Al Qaeda to Disintegrate in 2 Years

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Al Qaeda 'To Disintegrate' in 2 Years - UK Adviser

Wed Nov 10, 9:57 AM ET Top Stories - Reuters


By Michael Holden

LONDON (Reuters) - Al Qaeda will begin to disintegrate within two years as its various factions start to squabble and militants return to their local roots, a senior British parliamentary adviser predicted on Wednesday.


Reuters Photo



Professor Michael Clarke, a specialist adviser to lawmakers on the House of Commons defense committee, said the consequence would be that the security services would be able to win the "war on terror" as the group's structure fell apart.


"I think (cracks) are going to start to appear in the next 12 months to two years," he told Reuters at a security conference in London.


"It's going to start to fragment and split up," he said.


Clarke said he envisaged the network breaking down into smaller, disparate cells which would be more easily infiltrated and dealt with, bringing an end to the group's ability to carry out major attacks along the lines of the Sept. 11 attacks


"Terrorism will go back to being about more local issues. It will be reduced to a level which people can live with," he said.


Al Qaeda's pyramid structure -- with Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and about 30 associates at its head spreading out to a loose franchise of affiliated networks -- would begin to prove a major weakness when it was once a strength, he said.


Groups associated with al Qaeda across the world, such as those in southeast Asia, would start to pursue their local agendas, he added.


Clarke pointed to Iraq (news - web sites), where Baathist supporters of deposed president Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) were fighting alongside foreign Jihadists linked to al Qaeda although the groups had nothing in common.


Ultimately the Baathists would go their own way and pyramid would be weakened.


Clarke noted that even association with bin Laden's network had proved damaging to the cause of other militants such as Chechen separatists.


Clarke, director of the International Policy Ins ute at London's King's College, said this would be fueled further as the "glamour" surrounding bin Laden started to wear off and political in-fighting took hold.


"Whenever you get a general movement, people will vie for prominence and that's what I think is the next stage," he said.


He said a major failing of al Qaeda was its complete misunderstanding of western society and the belief it could terrorize governments into achieving their aims.


"They are not going to frighten Western society out of policies, they are not going to bring down the House of Saud, their first real objective, by terrorism," he said.


"They can cause great inconvenience but they can't damage them in the way they think they can."

I'm not sure it will be two years, but I do see it happening.

Muslims inherently disagree and fractionalize on matters, it's part of their nature (there are many different sects, and subgroups within those sects that disagree on matters).

AQ had a good thing going when it had its camp in Afghanistan, but now people have dispersed back to their homes/different parts of the world, they will turn their attention to matters local to them.

I am finishing up Imperial Hubris, a great book from a CIAer, and he argues as much, making the point that the day we get Osama, the AQ network will crumble.

You also saw a hint of things on that side with bin Laden's pre-election tape, you didn't see the brash rhetoric of "the infidel Americans will cower in fear at our actions", you saw "if you leave us alone we will leave you alone."

I think history will show that wiping out the base for AQ to work from (Afghanistan), coupled with our actions in Iraq (basically we're killing a lot of people - not Iraqis but foreigners - who trained in Afghanistan to be "martyrs"...happily obliging them right now in Fallujah!), were essentially the cracks in the AQ foundation.

Most terrorism experts I have read come to the same conclusion, that factional/local interests will provide the internal discord that leads to the crumbling of the AQ network, while the US military will provide the external discord.

[Nbadan]

I'm not sure it will be two years, but I do see it happening.

Um, this is a opinion piece and you know what they say about opinions. Even more troubling, the author presents no verifiable evidence to his assertions that Al-Queda is in the process of fracturing.

Fact is, one of things that has supposedly made Al-Qeuda so methodical and meniacle is that have traditionally worked in loosely coordinated groups independent from one another. Some say that although there are Islamic organizations that will unite together if they can find a common cause, or attempt to pull off a spectacular attack, like the Madrid train bombings or 911, Al-Queda has always been more myth than reality. That's not to say that Bin Laden didn't have his organization that grew out of the Mujahadeen fighters who defeated the Soviets in the 80's, but the name Al-Queda was strictly a western invention.

Either way, with the current situation in Iraq, it's hard to believe that terrorism in the Middle East is at a peak now be it Al-Queda, the infamous Al-Zarqawi or just plain old vanilla Iraqi nationalists who are attacking us.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

There's a great read, Imperial Hubris, by a CIA expert on OBL and AQ, that you should pick up.

I don't agree with everything he says, but he makes a lot of good points (and has access to much better intel than you or I).

One of his assertions on the war on terror is that if/when we take OBL and his most senior folks, the organization will splinter into regional "interest" groups who will be more worried about their own region and interests than what the big bad USA is doing.

And he also says the splintering has already begun, and that OBL is doing all he can to hold it together (but that with the base of Afghanistan gone and the trainees largely dispersed, it's become harder and harder).

But you've got some Spanish er in China saying otherwise, so you *must* be right.

[Duff McCartney]

Muslims inherently disagree and fractionalize on matters, it's part of their nature (there are many different sects, and subgroups within those sects that disagree on matters).

So do alot of other religions.

[whottt]

AHF, you are so insensitive. Did it ever occur to you that some people on the board might see this as being bad news? I suggest you try to be a bit more...um politically correct... in the future.

[Yonivore]

So do alot of other religions.

Yeah, but the others don't generally go around killing each other in large numbers...

Look at every major conflict on the globe right now, one or both sides of the conflict are Muslim. 'nuff said.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

So do alot of other religions.

The difference, Duff, is that the industrial revolution has occurred in much of the world, and "other religions" disagree, but they do so without blowing each other's head off.

I don't see Southern Baptists blowing up Christian churches and businesses, or going genocidal on someone.

Weak take, or a bad reach, whichever you want to call it.


whott, my bad, we should send a delegation to the caves of Pakistan to see what we can do to help them salvage their fledgling chaoticracy [/nbadan]

[exstatic]

I don't see Southern Baptists blowing up Christian churches and businesses...

Church burnings? Church bombings? Don't act like Christians dont' perpetrate violence against one another...none of this is ancient history.

[Useruser666]

Church burnings? Church bombings? Don't act like Christians dont' perpetrate violence against one another...none of this is ancient history.

I saw that too ex! I drove past this church once and saw all the catholic women were dressed in Burkas! The Catholics you know, make all their women live in these places called convents. Makes you think, huh?