POLITICS JUNE 11, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Within a few minutes of Noman Benotman's arrival at the Kandahar guest house, Osama bin Laden came to welcome him. The journey from Kabul had been hard, 17 hours in a Toyota pickup truck bumping along what passed as the main highway to southern Afghanistan. It was the summer of 2000, and Benotman, then a leader of a group trying to overthrow the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, had been invited by bin Laden to a conference of jihadists from around the Arab world, the first of its kind since Al Qaeda had moved to Afghanistan in 1996. Benotman, the scion of an aristocratic family marginalized by Qaddafi, had known bin Laden from their days fighting the Afghan communist government in the early '90s, a period when Benotman established himself as a leader of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
The night of Benotman's arrival, bin Laden threw a lavish banquet in the main hall of his compound, an unusual extravagance for the frugal Al Qaeda leader. As bin Laden circulated, making small talk, large dishes of rice and platters of whole roasted lamb were served to some 200 jihadists, many of whom had come from around the Middle East. "It was one big reunification," Benotman recalls. "The leaders of most of the jihadist groups in the Arab world were there and almost everybody within Al Qaeda."
Bin Laden was trying to win over other militant groups to the global jihad he had announced against the United States in 1998. Over the next five days, bin Laden and his top aides, including Ayman Al Zawahiri, met with a dozen or so jihadist leaders. They sat on the floor in a circle with large cushions arrayed around them to discuss the future of their movement. "This was a big strategy meeting," Benotman told one of us late last year, in his first account of the meeting to a reporter. "We talked about everything, where are we going, what are the lessons of the past twenty years."
Despite the warm welcome, Benotman surprised his hosts with a bleak assessment of their prospects. "I told them that the jihadist movement had failed. That we had gone from one disaster to another, like in Algeria, because we had not mobilized the people," recalls Benotman, referring to the Algerian civil war launched by jihadists in the '90s that left more than 100,000 dead and destroyed whatever local support the militants had once enjoyed. Benotman also told bin Laden that the Al Qaeda leader's decision to target the United States would only sabotage attempts by groups like Benotman's to overthrow the secular dictatorships in the Arab world. "We made a clear-cut request for him to stop his campaign against the United States because it was going to lead to nowhere," Benotman recalls, "but they laughed when I told them that America would attack the whole region if they launched another attack against it."
Benotman says that bin Laden tried to placate him with a promise: "I have one more operation, and after that I will quit"--an apparent reference to September 11. "I can't call this one back because that would demoralize the whole organization," Benotman remembers bin Laden saying.
After the attacks, Benotman, now living in London, resigned from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, realizing that the United States, in its war on terrorism, would differentiate little between Al Qaeda and his organization.
Benotman, however, did more than just retire. In January 2007, under a veil of secrecy, he flew to Tripoli in a private jet chartered by the Libyan government to try to persuade the imprisoned senior leadership of his former group to enter into peace negotiations with the regime. He was successful. This May, Benotman told us that the two parties could be as little as three months away from an agreement that would see the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group formally end its operations in Libya and denounce Al Qaeda's global jihad. At that point, the group would also publicly refute recent claims by Al Qaeda that the two organizations had joined forces.
This past November, Benotman went public with his own criticism of Al Qaeda in an open letter to Zawahiri, absorbed and well-received, he says, by the jihadist leaders in Tripoli. In the letter, Benotman recalled his Kandahar warnings and called on Al Qaeda to end all operations in Arab countries and in the West. The citizens of Western countries were blameless and should not be the target of terrorist attacks, argued Benotman, his refined English accent, smart suit, trimmed beard, and easygoing demeanor making it hard to imagine that he was once on the front lines in Afghanistan.
Although Benotman's public rebuke of Al Qaeda went unnoticed in the United States, it received wide attention in the Arabic press. In repudiating Al Qaeda, Benotman was adding his voice to a rising tide of anger in the Islamic world toward Al Qaeda and its affiliates, whose victims since September 11 have mostly been fellow Muslims. Significantly, he was also joining a larger group of religious scholars, former fighters, and militants who had once had great influence over Al Qaeda's leaders, and who--alarmed by the targeting of civilians in the West, the senseless killings in Muslim countries, and Al Qaeda's barbaric tactics in Iraq--have turned against the organization, many just in the past year.
After September 11, there was considerable fear in the West that we were headed for a clash of civilizations with the Muslim world led by bin Laden, who would entice masses of young Muslims into his jihadist movement. But the religious leaders and former militants who are now critiquing Al Qaeda's terrorist campaign--both in the Middle East and in Muslim enclaves in the West-- make that less likely. The potential repercussions for Al Qaeda cannot be underestimated because, unlike most mainstream Muslim leaders, Al Qaeda's new critics have the jihadist credentials to make their criticisms bite. "The starting point has to be that jihad is legitimate, otherwise no one will listen, " says Benotman, who sees the Iraqi insurgency as a legitimate jihad. "The reaction [to my criticism of Al Qaeda] has been beyond imagination. It has made the radicals very angry. They are very shaky about it."
Why have clerics and militants once considered allies by Al Qaeda's leaders turned against them? To a large extent, it is because Al Qaeda and its affiliates have increasingly adopted the doctrine of takfir, by which they claim the right to decide who is a "true" Muslim. Al Qaeda's Muslim critics know what results from this takfiri view: First, the radicals deem some Muslims apostates; after that, the radicals start killing them. This fatal progression happened in both Algeria and Egypt in the 1990s. It is now taking place even more dramatically in Iraq, where Al Qaeda's suicide bombers have killed more than 10,000 Iraqis, most of them targeted simply for being Shia. Recently, Al Qaeda in Iraq has turned its fire on Sunnis who oppose its diktats, a fact not lost on the Islamic world's Sunni majority.
Additionally, Al Qaeda and its affiliates have killed thousands of Muslim civilians elsewhere since September 11: hundreds of ordinary Afghans killed every year by the Taliban, dozens of Saudis killed by terrorists since 2003, scores of Jordanians massacred at a wedding at a U.S. hotel in Amman in November 2005. Even those sympathetic to Al Qaeda have started to notice. "Excuse me Mr. Zawahiri but who is it who is killing with Your Excellency's blessing, the innocents in Baghdad, Morocco and Algeria?" one supporter asked in an online Q&A with Al Qaeda's deputy leader in April that was posted widely on jihadist websites. All this has created a dawning recognition among Muslims that the ideological virus that unleashed September 11 and the terrorist attacks in London and Madrid is the same virus now wreaking havoc in the Muslim world.
Two months before Benotman's letter to Zawahiri was publicized in the Arab press, Al Qaeda received a blow from one of bin Laden's erstwhile heroes, Sheikh Salman Al Oudah, a Saudi religious scholar. Around the sixth anniversary of September 11, Al Oudah addressed Al Qaeda's leader on MBC, a widely watched Middle East TV network: "My brother Osama, how much blood has been spilt? How many innocent people, children, elderly, and women have been killed ... in the name of Al Qaeda? Will you be happy to meet God Almighty carrying the burden of these hundreds of thousands or millions [of victims] on your back?"
What was noteworthy about Al Oudah's statement was that it was not simply a condemnation of terrorism, or even of September 11, but that it was a personal rebuke, which clerics in the Muslim world have shied away from. In Saudi Arabia in February, one of us met with Al Oudah, who rarely speaks to Western reporters. Dressed in the long black robe fringed with gold that is worn by those accorded respect in Saudi society, Al Oudah recalled meeting with bin Laden--a "simple man without scholarly religious credentials, an attractive personality who spoke well," he said--in the northern Saudi region of Qassim in 1990. Al Oudah explained that he had criticized Al Qaeda for years but until now had not directed it at bin Laden himself: "Most religious scholars have directed criticism at acts of terrorism, not a particular person. ... I don't expect a positive effect on bin Laden personally as a result of my statement. It's really a message to his followers."
Al Oudah's rebuke was also significant because he is considered one of the fathers of the Sahwa, the fundamentalist awakening movement that swept through Saudi Arabia in the '80s. His sermons against the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia following Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait helped turn bin Laden against the United States. And bin Laden told one of us in 1997 that Al Oudah's 1994 imprisonment by the Saudi regime was one of the reasons he was calling for attacks on U.S. targets. Al Oudah is also one of 26 Saudi clerics who, in 2004, handed down a religious ruling urging Iraqis to fight the U.S. occupation of their country. He is, in short, not someone Al Qaeda can paint as an American sympathizer or a tool of the Saudi government.
Tellingly, Al Qaeda has not responded to Al Oudah's critique, but the research organization Political Islam Online tracked postings on six Islamist websites and the websites of Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya TV networks in the week after Al Oudah's statements; it found that more than two-thirds of respondents reacted favorably. Al Oudah's large youth following in the Muslim world has helped his anti-Al Qaeda message resonate. In 2006, for instance, he addressed a gathering of around 20,000 young British Muslims in London's East End. "Oudah is well known by all the youth. It's almost a celebrity culture out there. ... He has definitely helped to offset Al Qaeda's rhetoric," one young imam told us.
More doubt about Al Qaeda was planted in the Muslim world when Sayyid Imam Al Sharif, the ideological godfather of Al Qaeda, sensationally withdrew his support in a book written last year from his prison cell in Cairo. Al Sharif, generally known as "Dr. Fadl," was an architect of the doctrine of takfir, arguing that Muslims who did not support armed jihad or who participated in elections were kuffar, unbelievers. Although Dr. Fadl never explicitly called for such individuals to be killed, his takfiri treatises from 1988 and 1993 gave theological cover to jihadists targeting civilians.
Dr. Fadl was also Zawahiri's mentor. Like his protégé, he is a skilled surgeon and moved in militant circles when he was a member of Cairo University's medical faculty in the '70s. In 1981, when Anwar Sadat was assassinated and Zawahiri was jailed in connection with the plot, Dr. Fadl fled to Peshawar, Pakistan, where he operated on wounded mujahedin fighting the Soviets. After Zawahiri's release from jail, he joined Dr. Fadl in Peshawar, where they established a new branch of the "Jihad group" that would later morph into Al Qaeda. Osama Rushdi, a former Egyptian jihadist then living in Peshawar, recalls that there was little doubt about Dr. Fadl's importance: "He was like the big boss in the Mafia in Chicago." And bin Laden also owed a deeply personal debt to Dr. Fadl; in Sudan in 1993, the doctor operated on Al Qaeda's leader after he was hurt in an assassination attempt.
So it was an unwelcome surprise for Al Qaeda's leaders when Dr. Fadl's new book, Rationalization of Jihad, was serialized in an independent Egyptian newspaper in November. The incentive for writing the book, he explained, was that "jihad ... was blemished with grave Sharia violations during recent years. ... [N]ow there are those who kill hundreds, including women and children, Muslims and non Muslims in the name of Jihad!" Dr Fadl ruled that Al Qaeda's bombings in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere were illegitimate and that terrorism against civilians in Western countries was wrong. He also took on Al Qaeda's leaders directly in an interview with the Al Hayat newspaper. "Zawahiri and his Emir bin Laden [are] extremely immoral," he said. "I have spoken about this in order to warn the youth against them, youth who are seduced by them, and don't know them."
Dr. Fadl's harsh words attracted attention throughout the Arabic-speaking world; even a majority of Zawahiri's own Jihad group jailed in Egyptian prisons signed on and promised to end their armed struggle. In December, Zawahiri released an audiotape lambasting his former mentor, accusing him of being in league with the "bloodthirsty betrayer" Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak; and, in a 200-page book titled The Exoneration, published in March, he replied at greater length, portraying Dr. Fadl as a prisoner trying to curry favor with Egypt's security services and the author of "a desperate attempt (under American sponsorship) to confront the high tide of the jihadist awakening."
Ultimately, the ideological battle against Al Qaeda in the West may be won in places such as Leyton and Walthamstow, largely Muslim enclaves in east London, whose residents included five of the eight alleged British Al Qaeda operatives currently on trial for plotting to bring down U.S.-bound passenger jets in 2006. It is in Britain that many leaders of the jihadist movement have settled as political refugees, and "Londonistan" has long been a key barometer of future Islamist trends. There are probably more supporters of Al Qaeda in Britain than any other Western country, and, because most British Muslims are of Pakistani origin, British militants easily can obtain terrorist training in the tribal areas of Pakistan, Al Qaeda's main operational hub since September 11. And now, because it is difficult for Al Qaeda to send Middle Eastern passport holders to the United States, the organization has particularly targeted radicalized Muslims in Britain for recruitment. So the nexus between militant British Muslims, Pakistan, and Al Qaeda has become the leading terrorist threat to the United States.
Over the last half-year, we have made several trips to London to interview militants who have defected from Al Qaeda, retired mujahedin, Muslim community leaders, and members of the security services. Most say that, when Al Qaeda's bombs went off in London in 2005, sympathy for the terrorists evaporated.
In Leyton, the neighborhood mosque is on the main road, a street of terraced houses, halal food joints, and South Asian hairdressers. Around 1,000 people attend Friday prayers there each week.
Usama Hassan, one of the imams at the mosque, has a Ph.D. in artificial intelligence from Imperial College in London, read theoretical physics at Cambridge, and now teaches at Middlesex University. But he also trained in a jihadist camp in Afghanistan in the '90s and, until a few years ago, was openly supportive of bin Laden. And, in another unusual twist, he is now one of the most prominent critics of Al Qaeda. Over several cups of Earl Grey in the tea room next to the mosque, Hassan--loquacious and intelligent, every bit the university lecturer--explained how he had switched sides.
Raised in London by Pakistani parents, Hassan arrived in Cambridge in 1989 and, feeling culturally isolated, fell in with Jamiat Ihyaa Minhaaj Al Sunnah (JIMAS), a student organization then supportive of jihads in Palestine, Kashmir, and Afghanistan. In December 1990, Hassan traveled to Afghanistan, where he briefly attended an Arab jihadist camp. He was shown how to use Kalashnikovs and M-16s and was taken to the front lines, where a shell landed near his group's position. "My feeling was, if I was killed, then brilliant, I would be a martyr," he recalls. Later, as a post-graduate student in London, Hassan played a lead role in the student Islamic Society, then a hotbed of radical activism. "At the time I was very anti-American. ... It was all black and white for us. I used to be impressed with bin Laden. There was no other leadership in the Muslim world standing up for Muslims." When September 11 happened, Hassan says the view in his circle was that "Al Qaeda had given one back to George Bush."
Still, as Al Qaeda continued to target civilians for attacks, Hassan began to rethink. His employment by an artificial intelligence consulting firm also integrated him back toward mainstream British life. "It was a slow process and involved a lot of soul-searching. ... Over time, I became convinced that bin Laden was dangerous and an extremist." The July 2005 bombings in London were the clincher. "I was devastated by the attack," he says. "My feeling was, how dare they attack my city."
Three days after the London bombings, the Leyton mosque held an emergency meeting; about 300 people attended. "We explained that these acts were evil, that they were haram," recalls Hassan. It was not the easiest of crowds; one youngster stormed out, shouting, "As far as I'm concerned, fifty dead kuffar is not a problem."
In Friday sermons since then, Hassan says that he has hammered home the difference between legitimate jihad and terrorism, despite a death threat from pro-Al Qaeda militants: "I think I'm listened to by the young because I have street cred from having spent time in a [jihadist] training camp. ... Jihadist experience is especially important for young kids because otherwise they tend to think he is just a sell-out who is a lot of talk." This spring, Hassan helped launch the Quilliam Foundation, an organization set up by former Islamist extremists to counter radicalism by making speeches to young Muslims in Great Britain about how they had been duped into embracing hatred of the West.
Such counter-radicalization efforts will help lower the pool of potential recruits for Al Qaeda--the only way the organization can be defeated in the long term. But the reality facing British counterterrorism officials, such as Detective Inspector Robert Lambert, the recently departed head of the Metropolitan police's Muslim Contact Unit, is that "Al Qaeda values dozens of recruits more than hundreds of supporters." In order to target the most radical extremists, the Metropolitan police have backed the efforts of a Muslim community group, the Active Change Foundation, based around a gym in Walthamstow run by Hanif and Imtiaz Qadir, two brothers of Kashmiri descent.
Hanif Qadir, now 42, revealed to us that he himself was recruited by Al Qaeda after the U.S. overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Jihadist recruiters in east London, no doubt noting wealth, sought out Qadir, who had earned enough money running a car repair shop to buy a Rolls-Royce and live in some style. "The guy who handled me was a Syrian called Abu Sufiyan. ... I'm sure he was from Al Qaeda," recalls Qadir. "He was good at telling you what you wanted to hear ... he touched all my emotional buttons." Qadir agreed to join. He drew up a will and, in December 2002, bought a first-class ticket to Pakistan. But, as the truck he was in crossed the dirt roads into Afghanistan, a chance occurrence changed his life: A truck, carrying wounded fighters, approached them from the other direction. Among them was a young Punjabi boy whose white robes were stained with blood. "These are evil people," another of the wounded shouted. "[W]e came here to fight jihad, but they are just using us as cannon fodder." Qadir's truckload of wannabe jihadists made a u-turn. "That kid, he was like an angel. He kicked me back into reality," recalls Qadir. "When I landed back in the U.K., I wanted to find [the Al Qaeda recruiters] and cut their heads off."
Qadir never found them, but he became determined to stop others like him from being recruited. In 2004, he and his brother opened the gym and community center in the Walthamstow neighborhood of east London. Soon, hundreds of young Muslims were attending.
The scale of the challenge was quickly clear. Soon after the center opened, he got wind that pro-Al Qaeda militants were secretly booking rooms there for their meetings. Worse, in the summer of 2006, several of those arrested in connection with the Al Qaeda airlines plot, including alleged ringleader Abdulla Ahmed Ali, were found to have attended his gym. But, rather than shutting the radicals out, Qadir continued to allow them to meet. "Sometimes our youngsters get into debates with these people, for example on jihad, and make them look ridiculous in front of their followers," he says. Qadir believes his approach is finally starting to pay off: "The extremists are burning out: The number of radicals in Walthamstow is diminishing, not growing."
At another mosque in London, the Muslim Brotherhood joined forces with the British authorities to reclaim the institution from pro-Al Qaeda militants. The Brotherhood is the most powerful Islamist group in the Arab world, with chapters throughout Europe and North America. It has long opposed Al Qaeda's jihad, a stance that so angered Zawahiri that he published a book, The Bitter Harvest, condemning the organization in 1991. From the late '90s, the Finsbury Park mosque in London had been dominated by the pro-Al Qaeda cleric Abu Hamza Al Masri. During that time, few selfrespecting jihadists traveling through London passed up the free accommodation in its basement. Visitors included Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "twentieth hijacker" of the September 11 plot, and Richard Reid, who tried to down a U.S.-bound airliner with a shoe bomb in December 2001.
In 2003, British police shut the mosque, but Abu Hamza's followers continued to have a strong presence in the area. In February 2005, police helped broker a deal for the mosque to re-open under the leadership of the local chapter of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), a Muslim Brotherhood group. No sooner had the moderates gained control of the Finsbury Park mosque than they were confronted by Abu Hamza's angry followers, led by the pugnacious Atilla Ahmet, who calls himself "the number-one Al Qaeda in Europe" and who, in October, pled guilty to providing British Muslims with terrorist training. "They brought sticks and knives with them," recalls Kamal El Helbawy, spokesman for the new trustees at the mosque.
Undeterred, a few days later Helbawy gave the first Friday sermon, explaining that this was a new start for the mosque and stressing how important it was for Muslims to live in harmony with their neighbors. Detective Inspector Lambert, the Metropolitan police officer who helped broker the takeover, says that, because of its social welfare work and its track record supporting the Palestinian cause, the MAB has "big street cred in the area and [has] made an impact on Abu Hamza's young followers."
Salman Al Oudah, the Saudi preacher, spoke at the re-opened mosque in 2006, as has Abdullah Anas, an Algerian former mujahedin fighter based in London who has been a critic of Al Qaeda for years. Anas worked with bin Laden in Pakistan during the '80s, fought in Afghanistan for almost a decade against the communists, and married the daughter of a Palestinian cleric who is still lionized as the spiritual godfather of the jihadist movement, the most radical wing of which would morph into Al Qaeda. Anas told us that his critiques of Al Qaeda were not well-received in 2003, but that, "in the last two or three years, there has been a change in opinion," citing the Madrid and London bombings as turning points. In 2006, Anas went public with his criticisms of Al Qaeda, in an interview with Asharq Al Awsat, one of the leading newspapers in the Arab world, criticizing the London subway bombings as "criminal deeds ... prohibited by the Sharia."
Detective Inspector Lambert told us preachers like Anas and Al Oudah "can't be discounted. ... When you have Muslim leaders who are attacked both by Al Qaeda supporters and by commentators who oppose engagement [with Islamists], then they are in a useful position."
In December, Al Qaeda's campaign of violence reached new depths in the eyes of many Muslims, with a plot to launch attacks in Saudi Arabia while millions were gathered for the Hajj. Saudi security services arrested 28 Al Qaeda militants in Mecca, Medina, and Riyadh, whose targets allegedly included religious leaders critical of Al Qaeda, among them the Saudi Grand Mufti Sheikh Abd Al Aziz Al Sheikh, who responded to the plot by ruling that Al Qaeda operatives should be punished by execution, crucifixion, or exile. Plotting such attacks during the Hajj could not have been more counterproductive to Al Qaeda's cause, says Abdullah Anas, who was making the pilgrimage to Mecca himself. "People over there ... were very angry. The feeling was, how was it possible for Muslims to do that? I still can't quite believe it myself. The mood was one of shock, real shock."
Is Al Qaeda going to dissipate as a result of the criticism from its former mentors and allies? Despite the recent internal criticism, probably not in the short term. As one of us reported in The New Republic early last year, Al Qaeda, on the verge of defeat in 2002, has regrouped and is now able to launch significant terrorist operations in Europe ("Where You Bin?" January 29, 2007). And, last summer, U.S. intelligence agencies judged that Al Qaeda had "regenerated its [U.S.] Homeland attack capability" in Pakistan's tribal areas. Since then, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have only entrenched their position further, launching a record number of suicide attacks in Pakistan in the past year. Afghanistan, Algeria, and Iraq also saw record numbers of suicide attacks in 2007 (though the group's capabilities have deteriorated in Iraq of late). Meanwhile, Al Qaeda is still able to find recruits in the West. In November, Jonathan Evans, the head of Britain's domestic intelligence agency MI5, said that record numbers of U.K. residents are now supportive of Al Qaeda, with around 2,000 posing a "direct threat to national security and public safety." That means that Al Qaeda will threaten the United States and its allies for many years to come.
However, encoded in the DNA of apocalyptic jihadist groups like Al Qaeda are the seeds of their own long-term destruction: Their victims are often Muslim civilians; they don't offer a positive vision of the future (but rather the prospect of Taliban-style regimes from Morocco to Indonesia); they keep expanding their list of enemies, including any Muslim who doesn't precisely share their world view; and they seem incapable of becoming politically successful movements because their ideology prevents them from making the real-world compromises that would allow them to engage in genuine politics.
Which means that the repudiation of Al Qaeda's leaders by its former religious, military, and political guides will help hasten the implosion of the jihadist terrorist movement. As Churchill remarked after the battle of El Alamein in 1942, which he saw as turning the tide in World War II, "[T]his is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
Noman Benotman, bin Laden's Libyan former companion-in-arms, assesses that Al Qaeda's recent resurgence, which he says has been fueled by the Iraq war, will not last. "There may be a wave of violence right now, but ... in five years, Al Qaeda will be more isolated than ever. No one will give a toss about them." And, given the religio-ideological basis of Al Qaeda's jihad, the religious condemnation now being offered by scholars and fighters once close to the organization is arguably the most important development in stopping the group's spread since September 11. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell tacitly acknowledged this in his yearly report to Congress in February, when he testified that, "Over the past year, a number of religious leaders and fellow extremists who once had significant influence with Al Qaeda have publicly criticized it and its affiliates for the use of violent tactics."
Most of these clerics and former militants, of course, have not suddenly switched to particularly progressive forms of Islam or fallen in love with the United States (all those we talked to saw the Iraqi insurgency as a defensive jihad), but their anti-Al Qaeda positions are making Americans safer. If this is a war of ideas, it is their ideas, not the West's, that matter. The U.S. government neither has the credibility nor the Islamic knowledge to effectively debate Al Qaeda's leaders, but the clerics and militants who have turned against them do. Juan Zarate, a former federal prosecutor and a key counterterrorism adviser to President Bush, acknowledged as much in a speech in April when he said, "These challenges from within Muslim communities and even extremist circles will be insurmountable at the end of the day for Al Qaeda."
These new critics, in concert with mainstream Muslim leaders, have created a powerful coalition countering Al Qaeda's ideology. According to Pew polls, support for Al Qaeda has been dropping around the Muslim world in recent years. The numbers supporting suicide bombings in Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh, for instance, have dropped by half or more in the last five years. In Saudi Arabia, only 10 percent now have a favorable view of Al Qaeda, according to a December poll by Terror Free Tomorrow, a Washington-based think tank. Following a wave of suicide attacks in Pakistan in the past year, support for suicide operations amongst Pakistanis has dropped to 9 percent (it was 33 percent five years ago), while favorable views of bin Laden in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, around where he is believed to be hiding, have plummeted to 4 percent from 70 percent since August 2007.
Unsurprisingly, Al Qaeda's leaders have been thrown on the defensive. In December, bin Laden released a tape that stressed that "the Muslim victims who fall during the operations against the infidel Crusaders ... are not the intended targets." Bin Laden warned the former mujahedin now turning on Al Qaeda that, whatever their track records as jihadists, they had now committed one of the "nullifiers of Islam," which is helping the "infidels against the Muslims."
Kamal El Helbawy, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who helped bring in moderates at the Finsbury Park mosque in London, believes that Al Qaeda's days may be numbered: "No government, no police force, is achieving what these [religious] scholars are achieving. To defeat terrorism, to convince the radicals ... you have to persuade them that theirs is not the path to paradise."
Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank are research fellows at New York University's Center on Law and Security. Peter Bergen is also a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of The Osama Bin Laden I Know.
68 comments
Fascinating and important story. Thanks for the report.
- beb
May 24, 2008 at 10:07am
One must wonder if the authors believe the sudden "come to jesus", pardon the pun, actions noted here. 180 degree flips in radical positions does not often happen with sincerity. The problem here is that these so-called oppositions to al-murderers are claimed to have been started years ago, yet where is the international declaration that says it's so? Islam declares that it is absolutely acceptable to lie to the infidel's face when the muslim is in a tight spot....hello!!!!! Get real, folks. This is propaganda of the first degree. The enemy in this case, radical islam, is on the ropes due to effective western combat measures. Are you seriously prepared to believe the 180 degree flips of admitted radicals? C'mon! Don't be a fool.
- CT
May 26, 2008 at 1:09am
Thank you, George Bush. As Osama himself has said, "when the people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they naturally gravitate toward the strong horse." America has proven that al-Qaeda was the weaker horse, and as this article has shown, radical Muslims are abandoning them in droves. Undoubtedly, there are those who claim that the complete battlefield defeat the U.S. military has inflicted on al-Queda in Iraq and Afghanistan has nothing to do with this, but they're being disingenuous. Does anyone doubt that if al-Qaeda had succeeded in pushing the Americans out of Iraq we'd be reading stories like this? Of course not, it's only because American forces have proven that military victory is not possible for the jihadis that they're now singing this new song. So, thank you George Bush, for defeating al-Qaeada in Iraq and forcing radical Muslims to consider more peaceful means of change.
- DelD
May 26, 2008 at 8:39am
In the end, it sounds like OBL is just like any other revolutionary. First they embrace an ideal. Then they come to see themselves as its only true defender. Finally, they consider themselves the ideal. At that point, they are simply power-mad dictators in search of the capability to enthrone themselves.
- Bethanie
May 26, 2008 at 12:19pm
We could have saved a lots of money and lives by dropping crates of liquor and hashish over Afghanistan and Iraq! Bush the Dumb Ass!!
- Dan
May 26, 2008 at 12:52pm
Well I can see that the comment section is always an interesting read. At least two of the readers either did not read the article or that it went right over their heads. From what I read none of these militants put on an American flag on their lapel, and they did not do it thanks to George Bush. I feel foolish just reminding this gentleman that Al Qaida was not in Iraq until we invaded the place with false motives. As far as the other commentator, it did not sound as if any of these turn arounds was anything like a 180 degree change. Al Qaida is loosing support because they are killing their own. They have become the agents of their own undoing. Thanks for this report. It is the kind of nuanced coverage that Americans really need but will not be reported by quick time media speeding to a commercial break.
- fh
May 27, 2008 at 12:43am
First class analysis. congratulations!
- MichaelT
May 27, 2008 at 2:22am
It is inevitable that Muslims will see the evil in an organization that targets fellow Muslims. The best way to encourage this is to promote true education in the Arab world, rather than the propaganda in Madrasas. And to withdraw from Iraq, where our presence, as this article indicates, is still preventing us from achieving long-term success.
- Observer
May 27, 2008 at 10:13am
DelD, did you actually read the article? al-Qaeda is weakening internally, not because of our actions. Yours is the same mentality that gives Reagan credit for the fall of the Soviet Union, rather than the recognition of a bankrupt regime collapsing on itself.
- Dave
May 27, 2008 at 11:57am
DelD, Did you read the article? "...all those we talked to saw the Iraqi insurgency as a defensive jihad." The opposition to al Qaeda has not increased because of our efforts in Iraq, but in spite of it.
- twodox
May 27, 2008 at 12:01pm
"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." Also, the remark about how it's permissible for muslims to lie to us kuffars (unintended bonus of all this-> we all get to indignantly taunt militant muslims over the word: "what's up, my kuffar?") is poignant, though the article does a pretty good job of subtly responding to it.
- HellifIknow
May 27, 2008 at 12:16pm
I am irked about Usama Hassan's response to the London and Madrid terrorist attacks. He is appalled at these activities when it hits close to home, but is able to applaud it when the same tactics are accomnplished at a distance. Our politicians need to visit the battlefield on a regular basis before making decisions pertaining to it. They too need some street cred.
- CalVet
May 27, 2008 at 12:38pm
Good article but I'll believe it when I actually see droves of them abandon al-qaeda. Why did it take these fools so long to see the path that bin laden was leading them down? Had we sat on our asses and not attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, they may still not have realized the price for following this blind ideology. I got no problem with these people but they've been taking potshots at us every couple of years until the big one on 9/11. It shouldn't take something as big as that for us to wake up - we should have realized this jihad crap after the USS Cole, Lebanese bombings, WTC 1, and all the other airline bombings over the past 50 years.
- JWL2672
May 27, 2008 at 12:50pm
"The opposition to al Qaeda has not increased because of our efforts in Iraq, but in spite of it." So opposition to al-Qaeda has not increased because of their barbarism in Iraq and our shellacking of it, but in spite of that. Brilliant reasoning. It's quite simple: al-Qaeda didn't win, so they lost. If al-Qaeda had been able to force the US to leave Iraq in disgrace, there wouldn't have been a backlash against AQ to this degree. Victory absolves the victors, that kind of thing. But AQ has lost in Iraq, and they lost because George Bush refused to surrender. The Sunni Awakening Councils weren't able to beat AQI until the US military added its weight to their efforts. There's no way that Baqubah and the southern suburbs of Baghdad would have been taken away from AQI without the joint effort of the US military and the Sunni tribes. There's no way that the Mahdi Army would have been forced from the streets of Basra and Baghdad by the Iraqi Army without the backing of the US military. If AQ had been triumphant in Iraq, Osama would still be on top of the terrorist world instead of taking a back seat to this Mehsud character. AQ lost in Iraq because of the US military, and the US military was there because George Bush refused to surrender. This argument about they weren't there before the invasion is irrelevant, and that's why it hasn't been effective. It's like saying in 1939 that Hitler wouldn't be in charge if the Treaty of Versailles had been less harsh. It doesn't matter. Hitler was in charge, AQ is in Iraq. You don't compound one mistake - invading Iraq - by making a bigger one - losing by choice in Iraq. The Iraqi insurgency doesn't exist anymore. There's al-Qaeda and the few Sunni groups it still controls, and the Mahdi Army. Neither of them hold the support of anywhere near a majority. One is a foreign occupier itself, and the other is a rebellion against the Iraqi government, not a rebellion against a foreign occupier. The Mahdi Army isn't defending against anything. Whatever "defensive insurgency" there was in Iraq ended in 2006 when the majority of Sunnis switched sides and most definitely ended this spring when the Maliki government started taking on, and beating, the Mahdi Army. The reason this ideological split has occurred in the Muslim world is that the US and the Iraqi government have largely defeated their foes. Why isn't Nancy Pelosi bringing up withdrawal bills every two weeks like she was? Because she knows that we're winning and withdrawal for the reason "we're losing" can't pass muster anymore. If AQ was winning in Iraq, they'd be powerful enough that this dissent from them would be much less widespread and much more timid. You can thank George Bush for that not being the case whether you like it or not, he is the reason why.
- chaos
May 27, 2008 at 1:19pm
Very good article. finally some reporting devoid of the ultra right or ultra left leanings of the mainstream press. I found this quite informative. Thank you.
- Byron
May 27, 2008 at 2:59pm
While I really enjoyed this article and a very similar article by Lawrence Wright today at the New Yorker, all of these researchers manage to see the results of President Bush's war on terror yet won't grant him one bit of credit for the turn. I started documenting the split of the jihad at the American Thinker over a year ago by watching the Pakistan and Arab media and seeing the affect of al Qaeda's loss in Iraq (which did not start recently but rather the Anbar Awakening actually began in early 2007) and a similar phenomenon happening in Pakistan as certain Taliban tribes began to turn on al Qaeda. It was no accident. President Bush gave them the carrot and the stick and now the al Qaeda supporting masses have grown weary of the stick and are taking the carrot. Make no mistake, just as the jihadi mentions in this article, his mind was changed by a truckload of bleeding jihadis, not peace negotiations. We should be happy the jihadis are talking peace, but don't let them fool you. It's not out of a change of heart, it is the military defeat of al Qaeda by President Bush that brought us to this point. Author of Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents. www.bothinonetrench.com
- Ray Robison
May 27, 2008 at 3:08pm
Hi Chaos, You have a good point, but you are sort of missing the bigger point here even as you tell others that their arguments are irrelevant. Like many of the commentators on this story you have immediately seized it to further your political argument vis-a-vis Iraq. Yes, it's true that "cutting and running" from Iraq would've been a disaster and would have been a major triumph for Al Qaeda... a position no major political leader including Nanci Pelosi was advocating, by the way, but hey, it's still an important point since there were some minor political leaders pushing in that direction, as well as various commentators, professors, pundits, etc. Cudos to President Bush for, after years of mismanaged idiocy, finally getting his/our act together in Iraq. That point, as important as it may seem to you and to many other readers, really has little bearing on this article. President Bush's policy in Iraq did not bring about this change amongst the moderate, or perhaps still radical but nevertheless sane Muslim leadership. Indeed, according to all accounts, it exacerbated it and yes, the point that George Bush is the one who made the mistake of taking us into Iraq is in fact a HIGHLY relevant point, both in evaluating the presidency of GW Bush and, more importantly in terms of the article, in the minds of said (relatively) moderate Muslim thinkers. The dope that got us into this mess is finally, after thousands of Americans dead, starting to make modest progress n getting us out. Hardly admirable or laudable behavior in a president even though, yes, he realized correctly that we could not just "cut and run" while leaving Al Qaeda intact in Iraq. Hardly the type of action that will lead to the long-term "winning over" of Muslim ideologues. But the point, which you and others missed, of this article is that the leading thinkers in the Muslim World are disowning Al Qaeda, even as many of them continue to support insurgency in Iraq. According to Richard Clark in his book Against All Enemies there was a tremendous surge of sympathy for the US after 9/11 in the Muslim World that could have, had it been a presidentially priority, strengthened and fostered the moderate Muslim leadership. This was squandered when we invaded Iraq. In fighting the US Al Qaeda adopted disgusting tactics an this, not George Bush, is the reason why so many of the people in this article have broken with them. Had we gone after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2002, instead of Iraq, Al Qaeda would have resorted to the same tactics. The only difference is that had we done that we might just have succeeded in wiping them off the map, which admittedly may not have yielded this same "disowning of Al Qaeda" because it would've been a moot point. However, there can be no doubt that had we focussed on fighting our true enemies, rather than pursuing our bogus Iraq strategy, our standing within the eyes of the Muslim world and the people cited in this article, would be IMMEASURABLY higher. So please, don't give Bush more than the little bit of credit he deserves for this. He has done a terrible job. Yes, it could have been worse, and good for him for finally getting off his behind and buckling down on stabilizing Iraq, especially with it's significant electoral consequences. But your statement that "like it or not, he is the reason why?!?" Not true. Under a different President (and I'm not going to name any names) this disowning of Al Qaeda could have led, and may yet still lead, to a warming of these same thinkers attitudes towards the US and the West. Under Bush, these changes were not his strategic objective in any way, have gone all but unnoticed, and took place in spite of, not because of, him. Please, don't leverage a moderately successful few months in Iraq into the nail for the horse shoe for the horse for the knight for the army that won the "Ideology War" between Al Qaeda and other less radical Muslims. To give Bush credit for the eye-opening going on amongst the Muslim thinkers, well, it just ain't so. Yes, it could've been worse - "Cut and Run," but it also could've been immeasurably better, Al Qaeda wiped out in 2002, Pakistan and Afghanistan friendly pro-US regimes, oil down in the $40/barrel zone, and a wicked twisted Iranian leader who was elected first and foremost because of his anti-west lunatic ravings would have still been out in the Persian backwaters where he belongs. As for your Hitler analogy, it (and I'm sure you didn't intend it this way) could easily be twisted to have America comes out as either Nazi Germany (invading of Iraq brings in Al Qaeda = German Plurality elects Adolph Hitler) or the D-Day Invasion (liberators of Iraq from oppressive tyranny), depending on ones perspective. So please, let's leave Hitler back in the 1930's where he belongs, and may his name be blotted out. It sickens me even to have to type it. I hope that's helpful. Sorry for the long post, took a while to untangle this highly subjective subject matter.
- Gavriel Meir-Levi
May 27, 2008 at 3:12pm
The particularly interesting insight was in the words "To defeat terrorism, to convince the radicals ... you have to persuade them that theirs is not the path to paradise." Those of you who think that removal of Sadam and the establishment of a free democracy in the Middle East had nothing to do with that 'persuasion' are on a different planet from the one history will written about. It was not the whole persuasion no, but it was an important component and one not claimed by those responsible because of other mistakes.
- Ian Campbell
May 27, 2008 at 3:21pm
fucking idiot
-
May 27, 2008 at 3:24pm
"Post Date Wednesday, June 11, 2008" Anyone got a crystal ball, or is someone wishing on a star?
- chaz
May 27, 2008 at 3:37pm
It's May 27, 2008 and I'm reading an article dated June 11. 2008. A time machine of some kind?
-
May 27, 2008 at 10:11pm
There are those who find this a rather US-centric analysis and drawing the wrong conclusions from some successes against AlQaeda - which is only the part of the battle that America is aware of and the authors seem to be forgetting. "the authors’ apparent naivety and ignorance have nevertheless led them to some dangerously wrong conclusions, particularly in their analysis of what is happening in Britain" then "This is because there are two arms to the jihadi pincer: terrorist attack and cultural attack; and the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists use either or both depending on circumstances and upon differing strategic points of view between groups under the same jihadi umbrella." and "For example, they write: Kamal el Helbawy, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who helped bring in moderates at the Finsbury Park mosque in London... This shows a truly lamentable ignorance." For those of you with an open mind I suggest that you go to: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/735986/dangerous-naivety.thtml for some other perspective on what appears to be a rather inadequate piece of journalism - if at least partly informative.
- Ian Campbell
May 28, 2008 at 12:46pm
Please repeat after me.... "Bush is right" "Bush is right" "Bush is right" "Bush is right" "Bush kicks ass!!!"
- TheEnforcer
May 28, 2008 at 9:55pm
The reasons for these jihadists to turn against Al Quaeda are the indiscriminate killings of civilians by suicide bombers in London, Madrid and in Iraq. The fact that bin Laden resorted to these desperate tactics because they are in a desperate situation. Just imagine, bin Laden, hiding in caves with his close associates in Northern Pakistan, while most of his top level operatives have systematically been captured or killed all over the whole, especially hundreds of them are killed in Iraq during the recent US military surge. The US military exerted tremendous pressure on al Quaeda such that they resort to these murderous suicide missions which killed thousands of Muslims. These tactics turned the more moderate jihadists off. The final analysis is that, without the US military operations, bin Laden would probably not resort to these murderous suicide missions.
- jt
May 29, 2008 at 1:03am
Gavriel, You err in several respects. One, you insist that invading Iraq was a mistake. This has been shouted so continuosly for the last 3 years that it is widely accepted as "truth". One need to only read Douglas Fieths book "War and Decision" to realize that George Bush is no "dope" as you so ignorantly put it. Decisions are made with the knowledge available at the time, not some "perfect' knowledge we may wish were available to our leaders. If you would take the time to read Mr. Fieths extensively documented book you would find that contrary to popular dogma the decision was a very well thought out and carefully considered strategic response to the challenge posed by the rogue state Saddam controlled and his very real connections to terror groups including Al Qaeda. I personally think it was the correct decision for the time. It is true that the war has been more difficult than we would hope but the result has been spectacular. We now see the Bin Laden hopes of global jihad smashed by the fist of our amazing military. Thanks to the strength of President Bush we will leave Iraq over the next few years and we will leave it a functioning democracy in the heart of the Arab world. No one can deny that this is a result greatly benefitial to the US. Iraqi's are not unlike others in that they recognise the truth when they confront it. They recognise the vile nature of the jihadists and they are now realizeing that the US has no design upon Iraq other than to stabilize the country under a moderate democratic government. This will pay dividends far into the future for the image of the US in the Moslem world and greater Arabia. I expect that many who read this will find my view incredible or naive. I say this, however, as the father of a US marine recently returned from Iraq. I have listened carefully to he and his comrades and, haveing a greater than usual interest in the truth of the Iraq situation, I have made a close study of all I could find on the war and it's aftermath. What is truly frightening to me is the level of downright disinformation that has been spread by our media and the great disservice it is causing our country. Many actually believe we have lost in iraq and some kind of forced stalemate is the best we can hope for. The truth is that we have all but won and are inflicting a crushing defeat upon Al Qaeda and the Iranian interests. I pray we will stay the course for the next couple of years it will take to cement this success.
- Steve Walser
May 29, 2008 at 2:59am
It is patently obvious that the path to victory over terror lies through winning the minds and souls of the prospective terror recruits. George Bush had done almost everything possible to lose this battle. This battle can only be won by encouraging moderation, temperance, and tolerance. We must thank the moderate Muslim clerics who find a way to attack our common enemy without losing their own faith. It is also clearly obvious that the banrupt George Bush foreign policies and military adventures had put our country (US) in the same light as common thugs not the "bringer of freedom and democracy". George Bush almost managed to surrender the entire Middle East to terrorism.
- Goliath74
May 29, 2008 at 9:18am
Sad watching people lump Al-Qaeda into the Muslim faith. Think of it this way. We have the religious sect in Texas that was just raided and kids pulled out over abuse. Yes they are Christians, but should they be labeled next to Catholics, etc.? As a Muslim looking in, should all Christians be seen as if they have compounds in Texas?
- John Doe
May 29, 2008 at 10:53am
Ralph Peters has a great article in the NY Post today particularizing the same phenomenom to Iraq: http://www.nypost.com/seven/05292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_quit_iraq_time_travelers_112963.htm Love to all.
- Salt
May 29, 2008 at 11:06am
All you W haters out there that still can't give him his due for taking the fight to these clowns are living in la la land. The only reason any of these clowns turned their towels against OBL is because they see that OBL can't get it done and the reason he can't get it done is because America and W said enough and brought the fight to them instead of just waiting for the next attack. I just love how posters here say that had nothing to do with it when the article clearly states how these so called moderates were appalled at how people were being killed in Iraq and elsewhere. W bought them to the front pages showing the cruelty of these animals for what they are. The light has been shown on them and in the end it still comes down to winners and losers and no one wants to be on the side of the losers. Lastly Pelosi and crowd did want all troops out asap no matter the situation on the ground so save the rewriting of that history for someone that does not know the truth.
- kabookey
May 29, 2008 at 11:16am
As Osama himself has said, "when the people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they naturally gravitate toward the strong horse." The vast majority of governments in the Islamic world are based on the cult of personality of their leaders. The people of this region still cling to tribal identification as a method of self-identification. This leads to some groups being willing to take on the responsibility of takfir; to say that they have the right to deem who is righteous. This part of the world has never gone through an Enlightenment like that of Western Europe, where our value system is based. The largest mistake in the democritization of Iraq is the same mistake that was made with Vietnamization: you can't build a Western-style democracy with peoples who do not share a view of equality. I am glad to see that Al Qaeda is being slowly exposed to the Muslim world for what they truly are. I just wish that we had a stronger understanding of how our own traditions developed before we sought to enforce them on others.
- cultjake
May 29, 2008 at 11:26am
Thanks to the focus of George Bush, such things are a possibility. I say possibility because I don't fully trust such a "change of heart" among those sworn to the destruction of Western Civilization.
- Gigantus
May 29, 2008 at 11:27am
Very, very interesting. Obviously not well-reported or understood by the current media. One thing the reporters left out. There are tens of thousands of dedicated special operations soldiers among the allied nations dedicated to hunting and killing the Jihadists. They have caused enormous attrition of the Jihadists over the past 6 years. Hard core reality at some level has to intrude in some way in the minds of many recruits once they encounter these troops, if they are lucky enough to survive. My son who has been killing them for 6 years. He has seen many atrocities of what they do to fellow Muslims as well as anyone else who does not accept their perspective. The passion he feels for hunting these killers is astonishing. Quite a few now linger somewhere on the Other Side perhaps still hoping for their 72 virgins thanks to his efforts and those of his special ops buddies.
- DavidinDC
May 29, 2008 at 11:59am
Excellent article---and, one of several that I've seen lately in multiple outlets that echo the same sentiments. One may argue with the premises bandied about for entering Iraq (I supported it, but one may validly disagree); one can hardly with a straight face question the decision to enter Afghanistan, although he success of that effort is routinely ignored by the American press and liberal intelligentsia. Be that as it may: US forces in Iraq, after some bad strategic missteps, were and remain the seawall upon which al-Qaeda hammered its efforts for nought. They are fragmented; increasingly discredited among their original cadre of internal and public supporters; they've delivered nothing (much like Arafat and sundry other 'leaders' in the Middle East who are more focused upon their own aggrandizement) to the populace; in a word: FAILURE. Nobody backs a loser forever. Hate the US administration all you like now: twenty years from now, the wisdom of their efforts will be recognized not only domestically, but among those in Afghanistan, Iraq and one hopes other liberalizing countries in the region, that could never have achieved self governance without US intervention. Oh, and PS: all you liberals and radical Islamophiles, could you try to use correct spelling, punctuation and avoid hysterical obscentiies in your posts? It really exposes your lack of debate skills and objective data. Thank you.
- M Lyster
May 29, 2008 at 12:11pm
Excellent article. What seems to fly over the heads of many commentators here is that US pressure on Al Qaeda is forcing their hand, pushing them to engage in the very tactics that are alienating them from the larger body of Muslims. On 9/11 there was a significant, if not a majority, of Muslims who were sympathetic to Al Qaeda and approved of the attacks. Once the body count changed from being "dirty infidels" to being Muslims the Muslims began to change their minds. Minus the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq the body bags would still be filled, but with non-Muslim bodies. There is no reason to suppose the majority in the Muslim world would have found Al Qaeda and it's tactics offensive then. These changes in attitude from former jihadiis is disingenuous. They aren't objecting to Al Qaeda murdering people, they're objecting to Al Qaeda murdering Muslims. Nothing more. Al Qaeda is now impacting the broader Muslim world where it hurts - it is making Islam look like a murderous ideology not unlike Nazism or Communism. The PR value of Al Qaeda's actions is a gross net negative for Islam and Islamic fundamentalists and they are coming to that realization that 9/11 and the events after it are not to their benefit, ie, the dirty Kuffar will not happily agree to be a dhimmi. At least not Americans.
- JohnB
May 29, 2008 at 12:33pm
Important and interesting article. Great reporting. After some of TNR's recent problems I was encouraged to read such a serious and thoughtful story.
- Tom Myers
May 29, 2008 at 12:42pm
The Soviet Union DID collapse as a result of President Reagan's actions. Reagan ensured the bankruptcy of the U.S.S.R. by starting an arms race, both real and projected, he knew the Soviets could not with. The Soviets fell for it hook, line and sinker. The result? A total collapse of the Soviet Union as a result of now empty coffers. George Bush, with the all out war on terror--while rebuilding and greatly enhancing Iraqi infrastructure--is accomplishing much the same thing: Al Qaeda is bankrupt. It has depleted its "jihadist good-will" coffers. An interesting---and supportive read: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000172.html
- J Baer
May 29, 2008 at 12:54pm
After the September 11 attacks, we went into Iraq with three primary Strategic Goals in mind: 1) Remove the threat to Saudi Arabia (and its oil fields) posed by Saddam Hussein, thus allowing us to: 2) Remove our troops from the Saudi Holy Lands, thus allowing us to: 3) Deprive Bin Laden of his primary argument for jihad. All three of these strategic goals have been met and the article shows the results of that success. Unfortunately we used as a pretext for war A) the denial to Saddam of nuclear arms and B) the imposition of Democracy in the Middle East -- the first of which proved unnecessary and the second of which proved imperfect-- thus causing a drop in support for the invasion of Iraq that actually has achieved the positive results the West most needed to counter Al Qaeda.
- SpencerG
May 29, 2008 at 12:58pm
A great Article. I believe that us being in Iraq accidentally helped this change, it was not by design. If you look at it from both sides.. if we were not there, AQI would not have killed so many innocent muslims in the Middle East, therefore this problem with AQ killing Muslims wouldn't be so evident. I have always believed the only way to wipe out AQ was to get the muslims to turn against them because of their actions against innocent Muslims... I was concerned because I just didn't see this happening. I hope this movement from muslims to stand up to AQ continues and this is the only chance that there is a possible peace in the Middle East. I really feel bad for the young muslims that were douped into fighting for AQ under brainwashed logic. I hope the muslim world cleans it house and life will be much better for all in future.
- steve
May 29, 2008 at 1:13pm
I'm SOOOOO confused! I thought America's War on Terrorism and in Iraq was suppose to create NEW terrorists making America less secure. What happened? Quick, get a note to Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry(The War is Lost) Reid to conjure up some new talking points for Obama to read before its too late!
- Mike of Minnesota
May 29, 2008 at 1:32pm
"This battle can only be won by encouraging moderation, temperance, and tolerance." Yeah. Like Clinton did when he got in office. Then they bombed the WTC. He encouraged more moderation. Khobar Towers. He encouraged more temperance. Embassy bombings. He encouraged more tolerance. The USS Cole. He encouraged more of all three. Given that 9/11 topped all those together, came after them and was perpetrated by mostly the same people, I'd say that approach wasn't really working all that great, wouldn't you? "We must thank the moderate Muslim clerics who find a way to attack our common enemy without losing their own faith. It is also clearly obvious that the banrupt George Bush foreign policies and military adventures had put our country (US) in the same light as common thugs not the "bringer of freedom and democracy"." No. No, it's not "clearly obvious" at all. Foreign policy could have been a little smoother, sure. I'd rather he hadn't said "If you're not with us you're with the terrorists." The real situation was "if you're with us, welcome and you have our thanks. If you're against us, prepare for your 72 virgins. If you're neither, please make sure to stay out of the way." And Cheney's "Old Europe" comment, while delicious to behold, didn't really shut up the yapping poodles of France and Germany, which is a pain. But on the whole, foreign policy has been SPOT ON. We have all the right enemies. If Chavez or the mullahs or Kim LIKED us, then I'd be very worried. I much prefer the Aussies, Brits, Poles and others. "George Bush almost managed to surrender the entire Middle East to terrorism." But instead, he's managed to bring a multiheaded insurgency backed by international terrorists and at least two neighboring countries within a stone's throw of victory. Check history. What's the average time it takes historically to put an insurgency down? Turns out the average is between 10 and 15 years. Bush has it almost done in 5. One last general point...is it my imagination, or is there an anti-anti-Bush backlash developing? Certain people have been yapping and yapping and yapping and YAPPING for YEARS now about how terrible Bush is and how he's the antichrist and how nobody is dumber (yet nobody is more of an evil genius) and how everything from the price of gas in the US to the dissappearing martian polar caps and new spots on Jupiter are his fault and his alone. They make invalid points and then repeat them ad nausem until they're "facts", which they then use to construct other flights of anti-Bush fantasy. Gratifying as it is to see him giving the right people fits of rage the same way Reagan did in his day, it gets old after most of a decade. But I've noticed a few more pro-Bush and Bush-neutral posts on various blogs here and there. It warms my heart to see people looking for causes of bad effects other than the Bush administration. More than that, it might portend the worst of all possible outcomes for moonbats everywhere....Bush might be remembered as the first US president that was actually able to make an overall positive difference in the ME. He's certainly the first to make a positive difference in Africa, after all.
- Agoraphobic Plumber
May 29, 2008 at 1:36pm
In the end, outside of the deaths of Westerners, Al Qaeda may be a good thing for the West because it has turned inward. We may not want to rub it out completely. If it can be contained within the Muslim world it may do us a great service.
- doctorfixit
May 29, 2008 at 2:19pm
to comment 33: The history of terrorism is the history of terrorist groups becoming more and more isolated from and repugnant to the population they claim to represent. The article brings this dynamic to life. This dynamic would have played itself out either way. Had we routed bin Laden in the first place, it would have played out faster. Even if some of his group survived with out him and went ahead with the Saudi plan and European attacks, the same Arab and Muslim forced cited above would have turned against them. The Iraq invasion gave cover to the extremists of Al Quaeda who claimed to be part of a genuine Iraqi resistance. In fact, hiding in the anarchy of Iraq was safer than trying to carry out other visible attacks when you're wanted by a global alliance of intelligence agencies, police, and governments sharing information on your whereabouts. It wasn't until the Awakening Councils turned on Al Queda Iraq that the decimation of their group began. Twenty years from now, history won't be written just by the (in this case wounded) conquerors. And war will be judged through a more precise lens. History is likely to judge the Bush administration badly because having failed to eradicate its enemy with the surgical precision within it reach, it took up the butcher knife instead.
- CAMtwo
May 29, 2008 at 2:27pm
The truth always comes out. Events on the ground, Iraqi awakenings, Maliki's progress at reconciliation etc are moving forward inexorably. Feith's book is a small step towards unraveling the Big Lie being foisted by the media that Iraq is a pointless failure and the Middle East is hopeless so we should run away. Looking back liberating Iraq will hopefully be the start to healing the Middle East and freeing its people from backwardness and tyranny. Thanks to George W. Bush.
- Hap Arnold
May 29, 2008 at 2:32pm
Your elitist and ignorant "false motives" sound bite comes right off of Nancy Pelosi's (and Osama bin Laden's)press book. Yet, the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force recognizes not one (WMD which were not found), but more than 20 specific "whereas" items justifying the use of force. Please, inform yourself. The war was not fought on "false motives" - it was "sold" to dupes like you who needed a reason other than the scores of violated resolutions and thousands of shots fired at our aircraft enforcing UN mandate, to finally take needed action.
- J Aragon
May 29, 2008 at 2:44pm
Sure, these Al Qaeda bigshots have suddenly "found Jesus". Iraqi citizens turned on Al Qaeda first, once Petraeus' surge convinced them we'd stick around to defend them. Then the U.S troops, the Sons of Iraq, the Iraqi armed forces and police began killing Al Qaeda members. And then they started killing the Mahdi army militias. Now the world can clearly see that if you are Al Qaeda and you come now to Iraq, chances are very good you'll soon be dead. The thoughts of having 72 virgins suddenly isn't looking like such a great deal after all. Like one U.S. army commander said on the mnf-iraq website, "our goal is to kill them all."
- sweetmick
May 29, 2008 at 6:51pm
Sometimes, one cannot see the forest for the trees. It has been argued that Al Qaeda is only one aspect/snakehead/speartip of an inherently violent and evil ideology, maintained by threat of force, founded on the Koran. Some argue that belief in Islam is a form of mental illness and thus, those so deluded are easily flung into homicidal rages. Individual Muslims deserve our compassion and aid. Most Muslims seem to have little interest in atheistic secular humanism. Some recommend that Muslims worldwide be allowed to read the Bible and texts from other religions and be given the right to freely choose their faith. Google Coptic priest - Zakaria Botros.
- Thor
May 29, 2008 at 7:43pm
Withdrawal under the proper set of circumstances. It must be clear to AQ that the United States is leaving on its own terms under the banner of victory. What is victory in Iraq? An Iraqi Army that is properly trained and equiped to deal with civil unrest, secure its borders and defeat foreign insurgancies. Secondly, the Iraqi government must be stable and able to successfully govern the Shia, Sunni and Kurds and provide a viable economic future for its people. Positive signs are leading in that direction. The West and in particular Americans must have the will and patience to see this criteria met.
- DawgByte
May 29, 2008 at 7:55pm
TO those who keeps beating the old drum "AQ was not in Iraq when Bush invaded it" - true. AQ was in Paris, London, Hamburg and Seattle plotting further 9-11. But they had to drop that and come to Iraq to get slaughtered with the tanks and gunships in 10s of 1000s. Everybody with an ounce of brain should be elated that AQ was lured into Iraq. If it was done on purpose, it was absolutely brilliant move.
- Ivan
May 29, 2008 at 8:05pm
***This battle can only be won by encouraging moderation, temperance, and tolerance." Yeah. Like Clinton did when he got in office. Then they bombed the WTC. He encouraged more moderation. Khobar Towers. He encouraged more temperance. Embassy bombings. He encouraged more tolerance. *** Not true. That time around he bombed civilian targets in Yugoslavia in support of the Muslim terrorist organization KLA with the links to Bin Laden. No tolerance there. I wonder why.
- Ivan
May 29, 2008 at 8:09pm
TNR readers can't get past their BDS to acknowledge the reality that AL Q's conduct in Iraq has contributed to their downfall. They have openly acknowledged this in a variety of communications, both public and private, in letters, videos, and in their online Q&A session. You don't have to credit Bush for this reality, but your hatred for him can't blind you to it either. The fact is these animals overplayed their hand in spite of the anti war effort and a supportive media overcompensating for its pre-war failures of challenging the administration. Al Q has done the following in Iraq: Used mentally retarded muslim bombers Attacked schools Intentionally attempted to incite civil war among Muslims Increased attacks on Muslim holy days Attacked mosques Attacked clerics You have to be brain dead to realize these misguided strategies haven't contributed to Al Q's ever decreasing popularity. Put aside your hate of Bush and wake up. Their indiscriminate attacks that kill innocent muslims more than "guilty" westerners coupled with extreme violence and consistent defeats around the world have been their own undoing, and their misguided adventure in Iraq contributed to their fall. This doesn't make Bush's decision (with the backing of Democrats in Congress) right, but his mistakes don't make it fantasy either. Stop being Bush's and come out of the BDS bubble. Steve gets it. Along one need do is look at the changes in Anbar where the sunnis switched sides, not because of the US per se, but because of what Al Q was doing, at least that the Democratic talking point from Shumer et al. Maybe the dems are lying again like they did when they said Iraq had WMDs and was a threat in 1998, 1999, 2000 (pre Bush), and thereafter. Now, a response to comments "History is likely to judge the Bush administration badly because having failed to eradicate its enemy with the surgical precision within it reach, it took up the butcher knife instead." Really and the WWII bombs? FDR/Truman haven't been judged badly.
- Right&Left Both Wrong
May 29, 2008 at 9:22pm
In response to CalVet, and for the record: I condemn the deliberate targeting of civilians by Al-Qaeda, US forces, Hamas, the Israeli Defence Force or anybody else for that matter, whether far or near, and have been saying so for years. One of the members of my Friday congregation has accused me of "going soft on Palestine" for saying so, but I hope to continue to say what I believe to be true. "The Truth" is one of the Names of God in the Koran, and we are all obliged to seek and uphold the truth.
- Usama Hasan
May 29, 2008 at 10:11pm
As the authors point out, it is certainly true that "the seeds of their own destruction" are encoded in the DNA of jihadist groups. It may be that this deep "genetic" problem within this religion partially explains the generally backward conditions found in parts of the Muslim world. But, on the other hand, a growing recognition of this basic problem among Muslims might eventually lead to something akin to a Muslim "Reformation" and, if so, this culture might eventually join the rest of us in the twenty-first century. This will no doubt take a long time; they've had centuries to dig themselves into this hole and it will take more time to climb out. But it's encouraging that some discernable progress has already occurred.
- Bella Cose
May 30, 2008 at 1:43am
I'm a senior researcher at the Centre for Social Cohesion, a British thinktank that deals mainly with Islamic issues. Several months ago, Paul Cruickshank meet me in London and asked me for advice about writing this article. As a result, I put him in touch with several of those who he mentions and quotes in this article. However, I'm very surprised to see that this same article has become a lengthy defence of the Muslim Brotherhood - and even an overt call for western governments to work with the Muslim Brotherhood against al-Qaeda. I've written a short piece on why Cruickshank and Bergen's attitude to the Muslim Brotherhood in London is wrong-headed here: http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/blog/2008/05/the_new_republic_magazine_gets.html
- James Brandon
May 30, 2008 at 9:02am
Radical islamists support Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
- Nada
May 30, 2008 at 3:03pm
Perhaps part of the drop in the polls cited merely comes from the fact it's now happening more often in their own countries. It's much easier to accept something like suicide bombings, when they occur elsewhere then when you need to worry about walking to the store. For the vast majority of the population, I suspect self-preservation overcomes religious beliefs.
- JM
May 31, 2008 at 2:10pm
Your analysis is weak at best.
- RML
June 1, 2008 at 1:59pm
CT may have a point about 'former' terrorists lying about their feelings toward Al Queda, but I doubt the CIA and US military types are so easily fooled (at this late date anyway) and so I think it is good news and yeah, credit where credit is due... thanks to a lot of people, including George Bush. He's been assailed as an idiot and/or a Machiavellian schemer (not sure how he could be both) but the truth is he has kept his word, he hasn't wavered when most others have and the result is what we see today, an enemy organization starting to fall apart. I know there are some who don't like to accept the obvious but I also think there's a great deal of truth in what the American general said, that Al Queda began to fail because people didn't like their "vision of the future." Wonderfully understated and salient point.
- gbj
June 8, 2008 at 11:46am
Upon reading this and other articles related to this ,which are either in support or are against, I am left with an impression that there is real chaos all around, and that the real mecahnics that happen on ground have hardly anything to do with what one attepmts to plan and do systematically. The author attempts to draw a situation where Muslims , alienated by the terrorist acts of AQ that kill their own kin , rebel against AQ. Does this situation have any merit in itself except perhaps that it morally weakens AQ ? Does the question not arise as to why the same muslims are happy colluding with AQ if AQ did take care of not killing muslims ? "how dare they attack my city" ...Is it ok for this guy if they ( AQ ) attack other cities ? is it not funny that in it we are honoring the radicals for going soft on AQ because they feel the pinch on themselves ? Why dont we take a hard stand against all radical forms of Islamists that hinge upon voilence as an acceptable means of transaction ? Why dont we look sternly upon these so-called moderate muslims who now claim to distance themselves from AQ ? Why dont the London Police crack upon all such dens of criminals that harbour the minds which sway from moderate to extremist when appropriate conditions come ? Stories of how british muslims are drawn into the 'Jihad' , and how they upon a stroke of luck managed to get themselves out of the mire , abound.Not all young souls may be lucky.What will happen to them then ? What wil happen to others who they will target ? Why then allow even a day more to let these elements have a self-realization , at the cost of more bloodshed ? Still people are allowed to gather and preach Jihad in the heart of London , as evident by the event organised by the Radical Middle Way in London in in early 2008. Very recently there was a news about a mentally retarded british muslim convert who bombed a mall in London, a stark evidence of growing initaitives from the AQ to get naive british people to into terrorism, and radical islamism. The US claim that in invading Iraq lies its new ideology of establishing worldwide democracy and curtaling dangerous dictatorships like the one Saddam Hussain was, and ultimately crushing terrorism.The efforts in that direction have caused several hunderds of innocent people being killed.These killings are not disticntively different from what AQ do.OBL is still at large in Afghanistan , or in Pakistan.Taliban is gaining new strength by negotiating peace traeties with Musharraf , who is hailed by the US as its closest ally in fight against terrorism. Why did not the US military finish the original business of getting OBL first ? Is it again because of some Saudi commercial ( read Oil ) interest that Bush is stopping short ? What is it that the US will achieve now or later by quitting Iraq without bin Laden in its custody ? With the impending elections in way the capture of Laden seems to be getting relegated until another 9-11 reminds the US of the need. Innocent people meanwhile continue to get killed.
- Bhaskar Gollapudi
June 8, 2008 at 4:36pm
snip — "Benotman says that bin Laden tried to placate him with a promise: "I have one more operation, and after that I will quit"--an apparent reference to September 11. "I can't call this one back because that would demoralize the whole organization," Benotman remembers bin Laden saying." - snip The reference is more likely to the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000, which took place maybe only a couple of months after the meeting referred to in the article, and an attack bin Laden has claimed responsibility for. He has never claimed responsibility for September 11.
- Kevin Potvin
June 9, 2008 at 3:00am
These articles are all well and fine but of course we have to question Benotman's motives. He seems to be doing quite well financially now, how did he get there. Let's keep in mind, Usama called a truce several years back and no one seems to want to run with that story and find out what it would take. My sources have informed me about a video tape that is circulating around Africa,video was taped in Afghanistan, that proves that Libya's intentions were not real and also reveals future plans by Libya that go against everything we've heard regarding Libya's views inconjunction with US. There have been oportunities to have up to date info on Al Qaeda, but no one has been willing to tread those waters, it seems to be acceptable to remain days, weeks, months behind Al Qaeda and write about it after the fact. Let's start accepting some of their ways of communicating so our country doesn't continue to fall behind.
- sccccw
June 10, 2008 at 3:09pm
Spot on FH. Anyone who thinks a battlefield victory is possible over extremists that have not lost the ideological battle and still command popular support is sadly mistaken. Military superiority might give short term success but history has often shown in asymetric warfare that the war goes to the winner of hearts and minds. As FH points out, do not for a moment think those scholars turning their back on AQ are turning their backs on their own religious convictions. What we may see out of the rejection of Global jihad is a return to local terrorist campaigns directed at ousting secular governments in the Middle and far east. it may make the US and UK safer but if the Philipines, Thailand, Pakistan and India are anything to go by, the world will be a more dangerous place.
- TSB
June 11, 2008 at 4:35am
I have a problem with the story that Hanif now tells; this being the 2nd version of his "Terrorist" connections. I also have a problem with the Mosque/school on Leyton High Road. Hanif was shot to fame by a Sunday Times article by undercover reporters that revealed a paintballing weekend was used for Terrorist Training.http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=16393 When he first began to tell his tale (if you research hard enough you can find it|) he said that he went to Afghanistan to join the Taleban after witnessing Afghan boys being maimed and killed on the news; when he arrived there "a van filled with wounded men and boys came rushing out toward him. They were fleeing a battlefield massacre not too far ahead."- He hot footed it back to good ol Blighty. Nowadays when he tells his story he says that he was recruited by "a Syrian called Abu Sufiyan... I'm sure he was from al-Qa'ida," recalls Qadir."- He was even given a signed scarf from Osama bin Laden, thanking him for his contribution to the jihad."- how did he manage that then, when he hadn't even got to Afghanistan before fleeing back to Britain? I am not dismissing the work that Qadir and his brother do for the Asian Muslims in Waltham Forest; it is great and laudible work and I suppose if he didn't use his "Colourful" stories of Terrorist turned good then the Govt and local council would not be pouring thousands of pounds into his group. The real reason why radical Immans and would be terrorists are able to exploit the minds of the Asian Muslim is quite simple; they do not read Arabic and so these twisted evil men are able to tell them that Quaran says one thing, when in fact it says something quite different !! When I was a child growing up in London I had a choice of youth clubs to go to virtually every night of the week. They cost next to nothing to attend and they were good fun places to go. I did not have a need to hang around on street corners because of these youth clubs. But then the Govt. decided to cut back on funding and local councils gave their money to disaffected groups. Quite simply, the Govt turned its back on the youth of the country not just the muslim youth but black, white & Asian- what happened? The multicultural youth had nowhere to go, nothing to do & so some turned to crime and drugs, others turned to hatred and worse making the streets a dangerous place to be. Terrorism is a contrived term, which has become a panacea for worldwide problems. Waltham Forest is a hotbed for Muslims from the Shia & Sunni community, with a small number of Sufi's. The groups point the finger at one another. Shia's are said to be Al Qaeda sympathisers; this is clearly untrue for anyone with half a brain. Dr Usama Hassan is a Sufi/Shia (?)if he was in a Jihad training camp in Afghanistan he will know that the UK's biggest problem today and for the immediate future is the The Pakistani jihadi.
- Azaelea
June 29, 2008 at 6:29am
I have a problem with the story that Hanif now tells; this being the 2nd version of his "Terrorist" connections. I also have a problem with the Mosque/school on Leyton High Road. Hanif was shot to fame by a Sunday Times article by undercover reporters that revealed a paintballing weekend was used for Terrorist Training.http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=16393 When he first began to tell his tale (if you research hard enough you can find it|) he said that he went to Afghanistan to join the Taleban after witnessing Afghan boys being maimed and killed on the news; when he arrived there "a van filled with wounded men and boys came rushing out toward him. They were fleeing a battlefield massacre not too far ahead."- He hot footed it back to good ol Blighty. Nowadays when he tells his story he says that he was recruited by "a Syrian called Abu Sufiyan... I'm sure he was from al-Qa'ida," recalls Qadir."- He was even given a signed scarf from Osama bin Laden, thanking him for his contribution to the jihad."- how did he manage that then, when he hadn't even got to Afghanistan before fleeing back to Britain? I am not dismissing the work that Qadir and his brother do for the Asian Muslims in Waltham Forest; it is great and laudible work and I suppose if he didn't use his "Colourful" stories of Terrorist turned good then the Govt and local council would not be pouring thousands of pounds into his group. The real reason why radical Immans and would be terrorists are able to exploit the minds of the Asian Muslim is quite simple; they do not read Arabic and so these twisted evil men are able to tell them that Quaran says one thing, when in fact it says something quite different !! When I was a child growing up in London I had a choice of youth clubs to go to virtually every night of the week. They cost next to nothing to attend and they were good fun places to go. I did not have a need to hang around on street corners because of these youth clubs. But then the Govt. decided to cut back on funding and local councils gave their money to disaffected groups. Quite simply, the Govt turned its back on the youth of the country not just the muslim youth but black, white & Asian- what happened? The multicultural youth had nowhere to go, nothing to do & so some turned to crime and drugs, others turned to hatred and worse making the streets a dangerous place to be. Terrorism is a contrived term, which has become a panacea for worldwide problems. Waltham Forest is a hotbed for Muslims from the Shia & Sunni community, with a small number of Sufi's. The groups point the finger at one another. Shia's are said to be Al Qaeda sympathisers; this is clearly untrue for anyone with half a brain. Dr Usama Hassan is a Sufi/Shia (?)if he was in a Jihad training camp in Afghanistan he will know that the UK's biggest problem today and for the immediate future is the The Pakistani jihadi.
- Azaelea
June 29, 2008 at 6:55am
I have read the article; Scottish Islamic Foundation to launch on Thursday: A new front for the Muslim Brotherhood? and I fully concur with the report's findings and recommendations. What you need to realise,however, is that the UK Govt/Police are either extremely naieve in their outlook or are simply using the MB to their own ends. Of course, those with an ounce of intellect will know that the MB is outlawed in most Arabic countries and were responsible for killing Anwar Sadat. They will also be aware that the MB will bite the hand that is feeding it, sooner rather than later. Meanwhile they have the backing of the UK Govt and financial aid to boot!
- Azaelea
June 29, 2008 at 8:10am
Refer to: "A Dichotomy: The Waning of Al-Qaeda and the Spread of Salafism" on www.politicalislam.org
- CTE
July 3, 2008 at 12:02pm
Gavriel Meir-Levi seems to believe that without US victory in Iraq, the Muslim world would turn against radical Islam on its own. Sounds like "hope for change" that we hear from so many these days. Meir-Levi fails to understand the importance of the simple fact that no Muslim will knowingly attempt to obstruct "the will of Allah" and that includes Jihad conducted by militant Muslims in the name of "defending the faith". To do so is not only futile (the will of Allah determines everything and demands utter submission to the faith), but any such obstruction would threaten one’s own immortal soul. However, and this is the clincher, If the self described Jihadists are shown not to be “the true believers”, then one can certainly oppose their radicalism. Now, how does one know that a self described Jihadist is on the wrong path? One sure sign is that non-believers have defeated them in battle because Allah would surely NOT grant victory to the non-believers over true "defenders of the faith". It is the undeniable "battlefield" victory over radical Islam that is a sign that the self described Jihadists are on the wrong path. There are other examples that support this view. Consider the recent Israeli war with Hezbollah where the Hezbollah army retreated north to avoid contact with the Israeli army which summarily destroyed the Hezbollah infrastructure in Southern Lebanon. The Hezbollah leadership claimed a great victory. Why, because defeat would cause the Muslim world to question their Jihad. If Hezbollah are the true defenders of the faith, then Allah would not grant victory to the Israelis; especially the Israelis since they are so despised in the Arab world. The war on terrorism is a war that must be won on the battlefield. Otherwise, radical Islam is unimpeded on its path to “spread the faith”.
- mike smyser
September 27, 2008 at 1:21pm
In the years to come, I can't see how the poorly run war in Iraq will bring our popular embrace by the Middle East. And if the purpose of the war was to have Al Qaeda make itself despised, I wish someone would have said so, so we could have voted on it. To claim the Iraq war was a success because Muslim leaders eventually disapproved of Al Qaeda's methods there and elsewhere, is like describing the horrific Madoff con job as nothing more than a successful demonstration of the importance of caution.
- Nusholtz
December 31, 2008 at 4:04am
Interesting to say the least, but in my opion gravely floored from detractor of chaos thru to hellifiknow. Western complacencey will be the tool of the radical islamists to eventually give catalyst to world war 3 and enlist the moderates to join their jihad against "our way of life" because that really is the issue here. Muslim immigrants do not come to the west to be westernised, nor should they have to. They do come though to islamize us, it is part of their charter, they want to show the world that islam works. Just like it hasn't done anywhere else in the world that you and I would like to emigrate to. anyone who has worked with moderate muslims in the building and manufacturing industries of the west will know, "It is acceptable to lie to infidels period, they lie to one another, not just to promote the cause of Islam or Jihad" I have had christian Lebanese tell me when challenged on the substance of their declarations "we call it lebanese truth, it is part of our culture" where do you think that statement was borne out of, the Bible or the Koran? Here is another bit of food for thought I certainly do not condone the atrocities performed by so called christian crusaders of any ilk including the well documented catholic v protestant wars. "None of these radical endeavours can ever give rise to their religious justification by quoting scripture in word or intent." Therefore I would suggest, rather than say "don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger", consider the message, something we have the liberty to do in the west regardless of the messenger or his banner, then discern the root of the message. Do I want this message to be part of my community. We will not in nations founded on Judeo Christian faiths kill or lock up the messenger of a different relligious or philosophical persausion as is the case in the muslim world. We generally will not allow obvious evil to go unchallenged either, yet we sit by and watch this very same attitude from our moderate muslim immigrants/insurgents by stealth and say nothing for fear of reprisal of our own media of politically correct policemen. Wake up before its too late
- rowdy aussie
June 29, 2009 at 11:51am