Al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, threaten US national security

Al-Qaeda has rebuilt its operational capability since 2001 and Hizbullah has sleeper cells in the United States, the US Director of National Intelligence (DNI), J.M. McConnell said today.

Speaking at a public conference in DC, McConnell said there will be "persistent terrorist threats" against the US homeland, mainly from al-Qaeda, over the next three years. "The threat is driven by undiminished intent to attack the homeland," he said. While al-Qaeda is not as capable as in 2001, they are planning "high impact attacks" to inflict "mass casualties larger than 9-11… like buildings falling". McConnell said al-Qaeda has sustained its top leaders, Bin Laden and Zawahiri and was able to recruit new lieutenants to oversee operations. The group, based in northwest Pakistan, is pushing more groups around the world, and is working on positioning trained operatives in the US.

The terrorist group has tasked its ops to acquire biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, he said.

Another group that is of concern to the US is "the Lebanese terrorist group Hizbullah", he said (gulp). The DNI believes the group has sleeper cells in the country, ready to hit domestic targets if its leadership sensed the US has "crossed the line".

The above was made public today by White House Homeland Security Adviser Frances Townsend, based on a National Intelligence Estimate delivered by the DNI. 

Interestingly, the estimate says that "the internal [U.S.] Muslim terrorist threat is not likely to be as severe as it is in Europe." As the DNI pointed out in his briefing, it seems al-Qaeda has been recruiting and training extremists in Pakistan, with the intention of infiltrating US society. 

Over the next few days, the press will obsess over how the situation in Iraq may have helped regenerate al-Qaeda, and how this evil administration is planning a war on Iran. This might be true and it is up to Congress to hold the US government accountable. But it would be useful right now to focus on the current threat, where it comes from, and how it affects us all as citizens and residents of this country.

It would also be useful to take a closer look at how al-Qaeda does the recruiting, and via what countries.

Iran, for instance, is said to host councils for al-Qaeda leaders. Townsend was vague about Iran's exact role in this. Townsend also did not mention Syria's role. Although, can you really say Hizbullah without saying "Iran" and "Syria"? Readers of this blog know Syria's and Iran's roles in sponsoring terror in Lebanon. Just today, two members of the Iran-funded, Damascus-based Palestinian group PFLP-GC surrendered in the Nahr Bared camp after fighting the army for weeks alongside an al-Qaeda style group exported by the Assad regime. In other parts of the world, in the Maghreb for example, Syria appears in every report on al-Qaeda recruiting in that region. Check out this report by the Washington Post, and this by Magharebia.com. The terrorist recruiting networks covered in these reports all mention Syria-based al-Qaeda agents coordinating the "missions" in Iraq.

Do Syria and Iran draw a line when it comes to targets in the US? Is this why their role is never declassified by the White House, and is considered secondary to villifying the administration by the US press? All I can is say is, may we never blog about Hizbullah terror in the beltway. And may we never see a Moroccan fighter, trained in Algeria and Iraq with Syrian blessing, coming to the US to strike targets. And may we never see a US Muslim inspired by the Syrian-assisted "martyrdom" of a terrorist. And may we all wake up to the role of Syria and Iran in setting the world on fire. And you don't need to be a fan of this administration to see all that.

Comments

[david]

This has to be your funniest post ever. It would make even the good folks at JINSA blanch. Bravo!

[Macemuscle]

While I can't disagree with the overall point you're making, AK, I found this piece to be very hard to read... and keep a serious face!

I mean come on... aren't these the same people who said that Iraq had weapons of mass deception... er I mean … er I mean distraction… oooopps… sorry again I mean destruction... and insisted that somehow Iraq was behind 9/11? Are we really to take them seriously now?

[ghassan karam]

It is important to note that the AlQaeda threat to the US did not start with the misguided Iraq campaign. To deny the continuing threat of AlQaeda and all the other Jihadist groups is to be living in a state of denial.

HA has demonstrated its ability to sow terror in Argentina and has at times made vague references about its ability to lash at the American Satan overseas. HA has been acting as a "terrorist" organization within the borders of Lebanon through initiating a war, acting as a state within a state and through paralyzing the economy in order to satisfy the orders of its benefactors in Damascus and Tehran so why should it be a surprise if it extends the realm of its illegal activities overseas especially if such activities can be seen as protecting the IR? Once HA extends its terror to overseas countries then that will complete the transformation of Lebanon into a failed dysfunctional state and the metamorphosis of HA into a Taliban kind of an organization.

[Umm Kais]

Macemuscle--I don't think many people take Bush and co. too seriously anymore...but there are still people working in the intelligence community who have been there a long time, way before Bush and co. started this Iraq war. Those people, I think, have the right to be taken a little seriously. Unfortunately, they may not have the best spokesperson, but it will always be like that--no matter who is in office. Plenty of people in the intelligence community do not agree with actions taken, but in the end, they do not get the final say.

As Ghassan says, you cannot ignore the reality of Al Qaida, Hezbullah, etc. The threat is there--do you care?

[Solomon2]

Plenty of people in the intelligence community do not agree with actions taken, but in the end, they do not get the final say.

I'm not in the intelligence community, but I've said from the beginning that Iraq was the "flypaper" to concentrate and destroy Al-Qaeda: Zawahiri & Co. couldn't let a genuine Arab democracy be established unchallenged. It has been a cruel time for the Iraqis, but we rid them of Saddam and in return and they are in the process of becoming a "normal" country.

However, now that Al-Qaida in Iraq is being exposed and obliterated, it is logical that the remnants of Al Qaida will turn their attentions elsewhere. I had thought that target would be Pakistan, but I now think the Taliban want it for themselves, and will ensure that Al-Q's influence in their struggle be limited to a supporting role.

That leaves the West as Al-Qaida's primary target once more. I expect that the redeployment of operatives and the activation of sleeper cells will start soon, if it hasn't already. We also see just how well six years of counter-terror preparation has served to boost the security of Western countries by measuring the outcome of terrorist operations like the failed attack in Britain earlier this month.

In short, we're probably ready for Al-Qaida's return, but it doesn't look like they are ready for us.

Hizbollah in America, however, is another can of worms. As the undercover terrorist arm of Iran's mullahs, they will only undertake operations directed by their head. "Inside the Beltway" their primary activity is undoubtedly intelligence gathering; that's why it seems quiet here.

Ultimately, I doubt Hizbollah's intentions in the U.S. are anything close to benign. Doubtless preparations have been made to respond to the Hizbollah military threat, but they will live or die independently of Al-Qaida, unless the mullahs dictate otherwise.

[Macemuscle]

"It has been a cruel time for the Iraqis, but we rid them of Saddam and in return and they are in the process of becoming a "normal" country."

So tens of thousands of dead Iraqis mostly innocent civilians including women and children; major destruction and the economic fallout; car bombings on an almost daily basis; proliferation of terrorism; sectarian violence aka civil war; etc etc etc is your definition of “the process to becoming a “normal” country”? Come on… who are you kidding?

[Solomon2]

Macemuscle, these events you describe are not those of a "normal" country, but the process of eliminating them is.

[Macemuscle]

And who is eliminating them exactly?

Let's not fool ourselves. It was the US invasion that caused them in the first place. As we can clearly see from the overnight senate session which ended up being no more than a publicity stunt, the US has no clue how to eliminate them...

So once again... who are you kidding?

[Solomon2]

It was the US invasion that caused them in the first place.

Non sequitur. Excluding his external wars, Saddam's terror was killing over 10,000 people a year, and his countrymen had no hope that matters would improve. The U.S. invasion shattered Saddam's iron grip, and Iraqis are establishing "normal" (by Western standards) political and law-enforcement processes.

Terrorists have flowed into the Iraq vacuum by their own choice, with the assistance of foreign powers interested in a chaotic Iraq. It is the Iraqi and coalition forces, together, who are defeating them.

As for congressional opposition: Lincoln suffered much the same as Bush has today, in 1864 just before Atlanta was captured and Sherman marched to the sea. Then it became clear to everyone, even the most die-hard rebel, that the Confederacy was done for. While ex-generals testified before Congress that certain rebel installations were unconquerable, newsboys ran in bearing headlines that the fortress of concern had been conquered. Everyone, including the general, had a good laugh, then it was back to politics as usual.

[Bad Vilbel]

I hate this red herring that "The US invasion caused the Iraq unrest in the first place". That's a bunch of bologni even though it appears to be a common (and typical) scapegoating in the Arab world.

The US invasion rid Iraq of Saddam. Check. The US invasion did not force Iraqis to start slaughtering each other. The US military did not force various Saudis, Jordanians and foreigners to start beheading people. The US military did not arm and entice various sectarian militias.

You have to take responsibility for what you do. If I pick up a gun and shoot at you, the reponsibility ultimately rests on MY shoulders. Not those of the guy who sold me the gun, nor those of the Police who happens to exercise jurisdiction in the town where I shot the gun at you.

I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand. It is Iraqis and foreign islamic extremists killing Iraqis today, not Americans.

Sure, the invasion provided the power vaccum for this thing to happen, but the Iraqi people could have chosen not to go against each other once Saddam was gone.

Let me put it in perspective: Once the British were kicked out of the US during the war of independence, Americans could have also started fighting each other, they didn't.
After the end of WW2. The Germans could've chosen to fight each other after the power vaccum left by the fall of the Nazi regime. They didn't.

[Macemuscle]

Wow... Lincoln is being compared to Bush, and the American civil war and slavery never happened, Germany wasn't divided into East and West...

No wonder you believe that you can throw fuel at the fire, but it is the fire's fault...

Does anyone still believe these fairytales?

[Charlie]

Good point BV. The Arab countries never take responsibility for their actions and always quick to blame everybody else for their short comings!!

[Solomon2]

No wonder you believe that you can throw fuel at the fire, but it is the fire's fault...

Although I'm not a member of the "you break it, you're responsible" camp, I never said the U.S. didn't bear some measure of responsibility for Iraq. What course of action do you recommend, Macemuscle?

[Bad Vilbel]

Germany was divided by the US and the USSR. Germans never butchered each other, beheaded each other or whatever.

The American civil war did not happen right after the power vacuum left by the departing British. It was an entirely unrelated issue.

I'm specifically addressing the fact that in Iraq, the power vaccum left by the downfall of Saddam COULD have caused the Iraqis to choose to build something productive. THEY were the ones who chose otherwise. If you can't understand that, there is nothing I can say that will convince you.

Like I said, and to echo Charlie's above comment: I am not exonerating the US from having set this in motion, but in the end, it is the Iraqis who are blowing each other's mosques up, executing each other in the streets and forming death squads. You can only blame the Americans for so much. This is TYPICAL Arab mentality. It's the exact same thing we see in Lebanon. Every damn thing that goes wrong in Lebanon is blamed on the Zionists, the American Project or the Syrians. At some point in time, we have to realize that it is/was LEBANESE hands that do the killing or the bidding of foreigners.

[Bad Vilbel]

Btw, you guys read the news today that Fath Al-Islam is now "willing to pursue negotiations towards a political settlement to this affair" ???

Give me a break!

I REALLY hope the Lebanese government and LAF do not fall for this obvious attempt at stalling (and probably getting resupplied and reinforced). Besides, there is nothing "political" to negotiate about here. Fath Al-Islam is NOT a political party or political entity in the Lebanese political spectrum.

I really hope this is made very clear by the LAF and government before anyone (ahem Al-Jazeera) runs with this...

[Macemuscle]

“Although I'm not a member of the "you break it, you're responsible" camp”… clearly not… seems like you’re a member of “I break it, you’re responsible” when it comes to US “breaking it”…

Understand that no one is saying that US has to take ALL the blame. But they should take accountability for their actions. And that is what “TYPICAL Arab mentality” is. I completely disagree with BV that the “TYPICAL Arab mentality” is to blame everything on the US. I think that is a very racist and bigoted comment and I’m sure you’re better than that, BV.

On the topic of using Germany in the WWII area as a role model, I have to completely disagree. I also disagree that the situation is comparable to Iraq. First of all, did we forget that the Germans did in fact slaughter each other (namely they slaughtered their Jews and other minorities) not to mention all the slaughtering they caused in Europe, Russia and Middle East, and the genocide? Second, Germany had a modern conventional army at the time and therefore never needed to develop a non-conventional “army” (insurgency, terrorism) whereas for example France did not which is why they created the French Resistance (which the Nazis considered terrorism). So once the German army was defeated (and much of Germany destroyed) there was nothing and no one left to fight anyone else including each other. Third, no war (civil or otherwise) could have happened during the cold war between or inside any country in Europe because it would have made the cold war hot which is something that the Mutually Assured Destruction (“MAD”) policy managed to avoid.

I also don’t know that I agree that American history can be used as a role model. Did you forget: that they almost wiped out the natives (i.e. “Indians” – of course they called them savages at the time) and usurped their lands, they had slavery, they had a civil war, they had the lawless wild west, segregation, they built a nuclear arsenal that would wipe out everything on earth many time over and engaged in a policy of MAD with the then Soviet Union. I’m not arguing that America is evil. It is not. Every society has had it good side and bad side. But to claim that America has moral superiority over the rest of the world and is more enlightened is what I would reject!

“Btw, you guys read the news today that Fath Al-Islam is now "willing to pursue negotiations towards a political settlement to this affair" ???”… On this point I completely agree with BV. There is no stopping until they are all wiped out or they surrender themselves unconditionally to the LAF. If that is what they mean by “negotiations” fine, but the LAF has to clearly demonstrate that there is no compromise. If you attack LAF, you will pay the price. Otherwise, the LAF is setting a very dangerous precedent that will lead the country into chaos. To their credit, I think the LAF has been resolute despite their casualties and IMO they will not negotiate.

[Solomon2]

...they should take accountability for their actions. And that is what “TYPICAL Arab mentality” is. I completely disagree with BV that the “TYPICAL Arab mentality” is to blame everything on the US. I think that is a very racist and bigoted comment and I’m sure you’re better than that, BV.

Surely you realize that BV's statement was no more "racist" than yours, MM? I hereby propose recognizing that real differences in character do exist between peoples and that we should therefore eliminate employing the charge of "racism" as a tool to stifle debate.

[Macemuscle]

I appreciate your point. I don't think anyone is trying to stifle the discussion (otherwise what is the point of having this blog).

I still think the statement is very offensive to most Arabs and is unsubstantiated so one could argue that we should call a spade a spade.

In any case, whether we call these statements "slander", "racism", "bigotry" or whatever else, the point is I don't think these kind of statements about Arabs are adding value to the conversation so I'm not sure why people keep saying them. Conversely, if someone makes a similar generalized and unfavorable statement about Jews (“A TYPICAL Jew is xxx”) they would quickly find themselves being accused of anti-Semitism. So let’s not apply a double standard here.

[Bad Vilbel]

I maintain that Arabs have a tendency to blame everyone but themselves for all that is wrong in their countries.

History is on my side. I don't know if you're an Arab or not, or if you've lived in an Arab country, but I grew up in Lebanon during the 70s and lived there till the mid 90s. Never ONCE did I hear a single politician saying "We need to take a good look at ourselves."

Every single one of them repeated ad nauseam how everything was part of the Zionist conspiracy or the US "plan". And nowadays, they also blame Syria for everything. The newspapers, the slogans, the rhetoric has ALWAYS been "Zionist this" or "American project" that. ALWAYS. Did anyone ever point out that the people doing the killing or shooting at each other were Lebanese? (not counting the Palestinians in the 70s and 80s).

Now I'm not saying Syria, the US, or Israel as devoid of any blame. Of course, they meddled, invaded, supplied weapons, etc. But in the end, WE chose to take them up on their meddling.

Give me a break.

[Macemuscle]

Do you really believe that in Lebanon, of all places, the politicians actually represent the view of the TYPICAL person? Do you believe that they represent the view of the average young, well educated, well travelled individual?

[Bad Vilbel]

Yes and No.

Your question is a loaded question. You say "Well educated, well travelled".

There is indeed a segment of the Lebanese population that is well educated, well travelled and western and secular leaning. These folks are hardly represented by anyone in Lebanon these days.

But there is also a segment of the Lebanese population, and not a negligeable one, that does indeed believe all the lies and idiocy fed to them by their leaders. You cannot disregard that segment just because it's not how YOU think. Trust me, there are PLENTY of people who believe in bizarre conspiracy theories that are being fed to them.

Case in point: Did you guys hear about the latest idiotic theory that the reason the LAF is taking so long in Nahr Al Bared is because the Sunni government wants to really flatten the camp, in order to rebuild it in a more planned way, so as to resettle the Palestinians? And apparently Israeli air force planes have been secretly helping the LAF by bombing Nahr Al Bared. *eyeroll*

Seriously, man, go talk to the "typical Lebanese" in Dahieh or in Bint Jbail and see what they think. You'll be surprised. A good chunk of the Lebanese population truely believes that this is all some Zionist conspiracy. Educated and well-traveled my ass.

[Macemuscle]

We shouldn't forget that there is also a large segment of Lebanese population living outside Dahieh and Bint Jbail or Keserwan for that matter and in fact outside of Lebanon. To me, they count as part of the TYPICAL, average Lebanese. Yes there are people on both extremes.

However, I disagree with your point about secularity. You don’t have to be secular to see through all this B.S. and be well educated and balanced in your point of view.

Conversely, if you’re religious, it doesn’t mean you are an extremist. In my experience, there is a lot of honest, decent Lebanese who are religious, very balanced in their views and non-political.

It’s the extremist minorities on both sides which are the vocal ones (the squeaky wheels) and how are tarnishing the reputation of the TYPICAL Lebanese and Arabs.

I guess the word I’m looking for is stereotyping. I believe we should avoid stereotyping and I don’t see how it contributes to the conversation.

[Bad Vilbel]

I understand what you're saying. Really, no 2 Lebanese people are EXACTLY alike. But I disagree about your "minority" and "extremist" comments.

Careful what we're talking about here. I am NOT talking about who supports extremist actions or violence. Nor am I talking about who supports Nassrallah, or Aoun, or Saniora or whoever.

I am talking (and yes, i AM stereotyping) about the average unaffiliated Lebanese, from ANY given sect with ANY given education. There is a GOOD chunk of normal people on the streets who blame all our troubles on outside forces. I urge you to walk around any street in Lebanon. In fact, go to a cafe or similar establishment in Dahieh, Hamra, Ashrafieh, Tripoli, Saida, and Jbail. And listen to the general political banter that goes on.

The affinities might vary, the loyalties might vary, you might find the guys in Dahieh talking about "Sayyed Nassrallah", and the guys in Saida talking about "Sheikh Saad" more...but you'll find that ALL of these locations blame our troubles to a foreign power (Syria, Israel, Saudi, US, France). There's always talk of "the Syrian plan for us, The American plan for the region, the Zionist plan for Lebanon". There's always conspiracies to resettle Palestinians in lebanon, or steal the litani waters, or Islamisize Lebanon (depending on which side you're talking to), and ALL of these conspiracies are ALWAYS hatched (according to these folks) in Tehran, Tel Aviv, Washington or Riyadh...It's NEVER Lebanese, you see. It's always foreign plans..

Yes, i know there are people like you or me who see this for being BS. But my argument is that WE are the minority.

[Macemuscle]

That's a depressing thought!

Whether they are in the minority or not, I do agree that lots of people have these fantastical theories. Nevertheless, there is always an ounce of truth in them.

In any case, are they any worst that the average American who thinks that every Arab / Muslim is a terrorist?