The Devil Who Supports Our Policies Is Our Friend (Or At Least Not Our Enemy)
Patrick Cockburn writes at The Independent on the current state of Al Qaeda:
The spectacular resurgence of al-Qa'ida and its offshoots has happened despite the huge expansion of American and British intelligence services and their budgets after 9/11. Since then, the US, closely followed by Britain, has fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and adopted procedures formerly associated with police states, such as imprisonment without trial, rendition, torture and domestic espionage. Governments justify this as necessary to wage the "war on terror", claiming that the rights of individual citizens must be sacrificed to secure the safety of all.Despite these controversial security measures, the movements against which they are aimed have not only not been defeated but have grown stronger. At the time of 9/11, al-Qa'ida was a very small organisation, but in 2014 al-Qa'ida-type groups are numerous and powerful. In other words, the "war on terror", the waging of which determined the politics of so much of the world since 2001, has demonstrably failed.
How this failure happened is perhaps the most extraordinary development of the 21st century. Politicians were happy to use the threat of al-Qa'ida to persuade people that their civil liberties should be restricted and state power expanded, but they spent surprisingly little time calculating the most effective practical means to combat the movement. They have been able to get away with this by giving a misleading definition of al-Qa'ida, which varied according to what was politically convenient at the time.
Jihadi groups ideologically identical to al-Qa'ida are relabelled as moderate if their actions are deemed supportive of US policy aims. In Syria, the US is backing a plan by Saudi Arabia to build up a "Southern Front" based in Jordan against the Assad government in Damascus, but also hostile to al-Qa'ida-type rebels in the north and east. The powerful but supposedly "moderate" Yarmouk Brigade, which is reportedly to receive anti-aircraft missiles from Saudi Arabia, will be the leading element in this new formation. But numerous videos show that the Yarmouk Brigade has frequently fought in collaboration with Jabhat al-Nusra (JAN), the official al-Qa'ida affiliate. Since it is likely that, in the midst of battle, these two groups will share their munitions, Washington will be permitting advanced weaponry to be handed over to its deadliest enemy.
...Al-Qa'ida is an idea rather than an organisation, and this has long been so. For a five-year period after 1996, it did have cadres, resources and camps in Afghanistan, but these were eliminated after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Subsequently, al-Qa'ida's name was a rallying cry, a set of Islamic beliefs such as the creation of an Islamic state, the imposition of sharia, a return to Islamic customs, the subjugation of women and waging holy war against other Muslims, notably the Shia, as heretics worthy of death. At the centre of this doctrine for making war is an emphasis on self-sacrifice and martyrdom as a symbol of religious faith and commitment. This has turned out to be a way of using untrained but fanatical believers to devastating effect as suicide bombers.
It has always been in the interests of the US and other governments that al-Qa'ida should be viewed as having a command-and-control structure like a mini-Pentagon, or the Mafia in America as shown in the Godfather films. This is a comforting image for the public because organised groups, however demonic, can be tracked down and eliminated through imprisonment or death. More alarming is the reality of a movement whose adherents are self-recruited and may spring up anywhere.
via @marcdanziger







At the time of 9/11, al-Qa'ida was a very small organisation, but in 2014 al-Qa'ida-type groups are numerous and powerful. In other words, the "war on terror", the waging of which determined the politics of so much of the world since 2001, has demonstrably failed.
It's a habit of British journalists to make use of bald assertion as if moxie was probative.
Art Deco at March 17, 2014 11:24 AM
Worse than that, when you ask them, "OK, what do you suggest doing about it?", they always respond with some variation of, "We must bow down to them".
Cousin Dave at March 17, 2014 12:40 PM
OBL is dead. Radical Islam is not. If you are afraid to name the enemy, you will never defeat it.
MarkD at March 17, 2014 1:03 PM
The problem is that in most Islamic countries there is no advancement without being an adherent to the Islamic faith.
Most of Europe, Israel, and the United States that religion was generally put aside from what you can do. Same with most of the Asian countries post WWII.
But a large part of the Islamic population is dependent on approval by the clerics to go anywhere. If you read a little more of the article you can see Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is now facing the results of that decision to not separate the government from the religion.
So young men are left without employment and a chance to get away from the Islamic government. Then add in that the multiple marriage issue leaves them without a moderating effect of having a woman in their lives.
This is a sub-thumbnail sketch of part of the issues. Until a large chunk of the Islamic countries fall and the western countries let them collapse not much will change. Essentially let them die by their own hands.
What the United States and Canada needs to do is become energy independent by fracking, building the Keystone pipeline, letting coal come bac online, and generally letting the rest of the world figure out that buying energy from the U.S. is a hell of a lot better than the middle east and dictatorial Venezuela.
Jim P. at March 17, 2014 4:38 PM
People are so worried about this they're invoking my name on CNN:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1108203?ref=feeds%2Flatest
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 17, 2014 7:29 PM
Leave a comment