Turkey and Israel: Diplomatic Positioning or a Dangerous Game of Chicken?

Last week Turkey expelled Israel's top diplomats and ended all military cooperation. After 9 Turks were killed in the flotilla incident last year Turkey threaten repository action. Now that the UN recently declared Israel's actions at the flotilla were excessive but legal, Turkey has begun a series of diplomatic moves to show their discontent with Israel's actions. First, they expelled Israel's top diplomats and then threaten to move some naval assets into the Mediterranean. Next Turkey announced that is might use those naval assets to provide a military escort for the next flotilla that attempts to breach Israel's blockade of Gaza. The entire episode has been very unfortunate. Turkey has been a partner with Israel for years and their joint military ventures has provide Muslim-Israeli cooperation. So one has to ask, what does Turkey's recent positioning really mean and what do both sides have to loose or gain?

First, any attempt by Turkish battleships to breach the Israel blockade would be an act of war. The international community has declared the blockade legal which gives Israel even more incentive to confront any move by the Turkish Navy. Turkey has more to loose than Israel in starting a military altercation. Turkey has been attempting to join the EU for years and confirmation with the Israeli navy is certainly not going to help their membership bid. Also it would most likely result in both a military and international embarrassment. Given that it is extremely unlikely that Turkey would attempt to forcibly breach the blockade, one can ascertain that the statements about a flotilla escort are meant as rhetoric to appease the Turkish public and to send a message to Israel. The exposition of diplomats is also a symbolic move. The countries still have diplomatic ties, which means Turkey sees its relationship with Israel as productive.

The end of military cooperation is a little more complicated and has more negative consequences for Israel. Turkey has gained a lot of new military technology from Israel, including many types of UAV drones. Some have speculated that now that Turkey has successfully purchased weapons from Israel it has little incentive to keep up the relationship. I am not sure this is true. The move to end military relations might also be diplomatic positioning. However, Israel is the one to loose here. Not only has Israel sold advanced equipment to Turkey, but Turkey can also provide airspace for Israel in the event of a confirmation with Iran. If Turkey denies Israel access to their airspace it would make if more difficult to bomb Iran. In addition to denial of airspace, Israel has to consider loosing and important partner in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Hamas recruits from Turkey and loosing help in that area will serious damage Israel's efforts to curb Hamas.

Most of Turkey's actions in the last week can be seen as attempts to follow though on theirs threats following the death of nine of their citizens. Israel has not apologized and that is probably a good thing at this points. An apology right after the fact would have gone a long way, but now would make Israel appear weak visa v Turkey.  Right now the best thing is for both Turkey and Israel to take a time out more or less. Miscalculated moves to could lead to more than symbolic action and for Israel that would not be good in the long run. Turkey would be crazy to continue to push relations with Israel in negative direction, because Turkey has a lot, both economically and military, to gain from partnership with Israel. The events of the last week have really be nothing more than diplomatic positioning, but too much rhetoric may lead to foolish actions. However, I don't see Turkish leadership being stupid enough to engage Israel in a game of chicken over the blockade. Israel doesn't play chicken. Israel responds to military threats by destroying the opposition.

How al-Qaeda Sees Us..

Last week I attended a lecture by a security adviser from the RAND Corp. and I was intrigued by something he said and I would like to relay that here. The speaker discussed why it is important for us to understand the way al-Qaeda sees us and gave the following example. I would also like to touch on how and why al-Qaeda thinks they can and will defeat the US.

Before the US invasion of Iraq, but after the invasion of Afghanistan, bin Laden released a statement decrying the Bush Administration as "worse than Hulagu Khan." Most US officials shrugged this off and said, "who on earth in Hulagu Khan?" Arabs never asked who he was. For them Khan was the symbol of everything destructive and threatening to Islam. Hulagu Khan was the grandson of Genghis Khan and he conquered much of South East Asia. In 1255 Hulagu demanded that the Islamic Caliphate in Baghdad submit to the rule of the Khan's. At the time Baghdad was the center of Islamic power. The Caliphate refused to comply and the Khan rallied his army and completely sacked Baghdad and then as an act of defiance he stabled his Calvary in the most important mosque. the Khan then plundered one Muslin country after another, sacking Damascus, and marching through Palestine. He was on his was to Ciaro when a death in the Khan's royal family forced him to return home.

What is interesting about this story is that this is how bin Laden and many other Muslims view the actions of the United States. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq a picture surfaced showing US soldiers in the same mosque that Hulagu Khan had stabled his horses. This irony seemed to underscore bin Laden's claims and perpetuated the idea of the America as a destroyer of Islam. In other words many of our enemies see us as the new barbarians. This comparison is  clearly not reflected in reality, and yet it is a powerful part of their identity and political dialogue. This view also leads to the justification of terrorist attacks. Lastly, it is important for the United States to understand just how they see our actions. Not so we can accommodate them, but rather because we need to promote a counter narrative in the Arab world and utilize this understanding to defeat them. When Gen. Patton defeated Gen. Rommel in the first Allied armor victory in North Africa, Patton stood up in his jeep and said, "Rommel you glorious bastard, I read your book!" (Rommel had written a book on tank warfar) We need to be able to read al-Qaeda's book.

The next thing I would like to discuss out is how and why al- Qaeda thinks it can possibly defeat the United States. Al-Qaeda and most other Arab jihad terror groups draw on the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan as proof of their ability to defeat the United States. From their perspective the war was dragging on between the Aghan fighter and the USSR when the Arab volunteers arrived. Despite the fact that the Arab mujaheddin were completely useless and despised by the Afghan's, Muslim Arabs saw themselves as warriors defeating a super power. When the USSR eventually withdrew from Afghanistan and shortly after collapsed, the Muslim Arabs saw this as a victory for Islam and a restoration of Arab strength.Arab Muslims bought into the fallacy that the Arab volunteers had somehow brought down the USSR. In reality it was the hard work of the Afghans, a crumbling USSR, and American stinger missiles that really defeated the USSR. Internal issues and crisis brought on the end of the USSR and nothing else. However this myth of Arab warriors in Afghanistan defeating a super power lives on. Bin Laden used to invoke the defeat of the USSR as evidence of al-Qaeda's ability to not only defeat the US but also the West in general.

The above is just two examples of al-Qaeda's thinking. I think it is good food for thought and would like to hear what you, as the reader, think about this instead of me presenting analysis. Does al-Qaeda's views surprise you? Does it play into our hand? What can we learn?

Keys Points from the US 2011 Counter Terrorism Strategy

In June the Obama Administration published the 2011 Counterterrorism Strategy and  I have outlined what I consider to be the major points.

It is Not Over-
A reoccurring theme throughout the strategy was that the effort to defeat Al-Qaeda is not likely to be over soon. However, Al-Qaeda has been weakened and remains vulnerable.


War on Terror vs. War on Al-Qaeda-
The strategy was careful not use the term "War on Terrorism," which it considesr to be a war on a tactic rather than against the real enemy. The administration prefered to use the term "War on Al-Qaeda." This is a significant difference from the Bush administration's use of the term war on terror and effectively limits the scope of US efforts to combating Al-Qaeda affiliates and adherence.

Civil Liberties vs. Security-
A major focus of the strategy was the preservation of civil liberties.  It acknowledged that America's values are what makes the nation strong and better equipped to fight terrorism. Torture in any form was rejected as being in conflict with our values and as being an ineffective tool. Seeing so much attention given to the preservation of civil liberties is in my mind important. What remains to be seen is whether those values are upheld in practice.

Areas of Focus-
Something else important that stood out was the attention given to certain countries. Pakistan and Afghanistan still top the list of high priories, which is  unlikely to change for a long time. Other countries though, such as Yemen and Somalia, were pinpointed as countries of critical importance to defeating Al-Qaeda. Limited resources dictate that we cannot be everywhere, so focusing resources on Yemen (home to AQAP) and Somalia (home to Al-Shabaab) is wise.

International Cooperation-
Lastly, the strategy places importance on working with other nations. The US will continue to work with other nations that do not share any of our value or interests other than defeating Al-Qaeda.This is not any different than previous strategies, but bears mentioning. In essence, reality dictates these temporary alliances.


What is missing?-
While the strategy as a whole is sound and on the right track, one thing appeared to be missing to me. There is no mention of de- radicalization initiatives or whether on not the US needs to start developing one. It is implied that the US is working with global partners in their de-radicalization programs, but there is no mention of them directly. I think this issue of de-radicalization should have been mention and a need or lack of a need for a program in the US discussed briefly. Or, it could have said that the government does not view these programs as successful. Other western countries are beginning to feel the need for de-rad programs and I think that the US would be wise to articulate a position or at least see if we have a need.

Link to the 2011 Counterterrorism Strategy

Call it Like it is: Yemen is Experiencing Full Blown Civil War

As the crisis in Yemen grows worse every day, the main stream media has beat around the bush when describing this violence. No major media outlet (CNN WSJ, NYT, and others) are willing to call the conflict a full blown civil war. They prefer to continue to describe events as moving it closer to civil war. My question? What do you have to do to earn the title of a civil war these days? Simply stated, Yemen is engaged in civil war. The mobs and rocks have given way to militias and bullets. Here are a few reasons why Yemen is in the middle of a civil war.

To begin, the riots that began in Yemen should be understood within the context a revolution. A revolution takes place when civilians revolt against the government to rapidly change the structure and power of that government. This is in contrast to a civil war where war breaks out between two or more organized groups within the same nation state. The later is what is currently taking place in Yemen. In the past few weeks the Hashid Tribal Alliance and, as of June 1, the Bakil Tribal Alliance have been fighting pro-President Salah forces and captured key areas in the capital of Sana. While the fighing has been ravaging the capital city, other militant groups are taking advantage of the situation. On May 29th al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) asserted their strength by capturing the city of Zinjibar.  The fact that AQAP is brazenly raising their head in Yemen, to the point of actual seizing a city, reveals that the central government of Yemen is imploding (not that it has ever been strong).

More significant than the tribal attacks within Sana or AQAP capturing Zinjibar is Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar one of Yemen's major generals. He defected from the government last month, and has now sent soldiers to fight pro-Salah troops in the capital. When major generals defect and send regular soldiers to fight presidential troops, there should be no question about whether or not a country has collapsed into civil war. To put things in perspective Gen. al-Ahmar has at least 40,000 soldier loyal to him (including mechanized units) and the tribes have tens of thousands more. President Salah has at least 50-60,000 loyal soldiers. So ignoring all the other armed tribes and generals in Yemen, as of today over 100,000 soldiers are at odds with one another. There is a civil war in Yemen and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. No one gains from this situation, except groups like AQAP and I would put my money on Yemen becoming the next Afghanistan (severely failed terror state) unless something changes and changes quickly. President Salah has been a good friend of the Unites States and has worked to fight AQAP and any loss of control means an opportunity for our enemies.

Let me know if you think Yemen is experiencing civil war by checking out my poll at the bottom of this page!

After Bin Laden, Part 1 of 2: Why it Matters

On May 1st a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan was raided by US Navy Seals and a fire fight ensued that left American's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, dead. As crowds fill the streets in celebration, we are left with many questions about the future of al-Qaeda and America's operations.  Some are saying that the death of bin Laden is no longer important. On the other hand some seem to think that the War in Afghanistan or the war on terror, for that matter, is over. Both views couldn't be farther from the truth. To put it bluntly, the killing of Osama bin Laden is the most significant victory yet in a 10 year war, but it is not the end. To really understand the significance of the death of bin Laden and why it matters, it is necessary to look beyond the last few years or even beyond September 11, 2001. However, due to the amount of information to be cover, I will write it in two parts. In part one, I will present my analysis on why this event is so important. In part two, I will discuss what it may mean for the future of al-Qaeda and US counter-terrorism efforts.

Why it Matters That Bin Laden is Dead
Bin Laden is the linchpin both financially and symbolically for al-Qaeda and for many affiliated Islamic terror organizations. After a victorious bin Laden returned from waging Jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980's he became a symbol for many Muslims of what Islam should be: righteous, simple and victorious. Soon after returning to Saudi Arabia he began to lash out against the corrupted Arab Regimes and then against the United States, who he saw as the oppressor of Muslims worldwide. Unlike others who hated the United States bin Laden took action and formed al-Qaeda. Also, unlike many other terrorist leaders, bin Laden had the millions to fund his organization and whatever country that offered him safe haven (Sudan and then Afghanistan). In the past 18 years, bin Laden has been able to create a massive global terror network (including cells in many western countries and has carried out several catastrophic attacks against the US and her allies.

Within the study of terrorism most scholars refer to the leadership of al-Qaeda (those that surrounded bin Laden) in Pakistan and Afghanistan as "al-Qaeda Central." Al-Qaeda Central suffered severe organizational and personal damage after the US invasion of Afghanistan. However, in recent years it has been making a comeback. While al-Qaeda Central does not exercise direct commend and control over its global franchises, such as al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, it serves as a financing, training, planning, and ideological head. Killing bin Laden deprived al-Qaeda Central of its number one leader, and essentially decapitated the global network. This in and of itself if very important from an organizational standpoint.

As bin Laden launched successful attacks against the US, he lost some support from moderate Muslims, but gained a dedicated following of radical Muslims, especially youth.  He served as a symbol of a man standing up against yet another superpower. The fact that he killed thousands only made him more attractive. Use of the internet and person recruiting pulled in these radicals and strengthened al-Qaeda. Now that bin Laden is dead, that symbol severely damaged. It is true that he will now be revered by his followers as a shaheed (martyr) and still as a symbol, but the demoralization effect must be huge. It is no longer true, that bin Laden will defeat the US or another superpower. He was shot in the head like so many terrorists before him. It shows that even the best will get killed. Bin Laden was a strong symbol to rally around and now that is gone, without a likely replacement. There are experienced leaders who can take his place, but none have the charisma or respect of bin Laden.

In the same way that Bin Laden's symbolism and charisma motivated Jihadists worldwide, his money has enabled al-Qaeda to weather many hard times when other terror organizations have failed. In fact, many analysts believe a major factor that drove al-Zawahiri (al-Qaeda's number 2 man, now number one) to merge his Islamic Egyptian Jihad to al-Qaeda was because of a lack of funds. The millions that bin Laden personally used for terrorism, and his donor connections in the Gulf states proved vital to the longevity of his organization. Now that this jackpot is gone, funding is likely to be looming obstacle for whoever takes over. Rich radical Muslims will still donate to jihad, but that is already happening and won't replace the loss of bin Laden. Above and beyond bin Laden's money, he also brought expertise. As a businessman and construction operator, bin Laden self-financed and self-built infrastructure, defense systems, and businesses. Again these key organization components that bin Laden personally brought to al-Qaeda will now suffer.


To sum up, the death of bin Laden hurt al-Qaeda in a way that nothing else could. Despite this huge loss, I firmly believe that al-Qaeda will live on, at least in the near future, as will radical Islam. However, the significance of removing bin Laden from the picture is monumental from the standpoint of defeating al-Qaeda and bringing stability to Afghanistan. I have not even mentioned the justice factor. Even Americans who were not directly effected by the September 11th attacks, were attacked emotionally and psychologically, as the terrorists intended. Now justice has been served, and for many Americans and even people worldwide this event brings some kind of closure and relief. This leads me to part two: what killing bin Laden may mean for the future of al-Qaeda and US counter-terrorism efforts.

P.S. Be sure to fill out my poll at the bottom of this page on how you felt about bin Laden's death!

Bin Laden is Dead!

I have much to say on this matter, but for now I will just post the text of the President's speech (Link to CNN Video). I also want to thank all of America's service men and women who have sacrificed to make this possible! The fight is not over, but this is clearly the biggest break yet for the US, and hardest blow against our enemies.

President Obama: Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world, the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory -- hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.
And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.
On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.
We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.
Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort. We've disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.
Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.
For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda's leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al Qaeda.
Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There's no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must --- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad.
As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not --- and never will be --- at war with Islam. I've made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.
Over the years, I've repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we've done. But it's important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.
Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who's been gravely wounded.
So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda's terror: Justice has been done.
Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.
We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.
Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.
And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.
The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it's the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.
Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

Democracy Finnish Style: The 2011 Election and a Conservative Surge

Tampere Finland

Yesterday Finland held elections for the House of Representatives and I had the opportunity to be a casual observer here in Tampere Finland. After working for more than seven years in US domestic politics I was surprised at the similarities, but mostly the contrasts. I went with my wife and brother-in-law (both Finns) to the polls when they voted. Finland regulates campaigning far more than the US does and I was surprised at the orderliness, silence and complete lack of excitement that accompanied the election. As we walked to the polls the only sign of an election was a few billboards with a list of pictures, names and election numbers for the leftist Social Democratic Party. Finnish flags also appeared on many buildings where they had been absent the day before, but there were no yards signs, rallies, activists, door-to-door campaigning, or phone banking. We simply went to a high school where eight workers monitored the voting.

As I lingered in the lobby waiting for my family to cast their votes, I analyzed a sample ballot and counted 15 parties running candidates. This represents over twice the number of parties I saw on the ballot back home during the past US election. Finland has a hybrid government structure that is something between a presidential (US) and parliamentary (UK). This is called a semi-presidential system. Out of the 15 parties running, winners and loosers will have to form a coalition government (normally the top three parties are the only ones that matter).

One of the similarities between the past 2010 US election and the present Finish election was the shift from left to right on the political spectrum. The headline of the Finnish newspaper Aamulehti read, "Revolution" (Vallankumous). Just as the Tea Party and Republican Party swept away the liberal Democratic Party in the US, a similar phenomenon took place here yesterday. With 70.4% of the eligible voters voting, and with 98.8 % of the votes counted, the numbers are:

National Coalition (right of center) 20.1%, down from 50 to 44 seats, but now largest party
Social Democratic Party (left of center) 19.2%, down from 45 to 42 seat, second largest.
True Finns (right of center) 19.1%, from 5 to 39 seats and had the largest gains by far (similar as a "political phenomenon" to the Tea Party movement in the US, but organized, established as a party, and pushing different issues).
Center Party 15.9% (moderate to right of center) down from 51 to 35 seats, representing the greatest loss.
Left Party 8.2% (leftist) down from 17 to 14 seats.
Green Party (leftist) 7.2% down from 15 to 10 seats.

Without a doubt this election shifted politics in Finland to a more conservative position with conservative parties taking at least 118 seats. The major issue that seemed to really drive this election was discontent with Finnish membership in the EU. Many Finns now feel that is was a mistake to have joined the EU in 1995. The True Finns Party that swept in this election from a place of obscurity to the third largest party, campaigned mainly on the principle of leaving the EU. Many Finns are angry that Finland is bailing out the economies of other EU members and see many political leaders as having no plan if the EU fails, leaving Finland without even so much as a central bank. Another issue was opposition to current immigration policies. The rise of a new right-of-center-party like the True Finns  draws a striking similarity to the past US election when discontented Americans were attracted to the Tea Party and more conservative stances.