Author: Brian Beyer

One of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s goals was to destroy America economically by waging a “War of a thousand cuts.” The goal was to cause as much economic pain as was possible. No attack better exemplified this than the 9/11 attacks which struck right at the heart of New York City, the financial capital of the world. Not only was the attack symbolic, but the markets tanked, exacerbating the recession that plagued America. Additionally, the US began to engage in a global effort to fight terrorism, much like a bull in a China shop. Afghanistan, initially fought to find those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, slowly morphed into a nation building effort in a fruitless attempt to make the country hostile to al-Qaeda and a beacon of democracy. Iraq was invaded because terrorists, along with former US ally Saddam Hussein, were said to be the proud owners of Weapons of Mass Destruction that posed an existential threat to the American way of life (of course, the WMD’s never came to fruition). Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia also quickly became theaters in America’s never ending war on terrorism.

The American “anti-terrorism” apparatus became gargantuan with its tentacles extending to every state and country in the world. Dana Priest and William Arkin, in their much underreported Top Secret America report for the Washington Post, said of Uncle Sam’s KGB:

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

Who would’ve thought that in an age where everything is quantifiable and downloadable, not even the almighty federal government could keep track of this burgeoning monster. Perhaps more dizzying and enraging are the cold hard facts that they present:

* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings – about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year – a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

America quickly turned into a police state with airports becoming the symbol of the horribly, anti-American War on Terror. Freedom was promptly traded away for security. Human dignity and privacy went to the wayside as TSA agents were free to touch and harass grandmothers, cancer patients, and 3 year old girls. The immense cost is probably incalculable, although some have tried. What cannot be denied is that Osama bin Laden’s strategy has worked. America traded its values for a false sense of security, and by doing so, sold their souls and economic futures away.

In a new development in the war in Iraq, the Islamic state in Iraq, is yet again trying to bleed America to death both physically and economically. As America will remain in Iraq well past the 2011 non-deadline, ISIQ is asking for former members to come back and reengage the Shi’ite government. The statement read,

“As for you, satanic Awakenings, we strive to guide you more than you strive to kill us. If you come to us in repentance, we will accept your repentance even if you killed a million people.”

“Do not stand in the way between us and the (Shi’ites) … We will not get bored or tired; rather, we will continue until the Day of Judgment, and we will kill from amongst you only those who we see will never return.”

It almost sounds as if ISIQ is desperate and in need of numbers, but their threats ought to be taken seriously. ISIQ has proven themselves to be more than capable of launching deadly assaults against Iraqi and American officials and government forces. Coupled with the threat, which may or may not be a bluff, from Moqtada al-Sadr to attack American “hard targets” if the United States does not withdraw by the end of 2011, a renewed assault on American targets is becoming a much more real possibility.

America remains vulnerable to being dragged into yet another quagmire in Iraq. If Obama does not have the resolve to say enough is enough, the blood and money will continue to flow, and al-Qaeda will continue to celebrate despite the death of its leader.

Moqatda al-Sadr, the Shia, anti-imperialism cleric, just announced that American “trainers” will be targeted if they stay in Iraq behind the 2011 withdrawal deadline. Barring a 180 degree shift in Barack Obama’s foreign policy, American troops will stay in Iraq for many years to come.

“But,” the average American asks, “why would he want to attack troops that are only serving in an advisory capacity and are not combat troops?” Doublespeak from the Obama administration, as well as a general sense of apathy and ignorance amongst the American public, gives rise to questions such as these. Anyone who follows the debacle in Iraq closely knows that the deadlines are far from being met, and that any “advisory capacity” includes such things as kicking down doors and launching full on assaults against Iraqi insurgents. What is even more disheartening, however, is that Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact lacks the spine and journalistic integrity to call the Obama administration’s bluff by considering his promise to withdraw combat troops as a “Promise Kept.” The parallels between Politifact and the Obama administrations’ dereliction of duties that came along with their world renowned prizes are amusing.

But the answer to Politifact’s and the average American’s confusion is that Moqtada al-Sadr is vowing to attack American “trainers” because they are doing much more than training: they are conducting assaults, raids, and acting as the muscle for D.C. in order to retain the diminishing American influence in Iraq, which the armchair generals and policymakers in Washington hope to use as leverage against Iran. Sadr’s intentions were clear and simple,

“Whoever stays in Iraq will be treated as an unjust invader and should be opposed with military resistance.”
…
“A government which agrees for them to stay, even for training, is a weak government.”

Sadr is perhaps also engaging in some form of doublespeak. With a largely demobilized Mehdi Army, much of Sadr’s control has been weakened by rival factions and splinter groups. Most attacks in recent months have been credited to these groups who are uncontrolled by Sadr. Gareth Porter, however, questions whether or not Sadr is bluffing:

If tensions between the U.S. military and Sadr continue to rise, Sadr may reverse course and drop the covert inside game he is said to have adopted. Ironically, the U.S. inability or unwillingness to play along with a Sadr double game on a U.S. troop presence could help Iran stymie the U.S. effort to preserve a rapidly dwindling influence in Iraq.

The Iraqi New Year could end up being a fireworks show to rival the 4th of July show in New York City. Or, like many towns across the United States saw this 4th of July, it could end up being pitch black.

Just like the debt ceiling “debate” was a melodrama worthy of a daytime Emmy, so too is the “debate” over whether or not to keep American troops in Iraq. Keen observers of both American politics and foreign policy knew the inevitable outcomes of both from the start: the debt ceiling would be raised and American troops will continue to “train and assist” in Iraq. In order to remind the American people of their dependence on government, the circus in Washington debated the debt ceiling up until the 11th hour. Deal after deal after deal ad infinitum was discussed and rejected while the Pravda pundits and arrogant academics warned of the dangers of America living within its means. Once the whole thing came to an end, America breathed a collective sigh of relief.

However, many of those who warned of the plethora of problems that would result from Congress being unable or unwilling to pass a debt ceiling resolution were left unhappy. Paul Krugman lamented the “disaster” and America’s eventual journey to “banana republic status.” Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was left with a bad taste in his mouth after eating a “Satan Sandwich” that was the debt deal. From a purely fiscal standpoint, their concerns are overblown. There are only cuts to projected spending, which means that the empire will continue to consume an even larger diet of your tax dollars, although less than previously thought. America’s ledger is uncannily similar to the American people: fat and growing fatter by the day, it will  stave off diabetes by offering diet pop and apples as a healthy alternative to freedom fries. Concerns about the Super Congress are, however, very much appropriate. The Right is worried that the Super Congress will be as ineffective as the Simpson-Bowles commission at downsizing D.C., despite the failings of their own toothless plan. The Left is worried that the Super Congress will be a fast track towards reforming entitlements.

These rehearsed theatrics are being seen in the debate over keeping troops in Iraq as well.

From the infancy of Obama’s candidacy, he vowed to end the Iraq war immediately. Time came and went, and came and went some more, but legions of soldiers remained. The antiwar left relented as soon as their Messiah was in the Oval Office effectively ending years of raucous debate over whether or not the arguably dumbest war in American history ought to continue. This gave the  show writers at the Defense and State Department plenty of time to rewrite the script for continued involvement well past  the Bush deadline.

First, America ended “combat” operations and was merely participating as “advisors” to the Iraqis. Then, some soldiers were killed despite promises otherwise. The State Department, growing increasingly iron fisted under Hillary Clinton, decided that it needed its own pack of soldiers. Then some more soldiers died. Some Iraqi officials, fearful of a renewed insurgency, wanted US troops to stay in order to keep a lid on things. Then even more soldiers died. And now we have the US actively pushing for an extension in order to counter the “Iranian threat,” which, they claim, have been responsible for an upswing in attacks against Americans. However, even this claim was contradicted less than a month later when the “Iranian threat” was said to have subsided.

The parallels with the debt ceiling melodrama are striking. Plague, locusts and thunderbolts were all waiting to strike down on America when the “other guy” was in charge. In order to not upset the party hierarchy, these Mosaic predictions were promptly halted. Democrats, all of the sudden, voted for an increase in the debt ceiling while the Republicans, also in a change of heart, voted in opposition. Iraq became a non-issue for the Democrats while Libya became the Republicans’ half-hearted, non-interventionist crusade. Furthermore, the number of withdrawal plans rivaled the number of debt deals in both number and absurdity. Also pervasive were the non-democratic tendencies of the whole debacle: the American voter, focused on the ailing economy, pays no attention to issues of foreign policy and their “representatives” represent only Raytheon, Israel, or very, very rarely America’s interests. Rather than the Simpson-Bowles gang, appointed generals and diplomats decide the fate of American troops and the Iraqi people in
the war room, far removed from the opinons of everyday Americans.

American involvement in Iraq is now guaranteed to extend well beyond 2011. The Iranians will be closely watched, Moqtada al-Sadr will debate unleashing his forces on American troops, and the American people and troops will be fleeced yet again.

Melodrama at its finest.

As a sign of deteriorating relations between the US and Pakistan, President Asif Ali Zardari voiced hopes that the United States and Pakistan could establish “clear terms of engagement.” Clearly acknowledging the Abottabad raid that netted Osama bin Laden, Zardari expressed frustration at the remarkable gray area that plagues Pakistani-American relations:

In the absence of well-defined and documented terms of engagements, wrong plugs may be pulled at the wrong times by any side that could undermine the bilateral relations…

Terms of engagement should be clearly defined and specified so that any dispute could be settled amicably through the available institutions.

Zardari also mentioned that he would like to see more communication concerning drone strikes, although this is not likely to happen unless there are serious repercussions put on the table by Pakistan.

The United States has essentially laughed in the face of Pakistan whenever the issue has been discussed. In the immediate aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s death, both the Pakistani government and Pakistani people were outraged at America’s lack of respect for Pakistani sovereignty. In a poll from the Pew Research Center, an astonishing 63% of Pakistanis disapproved of the raid, despite 55% of Pakistanis disapproving of al-Qaeda. Couple those polling numbers with 62% of Pakistanis disapproving of American counterterrorism efforts, the conclusion that can be drawn is pretty sensible: bin Laden represented resistance to the great, American superpower, despite his own atrocious misgivings.

Unfortunately, the idea that Pakistan must be scrutinized and brutalized in order to mitigate or eliminate the “never ending” terrorist threat is so firmly engrained in the intelligence establishment’s mode of thought that any reduction in anti-American hostilities seems farfetched unless conventional wisdom is challenged. We will continue to bomb, shoot, photograph, and set up fake vaccine clinics until the nearly-failed state is firmly and completely under the thumb of the United States. Unless, of course, Pakistan decides to take a firm stand.

While $800 million of the Pakistani gravy train has been halted, two thirds of it remain unaffected. Both countries remain in a delicate balance: Pakistan is strategically vital to winning the war in Afghanistan while Pakistan cooperation ensures that the bills are paid and the guns are bought. President Obama and the rest of the gang in Washington need Pakistan just as much as Pakistan needs America, if not more so. Expulsion of American forces, contractors, and other mercenaries would be a repudiation of America’s militarized foreign policy that has ruled the establishment for much of the 20th and 21st century. The embarrassment would be worse than Benjamin Netanyahu’s public rebuke of Obama’s farcical peace deal. Pakistan would also suffer a debilitating blow, but for a country that is already considered a failed state by many, this would be a fraction of the devastation.

Once Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal becomes an imminent concern, things could get downright ugly.

In yet another dose of doublespeak from the US military, Admiral Mike Mullen said of the recent increase in violence in southern Afghanistan,

There are going to be these kinds of spikes, in particular these spectacular assassinations. There are some who believe this is all they can do, given the challenges that the Taliban have faced over the course of the last couple of seasons.

So rather than acknowledging that the United States still faces a surmountable enemy, the military establishment has spun the upswing in attacks on NATO forces and Afghan officials as a last resort tactic of the Taliban fighters. The military is fearful, however, that these attacks will “erode citizens’ confidence in the Afghan government’s ability to protect its own people, and undercut U.S. efforts to turn security over to the Afghans.”

As has been seen many times during America’s fruitless war in Afghanistan, the Afghan army, intelligence, and police have proven to be woefully corrupt and inept. Just a few weeks ago, the Afghan military and police were left embarrassed as they failed to stop a suicide bombing and gun fight at the Intercontinental Hotel where Afghan and other international leaders were holding a conference. After being unable to control the situation, NATO forces were requested to put an end to the situation which was done via an all out assault using helicopters and ground forces.

Afghan distrust of the American installed, Kabul government runs deep. As Afghanistan is a tribal country, this distrust and lack of loyalty to the central government is ingrained into the minds of the Afghan people. The Afghan government’s complicity in the American led war, as well as rampant corruption and a remarkably incompetent central government, signals that the Afghan people will not have a radical shift in their views anytime soon.

These attacks by the Afghan Taliban and other associated groups are not tactics of last resort, but strategic decisions to make a mockery of what little hope there is left in winning the Afghan war on terror. Additionally, if such attacks continue, and there is no sign that they will stop otherwise except during the historical winter lull, Afghanistan will become just like Iraq. Deadlines for troop withdrawals will come and go, but no meaningful withdrawals will be made. Expect for America’s longest war in its history to go on well past the 2014 deadline, and don’t be surprised if the American military makes every effort to stay there as long as possible as is being done in Iraq today.

As I’ve written earlier, al-Shabaab is competing for the title of “Terror Group of the Month” with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Thanks to America’s collective, short-term memory loss, the Underwear Bomber and printer bomb plot have been all but forgotten. Al-Shabaab is the young, rising star. Pushing it to further prominence was a congressional report released today that claimed that 40 Muslim Americans have joined the fight in Somalia, 15 of which have been killed:

A report by his [Rep. Peter King] staff found that more than 40 Muslim Americans and 20 Canadians have been recruited to al Shabaab and at least 15 Americans were killed in fighting, including three suicide bombers.

“Senior U.S. counterterror officials have told the committee they are very concerned about individuals they have not identified who have fallen in with al-Shabaab during trips to Somalia, who could return to the U.S. undetected,” King said during a hearing he convened on al Shabaab.

Of the more than 40 Americans who have joined the cause, as many as 21 are believed to still be at large and unaccounted for, according to the staff report.

While the merits of this report and its accuracy can be debated, and will be with further information, what cannot be debated is al-Shabaab’s rise to notoriety. Whether it be earning the title of radicalizing America’s first ever suicide bomber or banning aid agencies from helping victims of the Horn of Africa’s record drought, the radical Islamist group is slowly earning its boogeyman status.

The recent drone strikes and the discovery of yet another secret, American prison in Mogadishu suggests that American security officials deem al-Shabaab to be a serious threat and Somalia to be a hotbed for terrorism. Perhaps they are also trying to figure out how al-Shabaab, much less glorious than its counterpart, al-Qaeda, has been so successful at recruiting American citizens. Although their motives have not been made explicitly clear, the recent surge in American activity in the stateless country is troubling.

Then again, Somalia would be an extremely valuable asset for the United States. The lack of any effective, central government would give American officials and proxies operating there even more impunity than they experience throughout the world. Additionally, its location, a stones throw away from the Arabian peninsula and in the backyard of Mogadishu, would allow for yet another point to monitor terrorism in East Africa and the Middle East.

Just as a reminder, al-Shabaab has only once attacked outside of Somalia.

The target: Uganda. The justification: foreign intervention.