Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
I'm asking that question because I'm not sure.
It's a good question and it needs to be asked more often. All too often groups with quite peripheral links to AQ are simply classified as "AQ franchises", and it's assumed that they are extensions of AQ or have adopted the entire AQ agenda. That's not always the case, and we need to be more discriminating.

Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
Western analysts really need to step outside the narrow "war on terrorism" framework and appreciate the real sources of instability and violence in the Sahel and the Maghreb.
Agreed, but Western analysts also have to understand that not all instability and violence are any of their business or require a Western response. Unless it poses a direct threat to us - and not all Islamist or "AQ-linked" groups do - we're generally going to be better off letting it be. That may sound callous, but if we wade in and start trying to address instability and violence across these areas we are signing up for way more than we're prepared to deal with, and we're likely to step in the scheisse in a major way... IMO of course.

Quote Originally Posted by KingJaja View Post
As long as there is widespread poverty and unemployment and as long as Islamist organisations continue to be the best positioned to provide social services. As long as governments are perceived as being weak and corrupt and as long as the West is perceived as being biased in support of Israel and the US is seen as waging war on Muslim countries - there will be terrorism against Western interests.

To deal with the so-called "Al Qaeda", the World needs to (1) appreciate it is the economy, stupid (2) understand that you cannot solve these problems with drones and (3) prepare for a long struggle.
Largely true, but understanding these things and doing something about them are two very different things. There's not a whole lot the US, the West, or "the World" can do to change African economies: they suffer more than anything from bad governance, and that has to change from the inside. Certainly it's true that "governments are perceived as being weak and corrupt", and that perception is accurate: governments are weak and corrupt. Again, that's not something that can be changed from the outside.

I'd agree that a more neutral stance toward Israel (already beginning) and less war in the Muslim world would be goals worth pursuing. I do not think that winding down Iraq and Afghanistan would reduce the probability of terrorist attack on the US, though. If anything, reduced US intervention is likely to produce new attacks aimed at provoking new intervention, because AQ can't survive without intervention.