Decrease of Osama Bin Laden's effect on al Qaeda?

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held a hearing today “Assessing the Fight against al Qaeda. The panel was consisted of Robert Grenier, managing director of Kroll Inc., Peter Bergen Schwartz senior fellow at the New American Foundation, and lastly Steven Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

The fact that Osama Bin Laden is still at large does not surprise the panel. Peter Bergen touched upon the fact that Bin Laden has not been in a serious shoot out or close to getting arrested since the battle Of Tora Bora in Eastern Afghanistan in late 2001, where he “narrowly escaped being killed in massive American bombing raids”. He has learned not to communicate via satellite phones or internet so that he will not be the subject of the American Intelligence. This does not conclude that bin Laden has lost his power in the organization, on the contrary, now he communicates with his followers via video/audio tapes. As Peter Bergen said in his testimony, the people “love him” and the result is seen by the direct response of the young Islamists’ acts. Robert Grenier also emphasized the mentioned issue by saying that Bin Laden sends the message through the tapes and he has millions of followers, not necessarily directly linked to al Qaeda, who will carry some sort of a terrorist act. The increase in the Pakistani suicide bombings over the last year, for instance, proves the point of previously mentioned issue, since Bin Laden, in one of the tapes, said actions needs to be done against the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Not to forget that Musharraf survived two deadly attempts.
Although Bin Laden’s effect on the organization is unquestionably high, Grenier believes that it is more important to capture the directly linked terrorists rather than the leaders, since the latter are in no way of moving and changing positions because they are scared of being captured.
Steven Emerson talked about the new government in Afghanistan and that it is in its “own best interest to be as aggressive as possible.”

However, the panelists believe that future al Qaeda attacks on the United States is very unlikely.

Has there been progress in Iraq?

What progress has been made in Iraq? The progress question or some variant of it was asked repeatedly at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on "Iraq After the Surge: What Next?" Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) said in his opening statement violence in Iraq has gone down, but not as far as anticipated. These are fragile gains, he said, and the notion of staying in the country is not the goal. The continued loss of life, drains on our treasury, the impact of readiness on our armed services, and the ability to send soldiers to where al-Qaida has grouped, is like "treading water" and we can't keep treading water without exhausting ourselves.

Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, relayed that it is hard to see progress in Iraq, and there is much to be done. However, he said, the surge is working. We have begun to develop a long-term relationship with the United States and Iraq, and the heart of the framework is a United States presence in Iraq. Our forces will remain in Iraq past December 31, which is when the current UN agreement expires. The new agreement will not make permanent bases in Iraq or raise up troop levels. Almost everything about Iraq is hard, Crocker said, but hard does not mean hopeless. Our gains are fragile and reversible. In regards to Iraq, Americans and the world will judge us not on what we have done, but what will happen in the future.

We have been transferring power to Iraqis, said Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. Half of the provinces in Iraq are under their control, and Iraq's security forces expenditures have exceeded ours. While the forces in Iraq itself have improved, Petraeus said, their forces are not ready to defend themselves on their own. They are shouldering a lot of the load, but they are not yet ready for a resurgence of al-Qaida in Iraq, better known as AQI. There is an operational consideration, he said, transference of power requires a lot of time and monitoring. We've asked a great deal of our men and women in uniform, he said, and we are grateful and appreciate their sacrifices. All Americans should take great pride in them.

But what would happen if we removed our troops? Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) asked that question, and Petraeus responded that we have put our teeth into their jugular, and we need to keep it there. In response to an additional question from Senator Biden, Petraeus said we are at a "six or seven" level on a scale from one to ten towards readiness to return to our pre-surge troop level. Biden also asked Ambassador Crocker, "In a choice, the Lord Almighty came down and sat in the middle of the table there and said, 'Mr. Ambassador, you can eliminate every al-Qaida source in Afghanistan and Pakistan or every al-Qaida personnel in Iraq,' which would you pick?" The Ambassador said he would choose al-Qaida in the Afghanistan Pakistan border area.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) said AQI was not in Iraq before we got there, and that AQI is really the focus here. If we are successful in Iraq, he asked, do we anticipate that AQI will not reconstitute itself? At what point do we say that they will not be particularly effective? In terms of our success in Iraq, it's just as fair to say that we can't get rid of AQI but just create a manageable situation. What is a legitimate affair between Iran and Iraq that would make us comfortable enough to pull out our troops? We all have the greatest interests in seeing a successful resolution in Iraq, he said. I continue to believe that going in was a blunder. I think that the surge has reduced violence and given us breathing room, he said, but not enough breathing room. I think increased pressure in a measured way, includes a withdrawal of troops.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hears Testimony from John Negroponte on the Way Forward in Pakistan

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony from United States Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte on “U.S. Policy Options in Post-Election Pakistan.”

Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and committee member John Kerry (D-MA) shared their experiences from their recent trip to Pakistan during the election and the mood was one of agreement on the general direction of support for Pakistani democracy, praise for the skill and devotion of our troops in both military and non-military capacities, and focus on the Afghanistan / Pakistan border as a key front in combating regional and global threats.

Biden recommended tripling non-military aid for education and infrastructure, stating that such assistance yields “enormous bang for the buck.” He urged more focus on Afghanistan, stating that resource diversion to Iraq has caused the U.S. to neglect its interests and obligations there.

Negroponte remarked that the February 18 election, in which President Pervez Musharraf’s party suffered striking defeat, showed higher turnout than prior elections despite an increased risk of violence. In light of the election results, he stated that the administration will support the Pakistani people and whatever government arises out of their democratic actions, while recognizing that Musharraf is still in office for the remainder of his term and the U.S. will continue to work with him.

Tension arose over the issue of reimbursement funds that the U.S. provides to Pakistan for its efforts against terrorism. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) cited a British article claiming that 70% of such funds had been misspent by Pakistan, and quoted Musharraf as saying that his troops are not searching for Osama bin Laden. Boxer also criticized the low priority Negroponte and the administration placed on an independent judiciary for Pakistan in light of considerable emphasis they place on that of Iraq.

Dr. Daniel Markey, Ambassador Robin Raphael, and Dr. Hasan-Askari Rizvi held a presentation about Elections in Pakistan

Ambassador Robin Raphael, Dr. Hasan-Askari Rizvi, and Dr. Daniel Markey held a presentation Tuesday evening, January 29, 2008 concerning the viability of Elections in Pakistan.

Held in the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, there was a diverse crowd of students, press, and interested Pakistanis.

Dr. Markey was the first speaker and carefully outlined what he considers to be the "four ingredients" to conduct a free election in Pakistan. First, he said that they need a technically sound process. This included hiring outside election workers that would be independent and non-partisan. Second, the campaign would need security. He mentioned that there was no confidence from the people because there is great fear of terrorism. Third, they need political parties, and in that respect, they need parties that would actually be willing to participate.

Fourth, he discussed the great need for a free flow of information. This specifically was directed at the media outlets in Pakistan. I asked him after the presentation if there was the possibility that the media would be able to remain unbiased and simply present the facts as is, and he responded that was a major concern. During the presentation, he also said that the downside to the media in Pakistan is that the media is not well equipped and that they were not investigative.

The second speaker was Former Ambassador Raphael, who simply stated that Pakistan was not ready for elections in her opinion, but it was important for the elections to go forward as scheduled. An important key point, she said, was that the election must be credible because the outcome needs to be consistent with what the people expect. I asked her to expand on that point after the presentation, and she explained that the people would think that the elections had been rigged in some way if the winner was someone that they did not expect it to be.

The last speaker of the evening was Dr. Rizvi. He reiterated the sentiments of the two other speakers when he said that this was a very uncertain transition. He pointed out what he felt the two major problems were, which is how the change will be mediated, and what ultimate change actually is.

In his view, he says that Pakistan is ready at this stage to transition, and elections can facilitate that transition. Three major changes that have made them ready, he said, was a new confidence among the groups and activists, Musharaff has been more oppressive than ever before, and that ordinary people are facing the worst conditions ever. These three changes, he said, created the desire to challenge Authoritarianism.

He also added a "fifth ingredient" to Dr. Markey's list for a successful election in Pakistan. The fifth ingredient, he said, was the determination to exercise power in order to enforce fairness. In his opinion, the United States should encourage Musharraf to have an honorable exit from power to facilitate a peaceful transition.