ISIL's Evolving Strategy Should Raise Security Concerns: New Age Islam's Selection, 25 May 2016
New Age
Islam Edit Bureau
25 May 2016
• ISIL's Evolving Strategy Should Raise Security Concerns
By Rami G Khouri
• The Demise Of The ‘Caliphate’s Capital’
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
• Why Pakistan Is Key to Afghan Peace
By Camelia Entekhabi-Fard
• Death Of A Warlord Will Change Nothing In Afghanistan
By Tom Hussain
• Egyptair Crash Exposes A Reckless And Impulsive Donald Trump
By Joyce Karam
• Netanyahu, Lieberman Deal Meant To Derail French Plan
By Daoud Kuttab
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
ISIL's Evolving Strategy Should Raise Security Concerns
By Rami G Khouri
24 May 2016
A series of coordinated attacks in three cities in Syria and Yemen on Monday by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) provides important new insights into the group's current capabilities and strategy, suggesting that the months ahead will be increasingly violent in the Middle East and perhaps further afield.
At least five distinct aspects of the Monday attacks should raise eyebrows and security concerns in many countries: their locations, simultaneity, logistical prowess, multi-country coordination and ISIL's evolving strategy in its wider political-military context.
ISIL bomb attacks kill 45 army recruits in Yemen
The most noteworthy aspect of the attacks was the combination of multiple, large-scale bombings in the political hearts of the Syrian and Yemeni governments, which both appear more vulnerable than assumed.
The Syria attacks of seven simultaneous suicide and car bomb attacks in the cities of Tartus and Jableh killed between 80 and 120 people, according to government and opposition reports.
This happened in the Latakia governorate in the Alawite-majority heartland of the Assad regime that rules Syria, and, to add insult to injury, the two attacks also occurred near Russian sea and air bases.
Sophisticated logistical operations
The ability of ISIL to carry out such sophisticated logistical operations in what should be a high-security area reaffirms its substantial attack capabilities and exposes gaps in the Assad regime's Russian- and Iranian-bolstered security systems.
The same factors apply in the two attacks that killed 45 army recruits and civilians in Aden, the temporary capital of Yemen that hosts the government of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.
ISIL obviously has supporters, small bases, and fighters in the Latakia region, but does not yet control sufficient land to claim any kind of sovereign authority.
The fact that ISIL can attack a military recruiting centre near a general's home in the capital of Yemen does not bode well for the country's immediate future, especially after other attacks on high-profile targets in Aden in recent months.
Hadi's government only holds sway in parts of the country, and is negotiating in Kuwait with Houthi rebels linked to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh to return to the capital Sanaa and resume the quest for a power-sharing system via a national constitutional conference.
The expansion of ISIL and al-Qaeda support, capabilities and territorial control in southern parts of Yemen has been an unintended dimension of the 14-month-long war that has raged there.
The dramatic ISIL attacks occur at a time when it has been losing control of parts of its territory in Syria and Iraq to Syrian, Iraqi, Kurdish, Iranian, and international military forces.
Major new offensives also are being launched to drive ISIL out of Fallujah in Iraq, and Raqqa in Syria, which has been ISIL's informal capital for nearly two years.
Its foothold in Sirte, in Libya, which has expanded to more than 6,000 fighters in the past six months, is simultaneously being challenged by a combination of Libyan forces assisted by international air power and special forces on the ground.
The attacks follow several devastating bombings that have killed more than 100 people in Baghdad in the past week. These recent military actions seem aimed at showing that ISIL can attack multiple targets and countries almost at will, and can expand - given its announcement on Monday of the new Wilayat al-Sahil (the coastal province).
An officer standing next to damaged cars at the site of car bombing in a bus station in the Jableh city, Latakia province, Syria [EPA]
Heretical Apostates
ISIL obviously has supporters, small bases, and fighters in the Latakia region, but does not yet control sufficient land to claim any kind of sovereign authority.
But perhaps that is secondary to the main point of showing that it continues to fight and kill those it deems heretical apostates and enemies of its version of Sunni Islam, especially Shia and related groups such as the Alawite.
One lesson from this week's events, following the pattern of its attacks in the past six months in Europe and Egypt, is to recognise ISIL's use of decentralised cells and support systems in many countries.
These seem to be able to operate independently, but also to coordinate in cases like Monday's multi-country, multi-city attacks and the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels.
This should come as no surprise, given the experience of many of ISIL's senior commanders in militant movements during the past two decades or so, as well as the presence of some hardened former Iraqi intelligence officers in ISIL's formative core group.
These political and military leaders have learned the lessons of both their own past experiences and the fate of other militant Takfiri-Salafists, like many senior al-Qaeda personnel, who were killed or captured.
This would seem to augur badly for the immediate future, should coordinated military action already under way contain ISIL in a few small areas in Iraq and Syria and smash its headquarters in Raqqa.
ISIL presumably anticipates this, and will set in motion continuing guerrilla and terror tactics by perhaps scores of decentralised units organised in small cells across the Arab world and Europe. Monday may have been a preview of what it can do, and how it can do it, when and where it wants.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/05/isil-evolving-strategy-raise-security-concerns-160524053507788.html
-----
The Demise Of the ‘Caliphate’s Capital’
By Abdulrahman al-Rashed
24 May 2016
Syria’s Raqqa is not new to war. The Mongols occupied and destroyed it, and settled there until they were expelled. It is finally about to be liberated from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has carried out unimaginable atrocities against its people, as documented and publicized by its own fighters.
They have committed mass murder, thrown people off rooftops, bragged about raping girls in schools, circulated news about killing foreigners, and taken people for forced labour. Raqqa has become the world capital of horror.
ISIS chose it as its capital because of its oil wells and facilities, which can fund its state. It has sold oil to anyone, and struck a deal that reconciled it with the Syrian regime, which is a major customer. In exchange for buying oil, ISIS has operated as an army for President Bashar al-Assad, fighting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other opposition factions.
The battle of Raqqa is the US-led coalition’s most important military and political work. The administration of US President Barack Obama needs a huge propaganda victory after criticism escalated against its Syria policy. If Raqqa is liberated, it will be its only major military achievement since the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.
Liberating Raqqa is important because it will destroy the caliphate, not just its capital. If the coalition kills and expels thousands of ISIS fighters from their stronghold, this will send a strong message to other extremist groups, including Al-Nusra Front, and hinder jihadist recruitment propaganda.
What Next?
Victory will be thrilling when reported on TV, but its results will be limited on the ground. We have previously seen how terrorist groups run like mice, build new hiding places then resume battle. ISIS decreased its presence in Iraq’s Anbar province, and then seized the city of Mosul. It is expected to do the same in Raqqa, and then target other Syrian cities.
Liberating Raqqa is important because it will destroy the caliphate, not just its capital
Apart from the propaganda gains of liberating Raqqa, the US-led coalition will not succeed in reducing the ISIS threat because the organization lives off chaos in Syria and benefits from the criminality of the Assad regime. Around half a million Syrians have been killed, and millions have been displaced or lost loved ones, due to the crimes of the Assad regime, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia, which are not less hideous than ISIS’s acts.
All this to keep Assad in power. ISIS will not find it difficult to recruit thousands of Syrians and others if it decides to revert to its old slogans of targeting the Assad regime, which it abandoned after declaring the caliphate.
ISIS will lose its capital, and will suffer a propaganda defeat worldwide. It may later the city of Fallujah in Iraq. However, these victories will not eliminate terrorism in Iraq and Syria, as they are merely pursuits from one city to another.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/05/24/The-demise-of-the-caliphate-s-capital-.html
-----
Why Pakistan Is Key to Afghan Peace
By Camelia Entekhabi-Fard
25 May 2016
On May 21, the United Sates struck a vehicle in Pakistan, killing its passenger Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, an extremely dangerous man who nine months ago became leader of the Taliban. After the killing of his predecessor Mullah Mohammad Omar was revealed, Mansour withdrew from peace talks with the Afghan government and swore to increase attacks. Efforts to resume the talks failed.
With US presidential elections in November, it seems leaving Afghanistan in this state for the next administration is unacceptable to President Barack Obama and his Democratic party. The drone that targeted Mansour also carried a message to the Taliban that it is no longer safe in Pakistan.
The man considered the main reason for the failure of peace talks has been killed, and a new page opened. There are divisions within the Taliban over Mansour’s successor, and suspicion that Pakistan betrayed it by collaborating with Washington.
Despite Islamabad’s denial of knowledge about the attack, it is hard to believe that a Taliban leader could be found in a remote area without Pakistani intelligence. Islamabad’s claim that Mansour had travelled to Iran and returned to Pakistan the day he was killed is meant to assuage Taliban suspicions about Islamabad’s involvement.
The drone that targeted Mansour also carried a message to the Taliban that it is no longer safe in Pakistan
Message
Washington is sending a message to all militants in Pakistan that if they shun negotiations, they could share Mansour’s fate. In particular, Gulbadeen Hekmatyar – a major insurgent leader and head of the Hezb-e Islami political party – should take the warning seriously.
It is almost a week since the first draft of an agreement over an Afghan unity government was presented to Hekmatyar. His party has been negotiating with the current government for the past couple of years, and his endorsement of an agreement could influence other fighters to do so.
There is speculation on social media that Sirajuddin Haqqani, leader of the Haqqani network – a subset of the Taliban – is a contender to succeed Mansour. However, this is very unlikely because the US government’s Rewards for Justice Program is offering up to $10 million for information leading to Haqqani’s capture.
Afghan politicians believe peace can be achieved when Afghanistan and Pakistan resolve their border issues. Controlling terrorists such as the Taliban should not be difficult if that is what Islamabad wants. Peace between Pakistan and Afghanistan is more necessarily than peace with the Taliban, Islamabad’s puppets.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/05/25/Why-Pakistan-is-key-to-Afghan-peace.html
----
Death Of A Warlord Will Change Nothing In Afghanistan
By Tom Hussain
24 May 2016
The balance of power in Afghanistan shifted, perhaps permanently, with the reported assassination of the Taliban chief Mullah Akhtar Mansoor in a United States drone strike on Saturday.
Since the Afghan government announced the death of the Taliban founder Mullah Mohammed Omar last July, on the eve of what would have been historical peace talks, the Islamist movement he created has slowly but gradually been falling apart.
The revelation of Omar's death was as significant for the Taliban as that of Osama bin Laden's was to al-Qaeda militants based in Afghanistan and Pakistan. With Omar gone, the Taliban no longer had an undisputed spiritual leader whose every edict was law.
Mansoor’s death may increase infighting within Taliban
Many in the Taliban were furious that Mansoor, his deputy, had kept the demise of Omar a secret for more than two years.
Begrudgingly, most accepted his leadership for the sake of the unity of the group, but he was never embraced and lived in fear of being assassinated by rivals. Indeed, after being wounded last December at a reconciliation meeting near Quetta, the capital of western Balochistan province, he went into hiding.
A Tactical Alliance
Apparently, he travelled to Iran in late March where, according to Pakistani analyst Hamid Mir, he met with representatives of the government to discuss a tactical alliance against the regional franchise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS).
He may well have spent much of his time there in the eastern Iranian city of Zabol, located close to the border with Afghanistan, where a notable Taliban community has lived since the US invasion in 2001, according to my sources in the Taliban.
His refusal to participate in peace talks echoed his need to offset allegations that he was overly sympathetic to Pakistan's position.
In the first instance, that seems a strange arrangement, considering the otherwise conflicting agendas of Iran and the Taliban, but it is hardly unusual in the context of Afghanistan, where loyalties shift like dunes.
For example, Hezb-i-Islami leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar last week signed a peace agreement with the Afghan government, after having allied himself with ISIL last year, but was a guest of Iran for several years after the US invasion.
During the Soviet occupation, Hekmatyar was allied with Pakistan's Jamaat-e-Islami, a Wahhabi Islamist political party. After the Red Army left, he was supported by Islamabad in the 1991 conquest of Jalalabad, the capital of his native Nangarhar province, which straddles the border with northwest Pakistan's Khyber tribal area.
During the pre-Taliban period, Hekmatyar repeatedly tried to seize Kabul and is remembered by older Afghans as the only compatriot to have shelled the capital, in 1992.
That campaign brought Hekmatyar into conflict with forces commanded by Ahmad Shah Massoud, the defence minister and leader of the ethnic Tajik militia that resisted Soviet attempts to conquer the strategic Panjshir (five lions) Valley.
His most senior commanders included Abdullah Abdullah, Afghanistan's incumbent chief executive, who was instrumental in negotiating last week's deal with Hekmatyar.
That puts into perspective the assassination of Mullah Mansoor, as well as the role of the Taliban in Afghanistan's messy political dispensation.
Until he refused outright to participate in the peace talks proposed in January by the Quadrilateral Coordination Group - comprising Afghanistan, China, Pakistan and the US - Mansoor was classified as a potential partner in peace, by both the Afghan and US governments.
His death can only add to the instability in Afghanistan. His refusal to participate in peace talks echoed his need to offset allegations that he was overly sympathetic to Pakistan's position.
The Taliban's brief seizure of the northern city of Kunduz last September and territorial gains in nearly all contested areas of Afghanistan was undertaken both to punish Kabul for undermining Mansoor's credibility and to consolidate the Taliban's factions, to prevent them from drifting into the ISIL camp.
Leadership Credibility
Mansoor's successor will face the same challenge, with the marked difference that he will be incessantly pursued by US special forces and the CIA, which have more or less reassumed the lead military role in Afghanistan this year, following the abysmal performance of the Afghan National Army last year after taking over command from US-led NATO forces.
He, too, will have to establish leadership credibility by leading a successful year of fighting, but will struggle even more than Mansoor to prevent the inevitable fragmentation of the Taliban.
Senior US commanders pushing US President Barack Obama to approve an extended troop presence, up to 2020, largely in the form of military advisers who plan and supervise the execution of operations by Afghan troops, and are supported by special forces-CIA teams and their drones, which have delivered more air strikes this year than warplanes have.
The enhanced and extended US military role in Afghanistan is a mirror image of its strategy in Iraq, which seeks to strengthen weak central governments until they are strong enough to deal with their weakened jihadist nemeses and domestic political rivals.
However, even a cursory reading of Afghanistan's history shows that the country has been at war for several millennia and no externally imposed political dispensation has ever survived.
It remains a battlefield for competing vested interests, predominantly warlords with varying external sponsors.
As such, they always win, with taxpayers in sponsor nations footing the bill, while the Afghan civilian population pays an ever higher price.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/05/death-warlord-change-afghanistan-160523074151279.html
-----
EgyptAir Crash Exposes A Reckless And Impulsive Donald Trump
By Joyce Karam
24 May 2016
It is one thing when Donald Trump's loose talk and theatrics are targeted at his former rivals "little Marco" and "lying Ted", and completely another when the case at hand is an international crisis involving a human tragedy, begging for leadership, intelligence sharing and defence cooperation.
To echo Mark Twain on "why let facts get in a way of a good story", Trump wanted to be the first to politicize the EgyptAir 804 tragedy, jumping the gun few hours after the crash and calling out the "great hate and sickness" that led to the "terrorist attack". Trump tweeted on Thursday at 6:27 am without having any evidence that it was an act of terrorism: “Looks like yet another terrorist attack. Airplane departed from Paris. When will we get tough, smart and vigilant? Great hate and sickness!”
To be clear, the EgyptAir tragedy might very well be an act of terror but so far we have not seen any conclusive evidence to validate those claims, while data of smoke alerts and distress calls has raised other possibilities. Trump’s speculation and knee-jerk reaction reveals a dangerous and impulsive approach in international politics, and one that could bring dire consequences if practiced from the Oval Office.
Trump’s Crystal Ball?
For someone like Trump who proposed a Muslim ban after the San Bernardino attack then retracted it as "just a suggestion" recently, exploiting tragedies for political purposes is a casual occurrence.
In the case of EgyptAir’s MS804, there has been no data or evidence yet that suggests it was a terrorist attack, unless of course Trump has a crystal ball or direct access to the Airbus windows and lavatory in question. Otherwise, and since the crash, no terrorist group has claimed responsibility and nothing about the 66 passengers and crew points to an extremist connection. But for Trump, possibly the mere fact that the plane is Egyptian and had Muslim passengers on it, was enough to label it as terrorism. He told MSNBC on Friday that he could "practically guarantee" who "blew up" the plane.
For Trump, tragedies like EgyptAir MS804 are seen as opportunities to slam Muslims and throw punches at political opponents
Waiting for the investigation teams and submarines diving thousands of feet into the Mediterranean to find the black boxes would not be as politically beneficial for the Republican presumptive nominee. Trump is seeking to boost his national security credentials after series of wild statements on meeting the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and criticizing the British Prime Minister David Cameron. A Washington-ABC Poll shows that potential Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton leads “The Donald” by 8 points on the issue counterterrorism.
Trump’s hawkish and fear-mongering rhetoric resonates well with the GOP’s ideological base. The website "The right scoop" went a step further than Trump in smearing the pilot Mohamed Said Shakeer because of conversations he had with his friends about death and an old photo with a cleric on one of his 6275 hours of flying. This is the same pilot who made the call to traffic control to report the smoke on the flight and attempted emergency landing.
Dangerous Prejudice
Trump's foolhardy talk and shooting from the hip on issues related to foreign policy and national security is reckless and plays into the hands of extremist organizations in the region.
His labels of "Islamic terrorism", "Muslim ban" and "great hate" are not to be seen as manifestation of strength and are by no means equivalent to a strategy to defeat ISIS. He has none. Big statements during the George W. Bush era such as "war on terror" or "Islamofascism" did not defeat Osama Bin Laden nor did they democratize Iraq. Instead they fuelled anti-Americanism in the region, and re-enforced the "them vs. us" narrative.
Diplomatically, rushing to Twitter to draw premature conclusions about a tragedy that involves two allies, France and Egypt, provides a good example on how not to be Presidential. In an increasingly vulnerable Middle East, embassies and U.S. interests could end up paying the price of wild campaign talk in Washington.
For Trump, tragedies like EgyptAir MS804 are seen as opportunities to slam Muslims and throw punches at political opponents. That might be a smart approach to rally the base and generate traffic on social media, but it’s an irresponsible and reckless precedent when you’re two steps away from the Presidency of the United States.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/05/24/EgyptAir-crash-exposes-a-reckless-and-impulsive-Donald-Trump.html
--
Netanyahu, Lieberman Deal Meant To Derail French Plan
By Daoud Kuttab
24 May 2016
If the French diplomatic machine had a hard time scheduling a conference with US Secretary of State John Kerry, it will soon find out that its effort to arrange an international conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be that much harder. In a three-day spat, a behind-the-scenes effort by Kerry and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to move the Israeli government toward peace backfired.
The plan included Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog joining the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to give it more muscle against right-wing settler ideologues. To make it more acceptable, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, one of the more popular Arab figures in Israel today, gave a pro-peace speech and said he was willing to help. Netanyahu and Herzog were supposed to head to Cairo to meet with Sisi.
However, instead of adding 25 members to his one-seat parliamentary majority, the prime minister offered the Defense Ministry to settler Avigdor Lieberman, whose right-wing Jewish Home party only won six seats in last year’s elections. This turn of events produced many reactions in Israel, including in the army, but the biggest potential loser in this cabinet reshuffle will be the French plan to hold an international conference.
Israel is skeptical about the multilateral event, preferring to keep control of peace talks bilaterally. Palestinians, who have tired of 20 years of direct talks that produce nothing but photo opportunities, have for some time vowed to shun a process that gives Israel a PR badge without producing any results.
The sudden Israeli cabinet shift further to the right has not lessened French enthusiasm. A revisit to Kerry’s schedule produced a window on June 3, and the preparatory meeting is back on, irrespective of the changes in Israel’s government. Israel and the Palestinians are not invited to the meeting, which aims to consolidate the will of the international community.
Political will
The problem is that while there is general agreement on what needs to happen and the framework of a solution to the conflict, there is an absence of political will and muscle needed to force Israel to take the peace process seriously.
What made the Iran nuclear deal possible was tough sanctions by the international community. Nothing of the sort is on the table regarding Israel. In fact, the international community - including France - is fighting tooth and nail against attempts by their own citizens to divest from companies that deal with Israel and help perpetuate its occupation and settlements regime.
If the French are serious about their peace effort, they must not allow yet another conference without teeth
Boycotts, divestments and sanctions (BDS) are what caused South Africa to end its apartheid system, but the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe are violating freedom of expression by trying to criminalize BDS efforts against Israel.
The absurdity of this position was best exposed in a Twitter exchange between Palestinian-American Ali Abu Nimeh and an EU official opposed to BDS. The exchange ended with a logical question to the official: What form of resistance to the occupation will be accepted by the international community?
If the French are serious about their peace effort, they must not allow yet another conference without teeth. Former French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabious had said if Israel balked at peace, France would recognize Palestine. However, that statement was retracted by his successor Jean-Marc Ayrault.
It will take much more than a shy, hesitant threat of recognizing Palestine to make the forthcoming peace conference work. Paris needs to understand that if occupation and settlements are illegal under international law, their perpetuation must have consequences. Until and unless Israel has to pay a price for its actions, there is no chance for any process to bring about true peace in the Middle East.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2016/05/24/Netanyahu-Lieberman-deal-meant-to-derail-French-plan.html
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/isil-evolving-strategy-raise-security/d/107409