Iraq and the Recruitment of Terrorists

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In the September issue of The Atlantic Monthly, the magazine’s national correspondent James Fallows suggests that it is time for the United States to declare victory since the U.S “is succeeding in its struggle against terrorism.” When he wrote his article, Fallows was obviously not aware of a National Intelligence Estimate that in April 2006 pinpointed the war in Iraq as “a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat…” He may have written a different piece. While President Bush and others in his administration underline the successes in the “war on terrorism,” the intelligence community paints a far less rosy picture. As the Washington Post reported today, “the battlefronts intelligence analysts depict are far more impenetrable and difficult, if not impossible, to combat with the standard tools of warfare.”

It is actually surprising that it took intelligence agencies so long to figure out that there is a direct connection between the war in Iraq and the fact that the number of terrorist recruits skyrocketed in the last three years. Since many of these young people are recruited outside of Iraq, they rely on the mass media, especially television, for news from Iraq that they find day-in and day-out disturbing. It does not matter whether Iraqis suffer and die from actions by coalition forces or fellow-Iraqis. The prevalent perception is that the United States the United Kingdom, and other occupiers are responsible. And perception matters more than reality.

However unwittingly, the news media facilitate terrorists’ recruitment efforts. But skilful propaganda campaigns of Al Qaeda and like-minded groups are equally, or even more important, to condition impressionable young adults for recruitment. Video tapes, audio cassettes and DVDs have been distributed for this purpose in the Middle East, South Asia, Europe, and elsewhere. Hamdi Issac, who was one of the participants in the failed London bombing attacks on July 21, 2005 told Italian interrogators after he was arrested in Rome that he had been recruited by another would-be bomber, Said Ibrahim. According to Isaac, "We met each other at a muscle-building class in Notting Hill and Muktar (Said Ibrahim) showed us some DVDs with images of the war in Iraq, especially women and children killed by American and British soldiers. During our meetings we analyzed the political situation and the fact that everywhere in the West Muslims are humiliated and that we must react."

While person-to-person contacts remain the most important recruitment method, the Internet grows in importance in this respect. In virtual chat-rooms, young extremists encourage each other to become “martyrs;” on message boards wives are asked to encourage their husbands to die for the noble cause.

All of this is unlikely to change in the face of daily violent attacks in Iraq  and the endless supply of horrific images of suffering from the news media and terrorists’ own propaganda tools.

Comments

[B.L. Nacos]

I did read the article. And, yes, the author and the experts he interviewed recognize the mistakes made particularly in the case of Iraq. In my post, I mentioned Mr. Fallows’ suggestion that the U.S. should declare victory in the war against terrorism because such a declaration would be as false as the earlier “Mission Accomplished” claim. As the National Intelligence Estimate confirms, the number of terrorists and thus the threat of terrorist violence have increased. Mr. Fallows suggests at the end of the article that “Now we could use a leader to help us understand victory and its consequences.” The suggested text for such a message includes the claims, “We have achieved a great victory…” and “With quiet pride we recognize the victory we have won.” With the National Intelligence Estimate publicized, fewer Americans would believe such a victory declaration--even if it served as rationale for a needed change of course.

[J Fallows]

If you had read my article, you would know that it says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you are assuming here, and that it argues at length exactly what the latest CIA report is saying. (My article was saying that the battle against AL QAEDA CENTRAL, OBL's own organization, had been surprisingly effective -- but that the way to cope with the larger, longer-lasting threat of Islamic extremism was to avoid self-defeating policies like the war in Iraq.)

If you had read it you might have seen passages like this:
>>“The things we have done right have hurt al-Qaeda,” says Caleb Carr, who strongly supported the reasoning behind the war in Iraq. By this he means the rout of the Taliban and the continued surveillance of Pakistan. “The things they have done wrong"—meaning the attacks on mosques and markets—“have hurt them worse.”

“There is only one thing keeping them going now,” he added. “That is our incredible mistakes.” The biggest series of mistakes all of these experts have in mind is Iraq. (Followed by 3000 words on the disaster that is Iraq)<<

A modest request that you read something before criticizing it -- a failing that is ironic considering the way this post begins! I don't write this hostilely, but with some frustration that a "reflective" blogger would not do any research!