TOP 100 NEWS SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Obama must not rush into retaliation | Micah Zenko A military strike on Yemen in response to the attempted attack on flight 253 would be a bad short-term solution, as history showsAmerican officials are still unravelling the failed terrorist bombing of a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. While details remain unclear, it appears that Abdulmutallab received operational guidance and training in Yemen from al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.The revelation of the Yemeni-based group's involvement has predictably brought pressure from congressional leaders and policy analysts to "do something" in response, including what is described by one administration official as "visible retaliatory military action".An overt and immediate US military strike in Yemen in response to the failed bomb plot may look increasingly likely, but it would be a bad short-term solution. As recent history demonstrates, counterterrorist strikes in retaliation for specific terrorist plots or operations have often proven to be militarily ineffective, and unsuccessful in deterring the targeted group from pursuing additional terrorist attacks. Consider three well-known examples:• In April 1986, the US president Ronald Reagan decided to retaliate against Libya for its involvement in the bombing of a Berlin disco that killed two American servicemen. US aircraft bombed a range of targets associated with the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, including the Aziziyah Barracks compound in Tripoli, where it was believed the Libyan leader lived.The results of the attacks were meagre: Libya's infrastructure was not significantly damaged and Gaddafi survived, becoming more defiant than ever. Moreover, Libya's support for international terrorism increased in direct response, with British and American hostages in Lebanon assassinated by Libyan-controlled terrorist groups, and most significantly, the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people.• In June 1993, after Iraqi intelligence agents allegedly plotted an assassination attempt on the former US president George HW Bush during a trip to Kuwait, President Clinton ordered the launching of 23 cruise missiles against one wing of the Iraqi intelligence agency headquarters in Baghdad.The results of this retaliatory strike were a success, though it remains unclear if the cruise missiles played any role. The leadership wing of the Iraqi intelligence headquarters was destroyed, and according to Richard Clarke, counterterrorism tsar to presidents Clinton and Bush: "Subsequent to that June 1993 retaliation, the US intelligence and law enforcement communities never developed any evidence of further Iraqi support for terrorism directed against Americans."• In August 1998, in retaliation for the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the US launched 13 Tomahawk cruise missiles against a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, suspected of producing nerve gas, and 60-70 Tomahawks against three al-Qaida training camps in southern Afghanistan with the intention of killing Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders.While the pharmaceutical plant was destroyed during Operation Infinite Reach, the evidence supporting its connections to either al-Qaida or nerve gas production quickly evaporated. In addition, the attacks against the al-Qaida leadership killed a few dozen people, including Pakistani intelligence officers training militants to fight in Kashmir. Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mohammed Atta – ringleader of the 9/11 attacks – and other key al-Qaida leaders survived, and were certainly not deterred.These examples show that a more prudent immediate response to terrorist plots or operations is to understand why the existing counterterrorism plans and programmes failed, and how they should be adjusted and enhanced. While military force is undoubtedly an essential tool against individuals directly responsible for terrorist plots and operations, responding too quickly allows US adversaries to dictate the terms of US policy, and elevates and emboldens them in the eyes of the world.In October 2000, the USS Cole was bombed while refuelling in Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and wounding 39 others. Four months later, the intelligence community provided conclusive evidence to the Bush White House of al-Qaida's direct involvement. Twenty-one months after that, after significantly increasing US counterterrorism co-operation with Yemen and methodically developing sources within the country, in November 2002, a CIA-controlled Predator drone killed Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, the al-Qaida operative responsible with overseeing the Cole bombing.In this instance, military retaliation succeeded. But as the Northwest Airlines plot demonstrates, without a long-term and comprehensive programme to enhance Yemeni security and governance capacity, there is little that the US can do to prevent terrorists from operating there.Global terrorismYemenUS foreign policyUS national securityAl-QaidaUnited StatesMicah Zenkoguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Andre Dawson elected to Hall of Fame NEW YORK (AP) -- Andre Dawson was elected to the Hall of Fame on Wednesday in his ninth try, while Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar fell just short of earning baseball's highest honor.... hosted.ap.org |
'Thousands dead' in Haiti quake Haiti's President Rene Preval says thousands of people are feared dead following a huge earthquake which devastated the capital. news.bbc.co.uk |
Chicago Bears Lineman Dies Chicago Bears lineman Gaines Adams, the fourth overall pick in the 2007 NFL draft, died after going into cardiac arrest at his family's South Carolina home early Sunday morning. He was 26. online.wsj.com |
Sri Lankan poll sparks fears of violence • Race between incumbent and former army chief • Tamil minority's vote key after end of long civil warSri Lanka will on Tuesday hold its first presidential elections since the defeat of the Tamil Tigers, amid allegations that the ruling party is planning to stir up violence in a desperate attempt to cling on to power.The increasingly bitter election campaign came to an end this weekend with final rallies for the two main candidates, President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Sarath Fonseka, the former head of the army.The two men are widely seen as the chief architects of last year's victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). But since putting an end to one of the world's longest running insurgencies they have turned on each other in an escalating round of accusations and insults.On Saturday Fonseka warned of vote-rigging and suggested that the army might stage a coup if Rajapaksa loses. "The violence will reduce voter attendance, then the rigging will take place," he said.A government spokesman, Keheliya Rambukwella, denied the opposition's allegation. "They know that there is an imminent defeat and this is their usual excuse to cover up a humiliating defeat," he told the Associated Press.The run-up to the vote has already been marred by violence. Police say at least four people have been killed and hundreds wounded in clashes between the factions and on Friday the house of an influential opposition figure was bombed.Fonseka, who decided to challenge Rajapaksa after complaining of being sidelined, has dismissed the president as a "cardboard king". Rajapaksa's supporters, meanwhile, have portrayed Fonseka as a dictator in the making, comparing him to Idi Amin, the brutal Ugandan military leader. Amid the name-calling, there lurks the real fear that violence will escalate if the result is disputed.With the Sinhalese vote expected to be split, both men have courted the Tamil minority, who make up 12% of the population – and who bore the brunt of the bloody campaign to defeat the Tigers. Sri Lanka's main Tamil party has thrown its weight behind the former general despite his ruthless conduct of the campaign against the Tigers.The Tamil National Alliance, formerly the LTTE, considers Rajapaksa, who is seeking a second six-year term, the greater evil. The TNA has said it could not back Rajapaksa because of the government's human rights abuses and its inability to achieve reconciliation between the ÂSinhalese and minority Tamil communities following the end of the 25-year civil war."We have no faith in either of the candidates. However a majority of TNA MPs believe that they want a change, so that's why we decided in favour of Fonseka," one TNA MP said.Manikkawasagar (not his real name), a Tamil voter from Jaffna, was once an open supporter of the rebels, but he now plans to vote for Fonseka, "because all this time the president has failed to listen to us".Prominent Sri Lankan blogger Jude Fernando called on Tamils to back the former army chief. "Whether or not Fonseka can win, if we work to increase the number of votes he receives, we can hope for a stronger opposition in the future, and we can successfully expand the space for democracy," he said. "We can make it more likely that one day we will be able to hold the ruling party accountable, and we can exert pressure to make the next general election much more just and fair."But a Tamil truck driver from Jaffna, who also asked not to be named, said he would vote for the president. "When the war was going on, we suffered enormously at the hands of both pro-LTTE and pro-government groups. But all that ended with the elimination of the LTTE. Although many young people want a change, we who have seen much in life strongly believe that credit goes to the president," he said.Rajapaksa and Fonseka have been accused of human rights violations, and a US state department report in October said the military took actions that could be described as war crimes. The UN says 7,000 Tamil civilians may have died in the final months of the fighting, though the government denies this.In one key difference between the two men, Fonseka, who survived a Tamil Tiger suicide bomb attack in 2006, has said he is willing to face scrutiny for his role in the war, but Rajapaksa is adamant that none of his men be tried. Fonseka has also promised to rein in the almost unchecked powers that the president enjoys and free thousands of young Tamil men suspected of rebel links.Rajapaksa, for his part, has eased some of the travel restrictions in the Tamil-dominated north after opening up sealed camps where more than 270,000 Tamils were interned for months. More than 100,000 still remain in those camps.Government officials say the authorities have stepped up security to ensure the vote goes ahead smoothly.Sri LankaMark Tranguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |