Sunday, April 4, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Twitter 'is a weapon in cyber warfare'
February 16, 2010
By Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent
Head of the RAF says armed forces must embrace internet technology
Britain needs to learn from the actions of the Israeli military in the Gaza in using YouTube and tweets to engage in 21st-century cyber-warfare, the head of the Royal Air force said yesterday.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton highlighted how the Israeli Air Force used the internet in the battle over international public opinion during last year's conflict as an example of harnessing new technology.
"Accurate and timely information has always been critical to the military but its importance is increasing as societies become more networked," he stated. "This is intimately linked to developments in space and cyber-space; as we saw in the conflict in Gaza in early 2009, operations on the ground were paralleled by operations in cyber-space and an 'info ops' campaign that was fought across the internet: the Israeli Air Force downloaded sensor imagery onto YouTube, tweets warned of rocket attacks and the 'help-us-win.com' blog was used to mobilise public support."
The Israeli attack on Gaza, with its large number of civilian casualties, led to widespread international criticism. However, the use of the internet by the Israeli forces attempting to show Hamas fighters employing local people as cover and the supposedly "surgical" nature of some of the bombing is thought to have countered some of the adverse publicity.
The emotive impact of civilian casualties has been graphically shown during the current offensive in Afghanistan to capture the Marjah region from Taliban forces. Twelve civilians, 10 of them from one family, were killed when two Nato missiles overshot their targets and hit a family home.
General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, immediately issued a public apology and the use of the missile system involved in the deaths has been suspended. The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, who had warned Western forces about civilian casualties before the mission was launched, has demanded an inquiry.
As well as the propaganda campaign, cyber-warfare can be used to target vital strategic communications and defence systems. Both Russia and China have been accused of using the new technology as offensive weapons to hack into targeted computer systems.
In a keynote speech at the International Institute for Strategic Defences, Sir Stephen urged military planners to focus on the "operational environment that is increasingly becoming the 'vital ground' in 21st-century conflict".
The Air Chief Marshal's address was one of a series by the heads of the three services as they make their pitch for resources before the impending Strategic Defence Review. It follows the case for the Army made by General Sir David Richards and the Navy by Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope. General Richards had stressed that the land-based counter-insurgency in Afghanistan is the shape of wars to come, while Admiral Stanhope argued that the UK must look "beyond Afghanistan" in his bid to keep naval assets, including two new aircraft carriers. However, Sir Stephen declared that, instead of fighting the battles of the past, the British military should be looking to the high-tech defences of the future.
He said: "The exponential growth in the availability of information means that we must understand how to deliver and protect our national interests in the cyber domain and, although this is clearly a cross-government issue, defence has a legitimate interest in the development of offensive and defensive cyber-capabilities."
In future the enemy "may use sophisticated air defence systems, like the Serbs did in the 1990s and the Iraqis in 2003; or small arms and ground fire, like the Taliban use today", he said.
"But we must not get fixed. In the future our adversaries may use cyber-attack against our networked systems; indeed our national computer systems are under constant and intensifying attacks today. But our current enemies are already using effective information operations and propaganda (via the internet) about civilian casualties to try and influence our public's opinion and thus constrain our activities. In short, they'll use every possible means at their disposal to try to deny our freedom to use air- and space-power as we choose, because they understand that, if and when it is used effectively, it's our comparative advantage."
Snop's Commentary:
Twitter and Youtube are two social networking applications that truely can be exploited by the West to counter miltant Islam's information operations.
"By means of cognetics, the United States can win ideological warfare by advancing truth, dispelling rumors, correcting misinformation, and combating enemy psychological operations and perception influence." — Dawn of the Cognetic Age.
By Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent
Head of the RAF says armed forces must embrace internet technology
Britain needs to learn from the actions of the Israeli military in the Gaza in using YouTube and tweets to engage in 21st-century cyber-warfare, the head of the Royal Air force said yesterday.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton highlighted how the Israeli Air Force used the internet in the battle over international public opinion during last year's conflict as an example of harnessing new technology.
"Accurate and timely information has always been critical to the military but its importance is increasing as societies become more networked," he stated. "This is intimately linked to developments in space and cyber-space; as we saw in the conflict in Gaza in early 2009, operations on the ground were paralleled by operations in cyber-space and an 'info ops' campaign that was fought across the internet: the Israeli Air Force downloaded sensor imagery onto YouTube, tweets warned of rocket attacks and the 'help-us-win.com' blog was used to mobilise public support."
The Israeli attack on Gaza, with its large number of civilian casualties, led to widespread international criticism. However, the use of the internet by the Israeli forces attempting to show Hamas fighters employing local people as cover and the supposedly "surgical" nature of some of the bombing is thought to have countered some of the adverse publicity.
The emotive impact of civilian casualties has been graphically shown during the current offensive in Afghanistan to capture the Marjah region from Taliban forces. Twelve civilians, 10 of them from one family, were killed when two Nato missiles overshot their targets and hit a family home.
General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, immediately issued a public apology and the use of the missile system involved in the deaths has been suspended. The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, who had warned Western forces about civilian casualties before the mission was launched, has demanded an inquiry.
As well as the propaganda campaign, cyber-warfare can be used to target vital strategic communications and defence systems. Both Russia and China have been accused of using the new technology as offensive weapons to hack into targeted computer systems.
In a keynote speech at the International Institute for Strategic Defences, Sir Stephen urged military planners to focus on the "operational environment that is increasingly becoming the 'vital ground' in 21st-century conflict".
The Air Chief Marshal's address was one of a series by the heads of the three services as they make their pitch for resources before the impending Strategic Defence Review. It follows the case for the Army made by General Sir David Richards and the Navy by Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope. General Richards had stressed that the land-based counter-insurgency in Afghanistan is the shape of wars to come, while Admiral Stanhope argued that the UK must look "beyond Afghanistan" in his bid to keep naval assets, including two new aircraft carriers. However, Sir Stephen declared that, instead of fighting the battles of the past, the British military should be looking to the high-tech defences of the future.
He said: "The exponential growth in the availability of information means that we must understand how to deliver and protect our national interests in the cyber domain and, although this is clearly a cross-government issue, defence has a legitimate interest in the development of offensive and defensive cyber-capabilities."
In future the enemy "may use sophisticated air defence systems, like the Serbs did in the 1990s and the Iraqis in 2003; or small arms and ground fire, like the Taliban use today", he said.
"But we must not get fixed. In the future our adversaries may use cyber-attack against our networked systems; indeed our national computer systems are under constant and intensifying attacks today. But our current enemies are already using effective information operations and propaganda (via the internet) about civilian casualties to try and influence our public's opinion and thus constrain our activities. In short, they'll use every possible means at their disposal to try to deny our freedom to use air- and space-power as we choose, because they understand that, if and when it is used effectively, it's our comparative advantage."
Snop's Commentary:
Twitter and Youtube are two social networking applications that truely can be exploited by the West to counter miltant Islam's information operations.
"By means of cognetics, the United States can win ideological warfare by advancing truth, dispelling rumors, correcting misinformation, and combating enemy psychological operations and perception influence." — Dawn of the Cognetic Age.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
US: Federal Court Prosecution of 9/11 Suspects a Victory for Justice
13 Nov 2009 18:03:35 GMT
Source: Human Rights Watch
(New York) - The Obama administration's decision to prosecute the September 11 suspects in federal court represents an important step forward for justice, Human Rights Watch said today. Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that five of the suspects facing pending military commission charges at Guantanamo would be transferred for federal trial in the United States.
"The Obama administration recognized that a trial of this historic importance belongs in a fair and time-tested justice system," said Joanne Mariner, Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program director at Human Rights Watch. "The military commissions at Guantanamo are simply not up to the task."Unlike the deeply flawed military commission proceedings, the federal civilian courts can give the defendants a fair and credible trial, one that will be recognized as such internationally. Their use will also send a clear message that terrorists are criminals rather than soldiers in an armed conflict.
Human Rights Watch said that the importance of the 9/11 trial to America's reputation in the fight against terrorism cannot be overestimated. These historic proceedings must be fair - and be perceived as fair - and their verdicts must be viewed as credible. By moving them to federal court and out of the ad hoc, chaotic, and discredited military commissions at Guantanamo, the administration has taken a crucial step toward ensuring that the results of the trial will be recognized as legitimate.Over 150 defendants have been convicted on terrorism charges in US federal courts since 2001. The military commissions have only tried three cases during the same period.
Human Rights Watch said that today's announcement to transfer five cases to federal courts was diminished by the administration's decision to keep other pending cases before military commissions, providing substandard justice. While the recently enacted Military Commissions Act of 2009 significantly improves upon the Bush administration's system of military commissions, it still departs in fundamental ways from the fair trial procedures used in US federal courts and courts martial. Human Rights Watch said that any trial before the revised system of military commissions will carry the stigma of Guantanamo.
The cases remaining before military commissions include that of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen who was 15 years old in 2002 when he allegedly threw the grenade that killed US Army Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer and wounded two others. The US government has refused to acknowledge his status as a child or to apply universally recognized standards of juvenile justice in his case.No international tribunal since Nuremberg has prosecuted a child for alleged war crimes. The United Nations committee that monitors the rights of children found that the United States has held alleged child soldiers at Guantanamo without giving due account of their status as children and concluded that the "conduct of criminal proceedings against children within the military justice system should be avoided."
"Why would the Obama administration attempt to revive discredited military commissions by trying a child soldier?" Mariner said. "They should not be trying anyone before military commissions."Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four alleged co-conspirators were held for years without charge or trial in the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency, and were not transferred to Guantanamo until September 2006. The five men were charged before the military commissions in February 2008.Human Rights Watch called on the Obama administration to prosecute in federal court all the detainees at Guantanamo accused of terrorism and other crimes.
Members of al Qaeda seek to be acknowledged as soldiers rather than denigrated as criminals, Human Rights Watch said. Putting them on trial in military commissions would have reinforced that view, handing al Qaeda an enormous propaganda victory. Trial in federal court will deny them the status of warrior.
Judge William Young underscored this point in the 2003 trial of the "shoe bomber," Richard Reid. As Judge Young said at the defendant's sentencing, "You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. . . To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature."
Snop’s Commentary:
The title of this article rings of a fore-ordained just conclusion to the 9/11 terror attacks. The likelihood of a conviction is far from guaranteed. If KSM and others walk free… where is the justice? Do we gain justice by the mere fact that putting them on trial showcases the US as a just and righteous country? That seems to be the takeaway from this article. That maybe true, but it won’t be the balm that heals the wounds of 9/11, nor will it address the true task at hand for the President.
The fact of the matter is that if we as a free people want to live free, we must accept a certain level of risk. One hundred percent security requires that we all give up a majority of our liberties. Whereas ensuring 100% of our liberties requires we give up a majority of our security.
There has to be an acceptable balance point shared by the citizens of this country. Bush’s point was set toward maintaining security at the expense of liberty. Obama is moving the balance point toward liberty at the expense of security. This is the case that the President needs to make...one that the American people must understand and must be willing to accept if we are to go down this path together.
Source: Human Rights Watch
(New York) - The Obama administration's decision to prosecute the September 11 suspects in federal court represents an important step forward for justice, Human Rights Watch said today. Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that five of the suspects facing pending military commission charges at Guantanamo would be transferred for federal trial in the United States.
"The Obama administration recognized that a trial of this historic importance belongs in a fair and time-tested justice system," said Joanne Mariner, Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program director at Human Rights Watch. "The military commissions at Guantanamo are simply not up to the task."Unlike the deeply flawed military commission proceedings, the federal civilian courts can give the defendants a fair and credible trial, one that will be recognized as such internationally. Their use will also send a clear message that terrorists are criminals rather than soldiers in an armed conflict.
Human Rights Watch said that the importance of the 9/11 trial to America's reputation in the fight against terrorism cannot be overestimated. These historic proceedings must be fair - and be perceived as fair - and their verdicts must be viewed as credible. By moving them to federal court and out of the ad hoc, chaotic, and discredited military commissions at Guantanamo, the administration has taken a crucial step toward ensuring that the results of the trial will be recognized as legitimate.Over 150 defendants have been convicted on terrorism charges in US federal courts since 2001. The military commissions have only tried three cases during the same period.
Human Rights Watch said that today's announcement to transfer five cases to federal courts was diminished by the administration's decision to keep other pending cases before military commissions, providing substandard justice. While the recently enacted Military Commissions Act of 2009 significantly improves upon the Bush administration's system of military commissions, it still departs in fundamental ways from the fair trial procedures used in US federal courts and courts martial. Human Rights Watch said that any trial before the revised system of military commissions will carry the stigma of Guantanamo.
The cases remaining before military commissions include that of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen who was 15 years old in 2002 when he allegedly threw the grenade that killed US Army Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer and wounded two others. The US government has refused to acknowledge his status as a child or to apply universally recognized standards of juvenile justice in his case.No international tribunal since Nuremberg has prosecuted a child for alleged war crimes. The United Nations committee that monitors the rights of children found that the United States has held alleged child soldiers at Guantanamo without giving due account of their status as children and concluded that the "conduct of criminal proceedings against children within the military justice system should be avoided."
"Why would the Obama administration attempt to revive discredited military commissions by trying a child soldier?" Mariner said. "They should not be trying anyone before military commissions."Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four alleged co-conspirators were held for years without charge or trial in the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency, and were not transferred to Guantanamo until September 2006. The five men were charged before the military commissions in February 2008.Human Rights Watch called on the Obama administration to prosecute in federal court all the detainees at Guantanamo accused of terrorism and other crimes.
Members of al Qaeda seek to be acknowledged as soldiers rather than denigrated as criminals, Human Rights Watch said. Putting them on trial in military commissions would have reinforced that view, handing al Qaeda an enormous propaganda victory. Trial in federal court will deny them the status of warrior.
Judge William Young underscored this point in the 2003 trial of the "shoe bomber," Richard Reid. As Judge Young said at the defendant's sentencing, "You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. . . To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature."
Snop’s Commentary:
The title of this article rings of a fore-ordained just conclusion to the 9/11 terror attacks. The likelihood of a conviction is far from guaranteed. If KSM and others walk free… where is the justice? Do we gain justice by the mere fact that putting them on trial showcases the US as a just and righteous country? That seems to be the takeaway from this article. That maybe true, but it won’t be the balm that heals the wounds of 9/11, nor will it address the true task at hand for the President.
The fact of the matter is that if we as a free people want to live free, we must accept a certain level of risk. One hundred percent security requires that we all give up a majority of our liberties. Whereas ensuring 100% of our liberties requires we give up a majority of our security.
There has to be an acceptable balance point shared by the citizens of this country. Bush’s point was set toward maintaining security at the expense of liberty. Obama is moving the balance point toward liberty at the expense of security. This is the case that the President needs to make...one that the American people must understand and must be willing to accept if we are to go down this path together.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
What is the Future of Islamic Fundamentalism and how the might the West deal with it?
An Essay by Snop
Before answering the question, I would like to digress some and consider some significant factors that are forcing the issue of Islamic Fundamentalism upon Europe at this point in time. Then I will compare how the United States and Israel are dealing with these same factors. My analysis of these factors will be used to construct my prediction of the future of Islamic Fundamentalism and how the West might deal with it.
As we have seen through our studies, the phenomenon of Islamic Fundamentalism has ebbed and flowed throughout history. To paraphrase the tag line used by the blog site Gates of Vienna “…. We are in a new phase of a very old war.”
This war or Clash of Civilizations, to borrow from Huntington, is much different than those between Islam and non-Muslims in the past. There are no standing army’s waiting to fight one another across the verdant rolling countryside of Tours France or the dry dusty open spaces near the Horns of Hattin in the Holy land. Today the threat is more insidious, ambiguous and random—it comes from within and not from without.
This threat manifests itself in many ways, one being through the demographic growth imbalance between non-Muslims and Muslims, especially within Europe and their lack of assimilation into the wider European society. Muslim birthrates far exceed those of non-Muslim European women. Compounding the imbalance, unchecked immigration from North Africa and Southwest Asia further increases the recruiting pool for Muslim Fundamentalists. This process is shifting the demographic/political weight from non-Muslim Europeans toward Muslims. A point clearly made by the recent display of fealty toward Islam by the BBC as it appointed its first Muslim as head of religion for its public media conglomerate.
Muslim immigration and higher birthrates by itself are not a threat. There is a need for workers to support Europe’s lavish social benefit programs and with the drop in birthrates the governments of Europe must look outward for the labors. The problems begin with the lack of assimilation of Muslims into Europe. Instead of blending into the milieu of cultures that make up Europe, they form tight cohesive groups separated and isolated from the world around them.
This separation leads to discrimination and helps push many disaffected Muslim youths into crime and the arms of the Fundamentalists. According to the May 16th, 2009 issue of the Economist, of the 63,000 prisoners in France, a number that has jumped by 30% since 2000, over half are Muslim. Given this sharp increase in prisoners, there are still very few Muslim chaplains to tend to the needs of these individuals. One could make the case that this enables the more extreme voices to influence and radicalize those already marginalized by society.
As the numbers of Fundamentalists escalate, so does the demand that Sharia Law be used to govern their daily lives. This in turn is leading to the formation of a separate legal system within Europe. By submitting to these demands, countries like England, France and others enable Fundamentalists to create a state with in a state. Furthermore, Fundamentalists are demanding special treatment and respect for their beliefs, while suppressing those of the non-Muslim majority. This has led to wide-spread suppression of freedom of expression of non-Muslims due to the fear of reprisal from Fundamentalists.
Given these factors, it is possible to envision the uneven growth of Islamic Fundamentalism throughout the West; uneven because Western nations choose to deal with Islamic Fundamentalism in disparate ways. How they choose to deal with Fundamentalism will determine their futures. Where there is resistance, Fundamentalism may stay in check or be slowed. Where it finds a path of least resistance, Islamic Fundamentalism, like water, will pour in and flood the land.
I submit that the amount of resistance a country or people will assert in the future is a function of its collective past and its response to perceived threats i.e. the dilution of its culture. When pressured, it is human instinct to look to the past for strength. Fundamentalists epitomize this very fact today. In the not so distant future, the West may do the same. In short, that is why the struggle between Islam and the West is cyclical.
This cycle may begin to reverse when the pressure from the Fundamentalists reaches a tipping point. At this juncture, the West may begin to reflect upon its identity, its symbols and its collective history for strength and answers. Those nations with an inherently strong identity and a sense of history will fare better those devoid of these unifying characteristics.
Consider the American reaction to 9/11. On an emotional level the attacks warranted the overwhelming use of force to crush our perceived enemies and make them pay for attacking our country. One only needs to remember the days following the attacks to see the outpouring of nationalism that bordered on religiosity. The symbols of our Union where everywhere, Flags were flying from businesses, homes and from the windows of passing cars. Americans dug deep into their past and conjured up the day of infamy when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Our past became our guide for the future. We were reminded daily that the greatest generation faced war and death in the past and we like them would triumph. Our reaction toward our Muslim population was muted. There were a number of random attacks but no real inter-communal violence erupted. There was a certain amount of wariness but as a nation we strove to cope with it. Muslims have integrated much more into society in America than in Europe. More Muslims in this country consider themselves Americans first and Muslims second. In Europe the opposite is true-Muslim first Dutch, English, German second.
At this point it may also be pertinent to consider Israel. No other nation has been under the sustained existential threat by Muslim Fundamentalists than the Jewish state. They have fought numerous wars against the surrounding Muslim countries and continue to battle state sponsored terror groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. Collectively, the Israelis have a solid sense of identity formed over thousands of years of persecutions and pogroms. They rally around their common religion and the symbols of their nation. These things have hardened their resolve to resist the onslaught of the Fundamentalists. Their shared history is also their guide for the future.
Unlike the Europeans, the Israelis are not facing the same internal demographic issue that Europe is experiencing. They maintain a sustainable birthrate relative to their Muslim minority and only allow Jews to settle in Israel. The real issue comes from the Palestinians right to return. If granted, the influx of thousands of Palestinian refugees would overwhelm the Jewish state.
In conclusion, I believe those countries that are mindful of the place that Muslims occupy in their societies and also possess a strong sense of history and pride can deter the insidious envelopment of Islamic fundamentalism. In the future, this might also serve the purpose of preventing a violent backlash against Muslim citizens and the resulting cycle of crusade and counter crusade.
Before answering the question, I would like to digress some and consider some significant factors that are forcing the issue of Islamic Fundamentalism upon Europe at this point in time. Then I will compare how the United States and Israel are dealing with these same factors. My analysis of these factors will be used to construct my prediction of the future of Islamic Fundamentalism and how the West might deal with it.
As we have seen through our studies, the phenomenon of Islamic Fundamentalism has ebbed and flowed throughout history. To paraphrase the tag line used by the blog site Gates of Vienna “…. We are in a new phase of a very old war.”
This war or Clash of Civilizations, to borrow from Huntington, is much different than those between Islam and non-Muslims in the past. There are no standing army’s waiting to fight one another across the verdant rolling countryside of Tours France or the dry dusty open spaces near the Horns of Hattin in the Holy land. Today the threat is more insidious, ambiguous and random—it comes from within and not from without.
This threat manifests itself in many ways, one being through the demographic growth imbalance between non-Muslims and Muslims, especially within Europe and their lack of assimilation into the wider European society. Muslim birthrates far exceed those of non-Muslim European women. Compounding the imbalance, unchecked immigration from North Africa and Southwest Asia further increases the recruiting pool for Muslim Fundamentalists. This process is shifting the demographic/political weight from non-Muslim Europeans toward Muslims. A point clearly made by the recent display of fealty toward Islam by the BBC as it appointed its first Muslim as head of religion for its public media conglomerate.
Muslim immigration and higher birthrates by itself are not a threat. There is a need for workers to support Europe’s lavish social benefit programs and with the drop in birthrates the governments of Europe must look outward for the labors. The problems begin with the lack of assimilation of Muslims into Europe. Instead of blending into the milieu of cultures that make up Europe, they form tight cohesive groups separated and isolated from the world around them.
This separation leads to discrimination and helps push many disaffected Muslim youths into crime and the arms of the Fundamentalists. According to the May 16th, 2009 issue of the Economist, of the 63,000 prisoners in France, a number that has jumped by 30% since 2000, over half are Muslim. Given this sharp increase in prisoners, there are still very few Muslim chaplains to tend to the needs of these individuals. One could make the case that this enables the more extreme voices to influence and radicalize those already marginalized by society.
As the numbers of Fundamentalists escalate, so does the demand that Sharia Law be used to govern their daily lives. This in turn is leading to the formation of a separate legal system within Europe. By submitting to these demands, countries like England, France and others enable Fundamentalists to create a state with in a state. Furthermore, Fundamentalists are demanding special treatment and respect for their beliefs, while suppressing those of the non-Muslim majority. This has led to wide-spread suppression of freedom of expression of non-Muslims due to the fear of reprisal from Fundamentalists.
Given these factors, it is possible to envision the uneven growth of Islamic Fundamentalism throughout the West; uneven because Western nations choose to deal with Islamic Fundamentalism in disparate ways. How they choose to deal with Fundamentalism will determine their futures. Where there is resistance, Fundamentalism may stay in check or be slowed. Where it finds a path of least resistance, Islamic Fundamentalism, like water, will pour in and flood the land.
I submit that the amount of resistance a country or people will assert in the future is a function of its collective past and its response to perceived threats i.e. the dilution of its culture. When pressured, it is human instinct to look to the past for strength. Fundamentalists epitomize this very fact today. In the not so distant future, the West may do the same. In short, that is why the struggle between Islam and the West is cyclical.
This cycle may begin to reverse when the pressure from the Fundamentalists reaches a tipping point. At this juncture, the West may begin to reflect upon its identity, its symbols and its collective history for strength and answers. Those nations with an inherently strong identity and a sense of history will fare better those devoid of these unifying characteristics.
Consider the American reaction to 9/11. On an emotional level the attacks warranted the overwhelming use of force to crush our perceived enemies and make them pay for attacking our country. One only needs to remember the days following the attacks to see the outpouring of nationalism that bordered on religiosity. The symbols of our Union where everywhere, Flags were flying from businesses, homes and from the windows of passing cars. Americans dug deep into their past and conjured up the day of infamy when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Our past became our guide for the future. We were reminded daily that the greatest generation faced war and death in the past and we like them would triumph. Our reaction toward our Muslim population was muted. There were a number of random attacks but no real inter-communal violence erupted. There was a certain amount of wariness but as a nation we strove to cope with it. Muslims have integrated much more into society in America than in Europe. More Muslims in this country consider themselves Americans first and Muslims second. In Europe the opposite is true-Muslim first Dutch, English, German second.
At this point it may also be pertinent to consider Israel. No other nation has been under the sustained existential threat by Muslim Fundamentalists than the Jewish state. They have fought numerous wars against the surrounding Muslim countries and continue to battle state sponsored terror groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. Collectively, the Israelis have a solid sense of identity formed over thousands of years of persecutions and pogroms. They rally around their common religion and the symbols of their nation. These things have hardened their resolve to resist the onslaught of the Fundamentalists. Their shared history is also their guide for the future.
Unlike the Europeans, the Israelis are not facing the same internal demographic issue that Europe is experiencing. They maintain a sustainable birthrate relative to their Muslim minority and only allow Jews to settle in Israel. The real issue comes from the Palestinians right to return. If granted, the influx of thousands of Palestinian refugees would overwhelm the Jewish state.
In conclusion, I believe those countries that are mindful of the place that Muslims occupy in their societies and also possess a strong sense of history and pride can deter the insidious envelopment of Islamic fundamentalism. In the future, this might also serve the purpose of preventing a violent backlash against Muslim citizens and the resulting cycle of crusade and counter crusade.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Warning that Pakistan is in danger of collapse within months
The Sydney Morning HeraldPaul McGeough
April 13, 2009
David Kilcullen... Pakistan keeps him awake at night. Photo: Supplied
PAKISTAN could collapse within months, one of the more influential counter-insurgency voices in Washington says.
The warning comes as the US scrambles to redeploy its military forces and diplomats in an attempt to stem rising violence and anarchy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"We have to face the fact that if Pakistan collapses it will dwarf anything we have seen so far in whatever we're calling the war on terror now," said David Kilcullen, a former Australian Army officer who was a specialist adviser for the Bush administration and is now a consultant to the Obama White House.
"You just can't say that you're not going to worry about al-Qaeda taking control of Pakistan and its nukes," he said.
As the US implements a new strategy in Central Asia so comprehensive that some analysts now dub the cross-border conflict "Obama's war", Dr Kilcullen said time was running out for international efforts to pull both countries back from the brink.
When he unveiled his new "Afpak" policy in Washington last month, the US President, Barack Obama, warned that while al-Qaeda would fill the vacuum if Afghanistan collapsed, the terrorist group was already rooted in Pakistan, plotting more attacks on the US.
"The safety of people round the world is at stake," he said.
Laying out the scale of the challenges facing the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Dr Kilcullen put the two countries invaded by US-led forces after the September 11 attacks on the US on a par - each had a population of more than 30 million.
"But Pakistan has 173 million people and 100 nuclear weapons, an army which is bigger than the American army, and the headquarters of al-Qaeda sitting in two-thirds of the country which the Government does not control," he told the Herald .
(See Full Article)
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Two men released from the US "war on terror" prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.
One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.
Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333.
A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information.
"We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure," said Gordon.
"We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose," he said.
On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
"By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for," al-Shihri was quoted as saying.
Al-Shiri was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia in 2007, the US counter-terrorism official said.
The other men in the video are identified as Commander Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi and Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi (also known as Abu Hureira al-Sana'ani).
The Defense Department has said as many as 61 former Guantanamo detainees -- about 11 percent of 520 detainees transferred from the detention center and released -- are believed to have returned to the fight.
The latest case highlights the risk the new US administration faces as it moves to empty Guantanamo of its remaining 245 prisoners and close the controversial detention camp within a year.
-
Snop's Commentary:
This article highlights the dangers of returning Islamists to Yemen where many have been released by the government of Yemen only to return to Jihad. One hundred Yemenis are currently being held in Guantanamo and represent a serious hurdle to making good on President Obama's order to close GITMO in one year. If anything, the closure order will spark the needed public and international debate as to what to do with the current and future detainees-not to mention how to put prosecute them.
Up to now, many assume that the Bush administration was flat wrong in using GITMO as a prison while insisting that military commissions be used to prosecute these fighters that fall outside our Western norms and rules of warfare. I suspect during the following months, we will become acutely aware of the logic behind the Bush administration process and find ourselves with few if any alternatives that can both provide justice and adequately ensure our security. There is a fine balance between both requirements and it is arguable that we went to far after 911, let us hope the correction is not too far the other way.
In the meantime, the move to close GITMO takes away Al Qaeda's ralling call to unite and fight the US because to the supposed mistreatment of "brothers" being detained there. From an ideological warfare perspective demostrating the intent to close GITMO is necessary in order for the US to regain moral legitmacy in the eyes of of our allies and our own people alike.
From Dawn of the Cognetic Age..." [...] we must reorient US grand strategy to create a sustainable and effective strategy needed to win the long war by conducting a thorough risk-versus-return analysis of post-9/11 security policies that apply cognetic thinking. We must ask tough questions to determine whether our policies promote or hinder our ability to maintain the vital support of the American people and our allies for conducting a long war. Our leadership plainly states that we are engaged in such a war, possibly lasting a generation or longer. Our grand strategy must reflect this basic assumption. Therefore, policy objectives must bolster our resolve to continue the struggle, attract the uncommitted to our side, and drain away militants’ resolve to continue the struggle. If our policies support the objectives, we should stay with them; if they do not, we must change them."
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
