A brief on CNN's GPS on al-Qaeda

CNN's Fareek Zakaria held an interesting debate on his GPS programme on Sunday night. The focus of the debate was whether al-Qaeda remained a force capable of changing the game (like it did after 9/11) and whether the US had overreacted to the al-Qaeda threat and were continuing to overreact. The panel eventually agreed that, yes, the US was and continues to overreact, but that this was justified. Al-Qaeda it was argued has ceased to be an effective unit able to bring about change; however, Zakaria made an interesting point that al-Qaeda continued to achieve results by simply being a reason for the US to overreact.

 

Now the talk itself was useful, as it raised an interesting question as to whether or not al-Qaeda continues to pose a risk. What the program did not cover were the al-Qaeda affiliates that do pose a serious risk to US security. In Algeria and Yemen two significant al-Qaeda linked groups, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, maintain a signficant presence. AQAP for their part have attempted at least one bombing of a major US airline over Detroit in December 2009. It is vital that any discussion on al-Qaeda not get lost on the debate surrounding Islamist extremism which exists in multiple forms across the globe.

 

The panel also agreed that al-Qaeda maintained an ability to conduct sporadic attacks but couldn't effect change like it did in 9/11. I'd like to disagree. It takes only one attack at a right point in time to illicit a response. For example if tensions between Iran and US heighten further and an "Iranian backed Islamist group" coordinated an attack against the US, is it not plausible that the US would overreact again, even if it were justified? The threat from the al-Qaeda prime (let alone from its affiliates) will only be diminished once Islamist extremist thought is eradicated. As long as there is on Islamist extremist there will be a huge problem for government's worldwide. Ultimately it is up to each government to determine its own path, including the US. Whether or not they overreact is their own decision based on a calculation dependent on the needs of the people and the security requirements of the state.

Koran burning & religion

Does it matter that an American nutter is about to burn a whole bunch of Korans? What is the big deal? Not entirely sure; however, to hundreds of millions of Muslims the planned 9/11 Koran burning is highly significant. They are after all burning the word of God as transcribed by the Prophet Mohammed. Now Obama and Hillary have all thrown their two cents in and condemned the plan burning, the media have played it up and it's become standard day time talk show fodder. The event has been blown completely out of proportion. In fact the only person benefiting from this is the preacher in question. The Muslim world and particularly the Islamist extremist minority within it are waiting with bated breathe for the first match and some of them are readying themselves for revenge. One gets a sense that if this goes ahead that US Embassies across the world will not only be covered in eggs but some may even experience more serious implications. Anyone interested in this should stay glued to their news screens on Saturday, things are going to get tasty.

Abyan governorate & jihad

Yemen's Abyan governorate has been the centre of severe levels of Islamist extremist violence in the past month. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has claimed a series of attacks against the security forces which have left dozens of people dead. The campaign has been waged by approximately 300 jihadists (estimate) who are based in the rugged mountains surrounding the governorates main towns and cities. The group has the backing of a number of locals who are thought to be supplying the group with armaments and supplies. In response the government has deployed hundreds of fresh troops to the governorate to quell, what is seemingly becoming, a violent uprising. There efforts in Lowder, an AQAP stronghold, are admirable; however, its use of indiscriminate bombing against AQAP positions in civilian areas that is worrying, particularly from a counter-insurgency standpoint which mandates that in order to crush a guerrilla force it is imperative that the local community support the effort. The bombardments are likely to affect AQAP but will also benefit the group's recruitment drive.

Sensationalism in the media: A challenge for the travel security risk management sector

An article appeared in Reuters Alertnet earlier today that highlights the essential problem with trusting the world media to report on a consistent basis. The news story covered a suicide bombing that left one dead and six injured in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. Although the incident is significant to those affected it did not reflect something new or newsworthy in relation to past levels of story on these types of security incidents in the media. There have been numerous and more signficant attacks than these in the recent past that have not received similar coverage (just do a quick search for Iraq factbox on the same alertnet site). We can but conclude that it is a slow news day and that stories on Blair being pelted by eggs had finally become boring to the press core. The challenge for the travel security risk management sector is therefore to explain these incidents within the larger context to its client base and not succumb to the sensationalism of the world media.

The trouble with Hamas' position

Hamas' 31 Aug and 1 Sept attacks against Israeli civilians underlines the groups strong opposition to US-backed peace talks in Washington between their main Palestinian rival, Fatah, and its arch enemy, Israel. Hamas, which ousted Fatah in 2007 from the Gaza Strip, essentially gifting Fatah the West Bank and an opportunity to pursue economic recovery and peace, remains deeply opposed to the Israeli state and continues to stake its legitimacy on this single point. They have been given the opportunity in the past to renounce violence against Israel; however, if they were to do so there would be two results 1. Hamas would reach a peace deal with Fatah and Israel 2. Hamas would lose all credibility as a resistance movement. This is unlikely to happen, so enter Hamas militants and aggressive tactics designed to undermine Fatah's own credibility.

Hamas though are, as an organisation, not stupid. They have realised that they can not exist in the international community without accepting Israel or acting like a real government. In the recent past they have been quietly approached by and have approached the European Union, perhaps to act as intermediaries between them and the international community. However, their integration into the global order will take time, time they do not have or can afford, particularly as their main rival seems intent on pursuing its own course...and at a fairly high pace. Bottom line - Expect more Hamas attacks.

Obama's Iraq conundrum

The recent declaration by Barak Obama that the US was ceasing military operations on 31 August and was on schedule for a full withdrawal by July 2011 came as a mild surprise to many. Although the announcement was expected the decision smacks of political and not military considerations. Iraq remains a mess and is on the verge of civil war. Sunni extremist attacks continue across much of the country on a daily basis and while the Iraqi security forces have been equipped and ‘trained’, they pose more of a risk to the country’s cash flow and civilian wallets than to the insurgents and militias. The country is in essence a dry stack of grass ready to explode. Added to the woe is Iran, a nuclear ambitious theocracy hell bent on pursuing nuclear technology and weapons (yes weapons, even though they proclaim they only want nuclear power for the cold huddled masses). If the US and EU continue to pressure Iran as expected Iran’s influence over Iraqi affairs will be clearly shown. The country’s government has already been implicated in weapons smuggling to its allies in Iraq and pursuing a policy of interference and establishing proxy militias to destabilise the country is a fairly simple matter. Yet what other options does this US currently have stymied as they are by an administration that is keen on retreat? Not many. To be fair Obama is in a tough position. The Iraqis don’t want the Americans, the Iranian don’t want them, the Americans don’t want to be there. But like any parent knows, sometimes you need to make unpopular decisions. Leadership is about taking bold steps even if it means sacrifice. A draw down of troops does not seem to be a logical military solution; however, like Vietnam in an era past there doesn’t seem to be any good options available.

AQIM ambush Algerian security force patrol

Algerian militants believed to be alligned to the AQIM attacked a paramilitary patrol in the southern reaches of Algeria's vast Saharan desert yesterday. The attack is unusual as AQIM militants have conducted the vast majority of their terrorist aggression in the mountainous north of the country where they are afforded a greater deal of cover. The south of the country has usually been AQIM's centre of smuggling and kidnapping operations which finance their military ventures further north. Military operations in these theatre against the well-armed and aerial capable Algerian army are not logical options. The reasons for the attack are therefore slightly unclear. Why would they attack a well-armed convoy in the middle of nowhere? There are two possible scenarios/reasons. The first is chance. The AQIM militants may well have stumbled upon the convoy during their everyday operations in the south and had no option but to engage the convoy. The second is that the AQIM were attempting to send a message to the Algerian government. In April, the Algerian government established a joint anti-terrorism unit in the southern town of Tamnarraset to curb the growing risk of AQIM militancy in the wider Saharan region. The well-publicised opening of the unit would have been received by the AQIM. This attack may well be a first indication that the group, starved of alternatives, may be sending a clear message, "we will not move". Whatever the reasons, the attack is not likely to be the last. AQIM have a now established presence in the central Sahara and are taking advantage of lucrative criminal enterprises in this theatre. They will not want to lose this.