The National War Memorial in Ottawa, Canada is also known as The Response. It was originally designed and constructed in memory of Canadians who served in the First World War. It has since been adapted to honor those serving in subsequent conflicts. The surmounting sculptures symbolize spirits of peace and liberty. Earlier today, Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, standing guard at the memorial was shot and killed. The attacker was killed when he continued by shooting his way into the nearby Parliament building.
October 22, 2014
October 9, 2014
The Ebola outbreak is, almost certainly, a precursor for a future pandemic that will be much worse.
The current California drought is, almost certainly, a precursor of more to come.
The recent series of cyber-attacks are, almost certainly, a precursor of many more — and much worse — to come.
The intention of Australian terrorists to undertake random attacks is, almost certainly, a precursor for such attacks there and elsewhere.
In each case a current threat-vector is amplified by human behavior, especially increased population density and mobility. Ebola is naturally occurring. Until the last four decades its natural range was isolated from humans and, especially, human networks. Drought is naturally occurring in the American West and Southwest. Until the last six decades, this region was sparsely populated. Never before has so much monetary value been so concentrated and (at least virtually) proximate. Violence is naturally occurring in human populations, its mimetic mutations now facilitated by many more of us in communication, contact, and perceived competition.
In the case of Ebola, the rapidly increasing population of Guinea (Conakry) — up 220 percent since 1960 — has created substantial ecological and economic stress. This has been especially the case in the forested uplands of Eastern Guinea neighboring Liberia where the current outbreak first emerged. With about 70 people per square kilometer this region has twice the density of the Virginia county where I live. It’s less than 300 miles to Monrovia, the capital of Liberia, which has a population density of 600 per square kilometer. No wonder Monrovia has been hit so hard.
We don’t know precisely when or how the virus was transferred to humans in this epidemic, but consumption of bushmeat infected with the virus is a good guess. That has been the origin in several previous — but much smaller — outbreaks in Congo and Gabon.
(Reuters) – An outbreak of hemorrhagic fever has killed at least 23 people in Guinea’s southeastern forest region since February when the first case was reported, health authorities in the West African nation said on Wednesday.
At least 35 cases have been recorded by local health officials, said Sakoba Keita, the doctor in charge of the prevention of epidemics in Guinea’s Health Ministry.
“Symptoms appear as diarrhea and vomiting, with a very high fever. Some cases showed relatively heavy bleeding,” Keita said.
“We thought it was Lassa fever or another form of cholera but this disease seems to strike like lightning. We are looking at all possibilities, including Ebola, because bushmeat is consumed in that region and Guinea is in the Ebola belt,” he said. No cases of the highly contagious Ebola fever have ever been recorded in the country. (March 19)
Well into summer I assumed this Ebola outbreak would be contained as others have been contained. I neglected to notice that this time the threat had emerged in a region much more densely populated than previous outbreak zones (and with much easier access to even more densely populated areas). I overestimated the vigilance and capacity of the World Health Organization. I underestimated the power-amplifiers of human need and social interaction and fear… multiplied exponentially as the vector penetrates more deeply into the matrix.
This is how it happens. Prior success encourages undue confidence. And maybe you’re a bit distracted. The threat morphs and emerges into — then out of — a different context. So it may not initially be recognized. The critical contextual cues are unnoticed. The threat is given time and space to strengthen. This is especially likely to happen with places or people already neglected.
What worked last time is not quite calibrated with the new context. Besides, for many of those engaging this threat, this is their first time. Former lessons have not been learned, are being re-learned. This threat in this place is in many respects unique — at least in the experience of those who confront it this time.
It is a threat that, if recognized early-on, might be quickly suppressed or contained. But instead it proliferates, filling the void opened by neglect. Thus amplified the threat is much more likely to find and exploit vulnerabilities; even those that until the threat’s emergence were seen as strengths. Which is typically how tragedy unfolds, when what had been strong makes us weak.
October 5, 2014
Last week the Vice President gave a speech at Harvard’s Kennedy School. The speech was mostly a quick skim of global issues and US priorities. Not much new. But as is Mr. Biden’s tendency, he can with tone or particular emphasis, give an old song new life.
Below are his remarks on counter-terrorism. I have highlighted some elements with which I agree and, in my judgment, are too seldom emphasized.
The fourth element of our strategy is countering violent extremism. As you know, we’ve engaged in a relentless campaign against terrorists in Afghanistan, in the so-called FATA, in Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere. This campaign against violent extremism predates our administration, and it will outlive our administration. But we’ve made real progress against al Qaeda’s core and its affiliates since 9/11. But this threat of violent extremism is something we’re going to have to contend with for a long time.
Today, we’re confronting the latest iteration of that danger, so-called ISIL; a group that combines al Qaeda’s ideology with territorial ambitions in Iraq and Syria and beyond, and the most blatant use of terrorist tactics the world has seen in a long, long time. But we know how to deal with them.
Our comprehensive strategy to degrade and eventually defeat ISIL reflects the lessons we have learned post-9/11 age about how to use our power wisely. And degrading them does not depend upon an unsustainable deployment of hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground. It’s focused on building a coalition with concrete contributions from the countries in the region. It recognizes outside military intervention alone will not be enough. Ultimately, societies have to solve their own problems, which is why we’re pouring so much time and effort into supporting a Syrian opposition and Iraqi efforts to re-establish their democracy and defend their territory. But this is going to require a lot of time and patience.
The truth is we will likely be dealing with these challenges of social upheaval not just in Iraq and Syria, but across the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring, which will take a generation or more to work itself out.
We can’t solve each of these problems alone. We can’t solve them ourselves. But ultimately — and we can’t ultimately solve them with force, nor should we try. But we can work to resolve these conflicts. We can seek to empower the forces of moderation and pluralism and inclusive economic growth. We can work with our partners to delegitimize ISIL in the Islamic world, and their perverse ideology.
We can cut off the flow of terrorist finance and foreign fighters, as the President chaired the hearing in the United Nations Security Council on that issue just last week. We can build the capacity of our partners from the Arab world to Afghanistan to solve their security problems in their own countries with our help and guidance. The threat posed by violent extremists is real. And I want to say here on the campus of Harvard University: Our response must be deadly serious, but we should keep this in perspective. The United States today faces threats that require attention. But we face no existential threat to our way of life or our security. Let me say it again: We face no existential threat — none — to our way of life or our ultimate security.
You are twice as likely to be struck by lightning as you around to be affected by a terrorist event in the United States.
And while we face an adaptive, resilient enemy, let’s never forget that they’re no match for an even more resilient and adaptive group of people, the American people, who are so much tougher, smarter, realistic and gutsy than their political leadership gives them credit for.
We didn’t crumble after 9/11. We didn’t falter after the Boston Marathon. But we’re America. Americans will never, ever stand down. We endure. We overcome. We own the finish line. So do not take out of proportion this threat to us. None of you are being taught to dive under your desks in drills dealing with the possibility of a nuclear attack. And I argue with all of my colleagues, including in the administration, the American people have already factored in the possibility that there will be another Boston Marathon someday. But it will not, cannot — has no possibility of breaking our will, our resolve, and/or our ultimate security.
That “And I argue… ” is interesting. I hope he does and I hope he’s right. Anticipating more freelance threats would be realistic — and resilient — behavior.
October 2, 2014
Over the last week, did you read or hear about this execution? I assume HLSWatch readers are watching more carefully than most. But did the report get to you? Here’s the Associated Press blurb:
Militants with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group publicly killed a human rights lawyer in the Iraqi city of Mosul after their self-styled Islamic court ruled that she had abandoned Islam, the U.N. mission in Iraq said Thursday (September 25).
Samira Salih al-Nuaimi was seized from her home on Sept. 17 after allegedly posting messages on Facebook that were critical of the militants’ destruction of religious sites in Mosul.
According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq, al-Nuaimi was tried in a so-called “Sharia court” for apostasy, after which she was tortured for five days before the militants sentenced her to “public execution.”
She was killed on Monday (September 22), the U.N. mission said.
I have wondered about our potentially evolutionary preference to personalize threats. Does it now take a real-time snuff video? Has our imagination become so anemic? Or does it require a shared “tribal” identity with the victim? Is empathy dependent on some sort of perceived cultural or national proximity? Or perhaps in a promiscuously proximate world we purposefully keep our emotional distance?
In any case, I will admit I did not see a report until a week after her execution. But I will also note, this execution captured my subconscious more than any previous. Given what seems to be the paucity of reporting, this is not the anticipated response. Or perhaps I was just distracted. You tell me.
The Pentagon’s New Map by Thomas P.M. Barnett (click to open larger version)
This is the fifth — and probably penultimate — post on the use of “evil” in homeland security rhetoric. (Prior posts: as referenced on September 10, as otherwise used by President Obama, as self-assertion, and at the United Nations.)
Six quotations on evil, classical to contemporary:
For no man is voluntarily evil; but the evil become so by reason of an ill disposition of the body and bad education, things which are hateful to every man and happen to him against his will. (Plato quoting Socrates, Timaeus)
Evil in itself has neither being, goodness, productiveness, nor power of creating things which have being and goodness… thus evil has no being, nor any inherence in things that have being. Evil is nowhere qua evil; and it arises not through any power but through weakness… And, in a word, evil (as we have often said) is weakness, impotence, and deficiency of knowledge (or, at least, of exercised knowledge), or of faith, desire, or activity as touching the Good. (Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names and The Mystical Theology)
I became evil for no reason. I had no motive for my wickedness except wickedness itself. It was foul, and I loved it. I loved the self-destruction, I loved my fall, not the object for which I had fallen but my fall itself. My depraved soul leaped down from your firmament to ruin. I was seeking not to gain anything by shameful means, but shame for its own sake. (Augustine of Hippo, Confessions)
Whence then come my errors? They come from the sole fact that since the will is much wider in its range and compass than the understanding, I do not restrain it within the same bounds, but extend it also to things which I do not understand: and as the will is of itself indifferent to these, it easily falls into error and sin, and chooses the evil for the good, or the false for the true. (Rene Descartes, Meditations on the First Philosophy)
Evil needs to be pondered just as much as good, for good and evil are ultimately nothing but ideal extensions and abstractions of doing, and both belong to the chiaroscuro of life. In the last resort there is no good that cannot produce evil and no evil that cannot produce good (Carl Gustav Jung, The Religious and Psychological Problems of Alchemy)
Most of us perceive Evil as an entity, a quality that is inherent in some people and not in others. Bad seeds ultimately produce bad fruits as their destinies unfold. . . Upholding a Good-Evil dichotomy also takes ‘good people’ off the responsibility hook. They are freed from even considering their possible role in creating, sustaining, perpetuating, or conceding to the conditions that contribute to delinquency, crime, vandalism, teasing, bullying, rape, torture, terror, and violence. (Philip Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect)
Evil as an active and intentional otherness is predominant in many Western language and culture systems. When most Americans — perhaps most Westerners — hear a reference to “evil” it implies an aggressive force contending with good. According to one 2013 survey fifty-seven percent of all Americans believe in the Devil as a personification of evil.
As the quotes above suggest, however, this is not the only perspective. Long-time and respected philosophical, religious, and socio-psychological arguments exist for evil emerging from absence of good or distortion of good. In this view, rather than aggressively active, evil is a contingent experience of disintegration and disorder. Other surveys find that up to fifty-nine percent of practicing US Christians perceive that Satan, “is not a living being but is a symbol of evil.”
To the extent evil is and continues in the lexicon of homeland security — and especially counter-terrorism — these differences matter. Clearly it matters in terms of rhetoric. What does a President or Prime Minister or wanna-be Caliph mean when s/he references “evil”? What is heard? Is it possible to better calibrate what is said with what is heard?
It can also matter in terms of long-term strategy. Absence is arguably non-activity. Anemia is treated differently from a virus. A deficiency of B12 and an over-abundance of Lewey Bodies can produce the same symptoms, but respond to very different therapies. Managing a chronic disease is very different than responding to an acute illness. Executing a war is different than carrying-out a long-term counter-terrorism strategy.
Thomas P.M. Barnett’s insights regarding the world’s “non-integrated gap” are a contemporary policy approach coherent with Dionysius the Areopagite. Some of us remember The Pentagon’s New Map. Barnett wrote that. In 2005 he also wrote:
We need to end the disconnectedness that defines danger in our world. We need to shrink the gap and all its pain and suffering – right out of existence. We need to make globalization truly global in a just manner… This process of economic, political, and social integration among many of the world’s states is the defining characteristic of our age, and as such, it defines conflict in this era…
Barnett describes the dysfunction and eventual conflict that emerges from an absence of connectedness. Tighten the full suite of connections, he argues with considerable credibility, and the risk is reduced for the worst sorts of conflict. I am arguing — or really just renewing the classical and orthodox argument — that it is the connections we consciously and creatively cultivate that most effectively and happily connect us to reality. Leonardo Da Vinci’s observation that “Everything is connected to everything else,” can be threat or opportunity depending on how we engage (or not) the connections.
For nearly three years thousands have been horribly killed in Syria. The pictures of gassed and bombed and starved children have proliferated. We have observed the increasing power of the most extreme forces on every side. As this has unfolded we — the supposed demos of the democratic and prosperous “core” (Barnett’s term) — have neglected, perhaps rejected, any meaningful sense of connection.
Then videos are distributed of two, then three (now more) Americans and Europeans being beheaded. The balaclava-clad executioner with a British accent emerges as a personification of evil. Suddenly we perceive a clear-and-present connection. Warships are dispatched. Jets are scrambled. Missiles are launched. A multinational coalition is assembled.
What might have been achieved with more careful attention at an earlier date? What if we were able to recognize the evil potential of absence — even our own thoughtlessness — rather than waiting for absence to unravel into disintegration, discord, and the fully demonic?
And if absence-of-connection — the non-integrated gap — is the breeding ground for evil in Syria, something analogous is as possible in Seattle.
The suppression of evil is and will probably continue as a prominent justification for domestic and international counterterrorism. But for many — potentially most English-speakers — evil is not understood as related to absence. Evil is misunderstood as a sudden irrational eruption of accelerated entropy. This misunderstanding — or very partial understanding — of evil overly constrains our strategic, operational, and tactical engagement with evil. Our orientation-toward-evil colors our observations which inform our decisions that shape our actions.
Recognizing the crucial role of connectedness — and absence of connectedness — allows for much wider and potentially accurate observation.
Next Thursday: Some personal conclusions.
September 25, 2014
Yesterday President Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly. Given the importance of counterterrorism in the homeland security portfolio, the entire speech is worth your consideration.
Given our recent attention to the use of “evil” to characterize our homeland security challenge, I highlight the following few lines:
Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: we come together at a crossroads between war and peace; between disorder and integration; between fear and hope…
There is a pervasive unease in our world – a sense that the very forces that have brought us together have created new dangers, and made it difficult for any single nation to insulate itself from global forces. As we gather here, an outbreak of Ebola overwhelms public health systems in West Africa, and threatens to move rapidly across borders. Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition. The brutality of terrorists in Syria and Iraq forces us to look into the heart of darkness.
Each of these problems demands urgent attention. But they are also symptoms of a broader problem – the failure of our international system to keep pace with an interconnected world. We have not invested adequately in the public health capacity of developing countries. Too often, we have failed to enforce international norms when it’s inconvenient to do so. And we have not confronted forcefully enough the intolerance, sectarianism, and hopelessness that feeds violent extremism in too many parts of the globe…
As an international community, we must meet this challenge with a focus on four areas. First, the terrorist group known as ISIL must be degraded, and ultimately destroyed.
This group has terrorized all who they come across in Iraq and Syria. Mothers, sisters and daughters have been subjected to rape as a weapon of war. Innocent children have been gunned down. Bodies have been dumped in mass graves. Religious minorities have been starved to death. In the most horrific crimes imaginable, innocent human beings have been beheaded, with videos of the atrocity distributed to shock the conscience of the world.
No God condones this terror. No grievance justifies these actions. There can be no reasoning – no negotiation – with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death.
The other three action areas set out by the President are as strategically important and — indirectly — as helpful to hearing what he means by evil. It is, I perceive, a highly Niebuhrian notion of evil… as I try to explain in the next post, finished about 24 hours before the President’s speech in New York.
… for evil is always the self-assertion of some self-interest without regard to the whole, whether the whole be conceived as the immediate community, or the total community of mankind, or the total order of the world. The good is, on the other hand, always the harmony of the whole on various levels. (Reinhold Niebuhr, Children of Light and Children of Darkness)
Over the last few years we have encountered the now self-styled Islamic State. If we were paying attention, we have seen them murder thousands, abuse many more, and threaten even more. In recent weeks considerable attention has been given to a series of sweeping attacks and specific beheadings. Videos of these individual atrocities — much more than the mass attacks — have produced a widely shared judgment.
President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, and others have communicated their own judgment that this is a manifestation of evil. Canadian Prime Minister Harper said of the Islamic State, “It is evil, vile, and must be unambiguously opposed.” The Australian premier has noted, “We have got a murderous, terrorist organisation – a death cult no less, which doesn’t just do evil, (but) exults in doing evil…”(Perhaps reflective of socialist secularism, I cannot find an example of President Hollande using a French equivalent of evil, but he has called the Islamic State odious, base, and cowardly.)
I’m not entirely sure how to hear “evil” in each of these English-speaking voices. But I have decided the choice of this word reflects the authentic judgment of these political leaders. This is not a cynical manipulation of language to achieve hidden purposes. Rather, to proclaim this “it” as evil is an honest effort by four elected leaders — reflecting a rather broad ideological spectrum and distinct personalities — to communicate the nature of a threat as they understand it.
But while authentic, I’m not sure how accurately their assessment is being heard. Moreover, whether this particular symbolic summary — evil — is helpful to further thought and thoughtful action is worth consideration.
I am well-acquainted with the evil potential of banality, bureaucracy, and petty pride. But I have encountered the profoundly wicked on very rare occasions. No more, perhaps, than many of our Presidents or Prime Ministers or others who have evaded the concentration camps, the killing fields, the warping brutality of a parent, priest, or other particularly intimate power.
But my brief bouts have been bad enough. The most compelling aspect of each encounter being the mirroring, echoing, physical resonance of the external with my own sense-of-self. I perceive evil as insidious: combining both ambush and self-subversion. Whatever is strong becoming a potential synaptic pathway for evil’s advance.
It has been widely noted that Reinhold Niebuhr is one of President Obama’s favorite thinkers. (More on the Niebuhr/Obama link here.) Here and in the quote at the start is a summary of Niebuhr’s own angle on evil and how this reality plays out far beyond the individual:
The children of darkness are evil because they know no law beyond the self. They are wise, though evil, because they understand the power of self-interest. The children of light are virtuous because they have some conception of a higher law than their own will. They are usually foolish because they do not know the power of self-will. They underestimate the peril of anarchy and chaos on both the national and international level of community. Modern democratic civilization is, in short, sentimental rather than cynical. It has an easy solution for the problem of anarchy and chaos on both the national and international level of community, because of its fatuous and superficial view of man. It does not know that the same man who is ostensibly devoted to the “common good” may have desires and ambitions, hopes and fears, which set him at variance with his neighbor. It must be understood that the children of light are foolish not merely because they underestimate the power of self-interest among the children of darkness. They underestimate this power among themselves.
What I perceive in the most committed terrorists is an expectation of reality that rejects any constraint: no law beyond the self. Ultimate reality — AKA God — is conceived as unlimited freedom, unfettered self-assertion, absolute willfulness. George Weigel argues that this is a “defective hypervoluntarist concept of the nature of God.” It rejects the reality of the whole and the varied relationships that constitute the whole. It is irrational and predisposed to nihilism.
Strains sympathetic to contemporary terrorist thought can be recognized in the primacy of will-to-power found arising in William of Occam and reaching flood-stage in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. (“All the cruelty and torment of which the world is full is in fact merely the necessary result of the totality of the forms under which the will to live is objectified.” Schopenhauer) In popular form this worldview can be heard in extreme expressions of American individualism. Everything-Is-Possible-With-God and Anything-Is-Possible-With-Grit share a conception of reality without limits, without pattern, without interdependent relationships. Evil is privation of good, Augustine argued.
Many Americans share with many terrorists a confidence that with the right attitude anything is possible. This is self-interest on steroids. This is a synaptic pathway wide open to self-delusion. We underestimate our self-interest, allowing it to reject many of the relationships from which the true self emerges.
Last week a New York Times/CBS News poll found that, for the first time since 2008, more Americans disapprove than approve of the President’s handing of terrorism. One survey participant was quoted in the Times as saying of the President, “He is ambivalent, and I think it shows.”
Ambivalence is a recognition of contending strengths. It is an acknowledgment of complexity. It is to concede something may exist beyond our full understanding or control.
No one becomes President of the United States without stupendous self-will. No one becomes Prime Minister of Canada, Australia, or the (still) United Kingdom without considerable self-regard and tactically adroit self-interest. In a healthy democratic system such self-interest is grafted onto — or emerges from — some substantial branch of the whole. The greatest leaders become personifications of the whole. They are important agents of influence — even attractors of meaning — in a complex adaptive system.
They are not Übermensch transforming chaos into reflections of capricious personal preference.
Precisely because of their well-practiced self-interest and will-to-power, our politicians may be more intuitively attuned to evil potential than the rest of us. They recognize evil from prior encounters in the mirror. They likewise know — we hope, perhaps pray — the crucial virtue of self-restraint.
So… with considerable trepidation, hesitation — ambivalence — I have decided that evil can be a helpful characterization of what concerns us along the Euphrates (and well-beyond). But to be of practical help, this assessment must coincide with a fuller recognition our own tendencies toward evil. This self-knowledge and thereby deeper understanding of the threat is essential to any hope of effective engagement.
Next Thursday: Evil as absence: Recognizing what is missing.
On September 22 Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the sometime moniker of a spokesman for the Islamic State, released an online video encouraging freelance actions to kill citizens of any nation involved in the anti-IS coalition. Toward the close of his remarks (11 pages) al-Adnani comments — ironically — on the Islamic State being declared as evil. Here is what I am told is a reasonably accurate version: English_Translation of al-Adnani Statement.
September 18, 2014
As we prepare to intensify our struggle with a prospective threat, it is important to acknowledge the very present threat of drought and fire, flooding, and plague. There is, though, only so much time in any day.
So here is an extended excerpt from the President’s speech to the women and men at MacDill Air Force Base. (About noon on Wednesday.) Per our recent discussions — and today’s third post below — the President makes no reference to fighting evil in these remarks.
Because of you, this 9/11 Generation of heroes has done everything asked of you, and met every mission tasked to you. We are doing what we set out to do. Because of you, Osama bin Laden is no more. Because of you, the core al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been decimated. Because of you, Afghans are reclaiming their communities; Afghan forces have taken the lead for their country’s security. In three months, because of you, our combat mission will be over in Afghanistan, and our war in Afghanistan will come to a responsible end. That’s because of you.
You and our counterterrorism professionals have prevented terrorist attacks. You’ve saved American lives. You’ve made our homeland more secure. But we’ve always known that the end of the war in Afghanistan didn’t mean the end of threats or challenges to America…
In a world where technology provides a small group of killers with the ability to do terrible harm, it is America that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists –- including the group in Syria and Iraq known as ISIL. Our intelligence community, as I said last week, has not yet detected specific plots from these terrorists against America. But its leaders have repeatedly threatened America and our allies. And right now, these terrorists pose a threat to the people of Iraq, the people of Syria, the broader Middle East — including our personnel, our embassies, our consulates, our facilities there. And if left unchecked, they could pose a growing threat to the United States.
So, last month, I gave the order for our military to begin taking targeted action against ISIL. And since then, our brave pilot and crews –- with your help -– have conducted more than 160 airstrikes against these terrorists. Because of your efforts, we’ve been able to protect our personnel and our facilities, and kill ISIL fighters, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. They’ve helped our partners on the ground break ISIL sieges, helped rescue civilians cornered on a mountain, helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children. That’s what you’ve done.
Now going forward, as I announced last week, we’re going to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy. And whether in Iraq or in Syria, these terrorists will learn the same thing that the leaders of al Qaeda already know: We mean what we say; our reach is long; if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven. We will find you eventually.
But — and this is something I want to emphasize — this is not and will not be America’s fight alone. One of the things we’ve learned over this last decade is, America can make a decisive difference, but I want to be clear: The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. They will support Iraqi forces on the ground as they fight for their own country against these terrorists.
As your Commander-in-Chief, I will not commit you and the rest of our Armed Forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq. After a decade of massive ground deployments, it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of partners on the ground so they can secure their own countries’ futures. And that’s the only solution that will succeed over the long term.
We’ll use our air power. We will train and equip our partners. We will advise them and we will assist them. We will lead a broad coalition of countries who have a stake in this fight. Because this is not simply America versus ISIL — this is the people of the region fighting against ISIL. It is the world rejecting the brutality of ISIL in favor of a better future for our children, and our children’s children — all of them.
But we’re not going to do this alone. And the one thing we have learned is, is that when we do things alone and the countries — the people of those countries aren’t doing it for themselves, as soon as we leave we start getting into the same problems.
So we’ve got to do things differently. This is why we’ve spent the past several weeks building a coalition to aid in these efforts. And because we’re leading in the right way, more nations are joining us. Overall, more than 40 countries so far have offered assistance to the broad campaign against ISIL. Some nations will assist from the air — and already France and the United Kingdom are flying with us over Iraq, with others committed to join this effort.
Some nations will help us support the forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. And already Saudi Arabia has agreed to host our efforts to train and equip Syrian opposition forces. Australia and Canada will send military advisors to Iraq. German paratroopers will offer training. Other nations have helped resupply arms and equipment to forces in Iraq, including the Kurdish Pershmerga.
Arab nations have agreed to strengthen their support for Iraq’s new government and to do their part in all the aspects of the fight against ISIL. And our partners will help to cut off ISIL funding, and gather intelligence, and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East.
And meanwhile, nearly 30 nations have helped us with humanitarian relief to help innocent civilians who’ve been driven from their homes — whether they are Sunni, or Shia, or Christian, or Yazidi, or any other religious minority. MORE
Depending on how the issue is framed or the question is asked, the Administration is describing a range of possible contingencies. When I read the words above and very similar words going back to West Point in May or even the 2013 National Defense University speech, I hear a consistent strategy being described by the President. A shortened — politically stupid — version might be something like:
There are several small groups of very bad folks out and about. Because of modern mobility and technology these small groups can have outsized impact. They almost certainly do not represent an existential threat to the United States, but they are brutal killers. They are already doing horrific things where they currently operate. We need to disrupt and degrade — if we can, destroy — their violent potential before they have a substantial ability to target us. To do this with any long-term effectiveness we’ve got to mobilize the communities that are already suffering to defend themselves and go after these killers. We can help and others can help in a variety of ways. But whether we’re talking about Iraq or Syria or Yemen or Libya or Afghanistan or Somalia or Mali or plenty of other places, meaningful security for us and for them will only emerge when people in the immediate neighborhood are vigilant, courageous, consistently engaged and have realistic capabilities to advance their long-term self-interest. Our self-interest is advanced by advancing the self-interest of those already suffering at the hands of ISIL and other violent extremists.
This is framed as an international counterterrorism strategy. I perceive that essentially the same argument can be made for domestic counterterrorism and other aspects of homeland security. Key elements: Community-based, regionally engaged, collaborative, and whenever possible preventive or preemptive. We can debate whether or not this is wise strategy, but it strikes me as a prima-facie reasonable strategy that is worth a more serious listen than it seems to be receiving.
We have — perhaps, I have — become distracted by issues of labels and tone and style as opposed to examining the action being taken and proposed.
Yesterday — Constitution Day BTW — the Secretary of Homeland Security testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security. He was joined in giving testimony by FBI Director James Comey and director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olson. (Video and transcripts here)
Below is most of Secretary Johnson’s opening statement. I hear a domestically-focused harmonic to the main counterterrorism melody performed by the President at MacDill (see prior post, immediately above).
Counterterrorism is the cornerstone of the DHS mission. And thirteen years after 9/11, it’s still a dangerous world. There’s still a terrorist threat to our homeland.
Today the terrorist threat is different from what it was in 2001. It is more decentralized and more complex. Not only is there core al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, there is al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – which is still active in its efforts to attack the homeland – al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, al Shabaab in Somalia, the al Nusrah Front in Syria, and the newest affiliate, al Qaeda in the Indian subcontinent. There are groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria, which are not official affiliates of al Qaeda, but share its extremist ideology.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, previously known as al Qaeda in Iraq, is now vying to be the preeminent terrorist organization on the world’s stage. At present, we have no credible information that ISIL is planning to attack the homeland of the United States.
But that is not, by any means, the end of the story.
ISIL is an extremely dangerous organization. It has the elements of both a terrorist organization and an insurgent army. It kills innocent civilians, and has seized large amounts of territory in Iraq and Syria, which it can utilize for safe haven, training, command and control, and from which it can launch attacks. It engages in 30-40 attacks per month, has more than 20,000 fighters, and takes in as much as a million dollars a day from illicit oil sales, ransom payments, and other illicit activities. Its public messaging and social media are as slick and as effective as any I’ve ever seen from a terrorist organization.
Though we know of no credible information that ISIL is planning to attack the homeland at present, we know that ISIL is prepared to kill innocent Americans they encounter because they are Americans – in a public and depraved manner. We know ISIL views the United States as an enemy, and we know that ISIL’s leaders have themselves said they will soon be in “direct confrontation” with the United States…
From the homeland security perspective, here is what we are doing:
First, to address the threats generally emanating from terrorist groups overseas, we have in recent weeks enhanced aviation security. Much of the terrorist threat continues to center around aviation security. In early July, I directed enhanced screening at 18 overseas airports with direct flights to the U.S. Several weeks later, we added six more airports to the list. Three weeks ago we added another airport, and additional screening of carry-on luggage. The United Kingdom and other countries have followed with similar enhancements to their aviation security. We continually evaluate whether more is necessary, without unnecessarily burdening the traveling public.
Longer term, as this committee has heard me say before, we are pursuing “pre-clearance” at overseas airports with flights to the U.S. This means inspection by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer and enhanced aviation security before a passenger gets on the plane to the U.S. We now have pre-clearance at airports in Ireland, the UAE, Canada and the Caribbean. I regard it as a homeland security imperative to build more. To use a football metaphor, I’d much rather defend our end-zone from the 50-yard line than our 1-yard line. I want to take every opportunity we have to expand homeland security beyond our borders.
Second, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, NCTC and other intelligence agencies are making enhanced and concerted efforts to track Syrian foreign fighters who come from or seek to enter this country. The reality is that more than 15,000 foreign fighters have traveled to Syria over the last three years, including approximately two thousand Westerners. We estimate that more than 100 Americans have traveled or attempted to travel to Syria to join the fight there one way or another. We are concerned that not only may these foreign fighters join ISIL or other violent extremist groups in Syria, they may also be recruited by these violent extremist groups to leave Syria and conduct external attacks. The FBI has arrested a number of individuals who have tried to travel from the U.S. to Syria to support terrorist activities there.
Third, we are working with European and other governments to build better information sharing to track Syrian foreign fighters. Whenever I get together with my European counterparts, this topic is almost always item number one on the agenda. The importance of this issue is also reflected by the fact it will be a singular topic of discussion at a U.N. Security Council summit that the President will chair in two weeks. In the history of the U.N., this is only the second time a U.S. President has personally chaired a Security Council summit.
We are increasing efforts to track those who enter and leave Syria, and may later seek to travel to the United States from a country for which the United States does not require a visa from its citizens. There are in fact a number of Visa Waiver Program countries that also have large numbers of citizens who are Syrian foreign fighters. Generally, we have strong information-sharing relationships with these countries. But, with their help, we will enhance this capability. We need to ensure that we are doing all we can to identify those who, by their travel patterns, attempt to hide their association with terrorist groups.
We are encouraging more countries to join the United States in using tools like Advance Passenger Information and Passenger Name Record collection, which will help to identify terrorist travel patterns.
Fourth, within the U.S. government, DHS and our interagency partners in law enforcement and the intelligence community, are enhancing our ability to share information with each other about suspicious individuals.
Fifth, we are continually on guard against the potential domestic-based, home-grown terrorist who may be lurking in our own society: the independent actor or “lone wolf” who did not train at a terrorist camp or join the ranks of a terrorist organization overseas, but who is inspired here at home by a group’s social media, literature or violent extremist ideology. In many respects, this is the hardest terrorist threat to detect, and the one I worry most about.
To address the domestic “lone wolf” threat, I have directed that DHS build on our partnerships with state and local law enforcement in a way that enhances community relationships. The local police and fire departments are the first responders to any crisis in our homeland. The local police, more than the federal government, have their finger on the pulse of the local community from which a domestic terrorist may come.
To address the home-grown terrorist who may be lurking in our midst, we must also emphasize the need for help from the public. “If You See Something, Say Something” is more than a slogan. For example, last week we sent a private sector advisory identifying for retail businesses a long list of materials that could be used as explosive precursors, and the types of suspicious behavior that a retailer should look for from someone who buys a lot of these materials.
Within DHS, we have outreach programs with communities who themselves are engaging youth in violence prevention. I have directed that we step up these programs and I personally participate in them. In June I met with a Syrian-American community group in a Chicago suburb. Next week I will meet with a Somali community in Columbus, Ohio. In October, the White House will host a summit on domestic efforts to prevent violent extremism, and address the full lifecycle of radicalization to violence posed by foreign fighter threats. The efforts highlighted at this summit are meant to increase the participation of faith-based organizations, mental health providers, social service providers, and youth-affiliated groups in local efforts to counter violent extremism.
Over the last 13 years, we have vastly improved this Nation’s ability to detect and disrupt terrorist plots overseas before they reach the homeland. Here at home, federal law enforcement does an excellent job, time and again, of identifying, investigating, arresting and prosecuting scores of individuals before they commit terrorist acts. But we continue to face real terrorist enemies and real terrorist threats and we must all remain vigilant.
Community-based, regionally — even globally — engaged, collaborative efforts to prevent, protect, prepare, mitigate, and respond. Recovery and resilience are implied, but — as usual — given a bit less attention.
The discussion spilled into Friday and the weekend as well. In my judgment, it is a discussion that shows some potential to actually — eventually — elucidate an innately murky topic.
What is meant when we use the word “evil”? When our political leaders use the word does their meaning generally accord with a widely shared meaning? Does evil — in any form similar to common concepts — actually exist? Is any concept of evil practically helpful to engaging terrorists and related threats?
These questions are prompted by the President’s reference to evil in his September 10 remarks announcing expanded operations against the so-called Islamic State. He said in part, “We can’t erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today.”
I heard President Obama saying that evil — specifically the evil of terrorism — is perpetually emergent. If he is correct, this has important implications for homeland security. Even if he is wrong this belief — as long as he is President — has important implications for homeland security.
To start I have tried to discern the full meaning that may be embedded in the President’s choice of words. If you search for “evil” on WhiteHouse.gov over 12,000 possibilities are spawned. I have not examined each. But below are several comments on evil by President Obama.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. (Nobel Prize Lecture, December 10, 2009)
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, “When I looked for light, then came darkness.” Bad things happen, and we have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath. For the truth is none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped these shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind. Yes, we have to examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future. But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. (Tucson Memorial Service, January 12, 2011)
Even as we come to learn how this happened and who’s responsible, we may never understand what leads anyone to terrorize their fellow human beings. Such evil is senseless – beyond reason. But while we will never know fully what causes someone to take the life of another, we do know what makes that life worth living. (Weekly Media Message focused on the Aurora shootings, July 21, 2012)
For here we see the depravity to which man can sink; the barbarism that unfolds when we begin to see our fellow human beings as somehow less than us, less worthy of dignity and of life. We see how evil can, for a moment in time, triumph when good people do nothing, and how silence abetted a crime unique in human history. Here we see their faces and we hear their voices. We look upon the objects of their lives — the art that they created, the prayer books that they carried. We see that even as they had hate etched into their arms, they were not numbers. They were men and women and children — so many children — sent to their deaths because of who they were, how they prayed, or who they loved. And yet, here, alongside man’s capacity for evil, we also are reminded of man’s capacity for good — the rescuers, the Righteous Among the Nations who refused to be bystanders. And in their noble acts of courage, we see how this place, this accounting of horror, is, in the end, a source of hope. (House of the Children, March 22, 2013)
As the sun rose that Easter Sunday, he put on that purple stole and led dozens of prisoners to the ruins of an old church in the camp. And he read from a prayer missal that they had kept hidden. He held up a small crucifix that he had made from sticks. And as the guards watched, Father Kapaun and all those prisoners — men of different faith, perhaps some men of no faith — sang the Lord’s Prayer and “America the Beautiful.” They sang so loud that other prisoners across the camp not only heard them, they joined in, too — filling that valley with song and with prayer. That faith — that they might be delivered from evil, that they could make it home — was perhaps the greatest gift to those men; that even amidst such hardship and despair, there could be hope; amid their misery in the temporal they could see those truths that are eternal; that even in such hell, there could be a touch of the divine. Looking back, one of them said that that is what “kept a lot of us alive.” (Medal of Honor presentation, April 11, 2013)
You’ve shown us, Boston, that in the face of evil, Americans will lift up what’s good. In the face of cruelty, we will choose compassion. In the face of those who would visit death upon innocents, we will choose to save and to comfort and to heal. We’ll choose friendship. We’ll choose love. (Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Boston, April 18, 2013)
So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us. We have to be mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do — what we must do — is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. And to define that strategy, we have to make decisions based not on fear, but on hard-earned wisdom. That begins with understanding the current threat that we face. (National Defense University, May 23, 2013)
All these shootings, all these victims, she said, “this is not America.” “It is a challenge to all of us,” she said, and “we have to work together to get rid of this.” And that’s the wisdom we should be taking away from this tragedy and so many others — not accepting these shootings as inevitable, but asking what can we do to prevent them from happening again and again and again. I’ve said before, we cannot stop every act of senseless violence. We cannot know every evil that lurks in troubled minds. But if we can prevent even one tragedy like this, save even one life, spare other families what these families are going through, surely we’ve got an obligation to try. (Marine Barracks, Washington DC, September 22, 2013)
If the memories of the Shoah survivors teach us anything, it is that silence is evil’s greatest co-conspirator. And it’s up to us — each of us, every one of us — to forcefully condemn any denial of the Holocaust. It’s up to us to combat not only anti-Semitism, but racism and bigotry and intolerance in all their forms, here and around the world. It’s up to us to speak out against rhetoric that threatens the existence of a Jewish homeland and to sustain America’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security. And it is up to us to search our own hearts — to search ourselves — for those stories that have no place in this world. Because it’s easy sometimes to project out and worry about others and their hatreds and their bigotries and their blind spots. It’s not always as easy for us to examine ourselves. (USC Shoah Foundation Dinner, May 7, 2014
What do you hear in these comments? What does he mean? Does his use of the term — perception of the concept — roughly accord with yours? If not, how not? I’ll join you in the comment section for discussion and analysis.
September 12, 2014
As you have probably already seen/heard unfold over the day, the Administration has decided not to argue terms-of-reference related to its current and anticipated action against the so-called Islamic State.
Here’s how the Daily News framed the fast-moving rhetorical controversy:
The U.S. is at war with ISIS, the White House and Pentagon said Friday, a day after Secretary of State John Kerry stubbornly declined to use the ‘W’ word.
“In the same way that we are at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates around the globe, we are at war with ISIL,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, using another acronym for ISIS, also known as the Islamic State.
Pentagon spokesman John Kirby offered a similar reaction Friday.
“Make no mistake, we know we are at war with ISIL in the same way we’re at war and continue to be at al Qaeda and its affiliates,” Kirby said.
In a Thursday evening (US time) interview with CNN the Secretary of State said: “We’re engaged in a counterterrorism operation of a significant order. I think ‘war’ is the wrong reference term with respect to that, but obviously it involves kinetic military action.”
Secretary Kerry could have more effectively advanced understanding of CT by being just a bit more diplomatic. But his fussy language does reflect consistent Administration policy.
If I was in the West Wing I too would have sacrificed the high ground of maintaining the meaningful distinction. It was high ground totally exposed to the worst sort of ideological artillery. Given today’s reality the hill would have been over-run no matter what was done to defend it.
But the distinction is meaningful. Since the mid-Nineteenth Century Americans have come to expect wars to end in victory and the unconditional surrender of our enemies. This has not always been the case, but our expectations persist.
This expectation is wildly inappropriate — entirely unrealistic — regarding the sort of adversary that has emerged (again) along the Euphrates. We can degrade it. We can even, in many meanings of the word, destroy it. We will not receive a surrender. We would be foolish to declare victory.
Americans would benefit from better understanding the difference between “war” as we typically choose to understand it and the counterterrorism operations we are actually executing. Two very different activities. Confusion regarding them may generate all sorts of mischief.
September 11, 2014
Thirteen years ago this morning nineteen young men carried out a horrific attack on the United States.
The 911 Commission wrote it “was a day of unprecedented shock and suffering.”
Our shock might have been less if we had given greater collective attention to a range of precursor events, including the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the Bojinka plots of the early 1990s.
If — most of us would say, when — we are attacked again we may suffer as much, but it will not be a shock.
Last evening the President of the United States spoke to us for a bit more than thirteen minutes. He explained that we will, once again, take action in Iraq — and this time in Syria too — to preempt another attack here at home.
Here are two aspects of the President’s message worth highlighting, especially for those with a particular interest in homeland security. Each serve to frame the President’s strategic understanding — accurate or not — regarding the threat at hand. Last night the President said,
… we continue to face a terrorist threat. We can’t erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today. And that’s why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL — which calls itself the “Islamic State.”
Please notice the problem originates with evil in the world. The problem is set-in-motion by small groups (plural) of killers. The problem is amplified by the ability of these small groups to manipulate unjust situations for their evil purposes.
Yesterday I heard John Brennan, the CIA director, call ISIL “evil incarnate.” The President also said, “ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.”
Our current problem-focus is only one of many such groups. We ought expect that whatever our success in this case, there will be future cases requiring our response.
The President outlined a multilateral, collaborative, and regionally-oriented approach that involves both US leadership and considerable, even preconditional, US restraint. All of this is worth further analysis. I will let foreign policy and national security bloggers, reporters and pundits do most of this.
For our purposes the second aspect worth particular attention is when the President said, “Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.”
He might have offered the same operational descriptions without applying the label. The label is important.
To really hear last night’s meaning, we need to study the speech given at West Point on May 28. In those more extended remarks the President said,
For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America at home and abroad remains terrorism. But a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naïve and unsustainable. I believe we must shift our counterterrorism strategy — drawing on the successes and shortcomings of our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan — to more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold.
And the need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today’s principal threat no longer comes from a centralized al Qaeda leadership. Instead, it comes from decentralized al Qaeda affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in countries where they operate. And this lessens the possibility of large-scale 9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but it heightens the danger of U.S. personnel overseas being attacked, as we saw in Benghazi. It heightens the danger to less defensible targets, as we saw in a shopping mall in Nairobi.
So we have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat — one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin, or stir up local resentments. We need partners to fight terrorists alongside us… Our actions should meet a simple test: We must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield.
What we are hearing and beginning to see is the most dramatic execution yet of this “comprehensive and sustained” CT strategy. It has already been unfolding in Yemen, Somalia, Mali and elsewhere. I perceive it has important — and to date, not much discussed — domestic corollaries.
Evil persists. Small groups caught up in evil can do great harm. Terrorist potential is amplified by authentic injustice, oppression, and grievance. We ought take care that our response does not gratuitously inflame this potential. But we are called to act, as best we can, against sources of evil.
If this is true in Raqqa, is it true in Rockford? If it is true in Mosul, is it true in Memphis?
In another post — or more than one — it is worth thinking together about the accuracy of this worldview. Is it helpful? Is it skillful? But this is what I have heard. What about you?
September 10, 2014
At 9PM Eastern tonight — Wednesday, September 10 — the President is scheduled to outline plans to engage a radical religiously-inspired insurgency sometimes known as Islamic State (IS) or Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
The confusing labels reflect a fractured reality. I am inclined to call it the Raqqa Rump. The wanna-be capital of the self-styled caliphate is at Raqqa (Syria). As you know, I have a weakness for alliteration. And the phrase signals my own view of their fundamental character.
To better hear what is being said — and not said — by the President, following is some background.
Back in June START generated a fact-sheet that situates my Raqqa Rump among other terrorists, insurgents, freedom-fighters, violent extemists… whatever.
On August 27 the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point published an analysis of the current military-political context in Syria and Northern Iraq.
On Saturday (September 6) a Chatham House middle east expert published a thoughtful commentary in The Guardian.
British Prime Minister Cameron has warned that ISIL, especially potential British returnees from the fighting along the Euphrates, are a direct threat to British and European security. In a mid-August commentary, the Prime Minister painted a rather nightmarish picture:
We are in the middle of a generational struggle against a poisonous and extremist ideology, which I believe we will be fighting for the rest of my political lifetime. We face in Isil a new threat that is single-minded, determined and unflinching in pursuit of its objectives. Already it controls not just thousands of minds, but thousands of square miles of territory, sweeping aside much of the boundary between Iraq and Syria to carve out its so-called caliphate. It makes no secret of its expansionist aims. Even today it has the ancient city of Aleppo firmly within its sights. And it boasts of its designs on Jordan and Lebanon, and right up to the Turkish border. If it succeeds, we would be facing a terrorist state on the shores of the Mediterranean and bordering a Nato member. This is a clear danger to Europe and to our security. It is a daunting challenge.
The immediate implications for the United States posed by those claiming Raqqa as home are a bit more ambivalent. Obviously they are a deadly threat to any Americans they encounter in Syria or Iraq. There has also been talk of attacks on the United States. Some number of Americans have made a pilgrimage — horribly misguided summer break? — to Raqqa. The numbers are estimated at between a dozen and hundreds.
There is an intent to hit the US. There is some level of capability. The so-called caliphate’s extra-regional capacity is, however, not thought by most informed observers to be significant — at least not yet. Strong action now is intended to be effectively preemptive.
But whatever the reality in and around Raqqa, an opinion survey conducted last weekend found a significant majority of Americans perceive a clear and present danger. ”Seventy-one (71) percent of respondents said that members of the militant group ISIL have the capability and resources to carry out terrorists plots in the U.S. The same poll found that 53 percent of those interviewed are “very concerned” about the threat ISIL poses to national security, while 34 percent are “somewhat concerned.””
As noted in a previous HLSWatch post, the President has recently determined to “degrade and destroy” the current threat of “systemic and broad-based aggression” by the group. The US delegation left last week’s NATO summit with several commitments to support such an effort. Later today we should hear more about why and how.
Prime Minister Cameron is not alone among European leaders in his concern. Tuesday the editor-in-chief of Deutsche Weld argued:
The “Islamic State” (IS) does not have to be contained. It has to be destroyed: militarily at first, but then politically, by breaking the allure of jihadism and drying up the sympathy for it. Foremost, the IS terror militia has to be fought. As if of their own accord, expectant eyes have turned to the United States for that task – and then to the entire West. NATO has, in any case, established a ten-party coalition of the willing to combat IS forces.
(Approximately 400 Germans are estimated to currently be fighting in Syria and potentially in Northern Iraq.)
On Sunday during a Meet The Press interview President Obama emphasized that the mission against the Raqqa Rump would depend on ground forces from the region — principally Iraqi military, Kurdish peshmerga and perhaps the Free Syrian Army — supported by an international coalition including Anglo-American air power.
SecDef Hagel has been in Turkey for consultations. Other than Iraqi Shias and Kurds, the Turks are probably the most important regional partner in the anti-Raqqa coalition. So far Turkey’s involvement sounds rather restrained. (More)
It is not at all clear how Iraqi or other Sunnis will respond to this international intervention. Ultimately it is their response that is likely to determine if this is all just another tactical clash or something more strategically significant: positive or negative.
Secretary Kerry has arrived in Baghdad. It is not clear the new — still incomplete — Iraqi government can earn any credibility with Sunnis (or even the Kurds). Much may depend on the radicals from Raqqa becoming so offensive as to generate (temporary) common-cause among various Iraqi factions. This is, after all, the same group that AQ-core considers crazy.
But what should be very clear is that neither the tactical nor strategic horizon is clear at all.
Homeland security will be a leading justification for expanded operations in Iraq and presumably Syria. The immediate threat to the United States will probably, if anything, be slightly increased by more robust US engagement. Our renewed military operations along the Euphrates and Tigris will increase the desire of some to directly target the United States.
Longer-term disruption and deterrence of attacks on Western targets depends a great deal on how the military operation and its consequences are perceived by a wildly incoherent — and so-far really rather small — cross-section of disaffected, often casually religious, volatile, violently-inclined young men in the region, in Europe, and here in the United States.
Late afternoon Tuesday the President met with Congressional leadership at the White House to discuss US military options. According to The Hill, “None of the four leaders present in the meeting mentioned the need for congressional action following the meeting, nor did they offer many clues as to what new strategy elements Obama might announce.”
It is also worth noting that while we are — necessarily — focusing a great deal of attention on Raqqa and related, the situation in Afghanistan, Libya, and possibly in Yemen seems to be reaching a critical juncture.
Some analysis of this context — and the President’s message — here on Thursday morning… I’m not promising by when.
September 4, 2014
A decade ago the Afghanistan mission was seen as giving a possibly moribund post-cold war NATO new relevance, scope, and purpose.
At a summit meeting today and tomorrow NATO will consider a scheduled withdrawal from a still-divided, dysfunctional, and vulnerable Afghanistan, endeavor to respond effectively to Russian aggression in Ukraine, and review a deteriorating international security environment across wide areas of North Africa and the Near East.
While the current threat may be less existential, I perceive Europe has not confronted an equally complex security context since perhaps 1949. The implications for the United States are also complicated and multi-layered.
Yesterday — on his way to the NATO summit — the President met with his Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian peers in Tallinn. These three Baltic states constitute the Northeastern frontier of the alliance.
Given the venue (Tallinn is 230 miles from St. Petersburg, 650 miles from Moscow, and 780 miles from Kiev), the President’s formal remarks needed to focus mostly on the Russian threat. Given the reality of this threat — and the institutional DNA of the alliance — today’s NATO consultations are also likely to be dominated by Putin’s provocations.
But Wednesday afternoon (local time) the President answered reporters questions on how NATO might take up what is happening just outside the southeastern corner of the alliance. Here are his most extended comments:
Even before ISIL dominated the headlines, one of the concerns that we have had is the development of terrorist networks and organizations, separate and apart from al Qaeda, whose focus oftentimes is regional and who are combining terrorist tactics with the tactics of small armies. And we’ve seen ISIS to be the first one that has broken through, but we anticipated this awhile back and it was reflected in my West Point speech.
So one of our goals is to get NATO to work with us to help create the kinds of partnerships regionally that can combat not just ISIL, but these kinds of networks as they arise and potentially destabilize allies and partners of ours in the region.
Already we’ve seen NATO countries recognize the severity of this problem, that it is going to be a long-run problem. Immediately, they’ve dedicated resources to help us with humanitarian airdrops, to provide arms to the Peshmerga and to the Iraqi security forces. And we welcome those efforts. What we hope to do at the NATO Summit is to make sure that we are more systematic about how we do it, that we’re more focused about how we do it.
NATO is unique in the annals of history as a successful alliance. But we have to recognize that threats evolve, and threats have evolved as a consequence of what we’ve seen in Ukraine, but threats are also evolving in the Middle East that have a direct effect on Europe… We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem. And the question is going to be making sure we’ve got the right strategy, but also making sure that we’ve got the international will to do it. This is something that is a continuation of a problem we’ve seen certainly since 9/11, but before. And it continues to metastasize in different ways.
And what we’ve got to do is make sure that we are organizing the Arab world, the Middle East, the Muslim world along with the international community to isolate this cancer, this particular brand of extremism that is, first and foremost, destructive to the Muslim world and the Arab world and North Africa, and the people who live there. They’re the ones who are most severely affected. They’re the ones who are constantly under threat of being killed. They’re the ones whose economies are completely upended to the point where they can’t produce their own food and they can’t produce the kinds of goods and services to sell in the world marketplace. And they’re falling behind because of this very small and narrow, but very dangerous, segment of the population. And we’ve got to combat it in a sustained, effective way. And I’m confident we’re going to be able to do that.
The foregoing sets-out the institutional (NATO) and international (North African and Near Eastern) context. Action is signaled. But in terms of US strategic objectives for actions taken within this context, I found the following comments from earlier in the press conference to be most helpful:
Our objective is to make sure that ISIL is not an ongoing threat to the region. And we can accomplish that. It’s going to take some time and it’s going to take some effort. As we’ve seen with al Qaeda, there are always going to be remnants that can cause havoc of any of these networks, in part because of the nature of terrorist activities. You get a few individuals, and they may be able to carry out a terrorist act.
But what we can do is to make sure that the kind of systemic and broad-based aggression that we’ve seen out of ISIL that terrorizes primarily Muslims, Shia, Sunni — terrorizes Kurds, terrorizes not just Iraqis, but people throughout the region, that that is degraded to the point where it is no longer the kind of factor that we’ve seen it being over the last several months.
We will shrink it. We will degrade it. We will over-time and with deliberate effort eliminate its capacity for systematic and broad-based aggression. We can reduce it to a manageable problem. But there are always going to be remnants that can cause havoc. The threat of violent extremism will continue to metastasize for the foreseeable future. New groups — new “its” — will emerge. The long-term solution will arise — or not — within the host cultures, within Arab and Muslim and other social constructs. Working with a broad alliance of committed and mobilized partners we can mostly contain the threat to us. We will try to facilitate more creative engagement of the problem by locals. But it is beyond the capacity of the United States alone to solve this problem. It will continue to be with us for a long time. We will continue to be targeted and sometimes they will hit us where it hurts.
Perhaps the President cannot — ought not — be quite as clear as the previous paragraph. Though he seems clear enough. Isn’t this a reasonable “translation” of what he is saying? Isn’t this consistent with prior comments and behavior?
If my paragraph accurately channels the President, doesn’t this authoritatively frame the counter-terrorism element of the homeland security mission? Certainly it would communicate a current commander’s intent. It also seems — to me — to effectively describe the strategic reality.
Today’s Times of London (paywall) has published a joint op-ed by Prime Minister Cameron and President Obama. (Draft available at Prime Minister’s website.) Reflecting the themes suggested above, here is one of their –no doubt, carefully vetted — paragraphs.
We know that terrorist organisations thrive where there is political instability and weak or dysfunctional political institutions. So we must invest in the building blocks of free and open societies, including the creation of a new genuinely inclusive Government in Iraq that can unite all Iraqis, including Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, Christian and other minority populations. When the threats to our security increasingly emanate from outside the borders of our Alliance, we must do more to build partnerships with others around the globe who share our values and want to build a safe, tolerant and peaceful world – that includes supporting the partners who are taking the fight to ISIL on the ground, as we have done by stepping up support for Kurdish and Iraqi Security Forces. And we should use our expertise to provide training and mentoring to forces elsewhere, whether in Georgia or the Middle East, strengthening the capacity of forces there to tackle local threats.
July 27, 2014
As usual the Aspen Security Forum continues to be an abundant mid-summer source of breaking news. I was not there. Three years running I’ve had to work somewhere hot and steamy while many of my colleagues are cooling off and comparing notes.
According to Josh Gerstein, on Saturday Lisa Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, called again for revised Congressional authorities to conduct operations against terrorists.
It’s been over a year since the President proposed the current Authorization for the Use of Military Force be repealed or seriously reformed. (NDU speech)
“The 2001 AUMF has provided us authority to go after terrorist actors and address the threats that they pose that fit within that definition. We are now 13, 14 years on from that and we’re seeing the emergence of other actors,” Monaco said during an appearance at the Aspen Security Forum. “I think there absolutely is a reason to have an authority to enable us to take the fight to these evolving terrorists that we’ve talked about.”
You can watch and hear Ms. Monaco’s complete remarks at: