Libya: Al-Qaida's rebirth

As weeks have passed since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed 4 Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, answers regarding the exact details of the plot seem to be nonexistent.  I believe that within the hours following the attack, just by assessing the predominate groups operating in the region that would select a U.S. target, AQIM (Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb) would be placed as a prime suspect in the attack.  While Ambassador Susan Rice explained that she believed the attack was a spontaneous assault by elements loyal to Qaddafi, the basis for the target selection just doesn't add up.  Such groups are largely disorganized and lack the firepower to select a target such as a U.S. Consulate, that would undeniably get a response utilizing American firepower, the likes of which they could not withstand.  It would, to say the least, have been a suicide mission.


If this had been a pro-Qaddafi outfit responsible, it would have been more than likely that you would have seen something similar to the likes of Al-Shabaab in the targeting of Somalian and Ethiopian forces as well as the attempted assassination of the new Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mahamud.  That attack came the day following the Libyan and Egyptian incidents.  Shabaab's template is one that seeks to largely destabilize the region and complicate interactions between Ethiopia and Somalia, which have mutually agreed to hunt down the group's fighters and have offered ceasefires.


What is particularly alarming is that with AQIM's involvement in this attack, the group has signaled they are willing to target Americans similar to Al-Qaida's 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.  The group had remained silent since the failed 1993 World Trade Center attack, utilizing the time to organize and equip its fighters for missions.  Now, after 11 years since the attack that killed 3,031, Al-Qaida is continuing a familiar pattern.  Without a doubt the group lacks the ability to perpetrate a large-scale attack like 9/11/01, but it can enhance its ability by perpetrating small-scale attacks on targets that are outside of U.S. borders and largely vulnerable like embassies or consulates.  Make no mistake, the point of surveillance is to find weaknesses and our embassies no matter how fortified we attempt to make them will always have a soft spot without the cooperation of foreign governments to protect the outer perimeters.  If such protection existed in places like Egypt, our embassy there would not have encountered such a threatening scenario as it did had Egyptian police responded and immediately attempted to disperse the crowds.


For instance, the 2008 attempted attack on the U.S. Consulate is an example of how the system should work.  When the attackers approached the compound, Turkish police immediately returned fire killing all three.  Three police officers were killed and one injured during the attempted attack but those officers did their jobs to do what is Turkey's responsibility - insuring that the threat did not make it inside the Consulate's walls.


This situation should ask the real question, and this is not the issue that most seem to make out about the attack in Benghazi.  That rocket was fired from outside the compound on Libyan soil.  The real question we should be asking is how did protesters encounter almost no resistance in storming our embassy in Egypt?  What does this signal as to how safe our facility is if police are either ordered to not intervene or allow such a threat to continue?  Had the groups outside been armed, it would have been exactly like August 7, 1998 when two U.S. installations in Africa were attacked.  However, those attacks were truck bombs blending into traffic and not part of a targeted assault from a mob.  It is incomprehensible to me how Egyptian police could have let people scale our walls, climb our building and yet they seemed to have done nothing to disperse the crowd outside.


It is my belief that the protests were an attempt by either Al-Qaida itself or pro-Qaida groups to utilize unarmed people and provoke a U.S. response once the embassy's territory was breached that would result in what would undoubtedly be labeled a massacre of unarmed martyrs - an undeniable win for Qaida recruiting.  However, I believe that the Libyan attack was the work of AQIM in what either was a concerted effort with regional partners and minimal AQ Central involvement.  This means I do not believe that the leaders of AQ were involved in the details of any of these incidents.  I believe what you are seeing is Al-Qaida's involvement in taking its fights rather from a global jihad, or "glocal terrorism" which mixes local and global, traditional and imported practices, as well as high and low technologies.  The pioneer for this template is Hizbullah, considered the A-team in terrorism by experts.


Despite the opening in 2008 of Africom, the Central command for U.S. operations in Africa, the continent houses what has always been a vulnerable host for terrorism.  Recruiting, financing, laundering, whatever criminal operations that need to take place to promote jihadism all comes from this continent.  Iran and Hizbullah have massive networks in the country, as well as Al-Qaida's previous involvement in the Blood Diamond trade that was journaled in Doug Farah's book "Blood from Stones".  The political instability and lawlessness that comes with it, as well as the Muslim population, make Africa a prime host for the jihad envisioned by Al-Qaida.  Undoubtedly, breaking this mold is something that requires international cooperation and partnerships that will require years to even attempt to tap into and reverse the networks which have been rooted for decades now.  It is my hope that both presidential candidates will take the threats emerging in Africa seriously, as well as AQAP (Al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula) in Yemen and recognize the development of the glocal trend.