The Significance of the Anwar al-Awlaki Killing – by Rusty Walker
The recent Predator strike against American-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki has more significance than many in the press have given it. Even accounts on al-Jazeera quickly dismiss any change in al Qaeda threat. Fair enough, we should all still be vigilant, but there is little attention given to the real U.S.war of disruption-as-strategy. The significance should not be underestimated- it is a process of attrition even in Cyberspace. The others killed in the strike, include Samir Khan. Al Qaeda’s loss of Khan, who was the creator and editor of AQAP’s English-language magazine, “Inspire Magazine” from their franchise in theArabian Peninsula, is another example of the successful strategy of disruption of terrorism, in stages. Cyber-jihad is as modern and effective in its own way, if not as bloody, as the Predator drone.
The Western culturally dynamic appeal of al-Awlaki is what made him more dangerous in recruiting than even some of those close to Osama Bin Laden. These Cyber-jihadist operatives were killed in the September 30 airstrike near Khashef inYemen’s al-Jawf province, reminding us thatPakistanis not the only target of the dreaded drones. TheU.S.unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) might well have included fixed-wing naval aircraft, as yet unverified. The “assassination,” as some have termed it, of al-Awlaki and Khan, despite press to the contrary should be a set-back to AQAP ability to spread their radical ideology to the English-speaking Islamic world.
It is agreed that on-the-ground terrorist operative capabilities are not compromised. But, it is the psychological Cyberspace war that is set-back whenever such key Internet jihadists are taken out. Anwar al-Awlaki was not just a spokesman for terrorism, but was a charismatic English-speaking voice of unusual charm and ability in recruiting youth to jihad. The term, “Rock Star” was used in a CNN coverage of al-Awlaki. He was becoming a folk-hero, if not an icon of American potential for conversion to extremism, and ultimately terrorism. FBI Director Robert Mueller informed Congress, “Awlaki was the leader of external operations,” FBI Director Mueller testified. “He had taken a lead role planning and directing attacks on the homeland.”
It should be remembered that the Christmas day bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab and theFortHoodgunman, Nidal Hasan were following inspirationand in Hasan’s case direction from Al-Awlaki. CNN sources cite e-mails going from Hasan to al-Awlaki. CNN reports, “Hasan asking al-Awlaki about martyrdom, about when jihad is permissible (about which al-Awlaki had written volumes), the death of innocent bystanders in attacks. And after the shootings, al-Awlaki was quick to praise them. In the Al Jazeera interview, he calls the shooting “a heroic action.”
(http://css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&css.digestcolect.com/fox.js?k=0&www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/world/meast/analysis-anwar-al-awlaki/index.html )
Those who oppose the use of drone strikes to kill hate-mongers like Awlaki should highlight their outrage for the scores of innocent civilians that have been killed due to the direct and explicit incitement of hatred and mass murder by the likes of him. Those who advocate drone strikes do not wish to harm any innocent civilians; innocent women and children are often used as human shields by these cowards.
Drones are meant to be discriminate strikes unlike the indiscriminate massacres and suicide attacks that are actively promoted, supported and preached by the Anwar Al-Awlakis of the world. They are a precise weapon against those who hide in areas where the writ or moral responsibility of any State does not extend to and from where they plan and preach mayhem across the planet.
The press stories of sacrificed blood and kidnapping rightfully are the major focus, and should be. But the art of persuasion and articulation of ideology must be remembered as a core element for those with a progressive voice of democracy and pluralism and reasonable dialogue to use. Al-Awlaki is cogent reminder that the Cyber-battle is used more often against us. FBI Director Mueller further stated, “The strike against its leadership, even a significant one, does not eliminate the potential for retaliation and other acts by AQAP.”
Okay, point taken, but in the battle of ideologies through al-Awlaki’s venue of online persuasion techniques, and glossy format, this was a substantial loss for the bad guys. As we are all witnessing, this war is increasingly being waged with attractively packaged DVDs, as well as on YouTube, Facebook, News blogs, in Groups, through the Worldwide Web, and is very much a part of the battle against terrorism.
LUBP’s fight for truth, is evidence of how just one online journal has caused distress among the purveyors of disinformation. In this way the media has become a central player. Indeed, Jihad is waged with inner struggle, physical struggle, and words. The “Jihad recollections,” and the Arabic language magazine Sada al-Malahim, “Echo of Battle,” published essays proselytizing militant rhetoric and pragmatic methodology proudly shows readers that anyone can be a terrorist. Khan’s “Inspire Magazine” was a vision of AQAP leader Nasir al-Wahayshi, aka Abu Basir, appealing to impressionable youth. It illustrated the essential availability of the homegrown, homeschooled jihadist. Several years ago, Al-Wahayshi published the “leaderless-resistance” concept, that subsequent lone wolf and small group operatives might very well be traced back to.
Inspire Magazine contains an article suggesting a deep awareness of this concept: AQAP Nasir al-Wahayshi, is quoted in the “Media Conflict” as stating that “media work is half of the jihad.” Unfortunately, some people believe almost any conspiracy theory on a link online. In this world of visual stimulus, the more glamorous the format, the more truthful and factual the information seems to be for those without the time or inclination to challenge unsubstantiated claims. This makes the Internet all the more appealing for cyber-jihad. As evidenced by the communications one can see online between groups from such diverse regions as Yemen, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Chechnya and Bosnian jihadists, militants find each other, and have made wider use of technology online than perhaps our forces against them.
There is no question that Internet savvy replacements will be forthcoming, as in the past. Other self-proclaimed imams, whether Yemeni-American or from somewhere else will emerge, but each hit on a talented vocal-combatant increases internal paranoia within al Qaeda, and further disruption for these Wahhabi Web-warriors. Great communicators with sufficient jihadist credentials are not easy to find. Noteworthy, is that fact that the 2010 killing in Yemen of AQAP’s Arabic-language proponent, Nayf bin Mohammed al-Qahtani, and the founder of Sada al-Malahim and Malahim media, completely interrupted its subsequent online editions. Gone were the regular postings that were occuring every two months from its inception in 2008 to February 2011- no further editions have been forthcoming. This is progress.
No one is claiming that these effective strikes against cyber warriors will substantially change terrorist strikes in general. But, there is far too much dismissal of, for example, the bin Laden killing when it happened, and disparaging of the al-Awlaki and Khan hit, that, to use a pun, is off the mark.
Those that rush to diminish the significance of al-Awlaki’s death are only unwittingly assisting the propaganda from the terrorist themselves. From Cyber worms lodged inIran’s nuclear system, to simply taking down websites, show the extent to which we are involved in, and the importance of, the Internet technology al-Awlaki utilized, but also the effectiveness of a talented jihadist voice. RecentlyPakistanofficials have been even suggesting closing down Facebook; taking a page out of the Chinese solution for dealing with redress of the government. But, closing down websites accomplishes little. The Internet is wide open, and clever IT technicians find ways around any censoring device. In today’s world you cannot close the public to bad or good ideas Suppressing information is no substitute for effectively articulating our own ideology.
This successful pinpoint operation has shown that Predator drones are making a difference in selective targeting of terrorists, even the voices of terrorism. Suicide bombers and lone shooters inspired by al-Awlaki and Khan’s Internet skills have no regard for innocent lives; they deserved to give up theirs. In the war against physical and cyber targets this successful operation is a definitive sign of progress sorely needed.
I just offered a thanking prayer (Namaz Shukrana) that this world is free of such a tyrant.
All true Muslims must be thankful to God on killing of each terrorist and extremist. Tyrants are God’s enemy.
Thank you, yes, Hammad,Insha’Allah!
I was surprised recently that a very decent top banking executive was inspired by AlAwlaki. These guys are contagious.
Thanks Rusty for the contribution
A U.S. citizen, degenerate though he was, had been targeted for execution without due process. He was never tried or charged for any crimes in a court of law. The US president has been handed a broad power to kill Americans abroad. Why can’t there be a mechanism in which a judge reviews the evidence and signs off on the decision to target a suspect who’s a citizen?
“The US president has been handed a broad power to kill Americans abroad”- Anwar al-Awlaki was not a “suspect” of a crime- Although U.S. lawyers in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, actually became part of the process of this decision behind the scenes, Awlaki was not a suspect of any American crime, or criminal charge on American soil against American laws; otherwise this would be an FBI, police or detective matter.
Awlaki was known to have been involved in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and direct evidence is clear (I have outlined above in the article), and reveals he posed a significant threat to Americans.
Whether American citizen or not, joining an enemy force deprives the person of a citizen’s due process rights in the asymmetrical war on terror. Lawyers, judges and courts, and court-martials do not belong on the battlefield, and have never been a part of war decisions with traitors, whether carrying a weapon or not, and Alwaki was known to be dangerous to American citizens.
That said, there still was secret legal analysis that went on with the military and involved attorneys in this, and similar instances, including many other war decisions concerning risk-factors, and legalities associated many decisions in the field, for example, with Predator attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s Waziristan, as well. No one is suggesting that in every instance antiterrorist operations always are on the outside of the rule of law. But, over-use of criminal proceedings in a war is simply, well, over-kill.
By the way, respectful, intelligent opposing views are welcome.
I will not tolerate personal insults to me or hate-speech directed towards me. Both are unproductive and disrespectful. There are enough haters in the world. It is cowardly to hurl insults my way in the safe environment of your anonymity.
I n standing guard against the jew I am defending the handiwork of Lord:::: Adolf Hitler in his famous book Mein Keimf
Its coward to defend brutal drone children killing strikes. Go to FATA and tell them these are legal if you are brave
Drones are killing terrorists combatants in FATA, not children. Many tribal leaders I have talked to, confirm that the US drones are killing Taleban that have threatened them for the last decade and murderded their tribal leaders, and taken over tribal lands. Not to mention the terrorizing of Shiite and other minorities by Salafist jihadists.
Do you approve drone strike by UK on Boston to hit an Irish suspect , with his family
So far 168 children have been killed through drone strikes. What if your child would be killed through UK drone strike on Boston, targeting an Irish terrorist, will you approve it?
Statistics in your Pakistan “no man’s land” have never been ble to be verified even by your own military, who stay clear of the region. Therefore, your figure of 168 children is biased, untrue, and misguided at best, at worse, it is an intentional distortion and disengenuous, so you can demonize your enemy (the U.S. who happen to currently be your ally). No one has clear numbers, so, there is no doubt your numbers are no better than amateur and bias speculation.
Further, the figures are regularly inflated by pro-terrorists and anti- Americans such as yourself, on a regular basis. Such myth-making is counter-productive. The drones kill combatants, because your Pak Army will not do the job.
You avoided the Boston attack question? If your child dies in such an attack against an IRA combatant , what would be your feeling? You yourself say statistics are unclear. How you know combatants are killed and no collateral damage and no wrong targets (e.g group of scavenger ladies in Afghanistan in Sep 12) has ever happended. Just for moment think your son is dead in Boston strike by UK, your comments?
You said my statistics were ” biased, untrue, and misguided at best, at worse, it is an intentional distortion and disengenuous, so you can demonize your enemy “. Can you stick to your words?
Ok let me give the source. Its Daily Telegraph research report my friend. the link is http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8695679/168-children-killed-in-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-start-of-campaign.html
by Rob Cirly. Research headed by Chris Woods.
Now what do you say regarding my statistics?
Research available at http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/11/more-than-160-children-killed-in-us-strikes/. Please tell Mr Chris Woods and his investigative team not to be biased, untrue, misguided and demonizing USA. Dont give me lectures on biased and untrue data. Learn to participate in blog or leave this
Your links do not change the fact that we DO NOT have clear OBJECTIVE, and VERIFIABLE numbers. The consensus is that the numbers are unknown due to either bias, or lack of verifiable scientific on-the-ground evidence.
I believe that even one civilian that is killed by “collateral damage” is a catastrophic ordeal, and mourn the loss. In past wars, civilian casualties were far greater. They are always a tragedy, and US commanders understand that, and use precision drones to avoid it.
The mass bombing of cities in wars of the past were far less concerned than they should have been. Even more recently, I believe, as I am sure you do, the the “Shock and Awe” of Bush invading Iraq was an egregious mistake.
We will never agree. I am through debating a lost cause with you. You do not know me.
I have great sympathy for those non-combatants killed, even those not related to me. In point of fact, my only brother (50) and his daughter, my niece (19) were murdered, so you do not know the depth of my understanding of grief, and tragic deaths.
Do you approve drone attacks on Boston Irish?
“Dont give me lectures on biased and untrue data. Learn to participate in blog or leave this”
Don’t lecture me, and I am not interested in your opinions, so, participation or not, is up to me, not you.
I will not particiate with those such as yourself that cannot get over their own self-importance.
So you have double standards. IRA terrorist cant be droned. And a stupid body count method which counts every military age male as combatant in a target mud hut is acceptable to you. This is not allowed by any law what CIA claims. The claim is every male in a mud hut being hit by drones are combatants. This is a serious issue. To prove that you were not combatant , after your death in a drone, you have be forward credible evidence to CIA. Then you could be counted as a collateral damage. All this is so shameful. Isnt it? For further details please refer to http://www.propublica.org/article/dissecting-obamas-standard-on-drone-strike-deaths
“The report, entitled “ Living Under Drones ” presents chilling first-hand testimony from Pakistani civilians on the humanitarian and security costs of escalating drone attacks by the United States. The report uncovers civilian deaths, and shocking psychological and social damage to whole families and communities – where people are literally scared to leave their homes because of drones flying overhead”. It appears that Rusty is actually a machine who has no emotions or sympathy with killed children, women and civilians, Its a real shame
I feel supporting drone attacks is inhuman. Only a beast can slaughter a family without legal procedure. WE have seen such beasts active in Afghan villages, in 80s these were Russian idiots and now US beasts
Stanford uni research already proved that Rusty Walker is totally wrong