Three reasons for this repost.  First, with Bhutto Gone the dynamics of Pakistani politics become greatly complicated.  Second, I heard my least favorite candidate (Rudy) make a wild ass assertion about the impact of getting rid of bin Laden.  Third, there is an assertion circulating that bin Laden was murdered.  Additionally, al Qaeda remains a factor on the World stage.

One of the best analyses that I have seen anywhere of the impact of the Bhutto assassination is in the Front Page article (interview), With Bhutto Gone.  The final statement:

History can tell us many things. But what it cannot tell us is often more troubling. We are now in uncharted waters with an increasingly unstable nuclear power while a bloodthirsty international terrorist organization thrives within its borders. Not even the fall and breakup of the Soviet Union can compare in potential perils.

The coming week is critical, and all events in Pakistan warrant the closest attention.

There are so many misconceptions running in the public about al Qaeda, its origins and its future that it is scary.  Earlier this afternoon a nice lady in my office commented how it would “all be better if the British re-occupied Pakistan like it did before al Qaeda.“  That statement shows an enormous lack of historic perspective (as I wrote, she’s a very nice lady, but that doesn’t make her smart or savvy - some of the least informed bloggers are more informed than much of the public)…but I am certain that this and similar misconceptions exist.  When I told her that al Qaeda came about as a result of the Russian-Afghan war and that it is said to have been started in 1988 (although bin Laden was an active Muslim holy warrior as early as 1979 at the onset of the war), she commented that she didn’t know I “knew so much about history.“  Frankly, I don’t believe she represents a minority of the population.

As for “sir” Rudy (who appears to think that he has already been anointed - he also looked very tired)…he was being interviewed this evening when I heard him claim that the beheading of al Qaeda by the killing or capture of bin Laden would reap many benefits to us (the United States).  While I do not doubt that Rudy, among all candidates wants to see bin Laden erased, his overt statement shows an utter lack of understanding, IMO of course, of the Global implications of the al Qaeda jihad, its organization, and the absolute fact that today we deal with both al Qaeda 1.0 and al Qaeda 2.0 (see discussion below).  Lacking an u nderstanding of the evolution of al Qaeda and the jihad is a fatal flaw.  In my opinion, it is an essential understanding if “one” is going to engage in any discussion of al Qaeda, the jihad or now, the events in Pakistan and Muslim South Asia.

Having seen plenty of criticism of Huckabee’s comments following Bhutto’s assassination, I believe that Rudy’s statement that eliminating bin Laden would weaken al Qaeda and the Global Jihad, further and clearly illustrates that he is an inappropriate choice for President.  As I have explained below and in other posts, cutting the head off of this snake will not kill the serpent [frankly, if you think otherwise, perhaps reading further is a waste of time].  An earlier post on the political implication of the Bhutto assassination - Political “Experience” & The Bhutto Assassination

Next, there is a series of posts “suggesting” that Bhutto, in a prior video, claimed that Omar Sheik murdered bin Laden.  This is debunked by Laer in Bhutto Clip: Bin Laden Dead?, by Hot Air in Video: The obligatory “Bhutto says Omar Sheikh killed Osama” post…both posts refer to Jawa’s post.  Given credible reports of a new video to be released featuring the “Jihadi Mark Twain,” I seriously doubt that bin Laden is dead (at least not the way implied by the implication).  Additionally, there is no other confirmation of his passing.  IMO, he ain’t dead (yet).

Finally, there is the question of the importance of al Qaeda going forward.  I originally wrote this post on December 22, 2007.  Today, a week later, I see no reason to alter my opinion.

Spree has expanded coverage of the Bhutto assassination in her updates post, here.  Right Truth offers additional views on the Bhutto killing in Only a sharpshooter could kill her.  Also check out AC’s take on this at Fore Left, Aftermath.  For another view, that of the CWA-NJ Conservatives, go here (the post is a political view, and therefore, IMO, well, my point of view is expressed in my posts).

____________________________________________________________________

PREVIOUS POST: All arguments to the contrary, al Qaeda is important, its continued existence is important, the fact that bin Laden remains at-large is important. No amount of rationalization that either is unrelated to the prosecution of the War on Terrorism is foolish at best. So this is a multi-part post. The first.second is mostly my own and the third is a summary of the Stratfor article on the subject.

A number of months ago I wrote (in synch with a post by Doug Farah of the Counterterrorism Blog and on his own blog, The Emerging Shape of the Future Jihad) about the jihadist treatise that it espoused the principles of “nizam, la tanzim,” or ‘System, not organisation’ as preached in the tenets of the treatise written by Spanish-Syrian strategist Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (aka Abu Musab al-Suri), Da’wat al-muqawamah al-islamiyyah al-’alamiyyah (”The Call for a Global Islamic Resistance”). Essentially, this point of view leads one to believe that regardless of the leadership or figurehead, the driving force behind the continuing jihad, ala al Qaeda, will be system, and not the existing hierarchy of al Qaeda as we learned about it starting on September 11, 2001. But it is from this platform that the spread of Global Jihadism stems. At least that is a position I have held for quite some time. While al Qaeda in Iraq is a clear “franchise” or clone of al Qaeda (central), explaining al Qaeda spin-offs in the Far East, the adoption of Global Jihadist goals and tactics in other parts of the World, can only be attributed to the concept of “system, not organization.” Especially given the role and importance of the Internet for communication and yes, even training and indoctrination, the ability to “spread the word” to like minded terrorists is relatively unfettered.

As an excerpt from a post written long ago, Global Terrorism - A Pandemic

Slightly more than a year ago I wrote a post, Global Terrorism - A Virus in which the ways in which terrorism was spreading was looking more and more like the spread of a virus. In that post, I observed that:

It has been my contention that terrorism is spreading. One way or another, regardless of your political leaning, I suggest that what is happening in Iraq is that the streets of Baghdad and Mosul and Fallujah have served as training grounds to terrorists, mostly of the Muslim variety, who, when they leave Iraq, go back to their country of origin, loads smarter about strategy and tactics. So in this way, al Qaeda-type terrorism, like that being practiced by Zarqawi and friends, is penetrating countries in Europe and elsewhere. This is a very bad implication.

Then, I concluded:

In my opinion, this whole premise of the War on Terror being a war to be waged against nation states, not recognizing the amorphous or amoebic nature of the type of terrorism that is spreading through radical Islam, I fear will lead to additional attacks because we are underestimating the nature of the threat. Treating global terrorism like an epidemic, actually a pandemic, in my opinion will lead to a much more satisfactory result, and probably an earlier rather than later conclusion to this conflict (using that word doesn’t sound right, or do justice to what we are facing).

This is certainly a way to explain the ways in which al Qaeda and its brand of Global Jihaist terrorism continues to spread. What it doesn’t explain is what I see as the inexplicable fantasy outlooks by “some” people (many widely read Internet journalists), that we are actually making headway against al Qaeda (or the previously “defunct” Taliban)…simply because one battle or another is being won…or because in one specific battle, a dozen or more jihadists were killed. The numbers of KIA mean nothing. Its only after you realize and accept that the joihad will live on long after bin Laden and Zawahiri are finally captured or killed, that the battles will still rage. This is not a tradional war that will be won in traditional ways. And yet, I and others continue to believe that the killing or better, the capture of bin Laden and Zawahiri is important. While the degree to which the al Qaeda clones (or franchises) will be weakened or affected by the taking down of al Qaeda 1 (prime), or as it is referred to in this post from the Counterterrorism Blog.

In his post, Why al Qaeda 1.0 Still Matters, Doug Farah, and referring to the following piece from the Washington Post (Algiers Attacks Show Maturing of Al-Qaeda Unit), he writes:

The Dec. 11 attack in Algiers by Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb shows that the old guard of al Qaeda, what some analysts call al Qaeda 1.0 (rather than the new, decentralized structure) still matters…It is increasingly clear that the old guard, operating from Pakistan and the border region with Afghanistan, has regrouped and is in more direct communication with its affiliates than it was 6 months ago…

Also see Farah’s full post here.

The Washington Post article is interesting in that it describes the obscure faction once known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat took on a new name, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, in January. (Maghreb is an Arabic word for the region of North Africa stretching from Libya to Mauritania.)…and that it has adopted various abilities, including that of video taping attacks. Thus, the clone takes on the capabilities of the host.

See the Stratfor article: Al Qaeda in 2008: The Struggle for Relevance (article also here) In an interesting way, and to a degree, the Stratfor article disagrees with the above points of view, and yet still notes the importance of the various al Qaeda “nodes,” including al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (see Algiers).

…the core al Qaeda leadership clearly is struggling to remain relevant in the ideological realm, a daunting task for an organization that has been rendered geopolitically and strategically impotent on the physical battlefield.

Stratfor also looks at the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and in Pakistan as a critical sign:

Despite U.S. and NATO forces’ repeated tactical victories on the battlefield, al Qaeda’s Afghan allies, the Taliban, continue to survive — the critical task for any guerrilla force engaged in an insurgent war…the Taliban largely seek to avoid extended battles and instead seek to engage in hit-and-run guerrilla operations…they realize that they cannot stand toe-to-toe with the superior armaments of the foreign invaders…therefore, they occasionally will occupy a town, such as Musa Qala, but will retreat in the face of overwhelming force and return when that superior force has been deployed elsewhere.

Due to the presence of foreign troops, the Taliban have no hope of taking control of Afghanistan at this juncture. However, unlike the foreign troops, the Taliban fighters and their commanders are not going anywhere. They have a patient philosophy and will bide their time until the tactical or political conditions change in their favor…The Taliban have a very diffuse structure, and even the loss of senior leaders such as Mullah Dadullah and Mullah Obaidullah Akhund has not proven to be much of a hindrance…

Pakistan should be carefully watched because it could prove to be a significant flash point in the coming year. As the global headquarters for the al Qaeda leadership, Pakistan has long been a significant stronghold on the ideological battlefield…

Thus, if you’re listening to the signals, you may be less apt to celebrate the “small” victories of a few dozen Taliban killed by NATO or Coalition forces. While I am not truly intending to draw the parallel, the fact is that this War on Terror against the al Qaeda inspired jihad is similar to the insurgent wars against the Viet Cong 35 years ago. Those who believe that we are “winning” are missing the point, and the true meaning of “winning” itself.

I hope that by stumbling across my little place that you will get something from my “ramblings” (which of course are nothing like ramblings). I do hope that you’ll come back and follow this link to help me keep readership up.

Thank you

StormWarning

Technorati , , , , ,
Powered by Gregarious (42)
Share This Sphere: Related Content