A great article from the Financial Times "Comment & Analysis":
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b5e204be-2e17-11db-93ad-0000779e2340.html<snip>
The alignment between Hizbollah, Syria and Iran in a radical front against a peace settlement with Israel promotes anti-US and Arab nationalist mottoes more than any Islamic ideology could do. The Sunni “Arab street” has embraced Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah’s leader, as the new Arab hero, the “Nasser of our time”. But Mr Nasrallah’s elevation also works partly to
lessen the appeal of Osama bin Laden in the Arab Middle East. (my emphasis)
So. We have been told ad nauseum that the raison d'etre for bin Laden's Al Qaeda is to attack the West, especially the U.S. Neither bin Laden or Al Qaeda work to empower the people of the Middle East to better their own lot within their own countries, they appear to simply advocate destruction (if we are to believe what the powers-that-be attribute to them in terms of random terrorist acts).
It has never appeared to me that Osama bin Laden had any sort of coherent agenda that would actually lead to improvements in the lives of the Islamic peoples on whose behalf he is supposedly warring -- but he DOES make a damn useful bogeyman for Western governments (ours especially). In fact, he has been an excellent enabler for fullfilling all the police state and imperial power desires of our ruling junta.
There are some of us who have wondered all along, of course, if -- in the context of the long-standing relationship between the Bush & bin Laden families -- there hasn't been something a little too convenient in the timing of Osama tapes over the years, for instance. And the speed with which the CIA (the same CIA that helped organize and fund the original Afghan Mujahdeen from which Al Qaeda evolved, btw) always confirms that the latest tape IS "most likely" from Osama.
And there are some of us who have been suspicious about the *reality* of Al Qaeda all along...
However, if the above is just all too tinfoil hatish, then just think about the surface ramifications if the Financial Times' speculation is correct. The ascendence of Hizbullah's example of indigenous empowerment and focus on IN-country activism -- they are not declaring "jihad" on the West, they are entering into the political process of their national government -- is an entirely different paradigm than Al Qaeda's blow-shit-up modus operandi.
This ought to be an excellent development in the "War on Terror" (if the WOT were actually real, and not just a convenient propaganda set for political control) -- the fading away of the rabid global jihadists and the evolutionary rise of a locally focused, new Islamic form of populism integrating itself into the democratic polity.
But of course, that is the LAST thing that the neocon/global power axis wants.
sw