Monday December 18, 2006
Islamists Have 20-Year Plan: Do We?
This week's New Yorker should be required reading for those interested in the Islamist jihadi movements. The reason is simple. It gives us, in al Qaeda's own words, the 20-year plan of the group and its different iterations to wear away the West's resolve: plunge the United States into wars that will over extend its military, focus on a few key concepts (use of the internet, building a single narrative of itself and the West to give a unified vision of the war, drastic decentralization of command and control structures etc.) and a specific timetable in which different phases of the plan will be completed.
Author Lawrence Wright does not write this based on a huge intelligence coup or the ability to place a mole inside the jihadi camp. He wrote his story based on publicly-available, but little read, jihadi documents, which a few scholars and analysts have taken the time to read and analyze.
Tragically, he notes that, while some analysts, particularly in the military, study these prolific jihadi texts, the analysis is seldom filiters up to senior policy makers because, as one official says, "decision-makers are not looking for that kind of information. They think they know better."
While Wright focuses extensively on the already-reported writings of jihadi theortician Abu al-Masri and his emphasis on the futility of the closed, cell structure of terrorist groups and the need to move to a "leadersless resistance," he also pays close attention to the writings of Fouad Hussein, a radical Jordanian close to Zarqawi as well as al Qaeda security chief Saif al-Adel. In particular, he cites Hussein's 2005 opus "Al Zarqawi: The Second Generation of al Qaeda," which offers a detailed look at the multi-phased, 20-year plan dveloped by al Qaeda and aligned Islamist groups, to create a viable Islamist caliphate.
The final phase envisioned by this group is the formation of an "Islamic army," based in an already-established caliphate, that will instigate a worldwide fight between "believers" and "non-believers." This battle will lead to a final victory, defined as a time when "falsehood will come to an end...the Islamic state will lead the human race once again to the shore of safety and the oasis of happiness."
This is not to say that the plans or visions are brilliant, realistic or even remotely pragmatic. What it does show, however is that the Islamist jihadi groups have people like al-Masri and Hussein who have spent years pondering the future of jihad and what the next steps are, both stategically and tactically. This includes some amazingly frank admissions of failure and stupidity on the part of bin Laden and others. Based on that, they have come up with a coherent plan for the future. It would be interesting to know if, on our side, there is anyone putting the same effort into understanding the jihadi goals and plans and how to counter them.
Author Lawrence Wright does not write this based on a huge intelligence coup or the ability to place a mole inside the jihadi camp. He wrote his story based on publicly-available, but little read, jihadi documents, which a few scholars and analysts have taken the time to read and analyze.
Tragically, he notes that, while some analysts, particularly in the military, study these prolific jihadi texts, the analysis is seldom filiters up to senior policy makers because, as one official says, "decision-makers are not looking for that kind of information. They think they know better."
While Wright focuses extensively on the already-reported writings of jihadi theortician Abu al-Masri and his emphasis on the futility of the closed, cell structure of terrorist groups and the need to move to a "leadersless resistance," he also pays close attention to the writings of Fouad Hussein, a radical Jordanian close to Zarqawi as well as al Qaeda security chief Saif al-Adel. In particular, he cites Hussein's 2005 opus "Al Zarqawi: The Second Generation of al Qaeda," which offers a detailed look at the multi-phased, 20-year plan dveloped by al Qaeda and aligned Islamist groups, to create a viable Islamist caliphate.
The final phase envisioned by this group is the formation of an "Islamic army," based in an already-established caliphate, that will instigate a worldwide fight between "believers" and "non-believers." This battle will lead to a final victory, defined as a time when "falsehood will come to an end...the Islamic state will lead the human race once again to the shore of safety and the oasis of happiness."
This is not to say that the plans or visions are brilliant, realistic or even remotely pragmatic. What it does show, however is that the Islamist jihadi groups have people like al-Masri and Hussein who have spent years pondering the future of jihad and what the next steps are, both stategically and tactically. This includes some amazingly frank admissions of failure and stupidity on the part of bin Laden and others. Based on that, they have come up with a coherent plan for the future. It would be interesting to know if, on our side, there is anyone putting the same effort into understanding the jihadi goals and plans and how to counter them.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday December 18, 2006
Salfism in the Washington Post
I seldom critique my former colleagues at the Washington Post, but want to point out several crucial things that were, either for lack of space or understanding, passed over in today Washington Post story. Particularly stiking is the lack of explicit statements about what Salafists and Wahhabis really teach, rather than the softened down version of that is often dished out for public consumption. This unwillingness to state what they state about themselves is always baffling to me.
Ms. Murphy is striking with her passing mention that after 9-11, Salafists in the United States found their "theology and practices were suddenly suspect." It is not noted that for decades, as the Saudis poured hundreds of millions into the spread of Salfism here and elsewhere, that the message was to kill all of us considered infidels. It was only "suddenly suspect" because we had not listened to them until they attacked us.
The theology of Salfism, in fact, is not suspect at all-it is a clear, straightforward statement of belief that calls on the faithful to carry out jihad. The hijackers of 9-11, faithful to that call, did so. To pretend that Salafism itself preaches something different is a disservice.
Salfism is not just, as one Muslim is quoted as saying, an "ideology that helped foster the mentality of those hijackers." Rather, Salafism is the gasoline that the Saudis have poured on wood piles around the world. They (and we) then claim to be shocked by the sudden outburst of forest fires that are raging. (I first heard this analogy from David Aufhauser, the former general counsel for the Treasury Department who led the war on terror finances in the early years of the Bush administration, and whose clear sense of the real world is now sorely missed.)
The observation that the sense of beleaguerment among Washington Muslim is especially strong is also quite striking. I would imagine the sense of beleaguerment among Nazis in the Washington area during World War II was also somewhat high. But when your nation or religion declares war and you are in enemy territory (alhtough our government often seems to forget that we are, in fact, engaged in a war with internal enemies), feeling beleaguered seems a small price to pay.
The article, in giving a nice summary of Salfism, notes that Salafists "also regard Jews, Christians and non-Wahhabi Muslims as 'unbelievers' who should be avoided."
In fact, they regard those groups as infidels against whom they can and should wage jihad. Avoided except when seeking to kill those who refuse to repent and embrace their interpretation of Islam. To soften that down to say we are all to "be avoided" is to miss the point entirely of why Mohammed waged his wars of conquest and converstion-the theology that Salafists explicity embrace.
This is unwillingness to define Salfism as Salfism defines itself is not a problem of the Washington Post or the main stream media. It is a problem in our State Department, which feeds this line. It is a problem within the highest levels of the administration, and it goes deeply to our long-term respect for freedom of religion and discomfort with seeming to be seen as anti-religious. But to fail to understand and define the enemy is always a disasterous mistake.
Ms. Murphy is striking with her passing mention that after 9-11, Salafists in the United States found their "theology and practices were suddenly suspect." It is not noted that for decades, as the Saudis poured hundreds of millions into the spread of Salfism here and elsewhere, that the message was to kill all of us considered infidels. It was only "suddenly suspect" because we had not listened to them until they attacked us.
The theology of Salfism, in fact, is not suspect at all-it is a clear, straightforward statement of belief that calls on the faithful to carry out jihad. The hijackers of 9-11, faithful to that call, did so. To pretend that Salafism itself preaches something different is a disservice.
Salfism is not just, as one Muslim is quoted as saying, an "ideology that helped foster the mentality of those hijackers." Rather, Salafism is the gasoline that the Saudis have poured on wood piles around the world. They (and we) then claim to be shocked by the sudden outburst of forest fires that are raging. (I first heard this analogy from David Aufhauser, the former general counsel for the Treasury Department who led the war on terror finances in the early years of the Bush administration, and whose clear sense of the real world is now sorely missed.)
The observation that the sense of beleaguerment among Washington Muslim is especially strong is also quite striking. I would imagine the sense of beleaguerment among Nazis in the Washington area during World War II was also somewhat high. But when your nation or religion declares war and you are in enemy territory (alhtough our government often seems to forget that we are, in fact, engaged in a war with internal enemies), feeling beleaguered seems a small price to pay.
The article, in giving a nice summary of Salfism, notes that Salafists "also regard Jews, Christians and non-Wahhabi Muslims as 'unbelievers' who should be avoided."
In fact, they regard those groups as infidels against whom they can and should wage jihad. Avoided except when seeking to kill those who refuse to repent and embrace their interpretation of Islam. To soften that down to say we are all to "be avoided" is to miss the point entirely of why Mohammed waged his wars of conquest and converstion-the theology that Salafists explicity embrace.
This is unwillingness to define Salfism as Salfism defines itself is not a problem of the Washington Post or the main stream media. It is a problem in our State Department, which feeds this line. It is a problem within the highest levels of the administration, and it goes deeply to our long-term respect for freedom of religion and discomfort with seeming to be seen as anti-religious. But to fail to understand and define the enemy is always a disasterous mistake.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday December 18, 2006
Bush, Sudan and Paul Salopek
President Bush made the unusual, and breathtakingly unwise, offer to meet with Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan al-Bashir, Sudan's bloody dictator, "on the side" in New York during the general's UN visit later in September. This, after al-Bashir, responsible for the genocide in Darfur, the blocking of peacekeeping forces despite agreeing to let them in, deliberately and throughly humiliated Bush's personal envoy to Sudan, as described in painful detail in The Washington Post.
How can this be? The regime sponsors the janjaweed, maintains terrorist connections with Islamist groups, leaves an envoy cooling her heels for three days (because the president was "busy") and imprisons Paul Salopek, one of the best and most respected foreign correspondents in the business, on bogus charges of espionage. (If you want to read about who my friend Paul Salopek really is, see this great piece in the Seattle Time).
The price for all this? An offer of a private visit with the president in New York. Perhaps if Sudan hosted Osama bin Laden again, he could get a invitation to Camp David. Go for nuclear weapons and who knows how he could be rewarded-a state visit? The sky is the limit.
The fact that the offer was made after al-Bashir humiliated Ms. Frazer and while Salopek was being charged with espionage nonsense-a true sign of a regime that fears the truth-is what makes the offer so mind boggling.
If he is smart, al-Bashir will say no thanks. Who needs a meeting when you can thumb your nose, carry out genocide and imprison American journalists with impunity? What is his incentive to do anything but more of the same, or worse?
Have we no sense of shame left? Is this what our diplomacy and status as the world's sole superpower, is reduced to? Then God help us.
How can this be? The regime sponsors the janjaweed, maintains terrorist connections with Islamist groups, leaves an envoy cooling her heels for three days (because the president was "busy") and imprisons Paul Salopek, one of the best and most respected foreign correspondents in the business, on bogus charges of espionage. (If you want to read about who my friend Paul Salopek really is, see this great piece in the Seattle Time).
The price for all this? An offer of a private visit with the president in New York. Perhaps if Sudan hosted Osama bin Laden again, he could get a invitation to Camp David. Go for nuclear weapons and who knows how he could be rewarded-a state visit? The sky is the limit.
The fact that the offer was made after al-Bashir humiliated Ms. Frazer and while Salopek was being charged with espionage nonsense-a true sign of a regime that fears the truth-is what makes the offer so mind boggling.
If he is smart, al-Bashir will say no thanks. Who needs a meeting when you can thumb your nose, carry out genocide and imprison American journalists with impunity? What is his incentive to do anything but more of the same, or worse?
Have we no sense of shame left? Is this what our diplomacy and status as the world's sole superpower, is reduced to? Then God help us.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday December 18, 2006
Two Visitors Who Should Not be Allowed Through the Door
There is disturbing news on several fronts regarding how the administration is handling the competing pressures as it seeks to promote democracy and fight Islamist extemism at the same time. The first is a state visit by the president of Kazakhstan. The second is the possible visit of the new leading light of the Muslim Brotherhood, Tariq Ramadan, something of a rock star in European Muslim communities but still a radical Islamist who poses as a moderate.
President Bush's decision, as outlined in the Washington Post is to not only invite Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev for a state visit but to have him to Camp David. Here we have one of the most corrupt agents of the former Soviet Union, accused of stealing tens of millions of dollars while jailing opponents and stifling all manner of civil liberties, now a treated as a great friend.
It is important that Nazabayev helped secure an atomic arsenal, no doubt. But is he really the type of leader one wants to legitimize as a "good friend" when he represents nothing the U.S. should stand for? Like Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, without his oil Nazarbayev would be just one more odious dictator that one would ignore, or at least certainly not fete at the president's private residence. The fact that Kazakhstan is now a base of operations for Viktor Bout, who is arming radical the radical Islamist regime in Somalia, also seems to be forgotten.
With regard to Ramdan, the U.S. government must decide by Sept. 21 whether to grant him a non-immigrant visa to visit the United States for a speaking tour. The government failed to appeal a New York district court ruling that it had to formally make a decision on the visa application, rather than simply failing to act on the request. According to press reportsthe ACLU supported Ramadan's request for a ruling.
It is true that Ramadan is charismatic, articulate and a media star. He is also the most visible face of the new generation of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by his grandfather. The Brotherhood is skilled in the double games of moderate political discourse while aiding and abetting radical Islamists, and Ramandan is one of the best.
Allowing him in would be a mistake for several reasons. Primarily, it would be a victory for the Brotherhood and its front groups operating in the United States. It would also give a platform for Ramadan's now-famous ability to use come across as moderate where needed and radical in closed sessions. Giving the enemy the opportunity to radicalize cadres here seems unwise, at the least.
As is consistently the case, the classified information on Ramadan's activities that could help explain his exclusion are not made part of the record in this debate, limiting the public reasons that can be given. But at a time when we are facing an external threat, allowing a spokesperson for radical Islamists to travel and speak is foolish.
President Bush's decision, as outlined in the Washington Post is to not only invite Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev for a state visit but to have him to Camp David. Here we have one of the most corrupt agents of the former Soviet Union, accused of stealing tens of millions of dollars while jailing opponents and stifling all manner of civil liberties, now a treated as a great friend.
It is important that Nazabayev helped secure an atomic arsenal, no doubt. But is he really the type of leader one wants to legitimize as a "good friend" when he represents nothing the U.S. should stand for? Like Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, without his oil Nazarbayev would be just one more odious dictator that one would ignore, or at least certainly not fete at the president's private residence. The fact that Kazakhstan is now a base of operations for Viktor Bout, who is arming radical the radical Islamist regime in Somalia, also seems to be forgotten.
With regard to Ramdan, the U.S. government must decide by Sept. 21 whether to grant him a non-immigrant visa to visit the United States for a speaking tour. The government failed to appeal a New York district court ruling that it had to formally make a decision on the visa application, rather than simply failing to act on the request. According to press reportsthe ACLU supported Ramadan's request for a ruling.
It is true that Ramadan is charismatic, articulate and a media star. He is also the most visible face of the new generation of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by his grandfather. The Brotherhood is skilled in the double games of moderate political discourse while aiding and abetting radical Islamists, and Ramandan is one of the best.
Allowing him in would be a mistake for several reasons. Primarily, it would be a victory for the Brotherhood and its front groups operating in the United States. It would also give a platform for Ramadan's now-famous ability to use come across as moderate where needed and radical in closed sessions. Giving the enemy the opportunity to radicalize cadres here seems unwise, at the least.
As is consistently the case, the classified information on Ramadan's activities that could help explain his exclusion are not made part of the record in this debate, limiting the public reasons that can be given. But at a time when we are facing an external threat, allowing a spokesperson for radical Islamists to travel and speak is foolish.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday December 18, 2006
What is Russia's Real Game?
In an increasingly confused world, it has become apparent that Russia, for all its talk, is consistently positioning itself against the interests of the United States, Europe-and often on the side of Islamist radicals.
It is not just true in the U.N. Security Council with Iran, where, along with China, Russia is protecting an important client despite what such support means.
It is also true in Lebanon (directly and through Iran), the republic of Georgia and Somalia, where Russian weapons merchants, including but not limited to Viktor Bout, are supplying large amounts of weapons to fuel wars that will have a devastating impact on entire regions. In each case the beneficiary is going to be enemies of development, democracy and human rights. The beneficiaries will be radical Islamists.
President Bush famously warned that in the war on terrorism, you are with us or against us. The Russians, it seems, like the Pakistanis, Saudis and many others, are both. Russia is a particularly troubling case because of the quantitiy and quality of weapons its possesses, as well as the nuclear arsenal at least nominally under its control.
It is not entirely clear to me what Russia stands to gain from feeding the chaos. Maybe chaos itself is the end. Maybe establishing geopolitical relevance in areas the U.S. has more or less abanonded is appealing. But, as Chechnya should have shown, any dealing with radical Islam is bound to be a losing, bloody proposition.
Bout's recent exploits in Somalia-flying in at last two IL-76 loads of weapons for the most radical, Taliban-like regime in the world-could not take place without the explicit blessing of senior Russian military intelligence officials, using allies to do the actual deals. But the sales and meddling are not independent of the Russian military establishment, often fronted by quasi-official companies that sell weapons to a large list of unofficial Russian state clients.
The weak but official government of Somalia has formally protested the proxy arming of Eritrea, the tiny country that separated from Ethiopia and likely to be a staging area for the Islamist forces in Somalia. The weapons are being delivered are from the former Soviet bloc, by Russian pilots and trainers. This confrontation will become particularly unpleasant if Ethiopia decides that having an Islamist neighbor similar to the Taliban is not to its liking a we have a reprise of the Ertiea-Ethiopia war of the late 1990s that killed tens of thousands of people.
Russian (and Chinese) weapons sales to Iran do not happen by accident. They occur with the full knowledge that these weapons would end up with either a rogue Islamist regime or a proxy army of that regime.
The same can be said for the weapons deliveries to Somalia. Aircraft filled with tens of tons of weapons do not miraculously fall from the sky to Islamist militants bent on expanding and consolidating their regime. More such weapons are on their way, intelligence sources say. It might be time to ask who is supplying the weapons and why.
It is not just true in the U.N. Security Council with Iran, where, along with China, Russia is protecting an important client despite what such support means.
It is also true in Lebanon (directly and through Iran), the republic of Georgia and Somalia, where Russian weapons merchants, including but not limited to Viktor Bout, are supplying large amounts of weapons to fuel wars that will have a devastating impact on entire regions. In each case the beneficiary is going to be enemies of development, democracy and human rights. The beneficiaries will be radical Islamists.
President Bush famously warned that in the war on terrorism, you are with us or against us. The Russians, it seems, like the Pakistanis, Saudis and many others, are both. Russia is a particularly troubling case because of the quantitiy and quality of weapons its possesses, as well as the nuclear arsenal at least nominally under its control.
It is not entirely clear to me what Russia stands to gain from feeding the chaos. Maybe chaos itself is the end. Maybe establishing geopolitical relevance in areas the U.S. has more or less abanonded is appealing. But, as Chechnya should have shown, any dealing with radical Islam is bound to be a losing, bloody proposition.
Bout's recent exploits in Somalia-flying in at last two IL-76 loads of weapons for the most radical, Taliban-like regime in the world-could not take place without the explicit blessing of senior Russian military intelligence officials, using allies to do the actual deals. But the sales and meddling are not independent of the Russian military establishment, often fronted by quasi-official companies that sell weapons to a large list of unofficial Russian state clients.
The weak but official government of Somalia has formally protested the proxy arming of Eritrea, the tiny country that separated from Ethiopia and likely to be a staging area for the Islamist forces in Somalia. The weapons are being delivered are from the former Soviet bloc, by Russian pilots and trainers. This confrontation will become particularly unpleasant if Ethiopia decides that having an Islamist neighbor similar to the Taliban is not to its liking a we have a reprise of the Ertiea-Ethiopia war of the late 1990s that killed tens of thousands of people.
Russian (and Chinese) weapons sales to Iran do not happen by accident. They occur with the full knowledge that these weapons would end up with either a rogue Islamist regime or a proxy army of that regime.
The same can be said for the weapons deliveries to Somalia. Aircraft filled with tens of tons of weapons do not miraculously fall from the sky to Islamist militants bent on expanding and consolidating their regime. More such weapons are on their way, intelligence sources say. It might be time to ask who is supplying the weapons and why.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH