What Were They Thinking?

By Bill West

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks President Bush could not have been clearer in stating what was supposed to be the firm American Government position concerning terrorists and terrorism supporters. He said you were either with America against terrorism or with the terrorists, and if you supported terrorism, you were America�s enemy. Within weeks of the 9/11 attacks, the United States invaded, conquered and occupied Afghanistan. We defeated the ruling Taliban who were very clearly supporters of the terrorist enemy al-Qaeda who had attacked us on 9/11. Very clearly, the Taliban had also become America�s enemy. Indeed, we sent our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen to kill, capture and conquer the Taliban. And they did.

Well before the invasion of Afghanistan, it had become very evident the Taliban was not much more than a group of backward-thinking Islamist thugs who had no interest in anything resembling modern democratic freedoms or even anything close to acceptable human rights within their heroin trade supported near-stone-aged country. Taliban entertainment amounted to flogging and executing women in the Kabul soccer stadium for offenses against society as severe as showing their ankles under their burquas. Those Taliban...what a crew. Arguably, beyond not killing OBL and all of his inner circle, not wasting every last one of the Taliban might have been the other mistake of our Afghan expedition, especially since remnants of the Taliban are now regaining strength in parts of the country and managing to kill some of our forces and our Afghan government allies. But, at least our valiant forces are still fighting and killing those Taliban thugs �over there�...

Why Bin Laden is Still At Large, and Why it Matters

By Douglas Farah

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 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 occasionally triumphalist rhetoric from political and military leaders, when they address the bin Laden issue at all.

John Brennan, 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. The full blog is here.

Main terrorist behind the Casablanca and Madrid bombings arrested

By Olivier Guitta

Indeed, as the weekly La Gazette du Maroc reported citing insiders Moroccan sources, Saad Hussaini was arrested in Syria and extradited to Morocco. As far as I know, Moroccan officials have not confirmed this scoop yet.

Hussaini is one of the leaders of the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group GICM and is most likely the brain behind the Casablanca attacks in 2003 which killed 45 and the Madrid bombings in 2004 which killed 192. Hussaini is considered by many as one of the GICM founders and its European leader. According to Spanish press, Morocco and Spain have been looking for him for more than three years.

Hussaini was arrested in Syria a few months ago at the border with Iraq and was just delivered to Moroccan authorities. His capture was possible thanks to the cooperation between different intelligence services and in particular American ones. In fact, American operatives tracked Hussaini down from Pakistan to Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia and finally Syria where he was arrested. Since Hussaini is known by Western services for his efficient recruiting skills, he was most probably trying to recruit new mujahidins for the Jihad in Iraq.

If all this is confirmed, this is a very big catch and that's why French, Spanish and Belgian authorities are going to be very keen to interview him.

Evan Kohlmann: Skeptical of Iraqi Official's Claims on Big Arrest and Jill Carroll Status

By Andrew Cochran

The Iraqi Interior Minister's claims today that Iraqi forces arrested a "high-ranking aide" to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and that U.S. journalist Jill Carroll is alive and he knows who kidnapped her, should be viewed with skepticism, according to Evan Kohlmann. He appeared on MSNBC to discuss the Jill Carroll claim and discussed the arrest with me. Evan's view is that the political pressure on the Iraqi government to prove its control of the security situation might move it to make claims of success in matters of importance to Americans, especially the Bush Administration and Congress.

A JIHAD WINDOW AT THE EMIRATES GATE?

By Walid Phares

Walid Phares

The controversy about the UAE-based company projected to take over operations in a number of US seaports, quickly �and unfortunately- dove into domestic politics. The issue was turned into trusting or not the will and the capacity of the Government, particularly the executive branch to �secure the nation against Terrorists.� And once the debate mutates into investigating the intentions of the policy makers �particularly the President and his assistants � regarding the prosecution of the War on Terror, most of the exchange diverts to �politics� instead of �policies.� The seaports management issue at this point is framed by some more like a Ports-Gate affair rather than a rational examination of a strategic security matter a la 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately the immediate politicization of national security, with its ramifications on the grounds of leadership credibility, of I-told-you-so, and of I-know-better, hurts the greater vision of the debate. Let�s try to address the UAE affair in a calm, fair and systematic analysis.

The 13th Anniversary of the 1993 WTC Bombing - NEVER FORGET

By Andrew Cochran

Today is the 13th anniversary of the bombing of the World Trade Center parking garage on February 26, 1993, in which 6 Americans died (7 including an unborn baby carried by one of the adult victims) and over 1,000 were injured. The Wikipedia has an excellent summary of the event and the terrorists involved. This BBC story from that day will give you an idea of the chaos at the WTC during and after the bombing. The mastermind of the bombing, Ramzi Yousef, was convicted in 1998 and will spend the rest of his life in prison. The spiritual leader of the Islamic Jihad-associated terrorists who conducted the bombing, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, was also convicted in connection with the bombings and is also serving a life sentence without parole. A small stone memorial in honor of the victims of the 1993 bombing was erected in the WTC and was destroyed in the 9/11/01 attacks (see picture below).

The 1993 WTC bombing should have been the wake-up call for America to pay attention to the growing worldwide web of Islamist terrorists. In June 1997, over four years before the 9/11/01 attacks, Steven Emerson was interviewed for "Middle East Forum," in which he predicted future attacks and stated, "All the major terror groups of a fundamentalist orientation have established deeply routed, well-organized cells and infrastructure here -- Hamas Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah, as well as the Algerian groups, Islamic Salvation Front and Armed Islamic Group." In February 1998, Steve testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, in which he discussed the network of radical Islamists then operating within the U.S., many of whom were prosecuted or deported after the 9/11 attacks.

The terrorists who conducted the attacks were still writing to their overseas allies years after the event, as reported by NBC News on March 1, 2005 and posted here last July by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross. At least 14 letters were written between the WTC bombers and a Spanish terror cell. Another letter was published in the Al-Quds newspaper, stating, "Osama Bin Laden is my hero of this generation."

We should never forget the hard lessons of the 1993 WTC bombing and the six victims:

* John DiGiovanni, Valley Stream, New York
* Robert Kirkpatrick, Suffern, New York
* Steve Knapp, Manhattan, New York City
* Monica Smith, Seaford, New York (and unborn baby)
* William Macko, Bayonne, New Jersey
* Wilfredo Mercado, Brooklyn, New York City

Picture of Memorial to 1993 WTC victims

Al-Qaida Claims Attack on Saudi Oil Refinery

By Evan Kohlmann

Al-Qaida's Committee in the Arabian Peninsula has issued an authenticated statement claiming responsibility for yesterday's failed suicide bombing attack on a major Saudi oil refinery in the eastern town of Buqayq on behalf of its "Brigade of Shaykh Usama Bin Laden."  According to the communique, "the mujahideen [from the brigade] managed to prepare two car bombs that were driven by martyrs inside the refinery.  These refineries facilitate the looting and stealing of Muslim petroleum... These heroes are from the cream of Saudi Muslim male youth.  Praise be to Allah, there are many more like them and they are all competing amongst themselves to become martyrs."

Click to view English translation of statement c/o Globalterroralert.com

See also - Al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia: 2002-2003

[UPDATE]: Al-Qaida has issued a second communique today describing the oil refinery attack in greater detail and naming the two suicide bombers as wanted militants Mohammed al-Ghaith and Abdullah al-Tuwaijri.

Poetic Justice in Ports

By Michael Kraft

There is poetic justice in the port flap.

The White House is welcoming a much needed breathing spell in the controversy over the contract for an Arab-owned maritime company to operate six major American ports.

The Dubai�owned DP World company announcement that it will delay part of the deal to buy out the British-owned company that now handles the port operations is like a life saver tossed to a man overboard in a stormy sea. It provides a new lease on life but not absolute safety.

Stripping away the rhetoric, so much of what the Administration has done in the name of strengthening security against terrorism has reflected a "just in case" mentality, otherwise known as C.Y.A.

Airport screeners have randomly searched little old ladies in wheel chairs, the White House ignores the court approval requirement procedures under the FISA laws to "expedite" wiretaps against terrorist suspects, and enemy combatant prisoners are being held for several years without access to lawyers. And there was the invasion of Iraq, just in case there were nuclear weapons that posed an imminent threat.

In the port contract approval for the Dubai firm, the Administration did not follow the cautious "just in case" pattern. It did not error on the side of super caution when approving an Arab-owned port operations company. So, aside from the politics, it should be no surprise that there is a rebellion by some Republican as well Democrat members of Congress and State governors, who came to expect �if not accept-- the �just in case� tactics in the War on Terrorism.

Most experts seem to agree that the chances are slim that port security would be undermined solely because of the ownership of the management company are slim. Stephen Flynn, a port security expert and former Coast Guard official, has said ownership is at the bottom of the list of the many concerns about problems in preventing shipping containers from being used to sneak in weapons of mass destruction or key components.

Thus, it is worth standing back and taking a much closer look at the deal with the Arab-owned company and the port operations. If nothing else, further examinations had hearings provide more attention to for the more pressing problems--lack of resources and priority for screening cargo containers at the point of origin as well as US ports. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment, materials and training would be needed to properly deal with the security shortfalls.

In the end, if DP World does not back out, the deal is likely to go through but with some additional "safeguards" imposed. It remains to be seen if a potential compromise between Congress and the White House will actually result in stronger barriers against those who would compromise our security�and the appropriations to pay for them.

The UAE?USA?Important Allies

By Dennis Lormel

Port security is an important issue that warrants ongoing consideration and concern. On the surface, hearing the news that a UAE company, Dubai Ports World, was purchasing the company operating six U.S. ports was cause for concern. However, when placed in context our port security will not be affected by the change of managing companies. When politicians get over their knee jerk reaction and the vetting process is thoroughly reviewed, the Dubai Ports World deal will likely be finalized. My colleague Daveed Gartenstein-Ross� post �The DP World Port Sale: Overblown Fears� is right on point in placing this matter in the proper context.

Since 9/11, the UAE has been a staunch and reliable ally of the U.S. We can point to a number of instances of UAE citizens being aligned to Al-Qaeda or other terrorist and anti-U.S. interests, as the media and some of my other blog colleagues have noted. However, we must take into account the fact that the UAE has taken significant steps to disavow terrorism.

When I was the Chief of the Terrorist Financing Operations Section (TFOS) at the FBI, we maintained direct dealings with the UAE concerning numerous issues. In particular, the UAE Central Bank provided considerable support and was consistently receptive and responsive to requests for information. As the Dubai Ports World story gained momentum, reports indicated that two 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE and bank accounts supporting 9/11 were maintained in the UAE. It should be noted that the UAE Central Bank provided important information concerning these accounts. In addition, they provided significant account information for other matters pursued by TFOS and companion agencies. In one instance, they facilitated the apprehension of an important TFOS subject. Actions such as this clearly demonstrate how important an ally the UAE is and the contribution they�ve made to our war on terrorism. While rightfully showing concern about port security, we should not be irresponsible in our rush to judgment. After all is said and done, the UAE is an important ally.

Terrorists Attack Saudi Oil Facility (updated)

By Andrew Cochran

LAST UPDATE AT 2:55 pm ET. One of the "nightmare scenarios" in the counterterrorism community almost happened, with an attempted terrorist attack on a major oil refinery in Abqaiq (a.k.a. Buqayq) in eastern Saudi Arabia today. This is the first known terrorist attack on an oil facility in the Kingdom, after previous attacks only on company offices (see Reuters chronology). Reuters and Al-Arabiya report that the attack failed, with Saudi security forces killing the attackers, who used 3 cars in a bombing attempt. The AP quotes the Al-Arabiya report a pipeline was damaged in the attack, but no explosion in the refinery and no oil cutoff. A late Reuters report says that two Saudi security officers were killed, and another report says 13 Saudi security officers were wounded in gunbattles before the cars exploded. MSNBC quotes Saudi security adviser Nawaf Obaid: �Three cars rammed the first of the three sets of gates protecting Abqaiq and when security shot at them all three cars exploded.� The "Middle East Online" news site reports, "Saudi oil minister Ali bin Ibrahim Al-Naimi has announced that Saudi security agencies and Saudi Aramco employees forestalled a terrorist attempt at approximately 3:10 pm. 'The incident resulted in a minor fire which was immediately extinguished, and resulted in no changes in the production levels of oil or gas in Saudi Arabia.'" Oil prices shot up and European stock markets dropped in fear on the initial news of the attack.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross wrote an article, "Al Qaeda's Oil Weapon," in the "Weekly Standard" last year, a longer version of his September 27 CT Blog post. As he wrote, Saudi security forces found forged documents that would have given terrorists access to key oil facilities, following a shootout in the seaport of Ad-Dammam. The article also shows al-Qaeda's evolution of thought to explicit calls to attack these oil facilities to economically cripple the West. On December 7, Daveed posted about Al Qaeda deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri's call for attacks on oil facilities in a video. "I call on the holy warriors to concentrate their campaigns on the stolen oil of the Muslims, most of the revenues of which go to the enemies of Islam." Daveed reminds me that the December 2004 tape by Osama Bin Laden includes this order (MEMRI translation): "Focus your operations on it [oil production], especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this [lack of oil] will cause them to die off [on their own]." An early attack by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq was of an oil terminal there, killing 3 Americans, but Evan Kohlmann tells me that he hasn't targeted oil facilities in his strategy.

Former CIA officer Robert Baer describes this site as "the most vulnerable point and most spectacular target in the Saudi oil system." The huge facility processes around two-thirds of Saudi Arabia's oil output and is the single largest oil processing facility in the world. Oil industry experts on impact of successful attack: "If this has an impact on exports and production, it would be close to one of the things the industry fears the most" - "To have this happen in the world's largest oil-producing nation is what's really got people frightened." Oil markets are already touchy over Nigerian militants' continued attacks on that country's energy sector, a topic of Doug Farah's posts here and here.

Steven Emerson: Mixed UAE Record on Terrorism, With Hamas Still Supported

By Andrew Cochran

Steven Emerson appeared on Rita Cosby's MSNBC program last night to discuss the UAE's record on terrorism and container security. You can see his appearance on the Investigative Project on Terrorism website (Windows Media). Here is the discussion on the UAE and terrorism:

RITA COSBY: Joining us now is terrorism expert, Steve Emerson. Steve, are they [the United Arab Emirates] an ally or not?

STEVEN EMERSON: Well, they are an ally of sorts. It depends who the "they" is. There are some members of the kingdom there- it's a federation- that are really close allies of the United States. Others aren't. So it's hard to say. I would not put them in the same category of an ally as a European nation would be. But they certainly have exhibited some pro-U.S. policies since 9/11. Though, I must point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE and also there were even Hamas couriers as late as last year that were sent to the West Bank or Gaza that came in with UAE cash. So there is still a problem of terrorist supporting operations.

COSBY: In fact, you mentioned two of the hijackers were from there. Eleven actually traveled through Dubai and about 125,000 dollars, that's about half of the money spent on the 9/11 attack, was wired from banks in Dubai. Separately, also, terrorism analyst Bob Newman called me right before the show and he found some testimony- this is during the 9/11 commission, Steve, I don't know if you have heard this- but apparently there was supposed to be a strike on Bin Laden in February 1999. It was averted because apparently there were members of the UAE royal family with Bin Laden at that point, showing some pretty strong ties with Bin Laden and at least the royal family of the UAE. What do you say, Steve?

EMERSON: Well, in fact, they were one of the three of the regimes to recognize the Taliban and as you correctly noted some of the princes there had friendly relations with Osama Bin Laden himself. Look, the question is whether they have changed since 9/11. Let's be fair. I have been looking at this for the last several days and I still don't have an opinion one way or another other than to say that it's not clear that they are one hundred percent an enemy or that they are so porous in terms of their security net that they are allowing terrorists to operate all the time. They have done some very pro-American things. On the other hand, there still is a problem in terms of their policies of allowing some Hamas networks to survive or to flourish, to allow themselves to be bank couriers, and they are not cracking down a hundred percent in terms of the money laundering that is suspected to go to Islamic militants.

Video of Anti-Denmark Protest in London

By Evan Kohlmann

The January 2006 republication of cartoons from Denmark lampooning the Prophet Mohammed has caused a growing wave of bitter anger and violence to spread throughout the Muslim world--and likewise among well-organized groups of extremists living in Western nations.  On February 3, a U.K.-based militant faction formerly known as "Al-Muhajiroun" ("The Emigrants") helped organize a raucous demonstration outside the Danish, Norwegian, and French embassies in central London.  Video excerpts from the demonstration are now available for download c/o the NEFA Foundation website (look at the top for the link to "Prophet Mohammed Cartoon Protest").

For more info: The NEFA Foundation

Al Qaeda Claimed Infiltration of Key UAE Agencies in 2002

By Andrew Cochran

Lorenzo Vidino, on travel and unable to post, sent me one of the DOD Harmony database documents released by the West Point CTC last week (and publicized for the first time anywhere here). It's a communication in May or June of 2002 from Al Qaeda to "Officials in the United Arab Emirates and especially the two emirates of Abu-Dhabi and Dubai," warning them to cease the detainment of "Mujahideen" for handing over to "suppressive organizations in their country." Al Qaeda warns the officials, "You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned." Al Qaeda also pokes at the perceived weaknesses in their intelligence and security operations and at American counterterrorism programs: "Also, we are confident that you are fully aware that your agencies will not get to the same high level of your American Lords. Furthermore, your intelligence will not be cleverer than theirs, and your censorship capabilities are not worth much against what they have reached. In spite of all this Allah has granted us success to get even with them and harm them. However, you are an easier target than them; your homeland is exposed to us." The communication ends with a demand that the UAE release its detainees or face its wrath.

We don't know whether Al Qaeda actually infiltrated the agencies as claimed. I haven't found any news story indicating the release by the UAE or the emirates of any detainee or the escape of any suspected terrorist prisoner held by them at any point since the date of the communication. EDIT: Here's a good U.S. News & World Report article on Dubai as "the region's criminal crossroads, a hub for smuggling, money laundering, and underground banking." Here is an AP story on the strategic importance of the UAE to the U.S. You can download the translated Al Qaeda communication below.

Download AlQaedaUAEInfiltrationHarmony.pdf

Weaknesses in CFIUS Review Process Reported to Congress Last Year

By Evan Kohlmann

The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee is meeting now receive a public briefing on the Executive Branch review of the DP World purchase of the six US ports (on C-SPAN). It looks like the Government Accountability Office hit the bulleye last year when reporting weaknesses in the process to the Senate Banking Committee, which has primary oversight jurisdiction over CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States), the interagency group which reviewed the purchase. You can read the report at the Senate Banking Committee website for that hearing. Here is the text of the Executive Summary of that report, which could serve as a guide for the rational discussion of this issue and future changes to the Exon-Florio Act, which mandated the review process used in this matter:

Several aspects of the process for implementing Exon-Florio could be enhanced thereby strengthening the law�s effectiveness. First, in light of differing views among Committee members about the scope of Exon-Florio�specifically, what defines a threat to national security, we have suggested that Congress should consider amending Exon-Florio to more clearly emphasize the factors that should be considered in determining potential harm to national security.

Second, to provide additional time for analyzing transactions when necessary, while avoiding the perceived negative connotation of investigation on foreign investment in the United States we have suggested that the Congress eliminate the distinction between the 30-day review and the 45-day investigation and make the entire 75-day period available for review.

Read More »

Third, the Committee�s current approach to provide additional time for analysis or to resolve concerns while avoiding the potential negative impacts of an investigation on foreign investment in the United Stated (sic) is to encourage companies to withdraw their notifications of proposed or completed acquisitions and refile them at a later date. Since 1997, companies involved in 18 acquisitions have been allowed to withdraw their notification to refile at a later time. The new filing is considered a new case and restarts the 30-day clock. While withdrawing and refiling provides additional time while minimizing the risk of chilling foreign investment, withdrawal may also heighten the risk to national security in transactions where there are concerns and the acquisition has been completed or is likely to be completed during the withdrawal period. We are therefore suggesting that the Congress consider requiring the Committee Chair to (1) establish interim protections where specific concerns have been raised, (2) specify time frames for refiling, and (3) establish a process for tracking any actions being taken during the withdrawal period.

Finally, to provide more transparency and facilitate congressional oversight, we are suggesting that the Congress may want to revisit the criterion for reporting circumstances surrounding cases to the Congress. Currently, the criterion is a presidential decision. However, there have only been two such decisions since 1997 and thus only two reports to Congress.