# Is Al Qaeda Over-Rated?



## Marauder06 (May 6, 2008)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/135654

_*Al Qaeda just isn't the existential-twilight-struggle threat it's often cracked up to be. *_

_*"I reject the notion that Al Qaeda is waiting for 'the big one' or holding back an attack," Sheehan writes. "A terrorist cell capable of attacking doesn't sit and wait for some more opportune moment. It's not their style, nor is it in the best interest of their operational security. Delaying an attack gives law enforcement more time to detect a plot or penetrate the organization."*_

Is al Qaeda over-rated?  What do you think?


----------



## SpitfireV (May 6, 2008)

No, I don't think so. The amount of support they give as well as their own operations shows this. 

I do think they are a different threat to what they used to be though.


----------



## AWP (May 6, 2008)

They aren't as capable as they once were, but we have a LOT of things to thank for that. If they aren't the biggest threat, then who is?


----------



## RackMaster (May 6, 2008)

I don't think there is an individual "biggest" threat any more in that arena.  Because of the reduction in their individual capabilities over the years, we know they are cooperating with or letting others use their name to meet the same ends.  Giving the some what cooperation between groups that previously would not have, it is just creating a larger entity of unorganized terrorism.  But that's just my thoughts.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 6, 2008)

Freefalling said:


> They aren't as capable as they once were, but we have a LOT of things to thank for that. If they aren't the biggest threat, then who is?



I guess that depends on what you mean by "biggest threat," and over what period of time we're talking about.


----------



## car (May 6, 2008)

Part of the problem is that many people roll up all jihadists with a-Qaeda. I think they have _some _capabilities. One of which is their ability to use the media to agrandize their accomplishments, thus creating a more spectacular picture of an event than is actually the case.

No, they're not what they once were. But they're not to be dismissed. Like Sheehan said, somebody still needs "to crush them" wherever we find them.


----------



## AWP (May 6, 2008)

Marauder06 said:


> I guess that depends on what you mean by "biggest threat," and over what period of time we're talking about.



To me, if al-Q is over-rated then that implies there is something bigger out there.

"Biggest threat"..... whatever is capable of attacking us either with a large 9/11 style attack or repeated small attacks. I don't think that al-Q is capable of either right now.

I haven't voted on the poll yet. I'm still thinking my way through this.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (May 6, 2008)

AQ is capable and is carrying out attacks throughout the world.  They also serve as the poster child for a new ideology that has attracted many to their cause.  The organization has been responsible for uniting a significant number of groups and has rapidly expanded across the globe. I don't think they are over rated by any means.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 6, 2008)

Freefalling said:


> "Biggest threat"..... whatever is capable of attacking us either with a large 9/11 style attack or repeated small attacks. I don't think that al-Q is capable of either right now.



Domestic terrorists would fit into that then, yes?


----------



## Marauder06 (May 6, 2008)

Freefalling said:


> To me, if al-Q is over-rated then that implies there is something bigger out there.
> 
> "Biggest threat"..... whatever is capable of attacking us either with a large 9/11 style attack or repeated small attacks. I don't think that al-Q is capable of either right now.
> 
> I haven't voted on the poll yet. I'm still thinking my way through this.



I haven't voted in the poll yet either, I hadn't really thought about the question until I read the article.  I always just assumed they were.

I do think al Qaeda is a major threat.  I think in over time China will emerge as the #1 military threat, but for a number of reasons I think that the #1 overall long-term threat to the United States of America as we currently know it is... illegal immigration.


----------



## AWP (May 6, 2008)

SpitfireV said:


> Domestic terrorists would fit into that then, yes?



I would think so, yes.


----------



## 0699 (May 6, 2008)

I think they're more dangerous for their ideology than for their actions.


----------



## Simmerin' SigO (May 6, 2008)

*I voted "yes"*

They are over-rated because they enjoy certain protections and near-immunity from counteraction.  Therefore, their "global affect/effect" is in part a product of the duplicity (intended or not) of others.

Were we to kick it up a notch and go after them, in all their havens, and pursue them relentlessly, then I don't know that they'd be as much the bogeymen.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 6, 2008)

Like to Sheehan's book:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24487248/


----------



## JBS (May 8, 2008)

What *0699* said.

IMO, they are overrated, but still need to be crushed.

Sun Tzu warned of *under*estimating even the most feeble, or numerically inferior of foes.


----------



## pardus (May 8, 2008)

JoeBlackSpade said:


> What *0699* said.
> 
> IMO, they are overrated, but still need to be crushed.
> 
> Sun Tzu warned of *under*estimating even the most feeble, or numerically inferior of foes.



So you quote Sun Tzu then ignore his advice? :uhh: LOL


----------



## JBS (May 8, 2008)

Over-Rated is not exactly a precise term; its rather subjective.

To me, an example of that would be a football team that gets media coverage and hype, but at the big game, with 50,000 people watching, they utterly lose the match.

Afterwards, everyone says the same thing about them: "overrated".

They certainly are capable of mayhem, and they are capable of extreme violence.  Part of why they are still around, however, is their ability to take advantage of media, and leverage religion to get new recruits.

Take away their ability to manipulate the media, and they would be severely handicapped- having to resort, instead, to more primitive means of recruitment (which is inherently less productive).  Like the hypothetical football team, or the loud-mouth boxer, they rely on hype and media to get attention for their cause.


For these reasons I say they are both "over rated" (in terms of hype and media), and yet still dangerous enough to be worthy of a committed and dedicated offensive effort.  They've already demonstrated the capability to do great damage _*if left unchallenged.*_  Those two views aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.


----------



## AWP (May 29, 2008)

Michael Chertoff seems to think they are:


> "Someone described Hezbollah like the A-team of terrorists, in terms of capabilities, in terms of range of weapons they have, in terms of internal discipline," Chertoff told FOX News. *"To be honest, they make Al Qaeda look like a minor league team.*
> 
> "They have been more disciplined, and they've been in some senses more restrained in the kinds of attacks they carry out... in recent years, but that's not something we can take for granted," he warned.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359594,00.html


----------



## JBS (May 29, 2008)

I misread your quote initially...



			
				Freefalling said:
			
		

> *Michael Chertoff seems to think they* (_al Qaeda_)  *are* (_overrated_):




Hezbollah is a potentially greater threat than AQ in a strategic sense too, in that they seem to find much more sympathy in the mainstream Islamic community than AQ does.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 8, 2008)

I voted yes, they have not been given the crushing blow. We allow them to operate and our current GWOT has not taken to the fight to all who support AQ. :2c:


----------



## Rabid Badger (Jun 9, 2008)

SunTzu's books and quotes are relative to ongoing world events and shouldn't be ignored (as they have been for the last 7 years).

Here's an example:

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html



> http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/sun_tzu.html
> 
> Be extremely subtle, even to the point of *formlessness.* Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of *soundlessness.* Thereby you can *be the director of the opponent's fate.*
> Sun Tzu


----------



## Typhoon (Jun 9, 2008)

> "I reject the notion that Al Qaeda is waiting for 'the big one' or holding back an attack," Sheehan writes. "A terrorist cell capable of attacking doesn't sit and wait for some more opportune moment. It's not their style, nor is it in the best interest of their operational security. Delaying an attack gives law enforcement more time to detect a plot or penetrate the organization."


Are you kidding me? Now, obviously in my civilian position I don't have my finger on the pulse of all the activity going on in the AQ world; but then again, does anyone? These are folks who operate as tribal groups virtually off the grid in some of the most remote places on the face of the earth. That makes them extrordinarily difficult to monitor electronically and penetrate using human intelligence.

People forget that it was 8 years from the first attack on the World Trade Center until the second one. These are people with a lot of patience, fortitude, and intelligence. In my humble opinion it would be a mistake to underestimate either their will or their capabilities. Of course I'm not saying that AQ's operational capabilities haven't been seriously degraded. However, we have to be right everywhere and everytime, AQ only has to be right one time...

As my attorney, a former SF VN Vet, once advised me: "Keep your left up!"



> SunTzu's books and quotes are relative to ongoing world events and shouldn't be ignored (as they have been for the last 7 years).


Dead on...


----------



## Royal (Sep 30, 2008)

Typhoon said:


> People forget that it was 8 years from the first attack on the World Trade Center until the second one. These are people with a lot of patience, fortitude, and intelligence.



Ain't that the truth



Typhoon said:


> Of course I'm not saying that AQ's operational capabilities haven't been seriously degraded.



Degraded? Where exactly? 

They're smaller in Afghanistan than they were in 2001, but they're far bigger just across the border, either around Quetta or in NWFP/FATA. 

They're smaller in Iraq than a couple of years back, but then they weren't in Iraq in 2001. 

They've taken some hits in Algeria, but they've spread to cover most of the Maghreb, bar Libya. Never thought I'd say thank you Qadafi 

They've hit the UK (several times), Spain once (but they changed the result of an election), nearly hit Germany and Denmark (and got their Embassy in Pakistan anyway). 

We're spending billions on defence and can't even stand up to a third rate tinpot dictator like Putin when he invades an ally (oh and they're slotting his troops and police by the dozen on a weekly basis too). 

Then there are the are they, aren't they, AQ franchises - Lebanon, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, India, China, Nigeria. 

Still, keeps me in a job


----------



## Swill (Sep 30, 2008)

Michael Scheuer doesn't think so.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JI27Ak03.html


----------



## Rabid Badger (Sep 30, 2008)

Thanks Swill. Great article!

Pak, Iraq, A-stan, Mindanao, North Caucasus, Gaza..and many more....

and now:



> Islamists in Somalia have regrouped and rearmed since the December 2006, US-backed Ethiopian invasion of the country and are now again contesting with the Ethiopians for control of Mogadishu.



Can you say collateral damage? Sink the boat now. Somalia is ripe for an AQ insurgency. 

Pretty soon they'll have their own political party because of their ability to affect the security of other African nations through strife....Can you say PLO?

Sink the ship now. 

AQ cannot be allowed to port with 33 Russian tanks and rocket launchers. When a ship embarks with rocket launchers, we're not talking 2 or 3. We're talking 2 or 3 thousand, or 2 or 3 hundred thousand.

I regret to say the hostages will not survive the sinking.....RIP.....you knew what was onboard and where you were going...


----------



## Ravage (Oct 1, 2008)

Never underestimate your opponent.

No I do not think AQ is 'over-rated'.


----------



## Blackjack78 (Nov 21, 2008)

Overrated? Almost 3,000 dead on 9/11/01 alone. Perhaps they are less capable but they still exist. I believe that the CONUS threat is homegrown,small cells and probably leaderless. Think youth gangs, they need a charismatic mentor or person of influence if you will and an identity. In addition, Muslim Brotherhood is a big problem IMHO.


----------



## 7point62 (Dec 10, 2008)

Al Qaeda's not overrated. If they get hold of a WMD they will not hesitate to use it.


----------



## AugieSpook (Dec 13, 2008)

AQ is no different than Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest of the jihadists.  Collectively they may be the most difficult to combat as they blend in very well with the general public and they are almost superhero like to the youth in their communities.  I would say they are very dangerous but not necessarily the biggest threat we are facing.  China and N. Korea and possibly Russia are major forces to contend with.  Iran needs a major ass whoopin but who has time for that right now?


----------

