July 01, 2008

More Proof the NYTimes Doesn't Understand Islamist Terror

WTF were the sources that the NYT used that claimed that al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were a "nationalist insurgency" before they pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden with the help of Ayman al Zarqawi? The article actually has this laughable little tidbit questioning whether or not the group was even a terrorist organization before it joined al Qaeda:

Some militants also said that Washington’s designation of the Algerians as a terrorist organization after Sept. 11 — despite its categorization by some American government experts as a regional insurgency — had the effect of turning the group against the United States.

And that quote isn't out of context, it's central to the main narrative of the entire piece: the U.S. is partly to blame for the rise of al Qaeda in North Africa.

The biggest problem is that the authors don't disclose the former name of the group until four pages in: Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC). Or they treat as incidental the up front confession by the founder of the group that there were, "religious motivations for his group’s merger with Al Qaeda."

The previous name of the organization says it all. While not organizationally part of al Qaeda they were exactly like al Qaeda ideologically, with the same goals and methods used by the group. All of this before 9/11 and before their designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

By downplaying these key pieces of information the authors downplay the centrality of the Salafi version of Islam which is central to the worldwide Sunni jihad, and therefore downplay the role of traditional Islam itself in the violence.

For those of you who don't know what Salafism is, it often referred to as Wahabism, which is incorrect only in that Wahabis are a subset of Salafis. Very few traditional Muslims call themselves Wahabis, a lot think of themselves as Salafis or call themselves followers of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaat. Whatever they want to call themselves, all are followers of the earliest form of Islam and believe in emulating Muhammad's close circle of devotees-- the ones who were most responsible for Islam's sudden and bloody rise to the world stage.

If you can overlook the blame the U.S. tone of the narrative, the article does a decent job of illuminating the rise of the group from the periphery of the global jihad to one of the central constellations. When Europe is hit by al Qaeda again (yes, again, remember Madrid?), I give it a 50/50 chance that it will be by members of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

The other 50%? Supporters of the Islamic State of the Caucuses which I'm sure experts at the NY Times think is just another nationalist or regional insurgency.