| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks & Islam |
| IISS report on al-Qaeda status |
| 2004-10-20 |
| Up to a thousand foreign jihadists have infiltrated Iraq, but this is a fraction of al-Qaida's potential strength, a respected military thinktank said yesterday. The foreign fighters are operating with the Sunni Ba'athists loyal to Saddam Hussein who began the insurgency, and possibly with Shia militias as well, according to the the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. Basing its findings on information from its specialist contacts, including sources in governments and intelligence agencies, the institute said the invasion of Iraq had "enhanced jihadist recruitment and intensified al-Qaida's motivation" to mount terrorist operations. The organisation estimated that al-Qaida had more than 18,000 potential terrorists in 60 countries, sympathetic, in varying degrees, to its cause. "Furthermore, the substantially exposed US military deployment in Iraq presents al-Qaida with perhaps its most attractive 'iconic' target outside US territory," the report, The Military Balance, concluded. "Galvanised by Iraq, if compromised by Afghanistan, al-Qaida remains a viable and effective 'network of networks'," the institute warns. After losing its training and command base in the Afghanistan war, al-Qaida dispersed, its leaders relinquishing operational initiative and responsibility to "local talent", according to the report. But intelligence obtained by the US suggested that some of al-Qaida's activities, particularly bomb-making, had become more centralised and therefore "potentially more efficient and sophisticated". Al-Qaida now needed less money to operate, and increasingly used the informal hawala system of financial transfers and remittances, which is based on trust rather than a paper trail and is difficult to regulate, the thinktank said. Through regime change in Iraq, the report said, Britain and the US intended to usher democracy into the Gulf region to advance a long-term political convergence between Islam and the west. Yet the insurgency and other state-building problems cast doubt on the political benefits of the entire Iraqi operation. The report dismissed claims by US officials that the influx of jihadists into Iraq brought more terrorists into a smaller "killing zone". The al-Qaida movement was unlikely to concentrate forces in any one country, the institute said, adding that the 1,000 foreign fighters estimated to be in Iraq were a "minute fraction of its potential strength". The institute's director, John Chipman, said yesterday: "The outcome of the US-led international effort to bring stability to the country is far from certain as the most powerful military power in the world struggles with a multi-faceted insurgency." He said it could take five years before Iraq's own security forces were able to guarantee stability themselves. Pointing a finger at the US, Christopher Langton, the editor of The Military Balance, said governments had to realise that post-conflict, peacekeeping operations were "manpower-intensive, as the human component replaces the weapon system as the key enabler to success". He added that the use of partially trained reservists, or reservists with the wrong skills, was no substitute for fully trained soldiers, as the US had learned to its cost in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The report also referred to the profusion of private military companies. Such companies could not provide the answer to the manpower problem because of a "lack of oversight on their activities allied to their lack of accountability". |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #17 these are the guys who said saddam was 18 months away from making a nuclear weapon--they're hem sniffers--too much dart throwing in pubs |
| Posted by: SON OF TOLUI 2004-10-20 11:13:22 PM |
| #16 Liberalhawk, while I agree with your statements concerning the threat radical Muslims pose to France, I don’t believe France should get off so lightly. In addition to the Islamic issue: France has long been anti-American. The Anglosphere is a threat to French cultural, political, and economic influence. France has historically triangulated against the US and continues to do so. By positioning the EU in opposition to the US, France uses the EU to magnify French influence. Many French politicians and businessmen are corrupt by US moral standards. So I don’t think that the internal Muslim threat is the main driver of French foreign policy. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5032 2004-10-20 11:58:39 AM |
| #15 #11 AI: the invasion of Iraq had "enhanced jihadist recruitment and intensified al-Qaida’s motivation" to mount terrorist operations Excellent use of stating the bleedin' obvious This brought to you by the International Institute of the Study of the Completely Obvious (IISCO)! |
| Posted by: BA 2004-10-20 10:46:56 AM |
| #14 Of course the recruitment is up that is to be expected it is what happens in every war when both sides dig in resources. It's called focus: before war in terrorism "Al-queda" had social program to get good willing, had programs to teach religious stuff and a military wing. Now probably are all under military wing. German build more airplanes in 1944 and had a bigger army too... that means they were being successfull at that time? |
| Posted by: Anonymous6361 2004-10-20 10:27:31 AM |
| #13 some thoughts 1. the evidence on recruitment must be in parts i havent read yet. color me skeptical 2. Its still probably true that AQ remains strong. 3. Most interesting is the shift in methods of moving money 4. 1000 in Iraq out of 18000. As usual reality is a middle ground between ideological assertions. Yup, the fly paper effect IS happening. But no, its not enough to make the war in Iraq the central front of the WOT. At least not based on the flypaper effect alone. 5. Democracy in Iraq, as they hint, could be important. But its not there yet and has many obstacles. As we all know. 6. Radical Islam post-OIF is particularly strong in Europe. Yup, I think thats the key insight, and ultimately the reason for the division between us and the French. A win in Iraq can transform the Middle East, and change the strategic situation there. But Frances immediate problem, in a way thats difficult for Americans to understand, isnt the Middle East. Its the muslims in the suburbs of Paris and Marseilles. Our threat is essentially from abroad. While a few muslims here are radicalized and cooperate with terrorists, most dont, and they are fewer in number, and generally less concentrated. In France they are heavily radicalized and discontented, huge in number, and heavily ghettoized. Its a time bomb (well theres already violence, but thats only a hint at whats possible - and the potential reaction from the French right is just as dangerous to the Republic) The war in Iraq, to the extent it adds to the radicalization among French muslims (which I think we can admit it probably does) is a disaster to France, even if it improves the strategic situation in the Middle East. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-10-20 9:50:22 AM |
| #12 These "analyses" seem bogus to me. So what if recruitment and motivation are up? Wouldn't that be expected when we decided to escalate the war? The numbers of terrorists is still small from a military point of view (we're not talking about million-man armies as in WWII) and they still appear to have limited capability to hurt us militarily. This war is still in the category of low intensity conflict, and we have the capability to wage war on a scale that Al Qaeda can't even imagine. |
| Posted by: V is for Victory 2004-10-20 8:57:36 AM |
| #11 the invasion of Iraq had "enhanced jihadist recruitment and intensified al-Qaida’s motivation" to mount terrorist operations Excellent use of stating the bleedin' obvious |
| Posted by: AmericanIdiot 2004-10-20 7:04:09 AM |
| #10 IISS International Ignorant Socialist Society? It was printed in the Guardian it must not be true. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-20 6:03:06 AM |
| #9 Dan: It may be late for you, but it's prime time for the crew you are keeping tabs on. Continue on with the good work, please. |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2004-10-20 2:59:16 AM |
| #8 I know Dan's a good guy and he sweats the details on the research so we don't have to. |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2004-10-20 2:56:50 AM |
| #7 I should add that wasn't intended as a shot at CL, it's late here for us Midwesterners ... |
| Posted by: Dan Darling 2004-10-20 2:55:46 AM |
| #6 CL - Lol! He might get just the tiniest kick out of it, heh... But Dan's really a nice guy, not to mention kick-ass researcher, lol! Honest! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-20 2:44:28 AM |
| #5 Nah, but if you actually read past the anti-war stuff here there's some useful info, such as the centralization of bombmaking, ect. |
| Posted by: Dan Darling 2004-10-20 2:40:52 AM |
| #4 I think Dan Darling posts these late night pieces from Al-Guardian so us west coast types get riled up and lose sleep. |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2004-10-20 2:35:36 AM |
| #3 blah blah blah, a respected military thinktank said yesterday. Respected, by whom and for what reason? |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-10-20 2:29:07 AM |
| #2 CL, that was about 30 years ago when people knew the difference. |
| Posted by: Memesis 2004-10-20 2:27:14 AM |
| #1 Is the IISS some kind of Brit Brookings Institution? This isn't analysis, it's posturing. |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2004-10-20 2:24:02 AM |