Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

May 10, 2008 |  1 comment |  Print | E-Mail Atlantic Faces  

Dr. Matthew Levitt, Director of The Washington Institute's Stein Program on Terrorism, Intelligence, and Policy

Dr. Matthew Levitt is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute and founding director of their Terrorism Research Program (now renamed as above), established in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The Institute seeks to inject dispassionate, research-driven analysis—supported by fact and expertise—into the making of US Middle East policy.
After a two-year tenure at the US Department of the Treasury, serving as deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis, Dr. Levitt returned to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in early 2007.

He is now once again at the epicenter of the Institute’s expanding research agenda, with new resources dedicated to understanding and countering Islamist extremism, terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Atlantic-community.org recently interviewed Dr. Levitt and asked him three questions on his work and experience in the realm of transatlantic relations.

1. How does your experience working in a think tank differ from your experience working for the federal government?
Working on national security issues in an office that sits at the nexus of intelligence and policy was a challenging and rewarding experience. But the nature of such positions is that one rarely has time to focus on anything but the immediate and has time for family more rarely still. Working at The Washington Institute and teaching at Johns Hopkins University I have the luxury of thinking strategically, working on medium- and long-term research projects and conducting field research. I am able to keep my finger on the pulse of current events and contribute to policymaking at a more strategic level, while making time for my family. I strongly believe in public service, and am honored for the time I’ve been able to serve at the FBI and Treasury Department, but I recognize the utility of the contribution I make to US national security policy even now, from the outside.

2. How do changes in the transatlantic relationship affect international counterterrorism operations?
For the most part, it has been my experience that the transatlantic relationship is based on such strong foundations that it is able to withstand changes in leadership and policy when it comes to such critical issues as combating terrorism. That said, the war in Iraq has complicated matters because of the way it has become a greater and more dangerous terrorism threat than it was under than Saddam Hussein. The “Madrid effect,” for example, may have factored into the spate of recent attacks—some thwarted, some not—in the UK just days after a new government assumed office. Disagreements over rendition policies and Guantanamo Bay persist, and to be resolved will have to include a greater willingness on the part of home countries to allow their nationals incarcerated at Guantanamo back home—but not to the point of undermining cooperation on counterterrorism.

3. What is the greatest challenge to transatlantic relations today?
Finding a way to stabilize Iraq and hand security over to Iraqi forces is the most complicated and important policy conundrum for policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic. Beyond that, facilitating greater information sharing—especially but not solely related to terrorism—and developing complimentary strategies for engaging in the battle of ideas in the war on terror are critical.


Bio
Before joining the Washington Institute, Dr. Levitt provided tactical and strategic analytical support for counterterrorism operations at the FBI, focusing on fundraising and logistical support networks for Middle Eastern terrorist groups. He earned numerous awards and commendations for his government service at both the FBI and the Treasury Department.

An expert witness for the Department of Justice in several terrorism cases, Dr. Levitt has lectured on international terrorism on behalf of the Department of State, consulted for various U.S. government agencies and private industry, and testified before the Senate and House on matters relating to international terrorism. Dr. Levitt is also a professorial lecturer in International Relations and Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, Weekly Standard, Daily Star (Beirut), Jerusalem Post, The Australian, National Post (Canada), and numerous other publications. He is also a frequent guest on the national and international media, including NPR, CNN, BBC, FOX News, ABC, CBS, and NBC. His latest books include Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad (Yale University Press, 2006) and Negotiating Under Fire: Preserving Peace Talks in the Face of Terror Attacks (Rowman & Littlefield, forthcoming in 2007).

He holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from Yeshiva University, as well as a master’s degree in law and diplomacy and a doctorate from Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He was a graduate research fellow at Harvard Law School’s Program on Negotiation, and has taught at both Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies and Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences.


Interview conducted by Casey Butterfield (editor-in-chief, Atlantic Community)

 

 
 
Comments
ilyas m mohsin

Fri, Mar 28th 2008, 08:16

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dr. Levitt’ observations on the differences between public service and working on a think tank are very valid. While the former sets the agenda for ‘fire-fighting’, the latter promotes deliberation, brain-storming and research on selected issues. It can get speed-oriented if one deals with security/ terrorism issues due to the prevailing mess in Iraq/ Afghanistan. As thousands are getting killed/ devastated, while these countries are under the ‘occupation’ of US/ EU, the surrogate regimes are only marking time before more calamities descend.
It is difficult to fully agree with the Doc on his perception of transatlantic unity. The approach to the handling of the above countries is a case in point. Understandably, most EU countries are lukewarm partners in the Iraq quagmire. Even UK has changed course after Blair. The Europeans, except for the real poor ones, find it difficult to stomach the killing of their soldiers who make a part of the ‘occupation’ forces. Even the Australians threw out their conservative Govt of John Howard for wagging its tail to the dictates of the US Administration.
I do not agree with the Doc about the ‘greatest challenge’ to the transatlantic relations. While Iraq may prove a buster due to the fall-out of ‘occupation, it is Afghanistan which may, ultimately, prove more dangerous to the US/ EU etc. If history is any guide, the Afghans do not compromise on occupation and therein lies the rub. Unless something changes drastically, their fight back would tend to prove that Vietnam was a picnic for the US.
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Benedikt Karl Dominik Dalkmann
Benedikt Karl Dominik Dalkmann
Member since
January 5, 2008

Poll

Is Hillary Clinton a good choice for Secretary of State?