Al-Qaeda's World Cup Own Goal

by Eric Martin

Michael Hanna is right on the money about al-Qaeda being its own worst enemy.  Now if we could just get out of the way:

...I wanted to take a closer look at one very small subsection of the [recently released National Security Strategy] dealing with how the United States seeks to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat” al-Qaeda, namely, by contrasting al-Qaeda’s intent to destroy with our “constructive vision.” First off, I think we overestimate the current efficacy of using our “constructive vision” as a tool for changing minds in the region. The nature of Arab political grievance is deeply entrenched, and the lack of deliverables following President Obama’s Cairo speech has reinforced a robust skepticism of U.S. intentions and capacity. Of course, movement on issues of political salience would be a huge boost to U.S. credibility and would go a long way in blunting the effectiveness of transnational Islamist messaging, but, unfortunately, the prospects for any near-term wins look bleak.

But the broader and more important point is that, in many ways, we do not have to change minds; instead, we need to focus on reinforcing the existing distaste for al-Qaeda’s vision and tactics. This approach recognizes the crucial distinction between the huge appeal of narratives of resistance as propounded by groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah and the obscurantist and fringe views that are the bedrock of al-Qaeda’s ideology. This resistance narrative has wide resonance and al-Qaeda goes to great lengths to camouflage many of their far-reaching beliefs by employing popular rhetorical tropes that play upon existing political grievances. But their ideology goes much further and embraces takfiri thought and a promiscuous view of the legitimacy of the slaughter of innocents, who more often than not are, in fact, Muslims. Needless to say, there is not much of a constituency for such ideas. Of course, al-Qaeda does not need huge numbers of recruits, but even small steps to poison the well can be useful.

Many of the positions that these types of salafi jihadis have espoused have crossed into the realm of culture as they have sought to ban smoking, music, and even soccer—positions that are not likely to inspire adherents in the Arab world. Of course the unmitigated savagery of the movement, particularly as it pertains to the deaths of other Muslims, has served to distance the group even further from mainstream discourse. A movement such as the one led by Abu Musa’b al-Zarqawi in Iraq, which formally sought legitimacy from the umbrella of affiliation with al-Qaeda, reached a level of self-destructive nihilist violence that necessitated a stern warning from none other than ‘Ayman al-Zawahri. When al-Zawahri is telling you to dial things down, you probably have taken things a bit far.

Recognizing where al-Qaeda’s vision fits within the broader cultural and political ferment in the region offers a host of opportunities for further driving home the fundamental absurdity of al-Qaeda’s claims, starting with their very effectiveness as an organization. One of the initial reactions to the attacks of September 11 in the Arab world was one of disbelief among many Arabs that an Arab-led group could have undertaken and implemented such a complicated and sophisticated plot. This obviously also speaks to a larger point regarding the deep malaise in the region. Of course, our focusing on the group’s failures and weakness would require a certain degree of stoicism and calm in the face of the still real threats we face from such groups. And, unfortunately, such equanimity has often been lacking in our responses to terrorism and attempted attacks.

The nature of al-Qaeda’s tactics also offers a real opportunity to drive home the group’s extremism, and this is a space that our intelligence agencies should be more aggressive in filling. I recently read a series of stories that outlined various plots aimed at conducting operations at the upcoming World Cup in South Africa. I was happy to see these accounts, even if I have some suspicions regarding the provenance of the stories. But either way, this is a useful development. If the stories are in fact true, then we should take heart in the utter strategic stupidity of al-Qaeda. Having spent many a World Cup summer in Egypt, I can state with great certitude that targeting the World Cup would be about the most alienating action that the group could undertake. The other possibility is that this story was a form of information operations (perhaps devised by the Iraqis) and, if so, it was a solid effort...I hope to soon see a story about al-Qaeda’s attempts to outlaw Um Kalthoum or to ban cigarettes—now those would be effective wedges in the Arab world. 

I realize this is a rather small point to draw out of a sprawling document, but this subsection of the NSS provided a useful excuse to write about this issue. While I would hope that our collective positive example and our diplomatic efforts could construct a positive narrative about the role of the United States in the world and the region, in light of current political realities in the region, I also don’t see this as the most effective avenue for undermining al-Qaeda. In effect, they are their own worst enemy, and we should be engaged in helping them seal their own fate.

Like Hanna, unfortunately, I don't think there is much potential in pushing our "constructive role" in the region as a counternarrative.  The Obama administration doesn't seem likely to make any breaks with predecessors in terms of pushing for real progress on the Israel/Palestine front, reducing support for despotic regimes, fully disengaging from Afghanistan and/or Iraq, etc.  However, given al-Qaeda's odious ideology and worse tactical decisions, we don't have to win hearts and minds as much as not lose them at the same rate.

Comments

[hf]

I want to believe this. But I thought a lot of people in the Muslim world supported Al-Qaeda's goal of uniting those countries and removing their current evil governments -- at least until you get to the method, or the part about putting a murderous religious fanatic in charge -- because division in the Muslim world probably does make them weak, and the West did divide them for that purpose, and their current little governments do seem unarguably evil, just as Bin Laden says. I don't see how a foreign nation that maintains close ties to those governments and keeps reminding Muslims of all this can effectively argue against fighting for a Caliphate.

[Turbulence]

But I thought a lot of people in the Muslim world supported Al-Qaeda's goal of uniting those countries and removing their current evil governments

No, they don't. Do you think a lot of people in majority Christian countries support some sort of political unification for majority Christian countries into some sort of uber-state? Of course not. That's insane. Because majority Christian countries, despite being nominally Christian, differ in enormously significant ways. Heck African Anglicans can barely manage to stay in communion with American Episcopalians.

Things in the Islamic world are much the same. Although Islamic majority nations are theoretically all the same, in practice, they differ to an incredible degree. Many Muslims think that many other Muslims are apostates -- just like most of the Christian right in the US doesn't think politically liberal Christians in the US are real Christians, to say nothing of those heathen Christians in Europe.

Now, there are lots of people in the Islamic world who wish to overthrow their crappy tyrannical governments. But that doesn't mean that they want AQ to be involved. Islamist movements in general are quite popular in some countries, but again, that doesn't tell you anything whether people want a Caliphate. Egyptians support the Muslim Brotherhood because the MB actually favors decent policies, appears to be incredibly honest compared to its competitors, and is the only group willing to stand up to Mubarak's dictatorship. Popular support for the MB has nothing to do with Caliphate delusions.

because division in the Muslim world probably does make them weak, and the West did divide them for that purpose, and their current little governments do seem unarguably evil, just as Bin Laden says.

Have you ever talked to people from the Arab world? Let me give you a hint. Many Egyptians are convinced that they are superior to other Arab peoples. Ditto for people from Lebanon. Or Syria. Etc. Given that mindset, claims about how the west divided them to keep them weak are not very effective. Nationalism is real. People in the Arab world, just like everyone else, identify with their nation and have little desire to subordinate it in a union with people they look down upon.

Do you know what makes Muslim countries weak? Being poor. Muslim countries that are not poor are not terribly weak. Beyond that, weakness can be blamed on crummy institutions arising from the resource curse or the legacy of colonialism. Either way, a failure to unify radically different societies is not the issue.

I don't see how a foreign nation that maintains close ties to those governments and keeps reminding Muslims of all this can effectively argue against fighting for a Caliphate.

We don't need to argue against fighting for a Caliphate. Because a Caliphate is a joke that Muslims play on gullible ignorant westerners. It is not a serious policy nor is it remotely feasible.

[hf]

Do you get your estimate of Muslim opinions from single-person surveys? Or did you pull them straight from your muladhara chakra? Because a study from the University of Maryland (pdf, via link here) shows 65% agreeing strongly or somewhat with the creation of a new Caliphate that would unite the Muslim world, apparently with roughly equal fractions strongly agreeing and not agreeing.

And this shouldn't surprise anyone. Plenty of Christians in America voice their support for more foolish-sounding goals with less chance of benefit to their supporters if someone carried them out.

[Turbulence]

Do you get your estimate of Muslim opinions from single-person surveys? Or did you pull them straight from your muladhara chakra?

No, I get them from traveling widely and from speaking with real live Arabs and Muslims. And from being Arab.

You haven't addressed my fundamental point at all: do you think people in Christian majority nations are eager to dissolve their nations into some sort of pan-Christian union? If not, why do you think Muslims would behave any differently? Is their any reason beyond your ignorance of Islam and Arab culture?

Because a study from the University of Maryland (pdf, via link here) shows 65% agreeing strongly or somewhat with the creation of a new Caliphate that would unite the Muslim world, apparently with roughly equal fractions strongly agreeing and not agreeing.

Whether people agree that something would be nice in the abstract is irrelevant if you don't ask them whether they believe it is feasible or whether they're willing to work to achieve it. Note that these questions were not asked.

Many many people would say they support world peace. But very very few of those same people are interested in disarmament or demilitarization or cutting the defense budget. Making assumptions about how polities will behave based on the sky high polling of world peace is...not smart.

And this shouldn't surprise anyone. Plenty of Christians in America voice their support for more foolish-sounding goals with less chance of benefit to their supporters if someone carried them out.

And yet American Christians don't generally insist on abandoning their nationalism because of their faith. But you seem convinced that Muslims around the world will do precisely that. Because why exactly?

[Eric Martin]

HF: Ultimately, we don't have to fight against pan-Arabism or pan-Muslimism, only al-Qaeda, which is extremely unpopular.

Even though, as Turb points out, that vague support will get whittled down quickly and severely once the particulars begin to enter into it.

One obvious issue: is it Shiite or Sunni?

[cleek]

The Obama administration doesn't seem likely to make any breaks with predecessors in terms of pushing for real progress on the Israel/Palestine front, reducing support for despotic regimes, fully disengaging from Afghanistan and/or Iraq, etc.

maybe if we all just clapped a little louder.

[Eric Martin]

Well, changing foreign policy is possible, and within his purview. Capping the well off the coast of NOLA?

I'm all ears if you have any suggestions about how he can do that.

Until then, I won't hop on the silly bandwagon blaming him for not doing "something" sooner.

[cleek]

and within his purview. Capping the well off the coast of NOLA?

this really is the strangest thing i've seen in a while. despite my having never, not once, not even a little, suggested that Obama should be capping the well, people constantly try to argue this point against me. they stick a little "cleek" tag on this strawman and then they do a little victory dance. and i'm like... when did all these people go nuts ?

[Eric Martin]

Really? After saying, "maybe if we all just clapped a little louder" in response to my post, you accuse me of attacking a straw man?

Motes, eyes, etc.

[cleek]

you accuse me of attacking a straw man?

well, you did.

[Eric Martin]

I tend to return fire in kind. If I was the bigger man, I'd probably shrug off your straw man attack and be the bigger man. But I have never claimed to be that.

[cleek]

here's to small men!

and FWIW, my initial comment wasn't directed at you personally - it just caught my eye that you were criticizing Obama, while people in the thread below are using the "we need solidarity" defense of Obama.

[Eric Martin]

(clinks glasses)

Keep in my mind, the prior post was critical as well: I was supporting Larison's argument that Obama is not the leftist that the GOP claims. Which, to me, is a fault.

[Tom Allen]

Hey, you know a great way to win the hearts and minds of Arabs? Stop blowing up their hearts and minds!

I mean, "...a promiscuous view of the legitimacy of the slaughter of innocents, who more often than not are, in fact, Muslims." Well, good thing we in the US aren't doing that in Iraq and Afghanistan, right?