It's been about 2 weeks since The Islamic State (aka IS, aka ISIS, aka ISIL, aka ISI, aka AQI, aka I'm done here) announced their name change and the formation of The Caliphate. As you'll recall from my last post there were quite a few important and influential folks who rejected this announcement and spoke out against it. So how are things working out for our newly minted Islamic State and Iraq as a whole since this announcement?
Just for honesty's sake, these links are all from the Long War Journal. I love those guys.
An Iraqi military convoy was ambushed in between Fallujah and Ramadi in Anbar Province. Among the vehicles abandoned (and maybe non-operational?) were M113 armored personnel carriers and M1 Abrams tanks. So much for American military equipment being invincible no matter who uses them. If the Islamic State...and that's a big fucking giant IF...makes some kind of massive assault on Baghdad, I'm going to laugh my ass off if the head of the column is an Abrams. And then I'll cry myself to sleep a little bit.
It gets worse, much worse. The Iraqi military attempted to re-capture Tikrit. How did that go? Not so well. Iraqi troops were forced to withdraw from the city. Mortar fire and snipers will do that. Military commanders are blaming Prime Minister Maliki for being a micro managing jerk face.
ISIS...sorry...sorry...IS hasn't forgotten its bread and butter though. An IS suicide bomber blew himself up at a Shia shrine in Baghdad. My favorite part? The suicide bomber was Australian going by the name of Abu Bakr al Australi.
Not going so well for Iraq. But things aren't all peachy for the Islamic State either. Nobody wants to play along with their caliphate idea. Not Al Qaida. Not the Al Nusrah Front (well there's a shocker). And not even the AQ franchise AQIM is on board.
So hard to start a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy these days.
Showing posts with label Al Qaida. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Qaida. Show all posts
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Al Qaida Leadership Shuns An Affiliate
This post is the post I had intended to write yesterday but mid blog I determined I needed to attempt to dump some emotional baggage and decided this blog may be the best forum to do it.
The news of interest for me was the announcement by Al Qaida Senior Leadership and Ayman al Zawahiri that AQ was disowning the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) aka Al Qaida in Iraq (AQI) aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS) aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Holy hell, how many names does ISIS have? Anyway, this announcement has been a long time coming and I'm not shocked at all to see it. The ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, had attempted to merge ISIS and Al Nusrah Front (Al Qaida's franchise in Syria) and assume leadership of both organizations himself. Al Nusrah refused to merge and swore allegiance directly to Zawahiri.
The merger fiasco led to an open dispute between Zawahiri and ISIS which I suspect was an open wound that was created during the US occupation of Iraq. Forming in Iraq in 2004, ISIS originally called itself The Monotheism and Jihad but changed it shortly afterward to The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers (TQJBR...or as Coalition Forces called it, Al Qaida in Iraq). Merging with several other insurgent groups the name was changed yet again to Mujahideen Shura Council and then finally, Islamic State of Iraq. After the US left and the Syria civil war kicked off, ISI changed to ISIL.
I believe that Al Qaida Senior Leadership became increasingly frustrated with ISI starting in 2006 when the orgy of bloodshed and religious violence between Sunni and Shia escalated. AQ has never had much of a problem killing innocent people, even innocent Muslims, but to their credit, AQ never (not to my knowledge anyway) specifically targeted Muslims. Any Muslims killed in terrorist attacks were seen as martyrs to the cause and would go to Paradise. While the predominately Sunni AQ may have ideological issues with Shia Islam, the slaughter of thousands of Shia in Baghdad and all of Iraq most likely disgusted the leadership of Al Qaida.
No, I don't have any sources for this assessment and I'm too lazy to try to find any. I'm also not a Muslim scholar who can discuss the nuances of the differences between Shia and Sunni and why Al Qaida is primarily Sunni. I will use this quote though from one of my brigade intel officers, "just because someone is Shia, doesn't mean he can't be Al Qaida."
But what impact will Al Qaida's disavowing of ISIS have on the organization? I suspect non at all. During my time in Iraq AQI/ISI/whatever-they-were-calling-themselves seemed to be self sufficient and were able to recruit fighters and acquire weapons and funding without the support from any higher organization. This was more and more apparent as the war went on and ISI lost the support of (most of) the Sunni tribes and the government of Iraq became more capable. Had Al Qaida still supported ISI after the "Sunni Awakening", the organization likely would have still been a force to reckon with during my third Iraq deployment in 09-10; but by that time ISI was a shadow of its former self. Only the government of Iraq's refusal to conduct adequate counterinsurgency operations as well as the war in Syria has allowed ISIS to come back from the dead.
The news of interest for me was the announcement by Al Qaida Senior Leadership and Ayman al Zawahiri that AQ was disowning the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) aka Al Qaida in Iraq (AQI) aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS) aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Holy hell, how many names does ISIS have? Anyway, this announcement has been a long time coming and I'm not shocked at all to see it. The ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, had attempted to merge ISIS and Al Nusrah Front (Al Qaida's franchise in Syria) and assume leadership of both organizations himself. Al Nusrah refused to merge and swore allegiance directly to Zawahiri.
The merger fiasco led to an open dispute between Zawahiri and ISIS which I suspect was an open wound that was created during the US occupation of Iraq. Forming in Iraq in 2004, ISIS originally called itself The Monotheism and Jihad but changed it shortly afterward to The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers (TQJBR...or as Coalition Forces called it, Al Qaida in Iraq). Merging with several other insurgent groups the name was changed yet again to Mujahideen Shura Council and then finally, Islamic State of Iraq. After the US left and the Syria civil war kicked off, ISI changed to ISIL.
I believe that Al Qaida Senior Leadership became increasingly frustrated with ISI starting in 2006 when the orgy of bloodshed and religious violence between Sunni and Shia escalated. AQ has never had much of a problem killing innocent people, even innocent Muslims, but to their credit, AQ never (not to my knowledge anyway) specifically targeted Muslims. Any Muslims killed in terrorist attacks were seen as martyrs to the cause and would go to Paradise. While the predominately Sunni AQ may have ideological issues with Shia Islam, the slaughter of thousands of Shia in Baghdad and all of Iraq most likely disgusted the leadership of Al Qaida.
No, I don't have any sources for this assessment and I'm too lazy to try to find any. I'm also not a Muslim scholar who can discuss the nuances of the differences between Shia and Sunni and why Al Qaida is primarily Sunni. I will use this quote though from one of my brigade intel officers, "just because someone is Shia, doesn't mean he can't be Al Qaida."
But what impact will Al Qaida's disavowing of ISIS have on the organization? I suspect non at all. During my time in Iraq AQI/ISI/whatever-they-were-calling-themselves seemed to be self sufficient and were able to recruit fighters and acquire weapons and funding without the support from any higher organization. This was more and more apparent as the war went on and ISI lost the support of (most of) the Sunni tribes and the government of Iraq became more capable. Had Al Qaida still supported ISI after the "Sunni Awakening", the organization likely would have still been a force to reckon with during my third Iraq deployment in 09-10; but by that time ISI was a shadow of its former self. Only the government of Iraq's refusal to conduct adequate counterinsurgency operations as well as the war in Syria has allowed ISIS to come back from the dead.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Top 10 "Global Concerns" 2013 Edition
It's that time of the year again (why I originally started this in late July I will never remember) for Warhorse Intel's Top 10 "Global Concerns". I compile this list based on the reading I do throughout the year and is entirely my own biased assessment. 2012's list is here. Here's what it looked like:
10. Greece
9. Iran
8. Mexico
7. Kurd/Arab line Iraq
6. Somalia
5. North Korea
4. Yemen
3. Mali
2. Syria
1. Afghanistan/Pakistan
Once again the list between this year and last year are very similar. I'm not going to go in depth as much with each of these or provide links to back up my statements because 1) I don't have a whole lot of time and 2) I'm feeling especially lazy and 3) I'm in Afghanistan, what do you want from me? You're lucky you get a list at all. Anyway, as for the changes...Greece fell off because I think their economic issues are not going to lead to much violence beyond rioting. Mexico also came off as it appears from my little corner of the world that the narco gangs may be losing influence and power, but we'll see. Yemen was also dropped because Al Qaida In the Arabic Peninsula (AQAP) does not appear to be gaining strength and that conflict may be more tribal than anything else and is unlikely to spread. Now, on to the 2013 list!
10. Nigeria
Violence caused by Boko Haram led to a goverment crackdown in the north. That crackdown has led to more violence. My question is, when will Al Qaida officially jump into the fray and openly support Boko Haram?
9. Iran
Maintaining the spot at #9 only because at any time they could announce that they have a nuclear weapon which would lead to an Israeli airstrike which would then lead to...well...chaos. Will a new president lead to any significant change? This analyst says no.
8. Tunisia
Arab Spring woke up some demons in Tunisia. Extremists are becoming increasingly vocal and political assassinations are on the rise. Al Qaida In the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is also likely looking for a spot to cause some havoc after being routed in Mali.
7. Somalia
Will Shabaab ever quit? I keep saying they are 6 months from being dead but they keep refusing to die.
6. Mali
The Tuareg tribe took over the north with the help of AQIM and friends. The Tauregs immediately regretted this decision and worked with the French to boot AQIM. Tentative peace has followed. I don't think it's going to last.
5. North Korea
For awhile there I thought war really was going to break out but then cooler heads prevailed. I keep them on this list because one day Best Korea may just actually do it and invade again.
4. Iraq
It's no longer just the Kurd/Arab line that's a problem. Violence has reached 2008 levels throughout the country. Everything Prime Minister Maliki does just creates more tension. At what point do the Sunnis revolt? At what point do the Kurds declare independence? At what point does the US return?
3. Egypt
Holy hell this place escalated quickly. Fallen regimes, Muslim Brotherhood in charge, coups, violence, and a growing extremist threat in the Sinai.
2. Syria
A clusterfuck.
1. Afghanistan/Pakistan
I've spent nearly 9 months here in Afghanistan and now have the hands on experience to repeat what I have said in my previous Top 10s...fuck this place.
10. Greece
9. Iran
8. Mexico
7. Kurd/Arab line Iraq
6. Somalia
5. North Korea
4. Yemen
3. Mali
2. Syria
1. Afghanistan/Pakistan
Once again the list between this year and last year are very similar. I'm not going to go in depth as much with each of these or provide links to back up my statements because 1) I don't have a whole lot of time and 2) I'm feeling especially lazy and 3) I'm in Afghanistan, what do you want from me? You're lucky you get a list at all. Anyway, as for the changes...Greece fell off because I think their economic issues are not going to lead to much violence beyond rioting. Mexico also came off as it appears from my little corner of the world that the narco gangs may be losing influence and power, but we'll see. Yemen was also dropped because Al Qaida In the Arabic Peninsula (AQAP) does not appear to be gaining strength and that conflict may be more tribal than anything else and is unlikely to spread. Now, on to the 2013 list!
10. Nigeria
Violence caused by Boko Haram led to a goverment crackdown in the north. That crackdown has led to more violence. My question is, when will Al Qaida officially jump into the fray and openly support Boko Haram?
9. Iran
Maintaining the spot at #9 only because at any time they could announce that they have a nuclear weapon which would lead to an Israeli airstrike which would then lead to...well...chaos. Will a new president lead to any significant change? This analyst says no.
8. Tunisia
Arab Spring woke up some demons in Tunisia. Extremists are becoming increasingly vocal and political assassinations are on the rise. Al Qaida In the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is also likely looking for a spot to cause some havoc after being routed in Mali.
7. Somalia
Will Shabaab ever quit? I keep saying they are 6 months from being dead but they keep refusing to die.
6. Mali
The Tuareg tribe took over the north with the help of AQIM and friends. The Tauregs immediately regretted this decision and worked with the French to boot AQIM. Tentative peace has followed. I don't think it's going to last.
5. North Korea
For awhile there I thought war really was going to break out but then cooler heads prevailed. I keep them on this list because one day Best Korea may just actually do it and invade again.
4. Iraq
It's no longer just the Kurd/Arab line that's a problem. Violence has reached 2008 levels throughout the country. Everything Prime Minister Maliki does just creates more tension. At what point do the Sunnis revolt? At what point do the Kurds declare independence? At what point does the US return?
3. Egypt
Holy hell this place escalated quickly. Fallen regimes, Muslim Brotherhood in charge, coups, violence, and a growing extremist threat in the Sinai.
2. Syria
A clusterfuck.
1. Afghanistan/Pakistan
I've spent nearly 9 months here in Afghanistan and now have the hands on experience to repeat what I have said in my previous Top 10s...fuck this place.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
UPDATE 2: My Probably Wrong Boston Marathon Attack Analysis
I've waited over a day to comment on the attack in Boston because I didn't want to jump to any sudden conclusions seeing how I've been so blatantly wrong in the past when it comes to terrorist attacks.
Having said that, my analysis is the attack was most likely domestic terrorism. The analysts here at the IJC that I've discussed the attack with also agree. From my perspective there's nothing for Al Qaida or any other major terrorist group to gain from conducting this attack. Yes, it was high profile, but it wasn't exactly set up to cause a lot of casualties. Al Qaida uses vehicles for their mass casualty attacks and targeting a bunch of marathon runners doesn't strike me as a tactic they would use. The point of Al Qaida's attacks are to either draw the West into a war that bleeds money and resources or causes US allies to abandon the mission. The Boston attack was just too small to be Al Qaida.
Which to me means it was most likely 3 or 4 individuals who are either not affiliated or only loosely affiliated with an organization in the US. They knew what they were doing; multiple bombs, placed in bags near where large crowds would be, and detonated by timers (maybe). I'm going to make another assessment: these guys, or the guy who made the bombs, were likely combat vets from Iraq or Afghanistan.
There is a third option. The perpetrators are not officially linked to Al Qaida or any other international terrorist group, but conducted the attack in their name or were influenced by Al Qaida.
In the meantime, an envelope sent to a Senator from Mississippi tested positive for Ricin. Coincidence?
The Pakistani Taliban (or TTP as we refer to them) has denied responsibility. Probably because they are focused on Pakistan and not the US and who attacks marathon runners anyway?
UPDATE: The ricin guy has been arrested in Mississippi. Apparrently it's not related to Boston. That's some good news I suppose.
UPDATE 2: Ok, how correct or incorrect was I? I claimed domestic terrorists, 3-4 individuals, no affiliation/loose affiliation, combat vets. Turns out it was 2 guys (so far, it would not shock me to learn that others were involved); it was domestic in a sense that it wasn't international terrorism but the brothers were only resident aliens, not full fledged citizens...I'll claim I'm half right on that point; no affiliation to any group so far; not combat vets.
Not great, but I didn't have much to go on. I'll admit I didn't see the Chechnyan angle at all but then I doubt anyone did.
As a side note, the Canadian analyst we have here is thinking that Russia may have been involved with this attack in some way. His reasoning is that the US made a big stink about Russian human rights abuses in their two Chechnyan wars. If Chechnyans attacked the US, then Russia could make the claim that Chechnya is a larger problem than it actually is and Russia is justified in their heavy-handedness. Chew on that for a bit.
Having said that, my analysis is the attack was most likely domestic terrorism. The analysts here at the IJC that I've discussed the attack with also agree. From my perspective there's nothing for Al Qaida or any other major terrorist group to gain from conducting this attack. Yes, it was high profile, but it wasn't exactly set up to cause a lot of casualties. Al Qaida uses vehicles for their mass casualty attacks and targeting a bunch of marathon runners doesn't strike me as a tactic they would use. The point of Al Qaida's attacks are to either draw the West into a war that bleeds money and resources or causes US allies to abandon the mission. The Boston attack was just too small to be Al Qaida.
Which to me means it was most likely 3 or 4 individuals who are either not affiliated or only loosely affiliated with an organization in the US. They knew what they were doing; multiple bombs, placed in bags near where large crowds would be, and detonated by timers (maybe). I'm going to make another assessment: these guys, or the guy who made the bombs, were likely combat vets from Iraq or Afghanistan.
There is a third option. The perpetrators are not officially linked to Al Qaida or any other international terrorist group, but conducted the attack in their name or were influenced by Al Qaida.
In the meantime, an envelope sent to a Senator from Mississippi tested positive for Ricin. Coincidence?
The Pakistani Taliban (or TTP as we refer to them) has denied responsibility. Probably because they are focused on Pakistan and not the US and who attacks marathon runners anyway?
UPDATE: The ricin guy has been arrested in Mississippi. Apparrently it's not related to Boston. That's some good news I suppose.
UPDATE 2: Ok, how correct or incorrect was I? I claimed domestic terrorists, 3-4 individuals, no affiliation/loose affiliation, combat vets. Turns out it was 2 guys (so far, it would not shock me to learn that others were involved); it was domestic in a sense that it wasn't international terrorism but the brothers were only resident aliens, not full fledged citizens...I'll claim I'm half right on that point; no affiliation to any group so far; not combat vets.
Not great, but I didn't have much to go on. I'll admit I didn't see the Chechnyan angle at all but then I doubt anyone did.
As a side note, the Canadian analyst we have here is thinking that Russia may have been involved with this attack in some way. His reasoning is that the US made a big stink about Russian human rights abuses in their two Chechnyan wars. If Chechnyans attacked the US, then Russia could make the claim that Chechnya is a larger problem than it actually is and Russia is justified in their heavy-handedness. Chew on that for a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)