RSS

January 4, 2010

Member deleted

Clearly the Republican hawk is a bold opposition to Obamas request for a smarter approach that often relies on soft power an forging new alliances. One must not forget assessments on the ground.

Al Jazeera and Asharq Al Awsat contributed to this discussion recently:

Against the background of the new security protocols for flights from Iran, Pakistan, Yemen and so on, the decision will calm fears at home in she short term but provoke sentiments of discrimination among travelers from respective destinations in the long run, such Syria, who has its own bloody battle against Islamist currents as a secular republic. [ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=yemen&itemNo=1... ]

Jazeera " Intelligence gathering has helped prevent major attacks and led to the arrest of many suspects.

But the overt wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the covert wars in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen are mostly inflaming anger and providing new recruits for al-Qaeda and its mutations, making intelligence gathering and "terror prevention" ever more impossible.

In the long run, these war zones would become the fertile ground for extremism and bases for anti-Western operations. They also incite mostly young people across borders to take up the fight against those they perceive as new Crusaders."

at: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/imperium/2009/12/200912311258212...

I think the reason for Qaidas fertile ground must be assessed for the first and foremost.
I agree that Yemen has been ignored for too long. But its not Obamas fault, not only because he is in charge for only one year, however, his mindset could have prevented Al-Qaidas foothold in Yemen from the very beginning as the strategy of the Bush administration was effective in countering terrorism domestically and shifting the battleground to Afghanistan and Iraq.

In order to dry up Al-Qaida (whatever it is in the end) a Saudi journalist shaped the answer. It would be dramatically wrong to fall back to a hawkish mindset now as nobody should expect that Al-Qaida will diminish only because the US elected a new president, however, we must not forget that Al-Qaida existed even before the last President.

http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=19369

By Mshari Al-Zaydi: A Saudi journalist and expert on Islamic movements and Islamic fundamentalism as well as Saudi affairs. Mshari is Asharq Al-Awsat’s opinion page Editor, where he also contributes a weekly column. Has worked for the local Saudi press occupying several posts at Al -Madina newspaper amongst others. He has been a guest on numerous news and current affairs programs as an expert on Islamic extremism.

A New Mindset for a New Decade
02/01/2010
With the beginning of 2010, let us begin to carefully reflect on the first decade of the third millennium.

What has changed between 2000 and 2010?

We remember how the world welcomed the advent of the new millennium with jubilant celebrations before things turned sour following the 9/11 attacks in 200l and the world undertook an endless battle to counter Al Qaeda and its various offshoots. We all remember the era of George W. Bush and his international wars that aroused and continue to arouse the anger and resentment of millions of people around the world. History will be the judge of that, but we will have to wait until the dust settles. The era of George W. Bush ended, and now the United States of America is led by a black man whose father’s name was Hussein; a man whose election was hailed by Muslims as the beginning of the end of the existing tensions between the Muslim world and the West. However, the new US president is sending additional troops to Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda sent him a Christmas present in response to that; a young Nigerian man with a bomb strapped to him assigned by his commanders in Yemen to blow up an American airliner.

According to custom, predictions and forecasts are made about the New Year, with the past year not being dwelt upon. One decade has passed and another is here; the previous decade saw the warnings made by Arab and Western intellectuals materialize; warnings about the clash of civilizations. Although many people criticised this concept and denounced those that promoted this as suffering from intellectual fanaticism and or a melancholic outlook, the facts and figures seen over the past decade support this concept with regards to many minor and major military and security conflicts. Manifestations of this theory could be clearly seen in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia, not to mention the intellectual, media and political confrontations that can be seen in the rise of European right-wing parties, the minaret crisis in Switzerland, the infamous Danish cartoons issue, the notorious Dutch ‘Al Fitna’ film, and the Hijab issue in France, among others.

Some people reading this article may say that everything is fine, and that we can solve our problems as long as the West does not interfere in our affairs. They might say that terrorism or intellectual and religious extremism is a reaction to the West’s position towards us. This argument is a form of escapism. Al Qaeda is the outcome of a profound flaw in understanding the concept of identity and state. The Arab states, long before the emergence of Al Qaeda, failed to transform completely into civil states. As a result of this, we became trapped in a dark tunnel and stuck between a rock and a hard place, unable of catching up with the times and incapable of returning to the past.

Today Al Qaeda is back with a vengeance, despite all the talk by Arab politicians and writers over the past couple of years claiming that the Al Qaeda stage is over and was nothing but a craze. Now Al Qaeda is regaining momentum and building up once again. The global intelligence and military war has failed to eliminate Al Qaeda, not because of Al Qaeda’s incredible power, but rather because of the failure of the Muslim and Western mindset to grab hold of the real critical issue. Everyone is busy trying to track down elements of Al Qaeda without even attempting to examine the illnesses of the societies that produced Al Qaeda and numerous fundamentalist groups before it.

[We have] a defective mindset in understanding life, religion and politics, and because we do not want or we are unable to change our mindset in a real way, we continue to chase the shadow of beasts rather than the beasts themselves.

I wonder what kind of decade we are about to enter.

January 5, 2010

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

Obama was monitored for all about but domestic policy

he has no clue on foreign affairs, and a fortiori how to drive wars

January 5, 2010

Ramen Benyamin, University of Toronto, (7)

If there is any hope in the Obama administration's ability to effectively counter terrorism it is indebted within the change of ideology that Obama has been preaching throughout his career as a Democrat (initially, and most notably, in his address to the Democratic National Convention during the Kerry campaign). It is this philosophical approach aimed at generating a new era of global co-operation that may yield greater successes in diminishing the fundamentalism that prevailed throughout the last decade. The work this administration aims to accomplish is not only founded in covert and overt military and intelligence operations abroad, effective education within the United States will provide a means by which American foreign policy can become more reflective of the global community and foster that same "light of hope" which had driven so much of the world's admiration towards the US throughout most of the 20th century. The problems which fueled the Bush administration's actions, and were conversely amplified by their reactions, continue to hinder any solutions within the short-term. Obama's approach seems to be one of more careful consideration. His hesitation to determine an immediate policy towards Afghanistan seems proof of his unwillingness to approach the conflicts he has inherited without careful consideration. Unfortunately, the result of months of deliberation seems to have offered no new strategy but rather a copy-paste scenario mimicking Bush's insurgence of forces in Iraq which seem to have, for the time being, brought a much needed decrease in terrorist actions throughout the country. Although Iraq is still witness to terrorist attacks, they have become far and few between, and the selectivity of these attacks seems to imply the ability and resources of terrorist factions has become far more limited. Whether this will prove to be the same case in Afghanistan is yet to be seen. With the attempted bombing of the airliner in Detroit, again the administration seems to be mimicking Bush-era policies in approaching the problem. In hopes of appeasing a fearful US populace, as well as a turbulent market still waveringly rising to its feet, the administration has implemented policies which further America's exclusivity from nations (and nationalities) deemed threatening to America. This is a contradiction to the ideology which elected Obama's presidency. Preventing a terrorist from carrying out his mission is not an indication of successful counter-terrorism, just as an insurgence of Western military presence within Afghanistan and Iraq (potentially Pakistan and Yemen in the near future) will not achieve the aim of subduing terrorist escalation. It merely hinders them temporarily without uprooting the fundamental core that drives them. Successful counter-terrorism is more prevalent in the escalation of anti-jihadist discourse within the Muslim community, as well as the election of an American president born of a Muslim father. It is rooted in a change of thought within the global community as a whole. All this, however, only considers the current dilemma Western ideology is having with Islam. These approaches of targeted campaigning within the Middle-East and selective screening practices at airports, will cause an escalation of discrimination towards a specific culture The Middle-East (Iraq especially) is now facing a population that is significantly comprised of youth. These shifts in age demographics are often met with great shifts within the national framework (whether it be political or cultural). This decade will likely be determined by how these youth choose to control the future of their cultures, and whether they are met by continued hostilities and discriminatory practices as the generation that raised them, or whether the promises of liberation and equality will be goals realistically within their grasp.

January 5, 2010

Darrell Calvin Brown, City College of San Francisco/TTC, Gold Contributor (102)

Moving away from the"War on Terror" attitude is no easy thing, but wise and I am glad as a citizen of the United States of America to see President Obama's administration considering peaceful resolutions. In the USA ,we too ,knowand understand the devastating results of war from our own internal conflict; the War Between the States. However, we also realize that peaceful protest does bring forth results which are both lawful and beneficial. Such peaceful protests resulted in our Civil Rights movement and the securement of full respect according to the laws of our land for the African-American community at large. So let us all 'seek peace and pursue it."

January 5, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (502)

To be fair to President Obama, there is no 100% fool-proof way to avoid all possible terrorist attacks. The best that can realistically be hoped for is to raise the difficulty for conducting such strikes to such a level that they ocurr extraordinarily infrequently.

That said, President Obama seems not to understand the psychological need the American people have for needing to believe their leaders will do whatever it takes to prevent such acts.

In his effort to undo the "sins" of the Bush era, Obama has made it appear that the United States is more interested in reading Miranda rights to terrorists than stopping and/or killing them. This is somewhat ironic, given his actual policy of continuing a Predator drone war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but, it is a very real perception that he risks allowing to become conventional wisdom.

While the "Obama is weak" narrative is no doubt promoted by conservatives for political points, this line of argument is not some entirely illegitimate or scurrilous attack as it is often portrayed. The decision to try the "Christmas bomber" in civillian court and, certainly, to do the same with self-confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) are very suspect.

As the estimable American journal Stratfor argued in a piece about the upcoming KSM trial,

"International law has clung to a model of law governing a very different type of warfare despite new realities. International law must therefore either reaffirm the doctrine that combatants who do not distinguish themselves from noncombatants are not due the protections of international law, or it must clearly define what those protections are. Otherwise, international law discredits itself."

This has not been done by the international community, thus all international law on this subject seems built upon shaky foundations that require updating. The fact that Obama apparently takes international law seriously on this point, while not being inclined to examine the implications of modifying it to reflect reality as opposed to abstractions relevant in a different epoch, is not to his credit given the gaping hole inherent within the system.

This inevitably will lead to further disillusionment with his policies as terrorist acts are attempted and, especially, should some be successful on U.S. soil.

In a nutshell, Obama is too soft on terrorism. While a more comprehensive view of the underlying factors motivating such acts is wise, a view that fails to meet the needs of the people to feel "safe" is unsustainable politically and, in its own way, just as misguided as the much maligned "militaristic" approach of his predecessor.

January 5, 2010

Ahmed Said

No, Obama is not too soft on anything, but he needs more time to sort our his agenda list to reach better decisions.

January 5, 2010

Tobias Fella, AsiaStudies.de, Silver Contributor (55)

I agree with Ahmed. Obama is no too soft on anything concerning the national security of the United States. He just made the statement, that the Bush-administration undermined US-ideals, when going to war against international extremism (rule of law, human rights, the adherence of the Geneva Conventions and so on). Obama wants to set a new cours to restablish the liberal hegemony of the United States. He wants Washington to act as benign hegemon again, because that was the strategy which made the US a strong and attractive global power. To achieve this Obama takes a step back to multilateralism, the usage of soft power and also to cooperation.

Despite of that Obama surely isn't selling out the security of the United States. My assumption is based on various arguments. I just want to name a few: First even for the new president there is a war on terror, which has to be fought with military power, and not by the police and domestic law. He wants the terrorists to be judged by military commissions, not by federal courts. Further, he continues with the practice of preventive detention. Of course he has forbidden torture and wants to close Guantanamo, but he proceeds with the so called "rendition", the transfer of accused to countries without high huming rights standards. And at last he instructed the army and intelligence to go on with targeted killing. So where is Mr Obama too soft when dealing with international terrorism?

January 6, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (502)

I agree that Obama has clearly used force in dealing with terrorism. Indeed, he has used more of it than many of his more liberal supporters probably expected or desired. My point is that by his placing "international law" on such a pedestal that it gives the impression of being sacrosanct despite it not being updated to address contemporary security challenges, indicates an embrace of abstract theorizing suitable for scholars, not suitable for policymakers. Obama "appears" weak. If that appearance persists long enough then it will become conventional wisdom. Once that happens, the validity of what legitimate actions he takes will matter little, the appearance will be all important. President Obama should make the American people feel he will stop at nothing to prevent terrorist acts on American soil. That is how President Bush got reelected in 2004 despite much antipathy towards him from a great number of Americans. Obama's cerebral take on his role as Commander in Chief appeals to intellectuals, it does not appeal to main street Americans. For better and for worse, the Ameeican character and psychological profile must be taken into account in order for an American leader to be a success. President Obama is treading dangerous ground here politically and, if his legal instincts win out over his leadership instincts, he may well discover belatedly the flaw of such "intellectualizing."

January 6, 2010

Member deleted

Dear Greg,

was it "intellectualizing" that defined the change as American voters appeared to be fed up with easy answers and traffic-light style security warnings, wasn`t it?

I don`t agree that the law for conducting battles is to be changed in any dimension. Al-Qaida choose a tactic of camouflaged attacks on primarily civilian targets. And as we know attacking civilians is a war-crime and not wearing a uniform but a weapon is valid for summary execution under international law.

The question of international law firstly appeared with the Iraq invasion and the matter of civil rights under the light of increased security measures at the home front.

Public opinion turned against Guantanamo when people asked if the inmates are really non-uniformed combatants or eventually innocent and who judges over this.

I think Obama is aware that those "terrorists" usually (under international convention) should be executed immediately after they are caught.

Or if we look at what happened in Guantanamo maybe should ask the cynic question if they not preferred to be shot at the end of the day.

In my opinion we should be happy with international law, as it allows us to treat Al-Qaida as combatants as long they are hosted by governments ( Afghanistan) or in the Yemeni outback (as foreign non-uniformed combatants). What if we had to treat them in accordance to the law of their countries origins?

January 6, 2010

Member deleted

Hey Ramen Benyamin

you should be promoted. You exactly got the point on what I experience here...

January 6, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (502)

Samir-

I appreciate the comment. I completely concur that there are not easy answers to the issue of terrorism and even made it clear that it is not possible to prevent all possible terrorist acts.

That said, I am not certain that President Obama does believe, as you state, that "'terrorists' (under international convention) should be executed immediately after they are caught."

If that were the case, why have a civilian trial with KSM under U.S. criminal law?

Now I will return to the Stratfor argument I referred to in my inital comment, which I find persuasive (I apologize for the length, but I think all of these sections are highly relevant)

Here is the link to the Stratfor,
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091116_postsept_11_legal_dilemma

" International law is actually not particularly ambiguous about the status of the members of al Qaeda. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them because they have not adhered to a fundamental requirement of the Geneva Conventions, namely, identifying themselves as soldiers of an army. Doing so does not mean they must wear a uniform. The postwar Geneva Conventions make room for partisans, something older versions of the conventions did not. A partisan is not a uniformed fighter, but he must wear some form of insignia identifying himself as a soldier to enjoy the conventions’ protections. As Article 4.1.6 puts it, prisoners of war include “Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.” The Geneva Conventions of 1949 does not mention, nor provide protection to, civilians attacking foreign countries without openly carrying arms.

The reasoning behind this is important. During the Franco-Prussian war, French franc-tireurs fired on Prussian soldiers. Ununiformed and without insignia, they melded into the crowd. It was impossible for the Prussians to distinguish between civilians and soldiers, so they fired on both, and civilian casualties resulted. The framers of the Geneva Conventions held the franc-tireurs, not the Prussian soldiers, responsible for the casualties. Their failure to be in uniform forced the Prussians to defend themselves at the cost of civilian lives. The franc-tireurs were seen as using civilians as camouflage. This was regarded as outside the rules of war, and those who carried out such acts were seen as not protected by the conventions. They were not soldiers, and were not to be treated as such.

Extending protections to partisans following World War II was seen as a major concession. It was done with concerns that it not be extended so far that combatants of irregular forces could legally operate using their ability to blend in with surrounding civilians, and hence a requirement of wearing armbands. The status of purely covert operatives remained unchanged: They were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. Their status remained ambiguous.

During World War II, it was U.S. Army practice to hold perfunctory trials followed by executions. During the Battle of the Bulge, German commandos captured wearing U.S. uniforms — in violation of the Geneva Conventions — were summarily tried in field courts-martial and executed. The idea that such individuals were to be handed over to civilian courts was never considered. The actions of al Qaeda simply were not anticipated in the Geneva Conventions. And to the extent they were expected, they violated the conventions.

Holder’s decision to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to federal court makes it clear that Mohammed was not a soldier acting in time of war, but a criminal. While during times of war spies are tried as criminals, their status is precarious, particularly if they are members of an enemy army. Enemy soldiers out of uniform carrying out reconnaissance or espionage are subject to military, not civilian, justice, and frequently are executed. A spy captured in the course of collecting information is a civilian, particularly in peacetime, and normally is tried as a criminal with rules of evidence.

Which was Mohammed? Under the Geneva Conventions, his actions in organizing the Sept. 11 attacks, which were carried out without uniforms or other badges of a combatant, denies him status and protection as a POW. Logically, he is therefore a criminal, but if he is, consider the consequences...

The fact is that international law has not evolved to deal with persons like Mohammed. Or more precisely, most legal discussion under international law is moving counter to the Geneva Conventions’ intent, which was to treat the franc-tireurs as unworthy of legal protection because they were not soldiers and were violating the rules of war. International law wants to push Mohammed into a category where he doesn’t fit, providing protections that are not apparent under the Geneva Conventions. The United States has shoved him into U.S. criminal law, where he doesn’t fit either, unless the United States is prepared to accept reciprocal liability for CIA personnel based in the United States planning and supporting operations in third countries. The United States has never claimed, for example, that the KGB planners who operated agents in the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union were themselves subject to criminal prosecution.

A new variety of warfare has emerged in which treatment as a traditional POW doesn’t apply and criminal law doesn’t work. Criminal law creates liabilities the United States doesn’t want to incur, and it is not geared to deal with a terrorist like Mohammed. U.S. criminal law assumes that capture is in the hands of law enforcement officials. Rights are prescribed and demanded, including having lawyers present and so forth. Such protections are practically and theoretically absurd in this case: Mohammed is not a soldier and he is not a suspected criminal presumed innocent until proven guilty. Law enforcement is not a practical counter to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A nation cannot move from the rules of counterterrorism to an American courtroom; they are incompatible modes of operation. Nor can a nation use the code of criminal procedures against a terrorist organization operating transnationally. Instead, they must be stopped before they commit their action, and issuing search warrants and allowing attorneys present at questioning is not an option...

The real problem here is international law, which does not address acts of war committed by non-state actors out of uniform. Or more precisely, it does, but leaves them deliberately in a state of legal limbo, with captors left free to deal with them as they wish. If the international legal community does not like the latter, it is time they did the hard work of defining precisely how a nation deals with an act of war carried out under these circumstances.

The international legal community has been quite vocal in condemning American treatment of POWs after 9/11, but it hasn’t evolved international law, even theoretically, to cope with this. Sept. 11 is not a crime in the proper sense of the term, and prosecuting the guilty is not the goal. Instead, it was an act of war carried out outside the confines of the Geneva Conventions."

It would seem that the response is to push for a more tailored international legal approach- namely that acts such as those by KSM or the "Christmas Bomber" should be explicitly considered acts of war by non-uniformed actors and not subject Geneva Covention protections at which point the target nation is given the explicit authority to deal with them according to whatever mechanism they choose.

Subsequently, Obama would be wise to not afford such actors the protections of the U.S. civilian court system, but exclusively utilize military tribunals.

Not pushing along both of these avenues will keep Obama mired in limbo and stuck with a label that he will never shed.

January 6, 2010

Christopher Stienburg, , (10)

Counterterrorism policies are particularly difficult to evaluate. A successful counterterrorism policy is one that eliminates the threat of terrorist attacks. But the severity and sources of threat are difficult to ascertain. How many terrorist attacks have been averted due to counterterrorism policy? How were these attacks averted? We can look to the highly publicized accounts of effective intelligence leading to pre-emptive arrests of would-be terrorists, but these events do not tell the whole story.

In matters of counterterrorism, success is not always so publicly demonstrable. Rather, it is covert and partial. Whether it is the detainment of suspects at home, covert operations abroad, or measures such as the “no-fly” lists, counterterrorism activity by Western governments is often preemptive and secretive. Most of us are not privy to state secrets, and even if we were, it would still be difficult to determine how many attacks were actually prevented. Not every terrorist is caught in the act or in the final stages of planning. Disruption of terrorist networks can affect every aspect of terrorist activity, not just the final stages of attack.

That is why the attempted Christmas Day bombing is a distortion of sorts. It is an overt failure on a highly vetted record of achievement. It is a failure of counterterrorism policy to be sure, but is not necessarily reflective of counterterrorism policy on the whole.

The two pieces of media under review here show how limited the discussion has become. Some Republican critics have resorted to partisan potshots, with vague insinuations that the Obama administration’s refusal to treat terrorist detainees as war criminals (i.e. torture them) proves that it is soft on terrorism. The Washington Post editorial rebuts such charges, but on the basis of only those issues that are factually verifiable: the treatment of detainees, the war in Afghanistan, drone attacks in Pakistan, and counterterrorism support to the Yemeni government.

Is this the criteria for evaluating counterterrorism policy? Partly. A more pertinent question would concern the improvement of intelligence-sharing since 9/11and the Madrid and London bombings. The Western focus on Yemen will intensify over the coming months. What did intelligence agencies know about Yemen before? Since the attempted bombing, has its status really changed that much within the security community? Probably not—but that’s the point: we don’t really know.

Discussion and debate should be encouraged on all matters of government, but we must remember that not all matters of government are open to comprehensive discussion or evaluation.

January 7, 2010

Member deleted

Dear Greg, dear Christopher,

my refer to summary execution was meant under the light of the field of possible operation we have access to under current law. Christopher answered this approach intuitively, reminding us what could be, and especially how intelligence approaches avoiding terror on the ground.

Regarding Yemen, the impoverished country has been on the screens all the time as there are Al-Q links inherited from the Soviet War decades ago, thus has been summarized even in the public short after 9/11. Especially because BL tried to hide out there. Obviously Al -Q runs in an already opened net there.

January 7, 2010

Member deleted

Thank you Greg, the article hit the point, by asking how to deal with the kind of KSM in the end.

Mr. Friedmanns assessments are quite striking as he wrote his piece laying ground for denying KSM access to civil judgments based on juridical and somehow emotional/polarized reasons.

My personal answer is short in conclusion: Don't change the law, the terrorists will adapt quite faster than we can move our "lazy" democratic institutions as the Christmas Bomber witnessed by hiding chemicals of merely organic origins in his underwear. As this is another field of analytical approach I would close this by saying: We changed enough after 9/11. Lets change them ;-)

And this is where my support for President Obamas policy roots. As I stated Yemen has been on the intelligence screens, maybe a net is opened, but nobody changed the reason on behalf Al-Q seeks refuge there. Nobody asked why KSM is given access to civil jurisdiction.

Greg, you will maybe argue that for public discussion this is way too intellectualized, but I think the Obama administration invests its political capital correctly and wisely.

As the Bush administration ended, stifled by the people for two not ending wars, the question arose on how to go into the offensive against Al-Q. The odds were clearly 1:0 for Al-Q as the US stood close to economic collapse, the war did not produce results and BL still preached from the historic unholy mountains of Waziristan.

In my opinion the historic legacy of the Bush administration is that they witnessed to have done everything military possible against a camouflaged enemy, by setting up a defense the world has not seen before. Under the Bush administration an enormous military and intelligence apparatus has been instructed to defend the US and its allies, battlefields have been established and an intelligence apparatus of enormous discriminating attitude towards migrants and a religious minority has been established endangering the very essence of freedom our democratic societies are build on.

I think the military possibilities are exhausted, and a political way of dealing with the phenomenon is to be searched for, additionally.

The Bush administration, in my opinion, cached the public eye by being pro Christian only by repeating the word itself... but Obama is!

We agree that KSM cannot ask for civil jurisdiction under current affairs and laws, but the US Attorney General is exactly doing this maybe provoking a media circus of unknown scale to be orchestrated for years.

A lot has been done to encounter Al-Q, but who cares for the victims and their families... the trial will enable thousands to answer the question, for what their beloved ones died for. For me it will be the answer on why, with Arab roots, I was not going to study in NY and why I walked around frozen for months after 9/11, short before my High School degree and the question on what to do with my life in 2001.


What will be the effect of those course of action?

Dear Greg, Christopher and Benyamin... I prepared a text but Abbas Daiyar offers the piece "Terrorists Are Winning the Media War" and opens the discussion I search for, and what the trial on KSM will be needed for.

I would ask you to join this discussion, because in order to defeat Al-Q we need to wear their shoes

January 7, 2010

Member deleted

FYI Christopher

"Dealing with Yemen must begin with understanding why this country can serve as fertile ground for al-Qaeda and recognising the US' role in it (not to mention the old colonial British rule).

Young Yemenis were first radicalised in Afghanistan, where tens of thousands went to fight the Soviets under the auspices of a CIA covert war there. But the end of the Cold War did not mean the end of the "Arab Afghans", who later formed the core of al-Qaeda, whether in Afghanistan or in their homelands.

Thousands who came back to Yemen and joined local radical religious groups looked on with bitterness and betrayal as half a million US soldiers deployed next door in Saudi Arabia in 1991, the birthplace of the prophet.

The fact that the Yemeni government, as well as popular sentiment, opposed US military action against Iraq only empowered the newly formed radical groups.

Furthermore, Gulf regimes disappointed by Yemen's opposition to the war to liberate Kuwait, sent around a million Yemeni expats home, thus exasperating unemployment levels and reducing foreign remittances by a high margin, and in the process, fertilising the ground for extremism.

But the US role in Afghanistan in the 1980s and its role in the Gulf in the 1990s are only two examples of how US military interference has had major political repercussion in Yemen.

US support for Israel and its occupation of Arab Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian lands, and Washington's intervention in neighbouring Somalia have also led to direct and indirect hostility towards the US."

January 7, 2010

Member deleted

FYI Christopher
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/imperium/2010/01/201014122549187...

"Dealing with Yemen must begin with understanding why this country can serve as fertile ground for al-Qaeda and recognising the US' role in it (not to mention the old colonial British rule).

Young Yemenis were first radicalised in Afghanistan, where tens of thousands went to fight the Soviets under the auspices of a CIA covert war there. But the end of the Cold War did not mean the end of the "Arab Afghans", who later formed the core of al-Qaeda, whether in Afghanistan or in their homelands.

Thousands who came back to Yemen and joined local radical religious groups looked on with bitterness and betrayal as half a million US soldiers deployed next door in Saudi Arabia in 1991, the birthplace of the prophet.

The fact that the Yemeni government, as well as popular sentiment, opposed US military action against Iraq only empowered the newly formed radical groups.

Furthermore, Gulf regimes disappointed by Yemen's opposition to the war to liberate Kuwait, sent around a million Yemeni expats home, thus exasperating unemployment levels and reducing foreign remittances by a high margin, and in the process, fertilising the ground for extremism.

But the US role in Afghanistan in the 1980s and its role in the Gulf in the 1990s are only two examples of how US military interference has had major political repercussion in Yemen.

US support for Israel and its occupation of Arab Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian lands, and Washington's intervention in neighbouring Somalia have also led to direct and indirect hostility towards the US."

January 8, 2010

Member deleted

The same forces that steered the Bush Administration still seem alive and well today. The Military-Industrial-Complex (MIC) has its decisive say in U.S. foreign policy.The military industry is a dominant player in the US economy. Military orders drive America's manufacturing sector. More than one-third of all engineers and scientists in the US are engaged in military-related jobs. Several sections of the country and a number of industrial sectors, particularly shipbuilding and aerospace, are greatly dependent upon military spending or foreign arms sales.

Military Industrial Complex is much more than only developing, producing and marketing weapons. One part is hired guns – private armies – like DynCorp and Xe (formerly Blackwater USA) costing tens of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lack of oversight so scandalous that rampant waste, fraud, and abuse plus war crimes go unmonitored. While U.S. troops are implementing COIN strategy in Afghanistan these companies like the infamous Blackwater, now called Xe, are at work for the CIA, which is spearheading the covert Pakistan war, and this all costs money, big money. Fortunately, the agency still has the opium crop to cover the shortfalls in budget or cash.

The poor Nigerian guy with his burned trousers is not a core question related current or coming conflict in Yemen. From my point of view he is only suitable tool for U.S. PR campaign to get public opinion favorable for future actions - actions, which according the New York Times started already a year ago when the Central Intelligence Agency sent many field operatives with counterterrorism experience to the country.

The real agenda started already some year ago when CIA started its cover operations in Yemen. The motivation can be found from the fact that while U.S. Military-Industrial-Complex is looking new markets, the Pentagon is searching new missions.

In my opinion there is three main reasons for U.S. activities in Yemen which are

1) securing oil transportation route
2) securing the untapped oil reserves in Yemen
3) securing the quarterly bonuses for persons related to military-industrial-complex.

More about these aspects one may find from my article "Is Yemen the next target for the War on Terror? - http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/is-yemen-the-next-target-...

January 8, 2010

Tobias Fella, AsiaStudies.de, Silver Contributor (55)

Mr. Rusila,

It is unquestioned that the Military-Industrial-Complex has influence on foreign policy. You just have to look on the large defense budget of the US, there are 1.4 million men and women in uniform, there is the National Guard and Reserve and civilian employees. The Department of Defense is the largest single employer in the United States. And don’t forget those millions of veterans, who are hardly shrinking violets when defense spending is concerned. Finally, a well-financed group of Washington think tanks stands ready to question the patriotism of any politician who tries to put the Pentagon on a diet.

But there are more institutions, organisations and actors shaping or influencing the US-foreign policy. There is the president, the state department, the pentagon and of course the congress, there are think tanks, lobbying groups, just to mention a few. There is no paramount group defining the US-foreign policy on its own. In fact, the complex process of determining foreign policy makes it difficult to decide who should be credited with initiating or altering any particular foreign policy. Together the President and Congress make foreign policy.

January 9, 2010

Tobias Fella, AsiaStudies.de, Silver Contributor (55)

I think, Obama was right when blaming systemic falures for the attempted Christmas Day bombing. The failures involved more than one link in the chain. The information imparted by the bomber's father to the effect of Abdulmutallab's radicalication didn't get into the U.S. intelligence system, at least in a timely way, so that his via would have been revoked. Further he was let onto the plane carrying an explosive device.

Of course, flags were raised prior to the attempted bombing, within the CIA, the State Department and other U.S. agencies. So there was enough information to keep Mr. Abdulmutallab off the airplane. We have to raise the question, why the agencies then failed to keep him from bording the aircraft. After reading various statements and analysis, I think there was enough time and information for the U.S. intelligence to do so. But in this case, it seems that no information was withheld by players in the system for reasons of bureaucratic game playing. So maybe there was information in the possession of an analyst, who should have seen its importance but delayed in passing it on? This should come out in the ordered analysis of the attemped Christmas Day bombing.

January 10, 2010

Member deleted

Dear Tobias, Dear Ari,

Yes there is much more than the MIC ... a free people!


Mr. Rusilas point:

Much of your analysis, Mr Rusila, is rooted on the argument used by various people who predict a link between BL's former CIA/MI6 employment and the 9/11 attacks, that I read very closely over the years. As “you agree and I don't” I would like to discuss this later.

Also Al-Q ( or people who are under allegation to be in contact with) uses these arguments you stated recently in order to defend their legitimacy in Yemen. A fact that will be very important in the end of my statement.

The MIC in the US has a history that started when the US had to build transport vessels faster than the Nazis were able to sink them, in order to support Britain with much needed support once. A direct US involvement in WWII and the fast approaching cold war asked the US to set a up a bold military apparatus and respective logistics beside the establishment of a currency policy/ trade order and a World Forum (United Nations).

I do not doubt that the largest single employer in an economy develops dynamics that are to be suspected out of a liberal-democratic position, or as a libertarian would say, it is likely to push public opinion apart from efficient market decisions like the F-35 (a jet fighter without contemporary enemies) and the Missile Shield in Eastern Europe that’s capacities are likely outnumbered by two hands full of rockets and some dummies.

Traditionally the Republicans perceived themselves as a concentration area for MIC interests by supporting the NRA and so on that provided them the cowboy image and a conservative basement. The Bush Administration respectively hedged the interests of its main backers over the last years. As 9/11 occurred the White House could have been especially attentive to the proposals from respective lobbies and “advisors” who, as a matter of their kind, correlated successful defence against a camouflaged enemy (Al-Q) with massive investments in ordinary payload!?! The result was the so called “war on blitzkrieg”, … sorry “terror”. Dilettante contracting with Blackwater (Xe) in my opinion is just one of numerous wrongdoings of the Bush Administration and obviously the Democrats have more than a headache with that. Even Republican candidate Mc Cain issued clear opposition against that mindset, especially as a veteran, during his campaign.

But the Republican legacy on “how to drive wars” was broken with Obama, who has been frequently labelled to have no idea how to do so, but the American people exactly voted for him. I interpreted this as a clear signal as the American voter preferred a newbie to the issue than such kind of specialist as the Bush Administration. How come… ?

As the Bush administration ended, stifled by the people for two not ending wars, the question arose on how to go into the offensive against Al-Q. The odds were clearly 1:0 for Al-Q as the US stood close to economic collapse, the war did not produce results and BL still preached from the historic unholy mountains of Waziristan.

So in my opinion we have to talk about how to defeat Al-Q and not how to change ourselves.
To wish the MIC away may be a wishful target/thinking, but will not move the frontier against BL and respective havocs… or only weaken us further…


Who/What is Al-Q:

Another reason on why I pledged for a political strategy in addition to the military engagements is that entities like Al-Q win solely by surviving, and as they are a “media ghost” also, so its difficult to impossible to shoot them. To bring it to a nutshell it is enough if there is one Al-Q member remaining able to write a blog entry or appear on twitter. Immediately our media system would blow them up with hot air.

One of the fundamental success stories of Al-Q was a) to attack the US dramatically breaking the myth of its indefectibility and b) we were trapped in a Media War against public opinion and its respective fears. No Muslim statesmen ever had that public forum among western countries as BL had/still has, thus creating interest by insurgent groups and oppositions among especially poor and failing Muslim states. I think this has to be addressed clearly as there is still no G-15 with a Muslim country among it.

The decisions on military approach by the Bush Administration were luckily able to reinsure global perception that “one should better not mess with NATO”, but within the framework mentioned above, a trade-off is to be witnessed as if we spend more energy (such public debate and defence budgets) the perception of Al-Q by uneducated and isolated people in failed states and poor societies increases as they search for very easy answers in order to explain the common misery to themselves and their beloved ones. Most dramatically a father of four, manipulated by Al-Q would blow up himself in the next city in reach at the end of the day.
As Greg mentioned there is no 100%-fool-proof way on encountering terrorism. I would suggest that each solely military strategy on Al-Q is doomed to fail as long it does not produce economies of scale with other measures, such political and media strategies fore the first and foremost.

So Bush saved us from anticipated geopolitical bankruptcy by a massive bail-out but now we have to elaborate a marketing strategy for our products… Obama?


Case study Yemen:

As mentioned by Al-Jazeera Yemen is doomed with two kinds of prehistoric cancer such former British colonialism, and respective anti western sentiment after years of war crimes and alien-installed government, and the Soviet War in Afghanistan, thus enabling many of its less educated male citizens of guerrilla tactic and camouflaged approach likely to be not members of the ruling elite. Not to forget a marginalised Shiite minority next to a hidden Shiite-Sunnite conflict in Iraq.
So Yemen is, next to Afghanistan, an excellent concentration area for Al-Q and others, but less part of greater supremacy. Please remember the bombing of the USS Cole there before 9/11… reason enough for the Pentagon to send anti-terrorist agents to the country.

To bring it to a nutshell Yemen would be ripe for peacekeepers, wouldn’t they?
Al-Q now seems to anticipate these moves through Abdul Majeed Zandani, a Yemeni high cleric who searches for extensively radical solutions for conflicts in the Middle East, who mentioned a similar context as Mr. Rusila earlier in this blog. The effect on local militias and tribes is at hands as they prepare for defending their homeland and the land of their brethren in Islam again, such as against Britain and the Soviets once under the light of low level propaganda.

An Al Jazeera Corresponded stated recently that Yemen with its looming civil wars and a weak government would face the Somalia II option if going against the Al-Q-Huthi alliance alone or the Afghanistan option if asking foreign troops, such Britain, for help.


Is Yemen lost?

My answer is “maybe” but rather unlikely if the context is interpreted correctly on non military but rather intelligence and political levels.

In a first stage assistance to the Yemeni Government and neighbouring countries in order to face the Houthi-Al-Q proxy in the north has to be proved under the light of an ordinary check list that pre-emptively abolishes any attempt to link the fight against Al-Q wit pre-historic cancers, such colonial powers and occupation, through low level internet propaganda . For example a peace keeping mission should be considered as “Muslims Only” among soldiers and mission executives. A Turkish, Egyptian, Indonesian and Moroccan ( or even Bosnian) role should be considered as they are predominantly Muslims witnessing a successful Shiite minority (Alewites) among their population also. A context with a looming Shiite-Sunnite war in Iraq may be prevented through this also.

In a second and more logistical approach Al-Qs Propaganda machinery has to be defeated as the latter and more easy two steps.

Observing Islamist neo-fascism for years now, it witnesses two core essences, such Anti-Colonialism that is cemented by a will to revenge for the atrocities of the “white man” such Britain and France and the resulting feeling of notorious weakness and inferiority towards the western “fortress” for the first and foremost as Samuel Huntington pointed it out, and the use of contemporary theories of supremacy such the Jewish-Freemasonry Complex and alleged meddling of the CIA among other institutions.

In a first step the Western civil society, a system that is completely inaccessible and understandable by most people from nations like Yemen has to be presented and explained in order to make them understand how we [the West] work and “who is who?”.
For example Al-Q assesses all Jews as Zionists thus perpetrating a rude anti-Semitism among low educated Muslims under the light of the occupation of Palestinian lands. The work of J-Street in the US and other respective pro-peace groups can be of value here. A volunteering Freemason at Al-Jazeera or Al-Arabyia explaining who they are and summarising striking historic Freemason personalities of respect would be wishful.

In a second step our Western morale must not be questioned any more, means the Middle East Conflict has to be solved to enable the people to live in “freedom”, Turkey has to be paid the respect it deserves and Muslims have to gain a representation among world leaders such G-? that provides them the feeling of “equality” and most pressing the Middle East youth bulk has to be provided a chance through education and hard work in order to give the “hope” they need to encounter radical Islamic currents.

It is obvious that the Al-Q Propaganda Machinery has the cognitive sophistication of a 6 years old toddler who dropped a lollipop into the dust and tells daddy the evil migrant has stolen it in order to get a new one.

The civil judgement on KSM will witness that we are never too proud nor too short sighted to hear what even the poorest soul has to say in order to make our own people understand in which world we live. The media circus around KSM will overshadow most propaganda when a judge receives word by KSM “not guilty” with a serious mimic starting a process that will signal the very essence of Al-Qs blindness to the whole world.

It cannot be too difficult to encounter that propaganda as we defeated Communists, Nazis, Apartheid and Dictators alike by the use of freedom, equality and hope.

Again, Obama is not too soft on terror, but he adds a soft skill attitude to the defence portfolio that will make the military afford a offensive out of an defensive one and such efficient and worthy the fiscal spending.

Obama’s sophistication remembers one of the time after WWII when the US noticed that it is counterproductive to dry out Germany but more efficient to make them part of the greater whole through a Marshall Fund.


Again: Yes there is much more than the MIC ... a free people!

January 16, 2010

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (500)

what matters most is the rule of the law. Guantanamo probably bred far more terrorists than it imprisoned. The U.S. war agenda and illusion of strength plays only in the hands of the terrorists and radical groups

what might indeed be missing is an international law codex how to deal with terrorists and other non-governmental groups. In the past, in was always states which fought, but the future will probably see more and more conflicts carried by non-governmental groups.

If we'd like to keep the merits of civilization, we need rules. Otherwise we decline to the same savage level as the terrorists. Just shooting everybody who might be sympathetic with a terror group, or randomly bombing areas which might support enemies of your country is the same style like blowing up planes and markets.

If there's anything to be learnt from past conflicts, then that the purpose does not justify the means. But of course the winners are always the good guys.