| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| Gauging success in the war on terrorism |
| 2005-11-29 |
| How do we measure the progress being made in the War on Terrorism? That is the theme of a recent Congressional Research Service report prepared by CRS terrorism expert Raphael Perl. The report reflects concerns that we really have not developed the criteria necessary to judge the effectiveness of our anti-terrorism actions. Perl holds that in the absence of such criteria the Administration has simply measured progress retrospectively against what it has done. âAnd of course since we've done some stuff, we've made progressâŠ.â Rather than measure progress against agreed benchmarks, he says, the administration has cited statistics on kills, captures, and funds frozen. But, this does not mean that we actually know just how much damage has really been done to terrorism infrastructure, recruitment or financial support. Charles Pena of the Cato Institute made similar point lasts year. He noted President Bush State of the Union claim that ânearly two-thirds of [al Qaeda's] known leadership have been captured or killed.â But, according to Pina, this is a misleading metric for gauging progress. Pina points out that âal Qaeda is not a centralized network that depends on its leaders.â Rather its cells or largely âorganicâ and can operate independently. Leaders are replaced as needed, and recruitment continues to rebuild its ranks. The fact is that each year, since 9/11 has seen an increase in terrorist violence, not a diminuation. The same can be said for judging our progress in dealing with terrorism financing. The freezing of $150 â $200 million in bank accounts around the world really tells us quite little about the effect we are having on terrorism financing. Most of this money was frozen just after 9/11 and about 2/3rds of it had nothing really to do with al Qaeda. It was Afghan money subsequently returned to the Karsai government. These freezing actions had little effect in putting Al Qaedaâs identified financiers out of business. Youssef Nada, Ahmed Nasreddin, Yasin al-Kadi, Hamza Julaidan (to name only a few) are still out their managing portfolio investments. Nor have we effectively closed down the charities identified as channeling funds to al Qaeda. Many have simply reorganized under new names to accomplish the same ends. See for example by blogs on al Haramain and Lashka e Taiba. Our success in dealing with terrorism has to be measured in inches, not miles. And we must be very cautious when claiming progress or success, least we begin to let down our guard. We have to recognize that the war on terrorism will be around for some time to come; and, to win, that we must place an even greater emphasis on countering and dismantleing the structures that finance and support the indoctrination and recruitment of new militant jihadiâs willing to sacrifice innocent lives in ways no legitimate religion should preach. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #1 He doesn't think # of kills,captures and funds seized are not accurate"benchmarks of progress.I wonder if he considers letters and other communiques whining and crying about insufficient numbers of recruits, lack of and poor quality of leadership.Plus Al Q begging Zargi for money are sufficent"benchmarks"? |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-11-29 07:16 |