It should be no surprise that according to a recent survey done among 122 homeland security professionals (36% of whom has over 10 years experience and 32% had more than 5 years in the field), the top four priorities for the next administration are border security, emergency response, development of medical counter-measures to weapons of mass destruction, and port security.

More than 83 percent of homeland security experts expect major disaster or attack within next four years; 22 percent expect WMD attack on the Unite States; 54 percent say it would be a good idea to reorganize DHS.

While it is hard to debate those priorities and concerns, without politicizing this important message, the question is not the identification of these priorities, but having the ability to implement programs designed to meet these challenges. Thus, publisher of the Homeland Security Journal, Don Dickson said, “The purpose of the survey is to help set the priorities for homeland security as the next president and the next Congress take office.” His comment reflects the importance of the transition to the next Administration since it will be the first time since September 11th that someone other than the Bush Administration had had oversight on the DHS. But the opinions are striking nonetheless:

· More than 83% expected a major disaster in the U.S.
· About 58% said the most probable scenario for a major disaster was a natural disaster, with 22% saying that the cause would be a terrorist attack with a WMD
· 72% expect change if Obama wins; 80% expect no change if McCain wins
· 54% said DHS should be maintained but reorganized; 30% percent said the agency should be unchanged; nearly 15% answered that the DHS should be broken up

In another report written by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and using interviews with 81 officials from both inside and outside DHS, , the DHS was urged to better integrate the roles of its 22 component agencies, many of which still operate as “stand-alone” entities and to consolidate the Congressional Oversight of the department.

You can read the full report here.

Given the greater risk to attack during the transition period when our jihadist enemies will be believe that the U.S. will be more vulnerable, wisdom supports the following of the NAPA suggestions on transitioning the DHS to the next administration, regardless of which political party wins.

By Jay Fraser at 3:43 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

“It doesn’t matter what you say or do, and we don’t care why or who, we’re against it.”

At least that’s the catchy tune I keep hearing.

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

Earlier today, Warren made an observation that I feel compelled to take issue with. In Limited Resources: Iran and US Military Options, Warren wrote:

Meanwhile, despite the irrefutable fact that the counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq has succeeded brilliantly, the strain of that theater coupled with the concurrent burden of waging war in Afghanistan continues to levy a heavy toll on the U.S. military. The wisdom of fighting two wars on two different fronts with a military that was so manifestly ill-equipped for the added exertion ranks as one of the great blunders of the present administration.

I understand that Warren’s greater point is that our military is entirely too small to most effectively engage and sustain the conflict at hand, in all its theaters - present, looming and potential. And on that we certainly agree.

Debate over what America’s next step should have been post-Taliban-al-Qaeda rout in Afghanistan is a healthy exercise.

However, calling the opening of a second front “one of the great blunders of the present administration” is well off the mark.

Let’s keep in mind that the United States armed forces, while injuriously depleted during both the Carter and Clinton administrations, is one that has been built for the express capability of fighting two wars simultaneously. Its flag commanders had regularly certified it as capable of such, up to and including 2003.

Sure, this - in light of the massive reductions cited and the current persistent combat deployment rotation schedule - can be questioned. But in reading Warren’s piece, one is left with the impression that the “blunder” was that of President Bush for employing a certified force rather than previous administrations and Congresses - from George H. W. Bush post-Gulf War to Bill Clinton - slashing unites, systems and bases in search of the elusive ‘Peace Dividend.’

One thing that can be effectively extracted from Warren’s words today is that the ‘Peace’ is the ‘Dividend,’ and one which can only be maintained through strength, not reduction. Our conventional threats may have subsided, but they have not disappeared. China grows while just this week Russia verbally made military threats against us. Further, the emergence of an asymmetrical terrorist threat currently engaged means that much of our military resources must thus evolve to meet it without ceding weakness on the conventional front.

This means growing our military and not shrinking it or merely maintaining it. This is what I interpret Warren’s point to be.

But to call any additional engagement beyond Afghanistan a “blunder” is to presume that wisdom would have us wait until we spend decades growing and transforming our military forces to best meet the threat. The enemy will not wait for the opposing cavalry to field the ideal horses.

After the rout in Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Qaeda had poured over the border into Pakistan. We had three choices.

1. Hold and maintain a massive defensive line on the Afghanistan border.

2. Pursue the enemy into his chosen lair, invading Pakistan and turning an already reluctant ally into a battlefield foe with al-Qaeda able to join forces with a conventional army.

3. Hold the line in Afghanistan while taking the offensive against a state sponsor of terrorism with an eye toward the greater conflict at hand.

It has been and still is argued whether Iraq was the wisest choice as part of Option #3. That’s beyond the scope of what Warren is addressing and largely academic at any rate. But choosing Option #3 can hardly be called a “greatest blunder.”

While his words were repeated within an emotional context not present or intended when he spoke them, Donald Rumsfeld was flatly correct when he said after the Iraq invasion, “You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want.”

President Bush and the Pentagon have taken measures to increase the size of the military - the Marine Corps has been slated to grow by 27,000, for instance. But that growth will not be actualized until 2011. The Army’s slated growth by 74,000 is not expected until 2013. The men must be recruited and trained, the units equipped and formed.

Furthermore, Iraq did not go so badly for several years because the military was undermanned and under-equipped for a second front. Rather, as the strategy employed in ‘The Surge’ and its resultant and undeniable success shows, it was because of a failure of command military leadership - primarily though not exclusively from Generals Casey, Sanchez and Abizaid - who directed several years of a garrison-mode posture rather than forward-deployed population protection in counter-insurgency.

The buck must ultimately stop with the president. And I believe President Bush has ensured it does. But it is far more appropriate to ascribe “blunder” to the ambitious shrinking of our military after the Gulf War, or perhaps even to employing a garrison-mode counterinsurgency in Iraq rather than a population-centric strategy in place now since 2007.

But opening a second front was taking the initiative from the enemy, an invaluable aspect of both tactical and strategic warfare. What did falling into a garrison mode once there do? Cede initiative to the enemy. The Petraeus effect in counter-insurgency in Iraq was to take the initiative and deny it to the terrorist enemy.

The ‘Army we had’ in garrison mode then is the same ‘Army we have’ now, with dramatically different results. Had we begun doing in 2004 what we are doing now, where would Iraq be today? (There are many contributing factors - such as the development of the Iraqi Army and police forces - that prevent a direct extrapolation of time factor, but the point remains. As well, rather than simply lament the past, it is more constructive for tomorrow’s engagements to learn from it rather than simply excoriate over mistakes. I say this purely in reference to my own observations above, not in criticism of Warren in any way.)

Yes, the Army and Marine Corps growth announced in January 2007 should have been implemented far sooner as well as in greater numbers. It is, after all, far quicker and easier to disband entire units than to stand them up. But to criticize opening a second front offensive as a “blunder” because we did not have ‘the Army we want’ is to cede the initiative to an enemy that had taken the initiative long before 9/11, and an enemy that extended far beyond mud huts and caves in Afghanistan, however inconvenient that unfortunate fact was and remains.

By Steve Schippert at 4:00 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

With rumors of an Israeli rehearsal for attacks against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure still in the news, advocates of a negotiated settlement to the Iranian nuclear stand-off once again urged diplomacy. And once again the Iranians seem intractable on the issue. From a July 7th Reuters article:

Iran’s response to the latest offer of incentives by world powers shows no willingness to meet their core demand for a freeze or suspension of activities that the West suspects are part of a secret nuclear bomb program.

In response to Iran’s intransigence, opponents of a military solution readily cite the prospect of two crucial, and undesirable, consequences of attacking Iran—the increased likelihood of a wider war which could engulf much of the region, and the resultant burdens on an already over-taxed U.S. military. Neither of these should be drowned out by the din of a new military offensive.

On the matter of a wider regional conflict, Iran could indeed enlist the aid of its proxies in Lebanon (Hizballah) and Iraq (Shiite “Special Groups” in Iraq, and the Mahdi Army) to enflame the highly combustible tinder box that is today’s Middle East. Moreover, any strike against Iran, whether by Israel or the United States (or the two acting in concert) would probably engender enough worldwide condemnation to rival that expressed over the present conflict in Iraq. Such discontent with American or American endorsed foreign policy would surely injure any future attempts to bring rogue states to heel through the cooperative efforts of the international community.

The ‘operational tempo’ of American conventional forces—the number, intensity, and duration of their deployments—has increased since the end of the Cold War. Yet the forces were almost twice as big in 1992 as they are today. The active-duty Army was cut from 18 divisions during Desert Storm to ten by 1994—its size today. The Navy, which counted 568 ships in the late 1980s, struggles today to sustain a fleet of only 276. And the number of tactical air wings in the Air Force was reduced from 37 at the time of desert storm to 20 by the mid-1990s. ⁱ

Together, the prospect of an overextended military confronted by the possibility of an expanded conflict should sober even the most ardent supporter of resolving the Iranian nuclear conundrum through force. On the other hand, what are the inherent risks of not employing military means to eliminate the threat of a nuclear armed Iran? Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “negotiate” succinctly: “to discuss a matter with a view to reaching agreement.”

For years, American officials believed that the application of sufficient force and an avowed willingness to engage in talks would eventually bring North Vietnam to terms. Unfortunately, nothing short of decapitating the regime in Hanoi could have dissuaded the North from seeking the reunification of Vietnam under the yoke of Communism. To some in North Vietnam’s leadership faction, the matter was simply non-negotiable. Brian Jenkins authored an “unofficial” paper for the RAND Corporation in 1972 which explained the North Vietnamese mindset.

The genius of the North Vietnamese people is their tenacity. It is also their most terrible weapon. Hanoi’s apparent determination to go on fighting reflects convictions that in their eyes seem correct—so correct that the alternative of not fighting may be inconceivable. Confucian doctrine imported from China centuries ago permeates the arguments put forth by the Vietnamese Communist. Terms such as ‘just cause,’ and ‘legitimate government,’ dominate the speech of their leaders. Vietnamese Communists firmly believe that they possess the ‘Mandate of Heaven’ to rule all of Vietnam and therefore must emerge victorious eventually. ⁱⁱ

What if Iran feels a similar ‘Mandate of Heaven’ about the acquisition of nuclear weapons and hegemony over the Middle East? After all, as the United States learned to its regret during the Vietnam War, it takes two to tango and each side has to be amenable to tangible and significant concession. The North Vietnamese were not so disposed. Despite the assurances of some well-intentioned area experts, can either the United States or its allies be sure that Iran can in fact be induced to surrender its nuclear ambitions? What if Iran harbors a desire to join the nuclear club with the same fervor as North Vietnam regarded the unification of Vietnam?

Furthermore, what assurance does the United States possess that Iran would never use a nuclear weapon if it ever produced one? Mutually Assured Destruction may have proscribed a nuclear exchange with a devoutly atheistic state like the former Soviet Union. But can it be assumed that such a convention would automatically hold true with a theocracy as well? Is it prudent to presume that every antagonist will necessarily act rationally and in its perceived best interest? By injecting a measure of ambiguity into the matter of disarmament, Saddam Hussein unwisely invited the sequence of events that ultimately ended his decades long reign as dictator of Iraq. What if the mullahs in Tehran view the destruction of Israel as an aspiration worth risking their power over?

While it is absolutely essential that the national discourse include a stark presentation of the hazards of military action against Iran, the aforementioned questions must also be addressed with rigid intellectual honesty. In order to avoid a repetition of the mistakes of the early years of the Iraq War, or those of the Vietnam War for that matter, all options—and their potential ramifications—must be weighed with transparency and on the scale of “what is” rather than what “should be.”

ⁱ Jim Talent, “More: The crying need for a bigger U.S. military,” National Review, March 5th, 2007 p. 32
ⁱⁱ Michael Lee Lanning and Dan Cragg, Inside the VC and the NVA: The real story of North Vietnam’s armed forces (NY: Ivy Books, 1994) p. 200-201

By Warren Wilkins at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (1)

Perhaps one of the most important, yet least understood elements of National and Homeland Security is creating a process of moving leading-edge technologies from the National Laboratory system to use by first responders and other homeland security agencies. One such program was recently moved ahead when it secured approval of from the House Appropriations committee for a $2 million homeland security initiative. The program’s purpose is to move news ideas and technological solutions into the hands of first reponders and law enforcement.

This is just one of many “technology transition” (or technology transfer) initiative around the country. There will be more news about such efforts in the near future.

By Jay Fraser at 8:39 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

There are a lot of conferences and symposia one can attend on defense, security and intelligence issues, but few are both important and accessible to a wide audience. The DNI OSINT Conference is one of those that fit both categories. While the price is certainly nice, the fact that it pulls back the curtain (to a certain extent) and exposes you to the people and efforts that are trying to get ostensibly the information-centric enterprise more in sync with the information age is pretty neat.

No, I’m not getting paid to say this; I’ll be standing in line just like everyone else. It’s just a little PSA from a former practitioner who loves the idea that the IC is not going down w/o a fight.

By Michael Tanji at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for U.S. bases around the world to be ‘eradicated’ and said that the next US administration must fundamentally change its foreign policy.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday called for U.S. military bases across the world to be “eradicated” and said there must be “fundamental change” in the next U.S. government.

“The greatest threat in the Middle East and to countries in the world is U.S. intervention,” Ahmadinejad told a news conference after a summit of the Developing 8 Countries. “The military bases in the whole world should be eradicated and removed,” he said.

“To build confidence in the region is to have fundamental change in the next U.S. government.” The D-8 is an economic development alliance between Iran, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Turkey.

Translation: If you weaken yourselves to the point that America is unable to project power, we will then see this as a confidence-building measure.

If there were not so many Americans obsessed with building the confidence of the rest of the world - including our enemies - rather than our own, this would be a laughable statement.

But laugh at your own risk.

By Steve Schippert at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Normally we look at a variety of external factors that pose varying degrees of threat to the nation’s security, but for a change I would like us to consider an equally insidious threat: domestic ignorance.

There are a number of reasons why politicians rarely talk about defense and security issues even in the midst of war. Complexity is one factor, but perhaps the most significant reason is simple politics: these are issues that do not regularly or directly – with any granularity - impact the lives of a majority of Americans. Contrast this to issues like health insurance, social security or taxes, which impact everyone to some extent and many people with great intensity.

We can argue about the state of our national security establishment and the impact related issues will have on the country over the next few years, but one thing we should all be able to agree on is that the more people know about these issues the better. We cannot expect everyone to become technical or functional experts, but we should at least be encouraging an increased dialog of said issues by those we hold responsible for looking out for our interests. That any attempt to limit any sort of discussion by elected officials – especially via means that are becoming increasingly popular with the present and future electorate – is something dangerously close to tragedy and creeping towards oppression.

By Michael Tanji at 8:16 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

A few weeks ago it was reported here that Digimarc had sold its Identity Systems business to L1 (formerly Viisage) for $263 million (cash and stock). Soon after that deal was announced and received tentative approval however, French defense electronics maker Safran had submitted a rival, unsolicited bid for Digimarc, raising the ante to $300 million (all cash).

The fact that Safran is owned partially by the French government has reaised security concerns in a number of circles, and especially in Congress. Raising CIFUS concerns, Members of Congress wrote recently to Secretary Paulson of the Department of the Treasury.

“As a major link in the nation’s critical infrastructure for identity management and military support, it is our understanding Digimarc plays an important role in our national security,” the Congressfolks wrote. “Digimarc provides services that enable the production of more than 60 million personal identification documents, including two-thirds of all U.S. driver’s licenses. We are concerned foreign acquisition of Digimarc will leave the ownership and control of this critical U.S. infrastructure company in the hands of a foreign sovereign investor.”

The question must be asked. Is our Nation’s security being put in play and up for bid? Or is this, as the article suggests, “Franco-phobia, alive and well.” Either way, L1’s bid has been increased to $310 million.

By Jay Fraser at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

CBS News is reporting an up-tick in al-Qaeda’s recruitment of young boys into its terrorist ranks. While not questioning the core point of the report (youth recruitment), it may be worth pausing to re-consider the context provided. First, the article itself:

The mountains visible in the background of the video suggest that it was carried out in the rugged terrain somewhere in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

“The effort to recruit young boys for the cause has been extended to central Asia. We have reports that this effort may now be up to two years old,” said one senior Middle Eastern security official who spoke to CBS News on condition of anonymity.

He said al Qaeda appears to have had more success in central Asian countries such as Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - the two states at the center of Islamic militancy - compared to other central Asian republics.

Though impossible to document the scale on which al Qaeda has successfully recruited young boys, the security official said, “You are looking at maybe a few hundred such cases.”

While confirming the report of al Qaeda recruiting boys in central Asia, another Middle East security official said the militant group was eager to build its ranks in the former Soviet republics, which are seen as an emerging important frontier.

No doubt al-Qaeda has stepped up its recruitment of young boys into its terrorist ranks. However, this is not a new phenomenon for al-Qaeda.

The article mentions the young Taliban boy seen in a propaganda video beheading a ‘spy for the US’ in Pakistan. But al-Qaeda’s Iraq arm recruited young boys as well, and was also depicted in video propaganda. Furthermore, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), al-Qaeda’s ‘farm team’ in Somalia, fostered the formation of as-Shabab - which literally translates into “Youth Movement.”

Al-Qaeda targets youth primarily because they are highly impressionable - often a blank slate upon which to create a radical in their own image. This is neither a new phenomenon for al-Qaeda, nor is it a new human phenomenon. Gangs and cults have targeted youth for recruitment for as long as the histories of either can be traced.

By Steve Schippert at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

40 have been reportedly killed in a car bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul hours ago.

The massive explosion detonated by a suicide bomber damaged two embassy vehicles entering the compound, near where dozens of Afghan men line up every morning to apply for visas.

The embassy is located on a busy, tree-lined street near Afghanistan’s Interior Ministry in the city center. Several nearby shops were damaged or destroyed in the blast, and smoldering ruins covered the street. The explosion rattled much of the Afghan capital.

“Several shopkeepers have died. I have seen shopkeepers under the rubble,” a shopkeeper who was wounded in the blast, Ghulam Dastagir, said.

An Interior Ministry spokesman, Najib Nikzad, said the blast killed 40 people. Earlier, the spokesman for the Ministry of Public Health, Abdullah Fahim, said the explosion killed at least 28 people and wounded 141, but an update of the number of injured was not immediately available. The Interior Ministry said six police officers and three embassy guards were among those killed.

In Delhi, India’s foreign minister said four Indians, including the military attache, were killed in the attack.

The explosion appeared to be the deadliest attack at Kabul since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. It was the deadliest in Afghanistan since a suicide bomber killed more than 100 people at a dog fighting competition at Kandahar province in February.

Kabul is the end of the northern-most leg of the ancient Asian trade route, the Great Trunk Road. Its final legs extend from Islamabad, Pakistan, through Peshawar and extending through the Khyber Pass and Jalalabad, Afghanistan. It also serves as a vital logistics route for getting goods and supplies to NATO forces - not without irony or difficulty through what is considered ‘enemy territory’ of Pakistan’s FATA.

This week, we will be plotting the final leg of the Great Trunk Road, where conflict either upon or straddling the vital route continues apace.

UPDATE: From the South Asia Analysis Group, see also: Suicide Car Bomber Targets Indian Mission in Kabul - International Terrorism Monitor.

By Steve Schippert at 8:33 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Over at The Tank on National Review Online, I despair over the state of politics in our Nation and its debilitating effect on the prosecution of the War on Terror (or call it what you will), one which is defensive and reactionary in nature only after such was declared by attacks upon us. It opens with a still-relevant 1964 quote from Ronald Reagan.

We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. — Ronald Reagan, 1964 Republican National Convention Address

The question addressed, or rather re-stated, ponders whether the enemy Reagan spoke of in 1964 at the height of the Cold War has truly been replaced with militant, radical Islamist terrorists and movements, or has the Cold War ideological enemy remained - simply with a closer proximity and with snarls replaced by enticing smiles.

Perhaps I was pushed over the edge into such thought by the disgraceful comments by Congressman Delahunt that he “glad they (al-Qaeda) finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington, given your penchant for being unobtrusive” in addressing Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington during Congressional testimony. My reaction then was unrestrained and direct.

It is regardless ironic that as our Nation today celebrates its 232 years of Independence, roughly half of our population seems to be crying out for greater dependence upon a government - this time our own.

Perhaps it is indicative that fewer and fewer celebrate (or even understand) Independence Day, as more and more Americans simply gather for the ‘Fourth of July.’

It was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who once said, “Politics is Islam, and Islam is politics.” Along those lines, perhaps National Security is politics, and politics is National Security. And I wonder if I have been wrong in trying to extract one from the other for the past four years.

By Steve Schippert at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Handcuffed and hooded, the 9 Indonesian terror suspects rounded up in Palembang arrived in Jakarta yesterday as details of the cell and its ties to Mas Slamet Kastari and Noordin M. Top are beginning to emerge.

According to multiple local press reports, the Palembang cell had planned to bomb the well-known Kafe Bedubel in the Chinese section of Bukitinggi, West Sumatra. The plan was scuttled, however, because of the fear of killing muslims and the cell had begun planning operations in Jakarta, where the likelihood of killing foreigners and non-muslims would be greater.

Members of the cell were also involved in a 2005 plot to assassinate a Christian pastor, Father Joshua, in Bandung.

The leader of the cell is believed to be a 35 year old Singaporean English teacher of Pakistani heritage named Mohammed Hassan (alias Omar, alias Fajar, alias Alim, alias Taslim, alias Abu Hazam) who was already wanted by Singaporean authorities. Hassan, Kompas reports, was a protege of JI bombmaker Dr. Azahari and had also trained with al-Qaida in Afghanistan. He is alleged to have also met with Usama bin Laden on several occasions.

Hassan is believed to have run to South Sumatra with Mas Slamet Kastari. Kastari, an Indonesian national who served as the head of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) in Singapore, disappeared after a daring prison escape in February. “It’s true,” an Indonesian police source told the Batam Pos. “He is now here. I can assure you that we are hunting for him in every corner now.”

Kastari, who had been extradited to Singapore in 2006, is now believed to be hiding in Central Java.

Hassan taught English at the Cambrichindo English Language Centre in Banyuasin, outside of Palembang, and lived with his pregnant wife and two children. His capture on June 28 followed the issuance of an arrest warrant by Singapore and after four days of interrogations led to the break that shattered the Palembang cell.

The other members of the cell, according to Detik News, are identified as:

- Musa (alias Abdul Rahman, alias Ifan), a 35 year old private sector worker who served as the head of the Anti-Apostacy Forum (FAKTA), which campaigns against religious conversion. He is suspected to be the main bombmaker and was involved in the plan to bomb Kafe Bedubel and the 2005 plot to assassinate Father Joshua in Bandung. He attempted to evade capture on his motorbike but crashed into a police motorcycle. During his capture he had a 38 mm Colt handgun with 6 bullets. “My feeling is that it’s not possible,” a neighbor who knew him told Kompas. “He always did the morning call to prayer at our local mosque. His voice was smooth with a bit of a Javanese accent.”

- Sugi, a 22 year old student and member of FAKTA. He was trained in bombmaking and arrested at Warnet Mujahid (Mujahid Internet Cafe) in Lorong Banten, Palembang.

- Wahyudi, a 26 year old rubber worker and member of FAKTA. He lived with Heri Purwanto and is suspected of guarding the bombs.

- Heri Purwanto, a 25 year old freelancer and member of FAKTA. He lived with Wahyudi and is suspected of guarding the bombs.

- Rohman, a 35 year old private sector worker and member of FAKTA who participated in the Father Joshua plot.

- Agus Carang, a 36 year old Palembang prison employee and member of FAKTA who participated in the plans to bomb Kafe Bedubel and Father Joshua plot.

- Gandhi, a 42 year old alumni of the Afghan jihad and had fought against the Soviets between 1987 and 1992. He served as the headmaster of the Pondok Pesantren Al Furqon Baitussufah Islamic boarding school in Bumiarjo village and is suspected of harboring Hassan. He is also suspected to be the Indonesian leader of the Palembang cell.

- Agus Tiawarman, a 28 year old teacher at Pondok Pesantren Al Furqon Baitussufah. He is also suspected of harboring Hassan.

- Ali, a 30 year old teacher at Pondok Pesantren Al Furqon Baitussufah and member of FAKTA. He was captured with a bomb inside of a tupperwear container.

The investigation uncovered a cache of bombs and weapons, including 20 electronic pipe bombs, 50 38-calibre bullets, 2 cans of black powder, cables, various electronics, timers and a bombmaking manual. Some of the bombs were reportedly set to explode. A cache of chemicals were also discovered, including aluminium powder, pottasium nitrate, pottasium chlorat, nitrate and urea. Eighteen computers were also seized during the raids, which may provide significant information on the current status of JI.

“The Palembang group,” police spokesman Abubakar Nataprawira told Kompas, “is directly connected to JI cells in Wonosobo and Semarang, Central Java, that are controlled by Noordin M. Top. The bombmaking, however, comes from Mas Slamet Kastari’s JI cell in Singapore.”

According to various press reports, Hassan led authorities to Musa, who attempted to flee on his motor bike. His arrest then led to the Mujahid Internet Cafe, where Sugi was caught. They then descended on the rented house where Wahyudi and Heri Purwanto were protecting the bombs and bombmaking materials. At that point, Detachment 88 raided the Islamic boarding school in Bumiarjo village, where they captured Gandhi, Rohman, Ali and Agus Carang.

By Nick Grace at 4:28 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Is it me, or does it sound like the highest ranking terrorist currently in US detention has approval/denial rights over images created by courtroom artists?

K.S.M. was not pleased. During a break in the proceedings, Hamlin saw Mohammed gesturing in disapproval as he examined her work. “They said, ‘Um, listen, K.S.M. doesn’t want to O.K. this,’ ” she recalled. “He says, ‘The nose is wrong, and tell the artist to go get my F.B.I. picture off the Internet and use that as a reference to fix it. ’ ” So began an hour-long process in which Hamlin was escorted to the media tent, where she printed out an image before returning—“always the gate, the search, the wand”—to make reparations.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed “doesn’t want to O.K. this”? There is a wholly appropriate response to this, but its candor and color is simply inappropriate for this site.

Much more of this and our civilian courts’ rolling decisions and there will inevitably be those (in military as well as intelligence services) who adopt an unspoken “take no prisoners” approach in the field.

Why bring them from a hot battlefield to a cold one where they enjoy significant advantage and potentially access to intelligence data, not to mention the right to disapprove a courtroom artist’s drawing?

Make sense of that.

By Steve Schippert at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Feeling like a broken record, it is difficult nonetheless to find another way of saying “Ralph Peters nailed it (again) in New York Post,” this time regarding Pakistan.

Of course, trouble on Pakistan’s Afghan frontier isn’t new: It was long the stuff of adventure novels and splendid black-and-white movies. A friend reminded me that, during World War I, the Brits fired artillery from the walls of the fort in downtown Peshawar to fend off tribesmen shouting, “God is great!”

But there’s a vital difference now: In the past, jihads were tribal and local, if fierce. The Islamist rebellions sweeping the country’s Northwest Frontier and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas reflect a global vision: It isn’t just the Khyber Pass and Peshawar that are threatened these days.

Once more, no veneer to peel off or nuance to translate into reality. Ralph at his usual best.

By Steve Schippert at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Indonesia’s elite anti-terror squad, Detachment 88, broke up a suspected terror cell on July 1 in south Sumatra and, according to local press reports, may have captured terror fugitive Mas Slamet Kastari.

The terror cell, according to Indonesian intelligence expert Dyno Cresbon in an interview with Tribun Batam, was being watched for over a year and had just begun to practice building bombs. “Noordin M. Top,” he said, “after witnessing the disruption of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) cells in Java and the death of (bomb maker) Dr. Azahari in Malang, began going after new cadre outside of Java. He decided to move his efforts to the Mantiqi II area in order to spawn the birth of a new generation of JI.”

The geographic structure of JI is built upon regional commands called “Mantiqi.” Mantiqi II covers Singapore, Malaysia and Sumatra.

Tuesday’s raids in Palembang netted a total of 9 suspects, Tempo Interaktif reports. Other reports put the total at 7 suspects.

According to Detik News, the raids began after the arrest in of an English teacher from Semarang, Central Java, who also has a Singaporean work permit. He led investigators to a rented house in the Kecamatan Ilir section of Palembang where a cache of weapons and bombmaking materials were discovered. The cache included 50 kg TNT, 10 guns, 4 fully assembled bombs, plastics, plaster, cabling and various electronic devices.

The house had been rented to two 23-year old men, Wahyu and Nanang (aka Fauzi). Wahyu, neighbors said, was quiet, reserved and a frequent visitor to the community mosque and gado-gado vendor. Sources have told Radio Elshinta that both men are proteges of Mas Slamet Kastari, a Javanese-born JI commander who recently escaped from detention in Singapore.

The arrest of Wahyu and Nanang led authorities to an Internet cafe, where two women were interrogated. The women, identified in the press only by their initials, denied that they knew anything about a terror cell.

Detachment 88 also raided the house of the head of the local branch of the Anti-Vice Activities Forum (Forum Anti Kegiatan Permurtadan), Fauzi, and took two Nokia mobile phones. Fauzi also denied to the press any involvement with terrorism. “I am shocked that my house was raided,” he told Detik News, “I wasn’t even home and my wife was alone there.”

Police spokesman Abubakar Nataprawira refused to provide specific details in a press conference late Tuesday night, however, he confirmed that suspects have been detained. There is suspicion, according to Radio Elshinta, that Kastari had taken refuge at one of the raided locations and that he could even have been captured.

By Nick Grace at 6:30 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Three were killed and approximately forty injured when a terrorist went on a rampage inside a front end loader today. While more details about the terrorist’s background and means of infiltration and attack will be clearer soon, in the meantime two stories tell you what you need to know

First, from Voice of America.

“The employee of a contractor company working on the street here in Jerusalem directed his bulldozer in the direction of civilian vehicles - a bus and cars that are on the street all the time yelling Allah al-akbar, apparent to us based on things we have experienced in the past,’ said Daniel Seaman, a spokesman for the Israeli government. “This is undeniably a terrorist attack.” Police say the attacker was a Palestinian who lived in East Jerusalem who held Jerusalem identity papers. Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem have access to Jewish West Jerusalem and carry out nearly all construction work in the city.

Second, from the Jerusalem Post.

Hamas said the terror attack was “a natural reaction to Israeli aggression.” A Hamas spokesman, nevertheless, stressed that the group did not know who was behind the attack. The armed wing of the Islamic Jihad, the Quds Brigades, praised the attack. In a press release, the group said that the attack was a “natural reaction to the crimes of the occupation.”

The driver was shouting “Allahu Akbar!” and Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad - both heavily funded by Iran - praised the murderous rampage.

A scroll on one of the cable news channels this morning read “the attack is believed to be politically motivated,” and I felt compelled to put something up as soon as able to give more ‘political’ context.

UPDATE: I knew there was a reason I felt compelled to put up something with the proper context of the Jerusalem attack. Note the following headline from the UK’s Times Online and the usage of quotation marks around ‘terror’ attack: Bulldozer ‘terror’ attack on bus in Jerusalem.

Perhaps the editors mean something else, but most readers will infer that there are doubts about the linkage of terrorism to the attack.

By Steve Schippert at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

The country was still reeling from the attacks of September 11th when the anthrax letter attacks occurred in early October 2001. Speculation ranged from al Qaeda being the culprit to Iraq being behind the anthrax laced letters. Despite other leads and potential suspects, on June 25, 2002, Steven Hatfill was questioned and his apartment was searched for the first time. At the time, an associate of mine who was involved in chem-bio analysis suggested to me that while Hatfill was a “person of interest,” there were other scientists at Ft. Detrick who might also be considered, in cluding a report of a disgruntled former researcher (speculated to be an Egyptian scientist).

Still, Steven Hatfill remained a “person of interest.” Afterall, it was suspected that he, among other things, had fabricated parts of his resume and had expertise in using “dry” biological agents. But there was no physical evidence linking Hatfill to the attacks.

Earlier this week, the U.S. government settled the 2003 law suit that had been brought by Dr. Steven Hatfill for the news leaks from the Amerithrax investigation. The settlement will pay Dr. Hatfill $2.825 million in cash and an annuity worth $1.8 million that will pay Hatfill $150,000 a year for 20 years.

The point of this post is not to judge the investigation one way or the other. The question that needs to be answered is “if Steven Hatfill didn’t do it, who did?”

By Jay Fraser at 9:59 PM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

Writing in today’s New York Post, Amir Taheri writes of Sheikh Abu-Bakr Naji’s new book, “Governance in the Wilderness.” It is one of today’s most important reads.

No one should feel safe without submitting to Islam, and those who refuse to submit must pay a high price. The Islamist movement must aim to turn the world into a series of “wildernesses” where only those under jihadi rule enjoy security.

These are some of the ideas developed by al Qaeda’s chief theoretician, Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji, in his new book “Governance in the Wilderness” (Edarat al-Wahsh).

Middle East analysts think that the book may indicate a major change of strategy by the disparate groups that use al Qaeda as a brand name.

The Saudi police seized copies of the book last week as they arrested 700 alleged terrorists in overnight raids.

Naji’s book, written in pseudo-literary Arabic, is meant as a manifesto for jihad. He divides the jihadi movement into five circles - ranging from Sunni Salafi (traditionalist) Muslims (who, though not personally violent, are prepared to give moral and material support to militants) to Islamist groups with national rather than pan-Islamist agendas (such as the Palestinian Hamas and the Filipino Moro Liberation Front).

All five circles are at an impasse, says Naji. Some accept the status quo while hoping to reform it. Others have tried to set up governments in a world dominated by “infidel” powers, and have been forced to abandon Islamic values. Still others failed because they didn’t realize that the only way to win is through total war in which no one feels safe.

Naji claims that the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the abolition of the Islamic Caliphate in 1924 marked the start of “the most dangerous phase in history.” Those events put all Arab countries, the heartland of Islam, under domination by the “infidel”- who later continued to rule via native proxies.

In Naji’s eyes, it is impossible to create a proper Islamic state in a single country in a world dominated by “Crusaders.” He cites as example the Taliban - which, although a proper Islamic regime, didn’t survive “infidel” attacks and opposition by Afghan elements.

Instead, he says, the Islamic movement must be global - fighting everywhere, all the time, and on all fronts.

Read it all.

By Steve Schippert at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

And he really, really means it.

America, and more specifically the Bush Administration, is always the problem with the world, especially if you are a disgruntled former CIA officer.

A former CIA operative who says he tried to warn the agency about faulty intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs now contends that CIA officials also ignored evidence that Iran had suspended work on a nuclear bomb. The onetime undercover agent, who has been barred by the CIA from using his real name, filed a motion in federal court late Friday asking the government to declassify legal documents describing what he says was a deliberate suppression of findings on Iran that were contrary to agency views at the time.

If the Iranian nuclear weapons program was halted and his prescience ignored, explain the Iran-Syria-North Korea plutonium venture in Syria destroyed by Israel.

Note to disgruntled former CIA officer: This meme was tried in the politically-motivated wording latest Iran NIE summary (and not supported by the details of the report).

By Steve Schippert at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)