Terrorism

In a recently released audio tape, al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri lashes out at President-Elect Obama both for his policies, and quite oddly, the color of his skin.  This is an unusual departure for al Qaeda leadership, many of whom have attempted to create a pan-ethnic and global Muslim identity distinct from race and ethnicity. 

In his message, al-Zawahiri slams Obama’s policy aims, warning that ‘What you have announced before … that you will withdraw troops from Iraq (and send) to Afghanistan is a policy that is doomed to failure.” 

‘If you still want to be stubborn about America’s failure in Afghanistan, then remember the fate of Bush and Pervez Musharraf, and the fate of the Soviets and British before them,” he added.  This critique of American foreign policy has clearly been heard before.  Far more interesting, however, is al-Zawahiri’s use of racially charged rhetoric against President-Elect Obama. 

In his audio statement, he refers to the American leader as “abeed al-beit,” literally translated as ‘house slave’.  Astutely, the al-Qaeda supplied subtitles read as ‘House Negro’.  The video also included still images of Barack Obama appearing in Jewish skullcaps speaking with Jewish leaders.  These images were juxtaposed with speeches given by Malcolm X, where he jeers ‘house negroes’ as being more servile than those who worked the fields, as they act merely on the bidding of their white masters.  Al-Zawahiri explains the contrasted images, claming that Obama is “the direct opposite of honorable black Americans like Malcolm X’. 

The election of Obama poses serious problems for al-Qaeda and related organizations.  He not only represents a new image of America, but also a more tolerant, multi-cultural image not in sync with the fundamentalist concept of the ‘Christian Crusader’. With this in mind, the audio tape has two intended purposes.  The first is practical.  Despite all of the media attention, global vigor, and enthusiasm behind Barack Obama’s campaign, the actual meat-and-potatoes of his foreign policy are not that distinct from Bush.  Zawahiri is trying to highlight these similarities.  In many ways, President-Elect Obama’s emphasis on Afghanistan poses a more direct, existential threat towards al-Qaeda than does the War in Iraq.  For these reasons, Islamic fundamentalists should be far more concerned with the new administration than the prior. 

Second, al-Zawahiri is trying to strike at Muslim perceptions of Obama and the new American era his election has ushered in.  He is trying to persuade al-Qaeda sympathizers that, apart from skin tone, Obama represents nothing new.  “America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always,” he adds.   Furthermore, despite Obama’s long standing engagement with Palestinian issues, many of which often lead to American criticism, al-Zawahiri aims to paint him as the puppet of Israeli Zionists and the American ‘White/Christian’ establishment; claiming his support for Israel has ‘confirmed to the Ummah (Islamic world) that you have chosen a stance of hostility to Islam and Muslims’. 

Will this tape resonate amongst the Arab world, many of its citizens already enamored and excited about the incoming administration?  Probably not, but al-Qaeda is left with little choice.  Are they to congratulate Obama on his election, thank him for his support of various Palestinian issues, and wait for the bombs to drop on Tora Bora? Their only option is portray him as an extension of Bush and hope that will translate to support.  It’s certainly worked once before, just ask John McCain. 

Economic crises and terror attacks reside in different parts of the America brain. The former requires patience and discipline, the latter demands action and decisiveness. Several months ago, it’s quite likely the more violent aspects of the American psyche would’ve sent John McCain to the White House. Then came the financial meltdown. According to exit polling, terrorism ranked just 5th in most important issues concerning the American voter, garnering approximately 10% and just behind Iraq. While I consider both issues, terror and the War in Iraq intrinsically linked, combined they were considered paramount by only a quarter of the populace. The economic crisis flipped a switch in the United States, and suddenly people favored the academic professor to the grizzly warrior. It must be noted, however, that the qualities that have made President-Elect Obama so appealing to voters, his pragmatism and attention to nuance, can be quite problematic in outlining a meaningful and effective counter-terror strategy.

Don’t get me wrong. I FIRMLY believe in attention to detail and an ability to redefine goals and re-assess the situation. I also FIRMLY reject a counter-terror policy that is based on pure ideology and a black-and-white clarity that reduces the conflict to ‘us versus them’ (I think we all know to whom I am referring). However, it is important to have an underlying philosophy that the American people can support and the world can understand. Here is what I know of Obama’s view of the ‘War on Terror’ and International Conflict.

1. He has opposed the War in Iraq from the on-set, yet now hails the surge as a success and will defer further judgments on troop deployment to ‘commanders on the ground’.
2. While opposing the War in Iraq, he has frequently advocated intervention of some sort in troubled Darfur.
3. He opposes the torture or mistreatment of military detainees.
4. Obama would like to see an increased American presence in Afghanistan.
5. He is willing to launch military strikes within other nations should they be unable or unwilling to respond to terror-specific intelligence.
6. He views an unstable Pakistan and a nuclear-armed Iran as grave dangers to the international community and the United States.
7. In broad terms he views terror as an issue of law enforcement, not military engagement, although some military intervention is necessary.

All of this is sensible, rational, and pragmatic. However, like the Clinton years, it lacks a cohesiveness and clarity that is beneficial when launching a renewed terror strategy. Clinton’s biggest flaw was his lack of an over-arching principle. Bush the elder had his ‘new world order’, yet Clinton took every issue on a case-by-case basis. Engage in Africa for one conflict, yet ignore the other. Attack bin Laden for one bombing, yet ignore other atrocities. For better or worse, the Bush administration understood their position and was able to execute their policy with effectiveness. The American people too, understood the actions taken by their leaders.

Obama runs the very real risk of having to explain every single action he takes, defend each and every decision, and waste time explaining to a weary world why America has gone down her specific path.
This is in no way an indictment of Obama’s stance on counter-terrorism. The man isn’t even in office yet. This is simply a gentle urging that in the months ahead, he lay out an effective, clear-cut strategy through which his administration and the American public can move forward in the face of this threat.

Call it the Obama Doctrine. Call it a National Security Directive. Whatever. Just name it something and reference it often.

The pseudo-civil war raging in Pakistan has resulted in a new wave of violence across the troubled-nation.  The Taliban and associates have claimed at least two terror attacks in as many days, while Pakistani military personnel responded with heavy air attacks on suspected militant targets in the northwest frontier.

Thursday, a meeting amongst Tribal leaders in the Bajaur Province was bombed, killing at least 10 and injuring over 45.  The convention, ironically convened to discuss the increased presence of insurgents within the troubled region, included military officers as well as civilian officials.  “It appears to have been a suicide attack,” a senior government official said.  A day earlier, insurgents launched at least three rockets in to Peshawar’s major airport.  It was the third rocket-style attack in one week.   

In response, Pakistani military personnel launched an air-to-surface assault on the suspected Taliban stronghold of Airab, killing at least 15 insurgents (including one major, non-specified target). This is the second time in recent months the Pakistani security forces have attacked the region, long known as a Taliban sanctuary.

This tit-for-tat is newsworthy, but offers little insight in to the growing conflict.  It does highlight, however, the increased trend of targeting tribal elders.  For months, the Pakistani military has tried to persuade these elders to evict Taliban elements from their lands, much like the American-inspired Awakening Councils in Iraq.  Unlike the Awakening Councils, the Pakistani security forces are unable or unwilling to provide essential protection to these tribal leaders. 

If one were so inclined as to be a staunch optimist, the tiniest of silver linings lay in the fact that the fighting is still taking place within the northwest frontier regions and not Islamabad.  I fear that will change in the coming months. 

UPDATE:  Apparently a third attack has been claimed in the Swat Valley.  A suicide bomber has reportedly (according to the BBC) killed at least two security personnel and wounded five. 

For better or worse, America has taken off the gloves in her fight against ‘Islamic extremism’. Motivations vary. Perhaps George Bush is making his last-ditch effort to ‘smoke ‘em out of their caves’ before he leaves office, or perhaps an invigorated American command is utilizing some of its political capital gained through the security improvements in Iraq. More probable, the American military got sick and tired of pursuing the enemy as far as friendly borders would allow, only to watch them slip through the cracks to fight another day. America’s solution? Borders… What borders?

In any asymmetrical war, the lesser partner is inherently reliant on the exploitation of weakness and a reliance on stealth mobility. I find it hard to believe, as the ‘War in Iraq’ marched towards a reality in the early part of 2003, that American leadership had foreseen a situation where the military would be tiptoeing around the region like a teenager sneaking out of an upstairs window. That is, however, the situation America is in. Rather was in.

Back when the War in Iraq was in the midst of meltdown, American and Coalition forces had a tragically one-sided border policy. Keep as many foreign fighters out of Iraq as possible, yet allow Iraqi refugees to exit. Iraqi checkpoints operated as one-way streets, often allowing anyone and everyone free passage out of the country. However, as the situation improved, the Coalition was facing a new problem: battle-hardened insurgents and terrorists exiting Iraq and spreading throughout the region like influenza. America saw the writing on the wall. It was not about to watch these insurgents flee, bide their time, then wait for the American military to phase-out and re-enter Iraq stronger and more militant than ever.

Sadly, this is now where we stand. This is the cold war, Cuban missile crisis, 9/11, all wrapped in to one neat little catch-22. As Iraq gets more and more safe, the region at large becomes more and more unstable. The US cannot allow these insurgents to flee to other nations, yet it cannot simply roam around the region firing at will in any country it pleases. What, if any, is the solution? To ask the leaders of supposedly friendly neighbors to engage these militants is like asking for their letters of resignation - or their heads. Yet they too understand the severity of the situation. To think for one second that Syrian or Pakistani leaders want these insurgents within their borders is absolute nonsense. But what are they to do? Allow American helicopters to attack their villages, much like what occurred in Syria over the weekend? Every single interested party within the Middle East and South Asia, apart from those who crave chaos and instability, is caught in a wave of paralysis. All want a similar conclusion to this conflict: a stable Iraq that will not infringe on her neighbors, a reduced American presence, a drop in terrorist activity. The complexity of the situation makes achieving these aims all-but impossible. It seems, for the time being, that America has tried the do-nothing approach, and has found it immaterial. It is gearing up, hard and fast, for a military approach that simply ignores state sovereignty. The problem is, once a state’s sovereignty is diminished or abandoned, once they are no longer in control of their territory, what emerges?

This is something unique from modern history. This road can lead to the complete restructuring of the Middle East, and the regions’ concept of what it means to ‘own’ a country. This is border-free war. This is the next phase of the War on Terror.

Afghanistan is standing on the precipice of disaster. Almost seven years after the initial attack on the Taliban (most of which was very successful), Coalition forces are now poised at a crossroads. All interested parties must ask themselves one key question: Are we in or are we out? Just as America double-downed on the surge strategy, NATO forces must now commit to success in Afghanistan or go home.

Unlike Iraq, set-backs in Afghanistan are hard to determine, mostly because of the Taliban’s inability to conquer territory. As Britain’s Foreign Minister pointed out, the Taliban is concentrated in just 10% of Afghanistan’s districts, home to a mere 6% of the Afghani population. The Taliban “lack the capacity to hold ground,” he wrote. While probably a true assertion, he doesn’t understand the nature of the conflict he is purportedly committed too. Land is inconsequential. The Taliban are not concerned with provinces and districts, but with time and money. Drag the conflict on for as long as possible and watch the occupiers give up and go home. Just like Mick Jagger sang in 1964, ‘Time is on my side, yes it is.’

How can NATO countries not understand this? Where is their sense of urgency? As time passes, Afghanistan is falling deep in to a downward spiral. Over the past week there has been a surge in insurgent-related violence. Five children were killed in a roadside bombing in the north, 30 afghan civilians were killed as their bus traveled from Kandahar towards Helmand province, and Talibani officials claim they have captured at least 180 Afghani soldiers. There has also been an increase of attacks on foreign workers inside the troubled country. The last few days have seen two German soldiers killed, as well as one British aid worker. 2008, the most deadly year for aid workers in Afghanistan since the start of the conflict, has seen 28 killings and 72 abductions.

More damaging to long-term prospects for peace has been an up tick in government and military defections. The former Mayor of Herat province, Ghullam Yahya Akbari, is now a major Taliban official, commanding over 22 mountain bases and refusing to negotiate with legitimate government sources until foreign troops vacate Afghani soil. The security situation in Herat has gotten so bad that over 20 members of the Afghani parliament have gone on strike to protest the worsening conditions. Previous weeks have also seen a mounting number of military defections, with soldiers once loyal to the political establishment now allying themselves with Taliban commanders. Not only does this increase the amount of insurgent personnel, but also raises the very real possibility of infiltration, espionage, and counter-intelligence.

Even top US Military commanders, often publicly stoic if not privately skeptical, are offering scathing criticism of NATO command. Speaking to the Royal United Services Institute in London, General John Craddock, the supreme allied commander in Europe said, ‘the will of our alliance in the mission in Afghanistan demonstrates some real shortcomings”. Adding, ‘our continual inability to fulfill our agreed upon statement of requirements in theatre, we are demonstrating a political will that is, in my judgment, sometimes wavering’.

Now is the moment of truth for all interested parties, including the Taliban and Afghani civilian government. Double-down your bet or cash out. In this conflict there is no middle ground. Admittedly skeptical of the ‘surge’ in Iraq and initially doubting success, I must applaud the audacity of American officials to re-commit themselves at a time when the conflict was scathingly unpopular. That choice is now upon other nations within the NATO alliance. Fortunately, the situation in Afghanistan is completely reversible. The insurgency is not as organized or widespread as that of Iraq 2006, the population is not sympathetic, and Pakistan is a far more accommodating neighbor than was Iran. Now is not the time to ride the fence, commit or go home.

On Monday and Tuesday of this week, the UK’s upper house of Parliament dismissed two key provisions from the government’s new Counter-Terrorism Bill. WHY? Political EXPEDIENCY.

Ministers base their opposition to the legislation on both human rights and constitutional grounds, but politics is surely the overarching principle of the day; a very dangerous game indeed.

First to be dropped from the bill was an extension as to how long terror suspects can be held without charge. The current limit is 28 days, while the proposed legislation would have allowed 42 day detentions. Both Conservative and Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords united to adopt a measure that would reinforce their commitment to the 28 day limit. A government spokesman said they would not attempt to reverse this decision.

Advocates of the extension cite the increased complexity of terror cases, often spanning several countries, dozens of computers, mobile phones, and prolonged travel. Supporters also highlight the 2006 airline plot to bomb several transatlantic flights to the United States, pointing out that authorities had to rush their investigation and nearly released several suspects as they approached the 28 day limit.

`Some may take the security of the British people lightly. I don’t,'’ said Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary, then claimed opponents of the legislation were “prepared to ignore the terrorist threat for fear of taking a tough but necessary decision.”

Meanwhile, opponents of the bill cite its lack of transparency as a threat to civil liberties and human rights. `The government’s climbdown over 42 days detention is a victory for everyone who cares about the civil liberties we enjoy as British citizens,'’ said Nick Clegg, leader of the Opposition Liberal Democrats.

The Second provision dropped from the new terror bill was the government’s proposed plans for private or ‘secret’ inquests. The new measures would have allowed judges and officials to ban juries, family members, and the public from taking part in terror cases involving national security. Officials in favor of the bill mention an increased sensitivity involving wire-taps and undercover agents, pointing out specific examples where open trials have damaged the government’s ability to execute ongoing investigations.

Again, critics of the plan say it is an affront to the United Kingdom’s judicial history of transparent government and fair trials. Various family members of the July 7 Bombings were worried the new amendment would allow the government to remain quiet on what they knew about the bombers prior to the attack. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights had also expressed concern in regards to the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot and killed by London police as they mistook him for a suicide bomber. The Committee argues that government officials must be held accountable for their actions, and the proposed bill would have limited oversight and regulations in regards to terror investigations.

All of these arguments are true. The 42 day extension would absolutely benefit the investigation of complex and intricate terror plots, and yes, there would indeed be cases of abuse and mistaken identities. Likewise, ‘secretive’ inquests would have increased counter-terror officials’ ability to isolate one investigation from the other. Several investigations could have existed simultaneously in the same neighborhood or mosque, without others being tipped off or forewarned. Would this system have been abused by overzealous officers and politicians? Absolutely. What’s distressing is NOT the fact that the two relatively controversial provisions were dropped, but the fact that they were dropped based on politics, not merit. Politics, again, rules the day.

Those supportive of the bill, mostly those in the governing Labour party, saw the legislation as a way to subvert Conservative gains in matters of national security. PM Brown and his cronies wanted to be the ‘tough guys’ for once. However, as the national mood shifted towards economic concerns, again giving the edge to Labour, the Prime Minister’s office became less interested in launching an all-out political assault based on counter-terrorism. Conservatives, too, are trying to regain authority on the economic crisis. The debate “distracts us at a time when there are more pressing issues that we should be concentrating our attention on — the economy, for one,” said Conservative spokeswoman Pauline Neville Jones.

The economy? Yes of course. The economy is in full-on meltdown mode, but since when has Parliament been unable to handle more than one crisis at a time? Does this legislation really contradict or limit any economic relief package? I don’t fully understand what one crisis has to do with the other. Oh wait, yes I do, it’s about votes.

As I followed the news over the past several days, I was struck by a fairly distressing thought. Is the current violence and upheaval in Pakistan the best-case scenario for Iraq?

Let’s examine what has happened over the past several days in Pakistan: A (presumed) suicide attack at an Islamabad counter-terrorism center, a roadside bombing in the northwest that left at least 10 dead, five civilians were killed when a shell exploded in a residential neighborhood in Swat, the Pakistani military killed at least 20 Taliban fighters near a tribal village in the north, and at least six others were killed in a separate roadside bombing in the Dir region. Do I need to mention the Marriott?

This trend in violence, the inability or unwillingness for the Pakistani establishment to suppress it, and the ripe opportunities for terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism are, unfortunately, like gazing in to a crystal ball. Current day Pakistan is a projection for the future of Iraq.

Both countries are plagued by a difficult relationship with the United States, separatist elements, jihadist movements, an ineffective civilian government, a military with varying allegiances, an inability to pacify specific regions within their borders, and a severe crisis of legitimacy within their own population. Add to all this the reality of American military personnel operating inside Pakistan, and the similarities are most disheartening.

Is the not-quite-failed yet not-quite-operational Pakistani scenario a likely result for Iraq post-American occupation? I hope not but would estimate so. I hate to lob Musharraf and Hussein in to the same category, but they both served an equally valuable purpose. Hussein, while certainly a tyrant, knew how to establish control and calm over a volatile population. Likewise, Musharraf was able to maintain a tentative peace over a society ready to implode. For all the complaints about his inability to combat terror or the Taliban, it is becoming increasingly apparent that he tried the best he could given the complexities of the situation.

In each man’s absence, underlying tensions have raced to the surface. The major factor suppressing violence in Iraq is the United States and coalition forces. Pakistan does not (yet) have that luxury. The larger question is, what will happen to Iraq when said forces leave? All things being equal, I do not project a complete collapse of the Iraqi government, but some form of Pakistani situation. Severe unrest for some time to come, competing elements within their civil society, an ineffective democratic government, and an American presence just over the horizon should the situation call for intervention.

The Iraqi debate continues throughout American politics. Has the ‘surge’ succeeded? Are security gains temporary of permanent? Will the Iraqis continue on the road towards reconciliation? Whatever your opinion, facts are facts. Both proponents and opponents of the ‘surge’ acknowledge that Iraq of 2008 is a far safer place than Iraq of 2005. To claim contrary is an act of willful ignorance. While certainly a positive trend in the lives of everyday Iraqis and Coalition forces, these developments can spell disaster for the entire Muslim world. The security blanket that continues to quell sectarian violence throughout Iraq is the very mechanism exporting terror to other countries of the region.

For the past five years, Iraq has acted as a fundamentalist vacuum, sucking up extremists from across the globe. Want to kill Sunni Muslims? Go to Iraq. Want to kill Shi’ite Muslims? Go to Iraq. Want to kill Americans? Go to Iraq. The list goes on. Of course Muslim regimes across the region publicly express their disgust towards the Coalition invasion and their revulsion of terrorist attacks. But the fact remains that Iraq has acted as a great sponge, soaking up would-be jihadists from Pakistan to Morocco. The American military estimates that nine out of ten suicide bombers come from outside Iraq, most often Saudi Arabia. 90% is a hard number to ignore.

Security improvements across Iraq, and particularly Baghdad, have slowed this process. But this newfound safety can spell disaster for the region at large. Surprisingly, very few officials have posed the question, ‘what will happen when this great terror vacuum turns off?’ Not only has this vacuum shut down, but new evidence suggests it has begun to operate in reverse, spewing out radical extremists in every direction. Last April, the American military expressed concern that militants trained in Iraq posed a far greater danger than those trained in Afghanistan, mostly due to their extensive experience in urban guerilla tactics. The concerns are not uniquely American. “If any country says it is safe from this, they are putting their heads in the sand,” said one Lebanese Military commander.

Unfortunately, current trends would prove this theory correct. Lebanon is engaged in a prolonged conflict with various terror organizations, including Fatah Islam, a group composed of many Iraqi War veterans with links to al Qaeda in Iraq. Similar experiences are reported in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and India. As Coalition forces destroy militant strongholds, regain lost neighborhoods, and gain the support of average citizens, jihadists are either returning to their home countries or setting up new cells throughout the region.

As destabilizing as the War in Iraq was, it had actually eased internal pressure on many countries throughout the Muslim World. It united fundamentalists in a greater cause. To kill westerners they no longer had to obtain difficult visas, smuggle weapons across oceans, or attend flight training. The enemy had come to them. Saudi fundamentalists certainly hate their rulers, but they truly detest Americans. Which was a more attractive target? Now, as the great vacuum of hate begins to shut down, what becomes of these battle-hardened militants? Do they hand in their rifles and IEDs, or simply pick up their weapons and relocate to a spot not occupied by the world’s largest military? The countries of the region must realize their growing investment in the conflict, something that has been absent since the start of the War in Iraq. If not, it will certainly be an example of chickens coming home to roost.

A presumed car bomb detonated in Tripoli, Lebanon today killing at least 4 and injuring over 30. The attack, similar to those of August 13, targeted Lebanese soldiers as they traveled on a bus towards Beirut.

The blast occurred in the Bahsas region, where local officials claim the bomb was concealed in a parked car and remotely detonated as the bus rode by. “Once again the hand of treachery targets the military … in a terrorist attack,” said one Military statement. Two months prior, a similar attack killed 18 civilians and security personnel.

The attacks highlight a growing trend of sectarian violence which has peaked around the troubled nation. Government troops, Sunni supporters, the Alewite Shi’ite sect, and even the Palestinian Fatah organization have all taken part in this ongoing struggle.

The situation is growing worse, as the northern regions of Lebanon have become a breeding ground for new fundamentalist organizations. Paradoxically, Lebanon’s efforts to confront Hezbollah have directly increased this terrorist violence. In creating militias to combat the Shi’ite hezbolla organization, the government has undergone a massive Sunni recruitment scheme, one that has directly led to the infiltration of security forces by Salafist extremists.

“The problem was the 14th March [pro-government alliance] tried to create a militia to stand up against Hezbollah but in fact they have eased the way for these probably Sunni terrorists to infiltrate the country,” says one Professor.

All of this violence comes amidst the backdrop of a tentative peace agreement between Sunni fighters loyal to the Lebanese government, and Syrian-sponsored gunmen. Possibly to avoid blame, Syrian authorities are reporting that the car and explosives had potentially originated in Iraq. Whether or not true for this particular incident, it is quite likely that, as a result of the vastly improving security measures taking place around Baghdad, foreign fighters and extremists are beginning to vacate Iraq in search of other potential targets.

The Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) has reported that as coalition forces damage and disrupt Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), members and cells within the organization have begun to ‘bleed out’ to other terror networks around Lebanon and Saudi Arabia:

“Some AQI fighters that have already trickled out of Iraq have bolstered violent movements in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. This trend will likely continue. Although the threat to Europe and North America is real—French officials have tracked 24 fighters from France that have traveled to Iraq—fighters are most likely to join established Jihadi groups in areas of weak government control, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Lebanon.”

If these claims turn out to be true, and the car bomb / bombers indeed originated in Iraq, it will present a completely new dimension to the current crisis. Prior to increased security and the troop ‘surge’, Iraq has acted as a vacuum for Islamic fundamentalists across the region. Should this vacuum turn off, or indeed reverse, it could pose a devastating challenge to Muslim regimes across the greater Middle East.

The NEFA Foundation has posted some interesting documents highlighting the growing rift between the Ansar-al-Islam organization in Iraq. The group, formerly known as the Ansar al-Sunnah Army, has been ravaged by infighting between core members and a breakaway splinter organization ‘the Shariah Committee of the Ansar al-Sunnah Army”.

Ansar-al-Islam (Partisans or Supporters of Islam) is a Kurdish, fundamentalist organization formed in the northern provinces of Iraq. As with similar groups in the region, they aim to topple the Iraqi administration and install a Muslim, Shariah-dominated state. While ties to al Qaeda are not concrete, there exists a wide network of financial and logistical support, going so far as to harbor al Qaeda leader al-Zarqawi in 2002 and 2003.

After increasing pressure from American and Iraqi security forces, the organization has begun to crack, with various members (numbering approx 300) struggling to take control. The recently released documents highlight this growing tension.

Here’s the story: in July, the Ansar al-Islam released a document titled ‘The Book of Truth’, accusing the renegade sect of conspiring with the Americans. In response, the ‘Shariah Committee’ fired back with a 32-page document highlighting al-Qaeda related atrocities and the lack of condemnation from Ansar al-Islam. Highlights include (taken from NEMAFoundation):

“[our leaders] know much about you, and if they were to publicize it, it would be a major and shameful humiliation… Isn’t it rather hypocritical for you to flatter others and act courteously towards the killers responsible for murdering many of you out of fear of their power, while you simultaneously assault your brothers and lie to them… Who killed your men in Al-Ramadi, in Al-Yusufiya, in Nineveh, and in various other areas more than two years ago, and yet you forgave them? …Was it not you who used to say that the greatest action that Shaykh [Usama] Bin Laden could perform today would be to declare the disbanding of the Al-Qaida organization in Iraq, because it has fallen into disgrace and it has become a cover for anyone with twisted goals in order for them to achieve these goals through this infiltrated organization. The only treatment for its condition is to disband it… You sent messengers to Afghanistan—among whom was Abu al-Darda’a, may Allah have mercy upon him, who was dispatched in order to explain to [Usama] Bin Laden and [Dr. Ayman] al-Zawahiri the massive corruption of Al-Qaida in Iraq. When Abu al-Darda’a returned, he indicated that a delegation would be sent by al-Zawahiri to Iraq in order to confirm whether these reports were true. Then you told us that Abu Musab [al-Zarqawi], may Allah have mercy upon him, was impeding the arrival of this delegation in order to prevent the truth from being revealed. It should be noted that the era of Abu Musab should be considered to be a golden era when compared to what happened afterwards.”

This internal pressure is exactly what Coalition forces have hoped for. They know they have no definitive capability to eliminate the insurgency, but can minimize their effectiveness by diminishing local support.

Both Documents can be found here:

Ansar al-Islam’s ‘Book of Truth’: http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/nefaansarsunnah0708.pdf

Shiriah Committee of the Ansar al-Sunnah Army’s ‘Book of Truth or an Imaginary Fantasy’: http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/nefaansarsunnah0808.pdf