As observers were awaiting the release of the "official" al Qaeda position regarding the election of Barack Obama as the new President of the United States, seasoned experts on the Jihadist movement had little doubts as to the substance of the main message. As I have outlined in my appearances on Arabic television channels since November 4, Bin Laden or his second in command was expected to declare that their "Jihad" will continue despite the election of an African American President and despite Obama’s intention to withdraw from Iraq. Ayman Zawahiri did just that on Wednesday in his latest message to his supporters and his enemies: even if the war ends in Iraq, the global war will continue everywhere.
The tape was expected to appear a couple weeks after the election because of al Qaeda's method of monitoring the reactions of the international community, of the Arab and Muslim world and also of other Islamist authorities. The Bin Laden-Zawahiri style is to give the "last word," like a Caliph would. The points raised in the tape were almost all predicted by experts familiar with the Jihadi-combat mind set: Although a new president was elected - one who would reverse some of Bush’s policies, the new president will devise new strategies to defeat al Qaeda.. Zawahiri isn't buying the version proposed by other anti-American critics of Washington's War on Terror. Most of Europe's left, the Arab authoritarian regimes, and the Islamist fundamentalist establishment have all welcomed the news of an Obama victory and are tailoring new proposals for the region's future (of course to their advantage). But not al Qaeda. That's why this Zawahiri message is important. It is telling the world and allies that there will be no respite in the conflict.
The al Qaeda’s number two had to address the election of a Black President of the United States because of the two massive changes this choice has brought to the Jihadist agenda: On the one hand, Obama is very popular in the eyes of international public opinion; on the other hand the President elect is planning on withdrawing from Iraq and pushing forward in Afghanistan. All this changes al Qaeda's game. Zawahiri's tape had to address these "challenges" as pressure was mounting among Jihadists to deal with this election. Hence, the main points presented by the audio message are as follows:
1. The election of Obama is a defeat to the United States in Iraq and a victory to the Jihadists
In his tape Zawahiri congratulates the Muslim world "on the American people's admission of defeat in Iraq. Although the evidence of America's defeat in Iraq appeared years ago, Bush and his administration continued to be stubborn and deny the brilliant midday sun. If Bush has achieved anything, it is in his transfer of America's disaster and predicament to his successor. But the American people, by electing Obama, declared its anxiety and apprehension about the future towards which the policy of the likes of Bush is leading it, and so it decided to support someone calling for withdrawal from Iraq"
In al Qaeda's lexicon it is crucial to demonstrate to their supporters that it is "their" actions (terror in Iraq) which convinced, if not intimidated, American voters into voting against McCain and electing Obama. Zawahiri wants al Qaeda to be credited for the behavior of America's voting majority in the same way it took credit for the change in electoral direction that took place in Madrid after the March 11, 2004 attacks.
2. A warning to Obama: Don't send additional troops to Afghanistan
Zawahiri then sends a warning to President elect Obama: "The second of these messages is to the new president of the United States. I tell him: you have reached the position of president, and a heavy legacy of failure and crimes awaits you. A failure in Iraq to which you have admitted, and a failure in Afghanistan to which the commanders of your army have admitted. The other thing to which I want to bring your attention is that what you've announced about how you're going to reach an understanding with Iran and pull your troops out of Iraq to send them to Afghanistan is a policy which was destined for failure before it was born. It appears that you don't know anything about the Muslim Ummah and its history, and the fate of the traitors who cooperated with the invaders against it, and don't know anything about the history of Afghanistan and its free and defiant Muslim people. And if you still want to be stubborn about America's failure in Afghanistan, then remember the fate of Bush and Pervez Musharraf, and the fate of the Soviets and British before them. And be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them."
If victory has been achieved by the Jihadists against the United States in Iraq by forcing the new Administration to pull out of that country, in Zawahiri's mind, another defeat awaits America in Afghanistan according to al Qaeda's latest message. The logic of endless Jihad seems to be that wherever American forces would be sent, the Jihadists will meet them for a fight until the US redeploys its contingents from around the world, back to "its borders" as previous al Qaeda messages have underlined.
4. The same US aggression remains
Concerned about the sympathy emerging from around the world and within the Muslim community regarding the new President, Zawahiri reminds his Islamist followers that "crimes have been committed and the mentality that produced them is still around." He doesn't want to see a shift in pubic opinion towards a "nicer" America. He says: "As for the crimes of America which await you, it appears that you continue to be captive to the same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims. The Muslim Ummah received with extreme bitterness your hypocritical statements to and stances towards Israel, which confirmed to the Ummah that you have chosen a stance of hostility to Islam and Muslims."
Clearly, Zawahiri is trying to draw red lines for the acceptance of Obama by the Arab and Muslim world. This audiotape is probably the prelude to a campaign by the Jihaidists to minimize Obama's emergence and classify him as just "another US President, with a different face."
5. You're not real
Then Zawahiri begins the Jihadi deconstruction of Obama's image. He declares: "You represent the direct opposite of honorable black Americans like Malik al-Shabazz, or Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him). You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim to be Christian, in order to climb the rungs of leadership in America. And so you promised to back Israel, and you threatened to strike the tribal regions in Pakistan, and to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, in order for the crimes of the American Crusade in it to continue. And last Monday, your aircraft killed 40 Afghan Muslims at a wedding party in Kandahar. As for Malik al-Shabazz (may Allah have mercy on him), he was born to a black pastor killed by white bigots, but Allah favored him with guidance to Islam, and so he prided himself on his fraternity with the Muslims, and he condemned the crimes of the Crusader West against the weak and oppressed, and he declared his support for peoples resisting American occupation, and he spoke about the worldwide revolution against the Western power structure. That's why it wasn't strange that Malik al-Shabazz (may Allah have mercy on him) was killed, while you have climbed the rungs of the presidency to take over the leadership of the greatest criminal force in the history of mankind and the leadership of the most violent Crusade ever against the Muslims. And in you and in Colin Powell, Rice and your likes, the words of Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him) concerning "House Negroes" are confirmed."
Zawahiri's words are strong and are aimed at putting pressure on all those in the region who rushed to announce that Obama will radically change the "regime" in the United States. The number two of al Qaeda is painting the President elect as an opportunistic politician who used all three faiths to access power. One can see that Zawahiri is trying to achieve two goals: maintaining his own flock fully indoctrinated against Washington regardless of the change in the White House; and pressuring the radical clerics in the Wahabi and Muslim Brotherhood circles - who are welcoming Obama's victory - into retreat from such "apostasy."
6. The War must continue..
Zawahiri's main message is to call on the Jihadists everywhere to resume the war relentlessly and to "strike." Yes, he argues, there was a victory when American changed direction in Iraq, but the road to full Jihadi victory is still long. Read it as follow: The fight over Iraq will continue until the establishment of an al Qaeda like Emirate in the Sunni Triangle, which would be then the real accomplished victory. The fight will go on in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia and beyond. In short, the al Qaeda world war against the rest won't stop because of an election in America. Zawahiri said:
"You also must appreciate, as you take over the presidency of America during its Crusade against Islam and Muslims, that you are neither facing individuals nor organizations, but are facing a Jihadi awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see. I tell the Muslim Ummah: America, the criminal, trespassing Crusader, continues to be the same as ever, so we must continue to harm it, in order for it to come to its senses, because its criminal, expansionist Crusader project in your lands has only been neutralized by the sacrifices of your sons, the Mujahideen. This, then, is the path, so stick to it. To the Mujahideen. I tell them: may Allah reward you in the best way for your historic heroics, which have ruined America's plans and rendered its projects ineffective. So be firm and resolute. Your enemy's stagger has begun, so don't stop hitting him. I say to my brothers the Mujahideen in Iraq in general and the Islamic State of Iraq in particular, and to its Amir, the towering mountain Abu 'Umar al-Baghdadi: your enemy has admitted defeat, and the forthcoming stage is expected to be dominated by conspiracies and betrayals in order to cover the American withdrawal, so you must persevere, for victory is in an hour of perseverance. And I tell my brothers in Somalia: rejoice in victory and conquest. America is gathering its wounds in Iraq, and Ethiopia is looking for a way out, and for this reason, the stage of conspiracies and machinations has begun. So hold tightly to the truth for which you have given your lives, and don't put down your weapons before the Mujahid state of Islam and Tawheed has been set up in Somalia. And I tell all Mujahideen everywhere: Allah has granted you success and honored you by making you the most important cause of that, so be resolute on the path of Jihad until you meet your Lord while He is pleased with you."
As many experts in Jihadism have underlined - and as I projected in my last three books on Future Jihad - even if we decide to change course in Iraq or even in Afghanistan, the strategic intentions of the Jihadi Salafists is to engage in confrontation worldwide, including within democracies.
7. Until you surrender..
Echoing this assessment of the global Jihadi drive, Zawahiri asks the followers of this ideology - not just his membership - to relentlessly fight against what he perceives as the "Grand Crusade." A stark reminder that the forces, which waged their campaigns against the United States as of the early 1990s peaking on 9/11 and widening their warfare to dozens of countries since, aren't going back to the pre 9/11 mode. Once again, al Qaeda's number two offers a deal to the "infidel powers": quit and withdraw from this entire region or face a greater war. It is a chilling statement of the so-called Jihadi offensive. It is not just about Iraq: It is about the Planet as a whole. He goes on: "And my fifth message is to all the world's weak and oppressed. I tell them: America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always. And the Mujahideen of Islam, by the grace of Allah, continue to be the spearhead of the resistance against it to restrain it from injustice, aggression and arrogance. As for my final message, it is to the American people. I tell it: you incurred defeat and losses from the foolish actions of Bush and his gang, and at the same time, Shaykh Usama bin Ladin (may Allah preserve him) sent you a message to withdraw from the lands of the Muslims and refrain from stealing their treasures and interfering in their affairs. So choose for yourself whatever you like, and bear the consequences of your choice, and as you judge, you will be judged."
Against all other reactions, both positive and neutral, vis-a-vis Obama's election, al Qaeda stands firm in rejecting the new leadership even before the President elect takes office in January. From a politico-psychological perspective the master of Jihadism Usama Bin laden cannot be overshadowed by another international leader, particularly if that emerging figure is the President of the "Great Satan." Zawahiri's response to the election seems to re-frame the results of the election, one viewed worldwide as one of change. To al Qaeda there is no altering of direction in their struggle and agenda. In their own logic, either Obama will end American presence altogether in the Greater Middle East, or nothing will really change in the global battlefield.
Conclusion
Once Obama’s victory was solidified, many wondered what al qaeda’s response would be. Many of observers thought that the election of Mr. Obama would wash away the grievances of al Qaeda and isolate the pockets of violence to a few valleys in Afghanistan. Zawahiri's answer is bluntly no. Obviously, by al Qaeda's book, this is a step forward but it is not enough. Pulling out of Iraq is a victory, as claim the Jihadists of all genres, but more victories are needed to end the war from their perspective. This indicates that the post 9/11 era may well be reversed in the mind of liberal democracies via electoral victories at home as was the case in Spain and now in the United States, but in the mind of the Jihadists - it is irreversible. Out of all points raised by the Zawahiri audiotape, I move to state that the central message is this: redeploy as you wish and change all the leaders you want, but know that we will continue our global fight against you. This means that the forthcoming Administration has a tremendous challenge to confront and it will have to do so by learning from the past and enhancing the strategies for the future. The landscape of the War with the Jihadists may be changed from what it was over the past eight years but it will be different from what it was during the 1990s. A whole new configuration is ahead of us.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Iraq Victory Approximation by Thomas Barnett
After Action Report: VISIT IRAQ AND KUWAIT 31 OCTOBER - 6 NOVEMBER 2008, by General Barry R. McCaffrey USA (Ret), November 4, 2008
The latest from McCaffrey on Iraq. Note that it's addressed to Col Michael Meese, son of Reagan's AG, who served famously in Petraeus' brain trust during the surge and now wields his considerable influence as a new thinker at West Point. He was kind enough to send me a copy of On Point II after our F2F there last spring.
Of special interest to me is the definition of the "howevers" under the economy header. This is where Steve and I think Development-in-a-Box can have a lot of good impact once translated southward.
As tentative as this all feels, this is as close as it may come to a definition of "victory" in Iraq - as wholly inappropriate as that term may be.
The latest from McCaffrey on Iraq. Note that it's addressed to Col Michael Meese, son of Reagan's AG, who served famously in Petraeus' brain trust during the surge and now wields his considerable influence as a new thinker at West Point. He was kind enough to send me a copy of On Point II after our F2F there last spring.
Of special interest to me is the definition of the "howevers" under the economy header. This is where Steve and I think Development-in-a-Box can have a lot of good impact once translated southward.
As tentative as this all feels, this is as close as it may come to a definition of "victory" in Iraq - as wholly inappropriate as that term may be.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Productivity Growth, Not Trade, Is Cutting Manufacturing Jobs by Ambassador Terry Miller
In an exercise of political demagoguery reminiscent of Ross Perot's prediction of a "giant sucking sound" resulting from adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), presidential candidates are starting to suck common sense and economic rationality out of the 2008 election debates. At the Democratic debate in Las Vegas on November 15, the candidates unleashed a torrent of anti-trade rhetoric that ranged from Senator John Edwards' description of trade agreements past, present, and future as "a complete and total disaster" to Senator Chris Dodd's (D-CT) call for a moratorium on trade from China "for eternity."[1]
There is no doubt that the candidates' anti-trade messages are in tune with voter sentiments. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll published this month shows 60 percent of Americans blame trade for at least part of the economic woes they perceive in the country.[2] The facts, however, tell a different story about trade. According to a wide range of measures, the U.S. economy has performed better as the trade environment has become freer. U.S. leaders must reject anti-trade demagoguery and embrace America's tradition of optimism in the face of change and progress.
The Benefits of Trade
NAFTA itself is the perfect example. According to reports issued last month by the Department of Commerce, the U.S. economy grew by 50 percent during NAFTA's first 13 years.[3] Contrary to Perot's gloomy predictions of job losses, the U.S. economy actually added 25 million jobs during this period. The average unemployment rate since NAFTA has been only 5.1 percent, versus 7.1 percent during the prior period. U.S. manufacturing output rose 63 percent during NAFTA's first 13 years, compared to only 37 percent in the period before. Compensation for manufacturing workers increased 1.6 percent annually during NAFTA, versus 0.9 percent annually before.[4]
What accounts for the disconnect between this positive record of economic improvement and voters' negative sentiments? A variety of factors have combined to increase workers' insecurity, even as their actual economic situations, on average, have been improving strongly. In a good year for the U.S. economy, about 70,000 businesses fail.[5] Many more are created to replace them, but 70,000 business failures is a significant number by any reckoning. Businesses fail for diverse reasons. Some can't compete with other companies making similar products. Others fail because consumer tastes change. In terms of employment, the failure of 70,000 firms translates into about 15 million jobs lost each year.
Almost none of this job loss has to do with trade. During a 2004 speech, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke estimated that only 2 percent of U.S. job losses were due to foreign trade.[6] He attributed 1 percent of job loss to outsourcing. So, in Bernanke's estimation, a total of 3 percent of job losses results from trade or foreign competition. Such small negative effects are overwhelmed by the consumption and investment benefits of trade, which are estimated to amount to as much as $10,000 annually for a family of four.[7]
Productivity Gains
The explanation for these shifts is that productivity has been exploding in the United States and throughout the world. Technological change and innovation are making it possible to produce more output with less labor. In the U.S., that labor is shifting to jobs in the services sector and other parts of the economy. William Ward, a professor of applied economics and statistics at Clemson University, has estimated that 7.5 million of the 17.7 million manufacturing jobs that existed in the United States in 1990 would not have been needed in 2004 because of productivity growth.[8]
The growth in manufacturing productivity is a worldwide phenomenon. According to Ward, productivity gains in China between 1995 and 2002 would have eliminated the need for about 37 million Chinese manufacturing jobs. Actual manufacturing job losses in both China and the United States were far less than these numbers, because while productivity gains were reducing demand for manufacturing workers, gains in GDP were increasing it. However, the total number of manufacturing jobs went down in both countries.[9]
One of the biggest mistakes of trade opponents is thinking of the global economy in static terms: Jobs lost in the United States must mean jobs gained elsewhere. This representation of trade as a zero sum game is simply not accurate. The U.S. and world economies are dynamic things, growing and evolving daily. Rapid technological advances are driving down the cost in labor of manufacturing around the world. To resist this trend by adopting protectionist measures that subsidize less efficient producers is to buy into a world vision of lower productivity and slower growth, a poorer world in which everyone has less and produces less than they otherwise could.
Fear Versus Optimism
This is not a new debate. It goes all the way back to the beginnings of the industrial revolution and those early English weavers, known as Luddites, who destroyed the new textile knitting frames that threatened their traditional production practices.
The anti-technology story can be emotionally compelling. The plight of workers who lose their jobs, particularly if they represent vulnerable groups such as the elderly or youth with few skills and uncertain prospects, strikes a chord because most people yearn for a life narrative of stability and security. When people are tossed by the winds of chance--even winds blown by a whirlwind of progress--it invokes one of the oldest terrors of the human race--losing everything and being unable to care for oneself and one's family.
The manner is which a society confronts these risks says a lot about the character of its people. The genius of America, both politically and economically, is an optimism that has always looked ahead and moved forward, embracing change and progress. This outlook makes America different from many other countries and societies, and accounts in large measure for its success in a globalized world. A presidential debate in which candidates vie with each other to see who can pander most to popular prejudices and fears threatens that success.
Psychologists trained in communications skills stress the importance of differentiating between conversations that are about feelings and those that are about information. The disconnect between cold economic facts and hot feelings of economic insecurity make the trade debate one of the most volatile in the political discourse. In a rapidly evolving economy, many Americans who lose their jobs quickly find others that are just as good or even better. Yet, those stories get less attention, because they lack emotional appeal. Also, the facts show that consumers gain significantly from the quality, variety, and low cost of goods made available by productivity growth and free trade. Since the benefit from each individual transaction is small, consumers do not necessarily feel better as a result. A political discourse that pits such facts against emotionally charged stories of individual loss can quickly get out of control.
Conclusion
Presidential candidates have a special responsibility to help Americans bridge the gap between emotion and reason in policy debates--in both the political and economic spheres. In discussions on trade, they need to connect voters' sympathy for struggling workers to policies that promise continued growth and real economic benefits. In today's fast-changing world, Americans should not succumb to the temptations of protectionism and its illusory benefits. Leaders must follow the precedent of President Ronald Reagan, who took to heart the slogan of the General Electric Company, for which he was once a spokesman: "Progress is our most important product."
[1]"Democratic Debate Transcript, Las Vegas, Nevada," Council on Foreign Relations, November 15, 2007, at www.cfr.org/publication/14820/democratic_debate_transcript_las_
vegas_nevada.html (November 26, 2007).
[2]Wall Street Journal/ NBC News Poll November 1-5, 2007, Hart/McInturff Poll, #6077, November 2007, at http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ws
jnbcpoll20071108.pdf (November 26, 2007).
[3]U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, "NAFTA - A Success for Trade," October 2007, at www.export.gov/fta/NAFTA/NAFTA_success.doc (November 26, 2007).
[4]Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, "NAFTA Facts," NAFTA Policy Brief, October 2007, at www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Regional/NAFTA/Fact_Sheets/ass
et_upload_file366_13495.pdf (November 26, 2007).
[5]"Economy: Corporations and Other Types of Businesses," TheUSAOnline.com, at www.theusaonline.com/economy/corporations.htm (November 26, 2007).
[6]Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke at the Distinguished Speaker Series, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, March 30, 2004, as published by the Federal Reserve Board at www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/Speeches/2004/20040330/default.htm (November 26, 2007).
[7]Executive Office of the President,2007 Economic Report of the President, October 4, 2007, at www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/index.html (November 26, 2007).
[8]William A. Ward, "Manufacturing Productivity and the Shifting US, China, and Global Job Scenes--1990 to 2005," Clemson University Center for International Trade Working Paper 052507, August 4, 2005, at http://business.clemson.edu/cit/Documents/Mfg%20Employment%20Working%20Paper%20draft%208%202005.pdf (November 26, 2007)
[9]Ward,"Manufacturing Productivity and the Shifting US, China, and Global Job Scenes--1990 to 2005."
There is no doubt that the candidates' anti-trade messages are in tune with voter sentiments. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll published this month shows 60 percent of Americans blame trade for at least part of the economic woes they perceive in the country.[2] The facts, however, tell a different story about trade. According to a wide range of measures, the U.S. economy has performed better as the trade environment has become freer. U.S. leaders must reject anti-trade demagoguery and embrace America's tradition of optimism in the face of change and progress.
The Benefits of Trade
NAFTA itself is the perfect example. According to reports issued last month by the Department of Commerce, the U.S. economy grew by 50 percent during NAFTA's first 13 years.[3] Contrary to Perot's gloomy predictions of job losses, the U.S. economy actually added 25 million jobs during this period. The average unemployment rate since NAFTA has been only 5.1 percent, versus 7.1 percent during the prior period. U.S. manufacturing output rose 63 percent during NAFTA's first 13 years, compared to only 37 percent in the period before. Compensation for manufacturing workers increased 1.6 percent annually during NAFTA, versus 0.9 percent annually before.[4]
What accounts for the disconnect between this positive record of economic improvement and voters' negative sentiments? A variety of factors have combined to increase workers' insecurity, even as their actual economic situations, on average, have been improving strongly. In a good year for the U.S. economy, about 70,000 businesses fail.[5] Many more are created to replace them, but 70,000 business failures is a significant number by any reckoning. Businesses fail for diverse reasons. Some can't compete with other companies making similar products. Others fail because consumer tastes change. In terms of employment, the failure of 70,000 firms translates into about 15 million jobs lost each year.
Almost none of this job loss has to do with trade. During a 2004 speech, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke estimated that only 2 percent of U.S. job losses were due to foreign trade.[6] He attributed 1 percent of job loss to outsourcing. So, in Bernanke's estimation, a total of 3 percent of job losses results from trade or foreign competition. Such small negative effects are overwhelmed by the consumption and investment benefits of trade, which are estimated to amount to as much as $10,000 annually for a family of four.[7]
Productivity Gains
The explanation for these shifts is that productivity has been exploding in the United States and throughout the world. Technological change and innovation are making it possible to produce more output with less labor. In the U.S., that labor is shifting to jobs in the services sector and other parts of the economy. William Ward, a professor of applied economics and statistics at Clemson University, has estimated that 7.5 million of the 17.7 million manufacturing jobs that existed in the United States in 1990 would not have been needed in 2004 because of productivity growth.[8]
The growth in manufacturing productivity is a worldwide phenomenon. According to Ward, productivity gains in China between 1995 and 2002 would have eliminated the need for about 37 million Chinese manufacturing jobs. Actual manufacturing job losses in both China and the United States were far less than these numbers, because while productivity gains were reducing demand for manufacturing workers, gains in GDP were increasing it. However, the total number of manufacturing jobs went down in both countries.[9]
One of the biggest mistakes of trade opponents is thinking of the global economy in static terms: Jobs lost in the United States must mean jobs gained elsewhere. This representation of trade as a zero sum game is simply not accurate. The U.S. and world economies are dynamic things, growing and evolving daily. Rapid technological advances are driving down the cost in labor of manufacturing around the world. To resist this trend by adopting protectionist measures that subsidize less efficient producers is to buy into a world vision of lower productivity and slower growth, a poorer world in which everyone has less and produces less than they otherwise could.
Fear Versus Optimism
This is not a new debate. It goes all the way back to the beginnings of the industrial revolution and those early English weavers, known as Luddites, who destroyed the new textile knitting frames that threatened their traditional production practices.
The anti-technology story can be emotionally compelling. The plight of workers who lose their jobs, particularly if they represent vulnerable groups such as the elderly or youth with few skills and uncertain prospects, strikes a chord because most people yearn for a life narrative of stability and security. When people are tossed by the winds of chance--even winds blown by a whirlwind of progress--it invokes one of the oldest terrors of the human race--losing everything and being unable to care for oneself and one's family.
The manner is which a society confronts these risks says a lot about the character of its people. The genius of America, both politically and economically, is an optimism that has always looked ahead and moved forward, embracing change and progress. This outlook makes America different from many other countries and societies, and accounts in large measure for its success in a globalized world. A presidential debate in which candidates vie with each other to see who can pander most to popular prejudices and fears threatens that success.
Psychologists trained in communications skills stress the importance of differentiating between conversations that are about feelings and those that are about information. The disconnect between cold economic facts and hot feelings of economic insecurity make the trade debate one of the most volatile in the political discourse. In a rapidly evolving economy, many Americans who lose their jobs quickly find others that are just as good or even better. Yet, those stories get less attention, because they lack emotional appeal. Also, the facts show that consumers gain significantly from the quality, variety, and low cost of goods made available by productivity growth and free trade. Since the benefit from each individual transaction is small, consumers do not necessarily feel better as a result. A political discourse that pits such facts against emotionally charged stories of individual loss can quickly get out of control.
Conclusion
Presidential candidates have a special responsibility to help Americans bridge the gap between emotion and reason in policy debates--in both the political and economic spheres. In discussions on trade, they need to connect voters' sympathy for struggling workers to policies that promise continued growth and real economic benefits. In today's fast-changing world, Americans should not succumb to the temptations of protectionism and its illusory benefits. Leaders must follow the precedent of President Ronald Reagan, who took to heart the slogan of the General Electric Company, for which he was once a spokesman: "Progress is our most important product."
[1]"Democratic Debate Transcript, Las Vegas, Nevada," Council on Foreign Relations, November 15, 2007, at www.cfr.org/publication/14820/democratic_debate_transcript_las_
vegas_nevada.html (November 26, 2007).
[2]Wall Street Journal/ NBC News Poll November 1-5, 2007, Hart/McInturff Poll, #6077, November 2007, at http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ws
jnbcpoll20071108.pdf (November 26, 2007).
[3]U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, "NAFTA - A Success for Trade," October 2007, at www.export.gov/fta/NAFTA/NAFTA_success.doc (November 26, 2007).
[4]Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, "NAFTA Facts," NAFTA Policy Brief, October 2007, at www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Regional/NAFTA/Fact_Sheets/ass
et_upload_file366_13495.pdf (November 26, 2007).
[5]"Economy: Corporations and Other Types of Businesses," TheUSAOnline.com, at www.theusaonline.com/economy/corporations.htm (November 26, 2007).
[6]Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke at the Distinguished Speaker Series, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, March 30, 2004, as published by the Federal Reserve Board at www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/Speeches/2004/20040330/default.htm (November 26, 2007).
[7]Executive Office of the President,2007 Economic Report of the President, October 4, 2007, at www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/index.html (November 26, 2007).
[8]William A. Ward, "Manufacturing Productivity and the Shifting US, China, and Global Job Scenes--1990 to 2005," Clemson University Center for International Trade Working Paper 052507, August 4, 2005, at http://business.clemson.edu/cit/Documents/Mfg%20Employment%20Working%20Paper%20draft%208%202005.pdf (November 26, 2007)
[9]Ward,"Manufacturing Productivity and the Shifting US, China, and Global Job Scenes--1990 to 2005."
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Status of OpenCL (Proposed Version 1.0) by Khronos Group
OpenCL - The open standard for parallel programming of heterogeneous systems.
OpenCL (Open Computing Language) is the first open, royalty-free standard for general-purpose parallel programming of heterogeneous systems. OpenCL provides a uniform programming environment for software developers to write efficient, portable code for high-performance compute servers, desktop computer systems and handheld devices using a diverse mix of multi-core CPUs, GPUs, Cell-type architectures and other parallel processors such as DSPs.
OpenCL supports a wide range of applications, from embedded and consumer software to HPC solutions, through a low-level, high-performance, portable abstraction. By creating an efficient, close-to-the-metal programming interface, OpenCL will form the foundation layer of a parallel computing ecosystem of platform-independent tools, middleware and applications.
OpenCL is being created by the Khronos Group with the participation of many industry-leading companies and institutions including 3DLABS, Activision Blizzard, AMD, Apple, ARM, Barco, Broadcom, Codeplay, Electronic Arts, Ericsson, Freescale, HI, IBM, Intel, Imagination Technologies, Kestrel Institute, Motorola, Movidia, Nokia, NVIDIA, QNX, RapidMind, Samsung, Seaweed, Takumi, Texas Instruments and Umeå University.
Latest SC08 Overview - Khronos Group.
View PDF of slide presentation. Click here.
Latest SCO8 Perspective - Macworld USA.
View HTML of editorial article. Click here.
(NOTE: This posting has been modified to respect the request of the original authors.)
OpenCL (Open Computing Language) is the first open, royalty-free standard for general-purpose parallel programming of heterogeneous systems. OpenCL provides a uniform programming environment for software developers to write efficient, portable code for high-performance compute servers, desktop computer systems and handheld devices using a diverse mix of multi-core CPUs, GPUs, Cell-type architectures and other parallel processors such as DSPs.
OpenCL supports a wide range of applications, from embedded and consumer software to HPC solutions, through a low-level, high-performance, portable abstraction. By creating an efficient, close-to-the-metal programming interface, OpenCL will form the foundation layer of a parallel computing ecosystem of platform-independent tools, middleware and applications.
OpenCL is being created by the Khronos Group with the participation of many industry-leading companies and institutions including 3DLABS, Activision Blizzard, AMD, Apple, ARM, Barco, Broadcom, Codeplay, Electronic Arts, Ericsson, Freescale, HI, IBM, Intel, Imagination Technologies, Kestrel Institute, Motorola, Movidia, Nokia, NVIDIA, QNX, RapidMind, Samsung, Seaweed, Takumi, Texas Instruments and Umeå University.
Latest SC08 Overview - Khronos Group.
View PDF of slide presentation. Click here.
Latest SCO8 Perspective - Macworld USA.
View HTML of editorial article. Click here.
(NOTE: This posting has been modified to respect the request of the original authors.)
Windpipe Transplant Breakthrough by Michelle Roberts
Surgeons in Spain have carried out the world's first tissue-engineered whole organ transplant - using a windpipe made with the patient's own stem cells.
The groundbreaking technology also means for the first time tissue transplants can be carried out without the need for anti-rejection drugs.
Five months on the patient, 30-year-old mother-of-two Claudia Castillo, is in perfect health, The Lancet reports.
She needed the transplant to save a lung after contracting tuberculosis.
The disease had damaged her airways.
Scientists from Bristol helped grow the cells for the transplant and the European team believes such tailor-made organs could become the norm.
To make the new airway, the doctors took a donor windpipe, or trachea, from a patient who had recently died.
Then they used strong chemicals and enzymes to wash away all of the cells from the donor trachea, leaving only a tissue scaffold made of the fibrous protein collagen.
This gave them a structure to repopulate with cells from Ms Castillo herself, which could then be used in an operation to repair her damaged left bronchus - a branch of the windpipe.
By using Ms Castillo's own cells the doctors were able to trick her body into thinking the donated trachea was part of it, thus avoiding rejection.
Two types of cell were taken from Ms Castillo: cells lining her windpipe, and adult stem cells - very immature cells from the bone marrow - which could be encouraged to grow into the cells that normally surround the windpipe.
I was very much afraid. Before this, we had been doing this work only in pigs
Surgeon Professor Paolo Macchiarini of the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Spain. After four days of growth in the lab in a special rotating bioreactor, the newly-coated donor windpipe was ready to be transplanted into Ms Castillo.
Her surgeon, Professor Paolo Macchiarini of the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Spain, carried out the operation in June
He said: "I was very much afraid. Before this, we had been doing this work only on pigs.
"But as soon as the donor trachea came out of the bioreactor it was a very positive surprise."
He said it looked and behaved identically to a normal human donor trachea.
The operation was a great success and just four days after transplantation the hybrid windpipe was almost indistinguishable from adjacent normal airways.
After a month, a biopsy of the site proved that the transplant had developed its own blood supply.
And with no signs of rejection four months on, Professor Macchiarini says the future chance of rejection is practically zero.
"We are terribly excited by these results," he said.
"She is enjoying a normal life, which for us clinicians is the most beautiful gift."
Today Ms Castillo is living an active, normal life, and once again able to look after her children Johan, 15, and Isabella, four. She can walk up two flights of stairs without getting breathless. "I was a sick woman, now I will be able to live a normal life."
Professor Martin Birchall, professor of surgery at the University of Bristol who helped grow the cells for the transplant, said: "This will represent a huge step change in surgery.
"Surgeons can now start to see and understand the potential for adult stem cells and tissue engineering to radically improve their ability to treat patients with serious diseases."
He said that in 20 years time, virtually any transplant organ could be made in this way.
US scientists have already successfully implanted bladder patches grown in the laboratory from patients' own cells into people with bladder disease.
The European research team, which also includes experts from the University of Padua and the Polytechnic of Milan in Italy, is applying for funding to do windpipe and voice box transplants in cancer patients.
Clinical trials could begin five years from now, they said.
Between 50,000 and 60,000 people are diagnosed with cancer of the larynx each year in Europe, and scientists say about half them may be suitable candidates for tissue engineering transplants.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Hizb ut-Tahrir America May Be Ready for Its Public Debut by Madeleine Gruen
Hizb ut-Tahrir America (HTA) may perceive itself as ready to emerge from the shadows.
A leaflet credited to HTA was posted today to Khalifah.com, one of the few official Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) web sites. It is the first time that the global organization has formally acknowledged the existence of HTA.
The leaflet, originally dated October 28, 2008, is titled "Cooperate in Piety or Sin? Participation in the American Election." It calls for American Muslims not to participate in the U.S. presidential election.
In countries where HT has transitioned from a covert developmental phase to its public form it has been because the branch's membership was devoted enough to sustain potential resistance from local government agencies, its membership base was large enough to project the impression of strength, and it had influential members able to effectively persuade others of the party's objectives and methods for establishing an Islamic state.
Although we have been casually aware of HTA's presence for many years, and have seen unofficial acknowledgment of its existence by its own members, we have not seen a nation-wide public demonstration by HTA or any official web sites. Therefore, we do not have a measurable way to determine the size of HTA's membership or the depth of its influence. However, the official acknowledgment of HTA's existence, as demonstrated by the publication of the leaflet on the Khalifah web site, possibly shows that the HT leadership perceives HTA is solid enough to withstand public knowledge of its existence and the potential for additional scrutiny that comes with that knowledge.
A leaflet credited to HTA was posted today to Khalifah.com, one of the few official Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) web sites. It is the first time that the global organization has formally acknowledged the existence of HTA.
The leaflet, originally dated October 28, 2008, is titled "Cooperate in Piety or Sin? Participation in the American Election." It calls for American Muslims not to participate in the U.S. presidential election.
In countries where HT has transitioned from a covert developmental phase to its public form it has been because the branch's membership was devoted enough to sustain potential resistance from local government agencies, its membership base was large enough to project the impression of strength, and it had influential members able to effectively persuade others of the party's objectives and methods for establishing an Islamic state.
Although we have been casually aware of HTA's presence for many years, and have seen unofficial acknowledgment of its existence by its own members, we have not seen a nation-wide public demonstration by HTA or any official web sites. Therefore, we do not have a measurable way to determine the size of HTA's membership or the depth of its influence. However, the official acknowledgment of HTA's existence, as demonstrated by the publication of the leaflet on the Khalifah web site, possibly shows that the HT leadership perceives HTA is solid enough to withstand public knowledge of its existence and the potential for additional scrutiny that comes with that knowledge.
The Switch by John Robb
Traditional guerrilla movements and insurgencies were founded on strict ideologies or political agendas. As a result, their organizations tended towards hierarchy and strong central control. However, the advent of a dominant global market (that no organization, despite claims to the contrary, controls) and the subsequent and inevitable weakening of the nation-state changed that. It substituted market values for ideological or political values and insurgencies are quickly changing to reflect that. For example:
* A group is only successful, long term, if it can consistently generate wealth (as in: enjoy economic success).
* Dynamism, resilience, and flexibility are prized over size, rigidness, and purity.
* Alliances, cooperation, and interconnectedness is better than "go it alone" or rabidly competitive approaches.
The Impact on Organizations
This "switch" also means that control of the nation-state became is nearly useless in an environment where success was only generated by competition within a global market system at a local level. As a result, modern or 21st Century guerrilla movements/insurgencies increasingly don't put ideology or politics first (although there are some high profile hold-outs, reversals such as al Qaeda suffered in Iraq demonstrate that an inability to invert goals is the path to failure). Increasingly, they put economics first, or more specifically: they focus on the ability of the group and its members to generate wealth. They do this through the integration of their military capability with production centers and supply routes that power the multi-trillion dollar flows of Black Globalization. This connection provides them with the ability to:
* Grow Support. Become competitive with the state in an ability to generate wealth (and everything that economic advantage implies: from services to security) for supporters. This is a competition for legitimacy and nation-state are increasingly losing that competition.
* Grow Operations. Grow operations through the development of business operations that enable ever greater wealth. Contrast this to the spiraling deficits and (soon) cuts in security budgets at the nation-state level.
* Gain Efficiency and Productivity. Financial success enables these groups to efficiently expand operations through dynamic market operations that enable the rapid purchase of everything from assassinations to IED attacks. This not only vastly expands the pool of participants, it enables specialization and rapid innovation.
It should be apparent that "the switch" to economic agendas in combination with decentralized organizational structures makes modern guerrillas much more dangerous than ever in history. While 9/11 demonstrated the growing leverage (in an ability to do harm) of small groups and Iraq/Afghanistan the power of doggedness of decentralized organizations, this depression will demonstrate the strength of economically driven operations. Barring a major and unforeseen redux in how nation-states operate, we might see the world look like Swiss cheese by early in the next decade: as in, most nation-states riddled with ungoverned spaces/holes in their territory, lost to insurgent groups.
* A group is only successful, long term, if it can consistently generate wealth (as in: enjoy economic success).
* Dynamism, resilience, and flexibility are prized over size, rigidness, and purity.
* Alliances, cooperation, and interconnectedness is better than "go it alone" or rabidly competitive approaches.
The Impact on Organizations
This "switch" also means that control of the nation-state became is nearly useless in an environment where success was only generated by competition within a global market system at a local level. As a result, modern or 21st Century guerrilla movements/insurgencies increasingly don't put ideology or politics first (although there are some high profile hold-outs, reversals such as al Qaeda suffered in Iraq demonstrate that an inability to invert goals is the path to failure). Increasingly, they put economics first, or more specifically: they focus on the ability of the group and its members to generate wealth. They do this through the integration of their military capability with production centers and supply routes that power the multi-trillion dollar flows of Black Globalization. This connection provides them with the ability to:
* Grow Support. Become competitive with the state in an ability to generate wealth (and everything that economic advantage implies: from services to security) for supporters. This is a competition for legitimacy and nation-state are increasingly losing that competition.
* Grow Operations. Grow operations through the development of business operations that enable ever greater wealth. Contrast this to the spiraling deficits and (soon) cuts in security budgets at the nation-state level.
* Gain Efficiency and Productivity. Financial success enables these groups to efficiently expand operations through dynamic market operations that enable the rapid purchase of everything from assassinations to IED attacks. This not only vastly expands the pool of participants, it enables specialization and rapid innovation.
It should be apparent that "the switch" to economic agendas in combination with decentralized organizational structures makes modern guerrillas much more dangerous than ever in history. While 9/11 demonstrated the growing leverage (in an ability to do harm) of small groups and Iraq/Afghanistan the power of doggedness of decentralized organizations, this depression will demonstrate the strength of economically driven operations. Barring a major and unforeseen redux in how nation-states operate, we might see the world look like Swiss cheese by early in the next decade: as in, most nation-states riddled with ungoverned spaces/holes in their territory, lost to insurgent groups.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Obama National Security Transition Leader Close to Petraeus by Jeff Stein
Sarah Sewell may be coming to Washington from the lofty yards of Harvard, but she's well known in the capital's military corridors of power.
The Obama transition team yesterday named Sewell, on the faculty of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the university's Kennedy School of Government, as a team leader for the change of personnel at national security agencies.
But Sewell, a former Pentagon official in the Clinton administration, is also a close associate of Gen. David H. Petraeus, credited with turning around the situation in Iraq, mainly by crafting an alliance with Sunni tribal leaders against al Qaeda in Iraq, known as the Awakening.
In fact, Sewell forged a Pentagon-Harvard partnership that led to the creation of a new counterinsurgency doctrine, not just in Iraq, but other regions fighting off insurgencies.
To top off the program, she wrote the introduction to its defining project, the celebrated Counterinsurgency Field Manual, whose Forward was written by none other than Petraeus.
"The Sewell foreword ... really rocks," wrote one fan, military analyst Thomas Barnett wrote.
Sewell emphasized how the accidental deaths of civilians, a regular occurrence lately in Afghanistan, can set back U.S. counterinsurgency efforts.
"If one innocent civilian is killed it diminishes the goodwill of a whole family, a community, and a tribe," she wrote.
And it helps the enemy recruit.
"In this context killing the civilian is no longer just collateral damage. The harm cannot be easily dismissed as unintended. Civilian casualties tangibly undermine the counterinsurgent's goals."
Whatever one's take on her forward, Sewell's appointment suggests that Petraeus, now CENTCOM commander, is going to be around for a long while.
The Obama transition team yesterday named Sewell, on the faculty of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the university's Kennedy School of Government, as a team leader for the change of personnel at national security agencies.
But Sewell, a former Pentagon official in the Clinton administration, is also a close associate of Gen. David H. Petraeus, credited with turning around the situation in Iraq, mainly by crafting an alliance with Sunni tribal leaders against al Qaeda in Iraq, known as the Awakening.
In fact, Sewell forged a Pentagon-Harvard partnership that led to the creation of a new counterinsurgency doctrine, not just in Iraq, but other regions fighting off insurgencies.
To top off the program, she wrote the introduction to its defining project, the celebrated Counterinsurgency Field Manual, whose Forward was written by none other than Petraeus.
"The Sewell foreword ... really rocks," wrote one fan, military analyst Thomas Barnett wrote.
Sewell emphasized how the accidental deaths of civilians, a regular occurrence lately in Afghanistan, can set back U.S. counterinsurgency efforts.
"If one innocent civilian is killed it diminishes the goodwill of a whole family, a community, and a tribe," she wrote.
And it helps the enemy recruit.
"In this context killing the civilian is no longer just collateral damage. The harm cannot be easily dismissed as unintended. Civilian casualties tangibly undermine the counterinsurgent's goals."
Whatever one's take on her forward, Sewell's appointment suggests that Petraeus, now CENTCOM commander, is going to be around for a long while.
Al-Qaida's Budget Slips through Cracks by Robert Windrem and Garreet Haake
Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence officials believe they've won many small victories against al-Qaida's ability to finance its operations, but they remain unable to put a concrete dollar figure on their impact.
That's because they have no reliable estimate of al-Qaida's overall budget, according to current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials, which means the only measures of the organization's economic health are sporadic, anecdotal and fragmentary.
"When you see a cell complaining that it hasn't received its monthly or biannual stipend and it's unable to pay the salaries of the people in the cell, unable to make the support payments to the families of terrorists living or dead, that's a tremendous indicator we have pressured the financial channel," said Adam Szubin, the director of the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and the man in charge of tracking terrorist finance.
Intelligence agencies scan phone conversations, e-mails, fax transmissions and instant message traffic for hints they have thwarted the flow of money to al-Qaida and other jihadist groups. But they are unable to get a firmer grasp on the overall state of terrorist finances, in part, because of the nature of most operations.
"Terrorism is unfortunately not a rich man's sport," said a former OFAC official, meaning that it does not take a lot of money to carry out a major attack. Tracking those small numbers in the vast sea of global financial transactions is difficult.
Cost Differentials
An NBC News analysis of attacks by al-Qaida and other Sunni extremist groups shows that only one cost as much as $500,000 — the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. But others, like the 2005 attack on the London transit system or the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, cost less than $15,000 to carry out.
At the bottom end of the scale, the simplest first-generation suicide bombs constructed by the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, consisting of duffle bags filled with black powder from unexploded Israeli land mines and ignition switches from abandoned cars, cost no more than $200.
The money also is difficult to track because terrorists do not use the world financial system as extensively as they once did, due partly to U.S. success in cracking down on it.
"Part of it is that the U.S. is sitting on the international banking system," said Roger Cressey, deputy counter terrorism chief in the Clinton and Bush administrations and now an NBC News analyst.
The United States has sponsored a U.N. terrorism funding blacklist, which requires all member states to freeze the assets and impose an international travel ban on people and entities placed on the list.
No one wants to be placed on the U.N. list of 503 people and entities or OFAC's 404-page list of "Specially Designated Nationals," a voluminous compilation of everyone from Cuban tourist agents to Osama bin Laden. Officials said they have intelligence — gathered from electronic eavesdropping — of prospective donors expressing concern about giving money to a charity or other entity that's been listed.
"You'll hear them say 'I'm not giving money anymore to X, they've been listed'," said one official.
Lately, cracks have developed in the list, as legal challenges mount and political support drops, especially in Europe. But Szubin believes the splits are overblown and that European allies will succeed in maintaining the system.
Figure 'Totally Made Up'
Despite the anecdotal successes Szubin cites, U.S. estimates of al-Qaida's budget are rife with problems, according to Richard Clarke, former boss of the White House counterterrorism office.
In 2003, the United States estimated that al-Qaida's budget before the Sept. 11 attacks was $35 million and that it fell to $5 million just two years after the attacks. Those numbers were repeated in the final report of the 9/11 Commission.
"That number was totally made up, totally made up," Clarke said of the $35 million figure.
Clarke explained the figure was based on limited real information. "I don't think there is an integrated budget. In U.S. business parlance, there are 'cost centers', but not an integrated budget," he said.
Even the most cited official measure, OFAC's annual tally of blocked al-Qaida assets, is by Szubin's own admission irrelevant to understanding the state of terrorist financing and the success of U.S. efforts.
OFAC's most recent report, issued in early October, lists $11.324 million in blocked al-Qaida assets, predominantly financial instruments. That number is up from $7.7 million the year before, mainly due to an increase in the number of people and organizations designated by Treasury as terrorists.
"Some have mistakenly drawn on figures of blocked assets as we summarized in our report," Szubin said. "There is a hunger for data and these are numbers, but we try to put a major caveat there and say we don't view these numbers as an indicator of the pressure we're putting on terrorist groups."
Clarke said the best indicator, beyond real-time intelligence gathering, is often the data found in laptops, documents, notebooks and calendars taken after a successful raid or arrest.
"When they do get a cell, you can grab financial documents and do an analysis, go back and find out how they moved their money and then move in on them," Clarke said.
That way, he said, you get a sense of what means they are using to move money and then can try to stanch the flow in the future. But because of al-Qaida's compartmentalization, it doesn't provide a good picture of the organization's financial health.
Turn to Crime for Funding
One thing analysts are sure about is that al-Qaida and other terrorism organizations are continuing to get money from somewhere, even if many of the international channels have been closed. Officials believe one of the biggest sources of money is simply "self funding," making money off legitimate businesses or crime.
"One pattern we've seen in southern Europe is counterfeiting, not of currency, but goods, travel documents, a skill you would expect a jihadi cell to have," Szubin said.
U.S. intelligence also has seen jihadis engaged in carjackings and theft. In North Africa, they are making a lot of money off the drug trade, not as primary suppliers or movers, but extorting suppliers or moves. "They will take a cut," Szubin said.
Some major drug dealers may have been helping as well.
Among those on the U.S. list is Dawood Ibrahim, an Indian underworld figure believed responsible for the 1993 terrorist attacks in Bombay that killed more than 250 people suspected of running one of south Asia's most effective heroin smuggling rings. Now, al-Qaida is using the same routes to smuggle cash, the Treasury said.
"Ibrahim's syndicate is involved in large-scale shipments of narcotics in the U.K. and Western Europe," according to a Treasury Department intelligence report.
"The syndicate's smuggling routes from South Asia, the Middle East and Africa are shared with bin Laden and his terrorist network. Successful routes established over recent years by Ibrahim's syndicate have been subsequently utilized by bin Laden. A financial arrangement was reportedly brokered to facilitate the latter's usage of these routes," the report stated.
Al-Qaida also has taken to using one of the most basic means of moving money: carrying it around in suitcases, briefcases and bags using trusted couriers.
While the United States claims to be making an effort to thwart cash couriers, Clarke said there is a cultural problem.
"In the Middle East, people do carry millions around in briefcases," he said. "It doesn't mean they're terrorists. It's just part of their culture, tradition."
'Fooling Ourselves'
Michael Sheehan, former director of counterterrorism at the New York Police Department, believes that while there is a continuing need to push down hard on terrorism financiers, a lack of money is not going to deter attacks.
"You have to do it, you can't leave it unfettered, but it's never going to be determinative factor," said Sheehan, now an NBC analyst.
"Terrorists are always bitching about money. For two years before the 1998 embassy attacks, they bitched about money. Terrorists bitch about money the way soldiers bitch about the chow, but that doesn't mean the soldiers aren't going to fight or the terrorists aren't going to attack," Sheehan said.
More important and more difficult to shut down, according to Sheehan, is the funding by Saudi and other Gulf States of Islamic schools (the madrassas) and “charities” in Pakistan, “which may not be directly involved in terrorism but stir it all up.”
Former Congressman Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), a member of the 9/11 Commission and someone likely to have an intelligence role in the incoming Obama administration, agreed with Sheehan.
"We are only fooling ourselves if we think that financial action alone, or any other counterterrorism tool used in isolation, is sufficient to cripple al-Qaida," Roemer said.
"Terrorist groups sustain themselves not only through force of arms, but by rooting themselves in a variety of social and political factors in their host societies. Disrupting their cash flow is simply one tool among many other political, diplomatic and military tools that must be applied in combination to successfully destroy al-Qaida," Roemer said.
That's because they have no reliable estimate of al-Qaida's overall budget, according to current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials, which means the only measures of the organization's economic health are sporadic, anecdotal and fragmentary.
"When you see a cell complaining that it hasn't received its monthly or biannual stipend and it's unable to pay the salaries of the people in the cell, unable to make the support payments to the families of terrorists living or dead, that's a tremendous indicator we have pressured the financial channel," said Adam Szubin, the director of the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and the man in charge of tracking terrorist finance.
Intelligence agencies scan phone conversations, e-mails, fax transmissions and instant message traffic for hints they have thwarted the flow of money to al-Qaida and other jihadist groups. But they are unable to get a firmer grasp on the overall state of terrorist finances, in part, because of the nature of most operations.
"Terrorism is unfortunately not a rich man's sport," said a former OFAC official, meaning that it does not take a lot of money to carry out a major attack. Tracking those small numbers in the vast sea of global financial transactions is difficult.
Cost Differentials
An NBC News analysis of attacks by al-Qaida and other Sunni extremist groups shows that only one cost as much as $500,000 — the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. But others, like the 2005 attack on the London transit system or the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, cost less than $15,000 to carry out.
At the bottom end of the scale, the simplest first-generation suicide bombs constructed by the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, consisting of duffle bags filled with black powder from unexploded Israeli land mines and ignition switches from abandoned cars, cost no more than $200.
The money also is difficult to track because terrorists do not use the world financial system as extensively as they once did, due partly to U.S. success in cracking down on it.
"Part of it is that the U.S. is sitting on the international banking system," said Roger Cressey, deputy counter terrorism chief in the Clinton and Bush administrations and now an NBC News analyst.
The United States has sponsored a U.N. terrorism funding blacklist, which requires all member states to freeze the assets and impose an international travel ban on people and entities placed on the list.
No one wants to be placed on the U.N. list of 503 people and entities or OFAC's 404-page list of "Specially Designated Nationals," a voluminous compilation of everyone from Cuban tourist agents to Osama bin Laden. Officials said they have intelligence — gathered from electronic eavesdropping — of prospective donors expressing concern about giving money to a charity or other entity that's been listed.
"You'll hear them say 'I'm not giving money anymore to X, they've been listed'," said one official.
Lately, cracks have developed in the list, as legal challenges mount and political support drops, especially in Europe. But Szubin believes the splits are overblown and that European allies will succeed in maintaining the system.
Figure 'Totally Made Up'
Despite the anecdotal successes Szubin cites, U.S. estimates of al-Qaida's budget are rife with problems, according to Richard Clarke, former boss of the White House counterterrorism office.
In 2003, the United States estimated that al-Qaida's budget before the Sept. 11 attacks was $35 million and that it fell to $5 million just two years after the attacks. Those numbers were repeated in the final report of the 9/11 Commission.
"That number was totally made up, totally made up," Clarke said of the $35 million figure.
Clarke explained the figure was based on limited real information. "I don't think there is an integrated budget. In U.S. business parlance, there are 'cost centers', but not an integrated budget," he said.
Even the most cited official measure, OFAC's annual tally of blocked al-Qaida assets, is by Szubin's own admission irrelevant to understanding the state of terrorist financing and the success of U.S. efforts.
OFAC's most recent report, issued in early October, lists $11.324 million in blocked al-Qaida assets, predominantly financial instruments. That number is up from $7.7 million the year before, mainly due to an increase in the number of people and organizations designated by Treasury as terrorists.
"Some have mistakenly drawn on figures of blocked assets as we summarized in our report," Szubin said. "There is a hunger for data and these are numbers, but we try to put a major caveat there and say we don't view these numbers as an indicator of the pressure we're putting on terrorist groups."
Clarke said the best indicator, beyond real-time intelligence gathering, is often the data found in laptops, documents, notebooks and calendars taken after a successful raid or arrest.
"When they do get a cell, you can grab financial documents and do an analysis, go back and find out how they moved their money and then move in on them," Clarke said.
That way, he said, you get a sense of what means they are using to move money and then can try to stanch the flow in the future. But because of al-Qaida's compartmentalization, it doesn't provide a good picture of the organization's financial health.
Turn to Crime for Funding
One thing analysts are sure about is that al-Qaida and other terrorism organizations are continuing to get money from somewhere, even if many of the international channels have been closed. Officials believe one of the biggest sources of money is simply "self funding," making money off legitimate businesses or crime.
"One pattern we've seen in southern Europe is counterfeiting, not of currency, but goods, travel documents, a skill you would expect a jihadi cell to have," Szubin said.
U.S. intelligence also has seen jihadis engaged in carjackings and theft. In North Africa, they are making a lot of money off the drug trade, not as primary suppliers or movers, but extorting suppliers or moves. "They will take a cut," Szubin said.
Some major drug dealers may have been helping as well.
Among those on the U.S. list is Dawood Ibrahim, an Indian underworld figure believed responsible for the 1993 terrorist attacks in Bombay that killed more than 250 people suspected of running one of south Asia's most effective heroin smuggling rings. Now, al-Qaida is using the same routes to smuggle cash, the Treasury said.
"Ibrahim's syndicate is involved in large-scale shipments of narcotics in the U.K. and Western Europe," according to a Treasury Department intelligence report.
"The syndicate's smuggling routes from South Asia, the Middle East and Africa are shared with bin Laden and his terrorist network. Successful routes established over recent years by Ibrahim's syndicate have been subsequently utilized by bin Laden. A financial arrangement was reportedly brokered to facilitate the latter's usage of these routes," the report stated.
Al-Qaida also has taken to using one of the most basic means of moving money: carrying it around in suitcases, briefcases and bags using trusted couriers.
While the United States claims to be making an effort to thwart cash couriers, Clarke said there is a cultural problem.
"In the Middle East, people do carry millions around in briefcases," he said. "It doesn't mean they're terrorists. It's just part of their culture, tradition."
'Fooling Ourselves'
Michael Sheehan, former director of counterterrorism at the New York Police Department, believes that while there is a continuing need to push down hard on terrorism financiers, a lack of money is not going to deter attacks.
"You have to do it, you can't leave it unfettered, but it's never going to be determinative factor," said Sheehan, now an NBC analyst.
"Terrorists are always bitching about money. For two years before the 1998 embassy attacks, they bitched about money. Terrorists bitch about money the way soldiers bitch about the chow, but that doesn't mean the soldiers aren't going to fight or the terrorists aren't going to attack," Sheehan said.
More important and more difficult to shut down, according to Sheehan, is the funding by Saudi and other Gulf States of Islamic schools (the madrassas) and “charities” in Pakistan, “which may not be directly involved in terrorism but stir it all up.”
Former Congressman Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), a member of the 9/11 Commission and someone likely to have an intelligence role in the incoming Obama administration, agreed with Sheehan.
"We are only fooling ourselves if we think that financial action alone, or any other counterterrorism tool used in isolation, is sufficient to cripple al-Qaida," Roemer said.
"Terrorist groups sustain themselves not only through force of arms, but by rooting themselves in a variety of social and political factors in their host societies. Disrupting their cash flow is simply one tool among many other political, diplomatic and military tools that must be applied in combination to successfully destroy al-Qaida," Roemer said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)