Without a doubt we are seeing the Global War on Terror decreasing overseas, and in many ways at home as well. As President Obama attempted to calm the storm by calling for greater transparency and opening up aspects of surveillance techniques to public debate, many Americans still fear that we are living in an Orwellian novel of 1984. The reality simply is that such a move would counter and defeat the premise of surveillance at its most basic level - that good surveillance should go unnoticed until it demands a response by the entity conducting it. Basically, until there is actionable and operational intelligence, surveillance is a tool to aid in building enough information to prosecute a case. Much of the hyped up cases discussed by the media are framed by a bunch of "what ifs" that simply have no backing.
The programs in question are not some randomly concocted fantasy by power-hungry tyrants in a cubicle. Despite what liberals and conservatives think of our president, previous and present, the "big government" portrayals of both President Obama and his predecessor have no basis in this argument. Neither one of them has been a federal agent, or an analyst, or may not even speak another language. The men and women who fill these positions in our government have taken a sworn oath to protect and defend our country and Constitution. With the exception of one, Edward Snowden, their work sits protected by a layer of oversight and personal accountability to protect all of the information that they collect and receive until such a case can be made to act on it.
The NSA surveillance program is simply a means to an end. That being said, no criminal case has ever been built off of such a technique. This is similar to let's just say, license plate readers on local law enforcement vehicles or a polygraph. These are tools that can trigger and help determine the path an officer takes in the merits of an investigation, but if taken to court with the data either one of those tools delivers, has absolutely no basis and will get laughed out of court. A person can be driving a stolen vehicle, but if it's an old lady who bought it from a shady car dealer, she can't go to jail. You can pass a polygraph but still be guilty of a crime in question. Unless there is evidence for the crime in question though, there is no case.
Government surveillance is in place for a reason. It works. There have been no known instances where anyone has complained that the government has collected too much information and gone on a dumbfounded witch-hunt. Is that because the programs our so secretive? Or is it because the government has properly separated actionable and useful intelligence amongst the millions of intercepts that are conducted annually? In the coming weeks as we assess government's responsibility with personal information, it is my hope that the critics will have an open mind to understand how useful most, if not all the developed programs, have been in keeping the U.S. safe.
Just a side note, our enemy is constantly developing strategies to bypass having communications filtered through by the in question programs. Take into consideration that the Mumbai attacks that occurred in November 2008 were planned by individuals who corresponded through a single e-mail account and would not send e-mails, but rather save them as a draft. Through one user name and one password, the cell was able to communicate and avoid triggering a red flag in a means of communication that may have been monitored. One must wonder with the information Edward Snowden revealed, how many people may die in a future attack due to him revealing information. Without a doubt, our enemies are presently, if not already revamping techniques to avoid detection.
9-11-01
Showing posts with label War On Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War On Terror. Show all posts
Friday, August 9, 2013
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
9/11: Al-Qaida's re-emergence in the Arab Spring
Eleven years ago, we all witnessed the tragedy that would define generations - landmarks of American economic and military power reduced to rubble, smoking from canyons of steel and collapsing on people who were our neighbors, friends and family. Without a doubt, 9/11 changed American policy and created what many have declared "a war that can't be won", what was once a global war on terror structured around disrupting terrorism at its roots before it could hit U.S. targets again. This aggressive campaign led to military posturing in areas where Al-Qaida (AQ) and its sympathizers operated with a new African command being built for U.S. operations on the continent as well as enhanced cooperation by Middle Eastern intelligence agencies. The understanding was that terrorism was a global threat, that reduced regional stability wherever it was harbored.
Partnerships emerged with intelligence offices in unlikely partners, Egypt and Jordan among them, increasing coordination and intelligence sharing. It seemed as though terrorism was being disrupted in virtually every hemisphere and most assuredly, significant accomplishments were achieved with credit to be shared with these offices. Under the present administration, the intensity of this war has continued and we have seen the campaign shift from manpower to technology with a heavy drone usage. As Peter Bergen has written, it appears the drone is President Obama's weapon of choice, with more strikes occurring in Obama's first four years than his predecessor's two terms. The group's leadership has been decimated, decapitated and is struggling. However, I think we are beginning to see the new brand of AQ emerge.
Today, on this significant anniversary, in lieu of a terrorist attack we saw the U.S. embassy in Cairo and in Benghazi fall under attack by scores of "peaceful protesters." A State Department employee appears to have been killed during the incident in Benghazi. These two incidents seem to piggyback off of the Arab Spring uprisings, which were backed by the U.S. in both countries to overthrow both Qaddafi and Mubarak. Simply put, AQ could have pulled off the same scale attacks it orchestrated in 1998 today, yet it would have been extremely selfish and yielded hardly any results to its cause. Any excuse for a U.S. escalation, amidst a withdrawal in Iraq and Afghanistan, would backfire on not only AQ, but those who took to the streets to make these revolutions occur. AQ would be the bad guy again in the Arab world. By becoming mainstream and blending in with anti-U.S. protests, it identifies the up and coming radical sentiments in the youths that it can train a new mujahideen to replace its fallen ranks.
The brand that makes up AQ is one that is merely in name at present, affected by the persistent U.S. campaign targeting its leadership and disrupting its fundraising and recruiting networks. It has outsourced the terrorism to its franchises in Yemen (AQAP) and Africa (AQIM), leaving AQ central to tap into the opportune Arab Spring revolutions. It is no coincidence that U.S. diplomatic sites were attacked in countries that the U.S. helped fuel the tide by removing support for the previous regimes. The question is how does the U.S. respond to this escalation?
By failing to address the problems, we risk increased violence as AQ becomes a fixture in these movements. By seemingly avoiding violence, it appears to become part of the Arab world without facing the problem of blowing up innocent civilians and losing support for killing more Muslims than Americans amongst its attacks like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan. By blending in to the Arab Spring, the protests become indicative of a new strategy that takes to the cities, directly to streets rather than reclusive training camps isolated in vulnerable havens to a drone strategy. AQ blends in amongst the youths, capable of exploiting them and instilling the anti-U.S. sentiment that first filled its ranks. Simply put, we are seeing Al-Qaida adapt from a terrorist group to an ideology. The risk with such an evolution puts at risk everything we have accomplished as it encourages the potential for lone-wolf or independent operations that require domestic surveillance as compared to merely looking for those people who travel to Pakistan every year.
Make no mistake, despite what administration officials say, Al-Qaida is a component of the enemy we face but a defeat of AQ is not indicative that we are any safer. With the group successfully transforming in the direction that Ayman al-Zawahiri seems to be steering it in, recruiting will be significantly easier. This is a certain way to build up the ranks again, rally the troops and gain the momentum it lost after 9/11 in the Arab world. Without responding, the U.S. opens doors for attacks on its sites abroad that will most certainly have greater bloodshed than today's incidents. As we pause to remember the victims from those tragic events eleven years ago, let us commit that terrorism is a tactic that will not prevail or deter us from the freedoms we enjoy and the resilient spirit that our country shares.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Playing politics with intelligence
On the date of the death of Al-Qaida's founder, Usama bin Laden, much ado about nothing has been made about the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" argument regarding the raid that terminated Al-Qaida's number one. As the Obama administration and Mitt Romney's campaign spar over nonsense of whether or not a President Romney would approve of the Seal Team Six operation, the men and women on the front lines of the War on Terror continue their tasks seeking out any leads that may lead to other significant developments in this never ending war.
Inside the beltway, this war is something that is taken for granted - the unsung heroes carry on with their tasks contributing to preserving the American way of life and insuring another 9/11 does not happen under their watch. The many factors involved in delivering intelligence to the desk of the President, regardless of who is in office, are never taken lightly and ultimately that decision is dependent on the Chief Executive. Whether that action is approved (as in President Obama's case) or ignored (as in the missed opportunities President Clinton had to take out UBL), these men and women continue their tasks without a doubt that the mission is clear.
In an election year, everything is at stake for political parties, but it is an embarrassment to our government to take this issue to doubt a candidate's commitment to justice. Fundamentally, I felt from 2003 until a year ago, Usama bin Laden's role inside Al-Qaida was one mainly left in the dust - incapable of operational capacity and isolated from the training camps he once so closely monitored. Sure enough, UBL was abandoned by most of his group to his domain in Abbotabad where he would face his demise.
It is my belief that when Mitt Romney made his statements from 2007, he was referring to not exhausting valuable assets in the military and intelligence communities on one figure. Realistically, I think his statements make sense and should echo the sentiments realistically of all in the intel community, that terrorism is bigger than one figure and taking out a mouthpiece will not stop the mission to save lives. I believe the intelligence mission of all those involved in the bin Laden raid was a responsible one, and resulted in the delivery of justice to punish a man who slaughtered Americans senselessly on the streets of New York, Washington, and in Pennsylvania.
If it is doubtful that any candidate for Congress, much less President of the United States, would take the intelligence President Obama received and not act on it (whether it be with special operations or drones), why should they have any authority whatsoever? Tactics aside, the bin Laden operation was an opportunity of justice and not to disrupt operations and recruiting (as in Al-Awlaki). I remember many a press conference then-Governor Romney quoted vague threats targeted towards sites inside his state as credible and revealed limited intelligence as though it were a specific and targeted concern. Just as Governor Davis of California created a great deal of concern over threats to the Golden Gate Bridge when intelligence evaluated by analysts suggested no significant concerns.
Some things never change, politics as usual occurs on a daily basis on a variety of issues, but the successes made by the members of our nation's intelligence and military communities should never be one that comes down to a self-gratifying politician's posturing. Amongst all the foiled plots, countless lives have been saved because of the dedication of these unnamed people. Without the political nonsense, the mission will remain the same inside the counter terrorism community. Take facts as they are, bin Laden's dead and it came down to a President to decide how to handle the situation. Let's make sure that we have a President committed to preserving justice and life.
Inside the beltway, this war is something that is taken for granted - the unsung heroes carry on with their tasks contributing to preserving the American way of life and insuring another 9/11 does not happen under their watch. The many factors involved in delivering intelligence to the desk of the President, regardless of who is in office, are never taken lightly and ultimately that decision is dependent on the Chief Executive. Whether that action is approved (as in President Obama's case) or ignored (as in the missed opportunities President Clinton had to take out UBL), these men and women continue their tasks without a doubt that the mission is clear.
In an election year, everything is at stake for political parties, but it is an embarrassment to our government to take this issue to doubt a candidate's commitment to justice. Fundamentally, I felt from 2003 until a year ago, Usama bin Laden's role inside Al-Qaida was one mainly left in the dust - incapable of operational capacity and isolated from the training camps he once so closely monitored. Sure enough, UBL was abandoned by most of his group to his domain in Abbotabad where he would face his demise.
It is my belief that when Mitt Romney made his statements from 2007, he was referring to not exhausting valuable assets in the military and intelligence communities on one figure. Realistically, I think his statements make sense and should echo the sentiments realistically of all in the intel community, that terrorism is bigger than one figure and taking out a mouthpiece will not stop the mission to save lives. I believe the intelligence mission of all those involved in the bin Laden raid was a responsible one, and resulted in the delivery of justice to punish a man who slaughtered Americans senselessly on the streets of New York, Washington, and in Pennsylvania.
If it is doubtful that any candidate for Congress, much less President of the United States, would take the intelligence President Obama received and not act on it (whether it be with special operations or drones), why should they have any authority whatsoever? Tactics aside, the bin Laden operation was an opportunity of justice and not to disrupt operations and recruiting (as in Al-Awlaki). I remember many a press conference then-Governor Romney quoted vague threats targeted towards sites inside his state as credible and revealed limited intelligence as though it were a specific and targeted concern. Just as Governor Davis of California created a great deal of concern over threats to the Golden Gate Bridge when intelligence evaluated by analysts suggested no significant concerns.
Some things never change, politics as usual occurs on a daily basis on a variety of issues, but the successes made by the members of our nation's intelligence and military communities should never be one that comes down to a self-gratifying politician's posturing. Amongst all the foiled plots, countless lives have been saved because of the dedication of these unnamed people. Without the political nonsense, the mission will remain the same inside the counter terrorism community. Take facts as they are, bin Laden's dead and it came down to a President to decide how to handle the situation. Let's make sure that we have a President committed to preserving justice and life.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
American Foreign Policy Post bin Laden
Post the death of Al-Qaida's most recognized leader, Osama bin Laden, the United States has had to adjust its mission in the War on Terror, recognizing that the threat is indeed broad and the enemy is persistent. Reports suggesting that the number of suspected terrorists has doubled within the last twelve months, that either suggests that the intelligence community has improved it reconnaissance on suspects or the TSA has been very busy. The reality is that terrorism without action, just like before 9/11, exists. Everyday, facilitators recruiting future suicide attackers and raising funds for terror operations exist and are hoping to develop the next big plot against our way of life.
Reports from the hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday suggested that America's most prominent adversary lays in the leadership of Iran. With reports suggesting that despite continued embargoes, Iran is willing and developing plots to attack American interests, both domestic and abroad (as evidenced by the willingness to attempt an assassination of the Saudi ambassador in a Washington D.C. restaurant) should alarm people. Iran's capabilities are unrivaled globally through its use of proxy networks. The question is how capable are its once strong partners, such as with Hizbullah, to instruct and coordinate an attack on American interests?
The reality is that Iran has long positioned itself within the Middle East region to be the most operational terror outfit. Its arsenal, recruitment numbers, and statements speak for itself. Despite setbacks in its leadership in Lebanon (which should raise concern of a splinter within the group that could develop into regional factions similar to Al-Qaida) the group has some of the most dedicated and persistent warriors within its ranks.
With the continued unrest in Syria, the certainty of one of Iran's closest partners in the Sunni-Shia divide is at stake and an opportunity to distract the international community is one of the most practical possibilities in this saga. Iran is in a difficult situation economically and is constantly looking for a way out, as evidenced by the previous reports of it seeking to increase oil exports and other strategic partnerships globally. It has laid a stake in various parts of Africa as well as in South America, particularly in Venezuela.
Strategically, without a unified voice to denounce the killings of protestors on the streets inside Syria, Bashar al-Assad will remain in power. The risks are too high for not only his regime, but also within the Iranian leadership which has aided Assad for years. The religious leadership of Iran, led by its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomenei, views every struggle as part of a religious commitment to fulfill the coming of the Mahdi and bringing about the end of the world. This delusion/ambition destroys the probability of reasoning with the real deciders, Iran's Supreme Council, is null.
Iran is a ticking time bomb that poses a grave threat to Israel, the U.S. and its Western allies as well as the entire Middle East region. The capabilities of Iran, combined with its undeclared nuclear program and its global network of terrorists place an emphasis on U.S. foreign policy and its need to deal and address the issue now rather than procrastinate and allow further development. Iran's leadership is religiously motivated and dependent on the apocalyptic theology and the necessity to bring this scenario about.
With the death of Osama bin Laden, the War on Terror developed into a new phase that determined that the enemy is no longer just one man who we sought to bring to justice, but rather a collection of groups seeking to destroy the fundamental rights of humanity. The reality is Iran utilizes its networks for terrorism, as well as being complicit and involved in actions killing U.S. soldiers inside Afghanistan and within Iraq in the past. U.S. policy must address the lapses in its inability to adequately confront and halt Iran in its quest for what is assuredly for nuclear weapons. Consistently, the largest threat against the U.S. has been Hizbullah. Due to its global networking and capabilities, combined with its complacency in criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking, this group will remain the most extensive enemy against the West.
Reports from the hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday suggested that America's most prominent adversary lays in the leadership of Iran. With reports suggesting that despite continued embargoes, Iran is willing and developing plots to attack American interests, both domestic and abroad (as evidenced by the willingness to attempt an assassination of the Saudi ambassador in a Washington D.C. restaurant) should alarm people. Iran's capabilities are unrivaled globally through its use of proxy networks. The question is how capable are its once strong partners, such as with Hizbullah, to instruct and coordinate an attack on American interests?
The reality is that Iran has long positioned itself within the Middle East region to be the most operational terror outfit. Its arsenal, recruitment numbers, and statements speak for itself. Despite setbacks in its leadership in Lebanon (which should raise concern of a splinter within the group that could develop into regional factions similar to Al-Qaida) the group has some of the most dedicated and persistent warriors within its ranks.
With the continued unrest in Syria, the certainty of one of Iran's closest partners in the Sunni-Shia divide is at stake and an opportunity to distract the international community is one of the most practical possibilities in this saga. Iran is in a difficult situation economically and is constantly looking for a way out, as evidenced by the previous reports of it seeking to increase oil exports and other strategic partnerships globally. It has laid a stake in various parts of Africa as well as in South America, particularly in Venezuela.
Strategically, without a unified voice to denounce the killings of protestors on the streets inside Syria, Bashar al-Assad will remain in power. The risks are too high for not only his regime, but also within the Iranian leadership which has aided Assad for years. The religious leadership of Iran, led by its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomenei, views every struggle as part of a religious commitment to fulfill the coming of the Mahdi and bringing about the end of the world. This delusion/ambition destroys the probability of reasoning with the real deciders, Iran's Supreme Council, is null.
Iran is a ticking time bomb that poses a grave threat to Israel, the U.S. and its Western allies as well as the entire Middle East region. The capabilities of Iran, combined with its undeclared nuclear program and its global network of terrorists place an emphasis on U.S. foreign policy and its need to deal and address the issue now rather than procrastinate and allow further development. Iran's leadership is religiously motivated and dependent on the apocalyptic theology and the necessity to bring this scenario about.
With the death of Osama bin Laden, the War on Terror developed into a new phase that determined that the enemy is no longer just one man who we sought to bring to justice, but rather a collection of groups seeking to destroy the fundamental rights of humanity. The reality is Iran utilizes its networks for terrorism, as well as being complicit and involved in actions killing U.S. soldiers inside Afghanistan and within Iraq in the past. U.S. policy must address the lapses in its inability to adequately confront and halt Iran in its quest for what is assuredly for nuclear weapons. Consistently, the largest threat against the U.S. has been Hizbullah. Due to its global networking and capabilities, combined with its complacency in criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking, this group will remain the most extensive enemy against the West.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
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.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
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.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Fighting a war for the right reasons
Afghanistan is failing. As the U.S. has been in the country since 2001, there has been very little return or signs of progress, the fight still continues. The country is caught in a complicated crisis where leadership has failed. It's as though everyone has forgotten about how life was prior to the U.S. invasion that ousted the Taliban, where a barbaric state of ancient law killed those suspected of petty crimes. While the U.S. entered the country, President George W. Bush spoke of how in Afghanistan, we would seek to make it a beacon for the region where the Taliban would be removed and the country would be in the hands of the people. Here we are in 2010, where the empty promises have been lost in the political system.
President Hamid Karzai seems like the choice if there was one to select a leader, bearing substantial ties throughout his family's lineage to Afghanistan's politics. Karzai himself fled the country from Taliban rule, his wife was a doctor at Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan - making it safe to assume that at some point, he was aware and was a witness to the Afghanistan he liberated. However, the debate over Afghanistan's future could place the group he once fought in a position where not only would they be recognized, but would have a say in the government.
Not enough has been done to engage the Afghan population on the tribal level. The ability to create a strong, centralized national government is not remotely possible without the commitment and allegiance of all the tribes. This simply can not be done without promising these people deliverance from the subversive shadow governments set up by the Taliban in order to act as a replacement to the failed reform that Karzai once promised. Without offering an alternative, the options on the table for these tribes simply all point back to the Taliban.
What has come out of Karzai's rule has been a gradual evolution of a man who sought to bring about change, but has been burdened with a task that travels through complicated tribal ties to figures who have undermined his role. It is said that after last summer's election, where the international community suggested that the vote for Karzai was illegitimate, accusing the U.S. of "stealing his legitimacy." It seems as though the future of Afghanistan rests on one man's personal dilemma, is he willing to set aside his ego?
There is no doubt the Afghan military and police forces are incompetent and juvenile at best. The fledgling ranks are easily infiltrated and once again, burdened by complicated alliances. However, this is a situation made by Karzai's micromanagement of coalition forces inside his country. His criticism of coalition forces when civilians are caught in the crossfire directly undermines NATO support amongst the populations he is dependent on. If there was ever more of a time to allow action and reform, it is now. As we look to a situation that is becoming increasingly desperate, the opportunity is now for President Karzai to prove he is a capable and competent leader. It is not the U.S. undermining him, it is the very people he has held meetings with to propose their integration into the "new" Afghanistan - the Taliban.
The Taliban massacres of innocent civilians is something that can not be endorsed by the international community. Have we honestly reached a society where we will face outcry over "enhanced interrogations" but will ignore a system where a 7-year old boy was killed for alleged spying or women for adultery or pursuing an education? Those offenses were constantly denounced by the international community, but now they seem to be forgotten. The alternative in Afghanistan simply can not be with the Taliban holding any power, there is too much at stake.
President Hamid Karzai seems like the choice if there was one to select a leader, bearing substantial ties throughout his family's lineage to Afghanistan's politics. Karzai himself fled the country from Taliban rule, his wife was a doctor at Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan - making it safe to assume that at some point, he was aware and was a witness to the Afghanistan he liberated. However, the debate over Afghanistan's future could place the group he once fought in a position where not only would they be recognized, but would have a say in the government.
Not enough has been done to engage the Afghan population on the tribal level. The ability to create a strong, centralized national government is not remotely possible without the commitment and allegiance of all the tribes. This simply can not be done without promising these people deliverance from the subversive shadow governments set up by the Taliban in order to act as a replacement to the failed reform that Karzai once promised. Without offering an alternative, the options on the table for these tribes simply all point back to the Taliban.
What has come out of Karzai's rule has been a gradual evolution of a man who sought to bring about change, but has been burdened with a task that travels through complicated tribal ties to figures who have undermined his role. It is said that after last summer's election, where the international community suggested that the vote for Karzai was illegitimate, accusing the U.S. of "stealing his legitimacy." It seems as though the future of Afghanistan rests on one man's personal dilemma, is he willing to set aside his ego?
There is no doubt the Afghan military and police forces are incompetent and juvenile at best. The fledgling ranks are easily infiltrated and once again, burdened by complicated alliances. However, this is a situation made by Karzai's micromanagement of coalition forces inside his country. His criticism of coalition forces when civilians are caught in the crossfire directly undermines NATO support amongst the populations he is dependent on. If there was ever more of a time to allow action and reform, it is now. As we look to a situation that is becoming increasingly desperate, the opportunity is now for President Karzai to prove he is a capable and competent leader. It is not the U.S. undermining him, it is the very people he has held meetings with to propose their integration into the "new" Afghanistan - the Taliban.
The Taliban massacres of innocent civilians is something that can not be endorsed by the international community. Have we honestly reached a society where we will face outcry over "enhanced interrogations" but will ignore a system where a 7-year old boy was killed for alleged spying or women for adultery or pursuing an education? Those offenses were constantly denounced by the international community, but now they seem to be forgotten. The alternative in Afghanistan simply can not be with the Taliban holding any power, there is too much at stake.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
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."
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."
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, September 11, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Holding the key to Afghanistan
When the United States entered its War On Terror in 2001, it was to remove Al-Qaida from the havens offered to it by the Taliban. Nearly eight years later, Afghanistan now has become the focus again. After a meeting between Presidents Karzai and Zardari at the White House two weeks ago, followed by the lead U.S. commander in Afghanistan being removed by Defense Secretary Gates, it is clear that the White House is attempting to put a new face on a war that has its share of critics. From Karzai reinforcing the accusations of civilian targeting in U.S. air strikes as well as Zardari's persistent complaints of the lack of international involvement in his country, the war in Afghanistan is no longer a containable threat without regional cooperation.
At this time last year, NATO forces in Afghanistan were preparing for an expected massive Taliban offensive as the weather warmed up. At this time last year, Karzai was accusing the U.S. and NATO of targeting civilians in their air strikes and promoting talks with Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Pakistan launched military operations into towns that were believed to be Taliban strongholds.
Presently, NATO is expecting another Taliban offensive. Karzai is making the same statements and Pakistan is in the middle of more "offensives." By any standard, to declare progress in Afghanistan over the last year should raise an eyebrow so long as the situation one year later remains identical to the previous.
Last summer saw the Taliban and Al-Qaida operate from the havens in Pakistan to execute an array of sophisticatedly coordinated attacks on significant targets. There was the attempted assassination of Karzai in April, the June attack on a prison in Kandahar that freed nearly 1200 inmates, and the July bombing of the Indian embassy in the country. Several attacks also occurred in Pakistan, including the September attack on a Marriott in Islamabad.
Pakistan is expected to launch another offensive in Baluchistan, specifically targeting Baitullah Mehsud's fighters. Mehsud was yet again listed in another Anti-Terrorism Court warrant for the Lahore police academy bombing.
Pakistan is the answer to stabilizing Afghanistan. The Taliban are no longer contained to controlling a government, but have become a regional factor that seeks to undermine any opposition. Ahmed Rashid wrote of this when discussing how delicate the situation in Pakistan is, stating:
"The myths about the Taliban need to be clarified. They are not an extension of an external threat; they are not being funded by Russia or India. In the 1990s, the Taliban in Afghanistan were fighting the Northern Alliance, and thousands of Pashtuns went to fight as foot soldiers on behalf of the Taliban. In 2001, the Afghan Taliban fled to Pakistan. Pakistani Taliban, who previously had little clout, became hosts of the Afghan Taliban and earned much money for their assistance."
Rashid wrote that from 2001 to 2004, the Pakistani Taliban sought to establish a emirate in FATA and that the showdowns with the government now are their pursuit to expand that state.
However, the most threatening assessment comes from the statement that Pakistan's ISI sought to use Taliban fighters from Afghanistan to "maintain the jihadi nexus as a force against the Indians." Rashid writes about this in detail:
"The leadership of the Taliban is now in Pakistan, and they have stated their intention of overthrowing the government here. The Taliban are linking up with groups in Pakistan, and the Pakistani Taliban movement is turning into a multiethnic movement. Groups cultivated [by the Pakistani Army] to fight in Kashmir have joined up with the Pakistani Taliban, and include Punjabis, with organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Harkatul Mujahideen. Now, some 40 groups in Pakistan are loosely affiliated.... For that reason, Pakistan faces a more dangerous situation than Afghanistan, where Tajik and Uzbek fighters were not permitted to join the Afghan Taliban movement."
The above passage sheds just a small light into how complicated the connections in Pakistan lie. As the government begs for more aid money, it is likely that more and more refugee camps will be filled in areas already effected by failed military offensives in their areas. The already economically dismal situation in the country will only increase as a result of more operations, and Zardari will continue to plead for more aid relief from the international community. However, such operations have yet to prove beneficial in the long run and have yielded virtually no consistent results.
So long as groups are functioning inside Pakistan's borders, it remains almost certain that should the government continue to conduct offensives, the jihadists in Pakistan will seek to divert any concentration on themselves to Pakistan's signature enemy. It is highly likely that Indian targets will again fall victim to an attack, with the intent to exacerbate Pak-Indian relations. The question will then turn to just how capable Pakistan is of securing its own borders and whether India attempts to hold the government accountable for any terrorist action hatched inside that country. With India certain of Pakistan's involvement in the embassy bombing and the Mumbai attacks, time is running out.
At this time last year, NATO forces in Afghanistan were preparing for an expected massive Taliban offensive as the weather warmed up. At this time last year, Karzai was accusing the U.S. and NATO of targeting civilians in their air strikes and promoting talks with Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Pakistan launched military operations into towns that were believed to be Taliban strongholds.
Presently, NATO is expecting another Taliban offensive. Karzai is making the same statements and Pakistan is in the middle of more "offensives." By any standard, to declare progress in Afghanistan over the last year should raise an eyebrow so long as the situation one year later remains identical to the previous.
Last summer saw the Taliban and Al-Qaida operate from the havens in Pakistan to execute an array of sophisticatedly coordinated attacks on significant targets. There was the attempted assassination of Karzai in April, the June attack on a prison in Kandahar that freed nearly 1200 inmates, and the July bombing of the Indian embassy in the country. Several attacks also occurred in Pakistan, including the September attack on a Marriott in Islamabad.
Pakistan is expected to launch another offensive in Baluchistan, specifically targeting Baitullah Mehsud's fighters. Mehsud was yet again listed in another Anti-Terrorism Court warrant for the Lahore police academy bombing.
Pakistan is the answer to stabilizing Afghanistan. The Taliban are no longer contained to controlling a government, but have become a regional factor that seeks to undermine any opposition. Ahmed Rashid wrote of this when discussing how delicate the situation in Pakistan is, stating:
"The myths about the Taliban need to be clarified. They are not an extension of an external threat; they are not being funded by Russia or India. In the 1990s, the Taliban in Afghanistan were fighting the Northern Alliance, and thousands of Pashtuns went to fight as foot soldiers on behalf of the Taliban. In 2001, the Afghan Taliban fled to Pakistan. Pakistani Taliban, who previously had little clout, became hosts of the Afghan Taliban and earned much money for their assistance."
Rashid wrote that from 2001 to 2004, the Pakistani Taliban sought to establish a emirate in FATA and that the showdowns with the government now are their pursuit to expand that state.
However, the most threatening assessment comes from the statement that Pakistan's ISI sought to use Taliban fighters from Afghanistan to "maintain the jihadi nexus as a force against the Indians." Rashid writes about this in detail:
"The leadership of the Taliban is now in Pakistan, and they have stated their intention of overthrowing the government here. The Taliban are linking up with groups in Pakistan, and the Pakistani Taliban movement is turning into a multiethnic movement. Groups cultivated [by the Pakistani Army] to fight in Kashmir have joined up with the Pakistani Taliban, and include Punjabis, with organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Harkatul Mujahideen. Now, some 40 groups in Pakistan are loosely affiliated.... For that reason, Pakistan faces a more dangerous situation than Afghanistan, where Tajik and Uzbek fighters were not permitted to join the Afghan Taliban movement."
The above passage sheds just a small light into how complicated the connections in Pakistan lie. As the government begs for more aid money, it is likely that more and more refugee camps will be filled in areas already effected by failed military offensives in their areas. The already economically dismal situation in the country will only increase as a result of more operations, and Zardari will continue to plead for more aid relief from the international community. However, such operations have yet to prove beneficial in the long run and have yielded virtually no consistent results.
So long as groups are functioning inside Pakistan's borders, it remains almost certain that should the government continue to conduct offensives, the jihadists in Pakistan will seek to divert any concentration on themselves to Pakistan's signature enemy. It is highly likely that Indian targets will again fall victim to an attack, with the intent to exacerbate Pak-Indian relations. The question will then turn to just how capable Pakistan is of securing its own borders and whether India attempts to hold the government accountable for any terrorist action hatched inside that country. With India certain of Pakistan's involvement in the embassy bombing and the Mumbai attacks, time is running out.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
The future of Saudi Arabia in the War on Terror
Buried in a one-sentence statement by the Saudi Press Agency on March 27 was the surprise announcement that Prince Nayef had been appointed second deputy prime minister of the Kingdom. The move places a man with strong opposition to Western initiatives as the potential successor to King Abdullah, only led by the ailing Prince Sultan. At a crucial time where the U.S.-Saudi partnership is necessary for the region, it is expected that a King Nayef would deal a significant blow to any of the reformist potential that King Abdullah has embraced.
Since King Fahd's death in 2005, Abdullah has at least taken steps to pander to the West and presented a possibility of a Saudi Arabia that can fit into a modern world. Last July, King Abdullah opened the World Conference for Dialogue in Spain, which was held after his meeting in November 2007 with the Pope at the Vatican. Despite the meetings being a great deal of extravagant media/public relations "fluff", Abdullah opened himself up to criticism from his Muslim critics. Al-Qaida has shown King Abdullah and the Pope walking together in its propaganda, however it should be noted that while the meetings occurred, Saudi Arabia remains an Islamic state that forbids the public practice of any religions other than Islam. The Sunni-Shi'a divide still remains strong in the country, so the likelihood of imminent religious reforms remains unlikely.
Freedom of religion is just one aspect of what a democratic Saudi Arabia would look like. While it remains in doubt that Abdullah will commit to any reform as King, it is virtually nonexistent that a King Nayef would further any potential democratic changes.
Just prior to the March announcement, Nayef was quoted as saying that Saudi Arabia did not need women serving in Parliament or elections. In short, how undemocratic can you be to oppose women's rights and elections universally? Progress regarding either aspect on any level would have been an encouraging sign that Saudi Arabia is looking to develop its role in the global community, rather than pull itself into obscurity. With the Iranian influence expanding on a global scale, Saudi Arabia has failed to increase its influence on a regional and global scale at a rate proportionate to Iran. One would assume that King Abdullah would see that in the long-term, Iran will eclipse Saudi Arabia for the once heated battle over who has the most influence over the Middle East. In short, Prince Nayef has experience over ruling the Kingdom as Interior Minister, but is ill-equipped to the dealings on a global scale.
Furthermore, as the War on Terrorism remains a vital aspect for Middle East policy in the near future, the U.S.-Saudi partnership must be upheld by any Saudi monarch. There is no doubt that the Interior Ministry remains the most significant branch of the government to confront terrorism in the Kingdom, but Prince Nayef is plagued by extreme doubt over his effectiveness overseeing such operations. In a June 22, 2004 hearing, Sen. Charles Schumer (NY-D) urged then Secretary of State Colin Powell to demand that Prince Nayef be replaced with "with someone more credible and committed to fighting terrorism." These calls came after reports surfaced that Prince Nayef's Interior Ministry security forces assisted in the kidnapping and murder of Paul Johnson-an U.S. contractor residing in the Kingdom. Sen. Schumer's demand cited Prince Nayef's lengthy history of aiding terrorists and interference of investigations.
"Prince Nayef Ibn Abd Al-Aziz is the supervisor general of the Saudi Committee for the Support of the Al Quds Intifadah, an organization that has provided families of Palestinian suicide bombers with millions of dollars through specially designated bank accounts. In 2002, a single Saudi Arabian telethon raised about $112 million for this purpose.
In November of 2002, Prince Nayef told Ain-Al-Yageen, another Saudi newspaper, that Zionists were responsible for the 9-11 attacks despite that fact that Saudi Arabia has admitted that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. In addition, Prince Nayef [deletion] single-handedly prevented the trial of 13 Saudis indicted for killing 19 Americans in the bombing of the Khobar Towers by refusing to turn the men over to the United States. More recently Prince Nayef claimed that Zionists were behind the murder of six western contractors in Saudi Arabia and stated that "Al Qaeda is backed by Israel and Zionism."
In short, there is no person more ill-fit to govern Saudi Arabia then Prince Nayef. Given that a government report last year found that Saudi Arabia remains the leading sponsor of terrorism, there should be no expectation of any enhanced measures under Nayef's rule. If he has failed to crack down on it under his position as Interior Minister (held since 1975), it is likely that any existing measures would be scaled back. With his history of "blame the Jews" and his strong held Wahhabist views, Saudi Arabia will withdraw from global initiatives and lose any reformist views. Perhaps there is no better way to summarize what Saudi Arabia will look like than to quote Prince Nayef himself from a 2006 speech.
"Unless we face reality with truth, courage, and evidence, and if we do not stop all the transgressors who are trying to distort Islam with their claims of reform and their corrupt progress - this will be dangerous. These people have been tempted by the West, and have been employed in its service. We are familiar with their relations with foreign elements. We are fighting them and will continue to fight them, and we will cut off their tongues."
Since King Fahd's death in 2005, Abdullah has at least taken steps to pander to the West and presented a possibility of a Saudi Arabia that can fit into a modern world. Last July, King Abdullah opened the World Conference for Dialogue in Spain, which was held after his meeting in November 2007 with the Pope at the Vatican. Despite the meetings being a great deal of extravagant media/public relations "fluff", Abdullah opened himself up to criticism from his Muslim critics. Al-Qaida has shown King Abdullah and the Pope walking together in its propaganda, however it should be noted that while the meetings occurred, Saudi Arabia remains an Islamic state that forbids the public practice of any religions other than Islam. The Sunni-Shi'a divide still remains strong in the country, so the likelihood of imminent religious reforms remains unlikely.
Freedom of religion is just one aspect of what a democratic Saudi Arabia would look like. While it remains in doubt that Abdullah will commit to any reform as King, it is virtually nonexistent that a King Nayef would further any potential democratic changes.
Just prior to the March announcement, Nayef was quoted as saying that Saudi Arabia did not need women serving in Parliament or elections. In short, how undemocratic can you be to oppose women's rights and elections universally? Progress regarding either aspect on any level would have been an encouraging sign that Saudi Arabia is looking to develop its role in the global community, rather than pull itself into obscurity. With the Iranian influence expanding on a global scale, Saudi Arabia has failed to increase its influence on a regional and global scale at a rate proportionate to Iran. One would assume that King Abdullah would see that in the long-term, Iran will eclipse Saudi Arabia for the once heated battle over who has the most influence over the Middle East. In short, Prince Nayef has experience over ruling the Kingdom as Interior Minister, but is ill-equipped to the dealings on a global scale.
Furthermore, as the War on Terrorism remains a vital aspect for Middle East policy in the near future, the U.S.-Saudi partnership must be upheld by any Saudi monarch. There is no doubt that the Interior Ministry remains the most significant branch of the government to confront terrorism in the Kingdom, but Prince Nayef is plagued by extreme doubt over his effectiveness overseeing such operations. In a June 22, 2004 hearing, Sen. Charles Schumer (NY-D) urged then Secretary of State Colin Powell to demand that Prince Nayef be replaced with "with someone more credible and committed to fighting terrorism." These calls came after reports surfaced that Prince Nayef's Interior Ministry security forces assisted in the kidnapping and murder of Paul Johnson-an U.S. contractor residing in the Kingdom. Sen. Schumer's demand cited Prince Nayef's lengthy history of aiding terrorists and interference of investigations.
"Prince Nayef Ibn Abd Al-Aziz is the supervisor general of the Saudi Committee for the Support of the Al Quds Intifadah, an organization that has provided families of Palestinian suicide bombers with millions of dollars through specially designated bank accounts. In 2002, a single Saudi Arabian telethon raised about $112 million for this purpose.
In November of 2002, Prince Nayef told Ain-Al-Yageen, another Saudi newspaper, that Zionists were responsible for the 9-11 attacks despite that fact that Saudi Arabia has admitted that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. In addition, Prince Nayef [deletion] single-handedly prevented the trial of 13 Saudis indicted for killing 19 Americans in the bombing of the Khobar Towers by refusing to turn the men over to the United States. More recently Prince Nayef claimed that Zionists were behind the murder of six western contractors in Saudi Arabia and stated that "Al Qaeda is backed by Israel and Zionism."
In short, there is no person more ill-fit to govern Saudi Arabia then Prince Nayef. Given that a government report last year found that Saudi Arabia remains the leading sponsor of terrorism, there should be no expectation of any enhanced measures under Nayef's rule. If he has failed to crack down on it under his position as Interior Minister (held since 1975), it is likely that any existing measures would be scaled back. With his history of "blame the Jews" and his strong held Wahhabist views, Saudi Arabia will withdraw from global initiatives and lose any reformist views. Perhaps there is no better way to summarize what Saudi Arabia will look like than to quote Prince Nayef himself from a 2006 speech.
"Unless we face reality with truth, courage, and evidence, and if we do not stop all the transgressors who are trying to distort Islam with their claims of reform and their corrupt progress - this will be dangerous. These people have been tempted by the West, and have been employed in its service. We are familiar with their relations with foreign elements. We are fighting them and will continue to fight them, and we will cut off their tongues."
Friday, March 20, 2009
The danger of generalizing terrorism
As several measures of legislation are being reversed and established in terror cases in the U.S. under the new administration, we are effectively facing a major dilemma that could resurface in the imminent future. Rewind back to September 12, 2001, when using the word terrorist captured the atrocities committed the day previous. That day we saw jihad from a radical Islamic element, which used our way of life against us.
Under the Obama administration's brief two months in office, the future of identifying international terrorists and those with links seems to be rewinding back to the pre-9/11 days full of murky labels that fail to address the criminal elements that drive global terror organizations. While many of the politically-driven critics look to suggest that such maneuvers will reduce law enforcement's capabilities to stop the next mass-casualty attacks, there is a far more dangerous potential.
Over the past few months, several outlets have reported the FBI's attempts to monitor the Somali community in Minneapolis. This effort was established shortly after a suicide bombing in Somalia was orchestrated by Shirwa Ahmed, a missing Somali-American from Minnesota. It was soon discovered that several groups of young men from specifically the Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center. The mosque has denied any links and condemned suicide bombings as a whole.
However, the alarming concern should be that there are at least a dozen young men who travelled abroad to support jihad in Somalia from our country. How will the international community perceive our ability to fight terrorists when Americans are perpetrating attacks overseas? This is a crucial moment as Al-Qaida is thrusting more of its abilities into Somalia yet again, evidenced by Osama bin Laden's March 19 recording and Ayman Zawahiri's February 2009 video. It is expected that Al-Shabaab, already ideologically linked with bin Laden, will pledge ties in the near future to Al-Qaida.
There is a dangerous problem posed to us here in the U.S. as to whether or not we can win the War on Terror. Simply put, the international support for combating terror will diminish drastically if more American citizens surface as perpetrators of terrorist acts abroad. We can not ask of other countries what we can not effectively do. Somalia is breeding a new wave of jihad yet again, and Al-Shabaab has been active in threatening the U.S. as well as most recently denouncing the new government in the country. With a potential active recruiting cell operating domestically, the future for Al-Shabaab to be the active global cell for Al-Qaida could render severe consequences in the global War on Terror and undermine the U.S. ability to pioneer counter terror initiatives.
Under the Obama administration's brief two months in office, the future of identifying international terrorists and those with links seems to be rewinding back to the pre-9/11 days full of murky labels that fail to address the criminal elements that drive global terror organizations. While many of the politically-driven critics look to suggest that such maneuvers will reduce law enforcement's capabilities to stop the next mass-casualty attacks, there is a far more dangerous potential.
Over the past few months, several outlets have reported the FBI's attempts to monitor the Somali community in Minneapolis. This effort was established shortly after a suicide bombing in Somalia was orchestrated by Shirwa Ahmed, a missing Somali-American from Minnesota. It was soon discovered that several groups of young men from specifically the Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center. The mosque has denied any links and condemned suicide bombings as a whole.
However, the alarming concern should be that there are at least a dozen young men who travelled abroad to support jihad in Somalia from our country. How will the international community perceive our ability to fight terrorists when Americans are perpetrating attacks overseas? This is a crucial moment as Al-Qaida is thrusting more of its abilities into Somalia yet again, evidenced by Osama bin Laden's March 19 recording and Ayman Zawahiri's February 2009 video. It is expected that Al-Shabaab, already ideologically linked with bin Laden, will pledge ties in the near future to Al-Qaida.
There is a dangerous problem posed to us here in the U.S. as to whether or not we can win the War on Terror. Simply put, the international support for combating terror will diminish drastically if more American citizens surface as perpetrators of terrorist acts abroad. We can not ask of other countries what we can not effectively do. Somalia is breeding a new wave of jihad yet again, and Al-Shabaab has been active in threatening the U.S. as well as most recently denouncing the new government in the country. With a potential active recruiting cell operating domestically, the future for Al-Shabaab to be the active global cell for Al-Qaida could render severe consequences in the global War on Terror and undermine the U.S. ability to pioneer counter terror initiatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)