JOURNAL: Governance of the Wilderness

During the recent mass arrests of "insurgents" in Saudi Arabia, a new book by Sheik Abu-Bakar al Naji (al Qaeda's lead warfare theorist), Governance of the Wilderness (Edarat al-Wahsh), was found in safe houses. It appears, both to me and the many readers that sent me news of this, that al Qaeda's theory is edging ever closer to Global Guerrilla thinking (the optimal approach for small group warfare/global insurgency). Amir Taheri has an excellent review of the book at the Post. Salient points include:

• System disruption. "countless small operations" that "target oilfields, sea and airports, tourist facilities and especially banking and financial services" to weaken the state and create a "wilderness."
  
• Temporary autonomous zones and primary loyalties "Islamists in the 'wilderness' must create parallel societies alongside existing ones."
  
• Avoid control of a state don't "set up formal governments, which would be subject to economic pressure or military attack."
  

Comments

[rick]

This kind of material will provide ammunition to the "nuke 'em first" crowd. It also seems to be a little too late, though. If our economy slides into a depression the 'wilderness' will already be here. And, w/ the new Supreme Court ruling on gun possession, and the current fear mongering, I expect domestic gun sales to rise. Further, I suspect that people here would become/already are xenophobic, and would wipe out the US muslim community with little provocation, especially by our own, well armed, home grown religious fanatics - given their own general intolerance of almost anything.

[AE]

It looks like a refinement of al-Suri's theories: http://insurgencyresearchgroup.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/al-qaeda-al-suri-insurgency-doctrine/

Given that the jihadists have cited and footnoted 4GW/netwar people like Arquilla and Ronfeldt, Lind, and Hammes, it wouldn't be surprising if the focus on TAZ may be a reflection of your influence among the black-turban crowd, John.

[Charles Cameron (hipbone)]

I wish we had a more detailed overview of this material from Brynjar Lia, Jamestown or the CTC -- I'm particularly interested to know what Naji's "five circles" are.

[shloky]

Traditional terror 'experts' who concern themselves with translations and languages say Taheri translated Edarat al-Wahsh as "Governance in the Wilderness,” but when they found it in 2006, it was translated as "Management of Savagery." It's the same text.

Full translation here:
http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/olin/images/Management%20of%20Savagery%20-%2005-23-2006.pdf

[Erik]

Is the new version (if indeed it is the same text as the 2006 "Management of Savagery" text) available for examination somewhere?

@John: I wonder if there isn't also an attempt on the part of AQ tacticians here to co-opt members of groups like Hezbollah - groups that have been creating parallel structures of social support and defense, and which would probably love to take over the state but have been unsuccessful in doing so: an argument that, in essence, says, keep doing what you are already doing, but coordinate with other groups like ours to make it all come crashing down.

Given the incapacity to focus on a transition from violence to politics of any sort, however, I wonder how appealing such a text would be beyond the confines of the already committed jihadi movements.

[ajanders]

I can see I will be reading "Management of Savagery" over the next few days.
A question for the group, however.
I had understood that Al-Qaeda's ultimate strategic goal was the recreation of the caliphate.
Hamas and the PLO have the strategic goals of re-establishing (or establishing) a Palestinian state.
How does this happen if you avoid creating a formal government, focusing instead on creating the wilderness?

I would think this would be of limited use to the "jihadi movements": the power of jihad is that it's conceived of as violence with a righteous goal. Running around terrorizing people is only jihad if it leads towards building the umma, which is a community: it consists of people with common interests (which outside parties could affect) and leaders (which outside parties can influence).

I will be carefully reading the Management of Savagery to see if I've misinterpreted anything. In the meantime, does anyone see a flaw in my thinking?