Monday March 31, 2008
NATO and Afghanistan-The Risk of Failure
Few in NATO, including U.S. leaders, appear willing to face the fact that the war in Afghanistan is growing to be one of the longest in our history and could be one of the costliest. Not just in economic terms, but because no one has been willing to commit the resources to win the war, despite the fact it was nearly won four years ago. The cost of not finishing the job is staggering.
The Taliban, in a move the seemed inconceivable in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, is back, moving easily through the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, with secure supply lines, money from heroin and other criminal activities (ransoms paid for foreigners included), and a will to win.
On the other side is a weak and ineffective government help in place by a foreign force, protecting ever-small swaths of territory, while Taliban areas of mobility and access increase.
It is not necessary for the Taliban to control vast swaths of territory, they simply need to be able to establish their presence, execute a few of their enemies with impunity, and create a general climate of fear and terror.
Now, as the situation deteriorates, the central government remains riddled with corruption and the inability to prosecute any of the powerful warlords, President Bush is trying desperately to get a weary NATO to do more.
The picture is getting worse, not better. In January retired Gen. James Jones, a former NATO commander, bluntly said in a report report by the Atlantic Council, "Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan."
Jones termed the situation a "strategic stalemate." But in counterinsurgency, the tie goes to the insurgents.
"The United States and the international community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few military forces and insufficient economic aid," the report said. It highlighted the lack of a clear strategy needed to "fill the power vacuum outside Kabul and to counter the combined challenges of reconstituted Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a runaway opium economy, and the stark poverty faced by most Afghans."
European militaries, burned by the Iraq enterprise and lacking the political will or social backing for a sustained effort in Afghanistan, have placed many restrictions on what the troops from different participating countries can actually do in the field. Many rotate their troops every 6 months, rather than the 15 month deployments of U.S. troops.
One of the problems is that U.S. policy, both at home and in its projection of policy abroad, have failed to decouple the war in Afghanistan from that in Iraq. One enjoyed widespread international support, the other did not. In one, there was a true "Coalition of the Willing," and in the other there only the charade of such a coalition.
There are some signs of progress. The French (1,000), the British (800) and Poland (400) have pledged more troops. On top of this, the U.S. will add several thousand more, as they rotate out of Iraq.
But the question is whether any of these short term fixes will be enough, and whether any of it matters if the Afghan government cannot begin to perform as a national government.
This is a bad situation to be in. U.S. troops are stretched to the breaking point with the surge in Iraq, but arguably a failure in Afghanistan would be even more dangerous. The Taliban, viewing their initial ascent to power as a miracle ordained by Allah, are waiting for another miracle-and are remarkably close to achieving it.
Pakistan, a nuclear nation, and Afghanistan, are really where al Qaeda and radical Islam are entrenched. It is, in my opinion, where the next attack will originate from, and should be of equal worry to Europe. If the senior al Qaeda leadership are safe enough there not to have to be on the move, what is to stop them?
The Taliban, in a move the seemed inconceivable in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, is back, moving easily through the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, with secure supply lines, money from heroin and other criminal activities (ransoms paid for foreigners included), and a will to win.
On the other side is a weak and ineffective government help in place by a foreign force, protecting ever-small swaths of territory, while Taliban areas of mobility and access increase.
It is not necessary for the Taliban to control vast swaths of territory, they simply need to be able to establish their presence, execute a few of their enemies with impunity, and create a general climate of fear and terror.
Now, as the situation deteriorates, the central government remains riddled with corruption and the inability to prosecute any of the powerful warlords, President Bush is trying desperately to get a weary NATO to do more.
The picture is getting worse, not better. In January retired Gen. James Jones, a former NATO commander, bluntly said in a report report by the Atlantic Council, "Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan."
Jones termed the situation a "strategic stalemate." But in counterinsurgency, the tie goes to the insurgents.
"The United States and the international community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few military forces and insufficient economic aid," the report said. It highlighted the lack of a clear strategy needed to "fill the power vacuum outside Kabul and to counter the combined challenges of reconstituted Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a runaway opium economy, and the stark poverty faced by most Afghans."
European militaries, burned by the Iraq enterprise and lacking the political will or social backing for a sustained effort in Afghanistan, have placed many restrictions on what the troops from different participating countries can actually do in the field. Many rotate their troops every 6 months, rather than the 15 month deployments of U.S. troops.
One of the problems is that U.S. policy, both at home and in its projection of policy abroad, have failed to decouple the war in Afghanistan from that in Iraq. One enjoyed widespread international support, the other did not. In one, there was a true "Coalition of the Willing," and in the other there only the charade of such a coalition.
There are some signs of progress. The French (1,000), the British (800) and Poland (400) have pledged more troops. On top of this, the U.S. will add several thousand more, as they rotate out of Iraq.
But the question is whether any of these short term fixes will be enough, and whether any of it matters if the Afghan government cannot begin to perform as a national government.
This is a bad situation to be in. U.S. troops are stretched to the breaking point with the surge in Iraq, but arguably a failure in Afghanistan would be even more dangerous. The Taliban, viewing their initial ascent to power as a miracle ordained by Allah, are waiting for another miracle-and are remarkably close to achieving it.
Pakistan, a nuclear nation, and Afghanistan, are really where al Qaeda and radical Islam are entrenched. It is, in my opinion, where the next attack will originate from, and should be of equal worry to Europe. If the senior al Qaeda leadership are safe enough there not to have to be on the move, what is to stop them?
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Sunday March 30, 2008
Geert Wilder's "Fitna" and the Need to Respond
The controversial Dutch film "Fitna" by Geets Wilder, a member of parliament, has been released in English and is causing quite a stir. This includes the expected outcry from many quarters, including many Muslim groups. Riots are predicted in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
There are many flaws in the 15-minute show, to be sure. It is jammed with the worst and most atrocious of radical Islam and offers no hint that there are other, valid interpretations of the religion, followed by millions, that do not subscribe to Islam as portrayed.
Nor does it offer any hint that the vast majority of Muslims across the world are not violent and live ordinary lives, with their religion left between themselves and their God.
But the real point, to me, is that all the images, all the hate speech by radical Islamist (including well-known leaders and heads of state), is real. The citations from the Koran are real. None of it was fabricated. And we have seen that these groups are not simply speaking, they act. And they act and speak in the name of Islam.
The U.S. Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, 9/11, Madrid, London, Theo Van Gogh, the beheading of Daniel Pearl, etc. etc., are real actions by real people. I am waiting for large Islamist group out there not to threaten to kill Wilder, which they have done. I am waiting for them to stand up and disown the hate speech and atrocities of those who claim the same religion.
Where is the outrage over preaching, in large mosques rather than some obscure corner of the world, that Islam can and should conquer the world by the sword? Where is the denunciation of recognized Islamist leaders waving swords and promising to behead the infidels?
Imagine if a Buddhist monk or a Christian preacher or a Hindu master stood in front of thousands of people and uttered the same words. When the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. of recent fame was caught uttering hate speech on tape, he was widely condemned by name, across party lines, by Christians, marginalized and forced from public view.
Few jumped on Youtube for putting the video out there. The video was authentic and spoke for itself. So are these images.
Where are ISNA, CAIR, NAIT and the other Muslim Brotherhood legacy organizations in this country or in Europe in debating, distancing themselves and calling for an end to the atrocities, rather than tolerating the hate speech and denouncing Wilder? Are they willing to denounce those in the film (and many others) by name for what they say?
Not likely. They will call for "restraint" by Muslim who rightly feel insulted by the movie. They will try to keep violence to a minimum, but understand the urge to violent action. They will call for "dialogue" and "understanding," as if the entire history of radical, violent Islamist speech and action had nothing to do with religious convictions.
And they will say nothing about the actual content of the video and those who act in the name of Islam.
There are many flaws in the 15-minute show, to be sure. It is jammed with the worst and most atrocious of radical Islam and offers no hint that there are other, valid interpretations of the religion, followed by millions, that do not subscribe to Islam as portrayed.
Nor does it offer any hint that the vast majority of Muslims across the world are not violent and live ordinary lives, with their religion left between themselves and their God.
But the real point, to me, is that all the images, all the hate speech by radical Islamist (including well-known leaders and heads of state), is real. The citations from the Koran are real. None of it was fabricated. And we have seen that these groups are not simply speaking, they act. And they act and speak in the name of Islam.
The U.S. Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, 9/11, Madrid, London, Theo Van Gogh, the beheading of Daniel Pearl, etc. etc., are real actions by real people. I am waiting for large Islamist group out there not to threaten to kill Wilder, which they have done. I am waiting for them to stand up and disown the hate speech and atrocities of those who claim the same religion.
Where is the outrage over preaching, in large mosques rather than some obscure corner of the world, that Islam can and should conquer the world by the sword? Where is the denunciation of recognized Islamist leaders waving swords and promising to behead the infidels?
Imagine if a Buddhist monk or a Christian preacher or a Hindu master stood in front of thousands of people and uttered the same words. When the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. of recent fame was caught uttering hate speech on tape, he was widely condemned by name, across party lines, by Christians, marginalized and forced from public view.
Few jumped on Youtube for putting the video out there. The video was authentic and spoke for itself. So are these images.
Where are ISNA, CAIR, NAIT and the other Muslim Brotherhood legacy organizations in this country or in Europe in debating, distancing themselves and calling for an end to the atrocities, rather than tolerating the hate speech and denouncing Wilder? Are they willing to denounce those in the film (and many others) by name for what they say?
Not likely. They will call for "restraint" by Muslim who rightly feel insulted by the movie. They will try to keep violence to a minimum, but understand the urge to violent action. They will call for "dialogue" and "understanding," as if the entire history of radical, violent Islamist speech and action had nothing to do with religious convictions.
And they will say nothing about the actual content of the video and those who act in the name of Islam.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Wednesday March 26, 2008
Somalia: The Festering War That Will Not End
After the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) was driven from power in Somalia by Ethiopian troops 15 months ago, the region, and its ongoing turmoil, largely fell from public view and the the official policy agenda.
That is a serious mistake. As this BBC story shows, the radical Islamists have regrouped, have increased their ability to strike across the country, and are more formally allied with al Qaeda than in the past.
The most important of the Islamist groups now fighting is al Shabab (meaning "The Lads," in Somali), a group recently designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist entity.
The State Department statement on the designation said the following:
Al-Shabaab is a violent and brutal extremist group with a number of individuals affiliated with al-Qaida. Many of its senior leaders are believed to have trained and fought with al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
Al-Shabaab has used intimidation and violence to undermine the Somali government and threatened civil society activists working to bring about peace through political dialogue and reconciliation.
Al-Shabaab’s leader, Aden Hashi Ayrow, has ordered his fighters to attack African Union (AU) troops based in Mogadishu. Ayrow has also called for foreign fighters to join al-Shabaab in their fight in Somalia. Given the threat that al-Shabaab poses, the designation will raise awareness of al-Shabaab’s activities and help undercut the group’s ability to threaten targets in and destabilize the Horn of Africa region.
In fact, al Qaeda inspired fighters are moving into Somalia to join the war against an increasingly-unpopular government backed by outside forces viewed as occupiers. As in the past, the ICU can portray itself as the best option available in much of the country.
That is a damning commentary on the state of the internationally-backed government, which now presides over an entirely failed state facing an overwhelming humanitarian crisis.
One question often asked in counterinsurgency is what drives people to enlist in the _jihadist_ armies. There are, of course, many reasons and many steps in an individual's radicalization process.
But sometimes it might be, in part, as simple as that the radicals appear, at least for a time, to offer a better solution than the failed and corrupt governments that currently exist.
No one in Mogadishu has forgotten that under the ICU, for the first time in a decade, trash was picked up, the streets were safe to walk at night, and the nightly mortar battles were a thing of the past.
The current interim government, with no legitimacy and relying on an external power to prop it up, can make none of those claims. The Islamists will fully exploit the situation, just as fully as the outside world failed to exploit the brief time when most Somalis were glad to be rid of the ICU.
That is a serious mistake. As this BBC story shows, the radical Islamists have regrouped, have increased their ability to strike across the country, and are more formally allied with al Qaeda than in the past.
The most important of the Islamist groups now fighting is al Shabab (meaning "The Lads," in Somali), a group recently designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist entity.
The State Department statement on the designation said the following:
Al-Shabaab is a violent and brutal extremist group with a number of individuals affiliated with al-Qaida. Many of its senior leaders are believed to have trained and fought with al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
Al-Shabaab has used intimidation and violence to undermine the Somali government and threatened civil society activists working to bring about peace through political dialogue and reconciliation.
Al-Shabaab’s leader, Aden Hashi Ayrow, has ordered his fighters to attack African Union (AU) troops based in Mogadishu. Ayrow has also called for foreign fighters to join al-Shabaab in their fight in Somalia. Given the threat that al-Shabaab poses, the designation will raise awareness of al-Shabaab’s activities and help undercut the group’s ability to threaten targets in and destabilize the Horn of Africa region.
In fact, al Qaeda inspired fighters are moving into Somalia to join the war against an increasingly-unpopular government backed by outside forces viewed as occupiers. As in the past, the ICU can portray itself as the best option available in much of the country.
That is a damning commentary on the state of the internationally-backed government, which now presides over an entirely failed state facing an overwhelming humanitarian crisis.
One question often asked in counterinsurgency is what drives people to enlist in the _jihadist_ armies. There are, of course, many reasons and many steps in an individual's radicalization process.
But sometimes it might be, in part, as simple as that the radicals appear, at least for a time, to offer a better solution than the failed and corrupt governments that currently exist.
No one in Mogadishu has forgotten that under the ICU, for the first time in a decade, trash was picked up, the streets were safe to walk at night, and the nightly mortar battles were a thing of the past.
The current interim government, with no legitimacy and relying on an external power to prop it up, can make none of those claims. The Islamists will fully exploit the situation, just as fully as the outside world failed to exploit the brief time when most Somalis were glad to be rid of the ICU.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday March 24, 2008
The Danger of Exploiting the Border
A tip of the hat (actually, two tips) to Todd Bensman of the San Antonio Express-News for two articles (one in his paper and one one his website)
on the reality that Islamist terrorists have crossed the U.S. border, and are likely to do so again.
Bensman is one of the few investigative journalists left with a staff job who takes these investigations seriously. As much of newspaper world, in particular, slash their investigative capabilities, these gems will grow ever more rare.
Bensman looks at the recent case of three Afghanistan national with genuine Mexican passports seeking to enter the United States. The good news is that the Mexicans are willing and able partners in investigating these potential breaches. The bad news is that they nonetheless had real passports, which makes getting caught much harder.
In his other story Bensman looks at the 10 cases of terrorists who made it across the border, including al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas operatives. This is the first time I have seen the cases laid out in some detail and linked to terrorist groups.
What is of greater concern to me than Mexico, per se, as I have written earlier, is the number of Latin American countries where terrorists and their sympathizers, particularly but not limited to Hezbollah, can likely acquire legitimate travel documents that do not arouse much suspicion.
These include Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, all with greatly strengthened ties to Iran in the past two years. Nicaragua has already sent at least one contingent of about a dozen people to Iran for "diplomatic training," which is likely to be little but intelligence training. Venezuela regularly receives and sends high-level delegations to Iran, and I would bet the price of oil is not the only thing on the agenda.
It is also interesting to remember that, just as Daniel Ortega was leaving from his last term as president in 1990 he granted Nicaraguan citizenship and passports to dozens of internationally-wanted terrorists, including Red Brigade and ETA members. Few also remember that, as the 9/11 Commission reported, close allies of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman of the first World Trade Center bombing, had obtained Nicaraguan passports.
The history is important because it can, and I believe in this case does, give us a window into how Ortega not only operated in the past, but will continue to operate in future.
He allowed the Sandinista intelligence services to run factories for making documents for all of his allies in Latin America (remember Lori Berenson, now serving life in prison in Peru?). While the revolutionary solidarity may have been understandable at the time, the stakes are far higher now with radical Islamists, and Ortega has given no signs of having reformed in his 17 years out of office.
So, real Mexican passports may be the least of our worries, given that Mexico at least tries to maintain control and has punished those who have sold passports in the past. Of far greater concern are the passport rings operating with government approval and acquiescence, where there is no intention at all of slowing people down.
on the reality that Islamist terrorists have crossed the U.S. border, and are likely to do so again.
Bensman is one of the few investigative journalists left with a staff job who takes these investigations seriously. As much of newspaper world, in particular, slash their investigative capabilities, these gems will grow ever more rare.
Bensman looks at the recent case of three Afghanistan national with genuine Mexican passports seeking to enter the United States. The good news is that the Mexicans are willing and able partners in investigating these potential breaches. The bad news is that they nonetheless had real passports, which makes getting caught much harder.
In his other story Bensman looks at the 10 cases of terrorists who made it across the border, including al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas operatives. This is the first time I have seen the cases laid out in some detail and linked to terrorist groups.
What is of greater concern to me than Mexico, per se, as I have written earlier, is the number of Latin American countries where terrorists and their sympathizers, particularly but not limited to Hezbollah, can likely acquire legitimate travel documents that do not arouse much suspicion.
These include Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, all with greatly strengthened ties to Iran in the past two years. Nicaragua has already sent at least one contingent of about a dozen people to Iran for "diplomatic training," which is likely to be little but intelligence training. Venezuela regularly receives and sends high-level delegations to Iran, and I would bet the price of oil is not the only thing on the agenda.
It is also interesting to remember that, just as Daniel Ortega was leaving from his last term as president in 1990 he granted Nicaraguan citizenship and passports to dozens of internationally-wanted terrorists, including Red Brigade and ETA members. Few also remember that, as the 9/11 Commission reported, close allies of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman of the first World Trade Center bombing, had obtained Nicaraguan passports.
The history is important because it can, and I believe in this case does, give us a window into how Ortega not only operated in the past, but will continue to operate in future.
He allowed the Sandinista intelligence services to run factories for making documents for all of his allies in Latin America (remember Lori Berenson, now serving life in prison in Peru?). While the revolutionary solidarity may have been understandable at the time, the stakes are far higher now with radical Islamists, and Ortega has given no signs of having reformed in his 17 years out of office.
So, real Mexican passports may be the least of our worries, given that Mexico at least tries to maintain control and has punished those who have sold passports in the past. Of far greater concern are the passport rings operating with government approval and acquiescence, where there is no intention at all of slowing people down.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Thursday March 20, 2008
Bin Laden's New Message
There are several interesting aspects to Osama bin Laden's first, albeit brief, message of 2008, transcribed here by the NEFA Foundation. Clearly the senior al Qaeda leadership thought the issue was important enough to have bin Laden address it, something he has not done since December 2007.
The first is the specificity of the threat to Europe, and the precise reason for that threat, the alleged insults perpetrated by the printing of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. This, according to bin Laden, is more insulting that waging war against al Qaeda or the killing of women and children.
This seems to be part of the Islamist tradition of warning one's enemies of an impending attack, and giving the enemy a chance, however brief, to repent and and convert. Whether al Qaeda can carry out a serious attack is a separate question from whether al Qaeda or its affiliates want to carry out such an attack and believe they can.
It would be highly demoralizing for bin Laden to make a rare public statement without being able to follow through, or at least believe his organization is capable of following through.
Bin Laden ends the statement with one of the strongest possible statements that an attempt to follow through in striking Europe in ways that dwarf prior attacks, invoking Allah to bereave many of the mothers of the mujahadeen "if we fail to help the messenger of Allah." So death is preferable to not acting, not an idle statement given the widespread use of suicide bombers.
The second aspect is bin Laden's attempt to amplify the outrage over the cartoons by stating that attempts to depict Jesus or any of the other prophets in the same manner would insulting. "We believe in all of the prophets (PBUT), and whoever detracts from or mocks any one of them is an apostate unbeliever."
This is the first time I have seen an attempt to broaden the issue out from solely an Islamist issue of Mohammed, to a broader audience that may be insulted by similar drawings of other religious figures.
A third aspect is an awareness of the outside world that is more than passing, noting the British government's squelching of an investigation into possible bribes by Saudi Arabia in the purchase of weapons. It was not the kind of news that made a huge splash, so clearly he has time to monitor the news on an ongoing basis.
Finally, there is the justification for past and upcoming carnage in a direct and succinct way: "If there is no check on the freedom of your words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions."
Words, in this world view, matter as much or more than actions. And, he said, will be in what we see, not what we hear. These statements should not be taken lightly.
The first is the specificity of the threat to Europe, and the precise reason for that threat, the alleged insults perpetrated by the printing of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. This, according to bin Laden, is more insulting that waging war against al Qaeda or the killing of women and children.
This seems to be part of the Islamist tradition of warning one's enemies of an impending attack, and giving the enemy a chance, however brief, to repent and and convert. Whether al Qaeda can carry out a serious attack is a separate question from whether al Qaeda or its affiliates want to carry out such an attack and believe they can.
It would be highly demoralizing for bin Laden to make a rare public statement without being able to follow through, or at least believe his organization is capable of following through.
Bin Laden ends the statement with one of the strongest possible statements that an attempt to follow through in striking Europe in ways that dwarf prior attacks, invoking Allah to bereave many of the mothers of the mujahadeen "if we fail to help the messenger of Allah." So death is preferable to not acting, not an idle statement given the widespread use of suicide bombers.
The second aspect is bin Laden's attempt to amplify the outrage over the cartoons by stating that attempts to depict Jesus or any of the other prophets in the same manner would insulting. "We believe in all of the prophets (PBUT), and whoever detracts from or mocks any one of them is an apostate unbeliever."
This is the first time I have seen an attempt to broaden the issue out from solely an Islamist issue of Mohammed, to a broader audience that may be insulted by similar drawings of other religious figures.
A third aspect is an awareness of the outside world that is more than passing, noting the British government's squelching of an investigation into possible bribes by Saudi Arabia in the purchase of weapons. It was not the kind of news that made a huge splash, so clearly he has time to monitor the news on an ongoing basis.
Finally, there is the justification for past and upcoming carnage in a direct and succinct way: "If there is no check on the freedom of your words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions."
Words, in this world view, matter as much or more than actions. And, he said, will be in what we see, not what we hear. These statements should not be taken lightly.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH