Al Qaeda's Strategic Evolution

plausible and scary.

one of the more appealing parts of bin laden's messages to the islamic world (and i think sageman might talk about this in his book, will, which you referenced) is the idea of his fight being a form of defensive jihad.

the short version: military jihad (vs. a broader sense of jihad, meaning any kind of struggle) comes in two flavors, offensive and defensive.

offensive jihad is the jihad of the first couple of centuries of the middle east--islam, erupting out of the arabian peninsula, conquering by the sword, and as such a responsibility of the caliph to initiate. as there's been no caliphate since the end of the ottoman empire, and a large number of muslims consider their governments apostate, there is no muslim authority in today's world who, as a matter of general acceptance, could declare this sort of jihad. additionally, not every muslim is expected to participate--offensive jihad is fard kifaya, or a collective duty. if enough people do it, it counts as done.

defensive jihad, in contrast, is fard 7ayn, or the individual's responsibility. when the caliphate/umma/muslim world is under attack by infidels, it is the repsonsibilty of every single individual muslim to repel invaders. (tying back into the idea of non-military jihad, defensive jihad can be used to describe a woman who defends herself from rape.) the logic of bin laden's message is simple--a western/american presence in the middle east (particuarly in saudi arabia, the seat of islam) demands a response.

does every muslim believe this? no. particuarly with the american occupation of iraq, however, it's an argument that some muslims find hard to counter on theological grounds.

I haven't finished digesting Will's article yet, but there are two other very good articles I recommend for anyone following this thread or reading Will's article here. The first was written by Marine LTC Michael F. Morris at the Army War College and originally published in Joint Force Quarterly, entitled Al Qaeda as Insurgency. The second was originally published in Parameters and was written by a Foreign Service Officer, Christopher Henzel, who is a graduate of the National War College, entitled The Origins of al Qaeda's Ideology: Implications for U.S. Strategy. They are both good reading, especially the latter, and provide further resources into your study of this topic.

Both of them are linked here from the US Army Professional Writing Collection.

I am reminded of a story in the Bible. Moses returns with the 10 Commandments and sees the people he was leading out of Egypt worshipping false idols so he punishes them by making them drink water laced with molten idols. We can talk about enforcement in the name of religion, but I want to just mention a simple parallel.

Does the so-called West want to stop Al-Qaeda, especially with "the transformative power of liberal democracy"? That's fine only if there are plenty of pro-West people that the majority will vote in. What will really stop Al-Qaeda is not the form of government but rather the will of the US to invest in Afghanistan and Iraq. American dollars would give people opportunities and they will resist Al-Qaeda. After all, Al-Qaeda is not a specific geographic region but rather a way of mind, much as the "West" is.

This is logic rather than a bias for resisting Al-Qaeda. It remains to be seen whether American influence will be good overall. Human nature made Moses' people disregard their God just as Western values may make Afghanis and Iraqis disregard their religious leaders, including Al-Qaeda. The article speaks of domestic American violence. So much for Western values, right? But if Moses wants me to drink crap water I'll be like "talk to the hand". I can't really trust the West to lead me to goodness and religious leaders really scare me. How nice is that?

I just read an article by Michael Shermer in Scientific American a few days ago in his Skeptic column (sorry, no link) that corroborates some of what Will is saying here. Normally I loath Shermer, because he seems to go out of his way to mock and ridicule religion and seems dangerously smug for an alleged intellectual, whose first premise is not to boast how much you know, but question what you know and seek what you don't know. But I digress... Shermers latest column discussed some of the same aspects of suicide bombers that Will mentions, that they are well educated, etc. and he delves into their motives and strategies. What Shermer mentions that Will does not is that they also tend to come from the more repressive countries (Saudi Arabia, for example) and are less likely to come from places with more freedom of expression. He posits that countries with more freedom and less repression forment less resentment and hostility that create the suicide bombers impetus to begin with, and later the freedom of expression and peaceful protest allows them to vent their frustrations or seek change and reform without resorting to violence. Increased prosperity and freedom will make a big difference. Well fed, happy free people tend to become Hobbits rather than suicide bombers.

My second thought here is that the racial divide theory is probably our weakest point, but I think we are making great progress in mending it. This kind of attack in the 60s or 70s would've been far more devastating. Think Detroit, Compton, and Watts district riots. Also, race terrorism is not entirely absent in America as it is, with the Aryan Brotherhood, Black Panthers, neo-Nazis and whatnot already doing their best to incite problems. Al Qaeda might find this to be akin to lighting a match in a hurricane. Still, you are completely right that this is a lightning rod we have to watch.

Lastly, I've thought from the very beginning that to a degree, al Qaeda has hit upon one fundamental truth that forces me to be introspective about my own religious views. We started having serious problems with radical Islam around the same time as the rise of global mass media. We in the West have flooded the planet with unintentional propaganda about our way of life, from Rambo, to porn. Muslims once had their own little corner of the planet where they could be alone and isolate themselves from the world. Many people point out the oil trade as a force in opening their societies, but they could still limit exposure to outsiders. With the advent of satellite dishes though, virulent Western culture showers the planet and gives them an alternative view of the world. Whether or not an individual choses to get a satellite dish and watch Sex and the City, their neighbors may, and it changes the local culture of the people around them and inculcates Western values into them whether you take part or not.

My point here is not to rant against Western values, or even porn, but to say that many of the worlds religions warn against materialism and the trap of trying to keep up with the Jones's. Islam is a socialy conservative religion which abhors what they perceive as decadence, but has historically been ok with opulence and wealth. I believe that "Hollywood" has unintentionally carried out an information warfare campaign which portrays our society as more decadent than it really is, and gives some staunchly conservative Muslims a grossly distorted view of the West, and by proxy, freedom and democracy and what we are all about.

So in the end, I think it's democracy (with freedom, including to do some things considered un-Islamic) and prosperity (with potential materialism) that will push the majority away from supporting Islamic hardliners and radicals, and possibly incite a few even more in reaction to perceived decadence and deviation from Islamic teachings. The only other way out is to give them (Islamic hardliners) their own little haven where they can practice their beliefs and be left alone so long as they leave us alone. That didn't work in Afghanistan however, so fat chance at getting that to happen again.

It will help the population explosion. Its really going to screw up the saturday college football games, NFL and NBA. Who knows, maybe Hispanics and White folks will get a chance to play.

Our taxes will go way down after a civil war and generate new jobs for all good Christians, Murder rate will drop to nearly nothing and car jacking will disappear.

God Bless the NRA and God Bless true Americans. Free advise, don't visit and major cities during opening days of conflict. Wait until the boys from the suburbs get there.

Seriously the majority of Blacks in this country are good hard working people who believe in Jesus and want nothing to do with those Islamic pricks. Most Blacks would be first in line to defend all of our rights, if a few want some, bring it on!

I was thinking today about other fault lines that could be exploited in America that could cause more disruption than the ones Will mentioned in his article. No doubt in my mind...I think race relations are on the mend, even if we have miles to go before they reach the ideal.

My proposal is that illegal aliens could carry out the attack. Will specifically said his scenario would use native born people for a reason--to avoid unifying the nation, allowing us to rally with each other and counter-attack, as with 9/11 and Afghanistan. Illegal aliens are a very divisive issue right now politically and nobody has a clue how many there are here and where they are all from. An attack carried out by illegal aliens could achieve the same effect as Will suggests, because the race issue will still erupt, as will the resentment between citizens and resident aliens, especially if a heavy-handed crackdown transpires.

Some people are concerned already about al Qaeda exploiting the border, and there’s been a lot of discussion and rumors about al Qaeda activity in Mexico and trying to cross the border. Al Qaeda would also find ready and willing allies in Castro, Chavez, and a host of Central American rebel groups, drug lords, and so forth who harbor antipathy towards the US. None of these groups have an ideological bond whatsoever with al Qaeda except this antipathy toward the US. The well worn Arab adage “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” comes to mind here…at least in the short term. Al Qaeda and the Taliban were not above dealing with Opium growers in Afghanistan when things turned desperate and it suited their needs.

I also thought about the Tom Clancy novel Sum of All Fears, which differed from the movie based on it in that it was a violent Native American activist, an unemployed, disgruntled former East German nuclear scientist, and Islamic terrorists who collaborated to bomb the superbowl. The plot was brilliantly designed so in the end, the US government flailed around as they were confused about who perpetrated the act and nearly took impulsive action against the wrong group (Russia). A hit on NASCAR in this case, which is widely perceived to be an almost exclusively white “redneck” male sport would strike the racial divide harder than a mixed audience at the superbowl. Crafting the attack to garner less public sympathy than the WTC attacks on 911 and incite backlash among ethnic groups amongst each other while the real cause of the attack is swept by the wayside in the confusion that follows would further the effect. Making it outright appear to be an operation carried out by some entirely different organization so that we retaliate against the wrong group, say, Chavez for example, would be the icing on the cake.

Another interesting topic of conversation is this: Let's assume that Al Qaeda overthrows the government in Saudi Arabia and is able to secure the apathy of the U.S. and Europe. Now, what does Israel do? My initial thought is that although Israel has impressive defensive power it cannot, by itself, invade and hold Saudi Arabia. A series of airstrikes or special ops missions could kill select individuals, but I don't believe they could fundamentally affect Al Qaeda's hold on the country. Anyone care to offer some other ideas?

I found this article that was published back in August of 2005 about a book published by the Jordanian journalist, Fouad Hussein. He describes the first phase as being successfully completed and the second being in progress:

1. The Awakening - Said to have lasted from 2000 to 2003 (from 9/11 to the fall of Baghdad), this period was meant to provoke the U.S. into all-out war and thereby to "awaken" Muslims. The enemy became a closer target and Al-Qaeda gained a world audience.
2. Opening Eyes - Said to be currently in progress and to last through 2006, this phase is concerned with making the western world aware of the "Islamic community." It includes changing an organization into a movement, the crux being recruitment and the establishment of an army centered in Iraq with satellite bases in neighboring countries.
3. Arising and Standing Up - Projected to last from 2007 to 2010, this period is one of conquest in the Middle East, with attacks expected on Syria, Israel and Jordan as the movement seeks further recognition.
4. The moniker-less fourth phase, to last from 2010 to 2013, 'will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments.' Losses in these governments are projected to feed directly into Al-Qaeda. The U.S. economy will also be targeted via cyber terrorism.
5. The Caliphate - Between 2013 and 2016, the fifth phase is expected to bring the establishment of an Islamic state, allowed by the vastly reduced influence of the U.S. and power of Israel.
6. Total Confrontation - The sixth phase will bring about the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" instigated by the Islamic army.
7. Definitive Victory - Hussein predicts this stage to be realized by 2020 and for the war to last no longer than two years because of the "1-1/2 billion Muslims."

The plan is interesting, but seems to put too much faith in a united Islam, given today's world stage. It is also curious and somewhat suspicious that any Muslim would publish such a book and reveal Al-Qaeda's plans. It's possible that he thinks Western knowledge is irrelevant, considering them to have no power to thwart the plans. Or, maybe the book itself is an effort to communicate to the Muslim world the importance of unification. Or, (and this was my gut reaction) the book could be complete hype, published with the aim of manipulating and distracting the West via the media.

Will was on the mark about using other ethnic groups with shared philosophy with al Qaeda to carry out future attacks, and it looks like they tried this once already. Will predicted the wrong ethnic group this time around, but it indicates that they may use others to include his scenario. The details are on CNN and BBC. Of course, if you believe some people, the Republicans are just playing the "fear card".

I thought this might be of interest to people who follow these sort of things. Saudi Arabia is evidently constructing a fence along its northern border with Iraq to prevent terrorists from entering and potentially destabilizing their country. I wouldn't say this in any way validates my theory about al Qaeda's strategic evolution, but it does show that there are concerns out there along the same lines. It's not farfetched to imagine militants going from Iraq to Saudi Arabia and creating problems for the relatively pro-US Saud ruling family.