Hope is Not a Foreign Policy » Terrorism

Obama, White House officials: al Qaeda a ‘racist’ organization–really, ya think?!

Tom Skypek — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:12:06 +0000

Al Qaeda–racist? Really? Apparently, the Obama administration has just now reached this conclusion, nearly nine years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. ”In short,” one administration official explained, “al Qaeda is a racist organization that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life.” Yes, al Qaeda does not value human life. And yes, it is happy to treaty people like cannon fodder. My question is: what are people doing in the administration who are just now realizing the truly despicable nature of this organization? Should they really be serving in important national security positions? Rarely do I find myself speechless but this is one of those times.

Fran Townshend Speech at National Defense University

Tom Skypek — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:15:39 +0000

I heard Fran Townshend, the former Homeland Security Advisor to George W. Bush, speak the other night at National Defense University at Ft. McNair. I was fortunate enough to get an invite through my affiliation with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and their Nuclear Scholars Initiative program. She gave a solid speech about the continued threat of terrorism and how it’s important for the government to clearly communicate threats to the American people. People get anxious when they’re kept in the dark and only told bits and pieces of a story, she argued. She also provided some lessons she learned navigating the sprawling national security bureaucracy both as a civil servant and a high-level political appointee.

I asked her during the Q&A whether she thought it was productive for the administration to describe terrorism as a “man-caused disaster” and refer to Islamic extremism as a “far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” Some observers think this is purely semantics. I think it’s important to identify threats in clear and unambiguous terms. Evidently Fran feels the same way. She called the move by the administration “dangerous” and unproductive. It got back to her point about keeping the American people informed.

Five Options for Dealing with Iran

Tom Skypek — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:19:03 +0000

It appears to be just a matter of time before Iran possesses an operational nuclear weapons capability. While the United Nations Security Council recently passed its fourth round of sanctions against Iran, if history is any guide, it is unlikely that this sanctions package will be any more effective than the previous three. Each of these sanctions packages have failed to achieve their stated objective of stopping Iran’s production of nuclear fuel. The options for stopping Iran are dwindling–as is time. There are, in fact, no attractive options for U.S. policymakers. These include: (1) accept a nuclear-armed Iran, (2) continue with sanctions, (3) support an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons complex, (4) launch a U.S.-led military strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons complex, and (5) facilitate regime change. As I said, not one of these options is attractive. In every case, the risks outweigh the benefits. Liberals believe that, in the end, diplomacy will work. Some conservatives believe that only military force will stop Iran, and while they are probably correct, the costs and risks associated with military action are extraordinarily high.

Accept a nuclear-armed Iran. This course of action is obviously not desirable for Washington, as long as the current regime is in power. Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon would alter the regional military balance in a fundamental way. Iran would stand to become the dominant military power in the Middle East. A nuclear-armed Iran would enjoy greater bargaining power diplomatically and largely insulate itself from a conventional military strike (in much the same way North Korea has done by credibly demonstrating its nuclear capability). Iran’s ability to coerce its neighbors and other actors will increase dramatically. While Iran does not yet possess a long-range ballistic missile capable of reaching the continental United States, it working toward building such a capability. This means that Iran will be able to hold targets in the United States at risk. This will make the United States susceptible to nuclear blackmail (again, see North Korea, for an example). The assumption here is that Iran can be deterred from using its weapons–that its fear of massive retaliation by Washington would prevent their use. Of course, this is a big assumption.

Continue with sanctions. It is highly unlikely that sanctions will prevent Iran from going nuclear. This latest round of sanctions is the fourth attempt. The fact of the matter is that Iran sees nuclear power as a “right” and matter of national pride. The regime will stop at nothing to build an indigenous nuclear weapons capability. Sanctions will only slow the process. In the end, sanctions will not work. As a policymaker, you can’t just stand around while Iran goes nuclear. Pushing sanctions is a way of delaying the inevitable.

Support an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons complex. Secretly, this is what every Sunni nation in the Middle East is hoping for. Saudi Arabia is even prepared to temporarily de-alert its air defense system, in the event of an Isareli strike against Iran. However, these countries would never admit in a public forum that they support military action against Iran. There are several challenges associated with a military strike. In 1981, Israel used air strikes to destroy Iraq’s nuclear facility at Osirak. But Iran’s nuclear weapons complex has many more potential targets which are hardened and dispersed. A “surgical” air strike, if successful, might destroy a couple of the facilities but would not destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons complex outright. A more robust air campaign could potentially achieve that objective but with significant risks–namely conflict escalation. Iran will not sit idly by as Israel drops ordnance on its nuclear facilities. Iran has a capable air defense system that includes advanced surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). The SAM threat will pose a significant risk to combat aircraft. Iran could also decide to launch ballistic missile strikes against Israel, or U.S. forces based in the region. Iran could also fully activate its terrorist network to launch attacks against Israeli and U.S. forces in the region. This counterattack would carry with it significant escalation risks for Iran, however, and would draw the United States into the conflict. Iran is also investing in anti-access/area-denial capabilities such as ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, small high-speed coastal combatants,and advanced anti-ship mines, according to Andrew Krepinevich at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The big risk with any military action is the risk of escalation. It is not difficult to envision a scenario in which a limited air strike devolves into a much broader regional conflict. If Iran decided to escalate the conflict by attacking U.S. forces in the region, Washington would have no choice but to respond militarily.

Launch a U.S.-led military strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons complex. Again, the risk of conflict escalation is significant. Jamie Fly and William Kristol argue that this is not the case–that Iran would not seek to escalate the conflict since what the leadership in Tehran ultimately values is power and an attack on U.S. forces would likely result in “regime decapitation.” While this line of reasoning makes perfect sense, it is a major assumption and the type of assumption that statesmen have gotten wrong on more than one occasion throughout history–and with disastrous consequences. The United States could deliver a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear program using air strikes. However, even with perfect intelligence (which just wouldn’t happen), the United States would probably not be able to destroy Iran’s program outright. Further, if Iran decided to escalate the conflict by attacking U.S. forces in the region, Washington policymakers would have to respond militarily. The problem is that the force is already under considerable stress from fighting the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 and 2003, respectively. Fly and Kristol conclude, “Despite our global commitments and our engagement in two ongoing wars, the U.S. military is fully able to carry out such a mission. Indeed, the success of President Bush’s 2007 surge of forces into Iraq and of President Obama’s sending additional resources to Afghanistan means we are on better footing to deal with Iran’s nuclear program than we were a few years ago.” While there are already U.S. forces in theater that could be re-deployed if necessary, it is unclear to me the scope of the “mission” to which Fly and Kristol are referring: are they talking about a massive ground campaign? Surgical air strikes augmented with special operations forces? Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom have placed stress on the force and have impacted the readiness of the U.S. military. This has to be a major planning consideration for anyone thinking about the use of force.

Facilitate regime change. If we woke up tomorrow and Iran was a pro-Western, pro-U.S. democracy, that would problem resolve this standoff. At that point, we probably wouldn’t care if they had civilian nuclear power program because we’d trust them to submit to a rigorous inspection regime. However, it doesn’t look like an organic, domestic revolution will occur in the near-term, despite calls by some senior policymakers to provide substantive support to the Iranian resistance–a course of action the Obama administration declined to adopt during last year’s unrest. Further, the costs associated with facilitating a regime change through military force are unacceptably high and such an operation shouldn’t even be considered because, quite simply, that is not the role of the United States military.

Not one of these options offers a low-risk approach for U.S. policymakers. While sanctions are a low-cost approach in the near-term, they will most likely be ineffective and will ultimately result in a nuclear-armed Iran. Conversely, while a military operation could halt the program for a period of time, the risks of escalation are considerable–even for a “surgical” air strike. If I had to wager, I would bet that the Obama administration will continue with the sanctions approach. However, this approach is, unfortunately, doomed to fail. It may very well be that Iran goes nuclear under President Barack Obama’s watch.

Blockade Running is a Dangerous Business

Tom Skypek — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:39:00 +0000

Blockade running is dangerous and can carry with it significant consequences, including death. Ask Rhett Butler or Han Solo, they know. I’ve been reading a lot about the blockade running incident which occurred on Monday. Of course, many of the reports are devoid of any real analysis–or facts, for that matter–and reflexively blame Israel. Leave it to Charles Krauthammer to make sense of it all:

But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the [Israeli] blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel — a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded (“quarantined”) Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren’t the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel’s offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza — as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel’s inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.

The occupants of these ships knew full well the consequences of running a blockade. What is more, the objective of the flotilla was not about delivering humanitarian aid, but provoking a response from Israel. What really turns the stomach is the faux outrage in the “international community” over this. You’ve got every nation under the sun running to the United Nations wanting a full and total condemnation of Israel’s actions. What a joke. North Korea continues to repress its own people and sinks a South Korean naval vessel without any consequences. Iran is a hop, skip, and a jump away from an operational nuclear weapon but these diplomats want to waste their time on this. This is nothing more than international cosmopolitanism at its finest.

At the end of the day, Israel has the right to defend itself. The international community will never accept that basic premise, however. Having said that, I still think that our engagement in the Middle East has become a resource drain and a strategy liability. Playing “peace broker” is a favorite pastime of the Washington foreign policy establishment, but trying to broker peace in the Middle East is a fool’s errand.

WMD Commission Report Card

Tom Skypek — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:34:29 +0000

Last month, the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism released its assessment detailing how well the U.S. Government has implemented the recommendations presented in its December 2008 report. The Commission explains in the overview, “The assessment is not a good one, particularly in the area of biological threats.” What is more, the assessment concludes that unless significant actions are taken “it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013. That weapon is more likely to be biological than nuclear.”

The Commission’s January 2010 report card covers a lot of material in its eighteen pages. What struck me the most were the three areas in which the Commission gave failing grades: 1) consequence management efforts related to a biological terrorist attack, 2) congressional oversight of the U.S. national security community, and 3) the national security workforce. I was struck because not one of these three issues is new. These issues have been documented in countless think tank reports, government-funded studies, and blue ribbon commissions, just like the one that issued this latest report. The problem(s) have been identified–on several occasions. The real question is: will the government take the necessary actions to ensure that the risks in these three areas is reduced?

How the Obama administration’s lack of credibility is weakening U.S. national security

Tom Skypek — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:28:32 +0000

Since January 20, 2009, American credibility has taken a back seat to the Obama administration’s quest for international popularity. During his trips to the Middle East and Asia last year, President Obama seemed more interested in bolstering his approval ratings abroad than advancing American interests. Last week it was reported that the Obama administration downgraded the priority placed on intelligence collection for China in an effort to increase cooperation with Beijing. This move was made despite the fact that Chinese cyberattacks against the U.S. are on the rise and the leadership in Beijing remains reticent about its massive military modernization program.

Unfortunately, U.S. national security is more dependent on the credibility of American power—and the words and policies of its commander-in-chief—than international popularity. In foreign affairs, credibility matters. Hollow threats and naïve policies embolden our adversaries while broken commitments lead our friends and allies to question our resolve. During the first year in power, the Obama administration has damaged American credibility with its mishandling of American national security policy.

Ft. Hood Terrorist Attack and Northwest Flight 253. The President’s sluggish response to both incidents was unfortunate, but what was far worse was his failure to identify both attacks for what they were—part of an international campaign by Islamic extremists to kill Americans. After Army Major Nadal Hassan murdered 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood last November, President Obama cautioned against a rush to judgment—despite immediate and overwhelming evidence that Hassan was indeed a jihadist. Obama would later refer to the Nigerian man who attempted to blow up Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day as “an isolated extremist.” This message of obfuscation is not one of strength and only serves to weaken American credibility. If we’re too timid to identify our adversaries, then how can we effectively prosecute a war against them?

The Afghanistan Decision. It took President Obama three months to make a decision on whether or not to increase troop levels in Afghanistan after his commanding general in Afghanistan (whom he selected) appealed to him for additional troops or risk a mission failure. Obviously, it is incumbent upon a commander-in-chief to carefully weigh all of his options when the use of force and American lives are at stake. But dawdling for three months after the commanding general has communicated, in no uncertain terms, that a failure to provide additional troops may jeopardize the mission is unacceptable. Such dithering only serves to paint the picture of an indecisive commander-in-chief. Indecision hampers American credibility.

Nuclear Weapons and a START Follow-On. The dramatic reduction of the U.S. nuclear stockpile and the movement toward a nuclear-free world quickly became one of President Obama’s signature foreign policy issues. In a speech in April 2009, he pledged to reduce significantly the U.S. nuclear stockpile as a first step toward a nuclear-free world. The problem is that his lofty policy ideas are simply incompatible with the U.S.’s need to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. While the United States nuclear weapons complex is deteriorating in every respect, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are investing heavily in their own nuclear weapons complexes. Without credibility, deterrence will fail.

Missile Defense in Poland and the Czech Republic. Warsaw and Prague learned the hard way that under the Obama administration sometimes adversaries are treated better than allies. President Obama’s decision to scrap a missile defense agreement negotiated by his predecessor with the Polish and the Czech governments was yet another credibility-busting policy maneuver. Both Poland and the Czech Republic bent over backwards to support Washington; both countries wanted the European missile defense sites to defend against Iranian ballistic missiles. The message to U.S. allies: Don’t count on the United States to keep its word.

The Iranian Nuclear Program. President Barack Obama’s December 31^st deadline for Iran to accept the terms of the UN-crafted deal over its nuclear program has come and gone, without any real consequences for the regime in Tehran. After Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly mocked the year-end deadline, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs warned on December 22^nd that Washington’s ultimatum was “a very real deadline.” This latest deadline should not be confused with the very similar deadline President Obama set in July of last year that called for Iran to show “good faith” efforts toward disarmament by September 2009. The Iranians have faced no substantive consequences for failing to comply with these deadlines. The real consequence of these hollow threats? A deterioration of American credibility.

Closing Gitmo and the Prosecution of CIA Operatives. Days after taking office, President Obama made clear his commitment to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. In August 2009, President Obama tasked Attorney General Eric Holder with investigating CIA operatives who used enhanced interrogation techniques during the Bush administration. Of course, both policy reversals were meant to assuage international opinion about perceived American “excesses” in the fight against Islamic extremism under the administration of George W. Bush. The message to the rest of the world: this is not the Bush administration. While this message might have pleased the Davos crowd and certain constituencies within the United States, this made clear that the Obama administration viewed the struggle against Islamic extremism much differently than its predecessor.

Trying Terrorists in Civilian Courts. The administration’s decision to try terrorists in civilian courts may placate the American Civil Liberties Union but at a tremendous cost to U.S. national security. As Charles Krauthammer recently noted, individuals who do not wear the uniform of a nation-state and launch direct attacks on civilians are enemy combatants and should not be afforded the same rights as American citizens. The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that the prosecutions of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspirators created a false impression that the U.S. criminal justice system was the proper venue in which to deal with terrorists.[i]

These decisions, taken individually or together, have only served to weaken American credibility abroad—not to mention they’ve been wholly ineffective. Have these policies convinced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to abandon his nuclear weapons program, Osama bin Laden to renounce terrorism, or Russia and China to support a comprehensive sanctions package against Iran? Hollow threats and obfuscation embolden our enemies, weaken our bargaining positions and leave Washington with fewer policy options. What is more, a continued reduction in American credibility may lead our friends and allies to reassess their defense and security relationships with the United States. It’s not too late for a course-correction but unless the White House begins to place a greater commitment on building American credibility rather than tearing it down, President Obama runs the risk of becoming another Jimmy Carter.

[i]The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 72.

Barack Obama: Weak on National Security

Tom Skypek — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:12:28 +0000

Say what you will about George W. Bush, but he took his job seriously. President George W. Bush understood that his most solemn duty as president was the defense of America–in other words, the safety and security of its citizens. Barack Obama does not understand this. In fact, he seems more concerned with pushing a left-wing agenda–like the cap and tax climate change bill and the nationalization of health care–than fighting terrorists. He doesn’t think we’re at war. He called the incident on Northwest Flight 253 an “isolated incident.” Are you kidding me? This is the Commander in Chief? Let me make this crystal clear for you, Mr. President: What occurred on Northwest Flight 253 is part of an international campaign perpetrated by Islamic extremists to kill Americans–just like the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the recent massacre at Fort Hood. Why did it take 72 hours for the president to speak to the American people after the incident on Christmas day? Was his teleprompter also on vacation?

My family could have been aboard that plane–my wife and 4-month old daughter. Your family could have been on that plane. Islamic extremists want to kill Americans; it’s that simple. Clearly, Obama and his team don’t understand this. Here’s a news flash, Mr. President: your constituency is the American public, not the international community or a Muslim audience in Egypt. Obama then has the gall to blame the intelligence community for the failures that led to the Christmas incident. This comes after he made a decision to investigate CIA operatives who kept us safe during the Bush administration. Under threat of criminal prosecution, people become risk-averse.

The president has weakened our national security during his first year in office with his silly attempt to close Gitmo; his decision to try the 9/11 conspirators in New York; the decision to investigate CIA interrogators and the declassification of our interrogation techniques…Shall I go on? What about his American apology tours?

He’s not credible. Our enemies do not fear him. They feared George W. Bush and they would have feared John McCain. He thinks that if he can only sit down and chat with them–his charm will lead them to renounce their evil ways. And don’t forget: his “new diplomacy” has done a lot of good in Iran… He won’t even use the word “terrorism.” He told the Pentagon to use “Overseas Contingency Operation” instead of War on Terror–because he thought War on Terror was bad PR and, of course, acts of terrorism would now be known as “man-caused disasters.”

It is tragic that it has come to this. How many more innocent Americans must die at the hands of Islamic extremists before the liberals wake up? Wasn’t 9/11 enough of a wake-up call for every American? That was just 8 years ago. How could anyone forget? These terrorists cannot be bargained with or reasoned with. They don’t value human life. Do you feel safe at night knowing that Barack Obama is responsible for keeping your country and your family safe?

Wait for the Jimmy Carter redux. Obama will launch some type of “operation” or strike against terrorist targets but that’s just a political move. Everyone knows he’s soft on terrorism, soft on national security but his handlers have to at least give the appearance that he’s tough and rugged. Guys like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are berated as reckless cowboys, but guys like that keep us safe.

Lindsey Graham Destroys Eric Holder

Tom Skypek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:46:58 +0000

Lessons from The 9/11 Commission: Why Terrorists Should be Tried in Military Tribunals

Tom Skypek — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:21:32 +0000

The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that the prosecutions of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspirators created a false impression that the U.S. criminal justice system was “well-equipped to cope with terrorism”:

As a result of the investigations and arrests, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York prosecuted and convicted multiple individuals, including Ajaj, Salameh, Ayyad, Abouhalima, the Blind Sheikh, and Ramzi Yousef, for crimes related to the World Trade Center bombing and other plots. An unfortunate consequence of this superb investigative and prosecutorial effort was that it created an impression that the law enforcement system was well-equipped to cope with terrorism. Neither President Clinton, his principal advisers, the Congress, nor the news media felt prompted, until later, to press the question of whether the procedures that put the Blind Sheikh and Ramzi Yousef behind bars would really protect Americans against the new virus of which these individuals were just the first symptoms.

Unfortunately, it appears as though the Obama administration prefers to learn this lesson on its own.

Pat Buchanan: Trying KSM in Federal Court Could Cost Obama 2nd Term

Tom Skypek — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:59:04 +0000

Here’s a great op-ed by Pat Buchanan on the legal and national security implications of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 conspirators in federal court in Manhattan. Buchanan writes:

Are we at war – or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

This is a terrible decision for a whole host of reasons. I hope the Obama administration does the right thing and reverses this decision.