All is not well within the ranks of Al Qaeda, or so the media tells us.
Three major articles have appeared in the last week heralding a fracture at the theoretical-philosophical level of jihadism, which not only bodes well for the war on terror, but may signify a coming dam-break in the Islamic civil war. Of the three, the most interesting is a lengthy profile of Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, or “Dr. Fadl,” written by Lawrence Wright in the New Yorker. (The other two ran in the New Republic and the Washington Post).
Hopefully, we are attempting to accelerate this ideological fragmentation. I was speaking more tactically when I wrote this shortly after 9/11:
Intelligence must track the enemy terror cells in order to strike the enemy and disrupt them by keeping them on the move and by killing or arresting their operatives. We must sow confusion and paranoia in their ranks to slow them down and get them to fight each other.
Remember, this was my immediate response to the attacks. I was thinking far more tactically and short term back then.
The ideological divides could be used more broadly to really fragment the enemy and get them to turn on each other more deeply on more than just mistrust issues and fear.
However, even this progress in getting the ideology to split, say an operational success, is not a strategic victory. As long as Islamic society festers in its current failures, it will spawn young men willing to murder us and eager to kill us in large numbers. And even a splintered jihadist movement will retain groups like al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizbollah to recruit these jihadis.
Dividing the enemy is a good thing in the short run. But ultimately, that is a defensive success. We must go on offense to eliminate the capacity of Islamic society to spawn the killers we fight.
