. There is no possibility for peaceful coexistence with the Islamists.

Who is there that can stand in the gap for both sides? That is the question.

Nobody, because the gap is infinitely wide. The only possible way to reconcile the position is for God himself to come down from the heavens and smite one side or the other. That's really the only answer that will satisfy the Islamists.

Or have you not been paying attention?

Lots of postulating here about What Osama Wanted. Seems to me that what he wanted most was to live to a ripe old age, laying his head down on fluffy pillows every night in his own custom-built private mansion.

This sort of article could have been written in 1944 - How Hitler Won, How Tojo Changed America For The Worse, etc. Islam has been at war with the world since 622 AD. We would have had to face that reality eventually, Osama or no Osama, Iraq or no Iraq.

Regarding those "Coexist" bumper stickers, in the case of Islam, there should be a footnote.

Sure. It works for goats.

I must disagree Miss Alkon. What else would you call someone who makes an assertion that Ossama "won" in any way at all, by virtue of having started a conflict between east and west?

That would be like arguing that the U.S.S.R. "Won" by engaging in global conflict with the west costing billions of dollars and who knows how many lives.

Fact is that anyone who wants a conflict, will be able to get one if they push hard enough. But nobody in their right mind "wants" a long conflict. Even the ones who want war, don't want a long war, what they want is a great victory, and for the war to be over so that they can get their way.

bin Ladin thought that defeating the decadent U.S. would be easier than the case hardened Soviet Union.

He was wrong.

Saying he won any kind of victory by trying, is moronic. And a thinking person should know better.

"There is no possibility for peaceful coexistence with the Islamists"

Fact.

A reporter for CSFSN (Crabs and Sea Floor Scavengers Network) asked Bin Laden what he was doing on the sea bottom in a weighted bag.

"Winning!" the tiger-blood-infused rock star from Mars replied.

The meal is expected to continue for several days.

Robert is right. OBL honestly believed (and said openly) that the US and others had no stomach for a fight. He expected a few cruise missiles and maybe an attack in response to 9/11, but thought that if there was an invasion they would just kill a few US soldiers and public opinion would force a withdrawal. Quoting Mogadishu, Beirut, almost no response to the USS Cole bombing, etc, he really thought the US and others were too weak to come after him (worked on Spain I suppose).

Instead what he got was:

- Complete loss of their training infrastructure in Afghanistan, and loss of their political sanctuary and cover.

- Then he doubled down and tried to subvert Iraq after the invasion there, again thinking "make it painful and they'll pull out just like Vietnam". Oops. So he (well, the various affiliated organisations that he had influence over) lost thousands of the people that had passed through those training camps, which by the way don't exist anymore. There are shattered elements of the organisation left of course, but there's no way they can be effective without a sanctuary.

It was not at all what he had hoped for. The cost in blood and treasure was incredibly high, I acknowledge that, and we can all argue over whether it was worth it. But it was in no way a win for Al Qaeda, and it definitely wasn't their game plan. 9/11 was in some ways the biggest miscalculation of all time. Close to Pearl Harbour proportions.

Funny thing is, Saddam thought much the same thing - that he could buy a veto in the Security Council and international law would protect him (nope), or failing that that he could make it too hot for us and we'd all pull out. Boy was he wrong on both counts.

Lots of postulating here about What Osama Wanted.

What he wanted is pretty clear if you ask me. The 9/11 attack was as much as anything a PR exercise aimed at the rest of the Muslim world - "look what my group can do!" And of course to get the US to pull out of the Middle East. Even he wasn't deluded enough to think they could actually convert the US. But it gained him status and influence.

It was a demonstration of strength to pull Muslim (and especially Arab) people behind him. Saddam's blustering threats were much the same - it also explains why he wouldn't confirm the destruction of his WMD arsenal, it would look like he was backing down. He was so successful at that that everyone believed it.

I haven't read this book, but I would be very interested to see how Wright reaches the conclusion that triggering a war with the West was the real objective.

…Yes, bin Laden the man is dead. But he achieved all he set out to achieve, and a hell of a lot more.

Bollocks.

Please review bin Laden's, fbuh*, statements from when he declared war on the US in 1995. He knew the US was a decadent empire, and only needed a nudge to collapse; in particular, he was certain the US was too morally weak to spill any of its own blood defending itself. Also, he saw himself as Allah's chosen successor to Mohammed, and the leader of the restored caliphate.

There are at least a half dozen reasons why toppling Sadam's regime was the least bad option on offer, none of them spelled "WMD". One of them was to attack the Islamist mindset: sorry to disappoint, but, yes we will take the war to you.

And that leaves off entirely the opportunity we gave them to engage in sectarian slaughter, which has succeeded in greatly undermining Islamism's attraction among its presumed adherents.

To review: less than 10 years after 9/11, Iraq is at risk of becoming a civil society, secular revolutions are occurring throughout the Arab world, Iran is hemmed in and facing internal collapse, Pakistan has been shown to be covered in merd, the global rate of Islamist attacks is sinking like a greased safe, and there hasn't been a significant attack on the US over the entire interval.

Yeah, that is exactly what bin Laden set out to achieve.

I dispute a number of his points as well, but to dismiss Radley Balko as an idiot is ridiculous.

Then perhaps he should stop giving quite so much evidence in support of the proposition.

---------------

*fishes be unto him

Hey, I see Mr. WMD popped up again. Hey, somebody needs to read about the Iraqi industrial base.

And watch the news. CNN now reports, "Osama bin Laden was not armed but did put up resistance when U.S. forces stormed his compound and killed him, a White House spokesman said Tuesday."

That's the first step in blaming America yet again.

Meanwhile, Skipper, while your points can be sustained, there are lines of people being groped, and you're subject to the Patriot Act in a dozen different ways because some Americans have been harvesting fear. It's been a great opportunity for those who want you to think your neighbor is a pedophile, murdering gun owner who can't wait to kill - so they can make you do something.

Gee, every Muslim will be able to point at the hole where the WTC used to be and aspire to do the same thing. If we'd said, "Huh." and rebuilt the original, there'd be no chance of that.

Balko's a pretty solid libertarian, but he's also a bit of a pacifist. He's one of a group of libertarians who have backed themselves into an intellectual trap by failing to realize that better is the enemy of good enough, in both senses of the phrase. The trap goes like this: any kind of security organization constitutes a threat to liberty; therefore, no security apparatus can be allowed to develop. However, without a government security apparatus that is willing to exert force, liberty cannot exist -- it will be abridged by the first tinhorn dictator that comes along. Guys like Balko have to realize that evil people really do exist in the world, and they do not desire that the masses live in a state of liberty. Very much the opposite.

"He forever changed who we are as a country..."

That's true as far as it goes.

"and for the worse."

For the most part, I disagree. Think back to the '90s and all of the end-of-history kumbya silliness. It was dangerously naive and just plain stupid. In that environment, something like 9/11 was inevitable, and if it hadn't been bin Laden that arranged it, it would have been someone else. It was a rude awakening for a lot of America: "What, you mean there really are people out there who want to kill us?" Yes, Virginia, there is a bin Laden. As we saw.

So security is essential to liberty. But here's where Balko has a point: security is also a threat to liberty. The trick is to arrange for the best practical security while impinging on liberty the least. That's one reason our Commander-in-Chief is not part of the military structure per se. As we've seen since 9/11, we've had some things that went excessively in direction of endangering liberty (the Patriot Act, or at least parts of it), and some that did so while providing no actual benefit in security (the current TSA silliness). Those things can and should be challenged. But, if these were my only two choices, I'd still take the TSA over being subject to sharia law.

Radwaste:

Hey, I see Mr. WMD popped up again. Hey, somebody needs to read about the Iraqi industrial base.

To clarify, I don't mean to discount WMD; rather, even ignoring WMD, there were still at least a half dozen good reasons to invade Iraq.

Amy:

I have never read Balko before. However, to assert that bin Laden got exactly what he wanted, and more, seems to require either profound ignorance or mental defect.

BTW, I heard there is a new drink called the bin Laden: two shots and a splash.