Short version: almost since Islam's founding there have been individuals and groups who have chosen the most extreme interpretation of its scriptures possible and used this interpreation to justify violence against all non-believers (i.e. Jews, Christians, Atheists, Jews a second time just for good measure), and other Muslims who don't subscribe to their absolutist tenets. Examples of this include the original Assassins in the 12th century, Ibn Tammiya in the 14th century, and Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab in the 18th century. More modern versions include Sayyid Qutb, Mullah Omar, and Osama bin Laden.
In the old days if a Caliph wanted to suppress a radical movement, all he had to do was surround the offending village, kill everybody inside, and ensure that every scroll containing the forbidden teachings was destroyed. Yet even if the United States wanted to use such a scorched earth strategy (which we obviously don't because of its inherent immorality . . . i.e. we did not nuke Afghanistan post-9/11), given modern communications technology such as the internet we could never suppress the ideology completely. Hence the reason a lot of analysts (myself included) warned after Abbottabad that although bin Laden was dead, Bin Ladenism was still a threat.
Thus, the fight against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates' efforts online (whether to recruit, propagandize, disseminate tactical knowledge, or issue strategic guidance) is a critical component of the War on Terror, contra critics who claim were are just trying to kill our way to victory.
All of which is preamble to three interesting pieces on how modern communications and social networking platforms have become an important battle ground in the War on Terror. On Tuesday The Washington Post reported on U.S. intelligence operatives' effort to hack into and sabotage al-Qa'ida's online magazine, Inspire. This calls to mind the story I passed along two years ago about Great Britain's MI6's hacking of Inspire and substituting bomb-making recipes with cupcake recipes, although with greater urgency given the online magazine's link to the Boston Marathon bombings. Paul Cruickshank of CNN actually first reported the hack last month, but until now nobody had taken credit for the successful operation.
Also, on ForeignPolicy.com, Jonathan Schanzer reports on the debate over whether or not to shut down various terror groups Twitter feeds. On the one hand, their tweets are an endless source of propaganda/strategic communications that are central to the extremists' recruitment and strategy. On the other hand, intercepting and monitoring these communications tips off the intelligence community as to whom we should be tracking as possible terrorists.
Finally, as a bit of a palate cleanser, Wired's Danger Room's Spencer Ackerman had a fascinating Twitter interview with Omar Hammani, currently the most prominent American jihadi alive, who is on the run both from U.S. authorities (he currently has a $5 million bounty on his head) and his former colleagues in al-Shabaab. The occasionally congenial exchange recalls a lament that a former CIA counterterror analyst (Milton Bearden, I think, although I'm not 100% positive) once expressed, specifically how in the old days you could take a break from hunting your secular PLO terrorist enemy and have a drink and an interesting conversation with them, whereas nowadays all the terrorists in the Middle East were jihadists who didn't drink and would slit your throat if they were ever in the same room with you. Hammami falls somewhere in between, apparently, although he may not live long enough for anybody to find out face-to-face.
 |
| Alabama-born jihadist (and current drone target) Omar Hammimi during a press conference in Mogadishu prior to his split from al-Shabaab (Photo: Farah Abdi Warsameh / AP) |
No comments:
Post a Comment