WHY ARE WE STILL CHASING SHADOWS IN AFGHANISTAN?

It is six years since President Bush promised to “smoke out” Osama Bin Laden the way he smoked out the bad guys when he was Governor of Texas. The reality, however, is that there are few signs the man responsible for the attacks of 9/11 is going to be caught soon, or for that matter the drug lords who have made Afghanistan a global hub for heroin and cocaine. So, why is it that given the hi-tech weaponry at our disposal, the vast array of surveillance equipment in the hands of our CIA and military, including spy satellites and drones, as well as the best trained special forces soldiers in the world, we still appear to be chasing shadows?
The reasons are many and complex. Some relate to 2002/2003 when the White House took its eye off Afghanistan and shifted intelligence and resources to Iraq to destroy the Saddam Hussein regime. Now, there is also the continuing debate within NATO about which tactics are best suited to dealing with the Afghan conflict. Some European nations are more concerned with marginalizing the Taliban than looking for Bin Laden and prefer not to adopt a USA policy of direct military action, involving the heavy use of air power. Others oppose allowing Special Forces to operate without permission on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border to deprive Al Qaeda and the Taliban of training sites and to interdict their drug and weapons’ supply routes. There is also the disturbing, even heated debate within NATO with the US warning that some NATO countries, like Germany, have lost their appetite for the fight in Afghanistan. That claim comes at a time when the US military is much too committed in Iraq to send any more ground troops to Afghanistan. To add to this complex tapestry, the Afghan government led by Hamid Karzai is not always been supportive of US policy, while across the border in Pakistan the government there is at best been lukewarm when asked to take control of tribal areas where Bin Laden and his followers are known to have sanctuary.
All of those issues do not, however, fully explain how the Al Qaeda leader and several of his closest advisers have been able to meet journalists and provide video, audio and written messages for television and radio networks. Many of the messages have more often than not found their way onto the worldwide Web. The fact is that terrorists have become smarter at communicating; making it difficult for the major intelligence services like the CIA to track them down using “sweeping devices” designed to intercept radio and telecommunications devices such as mobile phones. Terrorists know that a phone call can be picked out of the ether and can be fed through super computers that not only search for key words but can identify the geographical location of a call. In fact, every second of every hour across the globe there are millions of calls being scanned by giant computers within a secret network controlled by the US and Britain. In response, terrorists have found other ways of communicating to the world by falling back on the simplest of methods. One of those is using trusted couriers - men, women and children, who blend into the population. Then, there is the regular mail in which a simple package or envelope draws little attention. In Afghanistan it is not difficult to find other ways to transport messages. One of the most effective is to rely on “mules” working for drugs lords. They use trails and methods of illegal shipment that have been developed over centuries in Afghanistan. Drug lords need the protection of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and in return they are often prepared to hide messages in drugs being routed to Iran, China, Pakistan or some of the former Russian republics.
Osama Bin Laden and those closest to him have remained secure from detection by hiding out in tribal areas in Pakistan, close to the Afghan border, where the tradition is to guarantee protection to visitors. Luckily for him, the Pakistani military has shown no great desire to subdue those areas in order to capture him. Bin Laden is also well protected by his own internal security apparatus that is shaped like Saturn’s moons with the protective layers moving outwards from the center – those layers are comprised of mature fighters linked by family and tribal connections.
A major reason why it is hard to get to Bin Laden is that unless in intelligence parlance you can “put eyes” on him and his inner circle you cannot determine how the inner circle functions, or devise ways to penetrate it. As a rule, intelligence agencies recruit informants from within an insurgent population and turn them into agents. Those informants are often the most effective agents because they have local knowledge. They are also familiar with local customs and are accepted by their peer groupings. Recruiting and training such agents can take a great deal of time. To recruit them you have to study them, learn their weaknesses and identify how those weaknesses can be exploited through sexual blackmail, financial inducements or clever interrogation methods. In other conflicts, terrorist agents have proved to be highly effective weapons, though sometimes they have also been unreliable because of the very weaknesses that made them vulnerable to recruitment in the first place. Essentially, the use of such agents is the only sure way to break into the Al Qaeda network. Unfortunately, it has not been easy to recruit captured Al Qaeda members because many have gone through anti-interrogation training and would rather die than betray the organization. Some people will dispute that, pointing to the fact that Khaled Sheik Mohammed, the Al Qaeda mastermind, broke under pressure. But, he was subjected to extreme interrogation and we may never know if what he confessed to was the truth. Talking under torture does not mean a person will agree to become a spy or terrorist agent.
In the final analysis, Bin Laden will remain elusive until his inner circle is penetrated by a terrorist agent recruited by the CIA or Pakistani intelligence or until an Al-Qaeda courier is caught close to one of his many hideouts.
As for “smoking out” the drug lords who ship massive quantities of cocaine and heroin out of Afghanistan and share their profits with terrorists there seems little urgency within NATO to find them and bring them to justice. Yet, they present as big a threat as Bin Laden because they help bankroll organized crime across the globe and a nexus between organized crime and terrorism is not simply a fiction. Organized crime syndicates will willingly provide any item that will profit and that could include a canister of enriched uranium. The reasons for the failure of NATO to track down the drugs lords lie once again in the peculiar political tapestry that is Afghanistan. Like Al-Qaeda, drug lords use simple methods to move their drugs and it might not require complex tactics to identify those men, isolate them and arrest them. It would, however, require agreement and a united political will.

JAPAN MAY NOT GET F-22 FIGHTERS

Following a leak in Japan of sensitive intelligence related to a US advanced radar system, the Japanese may not get the F-22 fighters they had hoped to buy for their Air Self Defense Force.
The F-22, sometimes referred to as the Raptor is America’s most advanced fighter aircraft on the planet with a stealth capability that gives it an edge over its Russian and Chinese competitors. Its true speed potential is classified though it is said to be able to travel in excess of speeds over 1,300 miles per hour in what is sometimes referred to as super-cruise, meaning it can reach supersonic speeds with a full weapons load without deploying afterburners. The fact that it can function at such high speeds while at very high altitudes has also set it apart from other fighters.
Described as one of the most complex fighters ever made, its main distinction is its full stealth mode and the fact it can perform almost like a small AWAC’s – early warning system. For example, it can identify and plot targets for other fighters or bombers. It can also carry Smart bombs as well as missiles and launch its missiles in seconds without betraying its presence. Its designers were so confident of its ability to remain invisible that they only equipped it with one gun which the pilot could use a last resort if he suddenly found he was on a dogfight. The weapon is a 20mm cannon loaded with 480 rounds that would last only 5 seconds on automatic fire.
Japan and Australia have been pressing the US for the past year to sell them Raptors, knowing the version they would likely get would not contain all its secret avionics for fear those could fall into the hands of the enemy. Israel lobbied Washington for some time too but was turned down though it was reported in some circles that the price of $200 million per plane did not sit well with the Israeli Air Force. It had expected it would get the planes on the cheap. The Australian Air Force also balked at the massive price tag before saying it would not buy Raptors because they lacked a multi-role capability. However, the real reason they backed out of a deal was that they had been told secretly by Washington that the Federal Government would not issue export licenses for the planes.
Congress reinforced a ban on the foreign sale of Raptors in December 2006 after the Department of Defense expressed the view that even selling the advanced fighter to allies risked having some of its most sensitive elements exposed to copying by spies. A less expensive version of the fighter, the F-35 Lightning II, is being built by Britain and the US and will soon become available to allies.
Aside from the security concerns related to any potential export of the Raptor, another major reason for not letting allies have it with some of its most sensitive items stripped from it was the fact that it had cost so much to build it could not be sold at a reduced price. Japan, however, made it clear it was willing to pay the retail price of $200 million per plane and recently it looked like it might be able to persuade the Federal Government and Congress to agree a deal. The prospect of a deal was quickly placed on the back burner following the leaking last year by four Japanese naval instructors of classified US intelligence related to its Aegis naval combat system. The intelligence was leaked by the instructors to their students in direct breach of agreements reached between the US navy and its Japanese counterpart. The Aegis is a defense system whereby computers can guide missiles to multiple targets or direct them to intercept incoming missiles. Its highly advanced radar capability is not limited to ship to ship combat. It can also detect threats from the air and from beneath the waves. Developed by Lockheed Martin, the US has allowed it to be deployed in over 100 ships by five allied navies, including Japan, Australia and South Korea.
In December 2007, details surfaced about the leaking of intelligence connected to Aegis even though the leak had occurred eight months earlier when police involved in a routine investigation came across a computer disk with information about the Aegis system on it. It was not until early last December that a naval officer was arrested and charged with possession of the disk. Subsequently the four instructors were also arrested but, for reasons not made public, a decision was made not to charge them.
The episode caused embarrassment within the Japanese intelligence community and in the political corridors of power because it came at a time when the Japanese Air Force was not only keen on purchasing Raptors and the country’s defense leaders were discussing with Washington the need for a missile shield to protect the country should it ever be targeted by North Korea or China. With China keen to acquire intelligence about the Aegis, given that China is trying to expand its naval presence in the South China Sea, Washington is now thinking twice about whether to go ahead with the Raptor sale. It may ask Japan to settle for a deal that involves less advanced fighters. But, since Japan has the money to spend, it may be encouraged to wait for the less expensive version of the Raptor, the F-35 Lightning II.

NEW BRITISH PM ADMIRES AMERICA

British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown is charting a new path in foreign affairs but no one should construe that be the end of the “Special Relationship” between the United States and Britain. It simply mirrors Brown’s private statements and conviction that, as the Bush era comes to an end, he must respond to a resounding global clamor for change.
He also wants to distance himself from his predecessor, Tony Blair, who was so closely linked to the Bush White House and the war in Iraq that by the time he left office in 2007 he was a very unpopular figure. His closeness to President Bush may well prove to be the factor that discourages EU leaders from giving him the job he covets, namely to be the first president of the European Union.
There is, however, one thing the new PM and Blair have in common and that is their shared admiration for the United States and its people. Gordon Brown often holidays in Cape Cod and is known to have good relations with leading democrats. He has more than once declared that he will not radically alter the historic relationship between Britain and America. Nevertheless, he has also expressed a desire to manage his foreign policy in a way that places greater emphasis on diplomacy and less on the need to use force, or the threat of force, something he believes has defined the Bush White House.
On issues like Guantanamo and the rendition of terror suspects to secret prisons, or to intelligence services in countries like Syria, Morocco and Egypt, Brown has distanced himself from the President Bush. And, when it comes to relations with the UN, the new PM has been supportive rather than confrontational, arguing that it is the most important diplomatic body on the globe. He is more pro-European that Blair and believes Britain needs to form better relations with its European partners.
In respect of Iraq, he was keen from the moment he took office to get British troops out of that country. He angered the White House by not discussing troop withdrawals with General David Petraeus. Instead, ploughed his own political furrow and announced his plans for troop withdrawals from Basra when it suited him. On the matter of Afghanistan, he has not seen eye to eye with the US, believing as he does about most conflicts, that economic aid and major reconstruction policies should be at the top of the agenda for defeating terrorism. In particular, he has placed greater emphasis on British troops in Afghanistan forging better links with the locals and where necessary arming militias to fight the Taliban. His Afghan policy has led to tough exchanges between London and Washington. It could be said of his foreign policy that he approaches many international issues with the eye of an economist; a position that has not endeared him to those who think he needs to be tougher in projecting military options. Some defense experts think he is oblivious to the need for Britain to spend more of its GDP on its military and on counter-terrorism agencies. Those same experts warn that his tendency to see the war on terror through the prism of economics could be his undoing and could have dangerous consequences. They also argue that he lacks serious foreign policy experience and could find it hard to respond to a major international crisis in the Middle East.
One thing is sure. He is a difficult person to read. As Britain’s longest serving Chancellor of the Exchequer under Blair, it was no secret that he and Blair had a rocky relationship. Their private disagreements were often tabloid fodder. Former Conservative PM, John Major is on record saying he is not one of the only six people in the world who really know Brown. Most observers would agree he is a difficult person to read but, while he may be dour compared with the ever smiling Blair, he can be ruthless in his pursuit of what he wants. He has a formidable intellect and has little time for the cult of celebrity that Blair embraced. His energies are singularly devoted to his job, thereby allowing for few distractions.
There is a perception in some circles that when Blair was PM, Brown cleverly kept his fingerprints off the Iraq issue by never confronting his boss when there were major disputes in 10 Downing Street and even resignations by Cabinet colleagues. Brown tended to concentrate on economic issues and it now difficult to determine if he did that out of a desire to stay out of the political firing line or because the Blair government was compartmentalized, with each Minister focusing only on his or her own responsibilities. Blair certainly loved the global spotlight and was happy to keep his Ministers off the international stage when it came to issues like the Middle East. He also refrained from being critical of US Middle East policy and Washington’s stance on other prickly issues. Perhaps, in an effort to distance himself from the Blair legacy Brown has begun to separate his foreign policy from that of the Bush White House. His supporters say he is merely waiting on the arrival of a new US president to jump start the London-Washington relationship and put it back in shape. In the meantime, it is agreed by most observers that he will not do anything to undermine the US or to fracture the alliance. His posture will be more of a wait and see strategy.
He has lost no time demonstrating that he intends to build better relations in Asia, especially with India and China. He has talked of restructuring the UN rather than attacking it, which was a familiar tactic of the Bush White House. For example, on a recent trip to India he pleased the leaders of that nation by arguing that he will champion their request to expand the UN Security Council’s Permanent Five of Britain, Russia, France, the US and China to include not only India, which is on course to be an economic superpower, but also Brazil, Japan, Germany and at least one African nation. He made it clear however that any expansion of the Permanent Five would not accord India, or other new members, veto powers. In other words, he was in favor of a more representative Security Council as long as it did not weaken the veto power of Britain and the other four members of the present UN quintet. During his Indian visit, he received praise in the newspapers there and in China when he said he believed it was also vital to include India in the G8 and to add other nations like Mexico, South Africa, Brazil and China. From his perspective, it is about championing free markets and greater openness in the financial sectors, especially in countries like China. His embrace of India mirrors a desire by foreign policy planners in Washington to forge closer links with India, which could well outpace China in economic growth in coming decades. That is a policy the Bush White House has promoted so maybe Brown and Bush have more in common than even they know.
When all is said and done, Brown’s professed admiration for American history and its people, as well as his close links with leading US politicians, will never take him too far from the “Special Relationship” even though, between now and the arrival of a new president in the White House, he may go it alone on many foreign policy issues. In general, his style was always going to be different from that of Tony Blair but recognizes, as did British leaders before him, that the alliance with the US is one of Britain’s strengths no matter how close Britain moves towards an ever expanding Europe.

WHITE HOUSE WANTS BETTER ARMED MIDDLE EAST

As if the Middle East was not already armed to the teeth, President Bush on his recent trip to the region agreed to provide additional military aid to Israel and to Arab nations friendly to the US. He even offered the Saudis a gift of US Smart bombs and told them they were free to buy $20 billion worth of weapons from US arms manufacturers.
The pretext for the president’s generosity, which also included economic aid, was that he wanted to counter Iranian influence. The president first dispensed largesse in Israel where he guaranteed the government there that any weapons he gave its Arab neighbors would not be as technologically advanced as the ones Israel would get.
Israel is the biggest recipient of US foreign aid and receives billions of dollars annually, some of it earmarked for military spending. Unlike other countries that receive money for weapons, Israel is not expected to spend it with US weapons manufacturers. It uses the money to boost its own large arms industry, which frequently competes with US companies in the global arms market. In addition to money, the Israeli military regularly gets military hardware, bombs and missiles from the US. Israel also borrows heavily from the US Treasury and, though it claims that it has never defaulted on debts accruing from Treasury loans, the fact is that Congress has often written off Israel’s debts. In recent years, Tel Aviv has managed to extract even more money from Washington by complaining that the US has been much too generous to its Arab neighbors, citing Egypt as an example. Egypt gets billions of dollar annually in military and economic aid in return for not opposing the US occupation of Iraq and refusing to side with Iran. Egypt also refrains from being overly critical of Israel. Economic aid to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars flows yearly into the government coffers in Cairo. In 2007, Egypt and Jordan complained to Washington that Israel was getting four times the combined aid given to six Arab nations in the region. The Bush Administration responded by promising the Arabs $20 billion in order to offset the image of Israel being America’s spoiled “child” in the Middle East. Israel learned of the move and angrily demanded an increase in its financial aid package. Washington responded by promising to increase the Israel aid package to $30 billion.
During his trip, President Bush trumpeted the spread of democracy in the Gulf though there was little evidence of it in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar. In each of those places, he linked his generosity with his professed strategy that economic aid and guns were essentially weapons in his plan to deter Iranian aggression. Some observers remarked that what he was really doing was arming countries that were already bristling with weapons, particularly Israel with its nuclear arsenal and Saudi Arabia that has been spending a large percentage of its oil wealth on military hardware.
In a move that displeased the Israelis, the president offered the Saudis a gift of $123 million in smart bombs, an offer the Saudis did not turn down. He also promised there would be US-funded upgrades to their navy, air force and early warning detections systems. At the same time, he sealed the $20 billion arms deal with them. However, he made no mention of the fact that Washington had known for some time that the Saudis were shopping for a weapons on the international market and if the Bush White House had not agreed to the deal, American arms manufacturers would have lost out to Russian, French pr British competitors. There was also no reaction from the White House to rumors that Israel had expressed serious concerns about the gift of smart weapons. One report claimed that Israel demanded and got an assurance from the president that when the weapons were handed over to the Saudi military, they would not be positioned within range of Israel’s territory. Israel has never been happy about the US supplying any of its Arab neighbors with advanced military hardware but Washington has ignored Israeli objections when they have related to Saudi Arabia. The Pentagon had always taken the view that it is vital to ensure that the Saudis, who are sitting on top of the world’s biggest oil reserves, have more than adequate means to defend their territory from a possible attack by Iran.
Some democrats in Congress, among them Rep. Tom Weiner, were puzzled by the president’s gift to the Saudis. Rep. Weiner warned that Congress might revisit the issue because the Saudis have not cooperated fully in the war on terror and the majority of 9/11 suicide bombers were Saudis. He neglected to mention that, since the US occupation of Iraq, the Pentagon has been secretly pressurizing the Saudis to stop funding Sunni insurgents, given that many of them have been involved in attacks on US troops. Rep. Weiner made no reference to the fact that a promise was recently made to Israel that it would get a 25% increase in military aid for the next decade as part of a US policy to give it a military advantage in the region.