Thoughts on Israel’s predicament at sea…

Today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at a press conference aimed at clearing the air following the globally viewed raid of an aid flotilla headed for the Gaza Strip. The controversial events that took place aboard the supposed Gaza bound aid ship two days ago have triggered an angry response from Muslims around the world. The Prime Minister’s primary claim centers on Israel’s right to self-defense from what it sees as a threat from Iran via Gaza bound vessels disguised as aid ships. This claim implies that Israel’s traditional, and only major Muslim ally, Turkey, allowed the flotillas in question to leave port with weaponry destined for transfer from Iran to Gaza’s Hamas leadership. The fact that many innocent Turkish citizens were onboard the vessel when the armed Israeli commandos fell on board from the night sky, has ultimately led to a condemnation of Israel by the entirety of a usually divided Turkish Parliament. It is considered an insult by the parliament and the citizens of Turkey that they are considered to be party to alleged weapons transfer to an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Therefore, despite its passionate claims that these raids are taking place in the name of national security, Israel now faces an increasingly serious predicament in dealing with Hamas, Iran, and now Turkey at sea.

Israel’s policy currently calls for the interception of every vessel headed to the Gaza strip, a tactic which basically amounts to a blockade and headache for those who seek to transfer aid to the innocent people of Gaza. The fact that Hamas uses the humanitarian efforts as cover to smuggle in weaponry is an unfortunate byproduct of the independence of Gaza and the international waters of the Mediterranean. Turkey has every right under international law to send aid to nations it deems in need of its assistance. Israel, by not adhering to these basic rights, has put itself in a position where it is further isolated and surrounded by nations who are weary of its intentions. Though Turkey acknowledges that Iran intends to arm Hamas at Israel’s expense, it will not tolerate the death of its citizens in the name of a perceived threat by Israel. Whether warranted or not, Israel ignored the sovereignty of Gaza at the expense of Turkish lives. By not trusting Turkey to secure its ports and inspect outgoing cargo, Israel is at risk of losing the support of its only true advocate in the Muslim world.

Israel’s predicament at sea further complicates an already tense situation facing the United States and its coalition partners in the region. President Obama, already knee deep in two wars, a recession, and the worst oil spill in the history of mankind, must now help ease tensions between Turkey and Israel. As a key ally in the Middle East, Israel must understand that these kind of events, whether warranted or not, only serve to inflame the radical citizenry and the terrorist groups they seek to control. Hamas is empowered by actions which are perceived as unjust by even Israel’s oldest allies. Going forward, with more aid ships on the way to Gaza, Israel must take a hard look at whether, given its superior military capabilities, attempting to board ships preemptively is a good move from a national security perspective. Hamas knows it will never have the weaponry to challenge the Israeli Military, so wouldn’t it make more sense for Israel to work closely with Turkey and other Mediterranean countries to secure the cargo of outgoing aid ships to assure no weapons are on board? Instead of heightening tensions by risking armed confrontation, why not trust your allies to act in the best interest of peace in the region?

Until Israel understands that the greater security of the region lies in demonstrating a commitment to peaceful resolution of the region’s biggest problems, there is no reason to believe that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority will back down from their efforts to arm themselves as Israel itself has with the aid of its allies around the world. The bottom line is that until territorial respect, at sea and on land, is restored in the name of long-term peace and aversion of war, Israel cannot expect to see a decline in challenges to its naval blockade by both aid and weapon loaded ships. Israel is now at risk of embarrassing itself by appearing to bully aid ship crews in attempt to find a needle in a haystack. In addition, given the awareness of smugglers of the intent to board ships by Israeli commandos, there is no reason to believe that these foreign weapon suppliers will continue to use the sea as their primary means of delivering weaponry to Hamas. Without the aforementioned effort to engage its allies in the name of port security, avoidable, deadly raids at sea are destined to continue in the name of Israeli national security. Should this be the case, there is a great risk of a larger Mediterranean Sea front opening in the war against global terrorism and WMD proliferation. Let’s hope brighter minds prevail, and through discussion, and not conflict, there can be a resolution to the elevated tension caused by this and other ocean theatre events.

Thoughts on the effectiveness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the US approach to his visit…

Upon the arrival of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the United States today, it is obvious that the State Department and The White House are taking a decidedly more tolerant approach to working with the controversial, narrowly reelected leader of Afghanistan. Following months of critical verbiage from the United States and its NATO allies in the region, Karzai has stayed firm in his own, time tested, ways. He continues to reject the existence of Iranian influence in his country, despite the fact that a plethora of Iranian weapon caches have been seized within the Afghan borders, and the continued condemnation by Iran’s regime of the US mission against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. He is guilty of openly accusing the United States of wanting to make a “puppet” out of him, and most recently claimed that western influence had led to fraud in the latest election, which he won when his opponent dropped out (ironically on claims of fraud and corruption by Karzai himself). Then there is the added tension created by Karzai’s younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, and his alleged connection to drug trafficking and poppy production, which further complicates the efforts of US and Afghan forces to root out the money lines used in large part to fund outside terror organizations and the Taliban. Our criticism has ultimately led to a situation where we must re-attempt to reach common ground on critical areas going forward in order to bring a meaningful end to nine years of war in Afghanistan.

We have learned that in criticizing, and essentially backing the opposition to Karzai in the 2009 Afghan Presidential Election, we have proceeded to further alienate ourselves from our most crucial partner in a war we have invested so much life and treasure into. Though his intentions have often been questioned, Karzai has proven time and time again that he is a capable politician in his own right, and frankly he worries more about pleasing his potential voters in Kabul than in conceding positions to the United States or any other country for that matter. Therefore, as he visits the United States at this crucial moment, we must acknowledge that although we may not agree on some of the fine details of how Afghanistan does its business, we all share a common goal of disarming the Taliban, and rooting out the Al Qaeda presence in the region and worldwide. Karzai understands this, and he has known since 2001 that truthful cooperation with the United States and NATO is essential to his hold on power, and essential to his ability to avoid his fragile government from being overrun by the Taliban and Al Qaeda influence in the region.

As the meetings in Washington DC unfold, it should come as no surprise to see all of the parties involved projecting a much more positive, united tone with regards to the nature of the discussions which took place. With the withdraw of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq looming in the coming months and years, we can be certain that the fixes we make to this timid relationship will be pivotal in the execution of the lofty foreign policy goals and wartime objectives of all parties involved.

Thoughts on the difficult balancing act between our security concerns and the protection of civil liberties…

In a follow up to yesterday’s article on US v Shahzad, today’s discussion revolves around what civil liberties should and shouldn’t be off limits when it comes to protecting America and our allies from future terror attacks. Each of us cherishes our inherent right to privacy, but because of the heightened concern for attempts by terrorists to destroy American targets, many of these rights are being bent to the breaking point in the name of national security. For instance, in order for our intelligence agencies to thwart future terror threats, cyber units need to have access to any computer they deem to possibly contain evidence of a threat to America. They must also have access to a certain degree of private web traffic, including e-mail and instant messages, in order to determine whether a cell is developing, or if a group or individual is showing signs of acting upon a radical thought. In 2010, the fact is that we are an interconnected world with new kinds of threats appearing on a more frequent basis. The US Government must be able to determine whether there has been a hack attempt into their secured networks and without a certain level of access to previously private information it is nearly impossible to do so without alerting the suspect.

Having learned our lesson from tragic past events, most Americans are willing to give up a certain degree of their personal privacy in order to ensure the safety of their communities. The passing of the USA Patriot Act in 2004, 05’, and 06’ was an example of Congress putting the security of the nation ahead of the basic constitutional rights granted to us in the First and Fourth Amendment’s. The act essentially allows law enforcement agencies to spy on their citizenry in order to detect potential terrorist suspects. However, as hard as it may be to accept that authorities can monitor our behavior on the internet, along with our financial transactions, there is no other feasible way to assure the absolute security of a populace as large as ours. Eyes and ears on the ground can only get us so far. As we saw in Times Square, and with the Christmas Day bomber, we usually find out about these kinds of attempts after the fact. Sure, we caught the guy before he left the country, and sure, a brave street vendor did lead law enforcement to the scene, but the fact is that we missed the vital signs that this man was going to act out such a potentially deadly attack.

Post 9/11, as the national priority quickly changed to preventing future attacks on our soil at all costs, those costs essentially meant that our private internet activity and financial transactions would be monitored minute to the minute by the fed’s. The resources necessary to effectively spy on ourselves are financed by our very own taxpayer dollars. It’s in nobody’s best interest to have homeland security agents spying on the day to day, non-criminal activities of American citizens. Thus, the good intentions of our intelligence agencies must be balanced out with the possible ability of rogue agents to access private information on the American citizenry. These agencies must be stringent in their commitment to verify the backgrounds of all who are allowed access to the secure information of ordinary citizens. These privacy concerns, if correctly addressed, can make the accelerating transition into an age of transparency easier for all Americans.

The balancing act between prioritizing privacy rights and security concerns will be an ongoing point of contention in the affairs of the US and other countries worldwide. Our constitution must continue to guide us in the 21st Century, and the rights of American citizens must never be in jeopardy. However, we know that if we hinder the ability of our intelligence agencies to detect our biggest threats, we do more harm to ourselves than good. In finding this difficult balance, our leaders must be mindful of the privacy concerns of all Americans, of all races and all religions. Our privacy is something we hold dear, and in no way should we let our basic rights slip away because of outside or homegrown threats. We must also adjust our idea of what constitutes true privacy to match the realities of the world we live in. As citizens, we must do a better job of assisting the government when it comes to policing the internet and the streets. It is my opinion, that if we can reach a decent balance that is both effective and preserves our civil liberties with regards to our right to privacy, we can secure the sanctity of the constitutional rights which we are so fortunate to have as Americans. If we approach our networked activity with an open eye for suspicious behavior, we can prevent our privacy rights from being pressed to the brink in the future.

Thoughts on United States v Faisal Shahzad and the keen eyes of New Yorkers…

As a disclaimer, I am not stating in this article that the vast majority of citizens in other US cities are not capable of deciphering terror attempts and smelling imminent danger; but in a Post 9/11 world, there is a noticeable level of heightened awareness that many long time New York City residents share when it comes to situations like this weekend’s failed car bombing by Connecticut resident Faisal Shahzad. The heroic actions taken by Time Square vendors to alert police of the danger at hand cannot go understated and reinforce this thought. In a culture that largely chooses to look the other way, or run for the hills in times of crisis or danger, these keen eyed individuals saw a suspicious vehicle, saw smoke, and reacted without hesitation to protect the people around them, and not just themselves. Whether it would have mattered had the bomb detonated quicker is of no matter. For police, this kind of petty terrorism is almost undetectable until it’s too late. Therefore, the critical cooperation between ordinary citizens in the streets, and the officers of the NYPD, is a prime example of the kind of open eyed approach to counterterrorism that ultimately saves lives.

We know, as of the release of the Federal Charges against Shahzad, that the newly naturalized United States citizen was a former resident of Pakistan. He had returned in early February from his latest trip to Karachi where he visited his family, but also made his way to Waziristan to train himself in bomb making. His claims to be working alone are under investigation, but his tracks are slowly leading him to a connection with the Pakistani Taliban and possibly Al Qaeda. In addition to his quickly unraveling story line, it seems that Shahzad was a rookie when it came to his attempted car bombing. Though his materials could have combined for a huge explosion, it has been revealed that his wiring job was amateurish, and his subsequent attempts to leave the country with a ticket to Dubai bought with cash lead me to believe he was chosen as an actor with little hierarchical importance to any major terror network. He parked his SUV in a location where cameras could catch his every move. He apparently bought the SUV off Craig’s List with cash, even inquiring to the previous owner about the cargo space at the expense of a faulty engine. Basically, this man has all of the signs of a wannabe who went too far.

As the details of United States v Faisal Shahzad continue to emerge, it should not surprise anyone if it is found that the Pakistani Taliban hired this green individual to carry out its dirty business. Why sacrifice an important individual to carry out an act which is likely to result in a bust or failed launch? The Taliban and Al Qaeda are growing increasingly desperate, and they are resorting to petty acts of terror in order to stay in the game. The Obama Administration has embraced the recent cooperation of the Pakistani government and military, and by doing so, the two sides have teamed together to slowly root out the radical influences in the region. It’s a struggle between divergent ways of life which is likely to last as long as humans are on the planet earth, and in order to leave the region in better shape than it was before we arrived in 2001, we must find a way to prevent US citizens such as Shahzad from reaching terrorist camps around the world.

Unless we and our allies can produce a full proof, globally intertwined system to detect the movement of high risk individuals into hotbeds of terror around the globe, it will be the keen eye of our citizenry, along with our collective willingness to work with law enforcement, that will ultimately determine our success in stopping future plots on our own soil. Our intelligence communities can help us to narrow down the major players of the various terror networks around the globe. They can help the TSA and other transportation safety agencies to flag individuals who are deemed a threat to their intended destination or are fleeing the scene of a crime. But, without our timely cooperation, and a New York City type awareness of the world we live in, the hard work of our homeland security officials can only get us so far in the fight to end terrorism. We, like those heroic Times Square vendors, need to alert the authorities to suspicious activities, especially when we are in crowded areas such as airports, tourist attractions, mass transit systems, and other high profile venues. In 2010, we have the ability to use our technology to capture videos and still images of suspicious behavior as it happens. We can then quickly forward that information to law enforcement. If we do this, we can rest assured that what is preventable is prevented, and the parties responsible, like Shahzad and his accomplices, are apprehended and brought to justice in a timely manner.