Many American political analysts think that the problem the new American administration faces in Yemen relates mainly to the fate of the 100 Yemeni detainees presently incarcerated in Guantanamo. Their homeland cannot guarantee that these individuals, if repatriated, will not become a renewed terrorist threat to America and others. In reality, Yemen’s inability to deal effectively with this problem is just a small symptom of a much larger problem that faces President Obama and the West: Yemen’s near future will undoubtedly witness a bloody resolution to the problem of the undemocratic nature of the present regime. The regional repercussions of this unavoidable event could be uncontrolled and widespread.
The regime that has held power in Yemen for over 30 years presents itself as democratic, yet Yemeni democracy has produced the same president in every election since July 17, 1978 (al-Hisbah, May 30, 2007). Although the constitution of Yemen sets a limit of two terms for a president, Ali Abdullah Saleh easily amends the constitution and resets the meter to start from zero every time his term reaches its end (Al-Hiwar, February 25). It now appears that Saleh is grooming his son to succeed him when his current term expires in 2013. There is a belief held by some in Yemen that the policies and actions of the president have contributed to the development of an effective armed opposition (Aram, April 28). In consequence, President Saleh faces five major threats to his country’s stability (Sawt-Al-Yaman, December 2008):
• The Secessionist movement in the South: Saleh’s Yemen did not always include the socialist South, which was independent until 1990. After a political unification, the leader of the South, Ali Salem al-Bied, was subjected to a series of calculated acts on the part of Saleh designed to marginalize him and his constituency, and to basically create a vassal state in the South (Yemen Times, May 26, 2003). This met with resistance, to which Saleh’s reaction was an invasion of the south under the slogan “Unity or Death!” (Aleshteraki.net, March 31, 2008). After many deaths, Saleh won that war and achieved unity through military occupation. In his haste to neutralize the remaining southern forces, he disbanded both the southern army and security forces, sending more than 60,000 men in arms packing and many jobless (Aleshteraki.net, April 6, 2008). This, of course, created a large reserve of anti-Saleh militants who were without positions but not without means. Over the course of the last 18 years, these people have reorganized themselves and now present a major threat to the “unity” of Yemen.
• The Houthi Insurgency in the North: The Zaydi Shiite “Believing Youth” movement of northern Yemen was originally an organization supported as well as exploited by Saleh, who used it as a check against the spread of the Salafist movement in the North. Others, more cynically, suggested it was a means of occupying the energies of his cousin, Ali Muhsin al-Ahmar, the most powerful military man in Yemen (Al-Arabiya, April 7, 2007, Nashwannews, May 11). This organization, however, grew out of its intended role and assumed its own agenda, holding its own in five rounds of serious armed conflict against Saleh (Nashwannews, May 11). A sixth round is not an unlikely event at this point, but it could very well spread from the provincial environment to larger areas, including even the capital of San’a (Alahali, April 7). The insurgency is named after the late Shi’a cleric Hussein al-Houthi, who led the Believing Youth’s first major military campaign against San’a in 2004.
• Al-Qaeda and other militant Jihadist groups: The recent announcement by al-Qaeda’s leader in Yemen, Nasir al-Wuhayshi that he is throwing his support behind the secessionist movement in the South received little approval in the jihadi forums (Alboraq, May 2009). Some political analysts believe the statement is an indication that Saleh is “engaging in dangerous games with the terrorists” (Al-Majalis, January 28). Al-Wuhayshi (transferred to Yemen by Iran in 2003) was one of the 23 al-Qaeda prisoners who “escaped” from a well-guarded Yemeni jail in 2006 (al-Jazeera, January 26). Since a public pronouncement of political support like this is not common al-Qaeda practice, it appears to be a transparent and manipulative act designed to mislead someone. The secessionist movement being socialist and secular, there is no apparent reason for al-Qaeda support to suddenly materialize.
Regional observers may conclude that none other than Saleh’s political agents arranged the statement of support, using al-Qaeda operatives who owe him favors to create a political theater that can be presented to the West (al-Jazeera, May 14). The goal, of course, is to have the South aligned with inimical forces so they can be discredited by a gain in defensive allies for Saleh’s regime. But this dangerous game could lead to actual war crimes being committed against Southern secessionist leaders, all in the name of “fighting terror” (Marebpress, May 3).
• Popular grievances and grassroots movements: The U.S. Justice Department recently indicted Latin Node Communications Company, an American contractor accused of bribing one of President Saleh’s sons and members of the Ministry of Telecommunications (Yemen Post, May 20). Latin Node eventually entered a guilty plea. [1]
The news immediately plastered the front pages in Yemen, causing President Saleh to shut down eight independent newspapers, claiming they were guilty of “anti-unity” conduct. The origin of this retribution against the press is as follows: Saleh appointed a whole generation of his family members to high positions in the military and the government, placing them in control of the government’s foreign investments committee (Bilakoyood, April 10; Al-Masdar, April 14). These individuals, including his son, Ahmad Ali Abdullah Saleh, were charged with profiting from corrupt practices that used foreign investments for private gain by running fairly primitive “protection scams” wherein they were bribed to not do damage (Al-Masdar, April 28). While the president’s son was cleared by the U.S. Justice Department, the general public in Yemen is not fooled by these corrupt practices, and as poverty levels and unemployment soar (both at 35% of the population) public resentment soars as well (Yemen Times, December 20, 2007; Yemen Post, April 25; May 7). The state of corruption in Yemen is not lost on the average citizen of Yemen who sees $80,000 Rolls Royce and Porsche automobiles being driven around the capital by clerks and mid-level personnel while he or she is commonly found standing in the bread line (Alhadath Yemen, April 24). The result has been a generalized and ever present anger within the population that could be galvanized in a form of an uprising, should some precipitating event come along.
• Conflicts within the regime: Even within the regime, there are high-ranking members of the military or the ruling General People’s Congress party who prefer their own candidacy for president to that of Saleh’s son, Ahmad Ali Abdullah Saleh, leader of Yemen’s Republican Guards and the Anti-Terrorism Special Forces. Many of these top officials are family members appointed by Saleh. Over the last decade a series of car accidents, helicopter crashes and illnesses have claimed the lives of many figures in Saleh’s inner circle (Hadramut.net, March 3, 2006; Marebpress, April 30, 2008; Yemen Times, May 24). The frequency of fatal car crashes involving regime members and opposition figures (even in a country where 1,000 road fatalities a month is not uncommon) is a matter of public comment and has led to anxiety at the highest levels of the national leadership (Marebpress, April 30, 2008).
Conclusion
The policies and actions of the Saleh Regime have, in the course of 31 years, led to a critical situation that can be resolved by the Yemeni people only if Saleh is not supported by outside forces. A factor that does not often find its way into the press in this country—that the ordinary Yemeni citizen is armed—is of enormous importance in assessing the near future of Yemen. Among a population of 22 million, there are between 40 to 50 million weapons (al-Sharq al-Awsat, January 9, 2007). No matter who supports or opposes Saleh, he still lives in the middle of an armed camp. Saleh’s hope is that his son takes over for him, not simply to consolidate power within his family, but also to prevent the opening of countless files about the methods used to ensure his 31 years in control. In the meantime he may find that the many armed camps within Yemen are unwilling to agree to this plan.
Notes:
1. “Latin Node Inc., Pleads Guilty to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Violation and Agrees to Pay $2 Million Criminal Fine,” usdoj.gov. April 7, 2009; Department of Justice Press Release, Miami.fbi.gov., April 7, 2009.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Indian Army Reacts to the Taliban Threat by Animesh Roul
For India’s military, the Taliban is a threat looming large on the horizon. The perception of the Taliban making inroads to India has increased since December 2008, when Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) chief Baitullah Mahsud vowed to fight alongside the Pakistan army if a conflict broke out between India and Pakistan (The News [Islamabad], December 23, 2008; see Terrorism Focus, December 12, 2008). The verbal threat has since been underlined by the Taliban’s eastward movement inside Pakistan, from its bases in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) to the city of Lahore, close to the Indian border in Pakistan’s Punjab province (India has its own, smaller Punjab province on the other side of the boundary). The advance on Lahore was marked initially by the Manawan police academy siege just outside of Lahore on March 30, in which 8 policemen were killed and 95 wounded, and more recently by the May 27 suicide bombing of the Lahore headquarters of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (The News, May 28; Geo News, May 28). Manawan is strikingly close to the international border with India; hence the fear of the Taliban reaching India through the Wagah border drew enormous public and military attention at the time. These fears are now reinforced by the Taliban bombing in Lahore.
Particularly worrisome were the conversations intercepted by India’s intelligence services between Lashkar-e-Taiba militants in Jammu and Kashmir that gave hints of a Taliban presence inside Kashmir. [1] TTP spokesman Muslim Khan refuted the reports but said if the Taliban ever decided to fight the Indians in Kashmir, no power on earth could stop them (Greater Kashmir, April 20).
Amidst these developments, speculations are rife about the possible impact of the Taliban’s growing strength on India’s security. Fears are being expressed by political and military elites about a potential Taliban incursion into Indian territory in the near future. Similarly, anxiety over a “nuclear-armed Taliban” in the event it takes over Pakistan’s nuclear installations and missile arsenal also dominates the security discourse in India. Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor has expressed his concerns with the growing number of warheads being developed by Pakistan: "Even if Pakistan is looking at deterrence, they require a minimum amount. But when you keep increasing [the number of warheads], it is a matter of concern....I think the world community should put the kind of pressure that is required for Pakistan to cap their nuclear weapons” (Sify.com, May 29).
The issue of the Taliban turned political in the recent parliamentary elections in India. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh drew attention to the possibility of a Taliban attack during the elections. He was overtly critical of Pakistan’s peace deal with the Taliban in Swat in light of recent military aid to Pakistan. According to Singh, New Delhi has no problems with economic aid for building schools, roads and hospitals in Pakistan, but is concerned with military aid that has been used against India in the past (Indo Asian News Service, April 20). The opposition right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) called the Taliban’s advance in Pakistan a threat to India’s national security, calling for better counterterrorism mechanisms to be put in place (Indo Asian News Service, April 25).
At the time of the Manawan police academy siege by Taliban militants, the Indian army second-in-command, Lieutenant General Noble Thamburaj, responded to the threat cautiously, though asserting that the army would thwart any jihadi spill-over (Times of India, March 31). General Deepak Kapoor denounced the impending threat of the Taliban and noted that any attempt by terrorists to infiltrate the border would be met by a three-tier defensive system (Rediff.com, January 31; Indo-Asian News Service, April 14, NDTV India, April 14).
With over 1 million active-service personnel and 1.8 million reserves, the Indian Army has 13 corps organized under six operational commands and one training command. Of these, eight corps and three commands (Western, Northern and South-Western) are specifically dedicated to countering the Pakistani military (Daily Times, Lahore, May 27).
Any Indian military response to a Taliban threat from Pakistan would take place within the context of India’s “Cold Start” military doctrine, implemented in early 2004. By creating eight Integrated Battle Groups deployed close to the border, “Cold Start” significantly decreases the mobilization time needed by full strike corps while providing for rapid pursuit of enemy forces and penetration of enemy territory without the old emphasis on holding ground (Daily Times, May 27). By design, penetration efforts would be shallow in depth in order to avoid crossing various “nuclear-response red-lines” set by Islamabad. Indian Army operations would be closely supported by the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy where possible (Friday Times [Lahore], December 19-25, 2008).
The “Cold Start” doctrine was devised in response to the slow mobilization of the Indian Army and the hesitation of its command structure in “Operation Parakram” (Operation Victory), the Indian Army’s reaction to the December 2001 attack by Pakistani militants on the Parliament buildings in New Delhi. In short, the Indian plan “seems to be aimed at inflicting significant military reverses on the Pakistan Army in a limited war scenario short of a nuclear war”. [2]
In the midst of India’s Taliban anxiety, former Chief of Army Staff Shankar Roychowdhury wrote a column in a leading daily urging India to “recognize the Taliban threat” as far as India’s national security is concerned but cautioned India’s leaders and media “not to hype it” beyond a certain point (Asian Age, May 5). He warned that the Taliban could create an “existential threat” to India if they succeeded in seizing power in Pakistan through a radicalized government under their control. He also noted the threat of “nuclearization of jihad” in this scenario cannot be ignored and demands serious attention from the security establishment.
Brahma Singh, a retired Army officer and commentator claimed that the Taliban is the real threat to India, urging the security establishment and the political leadership to “recognize the inevitability of a confrontation with the state-sponsored Taliban sooner rather than later” (MeriNews, May 8).
Following the Manawan incident, reports from border areas of Indian Punjab indicated that civilians had begun to feel insecure following the Taliban’s advance into that region. There are growing fears that Punjab’s own jihadi groups are now aiding the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in carrying out bombings and other operations close to the Indian border in Pakistani Punjab (Dawn [Karachi], May 24). Recognizing the people’s apprehensions about the geographical spread and the emergence of the Taliban forces as a grave security threat, the Indian military has just finished an exercise code named Hind Shakti to check the operational readiness of its elite Kharga Corps in southwest Punjab (India Today, May 6).
The Ambala-based II “Kharga” Corps is one of the Indian Army’s two designated “strike corps.” It consists of two infantry divisions (including one Reorganized Army Plains Infantry Division - RAPID), a division and independent brigade of armor and a brigade of engineers.
Hind Shakti was a three-day exercise carried out in the Punjab plains (about 100 km from the Pakistan border) beginning on May 3. It involved India’s “premier corps” conducting what the Indian Army described as a “blitzkrieg type armored incursion, emphasizing rapid penetration into enemy territory.” The exercise included “intensive electronic and information warfare” and the coordinated use of a wide variety of intelligence and surveillance equipment, including satellites, helicopter-borne systems, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and ground-based surveillance systems. The exercise began with a massed mechanized attack, followed by a parachute drop by airborne troops and the insertion of assault troops by helicopter (Indian Ministry of Defence, Press Information Bureau, Statements of May 3; May 6).
The three day operational exercise at the Indo-Pakistan border was aimed at any Taliban or al-Qaeda threat emanating from Pakistan as well as serving as a confidence-building measure for a worried population.
Notes:
1. For the full transcript of the intercepted conversation, see, “Taliban men sneak into J&K,” NDTV, April 7, www.ndtv.com/news/india/taliban_men_sneak_into_jk_ndtv_reports.php.
2. See Subhash Kapila, “Indian Army’s New ‘Cold Start’ War Doctrine Strategically Reviewed, Part 1, South Asia Analysis Group Paper no. 991, May 4, 2004; Part 2, SAAG Paper no. 1013, June 1, 2004.
Particularly worrisome were the conversations intercepted by India’s intelligence services between Lashkar-e-Taiba militants in Jammu and Kashmir that gave hints of a Taliban presence inside Kashmir. [1] TTP spokesman Muslim Khan refuted the reports but said if the Taliban ever decided to fight the Indians in Kashmir, no power on earth could stop them (Greater Kashmir, April 20).
Amidst these developments, speculations are rife about the possible impact of the Taliban’s growing strength on India’s security. Fears are being expressed by political and military elites about a potential Taliban incursion into Indian territory in the near future. Similarly, anxiety over a “nuclear-armed Taliban” in the event it takes over Pakistan’s nuclear installations and missile arsenal also dominates the security discourse in India. Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor has expressed his concerns with the growing number of warheads being developed by Pakistan: "Even if Pakistan is looking at deterrence, they require a minimum amount. But when you keep increasing [the number of warheads], it is a matter of concern....I think the world community should put the kind of pressure that is required for Pakistan to cap their nuclear weapons” (Sify.com, May 29).
The issue of the Taliban turned political in the recent parliamentary elections in India. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh drew attention to the possibility of a Taliban attack during the elections. He was overtly critical of Pakistan’s peace deal with the Taliban in Swat in light of recent military aid to Pakistan. According to Singh, New Delhi has no problems with economic aid for building schools, roads and hospitals in Pakistan, but is concerned with military aid that has been used against India in the past (Indo Asian News Service, April 20). The opposition right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) called the Taliban’s advance in Pakistan a threat to India’s national security, calling for better counterterrorism mechanisms to be put in place (Indo Asian News Service, April 25).
At the time of the Manawan police academy siege by Taliban militants, the Indian army second-in-command, Lieutenant General Noble Thamburaj, responded to the threat cautiously, though asserting that the army would thwart any jihadi spill-over (Times of India, March 31). General Deepak Kapoor denounced the impending threat of the Taliban and noted that any attempt by terrorists to infiltrate the border would be met by a three-tier defensive system (Rediff.com, January 31; Indo-Asian News Service, April 14, NDTV India, April 14).
With over 1 million active-service personnel and 1.8 million reserves, the Indian Army has 13 corps organized under six operational commands and one training command. Of these, eight corps and three commands (Western, Northern and South-Western) are specifically dedicated to countering the Pakistani military (Daily Times, Lahore, May 27).
Any Indian military response to a Taliban threat from Pakistan would take place within the context of India’s “Cold Start” military doctrine, implemented in early 2004. By creating eight Integrated Battle Groups deployed close to the border, “Cold Start” significantly decreases the mobilization time needed by full strike corps while providing for rapid pursuit of enemy forces and penetration of enemy territory without the old emphasis on holding ground (Daily Times, May 27). By design, penetration efforts would be shallow in depth in order to avoid crossing various “nuclear-response red-lines” set by Islamabad. Indian Army operations would be closely supported by the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy where possible (Friday Times [Lahore], December 19-25, 2008).
The “Cold Start” doctrine was devised in response to the slow mobilization of the Indian Army and the hesitation of its command structure in “Operation Parakram” (Operation Victory), the Indian Army’s reaction to the December 2001 attack by Pakistani militants on the Parliament buildings in New Delhi. In short, the Indian plan “seems to be aimed at inflicting significant military reverses on the Pakistan Army in a limited war scenario short of a nuclear war”. [2]
In the midst of India’s Taliban anxiety, former Chief of Army Staff Shankar Roychowdhury wrote a column in a leading daily urging India to “recognize the Taliban threat” as far as India’s national security is concerned but cautioned India’s leaders and media “not to hype it” beyond a certain point (Asian Age, May 5). He warned that the Taliban could create an “existential threat” to India if they succeeded in seizing power in Pakistan through a radicalized government under their control. He also noted the threat of “nuclearization of jihad” in this scenario cannot be ignored and demands serious attention from the security establishment.
Brahma Singh, a retired Army officer and commentator claimed that the Taliban is the real threat to India, urging the security establishment and the political leadership to “recognize the inevitability of a confrontation with the state-sponsored Taliban sooner rather than later” (MeriNews, May 8).
Following the Manawan incident, reports from border areas of Indian Punjab indicated that civilians had begun to feel insecure following the Taliban’s advance into that region. There are growing fears that Punjab’s own jihadi groups are now aiding the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in carrying out bombings and other operations close to the Indian border in Pakistani Punjab (Dawn [Karachi], May 24). Recognizing the people’s apprehensions about the geographical spread and the emergence of the Taliban forces as a grave security threat, the Indian military has just finished an exercise code named Hind Shakti to check the operational readiness of its elite Kharga Corps in southwest Punjab (India Today, May 6).
The Ambala-based II “Kharga” Corps is one of the Indian Army’s two designated “strike corps.” It consists of two infantry divisions (including one Reorganized Army Plains Infantry Division - RAPID), a division and independent brigade of armor and a brigade of engineers.
Hind Shakti was a three-day exercise carried out in the Punjab plains (about 100 km from the Pakistan border) beginning on May 3. It involved India’s “premier corps” conducting what the Indian Army described as a “blitzkrieg type armored incursion, emphasizing rapid penetration into enemy territory.” The exercise included “intensive electronic and information warfare” and the coordinated use of a wide variety of intelligence and surveillance equipment, including satellites, helicopter-borne systems, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and ground-based surveillance systems. The exercise began with a massed mechanized attack, followed by a parachute drop by airborne troops and the insertion of assault troops by helicopter (Indian Ministry of Defence, Press Information Bureau, Statements of May 3; May 6).
The three day operational exercise at the Indo-Pakistan border was aimed at any Taliban or al-Qaeda threat emanating from Pakistan as well as serving as a confidence-building measure for a worried population.
Notes:
1. For the full transcript of the intercepted conversation, see, “Taliban men sneak into J&K,” NDTV, April 7, www.ndtv.com/news/india/taliban_men_sneak_into_jk_ndtv_reports.php.
2. See Subhash Kapila, “Indian Army’s New ‘Cold Start’ War Doctrine Strategically Reviewed, Part 1, South Asia Analysis Group Paper no. 991, May 4, 2004; Part 2, SAAG Paper no. 1013, June 1, 2004.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Clinton Call on Obama's Speech Includes Jihad Advocate by IPT
On the eve of a Democratic primary election in Virginia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has handed a public relations bonanza to an Islamist candidate who has praised Palestinians for choosing "the jihad way" to liberation.
Esam Omeish is considered a dark-horse candidate in the Virginia House of Delegates District 35 race. The primary is Tuesday.
On Thursday, Clinton invited Omeish to participate in a national conference call to discuss President Obama's Cairo speech aimed at repairing America's image with Muslims. In that speech, Obama made clear demands for Hamas to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist:
"Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed."
and
"Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."
That's more than Omeish has been willing to do. In a 2000 speech given at a rally recorded by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Omeish congratulated Palestinians for choosing the jihad way and said "we are with you and we are supporting you and we will do everything that we can, Insh'Allah, to help your cause."
Two months earlier, Omeish said "we need to congratulate our brothers and sisters in Filastin (Palestine) for their bravery, for their giving up their lives for the sake of Allah and for the sake of Al-Aqsa."
The speeches came during the early stages of the second Palestinian uprising, this one called the Al Aqsa Intifada, which featured a series of deadly terrorist attacks against Israelis.
Omeish's words came back to bite him in 2007. He had just been appointed to a state immigration panel by Gov. Tim Kaine, but he was forced to resign shortly after when Kaine learned about the video. Omeish since has claimed his words were taken out of context and that the use of the word "jihad" was not a call for violence:
"It means emotional, intellectual as well as physical struggle. And I think it's important for us, if we want to engage the Muslim community, it's not to allow ourselves to define them but to allow them to define themselves for who they are."
As the IPT reported last month, the videos represent but two examples of Omeish extolling jihad, Hamas leaders or the need for a transformation in American culture to make it more compatible with Islam. In January of this year, lamenting U.S. refusal to join a United Nations resolution condemning Israel's war with Hamas, he called for:
"[A] real change within our community that embraces their identity as an American, but understand their mission in life is the values and the principles of Islam, which are compatible with their identity, and must understand that we cannot remain complacent. We cannot allow the status quo to continue. We need an American Islamic movement that transforms our status, that impacts our society, and that brings forth the change that we want to see."
Omeish's campaign website describes him as a community organizer, but makes no mention his years as president of the Muslim American Society, an organization founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. Nor has he addressed his controversial "jihad way" comments.
Omeish also served as a founding member and president of Georgetown University's Muslim Students Association (MAS) chapter. Like MAS, the MSA was created by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. Before becoming a candidate, Omeish insisted MAS no longer had Brotherhood connections.
But the campaign sprang into action Thursday afternoon, issuing a press release trumpeting Omeish's participation in Clinton's call. The release said that during the call, Omeish said:
"I want to express my resounding support of our President, we are proud of him, we are behind him and support him whole-heartedly. Muslim Americans represent America's great diversity and their engagement and involvement is one of the most focused parameters that the Muslim world uses to perceive America. The president outlined a 7 item agenda and action plan and I would like to add another item which is the domestic agenda: How can we increase the involvement of Muslim Americans and get them more involved ( i.e. facilitate their involvement and provide opportunity for that to happen)."
Pointing out his past statements, the release said, is an exercise by "my friends on the far right and even some of those in the media, that continue to try and distort my record and my name."
Given a chance to explain that by one news outlet, Omeish passed.
He did enjoy strong fund raising in the latest reporting period, which ended Friday. His campaign reported collecting more than $75,000 in contributions, which was the most of the four-candidate primary field. Most of the funds appear to have come from the area Muslim community.
Mark Keam, a former chief counsel for Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin on the Senate Judiciary Committee, raised nearly $62,000. Keam still has a comfortable financial advantage over the rest of the field after collecting $123,000 during the first quarter. Omeish lent his campaign $45,000 from his own pocket.
A Virginia delegate earns $17,640 per year.
In an editorial endorsing Keam, the Washington Post said Omeish says good things, but that his "jihad way" remarks "should be a disqualifier." Keam also won Virginia Congressman Gerry Connolly's endorsement. If elected, Keam would be the first Asian-American elected to the Virginia Assembly.
Omeish's hopes may rest on getting out the vote. While he doesn't talk about MAS, the organization is based in Northern Virginia and has an active political wing that registers voters and organizes turnout.
Esam Omeish is considered a dark-horse candidate in the Virginia House of Delegates District 35 race. The primary is Tuesday.
On Thursday, Clinton invited Omeish to participate in a national conference call to discuss President Obama's Cairo speech aimed at repairing America's image with Muslims. In that speech, Obama made clear demands for Hamas to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist:
"Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed."
and
"Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."
That's more than Omeish has been willing to do. In a 2000 speech given at a rally recorded by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Omeish congratulated Palestinians for choosing the jihad way and said "we are with you and we are supporting you and we will do everything that we can, Insh'Allah, to help your cause."
Two months earlier, Omeish said "we need to congratulate our brothers and sisters in Filastin (Palestine) for their bravery, for their giving up their lives for the sake of Allah and for the sake of Al-Aqsa."
The speeches came during the early stages of the second Palestinian uprising, this one called the Al Aqsa Intifada, which featured a series of deadly terrorist attacks against Israelis.
Omeish's words came back to bite him in 2007. He had just been appointed to a state immigration panel by Gov. Tim Kaine, but he was forced to resign shortly after when Kaine learned about the video. Omeish since has claimed his words were taken out of context and that the use of the word "jihad" was not a call for violence:
"It means emotional, intellectual as well as physical struggle. And I think it's important for us, if we want to engage the Muslim community, it's not to allow ourselves to define them but to allow them to define themselves for who they are."
As the IPT reported last month, the videos represent but two examples of Omeish extolling jihad, Hamas leaders or the need for a transformation in American culture to make it more compatible with Islam. In January of this year, lamenting U.S. refusal to join a United Nations resolution condemning Israel's war with Hamas, he called for:
"[A] real change within our community that embraces their identity as an American, but understand their mission in life is the values and the principles of Islam, which are compatible with their identity, and must understand that we cannot remain complacent. We cannot allow the status quo to continue. We need an American Islamic movement that transforms our status, that impacts our society, and that brings forth the change that we want to see."
Omeish's campaign website describes him as a community organizer, but makes no mention his years as president of the Muslim American Society, an organization founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. Nor has he addressed his controversial "jihad way" comments.
Omeish also served as a founding member and president of Georgetown University's Muslim Students Association (MAS) chapter. Like MAS, the MSA was created by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. Before becoming a candidate, Omeish insisted MAS no longer had Brotherhood connections.
But the campaign sprang into action Thursday afternoon, issuing a press release trumpeting Omeish's participation in Clinton's call. The release said that during the call, Omeish said:
"I want to express my resounding support of our President, we are proud of him, we are behind him and support him whole-heartedly. Muslim Americans represent America's great diversity and their engagement and involvement is one of the most focused parameters that the Muslim world uses to perceive America. The president outlined a 7 item agenda and action plan and I would like to add another item which is the domestic agenda: How can we increase the involvement of Muslim Americans and get them more involved ( i.e. facilitate their involvement and provide opportunity for that to happen)."
Pointing out his past statements, the release said, is an exercise by "my friends on the far right and even some of those in the media, that continue to try and distort my record and my name."
Given a chance to explain that by one news outlet, Omeish passed.
He did enjoy strong fund raising in the latest reporting period, which ended Friday. His campaign reported collecting more than $75,000 in contributions, which was the most of the four-candidate primary field. Most of the funds appear to have come from the area Muslim community.
Mark Keam, a former chief counsel for Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin on the Senate Judiciary Committee, raised nearly $62,000. Keam still has a comfortable financial advantage over the rest of the field after collecting $123,000 during the first quarter. Omeish lent his campaign $45,000 from his own pocket.
A Virginia delegate earns $17,640 per year.
In an editorial endorsing Keam, the Washington Post said Omeish says good things, but that his "jihad way" remarks "should be a disqualifier." Keam also won Virginia Congressman Gerry Connolly's endorsement. If elected, Keam would be the first Asian-American elected to the Virginia Assembly.
Omeish's hopes may rest on getting out the vote. While he doesn't talk about MAS, the organization is based in Northern Virginia and has an active political wing that registers voters and organizes turnout.
Double blast against Obama shows strain on Qaeda by William Maclean
A double blast from al Qaeda against Barack Obama shows the group is as worried as ever by the persuasive skills of the U.S. president, who makes a speech to Muslims on Thursday.
Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, in an audio recording aired on Wednesday by Al Jazeera television, said Obama had planted the seeds of "revenge and hatred" toward the United States in the Muslim world and he warned Americans to prepare for the consequences.
A day earlier, the militant network's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri urged Egyptians not to be seduced by Obama's 'polished words' when he makes a major address in Cairo seeking to repair ties with the Muslim world.
For some, al Qaeda's concerted attempt to upstage Obama is a propaganda own goal that shows its normally media-savvy operatives in disarray following the departure of Obama's predecessor George W. Bush. They found Bush easy to stereotype as a belligerent, Muslim-hating cowboy.
"Zawahri is right to be worried," said Edwin Bakker, a senior research fellow at the Dutch Clingendael Institute in the Hague.
"Al Qaeda partly lives on anti-Americanism and the 'war on terror'. Now Bush has gone and been replaced by a guy who's second name is Hussein. And they fear his speech really is going to have a positive effect."
Obama has chosen Egypt to make an address to the Islamic world that he had promised for early in his presidency.
He will seek to dispel resentments inflamed by U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington by militant Islamists.
"Obama and his administration have planted seeds for hatred and revenge against America," the Saudi-born bin Laden declared, saying Obama was treading in the footsteps of his predecessor.
"Let the American people prepare to continue to reap what has been planted by the heads of the White House in the coming years and decades," bin Laden said.
In an audio recording posted on an al Qaeda-linked Islamist website, Zawahri, an Egyptian, said Obama was not welcome in Egypt and urged Egyptians to "stand united in the face of this criminal."
Zawahri's language was somewhat milder than his denunciation of Obama published in November in which he accused Obama of betraying his race and his father's Muslim heritage.
Zawahri then attacked Obama as a "house Negro," a racially-charged term used by 1960s black American Muslim leader Malcolm X to describe black slaves loyal to white masters.
But Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of London-based daily al-Quds al-Arabi, said Zawahri's words showed al Qaeda was panicking.
"They know Obama is popular in a huge part of the Arab and Muslim world because the man is actually trying to address America's record in the region," he said.
ZAWAHRI "DESPERATE"
"Zawahri is desperate. There is no substantial argument in his piece: He cannot say like he did with Bush that 'this is the man who killed a million Iraqis and supports the Israelis'. Everybody knows Obama is at odds with the Israelis."
Others say Zawahri had little choice but to speak out now.
"Zawahri and Obama are competing for votes, if you will, and this can be seen as a 'publicity steal' in which he grabs the headlines first," said Raphael Perl, an official of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
"I wouldn't characterize al Qaeda's reaction to Obama as panic, but there is certainly concern."
Henry Wilkinson of Janusian, a security consultancy, agreed that Zawahri had little choice but to speak now, since Obama's speech, once made, would dominate media coverage.
"I suspect he was addressing his followers rather than those who are undecided about al Qaeda. He is showing the leadership is aware of the importance of the Cairo speech and wants to denounce it head of time."
The success of Obama's diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East, such as advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace and halting Iran's nuclear program, may depend on how well Obama is able to repair broader U.S. relations with the Islamic world.
Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, in an audio recording aired on Wednesday by Al Jazeera television, said Obama had planted the seeds of "revenge and hatred" toward the United States in the Muslim world and he warned Americans to prepare for the consequences.
A day earlier, the militant network's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri urged Egyptians not to be seduced by Obama's 'polished words' when he makes a major address in Cairo seeking to repair ties with the Muslim world.
For some, al Qaeda's concerted attempt to upstage Obama is a propaganda own goal that shows its normally media-savvy operatives in disarray following the departure of Obama's predecessor George W. Bush. They found Bush easy to stereotype as a belligerent, Muslim-hating cowboy.
"Zawahri is right to be worried," said Edwin Bakker, a senior research fellow at the Dutch Clingendael Institute in the Hague.
"Al Qaeda partly lives on anti-Americanism and the 'war on terror'. Now Bush has gone and been replaced by a guy who's second name is Hussein. And they fear his speech really is going to have a positive effect."
Obama has chosen Egypt to make an address to the Islamic world that he had promised for early in his presidency.
He will seek to dispel resentments inflamed by U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington by militant Islamists.
"Obama and his administration have planted seeds for hatred and revenge against America," the Saudi-born bin Laden declared, saying Obama was treading in the footsteps of his predecessor.
"Let the American people prepare to continue to reap what has been planted by the heads of the White House in the coming years and decades," bin Laden said.
In an audio recording posted on an al Qaeda-linked Islamist website, Zawahri, an Egyptian, said Obama was not welcome in Egypt and urged Egyptians to "stand united in the face of this criminal."
Zawahri's language was somewhat milder than his denunciation of Obama published in November in which he accused Obama of betraying his race and his father's Muslim heritage.
Zawahri then attacked Obama as a "house Negro," a racially-charged term used by 1960s black American Muslim leader Malcolm X to describe black slaves loyal to white masters.
But Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of London-based daily al-Quds al-Arabi, said Zawahri's words showed al Qaeda was panicking.
"They know Obama is popular in a huge part of the Arab and Muslim world because the man is actually trying to address America's record in the region," he said.
ZAWAHRI "DESPERATE"
"Zawahri is desperate. There is no substantial argument in his piece: He cannot say like he did with Bush that 'this is the man who killed a million Iraqis and supports the Israelis'. Everybody knows Obama is at odds with the Israelis."
Others say Zawahri had little choice but to speak out now.
"Zawahri and Obama are competing for votes, if you will, and this can be seen as a 'publicity steal' in which he grabs the headlines first," said Raphael Perl, an official of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
"I wouldn't characterize al Qaeda's reaction to Obama as panic, but there is certainly concern."
Henry Wilkinson of Janusian, a security consultancy, agreed that Zawahri had little choice but to speak now, since Obama's speech, once made, would dominate media coverage.
"I suspect he was addressing his followers rather than those who are undecided about al Qaeda. He is showing the leadership is aware of the importance of the Cairo speech and wants to denounce it head of time."
The success of Obama's diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East, such as advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace and halting Iran's nuclear program, may depend on how well Obama is able to repair broader U.S. relations with the Islamic world.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Georgetown Lawyers to Urge New Geneva Convention for Terrorism by Jeff Stein
U.S. and European officials have been at war over the wording of the Geneva Convention ever since American forces invaded Afghanistan in late 2001 and began rounding up terrorist suspects and Taliban fighters.
Maybe it's time for a new Geneva Convention for the age of terrorism.
At an international conference on terrorism in Italy last month, European officials heatedly denounced Bush administration detention and interrogation practices, arguing, as one put it, that the United States had to "come home" to the rules of land warfare agreed upon by most of the world's governments in 1949.
The conference attendees - for the most part human rights lawyers and scholars, recent government counterterrorism officials, and national security journalists - were nearly unanimous that that the Bush administration's secret CIA prisons and "enhanced interrogation techniques" were in violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.
But there was far less agreement on how to deal with captured civilian fighters in today's undeclared, seemingly interminable, so-called war on terrorism, such as al Qaeda operatives or the Taliban.
Disagreements were so sharp by the third and final evening of the conference that it occurred to me that only another Geneva Convention could iron out the problems. The international community - not to mention the United States -- needed to update the internationally agreed-upon rules of war for the capture of soldiers fighting in units without uniforms or insignia.
As it turns out, Georgetown University's new Center on National Security and the Law had already been thinking the same thing.
Its legal scholars, until recently headed by Neal Katyal, now the Obama administration's Principal Deputy Solicitor General, have been quietly working on a plan to push for just such a new international agreement for terrorism and stateless armies.
"It's more of an idea than a full fledged program," said Matthew Gerke, a fellow at the center who worked for three and a half years in the Pentagon and in Iraq on rule of law issues.
The Geneva Conventions generally apply only to international conflicts between signatory states -- the Taliban and al Qaeda not being among them, it hardly needs saying.
The only part of it that applies to conflicts like the war against al Qaeda is Common Article 3, which "is very, very vague," Gerke said in a brief telephone interview Wednesday.
And it requires only that trials and sentences be carried out "by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" - whatever that means.
"We need another Geneva Convention, or at least an authoritative interpretation of our responsibilities under Common Article 3," Gerke said.
In 1977 the Carter administration negotiated and signed two additional protocols to Geneva that fleshed out the requirements for the humane treatment of detainees, including those who were not captured in an international conflict state sponsored, i.e., rebel groups in civil wars.
But even that did not foresee the capture, detention and prosecution - if any -- of transnational, armed groups in mufti like al Qaeda.
In any event, the Senate refused to ratify the agreement after it submitted by the Reagan administration - as it has ever since.
The administration of George W. Bush had no interest in reviving it, and the Obama administration has not yet taken it up.
"Soon," Gerke said, the Center on National Security and the Law hopes to "roll out" a campaign for a new Geneva Convention, hopefully boosted by an American figure with international stature.
Its first step would be to mount a new push for Senate ratification of the "Additional Protocol No. 2, Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts."
That would be followed by an international campaign for a comprehensive new set of rules under Geneva.
The squabbling and animosity between the United States and the rest of the democratic world on handling terrorism has got to end, Gerke said.
"Let's stop throwing stones at each other."
Maybe it's time for a new Geneva Convention for the age of terrorism.
At an international conference on terrorism in Italy last month, European officials heatedly denounced Bush administration detention and interrogation practices, arguing, as one put it, that the United States had to "come home" to the rules of land warfare agreed upon by most of the world's governments in 1949.
The conference attendees - for the most part human rights lawyers and scholars, recent government counterterrorism officials, and national security journalists - were nearly unanimous that that the Bush administration's secret CIA prisons and "enhanced interrogation techniques" were in violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.
But there was far less agreement on how to deal with captured civilian fighters in today's undeclared, seemingly interminable, so-called war on terrorism, such as al Qaeda operatives or the Taliban.
Disagreements were so sharp by the third and final evening of the conference that it occurred to me that only another Geneva Convention could iron out the problems. The international community - not to mention the United States -- needed to update the internationally agreed-upon rules of war for the capture of soldiers fighting in units without uniforms or insignia.
As it turns out, Georgetown University's new Center on National Security and the Law had already been thinking the same thing.
Its legal scholars, until recently headed by Neal Katyal, now the Obama administration's Principal Deputy Solicitor General, have been quietly working on a plan to push for just such a new international agreement for terrorism and stateless armies.
"It's more of an idea than a full fledged program," said Matthew Gerke, a fellow at the center who worked for three and a half years in the Pentagon and in Iraq on rule of law issues.
The Geneva Conventions generally apply only to international conflicts between signatory states -- the Taliban and al Qaeda not being among them, it hardly needs saying.
The only part of it that applies to conflicts like the war against al Qaeda is Common Article 3, which "is very, very vague," Gerke said in a brief telephone interview Wednesday.
And it requires only that trials and sentences be carried out "by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" - whatever that means.
"We need another Geneva Convention, or at least an authoritative interpretation of our responsibilities under Common Article 3," Gerke said.
In 1977 the Carter administration negotiated and signed two additional protocols to Geneva that fleshed out the requirements for the humane treatment of detainees, including those who were not captured in an international conflict state sponsored, i.e., rebel groups in civil wars.
But even that did not foresee the capture, detention and prosecution - if any -- of transnational, armed groups in mufti like al Qaeda.
In any event, the Senate refused to ratify the agreement after it submitted by the Reagan administration - as it has ever since.
The administration of George W. Bush had no interest in reviving it, and the Obama administration has not yet taken it up.
"Soon," Gerke said, the Center on National Security and the Law hopes to "roll out" a campaign for a new Geneva Convention, hopefully boosted by an American figure with international stature.
Its first step would be to mount a new push for Senate ratification of the "Additional Protocol No. 2, Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts."
That would be followed by an international campaign for a comprehensive new set of rules under Geneva.
The squabbling and animosity between the United States and the rest of the democratic world on handling terrorism has got to end, Gerke said.
"Let's stop throwing stones at each other."
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Project Natal by Johnny Lee
If you've been wondering why my project blog has been pretty quiet, I can finally say it is because I have been helping Xbox with Project Natal. If you haven't seen the vision video, it is definitely worth checking out:
Now, I should preface by saying I don't deserve credit for anything that you saw at E3. A large team of very smart, very hard working people were involved in building the demos you saw on stage. The part I am working on has much more to do with making sure this can transition from the E3 stage to your living room - for which there is an even larger team of very smart, very hard working people involved. The other thing I should say is that I can't really reveal any details that haven't already been made public. Unfortunately.
Speaking as someone who has been working in interface and sensing technology for nearly 10 years, this is an astonishing combination of hardware and software. The few times I’ve been able to show researchers the underlying components, their jaws drop with amazement... and with good reason.
The 3D sensor itself is a pretty incredible piece of equipment providing detailed 3D information about the environment similar to very expensive laser range finding systems but at a tiny fraction of the cost. Depth cameras provide you with a point cloud of the surface of objects that is fairly insensitive to various lighting conditions allowing you to do things that are simply impossible with a normal camera.
But once you have the 3D information, you then have to interpret that cloud of points as "people". This is where the researcher jaws stay dropped. The human tracking algorithms that the teams have developed are well ahead of the state of the art in computer vision in this domain. The sophistication and performance of the algorithms rival or exceed anything that I've seen in academic research, never mind a consumer product. At times, working on this project has felt like a miniature “Manhattan project” with developers and researchers from around the world coming together to make this happen.
We would all love to one day have our own personal holodeck. This is a pretty measurable step in that direction.
Xbox and Microsoft deserve an enormous amount of credit for taking on such an ambitious project. It’s one thing to say “Wouldn’t it be cool if…”, but it’s another thing entirely to say, “let’s dedicate the resources to really make it happen inventing whatever needs to be invented along the way.” I have to say it's pretty neat building the future.
U.S. - Philippines Partnership May be Model for Fighting Terrorism Elsewhere by Julian E. Barnes
The small U.S. military mission in the Philippines attracts little attention, but Defense Department officials say it has been surprisingly effective at reducing the havens once used by militants here -- and that could make the effort a model for other U.S. partnerships with other nations, including Pakistan.
Pakistan has been reluctant to allow more than 70 American trainers into the country, worried about public reaction to a substantive U.S. troop presence. But the low profile and public acceptance of the U.S. military program in the Philippines suggest there could be lessons for American officers eager to step up their efforts with the Pakistan military.
In the first trip to the Philippines by a Pentagon chief in a decade, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates met today with Gilberto Teodora Jr., the Philippine secretary of national defense.
"Over the last decade, the Philippines has faced a number of security challenges and met them squarely," Gates said. "We will continue to support their efforts to defeat terrorists and extremists threatening their country and region.
Gates visited the Manila American Military Cemetery, where 17,202 U.S. service members killed during World War II are buried and another 36,285 missing troops are memorialized.
There are about 600 U.S. service members in Manila advising Philippine commanders and staff officers -- a small force that has been able to reduce the influence of the main Muslim militant group, Abu Sayyaf.
America's former role as a colonial ruler of the Philippines has left many Filipinos wary of a large U.S. military presence. Army Col. William Coultrup, the commander of the Joint Special Operations Task Force, said the Americans provide the Philippine military with their experience, resources and intelligence information. But, he said, it is the Filipinos who take the lead.
"One of the key lessons to take away with is working by, with and through our allies," Coultrup said. "They assume ownership of the problems down there."
The Philippines, like Pakistan, has been reluctant to allow large numbers of U.S. troops to operate on its soil. The American forces on the ground are focused on training, not direct military action. Special operations soldiers generally stay off the front lines, and instead advise and train Philippine commanders and their staffs.
U.S. officers who have served in the Philippines argue that direct comparisons with Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan are difficult, but they concede there are lessons to be shared.
Asked where the Philippines could provide a guide to expanding U.S. involvement in Pakistan, Gates said the United States must be sensitive to the domestic politics of any country with which it forms a partnership. "We will move with these various countries at a pace that is comfortable with them," Gates said. "The stronger the foundation we can build under these relationships, the longer they are likely to last and the more effective they are likely to be."
When the mission in the Philippines began in 2002, the United States viewed the southern portion of the country, including parts of Mindanao and the Sulu islands, as ungoverned spaces. Abu Sayyaf had ties with Al Qaeda and was using the area to train for attacks against Western targets.
The Philippine armed forces, according to a U.S. military official, were in a "shambles" and unable to counter Abu Sayyaf's advances. Over seven years of training, the Philippine military has grown in capacity.
"They were not looking too good," said a military official. "Now they are carrying on many operations without us."
The small number of American troops ensures that the Philippine public remains generally accepting of the mission. And the effort has been successful enough that U.S. officials no longer consider the south ungoverned.
"The threats from international terror groups has gone down," a senior defense official said. "There are fewer hostage-takings, terrorists and terrorist attacks."
Pakistan has been reluctant to allow more than 70 American trainers into the country, worried about public reaction to a substantive U.S. troop presence. But the low profile and public acceptance of the U.S. military program in the Philippines suggest there could be lessons for American officers eager to step up their efforts with the Pakistan military.
In the first trip to the Philippines by a Pentagon chief in a decade, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates met today with Gilberto Teodora Jr., the Philippine secretary of national defense.
"Over the last decade, the Philippines has faced a number of security challenges and met them squarely," Gates said. "We will continue to support their efforts to defeat terrorists and extremists threatening their country and region.
Gates visited the Manila American Military Cemetery, where 17,202 U.S. service members killed during World War II are buried and another 36,285 missing troops are memorialized.
There are about 600 U.S. service members in Manila advising Philippine commanders and staff officers -- a small force that has been able to reduce the influence of the main Muslim militant group, Abu Sayyaf.
America's former role as a colonial ruler of the Philippines has left many Filipinos wary of a large U.S. military presence. Army Col. William Coultrup, the commander of the Joint Special Operations Task Force, said the Americans provide the Philippine military with their experience, resources and intelligence information. But, he said, it is the Filipinos who take the lead.
"One of the key lessons to take away with is working by, with and through our allies," Coultrup said. "They assume ownership of the problems down there."
The Philippines, like Pakistan, has been reluctant to allow large numbers of U.S. troops to operate on its soil. The American forces on the ground are focused on training, not direct military action. Special operations soldiers generally stay off the front lines, and instead advise and train Philippine commanders and their staffs.
U.S. officers who have served in the Philippines argue that direct comparisons with Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan are difficult, but they concede there are lessons to be shared.
Asked where the Philippines could provide a guide to expanding U.S. involvement in Pakistan, Gates said the United States must be sensitive to the domestic politics of any country with which it forms a partnership. "We will move with these various countries at a pace that is comfortable with them," Gates said. "The stronger the foundation we can build under these relationships, the longer they are likely to last and the more effective they are likely to be."
When the mission in the Philippines began in 2002, the United States viewed the southern portion of the country, including parts of Mindanao and the Sulu islands, as ungoverned spaces. Abu Sayyaf had ties with Al Qaeda and was using the area to train for attacks against Western targets.
The Philippine armed forces, according to a U.S. military official, were in a "shambles" and unable to counter Abu Sayyaf's advances. Over seven years of training, the Philippine military has grown in capacity.
"They were not looking too good," said a military official. "Now they are carrying on many operations without us."
The small number of American troops ensures that the Philippine public remains generally accepting of the mission. And the effort has been successful enough that U.S. officials no longer consider the south ungoverned.
"The threats from international terror groups has gone down," a senior defense official said. "There are fewer hostage-takings, terrorists and terrorist attacks."
Monday, June 01, 2009
The Lulz takes on North Korea by Roderick Jones
As a one-time student of the cold war, pondering the potential causes of a global nuclear war was something of a Sunday afternoon past-time. The historic classic is of course the Cuban missile crisis but equally important were the series of near misses based on the faulty reading of radar early-warning systems when flocks of birds flew over the Artic Circle, or overly aggressive NATO military exercises feeding Soviet anxieties. With the recent North Korean provocations, sadly this subject is back in vogue. In some ways, although there are no clear diplomatic solutions to the North Korean danger, it does play to traditional intellectual strengths the US has in the field of geo-political nuclear strategy - a relief from the messy world of non-state actors, insurgency and cyber-militias. However, there may be a new element in all of this that could act as the proverbial flock of geese: cyber-pranksters.
North Korea is famously a closed society, which hasn't registered or used its Internet domain designation (.kp). However, it does have a 'government' website operated by the Korean Friendship Association hosted in Spain. Over the past month the loose affiliation of hackers, pranksters and griefers operating under the 'Anonymous' theme have reportedly organized two Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS)attacks against this site - knocking it offline for 90mins at a time. Would this be seen as western provocation by North Korea? Who knows, but it does raise the question of how uncontrolled or accidental cyber-warfare could have unintended consequences, a new factor in an old dynamic. Unlike nuclear technology the ability to conduct cyber-warfare is not the sole preserve of states. Individuals, or loosely affiliated groups of individuals operating on a trans-national basis can replicate some if not all of a nations capability. The image-boards, which are the home point for these 'Anonymous' cyber attacks operate collaborative wiki's to organize and co-ordinate their attacks -- this enables them to harness the power of the crowd. The targets vary substantially from YouTube to Club Penguin, therefore interest in overt political statements are more the exception than the norm. Clearly there is much more to say on the 'Anonymous' and 'Chan' phenomena but for now it is interesting to note this new factor in an all too familiar stand-off.
North Korea is famously a closed society, which hasn't registered or used its Internet domain designation (.kp). However, it does have a 'government' website operated by the Korean Friendship Association hosted in Spain. Over the past month the loose affiliation of hackers, pranksters and griefers operating under the 'Anonymous' theme have reportedly organized two Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS)attacks against this site - knocking it offline for 90mins at a time. Would this be seen as western provocation by North Korea? Who knows, but it does raise the question of how uncontrolled or accidental cyber-warfare could have unintended consequences, a new factor in an old dynamic. Unlike nuclear technology the ability to conduct cyber-warfare is not the sole preserve of states. Individuals, or loosely affiliated groups of individuals operating on a trans-national basis can replicate some if not all of a nations capability. The image-boards, which are the home point for these 'Anonymous' cyber attacks operate collaborative wiki's to organize and co-ordinate their attacks -- this enables them to harness the power of the crowd. The targets vary substantially from YouTube to Club Penguin, therefore interest in overt political statements are more the exception than the norm. Clearly there is much more to say on the 'Anonymous' and 'Chan' phenomena but for now it is interesting to note this new factor in an all too familiar stand-off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)