The reality is something between what you describe and what the European media must be describing to you (yes, it is cell-structured, yes, there are groups that work independant of each other, but yes, bin Laden and his buddies do represent a titular “head” of the organization…that’s an oversimplification, but there you go). The American media doesn’t necessarily portray AQ as a massive multitentacled organization Bin Laden uses to wreak havoc worldwide, but the problem in OUR media is that they don’t really explain what AQ is, either.
The Norwegian media often presents the post-OEF organisational structure of al-Qaeda in a similar manner as described by Sean; a highly disintegrated “network” consisting of different cells. The idea of a joint, cooperating network has become more uncertain as al-Qaeda itself is by some regarded more as an idea/a concept/an agenda rather than an actual organisation. This idea of a violent struggle may have been adopted by a number of groups which do not necessarily represent an al-Qaeda body. This way the agenda can “live on” despite the altered state of the original network. I can’t tell if it was like this before 2001/2002, with independent cells rather than sub-groups of the network in places like Afghanistan, or if it is a result of the “reforms” forced upon the organisation by the coalition. Perhaps the word “outsourcing” could fit into the context somehow?
Now you’re grasping at straws. There are numerous extremist groups in Europe, the media is fully used to reporting on them.
Agree. Speculation about relations to al-Qaeda isn’t a rare phenomena, but many of the articles I’ve read about groups in Europe often refer to other names. The question of something like an “al-Qaeda central command” pulling the strings hasn’t been getting much column space.
Sign In
