New Anti-Terror Strategy: Obama Chooses the Small War
Published in Der Spiegel
(Germany) on 30 June 2011
by Yassin Musharbash (link to original)
(Germany) on 30 June 2011
by Yassin Musharbash (link to original)
Translated from
by Hannah Keet.
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
Torture is banned, and the pompous phrases from the Bush era are as passé as the global war on terrorism: Barack Obama's new anti-terrorism paper is almost exclusively on the hunt for al-Qaida, and the Europeans are being reprimanded for ransom payments to kidnappers.
The "National Strategy for Counterterrorism” includes 19 pages that John O. Brennan, President Obama's Homeland Security adviser, presented in Washington. It is a manifesto about the way in which the U.S. government assesses the threat of terrorism and how the U.S. wants to confront it.
Two and a half years have passed since Barack Obama’s assumption of office, almost 10 years since 9/11, and more than five years since the publication of the previous strategy, for which his predecessor, George W. Bush, had been responsible. So it was about time that the White House gave a detailed outline of its thoughts on the matter. In addition, the killing of Osama bin Laden provides a presumably welcome backdrop because his elimination can be added to the track record, which must, of course, be included in the paper.
"We have put al-Qaida on the path to defeat,” Obama proudly writes in the preface. He added, “In the past two and a half years, we have eliminated more key al-Qaida leaders in rapid succession than at any time since Sept. 11, 2001.” Nevertheless, according to the president, there is still a "significant terrorist threat from al-Qaida, its affiliates and its adherents.”
The Death of Osama bin Laden Is an “Important Strategic Milestone”
The paper leaves no doubt that the Obama administration believes it makes sense to clearly narrow the focus in the fight against terrorism. The war against al-Qaida has been put in place of the global war on terror. “We are not at war with the tactic of terrorism or the religion of Islam. We are at war with a specific organization — al-Qaida."
Bin Laden's death was the “most important strategic milestone” to date. But at the same time, the strategy often emphasizes — with foresight — that even the complete elimination of the al-Qaida headquarters would not end the threat. It says that the affiliates of the terrorist network or cooperating organizations elsewhere in the world also have the capacity of doing harm to the U.S. For the first time, the threat from so-called "homegrown terrorists” in the U.S. itself comes to the fore. The Obama administration has noticed how much al-Qaida and co. press for young radicals to strike on their own initiative.
Much of what is written in the paper is flowery and vague — for instance, when discussing undermining al-Qaida's ideology with demonstrated values. Having said this, over-exaggerated terms such as “rogue states,” that were introduced under Bush Jr., do not appear in the document. The White House also stressed — again in contrast to the previous government — the unconditional validity of constitutional rules and the rejection of torture. In addition, they stated that all anti-terrorist measures have a solid legal basis. However, U.S. human rights activists see this a little differently — for example, in regard to the status of prisoners at Guantanamo.
Compromises vis-à-vis Pakistan
But the document is also extremely pragmatic — for example, when it is clarified that the U.S. also works together with partners who “may not share U.S. values” and only have a few common interests with the U.S.
With Yemen in mind, there is even still some talk of supporting the country’s security authorities, although parts of the autocratic President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s U.S.-trained anti-terror units ultimately ought to have been implemented against protesters. Presumably, the experts in the administration can simply see no other alternative in order to get the better of al-Qaida’s powerful affiliates in the country.
Pakistan comes off very well in the document. It says: "We will defeat al-Qaida only through a sustained partnership with Pakistan." This statement is very mild and surprisingly friendly in light of the fact that relations between Pakistan and the U.S. are once again at a low point and that there is credible documentary evidence pointing toward the fact that some of the intelligence services in Pakistan (ISI) are working with jihad militants.
In the meantime, it is often indicated how vital the CIA drones are in order to weaken al-Qaida. Obama has massively expanded the operation of the armed, unmanned missiles since his assumption of office. A number of supposed top terrorists were murdered using these methods. However, human rights activists stress that civilians have also been killed by them. The missiles are not talked about openly; the program that everyone knows about is officially a secret.
Europeans Should Not Buy the Freedom of Hostages
The Europeans are clearly being reprimanded: “Through our diplomatic outreach, we will continue to encourage countries — especially those in Europe — to adopt a policy against making concessions to kidnappers.” This passage is aimed at the fact that several European countries — France in particular, but Germany too — have secretly paid a ransom for kidnapped citizens. According to the U.S. paper, these ransoms are an important source of income for al-Qaida's affiliates in North Africa.
The national strategy for fighting terrorism is not a singular document; if anything, it is a development of the national security strategy that Obama revised last year in a relatively narrow yet important area. It contains very little revolutionary material, and yet, it is so important; it stands for the final end to the Bush era in the fight against terrorism. It is on the same level analytically in almost all areas. Politically — see Yemen and Pakistan — it is visibly making compromises.
The "National Strategy for Counterterrorism” includes 19 pages that John O. Brennan, President Obama's Homeland Security adviser, presented in Washington. It is a manifesto about the way in which the U.S. government assesses the threat of terrorism and how the U.S. wants to confront it.
Two and a half years have passed since Barack Obama’s assumption of office, almost 10 years since 9/11, and more than five years since the publication of the previous strategy, for which his predecessor, George W. Bush, had been responsible. So it was about time that the White House gave a detailed outline of its thoughts on the matter. In addition, the killing of Osama bin Laden provides a presumably welcome backdrop because his elimination can be added to the track record, which must, of course, be included in the paper.
"We have put al-Qaida on the path to defeat,” Obama proudly writes in the preface. He added, “In the past two and a half years, we have eliminated more key al-Qaida leaders in rapid succession than at any time since Sept. 11, 2001.” Nevertheless, according to the president, there is still a "significant terrorist threat from al-Qaida, its affiliates and its adherents.”
The Death of Osama bin Laden Is an “Important Strategic Milestone”
The paper leaves no doubt that the Obama administration believes it makes sense to clearly narrow the focus in the fight against terrorism. The war against al-Qaida has been put in place of the global war on terror. “We are not at war with the tactic of terrorism or the religion of Islam. We are at war with a specific organization — al-Qaida."
Bin Laden's death was the “most important strategic milestone” to date. But at the same time, the strategy often emphasizes — with foresight — that even the complete elimination of the al-Qaida headquarters would not end the threat. It says that the affiliates of the terrorist network or cooperating organizations elsewhere in the world also have the capacity of doing harm to the U.S. For the first time, the threat from so-called "homegrown terrorists” in the U.S. itself comes to the fore. The Obama administration has noticed how much al-Qaida and co. press for young radicals to strike on their own initiative.
Much of what is written in the paper is flowery and vague — for instance, when discussing undermining al-Qaida's ideology with demonstrated values. Having said this, over-exaggerated terms such as “rogue states,” that were introduced under Bush Jr., do not appear in the document. The White House also stressed — again in contrast to the previous government — the unconditional validity of constitutional rules and the rejection of torture. In addition, they stated that all anti-terrorist measures have a solid legal basis. However, U.S. human rights activists see this a little differently — for example, in regard to the status of prisoners at Guantanamo.
Compromises vis-à-vis Pakistan
But the document is also extremely pragmatic — for example, when it is clarified that the U.S. also works together with partners who “may not share U.S. values” and only have a few common interests with the U.S.
With Yemen in mind, there is even still some talk of supporting the country’s security authorities, although parts of the autocratic President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s U.S.-trained anti-terror units ultimately ought to have been implemented against protesters. Presumably, the experts in the administration can simply see no other alternative in order to get the better of al-Qaida’s powerful affiliates in the country.
Pakistan comes off very well in the document. It says: "We will defeat al-Qaida only through a sustained partnership with Pakistan." This statement is very mild and surprisingly friendly in light of the fact that relations between Pakistan and the U.S. are once again at a low point and that there is credible documentary evidence pointing toward the fact that some of the intelligence services in Pakistan (ISI) are working with jihad militants.
In the meantime, it is often indicated how vital the CIA drones are in order to weaken al-Qaida. Obama has massively expanded the operation of the armed, unmanned missiles since his assumption of office. A number of supposed top terrorists were murdered using these methods. However, human rights activists stress that civilians have also been killed by them. The missiles are not talked about openly; the program that everyone knows about is officially a secret.
Europeans Should Not Buy the Freedom of Hostages
The Europeans are clearly being reprimanded: “Through our diplomatic outreach, we will continue to encourage countries — especially those in Europe — to adopt a policy against making concessions to kidnappers.” This passage is aimed at the fact that several European countries — France in particular, but Germany too — have secretly paid a ransom for kidnapped citizens. According to the U.S. paper, these ransoms are an important source of income for al-Qaida's affiliates in North Africa.
The national strategy for fighting terrorism is not a singular document; if anything, it is a development of the national security strategy that Obama revised last year in a relatively narrow yet important area. It contains very little revolutionary material, and yet, it is so important; it stands for the final end to the Bush era in the fight against terrorism. It is on the same level analytically in almost all areas. Politically — see Yemen and Pakistan — it is visibly making compromises.