There is certainly an element of exploitation to the dynamic, with the "Powers" using the neo-Salafi murderers as a stick to demonise their only real opposition, the Islamist movements.

On the other hand, there is a degree of real and sincere, and not baseless fear.

The neo-Salafi "moukfirine" (to be excessively and tediously clever and use the ism fa'il) of course have a nasty bloody mindedness that comes from "takfir" - of note the recent attacks in Morocco seem to have followed the early pattern of Algeria, focusing on the security forces - a police officer was killed by a suicide bomber literally throwing himself toward the police.

Given the reaction I have heard from my Moroccan friends, I expect that their moukfirine will face a huge backlash. The awful example of Algeria is a great object lesson.

At the same time, the moukfirine will probably also coalesce into more and more radical groups, under outside pressure.

Certainly, American policy is feeding into this, and reaction as well.

I also understand that quite a few Algerians are in Iraq killing Iraqis and the odd American. There was a survey somewhere, maybe on the Aardvark, showing a rather hefty Algerian presence there.

I expect they simply migrated, following the Travelling Circus of Jihad, since Algeria had become too difficult. But you experts tell me. I do think, however, when USA finally pulls out, somewhere around 2009, there will be a new generation of Jihadists/Qutbists/nutters looking for new targets, as with post-Soviet Afghanistan. Bombs forthcoming then.

I hope you don't mind an off-topic comment, but I think this is important:

Re: the Iraq war in general

(also see this post)

Ever since the months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there have been a few reports in the newspapers that the Central Intelligence Agency was casting aspersions on the intelligence the White House was relying on to justify the war. The CIA has never given a position on whether the war is needed or justified or said that Bush is wrong to go to war. But doesn't it seem much more likely that the CIA is an extremely right wing organization than a left wing one? After all, even if the people working for them and at least a lot of the leadership really wanted a war for their own reasons, there are a lot of reasons for them to not want to tie their credibility to what they know is faulty information. They and their personnel, present and former, could use other means of promoting the Iraq war, and still be motivated to make the statements in the media. If the CIA got behind faulty information, they would have to make a choice between whether they would be involved in scamming the American people and the world once the military had invaded Iraq and no weapons were found- so: 1) Imagine the incredible difficulties involved in pulling off a hoax that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Imagine all the people you would have to be able to show the weapons to- the inspectors from the UN / the international community, the American press, statesmen, etc. Then imagine the difficulties of substantiating that story to people who would examine it- the lack of witnesses to a production plant that made the weapons or to transportation operations or storage of the weapons during Hussein's regime of them. 2) If the story fell apart upon inspection or the CIA tried not to hoax it at all, imagine the loss of credibility they would suffer. The CIA, it is safe to bet, does not want to be known to the American people as a group that lies to them to send them to war. Even within the CIA there could be disagreement among people about how involved they should be in promoting the war or the neo-con agenda more broadly, so the CIA would have to worry about lying to and managing its own people after trying so hard to get them to trust their superiors in the agency, and perhaps there simply might be too many people in the agency who knew enough about what was going on in Iraq to know if someone was deceiving people to promote this war.

So there is a lot of reason to be cautious against being seen as endorsing what they knew was false intelligence even if they were very strong supporters of going to war.

Granted, it’s certainly possible the CIA could have changed their minds about the war, as a lot of people have, and could now be trying to move the nation closer to withdrawal.

klaus - I also understand that quite a few Algerians are in Iraq killing Iraqis and the odd American. There was a survey somewhere, maybe on the Aardvark, showing a rather hefty Algerian presence there.

There is a study by Anthony Cordesman and Nawaf Obeid (googleable) that said Algerians were the single largest foreign element in the insurgency, but I think there's reason to be sceptical. First of all, loads of military surveys quoted in the press have said that Saudis are the top contingent in the insurgency, providing a huge majority of suicide bombers. Second, the study is apparently based on statistics provided by Saudi intelligence. So, anyone surprised that it comes to the conclusion that Saudis aren't much involved?

Still, I'm sure many went, since Algeria is a big country with an active extremist recruitment apparatus, and they should be among the bigger groups, even if not the biggest. There have been numerous arrests in Algeria of recruiters for the Iraqi jihad, affiliated to GSPC (now al-Qaida). It seems the contacts between GSPC and al-Qaida were actually stronger through Iraq than straight to Bin Ladin's crew, even if there were some contacts that way from the very beginning. In particular, there have been reports on meetings between Zarqawi and Algerian emissaries.

As to why people go there -- it's not a smart career choice to enter the jihad in Algeria, but it's no easy job in Iraq either. I don't think many went east because it's healthier over there. Perhaps they do it because it has higher status fighting the US, but I think even more because it's easier to recruit for fighting infidel American occupiers than for slitting the throats of Algerian village home guards.

The GSPC/local al-Qaida gains from sending volunteers to Iraq in three ways:

1) Recruiting for the Iraqi jihad gives them a very good image. Remember their target audience is Islamist radical, not just your average Mohammed. This contrasts nicely with Algeria's government, seen to be in the USA's pocket on Iraq.

2) It has the potential to reach people they couldn't otherwise draw into their orbit. (Because revulsion over the US presence in Iraq is near-universal in Algeria.) Given time, they can be drafted into the movement, money can be collected "for the Iraqi mujahidin", etc.

3) Blowback. CIA, the Algerian government and others who would know have repeatedly warned that volunteers are now returning from Iraq with urban guerrilla skills that they are beginning to put to use in their home countries. Algeria is a prime example, where roadside bombs and a smart al-Qaida style Internet campaign has flowered from about 2004. Compare with how the Afghanistan returnees of the late 80s were instrumental in setting up the GIA, from which GSPC later split.

There is certainly an element of exploitation to the dynamic, with the "Powers" using the neo-Salafi murderers as a stick to demonise their only real opposition, the Islamist movements.

I missed this: very true. And in the case of Algeria, even more than demonizing Islamists, to retain emergency powers that are used to strike down all kinds of opposition. That the ban on demonstrations, for example, is still in force, is ridiculous from a security standpoint. But the pouvoir has nothing to fear from an opposition that moves within the legal framework (where it is powerless against divide & rule, and forced to suck up to power brokers), but could be seriously challenged if popular opposition figures (perhaps some ex-FIS or Ahmed Taleb Ibrahimi, etc) started building a cross-party power base on the street.

I think Russia is a very good point of reference for today's Algeria, actually. Somewhat freer press in Algeria, but less democratic practice; same miserable post-onepartyism in the provinces; and, most of all, the same kind of cliquish behind-the-scenes politics at the centre, dominated but not exclusively ruled by a powerful president.

so, on the topic of business, it makes me think of Lebanon and the recent war and unrest there which shot the economic climate to hell. How long did it take international investors to trust Lebanon again in the 90s, and how long or how much, rather, will it take them to lose trust in Algeria? I could imagine they're a bit jumpy.

Russia is more or less run by the FSB and former KGB intelligence officers, the siloviki, hence their creative though telling ways of dealing with opposition figures. I actually think that situation is unique, at least I can't think of any other state run by an intelligence agency and its members. It's pretty bad. But hey, economic stability.

Well, Algeria has pretty much been run by the old Sécurité Militaire (now DRS) and its allies, for most of its post-coup history. The head of DRS (gen. Mohamed Médiène) and its counter-espionage division DCE (gen. Smaïl Lamari) are the two most senior backers of the january 1992 coup who are still in their positions, untouched by Bouteflika's mucking about in the state apparatus. That has to count for something.

Here, let me put it another way.

Even in terms of financial sector dealings, and trying to buy a bank (or talking "agreements" with the Central Bank, etc), one finds that somehow the real decision makers seem to be in the Security agencies. Even for financial affaires.

If Algeria did not have oil, it would be a worse basket case than Albania.

ok, that sounds like Russia.

My favourite anecdote about Russia is from some musician friends who recently played in Moscow, got in touch with someone who had had some part in arranging an A-ha concert for 20,000 people there. Half the tickets were reserved for the mob.

Well, before one can consider the most recent event, the Algiers bombing, one must first answer the question: "Just what is GSPC?", which quickly merits the other question "Just who do its actions benefit?". The answers to both of those turn the mainstream interpretation its head, or at least mainstream outside of the Sahara.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4749357.stm

It seems the GSPC is a product of, and completely controlled by, the Algerian intelligence agency called the DRS. Its primary purpose has always been to falsely discredit the genuine Islamic political movement in Algeria, which won the elections in 1991 and 1992, precipitating the military takeover. Because the regime is secular, beholden to the elite Algerian bourgeoisie, and it is decidedly counter to their interests, to put it mildly, to have a government of "Islamists" in power. To discredit the mainstream Islamic political force they formed various "terrorist" groups to carry out terrible acts which the regime could then use to tar the entire mainstream Islamic body politic. It's the oldest trick in the book, and is the same thing the elitist secular governments of Indonesia and Malaysia do, with "Jemaah Islamiya" and "Laskar Jihad", and "K.M.M." respectively, what the government of the Philippines is doing with the "Abu Sayyaf" group, what the Turkish intelligence agency MIT is doing with the fake Kurdish group T.A.K., what the U.S. does with its C.I.A. "Al Qaeda" sock puppet, what the British did in Northern Ireland. It's nothing new. All you have to do is look into it.

http://www.algeria-watch.org/en/analyses/samraoui_drs.htm

http://www.algeria-watch.org/en/aw/algerian_enemy.htm

Careful, it's too dangerous to talk about these things here. `Aqoul is a front for the Libyan secret services, designed to make the mainstream American MENA debate look bad.

Just look into it!