JIHADISM IN 2009: THE TRENDS CONTINUE

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,371
Stratfor

JIHADISM IN 2009: THE TRENDS CONTINUE
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

For the past several years, we have published an annual forecast for al Qaeda and the jihadist movement. Since the January 2006 forecast, we have focused heavily on the devolution of jihadism from a phenomenon focused primarily on al Qaeda the group to one based primarily on al Qaeda the movement. Last year, we argued that al Qaeda was struggling to remain relevant and that al Qaeda prime had been marginalized in the physical battlefield. This marginalization of al Qaeda prime had caused that group to forfeit its position at the vanguard of the physical jihad, though it remained deeply involved in the leadership of the ideological battle.

As a quick reminder, Stratfor views what most people refer to as "al Qaeda" as a global jihadist network rather than a monolithic entity. This network consists of three distinct entities. The first is a core vanguard, which we frequently refer to as al Qaeda prime, comprising Osama bin Laden and his trusted associates. The second is composed of al Qaeda franchise groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq, and the third comprises the grassroots jihadist movement inspired by al Qaeda prime and the franchise groups.

As indicated by the title of this forecast, we believe that the trends we have discussed in previous years will continue, and that al Qaeda prime has become marginalized on the physical battlefield to the extent that we have not even mentioned their name in the title. The regional jihadist franchises and grassroots operatives pose a much more significant threat in terms of security concerns, though it is important to note that those concerns will remain tactical and not rise to the level of a strategic threat. In our view, the sort of strategic challenge that al Qaeda prime posed with the 9/11 attacks simply cannot be replicated without a major change in geopolitical alignments -- a change we do not anticipate in 2009.

2008 in Review

Before diving into our forecast for the coming year, let's take a quick look back at what we said would happen in 2008 and see what we got right and what we did not.

What we got right:

Al Qaeda core focused on the ideological battle. Another year has passed without a physical attack by the al Qaeda core. As we noted last October, al Qaeda spent a tremendous amount of effort in 2008 fighting the ideological battle. The core leadership still appears to be very intent on countering the thoughts presented in a book written in 2007 by Sayyed Imam al-Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl, an imprisoned Egyptian radical and a founder (with Ayman al-Zawahiri) of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Al-Sharif's book is seen as such a threat because he provides theological arguments that counter many of the core teachings used by al Qaeda to justify jihadism. On Dec. 13, an 85-page treatise by one of al Qaeda's leading religious authorities, Abu-Yahya al-Libi, was released to jihadist Web sites in the latest of al Qaeda's many efforts to counter Dr. Fadl's arguments.


Pakistan will be important as a potential flashpoint. Eight days after we wrote this, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. Since then, Pakistan has become the focal point on the physical battlefield.

The November 2007 addition of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) to the global jihadist network will not pose a serious threat to the Libyan regime. The Libyans have deftly used a combination of carrots and sticks to divide and control the LIFG.

Jihadists will kill more people with explosives and firearms than with chemical, biological or radiological weapons. We saw no jihadist attacks using WMD in 2008.

What we got mostly right:

The Algerian jihadist franchise, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), will be hard-pressed in 2008, but not eliminated. AQIM succeeded in launching a large number of attacks in the first eight months of 2008, killing as many people as it did in all of 2007. But since then, the Algerian government has been making progress, and the jihadist group has only conducted two attacks since August 2008. The Algerians also are working closely with neighboring countries to combat AQIM, and the group is definitely feeling the heat. On Dec. 23, 2008, the Algerian government reportedly rejected a truce offered by AQIM leader Yahia Djouadi. Djouadi offered that al Qaeda would cease attacks on foreigners operating in oil fields in Algeria and Mauritania if the Algerian security service would cease targeting al Qaeda members in the Sahel region. The group is still alive, and government pressure appears to have affected its operational ability in recent months, but it did take a bit longer t
han we anticipated for the pressure to make a difference.

Syria will use Fatah al-Islam as a destabilizing force in Lebanon. We had intelligence last year suggesting that the Syrians were going to press the use of their jihadist proxies in Lebanon -- specifically Fatah al-Islam. We saw a bit of this type of activity in late May, but not as much as anticipated. By November, Syria actually decided to cut ties with Fatah al-Islam.

Jihadist operatives outside war zones will focus on soft targets. Major terrorist strikes in Islamabad and New Delhi were conducted against hotels, soft targets Stratfor has focused on as vulnerable for many years now. Other attacks in India focused on markets and other public places. While most of the attacks against hard targets came in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, there were a few attacks against hard targets in places like Pakistan, Yemen and Turkey. Granted, the Sanaa and Istanbul attacks were unsuccessful, but they were attacks against hard targets nonetheless.

What we missed:

The jihadist franchises in Yemen resurged, and the al-Shabab in Somalia found success. While we quickly picked up on these trends in April and May respectively (and beat most others to the punch with some very good analysis on these topics), we clearly did not predict them in December 2007. We knew that the influx of fighters from Iraq was going to impact countries in the region, but we didn't specifically focus on Yemen and Somalia.


The Year Ahead

We anticipate that we will see the United States continue its campaign of decapitation strikes against al Qaeda leadership. While this campaign has not managed to get bin Laden or al-Zawahiri, it has proved quite successful at causing the al Qaeda apex leadership to lie low and become marginalized from the physical jihad. The campaign also has killed a long list of key al Qaeda operational commanders and trainers. As noted above, we believe the core leadership is very concerned about the ideological battle being waged against it -- the only real way the theology of jihadism can be defeated -- and will continue to focus their efforts on that battlespace.

As long as the ideology of jihadism survives (it has been around since the late 1980s), the jihadists' war against the world will continue. It will continue to oscillate between periods of high and low intensity. In the coming year, we believe the bulk of physical attacks will continue to be conducted by regional jihadist franchise groups, and to a lesser extent by grassroots jihadists.
 

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,371
Con'd....

With the lack of regional franchises in North America, we do not see a strategic threat to the United States. However, as seen by the recent convictions in the Fort Dix plot trial, or even in the late October case where a U.S. citizen apparently committed a suicide bombing on behalf of al-Shabab in Somalia, the threat of simple attacks against soft targets in the United States remains. We were again surprised that no jihadist attacks occurred in the United States in 2008. Given the vulnerabilities that exist in an open society and the ease of attack, we cannot rule out an attack in 2009.

In Europe, where AQIM and other jihadist franchises have a greater presence and infrastructure, there is a greater threat that these franchises will commit sophisticated attacks. It must be recognized, though, that they will have a far harder time acquiring weapons and explosives to conduct such attacks in the United Kingdom or France than they would in Algeria or Pakistan. Because of this, we anticipate that they will continue to focus on soft targets in Europe. Due to differences between the Muslim communities in the United States and Europe, the grassroots operatives have been more active in Europe than they are in the United States. The May 22, 2008, attempted bombing at the Giraffe Cafe by a Muslim convert in Exeter serves as a good reminder of this.

Jihadist Franchises

After failing last year to predict the resurgence of the jihadist franchises in Yemen and Somalia, we will be keeping a sharp eye on both for 2009. Somalia continues to be a basket case of a country, and the instability there is providing an opportunity for al-Shabab to flourish. There is currently an attempt under way to bring stability to Somalia, but we anticipate that it will not succeed, due to the militant factionalism in the country. The only thing working against al-Shabab and their jihadist brethren is that the Somalian jihadists appear to be as fractious as the rest of the country; al-Shabab is itself a splinter of the Supreme Islamic Courts Council (SICC), which ruled Somalia briefly before the Ethiopian invasion in 2006. There are currently as many as four different jihadist factions fighting one another for control over various areas of Somalia -- in addition to fighting foreign troops and the interim government.

In Yemen, things have been eerily quiet since the Sept. 17 attack against the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa and the government campaign to go after the group behind that attack. Six gunmen were killed in the attack itself, and the Yemenis have arrested numerous others whom they claim were involved in planning the attack. The Yemenis also killed or captured several significant jihadists prior to the September attack. But given the large number of Yemenis involved in the fighting in Iraq, the number of Saudi militants who have traveled to Yemen due to pressure at home, and the Salafist-jihadist influence within Yemen's security and intelligence apparatus, it will be possible for the two jihadist franchises in Yemen to recover if the Yemenis give them breathing space.

Meanwhile, though Iraq is far calmer than it was a few years back, a resurgence in jihadist activity is possible. One of the keys to calming down the many jihadist groups in Iraq was the formation of the Awakening Councils, which are made up of many Sunni former Baathist (and some jihadist) militants placed on the U.S. payroll. With the changes in Iraq, responsibility for these Awakening Councils has been passed to the Iraqi government. If the Shiite-dominated government decides not to pay the councils, many of the militants-turned-security officers might return to their old ways -- especially if the pay from jihadist groups is right. Intelligence reports indicate that Baghdad plans to pay only a fraction of the approximately 100,000 men currently serving in the Awakening Councils. The Iraqi central government apparently plans to offer the bulk of them civilian jobs or job training, but we are skeptical that this will work.

Elsewhere, Pakistan is once again the critical location for the jihadists. Not only is Pakistan the home of the al Qaeda core leadership as its pursues its ideological war, it also is home to a number of jihadist groups, from the Afghan Taliban and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan in the northwest to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed in the northeast, among several others. The coming year might prove to be pivotal in global efforts against the jihadists in Pakistan. Pakistan already is a country in crisis, and in some ways it is hard to imagine it getting much worse. But if Pakistan continues to destabilize, it could very well turn into a failed country (albeit a failed country with a nuclear arsenal). Before Pakistan becomes a failed state, there are a number of precursor stages it probably will pass through. The most immediate stage would entail the fall of most of the North-West Frontier Province to the jihadists, something that could happen this year.

This type of anarchy in Pakistan could give the jihadists an opportunity to exert control in a way similar to what they have done in places like Afghanistan and Somalia (and already in the Pakistani badlands along the Afghan border.) If, on the other hand, Pakistan is somehow able to hold on, re-establish control over its territory and its rogue intelligence agency and begin to cooperate with the United States and other countries fighting the jihadists, such a development could deal a terrible blow to the aspirations of the jihadists on both the physical and ideological battlefields. Given the number of plots linked to Pakistan in recent years, including the Nov. 26 Mumbai attack and almost every significant plot since 9/11, all eyes will be watching Pakistan carefully.

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com.

Copyright 2009 Stratfor.
 

JHatman

Banned
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
2,008
Al Qaeda core focused on the ideological battle. Another year has passed without a physical attack by the al Qaeda core. As we noted last October, al Qaeda spent a tremendous amount of effort in 2008 fighting the ideological battle. The core leadership still appears to be very intent on countering the thoughts presented in a book written in 2007 by Sayyed Imam al-Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl, an imprisoned Egyptian radical and a founder (with Ayman al-Zawahiri) of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Al-Sharif's book is seen as such a threat because he provides theological arguments that counter many of the core teachings used by al Qaeda to justify jihadism. On Dec. 13, an 85-page treatise by one of al Qaeda's leading religious authorities, Abu-Yahya al-Libi, was released to jihadist Web sites in the latest of al Qaeda's many efforts to counter Dr. Fadl's arguments.

These ideologies preached by Al Qaeda are really whats at the heart of the issue here aren't they as anyone with any sense can see this cannot be won on the battlefield with guns. I wouldn't mind getting a copy of this book.

Thanks Peter, very interesting read!
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,605
we believe the core leadership is very concerned about the ideological battle being waged against it -- the only real way the theology of jihadism can be defeated

.. and there lies the crux of the matter. Fighting a military war against these Jihadists is ultimately pointless.

The US should have poured its Billions of dollars into fighting this ideological war.

I have said it before... but the US would have been better off buying everyone in these target countries a TV with satellite connection and an iPod. They would soon be turned into global consumers with a vested interest in protecting the sources of their content.

Turn the youth into an MTV generation and they would be too Emo to go on a suicide raid. It is the only guaranteed way! ;)
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,039
.. and there lies the crux of the matter. Fighting a military war against these Jihadists is ultimately pointless.

The US should have poured its Billions of dollars into fighting this ideological war.

I have said it before... but the US would have been better off buying everyone in these target countries a TV with satellite connection and an iPod. They would soon be turned into global consumers with a vested interest in protecting the sources of their content.

Turn the youth into an MTV generation and they would be too Emo to go on a suicide raid. It is the only guaranteed way! ;)
I think you'll find that many people are upset with this style of life and find it to be amoral and unfulfilling.

I doubt you're going to get many converts by trying to draw people in with the very worst you have to offer. (Well, short of showing them how awesome you are by bombing them to smithereens, that is...)
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,605
I think you'll find that many people are upset with this style of life and find it to be amoral and unfulfilling.

I doubt you're going to get many converts by trying to draw people in with the very worst you have to offer. (Well, short of showing them how awesome you are by bombing them to smithereens, that is...)

That is just one idea of how to influence the culture... I think it would be very successful on a young generation. YOU may find it immoral and unfulfilling, but not everyone may think that way. Young Muslim children are becoming radical terrorists because they are being indoctrinated by the radical Imams from a young age... that is where you have to break into the cycle and give these kids a reason to live. Something to occupy their time. It doesn't have to be music and movies... but those have historically proved to be the most influential in all cultures. Movies triggered a culture shift among the youth in 1960s France. It could be sport, or anything else.

The point is... it does not have to always be a military solution.

The US is a consumer society.... it is one of their biggest exports and influences worldwide. I think they should utilise it. Doesn't mean I agree with the content or the tools... but it is better than rockets and bombs.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,039
That is just one idea of how to influence the culture... I think it would be very successful on a young generation.
Callous consumption is what has lead to the current economic issues around the world. Consumption was encouraged to such a degree that America started borrowing to continue their consumptive spree. Now the chickens are coming home to roost, and it's going to get really really ugly.

It is a culture of consumption which has lead us into our currect ecological quagmire. We just used things without even bothering to think of the consequences of our actions, and now we face an exploding global population and dwindling natural resources.

YOU may find it immoral and unfulfilling, but not everyone may think that way.
Amoral is not the same as immoral, btw.

Young Muslim children are becoming radical terrorists because they are being indoctrinated by the radical Imams from a young age...
The radical imams are popular precisely because the culture of consumption has lead to the strong powers participating in economic imperialism which has kept the poor regions perpetually poor in order to prop up the wealthy regions. Might be easier to take the wind out of the radical Imam's sails by ensuring that the wealthy powers treat the poor regions with a little bit of respect.

The point is... it does not have to always be a military solution.
At least this we can agree upon.

The US is a consumer society.... it is one of their biggest exports and influences worldwide.
And what is the stereotype of a typical American?
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,605
It is a culture of consumption which has lead us into our currect ecological quagmire. We just used things without even bothering to think of the consequences of our actions, and now we face an exploding global population and dwindling natural resources.
When I said it was good solution, I didn't mean the BEST in terms of what is good for the world... I just mean the best and easiest available to the USA... as opposed to military violence. I am not espousing consumerism as a way of life for everyone in the world... only as a weapon for the US in an ideological war.
Amoral is not the same as immoral, btw.
no kidding... is that why they are spelled differently?
The radical imams are popular precisely because the culture of consumption has lead to the strong powers participating in economic imperialism which has kept the poor regions perpetually poor in order to prop up the wealthy regions. Might be easier to take the wind out of the radical Imam's sails by ensuring that the wealthy powers treat the poor regions with a little bit of respect.
That is partly what I meant... by pouring money in and improving conditions it would not hurt. With the amount they have spent on the war in Iraq, they could have bought everybody there a new house by now.... but I meant go futher than that.... buy them out, so that they will become ideologically sympathetic to you. You and I might not like that... but it was an option available to the US that they completely ignored.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,039
no kidding... is that why they are spelled differently?
I used amoral and you responded with immoral. The point is that consumerism as an ideology is not at all concerned with morality. The most important consideration is instant gratification of material desire without regard for consequences. I suppose you could claim that this is immoral, but, I do not think that all consumption is inherently immoral.

That is partly what I meant... by pouring money in and improving conditions it would not hurt. With the amount they have spent on the war in Iraq, they could have bought everybody there a new house by now.... but I meant go futher than that.... buy them out, so that they will become ideologically sympathetic to you. You and I might not like that... but it was an option available to the US that they completely ignored.
Wouldn't it be easier to just not bomb them and prop up corrupt rulers in the first place?
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,605
Wouldn't it be easier to just not bomb them and prop up corrupt rulers in the first place?

I think they tried that... Saddam Hussein... and the Mujahadin/Taliban... are an excellent case in point. Prop them up by all means... but at the same time change their ideology.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,039
I think they tried that... Saddam Hussein... and the Mujahadin/Taliban... are an excellent case in point. Prop them up by all means... but at the same time change their ideology.
I said, wouldn't it be easier to NOT prop them up.

It tends to peeve people when they have no control over who rules them, and there are foreign powers playing puppet master with their leaders.

Iran had a parliamentary democracy before the west overthrew it and installed the Shah. The Shah was a ruthless tyrant and subjugated the Iranians mercilessly. A few years later, the Iranians decided that they had had enough, and lo and behold, there's now an Islamic theocracy in charge which is hostile to the West.

Seriously not helpful that the Iranians were attacked in the first place over their decision to nationalise their oil reserves. Of course, the West didn't like this because it messed with their oil consumption. But maybe if they had just respected Iran's right to do what it wants with its natural resources, there'd still be a moderate democracy in place today...
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,605
I said, wouldn't it be easier to NOT prop them up.

It tends to peeve people when they have no control over who rules them, and there are foreign powers playing puppet master with their leaders.

Iran had a parliamentary democracy before the west overthrew it and installed the Shah. The Shah was a ruthless tyrant and subjugated the Iranians mercilessly. A few years later, the Iranians decided that they had had enough, and lo and behold, there's now an Islamic theocracy in charge which is hostile to the West.

Seriously not helpful that the Iranians were attacked in the first place over their decision to nationalise their oil reserves. Of course, the West didn't like this because it messed with their oil consumption. But maybe if they had just respected Iran's right to do what it wants with its natural resources, there'd still be a moderate democracy in place today...

Oops, sorry... I thought the NOT applied to the previous verb alone.

Ja, I can't argue with you over the US foreign policy... even though I am a supporter of the US... it is embarrassing to the see a lot of the mistakes and dumb decisions they have made over the years... in the name of fighting communism and other ideologies. They don't even realize now how their foreign policy is damaging their name around the world. But I think that will change as their status as the ultimate superpower slowly changes.
 

Xarog

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
19,039
Oops, sorry... I thought the NOT applied to the previous verb alone.

Ja, I can't argue with you over the US foreign policy... even though I am a supporter of the US... it is embarrassing to the see a lot of the mistakes and dumb decisions they have made over the years... in the name of fighting communism and other ideologies. They don't even realize now how their foreign policy is damaging their name around the world. But I think that will change as their status as the ultimate superpower slowly changes.
I am betting on a dramatic change (for the better), within the next three years.

But surely if you disagree with US foreign policy, you must also see that the foreign policy itself is the main antagonist when it comes to the rise of militant opposition to the West? The overwhelming majority of Islaming organisations are politically motivated rather than religiously motivated, and many many muslims are opposed to the rise of the true religious extremists such as Al Qaeda. For example, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are mortal enemies of one another, despite the fact that "Hezbollah" actually means "The Party of God". And as another unreported scandal, the US was recently caught with its fingers in the cookie jar when it was found that they were funding extremists with links to Al Qaeda in order to oppose Hezbollah. (Although, the extremists in question took the money and set up bases within the Palestinian refugee camps and instead furthered there own goals. Then when the Lebanese military reacted, the Palestinians in the refugee camps got the blame, not the actual culprits. :( )

Imo, the only real way to deal with the rise of extremism is to remove the causes of extremism, and that means respecting the right that muslims have to self-determination. Secular nationalism is the oldest of all the resistance movements. Muslims abandoned it because it was ineffective, not because they innately oppose secular rule. Currently, religious organisations which still tolerate the right of others to have their OWN religious beliefs are more common than parties which really do want to put all non-muslims to the sword. The longer the overall conflict goes on, the more popular the fundamentalists become.
 

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,475
These ideologies preached by Al Qaeda are really whats at the heart of the issue here aren't they as anyone with any sense can see this cannot be won on the battlefield with guns. I wouldn't mind getting a copy of this book.

Thanks Peter, very interesting read!

Anybody who thinks you can reason with a person who has kids slice off people's heads or straps bombs to mentally ill woman before remotely detonating them in a mall full of innocent people has no sense
 
Top