Tough Context for US Pakistan Meeting

Islamabad Marriott, September 20, Photograph by BK Bangash/Associated Press

The new President of Pakistan and the outgoing President of the United States will meet on Tuesday in New York. Preparations for the meeting included the visit last week to Islamabad by Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen.

The Presidents' meeting has also been preceded by increasing US attacks on terrorist targets inside Pakistan. On September 17 - during Admiral Mullen's visit - missiles from a US drone hit a suspected terrorist hideout. This came on the heels of the first - reported - ground attack by US forces inside Pakistan on September 3. According to media reports, President Bush has authorized US operations inside Pakistan without Pakistani pre-approval. Whether or not the recent US attacks received Pakistani approval, they have created a political furor. (Overview from Time Magazine.)

Since their 2001 ouster in Afghanistan both the Taliban and al Qaeda have established safe havens inside Pakistan, especially in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). These safe havens are used to supply and train for attacks inside Afghanistan and elsewhere. In the last two weeks German police have made a series of arrests involving terrorist suspects who received training in Pakistan in 2006 and 2007.

In a videotape released on September 8 the Taliban and al Qaeda promised, "more major, large-scale attacks like the Kandahar prison operation, the Nuristan raid, the Sarobi ambush and Khost airport operation in which approximately 50 Americans and 100 apostates were killed and four helicopters were hit and destroyed." Over the last three months, insurgents have inflicted the highest casualty tolls on western forces since the Afghan war began nearly seven years ago. (See related story.)

US Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, has defended cross-border operations into Pakistan as a military necessity. The United States has pressed Pakistan for more aggressive action against the terrorist hideouts along the mountainous Afghan-Pakistan border. Saturday the Pakistan military claimed progress in a month-long offensive in the Bajaur area of the FATA.

But many are skeptical. On Saturday Nasim Zehra wrote in the Khaleej Times (Dubai, UAE), "The Taliban and the al Qaeda are now relatively more effective because they have strong intelligence, the locals have virtually minimal protection by the State, the Pakistan Army has not been successful in blocking the expansion and the power of these groups... What is now being achieved through the Pakistan Army operations in Bajaur? Reportedly minimal. Will the Pakistan Army win against the militants? It appears that the army operations have not succeeded to substantively weaken the Taliban and the al Qaeda."

Saturday morning a suicide bomber struck a Pakistani army convoy in North Waziristan killing at least ten soldiers. According to some reports there have been at least 900 Pakistani army casualties in counterterrorism operations since 2006.

On Saturday afternoon Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari gave a wide-ranging speech to Parliament insisting, "We will not tolerate the violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity by any power in the name of combating terrorism."

But President Zardari gave much more attention to the internal challenge of terrorism. "We must root out terrorism and extremism wherever and whenever they may rear their ugly heads. Reforming the tribal areas and bringing them into the mainstream of national life can no longer be delayed. They must be treated at par with the rest of their Pakistani brethren... Pakistan is at a critical security juncture today. In order to meet the challenge posed by the extremist and terrorist elements in the Tribal Areas and the adjoining regions, the Government has devised a comprehensive three-pronged strategy. First, to make peace with those who are willing to keep the peace and renounce violence; Second, to invest in the development and social uplift of the local people and Third, to use force only as a last resort against those who refuse to surrender their arms, take the law into their hands, challenge the writ of the Government and attack security forces."

Will this strategy be enough? For President Bush? For reducing terrorist operations in Afghanistan? For curtailing terrorist training targeted at Europe, the US, and elsewhere? For Zardari's survival? For Pakistan's survival?

Only a few hours after President Zardari's speech the Pakistani capital was shaken by the explosion of a massive vehicle bomb at the Marriott Hotel. (Published 1300 US Eastern, Saturday, September 20)

Follow-on coverage: Over 50 Killed, Pakistan's 9/11, Al Qaeda Suspected, Warning to US-PAK Coop, Zardari vows to Fight, Pakistani President Departs for New York.

Terrorists Target Elections

A video capture of a security image from the Madrid bombing on March 11, 2004. Distributed by El Pais.

This week the U.S. political season begins in earnest with the opening of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Between now and the inauguration (January 20) the potential for terrorism will amplify every knock in the night.

Last week white powder threats were aimed at John McCain and Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Warnings were given regarding the possible use of "cloned" vehicles to penetrate convention security. In the background very real terrorist bombs exploded in Algeria and Pakistan and a misguided US air strike allegedly killed dozens of Afghan civilians.

Over the summer several Washington insiders - with means and reason to know - have talked of a terrorist attack on the US in the "next eight months." The absence of conditionals has been striking. All of these individuals have signaled an attack as a matter of when not if.

Similar concerns preceded the 2004 elections. There was even talk of postponing the vote. As it turned out the terrorist intervention was limited to a bin-Ladin speech emphasizing a voter's responsibility: "I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No. Your security is in your own hands."

The most compelling evidence that al-Qaeda may time its attacks to effect an election is the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings that some argue changed the results of the general election three days later.

In a recent Washington Post editorial Brookings Institution expert Bruce Riedel wrote, "If it happened in Spain, it can happen here. The Madrid bombings reveal the close attention al-Qaeda pays to the electoral cycles in Western democracies. Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of one of the greatest mass murders in U.S. history, is certain to want to have his say in our elections this fall... The record is clear: Al-Qaeda has developed a predictable pattern of behavior over the decade since it declared war on the United States that provides important insights into what we can expect in the next six months. Brace yourselves."

American voters might be better braced by a fuller discussion of the issue prior to an attack or another last minute video. In an August 20 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars President Bush emphasized a continuing Global War on Terror. In the most recent Washington Post-ABC poll of registered voters the economy was the only priority issue producing a double digit response. Terrorism was not perceived to be important enough for the pollsters to even list. Or maybe terrorism was covered by "an unexpected major crisis."

Unexpected?

Policing and Politics Pushed for Counter-Terrorism

Multiple terrorist bombings rocked India, Turkey and Iraq last week. Above is a photograph of the aftermath of a July 27 bombing in Ahmadabad, India. (AP Photo/Ajit Solanki)

A preview of the new National Defense Strategy leaked last week (purposefully?) identifies terrorism as the principal threat to the United States:

For the foreseeable future, (the strategic) environment will be defined by a global struggle against a violent extremist ideology that seeks to overturn the international state system. Beyond this transnational struggle, we face other threats, including a variety of irregular challenges, the quest by rogue states for nuclear weapons, and the rising military power of other states. These are long-term challenges. Success in dealing with them will require the orchestration of national and international power over years or decades to come.

The NDS preview concludes, "... winning the Long War against violent extremist movements will be the central objective of the U.S. We must defeat violent extremism as a threat to our way of life as a free and open society and foster an environment inhospitable to violent extremists and all those who support them."

In another report released last week a RAND study, conducted in cooperation with the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, focuses on "how terrorist groups end" - whether in defeat or withering away. The study examined the experience of 648 terrorist organizations operating over the last half-century. According to the report, "... most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory. These findings suggest that the U.S. approach to countering al Qa'ida has focused far too much on the use of military force. Instead, policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts."

Does RAND fundamentally disagree with the National Defense Strategy? Not really.

The DOD strategy emphasizes, "The use of force plays a role, yet military efforts to capture or kill terrorists are likely to be subordinate to measures to promote local participation in government and economic programs to spur development, as well as efforts to understand and address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies. For these reasons, arguably the most important military component of the struggle against violent extremists is not the fighting we do ourselves, but how well we help prepare our partners to defend and govern themselves."

Both reports suggest politicking and policing are usually the most effective measures against terrorism. Military operations can be - even with the most sophisticated planning - a blunt instrument more effective for short-term containment than long-term resolution.

This has arguably been the case with most historical examples, whether the "terrorist" is a 19th Century Anarchist or an 11th Century Assassin of Alamut or a 20th Century freedom fighter. Military power can set some conditions, but resolution has almost always depended on transforming the potential terrorist's sense of purpose to lessen the value of violence.

UASI Grants More Widely Distributed

On July 25 the Department of Homeland Security announced $1.8 billion in federal Homeland Security grants. This included $781.6 million for the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) program.

Sixty urban areas have been selected to participate in the UASI program. This is up from 46 cities last year and is the largest number of jurisdictions to participate in the program.

There are seven so-called Tier I UASI recipients:

• New York: $144,189,000 in FY2008 UASI grants
• Newark/Jersey City: $34,988,000
• Los Angeles: $70,402,500
• San Francisco: $37,155,000
• Chicago: $45,861,500
• Houston: $37,500,000
• Washington D.C. $59,800,500

The "urban area" receiving the grant includes much more than the principal city.

The fifty-three Tier II recipients range from Toledo, Ohio ($1,264,500 ) and Bridgeport, Connecticut ($1,967,000) to Philadelphia ($18,139,000) and Dallas/Ft. Worth ($20,321,500). A listing of all 2008 recipients is available from the Department of Homeland Security.

Most Tier I jurisdictions did not see much change in funding from 2006-2007 to 2008. Tier II cities have tended to receive reduced grants as more areas have been added. For example in FY2006 Toledo received $3,850,000. In 2006 Louisville, Kentucky received $8,520,000, this year it will receive $1,421,500. Some of the difference has been made up with funding from other grant programs. But there is a clear trend to distribute UASI funds in a less-concentrated fashion.

The Tier I recipients often complain that they need even more funding. In 2007 Senate testimony New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said, "“Time and time again, our calls for fully risk-based homeland security funding have been ignored,” the mayor said. “Instead, we have seen large sums of homeland security money spread across the country like peanut butter. More than $3 billion has been distributed in this irrational way so far.”

Risk is an outcome of threat, vulnerability, and consequence. Tier I areas receive a much greater proportion of UASI grants because their population density and economic importance would multiply the consequence of any successful attack. But as sustained efforts to reduce the vulnerability of these areas are effective, threats may shift to more vulnerable areas.

In August 1998 the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania were bombed. These targets were chosen after the first World Trade Center bombing (1993) was not entirely successful and reflected a combination of local vulnerability and local terrorist capability. A bombing of three state capitols - Sacramento, Austin, and Richmond - might achieve terrorist objectives as well as an attack on any Tier I city... and be easier too.

UASI funds give priority to regional, inter-agency, multi-disciplinary planning, organization, training, and exercising focused on terrorist threats. There is also a particular concern with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Drug-related Violence Shakes Mexico

Mexican troops at a controlled burn of 23 tons of cocaine in Manzanillo (November 2007) Photograph by Alfredo Estrella/AFP

Since his 2006 inauguration Mexican President Felipe Calderon has increased pressure on his nation's drug lords. The cartels have pushed back hard.

According to Mexican reports released this week there were 443 drug-related murders in June and nearly 4700 since President Calderon assumed office. Murder victims have included the federal police chief and, in the first half of 2008 alone, over 400 other police. As violence escalates it has increasingly swept up ordinary citizens not involved in law enforcement or the drug trade (See Houston Chronicle July 19 report).

In a July 12 interview with the Financial Times, the Mexican intelligence chief explained that the drug cartels are "trying to take over the power of the state." A report by the Mexican Attorney General's office found that at least 80 municipal governments are already under the control of the drug cartels.

According to the Congressional Research Service over 90 percent of the US cocaine supply transits Mexico. Roughly 35 million Americans have used cocaine in their lifetime. Regular US users are estimated at 2.4 million (US Department of Justice figures). The 2006 US street price ranged from $9000 to $52,000 per kilogram. Unofficial 2008 estimates suggest an average price of about $20,000 per kilogram. Crack cocaine, a popular derivative, is priced from $5 to $100 per "rock". The total value of the US market for the cocaine trade exceeds $70 billion per year.

On June 30 President Bush signed Congressional legislation providing $465 million for the so-called Merida Initiative to assist Mexico in combating drug trafficking. According to a US State Department statement, "Daily developments on the ground in Mexico and Central America demonstrate the urgent need for action. The criminal organizations, under great pressure by law enforcement agencies, are behaving in increasingly violent ways. Our partners in the region are confronting transnational gangs and criminal organizations at great personal and financial costs. It is in the national security interest of the United States to support our partners’ fight against this scourge, prevent further violence from spilling over our border, and make our streets safe once again from drug and gang-related crime. They are doing their part – we must do ours."

The same Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTO) fighting against the Mexican government are major drug retailers in the United States. In April 2008 the US National Drug Intelligence Center reported, "Mexican DTOs are the most pervasive threat to the United States. They are active in every region of the country and dominate the illicit drug trade in every area except the Northeast. Mexican DTOs are expanding their operations in the Northeast and have developed cooperative relationships with DTOS in that area in order to gain a larger share of the northeastern drug market." More details are available from the NDIC.

The increase in violence is claimed by some as indicating the desperate state of the Mexican drug cartels. But others argue a government victory is far from inevitable. "They are accelerating the violence. We've never had this kind of conflict in the country," said Samuel Gonzalez, the head of Mexico's anti-organized crime unit in the late 1990s and now a professor at Mexico's ITAM university.

"The cartels have an infinite capacity to recruit hitmen. The violence will keep rising with one extra factor: the state is losing force all the time as it spends money on the army, while the others are getting income from drugs," he said. (More from Reuters).

(The New York Times maintains a helpful collection of news reports and external resources on Mexican drug trafficking.)