Violent Jihadism Defeating Itself?

[Lemur]

That's the theme of two excellent articles, and I figure it's worth a discussion. First up is Fareed Zakaria's Newsweek piece: (it's a little dry, but still a good read)

The Simon Fraser study notes that the decline in terrorism appears to be caused by many factors, among them successful counterterrorism operations in dozens of countries and infighting among terror groups. But the most significant, in the study's view, is the "extraordinary drop in support for Islamist terror organizations in the Muslim world over the past five years." These are largely self-inflicted wounds. The more people are exposed to the jihadists' tactics and world view, the less they support them. An ABC/BBC poll in Afghanistan in 2007 showed support for the jihadist militants in the country to be 1 percent.

Then there's this very interesting, very long piece by Lawrence Wright:

“We now have before us two schools of thought,” Habib told me. “The old school, which was expressed by Al Jihad and its spinoff, Al Qaeda, is the one that was led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Sheikh Maqdisi, Zarqawi. The new school, which Dr. Fadl has given expression to, represents a battle of faith. It’s deeper than just ideology.” He went on, “The general mood of Islamist movements in the seventies was intransigence. Now the general mood is toward harmony and coexistence. The distance between the two is a measure of their experience.” Ironically, Dr. Fadl’s thinking gave birth to both schools. “As long as a person lives in a world of jihad, the old vision will control his thinking,” Habib suggested. “When he’s in battle, he doesn’t wonder if he’s wrong or he’s right. When he’s arrested, he has time to wonder.”

“Dr. Fadl’s revisions and Zawahiri’s response show that the movement is disintegrating,” Karam Zuhdy, the Islamic Group leader, told me one afternoon, in his modest apartment in Alexandria. He is a striking figure, fifty-six years old, with blond hair and black eyebrows. His daughter, who is four, wrapped herself around his leg as an old black-and-white Egyptian movie played silently on a television. Such movies provide a glimpse of a more tolerant and hopeful time, before Egypt took its dark turn into revolution and Islamist violence. I asked Zuhdy how his country might have been different if he and his colleagues had never chosen the bloody path. “It would have been a lot better now,” he admitted. “Our opting for violence encouraged Al Jihad to emerge.” He even suggested that, had the Islamists not murdered Sadat thirty years ago, there would be peace today between the Palestinians and the Israelis. He quoted the Prophet Muhammad: “Only what benefits people stays on the earth.”

“It’s very easy to start violence,” Zuhdy said. “Peace is much more difficult.”

[Fragony]

First, good read. Hope so.

[Adrian II]

Good articles (Zakaria is one of my favourite authors) but I find little to no news in them.

Prominent French experts like Gilles Kepel and Olivier Roy have been saying this sort of things for ten years. They have also convincingly demonstrated that islamism is part of an internal struggle within Islam, a war for control over the physical and theological sources of theocratic power, more so than a spearpoint of confrontation with the West. Practically no one on the forum ever responded when I mentioned these theorists, maybe because their work is little known outside France, quite probably also because the attack on the Twin Towers and insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq seemed to contradict their views.

They don't.

Spectacular as it may have been, 9/11 was more of an apogee than a clarion call of islamism. Islamist terrorism, however, is here to stay for quitre a while, essentially because it is a rear-guard fight, not in spite of it. It is a radical and desperate answer to the retreat of islamism as a main political current, a losing strategy that keeps drawing ever new losers into its vortex. Of course we (help) create some of those new losers through botched western interventions, or through our support for policies (Israeli annexations) and regimes (Saudi Arabia) that produce them in droves.

[Fragony]

Good articles (Zakaria is one of my favourite authors) but I find little to no news in them.

Prominent French experts like Gilles Kepel and Olivier Roy have been saying this sort of things for ten years. They have also convincingly demonstrated that islamism is part of an internal struggle within Islam, a war for control over the physical and theological sources of theocratic power, more so than a spearpoint of confrontation with the West. Practically no one on the forum ever responded when I mentioned these theorists, maybe because their work is little known outside France, quite probably also because the attack on the Twin Towers and insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq seemed to contradict their views.

They don't.

Spectacular as it may have been, 9/11 was more of an apogee than a clarion call of islamism. Islamist terrorism, however, is here to stay for quitre a while, essentially because it is a rear-guard fight, not in spite of it. It is a radical and desperate answer to the retreat of islamism as a main political current, a losing strategy that keeps drawing ever new losers into its vortex. Of course we (help) create some of those new losers through botched western interventions, or through our support for policies (Israeli annexations) and regimes (Saudi Arabia) that produce them in droves.

Gilles Kepel is focussing too much on the islamic world, the real battlefield is europe.

Practically no one on the forum ever responded when I mentioned these theorists, maybe because their work is little known outside France

Ha. Gawd I rock.

[seireikhaan]

Well sure. After all, terrorism functions in similar ways to guerilla warfare. Problem is, guerilla warfare depends on the support of innocents who will hide the fighters, and thus allow militants to blend in with their surroundings before and after attacks. And when you happen to be injuring, killing, blowing up, etc... those same civilians through indiscriminate tactics, you're naturally going to alienate them.

[Adrian II]

Gilles Kepel is focussing too much on the islamic world, the real battlefield is europe.

You may find solace in Olivier who sees the Internet as a main battlefield. But of course the battlefield is everywhere these days, including Europe.

Ha. Gawd I rock.

Hmpff.

Alright. I will grudgingly admit that - in this particular case, and in the restricted sense as understood, okay, why not? - you rocked pretty good.

[Lemur]

Here's a good read about how the Jihadis have worn out their welcome in parts of Iraq.

Al Qaeda web sites are making a lot of noise about "why we lost in Iraq." Western intelligence agencies are fascinated by the statistics being posted in several of these Arab language sites. Not the kind of stuff you read about in the Western media. According to al Qaeda, their collapse in Iraq was steep and catastrophic. According to their stats, in late 2006, al Qaeda was responsible for 60 percent of the terrorist attacks, and nearly all the ones that involved killing a lot of civilians. The rest of the violence was carried out by Iraqi Sunni Arab groups, who were trying in vain to scare the Americans out of the country.

Today, al Qaeda has been shattered, with most of its leadership and foot soldiers dead, captured or moved from Iraq. As a result, al Qaeda attacks have declined more than 90 percent. Worse, most of their Iraqi Sunni Arab allies have turned on them, or simply quit. This "betrayal" is handled carefully on the terrorist web sites, for it is seen as both shameful, and perhaps recoverable.

This defeat was not as sudden as it appeared to be, and some Islamic terrorist web sites have been discussing the problem for several years. The primary cause has been Moslems killed as a side effect of attacks on infidel troops, Iraqi security forces and non-Sunnis. Al Qaeda plays down the impact of this, calling the Moslem victims "involuntary martyrs." But that's a minority opinion. Most Moslems, and many other Islamic terrorists, see this as a surefire way to turn the Moslem population against the Islamic radicals. That's what happened earlier in Algeria, Afghanistan, Egypt and many other places. It's really got nothing to do with religion. The phenomenon hits non-Islamic terrorists as well (like the Irish IRA and the Basque ETA).

[Geoffrey S]

That's what happens when the majority of their victims are, well, other Muslims.

[Adrian II]

Today, al Qaeda has been shattered, with most of its leadership and foot soldiers dead, captured or moved from Iraq. As a result, al Qaeda attacks have declined more than 90 percent. Worse, most of their Iraqi Sunni Arab allies have turned on them, or simply quit.

I think that's confuzzling cause and effect.

Part of the surge strategy has been the reinstatement of former Sunni forces and some of their political elite in the shape of armed militias, to the effect that Al Qaida found opportunities for shelter and recruitment rapidly dwindling. This appears to be the main reason for their apparent recent setbacks.

It has always been clear that the main thrust of terrorism in Iraq was Sunni, as well as local instead of foreign. On the other hand the Sunni militia movement may yet prove to be a harbinger of renewed violence, in the form of armed conflict with Shia militias, the government, U.S. forces, Iraqi Kurdish troops or any combination of them.