The World of Terrorism

Al-Qaeda Veteran Takes al-Shabaab Helm

2010-03-12T23:42:00.000-07:00

In the past two months rumors of an impending assault on the Somali capital of Mogadishu have gathered steam. In the midst of all this several militant groups have undergone changes and political alliances have shifted. The first noticeable shift came when Hizbul Islam, one of the Islamist groups that assaulted Mogadishu in 2009, split with half of the group merging with al-Qaeda linked al-Shabaab and the others left fighting for their very existence. Another significant event was the meeting in Addis Ababa between the Somali transitional government (TFG) and Ethiopian backed Ahlu Sunnah Waljamaah. According to several press reports the TFG and Ahlu Sunnah came to some sort of an agreement, but while the exact details are unknown we can reasonably assume that the two parties agreed to military cooperation and possible collaboration on a future government. And finally we have word today that Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, the mastermind of the bombing of two U.S. Embassies in Africa, has reemerged and taken the helm of al-Shabaab. Indeed, this is a disturbing development.

For the last two years several terrorists experts, myself included, have been pointing to Yemen and Somalia as countries that have not had adequate attention or resources devoted to fighting the growing terrorism threat in these nations. It wasn’t until the failed attempt to destroy an aircraft on Christmas Day that the threat from Yemen was brought to the fore, fleeting though it was. Currently, the Yemen government has had a few successful operations against al-Qaeda in the past few months, but the momentum has died along with the press coverage. Somalia on the other hand has been watched off and on as small, targeted operations by the U.S. have been carried out with Operation Celestial Balance being the most visible.

With these political shifts in Somalia it does indeed appear as if the Somali TFG, backed by African Union peacekeepers, may attempt to eject al-Shabaab from Mogadishu to give the fledgling government some breathing room. The U.S. stated today that they will not take a direct role in any offensive, but this does not rule out support actions such as naval and air support as was seen in 2006 when Ethiopia invaded and removed the Islamic Courts Union from power. Al-Shabaab on the other hand will not take this lying down which explains why Fazul Abdullah Mohammed has been given a prominent role.

At this point Mohammed’s role is unclear, but he is unlikely to have been made leader of the group. Instead it is more likely that he will be acting as the head military commander because of his experience and his ability to do something that most terrorists have trouble doing – staying alive while continuing to operate. Fazul Mohammad has an extensive background in planning terrorist attacks in multiple African countries, speaks five languages, and goes by over twenty known aliases. Simply put, Mohammad is a terrorist that folks in the counterterrorist community dread, not unlike the now deceased Hezbollah operative Imad Mughniyeh. If Mohammed continues to operate as he has in the past it is highly likely that he will be able to command the smaller al-Shabaab force in a more efficient manner than the complex alliance supporting the TFG. It is also highly likely that he will have multiple external operations planned against countries and elements supporting the TFG when and if the offensive takes place.

In the past Mohammed has had success in running multiple, simultaneous operations and it is reasonable to expect he will do so now that he has been placed in command of al-Shabaab. The most likely targets will be in Africa such as elements of the Ethiopian government and of course targets of the U.S. At this point al-Shabaab’s ability to strike within the U.S. is unknown, probably limited at best, but it cannot be ruled out. Al-Shabaab has recruited from the large Somali population in the U.S., and in fact, has caused concern within the FBI because some have returned to Somalia and disappeared. One such individual became the first known U.S. suicide bomber when he executed an attack in Somalia on al-Shabaab’s behalf. While we don’t know what Mohammad’s plans are, we can be sure that Somalia will remain a dangerous place and the U.S. will remain an al-Shabaab target.

American al-Qaeda Adam Gadahn Captured

2010-03-07T14:33:00.002-07:00

The spokesman for al Qaeda prime, Adam Gadahn, has been arrested in Karachi Pakistan according to sources of both the Associated Press and Reuters. Because Gadahn is known to go by several aliases it is difficult to ascertain at this time if the press reports are indeed accurate. This confusion has led the press to proclaim Gadahn's death in the past only to have the terrorist resurface. For the sake of this article we'll assume the reports are correct.

Since Gadahn began working with al-Qaeda he has released, and probably produced, numerous videos of propaganda value. The usefulness of propaganda by terrorist movements cannot be understated as it helps in recruiting and countering the message of their targets. If Gadahn was as involved in creating these videos as many suspect, his absence will have a significant impact on al Qaeda's ability to spread propaganda effectively. Furthermore, Gadahn released a new video this morning just before his arrest, but we don't know if the two are connected.

Gadahn's arrest comes on the heels of several other arrests of high level Taliban members and it is possible intelligence gathered from those individuals helped in locating Gadahn. Many analysts suspect that members of the Taliban Shura* left the city of Quetta in the Baluchistan province when the U.S. began threatening to expand drone strikes to the area. This threat by the U.S. was never expected to occur as Quetta is densely populated and collateral damage would have been high, but the threat seemed to have forced many operatives to move to a safer location. Indeed, Pakistani news outlets began reporting on a mass influx of Pashtu into Karachi around the same time of the U.S. threats and the subsequent Pakistani military operations in Swat and South Waziristan.

Assuming that Gadahn has information on the whereabouts of other Taliban/al Qaeda members, his detention could have a harmful effect on both movements. Since Gadahn released a video today it is possible that he possess time sensitive information on the location of other wanted individuals, but with the rampant media reports about his detention it may be already too late. With the numerous arrests of other high level Taliban it is likely they will be forced to respond, and historically speaking their response will be violent. This analysis is preliminary and we will continue to follow future developments as they become available.

*The Shura discussed here is the one directly associated with Mullah Omar, the leader of the main Taliban movement.

The Curious Assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh

2010-02-23T21:40:00.000-07:00

I don’t typically write on every assassination of a terrorist leader as details are often sketchy and speculation in the press is widespread. This does not mean, however, that I refrain from discussing the more notable drone strikes in Pakistan. The reason for this is simple, the means and methods of the drone strikes are known as is the party responsible. This is not always the case for covert operations, but the case of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh is different. I don’t have all the facts, but I have managed to amass enough information to discuss the assassination intelligently.

Assassinations are often believed to be used solely for leadership decapitation purposes, but while this does happen contemporary studies show that nation-states often have other plans in mind. But before we discuss the al-Mabhouh assassination it’s useful to provide an event that is historically analogous, such as that of Imad Mughniyeh, to prove this point. Mughniyeh was the Hezbollah mastermind behind the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon and several other terrorist acts across the globe. As such, Mughniyeh was wanted by several governments and was actively sought by intelligence services for years. Mughniyeh’s time came to an end via a bomb placed in the headrest of his vehicle while in Damascus. To be sure, the assassination of Mughniyeh did damage the external operations of Hezbollah, but did not destroy the organization. Then again it wasn’t expected to.

Several months before the Mughniyeh assassination, the Israeli Air Force struck and destroyed a nuclear facility being constructed in Northern Syria. These two incidents, neither of which was minor, put Syria on the defensive. Shortly thereafter, Israel and Syria began peace talks brokered by both Turkey and the U.S. While I don’t have evidence linking the airstrike and assassination to the peace talks the timing is compelling. This brings us back to the al-Mabhouh assassination.

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was a co-founder of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades and was currently serving as senior commander in charge of armaments. One of his recent claims to fame was orchestrating the movement of armaments and munitions from Iran, through Sudan to the Siani Peninsula, and finally through underground tunnels into the city of Rafah in the Gaza Strip. The Israelis, finally wise to this new method of arms smuggling, launched an airstrike on March 26, 2009 against an arms convoy in Northern Sudan thus disrupting any further use of these transit points. For the Israelis this was incredibly important. After Operation Cast Lead, Israel wanted to prevent any chance Hamas had at rearming and threatening Israeli civilians in the future. This effort against arms smuggling has had a good success rate and has kept Hamas silent. The next logical step would be to remove the arms smuggler, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.

Just as the Mughniyeh assassination was meant to force an issue with Syria the al-Mabhouh killing was meant to hinder arms smuggling into Gaza and send a message to Iran. Here are the known operational details of the al-Mabhouh assassination available in the open source:

Al-Mabhouh arrives in Dubai via Emirates flight AQ 912 on January 19, 2010.
He then arrives at the Hotel Bustan Rotana at 4:30 p.m. then departed for the Iranian embassy a half hour later. At this time surveillance conducted by the assassination team convergences on the Hotel and sets up shop.
Al-Mabhouh returns from the embassy to the hotel, room 130, at approximately 9:00 p.m.
According to Dubai police al-Mabhouh answered a knock on his door shortly after returning and was hit with a stun gun, strangled and injected with a poison.
Al-Mabhouh’s body was discovered in the early morning of January 20 after his wife notified Hamas officials she couldn’t reach him by phone.

While officials in Dubai were quick to point fingers at the Israeli Mossad it is clear that others were involved by the resulting arrests. Hamas has been undergoing an internal struggle and the arrests of Nahro Massoud and Mahmoud Nasser, both of Hamas, show that the assassination team may have had inside help (one Kuwaiti newspaper claims that Nahro Massoud was with al-Mabhouh near the time of his death). In the wake of these and other arrests there are indications that Dubai may want to end this investigation quickly as the Dubai police have enlisted the help of the Egyptian and Jordanian intelligence services to aid in the investigation. On its face it appears that Dubai has asked for assistance from Egypt and Jordan because it needs help in the intelligence realm, however, al-Mabhouh was wanted by both nations and they hardly want to pursue the case any further meaning the investigation is likely to hit a wall. In Europe there are some nations upset over the use of EU member passports as cover for the assassination team and not the actual assassination itself, but this too is likely to slowly fade away (two British newspapers are actually claiming that the Israelis notified the UK that this was going to happen beforehand). In the near term we can expect to see continued media coverage, but Israel has done what it set out to do – Iran, and their proxies, have been put on notice.

Photo: Dubai police compilation of alleged assassins

The Impending Battle of Marja

2010-02-07T20:18:00.000-07:00

Now that the Super Bowl is over its back to reality. Over the last year, U.S. led troops have been conducting operations against the Taliban in Helmand Province, and yet the largest battle in that area appears to be on the Horizon. The city of Marja, located to the east of Helmand’s capital Lashkar Gah, is a Taliban stronghold and also happens to be the center of opium trafficking. If the ISAF is able to successfully eject the Taliban from the area it could have a significant impact on Taliban funding.

Thus far, U.S. and British Special Forces have entered the city and begun targeting insurgent and Taliban leadership. Because of the terrain surrounding the city it would be extremely difficult for ISAF troops to cordon off the city prior to an all out assault making the use of Special Forces in this capacity necessary. Making matters worse the terrain favors the defenders thus necessitating the use of irregular warfare to preempt the use of conventional forces. This coming week has the potential to open up some options for the ISAF in the impending negotiations with insurgents wishing to reconcile with the internationally recognized government in Kabul.

Global Instability and Rising Oil Prices

2010-02-01T21:02:00.000-07:00

Each day that passes it seems that filling up at the pump is becoming more painful. Many oil exporting countries are currently experiencing abnormally high instability ranging from the Caucus region all the way to Sub-Saharan Africa. Here is a quick rundown:

In the mid-1990’s the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan came to a tenuous end, but things are starting to heat up again. Most of the fuss is over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave in Azerbaijan that is primarily made up of Armenians. Azerbaijan wants the territory back while Armenia feels the need to protect members of its ethnicity. The major players backing Armenia are Greece and Russia, while those backing Azerbaijan are Turkey, and from a military industrial perspective, Israel. To paraphrase one regional analyst, this is one of those regional things that could spin out control and start a third world war much like the Balkans incident that started the First World War. I doubt this will happen, but any conflict in the region could cause disruptions in the only major energy pipeline that serves Europe without traversing Russian territory.

Nigeria is once again suffering violence between Christians and Muslims in the central city of Jos. The Nigerian constitution requires a power sharing between members of the two faiths, but with the Muslim President currently in Saudi Arabia undergoing treatment for a heart condition without an accurate picture of his status things are getting tense. The Christian Vice President, Goodluck Jonathan, has been given ceremonial powers to act as President, but many Muslims view this suspiciously. Further complicating matters is the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has declared an end to a ceasefire agreement with the government. The Niger Delta is the region where Nigeria harvests most of its crude oil.

The regime of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is once again under attack from pro-democracy forces protesting the excesses of the Bolivarian style government. Chavez has survived these tests before, but with a crumbling infrastructure it is possible that the power grid could fail in the near future. Currently, the opposition forces are not adequately coordinated, but if things get worse the government of Venezuela would be up for grabs. Chavez has used the nation’s oil money for populous spending all the while ignoring other issues. This could come to a head relatively soon.

I’ve been discussing the Iranian nuclear standoff for some time; however defensive movements by the US followed by threats from the Iranian regime are increasing. If this standoff comes to blows it wouldn’t be beyond reason to expect Iran to cause havoc in the Strait of Hormuz which could potentially cutoff much of the world’s oil supply. February is the month to watch Iran and it won't be pretty.

A lesser known problem exists in Angola. Recently the soccer team from Togo came under attack while traveling through the oil rich Angolan enclave of Cabinda. The group most likely responsible for the attack is the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC) who has been supported by elements in the two Congo’s. This is very unlikely to get out of hand, but one never knows.

It may not seem like much separately, but taken together the crude oil supply that much of the developed world has come to rely on is trapped in regions wracked by instability in the best of times or fighting seemingly endless wars in the worst of times. Unfortunately, I don’t expect anything to improve any time soon.

In Homeland Security: A New Endeavor

2010-02-01T18:16:00.000-07:00

I have been asked, and I have accepted, a position as a contributor to the In Homeland Security Blog run by American Military University.

In Homeland Security is an American Military University (AMU) sponsored blog that features analysis and commentary on homeland security-related issues.

A network of industry experts will cover topics dealing with terrorism research, emergency preparedness and disaster response, border security, transportation and logistics, military intelligence, law enforcement, cyber security and national security.

Our intended audience is comprised of the expert-level policymakers as well as the more broad and general audience of people interested in homeland defense-related topics. The blog is non-partisan and non-commercial.

This is a great opportunity and am very pleased an academic institution would chose me for this work.

A Recent Spike in Terrorist Activity

2010-01-25T12:09:00.002-07:00

Since the failed Christmas airliner bombing intelligence has seen a spike in activity worldwide. Two of the most recent incidences of note is a new Usama bin Laden tape threatening more attacks and the UK increasing their terror threat level to severe. In his new communiqué, bin Laden had the following to say:

In the name of God the most passionate the most merciful. From Osama to Obama.

"May peace be on those who follow the light of guidance. If our messages to you could be carried by words we wouldn't have done that by planes. The message I want to convey to you through the plane of the hero, mujahid Umar al Farouk [Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab] reaffirms a previous message that the heroes of 9/11 conveyed to you and was repeated frequently. The message is that America will never dream of peace unless we live it in Palestine. It is unfair that you should a safe life while our brothers in Gaza are suffer greatly therefore with God's will our attacks on you will continue to (as long as you support) Israel. Peace be on those who follow the light of guidance." Text from Long War Journal

The first and last sentences are strong indicators of an impending attack. At this point US intelligence states they cannot confirm that it is bin Laden on the tape while foreign and private intelligence services are fairly certain that it is indeed the terror mastermind. IntelCenter, a private government contractor, has conducted analysis of the tape and state, “This phrase, ‘Peace be upon those who follow guidance,’ appears at the beginning and end of messages released in advance of attacks that are designed to provide warning to Al-Qaeda's enemies that they need to change their ways or they will be attacked.” This phrase has been used in the past by bin Laden; however, the only information in the public domain pointing to a suspected threat is intelligence indicating that the al-Qaeda franchise in Yemen has trained female suicide bombers for the purpose of targeting aircraft. At this point further information on whether or not these suicide bombers have gone operational is elusive.

The move by the UK to raise their terror alert to ‘severe’ falls in line with the uptick in activity. Anti-terror officials recently said the past week had seen an “unusually high” number of people on their no-fly list trying to board US-bound planes. Furthermore, a conference on Afghanistan will be held in London. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon will be among the attendees which could serve to explain the increase of the threat level by itself, but the number of attempts by individuals on the UK’s no-fly list to board aircraft is troubling.

When put into the larger context of events over the last year the tempo of terrorist activity continues to increase. Therefore, it certainly appears that the possibility of an attack larger in scope than the Ft. Hood shooting and the attempted Christmas bombing is on the horizon. After all, it is doubtful that bin Laden crawled out of his hole just to say hello.

New Threat from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula

2010-01-12T17:50:00.003-07:00

The Middle East Media Research Institute has stated that a new post originating from Al-Falluja, a popular jihadist website, is seeking information about U.S. naval activities in the Persian Gulf region. According to MEMRI the post is asking for, “the name of the particular naval unit to be targeted, its exact location, the number of troops on board the warship and their ranks, familial status, where their families live, the type of weapons the warship carries and the number of nuclear bombs onboard.” Furthermore, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Qabas, quoting militant sources, stated that “weapons sent to forces of the Somali government by Western countries have fallen into the hands of the mujahedeen” (most likely a reference to al-Shabaab). Al-Qabas goes on to claim that these advanced weapons have been moved to Yemen.

Threats like this are nothing new. It is not uncommon for terrorist groups or sympathetic individuals to issue threats against the U.S. under different identities using a variety of names for the same group. The purpose is to confuse intelligence services monitoring communications by overloading the analysts whose job it is to sift through the gathered information. A great example of this problem is the case of Irhaby007. Before this man was brought to justice it took the cooperation of several countries, multiple intelligence and law enforcement agencies and a few private firms to finally uncover one man’s identity. This is not to say the recently issued threat is not without merit. On the contrary, the timing of the threat and the individual believed to have posted it actually give this threat more credence. After all, terrorists are known to return to successful attacks such as the one carried out in Yemen against the USS Cole in 2000.

All told it appears as if al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula does indeed desire to strike at U.S. military targets, whether they still retain the capability following the counterterrorist operations carried out by the Yemen government is another story. According to press releases from NCIS, they are taking the threat seriously. In fact, my NCIS contact just returned from the region and confirmed his agencies stance (this contact was involved in the Cole investigation). Hopefully we’ll learn more in the coming days and weeks.

For those readers who have family members in the region the threat brings to light the intelligence threat posed by terrorist groups. The post specifically requests information on the sailors aboard the ship as well as their family. Social networking sites, such as Facebook, pose a threat to your family abroad if you give up too much information about your loved one. It is prudent that you only allow people you know to see your profile information as well as your status updates. As a counterintelligence officer I frequently look up employees in my company to see what information may be available to foreign intelligence officers looking for an easy target to exploit. It doesn’t take much to steal an identity or blackmail someone with an update that may have seemed innocuous at the time. Everybody, including family members of the military, intelligence community and defense contractors, must practice good operational security or OPSEC. The Cole bombing taught the U.S. a very important lesson – loose lips still sink ships.

Al-Qaeda in Yemen

2010-01-06T17:18:00.003-07:00

The attempted bombing of a U.S. bound flight has brought the three-front war in Yemen to the forefront. Almost a year ago now, two former inmates of the Guantanamo military prison in Cuba resurfaced in Yemen as leaders of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). While this was an interesting development, what is more important to note is that AQAP has managed to survive and is now operating in Yemen as opposed to Saudi Arabia. About a year and a half ago I stated that it was possible for AQAP in Saudi Arabia to cooperate with the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen to facilitate moving of arms, people, and launching attacks in the future. This is indeed occurring, but the al-Qaeda affiliates have decided to merge instead of maintaining autonomy. This has occurred for two reasons. The first is that Saudi Arabia encouraged these radicals to go to Iraq and fight the U.S., but when they tried to return they were persona non grata. The second reason is that Yemen is far more conducive to terrorist operations because of the deteriorating of the security environment and the proximity to another al-Qaeda entity in Somalia.

Understanding Yemen

Yemen occupies the southwestern corner of the Arabian Peninsula. This area is a geographically strategic area that facilitated trade between the sub-Saharan empires of Africa with the fluctuating empires coming from Asia prior to being conquered by the Ethiopian Empire and then by the Persians. Yemen would eventually follow suit with the rest of the Arabian Peninsula and undergo a forced conversion to Islam led by the Prophet Muhammad. In the 9th century A.D., the al-Zaydi tribe of Mesopotamia migrated and settled in the mountainous region of western Yemen around the ancient city of Sa’dah. The al- Zaydi tribe would eventually bring the indigenous tribes under their full control thus expanding their territory all the way to the Red Sea, but failing to secure the entirety of the southwest Arabian plateau. Several centuries later in 1517 the Ottoman Turks would conquer Yemen leading to occasional self rule until the Empire’s fall at the close of World War I.

Technically Yemen was an independent country after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, but several areas were actually occupied and administered by the British with the port city of Aden being the most visible. Once World War I ended, Yemen once again became an Imamate with areas under British control tied loosely together under the aegis of the Protectorate of South Arabia while the rest of the country was ruled by the Imam Yahya. Yemen would suffer from several civil wars from 1914 to 1994 both in the context of an occupying power and the ideological struggles of the Cold War. Following independence, Yemen struggled to forge a new identity and maintained an Imamate government that ruled until 1962 when the last Royalist was deposed by military officers that championed the Arab socialist movement headed by Egypt’s Nasser. At the time of the military coup, Nasser was looking to solidify his position as leader of the pan-Arab movement and nearby Yemen appeared to be fertile ground not only for spreading the revolution, but also keeping Saudi Arabia – the competing leader of the Arab world – off balance. Nasser did not waste any time sending Egyptian troops into Yemen to prop up the new government once the coup was initiated. As expected, Saudi Arabia did not take this development lightly.

The resulting civil war was fought by the Nasser backed socialists and the Saudi/Western backed Royalists. The Egyptian military soon found themselves the target of Royalist insurgents and fighters from the al Zaydi tribe that would last 5 long years and cost Egypt a military defeat in two theaters; one in Yemen and the other by Israel in the 1967 war. While the Royalist movement forced Egypt to withdraw militarily lasting divisions among the Yemeni people were drawn. With the involvement of western powers fighting a socialist movement, the Soviet Union felt compelled to move in and facilitate a Marxist movement among the remaining socialists that would divide the Yemeni state in two. The Royalists won the war against Egypt, but lost the war for a unified Yemen.

The division of Yemen significantly weakened an already poor state. The limited resources were now divided between the two states and subsequently were poorly managed. In 1989, the governments of North and South Yemen came to a compromise which resulted in unification the next year, but the damage to the economy was done. By 1994, Southern secessionists angry over wealth distribution and government corruption were once again challenging the government leading to yet another civil war. Government forces under the leadership of President Ali Abdallah Salih eventually won, but the secessionist movement in the south would not go away. Since the end of the 1994 war, the national government in Sana’a has been continually fighting the secessionists in the south and the Houthi faction of the Zaydi tribe in the north. In the midst of all of this President Salih used international militants, including al-Qaeda, to fight a war of attrition against both movements. Unfortunately for Salih, al-Qaeda had an agenda of its own.

Yemen’s Three-Front War

Yemen’s current war is certainly a challenge for the Arab state. The secessionists in the south have been protesting as usual and fortunately for Sana’a the violence has been relatively small. The Houthi rebellion in the north on the other hand is quite severe. The Houthi’s have managed to ambush and even defeat armed engagements with the Yemeni military primarily because of outside assistance. The insurgency has gotten so bad that Saudi Arabia, a nation that usually does not engage in direct combat, has sent troops across the border into Yemen to aid their southern neighbor. Further complicating matters is Hezbollah has sent fighters from Lebanon to aid the Houthi’s at the behest of Iran turning what was once a manageable rebellion into a full fledged proxy war between Riyadh and Tehran.*

In its usual style, al-Qaeda has done what it can to exploit the situation. After the two al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula nodes merged jihadists from Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, and Somalia began showing up for training and recruiting. In fact, some of the Somali suicide bombers have trained in Yemen and have definitely benefited from the wealth of experience from combat veterans. Thus, it is no surprise that the suspect that attempted to bomb a U.S. airliner trained in Yemen. In light of the failed attempt Yemeni counterterrorist units have targeted al-Qaeda militants operating in the eastern part of the country. Unfortunately, with military units fighting that Houthi’s in the north and keeping the peace with the secessionists in the south, a prolonged campaign against al-Qaeda faces some significant challenges. Indeed, the situation is dire.

The Way Forward

It is highly unlikely that the U.S. would participate overtly in any campaign against al-Qaeda in Yemen. Not only does the U.S. have multiple priorities, but Yemen is unlikely to accept any non-Arab support in any conventional operation. This does not mean however, that the U.S. will be excluded. In the last ten years the U.S. has taken an on again off again interest in Yemen starting with the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Since then the U.S. has used unmanned aircraft and naval support in targeting militants without using a substantial ground presence, although Special Forces have gone in into Yemen proper. If Washington truly feels a need to increase its involvement in Yemen it has the tools to do it. Currently the U.S. has a large military and intelligence presence in Djibouti and Saudi Arabia that are more than capable of handling sensitive, covert missions throughout the region.

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is not a jihadist startup by any stretch of the imagination. It is highly likely that the more experienced members will flee to Somalia if they feel threatened and shack up with al-Shabaab. After all, these militants have done so before when they left Iraq and Afghanistan. When all is said and done the U.S. and its allies cannot completely eliminate the jihadist threat, but they can make al-Qaeda’s ability to operate and survive very difficult indeed.

*Multiple news outlets have claimed that evidence of foreign assistance in the Houthi rebellion is lacking. When looking for information from traditional news sources this may be true; however intelligence contacts in several Middle East nations have confirmed that foreign aid from Hezbollah and Iran has made it to Yemen. In fact, Hezbollah has lost several members as a result of fighting in Northern Yemen as detailed on their website.

Double Agent Kills Seven CIA Officers

2010-01-05T17:14:00.005-07:00

In the last week multiple news outlets reported that seven CIA operatives were assassinated in Afghanistan by a suicide bomber at Forward Operating Base Chapman near the city of Khost. More details have begun to emerge about what happened in the press, but I will also give the details of what I know about this incident.

On December 30, 2009, a CIA informant claiming to have urgent information on al Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was brought to an ISAF Forward Operating Base to meet with several CIA officers. Since the informant was known an Afghan security officer drove the individual to the base and failed to conduct a search for weapons or explosives. This oversight led to the deaths of eight people and wounded several others.

The bomber was Dr. Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a jihadist that was captured by the Jordanians, went through a rehabilitation process in Jordan, and was ultimately used by U.S. and Jordanian intelligence as an asset to infiltrate al-Qaeda in Pakistan. As is typical with these types of operations an asset turning into a double agent is a risk that runs high. It appears that al-Balawi did provide important information that led to the successful execution of several drone strikes in the Pakistani Tribal region before turning his allegiance to the Pakistani Taliban.

The Haqqani Network

At this point it appears that the attack was orchestrated by the Haqqani network. The Haqqani network is run by Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Siraj Haqqani who have close ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban movement. The following information on Jalaluddin Haqqani is from recently declassified diplomatic cables:

7. In a January 6 conversation with poloff, redacted a Taliban supporter redacted said he knows Haqqani and agrees that he is an effective military strategist. He argued that Haqqani "should be seen in his proper context and he has clear links with Islamic extremists." Warming to this theme redacted asserted that Haqqani had developed a close relationship with various radical Arab groups during the jihad. These relationships, redacted asserted, have continued and, in exchange for 'weapons and money, Haqqani is "offering shelter for various Arabs in areas of Paktia province." Brushing aside poloff's request for further information on this subject, redacted stated that he did not have the details, but that Haqqani's role with the “Arabs” is “well-known.” (Note: reporting in other channels indicate that Haqqani maintains these links.)

8. Turning to the issue of Haqqani's relationship with the Taliban, redacted concurred with Wahab's assessment that Haqqani probably did not have significant influence with the Taliban on political or social issues. "although he is a mullah," he related, "Haqqani is not considered to be a Taliban and he has little credibility with them on issues outside of the military realm." he observed that Haqqani's ties to Islamic extremists are also opposed by a number of Taliban officials, including "acting foreign minister" Ghaus. (Note: in a meeting with DCM: in early December, mullah Ghaus, when asked about Haqqani’s relationship with the Taliban, was dismissive and intimated that Haqqani was not important in the Taliban leadership hierarchy.) Nonetheless, redacted advised, “Haqqani could prove to have a negative influence on the Taliban by making them more prone to accept the advice of Islamic radicals.”

The aforementioned information came from an informant prior to 9/11. Since the Taliban were removed from power Haqqani has become a prized commander not only from his experience, but also because of his ties to multiple militant Islamic groups. In the last couple of years Siraj, Jalaluddin’s son, has taken on more responsibility in the group and is poised to inherit his father’s network. It certainly appears as if the Haqqani’s are preparing for an American exit from Afghanistan and will use their new found power to buy influence in whatever replaces the current Afghan government. The successful assassination of seven CIA officers will go a long way in accomplishing their goals, that is if they escape CIA retaliation.

Iran Moves to a War Footing

2009-12-21T18:26:00.001-07:00

While the bulk of this article will be about recent Iranian moves, we will start with Israel. When it was leaked to the press that Israeli PM Netanyahu confronted the Russians with a list of scientists helping the Iranians develop a nuclear weapon a small but important statement was overlooked. In the article former assistant defense minister Ephraim Sneh stated that, “If no crippling sanctions are introduced by Christmas, Israel will strike – if we are left alone, we will act alone.” This is an interesting, and yet strange statement because, if true, it could serve to undermine the element of surprise necessary for an attack to be carried out. It appears that statement was made not to warn of an impending strike, but rather to force the U.S. to push harder for sanctions.

Dr. Ephraim Sneh is a career politician who currently does not hold any official office or position within the current government which begs the question, why would Sneh be the one to issue such a forceful statement? The best reason for this may be because Sneh is not a part of the current government. This would allow the Israelis to issue a threat with deniability; after all Israel is a small country and politicians still retain certain power even if they do not hold an official position. Furthermore, the target of this statement may not be Iran, but rather the U.S. Israel was promised that if diplomacy failed the U.S. would lead the charge to implement crippling sanctions against Iran, or more precisely, sanctions against Iranian gasoline imports. Currently, Iran is a net importer of gasoline because the country lacks the refining capability needed to convert domestically produced crude oil into commercial gasoline.

But there is a severe problem with this plan. The UN Security Council would have to vote unanimously to implement sanctions that would work. Two permanent members, Russia and China, have already stated they would vote against such a measure. The U.S. and Europe could implement the sanctions unilaterally, but Russia could singlehandedly provide Iran with all the gasoline it needs very easily making unilateral sanctions useless. It would appear that if the current attempts at diplomacy fail, an Israeli strike would be inevitable.

This may serve to explain current Iranian activities. Recently, Iran trained 250 Hezbollah paramilitary members on several missile systems in the event of war with Israel. These missiles have a longer range and should be able to strike most cities in the Jewish state. Making matters worse is a report from the Kuwaiti newspaper al Jarida which states that Syria recently moved one quarter of its medium and long range missile arsenal to Lebanon. Coming on the heels of all of this is the Iranian incursion into Iraq which clearly shows that Iran will not wait around to be hit militarily or by sanctions. Iran is very publically moving to a war footing.

Washington, Jerusalem, and Tehran have not publicly given any clear indication as to what would force armed conflict, but what is known is that diplomacy is failing rapidly. The December 25 date may be political theater, but then again with Iran preparing for war Israel may be forced to act sooner rather than later. These activities only serve to leave the U.S. in the cold and at the mercy of other nations to determine when and where a conflict will occur. Whatever the outcome neither bodes well for any country involved.

The Somali Connection

2009-12-15T17:47:00.001-07:00

"We judge the terrorist threat to US interests in East Africa, primarily from Al Qaida and Al Qaida-affiliated Islamic extremists in Somalia and Kenya, will increase in the next year as Al Qaida's East Africa network continues to plot operations against U.S., Western, and local targets and the influence of the Somalia-based terrorist group Al Shabaab grows. Given the high-profile U.S. role in the region and its perceived direction-in the minds of Al Qaida and local extremists-of foreign intervention in Somalia, we assess U.S. counterterrorism efforts will be challenged not only by the Al Qaida operatives in the Horn, but also by Somali extremists and increasing numbers of foreign fighters supporting Al Shabaab's efforts."

National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, March 20, 2009

Back in September I discussed a U.S. raid in the southern Somali city of Baraawe in which several members of al-Qaeda and al-Shabaab were either killed or captured. It is believed that the target of the raid was Kenya-born Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan who is wanted in connection with the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and a plot that resulted in a car bomb attack against an Israeli owned hotel accompanied with an attempted missile attack against an Israeli airliner in 2002. A short two months later al-Qaeda’s external operations chief, Saleh al-Somali, was killed in a U.S. air strike on the Pakistani village of Aspangla. These two strikes show that the U.S. has a much better understanding of al-Qaeda’s structure and operations than previously thought and bin Laden and gang are relying on the African jihadists to carry on global operations.

Indeed, this is following al-Qaeda’s pattern of creating or co-opting terrorist groups indigenous to the region in which they wish to operate. In Afghanistan, al-Qaeda has been replacing members that have been killed or captured with local elements especially Afghans, Pakistanis, and Uzbeks. Perhaps most notably is the recent discovery of an al-Qaeda camp in Pakistan that is primarily comprised of Caucasian Germans. Of course the recruiting and training doesn’t end there because al-Qaeda knows better than to place all of its eggs in one basket. In fact, bin Laden’s current focus is on Yemen and Somalia.

Yemen and Somalia are falling apart. Yemen is currently fighting Houthi rebels in the north, combating a growing secessionist movement in the south all the while dealing with a resurgent al-Qaeda throughout the country. Somalia has been in a state of war since the central government ceased to be in the early 90’s. Since then the country has been steadily taken over by Islamist elements just as fundamental in belief as the Taliban. In fact, the Islamic Courts Union did indeed seize power over much of the country before being pushed out by Ethiopian troops backed by U.S. air power a few short years ago. Al-Qaeda’s wing in Somalia, al-Shabaab, has proven to be an adept militant group preventing any faction or tribe from solidifying power in the African country. Yemen’s al-Qaeda branch, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, has been working closely with al-Shabaab and steadily rebuilding since being forced out of Saudi Arabia. Both groups are far from being classified as start-ups and are being run by experienced militants that have fought in Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

This is what has made the two U.S. strikes against al-Qaeda bigwig militants with a Somali connection so interesting. It has been known for some time that al-Qaeda has been moving its ethic Arab members out of South Asia and back into the Middle East and Africa. This behavior is indicative of all terrorist groups; they tend to follow the path of least resistance. Unfortunately for al-Qaeda, they are running out of people and places to go.

Iran, the Bomb, and the Israeli Red Line

2009-10-09T19:15:00.002-06:00

The vast majority of information available to the public on the Iranian nuclear program has been speculative at best and contradictory at worst. Perhaps the most confusing document came out in late 2007 in which the U.S. intelligence community declared that Iran had halted work on a nuclear weapons program and instead was wholly focused on energy production. It was my contention at the time that this statement was not one made in fact, but rather published for reasons of political expediency. At the time the Bush administration was struggling to come up with a strategy for a deteriorating situation in Iraq and was looking to Iran for help stabilizing the situation. Though this attempt failed the ensuing troop surge managed to bring a tense stability to Iraq and by extension a means by which the U.S. could begin to draw down the troop presence. Because of a recent revelation by the Obama administration this previous analysis holds true.

In a recent address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, President Obama stated that U.S. intelligence had been monitoring the construction of another uranium enrichment site near the holy city of Qom, Iran. According to U.S. and Israeli intelligence sources, the existence of this nuclear facility was known as far back as 2006 – one year before the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate upon which my previous analysis was based. The construction of an enrichment facility on a military installation hardly fits into a civil nuclear program and is not an occurrence that one could easily over look when drafting an NIE. The bottom line is that the crisis over the Iranian nuclear weapons was not resolved, but simply put on hold because the U.S. needed Iranian cooperation in Iraq.

It is now two years later and the crisis has once again come to the forefront with all trends and indicators pointing towards war with Iran. Although the Iranians have agreed to allow inspections of the new facility by the IAEA, it is unlikely that anything substantial will result. In fact, the inspections are completely meaningless because uranium can go through the enrichment process at different facilities and leave the inspectors chasing ghosts and rumors. But a nuclear weapons program is far more complex than creating the needed nuclear fuel. The real aspects of the program lay within experimentation with the simultaneous detonation of precisely manufactured conventional explosives. These explosives, commonly known as a shaped charged, are arranged around the outside of the nuclear material in a pattern that resembles a soccer ball. Creating and manufacturing these materials are by far the most difficult aspect of any nuclear weapons program, not to mention the full scale assembly and production of a nuclear device.

Iran, with a little help from several Russian scientists (this information was recently leaked by Israeli intelligence – they know the Russians by name and claim they were sent by the Russian government), seems to have overcome these obstacles. The Associated Press recently disclosed information from a classified IAEA document which stated the following:

• The IAEA's assessment that Iran worked on developing a chamber inside a ballistic missile capable of housing a warhead payload "that is quite likely to be nuclear."
• That Iran engaged in "probable testing" of explosives commonly used to detonate a nuclear warhead — a method known as a "full-scale hemispherical explosively driven shock system."
• An assessment that Iran worked on developing a system "for initiating a hemispherical high explosive charge" of the kind used to help spark a nuclear blast.
• The agency ... assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device (an atomic bomb) based on HEU (highly enriched uranium) as the fission fuel.

With this information it does indeed appear that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, and this poses a serious problem – the west, a majority of Arab nations, and perhaps the country most threatened by a nuclear Iran, Israel do not want this to happen. In the face of such opposition one would think Iran would abandon such a program to avoid isolation, but Tehran currently has Russian and Chinese backing – at least for now. Additionally, the Iranians, along with the Russians, view Obama as a weak president who will not use military force to destroy their nuclear facilities. Tehran also believes that the Israelis do not have the military capability of striking and destroying their dispersed nuclear program. In essence, the Iranians believe, albeit wrongly, that they can pursue a nuclear weapons program unencumbered.

Israel has stated that they will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances, but the red line that Iran would have to cross before the Israelis took action is unknown. Israel does have some military options to target the known fixed locations of the nuclear program, but none of these are very promising. Unfortunately, these options would only delay the Iranian program and not destroy it. Knowing full well the limitations of its military power it is unlikely that Israel will be dissuaded from taking action. Many attribute Israel’s heavy reliance on military power to memories of the holocaust, while this may be accurate up to a point it does little to explain the nature of the Israeli state. Israel is a small, densely populated country which means that the Jewish nation lacks strategic depth. Any large sustained conventional attack against the country would be devastating meaning that escalation to a nuclear exchange with another country is unthinkable.

While we may not know at what point an attack against the Iranian nuclear sites will occur we can be sure that Iran will respond. The Iranian military is not very sophisticated nor is it able to project force beyond Iran’s borders, but Tehran has other tools at its disposal. First and foremost is the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) which is a special military force charged with protecting the revolution and supporting the clerical regime. Most notably however, is the training that the IRGC gives to terrorist groups worldwide. By training and funding global terrorism Iran is able to strike at its enemies worldwide as evidenced by attacks as far away as Europe and South America. Perhaps the most notable of Iranian terrorist proxies is the Lebanese Hezbollah which participates in terrorist and conventional fighting against Israel. It is highly likely that Hezbollah would be used in the first response to an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran could also use its missile arsenal with conventional warheads to strike directly at Israel, but these missiles have been unreliable and may not be able to penetrate Israel’s missile defense system. In an act of defiance or desperation Iran could attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz; an act that would affect 40% of the world’s oil supply. While the Iranians believe that Obama is a weak president such an act in the middle of a tepid global economic recovery would force the U.S. to respond militarily to open the Strait, thus leading to a wider war. These are the current trends, none of which will lead to a desirable conclusion.

Foiled Terror Plots and the Bigger Picture

2009-09-24T21:55:00.003-06:00

In the last 24 hours the law enforcement community has made several arrests, and at this point, disrupted three seemingly independent terrorist plots. The U.S. media has been closely following the Denver-New York plot which resulted in the suspect, Najibullah Zazi, being indicted for conspiring to attack the U.S. with a weapon of mass destruction. Details of the plot thus far include:
On Wednesday, a grand jury in New York handed Zazi a one-count indictment for conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction.

Zazi and others made repeat purchases over the last three months of "large quantities of hydrogen peroxide and acetone products from beauty supply stores in the Denver metropolitan area." This is used to make an explosive known as TATP.

Court documents do not identify any conspirators or targets and shed no light on the scale of Zazi’s intended plot. But, evidence adds to the suspicion that Zazi and his partners were working on developing portable bombs for use against multiple targets.

Investigators searched for up to two dozen suspects and a possible cache of explosive materials in a possible al-Qaeda plot to set off hydrogen-peroxide bombs hidden in backpacks. The FBI said “several individuals in the United States, Pakistan and elsewhere” are being investigated. “

When police on September 14 searched an apartment in Queens that Zazi had visited, they confiscated cell phones and at least nine empty backpacks. The Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people involved backpacks stuffed with explosives that were detonated via cell phones.

Federal counterterrorism officials issued terrorism bulletins which urged law enforcement and private companies to be vigilant at stadiums, entertainment complexes, transit systems and hotels.

Police are being told to watch for any large quantities of hydrogen peroxide, drain cleaner, acetone, or nail polish remover various types of acids and large quantities of ammonia nitrate or urea fertilizer.

It appears that law enforcement has this case well in hand. The other plots that have unraveled are:

Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, a 19-year-old Jordanian citizen, was arrested by federal authorities who say that Smadi placed an inactive car bomb today at Fountain Place, a 60-story skyscraper in downtown Dallas.

Michael Finton, also known as Talib Islam, was arrested in Springfield, Illinois, and charged with attempted murder of federal officers or employees and trying to use a weapon of mass destruction, charges that carry a life sentence.

Additionally, two men were arrested last month for attempting to attack a Marine base in North Carolina.

Terrorists use a variety of methods to mask their plots by using multiple names for their organization and also using patsies to overwhelm intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The use of patsies could explain the flurry of recent arrests, but I do not have any information to confirm this. I have seen an uptick in reported surveillance by suspicious individuals nationwide and am concerned that something larger is on the horizon. Busting a few plots is great, but we must keep our eyes on the bigger picture.

A U.S. Raid in Somalia

2009-09-14T19:15:00.006-06:00

As of this morning both Reuters and the Associated Press are reporting that a small foreign military force launched an attack on militants in the southern Somali city of Baraawe. Current details are sketchy, but the most recent news states that two helicopters originating from an unknown naval ship opened fire on a car killing two and wounding two. Local residents stated that the two wounded men were loaded aboard the aircraft and flown back out to sea. Several sources are also claiming that one of the militants killed was Kenya-born Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan who is wanted in connection with the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and a plot that resulted in a car bomb attack against an Israeli owned hotel accompanied with an attempted missile attack against an Israeli airliner in 2002.

Still at large in Africa is Abu Talha Al-Sudani and Fazul Adballah Muhammad. Both of these men are known to have participated in the 1998 embassy bombings and are currently acting as al-Qaeda’s representatives to the local al-Qaeda node al-Shabab.

Multiple foreign navies are operating in the waters off of Somalia in an attempt to stem the threat of piracy, but only a few have the capabilities and the desire to launch such an attack. Furthermore, the intelligence required to execute such a precise mission would have required resources far in excess of many of the participants in the counter-piracy mission.

Update: NBC is reporting that this raid was conducted by U.S. Special Forces. If this is indeed accurate it is indicative of a significant intelligence victory in the war of terror. Currently, U.S. Special Forces in the region operate out of Djibouti, but they could not have carried out this attack without some sort of naval support. Djibouti borders Somalia to the north while the attack took place in the southern reaches of the African horn which is well beyond the range of the suspected aircraft involved. The U.S. is known it use forward operating bases in neighboring Ethiopia, but eyewitness accounts have the U.S. aircraft coming from and returning to the sea.

CIA Map, Text in red is mine

Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan

National Geographic Magazine insert

Hezbollah has Chemical Weapons? Not So Fast

2009-09-09T17:42:00.002-06:00

The Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyasa reported on September 3 that an explosion in southern Lebanon that occurred on July 14, 2009 was a Hezbollah arms depot. Seemingly giving credence to this claim is four days after the explosion the UN observer force trying access the site was blocked by a mob of protesters who then attacked the UN representatives. What made this report stand out was not the fact that the arms depot was a violation of UN Resolution 1701, but the claim that the depot contained chemical weapons.

In the last few years it has become difficult to discuss the existence of chemical weapons in the Middle East because of the pre-Iraq war intelligence claims. The case of Syria, one of Hezbollah’s benefactors, is quite different. In fact, Jane’s Intelligence reported:

Syrian defence sources told Jane's that during a 26 July (2007) test to weaponise a 500 km 'Scud C' with a mustard gas warhead, an explosion occurred in a laboratory adjacent to a chemical agent storage facility located in a Syrian military camp in Aleppo. The explosion killed 15 Syrian military personnel and "dozens" of Iranian missile weaponisation engineers, the sources said.

"The blast dispersed chemical agents (including VX and Sarin nerve agents and mustard blister agent) across the storage facility and outside. Other Iranian engineers were seriously injured with chemical burns to exposed body parts not protected by safety overalls."

Given this information, along with a multitude of other nongovernment sources, it is clear that Syria does indeed maintain a chemical weapons capability. This does not mean however that Syria would then give these weapons to Hezbollah. While it is widely known that both Syria and Iran support Hezbollah with money and arms it is unlikely that either country would want to lose direct control over this kind of special weaponry. We can safely assume that if Hezbollah possessed, then used chemical weapons against Israel that the retaliation against Syria and Iran would be substantial. Just like current U.S. policy, Israel does not differentiate between chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. An attack against the Jewish state with a weapon of mass destruction would invite a nuclear retaliation; something that neither Iran nor Syria would want to invite.

Furthermore, excerpts from the UN investigation into the explosion do not make any mention of the presence of chemical weapons. The chemical weapons that Syria is thought to possess are persistent, meaning that any release could remain in the area depending on weather patterns. Since the variety of reports on the incident do not mention any inspectors exhibiting any ill effects from the site investigation it is unlikely that chemical weapons were present.

We must keep in mind that while the possibility of Hezbollah procuring chemical weapons from Syria is remote the Middle East arms race taking place between the Arab nations and the Iranian-Syrian alliance could always prompt a change in policy in the near future. In this case only time will tell.

The Death of Baitullah Mehsud

2009-08-27T17:45:00.004-06:00

The death of Baitullah Mehsud has finally been confirmed by the Pakistani Taliban (the Pakistani Taliban is also known by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan or TTP). This comes almost a month after the CIA struck Baitullah’s father in law’s compound killing the militant leader and one of his wives. Initially, the U.S. refrained from admitting the target and confirming Baitullah’s death, but the Pakistanis did not possess such qualms. For their part, the TTP continued to claim that Baitullah was not killed in the attack, but was instead ill. Furthermore the Pakistanis were claiming that his death resulted in a shootout during a shura meeting where discussions over Baitullah’s replacement were taking place. It was in the midst of these claims and counter claims that prevented more timely analysis.

What we do know now is that the U.S., Pakistan, and the TTP have all admitted that Baitullah is indeed dead. The multiple factions that make up the TTP have met and named Hakeemullah Mehsud as the new emir, or leader. Speaking with the AFP Hakeemullah stated, "Now the shura (meeting of elders) has unanimously appointed me as new amir (head) of Tehreek-e-Taliban... We will take revenge and soon. We will give our reply to this drone attack to America." Indeed, Hakeemullah is following in his predecessors footsteps by threatening to attack the U.S. domestically; however Baitullah never succeeded. In the midst of the upheaval that has occurred within the TTP as a result of the loss of their leader, an attack in the short term is unlikely. It is not unreasonable however to believe that Hakeemullah may attempt an attack to prove his capability as leader. In the near term we can expect an uptick in suicide attacks across Pakistan.

While the reporting in the last month on the matter of Baitullah’s death has been plentiful, the strike has not been analyzed from an intelligence perspective, or more accurately a counterintelligence perspective. The U.S. had on multiple occasions tried to kill Baitullah although most of his attacks were against the Pakistani state. It is true that Baitullah was part of the larger Taliban movement and did contribute to the Afghan insurgency, but his death would not have changed anything in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan his absence would certainly be felt. The Pakistanis of course know this and would have used their intelligence assets in the region to pinpoint Baitullah’s location, but it still doesn’t answer the question of why the U.S. took him out and not the Pakistanis who have the motivation and assets in the region to do it. It appears that this was not a matter of ability, but for the Pakistanis a matter of proving to the U.S. that the intelligence the ISI (Inter-services Intelligence) provides is accurate. In the rocky relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan this level of cooperation can be used be used to shore up a rather fractured foundation.

Another matter of this operation for consideration is the asset that gave away Baitullah’s position in the first place. When an asset is in place, intelligence agencies will strive to maintain that connection thus begging the question of why operations of the both the Pakistanis and the U.S. have been relatively quiet. The most that has taken place is a drone strike on the Haqqani network and a feeble attempt by the Pakistani government to spread disinformation about the aftermath of Baitullah’s death*. Without continuing pressure on the TTP, a mole hunt will ensue which will compromise not only the asset, but continuing intelligence operations making the strike on Baitullah all for not.

*Since it was the Pakistanis making most of the noise immediately following the strike on Baitullah it leads me to believe that this was a Pakistani operation even if it was the CIA that pulled the trigger.

Aside: Baitullah Mehsud was the man who ordered the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Following below is a transcript of an intercepted phone call in which the assassination is discussed.

Baitullah Mehsud, who is referred to as Emir Sahib, and another man identified as a Maulvi Sahib, or Mr. Cleric.
Maulvi Sahib: Peace be on you.
Mehsud: Peace be on you, too.
Maulvi Sahib: How are you Emir Sahib?
Mehsud: Fine.
Maulvi Sahib: Congratulations. I arrived now tonight.
Mehsud: Congratulations to you, too.
Maulvi Sahib: They were our men there.
Mehsud: Who were they?
Maulvi Sahib: There were Saeed, the second was Badarwala Bilal and Ikramullah was also there.
Mehsud: The three did it?
Maulvi Sahib: Ikramullah and Bilal did it.
Mehsud: Then congratulations to you again.
Maulvi: Where are you? I want to meet with you?
Mehsud: I am in Makin. Come I am at Anwar Shah's home.
Maulvi Sahib: OK I will come.
Mehsud: Do not inform their family presently.
Maulvi Sahib: Right.
Mehsud: It was a spectacular job. They were very brave boys who killed her.
Maulvi Sahib: Praise be to God. I will give you more details when I come.
Mehsud: I will wait for you. Congratulations once again.
Maulvi Sahib: Congratulations to you as well.
Mehsud: Any service?
Mauvliv: Thank you very much?
Mehsud: Peace be on you.
Maulvi: Same to you.

The Great Unraveling – The Muslim World Looks Inward

2009-07-01T18:45:00.003-06:00

This is the third in a series exploring the realignment of the world powers and the potential for conflict.

The Muslim World is hardly a homogeneous thing, but several issues do grab the attention of Muslims in the Middle East not the least of which is Israel. Foolishly many believe that peace between Israel and the Palestinians will bring peace to the Middle East all the while ignoring divisions in Islam and cultural differences between the Arabs, Persians, Kurds, and Turks. This is an ignorance born out of obsession by the West with solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a means of atoning for the UN mandate that created the Jewish state. Perhaps a more pressing conflict, one that will lead to an arms race if not an a larger conflict, is the ongoing feud between the Arabs and the Persians who also happen to largely fall along the Islamic division of Sunni and Shiites with the majority of Arabs adhering to the former and the Persians the latter. In recent times, the current protests in Tehran aside, Iran has been pushing its influence to the far corners of the Middle East while the fractured Arab states strive to counter these moves.

It has become increasingly difficult to discuss Iran without discussing the nuclear program. While Iran has been moving forward in building nuclear power plants and enriching uranium, it must be remembered that this doesn’t automatically translate into a deliverable nuclear warhead. Regardless, both the Arab regimes and the Israelis are not going to wait for Iran to get that far and will take extraordinary measures to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear armed power. These actions currently include the Saudis and Israelis sharing intelligence and assassinating Iran’s nuclear scientists. This cooperation challenges the common belief, but Saudi Arabia has its largest Shiite population living in the oil rich eastern desert and Riyadh views this as a weakness within the kingdom. Israel on the other hand fears Iranian weapons and technology being put in the hands of Hezbollah. The Arabs and the Israelis are using intelligence to fight Tehran while Iran fights back by supporting the rogues. The players have shifted alliances, but the game remains the same.

In the midst of the regional maneuvering is the buildup of conventional military forces. The Gulf States having been buying military hardware such as fighter jets and ballistic missile defense systems from the United States in preparation for a more aggressive Iran. While these systems may make the Royal families sleep better at night the geography and internal affairs of the Iranian state do not necessarily allow Tehran to pursue foreign matters of the state via conventional military means. Instead Iran has relied primarily on supporting terrorism and spreading the Iranian revolution through Shiite proselytizing throughout the Middle East. This has given the Iranians a bit of street credit among ordinary Muslims regardless of which sect of Islam they belong too. For several decades many Arab nations have spoken about the virtues of jihad while the Iranians are actually acting on the premise. This has severely undermined the Arab nations and their struggle against one another for leadership of Islam hasn’t helped matters either.

In this fight for control of the Muslim conscience it may seem that Iran is on the march, but the Arab states are not without tools of their own – namely Saudi Arabia’s money. The Saudis oil reserves are so vast that when the need strikes the kingdom can raise or undercut oil prices overnight. For nations such as Iran that are dependent on high oil prices Riyadh’s actions can have a devastating effect. This approach has proven more reliable for the Saudi’s then when the support of terrorism in the region was their status quo. This will be a delicate dance between the Arabs and Persians for a little while longer but things will heat up quickly. Most of this fight will be planned in the shadows forcing analysis to be rather general. What we do know is that the Muslim world will do what it does best; turn inward and fight each other.

The Great Unraveling – A New Alliance in the East

2009-06-24T19:16:00.001-06:00

This is the second in a series exploring the realignment of the world powers and the potential for conflict.

Lost in the obsessive coverage of the Iranian elections is the move by Vietnam to purchase 6 diesel electric Kilo class submarines and several aircraft from the Russians. On the surface this agreement appears to be nothing more than a routine purchase of military hardware. However, when placed in context of territorial water disputes with China a new dynamic reveals itself. All nations look to use military means not only to provide security, but to push its foreign policy far beyond its borders to support economic growth. China, which lives and dies by its cheap exports, is certainly no different. It is for precisely this reason that Chinas military expansion is quickly putting the Asian giant on a crash course with most of its neighbors.

With the world’s third largest economy and the world’s largest population China is moving forward at a breakneck pace trying to modernize its military so it can protect the trade routes that Beijing lives by. As such, China is looking to create a navy that can dominate in all bordering seas and even in places such as the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. The communist country is also looking to expand is water claims clear into the backyards of many neighboring nations in an attempt to secure energy exploration rights. Other regional powers such as Japan, South Korea, and India in concert with lesser powers such as Vietnam, Philippines, and Malaysia are having none of it.

It comes as no surprise to many that China is the most active nation engaged in espionage against the U.S. What does come as a surprise is that number two is India and number three is South Korea. These two nations do not engage in espionage against the U.S. for nefarious means but rather do so to augment legally purchased American military technology. The aggressive moves by China explain this. This maneuvering by China has caused nations that have little more than warm relations to consider taking defense cooperation to the next level. This doesn’t, and probably will not, result in a creation of an East Asian version of NATO, but it will force nations that feel threatened by China to reach out to one another. For many East Asian nations the U.S. has long been regarded as the main security provider, but in a busy and violent world these nations are starting to rely on assets that are a little closer to home.

This of course will lead to a standoff of sorts; not all that different from a Cold War. What we can expect to see in the not too distant future is the use of rogue actors by the nations involved to keep their adversaries of balance. In the face of excessive military power the cost and duration of a war becomes counterproductive making the use of rogues all the more attractive. For Beijing, using North Korea to intimidate Japan and South Korea all the while using rogues in the east, such as the Naxalites against India, is a cheap and nonconfrontational way to keep the other powers busy. Of course, India can respond by sowing unrest in the Chinese provinces of Tibet and Xinjiang while Japan and South Korea instigate independence movements in Taiwan.

Currently, the East Asian nations have been cooperating to alleviate the fallout from the global recession by working through The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, by pooling money to help member nations that have been hit hardest. In an attempt to avoid conflict nations will use diplomacy and common goals to put off what may be inevitable. In this case China must take measures to ensure that its economy stays strong even at the expense of good relations, but the reality is that Beijing’s need to stay strong will put it at odds with its neighbors. This is the crisis of East Asia.

In the next article, the Muslim World Turns Inward, we'll explore the conflict between Iran and the rest of the Muslim world.

The Great Unraveling - Rise of the Rouges

2009-06-15T17:48:00.000-06:00

This is the first in a series exploring the realignment of the world powers and the potential for conflict.

Every so often in history the global powers realign and begin the great game anew. We are now well into the next match. In the midst of all of this small powers, or even non-state movements, take advantage of the global woes and assert themselves in ways that are frowned upon by the global community, and yet, because of economic hardships or rotten ideologies taking hold of a more advanced country the great powers cannot respond. The response to the second North Korean nuclear test is such an example. Recently, new sanctions were levied against the hermit country, but without the great powers putting resources into their enforcement they are doomed to fail.

The aforementioned allusion to non-state movements was certainly not an accident. Globally there are 70 conflicts taking place and the majority of these involve non-state movements running amok and challenging the global systems. Everywhere from the Pakistan-Taliban war to the Chad-Sudan war, it is the non-state movements that are using the preoccupation with the global recession to assert themselves without fear of retribution. Unfortunately, this is only the beginning.

As the global powers shift alliances and look for ways to move from the current recession they will soon turn their full attention to dealing with these non-state movements. Some powers will use diplomacy in an attempt to deal with the problem while others will either support the rogues in an attempt to turn the game in their favor or simply stonewall any meaningful action. China does this constantly when North Korea acts up. This is why nothing has ever been accomplished in disarming Pyongyang. In fact, the attention of the Western world can be captivated through several means. These include terrorism, nuclear proliferation, Israel, and economics. Creating a crisis in any of these areas is a good way to deflect attention and keep the Westerners busy. North Korea supplies missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon through Iran to refocus Western attention elsewhere. If Hezbollah were to use these weapons Israel would respond thus garnering the world’s attention while North Korea and Iran have time to focus their energy elsewhere without fear of Western led reprisals.

With the post election violence in Iran it is reasonable to expect a crisis somewhere in the world to deflect attention while Tehran puts down the insurrection. North Korea on the other hand is rumored to be prepping for another nuclear test. It will be interesting to see where the next manufactured crisis takes place.

In the next article, New East Asian Allies, we’ll discuss the new alignment taking place in East Asia in an attempt to contain China. In this case the rogues will play a starring role.

Dr. Tiller and the Lone Wolf

2009-06-08T19:20:00.000-06:00

It was bound to happen sooner or later, but a little over a week ago Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed in his church parking lot shortly after the service. Tiller was shot because he was one of a handful of physicians that performed a procedure popularly known as partial birth abortion. This wasn’t the first time Tiller was attacked; in fact, Shelley Shannon managed to shoot Tiller in both arms in 1993 outside of his clinic. Understanding that Tiller was a target doesn’t make the killers actions right, but merely serves to show that physicians that perform abortions are still targets.

In recent years right wing extremists have not managed to rise to the level of prominence that they once enjoyed during the 1980’s and 90’s. The last large scale terrorist attack carried out by a right wing extremist was the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. In 2007 the FBI claimed that right wing extremists were the most active terrorists in the United States although no one was killed and the attacks amounted to little more than property damage. The murder of Tiller is proof that while right wing extremists have not managed to mount a large scale attack, the lone wolf operators that sympathize with the ideology can still be dangerous.

Statistics aside, let’s focus on the facts of the Tiller killing. Apart from Tiller’s notoriety in right wing radical circles average Americans may have heard the name occasionally in the national news, but to the more radical folks this man was the devil incarnate. One newspaper article describes one abortion protestor as thankful that the man was dead. While this is not the norm for most opposed to abortion it is interesting to note the diversity in thought as too the required action to protect the unborn.

Let’s talk about the killer a bit. Police have arrested Scott Roeder a self described abortion opponent that has been known to have contact with the more radical elements of the right wing movement. In the past Roeder has been involved with many activities associated with the anti-tax Freemen movement such as driving without a license plate and avoiding payment of taxes. In many cases these individuals will declare themselves sovereign from the government and will congregate with like minded people that take a more active role in their political beliefs. We know that Roeder was involved with radical groups because of past arrests and declarations made during a custody trial several years ago. Strangely, Roeder has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. I don’t mean to say that having schizophrenia is strange, only that we often refer to terrorists as schizos or nut jobs, but in this case we have medical backing. And yes, just in case you were curious, he was off his meds.

Roeder wasn’t the first to target abortion providers and he won’t be the last. Roeder has recently stated that more violence will come and there is little doubt that he is stating the truth. This attack once again shows the need for churches and all places with large gathering to prepare an active shooter program that meets the challenge of hostile wackos. In the mean time, stay safe.

GWOT and Memorial Day

2009-05-24T21:37:00.001-06:00

How best to honor those men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice? As a veteran I have struggled with this ever since I left the military just over two years ago because of a back injury. Many of those with whom I served and befriended are still fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and some areas of Africa. Memorial Day is especially hard. This day has been set aside to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. These individuals fought for the people beside them and will never have the opportunity to return home and embrace their loved ones. This realization is particularly difficult for those that are left behind to carry on the fight.

In the ten years I served I had the privilege to serve with some of the most wonderful people I have ever had the opportunity to meet. I want to take this time to ask all of my fellow citizens to take time and remember those who have served and those who continue to serve – if only for a moment.

Meanwhile the War on Terror continues…

"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.

When the Tigers Died

2009-05-18T18:23:00.001-06:00

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." – Albert Einstein

The Sri Lankan government officially confirmed that the leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Velupillai Prabhakaran, was killed along with most of the top tier leadership of the terrorist group. This is a huge development in one of the longest running insurgencies in Asia. Now comes the hard part – finding a lasting peace between the Singhalese Buddhists and the minority Tamil Hindus.

The LTTE claimed to represent the Tamil population of Sri Lanka while waging its war against the government in Colombo in an effort to establish an independent state in the north of the island. Many Tamils did indeed identify with the Tiger cause, but eventually the LTTE became as oppressive as the government they were fighting causing many Tamils to become disillusioned with the war. In an attempt to compensate for declining popularity the LTTE became more aggressive shortly after 2002 only to have the government respond militarily culminating in the most recent war. In essence the LTTE overplayed its hand and the government called the bluff.

The war may be over, but the problem that the LTTE exploited in their rise to power remains. In the not too distant past the ruling government in Colombo consisted almost exclusively of the Singhalese majority which led to repression of the Tamil minority. During one of the many violent confrontations, a young Prabhakaran watched as some of his family members were beaten to death by government security forces. This episode would serve as Prabhakaran’s justification in founding the Tigers. But as successive case studies of terrorist movements show us, terror is often inflicted upon those that terrorists claim to be defending. Instead of working with other Tamil groups for a separate homeland, Prabhakaran instead chose to eliminate them violently. In fact, any Tamil that was deemed moderate in the struggle was fair game. This indiscriminate violence is what pushed the Tigers from freedom fighters to terrorists in short order.

We must keep in mind that the Tigers are dead, but the Singhalese are still the majority and the Tamils are still the minority on an island that is relatively poor. If Sri Lanka is enjoy any period of peace a political accommodation of the Tamils is necessary; otherwise the Tigers could be resurrected.

It is possible that some hold out members of the Black Tigers (the suicide unit) could launch suicide bombings in a last ditch attempt to cause havoc. Such action is not unprecedented. The outcome for any terrorist group is inevitable, because, as I’ve said before, there is no retirement home for terrorists.

Urgent: Petraeus States that the next two weeks are critical to Pakistan’s survival

2009-04-30T18:04:00.001-06:00

During a briefing with U.S. administration officials, General David Petraeus stated the next two weeks are critical to determining whether the Pakistani government will survive.

Sidebar: Back in December of 2008 I was asked to give an assessment on the viability of the Pakistani government. At that time I stated that if current trends continue the Pakistani government would collapse before the end of 2009. Former advisor to the US Central Command (CENTCOM), David Kilcullen, also made a similar prediction at the end of March 2009 that the government would only last for another 6 months. This would put the failure of the government in about the same time frame. Also, the Joint Forces Command stated in a 2008 report that Pakistan and Mexico are on the verge of becoming failed states.

This is a stunning disclosure by the head of CENTCOM, and not one that would be made lightly. Before we get to the implications of this statement we need to understand the position of the individual who made the comments. First and foremost Gen. Petraeus is a member of the military. He is not a politician, but an individual subject to the wants and needs of the current administration. In other words, Petraeus would not be allowed to make such comments (especially something that would be leaked to the press) without the approval of someone in the administration. This is a statement that the Obama administration wanted out in the open.

When considering this statement it is apparent that things on the ground in Pakistan are worse than thought, or intelligence indicates that the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), also known as the Pakistani Taliban, may make a direct move against the government. The TTP is not a homogenous movement, however, but more of an umbrella organization that encompasses several different Taliban movements active in Pakistan. Some members of the TTP have declared their loyalty to Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar so the recent movements by the TTP could be a signal of organizational consolidation. Currently, the TTP has managed to seize most of the Northwest Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas which encompasses about 26 million of Pakistan’s 166 million people. The TTP has also increased its presence in Sindh province, especially around Karachi, and have moved within 60 miles of Islamabad – Pakistan’s capital.

The reason for Petraeus giving two weeks as a timeline is unknown. It is doubtful that this is a finite span in which certain actions must come to pass, but it is revealing as to the administration’s view of the precarious situation in Pakistan. It is possible that this is a carefully orchestrated attempt by the administration to put pressure on the Pakistani government to take stronger action against the Taliban. In fact, Petraeus’s statement that "The Pakistanis have run out of excuses," for not dealing with the Taliban would seem to bolster this possibility.

The sources of the statements made by Petraeus went on to say the Pakistani Army under Gen. Ashfaq Kayani is more capable than the civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari which could mean that this disclosure is describing certain activities already in play. Such an admission by administration officials could create serious diplomatic problems between the U.S. and Pakistan under normal circumstances, but if the U.S. administration believes that the civilian government will not survive much longer, the U.S. could be positioning itself to support a new Pakistani government in the event of a military coup.

Right now far too many unanswered questions exist. What is certain is the U.S. administration has lost all faith in Pakistan’s civilian government regardless of what intelligence they might possess as too the intentions of the TTP. Furthermore, the recent demand by Western governments and the acquiescence of Islamabad for an inspection of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is telling. All things considered it does not appear as if the fall of the Pakistani government is going to happen within the next two weeks, but if current trends continue the fall of Islamabad could be on the horizon.

Addendum: Some time ago I wrote that the U.S. has a plan to safeguard Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the event of a state collapse. The demand for an inspection may have been an attempt by the U.S. to ensure that this plan is still viable. The U.S. would not do this unless they expect things to get ugly.

Hezbollah in the Sinai

2009-04-27T19:55:00.001-06:00

Egyptian security forces have arrested 26 people that may have been a part of a Hezbollah cell in the Sinai Peninsula placed to launch terrorist attacks against tourists and smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip. The Egyptian government claims that this is only half of the cell and continues security operations in an attempt to apprehend the rest of the group. Hassan Nasrallah – Hezbollah Secretary General – claimed that the cell only numbered ten and was put in place for the sole purpose of smuggling weapons into Gaza. This situation, while meant to boost Hezbollah’s standing prior to Lebanese election and in the Arab world at large, could have the opposite effect. Egypt has seen itself as the leader of the Arab world since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and is looking to reassert itself in the Arab world and stop the spread of Iran’s influence. Right now Tehran’s militant proxy is in the sights of Cairo.

During Operation Cast Lead, Iran was rather vocal in condemning not only Israel, but also the Arab nations (Egypt especially) for not intervening. This behavior is, of course, all by design. By supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran has usurped the role of supporting the Palestinian fight against Israel. Most of the Arab nations have come to rely solely on rhetoric to support the Palestinian cause while privately doing everything they can to avoid the issue. As far as many Arab nations are concerned the Israeli-Palestinian issue is bad for business. The continued Syrian support for Hezbollah and Hamas and the alliance with Iran further exacerbates the issue.

As there usually is in the Great Game more is at play. Europe has become so dependent on Russia for its natural gas that the energy rich nations of North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean are looking for ways to cheaply transport natural gas and oil to the Europeans. The big problem right now is Syria. As such, Turkey, which is looking to become a hub for energy transport, is pressing Syria hard for a peace agreement with Israel.

This is where Egypt comes into play. This recent conflict between Egypt and Hezbollah will put additional strain on Syria. Syria has long been a backer of Hezbollah, but is looking for options in the face of economic stagnation due to declining oil production and low petrol prices. This leaves Syria with two choices – put renewed effort into peace talks with Israel in the hopes of luring western investment at the expense of regime stability or maintain the current course of allying with Iran and Hezbollah to prevent the Sunni majority from challenging the Bashir al-Assad’s Alawite rule. Both choices are fraught with risk and can seriously undermine the status quo.

Syria is currently entertaining a peace deal with Israel as it is the better option. Egypt and Turkey, two heavyweights in the Middle East, have been using what political capital they have to pull Syria away from its alliance with Iran. If energy pipelines were constructed to transit Syria, such a move would serve to boost the Syrian economy, but could expose the regime to risks posed by more fundamental movements within the country who want to continue supporting the Palestinian cause.

Syria’s current ally – Iran – is becoming more isolated internationally because of its nuclear program leaving Damascus wondering if Tehran can continue to provide the support it so desperately needs. By maintaining the status quo, Syria can continue to champion the Palestinian cause which would serve to keep the fundamentalists at bay, but the continued economic instability will also challenge the continuity of the regime. As I have stated before, Syria’s last good strategic option is forging a peace deal with Israel. It may not be what Damascus really wants, but far too many powers – many which share a border with Syria – are aligned against them.

Which brings us back to Hezbollah’s presence in the Sinai. Iran has been trying to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip using Hezbollah and the Sudanese government, but have been foiled every step of the way. An angry Egypt was hardly part of the equation for Tehran, and this move may serve to undermine their interest in the Palestinian territories. What is clear now is Egypt’s interest in prying the Syrian’s away from Iran has been reignited. While many are focused on the deteriorating situation in Pakistan, more than a few eyes are watching the unfolding situation among the Arab nations and how they will respond to Iran. Right now that focus is centered squarely on Damascus.

The Binghamton Massacre and the need for an Active Shooter Program

2009-04-05T17:46:00.003-06:00

In the last several weeks lone gunman have struck in Oakland, Pittsburg and Binghamton, NY. All of these attacks may not have been identical, but they do show a need for businesses, schools, churches, and civic centers to ensure that they have an active shooter program in place. Of course these styles of attacks are not new as we all can remember the Columbine and Virginia Tech attacks, but when these attacks do occur it is important to review our plans and ensure that they are still adequate.

The Department of Homeland Security defines an active shooter as, “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.” Furthermore DHS states:

Active shooter situations are unpredictable and evolve quickly. Typically, the immediate deployment of law enforcement is required to stop the shooting and mitigate harm to victims. Because active shooter situations are often over within 10 to 15 minutes, before law enforcement arrives on the scene, individuals must be prepared both mentally and physically to deal with an active shooter situation.

It may seem that the prevention of a shooting situation is only avoidable by the use of security personnel and metal detectors. Not only is this unfeasible for small businesses or other, but it also runs counter to the very purpose of most public meeting places – for physical interaction. It is indeed possible for public meeting places to institute measures to protect people within a facility. Not all facilities are the same, so if anybody out there has any questions or would like help developing a plan please contact me. The following links have good information regarding the development of an active shooter program.

DHS Training Materials on Active Shooters

Training Book

Pocket Guide

Poster

Utah Schools Emergency Response Plan. This plan is one of the best templates I've seen for emergency planning for schools.

Yemen Terror Plot Foiled

2009-03-09T18:29:00.001-06:00

Earlier I made reference to the possibility of renewed terrorist activity in the Arabian Peninsula because of the merger between the al-Qaeda affiliates in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The release of a new most wanted list from Saudi Arabia and subsequent release of an Interpol orange notice for these men led me to believe that terrorist activity in Saudi Arabia or Yemen was imminent. It now turns out that this was indeed the case.

Reading media reports from Middle East outlets is akin to watching a monkey try to swallow a hand grenade – you know its going to be ugly, but you can’t look away. This was certainly the case on February 17. According to press reports, Yemeni authorities claimed to have disrupted a terrorist plot to destroy oil fields and tourist spots by the newly resurrected al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Furthermore, the media also reported that former Guantanamo Bay inmate Mohammed al-Awfi, aka Abu Harith, surrendered to Yemeni authorities two weeks after issuing a video tape claiming he had rejoined al-Qaeda.

Al-Awfi’s surrender is rather curious. First, the man leaves Saudi Arabia to rejoin al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula after his release from Guantanamo and the Saudi deradicalization program, and second he surrenders a mere two weeks after having rejoined al-Qaeda. This action begs the question, did al-Awfi’s surrender lead to the disruption of the plot or did he surrender because of its discovery?

It is possible that al-Awfi was planted by Saudi intelligence upon receiving intel that al-Qaeda was attempting a comeback in Riyadh’s backyard. In fact, Yemeni foreign minister Aby Bakr al-Qirbi publicly stated that al-Qaeda was under control in Yemen. Al-Qirbi would further state that al-Qaeda was, “under security control and censorship” leading one to believe that al-Awfi’s surrender was indeed part of a plan to infiltrate al-Qaeda.

When discussing Yemen it is important to understand that the government has used jihadists in the past to adversaries of the ruing regime. In this case, long time President Ali Abdullah Saleh has used jihadists to target his adversaries in the al-Zaydi tribe in Northern Yemen. What may have happened in this case is the government of Yemen grew worried since the militants that they (sometimes) employ were planning on targeting the lifeblood of Yemen - oil. Regardless of the surrender of a top militant the dynamics of the Arabian Peninsula remain the same. Thus far the Saudis have only brought seven of their list of 85 home. What we have seen in the past month is only the tip of the iceberg.

Urgent: Something is cooking in Riyadh

2009-02-10T20:36:00.004-07:00

On February 3, 2009, Saudi Arabia issued a list of 83 individuals wanted for terrorist activities. This was followed by Interpol issuing an orange notice for these individuals on February 10th. This is an unprecedented security alert and should be taken quite seriously. It is not typical for a nation to issue a list of 83 wanted individuals all at once unless Riyadh has intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent. It appears as if the Kingdom issued this list because the intelligence they possess is sketchy, yet reliable, and the Saudis are hoping to get lucky by nabbing a few of these individuals and gleaning more actionable intelligence.

Back in April of 2008 I warned that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would work with the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen in an attempt to move weapons and personnel across the border for future terrorist attacks when the opportunity presented itself. The recent news of two former Guantanamo inmates rejoining al-Qaeda in Yemen coming on the heels of all this activity cannot be coincidental. It’s time we all watch Saudi Arabia very closely in the coming days and weeks.

2009: Predictions and Possibilities

2009-01-31T16:50:00.001-07:00

The following is based upon trends that are I expect to take place in the coming year. I will discuss possible outcomes of current trends and offer a few predictions. Most topics will be discussed by country located in the Middle East, but not every country or movement will be covered.

Middle East

Israel-Palestine
Since the Israeli air raids on Gaza are dominating the headlines we can start with the Eastern Mediterranean. Israel has had a temporary cease fire with Hamas controlled Gaza for the last 16 months; however rocket attacks originating from Gaza has forced the Israeli government to respond. In contrast to the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah-Hamas war, Israel only has one front to deal with and thus little incentive to stop the current operation. Although Israel engaged in a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip, the goals of the operation have not been clearly and thus success cannot be determined. The likely outcome is that Hamas will be hurt but not completely destroyed. In the West Bank we can expect to see the Fatah movement gain strength at the expense of Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist group without any experience governing and it shows in this current crisis. Israel will continue along the status quo with a few interventions by western politicians trying to bring peace. The wildcard for Israel in 2009 will be Hezbollah; it is very possible another war with the Lebanese terror group could breakout.

Syria-Lebanon
Syria has been working with the Europeans and Turkey to hammer out a peace deal with Israel. As I have argued before, Syria has lost its most recent patron – Iran – and now must look to other avenues for economic growth. For this to work Syria must drop the rogue regime act, recognize Lebanon as an independent nation, and reign in terrorist groups (i.e. Hezbollah) that operate under Syria’s watch. Once this is accomplished a peace deal with Israel is a very real possibility in the next two to three years.

The biggest challenge for Syria is Hezbollah. Hezbollah has grown significantly and has proven it can intimidate the Lebanese government and threaten Israel conventionally. The onus is on Damascus to weaken Hezbollah to the point that is cannot threaten the Lebanese government or Israel. In the middle of all this is Lebanon. Lebanon is a country fractured by warfare from a variety of sectarian groups and only knows order when a third party intervenes. Previously that third party had been the Syrians, but that changed with the March 14th democratic movement. Unfortunately, the existence of Hezbollah and the devastation that resulted from the 2006 war with Israel has brought nothing but trouble for this experiment in democracy. For Lebanon to become a stable nation it will take the dismantling of Hezbollah and substantial outside assistance. Since this is unlikely to happen in the coming year Lebanon will be forced to continue limping along. Syria’s fortunes on the other hand are completely dependent upon third party diplomacy and the resolution of the Israeli political mess.

Turkey
Since the removal of Saddam Hussein, Turkey has managed to spread its influence in Iraq, Syria, and even Iran. Turkey has also opened the door towards reconciliation with Albania – a very sensitive topic as the U.S. congress recently found out. The reasoning behind Turkey’s diplomatic initiatives are two-fold, one is looking for alternative oil and natural gas avenues for supplying Europe to break the Russian monopoly on hydrocarbons, and two Turkey looks for any way it can to piss off the Russians despite the two nations being trading partners. Look for Turkey to come out of the global financial crisis stronger and more relevant in the Middle East and Europe.

Iraq
Throughout history the one factor that has started more wars than other is simple geography. Therefore it is no coincidence that Iraq, considered the birthplace of civilization, will be a powerful nation. In the past, wars over this piece of real estate came down to simple location. Iraq was a source of water and all major trade routes went through this area. Today water is still an important resource, but coupled with large oil reserves and other natural resources Iraq stands poised to once again become the regional power player in the ME.

The last five years in Iraq have seen shifting political loyalties with the numerous tribes throwing their lot in with whoever had the most money or guns. But as the U.S. surge went on the Iraqi government has managed to consolidate power through numerous backroom deals. The Iraqi security forces have also gained from the political progress and have become largely self reliant. Perhaps the issue that is most pressing in the U.S. – Iraqi relationship is the future role that the U.S. military will play. On the ground the Iraqis are steady improving militarily, but are still lacking a meaningful air force and have only recently begun training for casualty evacuation. What does look promising is the potential sales of the M-1 Abrams main battle tank to the Iraqi military. If the U.S. is not directly involved in security operations the sales of equipment may prove to be the decisive factor for the central government of Iraq to hold the country together.

Iraq has seen great improvement both on the economic and security fronts, but still has room for improvement. Unemployment is high and security operations are still ongoing in parts of the nation. While al-Qaeda has had its presence in Iraq diminished significantly, the organization still poses a threat. But these challenges can be overcome. The high price of oil this summer together with the increased production out of Iraq has helped boost the popularity of the government. The Prime Minister has personally walked around Baghdad handing out money on several occasions. Gestures such as this will only help to solidify the position of the government. The high price of oil may have been a positive for Iraq but the country still must meet the challenge of diversifying its economy and fostering foreign investment if it is to live up to the countries potential of being a regional powerhouse.

Iran
Iran is in bad shape economically. Inflation is around 20 percent, unemployment is in the double digits, and 18 percent of the population lives in extreme poverty. The Iranian nuclear program has increased these problems by bringing international sanctions against Iranian banks and its wealthiest citizens. Additional problems include government sponsored gas subsidies in the face of high oil prices. Now that oil prices have fallen, Iran has been forced to rewrite its budget for 2009. Iran may be a top exporter of petroleum, but is also a major importer of refined products such as gasoline. In other words, Iran is increasingly vulnerable to international pressure and possibly revolution.

With Iran as isolated as it is and with international sanctions steadily increasing over the nuclear program one would think that military action is inevitable when in fact the opposite is true. Israel has made statements that it will not allow Iran to construct a nuclear weapon and will use force to stop it, but it lacks the military capability to do so. A U.S. led operation is really the only possibility should a military confrontation with Iran take place. The Pentagon has stated that it could destroy the Iranian military in three days, but the U.S. does not see Iran as much of a threat and thus will not make a move in the near future. Even without military action taken against it and new elections coming in the spring, 2009 will be a very bad year for Tehran.

Saudi Arabia
The rapid increase and subsequent decrease in oil prices has not hurt the Saudi Kingdom. In fact, the low oil prices are working to keep Saudi Arabia’s main rival – Iran – weak. Currently the Saudi’s have a cash reserve of about one trillion U.S. dollars and is looking to put that money to use in areas such as expanding oil production or supporting Chechen rebels against Russia. If the Saudi’s are able to expand their proven oil reserves and construct new storage facilities the country will have the ability to cut oil prices overnight to hurt Iran. The biggest challenge for Riyadh in the coming year is to keep Russian adventures in the Middle East in check. The House of Saud enjoys their current situation and don’t want the Russians mucking things up. All in all expect Saudi Arabia to have a good 2009.

Arab Gulf States (sans Saudi Arabia)
The Arab Gulf States are comprised of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Saudi Arabia was considered separate because of the size of its economy and importance globally. In the case of the remaining states all have small populations and large incomes thanks to large petroleum reserves and a steady stream of foreign investment. It is unlikely that any major changes will take place in any of these nations and should continue to be safe for business development and other investment.

Yemen
The country of Yemen is in trouble. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has made a return thanks to the release of members from Guantanamo. Because of the complexity of Yemen a full analysis will follow.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam: A Primer

2009-01-02T23:23:00.004-07:00

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or LTTE for short, is a separatist group based in Sri Lanka that has been fighting the majority Buddhist Sinhalese Government of the island nation since 1983. While the group was founded in 1976, it is the LTTE ambush of a military patrol that killed 13 in 1983 that is seen as the first battle of the civil war in Sri Lanka. In 2002, the LTTE and the government signed a cease-fire agreement that temporarily ended the violence only to see tensions erupt again in 2006 over the distribution of international aid that poured into the country after the 2004 tsunami. It is true that the LTTE have participated in peace talks; however their deliberate targeting of civilians and oppressive rule in the areas that group controls is what earns the Tigers the moniker of international terrorist organization. A 1999 estimate of deaths resulting from the fighting between the government and the LTTE came to about 60,000.

Leadership in the group is broken down into two tiers which include a military wing and a political wing that is subordinate. The leader and founder of the LTTE, Velupillai Prabhakaran, heads the central governing committee that oversees both wings. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the central governing committee is also responsible for directing and controlling several specific subdivisions, including, an amphibious group (the Sea Tigers), an airborne group, (known as the Air Tigers), an elite fighting wing (known as the Charles Anthony Regiment), a suicide commando unit (the Black Tigers), a highly secretive intelligence group and a political office headed by Thamilselvam and Anton Balasingham, widely regarded to be the political advisor and ideologue of the LTTE. Additionally, the central governing committee has an international wing which runs the group’s global infrastructure. In all, the group is comprised of about 16,000 people according to the Sri Lankan government. Children soldiers are often forcibly recruited into the group to keep the number of members high.

The LTTE are unique among terrorist groups for several reasons among which are: The ability to govern provinces in the north and east of their home nation, the existence of an air force and navy (these elements are small but very effective), and the tactical capabilities to directly engage government troops. Perhaps the most startling revelation about the group is their invention of the suicide bomber vest and belt. In fact, while we often link suicide bombing to Palestinian terrorist groups it was the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) that dispatched several members to Sri Lanka in the 1980’s to learn this tactic for use against Israel. This tactic pioneered in the remote jungles of Sri Lanka has now become a nearly universally adopted weapon employed by terrorists around the world.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam have also proven to be quite adept in the art of assassination. For instance, the LTTE assassinated Indian Premier Rajiv Gandhi when peace keepers from India arrived in Sri Lanka to offer counterinsurgency aid to the local military. The LTTE also managed to kill Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa in 1993. Others assassinated by the LTTE include:

Alfred Duraiyappah, mayor of Jaffna in the attack that brought them to prominence in 1975

Ranjan Wijeratne, Sri Lankan cabinet minister, former general, and the Minister of Defense

Lalith Athulathmudali, Sri Lankan cabinet minister

Gamini Dissanayake, Sri Lankan presidential candidate

Major Gen. Parami Kulatunga, third-highest ranking officer in the Sri Lankan Army

Lakshman Kadirgamar, Sri Lankan foreign minister, lawyer and international humanitarian

In recent months the Sri Lankan government has managed to cause significant damage to the group via military and financial means. Since the beginning of the U.S. led War on Terror, terrorist groups that are designated as such by the U.S. State Department will be targeted financially through new legislation in countries allied with the U.S. and through the U.N. While these measures have hurt the group in countries where it used to operate freely, the LTTE has used illicit means, such as drug running, to augment their income. These measures have aided the Sri Lankan government greatly in their twenty plus war with the group. It should be noted however, that the LTTE has managed to survive international pressure and infighting throughout its 32 year history and will not go away quietly.

Today, government forces have managed to capture the de facto capital of the Tamal separatists in the northern part of the country. This is a significant blow to the terrorist organization, but a political solution is still needed to bring peace to a country that has been in a perpetual state of war for nearly forty years.

Terrorism in a Nuclear South Asia

2008-12-24T21:38:00.006-07:00

Gurkha, flying a swift and powerful vimana hurled a single projectile charged with all the power of the universe. An incandescent column of smoke and flame as bright as the thousand suns rose in all its splendor... a perpendicular explosion with its billowing smoke clouds......the cloud of smoke rising after its first explosion formed into expanding round circles like the opening of giant parasols... ...it was an unknown weapon, an iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death, which reduced to ashes the entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas....The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. The hair and nails fell out; pottery broke without apparent cause, and the birds turned white. After a few hours all foodstuffs were infected... ...to escape from this fire the soldiers threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment. – Mahabharata: (4th c. BC)

Men are not disturbed by things, but by the view they take of things. – Epictetus

Since the terrorist attacks on the city of Mumbai tensions between India and Pakistan have once again reached the point where war is becoming a very real possibility. What makes the ongoing conflict in South Asia so worrying to the world at large is the possibility that these two countries will use their nuclear arsenals if pushed to an as of yet determined threshold. Currently, this is unlikely, but when the respective nuclear doctrine of both countries is considered it can appear that any provocation by India will result in Pakistan taking the conflict to the nuclear level. Nuclear doctrines are meant to outline when and how a nuclear power will use their ultimate weapon, but they can often seem ambiguous and leave much to be desired.

When discussing nuclear doctrine, phrases such as mutually assured destruction or flexible response come to mind, but one must remember these are merely titles and are not necessarily indicative of an entire doctrine. In fact, it is difficult for any doctrine to truly stand up against scrutiny because of its very nature. A major factor that further compounds analysis is that a nuclear doctrine has never been employed because a nuclear exchange has never taken place. With this in mind, how can one ever be sure of how a nation will react in the face of an impending nuclear war? The answer is that we simply do not know because doctrines are merely guidelines since neither the author nor the individual employing the doctrine know if it will hold up under the circumstances that their nation will face. This is the aforementioned ambiguity inherent in any nuclear doctrine.

Nuclear doctrines are written with the purpose of sowing confusion among a nations adversaries and promoting deterrence which is why they appear ambiguous and at times irrational. Nations are not likely to go to war with one another if victory, not to mention survival, does not appear possible thus creating the deterrent atmosphere that is sought by the possession of nuclear weapons. In essence what happens is not only a deterrent to war but also a constraint on how a nation will behave.

While the possession of nuclear weapons by both Pakistan and India has limited the type of conflict these nations engage in it does not eliminate conflict altogether. Since both nations held nuclear tests in May 1998, the conflict has become one of low intensity occasionally culminating in a terrorist attack that pushes India to the verge of taking military action against their western neighbor. Since 1998 New Delhi and Islamabad have come close to conventional conflict several times only to have the U.S. step in and play the role of peacemaker. The outcome of this mediation is always the same; India makes demands that they know Pakistan either will not or cannot carry out while Pakistan makes token gestures that only ensure the nations’ short-term survival. This is the status quo in South Asia and as history shows this type of unstable peace cannot last.

This paper will explore how the respective nuclear doctrines of India and Pakistan have on the one hand made a conventional war politically difficult while on the other has led to the rise of terrorist groups as the new arbiters of war and peace in the South Asian region.

India

Nuclear Doctrine
India detonated their first nuclear device in 1974, but did not enter into full scale production much later to continue research on the more powerful thermonuclear weapons (this became public in 1989). This move towards obtaining a nuclear arsenal was spurred on by the 1962 border war with China and the subsequent Chinese nuclear tests carried out in 1964. When tensions with Pakistan rose again in 1990, both countries were on the verge of ramping up research and beginning production only to have the crisis brought to an end by international intervention. Although this crisis was averted, it appears it was this event that prompted both India and Pakistan to continue their respective nuclear research with the goal of deterrence. In furtherance of this goal both nations conducted full scale nuclear tests in May 1998. It was after these tests that India produced an interim nuclear doctrine in 1999 and subsequently adopted the document with a few revisions in 2003. The doctrine was created with a focus on China and New Delhi’s main rival Pakistan.

While the Indian nuclear doctrine is several pages long it only contains a few salient features that bear mentioning. The first is the prohibition of a First Strike, second is the concept of massive retaliation, and the third is the choice not to distinguish between any weapons of mass destruction. The third feature simply means that India reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons if they are struck with chemical or biological weapons. All these features work towards the same goal – deterrence.

Perhaps the most important factor in India’s nuclear doctrine is the prohibition of first use, or stated more plainly, India will not launch a first strike. In India’s doctrine the phrase used is actually, ‘retaliation only.’ Former Prime Minister Vajpayee’s statement made in the Indian Parliament that “India does not intend to use these weapons for aggression or for making threats against any country, these are weapons of self-defense, to ensure that India is not subjected to nuclear threats or coercion” may serve to clarify the relevance of a nuclear arsenal, but again reality trumps written doctrine. The reality is that India is under the coercion of non-state actors that were created and nurtured by Pakistan and has very little room to negate this criminal influence in international affairs because Pakistan is also a nuclear power. By stating that a nuclear arsenal is for ‘retaliation only’ without considering the unique dynamics of the south Asian conflict, India has in fact undermined the very reason they have stated for maintaining a nuclear arsenal.

The decision against using a first strike is only a single part of the nuclear doctrine. India states the overall goal of their nuclear arsenal is to provide ‘credible minimal deterrence.’ In the context of nuclear states, the word credible is applied to nations that have openly declared their possession of nuclear weapons and verifiably tested at least one such device, while minimal simply means that a nation will not produce more weapons than are deemed necessary. Once again we are struck with the ambiguity of nuclear terminology. In the current context the international community is expected to believe that the mere possession of nuclear weapons and not the will to use such weapons is what is deemed credible. This is not to mean that a nation must immediately use a nuclear weapon or device against an adversary to establish credibility, but instead shows just how generalized these words are.

Outside of the rhetoric one would expect to find in a nuclear doctrine is an interesting entry in paragraph 2.4 of the Objectives section:

2.4. The fundamental purpose of Indian nuclear weapons is to deter the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons by any state or entity against India and its forces. India will not be the first to initiate a nuclear strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail.

This section is interesting because it allows for the possibility that a non-state actor could acquire a nuclear weapon or device. This entry is aimed directly at Pakistan. If the Pakistani state fails India wants to be sure that they have recourse in the event that their adversary’s arsenal falls into the wrong hands. After all, nuclear weapons in the hands of a non-state entity do not have to be used to be effective.

India has chosen to add a concept known as massive retaliation to their doctrine. This means that India may not be the first to use a nuclear weapon, but will retaliate to inflict unacceptable damage upon the aggressor. Paragraph 2.3 of the Objectives section states:

2.3. India shall pursue a doctrine of credible minimum nuclear deterrence. In this policy of “retaliation only,” the survivability of our arsenal is critical. This is a dynamic concept related to the strategic environment, technological imperatives and the needs of national security. The actual size, components, deployment and employment of nuclear forces will be decided in the light of these factors. India’s peacetime posture aims at convincing any potential aggressor that:

a. any threat of use of nuclear weapons against India shall involve measures to counter the threat; and

b. any nuclear attack on India and its forces shall result in punitive retaliation with nuclear weapons to inflict damage unacceptable to the aggressor.
India knows that it must have the ability to respond to threats against its sovereignty with conventional forces. When India decides to employ their conventional military it may not always be on Indian soil; therefore it becomes imperative that India extend their doctrine of massive retaliation to nuclear attacks against the Indian military.

To be fair to it should be stated that India is the only nuclear power to articulate a nuclear doctrine and release it in full to the public thus opening up the document to criticism. While it is true that nuclear powers have stated their views and strategy in the past, they have never released an actual doctrine explaining the role of nuclear weapons in their overall strategy.

Pakistan

Nuclear Doctrine
Pakistan has never officially articulated a nuclear doctrine nor have they come close to enunciating a statement as to how and when nuclear weapons will be used. A statement by Dr. Shireen Mazari, Director General at the Strategic Studies Institute – Islamabad, is telling:

“Pakistan has chosen not to publicly enunciate a comprehensive nuclear doctrine partly because it does not see a political/status utility for the nuclear capability – rather, it envisages the nuclear capability as having a purely defensive, security-related purpose. Pakistan’s threat perceptions are seen as stemming primarily from India both at the level of all-out conventional war, limited war and low intensity conflict (LIC). Within the nuclear framework, Pakistan seeks to establish deterrence against all-out conventional war.”

Further compounding this veil of secrecy is the unwillingness of the Pakistani Army to follow or let alone read a doctrine if it were published because it would be perceived to be too political. Fortunately, the Pakistani military establishment has published several papers by former military and academic leaders describing what a Pakistani nuclear doctrine might look like. The journal publications that have been selected for review in this paper are very similar in their assessments of a nuclear doctrine leading one to believe that a doctrine does indeed exist, but it is kept from public view to increase the pressure on India to refrain from using conventional forces against Pakistan. As previously stated this is normal in nuclear postures; however Pakistan takes it to a new level.

The papers chosen for review were selected by the proximity each author has to the Pakistani military, and by extension, to the nuclear program. To begin with, Pakistan has stated that they will not launch a first strike with their strategic nuclear weapons. In a newspaper interview former Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf stated:

"This is not Warsaw Pact versus NATO situation where warheads and missiles were ready for fire with a button in a hand. There is no button in our case… Missiles and warheads are not permitted together. They are separated. There is geographical separation between them. One has to go up to escalation ladder. Then comes this stage."

While Pakistan may refrain from using their strategic weapons first they do not have any reservations about using tactical nuclear weapons to stop an invading army. This is because the Indian military outnumbers the Pakistani military substantially and Pakistan cannot conceive any method other than the use of a nuclear weapon to halt the invasion. Lt Gen (Ret) Sardar FS Lodi states in his paper Pakistan’s Nuclear Doctrine:

“In a deteriorating military situation when an Indian conventional attack is likely to break through our defenses or has already breached the main defense line causing a major set-back to the defenses, which cannot be restored by conventional means at our disposal, the government would be left with no other option except to use Nuclear Weapons to stabilize the situation. India's superiority in conventional arms and manpower would have to be offset by nuclear weapons. The political will to use nuclear weapons is essential to prevent a conventional armed conflict, which would later on escalate into a nuclear war.”

Brig Gen (Ret) Saeed Ismat articulates a deteriorating situation more clearly. Ismat states that the Rajistan Desert, more commonly known as the Thar Desert, is the most likely avenue of invasion by conventional Indian forces. By taking this strategic area India could, in a matter of days, cut Pakistan in two, thus severing communications and dividing the remnants of the Pakistan’s military. It is in this case that Ismat states the Pakistani leadership would be left with no other option than to use a nuclear weapon to prevent the state from fracturing. While Ismat declares that the use of nuclear weapon would prevent Indian forces from severing Pakistan, he does not say how deep the invading army would have to penetrate before this would happen. The General also fails to say who should have authority to launch the weapon should the invading army advance too rapidly and communications with the civilian leadership are cutoff. The need for the delegation of authority in times of crisis will be discussed later, but General Ismat’s statements show that while a strategic objective can be defined generally the threshold for employing a nuclear weapon must be defined specifically.

After reviewing material relevant to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal a rudimentary doctrine can be compiled. This is not meant to be representative of Pakistani policy, but rather a compilation of interests and capabilities demonstrated by Pakistan’s military and political establishment. The elements of nuclear employment may be as follows:

1. Pakistan will not use strategic nuclear weapons in a First Strike.
2. If nuclear deterrent fails and the aggressor seizes the initiative to launch the First Strike, Pakistan shall hit back with its Second Strike ability.
3. If deterrent fails to prevent a convention invasion, Pakistan will first rely on conventional means to defend the nation.
4. If the invading military appears to be overrunning Pakistan’s military a public warning may be issued followed by a test detonation if time permits.
5. If the invading military does not halt the invasion, Pakistan will employ tactical nuclear weapons against the invading force on Pakistani soil.
6. Should the previous steps fail, Pakistan will launch strategic nuclear weapons against critical but purely military targets in India across the border from Pakistan in thinly populated areas in the desert or semi-desert, causing the least collateral damage.
7. Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine with be defensive in nature with controlled escalation to allow for a political process to take place.
8. Pakistan’s response with be directly proportionate to the actions of enemy provocation and threat posed to Pakistan’s security.

India’s doctrine describes not only how and when a nuclear weapon will be employed, but also who has control over the employment decision. This is not the case with Pakistan. Former Pakistani Army Chief Pervez Musharraf said the central command system to use nuclear and missile technology would be ready within one month after the nuclear tests of 1998. This didn’t happen, however because the civilian leadership did not want to integrate the military leadership into the command and control of the nuclear arsenal. This may have been one of the factors that led Musharraf to seize power and usher in an era of military dictatorship. Under Musharraf the National Command Authority was finally created in February 2000 and the authority to employ nuclear weapons was given to the Head of State.

Given the poor state of communications within Pakistan the Head of State may not have the ability to give the command to launch or stand down to elements in the field armed with a tactical nuclear weapon. It is in the scenario that General Lodi suggests that:

“Although the decision to employ the nuclear option is that of the government. Yet it must be decided before hand as to when and to whom would the authority to use nuclear weapons be delegated in a crisis situation. India our potential enemy has numerical superiority in conventional forces and would have the advantage of initiative as an aggressor, time would therefore be of essence to the defender with numerical inferiority. Delegation of authority to use the nuclear option would therefore be essential. It may eventually be given to the commander of forces in the field under specified circumstances depending on the course and direction in which the battle unfolds to our eventual disadvantage.”

Although Lodi goes on to state that the government must decide before hand when and at what stage of a military conflict it would be forced to employ the nuclear option, this is hardly sufficient for a field commander who may feel compelled to use a nuclear weapon before a predefined threshold was crossed. A commander on a battlefield will have a very different view of a battle than a politician in Islamabad creating a situation that cannot be reconciled by any doctrine. While this approach would also have a deterrent value by sowing doubt in a potential adversary, in reality it cannot be employed reliably.

As previously mentioned Pakistan has not published an official nuclear doctrine because Islamabad feels it adds to their deterrent capabilities. After careful research into the Pakistani nuclear program it appears that the choice not to publish a doctrine is less about deterrence and more about nonchalance. The statement by a British official that the Pakistani’s, ‘think a nuclear weapon is just a bigger artillery piece’ is rather revealing in this case and does little to instill confidence in Islamabad’s control over its nuclear program.

India’s Limited Warfare Approach

In the face of a fracturing Pakistan, India may no longer be left with any other option than to respond to rogue elements of the Pakistani intelligence service supporting terrorist groups. If India fails to respond effectively to the Mumbai attacks the government may find itself in peril; after all governments have failed over lesser matters. Since India’s counterterrorism efforts have yet to mature, a conventional response becomes the most likely avenue of ensuring security. If India responds via conventional military means it has a number of options at its disposal – at least on paper. Since the behavior of adversarial nations changes with the inclusion of nuclear weapons, it becomes prudent to list the conventional options in a non-nuclear context. This means only conventional options will be chosen based upon their ability to prevent escalation.

India has conventional military assets in the form of land, air, and sea power, but the use of these assets must be limited to prevent escalation. In fact, India will most likely use land and air assets to attack targets across the Kashmir Line of Control thus preventing Pakistan from responding too harshly. If India were to go after symbols of the Pakistani state such as military or intelligence headquarters, Pakistan may have to respond with a conventional strike of their own for domestic political reasons. That being said it is likely that India will engage terrorist enclaves in Pakistan using precision strikes from the air with special operations forces targeting from the ground. Any large troop movements across the Line of Control would simply be too provocative.

Another option would be the targeting of the Pakistani economy which is in a perpetually fragile state. This option is difficult since the Pakistani response is unknown. Pakistan has a population over 168 million people in an area the size of New England and any economic blockade could lead to Islamabad taking extreme measures to prevent social unrest. Considering Islamabad’s current economic woes, any military action taken to blockade Pakistan could result in rapid escalation with disastrous consequences – something that India would be looking to avoid. Both India and Pakistan lack modern early warning system, but it really doesn’t matter since a launch of a strategic nuclear weapon would only take four to eight minutes to reach its target. India would be best advised to prevent to use of strategic missiles with convention warheads as Pakistan could be forced to launch their strategic nuclear weapons based on a misperception.

Terrorism in a Nuclear Context

India has suffered significant loss at the hands of Pakistani trained terrorists from the attack on the Indian Parliament to the more recent attacks in Mumbai. Pakistan’s statement that it will not use their nuclear arsenal as a political tool rings hollow in the face of these continued attacks because India knows that if New Delhi carries out a conventional retaliatory strike against Pakistani targets the conflict could go to the nuclear level rather quickly. India knows full well that Pakistan intends to use a nuclear weapon to halt an Indian attack forcing New Delhi to often just absorb the attack and move on.

India also knows Pakistan is falling apart. Islamabad’s continued support of Islamism that helped appease tribal entities for so many years has caused to opposite to occur in the last decade. India understands that Pakistan has limited control over the terrorist groups that the ISI created, but New Delhi also knows it cannot continue to absorb these attacks. This situation has placed India in a strange predicament – India cannot allow their foe Pakistan to fall apart because the situation would worsen, but India would like to see Pakistan pushed to the point where terrorist support becomes a strategic liability.

The various non-state factions operating in Pakistan may use several different names, but they are bound by geography, ethnicity, and ideology. Currently, the focus of the Indo-Pakistani conflict is focused on the respective nation-states, but the Islamists have the upper hand and are dictating events. If India decides to strike targets in Pakistan it will be because a former tool of Islamabad has gone off the reservation and is operating independently of their former masters. This reality is not lost on the Islamists. The Islamists know that if they can force India to attack Pakistan they will then stand a better chance of gaining further autonomy and influence in the state. Unfortunately this situation is lost in the bigger conflict between the two nuclear powers. Currently there are rumblings of Indian troop build ups in Kashmir in the northern area of the Thar Desert. On the Pakistani side, Islamabad has replaced border patrol troops with regular army units. These types of troop movements are often a sign of war preparation.

The Indian deadline for Pakistan to hand over individuals suspected of involvement in the Mumbai attacks is set to expire on December 26. What happens after that date is anybody’s guess. What is known is that two nuclear powers are on the brink of war over a terrorist attack that Islamabad probably did not order and India cannot ignore. Clearly, the Islamists have the upper hand.

The Mumbai Incident

2008-12-01T18:53:00.001-07:00

I have been away the last few weeks because my father passed away. I have been working on another article that discusses the impact of oil prices on counterterrorism efforts and should have that up shortly.

Much has been written in the last few days with regards to the recent terrorist attack in Mumbai, so I will keep my comments brief. In my previous article I noted that the Pakistani government is weak and this attack will only add to the pressure they are facing, which in fact may have been part of the motivation to begin with. I will discuss that tactics of the operation later but first I would like to focus on the impending response by the Indian government.

India

India is one of the countries most brutalized by terrorism. In fact, according to an article in the Middle East Times, India has suffered well over 4,000 casualties from terrorism since 2004. Unfortunately that figure is about right. India is in the middle of a political campaign and the controlling party has been accused of being weak on terror, and as such faces a very real possibility of losing the upcoming elections, so a response is imminent.

Pakistan

With the government as weak as it is a coup is a very real possibility. The civilian government is out of money, has very little control over the country, and no control over the military. Speaking of a coup this early in the game is often times laughable, but with the dynamics that are in play Pakistan will inevitably get the shaft. Should India make any conventional incursions into Pakistan proper the military will be forced to respond and I doubt the civilian government can exercise any control over the decision making. If India faces little resistance the only way to stop an invasion would be the threat of using a nuclear weapon – Pakistan has nothing else.

Mumbai – A tactical perspective

The attacks that began Wednesday were carried out professionally, in a coordinated manner, and perhaps most stunningly, only required ten people. The Indian police have put the body count at almost 200 with hundreds more injured. The real story here is the target, however. Mumbai is a tourist destination and a large financial hub. By targeting Mumbai’s five-star hotels the attackers were sure to kill Westerners and hurt the city – and to a larger extent the country – financially.
The attackers only used small arms and explosives, a combination that works well when properly employed. This is the type of attack that keeps me up at night. For instance, think of an attack like this at an American mall or at Wal-Mart during black Friday. There is little that the targeted population can do to protect themselves and there is little the police or security forces can do to prevent it. If you can imagine a large crowd, probably numbering in the hundreds, gathering in the early morning waiting for the store to open when suddenly a suicide bomber detonates his vest – things get ugly really quick. So too did the attacks that struck Mumbai – only this attack is leading to a standoff between two nuclear powers.

Feeling the Squeeze

2008-10-16T18:51:00.002-06:00

Since the ‘surge’ in Iraq has produced an improved security situation media reports have once again focused on the war in Afghanistan. These reports have painted the Afghan theater as a lost cause that cannot be won or even brought to a palatable conclusion. The media tends to take a one dimensional approach to news coverage and often overlooks the numerous dynamics that are in play. This doesn’t mean that the situation in Afghanistan is rosy however, but before an assessment can be made the situation must be dissected.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, the U.S., and the Taliban are suffering from a prolonged war that has gone on for seven years now. While at the onset of the war on terror 80 percent of al-Qaeda prime was destroyed the core leadership has managed to elude capture and the people in the regions that they are taking refuge are paying the price. Regardless of this success here is the current situation:

In the process of the war Afghanistan has gained a new government, but it is weak and unable to build a consensus among the numerous warlords that call the country home.

The U.S. is looking to draw down troops in Iraq and move several brigade combat teams to the Afghan theater, but troop strength alone will not be enough and the military command knows it.

Pakistan has lost significant influence in Afghanistan, is facing an insurgency at home, and India – their primary adversary – has moved troops and advanced aircraft into Kashmir. India has also invested significantly in Afghanistan thus expanding their influence on two of Pakistan’s borders. Additionally, China has moved troops into the Xinjiang province – which borders Pakistan – to crack down on the Muslim Uyghurs which Islamabad has supported in the past. Though Pakistan and China are occasional allies, China is not happy with the Washington – Islamabad alliance. All told Pakistan is not in good shape.

The Taliban have been getting hammered by the U.S. for seven years, but have managed to survive and occasionally regroup. The Taliban, it should be noted, are not a single homogenous group, but rather several Pashtun tribes that have embraced the Deobandi form of Islam that is the foundation of the Taliban ideology. In essence it would take the defeat or destruction of an entire ethnic group to claim victory over the Taliban. Simply put, that will not happen.

Each player in the Afghan theater is feeling the squeeze and something has to give – soon.

Taliban looking for peace?

Several news reports have claimed that a delegation of Afghan government officials and Afghan Taliban representatives met in Saudi Arabia to discuss the prospect of peace at the behest of Saudi King Abdullah. This comes on the heels of the Afghan president Karzai and some high ranking NATO officers calling for peace negotiations with the Taliban. In spite of the reports both the Afghan government and the Afghan Taliban have claimed that a meeting did occur, but there was no discussion of peace or national reconciliation. That being said I doubt that they met to discuss the weather.

Afghanistan needs forge a path towards national reconciliation and that includes that Taliban. Those that are loyal to the Taliban know that they cannot defeat the foreign forces in Afghanistan and waiting for the foreigners to leave while their people suffer from war is not an option either. The only available option is for the government and the Afghan Taliban to come to an accord whether it is politically palatable for the foreign forces or not.

It is interesting to note that the representatives of the Taliban that attended the meeting in Saudi Arabia are either no longer affiliated with the group or have been cast aside. This does not matter however, because the Afghan government and the Taliban have a problem that needs to be solved and a meeting with the most powerful nation in Sunni Islam is a good place to start. The Afghan government has been reaching out to the Saudi’s for some time now and will probably view the meeting as a short term victory – even if they do it silently.

Understandably the U.S. is not happy with the prospect of watching the Afghan government negotiate a peace deal with the faction the Karzai government replaced. While it may not be the best solution from Washington’s standpoint, it is a solution that may become more acceptable should the Taliban decide to split with al-Qaeda. The U.S. could extract itself from the Afghan theater if the top tear of al-Qaeda was killed or captured, but this will only happen when the local population turns against the foreigners.

Pakistan: The perils of a weak government

In my previous article I discussed the increase of U.S. raids into Pakistani territory. While the CIA and Special Forces have been doing this for years, it is only recently that conventional military forces have made incursions into the Tribal Areas of Pakistan. After seven years of the War on Terror, why is this only occurring now? A number of reasons immediately come to mind, such as the war in Iraq, the coming end to the Bush administration, poor intelligence, and perhaps the most overlooked reason – Pakistani politics.

Pakistan has survived so long as the Army survived. Prior to the ouster of President Musharraf, the Army and the government were one in the same and the country was ruled by a single homogonous entity. This is no longer the case. The change came when Western powers pressed Musharraf to give up his direct military role and hold open elections. Musharraf would eventually acquiesce thus pushing the country into chaos. The newly elected Parliament moved quickly to pressure Musharraf into resigning by threatening him with impeachment. This move did not fracture the government per se, but it did fracture the control of the country and has led to competing directives between the Army and the civilian government.

A prime example of this was the decision to bring the Inter-services Intelligence (ISI) under the control civilian control by placing the organization under the Interior Ministry. Two days later the government was forced to recant this declaration claiming that the Army was not given a say in the matter, but the implication was clear – the Army wasn’t going to listen and the government couldn’t do anything about it. It now appears that the Army will make a move to put the government under military influence and not the other way around. It is a similar situation that led to Musharraf seizing control of the government in the first place.

The newly formed democratic government is already in trouble and near bankruptcy. Several countries and institutions have offered aid, but if it doesn’t come soon the government may face social unrest after only a few months in office. Perhaps the most difficult challenge that Pakistan faces is the Taliban insurgency. The Taliban is flush with cash from the poppy crop and has asserted itself more recently in areas of the country that have been traditionally more stable. With India spreading money and influence in Afghanistan and the U.S. engaging in missile strikes inside the FATA on a daily basis, Pakistan could be thrust further into turmoil.

What happens next?

Right now the next move will be made by the U.S., but probably not until the election is over. The U.S. military is planning on a winter offensive to take on Taliban and al-Qaeda that remain in the country during the winter months. Afghanistan is a mountainous country which makes combat during winter months very difficult for poorly equipped light infantry elements such as Taliban and AQ fighters. The U.S. is betting on this and going for the jugular so to speak. During the winter months all logistical support is scaled back because the mountains become impassable from the heavy snow fall. If the U.S. is successful in taking on those elements that do not winter in Pakistan the dynamic of the theater could change. The success of this offensive will not end the war, but it could bring the conclusion closer.

Counterintelligence Operations and the Recent Airstrikes in Pakistan

2008-09-09T20:39:00.002-06:00

In late July of this year, U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen traveled to Pakistan on an unannounced trip, where he presented Pakistani military officials with evidence of the Inter-Services Intelligence’s (ISI) involvement in attacks in Afghanistan. The most recent large scale attack that the ISI may have been involved in took place on July 7, and was against the Indian embassy in Kabul resulting in the deaths of at least 58 people and injured more than 140. Two high ranking diplomats, Indian Defense Attache Brig. Gen. Ravi Dutt Mehta and the embassy’s Political and Information Counselor Vadapalli Venkateswara Rao, were among those killed in the attack. This attack in particular has all the hallmarks of an assassination.

A U.S. military strike in Pakistan on September 8 resulted in the deaths of multiple civilians all from the same extended family. While the loss of civilian lives in combat is regrettable this airstrike was not an accident. The target of the attack was the home of a Taliban leader that was most likely responsible for the attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul with the assistance of the ISI. Unfortunately the target of the strike was not home at the time and may have actually been in Afghanistan participating in the insurgency, but that is not the focus of this article.

So what do these two events, along with the dramatic increase of U.S. airstrikes in Pakistan, have in common? In a word – counterintelligence or CI. Before we discuss the link between these two events we must first understand the many purposes of CI. If intelligence is gathering information then it would make sense that counterintelligence is the method that prevents adversaries from learning what you know, but not all CI operations are the same. For instance, the FBI is charged with CI operations in the U.S. and strives to prevent, and if necessary identify, foreign espionage and subversion. Ultimately the FBI’s goal is to disrupt the flow of information to American adversaries and prosecute those individual’s involved. The CIA on the other hand often takes a different approach depending on the circumstances.

The CIA, a foreign intelligence service of the U.S., also works to identify individuals involved in collecting sensitive information, but disruption is not always the goal. Once a subversive element is discovered, whether it is an individual or a group, the CIA strives to learn the entire communication chain the subversive element uses. This allows the Agency to plant disinformation that can be used in a future operation, or in the case of the War on Terrorism, locate an individual.

Using the ISI

Pakistan’s traditional adversary has been India and the War on Terrorism has not changed that. In much the same fashion as how Russian and the U.S. fought during the Cold War, Pakistan has been using militant Islamists to stir up trouble in India in an attempt to prevent the struggle between the two from becoming a larger conventional conflict or worse – a nuclear standoff. The ISI has been the front agency for cultivating these proxy fighters, but in the last few years the ISI’s creation has turned against its master. In fact, the Institute for Conflict Management notes that suicide bombings in Pakistan rose from seven in 2006 to 56 in 2007. Further compounding the problem is the high number of Islamist sympathizers within the Pakistani intelligence agency that have been working against both the U.S. and their own government.

On many fronts the ISI, or elements within the agency, has been compromising intelligence activities by warning the militant factions of military movements or pending intelligence operations. This, of course, has hampered the ability of the U.S., NATO, and the Afghan military to deal with the raging insurgency. However, oftentimes problems can become opportunities when handled correctly.

The use of Counterintelligence Operations

Information can flow both ways. If the ISI is funneling information to the Taliban then from a CI perspective the communications network can be uncovered and exploited. In regards to this most recent airstrike it appears that the U.S. managed to locate the home of Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani, a top Taliban leader with close ties to al-Qaeda, by using those elements of the ISI that are in contact with him. This seems likely for several reasons with the foremost reason being the Haqqani has been on the U.S. hit list for some time and the strike on his compound only coming recently means that its location was just discovered. Unfortunately for the U.S., it missed its target and ended up killing several civilians along with a few militants. This can happen if the intelligence only offers a small window of opportunity for a military strike to take place and the operation is rushed. This may not be what happened, but it is the theory that makes the most sense.

In the waning months of the Bush administration it is highly likely that constant airstrikes in Pakistan will continue. It is also likely that more counterintelligence operations will take place since as-Shahab, the propaganda wing of al-Qaeda, has promised to deliver addresses from al-Qaeda leadership on the anniversary of the 9/11 attack. CI operations are not constrained to the agencies of foreign governments, but the media outlets that happen to just “find” an al-Qaeda audio or video tape for publication are likely to be a prime target. All non-state actors need to communicate with the outside world and this is more often than not the weak link in their security. It is the vulnerability of communications networks that brought an end to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq; and Pablo Escobar, the notorious leader of the Medellin Cartel. So it begs the question, could bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, or Mullah Omar be next?

*The descriptions of intelligence and CI operations described above are an oversimplified account for the purpose of brevity.

Al-Assad Speaks – Nothing Changes

2008-09-04T20:12:00.002-06:00

Please read my September 3 post, Syria's Last Strategic Option, and this post will make more sense.

Syrian President Bashir al-Assad presented to Turkey 6 points that detail his position of departure in the negotiations during a press conference today. But what has captured the headlines in the Israeli press is al-Assad’s declaration that he will not break off ties to Hezbollah and Palestinian militants. This would seem to contradict my earlier statements regarding Syria no longer wanting to be a rogue regime. On the contrary this statement by al-Assad only reinforces my analysis and represents Syria playing the only card it has in this deal with Tel Aviv – reining in militant factions that present a security threat to Israel.

Here’s how I got there. Syria has only one thing to offer Israel – dismantling Hezbollah and curtailing the activities of militant Palestinians. That being said it makes sense that al-Assad would trumpet this because it would play well in the Israeli press. Additionally, the other major players in this deal – France, Turkey, Egypt, and Qatar – would not want a peace deal that allowed a repeat of the Israeli-Hezbollah war of 2006. Such an allowance would make any peace deal ridiculous.

In the face of political problems in Israel it is still apparent that Tel Aviv holds the trump card – the Golan Heights. Israel would never agree to give up Golan without security assurances on its northern border. From Syria’s perspective the return of Golan is necessary for security since Damascus is a mere 30 miles from the current border with Israel.

I have stated before that one should never confuse rhetoric for policy. In this case al-Assad’s statement that he will continue to support Hezbollah and the militant Palestinian factions is an untenable position and he knows it. Damascus desperately needs this peace deal so it can tap into the global economy. Al-Assad needs to grow Syria’s economy so he can stay in power and clinging to the old habits of supporting terrorism would run counter to that goal. Al-Assad’s may be a young leader, but he is not stupid.

Syria’s Last Strategic Option

2008-09-03T18:47:00.000-06:00

The last couple of years have been tough on the al-Assad regime in Syria. But before we can discuss the current realities faced by Damascus we first must understand the geography that influences the Middle East and the unstable politics that make the conflicts in the region what they are today. Syria has long been on the end of something I call rogue regime row which stretched from Afghanistan in the east across Iran and Iraq and finally ending with Syria bordering the Mediterranean in the west. Each of these nations contained dynamics that were opposed to their neighbors and thus created an environment that was made up of minor actors that could only antagonize each other through proxies without one ever coming out on top. This is one of the main reasons that the Middle East is a prime berthing ground for terrorism. The 9/11 attacks upset this strange balance.

With the ensuing occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by the United States, Damascus was forced to find a large power to ensure their survival. The first option was Iran, but in the face of a stabilizing Iraq this arrangement became impossible. Further adding to the problems of the alliance was disagreements over Hezbollah and the large ideological divide between the two nations didn’t help either. Without a strong backer Syria became isolated.

Prior to the Iranian-Syrian alliance becoming strained was the boneheaded move by Damascus to assassinate former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. This move caused the major Western powers to respond by demanding a full withdrawal of all Syrian troops from Lebanon. Syria attempted to resist, but with the odds were greatly stacked against them. In the end Damascus was forced to move out and in the process lose their most promising economic interests. The weak alliance with Iran and the Hariri assassination brought international scrutiny in the face of declining oil revenues and surging economic problems. Syria is without the ability to remain a rogue regime and must join the international community if the Assad regime is to survive; it is Syria’s last remaining option.

Turkey and the Israeli-Syrian Peace Talks

Turkey has been playing the role of matchmaker in the preliminary talks between Syria and Israel for several reasons. Perhaps the most pressing is setting up a stable south when the U.S. completely pulls out of Iraq. Other than dealing with the militant Kurdish forces of Northern Iraq, Turkey also wants to create a stable region on the coast of the Mediterranean. Crafting a peace deal between Tel Aviv and Damascus would go a long way to accomplishing this. Turkey is also working out an energy deal with Syria that would help both countries economically and provide energy to Europe that would bypass a resurgent Russia. This is something the Europeans are desperate for and both Syria and Turkey are in prime position to offer this alternative.

The Israeli-Syrian talks have continued in fits and starts in the face of many challenges. Both nations have much to gain from a peace deal in the form of security for Israel and continuance of the Assad regime in Syria. As is usually the case with diplomatic talks the nations involved will work against and with each other behind the scenes to push negotiations in their favor. This is most likely what resulted in the Mugniyeh assassination. Needless to say Hezbollah was not pleased with the Syrian move and are worried that an Israeli-Syrian deal would mean the loss of Syria as a patron and the money and arms that go with it.

The moves that Syria had to undertake as a condition of talks with Israel did not bode well for the regime. Other than Hezbollah, Syria has also played host to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and removing these elements is not something that is easily done. After the Mugniyeh assassination, the head of Syrian Intelligence and al-Assad’s brother-in-law, Asef Shawkat, was place under house arrest. It is believed that he was planning a coup and sought the help of the CIA after a meeting in Turkey. The CIA turned him down.

Al-Assad’s Attempt to Curry Russian Favor

Assad saw an opportunity in the Russian invasion of Georgia to curry favor with Moscow in an attempt to bolster its standing in the talks with Israel. Syria had offered to house Russian missiles to counter the missiles the U.S. was planning on placing in Poland and also a naval station in the Mediterranean. The Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, turned him down on all counts most likely because the Israelis got there first. It appears that the Russian decision hinged on a deal with Israel that prevented the Israelis from selling weapons to Georgia as long as Russia did not sell weapons to Syria.

The Last Option

Syria has one move left – a peace deal with Israel. Since Russia isn’t interested and Iran is too far away to project any military power in defense of Damascus Syria is forced to play nice. However, not all is lost and the recent developments with Lebanon certainly help. Syria needs Lebanon far more that the other way around which is why the two nations have finally agreed to establish full diplomatic recognition. Damascus has long viewed Lebanon as a Syrian province so this move is significant.This gives the Syrians the ability to tap back into Lebanon economically while offering Beirut the ability to hurt Hezbollah. This is something that Israel wants and Lebanon could use. Hezbollah has brought nothing but misery to Lebanon and the Israeli-Syrian deal will hurt the terror organization significantly – not to mention Hamas and PIJ. Al-Assad seems to recognize the need to drop the rogue act and join in the international economy. Without significant foreign investment the Syrian economy will continue on its downward dive and the al-Assad regime days will be numbered.

Why are al-Qaeda’s Egyptians getting whacked?

2008-08-18T21:07:00.002-06:00

Authors note: I was tired when I wrote this. If I get time later I'll revise and proofread.

In the last few weeks U.S. airstrikes carried out by drone aircraft have killed a number of al-Qaeda leaders and field commanders – all of them Egyptian. Here are the unlucky recipients of the Hellfire suppository:

Abu Khabab al-Masri (Midhat Mursi)
Abu Mohammed Ibrahim bin Abi Farag al-Masri
Abdul-Wahab al-Masri
Abu Islam al-Masri
Abu Saeed al-Masri

It is assumed that all of the aforementioned individuals are Egyptian since their names contain al-Masri which translates to ‘the Egyptian.’ Adding to the intrigue is the rumor that the Ayman al-Zawahiri was either killed or wounded in these attacks. This will be discussed later.

The first individual to capture headlines with his death is Abu Khabab al-Masri whose real name is Midhat Mursi. Mursi was often described as a top chemical and explosives expert who spearheaded al-Qaeda’s research into chemical weapons. The now infamous video of al-Qaeda gassing a dog was one of Mursi’s experiments. Mursi is also believed to have had a hand in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole by training the suicide bombers that carried out the attack. The martyrdom statement release by al-Qaeda was signed by Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, an aid to al-Zawahiri and bigwig in al-Qaeda, who would be killed a week later.

The second major strike took out the familiar face of Abu Saeed al-Masri who is also known as Mustafa Abu al-Yazid. I say familiar because he has become the face of the frequent videos released by al-Qaeda’s media wing As-Sahab since the disappearance of Azzam the American (Adam Gadahn). Al-Yazid was referred to as the Chief Financial Manager of al-Qaeda by the 9/11 commission and was possibly the third in command of the terror organization. Al-Yazid was known to be a close associate of al-Zawahiri for many years since they were imprisoned together after the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981.

CIA Planning For Al Qaeda 'Succession Crisis'

In late May of this year, the AP reported that the CIA was planning for a succession crisis among the leadership of al-Qaeda as mentioned by CIA Director Michael Hayden in an interview. According to Hayden, “A number of Egyptians are part of al Qaeda's top echelon and may struggle for power among themselves.” This of course assumes that bin Laden would either be killed or captured. The belief among many in the counterterrorism community is that al-Zawahiri would be the man that would replace bin Laden but there are others who may fight for the mantel in the event of his capture or death.

It is this uncertainty that makes this whole affair notable. Any one of these men could have been killed and it would have made headlines and been quickly forgotten, but when five men all from the same country get killed it is necessary to try to learn why. One possibility is that the CIA has managed to turn an al-Qaeda member to give up the locations of the senior leadership. Another possibility would be signs of internal strife, and finally an outside force may be trying to absorb the organization.

The possibility of the CIA turning someone is remote for several reasons, but not impossible. The regions of Pakistan that many al-Qaeda and Taliban have been operating from are isolated and not exactly conducive to this type of operation. Additionally, the operation would have to contend with the Pakistani ISI possibly relaying information about CIA operations to the Taliban.

Internal strife is a very real possibility – and one that is not foreign to al-Qaeda. Sheik Abdullah Azzam, a former leader of the Arab Afghans and one time spiritual leader to Usama bin Laden, was killed by a car bomb shortly after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. Many believe that bin Laden was behind the assassination since Azzam would have been far too influential in the al-Qaeda startup. The killing of the Egyptians may be nothing more than bin Laden trying to clean house, but his reliance on al-Zawahiri may cast doubt on this theory. It is possible that al-Zawahiri himself may well be a target of internal factions.

Since taking refuge in Pakistan, al-Qaeda has been working with several entities, many international, but mostly local Pashtuns. Mahmood Shah, a former security chief of Pakistan's northwestern ethnic Pastun tribal areas said, "Al Qaeda is the main machine behind the insurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban, the Chechens and the Uzbeks, are used as foot soldiers as cannon fodder but the actual machine is al Qaeda." Such a statement should not be taken lightly. If al-Qaeda has asserted itself in these regions the possibility of resentment would not be out of the question. Since the ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan the tribal regions of Pakistan have become a nasty battlefield and civilians are paying the price.

Right now the circumstances that led to the deaths of the Egyptians are still a mystery and I doubt that it is merely a coincidence. The wildcard in this mess seems to be the condition of al-Zawahiri. I believe that he is still alive, but for confirmation he’ll need to release a video tape and discuss some current events. If he has been injured or killed we could see some drastic changes in the shape of al-Qaeda in Pakistan. For now all we can do is sit and wait.

Georgia, Iraq and the Reemergence of the U.S. – Russian Divide

2008-08-14T17:12:00.003-06:00

Over time the name or the economic system of a country may change, but the geopolitics of the nation remains pretty much the same. Such is the case of Russia and by extension Russian – US relations. The Cold War was fought mainly through proxies and relied heavily on nuclear deterrence. If ever a war broke out with the U.S. the Soviet doctrine was to deploy their tanks (and they used to have a lot of them) and occupy Europe. The theory was that with a large tank fleet invading Europe the U.S. would be forced to use a tactical nuclear strike to stop it thus plunging the world into a nuclear war. Since a nuclear war can ruin your whole day, both superpowers employed several measures to prevent that from happening. The Cuban missile crisis was all that was necessary for that to happen.

Back then Europe was considerably smaller (the Warsaw Pact powers made it that way) and Russia was significantly stronger than what it is today and that strategy may have worked.

Today the Russian doctrine is to control as much of the European economy as possible by controlling the oil and natural gas supply. If ever NATO appears to present too much of a threat the Russians can wage economic warfare by cutting off the oil and natural gas supply.

Enter Georgia

Georgia, a former Soviet state, has a strong western friendly government and wants NATO membership. Russia sees that as a threat and will do much to stop NATO membership for the former Warsaw Pact countries. Since Georgia is a small nation that resides outside of Europe proper it is a perfect target for the Russians to reassert themselves militarily. Adding to mix is a fuel pipeline that goes through Georgia to supply Eastern Europe, and Russia wants to control it. This strategy is two fold. One, it helps the Russians wage economic warfare against Europe, and two it brings the former Eastern Bloc back under Russian influence.

Russia saw the opportunity to pick a fight using South Ossetia. They granted Ossetians Russian citizenship in the early 1990’s and have been selling them weapons for years. Unbeknownst to most people the Russians have had their invasion forces on the border of South Ossetia, in addition to the peacekeeping forces already in the province, in preparation for an invasion for about 5 months. The Russians, either through the FSB or Special Operations troops, have been supporting Ossetian troops against the Georgian government hoping to make Georgia respond militarily.

Prior to the invasion the Ossetians and the Georgians were exchanging artillery fire for about three days before a small Ossetian offensive took place. The Georgians thought that this was a precursor to the coming Russian invasion and were forced to take the bait – just like Moscow wanted them too.

When Georgia went into Ossetia the Russians decided that this was the perfect time to go in under the guise of protecting Russian citizens. The underlying plan was to invade Georgia, discredit the pro-Western government, and set up a government that will be more favorable to Moscow without actually engaging in a long term occupation. Russia wanted to use a proxy government as opposed to bringing Georgia back within Russian borders so that the intervention would appear legitimate.

The Russian Invasion

Some observers have stated that the Russians successfully used a combined arms approach during the invasion. Through the lens of the reporters on the ground it looked that way, but under further scrutiny those claims don't add up. The Russians may have used several elements of their military but they didn't act in concert as you would expect in a true combined arms attack.

The mechanized infantry went in with a large number of troops and tanks that operated independently of other forces. The Russian navy struck Georgian ships in the Black Sea while the air force struck strategic targets – namely fixed military installations and political targets. A combined arms approach would have included the navy and air force striking tactical targets, in addition to striking strategic targets, to aid in the advance of ground forces. This approach did not take place.

What did happen was an approach that was similar to that of WWII complete with the inability to communicate between all forces. From a military perspective it appeared slightly embarrassing for the Russians since the Commander of the ground forces had to rely on war correspondents for the current positions of his troops in other parts of the country.

Many have stated that the U.S. didn't respond militarily because they simply couldn't. The U.S. currently has about one quarter of its army in Iraq and is also working in Afghanistan in a smaller capacity. That opens up the air force and the navy to respond. Since it appeared that the Russians did not have command and control of their invasion force the U.S. could have responded with air strikes against the Russians for at least a day before the Russian air force could respond.

Instead of responding militarily the U.S. played the waiting game because the Russian response to NATO or U.S. intervention is unknown. This strategy has allowed the Russian troops to do what they do best – pillage and burn. Because the Russian military does not have command and control over their troops looting by the Russian military is already taking place in front of the cameras of the international media.

The U.S. response on August 13 proved interesting. Bush has order the Pentagon to put together a humanitarian effort to get medical supplies to the Georgian people. This strategy puts the Russians in a precarious situation. If any harm comes to U.S. troops on a humanitarian mission, especially in the face of Russian looting, Moscow will be hurt internationally – and very badly. What would happen is a classic case of operational blowback.

The U.S. Invasion of Iraq – Similarities and Differences

Many people internationally have expressed bewilderment at the U.S. reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia when the U.S. invaded Iraq. To explain this we have to lay down a few rules about geopolitics:

• Wars are fought for primarily three reasons: geography, economics, and politics – usually in that order
• Politics includes matters of secular politics, religion, culture, and history
• All nations fight for their self interests – no exceptions
• All nations look to better their positions either regionally or internationally through diplomacy, the military, or economics

The Russian invasion of Georgia was primarily fought over geography. Georgia straddles the Caspian and the Black Seas which allow for transport of fuel without crossing Russian borders. The more energy lines that Moscow controls the better their strategy will work against Europe if it is ever needed.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was also fought over geography. Prior to the 9/11 attacks the region of southwest Asia that stretched from Afghanistan to Syria is something I like to call rogue regime row. Since the U.S. had a presence in Afghanistan with a reluctant ally to the south, the Americans still faced a strategic problem in the form of the Jihadist war. Iran, the most active state sponsor of terror, is a large country that is not conducive to an invasion. An invasion of Iran would have left Iraq and Syria – both Baathist regimes – able to cooperate should the need ever arise. Both nations supported terror, even if it wasn’t al-Qaeda, and could pose a long term problem. Invading Syria would have left Iraq and Iran as a continual threat to the Middle East since both nations have a habit of warring and supporting terror. Iraq was the best solution in a field of bad choices.

The Emerging Results of the U.S. Invasion

Invading Iraq has fundamentally changed the Middle East by isolating Syria to the west and isolating Iran to the east. Syria got the better end of the deal and is trying to make the most of it with France and Turkey helping to foster dialog with Israel. Israel, Jordan, and Egypt have benefited from their respective peace deals and it now appears that Syria wants a try and benefit from the arrangement as well. Syria has long played the role of rogue nation, but with an economy that is going, and has gone, nowhere little incentive is left for Syria to align itself with Iran. Iran has played patron to Syria in a number of areas, but Syrian President Bashir Assad may be feeling the pressure from such an alliance. With a stabilizing Iraq, the Syrian – Iranian alliance may become a thing of the past.

Syria – It may sound strange that a stable Iraq would hinder the Syrian – Iranian alliance, but once again geography plays an important role. Through 2006 it appeared that Iraq was doomed to fall under the influence of Iran and thus allow the Ayatollahs free reign over much of the ME. Syria may have been hedging its bets in forming the alliance although the two nations had little in common politically or economically. In fact the relationship may be defined by the common interest in funding and arming Hezbollah and keeping their common enemy, Israel, off balance. Now that Iraq is stabilizing Iran doesn’t have an avenue to become a regional power, thus negating the underlying reason for the Syrian – Iranian alliance.

Syria was dealt a blow when the international community demanded that all Syrian troops be removed from Lebanon. Lebanon was economically and militarily important for the Syrians thus making the withdrawal all the more difficult. From an economic perspective Syria was able to use Lebanon as a means of gaining greater access to Mediterranean trade, while also allowing Syria to use Lebanon as a battleground should war with Israel erupt. The military strategy was a terrible one, but it was the only option available since Israel controlled a valuable piece of real estate known as the Golan Heights. The Golan Heights give Israel direct access to Damascus which is a mere thirty miles from the Syrian – Israeli border. Recently Lebanon and Syria have formally agreed to establish full diplomatic ties. This removes the stigma that the Syrians view Lebanon as nothing more than a Syrian province. Since this agreement is still new the long term relationship is still cloudy.

The Golan Heights may be the key to a peace agreement between Syria and Israel, but it is not the only factor that will dictate success. With a stable and possible power rising to its east, Syria would effectively be cut of from Iran and forced to make nice with all its neighbors. This may be the motivation behind creating a peace deal with Israel. The French who have historic ties to Syria have made several offers to help Syria return to the international community the most visible being the Mediterranean Union. The Mediterranean Union is more of a platform for the nations of Northern Africa, Southern Europe, and part of the ME to work towards peace rather than any cooperation that could actually achieve these goals. For the Union to achieve any results economic incentives must be presented. This is crucial for Syria.

Another important factor that must be taken into account for an Israeli – Syrian peace to succeed is the halting of Syrian support for terrorism. For Syria this is an easy move; for the Israelis this is an absolute necessary for security. Without Iran acting as a patron to Syria the support for terror can end and the Israelis can force Syria to deal with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is the only serious threat to Israel from the north, but the terror organization relies heavily on Iranian and Syrian weapons imports and to a greater extent the 500 million dollars a year in Iranian financial assistance.

The current negotiations between Israel and Syria are being handled by Turkey and have produces some tenuous results in the form of several assassinations. The first assassination was carried out by Syria and removed Hezbollah commander Imad Mugniyeh from the terrorist party. This may have been done for two reasons. The first was that Mugniyeh had plenty of Israeli blood on his hands and the second reason is he may have been behind the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. More recently Brig. Gen. Mohammad Suleiman, the man responsible for facilitating Syrian support for Hezbollah, was shot to death on a beach resort near the Syrian port city of Tartous. It appears that Suleiman was also responsible for the Syrian nuclear reactor that was destroyed by the Israeli air force in September 2007. Both of these assassinations may be an attempt by President Assad to clean house.

But the main sticking point of the Golan Heights remains. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has made statements alluding to the possibility of ceding Golan, but since he has announced his resignation amid charges of corruption the peace process is on hold for now. Two of the candidates vying for his position have stated they will still work for a peace deal with Syria. The third major candidate, Benjamin Netanyahu, has stated that he would not give up the Golan for peace. The Golan Heights are of strategic value to whoever holds the territory and Netanyahu may fear a Syrian military occupation of the Golan plateau that overlooks several Israeli villages. What is clear is that Israel will not cede Golan without a guarantee of demilitarization of the area. This leaves Syria in a difficult position – unable to survive economically without foreign support and unable to maintain the status quo without Iranian assistance. We are at the point where something has to give, soon.

Iran – Iran is now vulnerable to international sanctions over its nuclear program. With a strong Iraq, Iran can now be put under a naval blockade. For the rest on Iran see my previous article.

The reasoning behind the U.S. invasion has become irrelevant not because it isn’t important, but because the deed has been done. The U.S. needed to find the best way to hamper the Jihadist war by changing the dynamics of the Middle East and Iraq has proven to be the best answer. While some violence continues in Iraq it is hardly enough to threaten the Iraqi government. In essence the Iraq war as we have known it over the past few years is over. The U.S. will withdraw three of the 15 combat brigades in September and will probably withdraw another two in January or February. The current agreement between the U.S. and the Iraqi government calls for the withdrawal of all combat troops in three years – a more than reasonable goal.

The Continuance of the U.S. – Russian Divide

The Jihadist movement no longer poses a strategic threat to the U.S., but their ability to kill people remains. The situation in Afghanistan has proven to be a problem for the U.S. but that doesn’t mean it can’t be handled. The improving situation in Iraq and a manageable situation in Afghanistan couldn’t have come at a better time for the Americans.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union the U.S. has worked hard and spent a great deal of money to bring Russia into the international community as a democratic partner. Unfortunately it couldn’t last forever. The U.S. and Russia will always be adversaries because of geography – a problem that can’t be reconciled. The U.S. will always be bound to Europe politically and economically and the Russians will always pose a threat to Europe because the Russian – European border does not lend itself to Russia’s security. In essence what is old is new again and it will be just as ugly as the last time.

Military Strikes against Iran? Not Likely - At Least for Now

2008-08-07T16:57:00.005-06:00

This morning the Jerusalem Post and the Kuwait Times reported that two U.S. aircraft carriers were in route to the Middle East with one going to the Persian Gulf and the other going to the Red Sea. This is an interesting development indeed. Currently the U.S. has the USS Abraham Lincoln Aircraft Carrier Strike Group and the USS Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group in the Persian Gulf already. This type of deployment can mean two things: the U.S. is planning a military strike against Iran, or the U.S. is continuing the military feint in an attempt to drive home the point that Iran needs to cooperate in international discussions over its nuclear program.

Over the last few years the U.S. has been moving naval strike groups in and out of the Persian Gulf in support of ongoing operations in Iraq and also to send a message to Iran. For the most part only one aircraft carrier strike group is present in the Gulf at any given time. When two carriers are put in place it allows for 24 hour operations so there is no gap in airstrikes should they take place. The additional presence of guided missile cruisers allows for the launching of cruise missiles for strikes against hardened targets. Since three carriers will ultimately be in place it would appear the strikes against Iran are immanent, but that may not be the case.

It is normal for the U.S. to move military muscle around to give the impression that an attack is immanent only to pull back and do it again several months later. This tends to wear down an adversaries response time as the movements are viewed as routine. When the U.S. finally does attack the enemy response is significantly degraded and the attack has a greater chance of success. It is possible that’s all that is happening here. Iran recently missed a deadline for indicating it was seriously ready to discuss ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. While Iran has missed every deadline in the past the further Tehran gets in advancing its nuclear program the more pressure the U.S. and Europe are likely to apply.

Currently a military strike against Iran is unlikely, at least in the short term. President Bush is engaged in a farewell tour in Asia and attending the opening of the Olympic Games. It is unlikely that the U.S. would strike Iran while the President is out of the country. The U.S. has also discussed opening an interests-section office in the capital of Iran that will allow for direct talks between the two nations. This is just below full diplomatic relations. Tehran has been receptive to the idea, but nothing concrete has taken place. Most recently the U.S. sent the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs to the negotiating table in Geneva, another factor that looks as if the diplomatic process will continue – at least for a little while longer.

Iran’s Domestic Problems

Iran is in bad shape economically. Inflation is around 20 percent, unemployment is in the double digits, and 18 percent of the population lives in extreme poverty. The Iranian nuclear program has increased these problems by bringing international sanctions against Iranian banks and its wealthiest citizens. Additional problems include government sponsored gas subsidies in the face of high oil prices. Iran may be a top exporter of petroleum, but is also a major importer of refined products such as gasoline. Because of these problems Iran is increasingly vulnerable to international pressure and possibly revolution.

When discussing Iran it is often prudent to discuss the nature of its military. The primary mission of the Iranian military is to maintain order within the country and repel invaders should it become necessary. Although Iran does not have the capability to project a conventional military force it engages in the exportation of the Islamic revolution through the use of its al-Quds Force (Jerusalem Force) – a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Iran is an ethnically diverse nation that often times faces domestic problems typically revolving around treatment of ethnic and religious minorities. It is these problems that consume most of the Iranian military effort.

The Iranians did try to use unconventional forces in Iraq in an attempt to force the U.S. to leave so that Tehran could spread its influence in Baghdad. What happened to the Iranians is known as operational blowback. Iran never had a good hold over the Shiite Muslims in Iraq and was known to provide weapons, money, and training to both Sunni and Shiite militants. This persisted until the U.S. surge proved too much for the Iranians to oppose. The employing of the Sunni Awakening councils and the political leverage used by al-Maliki over the Shiites also did much to force Iranian influence out of Iraq. While Iran wanted to use the support of the various factions fighting the new Iraqi government to spread influence it instead has suffered the opposite. Many Iraqis are distrustful of Tehran and have instead shown an increased loyalty to Baghdad.

The U.S. felt as if it had to negotiate with Iran over the future of Iraq and engaged in several rounds of talks in Baghdad. But with the success of the surge and the consolidation of power in the Iraqi government the Iranians were on the outs. The U.S. also received more than it bargained for. The Iraqi government and military have become strong enough that they want to know how and when the U.S. will withdraw its military force. Currently the U.S. is looking at withdrawing 3 of the 15 brigade combat teams this September with further cuts to be announced in January. This move by the Iraqis is a good sign that the government in now confident enough to stand on its own and the continued presence of foreign troops is becoming a political liability. It is this strength in Baghdad and the new Iraqi army at 137,000 strong that has created a situation the Iranians have long feared.

What a Strike Might Look Like

With Iran as isolated as it is and with international sanctions steadily increasing over the nuclear program one would think that military action is inevitable when in fact the opposite is true. Israel has made statements that it will not allow Iran to construct a nuclear weapon and will use force to stop it. For any strike against the nuclear facilities it would require air and naval attacks on 2 of the 11 hardened sites protected by advanced Russian air defenses.* Currently Israel does not possess any long range heavy bombers for an air attack and would have to rely on fighter/attack aircraft with a refueling stop in Turkey. Another aspect to the attack would require naval support most likely in the form of cruise missiles. Israel has three dolphin class submarines capable of firing Popeye turbo cruise missiles at a range of just over 900 miles. Cruise missiles are meant to be a weapon used for high value targets that need to be hit with surgical precision, but with only two of the three submarines launching missiles (only two are known to operate in the Persian Gulf) the attack may only cause limited damage.

A U.S. led operation is really the only possibility should a military confrontation with Iran take place. The Pentagon has stated that it could destroy the Iranian military in three days. To accomplish this, the U.S. can move two aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf that allow for 24 hour operations supported by bomber and naval fire. It is conceivable that the U.S. could carry out this operation, but that would mean sacrificing the progress made in the talks with Iran over the future of Iraq. It’s doubtful that the Iranians could respond by supporting another insurgency in Iraq, but it could do enough to cause problems. Currently Iraq is not supporting any action against Iran and has told the U.S. it will not allow any cross border attacks. It is unclear whether any Iranian retaliation in Iraq would draw Baghdad into a larger conflict, but it would be best if Iraqi involvement in an action against Iran not take place. Iran and Iraq have a long history of animosity and any Iraqi action could lead to a groundswell of Iranian nationalism.

Another possibility for an Iranian response would be through Hezbollah. Iran funds Hezbollah at about 500 million a year plus supplements in the event of a war with Israel. In the event of a military attack, Iran would want to get its moneys worth. Hezbollah is the most adept and capable terrorist organization in the world and could launch attacks against U.S. interests globally. Any action taken against the Iranian nuclear program must consider this possibility and employ methods to counter the Hezbollah threat.

The Iranians have also threatened to close the Hormuz straits in the event of a military attack. While this makes for good fodder for the media because of the 16-17 million barrels of oil – about 40% of daily global oil consumption – that travel through the strait each day the possibility of Iran doing this effectively is remote. The last time the Iranians and the U.S. had a military engagement in the Persian Gulf was in 1988 and things work out so well for the Iranian navy. The operation was known as Preying Mantis and resulted in a large portion of the Iranian navy being destroyed in a single day by U.S. naval ships. Iran may try to use mines in the strait, but with U.S. and other naval war vessels in the area the attempt would be a token gesture at best.

Is Another Iranian Revolution Possible?

Currently Iran has more problems than answers. These political problems, both internal and external, are being handled by the officer corps of the IRGC. This has taken place by replacing 9 of the 21 cabinet members with IRGC officers and allowing these men to crush dissent. The Iranian people have not taken this change lightly and the proper application of support by the U.S. or other western nations may bring clerical rule to an end.

In fact this support is already taking place. Congress has already approved 400 million dollars to this very enterprise and it appears as if American military and intelligence personnel are working in Iran. The purpose of this funding is to foment domestic unrest and undermine the Iranian nuclear program. Operations such as this are fraught with risk and blowback is a very real possibility. With the increase of the military in domestic politics the theocratic regime could be replaced with a military dictatorship. This outcome is not in the interest of the Iranian people the U.S. or any other nation in the ME.

Many powerful people have called for reform in Tehran not the least of whom is Hossein Khomeini, the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini has asked for President Bush to come and occupy Iran like the U.S. did in Iraq. He has also stated that ‘freedom must come to Iran in any possible way, whether through internal or external developments.’ These words are not to be taken lightly and represent the feelings of a great many Iranians. Regardless of local support, the change in political and economic systems of any nation is a difficult enterprise – even in the most pro-American country in the ME.

The Wildcards – New Intelligence and Developments

Of course without access to classified estimates and the possibility that new developments in the Iranian nuclear program can take place a military strike could happen. At this point it is unclear what the tipping point would be. Iran has already enriched about half of the uranium needed for a nuclear weapon, but of course a nuclear weapon isn’t worth much if it is too big for any of the Iranian delivery systems. The best it could be used for is as a disincentive to invade with a ground force. In any case it is unlikely that the U.S. would use much of a ground force in the event of an attack on Iran. In all actuality the attack would probably resemble the airstrikes that took place at the beginnings of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns with the use of Special Forces to make contacts and create alliances with the local population to bring down the government.

In the end a U.S. strike would have to topple the government or at least dispatch the Iranian scientists involved in the nuclear program. The survival of the regime would allow for the rebuilding of the nuclear facilities and only serve to delay the nuclear program. If the scientists were removed or the regime collapsed the nuclear issue would cease. In the past few years both American and Iranian leaders have used strong rhetoric over the nuclear issue, but rhetoric should never be confused with policy. And while it appears as if a military strike is about to take place other developments lean toward continued diplomacy. What will happen in the next few months and with the new President however, remain to be seen.

*Iran’s uranium enrichment is taking place at the Natanz facility, while the suspected weapons program is taking place at the Esfahan [Isfahan] Nuclear Technology Center.

The following maps show the location and purpose of Iran’s declared facilities

Terrorism and Underwear

2008-07-31T19:50:00.002-06:00

I can’t make this stuff up, but a little humor in an otherwise serious topic is occasionally necessary. A Pakistani newspaper is reporting that terrorists are starting to use suicide underwear since security personnel usually only search the upper body. Here is the story in its entirety:

Terrorists develop ‘suicide underwear’
By Imran Asghar

RAWALPINDI: Would-be suicide bombers could be using explosives “underwear briefs” rather than explosives jackets to evade “conservative” body searches, sources said on Wednesday.

Sihala Police College forensic lab sources told Daily Times that the study of recent suicide attacks showed that suicide bombers used “explosives-laden” under-garments, briefs in particular, to carry out the attacks.

The sources said that the explosives could weigh between five kilogrammes to seven kilogrammes, made deadly by adding glass splinters, metal ball bearings and bullets. The law enforcers normally search upper body parts sparing the “privates”, the sources said, hence assailants are increasingly using the lower body parts to dodge the searches. The sources said that forensic experts were trying to devise methods to pre-empt suicide bombing. The experts have achieved successes in “Post Bombing Investigation,” the sources said, adding that resources are sharpening “Pre Bombing Investigation” techniques.

I guess we’ve come to the point in the war on terror where security personnel must be trained to differentiate between skid marks and explosive materials.

Iran’s Secret Nuclear Reactor

2008-07-30T17:55:00.002-06:00

On July 29, a Kuwaiti newspaper, Al-Siyassa, ran a story claiming that the Iranians were building a new nuclear reactor in an urban area without disclosure to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The newspaper claims the source of this information comes from a classified email sent by Brig. Hassan Jalaliyan of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) to Mohammed Kayafir, manager of the Mehab Qudus Company for Construction and Supervision. Here is the English translation:

From the IRGC Commander in the city of Al-Ahwas to the director in charge at the Mehab Qudus Company for Construction and Supervision Mr. Mohammed Kayafir

Re: The nuclear reactor at Al-Zarqan

Greetings,
I thank you for the good services of the Mehab Qudus company, and at the same time I must remind you of the following items:

1. All construction materials must be transported from the warehouses to the construction site in top secrecy.

2. As part of the doctrine of caution, we reiterate yet again that during the transport of all required materials, you must ensure that this [transport] does not arouse the suspicions of any citizen in the region through which you are moving.

3. In general, it is absolutely forbidden to hire any Arabic speakers or any citizen from Khozestan in the framework of the 'Al-Zarqan Nuclear Reactor' construction project. You must ensure that all manpower, including the driver, the accountant, the warehouse manager, the laborer, the technician, or the guard, comes from the northern provinces.

In conclusion, we say yet again that all the construction work in this project must be carried out under absolute secrecy.

From the aide to IRGC commander in the city of Al-Ahwaz, Hassan Jalaliyan.

Why the Kuwaiti Government is worried (and it should be)

In the past the Kuwaiti government has expressed concern that a nuclear accident at the Bushehr nuclear plant would contaminate Kuwait City and the northern areas of the Persian Gulf. During a symposium at a US based think tank, Sami al-Faraj, president of the Kuwait Center for Strategic Studies and an advisor to the Kuwaiti government and the secretariat-general of the Gulf Cooperation Council on how to prepare for potential nuclear accidents in Iran, stated that:

“…the Gulf is a closed sea where environmental factors are important. The Gulf's currents flow counterclockwise. In case of a nuclear accident at Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant, southern Iraq and the whole of Kuwait City, including all of Kuwait's six desalination plants, will be in danger. Iran refuses to provide any information on what it is doing; therefore Kuwait has no way to control what is coming from the Iranian side. Even aside from the technical competence of the Iranian nuclear program, the region in question is prone to damaging earthquakes. Any Iranian nuclear accident would endanger three million people in Kuwait, two million of whom are expatriates who speak 128 languages. It would be a very complicated task to warn the population in the event of an emergency.”

If Al-Siyassa’s sources are correct this would mean that the new reactor is being constructed directly over an active fault (the Ahwaz Fault) even closer to the Iran – Kuwait border. Another earthquake such as the one that struck Bam, Iran in 2003 would be devastating to the region. The last two earthquakes to hit near the Ahwaz Fault occurred in 1977 and 1980. The decision to build a nuclear reactor in this region without disclosure is irresponsible at best. Al-Siyassa claimed that the reactor was built in this area to use the civilian population as a human shield to protect the facility from a military attack.

Update: Iraq

2008-07-14T16:58:00.005-06:00

In my article, “The Beginning of the End?,” I noted that many foreign fighters have chosen to leave Iraq and engage in jihadist activities in their home countries. I also stated that this was nothing new and the world witnessed the same situation at the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. When the Soviets left, the international jihad movement was at a crossroads and was forced to make a choice between going back to their normal lives and wait for the call if they were needed again or take the jihad to apostate regimes in Muslim countries. While a homogenous decision did not take place, many found they could not return home because they were marked by their country of origin and forced to flee to countries that were more open to fundamentalist Islam. This is the situation of many terrorists forced to leave Iraq.

In the late 1980’s, many of those who fought in Afghanistan followed Usama bin Laden to the Sudan. Today, both Sudan and Somalia are playing host to the jihadists that nobody wants. On the one hand it is nice to see the remnants of al-Qaeda run out of Iraq, while on the other the people of Africa are now forced to suffer. Since the jihadist exodus out of Iraq, attacks in Sudan against the enemies of the Omar Al-Bashir regime have increased substantially (it appears as if a prosecutor for the International Criminal Court is seeking to indict Al-Bashir for genocide and war crimes). It is still too soon to tell if the two phenomenons are correlated, but it does appear to be too much of a coincidence.

Troop Drawdown

Many news outlets across the U.S. are reporting that the Bush administration is debating on whether to accelerate the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This is another subject I have commented on. For the Iraqi government to succeed the U.S. must get out of the way as much as possible and let the new government spread its influence. The U.S. has repeatedly contended that the reduction of coalition forces depends on the security situation. The following photos show the progress the U.S. and Iraqis have made in expelling foreign fighters and increasing security. This may be the situation needed for the U.S. to go ahead and begin the drawdown of coalition forces.

Note: Recent operations in the Mosul area have removed this as a haven for al-Qaeda. The presence of insurgents is now far less than represented on this map.

A Conspiracy of One

2008-07-02T09:02:00.002-06:00

Authors note: The study of lone wolf terrorists is an area that receives little academic attention and yet has far reaching implications for the public. In this paper I use large terrorist movements, small groups, and spree killers as context in an attempt to highlight the differences between lone wolves and other terrorists. Additionally, this paper will discuss the prospects of lone wolves who are unaffiliated with one another and yet are bound through a common ideology to perpetrate self sustaining random violence – also known as low intensity conflict. This tactic is propagated in the Governance in the Wilderness by al-Qaeda’s chief theoretician, Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji.

First you feel nervous about riding the bus. Then you wonder about going to a mall. Then you think twice about sitting for long at your favorite café. Then nowhere seems safe. Terrorist groups have a strategy—to shrink to nothing the areas in which people move freely—and suicide bombers, inexpensive and reliably lethal, are their latest weapons. Israel has learned to recognize and disrupt the steps on the path to suicide attacks. We must learn too

--BRUCE HOFFMAN 2003

When it comes to terrorism – and any form of mass violence – the carnage of a successful attack can be contagious. What the author means by this is that other societal outsiders will try to replicate or expand upon a successful attack. A recent example is the Virginia Tech massacre that resulted in the deaths of 33 students and faculty. In the days and weeks that followed numerous threats were issued and several attempts were made to instigate violence at schools across the nation. Threats to attack public places occur on a daily basis, but in the wake of violence these threats or actual attempts at violence increase primarily because of media exposure. Societal outcasts, whether they are terrorists or disturbed individuals, seek to air their grievances in order to bring attention to their cause and today’s carnage oriented media is the perfect outlet. Unfortunately, as large terrorist groups fold under pressure from law enforcement and military the rise of lone wolves and small groups made up of like-minded individuals, thus diversifying the terrorist threat is inevitable.

The Strategy

The opening statement by Bruce Hoffman is a perfect example of how terrorists seize upon the successes of others to sow fear into the target population. The purpose of this is to force political change by using the population to lean on their government. In the example provided by Hoffman, Palestinian terrorist groups that operate independently can feed off a successful suicide bombing perpetrated by another group. First the attack may come from Hamas, followed by Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and finally Islamic Jihad until the violence becomes self sustaining without any prior or continuing coordination among like-minded groups. Lone wolves and small violent movements all have the power to cause havoc in the same way and spread influence far beyond their inherently small numbers.

Take for instance the Anthrax letter attacks upon the U.S. from September to October 2001. A total of seven letters containing anthrax were mailed during this attack resulting in 22 people becoming infected and five eventually dying from the infection. These seven letters resulted in numerous building evacuations nationwide, a change in the routing of mail in four states, and hysteria by anyone receiving mail that looked as if it might have come into contact with a powdery substance. Granted, these attacks and the following reaction came on the heals of the 9/11, but we must also consider the reaction to the poisoned Tylenol bottles from the 1980’s. The deaths of seven people in the Chicago area led to a nationwide recall of 31 million bottles with a retail value of 100 million dollars. The attacks were simple and did not require extensive training, but the fallout from the attacks went well beyond the scope of the threat.

Size Does Matter

Bad pun, I know, but lone wolves and small groups do suffer from problems because of their size. While some lone wolves have been successful, one example is George Metesky, others have had limited success either because their grievances limit the target pool (these are known as single-issue terrorists), the target pool is so large that spotting trends is difficult, or because of a lack of training. In other instances the targets have taken measures to protect themselves or their property. In the case of Eric Robert Rudolph training wasn’t the issue but instead the precautions taken by his targets and the pressure applied by law enforcement. Unable to carry out any further attacks, Rudolph was forced to live in the North Carolina wilderness for five years before being apprehended. Rudolph did not have any formal training in the manufacture of explosives, but instead overcame this obstacle by stealing explosive material (as opposed to using improvised explosives with commercial chemicals) and using open source material to create an explosive device.

The Unabomber is another example of an individual terrorist having minimal impact. Theodore Kaczynski sent out 16 mail bombs and managed to kill three people, but his attacks did not produce any of the results he sought (Kaczynski was anti-technology) because his target pool was so large that patterns were difficult to distinguish. These patterns are used to find a common theme among targets in an attempt to learn the perpetrators motivation. What further hurt his cause, as if the bombs weren’t enough, was the lack of any publicized motivation. Kaczynski didn’t mail out his manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future, until after his last bomb was mailed. Ironically, his publishing of the manifesto led to his capture. While lone wolves may not kill in great numbers they do manage to avoid apprehension because of their loner mentality.

Small terrorist movements also suffer from many of the same challenges that lone wolves do. A prime example is the Minnesota Patriots Council attempt to use ricin to poison a Deputy U.S. Marshall and a local Sheriff in retaliation for serving papers to a Council member. The Council had managed to produce .7 grams of ricin (enough to kill a least a hundred people), but failed to create a sufficient delivery system. The plot unraveled because of a marriage dispute that led to the arrest and conviction of four Council members under the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act. The Council may have been successful in extracting the ricin, but because it chose a biological weapon it brought undue attention that may not have come if the group had relied on small arms for their assassination plot.

One small group that stands out is the Washington Beltway snipers. The two men that perpetrated the attacks simply used a Bushmaster version of an AR-15 and shot people at random for three weeks in October 2002. The attacks did not require much training beyond what John Allen Muhammad received in the military, but nonetheless left the Washington D.C. area in a state of fear. It is these types of attacks that prove to be the most successful for small groups and the fear that the attacks generate goes well beyond the scope of the threat. Small groups cannot be everywhere, but then again they don’t have to be; they just have to seem to be everywhere.

The ELF/ALF Model and the Modern Jihadist

The movement for freedom is rapidly approaching the point where for many people, the option of belonging to a group will be nonexistent. For others, group membership will be a viable option for only the immediate future. Eventually, and perhaps much sooner than most believe possible, the price paid for membership will exceed any perceived benefit. But for now, some of the groups that do exist often serve a useful purpose either for the newcomer who can be indoctrinated into the ideology of the struggle, or for generating positive propaganda to reach potential freedom fighters. It is sure that, for the most part, this struggle is rapidly becoming a matter of individual action, each of its participants making a private decision in the quietness of his heart to resist: to resist by any means necessary. It is hard to know what others will do, for no man truly knows another man's heart. It is enough to know what one himself will do. A great teacher once said "know thyself." Few men really do, but let each of us, promise ourselves, not to go quietly to the fate our would-be masters have planned.

--LOUIS BEAM

It is hard to improve upon the words of those people who wish to do others harms. In this case a white supremacist, Louis Beam, discusses in his work ‘Leaderless Resistance’ that the “struggle is rapidly becoming a matter of individual action.” What Beam means by this is that large movements attract attention while individual actors can hatch a plot in their head and execute it without fear of someone leaking the details to law enforcement. It is this idea that the modern ecoterrorist groups have used to their advantage. Movements such as ALF and ELF do not, and as far as I know have never, employed a hierarchal or pyramid structure. Instead, the movements depend on the internet to spread propaganda, indoctrinate, and instigate radicalism among the mainstream environmentalist movement – just as Louis Beam described for the white supremacist movement.

Many terrorist groups in the past have undergone transformations from hierarchal structures to cellular networks and finally to small movements or individual actors when pressured by individual governments. This process, which I call adaptive reconstruction, is born out of necessity not for the survival of the group, but more for the survival of the ideology. It is natural for people to congregate in groups for reasons of self preservation because a group, or tribes before the invention of the nation-state, can work together to better accomplish the needs of the individual. These needs – according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – include biological and physiological, safety, belongingness and love, esteem, and self-actualization. While it is possible for an individual to meet the biological and physiological needs; a group is better suited to meet the rest of the needs. The internet however, has shifted this paradigm.

The internet, and other means of modern communication, cannot fully replace the desire to form a physical group, but what it can do is provide information to people in search of belongingness to a movement. The modern jihadist has realized this. Not only have small groups tried to perpetrate attacks without the physical support of professional terrorists (theological and theoretical support not withstanding), but individuals as well have gravitated to the global jihad without any formal training. These individuals attended mainstream mosques and yet were radicalized by information provided on the internet. In this case the desire to belong to a group is somewhat fulfilled by being a member of a mainstream congregation, while simultaneously adding a divine purpose to their lives by joining other jihadists in cyberspace. While this phenomenon is occurring worldwide it has manifested in Great Britain substantially.

The most recent attempt was carried out by a mentally ill convert to Islam. The man, Nicky Reilly, carried three bombs into the bathroom of a family restaurant but failed to cause any damage other than to himself. The plot failed only because one of the devices detonated prematurely. Police suspect that Reilly was chosen because of his mental illness – a tactic that has garnered quite a bit press in the Iraq theatre. But Reilly is not alone in the lone wolf game. In April of this year, British police arrested a 19 year old student thanks to a tip from his Imam (the suspect had numerous burns on his hands) that led police to confiscate three improvised explosive devices from his apartment. Just a few months prior another arrest was made, this time the suspect was found to be stockpiling chemicals and other bomb making materials. It is believed that this man, Hassan Tabbakh, was in fact, Britain’s first jihadist lone wolf bomber (though he had yet to carry out an attack).

Are Suicide Tactics Next?

In the age of on demand information, escalation of tactics and weapons can occur without regard to success or failure of past attacks. Suicide tactics are inexpensive to carry out – usually around 150 dollars at the Home Depot – and work to influence public movements. The suicide bomber also adds to the psychological element of the attack because the idea of someone killing themselves to harm you is quite discomforting. But the question remains; would a small group or lone wolf carry out such an attack? Both are unlikely scenarios, but the Nicky Reilly case may prove to be the future. As stated previously, the use of the mentally ill as a tactic is something that has been occurring over the last few years. Unfortunately children and the elderly have also been used to carry out suicide attacks – sometimes without their knowledge. This approach allows the orchestrator of the attack to try again with another patsy or simply claim ignorance.

Suicide tactics also include lone gunman who wish to be killed by security forces while killing as many bystanders with as possible. This has worked well in the western world and the defense against such an attack is difficult. In the past few years the U.S. has witnessed such attacks in schools and malls – all soft targets – and it is unlikely to end. Spree shooters, regardless of motivation, often act alone, but that does not mean they will not inspire others. Following the Virginia Tech massacre, police stopped several individuals from carrying out similar attacks. These were not just threats, but plans that had gone operational only to be reported by concerned family members and friends.

Conclusion

Violence begets violence and often motivation can be inconsequential in lone wolf attacks. But in the case of terrorist groups that adaptively deconstruct into smaller movements, motivation may prove to be the factor that ensures indiscriminate violence can be sustained. After all it is motivation that separates terrorists from spree killers or other practitioners of mass violence by definition. The desire of terrorist movements is to influence government decisions through public opinion and the use of sustained random violence can accomplish this; at least temporarily. History shows us that all terrorist movements eventually fail because the violence employed alienates the population – a population that terrorists rely on to accomplish their goals. Of course simply resting on historical occurrences is hardly a viable counter-violence strategy, but the lesson we should take away is that they fail because of the intolerance for indiscriminate violence by the population.

Psychiatrist Jerrold Post postulated that individuals become terrorists in order to join terrorist groups and commit acts of terrorism. While the good doctor admits that this is an extreme position (Post studies terrorism with the theory that political violence is driven by psychological forces) he makes an important point. Terrorists engage in terrorism as a means to give purpose to their life (Maslow’s self-actualization), but the forces that work against them is death, apprehension, internal infighting, or success. Death, apprehension, or infighting is the most likely outcome, but success is an interesting proposition. As previous stated terrorists always fail not only because of outside pressure, but success – the accomplishment of the terrorists stated goals – negates the purpose of the group. What this means is that the outcast that had his individual needs met will once again be an outcast and forced to find another accepting group. This is utterly impossible from many terrorists. Once again we can turn to history to find examples of terrorist groups continuing violent acts after their demands have been met. The IRA, ETA, and PFLP all continued to engage in terrorism after each political success.

Most instances of terrorism and mass violence can be prevented. This cannot be overstated. Lone wolves and small groups survive as long as they do because family and friends have a hard time believing what is apparent – we know an individual that is disturbed and needs help. Earlier I mentioned that the Unabomber was only caught after he published his manifesto. It was his brother that recognized the phrases and prose when the document was published and yet he still struggled with the realization that his brother was a terrorist and must be turned in. In the event that an act of terrorism occurs it is important to watch for other individuals to capitalize on the media frenzy. They may use a variety of tactics to ensure that the attack works, but the signs they show before an attack will give them away.

When you report something that appears out of the ordinary you cannot be wrong. As Gavin de Becker stated, “You can only be wrong if you place your personal pride above your personal safety.” Simply speaking up can stop an attack regardless of size or complexity.

Until next time stay safe.

The Beginning of the End?

2008-05-22T17:23:00.006-06:00

In the last few months the following has occurred in the Iraq theatre:

Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has recently admitted that attacks have fallen 94%.
Recent Iraqi Army operations have detained over 800 suspected combatants.
Foreign Fighters that traveled to Iraq are beginning to return home.
U.S. military surge units have been withdrawn – Gen. Petraeus will recommend further cuts in September.
Moqtada Al-Sadr (a.k.a. “Mookie”) has been maligned by Iran and much of the Shiite community.

All this information sounds good but, we should all refrain from pulling out the party hats and bubbly for time being. Iraq is on course to become a viable nation if, and only if, these trends continue. The counterinsurgency operations run by the U.S. and Iraqi militaries can only continue to be successful if the Iraqi political establishment does not become dominated by one ethnic or religious faction and if economic stability manifests and proves conducive to foreign investment. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves here, let begin with the above headlines one by one.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has recently admitted that attacks have fallen 94%.

This information didn’t come out via an al-Qaeda press conference, but instead was revealed through captured documents in recent raids conducted by the Iraqi military. What this means is, one counterinsurgency methods are working, and two many foreign fighters have chosen to return home because its no longer worth fighting if local support for the mujahedeen has dried up. Terrorist groups fall flat on their face without local support regardless of amounts of money and weapons. It appears that al-Qaeda has learned this the hard way.

While these successes can be sustained they will not ultimately remove al-Qaeda from Iraq. On the contrary AQI will instead try to use Iraq as a transient training ground and also as a route to move money and weapons for attacks elsewhere in the world against western interests. Unfortunately we haven’t heard the last of this group. I fully suspect that AQI will become the future of the jihadist movement only they will be a flatter organization with more global capabilities.

Recent Iraqi Army operations have detained over 800 suspected combatants.

While the number of individuals detained may look impressive it is of limited importance. The real story lies in the capability of the Iraqi military to carry out this operation with limited U.S. support and the desire of the Iraqi government to exercise power through force and political maneuver. Both of these very important elements of the new Iraq have been maligned by the western press and have been given very little chance for success; especially following the Basra debacle. But the battle of Basra was not a failure for the al-Maliki government and certainly was not a success for the Shiite rebels, but instead has proven to a be incident that has allowed the political powers to negotiate with nationalistic Shiites that want to be included in the democratic government and has isolated the more radical Shiite militias. The Iraqi army is slowly proving itself to be a viable entity in the new Iraq and should continue to be sustained by western training and funding.

Foreign Fighters that traveled to Iraq are beginning to return home.

The exodus of foreign fighters out of Iraq is not a phenomenon without precedence. The last time such a movement of well trained terrorists took place was after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in which the world witnessed the birth of al-Qaeda and other associated terror groups. The contemporary exodus is very similar to the one of the 1980’s in that most foreign fighters are returning to their home countries of Libya and Saudi Arabia, the same two nations that produced most of the former Arab-Afghans. Further compounding the problem is the return of fighters to another country that has played an unwilling host to an al-Qaeda movement – Algeria.

The problems associated with returning jihadists are already playing out in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Algeria. As with the 1980’s exodus, these terrorists are still filled with the spirit of jihad and are looking to take on the government regimes of their home nations and looking to replace them with more fundamentalist governments. What does appear to be slightly different this time is the immediate willingness to cooperate with other groups in a more regional manner, as opposed to solely national cooperation, and the desire to target western interests abroad. The Algerian al-Qaeda (al-Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb [AQIM]) component has managed to pull off more spectacular attacks, but this will only lead to harsh counterinsurgency methods employed by the Algerian government to curb the violence. Like al-Qaeda prime (bin Laden’s al-Qaeda apparatus) AQIM seems overly fixated on large spectacular events that provide short term success at the expense of long term strategy that is necessary for guerilla groups to gain ground. This short sighted approach will force the group to constantly relocate to Mali and other havens in Northern Africa.

The recent violence in Yemen on the other hand is low intensity basic guerilla combat employed to exploit divisions in the government and along sectarian lines. Recently Kataib Jund al-Yaman, a subgroup of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) that operates in both Yemen and Saudi Arabia, threatened to target all visitors that enter the region. While these threats are far from new, the return of foreign fighters to Saudi Arabia that have trained in Iraq is enough to take this threat a little more seriously. It is this violence in Yemen that is likely to become the norm for the new generation of jihadists.

U.S. military surge units have been withdrawn – Gen. Petraeus will recommend further cuts in September.

The purpose of the surge was to improve security in Iraq. As you can probably tell by the al-Qaeda admission that their operations have decrease significantly the surge has worked well, but these gains can be undone over night. General Petraeus obviously knows this and is waiting out to summer before he recommends troop reductions. It is doubtful that he will simply state that troops will be substantially withdrawn come September, but I suspect that he will instead order a realignment of forces and a change in mission. What this means in laymen’s terms is that the Iraqi government and military must continue to step forward and take charge of their country. As I stated previously this is already happening in many parts of the country and looks to be viable and sustainable.

The future of the U.S. mission in Iraq will begin to change in the near term. The training and supplying of arms will of course continue, but the patrolling and support by the U.S. military must begin to diminish. In areas such as close air support the U.S. obviously cannot step away quite yet, but then again air power is much less visible than a soldier or Marine patrolling the streets of Baghdad. If the current trend holds this could significantly diminish in the next twelve months as capable Iraqi forces take over control. All told I expect the U.S. military direct operational involvement to be cut back drastically over the next 12 to 18 months. By this time the U.S. will have reassessed its long term mission in Iraq.

Moqtada al-Sadr (a.k.a. “Mookie”) has been maligned by Iran and much of the Shiite community.

I seriously doubt al-Sadr’s buddies refer to him as Mookie, but that won’t stop me from doing so. My personal assessment of Mookie is that he is not as important as the western media makes him out to be, in fact western media is almost single handedly responsible for many of the myths that have been continuously propagated about the chubby cleric. Here are a few of the myths:

Al-Sadr controls the whims of the majority of Iraqi Shiites.
Iran has complete control over al-Sadr and plays puppet master when it serves Tehran’s interest.
Shiites often follow al-Sadr’s fatwas.
Mookie has agreed to work with the Jenny Craig program to become more photogenic.

Alright, I made the last one up. First let’s clear up some of these myths before we discuss Mookie’s future. Al-Sadr’s following is relatively small when compared to other Shiite movements. What makes Mookie appear important is his militia known as the Mahdi army, a military movement that Mookie had no business forming since he doesn’t have the religious authority to do so.

Iran and Mookie do not get along at all and more than likely will not in the future either. Iran gambled that they could use Mookie and his militia as a means of extending influence in Iraq, but failed to consider that the Sadr family hatred of Tehran could not be overcome. Mookie’s father, Mohammed al-Sadr, worked against Iranian hegemony in the Shiite world – a position that was taken up by Mookie upon his father’s death.

The final myth that we have to contend with concerns Mookie’s fatwa’s. The problem with this myth is that al-Sadr does not have the religious authority that comes with education to issue any religious edicts. Mookie is currently a student at a Shiite hawza in Qom at the invite of Iran. Again, this does not mean that Mookie is working with the Iranians; on the contrary it means that al-Sadr understands that education in the Shiite system is the only way to gain the authority he desires in Iraq.

The current problem in Iraq, with regards to Mookie, is that the U.S. wants to see him brought into the mainstream political system while the Iraqi government wants to pull his turban all the way down to his ankles. In essence most Iraqi’s are sick of Mookie as the recent assassination of al-Sadr’s closest aide shows. Mookie is not the last, or even the most pressing problem in Iraq, but he is a problem that must be dealt with by the Iraqi’s.

Conclusion – The Final Phase in Iraq

Iraq has the potential to become a viable nation and an economic and political leader in the Middle East, but potential does not always turn into reality. As I stated previously, the counterinsurgency operations run by the U.S. and Iraqi militaries can only continue to be successful if the Iraqi political establishment does not become dominated by one ethnic or religious faction and if economic stability manifests and proves conducive to foreign investment. Parliamentary elections have been postponed one month and will take place in November. These elections should be a good indicator of the political environment in Iraq since many of the Sunni’s that boycotted previous elections are expected to participate this time.

Another wild card many are expecting to see complicate the Iraq rebuilding process is the U.S. presidential election. Barring any strange political twists it appears that the Republican nominee will be John McCain and the Democratic nominee will be Barack Obama. As best as I can tell, McCain’s approach is inline with President Bush’s current strategy – wait until the general’s report back. Obama on the other hand favors an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces. What may sound strange is that both strategies could result in the same outcome because of the current situation on the ground and other strategic challenges to the U.S. global hegemony that are occurring because of the massive amount of military involvement in Iraq. In the end McCain will not wait too long and Obama couldn’t move too fast. An immediate withdrawal of troops is not possible, military movements across continents take time – sometimes over a year – which would fit my assessment of when the U.S. military will want to move on anyway. Waiting to long for Iraqi developments is not an option either. In response to the U.S. recognition of Kosovo independence Russia has made aggressive moves in Georgia – a U.S. ally. Russia is taking the opportunity presented by U.S. involvement in Iraq as a means to further influence former Soviet bloc countries – a problem since the U.S. invested 50 years in the form of a cold war to free these nations.

The bottom line is we are witnessing the beginning of the end of U.S. military operations in Iraq not only because the situation on the ground has improved, but also because we cannot continue operations there for much longer.

Operation Goldenrod and the USS Cole

2008-05-07T14:02:00.002-06:00

On October 12 of this year will mark eight years since the bombing of the USS Cole and full justice has yet to come. Several of the perpetrators have been killed or incarcerated and yet the ‘mastermind’ of the attack has not served his prison sentence imposed by the Yemeni government. After reading the excellent post by Douglas Farah in response to a Washington Post article I was reminded about a little known rendition operation run by the FBI in the late 1980’s – Operation Goldenrod. Rendition operations are controversial and are rarely carried out without the host countries consent; however, as Goldenrod demonstrates, other methods are available to the military and law enforcement that have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

USS Cole bombing: the aftermath

The FBI and NCIS agents involved in the investigation were constantly frustrated by the Yemeni government. Both agencies frequently reported the suspects being moved or hidden prior to scheduled questioning – questioning that had been scheduled by the Yemeni government for the benefit of U.S. law enforcement. Yemen also declined to extradite the suspects to the U.S. for trial because it violated their constitution. While this explanation is satisfactory the Yemeni government, who practically begged the U.S. Navy to use Aden as a refueling stop to help bolster the local economy, did little to accommodate U.S. requests for interrogation or to monitor the perpetrators in prison. The Yemeni government does deserve some credit however for allowing the CIA to use an unmanned Predator to strike a vehicle carrying some of the Cole bombing suspects (and other al-Qaeda operatives) with a hellfire missile. Unfortunately not all suspects have been arrested or executed such as two that went to Iraq to carry out suicide attacks against the U.S.

Jamel Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al-Badawi

On May 15th, 2003 the U.S. indicted al-Badawi for the attack on the Cole and was later captured by the Yemeni government on September 29, 2004. Yemen would find al-Badawi guilty and sentence him to death, but his sentence would never be carried out – because he would escape from prison twice. After Al-Badawi managed to escape from prison the second time he was subsequently granted a pardon for the Cole conviction after turning himself in to authorities. According to Farah’s article, al-Badawi is now aiding the Yemeni government in exposing other al-Qaeda operations – which is obviously not going according to plan as witnessed by the recent spike in violence against foreigners in Yemen by an al-Qaeda affiliate. While the lead FBI agent on the case states that he is ‘back to square one’ he should not abandon hope as his predecessors have faced similar situations.

Fawaz Younis and Operation Goldenrod

At the Beirut Airport on June 11, 1985, five terrorists charged up the stairs of Royal Jordanian Airlines Flight 402 as it was boarding passengers and promptly took control of the aircraft. The Jordanian sky marshals providing security were tortured until they revealed the hiding places for their weapons. As was customary of hijackings at the time, the plane was flown to several locations where the terrorists would stop for fuel and hold press conferences detailing their demands (in this case it was for the expulsion of all Palestinians out of Lebanon). After the aircraft returned to Beirut for the final time all passengers were released shortly before the plane was blown up. A man who only identified himself as Nazeeh held a final press conference were the terrorists demands were reiterated. Nazeeh, as it would turn out, was in fact a man named Fawaz Younis, a member of the Lebanese Amal.

In the time following the hijacking Younis had been looking for a means to make money. U.S. intelligence operatives, who had made contact with Younis posing as drug runners, made him an offer and gave him a meeting place – in international waters off the coast of Cyprus. The FBI rented a yacht for the meeting to add legitimacy to the drug dealer façade. Once Younis set foot on the yacht he was promptly arrested and moved to the USS Butte, next the USS Saratoga, and finally flown back to the U.S. where he was charged under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. This act gave the FBI jurisdiction over terrorist acts in which Americans were taken hostage – no matter where the acts occurred. That authority was expanded in 1986 with the passage of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act. Younis was eventually convicted, despite several setbacks and appeals, of conspiracy, aircraft piracy, and hostage-taking. He would get thirty years.

Operation Goldenrod should be studied by all FBI agents investigating terrorist acts upon Americans. The operation was successful in capturing a wanted terrorist and several federal courts upheld the method by which the operation was run. If the FBI wants to apprehend al-Badawi, Operation Goldenrod provides and excellent example of how it could be done.

Sidebar: The presence of two U.S. citizens aboard Royal Jordanian Airlines Flight 402 brought the investigation under the jurisdiction of the FBI. Those two citizens were Thomas Landry Slade, the vice president of the American University in Beirut, and William, his 16-year-old son. Both Americans were released with the other hostages in Beirut only to be hijacked again the next day attempting to fly back to the U.S.

Al-Qaeda's Future Operations in Saudi Arabia and Yemen

2008-04-17T21:52:00.003-06:00

Recent violence in Yemen is the result of a decade’s long struggle between various factions that range from religious motivation to purely political struggles. It is this type of environment that al-Qaeda (and terrorists in general) likes to exploit to make reaching their goals much easier. The violence in Yemen between pro-government groups, anti-government groups, and the Shiite Muslim sect have made terrorist operations far simpler because of the preoccupation of the government to curb domestic political violence. The attack on the homes of U.S. oil experts is an attempt by the Yemeni al-Qaeda affiliate* to reestablish itself following counterinsurgent operations (as limited as they were) by the government. This violence could spill over into Saudi Arabia and possibly be a glimpse of al-Qaeda operations post-Iraq.

Saudi Arabia and Yemen have long been at odds over their common border. The first such contemporary instance took place back in the 1930’s and flared up once again following the unification of North Yemen and South Yemen in 1990. Originally the dispute was over the actual location of the border, which was settled with the 2000 Jeddah Treaty, while today tensions are primarily over the movement of Jihadists into Saudi Arabia. In an attempt to alleviate the problem, Saudi Arabia began work on a border fence that drew loud protests from the Yemeni government and several tribes that straddle the border. Saudi Arabia relented and suspended construction following mediation by Egypt and agreed to patrol the border jointly with the Yemeni military. This agreement has not solved the problem of cross border attacks against the Saudi government or foreigners in the country. It is highly likely that the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen will work with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to target Westerners and the Saudi government. Furthermore, recent protests in Yemen are likely to be infiltrated by al-Qaeda in an attempt to perpetuate violence and cause chaos.

The situation in Iraq also has an impact in Saudi Arabia. Most of the foreign fighters that fought under the al-Qaeda banner came from Saudi Arabia. This places the Saudis in a precarious situation, one that is not all that foreign to them. The Saudis and the Libyans in particular faced a crisis after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was what to do with the Jihadists returning home. Many of these fighters sought to overthrow their current regimes and replace them with more fundamentalist governments. The attempts to overthrow these governments failed and forced the Jihadists to remote parts of their home countries or seek to refuge in a foreign land. When the current generation of Jihadists return home they may not seek to target their government right away, but instead attempt to remove Western influence from their countries and attack Shiite minorities. Unfortunately this does not bode well in a Middle East that is witnessing an Iran that is becoming increasingly influential.

The Shiite minorities in Saudi Arabia primarily live in the oil rich regions in the east. This also happens to be the home to many Western oil companies as well as foreign military bases. The Sunni fighters are not alone in their militancy, however. The Saudi Hizballah has proven to be a force in Saudi Arabia and is very good at carrying out terrorist attacks. It was the Saudi Hizballah that attacked the Khobar Towers killing 19 U.S. servicemen. Currently the Saudi Hizballah does not seek to engage in violence for two reasons. The first is the current cooperation with the Saudi government (which is primarily for show so that the Saudi Hizballah can reconstitute). The second is Saudi Hizballah is taking a ‘wait and see’ approach to the situation in Iraq. If any violence between the Sunnis and the Shiites were to take place in Saudi Arabia, most of the fighting would be in the eastern provinces while terrorist attacks could occur nationwide. What is clear is that the al-Qaeda in Iraq will be forced out of the country with in the next 12 to 18 months as they have lost all local support and are completely dependant upon Iran for weapons and money. Those Jihadists returning home could complicate the delicate dance between the Sunni House of Saud and the Komeninist Shiites and shove the Middle East into tit for tat terror attacks among the two countries.

*The recent communiqués come from a group calling itself the Soldiers Brigade of Yemen. Other groups that have been identified as being apart of al-Qaeda proper in the Arabian Peninsula include the Islamic Army of Aden (IAA) and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Terrorist groups like to use several names to confuse intelligence and complicate counterinsurgency operations.

Here We Go Again

2008-04-08T20:54:00.004-06:00

An article on the Jerusalem Post website states:

An upcoming joint US-Israel report on the September 6 IAF strike on a Syrian facility will claim that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein transferred weapons of mass destruction to the country, Channel 2 stated Monday.

Furthermore, according to a report leaked to the TV channel, Syria has arrested 10 intelligence officials following the assassination of Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh.

This report was requested by congress. Congress would not sign off on the intelligence budget without a report on the target of the September 6 raid. What will garner most of the attention however, is the statement that Saddam moved part of his chem/bio weapons arsenal to Syria. This is really no surprise and its nice that the intelligence community can finally put this information in the public domain. As far as I know information regarding what happened to the remnants of his stockpile are still classified although some information has made it into the media.

For those that don't remember, on September 6, 2007, Israeli fighters struck what appears to be a nuclear reactor in Syria. Israeli intelligence hacked the Syrian air defense network which allowed their fighters to penetrate undetected and strike the alleged reactor which was strikingly familiar to the one in North Korea. I mentioned in an earlier post that North Korean and Iranian military officials were working together to place a chemical warhead on a Syrian missile which prematurely detonated killing several people. This cooperation is not new.

As far as the Mughniyeh assassination goes the arrest of 10 intelligence officials in Syria makes sense. Here is what I know thus far:
1. The order for the assassination most likely came from Assad's brother-in-law who runs much of the intelligence apparatus - apparently bad blood existed between him and Mughniyeh.
2. The actual operation was probably carried out with the help of Israeli Mossad, although the level of cooperation from Israel and the level of complicity from Syria is still unknown.
3. Mughniyeh was tied to the Hariri assassination - Syria may have been trying to distance itself from the international inquiry which is likely to find Syria responsible for the assassination with Mughniyeh's minion(s) as the operator(s).
4. This purge may be the last effort to remove all individuals involved with Mughniyeh and the Hariri assassination.

Syria will still have to deal with the finding of the international investigation, but will have little recourse since it has either disappeared or killed all involved. Either way Syria will continue to 'influence' Lebanese politics.

The WMD's are another issue that could cause problems for Assad. Syria has long been suspected of having a large chem/bio weapons program without the aid of Assad's fellow baathist, Saddam Hussein. Perhaps this 'revelation' will force the international community to apply pressure to the Assad regime to open up Syria's weapons programs. So, here we go again, but maybe this time it will be a little more interesting.

Fitna the Movie Hits the Net

2008-03-27T19:32:00.002-06:00

Netherlands PM Geert Wilders new movie "Fitna" has been posted on the live leak website. It is a movie that runs for fifteen minutes and shows various passages out of the Koran urging Muslims to commit acts of violence against non-believers. After watching the movie I found very little original material, in fact many of the clips can be found at memri.org or in the 2005 movie "Obsession." That being said I don't believe the purpose of the movie was to be a primer on the political philosophy of Islamism or the threat that ideology presents to all nations of the earth. What the movie does appear to be is volley directed at those who do not believe in Mr. Wilders version of the threat. I fully suspect the motivation behind this film is to provoke a violent reaction from Muslims worldwide similar to the riots that followed the Danish cartoon controversy and the false Newsweek article about U.S interrogators flushing the Koran. The only thing I find useful in this film is the inclusion of newspaper headlines that describe the problems the Netherlands and the rest of Europe are facing.

For those people that are interested in more academic material I recommend the following:

Sheikh Abdel‐Fatah Al‐Khalidi Revitalizes Sayid Qutb
The Ikhwan in North America: A Short History
“The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States: A Brief History”

I also recommend the blog run by Douglas Farah. He has done some of the best work I've seen on the Muslim Brotherhood and the influence it has on modern jihadist groups.

If anyone has specific questions just leave a comment and I will give you what information I have as well as some additional sources. I will also be updating my links list to include other sources that are relevant to the study of terrorism, cults, and other non-state actors.

Update: Mughniyah assassination

2008-02-13T15:01:00.000-07:00

In my earlier statement I said that Mughniyah was the only occupant of the targeted vehicle. It now turns out that a deputy to Hezbollah General Secretary Hassan Nasrallah, Haj Hussein Khalil was also killed in the attack. While this assassination dealt a blow to Hezbollah's militia apparatus Hezbollah will retaliate as they always do. With the death of Khalil it becomes more apparent that this assassination was carried out by Israel (multiple sources now confirm this). Had the U.S. decided to carry out the attack it may have been postponed until Mughniyah was alone. By killing both men of high status within Hezbollah, the Israelis will see a retaliatory attack very shortly.

No Retirement Home for Terrorists

2008-02-13T07:36:00.002-07:00

In the late evening of February 12, 2008, a car bomb exploded in a residential area of Damascus Syria killing the vehicles occupant and a passerby. The occupant of the vehicle was none other than Imad Mugniyah. I posted an article about the man back in October because of his reemergence in Lebanon training future jihadists for further attacks on Israel and possible attacks against U.S. targets should the U.S. engage Iran militarily. Currently the discussion of the Mugniyah assassination has turned to a classic game of ‘whodunit’.

Perhaps the most likely candidate, on the surface anyhow, would be Israel. While Mugniyah has killed many Israelis in the past it is more likely that Israel would have killed him to hinder the training effort currently underway by Hezbollah. The U.S. also had reasons for targeting Mugniyah, not the least of which was the 1983 attack in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines. While some may argue that the U.S. is prevented from carrying out assassinations because of two executive orders signed by Presidents Ford and Reagan; the current authorization for the use of force passed by congress after the 9/11 attacks would give the President the leeway to pursue this action.

Two other possibilities also come to mind: France and Argentina. France is a possibility because they too lost 58 soldiers in the 1983 attack in Beirut and suffered additional attacks from Hezbollah within their borders. France has the connections in Syria as well as the moxie to pull off this type of attack. On the other hand Argentina also is a possible candidate, but in the end is unlikely. Mugniyah has been implicated in the AIMA attack in 1994 and the 1992 attack against the Israeli embassy in Argentina. Argentina recently released the final report on the AIMA bombing prompting Interpol to issue warrants for Mugniyah’s arrest as well as some Iranian intelligence operatives.

After the predator strike against al-Qaeda operatives that perpetrated the Cole bombing in Yemen, the U.S. is one of the more likely candidates. I currently do not have any evidence to support this, but it is possible that the assassination was orchestrated to put further pressure on Iran during ongoing talks over the future of Iraq. Regardless of who is responsible for this assassination one truth of terrorism still holds: There is no retirement home for terrorists.

The following is the October post on Mugniyah:

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 reemergence, 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.

Analysis of Iran NIE

2007-12-18T20:27:00.000-07:00

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)

2007-12-03T19:27:00.000-07:00

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

2007-11-27T20:08:00.000-07:00

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

2007-11-13T20:01:00.000-07:00

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

2007-11-12T18:58:00.000-07:00

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

2007-11-05T20:44:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-10-29T19:54:00.000-06:00

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

2007-10-24T19:03:00.000-06:00

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

2007-10-22T17:49:00.000-06:00

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

2007-09-24T16:45:00.000-06:00

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

2007-09-19T15:26:00.001-06:00

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

2007-09-17T12:48:00.000-06:00

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"

2007-09-06T15:50:00.000-06:00

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

2007-09-06T15:16:00.000-06:00

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