my enemy’s enemy. Sharon Chadha has an interesting post up today about some inter-Jihadi squabbling between a radical cleric from Kuwait named Sheikh Hamid al-Ali, and the Al Qaeda in Iraq. (I’ve always questioned why we bother to add the “in Iraq” part. Isn’t Al Qaeda simply Al Qaeda? The Mcdonald’s down on the corner has a franchise owner, but its still a Mcdonald’s.) It’s here, and I suggest you take a read.

 Jihadist cleric says the Islamic State in Iraq is illegitimate

Sharon includes a bit from MEMRI where at least one of the Sheikh’s followers isn’t too happy about the red on red targeting, expressing concern about appearances. Says Sharon:

 I, for one, hope he’s right about this - that the media will exult about this “fitna” (dissent) in the jihadist corps - but I won’t hold my breath. I sometimes get the impression the mainstream media is almost as invested in the Americans losing as al Qaeda is.

Well I wouldn’t hold my breath either. It is interesting to know for certain, after we have always suspected, that the islamists are highly sensitive as to their appearance in the press, particularly as regards any show of dissent or disunity. Still, as The Freedom Fighter’s Journal points out, counting on red or red jihadi disagreement to save us from islamo-fascism and the global caliphate (or to make ourselves feel better about surrender on the battlefield in places like Iraq) is a hope in vain. 

First, no matter what happens inside Iraq, any US decision to withdraw will be celebrated as a victory by al Qaeda. Whatever way the spin doctors in Washington dress it up, bin Laden is certain to portray the pullout as another example of what he once described as the “low spiritual morale of the American fighters.” Al Qaeda, in other words, will be emboldened—even if it fails to set up a permanent safe haven or establish an Islamic theocracy. Most worryingly, the foreign fighters—now experienced and battle-hardened veterans of the “global jihad”—will soon turn up and cause trouble in other places, such as Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.

 FFJ is correct here as well. The continued, foolish belief, that the enemies of our enemies are our friends seems to be a hallmark of the West, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries.  Particularly in regards to the threat from Islamists, many of the rationalist, policy-making types, have presumed again and again that Sunnis can be played against Shiites, and the radicals can be played against the even more radical, when to all of those involved in the jihad the main target will always remain western civilization as a whole, from the Great Satan to the smallest european state.

 Update: Silly me. This post talking about efforts to split and undermine the Islamist movement, is the perfect opportunity to mention yet again, the vital importance of the “Islam against the Islamist” film, which is being censored and blacklisted. As Christine reported here a screening of the video was shown to congress members and their staff this week, as part of the effort to force the corporation for public broadcasting to either show the video, or release the rights for the film back to its producers, so that the film can be shown somewhere. Remember this film was produced with a PBS grant, which essentially means its US tax-payer property. The film screening was Wednesday, but there is still time to contact your representative or senator and tell them that you want this film released.

 http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/