Wednesday December 20, 2006
Why Jihahdis Are Feeling Good
Several developments towards the year's end show what a good few months it has been for the worldwide _jihadi_ movement. These are not marginal shifts in the success of the Salafist military project, but significant gains that demonstrate some of the contours of the growing, armed movement that would like to eliminate us.
Among them:
Significant advances in Somalia, creating a geographic base and state absent since being driven from Afghanistan;
The succeessful establishment of a virually independent Taliban state in northern Pakistan, allowing for a constantly-growing ability to challenge NATO militarily and the coordination of training and fighting with foreign fighters;
The dominance of the political discourse by violent Islamists and by their allies in the debate over Islamism in Europe and the United States;
The successful creation of an information and education sharing network that allow successful tactics in one region to be exported in short order to other groups-i.e. from Iraq to Afghanistan;
The weakening of the central governments in both Afghanistan and Iraq, enhancing the law-and-order appeal of the Islamist groups;
The continued penetration of sub-Saharan Africa through NGOs, the building of mosques and the export of radical imams in the hopes of radicalizing potential recruits;
And the survival of key leaders such as bin Laden and Zawahiri.
That is just on the Salafist/Sunni side. On the Shi'ite side there is the emergence of Hizbollah again as a significant military force, Iran's unhindered nuclear ambitions and understanding that the international community will remain hardpressed to actually take any action to deter these ambitions, and the growing alliance between Iran and Venezuela, to oil-rich states.
On the terrorism side, this is extremely dangerous because Hezbollah has both people and a financial network in Latin America, and getting a state backer for its enterprises there, through the Iranian alliance with Chavez, would be most useful. Chavez has already shown his support for violent groups by his friendship with the FARC in neighboring Colombia. Not much of a stretch to make Hezbollah feel at home at the request of his primary international ally.
There have been some military victories against these advances. But what comes across from the U.S. and European side is the ongoing dithering over words and definitions-global war on terrorism, Islamofascism, radicalism etc. For example, is the Muslim Brotherhood a radical enough movement to be included in the global war on terror?
While definitions are useful, five years of dithering over them is dangerous. There has yet to be a clearly defined strategy to take on radical Islam in its different guises. There is no coherent message except the overly simplistic, almost meaningless phrase that these people hate freedom, therefore they hate us. Almost nothing further has been articulated, pushed into the public arena for debate, for to help shape the debate or establish a credible alternative to the Islamist narratives about what is happening. And that makes it a bad few months for those of us who do not wish to convert to Islam or live under the new caliphate.
Among them:
Significant advances in Somalia, creating a geographic base and state absent since being driven from Afghanistan;
The succeessful establishment of a virually independent Taliban state in northern Pakistan, allowing for a constantly-growing ability to challenge NATO militarily and the coordination of training and fighting with foreign fighters;
The dominance of the political discourse by violent Islamists and by their allies in the debate over Islamism in Europe and the United States;
The successful creation of an information and education sharing network that allow successful tactics in one region to be exported in short order to other groups-i.e. from Iraq to Afghanistan;
The weakening of the central governments in both Afghanistan and Iraq, enhancing the law-and-order appeal of the Islamist groups;
The continued penetration of sub-Saharan Africa through NGOs, the building of mosques and the export of radical imams in the hopes of radicalizing potential recruits;
And the survival of key leaders such as bin Laden and Zawahiri.
That is just on the Salafist/Sunni side. On the Shi'ite side there is the emergence of Hizbollah again as a significant military force, Iran's unhindered nuclear ambitions and understanding that the international community will remain hardpressed to actually take any action to deter these ambitions, and the growing alliance between Iran and Venezuela, to oil-rich states.
On the terrorism side, this is extremely dangerous because Hezbollah has both people and a financial network in Latin America, and getting a state backer for its enterprises there, through the Iranian alliance with Chavez, would be most useful. Chavez has already shown his support for violent groups by his friendship with the FARC in neighboring Colombia. Not much of a stretch to make Hezbollah feel at home at the request of his primary international ally.
There have been some military victories against these advances. But what comes across from the U.S. and European side is the ongoing dithering over words and definitions-global war on terrorism, Islamofascism, radicalism etc. For example, is the Muslim Brotherhood a radical enough movement to be included in the global war on terror?
While definitions are useful, five years of dithering over them is dangerous. There has yet to be a clearly defined strategy to take on radical Islam in its different guises. There is no coherent message except the overly simplistic, almost meaningless phrase that these people hate freedom, therefore they hate us. Almost nothing further has been articulated, pushed into the public arena for debate, for to help shape the debate or establish a credible alternative to the Islamist narratives about what is happening. And that makes it a bad few months for those of us who do not wish to convert to Islam or live under the new caliphate.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday December 18, 2006
Chuckie Taylor Jr. Indicted For Torture
In an unusual and bold step, the U.S. government has decided to prosecute Chuckie Taylor Junior, son of Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, on three counts of torture.
As the New York Times wrote: "The case is the first in which federal authorities invoked the anti-torture law, which bans extreme interrogation methods. The law gives American courts jurisdiction over reported abuse overseas by American citizens."
Junior, whose real name is Roy M. Belfast, Jr., was the head of his father's Antiterrorism Unit, the elite group responsible for rounding up political opponents, torturing them and often executing them. Like any elite unit in a ferocious police state, the ATU was feared and loathed in Liberia, and Junior was too.
This is big step, both for the U.S. justice system and for Liberia. Junior had originally been apprehended nine months ago on charges of lying about his father's name when applying to the U.S. passport, to which he is legally entitled.
It was not clear initially that DOJ was interested enough in the case to pursue it further, but an inter-agency group, led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tracked down credible witnessess and brought the indictment.
The indictment charges Junion with pouring scalding water on the victim, using electric shock on the victim's genitals and holding the victim at gunpoint. Human rights workers have documents scores of other cases of Junior's involvement in torture and killings, but the DOJ took a minimalist approach, choosing to stick with one case in the indictment that was the most solid.
The Washington Post noted that, in the past, the DOJ has sought extradition of those charged with torture back to the country in which the torture was commited because trying them is time consuming and expensive.
"These cases are hard cases," Julie L. Myers, head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, said at a news conference yesterday. "In this case alone, we had agents from . . . three different agencies flying all over the world to get evidence."
Myers called the indictment a milestone. She said it will send "a clear message that the United States will not be a safe haven for human rights violators." She noted that her agency created a new unit in 2003 to investigate human rights crimes.
In this case, it was well worth the effort. Junior can receive a fair trail that he would never have granted his enemies in Liberia, because he was priviledged enough to be born in this country. I hope that, if guilty, he spends the rest of his life behind bars, in conditions far better than his victims could ever dream of.
In a world where so much is wrong, there are somethings that go right. Junior is in prison and charged, his father is awaiting trial in the Hauge for crimes against humanity. Small but important victories in the fight against impunity.
As the New York Times wrote: "The case is the first in which federal authorities invoked the anti-torture law, which bans extreme interrogation methods. The law gives American courts jurisdiction over reported abuse overseas by American citizens."
Junior, whose real name is Roy M. Belfast, Jr., was the head of his father's Antiterrorism Unit, the elite group responsible for rounding up political opponents, torturing them and often executing them. Like any elite unit in a ferocious police state, the ATU was feared and loathed in Liberia, and Junior was too.
This is big step, both for the U.S. justice system and for Liberia. Junior had originally been apprehended nine months ago on charges of lying about his father's name when applying to the U.S. passport, to which he is legally entitled.
It was not clear initially that DOJ was interested enough in the case to pursue it further, but an inter-agency group, led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tracked down credible witnessess and brought the indictment.
The indictment charges Junion with pouring scalding water on the victim, using electric shock on the victim's genitals and holding the victim at gunpoint. Human rights workers have documents scores of other cases of Junior's involvement in torture and killings, but the DOJ took a minimalist approach, choosing to stick with one case in the indictment that was the most solid.
The Washington Post noted that, in the past, the DOJ has sought extradition of those charged with torture back to the country in which the torture was commited because trying them is time consuming and expensive.
"These cases are hard cases," Julie L. Myers, head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, said at a news conference yesterday. "In this case alone, we had agents from . . . three different agencies flying all over the world to get evidence."
Myers called the indictment a milestone. She said it will send "a clear message that the United States will not be a safe haven for human rights violators." She noted that her agency created a new unit in 2003 to investigate human rights crimes.
In this case, it was well worth the effort. Junior can receive a fair trail that he would never have granted his enemies in Liberia, because he was priviledged enough to be born in this country. I hope that, if guilty, he spends the rest of his life behind bars, in conditions far better than his victims could ever dream of.
In a world where so much is wrong, there are somethings that go right. Junior is in prison and charged, his father is awaiting trial in the Hauge for crimes against humanity. Small but important victories in the fight against impunity.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday December 18, 2006
Is Hezbollah Opening More Formal Franchises in Latin America?
There is growing concern, both in the U.S. intelligence community and among other groups, that Hezbollah, after years of careful infrastructure building, is now more actively forming franchise operations in Venezuela, Paraguay, Colombia and elsewhere.
Today the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated nine individuals and supporting Hezbollah in the Tri-Border Area, one of a series of designations over the past year aimed at cutting off the expatriate flow of finances to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
According to a recent report Hezbollah now has a website in Venezuela, which claims responsibility for the unsuccessful Oct. 23 attempt to set off explosives near the U.S. embassy in Caracas.
The website, "Hezbollah in Venezuela" said the purpose of the attack was to call attention to the existence of a group by the same name, and to convert Latin America to Islam through Jihad. It promised more violent actions in the near future.
There is no question that Hezbollah has used Latin America for fund raising and a rear-guard area. Reports have circulated for years of training camps in the jungle and other training. Hezbollha has carried out terrorist attacks in the hemisphere. And Chavez has gone out of his way to court Iran as part what he views as a broad-based anti-U.S. coalition.
The international Muslim Brotherhood, which has in the past worked with Hezbollah and Iran's leadership, has an extensive off-shore network in Latin America as well as strong financial interests in Venezuela, Colombia, Guyana and elsewhere.
So the militant presence is not a surprise. The conventional wisdom has been that, while dangerous, Hezbollah is not likely to foul its own nest by becoming militarily operational in Latin America because that would force governments that currently turn a blind eye to take action.
However, if Hezbollah becomes a more action-oriented, it would pose a significant challenge to the United States, especially if it manages to tie into the growing anti-U.S. mood that is sweeping Latin America, from Venezuela to Bolivia and Nicaragua. While Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay also have governments of the left, they act responsibly. Morales, Ortega and Chavez are wild cards, untethered from a sense of need to act responsibly in the international arena.
However, this would also pose a serious challenge to Chavez and others who may be flirting with allowing the operations of radical Islamist groups.
A religious group, if that is really what this is, would not be suseptible to Chavez's tactics of either intimidation or cooptation. If they are preparing to attack the U.S. Embassy without government sponsorship, the government will be forced to react, and will face the necessity of paying an international price for something it may not be prepared to pay for.
Interesting time, and time to start paying attention to Latin America again.
Today the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated nine individuals and supporting Hezbollah in the Tri-Border Area, one of a series of designations over the past year aimed at cutting off the expatriate flow of finances to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
According to a recent report Hezbollah now has a website in Venezuela, which claims responsibility for the unsuccessful Oct. 23 attempt to set off explosives near the U.S. embassy in Caracas.
The website, "Hezbollah in Venezuela" said the purpose of the attack was to call attention to the existence of a group by the same name, and to convert Latin America to Islam through Jihad. It promised more violent actions in the near future.
There is no question that Hezbollah has used Latin America for fund raising and a rear-guard area. Reports have circulated for years of training camps in the jungle and other training. Hezbollha has carried out terrorist attacks in the hemisphere. And Chavez has gone out of his way to court Iran as part what he views as a broad-based anti-U.S. coalition.
The international Muslim Brotherhood, which has in the past worked with Hezbollah and Iran's leadership, has an extensive off-shore network in Latin America as well as strong financial interests in Venezuela, Colombia, Guyana and elsewhere.
So the militant presence is not a surprise. The conventional wisdom has been that, while dangerous, Hezbollah is not likely to foul its own nest by becoming militarily operational in Latin America because that would force governments that currently turn a blind eye to take action.
However, if Hezbollah becomes a more action-oriented, it would pose a significant challenge to the United States, especially if it manages to tie into the growing anti-U.S. mood that is sweeping Latin America, from Venezuela to Bolivia and Nicaragua. While Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay also have governments of the left, they act responsibly. Morales, Ortega and Chavez are wild cards, untethered from a sense of need to act responsibly in the international arena.
However, this would also pose a serious challenge to Chavez and others who may be flirting with allowing the operations of radical Islamist groups.
A religious group, if that is really what this is, would not be suseptible to Chavez's tactics of either intimidation or cooptation. If they are preparing to attack the U.S. Embassy without government sponsorship, the government will be forced to react, and will face the necessity of paying an international price for something it may not be prepared to pay for.
Interesting time, and time to start paying attention to Latin America again.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday December 18, 2006
The Next War is Already Beginning
As the Bush administration struggles to find a way forward in Iraq, the next major conflict there is already underway by proxy armies determined to impose their own agenda in the ugly situation that is likely to get uglier soon.
The next war being fought is between Iran, through the Shi'ite, Iranian-backed militias and infiltrated Iraqi army, and Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab Sunni world, anxious now to protect fellow Sunni believers who make up the bulk of the internal Iraqi resistence. All of this will make the situation worse for U.S. forces on the ground and further restrict realistic U.S. policy options.
Both groups support terrorist networks that pose direct threats to the United States and the West. Both sides want the United States to be defeated and forced into a long-term retreat in the war on Islamist radicals. There is no good side here.
The London Daily Telegraph says Nawaf Obaid, a senior Saudi government security adviser-is publicly considering providing anti-US Sunni military leaders with funding, logistical support and even arms - as Iran already does for Shia militia in Iraq.
This fear of a Sunni slaughter in the wake of possible reconfiguration of U.S. forces there, was one of the main reasons vice president Cheney flew to Saudi Arabia last week. The problem for the United States is that Saudi Arabia has been unwilling to try to rein in the Sunni forces that are inflicting the most casualties on U.S. troops on the ground.
Yet allowing the Shi'ite militias to run rampant and perhaps eliminate the Sunni threat and its al Qaeda-linked allies, is equally unpalatable. The power center then flows directly to Iran, a nation bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, eliminating Israel and defeating the United States.
Iran is already sensing victory and becoming less and less shy about openly bragging about it.
"The kind of service that the Americans, with all their hatred, have done us — no superpower has ever done anything similar," Mohsen Rezai, secretary-general of the powerful Expediency Council that advises the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei, boasted on state television recently.
"America destroyed all our enemies in the region. It destroyed the Taliban. It destroyed Saddam Hussein… The Americans got so stuck in the soil of Iraq and Afghanistan that if they manage to drag themselves back to Washington in one piece, they should thank God. America presents us with an opportunity rather than a threat — not because it intended to, but because it miscalculated. They made many mistakes."
So there we have multiple rocks rubbing up against numerous hard spots. Our Sunni supposed allies in the rest of the world backing armed groups that are killing Americans and fighting Iran's radical Shi'ite regime that would like to be killing Americans.
The chances of ramping up U.S. force levels to have a real and sustainable impact on the conflict are negligable. Immediate withdrawal is not an option. Endless talk about creating a functioning democracy in Iraq is empty. The notion of dialogue with Iran and Syria-when neither has any stake in a secure and stable Iraq friendly to the United States, is a non-starter. And one way or another the bad guys seemed poised to strengthen their positions in the mid to long term.
I doubt the Baker-Hamilton Group can propose a workable solution to this. Perhaps it is time to start looking for the least bad option in this tragic mess.
The next war being fought is between Iran, through the Shi'ite, Iranian-backed militias and infiltrated Iraqi army, and Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab Sunni world, anxious now to protect fellow Sunni believers who make up the bulk of the internal Iraqi resistence. All of this will make the situation worse for U.S. forces on the ground and further restrict realistic U.S. policy options.
Both groups support terrorist networks that pose direct threats to the United States and the West. Both sides want the United States to be defeated and forced into a long-term retreat in the war on Islamist radicals. There is no good side here.
The London Daily Telegraph says Nawaf Obaid, a senior Saudi government security adviser-is publicly considering providing anti-US Sunni military leaders with funding, logistical support and even arms - as Iran already does for Shia militia in Iraq.
This fear of a Sunni slaughter in the wake of possible reconfiguration of U.S. forces there, was one of the main reasons vice president Cheney flew to Saudi Arabia last week. The problem for the United States is that Saudi Arabia has been unwilling to try to rein in the Sunni forces that are inflicting the most casualties on U.S. troops on the ground.
Yet allowing the Shi'ite militias to run rampant and perhaps eliminate the Sunni threat and its al Qaeda-linked allies, is equally unpalatable. The power center then flows directly to Iran, a nation bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, eliminating Israel and defeating the United States.
Iran is already sensing victory and becoming less and less shy about openly bragging about it.
"The kind of service that the Americans, with all their hatred, have done us — no superpower has ever done anything similar," Mohsen Rezai, secretary-general of the powerful Expediency Council that advises the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei, boasted on state television recently.
"America destroyed all our enemies in the region. It destroyed the Taliban. It destroyed Saddam Hussein… The Americans got so stuck in the soil of Iraq and Afghanistan that if they manage to drag themselves back to Washington in one piece, they should thank God. America presents us with an opportunity rather than a threat — not because it intended to, but because it miscalculated. They made many mistakes."
So there we have multiple rocks rubbing up against numerous hard spots. Our Sunni supposed allies in the rest of the world backing armed groups that are killing Americans and fighting Iran's radical Shi'ite regime that would like to be killing Americans.
The chances of ramping up U.S. force levels to have a real and sustainable impact on the conflict are negligable. Immediate withdrawal is not an option. Endless talk about creating a functioning democracy in Iraq is empty. The notion of dialogue with Iran and Syria-when neither has any stake in a secure and stable Iraq friendly to the United States, is a non-starter. And one way or another the bad guys seemed poised to strengthen their positions in the mid to long term.
I doubt the Baker-Hamilton Group can propose a workable solution to this. Perhaps it is time to start looking for the least bad option in this tragic mess.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday December 18, 2006
Some (Late) Realism on Somalia
Finally, rather than pretending Somalia is an unimportant side show in fighting Islamists in Africa, a senior official has actually acknowledged what is really happening.
Jendayi Frazer, the State Department's head of Africa, told reporters that al Qaeda is operating "with great comfort" in Somalia. In previous statements Frazer and others have advocated dialogue with the Islamist Council of Somali Islamic Courts and downplayed the al Qaeda presence there.
The CSIC is expanding its influence and the African Union have (again) proved incapable of timely action or anything close to a serious response. And, as in Sudan, Arab countries that could exercise influence in the region, have stood by silently, unwilling to tackle the bloodshed and violence. The only thing standing between a complete the CSIC and control of most of Somalia is the threat of a large military intervention by Ethiopia.
That, in turn, poses the threat of a broader war throughout the Horn of Africa. The recent U.N. Panel of Experts report on Somalia identified nine countries that are funneling weapons to the different sides in the nation (although the vast majority goes to the CSIC), all in violation of an international arms embargo. I know it is shocking that a U.N. arms embargo is not being respected. We have never seen that before!
Frazer has made it clear that the top U.S. priority is the apprehension of three al Qaeda members involved in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombing, who are believed to be in Somalia. It is also clear that the United States, its allies and the rest of Africa, have little concept of what to do about the creation of a radical Islamist enclave in a geographically-vital area.
Contrary to the UN calls for tighter control of weapons flows and strict enforcement of the arms embargo, the U.S. is pushing for a loosening of the embargo for the feeble government and a U.N. peace keeping force to protect it. Government ministers have defected en masse and the government, in reality, is more a figment of the international community's imagination that a real entity.
That, in reality, is not a policy. The weapons will flow, no matter what is formally done on the embargo. The UN peace keeping force could not possibly be deployed in time or with sufficient strength to be effective.
And with that, the CSIC has effectively won. They don't need to formally take over a non-functioning government. Public support is high for the reimposition of some sort of stability and the end to total lawlessness (shades of the Taliban in Afghanistan). Most Somalis also resent foreign intervention. The nominal government cannot exercise any real authority. And al Qaeda now has a haven in which they can operate in great comfort.
Jendayi Frazer, the State Department's head of Africa, told reporters that al Qaeda is operating "with great comfort" in Somalia. In previous statements Frazer and others have advocated dialogue with the Islamist Council of Somali Islamic Courts and downplayed the al Qaeda presence there.
The CSIC is expanding its influence and the African Union have (again) proved incapable of timely action or anything close to a serious response. And, as in Sudan, Arab countries that could exercise influence in the region, have stood by silently, unwilling to tackle the bloodshed and violence. The only thing standing between a complete the CSIC and control of most of Somalia is the threat of a large military intervention by Ethiopia.
That, in turn, poses the threat of a broader war throughout the Horn of Africa. The recent U.N. Panel of Experts report on Somalia identified nine countries that are funneling weapons to the different sides in the nation (although the vast majority goes to the CSIC), all in violation of an international arms embargo. I know it is shocking that a U.N. arms embargo is not being respected. We have never seen that before!
Frazer has made it clear that the top U.S. priority is the apprehension of three al Qaeda members involved in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombing, who are believed to be in Somalia. It is also clear that the United States, its allies and the rest of Africa, have little concept of what to do about the creation of a radical Islamist enclave in a geographically-vital area.
Contrary to the UN calls for tighter control of weapons flows and strict enforcement of the arms embargo, the U.S. is pushing for a loosening of the embargo for the feeble government and a U.N. peace keeping force to protect it. Government ministers have defected en masse and the government, in reality, is more a figment of the international community's imagination that a real entity.
That, in reality, is not a policy. The weapons will flow, no matter what is formally done on the embargo. The UN peace keeping force could not possibly be deployed in time or with sufficient strength to be effective.
And with that, the CSIC has effectively won. They don't need to formally take over a non-functioning government. Public support is high for the reimposition of some sort of stability and the end to total lawlessness (shades of the Taliban in Afghanistan). Most Somalis also resent foreign intervention. The nominal government cannot exercise any real authority. And al Qaeda now has a haven in which they can operate in great comfort.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH