November 2008 Archives

International support to India and Pakistan against Jihadi terror

By Walid Phares

As Governments and private sector analysts are now decrypting the secrets of the Mumbai Jihadi operation and as diplomats are hurrying to head off a crisis between the two Asian nuclear powers, the counter terrorism community within Democracies is focusing on studying the effects of the latest "Urban Jihad" not only on India, but also inside Pakistan, across the region and throughout the free world. In this regard, I am sharing here at the CTB an interview I had with Venkatesan Vembu of the Daily News and Analysis of India. Also I am including in this post a number of TV interviews I had on Fox News over the past few days. The following were short segments on Fox News over the past few days

On Fox News: "Mumbai strike a preemptive move by the Jihadists to trigger an India-Pakistan crisis to ease the pressure on the Taliban - Nov 29, 2008, 18:10

On Fox News with Gregg Jarrett: "Laskar e Taiba was also training in Virginia!" - Nov 27, 2008, 11:23

On Fox News: "Mumbai's operation is a military terrorist operation building for an Urban Jihad" - Nov 26, 2008, 22:58

On Hannity and Colmes on Fox News: "Laskar e Taiba Jihadi terror group has operated in the United States as well" - Nov 26, 2008, 21:15

I was also inteviewed by Sarah Bell of CVC Radio on November 27.

Interview with Venkatesan Vembu of the Daily News and Analysis of India on Saturday, November 29, 2008 below:

In his 2005 book Future Jihad, Walid Phares, a leading commentator on global terrorism, portrayed a grim Urban Jihad scenario, like the virtual terrorist takeover of Mumbai earlier this week. In an interview to Venkatesan Vembu, the Director of Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation of the Defence of Democracies, and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad, speaks on the dangers of jihadism, and outlines strategies for winning the war against it.

Who do you think carried out the Mumbai attack?

This attack is part of an ongoing struggle between jihadis and the Indian state: in October, Indian security forces arrested several Indian Mujahideen members. Those arrests were a response to attacks in other cities. So, it’s part of a chain.

Do you see the signature of the Al-Qaeda?

Al-Qaeda is the centre of a web; these organisations are learning from its multidimensional operations. The Al-Qaeda is sitting among the Taliban. In Pakistan, the Taliban and the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed are interlinked. We’re dealing with a force, stretching from Afghanistan to India. In India, jihadis are applying the Al-Qaeda model, even if they are not a part of it.

What was the motive for the Mumbai attack?

At one level, to instill shock and awe worldwide, much like the 9/11 attacks. On the regional level, there may be another motive. Jihadis in Pakistan have been under pressure, especially under the new President (Asif Zardari), because of the ongoing military operations in Waziristan. The jihadis’ strategic objective was to break down the rapprochement between India and Pakistan. If that happens, Pakistan will be forced to pull back units operating against the Taliban and move them to the border with India.
That would ease pressure on the Taliban. Indian citizens are seething with rage, sensing a Pakistani link to the attack. How should India respond to Pakistan’s inability or unwillingness to go after jihadis?
This matter has to be internationalized: if we leave it to India and Pakistan, then anger will take over. The US, Europe and Russia should convene a meeting against the jihadi challenge.

Second, the Pakistan government must send out a strong signal that it will combat terrorism. Perhaps the Pakistan prime minister should visit Mumbai and declare from there that both countries are united in the fight against terrorism. Third, inside Pakistan, terrorist organizations must be given a strong message that ‘any attack on India is an attack on us’.

Why should not India launch aerial strikes on terrorist hideouts in Pakistan, just as the US does when its troops in Afghanistan are attacked?

Such aerial attacks won't solve the problem. What we need is an international framework for ground-level attacks. Pakistanis must feel they are a part of an international and regional consortium. Once they're in, you can launch activities and say, ‘The Pakistanis are part of it’. Even if in reality they may not be. The Pakistan intelligence service is penetrated by jihadis, and the Pakistani government doesn’t know how deeply it’s been infiltrated. The Obama transition team seems keen to bring pressure on India to address the Kashmir issue. When Obama is in the White House, he will have to look at the realities. The problem is not Kashmir, but the jihadis in Kashmir.

What is the objective of jihadis?

First, to establish a Taliban-like regime — characterized by suppression of minorities and women — in all Muslim countries or regions. After that, they want to crumble 21 Arab countries, 52 Muslim states and recreate a ‘Caliphate’ that will go against human rights, including the rights of Muslims. And then there is the use of weapons of mass destruction. In jihadi ideology, there is no such thing as ‘balance of terror’ or ‘mutually assured destruction’ — because in the view of a suicide bomber, life is not ‘here’, it’s on the ‘other side’…

How can the war against future jihad be won?

We need an international coalition against jihadis that would go across ideology, regions and cultures. India has not supported the campaign in Iraq, and is not present in Afghanistan, and yet it is targeted by jihadis. It’s the same with Russia, countries in Europe, and the Arab world. Mumbai should be the moral and psychological 9/11 of the world. What has happened in that city will and can happen in all cities. Even if all jihadis in the Mumbai attack have been captured or killed, that model is now a living model. You have to have international action in the same way Nazism and Fascism were fought. You must have an international charter against the radicalisation of young minds.

« Close It

Mumbai 2008

Mumbai Terror Attacks: "Agencies Yet to Learn Hard Lessons'

By Animesh Roul

Originaly Published as 'Agencies yet to learn hard lessons' in Sunday MiD Day, Mumbai, 30-11-2008

FOR almost over sixty hours, Mumbai, the financial capital of India, witnessed a series of terrorist attacks, multiple hostage crisis, mindless killings, fierce gun battles and at the end, a disrupted life. The terrorists have struck major targets including luxury hotels and a Jewish Center frequented by Westerners and elite Indian only to be holed up later inside these buildings with innocent civilians as hostage. Their demand was the safe release of Mujahideen held in Indian prisons. Prior to this, they also have targeted at least seven more places and went on a killing spree on that fateful Wednesday evening.

An unknown outfit, Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility for the attacks. However, for quite some time now, this name-game has been a part of Pakistan based terror groups' desperate attempt to give a homegrown Indian flavor to this ongoing Jihadi-terrorism in the region. Of course a collusive local hand is quite possible in this sort of terror operations, primarily for logistical support. Looking at the whole incident, it is beyond doubt that these highly trained terrorists have undergone specialised terror training at various camps located somewhere in Pakistan administered Kashmir or Karachi.

As evidences are forthcoming following the arrests of some Pakistani nationals including one Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab who was apprehended from the besieged Taj Mahal hotel, the needle of suspicion pointed strongly at the Pakistan-based and Kashmir-centric Islamist group, Lashkar-e-Toiba (Army of the Pure). Even though this LeT denied any hand in this carnage, its footprints are quite evident.

It doesn't take any great wisdom to believe that Pakistan based and Kashmir centric terror tanzeems are behind most of the terrorist acts perpetrated on Indian soil. Among them, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad and Harkat-ul-Jihad Islami have been leading from the front in the so called Islamic Jihad against India. With strong Saudi Wahabi link and proximity to the notorious ISI, LeT's activities are not always clandestine in Pakistan. It operates openly with its so called political wing Jamat- ud- Dawa, nurturing dreams for a 'God's government' on the lines of Sharia laws in Pakistan and elsewhere. It preaches Armed Jihad as shortest route to reach god and heaven. LeT is the one which has introduced such type of Fidayeen missions in Jammu and Kashmir and intermittently striking India's heartlands with its tactics of indiscriminate shooting and grenade attacks.

Mumbai is always vulnerable to terrorism and gang violence for its business potential and porous sea coasts. We have experienced number of terrorist attacks in the past including 1993 serial blasts and 2006 serial train blasts. The latest events stand out as the most severe terrorist act. Meanwhile, the death toll in latest Mumbai mayhem has reached 195 including 22 foreign nationals and 15 security forces at the end of the prolonged and biggest terror fight the country has ever seen. While nearly 300 of them sustained physical injuries, millions of them get scarred for life.

There is obviously a growing concern that terrorists have uniquely used all possible types of terror tactics in Mumbai, ranging from hostage taking, driving explosive laden cars, using sea routes, indiscriminately shooting at civilians and using grenades to maximise the damage.

The Mumbai attacks didn't involve suicide bombers, but motivated Fidayeens (death squads), as propagated by Lashkar-e-Toiba which supports the later terror tactics as Islamic. According to JuD/Lashkar-e-Toiba's spokesperson, Abdullah Muntazir, who denied any involvement in Mumbai attacks, said on earlier occasions that a Fidayeen must complete their mission even in the worst circumstances. Quite plausibly Muntazir's definition, who is desperately trying to salvage JuD's public image, matches the recent operations in Mumbai.

Arguably, there has been a massive intelligence failure as Indian security agencies were caught napping again when metropolises like Mumbai, Bangalore and Delhi, country's political and financial centres have always been an obvious target for terrorists who want to cripple the country from all possible fronts. Just after the 9/11 event in the US, Indian intelligence agencies received reports about an ongoing marine training of LeT operatives to infiltrate India's porous sea borders. Again couple of years ago, Indian Coast Guards apprehended Lashkar's seaborne terrorists, off the Mumbai coast. But Indian agencies have never learned the hard lessons. The irony is both Intelligence and security agencies only claim to have uncovered plots and neutralised terror sleeper cells, but never reached to the roots perhaps due to lack of political willingness or technological backwardness.

Always under severe criticism for a weak-kneed response to situations like Mumbai and inept handling of investigations, for the first time, India did not negotiate with terrorists and went on hot pursuit.

At this hour of national crisis, many fear that it could escalate into an Indo-Pakistani crisis as blame game has already begun at the highest level. However, the Islamabad administration has quickly stepped up damage control exercise by promising support in the investigations.

And now the battle is over, the investigating agencies would piece things together to get a clear picture of what had happened and how to fight this menace again in future. One thing is for sure that to outsmart terror groups, like LeT, it has to resort to proper investigations backed by human and technical intelligence rather than only rhetoric, false claims and complacency.

Mumbai 2008

Mumbai Whodunnit: Names vs. Networks

By Aaron Mannes

Following the tenets of Journalism 101, the first question about the Mumbai attacks was “who?” Most of the speculation has focused on Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), although their spokesperson and the spokesperson of their political wing (reported by CTBlog’s Evan Kohlmann) have both denied their organization’s involvement. The reality is that the structures supporting this attack go beyond specific organizations.

In a prescient article, “The Supporting Structures of Pakistan’s Proxy War in Jammu & Kashmir,” in the June 2001 issue of Strategic Analysis (a journal of India’s Institute for Defence Studies & Analysis - the article is not a available online) the author, Ajay Darshan Behra argues:

The supporting structures for the proxy war in J&K are much more complex and go beyond Pakistan's unstated policies or strategic objectives. Some of these structures have developed their own dynamics… Since the end of the Cold War, these structures have embedded themselves deeply in the political economy of the region. The Pakistani state does not control them but merely exercises influence over them and is able to exploit them to serve its own strategic designs. It is due to the advantages accruing from these structures that Pakistan has been able to engage India militarily for more than a decade through a proxy war, with little cost to itself. Thus, there may be a grain of truth in Gen Musharraf's statement that the Pakistan Army is unable to stop militants from crossing the LOC. The Pakistani ruling elites are not in complete control of the supporting structures for terrorism, which they have been using for their proxy war in J&K. Because of the above factors, jehad and terrorism in J&K are likely to continue even if the Pakistani ruling elites give assurances about the withdrawal of their support.

The primary factors identified are: the extensive illicit arms trade within Pakistan which ensures that there is an endless supply of weapons, the uncontrollable sources of funding - particularly narcotics trafficking and donations both from within Pakistan and from around the world, and the tens of thousands of radical madrassas that indoctrinate Pakistani youth into radical Islam from Pakistan’s bottomless well of unemployed. The author does not discuss some other related factors, such as the complex geography (particularly the mountainous terrain), which makes controlling substantial parts of the country and particularly the Line of Control (LOC) in Kashmir a daunting problem.

Read the complete post.

Mumbai 2008

Dawood Ibrahim's Name Again Surfaces With Latest Mumbai Terrorist Attack

By Victor Comras

It’s much too early to identify the group or groups involved in the Mumbai terrorist attack or to place blame for what has occurred. Identification will come with the expert police investigation and intelligence gathering now underway. But, at this stage we are all just involved in a process of speculation - drawing on past experience with terrorist modis operandi to explain what occurred and exploring the various various possibilities and theories. Among the possible culprits being considered are several Pakistan based Islamic extremist organizations such as Lashkar-e-Tayyiba; Al Qaeda-linked or wannabe groups, and India home grown terrorist groups. One thing appears clear - the attack was well planned and organized, and that requires reliance on a sophisticated network for recruitment, logistics, training and financing. Some Indian terrorist experts suggest that Dawood Ibrahim may well be linked to organizing and financing this attack just as he did for the 1993 Mumbai stock exchange terrorist bombings.

Dawood Ibrahim (birthname Sheikh Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar), for years headed the D-Company which ran a substantial hawala operation out of Mumbai, Karachi and Dubai. He reportedly moved easily between various Islamic extremist groups and Indian crime syndicates, and is believed to have acted as an Al Qaeda surrogate for several financial transactions and arms and drug smuggling deals. He was designated by the US Treasury Department as a global terrorist in October 2003, and listed as an Al Qaeda associate by the UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee on November 3, 2003. According to the Treasury Department “Dawood Ibrahim, an Indian crime lord, has found common cause with Al Qaida, sharing his smuggling routes with the terror syndicate and funding attacks by Islamic extremists aimed at destabilizing the Indian government. He is wanted in India for the 1993 Bombay Exchange bombings and is known to have financed the activities of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (Army of the Righteous), a group designated by the United States in October 2001 and banned by the Pakistani Government…” See also Treasury Fact Sheet on Dawood Ibrahim here

Ibrahim's current whereabouts is unknown. He is believed by some to have been given safehaven in Pakistan, perhaps in the Frontier Territories, although there have been some reports of his having been arrested by Pakistan authorities several years ago. Pakistan denies these reports and maintains that he has not been given any safehaven anywhere in Pakistan.

You can find more information about Dawood Ibrahim in articles posted last year by my colleagues Aaron Mannes and Doug Farah.

Mumbai 2008

Jamat-ud-Dawa (LET Political Wing) on Mumbai Attacks: "Not a Legitimate Tactic"

By Evan Kohlmann

In the aftermath of this week's terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Indian government officials and media outlets have already begun pointing a finger at Islamic militants in neighboring Pakistan -- particularly an organization known as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET). The LET has been designated by the U.S. government as a proscribed foreign terrorist organization -- along with its accused political wing, Jamat-ud-Dawa (JUD).

Earlier this evening, I spoke via telephone with the official representative of JUD, Abdullah Muntazir, to discuss the situation in Mumbai and mounting allegations of involvement by LET and/or Pakistani Islamists. Muntazir strongly denied these charges, referring to the attacks as an "internal problem" for India. He repeatedly insisted to me, "we have nothing to do with it", and blamed Indian "propaganda" for "divert[ing] the attention of the public media" --- which he described as "their usual practice." Interestingly, during our conversation, Muntazir went even further and actually condemned the events that have taken place in Mumbai as needless "carnage": "Islam does not permit killing civilian people." He added, "I don't think that this is a legitimate tactic."

Mumbai 2008

Mayhem in Mumbai: India Reels Under Another Terror Attack

By Frank Hyland & Animesh Roul

This column is another in the ongoing series on the terrorist threat to India and the surrounding region by Frank Hyland and Animesh Roul.

Almost a day after Mumbai was struck by multiple terrorist attacks, a warlike situation still prevails on the ground, as security forces continue evacuating hostages. The Ministry of Home Affairs has confirmed 125 deaths and 327 injuries in the country's biggest and now the longest-ever terror seige. At least 14 police personnel are known have been killed in the attacks, including, reportedly, two of the nation’s highest ranking anti-terror policemen. The dead also included six foreigners. Five suspected terrorists have been captured thus far; five others were killed, while three reportedly have escaped. The terrorists, who came probably from Pakistan via the sea route, dodging the coast guard, and struck targets such as the Leopold Cafe, Hotel Oberoi and Taj International, Colaba Wadi, the BMC office, Cama Hospital, GT Hospital, Nariman House, Vidhan Bhavan. Hundreds of people were held hostage in the Taj hotel, the Trident hotel and Nariman house. Hundreds of those hostages were evacuated from the Hotels and from the Nariman house, a Jewish Center run by Chabad Lubavitch group. At the Trident Oberoi, security forces had evacuated 60 hostages and some 400 stranded guests as of Thursday evening. Terrorists holed up inside the Taj hotel with hostages demanded earlier in the day the release of all terrorists (Mujahedeen) held in Indian prisons. One of those was identified as a member of Deccan Mujahedeen group, which was born out of a desperate attempt to give more of a homegrown Indian flavor to this ongoing Jihadi-type terrorism.

Deadly Cargo:

Sometime ago, proposals from Pakistan were put forth to make Mumbai and Karachi sister cities for their shared common features and geographical proximity. There was also a plan for regular ferry service between the two cities. The idea, perhaps born out of good intentions, turned out to be the route used by Pakistan-based terrorists who used the sea routes to reach the Mumbai coast on November 26th, then wreaking havoc.

As pointed out earlier, the latest Mumbai terror events have been perpetrated by the Lashkar e Toiba-affiliated (LeT) Kashmir-centric Islamist group. Some accounts point the finger at Al-Qa’ida as instigators and supporter. Even though the Pakistan-based militant group denied any hand in the Mumbai Mayhem, its footprints are quite evident. One Abdullah Gaznavai, LeT chief spokesman denied any involvement or association with these attacks. At least 10 of the terrorists affiliated with the Lashkar-e-Toiba and reached south Mumbai had arrived in inflatable speed boats, landing near Sasson Dock, very near to the Taj Continental Hotel. Two Pakistani ships -- MV Al Kabir and MV Alpaha -- are suspected to have transported terrorists, playing the role of 'Mother Ship', and have been detained after a joint operation by the Border Security Force and Navy Coast guards.

Intelligence Failure, Again!

The Mumbai attacks were a well-planned and coordinated series of terrorist attacks, as AK47-wielding terrorists with grenades in their backpacks targeted a number of high-profile locations frequented by Westerners and wealthy Indians. It appears to have been a massive intelligence failure as Indian security agencies were caught napping, this despite reports that Indian Authorities had been aware for some time of rumors of an impending attack, including even mention of the Taj Mahal Hotel. Interrogation of at least one perpetrator reportedly confirmed to Indian Authorities suspicions of the Pakistan-related origin of the plot. Despite the repeated failure of the Intelligence the administration’s public response thus far appears to be curiously complacent. The Country's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Intelligence officials pointed fingers very cautiously at an 'outside force', an obvious reference to Pakistan-centric terrorist groups. Manmohan Singh promised tough measures to take on the terrorists, including that of setting up a federal investigating agency.

Click on image below for map of attacks

New Al-Qaida Video from Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri -- No Mention of Mumbai (DEVELOPING)

By Evan Kohlmann

Late this afternoon, Al-Qaida's official As-Sahab Media Wing released a new Q&A-style video interview with Al-Qaida Deputy Commander Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri titled "Al-Azhar: The Lion's Den." There does not appear to be any reference to Mumbai, India, or even the Kashmiri conflict in the video. Al-Zawahiri gives no indication of foreknowledge or having played a role in the Mumbai attacks.

During his interview, al-Zawahiri addresses several different subjects. He calls upon Muslims in the Palestinian territories and Egypt to stop sitting around, and to take up arms against "apostate" regimes which are oppressing them. He also identifies a number of Muslim scholars who he deeply respects, including a lengthy diatribe on the blind Shaykh Omar Abdel Rahman, who is currently being held in a U.S. prison cell. Dr. al-Zawahiri also cautions Al-Qaida operatives to avoid deliberately causing harm to innocent Muslims, either through their own action or by inviting public retaliations by secular governments in the Muslim world.

One other small note of interest -- Al-Qaida seems to have done a rather sloppy job of marketing this video. Bin Laden's propagandists went through the trouble of creating custom, animated, English-language advertisements for al-Zawahiri's interview -- but very prominently misspelled the word "Lion." For an organization like Al-Qaida, which typically prides itself on its professionalism and a fastidious attention to detail, this was a pretty glaring error.

(Developing...)

Mumbai 2008

Twitter comes of age reporting on Mumbai attacks

By Roderick Jones

The micro-blogging service Twitter has been providing updates to the attacks in Mumbai.

Link to Twitter feed.

Some of the commentary and links are off-base but it is a fascinating view into how the 'crowd' can monitor and report on real-time events. For example, there is a link posted to a 'google doc' spreadsheet listing known casualties. Link here.

Terrorist attacks may remain disturbingly similar but the way they are reported and examined changes in step with the rapid pace of virtualization.

Mumbai 2008

Mumbai Terror attacks: Urban Jihad comes to India

By Walid Phares

As we write this short early assessment of the Terror attacks in Mumbai, events are still unforlding in the financial capital of the sub Indian region. Counter Terrorism units are battling armed elements inside several buildings including the Taj Hotel where hostages have been seized, including foreigners. My first round of monitoring included a discussion with our colleague Animesh Roul who has also posted a report on CTB. I must credit a number of facts and assumptions to him including the projection that the perpetrators -although calling themselves Deccan Mujahideen- are in fact members or trained by Lashkar e Toiba/SIMI (who according to Animesh Roul now call themselves Indian Mujahideen). Here is the condensed report I discussed on Fox News, the BBC, Russia Today TV and other international outlets.

Type of Operation

According to sources in Mumbai, armed groups and individuals have attacked at least ten (if not more) targets inside the city including the Taj Hotel, Oberoi Hotel, a railway Station, the Leopold Café and other locations. More shooting incidents have been also reported at the Trident hotel, a hospital and a highway leading to the airport and Assembly Hall. The terrorists fired indiscriminately against civilians, security elements, lobbed grenades, and killed Counter Terrorism officials. At this writing sources are reporting more than 102 deaths, amd hundreds wounded, in addition to hostage taking. Indian security sources confirmed the use of AK-47s, small arms, grenade, etc. This type of operation, involving a number of small groups and individuals "deployed" across several avenues, In my book Future Jihad I coined these types of forthcoming strikes as "urban Jihad" (Chapter 13). Instead of bombers and suicide bombers, the command sends "Jihadi infantry." The tactical goal of these actions is to engage in different types of missions: random kilings, chaos, killing of security officers and hostage taking.

Design of the operations

In our estimate, this attack is a “complex” type, where small operations are aimed at creating chaos and triggering security deployment in many areas, while more precise operations could target higher targets such as hostage taking or similar situation. We will probably know more when the dust will settle.

Perpetrators

In view of the historical context, precedents and latest analysis, the most likely groups that may be behind these attacks are the Lashkar e Toiba/SIMI (they now call themselves Indian Mujahideen). These groups are Jihadists, have links to the other organizations in Kashmir but also inside Pakistan with pro-Taliban elements and eventually Al Qaeda. The ideological identification is most likely Jihadist although the group almost surely will issue a more than one release to claim the attack and put it in context.

According to Indian sources this is an operation of a very new type in India. The "emirs" have sent these armed elements in their 20s to strike at Indian psyche. One goal is to sink the Pakistani-Indian rapprochement. In Islamabad, the new Government is engaged in operations against the big Jihadi boys ojn the north western frontier. It is quite possible that the Mumbai attacks aim at triggering tensions between the two old foes so that pressure would be released against the radicals in Pakistan. In any event, this is a large Jihadi operation against one of the emerging economies and the largest democraciy n Asia. The goal is to target India as a power engaged in the War on Terror but also to further destabilize the region, including Pakistan and its neighbor Afghanistan.”

************

Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

« Close It

Mumbai 2008

India's Financial Hub Mumbai under Multiple Terror Attacks!

By Animesh Roul

Co-Editor's Note: See the "Newslinks" box for links to updated news on the attacks.
-------
Suspected Islamic terrorists have attacked at least eight places in Mumbai, the financial hub of India on November 26 evening. They fired indiscriminately, and lobbed grenades around while making their way to Hotels and Railway Stations and Airport. At least 60 people, many foreigners have reportedly died and nearly 150 injured in these terror attacks. Times of India report quoting hospital sources, indicated that at least 80 people were dead and 250 injured in the terror attacks. There are unconfirmed reports of a Hostage situation also in Taj Mahal and Oberoi Hotels (with most foreign guests). The first incident of firing was reported at Leopold Cafe, a well-known watering hole for tourists and foreigners in Colaba. The second incident was near Taj Mahal hotel, the third was near Oberoi hotel in Nariman Point and the fourth one was at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus railway station. Also a major blast was also reported in Vile Parle in suburban Mumbai. As per the latest reports around 15 people, half of them foreigners are taken hostage on the roof of the Taj Mahal Hotel.

The needle of the suspicion is on the Lashkar- e- Toiba and Student Islamic Movement of India combine (Now they credibly calling and proving them as Indian Mujahedeen terror group).

The incidents took place one day after the reported arrest of Lashkar -e-Toiba linked Raheel Sheikh by the Interpol in London. Raheel is one of the alleged masterminds of the conspiracy and was involved in the funding of the July 11, 2006, Mumbai serial train blasts that killed nearly 200 commuters and wounded over 500 people on that fateful day.

By Walid Phares

Upon the ongoing debate about the release of Guantanamo detainess or their processing through US criminal courts, a heavy fact is still unaddressed: future prisoners of war. If indeed the United States is and will continue to be at War with "an enemy" -and the forthcoming Administration has announced an escalation in the War in Afghanistan- one can only project that US forces may (rather will) take future prisoners. This inevitability is expected to put pressure on the ongoing debate. For seizing the enemy's combatants under the law of war and releasing them through criminal law is a hybrid equation about to crumble. In the following piece I am making the case to the new Administration to make a choice: cancel the war or apply its laws..

Last Thursday’s order by a federal judge to release five Algerian detainees from Guantanamo Bay prison reopens the complex debate about the principle of holding prisoners of war during wartime. But, and this may be even more important, it also reopens the debate inside the three branches of government in the United States over whether or not our nation is actually at war.

The case at hand will certainly be discussed by legal specialists on both sides of the debate. Here is the chain of legal events that will be scrutinized: The first “civilian court” ruling -- for terrorism suspects who have challenged their detention -- found that the five men “could not be held indefinitely as enemy combatants.” Thus, in this instance U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon has essentially informed the government that failing an official and legally declared war, one cannot detain individuals who have not been proven guilty of crimes or of material participation in terrorism.

Last summer the Supreme Court granted the Guantanamo detainees (see the Boumediene case) “the right to challenge their imprisonment.” The real statement there was that since there is no legal basis for the War on Terror, the so-called “prisoners of war” are in fact detained under the principles of criminal law not the international law of war.

So when U.S. forces arrest individuals suspected of being enemy combatants the government must prove that each individual was actually waging war. But since civilian courts do not recognize the “existence” of such war, the government must prove that each person detained was physically involved in an illegal act leading to violence against the United States or its allied interests.

Judge Leon ruled that the U.S. government “failed to prove that five of the six Algerians held at Guantanamo Bay since January 20, 2002, were enemy combatants headed to Afghanistan to fight against the United States.” According to media sources, “a senior Department of Defense official said the government’s case was hampered because the CIA would not hand over the classified information it had obtained in interrogating the 6 suspects.” If the CIA had released the evidence, would the court have ruled otherwise?

What these legal developments tell us is that the United States’ counterterrorism campaign is squeezed between two worlds: On the one hand, our nation’s leaders have been acting as if we are in a state of war with an enemy; and on another hand the Judicial system is telling us that it is basing its rulings solely on criminal law.

Meanwhile the Jihadists are winning. They meet U.S. forces on the battlefield and ask to be treated under the Geneva Conventions — which they do not recognize to begin with. If they are apprehended and brought into custody, they expect to swim through the legal system. In conventional wars, when a unit from the enemy forces is captured, the courts do not rule on each fighter’s particular posture at the time of capture. When you listen to the judges’ rulings on the detainees’ individual cases, they appear to be on solid ground, upholding the Constitution. But when you contrast their rulings with the government’s view then the process seems tragicomic.

A state of war with an enemy has its own logic and its own procedures. Enemies are kept under the Geneva Conventions’ protection until the conflict ends. War criminals are tried under international law. Fighters or enemy combatants cannot be tried in civilian courts as criminals. But if there is no state of war, then there shouldn’t be detention centers to begin with. Apprehended criminals are processed under the laws of the land and courts are sovereign in dealing with the fate of each and every suspect under arrest. In short we can’t have two legal tracks at once. — Either the U.S. is at war with a global enemy or is it not.

The Bush administration has struggled with the legal consequences of its War on Terror. The Obama administration will inherit the issue and must make a decision. It can continue with the hybrid system we have now, perhaps pushing it further towards a criminal procedure while U.S. forces wage a full-fledged war in Afghanistan -- if not elsewhere. If America won’t withdraw from the region as requested by Al Qaeda and Iran -- she will continue to find herself in a confrontation with her enemies some of whom may be captured. What lies ahead for the United States will be more complicated than even our current situation.

My advice to the forthcoming administration is to begin at the top, where the current administration has stopped: Identify the enemy and take a stand on the global conflict.

*************

Dr. Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

« Close It

NEFA Foundation: Shebaab al-Mujahideen Strongly Denies Threatening Pirates in Somalia

By Evan Kohlmann

The NEFA Foundation has obtained and translated a new communiqué from the Shebaab al-Mujahideen Movement in Somalia denying published reports that it intends to fight with local pirate forces for control of a hijacked Saudi supertanker off the coast of East Africa. The communiqué condemned the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera satellite television network for “publish[ing] a completely false report, in which it alleged that a spokesman for the Shebaab al-Mujahideen Movement confirmed that the movement has threatened the pirates [in Somalia] and has offered guarantees for the release of the Saudi oil tanker. We question the accuracy of this report and demand that Al-Jazeera identify their unknown source. Did Al-Jazeera even try to confirm such reports with our media office, which is well-known to them? …Why is Al-Jazeera putting such emphasis on the information that it obtained from an uncredentialed spokesman, and yet totally ignoring an interview done over 2 years ago with our official spokesman? Also, Al-Jazeera has falsely invented communiqués that it claimed were the wills of the martyrdom attackers [i.e. suicide bombers] responsible for the operations in Hargeisa and Busaso—yet, we have never published any statements regarding the afore-mentioned attacks.”

A translation of the communique can be accessed on the NEFA Foundation website.

Violence by Extremists in the Jewish Settler Movement: A Rising Challenge

By Matthew Levitt

Thirteen years after the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli security officials are expressing heightened concern that a new wave of violent extremism among fringe elements in the Jewish settler movement threatens not only Palestinian civilians, but also Israeli national security and the future of any potential peace diplomacy.

The threat of violent extremism among the fringes of the settler movement tends to be cyclical, based closely on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and unilateral Israeli government efforts to dismantle settlements and outposts. For example, the Yediot Aharonot article noted that the ISA recorded 300 strands of intelligence relating to extremist threats on people or public institutions during the July 2000 peace talks at Camp David, when Jerusalem was a centerpiece of negotiations. The number of such threats fell to 100 in the year after the Camp David talks, but in 2005, with the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza looming, the number rose again to 150. Authorities have not indicated how many possible threats they face today, but Diskin has assessed that the fringe elements are "preparing for war."

The full article, co-authored with Becca Wasser, is available here.

Frustrated Claims of Pro-Obama Media Bias... This Time From Al-Qaida

By Evan Kohlmann

Global reactions to Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri's controversial condemnation of U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama as a "House Slave" (or, alternatively, "House Negro") have begun to pour in -- including via the top jihad web forums used by Al-Qaida to disseminate its propaganda. Though hardcore Al-Qaida supporters have predictably dismissed any criticism of Dr. al-Zawahiri and are fiercely backing his choice of words, there is a rather ironic (if not entirely unfamiliar) twist to this issue. After observing international press reporting on the incident, these same supporters are now bitterly attacking the media for its "unfair" pro-Obama bias and for deliberately "confusing" the meaning of al-Zawahiri's message.

In related news, Zawahiri's audio statement also appears to have created a palpable, tense confrontation between Al-Qaida and a significant cross-section of African-American Muslims. Several U.S.-based Muslim organizations immediately held press conferences or issued statements to strongly criticize al-Zawahiri and his manipulation of the words of the late Malcolm X. Conversely, these conferences and statements of response have not gone over well within the jihadi community, with some Arabic-speaking commentators issuing angry rants about the apparent treachery of American Muslims, including specifically the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). One Al-Qaida supporter cautioned his quarrelsome online colleagues, "Brothers, this does not apply to all American Muslims. Do not forget our brother [Adam] Yehiye Gadahn, a naturalized Muslim and U.S. citizen."

Dialogue Bolstered by Sanctions - A Possible Option for Dealing With Iran

By Victor Comras

With world attention focused on the faltering international financial system, only back page notice is being given to the frightening progress Iran continues to make toward achieving nuclear weapons capability. An expert report now circulating within the halls of the IAEA reportedly indicates that Iran may soon have enough enriched uranium to fuel a bomb. That information is further complemented by Israeli intelligence assessments indicating that Iran’s work on nuclear weapons design and missile delivery systems is also moving apace. The confidential IAEA report is scheduled for further IAEA council discussion on November 27th and subsequent transmittal to the Security Council. In the meantime Iranian President Ahmadinejad continues in the same pattern of strident threats toward Israel and claims that Iran’s nuclear program and intentions are peaceful.

Israel’s outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has reportedly been asked by US officials to hold off taking any steps that could push the Iran nuclear issue back into crisis mode, at least until the Obama Administration is established in office and has had a chance to explore the options. These options range from engaging Iran in discussions a la the EU-Iran negotiating process to threatening (and perhaps even taking) military action. Enhanced political and economic sanctions on Iran also remain a key option. The question is whether any sanctions option can be made to work?

Critics of sanctions vis-à-vis Iran point out that such measures have been ineffective to date. They argue that the current international economic downturn is not conductive to sanctions implementation or enforcement, and doubt that the US will ever achieve Security Council consensus on sanctions measures sufficiently stringent to convince Iran to change course. Yet, Iran may, in fact, now be more vulnerable to sanctions than ever before.

Iran’s economy is already in shambles. The downturn in the price of oil has left Iran’s government with serious budget shortfalls and significantly reduced its ability to support and subsidize its extensive ongoing energy sector and other infrastructure projects. It has also significantly reduced the profit incentives that previously enticed foreign businesses and banks to compete for Iran’s business, even when that meant irritating their American relationships. Iran’s cost of doing business is soaring, and the stepped up measures adopted by the U.S. Treasury Department, and the US campaign to dissuade financial dealings with Iran, are now actually having a significant impact! More and more Western banks are reducing their Iran exposure and pulling out of the Iran marketplace. Even non Western banks in Dubai are beginning to view triangular transactions with Iran more cautiously. These factors may serve to enhance the chances of engaging Iran in a more constructive dialogue on its nuclear program than previously.

The set of sanctions put in place last year by the Security Council were never really designed to have a broad impact on Iran’s economy. Rather, they represented a lowest common denominator approach and targeted only those specific individuals and entities directly related to Iran’s uranium enrichment and missile development programs. The United States was pretty much left on its own to impose broader economic sanctions measures, which, over time, were either digested or circumvented by the Iranian marketplace. The Bush Administration had little success in convincing European countries to join us in this unilateral sanctions approach --at least, until the Treasury Department began to use its extensive leverage over foreign financial institutions, making them fearful of running afoul of our extensive sanctions regulations.

As the Obama Administration looks at its options, it should seriously consider whether it may now be possible, working with our European friends and allies, to engage Iran in a new dialogue backed up with an expanded set of threatened (or applied) sanctions. These measures should be aimed at Iran’s real economic vulnerabilities - its fragile financial system; its energy, transportation and communications sectors; and its urban commercial class. This commercial class is key to holding Iranian urban unemployment figures from plummeting, and may well represent Iran's Achilles heel.

With the substantial decline in the price of oil, and with international financial institutions now scrambling to bolster their balance sheets with government guarantees and bailouts, the US may be in a much better position now to convince Europe, Japan, China and Russia, and the businesses and banks in these countries, to cooperate with us, at least tacitly, in threatening broader sanctions as the best way to avoid a necessary military option further down the road

India: "The Resurgence of Ethno-Islamist Terrorism"

By Animesh Roul

I just wrote an article for the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Monitor (Vol.6(22), Nov. 25, 2008) on the recent serial blasts in Assam (India) and the rise of Ethno-Islamist Terrorism in the region.

Here is an excerpt:

India's Troubled Northeast Region: The Resurgence of Ethno-Islamist Terrorism

The security situation in India's troubled northeast region plumbed new depths in October when two major terror incidents struck Manipur and Assam states. On October 21, nearly 17 people were killed in Imphal and over 30 injured in a powerful bomb blast triggered by suspected militants of the People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK). The militants were believed to be targeting government security forces (The Sangai Express, October 22). A week later, on October 30, neighboring Assam witnessed serial explosions that killed nearly 84 people and left scores of wounded (Assam Tribune, November 3). Suspicion in these attacks focused on the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and the Bangladesh based Harkat ul-Jihad Islami (HuJI) combine. The attacks consisted of ten low and high intensity bomb blasts within a span of 20 minutes in the cities of Kokrajhar, Bongaigaon, Barapeta and Guwahati. The Assam blasts occurred as recent terror attacks have targeted other parts of India, including Jaipur, Delhi, Ahmadabad and Bangalore (see Terrorism Focus, August 5).

The aim of the perpetrators was a high fatality rate and widespread chaos, as the blasts were aimed at crowded places crammed with office workers and shoppers. Forensic investigations revealed that the bombs used a cocktail of RDX (hexogen), ammonium nitrate, plastic explosives and TNT with high-tech timer devices (Economic Times [India], November 7). For the first time in India, cars laden with explosives were used in the blasts in Guwahati, whereas motorbikes and cycles were used in previous blasts. The trend of using a deadly mixture of explosives, which is a hallmark of Islamist groups like HuJI, is new to the region. HuJI or other Islamist terrorists active in the region (e.g. the Lashkar-e-Toiba or the newly emerged Indian Mujahideen) have been accused of orchestrating a number of such terror strikes in major cities across India in the past. For the first time, however, traces of jihadi footprints are emerging in northeast India.

You may also access the full publicationhere.

The Holy Land Verdict in Perspective

By Douglas Farah

My colleagues on the Counterterrorism Blog Matt Levitt and Andrew Cochran have discussed the sweep of guilty verdicts in the Holy Land Foundation case.

I wanted to add briefly, some perspective, which can only be gleaned if one goes through the voluminous exhibits, available at the NEFA Foundation site, which give the reasons for the trial to begin with.

The Holy Land Foundation was a direct outgrowth of the international Muslim Brotherhood, as are CAIR, MSA and other groups under the MB umbrella. The ties, based on the trial evidence, are outlined in this paper I co-authored for the NEFA Foundation. As described, the entire enterprise was not only to fund Hamas, but to set up the architecture to wage jihad in this country, with the aims of radically altering the entire U.S. system of government.

What is still most fascinating to me, after two trials, is that the most damning documents were not contested at all by the defense.

And herein is the main point, as I wrote earlier: The most compelling evidence of the Brotherhood’s true aims is contained in an internal memorandum written in 1991 by a senior Brotherhood leader and titled: “On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” In the document, the author is strikingly clear about the ultimate goal of the Muslim Brotherhood (referred to as Ikhwan) in the United States, as these quotes make clear: My full blog is here.

HLF VERDICT: GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS

By Matthew Levitt

The message sent by the verdict in this case is clear: the United States will neither allow itself to be used as a cash-cow by terrorist groups raising money here under the guise of legitimate charitable activity nor will it allow such groups to abuse the charitable sector by fraudulently raising funds for purportedly innocent causes and then using those funds to finance terrorism. Prosecutors and investigators deserve a tremendous amount of credit for achieving a significant victory against terrorism and for doing so under difficult circumstances, namely under the strict rules of evidence and with the burden of convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in a public court of law.

As Justice Department prosecutor Barry Jonas argued in his closing arguments last week, the Hamas finances a “womb to tomb” support cycle for its followers and potential recruits through Hamas-affiliated charities that spread Hamas’ extremist ideology and build grassroots support for the group’s political, social and terrorist activities alike. I described the Hamas in much the same way in a 2004 article entitled “Hamas from Cradle to Grave.”

Over the past several years, investigators have uncovered just how systematically terrorist groups conceal their activities behind charitable, social, and political fronts. In particular, they have come to appreciate the crucial role played by charities, foundations, and individual donors, who funnel support to social service organizations. These same organizations effectively provide recruits, logistics, and cover for terrorists. Hamas offers a textbook example of such activity.

Indeed, the Holy Land Foundation and other charitable fronts like it have provided the financial means with which Hamas has so successfully radicalized Palestinian society. For a terrorist organization to have Hamas' spectacular success and influence, it needs to convert to its cause not only disaffected young men, but also children, women, and entire families. These groups are less likely to be attracted by the charms of a street militia, but they are easily reached -- and radicalized -- by the social services network.

As I argue in my book, “Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad” (Yale University Press, 2006), Hamas’ charitable and social welfare networks are both the secret to the group’s political and terrorist success as well as its Achilles heel. A strategic approach to Hamas should include not only disrupting the group’s operational capabilities, but also targeting its financial and logistical support networks. Front organizations like the Holy Land Foundation should be shut and prosecuted, to be sure, but such efforts must be complemented by serious efforts to fund and empower accountable, nonviolent Palestinian entities -- public and private alike -- to assume the responsibility for (and enjoy the resulting public support from) public works and social and humanitarian services should be a central goal of counterterrorism officials, peace negotiators, economists, and development experts alike. The international community could and should beat Hamas at its own game of providing social services to build grassroots support, though in this case support for moderation not extremism.

Beyond this specific case, the verdict is also a very significant win coming as it does on the heels of several less successful attempts to prosecute individuals and organizations raising funds for Palestinian terrorist groups in this country. For example, in 2005, Sami al-Arian was acquitted on most charges in a similar case in Tampa, Florida, but then pled guilty to conspiracy in providing funds or services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Similarly, two men charged with financing Hamas were acquitted in a Chicago case earlier this year, but were convicted on lesser terrorism-related charges. Abdulhalim Ashqar was convicted of obstruction of justice and criminal contempt and sentenced to 135 months in prison and a $5,000 fine. The other defendant in that case, Muhammad Salah, was sentenced to twenty-one months in prison for lying under oath in a civil trial concerning the murder of an American teenager in Israel by Hamas terrorists.

Now that the HLF and its senior leaders have been found guilty of all charges by a jury of their peers, prosecutors have not only an effective prosecutorial game plan but an important legal precedent upon which to build additional cases against terrorist financiers and facilitators based in the United States. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah supporters beware - you could be next.

« Close It

HLF Guilty Verdict Should Terminate Government & Business Relationships With UICCs

By Andrew Cochran

Today, the jury hearing the second Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial delivered guilty verdicts against HLF and all of the individual defendants, a stunning victory for federal prosecutors. This site has been among the leading websites in discussing the ramifications of the case. You can read our archive of posts on HLF and a transcript of our special panel, held last December 11, on the first case. You can download the exhibits in the second trial from the NEFA Foundation website and read special reports on the trial at the IPT website.

The verdict also renders judgement on the long list of unindicted co-conspirators (Acrobat file) proposed by the prosecutors and accepted by the judge. They stand "convicted" of their association with the convicted felons in illegal and felonious fundraising for Hamas. Those unindicted co-conspirators include CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust, and the Islamic Relief Committee.

After all, the naming of an unindicted co-conspirator is no small matter; it's actively discouraged by the Justice Department. The U.S. Attorneys Manual at DOJ advises federal prosecutors to avoid naming them. A prosecutor can't just throw a list out there; the presiding judge must conclude that the individual's statements or acts were in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Moreover, the Attorney's Manual discourages the actual naming of any party not actually charged in an indictment, noting, "Courts have applied this reasoning to preclude the public identification of unindicted third-party wrongdoers in plea hearings, sentencing memoranda, and other government pleadings." CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT asked the judge in the second trial to delete their organizations from that list, but he has refused thus far, apparently validating the list.

In light of the seriousness of the designation and the sweeping convictions, it is a conflict of interest for any federal or state government agency to have a business relationship with any of the unindicted co-conspirators in the HLF case. It's especially preposterous for the FBI to continue in a business relationship with CAIR. Now that the verdicts are in, the White House and the Attorney General must suspend that relationship. Moreover, President Bush should issue, and President-elect Obama should continue, a statement of policy which mandates that no component of the U.S. government will enter into any contract, grant, or agreement with any person or entity which is an unindicted co-coinspirator in a federal criminal case brought by the Department of Justice.

In my opinion, U.S. financial institutions should also cut whatever ties they might have to the UICCs and add them to their lists of "politically exposed persons" for purposes of meeting their USA Patriot Act and Bank Secrecy Act responsibilities.

Sub-Saharan Africa Rises for the Wrong Reasons

By Douglas Farah

While the Somali piracy crisis has galvanized world opinion, it is not the only area of Sub-Saharan Africa that is attracting counter-terrorism attention.

The growing ties between criminal and terrorist groups (often one and the same when it comes to Hezbollah's broad activity in Western and Central Africa) has been noted. The Congress authorized the creation of the new Africa Command (Africom) largely because of the terrorist threat in the region.

But what is the real threat? Again I return to the pipeline metaphor, and Africa is more and more frequently a important part of that pipeline structure.

Two cases illustrate this clearly. The first, an illegal alien smuggling ring running from Ghana through Central America to the United States was ideally positioned to carry anyone, including terrorists, across multiple borders.

The ring was run by a 26-year-old named Mohammed Kamel Ibrahim, living in Mexico and using the moniker "Silk the Shocker." For $5,000 he offered to have his clients met by corrupt Mexican officials and sent on to the United States.

What is astonishing is the number of countries through which this network moved people. Like water running downhill they simply took the path of least resistance at any given moment. My full blog is here.

Suicide Investors

By James McGinnis

Several commentators have expressed concern offer the possibility that terrorist investors (especially Islamist ones) might use their vast wealth to obtain control of American public corporations and use them to pursue ruinous economic tactics, influence the media or direct resources to terrorist organizations disguised as charitable contributions. There is a certain sense of discomfort over the growing influence of international investors, which I share. However, while the commentators cited above express this discomfort in measured and reasonable tones, one can discern some similarities with the strident messages of anti-globalization activists and the speeches of socialist dictators who denounce “economic hegemony” and “cultural imperialism”. Any time I find myself agreeing, even a little bit, with Chairman Mao, it might be well to pause and reconsider my position.

Adverse reaction to foreign investment seems to be a periodic issue. During the 80’s there was concern over the growth of Japanese investment in NY real estate. This reached a peak when they bought Rockefeller Center. I frankly never understood this concern. What were they going to do with it, take it back to Tokyo? In the end, the property was sold at a great loss. It seemed that the reason the foreigners were winning all the deals, was that they were the only ones dumb enough to bid so high.

At one level, of course, the issue is not worth debating. As long as we continue to send untold billions of dollars abroad to import oil and cheap manufactured goods, the unalterable facts of global bookkeeping require these dollars to return to us in the form of investments, purchases of U.S. goods and services or claims on the Treasury's reserves. The U.S. balance of trade deficit is a significant policy concern, which addresses broader issues than the fight against terrorism. As long as a trade deficit continues, investment flows are the only bulwark against even more dramatic decline of the dollar and consequent inflation. So until our trade deficit improves, we had better hope that foreign investments continue.

But if we are good capitalists, isn’t investment a good thing? The socialist dictators have sacrificed their economies by refusing outside investments. Even if the social structure they created had allowed workers to be productive, the lack of investment resources ensured that they lacked the means and infrastructure to be efficient. I realize, of course, that none of us are calling for blanket restrictions on all foreign investments, only those from folks we don’t trust. Trust however, is an elusive commodity. Excessively stringent efforts to define our enemies may cause some of our friends to question their trust in us. As we have seen, trust between investment counterparts is essential to the economic system. Any policy designed to weed out undesirable investors would certainly have to be carefully calibrated.

Fortunately there already exists such a program. Administrated by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), there is a series of economic sanctions currently in place. These sanctions, imposed against 13 countries and thousands of individuals and organizations, seize or restrict the assets of undesirables whenever they come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Let us imagine that a terrorist organization obtains control of General Motors, (at current prices it wouldn’t take much), and they use their control to pursue some dangerous policy, like car bomb detonators as standard equipment on all vehicles. The president has the authority to issue an order freezing the assets of the organization, including the GM shares. As long as such sanctions can be imposed by a stroke of the presidential pen, the fear of such action is a powerful deterrent to would-be terrorist investors.

There is also the suggestion that some wealthy fanatics could use their wealth as “suicide investors”, seeking control of U.S. institutions and engaging in ruinous investment programs, bringing our economy to its knees. Of course even Al Qaeda couldn’t have pulled off such a scheme. Catastrophes on that scale cannot be imported, they must be homegrown. More importantly though, the idea of suicidal investors simply doesn’t comport with the way the world usually works. Fabulously wealthy oligarchs who become enamored of extreme causes simply don’t sacrifice themselves for the cause. They get other people to do it for them, generally younger and poorer people. Even Bin Laden didn’t fly one of the planes; he paid someone to do it for him. Kaiser Wilhelm wasn’t in the trenches at the Somme, Napoleon rode back from Moscow in a heated carriage, and so on through history. Any scheme that requires the perpetrator to sacrifice vast wealth and power is unlikely to gain much traction, at least not among those of vast wealth and power. Such men may lose everything in schemes gone wrong, but they won’t set out to do so.

A more reasonable concern is that extremists will obtain control of media giants and exert a subtle and pernicious influence on our population. I certainly would become concerned if, say Time Warner, fell under the control of fundamentalist extremist Muslims, or fundamentalist extremist Christians, or for that matter, fundamentalist extremist Red Sox fans. The real issue here is concentration of media power in any hands. Democracy is dependant on the free exchange of ideas. For better or worse, the public forum is now dominated by large-scale public media. Control of such media gives one disproportionate influence. I suspect though, that any such influence by extremists would be self-correcting. One of the chief characteristics of most fanatics, particularly religious ones, is that they quickly become boring. Whatever one may say about the American public, they do not have a large capacity for tedium. If the primetime lineup routinely featured anchors in a Burqa interviewing Koranic scholars, the ratings would drop to near zero.

Lastly there is the concern that, through their investors influence, extremists could direct corporate charitable gifts to terrorist fronts. While I suppose this is possible, it is a rather indirect scheme. Why not just give the money to the terrorists in the first place? If there is an advantage to using a corporate vehicle for this purpose, surely the controls and visibility of corporate gifts are at least as high in the U.S. as elsewhere. Why would an extremist billionaire choose to use a U.S. public corporation for this end when a European or Middle Eastern one would serve as well, with less risk of disclosure?

As Senator Goldwater pointed out; “eternal vigilance is the price of freedom”, so I suppose there is no threat which we can afford to completely discount. However when I wake up in the middle of the night, it will be threats other than from terrorist investors that disturb my sleep.

« Close It

Hezbollah, an imminent danger?

By Olivier Guitta

I wrote an article for the Middle East Times on Hezbollah's capabilities around the world.
You can find the full article here.

Here is an excerpt:

CIA Director Michael Hayden said last week that al-Qaida was still the largest threat to the United States. He added, "If there is a major strike on this country, it will bear the fingerprints of al-Qaida."

But some analysts say that the focus should not go entirely on al-Qaida, stressing that the capabilities of the Shiite organization Hezbollah should not be underestimated.

Pre Sept. 11, 2001, Hezbollah was the organization believed to be responsible for the deaths of the largest number of Americans killed in terrorist attacks. Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called Hezbollah "the A-team of terrorists, while al-Qaida may actually be the B-team."

Today in a context of major tension with Iran regarding its nuclear program, Iraq and Lebanon, just to mention a few, intelligence analysts warn that the Hezbollah threat against the West should not be taken off the radar.

Hezbollah is believed to maintain a vast network of operatives across the world; from Europe to Africa to the Middle East, to Latin America and even North America.

In Africa, and in particular in the predominantly Sunni Maghreb, extremist Shiites are making inroads. The threat of potential Shiite terrorism is something Morocco knows something about, having dismantled earlier this year a large terrorist cell known as the Belliraj network. Members of this cell included a correspondent of the Hezbollah-run Al-Manar TV. According to intelligence sources they were planning terror attacks in Morocco.

The Conviction of Monzar al Kassar and the Criminal-Terrorist Nexus

By Douglas Farah

The good news yesterday was the conviction on all counts of Monzar al Kassar,the international weapons trafficker and friend of numerous terrorist organizations.

Al Kassar and his accomplice, Luis Moreno Godoy were convicted in New York of conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals; conspiracy to murder U.S. officers and employees; conspiracy to acquire and export anti-aircraft missiles; conspiracy to provide material support and resources to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), a designated foreign terrorist organization; and money laundering. The convictions represent the first time anyone has been charged with and convicted of the anti-aircraft missile statute.

Al Kassar, like Viktor Bout and others, are part of the shadowy world of facilitators that work across criminal and terrorist organizations, supplying them with what they need-from weapons to passports to money laundering services.

Successfully targeting these shadow facilitators hurts both groups and is one of the more effective ways of crippling the terrorist/criminal enterprises they empower.

As I wrote when he was arrested (and you can find the indictment and other articles here too), the arrest sprang from a sting operation by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), to whom he thought he was selling surface-to-air missiles which he hoped would kill Americans. The US won al Kassar's extradition from Spain in order to stand trial in the United States.

It was the same template the DEA used to arrest Viktor Bout in Thailand. The conviction augers well for what would be a very similar case against Bout, if he ever gets here. My full blog is here.

NEFA Foundation: Taliban Reject Hamid Karzai's Offer to Protect Mullah Omar

By Evan Kohlmann

The NEFA Foundation has obtained a new statement from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban) rejecting Afghan President Hamid Karzai's solemn offer to Mullah Omar to "guarantee his security and safety" if he would agree to willingly participate in peace negotiations. The Taliban assert that "Karzai and his masters should know, personal immunity and power obtainment is not an issue for Mullah Mohammad Omar Mujahid." Further, "Our people may remember that at the first months following the American invasion of Afghanistan, Mr. Karzai was reiterating the same appeals and polished assertions for members and the rank and file of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, claiming no member of Taliban, whether senior or junior, would be harassed merely by being a member of Taliban. Then, we saw with our own eyes that thousands of defenseless Taliban were arrested and kept in containers and dungeons of Qallae Jangi. They were consequently mercilessly martyred -- an unforgettable tragedy reminiscent of Mr. Karzai’s retracting his promise... one can conclude that the hackneyed words and assertions by Mr. Karzai are aimed at throwing dust in the eyes of the people. Ironically, Karzai has not the authority to take up the dialogue by his own nor can tell the nation the truth.”

A copy of the statement can be accessed on the NEFA Foundation website.

ZAWAHIRI: JIHAD WILL CONTINUE DESPITE OBAMA

By Walid Phares

(Co-Editor's Note: Walid Phares was interviewed on C-SPAN on November 20 about this tape - watch here.)

As observers were awaiting the release of the "official" al Qaeda position regarding the election of Barack Obama as the new President of the United States, seasoned experts on the Jihadist movement had little doubts as to the substance of the main message. As I have outlined in my appearances on Arabic television channels since November 4, Bin Laden or his second in command was expected to declare that their "Jihad" will continue despite the election of an African American President and despite Obama’s intention to withdraw from Iraq. Ayman Zawahiri did just that on Wednesday in his latest message to his supporters and his enemies: even if the war ends in Iraq, the global war will continue everywhere.

The tape was expected to appear a couple weeks after the election because of al Qaeda's method of monitoring the reactions of the international community, of the Arab and Muslim world and also of other Islamist authorities. The Bin Laden-Zawahiri style is to give the "last word," like a Caliph would. The points raised in the tape were almost all predicted by experts familiar with the Jihadi-combat mind set: Although a new president was elected - one who would reverse some of Bush’s policies, the new president will devise new strategies to defeat al Qaeda.. Zawahiri isn't buying the version proposed by other anti-American critics of Washington's War on Terror. Most of Europe's left, the Arab authoritarian regimes, and the Islamist fundamentalist establishment have all welcomed the news of an Obama victory and are tailoring new proposals for the region's future (of course to their advantage). But not al Qaeda. That's why this Zawahiri message is important. It is telling the world and allies that there will be no respite in the conflict.

The al Qaeda’s number two had to address the election of a Black President of the United States because of the two massive changes this choice has brought to the Jihadist agenda: On the one hand, Obama is very popular in the eyes of international public opinion; on the other hand the President elect is planning on withdrawing from Iraq and pushing forward in Afghanistan. All this changes al Qaeda's game. Zawahiri's tape had to address these "challenges" as pressure was mounting among Jihadists to deal with this election. Hence, the main points presented by the audio message are as follows:

1. The election of Obama is a defeat to the United States in Iraq and a victory to the Jihadists

In his tape Zawahiri congratulates the Muslim world

"on the American people's admission of defeat in Iraq. Although the evidence of America's defeat in Iraq appeared years ago, Bush and his administration continued to be stubborn and deny the brilliant midday sun. If Bush has achieved anything, it is in his transfer of America's disaster and predicament to his successor. But the American people, by electing Obama, declared its anxiety and apprehension about the future towards which the policy of the likes of Bush is leading it, and so it decided to support someone calling for withdrawal from Iraq"

In al Qaeda's lexicon it is crucial to demonstrate to their supporters that it is "their" actions (terror in Iraq) which convinced, if not intimidated, American voters into voting against McCain and electing Obama. Zawahiri wants al Qaeda to be credited for the behavior of America's voting majority in the same way it took credit for the change in electoral direction that took place in Madrid after the March 11, 2004 attacks.

2. A warning to Obama: Don't send additional troops to Afghanistan

Zawahiri then sends a warning to President elect Obama:

"The second of these messages is to the new president of the United States. I tell him: you have reached the position of president, and a heavy legacy of failure and crimes awaits you. A failure in Iraq to which you have admitted, and a failure in Afghanistan to which the commanders of your army have admitted. The other thing to which I want to bring your attention is that what you've announced about how you're going to reach an understanding with Iran and pull your troops out of Iraq to send them to Afghanistan is a policy which was destined for failure before it was born. It appears that you don't know anything about the Muslim Ummah and its history, and the fate of the traitors who cooperated with the invaders against it, and don't know anything about the history of Afghanistan and its free and defiant Muslim people. And if you still want to be stubborn about America's failure in Afghanistan, then remember the fate of Bush and Pervez Musharraf, and the fate of the Soviets and British before them. And be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them."

If victory has been achieved by the Jihadists against the United States in Iraq by forcing the new Administration to pull out of that country, in Zawahiri's mind, another defeat awaits America in Afghanistan according to al Qaeda's latest message. The logic of endless Jihad seems to be that wherever American forces would be sent, the Jihadists will meet them for a fight until the US redeploys its contingents from around the world, back to "its borders" as previous al Qaeda messages have underlined.

4. The same US aggression remains

Concerned about the sympathy emerging from around the world and within the Muslim community regarding the new President, Zawahiri reminds his Islamist followers that "crimes have been committed and the mentality that produced them is still around." He doesn't want to see a shift in pubic opinion towards a "nicer" America. He says:

"As for the crimes of America which await you, it appears that you continue to be captive to the same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims. The Muslim Ummah received with extreme bitterness your hypocritical statements to and stances towards Israel, which confirmed to the Ummah that you have chosen a stance of hostility to Islam and Muslims."

Clearly, Zawahiri is trying to draw red lines for the acceptance of Obama by the Arab and Muslim world. This audiotape is probably the prelude to a campaign by the Jihaidists to minimize Obama's emergence and classify him as just "another US President, with a different face."

5. You're not real

Then Zawahiri begins the Jihadi deconstruction of Obama's image. He declares:

"You represent the direct opposite of honorable black Americans like Malik al-Shabazz, or Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him). You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim to be Christian, in order to climb the rungs of leadership in America. And so you promised to back Israel, and you threatened to strike the tribal regions in Pakistan, and to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, in order for the crimes of the American Crusade in it to continue. And last Monday, your aircraft killed 40 Afghan Muslims at a wedding party in Kandahar. As for Malik al-Shabazz (may Allah have mercy on him), he was born to a black pastor killed by white bigots, but Allah favored him with guidance to Islam, and so he prided himself on his fraternity with the Muslims, and he condemned the crimes of the Crusader West against the weak and oppressed, and he declared his support for peoples resisting American occupation, and he spoke about the worldwide revolution against the Western power structure. That's why it wasn't strange that Malik al-Shabazz (may Allah have mercy on him) was killed, while you have climbed the rungs of the presidency to take over the leadership of the greatest criminal force in the history of mankind and the leadership of the most violent Crusade ever against the Muslims. And in you and in Colin Powell, Rice and your likes, the words of Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him) concerning "House Negroes" are confirmed."

Zawahiri's words are strong and are aimed at putting pressure on all those in the region who rushed to announce that Obama will radically change the "regime" in the United States. The number two of al Qaeda is painting the President elect as an opportunistic politician who used all three faiths to access power. One can see that Zawahiri is trying to achieve two goals: maintaining his own flock fully indoctrinated against Washington regardless of the change in the White House; and pressuring the radical clerics in the Wahabi and Muslim Brotherhood circles - who are welcoming Obama's victory - into retreat from such "apostasy."

6. The War must continue..

Zawahiri's main message is to call on the Jihadists everywhere to resume the war relentlessly and to "strike." Yes, he argues, there was a victory when American changed direction in Iraq, but the road to full Jihadi victory is still long. Read it as follow: The fight over Iraq will continue until the establishment of an al Qaeda like Emirate in the Sunni Triangle, which would be then the real accomplished victory. The fight will go on in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia and beyond. In short, the al Qaeda world war against the rest won't stop because of an election in America. Zawahiri said:

"You also must appreciate, as you take over the presidency of America during its Crusade against Islam and Muslims, that you are neither facing individuals nor organizations, but are facing a Jihadi awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see. I tell the Muslim Ummah: America, the criminal, trespassing Crusader, continues to be the same as ever, so we must continue to harm it, in order for it to come to its senses, because its criminal, expansionist Crusader project in your lands has only been neutralized by the sacrifices of your sons, the Mujahideen. This, then, is the path, so stick to it. To the Mujahideen. I tell them: may Allah reward you in the best way for your historic heroics, which have ruined America's plans and rendered its projects ineffective. So be firm and resolute. Your enemy's stagger has begun, so don't stop hitting him. I say to my brothers the Mujahideen in Iraq in general and the Islamic State of Iraq in particular, and to its Amir, the towering mountain Abu 'Umar al-Baghdadi: your enemy has admitted defeat, and the forthcoming stage is expected to be dominated by conspiracies and betrayals in order to cover the American withdrawal, so you must persevere, for victory is in an hour of perseverance. And I tell my brothers in Somalia: rejoice in victory and conquest. America is gathering its wounds in Iraq, and Ethiopia is looking for a way out, and for this reason, the stage of conspiracies and machinations has begun. So hold tightly to the truth for which you have given your lives, and don't put down your weapons before the Mujahid state of Islam and Tawheed has been set up in Somalia. And I tell all Mujahideen everywhere: Allah has granted you success and honored you by making you the most important cause of that, so be resolute on the path of Jihad until you meet your Lord while He is pleased with you."

As many experts in Jihadism have underlined - and as I projected in my last three books on Future Jihad - even if we decide to change course in Iraq or even in Afghanistan, the strategic intentions of the Jihadi Salafists is to engage in confrontation worldwide, including within democracies.

7. Until you surrender..

Echoing this assessment of the global Jihadi drive, Zawahiri asks the followers of this ideology -not just his membership - to relentlessly fight against what he perceives as the "Grand Crusade." A stark reminder that the forces, which waged their campaigns against the United States as of the early 1990s peaking on 9/11 and widening their warfare to dozens of countries since, aren't going back to the pre 9/11 mode. Once again, al Qaeda's number two offers a deal to the "infidel powers": quit and withdraw from this entire region or face a greater war. It is a chilling statement of the so-called Jihadi offensive. It is not just about Iraq: It is about the Planet as a whole. He goes on:

"And my fifth message is to all the world's weak and oppressed. I tell them: America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always. And the Mujahideen of Islam, by the grace of Allah, continue to be the spearhead of the resistance against it to restrain it from injustice, aggression and arrogance. As for my final message, it is to the American people. I tell it: you incurred defeat and losses from the foolish actions of Bush and his gang, and at the same time, Shaykh Usama bin Ladin (may Allah preserve him) sent you a message to withdraw from the lands of the Muslims and refrain from stealing their treasures and interfering in their affairs. So choose for yourself whatever you like, and bear the consequences of your choice, and as you judge, you will be judged."

Against all other reactions, both positive and neutral, vis-a-vis Obama's election, al Qaeda stands firm in rejecting the new leadership even before the President elect takes office in January. From a politico-psychological perspective the master of Jihadism Usama Bin laden cannot be overshadowed by another international leader, particularly if that emerging figure is the President of the "Great Satan." Zawahiri's response to the election seems to re-frame the results of the election, one viewed worldwide as one of change. To al Qaeda there is no altering of direction in their struggle and agenda. In their own logic, either Obama will end American presence altogether in the Greater Middle East, or nothing will really change in the global battlefield.

Conclusion

Once Obama’s victory was solidified, many wondered what al qaeda’s response would be. Many of observers thought that the election of Mr. Obama would wash away the grievances of al Qaeda and isolate the pockets of violence to a few valleys in Afghanistan. Zawahiri's answer is bluntly no. Obviously, by al Qaeda's book, this is a step forward but it is not enough. Pulling out of Iraq is a victory, as claim the Jihadists of all genres, but more victories are needed to end the war from their perspective. This indicates that the post 9/11 era may well be reversed in the mind of liberal democracies via electoral victories at home as was the case in Spain and now in the United States, but in the mind of the Jihadists - it is irreversible. Out of all points raised by the Zawahiri audiotape, I move to state that the central message is this: redeploy as you wish and change all the leaders you want, but know that we will continue our global fight against you. This means that the forthcoming Administration has a tremendous challenge to confront and it will have to do so by learning from the past and enhancing the strategies for the future. The landscape of the War with the Jihadists may be changed from what it was over the past eight years but it will be different from what it was during the 1990s. A whole new configuration is ahead of us.

*****
Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

« Close It

Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and the Risks of Having a Big Mouth

By Evan Kohlmann

(Co-Editor's Note: Evan was interviewed on MSNBC about this on November 19 - watch here.)

During several recent conferences concerning extremist radicalization and the web, I have frequently commented that the Internet can often serve as a double-edged sword for terrorist organizations: while it may certainly help facilitate their recruitment and communications, the web also offers a wide interactive arena for dissent within these organizations, and it increases the likelihood of overly-talkative terrorist leaders becoming ensnared in awkward Sarah Palin-like moments -- caught in the spotlight by virtue of their own language.

Perhaps no one within the senior ranks of Al-Qaida has demonstrated this trend better than its own Deputy Commander Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. Liberated from the shackles of Al-Jazeera by Al-Qaida's access directly to the Internet, Dr. al-Zawahiri has issued dozens upon dozens of audio and video recordings over the past seven years from various hideouts presumably along the Pakistani-Afghan border. Yet, seemingly, the more recordings he has issued, the more he has dragged himself into quarreling with other jihadi leaders around the globe. In the past two years, al-Zawahiri has strongly criticized the Palestinian Hamas movement for "abandon[ing] the movement of martyrdom operations" in exchange for a tense peace with Israel. For its part, Hamas has not taken kindly to Dr. al-Zawahiri's arrogant "advice." When asked about the frequent recordings from al-Zawahiri attacking Hamas, one Hamas spokesman replied, "We do not tell Al-Dhawahry [Al-Zawahiri] what to do in Afghanistan since we are not aware of his situation...His judgments and opinions are his; but they are not correct. More importantly, we are not awaiting approval or blessing from anyone except Allah." A second voice from Hamas, Osama Hamdan, was even quoted by the official website of the Muslim Brotherhood on the matter: "Al-Zawahiri's statements and criticism towards Hamas movement have no effect on the movement's attitude... What Al-Zawahiri said isn't a criticism, it is an unjustified defamation and attack against Hamas movement and its leaders."

Nor have the Palestinians been the only ones subject to the wrath of al-Zawahiri. In recent years, as Al-Qaida's hopes for the jihad in Iraq have abruptly faded into the sunset, Dr. al-Zawahiri has published a box set of multimedia messages condemning "secular" and "nationalist" Iraqi insurgents for abandoning their Al-Qaida brethren, and ordering them to "obey" Al-Qaida's local leadership in Iraq. One can only forgive their natural skepticism at why Al-Qaida would select a Jordanian, and then an Egyptian to lead its organization inside of Iraq. Earlier this year, I asked the Sunni insurgent group known as the "Al-Rashideen Army"--an avowedly jihadi group--to explain why it had failed to acknowledge Dr. al-Zawahiri's recorded orders. A spokesman from the group responded, “There is a problem in Tibet for China—is it possible for me to prescribe the solutions for their problem? We are a people in this region for 6000 year before Christ, end[ing] with Islam, and we are fully capable of rolling and managing our own affairs. We do not need others to tell us what to do.” When I posed the same question to the Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI), the insurgents scoffed, "The statements of al-Zawahiri do not obligate us whatsoever, and the errors of Al-Qaida in regards to spilling the blood of the innocent are more numerous than can possibly be covered in a single response, statement, or interview."

Now, Dr. al-Zawahiri has begun his assault on the U.S. President-Elect -- before Barack Obama has even taken office. Clearly, Al-Qaida is seeking to undermine the surge of popularity and enthusiasm for the Obama victory that has spread throughout the developing world, and particularly in Africa -- where Al-Qaida has strong vested interests in at least two ongoing military conflicts. There certainly are ways to accomplish this -- as was demonstrated by Al-Qaida's skillful use of imagery of Barack Obama at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. However, by indulging in divisive labels such as "House Slave" or "House Negro", Dr. al-Zawahiri has strayed from being merely disrespectful into being entirely disreputable and dishonorable. By playing the race card so quickly and so brazenly, al-Zawahiri may end up causing backlash against Al-Qaida in the very constituencies he is seeking to woo. It also invites the question, how is this a legitimate criticism coming from the senior leadership of Al-Qaida, which is dominated almost solely by Arab Egyptians and Saudis? Moreover, what would Malcolm X have thought of an organization, Al-Qaida, that at one time offered a higher salary to its Arab membership than its Black African adherents? One might imagine that the financial guru responsible for overseeing this inequitable arrangement -- Egyptian national Mustafa Abu al-Yazid -- would have been punished for his bigoted actions. In fact, al-Yazid has since been promoted to the number 3 position in Al-Qaida, right behind Dr. al-Zawahiri. This is hardly the type of image that Al-Qaida would like to see proliferate in critical regions adjacent to jihadi conflict zones in Somalia, Algeria, Morocco, and Mauritania.

The Future is Now: Somalia in the New World Order

By Douglas Farah

The recent, audacious hijacking of a Saudi oil tanker by Somali pirates, with at least some of the ransom money destined for Islamist militants, shows just how quickly the future has arrived.

The criminal-terrorist groups on the Somali coast (largely controlled by radical Islamists of the al-Shabaab group, a self-declared affiliate of al Qaeda central) have in essence declared themselves at war as a joint enterprise, against the rest of the world. Even the Saudis are angry enough to try to join international efforts to combat the groups fed by their own theological teachings.

These loose-knit groups now join the FARC in Colombia, the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan and others as full-fledged terrorist-criminal enterprises that are the future. I have long warned that this threat will, unfortunately, have to be a tier-one priority for the incoming administration. These latest developments show just how dangerous it is to not deal with these issues in their infancy.

Unlike the FARC and Taliban, which rely on drugs, the Somali groups have used innovative thinking to generate their wealth. This too, is what we will see more and more of, as groups intersect along the terrorist-criminal pipeline and find overlapping interests and talents.

They took what was at hand, a vital artery in world commerce-including oil shipments-and found the weakness in the system, namely, a complete lack of protection of valuable cargo flowing past them.

The pirates, acting largely from economic motives, now hold a staggering amount of wealth in their hands. The operative concern has to be not only the criminal funds, but the use of these funds to arm and support radical Islamists. Al-Shabaab is likely to share the wealth, and we will see them suddenly armed with new, sophisticated weapons and communications as they move to finish off the weak and ineffective transitional government.

Already the hijackings are having a huge effect on commerce through one of the most obvious choke points in the world's shipping commerce. My full blog is here.

The Future of the Middle East

By Michael Jacobson

Yesterday afternoon, the Washington Institute hosted Dr. Tom Fingar, the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, as part of a speaker series we've been running with senior US government counterterrorism officials. Dr. Fingar gave a preview of the soon to be released report, "Global Trends 2025," which will offer the US government's assessment about what the world may look like in 17 years from now. Dr. Fingar focused his remarks on the Middle East, which Fingar noted will still be an "arc of instability" at that time, and therefore still on the front burner for US policymakers. Dr. Fingar covered a wide range of Middle East-related issues in his talk, including terrorism, energy, water/natural resources, nuclear programs, and the potential implications of the growing "youth bulge."

According to Dr. Fingar, the timing of the release of this report was not accidental. They hope that the incoming Obama administration will review and consider the report in the period before they take office, when they still have more time to focus on broad, strategic issues, and when the daily crush of the immediate taskings in the "in-boxes" is not so overwhelming. Dr. Fingar noted that many of the broad trends outlined in the report are not irreversible and that the incoming administration could take steps and develop policies which could change the projected course (for better and for worse).

The transcript of the event is available at this link:

NEFA Foundation: Ayman al-Zawahiri on the "Parting of Bush and the Arrival of Obama" (TRANSCRIPT)

By Evan Kohlmann

The NEFA Foundation has obtained a new audio recording from Al-Qaida Deputy Commander Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri released on November 19, 2008, titled "On the Parting of Bush and the Arrival of Obama.” During the recording, al-Zawahiri issued a message to U.S. President-Elect Obama, warning him of the "heavy legacy of failure and crimes [which] awaits you" and accusing Obama of having the "same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims" as the Bush administration. Zawahiri added, "in you, and in Colin Powell, Rice, and your likes, the words of Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him) concerning 'House Negroes' are confirmed. You... must appreciate, as you take over the presidency of America during its Crusade against Islam and Muslims, that you are neither facing individuals nor organizations, but are facing a Jihadi awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world."

A complete English transcript of al-Zawahiri's remarks can be accessed via the NEFA Foundation website.

Mobile Opportunities

By Aaron Mannes

Last week, Andy Cochran, wisely urged the incoming administration to develop the legal and institutional capabilities needed to deal with mobile banking. There is no question that terrorists and criminals will demonstrate tremendous creativity in stealing from mobile banking or cel-phone payment systems or using these new technologies to transfer and launder money. Time and again, the Internet being only the latest example, terrorists and criminals have shown themselves extraordinarily talented at adapting the newest technology to their nefarious needs.

But just as important is developing a framework to police this new technology is the maddening question of why we (that is the United States and other agencies charged with counter-terror missions worldwide) cannot be as creative or quick to take advantage of these technologies.

An Army Captain friend told me (this was several years ago) that training the Iraqi military was bedeviled by Iraq’s lack of a modern banking system. Recruits, unsurprisingly, had signed up to receive a salary. But because Iraq had no banking system, they had to hitchhike home in order to support their families. It was during these trips that the soldiers became vulnerable to kidnappings and executions. Presumably this problem has been ameliorated, but it is easy to see how a mobile banking system could have been extremely helpful in this situation.

Whatever ills will result from mobile banking, they will also be an enormous boon to people worldwide and could be an important tool for counter-terrorism and related development issues.

Read the full post here.

Aardvark's and Avatars

By Roderick Jones

There continues to be some discussion and rejection of the idea that terrorists would be able to exploit new technology platforms such as social networking and virtual worlds. In a recent post the blogger Abu Aardvark (aka Marc Lynch from GW University) goes some way in debunking ideas surrounding terrorist use of social networking, Wiki’s and virtual worlds. He further states that Al Qaeda is now behind the curve in using the area of user-generated content and interactivity. While, the aardvark’s media analysis relating to ‘al-Qaeda outreach’ appears to be sound I think he misses a fundamental point about terrorists and technology.

The defining feature of terrorism and technology is its adaptive quality. It is highly unlikely that individual terrorists or terrorist groups would exactly replicate the mainstream functions of the technology abu aardvark highlights in his post. It is more likely they would take certain elements from the various innovations and mesh them together or otherwise distort them. So an al-Qaeda Facebook isn’t going to happen anytime soon but using the system to identify IDF soldiers for possible assassination already has. Similarly an ‘AQThirdlife’, which replicates the virtual world Second Life seems unlikely but using some of its key features still seems probable. The virtual money transfer aspect continues to be a high on most peoples list of concerns (this is discussed in a recent SSRN paper written by Stephen Landman, Funding Bin Laden’s Avatar: A proposal for the regulation of Virtual Hawalas, which he has kind enough to share with me). Aardvark’s point about an AQThird life also fails to account for phenomena such as the virtual caliphate, which is running in the UK, where users log into areas to see and hear sermons by dead or expelled radical preachers - there continues to be a market for extremism and virtual exposure to it is potentially more powerful than real exposure.

As ever the central point is that given rapid and increasing virtualization flexible thinking and planning is required to conceptualize the next form of terrorist threat -- blogs appear to be a great enabler of this practice.

NEFA Foundation: Al-Qaida Faction in Gaza Claims Rocket Attacks on Israeli Targets (VIDEO)

By Evan Kohlmann

The NEFA Foundation has obtained a video recording from an emerging Palestinian Al-Qaida faction based in the Gaza Strip, Jaish al-Ummah ("The Army of the Islamic Nation"), claiming responsibility for rocket attacks on the town of Ashkelon and other Israeli targets on November 14, 2008. The video includes footage of the purported launch of the rockets, and a statement read by two masked militants in front of the official banner used by Al-Qaida's "Islamic State of Iraq" (ISI). The spokesmen indicated that the rocket bombardment, labeled "The Battle of Abdul Rashid Ghazi", had been carried out in honor of the late head cleric at Lal Masjid (a.k.a. "The Red Mosque") in Islamabad, Pakistan. Ghazi was killed on July 10, 2007 during a raid on the besieged Islamabad mosque by Pakistani military forces. During their recorded communiqué, the two Jaish al-Ummah militants also hailed the victories of their fellow "brethren" in various other locales, including Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The video can be viewed on the NEFA Foundation website.

Hizb ut-Tahrir America May Be Ready for Its Public Debut

By Madeleine Gruen

Hizb ut-Tahrir America (HTA) may perceive itself as ready to emerge from the shadows.

A leaflet credited to HTA was posted today to Khalifah.com, one of the few official Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) web sites. It is the first time that the global organization has formally acknowledged the existence of HTA.

The leaflet, originally dated October 28, 2008, is titled "Cooperate in Piety or Sin? Participation in the American Election." It calls for American Muslims not to participate in the U.S. presidential election.

In countries where HT has transitioned from a covert developmental phase to its public form it has been because the branch's membership was devoted enough to sustain potential resistance from local government agencies, its membership base was large enough to project the impression of strength, and it had influential members able to effectively persuade others of the party's objectives and methods for establishing an Islamic state.

Although we have been casually aware of HTA's presence for many years, and have seen unofficial acknowledgment of its existence by its own members, we have not seen a nation-wide public demonstration by HTA or any official web sites. Therefore, we do not have a measurable way to determine the size of HTA's membership or the depth of its influence. However, the official acknowledgment of HTA's existence, as demonstrated by the publication of the leaflet on the Khalifah web site, possibly shows that the HT leadership perceives HTA is solid enough to withstand public knowledge of its existence and the potential for additional scrutiny that comes with that knowledge.

NEFA Foundation: Lessons Learned From the Campaign Against the FARC in Colombia

By Douglas Farah

The NEFA Foundation has released a new report by NEFA Senior Investigator Douglas Farah titled "Lessons Learned from the Campaign Against the FARC in Colombia." This paper is the fourth NEFA Foundation report on the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-FARC), Latin America's oldest and largest insurgency. The FARC was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in 1997 and by the European Union in 2005. The Colombian government's successful military campaign against the FARC in Colombia represents one of the most important and least understood counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism efforts in recent decades. The successful campaign also represents an astonishing decade-long turnaround for a military that was on the verge of defeat to one and that has recently scored a series of spectacular successes. This paper examines the lessons learned from the Colombian experience, particularly the efforts to reform and streamline intelligence operations. It also looks at the difficult challenges remaining before victory is achieved and the Colombian paradox: while the Colombian military and police, backed by billions of dollar in U.S. aid, have successfully dismantled much of the FARC and cartel drug trafficking structures, the amount of cocaine Colombia produces has not diminished. (Read Report Here)

Somalia's Collapse (Again)

By Douglas Farah

Perhaps no venue outside the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region is a more important venue for radical Islamists than Somalia. Somalia is viewed as an historic battleground where the United States and United Nations were defeated once, and where al Qaeda and like-minded groups can build the beginning of the caliphate, that will rule the world according to Sharia law.

Now, it seems the jihadists have made an improbable comeback are again on the verge of taking power. How this has come to pass is a study in much of what is wrong with how counter-terrorism efforts are carried out in stateless areas.

As the Associated Press reports,the internationally recognized Transitional government, having been reinstalled in Mogadishu by the Ethiopians, acting at the behest of the United States and others less than two years ago, has again lost most of the national territory to the Islamists. This includes the major ports.

Why? Because the Transitional government has been so bogged down with internal infighting over scarce resources and old, petty rivalries, that they did not bother to engage in the war. The Ethiopians are viewed as an occupying force, and the international community again completely dropped the ball on following through.

Fundamentally, the government, after years of exile and representing no one, failed to deliver the minimum necessary to generate any popular support, despite knowing what that Islamists represent. The international community could not or would not hold them accountable for the squandered aid and opportunities. Now the same group has audacity to ask for MORE help. My full blog is here.

Holy Land Foundation…The Retrial

By Dennis Lormel

The second Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial was completed last week and went to the jury for deliberation. The first trial ended in October 2007, when the jury could not reach a verdict and the judge had to declare a mistrial. This case is extremely complex and challenging in many respects. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) should be commended for not backing away from the complexities, risks and challenges posed and for being committed to rightfully retry this matter.

The reality is, regardless of the jury verdict, HLF did in fact fund HAMAS through HAMAS fronted Zakat (Charity) Committees in the Palestinian territory.

The first and second trials alike came down to a simple premise. Did HLF and the five HLF officials on trial wittingly provide funds to charitable fronts with the intent that the funds directly benefit HAMAS? The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who conducted the lengthy multi-year investigation and DOJ, who prosecuted the case, firmly believe the subjects intended to fund HAMAS. Defense lawyers argued that the subjects intended to provide necessary humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people and did not wittingly provide funds to HAMAS through the Zakat Committees. Although the premise or question is simple, proving intent is extremely difficult and challenging.

DOJ has endured considerable criticism for investigating and bringing the HLF case to the original trial and retrial. Criticism ranged from accusations of Islamaphobia, made by Islamic groups contending discrimination based on fear, to criticism that the Israelis influenced DOJ to pursue this case. Neither allegation is true. Other critics contend DOJ should never have taken this case to trial because they could not win and because the humanitarian aid provided was necessary to support under privileged Palestinians.
Blame and criticism should not be pointed at DOJ. Win or lose the jury verdict, bringing this case forward was the right thing to do. Blame and criticism should be directed at HAMAS. HAMAS is a terrorist organization, who clearly exploited the vulnerability of charitable giving for their organizational benefit as opposed to the benefit of the Palestinian people. If HAMAS had truly cared about the Palestinian people they would have ensured funds from HLF and like charities would have gone to charities that were not affiliated with them. Instead, HAMAS ensured they were the beneficiaries furthering their logistical and psychological needs.

Proving intent is very difficult. That difficulty was compounded in both HLF trials due to the complexity of the documentary and circumstantial evidence required to prove the case. A rule of thumb for investigators and prosecutors when pursuing an extremely complex case is to simplify it as much as possible for the jury to better understand the facts. The first trial was almost twice as lengthy as the current trial was. DOJ had a hard time trying to simplify that case. That afforded defense lawyers the opportunity to raise uncertainties and confusion in the minds of the jurors, thereby negating the government’s ability to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In assessing the hung jury in the first trial, it was determined that one juror intimidated and influenced other jurors. In addition, it was evident that jurors were confused and had trouble grasping the facts. In assessing the government’s case, they did present the evidence that could have resulted in a prosecution. Another jury presented with the same evidence in the same manner could well have returned a guilty verdict. That was not the case however. As noted above, defense lawyers did a good job of establishing reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury which resulted in the mistrial.

As previously mentioned, the key for prosecutors in complex cases is to simplify the case for trial presentation. In preparing for the retrial, DOJ dissected their performance in the first trial as well as reviewed and assessed post trial juror interviews. As a result, they streamlined their case and kept their primary themes focused. This was evident by the fact the timeframe for presenting their argument was nearly cut in half. Prosecutors may not have been able to simplify the case as much as was desired, but by streamlining it, they were more focused and their case more understandable. They were able to repeatedly present their themes. This made it more difficult for defense lawyers to succeed in raising reasonable doubt about intent in the minds of the jurors. The question of intent now rests with the jury.

The best case scenario for the government will be guilty verdicts. The worst case scenario would be acquittals. Even if the trial ends with acquittals, DOJ deserves credit for bringing this matter to trial. First and foremost, when the government sanctioned HLF in December 2001, by freezing their assets, the government disrupted and prevented the flow of funds to HAMAS. By taking HLF to trial in 2007 and retrial in 2008, DOJ succeeded in bringing visible attention to the problem of funding through charitable exploitation by terrorist organizations. Specifically, during the first trial a number of my colleagues on the Counterterrorism Blog, including Steve Emerson and Doug Farah, exposed HLF’s relationship with HAMAS and the Muslim Brotherhood. They further exposed the dangers posed by the Muslim Brotherhood. No verdict can change those facts. Investigative reporters to include Steve Emerson and his Investigative Project and Jason Trahan of the Dallas Morning News provided continual coverage of both trials. The specific media attention given to this case achieved a strong deterrent by demonstrating the government’s commitment to pursue charities that support terrorists. No verdict can diminish the deterrent already achieved.

I firmly believe the prosecutors presented a stronger case in the retrial and established beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal intent of the subjects. They clearly demonstrated that HAMAS was the beneficiary of funds from HLF. I applaud the FBI and DOJ for their perseverance and willingness to take on the risk and challenge of bringing this matter to trial.

Hizballah Calls for Referendum on its Weapons?

By Walid Phares

This week, a Hezbollah official said his organization would call for a referendum in Lebanon over the Iranian-backed militia. This unprecendented statement signals a new stage in Hezbollah's gradual moves to dominate the country's defense and security apparatuses. After having crumbled the first Seniora cabinet in May 2008 and succeeded in forcing the Government -after the Doha agreement- to recognize the "legality of the resistance," the group is exploring the possibility of bypassing the UN resolution calling for the disarming of all militias. In my estimate, it is possible that the organization feels the time is ripe to score one more victory towards fully "legalizing" Hezbollah's military forces as a parallel to the Lebanese Army, as a sort of a "Lebanese Pasdaran." Commenting on the development, military expert Thomas Smith published a short assessment with me regarding the issue. The conversation was posted initially on the World Defense Review Military Blog and the International Analysts Network. For the purpose of sharing it on CTB, I added it below.

Thomas Smith

Hizballah, the Iranian-Syrian-backed Shia terrorist organization - perhaps the best-organized, most heavily-financed, most-dangerous organization on the U.S. State Department’s designated terrorist list - has called for a national referendum on whether-or-not the issue of its weapons-possession in Lebanon should be accepted or rejected by the Lebanese people.

Until May of 2008 - when Hizballah and its allies launched a series of armed attacks against the government and the Lebanese citizenry - it was widely accepted that the pro-democracy majority in Lebanon supported the United Nations’ call for Hizballah to disarm along with all other militias in Lebanon.

But the sudden, unprecedented call for a referendum this week suggests the terrorist group - emboldened by its political, military, and geostrategic gains since May - believes it has forcibly intimidated the Lebanese people to the point that the majority is no longer capable of standing up for true democracy. And a referendum in favor of Hizballah’s weapons might forever quash international demands for Hizballah to disarm.

The issuance of such a call is a clear expression of Hizballah’s confidence in its ability to advance its control of Lebanon. It’s also a huge gamble for the terrorist organization.

Why take the risk? We asked Professor Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (and a visiting fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels).

W. THOMAS SMITH JR.: Why would Hizballah call for a referendum when they know that the pro-democracy movement (which is a majority) in Lebanon is against Hizballah having weapons?

DR. WALID PHARES: We have to understand the geopolitics of Lebanon have dramatically changed since last May. Any analysis of Hizballah’s positions and initiatives today must be developed based on the new factor in the equation, which is that Hizballah’s control of Lebanon’s national security. Hence, when Hizballah’s leaders offer to submit their weapons-possession to a referendum it means they have insured a military-protected control mechanism over the political process in the country. They can determine the answer to the referendum, which negates the validity of the referendum.

Yes, it is true that on March 14, 2005, one-and-a-half million Lebanese from all religious and ethnic sectors marched against the Syrian occupation and terrorist militias. But that clear cut popular majority has since been undermined, intimidated, and essentially defeated over the past three years. The assassinations of representatives of the Cedars Revolution such as Parliamentarian Gibran Tueni, the attempt to kill outspoken journalists such as May Chidiac, and the militia invasion of Beirut and the Chouf districts in May are all evidence that Lebanon today lives under terror and needs significant help from the international community so that its people can exercise free popular referendums.

Ironically, I had suggested via Arab satellite TV three years ago, that the Lebanese people be allowed to decide on the weapons of Hizballah, in other words should an armed militia be permitted to exist outside the Lebanese Army. At that time and since then, no one from Hizballah or even the March 14 coalition considered the initiative. Obviously, at the time it wasn’t in Hizballah’s interest to accept a referendum knowing that an overwhelming majority of citizens would vote “no.” But after three years - and particularly since May 2008 - it appears as if they feel confident they can get a majority of Lebanese to agree to their keeping these weapons. Since they have the upper hand in the country militarily, they believe they can pull it off. As for March 14 and the Lebanese government: both have had multiple opportunities to have the UN by their side helping them implement UNSCR 1559. Unfortunately, they hesitated and lost that opportunity. In short, Hizballah’s call today for a referendum means they are close to transforming Lebanon into another Iran or Venezuela.

SMITH: Agreed. But why risk it? Hizballah already holds all the cards, so why try for a different hand?

DR. PHARES: Hizballah is taking full advantage of the post-May era in Lebanon since seizing power; first on the ground in Beirut, then when its military role was recognized at the Doha Conference. And as the United States was preoccupied with its presidential campaigns and election, the Iranian-backed Hizballah moved forward to consolidate its gains and achieve as many small victories on the ground and in the government in order to insure its influence over more than a third of the cabinet and then enjoying the fact the new president of Lebanon would not - and will not - move against the group.

Now, with the election of a new U.S. president, the impression of the Iranian leaders is that they may have some time where diplomatic engagement may occur. Hence, the mood in Hizballah’s camp is that the time is ripe to further consolidate their grip over Lebanon and thus completely bypass UN resolutions by calling for a referendum over their weapons, and win it easily. Is it a risk? Unless the other side and the international community seize the opportunity and corner Hizballah, it won’t be a risk.

SMITH: So do you believe that accepting the suggestion of Hizballah regarding a weapons referendum should be considered?

DR. PHARES: Yes, but only if there is a smart, strong Lebanese leadership able to turn the initiative in the right direction. Because, after all, there is a real popular-majority in Lebanon, which is opposed to the armed militias, particularly to the pro-Iranian forces. This is a fact that has not changed.

In fact, according to the information I have, the anti-Hizballah majority has grown wider among the masses within the various communities: not the other way around. If the leaders of the Cedars Revolution are politically intelligent they would accept Hizballah’s proposal and take the challenge all the way. If they recollect themselves and think strategically, they can pull a massive victory with democratic means.

SMITH: What if a majority voted “yes” for Hizballah’s weapons? Would that not be another victory for Hizballah?

DR. PHARES: Knowing the real aspirations of the public, I would accept that risk.

First, the advantage would be that Hizballah would have moved the legitimacy of their weapons from the divine level to the citizens’ level. That alone is significant.

Second, if the Lebanese are provided with all international mechanisms to express themselves freely, they will surprise Hizballah as well as their own elected representatives. The question is to enable the Lebanese to express themselves freely.

Even in the absence of the implementation of UNSCR 1559, a mechanism is possible to organize a real referendum. I’d say, it is feasible and has high chances for success. The question again is about the ability of Lebanese politicians to focus and act strategically, and not sink or be maneuvered into the narrowness which has led to so many setbacks to democracy in that unlucky country.

Published in the World Defense Review and the International Analysts Network

« Close It

Obama: Killing Bin Laden 'Top Priority'

By James Gordon Meek

President-Elect Obama didn’t mince words about his plans for Al Qaeda’s top thugs in an interview broadcast tonight.

“I think it is a top priority for us to stamp out al Qaeda once and for all,” Obama told CBS’ “60 Minutes.” “I think capturing or killing (Osama) Bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out Al Qaeda. He is not just a symbol, he’s also the operational leader of an organization that is planning attacks against U.S. targets.”

Recall that, as we reported in the New York Daily News, Obama received his first “expanded access” intelligence briefing about 10 days ago from Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.

But maybe he missed - or simply disagrees somewhat - CIA Director Michael Hayden’s remarks last week about Bin Laden’s current capabilities.

In a speech Thursday to the Atlantic Council, Hayden said the Al Qaeda kingpin, who the CIA has failed to kill for over a decade, “is putting a lot of energy into his own survival.”

“In fact, he appears to be largely isolated from the day-to-day operations of the organization he nominally heads,” Hayden said.

Near the Obama home in Chicago, meanwhile, the local cops are still adjusting to having “the big guy” - a term of respect bestowed on every president by the rank and file in blue - in the neighborhood.

Before Obama left his house Sunday afternoon, a Chicago police officer stationed a block away stopped two local residents at a concrete barrier, according to an Obama press pool report.

“Let 'em go, they live here!” another police officer shouted, according to the pooler. “You only stop them if they live right next door, or if they look like suicide bombers or something.”

First Unofficial Obama Positions on New War Strategies: A Discussion

By Walid Phares

In an effort to engage in an early discussion of the forthcoming Administration's policies regarding the War Strategies, I have reviewed and analyzed comments made by sources representing the national security team to the Washington Post about the "new strategies" to be explored regarding Afghanistan and Iran. Since the transition is taking place during an ongoing global conflict, it is important to discuss the propositions made by the forthcoming Administration, including at an exploration stage, because of the severe impact a finalized policy would have over the next four to eight years. Hence, the community is invited to be fully involved in the early stage analysis as a contribution to the finalization of the so-called new strategies. Following is my article published today in various outlets.

As the transition in the United States between the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama is moving forward feverishly while world crises escalate, observers of conflicts are focusing on the messages emanating from the next foreign policy team in Washington.

The smooth passing of the torch from one leadership to another in the middle of unfinished wars and gigantic counterterrorism efforts is critical, especially if a strategic change of direction is on its way.

Analysts wonder about the nature of change to come: is it about managing battlefields or reducing them?

The first post election statements made by Obama sources - incorporated into a Washington Post article by Karen DeYoung published on Nov. 11, "Obama to Explore New Approach in Afghanistan War" - are very revealing.

Although these "conversations" with aides are still unofficial positions at the formal level, one must read them as the first salvo in setting the tone and guidelines for early 2009.

Thus, and in order to engage in a national discussion on what seems to be the near future, we must analyze these propositions one by one and contrast them with the intensity of the evolving threat.

Therefore, the following are early comments on the emerging new policies.

The Washington Post article began by stating that the Obama administration is planning on "exploring a more regional strategy to the war in Afghanistan including possible talks with Iran." Citing Obama national security advisers, the Post added that the new strategy "looks favorably on the nascent dialogue between the Afghan government and 'reconcilable' elements of the Taliban."

These two so-called strategic components of the forthcoming administration's plan to end the conflict in central Asia deserve a high level of attention and thorough examination. In a post Sept. 11, 2001 environment - meaning seven years into a confrontation with jihadist forces - not only experts but a large segment of the American public has developed a higher awareness of the threat of the enemy and of its long-term objectives. Arguments in foreign policy analysis are not as alien as they were to citizens prior to the 2001 attacks. Many Americans know who the Taliban are and what their goals are, and they know as well of the dangerous fantasies of the mullah regime in Tehran.

A new strategy in the region covering Pakistan and Iran is indeed needed to achieve advances in defeating the jihadis and in empowering the democracy forces in Afghanistan.

If the Bush administration was too slow in reaching that conclusion, then one would expect the Obama foreign policy team to bridge the gap and quickly arrive at a successful next stage.

But the "regional" proposition unveiled by the Washington Post defies logic, instead of consolidating it.

For I wonder on what grounds the Iranian regime would shift from a virulent anti-U.S. attitude to a favorable team player in stabilizing Afghanistan? Even the gurus of classical realism would wonder.

If a deal is possible with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it cannot be on establishing a democratic government in Kabul. It simply doesn't add up knowing the essence of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its oppressive nature.

Therefore, and before the new administration even begins to sell the idea, it is important for all to realize that any Afghan deal cut with Iran must assume that the next regime in Kabul will satisfy the agenda in Tehran: meaning non-democratic. This is the first hurdle.

Amazingly, the second proposition simultaneously would invite the Taliban (postulating that a milder wing indeed exists) to share power in the country as a way to end the conflict. More problems emerge here: first, if the "good" Taliban are brought to the deal (assuming this is even feasible), what happens with the "bad" Taliban? Will the latter just "go away" or will there be a fight between the "good and the bad" factions? And how can the new strategy end the new Afghan war and will we come to the rescue of the nice jihadists against the ugly ones? Obviously, it doesn't add up either.

Second, assuming there would be a partial re-Talibanization of Afghanistan, how could this co-exist with the Iranians? The same Washington Post article quoted the same advisers, underscoring that "The Iranians don't want Sunni extremists in charge of Afghanistan any more than we do."

How can the architects reconcile bringing in the Iranians for help and, at the same time, inviting the "Sunni extremists" to be sitting in Kabul? This construct doesn't fly on mere logic.

As I wondered in an interview with Fox News the same day, are the new foreign policy planners talking about changing the strategy or changing the enemy?

The most logical ally against most of the Taliban should be the democratically-elected government in Pakistan, which is already waging a campaign against al-Qaida and its Taliban allies. Why would Washington replace this potential ally (regardless of all mishaps) with two foes: the non-democratic regime of Iran and a faction of the totalitarian Taliban?

In this dizzying maze a la 1990s, one begins to wonder if we are flipping the enemy into an ally, and vice versa, merely so that the slogan of "change" is then materialized. My feeling is that post electoral political pressures are so intense that it may produce a recipe for greater confusion and even disaster.

The problem is not the idea of "talking" to any of the players, including the current foes; engaging in contacts is always an option and has always been practiced. The problem is the perception by the new U.S. officials (and even current ones) that we can simply and naively "create" the conditions that we wish, regardless of the intentions of the other side. When reading these suggestions, one concludes that they were conceived on paper as unilateral designs lacking any strategic understanding of the enemy.

Take two examples as a starter: first, if you want to engage the so-called "acceptable" Taliban into a national unity government in Kabul (which is not an impossible idea theoretically), did you incorporate what their minimal demands are? And can your analysis of the jihadis' long-term strategy produce a projection over four to six years of a return of these jihadis to power? I don't think so.

Second, if you wish to enlist Iran as a partner in Afghanistan, will you be able to continue with the sanctions over its nuclear program? Obviously not. Thus the bottom line is that the price for befriending Tehran in Kabul is to allow it to reach its nuclear military ambitions. If it is otherwise, the upcoming foreign policy team has a lot of explaining to do.

Another interesting statement made by an adviser, according to the Washington Post, was that "the incoming administration intends to remind Americans how the fight "against Islamist extremists" began - on Sept. 11, 2001, before the Afghanistan and Iraq wars - and to underscore that al-Qaida remains the nation's highest priority. "This is our enemy," one adviser said of Bin Laden, "and he should be our principal target."

Although as a reader I am not sure if DeYoung was discussing the new strategies in the war with the same "source," the latter, stronger sentence is of great value for future inquiries. For if indeed the incoming administration intends to remind U.S. citizens that the fight is "against Islamist extremists," then this would be a good bridge to the Bush administration's bold rhetoric, which ended in 2006.

If the Obama administration "change" in strategy is to redefine the confrontation in the precise manner the adviser did, then we will be lucky. If that is the case, then we would hope and expect the new administration to repel the irresponsible "lexicon" disseminated by bureaucrats within the Bush administration and instead issue a strong document identifying the threat as stated in the Washington Post article, explaining once and for all the ideology of bin Laden so that indeed we can understand "our principal target."

These early remarks are aimed at helping the Obama administration from its inception to clearly strategize and target so that the next four, and maybe eight years, will be a leap forward in protecting this country and in defending democracy worldwide.

This is only a glimpse of conversations to come about America's national security and the hope to see a real qualitative change for the best.
--------

Dr. Walid Phares is the director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of "The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad".

« Close It

It Doesn't Take Intelligence: 'Change' Is Coming

By James Gordon Meek

It’s a curious thing about elections: they have consequences. Still, Washington’s favorite parlor game (for those who have parlors) at the moment is the peculiar effort to divine which Bush appointees will be sticking around in Barack Obama’s first term. The slogan was “Change We Need,” folks, not “Bush Act III.” Of course, with Rahm Emanuel and John Podesta as the President-Elect’s sherpas, you could argue this is really, “Star Wars: Return of the Clintonistas.”

So maybe SECDEF Bob Gates will stick around to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for a year. He’s universally regarded as a decent human being and a breath of fresh air after Don Rumsfeld. (Plus, Gates likes to sit down, whereas Rummy liked to “stand 8-10 hours a day,” as he famously wrote on a torture memo about “stress positions” at Gitmo.)

But what about the Director of National Intelligence, retired Navy Adm. Mike McConnell, who’s been on the job for less than two years?

Sources within his office, which oversees 16 U.S. intel agencies, say he’s “willing” to stay for a little while to provide Obama a transitional security blanket. But Team Obama has not called to discuss his future, those same sources told the New York Daily News' Mouth of the Potomac Blog this week. And you can bet McConnell’s job security wasn’t a topic when he briefed Obama in Chicago last Thursday on foreign threats.

Much speculation centers on John Brennan, a highly respected retired CIA official who stood up the National Counterterrorism Center in 2004 and is advising the President-Elect. Among many things Democrats like about the softspoken Brennan are his anti-torture views.

“Best guess for DNI, right now, is Brennan,” one graybeard in the intelligence community told me today. “Despite rumors to the contrary, I don’t think McConnell really wants to stay.”

Then there’s retired Air Force Gen. Mike Hayden, the CIA director, who has restored morale to the spy agency after Porter Goss made spooks so miserable they were forced to leak like the Bismark. Hayden told Pittsburgh radio station WDVE on Monday that he’s never met Obama, but said “I’d be honored if the President-elect would ask me” to stay at CIA. The spymaster also complimented the Illinois senator as “very well read, very smart.”

“[Hayden] doesn’t have any expectations one way or the other,” another senior intelligence official said. “Hayden likes the work, he has a high regard for the people there, and he cares deeply about the mission. Those are the factors that he would consider [if asked to stay].”

Many Democrats are cool on Hayden, however, since he was director of the National Security Agency after 9/11 when it began warrantless surveillance of many U.S. phone calls. Hayden also defended CIA destroying interrogation videos, though loyalists griped that the abusive sessions were all authorized by his predecessor, Clinton holdover George Tenet.

In a brilliantly-timed speech before the Atlantic Council today, the politically-astute Hayden took a sharp turn away from President Bush’s well-worn talking points on fighting terrorism and essentially endorsed Obama’s campaign position that the “central front” is in the Afghan-Pakistan tribal belt.

“Today, the flow of money, weapons, and foreign fighters into Iraq is greatly diminished, and Al Qaeda senior leaders no longer point to it as the central battlefield,” Hayden declared.

Only two months ago, Bush told the National Defense University in a speech: “Al Qaeda leaders have repeatedly declared that Iraq is the central front of their war with America.”

“We will know the national security lineup by December 15,” the first intelligence source predicted.

NOTE: Late Thursday, Congressional Quarterly reporters Keith Perine and Tim Starks reported their interview with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s likely incoming chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said of Hayden and McConnell, “My view is that it’s time for a new start.”

A Treasury Designation and a Curious Omission

By Douglas Farah

The Treasury Department's decision to designate the Union of Good for funding Hamas is welcome and overdue.

What is interesting, however, as noted by the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (free registration required) is that the designation does not directly touch Yousef al-Qaradawi, the head of the organization and the leading theologian for the Muslim Brotherhood. Here is his website where he is listed with the Union of Good president.

The reasons for the OFAC designation is stated as:

The leadership of Hamas created the Union of Good in late-2000, shortly after the start of the second Intifada, in order to facilitate the transfer of funds to Hamas. The Union of Good acts as a broker for Hamas by facilitating financial transfers between a web of charitable organizations-including several organizations previously designated under E.O. 13224 for providing support to Hamas-and Hamas-controlled organizations in the West Bank and Gaza. The primary purpose of this activity is to strengthen Hamas' political and military position in the West Bank and Gaza, including by: (i) diverting charitable donations to support Hamas members and the families of terrorist operatives; and (ii) dispensing social welfare and other charitable services on behalf of Hamas.

The designation describes some of the the relationship between some members of the Union and Hamas: My full blog is here.

NEFA Foundation: Taliban Reaction to Obama Presidency

By Evan Kohlmann

The NEFA Foundation has obtained a new statement from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban) addressed to U.S. President-elect Barack Obama. The Taliban assess that "the overwhelming victory of Barrack Obama, the candidate of the Democrats in the US Presidential Election and his assumption of US presidency reveals the collective willingness of American people not to continue the current despicable and anti-human wars in Afghanistan and Iraq --- wars that have been launched by W. Bush." Further, it is "imperative for Obama to put an end to all the policies being followed by his Opposition Party, the Republicans and pull out US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq forthwith." The statement ends with the following advice to Obama: "He should respect the rights of the people to independence and observe the norms of human rights. In short, he should set out on a policy that will have a message of peace for the war-stricken world which has been victimized by the arrogance and tyranny of USA."

Target: America: JFK Plot

By Madeleine Gruen

The NEFA Foundation has released the sixteenth installment in the “Target: America” series, which examines the 2006/07 plot to attack jet fuel tanks and the adjoining fuel pipeline at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK). The attack was conceived by Guyanese-American Russell Defreitas, a former cargo handler at JFK. Defreitas conspired from New York, with others located in Guyana, and with an FBI informant he befriended in New York. Defreitas and the informant conducted surveillance at JFK, traveled to Guyana to solidify attack plans with the other conspirators, and then traveled to Trinidad with the intention of securing financial and expert assistance from the leader of Jamaat al-Muslimeen The conspirators were arrested in Spring 2007, and are now in New York City awaiting trial. This report intends to provide as much detail as possible about the development of the plot, the background of the conspirators, their ideological motivation, their method of target selection, and their methods of operation.

The Return of the Shining Path and the Criminal-Terrorist Nexus

By Douglas Farah

For those of us who were covering the conflicts in Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s, there was no group more terrifying than Peru's Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) an Maoist organization intent on causing rivers of blood to flow in order to achieve the proletariat utopia.

After many years and countless dead, Sendero was largely dismantled and its chief ideologue , Abimael Guzman, who ran a horrific cult of personality, was jailed. The group was widely thought to have been put out of business permanently.

Now, as the Washington Post reports, Sendero, a designated terrorist entity, is coming back. Why?

The Shining Path, which has its bases in two coca-producing regions of central Peru, is now heavily involved in drug trafficking and is paying for new recruits.

Again, the terrorist/criminal nexus shows up, as it will more and more frequently.

The terrorists, using criminal proceeds, wear bullet proof vests, carry assault rifles and can pay salaries in isolated regions of the country where the state has little presence. Where they were once one of the most hated and reviled insurgencies on the continent, they are trying to come back in a softer, gentler form.

What makes the reemergence of Sendero even more dangerous is the regional situation. My full blog is here.

Iraqi Insurgents Issue Open Letter to President-Elect Obama

By Evan Kohlmann

The NEFA Foundation has obtained an Arabic-language communiqué issued by the Political Council of the Iraqi Resistance (PCIR), an umbrella organization which oversees the political interests of several major Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq—including the Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI), the Salahudeen al-Ayyubi Brigades (JAAMI), Hamas al-Iraq, and the breakaway “Shariah Committee” from the former Ansar al-Sunnah Army. The statement from the PCIR, addressed to U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, offered blunt advice “for the new American administration to benefit from and to use to avoid the mistakes that the old administration fell into. The reason why you won the presidency is not because the Americans suddenly found out that they should not be racist, it is because of the many mistakes that the Bush administration fell under which didn’t leave for the American citizen any room, not even for a second to think about keeping that administration and the least proof for this is the large numbers of votes against them. Your campaign promises were built on change and the time for it has come, and we say with that the time has come… therefore we ask for change and do not listen to those who tell you that a withdrawal from Iraq is a defeat. We say to you that a withdrawal will mean a triumph of reason and logic… You must correct your mistakes and work with courage to pay compensation to all those who you have destroyed, their families or their house or their psychology. And you must release all those you have as prisoners until the last Iraqi of them, and you must order the sectarian government to release all its prisoners and to return the balance of security to Iraq. Without this we will not think that you will be coming with the change that you have promised, and if you do this you will be written down in history as the courageous one.”

Cell Phone Payments Make the World Easier For Terrorists, Too

By Andrew Cochran

A Reuters article discusses the ease with which developments in cell phone technology are rapidly enabling mobile payments, replacing credit cards and other instruments controlled by traditional financial institutions.

"Japan is leading the way in this regard. KDDI, for example, is a Japanese telecom operator that has recently set up a bank along with Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group. NTT DoCoMo, Japan's biggest wireless carrier, offers credit cards and lending services as part of a tie up with Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Japan's third-largest bank. Outside Japan, telecom industry and financial players are still in the midst of working out how the wallet phone payment business would operate, who would get a cut and when. 'Traditional financial industry met telcos by going mobile. Now telecom operators want to play a part in that chain. These talks are well under way,' said Gerhard Romen, Director for Strategic Alliances & Partnering at Nokia."

The Reuters article said little about the downside of the new technology. But terrorist financing experts in and outside government have long been worried that the mobile payment development is outpacing regulators' and law enforcement's ability to detect and prevent use by terrorists. In their new report on terrorist financing, "The Money Trail: Finding, Following, and Freezing Terrorist Finance," Contributing Experts Matthew Levitt and Michael Jacobson of the Washington Institute discuss terrorists' use of cell phones to transfer funds. "M-payments, where cell phones are utilized to transfer money electronically, are growing in importance, as is the transfer and storage of funds via online entities such as cashU or e-gold. In countries where the formal financial sector is less than robust—such as in many African countries—using cell phones is a far more attractive option for transferring funds. In some cases, terrorists are suspected of using the internet to obtain logistical and financial support for their operations... One factor is the evolution in terrorist financing, including the use of cell phones and cash couriers to transfer funds, abuse of charities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and trade-based money laundering." As I wrote on February 29, the State Department labeled mobile payments a "growing threat" for their use by narco-terrorists.

Cell phones also enable the user to access stored value instruments, such as as an embedded chip in the phone, a hard card, or a cloud account, issued by financial institutions and other companies. As the Reuters article and a report by the Australian Government's Institute of Criminology noted, MasterCard is pushing the development of "phone wallets," through which cardholders can access their stored value account by sending text messages from a registered mobile phone (what one expert calls "Cell-a-Card").

Mobile payment systems are being deployed at an incredibly rapid rate. A recent article in a banking systems subscription newsletter recently noted that each of the top 10 banks in the U.S. will have a mobile banking platform opened by the end of this year. Last year, the Gartner Group predicted $2 trillion in mobile transactions by 2012. Workshop titles at recent cell industry conferences include “Convergence of Financial Tools on Cell Platforms” and “The Mobile ATM.”

The Obama Administration and next Congress need to get on top of this issue next year.

UK Terrorism Intelligence Report highlights extremist 'enclaves'

By Roderick Jones

A report entitled ‘International Terrorism’ drawn up by the intelligence branch of the Ministry of Defence in the UK, was leaked to the Sunday Telegraph newspaper in the UK. The document outlines the continued high threat to the UK from international terrorists aligned with al-Qaeda and in particular the severe threat to the Government Security Zone (GSZ) in the center of London, which covers the Houses of Parliament, Whitehall and Buckingham Palace. The report also highlights the continued presence of extremist 'enclaves' in the UK within Birmingham, Luton and South East England.

What is particularly interesting about this report is how little the extremist human and geographical terrain has changed within the UK over the past ten years. Similarly, the core actions of extremist networks have remained consistent in spreading their message, training, funding and procuring non-lethal military equipment to support Jihadi’s in Pakistan - this report really could have been written in 1998. What has of course changed is the explicit domestic targeting of the UK, which was less apparent ten years ago. The UK government’s response to extremism and international terrorism has also drastically shifted - I just hope they aren’t fighting the battle they should have fought in 1998.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi Offers Economic Proposal to “New Rulers in the White House”

By Evan Kohlmann

The NEFA Foundation has obtained and translated a new audio recording from the Amir al-Mumineen (“Commander of the Faithful”) of Al-Qaida’s Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. According to al-Baghdadi, the purpose of the audio recording addressed to the “new rulers in the White House” was “to invite you amicably to change and improve your actions. It is not meant to intimidate or threaten you.” Al-Baghdadi mocked the inadequacies of the U.S. government, particularly demonstrated in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, and characterized the U.S. as “a rather cartoonish civilization, for if the electricity is shut down or computers stop operating, you immediately return to a medieval state.” In concluding, al-Baghdadi offered a proposal of mutual benefit to the incoming Obama White House: “return to your former state of neutrality, withdraw your troops, and return to your homelands, and stop intervening in the affairs of our nations either directly or indirectly. If you do so, on our part, we shall guarantee you free trade, including the trade of petroleum—so long as it is conducted in a fair and equitable way, and not shoddily or without profit.”

The Money Trail: Finding, Following and Freezing Terrorist Finances

By Matthew Levitt

U.S. and international efforts to combat terrorist financing are a little understood—and often unappreciated—aspect of the global counterterrorism campaign. With this in mind, soon after rejoining The Washington Institute after serving in the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Mike Jacobson and I decided that it would be worthwhile to conduct a comprehensive study of this issue. The produce is our just released study, "The Money Trail: Finding, Following and Freezing Terrorist Finances."

We spent more than a year conducting the research and writing this Policy Focus. It is based on open source information, including media reports, reports by U.S. and foreign governments and international organizations, congressional testimony, and perhaps most important, our field research and interviews. During the course of our research, we interviewed some seventy-five people, ranging from U.S. and foreign government officials to officials in key international organizations such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, and the Financial Action Task Force, as well as academics and financial experts in the private sector. While many of the interviews took place in Washington, D.C., and in New York, we also spent considerable time abroad, including multiple trips to Europe and the Middle East. During one extended research trip to the Persian Gulf, we met with government officials, bankers, and industry and academic experts.

We have strived to produce a report that not only explains the threat of terrorist financing and the efforts of governments and international organizations to address it, but also assesses the effectiveness of these efforts. We offer, in addition, our thoughts as to what steps the United States could take to improve international efforts in this area. We hope that this study helps inform the public debate on this important topic, which has not always received the attention it deserves. Better understanding both the threat and our response is critical to determining what role combating terrorist financing should play in our overall counterterrorism efforts and what changes should be made to our current approach.

Chapter 1, the introduction to the monograph, provides a broad overview of the subjects we cover, as well as some of our basic findings. In chapter 2, we explain the importance of the little understood efforts to combat terrorist financing, and why they are and should be an important part of the global counterterrorism campaign. Chapter 3 lays out how terrorist financing—like the terrorist threat itself—is rapidly evolving, frequently in response to international efforts to combat it. As we discuss in this chapter, the terrorist groups’ adaptation in how they raise, store and, move funds can often frustrate governmental efforts to detect and stop them. In chapter 4, we assess U.S. and international efforts to combat terrorist financing since the September 11 attacks—first laying out the many areas where steps forward have been taken, then exploring some of the remaining challenges. In chapter 5, we gauge how effective U.S. and international efforts have been, pointing to specific signs of success in an area in which progress is often difficult to measure. In chapter 6, we offer numerous recommendations for U.S. policymakers to bolster the international regime in this critically important area. Chapter 7 includes three case studies, providing “status checks” on the terrorist financing-related activities of three key terrorist groups—al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizballah.

The full study is available here as a free PDF download.

A Useful Counterterrorism Weapon

By Douglas Farah

In the day-to-day discussions and actions to combat terrorism, particularly radical Islamist terrorism, we generally agree that it will be a long struggle that could last generations. I agree.

But it is useful to step back and realize there is a powerful weapon that we CAN use to great effect. Both presidential candidates agreed on it, and it is long overdue. That is to decrease our consumption of oil so that our money does not flow to those who want to destroy us.

The effects have already been dramatic, as this IHT article describes. Two regimes that pose direct threats to U.S, Latin American and Middle Eastern stability-Iran and Venezuela-are teetering on the edge of severe financial meltdowns because oil prices have dropped.

A third country that is growing increasingly willing to deal with rogue regimes-Russia-is also hard hit, although not to the degree of Iran and Venezuela. Saudi Arabia's ability to fund the propogation of Wahhabi extremism and intolerance will also be curtailed if the prices stay down.

Why? Because these regimes conservatively built their budgets, including the expansionary weapons purchases, on oil averaging $80 to $90 a barrel. When it falls below that, particularly to where it has been recently, they are forced to choose between their expansionist and militarist dreams, and feeding their own people.

Both Obama and McCain focused on the fact that we spend billions of dollars buying oil from regimes that hate us and have a radically different view of what the world should look like than most of its neighbors. Both viewed the issue of energy independence as a matter of national security. While differing on the margins over where to drill and the priority given nuclear energy, the campaigns, representing candidates supported by about 96 percent of the voting population, were in agreement. My full blog is here.

Planning an invasion of Lebanon?

By Olivier Guitta

I just wrote an article for the Middle East Times looking at the possibility of a Syrian invasion of Lebanon.
You can read the full article here.

Here is an excerpt:
President-elect Obama should be careful in his dealings with the Syrian regime. In fact, quite possibly, Assad might be pondering if he could get away with reoccupying Lebanon.

The whole strategy of finding excuses to re-invade Lebanon is little by little being put in place. The most ominous signs were the deployment of 10,000 Syrian special forces on the northern border followed by the recent deployment of additional troops on the eastern border. Syria explained that it was to prevent Sunni Salafists terrorists from entering Syrian territory.

The third step took place on Thursday when Syrian state television broadcast "confessions" from members of the Islamist terror group Fatah al-Islam (FAI).

Not only did the FAI militants admit being behind a suicide bombing in Damascus in September but also Wafa al-Absi, the daughter of FAI's leader Shaker al-Absi, stated that FAI got money from Saad Hariri's anti-Syrian Future Movement.

By undermining the current Lebanese parliamentary majority, Syria is trying one way or another to regain control of what it still considers part of its territory.

Why is this so obvious?

FAI is first and foremost a creation of the Syrian intelligence service that has been used to destabilize the Lebanese regime that kicked out the Syrian occupation army in 2005.

Numerous experts describe FAI as a Syrian vehicle influenced also by al-Qaida. Indeed, al-Qaida, which uses the Palestinian camps in Lebanon as a transit point, definitely influenced FAI, whose ideology went from the "liberation of Palestine" to a worldwide jihad against the crusaders and the Jews.

In November 2006, Salafist militants of FAI infiltrated Lebanon through Heloua, a remote Lebanese village out of reach for the Lebanese army since it is considered a Syrian enclave. According to a Western military expert, Palestinians have been receiving light weapons from Syria, which is then redistributed to other refugee camps in Lebanon.

NEFA Exclusive: Translation of Controversial Interview with Al-Qaida in Iraq Leader Abu Hamza al-Muhajir

By Evan Kohlmann

The NEFA Foundation has transcribed and translated a highly controversial new interview with Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, the leader of Al-Qaida in Iraq. During the interview, produced by the official media wing of Al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Hamza pointedly accused various other Sunni insurgent groups—including the Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI), the Mujahideen Army, and the 1920 Revolution Brigades—of treachery and collaboration with U.S. forces and the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government. When asked by the Al-Qaida interviewer, “do you have military operations outside Iraq, such as in Western countries, for example? Do you have the intention of targeting Western interests?”, Abu Hamza responded, “Every country which has participated in the aggression on Iraq and in the crimes against the rights of our people are legitimate targets for us—for even if time grows long, rights are not forgotten or grow old. Indeed, we have already carried out many operations outside Iraq—one of which that should be particularly mentioned is the most recent operation in Britain, when part of [the mission] was carried out at the airport, and rest was a failure, due to a mistake committed by one of our brothers a few days before the operation, when he called to break the news that the operation was about to take place. However, we should give the leaders of Britain, America, and Australia some news about what is to come. What Allah has inspired in us, they have no power to counter and, with the help of Allah, no capacity to detect.”

Separately, the NEFA Foundation has also obtained and translated a new communiqué issued by the Ansar al-Islam Organization in Iraq (formerly known as the Ansar al-Sunnah Army), in which the group distanced itself from “illegal actions” and “criminal behavior” allegedly committed by unspecified factions from within the jihadi movement in Iraq. Rejecting any responsibility for these “incidents”, the statement argued, “May Allah forbid that Ansar [al-Islam] would remain silent in the face of abominable actions as an approval of them—to the contrary, we have relied on remaining silent as our policy for a specific stage and for a specific purpose, which we consider to be crucial for us. Our silence is not based on actions—if it were so, it would be a false silence according to Shariah—but, rather, the silence was aimed at [avoiding] publishing condemnations in the media, because the enemy uses a strategy of media publicity for propaganda and to create rifts within the ranks of the mujahideen.”

Al-Qaida-Iraq's Message to the New "Rulers of the White House"

By Walid Phares

Reactions to the election of a new U.S. president are fusing from across the Arab and Muslim world. Reflecting the fundamental interests of the various regimes and movements, the most radical groups - including al-Qaida - have been sending messages in different directions.

While we will come back later to draw a wider map of these attitudes, hopes or worries, let's note a particular declaration made by al-Qaida's central figure in Iraq (or so he is projected to be) in which he outlines his conditions to deal with America in the new era.

Few days ago, a jihadist outlet, al-Furqan, released an audio speech by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, self-described as the "emir of the Islamic State of Iraq."

The under 30-minute Internet broadcast was titled, "Message to the New Governors of the White House (and Other Christian Leaders)." It can also be translated as "to the new rulers," i.e. the president and vice president-elect.

After a mandatory "theological" segment taking on Christians, Jews and apostate Muslims, the speech wandered erratically between issues high on the jihadist agenda worldwide, particularly on the necessity for the United States to call it quits in the region and pull out.

In essence Baghdadi, one of al-Qaida's most lethal "generals" on the battlefields of the Middle East, asked the United States under the new administration to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and to withdraw its military presence from the Muslim world.

Interestingly, his message to whom he described as the new "governors," or technically, "masters" of the White House, connect with a dominant theme throughout not only al-Qaida's command but also the jihadist forces and regimes around the world.

Ideologically, despite their divisions and diverse strategies, the Salafists and Khomeinists have a common approach on how to deal with the United States. And this attitude has been embodied by multiple speeches, statements, and declarations since the early 1990s.

From the powerful doctrinal positions of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi on al-Jazeera, al-Qaida's Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the "agenda" is one: the United States must pull its forces outside the region and keep them inside its own borders.

Baghdadi and many other jihadist commanders, commentators and activists see the big picture as an effort, or a jihad, against all kuffar (infidel) forces in the region. In his speech addressed to the new U.S. leadership, al-Qaida Iraq's "emir" also warned France and Russia from interfering inside the borders of his future caliphate.

He specifically asked the "White House, the Elysee and the Kremlin" to back-off from Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya. Listening to the audio allows one to understand the mindset of the terrorists we're dealing with: they have a one-world view even if they are "local," which contradicts the recent assertion by many experts in the field.

And to underline the jihadist historical view of the world, "Abu Omar" reminds America that a century ago America was a "neutral" nation, growing peacefully until it began intervening in foreign wars, including the conflicts with empires, fascists and the Soviets.

And as I argued in my book "Future Jihad," he reveals that the U.S. menace is really about provoking changes within Muslim countries: changes, of course, which would encourage democracy against jihadism.

Increasingly, observers of this global movement must see the overarching dimension of the conflict with the Salafists and Khomeinists. It is not about George W. Bush or Barack Obama, or about Jacques Chirac or Nikolas Sarkozy, Boris Yeltsin or Vladimir Putin.

It is about pushing for a jihadist agenda. "Get your troops out and be neutral in this conflict," has become the main slogan of jihadist propaganda for many years now. If anything it clearly indicates to analysts that the Salafist agenda, for example, wants to settle scores with local societies and seize power in Arab and Muslim lands without being delayed by U.S. power.

This is the core of their contemporary confrontation with Washington's policies. They want to establish Taliban regimes in as many countries as they can, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Baghdadi ends his summations by revealing his conditions for a "new stage." In addition to pulling out and not interfering with the action of his movement, he wants an immediate release of all prisoners.

Even more revealing was his offer to sell oil to the United States at a fair price and authorize commerce with America. Stunningly to many, al-Qaida acts as if it is already the forthcoming caliphate, setting the agenda for the entire region.

It is not surprising to me, because for decades I have argued that democracies are dealing with a force possessing a political agenda of its own, not with individuals who are reacting to Western - or American - foreign policies.

If anything, these statements by al-Qaida, and other similar attitudes expressed by political propagandists, remind us of typical totalitarians in action: using terrorism whenever they judge it efficient to intimidate their foes and confuse their adversaries. The unwavering goal is to advance and consolidate their positions. The national-socialists and the fascists of the 1930s and WWII are, in this sense, authentic predecessors of the 21st century jihadists.

------------------------------------------

Dr. Walid Phares is the director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

This article was also published today in the Middle East Times.

« Close It

3 Bali Bombers were executed today

By Zachary Abuza

The three Bali bombers, Imam Samudra, and Mukhlas were executed today by firing squad. To their last day, they were unrepentant, showed no remorse for the bombings that killed 202 people, and expressed their desire to be martyrs.

Sentenced in 2003, the three convicted bombers appealed their verdict multiple times. The government had been criticized for lacking the political will to execute the three. Three Christians who were sentenced to death for their role in sectarian bloodletting in Sulawesi, in mid 2006 were executed almost immediately after their sentence, and given few chances for an appeal. Yesterday lawyers for the three condemned Bali bombers went to the Indonesian parliament to file a clemency appeal. A previous clemency request had been rejected by President Yudhoyono.

Indonesian authorities plan to fly the bodies back to their respective villages so as to prevent a motorcade that could bring out militants. The funeral arrangements have been made by Said Sungkar, the younger brother of the group's founder Abdullah Sungkar. It is reported that JI's other founder, the fiery cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, will give the sermon at the funeral. Already supporters of JI (which is not outlawed in Indonesia) as well as other militant groups, such as the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), have arrived en masse to Amrozi and Mukhlas' village.

Ba'asyir and other militants have threatened revenge on the Indonesian state, though it is unclear whether they have the means. JI's last attack was a bombing in October 2005. That November its top bomb-maker Dr. Azahari bin Husin, was killed in a shootout with police and his cache of explosives seized. In March to June 2007 several top JI leaders were arrested and an enormous cache of explosives was captured. This summer another plot was thwarted, with members being arrested and bomb-making materials seized. Even under a dragnet, JI still has some capability to plan attacks.

If Ba'asyir is not able to mobilize militants he will really lose much of his credibility.

JI's loss of Mukhlas is important for one key reason: he was the group's leading theologian.

Bin Laden’s ballot wasn’t counted - ‘it’s the economy stupid’

By Roderick Jones

Now all the ballots have been counted and the Presidential election decided (apart from Missouri which remains too close to call) it seems like an appropriate time to comment on the seeming lack of any attempt by al-Qaeda (or affiliates) to influence the election through video messages or strategic attacks.

In the month prior to polling day a variety of commentators publicly and privately released material suggesting there may be an al-Qaeda attack towards the end of October. Some of the more extreme assessments cited a series of ‘Internet launch codes’ contained in video broadcasts made by Ayman al-Zawahiri in August and Adam Gadahn in October. Regardless of the presence or not of coded messages, this analysis always relied on a belief that al-Qaeda would seek to influence the US Presidential election. A belief, which is arguably flawed and has its roots in the Madrid attacks of 2004. These attacks three days before the Spanish general election caused the fall of the pro-Bush Spanish Prime Minister, José María Aznar and reversed the course of the election. However, this result could not have been predicted by al-Qaeda as it relied heavily on the governing Partido Popular (PP) mishandling the immediate political aftermath of the bombing in a spectacular way, by blaming the Basque separatist terrorist group ETA. Similarly, Bin Laden released a tape in 2004, which is also thought to have tipped that election to President Bush. This theory relies on the assumption that al-Qaeda has a favored candidate in any given election and that this candidate would then behave in the way they expect - this is a significant theoretical mistake to make. While al-Qaeda will take advantage of short-term tactical positions it is noted for playing the “infinite game” rather than the finite one. It also doesn’t address the fact that any American President would continue to conduct vigorous counter-terrorist action against al-Qaeda. As the former British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston remarked, "Britain has no permanent friends, she only has permanent interests." Similarly, the US clearly has a permanent interest in combating trans-national terrorism.

Therefore, while al-Qaeda’s motivation to insert itself into the US domestic political process is open to question, its desire to disrupt the American economy has always been clear. This is where heightened danger persists. With Western economies continuing to reel from financial instability significant terrorist attacks against key infrastructure targets would be amplified in the magnitude of their effect at this time. It would not be lost on al-Qaeda that money used for supporting banks or failing industry is money that cannot be used for fighting. Further, unlike planning to disrupt the US Presidential election, whose schedule is known by Western security officials, the timing of a potential attack now rests with al-Qaeda. With the global recession predicted to bite for the next eighteen months al-Qaeda has a large window within which to operate.

There is no doubt there has been a political paradigm shift, which broadly favors American attempts to lead the fight against terrorism. As President-Elect Obama begins to receive his daily briefings from the CIA there is also no doubt he will be aware of the threat the US continues to face from terrorism. While American politics has fundamentally changed the larger-scale global trends of increased digital and social connectivity continue to move steadily forward - these undoubtedly enhance al-Qaeda or even the next version of ‘global guerillas’. Therefore, if I were to presume to pick a top five of themes for those CIA briefings relating to terrorism I would highlight Pakistan/Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia/East Africa, proliferation of nuclear attack capability to terrorists and conflict in virtual spaces (which given the Obama campaign’s brush with hackers, wouldn’t need emphasizing too much). While these themes are all immensely challenging there is an opportunity to bring fresh and positive thinking to them. This is perhaps best exemplified by Dr. Irwin Redlener in a lecture entitled ‘how to survive a nuclear attack’. Redlener is a fierce critic of farcical countermeasures and planning based on past patterns. Not a bad place to start.

The Colombia Paradox

By Douglas Farah

The recent GAO report on the lack of success of U.S. aid to Colombia is striking because it lays out the fundamental paradox of the multi-pronged war there.

The GAO finds, as many of us have written about, that the $6.1 billion in U.S. aid since 2000 has helped Colombia achieve notable successes. This is especially notable in recouping territory and dismantling much of the infrastructure of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and the disarming (with many flaws) of the United Self Defense Forces (AUC). Both are designated terrorist organizations, and both presented direct and real threats to the Colombia state.

But despite those historic gains, the production of cocaine has not diminished. The GAO report says (borne out recent conversations I had with senior Colombian police and military leaders) that cocaine production has actually increased. Here is what the report found:

From 2000 to 2006, estimated opium poppy cultivation and heroin production declined about 50 percent, but coca cultivation and cocaine production increased over the period. To put Colombia’s 6-year drug reduction goal in perspective, we note that although U.S. funding for Plan Colombia was approved in July 2000, many U.S.-supported programs to increase the Colombian military and police capacity to eradicate drug crops and disrupt the production and distribution of heroin and cocaine did not become operational until 2001 and later. Meanwhile, estimated illicit drug cultivation and production in Colombia continued to rise through 2001, with estimated cultivation and production declining in 2002 through 2004. However, the declines for coca cultivation and cocaine production were not sustained. In addition, the estimated flow of cocaine towards the United States from South America rose over the period.

The obvious question is, why is this so? My full blog is here.

Latest in Iran Sanctions: No U-Turn

By Matthew Levitt

In the first letter of its kind from an Iranian leader to an American president elect since the Iranian revolution, Iranian President Mahmoud Admedinejad congratulated President Elect Obama on his victory and called for an end to America's "war-oriented policies, occupation, bullying, deception and intimidation of nations and imposing discriminatory policies on them and international affairs, which have evoked hatred toward American leaders." Other Iranian officials have been more specific, calling for Obama to show goodwill by ending U.S. sanctions on Iran. That, however, is unlikely to happen.

Yesterday the Treasury department made clear there would be no change in direction (no U-turn, if you will) from the current policy of exposing -- and taking countermeasures against -- the involvement of Iranian banks in the regime's support for terrorist groups and nuclear and missile proliferation. Following the recommendation of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to strengthen measures to protect the financial sector from the risks posed to the international financial system by Iran, the Treasury revoked the "U-Turn" license under which Iran had previously been able to indirectly access the U.S. financial system to dollarize transactions.

Treasury also provided an updated fact sheet detailing Iran's misuse of the international financial system to support illicit activities.

As I argued in a recent lecture on the subject at the Emirati Center for Strategic Studies and Research (ECSSR) in Abu Dhabi, by exposing Iran's deceptive financial conduct in support of its illicit activity, the international community has made it clear that doing business with Iran is increasingly risky business.

The Obama administration, focused as it is on fully deploying an "all elements of national power" national security strategy, is likely to further develop the use of financial tools in the national security toolkit, not reduce them. One area to watch in the near future is the extrapolation of these tools beyond the financial sector to other sectors -- such as the insurance sector -- that provide other forms of "financial instruments" to Iran that may already fall under the existing language of UN Security Council Resolution 1737.

New Treasury U-Turn Measures May Have Significant Impact on Iran

By Victor Comras

US Iran sanctions policy is again front and center with the Treasury Department’s announcement, November 6th, cutting off “U-Turn” privileges under general license for all transactions involving Iran’s financial institutions. This measure could have a significant impact on Iran, and those international banks that continue to do business as usual with her. The new measure, along with the sharp decline in oil prices, certainly will make doing business with Iran riskier, and less attractive.

Previously, the no-U-Turn policy vis a vis Iran was applicable only to those specific transactions involving designated Iranian entities such as Bank Saderat and Iranian state-owned banks Melli, Mellat, Sepah, Future Bank and the Export Development Bank of Iran. U.S. financial institutions could still process funds transfers for the direct or indirect benefit of Iranian banks, other than for those designated, provided the payments were initiated offshore by a non-Iranian, non-U.S. financial institution and only passed through the U.S. financial system en route to another offshore, non-Iranian, non-U.S. financial institution. That left enough wiggle-room in the system for many banks to circumvent the intended controls when it came to doing business with Iran.

These new measures should be seen as sending a clear message to the international financial community that the US will continue to use the various tools in our domestic arsenal to pressure Iran into compliance with international non proliferation and counter-terrorism norms, and that we intend, also, to use our financial influence to gain the cooperation of the international banking community in seeking these objectives.

Coming just after the elections, one must also assume that the policy was cleared with, and approved by, President-Elect Obama’s advisors, and that it will be maintained, and built upon, in the new Administration. During the campaign, Obama indicated on several occasions that he would work to strengthen the sanctions on Iran, including working to bring greater international participation and implementation of such sanctions measures.

So, the question now, is just what impact are these measures likely to have on doing business with Iran?

Iran had become quite adept at side-stepping the full impact of the previous US sanctions measures directed against them. Helped by the high price of oil, and loopholes in the US measures, they were able to use intermediaries, many of which were located in neighboring Gulf states, through which they could conduct their business. But, this may now be turning around.

Dubai, which handles an estimated 60% of Iran’s merchandise trade and hosts nearly 10,000 Iranian owned firms, is beginning to tighten up, and is beginning to show some reticence in serving as a foil for Iran trade. A recent article in the Economist reports that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Iranian businesses to handle their transactions via Dubai, since fewer banks there are willing to process transactions and open accounts for them. There has also been a perceptible shift away from Iran, the article reports, as Dubai, and other Gulf states seek to more closely align themselves to Saudi Arabia and the West.

The reaction from Europe to these new measures has been muted. European leaders are still largely preoccupied with the world financial crisis and remain indecisive concerning any new financial measures to be taken vis a vis Iran. Investment in Iran still looks attractive to many European businesses and investors, and the world economic downturn will make it even more difficult for European firms to voluntarily withdraw from the Iranian market. Nevertheless, French President Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown are continuing to push for a concerted European move to place greater economic pressure on Iran. They continue to be resisted, in this effort, by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her allies in Italy and Austria. Merkel maintains that the question of sanctions on Iran should be handled in the UN Security Council, where, she knows full well, China and Russia, will maintain the status quo.

Reports indicated that Javier Solana has again renewed his offer for further talks with Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili.

Europe banks and firms have reportedly already cut back somewhat their direct financial and business dealings with Iran, and have become more cautious when it comes to engaging in new business or financial relationships. Yet, many European firms are still active in Tehran, or have set up special arrangements to deal with Iran through Dubai or other third locations. The boardrooms of these firms will now begin to re-assess the cost/benefit/risk equations associated with these activities. They are likely now to hesitate when it comes to new business, and to wait and see what will actual happen when the new Administration takes office. The major question they will pose is whether the Treasury Department will actually take any real action to make an example out of one or more overseas banks that knowingly,or unwittingly violates these new No-U-turn regulatory prohibitions.

Assad's next move

By Olivier Guitta

Syrian president Bashar al Assad has been following a double-thronged strategy.
I just wrote an article for the Middle East Times on what could probably be Assad's next move.
You can read the full article here.
Here is an excerpt:

Not a week goes by now without Syria showing up on the radar. In fact, after I analyzed the recent slew of incidents and their possible interpretations in my article last week titled "It is Clutch Time for Syria," this week brought new puzzling developments.
It all started with the U.S. raid in Syrian territory that allegedly targeted a major al-Qaida in Iraq recruiter, Abu Ghadiyah. While this happened five years too late, the timing seems odd.

Interestingly, an Arab diplomat based in Beirut told the Saudi news Web site Elaph.com that the U.S. operation was not only destined to target al-Qaida facilitators but also to send a clear warning to Damascus. Indeed, the diplomat affirmed that Washington wanted to tell Syria not to think about invading Lebanon again.

This follows several media reports which stated that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conveyed this message verbally to Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem when they recently met. Also reportedly the French President Nicolas Sarkozy administration told Damascus the same thing.

Western nations started to worry when Syria moved 10,000 special forces to its border with northern Lebanon. Syria claimed the reason behind the move was to prevent al-Qaida-linked terrorists to enter Syrian territory and create havoc. This explanation is half-baked at best. Especially in light of what occurred this past Thursday when it was learned that Syria is also beginning to amass troops on the border with eastern Lebanon. Syria is indeed preparing its next move.

A Worthwhile Reminder of the Jihadist Agenda

By Douglas Farah

Every once in a while, it is necessary to step back from the abstract world of ideas and see what the ideas actually mean in people's lives. That is particularly true as the new administration enters and has to think about what the radical Islamist agenda really means to those who live under it.

It is also worth noting the little-noticed support some of the worst parts of the Islamist agenda get from so-called moderate and mainstream Islamist groups who are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nothing could be a more stark reminder than the story of the young Somali woman who was stoned to death for adultery after reporting to authorities that she had been raped.

Amnesty International reported that partway through the stoning nurses checked whether Aisha was still alive. They pulled her body out of the ground to ascertain she was still breathing before the stoning continued.

A Unicef statement said: 'She sought protection from the authorities, who then accused her of adultery and sentenced her to death. 'A child was victimised twice - first by the perpetrators of the rape and then by those responsible for administering justice.'

This is what the Taliban means when it talks of sharia law and what has in mind for the rest of the world. This is why the idea of engaging in talks with the Taliban over the future of Afghanistan is such a dangerous idea.

The jihadists cannot compromise and have already demonstrated, during their barbaric governance of Afghanistan from 1996-2001 that they are cannot be part of a civilized coalition to govern anything.

It is worth remembering that the Muslim Brotherhood, including its supposedly enlightened leaders like Tariq Ramadan, do not condemn this barbaric form of justice. Why? Because they can't without disowning the same general goals the Ikhwan share with the jihadist: A world under sharia law where this is not only condoned but mandatory. My full blog is here.

INDIA: Assam Bombers Had Outside Help

By Frank Hyland & Animesh Roul

This article is another in the ongoing series by Animesh Roul and Frank Hyland, portraying the mounting problem of international terrorism in India.

A variety of “signatures” present themselves to CT investigators following any terrorist attack. In the case of the 30 October multiple bombings in India’s Assam region, the heightened level of sophistication evidenced in the attacks indicates that the local perpetrators almost certainly had help from outside the country.

A series of improvised explosive devices (IED), possibly numbering ten or more, were timed to detonate at midday on 30 October, turning markets and other locations teeming with shoppers and office personnel into scenes of chaos, killing over 80 people and wounding almost 500 others. In addition to reports of the use of a grenade in one attack, and the concealment of IEDs in the near-ubiquitous rickshaws and motorbikes, a car bomb was reportedly detonated near the home of the Chief Minister of Assam, Tarun Gogoi. Investigators reported that large quantities of High Explosive (HE) materials had been incorporated into the IEDs and that the sequencing of the attacks suggested strongly that timers had been employed as well. Indian authorities acknowledged that they had had some advance notice of the intent of the perpetrators to carry out one or more attacks in the area, but were taken aback by the scale of the incidents. [For additional details, please see, Serial Blast in Northeast India: ULFA/HuJI Hand Suspected ! By Animesh Roul on CT Blog, dated 30 October]

The Assam region in India’s northeast has suffered separatist attacks for decades, part of the ongoing internecine strife that has plagued the multiethnic area since the creation of the nation of India in 1947. Assam has become the base for a large number of separatist groups, and literally thousands of Indian citizens have lost their lives in attacks over the past two decades. The proximity of Assam to mostly-Muslim Bangladesh, home to a growing number of radical groups and their headquarters in recent years, makes it much simpler to plan, support, and carry out attacks inside India.

The United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) remains the primary suspect in the 30 October attacks. Founded in 1979, the group first established bases in Myanmar and Bangladesh, then began its campaign for an independent Assam in 1990. Reminiscent of Al-Qa’ida’s leadership redoubt along the lawless Pakistan/Afghanistan border, ULFA’s headquarters and leadership hideout is suspected to be in the China/Myanmar border area. ULFA is reported to be among the groups within India that have received training, funds, and other support from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISID), another of the “Cat’s Paws” in the two nations’ persistent, ongoing armed struggle with each other.

Suspicion that ULFA had received external help rests on the aforementioned heightened sophistication of the 30 October attacks, contrasting markedly with previous incidents attributed to ULFA. Many of the ULFA attacks in the past have been on the order of kidnapping, ambushes of Indian authorities, and the targeting of economic-related facilities, although incidents using IEDs in 2004 and 2007 did take place.

The prospects for Indian authorities are not pleasant. Once delivered and absorbed, the training and technology used in the Assam blasts belongs to the perpetrators. India can expect more of the same in coming days, months, and years unless and until the underlying political situation is resolved.

The Fort Dix Exhibits Now Available from the NEFA Foundation

By Douglas Farah

Last month, the trial of five men charged with plotting to attack the U.S. Army base at Fort Dix, New Jersey began. Mirroring its coverage of the Holy Land Foundation proceedings, the NEFA Foundation is cataloging the numerous exhibits released during the course of the trial, many of which provide key insights into this alleged "homegrown" terrorist cell. The library of exhibits includes transcripts of numerous conversations covertly recorded by an FBI informant, examples of jihadist material found on the suspects’ computers, photos of evidence seized during government searches, and videos of the alleged conspirators firing weapons.

The Fort Dix exhibit library can be found here and provide an interesting look into this important case.

Other Paths on Combatting Terror Financing

By Douglas Farah

One of the significant challenges the next administration will face in combating terrorism is the fracturing consensus on international sanctions, as noted by the Washington Post.

There is no doubt the European and U.N. consensus that gave rise to the valuable tools has softened, if not vanished, in recent years. Much of friction has to do with anti-US sentiment, coupled with the inability or unwillingness of the designating parties to use what evidence there is against designated individuals in a judicial process.

The collapse of the sanctions regime would deprive the international community of the easiest way to have a direct and lasting impact on those suspected, at a reasonable level (and that is the tricky part) of funding terrorism. But the initial construct was never intended to be a permanent fix.

Rather, it was designed to give nations and international organizations a breathing space to create a permanent mechanism that was gave more room for due process and other concerns. This did not happen, and the sanctions committees at the UN and elsewhere have become less and less effective. My colleague Victor Comras, quoted in the Post piece, was on one of the most effective committees that was later downgraded because it made too many countries uncomfortable by naming names.

But as the New York Times Magazine piece on the innovative work of Stuart Levey and others at the Treasury Department makes clear, there are other, and perhaps better options. My full blog is here.

International support to India and Pakistan against Jihadi terror

By Walid Phares

Mumbai Terror Attacks: "Agencies Yet to Learn Hard Lessons'

By Animesh Roul

Mumbai Whodunnit: Names vs. Networks

By Aaron Mannes

Dawood Ibrahim's Name Again Surfaces With Latest Mumbai Terrorist Attack

By Victor Comras

Jamat-ud-Dawa (LET Political Wing) on Mumbai Attacks: "Not a Legitimate Tactic"

By Evan Kohlmann

Mayhem in Mumbai: India Reels Under Another Terror Attack

By Frank Hyland & Animesh Roul

New Al-Qaida Video from Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri -- No Mention of Mumbai (DEVELOPING)

By Evan Kohlmann

Twitter comes of age reporting on Mumbai attacks

By Roderick Jones

Mumbai Terror attacks: Urban Jihad comes to India

By Walid Phares

India's Financial Hub Mumbai under Multiple Terror Attacks!

By Animesh Roul

Future Prisoners of war: International Law or criminal courts?

By Walid Phares

NEFA Foundation: Shebaab al-Mujahideen Strongly Denies Threatening Pirates in Somalia

By Evan Kohlmann

Violence by Extremists in the Jewish Settler Movement: A Rising Challenge

By Matthew Levitt

Frustrated Claims of Pro-Obama Media Bias... This Time From Al-Qaida

By Evan Kohlmann

Dialogue Bolstered by Sanctions - A Possible Option for Dealing With Iran

By Victor Comras

India: "The Resurgence of Ethno-Islamist Terrorism"

By Animesh Roul

The Holy Land Verdict in Perspective

By Douglas Farah

HLF VERDICT: GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS

By Matthew Levitt

HLF Guilty Verdict Should Terminate Government & Business Relationships With UICCs

By Andrew Cochran

Sub-Saharan Africa Rises for the Wrong Reasons

By Douglas Farah

Suicide Investors

By James McGinnis

Hezbollah, an imminent danger?

By Olivier Guitta

The Conviction of Monzar al Kassar and the Criminal-Terrorist Nexus

By Douglas Farah

NEFA Foundation: Taliban Reject Hamid Karzai's Offer to Protect Mullah Omar

By Evan Kohlmann

ZAWAHIRI: JIHAD WILL CONTINUE DESPITE OBAMA

By Walid Phares

Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and the Risks of Having a Big Mouth

By Evan Kohlmann

The Future is Now: Somalia in the New World Order

By Douglas Farah

The Future of the Middle East

By Michael Jacobson

NEFA Foundation: Ayman al-Zawahiri on the "Parting of Bush and the Arrival of Obama" (TRANSCRIPT)

By Evan Kohlmann

Mobile Opportunities

By Aaron Mannes

Aardvark's and Avatars

By Roderick Jones

NEFA Foundation: Al-Qaida Faction in Gaza Claims Rocket Attacks on Israeli Targets (VIDEO)

By Evan Kohlmann

Hizb ut-Tahrir America May Be Ready for Its Public Debut

By Madeleine Gruen

NEFA Foundation: Lessons Learned From the Campaign Against the FARC in Colombia

By Douglas Farah

Somalia's Collapse (Again)

By Douglas Farah

Holy Land Foundation…The Retrial

By Dennis Lormel

Hizballah Calls for Referendum on its Weapons?

By Walid Phares

Obama: Killing Bin Laden 'Top Priority'

By James Gordon Meek

First Unofficial Obama Positions on New War Strategies: A Discussion

By Walid Phares

It Doesn't Take Intelligence: 'Change' Is Coming

By James Gordon Meek