Assessing Al-Qaeda (merged thread)

[AdmiralAdama]

Interesting symposium on the state of the Jihad.

One participant -- Bill Roggio -- claims Al Queda is shifting focus to the Middle East to form a caliphate, away from attacking the West directly.

Until recently, al Qaeda's leadership has thought their goals would best be achieved by attacking the 'far enemy' – the U.S. and her allies - directly in order to force the nations to withdraw the support from the Middle East. This strategy has shifted over the past several years, as al Qaeda is now focusing operations and their organization primarily in the Middle East and the Muslim crescent. Al Qaeda's operations show it now wishes to focus its energy primarily on the 'near enemy.' This will the organization to consolidate power after forming their Islamic Caliphate, and set the stage for a final confrontation with the West.

This does not mean that al Qaeda is not engaging Western forces – they are doing so directly in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the purpose of the operations are to first drive out the U.S. and the West by destroying their political will to engage in the region, and then create the individual emirates from which neighboring Muslim countries can be attacked and absorbed. While direct attacks on Western countries have not been excluded – al Qaeda will take an opportunistic shot to strike the West if it believes it will further their goals – the primary focus is now on fighting the regional wars.

[SWJED]

Interesting symposium on the state of the Jihad.

One participant -- Bill Roggio -- claims Al Queda is shifting focus to the Middle East to form a caliphate, away from attacking the West directly.

... is hardly the non-biased source for a decent reference point for the items you have put up for discussion on our Council. You are trending towards a lot of "link drive-bys" without much original discussion on your part. I'm getting a bit concerned that you might think you have your own personal - "no-rules" - soapbox here. Ain't gonna happen - got it?

[AdmiralAdama]

Of course. I certainly don't want to violate any rules here.

Are the opinions of Stephen Emerson (writer for The New Republic and author of the book Warriors: Inside the Covert Military Operations of the Reagan Era, Walid Phares who has written for Global Affairs, Middle East Quarterly, and Journal of South Asian and Middle East Studies, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross (who was himself a radical Muslim and wrote a book on the experience) and Bill Roggio (who is a former infantryman doing reporting in Iraq now) not considered sources of plausible analysis? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[SWJED]

Of course. I certainly don't want to violate any rules here...

Or am I misunderstanding you?

Yes you are and you don't get it. This is our (Council members) living room - farting in it is one thing - a steaming #### is another. No ###-for-tat with you is on my agenda - get with the program here or move on - more of your insights and observations - the writer that you claim to be - rather than full-auto links to any and all items that support 'whatever you are about'.

Side-note - maybe it is me - but your screen name and the Colonial Defense Force 'thingee' conveys that you really do not want to be taken seriously here.

[SteveMetz]

Interesting symposium on the state of the Jihad.

One participant -- Bill Roggio -- claims Al Queda is shifting focus to the Middle East to form a caliphate, away from attacking the West directly.

I'll give you my opinion. I think AQ and its affiliates would like to rule a state and probably to recreate some sort of Islamic super state. I think they may be capable of seizing a state at some point in time (more likely through means other than terrorism and insurgency). I do not believe they could ever create a "caliphate."

Ultimately Al Qaeda can kill and destroy but cannot create or administer. As salafists, al Qaeda has no executable political plan or strategy. They are not like the Bolsheviks and Nazis who had explicit political plans and strategies even before they seized power. Recent history suggests that even should al Qaeda's allies or affiliates take power somewhere, they stand little chance of unifying the Islamic world, much less creating a super-state which can challenge the United States. It is hard to imagine, for instance, the benighted Afghan Mullah Mohammed Omar, whom Osama bin Laden considered the paragon of an Islamic leader, ruling a modern, powerful state which could challenge the West. It is equally hard to imagine that Indonesia, Bangladeshi, Indians, Afghans, Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Chechen, Uzbeks, and others would accept an Arab-dominated super state, or that Arabs would accept a caliphate ruled by one of these other nationalities.

To the extent that we can glean any sort of political program or plan from the Islamic extremists, it is a recipe for a failed state. The "new caliphate" is, like the medieval European idea of "Christendom," a fantasy, clung to by both some Islamic extremists and some Americans. To build American strategy on the delusions of our opponents rather than their capabilities is a mistake. To distort al Qaeda into the type of enemy we know and understand—a Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein who can be defeated by war—may be emotionally appealing, but it does not reflect reality. And by pretending that the challenge from Islamic extremists is something it is not, we are less able to deal with the threat that it is.

[Steve Blair]

I'll give you my opinion. I think AQ and its affiliates would like to rule a state and probably to recreate some sort of Islamic super state. I think they may be capable of seizing a state at some point in time (more likely through means other than terrorism and insurgency). I do not believe they could ever create a "caliphate."

Ultimately Al Qaeda can kill and destroy but cannot create or administer. As salafists, al Qaeda has no executable political plan or strategy. They are not like the Bolsheviks and Nazis who had explicit political plans and strategies even before they seized power. Recent history suggests that even should al Qaeda's allies or affiliates take power somewhere, they stand little chance of unifying the Islamic world, much less creating a super-state which can challenge the United States. It is hard to imagine, for instance, the benighted Afghan Mullah Mohammed Omar, whom Osama bin Laden considered the paragon of an Islamic leader, ruling a modern, powerful state which could challenge the West. It is equally hard to imagine that Indonesia, Bangladeshi, Indians, Afghans, Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Chechen, Uzbeks, and others would accept an Arab-dominated super state, or that Arabs would accept a caliphate ruled by one of these other nationalities.

To the extent that we can glean any sort of political program or plan from the Islamic extremists, it is a recipe for a failed state. The "new caliphate" is, like the medieval European idea of "Christendom," a fantasy, clung to by both some Islamic extremists and some Americans. To build American strategy on the delusions of our opponents rather than their capabilities is a mistake. To distort al Qaeda into the type of enemy we know and understand—a Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein who can be defeated by war—may be emotionally appealing, but it does not reflect reality. And by pretending that the challenge from Islamic extremists is something it is not, we are less able to deal with the threat that it is.

I would also put forward (as one of my pet rocks) that as al Qaeda moves farther down the terrorist spiral of violence they will become less capable of governing anything (assuming that they ever were capable of such activity). They will become more wrapped up in their tactics of violence (and justification for same) and more distant from whatever their founding goals were. This is a common trend with all groups that make the slide from insurgent to terrorist, and I don't really see a TNI like al Qaeda being any different. In al Qaeda's case it could even be worse, as they will run head-on into a number of ethnic and tribal considerations as you mention, Steve.

[Steve Blair]

AA, I'd suggest you broaden your research a bit to include things you don't agree with. I don't know what your academic background is, but you might want to take the time to do some reading into historical methods and research. Cherry-picking sources isn't research - it's filtering your sources until they agree with your conclusion. I've pointed out before that you paint things with a very broad stroke...which may work well on the editorial page but falls short when it comes to serious research and scholarly writing (in most cases...some of the newer fields seem to like this kind of writing, but I digress).

Your methods seem akin to those of the Fundamentalist Christian who does all her research in Christian bookstores or the Arabist who believes that Al Jazeera is the one source of all that's true in the world, or the dedicated eco-warrior who only believes what he hears from Al Gore or Michael Moore. Every source has some degree of spin, created by the perceptions of the author and aided by what the reader brings to the table. If you want to be taken seriously, take off your blinders, use a wide variety of sources, and present your opinions as opinions, not the One Word of Truth.

Check out the required books for an upper-division history course at your nearest university bookstore. There's usually one class devoted to research methods (although for some idiotic reason some schools don't require this until the graduate level). Find some of the books that deal with research methods. Buy them and read them cover to cover until you understand them. That's your first step to quality research. I wish you well.

[Culpeper]

AA, I'd suggest you broaden your research a bit to include things you don't agree with. I don't know what your academic background is, but you might want to take the time to do some reading into historical methods and research. Cherry-picking sources isn't research - it's filtering your sources until they agree with your conclusion.

I'll second that suggestion. Also, the Battlestar Galactia stuff is demeaning to the very nature of this council. I mean, people are dying and getting maimed in combat for real. His profile gives the impression that this is fascinating from a combination of comic book and cliff note perspectives. I have agreed and disagreed with AA in the past at the expense of opportunity cost. But, he should take the pain, grow up, and become more diversified as well as learn the "company language" of the forum. Consistently approaching from a preferred tactical perspective is only going to get AA alienated. The SWC has more of a strategic platform that should be immune from "True Conservative" and "Democratic Underground" type of threads. I speak from experience. I have been raked over the coals once during the beginning of my membership. Do we still have that one forum that had pictures of user names on tombstones?

[Culpeper]

I'll give you my opinion. I think AQ and its affiliates would like to rule a state and probably to recreate some sort of Islamic super state. I think they may be capable of seizing a state at some point in time (more likely through means other than terrorism and insurgency). I do not believe they could ever create a "caliphate."

I'm no monument to the history of Islam but aren't you describing Iran after the 1979 revolution? Irrerversible changes took place almost immediately. Mainly, westernization or progress depending on how you may define that aspect. Even Khomeini was unable to erase it after he used it. Even a large framed photgraph of Khomeini hanging on a wall is a voilation of true Islamic Law. Post Iranian Revolution Iran was unable to keep the institution they envisioned because of the same tools they used to get it started. Al Queda and others will fail as well. They blame - Modernization - that is, the United States, for ruining the ability to convert back to a pure state of Holy Law. In my opinion, it is a pipe dream. A dream that is distorted and has created a nightmare in the Middle East as well as The West, which started in our lifetimes after Great Britain and France couldn't maintain the regions they started long after the Ottomans' ceased any real contribution to Islamic Holy Law. Also, the fact that the USSR fell under its own weight and many of their Islamic satellite states went back to their old borders virtually overnight didn't help matters as well. Today, Islam is fragment upon fragments. And the calamity we are witnessing today is nothing new to its history. It was born out of calamity. And with the exception of the first generation of Islam there has never been an agreement amongst Muslims on what constitutes a true Islamic Order. So, as you suggested, a "Caliphate" hasn't existed in a very long time; not in every essence of the word. Wouldn't it be like France going back to the way things were before the French Revolution? Wouldn't that idea be ridiculous if a group of French terrorists were going around killing in that name? "Let them eat cake"?

[SteveMetz]

I'm no monument to the history of Islam but aren't you describing Iran after the 1979 revolution? Irrerversible changes took place almost immediately. Mainly, westernization or progress depending on how you may define that aspect. Even Khomeini was unable to erase it after he used it. Even a large framed photgraph of Khomeini hanging on a wall is a voilation of true Islamic Law. Post Iranian Revolution Iran was unable to keep the institution they envisioned because of the same tools they used to get it started. Al Queda and others will fail as well. They blame - Modernization - that is, the United States, for ruining the ability to convert back to a pure state of Holy Law. In my opinion, it is a pipe dream. A dream that is distorted and has created a nightmare in the Middle East as well as The West, which started in our lifetimes after Great Britain and France couldn't maintain the regions they started long after the Ottomans' ceased any real contribution to Islamic Holy Law. Also, the fact that the USSR fell under its own weight and many of their Islamic satellite states went back to their old borders virtually overnight didn't help matters as well. Today, Islam is fragment upon fragments. And the calamity we are witnessing today is nothing new to its history. It was born out of calamity. And with the exception of the first generation of Islam there has never been an agreement amongst Muslims on what constitutes a true Islamic Order. So, as you suggested, a "Caliphate" hasn't existed in a very long time; not in every essence of the word. Wouldn't it be like France going back to the way things were before the French Revolution? Wouldn't that idea be ridiculous if a group of French terrorists were going around killing in that name? "Let them eat cake"?

I believe the extremists MAY be able to take over an existing, functioning nation state and sort of hold it together (if it has oil). That's the Iran model. But that's not the same as a multi national "caliphate" which is what our strategy uses as the bogeyman.