Musharraf: I Will Not Allow Extreme Islam

I had no sooner published my previous post about Colonel David Hunt’s assessment that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf “is not our friend,” titled “Fox Analyst Flays ‘Friend’ Musharraf,” when I came across today’s UK Telegraph article “Musharraf Declares War on Muslim Extremists.” After reading my earlier post and the following excerpts from the Telegraph story, it should be clear which side Musharraf is on in the War on Terror. While he may not be the perfect “friend” Col. Hunt apparently expects, his efforts to battle terrorists within Pakistan are exactly what we need from the leaders of all Muslim nations if Islamic extremism is ever to be defeated. In that light, Musharraf is our imperfect but certainly welcome friend despite Col. Hunt’s low opinion of him. Readers should decide whether these words published in the Telegraph are those of a friend or of an enemy, as Col. Hunt implied, in the War on Terror (Reuters photo courtesy of UK Telegraph):

…In a televised address to the nation, Gen Musharraf said that those inside the mosque and its adjacent madrassa, or Muslim college, were "terrorists" who directly threatened Pakistan's security. They had also tarnished Islam's reputation as a tolerant and peaceful religion.

"What do we as a nation want?" he asked. "What kind of Islam do these people represent? In the garb of Islamic teaching they have been training for terrorism. They prepared the madrassa as a fortress for war and housed other terrorists in there."

Gen Musharraf praised the army for wresting the mosque and its madrassa "from the hands of terrorists" and said: "I will not allow any madrassa to be used for extremism."

Isn’t this precisely what we have longed to hear from every Muslim leader in the world, a call to Muslims from Muslims to reject extremism and fight against those who tarnish Islam’s reputation? Other than allowing direct U.S. military action in Pakistan, which I discussed in more detail in my post earlier today, what more could Col. Hunt and other Musharraf critics hope for out of an embattled but courageous leader of the world’s only Muslim nuclear nation? For critics like Col. Hunt, what’s not to like about a moderate Muslim leader who raids radical mosques, kills barricaded extremist clerics firing upon government forces, and tells a nationwide audience that extremism is not consistent with true Islam and must be destroyed?

Musharraf’s televised address contained the strongest and most specific condemnation of extremism yet heard from a Muslim political figure, but perhaps more important than the condemnation was the call for Pakistani’s to ask themselves what kind of Pakistan and brand of Islam they want to represent, to themselves and the rest of the world.

Pakistan is rapidly careening towards a crossroads in its place in world history. It is a complicated combination of technological scientific achievement on the one hand and radical anti-modernization and religious oppression on the other. Musharraf’s statements and actions, placing his personal safety at continuous risk, clearly establish that he wants to help Pakistan develop into a modern and moderate Islamic nation. America and her allies should help Musharraf in every way possible to help Pakistan purge itself of the scourge of radical Islam rather than criticize him for not doing as much as we think he should within his own nation. If he invites U.S. military support in raiding the northern tribal areas infested with al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, then we should do so with relish. If, however, he continues to request that only Pakistani forces conduct these operations in Pakistan, then we should respect his authority and assist in every other way available.

It may well be crucial for Pakistan’s internal stability in the future that the nation purges its own Islamic extremist elements rather than allowing the U.S. to do so. Such a purge, conducted by Muslims against other Muslims by their own forces would be a clear statement of national purpose and unity in the name of preserving moderate Islam.

President Musharraf is a brave man who needs stalwart and patient friends to stand by him while he attempts to lead Pakistan through a period of nationwide religious introspection on the future direction of Islam in Pakistan. His address to his people, consistent with his continued contributions to the War on Terror, will hopefully silence Col. Hunt’s and other critics’ complaints that Musharraf is not “friend” enough for their liking.

Technorati Tags:
Musharraf, Pakistan, Red Mosque, Islamic Extremism, Televised Address, Madrassas, Terrorists, War on Extremists, War on Terror, Colonel David Hunt, Moderate Islam

Fox Analyst Flays "Friend" Musharraf

It is a rare occurrence when I must side with the usually left-leaning State Department on any issue that directly involves national security. However, when it comes to calls from certain quarters for the Bush administration to aggressively pressure Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to wage all out war on Islamic radicals hiding in the mountainous Afghanistan/Pakistan border, I found myself siding with Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs rather than Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt. Ordinarily I appreciate Col. Hunt’s blunt assessments and aggressive posture towards engaging the enemy with full purpose and force rather than limited rules of engagement, but Col. Hunt’s recommendations for conducting the War on Terror within Pakistan are fraught with dangers that he either minimizes or ignores in his online columns and cable news interviews.

A summary of a new threat assessment leaked to the Associated Press this week highlighted the reality that the Taliban and al Qaeda have regrouped and regained strength nearly on par with pre-9/11 levels, thriving in their mountain hideouts in the tribal regions of Pakistan’s northwestern border with Afghanistan. What to do about that reality is, next to Iraq, the most hotly debated issue in Washington. Counterterrorism and intelligence officials believe Musharraf has not done enough to root out the terrorists while accepting $100 million from the U.S. each month ostensibly to develop the local economy in the tribal areas where many find the money alternatively offered by terror groups and border smugglers irresistible. Musharraf has insisted that Pakistani forces execute all counterterrorism raids and operations within Pakistan, and the amount of success he has achieved forms the crux of the debate between the State Department’s approach toward Pakistan and the approach favored by Col. Hunt and others.

In his latest column at FoxNews.com, Col. Hunt wrote the following:

This week, we learned that in 2005, great guys from Seal Team 6, Special Forces, and other terrific Special Operations Organizations were sitting on a runway in Afghanistan, all geared up, ready to go and capture and or kill much of al Qaeda's top leadership. You remember al Qaeda; they’re the ones who killed us on September 11, 2001. Our supremely brave, conditioned and trained men were fully rehearsed, totally committed and ready to kick some serious al Qaeda [expletive].

They call him Rummy … or at least I do. He's the former and totally incompetent Secretary of Defense, who less than two years after 9/11 — two years after the president says “we will hunt them down” — decides that this mission was to be canceled. He makes this bone-headed decision because it might be “dangerous” and it might piss off the president of Pakistan. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Hey, Mr. “Ask and Answer Your Own Questions,” everything about war is dangerous and General Musharraf is not our friend.

I do not fault Col. Hunt for his dislike of former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld or for his desire for Special Forces operations like the one he described to act swiftly and lethally to eliminate Bin Laden or other terrorist leaders. From a counterterrorism and military perspective, the idea that a Special Forces team had a specific location to hit within Pakistan and was prepared to strike but was denied the opportunity for political reasons is incredibly frustrating. It is easy for those of us who work in intelligence or related fields to conclude that though such an operation might anger Musharraf, the ends would justify the means, especially if Bin Laden were captured or killed. Yet that is precisely where Col. Hunt’s assessment of the missed opportunity and the risk to Musharraf drifts from understandable disappointment to dangerous miscalculation.

Col. Hunt’s assessment that “General Musharraf is not our friend” is shared by many within the intelligence and counterterrorism community, but it is based on unrealistic expectations for “friendship” in the War on Terror, as well as a dangerous underestimation of the Muslim power vacuum that would occur in nuclear-armed Pakistan should Musharraf lose control or be assassinated. Although Musharraf may not be the “friend” that Col. Hunt understandably hopes for, considering the seething cauldron of Islamic radicalism that surrounds him within his own population it is remarkable that he has survived to assist the U.S. as long as he has. Assistant Sec. of State Boucher defended Musharraf’s contributions to the War on Terror during a House committee hearing yesterday, as excerpted from the Washington Post:

At the hearing, Boucher said that Pakistan has "captured more al-Qaeda than any country in the world, and lost more people doing that." He added that Pakistani authorities had killed or captured three of the top 10 Taliban commanders in the border area over the past six to nine months -- and caught several more in the past week.

Boucher said that Pakistan has about 85,000 troops stationed in the border area, with Washington reimbursing Islamabad for its $100 million monthly expenses. Musharraf has promised the tribal leaders $100 million annually for 10 years, and the United States has pledged another $150 million annually for five years, in an effort to promote economic development as an alternative to smuggling and terrorism.

"These were all joint efforts with Pakistan that led to the elimination of some of the top Taliban leaders who had been operating from Pakistan to support the insurgency in Afghanistan," Boucher said.

He said that there are signs "every now and then that there's not a wholehearted effort at all levels in all institutions in Pakistan" -- a reference to news accounts of Pakistani intelligence officials supporting terrorists.

"We've raised those when we need to," Boucher said. When asked about Musharraf's role, he said, "I think if Pakistan was not fighting terrorism, there'd be no way we could succeed in Afghanistan or in terms of the security of our homeland."

The State Department and intelligence community are nearly always at odds over strategy and alliance issues, and nowhere is that more evident than in the debate over how much pressure the U.S. should apply to Musharraf to wage war against Islamic radicals within his own country. In addition to the contributions Musharraf has made as outlined in part by Asst. Secretary Boucher, Musharraf recently showed courage in raiding a radical mosque and killing a barricaded Islamic radical cleric, actions that were wildly unpopular In Islamabad and caused riots. He has reportedly survived fourteen assassination attempts, and yet continues to mount Pakistani military operations against Taliban and al Qaeda leaders in the tribal regions. In this precarious position reality dictates that losing Musharraf, regardless of his perceived level of “friendship” with the U.S., would be far more dangerous to world stability and our national security than his continued allegedly half-hearted engagement in the War on Terror.

Col. Hunt was quick to criticize Musharraf and to call for American military strikes within Pakistan regardless of the potential ramifications for Musharraf’s continued control over Pakistan’s nuclear weaponry and resources. Such rash action might satisfy our desire for revenge on Bin Laden and it might very well weaken al Qaeda greatly for many years. However, as recent plots in Britain, Indonesia, the Philippines, and other nations have demonstrated, al Qaeda’s leadership may be holed up in Pakistan’s mountains, but its ideology and followers have formed a global movement. By striking within Pakistan without the consent of President Musharraf, America would undermine his authority and control over his country and embolden radical Islamists to gain control of Pakistan’s military and nuclear weapons through a coup or other violent action. Would America be safer with a Pakistani leader who, though far from being a perfect “friend”, at least keeps nuclear weapons and material out of the hands of Islamic terrorists, or with the alternative; a radical Islamist Pakistani leader who opens Pakistan’s nuclear resources to the highest bidding terrorist organization?

If a U.S. War on Terror, waged by the U.S. inside Pakistan, would create no other repercussions than making Musharraf angry, as Col. Hunt simplistically assumed, then it would be well worth doing, and doing immediately. Unfortunately, war carries multiple dangers, and angering Musharraf is not the reason we have forestalled sending our Special Forces into Pakistan. The simple truth is that Musharraf’s stability in Pakistan has earned him the right to demand that Pakistan’s military conduct all operations within its border. One wonders how Col. Hunt might respond if he were President of the United States and a terrorist group, later discovered to be holed up in the Rocky Mountains near Denver, flew planes into government buildings in Islamabad, killing 3,000 Pakistanis. Would “President Hunt,” when contacted by an angry Musharraf, agree to allow Pakistani forces to operate inside the U.S. and attack the terrorists hiding in the Rocky Mountains? It is not likely. “President Hunt” would rightfully expect to be respected and would likewise rightfully assure Musharraf that the U.S. military would handle any such operation within our borders. Why would Col. Hunt expect Musharraf to act any differently when given the same type of request?

For a military man steeped in the culture of respect for authority, it is surprising that Col. Hunt would demonstrate so much contempt for the authority of a foreign president of a nuclear power with a population of 165 million who has, lest it be forgotten, taken high profile terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into custody and turned them over to American intelligence operatives. The information gleaned from those prisoners has been the most significant contribution to our knowledge of the enemy in the War on Terror, and Musharraf’s military operations against al Qaeda in Pakistan made that possible. While Musharraf holds onto his fragile control over Pakistan, America should patiently assist this “friend” rather than cast stones at him. Who among world leaders is a perfect “friend?” Let him cast the first stone. Secretary Rumsfeld, also a far from perfect Defense Secretary, clearly had more significant reasons for not sending Special Ops into Pakistan than making Musharraf angry, reasons that continue to shape current American restraint in order to preserve a known and stable leadership in Pakistan.

Technorati Tags:
Musharraf, Pakistan, al Qaeda, War on Terror, Bush Administration, Colonel David Hunt, State Department, Richard Boucher, Taliban, Counterterrorism

Foiled Ferry Bomb Stirs Deja Vu

While searching the Telegraph Online (UK) today, I experienced a very literal déjà vu. Just two days ago I watched the Denzel Washington thriller Deja Vu, which depicts a terrorist car bomb exploding on a crowded ferry boat in New Orleans carrying over 400 passengers, many of them U.S. naval personnel on leave. The explosion and resulting carnage were devastating. With that film still fresh in my mind, I read today’s Telegraph report of a foiled terrorist plot in Spain to detonate a car bomb on a ferry carrying thousands of British tourists departing a Spanish port. From the Telegraph coverage (Telegraph photo):

Spanish police have foiled a plot by Eta terrorists to blow up a ferry carrying thousands of British tourists, officials said yesterday.

They said the Pont-Aven, which sails twice a week between Plymouth and the northern Spanish port of Santander, was one of three possible targets.

If the bomb had exploded at sea a major disaster could have occurred on the vessel which carries up to 2,400 passengers and 183 crew.

Since the end of an Eta ceasefire just over a month ago, Spanish officials have warned of "an imminent major attack" by the terrorist group which is demanding an independent Basque region encompassing parts of northern Spain and southern France.

… A spokesman for the Spanish interior ministry said that the ferry plot was foiled when police arrested a young Eta terrorist at Santander bus station on Tuesday.
Aritz Arginzonic Zubiaurre, 22, was carrying a rucksack containing a Smith & Wesson pistol, a detonator usually used by Eta for car bombs and false identity documents.

He had been staying at a campsite 27 miles away with his girlfriend, Saioa Sánchez Iturregi. Among their camping gear police said they found details of targets in Santander: the ferry, a law court and a popular plaza.

Police said the couple were planning an "imminent attack" and had been waiting for the delivery of a car bomb when Arginzonic was detained. Sánchez escaped.

It would not be the first time that Eta has attempted an attack at sea. Several years ago the group planned to load a van bomb on to a ferry sailing from Valencia to the Balearic Islands, but the van broke down and the plot was abandoned.

Click here for the full Telegraph article.

To add to my sense of déjà vu while reading this article, the bombers in the movie and in the recently thwarted actual Eta plot were not Islamic terrorists. In the film, the bomber is a disgruntled Caucasian American who was rejected for military service and wanted to exact revenge. In the recent Eta ferry plot, the thwarted bombers were Basques who have been attempting to bomb their way to independence from Spain since 1968. The movie and true ferry bomb plots served as timely reminders that terrorism is not limited to Islamic radicals. Of course, the choice to portray the ferry bomber in the movie as a white American was most likely a bow to political correctness by not scripting the bomber as an Islamic terrorist or cell, but regardless, terrorism is employed by many groups for diverse political or religious motives, and innocent citizens and tourists are literally at risk at all times and in all places.

Incidents like this are why Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff is concerned about a summer attack. It won't matter much to the victims whether the bombers are Eta or al Qaeda, and summer brings many more opportunities to strike large groups of tourists anywhere in the world.

Thankfully Spanish police disrupted the plot to bomb the Plymouth ferry, or it would have been a horrific déjà vu for us all.

Technorati Tags:
Deja Vu, Plymouth Ferry, Eta, Terrorist Attack, Ferry Bomb, Spanish police, Aritz Arginzonic Zubiaurre, Foiled Plot, Santander

Gut Check: Chertoff v. Threat Assessment

A U.S. counterterrorism official leaked portions of a new classified report to the media this morning warning that al Qaeda has regrouped to near pre-9/11 strength and may be poised for significant attacks. No, wait, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff insisted to the media this morning that the threat posed by al Qaeda has NOT returned to pre-9/11 levels. What is wrong with this picture? The anonymous counterterrorism official “familiar with” the contents of a classified report titled “Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West” stated that the report would be included in a meeting today at the White House to discuss a pending National Intelligence Estimate. This raises a crucial question; had Secretary Chertoff already read the summary report about al Qaeda’s renewed strength before he claimed to have a “gut feeling” that America may be attacked this summer and before he later assured Americans via ABC and NBC appearances that al Qaeda does not pose as great a threat today as it did in the summer of 2001?

The contradictions between the AP’s counterterrorism source and Secretary Chertoff are curious. If Secretary Chertoff’s widely ridiculed comment Tuesday about his “gut feeling” that America faces a heightened risk of attack this summer came after he had reviewed the summary report leaked by the AP’s anonymous source, then what did Chertoff really mean with his “gut feeling” remark? One could interpret Chertoff’s remarks as a call to vigilance, as he later characterized them, and not as indicating knowledge of specific threats or plots. On the surface that could pass as a somewhat logical explanation. However, if Chertoff had already reviewed the classified report later leaked to the Post, then that report constituted the basis for his “gut feeling” about our increased risk of a summer attack. The logical conclusion here is that Chertoff would only state that his “gut” told him al Qaeda was likely to attempt an attack in America this summer if he had read classified reports describing al Qaeda’s strength and activity now as approaching the level of summer 2001.

He later explained away his “gut feeling” remarks as merely a general call for Americans to be vigilant and observant, but if that is true, then why downplay the current risk from al Qaeda? Americans are traditionally entertained by things that revolve, such as doors, merry-go-rounds, or carousels, but do not expect government terror warnings to revolve by being issued, contradicted, retracted, and reissued like a carnival ride.

When intelligence community and counterterrorism officials contradict statements by the Homeland Security secretary, we should all sit up and take notice. The reality is that a classified document reportedly confirms that al Qaeda is nearly as strong as it was prior to 9/11 and may be prepared to strike us with operations rivaling 9/11 in scope and ambition, but our Homeland Security secretary assures us that al Qaeda is actually not that strong while simultaneously warning that his “gut” tells him we may be attacked this summer. Chertoff’s Potomac two-step on this assessment of al Qaeda would be a humorous example of political double-speak if it merely involved politics, but since it involves national security there is nothing funny about the mixed messages coming out of Washington in advance of today’s intelligence meeting at the White House.

Americans do not mind requests to be vigilant. Such warnings appeal to our individualism and desire to add a small personal contribution to winning the War on Terror. However, Americans become justifiably cynical of all such warnings and grow to distrust the government officials who issue them when warnings are given in a disingenuous manner. Chertoff’s comment that he just had a “gut feeling” when it appears now that it was actually a now-leaked classified report that stirred his gut was both disingenuous and unnecessary. Instead of hinting at classified reports or using a smokescreen “gut feeling” comment that he should have known would bring him only ridicule, Chertoff could have stated something like the following:

“While we have been fortunate to have avoided another attack in America since 9/11, we do not underestimate the capabilities and determination of al Qaeda. Tourist attractions and vacation sites are crowded and popular during the summer months and may present attractive targets for terrorists wishing to inflict mass casualties. I urge Americans to be vigilant and observant as they vacation and travel this summer, and to report anything suspicious. Together, we can all work to keep each other safe.”

The above statement would have delivered the message Chertoff intended to convey, namely to be vigilant for a possible summer attack, without hinting at any specific intelligence or creating the impression that he was withholding information. Unfortunately, instead he chose to mention his “gut feeling” and then promptly backtracked on his position when assessments of the capabilities of al Qaeda were leaked to the media. These are not actions that secure the trust and united vigilance of Americans that Chertoff and other government officials rightly desire.

The assessments of al Qaeda’s current strength and operational abilities as leaked to the AP, if they were cited correctly by the anonymous source, paint a different portrait of al Qaeda’s current capabilities than Chertoff offered in his Good Morning America statement that the threat is not as great as it was pre-9/11. According to the AP source:

A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaida has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001.

...Al-Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the counterterrorism official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.
…The threat assessment says that al-Qaida stepped up efforts to "improve its core operational capability" in late 2004 but did not succeed until December of 2006 after the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with tribal leaders that effectively removed government military presence from the northwest frontier with Afghanistan.

The agreement allows Taliban and al-Qaida operatives to move across the border with impunity and establish and run training centers, the report says, according to the official.

It also says that al-Qaida is particularly interested in building up the numbers in its middle ranks, or operational positions, so there is not as great a lag in attacks when such people are killed.

If the AP source quoted the report accurately, it appears that al Qaeda is not only rapidly approaching pre 9/11 strength but is becoming more formidable and less detectable as it recruits more European followers willing to carry out attacks. A buildup of its middle ranks also signifies a shift in strategy away from occasional spectacular attacks like 9/11 to frequent mid or small-scale attacks on softer targets, such as nightclubs, shopping malls, or other public gathering places. The middle ranks of a terrorist cell would not be entrusted with planning major attacks, but with sufficient training they could operate as independent cells with discretion on choice of small-attack venues. The doctors involved in the recent attempted bombings in London and Glasgow are examples of al Qaeda’s middle ranks. They operated locally, unsuspected by the community, and had it not been for a wireless phone issue the bombings would have been successful.

If al Qaeda is working to flood its organization with “middle ranks” then the strategy has shifted to a sustained campaign of attrition much like it is conducting in Iraq. That effort has already produced a growing American desire to withdraw from Iraq. Imagine the chaos and finger-pointing that will ensure in America when a seemingly endless wave of smaller bombings and other forms of terror attacks begins in earnest in this country.

While Chertoff was correct in stating that al Qaeda is not precisely as strong as it was prior to 9/11, that fact should in no way comfort America and its allies. Often when a bone is broken, it heals and becomes stronger in the area of the break than it was before because of the addition of new and vital tissues. Al Qaeda appears to be healing its broken bones and becoming potentially stronger than it was before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, with the addition of new European, and one would logically assume American, operatives. That prospect should cause all of us to experience a “gut feeling” that we will be increasingly at risk.

Technorati Tags:
al Qaeda, War on Terror, National Intelligence Estimates, Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security, Gut Feeling, Pakistan, Counterterrorism

Ex-CIA Expert Wrong on Terror Motives

The former head of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer, has carved out a niche for himself as an author, television news terrorism expert, and designated bitter former intelligence officer turned U.S. government basher. As such he is the darling of liberal media outlets, and he is a frequent and welcomed guest. His writings and commentary are consistently filled with dire warnings to western governments that they do not understand the motives of Islamic terrorists and thus cannot win the War on Terror. Scheuer may have held prominent positions within the CIA, but that apparently did not insulate him from adopting a sympathetic view of what he believes are the motives behind Islamic terrorism.

Speaking in Sydney, Australia earlier this week, Scheuer blasted the U.S. and its allies for failure in the War on Terror, but I want readers to focus on a few key arguments Scheuer put forth to explain why he believes the West will lose the War on Terror. I will then counter Scheuer’s description of Islamic terror motives with the words of an actual radical Islamist who paints a very different portrait of Islamic motives. First, Scheuer’s “blame the West for terrorism” argument, excerpted from Australia’s The Age:

"We in the West are fighting an enemy we have woefully chosen to misunderstand and to whom we are losing hands down and on every front," he said.

Mr. Scheuer said there was no hope of bringing democracy to Iraq or Afghanistan without a much greater commitment to defeat insurgents.

He said the West's biggest mistake in the war on terror was to ignore the grievances of Islamic insurgents.

He said Western politicians, including Prime Minister John Howard, deceived the public by suggesting that terrorists were motivated only by hatred for freedoms enjoyed in the West.

Mr. Howard had "warbled" the "wildly inaccurate ditty" that the London bombers were motivated by a hatred of Western culture, Mr. Scheuer said.

He said Al-Qaeda was motivated by anger towards US foreign policy in the Middle East rather than by hatred for Western culture.

That included the US military presence in the region, its backing of tyrannical Arab regimes and "unqualified" support for Israel.

Scheuer accuses Western governments of misunderstanding the enemy, and based on my own experience I would agree that understanding of radical Islam is in short supply within our government agencies. The federal government is far too influenced by groups like CAIR and not influenced enough by those who actively track Islamist extremist activity, like Jihad Watch. However, Scheuer should engage in serious introspection to examine whether he likewise possesses only a shallow knowledge of terror motives. After a long career with the CIA studying and combating Islamic terrorism, it is remarkable that Scheuer ascribes political rather than religious or cultural motives to Islamic terrorists. Everything I have learned about Islamic terrorists leads me to a very different conclusion about their motives: radical Islamists seek nothing short of total global Islamic rule, with Sharia law as the established behavioral code for all mankind.

If that sounds like a radical conclusion, it is, but perhaps the words of former Islamic radical Hassan Butt published by the UK Daily Mail, will help readers distinguish the true terror motive from propaganda arguments incessantly regurgitated by Islamists and Western liberals alike that the West could somehow pacify these terrorists by changing our foreign policies:

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

…And as with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy.

For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today programme, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."

…I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers. But if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again.

…And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.

There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.

Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.

For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).

Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.

Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.

Scheuer and Western governments, liberal or conservative, need look no further than Butt’s phrase, “creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice,” to gain a realistic understanding of Islamic terrorists’ motives. There is nothing complicated contained in this radical theology. It is not based on our oil interests, or our “occupation” of Iraq, or our support of Israel’s “occupation” of Palestine. It is based on crystal clear distinctions between good (Islam) and evil (unbelievers) and the assurance that any action taken to hasten the dawning of a global Islamic state, no matter how violent, is justified and fulfills Islamic scriptural prophecy. We are merely the largest and most formidable obstacle to this quest for global Islamic domination.

Only when Western governments and media terror “experts” like Scheuer acknowledge the true motive of the enemy in the War on Terror will the formulation of effective strategies to win that war be possible. America and her allies united in WWII to prevent the establishment of a global totalitarian Nazi state. Preventing the establishment of a global Islamic state under Sharia law will require a similar and likely longer-term unity and commitment to victory.

If the divisions among us exposed by the Iraq War and the War on Terror are any indication, such unity of purpose between our two political parties may already be impossible. When presidential candidates from both parties echo Scheuer’s flawed argument that America causes terrorism through its foreign policies (Ron Paul-R and all Democratic candidates), or claim that the War on Terror is merely a Bush bumper sticker slogan (John Edwards), it is clear that ignorance of our enemy’s motives is endemic at the highest levels of Western government and media institutions.

Technorati Tags:
Michael Scheuer, CIA, Terrorism Expert, Hassan Butt, Radical Islam, Islamic State, War on Terror, Jihad, Foreign Policy

Former Army Sec Faults DHS Terror Plans

The War on Terror is not, as Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards claims, merely a bumper sticker slogan, but it is rapidly regressing into perhaps the highest-stakes blame game in our nation’s history. When attacks or attempted attacks occur, the outrage expressed usually focuses on whom within America or among our allies failed to predict and prevent the attacks, but very little ire is directed towards those who perpetrated the cowardly acts. Americans are obsessed with assigning blame within our own government, desperate to identify an internal flaw that makes such attacks inevitable because Americans like to be liked and have difficulty fathoming the fact that much of the world detests America and all that it represents, for good or evil. We spent far more energy and resources on study groups, commissions, and media reports to determine who within the U.S. government was to blame for the 9/11 attacks, even while the remains of victims were being unearthed at Ground Zero.

Meanwhile on 9/11, there was dancing, rejoicing, and celebratory gunfire in cities and towns across the Middle East, images of which appeared on “fair and balanced” news networks, but were deemed too inflammatory for broadcasts on traditional left-leaning channels. In Oliver Stone’s otherwise even-handed and excellent film World Trade Center, he portrayed the populations of the Middle East as shocked and deeply sorrowed by the television images of the Twin Towers collapsing, ignoring completely the reality of their celebrations. To have truthfully portrayed Middle Eastern Muslims as happy and gleeful on 9/11 would have implied that millions of people in the world find pleasure in watching America suffer, and thus are to blame for supporting, indirectly or directly, terrorism directed against America and her allies. Americans, ever in denial that anyone could hate something as wonderful as America or its tolerance, prefer instead to seek scapegoats from within, turning on our own in order to vent the anger and thirst for revenge that is considered politically incorrect to direct at those who are actually to blame: Islamic terrorists.

In a Washington Times editorial yesterday, Mike Walker, former acting Secretary of the Army and former Deputy Director of FEMA, waxed eloquent about the need for Americans to maintain vigilance and not to underestimate the threat radical Islam poses to our way of life. Walker, writing of the preferred tactics of al Qaeda, warned “They seek to spread fear, hoping to turn us inward and against each other.” Yet, a mere two paragraphs later, Walker turns inward against American government agencies, blaming the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for neglecting its responsibility to prepare for and prevent terrorist attacks. Walker wrote:

The Department of Homeland Security seems more concerned with passing immigration legislation and not repeating the response to Hurricane Katrina. While this occurs, the terrorist threat, the reason the department was established in the first place, continues to build. Almost six years have passed since the 9/11 attacks, we still have no national terrorism prevention doctrine. Programs continue to be episodic and not based on a plan for prevention. State and local government homeland-security budgets continue to be cut, while daily priorities take precedence.

Capital Cloak has criticized DHS on occasion when warranted and recognizes many flaws within that department, but Walker’s portrayal of DHS as failing in its counterterrorism duties was factually in error and undeservedly singled out one department as a scapegoat. Walker was absolutely correct in his assessment that DHS is greatly concerned with immigration issues and avoiding another Hurricane Katrina fiasco. He was also correct that DHS was created post-9/11 as a response to Islamic terrorism and that after nearly six years there is no “national terrorism prevention doctrine.” However, Walker ignored several important truths about DHS that, had he included them, would have negated much of his criticism.

I have written previously that DHS, despite public perception, is not a counterterrorism agency. Although it was the love-child of the post-9/11 political frenzy to pass legislation reassuring the American people that something was being done about terrorism, DHS was never meant to become the nation’s lead agency in the War on Terror. That distinction has been and continues to be shared between the “terrorism quartet” of the CIA, FBI, DIA, and NSA, with the FBI front and center domestically. DHS has no intelligence operatives or informants, no satellites, no electronic monitoring capabilities; in short, it has no counterterrorism tools whatsoever. None of the agencies who possess these assets are DHS components. They operate either independently or under the direction of other departments, such as Defense or Justice. While these agencies have employees assigned to work with DHS as intelligence liaisons, the level of information sharing between them and DHS is not under DHS’ control. Efforts have been made to improve intelligence sharing procedures and expectations, but the current reality is that DHS relies 100% on other departments and agencies to provide it with intelligence on terrorist activity.

If DHS is concerned with immigration issues, it is because immigration agencies are a significant part of the department, comprising the majority of DHS personnel. Immigration issues are also controversial and politically charged. DHS comes under fire for not “securing the border,” yet the executive branch, which is responsible (through the Justice Dept.) for establishing federal law enforcement priorities, has chosen not to pursue strict enforcement of immigration laws, including deportation, except in campaign years. As I have written previously, law enforcement is restricted in what laws it will enforce by the Justice Department’s willingness to prosecute violations of those laws. If American presidents and their attorney generals do not want to see illegal immigration laws enforced properly, law enforcement must focus its priorities on other laws that attorney generals do want to see enforced. It is not the way it should be, but that is the reality. DHS actively pursues violations according to direction from a Cabinet member and the president. If Walker is looking to lay blame for DHS’ interest in immigration issues, he should lay it at the feet of those who dictate priorities to DHS. Once Congress and the executive branch realize that illegal immigration and border enforcement are national security issues rather than the potential means to legalize a treasure trove of potential voters for political gain, perhaps DHS will be given the proper tools and mandate to halt illegal immigration and locate those already here.

As a former Deputy Director of FEMA, surely Walker must realize that FEMA has nothing to do with “homeland security” and never should have been included in the formation of DHS. The fallout from its handling of Hurricane Katrina, some deserved, some unfairly heaped on FEMA instead of local leaders, has assured that DHS must give an inordinate amount of attention and resources to predicting the only thing more unpredictable than terrorism: the weather. Nothing whips DHS leadership into frenzy quite like a tropical storm that may or may not become a hurricane. There are email alerts, pages, conference calls, and several daily briefings all to warn that a storm somewhere in the Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico may one day develop into a hurricane. What is the terrorism nexus with hurricanes? Is al Qaeda sending these storms to batter America? Of course not, but you wouldn’t know it by the near panic that engulfs DHS with the mere mention of the dreaded phrase “Hurricane Katrina.” That DHS has this focus on the weather and determination never again to take a media beating after a major storm is not DHS’ fault. If Walker is looking to turn inward and lay blame, he should lay it at the feet of those who crafted the Homeland Security legislation to include FEMA in a department that was allegedly supposed to tackle weightier issues like terrorism.

Walker wondered why DHS has not created a “terrorism prevention doctrine” nearly six years after 9/11. The answer is quite simple and to a Washington insider like Walker should have been obvious: DHS does not have the resources, departmental mission, or terrorism expertise to oversee the creation of such a doctrine. For such a doctrine to be formulated, debated, edited, and approved, the process currently requires separate participation from a host of departments and agencies, each with its own budgetary and political agendas. DHS is perhaps the world’s largest middleman, receiving intelligence from other agencies, sanitizing it, and then sharing it with state or local officials. For DHS to gain counterterrorism capabilities, some of the agencies listed above who actually do perform counterterrorism functions would have to be moved into the department. Reliance on other agencies to share intelligence did not work very well or often prior to 9/11, and now that the stinging memory of 9/11 has become distant for some in Congress and the executive branch, that inter-agency dependence will inevitably devolve to previous levels of non-cooperation.

When a department or agency is the product of a flawed creation process, should the blame for its shortcomings be heaped upon those within it who merely perform the duties the department has been given? Certainly there have been and will always be human errors that occur in the performance of routine duties in any department, and those errors should be recognized and remedied appropriately. However, when it comes to public and media perception that DHS should be the government’s counterterrorism authority, a dose of reality would be refreshing. DHS’ creation without inclusion of the FBI, the primary agency empowered to investigate terrorism, was akin to building a fire station but choosing not to equip it with fire trucks or staff it with a crew. In the absence of counterterrorism capabilities, DHS naturally turns its attention to immigration and hurricanes as Walker argued, but not because terrorism is a low priority within the department. Effective counterterrorism is simply beyond DHS’ current organizational structure.

Whether DHS should be the lead agency in counterterrorism and be given more capabilities is a matter for debate, but criticizing DHS for failing to be something it was not designed to be contributes little to improving public trust at a time when our confidence and faith in each other as Americans is the one thing al Qaeda cannot destroy with its car bombs and plane hijackings. DHS is not the enemy. President Bush is not the enemy. Congress is not the enemy. Our enemies are radical Islamic terrorists, and they delight in our penchant for self-loathing and our obsession with assigning blame to each other for their actions.

Like a battered wife, we cover up our injuries and blame ourselves for the beatings we receive, searching ourselves for faults or flaws that make us deserve attack, while the bullying perpetrator who relies on violence to intimidate escapes blame or punishment. We, like our British counterparts, are asked not to mention that terrorists are Islamic and the use of the phrase “War on Terror” has been deemed too harsh or belittled as a “bumper sticker.” Sadly, many battered wives blame themselves until the terrible day that the cowardly abuser strikes a fatal blow. Only then is it clear that blame mattered not at all. The priority should have been removal from the threat or better still, removal of the threat.

Walker was right to warn Americans not to turn on one another. He should have set the example by heeding his own warning.

Technorati Tags:
Mike Walker, Homeland Security, DHS, FEMA, FBI, Counterterrorism, Intelligence, National Security, 9/11, Terrorism, Islamic Terrorists, Federal Government, Blame

Colin Powell's Oscar-Worthy UN Iraq Act

Colin Powell, once the military name most respected by everyday Americans, is becoming increasingly synonymous with Hillary Clinton's well earned moniker of “America’s Greatest Iraq Monday Morning Quarterback.” Hillary, who joined her husband in condemning Saddam Hussein and claiming that nothing short of military action would remove the threat he posed to the world, voted to authorize President Bush’s decision to act militarily to disarm and remove Hussein from power. Now that she is running for the Democratic nomination in a party largely controlled by MoveOn.org and other radical anti-war groups, however, Hillary made the outrageously disingenuous claim that “if she knew then what she knows now,” as president in 2003 she never would have authorized a war in Iraq. The accounts of Hillary’s pre-war and pre-2006 press conferences and Senate speeches are legion, and they all contain a shared theme: Saddam possessed WMD, was unstable, and the security of the United States and the Middle East demanded that action be taken against him due to his continued violation of UN resolutions. The Monday morning quarterbacking Hillary now employs in her harangues against the Bush administration’s Iraq War policies is hypocritical but not surprising from the presidential candidate looking to establish ideological roots wherever fertile political soil is found, but Monday morning quarterbacking about the invasion of Iraq now made public by Colin Powell was less expected and in some ways more bereft of character than Hillary’s hypocrisies.

Hillary is a power-coveting politician, and as such her approach to support or opposition to the Iraq War vacillates depending on which way the political wind blows each day. This is not to suggest that her Gumby-like stretching into publicly desired positions is right, but rather it is expected. Colin Powell, on the other hand, as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and an integral figure in the previous Gulf War to contain Saddam’s aggressions, was considered by many to be a man of honor, integrity, and military expertise. However, his Monday morning quarterbacking of the president’s Iraq War decision as reported in yesterday’s UK Sunday Times revealed a level of hypocrisy previously unknown to the American public. From the UK Times story:

THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.

“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”

Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”

He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.

…According to Powell: “We have to face the reality of the situation that is on the ground and not what we would want it to be.” He believes that, even if the military surge has been a partial success in areas such as Anbar province, where Sunni tribes have turned on Al-Qaeda, it has not been accompanied by the vital political and economic “surge” and reconciliation process promised by the Iraqi government.

The assertion that Powell tried valiantly to avoid the war by talking President Bush out of an invasion is, to say the least, difficult to swallow. If Powell’s statement in Colorado was true, then perhaps Powell could explain what arm-twisting or blackmail was employed to force him into personally appearing before the UN Security Council in February 2003 as Secretary of State to present the administration’s case for war against Saddam Hussein. If Powell felt so strongly that invading Iraq was a mistake at the time, why is it that only now, after 4 years of a war he lent his personal credibility to in order to garner international support, does Powell mention that he was actually opposed to the war before it began? Who can forget the mountains of evidence Powell brought to bear in support of war against Saddam? Surveillance photos of WMD sites, recorded testimony of intelligence sources, financial transaction records revealing weapons funding in violation of UN resolutions while starving Iraqis received none of the food assistance the UN funds were supposed to purchase under the “Oil for Food” program. The list of documents brought to bear is staggering, and Powell eloquently explained the danger to the world that would result from allowing Saddam to ignore UN resolutions and continue his quest for WMD.

Powell’s case was so compelling that a coalition of allies voted to support the invasion and lent proportional military support. So credible was Powell’s UN testimony that Democrats and Republicans, reviewing the same intelligence data, voted overwhelmingly to authorize the invasion, with much bipartisan pontification about the potential threat to the world from Saddam’s WMD ambitions. Powell’s recent claim that he tried in vain to prevent the war lacks any corroborative evidence to support it. If Powell was as morally opposed to invasion as he now claims, then his performance at the UN Security Council was Oscar-worthy. A stronger case has never been made for war by someone who allegedly opposed it.

For the complete text of Powell’s testimony to the UN Security Council, click here. The following are brief selected excerpts from Powell’s command performance. Decide for yourselves if these were the words of a man who supposedly tried hard to talk the president out of war with Iraq:

The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources. And some are those of other countries. Some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to.

…I cannot tell you everything that we know. But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling....

…Everything we have seen and heard indicates that, instead of cooperating actively with the inspectors to ensure the success of their mission, Saddam Hussein and his regime are busy doing all they possibly can to ensure that inspectors succeed in finding absolutely nothing.

My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.

…Numerous human sources tell us that the Iraqis are moving, not just documents and hard drives, but weapons of mass destruction to keep them from being found by inspectors.

…Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.

…Iraq has now placed itself in danger of the serious consequences called for in U.N. Resolution 1441. And this body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately.

…We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

It is equally curious that, if Powell’s new claim is to be believed, he was not convinced by the military and intelligence data he personally presented to the UN Security Council. One wonders what further evidence Powell wanted in order to quell his supposedly troubled conscience on the issue of invasion. How many UN resolution violations was Powell willing to tolerate? How many satellite images of WMD storage and production facilities did he need to convince him that action was needed? It is telling that Powell offered no explanation for why he allegedly opposed the invasion, limiting his condemnation of the Iraq War to the current results rather than the situation and available information at the time the decision to invade was reached. Perhaps it speaks volumes about Powell’s lack of qualifications for high office that allegedly he alone was unconvinced by overwhelming intelligence data from virtually every international agency. It is the ultimate Monday morning quarterbacking for Powell to look at today’s news reports from Iraq and claim that he foresaw the current situation and if only the president had listened to Powell, the violence and casualties could have been avoided.

There were many options available to Powell once he allegedly realized he could not change the president’s mind. He could have spoken to a reporter on condition of anonymity and leaked the story of his own opposition to the invasion and kept his job as Secretary of State. He could have resigned as Secretary of State in protest and made it clear to the press and public why he was resigning. Even later, when he resigned long after the invasion, he cited personal reasons like family time for his decision rather than publicly challenge a decision to invade a foreign nation. Instead, Powell mounted no principled opposition to a plan he claims to have argued against. Where is the integrity and honor in that?

The UK Times pointed out that Powell has consulted twice with the Barack Obama campaign, and that Obama’s position on an immediate withdrawal from Iraq has been revised to more closely dovetail with Hillary’s desired gradual troop force reductions. It is telling that Powell, who claims to have attempted to talk President Bush out of invading Iraq, is not counseling Obama to demand an immediate and complete removal of U.S. troops from Iraq. If the invasion was a mistake, as Powell allegedly asserted to the president already in 2002-2003, then why is Powell not recommending a complete reversal of the decision by “bringing the troops home” as quickly as possible? Certainly the anti-war wing of Obama’s party demands this, so why counsel the young, inexperienced Senator to call for gradual troop reductions or redeployment in the region?

While Powell uses clever language in describing the U.S. military effort in Iraq as putting “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew,” Americans should keep in mind that Powell agreed to lend his personal credibility to placing the stew on the stove and turning up the heat when he presented the government’s case for war in Iraq. He should apply his own words when it comes to his claim that he tried to prevent the war and put a lid on it.

Technorati Tags:
Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War, Monday Morning Quarterback, War Opposition, UN Security Council, Saddam Hussein, War Critics, Bush Administration