Though I'm alway open to correction and education by those who know more, and to the hard lessons of new experience, I think of what we're fighting as a fungus not a fortress.

A fortress is highly organised, highly structured. A great fortress like the better medieval castles is designed for the different parts to function independently though with mutual support. Take this tower, and still have to take that one while being under fire from all the others. Take all those and there's still the inner keep. It is to a limited extent more than the sum of its parts.

But ultimately it's a total, and you persistently subtract from it, and it falls and that's that. National Socialism was avowedly a mighty fortress. It was tough, tough, tough, but ultimately we broke it and that was that.

With a fungus, most of the organism is always below the surface, mingled with rotting vegetation and dirt.

Obvious structures (mushrooms) sprout up where conditions are favourable. They're not that tough, you can mow them down - if you have the means, the will, permission and so on. And if they're poisonous mushrooms, a threat to children and animals that may swallow them, of course you should. (The British model of observing and doing nothing is not looking good at this point.)

But that doesn't mean you will ever smash the gates, burst into the keep, run through the lord of evil and declare victory.

The true enemy in the fungus model is the seemingly unengaged, unconnected mass of rot below. The less of that, the better, whether it seems to be doing something or not.

Of course, when you're dealing with human beings, the only possible means of reaching for "less" are humane and ultimately benevolent ones - spreading democracy, whisky, sexy, and reducing the cost of opting out. (Unless you give people the power to opt out of being part of the superficially passive mass that actually supports jihad, I think everything else you do is futile in the long run.) As George W. Bush says: we have to spread freedom.

When you map big jihad actions, it looks to me that they happen where they can happen, where favourable populations are (give or take some plane tickets). It doesn't look like strategic direction or concentration of effort is an issue.

Sure, there's more action where something that excites jihadis and is readily accessible to them is going on, but strategy requires focus, and focus requires saying no. When does what we're up against say "No!" to jihad actions, whether ethnic and racial cleansing, terror spectaculars or anything else? Never as far as I can see. I can't even see that we're fighting against something that is striving for the power to say "No!" to counter-productive terror.

Dan Darling: " I suspect that one could add more than a few attacks onto that list, but the point is that all of these sophisticated, well-planned terrorist attack do not just emerge via spontaneous generation."

OK, I can see there's a lot of swapping of skills, jihad indoctrination and the abundant resources provided by oil wealth. Above the surface each mushroom, each terror organisation looks distinct (and an essentially simple policing matter), but consider the inextricably mingled constituents of the ummah below and it's a different model.

Dan Darling: "Too bad this impressive array of adherents to such Burkean analysis were all in for a swift dose of reality."

I'll be very interested, as time and terror go on, if you can keep brightly highlighting the things you believe show that what we're fighting is a franchise - your good term - not a fungus. It'll make it easier to see whether or when we reach the point where the new evidence for the franchise model should really be considered decisive. Thank you.

"Too bad this impressive array of adherents to such Burkean analysis were all in for a swift dose of reality."

Well, I wouldn't be too fast to score one for the reality-based community. I subscribe to the mainstream liberal Democratic magazine "The American Prospect," and editor Robert Kuttner has some ways to go before agreeing with your analysis in any meaningful way. This month's Out-Of-Iraq lead editorial (only a teaser available online) gets all the prior details wrong, so I'm sure he can explain away the latest attacks and NBC's 'revalations' about al-Qaeda and the IRGC as well.

OK, they are in Iran, now, how do we get them out?

Dan: Please consider the posibility that Bin Laden is not the true head of A-Q or the future Caliph. What if it were a Saudi "Prince" for whom OBL is acting as Emir?

Dan may be right, or he may be wrong. But conclusive evidence either way? We lack that - at least in the public domain - in spades.

The fact that there were two terrorist attacks close together does not logically require that these attacks were centrally planned and ordered.

Indeed, the very pattern suggested in the article is one of greater decentralization. Sending "emissaries" to suggest attacks and then leaving it to up local groups to autonomously plan attacks suggests exactly what the "dencentralization" advocates believe: that we are looking at connected but operationally autonomous cells.

Finally, the nature of the evidence points out how difficult this guessing game is: in either a decentralized, franchised model ora centralized model we would expect to see actors with ties to the core al-Q leadership operating between autonomous cells.

So don't jump to conclusions.

Dan Nexon:

The emissary/decentralization model you suggest is a great deal different than the idea that all of these attacks are simply "inspired" by al-Qaeda as has been the analysis du jour of late.

Anarchists throwing bombs, shooting McKinley. I wonder how that era of terror compares statistically to ours.
Tuchman's "The Proud Tower" describes Europe before WW 1 at a height of power and culture, with 'too much economic interconnectedness' to allow an all out war, beset by anarchists.

Dan, fair enough. But the "movement" position - which I've been championing - need not be placed so much at odds with the "centralized" model; the key, as I suggest, is that we would see broadly similar patterns of inter-movement connectivity. The question becomes how much that connectivity represents operational centralization and how much of it is an artifact of "small world" features of the al-Qaeda movement.

If this made any sense :-), I'd say the jury is still out. I actually think the decentralized model may be, in the long-term, more dangerous. If al-Qaeda hasn't significantly mutated after Afghanistan, that implies that it remains vulnerable to decapitation and that it is not as likely to adapt if it is successfully decapitated.

If al qaeda still in centralised and if it gets protection in Iran, what should we think of the recent opening of the government of Irak towards Iran? The last thing we need, i think, is an Iraqi government which is pro-Iranian. The Americans should make clear that coöperating with the current Iranian regime is the same as supporting terrorism.

Dan Nexon:

I'll agree that's quite a reasonable model to hold to and if people were framing it in that context I wouldn't have a problem. I'll expand on this in another post in a few hours.

Tuchman's "The Proud Tower" describes Europe before WW 1 at a height of power and culture, with 'too much economic interconnectedness' to allow an all out war, beset by anarchists.

This topic has become almost an obsession with me. I constantly research the structure, the history, anything related I can find on Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Fundimentalists. That is the only way to defeat this world wide plague. I am not nearly as articulate as everyone else here so big words and aside and minus savvy political acronyms and expressions I would like to add my two cents!

First off everything I have ucovered says bin Laden wants an over all structure with individual mini structures below. He wants the left hand to not know the right hand, the pinky seperated from the index finger. This protects the "cause."

Bin Laden, the Iranian counter part, and Arabic leaders from literally all over the world have been meeting in conferences for over twenty years to build up their organization. Bin Laden himself is a "mastermind" at hiding funding and setting up worldwide dummy accounts and funneling money therough Charities, Mosques, legitimate bussinesses [manry right here in the US of A] literally all over the world. He also used and uses his vast fortune to support "the cause."

Out of these meetings, plans of operation were put into place. One group goes to an area to be attacked and gathers the intel and sets up a safe house where this information is available for the next group. The next group comes in and determines from the intel what is needed in the form of weaponry, vehicles, bomb material and prepares all these items. They frequently move everything to a new safe house and then leave. Then the next group comes in and awaits the order if it is not already given to implement the bombing or attack. NONE of these groups know each other or have contact with each other.

Many of their attacks are planned years in advance. Often the targets and dates and time are dictated from Iran. They also have another plan of action for taking over a region. They go into areas where there is poverty and despotic rule. They set up hospitals, charities, and Mosques. They give "free?" food, clothing and medical treatment to these local people. They begin to teach them their doctrine. They begin to recuit. At this point one of several things occur, the locals begin to support their cause or they are given incentives to support the cause. Freely given is no longer free, your family is killed, whatever it takes. The bottom line is they are now entrenched. At this level there is another method of attack set in place much like in Iraq. However, given a choice of starvation for one's children and family, there isn't usually much dissent.

In countries such as the US, sleepers come here. They set up homes in middle class or up scale areas. Blend in, shave their beards and cut their hair. They become "pillars" of the community and are even told they may not attend the Mosque and prayers as that would draw attention to them, Alla understands and allows this. They may even marry infidels and have children if it helps them accomplishes their goal. Then they wait for their orders to become active.

Their goals is nothing less than a new Muslim Nation worldwide at all costs. No amount of time, effort, cost, whether in lives or monies, will deter their goals. Their plans also involve using local governments' laws, custioms, MSM, organizations, such as the ACLU, religious rights protections, and charitable facilities' protective laws to infiltrate a country, break down its economy, morale, and support of its people for that given government. In other words they plan to use the basic principles that these governments are based on the destroy them from within. And the big one, FEAR!

Al-Qaeda is far from losing power. They are meerly adapting and biding their time. They are counting on countries like Germany and France, and Russia to balk at cooperating with the Coalition forces. Experts at propaganda and spreading fear and dissent they consider this as much an effective weapon as anything else. They also use the fact that most countries have very few people who can translate their language much less speak it. Their Muslim leaders in coalition countries frequently speak out in English publically and in their papers about these "atrocities" while their Arabic" version says just the opposite. A newsman recently translated the Arabic version of one of these speeches and published what was left out of the English or home Country version.

In closing I would like to share four of the many books I have read. I cannot imagine why no mention is ever made of these books.

Must reads about terrorism

1.] "Bin Laden, The Man Who Declared War on America", by Yossef Bodansky

2.] "Jihad, The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia", by Ahmed Rashid

3.] "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid

4.] "American Jihad, The Terrorists Living Among Us", by Steven Emerson

These are but four of many well written books with substantial references to check out their facts or suppositions. But I think they are right on target. They do not sugar coat anything, including things our government has done in the past that has backfired and helped these fanatics rise to power. But, we were not alone.

One final thought, Democracy is one stop gap, but as far as how these immigrants were assimilated or not, take a look at how the Dutch treated them and the out come.
This really is a world war that can only be won by the rest of the world working together, getting rid of Kofi Annan, and revamping the UN or replacing the UN. As far as what else, well I'd suggest the rest of the world pray it isn't too late!

I have only recently found your website and must say I am really enjoying the variety of opinion and ideas. This troubled world is never dull and to read the different takes on it all fascinates me. Troubled we are, messy we are but never dull or boring. Cheers.