……. Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of London based Al-Quds Al-Qarabi, wrote a long analytical piece analyzing the success or failure of the US war on terror. Atwan’s views are very worth listening to for several reasons.
1) As editor of Al-Quds he has major connections to people who are very close to the events, both from the sides that are favorable to the US and those that are opposed. What I am saying is that he has acccess to the views/analysis of people from the Taliban/ that no Americans are going to get or even try to get. So his analysis needs to be paid special attention.
2) He has major connections with the Islamist movements and has interviewed Bin Laden. He also wrote a very good book on Al-Qaeda.
3) His paper is considered independent and is more intellectually consistent than bigger papers such as Al-Hayat and Asharq al-Awsat.
4) Also, a couple weeks ago I had a post asking the question Why is the Taliban the enemy? Some disagreed with my argument that the Taliban is not a natural enemy of the US so it could be manipulated into turning against Al-Qaeda. Atwan’s analysis supports my point. For all of these reasons, I have translated the article. I am not a translator, but the following can be considered a reliable (in the sense of capturing all the ideas) chronological translation of the article:
Bootleg Translation of Atwan’s Article
Two years ago, Bush, and his ally Blair announced they they had discovered an Al-Qaeda plot to blow up a number of American airplanes using liquid bombs. The British government led by Tony Blair, ally of Bush in the war against terror, arrested about 30 Britains from Muslim backgrounds, and took measures to stop liquids from going on planes, causing unprecedented confusion, as this came at the peak of summer travel season in Europe.
At that same time, we at Al-Quds doubted or were speptical of this alleged conspiracy, which should be seen in the framework of US and European Islamophobia , and is used to justify Blair and Bush’s bloody wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also said that these two men, who are known for their religious fervor and hostility to Islam employed a politics of fear, with this airplane conspiracy being only the most prominent example. Just yesterday an independent trial court rejected this conspiracy and acquited the accused in a trial that lasted for two years, costing the tax payers upwards of 50 million British pounds.
The trial revealed that these accused had never bought a ticket even gotten near a British airport… But journalistic reports confirmed that President Bush and his VP wanted some kind of victor to use in order to help Republican candidates in the 2006 Congressional Elections, and they found in this alleged/claimed conspiracy a priceless opportunity.
Fabricating evidence is not something unusual for Bush or Blair. Weren’t they the ones who fabricated evidence of a relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda? Or of Iraq’s relationship to uranium in Niger in order to justify their aggression against it? Isn’t Tony Blair, now the Middle East peace envoy, the one who went before Parliament in dramatic form with the dossier that said they had reliable information that Saddam Hussein had WMD that he was capable of using against British and US forces in less than 45 minutes?
Noone denies the presence of Islamist extremist organizations which use terrorism and violence as a measure to fight against the West, reacting to its wars in Iraq and as revenge for its victims, like what happened in the London attacks three years ago. But perhaps we can also say that the threat from these groups is exaggerated by Security forces and popular newspapers to justify security measures and strong laws against Muslim communities in the West, portraying them as the source of all evil.
Thursday is the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which were the beginning of the war against terrorism and the occupation of Muslim countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the death of 1.5 million Muslims and Arabs, as well as the death of 4k American soldiers, and the loss of as much as 5 trillion dollars. Perhaps the best way to measure its succes or failure is to look at what President Bush himself were the original goals: the arrest or capture of the two leaders Mullah Omar and Bin Laden and the complete destruction of their two organizations, and to make the world safer and more peaceful.
The war on terror toppled the regimes of the Taliban and after the Saddam and the occupation of the two countries. But it did not succeed in capturing either leader and did not make the world safer, but actually made it worse. Furthermore, the two movements have returned to Afghanistan and Pakistan and now have control over most of the first and half of the second, and run training camps for new volunteers who numbers in the thousands.
The Al-Qaeda organization might have been exposed to a major setback in Iraq because of the Awakening Forces ( paid off by the Americans) and because of their takfir politics and emphasis on setting up an Islamic state, but perhaps this setback is just temporary, because the vast majority of its members of Iraqi, we have to consider how Tanzim Al-Qaeda was able to return to Afghanistan five years after the destruction of its base at Tora Bora. The theory of those who participated in the Awakening was at its roots, based on distinction between the Far Enemy (the US) and the Near Enemy (Iran) and the necessity of focusing on fighting the near enemy , considering it the greater danger, even if that means allying with the Far Enemy. But this theory began to crumble after the Malaki government forced the US to stop funding the Awakening forces, and brought them under its influence and control. This means that the 100k who fought with Al-Qaeda, then turned against them, now finds themselves as Pariahs and outcasts after they were used to establish the Occupation, but then were thrown in the trash like a used napkin.
President Bush wants to use the Iraq Awakening model in Aghanisan, but despite its partial and temporary success there, it is difficult to see it succeed in Afg. not because the time is late but because the Taliban has imposed its control over Afghanistan and the American defeat has become certain. US forces commit massacres and heavy handed actions on a daily basis, knowing that their program has failed and the the Taliban-Al-Qaeda victory is inevitable. They resort to heavy handed aerial attacks but the leadership forgets that airborne bombardment can not settle the issue on the ground. On the other hand, increasing the number of land forces (now at 37k) will only give the Taliban more targets to attack
America’s problem is bigger than Afghanistan, which is an unwinnable war. The bigger problem is in Pakistianwhich is becoming quickly a failed state, which will inevitably fall in the hands of radical Islamistgroups or a military dictatorship with little popularity. Notice how 71% of Pakistanis are opposed to cooperation with the US war on terror and 51% oppose the war against the Taliban according to a poll done last July by Gallup. The Taliban in Pakistan constitute a greater threat than the Taliban in Afghanistan because it posses 80k fighters ready to due in suicide operations against Western forces. American attacks against Pakistani tribal regions will only increase the popularity of extremist groups in Pakistan as these attacks are considered a violation of Pakistani national dignity and increase extremism. And these suicide operations were unknown in Pak and Afg before 9/11 but now they are something normal thanks to the presence of AQ experts who first learned the trade in Iraq.
The first leader the new President Zardari met was Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, which he did to confirm to Washington that he will stay a close ally in the war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. But this man, who has spent 11 of the last 20 years in in jail on corruption charges is not going to stay in power long, and US support for him will only increase the power of the Taliban and AQ. It certainly will not weaken it. The US administration might find cooperation from the high level officers in the Pakistani army, but the big problem is that the vast majority of lower level officers and soldiers have sheltered hostility, and this is what explains Al-Qaeda and Taliban penetration in the Presidential Security and the three attempted assassination attempts against Musharaf.
Perhaps the failure of the war on terror will be seen in upcoming months for several reasons: One has to do with the reemergence of Russia and a new Cold War after the Georgia fighting and Moscow’s desire to return to Afghanistan to get revenge against the Americans for kicking them out previously, and Al-Qaeda’s success in making a return to Afghanistan, and rejuvenated Mujaheed from around the world, and maybe see a return of them going to Europe and maybe even America, as Afghanistan is surrounded by countries who are hostile with America which is not the case with Iraq.
Al-Qaeda has returned to Aghanistan in light of its alliance with the Taliban, “after the the West became a mutal enemy of both movements. But the Taliban was not an enemy of America and the West before the events of 9/11. There was a wing, and it was the dominant wing requesting that Al-Qaedabe kicked out of Afghanistan. Now all the wings are united behind Al-Qaeda against Washington and the West.” Here is the exact quote:
وعادت الى افغانستان بيئتها وحاضنتها الطبيعية، وفي ظل تحالف اقوى مع طالبان، بعد ان اصبح الغرب عدوا مشتركا للطرفين، فطالبان لم تكن تعادي امريكا والغرب قبل احداث الحادي عشر من ايلول (سبتمبر)، وكان هناك جناح وهو الغالب فيها يطالب بطرد القاعدة من البلاد، الآن توحدت الأجنحة خلف ‘القاعدة’ وضد واشنطن والغرب
The upcoming days for America are going ot be tough, it had a golden opportunity to win over Muslim hearts and minds who sympathized with them following 9/11. It could have used this to try and settle the Isr-Pal conflict and support democracy and human rights but unfortunately it did the opposite of this completely. By doing what it did, it just provided more havens for terrorism.
Commentary
There are a number of points worth commenting on. But for now I will simply return to my original argument- there is no reason that Taliban should be considered a natural enemy of the US. They were not. Lumping them together, when they could have sided with the US in kicking the Al-Qaeda movement which was a threat to their local rule, was a major mistake. The US had a golden opp that was blown, but I still see no reason why it couldn’t work. Yes, it would entail admitting that seven years of effort was a complete waste, but it would probaly be more practical than staying and fighting the Taliban.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Abdel Bari Atwan, Al Quds Al Arabi, Al-Qaeda, Anbar, Awakening Councils, George Bush, Hamad Karzai, Iraq, Prime Minister Malaki, Taliban, Tony Blair, Zadari | 8 Comments »
MediaShack 
Qaradawi and Zawahiri United Against the Shia
Jordanian journalist Mohamed Abu Rumman has a very interesting op-ed analyzing the latest Al-Qaeda tape in the September 21st edition of Al-Ghad newspaper. Abu Ramen always has good analysis so I have translated the key points.
Key Analysis Points (The Bolded words are added by me)
NEW EMPHASIS ON IRAN AND ITS ALLIES: The tape’s heavy focus on Iran and its allies (Hezbollah) represents a new pattern in Al-Qaeda rhetoric. In the years following 9/11, AQ took great care to avoid conflict with Iran, for many reasons, but the most prominent being a sense that there were common interests that could be built upon, such as confrontation with the US and Israel. In addition, Iran formed a critical crossing point for AQ leaders fleeing the Afghan war to different locations, although Iran did extradite several AQ figures back to their home countries and key figures, such as Sayf al-Adel and Bin Laden’s son are still imprisoned there.
Then as the Iraq war started, there was a dispute between the pragmatic rhetoric of the AQ central leadership (especially Zawahiri) and AQ in Iraq (especially Zarqawi and Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi). Initially, AQC wanted to avoid confrontation with Iran, whereas the AQ in Iraq were fighting an open war with Iran. But now the AQC position vis a vis Iran has changed dramatically and this is most evident in Zawahiri’s response to close to 90 questions posed to him a few months ago.
THE HEZBOLLAH PROBLEM: And now Zawahiri is focused on Iran, but the basis of his criticism is political and not religious or sectarian. His big issue with Iran is their inconsistent positions towards Arab and Islamic causes. On one hand, Iran basically legitimizes the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, even calling Resistance there Harem (religously illegitimate) or terrorism. At the same time it turns around and supports the Resistance in Palestine and Lebanon. Zawahiri points to Iran’s political opportunism as one reason that it can’t be considered a reliable partner against the US. But there is another reason that explains AQ’s strategic change and this is the rise of Hezbollah since 2006, whose performance against Israel has given it widespread popularity in the media and on the Arab street- something very worrying to AQ. AQ sees the rise of sectarian tensions in the region as something the Salafi Jihadist movement can exploit to tap recruits. But this is all complicated by Hezbollah’s widespread popularity.
WHO’S WHO ON THE TAPE: Abu Ramen’s second point is related to the appearance of several leaders of AQC, especially AZ who truly is the AQ “main man.”
But the big surprise is the presence of two big name characters: Atih Allah who has gained popularity amongst the followers of AQ and plays a big role on the internet, especially as relates to the Iraqi file. The second person is Abu Yaha Al-Libie, who is most prominently in charge of issuing fatwas. As for the appearance of Abu Yazid al-Masri, Amir of AQ in Afghanistan, the big value here is to dispel rumors that he died. Noticeably absent is Abu Hamza Al-Muhajer, Abu Amr Al-Baghdadi (leader of AQ in Iraq), and Mohamed Khalil Al-Hakemiya which most prominently reflects AQ’s retreat in Iraq as compared to previous years and their inability to undertake operations in Egypt, despite their announced presence there, which confirms the significance/strength of the Revisions process which reached its climax with the announcement of Dr. Fadl’s anti-violence initiative.
OPEN SEASON IN AFGHANISTAN: On the other hand, the presence of the three key personalities of AQC on the tape, which comes after another tape which announced AQ’s responsibility for the explosion of the Danish embassy in Pakistan, reflects their free conditions in Afg/Pak, as a result of the alliance with the Taliban and the local Islamic groups. If only temporarily, for a number of reasons….
The prominent political message of the tape is that the key AQ leaders are confirming that they will stick to the fight and that they are still alive, despite the passage of 7 years of these Wars of the Cross (Crusades), this being the name AQ uses in the hope of gaining sympathy on the Arab street….Perhaps AQ has failed since 9/11 in executing the same kind of spectacular attacks and has switched to attacking soft-targets, but there is consensus amongst people who study AQ that it has become more dangerous as a “political message” accepted by groups here or there, and whose ideology might be incentive for certain Arab and Muslim youth, considering the failures/ Fowda that is ripping through most of these societies. ….AQ plays a directional role through setting the general path, whereas their followers on the ground have the responsibility of carrying out the battle.
Commentary
1) Is there any doubt that Ayman Zawahiri is the top guy in AQ? Literally, everything I read in the Arabic press suggests that he and not Bin Laden is the primary mover and shaker.
2) Solidity of the Egyptians revisions process: Ramen sees the lack of any Egyptians as a sign that they are holding. Bringing these Egyptians on the tape would probably be an embarrassment for Zawahiri as it would highlight how badly the militant groups lost in Egypt. What’s truly remarkable is how in the homeland of radical Islam, Egypt, the radical Islamist groups that existed between the 1970s and 1990s have essentially disappeared.
3) Conservative Sunnis are faced with a serious dilemma with the widespread popularity of Hezbollah. Both Zawahiri and Yusuf Qaradawi have a HEZBOLLAH PROBLEM. Attracting surprisingly little attention in the Western press, last week Yusuf Al-Qaradawi went on a long anti-Shia rant in an interview with Al-Masr Al-Youm, saying they were clearly trying to invade Sunni society with their ideas. Asked by his Egyptian interview “which is the greater danger- Shias or Wahabis?” Qaradawi said Wahabis don’t respect the opinions of anyone but themselves, then railed against the Shia:
“unfortunately there are Shia in Egypt. They tried for dozens of years unsuccessfully to recruit one Shia, from the time of Salah Ad Deen until recently….”
للأسف وجدت مؤخراً مصريين شيعة، فقد حاول الشيعة قبل ذلك عشرات السنوات أن يكسبوا مصرياً واحداً ولم ينجحوا، من عهد صلاح الدين الأيوبي حتي ٢٠ عاماً مضت ما كان يوجد شيعي واحد في مصر،
But notice his explanation for why this might be occurring:
: ( فنحن العلماء لم نحصن السنة ضد الغزو المذهبي الشيعي لأننا دائماً نعمل القول «ابعد عن الفتنة لنوحد المسلمين») He says “we the Ulema didn’t immunize (or left our society vulnerable to the penetration) because we always said avoid fitna in order to keep the Muslims united.”
Basically what he is saying here by this last quote: “we the noble Sunni clerics took the higher road and said to the rank and file, “lets stay united to avoid fitna.” As a result our people let their gaurds down, and the sneaky Shias took advantage to recruit/ spread their ideas.”
Deep down inside Qaradawi has to view the post-2006 war Hezbollah love-fest in the Arabic_press and street ( see here and here) as especially aggravating. It would not be an exaggeration that Hassan Nasrallah has Brad Pitt status amongst many Middle Eastern women. One thing I’ve noticed in Egypt recently is a trend amongst young veiled, lower or middle class women, audaciously wearing the colors of Hezbollah. For average people on the street, Hezbollah’s victory is something to take pride on- they deserve mad respect for their stand against Israel. However, for Qaradawi such displays of unity merely give those “sneaky Shias” another back-door into Sunni society to spread their ideas. Of course, he could not say that explicity- how uncool would that make him look.
Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda also have a Hezbollah problem. It largely stems from the fact that Hezbollah gets all the glory. While they get feted and treated like rock-stars for confronting Israel, Al-Qaeda is standing in the background, unable logistically to strike at Israel.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda, al-qhad, Ayman Zawahiri, qaradawi shia comments, yusuf qaradawi | 7 Comments »