Doc's Talk: Spinning al-Qaida

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Spinning al-Qaida

Since June 2012, Peter Bergen, the swashbuckling reporter who serves as CNN's national security analyst and a director of the liberal New America Foundation, has been among those in the foreign policy establishment confidently declaring that "al-Qaida is defeated."

The terrorist organization responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks, he has been arguing, developed "myriad weaknesses that make the group's offensive capabilities rather puny." Al-Qaida's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, proved to be "a black hole of charisma" who inherited from Osama bin Laden "the Blockbuster Video of global jihad and has done nothing to resuscitate it." Al-Qaida, Bergen added for good measure, is "more or less out of business."

As recently as last August, in a debate with me on Wolf Blitzer's CNN program, Bergen defended this thesis, noting that in 2006 al-Qaida controlled two-thirds of Iraq and that "now it controls nothing" there.

On January 7, however, we learned that al-Qaida is controlling "more territory in the Arab world than it has done at any time in its history." As for the charisma-challenged Zawahiri, he "is closer to his goal than he has ever been."

Who wrote that solid report so thoroughly demolishing the Bergen narrative on al-Qaida's demise? Why, Peter Bergen did! And good for him -- though my praise would be more effusive had he acknowledged to his readers and viewers that (how can I say this gently?) his thinking has evolved.

Bergen is hardly the only high-visibility expert not owning up to what might be considered fairly egregious analytical errors in regard to al-Qaida. On December 28, The New York Times published the results of its investigation into the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi. Its conclusion: Al-Qaida was not involved. Only "local" Libyan actors were responsible -- not global terrorists. "The investigation by The Times," reporter David Kirkpatrick pronounced, finds that "Benghazi was not infiltrated by al-Qaida but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests." Many in the media treated this as the last word on the issue.

Thomas Joscelyn, my colleague at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies -- who, not just incidentally, has for the past few years conducted the most persuasive research refuting the "al-Qaida is dead" spin -- immediately noticed that The Times report "specifically ruled out any meaningful involvement of an ex-Guantánamo detainee named Sufian ben Qumu -- a terrorist with long-standing ties to al-Qaida and the leader of Ansar al-Shariah in Darnah, Libya."

That's significant because, last Friday, the U.S. State Department formally named ben Qumu a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" and "the leader of Ansar al-Shariah in Darnah" -- which on Friday was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization along with Ansar al-Shariah in Benghazi.

According to the State Department, both these groups were indeed "involved" in the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. Mission and Annex in Benghazi. Surely, the notion that the leader of one of them had no idea what his fighters were up to strains credulity. What's more, back in November, and based on confidential conversations with U.S. intelligence officials, Joscelyn and The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes reported that ben Qumu trained some of the jihadists who carried out the attacks in Benghazi.

As Joscelyn also has reported, ben Qumu was one of the "Afghan Arabs" who "fought alongside al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and maintained ties to several other well-known al-Qaida leaders." An alias he used was found on the laptop of an al-Qaida operative responsible for overseeing the finances for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Information on that laptop also indicated that ben Qumu was an al-Qaida "member receiving family support."

That's not all The Times missed: An August 2012 report published by the Library of Congress in conjunction with the U.S. Defense Department, titled "Al-Qaida in Libya: A Profile," reveals that ben Qumu and his Ansar al-Shariah fighters were "believed to be close to the al-Qaida clandestine network" in Libya -- a network "headed by al-Qaida operatives who report to al-Qaida's senior leadership in Pakistan, including Ayman al-Zawahiri."

This and other evidence can lead only to one conclusion: Terrorists and terrorist organizations operationally tied to al-Qaida and sharing al-Qaida's global Islamist revolutionary ideology were involved in the murder of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on September 11, 2012.

As if to confirm that, on Wednesday (January 15, 2014) the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report on Benghazi clearly stating that as early as June 12, 2012, the Defense Intelligence Agency was reporting "growing ties" between al-Qaida "regional nodes" and "Libya-based terrorists." A month later, the CIA reported that al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Libya were enhancing their "capabilities" and expanding their "operational reach."

As I write this, The Times has revised its conclusions not at all. On the contrary, a story last week continued to press the narrative that ben Qumu was only "a former driver for a company controlled by Osama bin Laden," and that while he has been "identified as a leader of Ansar al-Shariah in Derna [an alternate spelling of Darnah] ... officials briefed on the designations and the intelligence reports said that there was no evidence linking him to the attack" in Benghazi.

There has been confusion as well regarding the Ansar al-Shariah organization in Tunisia which was responsible for an assault on the U.S. Embassy in Tunis on Sept. 14, 2012. Most in the media dismissed that attack, too, as merely "local" and not al-Qaida-related. But Joscelyn has connected the dots between al-Qaida and the Tunisian branch of Ansar al-Shariah which also was designated by the State Department on Friday. The designation specified that Ansar al-Shariah Tunisia "is ideologically aligned with al-Qaida and tied to its affiliates, including AQIM [al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb]."

The various Ansar al-Shariah groups, in both Libya and Tunisia, Joscelyn reports, have been involved in "sending recruits off to Jabhat al Nusrah [the Nusra Front] -- an al-Qaida group fighting in Syria." If that's not evidence of an al-Qaida link, pray tell what would be?

I want to be fair: These are complicated issues. Reporters, even good ones, sometimes don't gather all the pieces of the puzzle, or they get spun by sources with an agenda. Analysts, however, diligent, sometimes produce flawed analyses. Still, we should be troubled when we see a pattern of data misinterpretation regarding al-Qaida (and to Iran, too -- but we'll leave that for another day) with no one learning from their mistakes.

And this has been going on for years. One example: Back in July 2007, seven months after the start of the "surge" in Iraq, but several months before that battle plan's success had become indisputable, Fawaz Gerges, then a professor at Sarah Lawrence College (now a professor at the London School of Economics) told PBS's Bill Moyers that "the American military presence in Iraq ... has become a liability against America's vested interest. ... The longer we stay in Iraq, the more we help al-Qaida spread its ideology and tactics."

A few years later, U.S. President Barack Obama embraced that analysis and removed America's military presence from Iraq, leaving behind not even a residual force to help prevent al-Qaida from regrouping and re-establishing a foothold in the heart of the Arab Middle East. How has that policy worked out? See the January 7 report by Peter Bergen cited above.

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security.

Back to home page

Newsletters from:

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk