![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogI haven’t posted much about the various protests in North Africa and the Middle East because, really, there’s not much to say, not least because (1) it’s still in progress and (2) the fallout will play out for at least the next few years.
I’m not disinterested, and no one ever said it wasn’t amusing to see Americans shocked and baffled by the idea that the US govt hobnobs with dictators. But it’s too easy to make fun of people with selective knowledge of history – let alone Limbaugh’s rent-a-mob theories and Glenn Beck’s Commie Jihad Caliphate fantasies (though roping in Google was, let’s admit, a stroke of demented batshit genius).
Still, there’s one angle worth raising that I haven’t seen get much mention yet – namely, where al Qaeda will stand after all this is over.
Oh, sure, conservatives bring up the Muslim Brotherhood on the false assumption that they’re practically just as dangerous as al Qaeda (except that the MB officially renounces violence, which is why al Qaeda hates the MB, but like you can believe anything a bunch of Muslims say). But in the real world, al Qaeda has a problem, says Bruce Ridel at The Daily Beast, because while they may like the idea of overthrowing American stooges like Mubarek, they want it done via violence and jihad, not popular movements demanding democracy.
So unless al Qaeda can figure out how to leverage all this to its advantage without contradicting its entire ideology, its recruitment pitches aren’t going to play well in these countries. Sure, it can always find a few dingbats to blow up a police station, but in theory it could wind up being even more marginalized than ever (and they were never that big a threat to start with).
Or maybe not. It’s complicated. Which is why I don’t do posts like this.
Anyway, it’s an interesting article.
Throw the rascals out,
This is dF
I’m not disinterested, and no one ever said it wasn’t amusing to see Americans shocked and baffled by the idea that the US govt hobnobs with dictators. But it’s too easy to make fun of people with selective knowledge of history – let alone Limbaugh’s rent-a-mob theories and Glenn Beck’s Commie Jihad Caliphate fantasies (though roping in Google was, let’s admit, a stroke of demented batshit genius).
Still, there’s one angle worth raising that I haven’t seen get much mention yet – namely, where al Qaeda will stand after all this is over.
Oh, sure, conservatives bring up the Muslim Brotherhood on the false assumption that they’re practically just as dangerous as al Qaeda (except that the MB officially renounces violence, which is why al Qaeda hates the MB, but like you can believe anything a bunch of Muslims say). But in the real world, al Qaeda has a problem, says Bruce Ridel at The Daily Beast, because while they may like the idea of overthrowing American stooges like Mubarek, they want it done via violence and jihad, not popular movements demanding democracy.
So unless al Qaeda can figure out how to leverage all this to its advantage without contradicting its entire ideology, its recruitment pitches aren’t going to play well in these countries. Sure, it can always find a few dingbats to blow up a police station, but in theory it could wind up being even more marginalized than ever (and they were never that big a threat to start with).
Or maybe not. It’s complicated. Which is why I don’t do posts like this.
Anyway, it’s an interesting article.
Throw the rascals out,
This is dF
