Analysis of Iran NIE

On December 3, the National Intelligence Council released a new National Intelligence Estimate regarding the nuclear intentions and capabilities of Iran. I have waited until now to comment on this estimate to better gauge the response by politicians, media, and other sources. Although I set my expectations low for an intelligent response to the new estimate I was still disappointed. The two most popular interpretations of the estimate include ‘Bush lied’ and ‘intelligence community undercuts Bush.’ While these responses were not surprising in the least; what I found truly confounding was the lack of an attempt to consult those familiar with intelligence to better explain the findings.

In sharp contrast to media reporting some folks who are familiar with NIE’s, and intelligence in general, attempted to make sense out of the recent finding. Although I disagree with some of their respective commentary it is nice to know that the capability for rational thought still exists. For the most part, the commentators that I respect asked questions surrounding the value of the new intelligence as well as the timing and the source. What I found to be lacking in the questions raised were questions about the motive of the White House to agree to declassify this NIE. More on this in a moment.

Here are some quick facts about the NIE:

The title of this NIE is Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities.

The document is over 150 pages, although only two and a half were declassified.

The NIE states that Iran suspended their nuclear weapon program in 2003.

The NIE states that the suspension was in response to international pressure.

The NIE believes that the Iranians abandoned the program because the costs outweighed the benefits.

Stephen Hadley, the National Security advisor to President Bush, and John Michael McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, have made statements in the recent past stating that future NIE’s would not be declassified.

Here are some questions that I have about the NIE:

What international pressure was applied to Iran in 2003 that forced them to abandon their weapons program?

Why did the U.S. rely on recent intelligence that has been reportedly rejected by some of our European and Middle East allies?

If the Iranians abandoned their weapons program in 2003 why did the 2005 NIE report that the program was ongoing?

Why was this NIE declassified after Hadley and McConnell stated that future NIE’s would remain classified?

Why did the Iranians pursue a nuclear weapons program in the first place?

The NIE raises many other questions, but these are some of the most pressing questions that need to be addressed. Let’s explore these questions starting in reverse order.

Why did the Iranians pursue a nuclear weapons program in the first place?

Disregarding the insane ravings by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, it would seem that the possession of nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to outside invasion. I discount Ahmadinejad because the country of Iran is primarily run by the Supreme Leader and the Shura council who handle foreign affairs with the position of President handling many domestic affairs such as the economy. The Supreme Leader has the final say in most matters and serves as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. That being said it is doubtful that the Iranians had planned to use these nuclear weapons for any forward deployment. If the Iranians did manage to develop a nuke it would be a crude weapon and could not be fixed to any missile in their arsenal. If we were to assume that the regime did manage to acquire a nuclear weapon with outside support the use of the weapon in conjunction with a missile to target Israel or the Europeans, it would put the revolutionary regime in the cross hairs of the U.S. and Israel. This is not the goal of Iran.

Why was this NIE declassified after Hadley and McConnell stated that future NIE’s would remain classified?

I believe that the NIE was declassified to send a message to the Iranians. First of all, if the Iranians were still pursuing a nuclear weapons program it would be years before they got close to producing a weapon and even longer before they could produce any meaningful arsenal. Secondly, if the Iranians have indeed suspended their program it would take even longer for weapons production. From the perspective of the United States, an Iranian nuclear weapons program serves as more of a long term national security challenge that can be dealt with at a later date, while finding a solution to the current situation in Iraq is a more pressing issue. By declassifying this document, the U.S. is telling Iran we do not have any desire to attack you militarily in the near future.

If the Iranians abandoned their weapons program in 2003 why did the 2005 NIE report that the program was ongoing?

Gathering intelligence inside Iran is a notoriously difficult challenge. Iran is a country that is primarily focused on internal security and the preservation of the revolution. As such, foreigners are difficult to get in country and getting the right individual that would understand what they are looking at is even harder. That being said, it is possible that the 2005 NIE was based on old intelligence or intelligence so ambiguous as to prevent the intelligence community from making a more accurate assessment.

Why did the U.S. rely on recent intelligence that has been reportedly rejected by some of our European and Middle East allies?

Once again it appears that the NIE was not only an intelligence estimate but a message to Iran that military action would not be taken in the near future. Irregardless of the current state of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, it would be some time before the country could produce anything meaningful. Additionally, the U.S. may want to talk with the Iranians about a solution for Iraq. It is in the interest of both nations that the Iraqi nation stabilizes in the near future. By the U.S. stating that it does not believe that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon; it takes away a possible bargaining chip that could be used by Iran in possible negotiations. It is worth restating that Iran was funding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan along with the U.S. right through 9/11. The Iranians also cooperated with the Afghan invasion by sharing intelligence with the U.S. On the Iraqi front, Saddam Hussein was a significant national security challenge for the Iranians. Iran was devastated by the Iran-Iraq war and could only benefit by the U.S. invasion. By recognizing common interests, the U.S. and the Iranians could come to an accord, albeit quietly, over the situation in Iraq.

What international pressure was applied to Iran in 2003 that forced them to abandon their weapons program?

From 2002-2003, the U.S. was more involved with Afghanistan and preparing for the invasion of Iraq to put any meaningful pressure on the Iranians to end their nuclear ambitions. The Iranians may have been persuaded to end any WMD programs after the run up to the Iraqi invasion just as Muammar al-Gaddafi in Libya did. This is a real possibility given the cost-benefit statement in the NIE. Additionally, the leaders of Iran and North Korea went into hiding for several weeks during the initial invasion of Iraq because they feared the U.S. would move into their nations next.

Conclusion:

I believe that regardless of the current state of the Iranian nuclear weapons program it is irrelevant because of the time it would take for them to produce a weapon. I also believe that the latest NIE is more a message to Iran than an intelligence estimate that requires immediate attention. Given the behavior of the Iranian President it is understandable how an Iranian nuclear weapon could be perceived as an immediate danger, but the reality is very different. The Iranian regime may make overly eschatological statements, and their support for terrorism certainly doesn’t help, but it is a rational actor when it comes to the preservation of the revolutionary government. From this perspective it becomes clear why the White House would release this intelligence estimate in the face of its previous statements about Iran. I have little doubt that the U.S. is looking for regional actors to aid in the political stability of Iraq. The U.S. military has performed exceptionally well and has managed to keep the violence in Iraq relatively low, but this cannot last indefinitely without a political solution. Iran on the other hand desires a stable Iraq but cannot control the various Shi’ite factions in Iraq and it certainly cannot accept a predominately Sunni government. The cooperation between the U.S. and Iran may be the key.

The War over Fourth Generation Warfare (continued)

Areas of Agreement

The strangest thing about the argument over the validity of 4GW often deviates from the original points the authors were trying to get across; warfare is not only changing, but opening up new avenues for attack by use of modern technology. With the advent of the internet and subsequent advance of new communications that use internet technology it is now possible for very few people to wreak disproportionate havoc upon a stronger enemy.

Perhaps the single issue that turns most people off is the assertion by many proponents of 4GW is that warfare conducted with the use of airplanes, tanks, and battleships will be entirely replaced by low intensity and electronic warfare. Some military analysts have even gone further and attempted to make the point that electronic and information warfare, collectively referred to as netwar, will be the one and only form of warfare in the future. Unfortunately, this is a product of Western psychological projection and doesn’t consider the views of non-Western thought on warfare. For the most, part antiwar sentiment resides in the Western world and netwar may be conducive to crippling a more powerful enemy; however that does not mean that our adversaries will lose the desire to challenge the U.S. on the battlefield.

Another Interpretation

While breaking down past conflicts into generations in an attempt to better study the constantly changing face of warfare it is not completely necessary to interpret the new areas that warfare will inhabit. I usually describe warfare as being a spectrum; one without starting and endpoints, but a spectrum through which one player can attack another by various avenues. It is this realization that should be used to describe the attempts by various nations and non-state actors to target the U.S. electronically. The upside of this type of attack is the actions of a few people can cost the target billions of dollars in prevention methods and cleanup after a successful attack. Not only does the attack have a decent probability of success, but it allows the perpetrators to get away more often than not.

While the debate over 4GW is likely to continue for some time it is imperative that the West not become overly fixated on this type of warfare, but realize that the enemies of democracy will use any number of methods to undermine freedom.

The War over Fourth Generation Warfare

Outside of the Pentagon and military analyst circles, the theory of fourth generation warfare (4GW) is rarely heard of let alone discussed. Unfortunately the 4GW theory is not debated as often as it should be, and when it is discussed the debate only focuses on the theories proponents and those who completely deny the viability of the theory. I fall some where in the middle as I believe that the foundations of the 4GW theory are flawed, but the proponents have brought the possibilities of a protracted asymmetric war into sharp perspective. This is an important discussion with regards to the current war on terror and the billions being spent by the Pentagon to transform the military to confront the possibility of asymmetric wars of attrition.

Fourth Generation Warfare: A Primer

For the sake of brevity I will quote directly from the article that started it all.

“While military development is generally a continuous evolutionary process, the modern era has witnessed three watersheds in which change has been dialectically qualitative. Consequently, modern military development comprises three distinct generations.”

“First generation warfare reflects tactics of the era of the smoothbore musket, the tactics of line and column. These tactics were developed partially in response to technological factors — the line maximized firepower, rigid drill was necessary to generate a high rate of fire, etc.— and partially in response to social conditions and ideas, e.g., the columns of the French revolutionary armies reflected both the élan of the revolution and the low training levels of conscripted troops. Although rendered obsolete with the replacement of the smoothbore by the rifled musket, vestiges of first generation tactics survive today, especially in a frequently encountered desire for linearity on the battlefield. Operational art in the first generation did not exist as a concept although it was practiced by individual commanders, most prominently Napoleon.”

“Second generation warfare was a response to the rifled musket, breechloaders, barbed wire, the machinegun, and indirect fire. Tactics were based on fire and movement, and they remained essentially linear. The defense still attempted to prevent all penetrations, and in the attack a laterally dispersed line advanced by rushes in small groups. Perhaps the principal change from first generation tactics was heavy reliance on indirect fire; second generation tactics were summed up in the French maxim, "the artillery conquers, the infantry occupies." Massed firepower replaced massed manpower. Second generation tactics remained the basis of U.S. doctrine until the 1980s, and they are still practiced by most American units in the field.”

“While ideas played a role in the development of second generation tactics (particularly the idea of lateral dispersion), technology was the principal driver of change. Technology manifested itself both qualitatively, in such things as heavier artillery and bombing aircraft, and quantitatively, in the ability of an industrialized economy to fight a battle of materiel (Materialschlacht).”

“The second generation saw the formal recognition and adoption of the operational art, initially by the Prussian army. Again, both ideas and technology drove the change. The ideas sprang largely from Prussian studies of Napoleon's campaigns. Technological factors included von Moltke's realization that modern tactical firepower mandated battles of encirclement and the desire to exploit the capabilities of the railway and the telegraph.”

“Third generation warfare was also a response to the increase in battlefield firepower. However, the driving force was primarily ideas. Aware they could not prevail in a contest of materiel because of their weaker industrial base in World War I, the Germans developed radically new tactics. Based on maneuver rather than attrition, third generation tactics were the first truly nonlinear tactics. The attack relied on infiltration to bypass and collapse the enemy's combat forces rather than seeking to close with and destroy them. The defense was in depth and often invited penetration, which set the enemy up for a counterattack.”

“While the basic concepts of third generation tactics were in place by the end of 1918, the addition of a new technological element-tanks-brought about a major shift at the operational level in World War II. That shift was blitzkrieg. In the blitzkrieg, the basis of the operational art shifted from place (as in Liddell-Hart's indirect approach) to time.”

“In broad terms, fourth generation warfare seems likely to be widely dispersed and largely undefined; the distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between "civilian" and "military" may disappear. Actions will occur concurrently throughout all participants' depth, including their society as a cultural, not just a physical, entity. Major military facilities, such as airfields, fixed communications sites, and large headquarters will become rarities because of their vulnerability; the same may be true of civilian equivalents, such as seats of government, power plants, and industrial sites (including knowledge as well as manufacturing industries). Success will depend heavily on effectiveness in joint operations as lines between responsibility and mission become very blurred. Again, all these elements are present in third generation warfare; fourth generation will merely accentuate them.”

Additionally, 4GW was broken down by some of the proponents into the following three points:

1. The loss of the nation-states monopoly on war.

2. A return to a world of cultures and states in conflict.

3. Internal segmentation/division along ethnic, religious, and special interest lines within our own society.

Rebuttal:

First off, any examination of warfare cannot ignore the exploits of great military leaders such as Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Joshua the Israelite, Sun Tzu, or even George Washington. The impact these men had on warfare is still relevant to this day, regardless of the advent of new technologies.

Secondly, the nation-state has never held a monopoly on warfare. If they did, civil wars and political coups would be a thing of the past. Also, the influence of terrorism and revolutionary groups would have minimal impact or be completely nonexistent and they are obviously not.

Thirdly, the world cannot return to a state of conflict because it has never left. In the last twenty years alone conflict has been a way of life in Africa, while many Asian and South American nations have been ravaged by wars of attrition between nation-states and non-state actors. In Europe the conflict in the former Yugoslavia has forced many Western nations to patrol their own backyard.

Finally, the U.S. has always been divided along racial and religious lines. In fact, many sociologists have stated for years now that the U.S. is more of a mixing bowl as opposed to a melting pot. Religion has always been a fiercely debated topic in the U.S. as evidenced by Mitt Romney’s run for the Presidency and previously with JFK.

Tomorrow I will comment on where I agree with the proponents of 4GW as well as a counter definition that better defines the current state of warfare.

U.S. has Contingency Plan for Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons

When I wrote about bin Laden’s call to attack Pakistan and more recently about the probability of a civil war in that nation, the one thing that I sought to highlight is Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. I’m pleased that it only took a couple of weeks for the media and government officials around the world to begin discussing the possibility of these weapons falling into the wrong hands. Thankfully some folks in the Pentagon have put together a plan to deal with this problem should it arise. One of the articles I came across quoted a U.S. official as saying that the whereabouts of some of the weapons are unknown. If this is indeed fact, then unfortunately it may already be too late.

The Pakistani army is, for the most part, responsible for the safeguarding of the nuclear arsenal and it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which has many supporters of the Taliban, is also involved. While the involvement of the ISI is almost certainly a problem in any contingency plan; the low moral of the army is another factor that may lead to trouble. The army has taken severe casualties fighting in the tribal areas where al-Qaeda and the Taliban currently reside and could fracture in the face of a political upheaval. One of the few things holding the army together is Musharraf’s desire to continue to wear his army uniform. If Musharraf decides to remove himself from the army, as many dimwitted talking heads in the west are telling him to do, it is very possible that the forces aligned against him would view this as a sign of weakness and try to topple his government. I do not believe that the pro-democracy forces in Pakistan stand a chance against the militant Islamists in the region. In fact, I’m not sure how Bhutto is still alive and am fairly certain she won’t be around much longer. The day she returned to Pakistan an attempted assassination via suicide bomber ended up killing 136.

In the face of anarchy in Pakistan and the fracture of the army, the U.S. would have to rely on military commanders opposed to the Islamists or intelligence from nations such as India and the U.K. to hunt down the nuclear arsenal to keep it out of the Islamists hands. The contingency plan for this scenario is still classified and the only thing I can do is speculate as to how the operation could play out. At this point it’s the only thing anyone can do.

As to the ISI having pro-Taliban and pro-al Qaeda elements in the ranks one thing should be mentioned. Prior to 9/11, the head of the ISI, Mahmoud Ahmed, order Omar Sheik to wire 100,000 dollars to Mohammad Atta, one of the hijackers that carried out the attacks. Once this was reported by the Wall Street Journal, Ahmed was forced out of his position. The 9/11 commission did not investigate this connection.

In other news: A women who immigrated to the U.S. and overstayed her visa has pleaded guilty to charges of using falsified documents to obtain employment with the FBI as a special agent and also with the CIA. She managed to obtain a security clearance and used the information in the FBI and CIA databases to find out what the U.S. had on her family. She is also charged with tax evasion and sending the proceeds to Hezbollah. Sleep tight!

A Little Humor

Every now and again its possible to find humor in even the most serious of topics. Last Friday a Muslim Sheik was sentenced to five months hard labor for fighting in public. What makes this story stand out among other terror related news is the statement made by the Judge at the trial. According to Malawi's Daily Times the judge, "admonished the five as the fight had dented the reputation of Islam as a religion of peace." Now if you read the counter at the top left of this page the number of Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 is about to reach 10,000. As I'm sure you are, I'm confused as to which information harms Islam more. For the full article click here.

The Kahane assassination

On this day in 1990 an oft forgotten, but influential, Rabbi was assassinated in New York. Meir Kahane was the founder of the Jewish Defense League and Kach, a group that would eventually be labeled a terrorist organization. Kach began life as a political party in Israel and would eventually capture a seat in Knesset. Because of Kahane’s inflammatory rhetoric, Kach would be labeled a racist organization was ultimately banned from the Knesset. In 1994, four years after Kahane’s death, Kach was labeled a terrorist group and outlawed in Israel. The event that caused this was the Hebron massacre when an adherent to Kach killed 29 Palestinian Muslims while they were at prayer.

What makes this assassination particularly interesting is the connection to individuals involved in contemporary terrorism. The accused assassin, El Sayyid Nosair, would be acquitted of murder, but would later be convicted as a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing among other charges. Nosair was convicted along side the notorious Sheik Rahman; otherwise known as the Blind Sheik. Both men received funding for their defense from an up and comer in the terrorist world, Osama bin Laden.

Upon Kahane’s death the Kach movement splintered into two groups; one under the name of Kach and the other run by Binyamin Kahane, Kahane’s son, known as Kahane Chai. Binyamin Kahane would later be assassinated in 2000 in a strange twist of fate. Binyamin, along with his wife and children, were gunned down by members of Force 17 while driving to their home. The members of Force 17 claimed to not know the identity of the people they attacked and later stated it was luck that their victim was Binyamin Kahane.

Force 17 is a group within the Palestinian Fatah movement that has been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks as well as the protection of the Yasser Arafat until his death. Currently the U.S. has been attempting to supply arms to Force 17 to curb the political consolidation efforts of Hamas. Unfortunately many of these weapons find their way into the hands of Hamas terrorists, while the arms that Force 17 does manage to receive are used to attack Israel.

Either coincidence or something else the assassination of Meir Kahane is truly a strange story.

Further notes:

Political leader of the LTTE, Liberation Tigers of Tamil, was killed in an air strike by the Sri Lankan military.

Pakistan looks as if it is about to deteriorate into a civil war. It may become incumbent upon the U.S. or India to remove or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear weapons before they fall into the hands of people who will use them.

Back to the slaughter, Imad Mugniyah makes a comeback.

But did he ever really go away? Probably not, but the man has managed to keep a very low profile. Imad Mugniyah was mentioned in a previous posting as orchestrating the bombing of the Marine and the French Paratrooper barracks back in 1983, but he has done so much more. Mugniyah has been involved in the April 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon; the 1984 bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex in Lebanon; the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847; numerous kidnappings of Westerners in Beirut throughout the 1980s; the 1992 and 1994 bombings of the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires; the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing; and the 2000 kidnappings of 3 Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon and of Israeli Colonel Elchanan Tenenbaum, who was lured to Kuwait under false pretenses and then taken to the Hezbollah enclave in southern Lebanon. It is also possible that he was involved in the killing of U.S. Army Colonel William Buckley. My estimation is that he has been personally responsible for attacks killing over 480 people in his more high profile attacks. As such, he has been wanted by the FBI since 1985.

So why bring him up now? Unfortunately Mugniyah has shown up in Lebanon’s Bekaa valley training terrorists to strike at the U.S. should an attack on Iran take place. This man’s continued existence has bothered me for some time primarily because of the multiple Hezbollah cells that are present in the U.S., many of whom have more than likely been trained by Mugniyah. Mugniyah’s re-emergence, if one can call it that, would prove to be a useful deterrent to a U.S. led attack on Iran. This man has managed to pull off difficult assignments in a short amount of time for both Hezbollah and Iranian intelligence, and a couple of suicide attacks in the U.S. would not be hard to imagine. In order to counter this move made by Iran it is necessary to once again directly target the man for assassination or capture. While this attempt may not be successful it could help disrupt the training of future jihadists. In fact, now would be a very good time since Hezbollah is still trying to rebuild its military wing that was severely hurt during the war with Israel just last year. In any case, it’s better late than never.

Here is the FBI wanted poster.

Terrorism by flame

I came across an interesting news piece early this morning stating that California State Troopers caught an arsonist in the act of attempting to reignite a fire in an area that had been spared. Many of you out there may ask what the fires in California have to do with terrorism. The answer to this is actually quite simple, terrorists have used fire as tool of terror for thousands of years. In fact, groups in ancient times that we today may describe as either terrorists or guerrilla fighters used fire quite effectively thanks to the invention of greek fire. In present times the groups most commonly associated with the use of fire to further a political message is the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front. Additionally, a terrorist associated with al-Qaeda claimed that he was part of a plot to start wild fires in the western U.S. to cause destruction and monetary damage. Lebanon is also suffering from fires that were started by arsonists attempting to drain the resources of the central government.

Currently I do not have the all the facts or any concrete evidence to back up my claim, but the current fire situation in California contains many elements that were present in past ELF attacks. ELF usually targets Hummer dealerships or construction site that they claim to be infringing on the habitats of wild animals. The fires in California have hit areas that contain many extravagant homes and other forms of decadence. While I cannot and will not say that I am one hundred percent sure that these fires were acts of ELF, it is clear that they were started purposely. The U.S. government is currently offering a reward of 50,000 dollars for information leading to the arrest of the people who started these fires.

They came in Peace for 'Right and Freedom' in Lebanon

In the early morning of October 23, 1983 two vehicles laden with explosives rammed and detonated in the U.S. Marine barracks and the barracks of the French paratroopers located in Beirut Lebanon killing 241 Marines and 58 French paratrooper. The plan was devised by Imad Mughniyeh, a major player in Hezbollah to this day, and backed by both the Iranian and Syrian governments. It has now been twenty four years and although the Iranian government has been found guilty and ordered to pay a sum in the billions, nothing has come of it. To add to the injury Mughniyeh is still operating freely and moves between Lebanon and Iran frequently. I would caution Iran and Hezbollah that justice in this world or the next will surely come.

"They were not afraid to stand up for their country or, no matter how difficult and slow the journey might be, to give to others that last, best hope of a better future. We cannot and will not dishonor them now and the sacrifices they've made by failing to remain as faithful to the cause of freedom and the pursuit of peace as they have been. I will not ask you to pray for the dead, because they're safe in God's loving arms and beyond need of our prayers. I would like to ask you all - wherever you may be in this blessed land - to pray for these wounded young men and to pray for the bereaved families of those who gave their lives for our freedom." President Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1983

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived." General George S. Patton, Jr

Semper Fidelis

Bin Laden’s call to attack Pakistan

In the last few weeks surrounding the anniversary of 9/11, al-Qaeda has released several video and audio tapes. This is a substantial increase in propaganda from the leadership of the terror group directed at the western public. Since the invasion of Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda leadership has been limited to making these tapes while many amateurs that are inspired by the same philosophy have been carrying out the actual attacks. This decentralization has marginalized the “old guard” leadership while empowering aspiring jihadists. It appears that bin Laden is worried about losing relevancy in the global jihad and is trying to reassert himself by releasing these video tapes. I should note that many terrorist leaders are mid to upper class, have some higher education, and are very self centered. My personal belief is that the longer a terrorist leader is able to survive the more likely they are to manifest messianic delusions. Using this model it becomes understandable that bin Laden feels the need to remind the jihadist masses that he still matters.

Another reason that bin Laden may feel the need to release these tapes, and more specifically target Pakistan, is the setbacks al-Qaeda has suffered in Algeria and Lebanon. In a video tape released September 11, 2006, Ayman al-Zawahiri approved the merger of the Algerian group Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) into the al-Qaeda global network. The group has since been renamed al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and claimed responsibility for the February 2007 attacks on Algerian police stations. Since the merger decension in the ranks of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has risen and may lead to fracturing of the group. In Lebanon, al-Qaeda attempted to establish a presence to launch attacks against Israel. This group, known as Fatah al-Islam was defeated and ultimately dismantled by the Lebanese army back in June, thus ending what would have been an effective presence in the area. With these two operations going nowhere al-Qaeda has been forced to look for a victory a little closer to the cave and Pakistan is a prime target.

Pakistan is one of the most radical Islamic countries on the face of the earth, and oh by the way, they have nukes. Currently the regime of Pervez Musharraf has managed to stave off some of the attempts by Islamists to either assassinate him or target secular politicians, but this cannot last indefinitely. For instance, most Pakistani children go to madrassah schools rather than public or other secular schools and are thus subjects of radical Islamic indoctrination. That being said the future of Pakistan does not look good. Thus far, the only thing bin Laden’s call to jihad in Pakistan has netted is a few protests, but with the past attempts on Musharraf’s life it is only a matter of time before one is successful. The seizure of Pakistan by radical Islamists would make a great trade for Afghanistan because the U.S. and a few other countries have sold advanced weaponry to the Pakistani military. The amount of radicals coupled with the advanced conventional and nuclear weapons makes Pakistan a highly valued target for bin Laden. This alone should force those of us in the west to heed this latest message.

Lots of Terror News Today

Syria and Iran have been working together to assassinate anti-Syrian politicians in the Lebanese cabinet in an attempt to subvert an upcoming election. Read about it here and here.



Credit to Foxnews.com for the photos

Syrian soldiers and Iranian chemical engineers killed in Syria while trying to attach a chemical warhead to a scud C missile. Read about it here.

And finally the closing arguments in the Holy Land Foundation case. Read about it here.

Hopefully I will be able to post some analysis on these topics in the near future.

Terrorism, Psychology, and Profiling

It has been noted, ad nauseum I might add, that there is no profile for a terrorist. This remark is either born out of ignorance of what a profile is or it is used as a means of facilitating a political argument. Either way this belief hinders the instruction of terrorist psychology to political decision makers and to a lesser extent the population at large. This remark, when used as political argument, can be readily dismissed because it centers on the narcissistic belief that the U.S. is the direct cause of terrorist activity and blatantly ignores the psychological factors that are often involved in the individual decision to engage in violence. Although blowback from U.S. operations can be a catalyst for terrorism recruitment it is rarely the driving force that spawns terrorist groups. The rationale behind this argument is an attempt to absolve an individual from criminality and instead base their argument on the perceived failings of society.

The reason a profile for terrorists does not exist is because profiles are based upon individual personalities as opposed to a single profile that all terrorists must fall into. Essentially it is the equivalent of pounding a square peg into a round hole; it just doesn’t work. Psychological profiling is not used as a general category that numerous individuals will fit into, but rather based upon evidence left behind by a single individual in an attempt to construct a description of their personality. When a profile is done on a serial killer or serial rapist it is done primarily on actions witnessed by the victim or other bystanders and physical evidence left at the scene. Profiles that are done on terrorists, cult leaders, and even world leaders are done using public speeches, writings, or interviews of people close to the individual being profiled. Once enough information is gathered a profile is compiled and while not perfect it can adequately describe an individual’s personality. It should be noted that an individual’s personality does not change, but only becomes more refined over the course of a lifetime.

The purpose of profiling an individual differs from case to case. When profiling a serial killer the investigator is trying to establish, among other things, motive and victim type. When profiling a terrorist leader the purpose is similar in that a motive must be determined, but also what the leader means to their group. Of course other reasons exist for profiling a terrorist, but these two are of primary concern because the profiler must try to establish what will happen should certain events take place. For an example of this the profile that was done on Adolph Hitler is a great place to start. You can view it here. The end purpose for any profile is to establish an insight into an individual’s personality so that steps can be taken to deal with the individual. A profile may not be the only key to understanding terrorism and countering, but it is only meant to be a single tool in the larger fight. Although profiles are constructed on an individual basis some elements do overlap from person to person because all people have some needs in common. With that said I will leave with an excerpt from an essay published in 1990 by Gottfredson & Hirschi that discusses low self-control in criminality. I will leave it up to the reader to apply it terrorism.

“Criminal acts provide easy or simple gratification of desires. They provide money without work, sex without courtship, revenge without court delays. People lacking self-control also tend to lack diligence, tenacity, or persistence in a course of action.... People lacking self-control ... tend to be adventuresome, active, and physical.... People with low self-control ... tend to have unstable marriages, friendships, and job profiles[; and are] self-centered, indifferent, or insensitive to the suffering and needs of others, [although not] routinely unkind or antisocial. On the contrary, they may discover the immediate and easy rewards of charm and generosity.... In sum, people who lack self-control will tend to be impulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking, short-sighted, and non-verbal, and they will tend therefore to engage in criminal and analogous acts.”

Definition of "Terrorism"

One of the most overlooked obstacles that the U.S. faces in the war on terror is the actual definition of the word terrorism. At last count the United Nations estimated that the governments of the world use 160 different definitions of "terrorism." Additionally not every country has laws against acts of terror. The U.S. alone uses multiple definitions because Congress has not effectively created legislation that addresses this shortcoming. Currently, each bureaucracy defines terrorism as it relates to their respective mission. For the purposes of this blog I will use the definition used by the Department of Defense, which states: "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." This definition, while short of perfect, does adequately describe what terrorism is, not necessarily who falls into the category of terrorists or for that matter specific acts of terrorism. This is an important distinction because not all terrorists succeed in their attacks and yet must still be held to account.
Another aspect that must be considered is how to categorize terrorism. Is terrorism a crime or is it an act of war? Unfortunately the lines are not always as clear as we would like them to be. For instance the 9/11 hijackers broke numerous laws, not only those that are terrorism related, in order to carry out their heinous attacks. If we were to propose a hypothetical situation in which the 9/11 plot was prevented we could then ask whether the terrorists would be prosecuted as criminals in a civilian court and is it possible that the U.S. could still invade Afghanistan in retaliation for the attempt? The answer to both questions citing pre-9/11 policy and anti-terrorism laws is yes. The reasoning behind this is that the 9/11 hijackers were acting as defacto agents of the Taliban regime. Al-Qaeda was more than just a terrorist group operating in Afghanistan because they had an active brigade serving in the Taliban military thus justifying a military response regardless of the success of the attacks. This situation is similar to attempted murder and first degree murder; the success of the crime does not negate the seriousness of the attempt.
In the past, situations have arisen where terrorism falls solely in the category of criminality. In the 1970's and 1980's the Baader-Meinhof group struck numerous U.S. military targets in Germany. In 1972 the group succeeded in killing an Army Colonel and wounding 11 others. This attack would not fall in the act of war category, but rather represents a criminal act. This is because the groups link to the Soviet Union could not be proven as it is widely believed the group was self financed through bank robberies. Because the group acted without direct state sponsorship the group could only be tried in a civilian court (which is what happened though it took time to apprehend the active members).
In essence each act of terrorism must be evaluated independently. For this reason it is important that the definition of terrorism should be somewhat general such as the definition used by the DOD. As far as policy makers are concerned the definition is important as it relates to international cooperation among law enforcement and military when describing a group or movement as being terrorists; while the courts on the other hand can rely on specific acts of terror to prosecute suspects under national or international law.

Something is very wrong in Brussels

A feud in Brussels between a pro Hezbollah group and an anti sharia law group could have larger implications for Europe and possibly for the U.S. In mid August a group known as Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) petitioned the Brussels government through the mayor for permission to hold a protest against the lack of immigration control across the continent. The petition was denied because the mayor of Brussels, Mayor Thieleman, stated that the SIOE is a criminal organization and the protest would slander the Islamic religion. In response to the SIOE petition a group known as the Arab-European League (AEL), which is overtly pro Hezbollah, has petitioned the government to hold a protest in response to the SIOE petition. In 2002, the AEL held a protest in Antwerp where they burned the effigy of a Hassidic Jew and proudly propagated pro Hezbollah and pro Hamas slogans. The city of Antwerp happens to hold the largest population of Jews in the country. Furthermore, the AEL held a cartoon drawing contest with holocaust denial as the topic; an assertion that is illegal in Belgium. Unfortunately no arrests were made. As it stands right now the AEL will be allowed to hold their protest on September 9. For more on this subject: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2389