Remembering 9/11 and Understanding Terrorism Now

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.

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. 

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.  

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.  

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.

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.  

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.

Committing to a resolution for Iran

2011 has been a whirlwind year, with the emergence of the "Arab Spring" throughout the Middle East and the recent death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, this is hardly a time for the U.S. to mull presidential candidates with little to no foreign policy backbone. While TIME magazine recognized "the Protester" as its person of the year, it clearly showed how strong an impact one person can have - for better or worse. Now as Syrian protesters continue to be massacred on the streets, the U.S. stays mum to the violence committed by President Bashar Assad. Whatever happens in Syria could be part of a larger trail that could ultimately lead to Iran, resulting in either a stronger Islamic republic under Khomenei or a new democracy. Now, more than ever is the time to act in Iran and to sustain all current actions.

To the West and especially Israel, the largest concern from Iran has been with the undeclared and unregulated nuclear pursuits of a country that seeks to control the region and the world. This is a country that is bigger than its borders, exploiting partnerships in various regions to expand and establish presence inside virtually every corner of the globe. For the time being, Iran's activities have been primarily centered around fundraising. However, recent reports show that the U.S. has effectively diminished the flow of funds from Iran to groups like Hizbollah by as much as 25%. Continued sanctions can help manage the world's largest exporter of terrorism, but it does little to end the threat posed by Iran's proxies. Furthermore, the apparent drying up of money has reportedly pushed Hizbollah operatives in Northern Lebanon to deal drugs in an attempt to make up for losses.

Strategically, now is perhaps one of the most opportune times for the U.S. to capitalize on the revolutionary movements emerging throughout the region as well as the insecurity of Iran's government. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced he will not run in the election in 2013, and the sanctions have proven disruptive to Iran's Revolutionary Guard and its funding of Hizbollah, which is reportedly in turmoil amid reports of internal corruption which reportedly had the group's investment manager having embezzled as much as $1.6 billion. That is how much money we are talking about. Consider Western intelligence having placed Hizbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah to have a net worth of $250 million.

According to reports, Iran's Revolutionary Guard is growing increasingly frustrated with Hizbollah amid the corruption allegations. Hizbollah, regarded as "the A-team of terror" amid intelligence circles, has taken a serious hit and may be at a bypass with many of its senior leaders and the IRGC. With the tension between Iran and Hizbullah building, and an inability to deliver funds, Iran's biggest and most feared proxy is in a weakened state. Combined with upcoming elections in 2013 and the growing movement inside Syria, Iran's biggest assets are in a struggle that they can either emerge stronger or weakened.

Last week, Ahmadinejad announced that by 2013 his country will be a major gasoline exporter. This move is a direct affront to the threat and usage of sanctions in an effort for his country to establish independence similar to its establishment of a joint bank venture with Venezuela.

Opportunity exists for the U.S. to partner with Western countries and regional players in seeking a new Iran that eliminates the violent rhetoric and apocalyptic direction that Ayatollah Khomenei seeks, regardless of who the country's president is. As Rep. Ron Paul questions why the U.S. should be meddling in Iranian affairs, the fact remains that with or without U.S. surveillance, Iran has an undeclared nuclear program, has consistently been the largest state-sponsor of terrorism, and has backed attacks globally on U.S. assets via its network of proxies.

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.

Deaths of senior AQ leaders reported; where are we in the GWoT?

News broke yesterday morning stating that several AQAP leaders, including two U.S. citizens, had been killed in a Predator strike. Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both American citizens, were reported among the dead in a statement by Yemen's Defense Ministry. Also reported to have been killed was AQAP's top bomb maker, Ibrahim Hassan Tali al Asiri, in a separate strike. These successes, if indeed fact, prove that the use of drones as assets in the GWoT are virtually invaluable in eliminating high-value targets. With the intensity of this tactic under President Obama, it appears that there is no hint of attempting to slow down anytime soon.

According to the Washington Post, the CIA is in the process of constructing four drone airstrip bases intended to strike AQ affiliates inside Yemen and Somalia. The enhancement of such a program should be welcomed by many, allowing the U.S. to fight this new-age war with new-age technology that does not risk our soldiers lives.

However, with such an intensity and fury coming from drones to target the leadership in faraway places, there is an underlying question. What is really being done here at home to enhance the U.S. in this War on Terror? When President Obama took office, critics questioned if he had the determination and ability to conduct a war. It appears that indeed he has skillfully handled the GWoT in regards to specifics, but like his predecessors, is unwilling to come to a full on confrontation with the pandemic of radicalism.

The real question is legally, are we enhancing our fight and clearly defining the legal abilities of law enforcement in confronting this war? I do not feel as though the outreach mission to incorporate the Muslim community has succeeded and quite honestly, has returned to the pre-9/11 days. Between the media and politicians, we have made this a war about names - similar to the Communist threat from nation states like the USSR. However, this is a war of ideals that has no boundaries or structural organization. Dare I say without OBL's pre-9/11 corporate structuring, Al-Qaeda as a whole will splinter off into the independent franchises based in the Northern Horn of Africa, Arabian Peninsula, and Kashmir/Pakistan.

Pakistan will always play host to a radical faction of jihadists, given its dispute with India, the alliances published most recently regarding the U.S. embassy strike in Kabul will always be an asset to the ISI. Inside Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. strategy is seen at odds with the tribal structuring and has done little to incorporate and facilitate a partnership. While most definitely easier said than done, a comprehensive approach to turn the dependence on Taliban and AQ, especially inside Pakistan, would drastically change the dynamics of this conflict that is about winning hearts and minds.

The fact of the matter is we can take out as many leaders as we want, but there will always be this radical jihadist element that will pose the primary national security threat to the U.S. Over the duration of the War on Terror, several major blows to terrorist organizations in Indonesia, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Russia have been facilitated largely by U.S. cooperation in nearly almost every circumstance. We are taking this war to the terrorists doorsteps in, as Pres. George W. Bush stated was necessary so we would not have to fight them on our own streets as we felt on 9/11. While killing off bad guys is easy, defining the legal challenges and alliances in this war is where the real struggle lies.

Pulling out in Afghanistan: Remembering Musa Qala

It should have been expected that the day after President Obama announced a plan to gradually draw down troop numbers in Afghanistan, Capitol Hill would be filled with the partisan positions arguing in favor and against the President's plan. Campaigning as candidate Barack Obama, I was impressed with his position on Afghanistan, arguing for a withdrawal but pointing out the areas that NATO troops must target to leave the country while building the society we idealized after the Taliban. Needless to say, to this day we have yet to see the situation improve in Afghanistan, and if anything, get worse.

The job in Afghanistan has not been undermined by President Obama, or President Bush, but rather President Hamid Karzai. A man whose reign has promoted government corruption and the establishment of Taliban shadow courts and administrations in his country's provinces, Karzai rapidly showed he was not the capable leader touted by then President Bush in his 2001 address to Congress announcing the new face of Afghanistan. With a family plagued with ties to the illicit opium trade (a necessary evil to confront in order to win), Hamid Karzai has become a leader who dictates by indecision and response, rather than pioneering the democratic ideals he once said he'd represent.

The recent confirmation that allied forces were engaged in "integration" talks with Taliban intermediaries could not be any more of a mistake. Witness the result of talks in Pakistan with the group, which led to increased violence and casualties. Negotiating with the Taliban WILL NOT work. Plain and simple. The Taliban do not exist without Sharia, and their extreme interpretation is the only version they seek. In order to obtain the upper hand in government, they will use terrorism - the tactic we are at war against - and deception. Unless the Taliban renounce violence, their arms, and their hand in the opium trade any deal should be viewed as a complete fraud. After all, that is how Pakistan ended up in the position it is in.

Pakistan has recently suffered a string of attacks brought on by infiltration inside its military ranks. The May 22 attack on Naval Station Mehran was made possible by dedicated militants who utilized taqiyya (a practice allowing Muslims to deny their faith and beliefs in order to achieve their goals). This is something that took years, which is precisely what has been warned may have been happening for years in the ranks of the Afghan police and military. Take the April 4 killing of two U.S. soldiers providing security for a meeting between the deputy commander for the Afghan border police and U.S. officials. The shooter was an Afghan police officer.

Violence on Afghan police has increased, with the assassination of the police chiefs for Kandahar, Takhar, and Kunduz provinces in just a three month period. Hardly a figure that suggests stablility throughout the ranks of the forces that we should have trained to take over the counterinsurgency. Without experienced warriors, like Gen. Khan Mohammad Mujahid, assuming the role of confronting the groups perpetrating violence there is opportunity for Taliban fighters to yet again make a comeback and gain a following.

Last but not least, President Obama mentioned that Al-Qaida was in a weakened state following the death of Osama bin Laden. It is my belief, as well as several other experts, that Al-Qaida is and has been in a weakened operational state. There have been significant gains well before OBL's death, with several experienced Soviet-era mujahideen fighters who were AQ leaders and organizers falling victim to Predator strikes. Operationally, AQ is not and most probably will never be able to perpetrate another 9/11, but it can inspire individuals to recruit and establish their own attack plans. The trend of recent attacks coming from Al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula speaks to the abilities of AQ central. Al-Qaida's leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan had no handling in the day-to-day operations of the group, but rather merely had the final say as to the direction they wanted their franchises (like AQAP and Shabaab) to take.

We can argue there are only 50-100 Al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan, but the elephant in the room is how many there are in Pakistan. For years, it has been argued that in order to effectively fight in Afghanistan we must expand our focus to the groups operating from Pakistan (like the Haqqani network, the group that has killed the most U.S. troops). It was thought that the killing of OBL would set a precedent, but rather represents a climax in our campaign to root out those who utilize fear as a tactic to promote a radical agenda. The numbers of Taliban and AQ are most definitely not those touted by the Pentagon and CIA officials in media soundbites.

Time will tell whether or not Afghanistan is winnable. Most certainly, with the current policies and administrations in the U.S. and in Afghanistan, we will go down in history as abandoning the country in a state worse than we found it. Afghanistan has historically been a country plagued with violence, with a population that expects to never see peace and growth. History has made the population weary of how committed our troops are from the beginning. On that note, here's one nugget from that history:

"In September 2006, the British and the Taliban acknowledged an impasse by accepting a truce brokered by elders of Musa Qala: each side agreed to withdraw from the district center. The agreement, combined with reported British efforts to bribe Taliban commanders in Helmand, was met with harsh criticism from some coalition critics, who believed these actions projected weakness and empowered the Taliban. Within three months, claiming that a U.S. air strike violated the agreement, approximately 200 Taliban retook the district center and quickly moved to establish radical Islamist rule over the area. The withdrawal of British forces, coupled with the Taliban's eventual ability to reclaim the area, cemented Musa Qala as a proud symbol of insurgent resistance, analogous on a smaller scale to the cultural resonance Fallujah once held in Iraq"

The Arab Spring and the potential to be on the wrong side of history...again

As President Obama continues to push for the "democracies" emerging in Egypt and Tunisia, the question emerging is how much can we trust that the youths on the streets really know the answer to the question everyone seems to be asking once the established government leaders are unseated: "What now?" The fact remains, when the U.S. pulled its support for President Mubarak, shock waves echoed in the halls of the palaces of other U.S. regional partners who suddenly realized that the U.S. could and would redact its support in a heartbeat to accommodate a vision for the region, even at the expense of an uncertain future and potential anarchy.

This movement may have honest beginnings, it may be the legitimate outcry from suffering populations who have reached the breaking point and making Tahrir Square into the next Tiananman Square. However, without careful oversight, the potential for evil forces engaged in jihad and partnered with the global vision for an Islamic Caliphate. Many people have it wrong when using the term jihad, labeling it as solely a blood and guts war against society. There are three variants to jihad, all focusing on different components. Jihad is the term for "struggle," which can indeed relate to citizen/government relations, or a person's internal conflict. Either way, the ultimate goal in jihad is to construct a resilient Islamic mentality in either a Muslim, or society.

With jihad taking form against the Mubarak administration, time will tell how long it will after the elections for the new administration to establish its policies on the Christians that make up Egypt's minority. Mubarak took a great deal of pressure from Muslims worldwide for his acceptance of Christianity inside the country, refusing to bow to calls to establish a Muslim state. Now, with his protection out the window, the potential for sectarian violence (just like in Lebanon with Hizbullah forces in 2008) is on the rise. Just last week, in Cairo Christian-Muslim clashes killed 11 and injured 150.

It was for this very reason that the al-Qiddissin church in Alexandria was targeted in a brutal attack on New Year's Eve. In the weeks following the Mubarak administration rounded up over 50 terrorists suspected of being linked to the plot. Al-Qaida in Iraq had issued a warning that December suggesting the targeting of churches throughout the region, however it was not deemed to be responsible for the plot and it was pinned on the Palestinian Islamic Army.

In a unique twist, the new anti-Mubarak administration opened an investigation implicating the Interior Ministry in a plot to exacerbate sectarian tensions in the country and implicate Al-Qaida militants in a bid to receive increased aid from the U.S. Proclamation 1450 saw an internal affairs investigation that was one of many to follow as President Hosni Mubarak was forced from office. Who stands to gain from the coup that took place? It has been clear, most recently in Lebanon in 2008, that militant groups seeking government legitimacy play a significant role in these movements. Hizbullah was able to topple any internal resistance from within Lebanon, and force a government takeover, while appearing "democratic" in its manipulations. Who ultimately stood to gain from a Hizbullah-led Lebanon? Ask the Israelis and it will be a strong answer of Iran.

Now, as Bashar Assad faces the same domestic revolts that have undermined the governments in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, where is the global response? Rather than pointing all our resources at Qaddafi, the real ploy should be to aggressively aid the Syrian resistance and mandate Assad cease civilian attacks (essentially the same thing we did in Libya, but with more tact). In Syria, we can win a war with the Syrian people's cooperation, and win back our reputation in the region as a protector of human rights and democratic values. At the same time, to topple Assad would change the tables in Lebanon and possibly put the favor back in the hands of the elected officials that swiftly lost any government input at the hands of Hizbullah's 2008 civil war. We could free Lebanon and Syria at the same time, and make things extremely difficult for Assad's closest partner - Tehran.

For the most part, Tehran has sat silent. Now as the situation in Syria begins to make some recognition in the media, it is being forced to respond at a very embarrassing time for the country. The role of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been relegated to completely internal closed door meetings with Ayatollah Khomenei following a dispute over his dismissal of the Khomenei associate, Intelligence Director Heidar Moslehi. Ahmadinejad fired Moslehi on 4/17, then according to MEMRI, was forced to reinstate him under direct orders from Khomenei. For the week following, the usually outspoken and hate mongering Ahmadinejad was confined to his house as the regime leaders dictated the potential wrath for disobeying the Ayatollah.

As Iran's president is carefully monitored to insure he remains the puppet for Khomenei, now is the U.S. opportunity to shake up the region. However, we seem to be only imagining ways to sanction Assad and try and punish him utilizing tactics that are meant to bribe and attract someone to the bargaining table, not as a punishment. Sanctions, just like with Iran's nuclear program, should not be the only measure we take against someone who has so violently abused the power of the presidency. Assad's calculated pullback and then successful monitoring of Lebanon from just outside the mandated area has effectively rendered Lebanon and its Hizbullah-led government as Iran's proxy next door to Israel. With this lingering, how long will it take before the region erupts and we see the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict again? The only difference this time is we can have the support of Saudi Arabia and other anti-Iranian countries who will, as in times previous, arm Israel to confront the trouble.

Regarding Future U.S.-Pakistani Relations Post-bin Laden

As the joy of the demise of Osama bin Laden continues to be heard throughout the world, it is without a doubt a bittersweet victory in Pakistan for the administration of President Zardari and his Interior Minister Rehman Malik. Ironically, OBL joins the ranks of the AQ senior leaders who just so happened to find refuge within throwing distance of Pakistani military and intelligence bases (like KSM being captured in 2003 in Rawalpindi, host to Pakistan's army HQ). Now the real question finally gets asked of our "partner" in the war on terror how much they really knew about this compound.


Without a doubt, Pakistan walks away from this U.S. victory bathed in egg all over its face. The message it sends, especially after my favorite man in Pakistan - the always amusing Interior Minister Rehman Malik, adamantly denied for years that bin Laden could never be in his country and U.S. intelligence was flat out wrong. Perhaps this quote from Foreign Policy best represents the truth of the situation of this man's position and his ability to conduct his duties as Interior Minister.

"With great passion last year, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik said, "I categorically deny the presence of Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, and even Mullah Omar in any part of Pakistan."
Now, with the capture of bin Laden in Pakistan -- only 40 miles from Malik's office - it's more difficult than ever to consider his statements, and those of his civil and military counterparts, credible. Since 9/11, Pakistan's leaders have been lying to the United States, neighboring countries, their own people, and even to one another about fundamental elements of the war on terror."

It looks like after this operation, Pakistan is either at best incompetent at gathering intelligence directly outside of its own capital (heaven help it with intel in the provinces), or just flat out complicit in refuging senior Qaida leadership. Whether the Taliban is included in that statement is unknown, but seeing as Pakistan created them, there is no reason why they would not be offered the same amenity.


Minister Malik has repeatedly denounced U.S. drone strikes inside Pakistan, vowing that the WoT is in Pakistan's best interest and that OBL was responsible for more Pakistani killings than Americans. This logic was repeatedly used to justify how come Pakistan had taken no action on OBL, essentially stating that if they knew where he was they most assuredly would go after him and wanted a stake at the AQ leader before the U.S.. Not so fast.


This quote, taken from the Long War Journal, clearly shows that at least one Pakistani official has gone on the record saying that it was aware of the compound, was monitoring it, and the kicker: "IT KNEW WHERE HE WAS."

"A Pakistani official's statements on the raid make it clear that Pakistan knew where bin Laden was, but did not act. In an interview with CNN, Wajid Hasan, Pakistan's high commissioner to the Untied Kingdom, actually said that Pakistan was "monitoring" bin Laden's location but the US beat Pakistan to the punch and launched the raid.
"We were monitoring him and the Americans were monitoring him," Hasan said. "But the Americans got to knowing where he was first and that is why they struck at him precisely."
Later in the interview, Hasan said that "Pakistan had been keeping certain areas monitored, and it knew where he was."


The fact that this compound was constructed relatively recently, the design included several obvious security features, and the low amount of individuals coming and going should have almost definitively raised an eyebrow for local forces inside the country. In all fairness, I would presume that OBL had this as one of several secure options spread throughout the country should he be required to travel, and that he did not take residence in this type of environment until possibly 2008-09. We may never know how long the world's most wanted terrorist resided here, but that he was able to infiltrate the urban cities of Pakistan clearly shows a huge lapse in Pakistan's defense in its most vital areas.


However, now that OBL is off the list, I would expect the Pakistani leadership to become increasingly hostile and defensive to any scrutiny regarding its military and ISI complacency with the jihadist figures. It is highly probable that President Zardari did not know anything about OBL's abode outside the capital, but someone most definitely did and it was probably ISI. The two branches, separated from the presidency, have always been first and foremost focused on having options available against India. The Taliban and bin Laden's mujahideen represented this opportunity before, and most assuredly to this day remain a viable option that Pakistan's military would like to hide in the closet until they must bring them out.


In summary, Pakistan will no longer see the U.S. War on Terror as a legitimate fight within its boundaries. Expect cooperation to stall as President Zardari's advisers push for the War on Terror inside Pakistan to occur only by Pakistani troops and assets without any U.S. drones being authorized. The U.S. complained long enough that it couldn't get across to where OBL was, but we finally did taking it directly to his doorstep. Pakistan did not care then, and now has to recover from the disgrace and scrutiny of the international community. Rehman Malik has a lot of explaining to do, he might want to actually start reading intelligence reports before making claims that the U.S. is going after ghosts inside his country. We found the biggest fish so far, who knows what else is lurking right outside his door.

Osama bin Laden killed: The GWOT and its future

On the news of tonight's announcement that Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was eliminated by a U.S. team outside Islamabad, Pakistan, a major accomplishment has been achieved in the global war on terror. This, as emphasized by the President, was a successful result that the hardworking men and women of the intelligence and military communities made possible, sacrificing their families to contribute to a lead that may or may not pan out. Tonight was the result of a successful lead that brought to justice a disillusioned, radical maniac who sought violence instead of peace. To the many individuals who brought this day about, this country most assuredly thanks you for your service and commitment.


However, at the heels of OBL's demise, this is a victory for justice. A killer has been brought to justice and hopefully the families of the victims of his numerous actions can know that their sons and daughters killer will not spend one more day as a free man eluding punishment for his actions.


There are many lessons to be learned from this operation, and in the interest of not rambling on too long, this will be a brief post that will stick to the key components.

-First, OBL's location being in a secured compound in Abbottabad, an extremely urban environment that would have presumably protected him from the numerous drone strikes that have reduced the ranks of his senior leaders and lieutenants and forced the U.S. to conduct an unprecedented ground operation like the one that is being reported. It is safe to assume that more than likely, OBL and his senior lieutenants are gone from the days where they reportedly were riding around the deserts on mopeds to avoid detection from drones and the satellites cavehopping, and found refuge in urban environments such as Islamabad, Rawalpindi, and Karachi.

It is safe to assume that the news of OBL's death has shaken the security around remaining AQ leaders, but there will be no immediate movement outside of these areas as it is safe to say Pakistan will not allow ground operations to become routine by CIA or any U.S. assets inside its boundaries. Behind the public declarations by the U.S. and Pakistan that this was a cooperative partnership involved, let us not forget that just last month Pakistan was disputing U.S. drone strikes within its borders and fueling an intense diplomatic exchange after U.S. diplomat Raymond Davis was released for killing two Pakistani security agents.


-Secondly, the future of Al-Qaida. It is evident that OBL sought to leave a legacy within the ranks of AQ, but did not want to become the figure for the movement. His ambition to create a global struggle, or jihad, catapulted on 9/11 and since then his hands were washed clean of any blood. He had fulfilled his goal to put the U.S. at war with Islam and put Muslims enamored in Wahhabism as the resistance to Western society. OBL's lack of issuing statements, rather allowing AQ's spiritual head, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, to appear frequently on audio tapes and even marking the 9/11 attacks last year. It has been clear that the intention OBL sought for the group was to not be a movement built around a person, but a shared rejection of Western society and values.

-Finally, who will fill OBL's shoes, if anyone? While bin Laden has two sons who are viable contenders to their father's role, Hamza and Saad - who was reportedly killed in a 2009 Hellfire strike. All reports surrounding the incident never gave a location where the strike occurred, but intelligence officials were pretty clear from their statements that Saad was not the intended target of such action. Hamza has been a strong contender, despite being only 20 years old. He authored a 2008 poem that brought attention and I posted about, suggesting OBL was focusing on making Hamza the future for AQ. His poem included memorable lines such as:

"Accelerate the destruction of America, Britain, France and Denmark."

"Oh God, reward the fighters hitting the infidels and defectors. Oh God, guide the youth of the Islamic nation and let them assist with the fighters' plans.

"Grant victory to the Taliban over the gangs of infidels."

AQ has much to gain by placing such a young face in the feet of his father, allowing recruiting to significantly impact a demographic it already holds a significant figure in - Muslim men in their early 20's and late teens. By placing a young, radical Wahhabi like Hamza in a very public position, this can fill the void for new converts who are borderline radical and questioning how far they are willing to go. With Hamza's operational and front line experience on the battlefield, he represents the sacrifice AQ wants out of its followers - a passion to destroy the West.


With that analysis out of the way, let us all celebrate the closure and victory achieved tonight. Without a doubt, Osama bin Laden was at one time a big fish who became the face for jihad. He has assuredly changed many areas of life throughout our own and in Muslim society. The recruiting networks, partnerships, and financial ties that he created and birthed from Al-Qaida's beginnings will most assuredly outlast him, and it will always be America's fight first. However, because we took the fight to him he has seen his last. God bless America.

A lose-lose situation in Libya

At the National Defense University tonight, President Obama addressed lawmakers, military commanders and the American public to support his decision to encourage the uprising in Libya. While listening, it became increasingly clear that we have learned nothing about the dangers we face when jumping into a conflict and picking sides. This is an executive decision that is merely built on the principle of overthrowing Gaddafi from power with no planning once that mission is accomplished. The simplicity of global affairs in this White House, as well as among the international community, seems to forget about the about-face made by the mujahideen we supported in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Our steadfast support for a cause has put us on a side that can, and most assuredly will, place the region and the Muslim world into a state of relentless chaos.

In 2003, it was the Bush doctrine that motivated Gaddafi's abandonment of a nuclear program which ushered in hopes for a new beginning of U.S.-Libyan relations. For the first time in nearly 40 years, it was President Obama who was the first U.S. president to meet with Gaddafi at the G8 in Italy of 2009, where Gaddafi was the African Union's representative. The picture above documented the meeting between the two leaders.

Without a doubt, when Gaddafi turned guns on protesters the international community should have been quick to act and it has successfully frozen an estimated $30 billion in Libyan assets. There are clear alternatives to force Gaddafi's hand without utilizing the U.S. military in a country where there is no apparent mission. The end goal is clear, a Libya without Gaddafi, but how that is achieved is something the international community is unwilling to support. However, with leaders like Secretary of State Clinton meeting with Libyan resistance, it appears as though we are drawing up plans like kindergartners on paper depicting our fantasies but not having any accomplishment to further this objective.

One thing remains increasingly clear, the risk of holding a maniac like Gaddafi in power are great. His history of using terrorism to retaliate in the Lockerbie bombing is deeply disturbing, and proves that if Gaddafi leaves, it is imperative to remove him from society or he will hold a vengeance.

However, despite the scenarios of where Gaddafi can go and what Libya will look like, the Obama fantasy for a new government led by ? (Who really knows?) completely turns a blind eye to all the atrocities in the region from regimes that have far worse agendas, tactics, and human rights records. Take Syria. The Assad family has held power for 45 years, and President Bashar Assad is notorious for the state he has created. However, from day one President Obama has made it a priority through backdoor channels to mediate with Syria and gradually relax U.S. sanctions and policies in hopes of enticing Bashar to a pro-Western thought. In March 2009, the story leading from the White House was that at the same G8 summit where Obama met with Gaddafi, there was a strong possibility for him to meet with President Assad.

Amongst the killings of protestors in Syria, the same egregious crimes Gaddafi ordered, the U.S. stood silent. Amidst the uprisings in Lebanon where Christians and Hezbollah battled for power, the U.S. stood on the sidelines and watched a terrorist group seize a country. As Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah utilized the Basij to quell their resistance, Obama stated that we would recognize Ahmadinejad as Iran's President. Foreign policy calls for that, a policy. This administration's aspirations put Libya in a dangerous power struggle that leads opportunity for jihadist forces to move in.

The chaos of bureaucracy: DHS and Congress' failure to understand the threats of today

With the killing of ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata lingering in discussions on the Hill and south of the border, the United States is now put in a difficult place of refining its immigration policies at the border and its relationship with Mexico. Since President Obama took office, immigration has been shoved under the stacks of paper for matters like health care that his administration has chosen to pursue. Under his administration, the intelligence apparatus of this country have continuously been abandoned and brought to shame and the violence that many warn about migrating north from the small towns of Mexico remain as big a threat as ever.


The Department of Homeland Security has failed in its mission of protecting the homeland time and time again, with its abandonment of protecting our borders. Yet again, our country is forced to respond too little and too late to an embarrassing situation where a respected member of law enforcement has fallen victim to senseless violence. The War on Drugs is something that many say is a policy that is failed and not worth the time and effort poured into it according to many legislators, but this incident proves that while they sit in their secured offices around the Capitol, they know nothing about the violence occurring to the south. Our borders remain easily penetrable and have continuously proven porous for the likes of terrorist financiers from groups like Hezbollah to cross through. How long will it take before we see a weapon smuggled?


Iran's proxies such as Hezbollah hold a strong role in Latin America, utilizing the narco trade to finance their groups and transport weapons and materials supporting rebel groups in the region. Venezuela, an influential Iranian ally, has continuously been found guilty of using its Air Force and military commanders as fronts for FARC rebels to ship cocaine out and smuggle Hezbollah associates in. We know Hezbollah has operatives inside this country, mostly for fundraising practices, but how long will it be before one of these networks is responsible for the deaths of Americans? With tensions between Iran and Western allies abroad, the U.S. should be especially vigilant for a display of power and capability in this hemisphere by an Iranian proxy should tensions escalate further.


Coincidentally, in late January, Border Patrol agents found a unique copy of a legendary Iranian book called In Memory of Our Martyrs. The book, an original copy and one of few English versions printed, was found on a well-traveled immigration and drug route. Being that the book was in English and not in Farsi, it may very well be that the person carrying it may not be Iranian, however, it is a very unique find that should be taken seriously. Iran is in a war right now to flex its muscle and remain relevant to the global scene, and it is no coincidence that as the Mideast erupts, Tehran dispatches ships to the Suez canal as they wave farewell to one of the Ayatollah's strongest foes, Hosni Mubarak. As Qaddafi falls to a similar fate in Libya, Iran may very well look to display its capabilities in this hemisphere by striking in Latin America like it did in Argentina in 1994. With its established network in the West, the options for a faux superpower like Tehran suddenly expand to a variety of exposed targets.