FACING AL-QAIDA IN 2010

The war against terrorism is going to last a long time, as President Bush and other officials have said, and predicting the future is always uncertain. But as we consider the evolution of this protracted conflict, we should be aware of one high probability: that the al-Qaida we will face in 2010 will be an even more dangerous threat to America than the al-Qaida our troops are fighting today.

Following the historical pattern of terrorist movements everywhere — from Russia's Bolsheviks to the Irish Republican Army to Palestine's Hamas — we can expect that within a decade al-Qaida will open one, or possibly several, political fronts in predominantly Islamic states, transforming itself from a deadly but diffuse terrorist movement into implacably hostile governmental factions throughout the Middle East that will pose critical challenges to America and our allies.

Although today's terrorists are an indisputable menace, they do not yet threaten global peace or our survival. But the political transformation of al-Qaida into a radical pan-Islamic movement would divide the world between the progressive West and a number of belligerent, deeply reactionary, nuclear-armed states, and raise the possibility of far more serious conflict.

The current leaders of al-Qaida, and the generation emerging in the wake of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, are hard and practical men. They have promulgated a broad strategic agenda — driving the United States out of the Middle East, forcing an end to U.S. aid to Israel and to U.S. backing for "corrupt" Arab regimes — that cuts across Islam's fault lines and unites alienated Muslims throughout the underdeveloped world. Unspoken, but certainly assumed, in the al-Qaida agenda is the installation of more pious Islamic regimes, or even, ultimately, a resurrection of a pan-Islamic caliphate like the Ottoman Empire, long a dream of Middle Eastern Islamic radicals.

To carry out short-term plans for regional terrorism, al-Qaida has an almost limitless pool of manpower. But its emerging leaders will soon realize — if they have not already — that their higher objectives cannot be achieved by hit-and-run attacks, no matter how devastating. For ambitions this vast, they need to transmute terror into political legitimacy in the same way that Fatah transformed itself into the quasi-government of the Palestine Liberation Organization, leading to the sight of a gun-toting Yasser Arafat at the podium of the United Nations. Hezbollah is acquiring political legitimacy in Syrian-dominated Lebanon, as is Hamas in Palestine and Gaza. "Legitimacy" doesn't matter to al-Qaida today, but it must have it tomorrow if it wants to stay in the game.

• First, it will continue terrorist operations worldwide, with an effort to coordinate ever more spectacular attacks with specific events in Western countries. The Madrid bombings in March, for example, will have taught al-Qaida that coupling terror bombings with political events — especially elections — can quadruple their impact. As the new leadership grows more sophisticated, we can expect more attempts at cuing terrorist acts to achieve Madrid-style effects; indeed, current U.S. alert levels and the unprecedented security planned for the November elections are proof of concern that al-Qaida has made the connection. Likewise, al-Qaida will move strategically to undermine Western consensus on Mideast policy and weaken solidarity against Islamic extremism by encouraging anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic feelings in the West, particularly in Europe.

But as al-Qaida begins to move into politics, it will design its terrorist attacks not only to destabilize apostate Middle Eastern and unbeliever Western governments, but also to attract the allegiance of the masses of disaffected Muslim believers who are the source of political "street" power in the Middle East, and many of whom are already supporters.

• Second, al-Qaida will become more engaged in exploiting its grass-roots appeal in the Middle East, particularly through charities and services that speak to the basic needs of the region's people. Charity is a major tenet of Islam, and sponsoring charities is not only the pious thing to do, it also provides social services, schools and jobs, and wins approval from the clergy, the most influential local authorities in the Middle East.

On this path, al-Qaida will again be following in the footsteps of the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah and others, though with a vastly more ambitious agenda and a broader regional reach.

As its influence grows in local precincts, it will seek to expand across the Middle East, with all the complications of adapting under different conditions and regimes, and coexisting with organizations such as Hamas that are already entrenched. This should not be an insoluble problem; turf wars will most likely be mitigated by the discipline of a common language, religion and, above all, common enemies.

• Finally, al-Qaida, or political branches that may not bear the same name, will find positions in the government of one or several nations, perversely exploiting the very democracy that the United States is seeking to nourish in the region. After their experience operating openly in Afghanistan, the movement's leaders will probably be more circumspect about moving into countries where governments are weak or social conditions favor their integration.

Lebanon, where Hezbollah is already entrenched, is vulnerable to further inroads from other anti-Western factions. Pakistan, with a nuclear arsenal, a firmly entrenched radical minority and porous borders, is a current and future nightmare; if the present government falls, it will be open to extremist pressure. Al-Qaida may also find footholds in shaky local parliaments or other elected bodies in a number of other Arab states making the difficult transition from authoritarianism to democracy, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Morocco.

As the West's unconventional war against Islamic insurgency continues, al-Qaida's political transformation will also present an unconventional challenge to traditional diplomacy, because the movement will grow from the bottom up by recruiting first disaffected individuals, then organizations and finally nations — in the Middle East and elsewhere.

America's State and Defense bureaucracies, though they contain many talented and dedicated individuals, simply are not sufficiently flexible at present to deal with "stateless" movements — witness the disjointed and delayed Iraqi reconstruction program. This bureaucratic inertia, not marginal issues of military force structure or "transformational" technologies, is the true and potentially deadly U.S. legacy from the Cold War.

The rise of radical Islamic governments in the Mideast and elsewhere — relentlessly hostile to the West and the United States in particular, owning the preponderance of the world's oil reserves, armed with nuclear weapons and inheritors of an exploding, militant population — could profoundly challenge the peace of the world, particularly if religious fundamentalism continues to inspire doctrines of rejection, suppression and war. This is the ultimate fulfillment of the al-Qaida agenda, the possible consequences of which include a U.S. face-off against nuclear-armed, jihadist states. Preventing al-Qaida's successful transition to a new stage of political power is the United States' greatest strategic challenge today.

Killebrew is a retired Army infantry colonel who writes and speaks frequently on defense and national security issues.

All very interesting, but also total speculation. It is just as likely that Middle Eastern countries (like Libya) will get tired of being self destructive and try another course. Of course, if Kerry wins, all bets are off.

I dunno. If they really got to be a problem, we could fight a real war against them. Army of 10 million men, 100,000 tanks, 10,000 planes, the works. After all, we do have 300-500 times the potential fighting power of all the countries in the Middle East.

We're not doing it now because it would be too expensive.

They will ONLY grow if "fertilized" by DOING NOTHING.

Choice #1:

Kill them, their homes, and take out their countries for
attacking OUR HOLY SITES.
Let their grandchildren quake with utter fear, losing control of their bladders
when they hear an American plane overhead.

Otherwise, it is choice #2:

Shortly after 911, I told my eldest daughter that the USA would still be fighting this war on some level long after I was gone - unless we eradicated the radical jihadists from the face of the earth within five years. By that, I mean eliminate them. Terminate them. Gone, either by force or by co-opting/occupying their lands. When she asked why I believed that, I replied because they (the jihadists) are "never going to stop. Ever."

I stick to my 911 prediction that at least three nuclear bombs of various force are going to go off before this thing is more or less finished, and one of them is going to be on US soil.

This, the war against radical Islam, is the overriding issue of this era. It trumps everything else.

If the Taxocrats are installed in power the war on terrorism will not last very long for the following reasons:

1. Kerry and the Taxocrats will withdraw all US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan within one year of taking office.
2. The budget for "Homeland Security" and the intell agencies will be cut drastically, i.e. CIA, FBI, etc.
3. CIA and other intell agencies will not be allowed to use "moles with a record".
4. Money needed for defense of our nation will be diverted to programs to help the Muslims not be mad at the US.
5. Money needed to defend America will be diverted to payoffs to groups that helped the Taxocrats to win, such as the following:
a. Trial lawyers
b. NEA
c. National Endowment for the Arts
d. NPR
e. Hollyweird
f. Health care for the unwilling to pay their own way.
g. Fat Cat Taxocrat business owners.

Please feel free to add to this list if you are so inclined.

>>>>> As al-Qaida transforms, it's likely to follow three well-beaten paths <<<<<

This Useful Idiot is such a moron, to say there are "three well-beaten paths". He has left out this very important well-beaten path which is:

"Total Destruction", as in what is going on now.

This is why America is in Iraq transforming Iraqi society. Democracy strip mines the "favorable conditions" necessary for terrorism to florish in the Islamic world.

Neutron Bombs.. Lots of them..

Kills 'em dead.. Doesn't destroy property.. hardly any residual radiation... ability to re-populate area within 30 days, with people not interested in religiously motivated murder and mayhem..

Boom.. problem solved..

My 2010 nightmare:

Following terror attacks that nearly destroyed Wall Street and the chemical weapons attack at the Mall of America that killed nearly 2500 people during his first administration, President Kerry vowed to fight an even more effective and sensitive war against Al Quiada. Kerry announced he was sending Jimmy Carter to negotiate a truce with the terrorists after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused the mission after the terrorists demanded she wear a burka.

I wake up in a cold sweat about that time.

The key to dealing with "stateless" terrorists is to identify which states grant them haven and dollars and pound those states into atoms. How's that for "unconventional warfare"?

--Boris

I'm glad that others are noticing the parallels with other movements like Bolshevism in the past. In a world wide guerilla war the best way to win is still the same as in past guerilla wars: 1) Deny them sanctuary. In this instance that means the Axis of Evil and a few others need regime changes. 2) Kill the guerillas, their supporters, their financiers, et al. Couple our Special Ops capabilities with surgical application of airpower, and use heavy forces like armor when needed. As in past guerilla conflicts you root out the bad guys from the general population using local troops who know the enemy. For example, the new Iraqi government will kill 10X more guerillas than we will because they are ruthless and effective. 3) Finally, we change the societies in which the guerillas operate. When the young people of the Islamic countries laugh at Osama and his ilk we are winning.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.