In the wake of the Marriott Hotel bombing in Islamabad, which killed 60 people, it might seem perverse to express optimism about the struggle against global terrorism as espoused by al-Qaeda. After all, the Taliban, which provided asylum for Osama bin Laden's network before 9/11, is resurgent on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border. Indeed, the tribal areas nominally controlled by the government in Islamabad have succeeded Iraq as the epicentre of world jihadism.
Yet it is worth stepping back from last Saturday's carnage to look at the history of terrorism. This shows that all such movements come to an end, whether through divisions within the leadership, repression or co-option by the state or, most important, loss of trust among the people they claim to represent. In a paper for the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Audrey Kurth Cronin encourages Western nations to focus on the "plentiful weaknesses" of al-Qaeda and its associates. These she defines as "indiscriminate killing in the service of a largely fictitious narrative without a shred of hopeful vision".
Bin Laden has been weakened by allied military action in Afghanistan and tighter surveillance of international money transfers. More significant in the longer term is the criticism voiced within radical Islamic circles about the morality of what he is doing. This may seem a strange word to use in conjunction with an instigator of mass murder, but bin Laden set out with the self-proclaimed noble intention to defend the umma, or Muslim world, from Western encroachment.
Why, then, say his critics, do you condone the killing of Muslims in suicide bomb attacks? Bin Laden's former mentor, the Saudi scholar Salman al-Oudah, has deplored al-Qaeda's violence and suggested that its leader has allowed the means to become the ends. The jihadist ideologue Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, better known by his underground name of Dr Fadl, has described 9/11 as "a catastrophe for Muslims".
At this year's conference of Oxford Analytica, an international consultancy, one of the participants described al-Qaeda as "a profoundly moral project which contains the seeds of its own destruction because of its failure to live up to its own moral standards". Another thought it retained moral authority but had "little power in terms of organisation". The impression emerged of a movement with a puritanical, racist view of Islam which had proved a "very bad friend" to the Muslim world. This would explain its eclipse in Iraq in favour of Sunni-dominated militias and its limited success in the northern Caucasus.
Al-Qaeda's fortunes could revive should what the Muslim world might deem a further "outrage" be committed in the form of, say, an Israeli attack on Iran or of continued American ground incursions into the tribal areas. But beyond harping on a sense of victimhood, the network has little to offer the umma.
Compare, for example, its record with that of other radical organisations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Taking advantage of a fixed base, which al-Qaeda lacks, they have won popular support by providing welfare denied by an incompetent state. Bin Laden may be able to boast of spectacular assaults on his enemies, but he can hardly claim to have contributed to long-term social and economic development.
The erosion of support for al-Qaeda presents those whom it targets with interesting opportunities. Professor Cronin argues that the best counter-terrorist policies are "those consciously synergistic with a group's natural tendency to implode". She adds that a government's top priority should be "not to win people's hearts and minds, but rather to amplify the natural tendency of violent groups to lose them".
This might suggest that America and its allies should withdraw forthwith from Iraq and Afghanistan and watch al-Qaeda self-destruct. If only it were that simple. However, in the case of Pakistan, Washington should refrain from stoking resentment of the West by further unilateral incursions into the tribal areas, which merely strengthen the conviction that this is America's war. And a distinction should be made between the foreign jihadists, whose goal is global revolution, and the Taliban, who, like the Basque or Corsican separatists, are motivated by local factors. Driving a wedge between the two will in due course require negotiating with the Taliban.
The eclipse of al-Qaeda does not, of course, mean that it is no longer a threat - modern historical experience indicates that waves of international terrorist activity last about 40 years, so we have some way to go. Bin Laden could still stage a hideous attack, and, even if he doesn't, there are many other terrorist groups around the world, either affiliated to his network or fighting for different ends, that could.
Nevertheless, it is a hopeful sign that the man who would forcefully unite all Muslims in a new caliphate is proving subject to the same constraints as previous terrorist movements with more modest aims. Self-defence, despite its moral connotations, has in his hands turned out to be nihilistic. Opinion polls show that the Islamic world is turning against him. And it is there that his evil acts will finally be thwarted.
Con Coughlin is away
"There are too many nutcases in god's following! Any god's following!!" I would say believing in a sky-god is definition of nutcase...Not so bad unless they want to murder me for being infidel...Then I WILL kill them!
Joseph Walker @9:24 AM - why don't YOU get educated? How about enrolling for some English lessons and learning how to spell and punctuate correctly? Then you might begin to make some coherent sense. Until then, don't bother to comment. It's SO IRRITATING to see such badly written English - I haven't a clue what you're writing about!!
There are too many nutcases in god's following! Any god's following!!
If e.g. Waziris reject al-Quaeda and its anti-Western violence, maybe one might shyly suggest that they express their rejection more clearly than has hitherto been the case?
Mr V Thakore,I for one take your advice most seriously.With the pernicious introduction of Political Correctness,particulary by this Marxist government,people have been made to feel guilty about telling it how it is.The country is fast becoming a form of soviet,people feel insecure,frightened to give their children traditional toys incase they get a visit from the thought police.When Labour came to power in 1997 I remember Blair saying that "we will change the country beyond recognition forever"It seems that he and his cronies ment it.I for one take your views seriously I assure you.
answer this simple question. Which other "ideology" in recent centuries had a dangerous suprematist feel? Second question: how it was defeated?
The sad thing is that when this terrorist movement dies out, there will probably be another one rising to take its place. Watch out for the International Buddhist alliance blowing up churches and mosques in the name of the Buddha and striving to make the whole world a Buddhist utopia. Buddhists may be pacifists now but it could still happen in the future. I remember how in the seventies we thought Islam was synonymous with the peaceful doctrines of Sufism. How wrong we were!
Joe on September 26, 2008 11:09 AM Great post Joe.
This article by Simon Scott Plummer, provides one of the best evidence about war on terror in a long time. Majoritarian Muslims' rejection of al-Qaeda and other violent, Jihadist movements and counterparts, along with their excessive, militant tactics in propagation of militant Islam, is news that have circulated in recent months, which I explained in a past commentary. Mr. Plummer's detailed analysis, along with expert testimonies and references, suggest it's broader than I thought. Two forces always bring down agents of extremism: 1. Self-destruction. They overreach themelves. Here, even exponents, adherents and perpetrators feel a sense of egregious systems and trangressions, and seek moderation and better alternatives, as criticisms, condemnations and law of diminishing returns applies. If there was no 9-11, perhaps, the Taliban would have still been in Afghanistan fighting the Northern Alliance. They controlled almost the entire country. Its operational revenues came from oil-rich, Muslim nations that mistakenly thought that the Taliban and its al-Qaeda colleague, were furthering the just cause of Islamism. Until 9-11 and further events proved them wrong. The Taliban-al-Qaeda enterprise was a far-more invidious force of broader catastrophism, violent and indiscriminate acts that endager and even claim live of other Muslims. But, unfortunately, Pakistan was the major nation behind the rise and instutionalization of Talibanism. 2. The other factor is external pressure. When allied-nations coalition routed the Taliban from Afghanistan, as Pakistan withdrew its recognition, majority of the militants took refuge in the same Pakistan from which a lot of the 9-11 perpetrators were arrested and sequestered. Pakistan received more than $10 billion in US aid for previous cooperation in the war against terror. And, more cooperation was needed. But, this was where there's failure. By 2003, the year Iraq War started, al-Qaeda had metastasized, growing into a global, violent infrastsructure. Laws spearheaded by the US, to seize any bank acoount that has ties to international terrorism, helped in curbing global expansion and degrading al-Qaeda's capabilities. But, post-9-11 acts of violent, religious extremism like the one against the Marriot Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan; has brought total condemnation from top Islamic clerics who found no justification in indiscriminate killing of innocent people--men, women and children--in a senseless war in the name of religion. But, Pakistan's professed neutrality against Talibanism and mutual accommodation had not yelded dividends: The assasination of a charismatic, former prime minister, raid against violent extremism in the nation's eminent mosque, constant assassination attempts against the nation's pro-Western leaders; and more, have called for more robust action. Pakistan has seen its country descending into choas, the economy disintegrating, foreign investment drying up, tourism eroding--because of acts of violent extremism. So, it wouldn't be a surprise if it follows the examples of other nations like Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Libya, and more, where moderate, Islamic governments have taken robust action and contained extremist, violent Islamism. Pakistan seems to be moving in that direction, too. A recent military bulletin suggests more than 1,000 al-Qaeda-Taliban militants have been killed in northwestern strongholds in an operation that started in August. Twenty Pakistani soldeirs lost their lives and 111 soldiers were wounded. Pakistan has the force to do this job. What was lacking was divided government and loyalty. Now, it's no longer just pro-Western interests, it's also stability and survival of the Islamic nation. Recent border clash suggests Pakistan forces are also operating in tribal areas against militant insurgents. Igonikon Jack, USA
Con Coughlin is away? Hurry back please, we want no more of this pollyanna nonsense. So 'muslims' reject al-qaeda, do they? So what? Do they also reject the 1400 year old jihad ideology which all of the schools of sunni islamic jurisprudence say is central to being a muslim? Are they queuing up to denounce Zawahiri, bin Laden and all the rest as heretics? Are the Saudi printing presses going to stop churning out their message of hatred of the kuffr, of jihad to win the whole world for allah? Are the Pakistanis no longer burning US flags in the street and chanting "Death to America"
Newsflash. The Church of England was accused last night of having used short-selling to maximise profit on a £5 billion investment. So the bishops are hypocrites as well as pig-ignorant - what a surprise. The truth is that the archbishops made their fatuous statement because in reality they despise capitalism as it represents choice. They hate choice or freedom of choice because, in their view, it distracts people from thinking about god and spirituality. How utterly pathetic.
Ummah, Smhmummah. This ridiculous and racist idea is only used by Muslims to support victimhood and grievances, as an abstract international rallying call to support Jihad and aggression. Where is the Ummah charity shown by the Middle East to Palestiniins? - it doesn't exist. They don't care. So firstly the idea is Muslims only care about other Muslims (compare that to the work of Christian charities), and secondly they don't even practise it! - its just a call for hostilities. In practice this Muslim idea is pernicious, cancerous, and as destructive as African apartheid. It is primitive tribalism and has no place in the modern world.
Ali - well said. But the Liberalism of the West since the 1960s has been the cause of much Islamic extremism also. Muslims see a Western culture that is increasingly decadent and immoral. They see it as proof that Christianity will fail, and that they will eventually take over the world. They also see Western immorality as justification for attacking the West. The liberal spoiled revolutionaries have destroyed the West from the inside, and earned the West an extremely determined and threatened enemy on the outside. That is the long term legacy of Western post 1967 liberalism. If the Soviet Union hung on they might eventually have won. As it turns out the KGB run Russia is winning in any case. Therefore the real enemy of Arab societies is Islam. And the real enemy of the West is liberalism. But both sides have decided to blame Christianity instead. Western Liberalism is a "something for nothing, what ever you want you can have philosophy". In the Christian Bible this is best described as the serpent in the garden of Eden philosophy. For this reason Christianity is incompatabile with Western Liberalism even more than with Communism. But Communism had to be defeated first. Now the Catholic Church - which is the main guardian of the Western tradition, the Orthodox Church, the Protestant Evangelical and Calvinistic Chruches, and the Lutheran Churches are more concerned with Western Liberalism. I leave out the Anglican movement - because the Anglican movement does not know where it stands as a body - with some elements trying to makeit more liberal. Islam with all it's contradictions, failings, flaws, and missing spaces, sees Western Liberalism as evil, immorral and inferior. And if Christianity cannot apprehend this, the Islam will assume that it is the religion that will do so, and will apprehend Western Liberalism. It is our immorality that causes them to despise us. The real enemy is within our own societies. And the real solution is within our oldest traditions. But the consumerist philosophy censors this sort of discussion from ever taking place. Now that consumerism, and the Western Liberal philosophy of 'have whatever you desire' has bankrupted Western society, the topic has no become unavoidable !!!!
I'm afraid that in general terror groups come to an end because terror secures them their aims. This usually means they get to take part in government, though minorities, and in due course manipulate the state into their thing. Look close to home at the situation in Northern Ireland - a place now so detached from the United Kingdom it scarce merits a mention on these pages - despite Alan Cochrane having a guaranteed slot even when there is no real political news from Scotland. Look to Mugabe in Zimbabwe - look to the ANC (about to morph big-time) in South Africa. De facto, terror groups already run wider swathes of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Recognising them in any way formalises their concept of a pan-regional Islamic Sharia state and crystallises much of their agenda including that against the education and emancipation of women or the education of the masses beyond the rote of the Koran. They have guns, they have financiers, they have some articulate manipulative orators and negotiators - but don't mistake them for the majority view - though they are working hard on the rural poor who hear them more often via the Mosque than any good news from the supposed secular regime. Deliver a better life to these people via a secular enlightened state - and soon - for the alternative is the false promise of the fundamentalists and being dragged back to the dark ages and stagnation.
"Ali on September 26, 2008 9:26 AM" Thank you sir! We wish there are more people like you. Mind you sir: our support is always there for human beings like you! Regards,
There is absolutely no point in trying to win the "hearts and minds" of a religiously fanatical culture that is ideologically opposed to your very existence. From a position of pure self-defence, the Americans are entirely justified in operating anywhere they wish in Pakistan. However, there are sensible and practical steps that the West can take to protect its citizens. We know where the terrorist training camps are and what countries have particular problems with Islamic terrorism. Surely the time has now come to follow the US advise and immediately impose special security measures to severely restrict all incoming travel from Pakistan and other Islamic terrorist hotspots? Dual nationality of these countries should be suspended, all migration halted and all travellers routinely searched. This won’t prevent terrorism but it will make life harder for Islamic terrorists and also make it far more difficult for them to operate in the West. It will force them to adopt counter-measure that may give them away to intelligence agencies and reduce the amount of recruits that can be trained at the camps. These measures should be implemented as soon as possible and not be politically compromised in any way to protect the sensibilities of those who refuse to recognise the raw reality - that there are a very large amount of people from those countries who are actively at war with us. Paul Henry London
Sound article. It seems the US military has largely (and belatedly)grasped that you don't defeat terrorism / insurgencies by simply killing more terrorists and that "co-lateral casualties" (ie innocent civilian deaths) are not just regrettable but actually an own goal. They still haven't got it completely but al-Qaeda haven't got it at all. Therein lies the seeds of their downfall, if the US and their allies can exploit it.
THE WRITER IS CORRECT REGARDING PAKISTAN BEING THE EPIC CENTRE OF GLOBAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM AND , I WOULD ADD, ALSO OF GLOBAL NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION. WHAT IS MISSING IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. THAT IS THE INVOLVEMENT OF A SECTION OF PAKISTAN'S ARMY AND ITS ISI INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WHICH SUPPORTS CROSS-BORDER TERRORISM IN TO AFGHANISTAN AND INDIA. THEY HAPPEN TO BACK THE MILITANT GROUPS WHICH ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR VIRTUALLY ALL TERRORISM, DIRECTLY OF INDIRECTLY, IN THE UK, FOR EXAMPLE. PAKISTAN'S ARMY DOES NOT WANT TO KILL 'LOCAL' TALIBAN AND MANY OTHER GROUPS LIKE L-e-T, L-e-J ETC AND WILL NOT LET THE US AND UK LED FORCES INSIDE PAKISTAN'S BORDERS, AS IT WANTS TO KEEP THE POT BOILING AND COLLECT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THE US, UK AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. ISLAMIK MILITANTS HAVE TO BE DESTROYED, NO IF AND NO BUT, OTHERWISE DEMOCRATIC FREE SOCIETIES WILL LOSE OUT. APPEASEMENT OF MUSLIMS IN GENERAL AND PAKISTAN IN PARTICULAR HAS ALREADY LED TO BACK-DOOR INTRODUCTION OF SHARIA LAW IN ANGLO-SAXON UK. FOR GOD'S SAKE DO NOT FORCE BRITANIA, THAT RULED THE WAVES ONCE UPON A TIME, TO WEAR BURKHA AND HIJAB BY 2020.
....'evolved/modern muslims (Who are the overwhelming majority)' Posted by Andrew on September 26, 2008 4:17 AM Your use of the words 'overwhelming majority' are appropriate but not in the way that I suspect you intended them. Terrorism is one way in which we are threatened by this ideology. As we have seen, the murder of 3000 plus people at a time is posssible. The threat that will affect a far larger number of people is the demographic timebomb that is ticking as I write. The huge birth rate of moslems means that very soon there could be a majority. If you don't see this as a problem, consider concessions that have already been made when the moslem population is under 10% The introduction of halal meat for all school children (Including Sikhs for who it is strictly forbidden) The introduction of sharia in it's thin end of the wedge way. The calling to prayer in UK towns. The PC madness that forbids critisism of islam. etc. What do you think will happen when there is a 30% population, or 50%? I am not offering a solution here because I can't see one. The Trojan horse is in the gates and it's belly is opened.
CLAIRE PHYLLIS I have taken the Daily Telegraph since the age of 14 now 67. WHY--- BECAUSE IT IS CAREFULL BEFORE REPORTING IMPORTANT ISSUES. Sometimes these may be a day behind other newspapers. HOWEVER, I would like to see the DT report more surporting our CHRITIAN HERITAGE.
Weak wishful thinking. Al-Quaeda justify killing by koran verses. That has continued for 1400 years. The koran also has peace verses so confusing muslims and commentators. One muslim rule to 'kill an apostate' especially prevents peace. Many muslims want to be free to choose their faith, or no faith. Immams and muslim elite promote a rule to kill anyone who changes to another faith, or no faith. This is illegal, as well as evil. Muslims live in fear. What can a muslim do? Millions of muslims live in terror. Many are brave and leave. CEMB is the council of ex-muslims of Britan. UK ex muslims live in terror. An immam's daughter who became christian moves home constantly. Mobs try to kill her. Her own father screamed through her letterbox he would 'kill her'. Many are killed. Millions of Christians living in muslim countries are terrorised! Millions in the UK are terrorised. This 'kill an apostate' rule breaks most of the laws in the Human Rights Act 1998; Article 9 the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Art 2 the right to life, Art 3 the right not to be tortured or inhumanly or degradingly treated or punished, Art 5 the right to liberty and security of the person, Art 6 the right to a fair trial, Art 7 the right not to be punished for something that is not a crime, Art 8 the right to respect for one's private and family life. It also breaks many rights in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. This government constantly boasts how moral it is, with fairness and no discrimination. It has such hypocrisy and deception. By doing nothing it facilitates the growth of terror. It seeks votes, rather then rule of law. This government is immoral and deeply hypocritical. Where are the ardent socialists, left wingers, feminists who rail against a word or hint of discrimination. They hate all discrimination. Yet say nothing about muslims who advocate death and total discrimination to all, with terror to women, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, even animal rights people. Clearly they are too weak, or scared, or they do not believe their own claims. They find it easier to verbally attack some other columnist or feeble politician, than try to help real people and do some real good.
Why dont you prats get educated ,most of you people ,so called experts ,talk a load of bollocks and ignorant anaylsis about terrorism,al-queda ,all these terrorist ,the only thing which unites them is an ideaology .an ideaology based on distorted islamic doctrine.and a basic hatred of the western way of life.,if your educated you will realise all hatred stems from the discrimination of people,poverty,corrupction. and lack of proper finacial improvements in thier way of life,it dosnt have to be alqueda only,ie Ira ,ANC,and most countries around the world which have conflicts, most countries can possibly become terrorist ,if the right ingredients are there to cause them to become terrorist.as stated above..
as long as islam exists in this modern guise, we have a war on our hands, here in europe and america. this talk about the peacefull moslems is a myth, read the history of islam. the very flag of islam is two crossed swords, how did islam spread. by fear and slavery. and would try to make the world in their image . i dont care what you bloggers think. unless your a moslem you are considerd less than a person (kaffir)an under class human to treat less than decent.given a fifty year period and the .islamic republic of britain will be in existent.
Very sorry to mention that Simon Scott Plummer is a poor substitute for clear thinking and hard hitting Con Coughlin. His arguments are a poor clone of Chamberlain’s arguments. Also Plummer is trying to present two and two and conclude result as 22 instead of four! Most of the Islamic scholars are super duper experts in confusing the issues and they present one picture today and exactly the opposite one next day with, of course, religious justifications each time! Many western think tanks do not have clear cut ideas Islam, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Islamic extremism and terrorism. They present muddled thinking and naturally their analysis and results are pure gobbledygook! International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Audrey Kurth Cronin's case is the classical example. Pakistan is the epicenter of Islamic global terrorism. Its rulers, establishments, intellectuals and religious scholars have been clearly not telling truths and have been back stabbing non-Muslims, secular democracies in different forms all along. Pakistan has been taking help in different forms from the US, UK and other nations to overcome economic difficulties, to strengthen the rouge army and become a nuclear power and become nuclear menace to civilized world. It has backstabbed the US, UK in particular. The US has taken the most courageous decision to attack the tribal areas in Pakistan. Huge percentage of people in all nations are with it. Let there be global poll right on this and let us see how many support the US and how many Pakistan! The US needs total support at this hour and not buts and ifs and doubting Thomas’s. The US has taken up the leadership in the fight against global Islamic extremism and terrorism. Let us support it fully and unconditionally! Regards,
So where are the equivalent of the Sunni militias for us to support against the local or international jihadi's? The Pakistan army does not seem willing or able to fulfill this role. We can and should deny travel to and from any area of the world where there is terrorism to any person who looks like they might. Anyone needing to leave the UK to travel to those areas should have to get a visa and have a detailed exit interview. We the civilized world may have porous borders but we do control air travel and we have not used this control at all. It is a bit like suss.So much squeaking about the rights of young men who dress and act like gang members and knife carriers.It may well mean that those who walk and talk like ducks will be disproportionately inconvenienced. But why should we be at war incurring all the cost in lives and money so that a tiny number of people can avoid inconvenience? Inconvenience or.. dead people.I choose inconvenience. Mind you it might be a good idea to ask Pakistan to hand over its nuclear material before we go. It clearly is having trouble organizng and protecting itself.
Eventually these primative monkeys are going to give up and the evolved/modern muslims (Who are the overwhelming majority) will become peaceful and productive individuals. The major news media is working hard to create propblems in the mid-east because it sells and makes them money but after the West kills-off the murdering mullahs in Iran, peace will spread throughout despite the news medias efforts to perpetuate and support the violent primatives.
What a relief to get, under security, an article in the Telegraph that is researched, based on cross-checkable information from respected sources that suggest further reading. This, right or wrong in its assessments, is a serious improvement on the usual alarmist, unverifiable, tosh that appears in this spot.