Ayman al-Zawahiri—who was promoted to al Qaeda’s #1
following the death of Osama bin Laden—released a video yesterday formally
“welcoming” the Somali insurgent group al Shabaab into the al Qaeda franchise.
The western media has been, unsurprisingly, treating this as “news,” despite the fact
that al Shabaab pledged fealty to al Qaeda back in 2008. Spencer Ackerman
argues that this indicates that al Qaeda has “
replenished its
forces and strengthened its brand.” Well, I beg to disagree: al Qaeda has
likely done neither of those things. Rather, as it has done in the past, it has
latched on to a distant insurgency and claimed it for its own. And the American
counterterrorism community and "national security" reporters agains has obliged Al Qaeda in its fantasy of global jihad.
Actual relations between al Qaeda and Somali Islamist insurgents
do go
back to the nineties. Bin Laden “supported” the original Somali jihadist organization al-Ittihad
al-Islami, allegedly giving the group not only international notoriety, but
financial
and material resources. These “links” were then imported into the Islamic Courts
Unions, which was founded in part by members of al-Ittihad al-Islami,
particularly the military leader Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys—which was cause
enough for the U.S. to back their enemies, the
Alliance
for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism. According to
The Long War Journal’s Bill Roggio:
…the Islamic Courts continued to receive morale and physical
support from al Qaeda, Iran and Hezbollah. Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri
and other senior al Qaeda leaders praised the "Somali Jihad" in video
and audiotapes. Al Qaeda media outlets produced propaganda in Somali and
Arabic, with video of Arab and Somali jihadis training and fighting side by
side. Hundreds of millions of dollars were funneled into the Islamic Courts
coffers by backers on the Arabian Peninsula. Foreign fighters flooded into
Somalia, some estimates put the number at over 3,000. Iran provided arms, while
Hezbollah provided training for Somali Islamists.
I’m a bit skeptical about the extent to which al Qaeda
itself provided direct aid to Somali insurgents over the last decade. After the
Afghan war, the group’s capacity and resources were severely diminished and its operations effectively ceased. Ahmad
Rashid, in his excellent book
Decent into Chaos, notes that
following the invasion al Qaeda relied extensively on Pakistani militant
organizations for both funds and logistical support. With their assets frozen
and the loss of their Afghan base of operations, al Qeada was limited to
claiming attacks—the London and Madrid bombings, for example—that it had no
role in. (Incidentally, this trend started with bin Laden taking credit for the
Black Hawk Down killings in
Mogadishu, though no evidence of any direct al Qaeda involvement has ever been produced.)
If there’s a term within counterterrorism jargon that rivals
“support,” it’s surely “links.” Here, however, there’s little ambiguity: members of al
Qaeda’s East African branch
joined
Somali insurgent organizations, most of whom were killed by U.S. forces in
recent years:
Fazul
Abdullah Mohammed,
Bilal
al-Berjawi,
Saleh
Ali Saleh Nabhan. These three militants were implicated in the 1998
African embassy bombing and the 2002 Mombasa attacks and were later alleged to
have joined al Shabaab after passing through the ICU. Their careers seem to
indicate something very important about al Qaeda’s activities in East Africa:
other than the 1998 and 2002 attacks, the group was largely inactive. And since
2002, they cease to operate independently of Somali organizations. This
point needs to be stressed:
al Qaeda members joined the Somali Islamist insurgency, not vice versa.
There were also Somali Islamists who travelled to al Qaeda’s
home turf in Afghanistan and Pakistan, e.g.
Ibrahim
al Afghani and
Aden
Hashi Ayro. But, again, we should note that their visits were
prior to 9/11, the heyday of al Qaeda’s
largesse. After being kicked out of Afghanistan, it is unclear whether or to
what extent this support continued.
Of course, “links” and “supports,” while vague terms from an
analytical-historical perspective, are clear enough to serve as the cause for
U.S. strikes against both Somali and foreign militants. Starting in 2007, U.S.
forces began targeting both
al
Qaeda and
ICU
individuals and bases—in addition to providing material support to the Islamist
insurgents’ opponents. The effect of this was threefold. First, the ICU was
defeated as an organization. Second, the dismantling of the ICU led to the
emergence of the more radical and violent al Shabaab—which had been the ICU’s
youth wing. Third, partly as a result of ideological and historical affinity,
and partly as a result of American actions, al Shabaab reached out to al
Qaeda—in what some called a “merger.” By the way,
this was way back in 2008. (This illustrates the validity of Joseba Zulaika's theory of counterterrorism as a "
self-fulfilling prophecy.")
2008. So, what has transpired over the last three years?
What has the “merger” brought to al Shabaab? Not much. The group is
factionalized
and
weakened,
facing a much more powerful, international set of opponents. But, it’s 2008
merger caused the group to expand its aims beyond taking over Somali territory,
right? By merging with al Qaeda in 2008, it is now bent on global jihad, right?
Not really. Its attacks outside of Somalia—in Kenya and Uganda—are not the exporting of jihad, but rather have been aimed at getting African Union troops
to leave the Somali conflict, either through direct attacks against military
forces or civilians.
Rather than exporting jihad, al Shabaab is seeking to
import mujahidin—the most notable
examples being the
Somali
Americans who have travelled to their homeland to join al Shabaab’s war. Furthermore,
according to
Dawn (Pakistan), al Shabaab “counts a few
hundred foreign fighters among its ranks. Most are drawn from other East
African nations but a few have traveled from as far afield as Chechnya.”
And this is likely reason for the “merger”—by attaching
itself to global jihad, al Shabaab is seeking to attract recruits, much as
happened in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, and Iraq. Since the group has been
getting pounded by its enemies—much as happened to the ICU before it—it needs
to replenish its ranks. Kenyan Defense Forces spokesman Colonel Cyrus Oguna
agrees, claiming that
the
“merger” is a sign of al Shabaab’s weakness.
But we should also see it as a sign of al Qaeda’s weakness—and
the overall limited popularity of global jihad. A decade of warnings about al
Qaeda as a veritable COBRA Command
have
turned out to be wrong—just as the threat of “homegrown” jihad were
largely
bullshit as well. In order to stave off their growing irrelevance, al Qaeda’s
have had to rely on taking credit for the
Arab
Spring and, more recently, the
Syrian
uprising. And, in this P.R. campaign, the counterterrorism industry has
proven itself only too willing to play along—since, if the actual weakness of
al Qaeda becomes widely known, the projects and programs of counterterrorism
experts may be seen as irrelevant and unnecessary.
Thus the utter seriousness surrounding Zawahir’s formal welcoming
of al Shabaab into the al Qaeda fold. That, and the
geostrategic
interests of the U.S. in East Africa.
The media’s breathless rehashing of these bullshit
narratives—and their short memories—has been seen before. The “Japanese Red
Army,” the West German “Red Army Faction,” and the Italian “Red Brigades” were
all treated by the original counterterrorism community as actual arms of the KGB.
Just as
this theory
turned out to be false, we should take the al Qaeda “franchise theory” with a
grain of salt, lest we fall into the representational trap both terrorists and
counterterrorists set for us.