Lee Harris, whose Civilization and its Enemies I highly recommend, presents an interesting view of terrorists as engaged in a “blood feud” rather than a war.
At Tech Central Station Harris writes War in Pieces: The Blood Feud.
A blood feud against Western Civilization?
An interesting thought, with some logic to recommend it. But counter to Harris’ thesis, bin-Laden did want to provoke massive retaliation. 9/11 was too massive an attack to satisfy Harris’ definition of the level of violence appropriate to a blood feud.
OBL wanted massive US retaliation – not so much against Al-Qaeda as against any geo-political area that would cause Muslims to rise up. The long term objective? First to recapture Arab-Islamic governments from decadence and evenually to restablish a world-wide caliphate.
Harris’ article is interesting, and the terrorist swine probably have many different motivations, but one of those motivations looks far to the future and 9/11 clearly overstepped the bounds of “blood feud.”
These facts severly undermine the linch pins of Harris’ argument.
Interesting read, but unconvincing.
Is it your contention that OBL simply underestimated the Muslim reaction, or are we just not “there” yet?
I think OBL overestimated the potential for an Islamic uprising, and I’d say – if the US stays the course we’ve set – that it is unlikely in the future.