House Testimony: The Paradoxes of Al Qaeda: Think Tank : The New Yorker

More broadly, with or without success in the pursuit of Al Qaeda’s leadership, the group’s self-isolation should provide a fundamental framework for U.S. counterterrorism policy, particularly in the communications sphere. That policy should be constructed to patiently reinforce Al Qaeda’s political isolation. (The hunt for Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri, by Predator drone and otherwise, may have a countervailing effect in the short run, but the effort to finally destroy Al Qaeda’s central leadership is nonetheless essential.) The most effective U.S. approach will be to call attention to Al Qaeda’s depredations and weaknesses, through proxies as much as possible, while taking no action itself that might reconnect Al Qaeda to its former political, financial and recruiting support. Fortunately, in strategic communications, Al Qaeda’s own actions speak most effectively for themselves—the ghoulish spectacle of a young Nigerian “taught” to commit suicide by detonating explosives hidden in his underwear was hardly the image of noble war that Al Qaeda would require to recover its lost standing. American communications matter less, but as with Al Qaeda, actions always provide the clearest and most effective signals, particularly in a media era characterized by nearly infinite numbers of channels. Closing Guantanamo, repudiating torture, reaffirming American constitutional values, engaging constructively with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, affirming the sanctity of civilian life in military conflict, are all examples of specific acts by the Obama Administration—attempted or completed—that by themselves can contribute to a successful strategic communications policy aimed at Al Qaeda’s continued political isolation.

The entire testimony is well worth reading. But these policy recommendations are, I believe, spot on. 

The main challenge for the United States is to allow AQ to destroy itself, even in the face of provocation.  Our impetus — driven the the policy confluence of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals — to try to actively “fix” everything is perhaps our greatest on-going danger.  There are times when less is more, and we are now in a situation where restraint is going to serve American interests better than a crusade to reshape politics around the globe.

Of course, if there is a successful spectacular terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we are almost certain to overreact and as a consequence undermine our own strategic interests.  Unfortunately, it is probably beyond the capacity of any American politician to prepare the American public sufficiently to allow for a nuanced response to an attack, so we are in a perilous position where AQ can only prosper if we help them, but where we are also likely to be incapable to not doing so if attacked.

I keep harping on our lack of strategic thinking in the United States.  I know many people consider this an academic exercise, as in (paraphrasing): “Ivory toward academic Bernard Finel keeps suggesting we consider ’strategy’ explicitly, but the reality is that we have a complex threat environment and receive plenty of guidance from senior leaders about priorities.”

The current situation in Yemen highlights the problems with relying on “in-box” driven priority assessment to drive policy debates.

U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes – washingtonpost.com

U.S. military teams and intelligence agencies are deeply involved in secret joint operations with Yemeni troops who in the past six weeks have killed scores of people, among them six of 15 top leaders of a regional al-Qaeda affiliate, according to senior administration officials.
….
The broad outlines of the U.S. involvement in Yemen have come to light in the past month, but the extent and nature of the operations have not been previously reported. The far-reaching U.S. role could prove politically challenging for Yemen’s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who must balance his desire for American support against the possibility of a backlash by tribal, political and religious groups whose members resent what they see as U.S. interference in Yemen.

I would love to know how the discussions about Yemen strategy have developed inside the administration because this deepening involvement is a prime example of the challenge I have tried to highlight.  There are al Qaeda (AQ) operatives working in Yemen.  Killing them may, in the short-run, disrupt AQ operations.  That is a worthwhile goal.  But what are the long-term consequences of a deepening U.S. involvement?

This is not a trivial question.  Once you begin to use force — with or without the consent of a local government — you become deeply embedded into the security environment in that country.  From there it becomes logical to further deepen the involvement over time.  Recall the argument over Afghanistan policy.  Many proponents of escalation argued (paraphrasing): “Well, maybe it wasn’t a good idea to get so deeply involved, but we are there now and how to deal with things as they are, not as we would wish them to be.”

In Yemen, our use of force now is creating the antecedent conditions that will later on justify more and deeper intervention, in part because by allying ourselves with the Saleh government we both make all of his enemies our enemies and we also because we are extending a tacit offer of protection because at some point, someone will argue, “we have to back Saleh, otherwise other Muslim leaders won’t be willing to side with us.”

But if we step back and think about end states — i.e. begin a process of strategic assessment — isn’t it obvious that the goal for the United States ought to be disentangle itself from politics in a place like Yemen and seek to insulate ourselves from disorder that may arise there?  There is no coherent U.S. interest in support of mediating the various internecine disputes on the Arabian peninsula, is there? 

As a consequence, this deepening involvement, even though it satisfies a visceral urge to whack some bad guys does not necessarily contribute to any long-term desire national security goal.  Which isn’t to say that in striking AQ operatives we are not gaining some measure of security in the short-term.  But without a sound strategic framework in place, how can we weigh the long-term costs against the short-term benefits?

The pending US climate change legislation is widely considered to be in peril due to legislative infighting, particularly over the bill’s endorsement of cap and trade policy. On the eve of President Obama’s first State of the Union, The New York Times came out in support of the bill and called upon the President to make the case for it to the American public. Having promised in Copenhagen to meet a 17% reduction goal by 2020, Obama’s own credibility is at stake. Ultimately, however, there are far more reasons to pass this bill than there are to let it die a quiet death in Congress. In many ways, the debate happening on Capitol Hill demonstrates a preoccupation with satisfying special interests at the expense of giving voice to newly emerging public opinions about climate change. However, many question public commitment to this cause, especially with regard to the cost to taxpayers. According to Carroll Doherty of the Pew Center for People & the Press, “There’s more support than opposition for [legislation], but people haven’t heard a lot about this. This issue is off the radar for a lot of people.”

That is why it is so important for President Obama to highlight this issue in his speech tomorrow night. He needs to frame climate change legislation in the context of economic growth and national security interests. Senators such as John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham are working at refining the bill, but do so at the potential cost of key elements crucial to reducing emissions. There will be little incentive for innovation in safe energy and green technologies unless Congress puts a price on carbon emissions. Scientists estimate that there needs to be a radical reduction in emissions by 2050 in order to offset serious environmental threats. Now is the time for a robust legislative movement to pass the climate change bill in the interest of investing in the future.

Britain, Japan to help reintegrate Taliban foot soldiers – washingtonpost.com

Britain and Japan have agreed to head an international fund, expected to total up to $500 million over the next five years, as part of a broad plan to help lure Taliban fighters away from the insurgency with the promise of jobs, protection against retaliation, and the removal of their names from lists of U.S. and NATO targets.
….
Reintegration is a key component of the Afghanistan strategy President Obama outlined last fall. U.S. officials have said that they believe that up to 80 percent of Taliban foot soldiers are fighting for money and because of local grievances rather than in support of an ideology. Earlier reintegration efforts have failed, officials have said, because of poor planning, inadequate security and insufficient financial support.

I have a great deal of respect for David Kilcullen, and his book, The Accidental Guerilla is a must-read for those interested in the issue of insurgency and counter-insurgency.  But that said, we are likely making a fundamental mistake if we believe that these non-ideological “foot soldiers” are the center of gravity of the insurgency.

First, even if you shear off these “Taliban-for-hires,” you are still going to be left with a core of ideologically motivated or otherwise committed insurgents.  They are a disproportionate part of the challenge.

Second, unless you plan to put every man of fighting age on the payroll, there is little evidence that you will eliminate their ability to recruit.  There is also a moral hazard problem here, also.  If we pay off former-insurgents at a higher level of pay than is available through normal economic activity, you create an incentive to punch your ticket as an insurgent in order to get into a DDR program.

Third, what is the long-term here?  You out-compete the Taliban financially for the loyalty of apolitical fighters.  Then what?  The reality is that this creates a durable political economy that supports violence and warfare.  There is going to be an entire class of people whose well-being depends on continued payments, and who have the ability to extort more money simply by turning back to violence.  This is the institutionalization of an extortion scheme.

All of this is a way for us to avoid the real issue, which is the necessity of reconciling mid- and senior-level insurgent leaders.  If the issue was just about the foot soldiers, you could kill your way to victory.  But we can’t kill them nor buy them off ultimately for precisely the same reason — they aren’t the real problem.

U.S. Envoy’s Cables Show Deep Concerns on Afghan Strategy – NYTimes.com

The ambassador, who left the military last April to become Mr. Obama’s emissary, also complained about an inadequate civilian counterpart organization to the NATO military command in Afghanistan. Nearly three months later, he is still expressing concerns about too few civilian experts in Afghanistan.

He also noted worries that the success of Mr. Obama’s Afghanistan policy hinged on Pakistani forces’ eliminating militants’ havens in the mountainous region near the Afghan border.

“Pakistan will remain the single greatest source of Afghan instability so long as the border sanctuaries remain,” he wrote. “Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, the gains from sending additional forces may be fleeting.”

Hopefully Gen. McChrystal and the pro-COIN advocates will be proved right.  But if they aren’t, we won’t be able to say that no one was proposing a strong alternative assessment.  Ambassador Eikenberry’s concerns — never well addressed by the pro-COIN camp — may well turn out to have been chillingly prescient.  The dramatic escalation of the conflict may yet achieve positive results, but it is disturbing how much success rests on developments wholly out of our control — such as the success of good governance initiatives, anti-corruption, economic development, and most significantly the ability/desire of the Pakistanis to control their territory.

ABC News recently ran a story on “Jesus Guns”. It was reported that the Michigan-based sightings manufacturer, Trijicon, prints references to New Testament chapters and verses next to the serial numbers on its scopes. Trijicon has a contract to provide up to 800,000 of these rifle scopes to the US military. According to ABC News, these scopes are used by the US Marine Corps, the US Army, and US allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for the training of Afghan and Iraqi troops.

(watch the video)
Secret Jesus Bible Codes on U.S. Military Weapons
Brian Ross looks at the biblical verses written on firearms.
Jan 19, 2010 12:02 AM Video from Nightline ABC News

The response to the story was swift. Army officials said that they would investigate whether Trijicon had violated federal procurement rules by stamping the Biblical references on the scopes. Britain, New Zealand and Australia, U.S. allies who have purchased the scopes, were considering what, if any, action to take. Then Trijicon announced that it will no longer imprint the verses on the sides of scopes intended for the U.S. military, and will also provide kits to remove the Bible verse numbers from existing scopes.

Stephen Bindon, Trijicon president and CEO – “Trijicon has proudly served the U.S. military for more than two decades, and our decision to offer to voluntarily remove these references is both prudent and appropriate”, he said. “We want to thank the Department of Defense for the opportunity to work with them and will move as quickly as possible to provide the modification kits for deployment overseas.”

Reaction to the report on various opinion websites, blogs and social-networking sites was varied. From outrage that a defense contractor could possibly endanger the lives of military personnel by sending the wrong message (that the U.S. is on a religious crusade) to disgust that ABC News would “waste time” covering such a “trivial” topic.

Is it as Mikey Weinstein, the President and Founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), the first organization to report the existence of
“Jesus Guns” says: “It is nothing short of a vile national security threat that, despite our nation’s efforts to convince the Muslim world we are not pursuing a holy war against them, our military and its contractors time again resort to unlawful fundamentalist evangelical Christian practices, even on the battlefield.” Or should a finger be pointed at ABC News for shedding light on what many perceive as a trivial matter resulting in the creation of a problem where there had been none?

The “Jesus Guns” report initially struck me as a bit trivial and also inflammatory. However, the bottom line is that Biblical codes branded on weapons used by the US and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan could certainly add to the perception that the impetus for our military’s presence abroad is based on religion rather than national security. And if that perception results in the further endangerment for our troops then yes, it was a story worthy of coverage.

In audio message, bin Laden says he endorsed Dec. 25 airline bomb plot – washingtonpost.com

Osama bin Laden endorsed the failed attempt to blow up a U.S. airliner Christmas Day and threatened new attacks against the United States in an audio message released Sunday that appeared aimed at asserting that he maintains some direct command over al-Qaeda-inspired offshoots.

U.S. officials and several researchers who track terrorist groups, however, said there is no indication that bin Laden or any of his top lieutenants had anything to do with or even knew in advance of the plot by a Yemen-based group that is one of several largely independent al-Qaeda franchises.

There is a major debate right now in the terrorism/counter-terrorism field.  One side believes that al Qaeda is essentially resurgent.  They believe that AQ has adjusted its strategy recently, has been coordinating attacks more extensively with the Quetta Shura Taliban and other Afghan insurgents.  They also believe that the recent spate of attacks linked to Yemen, including the Fort Hood shootings and the Christmas (attempted) bombing were AQ inspired.

On the other hand, many analysts believe that AQ is increasingly irrelevant.  Some of them believe that the main challenge is now among self-radicalized lone wolves, with little connection to AQ-central.

The reality is that we simply do not know.  The profile of the analysts is high on both sides.  The evidence in support of either position is circumstantial and inadequate.

Ultimately, from a policy perspective, the debate may be irrelevant.  American counter-terrorism policy needs to a remain a defense-in-depth, and one of the largest risks is being overly reactive to the point of overemphasizing one challenge over others.  Yemen is certainly a significant problem, but focusing too much on threat emanating from there is likely to be counter-productive, given that terrorist threats can rapidly shift and materialize elsewhere.

Google, in an attempt to live up to their corporate credo “don’t be evil,” has taken a stand and reversed its controversial decision to censor results China’s Google search engine. In their announcement, Google’s Chief Legal Officer David Drummond stated that the cyber attacks on more than 20 companies were part of a coordinated attempt for hackers to gain illegal access to the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights workers.  Increased government censorship over the past year, including the recent decision to block YouTube, also owned by Google, appears to be another significant factor in this decision that may ultimately lead to Google’s withdrawal from the Chinese market. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a pointed admonition of these alleged activities, stating that “Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government and our civil society.” The Chinese Foreign Ministry was quick to respond that taking a commercial conflict into the political arena could be detrimental their relationship with the United States and insisted that “The Chinese internet is open.”

Questions will ultimately arise in the coming days at how seriously the Obama administration is willing to assert its views on China’s human rights and censorship record. A clash with the Chinese government could literally not come at a worse time, as the US seeks to create consensus on issues ranging from Iran’s nuclear capacity to international climate change agreements. However, the fact of the matters is that these cyber attacks, regardless of their origin, point to real vulnerabilities in our capacity to protect sensitive information from being intercepted by anyone with an internet connection. A December 2009 report exposed the fact that Iraqi insurgents have been able to intercept video feeds from unmanned military drones by using $26 software program available for purchase online. The message from this is clear: the United States cannot afford to shortchange cyber security. These incidents serve to underscore the need for internet freedom and enhanced information security.

The Wall Street Journal reports on criticism of a statement in a 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which warned of rapid “glacial retreat” in the Himalayas. According to one portion of the report now under question by the UN, it was predicted that the Himalayan glaciers are in danger of disappearing by the year 2035. Although no one disputes the evidence of glacial depletion in the region, researchers are now examining how exactly data were used to reach this conclusion. According to Dr. J Graham Cogley of Trent University in Ontario, a glaciologist who contributed to the 2007 IPCC report, although the Himalayan glaciers are receding, they are not experiencing the effects of climate change at the fastest rate, nor is it likely true that they will disappear entirely by 2035. This incident is further compounded by the controversy in England over hacked emails between American and British climatologists that publicized the conspiracy to withhold or manipulate scientific to combat global warming skeptics. Although opposition to the United States adopting policies to limit the impact of climate change on future generations has been vehement, scientists must resist the temptation to frame this issue in alarmist terms. There is no need to exaggerate the unpredictable threat that climate change poses to national security, and to do so only invites criticism that detracts from progress being made on a political front. As Andrew Revkin of The New York Times wrote, “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.” The concern now is what to do about climate change, and our reliance on guidance from the scientific community requires accuracy and honesty.   ASP wrote more about this topic here.

CongressDaily – Obama To Request $14.2B To Train, Equip Afghan Forces

President Obama is preparing to ask Congress for another $14.2 billion to grow, train and equip the Afghan National Security Forces for the remainder of this fiscal year and in FY11

This is roughly equivalent to Afghanistan’s GDP.  Think about that.  And is just addition train and equip spending.  The total cost of U.S. military operations there, including funding to train and equip Afghan forces is well over $100 billion.  That is AT LEAST five times Afghanistan’s GDP, and perhaps as much as eight times as large depending on whether you use exchange rate or purchasing power parity measures.  If you just gave that money to the Afghans, you could bring them up from 184th place in terms of national income to roughly 120th place — essentially in the Morocco, Honduras, Indonesia — class.