Al Qaeda -- A Strategic Error? Posted by Michael Signer

My heart goes out not just to Great Britain and Londoners as a whole but to many friends at my former law firm who work in London.  Amid this agony, the horror, and the pain of this morning, I want to try and take a step back -- if that's possible -- and suggest that Al Qaeda may have made a strategic error today.  The long-term consequences of this act may in fact help the GWOE (Global War on Extremism) rather than hurt it.

Tony Blair is saying that the attack was timed to coincide with G-8:

"Just as it is reasonably clear that this is a terrorist attack or a series of terrorist attacks, it is also reasonably clear that it is designed and aimed to coincide with the opening of the G-8." 

Yet the group claiming responsibility, the "Secret Al Qaeda Jihad Organization in Europe," is saying instead that the attack was meant to retaliate for Great Britain's cooperation with the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Al Qaeda was intending the second aim but has stumbled into the first, I hope and pray that they have made a drastic miscalculation.  By hitting Great Britain at a time of most intimate involvement with the leaders of the world community -- not just at the G-8 summit but immediately after, for God's sake, the choice of London for the Olympics -- then Al Qaeda has f'ed this one up badly. 

The Bush Administration has screwed up world opinion so badly with Iraq that we had major countries like France and Germany (not to mention China) teetering on the edge of sympathy with Islamic extremists pleading American imperialism.  This just might be the Al Qaeda mistake we need to get the entire world community firmly back on the right side -- emotionally, diplomatically, militarily.

Not much of a silver lining, but it's something.

Comments

[Dan-NYCIPA]

For those of you who are like Michael and are looking for a silver lining (increased cooperation and support for US policy in Iraq) in these attacks there is one thing that you all better hope for: that it is homegrown. On the issue of bleed out from Iraq, I quote a counterterrorism official in the Washington Post on 5/29/05:

"If you don't know who they are in Iraq, how are you going to to locate them in Istanbul or London?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/28/AR2005052801171.html?referrer=emailarticle

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about the whole "fly paper" strategy debate over Iraq's porous borders is how it ignores the critical issue of fighters LEAVING Iraq as opposed to coming in. That's as great a danger if not greater than fighters coming into Iraq to kill coalition troops. The sand in the hour glass is thinning in terms of attacks carried out in cities abroad by individuals who have fought and trained in Iraq and then departed for their home countries. There is no evidence that today's attack are a result of bleed out, but there is a 99% chance that future attacks will be. At that point, I don't believe other countries will be thrilled or willing to participate in Iraq, a war the U.S. started out of its own choosing. There will be no silver lining as such. It will only be an additional black eye for the U.S. and will significantly raise international ire about U.S. policy in Iraq. Nobody wants to clean up our mess nor should they have to. It will not be a good day when the United States has to stand before the public of another country and explain to them that our woefully counterproductive policy in Iraq has in fact directly contributed to an attack in their country. Don't expect them to rush to our side at that time. Holding somebody over the barrell of terrorism and chaos in Iraq is no way to encourage international cooperation.

[Carl Nyberg]

Micheal Singer,

How will this attack help the so-called GWOE?

Not to be pedantic, but your point isn't make very clearly.

[Joel]

I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Singer's conclusion. Today's attack in London was not a mistake for the Al Qaeda organization, rather, it illustrated the potency and effectiveness of Al Qaeda's operations.

The terrorist network has adapted, becoming more decentralized and recruiting more jihadists around the world. Al Qaeda, in a sense, has become more than an organization--it has become a philosophy.

The subway bombings mirrored the attacks in Madrid that led to a reversal of Spain's policy in Iraq. The same may be true for the UK. Tony Blair's position as PM may well be imperiled, as the British people begin to question his policies in Iraq and his association with Bush. Withdrawal of British troops from Iraq may ensue.

Al Qaeda's decision to attack the UK was a brilliant tactical move: it could split the UK from the US and lead to less popular support for the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism. Ultimately, the US may lose another ally in Iraq, making operations there more dangerous.

My deepest sympathies go out to the British people, who have had to endure terrorism of this sort.

[MNPundit]

The reversal of Spain's Iraq policy led to a crackdown in that country on terrorists already there, they just shifted focus from a foreign target to their own borders. Probably a good plan for spain.

[RT]

The problem is, how will this enhanced unity help, if the US is rallying the West behind its cynical and ultimately backfiring 'flypaper' strategy? ('Cynical' because it in effect says it's better if terrorists blow up Iraqis rather than Westerners.)

If US actions cause the Muslim world to be increasingly unsympathetic to us, that fundamentally aids the terrorist cause. If you're a Muslim in Syria or Jordan or Egypt, or in London or Paris or Detroit, your likelihood of reporting suspicious behavior by your co-religionists to the authorities will have a lot to do with your comparative attitudes towards America and al-Qaeda.

IOW, when we Americans pursue a "blowing s**t up" policy in Iraq, it reduces the likelihood of our getting good intelligence elsewhere, and gives the terrorists a larger sea that they can swim in, undetected by us.

Now, under those circumstances, what good will a "rally 'round the GWOE" wave of sentiment actually do?

[Dan Kervick]

... "Al Qaeda may have made a strategic error today" ..

Even this way of putting it seems to give the perpetrators too much credit. It assumes that there still remains some sort of global organization called "Al-Qaeda", and that that organization possesses something one might describe as a strategy.

My impression is that what we have now are a bunch of scattered, fellow-travelling Sunni jihadist groups, each imbibing to some degree the ideology of "Al-Qaedism", in sporadic and informal communication with other nearby groups of the same nature, and occasionally capable of mounting destructive, but mainly local, attacks.

Occasionally, one of these groups decides to lay claim to the title "Al-Qaeda in Rome", or "Al-Qaeda in London" or "Al-Qaeda in Jersey City" and carry out some attack to convince others, and themselves, or their own importance.

If this is the situation, it is not surprising that the actions of these groups lack strategic coherence, or sometimes fall short of atrategic brilliance.

[Carl Nyberg]

Dan,

The absense of central control of al Qaeda basically refutes Bush's whole strategy on terrorism.

Bush's strategy assumes that their are a certain number of "evil" Arab Muslims that came together to defeat al Qaeda. The Bush strategy calls for identifying and killing all these evil doers.

Having a bunch of autonomous cells means the Bush strategy has no chance of success. There can be no big victory to score a knockout blow. And new cells seem to be forming faster than the existing ones are neutralized.

[rosignol]

The Bush Administration has screwed up world opinion so badly with Iraq that we had major countries like France and Germany (not to mention China) teetering on the edge of sympathy with Islamic extremists pleading American imperialism.

This is misleading. France has diplomatic disagreements with the US- and, of course, puts it's own interests first- but France is closely cooperating at an operational level WRT counter-terrorist activities. Why? Because they remember Algeria. They just don't publicize what they're doing, for good reasons.

China, like France, has little reason to like islamic militants (look into what's been going on in their far western provinces sometime), and China has it's own reasons for thinking that things that take the US down a notch are not entirely bad things- but that doesn't mean they'd do anything to overtly support it. After all, anything that can take the US down a notch can take China down three notches, and the Chinese know it.

...

As far as Carl's comment is concerned, if Al Qaeda lacks centralized control, it's because Bush's strategy has been successful, not because it's failed- do you think Bin Laden and the like intended to be unable to excercise operational control over their followers? Unable to carry out operations that killed thousands of infidels at a time? Unable to do much of anything besides inspire people who aren't even sure if the guy is still alive?

No, that wasn't their plan. As with most plans, al Qaeda's did not survive contact with the enemy. Instead, there are a bunch of autonomous groups reduced to leaving backpacks full of explosives on trains, killing dozens or hundreds of infidels, instead of hijacking jetliners and killing thousands. Al Qaeda's ability to kill has been reduced by at least an order of magnitude, maybe two, and only someone blinded by partisanship would fail to see that, or to consider it a success.

[Dan-NYCIPA]

It is misguided to view the decreasing magnitude of AQ's attacks (in comparison to those of 9/11) as a sure fire sign of the group's weakness and inability to conduct large scale operations. It must be remembered that prior to 9/11 the number of dead per AQ attack around the world was about the same if not fewer. Clearly we were misguided to think they were incapable of large scale attacks back then and it is a mistake (as well as misplaced triumphalism) to think so today. Undoubtedly AQ has been disrupted and their capabilities have been degraded, but they clearly adapt and many possibilities remain for the future.

[Cal]

// This just might be the Al Qaeda mistake we need to get the entire world community firmly back on the right side - emotionally, diplomatically, militarily. // Michael

The underlying assumption here is that Bush wants the world community's help. Biden has said that the Europeans have been offering to train Iraqi forces for 2 years now, and Bush has refused. IOW, the ball is in Bush's court, not France or Germany's.

IMO, this is a flawed premise which seems to be held by all the posters on this site. You assume Bush believes as you do that getting international help for this occupation would be a good thing. He doesn't.

[Robert Drake]

Al Qaeda has always been decentralized Mr. Rosignol. It's more ideology than organization. Bin Laden is the spiritual leader of the movement, not the tactical brains behind it. The decentralization of AQ is not the result of Bush's blundering policies, it was a deliberate tactic by the terrorists themselves to protect their operations against penetration by security forces. Hierarchial groups like Fatah, IRA, Action Directe, OAS, etc, were extremely prone to informers and enemy agents, the cellular structure of AQ is a response to this. AQ's organizational structure pre-dates 9-11 by several years, so I fail to see how you can credit our recent efforts against it with dispersing its activities, those activities were already dispersed.

AQ is a franchisee of terror operations. Bin Laden and his top lieutenants may commission some specific acts, but for the most part they simply seed the operations of like-minded individuals, or groups. They provide money, or training in some cases, but the individual groups choose their own targets, plan their own operations, and execute them with little, or no guidance from AQ's leadership. This can hardly be termed a positive development, your attempts at spinning it to Mr. Bush's advantage notwithstanding. And in any case, there is no evidence that AQ's communications have been disrupted. If Bin Laden is hiding in the wilds of Afghanistan, or Pakistan, he is certainly surrounded by hundreds, if not thousands of devoted fanatics who are not known to the security forces of Western, or Islamic countries, and can successfully maintain whatever operational control Bin Laden may wish to exert by proxy.

[Dan-NYCIPA]

On the possible connection between Iraq and London:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-terror8jul08,0,7303653.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Carl Nyberg]

ros, there's no end game in your model.

But that's the way the Neo Cons want it. They want to turn the United States into Israel, a state in perpetual paranoia.

[Michael Kraig]

I would have to argue that any attack on a Western nation other than the U.S. is largely pointless and will either be met with horror, disgust, or simple indifference on the part of most Muslims and/or Arabs, whether the target be Britain or Spain. The reason is simple: whereas Bin Laden and loosely-aligned or like-minded terrorists truly dislike globalization in general and Westernization in particular - making the fight a true civilizational issue in their minds - my sense after traveling to the Middle East is that most Arabs and Muslims are focused on the US, and even in this case, not on our values and culture, but on our foreign policies. For instance, everyone knows quite well that Britain, Germany, France, and every other European country has a much more balanced, nuanced, and fair strategy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the U.S. does. It's the US that always votes with Israel (and vice-versa), against everyone else, on the most sensitive issues at the UN General Assembly. And it's the US that uses Bin Laden's own language to villify the entire Arab and/or Islamic world: "evil," "uncivilized," "Islamic Totalitarianism," "Islamo-fascism," etc. etc. Very few Europeans are this crude, offensive, or idiotic in their approaches to global problems. So...not that I'm complaining about the comparative lack of major terrorist attacks in the US since 9-11...but I really don't see the point of terrorist strikes like this against anyone else in the Western world, unless one is appealing only to the most radical of the radical, those Muslims who truly believe it's the entire West against the entire East, or all of the globalized world versus traditional values. And I don't think this describes most Arabs or Muslims.

Where Bin Laden and his ideological brethren still get a lot of mileage is not in deeds like this, but in claims that the US is waging a war against Islam. THIS resonates, because of the media images comparing Israel in the West Bank with the US in Iraq. But beyond this rhetoric and this specific claim, I do not see how catastrophic terror strikes against Europeans, Japanese, Australians, or Canadians is going to help their cause one bit. And I even have my doubts about strikes against American civilians as being a viable recruiting tool...because again, it's US POLICY and FOREIGN PRESENCE that matters, not the fact that people in Fargo, ND are playing X-box and eating Big Macs.

which is to say: I don't see these threats expanding on their own accord. The most zealous radicals will continue to perpetrate strikes such as this, but the strikes' logic will make sense only to them, without affecing the majority opinions of any mainstream group. It's actually a case of the US being its own worst enemy: the only way that the most radical groups will expand into the mainstream, in actual political effect and/or recruitment numbers, is if the US continues policies that makes it look like we really are attacking the whole Islamic world. if we stop doing policies that give this impression, and London and Paris continue their own wise policies of already not giving this impression, I don't see attacks on Western targets as an expanding phenomon. It will continue -- but it will be a manageable law enforcement effort, not a war of civilizations. And the radical Islamists who use violence as a tool will fail to make it a war of civilizations, no matter how hard they try...unless US strategic policy actions continue their downward trend, thereby making a war of civilizations a self-fulfilling prophecy. But whatever the US does, Europe will continue to be seen by most people around the world -- including most Muslims -- as a place that should be respected and courted, not attacked. Small consolation to those who died, but good news for European civilization in general. Not such good news for America, unless we start implementing a different strategy.

[TCinLA]

AQ may have "screwed the pooch" and perhaps people will think differently of them than they have.

But nothing is going to wash the blood off the hands of the Worst.President.Ever, this worthless moron and his collection of lies and liars that still don't hide the basic b.s. of his war-of-choice. Wrong war. Wrong enemy. Wrong time. Wrong place. This idiot has managed to demonstrate the limits to American power to our enemies. No other American president has managed to do that before.

[Robert Drake]

If looked at as a tactical manuever, the British attack makes sense. AQ, or affiliated organizations are targeting the civilian populations of nations that are currently deployed in Iraq. The nations, or organization that have been hit by AQ, or affiliated groups operating under its aegis: The U.N., Australia, Spain, and Britain, have been hit. The U.N. withdrew, and a political tsunami in Spain guarenteed Spanish withdrawl. It's fair to say that popular support for deploying troops to Iraq was low in Australia, Spain, and Britian, as well as Italy and Denmark. AQ figured that if you strike at the civilian populations in those countries, it would only reinforce the popularly held belief that engagement in Iraq would have consequences. The strategy has worked thus far. I wouldn't count on the British people suddenly seeking a greater degree of solidarity with George Bush on Iraq. In that regard, these operations have potency that far outweighs the
physical damage they do.