Is Algeria Next?
On January 16 Islamic militants staged an audacious attack on a major natural gas complex in southeastern Algeria, 800 miles southeast from the capital. A jihadist group calling itself the Masked Brigade—led by Moktar Belmoktar, the fierce one-eyed veteran of the Afghan war and a senior commander of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)—claimed responsibility for the raid on the In Amenas gas facility near the Libyan border. Dozens of foreign hostages were taken, including at least seven Americans, as well as workers from Britain, Ireland, Norway, Japan, and other countries.
On January 17 government forces launched an operation to retake the facility. On January 18 the crisis was still continuing. Some hostages have been freed but an unknown number of others were reported killed, either by their captors or by the Algerian army fire. There has been some dismay in Western capitals over the speed and ferocity of the authorities’ response. The Algerian government strongly defended its action. “Those who think we will negotiate with terrorists are delusional,” said Mohamed Said Belaid, Algeria's communications minister. “Those who think we will surrender to their blackmail are delusional.” The assessment seems right: allowing the attackers to escape to Libya with the hostages, or settling in for a long siege, was exactly what the Masked Brigade leaders would have hoped for.
The raid on In Amenas is the most significant military event in North Africa since the end of operations in Libya in October 2011. It was more sophisticated than the attack which killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi last September 11. Its implications are far more momentous than the escalating jihadist insurgency in the landlocked and dirt-poor Mali, bordering Algeria to the south.
Western media reports have taken scant notice of the proximity of the Libyan border to In Amenas, which is a significant omission. It now seems certain that the attackers came from a stronghold in Libya, across the unguarded desert. If this is confirmed, the attack would provide further evidence that the NATO-led war—in addition to plunging Libya into chaos—has given a boost to jihadist activity in the region. It has also enabled the militants to amass a substantial arsenal of modern weaponry: Belmokhtar’s faction is known to have commandeered vast quantities of weapons from Libyan military stockpiles at the end of the war. AQIM fighters are well poised to try destabilizing Algeria again, now that they have established a cross-border sanctuary which was denied them by Qaddafy.
AQIM was formed in 2007 by veterans of two Algerian groups that fought the government during the fierce civil war in the 1990’s, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group. It is one of the jihadist network’s biggest, richest and most heavily armed subsidiaries. Its “Masked Brigade” is said to have carried out the attack in retaliation for Algeria’s agreement to let France use its air space to supply French forces battling Islamic militants in Mali, but the assumption is too optimistic. It would have been impossible to plan such a complex operation barely a week since the beginning of the French operation in Mali. The attack must have been planned well in advance of the French military involvement, with the air space issue providing a misleading pretext which the Western media have been all to willing to accept at face value.
The Algerian extremists have bigger fish to fry. Their wider objective is to reignite the Islamic insurgency in Algeria, which the secularist government successfully suppressed over a decade ago. The authorities officially lifted the 19-year-old state of emergency in February 2011, just before the “Arab Spring” spread to Libya.
The jihadists’ new strategy may be gleaned from the fact that the assault on In Amenas is their first major attack ever on an Algerian hydrocarbon installation. Algeria is the third-largest gas supplier to Europe and one of the world’s biggest producers of liquefied natural gas. Well aware of the importance of energy revenues the rebels refrained from attacking production facilities in the 1990’s, hoping to reap the benefits after an eventual regime change. Targeting such facilities now indicates that they are smarting for a new, long fight. They are initially aiming to destroy Algeria’s image as a safe location for foreign oil and gas companies to invest and operate. In the long run they are hoping to make Algeria the next domino.
The effects of the attack were felt immediately. Snam Rete, which operates the Italian gas network, announced on January 17 that volumes of gas pumped into Italy from Algeria through a vital trans-Mediterranean pipeline had fallen from over 70 million cubic meters a day (mcm/d) to just over 60 million—a drop of 15% at a time of peak consumption.
The implications of a renewed conflict in Algeria for European energy security are immense. If similar attacks spread to the scantily protected oil and gas fields in southwest Libya, which has no effective military force controlled by the government in Tripoli, the consequences would be potentially disastrous for the consumers in Italy, France, and points further north. Algeria is the third-largest supplier of gas into the European Union (after Russia and Norway), and In Amenas’ output alone covers two per cent of total European demand, accounting for 18 per cent of Algeria’s gas exports and earning $4 billion a year in export revenues.
Russia’s Gazprom may step in to make up the shortfall, as it did in 2011 when the war in Libya brought its gas exports to an abrupt halt, but an important consequence may be to draw Europe and the United States apart on the key issue of energy politics. An ever-greater reliance on Russia’s gas runs counter to the U.S. strategy of nudging Europeans to diversify their supplies by increasing deliveries from majority-Muslim countries. Most Europeans are lukewarm about the stalled Nabucco pipeline, which has been strongly favored by the U.S., and their misgivings are bound to be reinforced by the latest developments across the Mediterranean.
The latest crisis is the direct consequence of the ill-advised, unnecessary, and self-defeating NATO intervention in Libya. It is but another reminder that Western interventionism in the Muslim world is a form of psychosis which harms the interests of the intervening powers, brings nothing but misery to the targeted lands and peoples, and benefits only the darkest enemies of civilization in today’s world.
Entries(RSS)
A slightly aside aforethought: I remember vaguely how as a kid growing up in the 1990s, there were news sound bytes which spoke of the fight against "islamic fundamentalism" in Algeria. I can now clearly see how contemporary jihad was, by and large, unfamiliar to most western people, perhaps mainly because mass Muslim immigration to Europe had yet then to take off? Yet the main point I was trying to make is that whilst we got really bare coverage on the war between the Algerian government and islamist rebels, I still remember (as though I am seeing it right now) the literally DAILY onslaught of reports we were getting from Bosnia, for the best part part of 3 years!! I was truly gobbsmacked when, about 2 years ago now I decided to use the internet (as you do) to do some research on one of these earliest conflicts with contemporary Muslim terrorism, whereupon I saw that the total death toll, throughout the first main ten year period - was 250 000!! To now say that was the result of a counterinsurgency would most certainly be gratuitous, yet in most recent Yugoslav civil war not even a grand a total of 100 000 fatalities was reached, on all sides.
And then (by some curious motion of fate) I began to research the maverick anti communist policies and life of Zaire's Mbutu, only to become even more dumbfounded than in the case of Algeria. Because the break up of old Zaire and the subsequent chaos which ensued, also occurred at around the same time as the Yugoslav civil war. It transpires Rwanda was but a media "diversion" and subsequent microcosm of the the total amount of fatalities reached in the thick of the explosion of the whole of central Africa - 5 million!!! Yet as in Algeria, the mass media only really paid lip service to this "prime time" apocalypse that unfolded in Sub Sahara. Mind blowing inconsistency is not the phrase! Yet it serves as further proof about the paradigm change in global affairs post "Desert Storm" and the collapse of the USSR where, amongst other things, news narratives overtook the importance (and egregiously so at that) of actual substance of news. After all it helped produce the desired effect in legitimising what would during even the latter days of the Cold War, be regarded as arrogant, arbitrarily imposed economic sanctions (then followed relatively swiftly by "no fly zone" and "humanitarian interventions").
Nobody can accuse you of never drawing a long bow, Dr. Trifkovic. "The latest crisis is the direct consequence of the ill-advised, unnecessary, and self-defeating NATO intervention in Libya".
What!?
There was no NATO intervention in Tunisia, where all this started (or the popular opinion would have it).
There was no NATO intervention in the Bahrain, Egypt or Syria - events that dominoed from Tunisia (or so the popular opinion would have it).
To argue that an irregular bunch of bandits storming an Algerian gas plant is NATO's fault is absurd.
Mr. Dorman,
You submit an "interesting" line of argument. First, you cite Dr. Trifkovic's quote which links NATO's self-defeating intervention in Libya with the most recent events in Algeria, links which Dr. Trifkovic demonstrates with numerous facts in the article from which you take the quote; then, you call his conclusion absurd because those same links are not associated with Tunisia, with Bahrain or with Egypt, links which Dr. Trifkovic has not asserted to be relevant pursuant to the actions this week. From Libya, where if Kadadi were still in power no "
"bunch of bandits" would be operating to disturb the peace with his neighbors, at an installation just across the border. That is not the drawing of a long bow; it is a pretty short and sure shoot.
John Dorman: Your rambling and ignorant comments should also be addressed to The New York Times
("Jihadists’ Surge in North Africa Reveals Grim Side of Arab Spring" by Robert F. Worth, January 19): "As the uprising closed in around him, the Libyan dictator Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi warned that if he fell, chaos and holy war would overtake North Africa... Both the hostage crisis in Algeria and the battle raging in Mali are consequences of the fall of Colonel Qaddafi in 2011... He acted as a lid, keeping volatile elements repressed. Once that lid was removed, and the borders that had been enforced by powerful governments became more porous, there was greater freedom for various groups — whether rebels, jihadists or criminals — to join up and make common cause..." The NYT out-Trifkovicing Trifkovic, a day after my piece was posted.
Also The Independent (headline "Algeria hostage crisis: grim news that can be traced to the ‘triumphant’ removal of Gaddafi -- Gaddafi’s overthrow broke all kinds of local ethnic, tribal and commercial bargains and power-broking arrangements that we never understood"). Long bows all over the place...
" It is but another reminder that Western interventionism in the Muslim world is a form of psychosis which harms the interests of the intervening powers, brings nothing but misery to the targeted lands and peoples, and benefits only the darkest enemies of civilization in today’s world."
Srdja,
This is demonstrably true and said with elegant candor by some of the most thoughtful American leaders and commentators w still have available. It also doesn't matter. For these destroyers, the PNAC folk et al..., are like ants, you dispose of one in a debate or with solid proof of their debacles and thousands attend their funerals ins upport. ( unfortunately for me, especially from the Southern states) It reminds me of a poem or verse that delivers a heavy truth for old conservatives.
By A Reactionary
Smoke rolls in stinking , suffocating wrack
On Shakespeare's land, turning the green one
black;
The crowds that once to harvest home would come
Hope for no harvest and possess no home,
While poor old tramps that liked a little ale,
In natural procession passed to gaol;
Because the world must, like the tramp, move on,
There does not seem much else that can be done.
As Lord Vangelt said in the House of Peers:
"NONE OF US WANT REACTION." ( tory cheers).
So doubtful doctors punch and prod and prick
A man thought dead; and when there's not a kick
Left in the corpse, no twich or faint contraction,
The doctors say: " See.... there is no
Reaction!"
This is what will be said of Chronicle readers and their little band 25 years after David Frum and his fellow character assasins labled all who opposed them as "Unpatriotic Types. .... "
"See....... There is no reaction!"
Add to the undeserved label "unpatriotic" that of "potential terrorists," according to West Point.
mr. Van Sant,
Yes, it is getting where no sacrifice is enough to speak ones mind.
This from days gone by: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314795/should-retired-military-officers-speak-out-always-never-or-it-sort-depends-victor-davi#
and more recently one can read in the financial times that the Centcom commander, Mattiss, is probably leaving early for speaking his mind as a Marine Commander. Evidently he offered the age old idea that once you start a war, you can't always know how it will end.
It's getting close to " See.... there is no reaction!"
An interesting topic Mr. Trifkovic. It brings back fond memories of that fine television production, "Rat Patrol". Yes, I think it is fair to conclude that the misguided Libyan campaign contributed significantly to the recent attack on the gas plant and to the revitalization of the bandit forces in the region. That is hardly worth disputing. However, I think it might be worth noting that bandit gangs like "Masked Brigade" are more about profit than ideology or even tribal loyalty. They are bandits, first and foremost. They specialize in kidnapping for ransom, extortion, smuggling, etc. I would therefore avoid placing too much emphasis on their self-serving "jihad" propaganda. Not that you did, I only mention it because our politicians will scream 'terrorism" and completely miss the point. Although they may cloak themselves in the filthy robes of Islamic warriors, their actions, profiteering and their very diverse alliances belie their 'religious' motivation. On the plus side, the Algerians are experts at combating banditry. It's nice that the French have placed a few hundred troops in the area. But, aside from morale support, they will have little effect. Given a few shekels, a modest quantity of supplies, communications, transport and surveillance support, the Algerians are fully capable of eliminating the "Masked Brigade". And most of that support should come from Europe. The danger would be in over-reacting, inserting many thousands of foreign troops and making this battle a major profit making exercise for Algeria, Mali, BP, France, etc. Once the Algerians get the idea that their battle against bandits can be turned into another major U.S. government entitlement program, like Iraq and Afghanistan, it will never end and will continue to grow. Jeepers, I wonder what Obama will do?
On a related but limited, separable issue and completely apart from the question of if, how, where and when the U.S. should be involved overseas, I think it would be prudent to shift the responsibility for protecting the investments of other major powers from the U.S. to the powers who made those investments. For example, in Afghanistan the Chinese are known to have invested heavily in copper and ruby mines, among other things. And yet, our troops protect those investments. In Africa, we see the same pattern repeated. For me, it would be prudent to let the Chinese, Europeans and whoever else know that they need to protect their own stuff. This can and should be a cooperative transition, but in any case needs to be done. It's about time the Chinese in particular learn about the price and perils of investing in 'transitional' countries. When their troops start coming home in body-bags, how long will it take the Chinese to get tired of occupation duty? After the first 20 billion in subsidies, how long before they get tired of supporting Pakistan? Who cares? Just as long as it isn't us. I have seen our returning vets and the price of those idiotic wars is just beginning to be realized.
I am in complete agreement on the need to avoid yet another entanglement, especially by the U.S. As I say in my next piece, "The Algerian government is right to reject armed foreign soldiers or security guards on its territory, but it should demand that foreign operators – such as BP – cover the added cost of security, which should include improved surveillance along the Libyan border."
As for the Masked Brigade, their track record of systematic extortion is beyond dispute -- but their underlying motives are apparent from the way Belmoktar ("MBM") uses those ill-gotten gains. Not on limos, casinos, babes, plush mansions etc. as a regular gangster would, but on building an unmistakeably jihadist outfit: the money allowed him to build a well-financed, well-armed terrorist cell.
W.C.,
It always cheers me to see your posts. I agree entirely with your wise words. You write:
"I think it might be worth noting that bandit gangs like "Masked Brigade" are more about profit than ideology or even tribal loyalty. They are bandits, first and foremost. They specialize in kidnapping for ransom, extortion, smuggling, etc. I would therefore avoid placing too much emphasis on their self-serving "jihad" propaganda. Not that you did, I only mention it because our politicians will scream 'terrorism" and completely miss the point."
Yes, our dear government believes in naming things in hopes of controling them as in, " I got his name" or "IF THIS .... ( fill in the blank) BE NOT EVIL, THEN EVIL HAS NO NAME!" or even as General Patton said in the famous movie about his respected enemy, "Romell,you maginificent bastard , I read your book!"
However, as you suggest often times the popular names given to us have nothing to do what-so-ever with the substance of the thing itself. I recently finished a biography on Blessed Charles Eugène de Foucauld who was a modern desert Father in this area of the world and he knew alot more about these miserable people than anyone in our current State department. And although he loved them much more than any of us are capable of loving them, they killed him too.
I would expand your suggestions about China, (France, Japan, Germany etc.) to Israelis and the Arab ruling families as well. There comes a point when it is embarrassing and shameful to keep taking money from your Mom and Pop without ever taking their advice, then humilating them in public at the same time you are requesting your preacher (Rev. Hagee types) to defend said conduct as a variation of christian behavior, pleasing to God, His angels and saints etc.. For heavens sakes, man !!!!!!
"Assault weapons" is a prime example of the name game played by subversive politicians.