Conspiracy Theory of the Day
This one’s a bit out there, but, prompted by Eric Martin’s latest overview of the Afghan situation, I was just struck by another possible answer to the “Why hasn’t Al Qaeda hit the United States again?” question:
Because that would violate AQ’s deal with Pakistan.
I don’t entertain this very strongly, but almost everyone believes that Bin Laden and Zawahiri are hanging out with Taliban exiles in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Everyone knows that Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency, the Taliban and AQ are BFFs from way back, and everyone believes that elements of the Pakistani security bureaucracy, and maybe the government as a whole, are supporting the Taliban’s restorationist war against what passes for the Afghan government. Pakistan wants a client state.
To this, add the idea that Pakistan has a reasonable idea of how far they can and can’t push the United States. A mass terror strike in the United States would be too far. So Bin Laden’s handlers tell him, You can stay here; you can mess around in Afghanistan, Iraq, England even. But United States territory is out of bounds. We’ll put you on the plane ourselves if you try that, because we’ll have to. Once you’re back in Afghanistan, hey, you’re on your own.
Comment by Eric Martin —
December 28, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
[Affixes protective tin foil helmet to cranium, snaps chin strap and…]
You know what just struck me when reading this? There is a part in Suskind’s latest, The One Percent Doctrine, when US intel is pondering reports that there were al-Qaeda plans for a subway bomb using a crude but effective new bit of chem/bio weapons dispersal technology (about the size and shape of a paint can IIRC).
Here’s the catch though: the plan was supposedly called off by Zawahiri fairly late in the game. But no one could figure out why. The pessimists thought that maybe Zawahiri was planning something bigger (think dirty bomb/nuclear attack), and didn’t want to complicate the playing field by launching this smaller scale attack so near the proposed date for the BIG attack.
Others wondered if AQ was trying to lay low so as to avoid more attention - or that another attack so soon after 9/11 was overkill.
The answer was never really ascertained (for obvious reasons).
But your theory would provide a plausible answer: bin Laden and Zawahiri were told to call off the dogs if they wanted continued sanctuary in Pakistan.
Now here’s the upshot: is that necessarily a bad situation for us if true? They continue to live, but not attack.
[removes tin foil hat]
Henley, you bat shit crazy man.
Comment by Alex from Inactivist —
December 28, 2006 @ 7:32 pm
You know what, I hope this conspiracy theory is true, because it would mean that the situation is being managed by hard-nosed rational players who can make cold and accurate calculations and then act on those calculations.
Sadly, I fear that the world is a little more chaotic than that.
Comment by Jon H —
December 28, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
bin Laden and Zawahiri were told to call off the dogs if they wanted continued sanctuary in Pakistan.
Ah, but according to Jim’s theory, they could still have used the device outside the US.
Comment by Alex from Inactivist —
December 28, 2006 @ 10:36 pm
You know, although an explicit deal is actually quite unlikely, this theory could contain a kernel of truth. Perhaps the senior Al Qaeda folks are allowed to remain in Pakistan because they have not been able to pull off anything big in the US. And as long as they don’t pull off anything big in the US, the US probably figures it’s not worth the trouble of going into Pakistan.
So maybe it’s not so much a case of a deal as a case of not having reached a crisis where lines are crossed. And as long as it remains that way, it will yield the same results as a deal being struck.
Comment by matthew hogan —
December 28, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
As conspiracy theories go, this is relatively sane. Bat-shit sane, but sane.
Comment by Rodeored —
December 29, 2006 @ 1:14 am
I don’t know where I read it, but Al Qaeda’s long range plan doesn’t include attacks against the United States for a while. First they want to isolate the US, and this is some how accomplished by attacking its allies and ignoring the US. The US will not get any sympathy, and will in fact get blamed for the attacks that do occur. Only then, after five or ten years, I forget exactly how long, after the US has lost all its crediblilty and is blamed for all the terrorism in the world, Al Qaeda will launch more attacks on the US.
Comment by Rasselas —
December 29, 2006 @ 8:35 am
Sounds plausible, but for me, Occam cuts in the direction of “the bigger the attack, the longer it takes to plan and execute, and the age of catastrophic terrorism demands something special for next time.”
Comment by Hesiod —
December 29, 2006 @ 9:15 am
That sounds suspiciously like the deal the Taliban were offering us prior to 9/11: If you stop going after our “guests,” and give us recognition, we will make sure he doesn’t do anything bad.
At some point, the Taliban either lost control of Bin Laden, or they acuiesced in one of his attacks (the USS Cole). And because neither the utgoing Clinton, nor the incoming Bush administration did jack abou it, Osama went to the Taliban with a grand bargain.
It went like this: “You let me hit the US — who will never recoignize or support you, and is right now suppliing your enemies — and I will take out Masood for you.
Sure enough, a few days before 9/11, Masood is assasinated, and the rest is history.
Comment by Hesiod —
December 29, 2006 @ 9:18 am
Actually, I believe there have been no more big attacks in the US, because Al Qaeda has not found any domestic martyrs in the US who are willing to carry them out.
There was, at one point, a hint that Islamic radicals might fomr an alliance of convenience with rightwing white supremacvists in the US over their mutual hatred of Israel, the Jews, and the commie liberal Government.
The only problem is, rightwing white supremacists make terrible martyrs. They are, inherently, cowards by nature and are unwilling to die for their cause. You need a religious fanaticism for that.
Now, you may get another Tim McVeigh out there somewhere. So there is that possibility.
Comment by Tequila —
December 29, 2006 @ 11:22 am
This theory requires that I believe the Pakistani government has that much control over the tribal regions. I just don’t buy that.