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.

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.