“When you remove a leader of a terrorist group, lower level members rise to the top.” No kidding, really? When a leader of a jihad group is killed, he is replaced? How many years of research and analysis did it take, and how many degrees did he have to attain, for this genius to arrive at this conclusion?
Max Abrahms, who describes himself as “#Terrorism Theorist / Northeastern Prof / Council on Foreign Relations / Center for Cyber & Homeland Security,” is the quintessential establishment foreign policy analyst, a hack fronting policies that have failed again and again and again, and that Abrahms, and the establishment in general, don’t even realize have failed. He epitomizes the muddled thinking that dominates establishment foreign policy analysis today, and that desperately needs to be swept out and replaced. This is the “terrorism theorist” who has said, “When a leader of a militant group has been taken out, the group tends to become even more extreme” — which he repeats here with a slight variation. The subtext is that jihad leaders should not be killed, as doing so only makes jihadis angry. And now we also learn from this great mind that when jihad leaders are killed, others are likely to replace them.
Why are we losing the war against the forces of the global jihad? Because politically correct mediocrities such as Max Abrahms are looked to for expert analysis that they are abjectly incapable of delivering, as their primary operative credential is their determination to ignore and deny the jihadis’ motivating ideology.
Meanwhile, the Newsweek article from which the Abrahms quote is taken is no less moronic. We learn that “Adnani’s replacement could be as radical.” You don’t say! Surely the caliph was going to choose someone as moderate as the day is long for the job — no doubt he is dialing Zuhdi Jasser’s number even now! And Abrahms tells us that “in the case of the Islamic State, it’s hard to believe that Adnani’s replacement will be more extreme than he is.” How could he be? If Abrahms and other establishment analysts were to study the Qur’an and Sunnah, they would see that Adnani was just as extreme as his guiding texts were, no more no less, and could deduce that his replacement was likely to be also no more or less “extreme” and “radical” than those texts dictated. But they refuse to look at that data, and instead content themselves with Deep Thoughts such as “When you remove a leader of a terrorist group, lower level members rise to the top.” No wonder we’re in the fix we’re in.
“Does the Death of Abu Mohammad al-Adnani Spell the End for ISIS?,” by Jack Moore, Newsweek, August 31, 2016:
The Islamic State militant group (ISIS) announced the death of Abu Mohammad al-Adnani—its most prominent schemer, both abroad and online—via its official Amaq news agency late Tuesday. It said he was killed while “surveying operations to repel the military campaigns against Aleppo” in northern Syria.
While it remains unclear who killed Adnani, with Washington and Moscow issuing opposed claims of responsibility Wednesday, one would assume that the revelation would be detrimental to ISIS’s aim of presenting itself as an entity of superior military might.
Adnani, whose real name was Taha Sobhi Falaha, served as the group’s most important figure behind self-proclaimed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, acting as its chief propagandist and orchestrator of external operations—specifically, attack plans outside of ISIS territory in Iraq and Syria.
The operation that Adnani oversaw included different arms of foreign fighters who plotted atrocities in Europe, Asia and the Arab world. This internal secret service is now known as the Emni and may have had involvement in a series of attacks abroad, including the Paris attacks, the Brussels bombings and the Istanbul airport attack, which left hundreds dead.
As ISIS has continued to lose territory, Adnani had been at the forefront of ensuring that the group adapted to maintain its role as the flag-bearer of global jihad by remaining in news headlines around the world.
His death will deal a severe blow to the group’s operations and recruitment. But Adnani’s replacement could be as radical. Experts are clear that, while ISIS’s power is diminishing with the loss of key leaders, territory and revenue, it will continue unabated its violent campaign to hold onto its territory and to attack the West.
“When the leaders of terrorist groups are killed, the group tends to become more radical. A group in the immediate aftermath of leadership loss is more likely to direct its violence against civilian targets,” says Max Abrahms, professor of political science at Northeastern University and member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“When you remove a leader of a terrorist group, lower level members rise to the top and suddenly they are in power and that’s why the target selection of the group tends to change,” he continues. “However, in the case of the Islamic State, it’s hard to believe that Adnani’s replacement will be more extreme than he is.”…