Did Zawahiri call off the gas attack so we could invade Iraq?

[tinrobot]

I was thinking about the Time story about the failed 2003 NY subway gas attack. At first, I thought it was just another attempt by the Repugs to scare up a few votes, but the underlying story has a subtext that is very interesting.

Let's just assume for a second that the story has some basis in fact. Why would Zawahiri call off the attack in early 2003? What was more important to Zawahiri than another big attack on US soil?

Let's see, in early 2003, we were planning to invade Iraq. I suspect it was far more important to Zawahiri that we actually follow through with the invasion, so he called off the NY attacks so he wouldn't divert attention from Iraq.

Putting it another way - Seeing the US invade Iraq was more important to Al-Qaeda than pulling off another successful attack on NY. By invading Iraq, Bush played right into their plans.

[Maestro]

1. I think that is very plausible.

Seriously Al Qaeda wanted an attack on Arab soil desperately and * fulfilled their every dream.

[Blue State Bandit]

2. That makes sense to me. UBL wanted to set up shop in Iraq

since the first Gulf War. As I discussed here, UBL's interest in Iraq was well established for over a decade.

Let's get one thing strait, "expletive" Saddam, and double "expletive" Osama. They can eat goat "expletive" with Tabasco in Hell for all I care. The problem is, bin Laden never took his eyes off Iraq. As soon as Saddam got wary of the U.S., it became impossible for Osama to get to him (due to increased personal security). That whole thing about Ansar-al Islam and Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi in the north, If Bush was so worried about it, We could have taken care of it with a small Spec-Ops force backed by the Kurdish Peshmerga. It wouldn't be that difficult, it was in Kurdish controlled territory inside the British/U.S. no-fly zone. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq to work with Saddam, if any thing they were still trying to get Saddam, and take over Iraq and co-opt the country for use as a base similar to Afghanistan. The big difference, It came with a standing army of well over 7 million troops, it was armed to the teeth, and the population would have loved him for getting rid of the Baath party. Besides, according to Cooperative Research, Zarqawi’s group, originally al-Tawhid, was in competition with al-Qaeda for funding and recruits.

It seems to me that bin Laden got what he wanted all along. He May have lost Afghanistan as a training facility, but he gained a better one in Iraq. Not only does it have a more educated pool for recruiting, stockpiles of weapons for his recruiters, and a modernized infrastructure, it comes complete with plenty of "Shia refuse nicks" and "western infidel soldiers" to help supply real world battle experience for his recruits.

Calling off such an attack would have been a wise strategic decision. Another successful large scale attack on U.S. soil at that time would have undermined Bush's perceived capability to protect the Homeland AND conduct an invasion of Iraq, even in the eyes of true Conservatives (non-NeoCons). It may have also spurred Congress to demand a nuclear response in retaliation. This would have been bad for both Al-Qaeda's and the NeoCon's long range strategic goals. Not to mention the fact that 1) it would be moral disaster, and 2) I fear that the world would have reluctantly allowed us to do it.

[jasmeel]

3. Welcome to DU!

:toast: