Studi Strategici ed Intelligence… for dummies

Quale strategia per contrastare i terroristi jihadisti?

Published by Silendo on Febbraio 18, 2016

Se lo chiedono un po' tutti e se lo sono chiesto anche gli analisti dell'Institute for the Study of War, in questi anni una delle fonti principali sulla conflittualità medio-orientale, in particolare dell'area siro-iraqena.
L'ISW, assieme all'American Enterprise Institute, ha condotto una ricerca i cui risultati (per certi versi un po' scontati, a mio avviso) sono stati pubblicati in tre report (qui, qui e qui). In breve,il team di ricercatori ritiene necessario un intervento militare americano ed europeo che abbia l'obiettivo di distruggere le basi siriane ed iraqene dell'ISIS e di Al Qaeda. Intervento, però, che va attentamente calibrato sulle differenti realtà dei due gruppi jihadisti i quali hanno strutture, obiettivi, punti di forza e di debolezza differenti. Il "centro di gravità" di clausewitziana memoria dell'ISIS, ad esempio è costituito dal controllo del territorio in quanto, scrivono gli analisti americani, "it provides religious legitimacy, military capacity, the ability to impose governance, and a globally resonant message". In particolare, l'espletamento di funzioni di governo dei territori occupati, il mantenimento del consenso in tali territori, la gestione dei contrasti tra leadership centrale e leadership locali ed il controllo della componente combattente costituiscono le vulnerabilità che un'efficiente azione di contrasto dovrebbe mirare a colpire.
Elementi, questi, differenti da quelli che caratterizzano Jabhat al Nusra il cui "centro di gravità" è, invece, costituito dal suo legame con l'opposizione siriana, sia a livello locale che provinciale.
Scrivono gli esperti dell'Institute for the Study of War e dell'AEI:

ISIS and al Qaeda are military organizations with distinct sources of strength and ways of operating. These distinctions inform the requirements to destroy each organization in Iraq and Syria. Each has unique capabilities that the U.S. must counter or neutralize and vulnerabilities that the U.S. can exploit. Commonalities between these organizations meanwhile produce additional options for the U.S. to achieve asymmetric effects. Both have access to shared resources readily available in Syria and require that Syria’s Sunni population tolerate their presence. Both also pursue expansion into neighboring states by fostering disorder and radicalization amongst Sunni populations. Well-crafted courses of action will navigate these complexities to chart a course to achieve American national security interests rather than simplifying the problem set to engender a linear approach.
ISIS derives its strength and legitimacy from the territorial Caliphate under its control. This territory provides resources for ISIS and actualizes the religious vision of the Salafijihadi movement. Possession of a physical caliphate allows ISIS to invoke religious obligations to defend it that appeal strongly to Salafis and other radical Muslim groups. The resonance of this call offers ISIS potential leadership of the global Salafi-jihadi movement and gives ISIS military campaigns in Syria and Iraq momentum. The brutal methods by which ISIS controls the populations it governs, however, require ISIS to dedicate significant resources to maintain its rule. The need to retain territory to serve as the reification of the Caliphate also makes ISIS much more vulnerable to attack by conventional forces. This tension between the costs and advantages of maintaining its territorial control shapes how ISIS behaves as an organization.
Jabhat al Nusra derives its strength from its intertwinement with Syrian groups that represent much of Syria’s majority Sunni population. Jabhat al Nusra is part of a network of armed opposition groups, civil society elements, relief organizations, and civilian populations that rely on it for support.
Its acceptance by non-Salafi opposition groups gives it greater legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary Syrian Sunni. It leverages those relationships to create formal structures to serve as the foundation of a future Islamic Emirate for al Qaeda in Syria. It also conducts religious outreach to transform the ideology of Syrian civilian populations. Its sustained military contributions to the war against the Assad regime ensure its continued acceptance by many Syrian Sunni in the near term even when disputes arise about how local governance should operate. Jabhat al Nusra’s prosecution of mutually reinforcing religious and military campaigns in Syria makes it an unusually dangerous and adaptive threat. […]

Concludono gli analisti:

Attacking the center of gravity of ISIS is superficially more straightforward than dismantling Jabhat al Nusra’s intertwinement with the Syrian opposition. The U.S. and the West have many military capabilities for expelling hybrid forces from terrain they control. Setting conditions to ensure that such forces will be unable to return to areas from which they have been driven out is a more complex task, but still one that is familiar from recent conflicts.
Jabhat al Nusra’s strategy requires the U.S. to develop careful phasing. The difficulty of designing a campaign to disentangle Jabhat al Nusra from the opposition in contrast to the relative ease of constructing a campaign to deprive ISIS of the terrain it holds might tempt the U.S. to focus first on ISIS and then turn to Jabhat al Nusra. Such a phasing construct would be a fatal mistake. Jabhat al Nusra is poised to benefit from the defeat of ISIS while consolidating its position among rebel groups. Allowing Jabhat al Nusra to deepen its support within Syrian communities while focusing on ISIS risks turning the fight against an extremist group intertwined with opposition structures into a conflict with a significant population actively supporting Jabhat al Nusra. A successful U.S. strategy must therefore operate against both enemies simultaneously in order to ensure that it does not merely install Jabhat al Nusra as the successor to ISIS. […]

 

 

Jabhat Al Nusra and Isis – Sources of Strength

Posted in: Blog
Tagged:
al qaeda, guerriglia, iraq, ISIS, sicurezza nazionale, siria, stati uniti, terrorismo

Chi Sono

Silendo

Un appassionato di relazioni internazionali e studi strategici. In particolar modo di questioni connesse con l'intelligence.
Per contattarmi:
info@silendo.org

Leggi tutto...

Accedi

Tweet di @Silendo_org

Archivio

Categorie

Tags

affari strategici afganistan algeria al qaeda arabia saudita australia cina criminalità organizzata cyber-mf difesa egitto estremismo francia germania gran bretagna guerriglia hamas hezbollah india intelligence iran iraq ISIS israele italia Leadership e classe dirigente libano libia libri medio-oriente minkiate nato nucleare e risorse energetiche pakistan palestina russia sentimenti sicurezza nazionale siria somalia stati uniti strategic foresight studi di intelligence terrorismo turchia

Blogroll

  • Affari Internazionali
  • Agentura
  • American Enterprise Institute
  • ANSSI
  • AOL Defense
  • Arms Control Wonk
  • Asia Centre
  • Asia Times
  • Aspen Institute Italia
  • ASPI
  • Atlantic Council
  • Baker Institute
  • Banca d'Italia
  • BBC
  • Belfer Center
  • Bellingcat
  • Bertelsmann Foundation
  • BESA Center
  • Bibliografia sull'intelligence
  • Bloomberg
  • Bloomberg View
  • Brookings Institution
  • Bruegel
  • Carnegie Endowment
  • Carnegie Middle East Center
  • Carnegie Moscow Center
  • CASD
  • Center for a New American Security
  • Center for Economic Policy Research
  • Center for European Reform
  • Center for Naval Analyses
  • Center for Nonproliferation Studies
  • Centre d'Analyse Stratégique
  • Centro Einaudi
  • Centro Studi Confindustria
  • CEPR
  • CF2R
  • Chatham House
  • China Leadership Monitor
  • CISAC
  • Combating Terrorism Center
  • Comparative Strategy
  • COPASIR
  • Corriere della Sera
  • Council on Foreign Relations
  • CSBA
  • CSFRS
  • CSI – CIA
  • CSIS
  • CSS
  • CSS Strategic Trends Analysis
  • Danger Room
  • DCAF
  • Defence News
  • East online
  • ECFR
  • ECIR
  • Economist
  • Egmont Institute
  • Epistemes
  • EsadeGeo
  • ESPAS
  • EU Institute for Security Studies
  • Eurasianet
  • European Policy Centre
  • Fareed Zakaria
  • FAS
  • FAS – CRS
  • FAS – DNI
  • Fas – Strategic Security Blog
  • Financial Times
  • Foreign Affairs
  • Foreign Policy
  • Foreign Policy – National Security
  • FPRI
  • FRS
  • FSI – Stanford
  • Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • German Council on Foreign Relations
  • German Marshall Fund
  • Global Trends 2030
  • Globalsecurity.org
  • Governo italiano
  • H-Net
  • Harvard International Review
  • HCSS
  • Heritage Foundation
  • Horizon Scanning Centre
  • Horizon Scanning Centre – Toolkit
  • House Armed Services Committee
  • House Committee on Homeland Security
  • House Committee on International Relations
  • House Intelligence Committee
  • HSPI
  • Hudson Institute
  • IAEA
  • IDSA
  • IEA
  • IFRI
  • IHEDN
  • IISS
  • IMF
  • INET
  • Infinity Journal
  • Infoguerre
  • INSS – Israele
  • INSS – USA
  • Institute for Government
  • Intelligence & National Security
  • Intelligence Studies Section
  • IntellNews
  • International Crisis Group
  • International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence
  • International Security
  • International Security Studies
  • IRIS
  • ISIS
  • Istituto Affari Internazionali
  • Istituto Italiano di Studi Strategici
  • Jamestown Foundation
  • JFK School of Government
  • JFQ
  • Joshua Rogin
  • Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
  • Journal of Strategic Security
  • Journal of Strategic Studies
  • Kings of War
  • Lowy Institute
  • LSE IDEAS Blog
  • Macro Polo
  • McKinsey Global Institute
  • Mercator Institute
  • Merlin
  • Military Review
  • Miller Center
  • MIT Center
  • Munich Security Conference
  • National Bureau of Asian Research
  • National Defense Intelligence College
  • National Intelligence Council
  • National Interest Online
  • National Security Archive
  • National Security Journal
  • Naval War College Review
  • NCTC
  • New America Foundation
  • New York Times
  • Newsweek
  • Nixon Center
  • Notre Europe
  • OCSE
  • ODNI
  • On Think Tanks
  • Orbis
  • Oxford Analytica
  • Oxford Intelligence Group
  • Papers – APSA
  • Papers – ISA
  • Parameters
  • Perspectives on Terrorism
  • Peter Bergen
  • Peterson Institute
  • Proceedings
  • Project 2049
  • Project Syndicate
  • Public Intelligence
  • RAND
  • Real Instituto Elcano
  • Reuters
  • Robert Kaplan
  • RSIS
  • RUSI
  • Secrecy News
  • Security Studies
  • Senate Armed Services Committee
  • Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
  • Senate Committee on Homeland Security
  • Senate Committee on Intelligence
  • Sentinel
  • SGDSN
  • Silicon Continent
  • SIPRI
  • SISR – Intelligence italiana
  • Source&Methods
  • South Asia Analysis Group
  • Spiegel International
  • Stephen Walt
  • Stimson Center
  • Strategic & Defence Studies Centre
  • Strategic Studies Institute
  • Strategic Studies Quarterly
  • Strategika
  • Stratfor
  • Studies in Conflict & Terrorism
  • Terrorism and Political Violence
  • The Back Channel
  • The Diplomat
  • The Interpreter
  • The Overoholt Group
  • The Strategist
  • The Strategy Bridge
  • Time
  • Transatlantic Academy
  • U.S.-China Commission
  • UN Millennium Project
  • Venus in Arms
  • VOX
  • Wall Street Journal
  • War on the Rocks
  • Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  • Washington Post
  • WCFIA – Harvard
  • Wilson International Center
  • World Economic Forum
Locations of visitors to this page
© 2025 SILENDO Design & Dev by Artemida Srl