[Senate Hearing 109-859]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-859
COUNTERTERRORISM: THE CHANGING FACE OF TERROR
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 13, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-695 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee............... 35
Benjamin, Daniel, senior fellow, International Security Program,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC. 56
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., U.S. Senator from Delaware........... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Crumpton, Hon. Henry A., Coordinator for Counterterrorism,
Department of State, Washington, DC............................ 15
Prepared statement.......................................... 17
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., U.S. Senator from Wisconsin........... 32
Hagel, Hon. Chuck, U.S. Senator from Nebraska.................... 28
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Martinez, Hon. Mel, U.S. Senator from Florida................... 43
McLaughlin, Hon. John E., senior fellow, Merrill Center for
Strategic Studies, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC 46
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from Florida..................... 32
Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from Illinois................... 38
Redd, Hon. John Scott, Vice Admiral, USN (Ret.), Director,
National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, Washington, DC.......................... 7
Prepared statement.......................................... 11
(iii)
COUNTERTERRORISM: THE CHANGING FACE OF TERROR
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in
room SD-19, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard G.
Lugar (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Lugar, Hagel, Alexander, Martinez, Biden,
Feingold, Nelson, and Obama.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM
INDIANA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee is called to order. Today the committee meets to
begin a series of hearings on the issue of global terrorism and
our international efforts to combat it. The dramatic and tragic
events of September 11, 2001, caused a sea of change in how
Americans view terrorism. No longer was this a phenomenon that
occurred only in distant places with victims unknown to us.
While many Americans, often working in the service of our
State Department or military, have lost their lives in
terrorist acts overseas in recent years, the September 11
attacks on our homeland seared the images of terrorism in the
minds of Americans forever. Americans were jarred out of our
complacency. Our remedies as a government in the aftermath of
the attacks, have changed the way that we travel, the way that
we move across our borders, the way that we manage
international trade and finance, and the way that we approach
our foreign policy.
Through tireless work with our partners overseas and here
at home, we have made progress. We have forced al-Qaeda from
its base in Afghanistan and severely disrupted its central
leadership. Recent news of the successful joint United States-
Iraqi strike against Abu Masab al-Zarqawi and the foiled
terrorist plot in Canada clearly indicate that our investments
and those of our partners are meeting with some success.
However, it is equally clear that military operations alone
will not win the longer war on terrorism. The State
Department's recent report on counterterrorism trends notes
that while al-Qaeda's leadership is now on the run, its
finances and logistics disrupted, and its Afghan safe haven
gone, the core leadership continues to provide ideological
guidance to followers worldwide. It has lost much of its
operational capability, but it has increased its emphasis on
propaganda activity and it continues to inspire terrorist cells
in many parts of the world. Its political will has not been
undermined.
We also are seeing an increase in suicide bombings around
the world. The July 7 bus and subway attacks in London that
drew on British citizens as suicide bombers was a particularly
noteworthy occurrence. The Near East and South Asia regions of
the globe remain hard-hit by terrorism, accounting for almost
75 percent of the attacks and 80 percent of the fatalities last
year. Attacks on journalists serving in foreign countries also
are on the rise and observers are noting more frequent
occurrences of homegrown terrorist cells here in North America,
the Canadian plot being the most recent example.
All of this shows that, despite our operational and
tactical successes, the root causes of terrorism and the
intense ideological motivation behind the phenomenon persists.
How then should we go forward? What new forms is terrorism
taking, and how are groups changing their tactics? What are
their central aims and motivations, and how do we as a nation
project to affected populations worldwide an image of hope
rather than enmity? Does our current strategy sufficiently
account for the roles of diplomacy, international exchange, and
foreign assistance in this battle, so that we can reach Muslims
and others who currently hear a message of hate and revenge
from within their most radical ranks? How do we not just
counter Osama bin Laden's tactics, but also enlist support to
discredit his strategic plan and vision within the worldwide
Muslim community? How do we artfully use so-called soft power
to deny the terrorists their favorite havens of unstable
societies and uncontrolled territories?
The purpose of today's hearing is to receive reports from
those currently and formerly on the front lines of the U.S.
counterterrorism effort about how we are doing, how terrorists
are adapting and changing their operations, and where we are
headed in the short and longer term.
First, we will hear from two Government officials who are
key players in our international efforts to combat terrorism.
Vice Admiral John Scott Redd is the Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center. In this capacity, Admiral Redd heads
an entity that develops plans, conducts analysis, and provides
assistance to all elements of the Government that are involved
in disrupting or preventing future terrorist acts. Admiral Redd
commanded the United States 6th Fleet in the mid-1990s. He also
served as Director of Plans on the Joint Staff and was a deputy
to Ambassador Paul Bremer at the Coalition Provisional
Authority in Baghdad.
Ambassador Henry Crumpton is the State Department's
Coordinator for Counterterrorism and has responsibility for
coordinating and supporting all United States Government
policies aimed at countering terrorism overseas. Ambassador
Crumpton served with distinction for many years in the CIA as
an operations officer, as a Chief of Station, and most recently
as the leader of CIA's Afghan campaign in 2001 and 2002. On our
second panel we will hear from two accomplished public servants
who have entered the private sector. John McLaughlin is
currently a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins School of
Advanced International Studies and is a former Acting and
Deputy Director of the CIA. Mr. McLaughlin had a long and
distinguished career in the Agency's Analysis Directorate and
has chaired the National Intelligence Council.
Daniel Benjamin has served on the National Security Council
staff and in this capacity had responsibility for the breadth
of programs encompassing U.S. counterterrorism efforts. He is a
former foreign correspondent for Time Magazine and is coauthor
of ``The Age of Sacred Terror,'' which was selected as a
``Notable Book of 2002'' by The New York Times and the
Washington Post. His latest book, ``The Next Attack,'' examines
the evolution of the terrorist threat since September 11, 2001,
and the conduct of the war on terror during that period.
I deeply appreciate our witnesses being with us today. We
look forward to their testimony. First of all, it is my
pleasure to call upon the distinguished ranking member of the
committee, Senator Joe Biden.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., U.S. SENATOR FROM
DELAWARE
Senator Biden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for having this hearing on international terrorism. We do have
a distinguished panel and I welcome them again. I had a chance
to personally welcome them.
Folks, the risk of catastrophic international terrorism in
a single or multiple events, it seems to me, is the greatest
single threat now to our national security. The question is
whether our country is combatting terrorism in the best way and
that is the purpose of the hearing, at least in part.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is, despite some
very notable successes. I hope this series of hearings will
help us determine the reason for the shortfall, if I am correct
about this shortfall, and help point us in the right direction.
After 9-11, the administration very quickly and correctly
focused on uprooting al-Qaeda from its sanctuary in
Afghanistan, capturing and killing its leaders, and assisting
other countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and the Philippines where
there was a terrorist presence tied to al-Qaeda. For a year we
went after that clear threat, using both military and
nonmilitary means, with international support and, I would
argue, with a fair amount of success. We also improved
intelligence sharing both at home and with other countries
during that period.
Then, in my view, we diverted our attention from defeating
international terrorism to ousting Saddam Hussein and remaking
Iraq. Today Iraq has become what it was not, in my view, before
the war, a breeding ground and a training ground for
terrorists. Iraq's drain on our military resources has been
felt clearly in Afghanistan, where our inattention gave the
Taliban a new lease on life.
I remember the debate we had after at least my first trip
to Afghanistan right after the Taliban was defeated, where I
spent considerable time with Secretary of State Powell
arguing--and he agreed, I might add--that we should add
resources. I met with the generals there, including the British
general who was up in the capital, and met with our commanding
officer at Bagram Air Force Base. They were all saying--it was
uniform--we needed more, more--not fewer, but more assets in
order to finish the job.
I remember coming back and the President asking me to
debrief him, as we all do when we get back from trips and
saying, what a great victory. I said, it was a great victory,
it was a great victory against Afghanistan. But I asked the
heretical question: How many body bags can you count of the
Taliban? How many body bags? We estimated there were 50,000 men
in arms and there were not very many body bags.
Now, that is not a bad thing per se, but it means they went
somewhere. I remember going from Kabul in 17 degree weather out
to the old headquarters where the Soviets housed their
personnel--it looked like a big public housing project--and
meeting with a whole lot of folks who had come into that
complex, occupied it, who were from the plains. I asked them
about going back. I said: Will you not go back home now? They
said: Why are we going to go back home? The Taliban is still
there. We are not going back home. We are not going back home.
So here we are now in the circumstance where I would argue
that Afghanistan at least has increasing problems, not
diminishing problems, and if we are not very deft about it we
may find ourselves in real trouble in Afghanistan. So our
inattention, I think, or insufficient attention, has given the
Taliban a new lease on life.
The death of Zarqawi last week was obviously most welcome
and I probably said some imprudent things about how happy I was
about his demise. And I hope it proves to be a turning point.
But I doubt that it will in the absence of a real strategy for
victory and a significant change in our strategy in Iraq.
Right now all the administration has in place--and God
willing, with the strategic meeting they have had at Camp David
and the President's visit to Iraq, there may be a harbinger of
change in strategy. But up to now I would argue this
administration has had a strategy to prevent defeat, but not to
win. So far Iraq has been a net loss in the war on terrorism,
in my view. In my judgment, our emphasis on military force in
the war on terrorism has been a bit shortsighted.
A strong military is absolutely necessary, absolutely
necessary, but in my view not sufficient to deal with this
threat we are going to be talking about today. It has to be
part of, not a substitute for, a wise policy and a coherent
strategy. I worry the administration may be militarizing our
policy to a point of leaving our other policymakers all but out
of the loop. Combatant commanders are getting authority to run
their own military education and military assistance programs.
Special operations forces reportedly are deployed to countries
without our ambassadors knowing about it, let alone approving
of the deployments. The CIA allegedly paid Somali warlords to
fight against Islamic militants, against the advice of
diplomats in the region and, as it turns out, unsuccessfully,
causing a serious setback, in my view, to our counterterrorism
efforts there. In all these cases the State Department,
although nominally in control, seems in fact to have been a
rubber stamp for ideas proposed by other agencies.
In Afghanistan, the administration's failure to follow
through on reconstruction has bred deep resentment that
endangers all the gains we have made, in my view, since 2001.
Afghanistan is lapsing into a full-fledged narco-economy. The
Taliban are stronger than they have been at any point since
their ouster. Last week Karzai suggested that he had to reverse
the disarmament process and start rearming the warlords. That
is progress for you.
Meanwhile, public diplomacy remains ineffective and our
support of democracy is taking a back seat to other issues in
Russia, Egypt, Central Asia, and China, which is, I would
argue, understandable but nonetheless regrettable.
Two and one-half years ago, one of Secretary Rumsfeld's
initial memos made its way into the press. The Secretary in one
of his so-called ``snowflakes'' asked two critical questions. I
think they are pertinent today: ``Are we capturing, killing, or
detaining and dissuading more terrorists every day than the
madrassas and radical clerics are recruiting, training, and
deploying against us?'' To repeat his question: ``Are we
capturing, killing, or detaining and dissuading more terrorists
every day than the madrassas and radical clerics are
recruiting, training, and deploying against us?''
He asked a second question: ``Does the United States need
to fashion a broad integrated plan to stop the next generation
of terrorists?'' That was the question in one of his
snowflakes. Maybe some of that snow fell on some of you. But
they are both very legitimate questions, very legitimate
questions.
The answers were and, I believe, remain no and yes. No, we
are not stopping more terrorists than the radical
fundamentalists are creating, and yes, we need a comprehensive
strategy to do that.
So Mr. Chairman, I hope we use these hearings to step back
and ask where we are and where we should be heading in
combatting terrorism. What is the nature of the terrorist
threat today, now that we have done great damage to al-Qaeda
but not been able to wipe it out, let alone wipe out its appeal
to Muslim people around the world? Is Iraq the frontline in the
war on terrorism? Whether we planned that or not, is it the
frontline now? Or is it really a different sort of fight?
Outside of Iraq, what are the trends in terrorist
organizations and activities? Why do Osama bin Laden and all
the top al-Qaeda leadership still have safe haven in Pakistan?
Are all elements of the Pakistani Government, including all
levels of the intelligence service, firmly committed to the war
against al-Qaeda and its affiliates? Remember the ISI was very,
very close to Pashtun and the Taliban prior to the war. I
believe they still are.
What new strategy is needed to reverse the tide in
Afghanistan? What is a reasonable objective in countering
international terrorism and how should we measure our progress
toward achieving that objective? How should we balance military
and nonmilitary components of a counterterrorist policy, and
how can we orchestrate the full range of counterterrorist tools
rather than just trying one thing, then another? What sort of
international support is needed, if any, and how can we build
and maintain that support? Finally, what level of effort is
needed on our part? If this is a global war, then what sort of
sacrifices should we be prepared to make? If it is to be a long
war, then how shall we maintain the public support for this
long war?
We have a fine set of witnesses, Mr. Chairman, to help us
begin to grapple with those challenges and I look forward to
hearing their testimony and the testimony of those to follow. I
want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for arranging this
hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator Biden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., U.S. Senator from
Delaware
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on international
terrorism, the first in an important series of hearings.
The risk of catastrophic international terrorism is the greatest
single threat today to our national security. The question is whether
our country is combating terrorism in the best way. Frankly, Mr.
Chairman, I don't think it is, despite some very notable successes. I
hope that this series of hearings will help us to determine the reasons
for this shortfall and point us in the right direction.
After 9/11, the administration quickly and correctly focused on
uprooting al-Qaeda from its sanctuary in Afghanistan, capturing or
killing its leaders, and assisting other countries (like Pakistan,
Yemen, and the Philippines) where there was a terrorist presence tied
to al-Qaeda. For a year, we went after the clear threat, using both
military and nonmilitary means, with international support and with
fair success. We also improved intelligence sharing, both at home and
with other countries.
Then, in my view, we diverted our attention from defeating
international terrorism to ousting Saddam Hussein and remaking Iraq.
Today, Iraq has become what it was not before the war: A breeding
ground and a training ground for terrorists. And Iraq's drain on our
military resources has been felt clearly in Afghanistan, where our
insufficient attention helped give the Taliban a new lease on life.
Many of us argued ever since the Taliban fell that we needed to put
more resources into Afghanistan. We failed to do that and Afghanistan
is once again a growing problem.
The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi last week was obviously most
welcome. I hope it proves to be a turning point. But I doubt that it
will in the absence of a real strategy for victory. Right now, all the
administration has is a strategy to prevent defeat. So far, Iraq has
been a net loss in the war on terrorism.
In my judgment, our emphasis on military force in the war on
terrorism has been short-sighted. A strong military is absolutely
necessary, but it is not sufficient. It must be part of, not a
substitute for, wise policy and a coherent strategy.
I worry that the administration may be militarizing our policy to
the point of leaving other policy makers all but out of the loop.
Combatant commanders are getting authority to run their own
military education and military assistance programs.
Special operations forces reportedly have deployed to
countries without our ambassadors knowing about it, let alone
approving the deployments.
The CIA allegedly paid Somali warlords to fight against
Islamic militias--against the advice of diplomats in the region
and, as it turned out, unsuccessfully--causing a serious
setback for our counterterrorism efforts there.
In all these cases, the State Department, although nominally
in control, seems in fact to have been a rubber stamp for ideas
proposed by other agencies.
In Afghanistan, the administration's failure to follow through on
reconstruction has bred deep resentment that endangers all the gains
we've made since 2001.
Afghanistan is lapsing into a full-fledged narco-economy. The
Taliban are stronger than at any point since their ouster. Last week,
President Karzai suggested he had to reverse the disarmament process
and start rearming the warlords.
Meanwhile, public diplomacy remains ineffective, and our support of
democracy is taking a back seat to other issues in Russia, Egypt,
Central Asia, and China.
Two and a half years ago, one of Secretary Rumsfeld's internal
memos made its way into the press. The Secretary asked two critical
questions: ``Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more
terrorists every day than the madrassas and radical clerics are
recruiting, training, and deploying against us?''
And: ``Does the United States need to fashion a broad integrated
plan to stop the next generation of terrorists?''
The answers were and remain ``no'' and ``yes.'' No, we're not
stopping more terrorists than the radical fundamentalists are creating.
And yes, we need a comprehensive strategy to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we use these hearings to step back and ask
where we are, and where we should be heading in combating terrorism.
What is the nature of the terrorist threat today, now that
we have done great damage to al-Qaeda, but not been able to
wipe it out, let alone wipe out its appeal to Muslim people
around the world?
Is Iraq the front line in the war on terrorism (whether we
planned for that or not)? Or is it really a different sort of
fight?
Outside of Iraq, what are the trends in terrorist
organization and activity?
Why do Osama bin Laden and the top al-Qaeda leadership still
have safe haven in Pakistan? Are all elements of the Pakistani
Government--including all levels of the intelligence service--
firmly committed to the war against al-Qaeda and its
affiliates?
What new strategy is needed to reverse the tide in
Afghanistan?
What is a reasonable objective in countering international
terrorism, and how should we measure our progress toward
achieving it?
How should we balance military and nonmilitary components of
counterterrorist policy?
How can we orchestrate the full range of counterterrorist
tools, rather than just trying one thing, then another?
What sort of international support is needed, and how can we
build and maintain that support?
Finally, what level of effort is needed on our part? If this
is a ``global war,'' then what sort of sacrifices should we be
prepared to make? If this is to be a ``long war,'' then how
shall we maintain public support for it?
We have a fine set of witnesses, Mr. Chairman, to help us begin to
grapple with those challenges, and I look forward to hearing their
testimony. Thank you again for arranging this hearing.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Biden. We look
forward now to hearing from the first panel of those witnesses.
I am going to call upon you in the order that I introduced you.
That will be Admiral Redd first and then Ambassador Crumpton.
Admiral Redd, would you please proceed, and let me just say
that the statements of both of you and of our two concluding
witnesses this morning will be placed in the record in full.
You may summarize if you would like to do so. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SCOTT REDD, VICE ADMIRAL, USN [RETIRED],
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER, OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, WASHINGTON, DC
Admiral Redd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
distinguished members of the committee. I do appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you. This is my first appearance
before this group, before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, and I am, as always, delighted to be here with my
shipmate from the State Department, Ambassador Hank Crumpton.
Mr. Chairman, let me go right to the bottom line. In your
invitation you asked me to provide an assessment of our
counterterrorism efforts based on my 10 months in the job as
Director of NCTC. Let me give you the bottom line. I believe
that we are better prepared today to fight the war on terror
than at any time in our Nation's history, and we are getting
better every day. That is the bottom line and I will come back
to that a little bit later on.
That said, as the President has noted many times, sir, we
are at war and we are at war with a dangerous, adaptable, and
persistent enemy. Some aspects of this war are familiar to us.
As was the cold war, this is likely to be a very long war.
Although I very sincerely hope to be proven wrong, I fully
expect that my grandchildren will be well into their adult
years before this conflict is over. Also like the cold war,
with its war against communism, this war has a strong
ideological content to it.
Let me start out by outlining our current picture of the
enemy if I could. First, al-Qaeda and its core leadership still
remain our preeminent concern. As you have noted, we have
achieved considerable success in attacking the leadership, but
the battle is by no means over. They are resilient, smart, and
committed.
We also worry about the merger between al-Qaeda and al-
Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI, the group formerly headed by Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi. Eliminating Zarqawi is clearly a major step
forward, but both al-Qaeda and AQI will continue with their
deadly work.
Our second broad area of concern is the collection of other
Sunni terrorist groups who have been inspired by al-Qaeda.
Although they tend to be primarily regional in nature, many of
these groups increasingly see themselves as part of a global
violent extremist network and they indeed target United States
interests overseas.
Third, as you have noted, we worry about the relatively
recent emergence of a homegrown variant of the terrorist
problem. Recent events in Canada highlight the importance of
this issue. While not controlled by al-Qaeda, these new
networks draw inspiration from their ideology, and clearly we
are not immune here in the United States.
Finally, although we are focusing on the Sunnis, we are not
concerned only with al-Qaeda and its Sunni variants. The Shia
organization, Hezbollah, remains a potent terrorist
organization, one that is backed by two long-term sponsors of
terrorism. In the same vein, the behavior of state sponsors,
particularly Iran, continues to be a high priority for us.
No matter how one chooses to characterize the nature of the
enemy and the war, one thing is clear. To win the war on
terrorism, as you have indicated--both of you have indicated--
the United States and its allies need to bring all elements of
power to bear on the problem. That, sir, in a nutshell is why
the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC, was established.
If you would, let me review briefly with you the role that
NCTC is playing today in the war on terror and the role we will
continue to play in that war. As you know, we are a fairly new
organization. As mandated by the reform legislation,
intelligence reform legislation of 2004, we basically perform
two critical functions. As the Director, going back to my Navy
days, I wear two hats. One of those hats involves a very
familiar role. That is the role of intelligence. In that, I
report to the Director of National Intelligence, Ambassador
John Negroponte.
The second hat involves a new and what I believe almost
fair to say revolutionary role, and that is the responsibility
for conducting strategic operational planning for the war on
terrorism for the entire U.S. Government. In that hat I report
to the President. To put that in military terms, we at NCTC, in
conjunction with our interagency colleagues, are responsible
for producing the Government's war plan for the war on
terrorism and the intelligence annex which supports it.
Let me focus first, if I could, on the intelligence
mission. The DNI has recently designated NCTC as its mission
manager for counterterrorism. In that role, John Negroponte
looks to us to integrate all of the intelligence community's
efforts in counterterrorism, including collection, analysis,
and production. In the area of analysis, the law designates
NCTC as the primary organization in the U.S. Government for
analyzing and integrating all CT analysis. Today NCTC produces
a wide spectrum of intelligence product ranging from strategic
analyses for the President to tactical warning reports for the
operators.
We are also in the information-sharing business. In fact, I
would submit that NCTC is the Government's model for classified
information-sharing. At the tactical level, NCTC runs a 24-7
high-tech operations center that is in constant touch with all
the counterterrorism community, ensuring that everyone has the
latest threat information. We are also responsible for the
Government's central database of known or suspected
intelligence terrorists. This all-source repository contains
more than 300,000 entries, representing over 200,000 unique
identities. This database is the ultimate source of the various
watch lists, including, for example, TSA's no-fly list.
Finally, we assemble intelligence information and analysis
from 28 different government networks and we distribute it
online to 5,000 analysts--over 5,000 analysts--around the
world. Today those analysts have access online to more than 5
million pieces of terrorism-related intelligence.
Sir, that is a very short summary of a very sophisticated
intelligence operation. Let me turn briefly now to our second
fundamental mission--that of strategic operational planning. In
my view, strategic operational planning serves to fill a long-
existing gap in government, one which has been present for
almost all of my 4 decades of Government service. Simply put,
the White House has long been in the business of establishing
and promulgating strategic broad strategy and policy. At the
other end of the spectrum, the Cabinet departments and agencies
have been responsible for conducting operations in the field.
What has been missing has been that piece in between policy and
operations, and that need has become even more obvious as we
fight the global war on terrorism. Strategic operational
planning is designed to fill that gap.
The goal of SOP, or strategic operational planning, is very
straightforward. It is to bring all elements of national power
to bear in an integrated and effective manner in the war on
terror, and by all elements of national power, as has been
alluded to, we mean diplomatic, financial, military,
intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement
activities.
NCTC's role in this regard is to lead a Government-wide
planning process which is simple in description and extremely
complex in execution. Basically, it involves four phases. First
is a planning phase. This involves taking those national
strategies and policies and translating them into a
comprehensive list of discrete tasks. Those tasks are then
prioritized and assigned to the departments for execution.
The second phase involves implementation of the plan. Our
job is to monitor and facilitate operations. As noted in the
legislation, we do not conduct operations. That is the job of
the departments and the agencies.
The third phase involves assessing and adjusting our
efforts. Is the plan working? Is it accomplishing our strategic
goals? Does it need to be changed?
The final phase, of course, is adjusting the plan and
starting the process all over again.
Now, I want to emphasize that this is a continuing and
iterative process and, although it may sound bureaucratic, as
General Dwight Eisenhower once said: Plans are nothing;
planning is everything.
Sir, that is a quick summary of NCTC and our role in the
war on terrorism. We are in many ways a work in progress as we
take on major new responsibilities while continuing to perform
the tasks which we have already taken on. As we often say, we
are building an airplane while we are flying it. That said, I
believe we are making a true value add which will only grow
over time.
Mr. Chairman, I began my remarks by stating that the United
States is better prepared to fight this war than at any time in
our history. While we still have lots of hard work before us, I
believe there is good evidence for that assessment. First, our
intelligence is better. Terrorists are clearly a difficult
target, but our analysis, our production, and our collection
are all improved. Second, we have made significant strides in
information-sharing and getting that intelligence to those who
need it to conduct operations. Third, as you noted, we have
taken the fight to the enemy and achieved significant successes
in the field. Many of those successes and probably most of them
will never see the light of day, but we owe a great debt of
gratitude to those who have made them happen. Fourth, we are
attacking every element of the terrorist life cycle,
specifically including terrorist travel and terrorist
financing. Fifth, as you have noted, this is not only an
American effort. We are working more closely and more
effectively with a great number of allies around the world to
defeat the terrorists. Some we can talk about publicly, such as
our cooperation with Canada. Others are sensitive and must
remain classified.
Sixth and very importantly, we have made the United States
homeland a hostile place for terrorists to enter and to
operate. Seventh and finally, through a revolutionary strategic
planning effort we are laying the groundwork to take the superb
efforts which are already under way to a new level of
integration and effectiveness. That effort specifically
includes a comprehensive approach to long-term strategic
efforts as well as near-term tactical offense and defense.
The bottom line in all of this is it makes me guardedly
optimistic about the long-term picture. I believe it is no
accident that we have not been attacked since 9-11 here at
home. It is the result of hard work, great sacrifice, and
determined effort. However, while we take satisfaction from
that record, we certainly cannot assume that we will not be
attacked again. We must always remember that this is a long
war. We must always remember that the enemy is adaptable and
the enemy also has a vote. There are many battles yet to be
fought and setbacks are certain to come along the way. But I do
remain confident about the ultimate outcome if we remain
steadfast and on course.
Thank you for your attention, sir, and that completes my
oral statement.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Redd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Scott Redd, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy
(Ret.), Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the
Director of National Intelligence, Washington, DC
Chairman Lugar, Senator Biden, distinguished members of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear
before the committee this morning to discuss the changing face of
terrorism and the role that the National Counterterrorism Center is
playing in support of the President's strategy to combat terrorism.
This is my first appearance before the SFRC, and it is an honor to
engage with you on this critical subject.
I am also pleased to be appearing on this panel alongside
Ambassador Crumpton, the State Department's Coordinator for
Counterterrorism (CT). As I'm sure you are aware, Ambassador Crumpton
has worked tirelessly over the past year to advance our Nation's CT
agenda around the world, and to forge the web of multilateral,
bilateral, and regional partnerships that is so critical to the success
of our strategy in the war on terrorism. His work has been invaluable
in explaining the President's counterterrorism policy around the world.
In my brief remarks today, I would like to do three things. First,
I want to provide a summary picture of the terrorist threat: How we see
it, how it has evolved in the period since we were attacked on 9/11,
and how it may continue to change over time.
Second, I would like to outline for you the ways in which the
National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), the organization I am
privileged to lead, is contributing to the Nation's war effort and to
making the American people safer and more secure, both here at home and
around the world. At the end of the day, that is our core mission and
the single measure of effectiveness that matters most to me and my
colleagues at NCTC.
And third, I will offer a brief assessment of our overall
counterterrorism efforts, from my perspective after 10 months as
Director of NCTC.
I use the words ``war effort'' quite deliberately, because, as the
President has said on many occasions, we are indeed a Nation at war.
And I believe it is a war that we will be fighting for quite some time
into the future. I would be quite happy to be proven wrong on this
point, but I expect that my young grandchildren will be well into their
adult years before we can say that the war is over.
Preparing ourselves to fight and win this ``long war'' requires
that we know our adversary and that we understand as much as we can
about how the enemy operates. In assessing the changing face of
terrorism, I would draw your attention to three distinct incarnations
of the terrorist threat; each with its own characteristics and
capabilities, and each requiring tailored counterterrorism strategies
to defeat it.
First, al-Qaeda and its core senior leadership, although
significantly degraded, remain our preeminent concern. As committee
members are well aware, working with our allies and partners, we have
made significant progress in eliminating much of the core al-Qaeda
leadership. Our actions have disrupted ongoing terrorist planning and
operations; we have clearly made it much more difficult for al-Qaeda to
train, plan, and conduct terror attacks.
But the battle is by no means won. It is equally clear that al-
Qaeda continues actively to plot attacks against the U.S. homeland and
our interests abroad. They are resilient, adaptable, and committed.
They remain our greatest and most immediate concern in the war on
terrorism. UBL and Ayman al-Zawahiri also continue to tell us directly
in their audio and video statements that targeting U.S. interests
remains a top priority.
The merger between al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the
terrorist group formerly led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, also remains near
the top of our list of concerns. While the successful elimination of
Zarqawi represents a severe blow to both al-Qaeda and AQI, we expect
both organizations will carry on with their deadly work. The merger
between AQ and AQI is of particular concern because it puts al-Qaeda in
a position to access a much wider, more diverse pool of terrorist
operatives, many of them battle hardened and experienced in terrorist
tradecraft.
The second face of our terrorist enemy is represented by the host
of other Sunni terrorist groups around the globe who have been inspired
by al-Qaeda and who subscribe to the violent extremist worldview
articulated by the al-Qaeda senior leadership. In addition to UBL's and
Zawahiri's statements about targeting the United States, the plethora
of audio and video messages from them over the past year reflects al-
Qaeda efforts to motivate other like-minded violent extremists as well,
reaching those who may not be under formal command and control of al-
Qaeda, but who certainly share their aims.
These groups have traditionally operated in a regional context and
been motivated by grievances specific to the politics of their
particular region. As their kinship with the al-Qaeda belief system has
taken hold, these groups have adopted the view that it is the United
States that is at the root of most problems affecting Muslims around
the world.
We have long been concerned that these groups constitute a
significant threat to our allies and interests in key regions around
the world. It is also apparent, however, that many members of these
groups view themselves as part of a global violent extremist network
that aims to advance the al-Qaeda agenda and target U.S. interests
around the world.
Our third area of concern with respect to the terrorist threat is
the relatively recent emergence of a ``homegrown'' variant of the
traditional terrorist cell or group. Following the attacks last summer
in England, the recent arrests in Canada highlight the growing salience
of this trend. We are uncovering the spread of new violent extremist
networks and cells that lack formal ties or affiliation with al-Qaeda
or other recognized terrorist groups. These groups or cells do not fall
under the command and control of the AQ senior leadership and indeed
operate quite independently.
These new networks are often made up of disaffected, radicalized
individuals who draw inspiration and moral support from al-Qaeda and
other violent extremists. Group members are most often young, in their
teens and twenties, and from families that are second- or third-
generation immigrants to their western communities. To the outside
observer, these terrorists might well appear to be fully assimilated
members of their western communities.
We have begun to see cells like these here in the United States as
well. Federal and local law enforcement authorities have done
outstanding work over the last 2 years to disrupt the planning of
potential homegrown terrorists who aim to strike at the homeland. In
one case, two individuals who are U.S. Muslim converts were caught
robbing a gas station to support their attack plans in California.
Possible targets included Jewish synagogues, the Israeli Consulate in
Los Angeles, and a National Guard facility.
The challenge of countering these cells is complicated by the fact
that they may operate virtually, with much of their communication and
planning taking place over the Internet. This network of virtual
contacts increases the relative stealth with which these terrorists can
organize, communicate, and plan potential attacks.
The emergence of this new brand of al-Qaeda-inspired, homegrown
terrorist group poses real challenges to the intelligence community and
we are grappling with a whole new set of questions: What forces give
rise to this violent ideology in immigrant communities that may appear
otherwise to be quite well assimilated? How and why are young Muslims
becoming radicalized to the point where they embrace this violent
ideology? How do we counter those forces? What signs should we be
looking for to try to draw early warning of potential problems?
Lastly, I will say a few words about Lebanese Hezballah. Hezballah
remains a potent, capable terrorist organization backed by two long-
time state sponsors of terrorism. I would not want my emphasis on al-
Qaeda and other Sunni-affiliated terrorist threats to suggest in any
way that we are not focused on the potential threat to U.S. interests
posed by Shia-inspired terrorism, and more specifically, Hezballah. I
can assure you that we are. The behavior of state sponsors,
particularly Iran and Syria, also continues to be a high priority,
something on which I know Ambassador Crumpton and Secretary Rice are
very focused.
That, in brief, is the shape of the terrorist threat as we see it
at the National Counterterrorism Center, representing the intelligence
community. We certainly focus on other groups that target United States
interests around the world, such as the FARC in Columbia, but I wanted
to focus my remarks today on the principal terrorist enemy, as we
define it. We are constantly working to improve our understanding of
that enemy so that we can be sure that we are employing the proper
tools to defeat him. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd now like
to walk you through the work that the NCTC is doing to support the
President's strategy and our Nation's war on terrorism.
NCTC is a relatively new organization, built on the foundation of
the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), which was established
by the President in early 2003. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) significantly expanded upon TTIC's
initial mission and created the NCTC organization, as it exists today.
As Director, I have a number of responsibilities, but they boil
down to two critical missions. The first relates to intelligence, where
I report to Ambassador Negroponte, the Director of National
Intelligence. I am his Mission Manager for Counterterrorism, serving as
the intelligence community's focal point for all intelligence matters
relating to counterterrorism. Wearing this intelligence hat, I work
closely with all of the different elements of the intelligence
community.
But NCTC has an important role to play beyond the intelligence
arena, and it requires that I wear a different hat and that we interact
with a broader set of actors. As codified in the IRTPA, NCTC is
responsible for conducting Strategic Operational Planning (SOP) for the
war on terrorism for the entire U.S. Government. Wearing that hat, I
report to the President and interact constantly with the President's
National Security Council and Homeland Security Council staffs. In a
few minutes, I will say more about this strategic operational planning
function, which I believe represents something truly innovative, even
revolutionary, in the way we do business as a Government.
But first, let me say a little more about the intelligence role
that NCTC plays in support of the President's strategy and the war on
terrorism. Wearing this hat, I am responsible for overseeing three key
intelligence-related functions: Terrorism analysis, information
sharing, and mission management.
With respect to terrorism analysis, NCTC's role in the intelligence
community is expanding dramatically to fulfill the vision of the IRTPA.
Put simply, the law states that NCTC will be the primary organization
in the U.S. Government for analyzing and integrating all intelligence
information related to terrorism, excluding purely domestic terrorism.
To support that analytical effort, NCTC serves as the single place
where all terrorism-related information available to the Government
comes together.
That means NCTC analysts have daily access to an unprecedented
array of classified information networks, databases, and intelligence
sources. Using this data, NCTC analysts, working with counterparts
throughout the intelligence community, produce daily products that
focus on both big picture, strategic terrorism analysis that supports
policy development, as well as analysis of tactical threat reporting
that supports U.S. personnel in the field, both overseas and here at
home.
My second area of responsibility in the intelligence field relates
to information sharing, where we are working hard to address the
shortcomings that were all too apparent in the period after September
11. I believe we have had significant success in this critical area.
I'll start with a very simple and straightforward example of
information sharing that benefits the entire counterterrorism community
in a very real way. Three times a day, NCTC chairs a secure video
teleconference with all of the key members of the intelligence
community, as well as other counterterrorism players from around the
Government.
In those meetings, we share the latest threat information, discuss
the steps various departments and agencies are taking to mitigate the
threat, and provide a forum for interagency coordination on
intelligence tasks. One of the good news stories that we have seen
during my tenure is the way in which this kind of information sharing
has become institutionalized, a matter of habit and routine rather than
an ad hoc arrangement dependent on personalities or personal
relationships.
NCTC also provides a critical information sharing backbone for the
CT community with our maintenance of the Government's central database
on known or suspected international terrorists. The NCTC database,
known as the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE,
contains all-source intelligence information provided by all of the
various members of the intelligence community, up to the very highest
levels of classification. Today there are over 300,000 record entries
in the TIDE database, reflecting over 200,000 unique terrorist
identities.
This database serves a critical purpose as it supports all of the
various watch-listing efforts that go on around the Government. The
classified information in TIDE is used to produce an unclassified
extract that goes to the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center. That
information is then used to compile the TSA's No-Fly List, the State
Department's Visa and Passport Database, DHS's Border System and the
FBI's National Crime and Information Center.
While I would not claim the system is foolproof or perfect, it
represents a major step forward for our Government in the effort to
solve the problem of disparate, incomplete, and disconnected watch
lists.
A further example of information sharing can be found in NCTC's
management of what we believe is the most effective classified
counterterrorism Web site in the world, something we call
NCTC Online, or NOL. Put simply, we gather disseminated intelligence on
the terrorist threat from throughout the counterterrorism community by
virtue of our access to almost 30 networks and databases. We then post
that intelligence on a single NOL Web site, where it can be accessed by
policymakers, intelligence analysts, and a host of other consumers
around the Government.
This site aims to provide one-stop information for the consumer of
terrorism intelligence information, whether that person sits in an
office in downtown Washington, or is deployed in a forward headquarters
in a combat zone, or in an embassy overseas. Today, there are
approximately 5,000 cleared consumers in the Federal family who take
advantage of NOL offerings, which contain approximately 5 million
different intelligence products or reports.
The third broad area of our NCTC responsibilities in the
intelligence area can be summarized under the heading of Mission
Management. As Ambassador Negroponte's designated Mission Manager for
Counterterrorism, I am responsible for understanding the needs of our
customers around the community, for monitoring and improving the
quality of our collective activities and analysis on terrorism issues,
for identifying and closing key information gaps that prevent us from
understanding the terrorism problem as well as we might, and for
ensuring the most efficient use of our CT intelligence resources across
the board.
This Mission Manager role is new and reflects a concept introduced
by Ambassador Negroponte based on the WMD Commission report. In support
of this role, we have established a Mission Management directorate
whose sole purpose is to advance these broad aims, serve as an advocate
within the CT community, and bring about greater integration of our
intelligence efforts.
All of these various analysis and information-sharing activities
are aimed at one thing: Ensuring that we provide the best possible
information and analysis to those who need it, when they need it, to
fight and win the war on terrorism. I can think of no more important
mission in the intelligence field.
A few minutes ago, I mentioned that I wear a second hat as NCTC
Director, one related to Strategic Operational Planning for the war on
terrorism. Let me say a few words about that function.
At first blush, ``strategic operational planning'' almost seems
like a contradiction. How can planning be both strategic and
operational? The answer to that question can be found in the gap that
we are trying to fill between the development of policy and strategy at
a high level, and the ground-level tactical operations of frontline
departments and agencies that seek to implement policy and strategy.
This is a gap that has existed for as long as I have served in
Government, and that covers over four decades of service.
For developing broad policy and strategy, we have the well-
developed, time-tested mechanism of the National Security Council (NSC)
system, and more recently the Homeland Security Council (HSC) process.
The NSC and HSC serve to frame policy issues for discussion, debate and
ultimately decision by the principals and the President. It is a system
well known to everybody in this room. At the other end of the spectrum,
there are the individual departments and agencies responsible for
conducting operations in the field that support the policy and strategy
of the United States. What has long been missing is that piece in the
middle, the space between policy and operations.
The goal of our SOP function is straightforward: To bring all
instruments of national power to bear in support of our
counterterrorism strategy, and to do so in a coordinated, integrated
fashion. As laid out in the IRTPA, ``all instruments'' means
diplomatic, financial, military, intelligence, homeland security, and
law enforcement activities. The NCTC charter in this regard is
extremely simple in one sense, yet remarkably complex in it execution.
Let me explain.
First, there is a deliberative planning process. This means taking
our national-level counterterrorism strategy and policy and breaking it
down into strategic goals, tangible objectives and subobjectives, and
ultimately into discrete tasks. These tasks are then assigned to a lead
agency or department for execution. Finally, we must prioritize the
tasks.
As NCTC builds this plan, we employ a fully collaborative, fully
participatory interagency process. This means bringing planners,
terrorism experts, and other subject matter specialists from all of the
relevant departments and agencies into the strategic operational
planning process, under the direction and leadership of NCTC. This
process, which involves hundreds of people across the CT community, has
been underway for a number of months now.
NCTC has worked hard to make this process work in a way that
leverages the skills, abilities, and expertise of all of the relevant
departments and agencies. Make no mistake. The product that emerges
from this planning process is an interagency product, not simply the
work of a small group of planners working out at NCTC.
After we have built a strategic operational plan, and run it
through the NSC process for approval, we move to implementation of the
plan. This second phase involves what the IRTPA describes as
``interagency coordination of operational activities.'' This means the
coordination, integration, and synchronization of departmental
operations. We are just beginning to work out how this will function in
practice.
The third phase of our SOP process involves an assessment process.
NCTC is charged with monitoring, evaluating, and assessing the
execution and effectiveness of the plan. The fourth and final phase
involves adjusting and revising the plan, at which point we begin the
cycle anew.
The point I would highlight here is that we are creating a
rigorous, iterative planning process to support the President's
strategy. As General Eisenhower once noted, ``Plans are nothing;
planning is everything.'' We have taken that message to heart.
Chairman Lugar, in your invitation to this hearing, you indicated
that you would like to hear my assessment of U.S. counterterrorism
efforts in the period since I assumed my duties at NCTC last year. I
firmly believe that we are making great progress in our
counterterrorism efforts, progress that should give us great
satisfaction. While I cannot go into great detail about many of our
operational successes given the open nature of this hearing, I can make
a few general observations about our overall progress.
We are taking concrete steps to improve our collective
understanding and analysis of the terrorist threat and the enemy we
face. We are working diligently to correct the deficiencies in
information sharing that have plagued us in the past and to
institutionalize patterns of cooperation and collaboration so that they
become a permanent part of the interagency landscape.
And lastly, with our strategic operational planning efforts, we at
NCTC are leading the Government's efforts to provide the connective
tissue that will link the President's bold and visionary
counterterrorism strategy with the operations and activities of our
colleagues on the front lines of the war on terrorism.
All of this work marks a new, more collaborative, and more
integrated approach to winning the war on terrorism. As a government,
we have come together in ways that I have never seen during my four
decades of Government service. We at NCTC are honored to be a part of
that interagency team effort. Indeed, our Government workforce at NCTC
is made up almost entirely of officers, from other departments and
agencies, men and women who bring the skills, experience, and expertise
from their home agencies to the fight every day.
NCTC has come a long way in a short time, but we are in many ways a
work in progress, taking on new responsibilities and functions even as
we develop capability. I often say that we're building the airplane at
NCTC even as we are being asked to fly it. But I believe strongly that
we have made real, tangible progress toward making the American people
safer and more secure.
All of this makes me relatively optimistic about the long-term
picture. As a Government, we have done an incredible amount to make our
country safer and more secure. We have taken the fight to the enemy and
achieved great successes in the field. For that, we owe a great debt of
gratitude to our men and women in uniform and to the intelligence
professionals in the field, all of whom are confronting the enemy on
the front lines of the war on terrorism. And this is not only an
American effort. Working with our partners around the world, in ways we
often cannot talk about publicly, we are jointly making real headway in
the war on terrorism.
Here at home, we have made the homeland a hostile place for
terrorists and those who provide them with material support. The fact
that we have not been attacked here in the homeland since 9/11 is not
an accident. And while we take great satisfaction in the record since
9/11, it would be foolhardy to think that we will not be attacked
again. As I noted earlier, this is a long war with many battles yet to
be fought and with setbacks certain to come along the way. But I remain
confident and optimistic about the ultimate outcome.
As I hope you can see, Mr. Chairman, we are clear-eyed about the
road ahead and the work we still have in front of us. The enemy is
capable, determined, resilient, and focused on doing us serious harm.
Our efforts to defeat that enemy and win the long war must be equally
determined and focused.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to addressing your
questions.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Admiral Redd, for
your very forthcoming testimony. We look forward in due course
to questions of you from our committee. But it is my privilege
now to call upon Ambassador Henry Crumpton for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. CRUMPTON, COORDINATOR FOR
COUNTERTERRORISM, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Crumpton. Chairman Lugar, Senator Biden,
distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I am especially pleased to join
my colleague and friend, Admiral Scott Redd, with whom I have
worked closely during the last year.
The U.S. Government has achieved some success in the war on
terror. Plots have been disrupted. A large portion of al-
Qaeda's senior leadership has been caught or killed, including
most recently Zarqawi. We have degraded the group's global
network by capturing or killing hundreds of operatives. We have
also contributed to the ongoing development of a global
counterterrorism network of allies.
While recognizing our success, we also recognize that
challenges remain. The terrorist threat is constantly evolving.
Self-radicalized and self-organized groups and cells pose a
growing threat. They do not necessarily depend on the
operational support or guidance from centralized al-Qaeda
command structures, but what they do share is al-Qaeda's
violent ideology, a belief in existential war. The enemy gains
strength from exploiting local grievances and conflicts,
building alliances with regional groups, and engaging in
intelligence collection, deception, denial, sabotage,
subversion, terrorism, and open warfare.
In response to our operational success, enemy elements are
becoming smaller in size and less tightly organized. We see
more threats emerging from tiny cells and even individuals,
some with greater autonomy, which makes them more difficult to
detect, more difficult to engage. Terrorist groups are becoming
more sophisticated, using the Internet to improve their global
reach, intelligence collection, and operational capacity.
Technological advancement has been matched by a growing
sophistication in terrorist propaganda, information operations,
and increasingly diffuse organizational structures. They
continue to seek access to weapons of mass destruction, making
efforts to counter WMD proliferation a fundamental part of the
fight against terrorism. We also see the increasing overlap of
terrorist and criminal enterprises.
Iraq poses unique challenges. We must deny Iraq to
terrorists who oppose Iraqis' new government. Al-Qaeda and
associated foreign fighters seek to hijack, transform, and
direct local Sunni insurgents. They view Iraq as a training
ground and indoctrination center for Islamic extremists from
around the world. Although Zarqawi is dead, al-Qaeda in Iraq
still poses a threat, and not only for Iraq but for the region.
There is evidence that core leaders, including bin Laden
and Ayman Zawahiri, are frustrated by their lack of direct
control. They are isolated in the hinterlands of the
Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier. We must retain this unrelenting
pressure against al-Qaeda, especially their leadership, to
further diminish the links in their global networks.
Like enemy leadership, enemy safe havens have a great
strategic importance. Safe haven allows the enemy to recruit,
organize, plan, train, coalesce, rest, and claim turf as a
symbol of legitimacy. That is why al-Qaeda and its affiliates
place so much emphasis on attaining safe haven. We therefore
must contest physical space and cyberspace, where the enemy
recruits, fundraises, plans, and trains.
We must also contest belief systems, ideas, and ideologies
that terrorists disseminate. We must bring an end to state
sponsorship of terrorism, in which Iran and Syria are prominent
examples, especially in light of their ongoing support to
Hezbollah and a wide array of Palestinian terrorist groups.
Our strategy to defeat terrorists is structured at multiple
levels: A global campaign to counter violent extremism, a
series of regional collaborative efforts to deny terrorists
safe haven, and numerous bilateral security and development
assistance programs designed to partner CT capabilities as well
as liberal institutions that support the rule of law and
address political and economic injustice. This strategy is
aimed to enhance our partners' capacity to counter the threat
and address conditions that terrorists exploit. We work with or
through our partners at every level whenever possible.
To implement this strategy, U.S. ambassadors, as the
President's personal representatives abroad, lead interagency
country teams that recommend strategies using all instruments
of statecraft. We must help host nations understand the threat
and strengthen their political will and capacity to counter it.
These nations, of course, also help us.
Toward this end, the Department of State in concert with
the interagency has launched a regional strategic initiative,
which is designed to establish flexible regional networks of
interconnected country teams. We are working with ambassadors
and interagency representatives, especially those from NCTC, to
assess the threat and devise strategies, actionable
initiatives, and policy recommendations for specific theaters
of operation. To date, several of these RSI strategy sessions
have been held, with more scheduled in the coming weeks and
months.
As I survey the changing face of terror, I draw three
conclusions. First, we must maintain flexibility in our
approach as the enemy continues to evolve. We must fight the
enemy with precise, calibrated efforts that will deny it
leadership, safe haven, and financial and criminal networks of
support.
Second, we must replace an ideology of hatred with one of
hope. Over the long term, our most important task is not the
``destructive'' job of eradicating enemy networks, but rather
the ``constructive'' task of building legitimacy, good
governance, trust, prosperity, tolerance, and the rule of law.
Third, we cannot fight counterterrorism alone. We must use
all the tools of statecraft in cooperation with our growing
network of partners to construct enduring solutions that
transcend violence.
Because of our collective efforts and our interdependent
strength, we will win this fight. Our citizens and global
partners expect no less.
Mr. Chairman, this completes the formal part of my remarks
and I welcome your questions and comments.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Crumpton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Henry A. Crompton, Coordinator for
Counterterrorism, Department of State, Washington, DC
Chairman Lugar, Senator Biden, distinguished members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
important topic of ``The Changing Face of Terror: A Post 9/11
Assessment.'' I will summarize my formal written statement and ask that
you include my full testimony in the record.
We have achieved some success in the war on terror. A significant
portion of al-Qaeda's senior leadership has been caught or killed, and
we have degraded the group's global network. Most recently, we learned
of the successful effort to kill Abu Musab al-Zargawi, which dealt a
severe blow to al-Qaeda. We have also worked to successfully disrupt
terrorist plots. While recognizing these successes, we also recognize
that significant challenges remain.
The terrorist threat is constantly evolving, while radicalization
has spread. Osama bin Laden and the core al-Qaeda leadership group
seeks to expand their influence, as does al-Qaeda in Iraq, which
includes foreign fighters from the region and Europe. Self-radicalized
and self-organized groups and cells pose a growing threat. We have seen
the results in Madrid, London, and Egypt. The perpetrators of these
attacks do not necessarily depend on operational support or guidance
from centralized al-Qaeda command structures, but what they share with
the core al-Qaeda group is a violent ideology, a belief in existential
war.
The enemy gains strength from exploiting local grievances and
conflicts, building alliances with regional groups such as the Jemaah
Islamiya terrorist organization in Southeast Asia, and engaging in
intelligence collection, deception, sabotage, and even open warfare, as
we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS
In addition to increased radicalization, the State Department's
congressionally mandated Country Reports on Terrorism outlines other
important trends and developments. For example, in response to our
operational success, enemy operational elements are becoming smaller in
size and less tightly organized. We see more threats emerging from
small cells and even individuals, some with greater autonomy. This
makes them more difficult to detect and engage. These looser terrorist
networks are less capable but also less predictable and in some ways
more dangerous. We may face a larger number of smaller attacks, less
meticulously planned, and local rather than transnational in scope.
Terrorist groups are becoming more sophisticated in their use of
technology, particularly the Internet, to improve their global reach,
intelligence collection, and operational capacity. Technological
sophistication has been matched by a growing sophistication in
terrorist propaganda, information operations, and increasingly diffuse
organizational structures. Terrorists continue to seek access to
sophisticated weapons of mass destruction, including chemical,
biological, and radiological technology--making efforts to counter WMD
proliferation a fundamental part of the fight against terrorism.
Another trend is the increasing overlap of terrorist and criminal
enterprises. In some cases, terrorists use the same networks as
transnational criminal groups, exploiting the overlap between these
networks to improve mobility, build support for their terrorist agenda,
and avoid detection. Hezballah operatives, for example, are involved in
a wide range of criminal activities, ranging from trafficking in
counterfeit or pirated goods to sophisticated money laundering. They
are also involved in a variety of financial crimes, including credit
card and insurance fraud.
Iraq must also be included in a discussion of trends. We are
determined to deny Iraq to terrorists who seek to undermine its new
government. Al-Qaeda and its associated foreign fighters seek to
hijack, transform, and direct local Sunni insurgents in Iraq. They view
Iraq as a training ground and indoctrination center for Islamic
extremists from around the world, particularly from Europe, North
Africa, and the Middle East. They not only want to defeat the United
States, the coalition, the international community and our Iraqi
allies, but also the notion of democracy in the Middle East. Networks
that support the flow of foreign terrorists to Iraq have been uncovered
in several parts of the world. Although Zarqawi is now dead, the
terrorist organizations still pose a threat as their members will try
to terrorize the Iraqi people and destabilize the government as it
moves toward stability and prosperity.
STRUCTURE OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
Al-Qaeda Today.--Al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups remain the
primary terrorist threat to the international community. Our collective
international efforts have harmed al-Qaeda. The capture of Hambali
reduced the linkages between al-Qaeda and affiliated groups in
Southeast Asia. The capture of Abu Faraj-al-Libi diminished contacts in
the Middle East and North Africa. The death of Ayman-al-Zawahiri's
lieutenants in January 2006, in Pakistan, further isolated al-Qaeda
leadership. The death of Zarqawi in Iraq last week disrupts the al-
Qaeda leadership network. In this respect they are weaker and pose less
of a direct threat.
Al-Qaeda's core leadership no longer has effective global command
and control of its networks. The few enemy leaders that have avoided
death or capture find themselves isolated and on the run. Thus, al-
Qaeda increasingly emphasizes its ideological and propaganda activity
to help its cause. By remaining at large, and intermittently vocal, bin
Laden and Zawahiri seek to symbolize resistance to the international
community, retain the capability to influence events, and through the
use of the media and Internet, aim to incite actual and potential
terrorists. They seek to claim local and regional conflicts as their
own. This was evident in the recent bin Laden audiotape where al-Qaeda
aimed to appropriate the humanitarian crisis in Darfur as part of its
``cause.''
There is evidence that core leaders including bin Laden and
Zawahiri are frustrated by their lack of direct control, as
demonstrated by the 2005 Zawahiri-Zarqawi correspondence. With its
Afghan safe haven gone, with Pakistan reducing its safe haven along the
border, and with global international cooperation constraining
terrorist mobility, al-Qaeda and its affiliates are desperate to claim
Iraq as a success. This is why, even until his last breath, Zarqawi
feared a viable Iraqi nation and continued efforts to foment terrorist
attacks and sectarian violence against Iraqis. We must retain
unrelenting pressure against al-Qaeda. We must work together to ensure
al-Qaeda will never regain its tight, pre-9/11 command and control
structure.
Safe Havens.--Like enemy leadership, enemy safe havens have great
strategic importance. Safe haven allows the enemy to recruit, organize,
plan, train, coalesce, rest, and claim turf as a symbol of legitimacy.
This is why al-Qaeda and its affiliates place so much emphasis on safe
haven. We must focus on both the physical space and cyberspace that the
enemy uses to recruit, fundraise, plan, and train. We must also focus
on ideological safe havens where belief systems, ideas, and cultural
norms provide space within which terrorists can operate. We must also
bring an end to state sponsorship of terrorism, with Iran and Syria
being the most prominent examples, in light of their ongoing support to
Hezballah and a wide array of Palestinian terrorist groups.
Physical safe havens usually straddle national borders or exist in
regions where ineffective governance allows their presence. Examples
include the trans-Sahara, Somalia, the Sulawesi and Sulu Sea littoral,
and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Because of the importance of safe
havens, much of our present strategy in the war on terror is focused
toward their elimination. Denying terrorists safe haven therefore
demands a regional response as a matter of priority. For this reason,
building regional partnerships is one foundation of our
counterterrorism strategy. We are helping partner countries fight
terror. We are joining with key regional countries, working together to
not only take the fight to the enemy, but also to combat the ideology
of hatred that uses terror as a weapon. We must work with our many
partners around the world to build and sustain democratic, well-
governed states that respond to the needs of their people and conduct
themselves responsibly in the international system.
There are some examples of success against enemy safe haven.
Colombia now boasts police forces in all 1,098 municipalities
throughout the country, and is trying to work with bordering countries
to combat the FARC. With United States Government assistance, the
Philippine Government now has increasing control of the island of
Basilan and is beginning to create stability on the island of Jolo,
both areas of operation for Jemaah Islamiya and the Abu Sayyaf Group.
Algerian forces have reduced the GSPC strongholds in Algeria to small,
isolated pockets. Starting in 2004, Pakistan has continued its effort
to wrestle the federally administered tribal areas from al-Qaeda
influence, but this will be a difficult task.
Enemy safe havens also include cyberspace. Terrorists often respond
to our collective success in closing physical safe havens by fleeing to
cyberspace where they seek a new type of safe haven. Harnessing the
Internet's potential for speed, security, and global linkage,
terrorists increase their ability to conduct some of the activities
that once required physical safe haven. They not only use cyberspace to
communicate, but also to collect intelligence, disseminate propaganda,
recruit operatives, build organizations, fundraise, plan, and even
train.
There are several thousand radical or extremist Web sites
worldwide, many of which disseminate a mixture of fact and propaganda.
Countering the messages that terrorists propagate cannot be done
quickly or easily. It must become part of a long-term strategy that
will demand concerted action at all levels.
CURRENT CT INITIATIVES
Our strategy to defeat terrorists is structured at multiple
levels--a global campaign to counter violent extremism; a series of
regional collaborative efforts to deny terrorists safe haven; and
numerous bilateral security and development assistance programs
designed to build partner CT capabilities, as well as liberal
institutions that support the rule of law, and address political and
economic injustice.
This strategy is aimed to enhance our partners' capacity to counter
the terrorist threat and address conditions that terrorists exploit. We
work with or through partners at every level (both bilaterally and
multilaterally), whenever possible. To implement this strategy, U.S.
ambassadors, as the President's personal representatives abroad, lead
interagency country teams that recommend strategies using all
instruments of U.S. statecraft to help host nations understand the
threat, and strengthen their political will and capacity to counter it.
Our strategy is aimed over the long term. Over time, our global and
regional operations will reduce the enemy's capacity to harm us and our
partners, while local security and development assistance will build
our partners' capacity. Once partner capacity exceeds threat, the need
for close United States engagement and support will diminish, terrorist
movements will fracture and implode, and the threat will be reduced to
proportions that our partners can manage for themselves over the long
term.
Examples of such strategies include the Trans-Sahara
Counterterrorism Initiative (TSCTI), the Middle East Partnership
Initiative (MEPI), and the regional strategic initiative (RSI). The
TSCTI is a multi-faceted, multi-year strategy aimed at defeating
terrorist organizations by strengthening regional counterterrorism
capabilities, enhancing and institutionalizing cooperation among that
region's security forces, promoting democratic governance, discrediting
terrorist ideology, and reinforcing bilateral military ties with the
United States.
The MEPI is a presidential initiative that was launched in 2002 so
that democracy can spread, education can thrive, economies can grow,
and women can be empowered in the Middle East. The initiative is a
partnership that works closely with academic institutions, the private
sector, and nongovernmental organizations in the Arab world with the
goal of building a vibrant civil society so reform can flourish. As
such, both the TSCTI and MEPI are examples of ``homegrown, partner-
led'' initiatives.
The third example of one of our long-term, interagency CT
strategies is the RSI. My office has worked to develop this program
which is designed to establish flexible regional networks of
interconnected country teams. We are working with ambassadors and
interagency representatives in key terrorist theaters of operation to
assess the threat and devise collaborative strategies, actionable
initiatives, and policy recommendations.
The RSI is a key tool in promoting cooperation between our partners
in the war on terror--between Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines,
for example, as they deal with terrorist transit across the Sulawesi
Sea; or among Iraq's neighbors working to cut off the flow of foreign
fighters to Iraq.
To date, several RSI strategy sessions have been held. These
include strategy sessions in Southeast Asia, among Iraq's neighbors,
and most recently in the Horn of Africa. More are scheduled in the
coming months. These sessions are chaired by ambassadors, with
Washington interagency representatives in attendance. The sessions
focus on developing a common, shared diagnosis of the strategic
situation in a region. Using this common perspective, networked country
teams then identify opportunities for collaboration, and self-
synchronize efforts across multiple diverse programs in concert with
the National Counterterrorism Center's strategic operational planning
effort to achieve the President's national strategic goals. We are
engaging enemy networks with flexible, strong interagency regional
networks of our own.
EFFECTIVENESS OF USG CT APPROACH
The war on terror is an enormous effort across varied geographical
regions and a multiplicity of programs, with numerous partners. In
measuring its effectiveness, we must focus on how our efforts affect
the enemy rather than focusing solely on the scale and efficiency of
our inputs. These inputs have improved dramatically in efficiency and
coordination across the whole of Government since the war began--but
success demands that we translate this improved performance into an
improved effect on the enemy.
At the global level, al-Qaeda leaders are less and less able to
offer practical support and leadership to their affiliated networks,
because of the need to remain constantly on the run and in hiding. They
increasingly focus on propaganda efforts to inspire their followers.
But bin Laden's statement directly admitting responsibility for the 9/
11 attacks shook many potential supporters, who had been convinced by
conspiracy theories and the lies of terrorist supporters that they had
been unjustly framed for the attacks. Bin Laden's own words have
undermined him.
We see some progress m Iraq, where a new, sovereign government is
taking shape. Here, terrorists have suffered significant damage. The
most recent example is the death of Zarqawi. Zarqawi was the most
important al-Qaeda terrorist in Iraq, responsible for a gruesome
campaign of hate, violence, and intolerance that included beheadings,
bombing of innocent civilians in Iraq and Jordan and for targeting
Americans and members of the international community. But most
importantly, he was a key promoter of sectarian conflict and communal
violence between Iraqis of the Sunni and Shia communities. Many
challenges remain in Iraq, but his death may afford us and our Iraqi
partners more time and space to address the social-political-economic
conditions that the enemies of Iraq seek to exploit.
In the Horn of Africa, terrorists continue to exploit poor
governance, lack of basic societal infrastructure, and the failed state
of Somalia. The fight against terrorism is inseparable from the need to
address the underlying conditions, as well as targeting terrorists
themselves. We continue to work with partners across the region to help
local people build a better future for themselves, improve governance
and rid themselves of the terrorists who prey on them.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, terrorist-affiliated insurgents such
as the Taliban are seeking to spread their influence into settled
districts and undermine government efforts to improve administration
and meet people's basic needs. They seek to exploit the changeover of
forces in Afghanistan and draw on local grievances to build alliances
between terrorists and insurgents. But our partner governments remain
committed to the struggle, and we must help them.
Closer to home, Canada has proven a key partner in the war against
terror, recently disrupting a major extremist plot. Like the United
States and other open, democratic societies, Canada faces challenges
from those who seek to exploit its freedoms. While the emergence of the
extremists behind this plot is worrisome, Canada's security forces
detected and disrupted this plot with world-class professionalism. We
continue to work closely with Canada in an enormous range of
counterterrorism programs.
Role of Regional and Multilateral Partnerships.--Our work with
regional and multilateral partnerships is important to achieve U.S.
Government counterterrorism goals. The United States finds strength in
numbers and cannot accomplish these goals alone. Further, by working
through international partners we can provide CT assistance in certain
parts of the globe that is politically more palatable than if we
provided it bilaterally. Examples of progress with regional
partnerships include the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism
(CICTE) and the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE). Through CICTE, the United States has delivered more than $5
million in capacity-building in the region, providing training to
hundreds of security officials in the region. The OSCE has pushed its
55 members to implement ICAO travel document standards, sponsoring
workshops, and training for government officials, as well as to
modernize shipping container security and prevent and suppress the
financing of terrorist organizations.
Likewise, we have had success in working with multilateral
organizations. In 2005, we adopted two resolutions in the U.N. Security
Council aimed at counterterrorism. The first, resolution 1617,
strengthened the current sanctions regime against the Taliban, bin
Laden and al-Qaeda and their associates, and endorsed the Financial
Action Task Force standards for combating money laundering and
terrorist financing. The second, resolution 1624, addressed incitement
to terrorism and related matters. In addition, we continued to work
through the U.N. 1267 Sanctions Committee to impose binding financial,
travel, and arms/munitions sanctions on entities and individuals
associated with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and bin Laden. We also worked
within the U.N. General Assembly to ensure the Outcome Document, issued
at the end of the high-level plenary meeting of the 60th General
Assembly, contained a clear and unqualified condemnation of terrorism
``in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever,
and for whatever purposes,'' and set objectives for U.N. actions to
counter terrorism.
Within the G-8, we worked with our partners in 2005 to complete
virtually all outstanding project tasks included in the 28-point action
plan that is part of the Secure and Facilitated International Travel
Initiative (SAFTI) issued at the June 2004 Sea Island Summit. This
included strengthening international standards for passport issuance;
developing new measures to defend against the threat of MANPADS;
establishing a point-of-contact network to deal with aviation threat
emergencies; and expanding training and assistance on transportation
security to third-party states.
CONCLUSION
As I survey the changing face of terror, I draw three conclusions.
First, we must maintain flexibility in our approach as the enemy
continues to evolve. In doing so, we must measure counterterrorism
success in the broadest perspective. Tactical and operational
counterterrorism battles will be won and lost, but we wage these
battles in a global war within a strategic context. We must fight the
enemy with precise, calibrated efforts that will deny the enemy its
leadership, its safe havens, and its financial and criminal networks of
support.
Second, we must replace an ideology of hatred with an ideology of
hope. Over the long term, our most important task in the war on terror
is not the ``destructive'' task of eradicating enemy networks, but the
``constructive'' task of building legitimacy, good governance, trust,
prosperity, tolerance, and the rule of law. Social and governmental
systems that are characterized by choices, transparent governance,
economic opportunities, and personal freedoms are keys to victory.
Ignoring human development is not an option. It is imperative that we
encourage and nurture democratization. When a lack of freedom destroys
hope, individuals sometimes feel they are justified to lash out in rage
and frustration at those they believe responsible for their plight. In
fact, no cause, no grievance can justify the murder of innocent people.
Public diplomacy programs that encourage exchanges of ideas and seek to
develop regional and local programming to reject violence and hate, and
instead encourage tolerance and moderation are critical.
Third, the United States cannot fight counterterrorism alone. We
must use all tools of statecraft, in cooperation with our growing
network of partners, to construct enduring solutions that transcend
violence. Because of our collective efforts and our interdependent
strength, we will win this fight. Our citizens and global partners
expect no less.
Mr. Chairman, this completes the formal part of my remarks and I
welcome your questions and comments.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ambassador Crumpton.
We will now have a round of questions. We have several
Senators that are present and we will have a 10-minute round.
We will ask Senators to try to each stay within that mark so
that all can be heard and so that we will have ample time for
our second panel of witnesses.
Let me begin the questions by asking you, Mr. Ambassador.
You have spoken about the regional strategic initiative,
through which you are bringing affected ambassadors who serve
in regions that are key terrorist theaters of operation
together. Can you speak more specifically as to what these
meetings are yielding? What is most on the minds of these
ambassadors? Is this a new innovation altogether or is this a
continuation of programs that have occurred in the State
Department before?
Ambassador Crumpton. First, sir, there are some examples,
good examples of regional cooperation: The Trans-Sahara
Counterterrorism Initiative, the East African Counterterrorism
Initiative. This is really an extension and expansion of some
of these plans, but here it is not just about meeting; it is
about pulling these country teams together into regional
networks and having a continuing dialog. That includes the use
of communications every day, whether it is video conferences,
exchanges of e-mails.
But importantly, it is not just about the Department of
State. Ambassadors in the field are leading this effort, but
these meetings include interagency representatives from
Washington. It goes from the military to NCTC to USAID and
really all those actors within the U.S. Government that are
contributing to this fight. It provides a unique dynamic and,
importantly, it looks at the theater of operations, often which
astrides national borders. That is why we think a regional
approach is so important.
The Chairman. So these people, the ambassadors plus the
other officials, are hearing each other, listening to each
other carefully, and informing you and the Secretary. And you
believe this is an important innovation that has been helpful
in the specific policies you have enumerated?
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir. We just started. Really, in
January, was the first to launch, and we have had a series of
these meetings in different regions. Importantly, it is not
only about informing myself and the Secretary, but specific
policy recommendations come from this. In concert with NCTC, we
put this forward to the National Security Council. They look at
this and they modify, they accept, and then we move forward
into specific programs and to specific requests for resources.
We are measuring success against the enemy. We are looking
at safe haven, in particular, and seeing how can we reduce safe
haven, how can we replace enemy safe haven with something more
enduring, with liberal institutions, with civic society. There
are some good examples of that to date.
The Chairman. I have underlined that and I thank you for
your comments about this because I think it offers a great
boost to our foreign service, our professional foreign service
persons who serve in these capacities, to understand the role
that they have in the war against terrorism, beyond their
individual service and the bilateral relationships with
countries in which they represent us.
Let me just pursue one more difficult area. That is, what
kind of improvement can you make on our relations with
countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Comment is made
all the time about the difficulties of our intelligence
situation, quite apart from pursuit of obvious targets, and
people we would like to interview in these countries. What
headway are we making and what can you foresee?
Ambassador Crumpton. In terms of cooperation with Pakistan,
they have lost hundreds of people in the military and law
enforcement in pursuing terrorist threats within their own
country. I was just in Pakistan recently. I met with some of
their senior leaders and we talked about the enduring
challenges, especially along their frontier with Afghanistan.
President Musharraf has rolled out a new strategy that
emphasizes political and economic development, especially aimed
at those traditional tribal leaders that have been targeted,
have been assassinated by al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders.
Musharraf, with our support and others, wants to help reinforce
this traditional tribal authority and provide economic
incentives for some of the people there. We think that is an
important issue and we need to support him. He understands, I
believe, as others in the region, that we must address these
enduring questions--not only go after the high-value targets.
Saudi Arabia, sir, in response to that, since May of 2003
when al-Qaeda launched a series of attacks in Saudi Arabia, the
Saudi Government has responded vigorously. They have captured
or killed their top 26. They have gone after another 10 with
some success. They have reformed some of their banking laws.
They are doing a better job of monitoring their charities,
although they still could do more, we believe. They are working
with us increasingly in the region, not just within the borders
of Saudi Arabia.
The Chairman. Let me just take two specific cases, one in
Pakistan. The recurring question comes as to why we cannot
interview A.Q. Khan. Let me just ask the second question so you
can have both. In the case of the Saudis, the world oil price
spiked one day when terrorists were met on a roadway heading
toward a refinery that ostensibly refines 13 percent of all the
oil on any one day in the world. The terrorists were stopped,
but the fact is that the world wondered about the security for
that refinery, which clearly is of importance to the Saudis,
but obviously to the conduct of commerce in the western world.
Is all that safe?
Can you address those issues?
Ambassador Crumpton. Sir, the first question, about
interviewing A.Q. Khan--I do not have a ready answer for you,
but I will be glad to get back to you with some details on
that.
The second question, regarding the terrorist intent to
strike at economic infrastructure--important economic and
symbolic targets. That is their intent. They did hope to
disrupt the oil supplies out of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi forces
responded with alacrity and were able to stop that attack.
Are these facilities safe, is your question. Sir, we have a
long way to go. If you look not only at Saudi Arabia, but you
look at the oil facilities in West Africa and other parts of
the world, they present a massive array of soft targets for
potential enemy acts. We are working with these countries to
improve this infrastructure. But, sir, it is a long, long road.
The Chairman. You make a good point, and it is a different
hearing, a different subject, but often around this table we
have talked about the vulnerability of the oil supply in this
world, given the tight margin of 1 or 2 percent between supply
and demand on any one day, and almost the naivete in this
country and the rest of the world as to the security of that
supply, given these vital situations that you have just
described.
Obviously, a great deal more safety is going to be required
if we are going to enjoy life as we have known it, without
severe disruption of both civilian and military life.
Let me just ask you, Admiral Redd. You have commented and
offered good evidence as to why analysis is better and better
all the time. However, there are hard targets that have been
very difficult. What headway are you making with your analysts
in North Korea?
Admiral Redd. North Korea actually is a subject or is under
the cognizance of another mission manager which John Negroponte
has established, Ambassador Joe Detrani. From the terrorism
standpoint, obviously we are very interested in that, but
nothing I could say in an open hearing, sir, that you would
probably find useful.
The Chairman. Very well. Let me ask you then about the hard
targets we have just been discussing, one of which is Pakistan.
You have a good number of people working on that issue. How are
you doing?
Admiral Redd. I think part of the whole point of what I
described to you in this strategic operational planning side,
sir, is exactly that, is to take a comprehensive top-down look,
taking that national strategy and policy, breaking it down into
strategic objectives, and further into subobjectives, and then
finally into discrete goals. All of those things when you get
done with that are discrete tasks, several hundreds of tasks,
and assigning them responsibility to a specific entity or
specific department for that.
That is exactly the thing, the sort of thing that we look
at in that process: Again, comprehensive, top-down. As you
would appreciate, the State Department obviously has a--
obviously ends up leading a large number of those, but with
partnering with other elements of the U.S. Government.
The Chairman. I thank you both very much for your responses
and I call now upon distinguished ranking member Senator Biden
for his questions.
Senator Biden. Gentlemen, you both have daunting jobs and I
am glad you take them with such obvious seriousness and have
taken a fresh look at how to approach these issues.
Admiral, on page 3 of your testimony you said: ``These new
networks are often made up of disaffected radicalized
individuals who draw inspiration and moral support from al-
Qaeda and other violent extremists.'' Going on, you said: ``To
the outside observer, these terrorists might appear to be fully
assimilated members of their Western communities.'' Continuing:
``We have begun to see cells like these here in the United
States. Federal and local law enforcement authorities have done
an outstanding job.'' Continuing: ``The challenge to countering
these cells is complicated by the fact that they operate
virtually, with much of their communication and planning taking
place over the Internet.'' Continuing: ``The emergence of this
new brand of al-Qaeda-inspired homegrown terrorist groups poses
real challenges to the intelligence community and we are
grappling with a whole new set of questions. What forces give
rise to this violent ideology in immigrant communities that may
appear otherwise to be quiet and assimilated?''
Your assertion that there are new cells in the United
States is consistent with everything that we have been told for
some time. Do you have any authority or coordination with the
Homeland Security Department?
Admiral Redd. Actually, one of the major jobs that NCTC
does, is exactly that. Because of--you mentioned the Internet,
but the whole transnational nature of this threat, one of our
jobs, and as I mentioned several examples of how we bring the
intelligence community together. That explicitly includes both
foreign and domestic. In a closed hearing I could take you
through a number of--several instances certainly where
something starts out in, say, South Asia today and tomorrow it
is a concern in a United States city or on a border.
Senator Biden. The reason why I ask--and this may not be in
your portfolio--is that I am perplexed. The 9-11 Commission has
given the Congress and the President failing grades on
implementation of their recommendations. We have an argument
going on, which I think is a false argument, about how to
allocate $740 million. Do we cut New York by 40 percent and
Washington by X percent to give Omaha money or to give to St.
Louis? I think Omaha and St. Louis need more funding, but I
also think New York needs more funding.
The price tag to implement just those recommendations from
the 9-11 Commission as of the report they wrote on December 15
of 2005, was $42 billion over 5 years. It seems to me that at
the same time we are doing this we are also cutting--you talk
about local law enforcement--we cut local law enforcement
assistance by $2 billion over the last several years. Police
departments are cutting the number of police.
How does this fit into your thinking? I mean, here we are,
we are not doing what is recommended, we are not funding it,
and we are cutting local law enforcement. My experience is if
anybody is going to find a terrorist dropping sarin gas into
the air conditioning system of a giant mall or a stadium, it is
going to be some cop having come from lunch or his snack and
riding behind the building, inspecting the dumpster. Or the
cell is going to be discovered, like it always has been, not
just by intelligence, but by a cop walking the beat and saying:
By the way, those three apartments were empty the last 4 years;
now I notice there are activities in there in this
neighborhood.
How does this fit? Does it matter what we do in terms of
local law enforcement and funding of the 9-11 Commission
recommendations?
Admiral Redd. Let me just start off by noting that actually
NCTC got the highest grades from the 9-11 Committee.
Senator Biden. It did, yes.
Admiral Redd. And I was born and married in Omaha, so I
want that to be on the record, Senator Hagel.
Senator Biden. And I think Omaha needs the help. I do not
think you should take it from New York.
Admiral Redd. Senator, we have been--as you know, we have
been doing the foreign side of this thing for a long time. We
have been doing foreign intelligence, we have been doing
foreign operations. September 11 has brought us into a new era
that we are now looking inside. Clearly, Mike Chertoff has been
given probably one of the largest M and A jobs. If you take it
to Wall Street you might have a little trouble generating some
venture capital. It is a very difficult job which he has. I
think he is doing a superb job.
One of the jobs that we have--and this is--first of all,
there is a lot of wonderful stuff going on, and NCTC's job is
to take that and then see where we can take it and take it to
the next level in an integrated manner, so down the line--and I
mentioned that four-stage process. Planning is the first stage,
implementation next. The third thing is assessment. That is one
of the things clearly we have to look at. As you look across,
it would not surprise you on the foreign intelligence side and
foreign operations we have got a pretty good record of doing
things and working together.
On the domestic side, new ground. So first of all, bridging
the foreign-domestic gap is extremely important; and second,
getting our hands around a very difficult internal issue--
domestic issue.
But again, I think Secretary Chertoff has a very good
construct, which we are going to see again and again: What is
the threat, what is the consequence of that threat, and what is
our vulnerability? Very often you get to the point where you
say you have got a questionable threat. If the threat happens
to be right, it has a very serious consequence, and so what do
you do about vulnerability? Trying to balance all that across
the United States is a very difficult job.
Senator Biden. Well, I think it is difficult, but just so
you know--and I am sure you do, being from Omaha--all politics
is local, buddy. They are a hell of a lot more concerned about
the threat around the block in the neighborhood in Omaha or
Wilmington, DE, or Gary, IN, or New York City than they are
about anything happening in Iraq or anywhere else in the world.
Everyone I have spoken to in the intelligence community
says there are more cells now in the United States, there is
more activity in the United States. I find it absolutely mind-
blowing--and I do not want to go into this now because my time
is running out--mind-blowing that we are not funding the 9-11
Commission's recommendations. I find it absolutely on the verge
of criminal that we are not doing it. We are spending $740
million for the whole shooting match and the recommendation is
$42 billion over 5 years. I find it criminal.
But that is another point. And I do not share your view of
Mr. Chertoff, God love him, as my mother would say. I do share
your view that he has an overwhelmingly difficult job and I am
not sure anybody is up to it. But so far his department is not
ready for primetime in my view.
But let me move on to Pakistan and al-Qaeda. Our military
commanders in Afghanistan with whom I have spoken and other
observers say Pakistan's spy service, the ISI, Mr. Ambassador
and Admiral, continues to support the Taliban and anti-United
States operations. Is that true? What is your--if you can say
on the record; if not, tell us--what is your honest assessment
of the Pakistani intelligence service's collaboration or lack
thereof with the Taliban?
Ambassador Crumpton. Senator Biden, we believe that there
may be elements of the local governments, tribal governments,
that are in collusion with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Whether
there are elements of the national Government involved, we do
not have any hard intelligence or evidence of that.
Senator Biden. Well, you are aware our commanders in the
field think there is?
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir, I have talked to them.
Senator Biden. You are aware that everyone you talk to in
the field thinks there is. You may not be able to prove it, but
you have not found anybody, have you, in Afghanistan in our
folks who say, by the way, the ISI is clean, they are playing
it level? Have you found anybody to tell you that?
Ambassador Crumpton. No, sir, I am not confirming that ISI
is clean. I am saying that we do not have any compelling
evidence right now that points to this. We do have concerns
about Taliban leadership that are in Pakistan and we believe
that the Pakistanis can do more. What the links are to ISI,
sir, I cannot go into in open session, but I would be glad to
follow up to the extent that we can.
Senator Biden. Maybe we could do that. I would appreciate
it.
I only have a couple minutes left, if I may. What should we
make of the situation in Somalia recently, where reported
United States support for Somali warlords in hope of finding
and thwarting terrorists apparently brought about the rise of
Islamic governance in Somalia? Was there a disconnect between
State Department and our intelligence services on this one?
Admiral Redd. I would just say about Somalia, it turns out
I was the commander of the last United States operation that
took the United Nations out of Somalia about 10 years ago.
Obviously there have been some things going on inside Somalia.
I would not jump to the conclusion, however, that that means
that al-Qaeda now owns Somalia by any stretch of the
imagination.
Senator Biden. I did not say that.
Admiral Redd. I know. A very complex place, tribal issues,
warlord issues, et cetera.
Senator Biden. That is not my question, though. My question
was that you, Mr. Ambassador, talked about the coordination
with the State Department. My contacts tell me there was none,
zero.
Ambassador Crumpton. That is incorrect, sir.
Senator Biden. There was some?
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir. I was just in Nairobi a
couple weeks ago where we had a large interagency discussion
and that was part of an ongoing discussion of the interagency--
the military, the intelligence community, Department of State,
and USAID.
Senator Biden. So before the decision was made to support
Somali warlords, the State Department was in on that decision?
Ambassador Crumpton. Sir, I cannot comment on any kind of
specific operational elements in open session. I would be glad
to speak to you offline if you wish.
Senator Biden. Well, again maybe--my time, I have 18
seconds left. What I have been told is that--I cannot verify
this--that State Department officers warned against this
effort, sometimes to the point of damaging their own career in
the process. I do not know that to be a fact. That is the
assertion made to me, and maybe I could follow up privately.
Senator Biden. Gentlemen, thank you very much. I appreciate
it.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Biden.
Senator Hagel.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK HAGEL, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Gentlemen, good morning. Thank you and your colleagues for
your efforts and your good work.
I would like to pursue the line of questioning that Senator
Biden began regarding Somalia. I want to ask you, Admiral, as
well as the Ambassador, if you could define for this committee
what is our policy in Somalia. Then I want to get a little
deeper down into the specifics of that.
Admiral Redd. I am afraid I will have to--I do not do
policy in my current incarnation, so I want to----
Senator Hagel. What is your objective in your
responsibilities?
Admiral Redd. The objective generally is, as mentioned, in
the planning effort which we are putting together, as alluded
to in both, particularly in Ambassador Crumpton's statement, is
deny the enemy safe haven whether that safe haven is physical
or whether it is virtual. Somalia is clearly one of the key
areas which we worry about as an ungoverned state and so the
bottom line objective is to deny that as an effective safe
haven for al-Qaeda or for terrorism in general.
Senator Hagel. Do you understand what our policy is? You do
not do policy, but do you understand what it is?
Admiral Redd. I would defer to----
Senator Hagel. No, do you understand what our policy is? I
know you do not do it.
Admiral Redd. Yes, sir. Our policy would be to make sure
that Somalia does not turn into a safe haven for al-Qaeda and
for terrorism.
Senator Hagel. That is our policy?
Admiral Redd. My understanding of our policy, yes, sir.
Senator Hagel. How are we adjusting our counterterrorism
efforts in Somalia in light of what Senator Biden just asked
you, in light of events that have occurred over the last couple
of weeks? Are we adjusting or what can you tell us about it?
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir, I will be glad to take that
question, Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Ambassador Crumpton. There are three objectives really:
Safe haven in terms of denying the enemy the ability to plan,
to organize. Somalia has posed an enduring problem. Al-Qaeda
has been in Somalia in some form or another since the early
1990s. Harun Fazul, responsible in some part for the 1998 East
Africa bombings, we believe has been and may still be in
Mogadishu. Also this cell is responsible for the attack in
Mombasa in 2002. This is a resilient, enduring, dangerous al-
Qaeda cell and we must make every effort we can to rid
Mogadishu and Somalia of this threat.
But that is not all we are doing. We must also work with a
very weak nascent transitional government to see if they can
gain traction and we can help them work with others in Somalia,
traditional leaders, to build some degree of civic society.
Third, there is a humanitarian aspect of this. So we must
approach all three of these things with vigor. As a new
initiative, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Jendayi
Frazer, is going to the U.N. She will be in New York. She has
established a contact group with our European partners in
concert with the U.N. to see if we can address some of these
broader, more enduring questions.
Senator Hagel. What is your assessment of the Islamic
Courts Union, the group that seized control in Mogadishu last
week?
Ambassador Crumpton. Sir, we have imperfect understanding
of them. They did send us a letter proclaiming that they are
not an enemy of the United States, and our response has been
very clear, that we expect them to work with the transitional
government and we also expect them to work with us to hand over
al-Qaeda and foreign fighters that have found refuge in
Mogadishu.
Senator Hagel. How would you answer that question, Admiral?
Admiral Redd. I think that was my point earlier, which I
guess I did not answer Senator Biden's question directly. But
exactly that. I think it is a very complicated thing. The issue
there is more, I think, a more sharia law, as you know, that
the commissions or councils are setting up, and it is not clear
that that is necessarily coincident or completely coincident
with either what al-Qaeda or any terrorist organization would
want.
Again, as you know from that area, it has a very complex,
long history. I remember going in and meeting with the warlords
before we took the U.N. out. The tribal issues there, the clan
issues--I think we need to sort of wait and see, let the dust
settle.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
You noted, Admiral Redd, in your statement--and I will
paraphrase what you said--working more closely and effectively
with our allies now than ever before. You mentioned
specifically, Canada. You said there were some countries that
obviously you cannot talk about in an open hearing.
How is that occurring? How are you working more
effectively, as you say, and closely? Give me some examples?
Admiral Redd. First of all, as you would expect, three of
our closest allies, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia,
all have similar organizations to NCTC. They call them
something different. They all end with ``TAC.'' We call them
``tic-tacs,'' but basically we have a very close relationship
with them, that extends to regular meetings with them,
classified communications links with them, and regular
exchanges on analysis. So that is sort of on the closest side.
Without going into detail, at the other extreme I will tell
you that, having been in Government for a long time and coming
back into Government, we are partnering, if you will, with some
very interesting countries, which I was quite actually
surprised to find out we were, and we are doing it simply
because we have the same objective. They understand that
terrorism is a challenge or is a threat to their vital national
interests and so we work very closely with them. As you would
expect, most of those tend to be through the ambassador and
through the DNI's representative or chief of station.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Ambassador Crumpton, let me ask you, and it follows to some
extent what the Admiral just referenced in these new closer,
more effective relationships. On April 22, the Washington Post
reported that the Pentagon no longer needed the approval of the
U.S. ambassador to deploy special operations forces known as
military liaison elements. The first question--I have two
others that will be associated with it--is this true?
In addition to that, are these military liaison elements
under or outside of the authority of the U.S. ambassador? Is
there a clear interagency agreement that a U.S. ambassador has
the authority to deny country clearance to such special
operations forces as well as oversight, approval authority of
such special operations forces that are operating in the
ambassador's country?
Can you clear all that up for us?
Ambassador Crumpton. First, the U.S. ambassador abroad, as
the President's representative, is uniquely positioned to pull
together all those instruments of statecraft to apply it
against the enemy, and that includes the military.
Senator Hagel. Including special operations?
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir. There is--there are no
military personnel assigned to any country anywhere in the
world where our ambassador is not fully and completely
informed. This is very clear in the letter of instruction the
President has given to all of our ambassadors. He also
instructs them and the geographic combatant commanders to
cooperate fully on all threats and be transparent in regard to
counterterrorism.
Moreover, last year Secretary Rice sent a letter to Senator
Biden underscoring the importance and the value of the
ambassadors overseas and their central role in
counterterrorism.
Senator Hagel. Well then, how would you respond to that
April 22 Washington Post report? Was that inaccurate?
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir, in part it was inaccurate. I
think it does reflect to some degree ongoing discussion between
the Pentagon and the Department of State and others in how do
we best orchestrate our instruments of statecraft, how do we
combine the right degree of authority with the flexibility and
speed that we need.
So there is ongoing discussion, but that is part of
government. That is how government works and that is how
counterterrorism works.
Senator Hagel. But the fact is there is no change of
policy? Is that what you are saying, that the ambassador of
each country continues to have the authority that that
ambassador has always had, knowledge, awareness, of special
operations, of troops, intelligence in the country that he or
she is responsible for?
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir, that is correct. Based on my
experience in the last year, I have seen outstanding
cooperation between the uniformed military and the Department
of State, in the field especially. PACOM has been very
responsive to some of our requests, some of our programs,
CENTCOM also. I see that to be a continuing trend.
Senator Hagel. Could you also clear up, Mr. Ambassador, a
point. This is regarding the State Department support, I
understand, in ceding training and equipping authority to the
Defense Department. You are generally aware of what I am
talking about, the subject?
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir.
Senator Hagel. Has the State Department given that
authority up? Can you clarify where we are with this military
training issue?
Ambassador Crumpton. As of last year, there is funding,
1206 funding, that the military has. It gives them the
authority to train and equip. But this is done in concert at
the field level with the embassies, but also back here in
concert with the Department of State regarding what specific
types of programs, what specific types of funding.
I should also note there is a requirement that we notify
Congress, the Pentagon and the Department of State notify
Congress, and outline what these expenditures are for. Again,
in my experience, in a couple of examples I have seen the
military to be fairly responsive to some CT programs that we
needed funded.
Senator Hagel. Are you saying that there is no change, even
though we are all aware of requests made in defense
authorization bills to cede some of that power to, if not some,
all, to Defense? What is your answer? There is no change, there
is a change?
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir, there is a change as of last
year, the 1206 funding, where the Pentagon is authorized to
train and equip some of our foreign partners. But that is in
coordination with the Department of State.
Senator Hagel. My time is up, so I appreciate both of your
efforts and your willingness to come before the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hagel.
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. I know Senator Obama was ahead of me.
Senator Obama. Go ahead.
The Chairman. Well, apparently the Senators are prepared to
yield to Senator Feingold, so I will ask you to proceed.
Senator Nelson. And if I could just ask Senator Feingold if
he could ask what would happen to al-Qaeda if Osama bin Laden
were captured or killed.
Admiral Redd. I think that in some ways the lesson of
Zarqawi is clearly, as I indicated in my testimony--we have
dealt al-Qaeda central leadership very serious blows. OBL is
able to stay alive because he is basically hiding in a very
difficult area. I think if he were to be taken out we would see
a very strong effect in terms of the symbolic effect. In terms
of his operations, operational guidance, I would say it is very
diminished right now, but also it would be significant, I
think, in terms of the effect on jihadists worldwide. But it
would probably not have a major effect on operations.
Ambassador Crumpton. I would like to add to that, please. I
agree with Admiral Redd, it would be a strategic win, but it is
only one part of our strategic objectives. When we stop the
enemy from attacking us and when we are able to nullify enemy
leadership, that buys us space and time and gives us the
opportunity to address the more enduring questions of safe
haven and those local conditions, social, political, economic,
the enemy exploits to their advantage.
So enemy leadership, sir, is a strategic target, but it is
not a stand-alone target. You must look at safe haven and those
specific local conditions also and you must address all three.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, U.S. SENATOR FROM
WISCONSIN
Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman, I just left the room
momentarily to take a call and I really do want to thank
Senator Nelson and Senator Obama. I will try to not use all my
time.
Ambassador Crumpton and Admiral Redd, thank you both for
coming here today to discuss this critical topic and I hope
that we can continue this dialog on a more regular basis.
Before I get to a couple questions, I want to highlight a few
key counterterrorism issues. First, our massive presence in
Iraq is diverting resources and attention from places around
the world where terrorist networks that threaten the United
States are operating and I think we need obviously to address
that.
Second, I have yet to see or hear about a comprehensive
strategy to eliminate global terrorist networks, sanctuaries,
and operational environments, as well as to address root causes
and the underlying conditions that fuel extremism, radicalism,
and terrorist organizations. While I was heartened by the
creation of your position, Ambassador Crumpton, and by
Secretary Rice's recent efforts to create a director of foreign
assistance to coordinate most forms of foreign assistance, I am
still concerned that there remains no one central focal point
for bringing to bear all of our country's capabilities to
defeat terrorist networks.
Third, I remain concerned about the places that are
apparently going largely unnoticed by this administration. As
has already been discussed to some extent, for some time I have
been pushing this administration to address Somalia.
Unfortunately, this administration ignored the warning signals,
has failed to pay attention, and is now basically having to try
to play catch-up in a country and a region that really does
matter to our national security.
Along the same lines, I continue to be concerned about
northern Africa and the Sahel region, the Suluwese Sea and the
Straits of Malacca in the area of Indonesia and Malaysia, the
border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and other
ungoverned, undergoverned, corrupt, poverty-stricken and other
operational and technological environments that terrorist
organizations can exploit to plan, prepare, and stage their
attacks against us.
In sum, I am deeply concerned about the way our Government
is handling the global fight against terrorist networks. I
believe that we need to take a more comprehensive approach to
this problem and that we need to use the full range of our
capabilities.
Going back to an issue that I have mentioned, and that I
understand Senator Biden and Senator Hagel mentioned, and that
is again Somalia. I would like to dig just a little deeper.
Ambassador Crumpton, can you articulate again for us--for the
committee--what the U.S. Government policy is for Somalia?
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir. There are three main
objectives. First is to find and fix al-Qaeda leadership, al-
Qaeda cells in Somalia. As I noted earlier, it is an enduring,
resilient cell that poses a threat not only to United States
interests, but to the entire region, especially Kenya, as
demonstrated in 1998 and 2002.
Second is to look to this new fledgling nascent
transitional government, to see if they can indeed gain some
traction and build alliances throughout Somalia. They are off
to a very slow, and I might note weak, start, but we are
working with them, the United Nations, and other partners. This
is illustrated in the establishment of a contact group.
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Frazer will go
to New York to meet with our European partners and others to
see if we can work with some of the Somali leadership. The
third point, sir, is humanitarian relief and assistance. That
remains an enduring problem for the Somali people.
Senator Feingold. On the second point, do you feel up until
recent events that we were doing enough to work with the
transitional government and help the transitional government,
or should we have taken it up a few notches?
Ambassador Crumpton. Sir, I think we could do more to some
degree, but I also think the international community as a whole
could do much more. This is not just an American problem. It is
an international problem, and Somalia has been a failed state
for many years.
Senator Feingold. I think that is fair enough. It is not
just an American problem, but it is especially an American
problem, given the goals of the elements that you have already
identified before, present in Somalia and other places.
Was the Department of State surprised about the events in
Mogadishu last week?
Ambassador Crumpton. Sir, we have been following this
closely. In fact, as I noted earlier, I was in Nairobi just a
couple of weeks ago and we followed these events with some
concern. We still have some concern because, despite their
public overtures, we are not sure what the Islamic courts
really want in terms of their strategies and in terms of their
relationship with al-Qaeda.
Senator Feingold. But were you surprised with the
effectiveness of this organization taking over Mogadishu? Was
that anticipated?
Ambassador Crumpton. No, sir, it was not anticipated.
Senator Feingold. Somalia is home to terrorist networks and
illicit power structures, criminal networks, abject poverty,
and dire humanitarian conditions, and it is apparent that it
demands far more resources and attention than we are providing.
Can you be a little more specific about what you think we need
more of for Somalia?
Ambassador Crumpton. We need to have legitimate actors
inside Somalia with whom we can work. That is probably the most
difficult challenge right now. It is a fractured political
entity with competing, conflicting tribal leadership, and we
need to help them establish some type of interface, some kind
of network, so we can help them right now.
A lot of this depends on the Somalis themselves and to date
they have fallen short. That is probably the most immediate
challenge, to see if this fledgling government can establish
some degree of legitimacy and some power, and right now they
have very little.
Senator Feingold. In terms of our own governmental role on
this, can you talk a little bit about the State Department's
role in this effort? Is the State Department the Department
that is playing a leadership role on Somalia-related policy,
and if not who is?
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir, and this was illustrated
most recently when I was in Nairobi. We had ambassadors from
the entire region that came to Nairobi to have an in-depth
discussion. I might note that that meeting had been scheduled
for a couple of months before these recent events that you are
talking about.
But it was not only the Department of State. We had
representatives from the military, in fact from OSD, from
CENTCOM, from Special Operations Command. We had USAID there.
We had NCTC, other elements of the intelligence community--a
wide range of interagency. We came back with some specific
policy recommendations.
And yes, the ambassadors in the field had a leadership
role. They chaired that meeting.
Senator Feingold. How many people does the State Department
have working on Somalia full time? I just want the full-time
figure.
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir. There is one dedicated
foreign service officer in Nairobi that looks at Somalia, but
there are a multitude of others, not just in the State
Department, but across the U.S. Government, that work the
issue.
Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman, I am going to leave some of
my time, as I said. I just want to say that I obviously respect
the work that those individuals are doing, but this issue in my
view--in fact it has been my view for some time, as I have
expressed on this committee on hearing after hearing--is that
this situation deserves more than one full-time person. I
greatly respect the work that the Ambassador is doing, though,
and I thank him and I thank the witnesses.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Feingold, for your
continuing interest in not only Somalia but the African
continent.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ambassador and Admiral, thank you for being here. My
questions are about homegrown terrorists and particularly the
extent to which that might be happening in the United States
and what we ought to do about it. What happened in Canada a few
days ago when Canadian intelligence agents arrested 17 people,
most of whom were Canadian citizens, who had a large amount of
the same kind of fertilizer that was used to blow up the
Federal Building in Oklahoma, and apparently were intending to
do that and other things, that was a chilling, a chilling
incident in Canada, particularly because those who were
arrested were mostly Canadian citizens.
The same feeling I am sure swept through Great Britain when
three out of four of the terrorists who blew up the subway were
British citizens.
To what extent is this happening in the United States? What
can you tell us in a hearing like this about how many
operations are going on in the United States like the one in
Canada? Are there any? Have there been many such operations
frustrated in the last 5 or 10 years? Are there more today than
there were 10 years ago?
What can you tell us about this?
Admiral Redd. I think that is probably mine, Senator. I
guess what I can say to you is pretty limited in open session,
but I can sort of point to three specific examples, all of
which resulted in arrests, all of which have ongoing
prosecutions, and therefore we cannot talk about details. But
you will remember Torrance, CA, perhaps, about a year ago;
Lodi, CA; and most recently in Atlanta.
So there have been indications. Obviously, that is one of
the things we watch very carefully. We have worked very closely
with the Canadians in making that not only foreign but domestic
connection. Clearly, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, it
is one of the things we worry about. But it really is one of
those things that, when people ask me what I worry about, the
thing you do not know, and that is the one you worry about the
most probably.
Senator Alexander. Well, are these once a year phenomena or
are these random occasions? Are these isolated instances, or is
this something of growing concern? And is there more or less
today than there was 3 or 4 years ago?
Admiral Redd. It is hard--in terms of the intelligence side
of it, this is, as I mentioned earlier, this is a new
phenomenon. We have been doing foreign intelligence for a long
time. We have some pretty good baselines as to what is
happening. On the domestic side, the FBI, as you know, has done
a tremendous job. They have gone from writing, for example, 25
intelligence information reports before 9-11 to over 8,000 a
year now. But that is still--the baseline probably is not
there.
I would say the ones I mentioned, the ones I can mention in
an open hearing, that is three in a little over a year. There
obviously are other investigations ongoing. The Internet makes
it--as we have mentioned or somebody else has mentioned, the
cyber nature or the virtual nature of that makes it very easy
to transcend borders.
Senator Alexander. What is your estimation of how the joint
terrorism task forces are operating that have been established
in the last few years?
Admiral Redd. I think at this point in time----
Senator Alexander. In this country.
Admiral Redd [continuing]. I think they have been generally
very effective. If you look at where we want to go and where we
are today, clearly the JTTFs have good classified connectivity,
which is an important thing in terms of our ability to get
information, classified information, down to State and locals,
and they provide that conduit. They are closely connected,
obviously, with the State and local law enforcement. Secretary
Chertoff obviously has a large law enforcement thing with the
Border Patrol and other aspects under his responsibility and
they are building those communication networks as well.
I think the JTTFs by and large have been generally very
effective, sir.
Senator Alexander. Let me move on a little bit then. What
can we do to discourage the growth of such feelings, such
attitudes? Senator Lugar and I were at a meeting in Istanbul
last week where one of the speakers pointed out the now
millions of Muslims in Europe and that if European states did
not find ways to assimilate or integrate those new residents
into their countries, in that speaker's words, there would be
colossal problems.
Germans are dealing with whether to continue to create
enclaves of Turks in Germany. Italians are sending Muslims here
to help them see how we assimilate people who come to our
country.
I guess what I am getting to is: Are there lessons we can
learn in the United States about how to help people who come
here to live to become a part of our country and want to
support our country rather than blow it up?
Admiral Redd. I think clearly there are, and I think both
at the State and local level and at the national level we are
obviously looking for those lessons learned. As you go across
other countries, Europe in particular, you have a variety of
scenarios, some of which the Muslim communities are not well
integrated at all and live in sort of enclaves, other places
where they are much better assimilated, including here.
I think if you were to look at--go talk to Ray Kelly up in
New York--probably there are some good lessons learned in New
York. But it clearly is an area which is new, which we are
looking into. It is one of the objectives as we write what we
are calling our national implementation plan, getting that
messaging out, understanding what the right message is and how
to do it. And it varies by country.
Senator Alexander. I am thinking specifically of our debate
on immigration that we have had in the last few weeks. One of
the most difficult parts of the immigration bill and one that
Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez have both been very
instrumental in is that if there is a new legal status for
people who are illegally here, do they then have a chance to
become a citizen. While I did not vote for the bill at this
stage because I did not think the border security provisions
were strong enough, I am very--I am very worried about any
decision just to lock in 8, 10, or 12 million people into our
country into enclaves where they salute another flag, speak
another language, and have no opportunity to develop a loyalty
to our country.
It would seem to me that that by itself might be a breeding
ground for homegrown terrorism over a longer period of time.
Would you have any comment on that?
Ambassador Crumpton. Sir, we have seen no clear indication
that immigration to the United States leads to that type of
homegrown terrorism. Immigration we believe makes us strong.
Senator Alexander. No, I am not suggesting that. What I am
suggesting is--I am talking about people who are permanent
residents of the United States--are citizens of the United
States--who then turn on us because they do not feel a part of
us. While the United States has, over 200 years, had a lot of
practice and history in assimilating people, helping them
become Americans, the rest of the world has not had much of
that. It is hard to become German, hard to become Japanese,
hard to become Italian. You have to become an American if you
are a citizen.
So I was wondering about whether the concern about
homegrown terrorism would say to us that we ought to try to
have policies that help make sure that people who come here,
that most of them become citizens if they stay for a long
period of time.
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir. I think if we want to
continue building a strong society that we do need to integrate
immigrants into our communities, into our Nation. Some of my
European counterparts have asked me, how do we do it, how do we
manage this? As you noted earlier, they are faced with a large
and growing problem because many of their immigrant communities
are not assimilated fully into their national cultural fabric.
Admiral Redd. Could I just follow up on that?
Senator Alexander. Yes.
Admiral Redd. I think if you were to go to a place like New
York, for example, which as you know has a large immigrant
community, much of it is from the Middle East. I think what
they would say up there--the lesson learned up there--is that
assimilation really is the key, that people come and after a
very short period of time they can get a job, they can make
money, they can send their kids to college, they get invested.
That clearly is something which again we have a long history of
doing.
I think you always have to be careful about that,
obviously, the danger of having a population or part of the
population which is not assimilated. But I think that is our
strong point as a society. You come and you get a stake in what
is going on here and you want to stay and you want to be part
of that, rather than tear it down.
Senator Alexander. I happen to think it is perhaps our
greatest accomplishment as a country, and the better we do it
the less likely we are to have breeding grounds for homegrown
terrorism.
I have one last question and not much time, so I will ask
it quickly. You have not said anything much about new rules at
home. We have a lot of discussion here about snooping at home,
surveillance here in the United States. We are concerned about
military tribunals, about prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. That is
in the newspapers today. Do we need to get ready for a
different era here where we have to accept the idea of more
surveillance in the United States in order to prevent homegrown
terrorism?
Finally, along that line, if we were to close Guantanamo
Bay to which State of the United States would all those
prisoners go?
Admiral Redd. I am sorry? The first part was?
Senator Alexander. The first part is are we in a new era
where we are going to have to accept more surveillance in our
daily lives in order to prevent incidents like the Canadian
cell that was getting ready to blow up parliament, apparently?
Admiral Redd. I think, Senator, that that is going to be an
ongoing discussion. A lot of it is going to take place probably
in this chamber as we move forward. Clearly, there are
challenges today which we have not faced in the past, on the
one hand. On the other hand, the U.S. Government and certainly
the executive branch is completely dedicated to obeying the law
and following the law as it is.
So there are going to be some of those tensions and we are
going to probably bounce up or bump up against those as we go
forward. But it is going to be healthy discussion, as it always
is, on civil rights and protections on the one hand and the
need for security on the other. I think this is--we are not
done with that discussion yet by any stretch.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
Senator Obama.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Obama. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate very much the appearance of the Ambassador and
the Admiral here today. It has been a useful discussion. I
thought actually Senator Alexander brought up all sorts of
interesting issues that at some point we will undoubtedly have
to address here in this chamber.
A couple things I want to focus on. One, obviously the
death of al-Zarqawi has dominated the news over the last week.
I thought it was interesting that the New York Times ran an
article yesterday about--it may have been the day before
yesterday--about how Iraq had trained--how Zarqawi had
apparently trained a number of potential terrorists who had
been dispersed out of Iraq.
You will recall that in the 1980s and 1990s, one of the
consequences of Afghanistan, despite the fact that we pushed
the Soviets out, was extremists who trained or fought in
Afghanistan and went on to spawn international terrorist
networks around the world. So far we are already hearing, for
example, French counterterrorism officials say they found
Zarqawi's handiwork in a Chechen-trained terrorist cell in the
suburbs of Paris that was broken up in December of 2002.
So I am just curious. What is your assessment of terrorist
training activities in Iraq? Are there individuals that are
leaving Iraq, having been trained there? Or is your impression
that al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq stay in Iraq and are focused
on that country at this point?
Admiral Redd. I would say that, with respect to Zarqawi and
representing the larger issue, basically there are three
aspects to his presence. First, he was, I think you are aware,
a terrorist icon. He was a money magnet, a recruiting magnet.
Obviously he was able to attract and inspire a large number of
people to his cause. That is going to be a very hard role
probably to fill.
The second one refers to what I think you are concerned
about, what we, NCTC and around the Government, are very
concerned about, and that is the external operations role. We
know that Zawahiri has sent a letter to Zarqawi about a year
ago, first of all talking about the importance of Iraq and how
they viewed that as the centerpiece of the war on terror, if
you will, from their standpoint; and second, instructing him
that we would like to work on the external operations side of
it.
The third is his role within Iraq. I think clearly we are
concerned. We have some indications that there are plots at
least hatching for external operations and some of those may
have been far enough along that we will see them. We have seen
some of them obviously in the attack in Jordan on the hotels,
going back several years ago to when Ambassador Foley was
killed in Jordan. That was an AQI. And of course, those things
have gone on obviously within Iraq.
So I think there are several theories on that. I do not
know that we have a very good sense of the total numbers of how
many are going in and how many are going out. But clearly this
is the central battlefield in the war on terror right now and
it is in Iraq, and that is AQ's own assessment and I think
that's our assessment.
Senator Obama. I mentioned Afghanistan earlier. There have
been a number of reports that the Taliban seems to be re-
emerging and strengthening. To what extent do you think al-
Qaeda is involved? What does it mean strategically? Is the
Taliban regenerating in Afghanistan and are they receiving
support, safe haven in Pakistani territory? What is our
approach at this point and how are we addressing it other than
just militarily trying to hold the line?
Ambassador Crumpton. We think there are three reasons for
the resurgence to some degree of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
One is the international community has not responded quickly
enough in terms of building roads and digging wells and
providing the Afghans in the southern and eastern part of the
country the ability to become part of an economically viable
society.
Instead, in many places you have poppies growing, which
leads to a second reason for the resurgence of Taliban
fighters. You see increasing cooperation between
narcotraffickers in Helmand and Kandahar Province and Taliban.
They have money, they have some of the infrastructure. This is
one of the major trends we note in our country reports on
terrorism, the overlap between terrorist networks and
transnational criminal networks.
The third reason is indeed we believe Taliban leadership
and some of the Taliban recruiters have got some degree of safe
haven along that border area. A border area that in some
respects defies both Pakistan and Afghan Government's efforts
to assert their sovereignty. You look back throughout history
and really no one has been able to control that, going back to
Alexander the Great.
So how do you address it? It is not by military means
alone. As I noted earlier, President Musharraf just a few weeks
ago has rolled out a new strategy that emphasizes the
redevelopment of these areas or in many cases the development
of these areas--economic zones of opportunity. The U.S.
Government is working with the Pakistani Government on that.
The Under Secretary for Economic Affairs was just in Pakistan.
She spent several days in this area.
But also it is about rebuilding the structure, the
traditional tribal leadership. More than 100 tribal leaders
have been assassinated by al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives along
this border region. These are local leaders who are working
with the Pakistani Government. We have got to help the
Pakistanis rebuild that type of local civic society. So it is
not just military. It is economic, it is political also.
Senator Obama. While we are on the topic of undergoverned
regions, the crisis in Darfur. We started to see spillover of
the conflict into Chad. We heard bin Laden call on jihadis to
fight imperialism in Sudan. I am wondering if you can give your
best assessment to the extent to which foreign fighters have
actually permeated Darfur or that region? Is there a danger
that that becomes one more safe haven and, if so, how does that
impact our policy?
Ambassador Crumpton. This is a perfect example of al-Qaeda
leadership trying to reach out and claim otherwise local
conflicts as their own. They try to gain strategic strength
from this. To date we do not see them gaining any traction in
this part of the world, specifically Darfur. However, the
larger question of the trans-Sahara as a safe haven for
terrorists--the GSPC, mostly an Algeria-based organization,
they travel throughout that area and they operate in that area.
We have not seen them in Darfur. They have been further to the
west. But it does pose an enduring problem for us and we are
working with local governments there to see what we can do.
Senator Obama. Well, let me ask you two questions. I am
running out of time and these are sort of two more global
questions. But they touch on the problems we are having across
the board. Ambassador, as you mentioned, this is not something
that is going to be solved solely militarily. There is going to
be an important military component to whatever we do, but we
have got to have more tools in the tool kit.
Specifically, number one, what structures are we putting in
place between the State Department, DOD, CIA, and so forth, to
coordinate these activities? Because, from my perspective, one
of the concerns about Somalia was what appeared to be a lack of
a consensus strategy between various branches of the U.S.
Government. You had folks who officially protested and objected
to some of the policies that were being pursued by the CIA.
So No. 1, what kind of operational structure are we putting
in place to make sure that everybody is rowing in the same
direction and that we have the military component working with
the reconstruction component working with the political and
social components?
The second thing is, what are we doing to get more buy-in
from our allies, because Iraq in some ways is sui generis.
Given how we went in there, it is understandable that there has
been resistance from our allies. Afghanistan is a slightly
different situation. In Darfur and in the trans-Sahel we are
not seeing as much cooperation as we would like to.
I guess what I am curious about is what diplomatic efforts
and what organizational structures are we putting in place that
will permit the kind of international buy-in that we are going
to need over the long haul to be successful in creating some
semblance of order and buy-in from individuals who live in
these regions?
Admiral Redd. Let me start with the U.S. Government
structure, which is, as I mentioned in my testimony, really was
one of the major reasons that NCTC was established in the first
place in the strategic operational planning role. As I noted,
broad policy and strategy, done by the NSC, Homeland Security
Council, with foreign and domestic operations done by the
various departments, cabinet departments and agencies.
What we are doing at NCTC, and we are about 10 months into
it, is this four-part process I talked to you about, but it is
planning basically. It starts with the planning process. One of
the key accomplishments which, having again almost 4 decades in
Government, I have never seen--in fact, we have had comments
from people with similar experience who say this is truly
revolutionary. What we have done is take that strategy and
policy and break it down to strategic objectives,
subobjectives, and then discrete tasks. This is a comprehensive
top-down, what does it take to win the war on terror
tactically, strategically, offense and defense, over the long
term; broken it down into a number of tasks. In fact the tasks
actually number in the hundreds--the high hundreds as a matter
of fact.
That in itself in government, some people said, I never
thought that could take place. But I think it is an indication
of how seriously people understand the need for interagency
coordination that goes back to some of the other sort of turf
issues that have come up.
The second thing that happens there is we say, OK, not only
do we have this task, but who is in charge and who are the
partners. It will not surprise you that in many of the things
we are talking about--safe havens, for example, overseas and
that sort of thing--the State Department is in the lead, and
everybody has agreed to that, but Defense, whoever the other
Departments that have a role in that, are assigned as partner
relationships. They are accountable to the President for making
sure that that particular task, whether it is a virtual safe
haven, physical safe haven, is taken care of.
The next step is implementation, which we are really just
starting to get into. But again, the role is when these turf
battles come up--I hate to use the word ``turf battles''--when
these issues come up they are resolved and we do not have to go
all the way to the White House to get them resolved. We can
resolve them at a much lower level and make things a lot more
responsive.
Finally, we do the assessment. Is the plan working or not?
How do we need to revise it? And you start up all over again.
So this is--I use the term ``revolutionary'' advisedly, but
I think it is a fair assessment of what we are doing. This has
never happened in government before and it gets to a lot of the
issues which you are seeing in terms of macro and how do we
bring all those elements of power--diplomatic and law
enforcement as well as military and intelligence--to bear.
Senator Obama. I know I am out of time, but if you will
just indulge me, just a follow-up. This group is empowered by
its constituent parts? You are not just generating several
hundred tasks that then are ignored by----
Admiral Redd. First of all, Senator, you empowered it when
you wrote--when you signed the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorist Prevention Act and you say that I report to the
President. So my power comes, if you will--not my power, but
NCTC's ability to make this happen comes from the President. We
write the plan----
Senator Obama. Well, it comes from the President listening.
Admiral Redd. Oh, yes. We write the plan. It is done not by
NCTC sitting in an ivory tower. Two hundred people from around
the interagency come together, fight it out, sharp elbows, and
this is the plan. Then we take it to the NSC deputies level,
principals level, and then we take it to the President for
approval, and he approves it. And trust me, it is not a rubber
stamp sort of thing.
This is really unusual in the history of our Government,
but it is an interagency effort where everyone has come
together, again a recognition that this is a different kind of
war.
Senator Obama. We will be hopeful.
On the international front, Ambassador, do you want to
tackle that? I appreciate the indulgence.
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir. I should note that the
international front, a big part of what we are doing is to take
this plan that Scott is talking about and operationalize it and
put it in the field, and to keep the kind of flexibility and
agility we need when you put that kind of plan into action,
because the battlefield not only varies from country to
country, but sometimes from valley to valley, village to
village, and you have got to have that flexibility in the
field, going back to our emphasis on interagency work in the
field.
So what we are trying to do is to bring the field to
Washington and Washington to the field, to make sure this thing
works and it is not just a Washington, DC plan; it involves the
interagency really around the world, especially working with
our global partners. The emphasis is on working with partners
whenever and however possible. We do this in a variety of ways.
We do it through joint training, joint exercises, information
exchange, which we talked about earlier, and there are a
multitude of successes at a tactical level, but increasingly at
a policy level, when we work with our partners in terms of
conventions, counterterrorism conventions at the United
Nations, working with the Organization of American States,
CICTE, an interagency or an intergovernmental group devoted
exclusively to counterterrorism. I was in Bogota recently at
the annual convention and the declaration that came out of that
convention focusing on terrorist mobility in this hemisphere is
a powerful document. We are putting more money into that to
make sure that our partners can work better in terms of
spotting terrorists and inhibiting their mobility. I will be
glad to forward you that document if you wish.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Obama.
Senator Martinez.
STATEMENT OF HON. MEL MARTINEZ, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us today. I wanted to
begin by asking you about an area that probably in the last
couple of years may be the single greatest success of seeing a
turnaround in a country, which is Libya. I wonder whether,
first of all, you would agree that it is a success as it
relates to our efforts on the war on terror; and also second,
whether, in fact, there are some lessons that might be learned
in our interaction with Libya and where Libya has come from and
where it has come to that we might apply to other countries?
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir, I think it does serve as a
useful example. We talk about bringing to bear all the
instruments of statecraft and this is an example of that,
stretching over almost 2 decades. It also is a lesson for us in
stamina that is required when we face this type of challenge.
You had military application, you had economic sanctions, and
of course you had the rule of law. You had those responsible
for Pan Am 103 be sentenced. You had the Libyan Government pay
more than $2 billion in reparations. You have got a leadership
now that understands that they had to join the community of
nations and to do so they had to renounce terrorism, and they
have done that.
We extend this to those countries today that support
terrorism. There is a path to join the community of nations.
And also to terrorist groups, that they can renounce terrorism
also, be part of the solution and not the problem. So there are
many good lessons to learn from that.
Senator Martinez. The other area of the world that concerns
me greatly is the area of Latin America. You were just talking
about a report coming out of Colombia where you recently were.
I think Colombia is a great example of again success in the way
that they have progressed in combatting narcotrafficking and
narcoterrorism.
The border region between Venezuela and Colombia continues
to be a troubled area and one in which--I wonder if you can
comment on whether there is in your opinion any implicit
cooperation by the Venezuelan Government in--well, first I
should start by saying, is the Venezuelan Government in your
view cooperating with the Colombian Government or are they in
fact on the other hand impeding the opportunity for the
Colombian Government to continue to stamp out the FARC, which
seem to operate in that region rather freely?
Ambassador Crumpton. Just this year we categorized
Venezuela as not fully cooperating with us and the
international community in terms of counterterrorism. Because
of this border area, Colombia continues to face some
challenges, despite what I think is the extraordinary
leadership of President Uribe and the Colombian military and
Colombian police. He has done a remarkable job, but, as I noted
earlier, as long as the enemy is able to have some degree of
safe haven or an ability to transit areas, it is going to be a
problem. And Venezuela has not been fully cooperative.
Senator Martinez. In terms of the region again, Cuba has
been on the list of terrorist states for quite a number of
years and continues to be on the list. I wondered if you can
comment on one of the areas obviously they fail to cooperate in
on the war on terror, but in addition to that have provided
safe harbor for many years to either fugitives of United States
law or also known terrorists, FARC, ELN, ATA, and others, their
level of cooperation with Iran and also Venezuela and that
triumvirate, and also--well, let me just ask you that, and then
I will have a follow up on that.
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir, we are worried, and we see
increased cooperation between those three countries. We see
Hezbollah members in Venezuela. We see them engaged in criminal
activities in Venezuela and increasingly throughout the region.
Senator Martinez. That includes the tri-border region?
Ambassador Crumpton. Yes, sir, it does. It includes the
tri-border region.
Also, Hamas and others. The role of Cuba continues to be
troublesome because of their links to the FARC in Colombia and
we have expressed our concerns, but we have seen very little
progress in that regard.
Senator Martinez. One of the areas that continues to be in
reports that I see is the disproportionate biological research
program in Cuba to a country of that size and that stage of
development. I have not ever seen any linkage between that and
make a clear connection that in fact it also includes offensive
weaponry related to bioweapons, but I wondered if you have any
information that you can shed on that, in addition to the fact
that there seems to be recent cooperation between Cuba and Iran
in the area of biotechnology?
Ambassador Crumpton. Sir, I do not have a good answer for
you, but I will be glad to research that and get back to you.
But I will note we have seen, at least to my knowledge, no
indications that the Cubans are trying to develop BW weapons.
But let me double check and let me get back to you on that. I
would be glad to.
Senator Martinez. Thank you. I would appreciate that.
The other area I wanted to touch on was the area of Africa
and the issue of Somalia, which I think has really been
probably covered sufficiently by others. But I wondered if in
that area--you know, there is some good news in Africa that I
am always encouraged by. Then obviously there is this terribly
troubled area. One of the answers that has been encouraging has
been the participation of the African Union in its own
peacekeeping activities. One of the problems obviously has been
the underfunding of their efforts and terribly undermanned that
they are. Do you think that they could play a viable role in
the continuing efforts to provide stability so that these
ungoverned areas might find a way to become more stable and be
less of a breeding ground for future terrorists?
Ambassador Crumpton. Sir, I lived in Africa for 10 years
and I have a deep sympathy for the people and for the
challenges they face. I believe ultimately the only answer to
some of these problems of ungoverned space will be an
international coalition. I think the African Union can play a
role, but they are going to need a lot of help, because in many
respects they are starting at a very basic level in terms of
transport, in terms of communication, and in terms of command
and control.
It is a challenge for any military--any type of
peacekeeping force--to extend themselves into such areas as the
Darfur or the trans-Sahel at large. We need to help them, the
AU and others, because the problem I fear is going to continue
to grow.
Senator Martinez. One last quick question, Admiral Redd.
Senator Alexander brought up the issue of our current
immigration discussion here at home and the issue of border
security, and I wondered if, given the issues that recently
arose in Canada, whether or not we--we have been very focused
on border security in our border with Mexico in terms of
securing our homeland and antiterrorism efforts. Do you think
that our border with Canada could also use some additional
look, additional resources, or additional manpower?
Admiral Redd. I think first of all we are looking very
carefully at both borders. At congressional mandate, we had
completed and submitted to the Congress about 3 months ago, a
national strategy for countering terrorist travel, and one of
the key parts of that had to do with how we deal with both
borders.
We work very closely with the Canadians, as you know, but
clearly we are watching that border. As indicated by the events
of the last several weeks, there is no place that is really
safe. So we work closely with the Canadians and we clearly are
watching that border as well as the southern border.
Senator Martinez. Thank you, sir.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Martinez.
We thank both of our witnesses for your initial testimony
and your full papers and for your very forthcoming responses to
our questions. We ask your cooperation in responding to the
questions for the record that you have mentioned that you would
respond to in the course of the questions. Thank you very much
for coming.
The chair will now call on the second panel.
Admiral Redd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Crumpton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The second panel will be the Honorable John
E. McLaughlin, senior fellow, Merrill Center for Strategic
Studies, the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies at the Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC; and
Daniel Benjamin, senior fellow, International Security Program,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Gentlemen, we thank you for coming this
morning, and I will ask you to testify in the order I
introduced you. That would be first of all, Mr. McLaughlin, and
second, Mr. Benjamin. Mr. McLaughlin, would you please proceed
with your testimony. Your full statement will be made a part of
the record as we indicated at the beginning of the hearing.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. McLAUGHLIN, SENIOR FELLOW, MERRILL
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES, PAUL H. NITZE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. McLaughlin. Thank you. Thank you for your invitation to
testify, Mr. Chairman. In my judgment you have chosen exactly
the right moment to ask these important questions about
terrorism. You have a lengthy prepared statement from me, as
you noted, and I am going to take just a few minutes to
summarize its main points, concentrating on the recommendations
that I describe at the end.
You will notice in the front part of my statement I talk a
lot about the successes we have had against terrorists,
especially since 9-11, but there is still a lot of work to do
and so I would like to focus on that. The bottom line is that
the terrorist movement we now confront is in some ways less
dangerous than the 9-11-era al-Qaeda, but in some ways more
dangerous.
It is less dangerous in that terrorists now have more
obstacles to overcome in attempting to orchestrate large-scale
international terrorist operations. It is more dangerous in
that the movement is now more amorphous, operates in smaller
units that are more dispersed geographically. It is today less
dependent on geography and hierarchy than it used to be and
much more dependent on the Internet and ideology.
The movement now has an African face, a European face, an
Asian face, and, as illustrated most recently by the wrap-up of
terrorist suspects in Canada, a North American face. It is not
easily profiled. While the inspiration and presumably some
level of funding and training still come from the center, more
autonomy is flowing to locally based parts of the network that
recruit locally and rely less on external operatives.
While many of the recent attacks--London, Madrid, Istanbul,
Casablanca, Bali, Sharm el-Sheik, and the one attempted in
Canada--appear local in nature, we must not delude ourselves
into thinking that this is no longer an international
phenomenon. In fact, the goals and consequences of each attack
transcend regional borders, in that successful attacks feed
recruitment efforts worldwide and are celebrated in jihadist
Web sites worldwide.
Although it can be argued that our successes must be making
it harder for al-Qaeda to mount a major attack in the United
States, we cannot take any real comfort in that, nor can we
really afford to believe it. Nothing would boost the movement
more or provide a greater incentive to al-Qaeda's seemingly
flagging donors than another attack on American soil. For al-
Qaeda that remains the brass ring, the way to recoup its losses
and return the movement to its earlier preeminence.
Against the backdrop of these changes, what is required of
intelligence and our policymakers over the next 5 to 10 years?
First and perhaps most obviously, we must intensify our focus
on the remaining elements of the leadership, including of
course, bin Laden and Zawahiri. Although the movement has
evolved beyond the point that a decapitation strike would end
the war, putting these remaining leaders out of business would
nonetheless be an operational setback and an enormous symbolic
blow to the movement. It would weaken the international glue in
the movement, lead to further fractures, throw many of these
extremists off balance, and reduce the overall threat the
movement poses in its current configuration.
Second, our policies have to reflect the certainty that
there is no unilateral solution to the problem America faces.
American intelligence has been extraordinarily successful in
building counterterrorist partnerships with other intelligence
services around the world, but must now, along with
counterparts across the U.S. Government, tighten, deepen, and
build on these relationships. Increasingly, the terrorist nexus
will be in remote parts of diverse societies where Americans
will have trouble operating.
Third, success against this adversary has little to do with
structure or organization in the intelligence community,
despite the near-exclusive attention paid to that since 9-11.
It has everything to do with something even more prosaic, the
effective fusion of data. Success against terrorist networks
has yielded an enormous amount of data and it must be managed
in a way that a local law enforcement officer trying to sort
through all of this and encountering suspicious activity, say,
somewhere in the Midwest is able to reach into a database to
bounce his findings off of what CIA case officers have picked
up overseas, what FBI officers may be hearing in New York City,
or what Customs and Border Patrol may have learned, and all of
this has to work just as well in reverse.
Fourth, the key to intelligence success against terrorists
is speed and agility. We must be on guard against anything that
reduces the progress achieved on that score in recent years.
Response decisions must frequently be made in a matter of
minutes or hours on very perishable intelligence. The National
Intelligence Director must be careful not to allow the new
intelligence structure to evolve into any additional layers of
approvals that would compromise speed and agility.
Fifth, our intelligence and military services must
obviously stay on the offensive, but the country must pay
increasing attention to the defense. Intelligence will
frequently pick up the signals necessary to head off a major
terrorist attack, but intelligence professionals can bat .900
and still fail. The homeland security effort has come a long
way since 9-11, but I wonder if our country is yet beyond a
mind-set geared to the expectation that specific intelligence
on timing, target, and method is the primary way to avoid
terrorist attacks. Certainly that should be the goal, but we
must use systematically the large body of data we already have
to close the gaps in our vulnerabilities at home.
Sixth, we must focus intensively on potential terrorist use
of WMD. Terrorism is by its very nature an asymmetric approach
to war. WMD, nuclear, chemical, and biological, are the tools
that would restore asymmetric power to a weakened terrorist
movement and give it the potential to level the playing field
with the United States and its allies. Terrorist leaders know
that the use of such weapons in the United States would be the
surest way to top 9-11.
Seventh, national policymakers must provide constancy in
resources and moral support to the counterterrorism community
to maximize its effectiveness in what surely will be a
protracted war. Budgets that go up and down or depend on
unpredictable supplemental funding will make it harder to
maintain the relentless focus that counterterrorism requires.
Mr. Chairman, the foregoing recommendations are a mixture
of tactical and strategic considerations, but clearly there
must be a still more strategic component to the U.S. approach
to this problem--one that looks well beyond the day to day
struggle and addresses the underlying forces at work. Otherwise
our children and grandchildren will still be fighting this war
long after we have left the field.
Put another way, we must attack not only the terrorists, we
must also attack their strategy. After all, this is partly a
war of ideas, not unlike our struggle with communism after
World War II. But today's problem is more complex because it is
entwined with religion and because many of those opposed to
Islamic extremists, unlike the foes of communism, do not
necessarily welcome support from the United States.
Still, there are some guiding principles that can inform--
inform a long-term strategic approach. First, this war needs to
be called what it is--a campaign against Islamic radicalism.
The war on terror has become too abstract a concept in my
judgment. The enemy needs to be personalized in a way that
permits both Muslims and non-Muslims to understand that we are
not talking about the great and good Islamic faith, but about a
group of people who have taken a cut and paste approach to
Koranic scholarship, one that aims to justify killing not just
nonbelievers, but those Muslims who disagree with them. Being
as clear and concrete as possible about who precisely we oppose
and why, will help to separate them from the rest of the
Islamic world and make every other aspect of a longer-term
strategy more manageable.
Second, in order to be effective, this message must come
from the Muslim community itself. Only they can speak with the
requisite authority on these matters. There is no question that
the vast majority of Islamic leaders oppose what bin Laden
represents. Ways must be found to engage them actively, help
them communicate their message, and increase their authority in
the Islamic community. Given the Islamic radicals' aims, these
mainstream Muslims have more to lose than we do.
Third, we must continue to deny territory to the
terrorists. Al-Qaeda writings, especially those of Zawahiri,
lay great stress on the need to get control of a major piece of
territory, preferably a country, as a platform from which to
spread their influence. Denying them territory at this stage of
the battle means keeping pressure especially on areas of the
world that are less governed, to use a phrase mentioned earlier
in this hearing, or simply ungoverned by virtue of their
location, ethnic composition, or the heritage of a failed
state.
This means paying special attention to areas such as the
Pakistan-Afghan border, parts of East Africa, the vast
stretches of Southeast Asia, and even to Europe because its
societal complexity and its large and often alienated Muslim
population amount to an environment that Islamic radicals can
exploit.
Fourth, United States diplomatic and aid policies must
continue to target the economic, policy, and education policies
that in many Islamic countries contribute to unemployment,
poverty, and recruitment into radical movements. This, of
course, is easy to say and hard to do, and will not bring
change overnight.
Finally, U.S. policy must do everything possible to take
away the excuses--and I emphasize, excuses--that radical
extremists seize upon to justify their murderous practices.
Nothing would do more to undermine their message and isolate
them than the reality of a settlement in which Israel's right
to exist was recognized by a Palestinian state and endorsed by
other Islamic nations. Again, this is easier said than done,
but it is clearly a goal that deserves our utmost effort.
It is often said, Mr. Chairman, that it will be very hard
to know when this war will be over and that there will
obviously be no surrender ceremony on a battleship. Terrorism
at some level and in some form has been part of international
life for centuries and we probably have as much chance to
eliminate it completely as we have to stamp out all crime in
the world.
So when can we begin to feel that we have won? I suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that this day will not come until we have
dismantled the movement into so many isolated and weakened
parts that it is manageable on a local basis. And it will not
come until this ideology has become, for lack of a better term,
unfashionable or unacceptable. Adherents will still exist, just
like communists, but will no longer be taken seriously.
Regrettably, we are still a long way from that day.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McLaughlin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John E. McLaughlin, Senior Fellow, Merrill
Center for Strategic Studies, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your invitation to testify today on
this most important topic. Now that nearly 5 years have passed since
the devastating attacks of 9/11, this is clearly the right moment to
stand back and ask the questions you pose in this hearing--how have
things changed since 9/11, how has the threat evolved, and how are we
doing in countering it?
In addressing these questions, I intend to focus mainly on al-Qaeda
and those inspired by it. And while the war in Iraq clearly bears on
these issues, I intend to deal more with the war outside Iraq than with
the ongoing conflict there. While United States conventional military
forces carry the main burden in Iraq, obviously supported by
intelligence officers, the war being fought outside Iraq and outside
parts of Afghanistan has been, and in my judgment remains, largely an
intelligence war. And the challenges associated with that will also be
part of what I try to address today.
Another distinction that I will try to explore is that between the
tactical and the strategic aspects of the war on terrorism. While our
actions since 9/11 have been carried out in a thoughtful strategic
context, they have been largely tactical in nature. The emphasis has
been on degrading and disrupting the terrorist networks that exist, and
we have done this very effectively. As a nation, we have put less
energy into dealing with the root causes of terrorism--the complex
social, economic, and political factors that are the engines driving
the terrorist movement.
WHERE WE HAVE BEEN: 9/11 IN CONTEXT
My background is of course in intelligence, and it goes without
saying that, like other Americans, intelligence officers viewed 9/11 as
a devastating tragedy--but not as the beginning of a war. U.S.
intelligence had been combating terrorists for at least two decades and
had considered itself at war with al-Qaeda since the mid- to late-
1990s. The attack of 9/11 was thus seen by intelligence as a
catastrophic loss in a war that had been ongoing.
It was a war in which the United States had seen both victories and
defeats. Among the victories were the disruption of a Ramzi Youssef
plot to down 10 civilian United States airliners over the Pacific in
the mid-1990s, the disruption of plots to bomb our Embassies in Yemen,
Albania, and at least one West European capital, and the disruption of
a wide array of planned attacks on United States interests in the
United States, Jordan, and other parts of the Middle East in 2000-2001
(the so-called Millennium plots).
Among the defeats were the bombings of our Embassies in East Africa
in August, 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in October, 2000,
and of course the most devastating loss--9/11 itself.
So, while 9/11 will forever be viewed as the major demarcation line
between eras in U.S. counterterrorism, it was also in a sense the most
dramatic mark along a continuum--the major battle lost in a long-
running war.
And while the specific targets, timing, and method of attack came
as surprises to intelligence, the community was expecting some kind of
major terrorist event. Throughout the summer of 2001, the conviction
grew within U.S. intelligence that a major attack was coming--so much
so that the alarms sounded by the intelligence community were seen by
many in the policy world as having an almost frenzied quality--the more
so since the intelligence lacked the sort of specificity that
policymakers hungered for at that time.
After the attacks occurred, the Nation's response benefited from
the fact that much thought had been given, beginning in the Clinton
administration--to tactics and strategies designed to undermine al-
Qaeda's Afghan sanctuary.
This all came into play in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 as the
CIA's strategy of working closely with Afghan tribal allies moved to
center stage and as the relationships built years before with the
Afghan Northern Alliance paved the way for CIA teams to be on the
ground in Afghanistan just 16 days after 9/11. This was of course the
front end of what became the successful takedown of the sanctuary by
combined military and intelligence capabilities in Operation Enduring
Freedom.
WHAT HAS CHANGED
Since 9/11 and the early days of Enduring Freedom, much has changed
in our Nation's approach--and also in the enemy camp.
Having made the point that this is largely an intelligence war, I
need to talk in particular about how intelligence has evolved since 9/
11. It is not well understood that by 9/11, the intelligence community
was already in the midst of a dramatic transformation--one that
accelerated as the community adjusted to its new authorities and
responsibilities post-9/11. Following resource cuts approaching 25
percent in the 1990s after the Soviet collapse, intelligence
capabilities had become extremely stretched. Hiring had come to a
virtual standstill, and the CIA in the mid- to late-1990s was training
only a couple dozen clandestine service officers a year. Meanwhile,
requirements for foreign intelligence were mounting steadily as the
illusion of a peace dividend gave way to reality.
It was during this time of resource stress and constantly shifting
priorities that the terrorist challenge began to come into sharper
relief. It was also in this period that the CIA embarked on a strategic
plan designed to increase its collection capabilities, adapt them to
new technological realities, enhance its analytic expertise, and ensure
that its scientific work stayed on the cutting edge. These efforts were
just off the ground and just beginning to benefit from a restoration of
some resources when 9/11 hit.
The intelligence community had already moved far away from the cold
war paradigm by the time of 9/11, but the momentum increased markedly
in the wake of the attack. Any comparison with how intelligence was
postured in the cold war illustrates this dramatically.
Back then, for example, intelligence focused on tracking and
locating big things, such as motorized rifle regiments, deployed
strategic forces, bombers, and submarines. Today, intelligence still
has to do much of that but, meanwhile, has learned to hunt with
considerable success for small things--a suitcase with a bomb, a single
person in a city of 17 million, one room in an apartment, a single
packet of data moving through the global information network.
During that earlier era, intelligence worried mainly about
governments and political parties--especially those with a Soviet
connection. Today, there is still a requirement to follow governments
and parties, but for what they represent in and of themselves. And in
seeking to counter terrorism, the requirement is to look deeper into
other societies--down to towns, regions, religions, and tribes--while
also assessing the societal stresses that can be factories for
terrorism.
During the cold war, the secrets intelligence had to unlock were
shared by hundreds of individuals in ministries and embassies--a large
pool from which to recruit agents. Today, the secrets terrorists guard
most closely are shared by small numbers of people, and they are likely
to be living in remote areas, possibly in caves, or broken into small
groups scattered throughout dense urban environments. None of them will
be found at cocktail parties, embassy receptions, or government
ministries. In other words, the recruiting pool has shrunk, avenues
into are constricted and obscure, and those who fight terrorists have
had to adjust to this new reality.
The cold war period was also often marked by a shortage of data on
many issues. Today, despite the difficulty of acquiring secrets through
classic espionage, the capture of a terrorist cell in the computer age
may yield enormous amounts of data--as much as we house in a small
public library. The challenge is to find ways to sort it, fuse it with
other data, and discern any threatening patterns in it.
Finally, years ago, intelligence acquired by the United States had
to be shared mainly with other agencies in the Federal Government and
with a few foreign partners. Today, it must be shared with a worldwide
antiterrorist coalition and with thousands of local law enforcement
officers in the United States. Today, a local cop on the beat should be
able to access nationally compiled domestic and foreign data, and that
data should reflect the essence of homeland and overseas information
acquired by agencies such as the FBI and the CIA.
Beyond these broad trends, the specific practices of the
intelligence community on counterterrorism have changed substantially
since 9/11. Little of this is recorded or even acknowledged in the 9/11
Commission Report, because the Commission drew a line at October, 2001,
and did not delve into changes and improvements subsequent to the
attack. Therefore, the report takes no real account of these in its
analysis or its recommendations.
As I told the Senate Armed Services Committee in testimony in
August, 2004, this was the most dramatic period of change for the
intelligence community in my memory.
Our policies--the Nation's and the intelligence community's
underwent fundamental changes. The principal change is that
post-9/11 national policies and the authorities given to the
intelligence community allowed it to go decisively on the
offensive against terrorists worldwide. As a result, most of
the traditional sanctuaries are dismantled or under relentless
pressure. The complex logistical, financial, and communications
networks that sustain terrorist activities have also been
disrupted or made less effective through the efforts of the
United States and its allies.
Day to day practices have also changed dramatically. While
the degree of pre-9/11 tension among agencies has been highly
exaggerated by critics and commissions, it is nonetheless true
that there is routinely closer integration of effort today.
While there is always room for improvement, intelligence
officers, law enforcement, and military officers serve together
and share information in real time on the front lines of the
fight at home and abroad. When something happens, the default
instinct today is to share information. A good example was the
discovery in August, 2004, of highly detailed al-Qaeda-
sponsored casing reports on some of our most important
financial institutions. Within a day or so, all of this was in
the hands of Federal and local law enforcement and local
officials right down to the affected building managers.
Operational integration and response has also advanced
markedly. Since 9/11, CIA has followed a practice of holding
operational meetings, often on a daily basis, bringing together
intelligence and law enforcement representatives, along with
defense intelligence and military officers stationed at CIA.
Decisions made at the table have gone immediately to officers
in the field and their foreign partners, whose penetration and
disruption of terrorist networks yielded the precise kind of
intelligence represented by the casing reports discovered a
year and a half ago. And during the last year, this integration
has been given an additional boost as the new National
Counterterrorism Center has begun to take hold.
The worldwide antiterrorist coalition has changed. This
still takes constant tending, as I will discuss below, but the
climate of skepticism and disbelief we frequently encountered
abroad has diminished in the face of the new realities of
terrorism. As a result, the coalition is broader, deeper, and
more committed than before 9/11. This reflects the very high
priority the intelligence community has placed on building
relationships with foreign counterparts, recognizing that the
work cannot be done without local officials who are ready and
willing to work jointly with the United States. It also
reflects the growing recognition on the part of many partners
that they are personally threatened by the terrorist drive and
that the terrorists' campaign is drawing more heavily on local
resources and indigenous populations.
Needless to say, our laws have also changed. Principally,
the Patriot Act that you recently renewed has given the
intelligence community real time access to data it did not
formerly have, and this has permitted a more productive
integration of data from all sources.
Finally, our institutions have changed. Almost 2 years
before the stand up of the National Counterterrorism Center
(NCTC) late last year, the intelligence community had pooled
resources to create its progenitor--the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center (TTIC). The NCTC is really an augmented
version of the TTIC, with a strategic planning function added.
What made both institutions unique is the bringing together of
more than 20 databases from a wide variety of foreign
intelligence, domestic law enforcement, homeland security,
military, and diplomatic agencies. Both TTIC and NCTC also are
unique in the diversity of their personnel; like TTIC before
it, the NCTC is staffed by officers from agencies as diverse as
CIA, FBI, Coast Guard, Homeland Security, Customs, and
Treasury. While there is much work still to be done--more on
that later--these institutions hold the promise of integrating
data more thoroughly and with less chance that something will
be missed.
The terrorist landscape has also undergone enormous change since 9/
11.
Obviously, the key strategic change was al-Qaeda's loss of
its most comfortable sanctuary as a result of Operation
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. This forced the leadership and
foot soldiers to scatter, making them more vulnerable to
apprehension and less able to plan and execute large operations
securely.
A second key strategic development was the decision of
Pakistan's President Musharraf to work in close partnership
with the United States on counterterrorism following 9/11. This
helped expose key operatives to capture and disruption in
Pakistan's urban areas, where so many of the major United
States counterterrorist successes have occurred. President
Musharaff continues to walk a dangerous tightrope in a country
whose populace is deeply skeptical of his cooperation with the
United States, which remains today no less essential to our
ultimate success against al-Qaeda in particular.
A third key strategic moment came in the aftermath of
successful al-Qaeda attacks in Saudi Arabia in May, 2003,
leading the Saudi leadership to dramatically step up operations
against al-Qaeda in the Kingdom. More than 200 operatives have
been brought to justice there since then, in aggressive
operations that have cost the lives of at least 20 Saudi
officers.
In other arenas, including Yemen and other gulf countries, the
Levant, Southeast Asia, North and East Africa, and Europe,
intelligence-based partnerships have kept the movement under pressure
that has in many cases seriously hindered or prevented terrorist
fundraising, communication, and operational planning.
The by now widely-cited figure of \2/3\ to \3/4\ of al-Qaeda's 9/11
era leadership in custody or killed is testament to the success of the
U.S. effort. And beyond these acknowledged successes, there is the less
visible but relentless grinding away at other essential components of
the terrorist networks--the couriers, the facilitators, the fund
raisers, the safe house keepers, the technicians--that U.S.
intelligence officers and their foreign partners have pursued for
years. This seldom-noticed work, if left undone or neglected, would
allow these networks to regenerate in ways even more dangerous than we
have seen in recent successful terrorist attacks in London, Madrid,
Sharm-el-Sheik, Amman, and elsewhere.
So the terrorist movement we now confront is in some ways less
dangerous than the 9/11 era al-Qaeda and in some ways more. It is less
dangerous in that terrorists now have more obstacles to overcome in
attempting to orchestrate large-scale international terrorist
operations. It is more dangerous in that the movement is now more
amorphous and operates in smaller cells that are widely dispersed
geographically. It is driven less by a hierarchical command structure
and geographic considerations and more by an ideology that is spread
easily by the Internet and other electronic media.
The movement now has an African face, a European face, an Asian
face, and--as illustrated most recently by the plot foiled in Canada
this month--a North American face. It is not easily ``profiled.'' While
the inspiration, and presumably some level of funding and training,
still comes from the center, more autonomy is flowing to locally based
parts of the network that recruit operatives from indigenous
populations and rely on the external operatives for only portions of
the planning and execution.
Clearly, the movement in its current configuration presents new
challenges for intelligence and law enforcement officers seeking to
penetrate the networks, acquire their secrets, and bring them to
justice. Terrorist cells are more dispersed, they have gone to school
on our successes, and they are adopting stealthier forms of
recruitment, training, reconnaissance, and operational execution.
And while many of the recent attacks--London, Madrid, Istanbul,
Casablanca, Bali, Sharm el-Sheik, and the attempted attack in Canada
this month--appear local in nature, we must not delude ourselves into
thinking this is no longer an international movement. Even if these
attacks are not being staged by a centrally directed, hierarchical
movement, the goals and consequences of each attack transcend regional
borders, in that successful attacks feed recruitment efforts world
wide. Dispersed cells, moreover, are connected by, among other things,
the celebration of each attack in jihadist chat rooms and the
propaganda that moves across the Internet after each terrorist success.
Although it can be argued that our successes must be making it
harder for al-Qaeda to mount a major attack in the United States, we
cannot take any real comfort in that or afford to believe it. Nothing
would boost the movement more or provide a greater incentive to al-
Qaeda's seemingly flagging donors than another attack on American soil.
For al-Qaeda, this remains the brass ring, the way to recoup its losses
and return the movement to its earlier preeminence.
To avert an attack in the United States, we must be alert to the
certainty that al-Qaeda is looking for new ways to surprise us and to
circumvent obstacles we have put in their path. We must recall
constantly something that would have profound consequences in any
fight: We are up against an opponent who plays by no rules. Therefore,
we are most vulnerable when we begin to feel comfortable that we have
closed off their avenues of approach or that we can predict their
profile or methodology. We have learned a lot about how they operate,
but they have also gone to school on our successes. And they have
undoubtedly learned a lot from our increasingly public discussion of
how we have succeeded.
WHAT MUST BE DONE?
Against the backdrop of these changes, what is required of
intelligence and our national policymakers looking out over the next 5
to 10 years?
The requirements range from the heroic to the mundane, from the
short-term tactical to the long-term strategic--but all are essential
to success. Although it is possible to draw up a list, it is important
to emphasize that these tasks cannot be approached serially; they must
be tackled simultaneously, albeit with varying degrees of intensity.
Among the key aspects of the problem:
First, and perhaps most obviously, we must intensify our
focus on the remaining elements of the leadership, including of
course Bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Intelligence has had noteworthy success in weakening the
central leadership of the movement through the apprehension of
a large number of the 9/11 perpetrators, most notably the
operational architect of the attack, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and
many of his lieutenants. That said, the movement has now
evolved beyond the possibility of a ``decapitation strategy.''
Although success by the German plotters in their assassination
attempt on Hitler in July, 1944, probably would have ended
World War II, wrapping up Bin Laden will not end this war.
But it would nonetheless be an operational setback and an
enormous symbolic blow to the movement. Essentially, taking Bin
Laden and al-Zawahiri out of play would weaken the
international glue in the movement, lead to further fractures
among extremists, throw many of them off balance, and reduce
the overall threat the movement poses in its current
configuration.
Second, our policies must reflect the certainty that there
is no unilateral solution to the problem America now faces.
American intelligence has been extraordinarily successful in
building counterterrorist partnerships with other intelligence
services around the world but must now--along with counterparts
across the U.S. Government--tighten, deepen, and build on these
relationships. They cannot be allowed to flag or wither. And as
important as the intelligence relationships are, they in many
cases need stronger diplomatic and military-to-military
components. The goal should be to build shared commitment with
other societies--a goal that will require resources for
training and equipment and large investments of personal time
on the part of U.S. officials. Increasingly, the terrorist
nexus will be in remote parts of multiple and diverse societies
where Americans will have trouble operating. Senior American
officials need to be able to pick up the phone and reliably
mobilize the resources of other countries in response to
intelligence leads--not through pressure or superpower
preeminence but as the result of shared commitments developed
over time. If this kind of ``intelligence diplomacy'' is
neglected, we will find ourselves lacking some of the
fundamental tools required to defeat terrorists where they
live.
Third, success against this adversary has little to do with
structure or organization in the intelligence community,
despite the near exclusive attention paid to that since 9/11;
it has everything to do with something even more prosaic--the
effective fusion of data. As noted earlier, success against
terrorist networks has yielded an enormous amount of data--
enough that sophisticated algorithms are required to sort
through it efficiently. But along with volume, it is the
diverse sources of this data--and classification levels that
range from none to the most sensitive--that make it especially
hard to integrate and share. It is critical that our terrorist
data be managed in a way that a local law enforcement officer
trying to sort out suspicious activity somewhere in the Midwest
is able to reach into a database to bounce his findings off of
what CIA case officers have picked up overseas, what FBI
officers may be hearing in New York City or what Customs or
Border Patrol officers may have learned--and for all of this to
work just as well in reverse. The United States has made
impressive strides toward that goal with institutions such as
the National Counterterrorist Center and a variety of databases
developed by the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, but we are
still not where we need to be. If there was ever a goal worthy
of a ``Manhattan Project'' approach--bringing together the best
minds in industry and technology--this is it. Getting this done
should be a legacy issue for the new Director of National
Intelligence.
Fourth, the key to intelligence success against terrorists
is speed and agility in responding to leads, and we must be on
guard against anything that reduces the progress the
intelligence community has achieved on that score in recent
years. Response decisions must frequently be made in a matter
of minutes or hours on highly perishable intelligence. The
possibility of honest error is thus ever present. The National
Intelligence Director must be careful not to allow the new
intelligence structure to evolve into an additional layer of
approvals that would compromise speed and agility, and he must
also preserve and enhance the responsible risk-taking
environment that the community has created in recent years.
Congressional intelligence committees and other overseers,
meanwhile, must exercise careful judgment as they pursue their
important work, mindful that one way to ensure risk aversion is
to highlight every error made in the course of taking risks.
Fifth, our intelligence and military services must stay on
the offense, but the country must pay increasing attention to
the defense. Intelligence will frequently pick up the signals
necessary to prevent attacks, but given the highly
compartmented secrets in the terrorist world, intelligence
professionals can bat over .900 and still fail. The homeland
security effort has come a long way since 9/11, but I wonder if
our country is yet beyond a mindset geared to the expectation
that specific intelligence on timing, target, and method is the
primary way to avoid terrorist attacks. Clearly, that should be
the goal, but given the large body of data we now have on
potential terrorist targets and methods, we need to ensure that
we are using that data systematically to close the gaps in our
vulnerabilities here at home. This should not be seen as
intelligence ducking a responsibility; the point, rather, is to
make sure we are using to the fullest the information we
already have at hand.
Sixth, we must pay special attention to and focus
intensively on potential terrorist use of WMD. Terrorism is, by
its very nature, an asymmetric approach to war. WMD--nuclear,
chemical, or biological--are the tools that would restore
asymmetric power to a weakened movement and give it the
potential to level the playing field with the United States and
its allies. There is no reason to doubt that the terrorists
have the ambition to deploy such weapons. Bin Laden has said so
plainly, and intelligence has uncovered ample evidence that al-
Qaeda, in particular, has devoted substantial effort to gaining
a WMD capability. Terrorist leaders know that use of such
weapons in the United States would be the surest way to top 9/
11.
Seventh, national policymakers must provide constancy in
resources and moral support to the counterterrorism community
to maximize its effectiveness in what surely will be a
protracted fight. This risks sounding like ``special
pleading,'' but the reality is that few aspects of intelligence
work are as resource-intensive and painstakingly detailed as
counterterrorism. Budgets that go up and down or depend on
unpredictable supplemental funding will make it harder to
maintain the relentless focus that counterterrorism requires.
And while holding the intelligence community to high standards
and expecting strong performance, national decision makers must
also throw in a dose of patience for an intelligence community
that was practically in chapter 11 in the late 1990s and in the
early stages of a strategic rebuilding effort when 9/11 hit.
The community has been fighting the war very effectively so
far--but with essentially no reserve capacity. It will take the
Director of National Intelligence and the agencies he oversees
several more years to hire and train the numbers of skilled
case officers, analysts, and technical specialists required to
achieve maximum effectiveness on counterterrorism while
simultaneously meeting the community's manifold other
responsibilities.
The foregoing recommendations are a mixture of tactical and
strategic approaches. Clearly, though, there must be a still more
strategic component to the U.S. conduct of the war--one that looks well
beyond the day to day struggle and addresses the underlying forces at
work. Otherwise, our children and grandchildren will still be waging
this battle long after we have left the field.
Put another way, and in classic counterinsurgency terms, we must
attack not only the terrorists; we must also attack their strategy.
This means working systematically to dismantle the pieces of the
network that give it global reach--such as its finances,
communications, and logistics. In other words, to isolate its
decentralized cells and deprive them of the means to spread their
ideology and recruit converts prepared to act on it. In essence, to
take away their oxygen.
Ideally, this should occur against a backdrop of broader U.S.
information, development, and aid policies designed to attack the
intellectual, ideological, and socioeconomic roots of terrorism. In
some ways this is analogous to a problem the United States faced after
World War II as it sought to limit the spread of communism as a system
of belief and governance. That was at root a ``war of ideas'' and
required strenuous efforts to combat false or misleading ideologies and
sustain those who opposed them.
Today's problem is more complex, because it is entwined with
religion and because many of those opposed to Islamic extremists,
unlike the foes of communism, do not seek or welcome support from the
United States. And we do not yet have for this era a guiding strategic
concept--something akin to George Kennan's famous ``X'' article that in
one word, ``containment,'' gave everyone a strategic concept
appropriate to that era.
All this said, there are some guiding principles that can inform a
long-term strategic approach in this struggle against Islamic
extremism.
First, this war needs to be called what it is--a war on Islamic
radicalism. The ``War on Terror'' has become too abstract a concept.
The enemy needs to be personalized in a way that permits both Muslims
and non-Muslims to understand that we are not talking about the great
and good Islamic faith but about a group of people who have taken a cut
and paste approach to Koranic scholarship--one that aims to justify
killing not just nonbelievers but Muslims who disagree with the
radicals. Being as clear and concrete as possible about who precisely
we oppose--and why--will help to separate them from the rest of the
Islamic world and make every other aspect of a longer-term strategy
more manageable.
Second, in order to be effective, this message must come from the
Muslim community itself. Only those with authority to interpret the
faith can speak with the requisite impact on these matters. There is no
question that the vast majority of Islamic leaders oppose what Bin
Laden represents. Many of them have spoken out in countries like the
United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain. Ways must be found to
engage them actively and to help them communicate their message and
increase their authority in the Islamic community. Given the Islamic
radicals' aim, these mainstream Muslims have more to lose than we do.
Third, we must continue to deny them territory. While this is also
a short term tactical aim, it also has a longer term strategic
salience. Al-Qaeda writings, especially those of al-Zawahiri, lay great
stress on the need to get control of a major piece of territory,
preferably a country, as a platform from which to pursue their dream of
recreating a caliphate that would subject all Muslims to their will.
Denying them territory as this stage of the battle means keeping
pressure especially on areas of the world that are ``less governed'' or
simply ``ungoverned'' by virtue of their location, ethnic composition,
or the heritage of a failed state. This means paying special attention
to areas such as the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, parts of East Africa,
and the vast stretches of Southeast Asia. Europe also needs to be on
this list, not because of any governmental inattention, but because its
societal complexity, legal structure, and its large and often alienated
Muslim population amount to an environment that Islamic radicals can
effectively exploit.
Fourth, U.S. diplomatic and aid strategies must continue to target
the economic, political, and educational policies that in many Islamic
countries contribute to unemployment, poverty, and recruitment into
radical movements. This is, of course, easy to say and hard to do--and
will not bring change overnight.
Finally, U.S. policy must do everything possible to take away the
excuses that radical Islamists seize upon to justify their murderous
practices. Recognizing that their continual citing of the Israeli-
Palestinian dispute is little more than an excuse, nothing would do
more to undermine their message and isolate them than the reality of a
settlement in which Israel's right to exist was recognized by a
Palestinian state and endorsed by other Islamic nations. Again, this is
easier said than done but probably an essential component of any
comprehensive strategy for isolating and defeating the terrorists.
It is often said that it will be hard to know when this war will be
over and that there will obviously be no surrender ceremony on a
battleship. Terrorism at some level and in some form has been a feature
of international life for centuries, and we will probably have as much
chance to eliminate it completely as we have to stamp out all crime in
the world.
So when can we begin to feel that we have won? I suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that this day will not come until we have dismantled the
movement into so many isolated and weakened parts that it is manageable
on a local level. And it will not come until this ideology has become,
for lack of a better term, unfashionable.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. McLaughlin, for a
really remarkable essay and likewise for your summation this
morning.
I would like to call now upon Mr. Benjamin for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL BENJAMIN, SENIOR FELLOW, INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY PROGRAM, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Benjamin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the issue of
the evolution of the terrorist threat. You have my statement. I
would like to provide you with a summary of it now.
As everyone has agreed, the terrorist threat we face today
is vastly changed from the one that existed on September 11,
2001. The killing last week of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi represents
a signal achievement in the war on terror, in my view the most
important such blow since al-Qaeda was run out of Afghanistan.
But it is exactly this kind of dramatic, yet ultimately
tactical, achievement that invites misinterpretation of where
we are in the struggle against radical Islamist violence. So I
am pleased you have scheduled this hearing and the others that
will follow so that we can discern where we stand in this
conflict and what needs to be done.
Today the United States faces an unnerving paradox. For all
the tactical successes that have been achieved, our strategic
position continues to slip. The ideology of jihad is spreading
and a new generation of terrorists is emerging with few ties to
al-Qaeda, but a world view soaked in Osama bin Laden's hatred
of the West, and new areas of the globe are increasingly
falling under the shadow of this growing threat.
You have heard from John McLaughlin and Ambassador Crumpton
about al-Qaeda itself, the core group, and I agree with their
assessments and so I will not spend time on that. I would
prefer to devote my time to what has changed in the last 5
years and in particular to address my comments to three new
types of terrorists we face and to the changing geography of
terror.
The first group, which you have already heard something
about this morning, is the self-starters, who are also
described as homegrown. We have become familiar with them
through such attacks as the bombings in Madrid, London, the
murder of the Dutch artist Theo von Gogh by a young Dutch
Muslim, also in 2005, and in a number of other places. These
are individuals who have very little connection to the al-Qaeda
organization or to other preexisting groups, but they have been
won over by the ideas of bin Laden and his followers. They are
self-recruited and often self-trained, using the vast wealth of
instructional materials available on the Internet.
The most recent and, from an American perspective, most
worrisome development is the disruption just this month of a
conspiracy involving self-starters in Canada. The condition of
the Muslim community in Canada is far more like it is in the
United States than it is like the various Muslim communities of
Europe, and therefore Toronto carries one powerful message for
us: A self-starter conspiracy on American soil is a genuine
possibility.
It is true that as a group the self-starters have less
experience and are less skilled than, say, those who have gone
through al-Qaeda training camps. However, we have seen a
significant number of highly educated individuals show up in
these cells. Just as an aside, we saw one cell in Pakistan in
which the leader was a university-trained statistician and his
brother who was a cardiologist, were the chief members.
If only a small percentage of these groups manage to carry
out attacks, we could still see a significant amount of damage
and casualties. We should not make the mistake of believing
that terrorists who begin as self-starters will not find the
connections, training, and resources they seek.
We have to be careful about overemphasizing these
categories and overdefining them. Spanish officials have hinted
that there was a Zarqawi link to the Madrid bombings. The
London bombers, some of them traveled to Pakistan for training
and evidently some of the Toronto suspects had links to other
individuals who themselves were linked to Zarqawi. We could
well see a re-networking of the threat, which would mean a
further increase in the level of danger.
Two other groups of terrorists are worth mentioning and
they have not received much attention this morning. Both of
them are centered in Iraq. The first group consists of the
foreign fighters who traveled there to fight against the United
States and coalition forces. Contrary to the expectations
voiced by the administration at the outset of the war, those
who came to Iraq did not represent the global remnants of al-
Qaeda after its eviction from Afghanistan. Rather, studies have
shown foreign fighters are overwhelmingly young Muslims with no
background in Islamist activity. That is, they represent
another pool of the recently radicalized.
We know the effect that their violence has had on the
insurgency and especially in terms of the large-scale attacks
such as the one on the Golden Mosque in Samarra last February
that pushed Iraq to the brink of civil war.
It is also true that the foreign fighters could well become
the vanguard of a new generation of jihadists, much as the
veterans of the fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s
were the founding generation of al-Qaeda. For an intimation of
the mind-sets of these individuals and what they are bringing
back to their communities, I commend to you Anthony Shadid's
story on returnees to the Lebanese city of Tripoli in
yesterday's Washington Post.
One last group that deserves attention is the Iraqi
jihadists who have emerged from the turmoil of the last 3
years. In such groups as Ansar al-Qaeda Sunna and the Islamic
Army of Iraq, there are thousands of militants with a jihadist
outlook. According to some reputable sources, there could be
more than 15,000 in their ranks.
These jihadists will likely have a durable sanctuary that
also needs to be observed in al-Anbar Province in western Iraq.
They will not be rooted out by military means. They will be
rooted out only when there is a capable Iraqi intelligence
service, and since that service is likely to be dominated by
Shiites and Kurds there are not going to be many operatives
able to work in the hostile environment of the Sunni-dominated
al-Anbar.
It is too early to say what the long-term orientation of
these Iraqi jihadists will be. Chances are they will be
principally focused on the fledgling government in Baghdad. But
even so, the November 2005 bombings in Amman give us a taste of
what might yet come to be. Some Iraqis doubtless will have
motivations for attacks outside Iraq. We have mentioned the
Amman bombings. It is worth noting that three hotels were hit
and there was a fourth bomber, a woman by the name of Sajida
Mubarak. Her device failed to detonate and afterwards she was
asked why she had undertaken this suicide mission. She
explained it was as an act of vengeance for the death of her
three brothers who had been fighting American forces. Her
statement carried a grim suggestion of how the devastation of
Iraq may come back to haunt us through the growth of an
indigenous Iraqi jihadist movement. The most conservative
tallies of Iraqi civilian deaths puts the toll at about 40,000.
I fear that we can expect more Sajida al-Mubarak's in our
future.
Let me turn quickly to the issue of the geography of jihad.
Here the picture is one of metastasis. I mentioned Toronto
already. Let me talk about two regions--two other regions that
cause particular concern. The first is Europe and I was glad to
have the opportunity to testify before Senator Allen in April
on this issue. With more than 30 major failed plots across the
continent in roughly 5 years, Europe has become a central
battlefield.
For an intimation of the size of the pool of potential
recruits in Europe, we need only to think back to last year's
riots in France. The young Muslims who took to the streets were
not motivated by jihadist ideology, but acting out of the
alienation and out of the deprivation they felt, they clearly
present an obviously ripe target for recruitment. It is against
this backdrop that we have seen the emergence of many of the
self-starter group, as well as the dramatic expansion of a
network of operatives associated with Zarqawi.
The second area for concern is the Middle East. Contrary to
popular belief, radical Islamism had largely been suppressed or
wiped out in this region in the 1990s. Now, however, we have
witnessed a series of bloody attacks in the Sinai Peninsula,
there are reports of al-Qaeda activists in Gaza, we have had
running gun battles and a conspiracy within the Government in
Kuwait. Syria, a country that had waged a campaign of
extermination against Islamists in the 1980s, has seen Sunni
radicalism re-emerge--and we could go on down the list. Well,
why have we seen the overall growth in this threat? There are
many different drivers of radicalism, but one that we need to
attend to is the failure at our level of strategy--and Director
McLaughlin alluded to this before--is that we need to have a
deeper understanding of the ideological nature of jihadist
terror. U.S. Government officials have often spoken of the
terrorists' ideology of hatred, but our policies have had the
inadvertent effect of confirming for many Muslims the essence
of the bin Laden argument.
It is worth reiterating the fundamental story line at the
heart of their beliefs. In bin Laden's formulation, it is that
America and its allies seek to occupy Muslim lands, steal their
oil wealth, and destroy their faith. Through the invasion of
Iraq, we inadvertently gave the radicals a shot in the arm and
handed them a tableau that they could point to as confirmation
of their argument. We have seen polling in Muslim nations over
the last 3 years demonstrate a precipitous fall in America's
image in the region.
Although most Muslims will not turn to violence in this
environment, it is still notable that more are turning in that
direction than might otherwise be the case. Mr. Chairman, the
United States and its allies have shown a remarkable skill in
tactical counterterrorism, as we have heard this morning and as
the killing of Zarqawi has reminded us. But the skillful
application of force and the expert use of intelligence and law
enforcement techniques alone will not allow us to prevail in
the war on terror. At the level of strategy, we need to--we are
nowhere near where we need to be.
It is a central tenet of counterinsurgency that success
depends on separating moderates from extremists and tilting the
balance through that means our way. At the core of this
challenge is a competition of narratives between radical
Islamists and the West. I have summarized our enemy's story and
I think intuitively most of us know what the U.S. story should
be: That we are a benign power that seeks to help those who
wish to modernize their societies improve their conditions, so
long as they play by the international rules of the road.
Part of that story is that we harbor no enmity for any
religion or race or ethnic group, but instead recognize that
our future depends in no small measure on improvements in their
conditions. Unfortunately, that story is not coming through. We
are indeed in a battle for hearts and minds and our story is
not being heard. For too many Muslims our actions, especially
in Iraq, are at odds with our professed values and we are
blamed by the radicals, but also many moderates, for the
persistence of autocratic regimes in the Middle East.
Until we have policies that match our rhetoric and
demonstrate our willingness to support positive and peaceful
change in the Muslim world, we will not win over the moderates
we need. That is why we can continue to succeed tactically but
slip strategically with ever-graver consequences. A recognition
of this situation points the way to the necessary discussion of
how to forge that strategy and that I believe is where we must
go next, and without delay.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Benjamin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel Benjamin, Senior Fellow, International
Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies,
Washington, DC
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the issue of the evolution of the terrorist
threat. With the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11
approaching, this is an appropriate moment for reflection on this
issue. The terrorist threat we face today is vastly changed from the
one that existed on that late summer day. Recent events also point to
the necessity of a review of this kind: The killing last week of Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi represents a signal achievement in the war on terror--
in my view, the most important such blow we have delivered since al-
Qaeda was run out of Afghanistan in late 2001 and early 2002. But it is
exactly this kind of dramatic, yet fundamentally tactical, achievement
that invites misinterpretation of where we are in the struggle against
radical Islamist violence. I am therefore pleased that you have
scheduled this hearing and others that will follow so that we can try
to discern where we stand in this conflict and what needs to be done.
Today, the United States faces an unnerving paradox: For all the
tactical successes--the terrorists arrested, plots foiled, networks
disrupted--that have been achieved, our strategic position continues to
slip. The ideology of jihad is spreading: A new generation of
terrorists is emerging with few ties to al-Qaeda but a world view
soaked in Osama bin Laden's hatred of the West, and new areas of the
globe are increasingly falling under the shadow of this growing threat.
Al-Qaeda, of course, still exists, and we would be foolish to
assume that the group, however degraded its capabilities may be, will
cease to threaten us. Al-Qaeda's operatives likely remain the most
capable ones in the field. A terrorist organization is not an army, and
while an army ceases to be effective once it has lost a certain number
of its units, a terrorist group can cause grievous damage if only one
or two cells can operate undetected.
It is not necessary to spell out the implications of this further,
and I would rather devote the time remaining to what has changed in the
last 5 years. In particular, I would like to address my comments to
three new types of terrorists we face and to the changing geography of
terror. I do so mindful that we too often try to apply a system of
rigid categorization that is inappropriate to the phenomenon of
contemporary terror.
The first group that should be noted is the self-starters, also
often called ``homegrown.'' We have become familiar with them through
such attacks as the 2004 bombings in Madrid, the 2005 bombings in
London, the murder of Dutch artist Theo van Gogh by a young Dutch
Muslim militant also in 2005. These are individuals who may have very
little connection to al-Qaeda or other preexisting groups, but they
have been won over by the ideas of Osama bin Laden and his followers.
These terrorists are self-recruited and often self-trained, using the
vast wealth of instructional materials available on the Internet. Self-
starters have appeared not only in Europe but also in Morocco, where
they carried out a string of bombings in Casablanca, and in Pakistan, a
country with a well-established jihadist infrastructure which some of
the new recruits deemed insufficiently aggressive. It is possible that
the string of attacks in Egypt's Sinai peninsula is also the work of
self-starters, but we do not have sufficient intelligence at this point
to say.
The most recent, and, from an American perspective, most worrisome
development is the disruption just this month of a conspiracy involving
self-starters in Canada. As has widely been noted, the 17 people
involved sought to acquire 3 times as much ammonium nitrate as Timothy
McVeigh used to destroy the Murragh Building in Oklahoma City. We have
in the past too often paid heed to the conspiracies that succeeded and
not sufficiently to those that failed. The condition of the Muslim
community in Canada is far more like it is in the United States than it
is in Europe, and therefore Toronto carries one powerful message: A
self-starter conspiracy on American soil is a real possibility.
It is true that as a group, the self-starters have a less
experience and are less skilled than, say, those who have gone through
al-Qaeda training camps. However, we have seen a significant number of
highly educated individuals show up in these cells. If only a small
percentage of these groups manage to carry out attacks, we could
therefore see a considerable amount of damage and casualties. Moreover,
we should not make the mistake of believing that terrorists who begin
as self-starters will not find the connections, training, and resources
they seek. Herein lies the danger of overemphasizing the new
categories, as I mentioned before. Spanish officials have hinted that
there was a Zarqawi link to the Madrid bombings. It appears that some
of the London bombers traveled to Pakistan for training and evidently
some of the Toronto suspects had links to others linked to Zarqawi. We
could well see a renetworking of the threat, which could well mean a
further increase in the level of danger we face.
Two other groups of terrorists are worth mentioning, both centered
in Iraq: The first group consists of the foreign fighters who traveled
there to fight against United States and coalition forces. Contrary to
the expectations voiced by the administration at the outset of the war,
those who came to Iraq did not represent the global remnants of al-
Qaeda after its eviction from Afghanistan. On the contrary, studies by
the Israeli expert, Reuven Paz, and the Saudi scholar, Nawaf Obeid,
both demonstrate that the foreign fighters are overwhelmingly young
Muslims with no background in Islamist activism. That is, they
represent another pool of the recently radicalized. Although United
States officials have repeatedly argued over the last 3 years that the
Jordanian-born Zarqawi and his band of foreign fighters represented a
very small percentage of the insurgents in Iraq, their violence drove
the insurgency--especially the large-scale attacks, such as the attack
on the Golden Mosque in Samarra mosque last February that gave the
country a powerful push toward an all-out civil war.
Perhaps with the death of Zarqawi, the threat posed by the foreign
fighters in Iraq will be diminished. It is undoubtedly good news that
the most capable terrorist operative in the world is no longer on the
scene. If reports of numerous raids based on the intelligence that was
gathered in recent weeks--including after Zarqawi's death--are true,
than perhaps his al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia has been dealt a sharp blow,
and that would certainly be good news for Iraq. We should recognize,
however, that Zarqawi's work in stoking sectarian tension appeared to
have run much of its course, and increasing levels of violence
demonstrate that plenty of other groups have become active. According
to several Western intelligence services, in fact, Zarqawi was turning
away new foreign fighters who wanted to come to Iraq. We do not know
how many of these foreign fighters remain, or how many have begun to
wind their way home. What we can say, however, is that they could
become the vanguard of a new generation of jihadists, much as the
veterans of the fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s were the
founding generation of al-Qaeda. For a first intimation of the mind-set
these individuals are bringing back to their communities, I commend to
Anthony Shadid's story on returnees to the Lebanese city of Tripoli in
yesterday's Washington Post.
One last group that deserves attention is comprised of Iraqi
jihadists who have emerged from the turmoil of the last 3 years. In
such groups as Ansar al Sunna and the Islamic Army of Iraq there are
thousands of militants with a jihadist outlook--according to some
reputable sources, there could be more than 15,000 in their ranks.
They will likely have a durable sanctuary in al-Anbar province in
western Iraq. United States troops have fought repeated campaigns in
this region, whether on the Syrian border or in cities such as Ramadi.
Yet terrorist attacks have often increased because the militants
shrewdly move out of town when troops arrive and return after they
depart. They will be rooted out only when there is a capable Iraqi
intelligence service. Since that service is likely to be dominated by
Shiites and Kurds, there are not going to be many operatives able to
work in the hostile environment of al-Anbar.
It is too early to say what the long-term orientation of these
Iraqi jihadists will be--will they focus their violence solely on the
fledgling regime in Baghdad, or will some of them join the global jihad
and seek to export violence beyond their borders? Chances are they will
be principally focused on Iraq, but even so, the November 2005 bombings
of three hotels in Amman suggest that some will have other targets in
mind.
It is true that those attacks were ordered by Zarqawi, but the
operatives themselves were Iraqi. The attacks were the first successful
ones in Jordan and the most stunning demonstration of the spillover
effect of the turmoil in Iraq. Even if relatively small numbers opt for
the global fight, it could make a significant difference to the
terrorists' capabilities as has been seen by the actions of very small
numbers of individuals involved in the Madrid and London bombings.
Some Iraqis doubtless will have motivation for attacks outside
Iraq: Although three hotels were hit, there was a fourth bomber--an
Iraqi woman named Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi, whose device failed
to detonate. Afterward, she explained that she had undertaken the
suicide mission as an act of vengeance for the deaths of three of her
brothers, who had died fighting American forces. Her statement carried
a grim suggestion of how the devastation of Iraq may come back to haunt
us through the growth of an indigenous Iraqi jihadist movement. The
most conservative tallies of Iraqi civilian deaths, which have been
compiled by the Iraq Body Count Web site, puts the toll at around
40,000. We can probably expect more Sajidas in our future.
Let me turn to the issue of the geography of jihad: Here the
picture is one of metastasis. I have already mentioned Toronto. Not
long ago in Australia, a major dragnet wrapped up at least 18
conspirators who appear to have been plotting an attack on the
country's 1 nuclear power plant. In South Asia--especially in
Bangladesh--the incidence of jihadist violence has grown dramatically.
In Southeast Asia, a number of regional conflicts in such places as the
southern Philippines and southern Thailand continue to raise fears of
wider jihadist activity. In the Caucasus, the incidence of jihadist
violence continues to be deeply alarming.
Two regions in particular cause great concern. The first is Europe,
and I want to thank Senator Allen for allowing me to testify in April
on this issue. With more than 30 major failed plots across the
continent in roughly 5 years, Europe has become a central battlefield.
Much of Europe's problem owes to the fact that the individual Muslim's
identity is sharply tested there. Most of the continent's Muslims
arrived in the 1950s and 1960s as workers to fill postwar Europe's
labor shortage, and they stayed on in countries that, for the most
part, neither expected nor wanted to integrate them into their
societies.
It soon became apparent, however, that there was no easy way to
send these workers back or to stanch the flow of family members seeking
reunification with loved ones--let alone to stop them from having
children. As a result, Europe has sleepwalked into an awkward
multiculturalism. Its Muslim residents, many of them now citizens, live
for the most part in ghetto-like segregation, receive second-rate
schooling, suffer much higher unemployment than the general population
and those who do work are more likely than their Christian counterparts
to have low-wage, dead-end jobs. (For an intimation of the size of the
pool of potential recruits, we need only think back to last year's
riots in France. The young Muslims who took to the streets were not
motivated by jihadist ideology, but they clearly presented an obviously
ripe target for recruitment.) It is against this backdrop that we have
seen the emergence of many of the self-starter groups as well as the
dramatic expansion of a network of operatives associated with Zarqawi.
How the Jordanian terrorist's death will affect this network is
difficult to predict, but at a minimum, there are now convinced
jihadists with terrorist connections in approximately 40 countries.
The second area for concern is the Middle East. Contrary to popular
belief, radical Islamism had been largely suppressed or wiped out in
the regions in the 1990s, but it is now resurgent. We have witnessed a
series of bloody attacks in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, and there are
reports now of al-Qaeda activists in Gaza. Kuwait, a country with no
history of jihadist violence, experienced running gun battles between
authorities and militants and discovered plotters within its own
military. Recent visitors to Lebanon speak of a significant spike in
jihadist activity. Syria, a country that waged a campaign of
extermination against Islamists in the early 1980s, has seen Sunni
radicalism reemerge. Qatar experienced its first vehicle bombing. Saudi
Arabia suffered a series of bombings and attacks, and while the
authorities have gained the upper hand against al-Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula, the group continues to exist. The discovery of Iraqi-style
bombs in the kingdom may well be a harbinger of worse to come once
veterans of the fighting to the north return home--Saudi Arabia has
contributed the largest number of foreign fighters to the Iraqi
insurgency. The potential for increasing volatility and destabilization
is growing in the region, and that ought to be a cause for great
concern.
Why have we seen the overall growth in the threat? The chief reason
for this failure is at the level of strategy and it concern a
misunderstanding of the ideological nature of jihadist terror. Although
U.S. Government officials have often spoken of the terrorists' ideology
of hatred, our policies have had the inadvertent effect of confirming
for some Muslims the essentials of the bin Laden argument. It is worth
reiterating the jihadists' fundamental storyline. At the heart of it is
a belief, handed down from the revolutionary Egyptian Islamist writer
Sayid Qutb, that the West is the preordained enemy of Islam. In its
most barebones formulation, the ideology holds that America and its
allies seek to occupy Muslims' lands, steal their oil wealth, and
destroy their faith. Radical Islamists interpret much of history
through this prism: The drawing of borders in the Middle East after
World War I was aimed at dividing Muslims and destroying their historic
unity. The creation of Israel was another step in this direction since
it, too, placed a western foothold in the region and was designed to
weaken and subjugate Muslim nations. The United States deployment to
Saudi Arabia and the invasion of Iraq in Operation Desert Storm marked
another stage in this tale of woe. Radical Islamists believe, moreover,
that United States supports the autocrats of the Muslim world as a way
of keeping the believers down and undermining the faith.
Thus, through the 2003 invasion of Iraq, we gave the radicals a
shot in the arm, handing them a tableau that they could point to as
confirmation of their argument. Polling in Muslim nations over the last
3 years has shown that America's image has plummeted to historic lows.
Although most Muslims will not turn to violence, in this environment,
it appears that more are turning in that direction than might otherwise
be the case. It is clear that Iraq was a major part of the motivation
of the Madrid and London bombers as well as Mohammed Bouyeri, the
murderer of Theo van Gogh. In countries such as Pakistan, it is also
clear that anti-Americanism grounded in the invasion of Iraq is
increasingly being used as a tool of mobilization for radicals.
The missteps of the occupation of Iraq opened a new ``field of
jihad'' for militants who were more than eager to take on United States
forces in the Arab heartland. For the radicals, killing Americans is
the essential task; by doing so, they demonstrate that they are the
only ones determined to stand up for Muslim dignities. Through their
violence, they have also created a drama of the faith that disaffected
Muslims around the world can watch on television and the Internet.
Thus, the jihadist movement's show of its determination to confront
American and coalition forces as well as those of the fledgling Iraqi
regime has boosted its attractiveness. However benign our intentions
were in going into Iraq to liberate the populace there of an evil
dictatorship, in the context of the culture of grievance that exists in
much of the Muslim world, the extremists have benefited from our
missteps and their narrative has had a profound resonance. Again,
terrorism is a game of small numbers, and a small number of recruits
can make a great difference. The events of the last few years have
helped the jihadist movement sign up those recruits.
Mr. Chairman, the United States and its allies have shown great
skill in tactical counterterrorism, as the killing of Zarqawi has
reminded us. But the skillful application of force and the expert use
of intelligence and law enforcement techniques alone will not allow us
to prevail in the war on terror. Of course, they are essential, and
they have surely saved the lives of many innocents in many countries
around the world.
Yet at the level of strategy, we are nowhere near where we should
be. It is a central tenet of counterinsurgency that success depends on
separating moderates from extremists, and thereby tilting the balance
our way. At the core of this challenge is a competition of narratives
between radical Islamists and the West. I have summarized our enemies'
story. I think most of us intuitively know what ours should be--that
the United States and its allies are a benign power that seeks to help
all who wish to modernize their societies and improve their material
conditions so long as they play by the international rules of the road.
Part of that story is that we harbor no enmity for any religion or race
or ethnic group but instead recognize that our future depends in no
small measure on improvements of conditions for people around the
world.
Unfortunately, that story is not coming through. We are indeed in a
battle for hearts and minds, and we are not winning. For too many
Muslims, our actions, especially in Iraq, are at odds with our
professed values. We are also blamed by the radicals--but also many
moderates--for the persistence of the autocratic regimes of the Middle
East. Until we have policies that match our rhetoric and demonstrate
our willingness to support positive and peaceful change in the Muslim
world, we will not win over the moderates we need. This is why we can
at once succeed tactically but slip strategically, with ever graver
consequences. A recognition of this situation points the way to the
necessary discussion of how to forge that strategy, and that, I
believe, is where we must go next and without delay.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Benjamin, for your
testimony. Let me begin the questioning by amplifying a point
that you have just made, Mr. Benjamin, but that you have also
certainly touched upon, Mr. McLaughlin. That is that some of
the jihadists or those at least who are fighting against us
decry, as you have suggested, Mr. Benjamin, that we--that is
the United States, are occupying their lands and that one
reason for this occupation is that we have designs upon their
oil resources; and then finally, that in the course of this
occupation and this misappropriation, as they would see it, of
their oil resources, we are undermining their faith, that there
is a confrontation with the Muslim religion.
Some would say that beginning perhaps with the agreements
with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Saudi king
back in the 1930s that there was a strategic agreement of
sorts, or an understanding, that Saudi oil in particular, but
not exclusively that, but that is a very large part of the
world's reserves, is tremendously important to our country and
likewise to worldwide commerce, in which we were increasingly
involved; and from the Saudi standpoint those rulers certainly
felt capable of providing security for their resources, but not
overconfident of that, given all of the potential predators. So
they welcomed the United States' thoughtfulness about them.
Now, from that embrace has come a good number of
developments which may have been misinterpreted by many in this
country as well as in the Middle East. But finally I recall
that during the time of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, on the
one hand we argued that aggression should not stand. The first
George Bush indicated that very clearly. In some testimony on
occasion, Secretary Jim Baker, when pressed said: Well, it is
about oil. Now, he did not mean exclusively, but nevertheless
he was honest that there clearly was a problem here in terms of
disruption of life as we know it in the United States as well
as life in Japan.
For example, President Bush went to the Japanese and
suggested a giant United Way campaign of paying for this
conflict, that this was of great importance to Japan, and the
Japanese leaders agreed, and we remember their contributions to
the financial aspects of this. The Saudis likewise were
generous contributors. Some would claim that almost the entire
conflict was paid for by contributions from other countries
that saw their interest and recognized our mobility of sending
500,000 people in a way no other country could do. Now, given
this background, some would then carry the argument further and
say that in more recent times Osama bin Laden, as a one-time
resident of Saudi Arabia, and a part of a great family there,
having very devout ideas with regard to his faith and the
principles that you have enunciated earlier, deeply resented
the fact the United States not only came with 500,000 people,
but a good number stayed in Saudi Arabia. In due course they
moved their location after attacks, but they stayed. As a
matter of fact, the American military presence seemed to be
more pronounced and permanent in this situation.
As a result, we should have anticipated at some point this
resentment. Given now what you have both described as an
extreme form of Islam perhaps, this would lead to an attack
upon the United States in the event you could pull together the
international means to do this, the financial means, the
network means, and finally the technical aspect of flying
aircraft into the World Trade Center or into the Pentagon.
Now, I outline all of this because some would say the end
of this conflict is unlikely ever to happen. In other words,
the first panel characterized that the war on terrorism might
last until our grandchildren. But why just to our
grandchildren? Why not our great-grandchildren? Where is any
potential end to this in the event that there still is a
feeling of resentment that the United States and its allies are
occupying territory and squeezing the resources, as some may
see it, and undermining religion by our very presence and our
advocacy of what we see to be human rights and the role of
women, for example, and democracy?
How in the world does this fit with the aspirations of
persons who may be extreme, but maybe even some not so extreme,
who simply are resentful of all of this? Is the end of the war
on terrorism or the end of, say, worldwide dependence on oil,
for example, in which people in a very cavalier way, equally
misguided, would say that we really do not care what happens to
the oil wells in Saudi Arabia, that is up to the Saudis, and
they will have to work that out; or at least we are not going
to be occupiers, we are not going to come into Saudi Arabia and
suggest, for example, that their governmental system has great
deficiencies; as a matter of fact it would be helpful if they
learn some democracy, had local elections, then national
elections and govern themselves in a very different way,
treated women in a very different way, and lots of other
things.
In other words, perhaps we say that is not our mission any
more, we are not going to be democracy nation-builders
everywhere, everyplace, on the basis that that is our role and
their destiny. Or finally, we might say that, as a matter of
fact, we are stretched in any event. As you have all mentioned,
the multinational aspect of the war on terror is of the
essence. It requires the cooperation of intelligence services,
the cooperation of all the territories, not just the Middle
East but throughout Africa, now Europe, which as you say is a
major battle ground, even Canada, perhaps the United States.
Ultimately the question that I raise is, to what extent are our
policies with regard to the Middle East contradictory to the
point that they almost engender this problem? Or is this
inevitable? Is the fight of Israel against all comers, as we
try to bring about independence there, something that, even if
we solve the problem of occupation in Saudi Arabia and the oil,
would still generate such resentment that people would say you,
the United States, still are the occupying predominant power
and you are trying to rearrange the situation out in our
territory?
Under those circumstances, does this war or conflict ever
come to an end? This is a broad set of questions, but address
that if you can for my help.
Mr. McLaughlin. I think that is the toughest question I
have heard asked in this hearing, Mr. Chairman, but I will take
a shot at it because you have put this in a very large
strategic scope. I do not think there is a crystal-clear simple
answer to what you have raised, but let me think out loud about
it on a couple of scores.
First, I do not think the war on terror or, as I called it
in my testimony, the campaign against Islamic radicalism, is
fundamentally about oil, although some radicals define it that
way. Of course, as you know better than anyone, states
calculate their policies on the basis of interests. Well, we
have not found a substitute for oil. World oil demand is
projected to rise by 50 percent over the next 20 years, as
contrasted with 34 percent in the 2 decades previous to that.
China's demand alone is projected to rise by 150 percent. Our
own demand is rising. We are still the largest consumer of oil
in the world per capita. And 70 percent of the world's
exportable oil is in the Persian Gulf.
So this is not about oil. No one went into Iraq for oil. We
did not combat Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait
exclusively about oil. But in realistic terms, oil is a factor
in everyone's interests. China has just concluded multibillion
dollar deals with Iran about oil and access and so forth. So
that is all in the mix.
So perhaps ending our dependence on oil would in some way
ease the tensions that translate into the struggle against
Islamic extremists. But on the other hand, it is important to
realize that to some degree they use this as an excuse, I think
to a large degree. The origins of their ideology, this
particular part of the Islamic ideology, go back to a scholar
named Taymiyya in the 13th century, long before people knew
about oil, and the dispute within the Islamic world is
essentially between those who interpret the Koran in one way,
to justify killing of ``infidels'' and nonbelievers and
everyone they want to kill, and those who accept what the Koran
says about the illegitimacy of murdering civilians and so
forth. It is a dispute that goes back to the Crusades.
So I suspect even if we ended our dependence on oil this
dispute would go on, and even our departure from a place like
Saudi Arabia would not end it because their ambitions extend
beyond simply getting us out. Their ambitions extend to
controlling that territory themselves as a platform for
extending their control. It is a wild dream they have, but it
nonetheless is what motivates them to create this caliphate
that would extend in their mind from somewhere in Southeast
Asia all the way to North Africa.
It is also worth remembering that they attacked us on 9-11,
long before we were in Iraq. They attacked the Australians in
Bali, long before the Australians were in Iraq with us. And
they attacked us at a time when the Palestinian-Israeli dispute
was not an intifada; it was, if anything, not exactly calm, but
it had been through 2 or 3 or 4 years of relative progress
leading up to the Camp David summit with President Clinton and
so forth.
So these are largely excuses they use, but I would not
dispute your view that our presence and our dependence on oil
injects a certain tension into this whole relationship, which
if eliminated would make the problem clearer--would crystalize
it more.
You asked how will it all end. Well, in my testimony I say
that it will not end until we have--and if I dig back into the
paper I wrote--we have to basically take away their oxygen. We
have to disrupt the things that give them global reach: Their
communications, their financing, their ability to seek guidance
from a central command structure, which still exists even
though it is back on its heels, and isolate them to the point
where these pieces of the network become manageable on a local
level, and at the same time combat the ideology to the point
where a few people still believe in it, just like you can find
a few communists in the world, but no one takes them seriously
any more.
The Chairman. John, on that point, how do you dry up this
oxygen in the sense that, picking up one of the points that Dan
Benjamin said, there are self-starters among potential
terrorists out there? Now, they can, on the Internet or on
American TV, gain oxygen. In other words, if you are a person
who for some reason has taken on a suicidal bent or a feeling
somehow that your religion impels you not only to commit
suicide, but to take a lot of other people along with you as
you die, you can do this in Holland or in Spain or in Canada or
the United States without really much of a support network at
this point.
In the event that the thing that excites you is that you
still see a conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians
or you still see Americans in Iraq or threatening Iran or
wherever may be, these may be apparitions that are inaccurate,
but that is why I wonder, given the self-starter business and
the indigenous arrangements, or even the foreign fighter
concept, that you suddenly take on this complex that this is
your mission, this is your life, and you just go wherever
because you are a soldier of fortune.
So long past Osama bin Laden has been lost, the financing
by caravans dried up and so forth, why are we not fated to have
the rest of our lives the existence of people and existence
people engaged in suicidal terrorism who for some reason or
other are stimulated by whatever they believe are perverse
trends in life somewhere?
Mr. McLaughlin. That is why I say we have to attack their
ideology, and it has to come from the Muslim, from the Islamic
community, because we are fated to fight this battle----
The Chairman. They would be convinced by other Muslims that
they are on the wrong track?
Mr. McLaughlin. It has to be--there is a wonderful study I
would commend to everyone, done by the U.S. Institute for
Peace, on the terrorist uses of the Internet. It talks about
eight different ways in which terrorists use the Internet. It
is impressive--everything from psychological warfare on up to
the more serious things like terrorism manuals about how to
make bombs and stuff like that, and also planning operations,
just as the 9-11 crew did.
So we are fated to fight this battle in the age of the
Internet, and that is a technology and it is a method, but it
is only alive and vital and powerful so long as the ideas
moving along the Internet are alive and vital and powerful.
There are a lot of nutty things on the Internet too that no one
pays any attention to. Somehow, I do not know how this is
done--this is probably the subject for a hearing in and of
itself--how do you change the way people think about their
future if they kill themselves in these operations? I think it
has to come from the Muslim community.
I struggled in my testimony to sort of understand how we
could help the Muslim community do that. I do not really have a
good answer because I do not think they welcome our help in the
way that you recall anticommunists welcoming our help. That is
a tough one, but I think that is the only way we prevent this
from being something we are dealing with 20, 30 years from now,
is to dry up the ideology that supports it.
The Chairman. Mr. Benjamin, will you pitch into this
conversation and make a comment?
Mr. Benjamin. Yes, gladly. I agree with much of what John
has said. Let me throw out a few more ideas. We do have
legitimate national interests in terms of oil. In fact, what
counts most about oil in this context is the symbolism. It is
interesting to note that the symbolism has changed somewhat. If
you look back before 2001, bin Laden actually usually never
spoke about attacking oil facilities and yet now it is very
much in vogue and he has endorsed attacks on oil facilities.
The reason was that before it was viewed as the patrimony. Now
it is viewed as a way of attacking the West.
I think that part of this is because of the appearance that
we--and I emphasize, the appearance--that we are after the oil,
after occupation of Muslim lands. One of the things that we
forgot in the last few years is the colonial heritage of a lot
of these nations and the extent to which they feel that their
natural resources have been exploited and that they have been
exploited.
Now, that is why the story right now has particular
resonance. Whatever we view our mission in Iraq as being--and I
agree that it was not about oil--it is being distorted and seen
that way. Oil is important in this equation, it seems to me,
because our own dependence on oil, our desire for oil, has led
our policymakers over a long period of time to emphasize
stability over democracy in the region, and I give President
Bush credit for having pointed that out in what was a very
path-breaking speech some time ago.
A lot of this is about bad governance and a feeling of
illegitimacy about the governments of the region, and bin Laden
and his followers have been able to capitalize on that sense of
illegitimacy and of blighted futures by drawing this picture of
autocrats who are supported by the West and autocrats who, in
turn, sell out their nations for oil and who are themselves
apostates and not supporters of the true faith.
The Chairman. Just on that point, to what extent do you
agree or disagree with the thought that the attack on 9-11 was,
in fact, bin Laden's response to say to us: We are going to
attack you, and the proper response on your side would be to
keep out of our business. In other words, the reason why we are
interested in you, even to the point of coming to the United
States, is to get your attention; get out, leave the area to
us.
Mr. Benjamin. Well, this has been a recurrent theme in
jihadist violence for a long time. When Ramsey Youssef, the
architect of the first bombing of the World Trade Center, was
being debriefed, he said: Well, we figured we had to kill a
quarter of a million people to show America that it was in a
war. In other words, America is too big and too insensitive to
recognize that this is going on. And bin Laden has made the
exact same argument. I do not think it is just about getting
out. I think it is actually about a fundamental redrawing of
the global order. In that regard I think we do need to
distinguish between what the radicals think and what their
appeal to moderates is. The radicals do think that this is
about fundamentally restoring the greatness of Islamic
civilization and redrawing the global international order so
that the realm of Islam is dominant. I am not sure that most
ordinary people feel that way, but they certainly do have
sympathy--many of them have sympathy--when they see someone
standing up for Muslim dignity in a way that they feel that
their own leaders have not done over the years, and then they
have very ambivalent, if not downright negative, feelings about
those leaders.
So this explains a lot of the attraction and it explains
why, in countries like Pakistan and Jordan, bin Laden is
enormously popular and the jihadist cause has considerable
support. So that it seems to me explains the importance of oil
in all this and why over the long term that democracy may cause
us even more trouble in the near term. Over the long term it is
an important part of the solution because when people are
invested in their societies and cannot claim that they have
imposed leaders from another part of the world then they will
feel responsible for their own fate and that will make a big
difference.
I do think that we are going to be seeing suicide bombers
for a very long time. You said is this going to go on forever
and I think that this is an ideology that is very durable. But
it will be, it seems to me, a tolerable threat and one we can
manage once we have given moderates a strong reason to oppose
it, to isolate the extremists, reduce the space they have to
operate, and, as John suggested, deprive them of oxygen.
When we do not have to worry about a suicide bombing every
day, when we do not have to worry about a threat from a weapon
of mass destruction, then I think we will be in a much better
position and we will be in a place where we can say we have got
it under control.
The Chairman. Finally, I would just add weapons of mass
destruction. Is there ever a possibility that we will be able
to deny weapons of mass destruction to these groups? For
example, despite all of our work, say, with Russia, quite apart
from others outside, there are still unsecured facilities or
less well-secured situations. Anyone studying this is going to
be unnerved by the prospects, including Russians, as they took
a look at the Chechens or others, that they feel are terrorists
with regard to their situation.
This is why I do not really have a pessimistic inevitably
about all of this. In answer to one of Mr. McLaughlin's
questions, we have talked about Pakistan a good bit today. We
have had testimony before our committee about the madrassa
schools. These are not all incubators of terrorism; very few
are probably. But nevertheless there is testimony from Jessica
Stern in her book and others who have talked, interviewed
people going to some of these schools who came out of it almost
like a fraternity meeting. They were all one together and
looking toward another life and really working as to how they
would effect this, even for themselves, leaving aside a broad
scale of Pakistan as a whole or Osama bin Laden.
So the entire change in educational facilities or the
possibilities really of hope for many people is of the essence.
But that is a broad scope and, as John McLaughlin has said,
there has been resentment on the part of many of our coming in
and saying, we would like to help you, we would like to set up
a public school system. But if there is resentment of our
philanthropy in this case, that is going to be difficult to do.
Getting to these moderates that you are speaking of to
effect these reforms is really of the essence in diplomacy. We
must work toward identifying them, quite apart from finding the
resources that would make them effective within their own
societies.
Well, let me cease for the moment because we are going to
have a vote very shortly. Senator Nelson has come and I want to
give him opportunity for some questions.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to explore the parallels between Somalia and
Afghanistan. So to either one of you, I would like you to talk
about the comparisons and the mistakes that we made in
Afghanistan when we left and saw the rise of the Taliban. Are
we seeing parallels in the way that we are handling Somalia
now?
Mr. McLaughlin. Well, I think the situation in Somalia is
still very cloudy. I was looking at it just this morning and
trying to get a fix on this group of Islamists who have taken
over there. But the parallels are striking in some respects.
Somalia is a failed state. It is in recent years
ungoverned. A variety of tribes hold sway who fight among
themselves. For anyone to establish control over that country,
if it is a country, is difficult. That is somewhat parallel to
the situation in Afghanistan after the Soviets left and there
were then successive battles among rival factions, ending with
the installation of the Taliban in the mid- to late-1990s.
I think there is a legitimate worry here. This is saying
that I do not know everything about this new crew that has come
to power, but they are Islamists. Ambassador Crumpton, this
morning, said that they have kind of put a little olive branch
out toward us, but I suspect we do not know what that means
yet. I think we need to have legitimate concern that in that
place we could see the emergence of a terrorist safe haven if
these crew of people--this crew of people who have taken over--
are of the wrong persuasion, and I think there is a strong
likelihood they are.
Now, that said, they are going to have trouble establishing
control there because the warlords they have displaced for the
moment will not sit idly by and allow someone to set up a
government. There is also this transitional government which
tries to establish itself there.
So bottom line, Senator, I would say yes, our Government
needs to worry about the emergence of a terrorist safe haven
there, and that means gathering a lot more information than I
have at my fingertips here today to give you a confident
estimate of the likelihood of that. But it is in a part of the
world, East Africa, which is not as heavily resourced as I
understand it in our counterterrorism efforts as some other
parts of the world.
Senator Nelson. And yet it is geographically in a very key
location.
Mr. McLaughlin. It is in a key location, and it is of
course from there that we saw the Africa bombings in 1998 in
August. As Ambassador Crumpton pointed out, one of the
fugitives from that operation apparently is still in Somalia.
So as I stressed in my testimony, we need to put very heavy
relentless focus on parts of the world that are either
ungoverned or less governed, and this is one of them. So that
would be my take on it.
Mr. Benjamin. I do not have much to add to that except that
I would point out that Somalia has not been an inhospitable
environment for radicals for a long time. I am not sure how
much of a difference the fact that this group appears to be in
power in Mogadishu will make, and that is something we need to
look at carefully over the long term.
One of the interesting things is that we have not seen more
of a growth of radicalism in Somalia during this long period of
anarchy. There has been a persistent threat in the southern
part of the country and it has been seen in the East African
embassy bombings and in the Mombasa plot of 2002. We should
also be careful about now imagining that all our mistakes are
the last mistakes. By the last mistake I mean leaving
Afghanistan to degenerate in the way it did during the 1990s
and become a safe haven for al-Qaeda. Frankly, I worry a lot
more about what is going on in Europe than I do in East Africa.
We do have to be vigilant, we do need to get a very good idea
of what is going on there, and we do need to prevent that from
becoming exploited as a real safe haven. But there are so many
different places in the world we need to keep an eye on and,
frankly, right now, I worry more about radicalism in some other
parts of the world.
Senator Nelson. What do you think the Government's position
ought to be, to reach out to the new government in Mogadishu or
to isolate them in Somalia?
Mr. McLaughlin. Well, neither of us are policymakers, but
we are both private citizens now, so if I were----
Senator Nelson. With a lot of experience, I might say.
Mr. McLaughlin [continuing]. If I would advise our
Government, I would say reaching out is better than isolating,
because we do not know who these guys are yet. I do not think
anyone confidently knows that. We would have to sort out our
relationship with this transitional government that we have had
contact with. But you know, it is always better to know who you
are dealing with and in some situations, as Churchill said,
jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
Mr. Benjamin. I completely agree with that, and I would add
that we have suffered in the past from refusing to talk to
people we did not like or have been suspicious about. I would
add that one of the main issues that we are going to have to
grapple with in the years ahead is who are the Islamists who we
can do business with? This is something that we have not sorted
out at all and we will not sort out except through long
discussions and analysis of their positions and their actions.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a vote.
The Chairman. We do indeed. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
We really thank both of you for remarkable papers, as well
as your forthcoming responses to our questions. It is obvious
that we would continue the dialog for some time if we were not
constrained by the fact that you have other responsibilities
and we have ones as well, the vote on the Senate floor. Thank
you so much for coming.
So saying, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]