Terrorism

Jehan Sadat on Middle East Peace

Patrick Doherty — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:47:00 -0400

Today the New America Foundation is honored to be hosting former Egyptian First Lady, Jehan Sadat. Dr. Sadat, who spends half her year as a scholar in residence at the University of Maryland, will be discussing the ideas she outlines in her latest book, My Hope for Peace.

Intelligence Appropriations: Will the Senate Reform?

Patrick Doherty — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:45:00 -0500

This post was authored by Timothy Little, a Research Intern for The American Strategy Program

A couple months ago I commented on a new attempt by Senator Bond (R-MO) to create a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Intelligence. With the election and the financial crisis dominating much of the conversations in Congress, there has been little movement on this issue. However, recent changes in Senate chairmanships and the new WMD report released could revive this issue.

A commission chaired by Bob Graham and Jim Talent released its report on the prevention of WMD proliferation and terrorism. They concluded what many policy analysts have been saying for some time: "a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013." The year is open to debate, but it will likely be within the next decade.

However, the same report called upon Congressional leadership to "establish an Intelligence Subcommittee on the Appropriations Committees in both chambers of Congress with jurisdiction over the National Intelligence Program and Military Intelligence Program budgets."

The new Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) said in 2004 when he was Ranking Member of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee:

"Linking Defense and Intelligence is critical. DOD cannot operate without good intelligence. The Defense Subcommittee has ensured that intelligence resources support the needs of the warfighter. Today, the Defense Subcommittee reviews the recommendations of both the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. The Appropriations Committee can minimize redundancies and make sure that the needs of both Defense and Intelligence are met" (Internal note in a CRS Report)

Sen. Inouye is on the record as being against separating intelligence appropriations into a separate subcommittee arguing that the defense subcommittee should handle defense intelligence appropriations. Sen. Inouye appears to be towing the same line as his predecessor. It is unknown whether his stance has changed since 2004 when that statement was made or what effect his chairmanship of appropriations will have on this issue. However, in a Sept 2008 floor statement, Sen. Inouye was extremely critical of the Bond resolution creating the subcommittee stating, "the proposal made by the Senator from Missouri would not improve congressional oversight of intelligence."

In other congressional changes, Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV), a co-sponsor of the Bond Resolution is relinquishing chairmanship of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) for Chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee. The incoming chair of the Intelligence Committee will be Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) who has not signed on as a co-sponsor of the resolution, but has supported efforts to improve the intelligence community's appropriations process. In March 2008, Sen. Feinstein joined with other members of the SSCI in sending a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and then Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV) supporting the creation of a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Intelligence.

The House of Representatives has already made significant progress by creating the House Appropriations Select Intelligence Oversight Panel. This group is comprised of members selected by the Speaker of both the House appropriations and intelligence committees. However, out of the 13 members on the oversight panel, 10 have to be from appropriations and 3 from intelligence. Clearly and uneven distribution this model has its failings. However, the panel is a step in the right direction. Full power should rest in neither the Intelligence Committee nor the Appropriations Committee.

The opportune time to create this new subcommittee is now. The beginning of the 111^th Congress and a new administration should make it their priority to enact a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that is long overdue. Intelligence is one of the most vital aspects of our national security program. Proper oversight over appropriations to the intelligence community will have a lasting impact on America's national security environment.

ASP In the News | August 11-13

Ian McAllister — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:08:00 -0400

Chicago Tribune (08/13) quotes Steve Clemons on liberal opposition to a Bayh VP slot.
Pravda (08/13) quotes Flynt Leverett on Georgia's strategic mistake in provoking Russian aggression.
Israel E News (08/13) quotes Daniel Levy on Israel's shaky ceasefire with Hamas.
Washington Independent (08/13) quotes Peter Bergen on safe havens for Al Qaeda.
Financial Times (08/12) cites Steve Clemons on conservatives who support Obama.
Guardian (08/12) mentions Peter Bergen on American elites' evolving attitudes towards fighting terror.

ASP In the News | August 4-6

Ian McAllister — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:23:00 -0400

Associated Press (08/06) cites William Hartung on potential cooperation with China on energy security.
Washington Post (08/06) quotes Flynt Leverett on Iran's continuing uranium enrichment.
National Interest (08/01) cites Peter Bergen on Washington's evolving strategy against terrorism.
Somerville Journal (08/01) quotes Daniel Levy's analysis on Israel negotiating through Turkey and Egypt.

Rational Terrorists, Irrational Policy

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:31:00 -0400

The 2008 Copenhagen Consensus has just been released and its panel of top economists has declared the global fight against terrorism an unwise investment.

The post-9/11 world has increased counter-terrorism spending by $70billion annually, with the U.S contributing the lion's share to this cause. This has been accompanied by a significant reduction in the number of attacks, but casualties from said terrorist attacks have risen. The Wall Street Journal reports that a 34% drop in terrorist attacks has been accompanied with a rise in deaths, from 420 to 487 casualties annually.

What explains this inverse relationship? Terrorists have long been labeled "irrational," but they seem to have little trouble calculating costs and benefits. Rather than waste their time with minor attacks that may be thwarted by the heightened security, they save their money and time for big attacks; read more casualties.

Since a larger cost per attack is more traceable, the Copenhagen report says interrupting terrorist-funding would be the cheapest and most effective way to reduce trans-national terrorism. A slight increase in the amount given to build modern, secure communication and finance networks in less developed countries would provide better results than any equivalent investment in additional military capability.

And, by beginning to get at the kinds of economic exclusion from lack of access to banking, property rights, organizational forms, and identity devices that plagues some 4.5 billion people, according to Hernando de Soto, that same small investment would continue giving back for generations.

ASP In the News | July 23-25

Ian McAllister — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:55:00 -0400

The Council on Foreign Relations (07/24) cites Peter Bergen on a possible future defeat of Al Qaeda.
CBS News (07/23) interviews Daniel Levy on Barack Obama's trip to the Middle East.
UN Dispatch (07/23) includes Steve Clemons in a panel discussion on terrorism and the next president.
Kansas City Star (07/20) quotes Peter Bergen on the dangers posed by madrassa education.

Internships at the American Strategy Program

Patrick Doherty — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:06:00 -0400

Calling all prospective interns... special consideration given to those who can start in August... We can guarantee at least one of the two superstars above will be part of your internship...

Click here for the official link.

Intern, American Strategy Program

The New America Foundation is continually seeking enthusiastic intern applicants to assist the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The American Strategy Program at the new America Foundation is one of Washington's most dynamic and innovative foreign policy centers situated at the nexus of strategy, policy and politics.

Primary Responsibilities

Substantive research to support the American Strategy Program in general and the following areas:
1. Grand Strategy, Great Powers and America's Role in the World
2. Nuclear Strategy and Non-Proliferation
3. Middle-East Policy
4. Counter-terrorism and Counter-insurgency
5. U.S.-Cuba Policy
6. Smart Globalization
Content development for ASP's various policy blogs.
Administrative support to the program associate as directed, including staffing events at New America.
Other tasks as directed.

Qualifications

Ideal candidates will have the following qualifications:

Enrollment in a undergraduate foreign policy program;
Proven research and analytical skills, with a clear substantive interest in one of the initiatives listed above;
Strong writing and editing abilities;
Familiarity with internet research tools;
Ability to multitask in a fast-paced environment;
Be a flexible and enthusiastic team player; and
Relevant language skills a plus but not required (Chinese, Arabic, Spanish, Hebrew, Farsi, etc.)

Application Process

Applications are accepted on a rolling basis. ASP prefers to hire interns for Fall, Spring, and Summer time periods, though other arrangements will be considered.

E-mail resume, cover letter and one writing sample (up to six pages) to: Human Resources Department, New America Foundation, jobs@newamerica.net. Please state "Intern, New America Foundation/American Strategy Program" in the e-mail subject line.

Applicants must be currently eligible to be employed in the United States. The New America Foundation is an equal opportunity employer.

The Dark Side: Truth or Consequences?

Katherine Tiedemann — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:20:00 -0400

During Jane Mayer's event today at New America promoting her penetrating new book, The Dark Side, a topic came up during the Q & A that I'd like to expand on--the possibility of establishing a truth commission for the Bush administration's transgressions. The idea has been getting some play recently, both from Nick Kristof in the NYT and scattered across some lefty blogs (a funny parody here, another suggestion here). The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission is generally held up as the model for such bodies, which don't have formal judicial power but instead serve primarily as instruments for the discovery of past wrongdoings by governments.

So far, when each instance of misconduct has been revealed -- from the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes and waterboarding to extraordinary renditions and habeas-corpus-free detention of prisoners at Guantanamo -- individual solutions have been sought and some individual actors have been put forth to be held accountable. But this approach is piecemeal at best and does not get at the connective tissue and the systematization of abuses.

A truth commission, however, would provide a more holistic approach to the violations that have been committed or ordered by individuals and agencies within the government. A commission would serve as an opportunity to look back and expose where the administration started to go wrong in its decision-making process; allow those whose rights have been violated to be heard; and give Americans on the whole a chance to cleanse our national conscience--and our image abroad.

This really cannot be done by journalists alone. Jane Mayer commented today that she has "subpoena envy" as a reporter and often has to beg for documents; a truth commission would bypass this poverty of access because it would have the power to subpoena relevant individuals and organizations for their testimonies and records.

And there is still much to be uncovered. Although Mayer's new book and other writings provide important details about the different programs the Bush administration instituted in the panicky atmosphere in the aftermath of September 11, she herself is the first to admit that there is still much that is unknown. Of particular interest to Mayer is the role of physicians and psychiatrists in interrogation -- she recounts instances in her book, and in this interview with Scott Horton of Harper's, of doctors being present or at the ready during the euphemistically titled "harsh interrogations" and wonders, as I do, who these doctors are and should they be permitted the keep their licenses, having flagrantly broken the Hippocratic oath.

Not everyone agrees, of course. One prominent argument against establishing a truth commission for the Bush administration is, according to Mayer, the country's lack of political will to prosecute officials who could claim they were defending Americans against an existential threat. But with today's release of the first video from Guantanamo added to many previously disclosed examples of prisoner abuse, the time has long come to stop this abhorrent institutionalization of maltreatment of those in our custody. September 11 should not have given the government a carte blanche to warrantless wiretap, reinterpret the Constitution according to David Addington, and expand the powers of the presidency beyond Nixonian levels. Surely a truth commission would go at least part of the way toward righting the laundry list of wrongs that have been carried out in the name of national security over the last seven years.

The Softer Side of Counter-Terrorism

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:29:00 -0400

Terrorism could be considered the most hateful act there is; purposefully injuring and killing innocent civilians to achieve a far-fetched political goal. The United States and most of the world have decisively taken a strong stance against terrorists without exception. Israel may be the most heavy-handed in doling out punishments; a deadly rampage by a Palestinian man in a bulldozer warranted plans to destroy the house he shared with twenty other people, in addition to the fact that he was killed on the spot.

Yet for all the quick punishments and no-nonsense retaliations there is little, if any, proof that extremism and terrorist acts world-wide have declined in recent years. Terrorism expert Peter Bergen argues that extremist attacks have risen. Maybe we should be looking for alternative, or complementary, approaches in tackling extremism. Saudi Arabia has a new and intriguing one that may be worth noting: rehabilitation.

Yemen has also launched rehabilitation centers for their convicted terrorists. A new BBC report discusses the "care center" in which Saudi authorities hold many of those convicted of extreme acts. The care center may look like a prison from the outside, but the inside could easily be mistaken for a summer camp. The "beneficiaries" are treated to art classes, where they learn to express themselves in non-violent ways; they also have access to a swimming pool and video games.

This four-star treatment may look more like a pat on the back than a slap on the wrist, or as some American security experts would prefer, a life sentence. But Saudi officials tout the success of their program with credit going to a key feature of the rehabilitation process: religious instruction by Muslim scholars. The Saudis believe that the struggle against terrorism is primarily an ideological one, which must be fought with ideas.

This stands in stark contrast to the US, and many other nations', approach to terrorism, which is something along the lines of "fighting fire with fire."

The US is not likely to adopt this approach exclusively, which would be a complete reversal from our current counter-terrorism measures. But before we scoff or outright reject the Saudi's soft-handed response, we should remind ourselves that Muslims' understanding of their own culture and religion is far superior to our own and they just might be on to something.

ASP in the News May 16-19

Mon, 19 May 2008 14:55:00 -0400

CNN (5/16) cites Peter Bergen's expert opinion on Sen. McCain's terrorism policy.
Charlie Rose (5/15) conversed with Parag Khanna about the decline of US dominance over global affairs.