Xark!

STRAFOR on al Qaeda

An interesting update from the analysts at STRAFOR on the record pace of al Qaeda video releases in 2006 (excerpts are cut-and-pasted from a longer piece... you can sign up to recieve these reports here):

These volumes likely stem at least in part from changes in the way al Qaeda chooses to broadcast its statements to the world. Whereas it once took the considerable risks of smuggling tapes to commercial broadcasters such as Al Jazeera, it now is uploading its own statements directly to the Web. These methods give the organization greater control over when -- and how much of -- its statements reach the public...

Tellingly, it is not only the quantity of messages being produced by as-Sahab that is rising, but the quality as well. As-Sahab is using professional-grade gear and studio-quality lighting for its productions. Even in-the-field footage captured in places like Afghanistan and Egypt displays a professional level of post-production editing, crisp graphics and, quite often, added subtitles in a second language. As any comparison to popular clips at sites like YouTube or MySpace will show, as-Sahab videos are not being produced by an amateur at home using a personal computer and a cheap camcorder...

Both the numbers and the quality of the recordings being issued by al Qaeda's apex leadership this year can be read as an indication of a growing comfort level. The atmosphere is very different now than, for example, in 2002, when the organization's sanctuary in Afghanistan had been newly disrupted and key figures were scattered, seeking new places of safety. At this point, al Qaeda's leaders appear to feel safe and believe that issuing greater volumes of recordings will not compromise their hiding places...

The quality of the video messages speaks to something else as well. When posted to the Internet, the files are very large -- so clearly, whoever is doing so has a high-speed Internet connection. The general principle is that the longer an upload takes, the greater the exposure of, and risk to, the person doing the uploading. Also, because these files often are encoded in a number of formats, with varying file sizes and quality, as-Sahab technicians clearly are uploading numerous files with each video release. The risks incurred increase every time they do so...

The obvious conclusion is that al Qaeda not only has high-speed Internet connections, but competent, clandestine IT support as well...

In the months following our attack on Afghanistan, al Qaeda appeared to be surviving by reverting to stone-age solutions like hand-delivered communications and inhospitable hideouts. They weren't defeated, but their operational abilities were severely degraded.

Al Qaeda's re-emergence as a user of 21st century technology suggests two things: They're feeling more confident, and they're playing on high-tech turf where we have certain advantages.

Is this good news, or bad? Who knows? But STRATFOR's analysis suggests the situation has changed in some fundamental ways.

To clarify: This is not WWII

Time out.

This is not 1939.

President Bush is not Winston Churchill.

Our Islamist enemies are not Adolph Hitler.

Your political critics are not Neville Chamberlain.

You are not Audie Murphy, or Ike, or Ernie Pyle.

There was only one "Greatest Generation," and the rest of us don't get to play rhetorical piggyback on their story. 

This is not the eve of World War II, even though some of us clearly wish it were, conveniently forgetting the horror and devastation caused by "The Good War." Viewed across a gulf of more than 60 years, it all seems rather cinematic now -- archetypal, clean -- and our tendency to find parallels to its storylines is understandable. World War II shaped our modern military, vaulted the United States into the role of superpower and reinvented our sense of national identity and purpose. It was our defining moment in the 20th century, and we yearn for its clarity.

We miss the black-and-white moral choices of that conflict,  the obvious targets, the stand-up fights against a uniformed enemy.  We want its mantle, its righteous cause, its sense of shared sacrifice (not the actual sacrifices, mind you, but the sense of them). We want the blessings of history, the trappings of heroism.

This isn't that.

It's been said that the longer an argument goes, the likelihood that somebody will invoke Hitler approaches zero. Considering that we've been fighting the War on Terror longer than our grandparents fought the Axis, I suppose this current obsession with WWII was inevitable. But we need to resist it.

"Refighting the last war" is a classic military blunder, an occupational hazard for generals. It's worth remembering that this is also true for armchair generals.  Success demands that we recognize the reality now, and confront it with tools that match the job.

Comparisons of our current troubles to those of 1939 are comforting to some and profitable to others. But the blessings of history will be on those who see things as they are, not as they once were.