|
|
July 2008 - Posts
-
As mentioned in Andrew Cochran's July 28 posting, the Investigative Project on Terrorism's (IPT) counterterrorism leader Steven Emerson will be testifying on Thursday July 31 at a Congressional hearing on "Foreign Aid and the Fight Against Terrorism and Proliferation: Leveraging Foreign Aid to Achieve U.S. Policy Goals." This hearing will take place at the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade this Thursday at 10:30 AM ET in room 2200 of the Rayburn House Building.
In the past day, however, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) have been working on a public relations campaign to silence Steven Emerson at this July 31 hearing. ISNA sent out an "Urgent Action Alert" to its membership calling for them to lobby Congressman Brad Sherman to either have "balanced, qualified testimony"... [or demand that] "the session be canceled." MPAC sent a similar letter to Congressman Brad Sherman and also issued "demands" calling for its membership to lobby for silencing Steven Emerson or for Congress to "cancel or postpone" the hearing. ISNA charges Steven Emerson with "Islamaphobia" [sic] and "hate mongering," while MPAC charges Steven Emerson with "bigotry." Not surprisingly, ISNA and MPAC don't support their accusations with any facts or specifics, just ad hominem name-calling to silence and discredit those who speak out against Jihad. As reported tonight, Congressman Sherman refused to buckle under such lobbying efforts stating that "[t]his hearing will go on. We need to make sure that the State Department is not giving U.S. tax dollars to those on the other side in the war on terrorism."
ISNA's and MPAC's efforts to either silence Steven Emerson or ensure that an "expert" hand-picked by such pro-Islamic supremacist groups provides "balanced" [sic] testimony should be another wake-up call that such groups seek to not only impact the debate on Jihad and Islamic supremacist terrorism, but also control that debate entirely. Yet ISNA and MPAC remain unwilling to be accountable for their own organizations' and members' actions, statements, and ideological support.
Both ISNA and MPAC have a lot to explain about their own organizations and members.
ISNA remains an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror retrial scheduled for August 18. But a few weeks before the retrial, ISNA's court-appointed attorneys now seek to delay the retrial, claiming that "they haven't been paid enough to present a good defense." Could that have anything to do with ISNA's legal defense's inability to challenge the authenticity of documents linking ISNA to the Hamas terrorist organization?
ISNA is also in the process of preparing for its annual 2008 convention scheduled to start on August 29, where it has announced that it will have such speakers as:
-- Muzammil Siddiqi - Steven Emerson reports that "when Siddiqi was President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in 1997, his organization received special thanks from Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook, who wrote that ISNA supported him through his jailing and extradition process, writing that such efforts 'consoled' him." The report points out, "Siddiqi has made numerous pro-jihad statements in the past and has denied that 9/11 was carried about by Muslims." Muzammil Siddiqui has been a member of Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), whose members have been connected to Islamic extremism and terrorism.
-- Siraj Wahhaj - a character witness for convicted 1993 World Trade Center terrorist "blind sheik" Omar Rahman, and a man who reportedly called for replacing the American government with a caliphate. This same Islamic supremacist Siraj Wahhaj is currently promoting ads for the New York subway system to "teach" people about Islam.
-- Abdallah Idris Ali - has been on the board of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have openly supported terrorist groups, such as Hamas
-- Ihsan Bagby: "we [Muslims] can never be full citizens of this country... because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country."
-- Zaid Shakir: "Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country"
-- CAIR's Nihad Awad - historical supporter of Hamas terrorist group: "I am in support of the Hamas movement"
-- ISNA's Ingrid Mattson - charges that right-wing Christians "are really anti-semitic. They do not like Jews"
Yet ISNA dares to charge others with "hate mongering," while they cannot address their own organizations' statements, speakers, and activities.
ISNA is well aware of the history and criticism of such speakers, and the challenges to ISNA that these individuals represent an Islamic supremacist viewpoint. It is not a surprise to ISNA. ISNA simply does not care. They believe that they can bully public opinion to accept such Islamic supremacist ideologues, like it or not. Moreover, ISNA feels sufficiently empowered to try to silence those who would address the truth about the ISNA organization, such as Steven Emerson.
MPAC also has failed to address its leader's links to publications defending Islamic supremacist terrorist Osama Bin Laden. MPAC spokeswoman Edina Lekovic was managing editor for Al-Talib when it instructed Muslim readers to "defend our brother" Osama bin Laden, and "refer to him as a freedom fighter, someone who has forsaken wealth and power to fight in Allah's cause and speak out against oppressors. We take these stances only to please Allah." Edina Leckovic was named as MPAC's point of contact on a recent article by MPAC praising efforts by the government agencies to create a terror lexicon where the use of "Jihad" would be forbidden.
MPAC has lobbied to remove Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hizballah from U.S. terrorist group listings. For the past three years, MPAC has had a campaign to attack Steven Emerson. But MPAC is unable to respond to questions about its own organization.
The challenge by groups like ISNA and MPAC is not merely their efforts to silence Steven Emerson. Their challenge is really to any American who dares to speak the truth about Jihad, Islamism, and Islamic supremacism. Groups such as ISNA and MPAC may or may not silence any one individual. But we must make it clear to Islamic supremacists everywhere that they will never silence all of us who will defy the ideology of supremacism that is inimical to our freedoms, our values of equality and liberty, and our nation.
|
-
A rumor is circulating through the blogging community that Congress is poised to take up legislation that would effectively eliminate victims of terrorism lawsuits against Libya. The legislation would relieve Libya from any direct responsibility to the victims for its state support of terrorism. Instead, the Secretary of State would designate an entity to serve in the capacity of a “claims commission,” to evaluate such claims and then negotiate a blanket deal with Libya for their settlement.
This proposed legislation would, in effect, gut key provisions of the Anti Terrorism Act of 1996 and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 2001. That legislation allows for the victims of terrorism to seek treble damages for providing material support to designated terrorist entities, and would also allow such civil lawsuits to be brought against countries that have been designated as state sponsors of terrorism. Libya used to be on that list, and would now, post facto, be immune from lawsuits relating to such acts of terrorism. This would weaken, not strengthen our measures against terrorists.
The current Anti Terrorism Act provides for triple damages in terrorism support cases as a way to discourage material support from being made available to terrorists and to demonstrate our overall approbation for such actions. The methodology to be used by a claims tribunal may relate only to demonstration of actual economic losses, overlooking these punitive considerations. And it’s not clear that any award would take into account actual pain and suffering. This process would likely make it even more difficult for victims of terrorism to enlist legal help and support for their cause from outside the government.
I also believe this proposed legislation would be a great mistake as it would politicize such claims arrangements, and would make the granting or removal of immunity from lawsuits a matter of contention in our bilateral relations, since sole discretion would reside with the Secretary of State. This would make the State Department a vulnerable pressure point, vulnerable to leverage on other bilateral issues. It makes so much more sense to leave such issues beyond the control of the State Department -- and with the legislature and courts.
Let’s hope that appropriate time is taken to consider the merits and demerits of this legislation, through the normal hearing process.
|
-
The International Herald Tribune today reports on a recent CIA mission to Pakistan to confront leaders of the ISI there about the ties ISI members retain to the Taliban and al Qaeda.
The CIA assessment specifically points to links between members of the spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and the militant network led by Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani, which American officials believe maintains close ties to senior figures of Al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas.
The CIA has depended heavily on the ISI for information about militants in Pakistan, despite longstanding concerns about divided loyalties within the Pakistani spy service, which had close relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 attacks.
This is not new, but is useful when juxtaposed with the conclusions of the new and very useful Rand Corporation report on how to end terrorism.
While the central argument of the study is to make police work and intelligence the backbone of the counterterrorism efforts, it also argues strongly for a greatly reduced U.S. military presence and overall reduced footprint abroad.
Make policing and intelligence the backbone of U.S. efforts. Al Qa'ida consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. This requires careful involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.
Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.
The problem with that approach, particularly in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border is precisely that many of those who are classified as allies in combating radical Islamist are, in fact, not allies at all. My full blog is here.
|
-
A new Rand Corporation report on the end of terrorist organizations supports the views that police and law enforcement tools are generally more effective than military force in countering most options.
The Associated Press version emphasized in its lead that “The United States can defeat al-Qaida if it relies less on force and more on policing and intelligence to root out the terror group's leaders”.
The AP report noted that the Rand report said that the use of military force by the United States or other countries should be reserved for quelling large, well-armed and well-organized insurgencies and that American officials should stop using the term "war on terror" and replace it with "counterterrorism."
This useful report focuses on how various terrorist groups have ended their activities. It said that by analyzing the 648 terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that 268 terrorist groups ended during that period. 40% ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies. Meanwhile, while 43% reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government. In 10% of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory, while the application of military force led to the end of terrorist groups in only 7% of cases.
Seth Jones, the lead author of the study was quoted by AP as saying that “terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.”
Actually the emphasis on describing terrorists as criminals goes back to the Reagan administration.. This has been largely overlooked in recent years as the use of the law enforcement tool became a political points scoring issue. Republicans recently criticized Senator Obama emphasis on the use of the criminal justice system as one of the weapons against terrorism. Senator Kerry also was criticized in the last election.
There are legitimate arguments either way about the ability of past administrations in tracking down and prosecuting terrorists but ignored and forgotten in the criticism is the fact that it was the Reagan Administration that refined and pushed the concept of strengthening and applying the rule of law against terrorists.
After the bombings of the U.S. Marine barracks and the U.S. embassy in Beirut in the early 1980’s, the Reagan administration developed an interagency public diplomacy campaign with the intent of deglamorizing terrorists and countering perceptions among some Europeans and Middle Easterners that terrorists were romantic “freedom fighters.” True, the Reagan administration did use military force in a spectacular way, the bombing of Libyan targets after the Libyans orchestrated the 1986 bombing of the La Belle disco in Berlin that killed two American soldiers and a Turkish woman. There has been speculation however that the bombing of Pan Am 103 in December 1998 by Libyan agents was prompted in part as retaliation for the U.S. bombing of Tripoli.
At the same time, however, the Reagan administration pushed the theme that hijacking aircraft, blowing up buildings and taking hostages is a criminal act, regardless of the cause and that terrorists should be tracked down, prosecuted and imprisoned. It also helped develop additional international counterterrorism conventions requiring nations to prosecute or extradite terrorists.
|
-
Iran has begun a new charm offensive to head off, or to mitigate, possible new international economic sanctions following its latest refusal to suspend, or even slow down its uranium enrichment program. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave an interview to NBC news anchor Brian Williams, which was broadcast tonight, denying that Iran had any nuclear weapons ambitions and stating that Iran is ready to meet the United States, gesture for gesture, in improving relations. Playing up on the Bush Administration’s decision to have Assistant Secretary William Burns sit in on the latest round of nuclear negotiations with Iran, he stated that Iran would respond “positively” if the US, has, in fact, adopted a new “non confrontational” approach.
We should not be fooled by Ahmadinejad’s soft talk. Just a few days ago Iran rejected proposals put forth by the P5 Plus group (UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and the US) led by the EU’s top Iran negotiator Javier Solana. That package included a beefed-up package of economic, trade and technology incentives for Iran along with a scenario for discussions that would have allowed Iran to continue its current enrichment activities pending further talks, provided that Iran would agree to take no new steps to enhance further its existing uranium enrichment program. The response was Ahmadinejad’s announcement July 26th that Iran had, in fact, accelerated its enrichment capacity, employing some 6,000 centrifuges in defiance of this latest “freeze in place” proposal. And there is no sign whatsoever, that, even if the US were to undertake direct talks with Iran, or drop any of its current trade restrictions or terrorism designations vis a vis Iran, that this would alter Iran’s nuclear activities or intentions. As Ahmadinejad, and his mentor, Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei have repeatedly indicated, they consider their uranium enrichment program “non negotiable.”
The basic questions to be considered in designing a response are (1) whether Iran’s enrichment program actually poses a serious threat to regional and international peace and security; (2) How long we still have to deal with this threat, (3) would we be willing to accept a nuclear armed Iran; and (4) if, not, what can we do about it.
Both Presidential candidates have stated that we cannot, and that we will not, allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Both have indicated that Iran’s uranium enrichment program is headed directly in that direction. Some experts tell us it will take several years before Iran could produce nuclear weapons; others put that date just around the corner. These doubts and differences on timing have directly influenced differing world leader responses. Some are still complacent, calling for greater patience and a willingness to accept slow pace negotiations. They believe the problem can be resolved incrementally. These leaders are reluctant to take any new steps that might harm their commercial interests, raise the price of oil, or otherwise exacerbate international tensions. Others are worried that a much shorter timeframe is available, and call for urgent measures to compel Iran to desist from enrichment. The options they would select range from new, more stringent sanctions to military action. The closer Iran gets to nuclear capability, the more likely a military option will be chosen. However, if there is still time, the application of well targeted stringent sanctions may be the key. Such a course would be far less dangerous and costly to all involved.
The UN Security Council has already passed three separate Chapter VII resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran. These measures were directed principally at impeding Iran’s acquisition of nuclear and missile related technology by targeting the specific sectors that are directly associated with these programs. Unfortunately, these limited measures have had little real impact on Iran. And Iran has successfully circumvented many of these measures by using cut-outs located in Dubai and elsewhere to handle transactions on behalf of the sanctioned entities. Ahmadinejad was quick, in his responses to Brian Williams, to point out just how well Iran has weathered these current sanctions.
It’s certainly time now (and hopefully not too late) to up the ante. We must go beyond targeting Iran’s nuclear development programs, and begin to target Iran’s leaders and Iran’s real economic vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities include Iran's fragile financial system, and her energy sector, transportation and communication sector, and urban commercial class.
There is certainly an extensive menu of sanctions that could effectively be implemented against Iran and that would likely have a significant impact on its leaders, its economy and on its policies. These include, inter alia, such steps as denying Iran investment and export credits, denying Iranian bank access to Euro facilities (they are currently cut off from dollar exchange facilities), curtailing access to shipping and maritime and freight insurance, denying landing rights to Iranian airlines, imposing an embargo on luxury items, dual use technology and refined petroleum products such as gasoline. With a daily consumption of more than 18 million gallons of gasoline Iran must now import some 180 to 200 million gallons of gasoline per month. A travel ban on Iran’s ruling religious and political leaders, including members of the Majlis, IRGC, police, military and major parastatal organizations, and their families, could also be effective. These are only a few examples of the types of measures that might well have an important impact on Iran’s leaders, causing them to consider changing course. All of these measures have been employed in the past, under different UN sanctions programs. Why not now against Iran?
We should look first to the Security Council to take such appropriate sanctions actions. But, if the UN continues to falter, we should look to the EU and other likeminded countries to work with us to impose such measures. There is precedent for such likeminded action, which was employed with great success, for example, in dealing with the Milosevic regime in Serbia, and the Cedras regime in Haiti.
Europe remains Iran’s critical supply center and trading partner, especially Germany, Italy and Austria which continue to export more to Iran than they import. The question is whether Europe, and these countries in particular, can be convinced to undertake such measures. Both Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy have stated a willingness for the EU to act unilaterally, if necessary. But Germany’s Angela Merckel remains reluctant. Germany has joined with both Russia and China in calling for more patience and time in dealing with these issues. While their positions now seem commercially expedient, they may prove short-sighted in the long term. For all of these countries will lose even more if military confrontation becomes the only option.
The fact is that any confrontation with Iran - military or sanctions -- is likely to have an impact on world oil markets. But, the sanctions option would likely do far less damage in this regard than a military strike. That’s because Iran cannot really afford, in a non military context, to curtail significantly its own oil exports. These oil revenues are just too important to sustaining Iran’s economy and the ruling regime. And, even if Iran decides to restrict its oil exports to countries perceived as “not participating in the sanctions,” the oil market could quickly adjust to such a re-allocation.
In any event, it should be clear that Iran is now actively buying for time - which it considers on its side. They view each day’s progress toward nuclear capability as irreversible and they obviously want to go as fast and far as they can while they hold us at bay through bluff and charm.
|
-
Many in the West and in other regions of the world were impressed by the issuing of a fatwa (Islamic theological edict) condemning Terrorism by one of the leading religious centers in the Muslim world, the Darool-Uloom Deoband in India. An Islamic seminary said to have 'inspired' the Taliban has, according to the said document denounced "terrorism" as against Islam, calling it an "unpardonable sin."
Hoping for a major change in ideology, international counter terrorism authorities and policy makers have been asking experts to determine if the Deobandi declaration will help counter the calls for violent Jihad by al Qaeda and its ilk around the world. In the war of ideas with the Jihadists, many Western architects of strategic communications look for any sign that hearts and minds may be changing course and sympathies. From Washington DC to Brussels and beyond, bureaucrats tasked with exploring the Muslim world for new trends, shop around for what they call "counter-narrative against extremism."
The Deobandi School, a classical third branch for Salafi Islamism (along with Wahabism and Muslim Brotherhood), has significant weight in the South Asia Theater. Its teachings based on a strict interpretation of Islamic law have reached many countries, including Afghanistan and Britain, where they are said to have indoctrinated the Taliban.
"If they change course, al Qaeda and the Taliban are finished," I heard in Europe and the United States. So the question now is have they changed doctrinal direction and is this fatwa the evidence?
I regretfully conclude that it is not the case yet.
|
-
This is the third in the series of articles by Madeleine Gruen and Frank Hyland on the threat of terrorism in the United States. This article will provide Counterterrorism Blog readers with an in-depth analysis of one of the groups in the United States whose expressed ideology is in accord with Al Qaeda’s - As Sabiqun.
Thanks to the diligent efforts of the US counter-terrorism community, most of what we hear about homegrown terrorism comes from news reports of failed plots. We read relatively little, though, about how the actors in these plots became radicalized. The primary precipitant in any terrorism case is exposure to radical ideology. In large part, the ideology will determine the target of an attack and the level of motivation to carry the plan through.
In the first article in this series we reminded you of the AQ-inspired conspiracy by a group composed of ethnic Albanian Yugoslavian illegal immigrants, a legal Turkish immigrant, and US citizens to attack US soldiers at Ft. Dix. In this case, the group of men learned tactics and fueled their commitment by watching AQ propaganda videos that are prevalent on the Internet, many of which are formulated from a blend of ideological justifications for attacks on Westerners and Western targets, and footage of successful attacks.
However, radicalization does not always require direct provocation from AQ or even exposure to their propaganda material. Often, radicalization occurs through personal contact with imams or other individuals who support AQ’s ideology and methods. Most readers are familiar with Abu Hamza al Masri and Omar Bakri Mohammed, the UK clerics who made very public declarations that all Muslims are obligated to participate in Jihad if they are to consider themselves true Muslims. Authorities in the UK took years to clamp down on these two. Some officials even dismissed them as clowns. All the while, many supporters of al Masri and Bakri were leaving the UK to receive training in Bosnia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and participate in armed conflict. Although both al Masri and Bakri have been prohibited from operating in the UK, at least temporarily (al Masri is in a UK prison awaiting extradition to the US; Bakri is in Lebanon and is banned from returning to the UK) their influence has left an indelible mark on the future of Jihadism in Europe and beyond that will likely persist for decades. Their former followers have turned up in numerous major terrorist plots and attacks, including Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui. Terrorism cases from the past have shown that radical clerics usually do not play an active role in masterminding individual plots and attacks; however, their ability to incite individuals to the point of committing violence is indisputable.
|
-
Wire services report the death by missile of Abu Khabab al-Masri, an Egyptian also known as Midhat Mursi al Sayid Umar, ran Al Qaeda's top training base in Afghanistan, and literally wrote "the book" on chemical and biological warfare for terrorists worldwide. But this report has to be verified through medical evidence, because this isn't the first time that al-Masri was reported killed (not unusual when it comes to senior Al Qaeda leaders). In January 2006, Evan Kohlmann reported on a claim that another Predator strike killed al-Masri. Evan labeled him "a Master of Terror" for his leadership in major terrorist attacks or attempts, including a deadly 1995 attack on the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad and the attempted 2000 "Millenium Bombing" of the U.S. The difficulty in confirming these reports is indicated in this case by Evan's post a week later in 2006, about the U.S. government's use of the wrong photo to identify the man supposedly killed in the strike. And then we found out that he survived the attack.
Furthermore, as the London Times notes, "The attack came just before Yousaf Raza Gilani, Pakistan’s new Prime Minister, was due to meet President Bush in Washington for talks focusing on co-operation in the War on Terror." That raises the possibility of a politically motivated announcement of the death of a senior AQ leader, and that has happened before also.
So let's wait for verifiable physical evidence before celebrating.
And don't confuse this terrorist with Abu Ubaida al-Masri, another Al Qaeda senior leader who died a few months ago of natural causes.
|
-
It has been nearly seven years since the September 11th attacks, but the U.S. Treasury Department continues to shield critical information from the public about the financial activities of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT). Treasury has evaded demands for improved disclosure of its investigations. The public has a right and a need to know the factual findings of these important investigations, such as the names of the terrorists and important details of their financial records. Such disclosures will allow the public, specifically financial institutions, to ensure that terrorists are unable to move money through the banking system. It will also allow victims of terrorism to obtain the necessary information to know who is responsible for their injuries and losses. Shielding these important facts from the public domain allows terrorists to exploit bureaucratic turf-battles to wage their deadly jihad. To date, Treasury has not publicly provided a sound reason for this secrecy. The time has come to change these policies.
One such example of Treasury’s intransigence involves its 2005 investigation of Arab Bank plc. After receiving a tip from a private citizen, the Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) led an investigation with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to determine whether Arab Bank, a leading Middle Eastern financial institution, adequately implemented anti-money laundering laws. Their investigation concluded that the bank failed to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (see Jonathan Winer's November 17, 2006 post). A $24 million fine was levied against the bank, resulting in the second-largest fine ever rendered under the Act (see Victor Comras' August 17. 2005 post).
Despite the publicity of this judgment and repeated calls from Congress, the Treasury Department has yet to release the factual contents of its report to the public (see this August 17, 2005 post by then-Contributing Expert Lee Wolosky). In explaining the investigation, the OCC’s Acting Comptroller, Julie Williams, testified before a 2005 House Committee on Financial Services hearing (see page 19 of the hearing transcript), that "[T]he OCC compiled a list of individuals and entities with the same or similar names as reputed terrorists or terrorist organizations using publicly available information sources... We ran that list against the branch’s system….  ur review disclosed that the branch had handled hundreds of suspicious wire transactions involving individuals and entities with the same or similar names as suspected terrorists and terrorist organizations and that many of the individuals and entities were customers of Arab Bank or its affiliates.” (emphasis added)
|
-
One of the fascinating and disheartening issues around those who advocate an on-going dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood is the failure to look at the record of what the Brotherhood is and what it stands for.
The latest example is the reaction of several important Muslim Brotherhood groups to the International Criminal Court's decision to indict Sudanese president Omar Bashir on charges of genocide. It is easy to forget that Sudan justifies its actions on the basis of being an Islamic nation, and many of its current and past leaders, particularly Hassan al Turabi, are senior members of the Brotherhood.
According to the Daily Muslim Brotherhood Global Report (subscription required), the International Union for Muslim Scholars, led by senior Brotherhood theologian Yousef Qaradawi, as well as several other organizations, have condemned the ICC indictment. The reasons are interesting, and predictable.
First, claim nothing happened:
The delegation of the IUMS, which was headed by the IUMS president, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, visited Sudan and Darfur in the midst of events (September 2004). During this visit, the IUMS delegation met with many political leaders from the Sudanese government and opposition, including Dr. Hassan Turabi, who was then under house arrest, along with many ` leaders. The delegation ascertained that no ethnic cleansing took place, no crimes against humanity occurred and likewise no genocide was committed by government forces or any allied militia. In its statement that was issued following this visit on Rajab 22, 1425 A.H., corresponding to Sep. 7, 2004, the IUMS declared that all media allegations about ethnic cleansing, genocide and mass rape were unfounded. Moreover, the statement appreciated the efforts of the Sudanese government in addressing social problems and the humanitarian situation, and praised their decision to establish a fact-finding committee, headed by the honorable scholar professor, Daf`allah Al-Hajj Yusuf, former Sudanese chief justice.
Comforting to know that, in the Brotherhood's eyes, nothing at all has happened in Darfur. It is all in the imaginations of the international community. My full blog is here.
|
-
Breaking up the Syrian-Iranian axis might be quite helpful in significantly weakening Tehran.
Recently, Syrian President Bashar al Assad has been sending signals that he might be willing to do so. But
with assad, you never know...
In an article called "Is Assad bluffing?" that i wrote for the Middle East Times, I tackle this issue.
You can read the whole article here.
Here is an excerpt:
The real star at the French Bastille Day parade earlier this month in Paris was Syrian President Bashar Assad. It marked his return into the international community. In fact, the French Nicolas Sarkozy administration believes, along with to a lesser degree the Ehud Olmert government in Israel, that Assad can be a part of the solution rather than a part of the problem. But what are Assad's real intentions?
In light of what occurred over the past few months, a case can be made that Assad is really having a change of heart. Since actions speak louder than words, let's look at the facts.
First, in February, Hezbollah terror master Imad Mugnieh was assassinated in Damascus in what is likely a Syrian-made operation. The investigation over Mugnieh's death was quickly terminated and Iran and Hezbollah did not get the answers they were waiting for.
Second, Assef Shawkat, the powerful head of Syrian security and Assad's brother-in-law was suddenly pushed aside. Shawkat is close to Tehran and has allegedly a hand in former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's murder in Beirut in 2005.
|
-
Contributing Experts Steven Emerson and Douglas Farah will testify before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade this Thursday at 10:30 am ET in room 2200 of the Rayburn House Building. The subject of the hearing is "Foreign Aid and the Fight Against Terrorism and Proliferation: Leveraging Foreign Aid to Achieve U.S. Policy Goals." Hearing testimony will be posted on the subcommittee's website after the hearing, and I will post a summary. One of the subjects of the hearing will be whether U.S. relations with Thailand should be tied more closely to the Thai government's decision on the extradition of Viktor Bout to the U.S. to stand trial for charges alleged in an indictment. You can read that indictment and access a special CT Blog Viktor Bout archives page here. On July 25, Doug posted on the effort by a bipartisan group of 35 Congressmen, led by the subcommittee's chairman, Rep. Brad Sherman, and ranking Member, Rep. Ed Royce, to urge the prime minister of Thailand to extradite Bout quickly. Steve testified on April 9 before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the state of the threat posed by Al Qaeda, its affiliate organizations and radical Islamist ideology in general.
|
-
On July 18, the Washington Institute hosted Michael Braun, the Chief of Operations at the Drug Enforcement Administration, and a career DEA Special Agent who has served in a variety of positions both in the US and abroad. According to Special Agent Braun, the nexus between drugs and terror is growing at light speed. In his view, this is not a new trend -- there have been numerous links identified between drugs and terror over the last twenty-five years. Of the forty-three officially designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has linked nineteen of them to some aspect of the global drug trade, and believes that up to sixty percent of terror organizations are connected with the illegal narcotics trade.
Terrorist organizations have chosen to participate in the narcotics market for several reasons, according to Special Agent Braun. State sponsorship of terrorism is declining, and the Department of Treasury, Central Intelligence Agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and FBI have done a very good job at identifying private donors and disrupting the flows of terror financing. The United States has worked with its allies and significantly disrupted al-Qaeda's ability to communicate with their cells and nodes around the globe. Partly for this reason, al-Qaeda has shifted from a corporate to a franchise leadership model in recent years.
Terrorist groups, therefore, are increasingly in need of new sources of funds. The drug business fills this need perfectly. The UN estimates that the international drug trade generates $322 billion per year in revenue, making drugs by far the most lucrative illicit activity.
To read the entire written summary of his remarks, or to listen to the audio, click here
|
-
There are very few silver linings to the current record oil prices, but increased stability in Iraq is likely one of them. Today I have an article in the Middle East Times analyzing the effect that oil prices will have on Iraq: One of the first things Iraq
will need to do is upgrade its equipment used for oil production. Much
of this infrastructure is antiquated, and there have been over 450
attacks on Iraq's pipelines, oil installations, and oil personnel since
the insurgency began. Michael Makovsky, foreign policy
director at the Bipartisan Policy Center and former special assistant
for Iraqi energy policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, told
me that the funding needs of Iraq's oil infrastructure are tremendous. "Some can come from foreign investors," he said, "but Iraq will have to put in a lot of money." There
are also multiple spending needs inside the country — including
building power plants, meeting Iraqis' healthcare needs, and
undertaking a housing reconstruction project for displaced people. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh
recently told Iraqi media outlet Buratha News that "next year's budget
will focus on economy, investment and services [while] the focus was
security in previous phases." A large federal budget
means that funds should now be available to address Iraq's
little-mentioned healthcare crisis; currently each Iraqi receives an
average of only $68 a year in medical services. It also means, as
reported by Iraq's Radio Sawa, that the government-sponsored food
coupon program will receive additional support through a recent $21
billion supplementary federal budget. Iraq's federal
government will also be able to expand provincial budgets. According to
Iraq's Al-Sabah newspaper, the government's 2009 budget apportions
$13.6 billion to provincial ministries — which will likely increase the
national government's influence at a regional level. The
combination of expanded social programs and a generally improving Iraqi
economy will signal to citizens that the country's future is not
destitute. Iraqis, shaken by years of violence, may have
a reason to participate in the reconstruction process; improving
conditions may diminish both direct and also "soft" support for the
insurgency as citizens become economically invested in Iraq's future.... The second benefit that many analysts see
for Iraq from high oil prices is the government's ability to invest in
the security forces.... Michael O'Hanlon, a
senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told me that as increased
oil revenues allow Iraq's government to spend more on its military, "it
might help deflect the U.S. political pressure that Iraq isn't spending
enough money on its security forces."
The full article can be found here.
|
-
In my last European professional tour of June-July, I briefed and lectured Government officials, NGOs and European Union audiences in Rome, Berlin, Brussels, Paris and London. I will report on the main issues of discussions and areas of common interest in the near future. One of the hot issues of exchange has been the ability for Europeans (Government and public) to make a distrinction between the theology of Islam and the ideology of Jihadism. Although links have been established by the Jihadists themselves, especially in their indoctrination process, EU and local Government officials need to isolate the doctrinal political component from the theological web, for the prupose of drawing national security strategies. But the Jihadi lobby has been efficient in blurring the frontiers in the purpose of keeping authorities and the public at bay. This trend is now developing in the United States as well, particularly since the dissemination of the so-called "lexicon." The battle of ideas seems to be now taking place within the West, between two camps: those who want to isolate the ideology of Jihadism as a root of Terrorism and those who wish to camouflage it for a variety of reasons.
Following are excerpts in English from an interview I had with the Slovak News Agency about te subject. I will post later more reporting on the European tour, sponsored by the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels:
|
-
Today, July 26, 2008, marks the 100th anniversary of the FBI. Ceremonies commemorating this milestone were celebrated at FBI Headquarters and venues throughout the country on July 17th. The FBI is a proud and accomplished organization. I’m extremely biased about my reverence for the FBI. I had the honor to serve in the Bureau as a Special Agent for 28 years. During my career, I had the good fortune to work many high profile cases ranging from public corruption, complex bank failures, corporate fraud, and terrorist financing to child molestations and kidnapping. Throughout my tenure, the agents, analysts and professional support personnel I worked with were first rate and dedicated individuals who always persevered through challenging circumstances. What I remember and cherish most about my experience in the FBI was the quality of the people who represent the FBI, the “FBI family”. There is much to be said about the integrity of the “FBI family”.
The Bureau is certainly not without its faults or shortcomings as its critics are fast to point out. The biggest disappointment during my career was the Robert Hanssen spy scandal. I worked public corruption with Hanssen when he was first transferred to New York around 1978. Hanssen’s unconscionable betrayal tarnished the Bureau. But it was the Bureau that identified Hanssen’s traitorous acts and built the case that sent him deservedly away to prison for life. In spite of Hanssen and other dark moments, the FBI has consistently and deservedly distinguished itself as the preeminent law enforcement agency in the world.
Unfortunately, some critics of the FBI either have ulterior motives or are clueless in that their perceptions are out of touch with reality. Consequently, these critics fail to let the facts get in the way of their criticism. However, other critics have valid arguments. Moving forward toward the next 100 years, the FBI has significant issues that must be addressed and resolved. The Bureau must keep pace with emerging crime problems and balance criminal priorities with the important demands of terrorism. The FBI has had well documented failures with technology. In today’s era, technology must be cutting edge. In the last six months, much concern has been expressed about the FBI’s inability to staff Headquarters supervisory positions and their current career development program. The staffing and career development issues are important, but not new. Similar issues existed throughout my career in the FBI.
The one constant the FBI has is the quality of individual who has chosen the Bureau as a career. “Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity” are ingrained in the FBI culture. As long as the FBI attracts quality employees who are willing to sacrifice and live up to the mantra of “Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity”, the FBI will continue to be the premier organization it is.
It’s easy to criticize. It’s difficult to distinguish. Despite criticism, deserved or not, the FBI is a distinguished organization.
|
-
Even as the investigations of July 25 Bangalore serial blasts continue for the second day, with another live bomb defused this morning near a city Mall, terrorists have struck Ahmadabad, capital city of Western Indian State of Gujarat with more than 17 low to medium intensity bomb blasts. On July 26 evening, within a span of one hour, explosions have occurred at Maninagar, Isanpur, Narol, Bapunagar, Hatkeshwar, Sarkej and Odhav. Unconfirmed reports said there were 20 blasts. Even there were blasts front of Civil Hospital’s trauma center, perhaps with a suicide bomb. TV footage showed mangled remains of cycles, motorbikes and a blood splattered passenger Bus and signs of gelatin rod and wires. As per the latest reports, 29 people have been killed so far and over 150 others sustained sever to minor injuries.
Meanwhile, the Indian Mujahedeen has claimed responsibility for latest Ahmadabad serial blasts.
Some of the bombs were believed to have been placed in bicycles and Tiffin boxes, quite similar to Jaipur and Uttar Pradesh blasts. This is third in the series of terror attacks claimed IM, following serial blasts in Jaipur in May 13 this year and in three towns of Uttar Pradesh in November last year. There is little doubt that IM is trying to mislead the investigating agencies and trying to portray that India is experiencing a homegrown terrorism, not sponsored by any external agencies or outfit. It’s obvious that IM is a deadly cocktail of Harkat- Lashkar-SIMI foot soldiers.
|
-
-
A bipartisan group of 35 legislators, led by Rep. Ed Royce (R-Ca), have written a strong letter to the prime minister of Thailand requesting that Viktor Bout be extradited quickly to the United States to stand trial.
(For more on Bout and his arrest, see: this post and many other I and my colleagues at the Counterterrorism Blog have written.
The Royce letter said in part that:
Viktor Bout is an international terrorist who made a global empire out of arming the world's worst. It is past time he faced justice. Congress is grateful for the close cooperation between U.S. authorities and the Royal Thai Police in his capture. We now look forward to his timely extradition to the United States to face terrorism charges.".
The first significant hearing on Bout's extradition is scheduled for July 28. This hearing, originally scheduled for June, was delayed due to illness of one of Bout's lawyers.
The July 28 hearing is the first of several to determine whether the Thai justice system will allow Bout to be extradited to stand trial on charges of seeking to aid a designated terrorist organization. My full blog is here.
|
-
Today afternoon (July 25) at least seven low intensity bomb blasts took place in Bangalore, the Information Technology hub of India. These blasts happened within a span of one hour and left one person dead and nearly 20 others injured. However, police confirmed about a single death till now.
Today’s event reminded us about the Jaipur serial blasts in May 2008 where nearly eight bicycle strapped bombs ripped through crowded places, killing scores of people.
It seems that crude improvised explosive devices (use of readily available gelatin rods and neogel chemicals can’t be ruled out) were used to trigger these blasts in the city. The first bomb reportedly went off near the Madiwala Bus stop at 1:20 PM which was followed by six blasts at Kormangla, Adugudi, Nayandahalli, Mysore Road and Hosur Road (outskirts). Till now, no terror outfits have claimed responsibility, even as the needle of suspicion pointed at the Lashkar e Toiba- SIMI- Harkat-ul-Jehadi Islami combined.
Even though the blasts looked amateurish vis-à-vis Hyderabad and Jaipur serial blasts in the past, this time terrorists have only succeeded in spreading panic throughout the city and other metros. And they very well knew any strike in Bangalore could have rippling effect in the US and other western countries, as many business processing outsourcing units (e.g. Infosys and Wipro) and other MNCs (e.g. IBM) are located in the City.
As usual the investigating agencies will be probing the attacks, only to reach nowhere. The war of word will follow with claims and counter claims. It’s high time for Indian agencies to look inward and put the sloppy investigations filled with rhetoric at bay.
|
-
Unsur akhaka thaliman kana am mazluma
“Stand with your brother, should he be oppressed or oppressor” -- (Old proverb in the Arab world used by contemporary Jihadists)
Seven years after 9/11 the ongoing confrontation between the free world and the forces of Jihadism seems to be revealing another broader more dangerous dimension: the emergence of an undeclared solidarity between regimes and organizations which --despite their enmity for each other -- come together to destroy freedom and obstruct its spread.
This transnational brotherhood is increasingly revealing itself in international relations, despite the assurances of Western diplomats and academics that such a de facto web, do not really exist. While lobbying efforts in the West are attempting to convince the public that the ideology of Jihadism doesn’t exist and that Democracies’ foreign and economic policies are at the roots of terrorism, stunning evidence proves the opposite. Not only Jihadism is alive and thriving, but it is influencing a much larger bloc of countries.
Four years after identifying the Darfur drama as a genocide under international law many around the free world are yet to absorb the power of Jihadism in international relations. Today’s Sudan crisis will only open their eyes to what many in the diplomatic and academic elites are feverishly attempting to camouflage. While many have been arguing that the free nations of the world face a cohort of regimes that sympathize with and support the Jihadist networks, many others -- on the apologist side- have been arguing that there is no such thing as Transnational Jihadism.
In my last three books, I attempted relentlessly to make the case that an international Jihadi lobby exists -- or rather a convergence of interests between regimes, organizations, and groups seeking the confrontation with the infidels and more importantly keeping their civil societies from pursuing natural democratic processes. Unfortunately, bureaucrats and diplomats in the Western World have been severely criticizing these warnings and pretending instead, that such a “web” is a mirage. However, the public has a unique opportunity to see otherwise with the exploding new crisis between the Sudanese regime of General Omar al Bashir and the International Criminal Court (ICC).
|
-
Fellow CTB contributor Paul Cruickshank and I are participating in an online salon discussion on "The Challenges of International Terrorism: Recommendations for the Next U.S. President" hosted by UN Dispatch and The Washington Note. The discussion can be found at either site.
For a taste of the discussion, here is my response to the queery "Is terrorism actually linked to poverty? Is it linked to other externalities, like grievances with American foreign policy, perceived humiliation, nationalist political objectives, radical ideology --- or all of the above? Which is most dominant? Which is most underestimated in current approaches to terrorism?"
Poverty, in and of itself, does not lead to terrorism. But it can be part of the problem, as the case of disenfranchised Muslim communities in Europe make clear. In the words of one European official I recently interviewed on this issue, "poverty is rarely one of the key radicalizers, but unemployment can be, especially when combined with engaging in criminal activity and being exposed to a radical narrative." Radical ideologies are better able to take root when discrimination and the lack of opportunity for economic growth are put in terms of a global narrative that weave personal experiences in the suburbs north of Paris together with the plight of fellow Muslims in Bosnia, Chechnya, Palestine or Iraq to personalize far away conflicts and paint a global, ideological struggle. That global narrative is where foreign policy becomes one part of this larger tapestry as well, especially when presented through a radical ideological lens. To my mind the ideological component is the most critical and overlooked component here.
As several studies have demonstrated, organized radicalization and recruitment (let alone training and the provision of funds and weapons) has long been central to the formation of a terrorist--that is, someone who is not only angry but willing to act on that anger in a violent manner. Today, that organizational function is in some cases carried out more passively via exposure to ideas and, perhaps more critically, a sense of belonging to a group of like-minded followers, on the Internet. But even among the increasing number of "homegrown" terrorists, European officials stress the importance of pre-existing personal vulnerabilities that serve as "push factors"as well as exposure to "radicalizers" - in person or online - over a period of time.
No single psychological profile describes the wide variety of "push factors" that make individuals vulnerable to the kind of radicalization that can eventually lead them to become terrorists. One study, by Tel Aviv University researchers Shaul Kimhe and Shmuel Even, developed a series of prototypical categories that combine both clinical and social psychological causes among Palestinians who resorted to terrorism. A telling corollary to their primary findings, however, is that whatever the typology of the potential terrorist--"religious fanatic," "nationalist fanatic," "avenger," or "exploited"--every type requires "a social environment that is supportive of such an attack; media that disseminates the information among the supportive population; spiritual leadership that encourages such attacks; and financial and social assistance for families of suicide terrorists after their death." Together, these conditions create a "comprehensive social environment [that] may be referred to as the 'culture of suicide terrorists' that has been created within Palestinian society." [See here.]
Social preconditions by themselves do not make a suicide bomber. While poverty, humiliation, occupation, personal suffering, shame, or loss of a loved one can all be powerful radicalizing factors, they almost always require an organized element to channel that anger and frustration -- actively and in person or passively on the Internet -- into a desire to kill and maim random civilians (as opposed, for example, to a desire simply to kill oneself). It is for this reason that groups subscribing to a radical ideology invest so much time, effort and money in media campaigns aimed at radicalizing and directly or indirectly recruiting future members.
|
-
Congressman Peter Hoekstra from Michigan has recently introduced legislation that would ban the banning by the Government of the use of various terms describing Islamic jihadists who want to wage holy war against us. The Administration has decided using such terms by Government officials somehow “rewards” jihadists and offends regular, moderate Muslims. This topic has been covered by the CTB fairly extensively.
Now the usual cast of jihadist apologists are deriding Congressman Hoekstra for his efforts in trying to stop what many believe is the Government’s PC nonsense...better to call terrorists who themselves declare their violent, murderous actions Islamic inspired jihad mere criminals. Is this argument really rather silly, or could there be something more at stake?
Let’s examine one potential aspect of “what’s in a word”...or words. Much to the chagrin of apologists and supporters of those jihadists...er, misguided criminals...as well as no shortage of screaming left-wing attorneys, there exists within the Immigration and Nationality Act (a body of law passed by Congress) a provision that bars the entry into the US of, and the issuance of visas to, aliens (foreign nationals) who are prominent figures and who use their positions of prominence to espouse support for terrorism. The supporters of such supporters shout to High Heaven that even if such persons really do support terrorism, they are merely exercising free speech.
Well, technically that would be correct. Unless, of course, such speech is not “free” within the country wherein it is made. And, even now, the US Supreme Court has yet to extend America’s 1st Amendment free speech rights to the rest of the planet beyond US territory...though, after the recent Gitmo habeas decision, who knows how long before that happens? If and until such a madcap decision does occur, foreign nationals outside the United States do not enjoy the 1st Amendment free speech rights we do inside the US, at least as far as US law is concerned.
The point is what such foreign nationals say and write demonstrating they espouse support for terrorism can therefore be used by the Government to prevent them from being issued US visas and keep them from entering the US. Presumably, that is still considered a good thing...keeping aliens who espouse support for terrorism out of the United States.
But to do that our Government officials responsible for such things must be able to officially document what those aliens say and write in support of terrorism...primarily in today’s environment, radical Islamic inspired terrorism. Such proscribed aliens will, of course, routinely use terms like “jihad,” “mujahadine,” and “caliphate” and many others the Administration would prefer our officials avoid. If officialdom shies away from officially using the very terms alien supporters of terrorism use, the official reports used to keep those supporters out of the US may well be insufficient for their intended purpose. Reports that are sanitized with PC appropriate language will be far easier to challenge in court, and before the media, than reports bearing actual descriptive language.
The Administration may claim what it has put out is a mere guideline and does not preclude Government officials from using such terms when “necessary.” Perhaps. Within the Government bureaucracy, unfortunately, such policies often take on a life of their own and grow far beyond the original intent. What Congressman Hoekstra is doing is a righteous effort to kill a weed at its root.
|
-
In recent weeks, the democratically-elected Government of Lebanon led by the ruling March 14th coalition has been haggling with the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hizballah-led opposition over the new Ministerial Statement, the policy document of Beirut’s new national unity government. The debate is focused on the bilateral relations between Beirut and Damascus, and the future disposition of Hizballah’s weapons. The militia is looking to ensure what Hizballah Parliamentary Bloc leader Mohammed Raad refers to as the “right of resistance.”
I wrote a detailed article about the Ministerial Statement for the Washington Institute yesterday.
In related news, Vice President of Lebanon’s Higher Shiite Council, Sheikh Qabalan, told Hizballah’s Al Manar television yesterday that as long as Israel “occupies Palestinian lands, Shebaa’ Farms, the Seven [Shiite] villages, we won’t relinquish the weapons.” The Seven villages are within Israel's internationally recognized borders.
|
-
While Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez seem content for the time being to keep is distance from his (erstwhile?) allies in Colombia, the FARC guerrillas-tied to international drug trafficking, kidnapping and assorted criminal and terrorist activities-Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega seems to have few such qualms.
Nicargua's leading newspaper, La Prensa, is reporting that a six-member FARC delegation visited Ortega earlier this month in Managua.
The aircraft carrying the FARC delegation left from Venezuela, and arrived in time to celebrate the July 19 anniversary of the 1979 Sandinista revolution. The delegation, while keeping a low public profile, met with Ortega, who has a long-standing relationship with the organization.
The flight from Venezuela was carried out despite an Interpol alert sent to Nicaragua and other countries that the FARC delegation that was about to travel was comprised of individuals with pending international arrest warrants, was en route to Managua.
The Interpol report, as reported by Colombia's leading newspaper, El Tiempo, says in part that:
We request your help in alerting immigration posts because these members of the FARC are internationally sought and have Interpol Red Notices pending.
While the Chávez-FARC relationship is the most significant and has received the most notice, the relationship of Ortega to the FARC is long-standing and strong. My full blog is here.
|
-
I am pleased to post the views of Professor Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker, Chairman of "Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East," on this topic, and to associate myself with and assent to his views in this post.
-------------
American-Israeli analyst and news commentator Micah D. Halpern wrote an interesting column last week for his blog—The Micah Report—entitled “The Qualitative Edge” , in which he suggested that Israeli deterrence of enemies has been accomplished through maintaining superior military power: better equipment, better training, better intelligence and greater motivation than its enemies. Halpern states that this doctrine has worked for the past 60 years against Israel’s adversaries, but notes that now Israel is confronted by enemies that are motivated by fervent religious ideology that includes a willingness to die for the cause, putting Israel’s superior military power at bay. In effect, Halpern is asking: how does a military power confront the true-believing enemy that is not only willing to die, but actively seeks death as a way of psychologically defeating the superior power it faces? Halpern suggests that Israel and the West need to find a new model to confront this “new” type of enemy.
With due respect to Dr. Halpern whose article essentially is correct otherwise, a new model is not needed. However, what is needed is the resolve to fight relentlessly against those that use terrorism—especially against innocent non-combatants—as a method of gaining an advantage in the psychological aspect of war. Although the daily missile and rocket attacks from Gaza have been terrorizing Sderot and its environs, as well as Ashkelon with the Grad missile attacks, Israel’s retaliatory attacks on the Hamas leadership were having a pronounced effect on that terrorist organization. The same can be said about Hizballah. Whereas the rank and file may be willing to become shahadin (self-sacrificing homicidal murderers), Hassan Nasrallah and his fellow leaders of Hizballah have been very careful to seek protection when the bullets fly and the bombs fall. In a similar manner, much of the Iranian leadership has displayed no desire to become martyrs for a greater Shiite caliphate—their life is too sweet to be sacrificed—besides, they always send proxies in their stead.
The answer to terrorism—whether it is perpetuated by Palestinian Sunni Islamic fundamentalists, Lebanese Iranian-inspired Shiite fundamentalists, or the fanatic Iranian ayatollahs themselves—is to fight it vigorously, just like we fought the Japanese kamikaze pilots at the end of World War II. The allies didn’t flinch when attacked by the kamikazes—we didn’t call for, or agree to, a truce at that point. We fought with one goal in mind: total defeat of the enemy. Whereas we don’t wish to harm the civilian populations of our adversaries, we should be seeking an overwhelming defeat of those who not only wish, but also actively seek, our destruction. We are in a war, and we need to remember that fact at all times. Truces called by the other side are meant for their advantage; we should not give in to the temptation for a cease-fire when we have our enemies on the ropes. The time for magnanimity is when the enemy has been utterly crushed, and not before.
|
-
Women donned in black veils chanted slogans of azaadi (freedom) as they marched the streets of Srinagar in the disputed territory of Kashmir. "Return our land!" they shouted, "We are with Pakistan! You have no place in a Muslim land! You are the kufar (infidels)." College-educated girls and elderly women wore bright green headbands bearing the name of the Prophet of Islam as they fearlessly marched twoards the Indian army. The women never made it to Laal Chowk, the center of town. A few girls were shoved into the army truck. A former mujahideen standing next to me said, "They will be released tonight. The arrest is intended to deter them. It is an act of humiliation." Despite the few arrests, other women marched in place. Some sat on the hot pavement as local journalists and myself clicked our cameras.
The previous day, I sat in the headquarters of the Muslim Khawateen Markaz (MKM), a women's organization that staged today's demonstration. Their leader and chairperson, Yasmeen Raja, was one of the female detainees. When I visited her, she showed me photographs of girls raped, tortured and beaten by the Indian authorities. "We are ready to sacrifice for our cause," said the MKM second-in-command. "We are fighting for freedom." In her office, Yasmeen and the girls beside her are prepared for the struggle ahead. In previous years, women cared for the wounded militants, sheltered them in their homes, and kept the resistance alive. "The world calls us terrorists," said a 21 year old girl, "but we are guerrillas fighting for what was taken from us."
On the Indian-side of Kashmir, coined "paradise on earth", women are equal participants in jihad. They protest alongside their men, or stand on their own, as they proved this afternoon. While men bore arms, women offered auxiliary support. Since the 1990s, at the height of the Kashmiri movement, women provided shelter to the mujahideen hiding from security forces, cared for wounded male fighters, and looked after widows and their children. Today, the women of MKM and other organizations are political and social activists.
"In this conflict, women suffer the most," said Yasmeen. "If we do not protest, and remain inside our homes, then the resistance will become weak." In this war, women have proven their will to fight. "We fight with our words. We protest peacefully. In return we are detained. But this is nothing compared to the 4,000 rape victims." Equally resilient is Fareeda Bhanji, the leader of an all-male organization. She spent five and half years behind bars in an Indian prison and was charged with masterminding a terrorist attack in New Delhi in 1996. "I was falsely accused. To this day, the Indian government has not provided evidence of my involvement in this attack," she told me. Her son, Mudasar Maqbool, pleaded for his mother's innocence. "My mother was not in Delhi at the time of the attack. She was and is not guilty. Finally, the Indian Supreme Court had not choice but to release her after spending five years in jail." According to India's legal system, a woman held without trial for more than two years is released. But Fareeda is not a free woman. Today, she is on bail and appears before the Indian Court twice a month. "Forcing my mother to go to court every fortnight is a deliberate strategy. The Indian Government wants to weaken our resistance." Like Fareeda, hundreds of women have served jail time.
|
-
I am among those who find it counter-intuitive to believe that the Bush Administration's Department of Homeland Security, National Counter Terrorism Center and the State Department are soft on terrorism, as suggested by the Hoekstra Amendment and commentary relating to it.
The post states that Americans should interpret the vote as meaningful not because the language in the amendment might become law, but because it "gets most congressional representatives on the record on their position regarding the efforts of groups to remove any suggestion of Islamic supremacism or Jihad when it comes to "terrorism." The obvious meaning is that the Hoekstra vote has smoked out members of Congress who are soft on terrorism. Just in case anyone fails to get the point, the post lists those who voted against the amendment, all but one of whom come from the political party to which Congressman Hoekstra does not belong.
An alternative view, shared by the Bush Administration and the government of the United Kingdom, among others, recognizes that many Muslims have long considered such words as "jihadist" and "Islamacist" to be slurs that credential terrorists and marginalize moderate Muslims.
As U.S. Army General Petraeus wrote in 2005, in combating terrorism, "cultural awareness is a force multiplier." Some people may disagree, but I would not for a moment suggest that they are soft on terrorism, because their thinking on counter-terrorism, such as that reflected in the Hoekstra amendment, does not correspond to the views of the senior U.S. commander in Iraq. Given this, I will neither list here all those who voted for the Hoekstra amendment, nor suggest that they should explain why they disagree with General Petraeus on this issue.
|
-
Last week, there was an interesting development in the U.S. House of Representatives that will give Americans a clear view as to exactly where their individual representatives stand on the war of ideas in fighting Jihad.
Per my previous article on this subject, on May 8, 2008, Congressman Peter Hoekstra attempted to add an amendment on the "terror lexicon" to a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence bill on 2009 intelligence funding (House Resolution 5959).
Hoekstra's amendment condemned efforts by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), and the State Department to recommend a "terror lexicon" that prohibits use of words such as "Jihad," "jihadist," "Islamist," "mujahadeen," "caliphate," etc. In this amendment, Congressman Hoekstra called for the House of Representatives to prohibit the use of intelligence funding in support of such "terror lexicon" efforts. The House Intelligence Committee voted against this amendment, and over 900 people signed a petition condemning the actions of the House Intelligence Committee that was sent to members who voted against the amendment.
But on July 16, 2008, H.R. 5959 was presented to the full House of Representatives for debate and adoption, including Congressman Hoekstra's amendment to bar the use of intelligence funding for such "terror lexicon" measures. This time the amendment passed by the margin of 249-180 (with 10 abstentions).
The amendment was incorporated in H.R. 5959 as follows:
"None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be used to prohibit or discourage the use of the words or phrases 'jihadist', 'jihad', 'Islamo-fascism', 'caliphate', 'Islamist', or 'Islamic terrorist' by or within the intelligence community or the Federal Government."
|
-
I had a piece today in the Guardian Online on steps that the US can take to ratchet up the financial pressure against Tehran.
Here's an excerpt:
US-Iranian relations are once again headline news after dropping off the radar for several months in the wake of the US National Intelligence Estimate in December 2007. In recent days, media and public attention has focused on the growing US diplomatic overtures to Tehran, as well as the reports about a possible military attack on Iran that continue to circulate.
With all of the focus on the diplomatic and military fronts, there has been little attention paid lately to the middle ground between the two: the US financial campaign against Iran. Financial pressure may be the most important tool the US has in its arsenal to persuade Iran to abandon all of its nuclear ambitions. While the US approach has been successful in raising the financial costs for Tehran of its nuclear ambitions, the regime shows no signs yet of changing course. To succeed in this effort, the pressure will have to be ramped up significantly, making the choice for Iran far more stark than it is today.
One problem with the current US effort to squeeze Iran is that it has largely been limited to one industry -- the financial sector. On this front, the US Treasury has taken the lead and has been quite successful. Over the past two years, the Treasury has made the case to global financial institutions that doing business with Iran is risky business, explaining how Iran is abusing the international financial system by using front companies and deceptive financial practices designed to mask their activities.
To read the rest of the piece, click here
|
-
Earlier today, Undersecretary of Commerce Mario Mancuso addressed The Washington Institute's Special Policy Forum on the role of the department's Bureau of Industry and Security's role in confronting the challenges posed by Iran, specifically its proliferation activities.
BIS has responded to the Iranian threat by refining and strengthening its export controls, engaging private sector stakeholders, prioritizing our enforcement efforts, and working with foreign counterparts to most effectively address the Iranian challenge. Of particular interest, BIS maintains three separate lists: the Denied Parties List, the Unverified List, and the Entity List. The Denied Parties List is a list of individuals and entities that have been denied export privileges. The Unverified List is a list of parties where BIS has been unable to verify end use in the past. The Entity List is a list of parties whose participation in a given transaction triggers license requirements. All of these lists are available on the BIS website, www.bis.doc.gov.
Undersecretary Mancuso stressed the need for Congress to pass a new Export Administration Act (EAA) which has been in lapse since 2001. He also highlighted BIS's role in supporting several recent and successful law enforcement actions. His full prepared statement is available here.
|
-
I just published one article on the threat of biological weapon and terrorism (in view point section) titled “Is Bioterrorism Threat Credible?”, CBW Magazine, Vol. 1 (3), April-June 2008. The CBW Magazine, ‘a journal on chemical and biological weapons’, has been published by the New Delhi based government funded think tank Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis.
Here is an excerpt
Even terrorists play pranks on WMD use these days! Late May 2008 a purported terrorist video caught media attention and some serious coverage. As per the reports, the Al Qaeda video message urged Islamic jihadists to use “biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to attack the West.” Experts suspecting the authenticity of the video message dismissed the threat as a prank and not ‘Qaedaesque’ enough to get scared.
The big question is whether the threat of biological weapon use is real or a product of fearful future thinking? As far as terrorist groups are concerned, they not only wish to survive, but endeavor to thrive with continuous innovation and improvisation. The paucity of empirical data on terrorist use of biological weapons does not limit their future planning concerning biological weapon.
Read More Here.
|
-
The Hamdan trial began today at Gitmo - you can see a list of government exhibits at this Defense Department website. In one exhibit (500+ pages), the government offers Evan Kohlmann as an expert witness, along with the film he produced, The al Qaida Plan: "Mr. Kohlmann will testify regarding the existence of facts to establish an armed conflict with al Qaeda during the charged period. This is an element of the charged offenses. Also, Mr. Kohlmann will be needed to confront the anticipated affirmative defense of lawful combatancy. The Defense has proffered, and the Military Judge has ruled that the accused may raise the defense of lawful combatancy, with respect to the accused. Through subsequent pleadings the Defense has narrowed the issue to whether the accused was operating as a “supply contractor” to a lawful fighting force operating near the city of Kandahar specifically the Taliban or “Ansars.” The Defense will put on expert testimony that the “Ansars” were a legitimate lawful fighting force. Mr. Kohlmann’s broad knowledge of al Qaeda and the transnational jihad movement is needed to confront this assertion.
Thus, Mr. Kohlmann must also prepare to rebut the Defense that this loose group of individuals (most of which are terrorists) that comprised the “Ansars” were not lawful combatants as defined under the Geneva conventions. Mr. Kolhman will rebut Dr. Williams and his testimony during the jurisdictional hearing that may be offered during the trial on the merits and will provide expert testimony on the so-called "Ansars" and/or the so-called "55th Brigade" as well as the role of the Taliban and other transnational fighters, jihadists and other fighters.
Mr. Kohlmann will offer expert factual testimony on the nature of these groups, whether factually they meet the elements of a lawful fighting force under the law of war and their historic acts of violence and terrorism that is antithetical to a lawful fighting force."
|
-
This is the second article in the series by Madeleine Gruen and Frank Hyland, portraying the seriousness of the threat of homegrown terrorism in the United States for readers of The Counterterrorism Blog.
We hasten to say right off the bat that regular readers of CT Blog are already the recipients of a detailed and continuing supply of very useful information on the threat of terrorism here in the United States. We are grateful for our CT Blog colleagues Steven Emerson, Doug Farah, Jeff Imm, Mike Cutler, and on and on. Nothing in this series is intended to supplant their excellent work. If anything, we hope to draw even more attention to their (and others’) fine efforts in the past and in the future. Our goal is to draw together in this one series the signs of the continuing, emerging threat here so that policy makers and citizens of Main Street US alike will be better able to assess the true threat. As we noted in the introductory article, individual attacks, plots, perpetrators, investigations tend to lose their impact as time passes; the geographic spread of such indicators and incidents also makes it difficult to visualize the progression of the threat of domestic terrorism.
Similarly, our professional lives in Counter Terrorism have shown us clearly that the phenomenon of terrorism knows no boundaries, respects no religion, and the perpetrators regard themselves as the only “innocents.” Terrorism targets everyone indiscriminately regardless of their church, temple, synagogue or mosque. No one religion has cornered the market on violence.
|
-
In late May, I produced a policy briefing at FDD's web site analyzing the high cost of our dependence on oil -- including the significant disadvantage it poses in the global war on terror, the economic consequences of oil dependence, and the connection between high oil prices and the worldwide food-price crisis. Today I have a new briefing at FDD's web site examining in greater detail the strategic vulnerability that our oil dependence poses in the fight against terrorism. An excerpt: Saudi
Arabian police made a worrisome discovery in September 2005. A 48-hour
shootout at a villa in the seaport of al-Dammam ended on September 6
after Saudi police introduced light artillery. Newsweek
reported that when police searched the compound in the aftermath, they
found not only "enough weapons for a couple of platoons of guerrilla
fighters," but also forged documents that would have provided the
terrorists with access to some of the country's key oil and gas
facilities. Saudi interior minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz
confirmed to the daily newspaper Okaz that the cell had planned
to attack oil and gas facilities, and stated, “There isn’t a place that
they could reach that they didn’t think about.” On February 24, 2006, terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula tried to attack the refinery at Abqaiq operated by the state-owned Saudi Aramco. A statement by Saudi Arabia’s interior ministry explained
that two cars tried to enter through one of the facility’s side gates,
and that a firefight broke out when security officers challenged them.
The vehicles were laden with explosives, and the interior ministry
claimed that they “exploded near the entrance.” Saudi security adviser
Nawaf Obaid told the Arab News shortly after the
attack that it was “another indication of how tight and impenetrable
the existing Saudi security system is at the main petroleum
infrastructure around the country.” However, written evidence submitted
to Britain’s House of Commons by Neil Partrick, a senior analyst in The Economist Group’s Economist Intelligence Unit, notes
that “other sources create a more disturbing impression than this
apparently efficient ‘counter-terror interception’ would suggest.”
Partrick writes: Apparently
the first of three perimeter fences of the Abqaiq facility was broached
by men dressed in ARAMCO uniforms and driving ARAMCO vehicles. Only as
they approached the second perimeter fence were they shot at. The fact
that insurgents either had inside assistance from members of the formal
security operation of the state-owned energy company to the extent that
… they gained vehicles and uniforms, or that security was sufficiently
[lax] that these items could be obtained and entry to the site
obtained, is seriously concerning. Indeed, in a 2007 interview with The Futurist,
former CIA director James Woolsey said that if the terrorists had
gotten within mortar range of the facility, “they could have taken out
the sulfur clearing towers. Robert McFarlane, President Reagan’s
National Security advisor, tells us that would take six or seven
million barrels of oil a day off line for probably over a year.”
The entire policy briefing can be found here.
|
-
It is a tired mantra being trotted out by those who oppose the indictment by the International Criminal Court of Omar al Bashir, and that is, that the peace process will be put in danger.
As if there were a viable peace process, and as if the government of Sudan (a radical Islamist state, claiming to act in the name of Islam responsible for genocide, without the slightest recrimination from other Muslim nations) were remotely interested in peace.
It should be noted that Bashir and his sometimes ally and sometimes nemesis Hasan al Turabi, have jointly and separately presided over state-sponsored meetings of radical Islamist terrorist organizations from around the world, as well as sheltering and nurturing al Qaeda and protecting Osama bin Laden. Not a pretty picture.
Then there is the matter of Sudan's state-sponsored genocide.
Someone should be held accountable, as as head of state, Bashir is one of those.
ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo said a three-year investigation has shown that "there are reasonable grounds to believe that... [al-Bashir] bears criminal responsibility in relation to 10 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."
But there is a real danger associated with the indictment, as that is that it will once again lay bare the powerlessness of the international community to implement the steps it claims it will take. My full blog is here.
|
-
A series of reports and hearings in Washington last week, reported in CQ Homeland Security, were discouraging indications of how unprepared the U.S. still is in so many areas, almost seven years after the 9-11 attacks:
1. The law passed in 2007 which codified the 9/11 commission’s recommendations included two sections intended to protect the nation from natural or man-made biological threats by establishing a new office and setting deadlines by which to measure progess. But implementation of the new office, as well as improvements in detection technology to be used in a nationwide early-warning bio-terror program, are missing important deadlines.
2. An office set up three years ago at the Department of Homeland Security to detect and thwart the smuggling of nuclear materials into the country has little programmatic authority to do either. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who chaired the oversight hearing on the status of nuclear detection programs, reported that, "Between 1993 and 2006 there were 1,080 confirmed incidents of illicit trafficking in nuclear materials. Eighteen of these cases involved weapons-grade materials and another 124 involved material capable of making a so-called “dirty bomb” that would use conventional explosives to spread nuclear material." But our coastline and borders are so unprotected that we can't prevent the smuggling of a nuclear device into the U.S. One witness said, “If a terrorist or rogue state somehow gains possession of a nuclear device and intends to use it against the United States, we are in big trouble.”
3. In response to questions raised at a Congressional hearing in June, the Government Accountability Office reported to Congress last week that, "DHS’s and FEMA’s current efforts do not provide information on the effectiveness of homeland security funds in improving the nation’s capabilities or reducing risk." In plain English, that means that the Department of Homeland Security cannot tell the American people if the billions spent by its thousands of employees have actually improved homeland security. I can understand the difficulty a government agency encounters in proving the negative, but there must be some way of quantifying an improvement in capabilities, at least during the nationwide "TOPOFF" homeland security exercises run by DHS.
4. In that same document, GAO also reported that major programmatic gaps unearthed during Hurricane Katrina have not been resolved. "Following Katrina, we reported that there were major capability problems in several key areas, including: (1) situational assessment and awareness; (2) emergency communications; (3) evacuations, particularly for those who do not have transportation or otherwise have mobility limitations; (4) search and rescue; (5) logistics; and (6) mass care and sheltering. These areas continue to present challenges, although DHS and FEMA have taken actions to address the problems that surfaced in Katrina." Finally, GAO reports continued weaknesses in "national preparedness for catastrophic events include pandemic influenza and response to nuclear attack."
Not all the news on homeland security is dark and foreboding, but these four examples of inadequacies should motivate and remind us of the homeland security challenges we still face.
|
-
Somalia has faced a humanitarian crisis for much of the year, but now it appears to be growing noticeably worse. A confluence of factors—including disease outbreaks, a growing famine, the absence of government, and the targeting of aid workers—make the country's future appear bleak. Describing the situation, UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has stated: "Humanitarian conditions have taken a dramatic turn for the worse owing to the ongoing conflict, increasing food prices, a deepening drought that has hit a wide swathe of central Somalia, a poor start to the rainy season and increasing civil insecurity."
The food crisis is a global phenomenon. But a senior military intelligence officer noted to me that while the governments of other African countries are making tentative steps to address the problem, "in Somalia it is literally every man for himself." The UN places acute malnutrition rates above 20% in places like the Juba Valley and the Gedo, Bakol, and Bay regions—and UN officials believe the country is heading toward a "full-blown famine." Along with starvation, Somalis face the outbreak of diseases. Reuters reports, for example, that at least 18 children under age five have died from a measles outbreak in southern Somalia "that threatens hundreds of infants in the war-ravaged Horn of African country."
The humanitarian crisis is naturally exacerbated by the absence of an effective central government. Somalia jumped to number one in the Failed States Index released in late June by Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace. Somalia's transitional federal government (TFG) is unable to enforce order in most of territorial Somalia, and the only thing preventing the TFG from being toppled by Somalia's Islamist insurgency is Ethiopian forces' continued presence. But even aid workers upon whom millions of Somalis depend in the absence of an effective government have become targets of violence, and are now fleeing the country. The International Herald Tribune reports:
They are being driven out by what appears to be an organized terror campaign. Ominous leaflets recently surfaced on the bullet-pocked streets of Mogadishu, Somalia's ruin of a capital, calling aid workers "infidels" and warning them that they will be methodically hunted down. Since January, at least 20 aid workers have been killed, more than in any year in recent memory. Still others have been abducted…. The attacks on aid workers—including Westerners, Somalis working for Western organizations and Somalis working for local groups—have escalated this month. Two weeks ago a high-ranking UN official was shot as he stepped out of a mosque. Last Sunday, a trucking agent in charge of transporting emergency rations was killed. On Thursday, three elders who were helping local aid workers distribute food at a displaced persons camp were shot and killed.
The International Herald Tribune notes that in response, the UN is withdrawing some employees. Other aid workers are fleeing the country, while some aid organizations are considering suspending operations there.
|
-
Since 1979, Iran has been trying to export its Islamic revolution. One of the aspects of this campaign has been to convert Sunni populations to Shiism. This campaign has recently accelerated reaching very varied places around the globe.
I just wrote an article for the Middle East Times on that topic.
You can read the whole article here.
Here is an excerpt:
While Iran is flexing its muscles and looking to expand throughout the whole Middle East by way of military force, it is also orchestrating an insidious campaign to control the region's religion. In fact, Iran is spending money, energy and time to proselytize local populations and de facto trying to take over Islam.
The success of this Iranian-sponsored operation has pushed Sunni states to react. Of all the Sunni countries, Saudi Arabia is the one feeling the most threatened by this new wave of Shiite proselytizing. "If it's not to export the revolution like in the time of the Khomeini regime, Shiism exportation - as we see it today - is still unacceptable," noted Saudi Social Affairs Minister Abdel Mohsen al-Hakas.
Interestingly, Saudi King Abdullah accused Shiites of trying to convert Sunnis and added that he knew exactly who was behind this campaign, clearly pointing his finger at Tehran. It is a vital issue for the kingdom, which does not want more potential destabilization, since its own Shiite minority already represents 10 percent of the total population and is located in the oil-rich region of the country.
The other Sunni super power in the region, Egypt, is also feeling the Shiite heat. That is why several Egyptian leaders have warned about the slow insidious infiltration of society by Tehran-sponsored forces. For example, they point out to the fact that groups of Shiite preachers are present in numerous Egyptian towns striving to convert local residents.
|
-
When the Bush administration made the fateful decision in 2003 to open an active military frontline in Iraq, for many Al-Qaida supporters, the experience was not unlike witnessing the fulfillment of divine prophecy. Former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke would later write in his memoirs, “It was as if Osama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting ‘invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq.’” Given the opportunity to confront an aggressive American invasion of the Islamic world, Bin Laden would “become a hero in the minds of people,” explained noted Saudi jihadi ideologue Dr. Saad al-Faqih to me over cups of sweet black tea shared at his suburban London flat. “It is a golden opportunity for them, for the American, for the infidel—the invading infidel—to be in his [military] uniform in a Muslim country, in an Arabic country even.”
The conditions facing arriving Al-Qaida envoys in Iraq in 2003 were nothing short of ideal: an embattled Sunni minority under siege by marauding Shiite militias; a weak and shamelessly corrupt post-Saddam government in Baghdad firmly divided along religious and sectarian lines; and, most importantly, an intensely unpopular “crusader” occupying force, which was unprepared for a real insurgency and spread thinly across vast geographic regions. Inside Iraq’s Sunni Triangle, Al-Qaida’s forces were spearheaded by a charismatic and resourceful commander named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—a daring underdog who was revered among untold numbers of younger devotees as the so-called “Shaykh of the Slaughterers.” In April 2006, Al-Qaida Deputy Commander Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri boasted, “The group Qaida al-Jihad in Mesopotamia alone has carried out 800 martyrdom operations in 3 years, besides the sacrifices of the other mujahideen, and this is what has broken the back of America in Iraq.”
Yet, somewhere along the way to establishing a utopian Islamic state and a fortified base for jihad in the Middle East, something went terribly wrong for Al-Qaida. Indeed, it can hardly be denied that, over the past two years, Al-Qaida has suffered a series of crippling setbacks in Iraq—marked by consistent and startling accusations from fellow Islamic militants of corruption, fanaticism, and even murder. Major Sunni insurgent organizations in Iraq, even former Al-Qaida allies, have adamantly distanced themselves from Zarqawi and his ilk, even going so far as to suggest that “the Al-Qaida network has actually made people here think that the occupation forces are merciful and humane by comparison.” When asked about the repeated, insistent demands by Al-Qaida’s Deputy Commander Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri for Sunni insurgents to join under the banner of Al-Qaida in Iraq, a spokesman for a dominant insurgent faction known as the “Al-Rashideen Army” countered, “There is a problem in Tibet for China—is it possible for me to prescribe the solutions for their problem? We are a people in this region for 6000 years before Christ, end[ing] with Islam, and we are fully capable of rolling and managing our own affairs. We do not need others to tell us what to do.”
In light of these realities, it seems difficult to see how anyone can reasonably argue, as presumptive Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain recently has, that Iraq remains the “central front” in America’s war on terrorism. It is even tougher to rationalize when one considers the dramatic upswing in violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan—and that more U.S. soldiers are now dying in that conflict than even the most treacherous reaches of Iraq’s Sunni triangle. Meanwhile, as Pakistan continues to serve as an active base for major international terrorist plots (such as the 7/7 bombings in London and the smashed plots targeting the U.S. Ramstein Airbase in Germany last September), Al-Qaida has utterly failed in its mission to turn Iraq into parallel hub for terrorist activity. When asked to assess the sole major Al-Qaida terror plot conclusively linked to the jihad in Iraq—the November 2005 bombings of civilian hotels in neighboring Jordan—Dr. Saad al-Faqih’s eyes flashed with frustration as he insisted to me, “In their own standards, it was a very stupid act—just a children’s game. There is no aim to be achieved by that.”
 A new analytical chart from the NEFA Foundation which contrasts the shifting patterns in propaganda releases by the Taliban in Afghanistan versus Al-Qaida’s “Islamic State of Iraq” (ISI) over approximately a one year period (from April 2007 to July 2008) seems to confirm this general trend. The numbers on the chart represent the total number of political communiques and claims of responsibility for military operations issued by a respective organization over a given month. At least according to these numbers, the ISI seems to be in the midst of a free-fall collapse in Iraq, while the Taliban has been sharply on the rise in Afghanistan—and markedly so since February 2008.
No doubt, we are still a long way from resolving the serious problems challenging both the Iraqi government in Baghdad and U.S. military forces struggling to maintain stability in the region. But the idea that Al-Qaida has any long-term viable future in Iraq—or that Iraq somehow poses more of a terrorism problem than the lawless regions along the Afghan-Pakistani border—which have become a hotbed for terrorist guesthouses and training camps of every shape, size, and variety—plainly ignores the basic facts. Both the administrations of President Bush and his eventual successor in the White House owe it to the American people to fight the war on terrorism in an intelligent, thoughtful, and focused manner. Ironically, it seems that there is near universal agreement—among senior U.S. military commanders, terrorism experts, Iraqi insurgents, and even former colleagues of Usama Bin Laden—that such a campaign should be squarely targeted on Pakistan and Afghanistan, and not the counterproductive occupation of Iraq.
|
-
A recent news report addressed the issue of how the administration was attempting to have the Czech Republic join the list of Visa Waiver countries by the end of this year. I understand that the government of the Czech Republic has been cooperating with the United States and is helping with the installation of a missile system that Russia has opposed. Now we see statements made by Secretary of State Rice about how the administration was moving forward for its plans to include the Czech Republic in the VWP.
So I wonder what information may have prompted the Secretary for Homeland Security to make the announcement about the potential that Al Qaeda terrorists may have entered the United States using "European Union" passports. What Mr. Chertoff did not discuss but, in my opinion may well be behind the use of European citizens carrying legitimate European passports is the simple and basic fact that Europeans are able to enter the United States without first securing a visa! And yet the Administration seeks to expand the number of countires in the Visa Waiver Program, thus enabling terrorists from entering the U.S. without a visa from the Czech Republic.
I have made these points before but I believe that they are worth repeating today, given the comments made by Michael Chertoff: Security is best done in layers. If you want to protect a building you would generally place the fence you erect to protect that building at the furthest extremities of the property on which that structure is located. You would then want to install strong locks on the doors and windows and reinforce those potential entry points against a forced entry. Shrubbery is often trimmed to keep the would be burglars or muggers from having foliage to hide behind as they wait for the opportunity to strike. You would probably also install alarms and other such devices.
By requiring that aliens seeking entry into the United States first apply for and obtain a visa, in effect we move our nation's borders out to the U.S. embassies and consulates where aliens who wish to enter the United States would have to go in order to apply for a visa. The thing that must be remembered is that
there is an undeniable link between immigration and the threat of terrorism. There are those who will claim that there is no such link but the exercise of reasoning and the review of the facts make this link perfectly clear.
|
-
On July 16, I posted a report from CTB Newslinks Assistant Editor Phillip Smyth on the release in Lebanon of convicted terrorist Samir Kuntar. Here is a follow-up report from Phillip.
-----------
As the number one star in the Hizballah “Divine Victory” lineup, Samir Kuntar has been the flaming sword that Hizballah holds aloft to show the Lebanese and the world that Nasrallah is in charge. Promising to strike Israel again, Kuntar said, “I return today from Palestine, but believe me, I return to Lebanon only in order to return to Palestine.” Kuntar went beyond just attacking the “Little Satan” (Israel), and moved onto criticizing the “Great Satan” (the United States of America). While attending a ceremony honoring the recently assassinated Hizballah terrorist-extraordinaire, Imad Mughnieh, Kuntar let his true feelings be known. "We swear to God...to continue on [Mughnieh’s] same path and not to retreat until we achieve the same stature that Allah bestowed on you." Mughnieh was implicated or accused of organizing operations such as the hijacking of TWA Flight 847, the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing, and the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Beirut.
The prisoner swap also had broader repercussions on internal Lebanese politics. Riding the wave of Hizballah’s victory, the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), largely discredited in many Christian circles for standing by their Hizballah ally during the May fighting, has started justifying their choice in having pro-Syrian allies. Lebanon’s telecommunications minister Jibran Bassil (a senior FPM member), stated that following the prisoner exchange, Israel would randomly harass Lebanese, “The phone would ring, the person would answer and they would hear a message saying, "This is from the state of Israel. Abandon Hizbullah or there will be another war, like there was in 2006.'" Funny, considering many in March 14th were saying (publically and privately) that if the FPM didn’t abandon their Hizballah ally that it could embolden Hizballah into another 2006 style war.
While Lebanon was shut down for celebrations yesterday, how did the new Lebanese president treat the newly arrived Kuntar? Other than congratulating and praising Samir Kuntar, he did refer to Lebanese prisoners abroad, albeit, in a pro-Syrian political posture. He deliberately neglected to inform the audience which state these prisoners were held: Syria. In reference to these prisoners, President Sulieman used the ambiguous term, “al-mafkoud”or, “the lost”. Where were these people “lost” and why? A friend in Lebanon quipped, “what was he referring to? [Sulieman makes it sound as if] A Lebanese was going for a hike and [just] got lost in a place like Canada or Panama.”
The real knock-out punch didn’t just come from Lebanon’s new president’s cowering to Syria. Unbelievably, the number two official in the Lebanese Forces, the smiling George Adwan, was in attendance at the “welcome home” celebrations for Kuntar. This is a far cry from Adwan’s statements during the funeral for assassinated anti-Syrian journalist Gibran Tueni in 2006, “hold on to Gebran's dream and don't go for half solutions or compromises.” Interestingly the LF’s leader, Samir Geagea did offer his criticism of the Kuntar affair, saying, “[only] when prisoners are freed from Syrian jails and when those who sought refuge in Israel return to their homes,” can Lebanon can be truly celebrate.
|
-
From the pages of Die Weltwoche comes news that Jean-Pierre Gontard, the special envoy from the Switzerland Ministry of Foreign Affairs whom the Colombian government invited to assist in hostage negotations with FARC, is now under investigation himself. Information developed from the computer of Raul Reyes, the FARC senior commander killed by Colombian troops on May 1, implies that Gontard was a FARC sympathizer and provides details of strategic advice that Gontard gave to Reyes in meetings in 2004. From a recent DW article translated into English: "The Swiss professor reportedly tells Reyes that a FARC demand for one hundred million dollars in exchange for a six month ceasefire is realistic. And verbatim: 'He says that Ingrid is a jewel [una joya] in the hands of the FARC, because she is very important for the French government.' According to the e-mail, Gontard suggests to the FARC that as a first step they could exchange kidnapped Colombian army personnel and politicians against captured guerrilleros. Then, as a second step, they could arrange to set free Ingrid and four other hostages under the patronage of Switzerland and France. In exchange, the UN would provide the FARC a platform in Geneva. On Gontard’s estimation, this would amount to recognition of the organization as party to an armed conflict."
Die Weltwoche also reports that President Uribe personally criticized Gontard upon release of the emails in the Reyes computer. "(O)n 27 June 2008, just a few days before the army freed Ingrid Betancourt, a hostile encounter took place in Bogotá between Colombian President Álvaro Uribe and the two negotiators, Jean-Pierre Gontard and his French counterpart Noël Saez. Uribe brought up the e-mails with the two negotiators and sharply criticized them: “That’s bad, very bad!” Uribe was particularly outraged by the meetings that the two “mediators” held with Reyes behind his back (meetings made public two weeks ago by Die Weltwoche)."
The most explosive charge against Gontard was made on July 5 by the Colombian Defense Minister, that Gontard served as a courier for FARC, bringing in $500,000 for its use in another hostage matter. The Swiss ambassador to Colombia has denied the charge in this translated interview in El Tiempo.
Whether Colombia prosecutes Gontard or not, the episode is another example of how Switzerland sometimes "dances with the devil." See Olivier Guitta's post on the Swiss Foreign Minister's siding with Iran and my post last December on the Swiss' dropping all charges against Yassin al-Qadi, designated by the U.S. in 2001 for his activities as an Al Qaeda financier.
|
-
On July 11, 2008, Maajid Nawaz addressed a Policy Forum at The Washington Institute. Mr. Nawaz was a longtime member of the British leadership committee of Hizb al-Tahrir (HT), an international Islamist movement. In 2002, while studying in Egypt, he was arrested for his membership in the group and was imprisoned in Egypt's Mazra Tora prison until 2006. He returned to Britain upon his release and publicly announced his withdrawal from HT in 2007. Mr. Nawaz now directs the Quilliam Foundation, which describes itself as "a counter extremism think tank” which was “created by former activists of radical Islamist organisations."
Having met with Maajid and his colleages from Quilliam, and having had the opportunity to ask them the "tough questions" Jeffrey Imm refers to elsewhere on this blog, I am convinced of their sincerity. Asking who our allies are in the battle of ideas is a critical question, and I submit that if Mr. Nawaz and his colleagues at Quilliam are not moderate enough for Mr. Imm he is not likely to find anyone who is.
Another important question that needs to be asked, and one that has often been given short-shrift (including on this blog) is how to leverage the ideological fissures that develop between and among our adversaries -- even when the more moderate wing is still not as moderate as we would like them to be. In the UK, for example, a distinction is often made between "jihadi salafists" and "political salafists," with the government willing to work with some groups that fall into the latter category but none in the former. (For the record, Quilliam has come out against working with groups that fall into either category). Not only do the political salafists have credibility when it comes to deradicalizing others, but as the Dutch argue it may be better to keep them in the larger tent than drive them further underground. In addition, having recently spent time in the UK (as well as France and Holland), talking to counterterrorism officials and local community leaders, it is striking how concerned they are about the threat of an imminent attack. Against that background, it becomes more understandable why they're trying to find allies wherever they can. The British realize they may have significant differences with "political salafists" who think "resistance" in Palestine or Iraq is legitimate, but are thinking about ways that they can at least leverage them and their positions in an effort to de-radicalize the most severe extremists (taqfiris) randomly targeting civilians today.
These are issues which bear further exploring. It is impossible to fully grasp the reality of the threat on the ground in Europe, as well as the governments' responses, without spending time in the communities, as my colleague Mike Jacobson and I recently did in East London, for example. While Mr. Imm is right that not every extremist or terrorist renouncing their former way of life is fully deradicalized, to dismiss all of them is not only short sighted, but risks missing valuable opportunities for the US and its allies.
A rapporteur's summary of Mr. Nawaz’s address to The Washington Institute is available here. You can listen to an audio recording of his full speech here.
|
-
Thai newspapers are reporting that representatives of the Thai insurgents have declared a ceasefire. Three alleged insurgents appeared on Thai TV and stated "We have come to an agreement to have a cease-fire from July 14 onward, We want to see peace and stability in the region."
Don’t hold your breath. This is not the real deal.
First, they claim to speak for a group that no one in Thai intelligence or the military has ever heard of, the United Southern Underground.
Second, the self-described spokesman, was identified as Mali Peng Khan, a former militant who was active in the period from 1984-1987, when the insurgency was dominated by PULO and a few other splinter groups, not the group most responsible for the violence today the Barisan Revolusi Nasional Coordinasi (BRNC).
Members of PULO have attempted to speak on behalf of the insurgents and negotiate with the government in the past. This has always led to a spike in violence and attacks on the previous generation of militants.
Third, Mali Peng Khan said that his group included the RKK. The RKK is not an organization, only mistakenly described as such in the press.
Fourth, the insurgents have never spoken publicly, appeared in the media before. Why would they start now? Though the violence has decreased in the past year since the Royal Thai Army (RTA) implemented their own “surge,” the insurgents are not losing the war. The average rate of violence remains roughly 3 people per day. Though the government claims to have increased the number of arrests, most (over 90%) are freed after the 28-day holding period. Few are charged with crimes and convicted. Few leaders have been caught and the financial pipeline has not been shut down. While they may not be winning the war, nor are the losing it. And if one looks at some of their internal documents, they are right on track on their 40-year timeline.
The proof is in the pudding. After the televised statement, a convoy of soldiers was ambushed.
|
-
Another strategic error in the failure to address the ideological basis of Jihad in Islamic supremacism is that the lack of such a strategic debate allows a series of false and misleading reports about Jihadists allegedly "renouncing" jihad or abandoning Islamism. The point of these media reports are to suggest that either (a) there is no jihadist threat, or (b) what threat does exist is diminishing as "extremists" realize the folly of violence. Such reports have one clear purpose: quash public debate on the real ideological basis behind Jihad, with the secondary purpose of questioning Jihad as a "real threat."
The Jihadist who is still a Jihadist
One example is the July 13, 2008 UK Guardian/Observer article by Lawrence Wright "The heretic -- How Al-Qaeda's mastermind turned his back on terror." It is clear from a close reading of the article that the headline simply is not accurate, but the Guardian/Observer doesn't expect most of the public to read the article closely, they are simply looking for a headline to influence public opinion.
Mr. Wright's article is to "inform" the public how Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif, aka Dr. Fadl, has rejected terrorism. In Mr. Wright's first paragraph, he trumpets how Al-Sharif was "rejecting al-Qaeda's violence," having written in a 2007 fax that " e are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that." (The last part of Al-Sharif's sentence should have been a tip-off to the observant reader.) Mr. Wright goes on in "Part One" of his article about the importance of Al-Sharif to Al-Qaeda, and how important his alleged defection from "terrorism" is.
In "Part Two" of Mr. Wright's article, 75 paragraphs later, he writes that " espite his previous call for jihad against unjust Muslim rulers, Fadl now says such rulers can be fought only if they are unbelievers, and even then only to the extent that the battle will improve the situation of Muslim." So, how does that make Al-Sharif against Jihad? Only if rulers are "unbelievers"? After all, per Mr. Wright's own article, Al-Sharif is the one with the historical ideology that identified virtually every Muslim who didn't agree with him as a takfiri (unbeliever).
Further on in "Part Two" of Mr. Wright's article, in paragraph 78, Mr. Wright states:
"Fadl [aka Al-Sharif] does not condemn all jihadist activity, however. 'Jihad in Afghanistan will lead to the creation of an Islamic state with the triumph of the Taliban, God willing,' he declares. The jihads in Iraq and Palestine are more problematic. As Fadl sees it, 'If it were not for the jihad in Palestine, the Jews would have crept toward the neighbouring countries a long time ago.'"
In paragraph 79, Mr. Wright goes on to state: "Speaking of Iraq, he [Al-Sharif] notes that without the jihad there, 'America would have moved into Syria.'"
In summary, Mr. Wright claims that Al-Sharif is against Jihadist terrorism, except for Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, the Palestinian territories, and rulers who are "unbelievers." This is how Al-Sharif "turned his back on terror." Anywhere else where Al-Sharif supports Jihad? Who knows where else Al-Sharif might call for Jihad if you asked him for more details? Thailand, Philippines, Somalia, etc? But the Guardian/Observer expects that its readers and the public will never get that far and will not realize that the article is merely a transparent attempt to discourage debate on the Jihadist threat.
|
-
 As the third anniversary of the botched 7/21 bombings approaches, the NEFA Foundation is releasing a PowerPoint briefing, authored by NEFA Senior Analyst Josh Lefkowitz, titled, "The July 21, 2005 London Transport Bombings: An In-Depth Look at the Planning, Execution, and Failure of the Attack." Drawing on police surveillance photos, extensive CCTV footage, and other exhibits released by the Metropolitan Police Service during the course of the conspirators' trial, the report offers an unprecedented glimpse into the planning and execution of a terrorist attack. The briefing includes surveillance photos of the bombers training for jihad at a camp in Cumbria; pictures of the conspirators purchasing massive quantities of hydrogen peroxide; as well as images of their bomb factory, the interiors of the trains they attempted to blow up, their unexploded devices, and their flight from authorities. Further, the report documents the extensive support network that aided the bombers in the lead-up to and aftermath of the failed attack.
The report can be accessed via the NEFA Foundation website.
|
-
Phillip Smyth is the the CT Blog's Assistant Newslinks Editor and a contributor to the Aramaic Democratic Organization. He spent 2 months last summer in Lebanon talking with and interviewing anti-Hizballah NGOs in addition to Hizballah supporters, and he maintains contact with many there. He wrote the following about today's Hizballah-Israel prisoner swap.
---------------
It was a dark night on April 22, 1979 as an inflatable speedboat sped from the southern Lebanese port of Tyre to rendezvous with destiny in the Israeli border port of Nahariya. The four men on the boat all belonged to the pro-Iraqi Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and were planning to assault the Israeli town, “to protest the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty.” As the four men came ashore, an Israeli policeman discovered them; he was subsequently gunned down. The four then made their way into an apartment building, taking a man, Danny Haran and his four-year-old daughter hostage. Danny’s wife, Smadar, mother to that daughter hid from the PLF terrorists with her two-year-old daughter, Yael. As the two-year-old cried, Smadar covered her face so the PLF group wouldn’t hear them; tragically Yael soon suffocated. The party of four, along with their two hostages, made their way out of the apartment building and down to the beach. Soon the IDF and Israeli police arrived on the scene. Instantly two of the PLF terrorists were killed. Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese Druze and member of the terrorist group, tried to escape with the hostages and the last member of his group. Kuntar fired his AK-47 into the back of Danny Haran, killing him instantly. Kuntar then moved onto the remaining hostage, Danny’s four-year-old daughter Einat. Kuntar dragged Einat to a rock and proceeded to beat the little girl with his Kalashnikov until she died. Kuntar and his compatriot Ahmed al-Abras were captured (he was released in 1985 in a prisoner exchange), and for the murders Kuntar received four life sentences. Instead of serving his sentence, Kuntar was released this morning and driven to the Israel-Lebanon border into the arms of Hizballah. Furthermore, this was not the first, and will definitely not be the last time that kidnaps and exchanges will happen in the broader Middle East.
Kuntar has been at the center of a number of spectacular terrorist attacks and the recent 2006 Hizballah-Israel war. The infamous October, 1985 PLF hijacking of the liner, Achille Lauro, was launched by the PLF, in part, to free Kuntar. That operation resulted in the murder of wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer. Since then, Kuntar became the cause célèbre not just of the leftist-Palestinian groups and broader Palestine Liberation Organization, but instead became the rallying cry of the Shia Islamist Hizballah. The original name of the operation that sparked the 2006 war was, “Freedom for Samir al-Kuntar and his brothers.” While the operation’s name was subsequently changed, the operation eventually achieved its stated goals.
Today, most of Lebanon has been officially shut down for a “hero's welcome” for Kuntar. Kuntar was to be greeted at Beirut airport sometime around 6pm (Lebanon time), dressed in military fatigues. Kuntar came about an hour late, arriving in a Lebanese Army helicopter (emphasis mine). (Please take note of CT expert David Schenker’s MESH blog entry on arming the Lebanese Army, and why it isn’t always a “reliable” organization.) His welcoming committee didn’t just include Hizballah or their leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, but President Suleiman and Prime Minister Sanoria were also in attendence. This is ironic considering no more then 2½ months ago Hizballah and Sanoria’s militias fought each other in pitched street battles throughout Beirut. Suleiman, the accepted compromise president, said of Kuntar and other released terrorists that they were, “the freed heroes.” Kuntar was then driven to the Rayeh stadium, where the official Hizballah welcome commenced. Acording to an-Nahar, around 9:50pm Kuntar pledged his loyalty to Hizballah’s Nasrallah.
|
-
Hizballah has much to celebrate. With the formation of a national unity government in Lebanon last week, it is now well positioned to block any effort to dismantle its military wing. Today, the organization is celebrating the release of five Lebanese prisoners and the remains of several Hizballah and Palestinian militants. But even as Hizballah enjoys the political dividends of its successes, its military wing finds itself under pressure at home and abroad.
Notably, yesterday Britain's parliament approved a Home Office order issued earlier this month banning Hizballah's military wing, al-Muqawam al-Islamiyya or Islamic Resistance. Hizballah's terrorist wing, often called the Islamic Jihad Organization (IJO) or, as in Britain, the External Services Organization (ESO), was banned in 2001. Condemning "Hizballah's violence and support for terrorism," the ban outlaws raising funds, encouraging support for, or belonging to, Hizballah's military wing. Prime Minister Gordon Brown informed members of parliament that the decision to act now was based "on the sole grounds of new evidence of [Hizballah] involvement in terrorism in Iraq and the occupied Palestinian territories." According to reports in the British press, these include "planning to kidnap British security workers in Iraq," echoing the charges of two Iraqi parliamentarians claiming that Hizballah planned and oversaw the kidnapping of five Britons -- still missing -- from the Iraqi Finance Ministry in May 2007.
My complete article is available here.
|
-
I had a piece in this month's Sentinel -- the journal issued by the West Point Combating Terrorism Center. In it, I discuss an area that has not received the attention it deserves -- the issue of why seemingly committed terrorists walk away from these organizations. This is a phenomenon which appears to be happening more lately, but which has been occuring for many years. In crafting our counterterrorism strategy, there's a lot that we can learn from studying this diverse group.
Here's an excerpt:
In recent months, there has been a spate of seemingly good news in the counter-terrorism arena, as former terrorist leaders and clerics have renounced their previous beliefs. Former Egyptian Islamic Jihad head Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (also known as Dr. Fadl), whose treatises al-Qaida often cited to justify its actions. has written a new book rejecting al-Qaida's message and tactics. Shaykh Salman bin Fahd al-Awda, an extremist cleric whose incarceration in the 1990s by the Saudis reportedly helped inspire Usama bin Ladin to action, went on television to decry al-Qaida's operations, asking Bin Laden, "How much blood has been spilt? How many innocent people, children, elderly, and women have been killed . . . in the name of al Qaeda?" In the United Kingdom, former members of the radical group Hizb al-Tahrir (also spelled Hizb-ut-Tahrir) established the Quilliam Foundation, which describes itself as "Britain's first Muslim counter-extremism think tank."
While these are clearly positive developments and may have a real impact on preventing the next generation from going down the path of extremism, what effect will these rununciations have on al-Qaida's current members, and on others who are well on their way to becoming terrorists? What are the factors that can turn would-be terrorists away from this dangerous path? Do former terrorists' and extremists' messages carry particular weight with this group?
To read the rest of the piece, click here
|
-
Last week, I posted on the prospects for Congressional action on a new Iran sanctions bill before the end of the year and discussed two versions under consideration. Now comes word that the Senate Banking Committee will act tomorrow on its version of such a bill (the Senate Finance Committee already approved another version, as I reported last week). The draft bill, titled "The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008," would:
- expand sanctions on business activities with Iran to cover financial institutions, insurers, and oil and gas pipelines and tankers;
- codify in law the current Executive Orders prohibiting imports and exports, with the exception of food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid;
- mandate the freezing of the U.S. funds and assets of Iranian diplomats and representatives of other government, military, or quasi-governmental institutions;
- prohibit U.S. parent companies from using a subsidiary to circumvent the sanctions law;
- provide millions in new funding to the Treasury Department to combat terrorist financing;
- include a modifed version of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act on which I reported last week; and
- authorize and mandate several Executive Branch agencies to work together to ensure that sensitive technologies are not diverted through other countries to Iran.
The sanctions would expire if Iran is removed from the "state sponsors of terrorism" list and ceases pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
Passage of this bill in some form would facilitate Senate passage of a single bill after reconciliation with the Senate Finance Committee's version. Whether the White House would veto it after reconciliation with a House version, as I discussed last week (and there are provisions of this bill that the White House will oppose), is the question.
|
-
The UN sanctions against Iran coupled with the US treasury campaign to get international banks to stop doing business with Iran are starting to have some effect. But hey are far as being effective enough to get Iran to comply with the international community demand to stop its military nuclear program.
One of the last resorts to avert war would be to use the energy weapon that could choke the Iranian economy quite quickly. I wrote an article on that topic for the Middle East Times.
You can read the full article here.
Here is an excerpt:
The sounds of saber rattling have been growing louder by the day in the Persian Gulf. While Israel has recently performed an impressive exercise over the Mediterranean, Iran proceeded last week to test its long-range missiles. The region has been preparing for a while for a likely war and negotiations are at a standstill. Since the international sanctions on Iran have not had the desired effect, it now maybe high time to use the only weapon that can avert a war: energy.
At first sight, a country (Iran) which has the second gas and oil reserves in the world should not be so worried about the international community focusing on energy sanctions. But two important facts about Iran's economy prove that specific sanctions against Iran's energy sector could be the clincher to solve the current standoff.
First, 85 percent of Iran's revenue come from oil. Second, Iran imports most of its consumption of refined products, like gasoline. In fact, Iran consumes a half million barrels of petroleum products per day, of which 40 percent is imported, at a cost of $4 billion to $5 billion per year. Also, the fact that in the past few years, the consumption of petroleum products has increased by 10 percent per annum is putting added pressure on the oil sector.
Iranian authorities are very much aware of their vulnerabilities.
|
-
This weekend, French President Nicholas Sarkozy hosted his Syrian counterpart Bashar Asad along with officials from 43 other nations at the inaugural meeting of the “Union for the Mediterranean.” Damascus is touting the invite and the feting of Asad as end of Syria’s international isolation. At the very least, the reception in Paris was a real boon to Syrian public relations that will complicate efforts to maintain diplomatic pressure on a recalcitrant Asad regime. There may also be some economic benefits for Syria: If Israeli reports are true, Damascus walked away from the visit with an airbus deal.
Many in France weren’t pleased with Asad’s welcome in the Elysées. In particular, French veterans were offended by the Syrian President’s attendance at the Bastille Day parade: Syria, among others, was implicated in the 1983 bombing of the French headquarters in Drakkar that killed 58 French peacekeepers. Based on Syria’s presumed involvement in the 2005 murder of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri, former French President Jacques Chirac likewise refused Sarkozy’s invitation to attend the festivities.
The most notable development at the meeting was what appeared to be a calculated effort to silence these critics: the Sarkozy Administration changed the longstanding French assessment regarding Syrian involvement in the 1983 attack just a day before Asad’s attendance at the parade. According to a “senior French official” in Sarkozy’s office, “The Drakkar wasn't Syria…The Drakkar was Iran and Hezbollah.”
Until recently the French policy toward Syria had been to pressure the Asad regime on its presumed role in the Hariri assassination. In an abrupt turnaround, the new French position appears to be intended to facilitate the reintegration of Syria into the international community. While politically expedient, it’s unclear on which facts the revised assessment was based. Indeed, most sources—most notably the The Report of the DoD Commission on Beirut International Airport Terrorist Act, October 23, 1983—indicate “at least indirect involvement…by Syria” in the destruction of the US Marine Barracks. This attack preceded the Drakkar outrage by only 2 minutes.
Back in 1983, the French attempted to bomb Hizballah’s Sheikh Abdullah headquarters in response to the Drakkar. The then head of Hizballah military operations, Imad Mughniyyeh—widely believed to be responsible for the 1983 attacks against US and French targets in Beirut—subsequently took up residence in and was provided sanctuary by, Syria. Mughniyyeh was assassinated in Damascus late in 2007.
It’s unclear when the new French assessment on Mughniyyeh’s relations with Syria will be issued.
|
-
Now that we've recovered from a server crash at our host company, I want to update readers on the latest developments in the use of extremist textbooks in the Islamic Saudi Academy of northern Virginia, about which I last posted on June 26, and on a new study of Saudi textbooks in general.
Rep. Frank Wolf, who wrote to Secretary of State Rice on June 24 about the textbooks use in the Islamic Saudi Academy in northern Virginia, has written another letter to Secretary Rice, first reported by CQ Homeland Security, to ask her to convene a meeting of State Department and USCIRF representatives and "conclusively determine, prior to the start of the 2008 school year, what precisely is being taught at ISA and what steps, if any, need to be taken." Rep. Wolf cites information about the direct links between the ISA and the Saudi Embassy: "The school's lease with Fairfax County plainly indicates that one ofthe school's properties is being leased by 'the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia d/b/a/ (doing business as) the Islamic Saudi Academy.' The school's other property is owned by the embassy. Further, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. chairs the school's board and the school uses the Saudi Embassy's Internal Revenue Service employer tax number."
Rep. Wolf also noted that the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia told Congress two years ago that the Kingdom was conducting a thorough cleansing of textbooks and educational curricula, but a new report casts doubt that the Kingdom is serious about that effort. The Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, in conjunction with the Institute for Gulf Affairs, has issued a report, "2008 Update: Saudi Arabia’s Curriculum of Intolerance," building on work begun by Nina Shea, the Center's director, in 2005 (and Ms. Shea is also the editor of the USCIRF report about the ISA's textbooks): "They assert that unbelievers, such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not share Wahhabi beliefs and practices, are hated “enemies.” Global jihad as an “effort to wage war against the unbelievers” is also promoted in the Ministry’s textbooks: “In its general usage, ‘jihad’ is divided into the following categories: …Wrestling with the infidels by calling them to the faith and battling against them.” No argument is made here that such references to jihad mean only spiritual and defensive struggles.
Lessons remain that Jews and Christians are apes and swine, Jews conspire to “gain sole control over the world,” the Christian Crusades never ended, the American universities of Cairo and Beirut are part of the continuing Crusades, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are historical fact, and on Judgment Day “the rocks or the trees” will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews.
They teach that it is permissible for a Muslim to kill an “apostate,” an “adulterer,” and those practicing “major polytheism.” Shiites are among those identified as “polytheists.” One lesson states that “it is not permissible to violate the blood, property, or honor of the unbeliever who makes a compact with the Muslims,” but is pointedly silent on whether security guarantees are extended to non-Muslims without such a compact. Other lessons demonize members of the Baha’i and Ahmadiyya groups."
The report also notes that Muslim World League, which the Kingdom founded and sponsors, invited 200 representatives of different faiths to join King Abdullah in interfaith talks in Spain this week. Steven Emerson has written a detailed article on this meeting which exposes the backgrounds of its sponsors. For instance, Abdullah al-Turki, secretary general of the MWL and organizer of the conference, has blamed U.S. policy for the 9-11 attacks and supported Palestinian terrorist attacks.
As one of the Contributing Experts to this site told me in 2006, the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia is to export oil and Wahhabism. That won't change, at least with respect to Saudi-funded schools and mosques in the U.S., until Congress forces a change in U.S. policy towards the Saudis through the State Department appropriations bill.
|
-
This weekend, French President Nicholas Sarkosky hosted his Syrian counterpart Bashar Asad along with officials from 43 other nations at the inaugural meeting of the “Union for the Mediterranean.” Damascus is touting the invite and the feting of Asad as end of Syria’s international isolation. At the very least, the reception in Paris was a real boon to Syrian public relations that will complicate efforts to maintain diplomatic pressure on a recalcitrant Asad regime. There may also be some economic benefits for Syria: If Israeli reports are true, Damascus walked away from the visit with an airbus deal.
Many in France weren’t pleased with Asad’s welcome in the Elysées. In particular, French veterans were offended by the Syrian President’s attendance at the Bastille Day parade: Syria, among others, was implicated in the 1983 bombing of the French headquarters in Drakkar that killed 58 French peacekeepers. Based on Syria’s presumed involvement in the 2005 murder of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri, former French President Jacques Chirac refused Sarkosy’s invitation to attend the festivities.
The most notable development during Asad’s visit was what appeared to be an effort to silence these critics: the Sarkosky Administration changed the longstanding French assessment regarding Syrian involvement in the 1983 attack just a day before Asad’s attendance at the parade. According to a “senior French official” in Sarkosy’s office, “The Drakkar wasn't Syria…The Drakkar was Iran and Hezbollah.”
Until recently, French policy toward Syria had been to pressure the Asad regime for its presumed role in the Hariri assassination. In an abrupt turnaround, the new French position appears to be intended to facilitate the reintegration of Syria into the international community. While politically expedient, however, it’s unclear on what facts the revised assessment was based. Indeed, most sources-most notably The Report of the DoD Commission on Beirut International Airport Terrorist Act, October 23, 1983-indicate “at least indirect involvement…by Syria” in the destruction of the US Marine Barracks. This attack preceded the Drakkar outrage by only 2 minutes.
Back in 1983, the French attempted to bomb Hizballah's Sheikh Abdullah headquarters in response to the Drakkar. Then head of Hizballah military operations, Imad Mughniyyeh-widely believed to be responsible for the 1983 attacks against US and French targets in Beirut-subsequently took up residence in and was provided sanctuary by, Syria. Mughniyyeh was assassinated in Damascus late in 2007.
It’s unclear when the new French assessment on Mughniyyeh’s relations with Syria will be issued.
|
-
The three round of UN sanctions on Iran coupled with the US Treasury campaign and the divestment campaign have not been enough to deter Iran from continuing its military nuclear program. Now is the time to pass sanctions focusing on one sector: energy to force Iran to comply.
I just wrote an article for the Middle East Times on that topic.
You can read it in full here.
Here is an excerpt:
The sounds of saber rattling have been growing louder by the day in the Persian Gulf. While Israel has recently performed an impressive exercise over the Mediterranean, Iran proceeded last week to test its long-range missiles. The region has been preparing for a while for a likely war and negotiations are at a standstill. Since the international sanctions on Iran have not had the desired effect, it now maybe high time to use the only weapon that can avert a war: energy.
At first sight, a country (Iran) which has the second gas and oil reserves in the world should not be so worried about the international community focusing on energy sanctions. But two important facts about Iran's economy prove that specific sanctions against Iran's energy sector could be the clincher to solve the current standoff.
First, 85 percent of Iran's revenue come from oil. Second, Iran imports most of its consumption of refined products, like gasoline. In fact, Iran consumes a half million barrels of petroleum products per day, of which 40 percent is imported, at a cost of $4 billion to $5 billion per year. Also, the fact that in the past few years, the consumption of petroleum products has increased by 10 percent per annum is putting added pressure on the oil sector.
|
-
One of the most critical aspects of a strategic battle against the ideology behind Jihad, Islamic supremacism, is an honest definition of the term "civil rights and civil liberties." "Civil rights" are based on the American value of equality - that all men and women are created equal - a value that Islamic supremacism as an ideology does not embrace. So when federal government agencies claim to be making outreach efforts to organizations that espouse and/or support Islamic supremacist viewpoints -- such outreach efforts are actually contrary to America values of "civil rights," not promoting "civil rights."
As I mentioned in my July 2 article "The Struggle against Jihad and Supremacist Ideologies," the FBI aggressively engaged in a "war of ideas" against white supremacists. The FBI sought no guidance from white supremacist non-violent organizations in that war. It used the FBI COINTELPRO to spy on and disrupt white supremacist groups, and it used contacts in the media to discredit and demoralize white supremacist groups. The FBI did so because the war on white supremacism was a battle to defend equality as an American value itself, and white supremacism was inimical to equality. The war against supremacism was a war for equality as realized through civil rights.
So the July 10, 2008 Congressional Quarterly's (CQ) article "Experts Debate Efficacy of FBI Outreach to CAIR" should raise deep concerns among advocates for civil rights as well as anti-Jihadists. Why would any federal government agency defend outreach to a group whose leaders support Islamic supremacist organizations? The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is an unindicted co-conspirator in Holy Land Foundation (HLF) terror trial involving funding and material support to the Hamas Islamic supremacist organization. CAIR's incorporator and current executive director, Nihad Awad, is a documented supporter ("I am in support of the Hamas movement") of the Hamas Islamic supremacist organization. The Islamic supremacist group Hamas has a charter which incorporates the antisemitic Protocols of Elders of Zion (in Hamas charter, Article 32), promoted by Adolf Hitler in his "Mein Kampf." Moreover, as the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has pointed out, "CAIR has co-sponsored and taken part in multiple Islamist conferences in the United States." During last summer's HLF trial, the IPT also reported that CAIR was identified by the FBI as part of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee; the Muslim Brotherhood is another Islamic supremacist organization whose founder called for the creation of a global Islamic caliphate. The real debate is not on CAIR itself, which IPT has thoroughly documented, but on the whether or not to acknowledge Islamic supremacism as an ideological basis for Jihad.
Ignoring the ideological basis of Islamic supremacism in Jihad prevents an honest debate on such issues, as well as an honest discussion of civil rights and liberties. Outreach efforts to pro-supremacist organizations have nothing to do with "civil rights and liberties," but are part of a more important choice between employing short-term tactical counterterrorism measures or defending our national values.
|
-
The UN system for designating terrorists is weak, under attack, and needs to be reformed. That is the thesis I present in an article just published online in Perspectives on Terrorism. And the challenges are coming from all sides.
In Europe the EU’s Advocate General, Miguel Poiares Maduro has sided with terrorist financier Yassin Kadi and is calling on the European Court of Justice to lift its directive imposing sanctions against Kadi, and possibly others who have been designated by the UN’s Al Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee. (See Jonathan Winer's Blog). This is not because Maduro doubts the role Kadi played in financing terrorism, but rather, because he questions the method of his designation by the UN. The UN designation process, he argues, violates rights guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Similar challenges are being made in several countries, including in the United States.
Political challenges have also been launched in the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, and national parliaments around the world. And voices are being raised within the United Nations calling for current 1267 Committee designation procedures to be reformed. This controversy has already led many governments, never eager to participate in the designation process, to refrain from submitting names to the 1267 Committee; and now threatens to seriously undercut designation as a primary weapon and methodology in the war against terrorism financing.
Responding to criticism, the Security Council, in resolution 1730 (2006) established procedures to consider delisting requests. But these measures fall well short of the steps called for. This was the result of reluctance on the part of several countries, including the United States, to subject national judgments on delisting to third party review. That resolution did establish a Focal Point in the Secretariat to receive de-listing requests, but limited its function to forwarding the requests to appropriate governments, and to the full committee for follow-up. Advocate General Maduro complained in his Kadi case filing that “There is no obligation on the Sanctions Committee actually to take the views of the petitioner into account. Moreover, the de-listing procedure does not provide even minimal access to the information on which the decision was based….. In fact, access to such information is denied regardless of any substantiated claim as to the need to protect its confidentiality.”
What Needs To Be Done
Whatever the outcome of the Kadi case, reform will be necessary to maintain and improve the effectiveness of the UN designation system. Such reform must serve to better impede terrorist mobility and funding; but must also consider the sensitivities of intelligence gathering; the right of those designated to be heard in their defense; and the need for independent oversight to guard against abuse. The first step must be to put in place improved procedures, guidelines and standards for accurately identifying and listing all those organizations, actors and supporters that manage, run and maintain al-Qaida and the Taliban. While including all al-Qaida and Taliban foot-soldiers would be impracticable, targeting key personnel and entities, including those providing resources and funding to them, is essential.
A way must also be found to reduce the political and intelligence sensitivities often associated with presenting names to the Al-Qaida and Taliban Committee for designation. To this end, an independent monitoring group should be empowered to propose names (along with supporting justifications) to the committee. INTERPOL and other international enforcement agencies might also be enlisted in this process. This would provide additional insulation to governments sensitive about themselves initiating the designation process.
The Focal Point concept, which now provides little more than postmen services, should take on an expanded expert/advocacy role - that is, to also serve as a panel empowered to consider substantiating or rebutting information provided by a petitioner seeking delisting. If the panel finds some merit in the petition, it might then formally present the petitioners case and invite the interested countries, including those that had requested the designation, to respond, in camera, if necessary. In any event the final determination for de-listing should remain with the Al Qaida and Taliban Committee.
These steps are essential to re-invigorating the UN Designation Process.
To Read my full discussion and article on this subject click here
|
-
On being rescued, Ingrid Betancourt stated: "This is a miracle, a miracle. We have an amazing military. I think only the Israelis can possibly pull off something like this."
Her comment set off immediate speculation that there had been an Israeli hand in the dramatic operation. It is high praise for Israeli special forces that so many would readily assume that an effective commando operation was their handiwork. From a practical standpoint, the Israeli contribution to Betancourt’s rescue was modest (dwarfed by the U.S. contribution). But Israel’s philosophical contribution was enormous.
Technical Support
The complete post can be read here.
|
-
Seems that the UK is tightening its entry requirements for South Africa. The reason:
Britain has threatened to impose a visa regime on visitors from South Africa amidst fears that the country is being used as a transit point by al-Qaeda operatives to gain easy entry to the UK.
The Government is also concerned that the country is being used by people smugglers to bring non-South Africans into the UK.
There it is: the criminal/terrorist network. Both groups need the same thing and acquire them from the same place, with the same fixers running the shadow infrastructure that will service anyone who can pay.
Yesterday I attended a conference at the Wilson International Center for Scholars where Félix Maradiaga, Senior Researcher, Institute of Strategic Studies and Public Policies (IEEPP), Nicaragua, discussed how Iranians were flooding into his country because visa controls had been relaxed.
Disturbingly, those who enter Nicaragua without control can then travel without visas to the rest Central America, who, like the EU, have a free transit zone in the region. My full blog is here.
|
-
 The NEFA Foundation has released a new report I have written titled “Jihad Networks in Pakistan and Their Influence in Europe.” The paper is based upon a presentation I gave on July 10 before the III International Course on “Jihad Terrorism: Contingency Plans and Response”, organized by the Pablo Olavide University and the Granada University in Spain. It assesses the proliferation of jihad training camps in Pakistan—particularly in Waziristan and the region bordering Pakistani-controlled Kashmir—and the subsequent impact that those training camps have had on the proliferation of terrorist networks in Western Europe.
The report can be downloaded from the NEFA Foundation website.
|
-
Thousands of miles away and three decades apart, the rescue of hostages in Colombia and the killing of Israeli hostages by Lebanese terrorists have some unexpected links as well profound differences.
Barring last minute glitches, the Israelis are expected within a week to release five terrorists, including the notorious Samir Kuntar, who bashed a four year old girl to death, in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli Army reservists who were taken hostage by Hezbollah in a cross border raid two years ago that touched off a major conflict.
In my op-ed in today’s Washington Times, I describe a previous attempt to free Kuntar; the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro and the murder of a wheel-chair bound American passenger. The murder of the American, Leon Klinghoffer prompted the passage of a major U.S. counterterrorism law that conceivably could be used against the Colombian kidnappers.
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/10/trading-terrorists/
The dramatic rescue in Colombia last week of Ingrid Betancourt, a former candidate for the Colombian presidency, and three American hostages as well as 14 Colombians also
involved more than noticeable on the surface. The rescue operation was planned and carried out by Colombian Forces and they deserve full credit for pulling off an audacious operation without loss of life. The ability to stage that complex operation, however, was not developed overnight. The Columbians have been improving their military and civilian capabilities over many years, both with determination on their part and some assistance from friendly countries.
The Colombian rescue operation is in some ways reminiscent of another daring Latin American operation, Peru’s April 22, 1997 rescue of 71 hostages held in the Japanese Ambassador’s Residence by the leftist Tupac Amur terrorist group. All 14 rebel captors were killed. One captive, Supreme Court Justice Carlos Giusti, and two Peruvian soldiers also died. Twenty-five hostages were injured. An elite Peruvian force conducted the operation. The U.S. had previously provided training assistance to Peruvian units and officials but was not involved in the operation.
The current Colombian operation was similar. The Washington Post yesterday described it more details that included a discussion of the U.S. assistance to the Colombian government. The rescue operation was conducted and planned by the Colombians. Americans did not take part directly in the operation, learning of it only after planning had begun, according to the Post. The U.S., however provided intelligence and other logistical help.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070803243.html
The assistance was part of “Plan Colombia,” which was developed in 1999 by Colombian and U.S. officials as a $4 billion dollar program to counter the narcotics trafficking and terrorism that was rampant in the country. Most, although not all of the problems came from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which began in the 1960’s as the military wing of the Colombia communist party but turned into a terrorist group deeply involved in kidnappings for ransom and drug trafficking.
The US aid, running about $660 million a year, includes a relatively small amount, ($3.3 million in FY 2008) to training for officials under the State Department’s Antiterrorism Training Assistance Program (ATA), especially for the anti-kidnapping units known as Unified Groups for Personal Liberty (GAULA). State Department officials said they understood that GAULA units were not directly involved in this month’s rescue operation but the group has had an impact in reducing additional kidnappings. The number of abductions has fallen sharply, from 3,572 in 2000 to 521 last year, according to Colombian officials. The GAULA training has progressed to the point that its nearly self sustaining and Colombia has begun providing training assistance to some neighboring Latin American countries.
The Colombians also have received intelligence assistance from an Israeli security company owned by former Israeli generals according to recent press reports. Israel also reportedly provides Colombia with light arms and drones.
http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/07/10/israelis_helped_secure_betancourts_escape_from_farc_rebels/1433/
Another link exists, although tenuous, between the Colombians and Israelis.
The Israeli saga began in 1979 when Kuntar, and three other members of the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) landed on an Israeli beach and took hostage at a nearby house a young father and his four-year-old daughter. They fatally shot the father and afterwards Kuntar killed the girl by bashing her head against the rock. Her two year-old sister was accidentally smothered when her mother tried to quiet her while hiding in their apartment.
In October, 1985 a group of four PLF terrorists led by Abu Abbas boarded the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro with the intention of disembarking in an Israeli port and seizing Israeli hostages to trade for Kuntar. Their game plan was quickly changed when a ship’s steward discovered the men with guns in their cabin. The terrorists then seized the ship. Before the passenger liner eventually docked in Alexandria Egypt, Abu Abbas brutally threw overboard Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly American who was confined to a wheel chair.
The Klinghoffer murder prompted the U.S. Justice Department to propose a so-called “long arm statute” that makes it a crime punishable in American courts to commit an act of terrorism against American persons or property overseas. A Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Vicki Toensing spearheaded the effort and Senator Arlan Spector (R-Pa) sponsored it in the Senate. On the House side, Justice Department officials and I, in my State Department counterterrorism legislative hat, persuaded the House Foreign Affairs Committee to tag it onto a pending State Department Bill. Congress enacted the measure (18 U.S. Code 2332) as part of the Omnibus Antiterrorism Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986. (Public Law 99-399.)
The law requires the Attorney General to first make a determination that the attack on American persons or property was a terrorist act rather than one of ordinary crime or financial gain. The 1986 legislation also opened the way for the FBI and Justice Department to permanently post large numbers of agents and legal attaches overseas in order to more effectively conduct investigations. Currently there are posts in 58 countries.
The law has been used to good effect by the Justice Department. High profile cases, including Moussoui Zacarias for the 9/11 attacks, Richard Reid the shoe bomber and John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban, and earlier this month, Abd al Al-Rahim for the attack on the USS Cole in the Yemen port of Aden.
If and when the Colombian terrorists who captured and held the three American contractors are caught and are not tried in Colombian courts, they could be tried in the U.S. under 18 US.2332 which was prompted by the Achille Lauro hijacking and the Abu Abbas efforts to free a captured terrorist who kidnapped and killed Israelis.
There are major differences of course between the Colombian and Israeli situations. The Colombians and Americans were held for five years in deep jungles. The two Israeli hostages, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were captured by Hezbollah forces who staged an unprovoked cross border raid into Israel two years ago. The attack touched off major fighting between Israeli and Hezbollah forces, causing significant casualties on both sides, major damage in Lebanon and Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israel.
It is not known how soon the two reservists died after they were captured.
The Colombian rescue attempt was widely applauded. The planned Israeli swap of live prisoners for bodies of killed servicemen is controversial. It has divided the country between those who feel that fallen soldiers should be brought home and those who feel such deals will encourage even more hostage taking. Long standing U.S. policy is not to make such deals that reward hostage takers. I believe it is a sound one in the long run even though it is painful for the families involved as well as government officials.
Regardless of their similarities and differences, hostage taking is a despicable act. As the G8 summit said in its counterterrorism summit statement, which I reported on yesterday:
“Abductions and the taking of hostages are repugnant practices to be strongly condemned.”
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/07/g8_summit_statement_on_counter.php
|
-
This article originally appeared in the Washington Post this past weekend, and should make it abundantly clear to our nation's leaders as well as to our citizens, that our nation has serious reasons to be concerned about terror cells operating in the United States. After the attacks of September 11, the President kept repeating the mantra that "We are fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here!" As I often pointed out, I believe that we already have them "over here!"
The report notes that terror suspects arrested in the far-flung corners of the world have been found to have arrest records in the United States. In one instance the report notes that fingerprints that were lifted off of bomb fragments related to individuals who had attempted to enter the United States.
While the news report did not discuss how any of these individuals managed to enter the United States or how those who had been stopped from entering the United States had made that attempt, it is clear that there is a great potential that terrorists are currently present in the United States. They may simply be in this country in an effort to commit crimes to generate funds to support terrorist activities overseas or, they may be awaiting instructions to initiate attacks in our country right now.
Among the crimes that such terrorists have been involved with in the United States have been mail fraud and coupon fraud, drug trafficking, and identity theft. In the 1980's, I also assisted the NYPD, ATF and the New York Fire Department fire marshals in the investigation of aliens believed to have been committing arson to generate money to fund Middle Eastern terrorist organizations such as the PLO. They had bought small grocery stores that they had used for committing coupon fraud and then, when they tired of that "white collar" crime, they torched those stores that are also referred to as "bodegas." They then sent the money they received from the insurance companies back to the Middle East to fund terrorist activities around the world.
Meanwhile the residents of the apartments that were located in the floors above the bodegas lost all of their possessions. Many times they were horribly injured or even killed. These victims had no idea that the store that they often frequented to purchase routine groceries were linked to international terrorists, nor did they realize how the presence of those malevolent individuals endangered their safety and the safety of their family members.
I hope that our officials who are identifying these terrorism suspects as having been previously arrested in the United States are making every possible effort to determine the way(s) that they were able to enter our country and that they are sharing that information with the various agencies that are involved in issues relating to border security and the enforcement and administration of the immigration laws. Among those agencies are CBP (Customs and Border Protection), ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) and the U.S. Department of State Office of Consular Affairs. I would also hope that our officials who are encountering these terror suspects overseas are seizing the opportunity to develop intelligence to attempt to weed out their associates who may be present in the United States or other countries.
|
-
Today's hearing by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is historic for several reasons. First, as I wrote on Monday, it featured Maajid Nawaz, probably the most senior former official in any radical Islamist group to testify before the U.S. Congress since the 9-11 attacks. I will address other aspects of this hearing in future posts, but I wanted to briefly summarize a key section of Mr. Nawaz' oral statement before the committee, since he did not have time to prepare a written statement, due to the unusual circumstances of his entry into the U.S. for the hearing.
After summarizing his personal journey into and out of Hizbut, Mr. Nawaz discussed four core elements of the 20th-century Islamism which gives rise to extremism, as he has determined through years of experience and extensive academic study. According to Mr. Nawaz, these elements are not representative of previous interpretations of Islam nor of current Islamic thought held by the vast majority of Muslims:
1. Islam is treated as a political ideology rather than as a religion. There is an "Islamic Solution" to everything.
2. Sharia law must be codified into state law.
3. The ummah has a political identity, not just a religious one, and there is no allegience to any other body or group, including non-Muslims.
4. Muslims must strive to create an expansionist state, the caliphate.
Mr. Nawaz analogized between these elements and the elements of Communist ideology as proposed and developed by and through the leaders of the Sovet Union. He traced the roots of these elements, in part, to membership in the Marxist-oriented Baath Party of the 1920s by the founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani.
|
-
-
Overlooked in the reporting on the G8 summit’s discussions in Rusutsu, Japan,
this week on climate change and other subjects, was a major statement on counterterrorism, reaffirming that” abductions and the taking of hostages are repugnant practices to be strongly condemned.”
The terrorism issue was scarcely mentioned in articles found on a Google search except for an interesting Canadian news article focusing on Afganistan.
However the statement was a useful reaffirmation of goals: “We, the leaders of the G-8 summit, condemn in the strongest possible terms all acts of terrorism, and commit ourselves to take every possible measure to counter this threat to the international community.”
The statements issues at summit conferences in themselves have little direct immediate impact, although they do provide a statement and goals for the bureaucracies.
The statement of shared principles included: ”All terrorist acts are criminal and unjustifiable, and must be unequivocally condemned, especially when they indiscriminately target or injure civilians.”
This phrase had a contemporary and historic ring to it. While it apparently was aimed at those who attempt to justify the Al-Qaeda -inspired mass bombings of civilians, it was also an echo of the Reagan Administration’s public diplomacy efforts to label terrorists as criminals and undercut their image in some quarters as romantic “freedom fighters.”
The phrase previously on hostage taking undoubtedly was drafted before the dramatic rescue of hostages, including three Americans, in Colombia last week. It also has a bearing though on the pending swap between Israel and Hezbollah of four terrorists for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers who were kidnapped by the Lebanese-based group in a cross border raid two years ago touching off a major conflict. One of the terrorists who is being released in the controversial swap is Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese terrorist who in 1979 raid took hostage a young Israeli father and his four-year-old daughter, bashing her head against a rock.
The G8 statement also urged the strengthening of the United Nations efforts to counter terrorism. This an effort that is being encouraged by an increasingly active
non government organization, the Center on Global counterterrorism Cooperation, which has published a number of studies on the subject.
Many observers feel the UN efforts have been lagging after the inital surge following 9/11 but say the UN is being re-energized by the recent appointment of Mike Smith, an experienced Australian diplomat and counterterrorism official, as United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and Executive Director of the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate.
For reference, the full text of the July 8 G8 statement follows.
|
-
Today's missile tests by Iran might be the last straw in efforts on Capitol Hill to enact new sanctions. In late June, the Senate Finance Committee passed S.3227, "The Iran Sanctions Act of 2008," which included a host of provisions to isolate Iran's nuclear program and financial system. But that act is opposed by the Administration for several reasons.
Senate leadership could merge S.3227 with another Iran sanctions bill, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act (S.1430). The ISEA has a different emphasis, that of enabling and encouraging further disinvestment from Iran-related investments (the "divest terror" approach). The ISEA passed the U.S. House last year (HR2347) but has not been passed through the relevant committee in the Senate, the Senate Banking Committee. The lead Senate sponsor is Democratic Senator Barack Obama, and Senate leaders might decide that merging the two bills meets both policy and political goals.
But in an election year with a shortened Congressional session, nothing is certain. Congress would have to iron out any differences between the Senate and House versions before final passage. Any Iran sanctions bill could be subject to Presidential veto if it includes the provisions already opposed by the Administration or if it is attached to another bill also opposed by the President, The lack of committee approval of the ISEA, to date, is a stumbling block to final passage of a merged bill (if that is the intention of Senate leadership).
|
-
I have been rightly described as extremely pessimistic about the way our intelligence and law enforcement communities-with the exception of isolated pockets-are facing (or not) the challenges I see as most pressing for the 21st century.
These include the growing and spreading threat of non-state armed actors, the criminal-terrorist nexus, the spreading narco mini-states across Central and northern South America, and the world of shadow facilitators that tie disparate networks together.
In my experience, most of the problems center on a lack of understanding of how the world really operates, and a distinct inability to see things beyond how we have experienced them for ourselves, meaning the world is often viewed as operating according to our cultural and political experience, rather than operating as it operates.
But a string of recent successes (two by the Drug Enforcement Administration and one by the Colombian army with U.S. military support) show rays of hope. Some of the risk-aversion is being overcome, creative thinking is being more welcomed and human intelligence is again the key.
The cases are the arrest of Viktor Bout; the successful arrest and extradition of Monzar al Kassar; and the freeing of the FARC hostages.
What these cases have in common is the creativity with which the operations were conceived, the flexibility in the implementation of them, the correct identification of high-value targets, and the extensive use of human intelligence to develop the operations and carry them out successfully. My full blog is here.
|
-
Syrian President Bashir al Assad is going to have to make a decision soon if he wants to cut its ties to Tehran and reintegrate the international community.
For an extensive coverage of the Levant, please see The Croissant (subscriptions available for $99/year).
I just wrote an article for the Middle East Times on this topic.
You can read the whole piece here.
Here is an excerpt:
The international community had shunned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad completely since 2005 when he was forced to "officially" remove his troops from occupied Lebanon. But he is not a pariah anymore. He has now become a hot ticket courted from Jerusalem to Ankara and Paris, to name a few. How did Assad realize this tour de force?
While many analysts viewed Assad as a weak pawn, facts are contradicting this assessment. Indeed, on the contrary Assad turns out to be an astute strategist playing his cards quite well.
First he weathered a nasty storm in 2005, clinging to power and fending off successfully all his adversaries including former French President Jacques Chirac, U.S. President George W. Bush and Saudi King Abdullah. Then, he started "secret" peace negotiations with Israel while at the same time closing ranks with Iran and profiting from Tehran's financial largesse.
But now the crucial time has come and Assad is going to have to decide in the next few months which camp he really belongs to: the West's side or Iran's.
The first major public event that really put things in motion was the assassination in February in Damascus of Hezbollah's terror master Imad Mughnieh. In an article for the Middle East Times, right after Mughnieh's murder, I made the case of Syria's involvement and the possibility that this was part of a deal with Israel.
|
-
The battle of ideas and stragetic communication have long been the missing ingredient in the government-wdie effort to combat terrorism. Now, with a restructured public diplomacy bureaucracy at the State Department and elsewhere in the interagency, engaging foreign publics has formally and strategically become part of the toolkit to combat radical extremist ideologies. Today, in his first major public address in Washington, Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs James Glassman addressed The Washington Institute for Near East Policy'ss Special Policy Forum on "Winning the War of Ideas." The repared text of his remarks is available here.
|
-
 The NEFA Foundation has released a new report by NEFA Senior Investigator Claudio Franco titled "The Evolution of the Taliban in Pakistan during the February-May 2008 Period: The Peace Accord Era." Franco explores the evolution of the insurgency in North-Western Pakistan from February-May 2008, a time characterized by an attempt to stabilize the area by means of a negotiated effort. The new Pakistani cabinet, led by Yusuf Reza Gilani, initiated a dialogue with the insurgents in Malakand and Swat, eventually finalizing two distinct peace accords in April and May 2008. But have the Pakistani authorities been more successful than the West has noticed in stabilizing the region, or is this another ephemeral exercise in tribal diplomacy? Will the undeniable results achieved by Pakistan benefit the Coalition's forces across the border? And more importantly, what kind of conflict are the tribes of North-Western Pakistan bracing for: An Islamist insurgency or conflict by proxy across the border? In the report, Franco also examines the emergence and consolidation of non-Taliban Islamist militias in the northern tribal areas of Pakistan, paying particular attention to Mangal Bagh's Lashkar-e-Islam (LI); LI is the Khyber-based Islamist militia targeted by the army in the first military operation ordered by Yousuf Reza Gilani, Pakistan's first post-Musharraf Prime Minister.
The report can be downloaded from the NEFA Foundation website.
|
-
 (See also - MSNBC Deep Background: "Iraqi insurgents weigh in on American election")
In an effort to help Americans better understand the evolving dynamics behind the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, I have begun conducting a series of exclusive interviews with prominent Sunni insurgent organizations. The third group to accept my invitation was the Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI), a dominant Sunni faction that has come into frequent conflict with Al-Qaida over the past year. From MSNBC's Deep Background:
A spokesman for one of Iraq’s most prominent insurgent groups declares in a rare interview that he favors the Democrats in the upcoming presidential election. “We believe that the Democrats are more aware of the severity of the American situation in Iraq, and, therefore, they can give more attention to safeguarding American interests in this region,” the spokesman said. The comments are part of an exclusive interview that NBC News terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann recently conducted with Dr. Ali al-Naimi, spokesman for the Islamic Army in Iraq. Kohlmann, who also serves as Senior Investigator for the NEFA Foundation, has now conducted several interviews with the leading insurgent groups in Iraq. The on-the-record conversations have revealed the rifts that have arisen amongst the Iraqi insurgent groups and al-Qaida. In the recent interview, al-Naimi denounces al-Qaida and its foreign fighters. “The errors of al-Qaida in regards to spilling the blood of the innocent are more numerous than can possibly be covered in a single response, statement, or interview,” al-Naimi said. The IAI, as it’s commonly referred to, is one of the largest insurgent groups in Iraq. It claims to have been founded in the years prior to the U.S. invasion, “when all signs indicated that Bush was going to lead the Americans to slaughter the peaceful people of Iraq,” al-Naimi said. Its mission is to kill and drive out U.S. forces, which it derides as occupiers. "We wish the American soldiers would leave us in peace, for we are not murderers and we do not experience joy in killing anyone. But if they insist on staying here in order to satisfy the whims of Bush, then American families should expect to receive many more bodies," al-Naimi said. “Send my blessings to the intelligent people of America and let them know of my point of view,” he concludes.
A complete translated transcript of my exclusive interview with the IAI can be downloaded from the NEFA Foundation website.
|
-
The U.S. House passed the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008" right before the July 4 recess, which provided a mechanism for immunizing telecommunications companies from possible lawsuits resulting from cooperation provided for the NSA wireless surveillance program after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. At the time, it was characterized as a victory for the telecoms, and the White House supported it. But they must not have read the bill until today. The House added another provision to the bill which guarantees that immunity wouldn't become effective for months after the President signs the bill, and the White House is only now demanding that the Senate remove that provision.
Under the House bill, at least four Inspectors General must review the entire program, starting from the 9-11 attacks through August of last year, and report to the Congress; the immunity becomes effective 90 days after that report is sent to Congress. The requirement has drawn a veto threat today from the Adiminstration (see this letter to the Congress).
I worked for over 10 years as a supervisory auditor in the Commerce Department Inspector General's office, and I can guarantee that such a report as contemplated, presumably to be prepared and written under generally accepted government auditing standards, cannot possibly be completed in any less than 15 moinths, and perhaps not for as long as two years (the provision, Section 301 in the House bill, gives the IGs a year after enactment, but they couldn't meet that deadline). We'll see how the Senate deals with this provision, now that the White House has withdrawn its support of a bill that the President's staff obviously didn't read carefully.
|
-
The Washington Post's recent article on the surprises that the biometric database is turning in among those arrested abroad shows in part the ties that bind terrorist and criminal groups.
It also shows the power of sharing data across institutional lines, as well as the inherent issues related to individual privacy that will have to be navigated as the we move forward.
What the biometric database that has been developed since 9/11 shows is that many of those arrested in Iraq, Somalia, Colombia and elsewhere are wanted criminals in the United States. The hit rate is above 1 percent, which may not seem like a lot, but offers only a glimpse into the number of criminals now participating in wars against the United States.
These criminal records, matched by fingerprints, and is some cases iris scans and other measures, show just how vulnerable the United is should terrorists (whether Islamist extremists or other groups) choose to attack.
"I found the number stunning," said Frances Fragos Townsend, a security consultant and former assistant to the president for homeland security. "It suggested to me that this was going to give us far greater insight into the relationships between individuals fighting against U.S. forces in the theater and potential U.S. cells or support networks here in the United States."
So, many people who lived here, know the system and voluntarily or involuntarily leave to join radical Islamist movements abroad or carry out terrorist activities with other groups. And the ones that are known are those who have had the misfortune to get arrested and leave a criminal record. My full blog is here.
|
-
This is the first article in a series by Madeleine Gruen and Frank Hyland, portraying the seriousness of the threat of homegrown terrorism in the United States for readers of The Counterterrorism Blog.
Every American remembers and can identify with what happened on 9-11-2001; however, in the years since, America’s sense of urgency about terrorism has diminished. Few Americans realize the potential of reoccurrence in the United States because the incidents and indicators are spread out both geographically and over time. It is worth recalling and updating from time to time, then, the true scope of the threat within the US.
A lot of emphasis, and rightly so, is placed on the terrorist threat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and similar locales. In contrast, we have not been hit in the Homeland since 9/11. Since those attacks, however, we have witnessed a series of major attacks and plots in Europe, and understand that the spread of Jihadi ideology by radical clerics and Islamist organizations in Europe is the primary cause.
|
-
Maajid Nawaz, currently Director of the Quilliam Foundation in the UK, will testify on Thursday before a U.S. Senate committee on the subject of the roots of violent extremism and how to counter it. Mr. Nawaz became famous for publicly renouncing his membership Hizb ut-Tahrir, in which he had become a leader in the UK, and denouncing it as an extremist organization. In a September 2007 op-ed in the Sunday London Times, Nawaz described the allure of Hizbut to him in his youth, his activities in the group, and the events which led to his withdrawal. That account sounds so familiar to anybody interested in the process of homegrown radicalization - Nawaz was a third-generation British Muslim. On the Quillium website, Nawaz describes how he debated with Muslim Brotherhood members while in prison in Egypt and came away convinced, as he wrote in the Times op-ed, that "what I had been propagating was far from true Islam. I began to realise that what I had subscribed to was actually Islamism sold to me in the name of Islam. And it is with this realisation that I can now say that the more I learnt about Islam, the more tolerant I became." Nawaz still suffers from his years in Hizbut and his imprisonment; just today, the Guardian reports that he has been denied permission to train as a lawyer in the UK. The official denial referred to his "knowingly engaging in political activities whilst in a country in which those activities were banned."
Nawaz might be the most senior former leader of an Islamic extremist group to testify before the Congress since the 9-11 attacks. Also testifying with him will be Zeyno Baran, a former Contributing Expert here who coined the term "conveyor belt for terrorists" to describe Hizbut's role in radical Islam. Other scheduled witnesses include the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter.
One of the topics for the hearing will be the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in fostering extremism, a topic about which this site has been a leading source of information, from our panel on the Brotherhood's role in the formation of the Holy Land Foundation and other Muslim charities in the U.S. to numerous other posts on the MB's international influence.
The hearing is another in a series on islamic extremism held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman. The committee issued a report in May, "Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat," and I posted in May on Sen. Lieberman's efforts to convince Google to remove Internet videos produced by terrorist organizations, such as Al-Qaeda, from its YouTube subsidiary.
|
-
After Sunday’s suicide blast in the capital Islamabad, now its Karachi’s turn to face terrorists' wrath. Monday evening, the port city of Karachi was rocked by a series of 8 low intensity blasts, which have killed at least two , while injuring more than 50 odd people. Soon after, panic stricken people stoned and vandalized many shops and cars. Rioting broke out in most part of the city following these blasts.
According to media reports, the first blast occurred in a garbage dump, near the Banaras Chowk petrol pump, followed by another after a few minutes on a nearby footpath, injuring 16 persons. A third blast occurred in a truck in North Nazimabad area of Shahra-e-Noor Jehan near Sohail mosque, injuring eight. The fourth blast, in Haidri Children School, injured another eight. The fifth blast occurred in a bomb planted in motorcycle in Qasba colony, injuring a policeman and which also killed the motorcyclist himself. A policeman was injured in the sixth blast in a bicycle in Manghopir. Two simultaneous explosions occurred in Pak colony wounding more than 12.
October last year in Karachi, more than 150 people were killed in twin bombings during Benazir Bhutto's homecoming rally. Undoubtedly, these serail blasts were triggered only create an atmosphere of fear and tension in the city at large. However, the provincial government blamed on the elements who have been trying to destabilize coalition government in Sind.
Karachi has been always in the news for sectarian and political violence. Looking at the recent developments and Karachi’s history of sectarian discord, I would zeroed on the proscribed Sunni outfit, Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) or its militant wing, Lashkar-e- Jhangvi who has ties with Pro-Taliban and al Qaeda elements. SSP, late last month, had declared its new name (read ‘incarnation’) Ahle Sunnat wa Aljamaat Pakistan (ASWJP). In Karachi, SSP is powerful and pervasive. Without its knowledge or help, no underground outfit can operate freely. Monday's blasts may be a declaration of ASWJP's arrival in Pakistan's 'bloody' horizon.
|
-
As the G-8 plows forward in Hokkaido with its solutions to counter soaring crude oil prices, global inflation and increasing protectionism, in Kuala Lumpur, the Summit of the Developing Nations, or D-8, consisting of the eight most populous Islamic nations, will be announcing its own initiatives to strengthen economic development and governance in the D-8 member states of Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey.
Two years ago, meeting in Bali, the D-8 signed trade agreements to push trade, emphasized the need for universal membership of the WTO and called on members of the WTO to accelerate the accession process for all developing countries. Moreover, the D-8 urged two years ago that developing countries cooperate to develop alternative and renewable energy resources, among others bio-fuel, biomass, hydro, solar, wind; to address "the digital divide between the developed and developing countries," and to develop emerging technologies, including biotechnology. Unsurprisingly, the D-8 also called for the peaceful use of nuclear energy -- a principle demanded by Iran -- but one also supported by the G-8 as well.
Two years later, as the heads of state were meeting in Kuala Lumpur, both the promise and the limits of the D-8 process remained evident. The proposed D-8 Preferential Tariff Agreement (PTA) on selected goods of member countries remained stalled as only Malaysia and Iran of the four states necessary for it to come into force had ratified the agreement. As the summit began, Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi was emphasizing the importance of securing that agreement in order to accelerate intra D-8 trade beyond its current level of $60 billion per year. Malaysia was also emphasizing that strengthening manufacturing activities in sectors such as food, textile, electrical and electronics as well as the oil and gas industries would drive growth in trade, and thereby drive development and jobs. Malaysia's pragmatic agenda for the D-8 included the signing of customs agreements and visa agreements between member states to facilitate the movement of goods and to enable smooth travel of the business community from one member state to another.
Finally, Malaysia said it would propose that nations which gain windfalls from soaring oil prices share their profits with other developing member states hit by the current energy crisis.
There is an obvious congruence between the D-8 agenda to the G-8 agenda, which deals with each of these issues. But interesting, the D-8 agenda, while less comprehensive, is in its core area of trade, customs, and visas, more concrete than anything in the vast list of G-8 initiatives.
Notably, at the end of the D-8 summit, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono will attend the final day of the G-8 summit, to speak on food security and on climate change, thus potentially uniting the thinking of the D-8 with that of the G-8.
What is remarkable here is the degree of convergence and agreement on this agenda between the leaders of the most developed economies in the world (annual incomes circa $44,000 per capita to $32,000 per capita) and the diverse countries that make up the D-8, whose incomes range from prosperous Malaysia ($5500 per capita) to impoverished Bangladesh ($480 per capita), and which include the otherwise problematic country of Iran.
The world may not be as far apart in some central policy issues as we might think.
|
-
The death toll in the suicide bombing outside the Indian embassy in Kabul on Monday (July 07) morning reached nearly 40 and counting, with more than 140 others, mostly civilians sustained injuries. The incident took place when an explosive laden car rammed into the vehicles parked outside the Embassy in the morning as many people were waiting to collect their visas. The death of India's defense attaché Brigadier R. Mehta and political and information counselor V. Venkateswara Rao were confirmed so far. The other two Indians killed in the attack were identified as security force personnel belonging to IndoTibetan border police.
Monday’s blast was considered to be the deadliest since the U.S.-led offensive began in Afghanistan on October 2001 and first ever on Indian Embassy abroad. Indian government sources believe that this could be handiwork of Taliban, backed by Pakistan’s intelligence agency.
Timeline of major terrorist strikes in Afghanistan in 2008
April 17, 2008: A suicide bomb explodes outside a mosque in southwest Afghanistan, killing 24 people.
February 18, 2008: A suicide car bomber trying to hit a Canadian military convoy kills 38 Afghans at a crowded market in Spin Boldak, Kandahar province.
February 17, 2008: A suicide bomber penetrates a crowd watching a dog fighting competition in Kandahar, killing more than 100 civilians.
|
-
A powerful suicide explosion near Melody Square in Islamabad has left nearly 20 people including 10 security force personnel dead, with more 40 people critically injured. The Sunday evening (July 06, 2008) blast occurred in front of Aabpara police station. The blast coincided with the first year anniversary of deadly Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) raid. Earlier in the day hundreds of people, mostly supporters of Islamic radicals comprising clerics and students, descended to the streets of Islamabad to mark the anniversary. Needless to say, the weeklong raid last year marked the resurgence of Islamic violence and wave of suicide bombings across Pakistan. Government forces have stormed the pro-Taliban Mosque in July 03 last year only to evict terrorists who had taken sanctuary within it. When the Mosque administration established Shari’ah court hundreds of terrorists belonging to Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkat-ul Mujahedeen entered Islamabad and made Lal Masjid their ‘ideological shelter’.
Today’s blast according to sources, targeted at the Reserve police personnel and took place immediately after the crowd gathered near the embattled Mosque to mark the anniversary, dispersed after the meeting.
|
-
It isn’t every morning that you wake up and read in the newspaper that one of the worlds most dangerous terrorists has been released on bail but that is exactly what happened today when the New York Times reported on the release of Abu Doha (aka Amar Makhlouf, aka the Doctor, aka Rachid) from custody in the UK. For those that aren’t familiar with Abu Doha it is worth re-stating the threat he posed to American and western interests during the late 1990s and period prior to 9/11. He is widely known to have been a senior leader within the GSPC and a founder member of one of al-Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan subsequently becoming one, if not the most senior member of al-Qaeda operating in Europe. Prior to his arrest in February 2001 by a Special Branch officer, while he was attempting to flee to Saudi Arabia during operation ODIN he was responsible for: plotting an attempted attack on Los Angeles airport, a plot to bomb the US embassy in Rome, an attempt to bomb unspecified targets in Strasbourg as well as having a hand in organizing al-Qaeda cells for operations against United States targets within Germany. This is on top of the large number of recruits he managed to bring into the movement.
One of the more bizarre parts of this case is the fact that the British press is constrained from reporting who exactly this man is and have to refer to him as 'U' - no such restrictions applied to the New York Times - although the UK’s Ministry of Justice did feel able to provide the exact address of his house arrest to British journalists! (See report in the UK Guardian).
The legal problems which, have led to his release to the south-east of England stem from the collapse of the extradition case the United States was pursuing against him based on evidence provided by Ahmed Rassem (the LAX plotter). Rassem had provided full details on Doha’s involvement in pulling him from a camp in Afghanistan and sending him to Canada in order to attack LAX. However, sometime in 2003 Rassem stopped co-operating with US authorities and by the time of his trial in 2005 had ‘forgotten’ all the details he had previously supplied regarding Doha’s involvement. By then the plots Doha had been linked to in Germany and France had been through judicial procedure and these countries could no longer extradite him for involvement in those crimes. This has left the UK trying to pursue its own case against him. And herein lies the problem. For all the misplaced grandstanding of the current British government regarding 42-day pre-detention times the UK has not developed a robust counter-terrorist legal response. The latest changes in legislation do allow for the use of surveillance and wiretap evidence under some circumstances but these are so constrained as to make them practically unworkable (review of changes provided here by BBC). This makes the UK one of the weaker legal jurisdictions with regard to counter-terrorism at the same time that it faces possibly the greatest threat - it is not an accident that Abu Doha decided to base himself in the UK.
The UK is now only left with the option of continuing to attempt to extradite Abu Doha to Algeria. This doesn’t too look hopeful given the UK and EU legal requirements that individuals cannot be extradited to countries where they may face torture. There does therefore, exist the very real possibility that one of the most accomplished and dangerous terrorists to emerge from the original al-Qaeda organization may walk free. It is a testament to Doha’s quality as a terrorist that his true identity remains unknown and he is on the verge of walking away from captivity.
The ability to use accepted legal means to detain terrorists of the caliber of Abu Doha is a significant measure of a countries counter-terrorist capability -- in this the UK continues to be found wanting. The contrast with the United States policy couldn’t be starker, with al-Qaeda leaders around the world finding 500lb bombs dropped on their heads rather than house arrest that includes, ‘time in the garden only between 9am and 8pm’. Neither, of these courses is sustainable. Real legal and administrative innovation is still needed on both sides of the Atlantic which, recognizes the need for a legitimate legal process as a key element of a counter-terror policy as well as providing an effective tool for detaining the world’s most dangerous individuals.
(There are numerous articles regarding Abu Doha available across the Internet, which makes the UK's ruling that the press can only refer to him as 'U' seem misguided. Previous rulings regarding Abu Doha from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission can be found here)
|
-
Allied combat deaths in Afghanistan surpassed those in Iraq for a second straight month in June. Meanwhile, New Yorker reporter Sy Hersh writes that U.S. covert operators are infiltrating Iran.
What do these two developments have in common? Maybe nothing. But as we report in Thursday’s New York Daily News, one new factor in the record high casualties of the ever-escalating Afghan war is that American troops are suddenly dying along the country’s border with Iran.
At least 10 Americans have been killed in action since May 25 in Afghanistan’s Farah province, which lies on the Iranian border.
It’s worth noting that Hersh’s story claims U.S. operatives are cultivating Sunni allies opposed to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who live in Iran’s Baluchestan province - which just happens to abut Afghanistan’s Farah province.
According to Pentagon statements, a few of the casualties were killed during operations ostensibly in two eastern Farah districts: Gulistan and Bala Baluk, which are near Helmand province. Helmand has been the site of some of the war’s worst fighting, and U.S. and NATO commanders say they have squeezed some Taliban out of Helmand and into Farah.
But when I asked the Camp Pendleton, Calif., Marines to identify the Farah districts where their men died, I instead heard back from a New York National Guard colonel, whose task force trains Afghan National Security Forces. Lt. Col. Paul Fanning, the spokesman, wouldn’t name the undisclosed Farah districts where Americans were killed, citing "operational reasons."
"Our personnel," Fanning explained, "absolutely were not in Iran."
So what about the other American and coalition troops killed who were not involved in the ANSF training mission?
One of the fallen was in the secretive Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command - an elite new unit which basically is Marine Force Recon on steroids - though he died closer to Helmand than the Iranian border. A mysterious casualty who fell somewhere in Farah province was reported by the military on May 29, but has yet to be identified publicly because next of kin cannot be located, according to Army Capt. Christian Patterson, a spokesman for Combined Joint Task Force-101 at Bagram Airfield.
On the other side of Afghanistan, things also are heating up.
In the wake of a mid-June firefight between U.S. forces and opponents who may have been with the Pakistani Army’s notorious Frontier Corps, CJTF-101 has issued no less than six unusual statements about border clashes. A Black Hawk chopper was also shot down Tuesday near Pakistan, though without casualties. Most of the incidents were in Paktika and Khowst provinces on the border and involved rockets and mortars fired by enemy forces inside Pakistan, which were responded to by the U.S.-led coalition.
|
-
The dramatic rescue of the FARC hostages raises a host of important questions, here are a few, with short answers following and lengthy answers below:
Was the rescue the cover for an arrangement with the FARC?
Probably not.
What effect will this have on future hostage releases?
It will probably lead to more units dissolving and possibly releasing their hostages.
Colombian security used a ruse claiming to be an NGO, could such ploys undermine the legitimate role of NGOs?
Possibly, it’s complicated.
Read the in-depth answers here.
|
-
The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) appears to have responded to a published report of a potential gap in the pursuit of critical information needed for terrorist financing investigations. On June 13, Moneylaundering.Com reported that FinCEN has never forwarded special information requests, authorized under Section 314(a) of the Patriot Act, to money services businesses (MSBs) to assist in money laundering or terrorist financing investigations. Under the Act, institutions which receive "314(a) requests" are required to search records for information, determine if they had recent activity with the subject, and respond to FinCEN.
The 314(a) program was one of the investigatory innovations included in the Patriot Act while I was a counsel on the House Financial Services Committee. Financial institutions wanted to assist law enforcement on new cases and saw Section 314 as a means of providing specific information in response to a specific request. But implementation was not complete until February 2003, when an email process enabled law enforcement to send requests in batch to thousands of institutions. On March 1, 2005, FinCEN ceased using e-mail and instead posted 314(a) requests on a secure website. That system was secure enough to survive a cyber hack into FinCEN's entire e-mail list, reported first on this site in 2005.
Experts disagree on the impact of FinCEN's decision to not send 314(a) requests to MSBs. Several experts told Moneylaundering.com that the lack of requests leaves a "huge hole" in the AML-CFT regime. But a former deputy director at FinCEN said that FinCEN "purposely" left out MSBs because they "really don't have customers. We felt it would be too overwhelming for MSBs to comply or for FinCEN to even track it. For FinCEN to add MSBs, they would have to reconfigure everything and I don't think anyone is ready to take that on." I wrote on January 22 about several MSB cases as proof of the difficulty in stopping terrorists' funds flows, and we reported on the initial issuance of Patriot Act regulations on MSBs back in 2005. The first "U.S. Money Laundering Threat Assessment," issued in 2006, reported, "FBI field offices consistently identified MSBs (money service businesses) as the third-most utilized money laundering method that they encounter..." Patrice Motz, who was Chief of the Money Services Business Section at FinCEN in 2001-2002 and is now a consultant, told me, "My experience both in government and industry suggests that the government investigators could benefit greatly from directing Section 314a Requests to the larger MSBs, especially in those areas involved in money movement, including money transmitters and stored value issuers and sellers."
The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has apparently responded to the new story by issuing a new data sheet on the 314(a) requests and clarifying the criteria for sending them. Included in the fact sheet rae updated statistics on the results:
Terrorism/Terrorist Financing - 275 cases
Money Laundering - 562 cases
Convictions - 47
By comparison, as of September 2005, 314(a) requests had resulted in "157 cases involving terrorism or terrorist financing and 272 cases involving money laundering," and 10 convictions.
This issue represents another of a series which deserve review under a broad assessment of the successes and failures of the changes enacted under Title III of the Patriot Act, as I discussed in detail on May 7.
|
-
As my colleagues Jonathan Winer and Aaron Mannes have written on the Counterterrorism Blog, the spectacular operation by the Colombian military to rescue 15 high-profile hostages was a tremendous blow to the FARC in Colombia.
In the interest of full disclosure, Ingrid Bentancourt is a friend of mine, and I have written about her in the past because of her tremendous courage in acting as a beacon of light in a narco-corrupted congress, and in defiance of her own political party. On a personal level, this was tremendously good news.
As I wrote in this paper published by the NEFA Foundation just before the hostages were freed, the FARC is in a period of decline that will likely end with its implosion and fragmentation into small criminal groups.
Since March the FARC has been pummeled, lost three of its seven members of the directorate, and now, its prize hostages. The FARC's historic leader, Manuel Marulanda, the unifying force of the organization, is dead. His hand-picked successor, Raul Reyes, was killed in an army attack on his camp in Ecuador. Another member of the high command, Ivan Reyes, was killed by his own bodyguards, who collected the reward money.
Dozens of senior and mid-level commanders have deserted, including Karina, the highest-ranking woman in the FARC's ranks.
Now, a brilliantly executed rescue operation by a military that has often (and rightly) been accused of gross incompetence and corruption, takes the one thing of value (besides the cocaine laboratories) the FARC still had.
This is not random, but the product of years of work in human and signal intelligence, almost always hand-in-hand with U.S. counterparts. It is worth studying because it was done right.
Here are some of the highlights from my sources who are familiar with the operation:
The operation took more than three years to develop. The penetration of the rebel rank over time provided much of the human intelligence that was vitally needed. The infiltrators worked their way up the ranks, until they had access to both the force that protected the hostages and the FARC's general secretariat. The reports of the undercover operatives was wedded, with U.S. help, to signal intelligence, and the combination of the two fed off each other. My full blog is here.
|
-
Over the past three days, the Indonesian police counter-terrorist formation, Detachment 88, has conducted a series of raids in and around the city of Palembang in South Sumatra province. On 28 June, a Singaporean national named Alim (alias Omar, alias Taslim, alias Abu Hazam) was the first to be detained. According to the Indonesian media, Alim is a bomb-making expert who was trained in Afghanistan prior to 2001 and met Osama bin Laden on several occasions. Alim is said to have received further bomb-making instructions from Dr. Azhari Husein, the Jemaah Islamiyah bomber who was killed in a police shoot-out in East Java in October 2005.
On 1 July, eight (possibly nine) Indonesian nationals at three locations--all said to be members of Jemaah Islamiyah--were arrested. At one of these three locations, twenty assembled bombs and several kilos of explosives were found. The police are still not sure what target(s) were being contemplated by this cell.
|
-
First accounts on the rescue operation, now being provided by Colombian military officials, while still veiled on some key points, suggest that Colombia carried out a spectacularly successful sting operation in which Colombian commandos pretended to be FARC officials come to take the hostages to a new location for a possible diplomatic negotiated exchange.
According to Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos in his Bogota news conference, Colombia infiltrated FARC's 1st Squad and Secretariat. How that infitration contributed to the commando operation was not specified, beyond apparently providing the geographic location of the hostages. Whatever the mechanism -- government agents run inside FARC? -- Colombian intelligence tricked the FARC into believing that the hostages, who had been divided in three groups by the FARC, should be brought together in a single group to be handed over to FARC leader Alfonso Cano for a possible diplomatic, negotiated solution to the hostage crisis that would achieve FARC political objectives. As a result, FARC's high command agreed to travel with the hostages as a means of transferring them to Cano on a helicopter that actually belonged to the Colombian military and was actually manned by Colombian intelligence personnel.
According to Minister Santos, not only were all of the hostages safely rescued, but two senior FARC officials and some 15 other FARC soldiers were arrested in the process, also without violence.
In short, based on the facts made public so far, Colombia appears to have conducted a sting operation straight out of a spy thriller which actually worked, rescuing the hostages without a single shot being fired, dealing FARC a devastating blow.
|
-
-
The first reports about the Colombian military’s rescue of the 15 hostages held by FARC (in Spanish) indicate an impressive intelligence operation. The hostages were held in three separate locations. Colombian intelligence had infiltrated one of the FARC fronts holding the hostages as well as the FARC Secretariat. They told the front commander “Cesar” that the hostages were being transferred on the orders of FARC chief Alfonso Cano. After gathering the hostages in one location the FARC unit was met by a helicopter, ostensibly from an NGO (that doesn’t actually exist). Then the hostages were loaded onto the helicopter and the FARC commander and his deputy were taken captive to be handed over to judicial authorities. The other members of the FARC front were permitted to escape.
The fifteen hostages were rescued without firing a shot. The long nightmare of the hostages and their families is finally over.
There are many implications to this tremendous success.
Read the complete post here.
|
-
The dramatic news that Colombia had successfully rescued Ingrid Betancourt and three Americans held hostage for years by FARC terrorists represents a further break-through by the Uribe government in what has been an extraordinary year of successes against FARC.
We still don't have the details, but what is by now clear is that Colombia's decision to raid FARC camps across the border in Ecuador on March 1, which had the result of killing one of its senior leaders, Raul Reyes, and of obtaining critical intelligence held in FARC computers, provided information that in turn helped enable Colombia to secure a series of further objectives against FARC.
So far, all that is known is that the rescue took place in Eastern Colombia following months of surveillance by the Colombian government. Earlier this week, a French-Swiss mission had managed to resume contact with FARC hostage-takers. The former French consul in Bogota, Noel Saez, and the French-Swiss academic Jean-Pierre Gontard had met with a close associate of Alfonso Cano, the new FARC leader at an undisclosed location in the jungle in an effort to secure Betancourt's release. They had been authorized by the Colombian government to engage in dialogue in order to conclude a humanitarian agreement for a prisoner exchange. They were trying to restore a communication channel with the kidnappers. Clearly other things were going on at the same time. A prisoner for more than six years, Ingrid Betancourt has been reported to be in poor health. Less is known about the condition of the three US hostages kidnapped in 2003 during an anti-drug operation, Marc Gonsalves, Thomas Howes, and Keith Stansell.
This is a very big win for Colombia, which has steadfastly rejected FARC's demands for recognition, release of FARC guerrillas imprisoned by the Colombian government, and the creation of a demilitarized zone that would have allowed FARC safe-haven in designated areas. Prior to Colombia's March 1 raid, they were on a path to achieving political support for these objectives, aided by officials in Ecuador and Venezuela. With this rescue, which may well involve collaboration by defectors from within the FARC, the collapse of the FARC as a political, terrorist, and criminal force in Colombia, after 44 years, may be nearing.
|
-
In fighting Islamic supremacism, instead of an approach only based on tactical measures and efforts at clever twists of terminology, what if America had a true strategy that was instead based on the defense of our values on human equality and liberty?
The true challenge of Islamic supremacism to America and the free world is not about Islam, Islamism, or terrorism, but about us. It is a historic challenge to determine whether we truly have the courage of our convictions on equality and liberty and we are willing to fight for these ideals, or if we will instead accept the continuing growth of anti-freedom ideologies here and around the world.
Islamic supremacists are counting on their belief that America is no longer willing to fight for such freedoms, that it has gotten too soft to do so, and that regardless of the success or failure of individual Jihadist tactics, eventually we will tolerate a continued growth of Islamic supremacism. The crossroads in history that we stand at remains whether or not we will prove Islamic supremacists correct, or if the idea defined in our very Declaration of Independence and chiseled in a marble memorial in America's capital - that "all men are created equal" - is an idea that America will once again sacrifice to defend.
America and the West are at a critical crossroads in history in their faltering struggle with Islamic supremacist ideologies and Jihadist terror tactics. Increasingly, groups seek to halt any meaningful debate and halt any challenge to the ideology behind Jihad, and they seek to redirect such debate and action to focus only on the terrorist symptoms of such a supremacist ideology. Such diversionary efforts are being made by non-violent Islamic supremacist groups and activists, government officials, academics, and media commentators. The solution to this can be found in recognizing how Islamic supremacism (as any supremacist ideology) is opposed to our values, and in understanding America's historical experience in defeating other supremacist ideologies.
|
-
The tragic failure of the African Union to take any steps to sanction the fraudulent and violent regime of Robert Mugabe was a given as soon as the despot sat at the table. Because Mugabe knew his audience, or what was to be his jury.
Mugabe, correctly, told many other leaders that "their claims to power were no more legitimate than his," and chastised other for holding even worse elections than he did.
The tragedy for Africa is that Mugabe is right. And because he is right, Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, remains an open wound, hospitable to radical Islamist groups (Somalia, Kenya, South Africa etc. for al Qaeda. The west coast, from Sierra Leone to Cameroon, for Hezbollah, and the Congo as a free for all, for criminals, terrorists and rogue states) and rapacious militias (the Lord's Resistance Army) and countless criminal gangs (Nigeria being the prime example.)
It didn't help that host Egypt and main mover Libya have such wretched histories of their own in terms of elections.
In addition to Mubarak and Gadaffi, here is a partial list of those sitting in judgement of Mugabe and his thuggish regime, as I wrote about for the Washington Post My full blog is here.
|
-
Today the NEFA Foundation published a paper I wrote on the overall weakening of the FARC in Colombia and the likely options for its future development.
The new paper, "The FARC in Transition: The Fatal Weakening of the Hemisphere's Oldest Guerrilla Movement," is a followup to one I did analyzing the publicly released documents taken from the computer of the FARC's second in command, Raul Reyes, killed by Colombian troops in raid into neighboring Ecuador.
The paper posits that in the near term, the new FARC leadership-for the first time in its 44-year history dominated by urban, educated leaders rather than peasants lacking formal education-will try to launch a major military strike in order to prove its legitimacy to the rank and file.
In the long term, however, this group may be in a better position to negotiate an end to the conflict. However, in mid-term the FARC is likely to devolve into more isolated, criminal groups. Those commanders who control cocaine production and/or engage in kidnapping for ransom will survive in alliance with criminal groups, and those that have few outside sources of income will likely wither away. The consequences for the government will be the weakening of a major threat to the state, but increased criminal and drug trafficking activity.
|
|
|
|