The Potential of Nuclear Terrorism

In a recent post, "No More Gasoline for you, Iran!" fellow blogger Scott Tenorman speaks about the threat posed by Iran's developing nuclear program. Iran's claim that their nuclear program is purely for energy is seems almost laughable as the president flexes his military muscles as often as he possibly can.

The Obama administration has been playing it smart however, and with an addendum of the START treaty aimed specifically at Iran we can rest a little easier in the knowledge that our Homeland Security is intently watching over Iran. At the beginning of the Nuclear Summit in Washington, President obama opened with a new threat to our security, the threat of terrorist groups acquiring nuclear weapons. In the President's words, "Two decades after the end of the Cold War, we face a cruel irony of history: The risk of nuclear confrontation between nations has gone down, but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up."

During the first full day of the summit the President explained that terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda are actively seeking nuclear armaments and if they acquire them they are sure to use them.

The summit follows days of meetings between President Obama and other heads of nations discussing the threat of nuclear terrorism. In efforts to stem the ability of terrorist networks from obtaining nuclear arms from rogue states like Iran Obama is placing higher sanctions on Iran and encourages other nations to do the same. On last Monday the president met with Chinese President Hu Jintao to work out increased sanctions against Iran, China up until this point has been reluctant to sanction Iran, but after coming to understand the grave threat posed to international security by Iran's nuclear development program, they have agreed to lay heavier sanctions on the rogue state.

These sanctions combined with a declaration form Ukraine to be rid of their enriched uranium by 2012 are small steps towards President Obama's long term goal of a one day Nuclear weapon free world. And these are certainly big steps in reducing the threat of nuclear attack by terrorist networks.

We'll Just Have to Wait Him Out

With the Obama administration came a new approach to dealing with Iran, a state that had been classified as one of the ‘Axis of Evil’ under the Bush administration, president Obama sought to work with Iran to establish diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran. These efforts however, have not been fruitful for the United States; Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has consistently scoffed at any efforts by the United States and has insisted that Iran will become a nuclear state. Now, after President Obama has made it clear that the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states (with the exclusion of Iran and North Korea) president Ahmadinejad is beyond approach. So with the possibility of a nuclear Iran looming over our heads, how do we keep our country safe? Establishing a working relationship with Ahmadinejad is infeasible; our only hope is the people of Iran. The best course of action to keep the US safe is to wait out Ahmadinejad until a new president is elected in Iran, and to work with this new president.

In some of his latest public announcements Ahmadinejad has stated that an increase in pressure on Iran’s nuclear program would be met with an increase in Iran’s support of ‘resistance’ – Ahmadinejad’s code for the Islamic militant groups in Palestine as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. This statement serves twofold: first it is a testament that Iran will not stop its nuclear program, second it is a threat to the United States. If the U.S. does not ease its pressure and sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program then Iran will retaliate by fueling Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda. This threat coupled with Ahmadinejad’s mocking of President Obama’s ‘cowboy’ nuclear plan leave no doubt that we are beyond any point of working out a solution with Iran that will lead to both a safer world as well as a safer United States. But there is still hope; we in the United States are not the only ones fed up with Ahmadinejad, the people of Iran have had enough of him too.

In the election of 2009 Ahmadinejad ran against a reformer, Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister of Iran. Although it was announced that the election was a landslide victory in favor of Ahmadinejad, Mousavi supporters believed that the election had been rigged because the official polls are unreliable and every unofficial sampling indicated a head to head race. After the ballots were counted hundreds of thousands of Mousavi supporters dressed in green rushed out into the streets in protest. A protest of this magnitude had not been seen in Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. The Iranian police were quick to the scene, however, and began beating protestors and shooting into the crowds, the protest demonstrations quickly turned into riots. The international community as well as many people within Iran was appalled by the violent retaliation against what was started as a peaceful protest. This reaction may have been beneficial in reducing favor of Ahmadinejad’s regime in Iran itself. With a majority of the population in favor of Mousavi coupled with the approach of the end of Ahmadinejad’s second term, it is highly likely that in the next election Mousavi will come to power.

So does this mean that once Mousavi is elected Iran will cease its nuclear program? Unfortunately it does not; Mousavi has made his support of Iran becoming a nuclear power quite clear, but at the same time has publicly announced that he would be more than willing to work with the United States. This declaration alone is a drastic turn from Ahmadinejad’s claims that the United States must now in essence bend to Iran’s will.

Last year the UN proposed an offer that would take Iran’s uranium and enrich it to a level that could be used to produce electricity. This proposal would have both reduced the quantity of uranium in Iran as well as ensure that the uranium was only usable for electricity and could not be brought to weapons grade. Ahmadinejad however defected on this proposal stating that Iran would decide the terms of how much uranium would be enriched and to what levels. It seems that Mousavi, unlike his opponent, would have made that deal, and today we would be working with Iran instead of reading the papers every day to see what outrageous claims Ahmadinejad has made now.

Israeli Construction in Palestine Hurts Peace

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s reply on the subject of new construction of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem, the largely Arab section of Jerusalem annexed by Israel during the 1967 war, made his position on the matter quite clear: “Jews have built their homes in Jerusalem for centuries and will continue.” Its too bad that the Palestinians have been building their homes in Jerusalem for centuries as well. I guess somewhere along the lines of history the deed for Jerusalem got lost. Luckily enough though, it seems that the Israelis found it, and a few eviction notices as well, sorry Palestinians.

Israeli settlements in Palestinian lands have always been a heated issue, but expansion into East Jerusalem has Palestinians particularly enraged because they claim Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. The Palestinians have been trying to halt construction in East Jerusalem in efforts to resume Peace Talks with Israel, a position mirrored by the Obama administration. In spite of this, prime minister Netanyahu remains adamant as ever stating that halting construction, “will serve only to delay peace talks further.” In reality halting construction would do the exact opposite, it would be a sign of Israel’s willingness to restore, or better yet, create peace in a region that has been wracked with conflict since its inception.

The Israeli prime minister’s remarks are nothing new to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has been consistently characterized by Israel’s resilience to concede to any Palestinian requests. Not only this, but new construction in East Jerusalem completely violates the 10-month moratorium on construction in the occupied territories. Israel claims that their plans for construction are still valid because Jerusalem is their capital and does not fall under the same category as Gaza and the West Bank. While the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is true enough, there still remains the fact that the disputed part of Jerusalem that construction is to begin is in East Jerusalem, the occupied portion taken by Israel after the 1967 War and then annexed which has never been internationally recognized. So while there may be, as Netanyahu says, a consensus in Israel that Jerusalem will always be apart of Israel, the international community sees Israel’s actions as a direct violation of International Law, as well as a violation of the countries own policies (the 10 month suspension of construction in occupied territories).

Netanyahu’s claim that suspending construction in East Jerusalem will delay the peace talks another year is not a statement of fact, or even the warning of a country attempting to reach peace sooner, it is a threat. Netanyahu’s warning has no factual backing, there is no legitimate reason that peace talks would be delayed even further if construction was halted. The prime minister’s warning is instead a threat to the Palestinians as well as the international community that if they must concede to the demands of the Palestinians that they will not resume peace talks for another year. It seems that one year is how long it would take Israel’s ego to recover from such a stunning blow from the international community; how dare they demand that Israel keeps its word and keep from doing the very actions that would destroy any notion of peace in the region.

So instead of maintaining the status quo, instead of continuing the behaviors that have clearly done everything but bring peace between Israel and Palestine, I suggest a new course for Israel to take: Halt the construction in East Jerusalem. Not only will this halt of construction stop Israel form violating international law as well as the country’s own declarations of a moratorium on construction in the occupied territories, but is will demonstrate a new attitude towards peace negotiations on Israel’s behalf, an attitude that Israel wants peace. Instead of provoking retaliation attacks from militants in Palestine, Israel would show a sign of good faith, that they are willing to meet the Palestinians half way in the quest for peace in the region instead of threatening to delay peace even further.

President Obama and Afghanistan

The president's revised war plan, unveiled in December called for a massive build up of troops in Afghanistan, since as Mr. Obama said, as reported by Sheldon Alberts, "the 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010-the fastest pace possible- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers." Obama's plan is to launch an aggressive and swift campaign against Taliban and Al-Qaeda strongholds to eradicate them from the region. The president has put a timeline on this troop buildup, hoping to start pulling US forces out of Afghanistan in mid 2011. By then it is hoped that the Afghani government will have enough power and control to rule their own country. As the president said, "The absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghani government."

After this announcement a few months ago, the President shifted his focus to passing the new Healthcare plan. With this bill passed last week, Obama has returned his focus to the war effort, making a secret and surprise visit to Afghanistan on Sunday. The White House told the press that Mr. Obama would be spending the weekend at Camp David, however, AirForce One was really on its way to Afghanistan. Once landed the president was flown by helicopter to the presidential palace of Afghani president Hamid Karzai in Kabul. For the past three months the troop surge in Afghanistan has proved very successful since forces have launched an offensive into the southern part of Afghanistan, the birthplace of the Taliban and the center of the Opium trade form which the Taliban gets most of its funding. Although the President met with troops to congratulate and thank them for their efforts and success so far in Afghanistan, the surprise visit to Afghanistan was to give president Hamid Karzai a little pep-talk.

Our offensives into the Southern region of Afghanistan have shown the military's ability to clear out Taliban and insurgent forces, but now it is the job of the Afghani government to establish the rule of law in these newly won back provinces. To do this Obama urged Karzai to end the corruption on the Afghani government end. The President was overall satisfied with the trip, saying "Progress will continue to be made."

President Karzai was not the only one that had a welcome arranged for President Obama that Sunday; hours after the president's surprise visit the Taliban claimed that they had sent a barrage of missiles to Bagram Airfield, as reported by James Gordon Meek. A military spokeswoman released that there had indeed been an indirect fire attack at Bagram, but unlike the Taliban's claim that "there had been significant losses to the enemy," there were no casualties.

PMCs, PSCs, and Everything In Between

In my last post I talked about the Long War against Terror, and in a comment fellow blogger T. A. Sattler points out the impediments to winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani people because of Private Military Contractors (PMCs). I think it would be pertinent to discuss the role of PMCs in our country's War on Terror.

After the Vietnam War our military completely revamped itself; obviously there was a great need to separate military service from the drug use that was rampant among troops overseas. In the mid 70s the state department made our military an all volunteer force and took away the draft that had caused so much controversy during the Vietnam War. Since our military is now an all volunteer force, it has its limits, at least limitations in the number of troops that it can amass. (Screening Evaluations limit the military's numbers even further. Psychological, physical, and intelligence tests and standards prohibit a large number of would be recruits from joining the service.) This has put a strain active duty members that are currently fighting the War on Terror. Instead of the single tour of duty and return to the states that was reflective of the Vietnam War, troops are now going through cycles of training, deployment, training, deployment...etc. Some service members have seen over 5 tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan.

So where do PMCs fit in? PMCs and PSCs (Security and Risk Companies) fill in the gaps so that the military is able to effectively carry out its mission. US forces are not only on the front lines fighting insurgents, but behind them as well, driving supply trains, building camps and bases, moving forces...etc. To reach the numbers needed to effectively do all this almost our entire military force would need to be deployed. Obviously this is not practical. The solution-Private Contractors.

Most of these contracted companies carry out combat support operations or security for non military personnel in country. There are, however, companies contracted by the government that fight on the front lines. A recent Washington Post article points out a Florida firm that was contracted to, "provide dogs and their handlers for operational use in areas of Southern Afghanistan along the Pakistan borer, where some of the most violent fighting is taking place."

This process of contracting out work by the Department of Defense is a major source of controversy, especially after the events of September 16th 2007, in which Blackwater employees shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians completely unprovoked. The company was 'kicked out' by the Iraqi government the very next day, but still controversy surrounds the issue. Why is the DoD paying tax dollars to private companies that kill civilians, effectively destroying any progress made to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. This event, while tragic, gave the impetus for change in defense contracting. The House of Representatives passed a bill in October of 2007 that made all private contractors working in Iraq or other countries subject to prosecution by US Courts. This coupled with new standards for employees (most companies only take US citizens that have over 3-7 years in the Special Forces, since FBI investigations found that it was Iraqi Blackwater employees responsible for the civilian deaths) have removed the "lawless" cloud that hung over the term Private Contractor.

The Long War: Winning The Hearts and Minds

The War on Terror is not a war that can be fought and on within 5 years, 10 years, or even within 20 years. The War on Terror is not only a war against Islamic fundamentalists and insurgents, but also a war against a mindset, an ideology. It is sad to say that the capture and removal of Osama Bin Laden would not end the War on Terror; he would easily be replaced because the terrorists do not follow a man but a cause. Terrorist forces are willing to spend their entire lives fighting for this cause, and the United States military has responded with the idea of the Long War against terror. The best way to defeat terrorism is not only find and destroy terrorist cells and combatants, but to destroy the terrorist ideology. To work with the people of the Middle East to reach a common understanding through education and cooperation, thus preventing today's allies from becoming tomorrow's enemies; in essence to win the hearts and minds.

To achieve this victory over terrorism, we must first understand the foe that we are fighting against. Contrary to popular belief terrorism is not the result of ignorance, poverty, or even the politics of the Untied States within the Middle East, nor is the terrorism in the Middle East a result of a liberal, modernized culture (The United States) clashing with a traditional and conservative culture (The Middle East). As stated by I. Boone of the Claremont Institute, Islamic Terrorists are often, "graduate students with extensive knowledge of the West. Their ideology is a historically rooted view of the nature of Islam and its fundamental and necessary opposition to the Western World's commitment to individual freedom and constitutional democracy." The war between these terrorists is often rooted in their own views on their religion and is not rooted in the ignorance that is so often attributed them.

As given in a brief by Rear Admiral Bill Sullivan, the Vice Director for Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff, RADM Sullivan points out that while we Americans know the enemies beleifs to be misguided, "he is absolutely committed to his cause, his religious ideology successfully attracts recruits, and he has a sufficient population base from which to protract the conflict." These "strengths' of the enemy are compounded by the technological age that we live in; internet, news media, satellite T.V., and cell phones have made it much easier not only for the enemy to communicate but also for their terrorist acts to broadcasted over the world in efforts to instill fear in the populaces that fight terrorism.

This fear is a part of the terrorists strategy; by definition terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. The Islamic Fundamentalists employ this tactic as a means to reach their goals; their goals, as stated by Osama Bin Laden, are to "...incite the Islamic Nation to rise up to liberate its land and to conduct Jihad for the sake of God." This call for Jihad is so dangerous to counter terrorism because it equates war against the west with religious duty. Jihad in the Muslim religion is the struggle to do good, and if the words of Bin Laden inspire a mere fraction of Muslims to take up war against the United States, the results would be devastating. As pointed out by RADM Sullivan, "even support by 1% of the population would equate to over 12 million "enemies"." This is an intimidating figure and as Bernard Lewis says, "if the leaders of Terrorist Islam can persuade the world of Islam to accept their views... a dark future awaits the world."

While the ideals put forth by Osama Bin Laden encapsulate the very fundamental principles that we are fighting in the War on Terror, his capture and/or death would not bring an end to the will of fundamentalists to fight. There are both pros and cons to this fact; pros in that the United States is not limited in its efforts in Afghanistan to a "Hunt for Bin Laden" and can employ most of its efforts in fighting terrorist cells and restoring stability to tribes and regions in Afghanistan, but at the same time this presents a major con: Osama Bin Laden is easily replaceable. As Tom Hayden writes in The Nation, "Today's special operatives may track down and kill Osama bin Laden, as they did Che Guevara in Bolivia in 1967. But the process of revolutionary nationalism will go on under the Taliban or its successors." In the case of the Middle East it is not Che Guevara's revolutionary nationalism that will survive, but Islamic fundamentalism and extremism.

But there is hope; most Muslims reject the terrorists' ideals and beliefs because ironically these ideals often go against the values of the very religion they claim to be defending. As put forth by The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in an article titled, "Not in the Name of Islam" the Council writes, "those who commit acts of terror, murder and cruelty in the name of Islam are not only destroying innocent lives, but are also betraying the values of the faith they claim to represent. No injustice done to Muslims can ever justify the massacre of innocent people, and no act of terror will ever serve the cause of Islam. We repudiate and dissociate ourselves from any Muslim group or individual who commits such brutal and un-Islamic acts. We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad."

The words of the CAIR should inspire hope in the American people. If the US can create an environment that fosters the ideals of anti-terrorism as practicing true and devout Islam, then Islamic fundamentalism and extremism can be eradicated. The best way to carry out this mission is to win the hearts and minds of the people. As Gen McCrystal, the commander of US forces in Afghaistan, said in an interview on "60 Minutes", "The greatest risk we can accept is to lose the support of the people here. If the people are against us, we cannot be successful. If the people view us as occupiers and the enemy, we can't be successful." Gen McCrystal seeks to increase troop deployments in Afghanistan not only to fight Taliban cells, but also to rebuild the country and its economic system. To do that, to create stability, the Afghani people need to feel safe in their homes and free of the Taliban. This is done by having more troops on Afghani soil, not a limited number of troops focusing solely on eliminating Al Qaeda. If the populace percieves the US military force as at war with Islam instead of there to protect the people of Afghanistan, then we are responsible for a situation that will only breed more hatred of the United States and ultimately create more terrorists.

So with more troops in Afghanistan we can not only protect the populace but at the same time tear down the image of the United States as an oppressor of the people, and instead instill into the people the knowledge that our efforts are to protect and restore their nation. By fostering an environment that gives the people more interaction with US troops, we can build rapport and trust, as well as come to a common understanding.

Winning the hearts and minds is indeed how we will win the War Against Terror, but that is only if we employ that strategy with direct military combat. We cannot simply gain the trust of the people of Afghanistan to abandon them to the Taliban once we withdraw from the region. We must simultaneously eradicate terrorist cells, while we eradicate the ideologies that lead to terrorism from the populace. Because this war effort can not be done in the course of a few years, the military has adopted the "Long War" approach in the War on Terror. Our conduct in the Middle East today, if continued, will have a lasting effect on future generations; generations that will be rid of anti-American sentiments, as well as Islamic Fundamentalism and militant extremism.

As pointed out by RADM Sullivan, defeating an ideology takes time. The United States was in a "Cold" and "Hot" War with the USSR for over 43 years to defeat communism, a clashing ideology. In comparison to the US's efforts against communism, violent Islamic based Extremism is potenitally more dangerous and considerable a threat because it claims a religious backing. This combined with the fact that terrorist forces are group based, not state based, makes the War on Terror a more considerable threat than the political ideology of communism.

Opponents of the "Long War" strategy have noble intentions: to end the war quickly and minimize the number of American casualties. But this simply is not possible. The education of the people, stabilization of the region, eradication of extremists, destruction of the fundamentalists's ideologies, and build of trust and rapport with the people is not something that can be done in a few years time. Removal of forces from the War on Terror may allow terrorist the time, security, and location to plan another attack like 9/11 against our nation; the very tragedy that launched the United States War on Terror.

Terrorists: Enemy Combatants or Criminals?

As we continue to wage the War on Terror it is important to fully understand who we are fighting, this means that we must define terrorism and terrorists as best we can. Just as in my last post I sought to establish a difference in the definition of terrorism from carrying out religious acts, I now seek to establish whether terrorists, when captured, should be tried as criminals in the civil court systems, or as enemy combatants in military tribunals where considerably less rights are afforded them.

This issue has garnered much debate recently since it has been released that the Christmas Day Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, is to be tried in US Federal Courts on criminal charges. The debate has continued since now there is speculation that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, is to be tried in civil court. If these men are tried in criminal civil courts, they will be given many more rights than would be afforded them by military tribunals. Conflict surrounds this issue because even as President Obama said, "We are at war against a very specific group - al-Qaida and its extremist allies that have metastasized around the globe, that would attack us, attack our allies, attack bases, and embassies around the world, and most sadly attack innocent people regardless of their backgrounds and regardless of their religions." President Obama's move to try the terrorists in civil courts even though he admits that we are at war with these terrorist groups has conservatives in opposition. As reported by Global Security, Republican Senator Chris Bond said, "Yes, it is a war, a war of terror these radicals have declared on America and the West," Senator Bond and others see fit to try these terrorist under military tribunal so that the United States can exert its war powers and try them to the fullest.

Although we are definitely at war with the terrorists, as pointed out by the top EU diplomat in the US, Angelos Pangratis, terrorism does not fit within the legal guidelines and definitions of war. Pangratis went on to say that counterterrorism is the first priority in building the future and security for our nation and its citizens, however the fight against terrorism must be fought within the guidelines of international law. This is most certainly true, as is evident in our military engagements with terrorist forces. Our military must follow strict Rules of Engagement when combatting terrorists, they are limited by the Geneva Conventions.

In light of the growing debate on whether terrorists can be tried as criminals or as enemy combatants has led for a call to amend the international law to fit terrorists into the category of enemy combatants. As Michael Swetnam of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies said, "We are at war with al-Qaida and other radical groups and the international law, in its slow plodding way, may catch up in another decade or a century or two, but that will not stop people from dying and us from fighting them." Regardless of whether the terrorists are charged in criminal courts or military tribunals, justice will be served to these extremists, a fact that both conservative and liberals alike can find solace in.