Although Dan quick-linked it earlier, the article in The New Republic by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank on the jihadist revolt against al Qaeda now has a companion piece by Lawrence Wright in the new issue of The New Yorker. There is some overlap, though there is enough difference to warrant reading both.
Themes common to both articles are that al Qaeda faces a revolt because the group’s extremism results in violence to (and rejection by) local Muslim populations and due to the growing recognition that the 9/11 attacks were (in the words of Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, a/k/a Dr. Fadl, a former top theorist for AQ) “a catastrophe for Muslims,†because they ultimately “caused the death of tens of thousands of Muslimsâ€â€Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis and others.â€Â
As these articles deal with internal AQ dissent, what is not dwelt upon is the degree to which the aforementioned themes are intertwined. AQ has become less popular because — contrary to the expectation of AQ leadership — the US has fought and imposed costs on AQ for the 9/11 attacks. In fighting the US, AQ exposed the depths of its depravity to the Anbar tribes in Iraq (who could turn to the US for assistance due to our resolve in staying there), to Iraq’s neighbors, like Jordan, and even to Pakistan, where –as Wright points out — public approval of the group and its tactics plummeted after the Bhutto assassination (which is not to say that AQ has not done some regrouping in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan).
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria notes what has been noted here for years — that most statistics on global terrorism count civilian casualties from the war in Iraq as deaths caused by terrorism, which makes no sense. Zakaria thinks this is because a decline in global terrorism “does not fit into the narrative of fear that we have all accepted far too easily,” when it is more likely that using the inflated numbers served the agenda of those claiming that US efforts at fighting terrorism were merely creating more terrorism.
Instead, while the above authors try to avoid the role played by He Who Must Not Be Named, it seems like Chimpy McHitlerburton has helped make bin Laden’s crew and tactics every bit as unpopular as he is.
“…it is more likely that using the inflated numbers served the agenda of those claiming that US efforts at fighting terrorism were merely creating more terrorism.”
Whereas back it the real universe, terrorists were creating anti-terrorist fighters, American allies and shifting alligence to the central government (the last being a slow process, for sure).
I thing the figure is 5 for every death, is it not?
Still this whole stupid terrorism obsession is draining precious resources from the battle against the scourge of childhood obesity. Huckabee 2012!
Just recently some wags have claimed that we are winning the war because of the infighting regarding tactics between the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. When faced with such nonsense it is important to remember that these groups have a very similar end state. Are we merely worried about the methods each group uses to achieve their end state or does the end state of an Islamic world concern us? I know where I stand.
Whether the Caliphate is achieved through military victories or demographics means less than whether in 50 years my descendents are hiding their religion and beliefs from mad men who believe that their violent prophet allows them to murder us at will.
But we are losing !!!!!!!!! I know this because the Democrats told me so, ever since 2004.
Still this whole stupid terrorism obsession is draining precious resources from the battle against the scourge of . Huckabee 2012 global warming!
Gore 2008!
fooey.
What’s html for strikethrough?
i think i use /strike/ …
happymalevolent squirrelsyup
But we are losing !!!!!!!!! I know this because the Democrats told me so, ever since 2004.
hehe…Course the Church of England just posted a very interesting letter. Here is a couple of snippets…I posted the entire thing on my site. But enough whoring. This makes for cheery reading if you suffer under the delusion that we need only defeat Al Qaeda then ride off into the sunset.
Religious trends and our religious future
If recent reports of trends in religious observance prove to be correct, then in some 30 years the mosque will be able to claim that, religiously speaking, the UK is an Islamic nation, and therefore needs a share in any religious establishment to reflect this. The progress of conservative Islam in the UK has been amazing, and it has come at a time of prolonged decline in church attendance that seems likely to continue
This progress has been enthusiastically assisted by this government in particular with its hard-line multi-cultural dogma and willingness to concede to virtually every demand made by Muslims. Perhaps most importantly the government has chosen to allow hard-liners to act as representing all Muslims, and more liberal Muslims have almost completely failed to produce any leadership voices to compete, leading many Britons to wonder if there are indeed many liberal Muslims at all, surely a mistake.
At all levels of national life Islam has gained state funding, protection from any criticism, and the insertion of advisors and experts in government departs national and local. A Muslim Home Office adviser, for example, was responsible for Baroness Scotland’s aborting of the legislation against honour killings, arguing that informal methods would be better. In the police we hear of girls under police protection having the addresses of their safe houses disclosed to their parents by Muslim officers who think they are doing their religious duty.
They don’t say it, but this is a mea culpa for that overwrought piece by
these same authors; almost a year ago in Mother Jones: where they argued that
Iraq had been the major recruiting element.
[…] for terrorism has dropped in nations like Morocco, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, and of course Iraq, where al Qaeda is on the […]