Without a doubt we are seeing the Global War on Terror decreasing overseas, and in many ways at home as well. As President Obama attempted to calm the storm by calling for greater transparency and opening up aspects of surveillance techniques to public debate, many Americans still fear that we are living in an Orwellian novel of 1984. The reality simply is that such a move would counter and defeat the premise of surveillance at its most basic level - that good surveillance should go unnoticed until it demands a response by the entity conducting it. Basically, until there is actionable and operational intelligence, surveillance is a tool to aid in building enough information to prosecute a case. Much of the hyped up cases discussed by the media are framed by a bunch of "what ifs" that simply have no backing.
The programs in question are not some randomly concocted fantasy by power-hungry tyrants in a cubicle. Despite what liberals and conservatives think of our president, previous and present, the "big government" portrayals of both President Obama and his predecessor have no basis in this argument. Neither one of them has been a federal agent, or an analyst, or may not even speak another language. The men and women who fill these positions in our government have taken a sworn oath to protect and defend our country and Constitution. With the exception of one, Edward Snowden, their work sits protected by a layer of oversight and personal accountability to protect all of the information that they collect and receive until such a case can be made to act on it.
The NSA surveillance program is simply a means to an end. That being said, no criminal case has ever been built off of such a technique. This is similar to let's just say, license plate readers on local law enforcement vehicles or a polygraph. These are tools that can trigger and help determine the path an officer takes in the merits of an investigation, but if taken to court with the data either one of those tools delivers, has absolutely no basis and will get laughed out of court. A person can be driving a stolen vehicle, but if it's an old lady who bought it from a shady car dealer, she can't go to jail. You can pass a polygraph but still be guilty of a crime in question. Unless there is evidence for the crime in question though, there is no case.
Government surveillance is in place for a reason. It works. There have been no known instances where anyone has complained that the government has collected too much information and gone on a dumbfounded witch-hunt. Is that because the programs our so secretive? Or is it because the government has properly separated actionable and useful intelligence amongst the millions of intercepts that are conducted annually? In the coming weeks as we assess government's responsibility with personal information, it is my hope that the critics will have an open mind to understand how useful most, if not all the developed programs, have been in keeping the U.S. safe.
Just a side note, our enemy is constantly developing strategies to bypass having communications filtered through by the in question programs. Take into consideration that the Mumbai attacks that occurred in November 2008 were planned by individuals who corresponded through a single e-mail account and would not send e-mails, but rather save them as a draft. Through one user name and one password, the cell was able to communicate and avoid triggering a red flag in a means of communication that may have been monitored. One must wonder with the information Edward Snowden revealed, how many people may die in a future attack due to him revealing information. Without a doubt, our enemies are presently, if not already revamping techniques to avoid detection.
9-11-01
Showing posts with label global terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global terrorism. Show all posts
Friday, August 9, 2013
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)