May 25, 2006

Al Qaeda Building Army in Preparation for Long War

In this fascinating article at the Jamestown Foundation, Michael Scheuer analyzes the strategic writings of al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia leader Abu Hajar Abd al-Aziz al-Muqrin. It seems that al-Muqrin has given a lot of thought to the "long war" against the United States--yes, al-Muqrin apparently is in agreement with the Bush Administration that this will be a long and protracted war.

The following is an analysis of the evolving tactics of al Qaeda and their "grand strategy" for winning the war against the U.S. The model proposed by al-Muqrin is one of sporadic irregular warfare which gradually intesifies:

He wrote that the war would progress slowly through such phases as initial manpower mobilization, political work among the populace to establish trust and support, the accumulation of weaponry and other supplies, the establishment of bases around the country and especially in the mountains, the initiation of attacks on individuals and then a gradual intensification of the latter until a countrywide insurgency was underway.
Winning these initial phases of the long war will not require any sort of military victory, but rather relies on the weak wills of Western powers to engage in a protracted conflict. It is not their victories that will win this war, but rather our unwillingness to fight them.

At this point, al-Muqrin argues, the U.S. and its allies will be unwilling to use large-scale attacks to root out the insurgency--we are just too afraid of the civilian casualties it might cause. Instead of pro-actively seeking out our enemies, we focus, instead, on force protection. That is, we are less worried about winning the war than we are about not losing any more casualties.

So far has al-Muqrin not precisely described the progression of our fight against Islamist terror? It seems that al Qaeda understands us far better than the New York Times, al-Qaeda's unwitting ally.

What next?

At this point, al-Muqrin wrote, the mujahideen could begin the final stage of preparation for victory, "which is building a military force across the country that becomes the nucleus of a military army."
At some point, al Qaeda realizes, it is not enough to simply weaken the will of the enemy. Readers should remember that the goal of terrorists is not to "terrorize". Terrorism is a method, not a goal. Al Qaeda's goal is the same goal as the Council on American Islamic Relations or the Muslim American Society--the imposition of Sharia law and the eventual restoration of the global Caliphate. What seperates CAIR and MAS from al Qaeda is not the goal, but only the means to achieve it.

As the U.S. retreats, al Qaeda moves into the vacuum:

"the mujahideen will set up administrative centers and basesÂ…They will build camps, hospitals, Sharia courts and radio transmission stations at these areas, which will serve as a staging area for their military and political operations."
These areas become staging grounds for regular army units of the Mujahidin who then begin to take small cities. But, again, it is not the physical taking of these cities that will lead to al Qaeda's victory, but rather the psychological affect on the U.S.
"The reason the mujahideen should target the small cities is that when the enemies' soldiers see these [small] cities falling into the hands of the mujahideen it will destroy their morale and they will realize that they are no match for the mujahideen."
And as Scheure's article suggests, this is exactly what the anti-Communist forces in Afghanistan did to oust the Soviet backed regime and on a smaller scale what they have been attempting to do in Afghanistan.

It would be useful for U.S. policymakers to understand the Grand Strategy of al Qaeda. These are not stupid people we are fighting. They are committed ideologues unconstrained by modern sensibilities about the limits of civilized warfare.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:07 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 646 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Michael Scheur is the ex-CIA officer who wrote Imperial Hubris. I haven't read the article you linked to but he's not someone I'd give a whole lot of credibility to. (IIRC he believes that American support for Israel is the cause of the Islamic world's hatred of us.) FWIW here's something from my blog about a different strategy that Al Qaeda is following: http://soccerdad.baltiblogs.com/archives/2006/05/25/a_new_terror_strategy.html

Posted by: soccer dad at May 25, 2006 04:20 PM (Bc+Ej)

2 America, you lose!

Posted by: Sword of Monotheism at May 25, 2006 04:42 PM (fXkLc)

3 This is all very conventional thought about guerilla warfare. This particular brand seems to be based on Che's en foco theory of guerilla warfare/revolution. Guerilla units strike the current power, attempt to gain popularity and support within the population (without which the guerillas are hopelessly outmatched and would soon be hunted down and killed by the superior forces of the current power,) and eventually take toeholds in various towns and cities to establish temporary dominions and force the powers-the-be to destroy a great part of the city. Eventually, when the support is large enough and the enemy is weak enough, you move from guerilla to conventional fighting, sweep the enemy out of your country and take over. The Soviets did a lot of training of arabic nationalists back in the day, iirc. It makes sense that the two communist theories of guerilla warfare - Mao's and Che's - are the ones you most see being carried out in the mideast. Those veterans with experience fighting would have been trained in those theories, and be teaching them to the new leaders.

Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 05:41 PM (B9sDR)

4 Two four man fire teams as line of fire, one four man fire team as single envelopment. This equals one squad, and can take on a greater numbered force. Sword of Monotheism, you are in my sites.

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 25, 2006 06:21 PM (D2g/j)

5 The problem with suppress and flank is actually finding out where your enemy's flank is...

Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 06:30 PM (B9sDR)

6 Leatherneck, was that the method used when the Marines, your brothers, murdered 15 unarmed Iraqi civilians?

Posted by: Sword of Monotheism at May 25, 2006 07:41 PM (fXkLc)

7 A million tactical victories are not the same as a good strategy. Didn't you learn anything from Vietnam? America can destroy a thousand mujahideen a day, but if civilians are caught up in the slaughter - your own media will call victory an atrocity. The mujahideen, dead as they are, win.

Posted by: Sword of Monotheism at May 25, 2006 07:53 PM (fXkLc)

8 S of M, I believe the muj are responsible for the majority of atrocities and civilian deaths these days. Also I think you will agree that the Iraqis themselves are clearly quite tired of the muj and are more than ready and willing to dispense justice. They have shown themselves to be nothing but wonton murderers with no respect for civilians. If and when they hide among civilians, it is they who are responsible for their deaths. It is the muj who are the ideological losers in Iraq, even Zarqawi knows this, how come you dont? Oh by the way killing thousands of muj does ultimately deplete the number willing to die for what is a failing ideology getting increasingly negative play in the middle east. After all killing fellow muslims wont win you many friends or new converts. Blowback works both ways you know.

Posted by: Oded Greenberg at May 25, 2006 08:54 PM (lmud8)

9 Hearts and minds is the way to go in combating an insurgency. Unfortuantel that means accepting traditional customs and mores such as one might find in a culture that has not progressed much from biblical times.

Posted by: john ryan at May 25, 2006 09:54 PM (TcoRJ)

10 >>>was that the method used when the Marines Yes, I'm sure you just heartbroken about it, just like you're heartbroken about the thousands of innocent Iraqis that have been deliberately killed by jihadist car bombs and suiciders.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 25, 2006 10:38 PM (8e/V4)

11 The best place to strike the enemy is where he is softest. With us, our softest place is our entire society and the laws and principles upon which it is founded, and our enemies know this. That's a big soft spot, and so though easy to hit, hard to effect in a meaningful way in the short term. Osama bin Hidin' found this out when the US economy barely skipped a beat after 9/11. They know they can never defeat us militarily, but with a combined effort of constant military, social, political, religious, and economic attacks, they hope to wear us down. They know that roughly half our society is made up of cowardly liberals who would rather surrender than fight under any conditions, and treasonous liberals who openly support any enemies of our nation, and that the courts and numerous powerful organizations are squarely on their side. They also know they can count on our weak government to grow more ineffective over time if only they can make We the People grow tired of fighting. Theirs is a long-term strategy for victory; ours is a short-term strategy for defeat; the only way they can win is if we destroy ourselves first, which we seem to be doing to the best of our ability. They're fighting to win; we're fighting to break even. Care to lay odds?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 26, 2006 05:48 AM (0yYS2)

12 Sword of Child Sex, My brothers walk on water comparied to your moon god worshipping POS.

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 26, 2006 02:29 PM (D2g/j)

13 Two men were walking past a pigstye where they saw a muslim having sex with a pig. One of them said; "Look at that, can you imagine sinking so low as to have sex with a filthy beast?" The other said; "Yeah, it's disgusting; that pig should be ashamed."

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 27, 2006 07:05 AM (0yYS2)

14 podiqs tgjqloxqio kocyjhzrc

Posted by: nmsklswns at May 29, 2006 08:21 AM (j0Vf2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
27kb generated in CPU 0.0144, elapsed 0.1347 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1264 seconds, 263 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.