Pakistan — Al Qaeda’s New Safe Haven

Weekly Standard: Act Now With IncentivesTo Entice Region To Turn Against Terror Group

(Weekly Standard)  This column was written by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross.

---

If there were any doubt about the reach of militants in Pakistan, last week's events should have put them to rest. The ostentatious procession celebrating the return home of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto was tragically cut short by twin bombs that killed over 130 and wounded several hundred more on Thursday night. The attackers almost succeeded in killing Bhutto as well. The blast shattered the windows in her vehicle and set a police escort car ablaze. The sophistication of the attack was apparent from the outset, and the bombs may have been accompanied by sniper fire.

But extremist violence in Pakistan is hardly news. The raids against the militant Lal Masjid mosque on July 11 occurred in Islamabad, the capital city. Supporters of al Qaeda exist in the military and intelligence services; indeed, there may prove to be a link between militant infiltrators of these institutions and the attempt on Bhutto's life. The mysterious fact that the streetlights were off and the phone lines dead during the attack further raises the possibility of collaboration with ideologically sympathetic low-level government officials. Still, the stronghold of militant activity in Pakistan is clearly the remote and mountainous Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) on the border with Afghanistan, where Pakistan has ceded more and more ground to al Qaeda and its allies over the past year.

The government's successive concessions to militants have not always been viewed as defeats; indeed officials tried to spin them as successes. A year ago, after the signing of one agreement, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States told a network reporter, "The Waziristan accord is not a good thing -- it's a very good thing. It's a new step." Although the accords ceded control over significant portions of the FATA to tribal leaders aligned with al Qaeda and the Taliban, Washington was slow to sound the alarm. Some State Department officials defended the agreements, and President Bush himself offered tepid support during a September 2006 press conference with Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf.

One year and three more accords later, all concede that the tribal areas are now the stronghold of al Qaeda's senior leadership -- probably including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. As in Afghanistan under the Taliban, terrorist training camps operate freely, believed by U.S. intelligence to number almost 30. The “9/11 Commission Report” warned that to carry out a catastrophic act of terror like 9/11, an organization requires "time, space, and the ability to perform competent planning and staff work," as well as "a command structure able to make necessary decisions and possessing the authority and contacts to assemble needed people, money, and materials." Al Qaeda now enjoys both of these in Pakistan.

One result is the heightened terrorist threat manifest in the attack on Bhutto, but also in recent plots against the West. Last year U.S. and British authorities announced the disruption of an ambitious scheme to blow up airliners en route from Britain to the United States with liquid explosives. The operatives had trained at al Qaeda's FATA camps and met with high-level operatives Matiur Rehman and Abu Ubaydah al-Masri in Pakistan. Homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff recently told ABC News that the plot, if successful, would have killed thousands. One day last month, authorities in Europe arrested two terrorist cells in Denmark and Germany. Both cells were allegedly planning attacks; both were in touch with high-level extremists in Pakistan and had members who had trained there. While these arrests represent a success for law enforcement, they also signal al Qaeda's regeneration.

Al Qaeda's rebound was several years in the making. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 toppled the Taliban, most of al Qaeda's central leadership relocated to the FATA. Prompted by assassination attempts against Musharraf, Pakistan's military mounted a campaign to flush al Qaeda out of the tribal areas -- but it suffered so many losses that by September 2006 Musharraf felt he had no option but to deal with his would-be killers. His solution was the Waziristan accords, peace agreements that essentially ceded North and South Waziristan to the Taliban and al Qaeda. As part of the accords, Pakistan's military agreed that it would no longer carry out air or ground strikes in the tribal areas, that it would disband its human intelligence network, and that it would abandon outposts and border crossings throughout Waziristan. The accords even allowed non-Pakistani militants to continue to reside in Waziristan if they made an unenforceable promise to "keep the peace."

The failure of these accords was predictable and almost immediate. Shortly after the accords were signed, a U.S. military official told the Associated Press that "American troops on Afghanistan's eastern border have seen a threefold increase" in cross-border attacks from Pakistan. Since then, Pakistan has entered into similar treaties over the tribal areas of Bajaur, Swat, and Mohmand.

This leaves us with the present alarming picture: relative security for al Qaeda's senior leadership, greater instability in Afghanistan, a steady flow of skilled terrorists coming out of training camps, and a systemic risk of catastrophic attack reminiscent of the risk we faced before 9/11. This occurs against the backdrop of Musharraf's political impotence. Despite his electoral victory in October, Islamic extremists have sworn to topple him from power, and his clumsy handling of conflicts with his supreme court has destroyed his already dwindling support among liberal elites. Even the Bhutto assassination attempt has fueled anti-Musharraf propaganda, as rumors quickly spread that he was behind the attack -- intending to use it as a pretext to impose martial law. Shadowy figures like Gen. Hamid Gul and Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg, whose ideological sympathies lie with the Taliban and al Qaeda, lurk in the background. All of which conjueres up the "nightmare scenario": a nuclear-armed state openly aligned with our terrorist enemies.

Thus far, American policy toward Pakistan has amounted to unconditional support for Musharraf, coupled with occasional air strikes against high-level al Qaeda targets in the tribal areas. Emblematic of the latter is an October 30, 2006, strike against a madrassa in a Bajaur village that allegedly served as an al Qaeda training camp. While Zawahiri may have been the strike's target, the madrassa was affiliated with another key al Qaeda confederate, Faqir Mohammed, who had contracted a strategic marriage with a woman from the local Mamoond tribe. A U.S. Predator strike destroyed the school, but it hardly slowed down Mohammed, who gave an interview with NBC at the scene of the wreckage and later spoke at the funeral for the victims.

Nor is any satisfactory alternative military strategy on offer. One senior American military intelligence officer said it would take a sustained air campaign to deprive al Qaeda of its safe haven in the FATA. "We're talking about a Serbia-style prolonged campaign," he said. NATO's air campaign against Serbia's military lasted from March 24 through June 11, 1999, and comprised over 38,000 missions involving approximately 1,000 aircraft and a barrage of Tomahawk missiles. Such a campaign in Pakistan's tribal areas, the officer said, would "heavily degrade" but not eliminate al Qaeda. "Their camps won't be actively producing terrorists," he said, "but they'll survive the air campaign." Furthermore, a campaign on that scale might result in the toppling of Musharraf -- who, in the vivid phrase of retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, is already "dancing on razor blades."

No analyst I spoke with thought we could do much better than the strategy of covert pinprick strikes that the United States and Pakistan are currently employing, wherein Pakistan frequently takes responsibility for U.S. strikes. This will not deprive al Qaeda of its safe haven, although it may occasionally yield important kills.

What about covert action? American Special Operations forces are already engaging in actions coordinated with the air strikes. The most notable achievement in this regard occurred in southern Afghanistan, where NATO and Afghan forces killed Mullah Dadullah Lang, the Taliban's top military commander, back in May. There are barriers, though, to expanding the Special Operations forces' role. The topography makes it difficult to insert and remove forces without being detected. Within the military, there is a real desire to avoid another Operation Eagle Claw -- the ill-fated attempt to rescue hostages held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran during President Carter's term.

Unfortunately, the potential for things going awry is high if Special Operations missions are increased. Special Operations forces act in small teams and are lightly armed, so could be overwhelmed by larger contingents of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Enemy forces in Pakistan are better armed and trained than the Somali forces in the Black Hawk Down incident, and they have SA-18 surface-to-air missiles capable of downing American helicopters.

There is always the option of a full-scale counterinsurgency operation in the FATA, including the insertion of American ground troops. Some commentators favor this approach. Steve Schippert, the managing editor of Threats-Watch, told me, "At the end of the day, there is no getting around that if al Qaeda is going to be defeated in Pakistan, it will take our boots on the ground." Military affairs analyst Bill Roggio agrees that in an ideal world we would conduct counterinsurgency operations jointly with Pakistan's armed forces, but deems this not feasible in the current political context: We lack both resources and the will to take the casualties it would require. Roggio is almost certainly right -- and, again, the insertion of American ground forces would heighten the risk of Musharraf's being toppled from power.

Pakistan's military, meanwhile, does not appear to be up to the task of confronting the militants. It is unclear what level of casualties caused Musharraf to call off the attempt to control the tribal areas and make a deal with the extremists; the numbers are secret and estimates vary widely. Most observers believe Pakistan has lost about 1,000 men in its fight to control the FATA, but some believe it has lost more soldiers in this fight than the United States has lost in Iraq.

[ziparmux]

I do get your point, there are different ways to close the curtains. So as Sadam was gassing his own countrymen, what did you do? did you turn the channel? there were no policemen coming to save those poor people. Do you think we should not be in IRAQ? Who would ever stand up for those people?

Posted by guysdigdirt at 07:06 PM : Oct 24, 2007

It''s not just Iraq, one could sit and type a thesis length essay on the inhumanity going on in our world today, for example what are we doing about Robert Mugabe, what a despot he is, and what suffering the peoples there suffer but what are we doing about that, nothing at all. But I am I suppose what you call a Humanist, and believe that enough sensible humans will take control in the end, but as said earlier it needs start somewhere, and well I, yes me, will start it here and now. My lifes vocation started here on CBS news the most ironical place in the world to announce it, from this moment forth I will change this world. It only takes one person to change the whole world, and gosh am I gong to get some ''flaming'' for saying this..... lol, but do I care, yes not about the flaming but this world. I''ll sign off another time in the name I will use to achieve this for now, the end lol :)

[ziparmux]

we all need to find a way to agree, it''''''''s not impossible, only you can get in the way of that, do not allow that to happen. The whole process of peace in this world can start here and now.
Posted by ziparmux

I agree with you, that is what we need, but we also need the worlds hungry to be fed and cancer to be removed from our world, but in the meantime- while we wait for it to happen, what do you do when your next door neighbor is being brutalized?

Posted by guysdigdirt at 07:00 PM : Oct 24, 2007

Hi and well we do that first you and I both agree that we should never hurt each other or another human, then there are 2 of us, and then 3 and then 4, and then the whole world joins in. We cannot take responsibility for all the worlds woes all in one go as much as we care and want to, but, one has to start somewhere and as said earlier it could be here and now. When enough people of this world are like minded enough to care about the world, care about those who are hungry tonight, care about those who need medical attention tonight, then in a much shorter time than you could imagine could all the worlds problems be put to right. What can you do for this world, what can I do for this world, and when you have millions saying that, we will find the solutions and those in need and wanting will get the help and become a part of an unstoppable tidal wave of people and the world will never be the same again.

[guysdigdirt]

a U.S citizen being tazed for asking a question at an open political forum-

Do your research and watch the video, that guy, if you know anything about him almost deserved what he got based on past actions on his part and his actions that night. Get educated before you start your mouth moving, or fingers in this case.

[guysdigdirt]

guysdigdirt - today we close the blinds by flipping channels. How''''s this? You''''re watching victims of Katrina floating dead in the water,waving from rooftops, so you flip the channel and watch a U.S citizen being tazed for asking a question at an open political forum. Flip the channel.... ah Ellen sobbing over a stray dog - well ... that''''s more like it. Or matbe Paris will be on, or Anna Nicole, or the Simpsons ..... or. . . .? Flip the channel in the U.S before it''''s too late.
Posted by logicanada

I do not watch TV, no time and no belief in those who decide what is shown there.

I do get your point, there are different ways to close the curtains. So as Sadam was gassing his own countrymen, what did you do? did you turn the channel? there were no policemen coming to save those poor people. Do you think we should not be in IRAQ? Who would ever stand up for those people?

[guysdigdirt]

Flip the channel in the U.S before it''''s too late.
Posted by logicanada

We all do what our character leads us to do when things get tough. People like logicanada watch tv and pretend it does not happen, I went did not go to help the vicitms of Katrina, I did donate our Christmas money to them, 4 kids got more out if that than the presents they would have received. I would hope we could all be the person ziparmux would have us be, that would be a much better place to find ourselves.

[guysdigdirt]

we all need to find a way to agree, it''''s not impossible, only you can get in the way of that, do not allow that to happen. The whole process of peace in this world can start here and now.
Posted by ziparmux

I agree with you, that is what we need, but we also need the worlds hungry to be fed and cancer to be removed from our world, but in the meantime- while we wait for it to happen, what do you do when your next door neighbor is being brutalized?

[guysdigdirt]

Your missing the point really if we all lived by the principles of love thy neighbour then you would never experience such an abysmal occurrence.
Posted by ziparmux

But everyone does not live by that ideal. I do and you do but what do you do about the evil doers of the world, pretend they do not exist? Are you going to tell the thugs beating your next door neighbor lady that they should not do that, they should love her? Do you think it will work?

I agree, it would be nice, but a lot of things would be nice, let''s be real. What do you do?

[ziparmux]

guysdigdirt - today we close the blinds by flipping channels. How''''s this? You''''re watching victims of Katrina floating dead in the water,waving from rooftops, so you flip the channel and watch a U.S citizen being tazed for asking a question at an open political forum. Flip the channel.... ah Ellen sobbing over a stray dog - well ... that''''s more like it. Or matbe Paris will be on, or Anna Nicole, or the Simpsons ..... or. . . .? Flip the channel in the U.S before it''''s too late.


Posted by logicanada at 06:19 PM : Oct 24, 2007

I mean this most sincerely, and guysdigdirt I''m saying it directly to you, you probably do not even understand the posting above, but it''s OK, we all have to start to acknowledge we are not perfect, if you do understand then I aplogise to you for not understanding you, if you don''t then don''t run away, and anyone reading this, please, say what you want to, but we are all the same and we all need to find a way to agree, it''s not impossible, only you can get in the way of that, do not allow that to happen. The whole process of peace in this world can start here and now.

[logicanada]

guysdigdirt - today we close the blinds by flipping channels. How''s this? You''re watching victims of Katrina floating dead in the water,waving from rooftops, so you flip the channel and watch a U.S citizen being tazed for asking a question at an open political forum. Flip the channel.... ah Ellen sobbing over a stray dog - well ... that''s more like it. Or matbe Paris will be on, or Anna Nicole, or the Simpsons ..... or. . . .? Flip the channel in the U.S before it''s too late.

[ziparmux]

You see your next door neighbor, out in her front yard, being beaten and brutalized by a couple of thugs. What do you do? You probably call the police as you should, but they do not come. Now what do you do, just sit and watch the bloodbath? Close the blinds and watch her get beat to death? What do you do? Anyone?
Posted by guysdigdirt at 05:38 PM : Oct 24, 2007

Your missing the point really if we all lived by the principles of love thy neighbour then you would never experience such an abysmal occurrence.

Like to go into what one does or not do do in a/b/c situation then we''d be here for ever....the point of my comment was to end it all here and now and actually we start it right here and now, I won''t and don''t anyway do any harm to you and any other fellow citizen of this planet, you don''t either, neither does anyone reading this and when it catches on then we end up with total global peace, it''s that easy. The power of peace is not with governments it''s between YOU & I and that means everyone.