The Next Osama

Eightyears after the September 11 attacks -- years that have seen many preciouslives lost and an overwhelming expenditure of effort and money -- the battleagainst al Qaeda still continues, and it is still not clear whether America iswinning or not. As I give talks on this topic to everyone from undergraduate studentsto counterterrorism practitioners to community groups, I am invariably asked whetherthere is a winner in the war on terrorism. Questioners are almost alwaysdissatisfied with my answer: "It depends."

But this is the only answer I cangive, because the terms of the question are out of date. If you're asking whetherthe United States has defeated al Qaeda, you also have to ask: Which al Qaeda arewe talking about? The senior leaders operating somewhere in the tribal areas ofPakistan and Afghanistan? The al Qaeda franchises around the world, mostnotably in Iraq, Algeria, and Yemen? Or the global ideological following,sparked by al Qaeda, calling itself al Qaeda, but not technically affiliatedwith al Qaeda? If you ask about winning, you have to also ask whether winning meanskilling the organization or just handicapping it. Does it refer to destroyingal Qaeda's military capabilities, or to mitigating al Qaeda's ability to win heartsand minds around the world?

As these questions suggest, overthe last eight years al Qaeda has undergone a metamorphosis. It has transformedfrom a global terrorist group into a global terrorist movement, one with itsown founding fathers, well-codified doctrine, substantial and accessible corpusof literature, and deep bench of young, bright, and ambitious commanders.Attacks still matter to them, but in an era of increased counterterrorismpressure, al Qaeda is beginning to realize that it is a lot more effective atbeing a movement, an ideology, even a worldview. It is starting to see thatterrorism is only one of many tools in its arsenal and that changing mindsmatters more than changing policies.

In other words, the al Qaeda that weare fighting in 2009 is not the same al Qaeda that we went to war with in 2001.Unfortunately, however, our own mindset has remained mostly unchanged.

Much ofal Qaeda's evolution over the last eight years is embodied in one man, SheikhAbu Yahya al-Libi, director of al Qaeda's jurisprudence committee and a likely successorto Osama bin Laden. Young, media-savvy, ideologically extreme, and masterful atjustifying savage acts of terrorism with esoteric religious arguments, AbuYahya offers the global al Qaeda movement everything that its old guard cannot.

Details about Abu Yahya's life aresparse, but a basic timeline can be pieced together from al Qaeda's publishedinterviews with him as well as the published insights offered by his currentand former colleagues. Growing up in Libya, Abu Yahya(whose real name is Muhammad Hasan Qaid but who is also known as Yunus al-Sahrawi)was a bright and affable young man. For at least a period of time, he attendedSebha University in Libya, majoring in chemistry. Atsome point during the late 1980s or in 1990, Abu Yahya left his home country and traveled to Afghanistan, wherehe settled in Logar province. During that time, he joined the nascent Libyan IslamicFighting Group (LIFG), a faction ofLibyans who had fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan and were hellbent onviolently overthrowing Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. Abu Yahya's older brother was a senior LIFG leader.

Abu Yahyamust have shown promise because, around March 1992, LIFG's leadership dispatchedhim to Mauritania, where he was instructed to pursue advanced religious studiesunder some of the country's most prominent clerics. Afterseveral years of intensive religious study, Abu Yahya returned to Afghanistan,likely around mid-1996, where he saw combat near the eastern city of Jalalabadand became a well-known religious voice within the LIFG organization. At some pointbetween 2001 and 2002, he took up a position in Karachi, Pakistan, as awebmaster for the Taliban's Al-Imarah al-Islamiyah Web site, a job that offered him important insights into the powerof new media for reaching out to young people.

He was arrestedby Pakistani intelligence on May 28, 2002, and was eventually transferred toBagram prison in Afghanistan, where he passed time by intimately studying hisAmerican captors as they aimlessly surfed the Internet or complained to himabout their dysfunctional childhoods. In a June 2006 interview with al Qaeda'smedia outlet, As-Sahab, he said that he found American soldiers to be "cowardly,""lost and alienated," and a "mix of doctrinal,behavioral, moral, and ideological deviation." He also used the time tolearn the security protocols of the prison.

On July 10, 2005, Abu Yahya andthree of his fellow detainees stuffed their beds with sheets and changed out oftheir bright orange prison outfits into less conspicuous blue prison garb thatthey had hidden in their cells. The group picked the lock of their cell door andthen escaped, at one point walking through the Bagram base posing as U.S.soldiers carrying furniture. Shimmying under the perimeter's concertina-wirebarrier, they then journeyed for days through the Afghan countryside untilfinally making contact with the Taliban.

Almost immediately, Abu Yahya hitthe media circuit, using his dramatic escape as a means to gain fame and infamy. His releases have included countless feature-lengthvideos, multiple extended monographs, numerous articles, and even a publishedphoto shoot. In many ways, al Qaeda "rolled out" Abu Yahya as amarketing firm might do a new product. And he has been welcomed with open armsby the global terrorist movement.

Whetherhe's shown traipsing through valleys, target shooting with his buddies,reciting poetry on a mountaintop, or breaking bread with his students, AbuYahya seems to have made al Qaeda "cool" for a younger generation. Hisformal religious training has allowed him to credibly and aggressively defendal Qaeda's attacks and assail his enemies in a way that bin Laden and hisdeputy, the former medical doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri, don't always have thetheological background to do.

There isno doubt that when bin Laden and Zawahiri die or are captured, al Qaeda'sglobal movement will look to Abu Yahya to seize the reins. He has become theobvious heir apparent. But with Abu Yahya at its helm, al Qaeda iscertain to become a far more frightening enemy.

Al Qaeda'sprimarily Egyptian senior leadership founded and built the group on principlesof elitism and secrecy. The leaders saw themselves as the vanguard, the tip ofIslam's last and only spear. Their doctrine was restrictive and exclusionary.Their bureaucratic structure was stifling and micromanaging. They sawthemselves as terrorists' terrorists, and acted the part.

Alifelong student with an easy smile and a gift for gab, Abu Yahya sees theworld quite differently. For him, al Qaeda's fight is not just about unseatingArab governments or pushing U.S. troops out of the Middle East. In thisparadigm, al Qaeda is first and foremost an intellectual andreligio-ideological insurgency -- not just a terrorist group. Its goal is to capturethe imagination of Muslims worldwide. Abu Yahyais not just trying to make Muslims love al Qaeda (like bin Laden tries to do)or make the "Zionist Crusaders" fear al Qaeda (like Zawahiri does).Abu Yahya's goal is nothing short of remaking Islam from the inside out, and hedoes so in a candid, compelling, and inherently populist fashion. In otherwords, what we know about how al Qaeda does business is about to completely change.

Despitethe qualitatively different threat that Abu Yahya poses, however, he remains avirtual unknown outside a small circle of counterterrorism professionals in theUnited States. Of those who do know him, most view him as just another target. AbuYahya's obscurity to senior policymakers -- and the similar obscurity of alQaeda's other young guns who are modeling themselves after Abu Yahya -- is morethan an oversight. It reflects a continued and pervasive ignorance across the U.S.government about the kind of war in which the United States is engaged. This isa fight in which ideas have become the new center of gravity.

If America is serious about defeating al Qaeda, U.S. government agencies willneed to expand and prioritize the translation and study of strategic andideological communiqués, which often hold the most insightful nuggets about alQaeda's strengths and vulnerabilities. Government agencies have not been pushedto think "great thoughts," in large part because they lack the staffsand the budgets, and due to the operational necessities of their missions. Thisis precisely why the Barack Obama administration would be well-advised toinvest serious time and money into expanding current efforts. We must combatAbu Yahya's al Qaeda today before it takes us by surprise tomorrow.

Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

JAY GETTY

6:39 AM ET

September 11, 2009

Analyzing US actions: The rise of Al Qaeda types is the US goal!

America is largely ruled as a post (traditional religion) ideological society; its people and its intelligence agencies do not “get it”: religiously ideological societies; that is why the “West” conclude that this is a war on a battle tactic: terror; so the “West” thinks it is at war with terror; they certainly say they are at war with terror; The “ultra religiously secular” “West” thinks/acts like: “if we just talk and make nice we can understand each other; Those who prefer Islime just see the “West” as weak and therefore send terrorist to defend their Islime religious ideology.

Lacking clarity on the Nature of this war and the motivations and intentions of our enemies: destroy the West as an attractive alternative to Islime, we have only promoted their interest thru our actions to date: intentionally or unintentionally.

Make no mistake this war is stunningly easy to win! I am not convinced our leadership: Bush/Obama desire any thing other than a “nice LONG lasting WAR and sell lots of weapons”. (c 1991; yes I have the copyright on that phrase in relation to this war on my 1991 report to Congress on how to prevent this war)

DUNCAN-O

4:33 PM ET

A Punctual Report

Did your 1991 report to Congress have a lot of semicolons in it?

6:38 PM ET

Ultra: religiously secular: ivory tower types:need a focal point

Yes; ultra: religiously secular: ivory tower types: need a focal point: they understand! Imagine going through life in a politically correct stupor: focused on:

7:10 PM ET

Best of Both Worlds

Yes, it is difficult for ivory-tower types like me to understand convoluted conspiracy theories about power structures that are dedicated to both perpetual war AND extremist feel-good secular ideologies. Even trying to understand makes me fall into a stupor. Clearly, only those who do not feel themselves bound and constrained by the small-minded rules of English punctuation are capable of this Herculean feat of intellect.

10:28 AM ET

September 12, 2009

It is only the simplest variation of a correlation analysis…

It is only the simplest variation of a correlation analysis…that has allowed me to predict with such stunning accuracy the events of the last quarter of the 20th century and first part of the 21st century. Assume “wars” are only weapons deals and you can explain the passed wars but more importantly you can predict what is coming with stunning accuracy; believing or not believing it is a weapons deal/or not: is of no possible relevance. So by 1978 the KGB was seen as the marketing team for the “Commuless Moscow Weapons Company” c 1978; promised communism delivered slavery to the military industrial complex that took over by 1920 and called themselves communist for obvious reasons; the song remains the same today. N Korea likewise: Weapons company took over and enslaved the population…true or not true is of no relevance; deal with them from that perspective and you can accurately predict every move they make.

So yes by 1980 I new Moscow would fall by popular uprising and I delivered the message to Congress in June 1986. Deduced, by Jan 1999 the WTC would be hit and traveled there to see that great city and refused to travel south of 40th street, I wrongly assumed the buildings would topple. And many other; all from it is a weapons deal “stupid”. 1989 delivered to every member of Congress the precise nature of the battle tactics Iran would use/was using against us and why: They feel Islime will cease to exist if free speech to criticize Islime is maintained and the “West” continues as the “model” to be achieved.

Osama Bin Laden should be seen and dealt with as a “mercenary marketing director for various government owned weapons manufacturers parading as a religious person which by English definition he could not be: no English definition of “religious” could encompass flying planes into buildings.

2:29 PM ET

September 13, 2009

A Cart-Horse with Blinders On

I don't buy it. Your assumption that the 20th century has been nothing but a series of "weapons deals" is flawed. Events in history rarely, if ever, boil down to one singular "x led to y" cause, not unless you're going to claim the Illuminati are pulling the puppet strings from their secret lair deep underground. (You're not going to claim that, are you? I only ask because your overreliance on shadowy weapons manufacturers known under other names sounds suspiciously like the countless other Elders-of-Zion-type conspiracy theories that abound on the Web.) Even in some cases (say, a natural disaster), when one singular event may appear to be the cause of further events (as if in a vacuum), one must also look at the preconditions that allowed the event to have the effects that it did.

And despite your own overweening claims about your and your method's "stunning accuracy", you don't provide any support for the nuts and bolts of how weapons deals to the exclusion of all other factors explain away the rise and fall of the Soviet Union or the WTC attacks or any of your other simplistic yet outrageous claims. Pretty much everyone except the CIA knew that the Soviet Union would eventually collapse (not exactly by "popular uprising" either; this is another oversimplification), and TIME magazine beat you to the punch in a 1994 article that also predicted the WTC would be hit again--without any mention of weapons deals. Even your own explanation of Iran's actions has nothing to do with weapons deals, and here again your central assumption falls flat--Iran has for most of its history been a weapons importer.

Furthermore, your tendency to oversimplify and misattribute is also illustrated in your assertion regarding the events of 11 Sep 2001 that "no English definition of 'religious' could encompass flying planes into buildings." Who cares what the English definition is? And how can you possibly claim that the answers to the geopolitical problems posed by stateless terrorism lie with Merriam-Webster? That's not neat or concise or helpful in any way, it's irrelevant and ridiculous.

Finally, I find your bigotry offensive. I had thought that your use of the term "Islime" was just another typographical error, but now I see that it's just a smear--and not even a clever one. Your approach is narrow-minded and you are not worth talking to. Despite overwhelming evidence that explains otherwise, you already have the all the explanation you need to walk your narrow path--just like a cart-horse with blinders on. No wonder Congress won't pay any attention to you.

4:10 PM ET

DUMCAN-B: A Cart-Horse with Blinders On

It does take a fairly high IQ, a thorough understanding of the basics, a desire for clarity unencumbered by black, white, religion, or other bias whether personal or societal to put the dots together that allow one to recognize the predictive quality of “it is a weapons deal” stupid; just as a full moon predicts increase crime.

Legally murdering women because they go out unaccompanied by a male family member: Islime; and anyone including DUMCAN-B who does not find that practice Islime: Islime.

Yes: this war is being waged against the West to end: "free speech to criticize Islime"; we see which side DUMCAN-B is on.

FAHD

4:08 AM ET

September 16, 2009

ill mannered

Your accounts are not only incorrect and ridiculous.. as pointed out by DUNCAN ... your also seem to be a highly ill mannered person.

Besides... at an older age (from your accounts you seem to be)... one expects people to become wiser and practical .. but you... you have wasted your life... its useless talking to you or reading your comments...

4:23 AM ET

a word of advice ... Avoid

a word of advice ...

Avoid making comments on some intellectual stuff... a stuff that requires looking beyond your 2-paged text book.

OMAR AMACH

1:49 PM ET

A nobody for now

Your article erroneously gives the impression that Abu Yeha is a big shot among young people overseas. Abu Yahya is also "a virtual unknown" to young and old Arab Muslims. Until he officially takes over Al-Qaeda, no one will be paying him any attention. It's the power of the pulpit that matters!

BASE

2:57 PM ET

For now...

I read this article as the author agreeing with you, and saying that we better understand the message of what the next generation of young Muslims are going to hear, but that he seems to be somewhat pessimistic that this will happen.

Scary indeed

BOREDWELL

2:05 AM ET

Osama Successor

Reading this I have the urge to compare Abu Yahya's followers as ideologically comparable to the tea baggers, birthers and health care reform protesters: fringe elitists, ultra narrow minded, lacking humanism, emotionally distracted.
Just how many people does any radical extremist hope to win over to the cause? What proportion of Muslims believe in this incendiary rhetoric and are willing to sacrifice themselves to achieve endgame? This seems to me the most important part of any demagogue's success or failure. For example, the recent terrorist combat in the Swat targeted civilians as well as military. It's been reported that their indiscriminate tactics were not welcomed by the people who fled, some 2.5 million of them, to safer ground. Could it be that in the long term these fanatics will eventually alienate the masses?

4:45 AM ET

History has proven that some

History has proven that some of America’s most trusted friends and allies have been the recipients of her most insidious and deadly intrigues. Pakistani leaders are delusional if they think that their friendship with the United States is stronger than that of Italy or Germany. The CIA turned Pakistan into the “epicenter of terrorism” for a reason.

While Pakistan is busy in battling a foreign-funded local proxy Taliban in Swat, Malakand and other areas, the Americans and the Indians are exploiting a distracted Pakistani state to recruit influential Pakistanis as spies.

COMMENTS - BEFORE DEATH OF BM

Some people have been writing to clarify that Baitullah Mehsud is a foreign asset with assigned responsibility to create chaos in FATA for destabilizing Pakistan and he has nothing to do with Afghan jihad.

Qari Zainuddin, representative of Afghan Taliban in an interview to a local news channel says that “Activities within Pakistan led to differences with Baitullah Meshsud, we are Tehreek-e-Taliban Afghanistan and we have nothing to do with Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan”

WORDS OF A CLOSE EX-AIDE: Haji Turkistan said that Baitullah is misguiding innocent youths on the instigation by Israel and India to destroy mosques and educational institutions and martyr religious scholars inside Pakistan. He also revealed that Baitullah is an American agent and this is the reason he has not been targeted by the US drones.

Baitullah Mehsud is rolling in dollars and has access to highly sophisticated light weaponry. He is also in possession of highly sophisticated communication equipment, or homing devices in other words. The Pakistan army has been asking the US for help in ‘taking out’ Mehsud and has on at least four different occasions provided the US with accurate information of his location over a period of twelve to twenty four after the US was informed, but he was never targeted.

Foreign Policy Magazine writes, “while the U.S. media has frequently reported on Pakistani ties to jihadist elements launching attacks in Afghanistan, it has less often mentioned that India supports insurgent forces attacking Pakistan, the former intelligence official said. The Indians are up to their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the former intelligence official who served in both countries said. The same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting at American soldiers are getting support from India. India should close its diplomatic establishments in Afghanistan and get the Christ out of there.”

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/16/can_the_intel_community_defuse_india_pakistan_tensions

It seems Baitullah Mehsud had outlived his shelf-life and was of no further use to his American and Indian masters.

In what seemed like a sign of desperation, he hit out at Kashmiri jihadi groups, threatening to eliminate their leaders if they did not join him in fighting the Pakistan army.

Accusing them of ‘only fighting external enemies such as the US and India’, Baitullah Mehsud’s ‘Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan’ (TTP) justified attacking members of these Jihadi outfits by pointing out that these outfits ‘do not fight the Pakistan Army’ and commit mass murder of innocent Pakistani citizens like the TTP has been doing for a some time now.

It is also interesting to note that the Afghan Taleban’s Supreme Commander Mullah Mohammad Omar had issued a statement over a year ago distancing himself and the Afghan Taleban from the TTP and its chief Baitullah Mehsud. He had also condemned Baitullah Mehsud in strong words for fighting against the Pakistan Army instead of with the NATO forces.

The Americans do not want Pakistanis to capture Baitullah Mehsud alive, and they cannot eliminate him with an air strike anymore since Pakistan Army is advancing towards him already. They will either take him out before he is captured, or he will mysteriously disappear only to re-emerge later at a different location. The U.S. military has moved troops near Mehsud’s area under the pretext of finding Osama or Mullah Omar. This is a deception. They have been saying Osama is in Pakistan for years. Why haven’t they acted earlier? This American move has something to do with Pakistani military’s march to destroy Mehsud and his proxy militia. We already know that terrorists are using American weapons to kill us while pretending to be Taliban. The Pakistani military better watch out what our ally is up to this time.

MFORROR

6:03 PM ET

September 14, 2009

Abu Yahya al Libi's Movement

I am often struck by the similarities between the rise of al Qaeda in the early 2000s and the rise of National Socialism in the 1930s. What many people forget is that National Socialism was an international movement, not just confined to Germany. It spread throughout Europe through a gradual process of infiltration, much as al Qaeda is doing today. There were some important differences, though. The Islamist movement today is largely global, not just confined to Western Europe and North America, as the Nazi movement was. Islamism is religiously based, whereas the Nazis were anti-religion (the state was its own religion). The Nazi Party represented a recognized government, whereas al Qaeda is spurned by all but the most extremist governments. But the anti-Western and anti-Semitic rhetoric is identical. In fact, much of the iconography that al Qaeda and other terrorist movements use are almost identical to those used by the Nazis. I once saw an interview with Ayman Zawahiri, and he was quoting passages almost verbatim from Mein Kampf. A little known historical fact is that the Nazis actually used North African and Middle Eastern Arabs as death camp guards. They actively and willingly participated in Hitler's "Final Solution." But the scariest aspect of both movements is their insistence on a "join us or die" philosophy. Fortunately, al Qaeda has nowhere near the war machine that Germany had, but if they get their hands on nukes, they won't need it. I don't believe that "winning the hearts and minds" of Arabs and non-Arab Muslims isgoing to work. Hatred of the West is too ingrained. Even so-called "moderate" Muslims are not moderate when they are in a room full of fellow Muslims, particularly when that room is full of extremists. The only way to win this war is to discredit al Qaeda, by showing their followers that al Qaeda leaders are elitists who use the rank and file as cannon fodder while they keep themselves safe. Showing the followers that al Qaeda is a road that leads nowhere is the only way to go. Al Qaeda has lost nearly every major engagement they've had with U.S. troops and their leaders are being killed like flies. Portraying al Qaeda leaders as weak, indecisive and hapless is a better way to go.

On the eighth anniversary of 9/11, it's time to finally confront al Qaeda's scary movetoward modernization -- and the charismatic sheikh who is leading the way.

BY JARRET BRACHMAN | SEPTEMBER 10, 2009

(14)