Factional Strife--It's All The Rage

Although the body count may reach astronomical proportions and an all-too-high percentage of that may be comprised of bystanders of varying degrees of innocence having the bad luck to be caught in the crossfire, there is nothing quite so gratifying as seeing forces hostile to US interests turn their guns and mouths against each other. Wherever this happens it is in US tactical and even strategic interests to facilitate and encourage the process.

The technical term for this is organisational disruption. It is not nice. It is not tidy. It sure as hell ain't bloodless. But organisational disruption has one prime attraction--it works.

An outside entity such as the US cannot create intra-organisational conflict. Rarely can an outsider even foster rivalry between more or less aligned enemy entities. The disruptive rhetoric and inevitable violence must arise from reasons organic to the organisation(s).

The outsider can do something when internecine conflict emerges from the shadows of men's minds. The outsider can assure the messages of rivalry and conflict are disseminated and magnified. The outsider can do all in its power to assure that none intervene to stop the violence, end the hatred and restore good feelings among the survivors.

In Somalia there is violent conflict between two forms of Islamist ideology. The "moderates" of Sunni and Sufi orientation have or are aligning behind one time "extremist" Sheik Ahmed who is the geographic expression's new president. Opposing Ahmed and the others is the al-Shabab "extremist" militia.

Al-Shabab has made it clear that it will not stop shooting unless and until the African Union "peacekeepers" are withdrawn and a pure Sharia government installed. Al-Shabab, while not having done so with the issuing of a fatwa, apparently now considers its onetime chieftain, Sheik Ahmed, to have turned apostate.

Regrettably most of those killed in the recent recrudescence of violence have been bystanders. Even though this is the case--and will continue to be such--the uptick in intra-Islamist violence is an encouraging sign.

If no well-intentioned High Minded outsider interferes the internecine killing spells the last best hope for the Somalis to finally re-establish peace and some form of consensually accepted government after eighteen years of chaos. It is not without significance that the Sufis of Somalia, a not inconsiderable group, have stated a willingness to support Ahmed against al-Shabab. It is not without significance that Somali Sunni clans which have so far been less involved in actual fighting are now willing and ready to support Ahmed as having both a measure of existential legitimacy and the potential to restore peace without the use of outside "occupation" forces.

The significance of these switches from neutrality to active involvement lies in the reality that al-Shabab and its ilk will be opposed, gun for gun and bomb for bomb. Inevitably the body count will climb. Inevitably the High Minded will cry, "Humanitarian crisis!" and demand that the AU or the UN or even the US, "Do something!"

It is to be hoped that none of these, not the AU, not the UN, not the EU and certainly not the US (pace Susan Rice) will do anything more robust than the issuing of ritual statements deploring the violence and calling on all parties to stop the killing.

"Wait one, Geek! You are just too cold a dude. Think of all the innocent lives!"

But that is exactly what the Geek is doing.

It is difficult, not to say next to impossible, to impose peace from outside on a society which has degenerated into an ideologically driven bloodbath. Peace can only come from within the society. It can only raise its fragile head when and if the people of that society want it to.

Consider Iraq.

So far the body count in Iraq this year has run below that of Mexico. That's nineteen per day in the Republic to our south vice half that in "war torn" Iraq. The low level of killing in Iraq has occured despite the provincial elections and the annual Shia pilgrimage, which has attracted suicide bombers every year like a honey tree does bears.

Various experts attribute the outbreak of relative tranquility to various factors. There's the effect of the much maligned "surge" of the Bush Administration. Or, for those who prefer, the decision in Iran to limit support for its factions in Iraq. Others give the credit to the great improvement of the Iraqi national forces both military and police.

All of these played a role as did the growing political maturity of Maliki and others. There is a little noted but far more basic force at work in producing a peace-friendly environment in Iraq.

Increasingly over the past eighteen months, Iraqis, particularly young Iraqis, turned against both the endless round of killings, bombings, executions and the sectarian ideologues who drove them. Iraqis got sick, sore and tired of being afraid every minute of every day. They were not willing to continue to attempt to exist in an ocean of apprehension.

Young Iraqis wanted a life. They wanted a future. They wanted hope. Love. Peace.

Attendance at violence preaching mosques plummeted. Preachers of jihad, of extreme Islamism found only empty courtyards in front of them. Recruitment stalled. Jihadist groups factionated. Fell apart. Losses went unreplaced.

As the jihad lovers grew more desperate, resorting to such despicable and base recruitment efforts as rape to force the unwilling to don suicide vests, the Iraqi public turned increasingly to Maliki and his Peace and State Party as the recent elections demonstrated. The intolerant killers of Islamism were rejected last Valentine's day as young Iraqis openly flaunted the dictates of extreme Sharia.

Without people willing, ready, even eager to fight and die, the ideologues of sectarianism became powerless. Recent events in Iraq demonstrated that old Billy Sherman had a profound insight when he argued that people, any people, can be made so sick of war they repent of it.

Absent well-meant outside intervention the same road may--no, will--be traveled in Somalia. A generation of fear, of passion, of killing should be enough to assure that after one more exsanguinary effusion, the Somalis will recoil from war, from death, from fear. Even the Islamic fear inducing emphasis on hellfire can be outweighed by fatigue with fear in the here and now.

A lesser noticed development, a so far bloodless one, has received far less public notice, at least in the US, but has a far greater potential for facilitating US policy goals in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. A battle of polemics which started last year has escalated.

In case you've missed it, in November 2007 Sayyid Imam, an Egyptian cleric deeply involved in the creation of the organisations which ultimately gave rise to al-Qaeda, retracted from his earlier position. He is still an Islamist of the starkest sort. He still believes wholeheartedly in defensive jihad. But, he opposes al-Qaeda's theology of offensive jihad, particularly offensive jihad against the "far enemy" meaning the United States.

Sayyid Imam's first fusillade, Document of Right Guidance for Jihad Activity in Egypt and the World excoriated in general terms the way in which al-Qaeda (which was not specified in the document) had both undertaken and theologically justified offensive jihad. Aymin Al-Zawahiri returned fire with an elaborate justification for al-Qaeda's action which explicitly and forcefully rejected Imam's call for a jihadist ceasefire. The Egyptian medico also attacked Sayyid Imam as an agent of the US and Israel who had written his Document under Egyptian duress.

Now Sayyid Imam has fired a devastating counter-counterattack with a new book having the title Exposing the Exoneration. The word "exoneration" is in reference to the title of Zawahiri's polemic.

Imam tears into Zawahiri, bin Ladin, al-Qaeda and all others who seek to pursue and justify theologically offensive jihad in all its many forms. Imam uses two prongs of attack.

One is theological as is to be expected. He is an Islamist scholar and his rivals are Islamists and he is waging war for the hearts and minds of Islamists.

The second line of attack is surprising. It is not theological. It is pragmatic. Imam states categorically and repeatedly that al-Qaeda and its facsimiles do not have the "ability" to wage offensive jihad. More, he states, again categorically and repeatedly, that the pursuit of offensive jihad have been counterproductive, harmful to Muslims throughout the world. In short, bin Ladin and al-Qaeda destroyed two buildings and in response the US destroyed two Muslim countries.

Sayyid Imam compares bin Ladin to the antichrist as such is presented in the Quran. He also notes with a degree of sarcastic bitterness which beggars description that al-Qaeda and others like it have killed far more Muslims than have either the US or the "Zionist entity" over the course of sixty years.

The Obama Administration would be very well advised to do everything it can to very quietly promote the distribution of Sayyid Imam's message. It is a powerful tool for aiding the undercutting of both jihadist recruitment and jihadist organisational integrity.

Imam has presented an alternative to offensive jihad which will, if widely read by those of an Islamist orientation, provide a basis for argument against the preachings of bin Ladin and Al-Zawahiri and other proclaimers of offensive jihad. It is an opposing view offered by a man who not only has the necessary theological credibility but a background as an resolute Islamist who stands against the "apostate" regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

At the very least, young men sitting in a mosque arguing the views of Imam against those of Zawahiri are not planning suicide attacks. At the most, promoting the perspective of Imam might lay the foundation for severe organisational disruption within al-Qaeda and Taliban.

That prospect--even if it leads to internal killings--should make the world smile with pleasure.