Al Qaeda, however, understands the power of perceived grievance and the appeal of Utopia. In the late 1990s Osama Bin Laden said Al Qaeda’s strategic goal was restoring the Islamic caliphate. Bin Laden expressed a special hatred for Turkey’s Kemal Ataturk, who ended the caliphate in 1924. History, going wrong for Islamist supremacists at least since the 16th century, really failed when the caliphate dissolved. Though Al Qaeda’s time-line to Utopia remains hazy, once the caliphate returns the decadent modern world will fade as Western power collapses—and presumably Eastern power as well. (Islamists are active in China’s Sinkiang province.) At some point Bin Laden-interpreted Islamic law will bring strict bliss to the entire world. If this sounds vaguely like a Marxist “Workers Paradise” that’s no accident—the Communists also justified the murder of millions pursuing their atheist Utopia.
The appeal to perceived grievance and promise of an Islamist utopia, however, made Al Qaeda a regional information power in a Middle East where political options were denied by tyrants. The 9/11 attacks made Al Qaeda a global information power—they were an international advertising campaign. Four years later Al Qaeda remains a strategic information power, but little else.
American is also information power but it is not a focused information power. Hence Al Qaeda’s success in this one area gives it a degree of global leverage. Focused information –a media campaign– has characteristics we associate with “special weapons.” A weapon of mass destruction, be it chemical, nuclear, or biological, gives even its “smallest owner” big bang capacity. So does a globalized media event.
One final thought: American bayonets, smart bombs, and media bombast are formidable, but I suspect the growing awareness of an Iraqi democratic victory in Iraq will prove to be the “strategic information campaign” that trumps Al Qaeda.
copyright Austin Bay November 4, 2005
All Rights Reserved
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Dave Schuler:
November 10th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Lack of an apparent hierachical structure has weaknesses as well as strengths. Zarqawi is the current Al-Qaeda standard bearer because his work is the most visible and because he (or people speaking for him) says he is. Fortunately, he seems to have a political tin ear and this may be effective in helping us as well as the burgeoning democracy in Iraq.
Dan tdaxp:
November 11th, 2005 at 3:34 am
Dr. Bay,
Thank you for the very informative article. If I could, might I get your opinions on some of my reflections on your piece?
I said that to dominate the global battlespace (hey, why not use the buzzwords) American soldiers must have full spectrum capabilities. The wisecrack: “Troops need to be good with everything from bayonets to smart bombs.”
In my opinion, this is the central distinction between warfare and business. Business focuses on core competencies, and attempts to tune an organization for what it does best. In a full-spectrum battlespace, though, what you do best matters much less than what you do worst. This is because the enemy will avoid your strong points and go for your weak ponts. In other words, full-spectrum warfare is not MBA warfare.
Even tactical (troop level) un-anticipation, in-flexibility, and mal-adaptation can produce profoundly bad strategic effects when the planet-wired media focuses on the foul-ups.
While one should improve what one does poorly, one should also avoid reinforcing failure. This can involve “embracing defeat,” recognizing that some things are to hard to change and instead reorienting in a way that negates or co-opts that weakness. In a grand strategic sense, Japan “embraced defeat” at the end of the Second World War by turning its greatest liability (a gigantic Pacific power to its east) into a strength (a gigantic Cold-War ally to its east).
Similarly, if the Leviathan or SysAdmin portions of the military are unable to co-opt the media, how might they “embrace defeat” to turn it into an asset?
Four years later Al Qaeda remains a strategic information power, but little else.
In other words, they are operating within the Orientation realm.
One final thought: American bayonets, smart bombs, and media bombast are formidable, but I suspect the growing awareness of an Iraqi democratic victory in Iraq will prove to be the “strategic information campaign” that trumps Al Qaeda.
What about a Shia-Kurdish victory that leaves the Sunnis marginalized, but establishes a democratic federation or two democratic, if somewhat internally violent, states?
praktike:
November 11th, 2005 at 9:46 am
“As US Central Command’s General John Abizaid recently noted, Al Qaeda has yet to win a military engagement with US forces at or above the platoon level.”
Actually, I believe he was talking about the Iraqi insurgency and not al-Qaeda per se. A rather important distinction, actually. But yes, AQ has one no military engagements at or above the platoon level. They know this and that’s why they, er, choose the methods they do.
mark:
November 11th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
We are to an extent, the victims of our own success.
al Qaida formations in Afghanistan that openly fought against the Northern Alliance only looked slipshod next to the soldiers of a first-rank military like the United States. They were in some instances, comparable to elite soldiers in the armies of second or third rank powers. They fought mostly to the death and retreated in extremis mostly for tactical reasons. That is a level of morale/ motivation you seldom see in military history. Let’s not underestimate these guys, they’re evil but they’re also competent.
( I’m talking here about the inner Arab-Pakistani core of al Qaida, not peripheral wannabes like Richard Reid)
But the gap between these al Qaida terror fighters and regular American units, never mind our SOCOM, is too wide to be surmounted. It is too wide a Gap for even other first rank states to currently surmount given similar odds.
Hence the global interest in fighting asymmetric warfare, ” unrestricted warfare”, systems disruption warfare, LIC, psychological warfare – anything but a direct head-on collision with the U.S. military
Anonymous:
November 15th, 2005 at 9:50 pm
Looking at the last century,
the United States has brought peace with victory. The strange thing is that Europe (read the French et al) has brought global war and had to be saved from itself (3 times or more). Why would anyone want to look to them as a model or leader?