~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Friday, December 24, 2004
The Many Faces of Al-Qaeda
Strategypage has a good synopsis of the current structure of the al-Qaeda network up. Unfortunately, it's on their terrorism diary page, and thus will scroll rather than remain in a permanently linkable location. So I'm going to "mirror" it here:
TERRORISM: The Many Branches of Al Qaeda
December 23, 2004: The war on terrorist organizations gets a lot less media attention than does the war with terrorists. The terrorist violence in Iraq, Israel, Chechnya, Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Indonesia and a few other places gets a reporters attention. But there are more important developments, with the terrorist organizations, that we hear little about. There’s a good reason for that, as the war against the terrorist organizations is an intelligence operation. Espionage agents, informants, spy satellites and electronic eavesdropping are the principal weapons. The action, such as it is, takes place in the shadows, and doesn’t make much noise.
Because of the secret war against al Qaeda, a lot is known about the organization. This is mainly because most of the members are not very well educated in areas like OPSEC (operational security, keeping the enemy from observing your activities). Email and phone messages are caught and recorded, while couriers, and what they are carrying, are captured regularly. Fallujah yielded a large haul of al Qaeda documents, as have raids in Pakistan and elsewhere. Hardly any of this stuff is leaked to the media, lest al Qaeda find out how much the infidels know. But despite their bumbling and amateurish efforts, al Qaeda members are out to kill. They get their act together from time to time and pull off a major operation. Until the movement dies out, which may take a generation, the war on terror will continue.
Al Qaeda is not one organization, like the CIA, MI-6 or Mossad. Al Qaeda is a coalition of over three dozen terrorist groups that cooperate, often loosely, in their war against the infidels (non-Moslems). At the moment, the most powerful branch of al Qaeda is the one operating in Iraq. And that’s because there, al Qaeda has joined forces with the Baath Party, which is trying to return the Sunni Arabs to power in Iraq. This reaffirms an old truism in the terrorist world; you can’t succeed without money and a population to provide support. Anywhere there are Moslems, you will find some who either approve of al Qaeda’s goals (converting the world to Islam), or are willing to support al Qaeda operations. The percentage of approvers is large, often a third or more of Moslem populations. The percentage of supporters is much smaller. You can see this from the small number of al Qaeda terrorist operations around the world. With millions of Moslems in North American and Europe, there have been very few al Qaeda terror attacks. In fact, those two areas have seen just one in the past three years. It’s a different story in Moslem countries, where al Qaeda goals also include replacing the current kings, dictators, or corrupt democracies, with better government. One thing that must always be kept in mind is that the Moslem world is, for the most part, poorly governed and economically backward. A lot of the support for al Qaeda is actually rage at the inability of Moslems to get their act together in the governance and economics department. Most Moslems recognize that al Qaeda is just one more bad idea to afflict Islamic nations. But for the moment, the al Qaeda crowd are winning the PR war. That will change over time, but for now, al Qaeda is killing people. Most of those being killed are Moslems.
The most active al Qaeda affiliates are in countries where there are other issues in play. For example.
Chechnya- The Chechens have been part of Russia for over a century, and have been fighting the Russians, on and off, most of that time. The current bout of violence is winding down, but has left in its wake a very effective, and bloody minded, group of Islamic terrorists. The Russians, as they have done so many times before, are in the process of killing all the Islamic terrorists in Chechnya, or driving them into exile. But this process still has another year or so to go.
Saudi Arabia- Al Qaeda's biggest financial supporters are here, as are one of the largest pools of recruits. Saudi Arabia is the source of the strict, violent and paranoid form of Islam (Wahhabism) that serves as al Qaeda’s religious foundation. The family (the al Sauds) that rules Saudi Arabia also subscribes to Wahhabism. So the battle in this kingdom is over which Wahhabist faction will be dominant. The smart money is on the al Sauds, but you never know.
Afghanistan- The Taliban are sort of al Qaeda Lite. Real al Qaeda are operating in Afghanistan, but many of the Taliban factions are turning against them. The majority of Afghans care for neither Taliban nor al Qaeda. But at the moment, the Afghan al Qaeda are getting a lot of money and manpower from Pakistani, and other, al Qaeda organizations. This is largely because al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is hiding somewhere along the Afghan/Pakistan border. So the Afghan al Qaeda will continue to be a minor problem until the outside support dries up, or bin Laden is caught.
Pakistan- Before al Qaeda came along, Pakistan already had a lot of Islamic terrorists. Most of their battles were with each other, the Pakistani government, or Indian police in the disputed border province of Kashmir. Current cooperation with al Qaeda is out of convenience. Al Qaeda itself is not popular, because many terror attacks have just killed lots of Pakistanis.
Indonesia/Philippines- Much of the al Qaeda fervor in this region is because of continued friction between Moslems and non-Moslems. The local governments are corrupt and incompetent, thus making it easy for al Qaeda to maintain some out-of-the-way camps. Most of the locals don’t care for al Qaeda, but a minority does.
Europe- With some twenty million Moslems, this is a good area for fund raising, recruiting and hiding out. The recruits are usually born in Europe and have no first hand knowledge of the dark side of Moslem rule. But the whole al Qaeda bit is terribly romantic and inspiring to these lads. So they give money, and sometimes their lives, for the cause. The Europeans, usually tolerant to a fault, are growing impatient with these al Qaeda fans, and are cracking down.
Israel- The Palestinians turned to terror four years ago when they did not get what they wanted through negotiations. The terror campaign failed, but the terrorist groups that evolved in the meantime don’t want to stop, even though most Palestinians do. The Israelis were successful at shutting down the terror attacks on Israelis, and it’s feared that many of the Palestinian terrorists will flee to other parts of the world, and keep on killing after a Palestinian civil war to decide the future of the war with Israel.
Lebanon- The Shia minority, in order to repay Iran for aid during the 1975-90 civil war, allowed the terrorist group Hizbollah to set up shop in Lebanon. Hizbollah makes war on Israel as well, and has been aiding Palestinian terrorists. Allied with al Qaeda, Hizbollah sees itself as an “elder brother.” Syria and Lebanon (and Israel) want to shut down Hizbollah, and send the survivors back to Iran. That may eventually happen.
Iran- Although most of the population wants nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, the current constitution gives the Islamic radical minority veto power over government actions. The Islamic radicals will fight to death if the majority attempts to change the constitution. Right now, most Iranians are not willing to fight for their freedom. Iranian Moslems are Shia, and al Qaeda considers Shia heretics (and has murdered many of them.) The Iranian Islamic radicals overlook this at the moment, because they, and al Qaeda both have the same goal, planet wide Islamic rule. Unfortunately, al Qaeda wants everyone to be Sunni Moslems. That will cause problems with the Shia Moslems in Iran, who want a Shia world. About five percent of all Moslems are Shia (most live in Iran and Iraq. ) So Iran provides some support for al Qaeda.
Central Asia- The al Qaeda leadership from this part of the world were killed in Afghanistan during the late 2001 fighting. But they are slowly rebuilding.
Algeria- Islamic terrorists have been fighting the government, and most Algerians, for over a decade. However, the Islamic radicals have been losing, and are dispersing to other countries. So you will see Algerian terrorists showing up in other countries more than in Algeria.
Somalia- The country has been without a government for over a decade. Some al Qaeda groups have set up shop here. But because of the chaos, there is not a lot they can do. American Special Forces and commandoes keep an eye on the situation, occasionally going in to take prisoners or stop something from happening. No press releases are issued about these operations.
Sub-Saharan Africa- Lots of Islamic radicalism here, but not a lot of enthusiasm for al Qaeda. Islamic radicals are seen as a bunch of ruthless killers, and treated as such.
South America- Moslem criminal gangs provide some support services for al Qaeda, but otherwise there is not a lot of support. Moslems are a very small minority down there, and they don’t want to trigger an anti-Islamic attitude because of al Qaeda terrorism in the region.
There is some al Qaeda activity in any country with a Moslem population. Al Qaeda encourages anyone to join in. Kill some people and get your message out to the media. It's a system that first developed in the late 19th century (via the Anarchist, and other, movements.) It still works. And there's still no quick cure.
End. I also recommend checking out this piece by James F. Dunnigan on divisions in al-Qaeda's leadership and this piece by Austin Bay on Iraq & democracy in the Arab world.
I'm neither endorsing nor condemning Tony Blankley's defense of Donald Rumsfeld in this column. In my opinion, the specific reasons for the current uproar seem bogus - after all, the unit in question's vehicles were up-armored. I do think he should have been signing all the letters of condolence, but I think too much of a fuss is being made over these things. On the other hand, Rumsfeld does have things to answer for. No war is ever perfectly run - it's an impossible expectation. The military we took to war at the onset of WWII was hardly perfect or perfectly led. But discrepancies were made up - or at least attempts were made to correct them. We credit our war leadership during that period for their brilliance, but even those brilliant leaders erred from time to time, because nothing involving such a mass of humanity going up against foes who are also creative and well-led can be error free.
It is this part of Blankley's piece, rather than its defense of Rumsfeld, that I want to focus on, however:
the cost of re-building the Army back to 15-20 divisions would double or triple today's much-complained-of deficit of about a half a trillion dollars per annum. No wonder Rumsfeld isn't calling for massive Army expansion in today's political climate. But the logic of his decisions outrages the Beltway sages.
That's a considerable over-estimate of what it would cost to build the Army up to 16 or 18 divisions. The fact of the matter is also that Rumsfeld supported the "illogic" (Blankley's term) of a smaller Army.
Rumsfeld has initiated a creative and much-needed transformation of our Army, which will increase it from 33 to about 43 maneuver brigades shortly. That's an increase roughly equivalent to adding three divisions. From what I gather the ultimate goal is 48 maneuver brigades, the equivalent of 16 divisions. But without as large an increase in the Army.
That's very efficient. It's an overdo restructuring from the cold-war era structure. But one has to wonder if the new modular structure, with more brigades but deploying essentially the same pool of soldiers, is really all that's needed. The actual increase in the size of the Army is not scheduled to be very large.
The actual cost of increasing the size of the Army, not just transforming the structure, would not be nearly as expensive as Blankley claims. Increasing the size of the Army to approximately that of 1990 would not double or triple the deficit. It would not be free, but it would not be that expensive. One has to ask the question I and others were asking over a year ago: what is our current priority? Winning the war? Or tax cuts and increased domestic spending (for example, on Medicare and Farm bills)?
The fact is, the Secretary of Defense and the President should have asked for a larger Army after Sept. 11th. Not using that as a "pretext" for additional military spending - it was and remains a demand. Wartime militaries should be larger than peacetime forces. Yes, it takes several years for new units to be fit for battle. But that just means that we missed an opportunity, and the longer we delay the worse - rather than better - that situation gets.
People are talking about Syria and Iran, and the need to credibly be able to deter them from interfering in Iraq as they are, and prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability. But we have limited means to do so, because we simply could not take on the additional burden right now. These aren’t unforeseen contingencies, either. There remains a gap between our needs and our capabilities to meet those needs, and the Secretary of Defense is partly to blame for that. Of course, as always, the buck stops at the top - and with a Congress and public that are ready to demand more troops be deployed to Iraq or elsewhere, but have not demonstrated a willingness to pay to increase the size of the military in order to make that possible. That, however, does not let the leadership off the hook for not attempting to lead on this issue.
Well, I kept hoping Steven Den Beste might change his mind and blog at USS Clueless again, but he explains why that won't happen in comments collected here from NelsonAscher's Blog.
During its heyday, this blog owed a lot to USS Clueless and Steven Den Beste. I linked to him often, learned from his thoughtful posts even when I disagreed, and emulated the essay-post style he helped pioneer. His blog was always one of the first two or three I'd read each day. Actually, it wasn't - it was usually the last blog I'd read before turning in at night, because that's when he usually posted, in the evening.
I wish he could still post, but, as the saying goes, "if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride". Wantin' aint gettin'. One day I hope to return this blog to something like its former glory, with thoughtful essays again. If and when that happens, it will include much of what I learned from Steven's posting, both style and substance. I don't try to be him, or have this blog equal his (I know I wouldn't want the volume of mail he received either, for one thing). But I learned a lot from reading his blog, and will continue to miss it.
I hope that his current efforts will continue to be more enjoyable than USS Clueless became for him.
Saw a good C-SPAN program last night featuring Thomas P. M. Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map power-point presentation followed by a call-in with the author. It'll probably replay and if you get a chance to catch it, check it out.
He also has a weblog worth checking out, and happens to be a a Packer fan (hoody hoo!) Indeed, the grandson of one of the people who made the Packers what they are today: a community-owned team.
It's worth remembering that the Packers are unique in that they're owned by the town of Green Bay itself. Not in the sense it would be if it were done today - they aren't owned by the government of Green Bay, but by the people of Green Bay in the truest sense of the word. But I digress (again).
Some positive steps in China. First, China's President lays it into the administrators of Hong Kong:
The cabinet stood stony-faced as Hu said the Hong Kong government "must be more concerned with the people of Hong Kong" and analyse problems which have unsettled the territory since its return to Chinese rule in 1997.
"Officials must also improve their capabilities and abilities to govern. The officials must turn back and look over the past seven years and find out what has gone wrong," Hu said.
Which is a good, if limited, step forward. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as always: What happens next, and whether they really listen to the people of Hong Kong and their desire for more accountable, democratic governance, or if this is just cosmetic rhetoric to be followed by more of the same. After all, it is the central government of China that has often led the way in demanding that the officialdom of Hong Kong listen less to the people and more to, well, the central government's wishes. Then there's this:
China will start holding jury trials next year as part of court reforms that also will increase the number of judges, state media reported Monday.
The measures were announced by China's highest court after a meeting last week on how to best prepare the courts to handle cases stemming from the country's sweeping economic changes, the official Xinhua News Agency said.
Jurors are to be elected to five-year terms and must have at least two years of university education, the Xinhua report and other state media said. Under the current system, judges are the sole arbiters in court cases.
The idea of jurors being elected to five-year terms is foreign to our experience, that's for sure. But still, this is a step forward towards putting matters of law into the hands of people, decentralizing it. It's not the "three-judge-panel" concept that one might have expected China to adopt. Again, we'll have to see how it works in practice, but it's a positive step.
Neither of these things are the end of the road, or even the end of the beginning of the road, towards a real Rule of Law and limited government (which go hand in glove). But they are good signs, signs of some movement in the right direction.
Because of Bosnia and Rwanda, at least as much as the UN's Blood-for-Oil program. His flippant attitude towards the whole thing would have had more people calling for his head if he were the U.S. SecDef instead of Head UNuch. The author has a good rejoinder to that indifference:
Liberal multilateralists on the left, like me, are often skittish about offering too pungent a critique of Mr. Annan, because it offers aid and comfort to the "enemy" on the conservative unilateralist right. But if anyone's values have been betrayed at the U.N. over the past decade it is those of us who believe most deeply in the organization's ideals. Just ask the men and women of Rwanda and Srebrenica.
The real question is whether the "Liberal multilateralists on the left" are sincere in their ideals, or just interested in keeping the UN's presumptive authoritah intact as a check to the U.S., and are willing to sacrifice the ends - the world's powerless - to this means.
