305 - A New Al Qaeda Strategy?

On Friday, March 27, President Obama announced his plans for Afghanistan focusing on the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  “The situation is increasingly perilous,” he said. He also warned that al Qaeda “is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.”  He added: “We have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”  Obama will deploy 4,000 more troops in addition to the 17,000 he has already commited adding up to more than 60,000 troops.  Expenditures will increase about 60% above the current $2 billion a month to about $3.2 billion a month.  The 82nd Airborne Division, rather than reservists, will act as trainers to double the Afghan army to 134,000 by 2011.  He also called for a dramatic increase in US development assistance for both countries, significantly increased US civilian presence on the ground and a five year program for Pakistan of $1.5 billion a year.  Finally, he said that we would establish benchmarks as we had done in Iraq over the past two years. 

If all of this sounds vaguely familiar, it is no surprise since the team that gave you Iraq over the past two years is the same team that is now in charge in Afghanistan. While we have certainly made progress in Iraq and the team deserves considerable credit for the change, the question is whether or not the same medicine will work in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The conditions are quite different.  The topography in Waziristan and Afghanistan is a terrorist’s dream compared to the topography in Iraq.  The tribal culture is far more intense and tightly knit in Afghanistan than it was in Iraq.  The poverty level is considerably greater in Afghanistan and the educational level lower.  If you want to fuel terrorism, what you need is poverty and money.  And the Taliban has both.  The money comes from the drug trade, the poverty is a given.  And with money, you can buy support and corrupt the institutions of government that could stand against you. 

One wonders whether or not with $3.2 billion a month we could not outspend, out-corrupt and out-buy the Taliban.  That is not the way we want to operate, but until we can dry up the Taliban and al-Qaeda financial resources and immunize the local population from the Taliban’s bribary and barbarity, it is hard to see how we will be able to develop the system of intelligence and local reporting that can defeat our enemies.  NATO continues to be divided on how to deal with the Opium industry since it is the lifeblood of so many Afghanis.  But unless we can come up with an effective strategy for strangling Taliban and al-Qaeda resources, any gains we may make are likely to be subject to reversal.

But lets look on the positive side.  Let’s say we are fully effective and we can blunt the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the question I have to ask is whether or not we will have solved the problem of al Qaeda? There are some clues that are worrisome.

March 17, 2009, Yemeni security authorities said that a suicide bomber who killed four South Korean tourists in Yemen was trained in Somalia.  Acording to a Reuters report, tens of thousands of Somali refugees arrive in Yemen each year while the Yemen government fights an insurgency in the north putting Yemen at risk of becoming a failed state.  Yemen’s problems could then spill over into Saudi Arabia.  Yemen authorities have rounded up dozens of militants linked to al-Qaeda.

On March 18, 2009 another man blew himself up in Yemen trying to attack South Korean investigators.  These attacks followed calls by Al Qaeda leaders for attacks on non-Muslim foreigners in the Arabian Peninsula.

On February 25 the press reported that Islamist militants in Somalia have rejected any compromise and will fight until Somalia is a strict Islamist state.  Meanwhile educated Somalis are leaving the country in droves.

On March 25 the press reported that a tape released by the al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahri called on the Sudanese to undertake jihad against the “crusade” being orchestrated by the West against Sudan. 

In January 2009 the press reported that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Abu Sayyaf al-Shihri, released to Saudi Arabia, had shown up in Yemen as the deputy leader of al-Qaeda’s Yemeni branch.

According to the Timesonline in July 2008, success in Iraq against al-Qaeda has led the terrorists to flee to Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Thailand with the largest contingent going to North Africa.  An arc of terror is taking shape in Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania, according to the article. 

There is more, but on the face of it, victory in Iraq has led to an enhanced al-Qaeda presence in failed states where Islamic fundamentalism has taken root and training facilities can sustain a steady conveyor belt of suicide bombers and fighters. So the question is, can we afford to focus all our attention and resources on Pakistan and Afghanistan while al-Qaeda turns its attention to the more accommodating environments of failed states?  In short, can we afford to turn our backs on Darfur, Somalia, Yemen and a number of other states that are at risk?  

Comments

[Abdelwahab Abdelghany]

Ambassador Walker’s concern of al-Qaeda spreading, more than it already has, is a very serious threat that the United States must deal with now. There are two ways that al-Qaeda may react to the increase of US military presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan: either increase their man power in these two nations or flock out to other parts of the world where they have a safe haven like Yemen. Al-Qaeda being able to increase its recruitment when it is under attack is not a surprise nor is it anything new. When the United States first entered Iraq, al-Qaeda’s presence was very limited but that didn’t last too long. Because the Iraq invasion was seen by many Muslims around the world as a Western occupation, it became very easy for al-Qaeda to recruit.

In 2003, a New York Times article titled “Anger on Iraq Seen as New Qaeda Recruiting Tool” cited Carl Bauer, the chief of the German state department, noting that “we know the activity is increasing and the willingness to participate and to listen to radical messages is on the rise.” Al-Qaeda leaders such as Osama Bin Laden attracted a greater audience as result of the US invasion of Iraq by defining the movement as Jihad. The United States’ top priority should be to ensure that its efforts don’t become a selling point for al-Qaeda’s recruitment. Securing the borders as to deny al-Qaeda members entrance into Pakistan and Afghanistan does not mean fighting won’t intensify. If ordinary Pakistanis and Afghanis view the US as trying to impose the western life style on them, they may feel provoked to fight as well as ally with fighters from other regions. The US has taken the right steps by offering economic incentives to people in hopes of buying out al-Qaeda but that alone will not stop its spread or the imminent threat the US faces.

It is crucial for the US to be able to have Muslims and Muslim nations around the world believe in as well as enlist in the goals and missions of the US. The United States must be willing to communicate and work with all Muslim nations including those connected to al-Qaeda such as Iran; this will increase the United States’ soft power, which is important to its success. There is no doubt that this is a difficult and complex task but the alternative is to keep fighting a war that has no end in sight. The most useful resource that the United States has is its alliances with countries like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia and it should continue to use them but at the same time, distain itself from overly oppressive policies that exist. It is essential that the US gets viewed as an ally to the foreign governments as well as the people that they represent. If the US is viewed as an added problem by the people, having good relations with the government will not defeat the threat of terrorism because the terrorism starts with individuals. The US must also be willing to distain itself from Israel and its crimes against the Palestinian people to help eliminate the idea that the US is anti-Islamic. The US will continue to face new threats if individuals continue to see its policies as unjust. President Obama’s tactic of reaching out to Muslims and the Muslim world is a great strategy and indicates that his administration understands that its fight goes beyond the borders of two nations. That being said, actions speak louder than words, to have Muslims truly side with the US our policies must illustrate the change we seek.

[Julian Brody]

Since George Bush waged war on terror in 2001, we have yet to realize our objective of defeating terrorism. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, though it dismantled the Taliban regime and increased security in Northern Afghanistan, continues to struggle; Al-Quaeda and the Taliban still receive funding from the opium drug trade, the central government lacks legitimacy, terrorism remains a threat to civilians throughout the country and the Taliban continues to challenge the Pakistani government. As the U.S. falters in Afghanistan and Iraq, Al Quaeda’s influence is globally expanding throughout Northern Africa, in Southeast Asia, and especially in Yemen. Afghanistan and Iraq teach us the mobile nature of terrorism; limiting terrorism in one region often results in increased terrorism in others. As Ambassador Walker asks, where should we focus our efforts in combating global terrorism? Should we focus on such a strong commitment to Afghanistan, or should we globalize our war on terror?
In short, we cannot afford to abandon Afghanistan. An unstable Afghanistan funds Al Quaeda through the opium trade and threatens Pakistan, a valuable ally. The Obama administration finally offered the support necessary for a successful campaign in Afghanistan. The lack of forces involved in Operation Enduring Freedom from 2001 to 2008 undermined the U.S.’s already vague mission objective to root out terrorism. To compensate for the insufficient forces, the U.S. relied on regional anti-Taliban warlords to combat the Taliban. As a result, factionalism increased, thus detracting from the legitimacy of the central government and preventing successful nation building. The U.S. also failed to secure Southern Afghanistan, stop the drug trade (according to the UN Report of Afghanistan Opium Cultivation, opium cultivation increased from 2003-2005), and secure the Afghani-Pakistan border. The Taliban, funded by opium cultivation, now not only threatens the security of Afghanistan, but it also presents a threat to Pakistan, where it has waged a potent military campaign over the past few weeks.
Admittedly, a stable Afghanistan will not completely neutralize the threat of terrorism in Yemen, Southeast Asia, or Northern Africa. A secure Afghanistan will however provide the U.S. with a vital step in containing terrorism. Controlling Afghanistan’s drug trade will damage the ability of both the Taliban and Al Quaeda to fund their operations. In addition, it is critical to limit the influence of the Taliban in Pakistan, where it already threatens the province of Punjabi, which houses a large population susceptible to the rhetoric of Taliban as well as nuclear weapons.
The end game of our War on Terror will undoubtedly involve nation building, especially in Sudan, Yemen and Somalia. As Ambassador Walker suggests, the containment of the expansion of global terrorism will come at a heavy price. Iraq and Afghanistan taught us that invading a country to root out terrorism without the necessary commitment of resources only increases the threat of terrorism. Sudanese, Yemeni, and Somali security, therefore, is too large a task in the current climate. Instead, we must finish the job we began in Operation Enduring Freedom; the road to the neutralization of Al Quaeda begins in Afghanistan.

[Margaret]

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Margaret

http://grantsforeducation.info