June 2014
Rand Report can be accessed at the link below.
Seth Jones is Associate Director of International Security and Defense Policy Center at the Rand Corporation; and, author of The Rand Report: “A Persistent Threat: The Evolution of al Qaeda And Other Salafi-Jihadists,” released last week.
Mr. Jones argues that “POTUS Obama’s decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by 2016 is a risky step; and, may embolden Islamic extremists. So could the release of five high-level prisoners from Guantanamo Bay — in a swap with the Taliban to win the freedom of Sgt. Bowe Burgdahl.”
“The number of al Qaeda and other jihadist groups and fighters are growing,” writes Mr. Jones, “not shrinking. U.S. disengagement — or, even risking the return of terrorists to the field [the fight] by freeing them from detention — is not the answer to the threat they pose. Instead, U.S. strategy [if you could call it that] should be revamped, prioritizing American interests, and developing a more effective, light-footprint campaign.”
According to a new data in a Rand report (see attachment) I [Mr. Jones] has written, — from 2010 to 2013, the number of jihadist groups world-wide has grown by 58 percent, to 49, from 31; the number of jihadist fighters has doubled to a high estimate of 100K; and, the number of attacks by al Qaeda affiliates has increased to roughly 1,000 from 392. The most significant terrorism threat to the United States,” Mr. Jones notes, “comes from groups operating in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria. Momer Mohammad Abusalla, an American who was a member of the al Qaeda affiliate organization al-Nusra, blew himself up in Syria on March 29, 2014.”
“Today,” Mr. Jones correctly observes, “the U.S. faces significant threats beyond jihadi terrorism. Russia has invaded Ukraine and threatens America’s NATO allies. China is flexing its military, economic and cyber muscles in East Asia. Iran remains dedicated to nuclear weapons capability. North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons — is high unstable.”
“Still, these nations,” he argues, “are not to our knowledge actively plotting attacks against America’s homeland. A handful of terrorist groups, however, remain dedicated to attacking the U.S. — at home and overseas. Some of these groups have an interest and ability to strike the U.S. homeland. They are a top priority, and include al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — based in Yemen, and the core al Qaeda along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. There are also individuals like the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon bombers who real al Qaeda propaganda and used sources such as al-Qaeda’s Inspire Magazine, to build their bombs. The growing number of radicalized Americans fighting against the Assad regime has also raised the threat from Syria.”
“Some analysts and policy makers have played down the threat from al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which has been weakened because of persistent U.S. pressure. But, its leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, remains committed to striking the U.S. He is flanked by a number of Americans, such as Abdullah al-Shami and Adam Gadahan, who support that goal,” adds Mr. Jones. “Given the high threat posed by these groups,” he adds, “and, the limited capacity of local governments, the U.S. should engage long-term in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and possibly Syria. The strategy should involve clandestine special operations, intelligence, diplomatic, and other capabilities to target al Qaeda groups and their financial, logistical and political support networks, The U.S. should,” he argues, “also help train, advise, and assist local governments in their struggle against terrorism and to deal with its root causes, which may vary from incompetent security forces to collapsing economies.”
“A second category of terrorist groups — particularly in Somalia, Iraq, Libya, and Nigeria — is bent on hitting U.S. and other Western targets overseas, though not necessarily in the U.S. homeland,” wrote Mr. Jones. “Some of them, such as al-Shabaab in Somalia, have been on the radar screen of U.S. policy makers for years. Others, such as Boko Haram, are attracting more attention because of the growing pace of their attacks and plots against Americans overseas In these countries,” Mr. Jones contends, ‘the U.S. should support local governments; but, refrain from direct operations.”
“The third category,” he writes, ‘includes terrorist groups with little current interest and ability to strike the U.S., or U.S. targets overseas. They include the East Turkestan Islamic Movement in China; and, numerous others with parochial interests across Africa, the Middle East and Asia. The U.S. should employ an offshore approach that relies on allies and local governments to counter these groups while avoiding the deployment of U.S. forces for training and other purposes. The strategy would include utilizing offshore air, naval, and rapidly deployable ground forces rather than onshore combat power.”
“Afghanistan and Pakistan are still home to al Qaeda and allied groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Taliban, that have killed Americans at home and overseas. al-Qaeda was born along the Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier in the late 1980s, and it will not disappear just because U.S. forces leave,” as Mr, Jones correctly observes.
“The American departure from Afghanistan will most likely be a boost for insurgent and terrorist groups dedicated to overthrowing the Kabul government, establishing an extreme Islamist emirate, and allowing al Qaeda and other groups to establish a sanctuary. As in Iraq, the withdrawal of U.S. troops does not make the terrorism problem go away. al Qaeda and other groups used the breathing space to expand their attacks and spread to neighboring countries like Syria,” writes Mr. Jones.
In conclusion, Mr. Jones writes, ” after more than a decade of war, in countries like Afghanistan, it may be tempting for the U.S. to turn its attention elsewhere; and, scale back on counterterrorism efforts. But, current trends suggest that the struggle against extremism is likely to be a generational one, much like the Cold War. Developing a long-term U.S. strategy to pursue those groups threatening the U.S. homeland and its interests overseas — including in Afghanistan and Pakistan — would be a good place to start.”
Amen. But, it isn’t going to happen under this POTUS and White House, in my opinion. In this Obama Administration, we have the gang who can’t shoot straight. From Fast and Furious, to the debacle in Benghazi, to the Syrian Red Line written in invisible ink, to Putin/Ukraine, China’s new Air Defense Zone in the disputed island chain in the South China Sea, to the leaking of the CIA Station Chief’s identity in Afghanistan, to the Bowe Berghdahl fiasco, this POTUS and his White House, seem incapable of orchestrating a well though out national security strategy — other than disengagement, withdrawal, and leading from behind.
And, the release of five hard-core Taliban leaders — who had a very violent past — is a boon for the darker angels of our nature. And the threat is growing according to Mr. Jones and the latest research by the Rand Corporation. Moreover, the Syrian civil war has been a boon to violent, extremist jihadists who are gaining valuable experience in honing their ability to kill and inflict damage against their adversary.
Strategist David Kilcullen, in his recent book “Out Of The Mountains: The Coming Age Of The Urban Guerrilla,” contends that the future of warfare is changing and, “we’re moving away from the remote and rural terrain on which guerrilla warfare has traditionally been fought; to, the future of modern conflict which will be urban, coastal, and digitally networked. Mr. Kilcullen forecasts that seventy-five percent of the world’s population will be in or near coastal cities by the mid-21st century. He projects a future of “feral cities — densely populated slums, urban systems under stress, increasing overlaps between crime and war (cyber),” in an environment increasingly networked and digitally ubiquitous. Instead of the world being flat, it will be spikey, and dominated by the mega-cities near the coasts; and, ungoverned areas, where the strongest and most innovative dominate.
If he is right, these circumstances will offer al Qaeda and others of their ilk a target-rich environment in which to both recruit new converts, as well as to wreak havoc and devastation. Rather than let these five violent jihadists go free, as we did in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl — we need to find away to eliminate them
No comments:
Post a Comment