Al-Qaeda Warning - What's Up, Doc?

By now, you've no doubt read the stories about the latest Al-Qaeda threat against the USA, as delivered by al Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman bu Ghaith and published Sunday in the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat.

There was a threat of this type issued about 3 weeks before Sept. 11. What's the purpose of this one?

I'm not sure what al-Qaeda could do right now that wouldn't be massively counterproductive, since the US threat alerts take care of its core strategic necessity - ensuring that the Islamic world believes it has struck against the USA and survived. Besides which, their operation to create a war between India and Pakistan is going rather well so far.

Right now, everything's a guess. So let's set the strategic background, then look at 3 possibilities.

Jane's (and others) note al-Qaeda's interest in a war between India and Pakistan, a fact acknowledged in Winds of Change a couple of weeks ago.

1. Distracts Musharraf from potentially hostile actions in Waziristan.

2. Potential regime change to a weaker or friendlier leader, either of which enhances their ability to continue operating from Pakistan as their main base.

3. If war breaks out, India can be portrayed as part of the Christian-Jewish-Hindu conspiracy against Muslims, hopefully helping to incite widespread jihad in the Islamic world.

Tactics: move to the Pakistani-controlled region of Kashmir and perpetrate enough terrorism to force an Indian response. Miss few opportunities to worsen the situation via well timed attacks, in order to up the ante. Take full advantage of Kashmir's importance to Pakistani nationalism, in order to paralyze the Pakistani government. Add to that Al-Qaeda's dispersal throughout Pakistan's cities and remaining ISI contacts, all of which keeps Musharraf unsure of his ability to turn on Al-Qaeda and survive.

OK, but what if this goes nuclear? Isn't that carrying the martyrdom thing a bit far? Chillingly, the answer is: "not necessarily."

Yes, Al-Qaeda cadres in the cities could die - if they remain there once hostilities break out. But even in a nuclear exchange, the lawless wastelands of Waziristan and Baluchistan on the western border would not be primary targets... or even within the main fallout patterns. The port city of Karachi, by contrast, would glow like a nite-light. As Pakistan's major port, Karachi is critical to US supply lines in the area.

Throw in the likely humanitarian crisis and plans to evacuate over 250,000 Westerners, and the West's militaries would be much too busy to deal with Al-Qaeda for many months at least. Nuclear war may not be thinkable for Musharraf or for India, but Al-Qaeda is not the first Islamofascist movement to have a different view.

Which is not to say that they hope for nuclear war... but they may not be overly concerned about the costs of one.

So, Al-Qaeda's strategy in Pakistan is clear. The game is "let's you and him fight." The goal is war, leading to a land so fragmented that al-Qaeda can safely operate there for a long time to come. Even nuclear war is acceptable, but an averted war might still be useful. Because the USA is a superpower with interests it must protect, it cannot help but become distracted from the War on Terror by this unfolding drama. Should the worst occur, it cannot help but turn many of its resources toward aid and restoration. Its strength and assets are thus turned against it.

Now, what's unacceptable to al-Qaeda? A settlement between India and Pakistan that leaves the United States as broker, arbiter and balance-keeper for both countries. In al-Qaeda's worst scenario, the USA becomes Pakistan's main protection against India, in exchange for greater cooperation on anti-terrorism measures. Meanwhile, India and the USA also continue to move closer together, slowly tightening the bonds of economic and military cooperation. Al-Qaeda would find itself squeezed hard in Pakistan and Afghanistan, facing the growing need for a mass exodus and few sure routes or destinations.

In warfare, there are several basic strategies. Formenting an India/Pakistan war is an annihilation strategy against the Pakistani government, and a near-term exhaustion strategy with respect to the USA and its allies. The unconventional execution of that strategy is what makes it 4th Generation, and its scope makes it warfare rather than terrorism.

In the lead-up to that strong 4GW move, however, tactics aimed at attrition and paralysis can play important roles.

Let's parse bu Ghaith's statement closely, shall we? I'll use this Pakistani report, since it contains more detail.

Well, duh. Note, however, that he didn't say within the United States. Most of Al-Qaeda's attacks have been carried out on foreign soil.

The group "will continue to work to strike against Americans and Jews and to target them, be it individuals or infrastructure."

"What is in waiting for the Americans will not be inferior to what the United States has already gone through," Abu Ghaith said.

Over what time frame, he does not say. Don't assume this means another 9/11 scale operation.

"Let America be prepared to fasten its seat belt because, thanks to God, we are going to surprise it in a place where it is not expecting."

Right now, the most effective thing Al-Qaeda could do would probably be to assassinate Donald Rumsfeld when America's favorite butt-kicker heads to Pakistan for talks. The benefits would be several-fold:

1. It remove a key player shaping the US strategy (and media response, a critical center of gravity in a netwar like this).

2. It offers good odds of derailing US mediation efforts that might defeat Al-Qaeda's "war with India" strategy, and would definitely increase the pressure on Pakistan's government to take very unpopular actions in Waziristan and Kashmir.

3. Both effects contribute to the Al-Qaeda goal of removing Musharraf and creating a fragmented (or even ruined) Pakistan from which Al-Qaeda can operate safely.

4. Unlike, say, shooting down the President's helicopter, killing Rumsfeld would not in and of itself justify much more in the way of retaliation than is currently being done. The lack of meaningful consequences for the recent assassinations of a hard-line Israeli cabinet minister and an Italian minister have to be encouraging from al-Qaeda's point of view.

Pulling this operation off would be a trick and a half, as the move doesn't exactly qualify as "unexpected". Then again, it would be much, much easier to move the reported Stingers, SA-7s, or whatever into Pakistan as opposed to the USA. What if the intelligence tip is partly right, but the focus is "American" and not "America"? Given that many Soviet war vintage Stingers may not be in working order, it makes sense to hoard the few that remain for maximum effect. This may be such a time.

Multiple Stingers could be used to defeat a "dummy helicopters" defense, and even improve one's odds against flare defenses, etc. Or perhaps al-Qaeda can use other means to get the job done. Regardless, the key is having insiders who can supply correct information about Rumsfeld's routes and/or arrival times. Which means any assassination operation hinges on the loyalties and remaining reach of Pakistan's ISI.

Look, it's just a scenario. It's not an implausible scenario, though, and certainly fits al-Qaeda's strategic needs much more closely than another terrorist attack in the USA.

In this alternative, al-Qaeda's recent threat may simply be bluff, part of the normal back and forth of warnings and false reports designed to throw the other side off balance.

Like most 4GW conflicts, the USA nor Al-Qaeda are both guessing about exactly what their adversary knows. The USA can issue warnings and see if there are any reactions by al-Qaeda groups who believe their cover is blown. Al-Qaeda can issue threats that help overload the USA's response capabilities, and also give them an opportunity to see how the USA responds. And so it goes. STRATFOR suggests that al-Qaeda may be looking to shift the focus of Rumsfeld's visit away from India-Pakistan, and toward their presence in Pakistan. I'd say it's equally likely that they're trying to shift the CIA's attention.

Regardless, issuing their threat so soon after the recent media blitz of warnings from Cheney et. al. and the Congressional "intelligence failure" inquiries shows very good timing.

In a calculated bluff scenario, the credibility hit from an "unfulfilled" threat is acceptable if it takes the USA's attention away from the larger game. The India war is al-Qaeda's real game, and pressure on Musharraf to focus on Waziristan only adds to his paralysis. With the USA immobilized by threats and Pakistan immobilized by competing strategic pressures, the key then becomes bringing India into play via terrorism. Let the war begin.

The plan's strength is the extremely low commitment required to achieve a very large result. Its weakness is the ease with which it can be defeated... all the USA has to do is ignore the threat when meeting with India and Pakistan.

Since there are many incentives for doing exactly that, al-Qaeda would have to assume that it has succeeded in sowing terror to the point that the American leadership's decision process is collapsing and they are retreating into an "internal" orientation. Adopting the calculated bluff strategy at this time would represent a fundamental misunderstanding by al-Qaeda of its enemy's mental state.

The question for the CIA et. al. thus becomes: does such a misunderstanding exist within al-Qaeda, especially at the senior leadership levels? If there are allied agents inside al-Qaeda, their sense of how the group sees America right now is a very valuable clue that can only come from spies (HUMINT), not machines (TECHINT).

Again, recall the strategic priority of al-Qaeda: security against threats to their Pakistani operating bases. In this option, al-Qaeda has identified a way to further its ends that may not involve the Americans... but since everyone "knows" the fight is between the USA and al-Qaeda, a threat aimed in the Americans' direction might be seen as an effective way to distract the real target.

This strategy could pay off if there's a large India operation brewing, for instance. Still, there are hundreds of thousands of soldiers along the border areas right now. It would be hard to execute something big that wasn't already in place as of a few months ago... and if it was in place then, it probably would have been used by now.

An Israeli operation would be even harder to execute. That said, the recent Pi Gilot oil terminal effort would certainly qualify as the kind of huge distraction whose consequences and aftermath would serve al-Qaeda well.

Still, likely targets are already pretty focused on security for local reasons. Worse, a threat directed the Americans' way only adds an extra burst of effort from the USA. This strategy doesn't look like a probable winner, unless there's some kind of special local opportunity coming up.

Again, recall the strategic priority of al-Qaeda: security against threats to their Pakistani operating bases, which means the weakening of Pakistan's government and creation of an environment that is more hostile to American intervention.

The USA needs to work with that in mind, take reasonable precautions, and evaluate different scenarios that look at the situation from al-Qaeda's perspective. Which I'm sure they're doing. A diversity of scenarios is especially important.

Mine aren't meant to be the be-all and end-all, therefore, just a contribution that makes you think. As bloggers and citizens think about these important issues and discuss them, I hope you find today's analysis and scenarios useful and thought-provoking.
posted by Joe Katzman on 6/5/2002 02:25:20 AM |

Al Qaeda "will continue to work to strike against the United States"

The message is for Al Qaeda, not the United States. The Al Qaeda spokesman is trying to convince his workers that despite the fact the leaders have have been killed or are in hiding, Al Qaeda is still in business. Please return back to work.

The group "will continue to work to strike against Americans and Jews and to target them, be it individuals or infrastructure."

Again, he's telling Al Qaeda employees to return to work. He's also telling them that the Mission Statement of Al Qaeda, International is the same despite the unannounced relocation of the Worldwide Headquarters from Afghanistan.

"What is in waiting for the Americans will not be inferior to what the United States has already gone through," Abu Ghaith said.

The United States is the strongest country in the world in terms of military, economic, and political strength. The US is kicking Al Qaeda's butt all over the globe. It's nice to know the future will not be inferior to what we have already gone through.

"Let America be prepared to fasten its seat belt because, thanks to God, we are going to surprise it in a place where it is not expecting."

It's nice to know Al Qaeda is concerned about US seatbelt laws. Perhaps they are becoming more caring and have changed their ways. Perhaps the big surprise will be Al Qaeda changing to a Christian organization. That would certainly be something nobody expects.

Piece might be a bit of Pro-Paki propaganda. i.e. "Indians Fall into al-Qaida Trap."

Even with nuclear strikes, there's no way the Indians can knock out all of Pakistan's nuclear capabilities, any remainder of which would fall into Al-Qaida hands.

The Indians have actually been the agressors in two out of three of the last fights. The Pakis are politicking us like mad to get a referendum for Kashmir and to get the Indians off their backs, while the Indians are lobbying like crazy to get us to "rein in" our Paki "Allies."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.