Quoted in Deutsche Welle
Last weekend I was quoted in Deutsche Welle, Germany’s equivalent to BBC, for an article on how al Qaeda remains a threat following the death of Osama bin Laden. Also quoted were fellow U.S. Counterterrorism Advisory Team members Walid Phares and W. Thomas Smith, Jr.
Chris Carter, a regional director with the US Counterterrorism Advisory Team, agrees that the fight is far from over. “The threat from al Qaeda will never be truly eradicated as you can’t kill an ideology,” he told Deutsche Welle. “But a more effective military campaign, accompanied by a political resolve to defeat the Islamist threat, would further weaken al Qaeda and discourage other groups and individuals from joining the fight.”
In: National Security · Tagged with: al Qaeda
al Qaeda to Obama admin: ‘You lie!’
Even al Qaeda is fed up with the lies coming from the White House:
“[The Obama] administration, tried to portray the operation of brother Nidal Hassan, as an individual act of violence from an estranged individual. The administration practiced a control on the leak of information concerning the operation in order to cushion the reaction of the American public. Until this moment the administration is refusing to release the emails exchanged between myself and Nidal. And after the operation of our brother Umar al-Faruq the initial comments coming from the administration were looking the same: another attempt at covering up the truth.”
- Anwar al-Awlaki, U.S.-born al Qaeda leader
In: In Their Own Words · Tagged with: al Qaeda, Anwar al-Awlaki, Obama administration
Military Roundup
Get out your flags! Today is National Medal of Honor Day. On this day in 1863, the first Medals were awarded. And as a reminder, the 2010 Medal of Honor convention will be held in Charleston, S.C. from Sept. 29 – Oct. 30.
Osama bin Laden threatened to kill more Americans if al Qaeda detainees are executed (as if he wouldn’t have done so otherwise).
Photo of the day: the Navy’s futuristic ride that belongs on a Bond film
Private security contractors have killed a Somali pirate for the first time.
This week in U.S. military history
An al Qaeda group in Indonesia has been kind enough to clear up the confusion about whether Jihad is peaceful or violent (the Qur’an also covers this matter – see for yourself).
In: Military Roundup · Tagged with: al Qaeda, jihad, Medal of Honor, Osama bin Laden, pirates, US Navy
Definition of Jihad
“To all members of Jemaah Islamiyah, unite! Jihad is not waged with pens or wearing prayer caps and sarongs. No, you fight jihad with weapons. Before your hair goes grey with age, join us!”
- Member of the Indonesian terrorist group al Qaeda in Aceh
In: In Their Own Words · Tagged with: al Qaeda, al Qaeda in Aceh, Indonesia, jihad
Government must drop partisan politics on national security
In an opinion piece for a major newspaper, a White House official lashed out at critics of the Obama administration’s ability to defend against terrorism. John Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, wrote in a USA Today op-ed on Tuesday, “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”
Does Brennan truly think criticizing government’s self-admitted “shortcomings” and “systemic failures” constitutes serving the goals of al Qaeda? And with the spate of al Qaeda attacks on our homeland, our concerns are anything but “unfounded fear-mongering.”
What Brennan sees as attempts to score “cheap political points” might be more accurately viewed as Americans expressing unease with poor handling of the War on Terror.
His sub-heading reads “Administration disrupts terrorists’ plots, takes fight to them abroad.” But the administration certainly didn’t disrupt the Fort Hood jihadist massacre. To be fair, the shooter served under both Obama and Bush – despite being a card-carrying member of Soldiers of Allah (literally). While the government can’t disrupt every attack, officials should at least correctly identify the reason the attack happened in the first place. In this respect, the government failed miserably.
The 86-page report on Ft. Hood released by the Pentagon following the attack avoided any mention of the jihadist ideology that appears to be the motivation behind the attack. But the report did mention “animal rights,” “disgruntled employees,” and “white supremacy” as factors in terrorist attacks.
I ask Mr. Brennan: Does the administration’s whitewashing of the jihadist attack on Fort Hood help or hurt al Qaeda?
In: National Security · Tagged with: al Qaeda, Fort Hood tragedy, George W. Bush administration, jihad, John Brennan, Obama administration, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
US imam praises Detroit terror attack, says bomber was his student
An American-born, pro-jihad cleric has reportedly praised the failed Christmas airliner attack and claimed the alleged perpetrator was his student.
Anwar al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents. Before leaving the U.S. in 2002, he served as an imam in Denver, San Diego, and the Washington, D.C. area. While in San Diego, he became the “spiritual advisor” for two of the 9/11 hijackers (and had contact with a third). He also admits to having advised the man who gunned down 14 unarmed Americans at Fort Hood, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Al-Awlaki now lives in Yemen, and counter terrorism experts believe that he works for al Qaeda.
In a recent Al Jazeera interview al-Awlaki stated that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23 year-old Nigerian student who attempted to detonate a bomb on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, was in fact a student of his.
Al-Awlaki’s pro-jihad internet lectures and materials are very popular, and he is even said to be active on social networking sites like Facebook.
Abdulmtallab allegedly attempted to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in December while en route from Amsterdam to Detroit by hiding a bomb in his underwear. He has stated that more attacks are planned, that his is the first of many forthcoming plots. He is currently in federal prison in Milan, Mich.
“Brother mujahed Umar Farouk — may Allah relieve him — is one of my students, yes,” said al-Awlaki in the interview published on Tuesday. “We had kept in contact, but I didn’t issue a fatwa (religious ruling/declaration of war) to Umar Farouk for this operation.”
Al-Awlaki expressed his support of the failed Christmas attack, but said that he would have preferred a military target.
“I support what Umar Farouk did after seeing my brothers in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan being killed,” al-Awlaki said. “If it was a military plane or a U.S. military target it would have been better…(but) the American people have participated in all the crimes of their government.”
The other two known terrorism cases that he had ties to were indeed military targets. The victims in Maj. Hasan’s Fort Hood massacre were mostly soldiers. And Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar – the 9/11 hijackers that al-Awlaki mentored – were two of the five operatives who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 64 passengers and 125 people in the Pentagon. Hani Hanjour – another Flight 77 hijacker – attended services at the Dar al Hiraj mosque in Falls Church, Va. while al-Awlaki was an imam there.
“Some 300 Americans are nothing compared to thousands of Muslims they have killed,” he said of the innocent civilians on the flight to Detroit.
But according to a recent study, the same could be said of al Qaeda.
A West Point study found that 85% of al Qaeda’s victims are in fact Muslims.
[Originally published at The US Report]
In: National Security, Religion · Tagged with: 9/11, al Qaeda, American Airlines Flight 77, Anwar al-Awlaki, Nidal Malik Hasan, Northwest Airlines 253, Pentagon, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Yemen
From warfare to lawfare
Make no mistake: this administration’s egregious decision to try al Qaeda operatives and their associates as common criminals allows our enemies to extend the battlefield from Afghanistan to U.S. courtrooms. Jim Hanson appears on Fox News discussing the impact of this decision on our intelligence community and ultimately our ability to protect ourselves.
In: National Security · Tagged with: al Qaeda, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, lawfare
Who are we fighting anyways?
Gadi Adelman illustrates how absurd and dangerous the Obama administration’s approach to fighting our jihadist enemies is in an excellent piece at Family Security Matters. Adelman would know, having survived a terrorist attack in Jerusalem which killed seven children.
A very serious administration would know – and admit to – the fact that we are not just at war with al Qaeda, but with Jihad itself. Saying that we are at war only with al Qaeda would have been tantamount to saying, during World War II, that we were at war with only the 25th Panzer Division of the German Army, and not with the entire German Army itself.
Yes, we are at war with al Qaeda… and also with Hamas and Hezbollah and Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Gama’at al-Islamiyya and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Ansar al Islam and Harakat ul-Mujahadin …well, you get the idea. What animates, connects and indeed unites these various groups – and many more? Jihad. Holy War against the infidels.
Unfortunately, our president actually believes that Hamas and Hezbollah have “legitimate claims!” Read the New York Times’ interview for yourself, then read the terrorist groups’ charters to see what their claims are.
But while we are drawing comparisons to WWII, what would this country have done had FDR announced that Hitler had legitimate claims? I doubt that would have gone over well.
In all fairness, all administrations have done a piss-poor job of handling the threat of Islamic jihad, some worse than others, but the past is the past. It is time for the government to move forward and announce that these jihadist groups threaten our liberty and security and are therefore our enemy. That avoids the whole politically incorrect distraction that the Islamist apologists will throw up, because while not all Muslims are jihadist, all jihadists are Muslim.
[Originally posted at Blackfive]
In: Religion, terrorism · Tagged with: al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Family Security Matters, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islam, jihad, New York Times
Courts-Martial for Navy SEAL Heroes Still Planned Despite Pressure, Questions
A top military commander has stated that courts-martial for three Navy SEALs charged with allegedly mishandling a terrorist detainee will continue despite pressure from both Congress and the American people.
The three SEALs were part of the platoon that captured of Ahmed Hashim Abed, a top al Qaeda leader during a nighttime raid in September. Abed is the suspected mastermind of a 2004 ambush who killed four Blackwater security contractors – including a former SEAL – in Fallujah, Iraq.
Petty Officer Matthew McCabe is the only SEAL accused of actually assaulting Abed, and also faces charges of dereliction of duty and making a false statement. According to the Newport News Daily Press, court documents state that McCabe’s alleged assault amounts to a punch in the stomach.
Petty Officers Julio Huertas and Jonathan Keefe also face charges of dereliction and making a false statement. Huertas has a third charge that is pending investigation.
The trial is still set to continue despite a massive outpouring of public support. Thirty thousand Americans have signed Congressman Dan Burton’s (R – Ind.) online petition calling for the military to end the prosecution. In December, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R – Calif.) sent a letter signed by 33 members of Congress to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting intervention. Later that month, Rep. Burton sent another letter, this time signed by 40 representatives asking that the charges be dropped. Over 98,000 people have joined a Facebook group supporting the SEALs, and over 114,000 have signed an online petition at Human Events.
“Instead of medals and commendations, our heroes are being met with twisted jurisprudence,” wrote Rep. Burton. “This sends a backwards message to our men and women in the military who are charged with carrying out dangerous missions and must often use aggressive force in dealing with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.”
Maj. Gen. Charles Cleveland, commander of the Army’s Special Operations Command Central and the convening authority of the case, responded to the Rep. Burton’s letter on December 15th, stating that he is more concerned with an alleged cover-up than he is with Abed’s “relatively minor” injuries.
Gen. Cleveland wrote that Abed’s “alleged injuries were inflicted several hours after the operation had ended, and while in the custody and care of the U.S. at Camp Schweidler’s detainee holding facility.” But how could medical personnel determine exactly when Abed so-called injury took place, and how could they know that the injury wasn’t self-inflicted, or as a result of his capture?
“If the injuries were insignificant, why are the reputations of 3 expert warriors on the line?” asks Kay Day at The US Report. Indeed, Gen. Cleveland could have simply let the matter go, but opted for non-judicial punishment, which the sailors declined; accepting the punishment could have ended their career in special operations.
But did the alleged abuse even take place?
Lesson 18 of al Qaeda’s training manual says to convince the judge that the member was tortured and to complain of mistreatment to the court. It could be that Abed was just doing what he was trained to do – continue the battle from the courtroom (apparently the only environment that SEALs are vulnerable), whether the allegations are true or not. Unfortunately, it appears that the Pentagon is willing to risk the careers of three of the nation’s best warriors in order to find out as anyone above Gen. Cleveland could put an end to the trial as well.
Consider the effect this has on not just the special operations community, but also our conventional forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today’s battlefield has become an extension of the courtroom for our troops and has already had a significantly negative effect on our warfighting capabilities.
Day also asks, “Did military politics and political correctness perhaps play a role in their raising the allegations?”
Entirely likely. Especially when we consider the military’s PC reaction to November’s Fort Hood massacre, where Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire, killing 13 and wounded dozens more. Rather than asking commanders to be on the lookout for more jihadist activity from within the ranks, Army Gen. George Casey asked them to watch for a backlash against Muslim soldiers. Gen. Casey also said that “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” As to military politics, the current administration’s view of “engaging the enemy” is not done at gunpoint, but diplomatically. Therefore, it behooves military leaders to behave accordingly in order to earn their stars.
Worse than a perceived loss of the Gen. Casey’s beloved “diversity” is the loss of our military’s desire to serve and fight. The Pentagon must take into consideration the loss of morale and unit integrity that today’s Armed Forces experience because of cases like these. A soldier that is expected to fight both on the battlefield and in the court room can not win a war.
As of this writing, the trial is set to begin January 19th. Legal defense funds have been established to help the SEALs fight this battle. See here and here.
[Originally published at Family Security Matters]
In: Military · Tagged with: Ahmed Hashim Abed, al Qaeda, Jonathan Keefe, Julio Huertas, Matthew McCabe, MG Charles Cleveland, Navy SEALs, Nidal Malik Hasan, SEAL 3, SEAL Team 10
Al Qaeda Attackers: Common Criminals or Enemy Combatants?
David A. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee A. Casey published an excellent piece at National Review Online addressing the line between trying our enemies as enemy combatants subject to the rules of war; or criminals subject to our Constitution (emphasis added).
The right way to proceed, consistent with the law, morality, and history, is to treat captured enemy personnel as enemy combatants, subject to the laws of war. By contrast, criminals — including individuals who commit terrorist acts but, whatever their ideological predilections, are not members of entities such as al-Qaeda that have been engaged in an armed conflict with us (this would include Timothy McVeigh and Major Nidal Malik Hasan) — should be treated as criminal suspects subject to the workings of the criminal-justice system. Treating an al-Qaeda operative who enters the United States to carry out an attack as a common criminal not only denies the nature of this challenge we face, but it works to level the playing field to our disadvantage.
Retired Special Forces Colonel Gordon Cucullu told me in an interview that we actually give our terrorist enemies more rights than the Geneva Conventions afford them. According to Common Article 3, non-uniformed combatants are to be shot on sight, and for good reason when you consider the effect that they have on humanity. War is best fought by uniformed members of the military.
But all we have done since the Iranian Embassy takeover in 1979 is placate jihadists. Trying foreign operatives as criminals simply because they perpetrate their acts on or above our soil not only endangers American citizens, but further emboldens our enemies and grants them access to the very Constitution that they are trying to destroy.
The NRO article is in response to a New York Times op-ed defending Obama administration’s decision to treat Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the al-Qaeda operative who attempted to blow up an airliner over Detroit) as a criminal defendant. No surprises there.
[Originally posted at Blackfive]
In: National Security · Tagged with: al Qaeda, Constitution, Gordon Cucullu, jihad, New York Times, Nidal Malik Hasan, Obama administration
