Samurai Jack,
Not a bad answer, but let's be clear:
The goal of AQ and its associated movements (collectively termed AQAM) is a worldwide Islamic theocracy, their way. The rest of the things you have listed aren't strategic goals, but operational level ones...just intermediary steps on the way to the worldwide Caliphate.
This is why I always say that the AQAM is not waging a political war. There is no policy decision anybody could make that would satisfy them, since what they truly desire is a restructuring of the way every individual lives their life. If this WERE a political war, with policy causes, there would be a policy that the AQAM would find acceptable ie, a redrawn boundary here, a concession there... But it's not, and there ain't.
Why then is the west also a target? IMO to answer this you have to adress the question of what ALQ actually is namely; a revolutionary vanguard that seeks to mobilise and radicalise ordinary muslims into overthrowing the corrupt western backed secular governments that rule them - like in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and previously like Iraq. By attacking the west and hoping to provoke a massive reaction/counter attack they can use that for propoganda purposes and say to the islamic people 'the people who are attacking us are friends/allies of our government's - so lets get rid of the government'.
Not a bad answer, but I think it overemphasizes the role of the west. I tend to think of the relationship this way: The governments in the ME are like alcoholics, and the west sometimes plays the role of enabler. The alcoholic is still responsible for his condition, and only he can stop it. My point is that I think we need to be careful about assigning blame. The west didn't break it, and the west can't fix it. People who think otherwise often, IME, don't recognize the limits of power. (That doesn't mean that our policies have been wonderful, hunky-dory, altruistic, or even appropriate all the time or even frequently).
I would also point out that the purpose of this terrorism is not simply to provoke the west into response. It is also to bolster support among their sympathizers. By successfully attacking, they demonstrate they have the capability to "hit us where we live." Nobody joins a losing team!
RD,
To answer your question from a technical perspective, revolutionary terrorism, such as that of the AQAM, is war on the highest plane of war - social/ideological. (The others are physical, organizational, technological, mobilizational, from lowest to highest). Terrorism is nothing but a tactic. AQAM is compelled to that tactic out of weakness, not strength. They cannot accomplish their goals in a head to head fight, so they use terrorism - very efficient, but not terribly effective.
War on the social/ideological plane revolves around legitimacy, which grants social cohesion. The Cold War was probably the greatest war ever fought on this plane. It never came to direct blows, but make no mistake about it, it was a war. The Western model won over the Soviet Communist model because its message was more legitimate. This sowed internal dissent within the Soviet Union and began fracturing the country on certain fault lines that had been supressed for years (ethnic, religious, class, etc). The government could NOT cope with these stressors and the system fell apart because it lost legitimacy. The people simply wouldn't stand for it any longer.
The Cold War was a LONG campaign of propaganda on both sides, sprinkled with proxy wars. It was also one of performance - the Western model performed better, and in the end it was impossible to deny that. That granted the Western model much of its legitimacy, and provided a generous amount of social cohesion.
What the AQAM is trying to do is break the social cohesion of the west by sowing doubts about its policies and ideas. They know that a fractured enemy, quarrelling amongst itself, is a broken, weakened enemy with limited ability to project power - and one more likely to leave the AQAM alone. Spain was a COUP for the terrorists. They can point at Spain and say "the enemy is breaking up."
That gives them time to go from being terrorists to perhaps guerillas - eventually hoping, perhaps, to switch to conventional tactics... you'll recognize the strains of Mao here if you're familiar with his work. I'm inclined to agree with him that you can't win a revolution unless you manage to claw your way through those steps...
Ok, now I'M rambling. I'd have to write 5 posts to fully explain myself so maybe I'll just shut up now.
"In the world of martial arts, respect is often a given. In the real world, it must be earned."
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. "--Bertrand Russell
"Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own. "--Benjamin Disraeli
"A conservative government is an organised hypocrisy."--Benjamin Disraeli