Boston Bombing

Too early yet to work out who was responsible for the Boston bombing.

One interesting lead however comes from Inspire, the magazine published by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which last year included advice for “lone wolf” attackers already based inside the US. It published excerpts from a book by Abu Mus’ab Al-Suri, described as a prominent theologian and strategist, which called for attacks in places where civilians congregate, such as sports events…

The type of attack, which repels states and topples governments, is mass slaughter of the population. This is done by targeting human crowds in order to inflict maximum human losses. This is very easy since there are numerous such targets such as crowded sports arenas, annual social events, large international exhibitions, crowded marketplaces, sky-scrapers, crowded buildings… etc.”

You can read more analysis by Memri here

Is Pakistan a State Sponsor of Terrorism?

The past fortnight has seen a sharp increase in tension between the US and Pakistan. Relations were already at a low during a year in which a CIA operative shot dead two men in Lahore and US special forces flew into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden, without asking permission from Islamabad. Then, two weeks ago, Afghan gunmen launched an audacious assault on the American embassy and Nato headquarters in Kabul (some fascinating details here) – an attack which the US blames on the Haqqani network, an insurgent group with safe havens in Pakistan.

The result was a fresh range of finger-pointing and a co-ordinated effort by senior US officials – including the Secretary of State, Defence Secretary and CIA chief – to increase the pressure on Pakistan to clear the Haqqani network’s safe havens. By far the strongest comments came from Admiral Mike Mullen, the US’s most senior military man, when he linked the network to the Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency…

“In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy, the government of Pakistan – and most especially the Pakistani Army and ISI – jeopardises not only the prospect of our strategic partnership, but also Pakistan’s opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence,” he told US senators. “By exporting violence, they have eroded their internal security and their position in the region.”

Strong words particularly when you remember that the US needs Pakistan every bit as much as Pakistan needs the US.  No-one seriously believes that Washington is about to abandon Islamabad when the corridor from Karachi to the Khyber Pass remains the most important supply line to Nato forces in Afghanistan.

But so far, apart from trying to shame Pakistan into action, have any threats been made to Islamabad? What are the consequences of inaction?

As I reported last week, the US State Department is considering designating the Haqqani network as a terrorist organisation.

The issue came up again in a State Department briefing last night, when an official was asked why they haven’t yet been declared a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO).

So certainly FTO designation is something under review, but the idea that we haven’t gone after the Haqqani Network at all, I think, is a mischaracterization. Like I said, we’ve effectively targeted many of the kingpins in the organization.

So the policy is to target individuals not the group. But why, when the Haqqanis have launched numerous attacks on civilians, are they not considered a terrorist group?

“I’m surprised they aren’t already,” said a US official in Islamabad when I asked him about designating the Haqqanis as a terror group last week. One is that it would make negotiations all but impossible. The other is pretty obvious when you consider Admiral Mike Mullen’s comments last week. If the Haqqanis are a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s ISI intelligence agency, as he said, then that would make Pakistan a state-sponsor of terrorism.

And at that point, the stormy relationship – forged in the fires of 9/11 when Pakistan and the US were thrown together in the war on terror – would be over. That would be a massive step and one that will not come soon. But it is telling that the US is prepared to say the issue is “under review” leaving the repercussions dangling in the air.

Is the US now working on its Pakistan endgame as it begins bringing home its troops from Afgahanistan?

Explaining Away Terror

Great piece in The Daily Times today by Hasan-Askari Rizvi on the failure of many Pakistani leaders to recognise the domestic nature of terror attacks. Instead they continue to reach for narratives that suggest a global conspiracy against Islam rather than accept the threat posed by Muslim extremists. At the same time, leaders in Punjab refuse to accept that their region is home to terror groups. As a result, recent terror attacks have been blamed on anyone but the real culprits…

• A Muslim cannot engage in terrorism targeting ordinary people, places of worship and shrines. One implication of this statement is that such acts must have been conducted by non-Muslims
• The paid agents of Pakistan’s foreign adversaries, rather than militant Islamic organisations, engage in such activities to destabilise Pakistan
• Various US agencies working in Pakistan and Afghanistan resort to terrorism or buy off people for terrorism to destabilise Pakistan and thus create a justification for the US and other western countries to take control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
• Attacks or bombings are a reaction to Pakistan’s involvement in US-led efforts to eliminate trans-national terrorism, which does not serve Pakistan’s interests
• These incidents are a reaction to Pakistan’s military action in the tribal areas and US drone attacks. If US troops withdraw from Afghanistan and there is no US military activity in Pakistan, terrorism will stop. The Taliban and other militants are not anti-Pakistan; they are fighting against foreign presence in the region

Tackling the problem will mean jettisoning such conspiracy theories or rationalisations.