Seizures of smuggled radioactive material capable of making a terrorist “dirty bomb” have doubled in the past four years, according to official figures seen by The Times.
Smugglers have been caught trying to traffick dangerous radioactive material more than 300 times since 2002, statistics from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) show. Most of the incidents are understood to have occurred in Europe.
The disclosures come as al-Qaeda is known to be intensfiying its efforts to obtain a radoactive device. Last year, Western security services, including MI5 and MI6, thwarted 16 attempts to smuggle plutonium or uranium. On two occasions small quantities of highly enriched uranium were reported missing. All were feared to have been destined for terror groups.
Scientists responsible for analysing the seizures have given warning that traffickers are turning to hospital X-ray equipment and laboratory supplies as an illicit source of radioactive material.
Investigators believe that the smugglers, who come mainly from the former Eastern bloc, are interested only in making a swift fortune and believe that they may have no compunction in selling to jihadist groups. Most undercover operations and recent seizures have been kept secret to protect the activities of Western security services.
Rigorous controls on nuclear processors, especially with Russia co-operating to stop the trafficking of enriched plutonium and uranium, have limited smugglers’ access to weapons-grade nuclear materials. But medical and laboratory sources, including waste, remain vulnerable. Such radioactive waste can be used to make a dirty bomb.
A dirty bomb combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite, with radioactive material such as spent nuclear fuel like highly enriched uranium and plutonium. In most instances the conventional explosive would kill more bystanders but the dispersion of the radioactive material would have a hugely damaging “fear” factor.
There were 103 cases of illicit trafficking last year, compared with fewer than 30 in 1996. Fifty-eight incidents were reported in 2002, rising to 90 in 2003 and 130 in 2004. Experts point out that seizures in the past three years equal the same amount of trafficking in the previous seven years.
Olli Heinonen, deputy director-general of the IAEA, which monitors trafficking and inspects nuclear plants to audit their radioactive materials, said that while weapons-grade nuclear material smuggling was now rare there were serious concerns about other radioactive substances.
“A dirty bomb is something that needs to be taken seriously. We need to be prepared for anything because anything could happen,” he said. “Terrorists look for the weakest link. We need to be alert and we need to be prepared.”
Al-Qaeda makes no secret of its desire to obtain a dirty bomb. Last month its leader in Iraq, Abu Hamza alMuhajer, called for scientists to join it and experiment with radioactive devices for use against coalition troops. Even before 9/11, Osama bin Laden invited two Pakistani atomic scientists to visit a training camp in Afghanistan to discuss how to assemble a bomb using stolen plutonium. Captured al-Qaeda leaders have since confessed to the CIA of their attempts to smuggle a radioactive device into the US.
Professor Klaus Lützenkir-chen, who helps to analyse the seized substances, said that even small quantities of radio-active material could be of use to terrorists.
“If someone gets hold of it, it is possible it could be used in a dirty bomb,” he said. He added that if such a dirty bomb were detonated in a town centre the physical effect would be comparatively small and unlikely to cause huge loss of life but would have an enormously damaging “fear factor”.
One of the most serious seizures since 9/11 was that of several kilograms of a radioactive substance known as yellow cake that was found in a consignment of scrap metal at the port of Rotterdam in December 2003.
Professor Lützenkirchen said that seizures have been made across Europe, usually at borders and sea ports. Most of the trafficked material originated from the Caucasus region where he said that there was “considerable activity” among smugglers.
Seizures have continued this year, though overall figures for 2006 are not yet available. They include the discovery in Germany of a small quantity of highly enriched uranium.
(High-level representatives from the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia will meet today in London, where they are expected to refer the Iranian nuclear case to the UN Security Council after a defiant Tehran refused to suspend uranium enrichment.)
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Europe Is Growing Skeptical Of Dialogue With Muslims by Youssef Ibrahim
After years of dithering over political correctness with Muslims and Islam, Europe is waking up to a different morning.
A three-week tour of Italy, France, and Britain last month was enough for me to conclude that Western Europeans have moved way beyond dialogue. Confrontation, indeed even provocation, is their preferred approach to the Muslims in their midst.
Long before Pope Benedict XVI's scathing comments in mid-September on the fallacy of phony Muslim-Christian dialogue, signs of hardening European views toward current Islamic values were plentiful on the Continent.
It was telling, for example, to see how Europeans greeted the naïve commentary that surfaced in America's National Intelligence Estimate, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States." The NIE told bemused Europeans, among other things, that "greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit."
Situated closer than America to that rough neighborhood called the Middle East, Europeans reacted by noting that the chances for "greater pluralism" in any Muslim country are about as plausible as hell freezing over.
Should the region's despotic regimes be toppled, a number of press outlets observed, their successors would be even nastier murderers. Possibilities include the saber-wielding soldiers of the Muslim Brotherhood and its tributaries — Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, among others — men who believe in carrying out ritual killings of their fellow Muslims even before the slaughter of infidels.
The common view in Europe is that pseudo-secularist tyrants in Muslim lands like Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia share the same aspirations to dominate, wage war, and rule as Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri of Al Qaeda.
A more relevant passage in the NIE reads: "Jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diaspora in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings."
Indeed, what can one say about Britain's Muslims, when 10% of those polled after the August airliner plot said they would be "willing" to wage suicide attacks against their fellow Britons, and another 70% refused to condemn that view?
Europeans now see a need not to massage the Muslim ethos but to remove it. One can talk forever of the necessity for Islam to reform itself, but that fails to resonate within Muslim societies, Europeans tell me.
My European tour made it eminently clear that Western Europeans — if not their more liberal, compromised ruling and business elites — believe that for Muslims living in the West, it's either Western ways or the highway.
Harsh, maybe, but that is how it stands.
When the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci died in September, newspapers across Europe celebrated her for her journalistic exploits with the likes of Ayatollah Khomeini and Henry Kissinger. But above all, they celebrated her for her fierce, uncompromising, "rejectionist" book about Islam in Europe, "The Rage and the Pride," which called for nothing less than the expulsion of Muslims who insist on separate societies.
Shortly before and after the pope's pointed remarks on Islam — in which he added to his earlier statements that Turkey's 70 million Muslims have no place in "Christian Europe" — there were numerous other mini-explosions. They included Dutch revulsion over the ritual Muslim killing of the movie director Theo van Gogh; the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad; and, most recently, a September 19 article in Le Figaro by the French philosopher and schoolteacher Robert Redeker that made the case that Muslims are bent on muzzling Europe's democratic values.
Europe is no longer dithering. Every other week, parliaments are restricting the freedom of expression of Muslim fundamentalists, preachers, and madrassas, and questioning every value that militant Islam has attempted to sneak into the Continent over the past 20 years.
The dialogue is over. The time for action is closing in.
A three-week tour of Italy, France, and Britain last month was enough for me to conclude that Western Europeans have moved way beyond dialogue. Confrontation, indeed even provocation, is their preferred approach to the Muslims in their midst.
Long before Pope Benedict XVI's scathing comments in mid-September on the fallacy of phony Muslim-Christian dialogue, signs of hardening European views toward current Islamic values were plentiful on the Continent.
It was telling, for example, to see how Europeans greeted the naïve commentary that surfaced in America's National Intelligence Estimate, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States." The NIE told bemused Europeans, among other things, that "greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit."
Situated closer than America to that rough neighborhood called the Middle East, Europeans reacted by noting that the chances for "greater pluralism" in any Muslim country are about as plausible as hell freezing over.
Should the region's despotic regimes be toppled, a number of press outlets observed, their successors would be even nastier murderers. Possibilities include the saber-wielding soldiers of the Muslim Brotherhood and its tributaries — Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, among others — men who believe in carrying out ritual killings of their fellow Muslims even before the slaughter of infidels.
The common view in Europe is that pseudo-secularist tyrants in Muslim lands like Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia share the same aspirations to dominate, wage war, and rule as Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri of Al Qaeda.
A more relevant passage in the NIE reads: "Jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diaspora in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings."
Indeed, what can one say about Britain's Muslims, when 10% of those polled after the August airliner plot said they would be "willing" to wage suicide attacks against their fellow Britons, and another 70% refused to condemn that view?
Europeans now see a need not to massage the Muslim ethos but to remove it. One can talk forever of the necessity for Islam to reform itself, but that fails to resonate within Muslim societies, Europeans tell me.
My European tour made it eminently clear that Western Europeans — if not their more liberal, compromised ruling and business elites — believe that for Muslims living in the West, it's either Western ways or the highway.
Harsh, maybe, but that is how it stands.
When the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci died in September, newspapers across Europe celebrated her for her journalistic exploits with the likes of Ayatollah Khomeini and Henry Kissinger. But above all, they celebrated her for her fierce, uncompromising, "rejectionist" book about Islam in Europe, "The Rage and the Pride," which called for nothing less than the expulsion of Muslims who insist on separate societies.
Shortly before and after the pope's pointed remarks on Islam — in which he added to his earlier statements that Turkey's 70 million Muslims have no place in "Christian Europe" — there were numerous other mini-explosions. They included Dutch revulsion over the ritual Muslim killing of the movie director Theo van Gogh; the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad; and, most recently, a September 19 article in Le Figaro by the French philosopher and schoolteacher Robert Redeker that made the case that Muslims are bent on muzzling Europe's democratic values.
Europe is no longer dithering. Every other week, parliaments are restricting the freedom of expression of Muslim fundamentalists, preachers, and madrassas, and questioning every value that militant Islam has attempted to sneak into the Continent over the past 20 years.
The dialogue is over. The time for action is closing in.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Turkey on the Brink by Philip H. Gordon and Omer Taspinar
"Who lost Turkey?" A complacent West could be forced to confront this previously unthinkable question within the next few years. This risk has little to do with Turkey's alleged Islamic turn. On the contrary, the moderately Islamic Justice and Development Party (known by the Turkish acronym AKP) has done much more than previous Turkish governments to improve the country's chances of joining the European Union. Today, the problem Turkey faces is not Islamization but rather a growing nationalist frustration with the United States and Europe. A majority of Turks still want to see their country firmly anchored in the West, but because of what they perceive as European double standards and the United States' neglect of Turkish national security interests, their patience is wearing thin.
The United States and Europe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Turkey today. Turkey's relationship with the United States is under great strain. Turks deeply resent the effect that the war in Iraq has had on their own Kurdish separatism problem. Turkey's long-standing fear that independence-minded Kurdish nationalists would dominate northern Iraq, thereby setting a dangerous precedent for Kurds in Turkey, has since become reality. The Kurdish population of Turkey is about 15 million, 3 to 4 times more than Iraq's Kurdish minority. Despite U.S. government protestations to the contrary, most Turks believe that a civil war in Iraq will be followed by the creation of a de facto if not de jure independent Kurdistan. In that sense, the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the ensuing disorder in the country threaten 50 years of U.S.-Turkish strategic partnership.
The situation is only slightly better on the European front. Turkey's hopes to join the EU, although boosted by Brussels's October 3, 2005, decision to begin accession negotiations, remain distant and uncertain. Such pessimism is justified on many counts, perhaps most significantly as a result of the EU's enlargement fatigue following the addition of 10 new members in 2004. In the aftermath of the French and Dutch rejection of the EU constitution, it is now much more difficult for European politicians to ignore public opinion, particularly when critical decisions about Europe's future are at stake. France last year even went so far as to change its constitution to require that a referendum be held to approve all future EU enlargements. Other countries may also require putting Turkish membership to a public vote. This is clearly bad news for Turkey. Already struggling with problems such as unemployment, immigration, Islamic terrorism, and Muslim integration within their current borders, Europeans are in no mood to embrace 70 million more Muslims.
Even if Turkey continues to develop its democracy and economy, major obstacles still threaten to thwart its European integration. Ankara's hopes of membership could easily be dashed by anything ranging from a crisis over Cyprus to a national veto from one of the 25 EU countries. Equally troubling for Ankara are French and German proposals for a "privileged partnership" instead of full membership. Fueling Turkish concern about second-class membership are EU guidelines for accession negotiations that already spell out the possibility of permanent safeguards against Turkey on issues ranging from freedom of movement to regional aid. Similarly, the fact that the EU has described the accession process as not only open ended but also conditional on the EU's absorption capacity was not lost on the many Turks who believe Brussels will always find reasons to say no to Turkey.
Such dynamics do not bode well for the future of Turkey's relations with the West. In the past, Ankara could always rely on its strategic partnership with Washington in case things went wrong with Europe. Such an alternative may now no longer exist. For the first time in its history, Turkey has a strained relationship with the United States and the EU at the same time. Combined with issues such as Turkish resentment over the West's failure to deliver on its promises to do more to ease Turkish Cypriots' isolation following their approval of a settlement plan that the Greek side rejected, the revival of violence and terrorist attacks by the separatist Kurdish Workers' Party (known by the Kurdish acronym PKK) now partly based in northern Iraq, and Western pressure for the recognition of the Armenian "genocide," all the ingredients for a Turkish nationalist backlash are in place.
The United States and Europe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Turkey today. Turkey's relationship with the United States is under great strain. Turks deeply resent the effect that the war in Iraq has had on their own Kurdish separatism problem. Turkey's long-standing fear that independence-minded Kurdish nationalists would dominate northern Iraq, thereby setting a dangerous precedent for Kurds in Turkey, has since become reality. The Kurdish population of Turkey is about 15 million, 3 to 4 times more than Iraq's Kurdish minority. Despite U.S. government protestations to the contrary, most Turks believe that a civil war in Iraq will be followed by the creation of a de facto if not de jure independent Kurdistan. In that sense, the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the ensuing disorder in the country threaten 50 years of U.S.-Turkish strategic partnership.
The situation is only slightly better on the European front. Turkey's hopes to join the EU, although boosted by Brussels's October 3, 2005, decision to begin accession negotiations, remain distant and uncertain. Such pessimism is justified on many counts, perhaps most significantly as a result of the EU's enlargement fatigue following the addition of 10 new members in 2004. In the aftermath of the French and Dutch rejection of the EU constitution, it is now much more difficult for European politicians to ignore public opinion, particularly when critical decisions about Europe's future are at stake. France last year even went so far as to change its constitution to require that a referendum be held to approve all future EU enlargements. Other countries may also require putting Turkish membership to a public vote. This is clearly bad news for Turkey. Already struggling with problems such as unemployment, immigration, Islamic terrorism, and Muslim integration within their current borders, Europeans are in no mood to embrace 70 million more Muslims.
Even if Turkey continues to develop its democracy and economy, major obstacles still threaten to thwart its European integration. Ankara's hopes of membership could easily be dashed by anything ranging from a crisis over Cyprus to a national veto from one of the 25 EU countries. Equally troubling for Ankara are French and German proposals for a "privileged partnership" instead of full membership. Fueling Turkish concern about second-class membership are EU guidelines for accession negotiations that already spell out the possibility of permanent safeguards against Turkey on issues ranging from freedom of movement to regional aid. Similarly, the fact that the EU has described the accession process as not only open ended but also conditional on the EU's absorption capacity was not lost on the many Turks who believe Brussels will always find reasons to say no to Turkey.
Such dynamics do not bode well for the future of Turkey's relations with the West. In the past, Ankara could always rely on its strategic partnership with Washington in case things went wrong with Europe. Such an alternative may now no longer exist. For the first time in its history, Turkey has a strained relationship with the United States and the EU at the same time. Combined with issues such as Turkish resentment over the West's failure to deliver on its promises to do more to ease Turkish Cypriots' isolation following their approval of a settlement plan that the Greek side rejected, the revival of violence and terrorist attacks by the separatist Kurdish Workers' Party (known by the Kurdish acronym PKK) now partly based in northern Iraq, and Western pressure for the recognition of the Armenian "genocide," all the ingredients for a Turkish nationalist backlash are in place.
Intercepting Radicalization at the Indoctrination Stage by Walid Phares
Chairman Simmons and Members of the Committee,
It is a privilege and an honor to appear before you today to discuss the theme “The Homeland Security implications of radicalization.” My contribution is titled: “Intercepting radicalization at the indoctrination stage.”
Identification of the Threat
Your concerns about “radicalization” as a threat to U.S. Homeland Security are warranted. For after twenty five years of studying the ideology and the evolution of the doctrines that produced the self-declared Jihadist movement (al haraka al Jihadiya) which has declared, waged and continues to conduct war against the United States and other democracies, I conclude along with a number of colleagues in this field of expertise that the Terrorism America and its allies are facing in the War on Terror, is a direct product of this radical ideology. The 19 men, who massacred 3,000 US and other citizens on September 11, belong to al Qaeda and the latter is a self declared Salafist-Jihadist organization. Every single case of Terrorism uncovered on U.S. territory, since 9/11, was motivated by this ideology. To name a few: The Virginia Paintball gang, the dirty bomb case, the shoe bomber case, al Qaeda's John Walker, Azzam al Amriki AKA Adam Gadahn, the Oregon case, the Virginia multiple cases, the Jihadi charities, etc. This ideology was omnipresent in the cases than ended with court sentences and those which didn't; in the Sheikh Abdel Rahman case of 1993; in the statements made by the Zarqawi networks while assassinating innocent civilians; in all speeches by Usama Bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri from 1998 till now; and on all Jihadi web sites in all languages: one global common thread is always omnipresent: The Jihadi ideology. And in parallel to al Qaeda’s radical doctrine another ideology of Jihadism follows the teachings of Ayatalollah Khomeini and is embodied by the public speeches of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad and Hezbollah. Hence, the ideologies that produces “Radicalization," are the Jihadist ones. They are of two main "trees," the Jihadi Salafist and the Jihadi Khomeinist. These doctrines, taught and disseminated worldwide and in America, are the producers of the "Jihadists" (al Jihadiyun) who have declared war and waged it against the United States both overseas and in the homeland. Jihadism is the ideological common identity of terror groups al Qaeda, Salafi Combat Group of the Maghreb, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Jemaa Islamiya of south Asia, the Taliban of Afghanistan, Laskar Taiba of Pakistan, the Mahakem Islamiya of Somalia, and other Salafi-Wahabi groups internationally, in addition to Hezbollah. Jihadism was the inspiration for the 1990s attacks, 9/11, Madrid, London, Beslan, Mumbai, Riyadh, Casablanca, the Sunni Triangle in Iraq and other violence associated with Terrorism. Hence at this stage of the War on Terror, the ideology behind the threat has been identified and thus should be addressed.
Development of the Threat
Prior to 9/11, the spread of Jihadism was operated by Salafi, Wahabi, Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan), Tablighi, Deobandi and Takfiri schools of thought around the world, mostly by the means of religious schools known as Madrassa. Moving into the United States gradually as of the 1970s, and increasingly in the 1990s, Jihadi cadres took the control of existing religious schools funded by foreign support but also formed their own indoctrination networks, often in and around Mosques and other social and cultural centers. In about twenty years of militant activities, the Jihadist ideology produced three generations of radicals, a pool which Terrorists have and continue to recruit from. The perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks are foreign Jihadists. But most of the other arrested Terrorists (or alleged Terrorists) claiming the same ideology and who identify with al Qaeda or its allies, are "American Jihadists," citizens or permanent residents, U.S.-born or naturalized. Hence the most dangerous dimension of the ideology of Jihadism is the fact that it has already recruited and inspired Americans to wage war against their own nation. Therefore Jihadism is a direct threat against Homeland Security
Components of the threat
This threat against national security and against the foundations of civil society and democracy is embodied by a set of ideas and concepts that reject the legitimacy of citizens’ free choice, their natural liberties, pluralism, and the rule of secular law. The Jihadi ideology is not another social or political way of thinking within Democracy, nor is it a political alternative to one particular party or a specific policy in domestic or foreign affairs. Jihadism rejects the American constitution, the bill of rights, the international declaration on human rights, the United Nations and international law. Jihadism aim at destroying democracies and installing a totalitarian regime named Caliphate. And to do so, Jihadism creates the conviction in the minds of its adherents that war against the Government, people and constitution of the United States is the path towards achieving the universal goal. The beginning of the threat starts with the "click" that transforms a citizen into a Jihadist. From there one, the constant objective of the Jihadi recruit is to strike against the national security of the United States. The Terrorist can be a member of al Qaeda if he/she are successful in establishing the contact, as for example with the case of Adam Gadahn and Jose Padilla, or they could operate under an al Qaeda like Jihadism, without having established a link with the mother ship.
Strategic penetration
The strategic penetration operated by the Jihadists before and since 9/11 is based on three models: One are the Jihadists who originates overseas and move to the United States, either legally (visa, lawful immigration, marriage, political asylum) or illegally. In either of these cases the Jihadis ends up operating on the inside of the country, using its laws and facilities. The estimate of Jihadists who have infiltrated the country over the past two decades is certainly in the hundreds, possibly close to a thousand. This "first generation" Jihadists has organized itself to perform two activities: One is to grow its own strength for "future Jihads." Two is to produce the second generation of American-born Jihadists. If you analyze the average age of U.S. born Jihadists, you would conclude that the production of the second "generation" has begun in the late 1980s and mostly since the early 1990s. The formation of this "second generation" can only happen through two methods. First is to indoctrinate then recruit within the Muslim community using a variety of methods and already penetrated institutions. Second, is for them to take the control of the religious conversion of non-Muslims and indoctrinate the converts during the process or after the process: Hence a first generation of radical Salafists-Wahabis has already processed a radicalization and the recruitment of American-born Muslims or converts. The issue is not conversion: This is a free and pluralist society. Certainly there is and would be a problem with the radicalization taking place within a particular community. But the real issue affecting Homeland Security is the systematic penetration of a religious community and the recruitment of Jihadists to perform acts of Terrorism and aggression against national security.
And once the "Pool" of indoctrinated individuals is formed, mostly of younger persons then the Terror organizations can recruit from. However, Jihadists in the West in general and in the U.S. in particular, are of two types once they are formed: Either they join an organization and moves into a cell, or they form their own cell, without connecting with a larger organization or al Qaeda. The most dangerous Jihadists, both on the individual level or as self-formed cells are those who have been able or are in the process of penetrating the defense-security system of the United States. In this realm, the Jihadists can harm the most the national security of the Homeland, and analytical indications project that one of their ultimate goals is to penetrate and weaken U.S. Homeland Security.
Threat shield
There are several shields that "protect" the U.S.-based Jihadists from containment. Among these shields are
a. The little ability of the public to identify them since their ideology wasn't officially been identified by the Government.
b. Without the public, Law Enforcement and Homeland Security cannot mobilize on a large scale to identify and isolate the Jihadists activities. Furthermore, by not identifying the ideology and its strategies, the U.S. Government cannot direct its agencies and resources against the threat.
c. The ideology of Jihadi-Terrorism unfortunately, enjoys the political freedoms of the country. It is "protected" by advocacy groups, legal defense and is funded both domestically and by foreign regimes and organizations.
Resistance to “radicalization”
To establish a national resistance to "radicalization" following are 6 suggestions:
1) Identification of the ideology of Jihadism by Government, media and experts.
2) Mobilization against the ideology of Jihadism by the public and educational institutions
3) Ban of the ideology by the U.S. Congress
4) Mass education of the public about it
5) Working with domestic NGOs, with the general public and specifically with the Muslim communities
6) Working with international INGOs and particularly with liberal, democratic and humanist Muslims
Looking at the future
In summary, Terrorism is threatening Homeland Security and Jihadism is a main root cause of Terrorism. The U.S. capacity of protecting Homeland security and defending national security will depend largely on developing policies and laws that would identify, ban, isolate and shrink Jihadism, with the help of the American public in general and the Muslim and Middle Eastern communities in particular. Such a shift in Homeland security must be based on a comprehensive strategy of containment of the Terror ideology within the framework of civil and democratic rights of society.
In closing, I would like to thank you and the committee members and staff for the opportunity to present this testimony today. I look forward to responding to any question that you might have.
It is a privilege and an honor to appear before you today to discuss the theme “The Homeland Security implications of radicalization.” My contribution is titled: “Intercepting radicalization at the indoctrination stage.”
Identification of the Threat
Your concerns about “radicalization” as a threat to U.S. Homeland Security are warranted. For after twenty five years of studying the ideology and the evolution of the doctrines that produced the self-declared Jihadist movement (al haraka al Jihadiya) which has declared, waged and continues to conduct war against the United States and other democracies, I conclude along with a number of colleagues in this field of expertise that the Terrorism America and its allies are facing in the War on Terror, is a direct product of this radical ideology. The 19 men, who massacred 3,000 US and other citizens on September 11, belong to al Qaeda and the latter is a self declared Salafist-Jihadist organization. Every single case of Terrorism uncovered on U.S. territory, since 9/11, was motivated by this ideology. To name a few: The Virginia Paintball gang, the dirty bomb case, the shoe bomber case, al Qaeda's John Walker, Azzam al Amriki AKA Adam Gadahn, the Oregon case, the Virginia multiple cases, the Jihadi charities, etc. This ideology was omnipresent in the cases than ended with court sentences and those which didn't; in the Sheikh Abdel Rahman case of 1993; in the statements made by the Zarqawi networks while assassinating innocent civilians; in all speeches by Usama Bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri from 1998 till now; and on all Jihadi web sites in all languages: one global common thread is always omnipresent: The Jihadi ideology. And in parallel to al Qaeda’s radical doctrine another ideology of Jihadism follows the teachings of Ayatalollah Khomeini and is embodied by the public speeches of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad and Hezbollah. Hence, the ideologies that produces “Radicalization," are the Jihadist ones. They are of two main "trees," the Jihadi Salafist and the Jihadi Khomeinist. These doctrines, taught and disseminated worldwide and in America, are the producers of the "Jihadists" (al Jihadiyun) who have declared war and waged it against the United States both overseas and in the homeland. Jihadism is the ideological common identity of terror groups al Qaeda, Salafi Combat Group of the Maghreb, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Jemaa Islamiya of south Asia, the Taliban of Afghanistan, Laskar Taiba of Pakistan, the Mahakem Islamiya of Somalia, and other Salafi-Wahabi groups internationally, in addition to Hezbollah. Jihadism was the inspiration for the 1990s attacks, 9/11, Madrid, London, Beslan, Mumbai, Riyadh, Casablanca, the Sunni Triangle in Iraq and other violence associated with Terrorism. Hence at this stage of the War on Terror, the ideology behind the threat has been identified and thus should be addressed.
Development of the Threat
Prior to 9/11, the spread of Jihadism was operated by Salafi, Wahabi, Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan), Tablighi, Deobandi and Takfiri schools of thought around the world, mostly by the means of religious schools known as Madrassa. Moving into the United States gradually as of the 1970s, and increasingly in the 1990s, Jihadi cadres took the control of existing religious schools funded by foreign support but also formed their own indoctrination networks, often in and around Mosques and other social and cultural centers. In about twenty years of militant activities, the Jihadist ideology produced three generations of radicals, a pool which Terrorists have and continue to recruit from. The perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks are foreign Jihadists. But most of the other arrested Terrorists (or alleged Terrorists) claiming the same ideology and who identify with al Qaeda or its allies, are "American Jihadists," citizens or permanent residents, U.S.-born or naturalized. Hence the most dangerous dimension of the ideology of Jihadism is the fact that it has already recruited and inspired Americans to wage war against their own nation. Therefore Jihadism is a direct threat against Homeland Security
Components of the threat
This threat against national security and against the foundations of civil society and democracy is embodied by a set of ideas and concepts that reject the legitimacy of citizens’ free choice, their natural liberties, pluralism, and the rule of secular law. The Jihadi ideology is not another social or political way of thinking within Democracy, nor is it a political alternative to one particular party or a specific policy in domestic or foreign affairs. Jihadism rejects the American constitution, the bill of rights, the international declaration on human rights, the United Nations and international law. Jihadism aim at destroying democracies and installing a totalitarian regime named Caliphate. And to do so, Jihadism creates the conviction in the minds of its adherents that war against the Government, people and constitution of the United States is the path towards achieving the universal goal. The beginning of the threat starts with the "click" that transforms a citizen into a Jihadist. From there one, the constant objective of the Jihadi recruit is to strike against the national security of the United States. The Terrorist can be a member of al Qaeda if he/she are successful in establishing the contact, as for example with the case of Adam Gadahn and Jose Padilla, or they could operate under an al Qaeda like Jihadism, without having established a link with the mother ship.
Strategic penetration
The strategic penetration operated by the Jihadists before and since 9/11 is based on three models: One are the Jihadists who originates overseas and move to the United States, either legally (visa, lawful immigration, marriage, political asylum) or illegally. In either of these cases the Jihadis ends up operating on the inside of the country, using its laws and facilities. The estimate of Jihadists who have infiltrated the country over the past two decades is certainly in the hundreds, possibly close to a thousand. This "first generation" Jihadists has organized itself to perform two activities: One is to grow its own strength for "future Jihads." Two is to produce the second generation of American-born Jihadists. If you analyze the average age of U.S. born Jihadists, you would conclude that the production of the second "generation" has begun in the late 1980s and mostly since the early 1990s. The formation of this "second generation" can only happen through two methods. First is to indoctrinate then recruit within the Muslim community using a variety of methods and already penetrated institutions. Second, is for them to take the control of the religious conversion of non-Muslims and indoctrinate the converts during the process or after the process: Hence a first generation of radical Salafists-Wahabis has already processed a radicalization and the recruitment of American-born Muslims or converts. The issue is not conversion: This is a free and pluralist society. Certainly there is and would be a problem with the radicalization taking place within a particular community. But the real issue affecting Homeland Security is the systematic penetration of a religious community and the recruitment of Jihadists to perform acts of Terrorism and aggression against national security.
And once the "Pool" of indoctrinated individuals is formed, mostly of younger persons then the Terror organizations can recruit from. However, Jihadists in the West in general and in the U.S. in particular, are of two types once they are formed: Either they join an organization and moves into a cell, or they form their own cell, without connecting with a larger organization or al Qaeda. The most dangerous Jihadists, both on the individual level or as self-formed cells are those who have been able or are in the process of penetrating the defense-security system of the United States. In this realm, the Jihadists can harm the most the national security of the Homeland, and analytical indications project that one of their ultimate goals is to penetrate and weaken U.S. Homeland Security.
Threat shield
There are several shields that "protect" the U.S.-based Jihadists from containment. Among these shields are
a. The little ability of the public to identify them since their ideology wasn't officially been identified by the Government.
b. Without the public, Law Enforcement and Homeland Security cannot mobilize on a large scale to identify and isolate the Jihadists activities. Furthermore, by not identifying the ideology and its strategies, the U.S. Government cannot direct its agencies and resources against the threat.
c. The ideology of Jihadi-Terrorism unfortunately, enjoys the political freedoms of the country. It is "protected" by advocacy groups, legal defense and is funded both domestically and by foreign regimes and organizations.
Resistance to “radicalization”
To establish a national resistance to "radicalization" following are 6 suggestions:
1) Identification of the ideology of Jihadism by Government, media and experts.
2) Mobilization against the ideology of Jihadism by the public and educational institutions
3) Ban of the ideology by the U.S. Congress
4) Mass education of the public about it
5) Working with domestic NGOs, with the general public and specifically with the Muslim communities
6) Working with international INGOs and particularly with liberal, democratic and humanist Muslims
Looking at the future
In summary, Terrorism is threatening Homeland Security and Jihadism is a main root cause of Terrorism. The U.S. capacity of protecting Homeland security and defending national security will depend largely on developing policies and laws that would identify, ban, isolate and shrink Jihadism, with the help of the American public in general and the Muslim and Middle Eastern communities in particular. Such a shift in Homeland security must be based on a comprehensive strategy of containment of the Terror ideology within the framework of civil and democratic rights of society.
In closing, I would like to thank you and the committee members and staff for the opportunity to present this testimony today. I look forward to responding to any question that you might have.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Propaganda Wars by John Robb
Traditionally, guerrilla wars are fought in the moral sphere. This means that the side that can hold together its moral cohesion the longest, while simultaneously fragmenting its opponents, will come out the winner (I think this is shifting, but we can save that thought for later).
From this grain of truth, the US government/military reached (primarily due to hindsight bias re:Vietnam) the conclusion that moral conflicts are won through propaganda. In other words, the side with the better propaganda machine wins the war. These organizations are implementing this conclusion in this conflict. Everything from embedded journalists to continuously rosy statements (such as "the tide of history is on our side," "the insurgency's back is broken," "just a few more months and the turning point will be reached," etc.) to pro-war bloggers that regurgitate talking points are part of a propaganda effort deemed necessary to win our current conflict. However, this decision to build a propaganda machine isn't showing signs of working. The reason is that a propaganda campaign within the current complex, global and media/information saturated environment is not only foolish, it is downright dangerous. Why? Here are the reasons:
* It generates dissent faster than it solidifies support. People have access to so many alternative sources of information, that any concerted attempt to spin facts is quickly seen for what it is: deception. The result is that non-cooperative centers of gravity are generated (first globally and then domestically) so quickly, that the very moral cohesion sought is the first victim of the effort.
* Propaganda efforts destroy effective decision making. The US military's approach to this propaganda war has been to trot out generals at every opportunity to provide upbeat and positive assessments (the most negative statement is blandly neutral). Anything less would be seen as a negative in the moral conflict and thereby disloyal. This has the unintended consequence of clouding internal decision loops. In the business world this is called "drinking your own kool-aid" (in a cold reference to the Jamestown religious cult where the members committed suicide by drinking poisoned kool-aid). Facts are misinterpreted/misrepresented for marketing externally, these tainted facts are consumed by internal audiences, and bad internal decision making is the result ("we don't need more troops," "we should stick it out since it will get better soon," "more of the same will work," etc.). This is pure poison given the complexity of modern counter-insurgency.
* Natural allies are quickly turned into enemies. Since propaganda is central to the US war effort, any criticism (from any quarter) is seen as something that aids and abets the enemy ("if you are not with us, you are against us"). A good rule of thumb (and this applies to all organizations and not just the US military/government), is that the best people don't work for you. However, it also follows that they aren't necessarily working against you either, and they could provide you substantial benefit to you if properly enticed (this is something that has become a central aspect of most organizations in our heavily cross connected world). Propaganda alienates this group since they aren't seen as being on the "team."
The Alternative
Since propaganda is so ineffective, what would work? I believe a better approach (perhaps the only approach that even has a hope of working given the complex networked environment within which wars are fought today), is:
* A strict adherence to unvarnished truth. Assessments should not be spun. Decisions and analysis of results should be completely caveated. This requires backbone (which is perhaps in short supply). Truth generates trust.
* Transparency. Confidence in decision making is generated through transparency (both internally and externally). Transparency also allows the process to be improved. This is completely at odds with the Cold War secrecy culture that is currently in place.
* A willingness to listen to criticism (particularly from knowledgeable external sources) and respond to it if justified. This doesn't require thick skin, it only requires a willingness to acknowledge truth when you see it. This process generates a growing network of allies. NOTE: This also requires that the hermetic seal around most government/military organizations needs to be broken. If the routes into these organizations are limited, the benefit will be limited too.
End Note
While truth, transparency, and receptiveness are difficult traits to develop, they offer the best path towards a sustainable effort. For those cynics out there, this isn't nearly as naive as it looks at first glance. The wars of the future will be non-existential (not against peer competitors, no matter how much some would like) and of indefinite duration (read: long). In order to pick the right ones to fight, fight them well, and sustain the effort over the entire required duration: an open process must be adhered to. Anything less offers nothing but vociferous dissent, sequential disasters, and ignoble defeat.
From this grain of truth, the US government/military reached (primarily due to hindsight bias re:Vietnam) the conclusion that moral conflicts are won through propaganda. In other words, the side with the better propaganda machine wins the war. These organizations are implementing this conclusion in this conflict. Everything from embedded journalists to continuously rosy statements (such as "the tide of history is on our side," "the insurgency's back is broken," "just a few more months and the turning point will be reached," etc.) to pro-war bloggers that regurgitate talking points are part of a propaganda effort deemed necessary to win our current conflict. However, this decision to build a propaganda machine isn't showing signs of working. The reason is that a propaganda campaign within the current complex, global and media/information saturated environment is not only foolish, it is downright dangerous. Why? Here are the reasons:
* It generates dissent faster than it solidifies support. People have access to so many alternative sources of information, that any concerted attempt to spin facts is quickly seen for what it is: deception. The result is that non-cooperative centers of gravity are generated (first globally and then domestically) so quickly, that the very moral cohesion sought is the first victim of the effort.
* Propaganda efforts destroy effective decision making. The US military's approach to this propaganda war has been to trot out generals at every opportunity to provide upbeat and positive assessments (the most negative statement is blandly neutral). Anything less would be seen as a negative in the moral conflict and thereby disloyal. This has the unintended consequence of clouding internal decision loops. In the business world this is called "drinking your own kool-aid" (in a cold reference to the Jamestown religious cult where the members committed suicide by drinking poisoned kool-aid). Facts are misinterpreted/misrepresented for marketing externally, these tainted facts are consumed by internal audiences, and bad internal decision making is the result ("we don't need more troops," "we should stick it out since it will get better soon," "more of the same will work," etc.). This is pure poison given the complexity of modern counter-insurgency.
* Natural allies are quickly turned into enemies. Since propaganda is central to the US war effort, any criticism (from any quarter) is seen as something that aids and abets the enemy ("if you are not with us, you are against us"). A good rule of thumb (and this applies to all organizations and not just the US military/government), is that the best people don't work for you. However, it also follows that they aren't necessarily working against you either, and they could provide you substantial benefit to you if properly enticed (this is something that has become a central aspect of most organizations in our heavily cross connected world). Propaganda alienates this group since they aren't seen as being on the "team."
The Alternative
Since propaganda is so ineffective, what would work? I believe a better approach (perhaps the only approach that even has a hope of working given the complex networked environment within which wars are fought today), is:
* A strict adherence to unvarnished truth. Assessments should not be spun. Decisions and analysis of results should be completely caveated. This requires backbone (which is perhaps in short supply). Truth generates trust.
* Transparency. Confidence in decision making is generated through transparency (both internally and externally). Transparency also allows the process to be improved. This is completely at odds with the Cold War secrecy culture that is currently in place.
* A willingness to listen to criticism (particularly from knowledgeable external sources) and respond to it if justified. This doesn't require thick skin, it only requires a willingness to acknowledge truth when you see it. This process generates a growing network of allies. NOTE: This also requires that the hermetic seal around most government/military organizations needs to be broken. If the routes into these organizations are limited, the benefit will be limited too.
End Note
While truth, transparency, and receptiveness are difficult traits to develop, they offer the best path towards a sustainable effort. For those cynics out there, this isn't nearly as naive as it looks at first glance. The wars of the future will be non-existential (not against peer competitors, no matter how much some would like) and of indefinite duration (read: long). In order to pick the right ones to fight, fight them well, and sustain the effort over the entire required duration: an open process must be adhered to. Anything less offers nothing but vociferous dissent, sequential disasters, and ignoble defeat.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
It Wouldn't Really Have Been Better If We Had Done Nothing by Thomas Barnett
A gloriously one-sided analysis that says in effect, "the only killing that matters is that which occurs after we intervene."
The UN (and no one disputes this) said the sanctions killed 50,000 a year in Iraq in the 1990s, more than the cumulative total of this "disastrous" humanitarian adventure in Iraq.
Then there are all those Saddam killed at home over his long reign, especially in the aftermath of our "limited" campaign (Powell Doctrine in action) back in 1991.
Then there are those who died in his war with Iran (cynically supported by us) and his invasion of Kuwait.
But none of those deaths matter, because they do not occur on our watch - so to speak.
Only a lawyer could argue anything so amazingly one - sided.
But yes, better we "do no harm" and let Darfur burn, let Saddam kill, let the Gap be the Gap, etc. This is realism and the Powell Doctrine and international legal BS at its best.
I am not my brother's keeper. I just manage the cell block, letting out those I care to recognize now and then, and sending in the riot police to quell the riots when forced. Please, please, no shrink the Gap for me. They're all just dark-skinned people in a galaxy far, far away.
Think if we finally did something serious in the Congo we'd rack up 5 million dead in a decade?
Or would we probably have 50k on our hands, and a huge guilt complex to boot for our efforts ("What have we done?")?
Lincoln picked Grant because he could do the awful math required. We live in a world where the equations are all reversed in terms of effort, and still we lack a decent Grant. Instead, we've enshrined our very own McClellan, whose latest hagiographic biography hits the streets today.
Limited regret, limited morals, limited courage, limited caring. We live in an era of great circumspection, where the ass-covering careerist is worshipped and men of any firm action are vilified.
I give it to Bush: he tries. You can disagree with the calls and the execution, but he tries. The Do-Nothings of our age are the foreign policy equivalents of the Know-Nothings that once plagued our political system. They always have an answer to the question, "why not do nothing?" They want from the world but they owe the world nothing. The selfishness and self-delusion know no bounds.
The UN (and no one disputes this) said the sanctions killed 50,000 a year in Iraq in the 1990s, more than the cumulative total of this "disastrous" humanitarian adventure in Iraq.
Then there are all those Saddam killed at home over his long reign, especially in the aftermath of our "limited" campaign (Powell Doctrine in action) back in 1991.
Then there are those who died in his war with Iran (cynically supported by us) and his invasion of Kuwait.
But none of those deaths matter, because they do not occur on our watch - so to speak.
Only a lawyer could argue anything so amazingly one - sided.
But yes, better we "do no harm" and let Darfur burn, let Saddam kill, let the Gap be the Gap, etc. This is realism and the Powell Doctrine and international legal BS at its best.
I am not my brother's keeper. I just manage the cell block, letting out those I care to recognize now and then, and sending in the riot police to quell the riots when forced. Please, please, no shrink the Gap for me. They're all just dark-skinned people in a galaxy far, far away.
Think if we finally did something serious in the Congo we'd rack up 5 million dead in a decade?
Or would we probably have 50k on our hands, and a huge guilt complex to boot for our efforts ("What have we done?")?
Lincoln picked Grant because he could do the awful math required. We live in a world where the equations are all reversed in terms of effort, and still we lack a decent Grant. Instead, we've enshrined our very own McClellan, whose latest hagiographic biography hits the streets today.
Limited regret, limited morals, limited courage, limited caring. We live in an era of great circumspection, where the ass-covering careerist is worshipped and men of any firm action are vilified.
I give it to Bush: he tries. You can disagree with the calls and the execution, but he tries. The Do-Nothings of our age are the foreign policy equivalents of the Know-Nothings that once plagued our political system. They always have an answer to the question, "why not do nothing?" They want from the world but they owe the world nothing. The selfishness and self-delusion know no bounds.
The Knee Jerks Hard on Immigration by Thomas Barnett
Instead of dealing with any of the real issues of immigration, this bankrupt Congress puts up a Potemkin-style fence that will prevent nothing other than serious and lasting solutions to be found. If nothing else, this proves how badly the GOP is running this Congress, and shame on all the mindless Dems who went along on this pointless ride. For America to be building border fences at a time when thee global economy that we gave birth to is bigger than ever, more stable than ever, and growing more rapidly and broadly than ever ... well, that just tells you how bereft America is right now in real leaders with viable visions, serious solutions and genuine courage.
Vote accordingly...
Vote accordingly...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)