Debating withdrawal IV: what al-Qaeda wants

Does al-Qaeda really want the United States to withdraw from Iraq, as current administration arguments would have it?   Not according to the letter captured during the raid which killed Abu Musab Zarqawi, allegedly from a member of al-Qaeda's inner circle identified only as 'Atiyah, recently translated and released by Counterterrorism Center at West Point.  'Atiyah writes:   

The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq, and that you be patient and forbearing, even in weakness, and even with fewer operations... Do not be hasty.  The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day.  Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God's permission.

I'm not sure why this statement doesn't seem to have made it into any of the press coverage of the letter which I've seen.  It seems to be fairly unambiguous.  What's more, it was an internal communication, not a public proclamation aimed at influencing American policy. It also makes sense.  Al-Qaeda wants American troops in Iraq, not an American withdrawal.   It wants a protracted war which allows it to drain American blood and treasure while producing an endless stream of the images of jihadi heroism and American brutality on which its narrative thrives.  Al-Qaeda knows it would have no chance of actually seizing power after an American withdrawal (the latest public opinion surveys show 94% of Iraqis opposed to them, and the Shia would fight them even more than they already are) and bloodshed without Americans would do nothing for their global strategy. 

Overall, how is the jihad going in Iraq from 'Atiyah's point of view?  Not badly:

"you are the ones who have spited America, the greatest unbelieving crusader power in history; and you are the ones who have spited it, and you have broken its prestige and thrown it to the ground.... The only thing that you have to fear is yourselves and your own mistakes, not your enemy.  By God, your enemy will never defeat you as long as you are patient and steadfast, not having caused damage that is great or frequent."   

But reading the letter makes clear that 'Atiyah did see one problem with the Iraqi jihad:  Zarqawi. 

'Atiyah repeatedly upbraids Zarqawi for gratuitously alienating potential allies, for being rude and arrogant, for being impatient and neglecting al-Qaeda's long term strategy, and for refusing to listen to the advice or concerns of not only al-Qaeda Central but of anyone.   The catalog of mistakes which were alienating Muslims and Arabs is familiar:  the attacks on the Shia, "expanding the arena of war into neighboring countries", and so forth.   The brusque "advice" that "you abstain from making any decision on a comprehensive issue.. and on substantial matters until you have turned to your leadership" does not suggest that Zarqawi had in fact been the habit of making such consultations.

I don't get the sense that 'Atiyah is mourning Zarqawi's passing.  His replacement Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, by all accounts, is much more open to consultations with al-Qaeda Central and more on board with its long-term strategy.   With the Zarqawi problem off the board, and the war seeming quite protracted indeed, 'Atiyah must be feeling pretty good about the course of events.   

Comments

[A.S.]

Um, that paragraph doesn't say what you think it says. It says "Atiyah, don't lose the war by committing any rash actions" not "We hope the Americans don't leave".

Jeez, this stuff isn't that hard.

[the aardvark]

Actually, 'Atiyah is the author of the letter, not the addressee. And "prolonging the war is in our interest" means exactly what it says. You're right, it isn't that hard...

[d]

No doubt. Thanks for the link. I usually only see references to these documents on right-wing blogs, for some reason, where any suggestion that the Bush administration might be helping to fulfill any of al-Qaeda's objectives is treated as evidence of "dhimmitude" or whatever it is we're supposed to be endorsing....

[katy]

...I usually only see references to these documents on right-wing blogs, for some reason,... -d

this reminds me of a report months ago, something about turning over all the papers and such found in raids to any right-wing volunteers, for the purpose of "translation"... i can't remember the specifics, just remember thinking that idea sounded absurb and illogical... and scary...

[smintheus]

Marc, I see that Dan Murphy at the Christian Science Monitor has picked up this story here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1006/p01s04-woiq.html

I wrote to him to say that I think he ought to have given you a hat tip for noting the significance of this passage in the Atiyah letter.

Fwiw, I've written about the issue myself, following up on your post, at Unbossed.net, crossposted at Daily Kos and Inconvenient News. I also see that Robert Parry has written in detail, twice, at his Consortium News.

I hope the story gains traction, it's important.