February 2018 - Page 2 of 4

February 19, 2018October 3, 2018 by Austin Ludolph

The War in Afghanistan: Will It Ever End?

(The U.S. Army/Flickr) -American military personnel in Afghanistan

The War in Afghanistan has ground on for more than 16 years since its start on October 7th, 2001. Operation Enduring Freedom was part of the response to the September 11th attacks, but there does not appear to be a clear end in sight. [1] Over the years, the number of troops in Afghanistan has risen and fallen, but the war has ground on. At one point, in August of 2010, [1] there were as many as 100,000 troops. The budget for 2018 was just released and the sum will cost the American taxpayers $45 billion dollars. [4] 3,200 young American men and women have lost their lives fighting for our freedom. Mustn’t we acknowledge that from where things now stand, you’d be forgiven for asking if will this war never end?

Our main goals in 2001 were to dismantle the Taliban government in Afghanistan and end Osama Bin Laden’s reign as leader of Al-Qaeda. Although Osama Bin Laden was killed and the Taliban were disassembled, the latter have been regrouping. It seems we are in a Doom Loop.

(AP/BBC News)- “Defecting Taliban fighters drive through the front line in the village of Amirabad, northern Afghanistan”

Our leaders realize there is no end to this war. The cat and mouse game of killing and capturing Taliban has been going on for a decade and a half. Afghanistan does not have a stable government or infrastructure to rely on. There is a “combination of state collapse, civil conflict, ethnic disintegration and multi-sided intervention that has locked it in a cycle that may be simply beyond outside resolution.” [2] Afghanistan has been in disarray for a long time; any hope for a stable country may reside ten years down the road.

The main reason the U.S. stays in Afghanistan is to avoid creating a vacuum that would turn into a terrorist breeding ground. Roger Shanahan from Sydney’s Lowy West Asia Program said to achieve what we want, “You need to destroy that safe-haven element and as part of that strategic aim, you want to build Afghan governance so that it can control the areas it supposedly has sovereignty over” [1].

Much as we would like to leave, we simply can’t. During the past few weeks, we have seen how strong the Taliban remains. There was a “series of bold terror attacks in Kabul that kill[ed] more than 115 people” [3]. The Trump Administration has responded to these attacks by, “…deploying troops across rural Afghanistan to advise Afghan brigades and launching air strikes against opium labs to try to decimate the Taliban’s finances.” [3] President Trump has also ruled out the idea of directly negotiating with the Taliban. [5]

Training the local Afghan military has seen some progress, but not nearly enough for the Afghan military to take on the Taliban itself. The Army recently announced that six units of 1,000 soldiers from the 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade will deploy in the Spring “specially designed to ‘advise and assist’ foreign armies so that they can contain guerrilla movements on their own” [5]. The goal of creating these special units is that they will be able to advise the Afghanistan military rather than simply overseeing operations.

The harsh reality is that America’s longest running war will not end for some time unless the U.S.decides to pull its troops from the country precipitously. To the contrary, the U.S. presence will remain for the foreseeable future. That fact notwithstanding, the Washington Post recently noted our outlook, how we approach elements of the war may change. According to the Washington Post, “The expansion of the U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan to target a little-known Chinese terrorist group is an example of how the 16-year-old war has changed under President Trump” [6].

Targeting groups such as ETIM (East Turkestan Islamic Movement) and TAP (Turkistan Islamic Party) betrays just how many formerly independent terrorist organizations are beginning to consolidate in-country. The war, simply stated, is not simply about fighting the Taliban anymore. According to Air Force Brigadier General Lance R. Bunch – the director of future operations at U.S.-led military headquarters in Kabul – it’s about fighting, “anybody that is an enemy of Afghanistan” [6].

(U.S. Air Force)-A B52 Bomber dropping its payload on training camps of ETIM and TAP

Sources:

February 19, 2018October 3, 2018 by Maya Norman

The Terrorist Threat in France: A Look at Prison Radicalization

ANNE-CHRISTINE POUJOULAT/AFP/GETTY

French counter-terrorism policy rejects the soft measures carried out by many of its European counterparts. So then, why has France, despite its aggressive stance against terrorism, seen more high-profile terrorist incidents than any other Western European country in the last six years? An absence of terrorist attacks in France for more than a decade created a false sense of security. However, since 2012 France has been the victim of several jihadist attacks that have placed it on the frontline in the battle against terrorism. While some observers blame the attacks on France’s large Muslim prison population, citing prisons as a breeding ground of radicalization, others blame France’s delayed implementation of counter-radicalization programs. Other critics attribute the attacks to marginalized Muslim populations that find France’s secular policies stifling. None of these analyses, standing alone, provides an explanation sufficient to guide an effective strategy to end attacks. But this piece will focus on the prisons.

The notion of prison serving as a breeding ground for radicalization is not new. Khalen Kelkal, the main perpetrator of the 1995 Paris subway attacks that spurred counter-terrorism legislation, is believed to have been radicalized in prison. As of 2015, at least four men underwent radicalization while in a French prison and went on to attack locations in Europe. Furthermore, Cherif Kouachi, the Charlie Hebdo attacker, arrived at Fleury Merogis, a French prison, in January 2005. While imprisoned, Kouachi met Djamel Beghal – also known as Abu Hamza – who was serving 10 years for plotting to attack a US embassy in 2001. Kouachi also encountered Amedy Coulibaly, the man behind the 2015 Jewish supermarket attacks. In another instance still, Mehdi Nemouche, underwent radicalization in prison, traveled to Syria, and then traveled to Belgium where, in 2014, he attacked the Jewish Museum of Belgium. While these men represent only a small portion of the total prison population, their social ties to one another, as well as the magnitude of their crimes, demonstrates prison radicalization is an area worthy of counter-radicalization focus.

Radicalization can occur in prison for several reasons. It can stem from a confrontation with jail authorities, often worsened by the negative images Muslim inmates see on television and in other media regarding Islam. In addition, radicalization is molded, “by the conditions prevailing in prison, its organization and specific architecture.” Overcrowding can lead to sharing cells, restrictions on bathing, and unheard demands due to prison guards’ heavy workloads. This leads to exasperation, often exacerbated by the prison’s refusal to allow the practice of religion. Muslim prisoners believe Islamophobia runs rampant within their walls. Problems associated with prisons globally are vexing for many French Muslims and the disaffection they feel outside prison is only magnified behind bars.

Focusing counter-radicalization efforts in prisons would likely yield positive results if done astutely, and with advice from experts. As of 2015, according to authorities, French prisons held 238 inmates charged with terrorist offenses, with 152 of them classified as “dangerous Islamists.” There are approximately 67,500 imprisoned individuals in France. It is estimated that 70% of the prison population is Muslim, yet Muslims notably comprise only 8% of the French national population. Romain Quivooij, Associate Research Fellow with the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University, acknowledges that the number of “dangerous Islamists” is a very low number in comparison to the total prison population, and argues that “radicalization in prison does not only involve people singled out as ‘radical Islamists.’ Cases of ordinary criminals who adopt violent extremist views in jail and engage in terrorist activities upon their release are common.” One French prison director implemented a trial run in which the radicalized individuals were segregated from the general population. While the director deemed the segregation successful, an ex-inmate of the French prison stated, “I don’t understand the idea at all of putting all the radicals together and hoping they will change.” Some believe putting radicalized inmates together strengthens bonds and facilitates jihadist ideology. Regardless, it does seem to limit their ability to attract new recruits.

Haras Rafiq of the Quilliam Foundation states neither segregating nor allowing radicalized inmates to mix with the general population is a good model, rather he advocates for an increase of professional imams. Prison guards do receive some training, however, due to the large population of inmates in prisons, in addition to the changing profile of a radicalized jihadist, guards find it difficult to detect radicalized individuals. According to one expert the, “…lack of Muslim chaplains is thought to have created a vacuum that leaves room for self-appointed and self-taught imams and their radical ideas.” In fact, Hassan el-Anoui Talibi, Chief Imam of French prisons issued a press release advocating for more financial support and resources for prison imams, as they currently receive no pay except reimbursement for basic expenses (Alexander). One offender stated that in the six years he was imprisoned, he did not see an Imam until year five (Alexander). With a surplus of resources going into hard counter-terrorism measures, it’s reasonable to assume that France could procure an appropriate number of imams.

While an augmentation in imams, in quality and quantity, may be sound policy akin to soft measures found in other European countries, one author asserts that the majority of radicalized inmates may actually go through the process of radicalization prior to their first sentence. This indicates that prison programs may need an emphasis on de-radicalization rather than solely counter-radicalization.

Does a promising policy exist that can incorporate the two? The same author argues that increasing the number of imams is urgently needed, however so is “the integration of additional services as part of a wider interdisciplinary approach.” Effective programs can be hard to implement in a favorable setting. Creating an effective program in French prisons to hinder radicalization and promote deradicalization remains an enormous challenge. However, in light of France’s high incidence of terrorist attacks, it is likely to continue augmenting its prison programs. It would be well-served by focusing on approaches that are multifaceted and by listening to suggestions from community members and academics.

February 19, 2018July 2, 2019 by Josephine Neulen

Women and their Role in Violent Extremism

Recruitment of women by violent extremist organizations has increased in recent years due to their value as strategic, political, and social tools in service of the organization’s mission. They attract less suspicion, making them valuable in bombing missions, but they also are of deep symbolic importance in the organization’s daily progress.

Recruitment of women by al-Qaeda disturbs Iraq government

In 2016, Indonesian police arrested two women, Dian Yulia Novi and Ika Puspitasari, after they had planned a suicide bomb attack.[1] These occurrences are often puzzling to officials since it is usually assumed women are only indirectly involved in extremist organizations through supporting or hiding their husbands or other men. This is not necessarily true.

While the exact number of women in terror organizations is unclear, the recently collapsed IS caliphate sheds light on the tally, like the approximately 800 women who had joined Daesh that are now being detained in northern Syria[2]. Roughly 10% of radical Islamic groups’ members are women, a portion that is surprisingly large and inspires questions about why women join these organizations. [3]

Women join terror organizations for the same reasons men do, despite the disparity in numbers from each gender who join. While women are often portrayed as more “virtuous” and “passive” than violent, they are drawn to the community, the ideology, and the identity just like men are. The promise of liberation, empowerment, and a cause to live for draws men and women alike to extremist groups[4]. In recent years, both women and men have come from all over the world to join the cause they believe in.

The presence of women in violent extremist organizations is important due to the symbolic significance they carry. Women joining ISIS, for example, are vital to the ideological effort through social-media recruitment. They represent the future of the cause and perpetuation of the ideology as wives and mothers.[5] While research suggests that they are not involved in daily violence as much as men are, they are far from passive.

While there are some valuable accounts, more research is needed to shed light on the exact roles women play in these communities, and what potential impact they have. Terror organizations have long understood women’s significance to their cause. They are potentially even more dangerous due to the lack of suspicion they arouse, and the support they are able to inspire in young recruits.[6]

Sources:

[1] Ayuningtyas, Kusumasari. Indonesian Seminar Outlines Women’s Roles in Terror Prevention. (January 26, 2018).
[2] 800 female Daesh terrorists detained in northern Syria. (February 10, 2018).
[3] Moss, C. (2017, July 2). Why Do Women Become Terrorists? The Daily Beast.
[4] Attia, B. M.-E. and S. (2017, May 9). Female terrorists and their role in jihadi groups.
[5] Baker, Aryn (September 6, 2014). How ISIS Is Recruiting Women From Around the World.
[6] Says, A. E. (2016, October 28). Increasing number of women recruited by terrorists.

in Africa / Asia / MENA / Rise to Peace blog / women-in-extremism 0 comments

February 19, 2018October 3, 2018 by John Sims

Syrian Conflict: When Great Powers Do Not Play Well Together

Syria remains a disaster; for the people who remain there, for those who’ve fled but hope one day to return and for those who seek a sound, diplomatic solution. The catalog of actors operating in the theater, even at this late date, is increasingly alarming: Syrian pro-government forces, Syrian rebels, ISIL-terrorists, Russian armed forces, and U.S. coalition forces. International actors like Russia and the United States claim to have entered the conflict to subvert the threat of ISIL. Both sides dispute the other’s rationale. But when direct military contact occurs between the United States and Russia, that threatens not only the goal of reducing ISIL terror but the stability of the whole international order.

Graphic by Anastasia Beltyukova and Henrik Pettersson for CNN[1]

Innumerable horrors have emerged from the region since the Syrian Civil War’s start. Each is terribly important, but ISIL’s offenses engender a category of sadism and butchery that cannot be ignored. ISIL engages in genocidal campaigns against minority populations like Yazidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims. It has murdered internationally protected journalists in manners too barbaric for mass media consumption and advocates extremist violence the world over[2]. This only scratches the surface of ISIL’s crimes.

The United States committed to combating and reducing the ISIL threat in 2014. In concert with European and Middle Eastern allies, the U.S. supported regional friends with a crippling campaign of airstrikes directed against ISIL. The advent of Russian intervention, however, complicated things. In 2015, Bashar al-Assad’s regime requested Russian assistance in combating Islamic extremists and rebel factions alike. Though ISIL has been significantly reduced since 2014, the U.S. and Russia maintain daily military operations in Syria. Global concerns mounted in February 2018 when pro-government forces, backed by Russian mercenary squads, attacked U.S. forces and Syrian allies.

Another case in point, a U.S. drone destroyed a Russian made T-72 battle tank on February 10th, 2018. No U.S. or allied troops were killed, but reports indicate three Russian affiliates died in the tank [4]. The T-72 in question was reportedly moving, with coordinated indirect fire, on a position held by coalition advisors and Syrian Democratic Forces, the latter of which is a Syrian rebel group supported by the United States and its allies[5]. This incident followed another assault in which pro-Syrian forces attacked coalition troops on February 7th and 8th. U.S. coalition forces are reported to have killed 100 Syrian operatives following this unprovoked attack on coalition headquarters [6].

US Marines firing a howitzer in Syria © US Marine Corps

Questions persist regarding Russia’s motivation in the conflict. Since its intervention, it has consistently bombed rebel groups allied against Bashar al-Assad [7]. To justify its strikes, Russia labels as terrorists any group contending for power with Assad. Russian operations have helped the regime dramatically reduce the rebel threat while leaving the lion’s share of the ISIL fight to the American-led coalition. At this point in the conflict, with the threat of ISIL reduced, Russian and American backed proxies, to say nothing of national forces, are increasingly coming into conflict with each other, as February’s developments prove.

We may never know who was killed in the tank or how many Russians died in the February 8th coalition forces assault, but the escalating conflict between the world’s sole superpower and its former cold war adversary helps no one, especially not Syrians whose homeland has become an arena where international scores may be settled. US-Russian relations are at a low due to Syria, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Further conflict promises to exacerbate an already fraught bond.

ISIL should remain the focus of American and Russian military operations. The so-called caliphate has been diminished, but it has not been defeated. Its calls for extremist violence have been heard across the world. The U.S. has witnessed ISIL-inspired violence in San Bernardino, Orlando, and in the bombing and vehicular attacks in New York City. A Russia-bound commercial airliner over Egypt was bombed out of the sky by ISIL. Bombs claimed by ISIL have exploded in the metros of St. Petersburg. American and Russian nationals have traveled to Syria, fought for ISIL, and threaten to wage further conflict upon their return home. ISIL and its propaganda remain virulent threats to both nations.

The Syrian Civil War is rightfully viewed as one of the great geopolitical cataclysms of the young, 21st century. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead and millions have been displaced, yet peace remains elusive. These great powers should be working together, not at odds, to resolve global conflicts. Better US-Russian commitment to avoiding concentric operational areas mitigates the likelihood of further conflict. To be sure, awareness of one another’s airspace exists, however, each country must honor such arrangements. As long as the Syrian Civil War drags on, the possibility of even more destructive conflict remains. It seems self-evident that resolving the civil war should be everyone’s priority.

Disagreements between the U.S. and Russia would hardly disappear were the two to resolve their differences over Syria, but so doing would remove two adversaries from a kinetic combat zone and remove a critical issue that’s currently impeding bilateral relations. A resolution would allow each nation to fight international and regional terrorism directly rather than eliciting proxy warfare in the guise of fighting terror. For the Middle East’s sake and that of the rest of the world, the United States and Russia must do better.

Sources:

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/25/middleeast/syria-isis-whos-fighting-who-trnd/index.html
[2] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/isil-committed-genocide-minority-groups-isis-160317132446363.html
[3] http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/
[4] http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/02/13/us-drone-destroys-russian-made-tank-in-syria-in-self-defense-officials-say.html
[5] http://www.businessinsider.com/video-of-us-destroying-russian-t-72-tank-in-syria-with-drone-strike-2018-2
[6] http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-killed-100-russian-syrian-backed-fighters-2018-2?r=UK&IR=T
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/syria-airstrikes-everything-you-need-to-know

Click here to learn more about Ahmad Mohibi, Founder of Rise to Peace

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

February 11, 2018October 3, 2018 by Austin Ludolph

Bitcoin: How Terrorist Organizations are Using Cryptocurrency to Fund Operations

Bitcoin is the new talk on the streets these days. You may have heard about it on the news recently or in everyday talk and commotion. It is the new hot commodity that has features similar to Venmo and PayPal but is essentially its own unique type of currency. Bitcoin has been called a cryptocurrency, “that was created in 2009 by an unknown person using the alias Satoshi Nakamoto.” [1] Bitcoin is unique in the sense that there is no official bank of Bitcoin, so trading Bitcoin is as easy as sending it from you to me and vice versa. This means that “transactions are made with no middlemen” but can come at a cost as Bitcoin is not insured by the FDIC [1]. Altogether, Bitcoin’s “hype” has come this past year in multiple accounts of people investing in Bitcoin and over time, have turned into millionaires.

How does Bitcoin relate to terrorism?

Terrorist groups, especially and mainly ISIS, have caught on to the use of Bitcoin and now may be using it to fund their efforts. It seems to be the perfect avenue for channeling money as stated before how loose the regulations are on the cryptocurrency. Essentially, it can operate and function perfectly for what the terrorist organizations need. Anonymous wallet ID’s, no federal insurance, and no limits. A true terrorist organization’s dream has been presented.

Back in December of 2017 a, “resident of Long Island in New York, Zoobia Shahnaz, allegedly used Bitcoin and other virtual currencies to launder $85,000 and send it to ISIS.” [2] Although a large amount of money being donated such as this may raise eyebrows as it did in this case, smaller increments of money are not as easily detected. According to The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, the “ISIS-affiliated website Akbar al-Muslimin” has posted a link for acceptance of Bitcoins that “are allegedly for the website, but in the ITIC [The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center] assessment they may be used for ISIS broader goals, one of which is rehabilitating its propaganda machine and possibly also for funding terrorist attacks abroad.” [3]

What has been done?

Countries around the world have begun to implement and update their regulations on the cryptocurrency such as Japan, China, and Australia. [1] Malaysia has also begun to place tighter regulations in their country. The “Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM), its central bank, has required that conversions of cryptocurrencies into cash must be reported under the strict transactions under anti-money laundering laws.” [4] Measures such as these allow the country to fully oversee the operations of terrorism financing and tracking which is essential in the battle to slow and stop it. [4] The United States Congress has also followed similar measures. New York Democratic Representative Kathleen Rice has pushed for a bill deemed “House Resolution 2433, the Homeland Security Assessment of Terrorists’ Use of Virtual Currencies Act, would require the DHS to conduct a threat assessment on if, when, how, and why terrorist groups like ISIS are using cryptocurrencies to fund violence at home and abroad.” [5] Bills such as these are what will make up the core of the fight against illegal donations and funding to ISIS. The bill passed the House of Representatives and is currently in the Senate.

What can be done?

It’s simply a matter of understanding what is going on and how terrorist organizations are using Bitcoin to their advantage. Tighter regulations must be put into place and counterterrorism measures must be at the forefront of slowing down illicit donations and funding to ISIS through Bitcoin. As our society has been engulfed in the features and benefits of the technological age of the 21st century, here is a firsthand problem faced by intelligence and cyber analysts. The more measures and standards that are put into place, the harder it is for the trafficking of Bitcoin. There will always be loopholes and channels that terrorist organizations can move their funding, but tightening Bitcoin standards is a key to resolving this problem.

—————————————————————

Sources:

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

« Previous