Posts Tagged ‘
Yemen ’
Wednesday, May 25th, 2011
Will Marshall
Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Will Marshall
Americans, conditioned by harsh experience to expect nothing but trouble from the Middle East, have been thrilled and inspired by the Arab Spring. But now a practical question looms: Just how far are we prepared to go to help these rebellions succeed?
Early successes in Tunisia and Egypt may have created a false impression of the brittleness of the region’s ancien regime. Elsewhere, dictators and autocrats are proving harder to dislodge. And despite the toppling of longtime strongman Hosni Mubarak, democratic consolidation in Egypt is anything but assured.
Around the Middle East, popular demands for individual freedom, economic justice and self-determination have hit a stone wall of reaction and sheer inertia. Hopes that liberal democracy will take hold in the region hang in the balance.
For the United States, the strategic stakes are enormous. Consider, for example, what the end of the al-Assad family’s monopoly on power in Syria might mean. In addition to opening up one of the region’s most sinister police states, it could deprive Iran of its most dependable ally, further isolating Tehran’s rebarbative clerics. Peace with Israel might be too much to hope for, but regime change could loosen Syria’s ties to the rejectionist front of Hezbollah and Hamas, and curb its murderous meddling in Lebanon.
Yet what’s happening across Syria now is a kind of rolling Tiananmen Square, as Assad unleashes tanks and snipers on protestors, killing nearly 1,000 civilians and counting. This brazen reign of terror makes a mockery of President Obama’s admonitions to Assad to “lead the transition” or get out of the way. Assad is no part of the solution, he is the problem, and Washington needs to hold him accountable for his crimes.
The administration should press for a U.N. investigation that would pave the way for indicting Assad and his cronies in international tribunals for crimes against humanity. In truth, Washington has limited leverage on Assad, but it ought to play a long game, doing everything possible to delegitimize his regime, empower human rights and democracy activists, and strengthen civil society in Syria.
Also high on our priority list is Yemen, where al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is busy plotting terror attacks on the United States. Despite strong internal and external pressure, President Ali Abdullah Saleh has thrice reneged on promises to step down. This augurs more civil strife and chaos, and opportunities for Islamists to entrench themselves in the country’s ungoverned spaces. Given the terror threat, the United States needs to play a more forceful hand in getting Saleh to yield to popular demands that he resign, paving the way to elections and a more representative government.
Libya is of less consequence, but the United States already is embroiled in the revolt against Muammar Qaddafi, albeit in a supporting role. NATO air strikes have prevented the dictator’s forces from carrying out his threats to crush the rebels. The opposition, however, lacks the organization, weapons and military training to defeat his armed forces. The prospect here is for stalemate and protracted civil war, unless the United States and its allies undertake to equip the rebels with the tools they need to finish the job.
Egypt poses an especially thorny problem for U.S. diplomacy. As the biggest Arab country and political trendsetter, what happens there will have major repercussions throughout the region. Although popular protests brought down longtime strongman Hosni Mubarak, political power is firmly in the hands of the army’s senior officers. As Larry Diamond notes, the army has arrested thousands of peaceful demonstrators and is trying them in military tribunals. It also has ignored growing attacks by Islamist extremists on Coptic Christians, perhaps as a way of underscoring its indispensability as the sole bulwark of social stability in Egypt. Also worrisome is a compressed timetable for Egypt’s first post-Mubarak elections, which will be held in September. That gives the nation’s authentic democratic forces little time to organize a counterweight to the Muslim Brotherhood, which could be poised to score big gains.
In Egypt, fortunately, the United States does have leverage. The military has received billions in U.S. aid, and Obama last week promised additional economic assistance. Washington can best sustain the momentum of the Arab Spring by using its influence to prevent the Egyptian military from blocking a transition to democratic and genuinely civilian rule.
Until now, Washington has been mainly a spectator to an indigenous popular rebellion against tyranny, corruption and injustice in the Middle East. To ensure that these movements for freedom and self-determination aren’t rolled back, we ought to be prepared to give at least some of them a decisive push.
Photo Credit: M. Hamama /cc/
Tags: Arab Spring, Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, President Obama, Qaddafi, Syria, Tunisia, United Nations, Yemen
Posted in
A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix |
No Comments »
Friday, May 20th, 2011
Will Marshall
Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Will Marshall
President Obama made the cardinal mistake yesterday of stepping on his own message. His “winds of change” speech was supposed to formalize an historic shift in U.S. policy toward the Middle East. Instead, Obama managed to put the spotlight on the one thing in the region that seems impervious to change: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Grabbing the headlines were a set of new principles Obama introduced late in his speech for reframing stalled peace negotiations. His call for Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders drew a swift rebuke from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom Obama meets today at the White House. Merits aside, the controversy over this oddly-timed change in U.S. policy has overshadowed the new doctrine the president meant to announce to the world: America henceforth will back reform and democracy in the region.
Conservatives predictably have hailed this as no change at all, merely a restatement of George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda” for the Middle East. But there’s a crucial difference: the impetus for economic and political change in the region is now coming from the ground up – from its long-suffering people, not from Washington. In fact, by defusing tensions between the United States and the Muslim world, Obama probably made it easier for indigenous movements seeking freedom and democracy to arise in the region.
The Arab revolt is widely seen as legitimate because it is not, in fact, an American project. Obama made clear in his speech that Washington is catching up to events in the Middle East, not leading them.
It’s odd that no one in the White House thought to apply the same lesson to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. If the parties to the conflict aren’t themselves motivated to make peace, no amount of outside pressure from the United States, nor any set of innovative “parameters” for negotiations imported from Washington will break the deadlock.
Unfortunately, the flap over Obama’s apparent revision of long-standing U.S. policy toward the conflict reinforces the myth – fostered by Arab dictators and the many U.S. Middle East experts who have invested their careers in peace processing – that Israeli occupation of Arab lands is the region’s core “problem.” Yet the region’s long-suffering people are writing a new narrative that focuses not on Israel, but on the corrupt and despotic rulers who have smothered their aspirations for individual dignity, economic opportunity, and self-determination.
In aligning U.S. policy with these aspirations, Obama ended the bankrupt policy of propping up friendly autocrats. He also restored the missing “d” in his strategic trinity of defense, diplomacy and development – democracy.
The president reaffirmed his view that Muammar Qaddafi must go, and he had suitably harsh words for Iran’s clerical dictatorship, which is intensifying its repression to keep an increasingly restive society under wraps. For consistency’s sake, Obama insisted that pro-U.S. rulers in Yemen and Bahrain share power and respect minority rights, respectively. These, however, are easy cases – too easy. Obama said not a word about the difficult problem of managing U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, which for good reason feels deeply threatened by the uprisings sweeping the region.
Obama also struck a jarringly false note in urging Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to “lead the transition, or get out of the way.” This formulation reflects the weirdly persistent illusion among U.S. policy makers that Assad, who inherited his dictatorship, can somehow be transformed into an agent of democratic reform. In many ways, Assad is worse than his father. He turned Syria into a prime transit point for suicide terrorists en route to kill Americans and civilians in Iraq; he has subverted democracy in Lebanon and funneled arms to Hezbollah and Hamas; and, he has made Syria a virtual satrap of Iran. The administration has announced sanctions on Assad and other Syrian leaders responsible for the bloody crack-down on demonstrators, but America’s interests clearly lie with regime change in Damascus.
Despite such qualms, Obama’s speech at last has aligned America’s values with its long-run interests in the political and economic modernization of the wider Middle East. It’s a shame, though, that this strategic pivot has been obscured by a perplexing and ill-timed attempt to resuscitate Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
Tags: Bahrain, Bashar al-Assad, Benjamin Netanyahu, George W. Bush, Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, Middle East, Mummar Qaddafi, Palestine, President Obama, Saudi Arabia, Syria, White House, Yemen
Posted in
A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix |
1 Comment »
Monday, December 20th, 2010
Jim Arkedis
Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.
by Jim Arkedis
Look, I realize that Tom Friedman gets a lot of guff from the liberal intelligensia. Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone has practically made a second career out of eviscerating Friedman’s sometimes tortured contortions of the Queen’s Tongue. Certainly, Taibbi scores the odd point: “It’s OK to throw out your steering wheel,” Friedman once wrote about George Bush’s Middle East policy, “as long as you remember you’re driving without one.” What?
Fair enough. But Tom, a long-time friend of PPI no less, is an insightful writer who, more often than not, is on the right side of history. Take his column this weekend on the “U.S.S. Prius“:
Spearheaded by Ray Mabus, President Obama’s secretary of the Navy and the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, the Navy and Marines are building a strategy for “out-greening” Al Qaeda, “out-greening” the Taliban and “out-greening” the world’s petro-dictators. Their efforts are based in part on a recent study from 2007 data that found that the U.S. military loses one person, killed or wounded, for every 24 fuel convoys it runs in Afghanistan. Today, there are hundreds and hundreds of these convoys needed to truck fuel — to run air-conditioners and power diesel generators — to remote bases all over Afghanistan.
Mabus’s argument is that if the U.S. Navy and Marines could replace those generators with renewable power and more energy efficient buildings, and run its ships on nuclear energy, biofuels and hybrid engines, and fly its jets with bio-fuels, then it could out-green the Taliban — the best way to avoid a roadside bomb is to not have vehicles on the roads — and out-green all the petro-dictators now telling the world what to do.
Let’s just say I’m happy Tom’s reading my stuff. Yep, on October 12, I wrote the following piece in the Los Angeles Times on the same topic to mark the 10th anniversary of the bombing of the U.S.S Cole in Aden harbor:
America forgets Oct. 12 as seamlessly as it remembers Sept. 11. Ten years ago today, 17 U.S. Navy sailors were killed and 39 injured in an Al Qaeda attack against the U.S. destroyer Cole in the harbor of Aden, Yemen. The Cole was relatively defenseless during a 24-hour refueling stop when suicide operatives pulled alongside in a small, explosive-laden boat and detonated a charge, ripping a 40-foot hole in the hull.
Though the lessons from 9/11 will be debated for years, Oct. 12′s message is succinct. It is best summed up by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway: “Energy choices can save lives on the battlefield.” The armed forces are searching for next-generation green energy technologies because they provide power at the point of its consumption, which decreases the military’s need to resupply with carbon-based fuels.
…
Mabus is setting big goals for an energy-independent military. He wants to sail a “Great Green Fleet” by 2016 — a full carrier strike group composed of nuclear and hybrid electric ships, as well as biofueled aircraft. By 2020, Mabus wants half of the Navy’s energy to come from alternative sources.
That’s why the Obama administration should consider a Pentagon innovation fund. A few well-spent dollars would help companies tackle the technological learning curve and reduce costs.
To get to where Mabus wants to go, ideas need cash. The Pentagon may have a truly out-of-control budget, but consider this: Radar, GPS and the Internet all started as military-funded projects. The next green technology could be sitting in a lab somewhere, begging for a few dollars to help produce it on a bigger scale.
With conservatives pushing this climate change denial nonsense, it’s an important point that the military is innovating on green-tech because it can’t wait for the political “debate”. So much the better as more-and-more mainstream writers pick up on this narrative.
Tags: Aden harbor, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Climate change, Commandant Gen. James T. Conway, conservatives, energy-independent, George Bush, Great Green Fleet, green energy, gren-tech, Innovation, liberal intelligensia, Los Angeles Time, Marines, Matt Taibbi, Middle East policy, Military, Pentagon, petro-dictators, PPI, Ray Mabus, Rolling Stone, Saudi Arabia, Secretary of the Navy, Taliban, Tech, the Navy, tom friedman, truck fuel, U.S.S Cole, U.S.S. Prius, Yemen
Posted in
A Progressive Security Strategy, Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix, Issues |
2 Comments »
Thursday, October 14th, 2010
Matthew Dahl
Matt Dahl is a judicial clerk in Virginia and writes about national security law on his
blog. The views expressed here are his own.
by Matthew Dahl
How should the United States handle the case of an American citizen encouraging jihadist-style violence against his countrymen? It’s easy for the US to launch Predator drone strikes against foreign al Qaeda members in holed up in Pakistan, but what legal precautions are necessary when other Americans are in the Predator’s crosshairs? This is the twisted legal issue at the heart Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American cleric based in Yemen who has served as the ideological inspiration behind the Ft. Hood and Christmas Day attacks (amongst others).
Back in January, the government added Anwar al-Aulaqi to a “kill list” that authorized the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command to target him with lethal action. In August, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a suit seeking to stop the US government from lethally targeting Anwar al-Aulaqi. This case was filed on behalf of al-Aulaqui’s father, on the grounds that al-Aulaqui is an American citizen. And furthermore, the complaint argues, the executive branch decision to place him on the “kill list” without judicial oversight allegedly violates his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
The government has filed a brief seeking to dismiss the case on several grounds: That al-Aulaqi’s father is not the proper party to file the suit (only al-Aulaqi can); that the judicial system has no power to second-guess the executive branch on this call; and that arguing this might expose top secret information.
The government’s arguments are solid. And to be clear: there is no doubt that al-Aulaqi poses a threat to national security by promoting violence against Americans.
However, there are important practical and legal issues here: Many would argue that the federal government cannot simply kill an American citizen without regard to the citizen’s Constitutional rights, which have no greater value to a citizen than when they protect him from his government’s ability to take his life. Further, as the complaint notes, the decision to place al-Aulaqi on the kill list was made with no judicial process at all.
What to do? Should there be a special process to deal with a dangerous jihadist inspirer like al-Aulaqi?
Yes. The legal framework for the process could be partially adopted from national security litigation procedures that already exist, such as the Guantanamo Bay habeas corpus cases. The process should be as expedited as quickly possible, and should require the government to show a judge that a person poses an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. It should also have to prove that it has exhausted all other means of resolving the situation and that lethal action is the only viable option left. The hearing can be closed off to the public so that classified information will be protected.
Providing the accused with some form of representation is difficult because those like al-Aulaqi will be inaccessible, hiding in a foreign country. But an attorney representing the target’s interests should be present to make sure that the process is balanced. This could be done with military JAG officers or through a stable of civilian attorneys with top secret clearances.
Photo credit: Clyde Robinson
Tags: ACLU, Al Qaeda, American Jihadist, Anwar al-Aulaqi’s, Center for Constitutional Rights, Christmas Day attacks, classified information, Constitutional rights, Fifth Amendment rights., Fourth Amendment rights., Ft. Hood, Guantanamo Bay, habeas corpus, JAG, judicial system, kill list, legal issues, lethal action, national security, Pakistan, Predator drone, top secret information, U.S. Joint Special Operations Command, Yemen
Posted in
A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix, Issues |
1 Comment »
Tuesday, October 12th, 2010
Jim Arkedis
Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.
by Jim Arkedis
The following is an excerpt from an op-ed in the LA Times:
America forgets Oct. 12 as seamlessly as it remembers Sept. 11. Ten years ago today, 17 U.S. Navy sailors were killed and 39 injured in an Al Qaeda attack against the U.S. destroyer Cole in the harbor of Aden, Yemen. The Cole was relatively defenseless during a 24-hour refueling stop when suicide operatives pulled alongside in a small, explosive-laden boat and detonated a charge, ripping a 40-foot hole in the hull.
Though the lessons from 9/11 will be debated for years, Oct. 12′s message is succinct. It is best summed up by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway: “Energy choices can save lives on the battlefield.” The armed forces are searching for next-generation green energy technologies because they provide power at the point of its consumption, which decreases the military’s need to resupply with carbon-based fuels.
But there’s a huge problem: Renewable energy technologies, to which Conway refers, aren’t being developed fast enough. One solution is an “innovation fund,” housed in the Pentagon, to help companies bridge the gap between the test lab and the battlefield. Such a fund would use public dollars to leverage private money, scaling up the most promising clean-energy projects. And if a green technology revolutionizes how the military powers itself, that idea might one day power the rest of us too.
Read the full column at the LA Times.
Tags: Aden, Al Qaeda, green technology, Jim Arkedis, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway, Oct. 12, Pentagon, renewable energy, Sept. 11, U.S. Cole, U.S. Navy, Yemen
Posted in
A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix, PPI in the News |
1 Comment »
Friday, September 10th, 2010
Jim Arkedis
Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.
by Jim Arkedis
On the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, many Americans continue to question the United States’ involvement in Afghanistan. It is now America’s longest, and perhaps most frustrating, war. Shouldn’t we be done with this by now?
Though Bin Laden remains alive, his core al Qaeda followers remain pinned down in Pakistan and could not likely muster a 9/11-style attack today. While Al Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and elsewhere continue to launch ill-conceived, amateurish attempts to kill us, the most Americans probably don’t feel like they’re about to die in a horrific act of terror.
As much as Americans would like to put Afghanistan behind us, patience is needed. It’s a tough argument to make, but—moral obligation aside—there remains a compelling national security reason for America’s continued military presence in Afghanistan.
Nine years removed from that tragic day, Americans feel generally safe. Though time certainly, and thankfully, heals all wounds, we cannot allow it to cloud this reality: if America withdraws from Afghanistan tomorrow, there is an unacceptably high risk that the Taliban would return to power. And under the Taliban’s umbrella, Osama Bin Laden’s clique would slowly rebuild its capability to launch a massive attack against the United States.
The Taliban will only be assured a permanent spot on the ash-heap of history when Afghanistan’s civil and security institutions are strong enough to fill the power vacuum the Taliban would dearly like to occupy. We’re simply not there yet, and that’s why Americans have to summon a dose of strategic patience.
It is a logic President Obama has understood since he was a state senator in Illinois. His most liberal supporters would like to believe he was a proto-typical anti-war liberal, but the president has been strikingly consistent in his rhetoric and support for America’s military presence in Afghanistan since first speaking out in October 2002.
Whether America succeeds in eventually leaving behind a stable Afghanistan capable of self-governance free of Taliban influence remains an open question. At the very least, America is better equipped to do so now than during the past nine years, having pivoted to adopt a properly resourced counter-insurgency strategy that prioritizes protecting the Afghan population and holding land over killing bad guys. Had George Bush not diverted critical resources like manpower, money, and presidential-focus to an ill-conceived war in Iraq, one can only guess how much further along America’s efforts would stand today.
This month, Afghans will vote again in parliamentary elections. Their success is hardly assured— elections are certainly important pillars of an emerging democracy, but they are not ends in and of themselves. There will likely be violence and accusations of vote-rigging and financial corruption. Hamid Karzai may well appear more of a dictator-in-waiting than he did even one year ago. Does that mean we should throw in the towel?
No. Nation building, a dirty-yet-accurate description of America’s role in Afghanistan, is a torturously slow and difficult process whose effectiveness cannot be judged by the latest headlines, but only under the long arc of history. America’s efforts in Afghanistan may not prove a shining success, but there is sufficient evidence that additional American effort will improve America’s chances for long term safety.
If we are to ensure that a massive threat from al Qaeda is permanently vanquished, this September 11th, President Obama should ask for patience.
Tags: 9/11, Afghan population, Al Qaeda, anniversary, anti-war liberal, bin Laden, civil and security institutions, counter-insurgency, emerging democracy, financial corruption, first speaking out in October 2002, frustrating war, George Bush, Hamid Karzai, Iraq, military presence, nation-building, national security, Pakistan, parliamentary elections, President Obama, self-governance, September 11, Taliban, United States’ involvement in Afghanistan, vote-rigging, withdraws, Yemen
Posted in
A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix |
No Comments »
Thursday, September 9th, 2010
Will Marshall
Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Will Marshall
Among foreign policy mandarins here and abroad, it’s become axiomatic that America must radically downsize its global ambitions to avoid hubris and to match our straitened economic circumstances. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is having none of it.
In a speech this week to the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton vigorously affirmed the world’s need for, and America’s capacity to provide, strong global leadership. Even in a multipolar world, she argued, no other nation has the unique combination of strengths necessary to organize collective action against common global problems.
And, at a time when moral relativism has crept into U.S. foreign policy discourse in the guise of realism, Clinton was refreshingly unapologetic in pledging U.S. support for the “universal” values of liberal democracy. As she had done in an important speech to the Community of Democracies in Krakow July 3, she noted that authoritarian governments are cracking down on independent civil society organizations, and she pledged U.S. assistance to embattled NGOs.
Clinton’s confident assertion of a “new American moment” is in striking contrast to narrative of U.S. decline now fashionable among global elites. The story goes something like this:
As the Cold War ended, the U.S. found itself the last superpower standing, its system of democratic capitalism triumphant — and quickly succumbed to hubris. It intervened in conflicts all over the globe, rashly plunged into unnecessary wars, drank the elixir of free market ideology, and in general overestimated its ability to shape events and impose its will on others. Now we are overextended and facing a global backlash against U.S. imperialist pretensions.
What’s more, we’re broke and can no longer afford to maintain our old position as global hegemon. Meanwhile, economic dynamism has shifted eastward, and the rapid growth of China, India and others is fundamentally altering the world’s balance of power.
All this Spenglerian gloom points to an inescapable conclusion: America must retrench strategically. This entails defining our interests more narrowly, shrinking our military, ceasing to lecture others about democracy, and shedding the too-costly burdens of global leadership.
Clinton instead argued essentially for updating the liberal internationalist vision for today’s interconnected world. She stressed the need for America to once again be the chief “architect” of cooperative institutions, at both the regional and global level, for providing mutual security and prosperity, tackling underdevelopment and climate change, and defending human rights (with her customary special emphasis on women’s equality). Through such interlacing institutions, she said, the burden of providing “public goods” could be spread more broadly.
She also widened the definition of the Obama administration’s policy of “engagement.” In addition to engaging adversaries and rivals diplomatically, she stressed her determination to engage directly with the people and foreign publics in general.
Less convincing was her account of U.S. efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear program. Our engagement with China and Russia, she said, paid real political dividends when the U.S. Security Council last spring passed, “the strongest and most comprehensive set of sanctions ever on Iran. ”
True, but Iran’s continued intransigence suggests the limits of multilateral diplomacy more than its effectiveness. The underlying assumption that Tehran is eager to be welcomed back into the world community overlooks the regime’s self-conception as a revolutionary Islamist theocracy and challenger of the international status quo.
In a curious omission, Clinton had little to say about terrorism amid all the architectural metaphors. While al Qaeda may be holed up in Pakistan, its ideology has spread to affiliates in Iraq and, more recently, in Somalia and Yemen, where the gruesome pattern of suicide attacks and mass murder of civilians is more and more evident.
Containing this ideological contagion is of critical importance to the United States and to its vision of a world order upheld by a growing network of liberal democratic institutions. Let’s hope we hear more from the Administration on this subject soon.
Tags: Al Qaeda, architect, China, civil society organizations, Community of Democracies, Council on Foreign Relations, engagement, Foreign policy, global leadership, hegemon, Hillary Clinton, hubris, Iran’s nuclear program, Iraq, Krakow, liberal democracy, liberal internationalist, multipolar world, new American moment, Obama, Pakistan, revolutionary Islamist theocracy, Russia, Secretary of State, Somalia, Terrorism, U.S. decline, U.S. Security Council, world order, Yemen
Posted in
A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix, Issues |
2 Comments »
Thursday, August 26th, 2010
Will Marshall
Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Will Marshall
U.S. officials say they have al Qaeda on the ropes in Pakistan. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for al Qaeda’s homicidal ideology, which is spreading to extremists in other Muslim countries. This poses new risks for Americans, and highlights a big hole in President Obama’s counter-terrorism policies.
According to The Washington Post, the Central Intelligence Agency now rates al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a Yemen-based offshoot, as an even greater threat than Osama bin Laden’s original. Under the “spiritual” guidance of Anwar a-Aulaqi, a cleric and U.S. citizen, AQAP is busy plotting attacks on America, including a failed attempt earlier this year to set off a car bomb in Times Square.
As my colleague Jim Arkedis pointed out yesterday, this doesn’t mean AQAP is capable of staging 9/11-scale attacks on our country. But since Aulaqi also counseled Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army major accused of gunning down 13 Americans at Fort Hood last year, the AQAP threat seems real enough.
Meanwhile, in the Hobbesian nightmare that is Somalia, another al Qaeda affiliate, Al Shabab, launched a suicide attack this week that killed 32 people at a Mogadishu hotel. Last month, the group claimed responsibility for a massacre of over 70 people watching the World Cup at a bar in neighboring Uganda.
And just last week, al Qaeda’s Iraq franchise launched a suicide attack that killed 57 job seekers at an army recruitment center in Baghdad.
What’s the message in all this carnage? That al Qaeda continues to offer the brand of choice to aspiring jihadists, who are more than willing to use its gruesome tactics to advance their local ambitions.
What can our government do to stop this contagion of suicide and mass casualty terror attacks?
Self-defense requires that we shift some military and intelligence resources to these new hot spots. But unless we want to be drawn into a never-ending game of terrorist whack-a-mole, we also need to do a better job of discrediting the ideology that motivates al Qaeda and its affiliates to kill in Islam’s name.
A trenchant strategy for doing just than is detailed in Fighting the Ideological Battle, an excellent study by the Washington Institute for Near East Studies. It begins with a step that the Obama administration unfortunately has been reluctant to take, for fear of conflating violent extremism and Islam: acknowledging the essentially ideological nature of the terrorist threat. We need to openly contest and challenge the Islamist catalogue of grievances, the better to drive the wedge deeper between them and the decent majority of Muslims who no part of their apocalyptic visions.
Our government also needs an explicit strategy for shoring up failing or fragile states that are particularly vulnerable to extremist violence. It’s no accident that al Qaeda and its offshoots flourish in ungoverned spaces within countries like Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Finally, we need to keep driving home the essential point about al Qaeda’s growing global franchise: its victims are overwhelmingly civilians, and Muslim civilians at that. That’s why, even as al Qaeda franchises have cropped up, support for terror attacks on civilians has fallen among Muslim publics. And al Qaeda’s vicious tactics have sparked a backlash even from some of the organization’s founders and leading theoreticians. Rather than being overly sensitive about lending credence to the Islamists’ “clash of civilizations” rhetoric, our government should miss no chance to stand in solidarity with the victims of Islamist ideology.
Photo credit: U.S. Army photostream
Tags: Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Anwar a-Aulaqi, AQAP, Fighting the Ideological Battle, Nidal Malik Hasan, Yemen
Posted in
A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix, Issues |
1 Comment »
Wednesday, August 25th, 2010
Jim Arkedis
Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.
by Jim Arkedis
I pity journalists on the terrorism beat. Take Greg Miller and Peter Finn’s piece in the Washington Post this morning, entitled “CIA sees increased threat in Yemen,” referring to the al Qaeda splinter group called Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (or AQAP). The journalists’ challenge is to quantify the scale and immediacy of the “threat”, an amorphous term that implies danger, yet remains extraordinarily difficult to quantify.
The story, based on analysis from the CIA, describes AQAP as the “most urgent threat to U.S. Security.” It’s critical to properly categorize the threat because left undefined, the average American’s basis of comparison for a terrorism is the devastation of September 11th. Hell, I spent five years trying to brief relatively high-ranking Pentagon officials on this stuff, and 9/11 was their point of departure too. Nuance is important in defining terrorist threat – without it, government officials tend to over-react, going into CYA-mode (that’d be “cover your ass”) that guards against today’s headline rather than the overall, long-term picture.
Of course, part of the problem is that the CIA source in the article is only willing to go so far with the information he/she provides – sufficing at such vague quotes as “increased threat” and “on the upswing” while pointing to evidence of the group’s prowess that we already have: the Christmas Day plot and radical cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi’s increasing activity. Give away more, and the source could end up busted.
So what are we talking about here? Does the “increased threat” mean AQAP can pull off a massive terrorist attack on American soil? How far from its base in Yemen can the network reach? Is it a threat to American only interests in the Middle East region? Is the network confined to smaller attacks? Civilian or military targets? What?
As the article asserts, AQAP may now be more dangerous that Osama Bin Laden’s war-ravaged and hiding clique, but that’s a dangerous comparison to make. The United States has dedicated nearly ten years to degrading al Qaeda’s core group, and AQAP’s relative strength – and the resources dedicated to combatting them – should be understood within that context.
And that’s why in absolute terms, I wouldn’t lose sleep over AQAP launching a massive, 9/11-style attack against the United States just yet. That’s because the terrorist threat is measured by marriage of a group’s intentions plus its capabilities: AQAP may really, really want to strike New York (intent), but hasn’t yet developed the operational expertise of training, financing, internal security, and logistics (capabilities) to succeed.
Currently, I’d assess that AQAP has the intentions and capabilities to threaten American security in two ways: First, we’re likely to see a continuation of small attempts against public targets in the U.S., in the mold of the Christmas Day attempt. These attacks will be launched by single operatives that have plausible cover and legit paperwork to slip over the American border. However, coordinating a massive terrorist attack with many operatives against thousands of Americans continues to remain several years off.
Second, the group likely does pose a threat to American interests in Yemen or the broader region. The 10th anniversary of the USS COLE bombing is upon us, which serves as a fitting reminder that Bin Laden’s al Qaeda has successfully executed complex terrorist attacks against hardened American targets in Yemen before. But until AQAP pulls off an attack of this nature – like an embassy bombing akin to the 1998 attacks in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam – I can only assess that the group’s ability to project power will remain confined to the region.
In sum, AQAP remains one to watch. The intelligence community is right to be concerned about the group’s apparently amassing capabilities, but keep in mind that terrorist attacks are often a building-block process: a group must crawl before it can walk, and walk before it can run.
Right now, AQAP seems to be taking its first few steps. The IC seems to recognize that, and will be working hard to knock it back on all fours.
Photo credit: eesti’s photostream
Tags: Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP, Greg Miller, Osama bin Laden, Peter Finn, USS COLE, Yemen
Posted in
A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix |
No Comments »
Thursday, February 11th, 2010
Jim Arkedis
Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.
by Jim Arkedis
Francis Fukuyama is often derided in progressive circles because he was one of the architects of neoconservatism. Fair enough — when you’re one of the intellectual driving forces behind the Iraq War, that’s going to cost some credibility down the road. But Fukuyama’s shaky track record goes back even farther, when he predicted in 1992′s The End of History and The Last Man that the end of the Cold War essentially signaled the end of ideological struggle between civilizations. Someone forgot to tell that to al Qaeda.
With all that behind him, it’s understandable why some would be leery about paying him heed now. But Fukuyama’s most recent WSJ op-ed is actually worth your time. Fukuyama’s piece focuses on democracy promotion in the Middle East, a policy that has traction with groups across the political spectrum, including PPI, the National Democratic Institute, The Project on Middle East Democracy, and the International Republican Institute. And if a high-profile neoconservative acknowledges the failings of the Bush administration and smartly pushes the current administration on a sound policy, then we should pay attention. He says:
While Mr. Obama paid lip service to the need for greater Middle East democracy in his June 2009 Cairo speech to the Muslim world, he has done very little concretely to back this up in terms of quiet pressure for democratic change on the part of allies like Egypt, Jordan or Morocco. Indeed, the administration’s ramping up of military support for Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh in the wake of the attempted Christmas day airliner bombing suggests that we’ve gone back to the traditional U.S. policy of reliance on Arab strongmen.
This would be a big mistake. For the core premises of the Freedom Agenda remain essentially correct, even as its enunciation in the midst of the Iraq invasion undercut its credibility. Mr. Obama runs the risk of falling in bed with the same set of Middle Eastern authoritarians and alienating broad political populations in the region. …
The problem with the Bush administration’s Freedom Agenda wasn’t its fundamental analysis, but the way that it was articulated in the midst of the highly unpopular Iraq war. Democracy promotion was used from the start to justify the invasion, and in the eyes of many Arabs became synonymous with American occupation….
Mr. Obama arrived in office with none of this baggage, and therefore had an opportunity to recommit the United States to peaceful democratic change. But the window is rapidly closing as the U.S. draws closer to the region’s authoritarian rulers.
While I’m not sure that the Obama administration’s focus on Yemen undercuts the Cairo speech in the way Fukuyama suggests, I think the general point is valid. After all, the trick is protecting America’s immediate interests while encouraging openness over the long term. So how to strike that balance? I’d recommend checking out a few of POMED’s publications, like those here. Or, check out a paper Shadi Hamid wrote for PPI last year.
Tags: Barack Obama, democracy, Egypt, Francis Fukuyama, International Republican Institute, Iraq, Middle East, National Democratic Institute, Project on Middle East Democracy, Saudi Arabia, Yemen
Posted in
A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix |
No Comments »
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
Some of you may remember that the very day after Scott Brown’s Senate victory in Massachusetts, Republicans began fantasizing about actually taking over the Senate this November, in no small part because former senator Dan Coats had announced he was coming out of retirement to take on the previously unassailable Democrat Evan Bayh in Indiana. Yeah, it was noted at the time that Coats had been living and voting in Virginia for the last decade, while working as a DC lobbyist, but GOPers figured Coats’ long political record in the Hoosier State would enable him to brush that off as a less-than-youthful indiscretion.
But since then, Indiana Democrats, accessing public records, have found out and loudly let it be known that Coats wasn’t just a lobbyist for banks and equity firms, but for foreign governments. He personally lobbied for India, but much more interestingly, his firm lobbied for Yemen. You know, Yemen, that al Qaeda stomping ground where “Christmas Day Bomber” Umar Abdulmutallab got his training.
Suffice it to say that Democrats have not kept this information to themselves. According to a piece in Politico today about the “nuking” of Coats:
“We just hit him with a freight train,” one Democratic official familiar with the anti-Coats effort said Monday. “It’s Politics 101: Frame the guy early.”
The effectiveness of the Democratic attack on Coats is probably best reflected by the fact that none of the Republicans previously in the race to challenge Bayh (including former U.S. Rep. John Hostettler, a fiery conservative) have pulled out. Coats’ proto-campaign has largely confined itself to whining about “mud” being thrown at their hero.
So maybe Republicans shouldn’t be quite so quick to mark Indiana down in the column of likely Senate wins this year.
This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.
Tags: Campaigns and elections, Dan Coats, Evan Bayh, Indiana, lobbying, Republican Party, Scott Brown, Yemen
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics |
No Comments »
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010
Donald Edwards
Major General Donald Edwards, Vermont Army National Guard (Ret.), served in the U.S. Army for 37 years, including two tours with eight campaigns in Vietnam. He served as a congressional staffer from 1997-1999. He is a resident of Maine and Ashburn, Virginia.
by Donald Edwards
The following is a guest column from Major General Donald Edwards, Vermont Army National Guard (Ret.), who served in the military for 37 years.
Just last week, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair declared with certainty that there will be another terrorist attack aimed at the United States within the next six months. With the Obama administration pursuing record numbers of drone attacks and taking out top al-Qaeda leaders, it’s hard to understand how this could be the case. But the paradox becomes clearer if we take a quick trip back through time to examine the track record of one particular individual: Vice President Dick Cheney.
As a former military officer, it is immensely difficult to speak out against our former vice president. While he was in office, I believed that it was inappropriate to criticize Dick Cheney. But now that he is no longer in government, I am compelled to speak my mind about his disastrous national security policies.
In the days and years following September 11, 2001, Vice President Cheney stood out as the chief architect of a calamitous approach to U.S. foreign policy that resulted in a weakened United States and the recruitment of a new generation of terrorists dedicated to anti-American jihad. The Bush-Cheney contribution to terrorist recruitment is clear from the numbers: In 2000, there were 423 international terrorist attacks. The Iraq War heralded a sharp spike in terrorist attacks, which continued with a 607 percent average yearly increase. Eight years later, there were 11,770 international terrorist attacks, as the terrorists birthed by the Bush-Cheney policies grew up.
Unlike Dick Cheney, who glorifies conflict but has never put his own body on the line, I am a retired military officer. I know firsthand the long list of security threats that our country faces. And I know that Cheney’s reckless strategy, out of touch with today’s threats, made that list longer. The first rule of grand strategy – from Sun Tzu to General Petraeus – is to choose your own battlefield. On September 12, 2001, the United States was in a position to frame the security threats of the new century as the world united against violent, radical extremists. Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, was eager to frame his battle as the West versus Islam. The Bush administration walked onto al-Qaeda’s battlefield and began fighting Osama bin Laden’s war.
As even former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld realized, winning the fight against al-Qaeda requires killing more terrorists than we create. Instead, Cheney served as a prime recruiter for our enemies. Al-Qaeda featured Guantanamo Bay in its recruiting videos, citing its evasion of the Geneva Conventions as “evidence” of American’s lack of moral standing and antipathy toward Islam.
Defeating al-Qaeda turns on human intelligence, which requires careful infiltration, relationship-building, cultural research, and triangulation of information. But conservatives based their intelligence-gathering tactics on Hollywood movies: bust a knee cap hard enough, and the truth will pour out like blood. In reality, interrogators rarely know whether they have the right knee cap — and even if they do, actual intelligence agents know that busting it is likely to yield a string of lies, misinformation, and false leads. Instead of generating information and creating leads, Cheney’s strategy led to an Arab generation growing up on images of Abu Ghraib.
Finally, quashing al-Qaeda requires focusing on the countries where the movement had built relationships and infrastructure. For over a decade, al-Qaeda’s senior leadership had lived in and erected training camps along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Meanwhile, Bin Laden’s roots lie in Yemen, and he repeatedly recruited the radically loyal tribes originating in that country for his riskiest missions. Yet the past administration ignored Yemen and starved Afghanistan for troops in order to launch a war in Iraq, where there were no terrorists. Terrorist attacks spiked following the invasion of Iraq, and have continued to grow since.
For a generation of young Arabs now in the prime terrorist age range of 18-25, September 11 was their first political memory. The Bush-Cheney strategy handed Al Qaeda the colors they needed to paint a false picture of “America versus Islam.” It produced hundreds of terrorists who learned that they could be heroes by fighting the West — the West that tortured and indefinitely detained Arab brethren and killed women and children.
And to think we had an opportunity, in the wake of 9/11, to bring about a smarter, more hopeful strategy. America was unified and ready to sacrifice on September 12. If our leaders had called on the best and brightest to learn Arabic or join the CIA, we would now have a flood of fresh intelligence experts. If they had asked us to declare our independence from oil – demanding that auto companies innovate and asking environmentalists to accept a resurgence of nuclear power – we would have stopped funding the bullets that are now going into terrorist guns.
We have not heard the last from Cheney’s terrorists. We cannot waste another day. We must act immediately to build the covert networks we need to fight terrorists. We must prioritize shutting down Guantanamo — a gift that keeps on giving for Al Qaeda — and not make it a political football. And we must understand that, as we did during the fight against the Soviet Union, claiming the higher ground in the debate is strategically important. Cheney sold America’s greatest weapon – our moral authority and our freedoms — on the cheap. Let’s win it back, before more of Cheney’s terrorists strike again.
Update: The original version of this piece did not include the author’s full rank and title. We regret the error.
Tags: Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Dennis Blair, Dick Cheney, Guantanamo, Iraq, Terrorism, Yemen
Posted in
A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix |
5 Comments »