Open Relationship

The United States is doing something right in the war on terror.

BY FRANK CILLUFFO | FEBRUARY 15, 2012

Are Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) still the prime destination for jihad-minded foreign fighters from the West? The short answer is that we really don't know because empirical data is hard to find. Anecdotal evidence referenced by Western security officials, researchers, and even jihadists does suggest, however, that the FATA just might have lost its magnetic appeal. If so, we need to ensure that this positive development is not a fleeting one. And to determine the best way forward, we need to look at how and why it came to be.

But first, let's remember why this phenomenon matters. Foreign fighters, especially those emanating from the West, bolster terrorist and insurgent factions within conflict zones. Foreign fighters, as well as the bridge figures who recruit them, inspire, radicalize, and motivate individuals to the jihadi cause. Foreign fighters serve key operational and propaganda functions -- in essence, they provide both effect and affect. Their role makes them a threat to Western policy objectives. Together, their ability to return home, their Western passports, and their familiarity with potential targets they may select to attack make them a direct threat to Western security.

There is no shortage of examples of Westerners who trained in the FATA and then went on to execute (or attempt to execute) attacks against the West. Consider Najibullah Zazi, who planned to bomb the New York City subway but was thwarted by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials. Or Faisal Shahzad, the so-called Times Square bomber, whose car bomb fortunately fizzled. Or Mohammad Sidique Khan, the ringleader of the 7/7 homicide/suicide bombings that killed more than 50 and wounded over 700 in London in 2005. Or Eric Breininger, a young German national featured in propaganda videos of the Islamic Jihad Union, who was ultimately killed in Waziristan. And the list goes on.

It's definitely good news that there may be a drop in the number of Western foreign fighters traveling to the FATA, but it should come as no surprise. First and foremost, military actions -- including the use of drones -- have made the environment less hospitable for those traveling to it. These military activities have had significant operational effects on al Qaeda (and associated entities) by disrupting pipelines to the region, activities of key facilitators, and training camps. The challenge now is to continue, consolidate, and solidify these gains.

Recent U.S. and allied military successes undoubtedly serve also as a strong deterrent. Think of it as suppressive fire: The more time al Qaeda and its ilk spend looking over their shoulders, the less time they have to train, plot, and execute terrorist attacks. And with al Qaeda senior leaders on their back heels, now is the time to exploit this unique window of counterterrorism opportunity by maintaining, if not accelerating, the operational tempo.

John Moore/Getty Images

 

Frank Cilluffo directs the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. He is co-author of "Foreign Fighters: Trends, Trajectories & Conflict Zones" and previously served as special assistant to the president for homeland security under George W. Bush.

CHARLESFRITH

11:39 AM ET

February 15, 2012

The War On Terror Is Profitable Created Fiction

Why don't you sit down with Navy Seal Bill Brockbrader's testimony on Youtube to listen how the US guided Tomahawk missiles into Iraqi villages during peacetimeto create terrorism and radicalise Islam?

War is a racket and we know all the CFR names.

 

MARTY MARTEL

3:38 PM ET

February 15, 2012

Pakistan will continue to be world’s terror center

It is highly doubtful that so-called ‘anecdotal’ evidence is right.

Pakistani government owned by Pakistani Army/ISI has fathered and continues to father umpteen terrorist outfits on its soil. ‘Pakistan also suffering from same terrorism’ is just crocodile tears by Pakistani governments to divert the blame.

Pakistan has been successful - of producing cadre of terror as in a hatchery, of funding them, of selecting targets for them to attack, of nuclear proliferation and of running drugs internationally. Whenever the international society has confronted it with evidence of its complicity, it talks its way out brazenly.

The irony of the US-Pakistan relationship is that the US may set the agenda, but Pakistan invariably maneuvers the results. Despite an outward show of compliance, Pakistan is the decisive factor in this relationship. AS THE NECK IS TO A FACE, PAKISTAN HAS INVARIABLY DETERMINED THE DIRECTION IN WHICH AMERICA SHOULD TURN. The latest case in point is Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan in October, 2011. She had gone there accompanied by the defense and intelligence top brass on a mission to force compliance against terrorists safely ensconced in North Waziristan and Baluchistan, but Pakistani Generals stared them down.

Iraq was bombed mercilessly for far less and Muammar Gadaffi consigned to brutal death for reasons that remain opaque. Now Iran is on watch for its supposed nuclear status. But Pakistan manages consistently to escape censure. It has crossed and re-crossed the nuclear Rubicon at will, it has broken almost every norm of diplomatic behavior, and it stonewalls all queries about the misdoings of its ISI. Yet it faces no opprobrium.

The question that the international community often asks itself is this: How is it that Pakistan is able to get away with being dangerous to the rest of the world? Its footprint is clearly linked to terror strikes in most parts of the world. As former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, “Seventy per cent of terror plots in the UK have their source in Pakistan.” There may be a pause currently in terror attacks, but it is tactical and temporary.

Pakistan’s current attention is focused fully on Afghanistan. All terror activity is concentrated there with the single objective of making life difficult for the ISAF. American patience with Pakistan may be wearing thin but the harsh reality is that Pakistan doesn’t care. It knows that with the presidential election in the US drawing near, President Obama can’t escalate the war in Afghanistan. He will simply not be able to justify an increase in body bags to America. More crucially, Pakistan is convinced that America won’t be able to take it on militarily. The Pakistani Army has been so richly equipped and trained by the US that its soldiers may prove to be an equal match for any military force.

Whether the world likes it or not, Pakistani governorship of Afghanistan is more or less a given.

 

RON PLYMEL

11:37 PM ET

March 15, 2012

pakistan goverment - united nation - reguard the peace

In my opinion, United nation need to new policies to control the world peace. United nation need to control attack between the nations. And all government and everyone else in this world have to be responsibilities to prevent the wars and violence. Prevent the wars to the earth become more and more beautiful, peace and safe