The War with al-Qaeda
The war with al-Qaeda has many dimensions. There is the war with the organization itself. There is the struggle against its offshoots and copycats. There is cooperation with Muslim governments and communities in derailing the threat. There is the question of the strength of Sunni fundamentalist parties that might support al-Qaeda. And there is winning hearts and minds in the Muslim world.
The war with the organization itself largely succeeded by 2003 and no further progress seems to have been made since that time. Some 600 al-Qaeda operatives were captured in Pakistan, many of them through a sting arranged inside the Karachi Western Union office, according to Ron Susskind. The original al-Qaeda has been badly disrupted as to command and control.
It is not, however, dead. Every evidence is that the London subway bombings of a little over a year ago had a strong connection to Ayman al-Zawahiri. He appears to have worked with a Pakistani terrorist group such as Jaish-i Muhammad or Lashkar-i Tayyibah or whatever they are calling themselves these days to recruit the young Britons that carried out the attack. Al-Zawahiri had in his possession their suicide tapes, and broadcast them on Aljazeera. It is urgent that Usamah Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri be captured. Declan Walsh explains why this is is difficult.
It may well be that the Egyptian Islamic Jihad offshoot operating in the Sinai, which conducted the Sharm El Shaikh and Taba bombings of tourist hotels, has a link to Zawahiri.
Al-Qaeda's popularity is declining in some quarters. A Pew poll in 2005 found that significantly fewer numbers of Moroccans, Turks and Indonesians were confident in Bin Laden that year than the two previous years. On the other hand, a majority of Jordanians and Pakistanis continued to have a high regard for his competency.
The Madrid train bombings show the severe challenge posed by local copycat groups that do not have a direct connection to al-Qaeda, but take up one of its calls to action and learn techniques from the internet. If a group has at least some email connections to a known terror group or individual already under surveillance, at least there is a chance of cracking the plot. If they are all "newskins," that makes them invisible.
US cooperation with Middle Eastern governments is at a high level, from all accounts. The operation against Abu Musab al-Zarqawi appears to have been very significantly a Jordanian operation. Egypt and the US conduct joint military exercises. I have a sense that the relationship with Morocco has deepened. Algeria's government fought a decade-long civil war against Islamist political forces, some of them very violent, and has reason to cooperate.
On the negative side, the Sunni Arabs of Iraq appear ever increasingly to be organized by radical Muslim fundamentalist forces of various sorts. This population of some 5 million had been among the bulwarks of secular Arab nationalism in the past, but those days are long gone.
The Islamic Action Council in Pakistan, some members of which sympathize with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, continues to rule the Northwest Frontier Province. The central government, however, which is more secular, has stopped it from implementing Islamic law and hisbah (measures that give anyone standing in enforcing morality on others). Parliament has even moved to rewrite Pakistan's flawed rape law, which is based on Gen. Zia ul-Haq's Islamization measures and is so poorly framed that it often ends up allowing the victims to be punished!
Four MPs from the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan went to mourn Zarqawi's death with his family, triggering sanctions against them. The incident raised questions about how much distance there is between the Salafi Jihadis, the violent revivalists, and the conservative religious parties that seem to eschew violence and pursue ordinary politics.
The US pressured Egypt to open up its parliamentary elections last fall, and the Mubarak regime took revenge by letting 88 Muslim Brother delegates be seated in a chanber with a little over 400 members. These supported Hizbullah in the recent Israel-Lebanon War and have demanded that the Camp David Accords be revoked.
Hamas won the elections in the Palestine Authority. The Israelis have taken many of the elected Hamas representatives and officials into custody, however, and have repeatedly bombed the Interior Ministry in Gaza. These developments have added to the popularity of Hamas and radical fundamentalism while making a mockery of the Bush administration's stated commitment to democratization.
Hizbullah itself achieved enormous popularity, and enhanced the prestige of radical Muslim fundamentalism, by its ability to make a stand before the Israeli military machine. This development will ripple through the region, to the disadvantage of more secular, moderate forces.
The evidence with regard to hearts and minds is mixed. The Pew Global Attitudes Project reports on Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, with a population of 224 mn. In 2000, 70 percent of Indonesians viewed the United States favorably. (Such numbers were typical for US Muslim allies in areas not consumed by the Arab-Israeli conflict). In 2002 as a result of the Afghanistan war, the number fell to 60 percent. Then in 2003 after Bush invaded Iraq, it fell to 15 percent. After Bush sent the US Navy to help Indonesia in the aftermath of the tsunami, the numbers rebounded in 2005 to 38 percent. In 2006 they have fallen again, down to 30 percent.
So since 2000, we have fallen from 70 percent approval in Indonesia to only 30 percent, and at some points we were way down. This story contains a caution and also some encouraging news. The caution is that we are losing the Indonesia public because of this Iraq occupation. It is true in Turkey, as well, and lots of other places. The good news is that it is not irreversible. Do some nice things for someone, and the numbers go up. (The numbers also went up in Pakistan after we diverted some military helicopters to help the victims of the Kashmir earthquake). If we ended our Iraq presence, there is a chance we could repair these relationships with some munificent gestures.
In Turkey, the favorability rating of the US in 2002 was 52 percent. It is now 15 percent. That is a scary plummet! I suspect it is all about Iraq, and particularly the feeling that the US is letting the Iraqi Kurds harbor the PKK terrorists, who are blowing things up in Turkey.
The only really good news in the Pew findings is that the US has grown in popularity in Morocco, to nearly 50%, and is especially popular with youth and women. Moroccans have said they are worried about terrorism and about too much influence of religion in politics. I don't entirely understand what is driving the Morocco numbers, since they were pretty upset about Iraq, but the change should be studied for what it can tell us about doing things right. One thing that helps is that Morocco is a long way from the Arab-Israeli conflict, and, in fact, has good behind the scenes relations with Israel.
The Arab world mostly just dislikes US policy, mainly because of kneejerk support for Israeli depredations against Palestinians. The dislike doesn't change that much, though we reached a nadir in 2003-2004. In 2002 76 percent of the Egyptian public disapproved of us. In 2004 that rose to 98 percent. It has fallen down to 86 percent in 2006. Very few Egyptians approve of US foreign policy. They don't even like US intervention to open up the Egyptian political system.
To the extent that small terrorist groups benefit in their recruitment and in motivating recruits from deeply negative attitudes to the United States, these polling numbers are extremely disturbing. The main things driving a polarization between Muslim publics and the US are not al-Qaeda or terrorism, however. They are Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. It is the policy. The policy can provoke anger and engender threat, and that is why it had better be a damn good policy. It can also make for friendships, which is what we should be aiming at.
It wouldn't take much now to settle the Israel-Palestine thing, and the time is ripe to have Israel give back the Golan to Syria and the Shebaa Farms to Lebanon in return for a genuine peace process. The Israelis are not made more secure by crowding into the West Bank or bombing Gaza daily. South Lebanon has demonstrated the dangers of ever more sophisticated microwars over rugged territory. It is time for Israel, and for the United States, to do the right thing and rescue the Palestinians from the curse of statelessness, the slavery of the 21st century. Ending this debilitating struggle would also be the very best thing for the Israelis themselves. In one fell swoop, the US would have solved 80 percent of its problems with the Muslim world and vastly reduced the threat of terrorism.
But of all the things this administration has done badly, it has been worst of all at making friends in the region. That could end up hurting us most of all, and playing into Bin Laden's increasingly ghostly hands.


11 Comments:
I fail to see how the policy changes you complain about can come to fruition even if the Dems take control.
First, there is not public support for any of the initiatives of the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is a nominal two state solution. But, it is more figurative than anything, given that the Arab pop still is not allowed control over its borders. The USA will not support a true solution as the majority of the public is uninformed about what is going on. The Independent is reporting people in Gaza having to scavenge the garbage for food. If we don't see this, we can hardly understand what the rest of the Arab world is seeing.
The only hope I see is maybe a withdrawl from Iraq. But, many offensives against the USA preceeded the entrance to Iraq.
Where will we sit, if we only deal with Iraq without a true solution to other problems. I have to add the economy of many areas is a leading problem, through out much of the Arab world you have well educated young men, unable to find jobs, many forced to do street work with degrees, ect.... This is a bad situation for us as well, it is not just anger, it is the idleness of this situation. The crush of other expectations as well.
Prof. Cole, what do you suggest be done about the Palestinian refugees? The populations of the countries that are angry over the Palestinian conflict often think a Palestinian right to return to Israel is more important than the existence of a Jewish state.
Do you have a solution that you think will be acceptable to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhoods of Egypt and Jordan and Hezbollah or do you think that despite the fact that those are the most popular political movements in some of their territories, a solution should be made that is acceptable to Abbas, Mubarak, King Abdullah and Siniora in the hopes that once a solution is in place that is acceptable to the less popular leaders, the situation will gain in popularity?
It is becoming a safer and safer bet that Iran and other political forces that do not view Israel's having a Jewish majority as more important than the rights of the refugees will be more powerful next year at this time than they are now.
A solution that satisfies Mubarak (or at least the Mubarak says satisfies him) but does not satisfy the Muslim Brotherhood may end up doing more harm to Mubarak than it does good for Israel.
professor cole,
thank you for mentioning the rape law reforms in pakistan.
those interested in learning more can do so at my wordpress blog
eteraz.wordpress.com
You write that, "It is urgent that Usamah Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri be captured." Any fresh ideas about how to do this? Five years of reward offers, electronic surveillance, and human intelligence appear to have led nowhere. Live apprehension appears unlikely. Not even neocons propose US invasion of Pakistan's tribal areas, something not even 80,000 Pakistani troops seem able to do. A cruise missile strike, based on a human intelligence tip, is prone to error. There will be no 100% or even 75% assurance of a bullseye with little risk of miss or collateral damage. Even a lucky direct hit might prompt violent reprisals against civilians. What math is acceptable?
"It wouldn't take much now to settle the Israel-Palestine thing," Juan claims. This is utter fantasy. Of course, if those with power in the supremacist states of Israel and the United States changed their spots and became advocates of human equality and democratic republics, then a rational settlement would be easy! The problem is that supremacists do not want Palestinians or Lebanese or any other Arab or Islamic country to establish a viable, attractive modern state. Decrepit monarchies and oppressive dictatorships are fine because these show that Arabs and Muslims cannot cut the mustard in the modern world. The supremacists (a form of racism) rather see a people in anarchy and chaos than see them politically successful. That is why the USA has destroyed Iraq and why Israel has destroyed Lebanon. It is also why there is no serious efforts to deal with tribal wars in Africa. On the view of Western supremacists, these disasters show the world how inferior non-white, non-Christian, non-western people are. There is nothing simple about solving the root problem of Israel-Palestine-- the supremacists now ruling the USA and Israel.
I agree with you for almost all of it. Well put!
"The US pressured Egypt to open up its parliamentary elections last fall, and the Mubarak regime took revenge by letting 88 Muslim Brother delegates be seated in a chanber with a little over 400 members."
"Took revenge"? Egypt isn't trying to cut off its nose to spite its friends. Mubarak is quite opposed to the MB party, banning it for decades. He's not going to allow them to grow and overthrow him, just to teach the US a lesson.
Also, you should point out that not all Salafis subscribe to these violent ideas. There's a tendency by everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim, to say it's only wahhabis/salafis who are violent. In America, the Salafis are generally non-political, and focus on salafism in theology. Al Maghrib institute is an example, they had an extremism condemnation on their front page. I'm not a Salafi myself, but I know of a number and they don't appear much different in general.
"On the other hand, a majority of Jordanians and Pakistanis continued to have a high regard for his competency."
With the case of Jordanians, that is absolutely further from the truth.
Prof. Cole, what you fail to note is that after the 11/9 attacks in Amman, support for al-Qaeda reversed, with a clear majority viewing al-Qaeda, Zarqawi, and bin laden as terrorists as opposed to freedom fighters.
In regard to the bit about "hard line Muslims" not wanting to reform the hudood laws, I quote from the article you linked:
"Under the current Hudood Ordinance law, approved by a former military dictator in 1979, prosecuting a rape case requires testimony from four witnesses, making punishment nearly impossible.
A woman who claims she was raped but fails to prove it risks being convicted of adultery — which is punishable by death."
I'm no Islamic scholar, and I'm certainly not one to deny something that exists in my faith even if it's deemed unpopular BUT.....I don't see how this can be Islamic law. I don't think it IS Islamic law. Sure, the 4 witnesses are there. But my understanding is if it cannot be proven, then the woman takes an oath by God, and then the man, and then if they both swear by God they did nothing wrong, neither can be punished! This is MY understanding of how early Muslims dealt with this. They invoked a curse on each other, and whoever was lying would get it in the hereafter.
Also, you did not have DNA then, but what you had was people's word, and people took their words and their oaths much more seriously than they do now, especially if they took an oath by God. Nevertheless you have some Islamic scholars who are saying DNA evidence can be allowed in a rape case to decide an issue of guilt. We should hear more about those cases. To me, that is the spirit of Islam. The wisdom in the 4 witnesses was to prevent innocent people from being wrongly punished. I believe it was Umar (?) who said that it is better for the guilty to go free than for one innocent man to be wrongly punished?
Thanks for the headline change. But I must agree with Lakoff and Frisch, http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0911-20.htm
that the "metaphor of war" be dumped. Even the Global War for Oil has greater revalence to reality by calling it The USA's Global Oil Grab or perhaps the Great Oil Sin.
US elections in under 60 days. The only way to change policy is to impeach and convict the administration; otherwise, the SNAFU will continue and thousands more will needlessly die.
Professor - might the Moroccan figures relate to US support for Morocco against the Polisario Front? (I don't actually know this - just speculating, but it might be an explanation.)
Iran is a friend of Afghanistan against Taliban/Al Qaeda and an enemy of US in a war against Al Qaeda.
Go figure! Iran is Afghanistan's friend and US' enemy in an Upside down War!
Post a Comment
<< Home