Why Jihahdis Are Feeling Good
Several developments towards the year’s end show what a good few months it has been for the worldwide jihadi movement. These are not marginal shifts in the success of the Salafist military project, but significant gains that demonstrate some of the contours of the growing, armed movement that would like to eliminate us.
Among them:
Significant advances in Somalia, creating a geographic base and state absent since being driven from Afghanistan;
The succeessful establishment of a virually independent Taliban state in northern Pakistan, allowing for a constantly-growing ability to challenge NATO militarily and the coordination of training and fighting with foreign fighters;The dominance of the political discourse by violent Islamists and by their allies in the debate over Islamism in Europe and the United States;
The successful creation of an information and education sharing network that allow successful tactics in one region to be exported in short order to other groups-i.e. from Iraq to Afghanistan;The weakening of the central governments in both Afghanistan and Iraq, enhancing the law-and-order appeal of the Islamist groups;
The continued penetration of sub-Saharan Africa through NGOs, the building of mosques and the export of radical imams in the hopes of radicalizing potential recruits;
And the survival of key leaders such as bin Laden and Zawahiri.
That is just on the Salafist/Sunni side. On the Shi’ite side there is the emergence of Hizbollah again as a significant military force, Iran’s unhindered nuclear ambitions and understanding that the international community will remain hardpressed to actually take any action to deter these ambitions, and the growing alliance between Iran and Venezuela, to oil-rich states.
On the terrorism side, this is extremely dangerous because Hezbollah has both people and a financial network in Latin America, and getting a state backer for its enterprises there, through the Iranian alliance with Chavez, would be most useful. Chavez has already shown his support for violent groups by his friendship with the FARC in neighboring Colombia. Not much of a stretch to make Hezbollah feel at home at the request of his primary international ally.
There have been some military victories against these advances. But what comes across from the U.S. and European side is the ongoing dithering over words and definitions-global war on terrorism, Islamofascism, radicalism etc. For example, is the Muslim Brotherhood a radical enough movement to be included in the global war on terror?
While definitions are useful, five years of dithering over them is dangerous. There has yet to be a clearly defined strategy to take on radical Islam in its different guises. There is no coherent message except the overly simplistic, almost meaningless phrase that these people hate freedom, therefore they hate us. Almost nothing further has been articulated, pushed into the public arena for debate, for to help shape the debate or establish a credible alternative to the Islamist narratives about what is happening. And that makes it a bad few months for those of us who do not wish to convert to Islam or live under the new caliphate.
commenting closed for this article
Chuckie Taylor Jr. Indicted For Torture The Generational War
What’s got me nervous is the trail of radiation in the UK and now Germany. The people involved to not appear to be the best and the brightest, but they are now very, very, successful nuclear terrorists.
We never saw them comming.
— vachon Dec 11, 15:06 #
“The dominance of their political discourse by allies in the debate in Europe and the United States”
Would you care to expand on this?? A lot implied here…
Dumbass
— Dumbass Dec 11, 20:40 #
” . . . allies in . . . Europe and the United States.” Since the U. S. at any rate doesn’t sport significant domestic rhetoric explicity espousing jihadi terrorism, I conclude that “implied here” is the support given the jihadis by the various triangular rhetorics of left-wing groups, including that wing of the American democratic party. The jihadis have already expressed themselves more than satisfied with the return of the democratic party to dominance in both houses of the U. S. congress: they know who their allies are. The anti-war types triangulate pro-jihadi support through the “third angle” of pacificism, as do the various left-wing lawyers’ groups who triangulate the same support by attacking in court much necessary domestic tracking of jihadi movements.
— Michael McCanles Dec 12, 12:13 #
” I conclude that “implied here” is the support given the jihadis by the various triangular rhetorics of left-wing groups, including that wing of the American democratic party.”
Gee, and I thought that this referred to the avalanche of right-wing rhetoric accusing Demorats of being “traitors,” “terrorist sympathisers,” “surrender monkeys” etc. – thus giving our enemies the false impression that they have substantial allies in this nation. I thought it referred to the insane policies of our current administration, blundering into strategic fiasco after strategic fiasco – handing our enemies every advantage they could ever dream of us giving them. I thought it referred to an administration which has thoroughly ignored effective domestic security and effective pursuit of our enemies where they were centered in favor of creating a vast new field of opportunity for them in Iraq.
— Jan Rooth Dec 12, 14:09 #
Michael and Jan:
The American People voted in Democrats to Congress because of their disapproval of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war not because of “left-wing Democrat” proposals in the form of alternative solutions to the Bush agenda. The Bush Administration has done everything in its POWER to obstruct the contributions of liberal Democrats re; the war on terrorism. The Bush Adminstration has done everything in its POWER to obstruct a ‘global peacebuilding initiative’ (read Kofi Annan’s farewell speech at the Truman Library).
I am a liberal Democrat who has facilitated a counterterrorism email Group for four years of which Douglas Farah is a member. On any given issue that we talk about, party affliation and fixed agendas are set aside in an effort to find an accurate assessment of the problem and the nonpartisan solution. Often counterterrorism research results conflict with partisan politics i.e. partisan politics slows down the solution.
What I look for is the nonpartisan – what is the most effective solution that serves the American and the Iraqi People because security, for example, is meant for both. In fact, security is meant for all. Health is meant for all. Prosperity is meant for all.
I suggest that America change its global image from superpower to superplayer.
— Philip Henika Dec 12, 15:57 #
Dear Mr. Henika,
I agree with your last statement, but the people who are on permanent display on all the TV networks and applauded by the editorial pages of some of our more, erm, respected newspapers, for example Emerson and Woosley, are most definately partisan (I prefer the word “crazy”). They are the most visible on the subject. I believe Mr. Emerson is also a contributor to the Counterterrorism blog.
— vachon Dec 12, 16:18 #
Philip:
I applaud your efforts. I too am a liberal Democrat who takes the threat of Islamist terrorism very seriously and has argued consistently for effective action against our ememies.
But I’m dead serious when I say the best allies the terrorist enemy have in this nation today are the right-wingers who have carried out a domestic political strategy of “divide and conquor” – demonizing anyone who dares question the administration’s gross mishandling of this conflict as “traitors,” “surrender monkeys” and so on. They’ve successfully poisoned the atmosphere to the point that serious dialogue on defense of the nation of well-nigh impossible.
If stating this obvious fact makes me unacceptably partisan in your eyes, then so be it. I firmly believe we’ll get nowhere until this particular disease has been expunged from the body politic.
— Jan Rooth Dec 12, 16:24 #
Jan –
A change in course is often difficult because everyone is reevaluating – reminds of the world ambiance when we passed through the Millennium.
I suppose heading toward the nonpartisan could be considered a safety valve but I prefer objectivity and I felt that Americans have voted against Bush Republican subjectivity i.e. spin.
Yes, I remember the divide – recall what Cheney said about Richard Clarke being “out of the loop”. And I see Bush has now postponed his big speech until next year. I guess the Loop has been activated again. I suppose Bush thinks that Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hizbollah and Hizb-ut-Tahrir are going stop their campaigns and wait.
In the meantime try Kofi Annan.
Here is another positive:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16178946.htm
— Philip Henika Dec 12, 16:47 #
Interesting debate, but unfortunately fueled by my own lack of clarity. I have since edited the sentence to appear as I meant it to: The dominance of the political discourse by violent Islamists and by their allies in the debate over Islamism in Europe and the United States.
By which I mean, the Islamists are still defining how we talk about them, abetted by groups like CAIR, ISNA and others who accuse everyone concerned about the spread of radical, violent Islamism of being anti-Islam, while refusing to take a clear, unequivocal stand against violence.
Hope that helps.
— Douglas Farah Dec 12, 17:58 #
Douglas et al.:
Steve Emerson chimes in i.e.
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/160018
excerpt:
“Emerson said claims from many Muslims that the West is engaged in a war on Islam fuels Muslim communities’ paranoia that Muslims are being selectively targeted for racist reasons or because Western foreign policy is anti-Muslim. He said that tactic is likewise used by terrorists.
The vitriol Emerson attracts is largely based on his contention that groups representing themselves as mainstream Muslims often have terrorist ties.
“The real aim of these groups is to neutralize the government’s war on terrorism and to change its conduct in foreign affairs,” he said. “The first reaction to the London and Toronto arrests was not to applaud the government’s actions but to warn of an anti-Islamic backlash.”
One group he spoke about Monday was the Council on American-Islamic Relations — CAIR — a nonprofit organization that says it is America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group. Emerson says legitimizing CAIR is counterproductive to the war on terrorism.
“Publicly these groups insist righteously that they are against terrorism — their assertions are dutifully reported by the media,” Emerson said. “But in fact, the media ignores compelling evidence of their origins and patent defense and/or veneration of radical Islamist leaders such as Hasan al Turabi of the Sudan and even the Taliban pre-9/11.”
CAIR denies the accusations.
“Unfortunately, Mr. Emerson has a long history of seeking to marginalize and disenfranchise the American Muslim community and its institutions through the use of guilt by association, smears and distortions,” said CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, who is based in Washington, D.C., and was not at the talk.
Similarly, Tucsonan Mohyeddin Abdulaziz, a 59-year-old Muslim, said he believes Emerson preaches hate. Abdulaziz participated in the protest.”
— Philip Henika Dec 12, 18:57 #
Quit fussing; we’ll do something decisive when we’ve tried the last of an infinite sequence of last-resorts.
— MelM Dec 13, 03:08 #