The first is a translation by PRISM of a new _jihadi_ document written by Kuwaiti Heikh Hamed bin Abdullah al-Ali, which has been widely circulated. Called the "Covenant of fht Supreme Council of Jihad Groups," it appears to have received enthusiastic support in the virtual _jihadi_ community.
One of the striking things about the document is the emphasis on the Iran-Shi'ia threat as the greatest to the _salafist_ and _jihadi_ movement, ahead, for the first time in a major document, of the "Jews and Crusaders." The document accuses the Shi'ia of searching "for the destruction of the Islamic civilization and slaughtering Muslims under false religious banners."
In his analysis of the situation in the Middle East, al-Ali again focuses by an assessment of the three primary groups in the Middle East: Iran and the Shi'ia, the Zionist-Crusader and the Islamic _Jihad._
He predicts the Shi'ia-Sunni conflicts will lead to "chaos in the region for sompe period, which will be in the favor of the Jihad project that will expand all over the Muslim world like fire in the woods...The important mission of the Jihad project today is to show long breathing n face of the enemy an dstick to our path under its banner until victory. And if not now, we shall deliver our achievements to the next generations until ultimate victory."
The Jamestown Foundation also put out a paper quoting an Iranian Republican Guard Council defector as saying "vast areas of Iraq are under the virtual control of the Qods Force through its Iraqi surrogoats. It uses a vast array of charities, companies and other fronts to conduct activities across Iraq...We would send our officers into Iraq to operate for months under the cover of a construction company."
The paper concludes that the the Shi'ia militias, having completely penetrated the new Iraqi security forces, are responsible for the worst atrocities there. "The militias enjoy Iranian military, finanancial and spiritual leadership," the paper says.
So, where does that leave us? The global _salafist/jihadi_ movement is refocusing its attention on the Shi'ia groups. The Shi'ia are pushing for the erradication of Sunni in Iraq and perhaps beyond. The Iraqi civil war seems likely to spread to the rest of the region in the near future.
Jendayi Frazer, the State Department's point person on Somalia,
This can only lead to further violence and chaos. (On Friday unknown assailants fired mortars at the presidential palace and the casualty count was unknown).
Already the government of Abdullahi Yusuf has shown an intolerant streak and the infighting among the Darod clan and the Hawiye clan (and the various sub clans and sub-sub clans) is threatening to cripple the government almost before it begins.
The Ethiopian troops, now viewed widely as an occupying force, cannot leave because there is no one to replace them-no national army and no international force. The AU is still dithering, as it did in the case of Sudan, and is likely to be unable to muster the will or the attention to actually take any signficiant steps.
The amazing inability to seize the moment, either by the government or the international community, is what will make people long for a return of the Islamic Courts. Order is better than chaos and people are willing to give up large measures of freedom and self-determination in order to obtain stability.
The huge problems the United States, EU, UN, AU and any other group have in establishing successful governance after a war or conflict are amply evident-in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Liberia, Angola, etc. etc. There is seldom a comprehensive plan or policy attention for the next step, vitally important to insure the lives lost in the initial phase are not in vain. Yet there are few recent successes to point to. Bosnia, perhaps, El Salvador and Nicaragua after the Cold War. Certainly fewer successes than failures, and many may argue the cost of those was too high.
The ICU had little real clan and sub-clan support, according to Somali scholars who have studied the structures in Somalia. What made the tolerable to many people was their ability to deliver on some basic services and security-more than anyone else in the past 14 years. Replacing what the ICU did well with a service that was comparable, needed to be the highest priority, but has not been.
In my mind, the ICU had to go. The creation of a new Islamist state was not acceptable, to the United States or the rest of the Western world. The emergence of another center of the Caliphate was not only dangerous to our strategic interests but a huge boon to the Islamists in a psychological victory and recruitment tool.
But now, the situation is such that the ICU, despite being roundly defeated militarily, looks appealing, as the Taliban now looks appealing to many and Saddam to more than a few. That could be the biggest defeat of all.
Channel 4 took the courageous approach of infiltrating the Greenlane Mosque in Birmingham, a favorite of the "moderate" Muslim Council of Britain (and friends of CAIR, ISNA and others here) to hear what was being preached over a period of months. It was a true public service, one that U.S. journalism has not performed since Steve Emerson et al did the same thing in the U.S. a decade ago, with very similar results.
The contents of the tape are why many of us believe we are engaged in a war-not a war against Islam, but yes, a war against Islamists who are intent on destroying us and our way of life.
This language of hate and conquest is not a secret, it is openly preached. This is not an isolated, renegade mosque on the fringe of the British Islamic community, but the heart of it. It is a mosque praised publicly for its moderation, and the target of outreach programs by the government. Does any of this sound vaguely familiar in our government outreach program?
We hear the call to jihad against Christians and Jews (and, one would assume, atheists, Hindus and everyone else), a call to throw gays off of mountain tops, justification for hitting women, a death sentence against anyone who converts from Islam to another religion, and the right of an Imam to crucify and leave hanging for three days, anyone deemed an infidel. Much of this, of course, is paid for with Saudi money.
It was not an isolated sermon, but a series of sermons over a period of months. They were not whispers among the faithful, but full throated sermons aimed at audiences where children and teenagers were well represented. This is the target audience. The message is that the Salafist-jihadi movement is going to win, so join it. There is nothing subtle here. Just watch the show.
We hear the classic Muslim Brotherhood line that "you have to live like a stae within a state until we take over." We hear the overt calls for _jihad_ and calls to preparation for joining the moment when the "tables are turned" and Islam is dominant.
It would be impossible to make this up. Which is why the MCB is ranting about sentences being taken out of context and attempts to distort Islam and foment divisions.
It is a tremendously weak defense, relying on the tried and true tactics of smearing those who reveal what these organizations really are, with the same accusations of intolerance, racism and Muslim bashing that have worked so well for so long to silence any other voices.
But it does beg the question: Where are the Muslims who are outraged by this? Where are those who will say, no, this is not Islam, this is sedition, bigotry, hate speech and treason? The silence is deafening.
Iran's geo-strategic interests in the region are easy to see: It desperately needs political allies and new markets for its goods as it comes under increasing pressure from Europe and the United States over its nuclear program.
With some money to burn, Ahmadinejad is looking to buy some friends and support among leaders in a region that is turning increasingly hostile to the United States, free trade and drug erradication programs. Latin American nations now feel they have little to lose by turning against the United States, given the severe drop in U.S interest and attention to the area closest to its southern border.
Ahmadinejad's frequent travels to the region underscore the importance Iran places on a few countries in Latin America. Argentina, to its credit, is still seeking to prosecute senior Iranian officials for their role in directing the 1994 bombing of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires. Everyone else seems to have forgotten the attacks ever happened.
It is unlikely Ahmadinejad is touring Latin America solely for the reasons listed above, however. There is little, in real economic terms, to be gained from Iran-Latin America trade. The political support Iran gathers in Latin America is useful but again, in real terms, not much more than marginal.
So what is the real reason for such high-level, sustained interest by Iran? There is a deeper concern than the normal politics of the moment.
Iran's influence and presence in Latin America has grown as Hezbollah's presence has increased along with noticable Iranian-funded Shi'ite efforts to win converts, build mosques and spread their ideology through literature and the internet.
Hezbollah-linked individuals and groups from Panama to Isla Margarita to the Tri-Border Area help funnel millions of dollars to the Lebanese armed wing of Hezbollah, which is also responsive to Iran, its main state sponsor.
It seems unlikely to me that Iran's sudden public interest and the above-mentioned treds are mere coincidence. Nor is the alliance with Chavez. Iran fears a U.S. attack at some point to try to take out its nuclear capacity. Another front in such a war would be not only good strategy, but necessary. The threat is straightforward-if Iran's borders are under siege, so will the borders of the United States be under siege.
This is a dangerous moment because Venezuela sells almost half its oil to the U.S. market, and is using the money to buy weapons from Iran and Russia, contract to build its own Kalashinkov factory and generally engage in a military buildup that has no target other than the rest of the region.
Given Chavez's tolerance, if not outright support for the FARC in Colombia, this is a volatile mixture. The FARC, in turn, has extensive relationships with drug trafficking groups and criminal gangs that constantly penetrate the U.S. border. The basis for cooperation need not be ideological or theological. It can be simply the desire to hurt a common enemy. In this case, that is the United States.
That alliance is abundantly clear from the _abrazos_ and smiles Chavez and Ahmadinejad exchange when they meet, and the language they use to describe each other.
"Hugo is my brother," Ahmadinejad said during his last visit to Venezuela in September, when the two leaders inaugurated a joint oil well. "Hugo is the champion of the fight against imperialism."
But the fight could spread well beyond the issues of imperialism, to a new Iran-driven Islamist threat from the south.
But buried in the bleak assessment, one of the starkest in recent reports, was a realistic outline of the spreading threats on multiple Islamist fronts that we are facing.
The report was notable for its candor and the end to the happy talk that has often made its way into assessments on the struggle against the _jihadist_ threat. What is amazing is that, five years and billions of dollars after 9-11, we are falling behind in the conflict. We are not even really competing in the field of ideas, and we have done little to mitigate the broader problems.
Part of the problem is that there is still no general consensus on who the enemy is and if a war exists. Until we decide that, little else of import can happen.
The enemy is the ideology and theology that is still be funded by billions of dollars a year to spread its poison. There are two different poisons-the Salafist-Sunni version funded by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, and the Shia poison funded by Iran. Both are aimed at killing us before they turn on each other.
Yet we are fighting primarily a counterinsurgency war with almost no ideological component. The Islamist front groups in this country and Europe largely operate with impunity, and there is almost no effort to help true, fundamentalist Muslims who understand the danger of the Islamists to get their message out, either here or abroad.
Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said that al-Qaeda "has consistently recovered from losses of senior leadership," and that its "increasing cooperation with like-minded groups has improved its ability to facilitate, support and direct its objectives."
Negroponte said the group's leaders have found a haven in secure locations in Pakistan and added that Osama bin Laden's network maintains active connections "that radiate outward from their leaders' secure hide-out in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, northern Africa and Europe."
The assessment underscores how close we are to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the struggle against the remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The tipping point, where Afghanistan could reasonably expect to become a functioning state, appears to have past. The "open moment," discussed in my previous blog, is no longer there.
But is a mistake to focus solely on the geographic location of the old al Qaeda leadership. What is more important is the network that exists that wants to respond to the leadership even if they have no organic link to the al Qaeda organization. It is the ideology that is the unifying and driving force.
A second front in the Islamist movements, not always compatible with the al Qaeda/Sunni front, is now open and growing. The Shia Hezbollah is emboldened and Iran stands to gain from almost any of the probably bleak scenarios in Iraq.
Somalia may be a victory or a prelude to another ongoing, bleeding conflict that drains lives and resources, where the Islamists can ultimately regroup and come back.
The realism is refreshing. The reality is scary.