Homeland Media WatchContributorsCategoriesBlogrollObama’s Cybersecurity Speech: Why Bother? – Swampland – TIME.com
It was a case of cyber-hooey and cyber… who? After a 60-day review of the nation’s cybersecurity policies, followed by a six-week turf war over which department should guard the nation in cyberspace, President Obama’s speech today was disappointingly long on generalities by short on specifics.
covertress: The Practical Implications of the WHTI
By Scott Stewart and Fred Burton, StratforOn June 1, 2009, the land and sea portion of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) will go into effect. The WHTI is a program launched as a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and intended to standardize the documents required to enter the United States. The stated goal of WHTI is to facilitate entry for U.S. citizens and legitimate foreign visitors while reducing the possibility of people entering the country using fraudulent documents.
Prior to the WHTI, American travelers to Mexico, Canada and several countries in the Caribbean needed only a driver’s license and birth certificate to re-enter the United States, while American travelers to other regions of the world required U.S. passports to return. This meant that immigration officials had to examine driver’s licenses and birth certificates from every state, and since the driver’s licenses and birth certificates of all the states change over time, there were literally hundreds of different types of documents that could be used by travelers at points of entry. In practical terms, this meant there was no way immigration officers could be familiar with the security features of each identification document, thereby making it easier for foreigners to use counterfeit or fraudulently altered documents to enter the country by claiming to be returning U.S. citizens.
The air portion of the WHTI went into effect in January 2007 and required that all international air travelers use passports to enter the United States. However, the land and sea implementation of WHTI will be a little different from the air portion. In addition to passports, travelers can also use U.S. passport cards (a driver’s license-sized identification document), an enhanced driver’s license (which are currently being issued by Michigan, New York, Vermont and Washington) or “special trusted” traveler identification cards such as Nexus and Sentri to enter the country by land or sea.
The WHTI will greatly simplify the number of travel documents that immigration officials have to scrutinize. It will also mean that the documents needed to enter the United States will be far harder to counterfeit, alter or obtain by fraud than the documents previously required for entry. This will make it more difficult for criminals, illegal aliens and militants to enter the United States, but it will by no means make it impossible.
Home Station: — Emergency Response Training: ‘Disaster City’
In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, demand increased among early responders for training in realistic scenarios. That demand led Texas A&M University’s College of Engineering to create “Disaster City,” a 52-acre training facility featuring full-scale, collapsible structures designed to simulate various levels of disaster and wreckage.
‘A Brief Documentary History of the Department of Homeland Security: 2001-2008′
This compilation tells the story of the creation and the organizational history of the first five years of the Department of Homeland Security through its founding documents. These documents include legislation, executive orders, commission reports and recommendations, reorganization plans, presidential directives, speeches, and organization charts. Access to most of the documents is through links. Organization charts and select documents are included in the actual text.
Schneier on Security: Obama’s Cybersecurity Speech
I am optimistic about President Obama’s new cybersecurity policy and the appointment of a new “cybersecurity coordinator,” though much depends on the details.Centralizing security responsibilities has the downside of making security more brittle by instituting a single approach and a uniformity of thinking. Unless the new coordinator distributes responsibility, cybersecurity won’t improve.
As the administration moves forward on the plan, two principles should apply. One, security decisions need to be made as close to the problem as possible. Protecting networks should be done by people who understand those networks, and threats needs to be assessed by people close to the threats. But distributed responsibility has more risk, so oversight is vital.
Two, security coordination needs to happen at the highest level possible, whether that’s evaluating information about different threats, responding to an Internet worm or establishing guidelines for protecting personal information. The whole picture is larger than any single agency.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has come a long way since Hurricane Katrina in its response to disasters but the country has a long way to go to improve preparedness, Lt. Gen. Russel Honore told a gathering of homeland security stakeholders in Washington, D.C., last week at the 2009 Homeland Security S&T Stakeholders Conference. Honore was the commander of the Joint Task Force Katrina responsible for coordinating military relief efforts for areas across the Gulf Coast impacted by Hurricane Katrina, which killed more than 1,800 people. In contrast, Hurricane Ike killed fewer than 30 people, Honore said. That’s largely because people were warned and evacuated ahead of time.“I believe for every dollar you spend on preparedness you save $9 in response,” Honore said.
The Middle East through a New Prism – Part II
Almost everyone involved in national security affairs, within and outside the government, talks about the threat that Iran poses to U.S. interests in the Middle East as follows:
- Iran was responsible for terrorist attacks against the United States in 1983 in Lebanon
- Iran sponsors terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza- Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability that threatens regional stability
- Iran has been actively engaged in trying to defeat U.S. efforts in Iraq- Iran threatens Israel’s security and existence through its vitriolic anti-Semitic rhetoric and support of Hamas
Given this view of the Iranian threat and Iranian’s unabated belligerent behavior, national security policymakers and opinion makers in the United States almost unanimously agree that the past policies of sanction regimes and containment employed by successive U.S. Administrations since 1979 have failed to produce the change in Iranian policies and attitudes towards the United States and the region. Furthermore, almost all agree that the perceived Iranian threat has increased in scope and magnitude and therefore requires an American approach that is drastically different. We find the national security community in Washington generally divided into two groups: those advocating a much tougher stance on Iran that includes the use of preemptive military force to destroy Iranian nuclear and military strategic capabilities; and those advocating an engagement approach to discuss ways to neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat while building an Arab regional axis to counter Iranian influence in the region.
- Iran has been actively engaged in trying to defeat U.S. efforts in Iraq
Unfortunately, both approaches are derived from the same old prism and may have catastrophic consequences for the region’s stability, oil security, and U.S. long term interests. Let me explain.
Approach I: Military Operation
A U.S. military operation against Iran may be very successful in destroying most if not all of Iran’s nuclear program’s facilities and capabilities. The real question, however, does not center on America’s military capability to defeat Iran, but rather on what happens in the aftermath of a military victory. Based on “cultural intelligence understanding” of the region, here are possible outcomes resulting from a U.S. military campaign against Iran:
- Unstable Iran: the destruction of Iran’s organized military infrastructure may bring about non-centralized armed militias that could operate with impunity and pose a very serious danger to neighboring countries. There is one very important lesson to draw from the 2003 Iraq war — in the absence of an organized national army, armed militias and terrorist cells will most certainly emerge posing a more serious threat due to the asymmetrical world in which they operate.
- Unstable Gulf: an unstable Iran will most definitely affect stability in neighboring Gulf countries which have large Shiite deprived populations and lack the capability to fight asymmetrical wars against extremist militias and/or organizations. We also need to take into account the possibility of Iranian retaliation against oil and other strategic facilities in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf during and following a U.S. military campaign.
- Unstable Iraq: all gains made in recent months in Iraq could be greatly reversed endangering the safety of the more than 120,000 U.S. troops still deployed in that country. In a best case scenario, the Shiite community will split on whether to side with Iran, and in a worst case scenario, Shiites will unite against the United States. Sunni extremists and Al-Qaeda will seize the opportunity to regroup and may even join forces with extremist Shiites in the fight against the United States posing a greater danger to the safety of U.S. troops who are currently operating under a withdrawal scenario and are not gearing up for major operations.
- Israel’s Security: the Middle East of 2009 is drastically different from what it was in 1967 and poses a much greater threat to Israel’s security. In 1967, Israel defeated the armies of several Arab countries combined, waged war on Arab territory, and had friendly regimes in power in Iran and Turkey. Today, Israel faces a transformed Middle East.
Lebanon: in the summer of 2006, Hezbollah dealt Israel a military defeat, admittedly limited and relative. Furthermore, there is a strong probability that the opposition, which is led by Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement (headed by Christian General Michel Aoun), may score a victory in the parliamentary elections of June 6, 2009. In a best case scenario for the United States and Israel, the opposition as a block will not get a majority, but Hezbollah will most certainly be part of the government and a force to be reckoned with; and in a worst case scenario for the United States and Israel, the opposition may win a majority in Parliament further enhancing Hezbollah’s power position within the Lebanese government.
Gaza: Hamas controls the Gaza strip and is launching rockets targeting Israeli towns. If open and democratic elections were to take place in the West Bank today, Hamas along with other more radical Islamist groups would probably win.
Arab Countries: Arab Sunni Islamists have made the liberation of Palestine a sacred struggle and Arab undemocratic regimes are besieged by Sunni extremist Islamism advocating total war on Israel using the Hezbollah and Hamas models. Israel’s wars in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008 have emboldened Sunni Islamists throughout the region.
Iran: the current Iranian regime poses a serious threat to Israel’s security and existence and is supporting militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
Iraq: the country is governed today by a Shiite majority that is closer to Iran.
Turkey: the current democratically elected government of Turkey is more Islamist (though not extremist) and has drawn closer to Iran and Syria than in the past.
Israel: Israeli Arabs have become much more outspoken about the conflict with the Palestinians and had a “mini uprising” against the Israeli government during the Gaza war in 2008.
Given this state of affairs in the Middle East today, if the United States (or Israel) were to launch a military campaign against Iran, it could create a much more explosive situation with unpredictable consequences for Israel.
The Iranian Threat Viewed through the Old Prism
Almost everyone involved in national security affairs, within and outside the government, talks about the threat that Iran poses to U.S. interests in the Middle East as follows:
- Iran was responsible for terrorist attacks against the United States in 1983 in Lebanon
- Iran sponsors terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza
- Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability that threatens regional stability
Approach II: Diplomatic Engagement
Those in Washington who see the potential danger in and the explosive chaos resulting from a military operation against Iran, advocate a strong diplomatic engagement aimed at neutralizing its nuclear threat. To further enhance the U.S. negotiating stance, they also advocate the creation of a de facto coalition of moderate Arab regimes led by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia whose aim would be to curtail Iranian influence in the region. If the United States were to pursue this approach it would most probably fail in stopping Iran’s nuclear program and further embolden and empower Iran. Why? Because this approach is also based on viewing Iran and the Middle East through the old prism and fails to recognize the following:
a) Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon is a matter of Iranian security; and
b) In the absence of a final resolution to the Palestinian problem, an anti-Iranian coalition made up of Arab undemocratic and unpopular regimes cannot go far. Iran will continue to be perceived by Arab populations as the true defender of the Palestinian cause.
Let me explain.
Iranian Security
The Iranian political, religious and national security establishments share (almost unanimously) the view that the United States Government is quite deceitful in its dealings with Iran and, therefore, cannot be trusted. This is a summary of how Iran perceives itself vis-à-vis U.S. policy:
- Over the past almost 60 years, the U.S. has always blocked the emergence of democratic governments in the Middle East and continued to prop up absolutist monarchies and dictatorships with the sole aim of exercising greater influence over oil security policies.
- In the aftermath of the Khomeini-led Islamic revolution of 1979 in Iran, the United States has constantly exhibited hostility towards Iran and diligently worked to undermine and/or overthrow the Iranian regime.
- The Islamic Republic of Iran never invaded or threatened with invasion any of its neighboring countries. It was aggressed by Iraq in 1980 and suffered a bloody 10-year war in which chemical and other weapons of mass destruction were used against it by Iraq with the tacit, and later more open, support of the U.S. Government.
- Iran was the first Moslem country in the region to forcefully condemn the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Furthermore, on September 18, 2001, Iranians held spontaneous candlelight vigils for the victims of the attacks of September 11th. No Arab country had that.
- Iran’s constructive cooperation with the United States during Operation Enduring Freedom (launched by the U.S. in 2001 to liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban) was repaid by the Bush Administration with tougher anti-Iranian rhetoric.
- Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States, Iran’s “extended hand” of cooperation expressed by Iranian President Mohammad Khatami (confirmed by Defense Secretary Gates) and Iran’s goodwill gesture by halting its nuclear program (confirmed by a National Intelligence Estimate at the time) were met with total rejection and regime change rhetoric and policies by the Bush Administration.
Given this view of the United States Government, the Iranian establishment concluded by 2005 that no matter what Iran does (save total submission to destructive U.S. conditions) its security will always be endangered unless it develops its own nuclear capability as a deterrent. In addition, Iran finds itself in a wider region where Israel, Pakistan, India and China all have nuclear weapons. In summary, Iran’s quest for a nuclear program has much more to do with security than achieving long term energy independence. With this background in mind, and in order to counter what they perceived as destructive U.S. policies in the region, the Ayatollahs ‘orchestrated’ presidential elections in 2005 enabling the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran’s President. The nuclear program was resumed and a much more aggressive anti-American campaign was adopted by Iran throughout the region.
President Obama’s expressed intentions of wanting to dialogue with Iran has divided (to a certain extent) the Iranian establishment on whether to temporarily freeze their nuclear program in one final attempt at extending a goodwill gesture towards a U.S. President who seems to be more genuine in his intentions and appear to be more understanding but must be tested. This explains to a certain degree the context within which the elections’ debate over the nuclear program is taking place.
Anti-Iranian Coalition
As soon as Iran’s government perceived the Bush Administration to be seriously trying to undermine Iran’s role and position in the region through an anti-Iranian Arab coalition, it adopted a two-tier counter strategy:
- Defender of the Palestinian Cause: the victory of Hamas in parliamentary elections in January 2006 generated serious concern among U.S. and Israeli officials because Hamas was committed to an armed struggle against Israel and its charter effectively calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. The Bush Administration and the Israeli Government embarked almost immediately on a coordinated political and military effort aimed at undermining the power of Hamas. Facing political isolation in spite of having come to power in democratic and open elections and fearing disruptive actions by Fatah and its security services in the Gaza strip, Hamas took control of Gaza in a preemptive military coup in June 2007. This is the context within which Iran viewed and interpreted the actions of Hamas in 2007. The Bush Administration immediately responded by advocating total isolation of Hamas and Gaza and pressured Arab governments such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt to follow suit.
Arab and Moslem populations witnessed, live on satellite television networks such as Al Jazeera, the desperate conditions to which Palestinians in Gaza were subjected to by Israeli and U.S. policies. They expressed their anger at their own governments for what they perceived as abandonment of the Palestinians in Gaza and the Iranian government saw this as a golden opportunity. Iran provided support to Hamas, championed the plight of the Palestinian people, criticized the passivity of Arab regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and conducted an aggressive public relations campaign of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic rhetoric. In so doing, Iran positioned itself as the true defender of the Palestinian cause among Arabs and Moslems alike. The Arab and Moslem perception of Iran as a reliable defender of the Palestinian people was further strengthened during the 2008 war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Arabs and Moslems alike repudiated the actions of Arab governments such as Egypt for closing the border with Gaza, trapping thousands of civilians trying to flee the conflict. In contrast, Iran provided logistical, financial and moral support to Hamas and the Palestinians in Gaza. By aggressively championing the Palestinian cause, and in the absence of a serious U.S./Israeli effort to resolve the Palestinian problem, Iran was successful in increasing its soft power in the region thus undermining the ability of the Bush Administration to create a viable and solid anti-Iranian Arab coalition.
- Military Victory: The rhetoric coming out of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia which raised the specter of an Iranian-led Shiite power threatening Arab and Sunni culture and position in the region, was interpreted by the Iranians as part of the U.S. effort to build an anti-Iranian Arab coalition. To counter this effort and show Sunni Arab Moslems the invalidity of such an argument, Iran engaged in trying to build a Shiite-Sunni coalition in Iraq – united under the banner of nationalism – to fight U.S. occupation of that country. This Iranian effort proved to have had a very limited effect if any at all. Another Iranian effort centered on securing an Israeli military defeat. Nothing rallies Arab and Moslem public opinion like military actions against Israel. In preparation for such an eventuality, Iran provided Hezbollah in Lebanon with the needed logistics, equipment, financing and training. The opportunity came knocking on July 12, 2006. The conflict started when Hezbollah fired rockets on Israeli border towns while simultaneously attacking a couple of Israeli military vehicles. The attack resulted in the killing of three Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of two others by Hezbollah. Israel responded with an aggressive bombing campaign that escalated into a 33-day war in Lebanon. Early statements by Arab officials coming out of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia condemned Hezbollah’s actions as “reckless” and endangering the region’s stability. In Iran’s thinking, Hezbollah had to resist as long as possible and win that war in order to: first, prove to the Arab and Moslem worlds that Israel can be defeated when and if the appropriate strategies are employed against it; and, secondly, to embarrass the governments of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia by portraying them as more eager to appease (if not be in league with) the Israeli enemy instead of standing firm by the side of the Lebanese people who are facing Israeli aggression. Iran’s calculus worked. Hezbollah’s effective resistance and later victory (though limited and relative) dealt a major set-back to U.S. efforts to build an anti-Iranian Arab coalition. Demonstrations were held in several Arab cities and towns, including Cairo, Egypt, in support of Hezbollah and the Lebanese people. The governments of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia had to ‘reverse course’ and strongly condemn Israeli actions and criticize the United States for not putting a quick end to the conflict.
For all these reasons, a U.S. diplomatic approach aimed at ending Iran’s nuclear program will most probably fail and may even project an image of the United States as being weak, indecisive, and effectively incapable of further isolating Iran.
The New Prism to View the Middle East and the Iranian Threat
Unfortunately, and to this day, no consensus has emerged within the U.S. national security establishment on how to deal effectively with the global threat of extremist Islamism. The key culprit for this lack of consensus is the old prism through which policymakers continue to view the Middle East. The United States needs to look at the region through a totally different prism that is derived from greater and deeper cultural intelligence of the region.
Defining the Threat
In reality, extremist Islamism can be divided into two main categories, Sunni-based and Shiite-based. A common mistake that one often witnesses in Washington is the constant mixing and/or linking of Sunni and Shiite extremist Islamists; for example, putting Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah in the same basket!
Let us analyze the threat to the United States that emerges from each type of extremist Islamism.
Sunni Extremist Islamism
There are numerous groups around the world that fall under this umbrella and tend to be loosely connected if at all. They have, however, common features that distinguish them drastically from Shiite extremist Islamism and are as follows:
- Strict interpretation of the Koran: these various Sunni groups believe that the door of Ijtihad was closed in the 12th century and should remain so today. In other words, it is impossible in their eyes to find common ground between their version of Sunni Islam and an international order that governs today’s modern world.
- Suicide ideology: these Sunni groups justify the use of suicide bombings against civilians as a mean of martyrdom in fighting the infidel.
- Record of terrorism: these Sunni groups have been responsible for almost every Islamist suicide terrorist bombing throughout the world since the Eighties. The record includes bombings in Algeria, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Thailand, Turkey and most importantly, the United States on September 11th.
- Worldwide ideology: Sunni extremist Islamist groups are aggressively recruiting Sunni Moslems from around the world, especially the West, to create cells that could in the future destabilize those countries from within. Furthermore, they are endeavoring to establish extremist Islamist governments and/or safe heavens within countries such as Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, or Somalia in order to sustain their struggle into the future.
- Nuclear ambitions: Sunni extremist Islamist groups consider Pakistan’s nuclear bomb to be their own. Their only goal is to one day put their hands on that power and use it against the infidels.
In summary, Sunni extremist Islamism is a global non-centralized revolutionary movement, is responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11th and all other major Islamist terrorist attacks worldwide, is aggressively pursuing the radicalization of Sunni Moslems in Western countries so they can become a destabilizing force in the future, is fiercely fighting the United States in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and is looking forward to the day it can put its hands on the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan and detonate dirty bombs in the United States and around the world (wherever it deems it necessary).
Shiite Extremist Islamism
This form of Islamist extremism is very different from the Sunni one and has the following key features:
- Iran centered: although Shiite groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon are relatively quite autonomous they are much more connected to the Iranian regime than Sunni extremist groups are to a single government.
- Open interpretation of the Koran: Shiite Islamist groups believe that Ijtihad and Tafseer are permitted in Islam enabling them to adapt their beliefs to different situations as they see fit. Such adaptations may vary dramatically from the narrowest views on social mores to the most open ones. For example, in Hezbollah controlled areas in Lebanon, one can easily see totally covered women walking side by side with women dressed in western clothing without any head or face covering.
- Suicide ideology: Shiite extremist Islamist groups have justified suicide bombings as acts of martyrdom and have condoned them only when they are conducted against military and government installations of an occupying enemy on occupied land. In other words, a suicide bombing against an Israeli target can be justified if it takes place in Lebanon but cannot be justified if carried out outside Lebanon. Furthermore, suicide bombings targeting civilians in cafes, discotheques, shopping centers, etc. are, for the time being, totally forbidden.
- Record of terrorism: the terrorism record of Shiite extremist Islamism is very small in comparison to the Sunni one. The two major terrorist attacks attributed to Shiite extremist Islamism were both in Lebanon and took place 26 years ago (U.S. Embassy bombing in April 1983 and the U.S. Marines compound bombing in October of the same year. The Marines compound was blown-up along with the French military compound). Although Hamas receives support from Iran in its struggle against Israel, Hamas’ terrorist actions against Israeli civilians are carried out by Sunni extremist Islamists.
- Self-preservation ideology: Shiite extremist Islamism is driven mainly by the need to preserve Shiite Islam and the struggle for Shiite emancipation in Sunni governed countries. Unlike Sunni extremist Islamism which advocates a transnational ideology that aims at establishing a different world order that suits their Islamic views, Shiite Islamism is more nationalistic in nature.
- Nuclear ambition: Iran is seeking the bomb for its own security and Shiite extremist Islamism may very well make use of it under certain circumstances.
In summary, Shiite extremist Islamism is driven by nationalism, is relatively centered on Iran, does not have worldwide ideological ambitions, has not carried out terrorist attacks in recent times, is more focused on the emancipation of Shiites within Islam rather than fighting the infidels, and is pursuing a nuclear weapon that it may use if necessary.
Defeating the Threat
The fight against extremist Islamism will be long and hard and will at times present dangers and challenges as great if not greater than those witnessed during the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The United States cannot afford to walk away from this fight and the threat of extremist Islamism, whether Sunni or Shiite based, must be defeated. The question is how?
Option I: Solve the Palestinian Problem
There is no doubt that solving the Palestinian problem would remove major complicating factors in the fight against extremist Islamism but will not bring the fight to an end. Let me explain.
Sunni extremist Islamism has an ideology that goes beyond the Palestinian cause. It has placed the plight of Palestinians under the same umbrella as the plight of Moslems in India, Chechnya, Bosnia, China, Europe, America and Arab countries who are being mistreated in a world dominated by the United States. Resolving the Palestinian issue would weaken the case for Sunni extremist Islamism but not put an end to it. Furthermore, the fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan against the Taliban would most certainly continue so would the fighting in Somalia and other parts of Africa and Asia.
On the other hand, Shiite extremist Islamism as I explained earlier is driven by nationalistic and discrimination factors. The Palestinian problem has been successfully used by Iran to counter U.S. efforts aimed at isolating it in the region. Solving the Palestinian problem would most definitely weaken Iran’s efforts in countering an anti-Iranian Arab coalition but would not stop it from pursuing its nuclear program, which is driven as I stated earlier by national security concerns.
Furthermore, given the priorities of the current Israeli government and the general feelings of Israelis today, it is almost impossible at this point to move effectively forward on the Palestinian-Israeli peace track. Irrespective of who bears greater responsibility for the breakdown in Palestinian-Israeli peace talks and who is to be blamed and for what, Israeli public perceptions at this moment are skeptical of any concessions to Palestinians to the point of cynicism. In their view, whether right or wrong, every Israeli territorial concession has been met with more Arab violence; the latest concession being the withdrawal of Gaza which was met with rockets fired by Hamas on Israeli towns. Having said that, I believe it is imperative that the United States jumpstart the peace process as quickly as possible. This, however, requires a new strategy that is based on viewing the region through a new prism (which will be Part III of this series). In summary, this option, though effectively dead at this stage, can ease the pressure on the U.S. in the fight against extremist Islamism but does not solve the problem.
Option II: Confront both Threats Simultaneously
Given the realities outlined above, if the United States were to fight Sunni and Shiite extremist Islamism simultaneously, the results could be devastating to the region, oil security and long term interests of the West. Both streams of Islamism might unite in their efforts and create horrific chaos in the Middle East and South and Central Asia. A renewed but much more aggressive wave of terrorism would shake European cities and sooner rather than later reach U.S. shores. While no one could predict the final outcome of such a confrontation, the cost of such confrontation would be horrendous.
Option III: Drive a Wedge between Sunni and Shiite extremist Islamism
In the absence of a solution to the Palestinian problem, such a strategy would have very little impact on the overall threat and does not drastically change the environment on the ground. Furthermore, if conflict were to erupt between these two streams of extremist Islamism, it would probably spread to the entire Gulf region threatening oil security and long term U.S. interests.
Option IV: A “Kissinger/Nixon” Approach
The fourth option is based on the approach used by the United States in its fight against Communism. Kissinger and Nixon determined that it would be in the U.S. best interest to drive Communist China away from Communist Russia by seeking to formulate a long term partnership with the one that represented the least ideological long term threat to the United States, namely China. In facing extremist Islamism, the United States could seriously consider developing a rapprochement with the one stream of Islamism that presents the least long term threat to U.S. interests – Shiite extremist Islamism, and therefore, Iran. There is one more important point. Iran is a country with a long and rich civilization that has endured 30 years of Shiite extremist Islamism. This form of Islamism has already evolved during the past three decades. It is now a matter of time before Iran reaches a point of equilibrium between its Shiite identity and its rich and diverse civilization. It is interesting to note for example that in Lebanon, Hezbollah has already rejected the idea of an Islamic Republic and agreed in February 2006 to a consensual democracy in Lebanon. By contrast, Sunni extremist Islamism in Lebanon is still advocating the establishment of an Islamic Republic of Lebanon.
A New Strategy towards Iran
If the United States were to adopt the fourth option outlined above, it would have to be willing and ready to engage Iran with the aim of developing a strategic partnership that would eventually bring about effective Iranian support for U.S. initiatives in the region and provide U.S. assurances to alleviate Iranian security concerns. It is in this spirit and within this context that the nuclear issue can be successfully addressed by the United States. In addition, Iran can be of great support to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. What about Israel? Hasn’t Iran threatened the annihilation of the State of Israel, denied the Holocaust and provided military and logistical support to Hamas and Hezbollah?
The threat to Israel from Iran is very real and cannot be minimized or dismissed. If seen, however, through the new prism and within a different context, this threat could be dealt with much more effectively. Let me explain.
While the Iranian Islamic revolution has always used vitriolic language against Israel and Zionism, the degree of aggressiveness has diminished remarkably since the terrorist attacks of September 11th until the summer of 2005. During the Presidency of Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) attempts were made to explore possible détente between Israel and Iran. The Bush Administration’s rebuffing of Iran’s extended hand and its rewarding of Iran’s cooperation in Afghanistan with an aggressive policy centered on regime change drove the Ayatollahs of Iran mad. Their response to the United States was the election of Ahmadinejad to the Presidency in August 2005. This explains why since, Iranian aggressive rhetoric against Israel, its denial of the Holocaust, the hosting of a conference entitled “A World without Zionism”, its threats of annihilating Israel, and its active support of Hamas have come about with such intensity. If seen through this context and with this new prism, the Iranian nuclear and conventional threat, which are quite real, may be effectively dealt with through this new American strategy towards Iran.
Viewed through this new prism, one can also better understand why in the upcoming elections of June 12th, the Ayatollahs have allowed candidates to run for the Presidency who are critical of President Ahmadinejad’s stance on the nuclear issue and are advocating the normalization of relations with the United States. The Ayatollahs are not quite sure what to make of President Obama’s intended overture towards Iran. By allowing these candidates to run and be vocal on these national security issues, the Ayatollahs are sending the signal to Washington that they have heard President Obama. If, however, Ahmadinejad as expected by many wins the elections, it means that the Ayatollahs want to test President Obama’s intentions first.
In closing, if the United States were to adopt a strategy aimed at forging a partnership with Iran, it would need to tread very carefully, be patient and show resolve because there is a lot of animosity and distrust on both sides, especially on the Iranian side.
Cultural intelligence matters!
Immigration Checks on Criminals Could Increase Deportations – US News and World Report
The Obama administration is expanding an effort to check the populations of local jails for illegal immigrants, a move that could significantly expand the number facing deportation hearings. Currently, many local police jurisdictions lack either the time or the resources to verify the immigration status of those in custody.Secure Communities is less controversial than other efforts that enlist local law enforcement to fight illegal immigration. That may be, immigration advocates say privately, because even the staunchest immigrants’ rights groups are wary of advocating too strongly for illegal immigrants who are behind bars, since it could undermine their larger efforts. Still, critics of the new program contend that it will lead to racial profiling. Last month, a coalition of immigrant rights groups wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and told her that the program “creates an incentive for police to arrest people on pretextual or minor crimes so that their immigration status can be checked.” The program “will likely lead to unlawful racial and ethnic profiling,” the coalition said.
When I was head of the US Drug Enforcement Administration, a standard refrain of every public policy speech I gave was that enforcement alone cannot defeat our battle against drug violence and drug addiction. It is absolutely essential that we have education to lower the demand for drugs, law enforcement to lower the supply of drugs, and treatment to help those who have been ensnared by illegal drugs overcome their addictions. I endorsed and promoted the use of drug treatment courts, and implemented community involvement programs that brought together the prevention, enforcement and treatment communities to work together and in direct partnership to tackle the drug blight in local communities.
Make no mistake, however: All three of those components are necessary to any successful drug program. I am concerned by the increasing signals being issued from the Administration that drug use, particularly marijuana use, will be tolerated and that drug enforcement resources will be reduced.
History teaches us that success in reducing the use of illegal drugs is directly related to national leadership and to the public messages and comments that come from our leaders. The Administration’s message of tolerance and reduced enforcement of our marijuana laws comes at a time when the drug content (THC) in marijuana is increasing, according to very recent studies. Today’s marijuana is not your parents’ pot; it is more harmful and powerful than the marijuana that so freely flowed during the Sixties.
Yet, the Attorney General recently announced that the Department of Justice would now turn a blind eye to the pot factories masquerading as medical clinics in California and other states that have legalized so-called “medical marijuana,” putting them in direct conflict with federal law. For the first time a policy of non enforcement has been announced when federal drug policy conflicts with state drug policy.
Meanwhile, the DEA continues to operate without even having a nominee named to lead the agency, more than 100 days into the new Administration. At a time when violence related to drug trafficking cartels on the southern border have reached crisis levels, spilling into kidnappings and violence in cities like Phoenix, this failure to provide Senate confirmed leadership at the nation’s premier drug enforcement agency is puzzling at best and seems to bolster the perception that this Administration puts little stock in enforcing our drug laws.
And now, with the announcement of Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as the new Drug Czar, the Administration is asserting that it will banish the use of the term “war on drugs” and will treat the fight against illegal drugs in this country more as a health issue than a law enforcement issue. Chief Kerlikoske suggested to the Washington Post that the term implied a war on U.S. citizens and pointed out, “We are not at war with people in this country.”
Chief Kerlikowske is a good man with good intentions. I had the privilege to attend a memorial service for fallen DEA agents yesterday, and Mr. Kerlikowske spoke eloquently. However, his argument that the term “war on drugs” implies a war on citizens suggests a failure on his part to understand the history of our national struggle against the devastating consequences of cocaine, meth, heroin and, yes, even marijuana. The term “war on drugs” (while perhaps politically incorrect) means exactly what it says: a fight against the poisons that are directly responsible for untold miseries to our citizens, for families in small towns torn apart by meth addiction, for bloody violence on neighborhood streets as drug gangs peddle their wares to our children.
I fully support greater resources for education and treatment, but those efforts cannot be successful without an equally vigorous law enforcement strategy. Drug treatment courts cannot be successful in reducing addiction if law enforcement does not make an arrest. Or are “treatment” programs effective for drug-law offenders without giving the drug court judge the option to sentence the offenders to jail if they refuse to participate in the program or fail to comply with the court’s rules.
You can be a strict enforcer of our laws and still support more treatment, more education and more fairness in our criminal justice system (such as eliminating the crack powder cocaine sentencing disparity, a reform which I have publicly supported).
Is the term “war on drugs” necessary? No, it’s not. But the message of our national leaders is critical. That message must convey the seriousness of the fight against drugs. It must strengthen rather than weaken the resolve of our youth, families and communities. More importantly, our actions must reflect the seriousness of this effort, and, so far, the actions of this Administration send the exact opposite message.
Indeed, when you have the leader of the movement to legalize drugs in this country applauding the policies of the Administration and announcing that he is “cautiously optimistic” about those policies, we know our message is failing the youth of this country.
Asa Hutchinson is the former Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the nation’s first Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security.
U.S. tries exit tracking system at two airports (5/28/09) — www.GovernmentExecutive.com
The Homeland Security Department launched test programs at two airports Thursday in an attempt to verify when foreigners and legal permanent residents leave the country, but federal officials remain at odds with the airline industry over the effort.The objective is to develop a system in which fingerprints are collected at every airport from non-U.S. citizens departing the United States. The fingerprints would be used to verify that visitors have not overstayed the time they are allowed to remain in the country.
Officials from the airline industry and the department dispute each other’s account of why the airline test is not being done.
“We can say with complete confidence that since Congress called for the trials late last year, DHS has never contacted us to cooperate on an airline test,” said Steve Lott, spokesman for the International Air Transport Association. “It’s not that we are resisting help. Frankly, they haven’t asked us yet. Why not? I don’t know.”
But Robert Mocny, director of the program, known as US-VISIT, said the airlines refused to participate in the test program.
“We’ve been reaching out to them for months and they have completely refused,” Mocny said. “They have a very concerted effort to not participate.”
President Obama Issues “National Hurricane Preparedness Week” Proclamation
President Obama today issued a proclamation declaring May 24th-May 30th “National Hurricane Preparedness Week”.
Policy, strategy, pragmatism, humility and the new National Security Staff | Homeland Security Watch
Yesterday the President explained, “The new ‘National Security Staff’ will support all White House policymaking activities related to international, transnational, and homeland security matters. The establishment of the new National Security Staff, under the direction of the National Security Advisor, will end the artificial divide between White House staff who have been dealing with national security and homeland security issues.”
Federal and industry stakeholders have completed a range of actions to assess risks to freight rail since September 2001, and TSA has developed a security strategy; however, TSA’s efforts have primarily focused on one threat, and its strategy does not fully address federal guidance or key characteristics of a successful national strategy.
Specifically, TSA’s efforts to assess vulnerabilities and potential consequences to freight rail have focused almost exclusively on rail shipments of certain highly toxic materials, in part, because of concerns about their security in transit and limited resources. However, other federal and industry assessments have identified additional potential security threats, including risks to critical infrastructure and cybersecurity. Although many stakeholders agreed with TSA’s initial strategy, going forward TSA has agreed that including other identified threats in its freight rail security strategy is important, and reported that it is reconsidering its strategy to incorporate other threats. Additionally, in 2004, GAO reported that successful national strategies should identify performance measures with targets, among other elements. TSA’s security strategy could be strengthened by including targets for three of its four performance measures and revising its approach for the other measure to ensure greater consistency in how performance results are quantified.
Federal and industry stakeholders have also taken a range of actions to secure freight rail, many of which have focused on securing certain toxic material rail shipments and have been implemented by industry voluntarily; however, TSA lacks a mechanism to monitor security actions and evaluate their effectiveness, and new requirements could pose challenges for future security efforts. GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for controls to be designed to ensure ongoing monitoring. While the freight rail industry has taken actions to better secure shipments and key infrastructure, TSA has limited ability to assess the impacts of these actions because it lacks a mechanism to systematically track them and evaluate their effectiveness. Having such information could strengthen TSA’s efforts to efficiently target its resources to where actions have not been effective. New, mandatory security planning and procedural requirements will also necessitate additional federal and industry efforts and resources, and may pose some implementation challenges for both federal and industry stakeholders.
Federal and industry stakeholders have also taken a number of steps to coordinate their freight rail security efforts; however, federal coordination can be enhanced by more fully leveraging the resources of all relevant federal agencies. GAO previously identified a number of leading practices for effective coordination that could help TSA strengthen coordination with federal and private sector .
Counterterrorism Blog: HLF Judge Imposes Long Sentences
A federal judge imposed what could amount to life sentences on three former leaders of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) on Wednesday for illegally routing more than $12 million to Hamas.“The purpose of creating the Holy Land Foundation was as a fundraising arm for Hamas,” said U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis.
Former Bush official Jack Goldsmith explains why Barack Obama is waging a more effective war on terror than George W. Bush.
Randy Beardsworth, a Security Debrief contributor and former DHS Assistant Secretary for Strategic Planning, has spent the last several months advising the White House on its efforts to re-organize its homeland security and counterterrorism apparatus. Beardsworth took time off from his role at Catalyst Partners to offer his expertise in the effort to merge the Homeland Security Council with the National Security Council.
During an event yesterday at the George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute, Beardsworth joined John Brennan, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counteterrorism, and Dr. Michele Malvesti, his co-chair for drafting Presidential Study Directive-1 (”Organizing for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism”) to discuss and explain the new counterterrorism infrastructure.
Additionally, read the statement by President Obama on this effort:
Statement by the President on the White House Organization for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
As President, my highest priority is the safety and security of the American people. That is why, in February, I issued a Presidential Study Directive to look at how the White House should be organized to deal with the critical issues of homeland security and counterterrorism. I have carefully reviewed the findings and recommendations of that study, and am announcing a new approach which will strengthen our security and the safety of our citizens. These decisions reflect the fundamental truth that the challenges of the 21st Century are increasingly unconventional and transnational, and therefore demand a response that effectively integrates all aspects of American power.
Key decisions that I have made include:
* The full integration of White House staff supporting national security and homeland security. The new “National Security Staff” will support all White House policymaking activities related to international, transnational, and homeland security matters. The establishment of the new National Security Staff, under the direction of the National Security Advisor, will end the artificial divide between White House staff who have been dealing with national security and homeland security issues.
* Maintaining the Homeland Security Council as the principle venue for interagency deliberations on issues that affect the security of the homeland such as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, natural disasters, and pandemic influenza. The Homeland Security Council, like its National Security Council counterpart, will be supported by the National Security Staff.
* The establishment of new directorates and positions within the National Security Staff to deal with new and emerging 21st Century challenges associated with cybersecurity, WMD terrorism, transborder security, information sharing, and resilience policy, including preparedness and response.
* Retaining the position of Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (AP/HSCT) as my principal White House advisor on these issues, with direct and immediate access to me. The security of our homeland is of paramount importance to me, and I will not allow organizational impediments to stand in the way of timely action that ensures the safety of our citizens.
* Creating a new Global Engagement Directorate to drive comprehensive engagement policies that leverage diplomacy, communications, international development and assistance, and domestic engagement and outreach in pursuit of a host of national security objectives, including those related to homeland security.
The United States faces a wide array of challenges to its security, and the White House must be organized to effectively and efficiently leverage the tremendous talent and expertise of the dedicated Americans who work within it. The creation of the National Security Staff and the other recommendations from the study that I have approved will help to keep our country safe and our Homeland secure.
This past Monday after North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests, President Barack Obama said, “North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community” and warranted action by the international community.
Since that time North Korea has: restarted its weapons grade nuclear plant, disavowed the 1954 armistice that ended the Korean War, and threatened military strikes against South Korea is they participated in U.S. efforts to intercept shipping to North Korea.
In that same time, President Obama flew to Beverly Hills to raise $4 million for the Democratic National Committee.
The American people deserve better protection. Next Monday, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will deliver an address at the Navy Memorial Burke Theater assessing the Obama administration’s response to Pyongyang, America’s larger leadership role in the world, and the need to adequately fund America’s national security efforts at no less than 4% of GDP for at least the next decade.
The event is part of Heritage’s Protect America Month, and you can register to attend the event here.
The NEFA Foundation – Special Reports
The NEFA Foundation has released a new interactive chart by NEFA Senior Investigator Evan Kohlmann titled, “Al-Qaida’s Online Couriers: The Al-Fajr Media Center and the Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF).” The chart maps out in detail the multi-step process by which multimedia recorded by mujahideen organizations in the field is distributed online–including the critical roles played by the pre-eminent Internet logistical service providers (namely Al-Fajr and the GIMF). As indicated by the chart, the Al-Fajr Media Center has official “contractual” partnerships with the As-Sahab Media Foundation, Al-Qaida’s “Islamic State of Iraq” (ISI), Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (Yemen), Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Ansar al-Islam in Iraq, and the Islam Awazi Information Center (the media wing of the Turkestan Islamic Party). Conversely, at present, the GIMF boasts its own active service relationships with Jaish al-Islam and Tawheed wal-Jihad in the Gaza Strip, and the Shabaab al-Mujahideen Movement in Somalia.
FBI — Bonnie and Clyde – Press Room – Headline Archives 05-27-09
For the first time, we’re releasing on this website nearly 1,000 pages of new material on our investigations of Bonnie and Clyde and their partners in crime—including some pictures that you see here. The information represents the investigative case records of our Dallas Field Office, which were uncovered in the course of preparing a historical exhibit in Dallas and disclosed last year.
Senator begins groundwork for sweeping immigration bill (5/20/09) — www.GovernmentExecutive.com
Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., launched an aggressive effort Wednesday to press for passage this year of comprehensive immigration legislation, saying conditions are ripe for congressional action.
