Welcome to JARRETBRACHMAN.NET

November 14th, 2009

Thank you for visiting my personal homepage.  This website is dedicated to the study of al-Qaida strategy, ideology, doctrine and media.  It examines the various radicalization trajectories and tries to situate breaking news in the broader context of global jihadism.

I hope that you will find this website informative and educational.  If you are eager for more, please check out my book, Global Jihadism: Theory and Practice, or my recent media appearances .  You can also check out my recently published profile of Sayyid Imam Sharif in the December issue of Foreign Policy.

The (Not) Gadahn Mess

March 8th, 2010

Since this story broke, I’ve been exclusively watching the local Karachi Urdu reporting, not all the English-language drivel coming out of Pakistan.

Almost immediately, the local Urdu news details for the suspect in question were not lining up with those I know about Gadahn. The name presented in the press was all screwy, there were reports that the captured suspect is of Egyptian origin, and that he was involved in finance for AQ, etc..

I’m surprised that so many media outlets ran wholesale with this story without running it to ground.  Well, I’m actually not since this keeps happening.  I was delighted, however, that USA Today quoted me sticking to my guns on this question.

Money quote:

Jarret Brachman, an expert on al-Qaeda and terrorism and author of Global Jihadism, said it’s unclear who was arrested. Sources might be “getting caught between the naming conventions … and that they’re both American nationals,” he said.

Also I highly recommend this NY Times article that offers the clearest explanation for who is in custody and who is not.

AP also has this explanatory article worth reading

Brachman’s Take: The Jihadi Compass

February 28th, 2010

I’ve been arguing for years that the jihadi reaction to counterterrorism analysis of jihadis is our best compass for what hurts jihadis most.  I cant think of a better example than RevolutionMuslim.com, the domestic pro-AQ jihadist website, who seems to be obsessed with commenting on my treatment of Abu Yahya al-Libi’s “how to defeat al-Qaida in six easy steps”  misstep.

They have covered my work on this issue so extensively that I’m now being asked by my readers if RM is (1) a US or Israeli government plant designed to slowly degrade the jihadi movement from the inside-out; (2) my new public relations firm; and/or  (3) totally oblivious to how much damage they do to themselves by reacting so garishly to counterterrorism analysts, including myself.

My answer is “beats me” to all of the above, but I do appreciate the free publicity that RM is giving and am delighted to sit back and let them guide my efforts through their reactions… as they say, “if your adversary is busy shooting himself in the feet, don’t stop him…”

Friday Treat: What Jihadi ChatRoulette Might Look Like

February 26th, 2010

Pwning Abu Yahya al-Libi

February 23rd, 2010

In Abu Yahya’s latest statement about Yemen, which I’m going to more formally deconstruct on the blog soon, he observes:

“However, the obsession with superiority, megalomania, self-sanctification, God’s-chosen-people mentality, racial superiority, the need to humiliate nations, and others more are hindering it from saving itself before it is too late, and perhaps it is already too late.  By the grace of Almighty God, it will slide from one disaster to another, while staggering and stumbling like a drunk and confused person.  Each time it discovered the flagrancy of its mistake and the enormity of its price, instead of treating and correcting it, it moved to another more awful mistake, hoping that this might be the way for survival.”

I was just going to mention off-hand, Abu Yahya, that your quote sounds like a great encapsulation of al-Qaida’s post-9/11 approach more than it does a legitimate criticism of the United States…

But then it hit me that your criticism of the US is actually the same criticism that you had leveled against al-Qaida. No, really.  Remember when you warned Abu Musab al-Zarqawi about all the mistakes he was making in your 20 November 2005 letter to him that you posted on Al Sham?  And remember how you described blunders that the mujahidin tend to make.

If I’m remembering correctly (and I am), you scolded al-Zarqawi on the following points (which I quote unedited, directly from you):

  • “Excessiveness and negligence are two courses that the enemy does not mind which one mujahidin will follow…”
  • “There are numerous recent examples of excessiveness and negligence.”
  • “ The statements and acts of mujahidin these days are a prelude to predominant ignorance and distortion of the truth.”
  • “Similarly, some acts are committed that people do not understand or feel skeptical about, particularly when someone there keeps talking about such acts although they are permitted in Shariah.  It is therefore wrong to embark on any of these acts since we need to dispel suspicions and win the hearts of Muslims.  We should abstain from such acts that tarnish the image of mujahidin.”
  • “Beware of dispersing efforts, draining resources, or expanding the battle if the mujahidin’s military, economic, and media resources do not cover it.  Avoid mixing up the stages of a jihadist action.  These points require some details and clarification.  Numerous mistakes are made in the practical field of jihad.”
  • “Naturally, people make mistakes but it is a shame when a person insists on making a mistake after he acknowledges it.  Such a person is a loser especially when mistakes accumulate and become a methodology of a mixture of truth and falsehood, guidance and selfishness.  A mistake leads to another mistake and that results in one deviation after another.”
  • “Like all children of Adam, mujahidin make mistakes at various levels either as a consequence of wrong judgment, although they have good intentions, or because of thoughts that come to the human mind particularly concerning jihad and the tough time it faces at present for known reasons.  Many mistakes are made that aggravate the situation from time to time.  Mujahidin are excused for making mistakes the first time but they are not excused when they insist on continuing to make them despite the advice of many people who warn of the danger of these mistakes.  From a shari’ah and rational point of view, mujahidin should be glad to know their mistakes to get rid of them.”

These statements are not my words, Hasan. They are yours.  They are your exact comments about where you believed that the jihadist movement was going wrong, sliding from one disaster to the next, like a self-righteous drunk.

Did you think that the concerns you expressed about al-Qaida’s self-destructive behavior could be so cleverly recycled against the United States without anyone catching it?

I say to you now, Shaykh Abu Yahya, just as Muhammad Khalil al-Hakaymah once said to us, “from the words of your own mouth, I condemn you…”  Consider yourself pwned.

Two Debates: One Productive, One Not So Much

February 16th, 2010

I’ve been directly engaged by two parties, both Muslim, about recent comments I’ve made.  I’ll briefly respond to both since I’m running around now and try to get something more in-depth when I have a few more mins.

First, and the more productive dialog, is from “Sunnah Publishing,” a group that I’m not familiar with but seems to be a mainstream Salafist advocacy and educational website based out of Grand Rapids, MI.   The editorial staff has written a refutation of some remarks I made in a recent NPR All Things Considered interview.  Their refutation is entitled, “Anwar al-Awlaki’s Fictitious Attachment to Salafism: Reply to Jarret Brachman’s Post Fort Hood Comments.”

Sunnah Publishing’s argument with me is for attaching the “Salafist” label with Anwar al-Awlaki, a label that this group fiercely rejects as being applicable to al-Awlaki.  Here’s their criticism in a nutshell:

“The statement..by Brachman is extremely irresponsible to say the least. At the most, this is alarmist propaganda that puts the thousands of Salafi Muslims who currently live peaceful and productive lives in the United States under suspicion.”

Most of the piece is a systematic proof of why al-Awlaki is not a Salafi.  Here’s my quick response:

Thank you Sunnah Publishing for writing your piece and challenging me.  This is exactly what needs to be done by Muslims in the U.S. and this is exactly what I’ve been advocating needs to happen.  Muslims in this country need to stand up when they hear a characterization that they disagree with and correct it in a way that fosters dialog, not mudslinging.  I’m delighted to serve as the vehicle by which this occurs.  I’m not wedded to my live on-air comments that SP has taken issue with and I am happy to seemainstream Salafists fighting back and rejecting any attachment to al-Awlaki.  SP, let me take a closer look at your argument and if I agree, I’ll go ahead and post a public correction. But again, let me thank you for engaging me in a respectful, direct and public way.  More soon on this – but rest assured, I’ve heard your concern and agree with the basis of your argument.  Distinctions are everything in this fight.

Now, on to the second group who engaged me tonight.  This is from Younus Abdullah Muhammad of RevolutionMuslim.com fame.  He is responding to my previous post about their refutation of CTC’s report.  In contrast to the Sunnah Publishing’s debate with me, which I found to be respectful and useful for advancing the overall conversation, brother Younus offers the kind of angry, counter-productive rhetoric that does nothing but fan the flames of polarization.

Here’s the response I got tonight from brother Younus:

Hey Ferret Crotchman: Did it ever occur to you that we refuted this article in approximately an hour each between the two of us, edited once, and published. Trust me, while you look for grammatical and ad hominem errors, we have long ago realized that it was not a work of completion but of general observations to help defend our brothers from the fraud of you and your likes. You spend more time on a blog post than we did on the article and still we managed to completely cover the absurdity that this was “science” at all. The objective was realized, one wonders why you would even attempt to refute it like you have pathetically above. I thought you were moving up and they were actually listening to you. Judging by the effort you put into whatever that “refutation” is, you are still a failure with a fake Ph.D from a piece of crap school. I’m still waiting for your much publicized page by page refutation of Jihad Recollections.
Geez – I dont really know what to say that helps move the debate forward after that (and I cut out some of worst stuff). To be honest, Younus, I actually thought I gave a fairly even-handed and respectful coverage of RM’s report.  I thought advocating for a public debate would help give you an opportunity to express your views to the people who need to hear them most. But your approach is so angry that it’s a turn-off, even to me – and I love a good fight with you guys.
So, this has been a productive night. 2 debates, 1 great, 1 not so much. The contrast b/t what works (Sunnah Publishing) and what doesn’t (Revolution Muslim) in terms of opening productive inter-group dialog could not be any starker.

If you want to see more from Younus Abdullah Muhammad, here he is:

RevolutionMuslim.com Seeks to Refute West Point CTC Study

February 15th, 2010

A buddy just sent me this link to RevolutionMuslim.com’s Abu Talha al-Amriki attempting to refute a report by West Point’s CTC in his recent essay,  ”A Refutation Of The Claims Of West Point Saying That Al-Qa’ida Kills Mostly Muslims.”

For background, RM is a pro-jihadist group of online guys – jihobbyists if you will – that used to be ‘e-mired’ (get it?) by Yousef al-Khattab. If you read my blog, you’ll know al-Khattab recently handed the reigns to Abdallah as-Sayf Jones. There are a number of other contributors to the site, including this “Abu Talha al-Amriki” (I guess his kunya creativity  quotient was low that day) and al-Khattab’s bff, brother Younes.

I am simply fascinated by the fact that two Americans – Abu Talha al-Amriki, and his co-author, Younes Abdallah Mohammad – are actually trying to engage in a real, intellectual debate with counterterrorism analysts.

To be clear, I am not speaking on behalf of CTC in this post. Although I did serve at West Point’s CTC from July 2004 – May 2008, I am no longer affiliated with CTC as Abu Talha suggests ( heck, I don’t even appear on the CTC’s alumni page). My goal here is to simply offer my readers ‘Brachman’s Take’ on RM’s refutation and situate that refutation in the broader context of jihadist thought.

I’m also responding because the RM report comes after me directly, on the topic of Abu Yahya al-Libi’s recommendations for how the United States might best degrade al-Qaida’s ideology.  This is a sore spot for them as several RM dudes have tried to refute my argument that Abu Yahya blew it on that.

Remember, my position is that if we listen to a jihadi, we can better understand what gets under their skin.  Just like I tried to highlight in my last about with Abu Yahya, taking their statements point by point can yield tremendous insights into what keeps them up at night. So, let’s begin.

The West Point CTC study that RM is seeking to refute is: “Deadly Vanguards: A Study of Al-Qaida’s Violence Against Muslims.”  You can find it here. I’ll lay out RM’s refutations and comment on each of them.

  • RM: “You will notice that [CTC Associate], Dr. Helfstein was aided by two apostates from the religion and that he will inevitably be the one roaming around and publicizing the report, but it serves in the U.S. military’s interests to attach two Arab names onto the report thus furthering the ultimate objective of the operation, to relegate Al-Qa’ida and their narrative to the fringe of the Islamic world thus preventing them from gaining ideological and sentimental backing and thereby subsequent physical aid.”
    • JB: The boys at RM are bothered by the fact that two of the co-authors on the CTC report are Arab Muslims.  RM tries to mitigate the damage of having Muslims criticizing al-Qaida by pointing to the fact that the West Point CTC is a U.S. military entity and, therefore, according to RM, an instrument in its overall plan to marginalize the jihadist ideology.  It’s a clever spin, but an incorrect characterization of the CTC.
  • RM: “The [CTC] report is initiated with some nonsensical claims with regard to its methodology… It also has nothing to do with actual science. Utilizing journalism and the estimation that is usually associated amidst the competition of reporting attacks before other agencies do certainly serves to manipulate the data set as hypothetical rather than actual. Furthermore the report utilizes data provided by organizations that are explicitly against Islam…Thus it is more an example of what has become typical Western “academia’s” black propaganda campaign against Islam. It is not science but is an effort to place a scientific face on a means of ideological war.”
    • JB: The problem is that RM’s qualm here is not methodological but epistemological. They don’t necessarily reject the approach of using data and statistics to make their points. In fact, that’s what RM uses in their essays to try and substantiate that AQ is “winning.”  Rather, RM simply rejects the legitimacy of this source of knowledge. In other words, their basic argument is with what constitutes ‘credible truth.’  In essence, they are speaking past the CTC report because their argument cannot be countered other than to simply reject the epistemological basis on which it is made.
  • RM: “In fact, were the scientists at West Point to have conducted a similar analysis of death caused by the U.S. military, the statistics may be very much lower than fifteen percent militants killed. Likewise, in Afghanistan overwhelming numbers of civilians are killed as troops caught in the crossfire of a guerilla force they cannot see simply call in for aerial support on whatever location is closest. Countless times this has led to the bombing of villages and even weddings where no militants were killed whatsoever. Fortunately for the colonialist occupiers they simply blame insurgents for blending in with a civilian population, but this is exactly what the U.S. and its western allies do and how thereby the data is skewed by the way they define “non-westerners”.
    • JB: On this point, RM is arguing that the CTC should turn the mirror back on the U.S. military’s actions to see that the statistics it presents about Al-Qaida would pale in comparison to the number of innocent Muslims that the U.S. military has killed. I think it’s a well played point but still rests on a faulty premise that, unfortunately cannot be countered. Specifically, RM premises this counter-attack on the fact that Al-Qaida and the U.S. military are equally legitimate. Although I could say that AQ is an illegitimate force whose actions are the primary reason the US military is in Afghanistan to begin with, but the boys at RM would simply reject the assertion. Again, we’re arguing from  two separate epistemological foundations and, therefore, come to irreconcilable  conclusions.
  • RM: “A closer look at the “data” reveals that in fact 254 out of 329 events analyzed came from Iraq; this represents 77 percent of the cases, and so a civil war initiated by Shiites against a minority Sunni population utilizing the weaponry given to the Shiite regime from the U.S. is now being used as evidence against Al-Qa’ida, because they chose to retaliate in like manner rather than face inevitable genocide and slaughter…Thus the majority of data, in this case people killed, contained in the report are a result of the U.S.’s allegiance with the enemies against the people of Quran and Sunnah. This reality accounts for most of the skewed data, but also affects the statistics for the rest of the report as well.”
    • JB: Well, I’ll defer to CTC to defend its methodology on this criticism. RM’s point is that, because the US invaded Iraq and then threw their support behind the Shia, that the Sunnis were put in a do-or-die position where they either had to fight back or risk being exterminated. The majority of these attacks, then, would have been conducted under the tenure of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a leader considered to have ‘gone rogue’ by the AQ senior leadership.  RM does spark a good question about how regional franchise groups working against the stated desires of AQ-SL fit under the AQ umbrella when it comes to objective academic analysis.
  • RM: “The fundamentals of this study are so flawed that one has to wonder if these people ever took a High School rhetoric class.”
    • JB: Note to RM, if you want to have a real debate, cut the ad hominems.  You sound like amateurs when you talk like this.
  • RM: “This study even intentionally excludes the deaths of the Madrid bombings and the ones in London at certain points in order to skew the results. If one was to apply similar tactics to the United States, then one could say, “Excluding attacks in foreign countries, the United States actually kills Americans more than foreigners.” Such statements are factually misleading and they have no place in an “unbiased” study. Arbitrarily excluding certain things in order to lower the number of non-Muslims whom al-Qa’ida has killed is unethical by any standard of research.”
    • JB: Just an observation on this point – I’m struck by how post-modern it is that we have an anonymous American al-Qaida supporter arguing about what constitutes  ”biased” and “ethical” research.  The problem is that RM misunderstood the reason that the CTC report excluded Madrid and London – CTC was actually making their point harder to prove, not easier, by doing that.  RM is wrong on this point.
  • RM: “This report is merely a reproduction and implementation of [Abu Yahya al-Libi's recommendation for how to defeat al-Qaida that Brachman wrote about]  and an effort to float as science a study that could be picked up by the press, especially the Arab press, and then used to detract Al-Qa’ida sympathizers. Science like this is not science at all but is dangerous propaganda in that it justifies the use of terrorism and violence and seeks support for the real civilian atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan committed by Americans under the guise of justification that they are only killing terrorists.”
    • This is my favorite part. RM uses a piece I wrote in order to indict the CTC Report as being propaganda.  Well played RM!  Ironically, it’s your guy, Abu Yahya al-Libi, who threw you guys under the bus by being a bit too cute.

So, there’s a few more arguments in their report but you get the drift. What’s most impressive to me is that the jihobbyists over at RM were willing to take that report seriously enough to dedicate some real brainpower to trying to refute it.  I don’t think that they accomplished their goal, but it shows that the CTC report did bother them enough to want to try and mitigate the damage and co-opt the arguments (it’s a control thing that al-Zawahiri frequently does when he feels like somebody else is setting the rhetorical agenda).

If I were the authors of either study, I’d consider holding a public debate (webcasted of course) on neutral ground where the various constituencies could make their own decisions. What a step forward that would be for both sides in trying to make meaningful change in perception.

Friday Treat: An “Interview” with Abu Yahya al-Libi

February 12th, 2010

The following interview did not actually occur. Rather, I’ve presented unedited excerpts from Abu Yahya al-Libi’s latest statement, in the order that he made them, interspersed with my own commentary in the form of pretend interview questions.

My goal is twofold: first, to get more people to read al-Qaida’s primary texts by making it a more dynamic experience; and second, to show how Abu Yahya indicts himself and his entire movement every time he opens his mouth. We don’t need multi-million dollar campaigns to show how hypocritical, empty, and in this case completely nonsensical, that al-Qaida’s rhetoric is. They shoot themselves in the feet.  If you enjoy my approach, let me know and I’ll institutionalize it on the blog.

Click here to download the full text: An Interview with Abu Yahya

“We Are Not Houthists”
by Shaykh Abu Yahya al-Libi (with Dr. Jarret Brachman)

JB: “Let’s get started. I’m here today with Shaykh Abu Yahya al-Libi. Shaykh, thanks for joining me. I’d like to begin by asking your thoughts on the Houthist rebels operating in Yemen.”

AY: “We are not Houthists.”

JB: “Certainly not.”

AY: “We are not with them nor are we part of them.  God Forbid! The distance between them and us in religion, creed, methodology, ideology, and goals is as far as the East is from the West and indeed, they are very far apart.”

JB: “So you see yourself as being different from a group of fundamentalist Zaydi Shia revolutionaries? Isn’t that distinction obvious to most people?”

AY: “Those manipulators commit contradictions and are confused about marketing contradictory rules. They invent forms of aberrations and deviations.  They weave and contradict, accept and refuse, nullify and rule, detail and tailor, allow and trespass, as well as praise and slander without any solid basis, valid restraint, or firm origin.”

JB: “You’re obviously passionate about this topic.”

AY: “They subjugate the verses of God rather than abide by them, and put them to use according to what suits them rather than follow the teachings of these verses.”

JB: “But isn’t that the same argument that’s being made, with great effect, against you?  Aren’t you simply trying to redirect criticism at a different enemy, the Shia – which is an enemy that hardline Sunnis of all stripes can rally against?

AY: “The current events between the Houthists and Al Sa’ud exposed those who backstab jihad and the mujahidin, and dedicate their pens, websites, and podiums to get to the mujahidin and to belittle them.”

JB: “So, you are willing to indict Sunnis too?  I guess that makes you an equal opportunity hater. Can you explain why you’re so angry with the Saudis?”

AY: “They dig for their smallest mistakes, even if they have to make up mistakes, to place them in the circle of criticism, advice, or guidance and to claim that the enormity of the issue and the great deviation requires doing so.”

JB: “Can you be clearer? What is your purpose for bringing up the Saudis in a discussion of the Houthists?”

AY: “The purpose here is not to gloat; it is rather to expose the situation of the people, who based their sayings and judgments on the edge of a collapsing cliff.  It is a cliff of wicked desires and false catastrophic opinions.  It is to expose those who were driven by spewed adulation of the rulers, abominable exaggerated flattery of the tyrants, and willingness to please their uninhibited desires and lusts.  The purpose is to expose those who accepted the difficulties and humiliations to please the rulers, devoted themselves to justify their falsehood and deviation, and feigned blindness toward their infidelity, aberration, and falsity.”

JB: “What are the Saudis are doing that makes you so upset? Do you have a specific example that you can point to?”

AY: “The technical university of Abdullah [King Abdullah University for Science and Technology] in Jeddah is a clear example, for it is the most heinous tree that has been ever planted in this land!  Its fruits will not only look like devil’s heads, but will also spread the devil’s ideologies of liberalism, degradation, dissolution, and temptation.”

Click here to download the full text:An Interview with Abu Yahya

Abu Musab al-Suri Still Matters Online

February 6th, 2010

Al-Suri’s work is still running rampant through the forums…Remember, al-Suri’s whole thing was that al-Qaida needed to transcend the organization down to the individual level: so that each jihadi could become an Al-Qaida Army of One… See Brynjar’s discussion of this for more insight…

Interview w/ Abu Dujana al-Khorasani’s Wife

February 6th, 2010

As an aside, the jihadist forums are still abuzz about Abu Dujana al-Khorasani. He really is proving to be an enduring role-model for the online AQ types.

Mining Our Business: AQ’s Love-Hate Relationship with Western CT Research, RAND, et al.

February 4th, 2010

Jihadist leaders, pundits, strategists and enthusiasts have long realized that they can gain insights into the mindset, strategies, goals and methods of their adversaries (read us) by listening to what we say and write. Other than al-Qaida, nobody offers al-Qaida better insights into al-Qaida than America’s think-tanks and research institutes who concentrate on, you got it, al-Qaida.

Yes, jihadists tend to rant about how evil and dastardly they think these centers are. But we also know that jihadists love reading the reports produced by American research centers, in large part because these reports are about jihadists (good ego stroking for them).

It took our community until around 2003 to realize that the same could be done back to the jihadist movement (Scheuer’s Jamestown articles, Stealing AQ’s Playbook, MIA Atlas, work by Hegghammer and Lia). Several of the trailblazing ninjas in this field had been doing it long before (Paz, Ulph, Doran, Haykel, Kepel, Roy).

In-depth mining of jihadist websites, ideological tracts and online magazines began introducing new avenues for counter-ideological engagement and counter-strategy. We began to understand that jihadists are candid about their strengths, weaknesses, hopes and dreams. And more importantly, some of us argued that these insights could be translated into the real world with great effect.

Jihadists, like Ayman al-Zawahiri, have complimented those efforts to level  jihadist insights against jihadists, acknowledging how well they work against them. Abu Yahya al-Libi has gone so far as to point out how such strategies would have worked for the United States had he not of preemptively identified them as being effective and, according to him, thereby inoculated the global jihadist movement from the further effect.

The difference between the jihadist movement’s use of the approach and our own is that the jihadist movement has institutionalized it. They not only continue to mine our literature for insights but they’ve made it a national past-time. Every jihadist and their dog is now encouraged to study our news, read our policy statements and analyze our research reports in order to better understand how we think about them and where we think we are most vulnerable.  Mining us, not just tactically but strategically, has become standard jihadist operating procedure – the benefit of transforming AQ into a global movement, a la Abu Musab al-Suri’s conception.

Some on our side react to the news that jihadis read our writings for insights by arguing that we should say less publicly. This, in my opinion, is a boneheaded conclusion to draw.  Those who make it don’t understand that at the end of the day, this is a contest of ideas.

Not engaging al-Qaida hasn’t worked so far and it’s not going to work much better in the future. On the contrary, I have been arguing that we should be speaking more and publishing more about al-Qaida and to al-Qaida.

Ideologies, like anything else on planet Earth, play by the basic rules of physics: they continue in their forward momentum until they encounter an opposing force. Jihadism-as-ideology continues plowing ahead unchecked. Although the United States has the intellectual resources it needs in order to spot and highlight  the hypocrisy, duplicity, bankruptcy and inconsistency in jihadist thought/practice, it has not done so, instead waiting patiently for Islam to deal with the ideological side of this fight.  Abu Yahya al-Libi said it best when he pointed out that we have failed as a nation to formalize this process – we have failed to intellectually push back in any real or meaningful way. The majority of America’s academic resources are standing on the sidelines, untapped and uninformed about why their skill-sets are vital.

I’ve been arguing for several years now that we need to be directly engaging the global jihadist movement on their ideological turf, using their concepts, indicting their thinkers and their actions.  And we need to be doing this with our own experts. Al-Qaida has made it clear that they 1) read our work; 2) are intellectually bothered by it so much that; 3) they openly respond and try to refute it.

Some disagree, foolishly in my opinion, with my call for waging an intellectual counter-offensive, arguing that such an approach would ‘legitimize’ al-Qaida. The fact that al-Qaida still exists is legitimacy enough for them. Such  inane bureaucratic hand-wringing and risk aversion to openly countering AQ’s strategic messaging has led to a wholesale surrender of the rhetorical battlespace to Bin Laden and friends.

We, as a community, have failed to understand that the jihadist movement does not own this methodological approach of turning one’s adversary’s insights against them.  We need to understand that when a jihadi speaks, they are communicating volumes to us about their hopes, their fears, their goals, their vulnerabilities, etc.. If you buy my argument that jihadist thinkers tend to discuss that which threatens them most (in other words you view jihadist publishing as inherently reactionary rather than offensive in nature) then you’ll agree that what they are discussing is a good metric for what they find bothersome.

Using that metric, I’d like to explore why jihadists seem so bothered by the RAND Corporation’s work.  Anecdotally, I cant think of another institution that has given the AQ movement more heartburn across the board.  On the one hand, jihadists love to yap about how much insight they gain about our thinking about them (post-modern doesn’t quite capture this) from RAND reports. Jihadists  also find great utility in using RAND as a scapegoat for all that troubles them about US policy in the Middle East.  And RAND fits perfectly into their conspiratorial mindset – these guys honestly believe that the “diabolical” RAND Corporation is the USG’s official planning center for policy on Islam and the Arab world.  In other words, they both indict RAND and cite them as authoritative, all in the same breath.

But what they also do by railing against RAND as much as they do is to show us that they fear RAND. They fear the fact that there is an institute dedicated to conducting rigorous, empirically-grounded research about them. That RAND is mining them and trying to help empower mainstream Islam to fight back.  Jihadist focus on RAND should be seen as a clear signal for what they believe hurts them.

I was prompted to write this post after seeing a 100 page jihadist Arabic translation of RAND’s “Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan” uploaded to the Al-Faloja Forum last week.  Here’s how the jihadi who uploaded it described the report’s utility:

“Read read read do not begrudge yourself my brother especially when such studies have a lot of the enemies methods and ways of defeating the “rebels” as they allegedly claim…could you imagine my dear brother… Read my brother, you may get the grant of Nafir [joining the Jihad] from God and then you will have a good awareness of the enemies methods and do not forget the translator dear brother in your prayers for him and for his parents and for the Mujahedeen as well.”

Here’s the Arabic original of that post: Original Al-Faloja Posting

And here’s the Jihadist Translation of RAND Report

And here’s the Original RAND Report

Yes, they studied the hell out of this report. But they are translating it not just to learn about our approach. They are translating it to let each other know where we are in our thinking about them.  Just to show you how meticulously these guys reproduced this report, here’s some side-by-sides of RAND’s original charts with the Jihadist versions.

They did leave off all footnotes and citations (which the translators apparently considered extraneous).  But importantly, they think that they have something to learn from this report, which is why somebody took the time on their end to translate 100 pages of it and translate the charts/maps.

The fact is, as Aaron points out on his blog, we will not win this war until jihadists believe that they have been defeated. A key part of doing that is to demonstrate overwhelming intellectual superiority – we need to pwn them with our minds, not just our Predators.

Jihadists have a long-track record of citing RAND reports, demonstrating how long they’ve been fretting about it.  Here’s a quick itemized list from how the big boys have discussed RAND

Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi:

“As for writing about the foundation of jihad, everything that I write is directed at this point. God willing, everyday you will see what is new in the support of jihad and the mujahidin everywhere. What was done by the regime in Algeria (and all the regimes today): using the scholars of the rulers to combat jihad and the mujahidin: this is part of the recommendations made by the US Rand Corporation and so-called anti-terrorism conferences. They fight this blessed tide of jihad with the media, ideology, and deviant and false religion. The mission of the ideologues of Salafi jihad and their shaykhs is to combat the doubts of those people, reveal their falsities, and deflect their lies. This mission is no less important than the combat done by our brethren in the arenas of battle.” (Open Interview with Shumukh al-Islam Network Members and the Esteemed Shaykh Abu-Muhammad al-Maqdisi, 8 September 2009).

The West and the Dark Tunnel by As-Sahab, 22 September 2009:

Dr. Hani al-Sibai

“The oppressive, failing security regimes that are perched upon the chest of our Islamic nation [ummah] follow the instructions of the American Rand Corporation to the letter. It is a new-old policy of every occupier: divide and conquer. (The Exposition in Response to the Exposure, 8 February 2009).

Abu Yahya al-Libi:

“Therefore, the mujahidin, as far as we know, are of all groups the most self-critical and the most likely to correct their course and confess their errors. In this they do not rely on the directives and instructions of the security agencies or the Rand Corporation and those like it, but they seek the truth, go back to it, and love it, whatever consequences and difficulties this may cause for them.”  (Refuting the Falsehoods of the Rationalization Document: The First Part, 13 December 2008)

Abu Yahya al-Libi:

“I see its features have begun to be formed. It is a new religion in its terminology, new in its perception, new in its measures and principles, new in its creed and its branches, and even new in its worship and transactions and new in its reception sources. Then we will be told that this is moderate Islam, prudent Islam, Islam of the 21st century, Islam of openness, brotherhood, and peace, Islam of moderation and reason. It is only the Islam of the Rand Corporation and the enemies. The Islam that the infidel proselytizers are after by their modern Crusade campaign, this will never happen. Die with your anger and sorrow, God’s religion is protected. A person can only destroy himself.” (“The Moderation of Islam and the Moderation of Defeat,” As-Sahab Media on 22 May 2008).

Al-Yaqin’s Jihadist Issues, Issue 4:

“Translation of a Study: New Strategy To Defeat Jihadist Organizations.” (RAND Corporation recommendations to political and security decision-makers in America and the West) ”Title: Defeating Jihadist Organizations. Author: Seth Jones. ”Published by: RAND Corporation Published on: 18 September 2008″ - ”Number of pages: 13 –  Translation published by: Information Resources for Journalism Information. ”Translation published on: 13 November 2008.”

Abdul Elah Haidar al-Sha’i:

“The US occupation forces fail to realize on time that the objectives of the insurgents are different, not identical. The RAND Corporation did research and disclosed that they [occupation forces] did not make the necessary plans for the post-occupation period. The research institution stated in a report published in the USA Today in February 2008 and made available to the US command that the ’study on the future of Iraq before the war was inaccurate and unbalanced.’ It also criticized the occupation forces Commander Tommy Franks of having ‘a wrong vision on how to provide security to the occupation forces in the aftermath of the invasion.’ ”In mid-2006, the RAND Corporation, the US Department of Defense think tank and the mastermind of US foreign policy, published a 500-page, two-part study entitled ‘Beyond Al-Qa’ida,’ in which it emphasized the need to differentiate between two types of jihadist groups: the local jihadist movement and the global jihadist movement, the latter being led by Usama bin Ladin. The study explained how to make use of the local jihad to strike against global jihad.” (Years of Ember, published by GIMF on 21 October 2008; and in Sada al-Jihad, 26th Issue published on 9 June 2008).

Global Islamic Media Front:

We do not doubt for one moment that Al-Jazirah has a large role in preventing the dissemination and presentation of the Al-Sahab release, which is entitled ‘Harvest of Seven Years.’ It is known that Al-Jazirah, its administration, and its news editing management supply the United States Embassy in Qatar with all the releases of the mujahidin, whether audio or visual, so that they can get permission to publish. The embassy’s representative is the one who determines which passages can be published and which should be withheld. It also deals directly with the office of the Rand Corporation in Qatar. Everyone knows what the Rand Corporation is and the role it plays in directing events in the Islamic world.” (“Has Bush Succeeded in Ruining the Surprise of Al-Qa’ida” on Al-Yaqin Media Center, 17 September 2008).

Akram Hijazi:

“”We are raising these questions in light of the increased popularity of Al-Qa’ida internationally as admitted by the Rand Corporation and in light of the repeated accusations that are one of the necessary requirements that cannot be separated from Al-Qa’ida…” (“The Mujahidin Army’s Distinction: Where To? on 30 July 2008)

Muhammad Khalil al-Hakaymah:

“Finally, there was the statement of Shaykh Sayyid Imam in which he declared an end to jihad, and unlike its title [Rationalization of Jihad], he did misguide it. He poured a dose of his anger on his mujahidin brothers outside in compliance with the advice of the USRAND Corporation and the orders of the FBI office in Cairo.” (“Previous Incidents of Retractions in Egyptian Prisons” on Al-Fajr Media, 7 December 2007).

Muhammad Khalil al-Hakaymah:

“The Financial and Industrial groups of Texas and California, including the giant weapon manufacturers, together with the Intelligence Community headed by the CIA, provides most of the funds transferred to the affiliated think tanks such as the Rand Corporation of Santa Monica, (which issued the Rand Report that considered Saudi Arabia as one of the future targets of the United States). And the Hoover Institute, which is specialized in war affairs, the Center for Revolution and Peace in Palo Alto, the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University in Washington, the Washington Enterprise Institute, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and other research centers aiming at development of an intellectual basis for a new American power policy without any “ifs” or “buts.” (The Fantastic Delusion published by Al-Maqrizi Center on 11 August 2006).

Beyond official AQ leaders, advocates and ideological promulgators, the forums love to gripe about these works.  Take a gander at the sampling of representative forum posts that I’ve collected for you:

Multiple Reports Cited

Beyond-AQ

Building-Networks

How-Terror-Groups-End

Moderate

IntelSummit

So, in sum, the jihadist movement gets that there’s a lot to be gained from taking your adversary seriously, reading and studying their work and responding to it directly.  They realize that there’s a lot to be strategically gained from enlisting the broad intellectual resources of their movement and aiming them at our ideas, at our research, at our intellectual products. Do we?