The Terrorism Debate After Benghazi
This weekend saw a flurry of conversation about terrorism in the aftermath of the tragic attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last month. Unfortunately some of the rhetoric was misleading and ill informed. For example, Senator Lindsey Graham, (R-SC) said on CBS’s Face the Nation, “The truth is we’re not safer — Al Qaeda is alive and counterattacking… This whole region is about to explode. Al Qaeda is on the march.”
While the assault on Benghazi demonstrates that terrorism remains a real and persistent threat, the broader trend is positive. Last year saw a five-year low in terrorist attacks worldwide; al Qaeda-inspired plots at home are also declining; and al Qaeda remains battered and weakened. Political critics have not offered a serious alternative to the determined policies that have helped bring about this progress.
Recent years have seen counterterrorism successes on multiple fronts:
Taking the fight to al Qaeda. A renewed focus on intelligence gathering has resulted in the decapitation of al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden and most of al Qaeda’s leadership. Michael Leiter, former head of the National Counterterrorism Center observed, “Core Al-Qaeda is on the ropes. They are at a weaker point than they have ever been.” According to the Center for American Progress, in the year since Osama bin Laden’s death, 22 al Qaeda senior leaders have been captured or killed and successful al Qaeda attacks have been reduced 16 percent worldwide. [AFP, 8/17/11. CAP, 5/1/12
Disrupting plots at home. America’s law enforcement and intelligence professionals work diligently to prevent plots here at home. These civil servants have stopped dozens of plots in their tracks, most notably, the attempt by Najibullah Zazi to bomb the New York subway, called the one of the most dangerous plots since 9/11. This year, he was convicted and sentenced. The Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security also notes that homegrown plots linked to Islamic extremism have declined dramatically since 2009. [NY Times, 5/1/12]
Weakening terrorist finances. U.S. action against terrorism finance has pushed al Qaeda’s finances to “its weakest point in years,” according to White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan. [John Brennan, 6/29/11]
Utilizing legal tools. Reuters reports, “Nearly 500 individuals accused of terrorism-related charges have been convicted in U.S. federal courts in the decade since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and almost 100 of those have been in New York courts.” [Reuters, 7/12/12]
Leveraging international support. International collaboration with traditional allies such as NATO, international institutions such as the United Nations and regional partners such as Israel and Jordan has brought increased cooperation and real results. Training and intelligence sharing has resulted in more effective cooperation, such as the robust international response to the 2010 plot aimed at UPS cargo flights. [Department of State, 1/4/12. Stewart Patrick, 8/19/11. Daniel Benjamin, 5/5/11]
Threat from terrorism remains real, but diminished. In its most recent report on global terrorism, the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) states that, “The total number of worldwide attacks in 2011, however, dropped by almost 12 percent from 2010 and nearly 29 percent from 2007,” and that the 2011 numbers represent a five-year low. Terrorism experts Brian Fishman and Phillip Mudd explain the current state of al Qaeda : “al Qaeda’s core organization in Pakistan is battered, the effort to spur homegrown jihadists in the West has faltered, and its regional affiliates are more often losing ground than gaining it… Some affiliates remain focused on local agendas; others have been crippled by their own mistakes and operational successes against them. Two legs of al Qaeda’s three-legged stool, the core group in Pakistan-Afghanistan and the affiliates, are weak. The third leg, so-called homegrown jihadists, has not shown the capability to pose more than a modest threat. Al Qaeda’s allies are lethal and broadly dispersed, but they show little sign of producing the global revolution they espouse.” They add, “None of this is to say that al Qaeda is dead. Jihadists in Iraq are aggressively eyeing Syria, where sectarian dynamics and escalating violence offer the group an opportunity to project influence. Besides the still-dangerous al-Shabab in Somalia, al Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate has proved resilient and forceful locally, and the allied group Ansar al-Sharia has proved its ability to take and hold territory amid the country’s political unrest.” [NCTC, 3/12/12. Brian Fishman and Phillip Mudd, 2/24/12]
On terrorism, critics offer no strategy, while cutting important State Department security funding. Political attacks regarding the deaths of four American diplomats in Benghazi obscure the absence of a serious alternative counterterrorism strategy. As former Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Colin Kahl, and Middle East expert Marc Lynch explain, “On terrorism, which Romney never discusses in depth, he has failed to outline any policies to go after al Qaeda and its affiliates. There is a reason for this: On the president’s watch, Osama bin Laden is dead and more al Qaeda senior leaders have been taken off the battlefield than at any time since 9/11.” Meanwhile, the New York Times observes that “Republican lawmakers leading the charge on Capitol Hill” over the death of American diplomats in Benghazi “seem more interested in attacking President Obama than in formulating an effective response. It doesn’t take a partisan to draw that conclusion. The ugly truth is that the same people who are accusing the administration of not providing sufficient security for the American consulate in Benghazi have voted to cut the State Department budget, which includes financing for diplomatic security. The most self-righteous critics don’t seem to get the hypocrisy, or maybe they do and figure that if they hurl enough doubts and complaints at the administration, they will deflect attention from their own poor judgments on the State Department’s needs.” [Michele Flournoy, Colin Kahl, Marc Lynch, 10/2/12. NYT, 10/14/12]
What We’re Reading
EU member states announced a new package of sanctions against Iran over its controversial nuclear program.
Turkey banned all Syrian aircraft from its air space as it takes an increasingly firm stance against President Bashar al-Assad.
Libya’s national congress elected a new prime minister, Ali Zidan.
Israel launched multiple air attacks against Gaza militant groups, killing at least five amid escalating violence.
Preliminary results say that, after suffering one of the world’s deepest recessions, Lithuanians voted out their conservative government.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia Party held strong in local and regional elections, doing better than it did in December.
About 200 Muslim rebels went to the Philippine capital to sign a preliminary peace pact aimed at ending one of Asia’s longest-running insurgencies.
Tens of thousands rallied in Pakistan in the biggest show of support yet for a 14-year-old girl who was shot and seriously wounded by the Taliban for promoting girls’ education and criticizing the militant group.
Kenya’s military declared that it has captured the last stronghold of Somalia’s al-Shabab militia.
The UN Security Council unanimously approved a plan to back an African-led military force to help the Malian army oust Islamic militants.
Commentary of the Day
Heather Hurlburt dismisses a “surgical strike” on Iran as politically and operationally improbable.
Radwan Ziadeh describes his first trip back to Syria after 5 years of exile.
The New York Times examines the hypocrisy of the blame game regarding the Benghazi attacks.
