Al Qaeda’s in Trouble
Al Qaeda increasingly faces sharp criticism from once-loyal sympathizers who openly question its ideology and tactics
The LA Times: ‘Al Qaeda increasingly faces sharp criticism from once-loyal sympathizers who openly question its ideology and tactics, including attacks that kill innocent Muslims, according to U.S. intelligence officials, counter-terrorism experts and the group’s own communications.’
A litany of complaints target Osama bin Laden’s network and its affiliates for their actions in Iraq and North Africa, emphasis on suicide bombings instead of political action and tepid support for, or outright antagonism toward, militant groups pressing the Palestinian cause.
The criticism apparently has grown serious enough that Al Qaeda’s chief strategist, Ayman Zawahiri, felt compelled to solicit online questions. He responded in an audio message released this month. For more than 90 minutes, Bin Laden’s second-in-command tried to defuse the anger…
Such rifts have been emerging for several years, but they have become increasingly contentious lately, in cyberspace and on the streets of some Arab countries. In addition to Zawahiri, Al Qaeda leaders, including Bin Laden himself, have gone on a public relations offensive. In October, Bin Laden asked followers for forgiveness for the deaths of civilians in Iraq.Analysts with U.S. and allied intelligence agencies differ over whether the backlash poses significant risks for Al Qaeda, or whether it is simply a public relations problem. The organization is expanding its pool of hard-core recruits, according to one U.S. counter- terrorism official. And Internet communications and other intelligence have shown that its anti-American message continues to resonate with extremists throughout much of the Islamic world.
But Al Qaeda also has sought to use regional groups to become more mainstream and expand its power base. It is in these groups that most of the conflict is occurring.
Strange how killing thousands of innocent civilians doesn’t make one more popular. Also strange that encouraging sons to blow themselves up in a crowded market results in parents and siblings have a slight distaste for the ones who convinced their son / brother to take his own life.
And lets not even mention the response of the fathers and mothers of the innocent bystanders who get killed by such a suicide bombing.
Al Qaeda’s tactics are tactics that will cause tremendous blowback. You can, seemingly, do it for a couple of months, but if you kill civilians years in a row, well, people have this awkward tendency to wonder whether there aren’t other ways to fight the perceived enemy. In fact, when using these tactics it won’t be long before the organization is perceived (to be) an enemy.
And rightfully so of course.
Bad news for Al Qaeda = good news for us. The less Arabs support Al Qaeda, the easier it becomes to severely weaken or even destroy this terrorist organization. The West should add fuel to the fire; we need to spread more propaganda in the Middle East, pointing out the crimes committed against Arabs by Al Qaeda et al.
Good write-up. I agree.
In the short term, support for a "leader" is higher during wartime, but as war-time goes on for a prolonged period of time we see a decrease in popularity. To give credit where credit is due, I stole this from Jason in another post when he was applying this to democracies, and from my view it looks like, for the same reason (reason being supporters friends, family and “countrymen” or “other followers” dying), this popularity decrease applies to smaller, non-democratic groups as well. Just to be clear here, I am not implying that democracies are in any way synonymous with terrorist groups. I am saying at a broader level, that one reason for an “approval rating” decrease in the long term for any leader of any group involved in war is prolonged timeframes of death of family, friends and “countrymen” or “other followers”.