Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

October 3, 2009

Moon over Manhattan

Filed under: Strategy,Terrorist Threats & Attacks — by Philip J. Palin on October 3, 2009

rawalpindian

In Senate testimony on Wednesday, Secretary Napolitano, FBI Director Mueller, and Michael Leiter, Director of the National  Counter Terrorism Center, outlined the terrorist threat to the United States. According to Leiter:

Despite our counterterrorism (CT) progress, al-Qa‘ida and its affiliates and allies remain resilient and adaptive enemies intent on attacking US and Western interests—with al-Qa‘ida’s core in Pakistan representing the most dangerous component of the larger al-Qa‘ida network. We assess that this core is actively engaged in operational plotting and continues recruiting, training, and transporting operatives, to include individuals from Western Europe and North America… We assess that al-Qa‘ida continues to pursue plans for Homeland attacks and is likely focusing on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the population.

How to deal with this “most dangerous component” is the subject of intense controversy in a number of capitals, and certainly in Washington.

But it is probably in Islamabad — or, more realistically, in Pakistan’s military capital of Rawalpindi — where the decision that matters most will be made. 

Looking at the world from Rawalpindi is a bit like that classic New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, where reality is dominated by Manhattan’s street grid and even New Jersey seems distant and barely relevant.

Until this Spring al-Qaeda seemed no more relevant than California.  The Afghan Taliban were certainly wild, but as well-contained as residents of the Central Park Zoo.  “Taliban-in-Pakistan” was just a new name for the fractious gangs that have long inhabited Pakistan’s equivalent of the South Bronx (before gentrification). 

India was — and is —  the real threat;  just as middle class values creeping  over from Long Island are a threat to Manhattan.

Then in April some deadly serious toughs from the South Bronx suddenly  claimed the Swat Valley (think the northend of Central Park) and were gathering at 110th Street for a sweep south along Fifth Avenue.  That got Rawalpindi’s attention and the gangs were mostly dispersed, at least back into the depths of Harlem.

The issue now is whether Rawalpindi should try taking out the gangs on their own home turf (think Ft. Apache, the Bronx).

Earlier this week David Ignatius, reporting from Ft. Apache in the Washington Post, predicted, “A new battle for control of Waziristan is coming, as the Pakistani military prepares a ground offensive in the Mehsud areas against Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters. The army has code-named the operation ‘Rahe Nijat,’ which the commander here translates loosely as ‘The Way to Get Rid of Them.’ The assault could start within the next month.”

Writing in the October 8 New York Review of Books Ahmed Rashid disagrees. “However, Pakistan’s general made it abundantly clear that they will not invade South Waziristan for the moment. ‘It’s going to take months’ to launch a ground offensive, the senior commander in the area, Lieutenant General Nadeem Ahmad told reporters… The army would prefer to wait and see what happens in Waziristan and also in Afghanistan.”

And in Washington. While far away, Washington D.C. looms large in Rawalpindi, much as a full moon fills the sky over Manhattan.

What Washington decides to do (or not) in Afghanistan will determine what Rawalpindi does (or not) in Waziristan.  Washington currently holds the Bronx Zoo (Kabul) and can keep the Grand Concourse open to traffic.  Will NATO and Pakistani troops eventually meet for a friendly game in Yankee Stadium?  Or will the US and and its European allies gradually withdraw across the George Washington Bridge to far-away New Jersey?

Over the weekend an Army spokesman in Rawalpindi said that ground operations in Waziristan are “a matter of time.” Rawalpindi is ready in Waziristan. But it will not cross the East River — it will not fully engage –until it is sure that Washington and Brussels are committed east of the Hudson.  

The NATO Secretary-General, in Washington last week, certainly sounded committed. The Sunday Telegraph tells its readers — including the Sandhurst contingent in Pindi — that London is committed.

“We are up for what it takes,” says Sir David, “we will do what is asked of us,” meaning the Army will deliver whatever troops the Americans require. Although Sir David refuses to confirm the figures, the consensus is that the numbers serving in southern Afghanistan will rise from 9,000 to around 10,000. “We can, on an enduring basis, do more – there’ll be no problem with that. We all know if we get this wrong there are all sorts of implications, not just for this generation but our children’s generation.

So all eyes are on Washington.  What did Thursday’s Armed Services  Committee vote mean?  What did the President and McChrystal say to each other on the tarmac at Copenhagen?  How will Saturday’s battle near Kamdeysh influence the White House? 

These are beautiful nights for moon gazing in the Hindu Kush.  The winter storms are still, oh… maybe four weeks away.  It’s just a matter of time.

–+–

OCTOBER 6 UPDATE Later today CNN International will, almost certainly, displace both Bollywood and the BBC for late night viewing in Rawalpindi.  At 3:00 pm (eastern), and 1:00 am Pindi time,  Christiane Amanpour will interview Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding, among other topics,  the war in Afghanistan.  By the time the exclusive interview is over there should be an update on the results of today’s 2:30 pm White House meeting with bipartisan Congressional leadership focused on our Afghan strategy.  As if this might not be sufficient, at 3:00 pm Secretary Clinton will meet with the Pakistani Foreign Minister face-to-face. At the same time, Gen. Petreaus will give a major speech (what might the topic be?).   The National Security Council principals committee is scheduled to convene at 4:30. Coincidentally or not, this morning the President will visit the National Counter Terrorism Center.   Looks pretty well choreographed to these eyes.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

2 Comments »

Comment by William R. Cumming

October 3, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

My belief is that new international models must be erected for regions largely within nation-states but beyond the control or policing resources of those nation-states. The Northwest Tribal Areas of Pakistan are a classic. What should long ago have occurred to the Pakistani leadership is that if despite the obvious love-affair of Pakistan with its military and it basic militarism as a nation, when a significant sector of the nation is beyond the control of the military it was always obvious to all that its threats against other nation-states were somewhat limited by its capabilities. Perhaps that is why Pakistan went nuclear because it was unable to compete conventionally with India. Whatever, when a significant lawless portion of the world exists, the UN needs to develop procedures and conventions to deal with threats to world peace and other nation-states by these lawless areas. Thomas PM Barnett, PhD has made a good living with his book “The Pentagon’s New Map” and other books describing the nation-states that constitute the current “Core” of Globalization and those others which he terms the “GAP”! Perhaps here we have the Gap’s Gap! It does greatly concern me that the US feels entitled to conduct Predator missile strikes in the Northwest Tribal Areas [with apparent marked success] but with heavy collateral damages in many cases. What is worse is that both the Administration and the MSM feel that no line drawing under International Law is necessary for these strikes to be limited in any way. Hey, missile strikes from off-shore by “terrorists” are not so far fetched against the US leadership and in fact is one reason that missle defense, even theatre missle defense, which should long ago have been deployed off US coasts is such a failure. All of above IMO of course. Not an expert on International Law, Pakistan, Core vs Gap [although I have read all Dr. Barnett’s book and frequently comment on his blog] and certainly not expert on the command and control of Predator missile strikes. AS to the later is there any civilian oversight? Or is this a formally delegated mission to the Armed Forces, including target selection and geographic areas targeted. If that is the case extremely dangerous abdication in my judgement of civil command and control over the military.

Comment by christopher tingus

October 4, 2009 @ 11:49 pm

What is the real probability of successful strikes from off the US coasts and how protected are we asks Main Street USA?

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>