Playing politics with intelligence

On the date of the death of Al-Qaida's founder, Usama bin Laden, much ado about nothing has been made about the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" argument regarding the raid that terminated Al-Qaida's number one.  As the Obama administration and Mitt Romney's campaign spar over nonsense of whether or not a President Romney would approve of the Seal Team Six operation, the men and women on the front lines of the War on Terror continue their tasks seeking out any leads that may lead to other significant developments in this never ending war.  




Inside the beltway, this war is something that is taken for granted - the unsung heroes carry on with their tasks contributing to preserving the American way of life and insuring another 9/11 does not happen under their watch.  The many factors involved in delivering intelligence to the desk of the President, regardless of who is in office, are never taken lightly and ultimately that decision is dependent on the Chief Executive.  Whether that action is approved (as in President Obama's case) or ignored (as in the missed opportunities President Clinton had to take out UBL), these men and women continue their tasks without a doubt that the mission is clear. 




In an election year, everything is at stake for political parties, but it is an embarrassment to our government to take this issue to doubt a candidate's commitment to justice.  Fundamentally, I felt from 2003 until a year ago, Usama bin Laden's role inside Al-Qaida was one mainly left in the dust - incapable of operational capacity and isolated from the training camps he once so closely monitored.  Sure enough, UBL was abandoned by most of his group to his domain in Abbotabad where he would face his demise.  




It is my belief that when Mitt Romney made his statements from 2007, he was referring to not exhausting valuable assets in the military and intelligence communities on one figure.  Realistically, I think his statements make sense and should echo the sentiments realistically of all in the intel community, that terrorism is bigger than one figure and taking out a mouthpiece will not stop the mission to save lives.  I believe the intelligence mission of all those involved in the bin Laden raid was a responsible one, and resulted in the delivery of justice to punish a man who slaughtered Americans senselessly on the streets of New York, Washington, and in Pennsylvania.  




If it is doubtful that any candidate for Congress, much less President of the United States, would take the intelligence President Obama received and not act on it (whether it be with special operations or drones), why should they have any authority whatsoever?  Tactics aside, the bin Laden operation was an opportunity of justice and not to disrupt operations and recruiting (as in Al-Awlaki).  I remember many a press conference then-Governor Romney quoted vague threats targeted towards sites inside his state as credible and revealed limited intelligence as though it were a specific and targeted concern.  Just as Governor Davis of California created a great deal of concern over threats to the Golden Gate Bridge when intelligence evaluated by analysts suggested no significant concerns.  




Some things never change, politics as usual occurs on a daily basis on a variety of issues, but the successes made by the members of our nation's intelligence and military communities should never be one that comes down to a self-gratifying politician's posturing.  Amongst all the foiled plots, countless lives have been saved because of the dedication of these unnamed people.  Without the political nonsense, the mission will remain the same inside the counter terrorism community.  Take facts as they are, bin Laden's dead and it came down to a President to decide how to handle the situation.  Let's make sure that we have a President committed to preserving justice and life.  

American Foreign Policy Post bin Laden

Post the death of Al-Qaida's most recognized leader, Osama bin Laden, the United States has had to adjust its mission in the War on Terror, recognizing that the threat is indeed broad and the enemy is persistent. Reports suggesting that the number of suspected terrorists has doubled within the last twelve months, that either suggests that the intelligence community has improved it reconnaissance on suspects or the TSA has been very busy. The reality is that terrorism without action, just like before 9/11, exists. Everyday, facilitators recruiting future suicide attackers and raising funds for terror operations exist and are hoping to develop the next big plot against our way of life.


Reports from the hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday suggested that America's most prominent adversary lays in the leadership of Iran. With reports suggesting that despite continued embargoes, Iran is willing and developing plots to attack American interests, both domestic and abroad (as evidenced by the willingness to attempt an assassination of the Saudi ambassador in a Washington D.C. restaurant) should alarm people. Iran's capabilities are unrivaled globally through its use of proxy networks. The question is how capable are its once strong partners, such as with Hizbullah, to instruct and coordinate an attack on American interests?


The reality is that Iran has long positioned itself within the Middle East region to be the most operational terror outfit. Its arsenal, recruitment numbers, and statements speak for itself. Despite setbacks in its leadership in Lebanon (which should raise concern of a splinter within the group that could develop into regional factions similar to Al-Qaida) the group has some of the most dedicated and persistent warriors within its ranks.


With the continued unrest in Syria, the certainty of one of Iran's closest partners in the Sunni-Shia divide is at stake and an opportunity to distract the international community is one of the most practical possibilities in this saga. Iran is in a difficult situation economically and is constantly looking for a way out, as evidenced by the previous reports of it seeking to increase oil exports and other strategic partnerships globally. It has laid a stake in various parts of Africa as well as in South America, particularly in Venezuela.


Strategically, without a unified voice to denounce the killings of protestors on the streets inside Syria, Bashar al-Assad will remain in power. The risks are too high for not only his regime, but also within the Iranian leadership which has aided Assad for years. The religious leadership of Iran, led by its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomenei, views every struggle as part of a religious commitment to fulfill the coming of the Mahdi and bringing about the end of the world. This delusion/ambition destroys the probability of reasoning with the real deciders, Iran's Supreme Council, is null.


Iran is a ticking time bomb that poses a grave threat to Israel, the U.S. and its Western allies as well as the entire Middle East region. The capabilities of Iran, combined with its undeclared nuclear program and its global network of terrorists place an emphasis on U.S. foreign policy and its need to deal and address the issue now rather than procrastinate and allow further development. Iran's leadership is religiously motivated and dependent on the apocalyptic theology and the necessity to bring this scenario about.


With the death of Osama bin Laden, the War on Terror developed into a new phase that determined that the enemy is no longer just one man who we sought to bring to justice, but rather a collection of groups seeking to destroy the fundamental rights of humanity. The reality is Iran utilizes its networks for terrorism, as well as being complicit and involved in actions killing U.S. soldiers inside Afghanistan and within Iraq in the past. U.S. policy must address the lapses in its inability to adequately confront and halt Iran in its quest for what is assuredly for nuclear weapons. Consistently, the largest threat against the U.S. has been Hizbullah. Due to its global networking and capabilities, combined with its complacency in criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking, this group will remain the most extensive enemy against the West.

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.

Are we really even fighting a war anymore?

The War on Terror was designed with the intent to disrupt the leadership network of Al-Qaida that was instrumental behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. Since operations began a month after the attacks in 2001, the U.S. has eliminated numerous senior figures and seasoned veterans of the mujahideen that made up Al-Qaida Central. The leadership of Al-Qaida has been replaced now by a movement made up of collective pockets of fighters distributed among the globe, all seeking to develop the momentum that Al-Qaida once enjoyed.


The attacks in Uganda during the World Cup evidence this, showing that as many experts have suggested for some time that the general trend of terrorist groups turning from promoting their agenda in a local, regional based setting into a global movement applies now to the Shabaab of Somalia. The twin bombings exercised the group's intent to disrupt a global event with violence in order to attract the attention of the viewing public. It is more than likely that the group did not have the resources and capabilities to penetrate the security apparatus surrounding Cape Town.


Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula gained recognition upon the failed bombing of Northwest 253 on Christmas Day last year. The group previously was responsible primarily for Al-Qaida operations inside Saudi Arabia, using the lacking government of President Saleh of Yemen in order to gain refuge across the border. Anwar al-Awlaki was able to use his charm in order to benefit the group by obtaining Westernized recruits who already spoke English and had no tell-tale red flags.


Al-Qaida Central, based in Pakistan, is largely disrupted in my analysis. Figureheads like Osama bin Laden control the public front of the group, but hold no true value outside of their immediate location. The recordings simply are a ploy for credibility in the Muslim world, utilizing the once strong persona that bin Laden and his leaders once held when they were capable of attacks such as the Embassy bombings of 1998. The destruction that Al-Qaida was able to claim actually was linked to bin Laden's direct leadership, rather than a network of regional leaders who operated freely and independent of the group's chain of command.


The U.S. has failed at providing any real results in the War on Terror, opting to ignore developing threats until innocent lives have been claimed. The days of assigning any associates to Al-Qaida on the blacklists has been replaced by simply waiting until those associates have blood on their hands to place them under any sanctions. Intelligence is an invaluable asset in any war, especially a war where the enemy is everywhere. The ability to produce HUMINT in this war has proven extremely difficult. The only able way is to put eyes and ears everywhere, providing assistance in the local tribes that make up the many regions where Al-Qaida's partners find haven.


A grassroots-up strategy would provide the most assistance to those impacted most by an unstable country, especially in Afghanistan and Yemen. The defining problem in most situations is that the local tribes have no reason to believe in a corrupt national government that exists inside the bubble of the capital. By providing aid to those who experience the insurgency violence on a day-to-day basis and standing beside them, there is hope in gaining assets that can prove effective in designing larger counter terrorism strategies. Fighting a war is hard work, but it is something that takes time, patience, and a collective effort in order to achieve success.

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.

The grooming of the heir apparent?

It was widely reported towards the end of last year that Osama bin Laden had designated his 16-year old son Hamza, as his successor as the sheikh of Al-Qaida. Now, Hamza is making more headlines with his "poem" than his father's last two audio recordings did. I want to clarify that I do not necessarily subscribe to the reports circulated over the past month that Osama is nearing death and in poor physical condition, but it is rather curious that his son would release his first tape as reports of his father's impending death surface.

Regardless of his father's circumstances, Hamza's tape comes as reports swirl of Al-Qaida breeding a new line of terrorists-the youth. Reports since April have come in steadily of increased recruiting of young boys, when a video tape was released of a 12-year old beheading an individual at a Taliban school in Pakistan. To further impress this growing trend, in the deadly attack on Sunday commemorating the Red Mosque siege in Islamabad, it is reported that the suicide bomber may have been 15 to 16 years old. Whether this recording is a sign of an imminent passage of command or a call to arms for the youth, it makes sense in the Al-Qaida recruitment. The Al-Qaida movement is creating forces that it is counting on to last another generation, and what better way to target the upcoming youth than by using one of its own.