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.  

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.

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.

The impact of Egyptian Revolution across the Region: A Risk Assessment

As protesters continue to take to the streets of Egypt, the risk of the revolution becoming something it never intended to be increases with the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in what the White House says will "irrevocably change" Egypt. Whether that is for the better or worse nobody seems to care about, the only real issue to Pres. Obama is that Mubarak (a U.S. ally and very, very close partner in the War on Terror) seems to be out. From day one, the strategy for handling this situation has been negligent and dumbfounded at best. We were without hesitation ready to jump on board and push President Mubarak out of power, even before understanding who may succeed his reign.


Now, with the Muslim Brotherhood's involvement in this "democratic revolution", we have handed one of our closest partners in the WoT seemingly over to the jihadists. Egypt is now gone, and there is no turning back. We have betrayed not only the Mubarak administration (if they somehow find a way to hold on), but the military institutions and intelligence service contacts (what else is new, we lost that with Wikigate). The level of embarassment brought on by the Obama administrations' mishandling of sensitive material, partnered with its failure to share vital intelligence that could prove useful to our allies, has weakened the United States and forced our hand into the global arena as a puppet and not a superpower.


Egypt is now the Ground Zero for Muslim revolution, it will be the tipping point for Sharia law being implemented throughout the region, and will most assuredly impact major players throughout the region like Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Should the Brotherhood and ElBaradei gain control of the country, the face of the Middle East and the world will change. I do not believe the revolution has so much to do with democratic reform, rather the ousting of a president who has controlled his country for too long and aligned himself with Western influence. This is a bid by radical Islam to topple a necessary ally for the U.S., and force a transformation of Middle East policy.


The issue occurring inside Egypt boils down to one thing - Salafist Islam. Salafist Islam by definition desires to see Islam brought back to its purest roots. Doctrinally, Salafs adhere to a very strict form of Islam that seeks to integrate and praise Allah through all aspects of life. This is what groups like the Muslim Brotherhood seek to perpetuate in broad government reforms that allow violence to be a tool to implement this. Any person who does not believe is wrong to them, there is no other religion in a Salafist state. On the heels of the New Year's Eve bombing of a church in Alexandria, Christians should be alarmed about their religious freedoms. The Brotherhood will advocate, if not utilize, force to crackdown on resistance and alternate religions.


The biggest risk coming from Egypt involves the potential merger between the Salafs and Iran. If you need to see the future of Egypt, just take a look at Mohamed ElBaradei's track record. This man, the presumed post-Mubarak, Brotherhood-partnered, former IAEA director who allowed Iran's undeclared nuclear program to go unchecked under his tenure. ElBaradei will become the new Assad for the Ayatollah, making Egypt an Iranian proxy surrounding Israel and destroying the peace accord. If the Salaf Brotherhood merges with Tehran, the potential is limitless for state-sponsored terrorism to reach unprecedented levels in the region. Terrorism will cross boundaries, governments, terror groups, and it will all flow into a limitless nexus of violence.


This sharing of resources and personnel can empower groups like Hezbollah - which has an arsenal of weapons at least 5x greater than it had with its 2006 war with Israel - to renew violence against Israel and will bring in weakened countries that sat out previously (like Syria) into the mix. The real question now is where is Saudi Arabia? With King Abdullah in a weakened state after receiving back surgery, who will he lend his support to. The last thing the Sunnis want is an Iranian/Shi'a controlled Caliphate. In 2006, with the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict, the Saudis provided weaponry and military assistance secretly to Israel through back channels, so as to not risk an uprising at home for giving the Zionists any support.


Egypt is too great a risk to sit idly on the sidelines and wait for a new government to emerge while we pander to the very forces we have declared war on. The Brotherhood is a violent, deceptive group that ultimately seeks to bring about the Caliphate. If we fail to act, we will lose the Middle East and empower Iran. The time to bring about democratic reform is now, but to hand over any hope of those to an organization wishing to implement shariah is far from democratic.

Crisis in the Middle East: the Emergence of Islamic Revolution

As I type this post, youth are taking to the streets throughout Egypt in unprecedented numbers to protest President Hosni Mubarak and call for his overthrow. The intense rioting has most assuredly caught both the U.S. and Egyptian governments off guard, forcing the U.S. to adopt a neutral stance and simply denounce the use of violence and avoid supporting a side. Right now, as Secretary of State Clinton is speaking denouncing the violence, gunfire is breaking out amid the protesters swarming a military vehicle. This situation is clearly escalating and despite the reports, these protesters are not just protesting about poverty and jobs.


Egypt is the birthplace of radical Islam, with the beginnings of the Muslim Brotherhood began the jihadist struggle to take to government and promote the establishment of a Caliphate (a state governed by Islamic scholars and law). The group, which began in the 1920s, has been banned by President Mubarak but officially announced its support to the protesters. This group is the nexus for jihad that unifies Al-Qaida and other militant Islamic organizations.


In the recent weeks, the region has become a hotbed for revolution - inspired by Islam. This country was the country that President Obama chose to give a speech entitled "A New Beginning" in which he sought to reset the U.S. presence in the Muslim world. Now we have seen how the Brotherhood will exploit this apology and use it to force its way into the seats of government.


There is no doubt that President Mubarak was a difficult U.S. ally who has abused his power and authority, but the violent struggle that has developed will most assuredly display the strength of a new government, operated by the Brotherhood. The U.S. can NOT give any credence to the role the Brotherhood has played or you will see similar acts like the New Year's Eve attack on a coptic church that slaughtered worshipers hoping for a new year. Those who perpetrated the attack will not be caught or punished, rather freedom of religion will be withdrawn.


What we are seeing is no revolution, but seizures of power by Islamic groups. Hezbollah's takeover of the "unity government" established just two years ago was simply an attempt to gain control and avoid recognition by an international investigation into the Valentine's Day 2005 massacre of former PM Rafik Hariri. Hezbollah members and Syria (the primary Iranian proxy) were complicit in the organization of the attack, however Hezbollah's leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has consistently expressed desires to undermine the legitimacy of the investigation.

Islam is taking over in the Middle East, and the youths in the street do not represent anything other than discontent youths who desire a stronger future. The world is in a crisis that has placed many in poverty and without jobs. It is the role of government to address those who it serves, and too many have avoided the voices that now control their fate. Egypt needs a legitimate leader who will serve the people and understands the necessity to secure the country from the jihadist forces seeking to undermine it. Only time will tell who will replace President Mubarak, but God willing it is someone who seeks peace and not to export the Brotherhood.

Bin Laden's battle for relevance

This weekend saw the emergence of Al-Qaida figurehead Osama bin Laden and the continued redefinition of Al-Qaida's jihad against the U.S. amid reports of a growing threat faced in Europe. The normally reclusive leader, who releases a handful of audio tapes usually annually, released two tapes this weekend in a ploy to rally support among Muslims. The consecutive releases of tapes raise several concerns, specifically with the recent revelation that OBL was connected to the recent plot thwarted in Europe.


Al-Qaida's resources are dwindling, and the necessities to implement a large-scale plot like 9/11 does not exist. However, the ability to take individuals (such as Faisal Shahzad and Najibullah Zazi) who actively pursue training abroad and then commit to executing terrorist attacks remains the most relevant and difficult threat to counter. The operational war against terrorism is the easiest fight, but the ideological aspect remains difficult to address by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.


Bin Laden's latest tapes went back to an issue released in a recording from January this year - climate change. This issue perhaps gained insertion due to the floods that devastated Pakistan a couple months ago. Bin Laden faulted Arab governments, lending credit to the UN for its response and accusing the regimes around the Middle East for closing their eyes to the suffering. The plight of the Palestinian people is no longer an opportunity for recruitment apparently, as the focus has shifted and the tapes no longer mention the continued stalemate among Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, bin Laden again makes a subtle cry for Muslims to avoid the U.S. economy (perhaps to attempt to gain more finances for his group's diminishing finances) and identifies the significance of each Muslim's role in his battle with the West.


This latest tape continues the normal message of blaming Arab governments for turning a blind eye to the suffering of Muslims. The reality is bin Laden is struggling in the battle to remain relevant. The surge Al-Qaida experienced as the superpower of jihadist groups for 9/11 has diminished, replaced by groups seeking to instigate the Palestinian-Israeli conflict even more. Hizbullah's global dominance and established assets present the clearest threat to Israel and its allies, however the group understands the necessity of maintaining a covert threat. Bin Laden has constantly lost the recruiting power he once held, with his franchises operating in other groups like AQIM, AQAP, and now al-Shabaab. Recruits now are forced to independently travel abroad, in hopes of being considered trustworthy by al-Qaida and Taliban contacts inside Pakistan. Otherwise, they must travel to Yemen or Somalia with the same goal, but the ability to recruit from within the U.S. solely relies on the individual's radical leanings.


OBL now must utilize whatever global development he can, playing the role of the Muslim father trying to protect his suffering Muslim brothers and sisters. However, Sheikh Nasrallah has continuously been considered in poll after poll among Muslim nations that he and his group take up the Muslim fight best. Hizbullah's recruiting has not dwindled, nor its assets, unlike bin Laden. The desperation for OBL to continue to pursue his fight against the U.S. has made the group seem almost uninterested in the Israeli-Palestinian saga that seems almost too easy to utilize if Al-Qaida was interested in establishing legitimacy among Muslims. The dependence on individual's willing to pursue suicide or creating bombs will be the only thing that carries on the jihad when Al-Qaida is no more, with or without bin Laden. It is only when this is adequately addressed by Muslim nations, as well as Western nations, that the struggle to confront terrorism and its roots can begin.

Mumbai in London? Assessing AQ target selection

Al-Qaida is making its push to remain relevant, and news reports today suggest that the group was seeking to conduct an operation similar to the attacks in Mumbai in November 2008. The success of that operation, which killed 166 people and made the crowded city almost paralyzed in fear, clearly had an impact on Al-Qaida's leadership which is now battling a constant jihad for its own relevancy.


The 9/11 terror attacks were the most effective form of terrorism contrived by any group. The reality that our transportation system could be penetrated and literally hijacked against us as a missile shocked the entire world. However, the ability to conduct such a plot remains extremely difficult currently. Despite vulnerabilities remaining in the aviation industry, so much effort and time has been put into insuring that a hijacked plane will not occur or be used again in the same form.


However, the vulnerability of soft targets remains. Al-Qaida knows that it is not capable of another 9/11, placing casualties in the thousands is a difficult feat without CBRN weapons. However, the ability to conduct operations similar to those used in Madrid, London, Mumbai, and in Moscow since 9/11 remains a legitimate concern. In my opinion, the ability to produce any chemical or biological agents is a feat that is difficult now that U.S. airstrikes are conducted routinely in regions that house Al-Qaida experts.


This latest piece of news suggesting that the siege/assault tactics used in Mumbai would be utilized again should be of no surprise. For those two days, the news was controlled by the standoff that developed following the takeover by Lashkar-e-Taiba gunmen. Mumbai was shut down. The inadequacy and the outdated tactics of Indian anti-terror police contributed significantly to the success, but could such an operation be conducted in a Western metropolitan city like London.


Al-Qaida promoted Mohamad Ilyas Kashmiri, the mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, as its operations chief. With experience fighting in the mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan as well as being a former member of Pakistan's military, serving in special operations, Kashmiri brings a unique perspective encouraging direct assault and engagement. In 2009, Kashmiri said that he believed that more Mumbais would emerge,

"..I am not a traditional jihadi cleric who is involved in sloganeering. As a military commander, I would say every target has a specific time and reasons, and the responses will be forthcoming accordingly."

My concern rests in the fact that soft target defense is extremely inadequate. Most people here in the U.S. do not recall Beslan, where 777 schoolchildren were taken hostage at a school. 300 people were killed, many of them children. Law enforcement here has never had to engage in such a situation, but if it were to happen are we ready? Kashmiri has made it clear he plans on bringing military expertise, separating himself from the ideological concerns of previous Al-Qaida leadership. He is a formidable foe, making Khalid Sheikh Mohammed seem amateur in his experience. It is without a doubt that Kashmiri will seek to find a vulnerability and utilize it to his gain. The question is where and when he will emerge and demonstrate his capabilities.

Car Bomb found in Times Square: a synopsis

At 6:30 pm, New York City Police responded to a call made of a vehicle emitting smoke while parked in Times Square. Upon investigating, police called the bomb squad for assistance and discovered what can best be described as being an amateur and crude attempt to make an explosive device. Police were able to collect three propane tanks, two five-gallon tanks of gasoline, and consumer-grade fireworks. Also found were two clocks with batteries. Reports indicated that a "gun locker" was found inside the vehicle and taken to the NYPD firing range for destruction. Initial investigation into the incident suggests that the car does not match the license plates on it, which were taken from a junkyard in Connecticut. As of yet, there is no indication that an individual has been linked to the vehicle as pieces continue to be pieced together.


It is important to emphasize that this incident strikes many similarities to the "lone wolf" attempt that occurred at Glasgow Intl. Airport in 2007 and to an attempted nightclub bombing in London the same year. The devices in both cases, similar to yesterday's incident, used similar construction methods. What is interesting however is the "gun locker" inside the vehicle which its contents have not been made public. Considering the placement of the vehicle, close to the one of the busiest areas of the country - Times Square - it raises a question of whether or not this attack could have been a two-stage attack using a car bomb first and potentially another method afterwards to create even more chaos. What is also curious is if the individual was aware that the device failed and fled the scene before reaching its intended target.


This is a very important wake-up call that our biggest threat are the clerics like Anwar al-Aulaqi and those individuals who broadcast not only their messages of hate as well as terrorist propaganda that enables individuals from within every society, including America and just as in the UK, to self-indoctrinate themselves to the violence that they used to have to go abroad to receive training on. These people do not give hints as to their intentions and are silent when it comes to the terror chatter that helped the feds in the Najibullah Zazi case. We are not capable of protecting ourselves adequately without the help of vigilant people such as the T-shirt vendor who called for assistance after identifying the suspicious vehicle. Perhaps the most important thing that anyone can take were his parting words as he left the scene, the NYPD awareness program's motto "See something, Say something."

Tackling terrorism..in theory. Why the Nuclear Summit failed.

During the Cold War, many who were alive can recall the "Duck and Cover" videos that cautioned preparedness for a nuclear attack. The fear that the United States would fall victim to a nuclear attack was something that was ever present in the minds of that generation that witnessed missiles sitting just off the coast of the Southern U.S. during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This week, President Obama hosted the Nuclear Summit in Washington D.C., requesting all participating countries to take initiatives to deter against nuclear terrorism. To many in the mainstream media, this is a step that is significant in the public relations front of the War on Terror. However, as with many PR-oriented conferences on terrorism, they play to the public perception and continue to miss the mark on the issues that must be addressed in the constant struggle against those seeking to attack and kill innocent lives.


Since the 9/11 attacks, there has been the question of when will the U.S. suffer another attack? Since that day in 2001, we have been attacked by radical jihadist sympathizers, but have yet to see the face of any actual members of radical groups like Al-Qaida. In fact, Al-Qaida has suffered immense financial losses due to Treasury Dept. initiatives targeting their revenue lines. This fact leads to the point that in order to look for the next attack, the risk of an independent terrorist organization being able to piece together a nuclear missile on their own, or hijack a nuclear plant, is at an extremely low probability. Experts have said for years now that the cost/success potential for such a costly operation is drastically low due to the safeguards installed after 2001, even if Al-Qaida, the number one enemy of the U.S. had the funds to coordinate such an operation.


This puts into play the real concern that should be addressed, especially as President Obama was able to get over 40 countries into Washington at one time. Terrorist groups operate freely and gain license from state-sponsors in many countries. The finances of a group are provided by states and/or charity sponsors who may or may not have the knowledge of where their funds are going. Without countries making an effort to halt the flow of money into terrorist hands, many groups would face a difficult fight while trying to recruit and train future militants, as well as fund operations. Hezbollah is a group that still has opportunity to fund raise inside many European countries, who have chosen to turn a blind eye to the group's activities simply because Hezbollah has not targeted them in any attacks. Do we really want to live in a society that turns a blind eye to the atrocities abroad and only wish to respond when we fall victim?


State-sponsors of terror such as Syria, which has sought to pull the Obama State Dept. to them while providing little in return (especially when pertaining to issues regarding Iran) should be what the 40 some countries present this week should be talking about. As the U.S. and other EU countries continue to discuss sanctions, I can't help but remember what I heard one Treasury Dept. official say at a meeting - "Sanctions are not meant to fix the problem, they are meant to bring someone to the table to talk about fixing the problem. If they aren't working, they aren't gonna work unless you can and are willing to target the target's essentials."


The threat of nuclear terrorism is something that would not be addressed at this time if it wasn't for Iran's continued defiance of international cooperation in regulating their program. So long as Iran remains the most active state-sponsor for global terrorism, the international community should not play games and massage a country that has gone rogue to international relations. We haven't seen a nuclear attack by a terrorist group, and there isn't one on the way. Nuclear terrorism is something that makes a great episode of 24, but the real battle against terrorism comes down to those who perpetrate and organize it. Whether its airplanes being used as missiles into buildings or a gunman on the streets, that is the form of terrorism that will continue to thrive. Targeting a method of terrorism is only missing the mark in what should be a clear shot at those who perpetrate it.

A glance at the Christmas Day Northwest Airlines incident

As the media continues to fact check the reports surrounding the Northwest Airlines flight that made an emergency landing after a passenger attempted to detonate an explosive during landing, there are many questions that remain about the incident being described as an "Al-Qaida linked terrorist plot." According to the latest reports, the perpetrator was 23-year old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian student at the University of London. It has been broadcast that he acquired the device from Yemen. This plot, if indeed Al-Qaida derived, could hold a great deal of information for the future of forecasting terror plots.


It is unknown whether or not the device did indeed originate in Yemen, however if it did and is traced to Al-Qaida it is unlikely the leadership for the group was involved in such a seemingly small-scale, traditional attack. This did not involve any new techniques, and is almost identical to the Richard Reid attempt almost exactly eight years ago. However, the use of a Nigerian by Al-Qaida is interesting as Africans have continued to be involved with recent Al-Qaida operations since 9/11.


The question remains whether or not this was an individual acting independently and is sympathetic to the jihadist movement or indeed took orders from Al-Qaida leadership. If he did and the plot is traced back to Yemen, the next question is was this plot created by Al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula, which has traditionally stuck to attacking Saudi Arabia and Yemen but has expressed goals to perpetrate attacks in the West. If this is the group's first attempt to attack the U.S., acting independent of Al-Qaida central in Pakistan, this is a bold move made from what used to be an Al-Qaida franchise.


The question being if that this individual was in a database, is this another failure similar to the Fort Hood disaster of "rating" the threat level of individuals based on limited surveillance? While not on the "no fly list", Abdulmutallab was in a federal database. It would be safe to assume that he was being monitored by British authorities as well. How he got what was reportedly a liquid explosive device aboard despite restrictions after the 2006 transAtlantic bomb plot proves that we are still vulnerable.


In my opinion, this was not the next Al-Qaida attack. After being significantly weakened as the global jihadist movement due to a hiatus after the 9/11 attacks, Al-Qaida needs a powerful attack to reinforce its image in the Muslim world. Why would a terrorist detonate the explosive in the final stages of a nearly 4,000 mile flight? My concern rests in the ability to perpetrate attacks similar to Mumbai, which provided the terrorists with nearly 2 days of nonstop international coverage as they held hostages and killed people indiscriminately. I do believe that not enough safeguards have been taken to prevent such an attack, and that it could be achieved in another major city with relative ease. We are still vulnerable and this attempt proves that one breach is all it takes for another tragedy.

Al-Qaida over the past eight years

As the U.S. remembers the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centers, the question among many in the intelligence community question how to measure feats achieved in the Global War on Terror. The group behind 9/11, Al-Qaida, has yet to achieve any attacks that rival those which killed 3,000. Many commentators suggest that Al-Qaida is phasing out in its recruitment capabilities, faced with the fact that it has not lived up to the precedent set in the 2001 attacks. In TIME, Tony Karon writes a piece titled "Eight Years After 9/11: Why Osama bin Laden Failed," which suggests that bin Laden's quest to instigate global jihad through his group has not occurred.


I would question the legitimacy of such an argument, showing that Al-Qaida was forced to adapt to a situation that was largely unexpected. The 2001 campaign in Operation Enduring Freedom took the group by surprise, and the memories of the mujahideen against the Soviets throughout the 1980s had no place in a present-day conflict. Afghanistan was taken from the Taliban and Al-Qaida was forced to withdraw to secure compounds among tribal allies.


It is largely impractical to believe that Al-Qaida would be capable of creating 9/11-esque attacks everyday, as the international community largely remains persistent in its quest to limit the group. At its best throughout the 1990s, the group was developing numerous large-scale plots, but only capable of the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1998 Embassy bombings, and the 2000 USS Cole attack. Only one of those occurred inside the United States. In the overseas incidents, Al-Qaida would not have been successful without its regional voices. I firmly believe that when it comes to Al-Qaida in a regional environment, the group is thriving still.


Proof of this can be seen in the violence that the group has achieved through its allies. Nearly every notable attack inside India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Northern Africa and Indonesia has been from an Al-Qaida partner. The Al-Qaida and Taliban alliance I believe has been abandoned largely as the Taliban has developed its own partnerships to raise funding and become a movement inside Afghanistan and Pakistan. I believe that the Taliban are largely self-sufficient in maintaining their attack capabilities. Al-Qaida may not be the international movement it once aspired to be, however it plays a powerful role in regional affairs.


We have played this game before, allowing intelligence officials to declare Al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula (responsible for attacks in Saudi Arabia and Yemen) as struggling, as well as stating that progress in Northern Africa (Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb) meant that we were winning. However, one year after those statements were made, both Al-Qaida affiliates remain capable of the same attacks they were in the past. The Al-Qaida most people remember in America was the enemy that flew planes into towers, however the group's beginnings were a humble guerrilla resistance. Perhaps the group has turned back to what gave it a name, looking to develop a new infrastructure trained in the ways that have kept the group alive.

Al-Qaida's war against the royal family continues

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


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


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


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


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

Pakistan Five-Star Hotel bombed

As the reports come in pertaining to the attack today on Peshawar's only five-star hotel, the Pearl Continental, this can be seen as a direct threat by Taliban militants to not only the Pakistani government, but to the U.S. as well. The attack will more than likely be traced back to Taliban groups, probably with links to TTP commander Baitullah Mehsud. Following the government's offensive on Taliban hideouts, threats were made to attack prominent locations as revenge. The attack is the latest in a trend of attacks since the November Mumbai attacks, which combines gunmen and bombs creating two waves of attacks inside and outside the target.


Perhaps most concerning should be that the hotel was a spot not only frequented by diplomats in the region, but was included in negotiations by the U.S. to purchase the hotel for use as a consulate. This was part of a nearly $756 million plan for improving the U.S.'s embassy and consulates inside the country, putting the costs for such second to the new embassy in Iraq. It should be noted that the Taliban and Al-Qaida hold the U.S. responsible for exerting influence on the Zardari administration to conduct the operations in the tribal region. Today's attack should be perceived as not only another affront to Pakistan's government, but also a shot across the bow to the U.S. More details will emerge soon I am sure.

Lessons from a mujahid

"If you see your enemy modest, you must make it arrogant. You must appear weak in front of your enemy for some time to make it become arrogant."

These were the words remembered by Al-Qaida in honor of one of their great military planners, Shaykh Yousef al-Ayyirri. The commander of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula until his death in 2003, al-Ayyirri had begun his career in the ranks of the Afghan mujahideen of the 1980s against the Soviets. Following the mujahideen's success, he began what would be a lifelong career that began in those ranks at the age of 18.

Five years after his death by Saudi security forces, al-Ayyirri's words should caution the U.S. about the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq. As global leaders clamor in unison for a declaration of successes in Iraq, Afghanistan falls deeper into a state of turmoil.

Last week, Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) was officially declared as defeated by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The number of foreign fighters entering the country plummeted from the 110 at this time last year to about 20. The factor overlooked by many, is that the number of foreign fighters moving into Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan has spiked over the past 2-3 months. New recruits who would have gone to AQI are now moving into these regions, from either their native countries or departing Iraq. Does this mean such a success in Iraq is permanent? By all means no.

Based on how many times the blame has been pinned on Iran for insurgent activity in Iraq, saying that they are responsible for a situation in Afghanistan as well seems like a played-out card. The truth is, part of the blame does lie on lax border security along the border, but Afghanistan and President Hamid Karzai bear an equal share of blame. President Karzai has allowed his policies to be framed solely on domestic affairs, alienating the involvement of the neighbors to the east and west in particular. Karzai has not pushed through any security agreements mandating strict border enforcement and cooperation between his country and Pakistan and Iran in particular.

What does any of this have to do with Yousef al-Ayyirri?

Based on the report this week that even AQI commanders are fleeing Iraq for Afghanistan, the potential for the tides to change in Afghanistan and/or Iraq will remain vulnerable so long as the Iran-Afghanistan borders remain unchecked. The passage can ferry foreign fighters from either front to the other so long as there is foreign fighters to move. To declare AQI dead is by all means a baseless claim. Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the group's leader following the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 2006, is by no means an al-Ayyirri. His experience with Al-Qaida did not begin with the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets, but rather in 1999.

If al-Masri has indeed fled with his commanders to Afghanistan, chances are he is no longer isolated from the Al-Qaida hierarchy consisting of experienced Soviet-era mujahideen commanders, but rather a puppet for such a group. Remember Zawahiri and bin Laden didn't favor Zarqawi for his inexperience and his conventional terror tactics. Perhaps Prime Min. Maliki should reconsider his arrogance and consider who he would rather battle - a wannabe mujahid al-Masri or an al-Ayyirri, who is worshiped as the hero for the mujahideen.

Saudi Arabia's tough talk against terrorism leaves a lot to be expected

Often it is said that actions speak louder than words. Case in point - Saudi Arabia. It is universally known that members of the Saudi royal family (which estimates place around 6-7000) contribute to fronts for terrorist organizations - a report issued earlier this year declared Saudi Arabia as the top country of which terrorists obtain funds from. It is the media's favorite statistic that 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11 were Saudi. It is no doubt that the kingdom has an eery connection with the jihadist movement.

Over this year, senior Saudi officials - ranging from King Abdullah to most recently, the muftis - have made statements denouncing aspects of terrorism, which is a significant step in the right direction. Take for instance the most recent order issued by the muftis, in which they said that "following the path of terrorism is opposed to Islam" and sanctioned "offering refuge and protection to terrorists" as "a grave sin." While this is finally something worth discussing in Saudi Arabia, the religious declarations of the muftis usually specifically cite Al-Qaida or refer to terrorism within the kingdom. Furthermore, some of the statements lend credit to the jihadist mindset of Muslims being victims of aggression. Within the same statement, the muftis declared that:

"The aggression against Muslims and the occupation of their lands cannot justify attacks and violence: obeying the dictates of the Qur'an without fomenting hatred and division is a basic principle of Islam, in accord with the precepts sanctioned by the prophet Mohammad".

Perhaps the biggest problem is that the muftis have been replaced by new pro-jihadists who have changed the role religious leaders play in combating terrorism. Within a recent MEMRI report, it is suggested that some elements within the Salafist movement have framed the mujahideen as being essential in any decisions regarding jihad, eliminating the need for approval by the muftis. The groups have exploited the role of charisma and given the mujahideen supernatural traits, such as infallibility, which were typically reserved only for the prophets. This new approach has gotten even bin Laden angered at how youth in particular, have accepted in respects a new form of Islam which ignores the traditional need for an individual understanding of the Qur'an and respect for the scholars that bin Laden's cause believes as necessary for the successful implementation of Shari'a law. The report cites that in his 2007 recording, he argues that:

"I [address] the jihad fighters [in Iraq] in order to oppose the growing [tendency] that has appeared among them, [namely the tendency] to assign great weight to the orders of its group and its commanders, to the extent that some of them have come to regard [these orders] as infallible, even though they believe, in theory, that infallibility is a virtue that only Allah's Messenger possesses. A person [who holds such a view] becomes a fanatical [follower] of his group and its commanders, instead of obeying a Koranic verse or a hadith from the Sunna of Allah's Messenger."

If bin Laden sees this as a problem that is within his own ranks, it is unlikely that the mufti hold the cure-all. Perhaps teachings from the religious elite and the royal family are not what would-be terrorists need, as bin Laden has made it a point to label the Saudi hierarchy as illegitimate and being complicit in the "siege of Islam" that Al-Qaida is battling. Words are just words, and they will not in actuality rid the kingdom of it's influence on global terrorism. The facts are indisputable, Saudi Arabia has remarkable power in controlling matters pertaining to numerous terrorist fronts. Now it's their time to show results. Arrests of terrorist group members, such as the nearly 700 detained in January, clearly show that terrorism has not left the Arabian Peninsula. Who knows what other revelations regarding terrorism remain undiscovered inside the kingdom.