Skip to comments.Al Qaeda’s Strategy for defeating the US(Manual translated and posted to the Web)
Posted on 08/03/2006 10:03:58 PM PDT by FairOpinion
A 2004 al-Qaeda Strategy Manual can now be downloaded at West Points Combating Terrorism Center website here.
The translation of this manual by al-Qaeda strategist, Abu Bakr Naji, was completed in May by the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University.
"One reason for the neglect of works in this genre is that they are written in Arabic and they are often quite lengthy. Moreover, they are much more difficult to translate than the usual diatribes by Bin Ladin and other prominent jihadi leaders. Unlike the latter, which are meant for popular consumption, jihadi strategic texts require translators to have a familiarity with Western strategic studies (from which they draw heavily), medieval Islamic history and theology, and contemporary developments in the jihadi movement. The reward for overcoming these obstacles is immeasurablethese works are brilliant (if diabolical) studies of global insurgency written by its most intellectually-gifted participants. While it is still an open question as to whether these texts guide the actions of foot soldiers, they are certainly read by the jihadi intelligentsia and they remain the best source for understanding the nature of the jihadi movement."
Good gravy, the damn thing is 268 pages! I guess when you're sitting in a cave brushing the flies from your nostrils all day you don't really have much else to do than write diatribes spanning hundreds of pages.
(sigh) But I have to read it anyway I reckon. Thanks for the link.
Once you are done, or even before you can read the much shorter ( 25 pages) and interesting
Stealing Al Qaeda's Playbook
also from the same link ( at the bottom)
Never underestimate the enemy. The fact that these guys are intelligently, rationally approaching the conflict from their perspective (beheadings, killings, and bombings as part of a grand strategy including directed propaganda, and worldwide strategic studies), implies one and only thing to me - these people are monsters that must be eradicated, by any and all means available. We are at war for our very survival. When will the western world realize this ? But then - most of us here have known this for a while. Seems to me the more pressing enemy is liberalism, socialism, communism and associated PC among our own ranks. Take that away, and the rest of us will muster the will to do what must be done, just as the WWII generation did, without question. The enemy is counting on elements within our own societies to constrain us from using the full capability at our disposal. That is the only way they have a chance of winning. Unsheath the sword, show them the true face and meaning of war as western world invented and perfected over the centuries, and I am willing to say that within 6 months we would not have this problem anymore.
There seems to be a lot of superfulous veribiage.
Your assessment is excellent.
While they may employ not very bright expandable people, they have a well crafted strategy, to achieve particular goals, and they are going about that with deliberation.
I'll end up reading both. The longer one is actually pretty interesting. I got into it a good ways and then realized that it reads like one of the many history textbooks I read in college. At the very least the worldviews are the same, not to mention the warped sense of world events and faulty notions of causality.
Try the shorter 25 page version as an appetizer. I obviously haven't read the 268 pg version, but a great many of the steps detailed early on in the 25 pager have indeed been implemented (by the other side) Veracity? Authenticity? Who knows.
Savages, that's what they are alright.
Clearly they understand the strategic value (to them) of a Ted Kennedy or a Hillary Clinton or a John Kerry or a John Murtha or the New York Times undermining the US war effort and resolve from within.
This confirms your assessment:
"In his 2004 work, The
Management of Barbarism,* Naji urges fellow jihadis to study Western works
on management, military principles, political theory, and sociology in order
to borrow strategies that have worked for Western governments and to
discern their weaknesses.2 For example, Naji urges his readers to study
works on administration so that they will be able to administer regions that
fall into political chaos (see below).3 Military principles should be studied
so that the jihadis may better engage in asymmetrical warfare.4"
From the work analyzing it, "Stealing AQ's Playbook) (link on same page)
Thanks a bunch Fair Opinion.
I'll add it to my other manual links.
Got it already, but thanks for the link.
I appreciate it.
I'm only on the 20th page of the longer one but it is positively jarring. What might be most alarming is that I find myself agreeing with the critiques made on western (American) society - the ones they propose to exploit, and indeed are exploiting already.
"Clearly they understand the strategic value (to them) of a Ted Kennedy or a Hillary Clinton or a John Kerry or a John Murtha or the New York Times undermining the US war effort and resolve from within."
Very definitely. I didn't read the long manual, but I read the 25 page analysis/assessment -- which I recommend highly to give people a general idea, it can be scanned pretty quickly. In that they do mention the importance of public perceptions:
"Furthermore, the U.S. must recast its ineffectual public diplomacy efforts." -- of course it's kind of hard to "recats the public diplomacy efforts", when US Senators, Congressmen and the Media is acting as mouthpieces for the terrorists and undermine our efforts in the War on Terror.
Related article -- it would be interesting to read that in full:
The Present and Future Scenario of al-Qaeda by Abu Jandal al-Azdi
A document presenting a present and future scenario of al-Qaeda, including strikes within the United States, written by Saudi scholar and al-Qaeda ideology Abu Jandal al-Azdi AKA Fares Ahmad al-Shuwayl al-Zahrani, who was imprisoned by Saudi authorities in November 2004, was recently distributed to the password-protected al-Qaeda-affiliated forum, al-Boraq.
direct link to the article:
Ooo thanks! Much much reading to do.
Let me summarize. The muzzies have to be given victory because they most certainly can't take it.
We need to send a copy of this to the Dems you mention in yor post.
Imagine time-transporting back to 1938, when by most reckonings few really understood the depth of evil the Nazis were capable of and the horror that was about to unfold; perhaps that was an ironic strength. The free world ended up rising to the occasion; and might not have in 1938 had 1945 Auschwitz and 1942 Leningrad pictures been available at that point.
The lessons of history are clear. When you are in a fight with the devil, you don't have the luxury of farming out the fight to the devil's acolyte
That's a negative. A 'kill them all' strategy makes us the winners, by a mile. People just don't realize/don't remember what is possible when a war machine assumes counter-population posture, like Axis and Allies did in WWII. It was only 60 years back, how quickly things are forgotten. I *guarantee* you, make an example of *a* city somewhere, and things would change drastically. State publicly - *any* terrorist attack on US or allied European soil, and we incinerate a city with conventional weapons. Publish a list, and say we will choose at random. From my perspective, their propaganda and fascist/religeous upbringing have done far more than we ever could in order to win someone's hart/mind. That is impossible, not to mention futile and counterproductive, as Machiavelli said - better to be feared then loved. We'll never be loved. Therefore, as they already believe we're mosters out to kill them, let's play the part. One city for each act of terrorism on allied soil. I guarantee that would be enough. Random choice from a list of densely populated cities would be extremely effective as a deterrent. Number of large cities would not be able to effectively evacuate following a terrorist strike, and, it would motivate the largest number of people to stop the extremists within their own countries.
I myself see no incongruency in this line of thought, they are 100% certain that our efforts will be UNsuccessful. Nobody can predict whether we will or will not be successful, but, that being said, if we assume the text is genuine, it would appear that we are playing more by their gamebook than ours. Now, at this moment, in what I think most would consider a work in progress. And really, that's my takeaway bottom line.
"They also argue that direct action in Iraq and Afghanistan has been good for the jihadi movement."
I know it's quite the liberal argument, but at some level, the idea that our actions have galvanized the other side has some merit, wouldn't (or would) you say? We may characterize their actions as desperate, vile, murderous, chaotic, etc; but those reactions on our part appear to mesh with their endgame strategy. We're definitely outkilling them, but they are arguably outchaosing us.
"But they don't base this conclusion on anything other than the word of certain jihadist scribblers. And in positing such a conclusion, they completely ignore the fact that bin Laden himself traced the growing potency of the jihadi movement to our failure to respond to their earlier attacks on us."
But I think that one has to consider that the post-UBL jihadi movement has morphed along with the new improved US response. I haven't developed a full opinion on this tome, I just find it remarkably lucid, whether it's accurate or coherent in all respects or not.
Well I can't say I disagree with "kill them all", but...even incinerating a major city to glowing embers does not take care of the other 99.5% of the potential jihadis out there in a world population of 1.2 billion(?). Respectfully, we're talking about a cult[ure] that glorifies death. And finally, couched as you've stated it, our threatened (or, executed) act of incineration would be one of retaliation, which, by definition, only proves that they are still capable of striking us. If it isn't clear, I'm not claiming to have an answer or alternative at this point. "Kill them all" still works for me, it's just that even a city's worth is far from "all".
Well said sir!
Here's Al Qaeda's two-pronged global strategy:
#1. Maintain pinprick military contact (i.e. 1 or 2 deaths per day in as many parts of the world as possible) while massaging the news media into convincing the West to surrender and retreat, and
#2. Widen the global terror war by tricking Western Powers into attacking Neutral Islamic nations (e.g. India attacking Pakistan, U.S. attacking Iran, Israel attacking Syria, etc.).
book mark for later reference
ping for later reading.
Please explain how Iran and Syria are "Neutral Islamic nations." Thanks.
Does any have the Cliff Notes version?
Thank you for the ping- bookmark for reading later.
bump & bookmark
From Al Qaeda's viewpoint, Iran and Syria are "neutral" today in the same sense as was fascist Spain (Franco) during WW2 to fellow fascist nations Italy (Mussolini) and Germany (Hitler).
Seems to me the more pressing enemy is liberalism, socialism, communism and associated PC among our own ranks. Take that away, and the rest of us will muster the will to do what must be done, just as the WWII generation did, without question. The enemy is counting on elements within our own societies to constrain us from using the full capability at our disposal. That is the only way they have a chance of winning. Unsheath the sword, show them the true face and meaning of war as western world invented and perfected over the centuries, and I am willing to say that within 6 months we would not have this problem anymore.
= = = = =
Very much agree with you. Wish I wasn't so skeptical it will happen that way.
Not going to read this now. It might be mentoned that they might be successful since they have, if nothing else, a strong morality. Over here we have moral relativism, which is no morality at all or the absence of morality. We have existentialism, which is kind of like being an idiot child in a dark woods full of wolves and bears.
Printing off the 25 page one.
Anyway we could uhhhh . . . force feed such to . . . uhhhh . . . traitorous liberals in the US SENATE including Shrillery? Both ends would be OK with me.
Or, maybe we could wall paper their houses? Cars? Stuff their cars full of it?
Encase them in paper mache made of it?
More seriously . . . seems to me billboards of this on key freeways of the nation . . . excerpts . . . would do a lot to raise patriotism and get some survival anger wound up to more appropriate levels.
Ah but it is a point of deterrent. It is to scare the 'moderate' muslim so that he is far more scared of what we will do than the jihadis. Jihadis might kill him if he doesn't do as they say, but if the 'moderate' thought we would not only kill him but also his family and everyone he ever knew indiscriminantly if the Jihadis go through, we might find that a majority of them really doesn't want to die Jihadi way.
Being the student of Machiavelli, and if the muslim street is going to be controlled by fear (and it certainly will not be controlled by coddling and cowtowing), let it be by a fear greater than jihadis can create. The west *can* create such fear. It's just a question of imagination, capability, and will. We have the imagination and the capability. The will is being constrained by the delusional left.