Monday April 27, 2009
What is Missing in the AfPak Strategy
To build on my CTB colleague Walid Phares recent post, there is another missing element in the analysis of the Taliban's recent advances in Pakistan.
It is the concept or religious precept of taqiyya in Islam and fully embraced by radical Islamists (including the Muslim Brotherhood.
It blesses the concept of disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies from the enemy and the infidel. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking.
See this paper for a deeper look at what the term implies.
So, when the Taliban negotiates certain terms of its taking over parts of Pakistan and promises certain behaviors in return for limited power there, they have no intention of keeping to the terms of the agreement.
Under the terms of taqiyya, such behavior, which we widely view as duplicitous, is simply part of the accepted ways to spread sharia law and the caliphate. It has no moral consequence except to raise the esteem of the practitioner of this art in the eyes of his cohorts.
So, suddenly both the secular Pakistan government and much of the outside world is suddenly shocked by the Taliban violating terms of a truce or promises of modified behavior when they achieve the first of the long-range goal, which is the establishment of sharia law.
Once that is in place, women can be beaten, radio stations shut down, all non-Islamist discourse banned, barbers punished for trimming beards, stoning of adulterers, amputations etc. can go ahead. And with that comes the reign of terror that then pushes other groups to drop their resistance.
The Muslim Brotherhood, and particularly leaders like Tariq Ramadan, are experts in this type of deception. What they say in Arabic is often directly contrary to what they say in English or the native language of their non-Arab audiences. This has been amply documented both in the United States and Europe.
If one understands this is all part of a strategy and a fundamental tactic to lull the infidel into feelings of false security, then one can deal with it.
It is believing that Islamists dialogue with the same intents and purposes that we do that continually causes us grief. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us the next 50 times, and shame on us.
It is the concept or religious precept of taqiyya in Islam and fully embraced by radical Islamists (including the Muslim Brotherhood.
It blesses the concept of disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies from the enemy and the infidel. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking.
See this paper for a deeper look at what the term implies.
So, when the Taliban negotiates certain terms of its taking over parts of Pakistan and promises certain behaviors in return for limited power there, they have no intention of keeping to the terms of the agreement.
Under the terms of taqiyya, such behavior, which we widely view as duplicitous, is simply part of the accepted ways to spread sharia law and the caliphate. It has no moral consequence except to raise the esteem of the practitioner of this art in the eyes of his cohorts.
So, suddenly both the secular Pakistan government and much of the outside world is suddenly shocked by the Taliban violating terms of a truce or promises of modified behavior when they achieve the first of the long-range goal, which is the establishment of sharia law.
Once that is in place, women can be beaten, radio stations shut down, all non-Islamist discourse banned, barbers punished for trimming beards, stoning of adulterers, amputations etc. can go ahead. And with that comes the reign of terror that then pushes other groups to drop their resistance.
The Muslim Brotherhood, and particularly leaders like Tariq Ramadan, are experts in this type of deception. What they say in Arabic is often directly contrary to what they say in English or the native language of their non-Arab audiences. This has been amply documented both in the United States and Europe.
If one understands this is all part of a strategy and a fundamental tactic to lull the infidel into feelings of false security, then one can deal with it.
It is believing that Islamists dialogue with the same intents and purposes that we do that continually causes us grief. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us the next 50 times, and shame on us.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Wednesday April 22, 2009
The Re-Emergence of the Shining Path: Latin America in a Downward Spiral
The CNN report on the re-emergence of the Shining Path rebels (Sendero Luminoso) almost buries the most important element of the story. The terror unleashed by Sendero (massacres of civilians, the desire to carry out Pol Pot's dream of decapitating the urban and creating a utopian rural society, targeted assassinations, infrastructure destruction etc.) is financed by their access to drug money.
It is easy to forget that Sendero was among the most brutal and merciless the Western Hemisphere has ever seen. The arrest of the movement's mastermind, Abimael Guzman, sent it in a downward spiral. It almost disappeared. And now it is back.
The cocaine corruption and accompanying terror of Latin America knows no ideological stripe. It fuels the FARC in Colombia and the paramilitaries (see this latest indictment of the Colombian paramilitary leader to see the role cocaine plays in that movement).
There are several things of concern here, beyond the immediate danger Sendero poses in Peru. One is that is shows how badly beaten groups (such as the FARC) can survive and revive, given the right economic conditions (access to coke money) and political conditions (deep disillusionment with the government, government corruption etc). They don't simply disappear.
A second is the number of groups that still exist in Latin America espousing armed revolution. The FARC documents found in the Reyes computer show a host of radical groups (MIR in Chile etc.) that seemed to have disappeared, but survive and were seeking aid from the FARC, because of the FARC's economic power.
A third factor is the demise of the large-scale Colombian trafficking organizations, who until very recently controlled the production and export of HCL, the refined cocaine. With that control greatly weakened, Bolivian and Peruvian organizations, long relegated to growing the coca leaf and producing base (not refined cocaine, worth much less than HCL) are now back in the HCL business. This means their profit margins are growing exponentially.
A fourth is the fact that the macro conditions created by the Venezuela (Hugo Chavez)-Nicaragua (Daniel Ortega)-Bolivia (Evo Morales)-Ecuador (Rafael Correa) axis are creating unprecedented conditions for armed revolution to flourish. That is not to say that Chavez et al have anything to do with Sendero, or want Sendero to flourish. But if the conditions are right for armed groups you like, they will be right for everyone.
All of those leaders have direct ties to the FARC and its revolutionary goals. The tolerance for armed movements (Bolivia's vice president Garcia Linera was a member of an armed radical movement Ejercito Revolucionario Tupac Katari, Morales' head of official media is wanted in Peru as a member of the Tupac Amaru movement, Chavez's chief of intelligence is the direct link to the FARC etc.) creates an atmosphere and operating conditions for more armed groups to emerge, particularly if they have access to the drug trade.
This leads to a problem other Latin American leaders have not wanted to address, particularly those leaders of the new, responsible generation of the left such as Lula in Brazil and Bachelet in Chile, who have won through the ballot box and do not espouse armed revolution.
What if the revolutions spread to their countries, as it inevitably will? And why not confront Chavez on this now, rather than wait until the violence grows to the point where it will be virtually unsolvable without a massive commitment of blood and treasure? Sendero Luminoso and the drug trade are evidence of what can and will happen if they don't.
It is easy to forget that Sendero was among the most brutal and merciless the Western Hemisphere has ever seen. The arrest of the movement's mastermind, Abimael Guzman, sent it in a downward spiral. It almost disappeared. And now it is back.
The cocaine corruption and accompanying terror of Latin America knows no ideological stripe. It fuels the FARC in Colombia and the paramilitaries (see this latest indictment of the Colombian paramilitary leader to see the role cocaine plays in that movement).
There are several things of concern here, beyond the immediate danger Sendero poses in Peru. One is that is shows how badly beaten groups (such as the FARC) can survive and revive, given the right economic conditions (access to coke money) and political conditions (deep disillusionment with the government, government corruption etc). They don't simply disappear.
A second is the number of groups that still exist in Latin America espousing armed revolution. The FARC documents found in the Reyes computer show a host of radical groups (MIR in Chile etc.) that seemed to have disappeared, but survive and were seeking aid from the FARC, because of the FARC's economic power.
A third factor is the demise of the large-scale Colombian trafficking organizations, who until very recently controlled the production and export of HCL, the refined cocaine. With that control greatly weakened, Bolivian and Peruvian organizations, long relegated to growing the coca leaf and producing base (not refined cocaine, worth much less than HCL) are now back in the HCL business. This means their profit margins are growing exponentially.
A fourth is the fact that the macro conditions created by the Venezuela (Hugo Chavez)-Nicaragua (Daniel Ortega)-Bolivia (Evo Morales)-Ecuador (Rafael Correa) axis are creating unprecedented conditions for armed revolution to flourish. That is not to say that Chavez et al have anything to do with Sendero, or want Sendero to flourish. But if the conditions are right for armed groups you like, they will be right for everyone.
All of those leaders have direct ties to the FARC and its revolutionary goals. The tolerance for armed movements (Bolivia's vice president Garcia Linera was a member of an armed radical movement Ejercito Revolucionario Tupac Katari, Morales' head of official media is wanted in Peru as a member of the Tupac Amaru movement, Chavez's chief of intelligence is the direct link to the FARC etc.) creates an atmosphere and operating conditions for more armed groups to emerge, particularly if they have access to the drug trade.
This leads to a problem other Latin American leaders have not wanted to address, particularly those leaders of the new, responsible generation of the left such as Lula in Brazil and Bachelet in Chile, who have won through the ballot box and do not espouse armed revolution.
What if the revolutions spread to their countries, as it inevitably will? And why not confront Chavez on this now, rather than wait until the violence grows to the point where it will be virtually unsolvable without a massive commitment of blood and treasure? Sendero Luminoso and the drug trade are evidence of what can and will happen if they don't.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Friday April 17, 2009
The Cybersecurity Debate
The Obama administration is about to unveil its cybersecurity review, and the turf battles are brewing. What is seldom mentioned in the debate is that this is perhaps one of the most important issues the Obama administration will face.
The cypersecurity issue is an important part of the broader counter-intelligence effort, an effort that was woefully inadequate in past administrations, and one that is costing our nation dearly. As noted in the article above, the Chinese have stolen every single advanced weapons system design we have made in recent years, through human intel operations and electronically.
As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, our entire electrical grid has been mapped for foreign powers. Not just for the fun of it, and not to steal vital state secrets that will benefit them right away.
Rather, it is an embedded program that could remain passive for years, but could be activated in a second if to disrupt the entire electrical supply should they feel the need to. It is not a targeted effort at some parts of the country, but rather an ambitious effort to map the entire grid. Talk about thinking big!
We are only beginning to understand how penetrated our systems are, and the need to push back are figure out what the other guys are doing, why, and how to disrupt it.
The Russians spend millions of dollars hacking into our national secrets, and the vast majority of the cyper security breaches in come from Russia. We are vulnerable enough that people in Asia and elsewhere hack our national secrets for fun rather than profit.
I am not a technofile, nor do I know needs to be in the technological world to fix these gaping vulnerabilities. What I do know is that there are plenty of smart people who do, and the longer we delay, the higher the cost.
Yet we muddle on. The FBI has wasted tens (hundreds??) of millions of dollars trying to create secure systems, without much success. Three or four years ago, while the Chinese were happily stealing our missile designs, the FBI's Washington Field Office was still using dial up modems and were largely unfamiliar with the use of Google. I know this through painful personal experience.
This technological imbalance, where some states attack others in the cyber world, is a form of asymetric warfare. The weaker force (militarily) uses the weapons it has (computers, viruses, etc.) to cripple the larger and stronger opponent.
This all sounds like science fiction, but one of the things the Obama team has brought with it is a broader understanding of how the new technological world works and how it is used.
The narrower debate on cypersecurity must be placed in the context of overall counterintelligence, and both must be strengthened and revamped considerably if we want any state secrets to be secret at all.
The cypersecurity issue is an important part of the broader counter-intelligence effort, an effort that was woefully inadequate in past administrations, and one that is costing our nation dearly. As noted in the article above, the Chinese have stolen every single advanced weapons system design we have made in recent years, through human intel operations and electronically.
As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, our entire electrical grid has been mapped for foreign powers. Not just for the fun of it, and not to steal vital state secrets that will benefit them right away.
Rather, it is an embedded program that could remain passive for years, but could be activated in a second if to disrupt the entire electrical supply should they feel the need to. It is not a targeted effort at some parts of the country, but rather an ambitious effort to map the entire grid. Talk about thinking big!
We are only beginning to understand how penetrated our systems are, and the need to push back are figure out what the other guys are doing, why, and how to disrupt it.
The Russians spend millions of dollars hacking into our national secrets, and the vast majority of the cyper security breaches in come from Russia. We are vulnerable enough that people in Asia and elsewhere hack our national secrets for fun rather than profit.
I am not a technofile, nor do I know needs to be in the technological world to fix these gaping vulnerabilities. What I do know is that there are plenty of smart people who do, and the longer we delay, the higher the cost.
Yet we muddle on. The FBI has wasted tens (hundreds??) of millions of dollars trying to create secure systems, without much success. Three or four years ago, while the Chinese were happily stealing our missile designs, the FBI's Washington Field Office was still using dial up modems and were largely unfamiliar with the use of Google. I know this through painful personal experience.
This technological imbalance, where some states attack others in the cyber world, is a form of asymetric warfare. The weaker force (militarily) uses the weapons it has (computers, viruses, etc.) to cripple the larger and stronger opponent.
This all sounds like science fiction, but one of the things the Obama team has brought with it is a broader understanding of how the new technological world works and how it is used.
The narrower debate on cypersecurity must be placed in the context of overall counterintelligence, and both must be strengthened and revamped considerably if we want any state secrets to be secret at all.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday April 13, 2009
The MB Inroads Into the Obama Administration
First, a note updating my pessimistic view of the Somali pirate hostage taking. I stand corrected, and thank the Navy Seals and others who carried out the rescue operation. Well done!
But, as the the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (free subscription required) makes clear, the news is not all good.
The Muslim Brotherhood legacy organizations have recently made tremendous strides in occupying positions of influence within the Obama administration, at the same time the FBI and other law enforcement officials have move to cut ties to the very same organization.
The MB has only one political agenda-its own. Its organizations strongly backed George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, (remember the famous picture of Bush hugging the al Arian family?). Hoping for friendlier pastures, the groups switched their support to the Dems in '08. So far, it appears to be paying of. Big time.
The architect is Dr. John Esposito, a long time defender of the MB and the head of the Saudi-financed Georgetown University Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Walsh School of Foreign Service.
The same Dr. Esposito who maintained prior to 9/11 that radical Islam was essentially a myth and certainly no danger. It is hard to imagine any academic being so consistently wrong in their professed field of expertise maintaining much influence, but there he is, deeply enmeshed with all the major MB legacy groups in the country.
What is fascinating is that all the same small groups appear in every event, and, if needed, new groups are created, but all led by the same small group of people. Recall that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) hs a paid membership of less than 2,000-a drop of more than 80 percent since 9/11. Yet it continues to cast itself as the premiere voice of Muslim in America, and is often treated as such.
To be clear: these groups have a clearly enunciated and never renounced policy of toppling the government, hollowing out the institutional structures, and imposing the caliphate here, where Sharia law is the law of the land. As I have often said, if they want to openly join the political process and espouse this, they are welcome and they will be marginalized, even within the Muslim community.
It is the fact that these organizations are front groups for a foreign movement that wants to end our political system (while supporting radical Islam) that I object to.
First is the announcement by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), a sort of umbrella organization for many of the MB groups in the United States, that Secretary of State Clinton (along with a senior MB leader from Britain who has been banned from the United States previously will be keynote speakers at their 10th anniversary celebration.
It is hard to imagine the vetting process of the Secretary letting this one through, and time will tell if it really on her agenda or an attempt to hype the event. Here is what GMBDR says on CSID:
CSID was founded in 1998 largely by the efforts of Georgetown University academic Dr. Esposito who, during the 1990’s, had served in the State Department as a "foreign affairs analyst." Many members of the early CSID board were associated with the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), the American Muslim Council, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). For example, past CSID board members included Jamal Barzinji and Taha Al-Alwani, both important Brotherhood leaders who are closely associated with the now defunct SAAR Foundation, still under investigation by the U.S. government. Both Barzinji and Al-Alwani helped to establish many of the most important U.S. Brotherhood organizations. The current CSID Vice-Chair, Antony Sullivan, has many ties to U.S. Brotherhood groups including the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), the United Association for Studies and Research (USAR), and the Circle of Tradition and Progress (COTP), a group whose other founding members included Youssef Qaradawi, the most important leader of the global Muslim Brotherhood. From its inception, CSID has argued that the U.S. government should support Islamist movements in foreign countries and has received financial support from the National Endowment for Democracy and the United States Institute of Peace.
Dr. Esposito, who will also be attending the conference, has been a long-time supporter of the global Muslim Brotherhood and has espoused views consistent with Brotherhood doctrine. During the 1990’s was known for his claims that Islamic fundamentalism was, in fact, democratic and posed no threat to the U.S. Dr. Esposito has at least a dozen past or present affiliations with global Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organizations including having served on the advisory boards of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in the U.K. and the United Association for Studies and Research in the U.S. and has served with global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi on the Steering Committee of the Circle of Tradition and Progress. In 2005, Saudi prince Alaweed bin Talal, a financial supporter of the global Muslim Brotherhood donated $20 million to the Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at Georgetown, headed by Dr. Esposito.
The second is the naming Dalia Mogahed as one of the Muslim members of the President's Advisory Council Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She is (surprised gasps all around) an Esposito protege.
Ms. Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and lived in the U.S. since the age of 5, is the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and the co-author of a book with Dr. Esposito suggesting that majority of the world’s Muslims support some form of democracy. Dr. Esposito is also a member of the Gallup Center along with Ahmed Younis, previously a National Director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. In 2003, Ms. Mogahed was identified in 2003 as the Outreach Coordinator for the Islamic Center of Pittsburgh (ICP) whose co-founder recently lost a DOE security clearance and whose Imam will probably be deported on immigration violations. Ms. Mogahed is the daughter of Elsayed Mogahed, an Egyptian immigrant who is a former engineering scientist at the University of Wisconsin and director of the Islamic Center of Madison (ICM). The website of the ICM links mainly to U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organizations and Souheil Ghannouchi, the President of the Muslim American Society (MAS), was ICM Imam and President for several years. The MAS is part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and closest to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
So, there we have it. And it isn't pretty.
But, as the the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (free subscription required) makes clear, the news is not all good.
The Muslim Brotherhood legacy organizations have recently made tremendous strides in occupying positions of influence within the Obama administration, at the same time the FBI and other law enforcement officials have move to cut ties to the very same organization.
The MB has only one political agenda-its own. Its organizations strongly backed George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, (remember the famous picture of Bush hugging the al Arian family?). Hoping for friendlier pastures, the groups switched their support to the Dems in '08. So far, it appears to be paying of. Big time.
The architect is Dr. John Esposito, a long time defender of the MB and the head of the Saudi-financed Georgetown University Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Walsh School of Foreign Service.
The same Dr. Esposito who maintained prior to 9/11 that radical Islam was essentially a myth and certainly no danger. It is hard to imagine any academic being so consistently wrong in their professed field of expertise maintaining much influence, but there he is, deeply enmeshed with all the major MB legacy groups in the country.
What is fascinating is that all the same small groups appear in every event, and, if needed, new groups are created, but all led by the same small group of people. Recall that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) hs a paid membership of less than 2,000-a drop of more than 80 percent since 9/11. Yet it continues to cast itself as the premiere voice of Muslim in America, and is often treated as such.
To be clear: these groups have a clearly enunciated and never renounced policy of toppling the government, hollowing out the institutional structures, and imposing the caliphate here, where Sharia law is the law of the land. As I have often said, if they want to openly join the political process and espouse this, they are welcome and they will be marginalized, even within the Muslim community.
It is the fact that these organizations are front groups for a foreign movement that wants to end our political system (while supporting radical Islam) that I object to.
First is the announcement by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), a sort of umbrella organization for many of the MB groups in the United States, that Secretary of State Clinton (along with a senior MB leader from Britain who has been banned from the United States previously will be keynote speakers at their 10th anniversary celebration.
It is hard to imagine the vetting process of the Secretary letting this one through, and time will tell if it really on her agenda or an attempt to hype the event. Here is what GMBDR says on CSID:
CSID was founded in 1998 largely by the efforts of Georgetown University academic Dr. Esposito who, during the 1990’s, had served in the State Department as a "foreign affairs analyst." Many members of the early CSID board were associated with the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), the American Muslim Council, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). For example, past CSID board members included Jamal Barzinji and Taha Al-Alwani, both important Brotherhood leaders who are closely associated with the now defunct SAAR Foundation, still under investigation by the U.S. government. Both Barzinji and Al-Alwani helped to establish many of the most important U.S. Brotherhood organizations. The current CSID Vice-Chair, Antony Sullivan, has many ties to U.S. Brotherhood groups including the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), the United Association for Studies and Research (USAR), and the Circle of Tradition and Progress (COTP), a group whose other founding members included Youssef Qaradawi, the most important leader of the global Muslim Brotherhood. From its inception, CSID has argued that the U.S. government should support Islamist movements in foreign countries and has received financial support from the National Endowment for Democracy and the United States Institute of Peace.
Dr. Esposito, who will also be attending the conference, has been a long-time supporter of the global Muslim Brotherhood and has espoused views consistent with Brotherhood doctrine. During the 1990’s was known for his claims that Islamic fundamentalism was, in fact, democratic and posed no threat to the U.S. Dr. Esposito has at least a dozen past or present affiliations with global Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organizations including having served on the advisory boards of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in the U.K. and the United Association for Studies and Research in the U.S. and has served with global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi on the Steering Committee of the Circle of Tradition and Progress. In 2005, Saudi prince Alaweed bin Talal, a financial supporter of the global Muslim Brotherhood donated $20 million to the Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at Georgetown, headed by Dr. Esposito.
The second is the naming Dalia Mogahed as one of the Muslim members of the President's Advisory Council Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She is (surprised gasps all around) an Esposito protege.
Ms. Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and lived in the U.S. since the age of 5, is the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and the co-author of a book with Dr. Esposito suggesting that majority of the world’s Muslims support some form of democracy. Dr. Esposito is also a member of the Gallup Center along with Ahmed Younis, previously a National Director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. In 2003, Ms. Mogahed was identified in 2003 as the Outreach Coordinator for the Islamic Center of Pittsburgh (ICP) whose co-founder recently lost a DOE security clearance and whose Imam will probably be deported on immigration violations. Ms. Mogahed is the daughter of Elsayed Mogahed, an Egyptian immigrant who is a former engineering scientist at the University of Wisconsin and director of the Islamic Center of Madison (ICM). The website of the ICM links mainly to U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organizations and Souheil Ghannouchi, the President of the Muslim American Society (MAS), was ICM Imam and President for several years. The MAS is part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and closest to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
So, there we have it. And it isn't pretty.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Friday April 10, 2009
The Somali Hijacking Fiasco
One thing one has to admit-the criminal/terrorist elements holding the world's shipping lanes hostage have the game figured out. Although one hijacking of a U.S.-manned shipped was thwarted, they have the captain hostage.
Now, other pirate ships, loaded with hostages,are making their way toward the life boat to help insure the pirates escape with impunity.
The U.S. Navy is there, but able to do very little. it is a classic standoff of asymmetrical forces: the USS Bainbridge, armed with cruise missles, in a stalemate with a life boat that is out of fuel and adrift in the sea.
The hostage captain's attempted escape was thwarted. The ships are too far away to help him. And several boats with dozens of other hostages will be arriving before long. Not a pretty scenario, but one that will likely be repeated over time.
Anyone who doubts that non-state actors operating out of either complicit states or stateless regions will have a major economic impact on the world in coming years should now be disabused of that notion.
And, if you think economic shocks are not part of military contingency planning, see this story in Politico about how the Pentagon is now war-gaming different economic scenarios.
"Why would the military care about global capital flows at all?" asked another person who was there. "Because as the global financial crisis plays out, there could be real world consequences, including failed states. We’ve already seen riots in the United Kingdom and the Balkans."
While the shipping lanes are not capital flows, maintaining them free of piracy (and, in this case, with part of the ransom proceeds going to radical Islamist groups intent on spreading other kinds of havoc around the world) is vital to maintaining capital flows.
The dynamic whereby ships are captured, taken to a known location, identifiable and known leaders negotiate and ransoms are paid, has been a enabling part of the equation from the beginning. That dynamic must be broken.
No one likes boots on the ground action, particularly in an environment where the military is seriously overstretched. But this is a major international problem, and the use of force must be very much at the forefront of any real settlement to the issue.
It is not a burden of the United States alone. China, Saudi Arabia and most of Europe have all had their ships hijacked, their crews held hostage and ransoms paid. Yet it is know where the criminals' stronghold it, it is known where their boats dock and it is known who the leaders are.
Yet the prevailing attitude seems to be that, since the crews and ships are generally freed after a ransom is paid, no harm is really done. That is rubbish. If the international community cannot get together to act on this, then a true coalition of those affected should take matters into their own hands.
Until they are forced to stop, the pirates will not. Why would they? Ships continue to venture into the waters unarmed, continued to get hijacked and continue to pay ransom. What have the pirates lost? Absolutely nothing.
If one or two of their boats were blasted out of the water, their home base occupied or their leaders dealt with, the equation would change. Maybe this drama will finally bring some action.
Now, other pirate ships, loaded with hostages,are making their way toward the life boat to help insure the pirates escape with impunity.
The U.S. Navy is there, but able to do very little. it is a classic standoff of asymmetrical forces: the USS Bainbridge, armed with cruise missles, in a stalemate with a life boat that is out of fuel and adrift in the sea.
The hostage captain's attempted escape was thwarted. The ships are too far away to help him. And several boats with dozens of other hostages will be arriving before long. Not a pretty scenario, but one that will likely be repeated over time.
Anyone who doubts that non-state actors operating out of either complicit states or stateless regions will have a major economic impact on the world in coming years should now be disabused of that notion.
And, if you think economic shocks are not part of military contingency planning, see this story in Politico about how the Pentagon is now war-gaming different economic scenarios.
"Why would the military care about global capital flows at all?" asked another person who was there. "Because as the global financial crisis plays out, there could be real world consequences, including failed states. We’ve already seen riots in the United Kingdom and the Balkans."
While the shipping lanes are not capital flows, maintaining them free of piracy (and, in this case, with part of the ransom proceeds going to radical Islamist groups intent on spreading other kinds of havoc around the world) is vital to maintaining capital flows.
The dynamic whereby ships are captured, taken to a known location, identifiable and known leaders negotiate and ransoms are paid, has been a enabling part of the equation from the beginning. That dynamic must be broken.
No one likes boots on the ground action, particularly in an environment where the military is seriously overstretched. But this is a major international problem, and the use of force must be very much at the forefront of any real settlement to the issue.
It is not a burden of the United States alone. China, Saudi Arabia and most of Europe have all had their ships hijacked, their crews held hostage and ransoms paid. Yet it is know where the criminals' stronghold it, it is known where their boats dock and it is known who the leaders are.
Yet the prevailing attitude seems to be that, since the crews and ships are generally freed after a ransom is paid, no harm is really done. That is rubbish. If the international community cannot get together to act on this, then a true coalition of those affected should take matters into their own hands.
Until they are forced to stop, the pirates will not. Why would they? Ships continue to venture into the waters unarmed, continued to get hijacked and continue to pay ransom. What have the pirates lost? Absolutely nothing.
If one or two of their boats were blasted out of the water, their home base occupied or their leaders dealt with, the equation would change. Maybe this drama will finally bring some action.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH