Obama Sending Mixed Messages in Counterterrorism Strategy
Recent developments in terror threats against the United States are at odds with the latest counterterrorism line coming out of the White House. We need some new thinking.
Recent developments in terror threats against the United States are at odds with the latest counterterrorism line coming out of the White House. We need some new thinking.
By Frank Cilluffo and Clinton Watts
Last week, Gregory Johnsen of the blog Waq-al-Waq crafted a thoughtful response to our article “Yemen & Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula: Exploiting a Window of Counterterrorism Opportunity.” Below is our response to further what we believe to be a particularly important debate. We begin by addressing Johnsen’s conclusion and then discuss each of his points individually.
No part of the federal government is more at risk in Washington’s mindless approach to budget cutting than the U.S. Coast Guard. By every responsible measure, the service is blinking red when it comes to the challenge of matching vital missions to capability. Yet, Congress appears ready to gut the service to preserve funding for “pork barrel” grants. No wonder the Coast Guard is singing the blues.
If you blinked, you might have missed the news that law enforcement foiled the 40th plot aimed at the United States since 9/11 – two suspects sought to buy weapons for an attack on a military recruiting station in Seattle. Last week, John Brennan unveiled the new counterterrorism strategy. Some may argue that the new strategy shifts appropriate attention to these threats. Certainly, that is what Brennan boasted when he claimed this is the first strategy to really focus on the homeland. I think Brennan is overly enamored with his own talking points.
If you have been following the news reports concerning ATF’s Operation “Fast and Furious,” you are acutely aware that CBP agent Brian Terry was killed in the line of duty and some of the weapons found at the scene have been traced back to what is now known as “Operation Fast and Furious.” For various political reasons, including conspiracy theories, there has been and continues to be a feeding frenzy by reporters and commentators on both the left and the right. Everyone needs to take a step back, take a deep breath and look at the facts.
It is hard to argue that local, state, and federal counterterrorism operations are not still a work in progress. While working together, law enforcement agencies at all levels have combined to thwart a number of plots since 9/11, many challenges that frustrate cooperation still perplex the national counterterrorism enterprise. The remedy is a new organizational culture that places a premium on building trust and confidence between federal, state, and local counterterrorism efforts.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has complained on more than one occasion that Republicans are “moving the goalposts” when it comes to border security. One reason, as former DHS economist Bryan Roberts and I argue in a new piece for Foreign Affairs, is that the current metrics for measuring progress at the border are lousy. Apprehensions at the border may be falling, but does that mean illegal immigrants have been deterred from trying?
Today we released an issue brief on Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) that highlights the current threat that AQAP poses, the implications of AQAP’s ascension in the wake of the Yemeni government collapse and considers options to address the threat. We contend that the current security vacuum that AQAP has exploited to expand and secure its safe haven, also allows the U.S. greater flexibility of counterterrorism options and maneuverability, providing a unique opportunity to reduce AQAP’s capabilities through the use of special operations forces and armed drones.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg made the trip to Washington yesterday to meet with members of Congress and delivered a very strong speech at a Council on Foreign Relations symposium, “The Future of U.S. Immigration Policy.” Bloomberg’s message was one that all sides in the caustic immigration debate need to hear: that in the dire economic situation this country faces, the question is no longer what the United States can do for immigrants, it’s what immigrants can do for us.