On the eve of Christmas 2008, I shifted from my ongoing field of research and commentary in Terrorism, international and ethnic conflict and global strategies to write about a subject dear to the heart of many among us, and dream maker to most of us, i.e., the children: Christmas. On the eve of the 2009 celebration I will reiterate this assertion: Christmas as a celebration is not negotiable.
Now that we’ve understood the administration’s strategy for Afghanistan, what is the Taliban strategy against the United States? Such a question is warranted to be able to project the clash between the two strategies and assess the accuracy of present U.S. policies in the confrontation with the forces it is fighting against in that part of the world. So, how would the Taliban/Al Qaeda war room counter NATO and the Afghan government based on the Obama administration’s battle plan?
First, the Taliban and their jihadi allies have clearly shown that they have cells capable of conducting terror attacks way beyond their enclaves. Hence one needs to expect protracted violence in urban zones. The armed Islamists aren’t a new force appearing only this year, but a network growing for decades. Now is their time to try to take out the secular government.
The debate soon will espouse the dividing lines between domestic and foreign policy issues and, in a few weeks, will die out under the awe of new unfolding events. What will remain are future policy debates that will refer to one of the world’s most prestigious awards as a fact in international relations.
But this Jihadi nebula is not the only one. There are other nebulae such as the classical Wahabis, Muslim Brotherhoods, Deobandis, etc, who along with al Qaeda nebulous form a large bloc of Global Salafi Jihadism. Bin Laden is the hero of his own nebula and he is somewhat seen as a popular, but irresponsible leader within the classical nebulae. So, as you see it is complex. But in terms of al Qaeda, he is unquestionably the supreme leader. But in the daily practical life of these movements, he is not the chief executive, he is sort of a high-ranking symbolic leader. It is mostly Ayman Zawahiri who plays the role of chief executive. And among the affiliates, it is the local emirs who lead the action.
This week’s Reuter’s reports are triggering additional concerns over Iran’s forthcoming missiles tests: the new long range “rockets” can reach Israel, other targets in the region and US bases. The question at hand is: Are Iranian missiles’ strategies new, are Tehran’s plans coming out of the blue? In this memo I invite analysts and commentators to go back in time and rediscover Iran’s strategic plans evolving for years, if not decades. In my mind I’d ask a different question: why are we surprised? In fact a small number of experts on Iranian strategies have been warning about the long standing Khomeinist doctrine on ballistic missiles for years. I have modestly been calling attention on this menace for years, decades. Here are some of my previous warnings.
“This is historic because it is the first document signed by a group of international lawmakers addressing the Iranian regime’s human rights atrocities against the Iranian people,” said US Representative Sue Myrick (NC-09), who is also the Co-Chair of the US Bipartisan House Caucus on Counter Terrorism. “We are keeping a close watch on the Iran nuclear weapons situation, but this will not cause us to forget the human rights atrocities committed by the Iranian regime. We say to the Iranian people who continue their fight for freedom, ‘We have not forgotten you. We stand with you”. At the signing session which took place inside the US Congress, MEP Jaime Mayor Oreja, who serves as the Vice President for the EPP at the European Parliament, said “it is the first time that legislators from both sides of the Atlantic are coming together to address the threats of Jihadi terror. We are pleased to have accomplished this first step and other important steps will follow.” Oreja oversees the European Ideas Network (EIN), the Policy Think Tank of the EPP.
Next week, an important summit will be held by a number of legislators from the European Parliament, the US Congress and the Canadian Parliament to discuss “al Qaeda’s and other Jihadi forces’ campaigns worldwide against Democracies.” The closed meeting, to take place in the US, is sponsored by the newly formed “Transatlantic Group on Counter Terrorism (TAG),” launched in Washington and Brussels last year. TAG was launched in the winter of 2008 by Members of the European Parliament, led by MEP Jaime Mayor Oreja, Vice Chairman for Policy of the EPP Group at the European Parliament (present majority Party) and Members from both Parties of the US Congress, led by Representative Sue Myrick, Co-Chair of the Anti-Terrorism Caucus in the US House of Representatives. The goal of TAG is to create a working relationship between legislators from Europe and the United States (North America) to address terrorism and the threat it poses to democracies.
The Jihadi attacks against New York and Washington created an unforgettable date in the collective psyche of Americans: this nation was bled by men indoctrinated by an ideology that, both in its texts and in its actions, knows no mercy for free societies. The terrifying three numbers and a hyphen 9-11 took their place in the country’s national identity, alongside Pearl Harbor in the high drama of American history.
And with the change of administrations, though policy and execution levels are at last united, their goal is to cease the combat, not win the war. In short, it is bleak, but it is not yet over and this is why:
Wars have always had inhuman results, no matter what is the scale. Since the early 20th century, terrorism has perpetrated mass killing of innocents, condemned by all moral values. Salafi jihadism in particular has produced extreme scales of bloodshed against civilians, comparing with the monstrosity of totalitarian regimes under Hitler or Pol Pot, among others.
Global terrorism and Middle East expert Walid Phares tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama’s administration must have been consulted before Britain released the Muslim terrorist convicted in the Lockerbie bombing.
Hamas’ attack against a Jihadist group inside Gaza is about to provide the Palestinian Islamist organization a pass to become a “mainstream” movement, acceptable internationally as a partner in negotiations. Or at least that is what Hamas strategists think may happen as a result of crushing the minuscule militant entity known as Jund Ansar Allah (The Soldiers or the Partisans of Allah) last week. This is another murky development in the world of Jihadism, where the biggest brothers in holy war devoured the little ones, in a race between who can achieve final victory against the Kuffar (infidels). But in Gaza, these intra Jihadist slaughter fests are peculiar in as much as the “Palestine cause” is so central to the Islamist political narrative worldwide.
As reports are confirming the elimination of Pakistan Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, including Pakistani sources to al Jazeera, a growing debate is widening in the international media about the “value” of that event. Some analyses are using terms such as “turning point,” while other are describing it as “lethal hit against Pakistan’s Taliban.” Evidently, authorities in Pakistan and the United States are logically rejoicing for the fact that a tough foe is gone. Intelligence estimates will soon tell how important what that successful drone and what would the field consequences be in the next weeks, months and maybe a year or two.
In a briefing organized in Congress in July of 2007, I submitted a plan to the U.S. House Caucus on Counter Terrorism called “Freedom lines” suggesting a second phase in the American military campaign in Iraq. This plan was suggested as of 2004. After having analyzed the long term goals of al Qaeda and the Iranian regime in Iraq and discussed them with CENTCOM officials and National Defense University professors, the proposed plan projected a rapid training and expansion of the Iraqi armed forces followed by a gradual redeployment of U.S. and Coalition forces out of the cities and urban zones. Today we see the first phase of withdrawal beginning to take place. It is in this redeployment stage, where Iraqi forces will be taking over from Americans and allies in all cities and most towns. Two crucial questions arise immediately: Will Iraqi forces be able to control their own urban zones? And as a corollary, what should be the next phase for U.S. and Coalition forces on Iraqi soil?
Here is why: In a well-orchestrated process which unfolds the ruling Mullahs’ scrutiny, four candidates have been selected by the Guardian Council — the supreme Islamist politbureau which sanctions all critical decisions in the country — to run for this election: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohsen Rezai, and Mehdi Karoubi. The first is the current president, a previous member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC). The second was Iran’s prime minister during the war years of the 1980’s, under Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the leader who advocated the nuclear weapons program. The third is a former chief of the Pasdaran, wanted by the Interpol for alleged involvement in the 1994 bombing of the Jewish community center in Argentina. The fourth, a former speaker of the Parliament, was one of Khomeini’s activists who supported the fatwa to execute British novelist Salman Rushdie.
Since the deadly attacks in Mumbai, counter-terrorism experts worldwide, particularly those based in democracies in the crosshairs, have been drawing long-term conclusions as to the forthcoming type of operations which may hit cities and interests on more than one continent. Today, we are in the post-Mumbai era where the expectation of recidivism and copycats is eerily high. Indeed, the jihadists who seized a few buildings in India’s financial centre and who wreaked havoc at several locations in the city have brought to the attention of national security analysts a concept for the future: Urban jihad. I have predicted these scenarios of mayhem perpetrated by determined terrorists in chapter 13 of my first post 9/11 book, Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against the West, published in 2005.
As the U.S. administration and its allies are devising a new strategy for the next steps in Afghanistan, the jihadists have already begun their next move — but this time it’s inside Pakistan. As I’ve written over the past few months, we need to look at Afghanistan, Pakistan and India as one regional battlefield where the “other side” is coordinating strategically, acting methodically and for sure beating the international coalition in speed. If Washington and its allies fail to see the big picture in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which unfortunately may be the case now, the rapidly deteriorating situation will soon exceed the northwestern provinces of Pakistan to spill over to both Afghanistan and India, if not beyond. That’s how I suggest “reading” the recent worrisome leaps achieved by the Taliban from the SWAT valley into the neighboring district of Buner. So what’s the story and why should we consider it as a crossing of the red lines?