Section on Geopol -- All these are definitive Stratfor ...



THE DEVOLUTION

OF AL QAEDA

From Cohesive Movement to Jihadist Brand

[Blurbs for back cover]

A STRATFOR BOOK

[TK: 65-word summary of book]

STRATFOR is a world leader in private global intelligence: political, economic, military and security. Utilizing a Web-based publishing platform, STRATFOR provides its members with in-depth analysis of important issues and events worldwide as well as rapid updates on developing events.



STRATFOR

700 Lavaca Street, Suite 900

Austin, Texas 78701

Copyright © 2010 by STRATFOR

All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction

in whole or in part

Printed in the United States of America

The contents of this book originally appeared as analyses

on STRATFOR’s subscription Web site.

.

ISBN: [?]

EAN-13: [?]

Publisher: Grant Perry

Editor: Michael McCullar

Project Coordinator: Robert Inks

Designer: TJ Lensing

CONTENTS

Introduction x

A Note on Content x

CHAPTER 1: THE UNITED STATES

Geopolitical Diary: Fallon and Two Persistent Stalemates x

INTRODUCTION

[TK]

STRATFOR

Austin, Texas

[?], 2010

A NOTE ON CONTENT

STRATFOR presents the following articles as they originally appeared on our subscription Web site, . These pieces represent some of our best analyses of the Islamist militant group al Qaeda since June 2004, organized under chapter headings and presented in the order in which they were published. Since most of the articles were written as individual analyses, there may be overlap from piece to piece and chapter to chapter, and some of the information may seem dated. Naturally, some of the observations herein are linked to a specific time or event that may be years removed from al Qaeda’s situation today. However, STRATFOR believes bringing these pieces together provides valuable insight and perspective on a significant and historic global phenomenon.

CHAPTER 1: [?]

Al Qaeda’s Western Recruits

June 24, 2004

Al Qaeda remains a dynamic organization that leverages local expertise and resources in surveilling, planning and carrying out operations. To that end, the group seeks indigenous operatives to carry out pre-strike surveillance and attacks in several nations. An examination of some of these Western recruits provides insights into al Qaeda’s methods of recruiting, coordinating, planning and deploying resources.

There are many suspected American and other Western al Qaeda facilitators, operatives and sympathizers. High-profile cases that prove especially insightful include those of:

• Jose Padilla, an American known as the “Dirty Bomber”

• Richard Reid, a Briton known as the “Shoe Bomber”

• Jack Roche, Australia’s “Reluctant Militant,” who reportedly has ties to al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah

Drawing from the statements given to investigators, each of these cases has similarities and differences from the others — the most striking similarity being that they were all caught. Though a look at these three offers some insights into al Qaeda’s Western recruitment, it should not be assumed that these assessments include all of the group’s recruiting and training techniques. The very fact that these men were caught raises questions — and even suggests al Qaeda was fully cognizant of the potential for detection. The stories of those not yet caught could prove much more interesting and insightful.

Jose Padilla, the Dirty Bomber

Born in 1970 in New York, Padilla had a troubled childhood that led to gang involvement and run-ins with police in Chicago and Florida. In 1992, he was introduced to Islam — reportedly by his manager at a fast food restaurant in Florida — though some stories suggest that the introduction occurred while he was serving jail time. By 1993, Padilla had changed his name to Ibrahim and become involved with radical Islamists in the Ft. Lauderdale area.

In 1996, Padilla married and acquired a U.S. passport. Reports indicate that he and his wife lived in a gated community, despite neither having a job — suggesting that Padilla already was receiving some kind of stipend from the Islamic community. In 1998, he left his wife and traveled to Egypt. He stayed there for just more than a year, marrying an Egyptian woman before heading to Pakistan. Once again, he took a new name — Abdullah al-Muhajir (Abdullah the Immigrant).

While in Pakistan, Padilla met a Yemeni who introduced him to another al Qaeda recruiter. This acquaintance sponsored Padilla’s trip to Afghanistan for weapons training at a camp overseen by Abu Zubaida. There, he was given on-the-job training as a Taliban guard near Kabul — apparently a test of his loyalty. Afterward, Padilla was approached by Mohammed Atef, who began determining the Westerner’s commitment and possible use as an operative.

Padilla was chosen as a potential operative only after he had completed basic training in Afghanistan. This trend seems to follow that of most Western al Qaeda recruits. As will be seen with the case of Jack Roche, the direct recruitment of operatives in Western nations is difficult; waiting for disaffected or otherwise exploitable Westerners to make their way to al Qaeda is preferable.

What came next for Padilla appears to be another common trend in al Qaeda’s recruitment. He was sent to Pakistan, where he reported a lost passport and was issued a new one without stamps that tracked his previous travels. Padilla then went on an expense-paid trip back to Egypt to visit his wife — an obvious perk and attempt on al Qaeda’s part to continue the bond with the American al Qaeda recruit. Two months later, Padilla was back in Afghanistan to receive his first assignment: blowing up U.S. apartment buildings with a combination of natural gas leaks and detonators.

At this point, Padilla’s potential as an operative began to slip. He had a falling out with his assigned partner, Jafar al-Tayer. (Padilla later said that Jafar was probably an American.) After training for the operation, the two argued. Padilla then told his handlers that the operation was off, since he could not carry it out alone. This training occurred just before the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States. It is unclear whether the attacks affected the men’s decision to call off the gas explosion attacks.

Later in the year, as U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan began, Padilla fled to Pakistan. There, he and another militant attempted to sell the idea of detonating a nuclear bomb in America. The two told Abu Zubaida about instructions for building a nuclear device they had seen on the Internet. Abu Zubaida had doubts about this idea and assigned them to carry out the long-overdue apartment bombings instead. But by this time, it appears Padilla was no longer willing to listen.

The idea of detonating a nuclear weapon — or at least a radiological device — was presented to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed by Padilla in March 2002. Again, it was rejected in favor of the apartment attacks. After several rounds of discussion, al Qaeda gave Padilla and an associate each $20,000 and sent them on their way. Two months later, Padilla was arrested while entering the United States; Abu Zubaida — by then in custody — had informed investigators of his activities.

After turning down the more easily carried out apartment attacks, Padilla became useless as an al Qaeda operative. But as a red herring for U.S. security forces to spend resources and time on, he served a purpose. He also represented a worst-case scenario — a converted Muslim militant who did not fit the racial profiling designed to weed out possible al Qaeda operatives.

Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber

The son of a Jamaican father and an English mother, Richard Reid was born and raised in a London suburb. Reid’s father — reportedly also a convert to Islam — spent much of his time in jail. By the mid 1990s, Reid had also embarked on a life of crime and was incarcerated for a series of muggings. While serving time in the Feltham young offenders’ institute, he was introduced to, and embraced Islam.

Like Padilla, Reid came from an essentially fatherless home, became a juvenile petty criminal and turned to Islam while serving time. Islam provided a sense of belonging and purpose for both men; however, their apparent lack of self-discipline also opened them up to the influence of radicals.

Reid — who changed his name to Abdel Rahim — joined the Brixton Mosque, which helped to rehabilitate former criminals. His devotion to studying drew him to more radical members of the Islamic community. Reid began accusing mosque members and leaders of deviating from the truth and accepting Western influences. Before being expelled from the mosque, he met up with fellow disaffected worshiper Zacarias Moussaoui.

In late 1998, Reid stopped attending Brixton and moved to Pakistan. He then began training in Afghanistan and traveled to several countries — including Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Belgium, the Netherlands and France. During these flights, Reid was allegedly scouting the security procedures of American airlines; he also visited radical and militant Islamist communities. While in Afghanistan, Reid trained in a special camp for solo martyrs, learning bomb making and methods of avoiding detection. One of his supervisors was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Before departing from Paris in December 2001, Reid acquired a new passport free of stamps from his previous travels. Like Padilla, he claimed to have lost his original passport. Reid was detained briefly for questioning at the Paris airport Dec. 21 — the original date of his planned attack — but was allowed to fly the next day. He reportedly was unsuccessful in his attack only because the required fuses got wet in the rain.

Reid appeared to have better training than Padilla, who basically became a “blown agent” left on his own by al Qaeda. (If he had managed to pull off an attack, however, al Qaeda would not have complained.) Perhaps more importantly, Reid was more willing to die.

Despite these differences, Padilla and Reid followed a similar path to al Qaeda. Impressionable young men, they flirted with Islam in prison and gravitated toward those with the strongest convictions in their respective Islamic communities. Al Qaeda did not need to seek out these Western members. The group simply moved them in a natural progression through the training camps in Afghanistan to selection as operatives.

Jack Roche, Australia’s Reluctant Militant

Born in 1953 as Paul George Holland, Jack Roche’s case bears similarities and differences to those of Padilla and Reid. For one, he was much older upon his introduction to Islam. A native of Britain, Roche drifted to Germany and eventually to Australia, where he obtained citizenship in 1978. Though he had few if any problems with the law, Roche was a heavy drinker. He converted to Islam in 1993 as part of an effort to tackle his drinking problem.

As was the case with Padilla and Reid, Roche turned to Islam to fill a void and get on a more “correct” path. All three men proved susceptible to external influences in their newfound religion and lifestyle.

From 1993 to 1995, Roche lived in Indonesia, studying Islam and teaching English as a second language. He met Abdullah Sungkar — co-founder of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) — while the latter was visiting a Sydney mosque in 1996. Roche then began to affiliate with the more radical Islamists and JI. In early 2000, he traveled to Afghanistan and joined the Taliban. Mohammad Atef and other senior al Qaeda members asked him to establish an al Qaeda cell in Australia, where he could stake out the Israeli Embassy and other potential targets.

The use and deployment of Roche then fell apart, apparently because of splits between and within JI and al Qaeda. Roche was sent to Malaysia in February 2000 to meet with Hambali, an operative for both al Qaeda and JI. Hambali told Roche to prepare for a trip to Afghanistan where he would meet a “sheikh.” Roche returned to Australia, flew back to Malaysia a month later, and then went on to Pakistan, where he was met by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In April, Roche went to Afghanistan, where he met Osama bin Laden and undertook a two-week course in explosives.

Roche’s relationship with JI seems to have accelerated al Qaeda’s decision to take him in as a potential operative and cell leader. He discussed possible targets inside Australia with al Qaeda leaders, including Mohammed Atef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Roche was given more than $8,000 and was told to begin surveillance on the Israeli Embassy and other key Israeli diplomatic and economic targets. However, reports indicate his JI handlers were actually more interested in the Sydney Olympics.

After embarking on the surveillance work in June 2000, Roche became apprehensive about carrying out an actual operation; he was also experiencing little luck in recruiting new cell members. On July 14, Roche phoned the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO). He explained his connection with bin Laden and warned that a JI and al Qaeda cell existed in Australia. Roche called again five days later, after receiving no response to his first call.

Recognizing Roche’s growing reluctance, JI urged him Aug. 8 to carry on with the operation. Two days later, Roche again called the ASIO. Again, he received no response. A few days later, JI called off the attack plans. Roche was left on his own until his arrest more than two years later.

Though Roche’s mission was eventually called off, neither JI nor al Qaeda did anything — aside from issuing minor threats — to ensure he never talked. For an organization as security conscious as al Qaeda, this seems an anomaly. Perhaps the group wanted Roche to be caught as a means of spreading fear in Australia. On the other hand, al Qaeda might have had little concern over his capture; after all, ASIO failed to respond to his phone calls.

Common Denominators

The common denominators in these three cases are not socioeconomic conditions or age. Rather, they are a perceived need for belonging to something, a vulnerability and naivete that left the three men susceptible to radical teachings. Radical white hate groups and other cults also recruit members by tapping into these kinds of vulnerabilities.

Though many Westerners convert to Islam, only a small number of them are enticed by its radical teachings. A still smaller number actually act on these teachings, receiving training in places such as Pakistan, Afghanistan or Indonesia and transitioning from radicalism to militantism. Still fewer become al Qaeda operatives — a step that requires denouncing one’s own nation in favor of a broader ideology.

Al Qaeda's Communications Network

Aug. 11, 2004

The arrests of several suspected al Qaeda members and supporters in Pakistan, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates and the southern United States offer a snapshot of a sliver of al Qaeda’s command, control and communications network.

Coupled with previous information gleaned from arrests, threats and successful attacks, it reveals an organization with both a highly controlling centralized core and a level of operational freedom for its regional and local commanders. Central to its effectiveness in turning deep strategic thinking at the core into tactical operations on the ground is a series of communication nodes — people prized not so much for their ability to plan, but for their skill with computers.

The communications nodes are reservoirs of information collected from far-flung operatives via e-mail or hand-delivered messages. The information is processed, stored and disseminated to other operatives or to the core al Qaeda leadership. Messages are delivered from the al Qaeda core down the chain of command to the regional and local field commanders. While there often are several intermediary couriers, the communications nodes are the central link between a strategic vision and a tactical reality.

Pakistan’s arrest of key communications node Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan on July 13 offered intelligence agencies a treasure-trove of insight not only into al Qaeda’s potential plans and surveillance methods, but also into the structure of at least part of its network. Khan’s computer carried al Qaeda surveillance reports and contact information for commanders — which Pakistani and U.S. intelligence agencies exploited by engaging Khan in an operation to flush out these disparate commanders.

Khan sent messages to locations around the world, saying he had new information from al Qaeda central and was waiting for replies. These probes into the system, monitored closely by Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the CIA, led to the detentions of both Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian linked to the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, and to Abu Eisa al-Hindi, a regional militant commander in the United Kingdom and probably the United States. Further probes likely revealed clues about the communications paths and perhaps pointed to other regional or local commanders. However, the revelation of Khan’s arrest by U.S. politicians a day after the heightened terrorist alerts were issued for New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., quickly dried up the flow of information, frustrating the ISI, the Pakistani government and the CIA.

Khan provides an example of the kind of communications network al Qaeda has established — and, undoubtedly, several other Khans are out there. They do not necessarily know the names or whereabouts of the commanders, or of Osama bin Laden or other top al Qaeda officials, but are aware of the plans and orders being passed back and forth.

Given al Qaeda’s penchant for security and for redundancy of operations, there likely is overlap in the field commanders on the contact list of each of these communications nodes, which allows a steady flow of directions from the top and information and intelligence from the field even if one node is compromised. As a built-in security feature, al Qaeda field commanders and tactical operatives flee or go underground when their line of communication seems suspect or dries up. They do not strike with whatever plan they might have been plotting.

This reveals a certain level of central control and a lack of clarity by the tactical operatives about the exact nature of al Qaeda’s plans; they train for a certain type of operation, they survey certain areas, but the exact timing, location and coordination of several cells is done by a regional or local field commander. This is done is such a way that even if one militant or cell were broken, it would not necessarily jeopardize the entire operation.

This security feature also means that each person in the communications and command chain might know only the true identity of two or 10 other operatives. If one operative is interrogated, rather than giving up the whole network, he can provide only an e-mail address or the names of a few others — thus delaying the unraveling of a broader swath of the network. If these communications lines jump across continents while arrests take place, other links in that chain will be broken and new communications paths will be established.

Once a key arrest has been made public, or a series of arrests takes place, all other al Qaeda operatives with connections to that link in the network go underground, leaving investigators only a short time to round up a few others. That partly explains the sudden drop in detentions following the rapid roundup of operational cells in Pakistan and the United Kingdom.

The Pakistani cell broken by the information from Khan was nominally directed by Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani. Ghailani was one of the FBI’s most-wanted al Qaeda operatives, accused of being a key planner and facilitator in the 1998 U.S. Embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania. His high profile, however, left him out of the al Qaeda inner circle for planning — though he remains one of the most loyal to bin Laden. Instead, after a stint raising funds in Africa, Ghailani had lain low, taking advantage of the broad Islamist support network to move about and avoid capture.

Ghailani apparently had two more recent roles in Pakistan. First, he was senior adviser to local al Qaeda militants and operational commanders in the campaign against Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf and his regime. He also was as a key recruiter for al Qaeda members from Africa.

Abu Eisa al-Hindi, however, is a much more active operational commander, similar in role to Mohammad Atta, who coordinated the final stages of the Sept. 11 attacks. Al-Hindi was most recently based in the United Kingdom, but has traveled to the United States, and like Atta probably had operational control over several cells on both sides of the Atlantic. Al-Hindi coordinated and participated in the surveillance of key U.S. buildings, traveling to the United States at least once in 2001. Once the information was collected, the final surveillance dossiers would have been transmitted, through Khan, back to the core al Qaeda leadership, where a strategic assessment of the possible tactical targets could be conducted. Further surveillance — or attack planning — was then transmitted back through Khan or another communications node to al-Hindi.

Although al-Hindi’s Aug. 4 arrest also nabbed several suspected al Qaeda members in England, it thus far has failed to turn up any major operatives inside the United States. In fact, though he allegedly sent at least six messages to U.S.-based operatives or commanders during the flushing operation, none has led to U.S. arrests, though a few people might now be under surveillance. Once Khan’s arrest became public knowledge, these operatives and commanders undoubtedly dropped off the radar screen, and intelligence officials have said the general background “chatter” of al Qaeda members fell precipitously with word of Khan’s detention.

Given that al Qaeda operatives have entered the United States at least a year in advance of any potential attack, the fact that this particular communications link has been broken does not necessarily preclude an operation already in its final stages. Atta, for example, entered the United States on June 3, 2000, and exited and re-entered the country several times, meeting with other al Qaeda operatives all over the world. Officials know Khan was in contact with several people in the United States and around the world — but their identities and exact locations remain unknown.

Al Qaeda almost definitely has dozens of “sleeper agents” inside the United States — they probably have been in the country for years, waiting to be called up. Only when a cell leader moves into the country and begins contacting these sleepers will they learn of their mission and its details. It might never be known for sure whether al-Hindi’s arrest has thwarted a major operation.

Ultimately, Khan’s detention has offered useful insights into the internal workings of al Qaeda. First, there are innumerable layers of command, control and communication inside al Qaeda, obfuscating the true origin and end-point of messages and concealing the identities of operatives. There are lowest-level, grunt-work operatives, mid-level directors and senior planners. There also are fund-raisers, communications people and deliverymen who only carry messages.

Second, the sender almost never delivers Al Qaeda messages to the end recipient. A piece of paper written in code could travel from Lahore, Pakistan, to UAE to Britain to the United States, carried by a different person on each leg. Surveillance done by an operative at a Las Vegas casino might be e-mailed to an operative in Nigeria, who forwards it to an account based in Yemen, who forwards it to an account in Pakistan. Again, the purpose is to conceal and, in case of detection or penetration, secure the network.

But it also means al Qaeda is rather reliant on its key communications nodes for rapid and efficient dissemination of information and orders. The detection and disabling of these nodes, even without a subsequent operation to flush out their contacts, can cause a serious disruption in al Qaeda’s capabilities. With the current operating paradigm being to go underground if a breach in the network is believed, the capture of communications people might be the most effective way of undermining al Qaeda’s operational capabilities — shy of the capture of bin Laden himself.

Al Qaeda and the Threat of Chemical and Biological Weapons

Dec. 4, 2004

A pamphlet published on the CIA’s Web site says al Qaeda documents captured in Afghanistan indicate that the network possesses crude procedures for producing VX nerve agent, sarin and mustard gas. In light of this information, the mainstream media recently have focused on the possibility that al Qaeda will use chemical and/or biological weapons (CBWs) against the United States and U.S. interests abroad.

The American public has been besieged with warnings about al Qaeda and its CBW program since shortly after the United States launched a 1998 cruise missile attack against Sudan’s Shifa pharmaceutical factory, which Washington said was a terrorist-related facility. STRATFOR also has written about the danger posed by terrorists using chemical or biological weapons on more than one occasion. Although these warnings are not without foundation, STRATFOR believes al Qaeda is neither capable of producing mass quantities of deadly agents nor does it have the means to effectively dispense them.

We know from the 2001 court testimony of Ahmed Ressam — the Algerian national who plotted to blow up Los Angeles International Airport — that al Qaeda members conducted experiments using cyanide and other toxins to kill dogs at the Deronta training camp in Afghanistan. Videos recovered by U.S. troops after the invasion of Afghanistan supported this testimony and, as noted by the CIA, seized al Qaeda training manuals have included recipes for making biological toxins and chemical agents. Recipes for producing toxins such as ricin are also readily available on the Internet.

The information about al Qaeda’s experiments with chemical weapons should come as no surprise. In an interview aired on ABC News in December 1998, Osama bin Laden said, “If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then this is an obligation I carried out, and I thank God for enabling me to do so.”

The evidence is clear: al Qaeda does possess the capability to make and use crude chemical and biological weapons. However, despite the fear that these substances engender, they often are quite ineffective as weapons. An examination of Japanese apocalyptic cult Aum Shinrikyo’s CBW program provides some important insight into these weapons and the cost and limitations of such systems.

According to testimony in the trials of Aum Shinrikyo leaders, the group conducted 17 known CBW attacks or attempted attacks between 1990 and 1995, 10 of them using chemical agents (four with sarin, four with VX, one with phosgene and one with sodium cyanide), and seven using biological agents (four with anthrax and three with botulinum toxin). The Japanese government further suspects Aum Shinrikyo in another 13 attacks that remain unsolved. The group also reportedly killed several dissident members using VX nerve agent.

Included among Aum Shinrikyo’s attacks were several large-scale operations. For example, in April of 1990, the group used a fleet of three trucks equipped with aerosol sprayers to release liquid botulinum toxin on the Imperial Palace, the Diet and the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, and two U.S. naval bases and the airport in Narita.

Between June and August of 1993, the group sprayed thousands of gallons of liquid anthrax in Tokyo. It used sprayers mounted on the roof of their headquarters on two occasions, and it also conducted two attacks with sprayer trucks, one against the Diet and the other against the Imperial Palace and the Tokyo Tower.

In June of 1994, Aum Shinrikyo used a van equipped with a sarin dispenser to attempt to kill three judges hearing a case against the group. The judges, who all lived in the same dormitory, survived the attack when the wind blew the sarin away from the building, but seven people in the neighborhood were killed.

Aum Shinrikyo’s most successful attack was in March 1995, when members of the group punctured 11 sarin-filled plastic bags on five different subway trains, killing 12 people.

Aum Shinrikyo’s team of highly trained scientists worked under ideal conditions in a first-world country with a virtually unlimited budget. The team worked in large, modern facilities to produce substantial quantities of chemical and biological weapons. Despite the millions of dollars the group spent on its CBW program, however, it still faced problems in creating virulent biological agents, and it also found it difficult to dispense those agents in an effective manner. Because of these problems, the militants succeeded in killing only a handful of people, and they did not cause the global Armageddon they endeavored to create.

Aum Shinrikyo’s example shows us that creating and dispensing chemical and biological agents effectively on a large scale simply is not as easy as some would have us believe.

The March train bombings in Madrid provide an interesting comparison to the 1995 subway attacks. In many ways, the attacks were similar: both groups placed multiple devices in the commuter train system and intended to create maximum casualties. However, the conventional improvised explosive device used in Madrid is estimated to have cost only $10,000 to manufacture —only a small fraction of what it cost Aum Shinrikyo to develop its CBW program. Yet, despite the great disparity in cost, the Tokyo subway attack killed 12, and the Madrid bombings killed 191.

Al Qaeda has a history of attempting to commit spectacular terrorist attacks. Sometimes they have succeeded. As STRATFOR has argued, al Qaeda is under tremendous pressure to commit another attack — and a spectacular one at that. As the Aum Shinrikyo and the post-Sept. 11 anthrax-letter cases in the United States proved, chemical and biological weapons do cause a lot of panic, but when employed in limited quantities they will not create the number of casualties that al Qaeda is seeking.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States and its allies have actively pursued al Qaeda. The network has had millions of dollars of its assets seized in a number of countries, and it no longer has the safe haven of Afghanistan from which to operate. In other words, is in a very different place organizationally than was Aum Shinrikyo during the 1990s. Al Qaeda cannot easily build large modern factories capable of producing thousands of gallons of agents or toxins. It certainly can create small quantities of these compounds, but not enough to wreak the kind of damage it desires. Of course, we are discussing al Qaeda prime, and not the larger jihadist universe. Independent cells and lone wolves will almost certainly attempt to brew some of the recipes in the al Qaeda cookbook.

STRATFOR believes that the al Qaeda network intends to conduct another terrorist spectacular — and will do so if and when it can. We also believe that it is far more likely to utilize conventional explosives — with or without a radiological kicker — than the VX, sarin and mustard gas mentioned in the CIA pamphlet.

Al Qaeda's Global Campaign: Tet Offensive or Battle of the Bulge?

July 27, 2005

A spate of attacks have occurred recently that we attribute to al Qaeda. In addition to the two rounds of attacks in London this month and the bombings at Sharm el Sheikh, we have seen ongoing suicide bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq that targeted government officials, the bombing of a Sufi shrine in Islamabad, the abduction and murder of an Iranian security official and other killings in the Muslim world. In addition, we have seen an intensification of attacks in Iraq by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda-linked faction. We are not great believers in coincidence and therefore regard these incidents as being coordinated. The degree of coordination and the method whereby coordination is achieved is murky, and not really material. But that we are experiencing an offensive by al Qaeda is clear.

At issue is the nature of the offensive. To put the matter simply, do these attacks indicate the ongoing, undiminished strength of al Qaeda, or do they represent a final, desperate counterattack — both within Iraq and globally — to attempt to reverse al Qaeda’s fortunes? In our view, the latter is the case. Al Qaeda, having been hammered over the past four years, and al-Zarqawi, facing the defection of large segments of his Sunni base of support, are engaged in a desperate attempt to reverse the course of the war. It is not clear that they will fail; such counter-offensives have succeeded in recent years. The question is whether this is a Tet offensive or a Battle of the Bulge.

To begin to answer that, we need to consider these two offensives.

In warfare, as one side is being pressed to the point of no return, the classic maneuver is to marshal all available strength for an offensive designed to turn the tide. The offensive has a high probability of military failure and, therefore, would not be attempted until military defeat or an unacceptable political outcome appeared inevitable. The goal is to inflict a blow so striking that it throws the other side off balance. More important, it should create a crisis of confidence in the enemy’s command structure and its political base. It should be a surprise attack, causing commanders to question their intelligence organizations’ appreciation of the other side’s condition. It should have a significant military impact. Above all, it should redefine the enemy public’s perception of the course of the war. Ideally, it should set the stage for a military victory — but more probably, it would set the stage for a political settlement.

In December 1944, the Germans understood they were going to be defeated by the spring of 1945, when Soviet and Anglo-American forces would simultaneously smash into Germany. They gathered what force they had to attempt a surprise counterattack. Anglo-American intelligence organizations had concluded that the Germans were finished. The Germans took advantage of this by striking through the Ardennes forest. Their goal was the port of Antwerp.

The fall of Antwerp — or at least, the ability to interfere with access to the port — would not have defeated the Allies. However, it would have constrained Allied offensive operations and forced postponement of the spring offensive. It also would have shaken the confidence in the Allied high command and both Roosevelt and Churchill. The unexpected nature of the offensive would have created a political crisis and opened the door to either a redefinition of Allied war aims or, possibly, a separate peace in the West.

From a military standpoint, the attack was a long shot, but not a preposterous one. Had the Germans crossed the Meuse River, they could have approached Antwerp at least. In the event, if we consider the panic that gripped the Allied high command even without the Germans reaching the Meuse, their crossing of it would have had massive repercussions. Whether it would have had political consequences is unclear. As it was, the offensive failed in the first days. It was liquidated in a matter of weeks, and the war concluded catastrophically for Germany.

A more successful example of a terminal offensive was the North Vietnamese offensive in February 1968. The Johnson administration had been arguing, with some logic, that the North Vietnamese forces were being worn down effectively by the United States, and that they were on the defensive and declining. The Tet offensive was intended to reverse the waning fortunes of the North Vietnamese. There were a number of goals. First and foremost, the offensive was designed to demonstrate to all parties that the North Vietnamese retained a massive offensive capability. It was intended to drive a wedge between U.S. commanders in Saigon and the political leaders in Washington by demonstrating that the Saigon command was providing misleading analysis. Finally, it was intended to drive a wedge between the Johnson administration and the American public.

From a strictly military standpoint, Tet was a complete disaster. It squandered scarce resources on an offensive that neither reduced U.S. strength nor gained and held strategic objectives. After the offensive was over, the North Vietnamese army was back where it had started, with far fewer troops or supplies.

From the political point of view, however, it was wildly successful. A chasm opened between the civilian leadership in Washington and Gen. William Westmoreland in Saigon. Westmoreland’s rejection of intelligence analyses pointing to an offensive undermined confidence in him. Far more important, Johnson’s speeches about lights at the end of the tunnel lost all credibility, in spite of the fact that he wasn’t altogether wrong. The apparent success of the Tet offensive forced a re-evaluation of American strategy in Vietnam, Johnson’s decision not to stand for re-election and a general sense that the U.S. government had vastly underestimated the strength and tenacity of the North Vietnamese.

Declining military fortunes force combatants to consider political solutions. At that point, military action becomes focused on three things:

• Demonstrating to all concerned that you retain effective offensive capabilities.

• Convincing the enemy that a military solution is impossible.

• Creating a political atmosphere in which negotiations and/or military victory are possible.

In their Ardennes offensive in 1944, the Germans failed in the first goal and therefore could not achieve the others. In the case of the Tet offensive, Americans became convinced that the North Vietnamese could still mount offensives, could not be defeated and therefore had to be negotiated with. The negotiations and truce bought the North Vietnamese time to regroup, reinforce and bring the war to a satisfactory solution (from their standpoint).

Vietnam’s guerrilla warfare bears little resemblance to the massed, combined arms conflict in World War II. Neither even slightly reflects the global covert offensive mounted by al Qaeda, nor the asymmetric response of the United States. Nevertheless, all wars share common characteristics:

• A political object — for example, domination of Europe, unification of Vietnam, creation of radical Islamist states in the Muslim world.

• All use the military means at hand to achieve these goals.

• In all wars, one side or the other reaches a point beyond which there is only defeat. That point calls for the final offensive to be launched.

• The offensive is not hopeless, but its ends are primarily political rather than military. Its goal is to redefine the enemy’s psychology as well as bolster the spirits of one’s own forces.

The key to success, at that point, is two-fold. First, the offensive must appear to be an ongoing operation. It cannot appear to be a hastily contrived, desperation move. The Germans didn’t succeed in this at the Battle of the Bulge. The North Vietnamese did at Tet. Second, the offensive must have the desired psychological effect: It must reverse the enemy’s expectation of victory. The claims by civil and military leaders on the other side that the war is under control must be discredited.

It has been our view for months that the United States is winning — not has won — the U.S.-jihadist war. Events in the recent past have reinforced our view. In Iraq, for example, the decision by a large segment of the Sunni leadership to join in the political process has posed a mortal challenge to the jihadists. They depend on the Sunni community to provide sanctuary, recruits and supplies. If any large segment of the Sunni community abandons them, their ability to wage war — on the scale it is currently being waged — is undermined. They will, however, be able to sustain a much smaller and less politically significant scale of operations.

In the broader, global fight, al Qaeda continues to face this reality. There has not been a single revolution overthrowing a Muslim government in favor of a radical/militant Islamist regime. In fact, the bulk of the Muslim states are actively cooperating with the United States. The primary intent of the radical and militant Islamists, which is to create a caliphate based on at least one significant Muslim state, has been completely thwarted. This point has not been missed in the Islamic world.

At this point, al Qaeda needs to launch a counteroffensive on a global scale that is designed to demonstrate its viability as a paramilitary force. People tend to denigrate the complexity of terrorist operations. The complexity is not in the willingness to blow oneself up, however — the complexity is in acquiring explosives, transmitting messages internationally and generally going undetected. The 9-11 attacks were a superbly executed operation. Al Qaeda has set a standard of credibility for itself, and to create the reversal of fortunes it requires, it must carry out an operation on that order.

Yet since the Sept. 11 attacks, the scale of al Qaeda’s operations outside the Islamic world has declined. Al Qaeda badly needs to re-establish its credibility and recapture its earlier momentum by mounting an attack on the scale of 9-11 or beyond. There is not only no need to delay, but every incentive to move as quickly as possible. They need this for political reasons, but also because the pressure from national intelligence agencies is such that to wait is to risk losing the operational team (if one is ready to strike). If they have a nuclear weapon, for example, the longer they wait to use it, the more likely it is to be captured in transit to its target. The pressure is on for al Qaeda to act as quickly and as effectively as it can.

The London attacks were a failure. It’s not only that the Tube attacks lacked the ferocity of 9-11. However tragic the loss of life, the first attack was a work of mediocre effectiveness, while the 7/21 attempt was a joke. The attacks elsewhere, particularly at Sharm el Sheikh, were more effective, but still didn’t rise to the levels required to establish credibility.

What al Qaeda has demonstrated is that its available assets, particularly outside the Islamic world, lack the skill and sophistication to even come close to the level of the Madrid attacks, let alone those in New York. Their attempt to increase the tempo of operations has led them to use untrained and unsuitable personnel. They have not achieved the psychological ends they wish.

Al Qaeda has one hope. If the ability to mount modest terrorist operations with increased frequency convinces its enemies that it is more viable than was thought, at that point they will begin to be successful. That perception will transfer to the Muslim world and with that, al Qaeda could recover the credibility it needs to continue to wage war. At the moment, however, that doesn’t seem to be happening. The major political result of London, for example, has been a tendency among Muslim leaders to condemn the attacks in numbers and vehemence rarely seen before. Al Qaeda’s glory days seem to be behind it.

Which means that al Qaeda must up the ante if they can. We do not believe they will be able to do so. More precisely, if they had the ability, there have been so many other moments to have acted, it seems odd that they didn’t. We also doubt that they have recently acquired the means to attack. They are under heavy pressure, and it is harder for them to grow than it was before. There are al Qaeda sympathizers, but al Qaeda has maintained its internal security by not growing. They are relying on untrained sympathizers to carry out missions. It is hard to believe that they have much left in their kit.

Still, the outcome of any last-ditch offensive is uncertain. The very fact that it is happening can panic enemy forces or drive a wedge between the government and military, and between government and the public. Bush’s popularity is slipping, and the perception that al Qaeda is waging a successful and unstoppable offensive could suddenly undermine his position. He is vulnerable at the moment. But thus far, the attempt at a global Tet offensive has failed to rise to the level of credibility required. Al Qaeda must do something of substantial significance before the summer ends, or see its position in Iraq and in other places deteriorate rapidly.

As with the Germans and Vietnamese, al Qaeda’s time of mortal crisis is their time of maximum available effort. We doubt that they can pull this off, but we will wait until September to see.

Attacking into the Pyramid

July 28, 2005

In our Geopolitical Intelligence Report earlier this week, we proposed that al Qaeda is engaging in the terrorist equivalent of a Tet Offensive: launching a series of attacks — some significant, others mere psyops — in an effort to turn the tide of a war it has been losing. Certainly, there is evidence of such a shift at the strategic level, in terms of the number and pace of operations around the globe, but at the tactical level there appears to be a widespread case of business as usual.

Let’s take a moment to examine that statement. Al Qaeda has taken some heavy hits in the past few years, losing a number of high-value operatives — planners and tacticians such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Hambali, Abu Farj al-Libi and Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan. This likely has contributed, at least in part, to perceptions that it is losing its edge — turning to poorly trained local sympathizers to carry out attacks, such as the July 7 bombings in London, or the more recent series of explosions in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

The truth of the matter, however, is that this is how al Qaeda has operated throughout its history — with the notable exception of the Sept. 11 strikes. The July 7 attacks in London were jarring to Westerners because most of the suicide bombers were British-born citizens attacking on their home soil. In fact, most al Qaeda attacks — ranging from the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa to the Khobar Towers attacks to the 1993 World Trade Center strike to the Bali nightclubs — have been carried out by locals, with the help of an al Qaeda operational leader.

Woven throughout this history of deadly successes are a series of equally notable, and at times almost laughable, failures, such that even the aborted July 21 attacks against the Tube in London don’t really seem surprising. At one point, for example, the storied Abdel Basit — a.k.a. Ramzi Yousef — and his assistant Abdul Hakim Murad caught themselves on fire in Manila while cooking a batch of triacetone triperoxide. A fair number of 20-watt actors — with names like Ahmad Ajaj, Richard Reid and Ahmed Ressam — who rendered themselves ineffective through bumbling have always been part of the group.

At the tactical level, we are seeing a shift (and with good reason) away from the elaborate, grandiose killing schemes that characterized 9/11 and various precursor plots, such as Operation Bojinka, in favor of the simple and utilitarian — if still coordinated — strike. As a rule, al Qaeda planners seem to have adopted the rule that “less is more.”

The loss of what might be called tactical sophistication, however, does not necessarily mean that al Qaeda is now gasping its last as an organization. The Tet-like offensive, obviously, is meant to help the group regain credibility and some of its earlier momentum, which eventually could lead to growth or regeneration. But even if it fails in that effort, the current trend — should it hold — points toward a fundamental intelligence problem and a crucial shift in the way the war against al Qaeda is fought, rather than the end of fighting itself.

For purposes of this discussion, it is useful to think of al Qaeda in terms of a pyramid. The apex of its leadership — Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and others known to the world through video clips — are on the run, believed to be hiding in Pakistan or adjacent areas of southwest Asia. The middle layer is populated by tactical commanders, couriers and logistical planners — connected, knowledgeable, well-trained and high-value operatives who, logic argues, must be small in number in order to maintain operational security for the group. It is this layer that has been heavily targeted by covert intelligence and security agencies, for obvious reasons: These operatives are the key to reducing both the numbers of attacks and the worst of the carnage.

At the bottom of the pyramid are al Qaeda’s foot soldiers. These are local sympathizers and militants with rudimentary training, those who waste themselves in suicide attacks or can be cut loose if arrested and questioned, with little impact to the rest of the organization. This is a finite but still significant sea of potential suspects, through which move the likes of Mohammed Sidique Khan — the apparent ringleader of the July 7 suicide cell — who may have attracted the notice of authorities in the past, but then been dismissed as a potential threat. It also likely is home to others who live completely below the radar — nameless, to the wider world, until after the bombs detonate.

Judging from the types and relative simplicity of the attacks now being carried out, we can theorize that a certain amount of attrition has occurred within al Qaeda’s middle command tier. The impact of that attrition is perhaps best illustrated by the al-Hindi takedown — part of a larger rollup of al Qaeda operatives that triggered a heightened security alert on the East Coast of the United States last year.

Dhiren Barot, better known by his nom de guerre Abu Eisa al-Hindi, is believed to have been a regional militant commander operating out of Britain and probably the United States. Between August 2000 and April 2001, al-Hindi is believed to have conducted surveillance on several landmarks in New York City, Newark, N.J., and Washington, D.C. — including the world headquarters of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Prudential Corporate Plaza, the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup Centre. Authorities discovered evidence of very serious engineering-type surveillance focusing on the design of the buildings. This is suited for one purpose — to bring them down.

An al-Hindi — the likes of whom populate the middle tier of the pyramid — is very unlikely to be found taking part in the actual operations of a plot, but instead would transmit plans and instructions through a field command to the foot soldiers who carry out attacks. Had the plans he was helping to foment been carried out, the economic and psychological impact would have been quite serious — perhaps rivaling that of 9/11.

Contrast that, then, with the Tube attacks in London. In the 7/7 attacks, the bombers committed a number of easily avoided violations of operational security — including carrying their own identification documents — struck at poorly defended (“soft”) targets, and detonated their explosives in ways that, while deadly, did not inflict the greatest damage or loss of life possible under the circumstances.

From these examples and others, it appears that al Qaeda has suffered a rather serious decline in the quality — though not necessarily the quantity — of its operational assets, which in turn points toward a decline in its effectiveness as a strategic force wielding influence over world events (though not, on the whole, as an organization capable of violence). On a related note, it also appears that national intelligence and security agencies, in the United States and elsewhere, who have taken “preventing the next 9/11” as their primary mission have been successful, at least so far.

But herein lies the problem. The middle layer of the pyramid — that consisting of highly skilled operatives — might be seriously damaged, but it has not yet been eliminated. We strongly suspect the existence of an al Qaeda “ghost” — a high-value operative, likely someone with dual nationality or multiple passports — who is still able to move from cell to cell or at least transmit signals to local groups awaiting a “go” order to carry out a strike. Government-run intelligence agencies have suspected the same, and MI5 actually identified a possible ghost, named on a terrorism watch list, who entered and left Britain shortly before the July 7 attacks. Yet the agency also signaled, three weeks prior to the event, that there were “no known threats” to world leaders who would be attending the G-8 summit in Scotland at that time. Clearly, the intelligence puzzle is not yet complete.

The intelligence dilemmas and failures are magnified at the foot-soldier level. Again, using the London case as an example, consider that Khan and possibly other members of his cell had been investigated — and then dismissed as potential threats — prior to the attacks. This analysis might have been wrong on its face or utterly correct at the time — but the threat is no more static than human beings themselves.

At its simplest level, the dilemma is mathematical: There are too many potential targets, which cost too much to fully defend, with too few government resources, against too large a universe of potential actors — the bottom tier of the pyramid. Without significant help from human intelligence sources — and a great deal of luck — it is all but impossible to prevent some forms of terrorist attacks (exemplified by London). The best any government intelligence or security force can do is to defend the highest-value targets and take pains to mitigate, rather than prevent, the damage or loss of life elsewhere.

Intelligence failures occur for a variety of reasons but almost always boil down to a lack of tactical analysis, lack of humint needed to develop sufficient detail to thwart an attack, and failure to identify and penetrate terrorist cells — again, due to a dearth of actionable information.

National and international security agencies can be expected to continue focusing efforts against the high-value ghosts who haunt the middle tier of al Qaeda’s structure, but even a complete rupture of strategic communications between the apex and bottom tier of the pyramid would not, in our view, put an end to the wider war at the tactical level. For that, the key is going to be nothing more — and nothing less — than old-fashioned cooperation and human intelligence at the grassroots level.

Four Years On: Who is Winning the War, and How Can Anyone Tell?

Sept. 14, 2005

Four years have passed since al Qaeda attacked the United States. It is difficult to remember a war of which the status has been more difficult to assess. Indeed, there are reasonable people who argue that the conflict between the United States and al Qaeda is not a war at all, and that thinking of it in those terms obscures reality. Other reasonable people argue that it is only in thinking in terms of war that the conflict makes sense — and these people then divide into groups: those who believe the United States is winning and those who believe it is losing the war. Into this confusion we must add the question of whether the Iraq war is part of what U.S. President George W. Bush refers to as the “war on terrorism” and what others might call the war against al Qaeda. Even the issues are not clear. It is a war in which no one can agree even on the criteria for success or failure, or at times, who is on what side.

Part of this dilemma is simply the result of partisan politics. It is a myth that Americans unite in times of war: Anyone who believes they do must read the history of, for example, the Mexican War. Americans are a fractious people and, while they were united during World War II, the political recriminations were only delayed — not suspended. The issue here is not partisanship, however, but rather that there is no clear framework against which to judge the current war.

Let us begin with what we all — save for those who believe that the Sept. 11 attacks were a plot hatched by the U.S. government to justify the PATRIOT Act — can agree on:

• Al Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, by hijacking aircraft and crashing or trying to crash them into well-known buildings.

• Since Sept. 11, there have been al Qaeda attacks in Europe and several Muslim countries, but not in the United States.

• The United States invaded Afghanistan a month after the strikes against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon — forcing the Taliban government out of the major cities, but not defeating them. The United States has failed to capture Osama bin Laden, although it captured other key al Qaeda operatives. The Taliban have regrouped and are now conducting an insurgency in Afghanistan.

• The United States invaded Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration claimed that this was part of the war against al Qaeda; critics have claimed it had nothing to do with the war.

• The United States failed to win the war rapidly, as it had expected to do. Instead, U.S. forces encountered a difficult guerrilla war that, while confined generally to the Sunni regions, nevertheless posed serious military and political challenges.

• Al Qaeda has failed to achieve its primary political goal — that is, to trigger an uprising in at least one major Muslim country and create a jihadist regime. There has been no general rising in the Muslim world, and most governments are now cooperating with the United States.

• There have been no follow-on attacks in the United States since Sept. 11. Whether this is because al Qaeda had no plans for a second attack or because subsequent attacks were disrupted by U.S. intelligence is not clear.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but rather to provide what we would regard as a non-controversial base from which to proceed with an assessment.

From the beginning, then, it has been unclear whether the United States saw itself as fighting a war against al Qaeda or as carrying out a criminal investigation. The two are, of course, enormously different. This is a critical problem.

The administration’s use of the term “war on terrorism” began the confusion. Terrorism is a mode of warfare. Save for those instances when lunatics like Timothy McVeigh use it as an end in itself, terrorism is a method of intimidating the civilian population in order to drive a wedge between the public and their government. Al Qaeda, then, had a political purpose in using terrorism, as did the British in their nighttime bombing of Germany or the Germans in their air raids against London. The problem in the Bush administration’s use of this term is that you do not wage a war against a method of warfare. A war is waged against an enemy force.

Now, there are those who argue that war is something that takes place between nation-states and that al Qaeda, not being a nation-state, is not waging war. We tend to disagree with this view. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, but it was a coherent, disciplined force using violence for political ends. The United States, by focusing on the “war on terror,” confused the issue endlessly. But the critics of the war, who insisted that wartime measures were unnecessary because this was not a war, compounded the confusion. By the time we were done, the “war on terror” had extended itself to include campaigns against animal rights groups, and attempts to prevent terror attacks were seen as violations of human rights by the ACLU.

It is odd to raise these points at the beginning of an analysis of a war, but no war can be fought when there isn’t even clarity about what it is you are doing, let alone who you are fighting. Yet that is precisely how this war evolved, and then degenerated into conceptual chaos. The whole issue also got bound up with internal name-calling, to the point that any assertion that Bush had some idea of what he was doing was seen as outrageous partisanship, and the assertion that Bush was failing in what he was doing was viewed the same way. Where there is no clarity, there can be no criteria for success or failure. That is the crisis today. No one agrees as to what is happening; therefore, no one can explain who is winning or losing.

Out of this situation came the deeper confusion: Iraq. From the beginning, it was not clear why the United States invaded Iraq. The Bush administration offered three explanations: First, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; second, that Iraq was complicit with al Qaeda; and finally, that a democratic Iraq — and creation of a democratic Muslim world — would help to stop terrorism (or more precisely, al Qaeda).

The three explanations were untenable on their face. Contrary to myth, the Bush administration did not rush to go to war in Iraq. The administration had been talking about it for nearly a year before the invasion began. That would not have been the case if there truly was a fear that the Iraqis might be capable of building atomic bombs, since they might hurry up and build them. You don’t give a heads-up in that situation. The United States did. Hence, it wasn’t about WMD. Second, it wasn’t about Iraq’s terrorist ties. Saddam Hussein had no problem with the concept of terrorism, but he was an ideological enemy of everything bin Laden stood for. Hussein was a secular militarist; bin Laden, a religious ideologue. Cooperation between them wasn’t likely, and pointing to obscure meetings that Mohammed Atta may or may not have had with an Iraqi in Prague didn’t make the case. Finally, the democracy explanation came late in the game. Bush had campaigned against nation-building in places like Kosovo — and if he now believed in nation-building as a justification for war, it meant he stood with Bill Clinton. He dodged that criticism, though, because the media couldn’t remember Kosovo or spell it anymore by the time Iraq rolled around.

Bush’s enemies argued that he invaded Iraq in order to (a) avenge the fact that Hussein had tried to kill his father; (b) as part of a long-term strategy planned years before to dominate the Middle East; (c) to dominate all of the oil in Iraq; (d) because he was a bad man or (e) just because. The fact was that his critics had no idea why he did it and generated fantastic theories because they couldn’t figure it out any more than Bush could explain it.

STRATFOR readers know our view was that the invasion of Iraq was intended to serve three purposes:

• To bring pressure on the Saudi government, which was allowing Saudis to funnel money to al Qaeda, to halt this enablement and to cooperate with U.S. intelligence. The presence of U.S. troops to the north of Saudi Arabia was intended to drive home the seriousness of the situation.

• To take control of the most strategic country in the Middle East — Iraq borders seven critical countries — and to use it as a base of operations against other countries that were cooperating with al Qaeda.

• To demonstrate in the Muslim world that the American reputation for weakness and indecisiveness — well-earned in the two decades prior to the Sept. 11 attacks — was no longer valid. The United States was aware that the invasion of Iraq would enrage the Muslim world, but banked on it also frightening them.

Let’s put it this way: The key to understanding the situation was that Bush wanted to blackmail the Saudis, use Iraq as a military base and terrify Muslims. He wanted to do this, but he did not want to admit this was what he was doing. He therefore provided implausible justifications, operating under the theory that a rapid victory brushes aside troubling questions. Clinton had gotten out of Kosovo without explaining why signs of genocide were never found, because the war was over quickly and everyone was sick of it. Bush figured he would do the same thing in Iraq.

It was precisely at this point that the situation got out of control. The biggest intelligence failure of the United States was not 9-11 — only Monday morning quarterbacks can claim that they would have spotted al Qaeda’s plot and been able to block it. Nor was the failure to find WMD in Iraq. Not only was that not the point, but actually, everyone was certain that Hussein at least had chemical weapons. Even the French believed he did. The biggest mistake was the intelligence that said that the Iraqis wouldn’t fight, that U.S. forces would be welcomed or at least not greeted hostilely by the Iraqi public, and that the end of the conventional combat would end the war.

That was the really significant intelligence failure. Hussein, or at least some of his key commanders, had prepared for a protracted guerrilla war. They knew perfectly well that the United States would crush their conventional forces, so they created the material and financial basis for a protracted guerrilla war. U.S. intelligence did not see this coming, and thus had not prepared the U.S. force for fighting the guerrilla war. Indeed, if they had known this was coming, Bush might well have calculated differently on invading Iraq — since he wasn’t going to get the decisive victory he needed.

The intelligence failure was compounded by a command failure. By mid-April 2003, it was evident to STRATFOR that a guerrilla war was starting. Donald Rumsfeld continued vigorously to deny that any such war was going on. It was not until July, when Gen. Tommy Franks was relieved by John Abizaid as Central Command chief, that the United States admitted the obvious. Those were the 45-60 critical days. Intelligence failures happen in every war, worse than this one, but the delay in recognizing what was happening — the extended denial in the Pentagon — eliminated any chance of nipping it in the bud. By the summer of 2003, the war was raging, and foreign jihadists had begun joining in. Obviously this increased anti-American sentiment, but not necessarily effective anti-American sentiment. Hating the United States is not the same as being able to run secure covert operations in the United States.

The war did not and does not cover most of Iraq’s territory. Only a relatively small portion is involved — the Sunni regions. At this point, the administration has done a fairly good job in creating a political process and bringing the Sunni elders to the table, if not to an agreement that will end the insurgency. But the problem is that American expectations about the war have been so strangely set that whatever esoteric satisfaction experts might take in the evolution, it is clear that this war is not what the Bush administration expected, that it is not what the administration was prepared to fight, and that the administration is now in a position where it has to make compromises rather than impose its will.

We believe that a war started on Sept. 11, 2001. We believe that from a strictly operational point of view, al Qaeda has gotten by far the worst of it. Having struck the first blow, al Qaeda has been crippled, with each succeeding attack weaker and weaker. We also think that the U.S. invasion of Iraq achieved at least one of Washington’s goals: Saudi Arabia has behaved much differently since February 2003. But the ongoing war has undermined the ability of the United States to use Iraq as a base of operations in the region, and the psychological outcome Washington was hoping for obviously didn’t materialize.

What progress there has been is invisible, for two reasons. First, the Bush administration had crafted an explanation for the entire war that was based on two premises — first, that the American public would remain united on all measures necessary after Sept. 11, and second, that the United States would achieve a quick victory in Iraq, sparing the administration the need to explain itself. As a result, Bush has never articulated a coherent strategic position. Furthermore, as the second premise proved untrue, the failure to enunciate a coherent strategic vision began to undermine the first premise — national unity. At this point, Bush is beginning to face criticism in his own party. Sen. Chuck Hagel’s statement, that the promise to stay the course does not constitute a strategy, is indicative of Bush’s major problem.

The president’s dilemma, now, is this. He had a strategy. He failed to explain what it was because doing so would have carried a cost, and the president assumed it was unnecessary. It turned out to be necessary, but he still didn’t enunciate a strategy because it would at that point have appeared contrived. Moreover, as time went on, the strategy had to evolve. It is hard to evolve an unarticulated strategy. Bush rigidified publicly even as his strategy in Iraq became more nimble.

Figuring out how the war is going four years after 9-11, then, is like a nightmare fighting ghosts. The preposterous defense of U.S. strategy meets the preposterous attack on U.S. strategy: Claims that the United States invaded Iraq to bring democracy to the people competes with the idea that it invaded in order to give contracts to Halliburton. Nothing is too preposterous to claim.

But even as U.S. politics seize up in one of these periodic spasms, these facts are still clear:

• The United States has not been attacked in four years.

• No Muslim government has fallen to supporters of al Qaeda.

• The United States has won in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan.

• Bin Laden is still free and ready to go extra rounds.

So far, neither side has won — but on the whole, we’d say the United States has the edge. The war is being fought outside the United States. And that is not a trivial point. But it is not yet a solution to the president’s problems.

Al Qaeda's Connection to the London Bombers

Sept. 21, 2005

British police released surveillance footage Sept. 20 that they say shows Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Germaine Lindsay conducting a dry run in preparation for the July 7 London bombings. The tape, recorded June 28, shows the three men entering Luton station before traveling to King’s Cross station — the same routes they took July 7.

Citing a lack of a direct forensic link between the bombers and known al Qaeda operatives, some in the intelligence and law enforcement community have suggested that the Underground bombers were not connected to al Qaeda and that, by claiming responsibility for the attack, deputy al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri attempted to give the network undue credit. Although the four bombers fairly certainly had no direct connection to the higher-level al Qaeda leadership, the methods used in the attack suggest that it was an al Qaeda operation and sanctioned by the network’s leadership.

The fact that a rehearsal did take place before the actual attack demonstrates that the operatives were not complete novices — as some also have suggested — but that they some degree of training and organization. Moreover, staging a practice run is consistent with the kind of meticulous planning that has characterized large-scale al Qaeda operations. Similar dry runs and pre-operational surveillance were carried out before the August 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the Sept. 11 attacks. The bombing of Philippine Airlines flight 434 in December 1994 also was a dry run for a more ambitious al Qaeda operation codenamed “Bojinko” — a plan to bomb multiple airplanes simultaneously over the Pacific Ocean.

Khan, the alleged leader of the July 7 bombers, made a videotape before the operation in which he explains his motivation for carrying out the attack. Khan possibly made his statement while in Pakistan, where he is alleged to have traveled in 2004 to meet with al Qaeda operatives. A second segment of the same tape contained an al-Zawahiri statement in which he praised the attack, but stopped short of claiming credit — possibly because it had not yet happened. Al-Zawahiri’s presence on the Khan tape, which Arab satellite television Al Jazeera aired Sept. 1, is another link between the July 7 attack and the al Qaeda leadership — although it should be noted that the two never appear together in the tape. In addition, al-Zawahiri has appeared in two other tapes in which he speaks of the London bombings. In the latest one, released Sept. 19, he clearly claims responsibility for the attacks on behalf of al Qaeda — something the jihadist network rarely does.

An al Qaeda operation as important as an attack against a Western capital certainly would have the foreknowledge and blessing of the network’s highest leadership. Even though the leaders knew of and endorsed the operation, however, they would not necessarily have had direct contact with the operatives who carried out the attack. They likely received reports on the progress of the operation and issued orders to at least one mid-level operative or tactical commander, who in turn supervised and handled the attackers, including Khan. Although not involved with the tactical details of their attacks, al Qaeda leadership has always had a role in the operations. Khan, whose role in the organization would have been that of a foot soldier, would probably not have met al Zawahiri or al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Al Qaeda is similar to the Mafia, in that foot-soldiers generally are not granted the privilege of meeting the godfather immediately after they are inducted into the family. This is especially true for al Qaeda, since the post-Sept. 11 environment has forced senior al Qaeda members to dramatically increase their operational security. In this case, in which the “godfather” is the world’s most wanted man, the foot soldiers would not be allowed near him unless a dire operational need arose.

The surveillance images of the July 7 bombers’ dry run provide further evidence of al Qaeda links with the deadly attack. The camera recordings also show that, despite difficulties in communicating and operating since the October 2001 U.S.-led invasion of its home base in Afghanistan, al Qaeda still retains enough command-and-control capability to stage the occasional large-scale attack against a Western city.

Al Qaeda: From Organization to Movement?

Sept. 22, 2005

As our longtime readers are likely aware, STRATFOR approaches analysis with a “net assessment” model of the world: an internal definition of how things are and the key trends driving developments at any given time. A net assessment is much more than an intuitive “gut feeling.” Rather, it is the product of two key elements: a daily search for developments that either fit with the ongoing picture (or anomalies that reshape it) and an understanding of time, as viewed by the region or actor being assessed. And these views vary dramatically. It could be argued, for example, that an American’s sense of historical cycles — which have been crammed into a national history that scarcely exceeds 200 years — is vastly different from that of the Chinese, whose civilization spans a millennium.

We apply this same perspective to al Qaeda and to attempts to understand the current status of what the Bush administration has labeled the “global war on terrorism.” Given the unusual nature of this “war” against a non-state actor, there is plenty of room for debate and speculation, but in general it has been our position, from a geopolitical standpoint, that al Qaeda is losing its effectiveness as a strategic force — meaning one that is capable of drastically reshaping the behavior of nations, as it did on Sept. 11, 2001. We place emphasis on the word “strategic:” We are in no way saying that al Qaeda has been conquered or declaring the United States a victor, but it is our view that a shift is occurring in the nature of the war, which is taking on more of a regional and local — rather than global — nature.

Where the U.S. calculus is concerned, this is neither unusual nor unexpected. Strategically speaking, it was to be expected that the United States would respond to the Sept. 11 attacks with all the tools in its arsenal — overwhelming military force, a heavy foreign policy stick, intelligence capabilities and law enforcement. It was also expected that, at some point, American attention would return to other issues as well — the state of the economy, an erstwhile Chinese threat, and so forth. We already have seen this happen.

But what of al Qaeda? Has its attention been diverted, its resources stretched, or its goal lines moved? Is the sense that al Qaeda is “getting the worst of it” thus far in the war —which we have stated repeatedly — actually justified?

At the tactical level, the answers to most of these questions would have to be “no.”Let’s dissect that for a moment, returning again to al Qaeda’s core goals and to a localized understanding of time.

First, it’s important to remember that — emotionalism aside — al Qaeda’s core goal has not been chiefly to kill Americans or Westerners in general, but to effect political change within the Muslim world. The goal of the Sept. 11 attacks was, we have long believed, to create a sense of empowerment among the Muslim masses that would lead to popular uprisings against secular or “apostate” regimes. Whether al Qaeda actually planned to kill 3,000 people with the Sept. 11 strikes, or whether the death toll massively exceeded even its own expectations, is a matter of debate; what is known is that the attacks were, and were intended to be, “spectacular” strikes against symbolic targets that would grip the world’s attention.

Second, it must be recalled that the Sept. 11 attacks were in no way the opening salvo of al Qaeda’s war — simply its first success in commanding the world’s attention. The war, from al Qaeda’s standpoint, already had been under way for several years — likely beginning with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, or even before, perhaps with the expulsion of the Soviets from Afghanistan.

Armed with hindsight, intelligence analysts can come up with a handful of possible starting points for al Qaeda’s war and track the cycles — perhaps going as far back as the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981 — using various rationales. But all of these cycles have one thing in common: They are long cycles, much longer than the four years that have passed since Sept. 11, 2001.

The cycle book-ended by the two strikes against the World Trade Center, in 1993 and 2001, is as useful to examine as any:

• Eight years transpired between World Trade Center I and the Sept. 11 attacks, punctuated by numerous strikes against U.S. assets overseas. These include, but certainly are not limited to, the bombings of the Khobar Towers in 1996, embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000, in addition to assassination plots targeting the pope in the Philippines and against various American and British diplomats in Pakistan.

• As this list shows, many of the attacks and plots that can be identified as al Qaeda acts between 1993 and 2001 involved a “hardened target set” — military or diplomatic targets that were symbols of U.S. or Western power.

• With the Sept. 11 attacks, al Qaeda successfully struck not only at hard, symbolic targets, but at a “soft” target as well — the World Trade Center towers — and with that, the underpinnings of U.S. power: its economy.

• The tempo of al Qaeda’s operations, beginning in 1993, has not slowed since Sept. 11: We have seen, for example, assassinations in Jordan (2002), brazen assaults against Westerners in Saudi Arabia (2004), deadly bombings of nightclubs and hotels in Indonesia (2003) and the Middle East (2004), and deadly bombings of passenger rail systems in Madrid (March 2004) and London, not to mention al Qaeda’s obvious involvement in the insurgency in Iraq.

In short, we are seeing the natural progression of a terrorist campaign — a shift from hard targets to soft — at the tactical level, entailing both a trend toward small-scale attacks and al Qaeda’s adaptation to new political and security realities.

We have seen the same progression with other groups in the past. For example, Hezbollah — under the direction of Lebanese national Imad Mughniyeh — went from the suicide bombing of U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut in 1983 and the kidnapping and murder of CIA station chief William Buckley (who fits the definition of a “hard target”) in 1984 to the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1994. We do not dismiss the fact that Hezbollah — which intelligence agents believe served as something of a model for the early al Qaeda, and has been an ongoing target of government counterterrorism efforts — has mutated since that time to become more of a political actor, most active within its native sphere but still capable of deadly violence in many parts of the world.

From a tactical perspective, the shift to softer targets is quite worrisome — not only because they are so much more numerous than “hard” targets, but also because al Qaeda quite clearly has laid careful plans for this stage of the war.

True, the group so far has not been able to carry out a successful follow-on to Sept. 11 from U.S. soil, but that certainly is not for lack of trying. To date, U.S. intelligence agents have uncovered at least a dozen likely plots within the United States, interdicted at various stages of the attack cycle — and it is widely known that al Qaeda conducted detailed surveillance of the Citigroup building, Prudential Plaza, New York Stock Exchange and other financial targets in New York City, as well as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund headquarters and congressional targets in Washington, D.C. From everything that U.S. intelligence knows — including interrogations of captured operatives — al Qaeda does not go to such lengths as sketching out the architectural weaknesses or security points of a building without eventually trying to bring it down, even when the target is known to authorities.

Now, we cannot know definitely whether al Qaeda lacks the capability to pull off another attack within the United States at this point or — for reasons of its own — has opted not to. Certainly, there have been numerous periods, such as the recent meeting of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, when the group could have made an effective statement by staging an attack — and did not. Given that, and the effectiveness of the FBI and CIA thus far in pre-empting plots, we interpret a certain amount of disruption.

In light of history, however, this analysis provides little comfort.

Though centralized command and control operations in all likelihood have been disrupted, the shift that appears to be under way — marked particularly by the Madrid and London bombings and the use of “B” team players or native-born sympathizers — is that from “al Qaeda the Organization” to “al Qaeda the Movement.” We, along with government intelligence agents, have noted something of a teacher-pupil relationship in many of Ayman al-Zawahiri’s videotaped statements: It is possible for al Qaeda to retroactively claim responsibility for any number of acts — independently organized and carried out by sympathizers or wannabes — thus bolstering its own credibility and that of the actors at the same time. It also is possible for al Qaeda, at times, to prove direct links between its central leadership and peripheral actors.

Tactically speaking, al Qaeda the Movement has both a broader geographic reach — drawing on regional conflicts and local grievances — and shallower depth (since it relies on small-scale strikes at softer targets) than would al Qaeda the Organization. But this is, in its own way, a strength: Given al Qaeda’s sustained operational tempo since Sept. 11, 2001, it appears that the inspired movement has managed to overcome the command-and-control problem posed by the isolation and quarry status of al Qaeda’s central leaders.

If you were to plot this out on a chart, what you might see are two trend lines forming an “X:” One, depicting al Qaeda’s impact as a strategic force, on a declining trend; the other, depicting the tactical and security threats posed by a widespread and less visible movement, on the increase.

At this point, we find ourselves near the mid-point on the X. Al Qaeda has a top leadership that is, though in hiding, still capable of communicating with the world through broadcast recordings and the Internet, and — if London is any indication — foot soldiers around the world who are capable of flying below the radar until an attack actually is carried out. If, however, al Qaeda gels as a movement — with its ideology resonating among militants with various causes of their own — the existence or annihilation of widely recognized figureheads would be, in most respects, irrelevant.

Al Qaeda in 2006: Devolution and Adaptation

Jan. 4, 2006

The new year is an ideal time, in geopolitics as in other areas of life, to reflect on developments of the past year and, at STRATFOR, to offer our view of those we anticipate in the realm of terrorism in 2006.

For quite some time, we have been tracking al Qaeda’s metamorphosis from a relatively small group of individuals who viewed themselves as the vanguard of radical Islamism — calling themselves “Knights under the Prophet’s Banner” — to a much broader movement or ideology capable of influencing the behavior of many others. The rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and the other leaders of the jihadist cause has called clearly and repeatedly for the “Ummah,” or Islamic people, to rise up and join the “jihad against the Jews and Crusaders.” While this call has not resulted in the worldwide uprising al Qaeda’s leaders hoped for, it has nonetheless resonated in some quarters.

From Group to Movement

This shift from a group to a movement was evident in 2005, and we believe there will be further signs of the evolution in 2006.

In the major attacks attributed to al Qaeda or close affiliates during 2005 — such as those in London (July), Sharm el-Sheikh (July), Bali (October), and Amman (November) — operatives from regional groups, rather than teams of what might be called the “al Qaeda all-stars” that carried out the Sept. 11 operation, took up the banner of jihad. The differences here are important: The Sept. 11 hijackers were dispatched from “The Base” and came to the United States to carry out their missions. They received direct logistical support and operational guidance from al Qaeda’s central command structure. On the other hand, the operatives in London and Indonesia were locals, and the operatives in Amman were regional, in the sense that they crossed over the border from Iraq to carry out their strikes.

While there are connections between the main al Qaeda leadership and operational cells in places like Britain and Iraq — as evident from the group’s statements, intercepted letters and the suicide video of London bomber Mohammed Siddique Khan — the language of the letter purportedly written by deputy al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq clearly demonstrates that the various nodes of al Qaeda exist in more of a loose federation than a strict hierarchical chain of command. In the letter, al-Zawahiri made flattering statements to al-Zarqawi and requested that he do certain things — such as stop beheading hostages and ease his attacks against the Shia — but he was not clearly ordering him to do those things. And indeed, al-Zarqawi’s militants continued to carry out attacks against Shiite targets in Iraq even after the letter was made public.

Al Qaeda’s tendency to work with local militants has been well established since the early 1990s: It showed up in operations targeting places like Yemen, Somalia, Ethiopia and New York. This system was institutionalized in 1998, when bin Laden issued a joint fatwa with the Egyptian Islamic Group, Al Jihad, the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh and the “Jamaat ul Ulema e Pakistan” under the name “World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.” The fatwa declares it the “individual duty for every Muslim” to attack “Jews and Crusaders” wherever possible, “in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam.”

Al Qaeda gained momentum and strength after bin Laden moved back to Afghanistan from Sudan in 1996. This enabled the group to operate without the assistance of local militants. However, after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the arrests or deaths of several key al Qaeda leaders and the seizure of millions of dollars in assets, al Qaeda has reverted back to its earlier operational model.

As we have noted previously, this shift gives “al Qaeda the movement” broader geographic and operational reach than “al Qaeda the group”, but at the same time it is shallower in a sense: The new actor lacks the operational depth and expertise of the core group and its well-trained leadership. In fact, al Qaeda the group has been unable to demonstrate a continued capability to act as a strategic force — meaning one whose actions can drastically reshape the world — since the Sept. 11 attacks. There have been no strikes carried out by “all-star teams” since Sept. 11. Instead, the operations that have taken place have borne much stronger resemblances to the anti-U.S. attacks in the 1990s, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the embassy bombings in East Africa. Such actions can kill many people and are not to be lightly dismissed — but in terms of geopolitical impact and magnitude, they are mere pinpricks when compared to the stunning blow that was dealt on Sept. 11.

Thwarted Attacks, Timing and Resilience

Recently, several readers have asked whether we believe that al Qaeda has purposely avoided attacking the United States in order to play to the U.S. media and allow public opinion to turn against the war in Iraq — and, consequently, against the broader war on terrorism. The answer is no: While public opinion in the United States and elsewhere has indeed run against the war in Iraq, the lack of a successful follow-on attack by al Qaeda on U.S. soil has not been strategically planned or ordered. In other words, it has not been for a lack of trying. Since Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have thwarted at least a dozen likely plots against targets in the United States, interdicted at various stages of the attack cycle. In addition to the well-known plots connected to actors such as Richard Reid and Jose Padilla, it is widely known (from evidence made public in 2004) that al Qaeda conducted detailed surveillance of the Citigroup building, Prudential Plaza, New York Stock Exchange and other financial targets in New York City, as well as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund headquarters and congressional targets in Washington, D.C.

While many can and do debate tactics used by various governments in the anti-jihadist war, and we ourselves have occasionally rolled our eyes as the Pakistani government announced the arrest or death of yet another of al Qaeda’s apparently limitless “number three” leaders, we must nonetheless give credit where it is due. The U.S. government and its allies have done a very good job at disrupting terrorist plots and plans. The disruption strategy is really quite simple: Better to pick up an al Qaeda suspect for immigration fraud or another lesser offense than to investigate a smoking hole in the ground. There were ample instances of this tactic in play during 2005 — most notably the arrest of an imam in Lodi, California, who the FBI believes was encouraging a terrorist plot, and the arrest of an imam in Cleveland, Ohio, who is believed to be linked to a Palestinian militant group.

The trail of disrupted plots has been continuous, and it speaks to jihadists’ ongoing desire to strike at the United States. Though not all of the “disrupted plots” made public by the U.S. government necessarily should be viewed as valid threats, there remains a clear record of plans to strike on U.S. soil since Sept. 11. Over the years, Islamist militants have proven to be very resilient and adaptable, and we anticipate they will continue to adapt. We note that more than eight years elapsed between the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Sept. 11 attacks — during which time the jihadists faced nothing approaching the level of pressure they have endured since Sept. 11 and ensuring “global war on terrorism.” To be sure, several would-be terrorism spectaculars, such as the millennium bomb plot and Operation Bojinka, were thwarted between 1993 and 2001. It was against this backdrop of defeats that the jihadists persisted and eventually succeeded in carrying out a massive strike on U.S. soil.

Similarly, the strings of law enforcement and intelligence successes since Sept. 11 do not rule out the possibility of another strike on U.S. soil in time. We believe the likelihood of such an attack will increase as memories of Sept. 11 dim. Despite the many declarations made in the immediate aftermath of the strikes in New York and Washington that “America will never be the same,” there has been a slow and steady shift back to business-as-usual and a sense of general complacency. On the whole, Americans are a people with short attention spans — and at any rate, “alert fatigue” has always been recognized as among the hazards in a long-term war. While we do not believe that al Qaeda is capable of carrying out another Sept. 11, that is not the same as saying they cannot carry out another strike on U.S. soil. We believe they will do so — likely with lower impact than in 2001 — as soon as they are capable of evading pre-operational detection.

Death Toll Trends

Having said that, there is another trend to address. The shift from group to movement may mean that al Qaeda no longer should be viewed as a strategic geopolitical force, but the jihadists are still a threat and capable of killing many people. A look at the numbers shows there have been more deaths attributed to al Qaeda in the 52 months since Sept. 11 (more than 800) than in the 52 months prior to it (less than 400) — despite the global war on terror and the successes in disrupting al Qaeda as an organization. We should note that these statistics do not include the deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan or the former Soviet Union where active insurgencies are under way, and that they include both Western and non-Western victims. With the active resistance being fought in Iraq against coalition forces and Iraqi civilians, the numbers of deaths caused by jihadists there would be much higher.

There are several reasons for this trend in death tolls.

First, as we have stated, al Qaeda the movement is larger and more widely dispersed geographically than al Qaeda the group. Though many of those involved in the movement may not have the training and professionalism of their “al Qaeda prime” counterparts, sheer numbers and geographic factors have allowed the movement to attack with much greater frequency and across a much broader front than the main group would be able to support. For example, in addition to the attacks in Indonesia, Britain and the Sinai Peninsula, the world witnessed the emergence of a new suicide-bombing threat from the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen last year in Bangladesh — a region where al Qaeda the group has not historically chosen to act.

Second, there has been a shift toward soft targets. As physical security measures surrounding traditional symbols of Western power (such as the White House, the Pentagon and the U.S., British and Australian embassies) has been intensified or “hardened,” the threat has been pushed toward softer target sets that are very difficult to defend — such as hotels, trains and subways. The propensity toward attacking softer targets with smaller devices to create large casualty counts was clearly delineated in Indonesia on Oct. 1, where the strike by Jemaah Islamiyah against restaurants in Bali caused more deaths than the group’s last two large car bomb attacks.

“Hard targets” are just that — hard to strike due to design and location. A large bomb is needed to penetrate defenses. However, a shift to soft targets means that small improvised explosive devices (IEDs) can be used with deadly efficiency — as actually occurred in London and Amman. The demand for resources is different as well: Scores of small IEDs can be made with the same quantity of explosives used in the 1993 World Trade Center truck bomb. Employing the “smart technology” of human bombers, who place timed or remote-detonated bombs — or themselves, in suicide mode — in ideal tactical locations, such devices very easily can kill or wound scores of people. In fact, the rail attacks in Madrid and London bore proof that small IEDs can cause many more deaths than attacks using biological or chemical agents such as anthrax or sarin.

Thus, the U.S. government’s strategy of “hardening” official sites and assets has been a double-edged sword when it comes to private industry, particularly the transportation and hospitality sectors. The public and private sectors have joined forces in efforts to protect transportation systems, but private-sector businesses like hotels and cruise lines, as well as the tourism industry in general, remain extremely difficult to secure. These targets host large numbers of “pre-packaged” victims. This fact has not been obscured by the fog of war for the jihadists, who continue to target such businesses. It takes little expertise or training to place an IED on a subway or in a restaurant or hotel. We expect that jihadists will continue to exploit such vulnerabilities in the “soft target” set over the next two to three years — until there has been enough loss of life to make it a political issue for American voters. We expect this would not occur until the subways in New York City or Washington, D.C., are attacked in a London- or Madrid-style strike, the Washington-to-New York Amtrak line is hit, or there is an Amman-style suicide attack at a large U.S. hotel in a major U.S. city.

Looking Ahead

Al Qaeda remains a dangerous movement and, while it now lacks the strategic punch it carried in 2001, it will continue to attack soft targets across a large geographic front in the coming year. We expect that in 2006, strikes will be carried out in both the traditional hotspots and in areas not previously known for Islamist militant activity. The active armed struggles in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Caucasus continue to act as a kind of “jihadist war college” — and as the graduates of that school return to their countries of origin, they will continue to share their training and experience with militants back home. The connections that the militants make in places like Iraq and Chechnya also will link them to the global movement in the same way that the jihad in Afghanistan did for the preceding generation.

It is not certain what the new year will bring for al Qaeda the group. It is not clear at this point that bin Laden is even alive — he has not been heard from in more than a year, and there have been no conclusive signs of his survival since we pondered in September that he might indeed be dead. However, we are certain that whatever elements of the organization remain are dedicated to striking the United States as hard and as frequently as they are able. Given their past plots and interrogations of key players such as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, we know that al Qaeda the group has been interested for years in striking financial targets, aircraft and chemical/petroleum plants. Because al Qaeda has a demonstrated history of revisiting targets after failed or foiled attacks, it is logical that they will continue to attempt strikes against such targets in the future.

Bin Laden’s notable absence during the past year has underscored al Qaeda’s shift from a group to a movement — and indicates that even when he is not seen to be in control, the movement will keep steaming right along on course. This indicates that if bin Laden is alive and eventually is taken out by the United States, the movement will continue. Ideologies are much harder to kill than individuals.

That brings us to another key point: There has been a gradual but accelerating decline in support for the ideology of jihadism in the Muslim world. Though pockets of staunch support for jihadism remain, the tide of public opinion has begun to turn against al Qaeda and jihadism in some crucial locations, including Saudi Arabia. Al-Zawahiri himself has acknowledged defeat in Saudi Arabia, where the monarchy has persuaded the masses to turn against jihadists — or “deviants,” as they are termed by the regime.

It is this kind of ideological battle that must be fought and won to defeat jihadism. It is indeed a long-term war, and we do not anticipate its conclusion in 2006.

Al Qaeda: The Next Phase of Evolution?

June 8, 2006

Canadian authorities recently arrested 17 men, accusing them of planning terrorist attacks, after some members of the group bought what they believed to be some 3 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which can be used to make explosives. The men allegedly were planning attacks against symbolic targets in Toronto and Ottawa in a plot that reportedly included bombings, armed assaults and beheadings.

One of the things that make this case interesting is that the group — now dubbed by the media as the “Canada 17” — reportedly had connections to alleged jihadists in other countries, whose earlier arrests were widely reported. Those connections included two men from the United States — Ehsanul Islam Sadequee and Syed Haris Ahmed — who reportedly traveled from Georgia in March 2005 to meet with Islamist extremists in Toronto. Authorities have said they conspired to attend a militant training camp in Pakistan and discussed potential terrorist targets in the United States. There also is said to be a connection to a prominent computer hacker in Britain, who was arrested in October and charged with conspiring to commit murder and cause an explosion.

The June 2 arrests certainly underscore the possibility that Canada, which has a long history of liberal immigration and asylum policies, has been used by jihadists as a sanctuary for raising funds and planning attacks. But the most intriguing aspect of the Canada case is that it seems to encapsulate a trend that has been slowly evolving for some time. If the allegations in the Canada 17 case are at least mostly true, it might represent the emergence of a new operational model for jihadists — an “al Qaeda 4.0,” if you will.

In other words, the world might be witnessing the emergence of a grassroots jihadist network that both exists in and has the ability to strike in multiple countries — without support or oversight from the central al Qaeda leadership.

A History of Operational Models

To understand what we mean by “al Qaeda 4.0,” let’s review the history of operational models that al Qaeda has used over the years.

The first identifiable operational model — the 1.0 — was that used in the early 1990s. This model revolved around Osama bin Laden, the “Afghan Arabs” or veterans of the Soviet resistance in Afghanistan, and formal militant training camps. In this iteration, operational commanders trained at camps in Afghanistan — most notably Khalden — received funding and logistical support from bin Laden and others, and conducted operations in various parts of the world.

We do note that this is a rather controversial starting point for our history. It can be credibly argued (and indeed, we have had such arguments amongst ourselves) that this phase represents a kind of “proto-al Qaeda” — that al Qaeda had not been established as a formal organization in the early 1990s, and as a result, any attacks during that period were not carried out by a centralized organization that was controlled by bin Laden. The contrasting point of view is that al Qaeda actually did exist at that time, but because bin Laden was living as a guest in Sudan (and then, later, in Afghanistan), he did not claim responsibility for the attacks or plots that were carried out at that stage, so as not to bring political pressure (or military retaliation) against his host governments.

Be that as it may, the model (which for purposes of this analysis will be called “1.0”) was evident in many jihadist operations of the early 1990s: A succession of individuals who went forth from bin Laden-run training camps to plan and conduct attacks elsewhere. These men frequently connected with veterans of the Afghan jihad — or with others who had passed through the training camps in Afghanistan — once they arrived in the target country, and thus, operational cells were born.

One prime example of this 1.0 model can be seen in the plots of Abdel Basit and Ahmed Ajaj, who left the Khalden training camp and flew to New York in September 1992. Ajaj was arrested for a passport violation, but Basit entered the country and went on to orchestrate the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The operational model also applies in the 1992 strikes in Yemen against the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa and U.S. Air Force personnel in Aden, and in plots that did not come to fruition — for example, Operation Bojinka and Abdel Basit’s plots to kill Pope John Paul II and U.S. President Bill Clinton.

A slight variation on this model emerged in the later 1990s: Operational commanders with more obvious links to al Qaeda and bin Laden were dispatched to Yemen, Canada, Kenya and other countries to establish cells and carry out attacks. This 1.1 model could be seen in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the disrupted “millennium bomb plot” and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. At this stage, bin Laden was still denying involvement in such attacks.

The 2.0 operational model is the easiest to recognize, but thus far appears to have been used only on 9/11: An al Qaeda “all-star team” was selected, trained and dispatched by the central leadership to the target country to carry out an attack. Bin Laden’s stance on claims of responsibility shifted following that event. For months, he continued to deny al Qaeda’s involvement, but over time came to acknowledge it and — quite recently — stated outright that he personally oversaw all the details.

The handpicked operatives used for 9/11 or any other attack under this model would be, by definition, better trained than the ad hoc operatives behind the version 1.0 and 1.1 attacks — and roughly equal in stature to the 1.0 commanders. For the most part, the all-star teams appear to have practiced better operational security than their forebears as well — though, not being supermen, they did make some tradecraft mistakes.

This model provides both tactical advantages and disadvantages for the host organization. On the upside, it allows for excellent command and control of the operation. On the downside, it is a resource-intensive model; numerous operatives are required, as is a facility for training, and a command structure capable of staying in communication with the agents in the field and providing them with logistical support. Given the clues uncovered after 9/11 and the efforts of the United States and other countries to disrupt such infrastructure, it is currently very difficult for al Qaeda to employ this model. This, in turn, led to a devolution of sorts for the organization and the adoption of a third operational model.

The 3.0 model — which applies to most of the attacks attributed to al Qaeda since 9/11 — involves “grassroots jihadists.” By this, we mean cells with a local leadership carrying out attacks in a country with which they have a long association — rather than commanders or groups of operatives who are deployed by the central al Qaeda command for purposes of conducting a strike in a foreign country. In some cases, it appears that members or leaders of these cells have been trained at terrorist camps or fought in a jihad somewhere, but they are for the most part citizens who have been inspired by al Qaeda, and the cells have done their recruiting locally. Moreover, they choose targets and conduct operations only in the countries where they live.

Examples of this model might be found with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt’s Tawhid wa al-Jihad, the group that has claimed recent attacks against tourist targets in the Sinai Peninsula. It appears al Qaeda 3.0 operatives lack the skill and operational savvy of their 2.0 counterparts; they have a tendency to make operational errors that lead to thwarted plots and arrests.

It is possible, but not a prerequisite, within the 3.0 model that operatives have contact with the central organization. Mohammed Siddique Khan, believed to have been the leader of the cell that carried out multiple bombings in London in July 2005, apparently had some contact with al Qaeda in Pakistan. Nevertheless, this organizational structure differs significantly from the 1.0 and 2.0 models in that the operational commander and/or attack team is not dispatched by the al Qaeda leadership to another country for purposes of an operation.

Interestingly enough, al Qaeda has claimed many, if not most, of the attacks that fall under the 3.0 model — even though the leadership was, by definition, far less involved in the planning and execution of such operations than of others that it denied.

Al Qaeda 4.0?

It is within this context that the unfolding case in Canada is most significant. As details emerge, it is becoming apparent that those arrested would — if the allegations are true — represent a grassroots cell. Authorities say they have found no evidence linking the suspects to the central al Qaeda leadership. However, it also would seem that the men went beyond the 3.0 model of thinking and acting locally. Given the links to suspects in the United States (Sadequee and Ahmed) and to operatives in Britain, there is reason to believe that they might have been part of an international network of local cells — or grassroots groups that “think globally and act locally,” to borrow a phrase.

The implication here is one of expanded capabilities. A 3.0 operation would be, for all intents and purposes, fairly isolated: jihadists striking at local targets within their reach, with existing means. A 4.0 operation could entail more sophisticated levels of coordination — and the possibility of simultaneous strikes against geographically diverse targets (for instance, London, Toronto and New York). Previously, such a feat could only have been accomplished by the core al Qaeda organization. For a grassroots network to accomplish that feat, without direct involvement from the central leadership, would represent a generational leap forward in jihadist operations.

The Internet seems to be an important factor that is fostering the emergence of such a loose, but cohesive, structure. Of course, personal relationships are still important. In the case in question, Sadequee — who lived in Canada before moving to the United States — is the pivotal figure. He and Ahmed — who are charged with having videotaped potential targets in the Washington, D.C., area — are said to have met during 2005 with men he knew from his time in Canada, and three of those men were among the 17 rounded up last week. But the Internet is a great facilitator of communications as well. Since 9/11, chatrooms and Web sites have experienced a surge in popularity among jihadists. They provide a great forum for like-minded people to connect. Indeed, technology is not necessarily verboten for the current generation of jihadists, Islamist principles notwithstanding; another of the suspects connected to the Canada case is a computer hacker and “cyberwarrior” from Britain, Younis Tsouli, who goes by the handle “Irhabi007.”

Significantly, the Internet can be an Achilles’ heel for jihadist networks. It gives authorities a way of identifying people who may have become radicalized and a means to monitor their behavior — both virtual and physical — and communications. Authorities also can establish and nurture relationships with suspected militants online, much as they frequently impersonate children on the Internet in efforts to catch pedophiles.

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies also might find it possible to infiltrate militant cells or recruit sources within certain communities in order to disrupt attack plans. This option is particularly viable when a cell is extremely large, like the 17-man group in Canada. That said, it also can be difficult to identify and target cells effectively, particularly when authorities are dealing with a large universe of potential suspects.

Case Study Notes

As a tactical case study, the events in Canada offer up several other operational lessons. One intriguing point is that, according to the allegations, the cell continued to move ahead with plans for attacks, even after contacts in other countries had been arrested. Tsouli and some of his associates were taken into custody in October 2005; the arrests of Ahmed (in the United States) and Sadequee (in Bangladesh) followed in March and April of this year. Moreover, the indictments in the U.S. case, which were widely reported in the U.S. and Canadian press, noted that Ahmed and Sadequee had traveled to Canada in March 2005 to meet with suspects who were being actively investigated at that time.

Now, conventional wisdom would dictate that any cells in operational mode would go underground when their associates started getting rounded up, and attempt to keep their noses clean until after the heat was off. But the allegations in the Canada case would indicate that conventional wisdom held no sway: The cell members kept plugging right along with their plans regardless. From a law-enforcement and intelligence standpoint, this underscores the need for continued vigilance after a plot seemingly has been thwarted; Letting down one’s guard and assuming the danger has passed is not an option, since other plots in the pipeline might not necessarily have been shelved. This, however, is not an entirely new lesson. Similar cycles were evident in 1993 — a group of conspirators who had been tied to the World Trade Center bombing cell attempted to attack other targets in New York City a few months afterward — and in 2005, with the botched public transit bombings only two weeks after the July 7 attacks.

Separately, one must note that most of the suspects in the Canada 17 case were very young — too young to have fought jihad in places like Afghanistan or Bosnia, as had many of the Version 1.0 operatives. Thus, the emerging 4.0 structure, with its affinity for the Internet, might be a natural result of “Generation Y” jihadists seeking to create an infrastructure.

As a follow-on to that, many of the Canadian suspects reportedly became radicalized in a short time, following 9/11. This radicalization process also has been observed with grassroots operatives in London and elsewhere in the recent past. We are reminded here that al Qaeda, like the violent anarchists of the 19th century, aptly might refer to its attacks as “propaganda of the deed.” Among its primary objectives in carrying out the 9/11 attacks was sending a message of empowerment to the Muslim people and sparking a general uprising that would culminate in the rebirth of the Caliphate. While the envisioned uprising did not materialize, it has become increasingly obvious that al Qaeda’s message of empowerment and the call to jihad has resonated strongly with some people.

Another objective of 9/11 was to spark an American retaliation — a goal in which al Qaeda obviously succeeded. The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have been viewed by many in the Muslim world as aggression against Islam, and for grassroots militants (especially those of Generation Y) this is reason enough to act. The passions of these young jihadists have been further enflamed by their views of the Israeli/Palestinian dynamic and events in other parts of the Muslim world. They feel a driving need to do something about perceived aggression against fellow Muslims, even if they do not care about the goal of re-establishing the Caliphate. This is a different genre of rational actors. They realize that their attacks are not likely to contribute to the revival of Muslim political power; they act instead out of anger and vengeance.

Thus far, operational security (OPSEC) has been the bane of the grassroots jihadists. Many suspected cells, including the one in Canada, have been disrupted as a result of poor OPSEC. However, due to the sheer numbers of fish in the pond, and the many ways of blending in or escaping notice, it is hard for authorities to identify and monitor all of these individuals, even when they make mistakes. Some inevitably will slip through the cracks. It also must be remembered that, controversial ideologies aside, many of these people are highly intelligent and well educated. Some are bound to study and learn from the mistakes made by their predecessors — and evolve into smarter fish.

At the very least, the evolutionary cycle — catching up ever-younger generations of jihadists — is yet another solid indication that jihadism will linger even if the leadership of the al Qaeda organization should be located and destroyed. Ideology is much harder to kill than individuals, and this particular ideology now appears to have taken root among Muslim populations stretching from London, Ontario, to London, England, to Lahore. The emergence of Generation Y militants indicates that the problem is not likely to disappear completely in the future.

Finally, the ability of grassroots cells to network across international boundaries, and even across oceans, presents the possibility that al Qaeda 4.0 cells could, now or in the future, pose a significant threat even without a central leadership structure — meaning, a structure that can be identified, monitored and attacked. If these grassroots organizations begin to improve their OPSEC practices, the risk they represent will increase. This very well could become the dominant operational model for the foreseeable future.

The Web of Jihad: Strategic Utility and Tactical Weakness

June 14, 2006

With the death last week of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the world has been focused on the future of his al Qaeda in Iraq organization. And while that is an important question, particularly as it relates to the security situation in Iraq, it is fitting also to reflect on the history and impact of al-Zarqawi’s violent movement. The group has been, of course, well-known for conducting frequent suicide bombings in Iraq and the simultaneous suicide strikes at three hotels in Jordan last fall, but its brutality is not necessarily what made al-Zarqawi a household name. That came about largely because of al Qaeda in Iraq’s skillful use of the Internet. It has embraced technology in a way heretofore unprecedented for any jihadist group.

In addition to posting shocking videos of decapitations to the Web, the “information wing” of al-Zarqawi’s group routinely posted statements (often several in a single day), videos of suicide operations and ambushes and eulogies praising and glorifying suicide operatives. It even published a monthly Web magazine. The information wing of al Qaeda in Iraq has been able to put a slick, professional face on the cause of the larger al Qaeda organization — while also documenting achievements on the battlefield, inculcating readers with the theology of jihadism and enticing new recruits to join the jihadist struggle.

This use of technology has played into the evolution of the jihadist movement and may now be helping to foster new incarnations of al Qaeda. But just as significantly, use of the Internet has certain drawbacks. There is only so much that can be done in cyberspace. Tactical realities and operational security concerns mandate that some activities must be conducted in the physical world — and it is at this juncture, in making the transition from virtual to actual reality, that newer actors well could be at their most vulnerable.

The Internet and Jihadists

In his use of the Internet, al-Zarqawi stood out even from other top al Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, who still rely on more standard Arabic-language media outlets (notably Al Jazeera TV) to distribute important messages. The information wing of al-Zarqawi’s group posted his statements directly to professional-looking Web sites of their own creation — and, proportionally, did so in far greater quantities than the core al Qaeda group. Granted, location and amenities were in all probability a key factor; al-Zarqawi’s node in Iraq has been operating in an urban environment, while bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are believed to be hiding in the rugged hinterlands along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Nevertheless, the younger group’s embrace of technology seems to transcend that geographical difference to reflect a philosophical and perhaps even generational difference.

Within this vein, al Qaeda in Iraq has used the Internet in two very significant ways: to disseminate propaganda in real time, and to shape public perceptions and debate in both the Islamic and Western spheres. In other words, the Web has been a timely, efficient and effective tool for conducting information warfare, which is key for breaking the will of the enemy and in motivating one’s own forces.

That said, the use of the Web by jihadist groups far predates al Qaeda in Iraq. With the launch in 1996 of the Web site — so named in honor of bin Laden’s mentor — jihadists had a professional-looking “store front” that allowed them to provide inspiration, news and instruction to adherents and potential recruits, and which became a channel for others to initiate contact with jihadist groups. became an important mechanism through which funds for jihadist groups could be raised and willing volunteers could find ways to link up with jihadist groups in places like Chechnya and Bosnia. It also provided tips on steps to take in order to attend militant training camps run by organizations like al Qaeda.

Following the 9/11 attacks, there was a virtual explosion of jihadist activity on the Web — ranging from chat rooms and blogs that became popular with “jihadist cheerleaders” to sites run by actual members of militant groups. Many of these jihadist “cyberwarriors” are in their late teens or early twenties, and many of them have been educated in the West. Some of the cyberwarriors — like Younis Tsouli, the British citizen using the handle “Irhabi007” — discover jihadism online and then move on to join the cause in the real world. Often, they join or form grassroots cells and become what we have labeled “al Qaeda Version 3.0 or 4.0” operatives.

As we have discussed, the Internet has been a great enabler for grassroots cells to spread their ideology and recruit new acolytes — and indeed, it also seems to have given them the ability to network across oceans and borders. However, the Internet often has proven to be an Achilles’ heel for clandestine groups as well. This is an area that warrants some study.

Risks and Limitations

From a tactical perspective, there are some things that simply cannot be done over the Internet — either for practical reasons or in light of operational security considerations.

For example, recruiting a new member into a cell can be a very risky activity under any circumstances — and even more dangerous in the “virtual world.” At any point, a jihadist or organized crime group might find it has opened itself up to someone who can’t keep a secret, whose loyalties are suspect or who can be bought for the right price. These risks go up considerably in cyberspace. People on the Internet are not always who they portray themselves to be (Just ask anyone who’s had a bad online dating experience.) For the jihadist recruiter, then, it can be extremely difficult to determine if the person at the other end of the keyboard is indeed a real jihadist, or a potential infiltrator attempting to penetrate the group.

And because online communications can be monitored, planning and coordinating attacks over the Internet or in chat rooms would be incredibly foolish behavior. It is little wonder, then, that despite their enthusiastic embrace of the Internet, al Qaeda in Iraq took that embrace only so far. They carried out these more clandestine functions the old-fashioned way: in person. Even in the 9/11 plot, when team leader Mohammed Atta needed to discuss complex and sensitive operational issues, he incurred the risks of traveling to Germany and Spain to meet with Ramzi bin al-Shibh in person rather than discuss the sensitive details on the phone or through e-mails.

There is a universe of tactical skills in which “book learning” is an important first step but will never be a viable substitute for actual practice on the street. This applies to things like weapons training and building bombs. The guidance that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has published in the online Maskaar Al-Battar magazine for using an SVD sniper rifle or a rocket-propelled grenade launcher might get someone out of the starting blocks, but there is no way to become proficient in using a weapon without actually handling one. Similarly, it is quite difficult to simply follow a recipe or written instructions and build a perfectly functioning improvised explosive device from scratch; as with any scientific endeavor, trial and error and testing in the real world usually is required. Bomb-making is a skill best learned from an experienced teacher (and many potential teachers have blown themselves up in the process of becoming experts).

Even acquiring the necessary materials can be difficult for would-be jihadists without proper, real-world connections. The alleged cell recently arrested in Toronto — now dubbed the “Canada 17” — were rounded up after they allegedly tried to buy 3 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Purchases of such “precursor substances” now tend to raise red flags with authorities in the Western world — a fact that highlights the difficulties of making the transition from terrorism in theory to terrorism in practice.

Unless one is content with “cyber attacks” and hacker crimes, though, it is a necessary transition. History has shown repeatedly that, even when pre-operational planning and other activities have begun in cyberspace, jihadists conduct surveillance of their targets in the physical world as a matter of routine. From the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the 9/11 attacks to the London bombings last July, it has been apparent that jihadists conduct not only surveillance, but also dry runs of their operations when possible. They recognize, as do law enforcement agents, that however detailed a picture of a target might appear on a Web site, it is a snapshot of reality — and a partial one at that — that has been frozen in time. Successful attacks depend on knowledge of large swathes of terrain, security routines and other details that cannot be obtained from videos or photographs. Eyes-on surveillance is priceless.

The Critical Moment

Given these realities, there comes a critical moment when jihadists must abandon the cyber-world for the real world. It is at this point that many militant cells living and operating in the West have been discovered and their plots thwarted.

One reason for this is that despite the rapid and near-total embrace of technology by some jihadists, the U.S. government and its allies have been developing their signals and communications intelligence systems for a very long time now — think Bletchley Park in the 1930s and 1940s — and have a great deal of expertise and computing power at their disposal. The investigative and surveillance apparatus is not particularly nimble, but it is very effective once it has a target on which to focus.

Such targets can be provided by unwary jihadist sympathizers who visit radical Web sites, or by tips that come through foreign government liaisons. For example, in the Canada 17 case, the suspects allegedly had connections to separate cells in Britain and the United States. By working together, the British, Canadian and U.S. governments were able to mass their resources and leverage or share information. As has often been the case with investigations of organized crime groups, authorities in different jurisdictions had different pieces of the puzzle; alone, the information meant little, but when cooperating services sat down together to discuss and share information, a bigger picture emerged.

Another reason that the transition phase is so dangerous for aspiring militants has to do with the legal system in the United States and elsewhere. For example, in the United States, Britain and Canada, freedom of speech holds sway as long as suspects don’t actually go so far as to encourage or order others to carry out attacks, or threaten to conduct such attacks themselves. The same thing goes for conspiracy cases (at least in the United States.) A group can conspire to carry out a violent attack as much as it wants; until an overt act is made in furtherance of that conspiracy, the suspects cannot be charged with a crime. The point at which militants leave the cyber-world and begin to take action in the real world is where they begin to make overt acts in furtherance of their conspiracy, and it is then that law enforcement agencies have the legal elements they need to make arrests, conduct searches and bring criminal charges.

In the Canada 17 case, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has said publicly that it moved against the suspects at just such a critical moment: The alleged cell attempted to buy materials that could be used to manufacture explosives. To paraphrase an RCMP spokesman, the threat the suspects were believed to pose to the public, at that point, no longer was acceptable.

It is not yet clear what the future will hold for al-Zarqawi’s organization in Iraq, but for the evolving generation of jihadists as a whole, past could be prologue. Ultimately, the dot-com terrorists might learn the same lessons as the dot-com entrepreneurs of the 1990s: There is no “new paradigm” in their industry. The most successful militants have recognized all along that certain basic rules — and operational practices — still apply. And for those who fail to grasp that reality, there will be a painful winnowing.

Al Qaeda: The Next Generation

Nov. 8, 2006

A madrassa in Chingai, Pakistan — a small village near the northwestern border with Afghanistan — was destroyed and at least 80 people were reportedly killed by a powerful airstrike Oct. 31. There have been reports that Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s No. 2 man, was the intended target. Most of those killed are thought to have been teachers and students from the madrassa; however, the results of forensic tests to identify many of the victims are still pending, and al Qaeda militants eventually could be identified as among the dead.

The madrassa that was struck was located a little more than a mile from the village of Damadola, the site of an airstrike in January that was also intended to kill al-Zawahiri. (He was not present at the time of the January attack but four other senior al Qaeda operatives reportedly were killed.) If al-Zawahiri indeed was the target of the Oct. 31 strike, it is clear that intelligence has led the U.S. and Pakistani governments to believe he is moving about in a very specific area of northwestern Pakistan.

If al-Zawahiri survived this latest strike — and if, as in the past, he wants to offer continued “proof of life” to his supporters and needle the United States — he will be producing a video or audiotape quite soon.

In fact, in the past there has been a discernible and consistent lag of about two to three weeks between the events that trigger al-Zawahiri’s videos (which he mentions in his messages) and the release of As-Sahab productions. For instance, in the Damadola case, the strike occurred Jan. 13 and a video of al-Zawahiri — taunting the United States for having missed him — was released Jan. 30. Similarly, the tape eulogizing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was released June 23; the militant leader in Iraq was killed June 6. Using this pattern as a guide, we would expect As-Sahab productions to send out a banner ad, announcing a forthcoming video, to jihadist Web sites and message boards late this week or early next week, with the video airing a day or two later.

In the interim, however, there is a question to be pondered: What if “proof of life” does not emerge? There long have been rumors that Osama bin Laden is dead or dying, and it is significant that al-Zawahiri — who, some personal acquaintances have said, prefers the No. 2 position to the role of top leadership (believing it to be more powerful) — has been the public face of al Qaeda for quite some time. So far this year, he has appeared in a dozen As-Sahab productions (compared to only five for bin Laden, whose spate of voice recordings in the first half of the year constituted an uncharacteristic media blitz). Supposing that al-Zawahiri could have been killed by the recent airstrike — or will killed be by a future airstrike in the same region — who might emerge to fill the power void?

Looking for Leadership

Since the disruption of its base in Afghanistan in 2001, it clearly has become more difficult for al Qaeda to cultivate and develop the next generation of leaders. Many prominent second-tier commanders have been captured or killed in the war, and there has been a decided movement toward a “virtual training” model, with publications such as Muaskar al-Battar emerging, particularly in the early years of the war, to provide the kinds of tactical training that once took place in al Qaeda’s camps.

Nevertheless, since the beginning of 2006 there have been indications that al Qaeda’s leadership is retrenching and becoming more comfortable. Bin Laden issued a flurry of audiotapes between Jan. 19 and July 1, and al-Zawahiri’s numerous videos have been slick, professional-grade productions. That, plus the more consistent time frames involved in the release of statements, indicates the leadership once again has established a sense of security and built up a degree of infrastructure.

Whether this will be the group’s undoing, as it was in Afghanistan, remains to be seen. However, it is quite possible that, having entered a period of relative stability, the al Qaeda leadership — less concerned with the immediate issues of survival — has been able to devote some attention to the crucial issue of succession.

Chain of command is a vital issue for any military organization, especially one that could lose its leaders at any time to a Predator strike. Moreover, neither al-Zawahiri nor bin Laden is a young man, even if they could claim to be hale and hearty — and, not being delusional, they recognize that death is the certain end of all men. The group clearly has a long-term perspective regarding the war it has declared against the “Jews and Crusaders.” It doesn’t expect it to end tomorrow, and it is in for the long haul. Thus, questions of battlefield necessity aside, there is every reason for the upper echelon to identify and begin to cultivate the next generation of leadership.

Given the level of attrition al Qaeda has suffered in the past several years — and particularly with the death of al-Zarqawi in Iraq — there are not many at the moment who have the broad public recognition, the background or the respect needed to fill the void that will be left by al-Zawahiri. Though a number of tactical commanders and leaders (such as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, al Qaeda’s new leader in Iraq) have risen up to replace those killed or captured, most are not well-known by al Qaeda’s supporters and grassroots followers. That is significant: The man who replaces al-Zawahiri will need to be both recognizable and respected. One way to gain that recognition and respect is turn the person into a media personality — a celebrity, if you will, in the jihadist universe.

Since As-Sahab is al Qaeda’s most recognized and authoritative media outlet, a look at those featured in its videos over the past year could provide some clues as to who the current leaders might be grooming for future leadership positions.

Prominent speakers include:

• Adam Yahiye Gadahn, or “Azzam the American.” Gadahn has appeared in four As-Sahab videos this year. Because he was born and raised in the United States, he is used as a spokesman whenever al Qaeda wants to ensure that its message is clearly heard and understood by an American audience. Though widely recognized, Gadahn lacks the experience, stature, trust and respect needed to fill al-Zawahiri’s shoes. Moreover, as an American — and one of Jewish descent, at that — he is not qualified to lead the global jihad against Jews and Crusaders. He is not a contender in the leadership contest.

• Mohammed al-Hakayma, or Abu Jihad al-Masri. Al-Hakayma has appeared in one As-Sahab video. He is al Qaeda’s designated regional commander in Egypt, but he is not, at this point, widely known or respected for his leadership or accomplishments. Though there is a strong Egyptian cadre within al Qaeda and, apparently, a bit of an “old boys network” linked to al-Zawahiri, al-Hakayma has not yet proven himself in Egypt.

• Abu Nasir al-Qahtani, or (true name) Mohammed Jafar Jamal al-Khatani. Al-Qahtani is a Saudi national and one of four suspects — the Bagram Four — who escaped from a U.S. military jail in Bagram, Afghanistan, on July 11, 2005. Al-Qahtani has appeared in one As-Sahab video, from April, which touched on the need to apply experiences and lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan to jihadist efforts in Saudi Arabia. This militant supposedly is leading al Qaeda attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan. He has not been heard from since the April video was released.

• Omar al-Farouq. This militant also was among the four to escape from Bagram, alongside al-Qahtani, in 2005. He appeared in one As-Sahab video, released in February. He was killed by British troops in Iraq on Sept. 25.

• Abu Yahya al-Libi, or Sheikh Abu Yehia al-Libi, Mohammed Hassan. Al-Libi has appeared in five As-Sahab videos this year, the most recent of which — “Combat, not Surrender” — appeared Nov. 1. Al-Libi also is one of the Bagram Four. He is a militant preacher and recruiter, and thus quite charismatic. He has appeared in numerous videos produced by other sources such as Labik Productions, a tool used by al Qaeda in Afghanistan. In his videos, he has touched on a number of important topics, including the cartoon controversy and the death of al-Zarqawi.

Clearly, al-Libi has the advantages of a recognizable face and, like al-Zawahiri, the cachet afforded by having been imprisoned by “Crusader forces” for his participation in the jihadist struggle (not to mention his escape from their custody, which was quite embarrassing for coalition forces). In addition, he has published a number of letters and fatawi that have helped to establish his stature and authority as a sheikh. These include:

• A 17-page fatwa on “The Infidel Karzai Regime and the Necessity of War” that circulated on jihadist message boards in late October.

• A lengthy fatwa criticizing Hamas and its failure to adhere to “Islamic” principles and those related to “jihad” that was posted on an al Qaeda-affiliated Internet forum in late April.

• A 20-page letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, dated Nov. 23, 2005, in which he describes how news of al-Zarqawi’s exploits buoyed his spirits while he was in prison in Bagram. The letter also states that Iraq had overshadowed Afghanistan as an important theater of jihad, and that jihadists should avoid splits and factionalisms in the face of their enemy.

Al-Libi has been in the news quite recently as well. In October, Al Arabiya re-released a video that originally was produced by Labik on July 27. In the hour-long tape, al-Libi was seen speaking to a group of al Qaeda fighters in southern Afghanistan, saying, “Allah will not be pleased until we reach the rooftop of the White House.” He also told the militants that “You have to get well-prepared by starting with exercise, and then you have to learn how to use technology until you are capable of nuclear weapons.”

To Lead, or Not To Lead?

Al-Libi — with his charisma, religious standing and emergence as a media personality — would appear the best-positioned of the speakers on this list to step into any void left by al-Zawahiri. But even for someone with these credentials, those would be big shoes to fill. It is entirely possible that, with the passing of al-Zawahiri and bin Laden, al Qaeda’s transformation from organization to movement will be complete.

Though there have been clear connections between the main al Qaeda leadership and operational cells in places such as the United Kingdom and Iraq — as evident from the group’s statements, intercepted letters and suicide videos — the various nodes of al Qaeda currently exist in more of a loose federation than a strict hierarchical chain of command. It is these nodes that have conducted the vast majority (if not all) of the attacks since 9/11.

Noting this transition, we wrote in September 2005 that:

If you were to plot this out on a chart, what you might see are two trend lines forming an ‘X:’ One, depicting al Qaeda’s impact as a strategic force, on a declining trend; the other, depicting the tactical and security threats posed by a widespread and less-visible movement, on the increase…. At this point, we find ourselves near the midpoint on the X. Al Qaeda has a top leadership that is, though in hiding, still capable of communicating with the world through broadcast recordings and the Internet, and — if London is any indication — foot soldiers around the world who are capable of flying below the radar until an attack actually is carried out. If, however, al Qaeda gels as a movement, with its ideology resonating among militants with various causes of their own, the existence or annihilation of widely recognized figureheads would be, in most respects, irrelevant.

If al-Zawahiri has been taken out and bin Laden remains somehow out of the picture, al-Libi or any other next-generation leader would find it challenging indeed to arrest the progression from “group” to “movement.” In fact, it would be at that point — with the apex leadership responsible for 9/11 no longer on the scene — that al Qaeda’s progression as a jihadist “movement” would accelerate rapidly.

There is no question that, though al Qaeda at that point would be spent as a strategic force, the larger issue of jihadism would remain. New recruits are receiving advanced degrees in jihad everyday at the higher institutions of instruction provided by the environment in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. They also have the worldwide “web of jihad” to help them plan and communicate, and these nodes could very well use their skills and communication abilities to give rise to a new structure.

There are significant pros and cons to both structural models. In the futuristic form — without a central leadership or planning unit — grassroots jihadists could remain largely faceless and nameless, linked together by the Internet and operating under pseudonyms as they planned strikes against geographically diverse targets. High-profile leaders would not exist for U.S. or allied intelligence agencies to identify, track down and kill. However, cases in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada this year have shown that it is quite dangerous to attempt to coordinate militant activities through cyberspace. Moreover, if multiple, independent nodes are operating in the same environment, it would be difficult to avoid competition, synchronize activities, agree on target sets and cooperate in any concerted effort. Soft targets would be struck and, possibly, high death tolls generated, but these kinds of grassroots strikes almost certainly would lack the kind of strategic significance achieved with 9/11.

There also is the important issue of bankrolling the jihad. Independent strikes such as the London or Madrid train attacks can be fairly inexpensive to pull off, but a strategic strike like 9/11 requires more sophisticated funding mechanisms and coordination between the operational cell and support networks. Running terrorist training camps also requires capital. Part of al Qaeda’s success has stemmed from its ability to raise capital from a variety of sources, funding operations that have spanned the globe — from the Philippines to Europe and the Americas — and striking at “apostate” regimes. Having a recognized, charismatic leader and a central financial clearinghouse eases fundraising efforts considerably for any cause.

For this reason, if for no others, we expect that there eventually would be a movement toward a centralized, formal al Qaeda command — and quite possibly, one with a geographically identifiable base of operations. The passing of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri inevitably will usher in a period of flux, which might or might not be resolved within a foreseeable time by the emergence of al-Libi or another of his compatriots. But, in this long-term war of ideology, a new leader — whether in this generation or the next — in all likelihood will emerge.

Al Qaeda in 2007: The Continuing Devolution

Dec. 28, 2006

The theme of STRATFOR’s 2006 forecast for al Qaeda and the jihadist movement centered on the evolution — or the devolution, really — from al Qaeda “the group” to a broader global jihadist movement. This essentially was a shift from an al Qaeda operational model based on an “all-star team” of operatives that was selected, trained and dispatched by the central leadership to the target, to an operational model that encourages independent “grassroots” jihadists to conduct attacks, or to a model in which al Qaeda provides operational commanders who organize grassroots cells. We refer to this shift as devolution because what we are seeing now is essentially a return to the pre-9/11 model.

This shift has provided al Qaeda “the movement” broader geographic and operational reach than al Qaeda “the group.” This larger, dispersed group of actors, however, lacks the operational depth and expertise of the core group and its well-trained terrorist cadre.

The metamorphosis continued in 2006, with al Qaeda announcing the merger of existing jihadist groups such as Gamaah al-Islamiyah (GAI) in Egypt and Algeria’s Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) and others in the Maghreb into their global jihadist umbrella organization. These groups have had long-standing links to al Qaeda, and the announcement of the mergers is really a formalization of the relationship, though these new nodes joined al Qaeda’s formal network of affiliate groups in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Sinai Peninsula and Afghanistan.

Since the announcements, these new groups have not yet demonstrated that they possess the ability to boost al Qaeda’s operational effectiveness. We have seen no attacks that can be attributed to GAI, and perhaps the only attacks that can be attributed to the GSPC are the Dec. 11 attack against a bus carrying foreign oil workers and the simultaneous Oct. 30 attacks against two police stations in Algeria. Given this lack of results, the announcements ring somewhat hollow, as the mergers have not given al Qaeda the surge of momentum it might have wanted.

The major attacks in 2006 in Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia; Dahab, Egypt; Dubba and Marib, Yemen; and Damascus, Syria, were all conducted by existing regional nodes and not the main al Qaeda organization. These attacks did show a broad geographic reach stretching across the Middle East but, except for the Dahab attack, they were essentially all failures.

Overall, 2006 was not a good year for the al Qaeda nodes in Saudi Arabia and the Sinai. It also was a dismal year for the Iraq affiliate, whose charismatic leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in June. Twelve months have made a vast difference in the fortunes of the Iraq node. Last year at this time, al-Zarqawi made the headlines almost daily and his organization was conducting frequent and spectacular attacks. Now, following the death of al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda in Iraq has been largely marginalized and eclipsed by Iraqi Sunni and Shiite insurgent groups.

Going into 2007, we anticipate a continuation of this shift toward a movement — though it will be important to watch for any signs of operational activity by al Qaeda the group, as opposed to its prodigious public relations efforts.

The Shift to Soft Targets

As we noted in January, the shift to the broader movement model allowed for an increase in the number of attacks, although the movement’s lack of expertise was forcing it to focus its attacks against soft targets such as hotels, trains and subways. This shift resulted in a larger numbers of casualties than the more spectacular attacks against hardened targets. Indeed, the casualty count from jihadist attacks in the 52 months following 9/11 was more than double that of the 52 months prior — and those numbers would be vastly increased if the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan were included.

[pic]

However, not as many attacks occurred in 2006 as we anticipated. In fact, the number of attacks and the casualties they generated were down for 2006. In many cases, such as Damascus, Abqaiq and Yemen, the attacks resulted in the deaths of more attackers than victims, and the only attack to produce a sizable death toll was in Dahab, where 24 people died. This trend in which attacks against tourist targets in Egypt produce the deadliest jihadist attack of the year continued from 2005, when the attack in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, killed 88 people. (Incidentally, that not only represents far more victims than in the Dahab attack, but also more than all of the 2006 attacks combined.) When Sharm el-Sheikh is combined with the 2005 attacks in Bali, Amman and London, jihadist militants produced far more deaths in 2005 than in 2006. (These statistics do not include attacks conducted in war zones or areas of insurgency such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Chechnya/Russia, Sri Lanka or Kashmir/India.)

The only jihadist strike against a hardened target in 2006 was the failed attack against the U.S. Embassy in Damascus in September. A car bombing was directed against an employee of the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, but that attack happened a block away from the hardened facility. It was, however, the only one of the two to produce an American death.

Target Sets

As we said in January, al Qaeda the group has long been interested in striking financial targets, aircraft and chemical/petroleum plants. Because of that, and al Qaeda’s demonstrated history of revisiting targets after failed or foiled attacks, it was logical to project that it would continue to attempt strikes against such targets in 2006.

The petroleum sector indeed was targeted in 2006, as the strikes against petroleum facilities in Abqaiq and Yemen, and against oil contractors in Algiers, demonstrate. Although no attack occurred against financial targets as we anticipated, we still believe that target set remains at risk for the future, along with the others.

Although authorities thwarted the plot to simultaneously destroy several airliners en route from London to the United States, it once again demonstrated that al Qaeda and the jihadist movement maintain a significant interest in airline targets. Details released in February on the Library Tower bombing plot provide another example of this fixation.

Disruption Strategy Continues

Once again in 2006 there has been no successful attack on U.S. soil — though the thwarted airliner plot was definitely aimed at the United States. Likewise, the anticipated attacks in European locations such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, France and Italy failed to materialize — again, not for lack of trying on the part of the jihadists.

The U.S. government and its allies have been successful over the past year in disrupting terrorist plots and plans in many locations. The strategy of disruption these countries are following is really quite simple: It is better to pick up an al Qaeda suspect on immigration fraud or another lesser offense than to investigate a smoking hole in the ground. Although there has been significant skepticism over the terrorist credentials of those responsible for some of these plots, such as the one involving the Miami Seven, the plots serve as a reminder that there are people who remain committed to striking the United States. Over the years, Islamist militants have proven to be resilient and adaptable in the face of adversity, and they will certainly continue to adapt.

It is important to remember that more than eight years elapsed between the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks — during which time al Qaeda and its jihadist network faced nothing approaching the level of pressure they have endured since then. There were several thwarted terrorist spectaculars between 1993 and 2001, and yet the jihadists persisted and eventually succeeded in carrying out a massive strike on U.S. soil.

Therefore, the string of law enforcement and intelligence successes since 9/11 does not rule out the possibility of another strike on U.S. soil in time. We believe the likelihood of such an attack will increase as memories of 9/11 dim and the public grows weary of the inconvenience and financial burden of increased security measures.

The Jihadist ‘War College’

The forecast, which noted that the active armed struggles in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Caucasus still serve as a kind of “jihadist war college,” predicted that its graduates would continue to share their training and experience upon returning to their countries of origin.

We already have seen a transfer of terrorism tactics and technology to Afghanistan, and we anticipate that this will continue in the future. In addition, the interpersonal connections that the militants make in places such as Iraq and Chechnya also will link them to the global movement in the same way the jihad in Afghanistan did for the preceding generation.

The Quiet Campaign Against al Qaeda's Local Nodes

June 20, 2007

Indonesian authorities announced June 15 they had arrested Zarkasih, the acting head of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), an al Qaeda-linked militant group that has conducted several major attacks in Indonesia. Zarkasih, who succeeded Abu Bakar Bashir and Abu Rusdan as JI leader, was captured June 9 in the same operation that netted another top JI leader, Abu Dujana, an operative trained by al Qaeda in Afghanistan who headed the group’s military wing.

The capture of these two major figures alone would be a significant blow to JI. However, when they are combined with the steady stream of other JI leaders who have been killed or captured since JI carried out its most devastating attack — the October 2002 bombings in Bali that killed more than 200 people — the impact becomes even more significant. In other words, few of the leaders remain who directed JI up to and including the 2002 attacks.

The Indonesian government’s campaign against JI, part of the global “war on terrorism,” has been bolstered by assistance from the United States, Australia and other Western nations. Moreover, the fight against JI is not confined to Indonesia itself, but is a regional effort involving other governments in Southeast Asia. These efforts have kept JI off balance and unable to launch a major attack since the October 2005 suicide bombings in Bali. The Indonesian government also has been able to seize large quantities of weapons and explosives — ordnance that no longer can be used in terrorist attacks.

The success against JI underscores one important fact: Although much of the world’s attention regarding the war on terrorism — which really is a war against jihadists — has been focused on Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, a quiet and quite successful campaign is being waged against the local nodes, those regional or national militant groups supporting al Qaeda in places like Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and North Africa. The war on jihadism, however, is at its heart an ideological war; and as long as the ideology of jihadism survives, these regional nodes — and al Qaeda itself — cannot be eradicated.

The Local Nodes

Al Qaeda’s leaders have always known that al Qaeda, as an organization, lacks the strength to achieve its goals of ending infidel influence in Muslim lands and overthrowing the “corrupt” regimes ruling them. Because of this, al Qaeda has viewed itself as a “vanguard organization” and, as such, aims to serve as an example for the larger Muslim community (or ummah) to follow and to convince the ummah to join the jihad (or rather, its definition of it). Al Qaeda’s hope is that its example will lead to a global uprising among the ummah and that this “awakened” community will wield the force necessary to achieve jihadist objectives.

This context helps to explain the relationships al Qaeda’s leaders have fostered with local groups in such places as Indonesia, Afghanistan, Algeria and Iraq. They believe these local or regional organizations are important partners that provide a bridge for the transfer of their ideology to the ummah in the various regions where they operate. Many, indeed most, of the thousands of fighters al Qaeda has trained over the years in camps in Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere were not al Qaeda members per se, but rather men like Dujana who would return home and join regional groups like JI, or others who would go back and form grassroots cells, like Mohammed Siddique Khan, who established the cell that conducted the July 7, 2005, London bombings.

Al Qaeda’s attention to local jihadist groups, therefore, clearly is not the result of the group’s difficulties following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. In fact, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has always placed emphasis on working with these groups. For example, in February 1998, when bin Laden announced the formation of what he called the “World Islamic Front,” the organization’s fatwa calling for “jihad against Jews and crusaders” was also signed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who at the time led a faction of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) group; Rifai Ahmad Taha, leader of his faction of the Egyptian Gamaah al-Islamiyah (GAI); Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of his faction of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh.

Al-Zawahiri’s EIJ was one of the first of these regional or local groups to officially join forces with bin Laden and al Qaeda, though when that union took place, EIJ had splintered and its new militant wing had suffered major setbacks. The militant faction under al-Zawahiri not only had been largely decimated inside Egypt, but U.S.-led operations also had resulted in the capture or death of many of its senior operatives outside of Egypt in locations such as Albania and Kuwait.

Although many of these local groups received training from al Qaeda and worked closely with it, for the most part they maintained their independence. During the 1990s, for example, GAI members were trained at al Qaeda facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan, and some, including GAI leader Mustafa Hamza, even worked for businesses bin Laden owned in Sudan. Furthermore, bin Laden and al Qaeda helped organize and fund GAI and EIJ’s cooperative attempt to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa in 1995.

When GAI fractured in the late 1990s and the bulk of the group denounced violence and jihadism, Taha, the militant faction’s leader, maintained close relations with al Qaeda. He even appeared alongside bin Laden and al-Zawahiri in a September 2000 video calling for the release of GAI spiritual leader Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was (and is) in a U.S. prison. Abdel-Rahman was convicted in October 1995 on charges of seditious conspiracy for, among other things, issuing a verbal fatwa that condoned a plan to attack several targets in New York, saying the plan was permissible under Islam. However, in spite of the close relationship, GAI’s militant faction did not announce its merger with al Qaeda until August 2006.

The Rush to Join the Caravan

Though the 9/11 attacks did not spark the widespread uprising of the ummah al Qaeda was hoping for, the spectacular success of the attacks made bin Laden a household name and vaulted al Qaeda into the media spotlight. Despite the Taliban’s quick defeat in Afghanistan, which resulted in the scattering of al Qaeda and the relocation of its leadership to Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province, al Qaeda continued to be perceived as the apex of the jihadist movement in the Western media and, perhaps more important, on the streets of the Muslim world.

Following the aggressive action of the U.S. government and its allies against jihadist groups in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, many people who previously praised bin Laden and al Qaeda renounced the group’s tactics, including GAI leader Hamza. However, in October 2004, the leader of a little-known jihadist group in Iraq, Jamaat al-Tawhid and Jihad (Monotheism and Jihad), changed the name of his group to Tandheem al Qaeda fi Bilad al-Rafidain (al Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers) and swore allegiance to bin Laden. In a December 2004 statement, bin Laden confirmed this alliance, referring to the leader of that group, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as the “leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.”

This move by al-Zarqawi was hugely successful. By associating his network with al Qaeda, al-Zarqawi made it prominent among the many jihadist and nationalist insurgent groups operating in Iraq — and quickly achieved name-brand recognition. This recognition rapidly translated into an influx of fighters, both foreign and Iraqi, for the group and a much-needed infusion of capital. In fact, al-Zarqawi’s organization was so flush with cash that in a July 2005 letter, al-Zawahiri asks al-Zarqawi to send financial assistance.

Within a short period of time, al-Zarqawi’s group became one of the pre-eminent militant groups in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi himself became a household name since his group posted frequent statements and videos of its operations against coalition and Iraqi forces on the Internet. In some ways, al-Zarqawi had even surpassed bin Laden in terms of media coverage and notoriety.

Though al-Zarqawi’s meteoric rise was cut short by his death in a June 2006 airstrike, the success he enjoyed by adopting the al Qaeda brand was not missed by other interested observers. In August 2006, the militant wing of the Egyptian GAI released a video announcing it had formally joined al Qaeda. Three months later, Algeria’s Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) announced that it was forming a unified command with Morocco’s Islamic Combatant Group, Libya’s Islamic Fighting Group and several Tunisian groups. The new group was to be called the al Qaeda Organization for the Countries of the Arab Maghreb.

Kashmiri Islamist militant groups also are now attempting to jump on this bandwagon, as demonstrated by the “Declaration of War against India” they issued in the name of al Qaeda earlier in June.

Status of the Nodes

To date, none of these newer local nodes has realized the same level of success that al-Zarqawi’s group did. The Egyptian node has carried out no successful attacks since its highly publicized announcement. The Moroccan element of the new Maghreb al Qaeda node apparently attempted to go operational in March and April but its poor tactics and inadequate planning resulted in the death of more suicide bombers than targets.

Perhaps the most successful of these new groups is the Algerian element of the Maghreb al Qaeda node, the former GSPC. The Algerian group has conducted several attacks, including an April 11 double suicide attack involving vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices. Those bombs struck the prime minister’s office and a police station in Algiers. The Algerian government, however, has cracked down on the group and its supporters since those attacks.

In many ways, the Algerian group seems to be following a trajectory previously seen elsewhere, in which a local node emerges, conducts some successful attacks and then is hit hard by local authorities (often with assistance from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies.) This is essentially what has happened to some of the older nodes, such as JI in Indonesia, Egypt’s Tawhid wa al-Jihad in Sinai, and the Saudi al Qaeda node. There were signs in January of a possible revival of the Saudi node, but other than a simple shooting attack in late February — followed by a major hit against the group by Saudi authorities — the node has been quiet.

Even al-Zarqawi’s node, which undertook several operations in Jordan before his death, including the November 2005 Amman hotel bombings, has been unable to project its power outside of Iraq as of late. This node also has been receiving pressure from elements in Iraq and has started to fight Iraqi nationalists. If a political settlement is reached between the United States and Iran regarding Iraq, this node could quickly find itself unwelcome in Iraq — and even more embattled.

The Future

Given that most of the al Qaeda local nodes currently are doing poorly, and those that are doing fairly well now are looking at possible bleak futures, does that mean they pose no threat? Absolutely not.

Though the campaign to disrupt the local nodes — the war against jihadism — has been very successful, it is important to remember that this is not so much a war against a group of individuals as it is a war against an ideology. The problem is, ideologies are harder to kill than people. Consider, for example, how the revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Che Guevara have outlived the men themselves.

In the same way, the al Qaeda ideology will outlast bin Laden, as the call to jihad outlasted bin Laden’s friend and mentor, Abdullah Azzam. So even if bin Laden were to be eliminated next week, the struggle would continue. The nodes may be disorganized and their operations disrupted, but as long as they can recruit new fighters and raise money, they will retain the ability to reorganize and carry out attacks. The key therefore will be in undermining the ideology of jihadism and thereby cutting into the jihadist recruiting pool and drying up its fundraising operations.

The problem for the United States is that it cannot fight this ideological war, and any efforts it openly supports — including the Arabic television station Al Hurra — are quickly tainted and discredited. The U.S. government, therefore, must sit on the sidelines while moderate Muslim scholars refute the theology of jihadism. Meanwhile, Washington can only hope the message gets through.

Gunning for Al Qaeda Prime

June 27, 2007

Al Qaeda’s media branch, As-Sahab, released a statement by Ayman al-Zawahiri to jihadist Internet forums June 25. In it, al Qaeda’s deputy leader urges Muslims to support Palestinian militants by providing weapons and money, and by attacking U.S. and Israeli interests. Although al-Zawahiri’s message is interesting, especially the fact that he urges support for an organization he has criticized heavily in the past, perhaps most telling about the release is that it contains no new video footage of al-Zawahiri himself.

In the 25-minute statement, al-Zawahiri discusses the importance of al-Quds (Jerusalem) to Muslims, and urges Muslims to unite with the “mujahideen in Palestine” (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc.). Al-Zawahiri also calls on Hamas to establish a government based on Islamic law in Gaza, noting that, “Taking over power is not a goal, but a means to implement God’s word on earth.” The release begins with a snippet of an October 2001 video of al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden, but the bulk of the release consists of a still photograph of al-Zawahiri placed over a thin banner containing a small photo of the al-Aqsa Mosque.

The fact that al-Zawahiri chose this format rather than the more engaging and visually powerful video format suggests al Qaeda’s apex leaders are feeling the heat of the campaign to locate and eliminate them. Although many people believe the al Qaeda leadership operates as it pleases along the Pakistani-Afghan border, evidence suggests otherwise.

Quantifying the Campaign

Last week’s Terrorism Intelligence Report discussed the campaign conducted by the United States and its allies against al Qaeda’s regional and local nodes. Though these efforts have been under way in many parts of the globe, the United States and its partners have been pursuing a concurrent campaign against al Qaeda’s apex leadership, al Qaeda prime. Like the campaign against the regional nodes, the effort against the prime node employs all of the five prongs of the U.S. counterterrorism arsenal: military power, intelligence, economic sanctions, law enforcement operations and diplomacy.

The overall success of this campaign against al Qaeda prime has been hard to measure because there are few barometers for taking al Qaeda’s pulse. By its nature it is a secretive and nebulous organization that, in order to survive, has taken great pains to obscure its operations — especially since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 that flushed its leaders from their comfortable and well-appointed refuge inside the Taliban’s Islamic republic.

While bin Laden and al-Zawahiri have escaped U.S.-led efforts to locate them, a large number of second-tier leaders and operatives have been captured or killed. This means the group’s organizational chart has been altered dramatically below the top rung, making it difficult to determine the quality of the individuals who have been tapped to fill in the gaps. Publicly, al Qaeda has appointed Azzam the American as a major spokesman. If the prime node has been forced to promote others of his caliber to operational leadership positions, the group could be in big trouble. However, with so many unknown players filling critical positions, it is difficult to determine precisely how much the attrition has affected the prime node’s ability to plan and execute attacks.

Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that their operational ability has been diminished. The group has not launched an attack using an al Qaeda “all-star team” since 9/11. Meanwhile, outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, the attacks conducted by its regional nodes, or by regional nodes working with operational commanders sent from al Qaeda prime, have decreased in frequency and impact over the past several months. The first six months of 2007 have been quieter than the first six months of 2006 and far more peaceful that the last six months of 2005. And, not to downplay the loss of life in London, Madrid, Bali and other places, but in terms of numbers, the death tolls and financial impacts of all those attacks do not hold a candle to the 9/11 attacks — even when many of them are combined.

Beyond the personnel losses al Qaeda has suffered, the loss of its dedicated training facilities in Afghanistan also has changed the way the prime node works. It is less autonomous and far more dependent on the largesse of Pakistani and Afghan feudal lords who control training camps along the border — and who are key to the security of al Qaeda prime. However, it is still difficult to pinpoint the impact this has had on al Qaeda’s ability to operate.

Occasional glimpses into the organization made possible by intelligence efforts, however, have provided some information as to its health. For example, the seized July 2005 letter from al-Zawahiri to then-al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in which al-Zawahiri asks for financial assistance, demonstrates that al Qaeda’s prime node was hurting for cash at the time. This state of affairs, a key objective of U.S. economic sanctions, likely was exacerbated by the Saudi government’s action against al Qaeda supporters inside the kingdom, action prompted by attacks by al Qaeda’s Saudi node.

Another way to gauge the health of the organization, or at least the comfort level of the group’s apex leadership, is by looking at its public relations efforts and the statements it releases to the public. Al Qaeda prime has produced a steady supply of messages in order to keep local nodes — and perhaps more important, grassroots jihadists around the world — motivated. These releases, however, reveal a change over the last several months in the way al Qaeda communicates to the world.

[pic]

As the numbers in the chart illustrate, the number of messages from al Qaeda’s two top leaders has fallen, while the use of video has dropped dramatically. Before the October 2006 missile attack in Chingai, Pakistan, 14 out of 15 messages were released in video format; since then, only three of the nine have included video. The switch to an audio format indicates concern about operational security. It also is noteworthy that bin Laden has not been heard from in any format, audio or video, since July 1, 2006 — nearly a year now. All these factors considered, it is apparent that the apex leadership feels threatened.

The Campaign on the Border

Al Qaeda leaders hiding along the Afghan-Pakistani border have good reason to be cautious. On June 19, an explosion killed at least 32 militants in Pakistan’s mountainous Datta Khel district. Pakistani intelligence officials said 10 to 15 Arab and Turkmen militants were among the dead. According to sources, Abu Laith al-Libi, al Qaeda field commander in Afghanistan, was the target. DNA tests reportedly are being performed on the victims’ remains in an effort to determine whether al-Libi is among them. If in fact he was killed in the strike, history suggests al Qaeda will release a statement confirming the death between June 29 and July 6.

The Datta Khel strike highlights the gravity of the threat faced by al Qaeda leaders hiding out in the area along the border for the past several years. Other notable strikes include:

• Jan. 16, 2007: Pakistani Army Aviation units launch a predawn airstrike against a suspected militant camp near Zamzola in Pakistan’s South Waziristan, killing 25 to 30 militants, including eight to 10 foreigners.

• Oct. 30, 2006: A missile strike against an Islamic school in Chingai, Pakistan, near the Afghan border, levels the building and kills at least 80 people. Sources say al-Zawahiri was the target.

• Jan. 13, 2006: A hellfire missile hits a home in Damadola, Pakistan, killing 18 people, including four senior al Qaeda operatives. The attack’s intended target, al-Zawahiri, is not present.

• Dec. 4, 2005: Pakistani authorities say Hamza Rabia, reportedly al Qaeda’s director of operations, is killed when a hellfire missile fired from a predator drone strikes a house in Haisori, North Waziristan.

• May 7, 2005: Haitham al-Yemeni, an al Qaeda operative who reportedly replaced Abu Farj al-Libi in al Qaeda’s hierarchy after al-Libi’s May 2, 2005, capture, is killed in a hellfire missile attack in North Waziristan.

• While not in the same region, al Qaeda’s then-military chief Mohammed Atef also was killed in a hellfire missile strike by a CIA predator drone in eastern Afghanistan in November 2001.

Predator drones cannot be seen or heard by those on the ground. This means that a target’s first indication that he is being attacked is the arrival of one or more supersonic, highly accurate and very destructive hellfire missiles. To those being targeted, the psychological impact of a weapon that can kill without warning is intense.

The Safe Bet

Shortly after the Chingai strike we noted a difference between al-Zawahiri’s reaction to that strike and the Damadola strike. At the time, we said the Chingai strike hit very close to home, sent shockwaves through al Qaeda’s operational security system and likely forced al-Zawahiri to go deeper underground. The numbers above appear to confirm that analysis.

We also speculated that the Damadola and Chingai strikes damaged As-Sahab’s capabilities. One of those killed in the Damadola strike, Abdul al-Maghribi, not only was al-Zawahiri’s son-in-law, but also a senior As-Sahab manager. Despite these strikes, however, As-Sahab has released at least 13 video statements by al Qaeda leaders since the Chingai attack. Only three of these videos featured al-Zawahiri; the other 10 featured al Qaeda spokesmen such as Abu Yahya al-Libi, Azzam the American and the now possibly deceased Abu Laith al-Libi. As-Sahab also has released several other videos showing operations under way against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Regardless of these videos from Afghanistan, things have not been going well for the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies recently. Their much-touted spring offensive has largely fizzled and they have suffered many casualties on the battlefield against NATO forces in the south (the Canadians appear to have completed their learning curve). The loss of charismatic, experienced battlefield commander Mullah Dadullah also will have an impact. Meanwhile, the Taliban have broken from traditional insurgent tactics with such things as suicide bombings, roadside bombings and attacks with vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices. This deviation suggests desperation on their part — which also would increase al Qaeda’s angst.

Given that As-Sahab continues to release several videos each month, the lack of appearances by al-Zawahiri, and even bin Laden, is not the result of some scarcity of camera gear or video technicians. Indeed, there must be some other compelling reason for them to change their behavior — and fear that the forces hunting them are drawing close is a safe bet.

With all the talk about al Qaeda “leaders,” al Qaeda “factions” and militants with “links” to al Qaeda, it is useful to take a step back and clarify precisely what al Qaeda actually is. Al Qaeda is a small core group of people who share strategic and operational characteristics that set them apart from all other militants — Islamist or otherwise — the world over. All signs indicate this group is no longer functional and cannot be replicated. Whether or not Osama bin Laden is still alive, al Qaeda as it once was is dead.

Strategically, these men envisioned a world in which the caliphate would rise anew as a consequence of events they would set into motion. The chief obstacle to this goal was not the United States but the panoply of secular, corrupt governments of the Middle East. Al Qaeda knew its limited numbers precluded it from defeating these governments, so it sought to provoke the Muslim masses into overthrowing them. Al Qaeda also knew it lacked the strength to do this provoking by itself so it sought to trick someone more powerful into doing it.

By al Qaeda’s logic, an attack of sufficient force against the Americans would lure the United States to slam sideways into the Middle East on a mission of revenge, leading to direct and deep U.S. collaboration with those same secular, corrupt local governments. Al Qaeda’s hope was that such collaboration with the Americans would lead to outrage — and outrage would lead to revolution. Note that the 9/11 attacks were not al Qaeda’s first attempt to light this flame. The 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings and the 2000 USS Cole bombing were also the work of this same al Qaeda cell, but the attacks lacked the strength to trigger what al Qaeda thought of as a sufficient U.S. response.

The Real Difference

But al Qaeda is hardly the first militant group to think big. What really set al Qaeda apart was its second characteristic — its ability to evade detection. That ability was part and parcel of the way in which al Qaeda formed. Al Qaeda’s roots are not merely within the various militant groups of the Arab Middle East but deep within the geopolitical struggles of the Cold War. Many of the mujahideen who relocated to Afghanistan to resist the Soviet invasion found themselves recruited and funded by Saudi intelligence, equipped and tasked by U.S. intelligence and managed and organized by Pakistani intelligence.

This exposure not only leveraged the Afghan resistance’s paramilitary capabilities but also gave the mujahideen a deep appreciation for, and understanding of, the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. and Soviet intelligence systems. When the Cold War ended, some of those mujahideen reconstituted their efforts into what came to be known as al Qaeda, and those deep understandings became part of the organization’s bedrock.

Such knowledge enables al Qaeda to operate beneath the radar of nearly all intelligence agencies. It knows how those agencies collect and analyze intelligence, where the blind spots are and, most important, how long it takes for an agency to turn raw information into actionable intelligence.

This characteristic is al Qaeda’s greatest asset. Al Qaeda’s standards of operation assume that intelligence agencies are always waiting and watching, and only al Qaeda’s understanding of those operations keeps the “base” from being busted. Operational security — not operational success — is al Qaeda’s paramount concern; its attacks are meticulously planned, fantastic in scope and sacrificed in a heartbeat if the leadership suspects a breach in security. This makes al Qaeda nearly impossible to track.

It also means that al Qaeda, by necessity, is a very small, close-knit group. The organization’s core — or the apex leadership, as we often call it — consists of little more than Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and a double handful of trusted, heavily vetted relationships stretching back more than a decade. Disposable operatives with minimal training can be picked up for specific missions, but these people cannot do anything very complex (such as infiltrate a foreign country and hijack a civilian airliner).

Replacement of lost assets within this small group is negligible due to security concerns. Ultimately, the same security protocols that empowered al Qaeda to be a player of strategic scope are what removed al Qaeda from the chessboard.

Once the CIA and its affiliated allies named al Qaeda public enemy No. 1, al Qaeda’s security instincts became its greatest liability. The rapid U.S. invasion of Afghanistan caught al Qaeda off guard — the group had assumed it would have months of U.S. pre-mission staging before the invasion, a lesson it learned from watching the first Gulf War. The quick U.S. response meant al Qaeda was forced to go into hiding before it had fully secured redundant communication, funding and travel routes. Intelligence agency efforts to penetrate al Qaeda forced the group to constrict information flow, limit financial transfers, reduce recruiting and abandon operations. Once the United States succeeded in co-opting Saudi assistance against al Qaeda in 2003 — something brought about both by a U.S. presence in Iraq and al Qaeda’s own efforts to destabilize its ideological homeland — al Qaeda’s star stopped falling and started plummeting.

Al Qaeda has not only failed in its attempts to trigger region-wide uprisings against the Middle East’s secular governments, it has also lost the ability to launch strategically meaningful attacks — that is, attacks resulting in policy shifts by its targets. Al Qaeda can operate to a certain degree in regions where it has allies, many of whom flowed through its training camps in the 1990s, but the ability of the group that planned the 9/11 attacks to operate beyond the Middle East and South Asia seems to have disappeared. Attrition after years of confrontation with the Americans, coupled with self-imposed isolation, has rendered al Qaeda useless as a strategic actor. Not only is its ability to provide command and control nonexistent, but its self-enforced invisibility and inactivity have undermined its credibility.

Furthermore, al Qaeda has left no one truly capable of taking up its mantle. The training camps in the 1990s processed hundreds of would-be jihadists, but the quality of that training for the rank and file has been exaggerated. Most of it was a combination of poor conventional combat training and ideological indoctrination. Hence, most “veterans” of those camps have neither access to the core al Qaeda leadership nor the operational security or tactical training that would allow them to reconstitute a new elite core. They are no more members of the real “al Qaeda” than today’s skinheads are members of the real Nazi party.

By the only criterion that matters — successful attacks — al Qaeda has slipped from readjusting global priorities (9/11) to contributing to the change in government of a middling U.S. ally (the March 2003 Spain attacks) to affecting nothing (the 2005 London bombings). No attacks since can be meaningfully linked to al Qaeda’s control, or even its specific foreknown blessing. Al Qaeda had hoped for a conflagration of outrage that would sweep away the Middle East’s political order; it only managed to raise a few sparks here and there, and now it is a prisoner of its own security.

Yet, public discussion of all things “al Qaeda,” far from fading, has reached a fever pitch. But this talk — all of it — is about a fundamentally different beast.

Enter Al Qaeda the Franchise

It all started with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who put himself forward as the leader of the Iraqi node of al Qaeda in 2004. While one can argue that al-Zarqawi might have been through an al Qaeda training camp or shared many of bin Laden’s ideological goals, no one seriously asserts he had the training, vetting or face time with bin Laden to qualify as an inner member of the al Qaeda leadership. He was a local leader of a local militant group who claimed an association with al Qaeda as a matter of establishing local gravitas and international credibility. Other groups, such as Southeast Asia’s Jemaah Islamiyah, had associations with al Qaeda long before al-Zarqawi, but al-Zarqawi was the first to claim the name “al Qaeda” as his own.

For al Qaeda, prevented by its security concerns from engaging in its own attacks, repudiating al-Zarqawi would make the “base” come across as both impotent and out of touch. Accepting “association” with al-Zarqawi was the obvious choice, and bin Laden went so far as to issue an audio communique anointing al-Zarqawi as al Qaeda’s point man in Iraq.

Others have also embraced the al-Zarqawi/al Qaeda association, as dubious as it was. Al Qaeda’s operational security protocols — and its ongoing presence just beyond the United States’ reach in northwestern Pakistan — meant that destroying al Qaeda (the real al Qaeda) was at best a difficult prospect. But al-Zarqawi was local and active and clearly valued launching attacks over maintaining hermetically sealed security. Al-Zarqawi could be brought down. And just as al-Zarqawi’s “association” with al Qaeda increased his street cred with the Arab world, that “association” also increased his value to the U.S. military as a target. Taking down an “al Qaeda-linked terrorist” was much better for purposes of public relations and funding than taking down any random militant. The media, of course, stand ready to help; reporting on a militant with direct connections to bin Laden is sexy — even if that connection was only catching a glimpse of Big “O” walking by during breakfast.

The result has been the formation of an odd iron triangle among an al Qaeda desperate for relevance, local jihadists seeking a fast track to importance and Western intelligence and law enforcement seeking credibility and funding. In the common lexicon, al Qaeda is no longer that core of highly trained and motivated individuals who tried to change the world by bringing down the World Trade Center, but a do-it-yourself jihadist franchise that almost anyone can join. Some nodes are copycats who look to the real al Qaeda for inspiration; others are existing militant groups — such as Algeria’s Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, now called the al Qaeda Organization for the Countries of the Arab Maghreb — that can identify with their ideological brethren. But few to none have any real connections to al Qaeda.

Violence is certain to continue, but the lack of meaningful attacks in the West in general and the United States in particular suggests al Qaeda’s degraded capacity and the West’s improved security have minimized the chances of a geopolitically significant attack for the next several years.

This does not mean would-be “al Qaeda” groups are not dangerous, or that the “war on terror” is anywhere near over. While some of the would-be al Qaeda groups almost seem comical, others are competent militants in their own right — with al-Zarqawi perhaps being the most lethal example. Their numbers are also growing. The ongoing war in Iraq has provided potential militants across the Islamic world with the motive to do something and the opportunity to gain some serious on-the-job training. Just as Soviet operations in Afghanistan created a training ground for a generation of Middle Eastern militants in the 1980s and 1990s, the Iraq war is in part a crucible for the next generation of Arab militants. Add in al Qaeda’s offer of open association and we will be hearing from dozens of “al Qaedas” in the years to come.

Luckily, links between these new groups and their erstwhile sponsor are limited mostly to rhetoric. There might be a few thousand people out there claiming to be al Qaeda members, but the real al Qaeda does not exercise any control over them. They are not coordinated in their operations or even working toward a common goal. And while many of these new al Qaedas might be competent militant groups, they lack the combination of strategic vision and obsession with security that ultimately allowed the original al Qaeda to move mountains.

Top it off with terminology buy-in from Western intelligence, law enforcement and the media and the result is a war literally without end; the definition of al Qaeda is stretched by nearly any player to fit nearly any political need. The United States is now waging a war against jihadism as a phenomenon, rather than against any specific transnational jihadist movement.

Back to Square One?

The political situation in Pakistan has long imposed an unstable stasis on what many feel should have been the real focus of the war on terror all along. Since escaping from Afghanistan in 2001, the true al Qaeda has spent most of its time taking refuge in northwestern Pakistan, where a mix of political complications and ethnic and tribal allegiances have allowed it to stay out of harm’s way.

The United States has been aware of al Qaeda’s presence there, but ultimately has not attacked for three reasons. First, al Qaeda’s internal security protocols forced the organization to isolate itself. During a time when the United States had a great many fish to fry, al Qaeda seemed to have put itself into lockdown; it was issuing videos, not starting wars like Hezbollah or reconstituting like the Taliban. Second, while U.S. intelligence knows the region in which al Qaeda resides, it has never gotten enough detail to allow for airstrikes to take care of business. Such not-quite-there intelligence has always been just diffuse enough to necessitate boots on the ground — and raise the specter of a disastrously botched and politically problematic military operation.

Which brings us to the third and, in many ways, most important reason for leaving al Qaeda alone. The United States felt it could not risk an assault for fear of political fallout. Ultimately, the United States needs Pakistani cooperation to wage war in Afghanistan — after all, Pakistan has the only easily traversable land border with the landlocked country — and support for radical Islam runs deep in both Pakistani society and government. So, yes, U.S. attacks against militant sites located on Pakistani soil happen all the time, but they are small pinprick operations. Any large attack could not be disavowed and, therefore, could result in the fall of the very Pakistani government that makes the hotter parts of the war on terror possible.

Back in 2005, the United States believed it had credible intelligence about a planned meeting of the core al Qaeda leadership in northwestern Pakistan. A strike force of several hundred to several thousand was assembled in order to punch through the Pakistani tribes hiding and shielding bin Laden and his allies, but the strike was ultimately abandoned because then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld felt the operation could not be kept quiet. It is one thing when Pakistanis think there are a few Americans running over the border to do something tactical. It is quite another when Pakistanis know that several thousand Americans with heavy air support are surging across to do something strategic. The U.S. might have been able to take out its target, but probably not without losing a critical ally.

Details of this attack plan were leaked July 8 to The New York Times. For us at STRATFOR, news of the plans was nothing new. It made perfect sense that this plan, and likely dozens of others like it, were at various times in the works stretching back as far as 2003 (and we have noted such on numerous occasions). What caught our attention was the timing of The New York Times article. The United States has been eyeing northwestern Pakistan for years. Why draw attention to that fact now?

The United States’ core fear in 2005 was that the Pakistani government would destabilize. Well, in 2007, the Pakistani government is horrendously unstable. On July 10, Islamabad launched a multi-hour raid replete with Branch Davidian overtones against the Red Mosque complex and a gathering of radical (some would say mentally unhinged) Islamists challenging the government’s writ. Be worried when the government of an Islamic republic feels it must take such action. Be doubly worried when the government taking the action already seems to be in its death throes.

Previous efforts by Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to strengthen his political grip on the country by firing the chief justice rebounded on him so severely that he cannot even depend upon his oldest allies. Various political, military and cultural power centers are sniping at the president, making their own independent and often contradictory demands. There are also hints that Musharraf’s faculties are beginning to crack. The government — as well as the president — is now teetering on the edge of oblivion, facing an unsavory menu of crushing compromise with one force or another to stay in power in name, and risking the turbulent waters of emergency rule over an increasingly hostile population.

If the threat of a government fall was the only thing holding Washington back in 2005, and now that the fall is imminent through no action of the United States, what does Washington have to gain from restraining itself any further?

This is more than a rhetorical question. The relative inactivity of al Qaeda these past six years, as well as the political situation in Pakistan, has imposed a shaky equilibrium on the issue. Al Qaeda’s security protocols curtail al Qaeda’s threat level, and that has allowed the United States to shelve the issue for another day. Meanwhile, the instability of Musharraf’s government limits the United States’ ability to pressure Islamabad over the issue of al Qaeda. Consequently, al Qaeda has been more or less hiding in plain sight.

Alter any aspect of this scenario — in this case, drastically increase the tottering of the Musharraf government — and the “stability” of the other pieces immediately breaks and the United States is forced to surge assets into Pakistan.

Washington has to assume that an al Qaeda anywhere but Pakistan is an al Qaeda that will act with less conservatism. By the American logic, al Qaeda assets in Saudi Arabia, long drilled that security is paramount, would naturally doubt that a telegram from bin Laden ordering a new attack is genuine — but they would certainly believe bin Laden himself should he show up at their door. By al Qaeda’s logic, Musharraf’s fall would force al Qaeda to relocate from Pakistan because the group would have to assume that the Americans would be coming.

Which means the odd stasis in the war on terror these past six years could be about to loosen up, and a front that has proven oddly cold might be about to catch fire.

U.S.: The National Intelligence Estimate of al Qaeda

July 18, 2007

According to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released July 17, the U.S. intelligence community believes that al Qaeda is still looking to attack targets that would have a significant economic, political and psychological impact on the United States. Furthermore, the report indicates that the U.S. intelligence community believes al Qaeda is capable of devising innovative ways to strike these targets.

The report reflects al Qaeda prime’s targeting criteria. Rather than choosing targets based on military utility, al Qaeda generally chooses targets for their potential symbolic value in order to elicit the greatest political or psychological impact, which then translates into economic impact. For example, the U.S. State Department estimated that over the course of one year, the Sept. 11 attacks caused $120 billion in damage. That is the kind of economic damage al Qaeda wants to repeat. The Sept. 11 operation is estimated to have cost al Qaeda between $400,000 and $500,000.

Attacks in which large numbers of people are killed and maimed create the greatest psychological impact, as they generate graphic, provocative images that can be splashed across television screens and the front pages of newspapers. The Sept. 11 attack against the World Trade Center fit al Qaeda’s psychological and economic criteria. The attack against Madrid’s commuter rail system in 2004 met al Qaeda’s political criterion in that it influenced Spain’s decision to withdraw its military contingent from Iraq.

Bridges and other infrastructure targets could meet both symbolic and economic targeting criteria. After such an attack, a massive effort would be undertaken to repair the physical damage, but the lingering economic, political and social impact would be significant. The New York Stock Exchange, U.N. Headquarters and Citigroup Center building in New York City would fit the criteria for economic, mass-casualty and symbolic targets, as would the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Chicago Board of Trade and Sears Tower. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank buildings in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Bank Tower (formerly known as the Library Tower) in California and Los Angeles International Airport also would make the list. Al Qaeda has already looked at these kinds of targets.

Softer targets such as hotels, theaters and places where large numbers of people gather could be attractive for mass-casualty attacks. However, the threat to these targets would more likely come from a grassroots amateur militant cell than from a cell sent by al Qaeda’s apex leadership (although al Qaeda has surveilled the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City before, probably because of its higher-profile clientele, including diplomats and heads of state). Grassroots jihadists, such as the Fort Dix Six, focus on smaller, simpler and easier attacks. Theoretically, because of their relative simplicity, these plots are harder to detect. However, because they usually involve unskilled operatives who make amateur mistakes, such plots are often discovered during the planning stages of the attack cycle.

In the post-Sept. 11 world, with increased vigilance and intelligence collection focusing on potential jihadist threats, an elaborate attack involving multiple operatives originating overseas has a higher chance of being detected than before. So, while the large-scale strategic attacks that originate with al Qaeda prime are likely to be carried out by skilled operatives with a decent chance of success if they can evade detection, those attack plots are easier to discover.

The NIE also states that the U.S. intelligence community believes al Qaeda is “innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles” and that al Qaeda has been able to reconstitute its capabilities in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area since 2001. This does not mean the organization is making use of specialized operatives trained to conduct covert operations inside the United States without being detected. Furthermore, the U.S. government continues to assume that al Qaeda’s major concern is its effect on the United States. It still does not understand al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda and the Strategic Threat to the U.S. Homeland

July 25, 2007

The July 17 release of portions of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) titled “The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland” has generated a great deal of comment from STRATFOR readers, many of whom contend it is at odds with our assessment published shortly before the contents of the NIE were leaked. In that report, we attempted to clarify what we mean when we refer to “al Qaeda” and we differentiate between the small al Qaeda core organization (what we call “al Qaeda prime”), the somewhat wider array of al Qaeda franchise organizations (such as al Qaeda in Iraq) and the broad assortment of grassroots jihadists who have no actual connection to the core organization. Our assessment also echoed an assertion we have been making for quite some time now — that al Qaeda lacks the ability to pose a strategic threat to the United States.

It must be understood that al Qaeda and other jihadists still pose a tactical threat to the U.S. homeland. In other words, they can still kill Americans. In fact, in looking at the jihadist shift in operations abroad, attacks against smaller, softer targets have actually caused more fatalities than large-scale strikes against hard targets. However, attacks against low-level soft targets, such as the November 2005 hotel attacks in Amman, Jordan, and the July 7, 2005, suicide bombings in London, do not have the strategic impact of a 9/11-style attack.

A number of tactical and strategic considerations have led us to conclude that al Qaeda does not pose a strategic threat.

Tactical Realities

As long as the ideology of jihadism exists and jihadists embrace the philosophy of attacking the “far enemy,” they will pose a threat on U.S. soil. Though the U.S. government has tightened visa and asylum restrictions since 9/11, those processes still contain holes. Furthermore, given that even small, repressive regimes have been unable to control their immigration, it is not surprising that a country as large as the United States, one that must deal with the open nature of U.S. society, cannot hermetically seal it borders to prevent terrorist operatives from entering. Jihadist operatives still can reach the United States illegally, by committing immigration fraud or slipping across the border. Legally, they can obtain visas, use operatives from visa-waiver countries or those who are U.S. citizens. Of course, people residing in the United States who decide to “go jihad” also pose a threat. While some, perhaps even most, of these jihadist operatives will be caught before they can enter, some inevitably will get into the country. There undoubtedly are such people — both transnational and homegrown operatives — in the United States right now. That is a tactical reality.

Another tactical reality is that the U.S. government simply cannot protect every potential target. While insights gained from al Qaeda’s targeting criteria have helped U.S. authorities protect high-value targets, there simply are far too many potential targets to protect them all. The federal government might instruct state and local authorities to protect every bridge, dam, power plant and mass-transit system in their jurisdiction, but the reality on the ground is that there are not nearly enough resources to protect them all, much less every shopping mall, state fair, Jewish Community Center, football game or other potential soft target where people concentrate.

Another tactical consideration is the ease with which an attack can be conducted. As Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung Hui and D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammed demonstrated, it is not difficult to kill people. In fact, Cho killed more people with handguns in his attack at Virginia Tech than Jemaah Islamiyah killed in Jakarta, Indonesia, in the August 2003 bombings of the Marriott Hotel and the Australian Embassy combined. University of Oklahoma student Joel Henry Hinrichs also demonstrated the ease with which someone can fabricate an improvised explosive device (IED) using TATP without being detected.

Given this reality and the fact that jihadists are committed to staging attacks on U.S. soil — and are willing to die in the process — it really is rather astounding that we have not seen more jihadist attacks in the United States.

Strategic Considerations

There are, however, some strategic considerations that help explain why we have not seen al Qaeda prime execute the long-expected follow-on attack. The first is that strategic attacks are difficult to pull off. A strategic attack is one that results in significant geopolitical policy shift by its target. An attack that destroys a strategic-level target such as the U.S. Capitol or that causes mass casualties — kills 1,000 or more people — would certainly rise to this level.

One problem is that most strategic targets are large and well-constructed, and therefore hard to destroy. In other words, just because a strategic target is attacked, that does not mean the attack has succeeded. Indeed, many such attacks have failed. Even when a plot against a strategic target is successfully executed, it might not produce the desired results, and therefore would be considered a failure. For example, despite the detonation of a massive truck bomb in a parking garage of the World Trade Center in 1993, that attack failed to achieve the jihadists’ aims of toppling the two towers and producing mass casualties, or of causing a major U.S. foreign policy shift.

Many strategic targets also are well protected against conventional attacks. Their large standoff distances protect them from vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, while these and other security measures make it difficult to cause significant damage to them using smaller IEDs or small arms.

To overcome these obstacles, jihadists have been forced to look at alternate means of attack. Al Qaeda’s use of large, fully fueled passenger aircraft as guided missiles is a great example of this, though it must be noted that once that tactic became known, it ceased to be viable — as Flight 93 demonstrated. There is little chance that a flight crew and passengers of an aircraft would allow it to be seized by a small group of hijackers now. However, concern remains over the possible use of large cargo aircraft or even some of the larger general aviation aircraft in this fashion — especially given al Qaeda prime’s fixation on aviation.

There also has been a major strategic shift in the way al Qaeda and jihadists are viewed. Prior to 9/11 they were considered more or less a nuisance and little attention was paid to them. They operated from safe and relatively comfortable bases in Afghanistan and were able to train and dispatch operatives abroad with ease. They also were able to take ready advantage of the global financial system to transfer money, and they were able to hold “regional conferences” in places such as Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. In fact, we know that prior to 9/11 al Qaeda was planning a number of strikes at the same time, including the follow-on plot to attack the Library Tower and other West Coast targets with aircraft, and a plot to attack U.S. Navy targets in Singapore that was put on hold so it did not interfere with the success of the 9/11 operation. With all that surveillance and planning going on, it is no wonder the 9/11 Commission Report called the summer of 2001 “The Summer of Threat.” Since 9/11 and the launching of the “global war on terrorism”, however, the U.S. government’s anti-terrorism tool kit has been turned against the organization in full force.

Although no strategic attacks have occurred since 9/11, it is not for lack of trying on the jihadists’ part. Indeed, many attempts have been discovered and thwarted. While the United States and its allies were not really focused on the al Qaeda threat prior to 9/11, they are almost over-focused on the threat today, labeling even grassroots wannabe jihadists like the Miami Seven as al Qaeda. Still, this intense focus, the policy of disrupting plots and the increase in public awareness have made it more difficult for jihadists to operate in the United States today.

As we said, U.S. authorities will not be able to stop every attack — and they know the next attack is a matter of when and not if. Because of this, they have taken great pains to attempt to limit the impact the long-expected attack will have. They have done this by raising awareness about the items that can be used in terror attacks and by limiting access to these items. Today, when a gasoline tanker truck goes missing, a quantity of dynamite is stolen from a quarry or a suspicious person attempts to buy a quantity of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, people quickly report these incidents and alerts are issued. This simply did not happen prior to 9/11.

Another factor is public reaction. The American public was shocked by 9/11. Not only by the scope and devastation of the attack, but by the very fact it happened. Prior to 9/11, Americans considered terrorism as something that happens “over there” and not at home. Today, the American public has been anticipating a follow-on attack on the U.S. homeland since the minute the towers fell. This means that when the next attack happens, there will be sadness, anger and a healthy round of political finger-pointing — but it will not come as a surprise.

Unconventional Weapons

Al Qaeda also has considered overcoming security measures to launch strategic strikes by using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons (CBRN). We know al Qaeda has developed crude methods for developing chemical and biological weapons. It also is possible al Qaeda prime was behind the anthrax mailings in 2001. However, as STRATFOR has repeatedly pointed out, chemical and biological weapons are expensive, are difficult to use and have proven to be largely ineffective in real-world applications. A comparison of the Aum Shinrikyo chemical and biological attacks in Tokyo with the March 2004 jihadist attacks in Madrid clearly demonstrates that explosives are far cheaper, easier to use and more effective at killing people. The failure by jihadists in Iraq to use chlorine effectively in their attacks also underscores the problem of using improvised chemical weapons.

Of course it is not unimaginable for al Qaeda or other jihadists to think outside the box and attack a chemical storage site or tanker car, using the bulk chemicals to attack another target — much as the 9/11 hijackers used aircraft as the means to attack the end target. However, while such an attack could release enough of a deadly chemical to kill many people, most people would be evacuated before they could receive a lethal dose, as past industrial accidents have demonstrated. Therefore, such an attack would be messy but would be more likely to cause panic and mass evacuations, rather than mass casualties.

The same can be said of a radiological dispersion device (RDD), sometimes called a “dirty bomb.” While RDDs are easy to deploy — so simple that we are surprised one has not already been used against the U.S. homeland — it is very difficult to immediately administer a lethal dose of radiation. Therefore, the bomb part of a dirty bomb would likely kill more people than the device’s “dirty,” or radiological, component. However, use of an RDD would result in evacuations and could require a lengthy and expensive decontamination process. Because of this, we refer to them as “weapons of mass disruption” rather than weapons of mass destruction.

The bottom line is that a nuclear device is the only element of the CBRN threat that would create mass casualties and guarantee the success of a strategic strike. Al Qaeda, however, would find it very difficult to obtain (or manufacture) such a device while it is under the intense pressure it faces today. If the organization had possessed such a device since before 9/11, as some have claimed, we believe operatives would have used it long before now.

The Al Qaeda Shell

Clearly, jihadists want to hit the U.S. homeland. In fact there has not been a time in the last 10 to 15 years when some jihadist somewhere hasn’t been plotting to attack the United States. There likely are homegrown and transnational jihadists in the United States right now plotting attacks. There also are a wide variety of vulnerable targets in the United States and, as we have said, attacking them is not that difficult.

We believe the United States is long overdue for a jihadist attack. Like U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, we believe the elements are likely in place for such an attack in the near future. However, we do not believe the attack will be of the same magnitude as the 9/11 attacks.

The problem for al Qaeda is that the core group, in the words of the NIE, is “likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks and/or fear among the U.S. population.” It is one thing to launch an attack against the Sears Tower, for example; it is quite another thing to succeed in bringing it down. We believe al Qaeda can attack a target like the Sears Tower, but our assessment is that the organization currently lacks the ability to launch a devastating strategic attack — one that would destroy the target.

Does this mean al Qaeda will lack this capability forever? No. If the United States and its allies were to cease pressuring the organization, and the jihadist movement as a whole, it could in time regenerate the capability. However, we disagree with the NIE assertion that the group already has regenerated to that point. Al Qaeda prime is still dangerous at the tactical level, but strategically it is only a shell of its former self.

The Obstacles to the Capture of Osama bin Laden

Sept. 12, 2007

Al Qaeda’s As-Sahab media arm released a video Sept. 11 to commemorate the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Although the 47-minute video features a voice-over introduction by Osama bin Laden, the bulk of it is of Abu Musab Waleed al-Shehri, one of the suicide bombers who crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center’s north tower. That recording was made prior to al-Shehri’s travel to the United States in the spring of 2001.

There is nothing in bin Laden’s audio segment to indicate it was recorded recently. The production does include a still photograph of him — one taken from what appears to be a real bin Laden video released Sept. 7 (in which he sports a dyed beard), but bin Laden’s comments about the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi suggest they were recorded during al Qaeda’s 2006 media blitz.

The release of two successive bin Laden messages, however, has again focused attention on bin Laden, who before last week had not been seen on video since late October 2004. This increased attention has once again caused people to question why the United States has failed to find bin Laden — and to wonder whether it ever will.

While the feds generally get their man in the movies or on television, it is very difficult in real life to find a single person who does not want to be found. It is even harder when that person is hiding in an extremely rugged, isolated and lawless area and is sheltered by a heavily armed local population.

The United States and Pakistan have not launched a major military operation to envelop and systematically search the entire region where bin Laden likely is hiding — an operation that would require tens of thousands of troops and likely result in heavy combat with the tribes residing in the area. Moreover, this is not the kind of operation they will take on in the future. The United States, therefore, will continue to pursue intelligence and covert Special Forces operations, but if it is going to catch bin Laden, it will have to wait patiently for one of those operations to produce a lucky break — or for bin Laden to make a fatal operational security blunder.

Needle in a Haystack

Finding a single man in a large area with rugged terrain is a daunting task, even when a large number of searchers and a vast array of the latest high-tech surveillance equipment are involved. This principle was demonstrated by the manhunt for so-called “Olympic Bomber” Eric Rudolph, who was able to avoid one of the largest manhunts in U.S. history by hiding in North Carolina’s Great Smoky Mountains. The task force looking for Rudolph at times had hundreds of federal, state and local law enforcement officers assigned to it, while some of its search operations involved thousands of law enforcement and volunteer searchers. The government also employed high-tech surveillance and sensor equipment and even offered a $1 million reward for information leading to Rudolph’s capture.

However, Rudolph’s capture in May 2003, more than five years after he was listed on the FBI’s most-wanted list, was not the result of the organized search for him. Rather, he was caught by a rookie police officer on a routine patrol who found Rudolph rummaging for food in a dumpster behind grocery store. The officer did not even realize he had captured Rudolph until he had taken him to the police station for booking.

Hostile Terrain

The terrain in the Smoky Mountains is tough and remote, but it is nothing compared to the terrain in the soaring, craggy Safed Koh range that runs along the Pakistani-Afghan border or in the Hindu Kush to the north. Some of the peaks in the Safed Koh range, including Mount Sikaram, are well over twice as high as any peak in the Smokies, while the Hindu Kush contains some of the highest peaks in the world.

But it is not only the terrain that is hostile. In the Great Smokies, there are some people who are not happy to see “revenuers” and other government agents — or other strangers, for that matter — but at least the area is under the federal government’s control. The same cannot be said of the lawless areas along the Afghan-Pakistani border — the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). The presence of Pakistani military forces is resented in these areas, and troops are regularly attacked by the heavily armed tribesmen living there.

This is not a new phenomenon by any means, though. The Pashtun tribes in the rugged area along the Durand Line (the line set to demarcate the border between the British Raj and Afghanistan, which later became the Afghan-Pakistani border) have always been difficult to control. Even before the establishment of Pakistan, the inhabitants of the area gave the British colonial authorities fits for more than a century. The Britons were never able to gain full control over the region, so they instead granted extensive power to tribal elders, called maliks. Under the deal, the maliks retained their autonomy in exchange for maintaining peace between the tribesmen and the British Raj — thus allowing commerce to continue unabated.

However, some dramatic flare-ups of violence occurred against the Britons during their time in the region. One of the last of them began in 1936 when a religious leader known as the Faqir of Ipi encouraged his followers to wage jihad on British forces. (Jihad against invading forces is a centuries-old tradition in the region.) The Faqir and his followers fought an extended insurgency against the British forces that only ended when they left Pakistan. The United Kingdom attempted to crush the Faqir and his followers, but the outmanned and outgunned insurgents used the rugged terrain and the support of the local tribes to their advantage. Efforts to use spies to locate or assassinate the Faqir also failed. Although the British and colonial troops pursuing the Faqir reportedly numbered more than 40,000 at one point, the Faqir was never captured or killed. He died a natural death in 1960.

A Modern Faqir?

Under U.S. pressure, the Pakistani military entered the FATA in force in March 2004 to pursue foreign militants — for the first time since the country’s creation — but the operation resulted in heavy casualties for the Pakistani army, demonstrating how difficult it is for the Pakistani military to fight people so well integrated in the Pashtun tribal badlands. Following that failed operation, the Pakistani government reverted to the British model of negotiating with the maliks in an effort to combat the influence of the Taliban and foreign jihadists — and has been harshly criticized because of it. Nowadays, jihadist insurgents are attacking Pakistani security and intelligence forces in the Pashtun areas in the Northwest.

The parallels between the hunt for the Faqir of Ipi and bin Laden are obvious — though it must be noted that bin Laden is a Saudi and not a native-born Pashtun. However, many of the challenges that the United Kingdom faced in that operation are also being faced by the United States today.

Aside from the terrain — a formidable obstacle in and of itself — U.S. forces are hampered by the strong, conservative Islamic conviction of the people in the region. This conviction extends beyond the tribes to include some members of the Pakistani military and Pakistan’s intelligence agencies — especially those at the operational level in the region. It must be remembered that prior to 9/11 the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency and military openly supported the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies. In addition to the relationships formed between bin Laden and the so-called “Afghan Arabs” (foreign jihadists) during the war against the Soviets, Pakistani troops also trained and fought alongside the Taliban and al Qaeda in their battles against the Northern Alliance and other foes. Because of these deep and historic ties, there are some in the Pakistani government (specifically within the security apparatus) who remain sympathetic, if not outright loyal, to their friends in the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Additionally, and perhaps just as important, many in the Pakistani government and military do not want to kill their own people — the Pashtuns, for example — in order to destroy the much smaller subset of Pakistani and foreign militants. The challenge is to eliminate the militants while causing very little collateral damage to the rest of the population — and some in the Pakistani government say the airstrikes in places such as Chingai and Damadola have not accomplished this goal. In August, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri told television channel AAJ that Pakistan had done all it can in the war on terrorism and that, “No one should expect anything more from Islamabad.”

In an operation such as the manhunt for bin Laden, intelligence is critical. However, the Taliban and al Qaeda so far have used their home-field advantage to establish better intelligence networks in the area than the Americans. According to U.S. counterterrorism sources, U.S. intelligence had gathered some very good leads in the early days of the hunt for bin Laden and other high-value al Qaeda targets, and they shared this intelligence with their counterparts in the Pakistani security apparatus to try to organize operations to act on the intelligence. During this process, people within the intelligence apparatus passed information back to al Qaeda, thus compromising the sources and methods being used to collect the information. These double agents inside the Pakistani government did grave damage to the U.S. human intelligence network.

Double agents within the Pakistani government are not the only problem, however. Following 9/11, there was a rapid increase in the number of case officers assigned to collect information pertaining to al Qaeda and bin Laden, and the CIA was assigned to be the lead agency in the hunt. One big problem with this, according to sources, was that most of these case officers were young, inexperienced and ill-suited to the mission. The CIA really needed people who were more like Rudyard Kipling’s character Kim — savvy case officers who understand the region’s culture, issues and actors, and who can move imperceptibly within the local milieu to recruit valuable intelligence sources. Unfortunately for the CIA, it has been unable to find a real-life Kim.

This lack of seasoned, savvy and gritty case officers is complicated by the fact that, operationally, al Qaeda practices better security than do the Americans. First, there are few people permitted to see bin Laden and the other senior leaders, and most of those who are granted access are known and trusted friends and relatives. Someone else who wants to see bin Laden or other senior al Qaeda leader must wait while a message is first passed via a number of couriers to the organization. If a meeting is granted, the person is picked up at a time of al Qaeda’s choosing and taken blindfolded via a circuitous route to a location where he is stripped and searched for bugs, beacons and other tracking devices. The person then reportedly is polygraphed to verify that his story is true. Only then will he be taken — blindfolded and via a circuitous route — to another site for the meeting. These types of measures make it very difficult for U.S. intelligence officers to get any of their sources close to the al Qaeda leaders, much less determine where they are hiding out.

The areas where bin Laden likely is hiding are remote and insular. Visitors to the area are quickly recognized and identified — especially if they happen to be blond guys named Skip. Moreover, residents who spend too much time talking to such outsiders often are labeled as spies and killed. These conditions have served to ensure that the jihadists maintain a superior human intelligence (and counterintelligence) network in the area. It is a network that also stretches deep into the heart of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, Islamabad’s twin city and home to the Pakistani army’s general headquarters.

The Price of Security

Although al Qaeda’s operational security and the jihadist intelligence network have been able to keep bin Laden alive thus far, they have lost a number of other senior operatives, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mohammed Atef, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Abu Faraj al-Libi and others). Most of these have been al Qaeda operational managers, people who, by the very nature of their jobs, need to establish and maintain communications with militant cells.

This drive to recruit new jihadists to the cause and to help continue operational activity is what led to the lucky break that resulted in the 1995 arrest of Abdel Basit, the operational planner and bombmaker responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Basit had tried to recruit a foreign student to assist him in one of the attempts to conduct “Operation Bojinka,” a plan to bomb multiple U.S. airliners. Having gotten cold feet, the student revealed the plot, thus allowing Diplomatic Security special agents the opportunity to coordinate an operation to arrest Basit.

Al Qaeda has learned from the mistakes made by the men it has lost and has better secured the methods it uses to communicate with the outside world. This increased security, however, has resulted in increased insulation, which has adversely affected not only communications but also financial transfers and recruiting. Combined with U.S. efforts against al Qaeda, this has resulted in a reduction in operational ability and effectiveness.

The tension between operations and security poses a significant problem for an organization that seeks to maintain and manage a global militant network. By opting to err on the side of security, bin Laden and the others could escape capture indefinitely, though they would remain operationally ineffective. However, should they attempt to become more operationally active and effective — and decrease their security measures to do so — they will provide the United States with more opportunities to get the one break it needs to find bin Laden.

Summer 2007: The Attack that Never Occurred

Oct. 17, 2007

The summer of 2007 was marked by threats and warnings of an imminent terrorist attack against the United States. In addition to the well-publicized warnings from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and a National Intelligence Estimate that al Qaeda was gaining strength, a former Israeli counterterrorism official warned that al Qaeda was planning a simultaneous attack against five to seven American cities. Another warning of an impending dirty bomb attack prompted the New York Police Department to set up vehicle checkpoints near the financial district in Lower Manhattan. In addition to these public warnings, U.S. government counterterrorism sources also told us privately that they were seriously concerned about the possibility of an attack.

All these warnings were followed by the Sept. 7 release of a video message from Osama bin Laden, who had not been seen on video since October 2004 or heard on audio tape since July 2006. Some were convinced that his reappearance — and his veiled threat — was the sign of a looming attack against the United States, or perhaps a signal for an attack to commence.

In spite of all these warnings and bin Laden’s reappearance — not the mention the relative ease with which an attack can be conducted — no attack occurred this summer. Although our assessment is that the al Qaeda core has been damaged to the point that it no longer poses a strategic threat to the U.S. homeland, tactical attacks against soft targets remain simple to conduct and certainly are within the reach of jihadist operatives — regardless of whether they are linked to the al Qaeda core.

We believe there are several reasons no attack occurred this summer — or since 9/11 for that matter.

No Conscious Decision

Before we discuss these factors, we must note that the lack of an attack against the U.S. homeland since 9/11 has not been the result of a calculated decision by bin Laden and the core al Qaeda leadership. Far too many plots have been disrupted for that to be the case. Many of those foiled and failed attacks, such as the 2006 foiled plot to destroy airliners flying from London to the United States, the Library Tower Plot, Richard Reid’s failed attempt to take down American Airlines flight 63 in December 2001 and Jose Padilla’s activities — bear connection to the core al Qaeda leadership.

So, if the core al Qaeda has desired, and even attempted, to strike the United States, why has it failed? Perhaps the greatest single factor is attitude — among law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the public at large, the Muslim community and even the jihadists themselves.

Law Enforcement and Intelligence

Prior to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the FBI denied the existence of an international terrorism threat to the U.S. homeland, a stance reflected in the bureau’s “Terrorism in the United States” publications in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Even after the radical Zionist Rabbi Meir Kahane was killed by a jihadist with connections to the Brooklyn Jihad Office and “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdul-Rahman, the FBI and Department of Justice denied the act was terrorism and left the investigation and the prosecution of the gunman, ElSayyid Nosair, to New York police and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. (Though they were greatly aided on the federal level by the Diplomatic Security Service, which ran investigative leads for them in Egypt and elsewhere.)

It was only after Nosair’s associates detonated a large truck bomb in the parking garage of the World Trade Center in 1993 that the existence of a threat to the United States was recognized. Yet, even after that bombing and the disruption of other plots — the July 1997 plot to bomb the New York subway system and the December 1999 Millennium Bomb Plot — the apathy toward counterterrorism programs remained. This was most evident in the low levels of funding and manpower devoted to counterterrorism programs prior to 9/11. As noted in the 9/11 Commission Report, counterterrorism programs simply were not a priority.

Even the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing made no real difference. Some changes were made, such as physical security enhancements at federal buildings, but they were merely window dressing. The real problems, underlying structural problems in the U.S. government’s counterterrorism efforts — resources, priorities and intelligence-sharing — were not addressed in a meaningful way.

Prior to 9/11, experts (including the two of us) lecturing to law enforcement and intelligence groups about the al Qaeda/transnational terrorist threat to the United States were met with indifference. Of course, following 9/11 some of those same groups paid careful attention to what the experts had to say. Transnational terrorism had become real to them. The 9/11 attacks sparked a sea change in attitudes within law enforcement and intelligence circles. Counterterrorism — aggressively collecting intelligence pertaining to terrorism and pursuing terrorist leads — is now a priority.

Citizen Awareness

Before the 1993 World Trade Center bombing the American public also was largely unconcerned about international terrorism. Even after that bombing, the public remained largely apathetic about the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. This was partly the result of the media’s coverage of the 1993 bombing, which seemed to focus on the hapless, bumbling Mohamed Salameh and not the cunning and dangerous Abdel Basit (who is more widely known by his alias, Ramzi Yousef). Furthermore, the follow-on plot to that attack, the 1993 New York bomb plot — for which Abdul-Rahman and some of his followers were accused of planning strikes against the Lincoln Tunnel and other New York City landmarks — was thwarted. This led many to believe that the government had a handle on terrorism and that the United States was protected from such attacks. The second plot was thwarted before it could be executed, and most Americans never saw the gigantic crater (nearly 100 feet across) that the February 1993 truck bomb created through several floors of Building One’s reinforced concrete parking garage. Instead, they saw only a bit of smoke billowing from the damaged building. The 1993 cases lacked the stunning visual displays of the 9/11 attacks.

The events of 9/11 also created a 180-degree change in how people think about terrorism and how they perceive and respond to suspicious activity. “If you see something, say something” has become a popular mantra, especially in New York and other large cities. Part of this stems from the changed attitudes of law enforcement officials, who not only have issued appeals in the press but also have made community outreach visits to nearly every flight school, truck driving school, chemical supply company, fertilizer dealer and storage rental company in the United States. Through media reports of terrorist plots and attacks, the public also has become much more aware of the precursor chemicals for improvised explosive mixtures and applies far more scrutiny to anyone attempting to procure them in bulk.

U.S. citizens also are far more aware of the importance of preoperational surveillance and — fair or not — it is now very difficult for a person wearing traditional Muslim dress to take a photograph of anything without being reported to the authorities by a concerned citizen.

This change in attitude is particularly significant in the Muslim community itself. Contrary to the hopes of bin Laden — and the fears of the U.S. government — the theology of jihadism has not taken root in the United States. Certainly there are individuals who have come to embrace this ideology, as the arrests of some grassroots activists demonstrate, but such people are very much the exception. In spite of some problems, the law enforcement community has forged some strong links to the Muslim community, and in several cases Muslims have even reported potential jihadists to law enforcement.

Even in places where jihadism has more successfully infiltrated the Muslim community, such as Europe, North Africa and Saudi Arabia, the jihadists still consider it preferable to wage the “real” jihad against “crusader troops” in places such as Iraq, rather than to attack soft civilian targets in the West or elsewhere. As unpopular as it is to say, in many ways Iraq has served as a sort of jihadist magnet, drawing young men from around the world to “martyr” themselves. Pragmatically, every young jihadist who travels from Europe or the Middle East to die in Baghdad or Ar Ramadi is one less who could attack Boston, London, Brussels or Rome.

Attitude is Everything

In late 1992 and early 1993, amateur planning was all that was required to conduct a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In addition to the almost comical mistakes made by Salameh, serious gaffes also were made by Ahmed Ajaj and Basit as they prepared for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. However, because of the prevailing apathetic attitude among law enforcement officials and the public in general, those mistakes were not fatal to the operation.

Given the changes in attitude since 9/11, however, no operation conducted as poorly as the 1993 bombing would succeed today. Before the bombing, the FBI investigated the cell that carried it out, made the determination that the men were harmless fanatics and closed the investigation. That would not happen today, as even slightly goofy, wannabe terrorists such as the Miami Seven are vigorously investigated and prosecuted when possible.

When Ajaj and Basit flew into JFK Airport in September 1992, authorities pretty much ignored the fact that Ajaj was found transporting a large quantity of jihadist material, including bombmaking manuals and videos. Instead, he was sentenced to six months in jail for committing passport fraud — a mere slap on the wrist — and was then to be deported. Had authorities taken the time to carefully review the materials in Ajaj’s briefcase, they would have found two boarding passes and two passports with exit stamps from Pakistan. Because of that oversight, no one noticed that Ajaj was traveling with a companion. Even when his co-conspirators called Ajaj in jail seeking his help in formulating their improvised explosive mixtures and recovering the bombmaking manuals, the calls were not traced. It was not until after the bombing that Ajaj’s involvement was discovered, and he was convicted and sentenced.

These kinds of oversights would not occur now. Furthermore, the attitude of the public today makes it far more difficult for a conspirator like Nidal Ayyad to order chemicals used to construct a bomb, or for the conspirators to receive and store such chemicals in a rented storage space without being reported to the authorities.

Another change in attitude has been on the legal front. Prior to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, there were no “terrorism” statutes concerning the use of weapons of mass destruction or acts of terrorism transcending national borders. Instead, prosecutors in terrorism cases struggled to apply existing laws. The defendants in the 1993 New York bomb plot case were not charged with conspiring to build bombs or commit acts of international terrorism. Rather, they were convicted on “seditious conspiracy” charges. Similarly, Salameh was convicted of violating the Special Agricultural Worker program and with damaging U.S. Secret Service cars stored in the basement of the World Trade Center building.

The U.S. security environment has indeed improved dramatically since 1993, largely as a result of the sweeping changes in attitude, though also to some extent due to the magnet effect of the war in Iraq. Success can engender complacency, however, and the lack of attacks could allow attitudes — and thus counterterrorism resources — to swing back toward the other end of the spectrum.

Iraq: The Upcoming Jihadist Exodus

Dec. 4, 2007

The top jihadist leader in Iraq called Dec. 4 for a fresh bombing campaign against Iraqi security forces. In a 42-minute audio message, which surfaced on the Internet, Islamic State of Iraq leader Abu Omar al-Baghdadi said every soldier in his group must explode at least three bombs by the end of January. He further said the attacks should target the “unbelievers who wear uniforms and all those who fight alongside the occupiers.” Al-Baghdadi announced the formation of a special unit, the al-Siddique Brigade, which is tasked with attacking Sunni tribal militia aligned with the U.S. military against the jihadists.

The message comes on the heels of significant — perhaps devastating — jihadist losses and a serious decline in their operational capability in recent months. Therefore, it suggests the jihadists not only are on the defensive, but also are getting quite desperate over seeing their sphere of operations shrink in Iraq. The Iraqi node of al Qaeda and its local allies, including the Islamic State of Iraq, know their future in Iraq is limited for four reasons: there is a Shiite majority in the country; the sectarian strife the jihadists triggered remains within acceptable levels; Sunnis have turned against them en masse; and a U.S.-Iranian understanding is making progress. Therefore, while stirring the Iraq pot as much as possible, they also must be working on an exit strategy, which entails relocating to other countries.

The available options include Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and Kuwait — all of which to one extent or another facilitated the flow of jihadists into Iraq. In the case of the Saudis, Jordanians and Kuwaitis, it was meant to counter the rise of the Shia and Iran after the collapse of the Baathist regime. However, the states always intended this flow to be one-way, and would not want to see a repeat of what happened after the Soviets left Afghanistan and the Islamist militants returned to their home countries to wreak havoc. But the question is whether these states can prevent the jihadists from returning.

Complicating this issue is the desire on the part of the Arab states (with the exception of Syria) to prevent Iran from consolidating its influence in Iraq, especially after the recent U.S. National Intelligence Estimate. That report will likely lead to an understanding between the United States and Iran — one that would institutionalize Shiite dominance in Iraq, something every Sunni Arab state fears.

While the Arab states do not want militants to operate on their respective soils, they do want to harness them as a tool to counter Iran and the Shia. Similar to the Pakistanis ambivalent take on jihadists, the Arabs — especially the Saudis — are unsure how to achieve both goals.

This is a very serious dilemma for the Saudis, who are caught between a rock and a hard place — not just at the state level. Even within society, the tug of war between those calling for reforms and those trying to limit the reforms is making it more difficult to determine a position on dealing with the jihadists. For now, both Riyadh and Islamabad must determine how to keep the rogue elements separate from those they still can control. There also are some in both states who are calling for a complete end to the flirtation with the jihadists.

The Syrian government also has been making use of jihadists in the Lebanese context, though Damascus will have a hard time cooperating with the United States and Iran on Iraq while continuing to deploy Sunni Islamist militants in Lebanon. In the process, the government is likely to get burned at home.

Jihadists fleeing Iraq also could seek to relocate their operations to Afghanistan/Pakistan, Central Asia or North Africa. Quite a few Libyans and Algerians went to fight in Iraq, for example. The return of these jihadists, however, could pose a threat to ongoing moves by Tripoli and Algiers to open up their respective energy sectors for Western investment. The fear of attacks, instability and economic damage will prompt many Arab/Muslim states to try to block the flow of fleeing fighters from Iraq.

It is too early to say whether these efforts will succeed. However, in the post-9/11 global security environment — which limits the jihadists’ freedom of movement — these relocations will not rise up to the levels seen from Afghanistan in 1989 or even in 2001.

Algeria: Attack Raises Questions About Westerners' Safety

Dec. 11, 2007

Ten U.N. personnel were among the casualties Dec. 11 in one of the two bombings that struck the Algerian capital of Algiers. Thus far, Algerian jihadists’ main targets have been government facilities and personnel, especially security forces. The Dec. 11 attack, however, was designed to hit Western installations. This calls into question the country’s safety for Westerners and the security forces’ capabilities in containing the insurgency, which appears to be fairly resistant to both internal and external threats.

The current situation with the Islamist militancy needs to be placed in the context of the circumstances in Algeria when it ceased being a single-party state and became one where multiple political forces are struggling for power. In the aftermath of the 1990-1991 electoral experiment — which was halted because the country’s main Islamist movement, the Front Islamique de Salut, was slated to win by landslide — the country saw the rise of a major Islamist insurgency. But by the end of the decade the insurgency had lost steam; internal schisms created at least three different militant groups, and the military-dominated state was able to undercut the militancy through a mixture of tough crackdowns and amnesty offers.

Since then, the insurgency largely has been contained despite the recent resurgence in the wake of the establishment of the regional node of al Qaeda, when Algeria’s main Islamist militant group the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat joined forces with its counterparts in neighboring Morocco, Tunisia, and Libya to form the al Qaeda Organization for the Countries of the Arab Maghreb (AQCAM). This organizational restructuring has allowed the militants to improve their abilities to stage attacks, especially in terms of frequency. However, the increase in attacks has not changed the reality on the ground.

This is partly because of the variance in strategic targeting guidance the al Qaeda apex leadership has offered and the regional commanders’ abilities to put it into practice locally. This is seen not only in an apparent split in AQCAM about targeting former rebel leaders but also in AQCAM’s continued emphasis on attacking security forces rather than more strategic targets that would harm Western interests, such as Algeria’s energy infrastructure. Whereas al Qaeda’s apex leadership fully understands the necessity of maintaining a local support base, the local commanders can be shortsighted in their goals by focusing their fight on the near enemy and thus failing to see the jihadist movement’s larger vision. This latest attack represents a compromise of sorts between the two views, because it struck both security forces and foreigners.

The problems associated with Islamism and jihadism in Algeria are far from being resolved, but the bottom line is that the insurgency is a security issue as opposed to one that threatens political stability. Much of this is because the military, which dominates the state, has gained a lot of experience in dealing with Islamist militants in the last 17 years. That said, the perceptions of security can shape the behavior of Westerners seeking to do business in the country.

Because their economy depends heavily on energy, Algerians are very sensitive to Western perceptions — especially when Algiers is trying to push ahead with development projects and deals with international firms. Therefore, the state will give the security of foreigners and the energy sector priority over other areas. Furthermore, most of the Western firms are located out in the desert near the energy fields in the South. Those areas are isolated and better secured, and there are very few attacks out there.

Algeria’s militancy problem is unlikely to subside anytime soon, especially with the potential for militants with experience in Iraq to relocate to the North African theater. Periodic attacks can be expected — and there is a potential for attacks elsewhere in North Africa, such as Morocco — but a significant deterioration in the security and political conditions is unlikely.

U.S.: The Role and Limitations of the 'Dark Web' In Jihadist Training

Dec. 11, 2007

Security experts have warned in recent weeks that Western governments have ceded control of the Internet to jihadists, the World Tribune reported Dec. 10. In a conference on Internet security at Germany’s Federal Police Office headquarters Nov. 21, Western experts argued that the United States and a number of EU countries have failed to understand the efficacy of pro-al Qaeda Web sites — or the “Dark Web” — to recruit and train new operatives, and have written off such Web sites as propaganda.

According to these Western experts, al Qaeda has been so successful in its exploitation of the Internet that it has closed training camps in Afghanistan, though this somewhat understates the role of the U.S. military in closing the camps. Gabriel Weimann, a professor in Israel and Germany, told the conference that al Qaeda has made a shift and is now able to indoctrinate, train and mobilize new recruits and turn them into jihadist militants via practical Web sites that illustrate how to handle weapons, carry out kidnappings and make bombs. The Internet — specifically Google Earth — has also reduced jihadists’ need for target reconnaissance. Although the Internet has been a boon for grassroots cells in spreading their ideology and recruiting new acolytes, the Web has some serious limitations as a terrorism enabler. Some things are very difficult to accomplish online — namely, absorbing technical information and the tradecraft of terrorism and applying it to a real-world situation, particularly in a dangerous environment.

Since 9/11, blogs, chat rooms and Web sites have experienced an increase in popularity among jihadists. Often, these jihadist “cyberwarriors” — usually in their late teens or early 20s — join or form grassroots cells and become “al Qaeda 3.0 or 4.0” operatives.

However, the application of technical skills (bomb-making, targeting, and deployment) often requires subtle and complex abilities that one cannot perfect simply by reading about them. It is quite difficult to follow written instructions and build a perfectly functioning improvised explosive device from scratch; as with any scientific endeavor, trial and error and testing in the real world usually are required. Bomb-making is a talent best learned from an experienced teacher (and many potential teachers have blown themselves up in pursuit of expert-level skills). Without such a teacher and hands-on experience, there is a steep learning curve, and much trial and error is required.

Additionally, tradecraft — those intuitive skills needed to sustain secrecy and operations in a hostile environment — are essential to both the individual jihadist and his network. History has shown repeatedly that — even when preoperational planning and other activities have begun in cyberspace — as a matter of routine, jihadists conduct target surveillance in the physical world and carry out dry runs when possible. While Google Earth might be an efficient tool for mapping and coordinating an attack, it does not negate the need for preoperational surveillance. Jihadists recognize, as do law enforcement agents, that however detailed a picture of a target might appear on a Web site, it is an incomplete snapshot of reality that has been frozen in time. Successful attacks depend on knowledge of large swathes of terrain, security routines and other details that cannot be obtained from videos or photographs.

Although these Web sites are not going to produce super-jihadists, the challenge remains for law enforcement agencies to identify and remove dangerous sites quickly and to develop Web monitoring programs in an attempt to track those using them as part of counterterrorism efforts. As these sites proliferate, so does the attention devoted to them. It is important to note that visiting such Web sites is an operational security hazard that can allow counterterrorism forces to identify potential militants and close in on them, as they did in Canada in the summer of 2006 and in Atlanta before that.

Al Qaeda Organization for the Countries of the Arab Maghreb:

A Timeline of Attacks

Dec. 11, 2007

Below is a nonexhaustive list of attacks that followed the 2004 declaration of war on foreign people and companies by Algeria’s leading Islamic militant organization, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), which swore its allegiance to al Qaeda and became formally known as the al Qaeda Organization for the Countries of the Arab Maghreb in September 2006.

2004

• March 10: Abdennacer Abou Hafs, an imam from El Harrach, is assassinated for alleged collaboration with the Algerian security services; GSPC claims responsibility.

• March 16: Gunmen ambush two ambulances traveling along the Medea-Berrouaghia road. Eight people die and two are wounded. GSPC is suspected in the attack.

• May 18: Two bombs explode, killing two soldiers and wounding 13 people, including four soldiers, in eastern Algeria.

• June 2: GSPC insurgents ambush an Algerian military convoy in eastern Algeria. Ten soldiers are killed and 45 are wounded.

• June 21: A car bomb injures 11 people and damages the main electricity plant in the capital, Algiers; GSPC claims responsibility.

• Aug. 22: A bomb explodes outside Boumerdes. No casualties are reported; GSPC is suspected in the attack.

• Sept. 20: GSPC insurgents kill four people at a roadblock set up by militants near the village of Kalous, in Bouira province, about 75 miles southeast of Algiers.

• Sept. 29: GSPC insurgents attack a civil defense post near the city of Ain Defla, about 70 miles west of Algiers, killing six civil defense force soldiers.

• Oct. 22: GSPC insurgents are suspected of an attack against a vehicle near Medea, 50 miles south of Algiers, carrying fans to a football match in Algiers. Sixteen people die in the attack.

• Dec. 13: GSPC insurgents shoot an individual dead at point-blank range in Corso. GSPC’s motives are unknown.

2005

• Jan. 7: A GSPC attack against a military convoy at Biskra kills 13 soldiers and five civilians.

• April 9: GSPC is suspected of killing 14 people at a fake roadblock in Larbaa, about 18 miles south of Algiers.

• May 15: GSPC insurgents are suspected of ambushing an army convoy in the region of Khenchela and killing 12 soldiers.

• June 5: An attack against a military base in neighboring Mauritania on the Mauritania-Algeria border kills 15 soldiers; GSPC is thought to be involved.

• June 9: An explosive device kills 13 local government guards in a truck in Algeria’s Msila region, southeast of Algiers; GSPC is suspected.

• June 13: A roadside explosion 27 miles west of Tipaza kills three soldiers and two civilians, and wounds five others. The target was a government convoy transporting exam papers; no suspects are known.

• June 18: A homemade bomb explodes while police search the El-Djer area. The explosion kills the head of the Djelfa Judicial Police Mobile Brigade. A group associated with GSPC is suspected.

• July 18: Five police officers and forest rangers fighting a forest fire are killed when their vehicle comes under fire in the Ain Defla region, 75 miles from Algiers. GSPC is suspected.

• Sept. 1: The mayor of Ammal is killed by insurgents aligned with the GSPC.

• Sept. 14: Three soldiers and a police officer are killed in Boumerdes, 31 miles east of Algiers. GSPC is suspected.

• Sept. 16: Unknown assailants launch an attack in Siouane, 9 miles from Ouled Attia. The assailants slit the throats of two elderly men and engage security forces in a gunfight, killing two and wounding four.

• Sept. 22: Ten people, including seven soldiers, are killed in two attacks in eastern Algeria. Unidentified Islamic militants are suspected.

• Sept. 25: Five security forces members are killed and five are wounded in attacks attributed to militants in the Aid Defla region, about 100 miles west of Algiers; in Rebahia, near Saida, 267 miles southeast of Algiers; and in the Boumerdes region, 31 miles east of Algiers. Unidentified Islamic militants are suspected.

2006

• April 7: Thirteen people are killed when GSPC insurgents ambush a government convoy in the desert region of Ghardia, 435 miles south of Algiers, targeting customs agents on their way to a seminar in Ouargla.

• April 26: A suicide bomber attacks the base of the Multinational Forces and Observers at al-Jura, wounding two members of the force. Nasser Khamis al-Mallahi, the leader of Sinai-based extremists, is identified as the mastermind behind the plot.

• June 20: Five civilians are killed in fighting between Algerian troops and insurgents in Khenchela. GSPC is believed to be responsible for the attack.

• June 21: Seven soldiers are killed in fighting with insurgents in Ghzerwal; GSPC is suspected.

• July 12: Five municipal guards are killed in an ambush in the province of Tipasa; GSPC is suspected.

• July 20: GSPC insurgents are suspected of killing four government municipal guards in the mountainous area in Ain Defla province, 93 miles southwest of Algiers.

• Aug. 29: A roadblock manned by police in the city of El-Kseur is attacked by insurgents believed to be associated with GSPC. Two policemen and one civilian are killed.

• September 2006: GSPC officially swears allegiance to al Qaeda.

• Sept. 2: Six soldiers are killed in separate clashes — four die on the road in the Adekar forest, 160 miles east of Algiers, and two in an ambush in the Ouled Hamza area near Medea, 50 miles south of Algiers. GSPC is suspected.

• Oct. 19: An explosive device detonates at a police station in El Harrach, an eastern suburb of Algiers. Separately, a fuel cistern belonging to the French company Razel explodes in Lakhdaria. GSPC is suspected in both attacks.

• Oct. 29: Near-simultaneous truck bomb attacks target two Algerian police stations in Reghaia and Dergana, 12 miles east of Algiers. GSPC is suspected.

• Nov. 3: Fifteen militants ambush an army patrol in the Ain Defla region, killing eight soldiers. The El Farouk arm of the GSPC is responsible.

• Nov. 9: Seven members of Algeria’s security forces are killed and 13 are wounded in an ambush during a cleanup operation in the Begasse forest, in the Bouira region. GSPC insurgents are responsible.

• Nov. 20: The GSPC is instructed to form a unified command with Morocco’s Islamic Combatant Group, Libya’s Islamic Fighting Group and several Tunisian groups — most notably the Tunisian Combatant Group. The new organization reportedly will be called The Union of the Arab Maghreb.

• Nov. 21: GSPC shoots down a military helicopter, killing three soldiers and two local guards.

• Dec. 10: Two minibuses carrying expatriate employees of the Halliburton subsidiary Brown and Root-Condor and the Algerian Sonatrach oil company are targeted in a bomb and gun attack at Bouchaoui, a western suburb of Algiers. One Algerian and one Lebanese die, and nine foreigners are wounded. GSPC claims responsibility.

2007

• January 2007: The GSPC formally changes its name to the al Qaeda Organization for the Countries of the Arab Maghreb (AQCAM) after receiving “permission” from Osama bin Laden.

• Jan. 24: A roadside bomb explodes beneath a military vehicle in eastern Algeria, killing a soldier and wounding eight. AQCAM is responsible.

• Feb. 6: The mayor of Benchoud is assassinated outside his home. No group claims responsibility, but AQCAM operates in the area.

• Feb. 12: Seven bombs explode nearly simultaneously east of Algiers, killing six people, including two police officers, and injuring 13, including 10 security guards. Five of the bombs were placed in cars. AQCAM claims responsibility.

• March 3: A roadside bomb explodes near a Russian convoy. Seven employees of the Stroytransgaz company die; four are Russian/Ukrainian and three are Algerian. AQCAM claims responsibility.

• April 11: Suicide bombings in the Algerian capital reportedly kill at least 17 people.

• May 13: An unknown group attacks a police target in Constantine. The attackers plant a makeshift bomb at a police checkpoint. The blast kills a police officer and wounds two others.

• July 5: The Algerian governor of Tizi Ouzou survives a roadside bomb attack targeting his car. The bomb is planted in a drainage pipe along a local highway. A policeman in a separate car is wounded. AQCAM is suspected.

• July 11: A suicide bomber detonates at a military barracks, killing himself and eight others in the Kabylie region. AQCAM is suspected.

• July 20: Nine railroad cars derail when AQCAM attacks a fuel freight train 9 miles southeast of Boumerdes.

• Aug. 14: A car bombing in the eastern Larba suburb of Algeria’s capital, Algiers, critically injures Mustafa Kertali, a former Islamist leader who renounced violence in 1999.

• Sept. 6: A suicide attack targeting President Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s convoy in the eastern town of Batna kills 22 people and wounds more than 100. AQCAM is thought to be responsible.

• Sept. 8: A suicide attack against a coast guard barracks at Dellys, east of Algiers, leaves 30 people dead and 40 wounded. AQCAM is responsible.

• Sept. 21: A suicide bomber rams a car filled with explosives into a convoy east of Algiers, wounding two French engineers and an Italian, only hours after al Qaeda calls for an offensive against French targets.

• Nov. 10: AQCAM insurgents damage a plane during an attack at Djanet airport in far southeastern Algeria; the terrorists escape across the border into Niger.

• Dec. 11: Two bomb attacks, one targeting the U.N. refugee agency, in Algiers kill at least 52 people, with foreigners among the casualties.

Al Qaeda in 2008: The Struggle for Relevance

Dec. 19, 2007

On Dec. 16, al Qaeda’s As-Sahab media branch released a 97-minute video message from al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri. In the message, titled “A Review of Events,” al-Zawahiri readdressed a number of his favorite topics at length.

This video appeared just two days after As-Sahab released a 20-minute al-Zawahiri message titled “Annapolis — The Treason.” In that message, al-Zawahiri speaks on audio tape while a still photograph of him is displayed over a montage of photos from the peace conference in Annapolis, Md. As the title implies, al-Zawahiri criticizes the conference.

Although the Dec. 14 release appeared first, it obviously was recorded after the Dec. 16 video. Given the content of the Dec. 14 message, it most likely was recorded shortly after the Nov. 27 Annapolis conference and before the Dec. 11 twin bombings in Algeria. The two latest releases are interrelated, however, given that the still photo of al-Zawahiri used in the Dec. 14 message appears to have been captured from the video released two days later.

After having been subjected to two hours of al-Zawahiri opinions in just two days, we cannot help but wonder whether anyone else is listening to this guy — and, if so, why? This question is particularly appropriate now, as we come to the time of the year when we traditionally prepare our annual forecast on al Qaeda. As we look ahead to 2008, the core al Qaeda leadership clearly is struggling to remain relevant in the ideological realm, a daunting task for an organization that has been rendered geopolitically and strategically impotent on the physical battlefield.

Devolution

The theme of our 2007 al Qaeda forecast was the continuation of the metamorphosis of al Qaeda from a smaller core group of professional operatives into an operational model that encourages independent “grassroots” jihadists to conduct attacks, or into a model in which al Qaeda provides the operational commanders who organize grassroots cells. We referred to this shift as devolution because it signified a return to al Qaeda’s pre-9/11 model.

We noted that the shift gave al Qaeda “the movement” a broader geographic and operational reach than al Qaeda “the group,” but we also said that this larger, dispersed group of actors lacked the operational depth and expertise of the core group and its well-trained terrorist cadre.

Looking back at the successful, attempted and thwarted attacks in 2007, this prediction was largely on-target. The high-profile attacks and thwarted attacks were plotted by grassroots groups such as the one responsible for the attacks in London and Glasgow, Scotland, or by regional affiliates such as al Qaeda’s franchise in Algeria, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). The core al Qaeda group once again failed to conduct any attacks.

British authorities have indicated that the men responsible for the failed London and Glasgow attempts were linked in some way to al Qaeda in Iraq, though any such links must have been fairly inconsequential. The al Qaeda franchise in Iraq has conducted hundreds of successful bombings and has a considerable amount of experience in tradecraft and bombmaking, while the London and Glasgow attempts showed a decided lack of tradecraft and bombmaking skills.

Regional Franchises

The al Qaeda nodes in Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula and Indonesia were all quiet this year. The Egyptian node has not carried out a successful attack since announcing its allegiance to al Qaeda in August 2006. Jemaah Islamiyah, al Qaeda’s Indonesian franchise, has not conducted a successful attack since the October 2005 Bali bombing, and the Sinai node, Tawhid wa al-Jihad, did not conduct any attacks in 2007. Its last attack was in April 2006.

The Saudi franchise conducted only one successful operation in 2007, a small-arms attack against a group of French and Belgian nationals picnicking near Medina, which resulted in the deaths of four Frenchmen. This is a far cry from the peak of its operational activities during the summer of 2004. The Yemen node also conducted one attack, as it did in 2006, a July 2 suicide car bombing against a tourist convoy that resulted in the deaths of eight Spaniards. The Moroccan element of AQIM attempted to carry out attacks in March and April, though the group’s inept tactics and inadequate planning resulted in the deaths of more suicide bombers than victims.

These regional nodes largely have been brought under control by a series of successful campaigns against them. Police operations in Saudi Arabia, the Sinai and Indonesia have provided some evidence that the groups have been trying to regroup and refit. Therefore, the campaigns against these regional nodes will need to remain in place for the foreseeable future to ensure that these organizations do not reconstitute themselves and resume operations.

We noted in our 2007 forecast that AQIM had not yet proven itself. However, the series of attacks by AQIM this year demonstrated that the group is resourceful and resilient, even in the face of Algerian government operations and ideological divisions. In fact, AQIM was the most prolific and deadly group in 2007 outside of the active war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. With al Qaeda in Iraq facing serious problems, AQIM is in many ways carrying the torch for the jihadist movement. With other regional nodes seemingly under control, the U.S. and other governments now can pay more attention to AQIM. Throughout the coming year, the Algerian government likely will receive much more assistance from the United States and its allies in its efforts to dismantle the group. AQIM — the former Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) — has existed since the early 1990s and its dedicated cadre has survived many attempts to eliminate it — though it likely will be pressed hard over the next year.

In a Nov. 3 audio message, al-Zawahiri said the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) had formally joined the al Qaeda network. This came as no real surprise, given that members of the group have long been close to Osama bin Laden, and al Qaeda has a large number of Libyan cadre, including Abu Yahya al-Libi, Anas al-Libi and Abu Faraj al-Libi (who reportedly is being held by U.S. forces at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.) The LIFG-al Qaeda link became apparent in September 2001, when the U.S. government identified the LIFG as a specially designated terrorist entity (along with the GSPC and others.)

Although Libyans have played a large role in al Qaeda and the global jihadist movement, the LIFG itself has been unable to conduct any significant attacks. Historically, Libyan security forces have kept the LIFG in check to the point that most high-profile Libyan jihadists operate outside Libya — unlike the AQIM leadership, which operates within Algeria. It will be important to watch this new node to see whether it can ramp up its capabilities to conduct meaningful operations inside Libya, or even in other countries where the group has a presence — though we doubt it will be able to pose a serious threat to the Libyan regime.

Another relatively new jihadist presence appeared on the radar screen Feb. 13, when the Fatah al-Islam group bombed two buses in the Lebanese Christian enclave of Ain Alaq, killing three people. Following the Lebanese army’s efforts to arrest those group members believed responsible for the bombing, the group holed up in the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon, where it endured a siege by the Lebanese army that began in March and lasted until early September. Shaker al-Abssi, the leader of Fatah al-Islam, is said to have links to former al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Along with al-Zarqawi, al-Abssi was sentenced to death in Jordan for his suspected involvement in the 2002 killing of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in Amman. He served a three-year jail sentence in Syria and then moved into Nahr el-Bared to establish Fatah al-Islam, which is believed to be controlled by Syrian intelligence. While Fatah al-Islam lost many of its fighters during the five-month siege, we have received intelligence reports suggesting that the Syrians are helping the group recover. The intelligence also suggests that the more the Syrians cooperate with U.S. objectives in Iraq, the more they will press the use of their jihadist proxies in Lebanon. In pursuing such a course, the Syrians are playing with fire, which may well come to haunt them, as it has the Saudis and Pakistanis.

Iraq’s Contribution

Events in Iraq likely will have a significant impact on the global jihadist movement in the coming year. Since the death of al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda in Iraq’s operational ability steadily has declined. Furthermore, the organization appears to be losing its support among the Iraqi Sunnis and apparently has had problems getting foreign fighters into the country as of late. This could indicate that there will soon be an exodus of jihadists from the country. These jihadists, who have been winnowed and hardened by their combat against the U.S. military, might find the pastures greener in the countries they enter after leaving Iraq. Like the mujahideen who left Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal, they could go on to pose a real threat elsewhere.

Additionally, since 2003 Iraq has been a veritable jihadist magnet, drawing jihadists from all over the world. If there is no possibility of seeking “martyrdom” in Iraq, these men (and a few women) will have to find another place to embrace their doom. The coalition’s list of foreign jihadists killed in Iraq shows that most of the fighters have come to the country from places such as Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Morocco, but jihadists also have come from many other countries, including the United States, United Kingdom and European Union. Jihadists in these places might opt to follow the example of the July 2005 London bombers and martyr themselves in their countries of residence.

Jihadists in Iraq have had the luxury of having an extensive amount of military ordnance at their disposal. This ordnance has made it relatively simple to construct improvised explosive devices, including large truck bombs. This, in turn, has made it possible to engage hard targets — such as U.S. military bases and convoys. Jihadists without access to these types of weapons (and the type of training they received in Iraq) will be more likely to engage soft targets. In fact, the only group we saw with the expertise and ordnance to hit hard targets outside of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007 was AQIM. As we forecast for 2006 and 2007, we anticipate that the trend toward attacking soft targets will continue in 2008.

Afghanistan and Pakistan

Despite U.S. and NATO forces’ repeated tactical victories on the battlefield, al Qaeda’s Afghan allies, the Taliban, continue to survive — the critical task for any guerrilla force engaged in an insurgent war. Following a pattern that has been repeated many times throughout Afghan history — most recently in the war following the Soviet invasion — the Taliban largely seek to avoid extended battles and instead seek to engage in hit-and-run guerrilla operations. This is because they realize that they cannot stand toe-to-toe with the superior armaments of the foreign invaders. Indeed, when they have tried to stand and fight, they have taken heavy losses. Therefore, they occasionally will occupy a town, such as Musa Qala, but will retreat in the face of overwhelming force and return when that superior force has been deployed elsewhere.

Due to the presence of foreign troops, the Taliban have no hope of taking control of Afghanistan at this juncture. However, unlike the foreign troops, the Taliban fighters and their commanders are not going anywhere. They have a patient philosophy and will bide their time until the tactical or political conditions change in their favor. Meanwhile, they are willing to continue their guerrilla campaign and sustain levels of casualties that would be politically untenable for their U.S. and NATO rivals. The Taliban have a very diffuse structure, and even the loss of senior leaders such as Mullah Dadullah and Mullah Obaidullah Akhund has not proven to be much of a hindrance.

Just over the border from Afghanistan, Pakistan has witnessed the rapid spread of Talibanization. As a result, Islamabad now is fighting a jihadist insurgency of its own in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the North-West Frontier Province. The spread of this ideology beyond the border areas was perhaps best demonstrated by the July assault by the Pakistani army against militants barricaded inside the Red Mosque in Islamabad. Since the assault against the mosque, Pakistan has been wracked by a wave of suicide bombings.

Pakistan should be carefully watched because it could prove to be a significant flash point in the coming year. As the global headquarters for the al Qaeda leadership, Pakistan has long been a significant stronghold on the ideological battlefield. If the trend toward radicalization continues there, the country also could become the new center of gravity for the jihadist movement on the physical battlefield. Pakistan will become especially important if the trend in Iraq continues to go against the jihadists and they are driven from Iraq.

The Year Ahead

Given the relative ease of getting an operative into the United States, the sheer number of soft targets across the vast country and the simplicity of conducting an attack, we remain surprised that no jihadist attack occurred on U.S. soil in 2007. However, we continue to believe that the United States, as well as Europe, remains vulnerable to tactical-level jihadist strikes — though we do not believe that the jihadists have the capability to launch a strategically significant attack, even if they were to employ chemical, biological or radiological weapons.

Jihadists have shown a historical fixation on using toxins and poisons. As STRATFOR repeatedly has pointed out, however, chemical and biological weapons are expensive to produce, difficult to use and largely ineffective in real-world applications. Radiological weapons (dirty bombs) also are far less effective than many people have been led to believe. In fact, history clearly has demonstrated that explosives are far cheaper, easier to use and more effective at killing people than these more exotic weapons. The failure by jihadists in Iraq to use chlorine effectively in their attacks has more recently underscored the problems associated with the use of improvised chemical weapons — the bombs killed far more people than the chlorine they were meant to disperse as a mass casualty weapon.

Al-Zawahiri’s messages over the past year clearly have reflected the pressure that the group is feeling. The repeated messages referencing Iraq and the need for unity among the jihadists there show that al-Zawahiri believes the momentum has shifted in Iraq and things are not going well for al Qaeda there. Tactically, al Qaeda’s Iraqi node still is killing people, but strategically the group’s hopes of establishing a caliphate there under the mantle of the Islamic State of Iraq have all but disappeared. These dashed hopes have caused the group to lash out against former allies, which has worsened al Qaeda’s position.

It also is clear that al Qaeda is feeling the weight of the ideological war against it — waged largely by Muslims. Al-Zawahiri repeatedly has lamented specific fatwas by Saudi clerics declaring that the jihad in Iraq is not obligatory and forbidding young Muslims from going to Iraq. In a message broadcast in July, al-Zawahiri said, “I would like to remind everyone that the most dangerous weapons in the Saudi-American system are not buying of loyalties, spying on behalf of the Americans or providing facilities to them. No, the most dangerous weapons of that system are those who outwardly profess advice, guidance and instruction …” In other words, al Qaeda fears fatwas more than weapons. Weapons can kill people — fatwas can kill the ideology that motivates people.

There are two battlegrounds in the war against jihadism: the physical and the ideological. Because of its operational security considerations, the al Qaeda core has been marginalized in the physical battle. This has caused it to abandon its position at the vanguard of the physical jihad and take up the mantle of leadership in the ideological battle. The core no longer poses a strategic threat to the United States in the physical world, but it is striving hard to remain relevant on the ideological battleground.

In many ways, the ideological battleground is more important than the physical war. It is far easier to kill people than it is to kill ideologies. Therefore, it is important to keep an eye on the ideological battleground to determine how that war is progressing. In the end, that is why it is important to listen to hours of al-Zawahiri statements. They contain clear signs regarding the status of the war against jihadism. The signs as of late indicate that the ideological war is not going so well for the jihadists, but they also point to potential hazards around the bend in places such as Pakistan and Lebanon.

Libya: The Jihadist Threat

Dec. 21, 2007

[pic]

The U.S. Military Academy at West Point released a report Dec. 19 on a series of captured al Qaeda documents that were discovered in a September raid in the city of Sinjar near the Syrian border. The report provides valuable insight into what is essentially al Qaeda in Iraq’s human resources department, with detailed records of foreign fighters’ hometowns, occupations, salaries and routes to Iraq.

What stood out most in the report was the growing Libyan component of al Qaeda in Iraq. According to the findings, 112 of the total 595 records state Libya as the militants’ country of origin. Unsurprisingly, the majority of militants (244) hailed from Saudi Arabia, but Libya contributed far more militants per capita than any other country, including Saudi Arabia. Based on a sample of Libyan fighters, the Sinjar Records also indicate a relative surge of Libyan recruits into Iraq between May and July 2007, with 30 out of a sample of 39 Libyans listing their arrival in that time frame.

Libyans made up a small contingent of foreign fighters in Iraq in the past, with most estimates ranging around 4 percent. The Sinjar Records, however, reveal a significant influx of Libyan recruits, which is bound to have Tripoli worried. While the jihadists in Iraq gradually lose their support base as more Iraqi Sunni insurgents buy into the political process, the impetus is on the region’s jihadist breeding states to insulate themselves from the coming exodus of hardened, trained Iraq veterans. The vast majority of foreign fighters listed “student” as their home occupation and were around 24-25 years old. The biggest fear of Iraq’s neighboring Sunni regimes is that with minimal education and professional experience, the occupation these young fighters will be most trained for when they return home is insurgency.

[pic]

But of all the jihadist-producing states, Libya is in the strongest position to prevent a rise in militancy within its borders. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has run Libya as a police state since he took power in a military coup in 1969. In the early 1990s, a sizable group of Libyan jihadists who fought alongside Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets returned home and launched a militant campaign aimed at toppling Gadhafi. The group formally became the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in 1995, and carried out a low-level insurgency that included assassination attempts targeting Gadhafi and attacks against military and police patrols. Gadhafi responded with an iron fist and essentially imposed martial law in the Islamist militant strongholds of Darnah, Benghazi and the towns of Ras al-Helal and al-Qubbah in the Jabal al-Akhdar region — the same northeast mountainous regions the bulk of today’s Libyan recruits into Iraq call home. After a series of military crackdowns, Gadhafi gained the upper hand in dealing with his Islamist militant opponents, and the insurgency tapered off by the end of the 1990s.

[pic]

Since then, a number of Libyans have popped up in al Qaeda’s core leadership, including Anas al-Libi, one of the key planners of the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; Ibn al Sheikh al-Libi, a commander of Osama bin Laden’s al-Khaldan training camp in Afghanistan; Abu Hafs al-Libi, a chief associate of the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq; Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior al Qaeda commander and media personality in Afghanistan; and Abu Farj al-Libi, now in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, who was known as al Qaeda’s No. 3 leader and director of operations and the mastermind of two assassination attempts against Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

As a sparsely populated desert country with an extremely adept security apparatus and a relatively moderate Islamist pulse, Libya is not an easy country in which to sustain a viable jihadist insurgency. With limited options at home, a large number of Libyans have consistently gone overseas to fulfill their jihadist aims. The bleak insurgent options in Libya could lead many of these fighters to relocate from Iraq to Afghanistan, where jihadist forces are in a stronger position to wage attacks.

But this does not mean Libya is entirely in the clear. Tripoli cannot rule out that a sizable number of Libyan Iraq veterans could join together and return home to revive the insurgency, particularly after the LIFG formally joined al Qaeda on Nov. 3 in an announcement by al Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Though the Libyan al Qaeda node has yet to stage any significant attacks in Libya, Tripoli has warily observed how the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat in neighboring Algeria widened its targeting criteria and made significant advances in bombing techniques after joining the al Qaeda bandwagon in September 2006.

According to the Sinjar Records, Libyans and Moroccans formed an overwhelming majority of militants who listed themselves as “suicide bombers” rather than “fighters” upon entering Iraq. Saudis, on the other hand, were relatively split between suicide bombers and fighters. This is likely a reflection of the variance in skill set between the North African and Saudi nodes. Whereas the Saudis have more experience in tactical planning on the battleground, the Libyans and Moroccans, who have limited insurgency experience in their home countries, are more expendable as suicide bombers.

[pic]

The past decade has been good to Gadhafi’s regime. The Sept. 11 attacks created an opportunity for the United States and Libya to warm up to each other through intelligence sharing, and Libya is in a prime spot to become an energy superpower by boosting Western investment in its energy sector now that the nuclear and Bulgarian nurse sagas are wrapped up. Gadhafi also has made way for the empowerment of his son and likely heir, Seif al-Islam, to maintain a firm grip over the country. But the more Iraq’s security environment turns inhospitable to the jihadists, the more Tripoli has to be concerned about as the Libyan jihadist contingent makes plans for the future.

Pakistan: Al Qaeda’s Break with Al Jazeera

Dec. 29, 2007

Al Qaeda’s Dec. 28 claim of responsibility for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was not transmitted through the organization’s usual messenger, Al Jazeera. This change probably resulted from a deal between the United States, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Rather than using Al Jazeera, al Qaeda spokesman Al Qaeda Mustafa Abu al-Yazid — likely working through elements connected to Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus— transmitted a message via phone to Italian news agency Adnkronos International (AKI) and Hong Kong-based Asia Times Online. Asia Times Online previously has published several articles quoting both Pakistani intelligence and jihadist sources.

The other announcement concerning al Qaeda’s involvement in the attack also originated in the Pakistani security establishment. The Pakistani Interior Ministry said the government intercepted a conversation in Pashto between Baitullah Mehsud, Pakistan’s most prominent Taliban leader, and an al Qaeda commander identified as Maulvi Sahib in which both men congratulate each other for the “spectacular job.” With blame already being cast on the government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for the assassination, the government evidently is taking great care in trying to clear itself of any involvement in the attack.

Both AKI and Asia Times published a message by al-Yazid saying that “We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen.” Both news agencies also reported that al Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri made the decision to kill Bhutto in October.

A new recording from Osama bin Laden produced by al Qaeda’s As-Sahab media arm further illustrates al Qaeda’s apparent break with Al Jazeera. The full 56-minute recording entitled “The Path to Foiling Plots in Iraq” soon will be posted on an Islamist Web site, though whether in audio or video format remains unclear. The Web site announcement included a statement reading “May God expose the cover-up by Al Jazeera, the channel of the infidels.”

The fresh criticism against Al Jazeera stems from a shift in the Qatar-based channel’s coverage of al Qaeda activity. In late October, al Qaeda sympathizers posted a flurry of denunciations of Al Jazeera on a popular Islamist Web forum. The bulk of the messages focused on how Al Jazeera purportedly has misrepresented al Qaeda in Iraq by emphasizing excerpts in which bin Laden criticizes insurgents in Iraq and urges them to admit mistakes and unify — and by illustrating the divisions al Qaeda in Iraq is experiencing as its support base among the Sunni population erodes.

The shift in Al Jazeera’s al Qaeda coverage probably resulted from negotiations between Doha, Qatar; Riyadh, and Washington. The Qatari government has come under pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia to rein in Al Jazeera and aid in Washington’s and Riyadh’s efforts to undermine support for al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Jazeera’s modification follows a recent rapprochement between Qatar and Saudi Arabia that emerged in a December deal between the two governments with several breakthroughs that included the return of Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Qatar. (Saudi Arabia has not had an ambassador in Qatar since 2003, when the Saudi ambassador was withdrawn over an Al Jazeera broadcast critical of the Saudi royal family.) The deal also included Saudi King Abdullah’s attendance at the Gulf Cooperation Council in Doha in December. (King Abdullah has boycotted the meeting since it was last hosted in Doha, in 2002.) Finally, the deal provided that Qatar would ensure future Al Jazeera broadcasts no longer would “undermine” or campaign against Saudi Arabia; in exchange, Saudi Arabia would permit the network to establish a bureau in Riyadh.

Even before the thaw in Saudi-Qatari relations, al Qaeda had been wary of using Al Jazeera as its primary messenger. Al Qaeda faces operational security risks in delivering video messages to news agencies. Al-Zawahiri has curtailed his video appearances significantly since the October 2006 missile attack in Chingai, Pakistan. The organization increasingly has become reliant on uploading audio and video files to Web sites, making the statements harder to trace. With its ties cut to Al Jazeera, al Qaeda’s trust in its contact with news agencies like AKI and Asia Times Online now will be put to the test.

Pakistan, Bhutto and the U.S.-Jihadist Endgame

Jan. 2, 2008

The endgame of the U.S.-jihadist war always had to be played out in Pakistan. There are two reasons that could account for this. The first is simple: Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda command cell are located in Pakistan. The war cannot end while the command cell functions or has a chance of regenerating. The second reason is more complicated. The United States and NATO are engaged in a war in Afghanistan. Where the Soviets lost with 300,000 troops, the Americans and NATO are fighting with less than 50,000. Any hope of defeating the Taliban, or of reaching some sort of accommodation, depends on isolating them from Pakistan. So long as the Taliban have sanctuary and logistical support from Pakistan, transferring all coalition troops in Iraq to Afghanistan would have no effect. And withdrawing from Afghanistan would return the situation to the status quo before Sept. 11. If dealing with the Taliban and destroying al Qaeda are part of any endgame, the key lies in Pakistan.

U.S. strategy in Pakistan has been to support Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and rely on him to purge and shape his country’s army to the extent possible to gain its support in attacking al Qaeda in the North, contain Islamist radicals in the rest of the country and interdict supplies and reinforcements flowing to the Taliban from Pakistan. It was always understood that this strategy was triply flawed.

First, under the best of circumstances, a completely united and motivated Pakistani army’s ability to carry out this mission effectively was doubtful. And second, the Pakistani army was — and is — not completely united and motivated. Not only was it divided, one of its major divisions lay between Taliban supporters sympathetic to al Qaeda and a mixed bag of factions with other competing interests. Distinguishing between who was on which side in a complex and shifting constellation of relationships was just about impossible. That meant the army the United States was relying on to support the U.S. mission was, from the American viewpoint, inherently flawed.

It must be remembered that the mujahideen’s war against the Soviets in Afghanistan shaped the current Pakistani army. Allied with the Americans and Saudis, the Pakistani army — and particularly its intelligence apparatus, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) — had as its mission the creation of a jihadist force in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. The United States lost interest in Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet Union, but the Pakistanis did not have that option. Afghanistan was right next door. An interesting thing happened at that point. Having helped forge the mujahideen and its successor, the Taliban, the Pakistani army and ISI in turn were heavily influenced by their Afghan clients’ values. Patron and client became allies. And this created a military force that was extremely unreliable from the U.S. viewpoint.

Third, Musharraf’s intentions were inherently unpredictable. As a creature of the Pakistani army, Musharraf reflects all of the ambivalences and tensions of that institution. His primary interest was in holding on to power. To do that, he needed to avoid American military action in Pakistan while simultaneously reassuring radical Islamists he was not a mere tool of the United States. Given the complexity of his position, no one could ever be certain of where Musharraf stood. His position was entirely tactical, shifting as political necessity required. He was constantly placating the various parties, but since the process of placation for the Americans meant that he take action against the jihadists, constant ineffective action by Musharraf resulted. He took enough action to keep the Americans at bay, not enough to force his Islamist enemies to take effective action against him.

Ever since Sept. 11, Musharraf has walked this tightrope, shifting his balance from one side to the other, with the primary aim of not falling off the rope. This proved unsatisfactory to the United States, as well as to Musharraf’s Islamist opponents. While he irritated everybody, the view from all factions — inside and outside Pakistan — was that, given the circumstances, Musharraf was better than the alternative. Indeed, that could have been his campaign slogan: “Vote for Musharraf: Everything Else is Worse.”

From the U.S. point of view, Musharraf and the Pakistani army might have been unreliable, but any alternative imaginable would be even worse. Even if their actions were ineffective, some actions were taken. At the very least, they were not acting openly and consistently against the United States. Were Musharraf and the Pakistani army to act consistently against U.S. interests as Russian logistical support for U.S. operations in Afghanistan waned, the U.S./NATO position in Afghanistan could simply crack.

Therefore, the U.S. policy in Pakistan was to do everything possible to make certain Musharraf didn’t fall or, more precisely, to make sure the Pakistani army didn’t fragment and its leadership didn’t move into direct and open opposition to the United States. The United States understood that the more it pressed Musharraf and the more he gave, the less likely he was to survive and the less certain became the Pakistani army’s cohesion. Thus, the U.S. strategy was to press for action, but not to the point of destabilizing Pakistan beyond its natural instability. The priority was to maintain Musharraf in power, and failing that, to maintain the Pakistani army as a cohesive, non-Islamist force.

In all of this, there was one institution that, on the whole, had to support him. That was the Pakistani army. The Pakistani army was the one functioning national institution in Pakistan. For the senior leaders, it was a vehicle to maintain their own power and position. For the lowest enlisted man, the army was a means for upward mobility, an escape from the grinding poverty of the slums and villages. The Pakistani army obviously was factionalized, but no faction had an interest in seeing the army fragment. Their own futures were at stake. And therefore, so long as Musharraf kept the army together, they would live with him. Even the less radical Islamists took that view.

A single personality cannot maintain a balancing act like this indefinitely; one of three things will happen. First, he can fall off the rope and become the prisoner of one of the factions. Second, he can lose credibility with all factions — with the basic political configuration remaining intact but with the system putting forth a new personality to preside. Third, he can build up his power, crush the factions and start calling the shots. This last is the hardest strategy, because in this case, it would be converting a role held due to the lack of alternatives into a position of power. That is a long reach.

Nevertheless, that is why Musharraf decided to declare a state of emergency. No one was satisfied with him any longer, and pressure was building for him to “take off his uniform” — in other words, to turn the army over to someone else and rule as a civilian. Musharraf understood that it was only a matter of time before his personal position collapsed and the army realized that, given the circumstances, the collapse of Musharraf could mean the fragmentation of the army. Musharraf therefore tried to get control of the situation by declaring a state of emergency and getting the military backing for it. His goal was to convert the state of emergency — and taking off his uniform — into a position from which to consolidate his power.

It worked to an extent. The army backed the state of emergency. No senior leader challenged him. There were no mutinies among the troops. There was no general uprising. He was condemned by everyone from the jihadists to the Americans, but no one took any significant action against him. The situation was precarious, but it appeared he might well emerge from the state of emergency in a politically enhanced position. Enhanced was the best he could hope for. He would not be able to get off the tightrope, but at the same time, simply calling a state of emergency and not triggering a massive response would enhance his position.

Parliamentary elections were scheduled for Jan. 8 and are now delayed until Feb. 18. Given the fragmentation of Pakistani society, the most likely outcome was a highly fragmented parliament, one that would be hard-pressed to legislate, let alone to serve as a powerbase. In the likely event of gridlock, Musharraf’s position as the indispensable — if disliked — man would be strengthened. By last week, Musharraf must have been looking forward to the elections. Elections would confirm his position, which was that the civil institutions could not function and that the army, with or without him as official head, had to remain the center of the Pakistani polity.

Then someone killed Benazir Bhutto and changed the entire dynamic of Pakistan. Though Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party probably would have gained a substantial number of seats, it was unlikely to sweep the election and seriously threaten the military’s hold on power. Bhutto was simply one of the many forces competing for power. As a woman, representing an essentially secular party, she was unlikely to be a decisive winner. In many ways, she reminds us of Mikhail Gorbachev, who was much more admired by Westerners than he ever was by Russians. She was highly visible and a factor in Pakistani politics, but if Musharraf were threatened, the threat would not come from her.

Therefore, her murder is a mystery. It is actually a mystery on two levels. First, it is not clear who did it. Second, it is not clear how the deed was done. The murder of a major political leader is always hard to unravel. Confusion reigns from the first bullet fired in a crowd. The first account of events always turns out to be wrong, as do the second through fifth accounts, too. That is how conspiracy theories are spawned. Getting the facts straight in any murder is tough. Getting them straight in a political assassination is even harder. Paradoxically, more people witnessing such incidents translates into greater confusion, since everyone has a different perspective and a different tale. Conspiracy theorists can have a field day picking and choosing among confused reports by shocked and untrained observers.

Nevertheless, the confusion in this case appears to be way beyond the norm. Was there a bomber and a separate shooter with a pistol next to her car? If this were indeed a professional job, why was the shooter inappropriately armed with a pistol? Was Bhutto killed by the pistol-wielding shooter, shrapnel from the bomb, a bullet from a third assassin on a nearby building or even inside her car, or by falling after the bomb detonated? How did the killer or killers know Bhutto would stand up and expose herself through her armored vehicle’s sunroof? Very few of the details so far make sense.

And that reflects the fact that nothing about the assassination makes sense. Who would want Bhutto dead? Musharraf had little motivation. He had enemies, and she was one of them, but she was far from the most dangerous of them. And killing her would threaten an election that did not threaten him or his transition to a new status. Ordering her death thus would not have made a great deal of sense for Musharraf.

Whoever ordered her death would have had one of two motives. First, they wanted to destabilize Pakistan, or second, they wanted to kill her in such a way as to weaken Musharraf’s position by showing that the state of emergency had failed. The jihadists certainly had every reason to want to kill her — along with a long list of Pakistani politicians, including Musharraf. They want to destabilize Pakistan, but if they can do so and implicate Musharraf at the same time, so much the sweeter.

The loser in the assassination was Musharraf. He is probably too canny a politician to have planned the killing without anticipating this outcome. Whoever did this wanted to do more than kill Bhutto. They wanted to derail Musharraf’s attempt to retain his control over the government. This was a complex operation designed to create confusion.

Our first suspect is al Qaeda sympathizers who would benefit from the confusion spawned by the killing of an important political leader. The more allegations of complicity in the killing are thrown against the regime, the more the military regime is destabilized — thus expanding opportunities for jihadists to sow even more instability. Our second suspects are elements in the army wanting to use the assassination to force Musharraf out, replace him with a new personality and justify a massive crackdown.

Two parties we cannot imagine as suspects in the killing are the United States and Musharraf; neither benefited from the killing. Musharraf now faces the political abyss and the United States faces the destabilization of Pakistan as the Taliban is splintering and various jihadist leaders are fragmenting. This is the last moment the United States would choose to destabilize Pakistan. Our best guess is that the killing was al Qaeda doing what it does best. The theory that it was anti-Musharraf elements in the army comes in at a very distant second.

But the United States now faces its endgame under far less than ideal conditions. Iraq is stabilizing. That might reverse, but for now it is stabilizing. The Taliban is strong, but it is under pressure and has serious internal problems. The endgame always was supposed to come in Pakistan, but this is far from how the Americans wanted to play it out. The United States is not going to get an aggressive, anti-Islamist military in Pakistan, but it badly needs more than a Pakistani military that is half-heartedly and tenuously committed to the fight. Salvaging Musharraf is getting harder with each passing day. So that means that a new personality, such as Pakistani military chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, must become Washington’s new man in Pakistan. In this endgame, all that the Americans want is the status quo in Pakistan. It is all they can get. And given the way U.S. luck is running, they might not even get that.

Al Qaeda's Silence on Pakistan

Jan. 7, 2008

A video communique surfaced on Sunday from al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn, aka “Azzam the American.” One of the highlights of the 50-minute video, titled “An Invitation to Reflection and Repentance,” is a call to jihadists to welcome U.S. President George W. Bush with bombs when he arrives Jan. 9 on a weeklong tour of the Middle East. At one point in the video, Gadahn, a U.S. national, is shown tearing up his U.S. passport.

Overall, the general thrust of the video is no different from previous messages from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and other leading jihadist figures, in which they claim a U.S. defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan, denounce rulers of Arab/Muslim countries as apostates and agents of the United States, and call upon Americans to accept Islam.

We have discussed before the amount of resources, energy and time required for al Qaeda’s apex leadership to produce a message like this. Al Qaeda prime not only suffers from a scarcity of resources, but also is obsessed with operational security. Thus, a decision to issue a statement is made only after considerable thought — presumably, al Qaeda would only produce such a message if it perceived a substantial benefit in doing so.

Therefore, it is quite odd that this latest video from Gadahn and the communiques that preceded it — a series of messages from bin Laden in the fall of 2007 — both talk about the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, but do not address the situation in Pakistan. Unlike in Iraq and most other places, al Qaeda can actually claim a significant degree of success in Pakistan. However, the last time al Qaeda issued a statement on Pakistan was Sept. 20, 2007, when bin Laden vowed to retaliate against Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for the killing of the cleric who led the uprising at Islamabad’s Red Mosque.

Since then, the jihadists in Pakistan have successfully staged multiple suicide attacks against army and air force installations and personnel, as well as those of the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate. In addition, Pakistani Taliban have consolidated their hold in the Waziristan region in the country’s tribal belt along the border with Afghanistan. The Taliban phenomenon has also spread to the district of Swat in the North-West Frontier Province, where followers of Maulana Fazlullah took over most of the district — and Pakistani forces are still battling to regain control.

More recently, the insecurity and instability in Pakistan increased sharply because of the assassination of top opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. The deterioration of political stability in Pakistan is obviously forcing the United States to re-evaluate its options — the New York Times reported on Sunday that the National Security Council is considering expanding the authority of the CIA and the Pentagon to conduct more aggressive covert operations in Pakistan’s northwestern regions. Chaos, weakening of government control, and the entry of the U.S. military into the fray — these are the conditions in which al Qaeda thrives.

Yet there is an odd silence from al Qaeda regarding these victories. Despite its relative success in Pakistan, the group continues to expend its precious resources on producing statements that either rehash its usual standard rhetoric, or that focus on areas in which it is facing defeat. Why would a group that thrives so much on media attention make such a bad PR move?

Al Qaeda’s apex leaders are many things, but they are not stupid — if they were, they would have been killed years ago and would no longer be issuing video statements. Therefore we tend to prefer the simple, obvious explanation: They are focusing everywhere but Pakistan because they want to draw attention away from Pakistan.

Al Qaeda prime is, after all, headquartered in Pakistan. With Washington’s focus shifting from the chaos in Iraq to the chaos in Pakistan, it might be that the spotlight is shining uncomfortably close to the apex leadership. From al Qaeda’s point of view, the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater is perhaps the only area of opportunity left for the jihadists to exploit, and the area where the final battle of the U.S.-jihadist war will be fought. But we suspect they are not eager to fight it just yet.

Annual Forecast 2008: Beyond the Jihadist War

Jan. 8, 2008

There are three major global processes under way that will continue to work themselves out in 2008. First, the U.S.-jihadist war is entering its final phase; the destruction of al Qaeda’s strategic capabilities now allows the United States to shift its posture — which includes leveraging the Sunni world to finish the job begun in Iraq — and enables Washington to begin drawing down its Middle Eastern forces. Second, an assertive Russia is re-emerging and taking advantage of the imbalance in U.S. power resulting from the war. Third, oil at historical highs and continued Asian — particularly Chinese — exports have created a massive redistribution of financial might that is reshaping the international financial architecture. These processes intersect with each other, as well as with a fourth phenomenon: It is a presidential election year in the United States, which remains the center of gravity of the international system. These are the trends that shape our global forecast.

Normally in an election year, U.S. attention on global affairs dwindles precipitously, allowing other powers to set the agenda. That will not be the case, however, in 2008. U.S. President George W. Bush is not up for re-election, and there is no would-be successor from the administration in the race; this frees up all of the administration’s bandwidth for whatever activities it wishes. Additionally, Bush’s unpopularity means that each of the White House’s domestic initiatives essentially will be dead on arrival in Congress. All of the Bush administration’s energy will instead be focused on foreign affairs, since such activities do not require public or congressional approval. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, 2008 will see the United States acting with the most energy and purpose it has had since the months directly after the 9/11 attack.

Such energy is not simply a result of this odd hiccup in the American political system but of a major shift in circumstance on the issue that has monopolized American foreign policy efforts since 2003: Iraq. The Iraq war was an outgrowth of the jihadist war. After the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the United States realized it lacked the military wherewithal to simultaneously deal with the four powers that made al Qaeda possible: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Pakistan. The first phase of the Bush solution was to procure an anchor against Afghanistan by forcing Pakistan into an alliance. The second was to invade the state that bordered the other three — Iraq — in order to intimidate the remaining trio into cooperating against al Qaeda. The final stage was to press both wars until al Qaeda — the core organization that launched the 9/11 attack and sought the creation of a pan-Islamic caliphate, not the myriad local extremists who later adopted its name — broke.

As 2008 dawns, it has become apparent that though this strategy engendered many unforeseen costs, it has proven successful at grinding al Qaeda into nonfunctionality. Put simply, the jihadist war is all but over; the United States not only is winning but also has an alliance with the entire constellation of Sunni powers that made al Qaeda possible in the first place. The United States will attempt to use this alliance to pressure the remnants of al Qaeda and its allies, as well as those in the region who are not in the alliance.

This leaves Iran, the region’s only non-Sunni power, in the uncomfortable position of needing to seek an arrangement with the United States. The year 2008 will still be about Iraq — but in a different way. Iran cares deeply about the final status of Iraq, since every united Mesopotamian government has at some point in its history attempted a Persian invasion. Yet for the United States, the details of intra-Iraqi negotiations and security in Iraqi cities now are irrelevant to its geopolitical concerns. Washington does not care what Iraq looks like, so long as the Sunni jihadists or Tehran do not attain ultimate control — and evolutions in 2007 have made both scenarios impossible in 2008.

Iran recognizes this, and as a result Washington and Tehran are ever less tentatively edging toward a deal. It is in this context — as an element of talks with Iran — that Iraq still matters to Washington, and this is now the primary rationale for continued involvement in Iraq. The United States will not completely withdraw from Iraq in 2008 — indeed, it likely will have 100,000 troops on the ground when Bush leaves office — but this will be the year in which the mission evolves from tactical overwatch to strategic overwatch. (Roughly translated from military lingo, this means shifting from patrolling the cities in order to enforce the peace to hunkering in the desert in order to ensure that Iran does not try to seize Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula beyond.)

In the aftermath of the November 2007 Annapolis, Md., conference and the declassification of a National Intelligence Estimate on the nonexistence of the Iranian nuclear program, the ball is in the Iranians’ court. A U.S.-Iranian deal — no matter how beneficial it would be for both states — is not inevitable. But STRATFOR finds it unlikely that Tehran would choose strategic confrontation with both the United States and the Arab world when the benefits of cooperation — and the penalties for hostility — are so potent. A framework for future relations, as well as for co-dominion of Iraq, is likely to emerge in 2008.

Still, frameworks come slowly, and crafting such a framework will require the bulk of American forces currently in Iraq to remain there for most of the year. The United States will draw forces down and eventually regain its bandwidth for other operations, but 2008 will not be the year that the United States returns to policing the world on a global scale. And considering the still-mounting costs of regenerating military capabilities after six years of conflict, manpower expansion and acquisitions, such force recovery might not even occur in 2009. The United States could have more energy and political freedom to act, but military realities will anchor the lion’s share of Washington’s attention on the Middle East for — at the very least — the year to come. And Afghanistan, and therefore Pakistan, will have to be dealt with, regardless of what happens in Iraq.

This means 2008 will be similar to 2007 in many ways: It will be a year of opportunity for those powers that would take advantage of the United States’ ongoing distraction. However, they will face a complication that was absent in 2007: a deadline. The Iraqi logjam is broken. Unlike in 2007, when Iraq appeared to be a quagmire and other powers therefore sensed endless opportunity, those hostile to U.S. interests realize that they only have a limited window in which to reshape their regions. Granted, this window will not close in 2008, since the United States will need to not only withdraw from Iraq but also rest and restructure its forces; but the United States no longer is mired in an open-ended conflict.

The state with the greatest need to take advantage of this U.S. occupation, bar none, is the Russian Federation. Moscow knows full well that when the Americans are finished with their efforts in the Middle East, the bulk of their attention will return to the former Soviet Union. When that happens, Russia will face a resurgent United States that commands alliances in Asia, Europe and the Middle East. Russia must use the ongoing U.S. entanglement in the Middle East to redefine its immediate neighborhood or risk a developing geopolitic far less benign to Russian interests than Washington’s Cold War policy of containment. Russia needs to move — and it needs to move now.

And there are a host of secondary powers that will be interacting within the matrix of American actions in 2008. Some — such as Syria and Saudi Arabia — want to be included in the U.S. Iraqi calculus and will have their chance. Others — namely South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and Japan — are looking for new ways to work with Washington as they adapt to their own domestic government transitions. All of Europe is shifting back to a power structure that has been absent for two generations: the concert of powers, with all of the instability and mistrust that implies.

Others will be pursuing bold agendas, not because of the United States’ distraction but because they are rising to prominence in their own right. Angola will rise as a major African power to rival South Africa and Nigeria. Brazil will lay the groundwork for reasserting its long-dormant role as a South American superpower. Turkey — now the strongest it has been in a century — will re-emerge as a major geopolitical weight in the eastern Mediterranean, albeit one that is somewhat confused about its priorities.

Quietly developing in the background, the global economy is undergoing a no less dramatic transformation. While we expect oil prices to retreat somewhat in 2008 after years of surges, their sustained strength continues to shove a great deal of cash into the hands of the world’s oil exporters — cash that these countries cannot process internally and that therefore will either be stored in dollars or invested in the only country with deep enough capital pools to handle it: the United States. Add in the torrent of exports from the Asian states, which generates nearly identical cash-management problems, and the result is a deep dollarization of the global system even as the U.S. dollar gives ground. The talk on the financial pages will be of dollar (implying American) weakness, even as the currency steadily shifts from the one of first resort to the true foundation of the entire system.

This will be a year in which the United States achieves more success in its foreign policies than it has since the ousting of the Taliban from Afghanistan in late 2001. But the actions of others — most notably a rising Russia — rather than U.S. achievements will determine the tenor and fury of the next major global clash.

Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and the Good War

Feb. 25, 2008

There has been tremendous controversy over the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which consistently has been contrasted with Afghanistan. Many of those who opposed the Iraq war have supported the war in Afghanistan; indeed, they have argued that among the problems with Iraq is that it diverts resources from Afghanistan. Afghanistan has been seen as an obvious haven for terrorism. This has meant the war in Afghanistan often has been perceived as having a direct effect on al Qaeda and on the ability of radical Islamists to threaten the United States, while Iraq has been seen as unrelated to the main war. Supporters of the war in Iraq support the war in Afghanistan. Opponents of the war in Iraq also support Afghanistan. If there is a good war in our time, Afghanistan is it.

It is also a war that is in trouble. In the eyes of many, one of the Afghan war’s virtues has been that NATO has participated as an entity. But NATO has come under heavy criticism from U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates for its performance. Some, like the Canadians, are threatening to withdraw their troops if other alliance members do not contribute more heavily to the mission. More important, the Taliban have been fighting an effective and intensive insurgency. Further complicating the situation, the roots of many of the military and political issues in Afghanistan are found across the border in Pakistan.

If the endgame in Iraq is murky, the endgame in Afghanistan is invisible. The United States, its allies and the Kabul government are fighting a holding action strategically. They do not have the force to destroy the Taliban — and in counterinsurgency, the longer the insurgents maintain their operational capability, the more likely they are to win. Further stiffening the Taliban resolve is the fact that, while insurgents have nowhere to go, foreigners can always decide to go home.

To understand the status of the war in Afghanistan, we must begin with what happened between 9/11 and early 2002. Al Qaeda had its primary command and training facilities in Afghanistan. The Taliban had come to power in a civil war among Afghans that broke out after the Soviet withdrawal. The Taliban had close links to the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). While there was an ideological affinity between the two, there was also a geopolitical attraction. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan concerned Pakistan gravely. India and the Soviets were aligned, and the Pakistanis feared being caught in a vise. The Pakistanis thus were eager to cooperate with the Americans and Saudis in supporting Islamist fighters against the Soviets. After the Soviets left and the United States lost interest in Afghanistan, the Pakistanis wanted to fill the vacuum. Their support of the Taliban served Pakistani national security interests and the religious proclivities of a large segment of the ISI.

After 9/11, the United States saw Afghanistan as its main problem. Al Qaeda, which was not Afghan but an international Islamist group, had received sanctuary from the Taliban. If the United States was to have any chance of defeating al Qaeda, it would be in Afghanistan. A means toward that end was destroying the Taliban government. This was not because the Taliban itself represented a direct threat to the United States but because al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan did.

The United States wanted to act quickly and decisively in order to disrupt al Qaeda. A direct invasion of Afghanistan was therefore not an option. First, it would take many months to deploy U.S. forces. Second, there was no practical place to deploy them. The Iranians wouldn’t accept U.S. forces on their soil and the Pakistanis were far from eager to see the Taliban toppled. Basing troops in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan along the northern border of Afghanistan was an option but also a logistical nightmare. It would be well into the spring of 2002 before any invasion was possible, and the fear of al Qaeda’s actions in the meantime was intense.

The United States therefore decided not to invade Afghanistan. Instead, it made deals with groups that opposed the Taliban. In the North, Washington allied with the Northern Alliance, a group with close ties to the Russians. In the West, the United States allied with Persian groups under the influence of Iran. The United States made political arrangements with Moscow and Tehran to allow access to their Afghan allies. The Russians and Iranians both disliked the Taliban and were quite content to help. The mobilized Afghan groups also opposed the Taliban and loved the large sums of money U.S. intelligence operatives provided them.

These groups provided the force for the mission. The primary U.S. presence consisted of several hundred troops from U.S. Special Operations Command, along with CIA personnel. The United States also brought a great deal of air power, both Navy and Air Force, into the battle. The small U.S. ground force was to serve as a political liaison with the Afghan groups attacking the Taliban, to provide access to what weapons were available for the Afghan forces and, above all, to coordinate air support for the Afghans against concentrations of Taliban fighters. Airstrikes began a month after 9/11.

While Washington turned out an extraordinary political and covert performance, the United States did not invade. Rather, it acquired armies in Afghanistan prepared to carry out the mission and provided them with support and air power. The operation did not defeat the Taliban. Instead, it forced them to make a political and military decision.

Political power in Afghanistan does not come from the cities. It comes from the countryside, while the cities are the prize. The Taliban could defend the cities only by massing forces to block attacks by other Afghan factions. But when they massed their forces, the Taliban were vulnerable to air attacks. After experiencing the consequences of U.S. air power, the Taliban made a strategic decision. In the absence of U.S. airstrikes, they could defeat their adversaries and had done so before. While they might have made a fight of it, given U.S. air power, the Taliban selected a different long-term strategy.

Rather than attempt to defend the cities, the Taliban withdrew, dispersed and made plans to regroup. Their goal was to hold enough of the countryside to maintain their political influence. As in their campaign against the Soviets, the Taliban understood that their Afghan enemies would not pursue them, and that over time, their ability to conduct small-scale operations would negate the value of U.S. airpower and draw the Americans into a difficult fight on unfavorable terms.

The United States was not particularly disturbed by the outcome. It was not after the Taliban but al Qaeda. It appears — and much of this remains murky — that the command cell of al Qaeda escaped from Afghan forces and U.S. Special Operations personnel at Tora Bora and slipped across the border into Pakistan. Exactly what happened is unclear, but it is clear that al Qaeda’s command cell was not destroyed. The fight against al Qaeda produced a partial victory. Al Qaeda clearly was disrupted and relocated — and was denied its sanctuary. A number of its operatives were captured, further degrading its operational capability.

The Afghan campaign therefore had these outcomes:

• Al Qaeda was degraded but not eliminated.

• The Taliban remained an intact fighting force, but the United States never really expected them to commit suicide by massing for U.S. B-52 strikes.

• The United States had never invaded Afghanistan and had made no plans to occupy it.

• Afghanistan was never the issue, and the Taliban were a subordinate matter.

• After much of al Qaeda’s base lost its sanctuary in Afghanistan and had to relocate to Pakistan, the war in Afghanistan became a sideshow for the U.S. military.

Over time, the United States and NATO brought about 50,000 troops to Afghanistan. Their hope was that Hamid Karzai’s government would build a force that could defeat the Taliban. But the problem was that, absent U.S. and NATO forces, the Taliban had managed to defeat the forces now arrayed against them once before, in the Afghan civil war. The U.S. commitment of troops was enough to hold the major cities and conduct offensive operations that kept the Taliban off balance, but the United States could not possibly defeat them. The Soviets had deployed 300,000 troops in Afghanistan and could not defeat the mujahideen. NATO, with 50,000 troops and facing the same shifting alliance of factions and tribes that the Soviets couldn’t pull together, could not pacify Afghanistan.

But vanquishing the Taliban simply was not the goal. The goal was to maintain a presence that could conduct covert operations in Pakistan looking for al Qaeda and keep al Qaeda from returning to Afghanistan. Part of this goal could be achieved by keeping a pro-American government in Kabul under Karzai. The strategy was to keep al Qaeda off balance, preserve Karzai and launch operations against the Taliban designed to prevent them from becoming too effective and aggressive. The entire U.S. military would have been insufficient to defeat the Taliban; the war in Afghanistan thus was simply a holding action.

The holding action was made all the more difficult in that the Taliban could not be isolated from their sources of supply or sanctuary; Pakistan provided both. It really didn’t matter whether this was because President Pervez Musharraf’s government intended to play both sides, whether factions inside the Pakistani military maintained close affinities with the Taliban or whether the Pakistani government and army simply couldn’t control tribal elements loyal to al Qaeda. What did matter was that all along the Afghan border — particularly in southern Afghanistan — supplies flowed in from Pakistan, and the Taliban moved into sanctuaries in Pakistan for rest and regrouping.

The Taliban was and is operating on their own terrain. They have excellent intelligence about the movements of NATO forces and a flexible and sufficient supply line allowing them to maintain and increase operations and control of the countryside. Having retreated in 2001, the Taliban systematically regrouped, rearmed and began operating as a traditional guerrilla force with an increased penchant for suicide attacks.

As in Vietnam, the challenge in fighting a guerrilla force is to cut it off from its supplies. The United States failed to interdict the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and that allowed men and materiel to move into South Vietnam until the United States lost the appetite for war. In Afghanistan, it is the same problem compounded. First, the lines of supply into Pakistan are even more complex than the Ho Chi Minh trail was. Second, the country that provides the supplies is formally allied with the United States. Pakistan is committed both to cutting those lines of supply and aiding the United States in capturing al Qaeda in its Northwest. That is the primary mission, but the subsidiary mission remains keeping the Taliban within tolerable levels of activity and preventing them from posing a threat to more and more of the Afghan countryside and cities. There has been a great deal of focus on Pakistan’s assistance in its own northwestern regions against al Qaeda, but much less on the line of supply maintaining the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. And as Pakistan has attempted to pursue a policy of balancing its relations with the Taliban and with the United States, the Pakistani government now faces a major jihadist insurgency on its own turf.

Afghanistan therefore is not — and in some ways never has been — the center of gravity of the challenge facing the United States. Occupying Afghanistan is inconceivable without a fundamental shift in Pakistan’s policies or capabilities. But forcing Pakistan to change its policies in southern Afghanistan really is pointless, since the United States doesn’t have enough forces there to take advantage of a Pakistani shift, and Washington doesn’t care about the Taliban in the long run.

The real issue is the hardest to determine. Is al Qaeda prime — not al Qaeda enthusiasts or sympathizers who are able to carry out local suicide bombings, but the capable covert operatives we saw on 9/11 — still operational? And even if it is degraded, given enough time, will al Qaeda be able to regroup and ramp up its operational capability? If so, then the United States must maintain its posture in Afghanistan, as limited and unbalanced as it is. The United States might even need to consider extending the war to Pakistan in an attempt to seal the border if the Taliban continue to strengthen. But if al Qaeda is not operational, then the rationale for guarding Kabul and Karzai becomes questionable.

We have no way of determining whether al Qaeda remains operational; we are not sure anyone can assess that with certainty. Certainly, we have not seen significant operations for a long time, and U.S. covert capabilities should have been able to weaken al Qaeda over the past seven years. But if al Qaeda remains active, capable and in northwestern Pakistan, then the U.S. presence in Afghanistan will continue.

As the situation in Iraq settles down — and it appears to be doing so — more focus will be drawn to Afghanistan, the war that even opponents of Iraq have acknowledged as appropriate and important. But it is important to understand what this war consists of: It is a holding action against an enemy that cannot be defeated (absent greater force than is available) with open lines of supply into a country allied with the United States. It is a holding action waiting for certain knowledge of the status of al Qaeda, knowledge that likely will not come. Afghanistan is a war without exit and a war without victory. The politics are impenetrable, and it is even difficult to figure out whether allies like Pakistan are intending to help or are capable of helping.

Thus, while it may be a better war than Iraq in some sense, it is not a war that can be won or even ended. It just goes on.

Tunisia: A Brush with Al Qaeda's North African Node

March 10, 2008

Al Qaeda’s North African node is holding two Austrian tourists who were kidnapped Feb. 22 in Tunisia, according to a statement aired March 10 on Al Jazeera television. The statement warned that other foreign tourists in Tunisia are also at risk of being kidnapped. The group has not yet made demands or announced conditions for the release of the two hostages, but it said that the kidnapping was carried out in response to Israeli military actions in Gaza.

Over the past few years, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) has carried out operations in various parts of northern Africa. While Algeria has long been a stronghold for Islamist militant activity, AQIM recently has also carried out limited attacks in Mauritania and Morocco. This latest incident represents not only a further spread of the group geographically but also a shift in tactics to include kidnapping.

According to a statement released by the Austrian Foreign Ministry, the two tourists were last heard from in mid-February when they were in the southern Tunisian city of Matmata. The ministry added that the pair was traveling around the country in an RV with Austrian license plates, and that they might have been headed west, in the direction of the Algerian border. The Algerian border regions in Tunisia are the areas in the country where tourists are most susceptible to kidnapping — several tourists were reported abducted in the Algerian-Tunisian border region in 2002 and 2003, according to the U.S. State Department.

[pic]

It is unclear exactly where the two were kidnapped, though one possibility is that they became lost and ended up on the Algerian side of the border. Islamist militant activity has been far more extensive in Algeria than in Tunisia, and any number of militant groups probably would have noticed two Austrians driving an RV around the country. In fact, other groups might have carried out the abduction and then later handed the Austrians over to AQIM; that would explain why two weeks passed between their abduction and the announcement that they were being held.

Even if the tourists did not themselves cross the border into Algeria, it is possible that they are now being held there. AQIM has a much more extensive logistics network in place there than in Tunisia, and such a network would be necessary in order to hold a pair of hostages for several weeks.

AQIM’s potential to spread across North Africa has been a concern in the region for some time, but thus far the Algerian node has been the only one to develop successfully. Although there has not yet been an active indigenous Tunisian militant movement, there has been some history of Islamic militants with connections to Tunisia — for instance, Tunisians have been arrested in Algeria for links to militant groups there. However, an exodus of militants from Iraq back to their home countries is certainly cause for greater worry for Tunisia — as well as for other North African countries — as it raises the specter of experienced militants carrying out attacks and kidnappings much closer to home.

Afghanistan, Pakistan: A Bin Laden Tape's Rhetoric

March 20, 2008

The CIA confirmed March 20 that an audio message attributed to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden posted on the Internet on March 19 is authentic. A U.S. intelligence official could not, however, confirm when the message was recorded. In the unusually short message addressed to Europeans, the chief of the global jihadist network attacks the West for publishing drawings of the Prophet Mohammed deemed offensive to Muslims.

Bin Laden makes a number of key points, including accusing Pope Benedict XVI of playing a key role in instigating a new crusade against Muslims in the form of the insulting drawings of Mohammed. The al Qaeda leader says that by insulting the prophet, the West has abandoned all morals and etiquette of conflict, describing it as worse than killing Muslim civilians.

The jihadist leader also attacks Saudi King Abdullah for not putting an end to the situation despite his alleged ability to do so given that the king forced the British government to open an investigation into the embezzlement of billions in the al-Yamamah arms deal. Bin Laden also refers to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as the new representative of the Middle East Quartet, helping date the message. He concludes his message with a warning that if the West does not stop insulting Mohammed, it should be prepared for a response from the jihadist movement.

Though he addresses the West, bin Laden’s target audience is the Muslim world. Support there for jihadists has suffered a significant decline over the last few years, but anti-Western sentiment remains high. Though the tape seeks to exploit the cartoon issue to reverse this waning support for jihadism, it probably will not have much impact beyond the limited segment of the Muslim world that remains sympathetic to the jihadist cause.

Nothing about the contents of the tape proves it was made recently. Everything bin Laden discusses is old news, meaning this probably is an older tape that only now has surfaced. The delay between production and broadcasting suggests that the communications system has suffered a decline, as some previous tapes reached the public domain within a week of their production.

Only three bin Laden videos have emerged since his late 2001 disappearance from Tora Bora. His other recordings have been either audiotapes or videos containing voice messages over old images of the al Qaeda leader. Intriguingly, after a flurry of mostly video communiqués from bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, during 2005-2006, the jihadist No. 2 also stopped issuing tapes. Meanwhile, other al Qaeda members like al-Qaeda ideologue Abu Yahya al-Libi and the group’s U.S. operative, Adam Gadahn, have appeared in videos. This anomaly underscores al Qaeda’s vulnerability.

The latest communiqué validates what STRATFOR has been saying for some years now, namely, that the jihadists have ceased to be a strategic threat to the United States. Though they remain a tactical threat, the reversal of their fortunes in Iraq means they are geographically limited to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the global jihadist leadership is based and al-Qaeda and the Taliban are demonstrating their operational prowess. While attacks in the West, especially Europe, remain a possibility, the jihadists have threatened Europe for four years. Apart from the Madrid and London bombings, they have not demonstrated the ability to make good on their threats.

The Heathrow Plot Trial: Retrospection and Implications

April 9, 2008

The trial of eight men accused of participating in a 2006 plot to bomb a series of airline flights began April 3 in London. The men are charged with conspiracy to commit murder and preparing acts of terrorism in connection with the plot, which allegedly called for using liquid explosives to bring down at least seven planes flying from London’s Heathrow Airport to cities in the United States and Canada.

The trial is expected to last several months, but several interesting facts already have emerged regarding the plot and the people accused of participating in it. Although a considerable amount of media attention has been focused on the revelation that two Air Canada flights (one to Montreal and one to Toronto) were among the first seven flights targeted — the others were United Airlines flights to Washington, Chicago and San Francisco, and American Airlines flights to Chicago and New York — perhaps the most interesting revelation has been the alleged role of Mohammed Gulzar.

Gulzar reportedly flew into the United Kingdom in July 2006 using a fraudulent identity. His means of travel and his role in the conspiracy suggest he was an operational commander who had been sent from abroad to assist the grassroots plotters with their attack plans. The involvement of an operational commander sent by the al Qaeda core leadership and charged with working with grassroots operatives to orchestrate an attack is what we consider the al Qaeda 1.0 operational model.

When combined with other indicators, Gulzar’s role and travel pattern seem to confirm the involvement of the al Qaeda core leadership in the plot. The participation of the core organization sheds new light on the behavior of the core al Qaeda leaders in 2006, and gives us some insight into plots they might still be planning.

Recurrent Themes

As we noted after the Heathrow plot came to light, the scheme shared several themes with other thwarted or successful al Qaeda plots, including the choice of aircraft as targets, the notion of multiple, simultaneous strikes and the use of modular improvised explosive devices, which would have been smuggled aboard the aircraft in carry-on luggage. Moreover, whoever was involved in planning the operation shared al Qaeda’s penchant for “thinking big.”

As originally conceived, al Qaeda’s 2001 “planes operation” was to involve the simultaneous hijackings of 10 aircraft departing from both the East and West Coasts of the United States. Nine of the aircraft were to be either blown up in-flight or slammed into targeted buildings. The 10th plane was to be landed at a U.S. airport and, after all the adult male passengers were killed, a speech was to be delivered outlining al Qaeda’s grievances with the United States. Al Qaeda’s apex leaders — Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Mohammed Atef — eventually agreed to a scaled-down version of the planes operation involving four aircraft, which was carried out Sept. 11, 2001.

The West Coast portion of the plan was spun off as a separate operation that was to have occurred in October 2001, but which reportedly was postponed several times for various reasons. This operation, also known as the Library Tower Plot, was compromised and disrupted in 2002.

These themes also were evidenced in the plot to bomb American Airlines Flight 63 in December 2001. In that plan, Richard Reid successfully smuggled his “shoe bomb” aboard the aircraft. The attempt failed only because Reid tried to light the bomb’s fuse in the passenger cabin (rather than a more secluded area, such as a restroom) and was stopped by a flight attendant and passengers.

The 2006 Heathrow plot, however, bears the strongest resemblance to Operation Bojinka, which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, along with his nephew Abdel Basit, helped to plan and finance while living in Manila, the Philippines, in the mid-1990s. The tactical similarities include the targeting of multiple U.S.-flagged aircraft traveling to the United States, the use of modular explosive devices — which were to be assembled in-flight after operatives accessed their carry-on baggage — and the use of liquid explosives.

The scope of the Heathrow plot also highlights another theme common in al Qaeda plots: a tendency to think big. This theme, which was reflected in the original planes operation and in Bojinka, was also the undoing of al Qaeda attacks such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Millennium Bomb Plot and an attempted strike against the USS The Sullivans off the coast of Yemen in January 2000. Indeed, the scope of the Heathrow plot and the need to include many people in its execution is likely what opened the door for a British government informant to penetrate the group and learn of the plans.

Mohammed Gulzar

A close look at the details emerging from the trial of Gulzar and the seven other suspects also reveals other recurring themes, including the use of document fraud. Gulzar entered the United Kingdom on July 18, 2006, using a fraudulent South African passport in the name of Altaf Ravat. He reportedly was traveling with his new wife and, in order to secure a visa, alleged that he was on his honeymoon. The pair even spent a couple of days in Mauritius after leaving South Africa in order to make the honeymoon cover appear more convincing. As a British citizen, Gulzar had the right to a British passport and thus could have traveled to the United Kingdom using his own identity. The only reason to commit document fraud was to conceal his identity.

As seen in past cases involving operational commanders such as Basit and Ahmed Ressam, it is fairly common for operational commanders to commit passport fraud. In fact, recovered al Qaeda operation manuals encourage using fraudulent documents to hide one’s identity, enter a country illegally or continue to stay in a country after a legitimate visa has expired. Basit had more than a dozen aliases that we know of, including the well-known fraudulent Iraqi passport in the name of Ramzi Yousef — the name by which many people still mistakenly refer to him. Gulzar’s use of South Africa as a source of fraudulent documents and a transit point to Europe also exemplifies a trend we have been watching for some time now.

When British police arrested Gulzar on Aug. 9, 2006, he told them his name was Altaf Ravat and produced his South African documents. It was only after running fingerprint checks that they determined — two days after his arrest — that he really was a British citizen named Mohammed Gulzar. When questioned by police, Gulzar admitted he was not on his honeymoon, though he then said he was a missionary with the Tablighi Jamaat and was in the United Kingdom on a proselytizing mission.

As seen in past attacks — the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, the East Africa embassy bombings and others that followed the al Qaeda 1.0 operational model — the operational planner does not intend to be killed or captured. He flees and lives to fight another day. In operations in which an operative plans to be killed, such as 9/11 and the July 7, 2005 London attacks, there is no need for him to hide his true identity. Gulzar’s use of a fraudulent identity suggests he intended to flee after the attack. This theory is supported by the fact that British authorities recovered a number of videotapes containing the wills and suicide declarations of various members of the alleged cell, but they did not recover such a video featuring Gulzar.

Fitting the Pieces Together

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and when we use it to plug the 2006 Heathrow plot into the big picture of al Qaeda behavior during that time, we can begin to make some assumptions as to the extent of the core leadership’s involvement.

According to court testimony, the British government began to monitor many of the men allegedly involved in the plot shortly after the July 7, 2005 London attacks. It also has been reported that, like Mohammed Siddique Khan, several of the men involved in the 2006 plot had traveled to Pakistan and received training at jihadist camps. It also appears that Gulzar was sent by the core al Qaeda leadership to London in July 2006 to supervise the execution of this plot. Judging from past cases, Gulzar’s preparation for the travel to London likely began several months prior to his actual arrival in the United Kingdom. Also judging from past cases, a plan of this magnitude, involving so many aircraft, almost certainly would have to have been approved by the al Qaeda apex leadership. The leadership probably also provided the funding for the operation, including the more than $271,000 in cash the group reportedly paid for the flat they purchased in London, where the improvised explosive mixtures were to be manufactured.

If those assumptions are indeed true, then this plot may very well be one of the operations Osama bin Laden was referencing in his Jan. 19, 2006, message when he said, “The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God’s permission.”

The preparations for this attack also had picked up momentum by mid-2006 when the al Qaeda core leadership was undertaking what we referred to at the time as a media blitz. Indeed, just as the traffic from this blitz was beginning to slow down, As-Sahab released a video titled, “Will of the Knights of the London Raid (Part 2),” which contained the last will of London bomber Shehzad Tanweer. This video was released one day before the anniversary of the July 7 attacks and 12 days before Gulzar arrived in the United Kingdom.

Nine days after Gulzar’s arrival, and two weeks before the arrests were made, As-Sahab released a video featuring al-Zawahiri. The backdrop featured three large photographs: one of Mohammed Atef (al Qaeda’s senior military chief who was killed in Afghanistan in late 2001), one of 9/11 operational commander Mohammed Atta and one of the burning World Trade Center towers.

In the video, al-Zawahiri discussed a lecture Atef gave in 2000 to al Qaeda trainees about Palestine. According to his recounting, Atta — who was among the trainees — asked, “What is the way to defeat the attack on Palestine?” Al-Zawahiri supplied his own answer in the video, saying the nation that produced the 19 “who shook America” is “capable of producing double that number.”

It could be a coincidence that a large plot involving aircraft — nearly twice as many as were hijacked on 9/11 — was thwarted only two weeks after this video surfaced. But we are not big believers in coincidence — nor do we believe there are obvious (or even hidden) messages in every al Qaeda message. However, to our minds the July 27 tape was a clear message meant to be viewed in retrospect — that al Qaeda was behind the Heathrow airline plot.

The Continuing Fixation

More than anything, the current trial is a reminder of three things. First, had the first wave of attacks successfully taken down the planes, it would have been very difficult to determine how the explosive devices had been smuggled aboard the aircraft. This means it is entirely possible the same tactic would have been used in subsequent waves of attacks.

Second, for some reason in 2006 the al Qaeda leadership’s eagerness for a spectacular attack appears to have trumped their perceived need for moderation. It was the moderation of people like Mohammed Atef that reined in the enthusiasm of the group’s idealists (men such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) and caused them to scale down the 2001 planes operation to less than half its original size — a measure that improved operational security and assisted in the 9/11 plot’s eventual success.

Finally, al Qaeda remains fixated on aircraft as targets and, in spite of changes in security procedures since 9/11, aircraft remain vulnerable to attack.

Yemen: Al Qaeda's Resurgence

April 22, 2008

Statements released by al Qaeda in Yemen — namely, in its publication, Sada al-Malahim (The Echo of Battle) — have provided further insight into the group’s new operational doctrine and target- selection criteria. Moreover, they — along with the timing of attacks following Sada al-Malahim’s release — have provided a lens through which to analyze the evolution of al Qaeda in Yemen over the past few years.

Al Qaeda in Yemen’s Leadership

Following the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Yemen became a battleground for counterterrorism forces and al Qaeda. There was initial success in the fight against al Qaeda — notably, the CIA-controlled drone hit on then-leader of al Qaeda in Yemen Abu Ali al-Harithi in late 2002 and the subsequent arrest of his replacement Muhammed Hamdi al-Ahdal in late 2003. The combination of these operations in such a short time period helped to cripple al Qaeda in Yemen’s operational capability momentarily.

With a recent increase in violence in Yemen, al Qaeda appears to be resurging under the leadership of Nasir al-Wahayshi, an ethnic Yemeni who spent time in Afghanistan while serving as a lieutenant under Osama Bin Laden. He returned to Yemen in 2003 through an extradition deal with the Iranian government and subsequently escaped from a high-security prison outside of Sanaa in 2006 along with Jamal al-Badawi (leader of the cell that carried out the suicide bombing of the USS Cole). Al-Wahayshi also maintains close ties with Qasim al-Rami, who was suspected of having been involved with the operational planning of the suicide attack on a group of Spanish tourists in Marib in July 2007.

[pic]

The new leadership’s established ties with al Qaeda prime have given it experience in leading and operating a traditionally structured al Qaeda node and the connections necessary to make such a node successful. In addition, the new senior leadership enjoys ties to veterans of al Qaeda in Yemen, such as al-Badawi. This, coupled with the fact that al-Wahayshi is an ethnic Yemeni, gives him the credibility and connections needed to recruit new members and operate effectively for the foreseeable future.

While a drastic increase in operational sophistication has not been seen yet — the group is concentrating on small-scale attacks while avoiding suicide operations and large bombings — the node has demonstrated the ability to launch multiple attacks in different locations within a short period of time. These attacks show that the group has adopted a fairly traditional jihadist target set, concentrating its efforts on symbolic Western targets (recently the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa and a Western housing compound), the energy sector (French, Chinese and Canadian interests) and elements of the security apparatus (small-scale attacks on security forces in the Marib province).

The Significance of Sada al-Malahim

Alongside this growth in operational capability, another trend has developed that could allow anticipation of further incidents in the short term.

An element of the group’s resurgence is evident in the release of public statements, recently in the form of a publication entitled Sada al-Malahim (The Echo of Battle). It has appeared on radical Islamist Web sites, with the first issue surfacing in January. While that first issue was fairly simplistic, the second included a statement by a fighter who explained his rationale for choosing to stay and fight in Yemen instead of traveling to Iraq: He stayed in order to attack the oil and energy sectors in Yemen that are helping to fuel Western operations in Iraq and elsewhere. This statement is in line with the attacks on the Chinese oil field and the French pipeline in early April.

With the production of Sada al-Malahim, parallels between al Qaeda in Yemen and other al Qaeda nodes begin to appear. The most notable parallel is with the Saudi al Qaeda node, which, at its peak, was issuing statements and publications (including its magazine Sawt Al Jihad). The ability to produce statements and launch attacks simultaneously signifies a fairly competent and capable node. One secondary element to this comparison that warrants attention is the fact that while al Qaeda prime and various other nodes often release statements filled with threats, they rarely follow through on those specific threats and do not attack in the immediate aftermath; in contrast, al Qaeda in Yemen has proven that it not only follows through on the threats within its statements, it does so in a timely manner:

• June 2007: Al Qaeda in Yemen issues a statement demanding that the Yemeni government release a number of prisoners being held on terrorism-related charges.

• July 2007: No prisoners are released, and a suicide bomber strikes a group of Spanish tourists near an archaeological site near Marib. In a video released on the Internet, the bomber claims he carried out the attacks in the name of the Yemen Soldiers Brigade, a group that is directly linked to al Qaeda in Yemen.

• January 2008: The first issue of Sada al-Malahim is released. The publication includes a demand for the release of prisoners being held by the Yemeni government on terrorism-related charges. No prisoners are released.

• Jan. 18: A group of Belgian tourists is attacked in the Hadramout region; two tourists are killed.

• March 13: The second issue of Sada al-Malahim is released and includes an interview with an alleged fighter who claims he chose to stay in Yemen in order to attack oil and energy interests that are fueling Western operations in Iraq.

• March 18: Mortars are fired at the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, although they miss the embassy compound and hit a local girl’s school. Shortly thereafter, there were a series of attacks on targets related to the energy sector, following through on the threats made in the second Sada al-Malahim statement.

The close timing between the releases of the Sada al-Malahim issues and the subsequent attacks indicate that the group has regained the ability to launch orchestrated attacks. Although the scope and sophistication of these attacks is somewhat limited at this time, the group indicated in their second issue of Sada al-Malahim that the new operational doctrine includes a campaign of continuous low-level attacks — a break from the large-scale attacks that have become symbolic of al Qaeda prime. While this could be interpreted as an indication of the group’s current operational capability, it can also be seen as an evolution in strategy. As the group’s history in Yemen has shown, launching a few large-scale operations does not achieve the desired effect. After the USS Cole was attacked, the Western presence in the Arab Peninsula did not dissolve, and the attack certainly did not drive away Western energy corporations. Thus, the group is adopting an operational doctrine somewhat similar to that seen in Iraq: a continuous flow of attacks designed to wear down the target’s resolve.

This evolution in strategy shows that not only has al Qaeda in Yemen been able to learn from its own failures, it has also recognized the operational effectiveness of the tactics employed by al Qaeda nodes elsewhere and adjusted accordingly. This development — along with the apparent increase in organization and leadership quality within the group — does not indicate that the group will diminish or that their attacks will cease in the near future.

Yet the increased organization within the group and the resultant release of statements prior to attacks are apparently making the group’s operations slightly more predictable. While the current operational doctrine calls for a continuous flow of low-level attacks, which are nearly impossible to anticipate, the flow has been punctuated by numerous higher-level operations associated with the release of these statements. As a result, future releases of Sada al-Malahim and other statements by the group can serve as indicators that a significant attack (or attacks) on Western targets in either the political realm or the energy sector is coming soon.

The high rate of attacks in recent weeks would appear to demonstrate that the group is devoted to its new operational doctrine and will continue to follow it until they are confronted. But if the Yemeni government’s long-term record of counterterrorism operations is any indication, the node will remain largely unmolested by security forces. One of the main reasons for this is the presence of a small, but fairly powerful, Salafist minority within the Yemeni military and intelligence apparatus. This presence makes openly condemning and actively addressing the al Qaeda threat a difficult task for the government. It is likely that the attacks will continue and the scope of the attacks will continue to broaden as al Qaeda in Yemen continues growing in organizational strength and sophistication.

Somalia: Al Qaeda and Al Shabaab

May 5, 2008

Editor’s Note: This is the first in a four-part series on the rebuilding of a key al Qaeda node in Somalia.

Early May 1, a U.S. AC-130 Spectre gunship destroyed a house in central Somalia where members of the Islamist militant group al Shabaab (Arabic for “the youth”) were holding a meeting. Two men with close ties to al Qaeda prime were killed in the attack.

With the U.S. government reporting recently that the al Qaeda node along the Afghan/Pakistani border is reorganizing, and with evidence surfacing recently that the al Qaeda node in Yemen is reorganizing as well, it seems that a select few al Qaeda groups have been undergoing a period of rebuilding. The same situation could be playing out in Somalia with al Shabaab. Although there have been some small-scale successes in targeting elements of al Shabaab’s command and control structure, the link between the Somalian group and al Qaeda prime has been established, and al Shabaab’s expansion in the near future is a very real threat.

Al Qaeda and Somalia

Al Qaeda has a long operational history in East Africa; Osama bin Laden himself spent time there, operating out of Sudan from 1992 (shortly after he was expelled from Saudi Arabia) to 1996 (when he left for Afghanistan). The group’s involvement in Somalia was first evident to the Western world in 1993 — during Operation Gothic Serpent — when al Qaeda sent operatives to Somalia to train the militias of Mohamed Farah Aided, a powerful local warlord and the main target of U.S. operations. In 1998, al Qaeda made its presence felt in East Africa with the embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More recently, al Qaeda has been implicated in the bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, and an attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner, both in 2002.

The group of al Qaeda operatives sent to aid the Somalian militias in 1993, which likely included Fazul Abdullah Mohamed is credited with instructing the Somalis on how to disable military helicopters by targeting them with rocket-propelled grenades as they flew low over the city. This tactic was what allowed the Somalis to disrupt U.S. operations and ultimately contributed to the U.S. pullout in late 1993. This serves as the first known example of al Qaeda providing direct material support to the Somalian cause. Al Qaeda’s motivation for supporting the militias at this time came partly from Somalis within al Qaeda prime’s ranks wanting to support their brethren in Somalia and partly from the group’s desire to take advantage of an opportunity to strike at the United States at a point of vulnerability.

[pic]

As a predominantly Sunni country, Somalia has been a source of al Qaeda fighters over the years, with a number of ethnic Somalis traveling to Afghanistan to train with al Qaeda prime and then returning to organize and command local al Qaeda nodes. Al Qaeda prime was known to have sent numerous operatives to East Africa in the early to mid-1990s to locate potential targets. In more recent years, there have been numerous reports of Somalis fighting alongside members of the local al Qaeda nodes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Development of Al Shabaab

After Ethiopian forces beat back the Supreme Islamic Courts Council (SICC) in 2007, the SICC’s armed wings dissolved into the ungoverned savannah in the south, the Mogadishu underground and safe zones in central Somalia. They eventually re-formed under the leadership of Aden Farah Ayro (one of the men killed in the May 1 U.S. air strike) and Sheikh Hassan Turki (who is suspected to be along the border between Somalia and Kenya), assumed the name al Shabaab and sought to continue the fight against the new Somalian government and its Ethiopian backers with an insurgency-style approach. Portions of al Shabaab have also been known to call themselves the Mujahideen Youth Movement (MYM); this is largely suspected to be a twist on the name of the main group and not an indication that the MYM is a separate entity.

The group’s core leadership comprises senior militants, some of whom trained directly and fought with al Qaeda prime in Afghanistan, while its rank-and-file membership is largely untrained Somalian youths. Al Shabaab is estimated to have 6,000 to 7,000 members, with cells having several hundred members. As a result of Somalia’s turbulent past, the group’s members have had no shortage of practice in asymmetrical warfare and small unit tactics, as well as experience using a wide array of weaponry.

From an operational standpoint the group is fairly new. As the SICC’s militant wing, it gained notoriety before the SICC took over Mogadishu in June 2006 for its desecration of Italian graves and the killing of a British journalist. The U.S. State Department formally labeled al Shabaab as a foreign terrorist organization in March — a mostly bureaucratic action, but nonetheless a demonstration of the extent to which the group had been able to develop and progress. The group actually publicly addressed its addition to the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations, saying it would only help support al Shabaab’s cause, as its justification as an official terrorist group would bring it more attention and subsequently more material support.

Helping to speed al Shabaab’s growth is the fact that when it was SICC’s militant wing, it had an organized command and control structure and many rank-and-file members already in place. The group was able to transfer that structure, and many of its members, to its new incarnation as al Shabaab. This — coupled with the leadership’s operational experience and links to al Qaeda prime — has helped create a capable and fairly strong group.

From a tactical standpoint al Shabaab does not yet exhibit any of the trademarks commonly associated with al Qaeda prime. The group employs a tactical doctrine that places a strong emphasis on small-unit, hit-and-run-style assaults, mainly targeting lightly guarded towns and villages and subsequently retreating to the countryside before reinforcements arrive. While they have begun to employ more traditional tactics such as improvised explosive devices in more urban environments, the militants have been operating more as a traditional insurgent force than as a traditional terrorist organization as commonly defined.

Somalia: Al Shabaab's Leadership Links to Al Qaeda

May 6, 2008

Editor’s Note: This is the second in a four-part series on the rebuilding of a key al Qaeda node in Somalia.

The main link between Somalian Islamist militant group al Shabaab and al Qaeda is al Shabaab’s senior leadership. Many of al Shabaab’s senior leaders both trained with and conducted operations in the name of al Qaeda prime:

Aden Hashi Ayro is known to have traveled to Afghanistan sometime before 2001. While he was there, al Qaeda prime trained him in explosives and insurgent tactics. He ultimately returned to Somalia around 2003, where he established his own network and launched a series of operations. He is credited with multiple attacks against foreign aid workers and also is suspected in the murder of a journalist for the British Broadcasting Corp. He has since been described by multiple sources as al Qaeda’s military commander in Somalia. Ayro was killed in a May 1 U.S. airstrike.

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed was involved with al Qaeda prime. He was instrumental in training warlord Mohamed Farah Aidid’s militia in 1993 and helped plan and organize the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as well as the hotel bombing in Mombasa, Kenya, and a surface-to-air attack on an Israeli jetliner in 2002. He went on to become a part of the leadership of the Supreme Islamic Courts Council (SICC) and subsequently a senior operational commander in al Shabaab. U.S. forces have targeted him on numerous occasions.

Abu Taha al-Sudani, also known as Tariq Abdullah, was al Qaeda’s leader in East Africa and received training from al Qaeda prime in explosives. He is thought to have had close ties to Osama bin Laden and other high-level al Qaeda and al Shabaab commanders. The United States has also implicated him as the main financier for various al Qaeda operations in East Africa.

Hassan Turki and SICC leader Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys are longtime allies and are believed to be orchestrating the Somalian insurgency. Turki also has links to al Shabaab and al Qaeda. He operated a training camp in southern Somalia and was targeted in a March 2007 airstrike but is thought to have survived. His camp was known to have housed al Qaeda-linked militants and trained al Shabaab fighters. In 2004, the U.S. government formally designated Turki as a financier of terrorism.

Gouled Hassan Dourad was part of an al Qaeda cell operated by al-Sudani and has links to al Qaeda prime. The U.S. government implicated him in a mid-2003 plot to bomb Camp Lemonier, a U.S. Special Forces base in Djibouti that hosts the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa contingent. Camp Lemonier has served as a the main U.S. operating base in the region — along with forward operating bases in Ethiopia — for many of the U.S. airstrikes on militant targets in Somalia. Dourad is currently being held at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

[pic]

Most members of al Shabaab’s senior command and control structure also developed links with al Qaeda prime through their involvement in a now-dissolved group that operated in Somalia. Aweys, al- Sudani, Dourad and Turki were all members of al-Itihaad al-Islamiya (AIAI), a precursor to the SICC. It was known to have supported al Qaeda prime’s operations in East Africa in the late 1990s and even into the early 21st century, helping to establish militant training camps near Ros Kamboni, a desolate marshland along the Somalian border with Kenya. When the SICC was formed, the members of AIAI dissolved their group and folded into the new organizations.

Al Shabaab’s senior leadership clearly has extensive experience and involvement in al Qaeda prime operations. These links have helped the leaders arrange support for their group through arms shipments from Eritrea and Yemen and through increased numbers of foreign fighters sent in to support their cause. Al Qaeda prime has also voiced support for al Shabaab. In a March 2007 al Qaeda statement, Abu Yahya al-Libi encouraged the use of suicide and roadside bombings — tactics commonly associated with al Qaeda-affiliated groups — against Ethiopian troops and pro-Somalian government forces. Bin Laden and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, have also made mention of Somalia in past recordings. This indicates that al Qaeda prime has recognized al Shabaab as a capable entity and has taken a proactive stance in order to help promote the group’s continued growth.

Al Shabaab’s Structure

Typically, al Shabaab operates in groups of 100 or so fighters when raiding local villages and towns. Within the urban areas, their organizational structure tightens up, and there is more control over small-unit actions. They have proven highly successful in urban combat — a skill perfected through years of conflict, and one the United States experienced firsthand during Operation Gothic Serpent in 1993, when the militias managed to kill 18 U.S. military personnel.

Al Shabaab is a somewhat loosely organized group. While there is a set command and control structure, the senior commanders usually only issue broad directives and leave the day-to-day operations to the lower-level commanders. This style of structure — along with the fact that many of the militants and low-level commanders have been working together since serving in the military wing of the SICC — means that replacing upper-level leaders such as Ayro will be fairly easy and should not greatly affect operational capabilities. In fact, some preliminary reports indicate that Sheikh Mukhtar Abu Zubayr has assumed a more senior leadership role after Ayro’s May 1 death.

Yet Ayro’s death is likely to create some short-term disruption in terms of organization within the group. This has been the United States’ tactic of late: targeting key leadership in airstrikes as a means of slowing down the growth of groups such as al Shabaab and trying to keep them in a relative state of disorganization. The United States has employed a similar strategy with success in Pakistan and Yemen, utilizing Predator drones to deliver tactical strikes on key leadership targets.

Judging from the success of the May 1 strike, the United States likely had “eyes on the target,” either via Predator drones or Special Forces personnel on the ground. The United States has also received intelligence on the location and movement of high-value targets from the Somalian government, although this intelligence is often delivered late and is difficult to act upon in a timely manner. Still, the number of successful strikes since January 2007 suggests that coordination is improving.

Somalia: Implications of the Al Qaeda-Al Shabaab Relationship

May 7, 2008

Editor’s Note: This is the third in a four-part series on the rebuilding of a key al Qaeda node in Somalia.

With the recent increase in al Qaeda activity in Yemen and the flow of fighters out of Iraq partially directed toward Yemen, it is likely that the country will see an influx of jihadists in the near future. Yemen is currently a relatively safe location for al Qaeda fighters’ operations. But, for a multitude of reasons, the security dynamic there is likely to change as their attacks continue and pressure upon the government to act increases.

Given Somalia’s history as a critical al Qaeda bridgehead into East Africa and its proximity to Yemen — a mere 100 nautical miles from the Yemeni coast — Somalia provides a plausible release for any jihadist influx. Its lack of a strong central authority, coupled with its porous borders and the presence of al Qaeda-affiliated groups, makes it a logical destination for these al Qaeda fighters if Yemen increases its internal security and begins to carry out counterterrorism operations.

Over the past couple of years al Shabaab and the Somalian insurgents have been trying to advance their cause by portraying Somalia as a central theater in the “war against the infidels.” In this manner, they have been trying to attract material support and foreign fighters. Up to now, most al Qaeda-linked militants have traveled to Iraq, a more traditional battleground for al Qaeda, where cells are already in place. But as U.S. operations in Iraq have progressed, it has become more difficult for the jihadists to conduct operations as successful and effective as in the past.

Therefore, some of these fighters likely will begin flowing out of Iraq in search of another cause and insurgency to support. This especially holds true if the fighters are not welcomed back by their home governments or are persecuted when they return home and need to relocate. This same dynamic occurred after the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and many Islamist militants who found themselves unwelcome at home took up the struggle in such out-of-the-way places as Chechnya and Bosnia. There was also a large segment of the displaced jihadist population that had no problem returning to their respective homelands but rather chose to continue fighting on their own accord and traveled in search of worthy causes elsewhere.

In such cases, a country with a chaotic environment and a chance to wage a jihad, like Somalia, could appear attractive. In fact, recent reports suggest that the flow of foreign fighters into Somalia has been steadily increasing in the past few months.

While this is a long-term outlook, in the short term, as the link between al Shabaab and al Qaeda strengthens, there likely will be a shift in al Shabaab’s operational doctrine. Even with the limited and unsophisticated tactical doctrine the group employs at this time, al Shabaab has been able to inflict heavy casualties among the Ethiopian forces, similar to al Qaeda’s operations against U.S. forces in Iraq. While the Somalian militants currently rely on small-unit assaults of villages and checkpoints and the occasional bombing of soft military targets, as al Qaeda’s influence grows stronger, al Shabaab is very likely to begin adopting a tactical doctrine similar to one associated with an al Qaeda-affiliated group, marking the difference between an insurgency and terrorism.

The new doctrine likely will include an increased dependence on improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and vehicle-borne IEDs as well a more directed campaign aimed at the military and civil infrastructure in and around Somalia. Iraq-style guerrilla attacks, including roadside bombs targeting Ethiopian forces, have already increased in Somalia as al Shabaab has begun to adjust its tactics. Although Somalians have traditionally been averse to the use of suicide tactics — as was previously the case in Algeria and with the Taliban — it is possible that, with an influx of foreign, al Qaeda-linked fighters, this tactic will begin to take hold among al Shabaab members much like it eventually did among the Taliban and jihadist groups in Pakistan.

Somalia’s Place in the Jihadist Movement

As previously stated, al Shabaab has been proactive in its attempts to promote its cause and attract material support by trying to portray Somalia as a central theater in the jihadist movement. While it certainly has been one of the more active — and operationally effective — nodes outside of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, al Shabaab has yet to reach the point where Somalia would warrant being considered a central theater. This is for cultural and geographic reasons as much as anything. In many ways, Iraq is considered a critical and historical part of the Muslim world. Somalia, on the other hand, is considered Muslim territory but is seen as a place on the periphery, and not at the heart of the Islamic world. In the broader context of the jihadist movement, al Shabaab is an up-and-coming local node, and Somalia remains a secondary theater of operations.

However, with the beginning of the foreign jihadist flight from Iraq and increased support from al Qaeda sympathizers elsewhere, al Shabaab has been provided the opportunity to transform Somalia into a central theater, much like Bosnia and Chechnya became central theaters for jihadist militants when opportunities to fight elsewhere evaporated. One factor that could forward al Shabaab’s cause would be an increased U.S. presence, which would in turn give the Somalian militants the opportunity to directly strike U.S. forces. If Somalia provided an opportunity for jihadists to strike directly at U.S. forces, Somalia would likely see an even greater influx of support from abroad, possibly propelling Somalia — a former “backwater” — into the forefront of the jihadist movement, alongside the likes of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Somalia: Al Shabaab and the War Against Islamist Militancy

May 8, 2008

Editor’s Note: This is the final part in a four-part series on the rebuilding of a key al Qaeda node in Somalia.

Thus far, the United States has limited its involvement in Somalia to tactical airstrikes with cruise missiles and AC-130 gunships — both standoff weapons systems — and naval interdiction operations along the Somalian coastline. There have been U.S. Special Forces and CIA paramilitary operations on the ground in Somalia, but these have been more intelligence-gathering operations than direct-strike operations (the operatives quietly locate targets for other resources to strike).

However, the United States certainly has recognized the need to be involved directly in Somalia. U.S. forces have established a central base of operations at Camp Lemonier — a former French Foreign Legion base in Djibouti — where most U.S. air operations originate. Furthermore, the United States has established numerous forward operating bases within Ethiopia to support U.S. air operations in the region.

It is likely that the United States’ involvement will increase in Somalia, due to the growing presence of al Qaeda-linked militants — namely al Shabaab — and partly due to the increase in maritime piracy off the coast of Somalia. For now, the United States seems content with providing support to Ethiopian operations, and any growth would be in the form of air, naval or Special Forces assets. However, regardless of any increase, Somalia is likely to remain on the periphery of the war against Islamist militants, with Iraq and Afghanistan remaining at the forefront for the time being. This is not to say that the situation in Somalia is not a concern for U.S. military planners; rather, at this point, there is little more that can be done without a sizable shift in U.S. forces’ presence in the region.

The Outlook for al Shabaab

If this situation plays out as STRATFOR sees it, the link between al Shabaab and al Qaeda might strengthen over time, and the flow of weapons, explosives and jihadists through Yemen, Eritrea and elsewhere might continue, but al Shabaab is not likely to drastically increase in size or strength in the long run. Up to this point, the combination of Ethiopian and pro-government forces and limited U.S. action has not defeated the insurgency, though it has managed to keep them slightly off balance; at the same time, the insurgents have not defeated the Ethiopians or the Somalian government the Ethiopians are backing.

If history is any indication, al Shabaab and the local al Qaeda nodes will fade away over time. Al Qaeda nodes in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the Sinai and the Philippines have risen up in the past, only to be dismantled and reduced to a much lesser level by government crackdowns aided by international assistance from countries such as the United States.

However, it is important to note that Somalia has a different dynamic. Jihadist movements have the potential to thrive where there is chaos — as in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border areas — but do not do as well in countries with a strong central government. Because of the vacuum of state power in Somalia, al Shabaab has an opportunity to thrive.

Eventually, increased U.S. and Ethiopian operations — especially with increased intelligence gathering and sharing — will take their toll on al Shabaab and destabilize the group’s core command and control structure, weakening its operational capabilities. However, al Shabaab does pose a very real threat. Without continued counterterrorism efforts — in combination with efforts to stabilize Somalia and establish a strong central authority — al Shabaab could help re-establish al Qaeda’s foothold in East Africa and create serious security issues both in Somalia and in the Horn of Africa.

Al Qaeda: Creative Recruiting for Suicide Bombers

May 5, 2008

A STRATFOR source reported May 5 that the 18-year-old son of Osama bin Laden is on a mission to boost recruitment for the jihadist movement.

Umar Hamza bin Laden is one of 19 children reportedly fathered by the renowned global terrorist. Instead of aspiring to become a Western pop singer or calling for peace between Muslims and the West on CNN like some of his other siblings, Umar Hamzah bin Laden has apparently followed in the footsteps of his father in Afghanistan, where he reportedly resides with his Saudi mother.

Umar Hamza is widely recognized in jihadist circles. A poem he allegedly wrote for his father in 2003 is posted on a jihadist Web site where the young man is praised by jihadist sympathizers as a successor to his father. Now, it seems the younger bin Laden allegedly has been tasked with recruiting minors from 13-16 years old to form small jihadist cells in their areas of residence. According to the source, Umar Hamza is focused on recruiting minors with low IQs or with mental disabilities or those who come from broken homes. The jihadist group is especially intent on boosting recruitment in the West African state of Mauritania, where a jihadist presence has reared its head in recent months and where poverty and homelessness among children is high.

Al Qaeda’s apparent focus on recruiting minors is revealing of the group’s desperation. It is well known by now that al Qaeda is attempting to counter serious shortages in recruits since its ranks have been depleted, particularly in Iraq where the group has been severely hampered by U.S-allied armed Sunni groups.

Though al Qaeda is facing some rough times, the group’s reaching out to mentally disabled minors is also a sign of the group’s innovation. Capable militant groups will learn to adapt to a changing security environment in order to sustain their operations. For example, in 2003 it might have been relatively easy for a suicide bomber in Iraq to storm a security checkpoint, but it is now far more difficult for an adult male with a bulky vest to get close to his intended target. Iraqi insurgent leaders eventually learned that it was a lot easier and more effective for a woman in a loose-fitting abaya to pass security checkpoints than for a man, leading to the more prevalent use of female suicide bombers in attacks. In the end, it is more effective for these groups to preserve their more skilled or “mentally stable” operatives for the purposes of bomb-making, planning, fund-raising and recruiting than to expend them on suicide missions — thus the need to seek out mentally ill or troubled youths and drug addicts who can be convinced that their salvation will come only from sacrificing themselves in martyrdom missions. Though these foot soldiers might have low skill levels, they are key to the group’s ability to sustain a regular tempo of attacks.

Furthermore, insurgent leaders have developed a variety of insurance policies to ensure a successful attack, regardless of the bomber’s mental health. Such methods include remotely detonating the suicide bomb from a getaway vehicle parked near the attack site, tying the hands of the bomber to the steering wheel of a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device and having a gunman on site to shoot the suicide bomber and automatically trigger the release on the bomb should the attacker get cold feet.

Militant groups around the world have demonstrated their innovation in suicide bombing. In early May, an Iraqi female suicide bomber faking pregnancy detonated herself in the middle of a wedding procession in a Shiite town northeast of Baghdad. In February, two mentally disabled women unwittingly set off bombs in a coordinated suicide attack on two pet markets in Baghdad, killing 73 people. In Afghanistan, the Taliban has been known to recruit young men who suffer from mental illnesses or who are hooked on drugs. Islamist militants fighting during the Soviet war in Afghanistan were known to employ the use of “kamikaze camels” — camels packed with explosives that could wander in the desert near military sites and be remotely detonated.

The Israelis and Sri Lankans have come across a few interesting suicide lingerie cases as well. Back in 2005, a female suicide bomber was caught at an Israeli checkpoint with 20 pounds of explosives stitched in her underwear. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, one of the early users of suicide bombing as a tactic, have even devised a suicide brassiere; last November, a mentally disabled Tamil Tiger bra bomber unwittingly blew herself up outside the office of a Tamil minister.

Regardless of ideology, religion, language or purpose, militant groups worldwide will continue to learn from each other and adopt new tactics to maintain an upper hand in their insurgency. While suicide bombing may be a decades-old phenomenon, the ingenuity surrounding the tactic is very much alive.

Mauritania: The Unlikelihood of al Qaeda's Threat

Aug. 13, 2008

Abu Musab Abd al-Wadoud, head of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), issued a call to arms Aug. 12 in response to the coup in Mauritania on Aug. 6. Although AQIM has shown a presence in Mauritania, and recent attacks there have killed police officers and foreign tourists, AQIM has thus far not shown an ability to seriously threaten Mauritania. Al-Wadoud is using the coup in Mauritania as an opportunity to recruit members and build AQIM’s support base, but the group will continue focusing its energy in Algeria.

Al-Wadoud joined many other voices in condemning Mauritania’s most recent coup. He accused the coup leaders of being backed by Western powers such as the United States and France, and he urged Mauritanians to “wake up and prepare for the war; the cross is marching toward you.”

In fact, the United States and France also condemned the coup. Both countries withdrew all nonhumanitarian financial assistance to the country Aug. 8 — a move other European countries are contemplating. The United States specifically has worked closely with Mauritania since 2003 to increase the country’s counterterrorism capabilities and provided training and funds to the country’s cash-strapped military. Together, the United States and France cut off slightly more than $20 million in assistance to a country whose military expenditures in 2005 were estimated at $80 million.

[pic]

Attacks in Mauritania began to be linked to AQIM in December 2007, but militants there have not displayed the capability to carry out sophisticated attacks. Militants used AK-47s to attack French tourists on Dec. 23, 2007, and Mauritanian border guards four days later, in incidents that led to the cancellation of the 2008 Dakar Rally. On Feb. 1, militants opened fire on the Israeli Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania’s capital. The ensuing gunbattle with guards caused no casualties; bystanders were wounded, but no embassy staff members were harmed. Finally, on April 7, gunmen linked to AQIM exchanged fire with security forces in Nouakchott, leading to the deaths of one police officer and one militant.

These attacks showed rudimentary tactics with little or no preoperational planning. While the significant drop in defense funding will hamper Mauritania’s ability to control the new al Qaeda threat, it is fairly clear that groups associated with AQIM in Mauritania simply cannot mount a large-scale, coordinated attack at this point.

And the development of a mature militant Islamist movement takes time and resources. For example, AQIM cells in Algeria have been very active. Based out of the hills east of Algiers, the group has mounted a steady, successful campaign against state security forces since the 1990s, before the group (previously known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat) joined al Qaeda. Militants have conducted roadside bombings and suicide attacks using vehicle-borne explosives. They have targeted the military, police and tourist sites with alarming success. However, Mauritania does not have Algeria’s history of jihadist activity, and there are no signs that AQIM expertise is flowing to Mauritania from Algerian cells. AQIM cells in Morocco have had similar trouble gaining traction and largely have been contained.

Considering the effort that it would take to start a genuine insurgency there, Mauritania is not as strategically important to AQIM as Algeria. Compared to Mauritania, Algeria carries a higher international profile and hosts more Western tourists, and Algiers is a cosmopolitan city with many Westerners and Western interests. Mauritania relies on fishing and hosts no significant Western interests. Furthermore, the two countries’ main cities are separated by 1,700 miles of barren desert — a significant challenge to transporting people and supplies.

However, Mauritania does offer a place for AQIM members to hide out and train for attacks elsewhere in Northern Africa. Though the new Mauritanian junta has promised to crack down on al Qaeda elements, the portion of the Sahara in northeast Mauritania is virtually ungovernable. It is mostly controlled by nomadic tribes that are not necessarily loyal to the government in Nouakchott and provide cover to militants in return for cash. Mauritania’s military is incapable of carrying out sustained missions in the area; and after the military funding cutoff, it likely will have even less reach than it did before.

Physically, there is not much stopping AQIM from establishing itself in the deserts of northeastern Mauritania — there are reports that it already has. But as AQIM continues its focus on Algeria, it cannot spread too far from the Mediterranean coast without risking becoming stretched too thin. Establishing and maintaining supply lines over such inhospitable terrain is risky and requires considerable manpower. If AQIM begins increasing its reliance on the deserts of Mauritania as a safe haven, it could be a sign that the group is under pressure in Algeria, a country whose security apparatus is far more adept than Mauritania’s.

Ultimately, al-Wadoud’s call to arms for the people of Mauritania was a publicity move for AQIM. The coup — something that happens in Mauritania about every two years — was an opportunity for AQIM to point out the country’s poor record of consistent governance and take advantage of disillusioned Muslims ripe for recruiting to send to more important areas such as neighboring Algeria. There is no question that AQIM would like to have a successful presence in Mauritania. But so far, it has lacked the ability, and it will have to make a large investment there first.

From the New York Landmarks Plot to the Mumbai Attack

Dec. 3, 2008

On the surface, last week’s attack on Mumbai was remarkable for its execution and apparently unconventional tactics. But when compared to a plot uncovered 15 years ago that targeted prominent hotels in Manhattan, it becomes apparent that the Mumbai attack was not so original after all.

In July 1993, U.S. counterterrorism agents arrested eight individuals later convicted of plotting an elaborate, multistage attack on key sites in Manhattan. The militants, who were linked to Osama bin Laden’s then-relatively new group, al Qaeda, planned to storm the island armed with automatic rifles, grenades and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). In multiple raids on key targets combined with diversionary attacks, they aimed to kill as many people as possible.

The planned attack, which came to be known as the “Landmarks” plot, called for several tactical teams to raid sites such as the Waldorf-Astoria, St. Regis and U.N. Plaza hotels, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and a midtown Manhattan waterfront heliport servicing business executives and VIPs traveling from lower Manhattan to various New York-area airports. The militants carried out extensive surveillance both inside and outside the target hotels using human probes, hand-drawn maps and video surveillance. Detailed notes were taken on the layout and design of the buildings, with stairwells, ballrooms, security cameras and personnel all reconnoitered.

The attackers intended to infiltrate the hotels and disguise themselves as kitchen employees. On the day of the attack, one attack team planned to use stolen delivery vans to get close to the hotels, at which point heavily armed, small-cell commando teams would deploy from the rear of the van. Stationary operatives would use hand grenades to create diversions while attack teams would rake hotel guests with automatic weapons. The attackers planned to carry gas masks and use tear gas in hotel ballrooms to gain an advantage over any security they might come up against. They planned to attack at night, when the level of protection would be lower.

The targeted hotels host some of the most prestigious guests in Manhattan. These could have included diplomats like the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who traditionally keeps an apartment in the Waldorf-Astoria, or even the U.S. secretary of state, who is known to stay at the Waldorf during U.N. sessions. They also host various business leaders. If successful, the attackers doubtless would have killed many high-profile individuals key to New York’s stature as a center for financial and diplomatic dealings.

Meanwhile, the plots to detonate explosives in the Lincoln and Holland tunnels would have blocked critical transportation infrastructure, sowing chaos in the city as key escape routes were closed off. And VIPs seeking to escape the city via the midtown heliport would have been thwarted by the attack planned for that location. In fact, the heliport attack was planned to be carried out using watercraft, which also could have been used to target transport ferries, further disrupting transportation in and out of Manhattan. The New York City Police Department could plausibly even have quarantined Manhattan to prevent the attackers from fleeing the city.

With the city shut down and gunmen running amok, the financial center of the United States would have been thrown into chaos and confusion until the attackers were detained or killed. The attacks thus would have undermined the security and effectiveness of New York as a center for financial and diplomatic dealings.

At the time, U.S. counterterrorism officials deemed that the attack would have had a 90 percent success rate. Disaster, then, was averted when federal agents captured the plotters planning the Landmarks attack thanks to an informant who had infiltrated the group. Along with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing just four months earlier, which killed six people but was intended to bring down both towers, the United States dodged a major bullet that could have been devastating to New York.

The Nov. 26 Mumbai Attack

A little more than fifteen years later, the Nov. 26 attacks in Mumbai closely followed the script of the New York plot. Militants armed with AK-47s, grenades and military-grade explosives carried out a very logistically sophisticated and coordinated attack on the financial capital of India.

[pic]

Clearly, the Mumbai attack involved extensive preoperational surveillance. Attackers had maps of the targeted hotels, and according to the Indian Marine Commandos who raided the Taj Mahal hotel, the militants moved around as if they knew the hotel’s layout by heart. Advance members of the attack teams had already taken up positions in the hotels, stockpiling firearms, ammunition, grenades and food that were quickly accessed and used to maintain the attackers’ positions in the hotels. One of the attackers reportedly also had taken a job as an intern chef in the Taj Mahal hotel kitchen, so his movements raised less suspicion and he had a detailed knowledge of the entry points and corridors. For such attacks, preparedness is key, and escaping alive is a long shot. The attackers therefore must have been highly motivated and willing to die — a rare combination that requires immense amounts of training and ideological zeal.

At least two teams entered the city by watercraft, breaking up into smaller groups as they made their way to the Taj Mahal hotel, Oberoi-Trident hotel complex and Nariman (also known as Chabad) House, a Jewish center in the same area of Mumbai. These tactical teams dispersed across the city, attacking prominent sites where foreign VIPs were sure to be present. They infiltrated the hotels through back entrances and kitchens, thus enhancing the element of surprise as they opened fire on guests in the dining areas and atriums of the hotels.

Beyond killing people and holding hostages in Mumbai’s most prestigious hotels, other attack teams assaulted additional strategic sites in Mumbai, creating a sense of chaos and confusion over the whole city. Mumbai’s main train station, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, as well as Cama Hospital, offices of The Times of India newspaper, restaurants, a theater, and bars frequented by foreigners also were attacked. The attackers’ excellent coordination — the multiple attacks took place nearly simultaneously — thus ensured maximum confusion and chaos, frustrating police responses. This could explain in part why operations like those at Nariman House and the hotels lasted for more than 48 hours.

Similarities between New York and Mumbai

The similarities between the Landmarks plot and the Nov. 26 Mumbai attack are quite obvious. In symbolic terms, as the Mumbai attack unfolded, many onlookers said that an attack on Mumbai is to India what an attack on New York is to Americans. In more concrete terms, the targets, methods, weapons and geography involved were similar (if not identical), and the unconventional style of the attacks points to a common author.

U.S. counterterrorism forces in 1995 detained Landmarks plot mastermind Abdel Basit (aka Ramzi Yousef), who remains in U.S. federal prison. But his ideas obviously did not stay behind bars. This illustrates how a plan’s initial failure does not mean the threat has been eliminated. Indeed, STRATFOR observed in 2005 that the 1993 Landmarks plot (among others) should not be discounted, as al Qaeda or other terrorist groups are known to return to past targets and plot scenarios.

The similarities between the Landmarks plot and the Mumbai attack exist at several levels. The first relates to the target set. Both New York and Mumbai are the respective financial centers of their countries and home to their nations’ major stock exchanges. In both cities, the planners had picked out high-profile soft targets — sites that have less security personnel and countermeasures than, say, a military installation or key government building. Softer security means gaining access to strategic assets and people is easier. STRATFOR has long stressed the importance of maintaining vigilance at soft targets like hotels that cater to international guests, as these are likely targets for militant Islamists. Both plans also involved infiltrating hotel staff and booking rooms in the hotels to gain inside information and store supplies.

The second similarity involves how both plans included peripheral targets to cause confusion and chaos and thus create a diversion from the main targets. In Mumbai, transportation infrastructure like the city’s main railway station was attacked, and militants detonated explosive devices in taxis and next to gasoline pumps. Meanwhile, roving gunmen attacked other sites around the city. In a country where coordination among first responders is already weak, the way the attackers fanned out across the city caused massive chaos and distracted security forces from the main prize: the hotels. Attacking Cama Hospital also sowed chaos, as the injured from one scene of attack became the targets of another while being rescued.

A third similarity exists in the geography of the two cities. In both plots, the use of watercraft is a distinctive tactical similarity. Watercraft gave militants access at unconventional locations where security would be more lax. Both Mumbai (a peninsula) and Manhattan (an island) offer plenty of points where militants can mount assaults from watercraft. Such an attack would not have worked in New Delhi or Bangalore; these are landlocked cities where militants would have had to enter by road, a route much more likely to encounter police patrols. Being centers of trade and surrounded by water, both Mumbai and New York have high levels of maritime traffic. This means infiltrating the area from the water would raise minimal suspicions, especially if the craft were registered locally (as was the case in the Mumbai attack). Such out-of-the box tactics take advantage of security services, which often tend to focus on established threats.

A fourth similarity lies in transportation. In addition to using watercraft, both plots involved the use of deceptive vehicles to maneuver around the city undetected. The Landmark plotters used taxis to conduct surveillance and planned on using a delivery van to approach the hotels. In Mumbai, the attackers planted bombs in taxis, and at least one group of militants hijacked a police van and used it to carry out attacks across the city. Using familiar vehicles like taxis, delivery vans or police vans to carry out surveillance or attacks reduces suspicion and increases the element of surprise, allowing militants to stay under cover until the moment of attack.

An Off-the-Shelf Plan

As indicated, the striking similarities between the Landmarks plot and the Mumbai attack suggest that Basit and other early al Qaeda operatives who helped prepare the Landmarks plot in New York authored the Mumbai plan. Considering that the militants launched their original attack from Karachi, Pakistan, and the previous involvement of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency — which has connections with al Qaeda leaders in western Pakistan — it is very likely that al Qaeda in Pakistan at least provided the blueprints for this attack. On-the-ground operations like training, surveillance and the actual attack appear to have been carried out by the Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba in connection with Indian Islamist groups.

Here we see more evidence of the existence of an ideological or strategic battle space that exists in the radical Islamist world, which has been greatly influenced by al Qaeda. Like a contingency plan that might sit on the shelf for years or decades before it is useful, terrorist plots (especially good ones) can have a long shelf life and be applied in various scenarios. In fact, plans that sit on the shelf longer might actually be more effective as security officials focus their attention on evolving threats and forget old ones.

Just because a plot has been disrupted, the threat has not been eliminated. Once terrorists happen upon a successful model, they are likely to follow that model. This can be seen in al Qaeda’s return to the World Trade Center in 2001, eight years after the initial truck bomb attacks in 1993. It can also be seen in the fact that Mumbai has been the target of multiple attacks and threats, including train bombings in 2006 that killed approximately 200 people. Though the tactics might have differed, the target set remained the same. Various parts of the attack cycle can change, but rarely does an attack occur that is completely novel.

Ultimately, the biggest difference between the Landmarks plot and the Mumbai attack is that the Mumbai attack succeeded. The failure of the Landmarks plot probably provided key lessons to the planners of the Mumbai attack, who were able to carry out the stages of the attack without detection and with the full element of surprise. Gauging by the success of the Mumbai incident, we can expect similar strategies and tactics in future attacks.

Jihadism in 2009: The Trends Continue

Jan. 7, 2009

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.

[pic]

• 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 than 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.

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.

Al Qaeda: The Insignificance of bin Laden's Latest Message

Jan. 14, 2009

In his first audio message since May 2008, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden issued an audio recording through As-Sahab, al Qaeda’s media arm, on Jan. 14. The message comprised statements about the ongoing Israeli operation in Gaza and warnings to U.S. President George W. Bush’s successor about the challenges of inheriting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the message, bin Laden focuses on Bush and his cooperation with Israel in its operation against Hamas in the Gaza strip, and he urges Muslims to support the mujahideen with “money and men.” He goes on to link the world’s economic troubles to the United States’ missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that if the next U.S. president “withdraws from the war, that would be a military defeat, and if he goes on with it, he’ll drown in economic crisis.”

Bin Laden and the core al Qaeda leadership (known as al Qaeda prime) do not matter much anymore, beyond their symbolic power. The continual release of statements without attacks means that these tapes are falling on deaf ears. Al Qaeda prime has failed to pull off an operation since the London bombings in 2005 — and even that attack appears to have involved only a tangential link to the grassroots jihadist network behind the plot. Even in South Asia, where al Qaeda is active, it relies heavily on local and regional allies for cover. Bin Laden has become an old revolutionary who refuses to retire though his time has passed.

While the tape’s content appears to indicate that it was made recently, it has not yet been confirmed that it is an entirely new communication. From what STRATFOR has read of the statement so far, bin Laden does not even mention two of the incidents that have occurred to strengthen al Qaeda since his last message: the Nov. 26 attacks in Mumbai and militants’ gains in northwest Pakistan. Some other strange omissions include the failure to mention U.S. President-elect Barack Obama by name (bin Laden refers only to “Bush’s successor,” although he does reportedly directly quote Vice President-elect Joe Biden) and the absence of the online advertising and hype that usually precede such a release from bin Laden.

The fact that bin Laden spent most of the message railing against the United States and Israel for the actions in Gaza does not mean that the tape is recent. Israel has constantly been involved in Gaza operations, and this subject has been one of bin Laden’s main grievances on which he has spoken frequently. Compared to the message released Jan. 6 by Ayman al-Zawahiri (bin Laden’s deputy), which commented specifically on Obama and on Egypt’s failure to intervene in the Israeli strikes against Gaza, this message appears to go into much less detail.

Regardless of the content of bin Laden’s message, the fact remains that the connection between these tapes and attacks carried out by al Qaeda prime is very weak. This is the seventh tape (counting both audio and video) bin Laden has made since 2007 with no significant attack to back it up. In recent years, al Qaeda prime has really posed a physical threat only to South Asia — an area of operations whose size hardly corresponds to al Qaeda prime’s frequent calls for global jihad.

Without attacks to back it up, rhetoric appears to be bin Laden’s sole remaining weapon. And meanwhile, other militant Islamist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and countries like Iran, are gaining much greater prestige as they confront their traditional enemies, like Israel, head-on. Without the street credibility of being a legitimate revolutionary threat, bin Laden and al Qaeda prime lose the ability to attract recruits and money — and bin Laden’s appeal to supporters for both in his latest message is evidence of his declining stature.

Some of the omissions surrounding the tape also indicate al Qaeda prime’s struggle to stay alive. If al Qaeda were healthy, a mention of the Mumbai attacks and the gains militants have made against the government in northwestern Pakistan would have been expected. However, al Qaeda prime’s inability to capitalize on those gains shows just how much U.S. airstrikes have pinned the group down. The failure to advertise the message and hype its release indicates that al Qaeda prime faces a significant risk in getting an original tape from the source and distributing it online. Tipping off the United States that a tape would soon be released could compromise communication networks already worn thin by U.S. strikes in northwestern Pakistan.

Bin Laden (and other al Qadea prime talking heads) will continue to make these tapes and, given that the al Qaeda leader has orchestrated successful attacks in the past, some will continue to listen to him. But without a major action to back up his threats, bin Laden’s influence over the militant Islamist movement will fade. However, this does not mean the militant Islamist movement itself will fade. As the actions of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah (and Hezbollah’s patron, Iran) show, plenty of people are prepared to become the world’s top Islamist militant.

Algeria: Al Qaeda and the Plague

Jan. 21, 2009

On Jan. 18, the British tabloid newspaper The Sun reported that some 40 al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) members died from an outbreak of the plague in the Tizi Ouzou province of Algeria. According to The Sun, the epidemic forced the group to turn its base into a mass grave and flee. Other sources such as the Washington Times have picked up on the story and are reporting that U.S. government sources say the incident occurred but have not confirmed the number of deaths or the agent involved in causing them.

STRATFOR is carefully watching these reports to see if first, they are true (remember that the first story is quite often not the correct story), and second, precisely what occurred, in an attempt to determine if this was a natural outbreak of plague, or if it was an instance of the group experimenting with biological warfare.

Plague (sometimes referred to as the Black Death) is a naturally occurring disease that is caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis. This bacterium is found in rodents and fleas that infest them and exists in many parts of the world, including the western United States. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are some 1,000 to 3,000 cases of plague diagnosed in humans every year; between five and 15 of those cases occur in the United States.

Y. pestis can infect humans in three ways. The bacteria cause pneumonic plague when inhaled, though pneumonic plague can also occur when plague bacteria from another form of transmission infect the lungs. Bubonic plague results when the bacteria enter through a break in the skin (such as a flea bite), and septicemic plague occurs when the bacteria multiply in the victim’s blood (usually after being infected by one of the other types). In general, a flea bite is the primary form of infection, and if the infection is left untreated, it can evolve into a case of pneumonic or septicemic plague.

Bubonic and septicemic plagues are not normally spread from person to person. Pneumonic plague can be contagious if a person inhales respiratory droplets containing the bacteria from an infected person, which usually requires close contact with the infected individual. Y. pestis is a fragile bacterium and does not last long in sunlight or after it is dried. Plague is treatable with antibiotics, which are especially effective if administered early. Wearing a simple surgical mask can protect a person from pneumonic plague infection.

[pic]

Algeria is one of the many areas where plague occurs naturally, and the country experiences periodic outbreaks of the disease. In 2003, there was an outbreak of plague in Algeria’s Oran province. In that outbreak, there were 11 confirmed and seven suspected cases of plague. All the cases in that episode were bubonic, indicating it was likely spread by fleas.

Plague has long been of interest as a biological warfare weapon, from the reports of Tatars catapulting plague-infected bodies at Genoese sailors in the City of Caffa in the Crimea in the 14th century, to Japan’s efforts to drop clay pots of plague-infected fleas over Manchuria, to the Soviet weapons programs during the Cold War (and perhaps beyond.) While the Tatars and Japanese used the bubonic form of the plague, according to former Soviet scientist Ken Alibek, the Soviet program focused on an aerosolized form of the bacterium designed to cause pneumonic plague.

Like many biological agents, there are great challenges associated with producing and employing large quantities of a virulent biological agent. Certainly, plague can be obtained from the environment in a place where it occurs naturally, such as Algeria, but taking that bacterium and producing a large quantity of it in a virulent form and then disbursing it in an efficient manner is another matter entirely. According to Alibek, the huge Soviet biological weapons program was able to overcome these obstacles, but it would be difficult for a small organization to do so.

That said, it is possible that AQIM members were experimenting with plague as a weapon, and plague could be employed on a limited scale by infecting some suicide operatives with pneumonic plague and then sending them around to hopefully cough or sneeze on victims, or perhaps to release some infected fleas against a target area. However, either scenario is unlikely to produce mass casualties. Y. pestis might be effectively delivered against a smaller number of people. The early symptoms of pneumonic plague can be mistaken for the flu, and if the victims do not seek immediate medical attention the disease can be fatal.

The alternative is that the plague outbreak was a naturally occurring event that was result of the AQIM members living in close contact with each other and with rodents in an unsanitary and perhaps enclosed space, such as a cave complex.

STRATFOR will be watching future reports on the incident to see if the cases were bubonic as opposed to pneumonic, as we believe bubonic cases are more likely to be an indication that the outbreak was natural. STRATFOR will also be looking to see if there are reports of laboratory equipment and literature at the abandoned camp — an indication that biological warfare experimentation was occurring.

Algeria: Taking the Pulse of AQIM

June 24, 2009

Late in the evening of June 17, 2009, militants affiliated with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) detonated two improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against a convoy near Bordj Bou Arreridj, Algeria, which is located in a mountainous area east of Algiers that has traditionally been an Islamist militant stronghold. The convoy consisted of Algerian paramilitary police vehicles escorting a group of Chinese workers to a site where they were building a new highway to connect Bordj Bou Arreridj with Algiers. After disabling the convoy using IEDs, the militants then raked the trapped vehicles with small-arms fire. When the ambush was over, 18 policemen and one Chinese worker had been killed. Another six gendarmes and two Chinese workers were wounded in the attack.

It was the deadliest attack of any type in Algeria since an Aug. 19, 2008, suicide vehicle-borne IED (VBIED) attack against a line of job applicants outside a police academy in Les Issers that killed 48 and injured another 45. AQIM regularly launches armed ambushes and roadside IED attacks in Algeria, and ambushes were frequently used by the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) before it announced in September 2006 that it had become part of al Qaeda’s regional franchise — AQIM. Indeed, we have seen four other ambush and IED attacks since May 20, 2009, but the death tolls in such attacks have usually been smaller than the June 17 attack.

In light of this anomalous attack, we thought it would be an opportune time to take the pulse of AQIM and try to get a sense of where the group stands today and where it might be going over the next few months.

History and Trends

The GSPC began as a splinter of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in 1998 as the civil war in Algeria was winding down. At that time, Hassan Hattab led a group of other disaffected GIA members who disagreed with GIA’s targeting of unarmed civilians. Hattab and his followers wanted to distance themselves from the large-scale massacres that had taken place while continuing their struggle against the Algerian government. They formed the GSPC to give themselves a fresh name and a new start.

Hattab eventually ran into disputes within the GSPC as the group was increasingly drawn to the transnational jihadist campaign espoused by al Qaeda. He “resigned” (though he was effectively deposed) as the group’s leader in 2001 and was succeeded by Nabil Sahraoui, who declared the GSPC’s allegiance to al Qaeda. Security forces killed Sahraoui in 2004.

In a message issued on Sept. 11, 2006, al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri announced that the GSPC had joined forces with al Qaeda in a union he hoped would be “a thorn in the neck of the American and French Crusaders and their allies, and an arrow in the heart of the traitors and apostates.” On Sept. 13, GSPC acknowledged the merger on its Web site with a message from its emir, Abu Musab Abd al-Wadoud, who wrote, “We have full confidence in the faith, the doctrine, the method and the modes of action of [al Qaeda’s] members, as well as their leaders and religious guides.”

The newly-established al Qaeda franchise in Algeria was not idle for long. On Oct. 19, 2006, it conducted two IED attacks, one against a police station in El Harrach, an eastern suburb of Algiers, the second against a fuel storage site belonging to the French company Razel in Lakhdaria. On Oct. 29, 2006, the group conducted near-simultaneous VBIED attacks against two Algerian police stations in Reghaia and Dergana. While simultaneous VBIED attacks were something seen in al Qaeda operations, these attacks involved vehicles parked near their targets rather than suicide vehicles and, as such, resembled past GSPC attacks, as did the selection of police stations as targets. Because of these features, the attacks were seen as examples of a hybrid, or transitional, kind of attack.

Other transitional attacks continued into early 2007, such as the twin attacks on March 5, 2007, which targeted foreign oil workers and Algerian security forces, indicating AQIM was incorporating the security-force targets of the GSPC with the foreign-influence targets of al Qaeda.

The focus on foreign interests and the energy sector was seen in several other attacks and attempted attacks against foreign oil workers and pipelines in late 2006 and early 2007. In spite of this focus, to date, AQIM has not been able to launch any truly disruptive attacks against the Algerian energy sector.

On April 11, 2007, AQIM passed another threshold when the group employed two suicide VBIEDS in attacks against separate targets in Algiers. One device was directed at the prime minister’s office in the city center and the second targeted a police station near the international airport in the eastern part of the city. At least 33 people reportedly were killed in the blasts and more than 150 wounded. These attacks marked the first suicide attacks in Algeria connected with GSPC or AQIM and signified a change in tactics.

However, the group’s increased operational tempo and less discriminate target selection came with consequences. In mid-2007 the Algerian government launched a massive operation against AQIM that resulted in large losses of men and materiel for the group. AQIM’s shift in targeting strategy also caused disagreements within the insurgency’s leadership. The schism arose between members who favored the tradition GSPC target set and opposed killing civilians, and those members who were more heavily influenced by al Qaeda and wanted to hit foreign and symbolic targets with little regard for civilian casualties.

In spite of the government crackdown, and in the face of growing internal dissent, AQIM accelerated its suicide bombing campaign, and there were several other suicide attacks during the last three months of 2007. These attacks included the Sept. 6 bombing of a crowd waiting to greet Algerian President Abdel Aziz Bouteflika in Batna that killed 22 people and injured more than 100; a Sept. 8 suicide VBIED attack against a naval barracks in Dellys that killed 30; and twin suicide VBIED attacks on Dec. 11 that targeted the constitutional court and the headquarters of the U.N. refugee agency in Algiers that killed 47 people, including 17 U.N. employees.

AQIM conducted six suicide bombing attacks against military and police targets between January 2008 and the Aug. 19, 2008, VBIED attack against the police academy in Les Issers. During this time, military and law enforcement pressure by the Algerian government continued, as did the public criticism of AQIM for killing innocents. The criticism reached a crescendo after the Les Issers attack, which killed largely poor people looking for employment with the police. AQIM has only conducted one suicide attack since August 2008, and the bulk of its operations have been in sparsely populated areas instead of cities. It is unclear at this point whether these observable shifts are in response to the criticism of AQIM’s tactics or if they are a result of the government’s efforts to dismantle the group.

Large VBIEDs are resource intensive. In fact, the explosives required to construct one large VBIED could be used to manufacture many smaller IEDs or suicide vests. Since the Les Issers attack, AQIM has conducted several IED attacks but these have all involved smaller IEDs, and the number of bystander deaths has dropped as the attacks have appeared to have been more carefully aimed at government or foreign targets. Of course, suicide bombers are also a resource that can only be used once, and it takes time and effort to recruit new bombers.

We will be watching carefully to see if the current trend away from the employment of large VBIEDs in urban areas is a temporary lull caused by government pressure and a lack of resources, or if it is an intentional shift designed to assuage public anger. It is very difficult for an insurgent organization to thrive in an environment where the local population turns against it, and perhaps the AQIM leadership has learned a lesson from the high cost the GIA paid after it began killing civilians and lost public support.

In addition to the military and law enforcement pressure, the Algerian government has been very busy in its efforts to apply ideological pressure to AQIM. One way this pressure has been applied is in the form of former militant leaders associated with the group criticizing its change in targeting and tactics. For example, after the Les Issers bombing in August 2008, GSPC founder Hassan Hattab called on the militants to lay down their arms and surrender. There is also talk that the government may soon expand an amnesty offer to include members of the organization who have been excluded from the current amnesty offer because they were deemed to have too much blood on their hands. Like previous amnesty offers, this expansion could serve to further weaken the organization as members choose to turn themselves in.

Regional Franchise?

By design, AQIM incorporated the GSPC with elements of Morocco’s Islamic Combatant Group, Libya’s Islamic Fighting Group, several Tunisian groups, most notably the Tunisian Combatant Group, and jihadists in Mali, Niger and Mauritania. However, in practice, the vast majority of the group’s infrastructure came from the GSPC, and attacks since the founding of AQIM in 2006 have reflected this. Indeed, in spite of the many high-profile Libyan and Moroccan militants who serve as part of the al Qaeda core leadership, Libya and Morocco have been extremely calm since the emergence of AQIM, and the group has remained an Algeria-based phenomenon.

[pic]

In Mauritania, attacks linked to AQIM began as early as December 2007, but AQIM militants there have not displayed the capability to carry out sophisticated attacks. Most attacks in Mauritania involve amateurish small-arms assaults such as the attack on French tourists on Dec. 23, 2007, or the Feb. 1, 2008, shooting at the Israeli embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania’s capital. As we were writing this, we learned of the June 23 shooting of an American teacher in Nouakchott. The man was reportedly gunned down outside the school where he taught, and Mauritanian officials are blaming the attack on AQIM rather than criminals.

The attacks in Mauritania have shown rudimentary tactics with poor planning, and the militants associated with AQIM in Mauritania simply have not displayed the ability to mount a large-scale, coordinated attack. The group’s activities in Mali and Niger are also mainly constrained to low-level attacks against government or military outposts and foreign mining sites and personnel in the northern stretches of those countries. AQIM also conducts training and engages in smuggling and kidnappings for ransom in this deserted region.

This means that, in the end, in spite of all the hype associated with the AQIM name, the group is essentially a rebranded GSPC and not some sort of revolutionary new organization. It has adapted its target set to include foreign interests, and it did add suicide bombing to its repertoire, but aside from that there has been very little movement toward AQIM’s becoming a truly regional threat.

That said, AQIM has received a lot of attention from the al Qaeda core leadership, which has sought to support it however it can and spur it on beyond Algeria. On June 23, 2009, al Qaeda media wing As Sahab released a 35-minute video statement from Abu Yahya al-Libi entitled “Algeria Between the Sacrifice of Fathers and Faithfulness of Sons.” As his name implies, al-Libi is himself from Libya, and one of the things he does in the video is urge militants in Algeria, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Libya, Tunisia and Morocco to mobilize and join under the “banner, command and emirate” of AQIM. The video appears to be an attempt by the al Qaeda leadership to counter ideological attacks by the Algerian government as well as AQIM’s regional stagnation.

Coming Home to Roost?

In addition to fighting against the regime in Algeria, Algerian militants have also been very conspicuous on jihadist battlefields such as Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq. Some studies have even concluded that Algerians were the single largest group of foreign jihadists who fought in Iraq during the height of the insurgency.

One of the things we have been anticipating for several years now is a boomerang effect as foreign jihadists leave places such as Iraq and Pakistan and return home. While many foreign jihadists have been killed in such places, those who survive after fighting sophisticated foes like the American military are not only hardened but also possess insurgent tradecraft skills that make them far more lethal when they leave those battlefields than when they entered them. Indeed, we have seen a migration of IED technology and tactics from Iraq to other theaters, such as Afghanistan.

With developments in Iraq over the last few years that have made Iraq increasingly inhospitable to foreign jihadists, and with Pakistan now quickly becoming less friendly, many of the Algerian militants in those places may be seeking to return home. And this brings us back to the anomalous vehicular ambush on June 17.

That operation, while a common type of attack in Algeria, was uncharacteristically deadly. It is plainly possible that the high death toll was merely a fluke. Perhaps the AQIM militants got lucky or the Algerian gendarmes targeted in the attack made a fatal mistake. However, the increased death toll could also have been a result of superior IED design, or superior planning by the operational leader of the ambush. Such a shift could indicate that an experienced operational commander or bombmaker has come to AQIM from someplace like Iraq or Pakistan. It will be very important to watch the next few AQIM attacks to see if the June 17 attack was indeed just an anomaly or if it was the beginning of a new and deadly trend.

The Death of a Top Indonesian Militant

Sept. 23, 2009

On Saturday, Sept. 19, the Indonesian National Police announced that a DNA test has positively identified a man killed Sept. 17 as Noordin Mohammad Top. Top was killed in a raid on a safe-house in the outskirts of Solo, Central Java, that resulted in a prolonged firefight between Indonesian authorities and militants. Police said four militants were killed in the incident and three more were taken into custody. (Two of them were arrested before the raid.) Authorities also recovered a large quantity of explosives during the raid that they believe the militant group was preparing to use in an attack on Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Indonesian National Police had reported Sept. 17 that the dead man’s fingerprints matched Top’s. But given several inaccurate reports of Top’s demise in the past, combined with reports that the body believed to be Top’s was headless — perhaps due to the explosion of a suicide belt — most observers were waiting for DNA confirmation before removing Top’s name from the pinnacle of the organizational chart of Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad.

Now that Top’s name officially has been scratched off the list, big questions emerge: Can Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad continue without him? Can the group be effective as a militant organization? And who will step up to fill the void left by Top?

The Importance of Leadership

All three of these questions touch on the issue of leadership. Without leadership, militant groups wither and/or disintegrate. Without skilled leadership, militant groups lose their ability to conduct effective attacks. Quite simply, leadership, skill and professionalism make the difference between a militant group wanting to attack something — i.e., possessing intent — and the group’s ability to successfully carry out its intended attack — i.e., its capability.

Although on the surface it might seem like a simple task to find a leader for a militant group, in practice, effective militant leaders are hard to come by. This is because militant leadership requires a rather broad skill set. In addition to personal attributes such as ruthlessness, aggressiveness and fearlessness, militant leaders also must be charismatic, intuitive, clever and inspiring. This last attribute is especially important in an organization that seeks to recruit operatives to conduct suicide attacks. Additionally, an effective militant leader must be able to recruit and train operatives, enforce operational security, raise funds, plan operations, and then methodically execute the plan while avoiding the security forces constantly hunting the militants down.

The importance of leadership to a militant organization has been wonderfully illustrated by the trajectory of al Qaeda’s franchise in Saudi Arabia. Under the leadership of Abdel Aziz al-Muqrin the Saudi al Qaeda franchise was extremely busy in 2003 and 2004. It carried out a number of high-profile attacks inside the kingdom and put everyone from the Saudi monarchy to multinational oil companies in a general state of panic. With bombings, ambushes and beheadings, it seemed as if Saudi Arabia was on its way to becoming the next Iraq. Following the June 2004 death of al-Muqrin, however, the organization began to flounder. The succession of leaders appointed to replace al-Muqrin lacked his operational savvy, and each one proved ineffective at best. (Saudi security forces quickly killed several of them.) Following the February 2006 attack against the oil facility at Abqaiq, the group atrophied even further, succeeding in carrying out one more attack, an amateurish small-arms assault in February 2007 against a group of French tourists.

The disorganized remaining jihadist militants in Saudi Arabia ultimately grew frustrated at their inability to operate on their own. Many of them traveled to places like Iraq or Pakistan to train and fight. In January 2009, many of the militants who remained in the Arabian Peninsula joined with al Qaeda’s franchise in Yemen to form a new group called al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) under the leadership of Nasir al-Wahayshi, the leader of al Qaeda in Yemen who served under Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan before being arrested in Iran. Al-Wahayshi was returned to Yemen in 2003 through an extradition deal between the Yemeni and Iranian governments and subsequently escaped from a high-security prison outside Sanaa in 2006.

Al Qaeda in Yemen’s operational capability improved under al-Wahayshi’s leadership, and its operational tempo increased (even though those operations were not terribly effective.) In the wake of this momentum, it is not surprising that the frustrated members of the all-but-defunct Saudi franchise agreed to swear loyalty to him. The first real fruit of this merger was seen inside Saudi Arabia in the Aug. 28 attempted assassination of Saudi Deputy Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. That the plot had to be planned and launched from Yemen reveals AQAP’s weakness inside the kingdom, and the plot’s failure demonstrates that, overall, AQAP is far from an effective organization.

Like the Saudi node, the fortunes of other al Qaeda regional franchises have risen or fallen based upon the ability of the franchise’s leadership. For example, in August 2006 al Qaeda announced with great fanfare that a splinter of the Egyptian jihadist group Gamaah al-Islamiyah had become al Qaeda’s franchise in Egypt. Likewise, in November 2007 al Qaeda announced that the Libyan Islamic Fighting group (LIFG) had joined its constellation of regional groups.

But neither of these new franchise groups ever really got off the ground. While a great degree of the groups’ lack of success may have resulted from the oppressive natures of the Egyptian and Libyan governments — and the aggressive efforts those governments undertook to control the new al Qaeda franchises following the announcements of their creation — we believe the groups’ near total lack of success also stems in large part from the lack of dynamic leadership. Recently, LIFG leaders have issued statements speaking out against al Qaeda’s operational principles and general methodology.

Dynamic leaders are indeed hard to find. Even though Indonesia has an estimated population of more than 240 million, Top — considered the most dangerous and most wanted man in Indonesia before his death — hailed from Malaysia, not Indonesia. He was an outsider like the Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who brought al Qaeda in Iraq into the global spotlight.

Of course, not every leadership change is disastrous to a militant group. Sometimes a new leader breathes new life and energy into a group (like al-Wahayshi in Yemen), or the group has competent lieutenants able to continue to operate effectively after the death of the leader (like al Qaeda in Iraq after the death of al-Zarqawi). Top’s replacement, and how the leadership transition affects the group, must therefore be closely monitored.

Topping Top

Top was an accomplished operational commander. He was responsible for a number of terrorist attacks in Indonesia, including the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings, the 2003 JW Marriott bombing in Jakarta, the 2004 attack on the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, and most recently, the July 17 bombings of the JW Marriott and the Ritz-Carlton in Jakarta.

Because of these attacks, Top and his militant colleagues were under extreme pressure from the Indonesian authorities, who were aided by the Australian and American intelligence services. Many of Top’s closest associates, like Ridhwan Isam al-Deen al-Hanbali and Azahari bin Husin, were arrested or killed, and operations launched by Indonesian authorities thwarted several of the group’s planned attacks between 2005 and 2009.

But external pressure was not the only challenge facing Top. He was also forced to deal with mounting ideological opposition to high-profile terror attacks from within Jemaah Islamiyah itself, a difference of opinion that led to Top’s split with Jemaah Islamiyah and his decision to form the new group Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad in early 2006.

Yet in spite of all this external and internal pressure, Top was still able to recruit new operatives, secure funding and maintain tight operational security. Top’s penchant for security even sparked rumors that he had some sort of mystical protection, rumors fanned by the many false reports of his capture or death. The ability to operate under such trying circumstances is the mark of a seasoned leader.

In a further challenge to Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad, two of Top’s key lieutenants also died in the Sept. 17 operation. These were Maruto Jati Sulistyo, thought to have been one of Top’s main bombmakers; and Bagus Budi Pranoto, who had previously served a three-and-one-half-year prison sentence for hiding Top and Azahari. (Pranoto, aka Urwah, was thought to have been a polished recruiter.)

Despite the deaths of Maruto and Pranoto, there are a number of potential successors to Top. Among these are Reno, aka Teddy, the reported deputy of Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad; Saifuddin Jaelani, who reportedly recruited the suicide bombers responsible for the July hotel attacks in Jakarta; and Jaleni’s brother, Muhammad Syahrir. Of course, someone outside Top’s immediate circle could take up the fallen militant leader’s mantle. Scores of Jemmah Islamiyah militants have been released from prison in recent years, and several skilled militants like Dulmatin and Umar Patek, who have fled to the Philippines, could return. And senior Jemmah Islamiyah militants like Zulkarnaen, who enjoy respect within the group, also remain at large.

No matter who replaces Top, the follow-on investigation to the operation that resulted in the death of Top will surely prove challenging to the future leadership of Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad. Operations like the one that resulted in Top’s death offer not only the opportunity for capturing or killing militants but also the potential for a huge harvest of intelligence. Indonesian authorities (aided by their allies) are surely attempting to exploit any information gained in the raid in an effort to locate other operatives, safe-houses and weapons caches. Indeed, Top himself was found due to intelligence gathered from the arrest of an associate named Rohmat on the same day as the raid in which Top died. Because of this intelligence windfall, we can anticipate a string of raids by the Indonesian government in the following days and weeks.

And while Top was able to weather such operations in the past, now that he is gone, it remains to be seen if his replacement is capable of withstanding the pressure and keeping the group together and operationally effective.

U.S.: More Revelations in the Zazi Case

Sept. 24, 2009

A motion seeking pre-trial detention for Najibullah Zazi was filed in federal district court on Sept. 24 in Brooklyn, by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. Zazi, who was arrested with two other men (one of whom was his father) on Sept. 19 and charged in a criminal complaint with making false statements to investigators, was indicted on Sept. 23 on a charge of conspiracy to use one or more improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

The detention motion filed on Sept. 24 sought to keep Zazi in government custody pending the outcome of his trial and made two arguments for Zazi’s continued detention: one, that as a resident alien with strong ties to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Zazi was a flight risk; and two, as someone who was involved in a conspiracy to manufacture an IED, he was a threat to the public. Zazi’s detention hearing is scheduled for Sept. 25.

The detention motion is the most detailed account of Zazi’s activities the U.S. government has provided to date. The motion repeats previously disclosed information about Zazi’s attendance at a jihadist training camp in Pakistan, where he received instruction on manufacturing improvised explosive mixtures and devices from August 2008 through January 2009, and about his efforts to conceal his notes from the bomb-making class by scanning them and sending them to himself via Web e-mail accounts. But the statement also provides additional details pertaining to Zazi’s bomb-making notes and outlines some of the actions Zazi took prior to his trip to New York — actions that caused the authorities to have a great deal of concern about his trip.

The motion states that Zazi’s notes on bomb making contained instructions for manufacturing the improvised explosive mixture tri-acetone tri-peroxide (TATP). TATP is made from easily obtained items — acetone, peroxide and acid — but it is notoriously dangerous to make (Hamas militants nicknamed TATP “the Mother of Satan” because of its volatility and propensity to either severely burn or kill bomb-makers). TATP and other peroxide-based explosives such as HTMD have played a prominent role in several recent jihadist plots, including Richard Reid’s December 2001 attempted shoe bombing, the July 7 and July 21, 2005, subway attacks in London, and the 2006 liquid bomb plot.

According to the motion, Zazi (and his yet unnamed associates) purchased “unusually large” quantities of acetone and peroxide from beauty supply stores on several occasions in July, August and September. A search of Zazi’s computer also showed that he had searched the Internet for information pertaining to acid and peroxide. The motion also states that Zazi checked into a hotel in the Aurora, Colo., area that had a stove in it on Aug. 28 and on Sept. 6-7. A forensic examination of the fan hood on the stove in the room where Zazi stayed tested positive for acetone — an indication that Zazi was attempting to cook TATP in the room.

However, the motion also indicates that Zazi was not an experienced bomb maker and that he seems to have had problems finding the proper chemical mixture to manufacture effective TATP. This is not an uncommon problem for novice bomb makers, and we have seen attacks like the July 21, 2005, London attacks fizzle due to bad batches of TATP.

The affidavit also noted that on Sept. 6-7, Zazi attempted to communicate with another individual several times to ask about the proper mixture of ingredients to make TATP, with each communication reportedly becoming increasingly urgent in tone. This urgency, and his travel to New York — where Zazi resided prior to his 2008 trip to the jihadist training camp — likely sparked a great deal of concern among the authorities who were watching him. The concern that Zazi had manufactured TATP in Colorado and transported it to New York in his rental car may explain why authorities took the risky step of snatching and searching the car — one of the events that tipped him off to the investigation prior to his arrest.

If the facts set out in the motion are true, it would appear that the plot Zazi was involved in was quite serious, and was fairly well along in the planning stages. Because TATP has a short shelf life before it begins to decompose, it is manufactured shortly before it is to be used. Therefore, the target selection, pre-operational surveillance and operational planning were all most likely completed before Zazi began brewing the explosive, which likely explains his panicked calls on Sept. 6-7. It is not clear at this point who conducted the target selection, surveillance and planning for the attack. The government has not yet released a list of targets, but STRATFOR sources have indicated that the plot was directed against the New York subway system, a perennial target for terror plots.

The details released so far show that this case seems to have many parallels to past plots. In addition to the parallels to the London July 7 attacks — as far as the use of TATP, the potential targeting of subways using suicide bombs and the fact that Zazi’s role and his travel to Pakistan is somewhat reminiscent of July 7 plot leader Mohammed Siddique Khan — the use of a hotel to make improvised explosive mixtures is similar to the actions of Ahmed Ressam during the millennium bomb plot. Also, the travel from Colorado to New York in order to attack the subway system is similar to the case involving Ghazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, who traveled from Bellingham, Wash., to New York where he was involved in a plot to bomb the New York subway system.

It appears that at least some of Zazi’s alleged conspirators remain at large and U.S. authorities will be seeking to round them up and charge them (especially in light of the reports that authorities allegedly recovered 14 new black backpacks during a search of an apartment in New York and that some of Zazi’s associates had also purchased acetone and peroxide.) According to information in the detention motion, it appears that Zazi was one of a group of men who traveled to Pakistan to attend the jihadist training camp. This travel may be what brought him to the attention of the authorities.

The Zazi case highlights several interesting trends that STRATFOR has been following for several years, such as the jihadists’ persistence in their efforts to hit the United States, their use of grassroots jihadists rather than professional terrorist operatives and the ability of Western intelligence to penetrate grassroots cells plotting such attacks. We will continue to carefully monitor this case because more interesting details about the plot, and how it was discovered and thwarted, are certain to surface in the coming weeks.

The Hasan Case: Overt Clues and Tactical Challenges

Nov. 11, 2009

In last week’s global security and intelligence report, we discussed the recent call by the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Nasir al-Wahayshi, for jihadists to conduct simple attacks against a variety of targets in the Muslim world and the West. We also noted how it is relatively simple to conduct such attacks against soft targets using improvised explosive devices, guns or even knives and clubs.

The next day, a lone gunman, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire on a group of soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. The victims were in the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, a facility on the base where troops are prepared for deployment and where they take care of certain processing tasks such as completing insurance paperwork and receiving medical examinations and vaccinations.

Even though the targets of Hasan’s attack were soldiers, they represented a very soft target in this environment. Most soldiers on bases inside the United States are normally not armed and are only provided weapons for training. The only personnel who regularly carry weapons are the military police and the base civilian police officers. In addition to being unarmed, the soldiers at the center were closely packed together in the facility as they waited to proceed from station to station. The unarmed, densely packed mass of people allowed Hasan to kill 13 (12 soldiers and one civilian employee of the center) and wound 42 others when he opened fire.

Hasan is a U.S.-born Muslim who, according to STRATFOR sources and media accounts, has had past contact with jihadists, including the radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki is a U.S.-born imam who espouses a jihadist ideology and who was discussed at some length in the 9/11 commission report for his links to 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. Al-Awlaki, who is currently living in Yemen and reportedly has contacts with al Qaeda, posted a message on his Web site Nov. 9 praising Hasan’s actions. Despite Hasan’s connections to al-Awlaki and other jihadists, it is unknown at this point if he was even aware of al-Wahayshi’s recent message calling for simple attacks, and therefore it is impossible to tell if his attack was in response to it.

However, one thing that is certain is that investigators examining Hasan’s computer hard drive, e-mail traffic and Internet history will be looking into that possibility, along with other indications that Hasan was linked to radicals.

We noted last week that by their very nature, individual actors and small cells are very difficult for the government to detect. They must somehow identify themselves by contacting a government informant or another person who reports them to the authorities, attend a militant training camp or conduct correspondence with a person or organization under government scrutiny. In the Hasan case, it now appears that Hasan did self-identify by making radical statements to people he worked with, who reported him to the authorities. It also appears that he had correspondence with people such as al-Awlaki, whom the government was monitoring. Because of this behavior, Hasan brought himself to the attention of the Department of Defense, the FBI and the CIA.

The fact that Hasan was able to commit this attack after bringing government attention to himself could be due to a number of factors. Chief among them is the fact that it is tactically impossible for a government to identify every aspiring militant actor and to pre-empt every act of violence. The degree of difficulty is increased greatly if an actor does indeed act alone and does not give any overt clues through his actions or his communications of his intent to attack. Because of this, the Hasan case provides an excellent opportunity to examine national security investigations and their utility and limitations.

The Nature of Intelligence Investigations

The FBI will typically open up an intelligence investigation (usually referred to as a national security investigation) in any case where there is an indication or allegation that a person is involved in terrorist activity but there is no evidence that a specific law has been broken. Many times these investigations are opened up due to a lead passed by the CIA, National Security Agency or a foreign liaison intelligence service. Other times an FBI investigation can come as a spin-off from another FBI counterterrorism investigation already under way or be prompted by a piece of information collected by an FBI informant or even by a tip from a concerned citizen — like the flight instructors who alerted the FBI to the suspicious behavior of some foreign flight students prior to the 9/11 attacks. In such a case, the FBI case agent in charge of the investigation will open a preliminary inquiry, which gives the agent a limited window of time to look into the matter. If no indication of criminal activity is found, the preliminary inquiry must be closed unless the agent receives authorization from the special agent in charge of his division and FBI headquarters to extend it.

If, during the preliminary inquiry, the investigating agents find probable cause that a crime has been committed, the FBI will open a full-fledged criminal investigation into the case, similar to what we saw in the case of Luqman Ameen Abdullah and his followers in Detroit.

One of the large problems in national security investigations is separating the wheat from the chaff. Many leads are based on erroneous information or a misidentification of the suspect — there is a huge issue associated with the confusion caused by the transliteration of Arabic names and the fact that there are many people bearing the same names. Jihadists also have the tendency to use multiple names and identities. And there are many cases in which people will falsely report a person to the FBI out of malice. Because of these factors, national security investigations proceed slowly and usually do not involve much (if any) contact with the suspect and his close associates. If the suspect is a real militant planning a terrorist attack, investigators do not want to tip him off, and if he is innocent, they do not want to sully his reputation by showing up and overtly interviewing everyone he knows. Due to its controversial history of domestic intelligence activities, the FBI has become acutely aware of its responsibility to protect privacy rights and civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and other laws.

And the rights guaranteed under the Constitution do complicate these national security investigations. It is not illegal for someone to say that Muslims should attack U.S. troops due to their operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that more Muslims should conduct attacks like the June 1 shooting at a recruiting center in Little Rock, Ark. — things that Hasan is reported to have said. Radical statements and convictions are not illegal — although they certainly would appear to be conduct unbecoming a U.S. Army officer. (We will leave to others the discussion of the difficulties in dealing with problem officers who are minorities and doctors and who owe several years of service in return for their education.)

There are also many officers and enlisted soldiers in the U.S. Army who own personal weapons and who use them for self-defense, target shooting or hunting. There is nothing extraordinary or illegal about a U.S. Army major owning personal weapons. With no articulable violation of U.S. law, the FBI would have very little to act upon in a case like Hasan’s. Instead, even if they found cause to extend their preliminary inquiry, they would be pretty much limited to monitoring his activities (and perhaps his communications, with a court order) and waiting for a law to be violated. In the Hasan case, it would appear that the FBI did not find probable cause that a law had been violated before he opened fire at Fort Hood. Although perhaps if the FBI had been watching his activities closely and with an eye toward “the how” of terrorist attacks, they might have noticed him conducting preoperational surveillance of the readiness center and even a dry run of the attack.

Of course, in addition to just looking for violations of the law, the other main thrust of a national security investigation is to determine whom the suspect is connected to and whom he is talking to or planning with. In past cases, such investigations have uncovered networks of jihadist actors working together in the United States, Canada, Europe and elsewhere. However, if all Hasan did in his correspondence with people such as al-Awlaki was exercise his First Amendment right to hold radical convictions, and if he did not engage in any type of conspiracy to conduct an attack, he did not break the law.

Another issue that complicates national security cases is that they are almost always classified at the secret level or above. This is understandable, considering they are often opened based upon intelligence produced by sensitive intelligence programs. However, this classification means that only those people with the proper clearance and an established need to know can be briefed on the case. It is not at all unusual for the FBI to visit a high-ranking official at another agency to brief the official on the fact that the FBI is conducting a classified national security investigation involving a person working for the official’s agency. The rub is that they will frequently tell the official that he or she is not at liberty to share details of the investigation with other individuals in the agency because they do not have a clear need to know. The FBI agent will also usually ask the person briefed not to take any action against the target of the investigation, so that the investigation is not compromised. While some people will disagree with the FBI’s determination of who really needs to know about the investigation and go on to brief a wider audience, many officials are cowed by the FBI and sit on the information.

Of course, the size of an organization is also a factor in the dissemination of information. The Department of Defense and the U.S. Army are large organizations, and it is possible that officials at the Pentagon or the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command (still known by its old acronym CID) headquarters at Fort Belvoir, Va., were briefed on the case and that local officials at Fort Hood were not. The Associated Press is now reporting that the FBI had alerted a Defense Criminal Investigative Service agent assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Washington about Hasan’s contacts with al-Awlaki, and ABC reports that the Defense Department is denying the FBI notified them. It would appear that the finger-pointing and bureaucratic blame-shifting normally associated with such cases has begun.

Even more severe problems would have plagued the dissemination of information from the CIA to local commanders and CID officers at Fort Hood. Despite the intelligence reforms put in place after the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government still faces large obstacles when it comes to sharing intelligence information with law enforcement personnel.

Criminal Acts vs. Terrorism

So far, the Hasan shooting investigation is being run by the Army CID, and the FBI has been noticeably — and uncharacteristically — absent from the scene. As the premier law enforcement agency in the United States, the FBI will often assume authority over investigations where there is even a hint of terrorism. Since 9/11, the number of FBI/JTTF offices across the country has been dramatically increased, and the JTTFs are specifically charged with investigating cases that may involve terrorism. Therefore, we find the FBI’s absence in this case to be quite out of the ordinary.

However, with Hasan being a member of the armed forces, the victims being soldiers or army civilian employees and the incident occurring at Fort Hood, the case would seem to fall squarely under the mantle of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). From a prosecutorial perspective, a homicide trial under the UCMJ should be very tidy and could be quickly concluded. It will not involve all the potential loose ends that could pop up in a federal terrorism trial, especially when those loose ends involve what the FBI and CIA knew about Hasan, when they learned it and who they told. Also, politically, there are some who would like to see the Hasan case remain a criminal matter rather than a case of terrorism. Following the shooting death of Luqman Ameen Abdullah and considering the delicate relationship between Muslim advocacy groups and the U.S. government, some people would rather see Hasan portrayed as a mentally disturbed criminal than as an ideologically driven lone wolf.

Despite the CID taking the lead in prosecuting the case, the classified national security investigation by the CIA and FBI into Hasan and his possible connections to jihadist elements is undoubtedly continuing. Senior members of the government will certainly demand to know if Hasan had any confederates, if he was part of a bigger plot and if there are more attacks to come. Several congressmen and senators are also calling for hearings into the case, and if such hearings occur, they will certainly produce an abundance of interesting information pertaining to Hasan and the national security investigation of his activities.

The Jihadist Strategic Dilemma

Dec. 7, 2009

With U.S. President Barack Obama’s announcement of his strategy in Afghanistan, the U.S.-jihadist war has entered a new phase. With its allies, the United States has decided to increase its focus on the Afghan war while continuing to withdraw from Iraq. Along with focusing on Afghanistan, it follows that there will be increased Western attention on Pakistan. Meanwhile, the question of what to do with Iran remains open, and is in turn linked to U.S.-Israeli relations. The region from the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush remains in a war or near-war status. In a fundamental sense, U.S. strategy has not shifted under Obama: The United States remains in a spoiling-attack state.

As we have discussed, the primary U.S. interest in this region is twofold. The first aspect is to prevent the organization of further major terrorist attacks on the United States. The second is to prevent al Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups from taking control of any significant countries.

U.S. operations in this region mainly consist of spoiling attacks aimed at frustrating the jihadists’ plans rather than at imposing Washington’s will in the region. The United States lacks the resources to impose its will, and ultimately doesn’t need to. Rather, it needs to wreck its adversaries’ plans. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the primary American approach consists of this tack. That is the nature of spoiling attacks. Obama has thus continued the Bush administration’s approach to the war, though he has shifted some details.

The Jihadist Viewpoint

It is therefore time to consider the war from the jihadist point of view. This is a difficult task given that the jihadists do not constitute a single, organized force with a command structure and staff that could express that view. It is compounded by the fact that al Qaeda prime, our term for the original al Qaeda that ordered and organized the attacks on 9/11 and in Madrid and London, is now largely shattered.

While bearing this in mind, it must be remembered that this fragmentation is both a strategic necessity and a weapon of war for jihadists. The United States can strike the center of gravity of any jihadist force. It naturally cannot strike what doesn’t exist, so the jihadist movement has been organized to deny the United States that center of gravity, or command structure which, if destroyed, would leave the movement wrecked. Thus, even were Osama bin Laden killed or captured, the jihadist movement is set up to continue.

So although we cannot speak of a jihadist viewpoint in the sense that we can speak of an American viewpoint, we can ask this question: If we were a jihadist fighter at the end of 2009, what would the world look like to us, what would we want to achieve and what might we do to try to achieve that?

We must bear in mind that al Qaeda began the war with a core strategic intent, namely, to spark revolutions in the Sunni Muslim world by overthrowing existing regimes and replacing them with jihadist regimes. This was part of the jihadist group’s long-term strategy to recreate a multinational Islamist empire united under al Qaeda’s interpretation of Shariah.

The means toward this end involved demonstrating to the Muslim masses that their regimes were complicit with the leading Christian power, i.e., the United States, and that only American backing kept these Sunni regimes in power. By striking the United States on Sept. 11, al Qaeda wanted to demonstrate that the United States was far more vulnerable than believed, by extension demonstrating that U.S. client regimes were not as powerful as they appeared. This was meant to give the Islamic masses a sense that uprisings against Muslim regimes not dedicated to Shariah could succeed. In their view, any American military response — an inevitability after 9/11 — would further incite the Muslim masses rather than intimidate them.

The last eight years of war have ultimately been disappointing to the jihadists, however. Rather than a massive uprising in the Muslim world, not a single regime has been replaced with a jihadist regime. The primary reason has been that Muslim regimes allied with the United States decided they had more to fear from the jihadists than from the Americans, and chose to use their intelligence and political power to attack and suppress the jihadists. In other words, rather than trigger an uprising, the jihadists generated a strengthened anti-jihadist response from existing Muslim states. The spoiling attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in other countries in the Horn of Africa and North Africa, generated some support for the jihadists, but that support has since diminished and the spoiling attacks have disrupted these countries sufficiently to make them unsuitable as bases of operation for anything more than local attacks. In other words, the attacks tied the jihadists up in local conflicts, diverting them from operations against the United States and Europe.

Under this intense pressure, the jihadist movement has fragmented, though it continues to exist. Incapable of decisive action at the moment, it has goals beyond surviving as a fragmented entity, albeit with some fairly substantial fragments. And it is caught on the horns of a strategic dilemma.

Operationally, jihadists continue to be engaged against the United States. In Afghanistan, the jihadist movement is relying on the Taliban to tie down and weaken American forces. In Iraq, the remnants of the jihadist movement are doing what they can to shatter the U.S.-sponsored coalition government in Baghdad and further tie down American forces by attacking Shiites and key members of the Sunni community. Outside these two theaters, the jihadists are working to attack existing Muslim governments collaborating with the United States — particularly Pakistan — but with periodic attacks striking other Muslim states.

These attacks represent the fragmentation of the jihadists. Their ability to project power is limited. By default, they have accordingly adopted a strategy of localism, in which their primary intent is to strike existing governments while simultaneously tying down American forces in a hopeless attempt to stabilize the situation.

The strategic dilemma is this: The United States is engaged in a spoiling action with the primary aim of creating conditions in which jihadists are bottled up fighting indigenous forces rather than being free to plan attacks on the United States or systematically try to pull down existing regimes. And the current jihadist strategy plays directly into American hands. First, the attacks recruit Muslim regimes into deploying their intelligence and security forces against the jihadists, which is precisely what the United States wants. Secondly, it shifts jihadist strength away from transnational actions to local actions, which is also what the United States wants. These local attacks, which kill mostly Muslims, also serve to alienate many Muslims from the jihadists.

The jihadists are currently playing directly into U.S. hands because, rhetoric aside, the United States cannot regard instability in the Islamic world as a problem. Let’s be more precise on this: An ideal outcome for the United States would be the creation of stable, pro-American regimes in the region eager and able to attack and destroy jihadist networks. There are some regimes in the region like this, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The probability of creating such stable, eager and capable regimes in places like Iraq or Afghanistan is unlikely in the extreme. The second-best outcome for the United States involves a conflict in which the primary forces battling — and neutralizing — each other are Muslim, with the American forces in a secondary role. This has been achieved to some extent in Iraq. Obama’s goal is to create a situation in Afghanistan in which Afghan government forces engage Taliban forces with little or no U.S. involvement. Meanwhile, in Pakistan the Americans would like to see an effective effort by Islamabad to suppress jihadists throughout Pakistan. If they cannot get suppression, the United States will settle for a long internal conflict that would tie down the jihadists.

A Self-Defeating Strategy

The jihadists are engaged in a self-defeating strategy when they spread out and act locally. The one goal they must have, and the one outcome the United States fears, is the creation of stable jihadist regimes. The strategy of locally focused terrorism has proved ineffective. It not only fails to mobilize the Islamic masses, it creates substantial coalitions seeking to suppress the jihadists.

The jihadist attack on the United States has failed. The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has reshaped the behavior of regional governments. Fear of instability generated by the war has generated counteractions by regional governments. Contrary to what the jihadists expected or hoped for, there was no mass uprising and therefore no counter to anti-jihadist actions by regimes seeking to placate the United States. The original fear, that the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan would generate massive hostility, was not wrong. But the hostility did not strengthen the jihadists, and instead generated anti-jihadist actions by governments.

From the jihadist point of view, it would seem essential to get the U.S. military out of the region and to relax anti-jihadist actions by regional security forces. Continued sporadic and ineffective action by jihadists achieves nothing and generates forces with which they can’t cope. If the United States withdrew, and existing tensions within countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan were allowed to mature undisturbed, new opportunities might present themselves.

Most significantly, the withdrawal of U.S. troops would strengthen Iran. The jihadists are no friends of Shiite Iran, and neither are Iran’s neighbors. In looking for a tool for political mobilization in the Gulf region or in Afghanistan absent a U.S. presence, the Iranian threat would best serve the jihadists. The Iranian threat combined with the weakness of regional Muslim powers would allow the jihadists to join a religious and nationalist opposition to Tehran. The ability to join religion and nationalism would turn the local focus from something that takes the jihadists away from regime change to something that might take them toward it.

The single most powerful motivator for an American withdrawal would be a period of open quiescence. An openly stated consensus for standing down, in particular because of a diminished terrorist threat, would facilitate something the Obama administration wants most of all: a U.S. withdrawal from the region. Providing the Americans with a justification for leaving would open the door for new possibilities. The jihadists played a hand on 9/11 that they hoped would prove a full house. It turned into a bust. When that happens, you fold your hand and play a new one. And there is always a hand being dealt so long as you have some chips left.

The challenge here is that the jihadists have created a situation in which they have defined their own credibility in terms of their ability to carry out terrorist attacks, however poorly executed or counterproductive they have become. Al Qaeda prime’s endless calls for action have become the strategic foundation for the jihadists: Action has become an end in itself. The manner in which the jihadists have survived as a series of barely connected pods of individuals scattered across continents has denied the United States a center of gravity to strike. It has also turned the jihadists from a semi-organized force into one incapable of defining strategic shifts.

The jihadists’ strategic dilemma is that they have lost the 2001-2008 phase of the war but are not defeated. To begin to recoup, they must shift their strategy. But they lack the means for doing so because of what they have had to do to survive. At the same time, there are other processes in play. The Taliban, which has even more reason to want the United States out of Afghanistan, might shift to an anti-jihadist strategy: It could liquidate al Qaeda, return to power in Afghanistan and then reconsider its strategy later. So, too, in other areas.

From the U.S. point of view, an open retreat by the jihadists would provide short-term relief but long-term problems. The moment when the enemy sues for peace is the moment when the pressure should be increased rather than decreased. But direct U.S. interests in the region are so minimal that a more distant terrorist threat will be handled in a more distant future. As the jihadists are too fragmented to take strategic positions, U.S. pressure will continue in any event.

Oddly enough, as much as the United States is uncomfortable in the position it is in, the jihadists are in a much worse position.

U.S., Yemen: Lessons From a Failed Airliner Bombing

Dec. 28, 2009

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian man, attempted to detonate an improvised explosive device (IED) he had smuggled on board a Northwest/Delta Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Dec. 25. The device did not function as intended, catching fire instead of detonating. Explosives contain a great deal of potential energy, and thus burn very hot — meaning the resulting fire left Abdulmutallab with severe burns. Passengers and crew members extinguished the flames and restrained Abdulmutallab, who was arrested after the aircraft landed safely in Detroit.

Since his arrest, Abdulmutallab reportedly has been talking with the authorities, allegedly stating that he was armed and dispatched on his mission by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). According to statements by Abdulmutallab’s family, the young man reportedly went to Yemen after becoming radicalized, and his militant ideology and disappearance a few months ago had caused the family to report him to the Nigerian security service and foreign security services — including the United States’. Abdulmutallab had studied mechanical engineering in the United Kingdom, and was supposed to be attending graduate school in Dubai when he reportedly moved to Yemen to study Shariah and cut off contact with his family. In spite of his family’s warning to the authorities, Abdulmutallab’s name was not added to the U.S. government’s no-fly list.

An Innovative IED

Though we are still attempting to gather all the technical details of the device to better understand it, counterterrorism sources and media reports suggest it was comprised of a main charge of 2.8 ounces of PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate). The PETN reportedly was wrapped in something like a condom and then apparently sewn into a pair of underwear. A liquid glycol-based explosive was stored in a syringe and then injected into the PETN. We are unsure at this point whether the device was intended to detonate due to a chemical reaction of the two compounds or if there was another type of detonator involved, like the nonmetallic triacetone triperoxide (TATP) detonator used in Richard Reid’s shoe bomb device.

This attack bears several similarities with Reid’s attempt. Reid’s device reportedly contained a main charge of approximately 4 ounces of PETN to be detonated (though it also failed) on a U.S.-bound aircraft over the Christmas holidays. An FBI laboratory test of a replica of Reid’s shoe bomb device showed it could have caused catastrophic damage to a wide-bodied aircraft had it detonated.

That AQAP should be involved in such a plot to attack an aircraft using an IED design should come as no surprise. STRATFOR first noted in September that the group had demonstrated it was using innovative bombmaking methods that threaten aviation security, and the group claimed responsibility for the attempted Christmas attack in a statement posted to a Jihadist Web site on Dec. 28.

Since Abdulmutallab was the only operative dispatched with such a device on Christmas, the operation probably was a proof-of-concept mission, similar to the bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434 by Abdul Basit on Dec. 11, 1994, or the shoe bombing attempt by Richard Reid on Dec. 23, 2001. Had Abdulmutallab’s attempt destroyed the aircraft, it could have taken months or even years for the authorities to determine the type of device used, as was the case with Pan Am Flight 103 — and the authorities might never have figured it out. As seen with the mysterious crash of Air France Flight 447 on June 1, 2009, determining what caused an aircraft to break up in flight is difficult.

If Abdulmutallab’s attack was a trial run, it is likely that other attacks with that type of device would have been conducted had it succeeded. Like Reid’s failed shoe bomb attack, however, the failure of Abdulmutallab’s device has alerted the authorities to this specific method of hiding the IED — and has likely sent the bombmaker back to the drawing board to find a more reliable design and another method of concealment.

Increasing Concerns Over AQAP

Washington has become increasingly concerned about AQAP in recent months, and has dramatically stepped up its efforts to cooperate with Yemen and Saudi Arabia to attack the group. In the past two weeks, joint air attacks and ground assaults against AQAP compounds in Yemen reportedly have resulted in the deaths of some 60-70 members of the group and the arrests of 46 others. These attacks have reportedly killed several senior members of the group (though we are still waiting for confirmation of exactly who was killed). Abdulmutallab left Yemen before the Dec. 24 attack and even probably before the Dec. 17 strike. Therefore, it is quite possible that the people who trained and dispatched him — and perhaps even the person who manufactured the IED he carried — were killed or captured in those two operations.

If the bombmaker is still alive and at liberty, however, he will most likely be forced to come up with a new design. This particular bombmaker is likely the same innovative and imaginative individual responsible for the IED used in the Aug. 28 attack against Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi deputy interior minister, and we can expect him to continue to design creative IEDs. The device used in the attack against the prince was made in Yemen, used a main charge of PETN, and was hidden in the attacker’s crotch or rectum.

As STRATFOR has previously noted when discussing AQAP and their innovative IED designs, there are many ways to smuggle IED components on board an aircraft if a person has a little imagination and access to explosives. In light of this — as we noted in September — efforts to improve technical methods to locate IED components must not be abandoned, but the existing vulnerabilities in airport screening systems demonstrate that an emphasis also needs to be placed on finding the bomber and not merely on finding the bomb.

Finding the bomber will require placing a greater reliance on other methods such as checking names, conducting interviews and assigning trained security officers to watch for abnormal behavior and suspicious demeanor. It also means that the often-overlooked human elements of airport security, including situational awareness, observation and intuition, need to be emphasized now more than ever.

Jihadism in 2010: A Transnational Franchise

Jan. 6, 2010

For the past several years, STRATFOR has published an annual forecast on al Qaeda and the jihadist movement. Since our first jihadist forecast in January 2006, we have focused heavily on the devolution of jihadism from a phenomenon primarily involving the core al Qaeda group to one based mainly on the wider jihadist movement and the devolving, decentralized threat it poses.

The central theme of last year’s forecast was that al Qaeda was an important force on the ideological battlefield, but that the efforts of the United States and its allies had marginalized the group on the physical battlefield and kept it bottled up in a limited geographic area. Because of this, we forecast that the most significant threat in terms of physical attacks stemmed from regional jihadist franchises and grassroots operatives and not the al Qaeda core. We also wrote that we believed the threat posed by such attacks would remain tactical and not rise to the level of a strategic threat. To reflect this reality, we even dropped al Qaeda from the title of our annual forecast and simply named it Jihadism in 2009: The Trends Continue.

The past year proved to be very busy in terms of attacks and thwarted plots emanating from jihadist actors. But, as forecast, the primary militants involved in carrying out these terrorist plots were almost exclusively from regional jihadist groups and grassroots operatives, and not militants dispatched by the al Qaeda core. We anticipate that this dynamic will continue, and if anything, the trend will be for some regional franchise groups to become even more involved in transnational attacks, thus further usurping the position of al Qaeda prime at the vanguard of jihadism on the physical battlefield.

A Note on ‘Al Qaeda’

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 organization, which we frequently refer to as al Qaeda prime or the al Qaeda core. The al Qaeda core is comprised of Osama bin Laden and his small circle of close, trusted associates, such as Ayman al-Zawahiri. Due to intense pressure by the U.S. government and its allies, this core group has been reduced in size since 9/11 and remains relatively small because of operational security concerns. This insular group is laying low in Pakistan near the Afghan border and comprises only a small portion of the larger jihadist universe.

The second layer of the network is composed of local or regional terrorist or insurgent groups that have adopted jihadist ideology. Some of these groups have publicly claimed allegiance to bin Laden and the al Qaeda core and become what we refer to as franchise groups, like al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) or al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Other groups may adopt some or all of al Qaeda’s jihadist ideology and cooperate with the core group, but they will maintain their independence for a variety of reasons. Such groups include the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Harkat-ul-Jihad e-Islami (HUJI). Indeed, in the case of some larger organizations such as LeT, some of the group’s factions may actually oppose close cooperation with al Qaeda.

The third and broadest layer of the network is the grassroots jihadist movement, that is, people inspired by the al Qaeda core and the franchise groups but who may have little or no actual connection to these groups.

As we move down this hierarchy, we also move down in operational capability and expertise in what we call terrorist tradecraft — the set of skills required to conduct a terrorist attack. The operatives belonging to the al Qaeda core are generally better trained than their regional counterparts, and both of these layers tend to be far better trained than the grassroots operatives. Indeed, many grassroots operatives travel to places like Pakistan and Yemen in order to seek training from these other groups.

The Internet has long proved to be an important tool for these groups to reach out to potential grassroots operatives. Jihadist chat rooms and Web sites provide indoctrination in jihadist ideology and also serve as a means for aspiring jihadists to make contact with like-minded individuals and even the jihadist groups themselves.

2009 Forecast Review

Overall, our 2009 forecast was fairly accurate. As noted above, we wrote that the United States would continue its operations to decapitate the al Qaeda core and that this would cause the group to be marginalized from the physical jihad, and that has happened.

While we missed forecasting the resurgence of jihadist militant groups in Yemen and Somalia in 2008, in our 2009 forecast we covered these two countries carefully. We wrote that the al Qaeda franchises in Yemen had taken a hit in 2008 but that they could recover in 2009 given the opportunity. Indeed, the groups received a significant boost when they merged into a single group that also incorporated the remnants of al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, which had been forced by Saudi security to flee the country. We closely followed this new group, which named itself al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and STRATFOR was the first organization we know of to discuss the threat AQAP posed to civil aviation when we raised this subject on Sept. 2 and elaborated on it Sept. 16, in an analysis titled Convergence: The Challenge of Aviation Security. That threat manifested itself in the attempt to destroy an airliner traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009 — an operation that very nearly succeeded.

Regarding Somalia, we have also been closely following al Shabaab and the other jihadist groups there, such as Hizbul Islam. Al Shabaab publicly pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden in September 2009 and therefore has formally joined the ranks of al Qaeda’s regional franchise groups. However, as we forecast last January, while the instability present in Somalia provides al Shabaab the opportunity to flourish, the factionalization of the country (including the jihadist groups operating there) has also served to keep al Shabaab from dominating the other actors and assuming control of the country.

We also forecast that, while Iraq had been relatively quiet in 2008, the level of violence there could surge in 2009 due to the Awakening Councils being taken off the U.S. payroll and having their control transferred to the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government, which might not pay them and integrate them into the armed forces. Indeed, since August, we have seen three waves of major coordinated attacks against Iraqi ministry buildings in Baghdad linked to the al Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq. Since this violence is tied to the political situation in Iraq, and there is a clear correlation between the funds being cut to the Awakening Councils and these attacks, we anticipate that this violence will continue through the parliamentary elections in March. The attacks could even continue after that, if the Sunni powers in Iraq deem that their interests are not being addressed appropriately.

As in 2008, we paid close attention in 2009 to the situation in Pakistan. This not only was because Pakistan is the home of the al Qaeda core’s leadership but also because of the threat that the TTP and the other jihadist groups in the country posed to the stability of the nuclear-armed state. As we watched Pakistan for signs that it was becoming a failed state, we noted that the government was actually making considerable headway in its fight against its jihadist insurgency. Indeed, by late in the year, the Pakistanis had launched not only a successful offensive in Swat and the adjacent districts but also an offensive into South Waziristan, the heart of the TTP’s territory.

We also forecast that the bulk of the attacks worldwide in 2009 would be conducted by regional jihadist franchise groups and, to a lesser extent, grassroots jihadists, rather than the al Qaeda core, which was correct.

In relation to attacks against the United States, we wrote that we did not see a strategic threat to the United States from the jihadists, but that the threat of simple attacks against soft targets remained in 2009. We said we had been surprised that there were no such attacks in 2008 but that, given the vulnerabilities that existed and the ease with which such attacks could be conducted, we believed they were certainly possible. During 2009, we did see simple attacks by grassroots operatives in Little Rock, Arkansas, and at Fort Hood, Texas, along with several other grassroots plots thwarted by authorities.

Forecast for 2010

In the coming year we believe that, globally, we will see many of the trends continue from last year. We believe that the al Qaeda core will continue to be marginalized on the physical battlefield and struggle to remain relevant on the ideological battlefield. The regional jihadist franchise groups will continue to be at the vanguard of the physical battle, and the grassroots operatives will remain a persistent, though lower-level, threat.

One thing we noticed in recent months was that the regional groups were becoming more transnational in their attacks, with AQAP involved in the attack on Saudi Deputy Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef in Saudi Arabia as well as the trans-Atlantic airliner bombing plot on Christmas Day. Additionally, we saw HUJI planning an attack against the Jyllands-Posten newspaper and cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in Denmark, and on Jan. 1, 2010, a Somali man reportedly associated with al Shabaab broke into Westergaard’s home armed with an axe and knife and allegedly tried to kill him. We believe that in 2010 we will see more examples of regional groups like al Shabaab and AQAP reaching out to become more transnational, perhaps even conducting attacks in the United States and Europe.

We also believe that, due to the open nature of the U.S. and European societies and the ease of conducting attacks against them, we will see more grassroots plots, if not successful attacks, in the United States and Europe in the coming year. The concept behind AQAP leader Nasir al-Wahayshi’s article calling for jihadists to conduct simple attacks against a variety of targets may be gaining popularity among grassroots jihadists. Certainly, the above-mentioned attack in Denmark involving an axe and knife was simple in nature. It could also have been deadly had the cartoonist not had a panic room within his residence. We will be watching for more simple attacks.

As far as targets, we believe that they will remain largely the same for 2010. Soft targets such as hotels will continue to be popular, since most jihadists lack the ability to attack hard targets outside of conflict zones. However, jihadists have demonstrated a continuing fixation on attacking commercial aviation targets, and we can anticipate additional plots and attacks focusing on aircraft.

Regionally, we will be watching for the following:

• Pakistan: Can the United States find and kill the al Qaeda core’s leadership? A Pakistani official told the Chinese Xinhua news agency on Jan. 4 that terrorism will come to an end in Pakistan in 2010, but we are not nearly so optimistic. Even though the military has made good progress in its South Waziristan offensive, most of the militants moved to other areas of Pakistan rather than engage in frontal combat with Pakistan’s army. The area along the border with Pakistan is rugged and has proved hard to pacify for hundreds of years. We don’t think the Pakistanis will be able to bring the area under control in only one year. Clearly, the Pakistanis have made progress, but they are not out of the woods. The TTP has launched a number of attacks in the Punjabi core of Pakistan (and in Karachi) and we see no end to this violence in 2010.

• Afghanistan: We will continue to closely monitor jihadist actors in this war-torn country. Our forecast for this conflict is included in our Annual Forecast 2010, published on Jan. 4.

• Yemen: We will be watching closely to see if AQAP will follow the normal jihadist group lifespan of making a big splash, coming to the notice of the world and then being hit heavily by the host government with U.S. support. This pattern was exhibited a few years back by AQAP’s Saudi al Qaeda brethren, and judging by the operations in Yemen over the past month, it looks like 2010 might be a tough year for the group. It is important to note that the strikes against the group on Dec. 17 and Dec. 24 predated the Christmas bombing attempt, and the pressure on them will undoubtedly be ratcheted up considerably in the wake of that attack. Even as the memory of the Christmas Day attack begins to fade in the media and political circles, the focus on Yemen will continue in the counterterrorism community.

• Indonesia: Can Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad find an effective leader to guide it back from the edge of destruction after the death of Noordin Mohammad Top and the deaths or captures of several of his top lieutenants? Or will the Indonesians be able to enjoy further success against the group’s surviving members?

• North Africa: Will AQIM continue to shy away from the al Qaeda core’s targeting philosophy and essentially function as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat with a different name in Algeria? Or will AQIM shift back toward al Qaeda’s philosophy of attacking the far enemy and using suicide bombers and large vehicle bombs? In Mauritania, Niger and Mali, will the AQIM-affiliated cells there be able to progress beyond amateurish attacks and petty banditry to become a credible militant organization?

• Somalia: We believe the factionalism in Somalia and within the jihadist community there will continue to hamper al Shabaab. The questions we will be looking to answer are: Will al Shabaab be able to gain significant control of areas of the country that can be used to harbor and train foreign militants? And, will the group decide to use its contacts within the Somali diaspora to conduct attacks in East Africa, South Africa, Australia, Europe and the United States? We believe that al Shabaab is on its way to becoming a transnational player and that 2010 may well be the year that it breaks out and then draws international attention like AQAP has done in recent months.

• India: We anticipate that Kashmiri jihadist groups will continue to plan attacks against India in an effort to stir-up communal violence in that country and stoke tensions between India and Pakistan — and provide a breather to the jihadist groups being pressured by the government of Pakistan.

As long as the ideology of jihadism survives, the jihadists will be able to recruit new militants and their war against the world will continue. The battle will oscillate between periods of high and low intensity as regional groups rise in power and are taken down. We don’t believe jihadists pose a strategic geopolitical threat on a global, or even regional, scale, but they will certainly continue to launch attacks and kill people in 2010.

Taking Credit for Failure

Jan. 27, 2010

On Jan. 24, a voice purported to be that of Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the botched attempt to bring down Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day. The short one-minute and two-second audio statement, which was broadcast on Al Jazeera television, called the 23-year-old Nigerian suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a hero and threatened more attacks. The voice on the recording said the bombing attempt was in response to the situation in Gaza and that the United States can never dream of living in peace until Muslims have peace in the Palestinian territories. The speaker also said that attacks against the United States would continue as long as the United States continued to support Israel.

While the U.S. government has yet to confirm that the voice is that of bin Laden, Al Jazeera claims that the voice is indeed that of the al Qaeda leader. Bin Laden’s health and welfare have been the topic of a lot of discussion and debate over the past several years, and many intelligence officials believe he is dead. Because of this, any time an audio recording purporting to be from bin Laden is released it receives heavy forensic scrutiny. Some technical experts believe that recent statements supposedly made by bin Laden have been cobbled together by manipulating portions of longer bin Laden messages that were previously recorded. It has been STRATFOR’s position for several years that, whether bin Laden is dead or alive, the al Qaeda core has been marginalized by the efforts of the United States and its allies to the point where the group no longer poses a strategic threat.

Now, questions of bin Laden’s status aside, the recording was most likely released through channels that helped assure Al Jazeera that the recording was authentic. This means that we can be somewhat confident that the message was released by the al Qaeda core. The fact that the al Qaeda core would attempt to take credit for a failed attack in a recording is quite interesting. But perhaps even more interesting is the core group’s claim that the attack was conducted because of U.S support for Israel and the treatment of the Palestinians living in Gaza.

Smoke and Mirrors

During the early years of al Qaeda’s existence, the group did not take credit for attacks it conducted. In fact, it explicitly denied involvement. In interviews with the press, bin Laden often praised the attackers while, with a bit of a wink and a nod, he denied any connection to the attacks. Bin Laden issued public statements after the August 1998 East Africa embassy bombings and the 9/11 attacks flatly denying any involvement. In fact, bin Laden and al Qaeda continued to publicly deny any connection to the 9/11 attacks until after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. These denials of the 9/11 attacks have taken on a life of their own and have become the basis of conspiracy theories that the United States or Israel was behind the attacks (despite later statements by bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, that contradicted earlier statements and claimed credit for 9/11).

In the years following 9/11, the al Qaeda core has continued to bask in the glory of that spectacularly successful attack, but it has not been able to produce the long-awaited encore. This is not for lack of effort; the al Qaeda core has been involved in several attempted attacks against the United States, such as the attempted shoe-bomb attack in December 2001, dispatching Jose Padilla to the United States in May of 2002 to purportedly try to conduct a dirty-bomb attack, and the August 2006 thwarted plot to attack trans-Atlantic airliners using liquid explosives. Interestingly, while each of these failed attempts has been tied to the al Qaeda core by intelligence and investigative efforts, the group did not publicly claim credit for any of them. While the group’s leadership has made repeated threats that they were going to launch an attack that would dwarf 9/11, they simply have been unable to do so. Indeed, the only plot that could have come anywhere near the destruction of the 9/11 attacks was the liquid explosives plot, and that was foiled early on in the operational planning process — before the explosive devices were even fabricated.

Now, back to the failed bombing attempt on Christmas Day. First, the Yemeni franchise of al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), has already claimed responsibility for the attack, and evidence strongly suggests that AQAP is the organization with which Abdulmutallab had direct contact. Indeed, while some members of AQAP have had prior contact with bin Laden, there is little to suggest that bin Laden himself or what remains of al Qaeda’s core leadership has any direct role in planning any of the operations conducted by AQAP. The core group does not exercise that type of control over the activities of any of its regional groups. These groups are more like independent franchises that operate under the same brand name rather than parts of a single hierarchical organization. Each franchise has local leadership and is self-funding, and the franchises frequently diverge from global al Qaeda “corporate policies” in areas like target selection.

Furthermore, in an environment where the jihadists know that U.S. signals-intelligence efforts are keenly focused on the al Qaeda core and the regional franchise groups, discussing any type of operational information via telephone or e-mail from Yemen to Pakistan would be very dangerous — and terrible operational security. Using couriers would be more secure, but the al Qaeda core leadership is very cautious in its communications with the outside world (Hellfire missiles can have that effect on people), and any such communications will be very slow and deliberate. For the al Qaeda core leadership, the price of physical security has been the loss of operational control over the larger movement.

Taking things one step further, not only is the core of al Qaeda attempting to take credit for something it did not do, but it is claiming credit for an attack that did little more than severely burn the attacker in a very sensitive anatomical area. Some have argued that the attack was successful because it has instilled fear and caused the U.S. government to react, but clearly the attack would have had a far greater impact had the device detonated. The failed attack was certainly not what the operational planners had in mind when they dispatched Abdulmutallab on his mission.

This attempt by the al Qaeda core to pander for publicity, even though it means claiming credit for a botched attack, clearly demonstrates how far the core group has fallen since the days when bin Laden blithely denied responsibility for 9/11.

The Palestinian Focus

Since the beginning of bin Laden’s public discourse, the Palestinian cause has been a consistent feature. His 1996 declaration of war and the 1998 fatwa declaring jihad against the West and Israel are prime examples. However, the reality of al Qaeda’s activities has shown that, to bin Laden, the plight of the Palestinians has been less an area of genuine concern and more of a rhetorical device to exploit sympathy for the jihadist cause and draw Muslims to al Qaeda’s banner.

Over the years, al Qaeda has worked very closely with a number of militant groups in a variety of places, including the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat in Algeria, Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia and the East Turkestan Islamic Movement in China. However, while one of bin Laden’s mentors, Abdullah Azzam, was a Palestinian, and there have been several Palestinians affiliated with al Qaeda over the years, the group has done little to support Palestinian resistance groups such as Hamas, even though Hamas (as the Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood) sprang from the same radical Egyptian Islamist milieu that produced al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), which al-Zawahiri later folded into al Qaeda.

Jihadist militant groups such as Jund Ansar Allah have attempted to establish themselves in Gaza, but these groups were seen as problematic competition, rather than allies, and Hamas quickly stamped them out.

With little help coming from fellow Sunnis, Hamas has come to rely on Iran and Iran’s Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, as sources of funding, weapons and training. Even though this support is flowing across the Shiite-Sunni divide, actions speak louder than words, and Iran and Hezbollah have shown that they can deliver. In many ways, the political philosophy of Hamas (which has been sharply criticized by al-Zawahiri and other al Qaeda leaders) is far closer to that of Iran than to that of the jihadists. With Iran’s help, Hamas has progressed from throwing rocks and firing homemade Qassam rockets to launching the longer range Grad and Fajr rockets and conducting increasingly effective irregular-warfare operations against the Israeli army.

Hezbollah’s ability to eject Israel from southern Lebanon and its strong stand against the Israeli armed forces in the 2006 war made a strong impression in the Middle East. Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are seen as very real threats to Israel, while al Qaeda has shown that it can produce a lot of anti-Israeli rhetoric but few results. Because of this, Iran and its proxies have become the vanguard of the fight against Israel, while al Qaeda is simply trying to keep its name in the press.

Claiming credit for failed attacks orchestrated by others and trying to latch on to the fight against Israel are just the latest signs that al Qaeda is trying almost too hard to remain relevant.

Jihadism: The Grassroots Paradox

March 18, 2010

Last week, rumors that Adam Gadahn had been arrested in Karachi, Pakistan, quickly swept through the global media. When the dust settled, it turned out that the rumors were incorrect; the person arrested was not the American-born al Qaeda spokesman. The excitement generated by the rumors overshadowed a message from Gadahn that the al Qaeda media arm as Sahab had released on March 7, the same day as the reported arrest. While many of the messages from al Qaeda figures that as Sahab has released over the past several years have been repetitive and quite unremarkable, after watching Gadahn’s March 7 message, we believe that it is a message too interesting to ignore.

The Message

In the message, which was titled “A Call to Arms,” Gadahn starts by telling jihadists to strike targets that are close to them. He repeats the al Qaeda doctrinal position that jihad is a personal, religiously mandated duty for every able-bodied Muslim. He then tells his audience that “it is for you, like your heroic Mujahid brother Nidal Hasan, to decide how, when and where you discharge this duty. But whatever you do, don’t wait for tomorrow to do what can be done today, and don’t wait for others to do what you can do yourself.”

As the message progresses, Gadahn’s praise of Fort Hood shooter Hasan continues. Gadahn lifts up Hasan as an example for other Muslims to emulate: “the Mujahid brother Nidal Hasan is a pioneer, a trailblazer and a role-model who has opened a door, lit a path and shown the way forward for every Muslim who finds himself among the unbelievers and yearns to discharge his duty to Allah.” He adds that Hasan was the “ideal role model” for Muslims serving in the armed forces of Western countries and of their Muslim allies. Gadahn’s message is clearly intended to encourage more jihadists to emulate Hasan and conduct lone wolf terrorist attacks.

Regarding the planning of such attacks, Gadahn praises Hasan for being a careful planner and for not engaging in a hasty, reckless or poorly planned operation. He states that Hasan clearly learned from the mistakes of others and did not repeat them. Although Gadahn does not specify particular plots in which he believes mistakes were made by grassroots jihadists, he is undoubtedly referring to cases such as the May 2009 arrest of a group of grassroots jihadists in White Plains, N.Y., who came to the attention of authorities when they sought help from a man who turned out to be an FBI informant. Gadahn praises Hasan for practicing careful operational security by keeping his plans to himself and for not discussing them over the phone or Internet. He also notes that Hasan did not make the mistake of confiding in a person who might have been an FBI informant, as several other plotters have done. Gadahn also says Hasan “didn’t unnecessarily raise his security profile or waste money better spent on the operation itself by traveling abroad to acquire skills and instructions which could easily be acquired at home, or indeed, deduced by using one’s own powers of logic and reasoning.”

When discussing methods lone wolf jihadists can use to conduct their attacks, Gadahn notes that while Hasan used firearms in his assault at Fort Hood, jihadists are “no longer limited to bullets and bombs” when it comes to weapons. “As the blessed operations of September 11th showed, a little imagination and planning and a minimal budget can turn almost anything into a deadly, effective and convenient weapon which can take the enemy by surprise and deprive him of sleep for years on end.”

Gadahn then turns his attention to targeting. He counsels lone wolf jihadists to follow a three-pronged target selection process. They should choose a target with which they are well acquainted, a target that is feasible to hit and a target that, when struck, will have a major impact. He notes that Hasan’s choice of Fort Hood fit all three criteria, but that jihadists should not think that military bases are the only high-value targets in the United States or other Western countries. “On the contrary,” Gadahn insists, “there are countless other strategic places, institutions and installations which, by striking, the Muslim can do major damage.”

He then relates that jihadists must attempt to “further undermine the West’s already-struggling economies” by carefully timed and targeted attacks against symbols of capitalism in an effort to “shake consumer confidence and stifle spending.” (In this way, Gadahn’s message tracks with past messages of Osama bin Laden pertaining to economic jihad.) Gadahn notes that even apparently unsuccessful attacks on Western mass-transportation systems can bring major cities to a halt, cost billions of dollars and send corporations into bankruptcy. He also calls upon jihadists to kill or capture “leading Crusaders and Zionists in government, industry and media.”

To summarize his lessons on targeting, Gadahn urges jihadists to “look for targets which epitomize Western decadence, depravity, immorality and atheism — targets which the enemy and his mouthpieces will have trouble trying to pass off to the conservative Muslim majority as illegitimate targets full of innocent people.”

Implications

First, it is significant that Gadahn, a representative of the core al Qaeda group, is openly advocating a tactical approach to terrorist attacks that was first publicly laid out by the leader of one of the al Qaeda franchise groups. Nasir al-Wahayshi, head of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), authored an article that appeared in AQAP’s Sada al-Malahim online magazine in October 2009 that encouraged jihadists to conduct simple attacks with readily available weapons. Since that time, al-Wahayshi’s group has been linked to Hasan and the Fort Hood shooting, the attempt to destroy Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009 and the June 1, 2009, attack against an armed forces recruitment center in Little Rock, Ark. Normally it is the al Qaeda core group that sets the agenda in the jihadist realm, but the success of AQAP has apparently caused the core group to jump on the AQAP bandwagon and endorse al-Wahayshi’s approach.

It is also telling that the core al Qaeda group chose to produce this particular video message using Gadahn as the spokesman and not one of their other talking heads like Ayman al-Zawahiri or Abu Yahya al-Libi. Gadahn, an American, is often used by the group to address the West, and English speaking-people in particular, so it is clear that the intended audience for his message was aspiring grassroots jihadists in the West. Indeed, Gadahn says in the video that his message is meant particularly for jihadists in the United States, United Kingdom and Israel. Presented in English, Gadahn’s video is more easily accessible to English-speakers than al-Wahayshi’s article, which was written in Arabic. Even though the al Qaeda core has been marginalized on the physical battlefield, when it comes to areas like militant philosophy, the pronouncements of the core group carry more influence with the wider jihadist world than statements from a regional franchise such as AQAP. When these two factors are combined, it is reasonable to assume that more people in the English-speaking world may pay attention to this call to simple attacks than they did to al-Wahayshi’s call in October 2009. Video is also a more viral type of media than the printed word, and video messages are known to be very appealing to aspiring jihadists.

Another thing this video reveals is the continued weakening of the core al Qaeda group. It has come a long way from the early days of as Sahab, when bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders issued defiant threats of launching a follow-on attack against the United States that was going to be even more destructive than 9/11. The group is now asking individual Muslims to conduct lone-wolf terrorist attacks and to follow the examples of Hasan and Mir Amal Kansi, the Pakistani citizen who conducted a shooting at a stoplight outside CIA headquarters in January 1993 that killed two CIA employees. STRATFOR has long been tracking the devolution of the jihadist threat from one primarily based upon al Qaeda the group to one based upon a wider jihadist movement, and this video is a clear indication that the trend toward decentralization is continuing.

This decentralization means grassroots operatives will continue to be a concern. The problems posed by such operatives are illustrated by recent cases involving American citizens like Colleen LaRose (aka Jihad Jane), Jamie Paulin-Ramirez and Sharif Mobley, who are all alleged to have been involved in recent jihadist plots. As blonde Caucasian women, LaRose and Paulin-Ramirez, in particular, do not fit the jihadist operative stereotype in most people’s minds and serve to illustrate the difficulty of creating a terrorist profile based on race, ethnicity or gender.

But decentralization can also mean diminished capability. Counseling jihadists against traveling to training camps in places like Pakistan or Yemen and advising them not to coordinate their attacks with others will increase a group’s operational security, but it can also have a serious impact on its operational effectiveness. Traditionally, one of the biggest problems for lone-wolf operators is acquiring the skills necessary to conduct a successful terrorist attack. Even though many Web sites and military manuals can provide instruction on such things as hand-to-hand combat and marksmanship, there is no substitute for hands-on experience in the real world. This is especially true when it comes to the more subtle skills required to conduct a complex terrorist attack, such as planning, surveillance and bomb making. This difficulty in translating intent into effective action explains why so few lone-wolf militants have been able to pull off spectacular, mass-casualty attacks.

Not putting their recruits through a more formal training regimen also makes it more difficult for groups to thoroughly indoctrinate recruits with jihadist ideology. In addition to physical training, individuals attending jihadist training camps typically receive hours of theological instruction every day that is intended to ground them in jihadist doctrine and motivate them to follow through with their plans to engage in attacks.

All that said, while the threat posed by grassroots jihadists is less severe than that posed by trained militant operatives from the core al Qaeda group or the regional franchises, grassroots operatives can still kill people — and they most certainly will continue to do so. Because of this, it is important to pay careful attention to the targeting criteria that Gadahn lays out. His focus on mass transportation targets means that historical jihadist targets such as airliners and subways continue to be at risk. For corporate security directors and the protective security details assigned to safeguard high-profile government officials and private individuals, the video should also serve as a reminder of the need to be vigilant. This is doubly true for those assigned to protect individuals of the Jewish faith, who could be thought to fit both the “Crusader” and “Zionist” labels in the mind of a prospective attacker.

For security personnel, the silver lining in all this is that grassroots operatives are often lacking in street skills and tend to be very sloppy when conducting preoperational surveillance. This means that, while these individuals are in many ways more difficult to identify before an attack than operatives who communicate with, or are somehow connected to, jihadist groups (indeed, lone wolves can seemingly appear out of nowhere), their amateurish methods tend to make them more vulnerable to detection than their better-trained counterparts. This is the paradox presented by this class of militant operative — and it is a paradox that will confront security, intelligence and law enforcement officers for many years to come.

Jihadists in Iraq: Down For The Count?

April 29, 2010

On April 25, The Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) posted a statement on the Internet confirming that two of its top leaders, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayub al-Masri, had been killed April 18 in a joint U.S.-Iraqi operation in Salahuddin province. Al-Baghdadi (an Iraqi also known as Hamid Dawud Muhammad Khalil al-Zawi), was the head of the ISI, an al Qaeda-led jihadist alliance in Iraq, and went by the title “Leader of the Faithful.” Al-Masri (an Egyptian national also known as Abu Hamzah al-Muhajir), was the military leader of the ISI and head of the group’s military wing, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

Al-Masri replaced Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June 2006. Al-Zarqawi had alienated many Iraqi Sunnis with his ruthlessness, and al-Baghdadi is thought to have been appointed the emir of the ISI in an effort to put an Iraqi face on jihadist efforts in Iraq and to help ease the alienation between the foreign jihadists and the local Sunni population. Al-Masri, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq and the military leader of the ISI, was considered the real operational leader of ISI/AQI efforts in Iraq.

STRATFOR viewed the initial announcement by Iraqi authorities of the deaths of the two leaders with a healthy degree of skepticism. After all, they had been declared dead before, only to later release statements on the Internet mocking the Iraqi government for making false claims. But the details provided in the April 19 press conference by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (complete with photos of the deceased) and the confirmation by the U.S. military helped allay those initial doubts. The recent admission by the ISI, which made a similar statement following the death of al-Zarqawi, has all but erased our doubts about the deaths.

But the ISI’s statement has raised some other questions. It claimed that the deaths of the two leaders would not affect the group’s operations in Iraq because new members had recently joined it. But when viewed in the context of other recent developments in Iraq, it appears that the operational capability of the ISI will indeed be affected — at least in the near future.

Recent Activity

The operation that resulted in the deaths of al-Baghdadi and al-Masri did not occur in a vacuum. Rather, it was a part of a series of operations targeting the ISI in recent months. The raids have come as a result of a renewed effort to counter the ISI following a resurgence in the group’s operations that included high-profile multiple-vehicle bombings directed against targets in central Baghdad on Aug. 19, 2009, Oct. 25, 2009, Dec. 8, 2009, and Jan. 25, 2010.

The raids that resulted in the deaths of the ISI leaders on April 18 were part of a chain of events that stretches back for months, and appear to be the result of the effective exploitation of intelligence gained in one raid used to conduct the next. For example, Iraqi Maj. Gen. Qasim Ata, the spokesman for the Baghdad Operations Command, told Al-Iraqiya TV on April 20 that the intelligence that led to the location of al-Baghdadi and al-Masri was obtained during the March 11, 2010, arrest of Manaf Abdul Raheem al-Rawi, the AQI commander in Baghdad. Iraqi government sources claim al-Rawi is the man responsible for planning the multiple-vehicle bombings in Baghdad. If so, he is another effective operational leader who has been taken out of the ISI/AQI gene pool.

Then, following the April 18 raid, Ahmad al-Ubaydi — aka Abu-Suhaib, whom Iraqi officials identify as the AQI military commander for the northern Iraqi provinces of Ninevah, Salahuddin and Kirkuk provinces — was killed April 20. The next day, Iraqi authorities located an improvised explosive device (IED) factory in western Anbar province and seized two vehicle bombs and some smaller IEDs. On April 22, the U.S. Army announced the arrest of a bombmaker in Anbar province. On April 23, Iraqi police arrested another AQI military leader in Anbar, Mahmoud Suleiman, who was reportedly found with several IEDs in his home. Also on April 23, an Iraqi police SWAT team reportedly killed two AQI leaders during a raid in eastern Mosul. They claimed that one of the AQI leaders, Yousef Mohammad Ali, was also a bombmaker. In recent days, dozens of other alleged AQI members have either surrendered or been arrested in Diyala, Mosul, Salahuddin and Basra.

There have even been unconfirmed reports that Izzat al-Douri was captured April 25. Al-Douri, the “king of clubs” in the U.S. military’s 2003 deck of most-wanted Iraqis and who has a $10 million bounty on his head, was a vice president of Iraq under Saddam Hussein and an important insurgent leader.

In late March, progress was also made against AQI in Mosul. Several suspects were arrested or killed, and among the latter were major AQI figures Khalid Muhammad Hasan Shallub al-Juburi, Abu Ahmad al-Afri and Bashar Khalaf Husayn Ali al-Jaburi.

This type of rapid, sequential activity against jihadists by U.S. and Iraqi forces is not a coincidence. It is the result of some significant operational changes that were made in 2007 in the wake of the American surge in Iraq. The then-commander of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was instrumental in flattening hierarchies and reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies in both intelligence and special operations forces activities inside Iraq in order to create a highly integrated and streamlined organization. The result was the capability to rapidly plan and execute special operations forces raids based on actionable intelligence with a limited shelf life — and then to rapidly interrogate any captives, quickly analyze any material of intelligence value seized and rapidly re-task forces in a series of follow-on operations. The resulting high tempo of operations was considered enormously successful and a key factor in the success of the surge, and recent developments in Iraq appear to be a continuation of this type of rapid and aggressive activity.

Such operations not only can produce rapid gains in terms of capturing and killing key targets, they also serve to disrupt and disorient the enemy. According to Iraqi Maj. Gen. Qasim Ata, AQI is currently in disarray and panic, and he believes that the organization is also facing money problems, since it reportedly has been in contact with al Qaeda prime in an attempt to secure financial assistance. This stands in stark contrast to the 2005 letter in which al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri asked AQI leader al-Zarqawi for funding. At that time there was a large flow of men and money into Iraq, but it now appears that AQI is facing some financial difficulties. Following the recent raids in which senior operational commanders and bombmakers have been captured or killed, it also appears that the group may also be facing some leadership and operational-expertise difficulties.

Leadership

As STRATFOR has previously noted, leadership is a critical factor in the operational success of a militant group. Without skilled leadership, militant groups lose their ability to conduct effective attacks, particularly ones of a sophisticated nature. Leadership, skill and professionalism are the factors that make the difference between a militant group wanting to attack something — i.e., its intent — and the group’s ability to successfully carry out its intended attack — i.e., its capability. The bottom line is that new recruits simply cannot replace seasoned operational commanders, as the ISI suggested in its statement.

Although it might seem like a simple task to find a leader for a militant group, effective militant leaders are hard to come by. Unlike most modern militaries, militant groups rarely invest much time and energy in leadership development training. To compound the problem, the leader of a militant group needs to develop a skill set that is quite a bit broader than most military leaders. In addition to personal attributes such as ruthlessness, aggressiveness and fearlessness, militant leaders also must be charismatic, intuitive, clever and inspiring. This last attribute is especially important in an organization that seeks to recruit operatives to conduct suicide attacks. Additionally, an effective militant leader must be able to recruit and train operatives, enforce operational security, raise funds, plan operations and then methodically execute a plan while avoiding the security forces constantly hunting the militants down.

Of course, not every leadership change is disastrous to a militant group. Sometimes a new leader breathes new life and energy into an organization (like Nasir al-Wahayshi in Yemen), or the group has competent lieutenants able to continue to operate effectively after the death of the leader (like AQI after the death of al-Zarqawi). But the current environment in Iraq, where numerous individuals have been rapidly and sequentially killed or captured, makes this sort of orderly leadership replacement more difficult.

Therefore, it will be important to watch the ISI carefully to see who is appointed as the group’s new emir and military commander. (In practical terms, the emir may be easier to replace than the military commander, especially if the former is just a figurehead and not a true operational commander.) The group may have had a clear chain of command and competent, designated successors who have survived the recent operations. But if not, the leadership vacuum at the top could result in infighting over control, or result in an ineffective leader assuming control. The jury is still out, but with the recent successes against the ISI, there is a very good chance that it may take some time for the group to regain its footing. This, of course, is the objective of the up-tempo operations recently seen in Iraq. Effective counterterrorism programs seek to keep the militants (and especially their leaders) off balance by killing or capturing them while also rolling up the lower levels of the group. Militants scrambling for their lives seldom have the opportunity to plan effective attacks, and sustained pressure makes it difficult for them to regain the offensive.

Like operational leaders, competent bombmakers are not easy to replace. They also need to possess a broad set of skills and require a great deal of training and practical experience to hone their skills. A master bombmaker is a rare and precious commodity in the militant world. Therefore, the bombmakers recently arrested in Iraq could prove to be almost as big a loss to AQI as the operational leaders.

When we discussed the resurgence of the ISI/AQI back in October, we noted that at that time they had retained a great deal of their capability and that they were able to gather intelligence, plan attacks, acquire ordnance, build reliable IEDs and execute spectacular attacks in the center of Baghdad against government ministry buildings. We also discussed how the polarization surrounding the election in Iraq was providing them an opportunity to exploit. That polarization has continued in the wake of the elections as the factions jockey for position in the new government, but the extent of the damage done to the jihadists through the loss of so many commanders and operatives may not allow the successors of al-Masri and al-Baghdadi to take advantage of the situation before their window of opportunity closes.

We will be watching the jihadists in Iraq carefully in the coming months to see if they can regroup and retain their operational capability. The big question is: Will the recent operations against the ISI/AQI merely serve as another temporary setback like the killing of al-Zarqawi, or do they portend something more long-term for the future of the organization? The ISI/AQI has proved to be resilient and resourceful in the past, but we are not sure they have the ability to bounce back this time.

Pakistan: Faisal Shahzad and the Pakistani Taliban

May 10, 2010

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced May 9 that the United States had uncovered evidence linking the Pakistani Taliban to Faisal Shahzad, the naturalized U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent who confessed to the botched May 1 attempt to bomb Times Square in New York City. Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, made essentially the opposite contention May 7, arguing that Shahzad acted alone. Any link between Shahzad and the Pakistani Taliban is not as meaningful as it appears, but it does draw attention to the need for a more sophisticated discussion of the Pakistani Taliban phenomenon and the way in which Shahzad approached the organization.

The Case of Faisal Shahzad

In the wake of the attack, Shahzad allegedly has been linked not only to the Pakistani Taliban but also to Anwar al-Awlaki, the former U.S.-born radical imam of a mosque in a Virginian suburb of Washington, D.C., who is now thought to be in hiding in Yemen. Al-Awlaki was also linked to two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers and U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who gunned down 13 at Fort Hood in November 2009.

But even Hasan, who appears to have had closer ties to al-Awlaki, acted as a lone wolf and did not inform anyone of his intentions. In other words, despite some loose ideological affinity, the connection played no operational role in the attack, as the old apex leadership of al Qaeda prime did in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. What made Hasan an effective lone wolf was not his ideological connections, but his insider knowledge of a good location for an attack at Fort Hood, his professional and personal proficiency with small arms and an appropriate target selection commensurate with his skill.

Shahzad was more of a “Kramer” jihadist in the tradition of Richard Reid — an ultimately inept radicalized individual with no operational understanding of basic tradecraft, no self-awareness of that lack of skill and ambition to carry out an attack utterly beyond his capabilities. Shahzad’s skill set is strikingly similar to that of Najibullah Zazi or the Glasgow group — they were all failed bomb makers.

The ‘Walk-In’ Jihadist

About the only thing Shahzad brought to the table was the passport of a naturalized U.S. citizen and a willingness to carry out an attack on U.S. soil. However, that entails more problems than opportunities.

A militant group that U.S. and Pakistani intelligence are actively targeting has to be inherently skeptical of outsiders — especially if one shows up on their doorstep (as Shahzad did) with an offer that appears to be too good to be true. Any entity must balance operational security with the active pursuit of its goals and objectives. But the lack of tradecraft that Shahzad exhibited is only further evidence that if Shahzad interacted with the Pakistani Taliban meaningfully — and there is not yet much evidence either way about how far he made it up the chain of command during his visit – they did not help him attain any meaningful skills. Although subsequent events might have shown that the group — if it was behind the plot — missed a chance to strike at the U.S. homeland, the ensuing investigations and focus of both U.S. and Pakistani intelligence efforts will only make operational security all the more important and any Shahzad-like offers all the more difficult to trust.

Shahzad’s childhood in Pakistan afforded him both cultural and filial connections in the country. There are even reports that a childhood friend was behind the 2008 attacks in Mumbai. Childhood has little bearing on adult operational capability, though it did make it easier for Shahzad to travel outside Peshawar, where he once lived, and make contacts with innumerable individuals — some invariably with some degree of connection to the shadowy, amorphous world of the Pakistani Taliban and their local and transnational allies.

However, a naturalized U.S. citizen who had spent more than a decade in the United States — even one with some historical acquaintance among militants — is problematic. It is next to impossible for a jihadist group to have any confidence in the trustworthiness of an individual who walks in and volunteers in a scenario such as this. The potential for that individual to be a double agent is simply too high to meaningfully compromise operational security — especially as the United States and others are trying very hard to enhance their intelligence for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) strikes in the region. The lack of tradecraft in Shahzad’s device is compelling evidence that whatever “contacts” or “training” he might have received in northern Pakistan was largely confined to physical training and weapons handling, not the far more sophisticated skill set of fashioning improvised explosive devices.

So whoever he did talk to in Pakistan — and the list of potentials is virtually endless for someone who grew up in the area — reveals almost nothing. More information may become available about whom he spoke with and what was discussed but there is no meaningful context for these conversations. Basic tradecraft and Shahzad’s Times Square device that make it clear that at most, the Pakistani Taliban sent a low-level representative to speak with him. It is unclear who provided the training, but it is reasonable to assume that he underwent basic guerilla training courses, but not advanced bomb-making courses. (Zazi received the bomb-making training but still failed in his attempt to attack New York’s subways because training without experience is insufficient.) However, the May 3 video of Pakistani Taliban leader Hakeemullah Mehsud claiming he had not been killed in a 2009 U.S. UAV strike probably gave the group an almost irresistible opportunity to claim credit for the May 1 attempted attack in the United States — even if it was an inept one — in order to bolster the larger movement’s standing (although the Pakistani Taliban is so fractious and diffuse, it can hardly be said that the claim was from “the group”).

[pic]

Pakistani Taliban

The Pakistani Taliban is an outgrowth of the Afghan Taliban that Islamabad nurtured in the 1990s. The radical Islamist ideology and militant training that Pakistan (along with the United States and Saudi Arabia) had cultivated in Afghanistan during the 1980s war against the Soviets in order to consolidate control over the country eventually spilled back across the border. With a recent rise in attacks against Pakistani government targets, Islamabad began to grasp the implications and consequences of its existing policies. Consequently, in April 2009, it initiated an unprecedented counterinsurgency and counterterrorism campaign in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the leading group in the amorphous and diffuse phenomenon that is the Pakistani Taliban (even though the TTP itself is fractious), certainly has had ambitions to attack the continental United States, a supporter of the regime in Islamabad that it opposes.

However, it is important to note that at its strongest, the TTP demonstrated the ability to strike at urban targets in Pakistan. It has never demonstrated the capability to strike far afield, much less on the opposite side of the world. Others, such as splinter factions of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizb-ul-Jihad al-Islami, have demonstrated that capability recently, but not the TTP. So while it has the intent, it has never had the capability to carry out an attack at that distance. The closest it has come to an international attack is the suicide bombing on the CIA facility in eastern Afghanistan across the border from the FATA, which for all intents and purposes should be considered a local operation given the close proximity and porous nature of the border. In that instance, the group got lucky in that the bomber had independent access to agency officials. And the ongoing campaign in FATA is only further pressuring the Pakistani Taliban. Facing both the Pakistani military and American UAV strikes, the group has seen its operational reach within Pakistan severely constrained. The idea that the group has sufficient capacity to plot and support a strike on the continental United States is increasingly far-fetched, despite its desire to do so. In any event, Shahzad’s actions were not only carried out ineptly by an untrained individual, but have no evidence of meaningful outside support.

So while there are links that should not be underestimated, the botched Times Square bombing is merely the latest in a now well-established trend of “grassroots” and “Kramer” jihadists. They absolutely pose a danger — and an ongoing one at that — but they must not be mistaken for the coherent, transnational phenomenon of al Qaeda 2.0.

Indonesia: Dismantling Another Militant Cell

May 13, 2010

Indonesian special counterterrorism forces carried out a raid in Central Java and arrested three suspected militants May 13. Authorities have not made a statement about the raid, but it likely is connected to a series of 15 or more raids that began at a camp operated by a new jihadist organization, Tanzim Al-Qaeda Serambi Mekkah, also called al Qaeda in Aceh (AQA).

Because the group has links to major figures from the militant group Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), AQA appears to be a splinter group formed by former JI operatives to re-establish their presence in Indonesia. However, Indonesia is a country where jihadist groups have never gained a significant following and where security forces consistently capture or kill militants.

[pic]

Indonesian security forces led by the National Police counterterrorism unit Special Detachment 88 have conducted a series of raids targeting suspected militants throughout the country, mainly in northern Sumatra and near Jakarta, since Feb. 22. The Feb. 22 raid on an AQA camp near Banda Aceh provided a wealth of intelligence that led to more raids on associated militants. Of these raids — many of which resulted in firefights — the most notable occurred March 9 in Pamulang, when Dulmatin, a major Indonesian jihadist leader, was killed. Dulmatin and his associate Umar Patek (who is still being hunted) were both involved in the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings associated with JI. The other raids have mostly occurred across the northern part of the island of Sumatra, where Aceh is located, but some have targeted locations in the Jakarta suburbs, the usual area of operations for Jemaah Islamiyah-linked militants.

JI has been divided since 2003, with factions disagreeing over the use of violence. The group faced a police crackdown as some of its leaders fled the country and created their own splinter groups. Dulmatin, an expert bomb maker, left for the Philippine island of Mindanao and trained militant groups there, while another leader, Noordin Top, formed Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad from Malaysia. It is not clear if Dulmatin was directly associated with Top’s group, but they were at the very least former associates and definitely agreed on using violence as a tactic.

Police pressure on these groups followed a series of bombings between 2003 and 2005. An intelligence break — possibly the result of the 2009 hotel bombings — resulted in Top’s death in September 2009. That began a roundup of associated militant operatives. Intelligence from the Top killing could very well have led to the AQA camp in Aceh, which in turn led to the raid in which Dulmatin was killed.

Tito Karnavian, Indonesia’s anti-terrorism police chief, claims Dulmatin is responsible for the new splinter group in Aceh. AQA — whose full name means “Organization of al Qaeda at the Window to Mecca,” since Aceh was the first part of Indonesia to convert to Islam — began making posts online claiming success in firefights against security forces and saying that they would continue to fight. The International Crisis Group speculated early on that AQA could have linked up with remnants of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). But now that GAM has a political stake in Aceh — it was given control of the territory’s government after a 2005 peace agreement — it would have little incentive to be involved in militant attacks. On March 9, the Aceh governor went as far as to call the new group “garbage sent from Java.” (Earlier jihadist groups operated on the island of Java rather than Sumatra.)

The devastation caused by the tsunami in 2004 and a change of government created the kind of instability in Indonesia that gave militants a safe haven for operations. These militant groups have been able to recruit and train enough members in Indonesia to carry out major attacks, but they have never been able to launch a broader movement. Jakarta’s aggressive policing, likely based on intelligence finds, has kept militant groups hunted and on the run and prevented jihadist groups from developing significant followings. Furthermore, as each new leader is captured or killed, militant groups lose experience needed for operational capability and charisma needed for recruitment, and thus are rendered less effective.

From Failed Bombings to Armed Jihadist Assaults

May 27, 2010

One of the things we like to do in our Global Security and Intelligence Report from time to time is examine the convergence of a number of separate and unrelated developments and then analyze that convergence and craft a forecast. In recent months we have seen such a convergence occur.

The most recent development is the interview with the American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki that was released to jihadist Internet chat rooms May 23 by al-Malahim Media, the public relations arm of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). In the interview, al-Awlaki encouraged strikes against American civilians. He also has been tied to Maj. Nidal Hasan, who was charged in the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the perpetrator of the failed Christmas Day 2009 airline bombing. And al-Awlaki reportedly helped inspire Faisal Shahzad, who was arrested in connection with the attempted Times Square attack in May.

The second link in our chain is the failed Christmas Day and Times Square bombings themselves. They are the latest in a long string of failed or foiled bombing attacks directed against the United States that date back to before the 9/11 attacks and include the thwarted 1997 suicide bomb plot against a subway in New York, the thwarted December 1999 Millennium Bomb plot and numerous post-9/11 attacks such as Richard Reid’s December 2001 shoe-bomb attempt, the August 2004 plot to bomb the New York subway system and the May 2009 plot to bomb two Jewish targets in the Bronx and shoot down a military aircraft. Indeed, jihadists have not conducted a successful bombing attack inside the United States since the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Getting a trained bombmaker into the United States has proved to be increasingly difficult for jihadist groups, and training a novice to make bombs has also been problematic as seen in the Shahzad and Najibullah Zazi cases.

The final link we’d like to consider are the calls in the past few months for jihadists to conduct simple attacks with readily available items. This call was first made by AQAP leader Nasir al-Wahayshi in October 2009 and then echoed by al Qaeda prime spokesman Adam Gadahn in March of 2010. In the Times Square case, Shahzad did use readily available items, but he lacked the ability to effectively fashion them into a viable explosive device.

When we look at all these links together, there is a very high probability that jihadists linked to, or inspired by, AQAP and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) — and perhaps even al Shabaab — will attempt to conduct simple attacks with firearms in the near future.

Threats and Motives

In the May 23 al-Malahim interview (his first with AQAP), al-Awlaki not only said he was proud of the actions of Hasan and Abdulmutallab, whom he referred to as his students, but also encouraged other Muslims to follow the examples they set by their actions. When asked about the religious permissibility of an operation like Abdulmutallab’s, which could have killed innocent civilians, al-Awlaki told the interviewer that the term “civilian” was not really applicable to Islamic jurisprudence and that he preferred to use the terms combatants and non-combatants. He then continued by noting that “non-combatants are people who do not take part in the war” but that, in his opinion, “the American people in its entirety takes part in the war, because they elected this administration, and they finance this war.” In his final assessment, al-Awlaki said, “If the heroic mujahid brother Umar Farouk could have targeted hundreds of soldiers, that would have been wonderful. But we are talking about the realities of war,” meaning that in his final analysis, attacks against civilians were permissible under Islamic law. Indeed, he later noted, “Our unsettled account with America, in women and children alone, has exceeded one million. Those who would have been killed in the plane are a drop in the ocean.”

While this line of logic is nearly identical to that historically put forth by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the very significant difference is that al-Awlaki is a widely acknowledged Islamic scholar. He speaks with a religious authority that bin Laden and al-Zawahiri simply do not possess.

On May 2, the TTP released a video statement by Hakeemullah Mehsud in which Mehsud claimed credit for the failed Times Square attack. In the recording, which reportedly was taped in early April, Mehsud said that the time was approaching “when our fedayeen [suicide operatives] will attack the American states in their major cities.” He also said, “Our fedayeen have penetrated the terrorist America. We will give extremely painful blows to the fanatic America.”

While TTP leaders seem wont to brag and exaggerate (e.g., Baitullah Mehsud falsely claimed credit for the April 3, 2009, shooting at an immigration center in Binghamton, N.Y., which was actually committed by a mentally disturbed Vietnamese immigrant), there is ample reason to believe the claims made by the TTP regarding their contact with Shahzad. We can also deduce with some certainty that Mehsud and company have trained other men who have traveled (or returned) to the United States following that training. The same is likely true for AQAP, al Shabaab and other jihadist groups. In fact, the FBI is likely monitoring many such individuals inside the United States at this very moment — and in all likelihood is madly scrambling to find and investigate many others.

Fight Like You Train

There is an old military and law-enforcement training axiom that states, “You will fight like you train.” This concept has led to the development of training programs designed to help soldiers and agents not only learn skills but also practice and reinforce those skills until they become second nature. This way, when the student graduates and comes under incredible pressure in the real world — like during an armed ambush — their training will take over and they will react even before their mind can catch up to the rapidly unfolding situation. The behaviors needed to survive have been ingrained into them. This concept has been a problem for the jihadists when it comes to terrorist attacks.

It is important to understand that most of the thousands of men who attend training camps set up by al Qaeda and other jihadist groups are taught the basic military skills required to fight in an insurgency. This means they are provided basic physical training to help condition them, given some hand-to-hand combat training and then taught how to operate basic military hardware like assault rifles, hand grenades and, in some cases, crew-served weapons like machine guns and mortars. Only a very few students are then selected to attend the more advanced training that will teach them the skills required to become a trained terrorist operative.

In many ways, this process parallels the way that special operations forces operators are selected from the larger military population and then sent on for extensive training to transform them into elite warriors. Many people wash out during this type of intense training and only a few will make it all the way through to graduation. The problem for the jihadists is finding someone with the time and will to undergo the intensive training required to become a terrorist operative, the ability to complete the training and — critically — the ability to travel abroad to conduct terrorist attacks against the far enemy. Clearly the jihadist groups are able to train men to fight as insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they have shown the ability to train terrorist operatives who can operate in the fairly permissive environments of places like the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area. They also have some excellent bombmakers and terrorist planners in Iraq and Pakistan.

What the jihadists seem to be having a problem doing is finding people who can master the terrorist tradecraft and who have the ability to travel into hostile areas to ply their craft. There seems to be a clear division between the men who can travel and the men who can master the advanced training. The physical and intelligence onslaught launched against al Qaeda and other jihadist groups following the 9/11 attacks has also created operational security concerns that complicate the ability to find and train effective terrorist operatives.

Of course, we’re not telling the jihadists anything they don’t already know. This phenomenon is exactly why you have major jihadist figures like al-Wahayshi and Gadahn telling the operatives who can travel to or are already in the West to stop trying to conduct attacks that are beyond their capabilities. Gadahn and al-Awlaki have heaped praise on Maj. Hasan as an example to follow — and this brings us back to armed assaults.

In the United States it is very easy to obtain firearms and it is legal to go to a range or private property to train with them. Armed assaults are also clearly within the skill set of jihadists who have made it only through basic insurgent training. As we’ve mentioned several times in the past, these grassroots individuals are far more likely to strike the United States and Europe than professional terrorist operatives dispatched from the al Qaeda core group. Such attacks will also allow these grassroots operatives to fight like they have been trained. When you combine all these elements with the fact that the United States is an open society with a lot of very vulnerable soft targets, it is not difficult to forecast that we will see more armed jihadist assaults in the United States in the near future.

Armed Assaults

Armed assaults employing small arms are not a new concept in terrorism by any means. They have proved to be a tried-and-true tactic since the beginning of the modern era of terrorism and have been employed in many famous attacks conducted by a variety of actors. A few examples are the Black September operation against the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics; the December 1975 seizure of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries headquarters in Vienna, led by Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, aka “Carlos the Jackal”; the December 1985 simultaneous attacks against the airports in Rome and Vienna by the Abu Nidal Organization; and the September 2004 school seizure in Beslan, North Ossetia, by Chechen militants. More recently, the November 2008 armed assault in Mumbai demonstrated how deadly and spectacular such attacks can be.

In some instances — such as the December 1996 seizure of the Japanese ambassador’s residence in Lima, Peru, by the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement — the objective of the armed assault is to take and intentionally hold hostages for a long period of time. In other instances, such as the May 1972 assault on Lod Airport by members of the Japanese Red Army, the armed assault is planned as a suicide attack designed simply to kill as many people as possible before the assailants themselves are killed or incapacitated. Often attacks fall somewhere in the middle. For example, even though Mumbai became a protracted operation, its planning and execution indicated it was intended as an attack in which the attackers would inflict maximum damage and not be taken alive. It was only due to the good fortune of the attackers and the ineptitude of the Indian security forces that the operation lasted as long as it did.

We discussed above the long string of failed and foiled bombing attacks directed against the United States. During that same time, there have been several armed assaults that have killed people, such as the attack against the El Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles International Airport by Hesham Mohamed Hadayet in July 2002, the shooting attacks by John Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo in the Washington area in September and October 2002 and the June 2009 attack in which Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad allegedly shot and killed a U.S. soldier and wounded another outside a Little Rock, Ark., recruiting center. The most successful of these attacks was the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting, which resulted in 13 deaths. These attacks not only resulted in deaths but also received extensive media coverage.

Armed assaults are effective and they can kill people. However, as we have noted before, due to the proficiency of U.S. police agencies and the training their officers have received in active shooter scenarios following school shootings and incidents of workplace violence, the impact of armed assaults will be mitigated in the United States, and Europe as well. In fact, it was an ordinary police officer responding to the scene and instituting an active shooter protocol who shot and wounded Maj. Hasan and brought an end to his attack in the Soldier Readiness Center at Fort Hood. The number of people in the American public who are armed can also serve as a mitigating factor, though many past attacks have been planned at locations where personal weapons are prohibited, like the Los Angeles International Airport, Fort Hood and Fort Dix.

Of course, a Mumbai-like situation involving multiple trained shooters who can operate like a fire team will cause problems for first responders, but the police communication system in the United States and the availability of trained SWAT teams will allow authorities to quickly vector in sufficient resources to handle the threat in most locations — especially where such large coordinated attacks are most likely to happen, such as New York, Washington and Los Angeles. Therefore, even a major assault in the United States is unlikely to drag out for days as did the incident in Mumbai.

None of this is to say that the threats posed by suicide bombers against mass transit and aircraft will abruptly end. The jihadists have proven repeatedly that they have a fixation on both of these target sets and they will undoubtedly continue their attempts to attack them. Large bombings and airline attacks also carry with them a sense of drama that a shooting does not — especially in a country that has become somewhat accustomed to shooting incidents conducted by non-terrorist actors for other reasons. However, we believe we’re seeing a significant shift in the mindset of jihadist ideologues and that this shift will translate into a growing trend toward armed assaults.

Yemen: A New al Qaeda Video

May 27, 2010

Al-Malahim, the media branch of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) — the Yemen-based regional node of al Qaeda — released a new video May 26 alongside the 13th edition of its publication, Echo of Battle. Entitled “America, The Last Trap,” the video includes a lengthy statement from AQAP military commander Qasim al-Raymi. The well-produced, approximately one-hour video includes familiar faces along with less known individuals.

One such newcomer, Fahd al-Quso — wanted in connected with the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole — threatened attacks against the continental United States, its embassy in Yemen and warships in the surrounding waters. This is the first unequivocal evidence of links between AQAP and the wanted militant, though his exact connection with the group is unclear. The imprisoned militant Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to destroy a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009, appeared in a clip speaking about jihad and the West and training in the Yemeni desert.

The video also eulogized Muhammad Umayr al-Awlaqi, well-known for an appearance on Al Jazeera threatening the United States in front of a large crowd, who died in a December 2009 airstrike against his hideout in Abyan. It also confirmed the deaths of Abdallah al-Mihdar, head of AQAP in the Shabwah governorate, who died in clashes with security forces in January, and the Afghan veteran Mohammad Saleh al-Kazimi, who also died in the 2009 Abyan strike and whose corpse was shown on the video.

Appearing for the first time was former Guantanamo Bay inmate No. 184 and current No. 85 on the Saudi most-wanted list, Othman Ahmad Othman al-Ghamdi. The 31-year-old Saudi-born militant fought in Afghanistan, where coalition authorities arrested him in April 2006. After four years at Guantanamo, al-Ghamdi was sent back to his homeland where he eventually enrolled in, and graduated from, Saudi Arabia’s rehabilitation program. Shortly after his release, he traveled to Yemen, where he joined AQAP. The video revealed him as a new AQAP leader. Though his exact role remains unknown, he may have replaced a senior figure killed in recent strikes.

Al-Ghamdi’s newfound role raises some interesting questions about AQAP’s leadership. For instance, numerous rumors have referenced the mysterious absence and possible death of the group’s leader, Nasir al-Wahayshi. An unverified audio message purportedly from al-Wahayshi was distributed to jihadist/extremist websites May 16 in which he praised Anwar al-Awlaki and threatened reprisals if the U.S.-born cleric is killed. The absence of images of al-Wahayshi suggest he is either in hiding or was in fact killed, though sources in Yemen claim he remains alive. In any case, even though Yemen’s operations against AQAP continue, the group remains a credible threat to security in Yemen and perhaps beyond.

Somalia: Al Shabaab as a Transnational Threat

June 2, 2010

Omar Hammami, an American-born commander of the Somali jihadist group al Shabaab, was featured in a propaganda video released May 11 calling for jihadists to spread the battle around the world and specifically to “bring America to her knees.” Then on May 27, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a terrorism threat alerting local authorities to be on the lookout for Mohammad Ali, a suspected al Shabaab member allegedly attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexican border. Finally, on May 30 an Aeromexico flight from Paris to Mexico City was forced to land in Montreal because a man on board, Abdirahman Ali Gaall, was on the U.S. no-fly list. Few other details are available at this time, but it appears so far that Gaall had connections to al Shabaab. This confluence of events has attracted STRATFOR’s attention to the Somali jihadist group. While al Shabaab remains focused on Somalia, it could pose more of a transnational threat, inspiring “lone wolf” and grassroots jihadists to hit back at the West.

In 2008, as foreign jihadists began their flight from Iraq, STRATFOR wrote that al Shabaab “had an opportunity to transform Somalia into a central jihadist theater. Growing its ranks with foreign fighters and enjoying the increasing support of al Qaeda sympathizers, the Somali militants could reach the tipping point in their insurgency against the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in Mogadishu.”

Two years later, al Shabaab is putting up a consistent fight against Western-backed forces in central and southern Somalia, making significant gains in southern Somalia and even controlling large portions of Mogadishu, but it has been unable to completely defeat the TFG. The TFG, along with African Union (AU) peacekeeping forces and an array of allied militias, is managing to hold onto the most strategic parts of Mogadishu, namely the seaport. The United States is providing the TFG with arms, training and assistance in an effort to keep al Shabaab at bay.

The United States has pursued a strategy of fighting other regional al Qaeda nodes that pose a threat to the United States, such as in Yemen and Algeria, by supporting the local government forces with intelligence, training and supplies (with the occasional overt use of U.S. special operations forces or air power to hit specific high-value targets). U.S. forces target senior al Shabaab commanders with ties to al Qaeda, while lower-ranking al Shabaab fighters are left for local forces. These local forces are relied on as much as possible to avoid large mobilizations of U.S. troops.

This strategy has largely worked in areas like Indonesia and Algeria, where the governments (for the most part) control the territory and can command a competent security force to combat the militants. However, in Somalia, the TFG is struggling just to survive and cannot fight a serious counterterrorism campaign because it does not control large swathes of Somali territory. The TFG lacks a sufficiently sized and capable military force of its own, plus it is wracked by political infighting that limits its ability to go on the offensive against al Shabaab. Ethiopia withdrew its troops from Somalia in early 2009. The United States still relies on Ethiopia’s support for the Somali Islamist militia and TFG ally Ahlu Sunnah Waljamaah, and Ethiopian military operations meant to keep jihadists from spreading into Ethiopia. However, the TFG’s incoherence limits the United States’ ability to pursue its usual strategy of relying on the local government’s counterterrorism operations to contain a militant group.

This helps al Shabaab. As long as the United States is willing to maintain the current level of deterrence, al Shabaab will maintain its capability of long-term survival. If Washington does not view al Shabaab as a direct and imminent threat to U.S. security, the U.S. response to al Shabaab will be limited. Striking at the United States (or anywhere outside Somalia) would raise al Shabaab’s profile dramatically, risking increased U.S. involvement. Therefore, STRATFOR does not expect the group’s core leaders to adopt a transnational strategy anytime soon.

However, there exists in Somalia a tradition of violent and anti-Western jihadist ideology. Indeed, those responsible for the August 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, while not connected to al Shabaab, did have connections to Somalia. Furthermore, as expected, foreign jihadists have moved to Somalia from other theaters such as Iraq, the Caucasus and Pakistan as well as Western countries like the United States and Canada, bringing with them a broader jihadist mindset. These foreigners can basically be divided into two groups: trained and experienced militants looking for a fight, and inexperienced ideologues yearning to get into one. STRATFOR sources say that al Shabaab has a few hundred foreign fighters — among them many inexperienced ideologues — but only a couple of dozen more experienced foreign commanders. (Al Shabaab has an estimated overall force of around 4,000 fighters — both foreign and local — deployed in groups in southern and central Somalia and in Mogadishu.)

Hammami — who fights under the nom de guerre Abu Mansour al-Amriki — exemplifies the foreign born commander with aspirations beyond Somalia. In his video, he exhorted jihadists worldwide to spread the fight “from Spain to China” and to “bring America to her knees,” saying the “first stop” is Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital. These foreign, more jihadist-inspired fighters are crowding out the more nationalist-oriented and Islamist fighters like the splintered Hizbul Islam, whose focus was primarily on winning Somalia. Al Shabaab also exhibited an interest in foreign targets when it issued threats against Uganda and Burundi in October 2009. Neighboring Kenya constantly receives threats, and al Shabaab has been named as a potential threat to the upcoming World Cup in South Africa.

The devolution of al Qaeda has meant that the core group of jihadists who conducted the 9/11 attack does not have the same militant capability as before. However, the al Qaeda franchises in Somalia, Algeria and the Arabian Peninsula possess a growing militant capability, and the more publicity they get the more recruits they can attract — and the more people they can inspire to carry the fight beyond the region. Such lone wolf and grassroots jihadists do not have to be bona fide members of a militant group to carry out attacks. There is a lengthening list of jihadist operatives who have hit (or plotted to hit) Western targets, including U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who attacked troops in processing at Fort Hood, Texas, after being radicalized watching online videos of cleric Anwar al-Awlaki from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP); Najibullah Zazi (born in Afghanistan but a naturalized U.S. citizen), who attended a Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) training camp in Pakistan and returned to the United States with plans to attack New York’s subway system; and Omar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, a Nigerian who traveled to Yemen to obtain an explosive device and be trained to use it in order to blow up a U.S.-bound airline.

Like AQAP and the TTP, al Shabaab has the capability to train would-be militants to conduct simple attacks against soft targets in the West. Al Shabaab also has a sizable group of American recruits, indicating that the group has significant pull in some Somali communities in the United States. The FBI has investigated dozens of cases in which U.S. citizens (often first- or second-generation immigrants from Somalia) have returned to the Horn of Africa to fight for al Shabaab. Al Shabaab operatives need not do this themselves; they need only to find a willing sympathizer to do it for them. Individuals who have traveled to Somalia from the United States likely would not be able to sneak back into the United States, but they do have connections with people still in the United States who could be radicalized and convinced to act out their ideological support for al Shabaab in the form of an attack. Recruits from the Somali diaspora in Europe and Canada will also be susceptible to al Shabaab recruiting.

While those members of al Shabaab’s leadership who are focused on the near enemy (the TFG and its AU supporters) may not have the strategic intent to carry out attacks against the West, conditions in Somalia allow for recruiting or even passively radicalizing and convincing outsiders to carry out attacks on their behalf. It is here that the law of unintended consequences comes into play. Al Shabaab is not a monolithic force that can control the actions of all of its commanders or members, many of whom operate with significant autonomy. Some of these commanders and members are known to harbor anti-Western sentiments and have even called for violence against the West. While this may not necessarily benefit the original purpose of al Shabaab (to take over Somalia), it appears that it is the intent of some of its members to strike out at the West.

The good news for the West is that most lone wolf and grassroots jihadists are untrained and inexperienced and end up failing to carry out their plots — either because they are detected by authorities before they are able to act or because they are tactically unable to carry out an attack. (One of the main reasons jihadist attacks fail is because they are overly complex). It is the simple attack — one involving firearms or a rudimentary bomb — that most likely will be seen in the West, conducted by a single operative (likely who already lives in the area) on behalf of al Shabaab.

Al Shabaab Threats Against the United States?

June 3, 2010

On the afternoon of Sunday, May 30, an Aeromexico flight from Paris to Mexico City was forced to land in Montreal after authorities discovered that a man who was on the U.S. no-fly list was aboard. The aircraft was denied permission to enter U.S. airspace, and the aircraft was diverted to Trudeau International Airport in Montreal. The man, a Somali named Abdirahman Ali Gaall, was removed from the plane and arrested by Canadian authorities on an outstanding U.S. warrant. After a search of all the remaining passengers and their baggage, the flight was allowed to continue to its original destination.

Gaall reportedly has U.S. resident-alien status and is apparently married to an American or Canadian woman. Media reports also suggest that he is connected with the Somali jihadist group al Shabaab. Gaall was reportedly deported from Canada to the United States on June 1, and we are unsure of the precise charges brought against him by the U.S. government, but more information should be forthcoming once he has his detention hearing. From the facts at hand, however, it appears likely that he has been charged for his connection with al Shabaab, perhaps with a crime such as material support to a designated terrorist organization.

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security issued a lookout to authorities in Texas, warning that another Somali purportedly linked to al Shabaab was believed to be in Mexico and was allegedly planning to attempt to cross the border into the United States. This lookout appears to be linked to a U.S. indictment in March charging another Somali man with running a large-scale smuggling ring bringing Somalis into the United States through Latin America.

Taken together, these incidents highlight the increased attention the U.S. government has given to al Shabaab and the concern that the Somali militant group could be planning to conduct attacks in the United States. Although many details pertaining to the Gaall case remain unknown at this time, these incidents involving Somalis, Mexico and possible militant connections — and the obvious U.S. concern — provide an opportunity to discuss the dynamics of Somali immigration as it relates to the U.S. border with Mexico, as well as the possibility that al Shabaab has decided to target the United States.

The Somali Diaspora

In any discussion of al Shabaab, it is very important to understand what is happening in Somalia — and more important, what is not happening there. Chaos has long reigned in the African country, chaos that became a full-blown humanitarian crisis in the early 1990s due to civil war. Somalia never fully recovered from that war, and has lacked a coherent government for decades now. While Somalia does have a government in name, known as the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), it controls little apart from a few neighborhoods and outposts in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia. In this vacuum of authority, warlords and pirates have thrived, along with a variety of militant Islamist groups, such as the jihadist group al Shabaab.

The decades of fighting and strife have also resulted in the displacement of millions of Somalis. Many of these people have moved into camps set up by humanitarian organizations inside the country to help the huge number of internally displaced people, but large numbers of Somalis have also sought refuge in neighboring countries. In fact, the situation in Somalia is so bad that many Somalis have even sought refuge in Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. Tens of thousands of Somalis have also been resettled abroad in places like the United States, Canada and Europe.

Unlike an earthquake, tsunami or other natural disaster, the man-made disaster in Somalia has continued for decades. As Somali refugees have been settled in places like the United States, they, like many other immigrants, frequently seek to have their relatives join them. Frequently, they are able to do this through legal means, but quite often, when the wait for legal immigration is deemed too long or an application is denied for some reason — such as the applicant’s having served in a militia — illegal means are sought to bring friends and relatives into the country. This is by no means a pattern exclusive to Somali immigrants; it is also seen by other immigrant groups from Asia, Africa and other parts of the world. For example, Christians from Iraq, Egypt and Sudan are frequently smuggled into the United States through Latin America.

In years past, a significant portion of this illegal traffic passed through Canada, but in the post-9/11 world, Canada has tightened its immigration laws, making it more difficult to use Canada as an entry point into the United States. This has driven even more immigrant traffic to Latin America, which has long been a popular route for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Indeed, we have seen an expansion of Somali alien-smuggling rings in Latin America in recent years, and according to documents filed in court, some of these groups have been associated with militant groups in Somalia. In an indictment filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on March 3, 2010, a Somali named Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane was charged with operating a large-scale alien-smuggling ring out of Brazil responsible for smuggling several hundred Somalis and other East Africans into the United States. The indictment alleges that the persons Dhakane’s organization smuggled included several people associated with al-Itihaad al-Islamiya (AIAI), a militant group linked to al Qaeda that was folded into the Supreme Islamic Courts Council (SICC) after the latter group’s formation. After Ethiopian forces invaded Somalia and toppled the SICC in late 2006, many of the more hardcore SICC militants then joined with the SICC youth wing, al Shabaab, to continue their armed struggle. The more nationalist-minded SICC members formed their own militant organization, called Hizbul Islam, which at various times either cooperates or competes with al Shabaab. The U.S. government officially designated AIAI a terrorist group in September 2001. The March indictment also alleged that Dhakane was associated with al-Barakat, a Somalia-based company that is involved in the transfer of money to Somalia. The U.S. government claims that al-Barakat is involved in funding terrorist groups and has designated the company a terrorist entity. Diaspora Somalis transfer a great deal of legitimate money to family members back in Somalia through organizations such as al-Barakat because there is no official banking system in the country, and militant groups like al Shabaab use this flow of money as camouflage for their own financial transactions.

Many other alien smugglers besides Dhakane are involved in moving Somalis through Latin America. Most of these smugglers are motivated by profit, but some like Dhakane who have ties to militant groups might not be opposed to moving people involved with militant groups — especially if they also happen to make more money in the process. Other smugglers might unknowingly move militants. Moreover, a number of front businesses, charities and mosques in the region more closely tied to militant groups of various stripes are used to raise funds, recruit and facilitate the travel of operatives through the region. Some of these entities have very close ties to people and organizations inside the United States, and those ties are often used to facilitate the transfer of funds and the travel of people.

Determining Intentions

Clearly, there are many Somalis traveling into the United States without documentation. According to the U.S. government, some of these Somalis have ties to jihadist groups such as AIAI and al Shabaab, like Dhakane and Gaall, respectively. Given the number of warlords and militias active in Somalia and the endemic lack of employment inside the country, it is not at all uncommon for young men there to seek employment as members of a militia. For many Somalis who are driven by the need merely to survive, ideology is a mere luxury. This means that unlike the hardcore jihadists encountered in Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan, many of the men fighting in the various Somali militias do not necessarily ascribe to a particular ideology other than survival (though there are certainly many highly radicalized individuals, too).

The critical question, then, is one of intent. Are these Somalis with militant ties traveling to the United States in pursuit of a better life (one hardly need be an Islamist bent on attacking the West to want to escape from Somalia), or are they seeking to travel to the United States to carry out terrorist attacks?

The situation becomes even more complex in the case of someone like Gaall, who came to the United States, reportedly married an American woman, received resident-alien status, but then chose to leave the comfort and security of the United States to return to Somalia. Clearly, he was not a true asylum seeker who feared for his life in Somalia, or he would not have returned to the African country. While some people become homesick and return home, or are drawn back to Somalia for some altruistic purpose, such as working with a non-governmental organization to deliver food aid to starving countrymen— or to work with the Somali government or a foreign government with interests in Somalia — some Somalis travel back to support and fight with al Shabaab. Since most of the previously mentioned activities are not illegal in the United States, the criminal charges Gaall faces likely stem from contact with al Shabaab.

Having contact with al Shabaab does not necessarily mean that someone like Gaall would automatically return to the United States intending to conduct attacks there. It is possible that he considered Somalia a legitimate theater for jihad but did not consider civilians in the United States legitimate targets. There is a great deal of disagreement in jihadist circles regarding such issues, as witnessed by the infighting inside al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb over target selection. There are also militant groups, like Hamas and Hezbollah, who consider the United States as a place to recruit and raise funds rather than a battlefield for jihad. U.S. authorities certainly would err on the side of caution regarding such people, and would charge them with any applicable criminal charges, such as material support of a terrorist group, rather than run the risk of missing an impending attack.

If it is determined that Gaall intended to conduct an attack inside the United States, the next question becomes whether he sought to conduct an attack of his own volition or was sent by al Shabaab or some other entity.

As we have previously discussed, we consider the current jihadist world to be composed of three different layers. These layers are the core al Qaeda group; the regional al Qaeda franchises (like al Shabaab); and grassroots jihadists — either individuals or small cells — inspired by al Qaeda and the regional franchises but who may have little if any actual connection to them. It will be important to determine what Gaall’s relationship was with al Shabaab.

To this point, the leadership of al Shabaab has shown little interest in conducting attacks outside Somalia. While they have issued threats against Uganda, Burundi, Kenya and Ethiopia (which invaded Somalia and deposed the SICC), al Shabaab has yet to act on these threats (though AIAI did conduct a series of low-level bombing attacks in Ethiopia in 1996 and 1997 and al Shabaab has periodic border skirmishes with the Kenyan military). Somalis have also been involved with the al Qaeda core for many years, and al Shabaab has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden — the reason we consider them an al Qaeda regional franchise group.

That said, we have been watching al Shabaab closely this year to see if they follow in the footsteps of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and become a transnational terrorist group by launching attacks against the West rather than just a group with a national or regional focus. While some al Shabaab members, like American-born Omar Hammami — who sings jihadi rap songs about bringing America to its knees — have threatened the West, it remains unclear whether this is rhetoric or if the group truly intends to attack targets farther afield. So far, we have seen little indication that al Shabaab possesses such intent.

Due to this lack of demonstrated intent, our assessment at the present time is that al Shabaab has not yet made the leap to becoming transnational. That assessment could change in the near future, however, as details from the Gaall case come out during court proceedings — especially if it is shown that al Shabaab sent Gaall to the United States to conduct an attack.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download