Andreas, you say the future of the USA in the Arab world doesn't look good, but what lens are you using to view the Arab world? You mention the NYT, but the NYT doesn't seem to find anything coming out of Iraq news unless it's bad. Reports coming out of Iraq from the troops provide a different view. And the Iraqi polls suggest that democracy has been firmly grasped by the Iraqi imagination. Alas, when I was here last you were describing our Wilsonian adventure as doomed, but I compared it to other wars and said by any standard available (for wars) it was a great success. We have yet to endure the casualties the Marines saw in a single day of fighting in some of the islands in the Pacific. We have a viable government in place and functioning (far sooner than we did in Japan), and are working on countless projects that will turn Iraq into a modern economy. I realize most of the people on Lit-Ideas have view (through the lenses of the NYT, the Washington Post & the popular media news channels), but there are other lenses: CNN, Fox News, C-Span and the many reports of returning veterans. I have a friend who is in the Army Corps of Engineers in Iraq and he writes that the news they see in the media (widely accepted here on Lit-Ideas, apparently) is viewed over there as something providing aid and comfort to our enemies the Islamists. In regard to our leaving Saudi Arabia, we did that at the behest of the Saudis and not Osama. The internet doesn't do books so you won't have the information contained in America's Secret War, Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle between America and its Enemies. According to George Friedman, founder of Stratfor, it was necessary to remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq to get Saudi Arabia to cooperate with us in our pursuit of Al Quaeda. Those who argue that we would have been better off going after Al Quaeda instead of taking out Saddam's regime first are not thinking the matter through. As long as Saddam stood in the way, Saudi Arabia and other countries such as Libya weren't going to cooperate with us in our anti-Islamist efforts. We couldn't readily go after Islamists in countries not cooperating with us. I notice that we did that in Pakistan recently and there has been an uncharacteristic complaint - as though Pakistan isn't taking us as seriously as the once did. Why is that? I suspect they view the pro-Islamist (in effect) stance of the Media and many important people in government as a sign that the Bush anti-Islamist efforts are doomed. I see a strong parallel between the Vietnam period and this one. Strong influential voices in the media are declaring success failure and victory defeat. Will the "failure/defeat" forces succeed in Iraq as they did in Vietnam? Perhaps, but I doubt it. I think the Iraqi government will be too strong by the time Bush leaves office to permit an Islamist victory there. As to Osama bin Laden's goals, they have indeed been known for a long time. You can find them in the teachings of Sayyid Qutb. Osama studied directly under Sayyid Qutb's brother. The goal is the continuation of Mohammad's goal, the subjugation of the entire world to Allah. The success of Mohammad's successors stalled when Muslims quit practicing strict adherence to the Sharia. When they return to the Sharia including its teachings on the Jihad then Islam will once again become the success that it was under Mohammad and the righteous Imams. Look at the success that true believers achieved against the USSR in Afghanistan. A handful of the faithful defeated a superpower. Another handful can defeat the US as easily. If you read the teachings of Sayyid Qutb and the speeches of Osama bin Laden then you will know that any retreat by the US will be deemed a great Islamist success. Sayyid Qutb's teachings are readily available to the curious and Osama is following them. As the Islamic Scholar Youssef Choueiri writes in his Islamic Fundamentalism (a book and therefore not available on the internet), the Islamist teachings of Qutb share much with fascism. As the Algerian Islamists rather prematurely argued after their political victory, "Allah now rules Algeria so we will have no further need for elections." The Iraqi elections are anathema to the Islamists. The Islamists cannot let a Democratic Iraq stand. You are right about the Islamist view of Reagan & Bush Sr. You can include Carter and Clinton as well. The Islamists had a low opinion of America's willingness and ability to fight. Bush Jr has been a surprise to them, but they see the anti-Bush a force actively opposing him in America's and the World's presses and take heart. Once the "Cowboy" is finished with his two terms, and someone more in the pattern of earlier presidents takes office, the Islamists can return to business as usual. But I don't think you are correct in thinking that the Islamists are taking heart out of driving us out of Saudi Arabia and Lebanon at this late date. They would gladly let us back into those places if they could get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq - in my opinion. Lawrence Helm San Jacinto -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:59 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape > bin Laden does not explain what this truce might look like, but it would > most likely involve the standard elements: removal of all infidel troops > from Saudi Arabia and the return of all land to the Palestinians. > Previously he has said that these were the conditions for ending his > jihad... Shortly after 9.11, Mr. bin Laden (as the NYT calls him) stated three demands: Remove infidel troops from Saudi Arabia. End US support for Israel. I can't remember the third one exactly; I think it was for Israel to shut down. Something like that. Bush flatly rejected the three demands. A few months later, he quietly accepted the first one: the USA pulled out its troops out of Saudi Arabia. 9.11 worked. The Saudi guerillas/terrorists/freedom fighters/fundamentalists forced the USA to leave Saudi Arabia. It was fairly certain this would happen. Under Reagan, the USA occupied Lebanon. Hezbollah was able to force the US to leave. They carbombed a building and killed 250 US Marines. The next day, Reagan diverted attention by "invading" Grenada and meanwhile, pulled the US out of Lebanon. The Islamic fundamentalists have now learned twice that if they raise the stakes high enough, they can beat the US. Neither Reagan nor Bush were pacifists, liberals, or tree huggers. Both had Big Words about Standing Tall, Staying the Course, and so on. Yet both cut and ran. The future for the USA in the Arab world doesn't look good. If the Islamic fundamentalists have been able twice to force the US to leave two critical locations, they will do this again. They will continue to hammer the US until it leaves. yrs, andreas www.andreas.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html