Reports suggest that the US Army's ACE (aka Delta Force) was involved in the Tripoli operation to seize al-Liby. This news shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, we already know that the FBI/CIA were involved in the capture. In that vein, Delta's involvement would have afforded an extra contingency capability had al-Liby/allies resisted the strike team. As this video illustrates, direct action orientated special forces (like Delta) focus on overpowering their adversaries with speed and overwhelming force. The key to their tactical methodology is to psychologically and physically dominate a target in a manner that denies the opportunity for effective resistance.
That being said...
The SEAL raid against the Baraawe compound illustrates an equally important counterpoint - even Tier One SMUs have their limits. In terms of the Baraawe assault, once the SEALs presence became known, the odds quickly shifted against them. In short, they were outmanned and outgunned in hostile territory. At that point, they were forced to withdraw under fire.
Taken together, the Tripoli/Baraawe operations speak to two fundamental truths.
First, that a small group of highly trained individuals can achieve a major strategic effect (whether removing one senior Al Qa'ida leader from the battlefield - or eviscerating an enemy network*). Second, that special forces are neither superhuman nor bullet proof. In the end, the employment of these forces requires a situationally weighted calculation of risk v reward and a policymaker understanding that Von Moltke's law continues to abide- "No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy.''
The near-simultaneous capture of Anas al-Liby, a longtime Al Qa'ida planning and logistics officer (and a suspected plotter for the 1998 US Embassy bombings), represents an important counter-terrorism success for the United States. His detention will also allow for some relief at GMP, New Scotland Yard and Thames House - embarrassingly, al-Liby was granted asylum in the UK until 2000 and then escaped the country before a belated raid by UK authorities. One positive - he left behind AQ's operational handbook aka the 'Manchester Manual'. That intelligence coup afforded western intelligence services a crucial insight into AQ's operational methodology. Anyway, these two actions illustrate the US counter-terrorism apparatus at its best - patient, resourceful and decisive. (Updated 01:20 EST Sunday): Early Saturday, a force of DEVGRU SEALs attacked an al-Shabab compound on the Somali coast. The New York Times reports a US Government source as stating that the attack took place after a period of 7-10 days of planning. This suggests that the US had high confidence intelligence that their intended target would be at the location. Nevertheless, the BBC is reporting that the assault failed to capture or kill the target. We'll have to wait for a few more hours for confirmation on that. Regardless, it does appear that the SEALs encountered heavier than expected resistance and were forced to withdraw. Two weeks ago, I suggested that this specific type of military operation would likely form an increasingly important element of the US response to the Westgate atrocity. Though US counter-terrorism operations in Somalia are far from a new development, I'm glad that President Obama appears to have ordered an increasingly aggressive US posture against al-Shabab.
As I commented yesterday, it will concern the US Government that an attack on this scale occurred without prior intelligence warning. As Bergen and Sterman explain, in recent years, Al-Shabab has garnered significant support from elements of the Somali-American community. Due to this fact, the US Intelligence Community regards Al-Shabab as a high priority collection target.
Yet, even amidst this intense Intelligence scrutiny, Westgate proves that Al-Shabab's operational security is sufficient enough for the group to successfully plot and conduct a major attack. This reality encourages two conclusions. First, that Al-Shabab is following Al Qa'ida's evolving preference for ''going off the grid'' in its plotting (avoiding electronic communications, compartmentalizing operational cells etc.). Second, that the US/allies need to do more to penetrate the group's power base in southern Somalia.
In another area, it's equally important that we recognize the recent developments in Al-Shabab's organizing character. In short, though its still hampered by factionalism, the group is now orientated under a leadership that holds a significant and growing interest in global Jihad. Lead by Ahmed Abdi Godane; a young, hyper aggressive leader, over the last few months, Al-Shabab forces have ruthlessly purged former commanders and others (like Hammami) who have dared to criticize or challenge their new kingpin.
Godane's consolidation necessitates a US response.
In this vein, we should expect increasingly aggressive US counter-terrorism operations inside Somalia - likely via both manned strike aircraft and UCAV platforms and potentially also from US Special Forces stationed at Camp Lemmonier, Djibouti and/or on US Navy vessels stationed off the Somali coast.
Alongside new counter-terrorism operations in Somalia, we should also expect some government responses here in the United States. From my perspective, three particular actions are necessary.
1) As I noted yesterday, the US law enforcement community must ensure that Somalia orbit counter-terrorism efforts are well resourced.
2) State and local government authorities must update their crisis plans. During the recent Navy Yard shooting, DC authorities and the media failed miserably in their responsibility to deliver accurate, coherent and timely public advisories. Because of these failings, had Alexis acted alongside other attackers focused against other targets, Washingtonians would have been placed in unnecessary jeopardy. Defeating Mumbai 2008/Westgate style attacks is complex enough. But by learning from pastincidents, US metropolitan authorities will maximize their ability to save lives in the future.
3) Echoing point 2, on the specific tactical side, it's also crucial that local law enforcement agencies work with the FBI to refine their planning. As is the case in the UK, ongoing and multi-faceted preparation is a critical endeavor. Ego contests (like that between the FBI and NYPD) are fundamentally unhelpful.
Ultimately however, we, the American people, must wake up. Yes, in the moment of attacks we're glued to news reports. However, once incidents have concluded, our attention often becomes absorbed by blame games. Take the Navy Yard/Capitol CERT controversy. Had that tactical team stayed at the Navy Yard, it's possible that they may have saved lives. Yet, as mentioned above, had Alexis operated as part of a broader cell that also held the Capitol as a target (the extent of threat was unknown at the time of the CERT recall), the decision to remain at the Navy Yard could have been catastrophic.
My overarching point here is a basic one - counter-terrorism isn't simple. Protecting America requires our shared and astute attention. Related Thoughts
Buried beneath the Syria news frenzy, on Thursday, The Washington Post published their latest piece on the US Intelligence Community (IC). The reporting is very interesting. For a start, it seems that the CIA spends a lot more than we've previously thought. A total expenditure of around $15 billion annually. We've also learned that the CIA allocates very significant resources to technical collection efforts (of the type generally associated with the NSA). Concerning the action of intelligence operations, North Korea and Pakistan are regarded as two especially hardened intelligence targets - challenging to penetrate and gather information on. However, although the Lebanese Hezbollah are also regarded as a hardened target, the Post's report suggests that the IC has closed some of their knowledge gap in this area (crucially important following the Pizza scandal).
In an interesting statement, the Intelligence Community regards Israel as one of the top five counter-intelligence focus areas. The other states being: China, Russia, Iran and Cuba. This shouldn't be surprising, Israeli intelligence efforts against the US are well known. It also shouldn't be taken as an indictment on the US-Israeli relationship. States spy on each other. Indeed, outside of '5EYEs', America spies on everyone.
In another area, the US IC continues to inject the majority of available resources into SIGINT/GEOINT and other technical-focus capabilities. From my perspective, this is both good and bad. On the good side, technological developments have meant that US technical surveillance efforts can garner exceptionally detailed and timely data from hardened, high level targets (enabling, for example, aggressive counter-terrorism efforts). On the bad side, unlike human sources, satellites and phone intercepts etc. cannot offer proximate inferential analysis. Their weakness and flowing vulnerability is obvious- if a target doesn't engage with technology, he/she will be exceptionally challenging to track. As a response, it's crucial that the US possess a robust HUMINT portfolio. Perhaps attempting to navigate hard-target penetration, the CIA is developing capabilities “that minimize or eliminate the need for physical access and enable deep concealment operations against hard targets.”
However, what most interested me is the degree to which the CIA resources covert action efforts - $2.6 billion/annual. That's more than the agency spends on HUMINT operations ($2.3 billion/annual).
It now appears that the ongoing US security alert was indeed precipitated by a communications intercept. Specifically, an intercepted exchange between the leader of Al Qa'ida core - Ayman al-Zawahiri and the leader of Al Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula - Nasir al-Wuhayshi. Yesterday, before this confirmation arrived, I noted that an Intelligence leak of this magnitude would be highly significant.
Let's be clear, this leak represents an inexcusable failure of operational security - probably by someone on Capitol Hill. As I argued during my BBC discussion, it greatly complicates the necessary efforts of Intelligence officers. The protection (secrecy) of sources and methods provides the aorta of the Intelligence cycle. Without that protection, Intelligence efforts are doomed. In the US, there's a reason this information is classified Top Secret - Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). Again, it's truly pathetic that Congress happily condemns leakers whilst simultaneously hemorrhaging classified material. Put simply, it's the summit of hypocrisy.
So, where does this leave us?
In an absurd situation. Two of the world's most dangerous terrorists are now aware that the US has been monitoring their communications. They're aware because we told them. It's utterly ridiculous. As they alter their methods of communication and take greater steps to evade future surveillance, innocent lives will be placed in jeopardy.
For a number of diplomatic facilities, the US Government has extended the shutdown until Friday. I have a number of thoughts here.
1) The US Intelligence Community appears seriously concerned by the present terrorist threat environment. Media reports suggest that this alert was precipitated by intelligence 'chatter' of a significant nature. To me, this indicates that the target/s of the intercepts (IE - the individual/s being surveilled) are regarded as serious players. Or, in other words, they're not viewed as average dickheads - wannabe Jihadis with a loud mouth. To precipitate such a wide shutdown, the intelligence source would have to be of significant reputability in terms of an existing threat picture (IE - someone who has been linked to verified terrorist plots). Which leads me to point (2)...
2) The available evidence suggests that AQAP is responsible for this latest plot. For a start, ABC News has reported that at least some of the motivating intelligence has been sourced from AQAP's leader, Nasir al-Wuhayshi* (which would gel with my (1) thoughts). In addition, note the specific decision by the UK, France and Germany to close their embassies in Yemen (At least in part, this decision will have been driven by US intelligence sharing + Yemen is AQAP HQ). Regardless, as I've argued before, AQAP has shown an impressive ability to plan, fund and pursue significant terrorist plots. Further, in the context of recent Al Qa'ida linked prison breaks in Iraq and elsewhere (albeit not in traditional AQAP areas of operation), we know that there are a significant number of skilled and ideologically committed terrorists on the loose. In short, this is not an ideal situation.
3) The terrorist cell responsible appears to be active. The extension of the Embassy shutdown provides the best evidence for this supposition. In addition, the absence of announced detentions (if they had occurred the information would have probably leaked by now) suggests that the US also lacks a complete understanding of the cell/s formation - identities, strength, locations.
4) Linking to (3), the unprecedented diplomatic shutdown suggests that the US picked up the plot late on. Had the threat been identified earlier, it's likely we would have seen a more organized and less overtly dramatic increase in security.
5) It's very likely that the ongoing political fallout from Benghazi (please see my thoughts earlier this week) is motivating part of the security response. The Obama Administration is desperate to avoid allegations of a cavalier attitude towards terrorism. At the same time, post-Benghazi, an abundance of caution makes physical sense as well as political.
6) It's also probable that the excited Congressional reaction to this plot has a sizable measure of political motivation. As evidenced by the House's upholding of the NSA's data intercept program, most members of Congress remain committed to providing robust counter-terrorism capabilities to the IC. Yet, these officials are also keenly aware of growing concern among Americans over the civil liberty implications of those same programs. In this sense, by pointing to the apparent seriousness of this latest threat and by suggesting that the plot was discovered by signal intercepts (hint hint... NSA), politicians are trying to defend their continued support for the NSA.
7) Although the diplomatic shutdown was necessary, it nonetheless created another problem- signalling to the cell/s that they have, at least to some degree, been detected. In that sense, the US will worry that those terrorists may re-orientate onto another target before they can be detained or confronted. This concern is at the core of why counter-terrorist agencies are traditionally highly reluctant to publicize warnings on suspected threats.
* - Assuming it's true, I would like to know how ABC News (see video below) found out that al-Wuhayshi was the subject of a communications intercept. If it is true, it represents another massive leak. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be the first time that some attention seeker has leaked highly classified AQAP related intelligence. Let's be clear, when it comes to the callous and unlawful provision of secret information to outside parties, the consequences are often profoundly negative.
Link page for some of my other MENA security focus pieces.
As basic background, the wiretap program is designed to collate pattern activity from telephone calls. This action is pursued in order to
try and establish
intelligence insight into the identity and network formation of potential
terrorist cells. The PRISM program is equally (if not more) significant - in simple terms, it allows US intelligence officers to intercept a wide variety of communications flowing across a wide variety of platforms.
I have a number of observations.
1) From my perspective, there are two core reasons why the public/media reaction has been so strong.
First,
these leaks follow in the immediate footsteps of AP/IRS/Benghazi - they paint the picture of an increasingly authoritarian government (whether that understanding is fair or not is another matter!). As an extension to this point, perhaps the public anguish reflects our American sympathy for
having things easy and palatable (see Matt Lewis) and maybe we prefer not to know the darker sides of governance?
Second, the leaks speak
to a disconnect between the Presidential identity that Obama has sought to purvey (change, openness etc) and his political identity in reality (perhaps this distinction stems from the national security concerns that now arrive at Obama's desk?). Anyway, it will be interesting to see how these leaks affect perceptions of the Obama Administration going forwards. Certainly, the President is witnessing a rapid depreciation in standing
among Democrats (see Al Gore) on the political left. We've also seen attempts by some Republicans to score political points on the issue.
2) Let's be clear, even before the leaks hit the news, anyone who knew anything about the US Intelligence Community assumed programs like these were in operation. For me, the striking points to take from these leaks are situated not with the leaks themselves, but the reaction that has followed their arrival. Aside from the evident public anguish as noted above, we're seeing a rapid renwal of civil libertarian politics in both Republican + Democratic circles. I wonder whether with ever more accessible technology, our easier ability to perceive perceived
abuses is flowing into our greater scrutiny of power? That leads to another supposition - Perhaps government isn't growing more authoritarian, perhaps we're growing more skeptical?
3) There's an obvious utlity to these programs. Similar collection efforts allowed US intelligence to cripple insurgent networks in Iraq during the 2007-09 period. Related legislation is under consultation
by the UK government. This isn't just the US - this is a global trend.
If your interested, check out these two relevant pieces that illustrate my position on this issue - why Government must be tough on leakers and relaxed on reporters.
This page is regularly updated (please ignore the May 5th date tag). Most recent writings tend to be at the top of each header section. Writings on other issues related to security/intelligence/counter-terrorism/AQ Core etc. are listed in the OTHER section towards the end of this post. Relevant academic background - I hold a BA in War Studies from King's College London and a Masters degree in Middle East Politics from The School of Oriental and African Studies, London.
Why Hizballah will desert Assad before the end (The Guardian) (I still support the essence of my argument here, but in hindsight, it's also clear that I placed too much emphasis on Hizballah's concerns over domestic/regional political perception.)
President Obama is visiting Israel this week. Over the next few days, I will post on why the trip is important. However, in the meantime, I want to drop a quick note concerning the escalating Israeli pressure on Obama to release Jonathan Pollard. These Israeli demands are nothing new. Regardless, for two key reasons they annoy me a great deal.
1) Pollard is a convicted traitor. He betrayed our country in order to provide intelligence to another state. There are few crimes as serious. The fact that Israel is our ally is irrelevant. Pollard swore an oath to the United States. Like Kiriakou, he betrayed that oath. He deserves to be in prison.
2) The Israeli intelligence operation which ran Pollard was an inexcusable act against the United States. The United States is Israel's one enduring ally. I support this relationship - for reasons of morality and historic strategic kinship, Israel deserves American support. I also understand and respect why the Israelis have traditionally adopted an aggressive security strategy. But the United States deserves reciprocal respect. We do not deserve to have the Israelis acting against us in such an aggressive fashion. Especially in reference to HUMINT asset procurement. Certainly not on American soil.
In short, it's an audacious act of disrespect for the Israelis to demand that we release Pollard. Fortunately, it's highly unlikely that Pollard will be released. To do so would produce extreme disquiet in the US intelligence community. Indeed, former CIA Director Tenet once told President Clinton that he would resign if Pollard was released.
