Assessing Al-Qaeda (merged thread)

[Bill Moore]

Somewhat dated, but these excerpts from a RAND study are worth considering, and it helps clarify my point that we're looking at this through a Western bias that almost makes it impossible for us to imagine a government without institutions, yet the jihadists admit that they want a government that doesn't stand in between God and man, and they admit they don't know what that will look like, and the transition will be rough. You may also be right, and this could be their downfall.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_MG602.pdf

in their own words
Voices of Jihad, by David Aaron
Compilation and commentary

Jihadis can also be categorized as Islamists, political movements that want to bring the practice of Islamic law into government. Here, too, the jihadis are at the extreme end of a spectrum. At the moderate end is the Islamist-oriented government of Turkey, a NATO ally and a nation where secularism is enshrined in the constitution. Further along the spectrum, the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest opposition group in the Egyptian Parliament. And finally, there are the Islamists in Sudan who countenance the genocide in Darfur (of non-Arab Muslims), the Taliban, and the jihadis.

The following statement is indictative of the bias we start with when viewing these challenges, which makes one wonder why they thought that Muslims were going to embrace western civilization in the first place?

“Many writers, thinkers, scholars, and leaders who were advocating conformity with the values of western civilization and adherence to its norms and the complete adoption of its principles began rethinking their ideas and started to change their tone and replace it with a new more cautious and wary approach. The call for the return of Muslim society to the fundamentals and teachings of Islam became more powerful, paving the way for the re-islamisation of all aspects of life.

Below Naji references the competing political systems.

“The interest in understanding the rules of the political game and the political reality of the enemies and their fellow travelers and then mastering g disciplined political action through sharia politics and opposing this reality is not less than the importance of military action.” (Naji, 2004)

You can't more clear than this in a vague sort of way

“In other words, any political program will not succeed unless we can defeat the West militarily and culturally, and repel it from Muslim lands. At that time, it will not be difficult for the nation—with its great energies and vast wealth—to re-form its life in accordance with the fundamentals of Islamic Sharia.

This is where I think you and Bob are too quick to draw parallels to the West, even when claim to be above that. Highlights are mine.

The caliphate we are working to establish cannot be compared with
any known man-made political system.” (Ibrahim, 1984)

One of the unfamiliar characteristics of these writings is the way religious sayings and symbols are used to address issues that in the West would not take on such religious aspects. It is reminiscent of the way the communist movement in the 20th century discussed almost every political issue in terms of “class struggle,” and in much of the Christian era, secular problems were debated in the language of church doctrine. Similarly, jihadis address contemporary problems in terms of their religious ideology.

Do they desire to fight the West? Some do,

“Islam is an all-encompassing religion. It is a religion for people and for regimes. . . . Islam is the only alternative for the countries [of the world]. . . .

“Therefore, the crime of the tyrants in infidel [i.e. non-Muslim] countries, who do not rule according to Allah’s law, is an enormous sin . . . and we are obliged to fight them and initiate until they convert to
Islam, or until Muslims rule the country and he who does not convert to Islam pays Jizya.

“That is the religious ruling with regard to infidel countries and all the more so with regard to those who rule Muslim countries by way of the cursed law [i.e. a man-made law].” (al-Najdi, 2003b)

[Bob's World]

The sad truth is that America's founding principals and the goals of the Sunni populations that AQ targets align far more than either side is comfortable to admit.

[Bill Moore]

The sad truth is that America's founding principals and the goals of the Sunni populations that AQ targets align far more than either side is comfortable to admit.

It is important to clarify this statement to avoid confusion. Sunni populations is too broad a description to be useful, that is even broader than saying Americans think this or that. If you read the writings of various Sunni revolutionary writers I agree with you statement. This thread specifically is focused on al-Qaeda and al-Qaedaism, which narrows the focus to a small percentage of the Sunni population. I agree AQ targets this broader population, and ultimately needs to win it over through conviction or coercion to be successful.

Specifically al-Qaeda leaders, and the religious leaders they reference, align their thoughts to some degree with our American revolutionary leaders when they talk of freeing their people from tyrannical regimes who oppress their people. Several fundamental and radical Muslims were fond of U.S. Information Service during the Cold War, because they believed we were the only ones effectively telling the truth about the USSR and their oppression of Muslims. However, they (for lack of a better term, the radical leadership that embraces al-Qaedaism) see us as the oppressors due to our perceived desire to impose secular governments elected by the people, which in their view puts the people above God. They agree on removing regimes that oppress the Muslim people, but that is where al-Qaedaism linked groups stop being aligned with our founding fathers. They have no use for democracy, equal rights, etc. The form of governance they plan to implement is equally oppressive, but perhaps more just, than the ones they desire to expel.

They adjust their words over time based on local context and to respond to the adversary's actions, so their religious (same as political in their case) narrative continues to evolve, but the core of establishing a caliphate remains; and some extremists are on record as looking globally, not just re-establishing the caliphate.

The vast majority of Sunni Muslims who are not aligned with al-Qaedaism, still seem to find some aspects of AQ's arguments credible (Islam is under attack, Muslims are being oppressed, etc.), and any military action the West takes can unintentionally give additional legitimacy to AQ linked groups. Dictators in Muslim countries, especially where the majority of Muslims live in poverty also lend legitimacy to AQ's assertions. We agree on this, and it explains why AQ is able to spread its message and help mobilize the local population to act against their government, so yes that aspect is political. However, I think we would be remiss to discount the larger religious context that informs the political. Unlike our nation, religion is superior and informs the political in Islam, especially to al-Qaedism linked groups.

Steve is probably right that once the extremists establish governance they'll probably lose power when coercive power isn't enough to hold it altogether. That still doesn't reduce to the West from the AQ linked members who still desire to strike the West either out of revenge, or to convince the West not to interfere in their countries, or in some cases in a misguided attempt to spread Islam into the West (the global caliphate).

From a security standpoint we need to identify those terrorists (another word that isn't overly helpful) who intend to do "us" harm and find a way to eliminate them without giving AQ additional legitimacy. Ignoring the threat isn't an option, nor is a major ground campaign, nor is nation building in our image. It is absolutely critical we understand the narrative which is based on their interpretation of Islam. Trying to replace this narrative with a narrative based on democracy has failed and will probably continue to fail. Seems that most the appropriate approach to weaken their narrative is other Muslims promoting narratives that weaken AQ's. This is probably happening in some locations, but unfortunately leaders like Maliki further legitimize AQ's narrative.

[TheCurmudgeon]

The sad truth is that America's founding principals and the goals of the Sunni populations that AQ targets align far more than either side is comfortable to admit.

I believe you are right, which means that a large part of the problem is not them, but us. We don't like to make the comparison between the our history and the current Sunni situation because of uncomfortable parallels and what it reveals about our own national "creation myths".

[carl]

The sad truth is that America's founding principals and the goals of the Sunni populations that AQ targets align far more than either side is comfortable to admit.

LOL. I hate to use that but nothing else fits...and it did make me.

Freedom of association. Freedom of religion. Freedom of the press. Representative government. Checks and balances.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Somewhat dated, but these excerpts from a RAND study are worth considering, and it helps clarify my point that we're looking at this through a Western bias that almost makes it impossible for us to imagine a government without institutions, yet the jihadists admit that they want a government that doesn't stand in between God and man, and they admit they don't know what that will look like, and the transition will be rough. You may also be right, and this could be their downfall.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_MG602.pdf

in their own words
Voices of Jihad, by David Aaron
Compilation and commentary

As your post observes, there is nothing unique in the using Islam to justify a utopian ideal.

One of the unfamiliar characteristics of these writings is the way religious sayings and symbols are used to address issues that in the West would not take on such religious aspects. It is reminiscent of the way the communist movement in the 20th century discussed almost every political issue in terms of “class struggle,” and in much of the Christian era, secular problems were debated in the language of church doctrine. Similarly, jihadis address contemporary problems in terms of their religious ideology.

There is nothing new here. The Christians did it if the 14th-17th centuries in Europe. The communists did it with ideology.

To say that the Caliphate will be like no government on earth is just motivational speak. To govern, a theocracy has to have systems. Look at the Vatican - the ultimate theocracy. It has banks, police, PR people. And it only governs over a small space (and an large congregation). Iran is a theocracy and is very complex with its ruling Ayatollahs and its more secular government. There is nothing new under the sun. To say that Islam is somehow unique is to deny the rest of human history. So to approach it as a unique problem, a primarily religious problem, is to feed into its own propaganda.

More important to the current problem is al Baghdadi. He is more cleaver and pragmatic than a simple religious leader. He has managed to create a self funded movement that has succeeded in using alliances with less religious groups to gain and control territory. He is more of a rational actor than his followers whom he manipulates. He is a man who apparently has no issue with the luxurious west as he wears a Rolex. Yet he is willing to be Stalinistically vicious in order to control his followers.

Actually, it might be more appropriate to compare his to Stalin than to any Mullah or Ayatollah. He has taken a fundamentalist ideology and he it taking it over piece by piece. He will now consolidate his power. Kill his rivals and control the purse.