Brothers Killing Brothers

The Current Infighting Will Test al Qaeda's Brand

by Brian Michael Jenkins

Download Free Electronic Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Terrorists often resolve internal disputes the old-fashioned way: They kill each other. Battles between rival rebel groups and within terrorist organizations are not uncommon. Internal feuds have characterized terrorist movements throughout modern history, from the Russian Revolution to the Palestinian civil war.

In February 2014, members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) are believed to have carried out the suicide attack that killed Abu Khaled al-Suri, the leader of a rival coalition of Islamist rebel groups in Syria. In response, Ayman al-Zawahiri took the unprecedented step of publicly expelling ISIL from al Qaeda. An open break like this creates real risks for both ISIL's and al Qaeda's leadership, setting up a showdown that could turn an internal dispute into a schism that cleaves across the jihadist universe.

In addition, it could create new intelligence and propaganda opportunities for the United States. If ISIL turns out to be the stronger movement, al Qaeda's command over the global movement would be seriously weakened. The biggest opportunities for exploiting al Qaeda's internal disputes may lie in countering al Qaeda's future recruitment. The prospect of killing or being killed by fellow jihadists ought to be a less-attractive proposition than defending Islam against perceived infidel aggression. However, exploiting the favorable circumstances created by the current divisions requires detailed local knowledge and political-warfare know-how. Pursuing this unprecedented opportunity will require the creation of a dedicated task force to act as a focal point for analysis and action.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation perspective series. RAND perspectives present informed perspective on a timely topic that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND perspectives undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This research in the public interest was supported by RAND, using discretionary funds made possible by the generosity of RAND's donors, the fees earned on client-funded research, and independent research and development (IR&D) funds provided by the Department of Defense.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.