In
a recent article in The Atlantic, the author Armin Rosen questions whether it's time to end our obsession with al Qaeda. At this
point in time, "al Qaeda can no longer inflict "catastrophic,
globally-oriented terror." What this really means is that the
chances of al Qaeda being able to attack the U.S. again on a 9/11 scale have
significantly diminished.
Most
interesting is the analysis that "al Qaeda has shifted from a hierarchy to
more of a network model -- in other words, the group has adapted and survived
in spite of the setbacks it's faced." As a debater, Bill Roggio, put
it, " "They may be at a low point...but that doesn't mean
they're defeated."
However,
while al Qaeda might not be entirely defeated, their abilities are severely
limited throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Ansar Dine, a militant,
Salafist group in northern Mali, with ties to al Qaeda, is imposing strict
shari'a law throughout its controlled territory. Yet there is no history of the
type of Islamic fundamentalism being imposed in Mali. Thus, the chances Ansar Dine will
be successful in imposing shari'a countrywide are quite slim, especially given international
plans for a military intervention in the coming months to stem the group’s
expansion.
1 comment:
I was really interested in this point, also mentioned in the Gladwell article that we read in preparation for the debate. We wanted to use it in our debate, as our team was arguing against the significance of networks...but it seemed like a difficult example to use because it seems difficult to say whether Al Qaeda's reduction in power is due to the loss of hierarchical structure, loss of a leader, or increasing "network" organization. Just hard to tell. But, nonetheless, interesting.
Post a Comment