UPDATED: The Zawahiri Letter: Strategic Analysis and Discussion
Here’s a link (via the Director of National Intelligence) to an English language translation of the recently captured Zawahiri letter.
This week’s column discusses that letter (via StrategyPage and RealClearPolitics). Zawahiri vacillates. At one level he knows Al Qaeda’s losing. But the US may buckle, folks, cut and run like Vietnam. Heck, Boxer, Sheehan, Kennedy, and the DailyKos, give Zawahiri hope.
Zawahiri understands that Iraq is now the critical battleground, and he hasn’t given up on the vision of the caliphate:
A-I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam’s history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era, and what will happen, according to what appeared in the Hadiths of the Messenger of God @ about the epic battles between Islam and atheism. It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world, specifically in the Levant, Egypt, and the neighboring states of the Peninsula and Iraq; however, the center would be in the Levant and Egypt. This is my opinion, which I do not preach as infallibile, but I have reviewed historical events and the behavior of the enemies of Islam themselves, and they did not establish Israel in this triangle surrounded by Egypt and Syria and overlooking the Hijaz except for their own interests.
Here are his “four stages” of war:
If our intended goal in this age is the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet and if we expect to establish its state predominantly-according to how it appears to us-in the heart of the Islamic world, then your efforts and sacrifices-God permitting-are a large step directly towards that goal.
So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:
The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.
The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.
There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.
The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.
The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
Now the issue of popular support — fish in the sea of the people:
(1) If we are in agreement that the victory of Islam and the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet will not be achieved except through jihad against the apostate rulers and their removal, then this goal will not be accomplished by the mujahed movement while it is cut off from public support, even if the Jihadist movement pursues the method of sudden overthrow. This is because such an overthrow would not take place without some minimum of popular support and some condition of public discontent which offers the mujahed movement what it needs in terms of capabilities in the quickest fashion. Additionally, if the Jihadist movement were obliged to pursue other methods, such as a popular war of jihad or a popular intifadah, then popular support would be a decisive factor between victory and defeat.
(2) In the absence of this popular support, the Islamic mujahed movement would be crushed in the shadows, far from the masses who are distracted or fearful, and the struggle between the Jihadist elite and the arrogant authorities would be confined to prison dungeons far from the public and the light of day. This is precisely what the secular, apostate forces that are controlling our countries are striving for.
Zawahiri concludes:
Therefore, the mujahed movement must avoid any action that the masses do not understand or approve, if there is no contravention of Sharia in such avoidance, and as long as there are other options to resort to, meaning we must not throw the masses-scant in knowledge-into the sea before we teach them to swim, relying for guidance in that on the saying of the Prophet @ to Umar bin al-Khattab< : lest the people should say that Muhammad used to kill his Companions.
Zawahiri muses over the implications of an American “Vietnam-style” retreat and the wisdom of fighting with Shia Muslims. Then we learn that strategically things may not be so promising for Al Qaeda:
However, monitoring from afar has the advantage of providing the total picture and observing the general line without getting submerged in the details, which might draw attention away from the direction of the target. As the English proverb says, the person who is standing among the leaves of the tree might not see the tree.
One of the most important factors of success is that you don’t let your eyes lose sight of the target, and that it should stand before you always. Otherwise you deviate from the general line through a policy of reaction. And this is a lifetime’s experience, and I will not conceal from you the fact that we suffered a lot through following this policy of reaction, then we suffered a lot another time because we tried to return to the original line.
“Scenes of slaughter” –Al Qaeda’s massacres– have backfired. Instead of sowing fear they have cost Al Qaeda political support. (See my column on this point.)
Among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you will never find palatable - also- are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages. You shouldn’t be deceived by the praise of some of the zealous young men and their description of you as the shaykh of the slaughterers, etc. They do not express the general view of the admirer and the supporter of the resistance in Iraq, and of you in particular by the favor and blessing of God.
And your response, while true, might be: Why shouldn’t we sow terror in the hearts of the Crusaders and their helpers? And isn’t the destruction of the villages and the cities on the heads of their inhabitants more cruel than slaughtering?
Read the entire document.
I wrote my column on this letter earlier this week, before I had access to Zawahiri’s entire letter. Here line from the letter the NY Times summarized and I quoted in the column. (The Times said Zawahiri told Zarqawi to attack Americans rather than Iraqi civilians and to “refrain from the kind of gruesome beheadings and other executions that have been posted on Al-Qaida websites. Those executions have been condemned in parts of the Muslim world as violating tenets of the faith.” )
Therefore, the mujahed movement must avoid any action that the masses do not understand or approve, if there is no contravention of Sharia in such avoidance, and as long as there are other options to resort to, meaning we must not throw the masses-scant in knowledge-into the sea before we teach them to swim, relying for guidance in that on the saying of the Prophet @ to Umar bin al-Khattab< : lest the people should say that Muhammad used to kill his Companions.
The column says “When Al-Qaida’s zealots blow up trains in Spain or subways in London, those are attacks of their choosing conducted on “infidel terrain.” The genius of the war in Iraq is a brutal but necessary form of strategic judo: It brought the War on Terror into the heart of the Middle East and onto Arab Muslim turf. In Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s theo-fascists have been spilling Arab blood, and Al Jazeera has noticed that, too
Zawahiri knows this to be true, and he confirms it:
The Muslim masses-for many reasons, and this is not the place to discuss it-do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish, and secondly American.
UPDATE: Re-read Zarqawi’s own captured letter to Al Qaeda (from February 2004). This is the letter when Z-Man says he fears democracy.
Here’s that quote:
We fight them, and this is difficult because of the gap that will emerge between us and the people of the land. How can we fight their cousins and their sons and under what pretext after the Americans, who hold the reins of power from their rear bases, pull back? The real sons of this land will decide the matter through experience. Democracy is coming, and there will be no excuse thereafter.
UPDATE 2: This column from January 2003 discusses the “Iraq as fatal attractor” strategy. It provides some background on the two strategic goals I discuss in this week’s column. In the Summer of 2003 a couple of Internet sites dubbed this “the flypaper strategy.” I prefer “fatal attractor.”
Key graf:
The massive American build-up around Iraq serves as a baited trap that Al Qaeda cannot ignore. Failure to react to the pending American attack would demonstrate Al Qaeda’s impotence. For the sake of their own reputation (as well as any notion of divine sanction), Al Qaeda’s cadres must show CNN and Al Jazeera they are still capable of dramatic endeavor.
This ain’t theory. Al Qaeda’s leaders and fighters know it, and the rats are coming out of their alleys…
UPDATE 3: John Hinderaker comments at Powerline. John’s conclusion is dead on.
I read the whole letter. I found it interesting that Zawahiri was arguing against “slaughtering” hostages and thought for a second he was doing so on moral religious grounds. It turns out that what he recommends instead is shooting the hostages rather than cutting their heads off so as to not offend the average Iraqi. It turns out Islam allows for the killing of helpless prisoners as long as it doesn’t turn the Muslin masses against the killers. Ah yes, a true man of God!
Comment by Pat Slater — 10/12/2005 @ 9:07 am
It is interesting. Clearly, al-Qaeda’s best hope is the anti-war movement. They can’t win on the battlefield against American and Iraqi troops - what they are relying on is for their opponents to get stabbed in the back. A harsh turn of phrase, I admit, but it’s simple calling a spade by its proper name.
Comment by HaroldHutchison — 10/12/2005 @ 9:33 am
Zawahiri’s letter is amazing because of what I can read between the lines. It doesn’t sound like someone who thinks he is winning. It reads like someone who is losing badly but who hasn’t yet give up all hope. al Qaedas leadership orignally was a source of funding for affiliates. Now Zawahiri is reduced to begging for money to maintain his own operations. That was noteworthy, too.
Comment by Steven Den Beste — 10/12/2005 @ 9:52 am
The one parallel between Vietnam and Iraq is the one touched upon in Harry Summers “ON STRATEGY, the Vietnam War in Context.” Summers borrows heavily from Clausewitz on the keys to conducting a successful war, and one of the conditions is maintaining popular will. The other key elements, the military and the government are committed to success in this matter. It is in the arena of “popular will” that this war will be won or lost. It is incumbent upon the President and the Administration to mobilize this “popular will” among the American people. If this is not done, political opportunist of the opposing party will be more than glad to use the “Iraqi quagmire” as a tool to bring about a change in the administration at the next election. This opportunist will feed off the present low popular support of the war. If the President can convince the electorate of the value of this effort we will win. If he can not, we may indeed see another Vietnam style pull out.
Comment by Bill Gross — 10/12/2005 @ 9:59 am
Goal Two, while honorable, needs to come from the people of the United States, not be dictate to them by a President. Because in our particular form a government, a new forgeign policy takes shape every four years. George Bush’s foreign policy would be nothing like Howard Dean’s foreign policy, should he ever get himself elected. Even Condi Rice’s or John McCain’s will be substantially different. It is dishonest to encourage a group of people to stand up and fight Islamo-fascism, with promises we’ll be there for them. We will, but only for about 4 years. Let’s face it. The mood in the US is very anti-Iraqi at the moment. It certainly shouldn’t be, but it is. After all, that’s the way our media want it. The media doesn’t talk about the brave fight that the severely undertrained and underequipped Iraqi Security Forces are putting up. They’ll show a recruiting station get taken out with an IED, along with 30 recruits. The media doesn’t show that station the next day where twice as many recruits have lined up in defiance. You don’t hear reports of the Iraqis who die bravely in battle with the terrorists. Just the ones who ran. How many media outlets take the time to inform their consumers that almost anyone in Iraq brave enough to run for office is under constant threat, but still people step up and do the job, many being brutally murdered in the process? Yet the media always likes to point out the lack of a clear connection between the 9/11 hijackers and Saddam. The media doesn’t go out of it’s way to explain the reign of terror many Sunnis live under, and how many of these Sunnis have been slaughtered for working with the US and the Iraqi government. How “informers” are slaughtered like livestock for giving information to the autorities about terrorists. There is a battle going on in Iraq, and many good men and women, American and Iraqi, are putting up a heroic fight for democracy. It is the kind of stuff that would make both Iraqis and Americans proud. It is the kind of stuff worthy of a Hollywood film, had Hollywood not gone all leftist and anti-American. There are only a few countries in the world actively fighting al Qaeda, with Iraq being the nation feeling the brunt of Islamo-fascist barbarism. They’re suffering the equivalent of one September 11th per month. Our two peoples should feel a special kinship in this battle against evil. But we don’t. Most Americans see the majority of Iraqis as part of the same anti-American mob. Americans and Iraqis as comrades in arms, fighting the good fight against evil, does not fit the media’s narrative as laid out by Michael Moore, Dan Rather and the leftists at The New York Times. The media wants you to hear the daily US bodycount. They want you to see footage of the aftermath of suicide bombings. They want you to see terrorists/insurgents running around Ramadi. They want you to see protests against the American presence. They want you to see collateral damage if it’s done by Americans. Why is it that the people of the United States cannot get behind the effort in Iraq, and are constantly down on it? Gee, I wonder.
Comment by Sean — 10/12/2005 @ 10:26 am
“Don’t target Iraqis” says Zawahiri… Pity poor Zarqawi. One of the first things you learn as a supervisor/manager in the military is that you don’t chew someone out in public if at all possible. But an intercepted letter has made it’s way onto the internet,…
Trackback by Milblog — 10/12/2005 @ 10:57 am
[…] le, and we have the moral and political obligation to finish the job. The Zawahiri letter makes clear what al-Qaeda’s larger strategy is, but it is also based on al-Qaeda’s fantasy ideology […]
Pingback by Single Malt Pundit.com — 10/12/2005 @ 11:28 am
[…] le that exactly what Zarqawi feared would happen has been happening. Update: Austin Bay writes in detail about the July letter, just released, from al Qaeda number-two man Ayman al-Zawahiri to Zarqawi […]
Pingback by One Hand Clapping » Blog Archive » The 78% optimists — 10/12/2005 @ 11:29 am
Al Qaeda’s Woes YOU MUST READ the captured letter from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi (leader of al Qaeda in Iraq). Yes, it’s a long read, and full of Islamic flourishes, but take the time and…
Trackback by The Indepundit — 10/12/2005 @ 12:02 pm
Deconstructing Zawahiri Austin Bay offers the definitive look at the Zawahiri letter. Writes Bay: Zawahiri vacillates. At one level he knows Al Qaeda’s losing. But the US may buckle, folks, cut and run like Vietnam. Heck, Boxer, Sheehan, Kennedy, and the DailyKos,…
Trackback by Citizen Journal — 10/12/2005 @ 1:23 pm
What we are also seeing is that even an offensive which hits more than a few bumps along the way beats being on the defensive. Iraq is to the war on terror what Guadalcanal was to the Pacific Theater of World War II. In both cases, the United States took the offensive and seized something that the enemy had to try to take back. The problem was, the enemy was not able to afford a lengthy battle of attrition, nor were they able to achieve their objectives. How many elections has al-Qaeda stopped in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Comment by HaroldHutchison — 10/12/2005 @ 2:56 pm
Zawahiri is right about us cutting and running if the left takes control. It would happen, and it would be as big a tragedy as the aftermath of the Viet Nam war.
Comment by rich — 10/12/2005 @ 5:31 pm
The New and Sometimes Improved Al Qaida Is being matched by a War On Terror that is capable of evolving right along with the enemy. Every once in a while Middle East Intelligence Brief DEBKAfile releases information that hits the nail on the head. Other times it appears as if DEBKAfile its…
Trackback by SoCalPundit — 10/12/2005 @ 6:42 pm
Back in May, DEBKAfile (as it often but not always is) was correct in its assesment of what the capture of Al-Libbi and the rise of a younger generation of Al-Qaeda fighters (to replace the older, captured or killed) means to the U.S. fight against terror. Click here.
Comment by techunter — 10/12/2005 @ 6:56 pm
Missing from al-Zawahiri’s letter: Mention of Osama bin Laden. Is it noteworthy that his letter makes no mention of al-Qaeda’s #1 Man? Not necessarily, but you would think that if bin Laden were actively involved on any level that he would send regards from the Master Sheik or something like that. Time to read between the lines. Perhaps bin Laden is one of the 100 “brothers” held captive by Iran.
Comment by Jamie Peil — 10/12/2005 @ 6:58 pm
[…] ed to be a plant. And it echoes some themes I’ve been beating on here in the blog. Austin Bay has a readable explanation. Leave a R […]
Pingback by Chapomatic » A Brief Moment Of Smug, Then Back To Work — 10/12/2005 @ 9:43 pm
[…] ou notice? The Zawahiri letter: the beginning of the end for AQ? Austin Bay’s blog has some great analysis of the captured Zawahiri letter. Zawahiri vacillates. At one le […]
Pingback by General Quarters » Blog Archive » The Zawahiri letter: the beginning of the end for AQ? — 10/12/2005 @ 10:25 pm
“If Zarqawi got it–or if he read it in the newspaper–he tossed it into the wastebasket.” Assuming Zarqawi does this, which appears to be the case, then his “usefulness” is declining. At some point, Zawahiri will have to issue orders to have him “retired”. The terrorist retirement plan is distinctly devoid of perks.
Comment by Purple Avenger — 10/13/2005 @ 12:27 am
Al Quaeda in Afghanistan appears very isolated, Zawahiri’s remark “send money” sets that picture. Further they appear to be on their heels somewhat, judging from these words; we suffered a lot through following this policy of reaction, then we suffered a lot another time because we tried to return to the original line.
Comment by Sean Pelette — 10/13/2005 @ 2:08 am
Al Qaeda Wiretap Strikes Gold, Bin Laden In U.S. Late last week, a very telling letter sent from Ayman al Zawahiri to Abu Musab al Zaqawi was intercepted by coalition forces. In effect, the letter is a blueprint for Al Qaeda’s strategy for victory both in Iraq and worldwide
Trackback by Political Satire Fake News - The Nose On Your Face — 10/13/2005 @ 7:13 am
I think we might miss a lot of we don’t look into what this reveals and confirms about the personalities of these two men, according to how Zawahiri addressed Zarqawi. This letter also tells us that Zawahiri is on the move in Pakistan, rather than in a static location. When I was in the region, they will put satellites on top of anything—tent–car—whatever, they’re going to have their TV. This isn’t the case with Zawahiri according to his lament of limited access to alJazeera, indicating he must be nomadic. This can help us in our search.
Comment by Athena — 10/13/2005 @ 7:36 am
A Balancing Act of Tact and Rebuke I wrote notes in the margins of the latest Zawahiri letter to Zarqawi. ***Click the image to view them.*** They are not exactly academic but on the fly, so forgive me for that. The letter doesn’t tell us any new
Trackback by Terrorism Unveiled — 10/13/2005 @ 7:39 am
[…] ia. So mainstream media, who’s side are you on? Others talking about this letter: Austin Bay Real Clear Politics Powerline Michelle Malkin Posted by Taste of Liberty | 8:58 am | […]
Pingback by Myopic Zeal :: Intercepted Zawahiri Letter. :: October :: 2005 — 10/13/2005 @ 8:59 am
The BBC is reporting that a statement claiming to be by al-Qaeda in Iraq has disowned the letter, calling it a fake: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4339912.stm Methinks they doth protest too much.
Comment by Kevin B. — 10/13/2005 @ 4:28 pm
I read the whole thing 2 - points 1)the only reference to OBL is this “We received your last published message sent to Sheikh Usama Bin Ladin, God save him” = That sounds very encouraging
2)clearly the media and the anti war movement are AlQueada only hope. Therefore if we the Pro-US Pro Democratic / Iraqi Freedom folk start to have Marches and show our strength and unbending support we’ll deal a massive blow to these insecure creeps (and mass murderers) in Al Queda
Comment by Rodney — 10/13/2005 @ 9:00 pm
Screwtape’s Letter… Fascinatingly enough, the letter’s contents don’t read that much different than C.S. Lewis’ classic depiction of correspondence between a Senior and Junior Demon. For instance…
Trackback by My Sandmen — 10/13/2005 @ 11:02 pm
Just curious if there is anyone who is taking seriously the Left’s claim that this letter is a forgery? I’ve seen the comments, but they are a little too esoteric for me. Is there anyone on the Right who is questioning the legitimacy of this letter? Like I say, just curious…
Comment by Zino — 10/15/2005 @ 2:36 pm
Given all the “learned” comments I’ve read elsewhere about whether this letter is fake. None of THOSE people seem to have commented on the Jordanian bombings as just part of the suggestions in the letter. The Jordanian people ARE some of the most fanatic - Pew Poll quoted on MTP last Sunday showed 80% of Jordanians favored terrorist bombings in support of Islam. And King Abdullah is viewed as a “secular” Government. Gee, if this letter is a CIA “fake” - did the CIA ALSO do this bombing?
Comment by justbobkc — 11/15/2005 @ 12:42 pm