US after 9/11: None the wiser

The US Government and many of its non-governmental experts are not any the wiser about the deficiencies in their intelligence apparatus, physical security infrastructure and policy-making towards rogue states, which led to the catastrophic terrorist strikes by Al Qaeda in US homeland, on September 11, 2001.

Mental blocks, which distorted their threat perceptions before 9/11, thereby enabling the jihadi terrorists based in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to spectacularly succeed in their long-stated (at least since 1993,often openly) objective of carrying the jihad to the US homeland, have not been removed even long after 9/11.

Consequently, their policy-making in the field of counter-terrorism continues to be marked by a lack of lucidity in analysis, a reluctance due to political reasons to come to terms with the ground reality that the war against jihadi terrorism cannot be won unless and until the terrorism triangle constituted by Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is totally rid of the spawning grounds of these terrorists and their protectors, if not sponsors, in these States are held accountable for the emergence of jihadi terrorism as the greatest threat to international peace and security and to democracies.

As a result, despite massive increases in budgetary allocations for counter-terrorism, additions of hundreds of extra manpower and revamping of the intelligence and physical security apparatus, the policy-making is as confused as ever. It is marked by wishful-thinking, a hesitation to call a spade a spade and unrealistic expectations that those responsible in the first instance for acting as mid-wives of jihadi terrorism for their own strategic (in the case of Pakistan) or religious (in the case of Saudi Arabia) reasons could be made to behave and co-operate in the war against terrorism by playing down their culpability for the spread of this catastrophic terrorism and by playing up undeservedly the limited, but half-hearted co-operation extended by them after 9/11.

So long as this confusion persists, jihadi terrorism will continue to gather strength and spread across the world and the blood of the security forces and innocent civilians will continue to flow, not only in other countries, but in the US homeland itself. Despite the massive strengthening of homeland security in the US , another 9/11 in US homeland cannot be ruled out. In fact, it is a stark possibility. There is a serious likelihood of the jihadi terrorists ultimately prevailing over the US, despite its military might, if it does not remove in time the blinkers clouding its vision.

These are my conclusions after a three-week-long lecture tour of the US from July 10 to 29,2003, during which I had an opportunity of interacting in seminars and discussions with a wide spectrum of experts concerned with counter-terrorism and observing the post-9/11 mindset, analytical methods and argumentation, which are disturbingly not markedly different from those prevailing before 9/11, which made 9/11 possible. During the last week of my stay, the report of the joint congressional committee into the intelligence lapses prior to 9/11 was released to the public except 28 pages reportedly relating to the role of Saudi Arabia. Before coming to my conclusions, I had the benefit of studying details of it as reported in the US media and watching the national debate on it in the US print and electronic media. I have returned from the US with gnawing doubts in my mind about the US ability to prevail over the jihadi terrorists.

9/11 was not the first wake-up call to the US and the international community that a new brand of terrorism, which we in India have been calling jihadi terrorism for nearly a decade now, drawing its ideological motivation from the medieval and not the modern world, had made its appearance in the world and was seeking to take the world back by centuries. The New York World Trade Centre explosion of February,1993, and the accidentally foiled attempts of the jihadi terrorists connected with that explosion to organise a series of spectacular strikes on civil aviation in 1995 from their bases in the Philippines were the first wake-up call.

If only US analysts had collated all the jihadi terrorist incidents which had taken place in the world since February, 1993, and analysed them objectively, they would have noticed the following:

* First, many of the, if not the principal, dramatis personae in all these incidents were either Pakistani nationals or Pakistani residents of Arab and other foreign origin or had spent some time in Pakistan or had links with it.

* Second, the jihadi ideology that inspired them and bonded them together was born in the madrasas of Pakistan. This ideology stressed pernicious ideas such as extra-territorial loyalty, recognition by Muslims of only the religious frontiers of Islam and not national frontiers and the religious duty and obligation of the jihadis to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction, if necessary, to promote their religious objectives. The concept of an Islamic bomb to counter what they projected as the Christian, Jewish or Hindu bomb was born in the madrasas and ruling establishment of Pakistan. These ideas ultimately became the cornerstone of Al Qaeda's ideology, but they were born in the soil of Pakistan and not in the mind of Osama bin Laden.

* Third, all the jihadis, who had participated in the post-February 1993 jihadi terrorist strikes in different parts of the world, were ideologically motivated in the madrasas of Pakistan and trained and armed in jihadi training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan run with the help of Saudi and Pakistani money and with the complicity of the Pakistani State.

* Four, the Taliban, which gave shelter to bin Laden since the middle of 1996 and allowed his terrorist infrastructure to function from Afghan territory, was the creation of the Pakistani ruling establishment in 1994 and its intelligence set-up was largely run by and with the help of the retired officers of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

* Five, all the post-1993 jihadi strikes, including those of 9/11, were conceived, planned and executed by this infrastructure. It was inconceivable that the ISI would not have been aware of the goings-on in the Al Qaeda camps of Afghanistan and in the other jihadi training camps of Pakistan.

* Six, at least since 1990, even according to the annual reports of the Counter-Terrorism Division of the US State Department called 'Patterns of Global Terrorism', there was concrete evidence that the Jamaat-ul-Fuqra (JUF), a jihadi organisation of Pakistan, had set up its cells in the US homeland to spread its ideology. At least since 1995, there were reports in the Pakistani media that the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM) was similarly creating secret cells in the US by training some Afro-American Muslims in its camps in Pakistan. The post 9/11 investigations by the US's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have brought out that two other Pakistani jihadi organisations - the Pakistani branch of the Tablighi Jamaat (TJ), the headquarters of which are in India, and the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) - had set up their secret cells in the US. Even according to the annual reports of the Counter-Terrorism Division of the State Department, the HUM was a founding member of bin Laden's International Islamic Front (IIF). According to Pakistani sources, the LET joined it later.

* Seven, it was impossible that the ISI would not have been aware of the preparations being made in the training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan for 9/11.

One would have expected the congressional committee and the various think tanks, which have studied how 9/11 was made possible, to have drawn attention to these factors, traced the evolution of jihadi terrorism from the terrorism triangle and the role of the Pakistani State in it and tried to find answers to the following questions:

* What was the state of knowledge of the US intelligence, security and policy-making communities in these matters, drawn from secret as well as open sources, and was there an adequate attempt to analyse them?

* Was the Pakistani establishment sharing with the US its knowledge of the activities of the jihadi elements from Afghan and Pakistani territory and, if so, how sincere and complete was such sharing?

* To what extent the gratitude of the US intelligence for the contribution made by the ISI in the war against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan blinded it to its culpability?

* Was the co-operation extended by the ISI in the arrest of Mir Aimal Kansi, the murderer of two officers of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in January, 1993, Ramzi Yousef, a master-mind of the February 1993 World Trade Trade Centre explosion, Abu Zubaidah, supposedly No. 3 in Al Qaeda, Ramzi Binalshibh, an important Al Qaeda operative, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, allegedly a master-mind of 9/11, and Waleed bin Atash, a suspect in the attack on the US naval ship USS Cole in October 2000 sufficient ground for closing the US eyes to other acts of continuing culpability by Pakistan?

* Are there surviving secret accomplices in the US of the 19 terrorists, who perished while carrying out 9/11? Who and where are they and what are their links with the three Pakistani organisations having a presence in the US homeland?

* What are the future threats of jihadi terrorism to the US and the rest of the international community and how to deal with them? Do the new US Homeland Security Department and the re-organised intelligence and physical security apparatus have a strong analytical capability and a clear understanding of jihadi terrorism?

The fact that none of these questions has been addressed by the Congressional committee and that its report, as published in the US media, does not even refer to Pakistan does not speak well of the thoroughness of the enquiry.

The enquiry has been based totally on a study of the secret intelligence available to the US intelligence before 9/11 and the use or non-use made of it. The wealth of open source intelligence available on this subject before 9/11 finds no mention and has not been studied. Similarly, there has been no comprehensive analysis of the various acts of jihadi terrorism since March,1993, in order to see whether they were adequately analysed by the agencies and the policy-makers and correct conclusions drawn.

There is a reference to jihadi terrorism, but indirect, in the following observation of the committee as reported by The New York Times: "The FBI increased its focus on terrorism in the 1990s, but critics charge that it neither focussed sufficiently on radical Islamist activities in the United States nor properly aligned itself to counter the growing danger of terrorism domestically. As a result, the critics say, radical Islamists were able to exploit our freedoms and operate undetected within the United States. Several senior FBI officials, however, contend that countering terrorism at home was a top priority and that Islamic radicals simply did not present opportunities for the FBI to disrupt their activities."

Who are these Islamic radicals? Were they only the Arab members of Al Qaeda or did they also include the members of the Pakistani terrorist organisations? Why was the FBI not paying sufficient attention to them? Was it due to their role as the surrogates of the US in the war against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan? Were they able to hoodwink the US agencies by projecting themselves as continuing allies of the US in its campaign against Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Slobodan Milosevic in Bosnia?

Ramzi Yousef reportedly entered the US with an Iraqi passport posing as a hunted opponent of Saddam and fled from the US as a Pakistani citizen after participating in the World Trade Centre explosion. Did the HUM's role, found useful by the US, in training the jihadi opponents of Milosevic in Bosnia and Kosovo and participating in their jihad make the US agencies close their eyes to its burrowing into US homeland in preparation for taking the jihad to the US homeland?

The Congressional committee has lost a good opportunity to investigate in depth what led to 9/11 and how to prevent another. As a result, its report is full of generalities and jargon. However, it does draw attention to the need for action against States sponsoring terrorism in the following words: "State-sponsored terrorism substantially increases the likelihood of successful and more lethal attacks within the United States. This issue must be addressed from a national standpoint and should not be limited in focus by the geographical and factual boundaries of individual cases."

What are those geographical and factual boundaries? Which are the States sponsoring jihadi terrorism? It does not specify and hesitates to call names. It is said that it at least names Saudi Arabia in the 28 pages not released to the public, but it does not name Pakistan.

Will the report help in the successful execution of the war against terrorism? One will be happy if it does but one is doubtful if it would.

The various Marxist-oriented terrorist groups of the West withered away when the communist states of the USSR and other East European countries, which were their main sponsors and helpers, collapsed. There is little likelihood of jihadi terrorist groups similarly withering away unless their State sponsors and helpers are firmly acted against.

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai, and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai chapter. E-mail: corde@vsnl.com)

I think perhaps your premise is wrong.
Terrorism is and has been a "real" threat in Europe prior to the 1970s.
The nature of the threat bears marked similarity to the "mafia" and other viscious organised crime syndicates.
Couching "terrorists" as dedicated fundamentalist religious fanatics is a fairly new "concept" by organised crime.
Think cults, not societies.
Think of criminal, despotic "cultists" heads of state gaining power over entire nations, as relative to hoodlums gaining power in the City of Chicago.
Realise that France continues to be a associate member of NATO, although they are forbidden to assume full membership parity.
The UN should realistically be loosely viewed as the convention of the "Dons".
Europe started off as tough on crime,but then their societies elected the terrorist criminals to power.
That was soooo much more humane(not to mention lucrative) than the brutal, shoot on sight, tried and convicted in abstentia, responce to murderous terrorists(organised crime) criminals.
It was fairly easy for Europeans to slide into subserviance to (terrorist) criminals.
After all, an entire generation of dillitentes survived and prospered under the terms of the "Cold War".They contributed little to the worldwide "war" of the giants.
They happily fed off the scarce leavings of the Battle of the Titans.They are accustomed to eating bile, and calling it ambrosia.
Now, they are singulary unprepared to accept an invitation to join the real world.
IMHO.

As one dares go?
ROTFLMAO!
The "trigger" got pulled on 91101.
GWB masterfully threaded his (our) responce through the proverbial eye of the needle.
I am a cold war veteran.
GWB has just barely enough "gravitas" for me, and "my kind" to allow our collective blood pressure ratings to reach almost critical mass, before he acted decisively.
God bless him, history will show he staved off the full scale, thermo nuclear war, based solely on the majority of semi-rational citizens having doubts that the time was not yet,and the trust that he would unleash hell when the timing was right.
Dont sleep peacefully tonight.
I am not even close to being close to being "placated" or "appeased".

It was fairly easy for Europeans to slide into subserviance to (terrorist) criminals. After all, an entire generation of dillitentes survived and prospered under the terms of the "Cold War".They contributed little to the worldwide "war" of the giants.

You have put your finger on a key fact. The Western and Southern Europeans never had to fight for their freedom, they are free today thanks to no effort of their own, at no cost to themselves. Consequently they have no idea of the cost paid in terms of blood, and they have a very distorted idea of what the Cold War was.

I noticed this during the run-up to the Iraq war, when commentators would propose a Cold War "containment" of Iraq similar to the static "containment" that supposedly worked so well against the Soviets.

Leaving aside the fact that these people opposed the Cold War at the time, there is the fact that there was nothing static about it, and nothing bloodless. The "Cold" war was fought on every continent, and millions of people died fighting it on all sides. The fact that US soldiers didn't normally fire directly on Soviet soldiers doesn't change the equation, nor does it make the war's victims any less dead.

For fifty years we lived under the threat of nuclear war, financed an enormous military force, and for fifty years third world armies and civilians slaughtered one another as proxies for the West and the Soviets. European freedom came at a tremendous cost in blood, its just that the Europeans didn't have to pay it. This explains their utter cluelessness on the matter, this also explains their utter uselessness in the face of any mortal threat.

We will be lucky to get rear-echelon people from Europe in our effort to internationalize the war in Iraq. We shouldn't expect any of them to send actual combat troops. The Euros forgot how to use their weapons a long time ago, and considering their track record, maybe its for the best.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.