There And Back Again: Jabhat al-Nusrah, General David Petraeus, and Ahmad al-Sharaa

How times have changed

Last week was a big week for the new Syrian leadership. It was its official introduction to the world stage during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York City. Besides Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s official speech at the UNGA, Sharaa and others in the Syrian delegation had a number of side meetings and engagements, both public and private.

One of the most noteworthy of these events was the public Q&A between General David Petraeus and Sharaa during the Concordia Forum. This meeting was unique considering the fact that when Petraeus was commanding U.S. forces during the height of the Iraq war, Sharaa was imprisoned by the U.S. at the infamous Camp Bucca due to his membership at the time in al-Qaeda in Iraq/Islamic State of Iraq (AQI/ISI).

There is also the added angle that in the aftermath of Jabhat al-Nusrah (JN) breaking from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and then subsequently fighting directly against ISIS on the battlefield; on September 1, 2015, Petraeus in a statement to CNN, argued that the U.S. should work with “moderates” within JN to peel them away from the group and then have them work alongside less radical insurgents already fighting against the Assad regime that the U.S. was arming to also fight together against the Islamic State. Petraeus was clearly at the time attempting to speak into existence what he already accomplished in Iraq the decade prior with the surge and tribal awakening against the Islamic State’s predecessor group AQI/ISI.

At the time, unsurprisingly, most scoffed at the premise since JN was still an official branch of al-Qaeda. Besides the commentariat in the United States and West pushing back against Petraeus, one of Jabhat al-Nusrah’s senior ideologues Shaykh Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Shami also dismissed such a scenario. Two days after Petraeus’ statement, on September 3, 2015, al-Shami released a statement himself on behalf of JN condemning such a scenario. Today, everyone knows al-Shami by his real name, ‘Abd al-Rahim ‘Atun, Sharaa’s senior religious advisor within the Syrian Presidency.

To be honest, I randomly came across this release by ‘Atun today while I was going through my archives as part of my book project on the history of Syrian jihadism. Prior to that, I had completely forgot about it. There are so many small random histories during the 14 years of the Syrian civil war. Nevertheless, the find was quite fortuitous considering the event between Sharaa and Petraeus literally happened 10 years and a couple of weeks after the original statement from Petraeus and ‘Atun. Much of ‘Atun’s argument at the time boiled down to the fact that there were not different currents within JN as an organization and that even if JN and the United States had a mutual enemy in the Islamic State, there was no scenario where an enemy of my enemy would be my friend in this case. That is because there was also a religious and ideological enmity by JN against the United States. It is important to reiterate that at the time JN was still an al-Qaeda branch, and still firmly utilized al-wala’ wa-l-bara’ (loyalty/love to the believers and disavowal/enmity to the disbelievers for the sake of God) in its worldview and argumentation.

You can find a full translation of the original release by ‘Atun at the bottom of this post. Reading through the old post, one can see how much has changed in the past ten years rhetorically and action-wise between the Jabhat al-Nusrah days and now as part of the leadership in the new Syrian government. Not only is the new Syrian government actively working with the United States in the fight against the Islamic State (sharing intelligence and conducting joint raids together), but also as was seen in the meeting between Sharaa and Petraeus there was clearly no actual enmity shown. Rather there was a lot of joking and smiling, with Petraeus even bizarrely conveying his worry about Sharaa not sleeping enough and disclosing he was a fan of his. All the more ironic in light of this broader past history that most have likely forgotten, especially the ‘Atun statement, which is quite harsh if you read through the original text.

How the future of Syria evolves or how the U.S. relationship with Syria goes is obviously impossible to completely predict. Whether all of the seemingly good vibes at UNGA dissipates and the hard reality of the challenges in Syria overwhelms its new rulers: time will tell. Whatever happens, this particular meeting between Sharaa and Petraeus encapsulates how much has changed in a decade.

The translation of ‘Atun’s release from September 3, 2015 regarding General Petraeus’ remarks on Jabhat al-Nusrah and the fight against the Islamic State:

Petraeus and the ‘Moderates’ in Jabhat al-Nusrah
By Shaykh Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Shami

“In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds, and the best prayers and the most complete salutations upon the one sent as a mercy to the worlds, our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and companions altogether. And after:

Imam al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated the story of Kaʿb ibn Malik and his two companions — may God be pleased with them — who stayed behind from the Battle of Tabuk, in a long hadith in which is the story of the Nabatean who came asking about Kaʿb.

‘…Then when he came, he handed him a letter from the king of Ghassan. So when I read it, behold it said: ‘It has reached me that your companion has forsaken you, and that God has not made you to dwell in a land of disgrace nor loss, so join us and we will console you.’ So I said when I read it: ‘This is also from tribulation.’ And I burned it in the oven…’ (end of hadith).

Some days ago David Petraeus appeared with a statement in which he advised his administration to rely on those he called “the moderates from Jabhat al-Nusra” in the war against the group of al-Dawlah [the Islamic State].

Here we record some observations:

When I read it, I said: ‘This too is from tribulation,’ so we follow our righteous predecessors, the Companions of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him.

This proposal of ‘Petraeus’ is evidence of failure, bankruptcy, and confusion of the American administration in its new-old alliance.

The term ‘moderates’ in the American lexicon equals the term ‘traitors to their religion and their nation’ in our lexicon.

So we strike at any project that America sponsors — how then could some of our soldiers do that for them?!

The attempt by America and others, like some media outlets, to depict the Front as if it is composed of multiple competing currents is either a new method of waging war against Jabhat al-Nusrah in the eyes of some, or an incorrect analysis far from truth and reality in the eyes of others. There are no currents inside Jabhat al-Nusrah, rather it is one group.

Despite the appearance of some tweets from some individuals that do not represent the thinking and direction of the group, they express only their speaker.

Our enmity with the group of al-Dawlah, because of their being afflicted with the innovation of the ‘Khawarij’ and for many other reasons, in no way means our entering with America against them, nor even merely thinking of that.

For our enmity toward America is the enmity of faith toward disbelief, while our enmity with the Khawarij is enmity with one who departed from Islam to innovation — yet still within the general framework of Islam.

We disavow the group of Khawarij with a lesser disavowal, while we disavow America with a complete and total disavowal.

Moreover, America is not merely a religious enemy, but an enemy who wages direct aggression upon us day and night in al-Sham and outside al-Sham.

Thus speaking about the possibility of entering with them or coordinating with them is political stupidity, let alone that whoever enters has sold his religion.

Even though the group of al-Dawlah (the Khawarij) is an enemy to us, and America also is an enemy to them, we reject the use of the term “the Islamic State organization as a common enemy” between Jabhat al-Nusrah and America.

For there is a difference between sharing this enmity by destiny, which is not in our control, and the way in which this enmity is presented in the media in a form that suggests the possibility of convergence upon this common enemy.”