Without a doubt, those of us alive in 2001 remember the attacks that drove the United States into the War on Terror. The images of 2,753 fellow Americans should be an image that we will never forget in what has led to a pursuit of justice worldwide, and as we have made significant accomplishments in dismantling Al-Qaida, it is important that we understand that terrorism may have no end, but that does not mean we should abandon the fight.
As President Obama announced a strategy to confront ISIS, I believe a real issue that we face now is understanding that due to technology, terrorist groups now have the ability to transcend regional boundaries and can now establish support globally via social networking. This is nothing new, but is a challenge that Al-Qaida has struggled with but ISIS seems to support and actively use (such as the recent murders of James Foley and Steven Sotloff). Videos of recent terrorist actions filmed within Afghanistan and Iraq have made their way onto YouTube and Twitter, eventually being flagged in most instances and removed, however, file sharing also allows sympathizers to tap into these and educate themselves on potential tactics, methods, and other means that are extremely useful to develop a plot. While I believe the "lone wolf" threat is in many ways exaggerated (not to say in any ways nonexistent), it is important to understand that without confronting the means of developing a violent and radical ideology, we will continue in what will be a losing battle.
ISIS is developing in my opinion to become the new face of global terrorism, working its way throughout the region and destroying societies and people, dismantling way of life and paving a path of destruction. It is important to understand that it will take regional partnerships, our allies, and our own resolve to successfully confront this threat. While we may look at the struggles that we faced since the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the political debate, this is a conflict that is not just within Syria but is growing and will continue, and someone has to be there to counter this threat. I am confident that there is the support among our regional partners to commit to this fight because the risk is simply too great, and with complete confidence, if we continue to allow ISIS to develop, the threats we face here at home will grow and possibly lead to another attack on the home front.
As we honor all the victims of 9/11/01, let us remember also the lessons of disregarding a global threat and only responding rather than preventing. As the mujahideen fighters fed into Al-Qaida's leadership in the decade prior to 9/11, we are seeing a new group of fighters who are acting behind computers and radicalizing a new wave of fighters. History is there for a reason, let us learn from our past.
9-11-01
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Friday, August 9, 2013
NSA Surveillance and the decline of the War on Terror
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
9/11: Al-Qaida's re-emergence in the Arab Spring
Eleven years ago, we all witnessed the tragedy that would define generations - landmarks of American economic and military power reduced to rubble, smoking from canyons of steel and collapsing on people who were our neighbors, friends and family. Without a doubt, 9/11 changed American policy and created what many have declared "a war that can't be won", what was once a global war on terror structured around disrupting terrorism at its roots before it could hit U.S. targets again. This aggressive campaign led to military posturing in areas where Al-Qaida (AQ) and its sympathizers operated with a new African command being built for U.S. operations on the continent as well as enhanced cooperation by Middle Eastern intelligence agencies. The understanding was that terrorism was a global threat, that reduced regional stability wherever it was harbored.
Partnerships emerged with intelligence offices in unlikely partners, Egypt and Jordan among them, increasing coordination and intelligence sharing. It seemed as though terrorism was being disrupted in virtually every hemisphere and most assuredly, significant accomplishments were achieved with credit to be shared with these offices. Under the present administration, the intensity of this war has continued and we have seen the campaign shift from manpower to technology with a heavy drone usage. As Peter Bergen has written, it appears the drone is President Obama's weapon of choice, with more strikes occurring in Obama's first four years than his predecessor's two terms. The group's leadership has been decimated, decapitated and is struggling. However, I think we are beginning to see the new brand of AQ emerge.
Today, on this significant anniversary, in lieu of a terrorist attack we saw the U.S. embassy in Cairo and in Benghazi fall under attack by scores of "peaceful protesters." A State Department employee appears to have been killed during the incident in Benghazi. These two incidents seem to piggyback off of the Arab Spring uprisings, which were backed by the U.S. in both countries to overthrow both Qaddafi and Mubarak. Simply put, AQ could have pulled off the same scale attacks it orchestrated in 1998 today, yet it would have been extremely selfish and yielded hardly any results to its cause. Any excuse for a U.S. escalation, amidst a withdrawal in Iraq and Afghanistan, would backfire on not only AQ, but those who took to the streets to make these revolutions occur. AQ would be the bad guy again in the Arab world. By becoming mainstream and blending in with anti-U.S. protests, it identifies the up and coming radical sentiments in the youths that it can train a new mujahideen to replace its fallen ranks.
The brand that makes up AQ is one that is merely in name at present, affected by the persistent U.S. campaign targeting its leadership and disrupting its fundraising and recruiting networks. It has outsourced the terrorism to its franchises in Yemen (AQAP) and Africa (AQIM), leaving AQ central to tap into the opportune Arab Spring revolutions. It is no coincidence that U.S. diplomatic sites were attacked in countries that the U.S. helped fuel the tide by removing support for the previous regimes. The question is how does the U.S. respond to this escalation?
By failing to address the problems, we risk increased violence as AQ becomes a fixture in these movements. By seemingly avoiding violence, it appears to become part of the Arab world without facing the problem of blowing up innocent civilians and losing support for killing more Muslims than Americans amongst its attacks like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan. By blending in to the Arab Spring, the protests become indicative of a new strategy that takes to the cities, directly to streets rather than reclusive training camps isolated in vulnerable havens to a drone strategy. AQ blends in amongst the youths, capable of exploiting them and instilling the anti-U.S. sentiment that first filled its ranks. Simply put, we are seeing Al-Qaida adapt from a terrorist group to an ideology. The risk with such an evolution puts at risk everything we have accomplished as it encourages the potential for lone-wolf or independent operations that require domestic surveillance as compared to merely looking for those people who travel to Pakistan every year.
Make no mistake, despite what administration officials say, Al-Qaida is a component of the enemy we face but a defeat of AQ is not indicative that we are any safer. With the group successfully transforming in the direction that Ayman al-Zawahiri seems to be steering it in, recruiting will be significantly easier. This is a certain way to build up the ranks again, rally the troops and gain the momentum it lost after 9/11 in the Arab world. Without responding, the U.S. opens doors for attacks on its sites abroad that will most certainly have greater bloodshed than today's incidents. As we pause to remember the victims from those tragic events eleven years ago, let us commit that terrorism is a tactic that will not prevail or deter us from the freedoms we enjoy and the resilient spirit that our country shares.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Who's in charge? How Assad & Syria control the greatest stake in the Middle East
The facts speak for themselves. If you look at the numbers above, Syria is a global embarrassment into how a country should be allowed to operate. The tyranny and brutal justice of Bashar Assad are on clear display for the world to see.
16, 321 killed in 451 days. (1,226 children, 1,150 women)
65,000 others missing.
212,000 detained.
1,000,000 internally displaced.
200,000 refugees.
1.4 million at risk of famine.
And what is Bashar Assad doing to fix this? Nothing. He is too concerned with hanging onto power that he simply does not have. His ability to govern is nonexistent, and his will to govern has been diverted into handling an uprising that he can not handle without sheer force.
The real question now is how long must we allow this movement to go on without our President, Secretary of State, ambassadors in the region, even uttering a word to honor those who have lost their lives trying to bring a change that this administration welcomed gladly in places like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt even. The pressure quickly mounted when the U.S. withdrew any support for longtime regional partner Hosni Mubarak, yet an Iranian puppet like Assad does not even gain mention in a White House press briefing.
This President knows what is at stake if Assad falls. It may not be pretty, but it is worth a chance to support this potential change. Without Assad, a TRULY free Lebanon could emerge - dismembering the results of the 2008 civil war which installed a Hezbollah-led Parliament and President - and bring a legitimate government unifying all religions and sects. A new Lebanon without Hezbollah (which is suffering internal dissent over finance mismanagement and its leadership) and a new Syria led by the people and not governed by an heir to the throne, will change the region. Iran's largest proxies will have been diminished, no longer giving terror groups like Hezbollah the authority they once held (Hezbollah controlled many social services in the country, generating hundreds of millions in annual revenue for the group capitalizing on everything from garbage collecting to electricity, which sparked the 2008 civil way when the Lebanese government attempted to shut off the group's secure telecommunication network, which was declared an act of war by Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah).
All of this means that in order to sustain its ability to defend itself using its proxy network, Iran's estimated $200 million annually given to terror groups may have to increase...and its terror networks regroup. Safe havens once held in Lebanon will now be free societies, capable of challenging Iranian meddling. This is exactly what is needed to counter Hezbollah, which many terror experts have labeled for almost a decade as terrorism's "A-team", leading Al-Qaida in expertise.
Why then have we allowed the people of Lebanon and Syria, approximately 25 million, to be denied an opportunity to create a new future for the youths? Why must they have to wait another day? How come we have outsourced any responsibility as a global leader to help resolve the problem to Russia, who has a longstanding partnership with Iran and Syria in military contracts that are probably being used in the daily bloodbaths on the streets of Homs? Not to sound cynical, but Vladimir Putin knows probably better than anyone else how much money his country has to gain from arming Bashar Assad with Russian arms and military systems, why would he give the bat of an eye to the numbers inside Syria?
This situation can not and will not be resolved inside the United Nations. Rather it will be met, similar in World War II, by the dedication and partnership of freedom loving countries who challenge a power hungry menace and protect those who can not protect themselves. The time to stop this madness is overdue, but it is clear that Assad has enough backing to hold onto whatever power he still yields, which is only through killing any dissenters.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Playing politics with intelligence
On the date of the death of Al-Qaida's founder, Usama bin Laden, much ado about nothing has been made about the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" argument regarding the raid that terminated Al-Qaida's number one. As the Obama administration and Mitt Romney's campaign spar over nonsense of whether or not a President Romney would approve of the Seal Team Six operation, the men and women on the front lines of the War on Terror continue their tasks seeking out any leads that may lead to other significant developments in this never ending war.
Inside the beltway, this war is something that is taken for granted - the unsung heroes carry on with their tasks contributing to preserving the American way of life and insuring another 9/11 does not happen under their watch. The many factors involved in delivering intelligence to the desk of the President, regardless of who is in office, are never taken lightly and ultimately that decision is dependent on the Chief Executive. Whether that action is approved (as in President Obama's case) or ignored (as in the missed opportunities President Clinton had to take out UBL), these men and women continue their tasks without a doubt that the mission is clear.
In an election year, everything is at stake for political parties, but it is an embarrassment to our government to take this issue to doubt a candidate's commitment to justice. Fundamentally, I felt from 2003 until a year ago, Usama bin Laden's role inside Al-Qaida was one mainly left in the dust - incapable of operational capacity and isolated from the training camps he once so closely monitored. Sure enough, UBL was abandoned by most of his group to his domain in Abbotabad where he would face his demise.
It is my belief that when Mitt Romney made his statements from 2007, he was referring to not exhausting valuable assets in the military and intelligence communities on one figure. Realistically, I think his statements make sense and should echo the sentiments realistically of all in the intel community, that terrorism is bigger than one figure and taking out a mouthpiece will not stop the mission to save lives. I believe the intelligence mission of all those involved in the bin Laden raid was a responsible one, and resulted in the delivery of justice to punish a man who slaughtered Americans senselessly on the streets of New York, Washington, and in Pennsylvania.
If it is doubtful that any candidate for Congress, much less President of the United States, would take the intelligence President Obama received and not act on it (whether it be with special operations or drones), why should they have any authority whatsoever? Tactics aside, the bin Laden operation was an opportunity of justice and not to disrupt operations and recruiting (as in Al-Awlaki). I remember many a press conference then-Governor Romney quoted vague threats targeted towards sites inside his state as credible and revealed limited intelligence as though it were a specific and targeted concern. Just as Governor Davis of California created a great deal of concern over threats to the Golden Gate Bridge when intelligence evaluated by analysts suggested no significant concerns.
Some things never change, politics as usual occurs on a daily basis on a variety of issues, but the successes made by the members of our nation's intelligence and military communities should never be one that comes down to a self-gratifying politician's posturing. Amongst all the foiled plots, countless lives have been saved because of the dedication of these unnamed people. Without the political nonsense, the mission will remain the same inside the counter terrorism community. Take facts as they are, bin Laden's dead and it came down to a President to decide how to handle the situation. Let's make sure that we have a President committed to preserving justice and life.
Inside the beltway, this war is something that is taken for granted - the unsung heroes carry on with their tasks contributing to preserving the American way of life and insuring another 9/11 does not happen under their watch. The many factors involved in delivering intelligence to the desk of the President, regardless of who is in office, are never taken lightly and ultimately that decision is dependent on the Chief Executive. Whether that action is approved (as in President Obama's case) or ignored (as in the missed opportunities President Clinton had to take out UBL), these men and women continue their tasks without a doubt that the mission is clear.
In an election year, everything is at stake for political parties, but it is an embarrassment to our government to take this issue to doubt a candidate's commitment to justice. Fundamentally, I felt from 2003 until a year ago, Usama bin Laden's role inside Al-Qaida was one mainly left in the dust - incapable of operational capacity and isolated from the training camps he once so closely monitored. Sure enough, UBL was abandoned by most of his group to his domain in Abbotabad where he would face his demise.
It is my belief that when Mitt Romney made his statements from 2007, he was referring to not exhausting valuable assets in the military and intelligence communities on one figure. Realistically, I think his statements make sense and should echo the sentiments realistically of all in the intel community, that terrorism is bigger than one figure and taking out a mouthpiece will not stop the mission to save lives. I believe the intelligence mission of all those involved in the bin Laden raid was a responsible one, and resulted in the delivery of justice to punish a man who slaughtered Americans senselessly on the streets of New York, Washington, and in Pennsylvania.
If it is doubtful that any candidate for Congress, much less President of the United States, would take the intelligence President Obama received and not act on it (whether it be with special operations or drones), why should they have any authority whatsoever? Tactics aside, the bin Laden operation was an opportunity of justice and not to disrupt operations and recruiting (as in Al-Awlaki). I remember many a press conference then-Governor Romney quoted vague threats targeted towards sites inside his state as credible and revealed limited intelligence as though it were a specific and targeted concern. Just as Governor Davis of California created a great deal of concern over threats to the Golden Gate Bridge when intelligence evaluated by analysts suggested no significant concerns.
Some things never change, politics as usual occurs on a daily basis on a variety of issues, but the successes made by the members of our nation's intelligence and military communities should never be one that comes down to a self-gratifying politician's posturing. Amongst all the foiled plots, countless lives have been saved because of the dedication of these unnamed people. Without the political nonsense, the mission will remain the same inside the counter terrorism community. Take facts as they are, bin Laden's dead and it came down to a President to decide how to handle the situation. Let's make sure that we have a President committed to preserving justice and life.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
American Foreign Policy Post bin Laden
Post the death of Al-Qaida's most recognized leader, Osama bin Laden, the United States has had to adjust its mission in the War on Terror, recognizing that the threat is indeed broad and the enemy is persistent. Reports suggesting that the number of suspected terrorists has doubled within the last twelve months, that either suggests that the intelligence community has improved it reconnaissance on suspects or the TSA has been very busy. The reality is that terrorism without action, just like before 9/11, exists. Everyday, facilitators recruiting future suicide attackers and raising funds for terror operations exist and are hoping to develop the next big plot against our way of life.
Reports from the hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday suggested that America's most prominent adversary lays in the leadership of Iran. With reports suggesting that despite continued embargoes, Iran is willing and developing plots to attack American interests, both domestic and abroad (as evidenced by the willingness to attempt an assassination of the Saudi ambassador in a Washington D.C. restaurant) should alarm people. Iran's capabilities are unrivaled globally through its use of proxy networks. The question is how capable are its once strong partners, such as with Hizbullah, to instruct and coordinate an attack on American interests?
The reality is that Iran has long positioned itself within the Middle East region to be the most operational terror outfit. Its arsenal, recruitment numbers, and statements speak for itself. Despite setbacks in its leadership in Lebanon (which should raise concern of a splinter within the group that could develop into regional factions similar to Al-Qaida) the group has some of the most dedicated and persistent warriors within its ranks.
With the continued unrest in Syria, the certainty of one of Iran's closest partners in the Sunni-Shia divide is at stake and an opportunity to distract the international community is one of the most practical possibilities in this saga. Iran is in a difficult situation economically and is constantly looking for a way out, as evidenced by the previous reports of it seeking to increase oil exports and other strategic partnerships globally. It has laid a stake in various parts of Africa as well as in South America, particularly in Venezuela.
Strategically, without a unified voice to denounce the killings of protestors on the streets inside Syria, Bashar al-Assad will remain in power. The risks are too high for not only his regime, but also within the Iranian leadership which has aided Assad for years. The religious leadership of Iran, led by its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomenei, views every struggle as part of a religious commitment to fulfill the coming of the Mahdi and bringing about the end of the world. This delusion/ambition destroys the probability of reasoning with the real deciders, Iran's Supreme Council, is null.
Iran is a ticking time bomb that poses a grave threat to Israel, the U.S. and its Western allies as well as the entire Middle East region. The capabilities of Iran, combined with its undeclared nuclear program and its global network of terrorists place an emphasis on U.S. foreign policy and its need to deal and address the issue now rather than procrastinate and allow further development. Iran's leadership is religiously motivated and dependent on the apocalyptic theology and the necessity to bring this scenario about.
With the death of Osama bin Laden, the War on Terror developed into a new phase that determined that the enemy is no longer just one man who we sought to bring to justice, but rather a collection of groups seeking to destroy the fundamental rights of humanity. The reality is Iran utilizes its networks for terrorism, as well as being complicit and involved in actions killing U.S. soldiers inside Afghanistan and within Iraq in the past. U.S. policy must address the lapses in its inability to adequately confront and halt Iran in its quest for what is assuredly for nuclear weapons. Consistently, the largest threat against the U.S. has been Hizbullah. Due to its global networking and capabilities, combined with its complacency in criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking, this group will remain the most extensive enemy against the West.
Reports from the hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday suggested that America's most prominent adversary lays in the leadership of Iran. With reports suggesting that despite continued embargoes, Iran is willing and developing plots to attack American interests, both domestic and abroad (as evidenced by the willingness to attempt an assassination of the Saudi ambassador in a Washington D.C. restaurant) should alarm people. Iran's capabilities are unrivaled globally through its use of proxy networks. The question is how capable are its once strong partners, such as with Hizbullah, to instruct and coordinate an attack on American interests?
The reality is that Iran has long positioned itself within the Middle East region to be the most operational terror outfit. Its arsenal, recruitment numbers, and statements speak for itself. Despite setbacks in its leadership in Lebanon (which should raise concern of a splinter within the group that could develop into regional factions similar to Al-Qaida) the group has some of the most dedicated and persistent warriors within its ranks.
With the continued unrest in Syria, the certainty of one of Iran's closest partners in the Sunni-Shia divide is at stake and an opportunity to distract the international community is one of the most practical possibilities in this saga. Iran is in a difficult situation economically and is constantly looking for a way out, as evidenced by the previous reports of it seeking to increase oil exports and other strategic partnerships globally. It has laid a stake in various parts of Africa as well as in South America, particularly in Venezuela.
Strategically, without a unified voice to denounce the killings of protestors on the streets inside Syria, Bashar al-Assad will remain in power. The risks are too high for not only his regime, but also within the Iranian leadership which has aided Assad for years. The religious leadership of Iran, led by its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomenei, views every struggle as part of a religious commitment to fulfill the coming of the Mahdi and bringing about the end of the world. This delusion/ambition destroys the probability of reasoning with the real deciders, Iran's Supreme Council, is null.
Iran is a ticking time bomb that poses a grave threat to Israel, the U.S. and its Western allies as well as the entire Middle East region. The capabilities of Iran, combined with its undeclared nuclear program and its global network of terrorists place an emphasis on U.S. foreign policy and its need to deal and address the issue now rather than procrastinate and allow further development. Iran's leadership is religiously motivated and dependent on the apocalyptic theology and the necessity to bring this scenario about.
With the death of Osama bin Laden, the War on Terror developed into a new phase that determined that the enemy is no longer just one man who we sought to bring to justice, but rather a collection of groups seeking to destroy the fundamental rights of humanity. The reality is Iran utilizes its networks for terrorism, as well as being complicit and involved in actions killing U.S. soldiers inside Afghanistan and within Iraq in the past. U.S. policy must address the lapses in its inability to adequately confront and halt Iran in its quest for what is assuredly for nuclear weapons. Consistently, the largest threat against the U.S. has been Hizbullah. Due to its global networking and capabilities, combined with its complacency in criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking, this group will remain the most extensive enemy against the West.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)