Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight
Good point. I may have underestimated the integrity of their chain command; but at the same time I feel like infighting is a possibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the majority of AQ leadership under Bin Laden Saudi? Isn't there a possibility that another group would seize power?
I'm still in college with an ROTC scholarship, so I have limited experience, but everything I've read from sources on the ground makes it seem like it was a hassle to make all the factions (the various tribes, ethnicities, nationalities, etc.) in AQ work together.
Also, wouldn't infighting give us some advantage? True, we'd have less actionable intelligence, but wouldn't the overall weakening of our enemy be advantageous?
This is true to a certain extent. Whether or not infighting or ordinary splintering would help or hinder our side depends largely on amount. For instance, very significant infighting would be helpful, while more minor infighting wouldn't be enough to counterbalance the problems splintering would cause us. I just suspect that due to Osama's significantly reduced role in the organization, any such changes won't be very large, since most have already occurred. The main change I can see would be the Pakistan branch receding in importance a bit, as the Yemen branch continues to grow in importance.
Originally Posted by PastramiX
I wasn't drawing any correlation between the supposed jubilation of "Muslims" on 9/11 with what was experienced today, simply because the situation is incomparable. Quite frankly, there isn't much reason to celebrate here, as irrespective of bin Laden's death, there still remains a considerable threat; a threat that during the manhunt for bin Laden has probably increased to a new level of prominence. Even with the figurehead toppled, there's still the fragmentary cells that will follow the power vacuum, as well as the semi-independent al-Qaeda offshoots that have been operating without direct administration from bin Laden prior to his passing. Quite frankly, it's as monumental as the execution of Saddam Hussein (i.e. of petty consequence).I never claimed any of that; I was just saying that the celebrations could be perceived simply as such. One could compare it to the foolhardiness of "Mission Accomplished", in that it's a gross mischaracterization of a "victory".As I've pointed out, I'm criticizing the fanfare that has been made by some; the insistence that this is a game-changing, tide-turning victory in the War on Terror. The resignation of Mubarak is in many ways more celebratory in terms of against-the-odds, "the bigger they are, the mightier they fall" circumstances that makes this incident seem more like the execution of an obscure ideologue who has little absolute authority to make a tremendous difference.
We're actually in agreement that anyone who sees this as anything more than a symbolic victory is being way overoptimistic. I'm still not sure where 'violent', 'debased', and 'overly jingoistic' come into that, but I guess I just misinterpreted you or something.