A Dangerous Method:  Zurich University Study Exemplifies Double-Edged Sword of Migration Policy in Europe

Researchers at Zurich University of Applied Sciences have released data linking a rise in criminality in Germany to teenage migrants, thereby sparking a larger conversation about the conditions immigrants and asylum-seekers face.

Conducted in Lower- Saxony, Germany, a densely populated area in which 745,185 of its 8 million residents do not have German citizenship, the study called Teenagers as Perpetrators and Victims (originally Jugendliche und Flüchtlinge als Täter und Opfer) indicated that the overall percentage of crimes had increased by 10.4% by the end of 2016[1]. While that information alone is not necessarily problematic, it states that 92.1% of these criminal cases are linked to immigrants[2]. The study comprehensively breaks down several areas of criminality and links them to potential causes and contributing factors like lack of community engagement, violent social norms, parental involvement, or even radicalization[3].

Increasingly popular extreme right-wing parties have linked immigrants to crime long before this study had been released. While most people saw the connection as incidental at best, this government-funded study could add legitimacy to parties that before were dismissed as “extremist”. It is evident that the migration crisis of 2015 and 2016 has impacted Europe, and the world, deeply. Chancellor Angela Merkel is still struggling politically with her decision to leave borders open in August of 2015, and European Commission President Juncker made migration policy and proper burden-sharing a major item on the European Union’s agenda. This study has the potential to influence large policy changes, especially now that the German government is discussing changing its policies regarding family reunification and asylum applications[4].

Despite its potential political influence, the link between migrants and criminality is indicative of a much larger issue among newcomers– and especially refugees. This study offers exact facts, dates, and graphs, but also sheds light on what happens to populations that are left without proper community involvement, education, and a sense of inclusion.

The researchers Christian Pfeiffer, Dirk Baier, and Soeren Kliem found that over half of the violent crimes were committed by young immigrant males and that these populations face serious problems that are not obvious at first glance[5]. A lack of integration and engagement can lead to more than just criminality, it can also lead to radicalization. The researchers did, however, find a concrete way that the government and communities could improve conditions: Education.

Language courses, community involvement, and professional training are some of the things that could help make newcomers more integrated and help youth build stronger ties to their communities. Education is key for German natives as well– since right-wing nativist parties like the Alternative fuer Deutschland benefit largely from uniformed and frightened populations. An open flow of information could ease hostility and prevent further prejudice and conflict.

21.06.2017
Europe

This study, while having been conducted in Germany,  alludes to a much bigger picture: similar results have been found in the Netherlands, France, Austria, Italy, and other countries in Europe. It has already sparked a larger discourse, or perhaps a call to action, about the conditions and the treatment of newcomers to various European countries. Despite being a double-edged sword because of the possibility of it reinforcing anti-immigrant, anti-refugee or anti-Islam sentiments, this study is powerful because it also offers a voice to the next generation in which insufficient investment has been made.

A graphic published by the German Federal Statistical Office in 2015[6]

Sources:

[1] Pfeiffer, Christian & Baier, Dirk & Kliem, Sören. (2018). Zur Entwicklung der Gewalt in Deutschland. Schwerpunkte: Jugendliche und Flüchtlinge als Täter und Opfer.

[2] Pfeiffer, Christian & Baier, Dirk & Kliem, Sören. (2018). Zur Entwicklung der Gewalt in Deutschland. Schwerpunkte: Jugendliche und Flüchtlinge als Täter und Opfer.

[3] Germany Must Come to Terms With Refugee Crime. (2018, January 3). Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-03/germany-must-come-to-terms-with-refugee-crime

[4] German would-be coalition partners plan 1,000/month cap to family reun. (2018, January 12). Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-politics-refugees/german-would-be-coalition-partners-plan-1000-month-cap-to-family-reunification-idUSKBN1F10UT

[5]Pfeiffer, Christian & Baier, Dirk & Kliem, Sören. (2018). Zur Entwicklung der Gewalt in Deutschland. Schwerpunkte: Jugendliche und Flüchtlinge als Täter und Opfer.

[6] Karte: Statistiken zu Ausländern und Schutzsuchenden (Flüchtlingen) – Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis).. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from https://service.destatis.de/DE/karten/migration_integration_regionen.html

 

Poverty and Violent Extremism in Yemen

For over 1,000 days now, Yemen has been devastated by horrific violence and a brutal civil war.[1] In 2014, the Houthis, a group of Zaidi Shi’a rebels who subscribe to the principles of pan-Islamism,[2] advanced into the Yemeni capital of Sana’a. By January 2015, the rebels had gained control of the presidential palace and successfully pushed the Yemeni government from power.

A student at the Aal Okab school stands in the ruins of one of his former classrooms. He and his fellow pupils now attend lesson in UNICEF tents nearby.

President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi was eventually forced to resign, parliament was dissolved and a Houthi ruling council was established in its place.[3] In March 2015, the Saudi-led military coalition targeted the Houthis and began bombing the rebels in an effort to dislodge them from Sana’a.[4] While the Saudi coalition was able to aid Hadi and various local forces in regaining southern governorates of Yemen, the Houthis continue to control much of the north- including strategic parts of the country such as Sana’a.[5]  On December 4, 2017, Ali Abdullah Saleh, the former president of Yemen who had stepped down during the Arab Spring in 2011, was killed by the Iranian backed Houthis. Driven by the desire to regain power, Saleh and his loyalists formally allied with the Houthis in 2015.  However, he broke ties with the rebels in December 2017 and days after expressing his support for Riyadh, the Houthis killed him.

In Yemen, alliances seem to be constantly shifting and the political situation appears to be an endless quagmire. The unrest and dynamic conflict has enabled the Yemen based group, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), to greatly expand its territorial control and there are ISIS training camps in al Bayda governorate.[6] While AQAP remains a much greater threat than ISIS in Yemen, it is clear that the war torn country has become a breeding ground for terrorism. While a thorough analysis of the current political situation in Yemen is beyond the scope of this discussion, this piece will seek to examine the relationship between poverty and terrorism in Yemen. I will argue that while poverty is not the only underlying cause for terrorist activity in Yemen, it frequently serves as a mobilizing factor that aids in AQAP’s recruitment efforts.

Her bruised eyes still swollen shut, Buthaina Muhammad Mansour, believed to be four or five, doesn’t yet know that her parents, five siblings and uncle were killed when an air strike flattened their home in Yemen’s capital. Despite a concussion and skull fractures, doctors think Buthaina will pull through – her family’s sole survivor of the Aug 25 attack, on an apartment building, that residents blame on a Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen since 2015. The alliance said in a statement it would investigate the air strike, which killed at least 12 civilians.

The civil war in Yemen has produced the world’s worst humanitarian crisis as well as the world’s worst cholera outbreak. More than ten thousand innocent civilians have been killed,[7] over fourteen million people are without access to medical care and millions have been internally displaced by the conflict. The Saudi coalition has imposed a de facto blockade, which has significantly worsened the crisis and now roughly seven million people are at risk of famine.[8] The ongoing violence and extreme poverty in Yemen have left families extremely vulnerable. In the April 2016 United Nations annual report on children and armed conflict, the UN Secretary-General reported that…“in Yemen, a particularly worrisome escalation of conflict has been seen. The United Nations verified a fivefold increase in the number of children recruited in 2015 compared with the previous year.”[9]

Yemen is a state on the brink of collapse and this has produced an enabling environment in which extremists are much more successful at mobilizing support for their violent causes. One way terrorists have been able to exploit the extreme poverty of Yemen and gain new recruits is through social service provisions. AQAP has appeared in images and videos on Twitter, showing the group’s fighters paving roads in the Hadramout province and assisting local hospitals.[10] Elisabeth Kendall, a Yemen scholar at Oxford University, tells Reuters, “In one video posted on Feb. 28, 2016, AQAP members deliver free medical supplies and equipment to the kidney dialysis and cancer wings of a local hospital.”

In another video, an AQAP militant states, “These are some medicines from your brothers, the Guardians of Sharia, to al-Jamii hospital which was going to be closed … because of no money.”[11] The deputy prime minister of Yemen, Abdel-Karim al-Arhabi, is well aware of the relationship between violent extremism and poverty, especially when it comes to young boys who are often recruited as foot soldiers. Abdel-Karim al-Arhabi states, “Most young people have no prospects in life. Those fanatics offer them the illusion that they can take power and implement authentic Islam – and if they get killed they go to paradise. It’s a win-win situation for them.”[12]

Yemen has been in the grip of civil war since March 2015, when Houthi rebels drove out the government and took over the capital, Sana’a. The crisis quickly escalated, allowing al Qaeda and ISIS — enemies of the Houthis — to grow stronger amid the chaos.

It is clear that young men faced with high levels of poverty and little to no employment prospects are often lured to organizations like AQAP. AQAP not only provides social services but also the promise of financial rewards and compensation.[13] The links between poverty, unemployment and young Yemeni men joining al-Qaeda and its affiliates are not new. Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the first Guantanamo detainee to stand trial before the military commissions and a Yemeni citizen, worked as a driver for Osama bin Laden. The Sana’a based mosque where Hamdan was recruited was described as a “gathering place for the dispossessed,” and thus “exerted an especially strong pull on the country’s poor.”[14] Hamdan claimed to have chosen to work for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan because, “working as a driver and mechanic in bin Laden’s motor pool paid better than driving a dabab (minibus) in Sana.”[15]

In this discussion, it is vital to note that many researchers have claimed that the terrorism-poverty thesis is flawed. However, poverty’s role in undermining state capacity has often been overlooked and scholars have often failed to make distinctions between terrorist elites and impoverished communities. Karin von Hippel explains, “Although the leaders of terrorist organizations seem to come from both indigent and bourgeoisie backgrounds, this is not true of their humble servants. Strangely, most researchers recognize that poverty may be a factor among lower ranks but do not include the foot soldiers in their research when aggregating data”.[16]

We cannot dismiss the fact that elites often use the grievance of poverty as a recruitment mechanism and extremists continuously exploit ungoverned or disputed territory. Corinne Graff of The Brookings Institution contends, “There is little evidence to suggest that poverty does not affect the incidence of terrorist attacks. The body of scholarly research thus far has failed to establish this, let alone explain how to measure terrorism. Hence the quantitative data and ensuing data disputing such a relationship remain a poor guide for policy. More convincing is the mounting evidence confirming that poor weak states are vulnerable to violent extremists.”

Abdellatif Allami walks with his three-year-old daughter Sara in the Harat Al-Masna’a slum in Sana’a, home to the families of former factory workers. They used to receive a basic pension of around $120 a month, but the payments stopped seven months ago, and the families now rely on donations to survive.

We cannot simply overlook the fact that “an estimated 17 million Yemenis (about 60 percent of the total population) are estimated food insecure and a further 7 million severely food insecure…malnutrition has increased by 57 percent since 2015 and now affects close to 3.3 million people, 462,000 of which are children under five.”[17] If the state truly does collapse, Yemen will not only become a terrorism hotbed for Sunni jihadists but also for Iran backed Shia militant groups.

Sources:

[1] Faisal Edroos and Ahmad Algohbary, “1,000 days of war in Yemen ‘land of blood and bombs'”, Al Jazeera, December 20, 2017.

[2]“Q&A: What do the Houthis want?”, Al Jazeera, October 2, 2014.

[3]“Yemen: Houthi, Saleh council formation criticised by UN”, Al Jazeera, July 29, 2016.

[4] “Saudi Arabia launches air strikes in Yemen”, BBC News, March 26, 2015

[5] “Yemen Control Map & Report – January 2018”, Political Geography Now, January 7, 2018.

[6] DoD News, Defense Media Activity, “U.S. Forces Conduct Strike Against ISIS Training Camps in Yemen”, October 16, 2017, U.S. Department of Defense.

[7] Nicolas Niarchos, “How the U.S. Is Making the War in Yemen Worse”, The New Yorker, January 22, 2018.

[8] Rick Gladstone, “U.S. Agency Foresees Severe Famine in Yemen Under Saudi Blockade”, The New York Times, November. 21, 2017.

[9] United Nations General Assembly Security Council.  “Children and Armed Conflict, Report of the Secretary General” A/70/836–S/2016/360.

[10] Yara Bayoumy, Noah Browning and Mohammed Ghobari.“How Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen has made al Qaeda stronger – and richer”, Reuters Investigates, April 8, 2016.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ian Black, “Yemen terrorism: Soft approach to jihadists starts to backfire as poverty fuels extremism” The Guardian, July 29, 2008.

[13] Christopher Swift, “Arc of Convergence: AQAP, Ansar al-Shari’s and the Struggle for Yemen”, CTC Sentinel 5, no. 6 (2012).

[14] Susan E. Rice, Corinne Graff, and Carlos Pascual, Confronting Poverty: Weak States and U.S. National Security, (Washington, DC, Brookings Institution Press, 2010), 69.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Karin von Hippel, “The Role of Poverty in Radicalization and Terrorism” Debating Terrorism and Counterterrorism (Thousand Oaks: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2014), 61.

[17] “The World Bank in Yemen”, The World Bank, April 1, 2017.

[print-me]

Terrorism in the Philippines: Can Increased Maritime Security Help Stop the Flow of Foreign Fighters?

While the thought of ISIS typically brings to mind violence in Iraq and Syria, their pervasive ideology, coupled with the ability to reach a broad audience, creates a large swath of global sympathizers. These sympathizers may range from an individual who has yet to be radicalized but resonates with their message, to full-blown sleeper cells. Southeast Asia has received attention in the past year due to what appears to be a rise of ISIS-supporting rebels. In fact, in 2016 ISIS chose a Filipino rebel as its emir in Southeast Asia.

ISIS gaining grip in Philippines after being driven out of the Middle East, photo by Paul Toothey

According to Pew Research Center, Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world. While they have escaped the majority of the protracted violence that has plagued the Middle East, Voice of America reports that Indonesia is known to have sleeper cells of ISIS sympathizers.

Indonesia and the Philippines, large islands in close proximity to one another, are Southeast Asia’s most populous countries. In 2017, the Philippines experienced a five-month war fought by ISIS inspired rebels. Officials have confirmed that Indonesian sympathizers traveled to the Philippines to support the battle that killed 1,127 people. Bibhu Routray, a visiting security and counter-terrorism professor from Murdoch University asserts that 40-50 foreign rebels in Marawi had traveled from Indonesia in response to the call from ISIS. Although this particular battle has ended, the overall terrorist threat remains.

The Guardian (31 March 2016) featured a story headlined Brighton Boys: How four friends fell into Jihad.

Now, the Philippines and Indonesia are coming together to halt ISIS sympathizers from crossing the sea that separates the two countries. While the two countries did not explicitly state how they will control the flow of terrorists into the Philippines, Voice of America reports that analysts have pointed to the vulnerability that stems from a lack of patrols in the Celebes Sea.

Historically, porous borders have been exploited by terrorists. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan have allowed terrorists to travel between countries and seek safe havens due to the challenges of patrolling the difficult terrain. The Celebes Sea is a 285,000 square-kilometer body of water which has been described as a “serious maritime black spot” by Jamestown Foundation.

ISIS’s ability to mobilize foreign fighters has contributed to its power and reach. According to the Soufan Group, many fighters who join ISIS in the Middle East come from Europe – particularly from France – [1] Not only do foreign fighters provide ISIS with a mass of people willing to go to battle, but an equal threat is that these fighters often return home with radical ideas. Cooperation between Indonesia and the Philippines to enhance maritime security may prove to be a positive step in stemming the flow of fighters to the Philippines, but also in preemptively stopping the return of hardened militants, thereby contributing to the denial of ISIS’s desired global expansion.

The island geography of these countries provides them with a unique border unlike the physical terrain borders of other countries dealing with foreign fighters. A limited number of points of entry exist on an island. With well thought out security protocols and excellent cooperation, Indonesia and the Philippines could use their island geography to their advantage.

ISIS flag captured by the Philippines Armed Forces, June 1, 2017

 

[1] http://soufangroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/TSG_ForeignFightersUpdate3.pdf

GWOT Panel: Reflections from Team Member Lindsay Stanek

On Wednesday, December 6, I had the honor of attending The Global War on Terrorism: Myths, Realities & Solutions seminar at The George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. The seminar was hosted by Rise to Peace, a non-profit organization that works to promote peace and counter extremist ideology around the globe. The panel was composed of the former chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council, Dr. Christopher Kojm, the founder of Rise to Peace, Ahmad Shah Mohibi as well as Dr. Gawdat Bahgat of the National Defense University and Ambassador John W. Limbert.

Lindsay Stanek is a M.A. candidate at The George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs

Early on in the discussion, Dr. Gawdat Bahgat contended that the roots of terrorism stem from perceived injustice. He argued, “When people feel that they have been unfairly treated, they often try to do something about it. Social media makes it much easier for individuals to communicate perceived injustice.”

Panelists discussed a wide range of topics from the roots of Al-Qaeda to the concentration of power under President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, to the growing need for greater government transparency. Mr. Mohibi spoke of the corruption in the Afghan government and the rise of ISIS in the North of Afghanistan.Mr. Mohibi explained that there are presently twenty-six insurgency groups operating in the region and the unstable environment enables these terrorist groups to both target and exploit vulnerable children and defenseless families.

The discussion then moved to Dr. Kojm sharing his insight on what prompted the rise and proliferation of ISIS. Dr. Kojm explained how the U.S. intervention in Iraq put the Shia majority in power after countless Shia’s had been repressed under Saddam Hussein. Dr. Kojm shared, “The Sunni community felt marginalized and felt its existence was in question… the government in Iraq which was deeply distrustful of the Sunni community, they undid much of the political work of the surge…” Dr. Kojm then went on to speak of the corruption in the Iraqi government and lack of popular support for the government in the Sunni community. He claimed that an open door for ISIS was created not only from the political and social destabilization of Iraq, but also from perceived injustice and existential danger in the Sunni community.

Ambassador John W. Limbert then spoke of the Iranian threat and argued that it has been vastly overblown. He asserted that the Islamic Republic is a threat to its own people but much less of a threat to the United States. Ambassador Limbert suggested that what many countries in the Middle East lack is a working model of governance. He argued, “Almost all of them are multi-ethnic, multi-religious places…even the Emirates, even Kuwait…They need something that manages diversity…if not, you have grievances.”

Throughout the panel, I noticed how the speakers continuously discussed weak states and perceived injustices. I believe it is vital to continue to engage in discussions and educational panels that seek to sort through the complexities of various regions and identify the grievances that enable terrorists to capitalize on marginalized communities. In “Depictions of Children and Youth in the Islamic State’s Martyrdom Propaganda”, Mia Bloom, John Horgan and Charlie Winter write, “From January 1, 2015, to January 31, 2016, eighty-nine children and youth were eulogized in Islamic State propaganda. Fifty-one percent were alleged to have died in Iraq, while 36 percent died in Syria.”[1]

These numbers are staggering and reveal the disturbing fact that extremist organizations are recruiting children, the world’s most vulnerable, at ever-increasing rates. Children are not only being trained militarily but also ideologically, with violence being one of the primary tools of indoctrination.

ISIS has been known to visit orphanages and refugee camps to recruit[2] as well as impoverished villages and neighborhoods. “The poorer neighborhoods of Ankara, Turkey, are reportedly a source of child recruits. One such neighborhood, Hacibayram, has become a recruitment hub for ISIS.”[3] If we truly seek to counter the false narrative propagated by terrorists, it is vital to begin examining the grievances that aid in recruitment. Moreover, we must realize that education is vital in the fight against extremism. In the words of Malala Yousafzei, “Let us pick up our books and our pens…They are our most powerful weapons. One child, one teacher, one book and one pen can change the world.”

Lindsay Stanek, first from the left with the Team of Rise to Peace

—————————————————

[1] Mia Bloom, John Horgan, Charlie Winter, “Depictions of Children and Youth in the Islamic State’s Martyrdom Propaganda,” CTC Sentinel 9, no. 2 (2016).

[2]Ibid., 652.

[3] J.M. Berger and Jessica Stern, ISIS: The State of Terror (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2015), 212.

The Global War on Terror: Myths, Realities, and Solutions

On Wednesday, December 6th, Rise to Peace hosted the first in a series of panels focusing on issues relevant to understanding violent extremism. This panel, The Global War on Terrorism: Myths, Realities, and Solutions, featured Ambassador John Limbert, Distinguished Professor of International Affairs at the US Naval Academy; Professor Christopher Kojm, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council and visiting professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs; Professor Gawdat Baghat, professor of National Security Affairs at the National Defense University; and Ahmad Shah Mohibi, founder of Rise to Peace. The panel was moderated by Rise to Peace Senior Advisor, Assistant US Attorney Michael Sherwin, and introduced by the Director of Editorial & Outreach, Alicia Fawcett.

Through a series of questions, panelists expressed their views on the root causes of extremism, and the necessary conditions for eradicating it. All discussed the importance of perceived injustices and avenues for expressing discontent.

Alicia Fawcett, Director of Marketing and Outreach at Rise to Peace is speaking to Ambassador John Limbert about the Global Challenges.

In Professor Baghat’s words, “The main reason for terrorism is perceived injustice. When people believe they have been unfairly treated they try to do something about it.” Under repressive systems, when there are few peaceful methods of ‘doing something about it’, violent extremism becomes an outlet for discontented groups. “It is that marginalization,” Professor Kojm warns “which lead to horrors.”

The panelists also emphasized the need for the US to take a positive, diplomatic role in the Middle East. “Every other state, whether we like them or not, is a potential partner where we share interests,” noted Ambassador Limbert. Professor Baghat highlighted the need for the US to “promote democratic values and transparency.”

Sandy Maroun, MIPP student the Elliott School of International Affairs asking about role of Hezbolluah of Lebanon in the uprising of global conflicts.

Professor Kojm, however, warned of the need for responsible involvement adding, “The rise of ISIS is due to perceived injustice, perceived existential danger to a community, enormous social and political destabilization in Iraq, all as a result of the US intervention.”

Suleyman Agdag, graduate student at the Elliott School of International Affairs question about the role of ISIS in the Middle East.

More than one hundred people attended the panel, held at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. Food and refreshments were graciously provided by the Master’s of International Policy and Practice program.

The Global War on Terrorism: Myths, Realities & Solutions

On Wednesday December 6th, the non-governmental organization (NGO) Rise to Peace hosted a seminar at the Elliott School of International Affairs entitled The Global War on Terrorism: Myths, Realities & Solutions. On the panel was the founder of Rise To Peace and GW Master of International Policy and Practice (MIPP) student, Ahmad Mohibi. Ahmad spoke about his life growing up in Afghanistan and his mission to reduce terrorism through education.

[smartslider3 slider=4]

The panel was moderated by Michael R. Sherwin, an Assistant United States Attorney and included Dr. Gawdat Bahgat, Ambassador Limbert and former MIPP Director Dr. Christopher Kojm.

The event was exceptionally well attended with many individuals standing in the back of Lindner Commons just to watch the panel speak on this complex yet important issue. Current MIPP Director, Dr. Matthew Levinger, spoke before the event stating the importance of this topic and his pleasure in seeing one of his students, Ahmad, address this in a proactive way.

After the event, students and faculty stayed to discuss the global war on terrorism and its implications on U.S. foreign policy and global stability. Ahmad was thrilled with the turnout for Rise To Peace’s inaugural speaking series event, the next of which will be in Turkey.
He said “I am thrilled that the MIPP program supported me and my organization, Rise To Peace, to host the Global War on Terrorism panel. The panel speakers were incredible, but what made the event most memorable was the energy and enthusiasm of the student audience, which shows the spirit of inquiry and justice runs strong throughout the Elliott School.”
Article by, Masters of International Policy and Practice, George Washington University.

ISIS in Kirkuk: What’s Happening and What it Means

What’s happening

Recent ISIS losses in Kirkuk Province in Iraq have been the latest blow in a series of major hits to the group, including their loss of their major stronghold of Mosul.  These losses represent a total decimation of the group’s strength: at its peak, the group controlled a third of Iraq, and yet it’s now relegated to mainly rural areas and small cities [1].  The attack itself was captioned by the retaking of Hawija, the most prominent city in the region.

The attack was carried out by a combination of U.S.-backed Iraqi forces and Iranian-backed Shia militias, which forced the remaining ISIS forces to fall back to isolated villages along the Syrian border [2].  The exact makeup of the group is controversial, with Iran-backed forces holding serious sway over even U.S. trained Iraqi units [3].  Regardless of the makeup of the unit, they were effective in removing the last major ISIS stronghold in northern Iraq, removing an important strategic asset for the so-called Caliphate.

The Future

The fight against ISIS is likely to morph into much more asymmetric and drawn-out warfare now that the group holds no urban centers.  Urban areas not only offered ISIS units the space to train and plan attacks but also offered the population needed for to maintain the group’s recruitment and resources.  Instead, Iraqi forces are now faced with clearing the vast deserts of Anbar Province complemented with a porous Syrian border [4].

While this seems daunting, Iraqi forces have confronted similar arenas in the fight so far: in the days leading up to the assault on Hawija, forces retook 25 small villages throughout Kirkuk Province while preparing to retake Hawija [5].Indeed, Kirkuk had already been experiencing mainly terror tactics such as IED and hit and run style attacks rather than full-on battles [6].

However, the relegation of the remainder of ISIS soldiers to this frontier may intensify this form of conflict.  Especially given the difficulty of maintaining consistent control over desert territory as well as tracking groups in the absence of strong infrastructure, this last leg of the conflict would be quite protracted.

Perhaps the most unsettling prospect of the decline of ISIS is the inevitable reintroduction of the social and political crises that generated space for ISIS to grow.  The emerging crisis with Kurdish independence, new worries over Sunni-Shi’a tensions as a result of Iranian involvement in the conflict, spillover from the Syrian civil war, and the huge task of postwar reconstruction could all contribute to new security challenges if not planned for proactively [7].

Indeed, the governor of Kirkuk noted the legacy of anti-system political violence stemming from the region, spanning al-Qaeda to the hypothetical groups to come [8].  And while it may seem arrogant to begin postwar planning, it was the same short-term planning strategies that have failed the United States time and time again in protracted wars around the globe.  Unless the U.S. wishes to be back in Iraq in another 5 years, the need for comprehensive postwar planning should be done soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fighting-in-kirkuk-threatens-u-s-canadian-efforts-to-defeat-isis-1.4357964

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/05/iraqi-army-claims-recapture-islamic-state-isis-held-areas-hawija

[3] http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/16/if-trump-wants-to-confront-iran-he-should-start-in-kirkuk/

[4] https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/isis/1.817709

[5] https://www.albawaba.com/news/iraqi-forces-recapture-25-kirkuk-villages-isis-1028378

[6] http://www.rudaw.net/english/analysis/19092017

[7] https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/islamic-state-collapse-on-the-battlefield-1.3255019

[8] http://www.rudaw.net/english/analysis/19092017

[9] Wikimedia Commons

Humvees: Taliban’s new VBIED

The Afghan Taliban has deployed a new weapon in its fight against the Afghan National Security Forces: explosive-laden Humvees. The trend started in late September when a Humvee was detonated outside Maroof district police headquarters in Kandahar and came to a violent head this week[1]. Attacks in Kandahar, Farah, and Balkh left 58 security officers dead and at least nine more wounded[2]. Two days prior, a Humvee bombing in Paktia killed 52[3]. The method is a cross between standard car bombs and the ISIS tactic vehicle ramming. Attackers drive the vehicle into their target and detonate it, sometimes following with an additional firearm assault. Thus far, the targets have always been police and military bases. The three most recent attacks of this variety were part of a larger wave of violence against police and government facilities that killed over 100 security forces across the country [4].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgOUwYlWq0Y

Humvees are large, off-road vehicles, a product of AM General, a defense contractor based in South Bend, Indiana[1]. The US government has often contracted them to manufacture Humvees, a term short for High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs), for the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police[2].

So how do these weapons wind up being used by the Taliban against these forces? The most likely explanation is that the vehicles are seized when the Taliban seizes the military bases housing them[7].  One Afghan military analyst, Mohammad Agul Mujahed, proposed that a so-called “fifth pillar,” a rumored sect of the saboteurs within the Afghan government was selling the Humvees to Taliban forces[8], but claims like these are controversial[9]. The US and NATO have also long had problems with supplies being stolen en route to their destinations in Afghanistan, but these instances of theft have always involved smaller items like boots, army uniforms, and night vision goggles, nothing even approaching the size of a Humvee[10].

Taliban used two Humvees and one Ford Ranger (military Vehicles) to conduct a deadly attack on October 17 killing Paktia Police chief and 43 other Afghan soldiers.

Whatever the source, Taliban Humvees represent a new development in a worrying trend of ANSF equipment falling into enemy hands. Terrorist groups like ISIS[11] and Jaish-e-Mohammad[12] have dressed in stolen security force uniforms and driven stolen army vehicles to mask their attacks in the past. Such tactics raise concerns about ensuring the security of ANSF equipment. Especially concerning is the lack of a set method for tracking whether or how much equipment has gone missing in Taliban raids. Without that information, all that can be said for certain is that Afghanistan’s security forces are facing a new threat of unknown magnitude.

 


Sources:
[1] “Suicide Car Bomb Kills At Least 12 Afghan Police” Reuters, (September 28, 2017).
[2] Sultan Faizy and Shashank Bengali, “Using a Grim New Tactic — the Humvee Bomb — Taliban Kill 43 in Attack on Afghan Army Camp” Los Angeles Times, (October 19, 2017).
[3] Faizy and Bengali, “Using a Grim New Tactic” (October 19, 2017).
[4] Amir Shah “Afghan Taliban launch twin suicide bomb attack on Kandahar army base killing at least 43 soldiers” Independent, (October 19, 2017).
[5] “Our Story” AM General. http://www.amgeneral.com/our-story/ (October 19, 2017).
[6] “AM General To Build 1,673 Humvees for ANSF by 2017” http://www.bakhtarnews.com.af/eng/security/item/24094-am-general-to-build-1673-humvees-for-ansf-by-2017.html?tmpl=component&print=1 (October 19, 2017).
[7] Gulabudin Ghubar “Taliban Seizing Humvees To Use As Vehicle Bombs” Tolo News, (October 9, 2017).
[8] Ghubar “Taliban Seizing Humvees” (October 9, 2017).
[9] Muhammad Hassan Khetab “5th pillar term’ being used for political gains: Lawyers” Pahjwok Afghan News, (October 6, 2015).
[10] Eloise Lee “This Is How More Than 15,000 Containers Of NATO Military Gear Are Stolen Each Year” Business Insider, (April 6, 2012).
[11] Jon Sharman “Suicide bomb and gun attacks on Iraqi restaurants and a police checkpoint kill at least 60 people” Independent, (September 14, 2017)
[12] Deepshikha Ghosh and Vishnu Som “Terrorist Pretended To Be Soldier, Then Turned His Gun On CRPF” NDTV (October 3, 2017).

U.S. War in Afghanistan: Review of Previous Strategy

U.S. War in Afghanistan: Review of the Previous Strategy:

2001-2013

The launch of Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001 marked the start of US involvement in Afghanistan. The operation consisted mainly of airstrikes but also included a special operations force of roughly 1,000 later joined by 1,300 Marines. The primary goal was to support Northern Alliance and Pashtun anti-Taliban fighters[1].

In December 2001, the Taliban fled Kandahar, effectively ending their regime. From this point on US forces focused on raiding suspected Taliban and Al-Qaeda villages, until an end to major combat was declared in May 2003[2]. The US continued to carry out raids against insurgent violence until 2005 when they considered the insurgency defeated and turned control to NATO and ISAF forces2. Immediately thereafter, Afghanistan saw an increase in insurgent violence and the US decided to keep 30,000-40,000 troops in Afghanistan through the rest of the Bush Administration[3].

In March 2009, soon after taking office, President Obama added 21,000 troops to that force3. That December he deployed 30,000 more and introduced a plan to begin a withdrawal in 2011 and complete it by 20143.

In keeping with this plan, and given that the killing of Osama bin Laden accomplished a key US objective, President Obama announced in June 2011 that US forces would fall to 90,000 by the end of the year, and then drop to 68,000 by September 20123. In February 2013, he revealed plans to reduce the overall troop levels to 34,000 by February 20143.

2014-2016

From that point on, the focus in Afghanistan was on US withdrawal. The Resolute Support Mission sought to decrease US troops in Afghanistan to 9,800 in 2015, then to 5,000 in 2016 and finally to 1,000 troops from 2016 onwards3. However, the Islamic State’s surge in Iraq along with worrying Taliban gains in Helmand Province created concern that, without adequate support, Afghanistan’s security could be in jeopardy3. With this in mind, the Obama administration changed plans in March 2015, opting to keep 9,800 troops in Afghanistan for all of 2015 and reduce to 5,500 throughout 20163. In October of that same year, it was decided that the troop level would instead remain at 9,800 through the end of 2016 and then drop to 5,500 from then onwards3. In July 2016, the Obama administration made its final revision, deciding to leave 8,400 troops in Afghanistan post-2016, rather than 5,500 (see fig. 1).

Figure 1

Current Concerns

During US operations in Afghanistan from 2003-2009, insurgent attacks were steadily on the rise[1]. In the earlier part of this time period (2004-2007) average daily attacks hovered under 30, but in 2008 they broke that barrier and continued increasingly rapidly, reaching their highest point in 2010 (see fig. 2).

Figure 2

 

 

 

 

Figure 3

What may be of greater concern, however, is militant control of territory. Since 2015, areas under insurgent control have been incrementally increasing while areas of government control have decreased substantially (see fig 4&5). By September 2016 the Afghan government controlled approximately 68%-70% of the population, the Taliban controlled 10%, and the remainder was contested[1]. Government control is mostly concentrated in urban population centers, while the Taliban is strongest amongst rural populations5.

Additionally, Afghan forces have recently suffered high casualties5. In 2016, the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) logged 6,700 combat deaths, a 21% increase over the previous year[2]. This, combined with the fact that 35% of the ANDSF does not reenlist after their first tour, leads to concerns about whether the ANDSF has sufficient resources to effectively combat the Taliban without US assistance6.

Figure 4

 

 

Figure 5

New Strategy

President Trump’s remarks on the administration’s strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia suggest three major deviations from previous operations. One is a switch from a time-based to a conditions-based approach to withdrawal. Two is an increase in pressure on Pakistan to stop harboring Afghan militants. There is a rejection of nation-building in favor of simply “killing terrorists”[1].

Conditions Approach

The Trump administration’s decision to leave troops in Afghanistan until “conditions on the ground”7 warrant their withdrawal reflects concerns around Iraq’s continuing struggles with ISIS. The US’s decision to leave Iraq completely after 2011 has been blamed by many for creating the power vacuum that allowed ISIS to thrive3. President Trump articulates a related concern about insurgent forces feeling that they can “wait us out”7.

While sound in theory, this approach leaves several areas of concern. First is the ambiguity of what conditions must be met for the US to withdraw. If the ultimate goal of continued US involvement is to ensure that the ANDSF is able to control Afghanistan on their own and to remove the substantial insurgent threat, an objective definition of what that looks like is essential to any strategy. There is widespread agreement that a time-based approach led the US to begin withdrawal prematurely, but a conditions approach is not immune to that problem if the conditions are poorly or inaccurately defined. The necessary elements for a lasting peace in Afghanistan are difficult to pin down, but would likely include factors such as the percent of territory contested versus under government control, the casualty levels among ANDSF forces and the projections of their force strength, and the stability and legitimacy of Afghanistan’s government, especially among rural populations. Without laying out specific goals in these and other areas a conditions approach cannot function as a viable strategic approach.

Pakistan

President Trump’s remarks indicated that Pakistan’s involvement in insurgent activity will be a major factor in US actions in the region, and with good reason. Even if every Taliban and Islamic State fighter was removed from Afghanistan, a lasting peace would be impossible if they remain on the other side of the Durand Line.

Pakistan’s primary goal at all times is relative power over India, and its activities in Afghanistan depend on how it feels that goal is best achieved. Historically, Pakistan has viewed the Afghan government as too sympathetic to India and supported insurgents in order to weaken a potential Indian ally and create a sphere of influence for itself. These concerns are unlikely to be alleviated by President Trump’s declaration that “another critical part of the South Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India — the world’s largest democracy and a key security and economic partner of the United States“7.

 It’s unlikely that Pakistan will ever be fully willing to relinquish ambitions of holding influence over Afghanistan against India. Therefore, the best path to peace is to force them to settle by making supporting insurgents inconvenient and ineffective. The tide may be turning already, as reports indicate that Pakistan is beginning to find Afghan instability taxing due to the refugee situation it has created[1]. US efforts to block any path the insurgent success in Afghanistan will continue to eliminate remaining incentives for Pakistan to harbor violent insurgents. However, it is also worth noting that even if Pakistan enthusiastically cooperated with denying refuge to Afghan insurgent groups, Pakistan has its own militants to combat, and may be stretched too thin to effectively deal with Afghan insurgents as well. Indeed, testimony by US officials indicates that the Pakistani military has issued orders to deny safe haven to Afghan insurgent groups, but is unable to direct resources to actively combat them8. In short, a Pakistan hostile to a stable Afghanistan will be a major hindrance to US interests in the area. Linking a stable Afghanistan to a stronger India is almost certain to create such a condition. At the same time, the US needs assurances that Pakistan will not harbor insurgents while still being aware that, even with full cooperation, that may be an unattainable goal.

Nation Building

President Trump’s remarks on nation-building in Afghanistan are some of the most nuanced and complicated, and yet may be the most important to predicting future stability in the region. His statement that the US will “no longer use American military might to construct democracies in faraway lands, or try to rebuild other countries in our own image”7 speaks to two common concerns about US presence in the Middle East. The first is the issue of cultural sensitivity. President Trump goes on to say that “We are not asking others to change their way of life,”7, in other words, assuming a level of western superiority and trying to rebuild Afghanistan according to a standard of civilization that fails to account for equally valid cultural differences. Such concerns are valid and important to informing an equitable and effective strategy in the area. The US must strike a balance between defending universally recognized rights and values while allowing for differences. The second concern is costly involvement with no benefit to the US. International aid can easily be interpreted as using taxpayer money for charitable hand-outs to other countries. President Trump’s references to “shared interests” and “principled realism” indicate that he is thinking in those terms7. The question then becomes what, if any, aid is essential to securing these “shared interests,” which presumably include a stable and widely legitimate Afghan government and an end to insurgent violence. Evidence indicates that at least some level of practices that would fall under “nation-building” is necessary to those interests. A good example is the ANDSF. Department of Defense reports

The question then becomes what, if any, aid is essential to securing these “shared interests,” which presumably include a stable and widely legitimate Afghan government and an end to insurgent violence. Evidence indicates that at least some level of practices that would fall under “nation-building” is necessary to those interests. A good example is the ANDSF. Department of Defense reports express concern regarding widespread illiteracy among the force and how it might inhibit its combat effectiveness. In this case, security would benefit from measures to improve education systems in Afghanistan. On a larger scale, feelings of abandonment could have very real security implications for the US in the future. In the past, the perception throughout the Middle East has been that international powers, the US included, have fought for their own interests there and then left the countries in tatters when their mission was accomplished. Extremists groups have proven adept at capitalizing on these feelings. Therefore, devoting some resources nation-building is essential to creating a lasting peace.

Conclusion

The Trump administration’s articulation of its Afghanistan strategy is still in its early stages. So far, three key change has emerged: conditions approach in determining the appropriate time to withdraw, a doubling down on Pakistan’s activities, and a cessation of nation-building. Given the deterioration of Afghanistan’s security situation after the US began withdrawing troops in 2014, changes of some kind are clearly needed, but whether the new strategy will be able to implement the right kind of changes and succeed in bringing peace to the region remains to be seen.

——————————————————

Endnotes

  1. “Timeline: The US War in Afghanistan,” Council on Foreign Relations, 2017 https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan
  2. Katzman, Kenneth and Clayton Thomas. “Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy” (Congressional Research Service Report, 2017), 7
  3. Katzman, Kenneth and Clayton Thomas. “Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy” (Congressional Research Service Report, 2017), 24-29
  4. “Afghanistan Security: Afghan Army Growing, but Additional Trainers Needed; Long-term Costs Not Determined” (United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Addressees, 2011), 4
  5. General John W. Nicholson Jr. (Commander, Resolute Support and U.S. Forces Afghanistan) in a Department of Defense Briefing, September 2016
  6. Katzman, Kenneth and Clayton Thomas. “Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy” (Congressional Research Service Report, 2017), 32
  7. Donald Trump “Remarks by President Trump on the Strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia” (Arlington, VA, August 21, 2017)
  8. Katzman, Kenneth and Clayton Thomas. “Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy” (Congressional Research Service Report, 2017), 45

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30588.pdf

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/21/remarks-president-trump-strategy-afghanistan-and-south-asia

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/afghanistan-partial-threat-assessment-november-22-2016

 

The Flawed Narrative of Terrorist Attack Claims

The Flawed Narrative of Terrorist Attack Claims

 Every extremist or terrorist group has branded itself as martyrs or freedom fighters, fighting against unjust governments, economic systems, or religious institutions.  And yet simultaneously, the same groups often either explicitly target civilians or use tactics that show little regard for humanitarian consequences, including roadside IEDs and suicide car bombs.  

Luckily for citizens seeking to understand the war on extremism, the evolution of military and police intelligence as well as press corps able to dissect terrorist attacks, most attacks usually have a main suspect.  From June 7th to August 12th of 2017, 53% of attacks had a suspected group responsible, while groups claimed responsibility only 16% of the time. 

With the amount of claimed attacks relatively small, it’s hard to believe that they would accurately reflect the true damage that terrorists impose on society.  In order to examine whether these claims can be trusted in profiling terrorist groups, we can look to a quick cross section of terrorist activity.

The following table displays the breakdown of target type for terrorist attacks which had suspected culprits versus claims of responsibility.  All attacks took place between June 11th and August 7th, and all attacks were verified by two independent sources. The three groups were chosen based on how many attacks in both the Suspected and Claimed categories so that there would be a balance between the two when broken down.  The numbers for the Taliban include attacks claimed or suspected to be performed by Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP, a Pakistani offshoot of the Taliban.  The results are shown below.  

 

Distribution of Target Types between Claimed and Suspected attacks for Three Terrorist Groups
Group Attribution Level Target type Total
Civilian Security Political Unknown
Al-Shabaab Claimed 1 (10%) 7 (70%) 2 (20%) 0 10
Suspected 11 (61%) 4 (22%) 3 (17%) 0 18
Total 12 (43%) 11 (39%) 5 (18%) 0 28
ISIS Claimed 3 (50%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%) 0 6
Suspected 3 (43%) 3 (43%) 0 1 (14%) 7
Total 6 (46%) 4 (31%) 2 (15%) 1 (8%) 13
Taliban (including TTP) Claimed 1 (10%) 8 (80%) 1 (10%) 0 10
Suspected 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 0 0 6
Total 4 (25%) 11 (69%) 1 (6%) 0 16
*All data provided by the Rise To Peace Active Intelligence Database

Al-Shabaab and the Taliban appear to follow a similar pattern to each other: The groups tend to overstate how much they attack security targets, like police stations or military patrols, and overstate how many civilians they attack and kill.  For example, while attacks on security targets made up only 39% of Al-Shabaab attacks, they comprised 70% of the attacks the groups claimed responsibility for. Similarly, only 10% of claimed attacks by the Taliban targeted civilians, but this occurred in 25% of their total suspected attacks.  

While the small sample size and simple statistical display shown here may not constitute a completely thorough analysis, it confirms what anyone would suspect of such groups. Whether to attempt to boost their own legitimacy or avoid civilian and humanitarian backlash, terrorist groups have little incentive to claim responsibility on attacks in ways that accurately reflect what their attacks do. Always investigate and consider different perspectives when judging the actions of such violent groups.  At Rise To Peace, we hope to mitigate these types of misinformation and flawed narratives in order to better inform people on the true evil of global extremism and terrorism.