This post from Marc Thiessen, is just pathetic:
Adam Serwer has written an entire blog post attacking me for “inventing at terrorist group” by supposedly renaming the Somali terror network al Shabab “al Qaeda in East Africa.” Of course, I did no such thing. (If I had, I would not have referred to the group as “al Shabab” at least 15 times – both in the post to which Serwer objects and other columns I have written for The Post).
I have never once referred to al Shabab as “al Qaeda in East Africa.” That is because, while Serwer may not realize it, there is already an actual terrorist group called “al Qaeda in East Africa.” It shares many common leaders with al-Shabab. And in 2008 one of those leaders – Saleh Ali Nabhan, whom The Post has described as “the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa” – organized al Shabab's merger with al Qaeda central.
Look, it's beside the point whether or not Thiessen also used the term "al Shabab." In his original post, he conflates al Shabab with al Qaeda in East Africa, referring to them as “al Shabab/al Qaeda in East Africa” without giving any indication that he was referring to a separate group known as "al Qaeda in East Africa," which still doesn't exist yet. Note that while the State Department lists a number of al-Qaeda subsidiaries, including al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, on its list of designated terrorist groups, "al Qaeda in East Africa" does not appear.
Thiessen again repeats that al Shabab members have pledged loyaltyoaths to al Qaeda. Only no one's denying that al Shabab and al Qaedahave a sick mutual admiration society, or even that al Shabab has pledged fealty to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The consensus among most terrorism analysts is that a real operational merger between al Qaeda and al Shabab has not taken place yet, in part because of elements in al Shabab that are focused on Somalia and do not want to become embroiled in al Qaeda's global war. The internal politics of terrorist groups are often opaque for obvious reasons, but what we appear to have witnessed so far are the two groups "wooing" one another. Thiessen is erroneously conflating their loyalty oath with a formal merger.
So let me explain the distinction for Thiessen, since he seems to be struggling with it: There is al Shabab. There are al Qaeda operatives in East Africa, where al Qaeda has a long and ugly history, some of whom have a close relationship with al Shabab. There is no al Qaeda franchise known as "al Qaeda in East Africa" yet.
Last week, Australian Counterterrorism Expert Leah Farrall called Thiessen's conflation of al-Shabab with al Qaeda "irresponsible," because "such a depiction would empower al Shabab in its campaign to join al Qaeda." Not that al Shabab needs a letter of recommendation from Thiessen, but he should really just stop clowning himself already.
