Si vis pacem, para bellum
The Terrorist Threat Environment Today |
|
My last post asked readers several questions relating to the threat of jihadist terrorism.
As promised, I’d like to present my take on the current threat picture by answering the question I posed and elaborating further.
How do you breakdown the jihadist threat?
What was clear, from the Spiegel article I mentioned citing seven different experts, the mainstream media and government, is that there is little to no agreement on describing the jihadist threat. The phrase al-Qaeda is widely used, especially for jihadists, threats, disrupted plots and successful attacks that have little to no connection to al-Qaeda. Thus, I will breakdown the threat into the following categories.
National jihadist terrorism: Islamist groups focusing on the “near enemy” defined as local ‘apostate’ regimes such as Mubarak in Egypt, Assad in Syria or Zadari in Pakistan. Their primary goals are national, i.e. local. They may hate the West but their goal is regime change at home. Examples of these groups are Lebanese Hizbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, Egyptian Islamic Jihad etc.
Transnational jihadist terrorism (Global Jihad Movement or GJM): These groups and individuals focus on the “far enemy” which is the West. Their priorities are the United States, Israel, UK and others. They believe that the West would not allow an Islamic state anywhere (see: Algeria, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Iran) and thus even if local groups overthrew the regime in say Egypt, foreign powers would not allow an Islamist takeover. Their central argument is that the ummah is under direct attack by the West who wants to destroy Islam, and therefore a defensive jihad must be waged against the infidels. Al Qaeda is the largest example of such a group.
However, within the GJM there are three different types of terrorism. Firstly, core/remnant al-Qaeda (AQ). I say remnant because the U.S. destroyed much of the pre 9/11 AQ. AQ is centralized and hierarchical, classic command and control terrorism so to say. Second, you have affiliate groups (sometimes called franchises) which include AQ in Iraq, AQ in the Maghreb and others. They can have some or no direct links to AQ although they subscribe to the same ideology and have the same goals. Thirdly, you have leaderless terrorism which is carried out by individuals or small groups with no connections to terror groups. Richard Reid (the shoebomber) or the attackers in the Madrid subway bombings are examples.
Is al-Qaeda more dangerous today than it was before 9/11?
Using the definition I gave above, no. AQ has been severely damaged since 9/11, however there are indications that it is reconstituting itself in the tribal areas of Pakistan. At the moment, it is unclear whether they are regaining strength or not. I believe that AQ, as defined above, is not a major threat to the US homeland. The bigger threats are affiliate groups which carry out more frequent attacks and have better capabilities and leaderless terrorism. Affiliate groups are more prevalent in the Gap (see PNM theory), specifically North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. They pose little to no threat to the U.S. homeland. Leaderless terrorism is a bigger threat in Europe and poses a small threat in the U.S.
What type of threat is al-Qaeda and jihadist terrorism? A strategic threat? An annoyance?
Jihadist terrorism is a security threat but by far not a strategic one. Islamists won’t be overthrowing our government, taking over our territory or invading the United States. Past strategic threats were Germany, Japan and the USSR. In perspective, jihadists are small potatoes. John Kerry was correct that terrorism is, in the bigger picture, an annoyance.
Based on the answers to the previous three, are we winning the battle against jihadist terrorism?
I would first of all disagree with the concept of a war on terror. The jihadi threat is very diverse consisting of many groups with differing, at times opposing goals and many methods of terror. To roll them all into one is not only intellectually lazy, but dangerous as it severely limits our understanding and policy options for dealing with the different threats.
If any answer regarding “winning” can be given, I would say the West is indeed winning but has been slow to realize the importance of the war of ideas (especially the United States). Jihadist terrorism will not be elimiated, it will suffer defeats, setbacks and achieve occasional success but nevertheless fade away over time as it loses its appeal and legitimacy among its constituency and incurs long term international attack.
Selecting the Supreme Court Justices of the World |
|
Nations that divide the branches of government typically have a supreme court that makes final decisions on the constitutionality or suitability of the acts of the legislative and executive branches of government. However, the selection of the judges or justices on the supreme court is a delicate issue. Who should serve? Once appointed, should they serve permanently until they die or resign, have a mandatory retirement age, be subject to reappointment from time to time, or serve a fixed and non-renewable term? A number of nations approach this issue in different ways,
United States Supreme Court: Executive selection, Legislative Approval.
The President nominates justices, who must be approved by the Senate, the upper house of the legislative branch. The president unilaterally appoints the chief justice when the incumbent chief justice dies or resigns.
British Lord of Appeal in Ordinary: Constituted from only the Upper House.
The Lord of Appeal in Ordinary is constituted of members of the House of Lords. A new supreme court will be established shortly, following the 2005 constitutional reforms.
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany: Selection by the Legislative Branch.
Judges are elected by the Bundestag and the Bundesrat houses of the legislature. Each of these bodies selects four members of the two “Senates” that compose the court. The authority to select the Court’s President alternates between the two houses. The selection of a judge requires a two-third majority. As an interesting matter of fact, the Bundestag has delegated the voting task to a special judges election board, consisting of a small number of Bundestag members.
France Constitutional Council: Selection by the Executive and Legislative Branches.
The council is made up of nine members who serve non-renewable terms of 9years, one third of whom are appointed every 3years; three members each are appointed by the president of the Republic, the president of the National Assembly, and the president of the Senate. Former presidents of the Republic who have chosen to sit in the council (which they may not do if they become directly involved in politics). The president of the Council is selected by the president of the Republic.
Constitutional Court of Italy: Selection by All Three Branches.
The legislature, judiciary, and President each select one-third of the justices on a proportional basis. The justices select from amongst themselves a Court President, who serves a three year term and may be reelected.
Japan Supreme Court: Executive Selection, Public Dismissal Right.
Justices are selected by the Cabinet and authorized by the Emperor, and the Chief Justice is nominated by the Cabinet and selected by the Emperor, although in practice the Emperor has no authority in this matter. After selection, justices subject to a one-time approval process by the people at the next lower house election, and are dismissed if a majority of voters write an “x” by the justice’s name.
Korean Supreme Court: Executive Selection, Legislative Approval, Judicial Recommendation.
The Chief Justice is appointed by the President with the consent of the National Assembly and serves a non-renewable term of six years. The 13 other Justices are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Chief Justice and the consent of the National Assembly, and serve renewable terms of six years.
“Bullets that come from the Pakistani side do not come postmarked” |
|
Sujan Dutta, the Strategic Affairs Editor at The Telegraph, Calcutta, emailed ComingAnarchy with some updates about recent unrest in northern India. He says:
I am just back from a trip on the “Line of Control” in Kashmir—the Indian side. I went to investigate and write on ceasefire violations there. A ceasefire along that boundary has been in force since November 2003. But in the last three months there have been more than 30 violations.
Sujan wrote what he saw at the LOC in four articles for The Telegraph. Here are some choice quotes:
From Fine Line of Conflict, no less lethal:
Indian forward posts are being targeted from the Pakistani side with Islamabad maintaining a high degree of deniability. Indian troops are coming under fire from little groups of gunmen near — not in — Pakistani posts who are rarely seen in uniform. It is difficult to identify who the attackers are. Are they soldiers? Are they militants? Are they a mix of regulars and irregulars?
Gunfire rakes between India and Pakistan (not necessarily the Pakistan army) in a narrow sliver of territory between the anti-infiltration fence inside Indian territory and the crooked LoC along which Pakistani and Indian posts are often within handshaking distance.
From Livewire fence, cut under cover of fire:
“We know we were fired at from there. How can we say if it were the militants or the Pakistani rangers,” says F company’s commanding officer assistant commandant Narendra Kumar. “But we heard jihadi slogans.”
From Caught between ceasefire & line of fire:
“Our orders are clear,” says Major General Syed Ata Hasnain, the divisional commander in Baramulla. “We do not want the ceasefire to go up in smoke and we cannot allow militants to breach the Line of Control; we have to keep balancing our tasks.”
The Indian Army is also preparing for what its brass think will be the inevitable blowback of Pakistan’s war against the Taliban.
From When shells shattered silence of bell:
For three months at a time, soldiers of the Indian Army take turns manning Dutta, mud and stone bunkers, with no electricity and lashed by whipping winds. They are always in uniform. The Pakistanis are often more relaxed, slipping into tracksuits and informals, fearing not from India what India fears here from Pakistan.
Notice that Sujan stresses this is not “necessarily” military-on-military clashes. Although he uses the term “war” often in his articles, he does not accuse the Pakistani military of attacking the Indian army. The firing across the line presents a political problem for the Indian Army. Not knowing if the shots are coming from Pakistani military, they are reluctant to call the ceasefire agreement into question. In fact, not knowing the source of the shooting helps to maintain the semblance of peace the ceasefire agreement has given Kashmir these past four years.
Economist sums it up nicely |
|
The Economist sums up Russia’s recent “reemergence” and the “new Cold War” nicely:
“Russian forces are not modern. Some of their weapons date back to the 1960s and 1970s. But that does not mean they cannot kill you,” says Pavel Felgenhauer, a Russian defence writer for Novaya Gazeta, a newspaper. The Russians may not be a match for even a medium-sized Western army, say experts, but they are good enough to scare the poor, post-Soviet states in the “near abroad”.In the words of a senior American official, “the war in Georgia does not show the Russians have greater military capability, but it demonstrates a greater willingness to use force.” NATO will have to reassess its assumptions about Russia, albeit cautiously to “avoid creating a self-fulfilling prophecy”, as the official puts it.
The main threats to the West now are Russia’s manipulation of oil and gas exports, its diplomatic spoiling tactics, and its dalliances with Iran, Syria and Venezuela. The danger of a direct attack by Russia is remote. But the indirect threat of its more advanced weapons being sold to such potential Western foes is a growing worry.
It’s about time someone wrote a more balanced and informed piece which doesn’t rely on Cold War cliches
A Clear Threat Picture of Terrorism |
|
Now that the seven year anniversary of 9/11 is behind us and readers have seen the many commentaries by leading counterterrorism experts, bloggers and journalists, it is time to ask whether after seven years we have a clear understanding and picture of the threat that faces us. The Spiegel, a German magazine, has a good article with short assessments by seven leading thinkers on whether al-Qaeda is still a threat and how the War on Terror is going. I highly recommend reading it here. With experts from the Israel, Singapore, Germany, Jordan, Sweden and the UK, it is clear that even leading thinkers cannot even agree on the same language and terminology much less whether al-Qaeda is still a threat and whether command and control terrorism or leaderless terrorism represents a bigger danger.
So, I now ask readers to offer their assessment of the following:
1) How do you breakdown the jihadist threat? Al-Qaeda is only one group. There are many regional groups, lone wolves et cetera. List the different types of Islamist threat with a brief description of each.
2) Is al-Qaeda more dangerous today than it was before 9/11?
3) What type of threat is al-Qaeda and jihadist terrorism? A strategic threat? An annoyance?
4) Based on the answers to the previous three, are we winning the battle against jihadist terrorism?
My answers will be posted in the next day or two.
Trying to Distinguish Satire from Reality |
|
ComingAnarchy is a foreign affairs blog and we tend to hold back on domestic US partisan politics, but I’m compelled to make an exception in this case.
First, an Obama TV ad:
Then, an Onion news report:
Obama Promises To Stop America’s Shitty Jobs From Going Overseas
Baddest of Bad Luck |
|
From a friend: “The landlord of Lehman’s London office said the rent payments were insured by A.I.G.”
I’ll now leave this post as an open thread for those CA readers to comment about the current collapse of some of America’s largest private sector institutions.
My reach is long indeed! |
|
Anyone doubting the Viceroy’s military, political, economic, business, and yes, even religious contacts in the Far East should read the story at MutantFrog about how, through pure chance, Roy Berman ended up living in a dormitory with a landlord who I’ve know for a good twelve years.
Last month, I took a trip to the monk’s mountain hermitage on Mt. Hiei for tea and chats on world affairs. He mentioned in passing that he had purchased, partially for charity and partially for income, a dormitory that housed foreign university students. He said that most of his tenants were Chinese, but recently an American with the surname “Baa”-something had moved in. When I asked if this was Roy Berman he said yes, and explained that we were longstanding acquaintances.
Two weeks later, Roy found the following note at his doorstep:
Mr. Roy BermanIt is my very pleasure and astonishment that you and [Lord Curzon] my acquaintance should be good friends from the same province. As you know, he stays in Tokyo now, and orders me to serve you as possible!
Koutai
A groveling Buddhist oriental monk submitting to orders from a hoity-toity Victorian—you couldn’t get more Victorian in the 21st century if you tried.
Where Kinetic Ops Cant Compete |
|
While I and other commentators have welcomed increased US strikes into the ungoverned Pakistani tribal areas, a recent article brings to light part of the complexities of our more aggressive strategy. There have been five strikes within the last twelve days and while it seems some did eliminate both foreign fighters and Taliban members, no high-value-targets have been liquidated. However,
The reputed target of Monday’s attack, veteran Taliban commander Jalaluddin Haqqani, was not among those killed, and the devastation left on the ground seems only to have strengthened the Taliban’s influence on local civilians. “After about an hour, the Taliban turned up,” said Khan, who helped in the rescue work at Dande Darpa Khel. “They ringed a building and erected a tent (to treat casualties) nearby,” the 35-year-old said. “Then they recovered more bodies and wounded who were sent to hospital.”
This brings home one of the most difficult parts of organizations like these (Terrorist, criminal, etc.) to overcome, their social operations. Hamas and Hezbollah both engage in extensive social welfare programs and other community services. While the U.S., Israel or ISAF can eliminate terrorists when sighted, their respective groups are the ones on the ground picking up the pieces, tending to the wounded and/or dead and organizing locals.
The administration seems to have reached the conclusion that there is no way to alter the loyalties of those in the FATA and that despite further antagonizing them and possibly increasing local support for the Taliban (is this possible?), a more aggressive policy of UAV strikes and special forces operations is the only way forward. As some have noted, Pakistan cannot claim to be sovereign while at the same time ceding national sovereignty to locals and claiming it has no control over the area. Where this takes us remains to be seen, but it is indeed a welcome change to a strategy that yielded no results. However, it would do well to read the article closely and to step up efforts in Afghanistan to mitigate ill will after missile strikes and other operations in more ways than simply paying off locals.
London from above, at night |
|
Wonderful pictures well worth viewing.
