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.  

Iran's toughening stance and the Arab Spring conflict

With news forthcoming regarding a plot to murder Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Adel Al-Jubeir, it is clear as is to be expected that the Iranians continue to be up to no good. Perhaps, this plot best summarizes the state of the Middle East post-Arab Spring revolutions - a region conflicted by the interests of Sunni Saudi Arabia and the Shia Iran. This power struggle by the two dominant powers of the region has taken form in various battles, mainly via subversive strategic episodes utilizing proxies. As the U.S. makes its case against the two Qods force linked operatives, it appears that Iran should indeed have a lot of explaining to do.

What is particularly significant in this case is the direct link between Manssor Arbabsiar and a DEA confidential informant (CI). Arbabsiar had been led to the CI because of his suspected narcotics trafficking contacts, which Gholam Shakuri advised utilizing because "people in that business are willing to undertake criminal activity in exchange for money." Douglas Farah and several others have written extensively on the risks of abandoning the War on Drugs faces when the various criminal enterprises collide with terrorist groups. Groups like Hezbollah and the Taliban have extensively utilized them as a method for fundraising and contract operations such as this one and keep their hands clean.

I believe the record speaks for itself, since 9/11 the U.S. has created and used an extensive network of CI's who have fortunately been helpful in providing information regarding plots both here and abroad. It is these individuals who help in making a case and disrupting plots like this.

However, there are a lot of questions that most assuredly are going through U.S. policymakers minds as well as within the Saudi circles. Iran's last linked attacks against a state were the bombings of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992, as well as a Jewish center in 1994 in the same city. Reports suggest that the recently disrupted plots indicated a renewed interest in striking the exact same city, which suggests a vast network by Qods force intermediaries in the Latin American region. Given the recent threats by Iran to deploy its navy along the U.S. Eastern seaboard, as well as this plot to for the first time conduct an operation against a U.S. ally on our soil, Iran is continuing to take an aggressive posturing that should be investigated.

The internal struggle in Iran is pressing for lame-duck President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now a political outcast by Ayatollah Khomenei for defying him in the appointment of the country's intelligence minister, Ahmadinejad is a lightweight for the country's affairs. That should be the scary part, is the theocracy now controls everything down to foreign affairs. Take into consideration that this theocracy calls for the end times and the coming of the Mahdi which they are supposed to govern in order to bring this momentous occasion about. This is a very dangerous concoction of delusional, religious dictators who see themselves in direct conflict with the West and now appear to be fixing to take a much more outward approach in reforming the globe and their region.

The U.S. should stand strictly by Saudi Arabia in this instance, and given the direct action of war this plot would have created if it had been successful, the strict interest of the world should be securing Iran's unchecked nuclear program and arsenal. As facts emerge as to how high up the totem pole this plot reached within Iran's government (which undoubtedly it would not be surprising for it to reach the upper echelons inside Qods Force, IRGC, and the Supreme Council on Natl. Security), it is necessary to keep the leadership of the country within confines and urge the Arab Spring revolutions to rise again inside this country. Iran's leadership can not be trusted and needs to be closely monitored. Undoubtedly, this incident has the Israelis and the Saudis doing just that.

Al-Qaida's war against the royal family continues

For quite some time, it seemed as though Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula had felt the heat of Saudi security operations and moved all its operations south to Yemen to use as a staging ground. The group had been dealt significant blows with sweeping raids netting hundreds of members over the last two years. Violence had escalated inside Yemen as the group sought refuge in border provinces to the Kingdom, however the Saudis had successfully foiled several series of plots on mostly oil interests.


On Monday, a suicide bomber targeted Dep. Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef at his palace during a Ramadan celebration. Nayef's capacity as Dep. Interior Minister places him in command over all counterterror operations. Al-Qaida was quick to declare its involvement in the attack, giving credit to Abdullah Hassan Taleh Aseri (alias "Abu al-Khayr"), who was listed in an INTERPOL orange notice for 85 individuals suspected of involvement in plotting terrorist attacks. The list raised an eyebrow by many skeptics of the Kingdom's "War on Terror" as 14 of the suspects were released from Guantanamo Bay into the Saudi rehabilitation program for "deviants" (the label applied to Islamic terrorists by authorities). Now reports are providing insight into the targeting of such a prominent member of the royal family.


The Al-Qaida statement suggests that Aseri was flown aboard Nayef's private jet, allowed access to the Prince's palace and upon being searched by security, detonated an explosive device. It should be noted that it is standard for the royal family to open their palaces to the public for Ramadan events. The curious aspect to the story remains as to what brought Aseri into the Kingdom. It is suggested that he crossed into Saudi Arabia from Yemen with the expressed intent to surrender to authorities. It is reported that he had expressed interest to speak to his followers and negotiate their surrender as well.


This is undoubtedly disturbing news coming out of Saudi Arabia, that the security around the equivalent to CIA Director Leon Panetta placed a wanted individual on his private jet, with explosives, and allowed him access to the palace. As this story develops it appears this was to be a momentous development that went horribly wrong. This incident lowers the confidence in certain internal elements, namely Nayef's security detail. Despite the pretenses of surrender provided by Aseri, he should have been treated as the dangerous criminal that he was.


This attempt can be credited to the resourceful tactics of Al-Qaida, utilizing the Islamic principle of taqqiya. Walid Phares has written before on taqqiya, stating that as a jihadist concept it instructs "Combatants “in the path of Allah,” as instructed by ideologues to “fake” normalcy, and lie if needed, about their real beliefs so that the deception of the enemy is full." This incident acts as a stark warning that Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula is not under pressure and remains as resourceful as it ever was. The potential for renewed conflict inside the Kingdom is now on a brink as Al-Qaida appears to have its sights back inside the country.

When the enemy hates what you stand for...

Exactly one week ago, the "coalition of the just and willing" got a wake-up call. Apparently, President Karzai of Afghanistan isn't so keen on just or willing-at least not in election campaign season.

After almost 7 years of fighting Taliban elements in Afghanistan, the world got to see that the Taliban are still capable of slipping through the cracks of the fragile Afghan security forces and coordinating an elaborate attack. Karzai was celebrating the 16th anniversary of the fall of the Soviet-backed government, which gave creation to the mujahideen resistance now known as Al-Qaida. While he stood amongst dignitaries such as the NATO general and several ambassadors, an assassination attempt flew bullets from Kalashnikovs and a rocket was fired at the stand where Karzai observed the festivities. Fortunately, President Karzai survived and so did the foreign dignitaries.

What wasn't addressed is that this should be a pretty easy omen for President Karzai. On the Friday prior to the attack, Karzai told UK's The Guardian that U.S. and NATO forces were undermining his government. He called for an end to arrests of Taliban members, saying that "It has to happen. We have to make sure that when a Talib comes to Afghanistan ... he is safe from arrest by the coalition." Strong words from a man who would not be President if it had not been for the U.S.-led removal of the Taliban government. He also went on to criticize the forces for any civilian casualties in their operations.

So, I'm assuming President Karzai knows a good bit about pandering to the voters in his re-election bid, but he doesn't understand anything about his country's stability. Karzai is quite simply trying to have two dreams at one time. Just today, his government told Pakistan that they were concerned about Pakistan's negotiations with Taliban elements in the FATA and NWFP. I find Pakistan's negotiations absurd, because quite simply the ceasefires do not work. The Defense Minister of Afghanistan recalled a 2006 Pakistan-Taliban agreement which only allowed reorganization of the Taliban and an increase in violence in Afghanistan. President Karzai must fight the Taliban militants because they are the ones setting his government up for failure. Karzai should recognize as a matter of policy, he simply can not criticize someone for negotiations with a group that he seeks to grant legitimacy to.

How come the Taliban talks result in increased violence within months of their signing?

Ideally, they want their power back and want to see their hard-line Islamic law back in power. However, the Taliban realize that they can not rule Afghanistan again but do have the power to breed instability. They are not a political force, but rather a resistance movement. This acceptance has bred the Taliban's control over surrounding villages and towns through no means other than intimidation and terror. Just look at how farmers families in the provinces of Pakistan have been threatened with death by Taliban elements for violating Taliban Islamic codes.

Karzai needs to make a strategic push to achieve security inside his country before attempting to negotiate political unity. The only group that can provide that will be the Taliban, and the only way to push them into a stance of submission is to counter their militancy. He must emphasize that the Taliban will not be recognized politically until they adopt a stance that removes all elements of violence. Until then, there will be no acceptance of any political influence in the country's political system. It is in Afghanistan's best interest to keep the troops rooting out the Taliban and for Karzai to not allow any of the Taliban's quotations of "crusaders killing children and families" to not make it into any of his campaign speeches.