Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Naturally, it’s hardly a sufficient condition, as we have to recognize that the demand for al-Qaedism or toleration of the demand for al-Qaedism is impacted by U.S. strategy. Public diplomacy is not a substitute for policy. But it ought to be a component of national strategy, and Malcolm has some worthwhile ideas in this regard. I can’t wait to read his book.
Notice a lot of what Malcolm outlines to Rachel gels quite well with John Brennan’s depiction of al-Qaeda’s potency. Malcolm thinks his strategy stands a good chance of working on a 24-month timeframe. I’m personally inclined to be skeptical of promised lights at the end of dark tunnels, but his ideas deserve a hearing in any case.
Update: Defeat! Not destroy, defeat! I spaced. Thanks to Starbuck for pointing out the mistake.



3 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Al Qaeda Does Not Exist
Speaking of conspiracy theorists.
It’s amazing that exactly the opposite has been occurring in our discourse. The best example is the “Anti-Ground Zero Mosque” movement and the tolerance it’s being met with (not on your blog, of course, great work per usual). A mainstream, if not liberal group of Muslims(Daisy Khan ) is being conflated with the same people that attacked the towers.
I think Malcolm’s idea is terrific but it doesn’t seem all that original to me – ref. Pres. Bush’s assertions that Islam is a religion of peace after 9/11. A lot of it has to do with the semantics of the dialogue – take the word Islamist. Which Muslim wouldn’t consider him/herself an Islamist? David Kilcullen’s suggestion that we replace “Jihadist” w/ Takfiri is especially useful but it probably won’t make it out of academia/wonkworld.
JM