Since The start of the new year, the world seems to be paying less attention to ISIS. So many of us were sitting on pins and needles during the various New Year's celebrations in New York, Paris, London, and other great cities around the globe, hoping not to hear any breaking news stories about terrorist attacks. We made it through the new year basically unscathed, and I think that with a huge sigh of relief, many of us went back to "business as usual" before the October 2015 Paris attacks and the December 2015 shootings in San Bernardino. The fact that the mainstream press in the United States seems intent on pushing the narrative that ISIS is being beaten on the battlefield, so its OK to do non-stop new stories about Donald Trump and the circus that has become the Republican nomination process (the Republicans are the circus, even though the Democrats are going to nominate a potential felon in Hillary Clinton or an outright lunatic in Bernie Sanders). Why is the press so intent on downplaying the threat by ISIS? Because Barack Obama told us that the threat was being exaggerated. The press always responds in a defensive posture to everything Barack Obama does. No doubt if he farted at a State Funeral, the press would blame the White House Chef. So Obama says that we aren't headed to World War III, and that ISIS is not a threat to the United States. I assume that the family members of U.S. citizens killed in San Bernardino, California, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, by persons claiming allegiance to ISIS would disagree; I know I do. ISIS has a series of strategies, each one going into effect after the previous has been accomplished (or altered by events). ISIS has reviewed the current state of the battlefield, which has it in possession of one-third of Iraq and one-half of Syria, and decided that the time is ripe to exploit its surprisingly successful international outreach efforts. The monsters making the decisions at the top of this organization are no dummies, nor will they put their equities at risk for ideology's sake (are you listening, President Obama?) We are entering a new phase in the battle with ISIS, and it includes the introduction of a new strategy.
ISIS believes that the key to successfully expand its brand of worldwide-revolution is to dedicate resources to its budding operations in nations with strong Islamic traditions. This includes all the nations of North Africa, and it includes Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Most of these nations are in no military position to fight off a serious ISIS invasion, at least not without assistance in the form of "troops on the ground". ISIS rakes in an incredible amount of money on a daily basis. Why the Obama Administration has not been able to dent this flow of financial assistance is a mystery to me, because so many pundits in the media seem to know the various sources of this support. Regardless, ISIS is intent on spreading the conflict outside of the borders of Syria and Iraq. It has been testing its ability to project itself with operations in Libya, West Africa, and Indonesia, and results have been encouraging. ISIS knows that any attention drawn to Southeast Asia or North Africa, will draw the enemy away from the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. So by increasing recruitment and eventually, attacks in Tunisia, Libya, and Pakistan, ISIS will be not only spreading the Caliphate revolution, but also forcing the United States and its lock-step European partners to devote resources and attention to other allies and battlefields. I'm still not sure where Russia fits into the picture; with all the hubbub and hardware that Putin brought to his Syria adventure, I expected much more in the way of battlefield victories by now. Assad's internal opposition will eventually disappear completely under the weight of daily Russian attacks, and Putin will be obliged to either leave Syria or attack ISIS.
Obama must be aware that ISIS is expanding all over the globe, and yet he still makes public claims diminishing the threat that ISIS actually poses. If they are so "insignificant", Mr. President, then why haven't we been able to defeat them? True, we haven't really tried. What a joke this Administration's entire Syria policy has been. We still don't know what became of the millions of taxpayer dollars and the "Free Syrian Army" we were training in Jordan to take the place of U.S. infantry. Obama still has one more year in office; no doubt it will be dedicated to domestic politics. We all know that an Executive Order of some sort will be in place before the November election. The uproar this will cause will certainly distract us all from the activities of ISIS in North Africa and Southeast Asia, but what a mess it will leave for his predecessor.
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Monday, February 1, 2016
Friday, April 10, 2015
Big Surprise.....Iran Agrees To A Treaty.
Links: A. Treaty With Iran Faces Opposition
B. Difficulty Of Inspecting/Verifying Iran's Nuclear Research
To no one's surprise, the Obama Administration's negotiators returned home with a Treaty that was acceptable to the government of Iran. This State Department, which has proven to be so woefully inept in the Middle East, Ukraine, South America, and everywhere else for that matter, manage to accomplish what no one in a decade has been able to do: get the Iranians to agree to a Treaty which would prohibit (through verification) the weaponizing of Iran's nuclear capabilities. Up to this point, the Iranians have been claiming that their only interest in nuclear research is to create energy for peaceful purposes (electricity). This type of research would be easy to monitor and verify. But the Iranians do not want Inspectors. Tehran argues that the United States, Russia, India and Pakistan achieved nuclear power without having "their sovereignty insulted", therefore why should Iran be made the exception? The last few years have borne a disturbing resemblance to the games of Saddam Hussein, with a mixture of diplomacy and indignation used to propel the Iranians ever so closer to their goal. Obviously the goal of the Iranian government is to develop a nuclear weapon not that free electricity wouldn't be a useful side benefit. Tehran would become the first Shi'a nation to achieve this goal, and the second Muslim country after Sunni Pakistan.
On its face, this issue appears to be all about the security of Israel. Over the years, various different governments in Tehran have expressed the same desire, to participate in the destruction of Israel. The most recent government has toned things down a bit, but that hasn't relaxed anyone in Tel Aviv. But the issue goes much deeper. Iran has bitter enemies in the Muslim world, especially in the Persian Gulf. Once the Obama Administration announced that discussions were taking place with Iran, their Saudis immediately ratcheted up their interest in nuclear power/weapons. The Saudis understood, just as we did, that the announcement of negotiations was nothing more than a warning that the deal was on its way. The idea that this team of negotiators would come back empty-handed was, frankly, ignorant. Obama needs this Treaty badly, as his opportunities to build some sense of a Legacy to his two-terms in office are dwindling. We have Obamacare, The end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and the removal of military forces from Iraq. We are somewhat in the midst of an effort to reform the Immigration system, but I'm not clear on how things will work themselves out, so I can't add that to the Legacy just yet. But a signed treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, that provides the Iranians with peaceful nuclear power and no weapons, something the United Nations was unable to do, would be a very nice platform on which to start building that Legacy.
I do not pretend to understand much about physics, and atomic energy was never my strong suit at University. But understanding the basics of the Iranian conundrum is not difficult. In order to produce nuclear power, enriched uranium is necessary. Because Russia has a ten-year contract to fuel Iran’s only power reactor at Bushehr, Iran has no present need for enriched uranium to generate civilian nuclear energy. But Iran has enriched uranium, and its stockpile is growing. Why, you ask, would Iran want enriched uranium if their "peaceful ambitions" (i.e., the amount of enriched uranium needed for peaceful purposes) are met by a contract signed with Russia? The reality is, nuclear weapons require uranium that has been enriched at a higher grade that what Russia is contracted to deliver. Now here is where things get complicated. Please, please hang with me, folks. You will be glad you did. Lets talk about centrifuges.
Centrifuge: A machine with a rapidly rotating container that applies centrifugal force to it's contents, typically to separate fluids of different densities. After uranium has been mined, it is processed to separate the pure uranium from the ore, which results in uranium oxide. Uranium oxide contains two types of uranium: U-235 and U-238. U-235 is what you need if you want to make a bomb or fuel a nuclear power plant. But the uranium oxide from the mine is about 99 percent U-238. So you need to somehow separate the U-235 from the U-238 and increase the amount of U-235. The process of concentrating the U-235 is called enrichment. Having the capability (and the centrifuges) to enrich uranium is the key to creating a nuclear weapon. The United Nations repeatedly expressed to Iran that a demonstrably peaceful plant would be no problem, but the Iranians have other plans. if Iran were not interested in nuclear weapons, then this issue would be complete.
The plant is almost operational, and the contract with the Russians is in place (and unnecessary, as Iran already has enriched uranium). The questions remain: will the plant come on-line with some form of Inspections Protocol in place, and will the existing sanctions continue? Although we have yet to examine even the slightest detail (why not?), the issue of inspections must be addressed because, frankly speaking, it is the most important. No doubt the treaty includes an Inspections Protocol, but does it contain the necessary elements to guarantee that Iran is not making use of higher grade uranium? Basically, the treaty must address a handful of unavoidable issues:
1) Who is responsible for the Inspections Protocol? Is it an international organization?
2) Does the protocol include on-site inspections or rely on instrumental data collection?
3) Who will measure the total amount of uranium utilized and the energy produced?
4) Since Iran has no need for the centrifuges, will they be destroyed, or delivered to an outside agency for destruction?
5) If the treaty is violated, what options have been included that will allow for the immediate cessation of all unauthorized activity?
From the moment of the initial announcement, my concern has been with the Inspections issue. We went through the same bullshit with Iraq; in fact, in the last few years, Iran has been using some of the same excuses and explanations that Hans Blix must have known by heart. And to think that Saddam Hussein was only hiding his chemical and biological weapons research. At the end of the day, the person with something to hide is the one who is most likely to delay, and obfuscate, and distract. When I have the opportunity to review the treaty in detail, I hope that I'm wrong, and that the Inspections Regime is up-to-par. This would mean that Iran does not get to choose the Inspectors (sorry, Russia and China). And its imperative that the Iranians agree to some mechanism that will allow for an international agency to have the ability to shut down whatever activity is taking place, that violates the treaty.
Excuse my cynicism, but what will probably occur, is that the Treaty will be full of loopholes, and before long, the Iranians will be in possession of at least one nuclear weapon (you don't normally make just one; I assume the first batch will include at least two). And let's face it, folks, this is the ultimate "fait accompli". Its tricky issuing orders to a country with a nuclear weapon. And then the dominoes appear, as Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., for defensive purposes only, offer to spend whatever it takes so they can have a few bombs as well. The Sunni are convinced that the Shi'a can't be trusted with that kind of power, therefore, at least for deterrence sake, a Sunni bomb is needed (Pakistan doesn't count; there is real concern that when the Pakistan delivery system is engaged, it will fly straight up for a mile, then fall right back down).
Let's have a look at the treaty.
B. Difficulty Of Inspecting/Verifying Iran's Nuclear Research
To no one's surprise, the Obama Administration's negotiators returned home with a Treaty that was acceptable to the government of Iran. This State Department, which has proven to be so woefully inept in the Middle East, Ukraine, South America, and everywhere else for that matter, manage to accomplish what no one in a decade has been able to do: get the Iranians to agree to a Treaty which would prohibit (through verification) the weaponizing of Iran's nuclear capabilities. Up to this point, the Iranians have been claiming that their only interest in nuclear research is to create energy for peaceful purposes (electricity). This type of research would be easy to monitor and verify. But the Iranians do not want Inspectors. Tehran argues that the United States, Russia, India and Pakistan achieved nuclear power without having "their sovereignty insulted", therefore why should Iran be made the exception? The last few years have borne a disturbing resemblance to the games of Saddam Hussein, with a mixture of diplomacy and indignation used to propel the Iranians ever so closer to their goal. Obviously the goal of the Iranian government is to develop a nuclear weapon not that free electricity wouldn't be a useful side benefit. Tehran would become the first Shi'a nation to achieve this goal, and the second Muslim country after Sunni Pakistan.
On its face, this issue appears to be all about the security of Israel. Over the years, various different governments in Tehran have expressed the same desire, to participate in the destruction of Israel. The most recent government has toned things down a bit, but that hasn't relaxed anyone in Tel Aviv. But the issue goes much deeper. Iran has bitter enemies in the Muslim world, especially in the Persian Gulf. Once the Obama Administration announced that discussions were taking place with Iran, their Saudis immediately ratcheted up their interest in nuclear power/weapons. The Saudis understood, just as we did, that the announcement of negotiations was nothing more than a warning that the deal was on its way. The idea that this team of negotiators would come back empty-handed was, frankly, ignorant. Obama needs this Treaty badly, as his opportunities to build some sense of a Legacy to his two-terms in office are dwindling. We have Obamacare, The end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and the removal of military forces from Iraq. We are somewhat in the midst of an effort to reform the Immigration system, but I'm not clear on how things will work themselves out, so I can't add that to the Legacy just yet. But a signed treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, that provides the Iranians with peaceful nuclear power and no weapons, something the United Nations was unable to do, would be a very nice platform on which to start building that Legacy.
I do not pretend to understand much about physics, and atomic energy was never my strong suit at University. But understanding the basics of the Iranian conundrum is not difficult. In order to produce nuclear power, enriched uranium is necessary. Because Russia has a ten-year contract to fuel Iran’s only power reactor at Bushehr, Iran has no present need for enriched uranium to generate civilian nuclear energy. But Iran has enriched uranium, and its stockpile is growing. Why, you ask, would Iran want enriched uranium if their "peaceful ambitions" (i.e., the amount of enriched uranium needed for peaceful purposes) are met by a contract signed with Russia? The reality is, nuclear weapons require uranium that has been enriched at a higher grade that what Russia is contracted to deliver. Now here is where things get complicated. Please, please hang with me, folks. You will be glad you did. Lets talk about centrifuges.
Centrifuge: A machine with a rapidly rotating container that applies centrifugal force to it's contents, typically to separate fluids of different densities. After uranium has been mined, it is processed to separate the pure uranium from the ore, which results in uranium oxide. Uranium oxide contains two types of uranium: U-235 and U-238. U-235 is what you need if you want to make a bomb or fuel a nuclear power plant. But the uranium oxide from the mine is about 99 percent U-238. So you need to somehow separate the U-235 from the U-238 and increase the amount of U-235. The process of concentrating the U-235 is called enrichment. Having the capability (and the centrifuges) to enrich uranium is the key to creating a nuclear weapon. The United Nations repeatedly expressed to Iran that a demonstrably peaceful plant would be no problem, but the Iranians have other plans. if Iran were not interested in nuclear weapons, then this issue would be complete.
The plant is almost operational, and the contract with the Russians is in place (and unnecessary, as Iran already has enriched uranium). The questions remain: will the plant come on-line with some form of Inspections Protocol in place, and will the existing sanctions continue? Although we have yet to examine even the slightest detail (why not?), the issue of inspections must be addressed because, frankly speaking, it is the most important. No doubt the treaty includes an Inspections Protocol, but does it contain the necessary elements to guarantee that Iran is not making use of higher grade uranium? Basically, the treaty must address a handful of unavoidable issues:
1) Who is responsible for the Inspections Protocol? Is it an international organization?
2) Does the protocol include on-site inspections or rely on instrumental data collection?
3) Who will measure the total amount of uranium utilized and the energy produced?
4) Since Iran has no need for the centrifuges, will they be destroyed, or delivered to an outside agency for destruction?
5) If the treaty is violated, what options have been included that will allow for the immediate cessation of all unauthorized activity?
From the moment of the initial announcement, my concern has been with the Inspections issue. We went through the same bullshit with Iraq; in fact, in the last few years, Iran has been using some of the same excuses and explanations that Hans Blix must have known by heart. And to think that Saddam Hussein was only hiding his chemical and biological weapons research. At the end of the day, the person with something to hide is the one who is most likely to delay, and obfuscate, and distract. When I have the opportunity to review the treaty in detail, I hope that I'm wrong, and that the Inspections Regime is up-to-par. This would mean that Iran does not get to choose the Inspectors (sorry, Russia and China). And its imperative that the Iranians agree to some mechanism that will allow for an international agency to have the ability to shut down whatever activity is taking place, that violates the treaty.
Excuse my cynicism, but what will probably occur, is that the Treaty will be full of loopholes, and before long, the Iranians will be in possession of at least one nuclear weapon (you don't normally make just one; I assume the first batch will include at least two). And let's face it, folks, this is the ultimate "fait accompli". Its tricky issuing orders to a country with a nuclear weapon. And then the dominoes appear, as Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., for defensive purposes only, offer to spend whatever it takes so they can have a few bombs as well. The Sunni are convinced that the Shi'a can't be trusted with that kind of power, therefore, at least for deterrence sake, a Sunni bomb is needed (Pakistan doesn't count; there is real concern that when the Pakistan delivery system is engaged, it will fly straight up for a mile, then fall right back down).
Let's have a look at the treaty.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Just How Much Separation Really Exists Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State? (Part I)
Links: A. Conflict Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
B. Are Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State at War?
If I get something wrong, I can rely upon my readers to send enough emails to ensure that I am corrected. I get so little correspondence (the email address is provided below), that I welcome a polite scolding, just for the opportunity to interact with someone who has given consideration to my perspective. And that, basically, is what the blog means to me. It provides an opportunity for me to share my perspective with an unlimited number of people around the world. Now my perspective is biased by definition. I do my best to present a balanced viewpoint, supported by my personal life experiences. But I am a citizen of the United States, and I fully believe in the exceptional nature of our Constitution and the American people; let there be no doubt that I would lay down my life for my country. But I am half-French, and I cherish every part of me that is France. That being said, I have been a world traveler, and I make a supreme effort to give full consideration to all viewpoints. One issue that seems to draw sharp dividing lines is the relationship between the two terrorist groups Al-Qaeda (AQ) and the Islamic State (IS). I have included two links that present opinions which are contrary to my own, in an effort to jump-start a conversation which is truly very important. The sources for the links I have provided, continually use information obtained from Social Media as evidence of a rift between the two organizations. We have also heard vague rumors of actual violence between the groups, and also conflict with some of the other players on the ground in Iraq, including Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) and the Khorasan Group (K). Both links are well-written and ideally sourced. I found both commentaries to be full of well-intended, useful information. But in the end, I disagree with their basic premise. I believe that AQ and IS are closely linked and work within a loose, coordinated Confederation of sorts. And the sooner we recognize this fact, the better.
Its no secret that the IS has evolved from the remnants of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). I see many similarities. The first link above continues to highlight the atrocities committed by IS and its obvious propensity towards violence, as if AQ plays the game differently. The history of the AQ movement begs to differ. AQ brought us televised beheadings from Afghanistan when such demonstrations were still good for a bit of shock value. AQ has ordered the slaughter of entire villages in Afghanistan and whole families in Pakistan. I assume that I don't have to remind anyone about the amount of blood shed on September 11, 2001, or the desecration of the bodies of three U.S. contractors in Fallujah/Ramadi during Operation Enduring Freedom. Osama bin-Laden fully understood the power of violence as a tool in both warfare and perception. Bin-Laden frequently used violence to create fear in his enemies and the public in general, who would in turn acquiesce to his will. Its not a new approach, nor is it Rocket Science (damn to hell all those clichés!). I believe the attacks of September 11 carried a different message, a declaration of war against Christianity, Judaism and the west, as represented by the United States. President George W. Bush recognized the determination in his enemy, and decided upon a course of action that will be debated until the end of time. Bush decided to force AQ into a conventional conflict, in AQ's own backyard. He used the issue of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a platform (excuse? justification?) from which to force AQ into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. He correctly deduced that AQ could not avoid the confrontation with the U.S. Army in the heart of Islam, or risk losing legitimacy with the Muslim community internationally. He was also correct in assuming that AQ would suffer logistics and funding crises, which would hamper its ability to stay active elsewhere. I don't believe Bush, Rumsfeld or the Pentagon anticipated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or the depth of the Iraqi insurgency, but before leaving office in 2008, he could be satisfied with the status quo in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bin-Laden and his elderly Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Physician-turned sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri (now that was a mouthful) obviously assessed the situation and realized early on that Bush was attempting to paint them into a corner. But for the time being, they were obliged to play the game. But Bin-Laden considered our Democratic habits to be our Achilles tendon, and in this instance he may have been correct. in 2008, the American people voted for a new direction, and a new direction is what we received. Although it didn't begin immediately, you might as well circle President Obama's first day in office as the start of the U.S. military's draw-down and eventual departure from Iraq. Bin-Laden and Zawahiri anticipated this, and focused on rebuilding their movement from the ground-up (I'm frequently including Zawahiri because he now runs the show, and we need to get accustomed to his brand of terrorism. He is methodical, detail-oriented, brilliant and probably a sociopath, and he is the enemy). If the west wanted a conventional war, then the movement was happy to oblige. First and foremost, I believe that sometime in between 2007 and 2009, AQ reviewed and rebuilt its internal security network. Bin-Laden realized that many parts of his network had been compromised and a simpler, more effective plan was put in place. The key to this plan was to limit the amount of time members engaged in face to face contact outside of the battlefield, and to severely limit all contact with Bin-Laden and Zawahiri. Steps were taken to eliminate the need for direct contact. As long as the brain could communicate with the limbs, everything else was almost superfluous. Also, a designation must exist between highly-trained, professional operatives and the continued stream of unskilled volunteers that make there way into the organization. I believe the root of the original AQ, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which trains highly skilled and motivated operatives for complex operations, still functions as it always has. What has changed is the growth of another type of operative, the foot soldier who will give the movement a resource which was sorely lacking in Afghanistan and Iraq: a conventional offensive capability.
B. Are Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State at War?
If I get something wrong, I can rely upon my readers to send enough emails to ensure that I am corrected. I get so little correspondence (the email address is provided below), that I welcome a polite scolding, just for the opportunity to interact with someone who has given consideration to my perspective. And that, basically, is what the blog means to me. It provides an opportunity for me to share my perspective with an unlimited number of people around the world. Now my perspective is biased by definition. I do my best to present a balanced viewpoint, supported by my personal life experiences. But I am a citizen of the United States, and I fully believe in the exceptional nature of our Constitution and the American people; let there be no doubt that I would lay down my life for my country. But I am half-French, and I cherish every part of me that is France. That being said, I have been a world traveler, and I make a supreme effort to give full consideration to all viewpoints. One issue that seems to draw sharp dividing lines is the relationship between the two terrorist groups Al-Qaeda (AQ) and the Islamic State (IS). I have included two links that present opinions which are contrary to my own, in an effort to jump-start a conversation which is truly very important. The sources for the links I have provided, continually use information obtained from Social Media as evidence of a rift between the two organizations. We have also heard vague rumors of actual violence between the groups, and also conflict with some of the other players on the ground in Iraq, including Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) and the Khorasan Group (K). Both links are well-written and ideally sourced. I found both commentaries to be full of well-intended, useful information. But in the end, I disagree with their basic premise. I believe that AQ and IS are closely linked and work within a loose, coordinated Confederation of sorts. And the sooner we recognize this fact, the better.
Its no secret that the IS has evolved from the remnants of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). I see many similarities. The first link above continues to highlight the atrocities committed by IS and its obvious propensity towards violence, as if AQ plays the game differently. The history of the AQ movement begs to differ. AQ brought us televised beheadings from Afghanistan when such demonstrations were still good for a bit of shock value. AQ has ordered the slaughter of entire villages in Afghanistan and whole families in Pakistan. I assume that I don't have to remind anyone about the amount of blood shed on September 11, 2001, or the desecration of the bodies of three U.S. contractors in Fallujah/Ramadi during Operation Enduring Freedom. Osama bin-Laden fully understood the power of violence as a tool in both warfare and perception. Bin-Laden frequently used violence to create fear in his enemies and the public in general, who would in turn acquiesce to his will. Its not a new approach, nor is it Rocket Science (damn to hell all those clichés!). I believe the attacks of September 11 carried a different message, a declaration of war against Christianity, Judaism and the west, as represented by the United States. President George W. Bush recognized the determination in his enemy, and decided upon a course of action that will be debated until the end of time. Bush decided to force AQ into a conventional conflict, in AQ's own backyard. He used the issue of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a platform (excuse? justification?) from which to force AQ into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. He correctly deduced that AQ could not avoid the confrontation with the U.S. Army in the heart of Islam, or risk losing legitimacy with the Muslim community internationally. He was also correct in assuming that AQ would suffer logistics and funding crises, which would hamper its ability to stay active elsewhere. I don't believe Bush, Rumsfeld or the Pentagon anticipated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or the depth of the Iraqi insurgency, but before leaving office in 2008, he could be satisfied with the status quo in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bin-Laden and his elderly Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Physician-turned sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri (now that was a mouthful) obviously assessed the situation and realized early on that Bush was attempting to paint them into a corner. But for the time being, they were obliged to play the game. But Bin-Laden considered our Democratic habits to be our Achilles tendon, and in this instance he may have been correct. in 2008, the American people voted for a new direction, and a new direction is what we received. Although it didn't begin immediately, you might as well circle President Obama's first day in office as the start of the U.S. military's draw-down and eventual departure from Iraq. Bin-Laden and Zawahiri anticipated this, and focused on rebuilding their movement from the ground-up (I'm frequently including Zawahiri because he now runs the show, and we need to get accustomed to his brand of terrorism. He is methodical, detail-oriented, brilliant and probably a sociopath, and he is the enemy). If the west wanted a conventional war, then the movement was happy to oblige. First and foremost, I believe that sometime in between 2007 and 2009, AQ reviewed and rebuilt its internal security network. Bin-Laden realized that many parts of his network had been compromised and a simpler, more effective plan was put in place. The key to this plan was to limit the amount of time members engaged in face to face contact outside of the battlefield, and to severely limit all contact with Bin-Laden and Zawahiri. Steps were taken to eliminate the need for direct contact. As long as the brain could communicate with the limbs, everything else was almost superfluous. Also, a designation must exist between highly-trained, professional operatives and the continued stream of unskilled volunteers that make there way into the organization. I believe the root of the original AQ, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which trains highly skilled and motivated operatives for complex operations, still functions as it always has. What has changed is the growth of another type of operative, the foot soldier who will give the movement a resource which was sorely lacking in Afghanistan and Iraq: a conventional offensive capability.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Review Of The Fight Against Islamic Extremism since 2009
Link: A. What Is Our Strategy To Defeat Terrorism?
B. After Paris, Will Obama Administration Move Against Terrorism?
Barrack Obama has been in office since January 2009. In 2008, his campaign for the White House targeted the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy, as opposed to the ideas and platform of his opponent, Senator John McCain. Obama had a field day going after Bush, who was an easy target. What is it about the Bushes, that they seem so incompetent when it comes to self-defense? I remember when Bush Senior, while expressing indignation at the Clinton Campaign in 1992, could find nothing harsher than "Bozos" to call his detractors. Ouch? Obama criticized the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and openly hypothesized that Bush's "personal" obsession with Saddam Hussein was the reason we had yet to catch Osama Bin-Laden. The Democrats were energized, and were absolutely focused and driven in recruiting new voters and getting them to the polls. I can recall Obama's criticism of Bush quite clearly; what I can't remember is an Obama anti-terrorism plan. Was he planning on pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and using the resources to exclusively search for Bin Laden? Can anyone help me out here? In 2008, during the election, what were Obama's intentions regarding Al-Qaeda? It must have been in the Party Platform that was agreed upon at the convention. I am anxious to determine just how closely Obama followed his own plan.
The truth is, there wasn't a plan. What was important was getting the troops out of Iraq. I can't fault the Administration there; the American people were more than ready to turn the page on that chapter as well. But if my memory serves me correctly, the Democrats and the left never really separated Afghanistan and Iraq. The plan was to disengage from both countries at the earliest opportunity. Once Obama was in office, he realized that Afghanistan was going to be a bit trickier than Iraq, which explains why we are still there. Another issue that was important to Obama (and something he openly intended to do all along) was the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. You can bet your last Cuban peso that Guantanamo will be closed before he leaves office. But aside from the departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closing of Guantanamo, what policy or
plan did Obama have for dealing with Al-Qaeda and the like? The apology-tour must have been part of someone's plan, because something like that doesn't get decided over night. Strange that during the campaign, he didn't announce his intention to travel to the Middle East, apologizing about the brutish behavior and U.S. history of bullying, to anyone who would listen. And no doubt, behind closed doors, he also announced that Israel would no longer be getting a "free ride", and that the Arabs and Palestinians finally had a friend in the White House. I'm positive this message was shared, if not by Obama directly, then by Hillary and her team of State Department apologists. The coup de grace was Obama's speech in Cairo. Obama certainly has some strong feelings about the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, but did he mention any of this during the campaign? I don't think the American people would have taken well to our president groveling in front of this particular group of people. Did I say grovel? Remember, this is only my opinion. I saw his attitude as an effort to make the United States appear as a racist, guilty, internally-broken country.
Instead of over-analyzing President Obama, let's get back to the review of terrorism in the world since he took office. Let's do this by continent, shall we?
B. After Paris, Will Obama Administration Move Against Terrorism?
Barrack Obama has been in office since January 2009. In 2008, his campaign for the White House targeted the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy, as opposed to the ideas and platform of his opponent, Senator John McCain. Obama had a field day going after Bush, who was an easy target. What is it about the Bushes, that they seem so incompetent when it comes to self-defense? I remember when Bush Senior, while expressing indignation at the Clinton Campaign in 1992, could find nothing harsher than "Bozos" to call his detractors. Ouch? Obama criticized the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and openly hypothesized that Bush's "personal" obsession with Saddam Hussein was the reason we had yet to catch Osama Bin-Laden. The Democrats were energized, and were absolutely focused and driven in recruiting new voters and getting them to the polls. I can recall Obama's criticism of Bush quite clearly; what I can't remember is an Obama anti-terrorism plan. Was he planning on pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and using the resources to exclusively search for Bin Laden? Can anyone help me out here? In 2008, during the election, what were Obama's intentions regarding Al-Qaeda? It must have been in the Party Platform that was agreed upon at the convention. I am anxious to determine just how closely Obama followed his own plan.
The truth is, there wasn't a plan. What was important was getting the troops out of Iraq. I can't fault the Administration there; the American people were more than ready to turn the page on that chapter as well. But if my memory serves me correctly, the Democrats and the left never really separated Afghanistan and Iraq. The plan was to disengage from both countries at the earliest opportunity. Once Obama was in office, he realized that Afghanistan was going to be a bit trickier than Iraq, which explains why we are still there. Another issue that was important to Obama (and something he openly intended to do all along) was the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. You can bet your last Cuban peso that Guantanamo will be closed before he leaves office. But aside from the departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closing of Guantanamo, what policy or
 |
| Barak Obama at Cairo Univ. 6/4/2009 Source: The Official White House Photostream-Flickr |
Instead of over-analyzing President Obama, let's get back to the review of terrorism in the world since he took office. Let's do this by continent, shall we?
- North America: The attack at the Boston Marathon was handled brilliantly by local authorities and because of this, the casualty rate was low. The FBI has disrupted a number of planned domestic attacks; remember, the news media doesn't always know what's happening behind the scenes.
- South America: The Islamic Extremist community has been involved in criminal activity in South America for sometime. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have a history of operating in the Tri-Border Region (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina), and recently Al-Qaeda has arrived. Since the 1994 terrorist attack at the Jewish community office in Buenos Aires, the majority of the Jewish population has emigrated from Argentina. And let's not ignore the fact that a number of South American governments are openly Socialist, and hostile to the United States (Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina).
- Africa: Al-Qaeda is having a field day in Africa. The organization is growing in size and influence in West Africa, and its surrogate Boko Haram has repeatedly embarrassed the Nigerian Army. In the East, Al-Shabaab has become more active in Kenya, taking advantage of the endemic poverty and lack of jobs, to recruit in the townships. In the last few years, Al-Shabaab has successfully conducted a number of high-casualty terrorist operations. They have no fear of operating in Mombasa, and enjoy shooting up the wealthier suburbs of Nairobi. The South African anti-terrorism unit of the SAP had better be keeping a close eye on its townships, especially the ones with high-immigrant populations. Al-Qaeda and ISIS are there as we speak, recruiting jobless, disaffected young men — especially those with military experience.
- Europe: Besides the highly-publicized recent episodes in Paris, the UK has also suffered through a number of terrorist-related attacks. No doubt the governments and police of Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, etc., are keeping tight-lipped about the number of operations they have disrupted.
- Australia: Late last year, Australia suffered is own horrific pro-ISIS attack in a cafe in Sydney.
- Asia, which includes Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and is just too much for me to tackle in this post. Thank goodness the terrorists haven't reached Greenland…yet.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Why Is Pakistan So Welcoming To Islamic Extremists?
Links: A. Pakistan Wikipedia
B. Pakistan Bans Terror Groups In Word Only
C. Al-Qaeda Active And Influential In Pakistan
D. Pakistani Support For Extremists Persists
(Quick personal comment: I am so grateful to all of you who come to this blog to read my commentaries. I do my very best to include as much substance and fact as I do opinion, but by the end of the post, I will express my perspective on whatever issue I am discussing. I welcome opposing viewpoints; most of the opinions I have today are variations of what they once were. We have to learn to evolve our opinions in the face of presented facts that were previously unknown to us. It is a sign of maturity and goodwill. Also, if you do enjoy my posts, please recommend the blog to other persons who you believe might also find it interesting. An unavoidable reality is that growth is essential in this medium, especially given the number of like-minded commentaries.)
I always find myself battling the need to keep my posts at a reasonable length. I don't like to split a commentary into "Part I" and "Part II", because the uninterrupted flow of the conversation is essential. But occasionally I give myself no choice. Writing about Pakistan is a huge challenge. As a nation, Pakistan has existed less than sixty years. But it feels like an old soul, with many grievances to be addressed. Please forgive me for this unworthy and inadequate review of Pakistani history, but a respectable effort would require a Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV....you get the picture. What we know as Pakistan today was originally part of India. When Great Britain decided to grant independence to India, it was decided that the Predominantly Muslim North Western and Eastern Provinces would be partitioned to create the nation of Pakistan. Oddly enough, the British partition of India created two pieces of Muslim Pakistan separated by a giant India with a huge Hindu majority. Twenty-four years following the partition, Eastern Pakistan suffered a bloody Civil War, with the opposition openly supported by India. Without the possibility of reinforcements and supplies, the Pakistani forces eventually surrendered, and the nation of Bangladesh is the result. Given that relations between Pakistan and India were already less-than-friendly, India's interference in what Pakistan considered to be an internal rebellion, caused even more difficulties for the two nations. Eventually, Islamabad and New Delhi might very well have healed the right, if it weren't for the Province of Punjab. The far-north, mountainous area is almost equally divided in population between Muslims and Hindus (depending on whose census you believe), and Pakistan has always believed that it should have been included in the original partition. India is just as adamant that it belongs to India. This beautiful but almost inaccessible land has been a bone of contention ever since, and has come close to igniting a war between two nuclear powers.
I'm not writing this post to sink myself into the quick-sand of Pakistani-Indian history, so I will move on from the issue of relations with India. Suffice to say that the two nations have never been friends, although a few times in the last decade, serious diplomatic efforts resulting in face-to-face meetings between the two Prime Ministers, have given rise to optimism. Frankly speaking I find it hard to believe, and a bit disgusting that both of these nations have nuclear weapons. In order to reach that level of technology, a huge amount of resources must have been expended, by two countries who still have trouble feeding their people. That makes no sense to me. The huge defense expenditures allocated by both governments, compared to funds set aside for housing, education and social welfare programs, is astonishing and should be a national embarrassment. And the real tragedy is that both countries are armed to the teeth because of the threat posed by their neighbor. The fact the Pakistan has nuclear weapons is more disturbing because of the unstable nature of Pakistani politics. People get assassinated in Pakistan (also in India) and governments fall. I am forced to look at Pakistan through red, white and blue glasses. I can't allow myself to be distracted by the sorry state of affairs with India, and the complete lack of opportunity and hope for the young people of Pakistan. For one reason and another, this nation has become the world's largest safe house for Al-Qaeda and probably a bunch of other nasty groups as well. The pillars that constitute the government of Pakistan have been infiltrated for decades by the bad guys, and I'm not referring to the bribes the average Pakistani has to pay to get a license to wipe his ass and water his yard. The Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI) is rotten to the core with Al-Qaeda sympathizers, as are all branches of the military. The civilian government is not nearly as corrupted by extremists, but it certainly has its share of thieves. In fact, the presence of the corruption is what allowed the extremists in to begin with. The people of Pakistan are only being reasonable. They voted for the party of capitalism and it failed them. They elected a bunch of socialists, who also robbed them blind. So who can blame them for looking towards the traditional, religious answer, especially when it delivers food?
If anyone has any question regarding the depth of extremist influence in the Pakistani military and security service, just remind yourself that Osama Bin-Laden's compound in Abbottabad was located across the street from the Pakistani Military Academy. That juxtaposition was not accidental, it was meant to discourage any raids like the one that occurred. Zawahiri is in Pakistan as well. he is probably closing in on ninety yrs. old, and not many sick, whiny, spoiled Egyptian intellectuals will choose a cave in Afghanistan over a house. Why do the people of Pakistan provide safe haven to terrorists? The answer is not as complicated as some people want it to be. Because of the economic situation in Pakistan ($3,100 per capita income) and the lack of employment opportunities (officially unemployment is 5.1 percent, but in reality its closer to 30 percent), the younger generation, which continues to grow, has little hope or opportunity for the future. When I was in Pakistan, I was always taken aback by the number of young men walking the streets during the day, every day. From habit, I said to myself, "shouldn't they be at college or at work?" These young men are the perfect targets for groups like Al-Qaeda, who will blame the west, and Israel, and India, and their complacent government, for all the ills of Pakistani society. And when Al-Qaeda hosts a blame party, they do it right. whoever is on the receiving end isn't just the trouble maker, they are the enemy, THE DEVIL, and they will never allow you to better your condition or improve the lives of your relatives. The crusade to blame the west and Israel (even more so than India, who is only a seasonal bad guy) has been so successful, that the terrorists and their support network can find sympathizers on every street, on every block, and in every city. There is an entire segment of Pakistani society that is vehemently opposed to the message of Islamic extremism; they have my support and admiration but I fear that they are fighting a losing battle.
Pakistan continues to give the appearance of a politically moderate Muslim nation. In the United Nations, it votes with the anti-Israel bloc, but on other issues, Pakistan is known to support the United States, especially regarding Russia. On the other hand, Pakistan has developed a warm relationship with China, a development which originated with the ignorant decision on the part of the United States to accept payment from Pakistan for some F16s, and then decide not to deliver them. Its my understanding that diplomatic efforts were made to address and rectify that particular insult, thank goodness. The Pakistani government has given the U.S. military a surprisingly free hand to deal with the Taliban, especially on the border. The U.S. military continues to train and equip the Pakistani Army and Air Force (what they don't get from China), and the United States can rely on some internal support, especially from the military High Command. But the issue isn't limited to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban moving back-and-forth across the border, or with the activities of extremist groups in Waziristan. The United States must address the alarming fact that Al-Qaeda militants likely have safe-houses in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. If this tumor living within Pakistani society becomes a cancer, and extremists take control of the Pakistani government, then we have a real problem. A nuclear Iran and a nuclear Pakistan, both controlled by Islamic extremists. I don't believe we have reached that point just yet. I would like to believe that secular Pakistan will win the day, but the battle is for the hearts and minds of the young, not the middle-aged and old. Those who love a secular and peaceful Pakistan must find a way to end corruption and provide opportunities for this generation and the one coming up right behind. Otherwise they won't hesitate to listen to another message.
B. Pakistan Bans Terror Groups In Word Only
C. Al-Qaeda Active And Influential In Pakistan
D. Pakistani Support For Extremists Persists
(Quick personal comment: I am so grateful to all of you who come to this blog to read my commentaries. I do my very best to include as much substance and fact as I do opinion, but by the end of the post, I will express my perspective on whatever issue I am discussing. I welcome opposing viewpoints; most of the opinions I have today are variations of what they once were. We have to learn to evolve our opinions in the face of presented facts that were previously unknown to us. It is a sign of maturity and goodwill. Also, if you do enjoy my posts, please recommend the blog to other persons who you believe might also find it interesting. An unavoidable reality is that growth is essential in this medium, especially given the number of like-minded commentaries.)
I always find myself battling the need to keep my posts at a reasonable length. I don't like to split a commentary into "Part I" and "Part II", because the uninterrupted flow of the conversation is essential. But occasionally I give myself no choice. Writing about Pakistan is a huge challenge. As a nation, Pakistan has existed less than sixty years. But it feels like an old soul, with many grievances to be addressed. Please forgive me for this unworthy and inadequate review of Pakistani history, but a respectable effort would require a Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV....you get the picture. What we know as Pakistan today was originally part of India. When Great Britain decided to grant independence to India, it was decided that the Predominantly Muslim North Western and Eastern Provinces would be partitioned to create the nation of Pakistan. Oddly enough, the British partition of India created two pieces of Muslim Pakistan separated by a giant India with a huge Hindu majority. Twenty-four years following the partition, Eastern Pakistan suffered a bloody Civil War, with the opposition openly supported by India. Without the possibility of reinforcements and supplies, the Pakistani forces eventually surrendered, and the nation of Bangladesh is the result. Given that relations between Pakistan and India were already less-than-friendly, India's interference in what Pakistan considered to be an internal rebellion, caused even more difficulties for the two nations. Eventually, Islamabad and New Delhi might very well have healed the right, if it weren't for the Province of Punjab. The far-north, mountainous area is almost equally divided in population between Muslims and Hindus (depending on whose census you believe), and Pakistan has always believed that it should have been included in the original partition. India is just as adamant that it belongs to India. This beautiful but almost inaccessible land has been a bone of contention ever since, and has come close to igniting a war between two nuclear powers.
I'm not writing this post to sink myself into the quick-sand of Pakistani-Indian history, so I will move on from the issue of relations with India. Suffice to say that the two nations have never been friends, although a few times in the last decade, serious diplomatic efforts resulting in face-to-face meetings between the two Prime Ministers, have given rise to optimism. Frankly speaking I find it hard to believe, and a bit disgusting that both of these nations have nuclear weapons. In order to reach that level of technology, a huge amount of resources must have been expended, by two countries who still have trouble feeding their people. That makes no sense to me. The huge defense expenditures allocated by both governments, compared to funds set aside for housing, education and social welfare programs, is astonishing and should be a national embarrassment. And the real tragedy is that both countries are armed to the teeth because of the threat posed by their neighbor. The fact the Pakistan has nuclear weapons is more disturbing because of the unstable nature of Pakistani politics. People get assassinated in Pakistan (also in India) and governments fall. I am forced to look at Pakistan through red, white and blue glasses. I can't allow myself to be distracted by the sorry state of affairs with India, and the complete lack of opportunity and hope for the young people of Pakistan. For one reason and another, this nation has become the world's largest safe house for Al-Qaeda and probably a bunch of other nasty groups as well. The pillars that constitute the government of Pakistan have been infiltrated for decades by the bad guys, and I'm not referring to the bribes the average Pakistani has to pay to get a license to wipe his ass and water his yard. The Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI) is rotten to the core with Al-Qaeda sympathizers, as are all branches of the military. The civilian government is not nearly as corrupted by extremists, but it certainly has its share of thieves. In fact, the presence of the corruption is what allowed the extremists in to begin with. The people of Pakistan are only being reasonable. They voted for the party of capitalism and it failed them. They elected a bunch of socialists, who also robbed them blind. So who can blame them for looking towards the traditional, religious answer, especially when it delivers food?
If anyone has any question regarding the depth of extremist influence in the Pakistani military and security service, just remind yourself that Osama Bin-Laden's compound in Abbottabad was located across the street from the Pakistani Military Academy. That juxtaposition was not accidental, it was meant to discourage any raids like the one that occurred. Zawahiri is in Pakistan as well. he is probably closing in on ninety yrs. old, and not many sick, whiny, spoiled Egyptian intellectuals will choose a cave in Afghanistan over a house. Why do the people of Pakistan provide safe haven to terrorists? The answer is not as complicated as some people want it to be. Because of the economic situation in Pakistan ($3,100 per capita income) and the lack of employment opportunities (officially unemployment is 5.1 percent, but in reality its closer to 30 percent), the younger generation, which continues to grow, has little hope or opportunity for the future. When I was in Pakistan, I was always taken aback by the number of young men walking the streets during the day, every day. From habit, I said to myself, "shouldn't they be at college or at work?" These young men are the perfect targets for groups like Al-Qaeda, who will blame the west, and Israel, and India, and their complacent government, for all the ills of Pakistani society. And when Al-Qaeda hosts a blame party, they do it right. whoever is on the receiving end isn't just the trouble maker, they are the enemy, THE DEVIL, and they will never allow you to better your condition or improve the lives of your relatives. The crusade to blame the west and Israel (even more so than India, who is only a seasonal bad guy) has been so successful, that the terrorists and their support network can find sympathizers on every street, on every block, and in every city. There is an entire segment of Pakistani society that is vehemently opposed to the message of Islamic extremism; they have my support and admiration but I fear that they are fighting a losing battle.
Pakistan continues to give the appearance of a politically moderate Muslim nation. In the United Nations, it votes with the anti-Israel bloc, but on other issues, Pakistan is known to support the United States, especially regarding Russia. On the other hand, Pakistan has developed a warm relationship with China, a development which originated with the ignorant decision on the part of the United States to accept payment from Pakistan for some F16s, and then decide not to deliver them. Its my understanding that diplomatic efforts were made to address and rectify that particular insult, thank goodness. The Pakistani government has given the U.S. military a surprisingly free hand to deal with the Taliban, especially on the border. The U.S. military continues to train and equip the Pakistani Army and Air Force (what they don't get from China), and the United States can rely on some internal support, especially from the military High Command. But the issue isn't limited to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban moving back-and-forth across the border, or with the activities of extremist groups in Waziristan. The United States must address the alarming fact that Al-Qaeda militants likely have safe-houses in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. If this tumor living within Pakistani society becomes a cancer, and extremists take control of the Pakistani government, then we have a real problem. A nuclear Iran and a nuclear Pakistan, both controlled by Islamic extremists. I don't believe we have reached that point just yet. I would like to believe that secular Pakistan will win the day, but the battle is for the hearts and minds of the young, not the middle-aged and old. Those who love a secular and peaceful Pakistan must find a way to end corruption and provide opportunities for this generation and the one coming up right behind. Otherwise they won't hesitate to listen to another message.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
An Examination Of Al-Qaeda In 2015
Links: A. Who's Left To Lead Al-Qaeda?
B. Al-Qaeda (Arab. Peninsula) Attempts to Counter Drones
I can't recall who was chosen as Time magazine's "Person of the Year - 2014", but the Islamic State (IS) would have been as good a choice as any (as long as bad guys get to play as well). The frequent stories from northern Iraq about mass executions and starving children at least elevated IS to the "most despised" position. The stated goal of the Islamic State is the creation of a Caliphate somewhere in the Levant/Mesopotamia/North Africa/Arabian Peninsula, and in furtherance of that goal, the IS is engaged in a conventional war in both Syria and Iraq. It would appear that the IS has pushed Al-Qaeda not only from the front page, but all the way to the back next to Dear Abby. Our Air Force is in regular combat with the IS, and we are providing military aid to the Free Syrian Army, the Iraqis and the Kurds, so it only makes sense that 2014 came with a steady diet of news on the IS. For those of us who are obsessed with staying informed, the blogosphere is a miracle. I can hop over to www.longwarjournal.org at any time for an update on Al-Qaeda. The truth is, the death of Osama Bin Laden did not lead to the collapse of AQ. Long before Abbottabad, Bin Laden had restructured the Al-Qaeda network of communications and operations, to avoid dependence on any one leader. The virus that is Al-Qaeda is still very active in certain parts of the world. Let's take stock of Al-Qaeda as 2015 begins.
Pakistan/Afghanistan - it would be foolish for anyone to claim that Al-Qaeda is stronger anywhere else in the world than Pakistan and Afghanistan. For reasons of simplification, I consider the Taliban to be "Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan". Does the Pakistani government expect the American people to believe that no one in the Pakistani Intelligence Service or military was aware that Bin Laden and his immediate family were living in Abbottabad? Bullshit. The Pakistani Intelligence Service has a number of very dedicated, decent officers, many of whom are pro-West in political orientation. But it also contains a traditional, deep-rooted vein of support for both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. More importantly, it appears that the people of Pakistan support AQ. How long has it been since an international sampling/polling company like Gallup has provided numbers on the sympathies of the Pakistani people? No need to take a poll....just listen to the people on the street. They hate the British (even though it seems as if half of London is Pakistani), hate the United States and REALLY hate India. Lots of hate going around, which isn't surprising, given the perpetual state of endemic poverty the Pakistani people wake up to every morning. Sadly, I'm losing my sympathy in old age. Stop having so many damn kids, stop electing thieves, and stop spending over fifty percent of the nation's budget on nuclear research and weapons to aim at India. As is my habit, I've gotten off-topic; my apologies. The point is, Al-Qaeda is safe in Pakistan and Afghanistan. At times over the past ten years, we were close to eradicating AQ in Afghanistan. But the draw-down and the confusing policy of the Obama Administration has allowed for a full rejuvenation of AQ influence and control.
Iraq - I don't believe that AQ has any current interest in Iraq, although I have seen reports of recruiting efforts in the Sunni community and also training bases in the far west of the country. As MB pointed out last summer, the IS was actually born of an AQ parent. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, led by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, began to lose steam in 2007-2008, as the Sunni people grew tired of the violence and constant warfare, and withdrew support. Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually ended up in Syria and re-emerged with a different name and a different mission. But make no mistake - the IS is a Sunni-based group with numerous similarities to AQ. I have always suspected that the lines of communication between the IS and AQ are much more active than people are willing to admit. It behooves both organizations to make the west believe that the IS and AQ are two separate, very distinct groups working towards a different agenda. It leaves the impression that Islamic Extremism is a growing umbrella movement with room for many, many more, and that agreement on all issues is not required.
Yemen - Al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been active for over a decade, trying to remove the current government and replace it with...well, AQAP. The conflict in Yemen is a microcosm of the conflict in Iraq. Not only are the Sunni fighting amongst themselves (the secular government against AQAP), but the large Shia population has armed itself and made its presence known. And in the middle is the United States, with a substantial military footprint in Yemen and drones flying around everywhere, looking for AQAP to blow to bits. I understand that the Shia are determined to keep AQAP from succeeding in Yemen, just as the continued presence of U.S. military in Yemen (that includes the U.S. Navy) will keep AQAP pissed off enough to stay in the fight. Yemen has provided Al-Qaeda with the perfect environment to train its new recruits, as AQAP has demonstrated that it is in possession of the latest weaponry (although I'm not sold on the Jiffy-Pop tablecloth as the best way to avoid a drone strike...see link #2).
Africa - Al-Qaeda is very active in Africa, and, unfortunately, very healthy. AQ has a definite presence in Libya, but I am guessing they are playing the same game as us; waiting for the dust to clear. Al-Qaeda has proven to be a very patient organization, which I believe is more the philosophy of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the crusty old psychopath who took over after Bin Laden took a couple bullets to the front right side of his head. Dr. Zawahiri is all about the methodology (he is a physician, after all), and he is probably the one who has orchestrated the "sleeper cell" operation, if one exists (scary thought). Al-Qaeda in Africa is most active under the moniker "Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb", with the Maghreb being that hard-to-define area that is basically west of Egypt and north of Mali, Niger, Mauritania and Chad. Actually, I consider the northern half of Mali, Niger and Chad to be part of the Maghreb. Al-Qaeda has used Islam to propel its message from oasis to oasis and campsite to campsite. In some of the struggling communities they have found a receptive audience. Al-Qaeda's most receptive audiences, though, are in the northern parts of Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali and Niger. These people have been forsaken by their governments for one reason or another (usually because the president and the ruling party are from a tribe of economically successful southerners). Boko Haram, for all its radical ideas, and the Lord's Resistance Army, for all its insanity, have found recruits around every corner. Africa presents an opportunity for AQ to recruit heavily and to create a second base of security (after Afghanistan).
Southeast Asia - Al-Qaeda has always been comfortable in Indonesia and the Philippines, where the government is always in the midst of some new effort to root out the communist insurgency that has been active since Karl Marx was in short pants (or at least seems like it). Indonesia is another country which provides AQ the opportunity to spread its message through the mosques and Islamic educational centers on Java. In the last two decades, the transportation network in this part of the world has grown by leaps and bounds. Flying from Malaysia to Australia, or Singapore to Beijing, or Vientiane to Manila, is as simple as buying a ticket, and the arrival of the no-frills airlines (AirAsia being a good example) has made air travel affordable. This complicates matters for security personnel in every country. Its as if even Al-Qaeda can have conference calls in 2015. Indonesia also presents fertile ground for recruitment, and the mosques have a bad reputation for preaching some really nasty, anti-U.S., anti-Aussie propaganda.
My next post will focus exclusively on Al-Qaeda on Africa, with other geographic locations to follow. I consider Al-Qaeda, not the Islamic State, be the number one international terror threat to the United States.
B. Al-Qaeda (Arab. Peninsula) Attempts to Counter Drones
I can't recall who was chosen as Time magazine's "Person of the Year - 2014", but the Islamic State (IS) would have been as good a choice as any (as long as bad guys get to play as well). The frequent stories from northern Iraq about mass executions and starving children at least elevated IS to the "most despised" position. The stated goal of the Islamic State is the creation of a Caliphate somewhere in the Levant/Mesopotamia/North Africa/Arabian Peninsula, and in furtherance of that goal, the IS is engaged in a conventional war in both Syria and Iraq. It would appear that the IS has pushed Al-Qaeda not only from the front page, but all the way to the back next to Dear Abby. Our Air Force is in regular combat with the IS, and we are providing military aid to the Free Syrian Army, the Iraqis and the Kurds, so it only makes sense that 2014 came with a steady diet of news on the IS. For those of us who are obsessed with staying informed, the blogosphere is a miracle. I can hop over to www.longwarjournal.org at any time for an update on Al-Qaeda. The truth is, the death of Osama Bin Laden did not lead to the collapse of AQ. Long before Abbottabad, Bin Laden had restructured the Al-Qaeda network of communications and operations, to avoid dependence on any one leader. The virus that is Al-Qaeda is still very active in certain parts of the world. Let's take stock of Al-Qaeda as 2015 begins.
Pakistan/Afghanistan - it would be foolish for anyone to claim that Al-Qaeda is stronger anywhere else in the world than Pakistan and Afghanistan. For reasons of simplification, I consider the Taliban to be "Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan". Does the Pakistani government expect the American people to believe that no one in the Pakistani Intelligence Service or military was aware that Bin Laden and his immediate family were living in Abbottabad? Bullshit. The Pakistani Intelligence Service has a number of very dedicated, decent officers, many of whom are pro-West in political orientation. But it also contains a traditional, deep-rooted vein of support for both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. More importantly, it appears that the people of Pakistan support AQ. How long has it been since an international sampling/polling company like Gallup has provided numbers on the sympathies of the Pakistani people? No need to take a poll....just listen to the people on the street. They hate the British (even though it seems as if half of London is Pakistani), hate the United States and REALLY hate India. Lots of hate going around, which isn't surprising, given the perpetual state of endemic poverty the Pakistani people wake up to every morning. Sadly, I'm losing my sympathy in old age. Stop having so many damn kids, stop electing thieves, and stop spending over fifty percent of the nation's budget on nuclear research and weapons to aim at India. As is my habit, I've gotten off-topic; my apologies. The point is, Al-Qaeda is safe in Pakistan and Afghanistan. At times over the past ten years, we were close to eradicating AQ in Afghanistan. But the draw-down and the confusing policy of the Obama Administration has allowed for a full rejuvenation of AQ influence and control.
Iraq - I don't believe that AQ has any current interest in Iraq, although I have seen reports of recruiting efforts in the Sunni community and also training bases in the far west of the country. As MB pointed out last summer, the IS was actually born of an AQ parent. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, led by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, began to lose steam in 2007-2008, as the Sunni people grew tired of the violence and constant warfare, and withdrew support. Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually ended up in Syria and re-emerged with a different name and a different mission. But make no mistake - the IS is a Sunni-based group with numerous similarities to AQ. I have always suspected that the lines of communication between the IS and AQ are much more active than people are willing to admit. It behooves both organizations to make the west believe that the IS and AQ are two separate, very distinct groups working towards a different agenda. It leaves the impression that Islamic Extremism is a growing umbrella movement with room for many, many more, and that agreement on all issues is not required.
Yemen - Al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been active for over a decade, trying to remove the current government and replace it with...well, AQAP. The conflict in Yemen is a microcosm of the conflict in Iraq. Not only are the Sunni fighting amongst themselves (the secular government against AQAP), but the large Shia population has armed itself and made its presence known. And in the middle is the United States, with a substantial military footprint in Yemen and drones flying around everywhere, looking for AQAP to blow to bits. I understand that the Shia are determined to keep AQAP from succeeding in Yemen, just as the continued presence of U.S. military in Yemen (that includes the U.S. Navy) will keep AQAP pissed off enough to stay in the fight. Yemen has provided Al-Qaeda with the perfect environment to train its new recruits, as AQAP has demonstrated that it is in possession of the latest weaponry (although I'm not sold on the Jiffy-Pop tablecloth as the best way to avoid a drone strike...see link #2).
Africa - Al-Qaeda is very active in Africa, and, unfortunately, very healthy. AQ has a definite presence in Libya, but I am guessing they are playing the same game as us; waiting for the dust to clear. Al-Qaeda has proven to be a very patient organization, which I believe is more the philosophy of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the crusty old psychopath who took over after Bin Laden took a couple bullets to the front right side of his head. Dr. Zawahiri is all about the methodology (he is a physician, after all), and he is probably the one who has orchestrated the "sleeper cell" operation, if one exists (scary thought). Al-Qaeda in Africa is most active under the moniker "Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb", with the Maghreb being that hard-to-define area that is basically west of Egypt and north of Mali, Niger, Mauritania and Chad. Actually, I consider the northern half of Mali, Niger and Chad to be part of the Maghreb. Al-Qaeda has used Islam to propel its message from oasis to oasis and campsite to campsite. In some of the struggling communities they have found a receptive audience. Al-Qaeda's most receptive audiences, though, are in the northern parts of Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali and Niger. These people have been forsaken by their governments for one reason or another (usually because the president and the ruling party are from a tribe of economically successful southerners). Boko Haram, for all its radical ideas, and the Lord's Resistance Army, for all its insanity, have found recruits around every corner. Africa presents an opportunity for AQ to recruit heavily and to create a second base of security (after Afghanistan).
Southeast Asia - Al-Qaeda has always been comfortable in Indonesia and the Philippines, where the government is always in the midst of some new effort to root out the communist insurgency that has been active since Karl Marx was in short pants (or at least seems like it). Indonesia is another country which provides AQ the opportunity to spread its message through the mosques and Islamic educational centers on Java. In the last two decades, the transportation network in this part of the world has grown by leaps and bounds. Flying from Malaysia to Australia, or Singapore to Beijing, or Vientiane to Manila, is as simple as buying a ticket, and the arrival of the no-frills airlines (AirAsia being a good example) has made air travel affordable. This complicates matters for security personnel in every country. Its as if even Al-Qaeda can have conference calls in 2015. Indonesia also presents fertile ground for recruitment, and the mosques have a bad reputation for preaching some really nasty, anti-U.S., anti-Aussie propaganda.
My next post will focus exclusively on Al-Qaeda on Africa, with other geographic locations to follow. I consider Al-Qaeda, not the Islamic State, be the number one international terror threat to the United States.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
A Brief Look at al-Nusra and Khorasan
Link: Khorasan a Threat to the West?
What is Khorasan?
Recently I posted comments relating to the various terror groups currently active in Syria. I believe that it is best to focus more on the overall threat posed by these groups, than to get lost in the weeds trying to determine what name belongs to which faction. Al-Qaeda, Islamic State, Al-Qaeda in Yemen, Al-Qaeda in Magreb, al-Nusra, . . . they all have the same goal: they are determined to destroy our way of life. The enemy does not separate the French infidels from the Danish infidels, or the Austrian blasphemers from the British infidels. For those of us who are intelligence freaks, though, breaking down the various terror networks is what we enjoy. I have stated my preferred strategy for militarily confronting these groups quite clearly in recent posts. Today I would like to use my experience, training, and intuition to look into some of these groups.
On September 2, I spent an entire post detailing the evolution of the Islamic State (IS). Not surprisingly, we could create a flow chart that connects all of these groups to Al-Qaeda in one way or another. In fact, I believe all of the groups we have been reading about lately have an Al-Qaeda angle. If these groups have an Al-Qaeda genesis and the same motivation, why have they splintered into so many factions? First and foremost, its human nature. These young men and women did not join a terrorist group to march on a parade ground and shine medals, they joined to kill in the name of Allah. Without the discipline of a modern army unit, disagreements become arguments, and groups tend to splinter. It doesn't mean that they hate you any less, it only means that personality clashes happen everywhere. Also, smaller groups can be a strategic advantage in certain types of warfare. Units of five to eight fighters can travel lightly and cover much more ground than two dozen armed men. And if by chance the various groups come together for battle, they can splinter again just as quickly and disappear into the bush or mountains. Its much harder to locate and keep track of smaller groups. Another very important reason why we have so many groups with different monikers is vanity. Everyone wants their five minutes of fame, so what better way than to create your own movement, name, and flag?
A review of open source media reveals (for the most part), four groups currently operating in Syria in opposition to the regular Syrian Army (loyal to President Bashir al-Assad). The four names that seem to pop up most frequently are the IS, al-Nusra, Khorasan, and the New Syrian Army (NSA). No doubt Al-Qaeda in present, advising the leaders of these various groups (NSA excepted, of course). The NSA is the one anti-Assad group in Syria that appears to also oppose the Islamic extremist element. The Obama Administration has selected the NSA to be our surrogates against the IS. We spent time examining the NSA on September 21, so there is no need to revisit them so soon. Personally, I am most fascinated by this group that calls itself the "al-Nusra Front" (ANF), or just "al-Nusra". ANF is a direct extension of Al-Qaeda, straight from the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan (its so fascinating how history repeats itself, especially from a military perspective. The Pakistan/Afghanistan border reminds me of the Vietnam War-era Vietnamese border with Laos and Cambodia). Khorasan is an extension of al-Nusra. During the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, the African National Congress (ANC) had a military wing (Umkhonto we sizwe- Spear of the Nation) to carry out attacks against the State. It appears some of the terrorist groups are operating on similar lines. Khorasan is known to favor western recruits, especially anyone with explosives training. I believe Khorasan will attempt to exploit the training of its recruits to not only attack the enemy in Syria, but to also conduct more prolific attacks against western targets.
Khorasan is led by Muhsin Fadhli, a senior Al-Qaeda operative who was probably hiding out in Iran until recently (the Iran angle in this mess is most intriguing, and will be the subject of tomorrow's post). It is believed that Fadhli was personally tasked by current Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to recruit westerners. Why are the westerners so important? Because some are former military and have specialized training, and (ostensibly) all can travel unhindered on western passports. Examining the flow of recent media reporting on al-Nusra and Khorasan can be confusing. Is Khorasan designed to be a specialized unit of western recruits with bomb-making experience, who can create explosives to be smuggled onto commercial airplanes? Or will Khorasan use its skills to create I.E.Ds (Improvised Explosive Devices)? ANF will be militarily active in Syria regardless of the presence of Khorasan, which leaves me with the impression that Khorasan will be used for specialized operations.
The Syrian conflict seems to become more complicated by the hour. During a conversation with two colleagues, we couldn't help but laugh at some of the odd bedfellows that have evolved. Will IS fight alongside ANF and Khorasan? If events unfold as planned (by the Obama Administration), the New Syrian Army will be fighting both the IS and ANF/Khorasan. Here is where it gets humorous. If the situation on the ground develops logically, then the IS and the ANF/Khorasan will be fighting both the NEW Syrian Army and the OLD Syrian Army simultaneously. And I'm sure before all is said and done, the NAS will settle its conflict with the regular Syrian Army.
One of the greatest books ever written (and I am an expert, just ask anyone) is Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia). Seven Pillars is a poetic,
stylized biographic account of Lawrence during his efforts to organize Arab resistance to the Ottoman Turks during the First World War. Don't be discouraged by the beginning...its can be a bit "thick". Once you leave the beginning behind, you won't be able to put it down. The book is written so beautifully as to provide the mind's eye with the most amazing Arabian landscapes and events. True, you must wade through a passage or two of Lawrence's "boy-lust", but its not as bad as its made out to be. I strongly recommend Seven Pillars to everyone who will be serving in this part of the world, or who has an interest in Arabia. I mention Lawrence and Seven Pillars because it provides great detail to the 1916 "Sykes-Picot Agreement" (I imagine if the Ottoman Empire and the Triple Alliance had gone on to win the war, Sykes-Picot would had become cage-liner for some Parakeet). In a nutshell, Sykes-Picot was an agreement between France and the British, which defined "spheres of influence" (read: occupation) for each nation following the successful resolution of the war. The Brits would get Palestine and Jordan, and the French would receive Syria and Lebanon. The Treaty, which made Lawrence appear deceitful, was drafted without Lawrence's knowledge. Lawrence had been preaching to the Arabs that their participation in defeating the Turks would result in freedom and independence. Once the details of the treaty became public, the Arabs were incensed. If you look close enough, you can always find some episode of western idiocy that stains the reputation of Europe and the United States indefinitely (the Chinese are still going on about the 1840s Opium Wars). The point is, people in this part of the world do not trust westerners. Every effort to win the "Hearts and Minds" has been unsuccessful. The Obama Administration, alongside whatever coalition he is able to crochet together, must have a reasonable exit strategy that leaves the Syrian and Iraqi people in control of their own destiny.
What is Khorasan?
Recently I posted comments relating to the various terror groups currently active in Syria. I believe that it is best to focus more on the overall threat posed by these groups, than to get lost in the weeds trying to determine what name belongs to which faction. Al-Qaeda, Islamic State, Al-Qaeda in Yemen, Al-Qaeda in Magreb, al-Nusra, . . . they all have the same goal: they are determined to destroy our way of life. The enemy does not separate the French infidels from the Danish infidels, or the Austrian blasphemers from the British infidels. For those of us who are intelligence freaks, though, breaking down the various terror networks is what we enjoy. I have stated my preferred strategy for militarily confronting these groups quite clearly in recent posts. Today I would like to use my experience, training, and intuition to look into some of these groups.
On September 2, I spent an entire post detailing the evolution of the Islamic State (IS). Not surprisingly, we could create a flow chart that connects all of these groups to Al-Qaeda in one way or another. In fact, I believe all of the groups we have been reading about lately have an Al-Qaeda angle. If these groups have an Al-Qaeda genesis and the same motivation, why have they splintered into so many factions? First and foremost, its human nature. These young men and women did not join a terrorist group to march on a parade ground and shine medals, they joined to kill in the name of Allah. Without the discipline of a modern army unit, disagreements become arguments, and groups tend to splinter. It doesn't mean that they hate you any less, it only means that personality clashes happen everywhere. Also, smaller groups can be a strategic advantage in certain types of warfare. Units of five to eight fighters can travel lightly and cover much more ground than two dozen armed men. And if by chance the various groups come together for battle, they can splinter again just as quickly and disappear into the bush or mountains. Its much harder to locate and keep track of smaller groups. Another very important reason why we have so many groups with different monikers is vanity. Everyone wants their five minutes of fame, so what better way than to create your own movement, name, and flag?
A review of open source media reveals (for the most part), four groups currently operating in Syria in opposition to the regular Syrian Army (loyal to President Bashir al-Assad). The four names that seem to pop up most frequently are the IS, al-Nusra, Khorasan, and the New Syrian Army (NSA). No doubt Al-Qaeda in present, advising the leaders of these various groups (NSA excepted, of course). The NSA is the one anti-Assad group in Syria that appears to also oppose the Islamic extremist element. The Obama Administration has selected the NSA to be our surrogates against the IS. We spent time examining the NSA on September 21, so there is no need to revisit them so soon. Personally, I am most fascinated by this group that calls itself the "al-Nusra Front" (ANF), or just "al-Nusra". ANF is a direct extension of Al-Qaeda, straight from the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan (its so fascinating how history repeats itself, especially from a military perspective. The Pakistan/Afghanistan border reminds me of the Vietnam War-era Vietnamese border with Laos and Cambodia). Khorasan is an extension of al-Nusra. During the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, the African National Congress (ANC) had a military wing (Umkhonto we sizwe- Spear of the Nation) to carry out attacks against the State. It appears some of the terrorist groups are operating on similar lines. Khorasan is known to favor western recruits, especially anyone with explosives training. I believe Khorasan will attempt to exploit the training of its recruits to not only attack the enemy in Syria, but to also conduct more prolific attacks against western targets.
Khorasan is led by Muhsin Fadhli, a senior Al-Qaeda operative who was probably hiding out in Iran until recently (the Iran angle in this mess is most intriguing, and will be the subject of tomorrow's post). It is believed that Fadhli was personally tasked by current Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to recruit westerners. Why are the westerners so important? Because some are former military and have specialized training, and (ostensibly) all can travel unhindered on western passports. Examining the flow of recent media reporting on al-Nusra and Khorasan can be confusing. Is Khorasan designed to be a specialized unit of western recruits with bomb-making experience, who can create explosives to be smuggled onto commercial airplanes? Or will Khorasan use its skills to create I.E.Ds (Improvised Explosive Devices)? ANF will be militarily active in Syria regardless of the presence of Khorasan, which leaves me with the impression that Khorasan will be used for specialized operations.
The Syrian conflict seems to become more complicated by the hour. During a conversation with two colleagues, we couldn't help but laugh at some of the odd bedfellows that have evolved. Will IS fight alongside ANF and Khorasan? If events unfold as planned (by the Obama Administration), the New Syrian Army will be fighting both the IS and ANF/Khorasan. Here is where it gets humorous. If the situation on the ground develops logically, then the IS and the ANF/Khorasan will be fighting both the NEW Syrian Army and the OLD Syrian Army simultaneously. And I'm sure before all is said and done, the NAS will settle its conflict with the regular Syrian Army.
One of the greatest books ever written (and I am an expert, just ask anyone) is Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia). Seven Pillars is a poetic,
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Did the Obama Administration manipulate intelligence to influence the 2012 election?
Link: Was Al-Qaeda 'on the Run'?
I have spent my fair share of time in Washington DC. Personally, I think the DC Metropolitan Area is lovely throughout the year. Spring brings a tremendous display of flowers, summers are usually not oppressively hot, and winter snowfall on the White House paints a beautiful picture. The District is home to a fascinating variety of people, many speaking different languages. But the majority of folks I ran into during my time in the nation's capital worked either in politics or for Uncle Sam. That is why I have always considered Washington DC to be a city of duel functions: it is the seat of political power, with Congress, the Supreme Court and the President all within a snowball's toss of each other, and the brain center for the functions of government. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is here, as is Health and Human Services. Foggy Bottom is home to the headquarters for the Department of State, and the Department of Justice is not far from Ford's Theater, the tragic location of President Abraham Lincoln's assassination. By living in this community and daily interacting with its residents, I quickly lost any illusions I had about politics being an honorable profession. I am proud to say that during my years working in the Intelligence Community, I seldom saw or experienced a decision that was motivated by politics (as opposed to the best interests of the nation). I believe that folks in the Intelligence Community take into account that the American people are trusting us with the secrets of the United States, and this reality alone goes a long way to keeping politics out of our work. Today I read an article in the reliable Weekly Standard that literally took my breath away. Because I have a basic understanding of the Constitution, I don't use the word "Impeachment" very often. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are difficult accusations to prove, especially in this environment. For the first time in my lifetime, though, if the allegations implied in this article are accurate, I believe it is time for me to use that word.
In May 2011, brave men and women of the U.S. military killed Osama Bin Laden. He was hiding out in a nondescript compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. I will not repeat the details of the link which you have just read, but to say that during the 40 minutes that U.S.
personnel were on site, a great deal of intelligence-related material was collected, including hard drives, thumb drives, documents, maps, diagrams, letters, DVDs and audiotapes. I remember hearing through the grapevine that the intel haul on that day was LEGENDARY. According to the Weekly Standard, only 10 percent of the collected intelligence was accessed and decoded/translated before it was decided to shut things down "for a while". At least until after the 2012 election. Interestingly enough, the small amount of intelligence that was reviewed gave the distinct impression that Al-Qaeda was in shambles. Our efforts to destabilize the organization had made it almost impossible for them to communicate with one another and had also negatively impacted their funding and recruitment. This information was released to an understandably excited press, and the headlines read "Al-Qaeda on the Run". The Obama Administration took full advantage of the story that was painted by the release of this select few pieces of intelligence. The American people were told repeatedly during the 2012 election cycle, that the Obama Administration was responsible for the crippling of Al-Qaeda. As I recall, no one asked any really difficult questions. A number of Al-Qaeda big wigs besides Bin Laden had also been recently dispatched, and I, just like most folks, believed the storyline. George Bush went to war to destroy Al-Qaeda and failed in that effort. But President Obama, following a separate policy that did not involve invading another country, had been successful.
Now we learn that once the election was over and the rest of the haul was decoded, translated and deciphered, that the reality was quite different. According to the Weekly Standard, documents obtained during the May 2011 Abbottabad raid detail an Al-Qaeda still active and plotting. The documents revealed that Al-Qaeda was in contact with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a particularly heinous terrorist group operating in India, and that Bin Laden may have actually been involved in the planning of the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. We also learned that a potentially dangerous relationship between Iran and Al-Qaeda was a real possibility, and that Bin Laden had established a "vast array of increasingly deadly affiliates", including ISIS/ISIL. In fact, once DIA (military intelligence) had been given access to the full amount of seized Abbottabad intelligence, they came to the opposite conclusion than was being repeatedly declared on the 2012 campaign trail. In their view, Al-Qaeda had grown even stronger.
If the CIA selectively exploited the intelligence gathered during the Abbottabad raid for the purpose of created a false storyline, then this development calls for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. No Administration, Republican, Democrat or Whig, should manipulate the tools of national security for political purposes. If this has occurred and is not addressed appropriately, then we should not be surprised when the Department of Commerce (or any other branch of government) is directed to act for partisan political purposes. In fact, a close look at some of the other current scandals stinking up the Potomac right now hint at the use of other government agencies for partisan political reasons. It is for this reason that I give consideration to the use of the word "Impeachment". Of course, even if these allegations are correct, it doesn't mean any particular member of the current Administration is involved. It could have been a decision made solely within the halls of the CIA. But if an Independent Council is appointed, and evidence is uncovered that points to the highest office in the land, then I do believe we are looking at a case of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
I have spent my fair share of time in Washington DC. Personally, I think the DC Metropolitan Area is lovely throughout the year. Spring brings a tremendous display of flowers, summers are usually not oppressively hot, and winter snowfall on the White House paints a beautiful picture. The District is home to a fascinating variety of people, many speaking different languages. But the majority of folks I ran into during my time in the nation's capital worked either in politics or for Uncle Sam. That is why I have always considered Washington DC to be a city of duel functions: it is the seat of political power, with Congress, the Supreme Court and the President all within a snowball's toss of each other, and the brain center for the functions of government. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is here, as is Health and Human Services. Foggy Bottom is home to the headquarters for the Department of State, and the Department of Justice is not far from Ford's Theater, the tragic location of President Abraham Lincoln's assassination. By living in this community and daily interacting with its residents, I quickly lost any illusions I had about politics being an honorable profession. I am proud to say that during my years working in the Intelligence Community, I seldom saw or experienced a decision that was motivated by politics (as opposed to the best interests of the nation). I believe that folks in the Intelligence Community take into account that the American people are trusting us with the secrets of the United States, and this reality alone goes a long way to keeping politics out of our work. Today I read an article in the reliable Weekly Standard that literally took my breath away. Because I have a basic understanding of the Constitution, I don't use the word "Impeachment" very often. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are difficult accusations to prove, especially in this environment. For the first time in my lifetime, though, if the allegations implied in this article are accurate, I believe it is time for me to use that word.
In May 2011, brave men and women of the U.S. military killed Osama Bin Laden. He was hiding out in a nondescript compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. I will not repeat the details of the link which you have just read, but to say that during the 40 minutes that U.S.
Now we learn that once the election was over and the rest of the haul was decoded, translated and deciphered, that the reality was quite different. According to the Weekly Standard, documents obtained during the May 2011 Abbottabad raid detail an Al-Qaeda still active and plotting. The documents revealed that Al-Qaeda was in contact with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a particularly heinous terrorist group operating in India, and that Bin Laden may have actually been involved in the planning of the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. We also learned that a potentially dangerous relationship between Iran and Al-Qaeda was a real possibility, and that Bin Laden had established a "vast array of increasingly deadly affiliates", including ISIS/ISIL. In fact, once DIA (military intelligence) had been given access to the full amount of seized Abbottabad intelligence, they came to the opposite conclusion than was being repeatedly declared on the 2012 campaign trail. In their view, Al-Qaeda had grown even stronger.
If the CIA selectively exploited the intelligence gathered during the Abbottabad raid for the purpose of created a false storyline, then this development calls for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. No Administration, Republican, Democrat or Whig, should manipulate the tools of national security for political purposes. If this has occurred and is not addressed appropriately, then we should not be surprised when the Department of Commerce (or any other branch of government) is directed to act for partisan political purposes. In fact, a close look at some of the other current scandals stinking up the Potomac right now hint at the use of other government agencies for partisan political reasons. It is for this reason that I give consideration to the use of the word "Impeachment". Of course, even if these allegations are correct, it doesn't mean any particular member of the current Administration is involved. It could have been a decision made solely within the halls of the CIA. But if an Independent Council is appointed, and evidence is uncovered that points to the highest office in the land, then I do believe we are looking at a case of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)