Al Qaeda's Next Move??

What is Al Qaeda’s Next Move?
By Daniel G. Jennings
As the fourth summer of the War on Terror begins many of us are asking what will the next move of America’s principal enemy: the organization called Al Qaeda be? Or more precisely when and where will Al Qaeda attack next and what weapons and tactics will it use?
To answer this question we must look at where Al Qaeda stands today and what its options are. Al Qaeda is an organization that has achieved some of its goals but seen its basic strategy fail. Al Qaeda achieved two of its’ goals on Sept. 11, it succeeded in attacking the USA and killing large numbers of Americans on US soil. The organization also succeeded in its goal of provoking a major American military offensive against the Islamic world. The strategy behind these attacks to ignite a general war between Islam and the Middle East that would destroy existing governments paving the way for Bin Laden and his followers to form a new Islamic government or Caliphate that would organize a new Islamic empire. Al Qaeda would gain credibility by engaging the United States in a long and bloody guerrilla war that would sap western strength similar to the war Russia waged in Afghanistan. In particular, Al Qaeda wanted to fight a major guerrilla war against the US in the remote mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan where guerrilla fighters would have the advantage.
This strategy has backfired, the US was able to overrun Afghanistan and Al Qaeda’s principal base by turning Al Qaeda’s allies against it. The US wisely chose not to go into Pakistan which could have to led to war with Pakistan’s crack army and drawn in India. There was no prolonged guerrilla campaign in the mountains and thousands of American deaths. Nor was Al Qaeda able to mount any more attacks on the US. Instead the US has been able to increase its influence in the Arab world by invading Iraq. There is a major guerrilla war being waged in Iraq but the terrain of Iraq gives America the advantage because the US can bring all of its weapons and firepower to bear in that country.
Al Qaeda has achieved some successes, its’ principal leaders have managed to escape and the organization has been able to launch new attacks in Afghanistan and in Europe. More importantly, Al Qaeda has been able to inject itself into the Iraq war and stage attacks on US forces in that nation.
The question is what does Al Qaeda do now? Obviously I can’t read Bin Laden’s mind but I can use my imagination to postulate some of the terror mastermind’s possible moves. These moves will be limited by Al Qaeda’s resources which appear to be limited and by the effectiveness of the United States and other countries. Our intelligence agencies and military haven’t been able to bag Bin Laden but they have thwarted his plans and will continue to do so.
If I were Bin Laden my priority would be to expand the guerrilla war now raging in Iraq as widely as possible. Suicide bombers, kidnappings, public executions, mass killings and improvised explosive devices have proven potent weapons in Iraq. So Al Qaeda’s next move should be to try and utilize these successful tactics elsewhere.
Al Qaeda already appears to be doing this in Afghanistan. Where bombs have killed a number of American soldiers. If I were Bin Laden I’d launch a series of suicide attacks and bombings aimed at American and allied forces in Afghanistan and their support bases in Central Asia. In particular I’d take advantage of the recent unrest in Uzbekistan by launching a major attack or series of attacks on American bases in that country.
Next, I’d launch a major new offensive in Pakistan and Pakistan’s neighbor, India. The principal target would be Pakistan’s government which is nominally pro American. The goal here would be to get a Pakistani Civil War going a war that would split the nation’s security forces and military and end their effectiveness as a lid on Al Qaeda. Exploiting Pakistan’s major ethnic divisions would heat up this situation. It might give Al Qaeda access to thousands of highly trained Pakistani soldiers and Pakistan’s large arsenal of modern weapons which includes some nuclear bombs.
The long term goal of this strategy would be to force the United States to conduct major military operations in Pakistan. This would inflame Islamic public opinion because it would appear as another American invasion of a Muslim country. It’d be a public relations nightmare, the USA turning on one of its few Islamic allies.
Diverting troops to Pakistan would put a strain on America’s already overextended military. Since the military operations would be conducted in mountainous terrain Al Qaeda would have an advantage because many high tech weapons would be useless there. This would weaken American forces in Iraq because many of America’s best soldiers such as the Green Berets, Rangers, Navy SEALS and Delta Force and the British SAS and Commandos would be diverted to Pakistan. If Al Qaeda could kill large numbers of these soldiers who are expensive to train, equip and deploy they could do serious damage to our war effort. These soldiers and their supplies would have to be moved in by helicopters which are vulnerable to shoulder mounted missiles. The mountainous train of northern Pakistan would limit the use of tanks and artillery and the effectiveness of air support leaving the soldiers to fight hand to hand.
Battles in Pakistan could also split the antiterrorist alliance European nations like Germany and France have been willing to aid the US war on Afghan tribesmen. These countries could easily balk at fighting highly trained Pakistani soldiers with modern weaponry.
To force America into Pakistan Bin Laden would have to galvanize American opinion on behalf of such an offensive. The best way to do this would be another major terror attack on the United States that’d kill a lot of Americans.
What would such an attack look like? Probably a major bombing or series of bombings involving conventional explosives like the train bombings in Madrid. Al Qaeda operatives in the country would buy or steal explosives then set them off in public places like train stations, subways, an amusement park or mall. This would kill and injure large numbers of people and inflame American public opinion in favor of the war. Remember Al Qaeda wants the US war against extreme Islam to continue because it justifies Al Qaeda’s existence and serves as a rallying cry.
A secondary tactic might be to use explosive or incendiary liquid or gas such as propane or gasoline both of which are moved in tank trucks to create a massive firestorm in the middle of a major city. There is also a possibility of repeating Sept. 11, by hijacking or stealing airplanes and flying them into a city. Since hijacking passenger liners would be impossible Al Qaeda would have to find another way onto the planes. Possibly by stealing one from an airport. One disturbing possibility presents itself here what if Al Qaeda were to steal military aircraft, say a helicopter gunship, fighter plane or fighter bomber and use it to attack an American city? Then finish up by ramming the aircraft into a building?
Despite all the hype about it, an attack with weapons of mass destruction is unlikely. History has proven that gas and germs aren’t very effective weapons. The gas attack in the Tokyo subway only resulted in a few casualties, the anthrax attacks in a handful of deaths. A nuclear bomb would do incredible damage but it’s unlikely that Al Qaeda can lay its’ hands upon a nuke. As for a dirty bomb well it would take vast amounts of money and resources to smuggle radioactive material in the US. The same money and resources could be used to procure explosives or inflammable materials that right here in America that would do far more damage.
In addition to the US, Al Qaeda must carry out more attacks in Europe, particularly in countries closely allied with the US. Britain is particularly vulnerable the nation’s leadership is behind America but the British people have their doubts about the war. A large scale terrorist attack on London that would kill a lot of Britons could push Britain out of the war. In Eastern Europe terror attacks could undermine the close relationship between the US and the emerging democracies there. In Italy where popular support for the war is weak, terror attacks could drive Prime Minister Berlusconi to abandon his support for the US.
Beyond Europe it would be in Al Qaeda’s advantage to stage new terror attacks in other Middle Eastern Countries such as Egypt. This would weaken local governments and could generate unrest in those countries.
A wise move on Al Qaeda’s part would be to launch a major offensive against the oil facilities in the Middle East. To bomb the pipelines, refineries, tanker ports, oil rigs and oil fields and to start killing large numbers of oil workers Westerners in particular, especially in Saudi Arabia. This would drive up the price of oil and force the United States to deploy military forces to protect the oil fields, this would inflame Islamic opinion against the US. It might be a wise move for Al Qaeda to redeploy most of its fighters in Iraq to other Middle Eastern Countries particularly oil rich ones. Driving up the price of oil would hurt the US economy and increase demands for an American pull out.
In conjunction with an offensive against the oil fields would be a major attack upon the State of Israel. This would give Al Qaeda legitimacy in the Islamic world and among Anti-Semites, leftists and the media. It might also provoke Israeli attacks on other countries that would increase support for Al Qaeda.
The major thing in our advantage here is AL Qaeda’s resources in manpower, money and technology which appear to be limited. These limited resources have kept Al Qaeda from launching a widespread offensive that could turn the War on Terror into an all out conflict. The danger is that Al Qaeda might have somehow procured those resources in the years since Sept. 11.
Even if Al Qaeda doesn’t have these resources it will have to make such audacious moves in order to retain its reputation as a major terrorist organization. So the question will not be will Al Qaeda make such moves but what the extent of those moves will be.