Background on AQIM: a growing threat?

[Bill Moore]

This is, again, an important departure from established al-Qaeda strategy which has traditionally been hostile to other groups — viewing them with suspicion.....

The record doesn't support this claim. They have a long track record of co-opting other groups. Much like any coalition to include ours their are disagreements in the ranks and fissures that can and should be exploited.

In what seems like a clear reference to al-Qaeda’s failure in Iraq, the document argues that the greatest errors happen where the group is overstretched, alienates public opinion, and squanders opportunities to establish safe havens.

AQ Senior Leadership frequently criticized AQI leadership for excesses, so this isn't a good example of AQ core strategy, and furthermore it appears AQI is now making a come back and extending their reach into Syria.

Posed by Fuchs

Forged by US, forged by France, forged by AP, or maybe even forged by AQIM itself to achieve exactly what you wrote last.

It is a narrative many of CT policy folks believe in, and I can't help but think this appears to be crafted to justify their expensive CT strategy. Denying safe havens with occupation forces is not sustainable and all too often results in our actions defeating ourselves.

The tactical fight is important, preventing terrorist attacks is important, but most of our CT strategists seem to confuse the tactical with the strategic. In no way am I implying we should reduce pressure on their foot soldiers and leaders. However, from a strategic view it seems that the only feasible way for AQ and their ilk to achieve their aims is if we enable them by defeating ourselves by over extending ourselves financially. Strategies, campaigns, etc. must be sustainable to be feasible. If what appears to be the perfect strategy isn't sustainable, then it isn't the perfect strategy.

Intelligence, special operations, law enforcement operations for the most part seem to be appropriate and sustainable responses to this type of threat (this includes substantial psychological warfare to hasten their defeat, because ultimately AQ seem to defeat themselves over time whenever they gain a foothold, and regardless of whether they're a learning organization or not, it is likely they'll continue to do so based on their deeply flawed and unappealing ideology). When needed for specific cases we can surge in paratroopers or Marines for a short duration operations to reduce their paramilitary threat.

It is too late in Afghanistan to change course substantially. We need to finish what we started (with more modest aims, but we can't afford to bail), but in the future I hope we don't default to long term stability operations with a large footprint on the ground with the ever elusive goal of denying safe haven. Never say never, as there may be rare exceptions where that is the best course of action, but it shouldn't be the default option.

[J Wolfsberger]

... but in the future I hope we don't default to long term stability operations with a large footprint on the ground with the ever elusive goal of denying safe haven. Never say never, as there may be rare exceptions where that is the best course of action, but it shouldn't be the default option.

I agree with that.

Building on it, shouldn't we simply let them have their safe haven and establish a harsh cordon sanitaire around it? I don't think it would take much in the way of manpower, and could be enforced with drone strikes. Let them have their 6th century sharia derived utopia, as long as they don't bother the rest of us.

[Bill Moore]

Safe havens are also known as free fire zones.

[Fuchs]

I agree with that.

Building on it, shouldn't we simply let them have their safe haven and establish a harsh cordon sanitaire around it? I don't think it would take much in the way of manpower, and could be enforced with drone strikes. Let them have their 6th century sharia derived utopia, as long as they don't bother the rest of us.

Cordon sanitaire enforced by drone strikes?!? Seriously?


Not far south of Malia and Niger is ended the expansion of Muslim faith. That is containing.

[Dayuhan]

Not far south of Malia and Niger is ended the expansion of Muslim faith. That is containing.

The concern may be less with containing the spread of an Islamist empire than with containing individuals or small groups who may leave the area with the intent and capacity to make messes elsewhere.

[Fuchs]

The concern may be less with containing the spread of an Islamist empire than with containing individuals or small groups who may leave the area with the intent and capacity to make messes elsewhere.

The difference doesn't matter, for drones are no answer to either scenario. There's too much faith being put into technology and stand-off solutions.

[Dayuhan]

The difference doesn't matter, for drones are no answer to either scenario. There's too much faith being put into technology and stand-off solutions.

Drones may not be "an answer" to the problem of a potential Islamist state exporting jihadis, but they can certainly disrupt and degrade efforts to train and deploy them. I don't know that there is "an answer" in any simple and convincing sense, but it is at least worth considering the possibility that in some circumstances simply letting the jihadis have their state and trying to contain the consequences might be a better answer than trying to preserve a non-jihadi state through perpetual occupation. Whether or not that is the case in any given situation would require analysis specific to that situation, but it's not a possibility that should be excluded from the start, IMO.

[Bill Moore]

Drones may not be "an answer" to the problem of a potential Islamist state exporting jihadis, but they can certainly disrupt and degrade efforts to train and deploy them. I don't know that there is "an answer" in any simple and convincing sense, but it is at least worth considering the possibility that in some circumstances simply letting the jihadis have their state and trying to contain the consequences might be a better answer than trying to preserve a non-jihadi state through perpetual occupation. Whether or not that is the case in any given situation would require analysis specific to that situation, but it's not a possibility that should be excluded from the start, IMO.

Agree that disrupting Islamist intentions with drones is a viable "tactic," but it won't result in a strategic victory. If they had their own state then they would have something to lose, at least in theory, and then they may be able to be deterred. Of course that didn't work so well in Afghanistan. Like you said no easy answers. In the meantime finding ways to kill them in a sustainable manner seems to be the best course of action.