Saturday, November 05, 2011
U.S. man charged with plot to bomb Pentagon
While drone strikes have thus far been the bane of militants residing in the remote tribal belt of Pakistan, this week they were almost deployed to take out the Pentagon and the Capitol.
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation announced on Wednesday that Rezwan Ferdaus (26), a U.S. citizen from Ashland, Massachusetts, had been charged in connection with a plot to destroy the key federal government buildings using large radio-controlled F-86 Sabre aircraft filled with what he thought was C-4 plastic explosive.
Ferdaus, said to be a graduate of Northeastern University, was also charged with attempting to provide material support and resources to al-Qaeda with the aim of facilitating attacks on U.S. soldiers overseas; attempting to destroy national defence premises; and attempting to destroy buildings owned by the U.S. using explosives.
According to a cooperating witness in an apparent sting operation by the FBI, Ferdaus stated in January 2011 that he planned to attack the Pentagon using aircraft similar to “small drone airplanes” filled with explosives and guided by GPS equipment.
Outlining his planned attack in chilling detail, Ferdaus told undercover officers: “With this aerial assault, we can effectively eliminate key locations of the P-building. Then we can add to it in order to take out everything else and leave one area only as a squeeze where the individuals will be isolated. They'll be vulnerable and we can dominate.”
In a statement, the FBI underscored Ferdaus' determination to execute his plan despite being presented with multiple opportunities to back out, including being told that his attack would likely kill women and children.
Instead, Ferdaus invoked the option of a Mumbai-style ground attack to complement the aerial strike, and reportedly told federal agents that once he isolated individuals in the two buildings into “one area only as a squeeze,” he would ensure that a six-man team armed with assault rifles would “open up on them” and “keep firing” to create “chaos” and “take out” everyone.
As part of the operation, conducted by more than 30 federal, state, and local agencies on the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, agents supplied Ferdaus with an unspecified amount of “C-4 explosives,” an F-86 small drone aircraft, three grenades and six fully-automatic AK-47 assault rifles. In the course of the investigation, Ferdaus also delivered eight detonation devices to the undercover officers and a training video demonstrating how to make cell phone detonators.
At his final meeting with officers on Wednesday at which Ferdaus inspected the components, brought them to his storage unit and took possession of the entire inventory, he was arrested, the FBI said in a statement. It added that at no point in time was the public in any danger from explosive devices, which were controlled by undercover FBI employees.
No community targeted
Prosecuting officials were quick to dispel any notion that the sting operation against Ferdaus had targeted any larger community. U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz said: “I want the public to understand that Mr. Ferdaus' conduct, as alleged in the complaint, is not reflective of a particular culture, community, or religion.”
If convicted, Ferdaus faces a total of up to 55 years in prison for all three charges and a $250,000 fine.
Labels: Al-Qaeda, Capitol, drone attack, FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, GPS equipment, Pentagon, terrorist attack
CIA drone attack "killed" top al-Qaeda militant
Abu Hafs al-Shariri, a top al-Qaeda operative within Pakistani territory and a former bodyguard of Osama bin Laden, was reportedly killed in a drone strike carried out by the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency.
If it is officially confirmed the death of the 29-year-old militant of Saudi origin would be the latest in a string of high-profile successes that the U.S.’ drone campaign in the tribal belt of Pakistan has had.
After May’s covert operation, in which al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed, a CIA drone was reported to have killed Ilyas Kashmiri, who was linked to the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and also Libyan al-Qaeda commander Atiyah Abd al-Rahman.
U.S. and Pakistani intelligence agents were also said to have mounted a joint operation to capture senior al-Qaeda figure Younis al-Mauritani in the city of Quetta – according to some media reports, “a sign of a fresh start in a relationship that has been marred by bitter squabbling and public accusations in recent months.”
President Barack Obama’s administration has intensified its drone strikes in recent months and although Pakistani officials regularly and publicly decry the programme as infringing on their sovereignty there is said to be a tacit acceptance of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to take out such high-value targets in the remote tribal areas.
The New York Times quoted an unnamed U.S. official describing the strike against al-Shariri as, “another blow at the core of al-Qaeda because al-Shariri had been set to take on a more prominent role inside the organisation after the death of al-Rahman, and because al-Qaeda is having ever greater trouble replenishing its senior ranks.”
An official was also quoted as saying that the loss of al-Qaeda’s operations chief would pose a challenge for al-Qaeda’s current leader, Egyptian cleric Ayman al-Zawahri.
Labels: Abu Hafs al-Shariri death, Al-Qaeda
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
American airports warned of potential 'belly bomb' threat
Body cavity bombs, a terror “technology” that al-Qaeda first tried out on a member of Saudi royal family in 2009, may soon be deployed in terror attacks in the United States, authorities warned this week.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Service issued a bulletin to several airlines, reports said, in which it cautioned that it had “identified a potential threat from terrorists who could surgically implant explosives or explosive components in humans.”
According to some reports bombs could be concealed within “abdomens, buttocks and breasts, allowing suicide bombers to pass undetected.” The latest threat is believed to be linked principally to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which has a strong base of operations in Yemen.
In August 2009, Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, who was also the Saudi Deputy Interior Minister in charge of counter-terrorism, survived an assassination attempt by an al-Qaeda operative Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri, who concealed explosives within his anal cavity. When al-Asiri triggered the explosion he was killed but Prince bin Nayef escaped with minimal injury as al-Asiri’s body was said to have shielded him from the blast impact.
Yet authorities here indicated that they expected al-Qaeda to have moved up the ladder to more sophisticated attacks using the “belly bombs” technique. Kawika Riley, Spokesman for the DHS’ Transportation Security Administration said, “Due to the significant advances in global aviation security in recent years, terrorist groups have repeatedly and publicly indicated interest in pursuing ways to further conceal explosives.”
One consequence of this development for the aviation sector is that the busy travel season this summer may be hobbled by a slew of additional security protocols at airports. Mr. Riley indicated that this was likely, adding, “As a precaution, passengers flying from international locations to U.S. destinations may notice additional security measures.”
While numerous U.S. airports have already introduced the controversial “naked body scanner” and advanced passenger pat-down procedures that raised a furore over intimate body contact, even these methods may be insufficient to pick up explosive elements surgically inserted into the body, experts said.
In a statement the TSA hinted that a major ramp-up in security protocols was likely and also that these procedures would be deployed to deliberately heighten uncertainty. “These measures are designed to be unpredictable,” the TSA said, “so passengers should not expect to see the same activity at every international airport.”
In particular the measures introduced may include “interaction with passengers, in addition to ... pat-downs and the use of enhanced tools and technologies,” the TSA said, which may suggest a heavier reliance on “behaviour-detection officers and airport interviews.” Skin- and clothes-swabbing for explosive element traces are already in vogue at several U.S. airports including Washington’s Dulles International.
Labels: Al-Qaeda, belly bomb threat, U.S. airports
Friday, June 10, 2011
Pakistan brutalised, says envoy
From The Hindu
In a tribute to slain Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad, Pakistani Ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani called for a full investigation into the killing and said at a condolence meeting here that all of Pakistan had been “brutalised” by forces within.
Mr. Shahzad, an investigative journalist and the Pakistan Bureau Chief of Asia Times Online, was found dead in North-east Pakistan shortly after he wrote a feature story on the connections between al-Qaeda and Pakistani intelligence services in the context of what he called the “brazen attack on PNS Mehran naval air station in Karachi on May 22”.
Reports said that Mr. Shahzad’s body bore the marks of torture when it was discovered in a canal two days after he disappeared.
Touching upon his own experience as a journalist in the past, which included an incident where he was “kidnapped, blindfolded, and a hood was put on my face”, Mr. Haqqani and several Pakistani journalists spoke of the continuing violence that all journalists in Pakistan were threatened with.
A representative of the Committee to Protect Journalists noted that one of their recent studies had ranked Pakistan as the most “dangerous country in the world for reporters”, ahead of states such as Iraq, Mexico and Honduras. Bob Dietz of the CPJ described the manner in which Mr. Shahzad was killed as a “cold-blooded and brutal murder”.
An officer of another NGO, Reporters without Borders, said that 16 reporters had been killed in Pakistan in the last 15 months, and others added that four of these individuals had been killed in the last five months with around 37 journalists slain in the country since 1994.
Tom Malinowski, Washington Director for Human Rights Watch, confirmed that shortly before his death, Mr. Shahzad had sent an email to HRW, from which it was clear that Mr. Shahzad had received numerous threats, “not only from militants but also from people high up”.
Ambassador Haqqani, paying tribute to Mr. Shahzad’s bravery, said that the violence in Pakistan had engulfed not only journalists but also the broader system including political leaders such as Benazir Bhutto, Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti.
Labels: Al-Qaeda, journalist murder, Saleem Shahzad murder
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Obama: We have cut off al-Qaeda’s head
From The Hindu
‘This continues to be a tough fight'
Even as there was a growing clamour of voices questioning the legality of the United States entering Pakistan's territory without notice and killing an unarmed Osama Bin Laden last Sunday, U.S. President Barack Obama struck a defiant note on terror group al-Qaeda on Friday, saying “We have cut off their head and we will ultimately defeat them.”
Speaking to soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, scarcely five days after Navy SEALS stormed bin Laden's walled compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, the President said that the U.S. was making progress in its “central goal in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that is disrupting and dismantling... al-Qaeda.”
After a visit a day earlier to New York City, where Mr. Obama spoke with the families of victims of the 9/11 terror attacks, he said at the military base, “I came here for a simple reason — to say thank you on behalf of America.” Adding that this was “an historic week in the life of our nation,” he said the terrorist leader who struck our nation on 9/11 “will never threaten America again”.
Mr. Obama also confirmed that he had met Admiral William McRaven, a former SEAL, and commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, and also the members of the SEAL team involved in the operation.
He said, “Today... I had the privilege of meeting the extraordinary Special Ops folks who honoured [Mr. Obama's promise to “never forget” those lost in the 9/11 attacks]. It was a chance for me to say – on behalf of all Americans and people around the world — “Job well done.”
Mr. Obama also touched upon the Af-Pak region, noting that the U.S. was “making progress in Afghanistan... taking insurgents and their leaders off the battlefield and helping Afghans reclaim their communities.”
Further, across Afghanistan the Taliban's momentum had been broken and they had been pushed out of their strongholds. “We are building the capacity of Afghans, partnering with communities and police and security forces, which are growing stronger.” Mr. Obama said that this “This continues to be a very tough fight,” and in the coming months U.S. forces would start transferring responsibility for security to Afghan authorities reducing U.S. troop numbers.
Arguing that the planned long-term partnership with the Afghan people would help ensure that “al-Qaeda can never again threaten America from that country, Mr. Obama reiterated, “The bottom line is this: Our strategy is working, and there's no greater evidence of that than justice finally being delivered to Osama bin Laden.”
Labels: Abbottabad operation, Al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, Osama bin Laden killing
Osama compound ownership raises questions of complicity
Comments by Pakistani intelligence officials and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari on the one hand, juxtaposed with comments by John Brennan, White House Security and Counter-terrorism Adviser, beg the significant question: In whose name was the compound registered, and if Pakistani officials knew it belonged to a suspicious “foreigner” then why was that not investigated immediately?
According to statements made by an unnamed official of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence to a reporter from the BBC, the compound in Abbottabad “had been raided in 2003” but was “was not on our radar” since then.
Further, a statement released by the Pakistani Foreign Office said that Abbottabad and the surrounding areas were “under sharp focus of intelligence agencies since 2003” and the intelligence flow indicating some foreigners in the surroundings of Abbottabad continued till mid-April 2011.
While the Pakistan FO indicated that as far as the target compound was concerned, the ISI was sharing information with the U.S.' Central Intelligence Agency since 2009 and Mr. Zardari said Pakistan's “early assistance in identifying an al-Qaeda courier ultimately led to” Osama's capture, Mr. Brennan's comment on the compound would appear to challenge these assertions.
When asked, at a press briefing here on Monday, about who owned the land, Mr. Brennan said: “Whether it be the land or the compound, but it was two of the individuals who were killed — the al-Qaeda facilitators, as they are called — the individual who was identified as the gatekeeper courier, the residence was, at least in my understanding, in his name.”
While there is a lack of clarity on whether one of the couriers, said to be named Sheikh Abu Ahmed, owned the land or the building on the site, if Mr. Brennan were right, an explanation would be required as to how the very same courier could register such a large property with 18-foot walls literally on the doorstep of a major military facility and under the nose of the ISI.
Indeed there have already been calls for an explanation in this regard with one regional expert, Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation, saying, “There needs to be an accounting from Pakistan on how the world's most wanted terrorist could hide in plain sight at a large and conspicuous compound in a Pakistani city that is home to one of Pakistan's most prestigious military training facilities.”
Mr. Brennan also hinted at a similar question saying, “People have been referring to this as hiding in plain sight... We are looking right now at how he was able to hold out there for so long, and whether or not there was any type of support system within Pakistan that allowed him to stay there.”
Labels: Al-Qaeda, intelligence inputs, Osama bin Laden death
Osama's death may help split Taliban from al-Qaeda: analyst
The death of Osama Bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terror attacks, could help with efforts to split the Taliban from al-Qaeda, according to Lisa Curtis, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a think tank based in Washington.
In comments to The Hindu, Ms. Curtis, formerly with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department's South Asia Bureau, said: “It could diminish the importance of al-Qaeda for the Taliban and thus make it easier for the Taliban to renounce its ties to the organisation.”
She added that at the very least, bin Laden's death may cause “soul-searching among the Taliban leadership” as they weighed the utility of remaining allied to an organisation that has lost its founding leader.
While on the upside this historic development would create goodwill in the U.S. toward Pakistan and “likely help to shore up a relationship that had become deeply troubled in the last several months,” Ms. Curtis said Pakistanis needed to accept the fact that the world's most wanted terrorist was captured in a major city near the nation's capital and not in the unruly tribal border areas and out of reach of the Pakistani state authorities.
“This will be somewhat embarrassing for Pakistanis who had often rejected the idea of Osama bin Laden being in Pakistan as a western conspiracy,” according to Ms. Curtis.
Yet Ms. Curtis, a specialist in terrorism in the South Asia region, said that Ayman al-Zawahiri almost certainly would take over as al-Qaeda's new chief, and the world could expect a statement from him soon urging al-Qaeda followers and its affiliates to remain committed to the cause.
From an operational standpoint, however, Ms. Curtis opined that al-Qaeda would still likely be able to continue to plot and carry out attacks as al-Zawahiri is the operational brains behind al-Qaeda, “and he will likely continue with attack planning.” There may yet be questions regarding his legitimacy to lead the movement which could cause some disarray in the ranks, she added.
Labels: 9/11 mastermind, Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden killing
Sunday, April 24, 2011
U.S. fears rebels' link with Al-Qaeda
Intelligence suggests that some opposition forces in Libya that have been receiving support from Western powers and now NATO may have “flickers” of Al-Qaeda influence, according to James Stavridis, United States Admiral and Commander of NATO forces.
In comments made at a U.S. Senate hearing on Tuesday, Admiral Stavridis also hinted that the rebels might have links to Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based group.
“The intelligence that I am receiving at this point makes me feel that the leadership that I'm seeing are responsible men and women who are struggling against Colonel Qadhafi... We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah.”
He said, “But at this point, I do not have the detail sufficient to say that there is a significant Al-Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence in and among these folks.”
However NATO was examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities and who the leaders of the opposition forces were.
His comments came even as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended a conference on the Libyan situation in London, with the arming of the rebels being a key question addressed.
Top U.S. officials including Ms. Clinton have repeatedly said under the Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorised the imposition and enforcement of the no-fly zone in Libya, UNSC members did have the option to arm rebels despite an overall arms embargo for the country.
However Admiral Stavridis' comments are likely to add another layer of complexity to such a process.
Labels: Al-Qaeda, Libya unrest
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Focus on Pakistan-based Al-Qaeda: U.S.
From The Hindu
In the first Presidentially-mandated annual review of its strategy and progress in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, the United States hinted several times that greater cooperation with Pakistan was necessary in the tribal belt located on the Af-Pak border, if extremist safe havens were to be denied.
On Wednesday evening the White House released a short summary of the classified report, which argued that while the momentum achieved by the Taliban in recent years had been arrested in much of Afghanistan and reversed in some key areas, such gains would remained “fragile and reversible,” unless the U.S. made “more progress with Pakistan to eliminate sanctuaries for violent extremist networks.”
The report, which drew upon a wide range of inputs across the Obama administration, also worried that the presence of nuclear weapons and fissile materials in the region highlighted the importance of “working with regional partners to prevent extremists, including core al-Qaeda, from acquiring such weapons or materials.”
Despite the fragility of the gains made in the region, the report said, the administration reaffirmed President Barack Obama’s commitment to proceed with the troop drawdown starting in July 2011 and continuing until the transition from International Security Assistance Forces to Afghan National Security Forces was complete by the end of 2014. This plan was consistent with the agreement reached at the recent NATO Lisbon Summit, the report noted.
Dedicating an entire section to the U.S.-Pakistan relationship the review report described progress in the bilateral relationship as “substantial, but also uneven.” Specifically the report said that there was a need for “adjustment” in terms of cooperation with Pakistan in the denial of extremist safe havens. There was no mention of India in the five-page summary released by the White House.
The report also emphasised non-military aspects of its regional strategy, noting that “the denial of extremist safe havens cannot be achieved through military means alone, but must continue to be advanced by effective development strategies.”
The Af-Pak review report also drew attention to the continued challenge that al-Qaeda posed to U.S. interests – here too underscoring that the epicentre of that threat lay within Pakistan. “We remain relentlessly focused on Pakistan-based al-Qaeda because of the strategic nature of the threat posed by its leadership,” the report argued, adding that the U.S. remained committed to “deepening... our partnerships with Pakistan and Afghanistan in a way that brings us closer to the defeat of al-Qaeda.”
While the report left little doubt that the planned troop drawdown would proceed in July 2011, it noted that any such action would be “conditions-based,” and in particular would depend on the “major challenge” for the Afghan government to show it had the capacity to consolidate gains in geographic areas that had been cleared by ISAF and ANSF.
The study also said that American diplomacy in the region would support to “Afghan-led reconciliation” as a key enabling condition for peace and stability in Afghanistan, a process that Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has favoured.
Labels: Afghan war review, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, US troops withdrawal
Sunday, May 23, 2010
U.S. facing “tough fight” from al-Qaeda in Pak
In a speech that unmistakably underscored the roots of numerous terror acts and networks in South Asia, particularly Pakistan, President Barack Obama on Saturday said, “We need intelligence agencies that work seamlessly with their counterparts to unravel plots that run from the mountains of Pakistan to the streets of our cities; law enforcement that can strengthen judicial systems abroad, and protect us at home.”
Speaking to cadets at the United States military academy at West Point, New York, Mr. Obama said that even as the war in Iraq came to an end, he had announced “a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan” which recognised that the U.S. faced “a tough fight” in the region.
Noting that militants fighting the U.S. there were turning to new tactics he said the Taliban had exemplified this through its use of “assassination, indiscriminate killing, and intimidation”.
He also said to the cadets that in the war against al-Qaeda, there would be “no simple moment of surrender to mark the journey’s end – no armistice or banner headline”.
Rather, he argued, the al-Qaeda “will continue to recruit, plot, and exploit our open society. We see that in bombs that go off in Kabul and Karachi. We see it in attempts to blow up an airliner over Detroit or an SUV in Times Square, even as these failed attacks show that pressure on networks like al-Qaeda is forcing them to rely on terrorists with less time and space to train”.
He said that while the al-Qaeda threat would not go away soon, the terror group and its affiliates were “small men on the wrong side of history”, leading no nation or religion.
Labels: AfPak policy, Al-Qaeda, Barack Obama
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Top U.S. intelligence officials in Pakistan for NYC bomb investigation
From The Hindu
The United States has sent two of its top intelligence officials to Pakistan to put greater pressure on its government to investigate the Pakistani connection to the failed Times Square bomb plot of May 2.
In the clearest indication of deep concern in the U.S. over the link between would-be bomber Faisal Shahzad and terror networks in Pakistan, Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta and National Security Advisor James L. Jones flew out to Pakistan on Monday night in a bid to speed up the investigation.
According to reports quoting administration officials, Mr. Panetta and Mr. Jones plan to discuss efforts to prevent future terrorist attacks in their meetings there. Reports also cited the U.S. government’s intention to ensure “continued Pakistani cooperation in determining what role the Pakistani Taliban may have played in assisting Faisal Shahzad,” the suspected bomber, who is now in custody and providing intelligence on terror networks in Pakistan to U.S. officials.
In this context, National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer said in an email on Monday night: “In light of the failed Times Square terrorist attack and other terrorist attacks that trace to the border region, we believe that it is time to redouble our efforts with our allies in Pakistan to close this safe haven and create an environment where we and the Pakistani people can lead safe and productive lives.”
In particular, Washington was said to be keen on an aggressive push by Pakistani authorities to take action against al-Qaeda and groups linked to it, located in the tribal areas.
In a report by the New York Times, one senior administration official was quoted as saying that Mr. Jones “would not threaten the Pakistanis, but would convey the risks to the country’s relationship with the U.S. if a deadly terrorist attack originated there.” He would also “prod them” to take tougher steps against the Taliban and other insurgent groups, the official reportedly said.
Labels: Al-Qaeda, CIA, Faisal Shahzad, Leon Panetta, Pakistani terror groups, Times Square bomb
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Questions in U.S. if Shahzad is a "lone wolf"
From The Hindu
Federal authorities investigating Times Square bomb suspect Faisal Shahzad should look into his activities and links in Pakistan, especially given that he had spent five months there prior to the planned attack in New York, according to Lisa Curtis, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a think-tank based in Washington.
Speaking to The Hindu Ms. Curtis, formerly with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the CIA and the State Department's South Asia Bureau, said she expected there would be a “serious investigation into his links in Pakistan,” including contact with international terrorist networks in the country and ideological links.
Drawing parallels to such links that the suspects in the London subway bombing case had, Mr. Curtis said that though it was too early to say with certainty whether Shahzad was a ‘lone wolf' or not, U.S. authorities would be likely to look into his connections with not only Al-Qaeda but also its affiliates such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.
Ms. Curtis recently provided expert testimony on Lashkar-e-Taiba at a Congressional hearing during which Congressman Gary Ackerman had noted that the LeT was an organisation of growing scope and ambition and a threat to the U.S. “Pakistan was in a delicate dance with a Frankenstein's monster of its own making... which was now going global,” Mr. Ackerman had said.
Shahzad, a Pakistan-born naturalised citizen of the U.S., was arrested on Monday night following a trace of the Vehicle Identification Number of the Nissan Pathfinder that loaded with explosive materials and parked in Times Square, New York. According to reports the trace led back to a Connecticut woman who had allegedly sold the vehicle to Mr. Shahzad.
A dramatic arrest on the tarmac of New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport followed, which saw the Dubai-bound Emirates flight that Mr. Shahzad was on being recalled to the airport after takeoff.
According to a statement from the White House on Tuesday, President Obama had been briefed regularly about the investigation and was notified of the Shahzad arrest by John Brennan, the administration's top counterterrorism advisor.
Labels: Al-Qaeda, Faisal Shahzad, FBI, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Times Square bomb
Monday, January 04, 2010
Sharper focus on security
When Nigerian terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded the Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines Flight 253 at Amsterdam, he was already in the least-restrictive, 550,000-person Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database of the United States National Counterterrorism Centre. As a result of what President Obama candidly described as “a mix of human and systemic failures,” Abdulmutallab’s name never moved from there to the 4,000-person no-fly list, nor was his multiple-entry U.S. visa revoked. The botched Christmas-day terror attack occurred despite the Central Investigative Agency receiving information last November from Abdulmutallab’s father regarding the terror risk that his son posed; further the National Security Agency had intercepted, in August, al-Qaeda chatter in Yemen on a terror plot involving a Nigerian. The implied inter-agency coordination failures have sparked a sharp debate on national security, mostly along party lines. The Republican opposition, undoubtedly mindful of the mid-term Congressional elections in November, has called into question Mr. Obama’s track record against terror, with former Vice President Dick Cheney saying that the President was “trying to pretend we are not at war.” The White House hit back saying, “Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al-Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country.”
Yet there is a danger in dismissing specific Republican questions as opportunistic or irrelevant political posturing. President Obama would do well to take the queries seriously, especially given that the attack was foiled by circumstance rather than any prior intelligence. For example, it was fair to ask, as Representative John Boehner of Ohio did, what exactly is the administration’s “overarching strategy to confront the terrorist threat and keep America safe”; or to criticise, as Republican of the House Intelligence Committee Peter Hoekstra did, the lack of follow-up action when data on Abdulmutallab became available months ago. Some of these arguments may also paradoxically undermine the Republican campaign: Democrats have been quick to point out that it was House Republicans who voted this year against a $44 billion bill financing additional airport security measures. In particular, there is a strong case for using full-body scanners at airports — devices that would have detected the materials Abdulmutallab carried — subject to privacy concerns being addressed. Against the backdrop of intelligence lapses and coordination failures is the spectre of a shift in the balance of Congressional power after the November elections. A new Congress that is less overwhelmingly Democratic is likely to keep up the pressure on President Obama to address security concerns more rigorously.
Labels: Al-Qaeda, CIA, Nigerian terror suspect, NSA, security, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
Friday, September 25, 2009
‘One of the most important and best relationships in the world’
Photo: M. Vedhan
Timothy J. Roemer, nominated by President Barack Obama as the 21st U.S. Ambassador to India, presented his credentials to President Pratibha Patil on August 11, 2009. Acting on the advice of Mr. Obama to get out of New Delhi to meet Indians all around the country, the former six-term Congressman and former president of the Center for National Policy in Washington D.C. visited Chennai in September for a packed schedule of meetings. Dr. Roemer addressed a range of bilateral, U.S. policy, and international issues while fielding questions during a one-hour interactive editorial meeting at The Hindu on September 24.
Shyam Ranganathan and Narayan Lakshman present an edited excerpt from the conversation (the full text is available at The Hindu's beta website):
Strategic cooperation
When President Obama asked me to serve in this role, he said this is not only one of the most important relationships in the world, it will be one of the best relationships in the world. The President, like the Secretary of State, meant this not only on bilateral issues such as the civilian nuclear deal that was passed by both our respective legislatures and approved by the executive branches, but now moving from one very important issue to five extremely important issues of bilateral, regional and global consequences.
Five pillars
We have a common threat with radical extremism emanating from different parts of the world particularly from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Lashkar-e-Toiba. And both India and the United States identify this common threat. After the attacks of 9/11 and after the Mumbai attacks, we are working together at unprecedented levels to share intelligence, to assess our strategic interests, to better train our personnel, to send delegations of people back and forth between the United States and India in a joint way so we learn from India and that India learns from the United States.
There are also areas that are extremely important on climate and energy security issues that the two countries can work on. I think both countries see it in their strategic interest to lessen their dependence on oil, on imported oil, and broaden their alternatives, co-operate more on technology and science, improve their energy efficiency and their conservation, look for new markets so their entrepreneurs can raise money to create new jobs respectively in the United States and in India. This is a very exciting and important part of this partnership moving forward.
There are also areas of development, education, healthcare, that are extremely important to the two countries. There are also issues of strategic cooperation on agriculture and something that was referred to in the 1960s as the Green Revolution. The last one I would mention would be economics, trade and investment opportunities. The United States and India look for more partnerships moving forward that benefit both the United States and India in this global economy.
Public diplomacy
This President of ours thinks in broad and big and ambitious terms. That is why he wants to take this relationship from the civilian nuclear deal to five strategic partnerships. He expects me to meet as many people as I can. Public diplomacy is a vital goal for the President of the United States. It is for me to meet everyday Indians to see what families are experiencing, to see how we can listen and learn, to see how we can improve the people-to-people ties because of course it is the people-to-people ties that have been leading this relationship over the last few decades. 95,000 Indian students are in American schools. We have several million Indians engaged and active in the American community. We have very intimate business-to-business ties.
This relationship is very positive and on a trajectory going up in extremely optimistic ways. When Presidents and Prime Ministers get along so well, when you have these great people-to-people ties, when you have a strategic vision, an ambitious vision of five new dialogues and pillars to move this relationship forward, that bodes extremely well for our relationship going forward.
Change and continuity in the Obama administration
A lot of credit must go to the Republican Party, to the Democratic Party, to President Clinton, to President Bush, to governments here in India, to the BJP party, to the Congress party, to Mr. Vajpayee, to Prime Minister Singh, to the people-to-people ties. This is a relationship that is constant, that is continuous, that is forged on historic ties, that are people-to-people, business-to-business, and government-to-government at many levels. The continuity is a strength of the relationship.
I think that change is also a harbinger of an Obama administration and Secretary Clinton’s leadership style that wants to do big, bold agendas and believes that we can do several things at the same time – that we can expand on the success of the civilian nuclear deal that expanded the confidence and trust between our two governments. That provided essential steps forward in our relationship – jobs in America, opportunities for increased electricity and power, and life-changing results for people in rural communities that desperately need access to electricity.
This is a great foundation to build on, but now we have more pillars, more great things to accomplish together not only in the bilateral relationship. With India’s emergence as a leading regional and global player, there are many opportunities to forge these relationships for India to lead on globally – proliferation and disarmament issues, energy security issues, green revolution issues, education reform issues, security issues leading the way to cooperate against the regional and global threats like the al-Qaeda and the Lashkar-e-Toiba. So there is both continuity and change in this relationship. Both are statements of the stability in the relationship. But the change also challenges both countries to do bigger and broader things together on a global stage.
Trade policy
The President is very cognisant of the fact that free and fair trade helps grow our economy at home. It will be a fundamental goal for me as United States Ambassador here to strengthen the trade, investment, and economic opportunities between our two countries. That has been on a trajectory upwards.
The President recognises that helping our businesses get access to new markets is absolutely essential for future economic growth and continuing to pull out of this (as it’s called in America) Great Recession. The President talked very eloquently in the campaign about creating new jobs, green collar jobs, and creating new markets for those green collar jobs. Hybrid cars, new batteries, solar power, geo-thermal power, alternative technologies, clean coal technologies and finding ways to exchange these technologies, trade these technologies, sell these technologies with other global players.
When he became President, several of his initiatives passed through Congress. The stimulus bill contained tens of billions of dollars for alternative energy investments to follow through on his pledge to create green collar jobs, to look for more opportunities in the United States and globally. In some subsequent legislation, not just in the stimulus bill but in the pending bill on energy that is in the U.S. Senate now, he has got billions of dollars of additional money for new investment opportunities in the energy sector. So he has committed his words, his eloquence to this issue, but he has also committed his political capital and achieved much in these areas legislatively.
Civilian nuclear cooperation
We are certainly very pleased with the progress attained in this historic deal and in this relationship on the civilian nuclear partnership. There are however some key legacy issues to complete. It is extremely important to the Obama administration that we try to do these as soon as possible — for India’s interests and also for the United States of America’s interests. This means commitment and fulfillment of an agreement, jobs for Americans, and electricity and changing people’s lives in India.
There are issues such as the public announcement of the two reactor sites for the United States and the two States that they will be located in. We are waiting for the Indian government to publicly announce that.
We are working closely with the Indian government on all these issues but also on the declaration of safeguarded facilities with the IAEA. We think there is great progress being made there. We hope to get that over the finish line. There is needed liability legislation passed through Parliament in India. We are hopeful that it will be completed in time for the Prime Minister’s visit in November. And then there is the issue on licensing that we still have to complete.
U.S. companies are very anxious and excited to have this completed. I can also assure you that at the highest levels of the United States government this is an extremely important and vital priority. It just so happens out of the four or five remaining legacy issues, almost every one of them is in the court of the Indian government.
Climate change: resources committed
The President has committed not only money and resources to climate change, but also his energy bill and his stimulus bill, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. He has committed people to it. When the President took office he appointed people like Carol Browner and Lisa Jackson — Carol Browner, in the White House to help strategise on climate change and energy security issues, who served in the Clinton administration. Lisa Jackson is in charge of the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] — somebody at the state level who has put climate and energy issues at the front and centre of her career.
He has a Vice-President who is firmly committed to these issues and an Energy Secretary too, who has brought great expertise from the National Labs to the energy and climate change issues. In Congress he has allies — in the Senate and in the House — people like Barbara Boxer and Howard Berrman, key strategists throughout the legislative branch who are working hard, supporting his legislation and his initiatives.
So from the level of money and resources to the level of personnel and time in the White House, to people who are helping him and partnering with him in the legislative area, there is a great deal of commitment to this climate issue. We hope that is contagious. We hope key players like India will also look at some of the challenges in their country.
We have made mistakes on this issue in our history. So I think rather than following some of our example on this, our two countries must work together for innovative, new solutions – reforestation programmes, planting new trees to form the sink to absorb some of the carbon emissions, alternative energy sources, science and technology partnerships, global partnerships with India and other countries. I think this is key.
Action on terrorism
You have to remember that about two months after 9/11 took place, a man by the name of Osama Bin Laden said it was not 19 Arab armies or 19 Arab tanks that attacked the U.S. — it was 19 postgraduate students! He was saying it’s a different world; that the transnational threats are very real, and it’s not just the nation state that can be a threat. It could be a cell of terrorists being trained somewhere north of here, coming in and attacking in Mumbai. It can be a cell of people training in Afghanistan and going into New York City. It can be a cyber security or computer threat. It can be a healthcare threat.
In almost every press conference I have had in my short tenure here, I have underscored the importance of the U.S. and India working together to confront this common global threat. Encouraging the government of Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of the bloodthirsty attacks in Mumbai to justice is absolutely key.
The U.S. government is completely devoted to going after people who are threatening our allies, like India, and killing Americans. That needs to be urgent, timely and comprehensive, on the part of the Pakistan government — to implement the sentences on these six people they now have on trial. I would also take it a step further than you have and say that people like Hafiz Sayeed, who are on the Interpol Red Notice List, who are on the UN 1267 Resolution, who have long been on lists in the U.S., need to be brought to justice.
Finally, the third point, which is absolutely vital for our moving forward and successfully taking on this common threat, is to help dismantle the infrastructure of LeT [Lashkar-e-Toiba], who have become a regional threat, not just a threat to India, but a player in terrorism and destruction in this entire region.
Those are three extremely important issues. At the same time we talk about national security issue, it is vitally important for the U.S. and India to talk about the economic issues, the education issues, the alleviation of poverty issues, where 650 million people in India live on less than $2 a day, the public diplomacy issues that the President has tasked me with – getting out and meeting people, broadening and deepening this relationship. It’s not just only about national security but about economic security, development security, energy security — that’s where this relationship really has the ability to grow.
Teach for America and India
I had a very productive, interesting, and expansive discussion with your new Minister of Human Resources and Education, Kapil Sibal. We talked about the opportunities for moving forward on higher education and legislation that, I think, is soon to be introduced. Hopefully this is legislation that might allow these partnerships to grow and prosper in the future, between American universities and Indian universities, that would guarantee a sound curriculum, good faculty, good partnerships.
The Teach for America idea, originated by Wendy Kopp in America, where we now go out in America and try to recruit some of our best and brightest to teach under some of the most difficult circumstances in inner city schools and rural schools, where it is hard to place teachers in American schools – how might we replicate that in India?
There is a Teach for India programme – how might that be scaled up to get more and more teachers into the communities? I heard from people in the Indian community in this Round Table that they are concerned that we need more and more people going into the teaching profession in India.
Quality and access in education
Access to education in America is broad, wide, and expansive. Whether you are living on a native American Indian reservation, whether you are in an inner city school, whether you are a disabled student, you have access to public education in America.
We worked on this bill called “No Child Left Behind.” We were able to pass that legislation with bipartisan support. There were two fundamentally important goals.
One, we said in a global economy it is absolutely essential that when you are passed from the sixth grade to the seventh grade or out of high school, there need to be specific goals and curricula and standards you have attained. It does not do anybody any good, whether you be poor or disadvantaged, or rich and advantaged, to be passing somebody through school but they cannot read at the right level, or they do not have the right sense of history, or they haven’t attained the goals of the technical training and drafting or an animation that it required, the computer skills.
So we set strict standards in this legislation saying you need to be able to attain certain goals going from one grade to the next. A diploma will mean something and you have to earn this in this 21st century global economy, which is so competitive.
Secondly, we said that we need to continue to be able to recruit, train and promote the best teachers in the world. If you are teaching students physics, you should be certified in physics. If you are teaching English you should be certified in English and have a broad background in Shakespeare and Byron and the great writers of the world rather than be trained in a different area. So we insisted on certain goals being reached on teacher training and teacher qualifications.
I think both of those goals try to get to this issue: with a vast opportunity of access in America, extended to so many groups of people, how do you insist on quality? How do you improve quality going forward with the teacher training programmes, with the teacher certification programmes, and with the student performance programmes? I think we found a good balance in “No Child Left Behind.”
Labels: 26/11, Al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, climate change, IAEA, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Mumbai attacks, No Child Left Behind, Taliban, Teach for America, Teach for India, Timothy Roemer, U.S. Ambassador
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
