Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

May 1st, 2006

Tags

,

Comments

17 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Al Qaeda Retreating???

Having recently posted on the mistakes of terrorists fighting 4GW wars and Curzon blogging Al Qaeda’s recent statement, this article caught my attention. Whether it’s ultimately true or not is essentially unable to be proven at the moment, but its arguments are nevertheless interesting:

Why Al Qaeda Is Retreating From Iraq

April 30, 2006: Despite the many brickbats of the media, al Qaeda has been defeated in Iraq, and is now retreating to lick its wounds where it can. If it can. Just over four and a half years, al Qaeda has gone from being the dominant terrorist group in the world to a defeated shell of its former self. In trying to defeat the United States, al Qaeda made three big mistakes: They fought the last information war, they underestimated the American leadership, and they also managed to anger the Iraqi people.

It goes on to concentrate on the media war and name the three major mistakes al Qaeda has made which go nicely with my previous post. The article isn’t too long and is well worth your time.

UPDATE: Catholicgauze has more on Al Qaeda pulling out of Iraq.

Comments to this entry

Curzon
May 1, 2006
4:29 pm
And "my previous post":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2006/04/29/the-noose-is-tightening/ as well! Did you catch the hoof-knawing exclusive?
Catholicgauze
May 1, 2006
5:07 pm
Once again CA is behind CG. :)
http://catholicgauze.blogspot.com/2006/04/iraq-war-victory.html
Curtis Gale Weeks
May 2, 2006
12:21 am
Shlocky has "an alternative interpretation":http://www.shloky.com/?p=209 --

1. "From the AQ perspective the American loss of Iraq is a given."

2. "the angering of the Iraqi people, was actually the key goal of AQ efforts. *AQ managed to revert the majority of the Iraqi populace to their primary loyalties.*"
Kirk H. Sowell
May 2, 2006
5:40 am
This will be news to those who have only followed the "if it bleeds it leads" headlines from the mass media on Iraq. There are basically two reasons for this:

One, since the Falluja Operation in Nov. 2004, al-Qaeda has lost one open base of operations after another. First they lost Falluja itself, the nerve center of the terror network, and then town by town they lost the western province of the Anbar, which previously had been controlled by them or by no one. Ramadi has remained the biggest weak point for the Iraqi government (and the U.S.).

Two, they have alienated their only real base of support in Iraq, the Sunnis. It isn't that Sunni Islamists have come to love America, they have just gotten tired of having members of their tribes killed by al-Qaeda's bombs. So the more moderate elements within what remains of the Sunni insurgency have pointedly distanced themselves from Zarqawi and Bin Laden.

So yes, al-Qaeda has lost in Iraq. We haven't won yet; Sadr's militia is still a problem, and much of the Sunni population isn't reconciled to the new democratic order, they just don't accept al-Qaeda. And the police are a mess. But the army has performed well in the wake of the Askariyya bombing, and so the main challenge in my mind is taking care of Sadr and his thugs. To modify a phrase from Reuel Marc Gerecht, the Sunnis will be brought to compromise by the sight of one thing - a well-armed and determined Shia-dominated Iraqi army. That process has already well begun.
John Robb
May 3, 2006
1:03 am
LOL. Not sure you guys understand what AQ does.
Chirol
May 3, 2006
11:24 am
That Iraq is in a death spiral?
Dan tdaxp
May 3, 2006
4:07 pm
Mr. Robb's philosophy apparently reduces aQ to demons, concerned neither for themselves nor their ideals. Rather, they are a purely destructive force that optimize for system disruption.

I disagree.
Curtis Gale Weeks
May 3, 2006
5:32 pm
Demons are popping up everywhere, it seems. Pretty soon, we'll need the return of the Prime Angel (or some variant) to combat the pesky little dervishes and "save us":http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/04/5gw_and_christi.php from their spinning...

But on another note. I think that AQ has suffered losses, am not certain that the Iraq plan went according to...er, plan, but am also not ready to discount AQ on the world stage. Until Osama and Zarqawi are pilloried, we should expect a reformation in AQ. I.e., even if the Iraq plan was not successful -- (it may have been) -- or, particularly if it was not successful, AQ is likely to try a new tactic or three.

But I'm wondering, given Shloky's evaluation, how AQ might attempt to reform the Iraqi populace. If AQ has endeavored to "revert the majority of the Iraqi populace to their primary loyalties" from the start, what's their ultimate plan for capitalizing on this? Perhaps they, like GWB, have misinterpreted the Iraqi reaction to America's involvement (along with the reaction of so-called moderate Muslims or even nominal, autocratic, Muslim leaders). So, really, the question is, what do they do next?
John Robb
May 3, 2006
5:48 pm
Chirol, yes. They have achieved their objectives. Dan, actually no. They aren't organized to take over a government or hold territory (for long). They are built to start a revision of existing order.
Chirol
May 3, 2006
6:04 pm
Is that really their sole objective though? It's a risky one as it can either be seen as fighting the invaders or helping to ruin another Muslim country. Seems easily spinnable for both sides.
mark safranski
May 3, 2006
7:14 pm
Ideology and structure are two different things.

There are incredibly self-destructive strands of militant Islamism - Takfirism, Mahdism in particular - Bin Laden has always striven to keep a lid on those ideological tendencies inside AQ and promote a more eucumenical form of radical salafi-jihadism. Zarqawi strains the leash in that regard.
John Robb
May 3, 2006
7:33 pm
The world is a big place. How many people does al Qaeda need to convince to be a viable movement? .000001 %? This isn't a mass movement. It is a smarter version of a foco with system disruption as a weapon of state destruction.
Curtis Gale Weeks
May 3, 2006
8:00 pm
But John, I'm curious to know what you think comes after the mass state destruction, in the AQ plan?

It's fine and well to talk about AQ's disruptive modus operandi, but ignoring its constructive tendencies forces an ignorance of the limitations on the methods of disruption.
mark safranski
May 3, 2006
9:48 pm
"How many people does al Qaeda need to convince to be a viable movement? .000001 %? This isn't a mass movement"

True. It is an elite. In the past AQ had the luxury of screening applicants and they rejected many of them.

I'm sure the philosophy is the same today though the lack of security (perhaps) means the screening process amounts to what cells in the decentralized jihadi community bin Laden-zawahiri will bestow their seal of approval upon
John Robb
May 4, 2006
12:49 am
Curtis, they aren't talking about new states. They are talking about a return to feudal relationships. Very decentralized. Crash the state and organic Islamic order emerges.
Dan tdaxp
May 4, 2006
3:04 am
They are talking about a return to feudal relationships.

aQ believs in Islamic Law, and Islamic Jurisprudence. That's not feudalism. Sharia and Feudalism are both unpleasant states, but one is not the other.
John Robb
May 4, 2006
10:04 am
As it is applied within the context of a new global order, a Caliphate, they are both in play.