Tuesday December 19, 2006
Is Al Qaeda Signaling a New Attack?
The level of "chatter" by al Qaeda operatives is currently as high or higher than in the months prior to 9-11, and the question in many parts of the U.S. and European intelligence communities is not if al Qaeda will strike again, but when. Much of the thinking centers on the near-term. This is also reflected in current corporate security alerts being circulated among elite business establishments.
There are several factors that point to al Qaeda at least having a plan for an imminent attack. The first is the January appearance of Osama bin Laden himself after months of silence. The second is the repeated warnings and boasts from bin Laden, Zawahiri and on al Qaeda web sites of impending action.
Several analysts I have spoken with believe the leadership of the historic al Qaeda would not raise expectations of an attack, especially at a time of intense competition with Zarqawi's operation for the mantle of carrying out international jihad, without something important afoot. The risk of losing credibility is too high. Zawahiri is already viewed as the person carrying out action, while bin Laden and Zawahiri have been left in the roles of elder statesmen, respected but no longer operational in the field of battle.
One corporate risk analysis group reported something else of interest: A March 10 posting on al-Hesbah website, known for posting al Qaeda messages, carried a message from the Global Islamic Media Front. The message gives a final warning to the United States before carrying out what it said would be two devastating attacks. The second attack would not be launched until after Washington had time to respond to the first one, the message said.
While this is clearly propaganda, it is within the Islamic jihad tradition to give an enemy a chance to repent and convert before carrying out an attack, as the Prophet Mohammed did. Bin Laden did this before 9-11 as well, when few were paying attention.
Al Qaeda's MO has been to make each succeeding attack more powerful and destructive than the previous one. This has given rise to growing concern that al Qaeda has the wherewithall to carry out a chemical attack or dirty bomb attack. Much of the current al Qaeda threat seems aimed at economic infrastructure, realizing a crippling economic blow would make it more difficult for the United States to continue to support the "apostate" regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere.
The signs are there that al Qaeda is poised to try to strike. It is not clear they will be successful.
There are several factors that point to al Qaeda at least having a plan for an imminent attack. The first is the January appearance of Osama bin Laden himself after months of silence. The second is the repeated warnings and boasts from bin Laden, Zawahiri and on al Qaeda web sites of impending action.
Several analysts I have spoken with believe the leadership of the historic al Qaeda would not raise expectations of an attack, especially at a time of intense competition with Zarqawi's operation for the mantle of carrying out international jihad, without something important afoot. The risk of losing credibility is too high. Zawahiri is already viewed as the person carrying out action, while bin Laden and Zawahiri have been left in the roles of elder statesmen, respected but no longer operational in the field of battle.
One corporate risk analysis group reported something else of interest: A March 10 posting on al-Hesbah website, known for posting al Qaeda messages, carried a message from the Global Islamic Media Front. The message gives a final warning to the United States before carrying out what it said would be two devastating attacks. The second attack would not be launched until after Washington had time to respond to the first one, the message said.
While this is clearly propaganda, it is within the Islamic jihad tradition to give an enemy a chance to repent and convert before carrying out an attack, as the Prophet Mohammed did. Bin Laden did this before 9-11 as well, when few were paying attention.
Al Qaeda's MO has been to make each succeeding attack more powerful and destructive than the previous one. This has given rise to growing concern that al Qaeda has the wherewithall to carry out a chemical attack or dirty bomb attack. Much of the current al Qaeda threat seems aimed at economic infrastructure, realizing a crippling economic blow would make it more difficult for the United States to continue to support the "apostate" regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere.
The signs are there that al Qaeda is poised to try to strike. It is not clear they will be successful.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Tuesday December 19, 2006
Johnson-Sirleaf, Obasanjo Due in Washington-What About Taylor?
Liberia's new president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf and Nigerian president Obasanjo are both due in Washington the week of March 20. Already there is Congressional consternation over the fact that Johnson-Sirleaf has not lived up to her promise to request the extradition of Liberian former strongman Charles Taylor. Obasanjo maintains that he would had Taylor over to Liberia if Liberia's new government publicly requests such an action.
So far, Johnson-Sirleaf has not done so, citing possible instability in the wake of such a request. The counter-argument is that Liberia at this moment enjoys far more support and attention from the international community than it will in the forseeable future. This means Johnson Sirleaf is in a stronger position now, with thousands of UN peacekeepers deployed and money flowing in, than she will be in a month or six months, or a year.
The Bush administration has been largely mute on the issue, except to reiterate pro forma statements that Taylor must be brought to justice. However, the administration moved to reprogram several million dollars to support the Special Court for Sierra Leone, where Taylor is indicted and would stand trial. Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) and others made it publicly and strongly clear to the administration that the money must be spent as appropriated, not as the White House thought it should be spent, and seem to have won the battle.
There is now a growing bipartisan group in both houses of Congress who are moving toward conditioning millions of dollars in U.S. aid on Johnson-Sirleaf's making a request for Taylor's extradition. Without the aid, the new Liberian government will not survive. It is not clear yet if specific timetables will be laid out for Johnson-Sirleaf by Congressional leaders during her visit. What is clear is that there is an emerging consensus that Taylor's extradition is a precondition for ongoing U.S. aid.
If Johnson-Sirleaf were to ask for Taylor's extradition, it would test Obasanjo's promise at a time when he is facing great internal tension, rising threats from armed groups and religious violence. No time is a good time for any of this. But it is hard to see how waiting will improve the situaiton. Acting on Taylor would set a strong precedent for the rule of law in a region that is sorely lacking in such precedents.
So far, Johnson-Sirleaf has not done so, citing possible instability in the wake of such a request. The counter-argument is that Liberia at this moment enjoys far more support and attention from the international community than it will in the forseeable future. This means Johnson Sirleaf is in a stronger position now, with thousands of UN peacekeepers deployed and money flowing in, than she will be in a month or six months, or a year.
The Bush administration has been largely mute on the issue, except to reiterate pro forma statements that Taylor must be brought to justice. However, the administration moved to reprogram several million dollars to support the Special Court for Sierra Leone, where Taylor is indicted and would stand trial. Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) and others made it publicly and strongly clear to the administration that the money must be spent as appropriated, not as the White House thought it should be spent, and seem to have won the battle.
There is now a growing bipartisan group in both houses of Congress who are moving toward conditioning millions of dollars in U.S. aid on Johnson-Sirleaf's making a request for Taylor's extradition. Without the aid, the new Liberian government will not survive. It is not clear yet if specific timetables will be laid out for Johnson-Sirleaf by Congressional leaders during her visit. What is clear is that there is an emerging consensus that Taylor's extradition is a precondition for ongoing U.S. aid.
If Johnson-Sirleaf were to ask for Taylor's extradition, it would test Obasanjo's promise at a time when he is facing great internal tension, rising threats from armed groups and religious violence. No time is a good time for any of this. But it is hard to see how waiting will improve the situaiton. Acting on Taylor would set a strong precedent for the rule of law in a region that is sorely lacking in such precedents.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Wednesday December 13, 2006
UAE Moves (Hesitantly) on Bout
The United Arab Emirates has, in recent days, grounded all flights of Irbiss Air, one of Viktor Bout's flagship airlines that was banned by the United Nations but continued to fly unimpeded despite that minor inconvenience.
Sources on the ground in Sharjah confirm what the U.S. Embassy in the UAE recently transmitted to the State Department-that Irbiss, which continued to post flights on the Sharjah airport without even changing its name, was being shut down and its aircraft grounded. The UN action to designate Bout's companies and freeze his assets came last December, but had not be heeded by UAE. Of course, it had not been heeded by contractors working for the U.S. military either, who continued to hire Bout aircraft despite the fact such contracts are illegal.
The primary reason for the move against Irbiss, my sources said, was the UAE's embarssment of letting Bout continue to fly despite years of international requests to shut him down. Bout's close business relationship with the Taliban and his ferrying weapons to that despotic regime, which shared the weapons with al Qaeda, did not seem to bother the UAE leaders.
But Bout's flagrant violation of the UN sanctions, and the attention it has brought conflicted sharply with UAE's efforts to convince Congress and the American public that it was a reliable partner in fighting terrorism and could be trusted with managing U.S. ports. Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY) and others raised the issue of Bout in hearings last week, serving notice that the Bout issue could be seen as part of a larger picture of UAE's behavior.
What remains unclear is what the UAE's actions actually mean. Are the aircraft permantly confiscated? Will they be allowed to be reassigned to one of Bout's multiple other shell companies in Sharjah that continue to fly? Is the action real or symbolic?
It will take more than grounding some aircraft to significantly dent Bout's operations. But taking the most obvious first step and taking some aircraft at least sets a precedent for future enforcement.
Sources on the ground in Sharjah confirm what the U.S. Embassy in the UAE recently transmitted to the State Department-that Irbiss, which continued to post flights on the Sharjah airport without even changing its name, was being shut down and its aircraft grounded. The UN action to designate Bout's companies and freeze his assets came last December, but had not be heeded by UAE. Of course, it had not been heeded by contractors working for the U.S. military either, who continued to hire Bout aircraft despite the fact such contracts are illegal.
The primary reason for the move against Irbiss, my sources said, was the UAE's embarssment of letting Bout continue to fly despite years of international requests to shut him down. Bout's close business relationship with the Taliban and his ferrying weapons to that despotic regime, which shared the weapons with al Qaeda, did not seem to bother the UAE leaders.
But Bout's flagrant violation of the UN sanctions, and the attention it has brought conflicted sharply with UAE's efforts to convince Congress and the American public that it was a reliable partner in fighting terrorism and could be trusted with managing U.S. ports. Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY) and others raised the issue of Bout in hearings last week, serving notice that the Bout issue could be seen as part of a larger picture of UAE's behavior.
What remains unclear is what the UAE's actions actually mean. Are the aircraft permantly confiscated? Will they be allowed to be reassigned to one of Bout's multiple other shell companies in Sharjah that continue to fly? Is the action real or symbolic?
It will take more than grounding some aircraft to significantly dent Bout's operations. But taking the most obvious first step and taking some aircraft at least sets a precedent for future enforcement.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Tuesday December 19, 2006
Pessimism Grows on Afghanistan
It is unusual to have several high-level administration officials in the same week predict gloom and gloom on one of the major battle fronts in the war against al Qaeda and armed Islamic militants. But that is what has happened in recent days on Afghanistan.
President Bush's surprise visit to Kabul earlier this week did not blunt the impact of the unusual 1-2-3 punch this week delivered as he was en route. Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; John Negroponte; and the State Department all painted a bleak picture of what is happening in that country, something my sources both in Europe and Pakistan have been worried about-and warning about-for almost a year. And they warn it is likely to get much worse this year.
The causes are multiple: Resources siphoned off to Iraq; a growing opium trade providing massive revenue streams for regional warlords who owe no loyalty to the central government or the democratic process; a rejuvinated Taliban drawing strength from both Pashtuns in Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions and a renewed influx of Arab jihadist fighters and money; and a changing of the guard on the ground as NATO takes over for some of the U.S. Special Forces carrying out the brunt of the combat.
While it is a welcome sign of well-deserved concern that senior leaders are publicly acknowledging the problem, there seems to be little being done to actually try to turn the situation around. The new NATO force that will be replacing the Americans in some areas are likely to be less aggressive than the U.S. Special forces troops now on the ground, and no there is no visible shift of resources to try to salvage what should have been a clear-cut, long term victory.
At the Senate hearing, Maples painted a stark picture of Afghanistan, noting that Taliban and related violence had increase 20 percent in 2005. This includes a fourfold increase in suicide attacks and a doubling of the use of improvised explosive devices.
European analysts predict and evern larger surge this year, and warn that the cross-pollination of jihadist groups fighting in Iraq with those in Afghanistan has created a two-way exchange on tactics, operational devices and information on U.S. forces.
"Insurgents now represent a greater threat to the expansion of Afghan government authority than at any point since late 2001, and will be active this spring," Maples said in his written statement.
Negroponte said much the same thing, and the U.S. State Department, in its annual worldwide drug survey, said Afghanistan's huge drug industry had severely damaged efforts to rebuild the country's shattered economy, while threatening regional stability.
"Dangerous security conditions and corruption constrain government and international effort to combat the drug trade and provide alternative incomes," the report noted.
President Bush's surprise visit to Kabul earlier this week did not blunt the impact of the unusual 1-2-3 punch this week delivered as he was en route. Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; John Negroponte; and the State Department all painted a bleak picture of what is happening in that country, something my sources both in Europe and Pakistan have been worried about-and warning about-for almost a year. And they warn it is likely to get much worse this year.
The causes are multiple: Resources siphoned off to Iraq; a growing opium trade providing massive revenue streams for regional warlords who owe no loyalty to the central government or the democratic process; a rejuvinated Taliban drawing strength from both Pashtuns in Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions and a renewed influx of Arab jihadist fighters and money; and a changing of the guard on the ground as NATO takes over for some of the U.S. Special Forces carrying out the brunt of the combat.
While it is a welcome sign of well-deserved concern that senior leaders are publicly acknowledging the problem, there seems to be little being done to actually try to turn the situation around. The new NATO force that will be replacing the Americans in some areas are likely to be less aggressive than the U.S. Special forces troops now on the ground, and no there is no visible shift of resources to try to salvage what should have been a clear-cut, long term victory.
At the Senate hearing, Maples painted a stark picture of Afghanistan, noting that Taliban and related violence had increase 20 percent in 2005. This includes a fourfold increase in suicide attacks and a doubling of the use of improvised explosive devices.
European analysts predict and evern larger surge this year, and warn that the cross-pollination of jihadist groups fighting in Iraq with those in Afghanistan has created a two-way exchange on tactics, operational devices and information on U.S. forces.
"Insurgents now represent a greater threat to the expansion of Afghan government authority than at any point since late 2001, and will be active this spring," Maples said in his written statement.
Negroponte said much the same thing, and the U.S. State Department, in its annual worldwide drug survey, said Afghanistan's huge drug industry had severely damaged efforts to rebuild the country's shattered economy, while threatening regional stability.
"Dangerous security conditions and corruption constrain government and international effort to combat the drug trade and provide alternative incomes," the report noted.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Tuesday December 19, 2006
Why Bin Laden is Still at Large
The Washington Post's Outlook section this week provided an extremely worthwhile look at why Osama bin Laden is still at large, and why it is a big deal. Some of this has been covered in earlier blogs, but are worth repeating.
Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist explains here what others from the region and intelligence community have explained to me recently--the war in Afghanistan is in danger of being lost. Ethnic Pashtuns in Pakistan have radicalized in recent years, President Musharraf has not been willing or able to crackdown on the spreading Islamic radicalization efforts and force reductions and transitions are coming when they are needed most.
The result is that "Bin Laden's new friendship zone stretches nearly 2,000 miles along Pakistan's Pashtun belt -- from Chitral in the Northern Areas near the Chinese border, south through the troubled tribal agencies including Waziristan, down to Zhob on the Balochistan border, then to the provincial capital Quetta and southwest to the Iranian border. The region includes every landscape from desert to snow-capped mountains. Sparsely populated, it provides bin Laden an ideal sanctuary."
This is hardly in line with the occassionally triumphalist rhetoric from political and military leaders, when they address the bin Laden issue at all. Mostly, it seems, they would prefer to forget that bin Laden and Zawahiri are out there, taunting the United States, threatening and gleaning admiration around the Islamic world.
John Brenan, fromer CIA head of the National Counteterrorism Center, eloquently describes a fundamental problem with the current conception of the war: confusing combating the terrorist tactic with combating militant, Salafist Islam as it spreads through preaching, conversion and desperation.
"Terrorism, in bin Laden's strategy, is only a tactic, a means to achieve what he believes is a providentially ordained objective -- global domination by an Islamic caliphate. Yet dangerously, the United States is focusing on countering that tactic, missing the growth of the extremist Islamic forest as we flounder among the terrorist trees."
This should be a wake-up call to to the foundering efforts at public diplomacy and other non-lethal means of confronting spreading Salafism. The desire to publicly fund moderate Islam is the kiss of death to those groups, and we seem to have lost any and all ability to covertly aid groups that would be a counterweight to those who preach death and destruction.
Finally, Peter Bergen, whose excellent new book, "The Osama Bin Laden I know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader," helps explain who bin Laden really is, offers a look at where bin Laden may be and why his capture matters. He makes an interesting point on bin Laden's determination not to be taken alive, and whether killing him would be useful.
"As bin Laden himself put it to Jandal, if he were killed, "his blood would become a beacon that arouses the zeal and determination of his followers." The man who once enjoyed a quiet rural life in the mountains of Tora Bora aims in death to ascend into the pantheon of Islamic heroes -- a Saladin for the 21st century "martyred" by those he calls "the Crusaders."
Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist explains here what others from the region and intelligence community have explained to me recently--the war in Afghanistan is in danger of being lost. Ethnic Pashtuns in Pakistan have radicalized in recent years, President Musharraf has not been willing or able to crackdown on the spreading Islamic radicalization efforts and force reductions and transitions are coming when they are needed most.
The result is that "Bin Laden's new friendship zone stretches nearly 2,000 miles along Pakistan's Pashtun belt -- from Chitral in the Northern Areas near the Chinese border, south through the troubled tribal agencies including Waziristan, down to Zhob on the Balochistan border, then to the provincial capital Quetta and southwest to the Iranian border. The region includes every landscape from desert to snow-capped mountains. Sparsely populated, it provides bin Laden an ideal sanctuary."
This is hardly in line with the occassionally triumphalist rhetoric from political and military leaders, when they address the bin Laden issue at all. Mostly, it seems, they would prefer to forget that bin Laden and Zawahiri are out there, taunting the United States, threatening and gleaning admiration around the Islamic world.
John Brenan, fromer CIA head of the National Counteterrorism Center, eloquently describes a fundamental problem with the current conception of the war: confusing combating the terrorist tactic with combating militant, Salafist Islam as it spreads through preaching, conversion and desperation.
"Terrorism, in bin Laden's strategy, is only a tactic, a means to achieve what he believes is a providentially ordained objective -- global domination by an Islamic caliphate. Yet dangerously, the United States is focusing on countering that tactic, missing the growth of the extremist Islamic forest as we flounder among the terrorist trees."
This should be a wake-up call to to the foundering efforts at public diplomacy and other non-lethal means of confronting spreading Salafism. The desire to publicly fund moderate Islam is the kiss of death to those groups, and we seem to have lost any and all ability to covertly aid groups that would be a counterweight to those who preach death and destruction.
Finally, Peter Bergen, whose excellent new book, "The Osama Bin Laden I know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader," helps explain who bin Laden really is, offers a look at where bin Laden may be and why his capture matters. He makes an interesting point on bin Laden's determination not to be taken alive, and whether killing him would be useful.
"As bin Laden himself put it to Jandal, if he were killed, "his blood would become a beacon that arouses the zeal and determination of his followers." The man who once enjoyed a quiet rural life in the mountains of Tora Bora aims in death to ascend into the pantheon of Islamic heroes -- a Saladin for the 21st century "martyred" by those he calls "the Crusaders."
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH