The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. Drops Plan for a 9/11 Trial in New York City.” It describes a reversal by the Obama administration on holding the trial of 9/11 masterminds in criminal court in Manhattan.
The change in decision came after Mayor Bloomberg changed his mind about the event, in turn influenced by the plans presented by the New York City police commissioner, Raymond Kelly. Kelly had described a plan with multiple checkpoints, snipers on the roofs, etc., at a cost of up to $1 billion.
But, reading between the lines, the real problem came down to another form of money; the real estate agents for downtown had become extremely concerned about the fate of their businesses and the ability to lease downtown during the course of the trial, which could take years. It was their complaints and pressure that seemed to start the anti-trial ball rolling.
Of course, this just represents another form of NIMBY politics — not in my backyard. Many of these people are all for a non-military trial, just so long as they don’t have to deal with any of the repercussions. Trial at a military base may represent a possible alternative instead of the heart of Manhattan.
In any case, these terrorist trials and Guantanamo seem easy to resolve in terms of our values; it’s just the details that are slowing things down.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Taliban Assault Rattles Capital of Afghanistan.” It describes an attack by Taliban commandos right next to the Presidential palace, Ministry of Justice and Central Bank. The battle raged for up to five hours, and there was a secondary blast a few blocks away.
The ability of the Taliban to attack at will in such a secure urban area was designed to strike fear among the residents of Kabul. Generally, the Taliban is perceived as strong in rural areas, the area where the majority of American troops are located. That’s why this situation is so troubling.
The Americans are currently undertaking a program to attract Taliban militia to their side by portraying the Taliban as inevitable losers in the struggle. Such a brazen attack by the Taliban brings them favorable publicity and makes any U.S. recruitment efforts less likely to succeed.
In my opinion, the entire Afghanistan situation could easily result in a quagmire, if it hasn’t already. We are not familiar with the terrain; the local customs are foreign to us; and our increased military footprint is sure to increase resentment.
As Vice President Biden noted, the Taliban do not represent a threat to our homeland, and we would be better off just targeting Al Qaeda, located primarily in Pakistan.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Suicide Bomber in Afghanistan a Double Agent.” It provides a new revelation about the bombing last week killing seven C.I.A. agents — the bomber was a double agent provided by the Jordanian government.
The article describes how the Jordanian spy service, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided the individual to infiltrate Al Jaeda and how the man was purportedly going to provide information about the location of Al Qaeda’s number two leader, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahri. As a result, the double agent was never screened for explosives, and Al Qaeda gained a major tactical victory.
Well, I don’t have to be a C.I.A. agent to know that one of the first major rules of espionage is that you can’t trust anyone. But to not even take the most elementary precautions speaks very poorly of our intelligence service. It’s one thing to have airline security people make a glaring error, quite another one for our own operatives professionally trained in the field.
The C.I.A. bombing also creates a major internal division in our ranks. The government of Jordan and the C.I.A. have cooperated closely in the past, even though this is distinctly unpopular with the Jordanian people, especially in light of the Palestinian situation. One can only hope that cooperation will resume, even if in a more guarded manner.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. and Britain Close Embassies in Yemen Capital.” It describes the decision to close these buildings based on new information regarding a possible Al Qaeda attack.
The focus on Yemen has grown since the backing of the Al Qaeda group there, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, for the failed Christmas Day terror attack on a plane flying from Amsterdam to Detroit. The decision to close the embassies was based on a credible threat and occurred after a private meeting between General Petraeus, now responsible for the entire Middle East, and the President of Yemen.
In my opinion, the current reaction is purely defensive in nature. The United States must avoid “fighting the last war” because the next attack will come from a different country in a different way. Al Qaeda learns and adapts, and they will avoid attacking us where we expect it. Human intelligence is far more important than responding to past weaknesses.
For human intelligence, you need to start to infiltrate terrorists groups. And this will only occur if we provide a crash course in the Arab language and Arab customs for our operatives. We can’t anticipate the next terrorist attack through improving security measures or fiddling around with the terrorist watch list. With millions of bits of information, more than the Library of Congress every day, we simply don’t have the manpower to review them all, never mind trying to connect the dots.
We need to get men in the inside of Al Qaeda to anticipate their next move. This should be the main focus of all our intelligence agencies moving forward.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. Spy Agencies Failed to Collate Clues on Terrorism.” It provides an analysis of advance information obtained by spy agencies and an attempt to determine who is at fault for the attempted Christmas bombing on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day.
The article casts a wide net. Most to blame, according to the article, seems to be the National Counterterrorism Center, founded in 2004 specifically to encourage sharing of intelligence information among a wide variety of U.S. agencies. The C.I.A., protective of its turf as always, seems to be a secondary source of responsibility because it did not share biographical information it compiled about the bomber. The article also mentions partisan attacks on President Obama by Dick Cheney, the intercept of a communication about an unknown Nigerian in Yemen by the National Security Agency (NSA), and the fact that every plane taking off for the United States must forward details on every passenger. These details, in addition to providing the fact that Mr. Abdulmutallab was on a watch list, would have noted that his ticket was paid for in cash and that he didn’t check any bags.
I’m sure President Obama will assess blame in more detail and that people will lose their jobs. While it’s good to know that we were able to intercept hints of the plot, the inability to synthesize intelligence information is perhaps the most troublesome aspect of this potential tragedy.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama Hears of Signs That Should Have Grounded Plot.” It describes an admission by President Obama regarding a systemic failure in the nation’s security system and his pledge to hold the responsible parties acountable.
The article lists several facts known before the attack including the preparation of a Nigerian for a suicide mission, the central role of Yemen for training purposes, and intelligence regarding the movements of Umar Abdulmutallah, not to mention the already provided information about the warning from his father. It concludes that if the information had been properly shared among various departments, they should have been able to connect the dots.
In my opinion, it’s always easy to play Monday morning quarterback and decry what might have been. But we do not live in a perfect world, and that’s what makes the prediction of terrorist incidents so difficult. Of course, President Obama has to claim that the system did not work because he can’t say what’s more true, that a security system, no matter how thorough, will never always work. The terrorists will keep trying to stay one step ahead of our detection apparatus, and we will inevitably respond to their innovations.
The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “President Seeks to Reassure U.S. After Bomb Bid.” It describes a speech by President Obama, comments by his administration, and developments in the investigation of an attempted Christmas Day bombing on a jet flying from Amsterdam to Detroit.
Al Qaeda in Yemen has now taken responsibility for the incident, leading to increased examination of possible ways to retaliate against both Al Qaeda and the nation of Yemen. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has come under increasing attack for what is perceived as a tepid response three days later. Janet Napolitano has been especially criticized for her statement that “the system worked” on Sunday.
In my opinion, there are few immediate actions that the President could take. A military response should not be rushed but be carefully planned and targeted against Al Qaeda to avoid creating even more enemies in the Middle East. Systemic changes, other than just an increased effort, also require study to be most effective.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s personal character does not mesh well with these type of situations. While the public yearns for emotional support, President Obama is more studious and prone to dispassionate analysis. Even though he is on top of the matter, his political enemies are able to attribute his character nature as displaying a lack of concern or emphasis on terrorism.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “More Questions on Why Suspect Wasn’t Stopped.” It provides more details and background on the attempt by a Nigerian to blow up a jetliner travelling from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day.
The article notes that the individual, Umar Abdulmutallab, paid cash for his ticket to the United States and checked no bags, plus he was already on a terrorist watch list based on information provided by his father. Based on these facts, he should have received a more thorough security review by airport officials before being allowed to board the plane. The Obama administration has ordered an investigation of the watch list process as well as airport screening procedures.
In my opinion, there were definitely enough facts to merit alarm by airport officials. However, you must remember the thousands of people travelling by air every single day, and the need for security procedures to be 100 percent accurate. Also, many of the Monday-morning quarterbacks speaking out now have also raised privacy concerns about full-body scanners and patdowns. However, in the age of the Internet, and the age of terrorism, we should definitely provide the full list of TIDE suspects, the most inclusive watch list, to every check-in counter and ticket-buying outlet in the world. This combined with proper identification procedures would have prevented the Christmas Day incident.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Pakistan Detains Five U.S. Muslims in Raid by Police.” It describes the arrest of five U.S. students, mostly of Pakistani descent, after they suddenly disappeared from their Washington, D.C. homes. They were at the house of one of the students’ fathers who was linked to a militant group.
The students were not accused of any crime, and the Pakistani authorities said they were still gathering information. The F.B.I. had been notified when the students disappeared and coordinated with Pakistan in tracking them down. One of the students had created a “farewell” video, and the article notes that the investigation comes at a time when there is increasing concern about “homegrown” terrorism such as the incident at Fort Hood in Texas.
The students were all acknowledged as religious Muslims; one was studying to be a dentist; and an acquaintance said they probably didn’t even know the price of beer. If these type of people are being attracted to militant Islamic violence, there truly is a reason to be concerned.
I think we’ll have to wait to see whether anything pans out from the detentions. The Bush administration gained a reputation of making a mountain out of a molehill in these type of situations.
The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Pakistan Attacks Show Tightening of Militant Links.” It describes a new alliance in Pakistan among Al Qaeda, the Taliban and local militant groups including those devoted to fighting India’s presence in Kashmir.
The article analyzes the recent takeover of the Pakistan Army headquarters as well as the assault on two Pakistani military training centers and a federal investigations building on Thursday. It found cooperation between Pakistan militant groups is increasing in a combined attempt to overthrow the government and forestall a planned government attack on Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds in the Waziristan provinces.
In my opinion, this unholy alliance represents one more setback to American efforts in Pakistan. By combining their objectives against India, the United States and the civilian Pakistani government, the militant groups have become a powerful force to be reckoned with, not just guerilla bands carrying out isolated attacks. Even more ominously, the article notes that the Pakistani population supports the militant groups because they view the Americans as an occupying force.
This alliance could make it even more difficult for the Pakistani government because of its ties with the military, intelligence forces and throughout society. Leaks and inside connections will make it nearly impossible to mount a surprise attack, and militant support among the citizenry will ensure their ability to melt away into the population during any sustained operation.
