1/20/10

This week Congress and the Administration are focused on the realities of fighting terrorism.  Hearings will be held on the failed domestic "underpants" bomber and the Obama administration's broader international counterterrorism policies, a new Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) report on al Qaeda was released and a Secretary of Defense Gates is in India working on U.S.-Indian counterterrorism cooperation.  Conservatives in Congress will likely use this week's hearings as a soapbox to politicize this issue and score cheap points - as we recently saw in the Massachusetts Senate campaign.  

Unfortunately, such politicization would come at the expense of a serious discussion about America's security and the proper approach to combating terrorism.  Meanwhile, progressives should continue to promote a counterterrorism strategy based on the following principles blocking terrorism where it starts through regional partnerships, bringing terrorists to justice in order to deter would-be perpetrators while reinforcing our values, and refusing to fall into the trap of overreaction that al Qaeda seeks to instill.  This is the best comprehensive approach for keeping America safe from terrorism.

Build regional partnerships in order to thwart terrorism.  The failed "underpants" bombing in late 2009 and the tragedy in Mumbai in 2008 demonstrated the importance of strong cooperation across countries.  As a new report by the SFRC puts it: "U.S. government cooperation with foreign partners must be redoubled across the counterterrorism spectrum: Information-sharing, counterterrorism and law enforcement training, and border control are all areas where allies will benefit from cooperation. Foreign partners are often the first line of defense: Djiboutian border patrol agents turn away suspect immigrants, Yemeni police raid an Al Qaeda safe house, or an alert immigration officer stops a suspicious traveler at an airport in Europe."  The Administration has also reached out to build a broader partnership with Pakistan, increased nearly five-fold US assistance to Yemen, and deepened US counterterrorism cooperation with India, a rising global power.

In addition, as Secretary Gates wrote yesterday in the Times of India: "Perhaps the greatest common challenge India and the United States face is terrorism ...both of our countries know all too well the terrible human cost of terrorist attacks."  In addition, according to Bloomberg News, "Gates praised India for showing restraint in its response to the Mumbai assault," while warning that Indian patience was not unlimited, and that given the "magnitude of the threat that the entire region faces [from terrorism]" more regional cooperation would be necessary.  [SFRC, 1/20/10. John Brennan, 1/03/10. IPS, 1/06/10. Secretary Gates, the Times of India, via the LA Times, 1/19/10. Bloomberg, 1/20/10]

Bring terrorists to justice in a manner that deters future terrorists, rebuilds global support for the US, and complies with our values.  Closing Guantanamo Bay and bringing terrorism suspects to justice is a critical dimension of the President's overall counterterrorism strategy.  As the President explained earlier this month, "make no mistake:  We will close Guantanamo prison, which has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for al Qaeda.  In fact, that was an explicit rationale for the formation of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula."  Yet, extreme conservative politicians, including the new Senator-elect from Massachusetts Scott Brown, have ignored America's values and put our security in danger through their political attacks against the Obama administration for bringing terrorists to justice.  For example, Brown said in an interview this month that, "The biggest mistake that I think the president's making is that he's treating these people as ordinary criminals, and they're lawyering them up at taxpayer expense instead of treating them like they are. We're in a time of a war. These are clearly enemy combatants, and they should have been shipped down to Guantanamo Bay and interrogated, pursuant to all legal means."  Apparently to Brown, "all legal means" includes water boarding - a technique that experts classify as torture.  CBS reported that in a broadcast debate Brown said he disagrees with Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) opposition to the simulated drowning technique." I believe that it's not torture," he said. "America does not torture. We used aggressive enhanced interrogation techniques." 

Meanwhile, experts in the counterterrorism field disagree. A bipartisan group of national security experts, former members of Congress, diplomats, federal judges, prosecutors, high-level military officers, and government officials disagree with the Massachusetts Senator-elect and believe that America's legal system remains the best tool to bring extremists to justice. This bipartisan group recently signed a letter saying "As it moves to close Guantanamo and develop policies for handling terrorism suspects going forward, the government should rely upon our established, traditional system of justice. We are confident that the government can preserve national security without resorting to sweeping and radical departures from an American constitutional tradition that has served us effectively for over two centuries."  The Marine Corps General who set up the camp and established the rules -originally in line with the Geneva Conventions -also spoke out on the need to close the detention center.  The LA Times quotes Brig. Gen. Michael Lehnert as saying, "'I think we lost the moral high ground... for those who think our standing in the international community is important, we need to stand for American values. You have to walk the walk, talk the talk.'" And as former Oklahoma Congressman and member of the GOP leadership Mickey Edwards wrote bluntly for the Atlantic, "It's not because we love terrorists, it's because we hate them and we are going to subject them to the thing they most fear - justice, democracy, the rules of a free society."  [RealClearPolitics, 1/6/10. CBS, 1/5/10. Constitution Project, 11/4/09. LA Times, 9/25/09. President Obama, 1/5/10. John Brennan, 1/03/10. Former Congressman Mickey Edwards, 1/05/10]

Refuse to succumb to al Qaeda's goal of spreading fear.  As foreign policy expert Fareed Zakaria reminds us, "The purpose of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction. Its real aim is not to kill the hundreds of people directly targeted but to sow fear in the rest of the population. Terrorism is an unusual military tactic in that it depends on the response of the onlookers. If we are not terrorized, then the attack didn't work... Overreacting to terrorist attacks plays into al-Qaeda's hands." As Osama bin Laden himself explained in a 2004 video he found it "easy for us to provoke and bait" the Bush administration.  Marc Lynch, senior fellow at CNAS and professor at George Washington University writes that: "It is just wrong to suggest that Obama has not taken al Qaeda seriously just because he doesn't use the magic words so beloved of his critics. His administration has continued or expanded a wide range of effective measures to degrade and dismantle its networks across the region and world. Its escalation in Afghanistan was, for better or for worse, largely justified in terms of degrading and destroying al Qaeda's South Asian base".

The American people have responded positively to President Obama's approach.  A poll from CNN released last week found that, "[i]n the wake of the Christmas Day attempt to blow up a U.S. airliner, most Americans remain confident the Obama administration can protect the country from terrorism... Nearly two-thirds of people questioned in the poll said they have a moderate or great deal of confidence in the administration to protect the public from future terrorist attacks, up 2 percentage points from August."  Similarly, a poll by CBS News found that "While some Republicans have criticized the president and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano's responses to the attempted Christmas Day terror attack, most Americans don't share their opinion. In the poll, 57 percent of Americans approve of the way the Obama administration has responded to the attempted attack, and 29 percent disapprove."  This positive reaction is due largely to the new approach of the Obama administration.  As Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic writes today, "The inclusion of the phrase ‘war on terrorism' -- something the Obama team believes that Americans associated with discredited politics of the past administration -- primes voters to respond differently. When asked the question without the 'war' trigger, Obama's approval vaults up to 57%. That's not bad...This isn't conclusive, but it's strong anecdotal evidence to suggest two things: (1) the "war on terror" phraseology remains a contested and polarizing phrase, and (2) Americans generally think the administration is doing a good job on counterterrorism -- even after the Christmas Day bombing."  Rather than overreacting with hysterics and crediting Al Qaeda with a victory, the Obama administration has chosen a path the American people agree with.  [Fareed Zakaria, 1/11/10. Al Qaeda video via CNN, 11/1/04.  Marc Lynch, 1/2/10. CNN, 1/11/10.  CNN Poll, 1/11/10. CBS News, 1/11/10]

What We're Reading

US troops land on the lawn of the damaged Presidential Palace in Haiti, setting up camps and securing food and water distribution sites in order to better deliver goods to the beleaguered capital.

The Obama administration is continuing to provide the Karzai administration support for its reconciliation efforts towards Taliban fighters. Meanwhile, civilian aid workers in Afghanistan are finding the lack of trained Afghan partners their most difficult challenge.

Radicalized American citizens may be the next wave of extremists heading to Yemen, says a new Senate report.

Sectarian violence in Nigeria has killed dozens.

Guinea's military leaders appoint a veteran opposition figure as prime minister, a critical step in the transition to elections and civilian government later in the year.

The recent presidential election in Chile points to a new convergence of ideologies in Latin American politics.

South Korea would launch a pre-emptive conventional strike against North Korea if there were clear indications of an impending nuclear attack, says the South Korean defense minister.

The Chinese government is using anti-pornography policies to justify spying and monitoring text messages sent within China.

The unfolding political drama in Japan over corruption cases within the recently victorious political parties has caused concerns that bureaucrats appointed under the previous government are intent on maintaining the status quo.

On his visit to India, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates met with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other Indian officials to bolster U.S.-Indian military ties and discuss a joint approach to combating al-Qaeda and regional terrorist groups.

Concerns continue to hamper Israel's possible entry into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD.

Commentary of the Day

George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn focus on how to reduce nuclear dangers by maintaining confidence in our arsenal as we work toward a world without nuclear weapons. 

Karl F. Inderfurth and Chinmaya R. Gharekhan hope that the upcoming London Conference will help Afghanistan's diplomatic corps better relations with its regional counterparts.

The Washington Post argues that the United States ought to persuade the Iraqi government to reconsider its sudden ban of hundreds of Sunni contenders in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

William Courtney argues that hysteria regarding Kazakhstan's chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe may not be entirely justified, and that this provides a further catalyst for reform within Kazakhstan.