Al-Qaeda and the election

How does al-Qaeda really view the upcoming elections?  Nobody really knows, and jihadis themselves likely disagree.  But since it's a topic of much discussion these days, often based on pure speculation rather than any evidence, I thought it worthwhile writing about a remarkable posting on the Tajdeed forum on October 28 under the title "Al-Qaeda's Scenario During the Coming Weeks" (URL available on request - the long analysis was originally posted an Iraqi forum, and is easily found).  This is a posting in Arabic on an internet forum, whose author has little reason to believe that it will be picked up by the English language media - and so should not be dismissed as an attempt to manipulate American public opinion.  On the other hand, it only reflects the views of one anonymous author ("Nowami", who for the sake of convenience will be assigned a male gender), and should not be considered an official al-Qaeda document - a disclaimer which should be made about most of the items quoted off of these internet forums, but which I think bears repeating.

"Al-Qaeda's Scenario During the Coming Weeks" argues that the coming two weeks represent a pivotal moment in al-Qaeda's long-term jihad strategy.  Since 9/11 and the Afghan war, al-Qaeda has been pursuing a stage in its long-term strategy which the author calles 'direct combat'.  Keeping American in Iraq has been the key to its strategy.   America has suffered great losses through this stage, both economic and its people, and many of its allies have already abandoned the fight.  The next two weeks (giving a clue as to when it was written) will reveal whether al-Qaeda's leadership believes that this stage of direct combat has served its purpose of weakening America sufficiently.  If it does, according to the author, al-Qaeda will remain silent, allowing the Democrats to win the Congressional elections and initiating a new phase of the conflict.  If it does not (as the author hopes), it will intervene through a bin Laden tape or an attack on an American ally in order to ensure a Republican victory which will keep the Americans trapped in Iraq longer in order to weaken it more before moving to the next stage.

The author's premise is that al-Qaeda has consistently intervened in American domestic politics where necessary in order to ensure that America stays in Iraq.  Whenever America seems like it might withdraw, he writes, Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri pops up to remind Americans that if they do then al-Qaeda will triumph in their wake - thus goading them to remain.  This predictably silences those reasonable voices calling for withdrawal, who are even accused of national treason, and strengthens the voices of stupidity.  The author offers several detailed examples, including the 2004 election in which bin Laden ensured that Bush would win and continue his policies in Iraq, and a Zawahiri video last year calling on Bush to flee Iraq and admit defeat which Bush used to silence his critics.  Each time al-Qaeda's leaders speak, he argues,  Bush and his party are strengthened, and commit even more firmly to remaining in Iraq... while the mujahideen laugh from the depth of their souls.   

But now al-Qaeda has a problem.  Anyone who follows the American press or the statements of US officials can sense the spirit of defeat.  Even Bush admitted that Iraq has become like Vietnam.   America is searching for any way to flee from Iraq, from secret negotiations with the insurgency to attempts to change the Iraqi government to the Mecca conference to the Baker commission.   In the upcoming American elections, polls show the Democratic party poised to win and Iraq to be a major issue for voters. If the Democrats win, they will have to live up to their campaign promises and increase the pressure to withdraw.   Even if the Republicans win, the pressure from the American street towards withdrawal is strong on them as well.

This poses a problem for al-Qaeda, since keeping America in Iraq has been so central to its strategy.  If al-Qaeda believes that this stage has accomplished its goals, then the author thinks that it will permit the withdrawal and then reap its gains.  But the author says that in his personal opinion, the time for the next stage has not yet arrived, and it would be better to keep the stage of America's being stuck in Iraq extended as long as possible.  Even if America has suffered many losses, he argues, it remains very powerful and would only take a couple of years to recover from Iraq and return to the field of play.  The author fears that al-Qaeda's leaders will fall prey to the temptation to move on to the next stage too early, and not intervene to keep the Republicans in power and the Americans in Iraq.

Therefore, while the author does not know what al-Qaeda wil do, he thinks that al-Qaeda should seek to delay the American withdrawal as long as possible by working to ensure that Bush and the Republican Party win the coming elections. How?   A televised al-Qaeda video should do the trick, whether from Zahawiri or (more likely) Bin Laden - perhaps announcing the creation of an al-Qaeda state in Afghanistan or Iraq, perhaps issuing a direct threat against America.  A strike against important oil facilities in the Gulf might also do it, or against an important US ally like Britain.  Either should ensure a Republican victory, he writes, and secure al-Qaeda's main strategic objective of keeping America implanted in the combat zone in Iraq.

The author doesn't know which way al-Qaeda will go, and having delivered his analysis is left sitting back and waiting to see.  Total silence from al-Qaeda prior to the election should be read as a signal that its leadership believes that the time has come to move to the next phase.   A tape or attack by al-Qaeda prior to the election means that its leaders are not yet satisfied with the American blood and treasure lost in Iraq and want more time before moving to the next stage.   And that's where "Al-Qaeda's Scenario" leaves it.

To be totally clear, I am not saying that Americans should vote for Democrats because an anonymous poster on a jihadi forum says that al-Qaeda wants the Republicans to win.  That would be as stupid as saying that Americans should vote for Republicans because al-Qaeda wants Democrats to win.   I don't actually think that al-Qaeda should get a vote at all, either in our elections or in what we do about Iraq, and don't want partisans on either side to leap on this as either "proof that al-Qaeda votes Republican" or "proof that al-Qaeda recites liberal talking points".   But how al-Qaeda thinks about American politics and about Iraq is an important question, which analysts need to be able to understand on its own terms.  "Al-Qaeda's Scenario" offers one very partial but fascinating insight into how al-Qaeda's internet cadres are actually talking among themselves about Iraq and the elections which hopefully can advance that understanding.

Comments

[liza]

Long time no read. I don't use trackbacks anymore due to spambots. So here's a link quoting you on my latest:

Vote Democrat. You owe it to the Iraqi people
http://www.culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/vote_democrat_you_owe_it_to_the_iraqi_people

[R.G.Gilbert]

I believe you give Al-Qaeda too much credit in terms of understanding US off-year elections. This election is for control of congress not to elect a president. Even if the Dems win not much will change in terms of Iraq right away. The real goal of Al Qaeda was to foment revolt in Saudi Arabia and topple the House of Saud. That goal failed, as did every other attempt to undermine all the other Arab states, such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is a miserable failure. The only win Al Qaeda has is Bush using them as cover for his ambitions in the Middle East. 9/11 was Bin Laden's "hail Mary pass"; if that failed he was through. Contrary to popular belief 9/11 shows just how inept the Bush administration is in terms of National Defense. 9/11 should never have happened. If either Bush or Rice had been on the ball or marginally competent 9/11 could have been prevented and would have been one more Al Qaeda failure.

Think of it this way, If Al Gore had won the Supreme Court vote and had been elected President by one vote and somehow was out of the Solar system for 8 months and did not get any of the intel that Bush got on "Al Qaeda determined to attack the US" and because of that 19 Arabs flew planes into three buildings killing 3,000 people do you think that the Republicans would have cut him one atom of slack? Ever? 9/11 happened on GWB’s watch, and he was on the planet, it should never have happened, your leader did not protect you.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Marc, this is a very weird document. It strikes me as false, perhaps planted. If it is true, then you are right: al-Qaeda misunderstands what is happening. Perhaps their religious messianism has finally overcome any sense of military reality? Could this be from a U.S. Republican campaign operative instead, writing in Arabic?!

After all, the U.S. has NOT been seriously weakened, certainly not in a military sense, nor even in terms of its public morale. The people of the United States are NOT giving-up on the general problem, nor, despite much whining in the conservative press, is there any evidence of that.

It is true that most people in the U.S. now understand that it can't win with the current strategy in Iraq, and distrust the White House's knowledge and competence. And most people are beginning to get the sense, even if it is just an emotional sense, that the U.S. has to take its next steps with regard for the feelings and opinions of the larger Arab public it has been alienating.

But even a total "withdrawal" will merely be a redeployment to within the same neighborhood. The U.S. build-up in the Gulf is probably not to attack Iran (an action which has no clear objective) but rather to prevent Iran from invading Iraq.

On the other hand, al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization, is it not? They aren't going to win much in Iraq, unless they suddenly become friends with, and indeed take orders from, the Shia or the Kurds. So al-Qaeda won't even come out of it with much of the oil resource. And the real event which might aid the cause of al-Qaeda -- i.e., a general regional conflagration -- is possible but unlikely, if the U.S. takes some care in what it does next.

Therefore, al-Qaeda's main strategic problem appears to be insurmountable. It is a classic Maoist guerrilla-war strategy, but it is spread across borders, beliefs, and sects. This part of the guerrilla-war strategy calls upon them to gain recruits, but not everyone wants to join. They can weak havoc by getting hold of WMD's, but as soon as they take any step to form a salient structure, they can be annihilated.

[aardvark]

RG - my point wasn't to say whether or not the author got American electoral politics right... just to show how he did understand it. I think that the author vastly over-estimates al-Qaeda's influence on American politics - there's a whole discussion which I didn't translate about the awesome responsibility al-Qaeda has right now in determining the fate of American politics. But those delusions of grandeur are themselves important for understanding how al-Qaeda might act with regard to the elections, if that is indeed how the AQ leadership understands itself.

[ME]

RG said:

"That goal failed, as did every other attempt to undermine all the other Arab states, such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Afghanistan."

Uh... it worked in afghanistan for a long time before we responded to 9/11. and Pakistan is not an arab state. Furthermore, their goal is to fight US-controlled regimes in muslim countries (Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia all fall into this category). Not "all the ... arab states" as you imply.

Lee said:
"certainly not in a military sense"

Actually.... I think you should have said "certainly not in an economic sense". We can afford this war easily. Right now it looks like it might be 1.5% of GDP. That's nothing, especially for a country as wealthy as ours.

The military cost, however, is palpable, and I'm amazed that you just brush it off the way you did... Militarily we have lost opportunities to credibly threaten North Korea, do anything about Darfur, and provided a local target for (as well as lost military credibility when dealing with) Iran. The Army has significantly lowered it's standards regarding aptitude, age, and fitness just to meet (now lowered) recruiting goals. We are chewing up equipment that will take time to refurbish or replace. We have let Afghanistan devolve (ostensibly due to lack of resources...if we are so mighty militarily, why aren't we sending more troops to afghanistan?).

The assertion that we haven't been militarily weakened due to Iraq is absurd on its face, and requires some serious denial of fact.

All you have to do is remember Katrina to realize that our National guard is severely weakened.

As for Queda wanting us to stay in Iraq... of course they want us to stay. In the minds of Muslims, we are simply validating further, with each day that we stay, Osama's proclamations that the US wishes to occupy muslim lands and subdue their peoples. I'm not saying that is our intention, but our actions can only be percieved that way by many muslims around the world. Even the moderate ones.

[Badger]

I think some of the comments just reflect the fact that we don't get to read a lot of these kinds of things, so we don't have a lot of context. This kind of thing needs to be demystified. Good post and I'd like to see more.

[paiaso]

I believe that they (al-Qaeda) will be quiet. They would be hoping that the Republicans lose control of Congress (better if both Senate and House, but one will do), then they would do the dirtiest deed that would compel us to stay in Iraq, at least until and through the 2008 political season. This would allow them to demonstrate to the world, and more importantly to the American people of the limit or impotence of our military and economic power.

During this same period of time Iran and North Korea will be doing exactly what they have been doing, this would demonstrates to the whole world for everyone to see who the paper tiger is.

By end of 2008 the American people would be angry beyond belief (to the point of madness with fustration) and a lot poorer - I feel that we as a nation would be in a state of frenzy to the point of being willing to give up even more of our liberties with the expectation that we would (this time) prevail.

If I am correct in my 'what if' we will defeat ourselves. Our economic status would be that of a 2nd rate nation, our military power would still be formidable but only for a defensive purpose as we would not have the economic means (logistical) to wage war.

Check and Mate

[Lee A. Arnold]

ME, perhaps I should have written, "in a long-term military sense." I did not mean to imply that the U.S. forces are not temporarily depleted, and that we have lost some of the finest people ever. On the other hand, we never had much real opportunity to credibly threaten North Korea; invasion was never an option.

[Mike]

Lee: "Our finest people?" Are you saying that the people who brought mass death and destruction to Iraq blindly obeying orders are "our finest people"? Presumably you refer to army members as our finest people because of their "courage." But the nonvirtuous is as capable as the virtuous of displaying courage in some particular area.

In short, members of the American military who blindly accepted American supremacy rather than refusing to fight this illegal and immoral war in Iraq are nothing more than stooges for imperialism, and are just as morally culpable as Bush. I really don't understand this absurd attachment people have to "our" soldiers, which really boils down to people approving of and glorifying the military man's behavior because "he is one of us".

The hard truth that many people don't want to accept is that we are fighting for nothing in Iraq, not in the sense of not having some distant goal in mind but in the sense that we are achieving nothing and fueling violence merely by being present. Our men and women are dying in Iraq for nothing. But I'm not concerned about this: they shouldn't be there in the first place. What I AM concerned about is the fate of the Iraqis, who never asked to be occupied.

[Peter]

ME:

We can afford this war easily. Right now it looks like it might be 1.5% of GDP. That's nothing, especially for a country as wealthy as ours.

Um, what? The GDP isn't a slush fund of surplus cash; it's not like we have the other 98.5% GDP at our disposal. And come on, 1.5% isn't much? Addressing global climate change would cost an estimated 1% but Bush says that's too much of a risk to the economy. Also, simply mathematically, the more wealthy we are, the more atrocious a waste 1.5% GDP is.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Not merely the courage, which is considerable, but the straightforward honesty of those I have met. Mike, it is possible to be against the war, as I am, and like the soldiers. I know some advance reconnaissance fighters, which is a pretty dangerous business, and they are easily among the best and most honorable people I have ever had the pleasure to know. It pains me that they were thrown into it. But I don't blame them for this horror. People who join the military do what they are told to do. That's their job. In another circumstance, we are glad they do it. Those who are against it, if they refused to fight, would be courtmartialed. Some have done so. What most do instead is avoid return duty, if they can. What we should do, is make a world where what they do never seems to be necessary.

[Tom Scudder]

Off topic, but Al Jazeera International has finally announced an official start date (November 15).

[Tom Scudder]

link for the al jazeera announcement