reflectivepundit

Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri and Al Qaeda: Irrelevant?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Last summer President George W. Bush spoke at an Air Force Base in Charleston, S. C. It was another of his “al-Qaeda speeches” in which he emphasized the grave terrorist threat from al-Qaeda, its affiliates in Iraq and elsewhere to justify the continued Global War on Terror—especially in Iraq. By my count, in that particular 3505-word and less than 30-minute speech the President mentioned al-Qaeda 91 times, Osama bin Laden 23 times, and Ayman al-Zawahiri and other al-Qaeda and alleged al-Qaeda leaders 18 times. Since then, bin Laden’s core terrorism organization that is hiding out and operating from the mountains of Pakistan regained strength according to the National Intelligence Estimate. But whereas President Bush, his administration and the news media hyped every bin Laden message, when al-Qaeda Central was weakest and trying to recover from its post-9/11 fate, Washington’s decision-makers and the media have all but ignored bin Laden’s latest communications—in spite of his organization’s reported revival. Thus, when the second bin Laden audio tape in two days was released last weekend, it was not commented on by high administration officials and not included in the media’s “breaking news” items.

At first sight, one would applaud this waning attention to the publicity-hungry al-Qaeda leadership. After all, terrorist strikes and the threat thereof are most of all means to intimidate foes and impress friends and potential supporters. Moreover, leaders of terrorist organizations strive for legitimacy on the domestic or the world stage—or both. When the heads of government react publicly and swiftly to such communications, they treat the bin Ladens and al-Zawahiris of the world like legitimate leaders and unwittingly enhance their status among those in whose name they claim to act.

Yet, I wonder about this sea change from public over-attention to al-Qaeda messages to mostly ignoring such communications in public discourse.

The following lines are from an on-line ABC News report by Brian Ross and Rehab El-Buri (headline: “New Bin Laden Tape: Who Cares? Al Qaeda Leader Losing Relevance”) about one of bin Laden’s latest audio tape releases:

“Isolated and in hiding, Osama bin Laden's taped messages no longer have the power to send shivers through the Western world. The release overnight of his third audiotape message of 2008, timed to the 60th anniversary celebration of the founding of Israel, provided proof the al Qaeda leader is alive but also showed his desperate attempt to remain relevant.

‘He's definitely found himself on the back burner,’ said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant. ‘It's a case of measured irrelevance. We used to do back flips when one of his tapes would arrive but no longer,’ Garrett said.”

Much Talk, No Action on the Need for Energy Independence

By Brigitte L. Nacos
In his latest column in today’s New York Times, Thomas Friedman addresses once again our dependency on foreign oil and the “need to do everything possible to develop alternatives…” I couldn’t agree more. This country’s dependency on oil imports and the leading petroleum exporters in the Middle East and elsewhere has influenced important aspects of U.S.foreign policy for a long time and, more recently, the so-called war on terror as well. Senator McCain was right, when he recently admitted—albeit inadvertently, what others said before—that oil was at the root of the Iraq invasion. Our leaders’ refusal to work towards independence from oil and invest in alternative energy sources is closely related to their ties to “big oil” authoritarian governments and to oil corporations—not only since George W. Bush and Dick Cheney moved into the White House. The current debate on the pro and con of a summer moratorium on the federal gasoline tax avoids once again a public debate about the larger problem, namely, to make the development of renewable energy sources one of this country’s top priorities.

For years, Tom Friedman and some of his colleagues have written and spoken in favor of changing our energy policies. But even the most urgent appeals were not heeded by our leaders. During the current campaign, the news media could have played a crucial role in elevating energy independence and related environmental protection to one of the major policy topics and forced candidates to spell out their positions in great detail. Instead, air time, column inches, and blogosphere posts have been devoted to superficial coverage of this important topic and irrelevant campaign incidentals. So far, the golden opportunity to fully inform and educate the electorate and force the candidates’ hands on putting energy high onto their agendas was missed by the media. And few seem to care—in spite of the rising price for gasoline.

I am convinced that nothing will change unless we, the people, take the lead. Most of us and perhaps all of us can make small and by now well-known but not yet widely embraced changes in our daily lives to save energy. If millions of car-drivers would embrace a “drive less this summer” habit, this would impact our gasoline consumption measurably. If millions would at least some of the time use public transportation instead of their own cars, this would decrease gasoline consumption as well. 

But more is needed, namely, a from-below movement for energy independence through clean and renewable alternative energy sources. The Internet is an ideal vehicle to start such a movement that would depend on the interest and enthusiasm of the young generation. One of my students wrote a term paper this spring on the “One Million Voices” demonstrations against the FARC in Colombia that began with an initiative on the social network site Facebook.

Why not try to initiate and organize along the same lines to create a movement for clean and renewable energy to free us from our dependence from petro-exporters and at the same time protects our environment?

I am hoping that a reader of this blog thinks along the same lines and takes the lead on this.

Israeli-Palestinian Peace: An Impossible Dream?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Commenting on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s latest Middle East trip and effort to revitalize the Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts, the New York Times criticizes Rice for the lack of any progress on that count. According to the editorial, “despite 14 trips to the region in the past 15 months—and the November peace conference in Annapolis—Ms. Rice has frighteningly little to show for her presence.” True. But one wonders whether a different position by the Bush administration would have moved the parties closer towards peace. For the Times, the premise of compromise that the administration must push for is President Clinton’s proposal from 2000: “a secure Israel and an economically viable Palestinian state, divided by roughly the June 1967 borders, and including reasonable compromises over
Jerusalem.”

The fact is that President Clinton’s proposals did not move the parties closer to peace at a time, when the Palestinian Authority was far stronger and Hamas far weaker than today. Then, there were two parties involved in the peace process. Today, President Mahmoud Abbas speaks only for part of the Palestinians and the Hamas leadership for a growing number of the people in Gaza and the West Bank. In part, this shift was a result of Hamas’s strong showing in elections that the Bush administration pushed for.
As a recent public opinion survey, conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, revealed, 3 of 4 Palestinians said that negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas should be terminated because they were without benefit. Moreover, the Islamist fundamentalist Hamas organization—already in firm control in Gaza—is gaining support in the West Bank at the expense of Mr. Abbas’s secular Fatah base. Moreover, the poll “showed greater support for violence than any other he had conducted over the past 15 years in the Palestinian areas. Never before, he [the pollster] said, had a majority favored an end to negotiations or the shooting of rockets at Israel.”

Bush’s Veto of Anti-Torture Legislation and Its Damage to America

By Brigitte L. Nacos
In today’s radio address President Bush revealed that he had vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. He justified his veto by stating that the prohibitions "would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror." And he added, "This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe.” In other words, torture continues to be allowed in Mr. Bush’s “war on terrorism.”
Besides prohibiting torture altogether, the vetoed bill would have banned the following:

Forcing a prisoner to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner.
Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a prisoner, and using duct tape over the eyes.
Waterboarding.
Using military working dogs.
Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
Depriving a prisoner of necessary food, water or medical care.

Even after America and the world saw the horrible visuals of Abu Ghraib and learned of “harsh interrogation” methods in other American-run facilities, the administration denied that detainees were being or had been tortured. After the U.S. Congress adopted and the president signed a bill with anti-torture provisions in October 2006, Bush insisted in his signing statement that is was the president’s prerogative to decide what methods CIA interrogators were allowed to use. But in the same breath, he continued to tell Americans and the rest of the world, “The United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values. I have not authorized it.” Similarly, right after Vice President Richard Cheney stated in a radio interview the “dunk in water” (meaning waterboarding) in the interrogation of detainees was a “no-brainer” he added, “We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in.”

Behind the Warning of a New Terrorist Attack on U.S.

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Well before the first exit polls about “Super Tuesday’s” primary contests and long before the first results were available, the director of national intelligence Mike McConnell warned that al-Qaeda was improving its capability to attack the United States again by producing militants, including new Western recruits, capable of blending into American society and attacking domestic targets. According to Mark Mazetti of the New York Times, the intelligence boss told the Senate Intelligence Committee that “Al Qaeda is gaining strength from its refuge in Pakistan and is steadily improving its ability to recruit, train and positioning operatives capable of carrying out attacks inside the United States.” Furthermore, the Times learned from an intelligence source that this threat estimate “was based in part on new evidence that Qaeda operatives in Pakistan were training Westerners, most likely including American citizens, to carry out attacks.” 

I couldn’t help but think of McConnell’s warning earlier in the day as I listened to Senator McCain’s victory speech during the night, when he promised to defeat the enemy abroad and at home. Traditionally, the majority of Americans has considered Republicans in the White House and in the Congress as tougher than Democrats, when it comes to terrorism in particular and national defense in general. Thus, it is entirely possible that another round of publicly pronounced terror threats by high officials in the homeland security community in the run-up to the November election will benefit the eventual Republican presidential nominee, most likely Senator McCain, the most hawkish of them.

 

U.S. Public Diplomacy and Al Qaeda’s Advantage in the Publicity Battle

By Brigitte L. Nacos
At the end of a lengthy interview with Ayman al-Zawahiri that was posted on extremist web sites last weekend, al-Qaeda’s own media production company As-Sahab announced that the terrorist organization’s second in command was inviting questions via an Islamist media center to be admitted within the next month. According to the announcement, these questions will be sent to al-Zawahiri and answered in another video-taped appearance. It seems that al-Qaeda wants to imitate CNN’s YouTube campaign debate format. TechCrunch’s Duncan Riley calls al Qaeda’s latest propaganda approach “bizarre.” Bizarre indeed, but this latest scheme is actually just one more example for the fact that al-Qaeda, like-minded groups, and terrorist organizations in general exploit all media and communication means for propaganda purposes.
As I have argued before, governments have not been savvy and innovative in developing and testing new public diplomacy approaches in order to counter the public relations assault from terrorist extremists. This is an excerpt from what I wrote in an article just published by the online journal Perspectives on Terrorism:
“Recently, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called on the U.S. government to spend more money and yield to “soft power” because “the military alone cannot defend America's interests around the world.” Spending more money and placing more effort into “soft power,” will not assure a more effective “public diplomacy” in the Middle East and among Muslims and Arabs. Even if the United States Information Agency were revived and its once excellent parts revitalized, these vehicles of public diplomacy would not be successful in current target regions as they were during the Cold War when they were working within a far more limited and controlled communication environment. In today’s global setting, most people of the world know almost instantly what happens elsewhere around the globe. They no longer need the Voice of America or Alhurra TV as their primary source of information. It is unlikely that they will react positively to Americans selling U.S. culture and values and the advantages of democracy and freedom.

John McCain and Waterboarding: Tough on Romney, Soft on Mukasey

By Brigitte L. Nacos
During the last Republican presidential debate, Ex-Governor Mitt Romney refused to characterize waterboarding as torture and said that as president he would consult experts like McCain on this question. According to the CNN transcript of the event, this was part of the ensuing exchange between Senator McCain and Romney :
McCain: Well, governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is.
Romney: I know what waterboarding is, Senator.
McCain: Then I am astonished that you would think such a -- such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our -- who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's in violation of existing law...
And, governor, let me tell you, if we're going to get the high ground in this world and we're going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We're not going to torture people.
We're not going to do what Pol Pot did. We're not going to do what's being done to Burmese monks as we speak. I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others, and how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me…

This unequivocal, passionate stand would have been more convincing, if the Senator had taken an equally forceful position vis-à-vis Michael B. Mukasey who also claimed to be clueless about waterboarding during his appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead, McCain expressed repeatedly support for Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney-General.  McCain said at the time that he wanted Mukasey to say “that waterboarding was torture and illegal.” Of course, Mukasey refused to say that. But it seemed sufficient for McCain that Mukasey “said that he would get briefed on the procedures."

Abuse of Presidential Power: Will Giuliani top the Bush/Cheney Regime's Power Abuse?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
On my blog here, I have written repeatedly on the opportunistic and problematic positions that the former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani decided to take for the sake of hoping to bolster his chances to win the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. He certainly is a turn-coat on a whole range of issues—immigration, gun control, the perennial pro-choice/ pro-life controversy. At least some of his fellow-Republicans have caught on to this and attack him on these counts,. I have repeatedly posted on the extreme hawkish positions that “America’s mayor” takes against Iraq—in tune with his neo-conservative advisors who—we should not forget—got us into the Iraq mess in the first place. But thanks to an excellent report in the “Washington Monthly,” a publication I find to be a credit to the best in American journalism's tradition, the perhaps most important question about a possible Giuliani presidency concerns his style of governance—a democratic and transparent approach versus an authoritarian and secret model in the by know well known Cheney/George W. Bush mold. These are a few sentences of what Rachel Morris writes (and you should read her whole article at the Washington Monthly on-line site,

 

• Many Giuliani watchers already understand that Rudy is a hothead and a grandstander, even a bit of a dictator at times. These qualities have dominated the story of his mayoralty that most people know. As that drama was unfolding, however, so was a quieter story, driven by Giuliani's instinct   and capacity for manipulating the levers of government. His methods, like those of the current White House, included appointments of yes-men, aggressive tests of legal limits, strategic lawbreaking, resistance to oversight, and obsessive secrecy. As was also the case with the White  House, the events of 9/11 solidified the mindset underlying his worst tendencies. Embedded in his operating style is a belief that rules don't apply to him, and a ruthless gift for exploiting the intrinsic weaknesses in the system of checks and balances. That's why, of all the presidential      candidates, Giuliani is most likely to take the expansions of the executive branch made by the Bush administration and push them further still. The blueprint can be found in the often- overlooked corners of his mayoralty.

Torture and a Future Attorney General Clueless on Waterboarding?

Brigitte L. Nacos
After enjoying a love fest during the first day of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judicial Committee, Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey was a changed man the second day, when he responded quite differently to the same or similar questions. While denying that he had been coached after his first appearance, he was suddenly far more in tune with the White House and his predecessor Alberto Gonzales in speaking out in favor of inherent presidential powers and claiming to be clueless about one of the most horrible torture techniques, water boarding. Even after Senator Whitehouse explained water boarding in some detail, Mukasey continued to claim ignorance in order not to categorize water boarding as torture and thus declare it illegal.
Since the news media reported repeatedly on the torture of captured terrorists and alleged terrorists on the heels of the Abu Ghraib revelations, most informed Americans have an idea about torture methods. The following is an excerpt from an ABC News report on water boarding along with other torturous treatments of detainees:

Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.  "The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

Democrats should cooperate with the president and his supporters when they put forth the right policies and nominees, but they must stop to be threatened or co-opted by the president and his supporters when the latter are wrong—as they are in so many areas, including the Iraq War, the FISA provisions, and now a nominee to head up the department of justice who claims to be less familiar with legal issues surrounding torture techniques than the informed public.

Lecturing President Putin on Democracy: How about President Bush?

Br Brigitte L. Nacos
As reported in the New York Times, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “indirectly chided Mr. Putin for overseeing a steady erosion of the independent media, the courts and the legislative branch” during her visit in Moscow he other day. She criticized the accumulation of power in the Russian presidency explaining that “in any country, if you don’t have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development.” According to the Associated Press, she said furthermore, “I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma," said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament.” According to the AP, Rice “encouraged the activists [she met with] to build institutions of democracy. These would help combat arbitrary state power amid increasing pressure from the Kremlin…”

Dr. Rice was certainly right in warning of too much power in the hands of the chief-executive as detrimental to a healthy democracy. But although the developments in Russia justify critical remarks along Dr. Rice’s lines, the problem is that the track record of the Bush administration is not exactly exemplary in this respect. Indeed, since the events of 9/11 President Bush, Vice President Cheney and others in the administration have tried relentlessly and succeeded greatly in amassing power in the hands of the executive and thereby violated the power sharing and checks-and-balances system that the U.S. Constitution prescribes. Thus, Dr. Rice would be well advised to lecture Mr. Bush and, more important, the architect of expanded executive power, Mr. Cheney, on the dangers of presidential abuse of power as well.