In May 2013, President Barack Obama tried to end the war on terror by limiting its scope. In a
high-profile speech
at the National Defense University, he said, “we must define our effort
… as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific
networks of violent extremists that threaten America.” These groups, he
said, were the core al-Qaida leadership and its regional affiliate
organizations. Recent events in the Middle East, North Africa and South
Asia have demonstrated just how short-sighted the Obama administration’s
vision was.
Nearly two years later, the violent Islamist threat to the United
States is much wider in scope. Not only do al-Qaida and its affiliates
threaten the United States and the West, but they are also struggling
for territory and power with other extremists from Africa to
Afghanistan. These not only include the Islamic State group –
a
one-time al-Qaida affiliate that has since splintered off, grown and now
rivals its parent organization – but also Iran’s Revolutionary Guard
Corps and Tehran’s local proxy militias. This three-way competition is
not weakening them, but is instead rejuvenating jihadi networks across
the world.
Today’s Islamist extremist threat emanates from four major theaters:
Afghanistan and Pakistan. The situation in South Asia remains perilous. Although Obama
has slowed
the planned drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, he still plans to
end the U.S. mission there before he leaves office. While the United
States is drawing down, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani warned that the
Taliban and the Islamic State group are ramping up. As he
told U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday, the Islamic State group “is already sending advanced guards to southwestern Afghanistan.”
In response, the Institute for the Study of War
noted
in a recent study that it is vital that the Afghan National Security
Forces receive “robust, long-term assistance from the United States.”
Moreover, Obama should maintain the current level of troops in
Afghanistan through the end of 2016 and even reconsider
his decision to withdraw all forces by the end of his term, thereby allowing his successor to determine the future U.S. role there.
Meanwhile, while the Taliban’s senior leadership is still located in
Pakistan, it is unclear that they have safe haven there. Gen. John
Campbell, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan,
reported
that in the wake of the Peshawar school massacre by the Taliban, senior
Pakistani military leaders are re-examining their long policy of
supporting some terrorist groups that act as proxies for their own
interests. “Senior Pakistani military officers have said that they can
no longer discriminate between ‘good and bad’ terrorists,” he said.
Again, however, a continued U.S. presence in the region is necessary
because, as former National Counterterrorism Center director Michael
Leiter
told lawmakers,
the “deep engagement and strategic patience” that these troops provide
is critical to pressure Pakistan to maintain its offensive against all
Islamist groups.
Iraq and Syria. With as much as
one-third of Syria now controlled by the Islamic State group, and the
Iraqi offensive
against the Islamic State group stronghold of Tikrit stalled, the group
retains nearly all of its key territory across both countries. Even
now, while the United States is conducting airstrikes against the
Islamic State group, it is unclear whether these efforts are having much
effect. Although thousands of fighters have been killed in the U.S.-led
campaign, military and intelligence officials
told Eli Lake and Josh Rogin of Bloomberg View earlier this month that the group’s senior leadership has been "largely untouched."
The effort to defeat this enemy will likely take several years, and
it will certainly require closer cooperation with the Iraqi government,
Kurdish and Sunni militias, and the moderate Syrian opposition. The
United States should deploy additional trainers and support personnel to
bolster their forces, as well as special operations personnel to help
identify Islamic State group forces and direct airstrikes against them.
Iran’s exploitation of this conflict to expand its influence in the
region is equally troubling. Qasem Soleimani is the leader of the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force and has
directly overseen military operations led by Shiite militias in Iraq. Iran’s behavior in Iraq reflects its conduct in Syria, where it
has long conducted
“an extensive, expensive, and integrated effort to keep President
Bashar al-Assad in power as long as possible” by supplying the regime
with arms, training and fighters.
Yemen. America’s counterterrorism strategy in Yemen has suffered a
severe blow in recent months. The Iran-backed Houthi rebels have
overthrown the country’s government and forced U.S. personnel to
withdraw. The Los Angeles Times also
reported on Thursday
that “Secret files held by Yemeni security forces that contain details
of American intelligence operations in the country have been looted by
Iran-backed militia leaders, exposing names of confidential informants
and plans for U.S.-backed counter-terrorism strikes.”
Other Islamist organizations are also making their presence felt in Yemen. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula has
embedded
its fighters alongside local forces that are opposed to the Shiite
rebels. In so doing, the terrorist group is expanding its influence
throughout the country – just as al-Qaida’s organization in Syria,
Jabhat al-Nusra, has done in that country’s conflict. What’s more,
recent
bombings that killed over 130 people indicate that the Islamic State group is attempting to ignite a full-blown sectarian war in Yemen.
The current
Saudi-led intervention may exacerbate these tensions.
In response, Katherine Zimmerman of the American Enterprise Institute has
recommended that
the United States should work to build “coalitions of locals willing to
fight against AQAP [al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula]
while
also seeking to mediate the disputes that are tearing Yemeni society
apart and creating openings for AQAP to expand.” Without a legitimate
and viable partner that reflects and responds to the will of the Yemeni
people, America’s efforts to combat terrorism in the Arabian Peninsula
will likely be fruitless.
North Africa. Even before the recent terror attack against
Tunisia’s National Bardo Museum, Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper warned Congress, “Extremists and terrorists from
al-Qaida-affiliated and allied groups are using Libya’s permissive
security environment as a safe haven to plot attacks, including against
Western interests in Libya and the region.”
[
READ: We're Letting the Terrorists Win]
Tunisia faces daunting challenges in establishing security due to its
recent transition to democracy. However, Larry Diamond of the Hoover
Institution
reported that
“there is genuine revulsion with the violent jihadist ideology that
apparently propelled the attackers, and broad concern that such
terrorism could endanger the unprecedented scope of freedom Tunisians
have fought so hard to achieve.” Diamond recommended “an immediate
response to specific Tunisian security needs for equipment,
intelligence, and special-forces training to combat the threat,”
conditional upon continued economic and political reform from Tunis.
The situation in Libya, however, is far worse. Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution
told
the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that the country “needs a
new military, one that is apolitical and professional, capable of
defeating all of the partisan forces and then serving as the kind of
strong, institution around which a new political system could be
organized and enforced.”
Without Western countries providing the
military, economic and political resources needed to stabilize Libya,
the country will continue to spawn instability throughout the region,
and provide terrorists the safe haven they need to train and plan future
attacks.
In May 2013, President Barack Obama tried to end the war on terror by limiting its scope. In a
high-profile speech
at the National Defense University, he said, “we must define our effort
… as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific
networks of violent extremists that threaten America.” These groups, he
said, were the core al-Qaida leadership and its regional affiliate
organizations. Recent events in the Middle East, North Africa and South
Asia have demonstrated just how short-sighted the Obama administration’s
vision was.
Nearly two years later, the violent Islamist threat to the United
States is much wider in scope. Not only do al-Qaida and its affiliates
threaten the United States and the West, but they are also struggling
for territory and power with other extremists from Africa to
Afghanistan. These not only include the Islamic State group –
a
one-time al-Qaida affiliate that has since splintered off, grown and now
rivals its parent organization – but also Iran’s Revolutionary Guard
Corps and Tehran’s local proxy militias. This three-way competition is
not weakening them, but is instead rejuvenating jihadi networks across
the world.
[
SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the Islamic State]
Today’s Islamist extremist threat emanates from four major theaters:
Afghanistan and Pakistan. The situation in South Asia remains perilous. Although Obama
has slowed
the planned drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, he still plans to
end the U.S. mission there before he leaves office. While the United
States is drawing down, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani warned that the
Taliban and the Islamic State group are ramping up. As he
told U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday, the Islamic State group “is already sending advanced guards to southwestern Afghanistan.”
In response, the Institute for the Study of War
noted
in a recent study that it is vital that the Afghan National Security
Forces receive “robust, long-term assistance from the United States.”
Moreover, Obama should maintain the current level of troops in
Afghanistan through the end of 2016 and even reconsider
his decision to withdraw all forces by the end of his term, thereby allowing his successor to determine the future U.S. role there.
[
SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the Middle East]
Meanwhile, while the Taliban’s senior leadership is still located in
Pakistan, it is unclear that they have safe haven there. Gen. John
Campbell, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan,
reported
that in the wake of the Peshawar school massacre by the Taliban, senior
Pakistani military leaders are re-examining their long policy of
supporting some terrorist groups that act as proxies for their own
interests. “Senior Pakistani military officers have said that they can
no longer discriminate between ‘good and bad’ terrorists,” he said.
Again, however, a continued U.S. presence in the region is necessary
because, as former National Counterterrorism Center director Michael
Leiter
told lawmakers,
the “deep engagement and strategic patience” that these troops provide
is critical to pressure Pakistan to maintain its offensive against all
Islamist groups.
Iraq and Syria. With as much as
one-third of Syria now controlled by the Islamic State group, and the
Iraqi offensive
against the Islamic State group stronghold of Tikrit stalled, the group
retains nearly all of its key territory across both countries. Even
now, while the United States is conducting airstrikes against the
Islamic State group, it is unclear whether these efforts are having much
effect. Although thousands of fighters have been killed in the U.S.-led
campaign, military and intelligence officials
told Eli Lake and Josh Rogin of Bloomberg View earlier this month that the group’s senior leadership has been "largely untouched."
[
See: Editorial Cartoons on Barack Obama ]
The effort to defeat this enemy will likely take several years, and
it will certainly require closer cooperation with the Iraqi government,
Kurdish and Sunni militias, and the moderate Syrian opposition. The
United States should deploy additional trainers and support personnel to
bolster their forces, as well as special operations personnel to help
identify Islamic State group forces and direct airstrikes against them.
Iran’s exploitation of this conflict to expand its influence in the
region is equally troubling. Qasem Soleimani is the leader of the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force and has
directly overseen military operations led by Shiite militias in Iraq. Iran’s behavior in Iraq reflects its conduct in Syria, where it
has long conducted
“an extensive, expensive, and integrated effort to keep President
Bashar al-Assad in power as long as possible” by supplying the regime
with arms, training and fighters.
Yemen. America’s counterterrorism strategy in Yemen has suffered a
severe blow in recent months. The Iran-backed Houthi rebels have
overthrown the country’s government and forced U.S. personnel to
withdraw. The Los Angeles Times also
reported on Thursday
that “Secret files held by Yemeni security forces that contain details
of American intelligence operations in the country have been looted by
Iran-backed militia leaders, exposing names of confidential informants
and plans for U.S.-backed counter-terrorism strikes.”
[
READ: Lead From Behind Against the Islamic State Group]
Other Islamist organizations are also making their presence felt in Yemen. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula has
embedded
its fighters alongside local forces that are opposed to the Shiite
rebels. In so doing, the terrorist group is expanding its influence
throughout the country – just as al-Qaida’s organization in Syria,
Jabhat al-Nusra, has done in that country’s conflict. What’s more,
recent
bombings that killed over 130 people indicate that the Islamic State group is attempting to ignite a full-blown sectarian war in Yemen.
The current
Saudi-led intervention may exacerbate these tensions.
In response, Katherine Zimmerman of the American Enterprise Institute has
recommended that
the United States should work to build “coalitions of locals willing to
fight against AQAP [al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula]
while
also seeking to mediate the disputes that are tearing Yemeni society
apart and creating openings for AQAP to expand.” Without a legitimate
and viable partner that reflects and responds to the will of the Yemeni
people, America’s efforts to combat terrorism in the Arabian Peninsula
will likely be fruitless.
North Africa. Even before the recent terror attack against
Tunisia’s National Bardo Museum, Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper warned Congress, “Extremists and terrorists from
al-Qaida-affiliated and allied groups are using Libya’s permissive
security environment as a safe haven to plot attacks, including against
Western interests in Libya and the region.”
[
READ: We're Letting the Terrorists Win]
Tunisia faces daunting challenges in establishing security due to its
recent transition to democracy. However, Larry Diamond of the Hoover
Institution
reported that
“there is genuine revulsion with the violent jihadist ideology that
apparently propelled the attackers, and broad concern that such
terrorism could endanger the unprecedented scope of freedom Tunisians
have fought so hard to achieve.” Diamond recommended “an immediate
response to specific Tunisian security needs for equipment,
intelligence, and special-forces training to combat the threat,”
conditional upon continued economic and political reform from Tunis.
The situation in Libya, however, is far worse. Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution
told
the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that the country “needs a
new military, one that is apolitical and professional, capable of
defeating all of the partisan forces and then serving as the kind of
strong, institution around which a new political system could be
organized and enforced.”
Without Western countries providing the
military, economic and political resources needed to stabilize Libya,
the country will continue to spawn instability throughout the region,
and provide terrorists the safe haven they need to train and plan future
attacks.
[
READ: A Growing Threat, But a Dithering President]
Clapper has also warned that the rest of the region is under threat.
Al-Qaida’s North African affiliate, al-Qaida in the Lands of the Islamic
Maghreb, “and affiliated groups are committed to continuing their
terrorist activity in the Sahel, including against Western interests.
They will probably seek to increase the frequency and scale of attacks
in northern Mali.”
Conclusion. Throughout the Middle East and North Africa,
Iran-backed Shiite forces are contending with the Sunni terrorist groups
al-Qaida and the Islamic State group for territory and influence.
Dangerously, this conflict is strengthening each of these actors by
inspiring a new generation of jihadi recruits.
The Wall Street Journal
noted in an editorial last
week that “The temptation in some American circles, including in parts
of the right, will be to let the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other
until they get tired of it. But that’s what the same sages said about
Syria’s civil war, which proceeded to spill into Iraq and midwife
Islamic State, which is now gaining adherents around the world.” Across
these conflicts, the United States must work instead to establish and
support legitimate governments that are not beholden to extremism, and
that reflect and respond to the will of their people. This effort will
require attention, planning and resources that the Obama administration
has neglected to provide. It is time for the president to recognize that
a largely hands-off approach to the war on terror has failed, and his
successor will be left with a vastly more dangerous world if he doesn’t
change course now.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/03/30/obamas-hands-off-war-on-terror-has-left-us-vulnerable-to-islamist-threats?int=935d08
