Global Trends, Part 2: in re Al Qaeda

The following is a quoted exerpt from the Global Trends Final Report:

As al-Qa’ida celebrates its 20th birthday, most experts assert that the struggle against it will continue indefinitely, the so called “long war.” Other experts who have studied past “waves” of terrorism believe that al-Qa’ida is an “aging” group by terrorist standards and suffers from strategic weaknesses that could cause it to decay into marginality, perhaps shortening the lifespan of the Islamic terrorist wave.

A wave of terror is a cycle of activity—which can last up to 40 years—characterized by expansion and contraction phases: rise, floodtide of violence, and ebb. The wave of terror concept was developed by UCLA Professor David C. Rapoport and provides a basis for the comparative analysis of terrorist movements. In each wave, similar terrorist activities occur in many countries, driven by a common vision—such as anarchism, Marxism, nationalism, or Islamic extremism. Terrorist groups who form the crest of each wave usually dissolve before the entire wave does, and their decay contributes to the breaking of the wave. Al-Qa’ida’s weaknesses—unachievable strategic objectives, inability to attract broad-based support, and selfdestructive actions—might cause it to decay sooner than many people think.

Research indicates that terrorists’ strategic objectives fail on two fronts. Objectives that pose a threat to the existing political order court tough counterterrorism measures, while objectives that are seen as neither achievable nor relevant to solving problems have little appeal to elites or the general populace. The two primary strategic aims of al-Qa’ida—the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate and the removal of US and Western influence so that “apostate” regimes can be toppled—are clearly threats to many existing Muslim governments and are resulting in stronger counterterrorism measures.

There is little indication that the vast majority of Muslims believe that such objectives are realistic or that, if they could come to pass, would solve the practical problems of unemployment, poverty, poor educational systems, and dysfunctional governance. Despite sympathy for some of its ideas and the rise of affiliated groups in places like the Mahgreb, al-Qa’ida has not achieved broad support in the Islamic World. Its harsh pan-Islamist ideology and policies appeal only to a tiny minority of Muslims.

According to one study of public attitudes toward extremist violence, there is little support for al-Qa’ida in any of the countries surveyed—Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The report also found that majorities in all Arab countries oppose jihadi violence, by any group, on their own soil. Al-Qa’ida is alienating former Muslim supporters by killing Muslims in its attacks. Recent scholarly research indicates that terrorist groups that kill civilians seldom accomplish their strategic goals. Although determining precisely the number of Muslims worldwide who have died in al-Qa’ida attacks is difficult, examination of available evidence suggests that at least 40 percent of the victims have been Muslims.

The roughly 40-year cycle of terrorist waves suggests that the dreams that inspire terrorist group members’ fathers to join particular groups are not attractive to succeeding generations. The prospect that al-Qa’ida will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives, and inability to become a mass movement.

In relying almost exclusively on terrorism as a means to achieve its strategic objectives, rather than transforming into a political movement like Hizbollah or Hamas, al-Qa’ida is using a stratagem that rarely is successful. Recent academic research indicates that only 6 percent of terrorist groups active in the last 40 years have achieved their proclaimed strategic objectives. Al-Qa’ida’s lack of success in executing attacks against the “far enemy” could portend a period of operational futility leading to increased frustration, decreased organizational élan, and inability to attract new members.

Because history suggests that the global Islamic terrorist movement will outlast al-Qa’ida as a group, strategic counterterrorism efforts will need to focus on how and why a successor terrorist group might evolve during the remaining years of the “Islamic terrorist wave.”

About Curzon

Lord George Nathaniel Curzon (1859 - 1925) entered the British House of Commons as a Conservative MP in 1886, where he served as undersecretary of India and Foreign Affairs. He was appointed Viceroy of India at the turn of the 20th century where he delineated the North West Frontier Province, ordered a military expedition to Tibet, and unsuccessfully tried to partition the province of Bengal during his six-year tenure. Curzon served as Leader of the House of Lords in Prime Minister Lloyd George's War Cabinet and became Foreign Secretary in January 1919, where his most famous act was the drawing of the Curzon Line between a new Polish state and Russia. His publications include Russia in Central Asia (1889) and Persia and the Persian Question (1892). In real life, "Curzon" is a US citizen from the East Coast who has been a financial analyst, freelance translator, and university professor; he is currently on assignment in Tokyo.
This entry was posted in General and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Global Trends, Part 2: in re Al Qaeda

  1. Just An Australian says:

    Given what I’ve heard about Global Trends elsewhere, it’s almost a surprise to have some logical balanced analysis!

  2. Curzon says:

    What have you heard? And what makes this better?

  3. Just An Australian says:

    on other blogs, mainly I’ve heard that it’s self serving navel gazing with not a lot of insight. If you don’t spend lot’s of money on awe-inspiring weaponry now, you’ll face these freaky threats from people who hate our guts and do not and will not behave rationally. And Al-Qaeda will grow and grow until it’s a tree that fills the whole middle-earth. (oh whoops, getting confusedly tolkeinish there)

    And some rip-roaring funny stuff out of the same reports in the past when seen from the benefit of hindsight. Which is a different subject. But does give one pause before taking too much notice of it.

  4. Curzon says:

    > on other blogs, mainly I’ve heard that it’s self serving navel gazing with not a lot of insight.

    Whoever said that is an knee-jerk idiot. No where in the document does it call for increased defense spending or advocate policies, it only provides a dark assessment of the future. In some ways the content is similar to the type of material seen in the 1970s and 1980s, when the intelligence services put out very dreary reports of America’s future. The report in 2004 was far cheerier.

  5. McKellar says:

    I think what we’re really seeing is that the big questions are changing, the big issues that people try to resolve through warfare. For most of the modern era, it was all about either economics or politics (i.e. who has power over whom) and usually both. If you go further back, it seems that other issues, like glory, become more important. So of course the different flavors of terrorism are going to follow those trends, Anarchists worry about power, Marxists about economics, and head-hunters worry about glory. So what does Al Qaeda worry about? Our initial assumption is economics (globalization, WTC) or power (Caliphate, American Hegemony), with more capitalism and democracy being the obvious (and inevitable) solutions. But things change, and it’s possible that the real driving force behind modern terrorism is something else entirely, and the resolution will be something as yet undreamt.

    My own guess is that the problem is this ambivalence towards modernity, where folks everywhere want to have some piece of the wealth and personal freedom that comes from modernity, but can’t bear to give up the national pride and comforting social insularity that partaking of modernity would require. People who can’t choose between tradition and modernity thus find themselves stuck in a third place, and so are oblivious to the controlling structures of both modernity and tradition. DARPA, the IMF and Amnesty Int’l combined aren’t going to solve that problem, no matter how much money we throw at them.

  6. Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Global Trends, Part 7: Curzon’s conclusion — and your pithy words!

  7. The British government has said neither the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) nor the Bajrang Dal are terrorist organisations and their members are not banned from entering Britain.