As news comes out of Pakistan that Baitullah Mehsud is believed to be among the casualties of Wednesday's air strike in Waziristan, many analysts are no doubt looking at what is next for Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan (TTP). There is no doubt that Baitullah wore the title of Taliban commander well, becoming the government's most fierce competition, but will his death yield any actual results in what Pakistan's struggle against militants?
When Baitullah first emerged, he brought a new face to the militancy that he inherited. Opting to be in the shadows, he stayed away from cameras and chose to live a life centered around a fear that he would be found. His paranoia was evidenced by his routine - traveling in convoys, sleeping in different locations every night. His predecessor had become a victim of too much media attention and it appeared Baitullah had taken note. However, shortly after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, he evolved into a militant who sought to go after the Pakistani government and create chaos.
The question stands does the death of Baitullah accomplish anything in both Pakistan's war on terror and the global war. In all likelihood, the violence in the country will remain and the attempts to destabilize the government will remain persistent. As Baitullah rose in status as Pakistan's key militant, he alienated a great deal of his commanders who became his competition. The one thing that Baitullah had going for him in the tribal region was his pledge that he gave to residents that he would protect them from foreign fighters - including Pakistan's military. Baitullah was a strong fighter for the independence of those regions, seeking to keep the military and government from interfering.
It is highly possible that as the TTP names Baitullah's successor, that it will seek to establish itself as a powerful force that is unified in its beliefs. The schism that was created by Baitullah can be healed by the regathering of the group and by no means is the TTP in a struggle to survive. Baitullah was an extremely capable leader who had a great deal of resources at his disposal. In a recent editorial, the capabilities of the TTP are reflected upon, giving credit to how the resistance has maintained its struggle:
"According to some estimates, Baitullah could have in his kitty around Rs 4 billion (around $48 million US) to spend annually. This money comes from drugs facilitated by Al Qaeda contacts, Arab money from the Gulf, money made from kidnapping for ransom, looting of banks, smuggling and "protection money" in general. He has weapons produced in Russia, the US and India, and has been looting explosives produced at the Wah munitions factory."
The death of Baitullah does not mean a shift in the Taliban's tactics. The Taliban have a momentum and an agenda, which means that the TTP is still one of the most potentially damaging networks to the region. With its ties and resources, the new leader of the group has an endless flow of ability to fight jihad without making the same errors that may have led to his predecessor's death. The Taliban can not be defeated by air strikes alone, but rather attacking the very things that sustain it. There is a desperate need for the government to establish itself as capable of protecting its people, not negotiating useless ceasefires with militants who have the upper hand. The government will have to pursue the very things that finance the groups - including logging and mining. These, along with extensive ties to the drug trade, helped make up the nearly $48 million that the TTP earned. Only by the government conducting an offensive on all levels, not just using foot soldiers, will it win any real successes against its enemies.
For now, there is the success of eliminating a man who had countless amounts of blood on his hands. However, at the end of the day terrorism does not start or end with just one man.
9-11-01
Friday, August 7, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Pakistan Five-Star Hotel bombed
As the reports come in pertaining to the attack today on Peshawar's only five-star hotel, the Pearl Continental, this can be seen as a direct threat by Taliban militants to not only the Pakistani government, but to the U.S. as well. The attack will more than likely be traced back to Taliban groups, probably with links to TTP commander Baitullah Mehsud. Following the government's offensive on Taliban hideouts, threats were made to attack prominent locations as revenge. The attack is the latest in a trend of attacks since the November Mumbai attacks, which combines gunmen and bombs creating two waves of attacks inside and outside the target.
Perhaps most concerning should be that the hotel was a spot not only frequented by diplomats in the region, but was included in negotiations by the U.S. to purchase the hotel for use as a consulate. This was part of a nearly $756 million plan for improving the U.S.'s embassy and consulates inside the country, putting the costs for such second to the new embassy in Iraq. It should be noted that the Taliban and Al-Qaida hold the U.S. responsible for exerting influence on the Zardari administration to conduct the operations in the tribal region. Today's attack should be perceived as not only another affront to Pakistan's government, but also a shot across the bow to the U.S. More details will emerge soon I am sure.
Perhaps most concerning should be that the hotel was a spot not only frequented by diplomats in the region, but was included in negotiations by the U.S. to purchase the hotel for use as a consulate. This was part of a nearly $756 million plan for improving the U.S.'s embassy and consulates inside the country, putting the costs for such second to the new embassy in Iraq. It should be noted that the Taliban and Al-Qaida hold the U.S. responsible for exerting influence on the Zardari administration to conduct the operations in the tribal region. Today's attack should be perceived as not only another affront to Pakistan's government, but also a shot across the bow to the U.S. More details will emerge soon I am sure.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Another case of jihad in the U.S.
As the recent arrests of four individuals in New York demonstrate, nearly eight years after 9/11 the intent to attack Americans inside the United States remains strong not overseas but within the United States itself. Yet again, the countless hours of investigation by law enforcement agencies can be attributed to saving lives. The arrests mark yet again, similar to several cases such as the Liberty City 7 and the Fort Dix Six, a new era of law enforcing that involves intervening and disrupting a plot prior to its actual execution. The involvement of FBI informants has been instrumental to these operations.
However, it is yet again a strong reminder that there are individuals amongst us seeking to damage the freedoms we enjoy. Media reports have already indicated that this latest plot was a mere dream by men who oppose American policies. It is necessary for us to be reminded that forces operating for the jihadist networks are seeking actively to exploit the sufferings of individuals and utilize them in plots within our country. There is little doubt that given the resources of groups like Al-Qaida and Hizbullah, these men would have been capable and likely executed attacks inside the U.S..
Jihadist plots have diminished coming from the Al-Qaida hierarchy inside Pakistan, but that does not mean that the mentality that deems jihad necessary has been erased. There are still individuals seeking to advance this using violence across the world, and it is essential that our law enforcement have the tools to intercept and act on any and all intelligence deemed threatening. Thanks to these tools, our agencies have been involved in preventing attacks within the United States and abroad, saving countless lives.
However, it is yet again a strong reminder that there are individuals amongst us seeking to damage the freedoms we enjoy. Media reports have already indicated that this latest plot was a mere dream by men who oppose American policies. It is necessary for us to be reminded that forces operating for the jihadist networks are seeking actively to exploit the sufferings of individuals and utilize them in plots within our country. There is little doubt that given the resources of groups like Al-Qaida and Hizbullah, these men would have been capable and likely executed attacks inside the U.S..
Jihadist plots have diminished coming from the Al-Qaida hierarchy inside Pakistan, but that does not mean that the mentality that deems jihad necessary has been erased. There are still individuals seeking to advance this using violence across the world, and it is essential that our law enforcement have the tools to intercept and act on any and all intelligence deemed threatening. Thanks to these tools, our agencies have been involved in preventing attacks within the United States and abroad, saving countless lives.
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."
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Pakistan's role in regional stability
As President Obama laid out his plan for Afghanistan last week, the potential for regional violence originating from Pakistan continued to remain a defining issue in the War on Terror. Inside its borders, Pakistan remains a breeding ground and haven for jihadist groups as the government has lost any legitimacy in "the battle for Pakistan's soul" that President Zardari wrote about last September. Pakistan's military has failed to crackdown on militant activities, and with the effective breakaway of parts of the tribal areas to Taliban sympathizers, the Zardari administration has failed the world.
Monday's attack targeting a police academy in Lahore was the second major attack in the country within days, following the bombing of a mosque along the Khyber Pass, and reminded the world of how volatile the situation remains. The attack revealed the vulnerabilities of the forces expected to conduct counter terror operations, yet also served as a reminder of how the War on Terror in Pakistan has become a lazy slogan for President Zardari to beg the West for money.
The simple fact remains that Monday's attack should not have happened, and Pakistani intelligence was more than likely either complicit or unaware of any plot. Baitullah Mehsud's Tehrik-e-Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack. Mehsud has been sought since an arrest warrant was issued exactly one year ago for his masterminding of the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Her assassination left the PPP in search of a presidential candidate, eventually namingZardari, her widower.
Upon the PPP's election into power, the new government sought to negotiate with groups spreading violence in the country, including Mehsud's. The results of such talks can now clearly be seen on the countless casualty lists from domestic attacks. No peace has been achieved, and the handover of the Swat valley to Taliban sympathizer Sufi Mohammad will yet again serve as a reminder that terrorism is simply whatjihadists see as a means to gain their authority.
Pakistan remains in denial of its role for spreading violence. The first finger pointed for any major attacks within Pakistan comes from Interior Minister Rehman Malik to "foreign elements." See this article after the police academy siege. Hours later, the commander of Pakistan's Tehrik-e-Taliban Baitullah Mehsud claimed responsibility and Malik, as usual, was forced to correct his misstatement. The empty hand begging for Western "aid" continues to remain extended, with no formidable successes to provide examples that Pakistani forces are willing, or even capable, of fighting terrorism. Prior to Monday's attack, President Zardari opted to take the typical politician route and make excuses for his administration's failure:
"In a rare interview with Sky.com, Zardari vowed to make Pakistan a better and stronger country in the near future, and adding it can still win its struggle against terrorism.
He announced that the battle to counter terrorism is now Pakistan’’s war.
Zardari however, said it would require more help from the United States and Britain to overcome the menace.Putting side the international community's claims that Islamabad has been poured-in with aid and assistance, Zardari said: We haven”t received a dollar. Until then, we don”t have the tools to fight."
Perhaps President Zardari is referring to the U.S. announcement in January that it was cutting money from the Coalition Support Fund. The U.S. deducted nearly $55 million from the previous $156 million figure provided. After the Obama administration laid out its plan for economic aid in Pakistan being linked to the country's performance in fighting terrorism, Prime Minister Gilani whined that "Pakistan has already done enough." The War on Terror will not be won through military strength alone, but blank checks will not contain the ideas that jihadist groups seek to implement.
As politicians throughout the world question the war on terror, people are dying. It is time for Pakistan to quit outsourcing this struggle and adopt it as its own. U.S. drone strikes should not be the only War on Terror that President Zardari can speak of, yet they are the only forcescombating terrorism inside Pakistan. How many people will have to die before it is seen that terrorist groups are not just crazed maniacs seeking to kill people, but they have an agenda that they seek to establish through fear and bloodshed? Terrorism is a means to an end, and so long as that end is out of reach, this cycle of violence will continue to plague everyone in Pakistan.
-----
Just a brief side note, I wish this was an April Fool's joke. U.S. envoy Richard Holbrookeannounced today that the State Dept. intended to surge counter terror funding for Pakistan.
"He said the administration backed a measure sponsored in the House that would create economic opportunity zones along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.Another bill – sponsored by House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman HowardBerman and top two members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – would triple aid for Pakistan to $1.5 billion annually for five years."
Monday's attack targeting a police academy in Lahore was the second major attack in the country within days, following the bombing of a mosque along the Khyber Pass, and reminded the world of how volatile the situation remains. The attack revealed the vulnerabilities of the forces expected to conduct counter terror operations, yet also served as a reminder of how the War on Terror in Pakistan has become a lazy slogan for President Zardari to beg the West for money.
The simple fact remains that Monday's attack should not have happened, and Pakistani intelligence was more than likely either complicit or unaware of any plot. Baitullah Mehsud's Tehrik-e-Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack. Mehsud has been sought since an arrest warrant was issued exactly one year ago for his masterminding of the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Her assassination left the PPP in search of a presidential candidate, eventually namingZardari, her widower.
Upon the PPP's election into power, the new government sought to negotiate with groups spreading violence in the country, including Mehsud's. The results of such talks can now clearly be seen on the countless casualty lists from domestic attacks. No peace has been achieved, and the handover of the Swat valley to Taliban sympathizer Sufi Mohammad will yet again serve as a reminder that terrorism is simply whatjihadists see as a means to gain their authority.
Pakistan remains in denial of its role for spreading violence. The first finger pointed for any major attacks within Pakistan comes from Interior Minister Rehman Malik to "foreign elements." See this article after the police academy siege. Hours later, the commander of Pakistan's Tehrik-e-Taliban Baitullah Mehsud claimed responsibility and Malik, as usual, was forced to correct his misstatement. The empty hand begging for Western "aid" continues to remain extended, with no formidable successes to provide examples that Pakistani forces are willing, or even capable, of fighting terrorism. Prior to Monday's attack, President Zardari opted to take the typical politician route and make excuses for his administration's failure:
"In a rare interview with Sky.com, Zardari vowed to make Pakistan a better and stronger country in the near future, and adding it can still win its struggle against terrorism.
He announced that the battle to counter terrorism is now Pakistan’’s war.
Zardari however, said it would require more help from the United States and Britain to overcome the menace.Putting side the international community's claims that Islamabad has been poured-in with aid and assistance, Zardari said: We haven”t received a dollar. Until then, we don”t have the tools to fight."
Perhaps President Zardari is referring to the U.S. announcement in January that it was cutting money from the Coalition Support Fund. The U.S. deducted nearly $55 million from the previous $156 million figure provided. After the Obama administration laid out its plan for economic aid in Pakistan being linked to the country's performance in fighting terrorism, Prime Minister Gilani whined that "Pakistan has already done enough." The War on Terror will not be won through military strength alone, but blank checks will not contain the ideas that jihadist groups seek to implement.
As politicians throughout the world question the war on terror, people are dying. It is time for Pakistan to quit outsourcing this struggle and adopt it as its own. U.S. drone strikes should not be the only War on Terror that President Zardari can speak of, yet they are the only forcescombating terrorism inside Pakistan. How many people will have to die before it is seen that terrorist groups are not just crazed maniacs seeking to kill people, but they have an agenda that they seek to establish through fear and bloodshed? Terrorism is a means to an end, and so long as that end is out of reach, this cycle of violence will continue to plague everyone in Pakistan.
-----
Just a brief side note, I wish this was an April Fool's joke. U.S. envoy Richard Holbrookeannounced today that the State Dept. intended to surge counter terror funding for Pakistan.
"He said the administration backed a measure sponsored in the House that would create economic opportunity zones along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.Another bill – sponsored by House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman HowardBerman and top two members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – would triple aid for Pakistan to $1.5 billion annually for five years."
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)