Full Text of alleged Zawahiri letter released

[Severian]

Link (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9666242/)

That's the full text of a letter just released by Washington, which they claim is from Ayman al-Zawahiri, who's often described as bin Laden's 2nd in command, to the leader of "al-Qaeda in Iraq", al-Zarqawi.

It'll be interesting to see what, say, people who know Arabic have to say about the translation and probably authenticity, now that the full text's been released.

The content seems reasonably in tune with what's already known about al-Qaeda's political approach. I've got some other thoughts about it, but I'll come back with those later. There's some interesting implications.

[RedAnarchist]

So, Al Qaeda want a reactionary, religious Islamic state based on religion and race encompassing the entire Middle East?

Have they forgotten the failed unions of various Arab countries in the 1970's, such as the one between Egypt and Syria? Realistically, all the people of the Middle East have in common is geographical and linguistic closeness - any such state will most likely fail - thankfully.

[Severian]

The media reaction so far seems to be, to accept it as authentic. For example. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1590979,00.html)

The various analyses seem more or less clueless to me.

***

XPhile, that's true enough - but I think they run into an even harder brick wall even sooner. Their inability to take power even in one country, or part of one. Islamists generally have rarely had success with this, and al-Qaeda is even less suited than others to take power.

Zawahiri, not being stupid, identified the core of their problem: at least some active mass support is needed to overthrow "apostate" governments in the Muslim countries take power. He starts discussing the need for mass support around Page 3 (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9666242/page/3/), and it's kinda surprising to see the leader of such a narrow terrorist organization show such an appreciation of its necessity. 'Course al-Qaeda mighta partly learned that the hard way over the past few years:
"We don't want to repeat the mistake of the Taliban, who restricted participation in governance to the students and the people of Qandahar alone. They did not have any representation for the Afghan people in their ruling regime, so the result was that the Afghan people disengaged themselves from them. Even devout ones took the stance of the spectator and, when the invasion came, the amirate collapsed in days, because the people were either passive or hostile."
(Which, as a minor side point, kinda cuts across the whole "they hate us because we're free" business.)

But then again, to a degree this may have been the basis of Al-Qaeda's strategy from the beginning:
"(3) The Muslim masses — for many reasons, and this is not the place to discuss it — do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish, and secondly American."

Al-Qaeda targets the imperialist powers first, and seeks to provoke retaliation as part of a strategy to overthrow "apostate" governments in the Muslim countries...they hope to rally the masses behind them in an armed confrontation with the imperialist countries.' Where other Islamists have been unable to do so, against the "apostate" governments.

Bin Laden boasted before 2001 that the US army, like the Soviet army, would be broken on Afghanistan's mountains...but that turned out to be a miscalculation. Similarly, in Iraq, even if U.S. armed forces were forced to withdraw, how would al-Qaeda take power?

"And it is that the mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us."

For, after all, as Zawahiri himself says, the masses won't rally behind the jihadists against a domestic adversary.

This is one of the paragraphs where the analysts completely miss a very interesting potential implication. "return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us"? Which "secularists and traitors" held "sway" over Iraq before? The Ba'athists. Zarqawi's allies of the moment.

Zawahiri seems to be asking "Are you using the Ba'athists, or are they using you?" Probably not a question which anyone can know presently, including those directly involved.

Zawahiri goes on to point out that Zarqawi's tactics - particularly the bombings tageting Shi'a civilians, and the beheading of hostages - are not helping win the allegiace of the masses to al-Qaeda's cause. They aren't advancing the overall strategy of al-Qaeda's old guard.

They make no sense, as Zawahiri explains, as a strategy for driving out the U.S. - that would imply a need for unity rather than division. Nor as a strategy for taking
power and setting up an Islamic caliphate or amirate, even in just part of Iraq and just as a base for Jihad elsewhere, since they alienate .

Zawahiri's right, the sectarian bombings make no sense in those global terms. They're driven by the logic of the armed conflict in Iraq...and perhaps in part the hopes of Zarqawi's Ba'athist allies. Bin Laden and Zawahiri have no real leverage on Zarqawi; they need him more than he needs their endorsement.

Another reason Zawahiri is tactically opposed to the anti-Shi'a bombings:
"And do the brothers forget that we have more than one hundred prisoners — many of whom are from the leadership who are wanted in their countries — in the custody of the Iranians? And even if we attack the Shia out of necessity, then why do you announce this matter and make it public, which compels the Iranians to take countermeasures?"

There's a bunch of stuff admonishing Zarqawi not to exclude adherents of the non-Salafi schools of Sunni Islam...which would seem to imply that Zarqawi is prone to that kind of super-narrow religious sectarianism, or why spend so much space on it?

Anyway, Zawahiri's in a fundamental contradiction here. He advises Zarqawi to avoid tactics which alienate the masses, but Al-Qaeda's whole strategy of reliance on terrorism, not to mention it's reactionary theocratic program, inevitably does so anyway.

[Andy Bowden]

Anyone think this letter could be faked to stop the US initiating a timetable for withdrawal, on the basis that "Its what Al Qaeda want"?

:unsure:

[Intifada]

Al-Qaeda disowns 'fake letter' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4339912.stm)

[Severian]

One would hardly expect al-Qaeda to avow it. (And how would al-Qaeda in Iraq even know for sure that it was fake? How could they be sure that Zawahiri didn't send something that didn't arrive?)

And if Washington was going to forge something up, seems like they wouldn't forge something which contradicts their propaganda themes against Iran and "they hate us because we're free." And which really adds nothing new to their propaganda arsenal - it's hardly news that al-Qaeda favors a U.S. withdrawal.

There's no way to be sure if it's genuine at this time, I'd agree.

Some of the implications I pointed out earlier remain true whether it's genuine or not - since the overall situation, and elements of the al-Qaeda approach evident elsewhere, remain the same.

[Severian]

Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/2005/10/zawahiri-letter-to-zarqawi-shiite.html), based on the phrasing of the Arabic text, raises the possibility it could have been forged by some Shi'a group or by Tehran.

That'd be a whole other set of interests the letter could serve...in PR, or in manipulating Washington as Cole suggests.