Al-Qaida is making its push to remain relevant, and news reports today suggest that the group was seeking to conduct an operation similar to the attacks in Mumbai in November 2008. The success of that operation, which killed 166 people and made the crowded city almost paralyzed in fear, clearly had an impact on Al-Qaida's leadership which is now battling a constant jihad for its own relevancy.
The 9/11 terror attacks were the most effective form of terrorism contrived by any group. The reality that our transportation system could be penetrated and literally hijacked against us as a missile shocked the entire world. However, the ability to conduct such a plot remains extremely difficult currently. Despite vulnerabilities remaining in the aviation industry, so much effort and time has been put into insuring that a hijacked plane will not occur or be used again in the same form.
However, the vulnerability of soft targets remains. Al-Qaida knows that it is not capable of another 9/11, placing casualties in the thousands is a difficult feat without CBRN weapons. However, the ability to conduct operations similar to those used in Madrid, London, Mumbai, and in Moscow since 9/11 remains a legitimate concern. In my opinion, the ability to produce any chemical or biological agents is a feat that is difficult now that U.S. airstrikes are conducted routinely in regions that house Al-Qaida experts.
This latest piece of news suggesting that the siege/assault tactics used in Mumbai would be utilized again should be of no surprise. For those two days, the news was controlled by the standoff that developed following the takeover by Lashkar-e-Taiba gunmen. Mumbai was shut down. The inadequacy and the outdated tactics of Indian anti-terror police contributed significantly to the success, but could such an operation be conducted in a Western metropolitan city like London.
Al-Qaida promoted Mohamad Ilyas Kashmiri, the mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, as its operations chief. With experience fighting in the mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan as well as being a former member of Pakistan's military, serving in special operations, Kashmiri brings a unique perspective encouraging direct assault and engagement. In 2009, Kashmiri said that he believed that more Mumbais would emerge,
"..I am not a traditional jihadi cleric who is involved in sloganeering. As a military commander, I would say every target has a specific time and reasons, and the responses will be forthcoming accordingly."
My concern rests in the fact that soft target defense is extremely inadequate. Most people here in the U.S. do not recall Beslan, where 777 schoolchildren were taken hostage at a school. 300 people were killed, many of them children. Law enforcement here has never had to engage in such a situation, but if it were to happen are we ready? Kashmiri has made it clear he plans on bringing military expertise, separating himself from the ideological concerns of previous Al-Qaida leadership. He is a formidable foe, making Khalid Sheikh Mohammed seem amateur in his experience. It is without a doubt that Kashmiri will seek to find a vulnerability and utilize it to his gain. The question is where and when he will emerge and demonstrate his capabilities.
9-11-01
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
9/11: Reviving U.S.-Muslim Relations with a new perspective
September 11, 2001, is a date that everyone will remember. The pain and anger that resulted from that day was felt by many worldwide, changing the dynamics of the United States-Muslim relationship. This week, everyone watched as Pastor Terry Jones announced plans to burn the Qu'ran as a demonstration against radical Islam, inciting a flash wave of anger amongst Muslims worldwide. This abuse of freedom of speech, driven by a narcissistic leader of a small congregation, sabotaged a day filled with remembrance for victims. Jones acknowledged he did not know the victims of 9/11, had not read the Qu'ran, and then attempted to state that this was a protest of radical Islam. The fact of the matter is by burning and desecrating a religious text used by followers of any faith, it is not targeting the problem-makers, but rather is offensive to all.
The complexity of the Muslim world is something that has baffled the experts at all levels of government, and accomplished virtually nothing when it comes to official policy. The fact of the matter is the organizations linked to the government - whether it be Department of Justice, the Pentagon, or even in the White House - all are questionable.
-The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the notorious Holy Land Foundation trial. The reality of the matter is the group has held links to terror-financing operations since 1994. This excerpt from a Fox News report by David Lee Miller with CAIR Legislative Affairs Director Corey Saylor was featured in an assessment on CAIR by the Investigative Project on Terrorism:
Miller: Can you sit here now and in just one sentence tell me - CAIR condemns Hamas and CAIR condemns Hezbollah?
Saylor: I'm telling you in a very clear fashion - CAIR condemns terrorist acts, whoever commits them, wherever they commit them, whenever they commit them.
Miller: That's not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hezbollah.
Saylor: Well I recognize that you don't like my answer to the question, but that's the answer to the question.
Miller: It's not no. It's not whether I like or dislike it. I was asking you if you can sit here now and say - CAIR condemns Hamas or Hezbollah. If you don't want to, just say that. If that is a position your group doesn't take, I certainly accept that. I just want to understand what your answer is.
Saylor: The position that my group takes is that we condemn terrorism on a consistent, persistent basis, wherever it happens, whenever it happens.
Video here.
In summary, a blanket rejection of the tactic, but not the groups that use it. Perhaps it's CAIR's links dating back to 1994 to Hamas fundraising that makes it so difficult in denying a group whose founding charter "commits the group to the destruction of Israel." Or the group's claim that suicide bombings are the equivalent to an F-16 fighter jet. Why did this organization ever even receive the time of day with government officials?
Perhaps the biggest embarrassment to attempting to moderate with the Muslim community lies somewhere in Yemen. The new face of terrorism, viewed more dangerous than Osama bin Laden by some, is Anwar al-Awlaki. A former U.S. citizen, Awlaki spoke at the U.S. Capitol just weeks before the 2001 attacks that would evacuate that same building. How did someone with such radical beliefs receive an invitation to become an ambassador for Islam on Capitol Hill?
The list goes on and on of instances where the government outreach to the Muslim community has backfired. The problem is not with Muslims, but rather the sheer incompetence of the government to understand that there is a liability with those that empathize with Hamas and Hezbollah. So long as the groups use terrorism, and the United States designates them as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, there should be a firm stance to disregard any individuals affiliated with any groups on that list. Islam is not an organization, but a religion practiced by a fifth of the world. The strength lies in the outreach and ability to communicate with the people, not an organization.
The complexity of the Muslim world is something that has baffled the experts at all levels of government, and accomplished virtually nothing when it comes to official policy. The fact of the matter is the organizations linked to the government - whether it be Department of Justice, the Pentagon, or even in the White House - all are questionable.
-The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the notorious Holy Land Foundation trial. The reality of the matter is the group has held links to terror-financing operations since 1994. This excerpt from a Fox News report by David Lee Miller with CAIR Legislative Affairs Director Corey Saylor was featured in an assessment on CAIR by the Investigative Project on Terrorism:
Miller: Can you sit here now and in just one sentence tell me - CAIR condemns Hamas and CAIR condemns Hezbollah?
Saylor: I'm telling you in a very clear fashion - CAIR condemns terrorist acts, whoever commits them, wherever they commit them, whenever they commit them.
Miller: That's not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hezbollah.
Saylor: Well I recognize that you don't like my answer to the question, but that's the answer to the question.
Miller: It's not no. It's not whether I like or dislike it. I was asking you if you can sit here now and say - CAIR condemns Hamas or Hezbollah. If you don't want to, just say that. If that is a position your group doesn't take, I certainly accept that. I just want to understand what your answer is.
Saylor: The position that my group takes is that we condemn terrorism on a consistent, persistent basis, wherever it happens, whenever it happens.
Video here.
In summary, a blanket rejection of the tactic, but not the groups that use it. Perhaps it's CAIR's links dating back to 1994 to Hamas fundraising that makes it so difficult in denying a group whose founding charter "commits the group to the destruction of Israel." Or the group's claim that suicide bombings are the equivalent to an F-16 fighter jet. Why did this organization ever even receive the time of day with government officials?
Perhaps the biggest embarrassment to attempting to moderate with the Muslim community lies somewhere in Yemen. The new face of terrorism, viewed more dangerous than Osama bin Laden by some, is Anwar al-Awlaki. A former U.S. citizen, Awlaki spoke at the U.S. Capitol just weeks before the 2001 attacks that would evacuate that same building. How did someone with such radical beliefs receive an invitation to become an ambassador for Islam on Capitol Hill?
The list goes on and on of instances where the government outreach to the Muslim community has backfired. The problem is not with Muslims, but rather the sheer incompetence of the government to understand that there is a liability with those that empathize with Hamas and Hezbollah. So long as the groups use terrorism, and the United States designates them as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, there should be a firm stance to disregard any individuals affiliated with any groups on that list. Islam is not an organization, but a religion practiced by a fifth of the world. The strength lies in the outreach and ability to communicate with the people, not an organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)