In an intelligence or information-driven conflict, the one with the most info doesn’t win; the one who can make the most sense out of that info in the shortest time possible does. This is why having a highly educated intelligence workforce is a key element of success. Sadly, in the IC the schoolhouse paradigm still reigns supreme, as does the attitude that advanced or specialized education is only for a very select few (and then often wasted because it is not adequately employed once obtained). Courtesy of our friends at OPFOR, we find out that at the pointy end they get it.

Getting beyond the technical-military domain, what - aside from very modest logistical and nominal cost issues - prevents analysts who support military missions from joining the roster of those who take the various Service war college programs via correspondence (like many military officers do)? Why not leverage the buying power of the government and make Rosetta Stone licenses more readily available to those who can’t make it to DLI? Why not convert core NDIC and Kent School content into OpenCourseWare content?

The sooner we stop treating education like a prize and not a necessity, the better off we will be.

By Michael Tanji at 6:06 PM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

A symposium on Pakistan that I participated in has been published today at FrontPage Magazine. Other participants were Neil Doyle and Saifullah Mahsud, who recently traveled to Pakistan to speak with government and Taliban leaders. His input is particularly interesting and his work, in my view, extremely important.

A notable comment I made in conclusion can be (and is by me) applied in principle and practice in evaluation of other threats beyond al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Pakistan. Readers may find the threat risk equation useful and perhaps even familiar.

I was one of those sounding the alarm over the past year about the risks associated with the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance’s aims, (at the time barely impeded) momentum, and proximity to the levers of Pakistani power, Islamabad and all or part of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. Awareness began to grow here in America and people began to more clearly understand, either explicitly or implicitly, the threat risk equation. And that was the principal aim of my writing: Awareness of the threat. It’s basic mathematics, not calculus.

Threat Risk = Consequences X Likelihood

The ‘Consequences’ of Taliban-al-Qaeda control of levers of power and thus nuclear weapons within Pakistan - either overt or in the shadows through men like Hamid Gul or Aslam Beg - remains at or near the gravest of scales. The factor of ‘Likelihood’ is the wildcard in the equation and remains a subjective, perception-based value. As one perceives the ‘Likelihood’ to increase or decrease, the overall Threat Risk greatly changes up or down based on the sheer graveness of the ‘Consequences’ half of the equation. This is why analyses from different sources can be all over the map on the very same day.

Right now, in my view, the Threat Risk of Taliban-al-Qaeda control of one or more Pakistani nuclear weapons appears to be relatively low - but the consequences require constant vigilance.

Thanks to Dr. Glazov and Frontpage Magazine for conducting the symposium, and for the gracious invitation.

By Steve Schippert at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Daily readers have noticed the absence of current DailyBriefings this week. For that I apologize, but they will return soon. There is much afoot behind the scenes with ThreatsWatch contributors and the directors at the Center for Threat Awareness. Much that has yet to make published appearance, such as a move to Washington, DC, the building of another Special Report, and various other projects as yet unpublished or unreleased.

For me personally, the candle burns at both ends as it does for so many. The key to sustaining both pace and quality - as well as an always increasing understanding on the hyper-paced security landscape - over the long haul is to recognize when batteries need recharging and do precisely that. Failure to recognize and acknowledge this early is what leads to burnout, chronic exhaustion and all the failures that accompany these unproductive conditions. So I am stepping away for the remainder of the week to catch my breath, rest and maintain.

ThreatsWatch will not necessarily be gathering dust, as other contributors will continue to post interesting items here in RapidRecon section and perhaps elsewhere. But the DailyBriefing will be directly affected by my short break. With many readers coming specifically for that regular product each morning, I wanted to explain its recent (and short-lived) static nature. As soon as Friday and no later than Monday, DB production will be back to normal, and production elsewhere enhanced.

By Steve Schippert at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

In the context of border security and the continuing debate over the “wall” (physical or virtual), the following story raises an interesting contrast in the ways in which the U.S. and Mexico protect their national sovereignty. In fact, the dichotomy is striking.

Recently, a California based ecologist inadvertently crossed the boundary between Mexico and the U.S. near El Centro California. How did that happen? There is no fence, and only widely spaced cement markers delineating the unmarked border. While there is no question that the mistaken identity of the ecologist and a fugitive drug runner who had been crisscrossing the border to elude capture played a role in the incident, his first person account is nothing if its not frightening, and certainly shows how the Mexican government protects its borders from encroachment.

When he encountered a Mexican border officer, he faced a vehicle-mounted machine gun and then the officer with a sidearm. According to the ecologist, this is what ensued.

“Do not move,” he barked and I knew he was serious, dead serious. In addition to the officer and gunner there were two more soldiers who now followed the officer out of the vehicle. It was these two that opened the door of my SUV and began rifling through my belongings. My knowledge of Spanish is not great but the officer was saying something about my bringing drugs across the border.

Lucky for the ecologist an agent of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency had been following him, interceded on his behalf and got him released before he was arrested. It seems that the crisscrossing drug runner and the ecologist had been driving similar looking Jeeps. The DEA agent then told the ecologist just how serious of a problem he had faced.

The DEA agent confirmed my worst fears: that I would have probably lost my vehicle and belongings and been out of contact with my wife and anyone else for an unpleasant amount of time.

The moral of this story is apparent, at least to me. Especially when it comes to drug runners, the Mexican government is very serious about their border (witness the Mexican enforcement of their southern border with Guatemala). There is some data suggesting that the hard enforcement of the Mexican-Guatemala border has actually stemmed the flow of non-Mexican illegal immigrants to the U.S. Additionally, whether physical or virtual, better delineation of our border with Mexico is clearly indicated. The question of American sovereignty and the implications of the continuing “unrest” on the other side of the border remains a serious one.

By Jay Fraser at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Feedback (4) | Referenced By (0)

With the price of a barrel of crude oil flirting with the $120 mark and speculation that the price of a gallon of gasoline could reach $10 comes fresh news of further unrest in Nigeria’s oil-rich Niger Delta region. Twin blows have forced Nigeria’s petroleum production below 50% of normal output. A strike by ExxonMobil workers over working conditions and compensation has nearly shuttered all of that company’s production, while a series of attacks on pipeline infrastructure by the Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta have severely hampered Royal Dutch Shell’s production. MEND’s leader, Henry Okah, is currently on trial in Nigeria for his role as commander of the terrorist organization. According to Reuters:

Rebels from Nigeria’s oil-rich Niger Delta said on Monday an April 24 pipeline attack had shut down 350,000 barrels a day of production by Royal Dutch Shell, and a company spokesman was not available for comment. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) said that attack brought to more than 500,000 barrels a day of Shell’s production affected by its recent attacks. Shell said last week a previous bombing had hit 169,000 barrels a day of output.

As a huge warren of oil pipelines and other facilities dots the swamp-like Niger Delta, completely securing the assets is near impossible and little sophistication is needed to successfully destroy them. Combined with evidence that the Nigerian military is disinclined to take on MEND, this situation provides further evidence, if any more was needed, for why the United States must find alternatives to foreign petroleum. Africa has been taking on a greater importance as a source of oil for the U.S. in the hopes that it would provide a more stable and less hostile supplier than the nations of the Middle East. Unfortunately, the ability of MEND to impact world oil prices shoots huge holes in any such aspirations.

By Clay Varney at 5:00 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

Or is it the other way around? Either way, the UK’s Times Online reports that the recent arms shipment forced back from unloading to Zimbabwe exposes Robert Mugabe’s link to the Chinese firm which manufactured and shipped the weapons.

Company documents show that Poly Technologies, the manufacturer of the weapons on board the ship, is ultimately controlled by a clique from China’s preeminent military clans with close ties to the Communist party leadership and army.

Major General He Ping, the company’s chairman, is the son-in-law of Deng Xiaoping, the former Chinese leader; its president, Wang Jun, is the son of a vice-president and a Deng ally. Its upper ranks are stuffed with military veterans and their offspring, who have greatly enriched themselves with arms sales to some of Africa’s bloodiest trouble spots.

Diplomatic sources say Mugabe forged links with the Poly Technologies management on state visits to China. Since Zimbabwe is all but bankrupt, the arms are paid for by barters of agricultural products and raw materials.

But there’s another unasked question; one that struck me as the story first unfolded.

A Chinese spokeswoman tried to defuse concern by saying that the arms shipment was ordered before the post-election unrest in Zimbabwe began. That is almost certainly true - ships full of arms do not pop up off the coast unless their part of a maritime pre-positioning logistics operation.

However, China cannot claim ignorance to the affairs of Zimbabwe any more than Robert Mugabe can. And Mugabe knew he was in big trouble at the polls, feeling the pulse of the country and people he commands beneath his thumb.

Of course he ordered the arms before the election. In fact, he was almost certainly hoping the shipment would have been delivered just a couple of weeks before the An Yue Jiang finally found African shores.

In fact, if the German KfW IPEX-Bank GmbH wasn’t owed so much money, Mugabe would have received his arms anyway.

But of course, unlike the Chinese Poly Technologies arms peddler, German banks prefer to do business in currency, not “barters of agricultural products and raw materials.” Pesky Germans.

By Steve Schippert at 1:56 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

Fashioning viable, technically proficient indigenous forces capable of operating independently of American arms has long been a nettlesome challenge for the US military. In Iraq, for example, it remains an incrementally improving, work-in-progress. Further east, however, in the purportedly neglected theater of Afghanistan, the US Special Forces deserve plaudits for making major in-roads with the creation of a nascent Afghan Commando force.

Writing in the Boston Globe, scribe Ann Scott Tyson reports:

Night after night, commandos in US Chinook helicopters descend into remote Afghan villages, wielding M-4 rifles as they swarm Taliban compounds. …But though the commandos carry the best US rifles, wear night-vision goggles, and ride in armored Humvees, they are not Americans but Afghans—trained and advised by US special forces teams that are seeking to create a sustainable combat force that will ultimately replace them in Afghanistan.

These raids apparently began last December, and the dividends from the Afghan commando project overall have been encouraging thus far. According to Tyson’s piece, three out of an anticipated six army commando battalions (640 men per battalion) have already begun active operations. Meanwhile, American commanders have evidently credited the commando raids with the killing or capture of 30 insurgent leaders in eastern Afghanistan. Not bad for a fledgling force, even if the media usually prefers to focus on the soldiery qualities of the enemy.

Additional time and a larger sampling are certainly required before anyone pronounces the endeavor an unqualified success or failure. Obviously, the development of the Afghan commando force must continue apace if it is to demonstrate the level of operational efficacy and, equally important, sustainability to permit a draw-down of US Special Forces units. Still, the Afghanis and their Green Beret mentors appear to be off to an auspicious start, and if ultimately successful, the entire Western world will reap the benefits of a counterinsurgency force equipped with the technical know-how and linguistic and cultural sensitivity to disrupt insurgent networks in an immeasurably pivotal theater.

By Warren Wilkins at 9:00 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

When it was first disclosed, I did not believe that our government had given into the political correctness espoused by CAIR and other pro-Muslim groups to eliminate certain “offensive” words from the “policy vocabulary.” The passage of a couple of days, however, confirmed it.

It was not until I returned from my border trip on Friday that I read my colleague, Marvin Hutchens’ post, To Name An Enemy which gave me insight that helped me to understand the situation a bit better.

The guidance is provided for speaking with Muslims and the media and not for official policy papers, with the theory being that the use of terms such as jihad, jihadists, and mujahideen unintentionally portrays “terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims”.

Investor’s Business Daily called it caving to Muslim pressure groups. Steve Emerson’s memo to terrorist groups whose names include the banned words easily serves as an example of the tragic irony of the decision. But it is something that Marvin wrote, that is the basis of my concerns - “When an enemy isn’t recognizable until he takes an action against us, the pressure remains entirely on us as that enemy plans and operates with the comfort of anonymity.”

Let us look at the practical matters relating to this War on Terrorism. As we examine the current state of our counterterrorism efforts, and look at the progress or lack thereof that we’ve reached since September 11th, this statement raises serious issues and underscores the problem. My concern begins, at least, with the disclosure that NYPD cops armed with submachine guns, body armor, and bomb-sniffing dogs patrolling the subways. Against whom are we protecting New York City straphangers? NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly referred to them as Operation Torch teams.

“They want to hit the transit system, no question about it,” Kelly said, ticking off transit attacks across the globe: Moscow and Madrid in 2004, London in 2005 and Mumbai in 2006. Locally, Shahawar Matin Siraj was convicted in May 2006 of conspiring to place an explosive device in the Herald Square subway station in 2004. His accomplice also pleaded guilty.

Well, we are in a war, are we not? But the enemy is not recognizable, and the enemy’s tactics are unpredictable. And yet, we have machine gun toting guards patrolling the subways in Manhattan. In the past, I’ve also seen armed military units surrounding the Russell Senate Office Building.

Earlier, my colleague Michael Tanji wrote about the troubles surrounding the implementation of the US-Visit Program. Aside from the issues raised by Michael of DHS wanting to divert responsibility for checking exiting passengers to the airlines, the program has had other problems. A test released in early 2007 revealed poor read rates. The US-Visit program is only one of the components of our battleplan that is problematic.

Clearly, we cannot reach consensus on the issue of border security (including the “wall”) and immigration reform. And yet, illegal immigrants flow across our border. When my friend and I returned from the Border Security Contracting Conference on Friday, I was surprised when, about 10 miles north, we approached a road block and diverted to a checkpoint. I simply didn’t expect it. There were drug-sniffing dogs and armed military walking around each vehicle. One by one, drivers lowered their windows and were asked, “American citizen?” Without any hesitation or distraction we both said yes, and were passed through. I wonder though, are there “good actors” among our enemies who might just as easily acknowledge U.S. citizenship and pass through?

Our enemies are many. Their plans are pretty similar. What we call them changes little if anything, at least in my opinion. I’ll admit to being a bit confused. I do hope that the term, Global War on Terrorism” isn’t banned. I saw the smoke rising in the sky to my west, just 30 miles, that Tuesday morning. And we know who did it. Yes, we know their name.

By Jay Fraser at 10:55 PM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

From The Jawa Report, a bit of simple puzzle piecing.

This will probably come as a shock to no one, but since the British press won’t reveal “G’s” name yet give every possible hint as to his identity, here it is: G is MOHAMMED AL GHABRA.

Under U.N. Resolution 1267 and its subsequent addendums, the Security Council:

obliged all States to freeze the assets, prevent the entry into or the transit through their territories, and prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer of arms and military equipment, technical advice, assistance or training related to military activities, with regard to the individuals and entities included on the Consolidated List.

Al Ghabra and four others had challenged the British government’s ability to implement the resolution’s requirements without a specific act of Parliament. They won their case.

And, for whatever reason a publicly known terrorist’s name was attempted to be undisclosed, this serves as yet another reminder how Western legal systems are being employed as tools of the jihadiyun to wage their war. In this instance, they are inarguably jihadists.

In more ways than one, we know their name.

By Steve Schippert at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

“If we don’t have US-VISIT air exit by this time next year, it will only be because the airline industry killed it,” Chertoff said recently. “We have to decide who is going to win this fight. Is it going to be the airline industry, or is it going to be the people who believe we should know who leaves the country by air?”

Not for nothing, but national security is the government’s job. Airlines are in business to make money not enforce immigration law. I suppose there is always nationalization …

Look at airline functionality, especially in smaller firms: the same person who issues you your boarding pass at one point in the airport, may check you on your flight at another point, and might also be serving you a caffeinated beverage once you’re airborne. One minute she’s a waitress in the sky; in a crisis she’s suddenly “air crew” and the rules change dramatically. The proposed solution is to add another task to an already, stressed and schizophrenic enterprise and make them out to be the bad guys.

This is a classic case of our Uncle’s inability to think creatively or originally. He who tells someone they can come into the country, and verifies that person entered the country, should be verifying that same person leaves the country. Loose sight of that last part and you’re adding additional complexity and opportunities for failure. There is a solution here, it just doesn’t involve punting.

By Michael Tanji at 6:12 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

For more than six and a half years the United States has been at war with an enemy, his ideas, and his tactics. The war has unfortunately been named after his primary tactic, and now we learn that many government agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are giving guidance on the terminology used to describe the enemy.

According to the Associated Press, the guidance found in a Homeland Security report entitled “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims.” includes recommendations such as:

“Never use the terms ‘jihadist’ or ‘mujahedeen’ in conversation to describe the terrorists. … Calling our enemies ‘jihadis’ and their movement a global ‘jihad’ unintentionally legitimizes their actions.”

“Use the terms ‘violent extremist’ or ‘terrorist.’ Both are widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy.”

On the other hand, avoid ill-defined and offensive terminology: “We are communicating with, not confronting, our audiences. Don’t insult or confuse them with pejorative terms such as ‘Islamo-fascism,’ which are considered offensive by many Muslims.”

The guidance is provided for speaking with Muslims and the media and not for official policy papers, with the theory being that the use of terms such as jihad, jihadists, and mujahideen unintentionally portrays “terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims”.

Earlier today, ThreatsWatch’s Michael Tanji asked about our (ThreatsWatch’s members) thoughts on the policy. My emailed response, which was later suggested be shared here at ThreatsWatch, is included below.

The determination is probably grounded in sound reasoning and definitely with good intent to support the War on Terror with real war of ideas and communications clarity.

The tough part is this - the terrorists are Muslims practicing a variant of Islam that is best described as jihadism or jihadiya. It bases itself of the Qur’an and Sunna, as do the vast majority of Muslims, and like the fundamentalists, traditionalists, and political/social Islamists, it has many aspects of its tenets and aspirations properly rooted in the core of the faith. Unlike the others though, they’ve not only ascribed God’s oneness to be that He is the one and only God, but [they’ve] determined that His oneness includes his sovereignty (or rather His directing that He be sovereign) over all. As if He needs them or anyone to ‘limit’ mans sovereign capacities in order to achieve His own. They’ve turned tawhid into something much broader, creating a framework of belief that requires them to ‘serve’ God by instituting His will and law - as opposed to simply living by it themselves. That’s step one. Step two and step three require them to take not just a literal read of the Qur’an but to also believe that each ‘instruction’ included in it (or in the Sunna) was meant for all Muslims rather than for those it was directed to at the time of its delivery (as they believe it is eternal and uncreated).

Additionally, they have taken jihad as a pillar of their faith, rather than the normative view that it is a tool to be used by the entire ummah only (under the authority of the Prophet’s successor or caliph). So with jihad is a requirement, the Qur’an as eternal, uncreated and applicable to all mankind, and God as the only legitimate sovereignty and law maker, then one must wage jihad to bring this [God’s commands] about if acting in accordance with God’s will - being a submitter (Muslim) to him.

Hence - jihad - jihadiya - and jihadiyun are reflective of their take on the faith, the development of their thought and practice, and more importantly on their appeal to the non-jihadists Muslim populations of the world. Calling it jihadiya and them jihadiyun doesn’t strengthen their base or idly give them credence - it should in fact be used a means to show Muslims how they’ve altered the faith and violated the traces of reason that existed long ago.

This issue is seen as particularly complex for many, as exceedingly sensitive to some, and as hog wash to others. The reality is that our government, with the best of intentions, has thus far proven itself not capable of discerning the difference between Muslims willing to aid them and those who offer aid as a means to blur the defining characteristics of our enemies and the remainder of the Muslim world.

When an enemy isn’t recognizable until he takes an action against us, the pressure remains entirely on us as that enemy plans and operates with the comfort of anonymity.

By Marvin Hutchens at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

As I noted, I attended a Border Security Contracting Conference at Texas A&M International University in Laredo today. One of the presenters was a representative of the Boeing SBInet Program. I asked for a comment on the media reports and then had a chance to speak one-on-one. The essentials are pretty straightforward, although there also needs to be a balance between the media reports and the company position.

As pointed out by a commenter, P-28 was a prototype system and was intended to be a “test.” In fact, the towers themselves were not buried in cement for permanence (that fact was pointed out in the first post on the program back in February). The stated position was that P-28 was operational and had met objectives. One clear observation from this discussion is that P-28 was established on a timetable to meet DHS deadlines. According the SBInet representative, in at least one component area, the OEM software was not used. In other functionalities, the need for software upgrades was identified. Currently, as apparently correctly noted in the media releases, new towers are now being placed and system changes are being made. Another questioner raised the point about reported error rates exceeding the 5% target. This was refuted by the SBInet representative. One of my associates who accompanied me to the Conference and who is involved in perimeter (and border) security systems development concluded that the majority of the SBInet position was valid and that the media reports had been overly critical. At the same time, there are elements of truth in the reports. What does this mean? I’d say that one lesson is that evaluating complex technology systems from the outside is often difficult when based solely on media reports.

Original Post: In what should probably not be a surprise, the Department of Homeland Security has pulled the plug on Project 28, the stretch of the virtual security fence on the Arizona-Mexican border. At first, I figured it was a situation of getting out some of the software bugs in the prototype system, although I also commented that the whole situation looked like a political football at a time when our border security was at stake.

Yesterday it became clear that the system problems were larger and more serious than expected and the Department of Homeland Security scrapped the system because it was failing to adequately alert Border Patrol agents to illegal crossings, officials said. Among the many issues here is that only two months ago, DHS Secretary Chertoff “accepted” the completed fence from the contractor, Boeing.

I’ll be attending a Border Security Conference tomorrow. Maybe I’ll get an idea of what’s going to happen next.

By Jay Fraser at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

It is interesting to note that the use of video games and virtual worlds are a legitimate and increasingly accepted way of learning for the good guys …

Given a choice between a droning classroom lecture or a videogame, the best method for teaching Generation Y was obvious. “It is clear that our new workforce is very comfortable with this approach,” says Bruce Bennett, chief of the analysis-training branch at the DIA’s Joint Military Intelligence Training Center.

But some continue to insist that concern over their use by the bad guys is unwarranted or somehow untoward.

By Michael Tanji at 9:10 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Via Beirut’s Ya Libnan, there is currently a spike in weapon sales in Lebanon.

The increase in the price of firearms has also become an added concern for the people who are now buying AK-47 firearms for $600 to $1,000 compared to a year ago which ranged from $75 to $100.

Ghassan Qarhani, a former fighter [from predominantly Sunni Tripoli] familiar with the arms market says outdated arms such as rocket-propelled grenade launchers, once considered the “garbage of weapons,” are gaining value. Today, RPG launchers cost $500, up from $50, he says.

And as a ThreatsWatch reader noted via e-mail, “…and it has been said that the proximity to war is measurable by the price of a weapon.”

By Steve Schippert at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Somalia has been a mess of a country for years, lacking a solid, truly functioning government since 1991. After the Black Hawk Down incident in 1993, the United States largely washed its hands of the East African country, in a manner similar to American relations with Afghanistan after the Soviet Union left that country in defeat. In another similar parallel, Somalia reappeared on the radar of American policymakers in a forceful manner after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The driving motivation behind this new awareness of Somalia was the fear over failed states, that as the case of Afghanistan represented, terrorist organizations could use the operational safeguards of operating in regions of the world beyond the effective control of a government for the purposes of planning and implementation of terrorist strikes.

Since September 11, American security concerns in Somalia have focused on two overlapping priorities. The first has centered on bringing to justice three members of al-Qaeda’s East African cell that were responsible for the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania back in 1998 and the attack against an Israel-owned hotel and an El Al flight in Mombasa, Kenya in 2002. These individuals are Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, Abu Talha al-Sudani and Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan. The United States has instigated a number of precision strikes in Somalia in the hopes of eliminating the perpetrators of the previously described acts of terrorism, with at least four attempts in the past fifteen months. Most recently, a Tomahawk cruise missile strike was launched unsuccessfully against Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan in the Somali town of Dobley on March 3.

On the macro level, American policy has also been to prevent the establishment of an Islamist regime in Somalia and to help stabilize the weak Transitional Federal Government that holds notional power in the country. However, the focus so far has been placed more on the prevention side of this coin, with the preference being to keep support for the Transitional Federal Government at arm’s length. The general aim here is to avoid the creation of an environment that would be even more conducive as an al-Qaeda safe haven than already exists. To this end, the United States supported the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in December 2006 which toppled the Islamic Courts Union, an Islamist militia force that controlled the capital of Mogadishu and other areas of Somalia and could be considered a rough equivalent to the Taliban in the manner in which the group arose organically out of the chaos of a failed state and imposed religiously based law and order. Since that invasion, the Ethiopian military, with the support of troops loyal to the Transitional Federal Government and a small peacekeeping contingent from the African Union, has battled an insurgency reminiscent of Iraq in both tactics and brutality led by remnants of the Islamic Courts Union. The most militant wing of the ICU, known as al-Shabaab, was recently designated a foreign terrorist organization by the US government and has significant linkages with the wider al-Qaeda movement. Despite evidence that al-Shabaab is trending upward in its operational capacity, at least some observers think American policy in Somalia is succeeding. According to The Economist:

But it is not all gloom. Al-Qaeda’s bid to make Somalia a base for its global franchise has so far failed. There are probably no more than a few dozen foreign fighters left in the country. Of the three al-Qaeda men believed to have been involved in bombing the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, one, Abu Talha al-Sudani, has been killed; another, Saleh Ali Nabhan, is said to be isolated and close to being captured or killed. A more formidable al-Qaeda man, Fazul Muhammad, may have been in Kenya several times in the past year but is no longer thought to command Somali jihadist fighters. Informants say he is on the run and that, when he has the time, he likes to watch classic Disney films.

While certainly encouraging, the nature of this kind of war means that small groups of people can cause harm on a scale wholly out of sync with their numbers. In The Economist’s analysis, the surge in al-Shabaab attacks is merely a lashing out in response to its new terrorist designation by the State Department, and not symptomatic of any concrete increase in threat. Time will tell which factor is the true explanation.

As students of counterinsurgency are aware, the ultimate solution to these situations is of a political nature, not a military nature. With Ethiopia clearly wanting to withdraw its forces from Somalia, there is some hope that a political rapprochement is in the works.

Moderate Islamists and elders from the disaffected Hawiye clan, which provides the secular nationalist bit of the insurgency with most of its fighters, say they are ready to strike a deal with President Yusuf. The price of a unity government would be the departure of the hated Ethiopian troops but it is no longer a precondition. A deal must offer the Hawiye enough to keep them on board, but not so much that it alienates other clans. Finding the balance in a maelstrom of hunger and killing will be hard, but not impossible.

Notably here, The Economist claims that the Hawiye clan, one of Somalia’s most prominent, of participating in the insurgency against Ethiopia purely out of secular nationalist motives. This is not the truth of the situation as the Hawiye were strong backers of the Islamic Courts Union when it was in power. Further, members of the Hawiye played prominent leadership roles within the ICU, including its commander, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys.

In assessing American policy on Somalia, there are clear positives as well as negatives. Al-Qaeda is still active in the region, but relative marginalization - or at least the lack of growth and significant influx - of its operatives is no small potatoes. The endurance of the Islamist insurgency is the true question, but with political considerations being what they are, American involvement in Somalia and support for the Transitional Federal Government will likely continue in a deus ex machina fashion, with the US occasionally smiting its enemies from afar when a choice opportunity arises.

By Clay Varney at 7:10 PM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

Nothing motivates a nation or regime like fear. It was raw fear which created a relatively quiet and retracting (and relatively cooperative) Iran in the wake of the American response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. It is also fear which Iran wields as it shepherds its Syrian ally under pressure today.

From the Jerusalem Post today, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warns Syria not to side with the Americans, as he seemingly perceives Syria buckling under enormous pressure as the public release of North Korean participation in building the destroyed Syrian nuclear plant is released. (Iran’s hands are in the Syrian nuclear pot up to the elbows as well.)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued a warning to Syria on Thursday not to side with the Americans.

“We must always be prepared to thwart the plans of the US in the region,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem in Teheran.

According to the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), Ahmadinejad said that “the Americans are on the verge of destruction” and that “anyone who sides with them will also go the same way.”

This amounts to beating the sticks of rhetoric together, as Syria clearly does not perceive that “the Americans are on the verge of destruction,” but rather that the Syrian regime itself must be far closer to such a finality.

Just follow the handful of related items in today’s DailyBriefing, partially reproduced below.

SYRIAN REACTOR STRIKE - NORTH KOREAN DESIGN
Intel: North Korea Helped Syria Develop Nuclear Program - ABC
U.S. Sees North Korean Links to Reactor - New York Times
Accurate October Speculation: Israel’s Case for Syria Strike: Apparent Spy Had Hard Evidence - ABC

Related Developments?
Israel and Syria Hint at Progress on Golan Heights Deal - New York Times
Ahmadinejad warns Syria not to side with the Americans - Jerusalem Post
IAEA Says Iran Agrees to Clarify Nuclear Activity - VOA
‘Progress’ made during NoKor visit by US delegation on nuclear dispute - Jerusalem Post
Report: Insurgency leader Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri captured? Update: Given up by Syria? - Hot Air

The question answered by observing Syrian actions is this: On any given day, does Bashar Assad fear the United States and Israel more than it fears Iran and its Hizballah foreign legion next door?

Syria is in a vice.

By Steve Schippert at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

Few things last forever. Ceasefires are one of those things.

The Jerusalem Post reports that a Hamas representative, Ayman Taha from Gaza, said on the Saudi al-Arabiya television network that Hamas Hamas will stop the rocket fire but not arms smuggling in reference to the reported Egyptian-brokered tentative deal with Israel.

Ahead of Hamas’s expected response to an Egyptian brokered ceasefire offer, the group’s spokesman in Gaza, Ayman Taha, said that it was prepared for a gradual truce with Israel.

Taha told the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya news channel that the group will stop rocket fire if Israel stops its “aggression” and lifts the blockade imposed on the Strip.

Nevertheless, he said that Hamas would not stop arms smuggling or weapons development.

Hudna and ceasefires remain little more than re-arming and re-grouping pauses in Hamas’ perpetual endeavor to destroy Israel. Until that goal and perspective changes, nothing will change.

And in reality, the goal of the destruction of Israel is not one owned by Hamas in that regard inasmuch as it is the goal shared by the many (Iran, Saudi groups et al) who fund, arm and train Hamas (et al) to be their surrogate pawns. Without the shared ‘goal,’ Hamas deserts them. And without them, Hamas collapses in ruin. Even if Hamas wanted to recognize Israel and abandon the aim of their destruction (which they don’t), Hamas dares not walk away from the self-licking ice cream cone.

Hamas is the violent tail of the snake, not the head(s).

From the river to the sea. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Hamas - and their various regional lifelines - can hardly be more direct about it.

By Steve Schippert at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

General David Petraeus, who commanded the 2007-2008 turnaround in Iraq and oversaw the and directed the thus far successful offensive(s) against al-Qaeda there, has been named the next Commanding General at CENTCOM, announced by Secretary of Defense Gates today. (Note: Technically, it is a recommendation still requiring Congressional confirmation, but successful blocking opposition amounting to much more than additional anti-war political grandstanding is incredibly difficult to envision.)

Gates said he expected Petraeus to make the shift in late summer or early fall. The Pentagon chief also announced that Bush will nominate Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno to replace Petraeus in Baghdad.

Central Command oversees the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

“I am honored to be nominated for this position and to have an opportunity to continue to serve with America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and civilians,” Petraeus said in a brief statement from Baghdad.

At a hastily arranged Pentagon news conference, Gates said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other problems in the Central Command area of responsibility, demand knowledge of how to fight counterinsurgencies as well as other unconventional conflicts.

“I don’t know anybody in the U.S. military better qualified to lead that effort,” he said, referring to Petraeus.

Neither do we, and we agree - even cheer - the decision.

There were some internally who sought to relegate MNF-I Commanding General David Petraeus - respectfully referred to by many Iraqis as Malik Daoud (King David) - to NATO command in Brussels. It was yet another (relatively quiet) battle won by arguably the most revered American military commander in over a generation.

CENTCOM command is both logical and necessary for continuity in Iraq to sustain gains there. This importance and its recognition can be seen in the simultaneous naming of Lt. Gen. Ray Ordierno - Petraus’ second in command for the duration of Petraeus’ tour as MNF-I CG - as his successor in Iraq command.

By Steve Schippert at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

After a German bank got an impound order for a Chinese ship’s Zimbabwe-bound cargo in order to settle Zimbabwe’s debt owed the bank, the ships contents are learned to be an arms shipment to the Mugabe government after the contentious election and ensuing violence.

A German bank obtained a court order to impound the cargo of a Chinese ship carrying weapons for Zimbabwe as it tries to recover unpaid debts from the southern African country, officials said Tuesday.

But KfW IPEX-Bank GmbH, a subsidiary of Germany’s state-owned KfW development bank, was unaware that the An Yue Jiang was carrying arms when it obtained the order from a South African court last week, spokeswoman Dela Strumpf said.

The Chinese ship has been turned away from South African and Mozambican ports in recent days as officials balked at its cargo of weapons and ammunition for Zimbabwe’s government. It is now believed to be headed for Angola, possibly with a refueling stop in Namibia.

According to the BBC, China may now recall the Zimbabwe weapons, likely embarrassed yet again on the international stage ahead of hosting the Olympic games in Beijing.

Zambia’s president has called on other African countries not to let the ship enter their waters, in case the arms escalate post-election tensions.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said the weapons were ordered last year and were “perfectly normal”.

But she said the ship’s owners were considering bringing the ship back.

So, just what is the An Yue Jiang carrying to Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe?

The International Transport Workers Federation says it has asked its members across Africa not to help unload the An Yue Jiang, which is reportedly carrying three million rounds of ammunition, 1,500 rocket-propelled grenades and 2,500 mortar rounds.

The opposition says the weapons could be used to “wage war” on its supporters ahead of a possible run-off in the presidential vote.

This is strongly denied by the government, which has accused the opposition of exaggerating claims of recent political violence.

With 3,000,000 rounds of ammunition, 1,500 RPG’s, and 2,500 mortar rounds aboard, can there be any question about who effectively controls the ship? The Chinese spokeswoman suggested a private venture in saying “the ship’s owners” were considering returning to China, but with a massive arms shipment, the Chinese central government and PLA are clearly the controlling interests here, regardless the chartered steerage.

China is clearly planning more international games than the coming Olympiad, and Mugabe’s claims against the opposition which defeated him in the polls are as credible as Hamas peace overtures. Neither China nor Mugabe lack historical track records supporting such conclusions.

By Steve Schippert at 9:05 AM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

One of the popularly noted negative affects of the war in Iraq has been that it would be a training ground for jihadists to gain real-world terrorist experience that would enable them to return to their home countries more lethally trained. This, of course, is true for those that make it out and back to their original homes (or next stops abroad.) But, as Europe is now realizing, fewer of its own are getting in - much less making it back out - and far fewer than feared are making it back to European soil. In short, the fear was overblown and now “Europe’s fears subside.”

Now, as members of the cell are awaiting a verdict in their case, French and other European intelligence and law enforcement officials are adjusting their analysis. They say their fears of young would-be fighters from Europe traveling to Iraq and returning more radicalized and better trained were overblown.

The logistical challenges and expense of reaching Iraq have been one deterrent, they said, particularly since Syria has made episodic efforts to halt the use of its territory as a transit route. Compared with the thousands of European Muslims who joined the fight in Afghanistan in the 1990s through networks in Britain , the numbers of fighters going to Iraq has been extremely small, according to senior French intelligence officials.

Another factor, the officials say, is that European Muslims lacking military training and good Arabic-language skills are neither needed nor welcomed by Iraqi insurgents - unless they are willing to be involved in suicide missions.

The last point is critical - most European Muslims that could be said to ”crawl from the woodwork’ to join the jihad lack the bare essentials of both language skills and prior ‘military’ training to be of basic utility in Iraq. Therefore, their tickets have largely been one-way.

Consider also that the vast majority of foreigners entering Iraq for the jihad have come from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Morocco (with the majority of the latter two as suicide bombers), and this leaves Europe with a relatively small gene pool of returning antagonist terrorists. This does not mean that Europe’s terrorism threat has been lessened per se, but rather means that the Iraq experience is not paying the direct dividends to the terrorists in their midst as once expected and feared.

Insofar as the ‘breeding ground’ argument goes, it must also be considered that it is impossible to have a war zone where combatants do not gain experience. And within that equation, the calculus also applies to our own skillsets, abilities and experience levels. The mental and physical tasks of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism inherent within the Iraq war have made the forces involved - from American to British to Iraqi - incalculably more able to conduct operations. And the knowledge gained (about al-Qaeda in particular) is not locked in the mind of Corporal John Smith in Fallujah, but shared and valuable across the board throughout different agencies - at home and within Iraq.

The other side of the coin (pardoning the COIN pun) remains that Iraq has also become a counterterrorism and counterinsurgency proving ground for our own forces, services and agencies, with the experiences paying off in future theaters within this same conflict.

By Steve Schippert at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Turn on the tap and water comes out. Sometimes it tastes fine, other times people filter it. But the water comes out. What if it didn’t? Looking at critical infrastructure, specifically our water supply, its security as well as its existence, is becoming a topic of interest in financial and public policy circles. Based on some views, it could also become the basis for geopolitical conflict.

Invest in water? One venture capitalist views the situation this way. With the move toward alternate fuels (like bio-fuels) and the increasing costs of oil extraction, water may well become the World’s next scarce resource.

Biofuels are enormous consumers of water, says Jim Matheson, a general partner at Flagship Ventures, a venture capital firm in Cambridge, MA. And water is not always abundant where it’s most needed. “So, increasingly you’re going to see water as a scarce resource. I think it’s going to drive not just economics but also a lot of geopolitical dynamics. So, we’re trying to find technologies that can allow us to plug into this enormous value chain.”

In the same vein, the State of Pennsylvania has just announced the approval of $72 million in low-interest loans to support water infrastructure projects.

Regardless of whether you ascribe to global warming or not, it is a reality that the water resources of a number of countries, especially in drought-ridden Africa, are running short. In fact, British counter-terrorism experts are concerned about future ‘water wars’ between countries left drought-ridden by climate change. One researcher, Marc Levy at Columbia University has analyzed data to show that when rainfall is significantly below normal, the risk of a low-level conflict escalating to a full-scale civil war approximately doubles in the following year. An example?

As Barcelona runs out of water, Spain has been forced to consider importing water from France by boat. It is the latest example of the growing struggle for water around the world – the “water wars”.

Barcelona and the surrounding region are suffering the worst drought in decades. There are several possible solutions, including diverting a river, and desalinating water. But the city looks like it will ship water from the French port of Marseilles.

Of course, as with many other topics of this variety, there are people in opposition: “People will not fight over water,” says Mark Zeitoun, from the London School of Economics’ Centre for Environmental Policy and Governance in the UK. “But that’s not to say water shortages will not contributing to existing tensions.”

In history, wars have been fought over economic issues. Conflict over increasingly scarce resources is not out of the question, and very likely warrants close attention over the next few years.

““Water, water, every where, And all the boards did shrink; Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink.”

By Jay Fraser at 9:43 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

From the beginning, the use of backscatter x-rays to check passengers for plastic weapons and explosives that the standard magnetometers missed has been controversial. I remember the announcement of the first full-body x-ray screening equipment in 2003, when Susan Hallowell, then the Director of the TSA Security Laboratory subjected herself to the device to prove that a hidden weapon could be identified. At that time, it was believed that passengers would object to the “invasion of privacy.”

Some were uncomfortable with the technology — called “backscatter” because it scatters X-rays — while others proclaimed it “a whole lot nicer than having someone pat me down,” he said.

David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, thinks most people will object to the technology.

“The public is willing to accept a certain amount of scrutiny at the airport, but there are clearly limits to the degree of invasion that is acceptable,” Sobel said. “It’s hard to understand why something this invasive is necessary.”

Now, nearly five years later, and after a test period at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, this new millimeter wave scanner technology is going to be deployed at JFK and LAX. The Phoenix experience was not without contradictory reactions . One passenger with titanium implants in both shoulders and one knee said, “I’ve been all over the world; I’ve been strip-searched. This was very easy.” Others found it objectionable: “I think that is a violation of people’s personal rights. I would rather take a pat-down than go through this.”

Remembering that the use of the millimeter wave devices is reserved for people who prompt a secondary screen, the TSA says that 90% of the passengers who are separated out opt for the millimeter wave scan over a pat down.

Of course, despite the limited use of the new technology and the fact that passengers are being given a choice, the ACLU is concerned about personal privacy. I guess that’s what they have to do.

By Jay Fraser at 10:19 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

Courtesy of Jules Crittenden.

Patriots Day may be the least known American holiday, and the day most deserving of our recognition. Observed in Massachusetts and Maine only. Don窶冲 know it? It marks the day, April 19, 1775, on which Americans took up arms against their king, and bled, at the crack of terrible dawn.

Reacquaint yourself with history, recalling as you surrender 40% or more in various income taxes, that our fight for independence was begun over a 3% tax on tea.

By Steve Schippert at 9:28 AM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

Yesterday we noted Power and Clarity in Lebanon when Hizballah stormed a security checkpoint and sprung two arrested Hizballah members. Today, another example of yet more power and clarity.

Hizbullah partisans on Thursday attacked and kidnapped a policeman in south Beirut, in the second such development in as many days, security sources reported.
The sources said the policeman was investigating an illegal construction site in the suburb of Ghadir when he was beaten up by two local residents.

Hizbullah members drove in, kidnapped the officer and whisked him to a Hizbullah office where he was illegally interrogated by party officials on activities of the police force.

The policeman told his superiors later that Hizbullah officials set him free only because he is Shiite.

Running the show in southern Lebanon and throughout much of Beirut, Hizballah remains the most highly motivated and militarily capable armed force in the Middle East outside Israel’s IDF. That Hizballah is a terrorist organization with lifelines from Tehran doesn’t seem to concern many as much as perhaps it should.

The beat goes on.

By Steve Schippert at 8:29 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

From Lebanon’s An-Nahar, a clear indication of who holds true power in Lebanon.

Hizbullah freed two detainees after they were apprehended by police for having no identity cards on them, security sources said Thursday.

They said two bearded men on two motorbikes were stopped at the security checkpoint around 9:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Qmatiyeh village near the mountain resort town of Aley, east of Beirut.

One of the cyclists made a cell phone call and shortly afterwards about 100 Hizbullah members surrounded the security force and freed the two men, the security sources added.

They said the Hizbullah force also recovered the bikes.

Perhaps of shared interest, the latest book to arrive at the doorstep is Augustus Richard Norton’s Hezbollah - A Short History. Published in 2007, but playing catch-up and is next in line after I complete Mike Yon’s Moment of Truth in Iraq and Andy McCarthy’s Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad. Both of the latter are outstanding, and I find myself bouncing between each, chapter by chapter, unable to find the discipline to read one or the other first.

By Steve Schippert at 4:59 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

In a pretty distressing finding, a GAO investigation has found myriad military equipment for sale on eBay and CraigsList. The undercover investigation showed dozens of prohibited military items being sold over the Internet on these sites. During the period of January 2007 to March 2008, the GAO was able to purchase numerous defense-related items that were noted as possibly being able to be used against our troops and allies. These items included:

- Two F-14 fighter jet components; the United States has