Thursday, March 31, 2011

guardian:Undisciplined Libyan rebels no match for Gaddafi's forces

Undisciplined Libyan rebels no match for Gaddafi's forces

• Alarm over leaders' lack of control on battlefield
• Rebels blame setbacks on lack of heavy weapons

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/30/libyan-rebels-no-match-gaddafi


If there's an ammunition shortage, no one has told Khalif Saed. He was firing off a large machine gun welded to the back of a pick up truck, sending the contents of the heavy belt of bullets darting through the weapon and in to an empty sky.

It's a regular enough occurrence on the open desert road along which Libya's conflict has swung back and forth through this month. Sometimes the stream of fire is celebratory, as earlier this week when it was falsely claimed that Muammar Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte had fallen.

In recent days it seems to be more out of frustration as the rebels were forced back in the face of Gaddafi's attack. What it was not was aimed at was the enemy.

Asked why he was shooting when the revolution's military leadership has appealed for discipline and its fighters not to waste ammunition, Saed said simply: "It's my gun."

It isn't. He concedes that he seized it from a military base in Benghazi as Gaddafi's forces fled at the beginning of the revolution. But it says much about the state of the loosely organised rebel militia which foreign governments are now considering arming.

The revolutionary leadership is pleading for the west to send heavier weapons so that it can compete with Gaddafi's better armed forces amid reports that both sides in the conflict are running short of ammunition.

On the ground, rebels appeal for bigger rocket launchers, artillery and more air strikes. They are less concerned about claims of an ammunition shortage, which they do not necessarily see after seizing piles of rockets and shells from Gaddafi's army when it was retreating earlier this week. "We need what Gaddafi has," said Ghanem Barsi at a rebel checkpoint. Like many revolutionaries, he blamed their difficulties on weaponry rather than training and tactics. "We need Grads [rockets] like Gaddafi has. We need tanks like Gaddafi has. We need weapons that can kill his rockets and tanks."

The rebels' military spokesman, Colonel Ahmed Omar Bani, has claimed that "countries across the world" have offered weapons. He declined to reveal which governments and what kind of arms although he did say there was a desperate need for anti-tank weapons and radios because of chronic communications problems.

However, Bani did admit that no arms or ammunition have arrived as yet, including from neighbouring Egypt, which the rebels initially looked to as a source of practical support in part because of geography but also because there was a sense of revolutionary solidarity.

The Egyptians' reluctance may be shared by other governments as the rebel leadership faces some difficult issues that are likely to cause even the most sympathetic countries to pause.

The revolution lacks an organised military structure in spite of several attempts to stamp its authority on the volunteer army. Discipline is bad. Few of the fighters have proper military experience and they would need training in the use of weapons such as artillery. But the revolutionaries have made a strong point of saying they do not want foreign troops on Libyan soil.

The revolution's de facto finance minister, Ali Tarhouni, claims that there are 1,000 trained fighters among the rebels but there is little evidence of it on the battlefield where the anti-Gaddafi forces appear capable of advancing only when the way is cleared by foreign air strikes.

The problem is not solely the rebels' lack of more powerful weapons. In the past two days their disorganisation has shown as they have been badly outmanoeuvred by better-trained forces that have outflanked them with sweeps through the desert. The revolutionaries lack any cohesive defensive plan. Instead they fire wildly at the enemy and argue among themselves about what to do next and who should be giving orders before turning and fleeing.

Indeed, the rebels have seized a significant number of large weapons abandoned by retreating Gadaffi forces including a handful or more tanks this week after air strikes around Ajdabiya sent the government's army fleeing. But the tanks have yet to be put to use on the battlefield in part because of a lack of expertise in fighting with them.

The lack of control over Libya's rebel army also raises questions about how it might behave as an occupying force were it to take over a town such as Sirte which has not risen up in support of the revolution and where the Libyan leader is believed to retain some support.

Killings of alleged mercenaries in Benghazi, the rebels' de facto capital, as well as the large numbers of young men who have assumed an authority over ordinary citizens apparently only granted by their guns, will raise questions about how an ill disciplined and unaccountable force will behave on taking control of a potentially less welcoming city.

It would be embarrassing, to say the least, if even some of the rebels armed by Britain or the US were to carry out the kind of atrocities the west says it is intervening in Libya to prevent.

There must be an additional concern that any weapons sent to the revolutionaries could end up arming Gaddafi.

The rebel performance in recent weeks has amounted to rapid advances followed by almost as speedy retreats. It is one thing for the revolutionaries to jump in to their cars and pick-up trucks and race back tens of miles through the desert.

But large guns or armour cannot move at that speed, as has been demonstrated by the rebel capture of Gaddafi's abandoned tanks. It might take only one concerted push by government forces of the kind seen over the past two days for them to swallow up any new foreign weapon shipments and then turn them on the revolutionaries.

foxnews:Britain Refuses to Offer Immunity for Defected Libyan Minister

Britain Refuses to Offer Immunity for Defected Libyan Minister


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/31/britain-refuses-offer-immunity-defected-libyan-minister/#ixzz1IBEc9B4F

Britain refused Thursday to offer Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa immunity from prosecution after his apparent defection, but said his departure would hearten rebels fighting to topple Muammar al-Qaddafi's regime.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the resignation of Koussa, one of the most senior members of Qaddafi's government, shows that the Libyan leader's regime is "fragmented, under pressure and crumbling."

But Hague said "Koussa is not being offered any immunity from British or international justice," dampening speculation that the British government might seek to overlook allegations -- leveled by Libya's opposition -- that he played a pivotal role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, among other atrocities.

"Qaddafi must be thinking to himself, 'Who will be the next to walk away'?" Hague said.

Hague said it wouldn't be "helpful to advertise" whether or not other senior members of the regime planned to quit but that he believes many likely privately opposed Qaddafi's actions.


Authorities debriefed Koussa, a trusted Qaddafi adviser and longtime stalwart in the Libyan regime, after he fled to Britain on Wednesday on a private plane from Tunisia -- apparently with little notice to the British government. Hague said Koussa was in a "secure place in the United Kingdom," but did not disclose further details.

The Libyan opposition alleges that Koussa, regarded as one of Qaddafi's closest allies, had a role in masterminding the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people, most of them Americans. Koussa was expelled from Britain in 1980 after giving an interview advocating the use of violence to silence U.K. critics of Libya's government.

His name also was associated with the bombing of a French aircraft over Niger in 1989, but in recent years he helped with diplomatic progress that ended Libya's international isolation.

Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw described Koussa as a key player who had a "fundamentally important" role in negotiations to bring Libya back into the international fold in the 1990s after terror attacks tainted the North African country's reputation. Koussa's departure would shift the balance away from Qaddafi, if only psychologically.

"Moussa Koussa's apparent defection -- certainly his unscheduled visit here -- will be a very important factor in just adding to the weight against the Qaddafi regime and tipping the balance against him," Straw told BBC radio. "From a distance, what's clear is that there is unlikely to be any military 'victory' for either side. So it does depend on which side psychologically collapses."

Koussa's move would be the first high-profile resignation since the U.S.-led air strikes on Libyan forces began. Libya's justice and interior ministers resigned early in the conflict and joined the rebels fighting in the east.

Though Koussa's name was long connected with liquidating dissidents in Western and Arab capitals, he later became instrumental in negotiations with the West that led to the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program.

In 2003, Libya accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to pay restitution to the victims. Qaddafi also announced he was dismantling his nuclear weapons program, bringing a major breakthrough in U.S.-Libyan ties. Those steps prompted the United States and Europe to lift sanctions against Libya.

Britain restored diplomatic relations in 1999, ending Libya's international isolation.

Guma El-Gamaty, an organizer in Britain for a leading Libyan opposition group, said Koussa's action would be "a big hit" that would weaken Qaddafi.

"He says he is resigning," El-Gamaty said. "That means he is defecting. He has been Qaddafi's right-hand man for years, running intelligence, running the Lockerbie bomber negotiations, running many things."

El-Gamaty said he does not think Koussa is likely to remain in Britain but would probably end up in another country in an effort to avoid possible prosecution.

He said that Koussa would not be welcomed into the opposition movement because of his prior actions on behalf of the Qaddafi government.



MICHAEL O'HANLON:Winning Ugly in Libya

Winning Ugly in Libya

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67684/michael-ohanlon/winning-ugly-in-libya

Summary:

Although the Libya mission has been effective in averting a humanitarian debacle so far, it has been ugly in some ways. But as Ivo Daalder and I argued about the Kosovo war a dozen years ago, an ugly operation is not the same as a failed operation.

MICHAEL O'HANLON is the Director of Research and a Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution.

The Obama administration has come under fire for its slowness in responding to the Libyan crisis, its apparent unenthusiastic stance once it did get involved, and its desire to hand off the mission to Europeans as quickly as possible. The administration has also been criticized for failing to involve Congress in the decision-making leading up to the military operation and for its apparent failure to develop a clear road map for what to do next.

Most of these criticisms have a kernel of truth -- indeed, although the mission has been effective in averting a humanitarian debacle so far, it has been ugly in some ways. But as Ivo Daalder, now the U.S. ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and I argued about the Kosovo war a dozen years ago in our book, Winning Ugly: NATO's War to Save Kosovo, an ugly operation is not the same as a failed operation. In fact, even a mission that starts off badly can turn around if policymakers start to give thought to the full range of outcomes that will be acceptable and what it will cost to achieve them. It is far too early to say for certain that Operation Odyssey Dawn will turn out as well as the 1999 war designed to stop Slobodan Milosevic's violence against ethnic Albanians in what was then the Serbian province of Kosovo. Much can still go wrong, as it did in Kosovo. But on balance, this operation is off to a far better start than that one.

In the run-up to the Kosovo war, there was less disagreement among NATO members about getting involved, although Greece was more opposed to war then than Turkey is today. Still, given Russia's opposition to using any force against its long-standing ally in Kosovo, NATO had to launch its operation without a UN Security Council resolution, which only complicated the mission at the end, when Russia unsuccessfully tried to compete with NATO for control over northern Kosovo in the postwar peacekeeping mission. And the war got off to a terrible start: rather than protecting ethnic Albanians, the initial campaign instead prompted Milosovic to intensify his pogrom against them, as he realized that the alliance had not planned a militarily effective operation. Indeed, NATO's leaders had predicted that a few days of pinprick attacks would be enough to stop the Serbian thug, and they had failed to plan for any possible escalation if they were not. Tellingly, the United States had even redeployed its only aircraft carrier stationed in the Mediterranean just a few days before initiating hostilities; keeping to the Navy's schedule for ship rotations apparently mattered more than keeping ready combat power in the region.

This time, the United States has been more careful. Both here and in Europe, military leaders have not promised that the mission would be a military cakewalk. In the U.S. debate, Daalder, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have all warned about the limited effectiveness of no-fly zones. Some have interpreted their statements as hedges against the possible failure of a military mission that they did not want to conduct, but the remarks should in fact be read as a combination of prudence and public education. Their statements have certainly been vindicated. The imposition of the no-fly zone has been a violent affair that has produced no quick victory despite already having gone well beyond standard procedure to include destroying much of the Libyan air force and attacking ground combat vehicles. It has so far provisionally achieved its core goal of protecting the rebels and civilians in pro-rebel areas. And although Libya's Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi has certainly not backed down, he has not escalated his onslaught, as Milosevic did, nor has he even repeated his threats to show "no mercy" to insurgents. In both Kosovo and Libya, the United States has walked a strategic middle path between decisive force and passivity.

In both cases, the U.S. president ruled out any use of ground troops early on. That decision was likely ill-advised in Kosovo, especially when combined with the United States' other signs of irresoluteness in the war's early days, but it is probably correct in Libya, since airpower will be more potent in the country's open terrain (and is already being used to greater effect). But even though they were reluctant to commit troops, both U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama felt the need to do something -- Clinton because he regretted standing by early on as the conflict in Bosnia started and during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, Obama largely because he is advised by several of the same people who experienced the Bosnia and Rwanda debacles firsthand.

Yet the impulse to do something, as Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, famously warned in the early 1990s, can be dangerous. Allied help, a balanced approach, and noble intentions do not necessarily add up to guaranteed victory. The Kosovo war would have been a debacle had it ended after the first month, as Milosevic drove hundreds of thousands from their homes. This scenario looked entirely possible until NATO dramatically intensified its operations and started to hint at a possible ground invasion. And the Libyan engagement, although effective so far in stemming Qaddafi's onslaught, could still produce a stalemate that leaves him temporarily in power in Tripoli and its environs. Perhaps a worse outcome would be if the United States helped the rebels just enough to keep them fighting but not enough to resolve the conflict. Libya might become a bleeding ulcer that al Qaeda could try to exploit. In war, it is not enough merely to make a good effort; a good outcome is also a necessity.

It would be preferable, of course, that Qaddafi leave. And it seems plausible that he could be driven from power partly as a result of the military operation. To raise the probability of that happening, some steps that go beyond the Kosovo precedent, including transferring defensive arms, communication gear, and logistical support to the rebels are worth considering. But in the end, Libya is not important enough and Qaddafi is probably not dangerous enough for the United States and its allies to require his unconditional surrender if it proves difficult to get. If the war seems headed for stalemate, there is a range of other outcomes that Washington could live with, just as the United States eventually lived with only achieving limited aims on the battlefield in Kosovo.

Again, that case is instructive. In Kosovo, the United States obtained its initial goal of protecting the Kosovar Albanian population, but only after it almost failed. Although the campaign is considered a success, it was initially disastrous in its net effect on the population and, in the end, came short of achieving what many would surely have preferred -- Milosovic's immediate ouster. In Libya, a simple cease-fire (rather than a peace deal formalizing Qaddafi’s continued role) might be acceptable. It would allow the United States to formally hew to its earlier position that Qaddafi eventually go, while recognizing that it was not in a position to make that happen immediately. Qaddafi would have to accept international monitors to observe his compliance to cease-fire lines. The rebels could pump oil from their respective parts of the country to fill their coffers; by contrast, the world might place sanctions on what Qaddafi could sell. The ultimate U.S. goal would explicitly be reunification but with an understanding that it could take months or even years to achieve that outcome, since Qaddafi's departure from the scene might be a necessary prerequisite and the United States would be using only economic, diplomatic, and legal means to achieve it.

The United States could also accept a government of national unity between the Qaddafi loyalists and the rebels that would give Qaddafi some symbolic role, provided that international monitors are allowed in the country and that loyalists in the military are removed so that Qaddafi would be less able to relaunch war. His duplicity in the 1980s, when he promised to end Libyan operations in Chad, only to resume them later, should be kept in mind, as Kenneth Pollack, the director of the Saban Center for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Brooking Institution reminded at an American Enterprise Institute talk on March 27th. Alternatively, the United States could insist that Qaddafi step down from the national government but allow him some titular role such as "mayor of Tripoli." The national government would then hold elections to replace him in perhaps one to three years.

These are not the full range of acceptable options, but they do indicate that there are end states in Libya that -- however much they may make the United States and its allies hold their noses -- would still be preferable to a prolonged war and another protracted occupation of an Arab land. Again, Kosovo is instructive. The United States tolerated Milosevic staying in power in Serbia after the Kosovo war, and his own people ultimately held him accountable and drove him from office some time later. Qaddafi should ultimately be unseated, either by his own people or the international community after the war. But, as with the other occasion in which the United States "won ugly" by airpower and patient diplomacy, there are reasons to hope that the United States can accomplish some of these goals over time, without insisting on achieving all of them immediately and at gunpoint. Of course, a rapid military defeat of the mad dog of the Middle East would be preferable, but it may not be possible to secure at a reasonable cost right now.

nytimes:F.B.I. Casts Wide Net Under Relaxed Rules for Terror Inquiries, Data Show

F.B.I. Casts Wide Net Under Relaxed Rules for Terror Inquiries, Data Show


Published: March 26, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/27fbi.html?_r=1

WASHINGTON — Within months after the Bush administration relaxed limits on domestic-intelligence gathering in late 2008, the F.B.I. assessed thousands of people and groups in search of evidence that they might be criminals or terrorists, a newly disclosed Justice Department document shows.

In a vast majority of those cases, F.B.I. agents did not find suspicious information that could justify more intensive investigations. The New York Times obtained the data, which the F.B.I. had tried to keep secret, after filing a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.

The document, which covers the four months from December 2008 to March 2009, says the F.B.I. initiated 11,667 “assessments” of people and groups. Of those, 8,605 were completed. And based on the information developed in those low-level inquiries, agents opened 427 more intensive investigations, it says.

The statistics shed new light on the F.B.I.’s activities in the post-Sept. 11 era, as the bureau’s focus has shifted from investigating crimes to trying to detect and disrupt potential criminal and terrorist activity.

It is not clear, though, whether any charges resulted from the inquiries. And because the F.B.I. provided no comparable figures for a period before the rules change, it is impossible to determine whether the numbers represent an increase in investigations.

Still, privacy advocates contend that the large number of assessments that turned up no sign of wrongdoing show that the rules adopted by the Bush administration have created too low a threshold for starting an inquiry. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has left those rules in place.

Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent who is now a policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the volume of fruitless assessments showed that the Obama administration should tighten the rules.

“These are investigations against completely innocent people that are now bound up within the F.B.I.’s intelligence system forever,” Mr. German said. “Is that the best way for the F.B.I. to use its resources?”

But Valerie E. Caproni, the bureau’s general counsel, said the numbers showed that agents were running down any hint of a potential problem — including vigilantly checking out potential leads that might have been ignored before the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Recognize that the F.B.I.’s policy — that I think the American people would support — is that any terrorism lead has to be followed up,” Ms. Caproni said. “That means, on a practical level, that things that 10 years ago might just have been ignored now have to be followed up.”

F.B.I. investigations are controlled by guidelines first put in place by Attorney General Edward H. Levi during the Ford administration, after the disclosure that the bureau had engaged in illegal domestic spying for decades. After the Sept. 11 attacks, those rules were loosened by Attorney General John Ashcroft and then again by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.

Some Democrats and civil liberties groups protested the Mukasey guidelines, contending that the new rules could open the door to racial or religious profiling and to fishing expeditions against Americans.

In 2006, The New York Times reported that the National Security Agency had each month been flooding the bureau with thousands of names, phone numbers and e-mail addresses that its surveillance and data-mining programs had deemed suspicious. But frustrated agents found that virtually all of the tips led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

When the Mukasey guidelines went into effect in December 2008, they allowed the F.B.I. to use a new category of investigation called an “assessment.” It permits an agent, “proactively or based on investigative leads,” to scrutinize a person or a group for signs of a criminal or national security threat, according to the F.B.I. manual.

The manual also says agents need “no particular factual predication” about a target to open an assessment, although the basis “cannot be arbitrary or groundless speculation.” And in selecting subjects for such scrutiny, agents are allowed to use ethnicity, religion or speech protected by the First Amendment as a factor — as long as it is not the only one.

An assessment is less intensive than a more traditional “preliminary” inquiry or a “full” investigation, which requires greater reason to suspect wrongdoing but also allows agents to use more intrusive information-gathering techniques, like wiretapping.

Still, in conducting an assessment, agents are allowed to use other techniques — searching databases, interviewing the subjects or people who know them, sending confidential informers to infiltrate an organization, attending a public meeting like a political rally or a religious service, and following and photographing people in public places.

In March 2009, Russ Feingold, then a Democratic senator from Wisconsin, asked the F.B.I. how many assessments it had initiated under the new guidelines and how many regular investigations had been opened based on information developed by those assessments.

In November 2010, the Justice Department sent a classified letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee answering Mr. Feingold’s question. This month, it provided an uncensored copy of the same answer to The Times as a result of its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

F.B.I. officials said in an interview that the statistics represented a snapshot as of late March 2009, so the 11,667 assessment files were generated over a roughly four-month period. But they said they believed that agents had continued to open assessments at roughly the same pace since then.

Some aspects of the statistics are hazy, officials cautioned.

For example, even before the December 2008 changes, the bureau routinely followed up on low-grade tips and leads under different rules. But that activity was not formally tracked as an “assessment” that could be easily counted and compared.

F.B.I. officials also said about 30 percent of the 11,667 assessments were just vague tips — like a report of a suspicious car that included no license plate number. Such tips are entered into its computer system even if there is no way to follow up on them.

Finally, they said, it is impossible to know precisely how many assessments turned up suspicious facts. A single assessment may have spun off more than one higher investigation, and some agents may have neglected to record when such an investigation started as an assessment.

Ms. Caproni also said that even though the F.B.I. manual says agents can open assessments “proactively,” they still must always have a valid reason — like a tip that is not solid enough to justify a more intensive level of investigation but should still be checked out.

But Mr. German, of the A.C.L.U., said that allowing agents to initiate investigations without a factual basis “seems ripe for abuse.” He added, “What they should be doing is working within stricter guidelines that help them focus on real threats rather than spending time chasing shadows.”

foreignpolicy:The LWOT: New data released on FBI terror investigations; Saudi accused of terror plot pleads not guilty

The LWOT: New data released on FBI terror investigations; Saudi accused of terror plot pleads not guilty

Foreign Policy and the New America Foundation bring you a twice weekly brief on the legal war on terror. You can read it on foreignpolicy.com or get it delivered directly to your inbox -- just sign up here.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/29/the_lwot_new_data_released_on_fbi_terror_investigations_saudi_accused_of_terror_

New data on expanded FBI domestic intelligence investigations

Charlie Savage this weekend reported on an FBI document obtained by the New York Times showing that in a four-month period not long after the Bush administration loosened rules on domestic intelligence gathering by the FBI, from Dec. 2008 to Mar. 2009, 11,667 people or groups were the target of "assessments" for criminal or terrorist activity, with 8,605 assessments finished and a resulting 427 "intensive investigations" opened (NYT). According to the guidelines, instituted under then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, FBI agents can initiate a criminal or national security assessment with, "no particular factual predication" though investigations cannot be based on "arbitrary or groundless speculation."

The New York Times also looks this week at the increasingly powerful and globally-focused office of the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, headed by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara (NYT). Bonus: The Georgetown University Law Center has compiled a comprehensive collection of legal documents and law journal articles related to state secrets (Georgetown Law).

Saudi accused of terror plot pleads not guilty

Saudi terrorism suspect Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari pled not guilty in a Texas federal court on Mar. 28 to the charge that he attempted to build and deploy an explosive device against targets that may have included locations in New York and the Dallas home of former U.S. president George W. Bush (NYT, BBC, AP). Aldawsari, a college student in Texas at the time of his arrest, came to the attention of authorities after allegedly attempting to acquire large quantities of phenol, which can be turned into an explosive when combined with two other chemicals that Aldawsari had already reportedly purchased.

A U.S. federal judge said last Friday that the May 2 trial for Kareem Ibrahim, charged as part of an alleged plot to bomb fuel arteries at John F. Kennedy International Airport, will continue despite Ibrahim's repeated refusal of food, water, and insulin, which the judge described as possible "malingering" (Bloomberg, NY Post).

The Associated Press this weekend reported on allegations that a Somali man, Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane, helped smuggle several members of the Somali militant group al-Shabaab into the United States from Mexico (AP). And an affiliate of the Chicago Sun-Times interviews Ibraheim Mashal, an American Muslim and U.S. Marine Corps veteran who is suing the government in part over claims that he was put on a no-fly list to pressure him into becoming an informant (The Beacon News).

Finally, the Washington Post previews the hearing scheduled to be held today by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) into the civil rights of Muslim-Americans, while CNN takes an in-depth look at growing feelings of mistreatment amongst Muslims living in some heavily Muslim suburbs of Detroit (Washington Post, CNN).

WashPost:Intelligence shows al-Qaeda branch in Yemen planning strike

Intelligence shows al-Qaeda branch in Yemen planning strike


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/intelligence-shows-al-qaeda-branch-in-yemen-planning-strike/2011/03/25/AFRoT4YB_story.html

U.S. spy agencies have gathered new intelligence indicating that al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen may be close to launching a terrorist strike, according to U.S. officials who said the development has added new urgency to concerns about the turmoil in the Middle East.

The officials said the agencies have assembled only fragmentary information on the plot and do not have enough detail to issue a public warning or to take specific measures to counter the threat.

But officials said the intelligence is regarded as credible, creating a scenario that has worried U.S. counterterrorism officials since the crisis in the Middle East began. The threat comes at a time when counterterrorism operations in Yemen have been disrupted by mass protests that threaten the 32-year rule of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The new information goes beyond the routine level of terrorism chatter monitored by U.S. spy agencies tracking al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), as the Yemen-based offshoot is known. A U.S. official described the recent intelligence as pointing to “a current and concerning threat.”

“We’re always at a very high level of alert and have been for some time with AQAP,” said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an intelligence matter. But the new information points to “more than that they are bent on attacking the West and continuing to plot.”

The information has been communicated to senior officials and lawmakers in briefings, and circulated within the U.S. intelligence community, in recent days. A prominent concern, officials said, is that efforts to unravel the plot could be complicated by the political upheaval sweeping much of the Middle East.

Over the past 18 months, the United States has deployed dozens of CIA operatives and U.S. Special Operations troops to work alongside Yemeni forces in pursuing AQAP.

Last year, the United States also began patrolling above Yemen with armed Predator drones. But after a flurry of missile attacks against AQAP targets in late 2009 and early 2010, there have been no such strikes, as members of the terrorist group have burrowed into tribal enclaves in Yemen’s rugged terrain.

AQAP has carried out small-scale attacks in Yemen in recent weeks, including the fatal shooting of six soldiers in the provinces of Marib and Abyan.

Meanwhile, the survival of Saleh’s government is in doubt. This week the country’s most powerful military officer broke ranks with the government and ordered his troops to protect protesters flooding the streets of the capital, Sanaa.

Saudi Arabia’s attention has also been diverted from counterterrorism efforts. The monarchy recently dispatched forces to help subdue a popular uprising in the neighboring Sunni-dominated country of Bahrain.

In response to questions about the new threat, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said, “We continue to take very seriously the threat posed by AQAP. . . . They are the most active AQ franchise, and we are working diligently with our partners to disrupt their activities.”

Officials with the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment.

In congressional testimony last month, Michael Leiter, director of the counterterrorism center, described AQAP as “probably the most significant risk to the U.S. homeland.”

That is in part because of the expanding role of Anwar al-Aulaqi, an American-born cleric seen as having increasingly direct involvement in orchestrating AQAP attacks.

Aulaqi, 39, has a wide online following for his English-language sermons and has been linked to the 2009 shootings at Fort Hood, Tex., and the attempted bombing, seven weeks later, of a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day.

U.S. officials have also cited other factors in AQAP’s emergence, including its willingness to use sophisticated explosives against what it perceives as soft targets.

Earlier this week, the State Department announced that it had designated AQAP’s main bombmaker, Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, as a terrorist and that the U.S. government was taking steps to seize or block money supporting him.

Asiri is believed to have designed the bomb that a Ni­ger­ian hid in his underwear during the attempted bombing of the Detroit-bound plane, as well as the explosive devices hidden inside printer cartridges that were mailed to American addresses as part of last year’s parcel-bomb plot.

bush dallas home bomber PRONONCIATION OF NAME

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17697693?nclick_check=1

bush dallas home bomber PRONONCIATION OF NAME

The arraignment for Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari (al-daw-SAW'-ree) is scheduled for Monday morning at the federal courthouse in Lubbock. He faces up to life in prison if he's convicted of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.

nytimes:In Texas Courtroom, Saudi Denies Plotting Bomb Attacks

In Texas Courtroom, Saudi Denies Plotting Bomb Attacks

By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: March 28, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us/29aldawsari.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

A Saudi man who had been a student at Vanderbilt and Texas Tech Universities pleaded not guilty on Monday in federal court in Lubbock, Tex., to a charge of trying to assemble an explosive device, with the potential to be used for American targets including New York City, a Dallas residence of former President George W. Bush and dams.

The defendant, Khalid Aldawsari, 20, a chemical engineering student, had obtained two of the three chemicals needed to assemble a bomb during the past several months and had sought to buy the third, prosecutors said. He was arrested Feb. 23.

Mr. Aldawsari faces a single count of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, which carries a penalty of life in prison. A federal judge has barred lawyers from discussing the case publicly. The trial is scheduled to start May 2.

Federal officials said Mr. Aldawsari first came under suspicion after placing an online order in late January with a North Carolina chemical supply company for phenol, to be shipped to a Lubbock address. Phenol is explosive when combined with the two other chemicals Mr. Aldawsari was said to have obtained.

The company reported Mr. Aldawsari’s order to the F.B.I. on Feb. 1, and within days law enforcement officials were secretly searching Mr. Aldawsari’s home, where they said they found chemical lab equipment and read his diary.

In it, Mr. Aldawsari wrote that his enrollment at Texas Tech had given him a type of access to his desired targets, officials said. It also made clear, they said, that he had planned to carry out bombings long before September 2008, when he came to the United States on a student visa.

“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for jihad,” Mr. Aldawsari wrote, according to court documents.

foxnews:Saudi Man Pleads Not Guilty to Bomb Plot in Texas

Saudi Man Pleads Not Guilty to Bomb Plot in Texas


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/28/saudi-man-pleads-guilty-bomb-plot-texas/#ixzz1IA1g58ON

March 28, 2011

LUBBOCK, Texas -- A Texas college student from Saudi Arabia accused of buying chemicals and equipment to build a weapon of mass destruction pleaded not guilty Monday.

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, his hands and feet shackled and wearing dark blue jail clothing, entered his plea at his arraignment before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Koenig at the federal courthouse in Lubbock, Texas. Koenig set a May 2 trial date.

If convicted of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction he faces up to life in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Earlier this month U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, the trial judge, issued an order prohibiting Aldawsari's attorney or prosecutors from speaking about the case.

Court documents allege he hatched plans to attack various U.S. targets, including in New York City and at former President George W. Bush's Dallas home.


Rod Hobson, the 20-year-old's attorney, stood with his client and whispered to him after Koenig asked Aldawsari whether he wanted to waive the reading of his indictment. "Waive," Aldawsari told Koenig.

Aldawsari, who was legally in the U.S. on a student visa, was arrested Feb. 23. The White House said President Barack Obama had been notified about the plot.

Court records indicate authorities traced Aldawsari's online purchases, discovered extremist online posts he made and secretly searched his apartment, computer and email accounts, and read his diary.

The terrorism case detailed in court documents was significant because it suggests that radicalized foreigners can live quietly in the U.S. without raising suspicions from neighbors, classmates, teachers or others. It also showed how quickly U.S. law enforcement can move when tipped that a terrorist plot may be unfolding.

Federal authorities said a chemical company, Carolina Biological Supply of Burlington, N.C., reported $435 in suspicious orders by Aldawsari to the FBI on Feb. 1. Separately, Ann Arbor, Mich.-based shipping company Con-way Freight notified Lubbock police and the FBI the same day with similar suspicions because it appeared the order wasn't intended for commercial use.

Prosecutors said that in December, he bought 30 liters of concentrated nitric acid from QualiChem Technologies in Georgia, and three gallons of concentrated sulfuric acid that are combined to make TNP. The FBI later found the chemicals in Aldawsari's apartment as well as beakers, flasks, wiring, a Hazmat suit and clocks.

Aldawsari entered the U.S. in October 2008 from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to study chemical engineering at Texas Tech University. He transferred this year to nearby South Plains College, where he was studying business. A Saudi industrial company, which was not identified in court documents, was paying his tuition and living expenses in the U.S.

Aldawsari wrote that he was planning an attack in the United States for years, even before coming to the U.S. on a scholarship. He said he was influenced by Osama bin Laden's speeches and that he bemoaned the plight of Muslims.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/28/saudi-man-pleads-guilty-bomb-plot-texas/#ixzz1IA1nOR7E

DOJ Press Release:Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari,

http://dallas.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel11/dl022411.htm

For Immediate Release
February 24, 2011
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
(202) 514-2007/TDD (202) 514-1888

Texas Resident Arrested on Charge of Attempted Use of Weapon of Mass Destruction
Suspect Allegedly Purchased Bomb Materials and Researched U.S. Targets

WASHINGTON—Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, 20, a citizen of Saudi Arabia and resident of Lubbock, Texas, was arrested late yesterday by FBI agents in Texas on a federal charge of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction in connection with his alleged purchase of chemicals and equipment necessary to make an improvised explosive device (IED) and his research of potential U.S. targets.

The arrest and the criminal complaint, which was unsealed in the Northern District of Texas, were announced by David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security; James T. Jacks, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas; and Robert E. Casey Jr., Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Dallas Field Division.

Aldawsari is expected to make his initial appearance in federal court in Lubbock at 9:00 a.m. on Friday morning. Aldawsari, who was lawfully admitted into the United States in 2008 on a student visa and is enrolled at South Plains College near Lubbock, faces a maximum sentence of life in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the complaint, Aldawsari has been researching online how to construct an IED using several chemicals as ingredients. He has also acquired or taken a substantial step toward acquiring most of the ingredients and equipment necessary to construct an IED and he has conducted online research of several potential U.S. targets, the affidavit alleges. In addition, he has allegedly described his desire for violent jihad and martyrdom in blog postings and a personal journal.

"As alleged in the complaint, Aldawsari purchased ingredients to construct an explosive device and was actively researching potential targets in the United States. Thanks to the efforts of many agents, analysts, and prosecutors, this plot was thwarted before it could advance further," said Assistant Attorney General Kris. "This case serves as another reminder of the need for continued vigilance both at home and abroad."

"Yesterday's arrest demonstrates the need for and the importance of vigilance and the willingness of private individuals and companies to ask questions and contact the authorities when confronted with suspicious activities. Based upon reports from the public, Aldawsari's plot was uncovered and thwarted. We're confident we have neutralized the alleged threat posed by this defendant. Those reports resulted in the initiation of a complex and far-reaching investigation requiring almost around the clock work by hundreds of dedicated FBI agents, analysts, prosecutors, and others. Their effort is another example of the work being done to protect our country and its citizens. These individuals are deserving of our respect and gratitude," said U.S. Attorney Jacks.

"This arrest and criminal charge is a result of the success of the FBI's counterterrorism strategy, which is to detect, penetrate, and disrupt terrorist plots in the United States and against U.S. interests abroad. In this case, FBI agents and other FBI experts worked tirelessly to neutralize the imminent terrorist threat described in the criminal complaint. The public can be justifiably proud of the national security expertise shown by the FBI in this investigation," said Special Agent in Charge Casey.

Purchases of Chemical Ingredients and Other Equipment

The affidavit alleges that on Feb. 1, 2011, a chemical supplier reported to the FBI a suspicious attempted purchase of concentrated phenol by a man identifying himself as Khalid Aldawsari. According to the affidavit, phenol is a toxic chemical with legitimate uses, but can also be used to make the explosive trinitrophenol, also known as T.N.P., or picric acid. The affidavit alleges that other ingredients typically used with phenol to make picric acid, or T.N.P., are concentrated sulfuric and nitric acids.

Aldawsari allegedly attempted to have the phenol order shipped to a freight company so it could be held for him there, but the freight company returned the order to the supplier and called the police. Later, Aldawsari falsely told the supplier he was associated with a university and wanted the phenol for "off-campus, personal research." Frustrated by questions being asked over his phenol order, Aldawsari cancelled his order and later e-mailed himself instructions for producing phenol. The affidavit alleges that in December 2010, he successfully purchased concentrated nitric and sulfuric acids.

According to the affidavit, legally authorized electronic surveillance revealed that Aldawsari used various e-mail accounts in researching explosives and targets, and often sent e-mails to himself as part of this process. On Feb. 11, 2011, for instance, he allegedly e-mailed himself a recipe for picric acid, which the e-mail describes as a "military explosive." He also allegedly sent himself an e-mail on Oct. 19, 2010 that contained information on the material required for Nitro Urea, how to prepare it, and the advantages of using it.

The affidavit alleges that Aldawsari also e-mailed himself instructions on how to convert a cellular phone into a remote detonator and how to prepare a booby-trapped vehicle using items available in every home. One e-mail allegedly contained a message stating that "one operation in the land of the infidels is equal to ten operations against occupying forces in the land of the Muslims." During December 2010 and January 2011, Aldawsari allegedly purchased many other items, including a gas mask, a Hazmat suit, a soldering iron kit, glass beakers and flasks, wiring, a stun gun, clocks, and a battery tester.

Searches of Aldawsari's Residence

Two legally authorized searches of Aldawsari's apartment conducted by the FBI in February 2011 indicated that the concentrated sulfuric and nitric acids; the beakers and flasks; wiring; Hazmat suit; and clocks were present in Aldawsari's residence.

FBI agents also found a notebook at Aldawsari's residence that appeared to be a diary or journal. According to the affidavit, excerpts from the journal indicate that Aldawsari had been planning to commit a terrorist attack in the United States for years. One entry describes how Aldawsari sought and obtained a particular scholarship because it allowed him to come directly to the United State and helped him financially, which he said "will help tremendously in providing me with the support I need for Jihad." The entry continues: "And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad."

In another entry, Aldawsari allegedly wrote that he was near to reaching his goal and near to getting weapons to use against infidels and their helpers. He also listed a "synopsis of important steps" that included obtaining a forged U.S. birth certificate; renting a car; using different driver's licenses for each car rented; putting bombs in cars and taking them to different places during rush hour; and leaving the city for a safe place.

Research on Potential Targets

According to the affidavit, Aldawsari conducted research on various targets and e-mailed himself information on these locations and people. One of the documents he sent himself, with the subject line listed as "Targets," allegedly contained the names and home addresses of three American citizens who had previously served in the U.S. military and had been stationed for a time at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

In another e-mail titled "NICE TARGETS 01," Aldawsari allegedly sent himself the names of 12 reservoir dams in Colorado and California. In another e-mail to himself, titled "NICE TARGETS," he listed two categories of targets: hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants. On Feb. 6, 2011, the affidavit alleges, Aldawsari sent himself an e-mail titled "Tyrant's House," in which he listed the Dallas address for former President George W. Bush. The affidavit also alleges that Aldawsari conducted research that could indicate his consideration of the use of infant dolls to conceal explosives and possible targeting of a nightclub with an explosive concealed in a backpack.

The affidavit also alleges that Aldawsari created a blog in which he posted extremist messages. In one posting, he expressed dissatisfaction with current conditions of Muslims and vowed jihad and martyrdom. "You who created mankind….grant me martyrdom for Your sake and make jihad easy for me only in Your path," he wrote.

This case was investigated by the FBI's Dallas Joint Terrorism Task Force, with assistance from the Lubbock Police Department. The prosecution is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Richard Baker and Denise Williams from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas, and Trial Attorney David Cora from the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department's National Security Division.

The charges contained in the criminal complaint are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Aldawsari justice.gov

http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/search?q=Aldawsari&btnG=Search&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=iso-8859-1&oe=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&entqr=3&ud=1&site=default_collection


Aldawsari

justice.gov

newsrealblog:Ex-Carter Official Blames “Neocons” for “Trapping” Obama Into Acting on Libya

Ex-Carter Official Blames “Neocons” for “Trapping” Obama Into Acting on Libya

by Calvin Freiburger
Posted on March 24 2011 4:00 pm
Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin,

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/24/ex-carter-official-blames-neocons-for-trapping-obama-into-acting-on-libya/

The Left has a problem. Attacking countries that haven’t attacked us first is a major no-no, but the president who’s initiated the latest campaign in Libya, Barack Obama, is their standard-bearer, not a warmongering right-winger. What to do?

On the Daily Beast, Leslie Gelb, Assistant Secretary of State under Jimmy Carter, has an analysis of the situation which liberals eager to give Obama cover might find useful: the neocons made him do it!

Neocons and liberal interventionists stampeded Obama into imposing a no-fly zone against Libya—despite the absence of vital U.S. interests there […]

The manufactured crisis in Libya is a prime case in point. No foreign states have vital interests at stake in Libya. Events in this rather odd and isolated land have little bearing on the rest of the tumultuous Mideast region. Also not to be dismissed, there are far, far worse humanitarian horrors elsewhere. Yet, U.S. neoconservatives and liberal humanitarian interventionists have trapped another U.S. president into acting as if the opposite were true.

Obama’s been “trapped” into ordering airstrikes? How?

Once this terrible duo starts tossing out words like “slaughter” and “genocide,” the media goes crazy. Then, the chorus begins to sing of heartless inaction by the U.S. president, blaming him for the deaths. White House common sense crumbles into insanity. The reason why neither President Obama nor his coalition partners in Britain and France can state a coherent goal for Libya is that none of them have any central interest in the outcome there. It is only when a nation has a clear vital interest that it can state a clear objective for war. They’ve all simply been carried away by their own rhetoric.

The drama usually starts when leaders and thinkers are seduced by the feeling they must do good. Sometimes, they essentially ignore the killings, even as deaths climb into the hundreds of thousands, as in Rwanda and millions as in Congo. Other times, the deaths number in the hundreds or so, as in Libya—and the guy doing the killing is someone they have good reason to dislike, and so they want to do good and stop him. It was just so with the irresistible trio of Senators—John McCain, John Kerry, and Lindsey Graham—and with their counterparts in foreign-policy land.

And just like that, interventionists insist there’s “no time to deliberate,” and the president helplessly complies with their calls to arms.

There are a couple problems with this theory, though. First, polls show that, on the whole, Americans approve of the action now that we’re in it, but their support is far from overwhelming. On Capitol Hill and among the Tea Party, the battle lines are similarly muddied, with politicians of Obama’s own party blasting him for intervening while his sworn enemies in the Tea Party are more open to the idea. So if Obama really thought getting involved was a bad move for the United States, there’s certainly enough political cover for him to withstand interventionist condemnation for staying out.

Second, and more importantly, Barack Obama is the President of the United States. The Commander in Chief. It’s ultimately his decision whether or not to commit the US military to action, not the talking heads. It doesn’t matter how many people are screaming for action; if you don’t think it’s in the nation’s best interests, you don’t do it. President George W. Bush caught a lot of flak for calling himself “the decider,” but he was right: if a president lacks the fortitude to make tough decisions based on his own best judgment, then he’s unfit for the office.

Though there’s much to condemn in Barack Obama’s handling our role in Libya so far, there are credible defenses of his core policy. What Leslie Gelb proposes is not one of them. You simply cannot suggest that a president has sent American servicemen into battle against his wishes while maintaining that he deserves to stay in the White House.

publicintelligence:Complete Inspire Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) Magazine

http://publicintelligence.net/complete-inspire-al-qaeda-in-the-arabian-peninsula-aqap-magazine/

Complete Inspire Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) Magazine


The following document is reportedly the full and “uncorrupted” version of the Inspire Magazine said to be produced by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. A previous version of the magazine was incomplete and contained 64 pages of ASCII cupcake recipe fragments. This complete version was removed from Scribd after it falsely claimed to have received a notice from the “copyright holder” of the magazine. The authenticity of the following document should be deeply scrutinized. We have also been unable to remove password protection and security settings from the file, something that we are normally able to do quite easily with government documents. This document is provided, as always, for educational and informational purposes.

Update: Document is now password free and all security settings have been removed.

Second Update: A second issue of Inspire is available as of October 11, 2010.

Third Update: A third issue of Inspire is available as of November 21, 2010.

Fourth Update: A fourth issue of Inspire is available as of January 16, 2011.

Fifth Update: A fifth issue of Inspire is available as of March 29, 2011.

WIRED:Al-Qaeda Mag: We Heart The Mideast Revolts

Al-Qaeda Mag: We Heart The Mideast Revolts

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/al-qaeda-mag-we-heart-the-mideast-revolts/

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s periodic love letter to English-speaking jihadis is out again in the form of Inspire magazine’s fifth volume. What’s the theme for the spring issue? It’s a “protest focus” with mildly dated commentary on the uprisings in the Middle East.

The big question on the minds of both jihadis and terrorism analysts these days has been whether the regional unrest will benefit al-Qaeda or hinder it. Will a democratic wave in the Middle East undermine jihadis’ narrative that wanton violence and theocracy are the only option? Or will traditionally brutal intelligence and police services emerge from the movements weakened, allowing jihadis to operate unchecked?

The feature article in the fifth issue, “The Tsunami of Change,” comes from Anwar al-Awlaki, the jihadi preacher responsible for inspiring the likes of Ft. Hood Shooter Nidal Malik Hasan and others. Awlaki sees opportunity in the unrest and sets the bar for defining al-Qaeda’s success in its wake down low. “We do not know yet what the outcome would be, and we do not have to,” writes Awlaki. “The outcome doesn’t have to be an Islamic government for us to consider what is occurring to be a step in the right direction.” That’s because Awlaki sees whatever governments that may emerge from the Middle Eastern revolutions, be they pro-Western or mildly Islamist, as being unable to mount the kind of crackdowns that their predecessors did leading to new opportunities for al-Qaeda.

Jihadis have been releasing a number of tapes and statements on the subject of protest movements lately, often trying to frame their goals and organizations as in line with the aspirations of protesters. In the process, they’ve sometimes been late to the party. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader and an Egyptian whose kept a keen interest in events at home, didn’t get his two cents in on Egypt’s unrest until after Mubarak had already left.

Perhaps it’s because of a lag between the writing and publication of Inspire owing to operational security concerns (as may be the case with other al-Qaeda media releases). Nonetheless, the “protest focus” issue feels just a bit behind the latest news on the Middle East revolutions — particularly when the editors are located right in the middle of one. There’s mention of the ongoing uprisings in places like Libya and Yemen, but much of the discussion is either very general or directed towards revolutions already carried out, like Egypt and Tunisia.

To read Inspire’s “exclusive” interview with al-Qaea in the Arabian Peninsula’s (AQAP) Abu Hurairah, you wouldn’t know that there’s a massive protest movement afoot the country in which he’s a military commander for al-Qaeda. It doesn’t come up. Influential jihadi scholar Abu Mohammed al-Maqdisi’s endorsement of the “mujahideen” in Yemen discusses the country generally but not the protests. There’s a Quranic commentary, “The Oppressor’s End,” that address the subjects of tyrants broadly (with a passing reference to the ousted dictators of Egypt and Tunisia), but readers are left to apply it to more recent events on their own.

Inspire carries translations of a statement by AQAP member Ibrahim al-Rubaish discussing Tunisia and Saudi Arabia and Zawahiri’s third release on the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. But both have already been published in English on the Ansar Mujahideen English Forum, Inspire editor Samir Khan’s old stomping ground. The magazine also republishes al-Qaeda rising star Abu Yahya al-Libi’s May 2008 treatise on the “The Moderation of Islam and the Moderation of Defeat” (.pdf) but a translation of his tape from two weeks ago calling for the overthrow of Gadhafi is nowhere to be found in this issue.

Khan and contributor “Abu Suhail” have articles praising the Egyptian revolution and urging it to take on al-Qaeda’s path. There’s even a list of AQAP’s latest attacks in Yemen. But about the most up-to-date commentary you’ll get on the protests in Yemen or the rebellion in Libya come from a few paragraphs in Awalaki’s feature piece speculating that uprisings in the there and across the Gulf might yield terrorist safe havens after the fall of their dictators. Well, that and some cutesy graphics predicting the fall of Moammar al-Gadhafi (note the gag glasses) and Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Those of you who may have been unable to get in contact with Awlaki since his website was shut down, take heart. Inspire and Awlaki are planning to get a bit more interactive. The magazine announced that Awlaki will be accepting questions via encrypted email and responding to them in a forthcoming video. It’s a practice used before by Zawahiri, who answered selected questions posted to him via jihadi websites in video appearances in 2008. So fire up your copy of al-Qaeda’s favorite encryption program, Mujahideen Secrets 2.0, and drop a line the editorial team at Inspire with that question you’ve been waiting to ask Anwar.

David Ignatius:Obama speech offers clarity on Libya policy

Obama speech offers clarity on Libya policy

David Ignatius

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama_speech_offers_clarity_on_libya_policy/2011/03/28/AF8Ud8qB_story.html?nav=emailpage

President Obama declared victory Monday night for his limited military intervention in Libya. After just a week, he said, America has achieved its goal of preventing a slaughter of the rebels. So does that mean Obama is ready to provide similar U.S. military help to besieged protesters down the road in Bahrain, say, or Yemen or Syria?

The answer is probably not — and that was an important but unstated note of realism underlying his attempt to explain what has been a confusing Libya policy. Although Obama came around to supporting a “war of choice” to halt Moammar Gaddafi, sources make clear that he doesn’t see the Libya intervention as a precedent for similar interventions elsewhere in the region.

Obama offered a formula that’s similar to what I heard last week traveling with Defense Secretary Bob Gates: The United States should use military force unilaterally only when it involves core U.S. national interests; in other cases, such as Libya, the United States should act militarily only with the support of its allies. America won’t act as the world’s policeman, in other words. But it’s ready to act as “police chief,” in organizing international peacekeeping operations.

Here’s how Obama put it in one of the speech’s key passages: “American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well.”

The president doesn’t want to articulate this as an “Obama doctrine” — partly, no doubt, to leave himself maximum wiggle room — but it’s there for all to see. And if there’s any doubt about its roots in Obama’s larger intellectual framework, turn to Page 308 of his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope,” where he makes that same distinction between “imminent” core threats that require a unilateral response and ones where a multilateral approach is preferable.

White House officials tried to explain the “what’s next?” issues that Obama’s speech only hinted at. The initial military phase of the Libya campaign will be followed by political and diplomatic efforts (and, unstated, intelligence activities) aimed at creating a coalition government that can run Libya after Gaddafi is gone. The president understands that this is a messy mission, but at least it’s a mess where the United States will have company — with the United Nations and major European and Arab countries along for the bumpy ride.

Already, according to deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough, the United States is in contact with rebels and potential “reconcilables” within the Gaddafi regime about framing a future government. The Libyan opposition is such a rag-tag group that the White House may actually welcome a little time to get to know the players better and help them create transitional governing structures.

Obama appears to be evolving a hybrid strategy, blending “realist” and “humanitarian interventionist” themes. Several weeks ago the administration seemed almost to be allying with Shiite protesters in Bahrain against the minority Sunni monarchy. But Obama has recognized that America has an abiding interest in the stability of neighboring Saudi Arabia, which sees Bahrain as its 51st state and won’t tolerate the overthrow of its ruling family.

Similarly, in the case of Yemen, Obama is balancing America’s enthusiasm for a democratic political change with its strategic need for a strong government that can combat al-Qaeda’s operations in the Arabian peninsula. President Ali Abdullah Saleh is on his way out, but the White House sensibly wants to have a better understanding of what’s on the other side of this transition — and to make sure that counterterrorism policies will be sustained.

Obama’s speech Monday was a lesson in how presidencies are a matter of trial and error. A candidate who came into office partly on the strength of his opposition to the Iraq war has ended up committing more American troops on more battlefields. Yet he does it, each time reluctantly, delaying and debating before sending the military.

Obama gave a good Libya speech, but soon he needs to deliver a “Cairo II” speech that will articulate a coherent strategy for the region. As he said, “history is on the move” from Morocco to Iran — and yes, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, too. If Obama can connect his AfPak policy with the democratic wave that transformed Tunisia and Egypt, he will solve the core riddle of his presidency.

WashPost:In Libya, CIA is gathering intelligence on rebels

In Libya, CIA is gathering intelligence on rebels

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-libya-cia-is-gathering-intelligence-on-rebels/2011/03/30/AFLyb25B_story.html?hpid=z1

The Obama administration has sent teams of CIA operatives into Libya in a rush to gather intelligence on the identities and capabilities of rebel forces opposed to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, according to U.S. officials.

The information has become more crucial as the administration and its coalition partners move closer to providing direct military aid or guidance to the disorganized and beleaguered rebel army.

Although the administration has pledged that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed to Libya, officials said Wednesday that President Obama has issued a secret finding that would authorize the CIA to carry out a clandestine effort to provide arms and other support to Libyan opposition groups.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, insisted that no decision has been made.

In the face of a new onslaught by government troops, rebel forces fled eastward Wednesday from cities and towns they had captured just days ago. But Gaddafi suffered a political defeat with the defection to Britain of his foreign minister, Musa Kusa, the most senior official to break ranks since the coalition bombing campaign began nearly two weeks ago.

House and Senate lawmakers briefed in a closed-door session by top administration officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, said they received a picture of mixed progress on the ground in Libya.

The headlong rebel retreat through the oil hubs of Ras Lanuf and Brega, en route to the strategic city of Ajdabiya, demonstrated the limits of their fighting ability against the superior firepower and military organization of Gaddafi loyalists. It also underscored how dependent the anti-Gaddafi forces have become on airstrikes and missile attacks by the Western-led coalition.

“Our volunteer forces in the front have only got light weapons and are facing a very large military might,” said a rebel spokesman, Col. Ahmad Bani. The largely untrained and poorly organized force lacks anti-tank and other heavy weapons.

Bani called on NATO forces to intervene more forcefully, although a U.S. military official said coalition airstrikes, including attacks by U.S. AC-130 gunships, had continued apace in combat areas along the Libyan coast, with 32 U.S. and 23 coalition airstrikes in the 12-hour period through midday in Libya.

Administration officials said U.S. participation in the strikes would subside rapidly once NATO formally takes overall command this week of all aspects of the operation.

Officials said they saw Libyan government gains during the day as temporary and part of the “fluid” back and forth of the ground combat. But they did not dispute the likelihood that the rebels will need more equipment and training to prevail, increasing the pressure to find out more about the opposition.

Several lawmakers briefed by Clinton, Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said they were told that the United States is still trying to put together a full picture of the Libyan rebellion but believes that it does not contain large numbers of radical Islamic militants.

“Nobody had detected any significant presence, although they knew there were some people,” said Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.). But “nobody’s vouching for resumes” at the moment, Ackerman said.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), said he heard nothing in the briefing that turned him in favor of arming the rebels. Calling it a “horrible idea,” Rogers said: “We know what they’re against. We don’t really know what they’re for.”

A senior administration official said that “we know well” some of the more prominent members of the Transitional National Council, the group that has been the public face of the rebellion and that includes lawyers, intellectuals and former members of the Gaddafi government.

But “in terms of participants on the ground, that’s a deeper dive, obviously,” said the official, one of several interviewed who were not authorized to publicly discuss the administration’s efforts. “You have the leadership and the formal structure, and then the ground truth in various parts of the country where you have strong opposition” to Gaddafi, but little is known about who is leading those efforts.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday that his government has made no decision about arming the rebels and that “we want to know about any links with al-Qaeda.” But, he said, “given what we have seen” of the opposition political leaders, “I think it would be right to put the emphasis on the positive side.”

The CIA’s efforts represent a belated attempt to acquire basic information about rebel forces that had barely surfaced on the radar of U.S. spy agencies before the uprisings in North Africa.

Among the CIA’s tasks is to assess whether rebel leaders could be reliable partners if the administration opts to begin funneling in money or arms.

Obama took a key step in that direction by issuing a secret authorization known as a presidential “finding,” designed to pave the way for the flow of money or weapons. News of the finding, signed several weeks ago, was first reported Wednesday by Reuters.

Under law, the CIA requires special permission from the president to carry out activities designed to influence foreign events. A finding establishes a framework of legal authorities for specific covert activities, and in some cases for future actions that can be taken only after specific permission is given.

Such operations are fraught with risks. The CIA’s history is replete with efforts that backfired against U.S. interests in unexpected ways. In perhaps the most fateful example, the CIA’s backing of Islamic fighters in Afghanistan succeeded in driving out the Soviets in the 1980s, but it also presaged the emergence of militant groups, including al-Qaeda, that the United States is now struggling to contain.

Giving the CIA an expanded role in Libya would enable the administration to bridge the gap between the restrictions on coalition airstrikes and Obama’s stated goal of bringing Gaddafi’s four-decade rule to an end.

The CIA’s Special Activities Division includes paramilitary operatives who could help guide rebel operations as well as allied airstrikes.

Even amid an escalating campaign of coalition airstrikes, opposition forces have repeatedly mounted ill-advised assaults on Gaddafi positions and have been forced to retreat from territory they had gained.

If CIA paramilitary operatives were linked up with rebel leaders, “we’d be providing the intelligence on the location of the bad guys and saying, ‘Don’t you realize they’re just down the road here, and you’re going to get whacked if you go too far?’ ” said a U.S. official with access to intelligence on the fighting in Libya. “These guys don’t seem to be following any common-sense military advice.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney refused to comment on “intelligence matters” and reiterated Obama’s public statements that while no decision has been made about arming the rebels, “we’re not ruling it out or ruling it in.”

Officials emphasized that the U.S. military will have no role on the ground in assisting the rebels. “There is no planning for putting any U.S. boots on the ground” for any purpose, a U.S. military official said. “We have no mandate, no authority, no planning going on to that effect. . . . Nobody’s told us to be prepared to do that.”

nytimes:Signs of Strain as Taliban Gird for More Fighting

Signs of Strain as Taliban Gird for More Fighting

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Afghan Taliban are showing signs of increasing strain after a number of killings, arrests and internal disputes that have reached them even in their haven in Pakistan, Afghan security officials and Afghans with contacts in the Taliban say.

The killings, coming just as the insurgents are mobilizing for the new fighting season in Afghanistan, have unnerved many in the Taliban and have spread a climate of paranoia and distrust within the insurgent movement, the Afghans said.

Three powerful Taliban commanders were killed in February in the southwestern Pakistani city of Quetta, well known to be the command center of the Taliban leadership, according to an Afghan businessman and a mujahedeen commander from the region with links to the Taliban. A fourth commander, a former Taliban minister, was wounded in the border town of Chaman in March, in a widely reported shooting.

There have also been several arrests in Pakistan of senior Taliban commanders, including those from Zabul and Kabul Provinces, and the shadow governor of Herat, Afghan officials said. Mullah Agha Muhammad, a brother of Mullah Baradar, the former second in command of the Taliban who was arrested by Pakistan security forces over a year ago to stop him negotiating with the Afghan government, was also detained briefly to send out the same warning, said the chief of the Afghan border police in Kandahar, Col. Abdul Razziq.

While the arrests have been conducted by Pakistan security forces, no one seems to know for sure who is behind the killings. Members of the Taliban attribute them to American spies, running Pakistani and Afghan agents, in an extension of the American campaigns that have used night raids to track down and kill scores of midlevel Taliban commanders in Afghanistan and drone strikes to kill militants with links to Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Others, including Pakistani and Afghan Parliament members from the region, say that the Pakistani intelligence agencies have long used threats, arrests and killings to control the Taliban and that they could be doing so again to maintain their influence over the insurgents.

Afghan officials in Kabul denied any involvement in attacks on the Taliban inside Pakistan, as did American and NATO military officials. “We’ve heard of infighting that reportedly has led to internal violence at several points in recent months,” one senior American military official said of the Taliban, asking not to be named because of the sensitivity of discussing events in Pakistan. Military forces were not involved, he added.

Whatever the case, Taliban commanders and fighters, who used to be a common sight in parts of Quetta, have now gone underground and are not moving around openly as before. Two members of the Taliban, including a senior official, declined to talk about the issue of killings on the telephone, saying it was too dangerous. Many will not answer their phones at all.

The Taliban have been under stress since American forces doubled their presence in southern Afghanistan last year and greatly increased the number of special forces raids targeting Taliban commanders. Yet they still control a number of remote districts and in those areas the insurgents can still muster forces to storm government positions, as demonstrated by their capture of a district in Afghanistan’s eastern Nuristan Province this week.

While there is still some debate over the insurgents’ overall strength, Pakistanis with deep knowledge of the Afghan Taliban say that they have suffered heavy losses in the last year and that they are struggling in some areas to continue the fight.

“The Afghan Taliban have, I think, run into problems,” said Rustam Shah Mohmand, a former Pakistani interior minister who served as ambassador in Afghanistan after 2001 and as a peace negotiator with the Taliban.

“So many of them have been killed in the last one to one and a half years as a consequence of targeted assassinations,” he said in an interview. “That has depleted the strength, capacity and ability of the Taliban.” Commanders were without communications and resources and were struggling to find recruits to replace those killed, he said.

One Taliban commander from Kunar Province said losses had been so high that he was considering going over to the side of the Afghan government in order to get assistance for his beleaguered community. “This does not mean the Taliban will stop fighting, but maybe it will be at a reduced level,” Mr. Mohmand said.

Insurgents have already switched tactics to suicide attacks on soft targets — such as recent attacks on a bank, an army recruitment center and a construction company that all caused high casualties — because they are not capable of confronting American and NATO forces in conventional battles, said Samina Ahmed, director of the International Crisis Group in Pakistan.

The Taliban have always been able to survive temporary setbacks on the battlefield by pulling back to Pakistan, where many have homes and businesses. Fighters have also found sanctuary and medical care in the anonymity of the refugee camps where over a million Afghans have lived for a generation through Afghanistan’s various wars, and in the outlying suburbs of Pakistani cities like Peshawar, Quetta and Karachi.

Yet Pakistan has become a much more uncertain environment for the Taliban as the new civilian government is openly hostile to them, the military seeks to control them and influence any future settlement they make with Kabul, and the United States increases its attacks in Pakistan, two former ambassadors, Lakhdar Brahimi and Thomas Pickering, who lead an International Task Force on Afghanistan, reported last week.

In the anti-American spy mania that seized Pakistan after an American working for the C.I.A., Raymond A. Davis, shot and killed two Pakistanis in the city of Lahore on Jan. 27, Pakistani officials and politicians have accused the C.I.A. of running numerous covert programs around the country.

A Pakistani intelligence official confirmed that C.I.A. operatives were using their own local agents to target Qaeda-linked militants with drones in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and speculated that they could be trying to expand that campaign to reach other Pakistani militants and Afghan Taliban inside Pakistan.

The C.I.A. has been formulating such a plan for months, according to two former Afghan security officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the covert nature of their work. The Americans have been using tribesmen, including members of the Taliban they have turned, to attack other Taliban groups in the border areas, one of the officials said.

But others, including officials on both sides of the border, said it could be the work of Pakistan’s premier spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI.

“Their method is brutality,” Abdul Rahim Mandokhail, a Pakistani senator from the southwestern border region near Quetta, said of the ISI. “If there is only a little opposition, their method is to kill the man,” he said. He had no specific information on recent killings, because it was too dangerous to investigate such things, he said.

A Pakistani government official working in the border region said both American and Pakistani intelligence agencies favored different insurgent groups and were striking at each other’s.

The three commanders killed in Quetta last month all led units fighting in Marja, in Helmand, the southern Afghan province where American Marines have struggled to establish security after more than a year of counterinsurgency operations.

One of the commanders was Hajji Khalil, in his late 30s, who commanded several groups of fighters in Marja, according to Baz Gul Khan, a pro-government militia leader in Marja. “He was famous in all of Marja,” Mr. Khan said. “He had about 300 men or more.”

Hajji Khalil was killed in his own house, by two men who appeared to be Taliban who stayed the night with him in his guest room. The two men left unseen by the street entrance, and the next morning Hajji Khalil’s family found him slain in the room, an Afghan businessman who is close to the Taliban said. He did not want to be named for fear of his safety.

Another commander, known as Mansour, was gunned down while riding his motorbike along Saryab Road west of the city. He led up to five units of men in Marja and operated out of a rented house in Quetta, a clear sign that he enjoyed the patronage of the ISI, the businessman said.

He did not know the name of the third Taliban commander who was killed but said that he was also from Marja and that he was responsible for communication between the senior Taliban and the fighters.

A fourth commander, Manzoor Ahmed, the former Taliban sports minister, was shot four times by unidentified assailants on the way to his office in the border town of Chaman on March 3, the official Pakistani news agency, The Associated Press of Pakistan, reported. Still, he survived.

The militia leader, Mr. Khan, said the killings were a sign that the Taliban was in decline. “We have a saying, that when a goat becomes sick, he attracts every disease,” he said. “I think the Taliban have lost momentum, they are losing the fight and so the Pakistanis do not need them and so they will kill them,” he said.

American, NATO and Afghan officials said Taliban leaders are struggling to adapt to the pressures on the movement after heavy losses on the battlefield last year and are finding commanders reluctant to return to Afghanistan fight.

“Almost 900 were killed last year,” a senior Afghan security official said. “And now the commanders are telling their leaders: ‘You have a nice life, your kids are in school, you are going on trips to Dubai, and you are telling us to go and fight?’ ”