Al Qaeda’s Strategy for defeating the US(Manual translated and posted to the Web)

NRO ^ | Oct. 1, 2006 | Candace de Russy

[FairOpinion]

A 2004 al-Qaeda Strategy Manual can now be downloaded at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center website here.

The translation of this manual by al-Qaeda strategist, Abu Bakr Naji, was completed in May by the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University.

[Virulas]

Ooo thanks! Much much reading to do.

[griffin]

bump

[Ajnin]

Let me summarize. The muzzies have to be given victory because they most certainly can't take it.

[sonic109]

We need to send a copy of this to the Dems you mention in yor post.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Totally agreed, jarring. And one has to wonder, or at least I do, is there the capacity on our side to develop the same or greater degree of insight into their jihad-culture and thought processes that the texts seem to have attained wrt Western thinking? And if so, would there really be any functionality? Clearly, these texts weren't written by camel-humping savages. They arguably govern the actions of C-H savages, but the strategic thinking is very sophisticated in its diabolical, Machiavellian way. I'm absolutely not advocating an extended period of kumbaya here, I'm asking the question rhetorically. IOW, this so-called culture reveres things that Western society utterly reviles: death, revenge, absolute conformity and submission to a pre-medieval and inflexible and unchallengeable way of life. And if that state cannot be attained by them, then death is the preferred outcome. How can we outthink that? Most likely, we can't. Ergo we go to "kill them all", which only falls into their stated gameplan and is a strategy we're at best second-comers to. Checkmate?

Imagine time-transporting back to 1938, when by most reckonings few really understood the depth of evil the Nazis were capable of and the horror that was about to unfold; perhaps that was an ironic strength. The free world ended up rising to the occasion; and might not have in 1938 had 1945 Auschwitz and 1942 Leningrad pictures been available at that point.

[vbmoneyspender]

I am bit mystified by some of the authors' conclusions in the handbook. For instance, they acknowledge that the jihadis' ultimate goal is to re-establish the caliphate. But then they argue that it is a mistake for the United States to attempt to use direct action to prevent this from happening -- ignoring the fact that if our actions in Iraq are successful then it will be impossible for the caliphate to be re-established.

They also argue that direct action in Iraq and Afghanistan has been good for the jihadi movement. But they don't base this conclusion on anything other than the word of certain jihadist scribblers. And in positing such a conclusion, they completely ignore the fact that bin Laden himself traced the growing potency of the jihadi movement to our failure to respond to their earlier attacks on us. Scholars such as McCants and Brachman can't have it both ways. If they are to maintain their credibility, they can't point to jihadi theories when they support the authors' conclusions and then completely ignore the chief jihadist's theory that Muslims will back the strong horse over the weak horse everytime.

If that theory were applied by the authors to the current reality, one wonders what conclusion they would reach? Would they really say that the more jihadi leaders we kill or capture, the stronger the movement grows? Would they really conclude that the growth in potency of a military force can be directly attributed to how many of its leaders are living the lives of wanted bank robbers?

Finally, after 9/11, I just don't understand how any thinking American can argue that the best approach to take with people who are attempting to kill us is to attempt to use proxies to go after them. That didn't work for the Israelis when they tried to use Arafat to keep a lid on Hamas and it hasn't worked for us in attempting to use Mussharef to keep a lid on the jihadists in Wazirstan. Simply put, using an enemy to kill an another enemy that is already attacking you, is a fool's suicide pact.

The lessons of history are clear. When you are in a fight with the devil, you don't have the luxury of farming out the fight to the devil's acolyte

[farlander]

That's a negative. A 'kill them all' strategy makes us the winners, by a mile. People just don't realize/don't remember what is possible when a war machine assumes counter-population posture, like Axis and Allies did in WWII. It was only 60 years back, how quickly things are forgotten. I *guarantee* you, make an example of *a* city somewhere, and things would change drastically. State publicly - *any* terrorist attack on US or allied European soil, and we incinerate a city with conventional weapons. Publish a list, and say we will choose at random. From my perspective, their propaganda and fascist/religeous upbringing have done far more than we ever could in order to win someone's hart/mind. That is impossible, not to mention futile and counterproductive, as Machiavelli said - better to be feared then loved. We'll never be loved. Therefore, as they already believe we're mosters out to kill them, let's play the part. One city for each act of terrorism on allied soil. I guarantee that would be enough. Random choice from a list of densely populated cities would be extremely effective as a deterrent. Number of large cities would not be able to effectively evacuate following a terrorist strike, and, it would motivate the largest number of people to stop the extremists within their own countries.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

" they acknowledge that the jihadis' ultimate goal is to re-establish the caliphate. But then they argue that it is a mistake for the United States to attempt to use direct action to prevent this from happening -- ignoring the fact that if our actions in Iraq are successful then it will be impossible for the caliphate to be re-established."

I myself see no incongruency in this line of thought, they are 100% certain that our efforts will be UNsuccessful. Nobody can predict whether we will or will not be successful, but, that being said, if we assume the text is genuine, it would appear that we are playing more by their gamebook than ours. Now, at this moment, in what I think most would consider a work in progress. And really, that's my takeaway bottom line.

"They also argue that direct action in Iraq and Afghanistan has been good for the jihadi movement."

I know it's quite the liberal argument, but at some level, the idea that our actions have galvanized the other side has some merit, wouldn't (or would) you say? We may characterize their actions as desperate, vile, murderous, chaotic, etc; but those reactions on our part appear to mesh with their endgame strategy. We're definitely outkilling them, but they are arguably outchaosing us.

"But they don't base this conclusion on anything other than the word of certain jihadist scribblers. And in positing such a conclusion, they completely ignore the fact that bin Laden himself traced the growing potency of the jihadi movement to our failure to respond to their earlier attacks on us."

But I think that one has to consider that the post-UBL jihadi movement has morphed along with the new improved US response. I haven't developed a full opinion on this tome, I just find it remarkably lucid, whether it's accurate or coherent in all respects or not.

[expatguy]

The enemy is counting on elements within our own societies to constrain us from using the full capability at our disposal.

BINGO!

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Well I can't say I disagree with "kill them all", but...even incinerating a major city to glowing embers does not take care of the other 99.5% of the potential jihadis out there in a world population of 1.2 billion(?). Respectfully, we're talking about a cult[ure] that glorifies death. And finally, couched as you've stated it, our threatened (or, executed) act of incineration would be one of retaliation, which, by definition, only proves that they are still capable of striking us. If it isn't clear, I'm not claiming to have an answer or alternative at this point. "Kill them all" still works for me, it's just that even a city's worth is far from "all".

[vimto]

Well said sir!

[TASMANIANRED]

btt

[Southack]

Here's Al Qaeda's two-pronged global strategy:

#1. Maintain pinprick military contact (i.e. 1 or 2 deaths per day in as many parts of the world as possible) while massaging the news media into convincing the West to surrender and retreat, and

#2. Widen the global terror war by tricking Western Powers into attacking Neutral Islamic nations (e.g. India attacking Pakistan, U.S. attacking Iran, Israel attacking Syria, etc.).

[Khurkris]

book mark for later reference
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp

[PGalt]

BTTT

[SueRae]

ping for later reading.

[MSSC6644]

. . .Neutral Islamic nations (e.g. India attacking Pakistan, U.S. attacking Iran, Israel attacking Syria, etc.).

Please explain how Iran and Syria are "Neutral Islamic nations." Thanks.

[AmericaUnited]

Does any have the Cliff Notes version?

[SE Mom]

Thank you for the ping- bookmark for reading later.

[Eagles6]

save