State Department: Al-Qa’ida in Iraq Resurgence

    President Obama's greatest foreign policy triumph is by all accounts the successful tracking and killing of Osama bin Laden, the long-time al-Qaeda chief.  The White House notes this accomplishment on its Foreign Policy page on its website along with other achievements, such as:

Refocusing on the Threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan  President Obama took office pledging to end the war in Iraq while refocusing on al Qaeda – particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Since taking office, the Obama Administration has focused its resources on al Qaeda and its affiliates. These counter-terrorism efforts have substantially impacted al Qaeda’s leadership, including the death of Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
On December 1, 2009, at West Point, the President put forth a new U.S. strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan that is focused on disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and preventing its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.  

Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq  On February 27, 2009, President Obama announced a plan to responsibly end the war in Iraq.
On August 31, 2010, the President announced the end of our combat mission in Iraq, and Iraqi Security Forces assumed lead responsibility for their nation’s security.
In December of 2011, the final U.S. troops left Iraq, ending America’s war there as promised. Beyond 2011, the United States will have a normal relationship with a sovereign Iraq, one in which we work together as partners to promote our common security and prosperity. 

    In light of the unsettling events in Libya, Afghanistan, and other countries in the region, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was questioned about al-Qaida's relative strength in an interview With Reena Ninan of ABC News:

QUESTION: We’re seeing al-Qaida strengthen in some parts – in Mali, in Syria, in Iraq. What’s the real status of al-Qaida, and are they strengthening?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it’s absolutely fair to say that the major leadership of al-Qaida, including bin Ladin, has been decimated. There has been an effort to have other al-Qaida affiliate-like organizations – al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb – to try to take up the mantle of al-Qaida, but the core of al-Qaida has been severely damaged.
But we know that there will be terrorists, if they call themselves that or they call themselves something else, who will continue to terrorize people in the countries where they are based and continue to threaten the United States and our friends and allies. So we have never taken at all our eye off the ball of how we have to keep going after those extremists who pose a threat.

    However, on Wednesday of this week, Clinton's own State Department issued a report entitled "Al-Qa’ida in Iraq Resurgence", listed on the website of the Overseas Security Advisory Council under Recent Reports - Global Security:

Al-Qa’ida in Iraq Resurgence
Near East > Iraq > Baghda
10/24/2012
Recent bombings, a jailbreak, and the discovery of training camps in western Iraq highlight the resurgence of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) operations over the past 10 weeks. During this period, AQI conducted an average of 140 attacks per week, up from 75 in early 2012, according to the Pentagon.

    Only this summary is available to the public as OSAC reports are generally only available to subscribers.  The report does not appear anywhere else on the State Department website despite the alarming nature of the summary.  Attacks have nearly doubled in the past ten weeks, a time extending back before the attacks in Libya.  However, the most recent Travel Warning issued by the State Department dates back to August 9, 2012, just at the start of the ten week period in question (granted, it is a fairly dire warning.)

    Despite Mrs. Clinton's reassurances ("decimated", "severely damaged"), the increasing incidence of terrorism attributed to Al-Qa’ida in Iraq is significant.  A full investigation of recent events certainly demands a close look at the growing influence and threat of al-Qaida throughout the region, no matter how politically uncomfortable that may be for the Obama administration and its foreign policy "victories."

The Politicization of Benghazi

    Congressional hearings were held this week to attempt to get to the bottom of the terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012.  One of the challenges was determining the level of alertness and preparedness at the State Department and other agencies charged with the security of our national interests and citizens at home and abroad.  The answer to that question might provide clues also about the curious response of many in the Obama administration who after the attack clung to the spontaneous protest of a terrible anti-Muslim movie that turned violent explanation in the face of clear and mounting evidence to the contrary.

    I have already written extensively about one report that the State Department issued on 9/6/12 via the Overseas Security Advisory Council.  While the OSAC's function is limited within the State Department, the reports they issue, to be credible and reliable, must be based on the best intelligence available to the State Department as a whole, and consequently must reflect the attitudes and priorities of the Department and its leadership.  The summary of the report which initially appeared in a publicly available menu of reports but subsequently on 9/14/12 was placed behind the subscriber wall reads as follows [emphasis mine]:

Terrorism and Important Dates
Global
9/6/2012
OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.

    This position of the State Department, that often concerns are the result of media attention to anniversary dates, stands in stark contrast to their position in 2011 as the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approached.  This warning was issued last year on 9/2/11 [emphasis mine]:

Travel Alert
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Consular Affairs
9-11 Anniversary
September 02, 2011
As we mark the 10th Anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Department of State informs U.S. citizens traveling and residing abroad of the continued threat posed by al-Qa’ida and its affiliates.  While we have not identified any specific threats from al-Qa’ida affiliates and allies to attack the United States or our interests on the 9/11 anniversary, U.S. citizens should be aware that al-Qa’ida affiliates and allies have demonstrated the intent and capability to carry out attacks against the United States and our interests around the world.  In the past, terrorist organizations have on occasion planned their attacks to coincide with significant dates on the calendar.  This Worldwide Travel Alert supplements the July 26, 2011, Worldwide Caution, and expires on January 2, 2012.

    In contrast, no travel warnings were issued by the State Department in advance of the 9/11 anniversary that related the warning to the anniversary.  In fact, at a press conference on August 29, 2012, a State Department spokesperson went to some lengths to dispel the notion that a recently issued Pakistan travel warning was in any way related to the upcoming anniversary of 9/11:

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, Goyal, you are correct that we recently updated our Travel Warning for Pakistan. We do this on a routine basis as events happen on the ground. The latest update, which I think was yesterday or the day before, includes information about some of the attacks that we’ve seen, including the April explosion in Lahore and the suicide attack in Karachi. So it’s just appropriate that we would keep that up-to-date based on events...
QUESTION: And as far as this Travel Warning is concerned, Madam, is this in connection with the, one, 9/11 coming up? ...
MS. NULAND: It doesn’t have anything to do with September 11th. It just has to do with regular updating based on information on the ground, as I stated.

    The bottom line is that the State Department had little to no concern about the 9/11 anniversary.  A search  for "9/11 threat" and "9/11 warning" on the State Department website in the month run-up to September 11th this year yields very few results, and most of those have nothing to do with the anniversary.  The sole exception was the transcript of the press conference I excerpted above, and that was actually to disavow a 9/11 anniversary warning.  Coincidentally, one of the other documents these searches found was not a warning, but rather an IRC Alert Newsletter from the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan that highlighted an article in the Mediterranean Quarterly, Spring 2012 issue entitled "AL QAEDA’S POST–9/11 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND STRATEGY: The Role of Islamist Regional Affiliates".  The article is summarized in part as follows:

"The political transformations under way in the Arab world and the killing of Osama bin Laden raise serious questions about al Qaeda‘s long-term viability. The secular-liberal Arab Spring protest movement appears to be winning the war of ideas over al Qaeda‘s violent religious fundamentalism. Civil disobedience campaigns in Tunisia and Egypt succeeded in forcing regime change in ways that a decade of al Qaeda terror attacks failed to accomplish. While it is too soon to write al Qaeda‘s obituary, its erosion came well before the death of its historic leader...”

    Given the pre-9/11/12 optimism at the State Department and the ambivalence towards the upcoming 9/11 anniversary, the administration's response to the events of that day had to be prepared quickly.  Eli Lake at the Daily Beast and Jake Tapper of ABC News among others have reported on various internal documents, assessments, and talking points that were prepared and used by various government agencies in the days and weeks following the attacks.  Whatever those documents actually said, much of the talk during that time from government officials, up to and including the president, was about the movie, the anti-Muslim trailer on YouTube that apparently provoked the protest at the US Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, on the same day as the Benghazi attack.  But what information did the State Department have in the hours following the attacks that would have led to this initial conclusion?  One of the first responses came from the OSAC who had issued the report on 9/6 that I referenced at the beginning of this post.  It is dated 9/11/12, the same day as the incident and begins as follows:

Emergency Message for U.S. Citizens: Tripoli (Libya) Attack on Consulate in Benghazi
Riots/Civil Unrest
Near East > Libya > Tripoli
9/11/2012
Please be advised that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was attacked this evening.  We strongly encourage all American citizens to take appropriate precautions as the security situation in Libya is volatile.  Review your personal safety plans, remain aware of your surroundings, including local events, and monitor local news stations for updates.  Maintain a high level of vigilance and take appropriate steps to enhance your personal security.
The U.S. Embassy in Tripoli will be closed Wednesday, September 12, 2012.

    Almost the entire report (a repeat of the warning on the website of the Libyan embassy in Tripoli) sounds like a standard report that would be issued in many emergency situations including phone numbers and websites to get additional information, as well as warnings to be extremely careful.  But the first line says that "the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was attacked this evening."  There is no mention of a protest, a demonstration, and certainly nothing about a movie.

    The second report was issued the next day by the OSAC.  The entire report is available here.  There is analysis and further information following the paragraphs I have reproduced below, but what follows are the facts as they were being reported at the time.  Note that the official symbol of the State Department/OSAC heads the page (pictured here on left.)  Also note the disclaimer at the bottom of the page says: "The contents of this (U) presentation in no way represent the policies, views, or attitudes of the United States Department of State, or the United States Government, except as otherwise noted (e.g., travel advisories, public statements). The presentation was compiled from various open sources and (U) embassy reporting."  While it may be true that the following "in no way represent the policies, views, or attitudes of the United States Department of State," it nonetheless does represent what the State Department knew, or at least what it was willing to make public, about the events in Benghazi on 9/11/12.

September 12, 2012

On September 11, the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was attacked by armed militants, some wielding rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and assault rifles, at approximately 3:50 p.m. The assault breached the consulate and resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three U.S. officials. Several more personnel were reportedly wounded in the attack that left the consulate burned and ransacked.

 Background According to preliminary open source reporting, approximately 20 armed militants gathered outside the U.S. Consulate on September 11, possibly in protest to the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims.”. Following a series of warning shots from security guards attempting to disperse the crowds, American and Libyan security forces were overpowered. The armed mob was able to penetrate the consulate, resulting in the death of Ambassador Stevens, Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and two security personnel. Libyan doctors who treated Ambassador Stevens reported the cause of death was severe asphyxiation from smoke inhalation. Witness reports describe the use of RPGs, homemade bombs and grenades being thrown inside the consulate, sparking several fires.
Hours before the attack on the Benghazi consulate, demonstrators gathered outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to protest the controversial anti-Islam film the “Innocence of Muslims.” Demonstrators scaled the walls of the Embassy, tore down and burnt an American flag, and attempted to raise an Islamic banner with the words, “There is no God but God, and Mohammad is his messenger."

    Note that there is no actual evidence of a protest or demonstration in Benghazi as there was in Cairo.  While the movie is mentioned, it is pure speculation.  There were no banners in the Benghazi report, and as far as I have read, no widespread reports of "armed militants" in Cairo at the Embassy.  Also, unlike the huge gathering in Cairo, the "crowd" at Benghazi consisted of "approximately 20 armed militants" who were apparently greeted fairly quickly with warning shots from inside the compound, indicating that those inside immediately sensed extreme danger.  During the Cairo protests, the staff sent out the now infamous tweet and press release condemning those who would "hurt the religious feelings of Muslims," a reference to the anti-Muslim movie.  But in Benghazi, the staff was quickly preparing for a fight for their lives, which for four of them turned into a fight to the death.

     So why did the administration react as it did?  In September 2011, Osama bin Laden's death was only months old and tensions were still high.  But as the year passed and the election drew closer, the White House built its foreign policy credentials on the end the war in Iraq and "winding down the war in Afghanistan", Osama bin Laden's death, al-Qaida's decline, and the successful ouster of Gaddafi in Libya.  Both the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan were already showing signs of deterioration, and now in a single day, 9/11/12, the remaining three legs of the foreign policy stool were shaken.  Around the Arab world, protesters were reportedly shouting “Obama! Obama! We are all Osama!” and the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was brutally attacked with overwhelming force, presumably with al-Qaida's involvement.  The foreign policy of the Obama administration was crashing down around it in a single day.

    Then, three days after the attacks, on 9/14/12, the OSAC withdrew the 9/6/12 report behind its subscriber wall and Jay Carney mentioned the "video" twelve times at a press conference, saying at least three times,"unrest around the region has been in response to this video."  Carney went on to say, "We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned."  UN Ambassador Susan Rice repeatedly cited in the video in later interviews and the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brought it up more than once when discussing the Benghazi attacks.  Recently revelations have proved that there was no demonstration or protest at the US Consulate in Benghazi, only an outright and determined attack.  A more realistic look at the evidence would have made this the natural conclusion to draw in the aftermath rather than defaulting to "the video."

    The US Weather Service may have to visit the scene of a weather disaster to officially designate a "tornado," but those who have lived through them can look at flattened buildings and cars in trees and be quite certain what happened.  The Obama administration refused to acknowledge the evidence before its eyes in a political attempt to salvage a foreign policy, and possibly and election, that was quickly slipping away.

Source: State Dept. OSAC Report is Behind Subscriber Wall

    Since September 12, 2012, the day after the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, I have been following the story of a report issued by the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), part of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the U.S. Department of State.  The report was originally issued on 9/6/12, five days before the attack, and a summary of the report appeared on the OSAC website in a menu of available reports as follows (entitled "Terrorism and Important Dates"):

    However, on September 14, three days after the attack and two days after my original post, that item disappeared from the menu of available reports and remains missing through the present.  From the beginning, I have allowed the possibility that the report was simply placed behind the subscriber wall on the site.  Certain reports are only available to "constituents". (The OSAC site says "OSAC constituency is available to any American-owned, not-for-profit organization, or any enterprise incorporated in the U.S. (parent company, not subsidiaries or divisions) doing business overseas.")  I did, however, think this was unlikely as summaries of other reports available only to subscribers remained in the site menus (for instance, one entitled "Narco-roadblocks in Colima and Jalisco" from 8/31/12; go back to 8/31 in the menu, and the summary is still listed; but to view the full report requires logging in.)  In my comparison of present menus with Google-cached versions of the same menus from earlier dates, I could not find a single report that was once listed that was subsequently removed as the report in question.

    Despite all this, I received confirmation today from an OSAC website subscriber that the Terrorism and Important Dates report is still available behind the subscriber wall via the original link address.  Although I admit my inner-conspiracy-theorist was somewhat disappointed at the news, it helps bring the remaining issues into focus:

• Why was the State Department downplaying the possibility of a 9/11 anniversary attack overseas and implying fears of such attacks were media creations?  (From original summary [emphasis mine]: "Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.")
• Why was the summary and link removed from the list of available reports on Friday, September 14th, three days after the attack, and placed behind the subscriber wall?  And who at the State Dept. removed the report or instructed that it be done?
• Is the tone of the memo indicative of a wide-spread attitude in the Obama administration that would explain the reluctance of administration officials to label the Benghazi incident a "terrorist attack" until days after many independent observers had already reached that conclusion?

    As of today, my inquires to the State Department/OSAC remain unanswered.

Missing State Department Report: "Terrorist groups are predisposed to conduct the attack first and justify the reasoning subsequently."

    More information is surfacing that contradicts the Obama administration's claims that the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11 was a spontaneous reaction to the trailer for an anti-Muhammad movie that was posted to YouTube in July.  US Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House spokesman Jay Carney, and the president himself have all suggested the movie was the catalyst and that there is no evidence the Libya attack was pre-planned.  However, CBS is now reporting (via the Weekly Standard) that unlike Cairo, there was no movie protest in Liyba at the consulate the night of the attack:

CBS reports this morning that witnesses are saying "that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate [in Benghazi, Libya]. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration's account of the incident."

    During the past week, I have posted several stories about a State Department memo issued on 9/6/12 by the OSAC division downplaying the possibility of a 9/11 anniversary attack.  The memo subsequently disappeared from the OSAC website after the attacks.  I found and posted a cached version of the website showing the report listed prior to its removal on 9/14.

    However, it turns out I was only re-printing the opening paragraph of the report.  I subsequently realized the full report was much longer and was reproduced on the day it was issued (in full, as far as I can tell) on this website for Crisis Counseling International, an organization that apparently subscribes to the OSAC full-access website. (I had linked to this site in an earlier post, but did not fully recognize the entire post was part of the OSAC report.)  I have since discovered that much of the report was reproduced from a July 2011 OSAC newsletter (available here in PDF format.)  Here is the relevant portion of the extended report:

Terrorism and Holidays/Anniversary DatesHistorically, al-Qa’ida and other transnational terrorist groups have not conducted successful attacks on major U.S. holidays and anniversary dates. One possible explanation for this lack of activity is due to the increase in security on major dates because of a perceived vulnerability. A terrorist group that has spent a significant amount of time monitoring a potential target, training operatives, and acquiring the weapons necessary for a major attack would be less likely to attack when security is at a heightened level. 

Terrorist groups are predisposed to conduct the attack first and justify the reasoning subsequently. 

     That last line stands in sharp contrast to the week-long insistence by the Obama administration that what was clearly a well-coordinated attack by a large group or groups with serious firepower was just a spontaneous response to a movie.  As the report above says, "Terrorist groups are predisposed to conduct the attack first and justify the reasoning subsequently." The question now becomes, if, again as the report above states, a "terrorist group that has spent a significant amount of time monitoring a potential target, training operatives, and acquiring the weapons necessary for a major attack would be less likely to attack when security is at a heightened level," then why was this group able to conclude that security at the US consulate on a 9/11 anniversary in a very volatile country was not "heightened"?  Had the state department indeed grown complacent as I suggested here?

    Reports today indicate the administration has realized its movie-based explanation was crumbling.  The president made this explicit in an interview today:

President Barack Obama said that protests over a video that ridicules the Prophet Muhammad were used as a pretext for a planned strike against Americans.
“What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.  Well, we do not know yet.  And so we are going to continue to investigate this,” Obama said.

 Now the administration will have to fully explain its apparent lack of readiness for the 9/11 events in Libya.

Next Up for New York: The War on al-Fredo

    In 2004, Michael Bloomberg spoke the following inspiring words at the Republican National Convention in the city where he has served as mayor since 2002:

No place epitomizes the American experience and the American spirit more than New York City. Ironically, it is exactly because we are a city that embraces freedom, that welcomes everyone and encourages their dreams, that New York remains on the front lines in the war on terror.

    Eight years later, the mayor spoke to Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC about his proposal to ban the sale of soda and other sugary drinks in sizes larger than 16 oz:

"We're not taking away anybody's right to do anything," he told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. "We're simply forcing you to understand."

    I do not live in New York City, but I must say that I find those words considerably less inspiring, unless inspiring derision counts.  The mayor has taken on salt and trans fats, but both of those are behind-the-scenes ingredients that may cause businesses and restaurants headaches, but the consumer does not absorb the direct impact.  He also imposed wide ranging smoking bans, which, considering the checkered past of that habit, was not met with much resistance from the general public.  After all, who has had a meal spoiled because the next table was filled with people using lots of salt and trans fats and drinking enormous glasses of sugary beverages?  Smoking can actually affect other people.
    However, in his latest move, the mayor has taken things to a Hole. Nutha. Level.  The arbitrary nature of the proposal is staggering.  Sixteen ounces?  Why not twelve?  Soda?  But not beer or wine? (Exactly how many "driving while full of Pepsi" arrests are made in the city each year?)  The mayor has already been mocked for celebrating National Doughnut Day practically simultaneously with the announcement of his beverage ban.  Will the "baker's dozen" be outlawed to prevent an 8.5% increase in sugar consumption that occurs with every purchase of a dozen doughnuts at many bakeries?  Will there be a limit to the number of sugar packets one can add to a cup of tea or coffee?  Will someone be allowed to buy two 16 oz. beverages without proof that a second individual will consume the contraband drink?
    The mayor's penchant for banning behaviors he finds unwise could lead to a whole series of commercials like the Audi Green Police commercial that ran during the Super Bowl a few years back:



    I consider myself somewhat of a TV commercial connoisseur (or I was back when I used to watch TV,) and I count that one of the best ever made.  It is ironic that Audi was actually selling a "green" product while at the same time ridiculing the nannies.  But the idea is ripe for imitation in Bloomberg's latest attempt to save New Yorker's from themselves.  Who will be the first to strike back in the public relations war that is sure to come?
    If government is permitted to engage in this level of micromanagement of citizen's lives, what activity is safe?  (Besides abortion, which is, of course, untouchable and guaranteed by the Constitution.)  They came for salt, they came for sugar, can Fettuccine Alfredo be far behind with its nearly 1000 calories and 60+ grams of fat per serving?  (One can almost sense Mayor Bloomberg shuddering at the thought.)  In less than a decade, the enemy has gone from al-Qaeda to al-Fredo.  And the loser is freedom.