Terror Update: New Sources for Information, Africa, Latin America and Additional Terror Updates

I, like what I believe most of the country, have been caught up in the current goings on and have struggled to settle into a routine with all of the protests and news. I have been reading a lot of stuff that I normally would not have and it has taken me away from my writing here. In addition, I have been building a treehouse for little ones. I’m almost finished and they are already playing in it, so that is good.

On another note, we have added a new Tab to The Cognitive Warrior Project and have cleaned up some of the minor issues that I believe needed addressing. The new tab is a list of additional sources for news and information that we believe can be utilized if you are seeking more information. We have created a list of our top sites for professional studies, news, podcasts and shows that we watch on T.V. On the news section, we have attempted to link to unbiased sources. We do however acknowledge that some sources definitely have a political leaning. I am not sure it is possible to find truly neutral sources in today’s journalism and honestly, believe that you cannot only read news that fits your personal political leanings. It is hard to read things that you do not agree with but, in the end, it will provide perspective and can sharpen arguments and provide depth on a variety of topics. We, at the Cognitive Warrior Project, do not endorse the opinion pieces in those sources and only link to them because we feel that they contain valuable information. In a world with almost unlimited amounts of information and opinions, we are attempting to provide a starting place in the search for information beyond Google.

Today, we are going to cram two weeks’ worth of terror updates into one post so it’s going to be long and it may seem like we are repeating ourselves some. We will start with the big picture and finish with our podcasts…

• The interactive Terror Story Map on ESRI, based on data accumulated by ESRI and PeaceTech Lab, utilizing Wikipedia, has been updated and can be found here. It is current through June 10, 2020. Since our last update, they have detailed multiple attacks in Afghanistan, DR Congo, Turkey, Burkina Faso and Oakland, CA.

The world of terrorism has not stopped and this provides a great source to catch the wavetops. Africa is really starting to see an uptick in violence and should definitely be on your radar if it is not already.

• We have another new source for information to highlight today. The American Enterprise Institute, AEI, has an article by Katherine Zimmerman about Al Qaeda’s Return that was posted on June 4, 2020. It starts off with some disturbing news about al Qaeda’s activities in Afghanistan and Africa,

Al-Qaeda is rising again, and no one seems to care. A recent UN report confirms that al-Qaeda is getting stronger and actively plotting with the Taliban while waiting for the US to leave Afghanistan. In Africa, the terror group’s affiliates lead insurgencies while launching terror attacks into neighboring states. The attack on a Kenyan base that killed three Americans is an example. Within the past six months, an al-Qaeda attack planned through its Yemeni branch killed three sailors on US soil last December in Pensacola, Florida, and subsequently inspired a copy-cat attack on the Corpus Christi naval base in Texas. American acquiescence to al-Qaeda’s return plays directly into its hands.

The biggest gut punch for me is that al Qaeda knew all along that this was a generational war and planned accordingly. It’s not that we didn’t also know this but it is difficult for me to read it in quotes knowing that this entire war has played out according to their plan…

Afghanistan will soon be a place where the mujahideen defeated the Soviets and the US. Al-Qaeda never assumed that it would win militarily. Instead, it waited for the US to tire of the fight and retreat. The late al-Qaeda founder, Osama bin Laden, predicted the US withdrawal. Ten years ago, he taunted: “Can American continue war with us for several decades?”

Zimmerman summarizes her case for continuing the fight against al Qaeda while simultaneously shifting our focus to combat China and Russia with the following…

Recognizing al-Qaeda’s renewed and future threat does not mean that the US must again prioritize counterterrorism over all else. That would be a mistake. Instead, a smart US approach contesting Chinese and Russian influence in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia should simultaneously counter the terrorism threat. The same conditions that favor China and Russia also favor these groups: bad governance, deteriorating security conditions, and growing authoritarianism. Focusing American power — hard and soft — on shaping local conditions should close out the space to US adversaries, countering the influence of both maligned and transnational actors.

Ultimately, I am not sure that I agree with Zimmerman’s assessment that the conditions outlined favor China and Russia. If these are problems that we cannot solve, how are they supposed to benefit. In my opinion, the only way they can benefit is to crack the nut on how to stabilize the region. I am just not sure that it is possible.

• We have several stories from Reuters, in the Africa section, you can read about Boko Haram killing 69 in Northern Nigeria here, a Darfur militia leader in custody here, and untangling the conflict in Libya here (which is really good as a primer to that conflict if you are interested) but I want to talk about this Reuters’ story; Amnesty says abuses rampant as West African armies target jihadists. I am planning a long post on Movements and Tactics and this story will play into that and the support for a movement. In this case, what happens when violence is met with violence.

DAKAR (Reuters) – Soldiers in three West African countries unlawfully killed or caused the disappearance of at least 199 people between February and April during stepped-up operations against jihadist insurgents, Amnesty International said on Wednesday.

Security forces in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger launched fresh offensives this year against militants linked to al Qaeda and Islamic State, who are threatening to overrun vast swathes of the Sahel region south of the Sahara Desert.

Are these claims of human rights violations legitimate? Are the jihadists using western “rules of war” against them to blunt an effective campaign? Will these heavy-handed tactics create a backlash leading to more jihadi support? Unfortunately, all of these can be true at the same time and should be considered when reading about or fighting an insurgency. The report goes on:

 Government spokespeople in Burkina Faso and Mali did not respond to requests for comment, but Mali’s defence minister issued a statement on Tuesday vowing to investigate repeated allegations against the army, including charges that soldiers killed 43 people during attacks on two villages last week.

This reminds me of the Netflix series, Narcos that I am currently watching and how the government used heavy-handed tactics and Los Pepes militia…sometimes you just need to win at all costs and figure out the rest afterwards…it’s a technique.

• For a more in-depth article on the arrest of a Sudan militia leaders for war crimes, you can go to Deutsche Welle (DW) and read about it here.

Ali Kushayb, who led state-backed militias in Darfur, has been charged with 50 war crimes and crimes against humanity. His arrest was dubbed “a great success for the ICC and its efforts to get justice for the victims.”…

Ali Kushayb, who led state-backed militias in Darfur, has been charged with 50 war crimes and crimes against humanity. His arrest was dubbed “a great success for the ICC and its efforts to get justice for the victims.”

When victory mirrors what you are fighting against.

• Over at the New York Times, in the Latin American Section, there are several articles that probably should be considered terrorism but I want to highlight this article in particular; Where the Police Wear Masks, and the Bodies Pile Up Fast, as it fits well the previous discussion on heavy-handed tactics in a brutal war.

The police killed an average of 17 people every day in Brazil last year, and rogue officers are killing even more off duty. “I’m a hero to my people,” one militia leader said.

The story tackles the central theme…

The deaths have stirred a familiar debate in Brazil. Human rights advocates denounce the heavy-handed approach as both inhumane and ineffective, while proponents say it is the only way to confront a crime wave that has put the entire nation at risk.

For me, the most interesting part of the article is the date that it was originally published which I did not catch until the end…December 21, 2019. This is currently the lead story for the Latin American Section and highlights that all wars are fought in the court of public opinion.

• Since it has been almost two weeks since a terror update I will list some of the headlines at The Long War Journal, and then dive into a couple of the articles. If you would rather listen to a summary of these articles, you can skip past this discussion and click on the licks to the podcasts that follow as they are mostly a recap of these articles.
  • Wanted Islamic State leader reported killed in Syria
  • Iranian-backed organizations establish a foothold in the Gaza Strip
  • N.: Taliban “regularly consulted” with Al Qaeda throughout negotiations with U.S.
  • Islamic State in Somalia suffers setbacks despite uptick in claimed activity
  • Top Taliban leaders celebrate suicide bombers
  • N.: Thousands of Pakistanis fight in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban
  • AQIM emir reportedly killed by French forces in Mali
  • Analysis: Palestinian factions warn Israel against West Bank annexation
  • Analysis: Taliban again denies presence of foreign fighters in Afghanistan

Just looking at the headlines you can see some interesting links in the Taliban denying the presence of foreign fighters in Afghanistan while there are widespread reports of the Pakistanis fighting there and that they are reported to have regularly consulted with al Qaeda during the ‘Peace’ negotiations.

• In Bill Roggio’s analysis of the Taliban denying the presence of foreign fighters, Roggio questions the effectiveness of the Taliban in combating terror.

Yet again, the Taliban has denied that foreign fighters, including members of Al Qaeda, are present in Afghanistan. The Taliban’s statement should raise deep concerns with U.S. officials about the group’s reliability to be an effective counterterrorism partner against Al Qaeda and other terror groups.

This is further corroborated in Thomas Joscelyn’s report that the Taliban “regularly consulted” with Al Qaeda during the negotiations. According to a U.N. report,

The Taliban “regularly consulted with Al Qaeda during negotiations with the United States and offered guarantees that it would honor their historical ties,” according to the monitoring team. The analysis contains numerous allegations of ongoing collusion between the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Joscelyn continues,

In the Spring of 2019, Hamza bin Laden reportedly met with several Taliban representatives in the Sarwan Qal’ah District of Afghanistan’s southern Helmand Province. The Taliban’s liaisons were Sadr Ibrahim, Mullah Mohammadzai and Gul Agha Ishakzai. The last figure — Gul Agha Ishakzai — was close to Taliban founder Mullah Omar since their childhood and became one of his most trusted advisers, as well as the head of the Taliban’s financial commission. The trio of Taliban men met with Hamza bin Laden “to reassure him personally that the Islamic Emirate would not break its historical ties with Al Qaeda for any price.”

According to the report Al Qaeda is still conducting active operations there.

Al Qaeda is “covertly active in 12 Afghan provinces: Badakhshan, Ghazni, Helmand, Khost, Kunar, Kunduz, Logar, Nangarhar, Nimruz, Nuristan, Paktiya and Zabul.” It is likely that the group continues to operate elsewhere as well. And “although it is difficult to be certain of the exact number of Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan,” the U.N. monitoring team’s “estimate is between 400 and 600 armed operatives.”

And maybe forming a new fighting force,

The U.N. team reports that Al Qaeda and the Haqqani Network may be forming a new fighting force based in eastern Afghanistan. Citing unspecified “information,” the analysts write that there have been discussions “among senior Haqqani Network figures” about establishing “a new joint unit of 2,000 armed fighters in cooperation with and funded by Al Qaeda.”

Although I am not sure how new this is. I believe the Haqqani Network have long been involved with both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This plus their origination being centered out of Pakistan rebuffs the original claim by the Taliban that there are no foreign fighters there. In Bill Roggio’s June 3rd piece, N.: Thousands of Pakistanis fight in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban Roggio highlights the murky ties of the entire region.

Thousands of Pakistanis, including fighters from Pakistani proxies, continue to support the Taliban’s jihad against the Afghan government, according to a new report by a United Nations monitoring team. The report highlighted Pakistan’s double game of claiming to fight terrorism while backing terror groups that further its foreign policy goals.

Why is this important?

The U.N. report devastated claims made by Zalmay Khalilzad, who has lauded Pakistan for its support of the so-called Afghan ‘peace process.’ On April 30, 2019, Khalilzad – the U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation – said that Pakistan “supports efforts to accelerate intra-Afghan dialogue and negotiations, and is committed to helping reduce violence” in Afghanistan.

To put this entire discussion in a different context, I think it is beyond time to recognize that the people on the ground simply do not seem to recognize the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. This ‘border’ simply does not exist in practice and has hampered the entire 20 year fight there.

The TTP [Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan] is an enemy of the Pakistani state, and has waged a brutal insurgency in northwestern Pakistan and conducted terror attacks throughout the country since it was founded in late 2006. Yet Pakistan supports the Afghan Taliban, which shelters and supports the TTP. [For more on Pakistan’s use of strategic depth and its support of so-called “good Taliban” groups, see FDD’s Long War Journal report, Pakistan: Friend or Foe in the Fight Against Terrorism?.]

Which brings us back to the beginning of the discussion, which Roggio summarizes as follows:

The Taliban’s continuous denial of the presence of Al Qaeda and other foreign fighters should give Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad and other U.S. officials – who somehow maintain that the Taliban will be an effective counterterrorism partner – serious cause for concern.

All of these articles can be summarized in these two John Batchelor Show podcasts with the Long War Journal’s Thomas Joscelyn & Bill Roggio. The first, which is about 12 minutes and can be found here, covers:

Taliban duplicity.  US credulity. Yes, there are foreign terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan. Talban wants the deal to stay alive, whereas State Dept wants cover to withdraw from Afghanistan.  Mali in Sahel: death of Abdul Malik Drupdel, al Qaeda AQIM emir in charge of bldg a Taliban-style state in North Africa.  Full-blown insurgency; French finally responded.

• Here they cover the existence of foreign fighters within the Taliban and the Taliban denial. In addition, they talk about the ‘peace’ deal and the problems the U.S. will face with this ‘horrible’ deal. These denials are geared toward the western audience. The conversation then turns to Mali and the death of  AQIM emir reportedly killed by French forces in Mali. This emir may have been involved in the Benghazi attack but that has not been confirmed. The hierarchy of Al Qaeda is global and their communications are not fully understood. Libya and the Al Qaeda presence there remains a mystery.

The second podcast is about 13 minutes, can be found here, and covers: The Al Qaeda command openly in concert with the Taliban which is written about here: U.N.: Taliban “regularly consulted” with Al Qaeda throughout negotiations with U.S.

• This covers the Hamza Bin Laden conversation with the Taliban that we previously discussed and the murkiness of his actual role and the possibility that he is not dead. They then move to the Taliban-Haqqani network connections and the problems that will be faced with post withdrawal counterterrorism terms agreed to in the ‘peace’ deal.

John Batchelor then interviews Joscelyn and Roggio about their Generation Jihad podcast that we discussed here which covers The Pensacola shooter’s terror connections. The podcast is about 7 minutes.

• Joscelyn points out that there were warning signs of the shooter’s ideology which his iPhone confirmed the AQAP connections. This is significant because this proves the lingering threat posed by Al Qaeda and their ability to successfully complete an attack on American soil. Ultimately, this is a case where this individual’s social media should have been monitored and it could have been prevented. They then briefly discuss some Islamic State leaders that have been killed in Syria.

An additional 8-minute podcast which covers the Generation Jihad conversation that we discuss below can be found here. Batchelor, Roggio and Joscelyn talk about the ‘peace’ deal in Afghanistan and the potential conflict between the Taliban and ISIS.

Today, we will also discuss two of the Long War Journal’s, Thomas Joscelyn & Bill Roggio’s, latest podcasts. I will provide a general summary of the podcasts instead of a bullet point summary to save a little time and reading on your part. I think that this will be sufficient to give you a general idea of what they are discussing. If you want more information follow the link and give it a listen. The first, Generation Jihad Ep. 12 – The ISIS Spokesman’s Latest Rant, is about an hour and they describe the podcast this way:

 Hosts Bill Roggio and Tom Joscelyn discuss the latest diatribe released by Abu Hamza al-Qurashi, the Islamic State’s spokesman, who portrays the coronavirus as an act of divine retribution against the West and accuses the Taliban of working with the “Crusaders.” Bill and Tom also discuss a new report outlining the Taliban’s reluctance to “publicly break” with Al Qaeda and the Islamic State’s resiliency in Iraq and Syria.

• The first part of the podcast is dedicated to Afghanistan where they continue to criticize the U.S. Taliban agreement. Joscelyn and Roggio point out the possibility for an expedited timeline for withdrawal and that the verbiage in the deal stipulates that the U.S. cannot simply return if there is an issue. They are very critical of this language but I would counter that argument that if the Taliban does not live up to their end of the agreement as a counterterrorism partner (we get to decide?) then they are violating their end of the agreement and we can go back in. As a relatively neutral arbiter, I think both sides are adequately vague and allow both sides to easily withdraw from the agreement. I will definitely concede that going back would be difficult but I believe that the ‘locals’ need to They criticize Presidents Trump characterization of the current situation as a police action. Again, Joscelyn and Roggio claim that they would advocate a withdrawal if we are not going to fight to win.
• The conversation then moves to ISIS and the latest success in killing which is discussed here: Wanted Islamic State leader reported killed in Syria. Bottom line, he was a very bad individual that has been a major player for over 20 years, was involved in planning and their chemical weapons program but there has not been confirmation from ISIS. Roggio and Joscelyn state that they do know how advanced the ISIS chemical weapons program was but it does not really matter because it is all bad and could be more advanced than anyone really knows. The conversation then moves to the Iraqi Chemical weapons program and how there may have been chemical weapons found and the infrastructure did exist. In addition, some of these materials and personnel may be working with ISIS. They then begin to discuss the apparent uptick in ISIS attacks, their resiliency and their center of gravity in Iraq and Syria.
• Joscelyn and Roggio then move on to talk about a new speech by ISIS in Afghanistan spokesman in which he derides the Taliban’s talks with the west and the ‘peace’ deal. The Taliban and ISIS will have a conflict here after the U.S. withdrawals. The alliances get murky on who really will support who in the end. They describe the current state of affairs as a ‘distasteful’ turn of events. Again, they become very critical of how the situation has turned out in Afghanistan. They describe the Talban as a more robust insurgency as opposed to ISIS is more of a terror organization which means that the Taliban is much more organized and has a lot more control because they are vying in governance as opposed to attacks. The Taliban is sensitive to the ISIS message and the criticism that they are receiving for negotiating with the West. Ultimately, the Taliban is claiming a political victory and legitimacy by striking this deal. Any deal, according to Roggio and Jocelyn, legitimizes them. They wrap up their conversation by introducing a ‘new’ player on the ISIS front, a Jordanian media expert that appears to be overseeing the aggregation and production of the ISIS media operations. Abu Garib seems to be on the more extreme scale of ISIS ideology that has sought to purge the more ‘moderate’ voices within ISIS.

The second, Generation Jihad podcast: Generation Jihad Ep. 13 – Send in the Military?

Hosts Bill Roggio and Tom Joscelyn take a break from the jihad overseas to discuss the turmoil at home and whether it is a good idea to deploy the U.S. military in American cities. They also discuss a new report by a U.N. monitoring team alleging multiple ongoing ties between the Taliban and al Qaeda.

• Both Joscelyn and Roggio support the protest, do not support the riots and generally do not support the deployment of U.S. troops beyond the National Guard. They do indicate that there is precedence for invoking the Insurrection Act but it makes them ‘queasy’. They go on to decry some of the governor’s and mayor’s reactions to the protests but highlight the lines between the National Guard and the U.S. Army. Ultimately, they believe that the U.S. Army is probably better equipped to deal with this but should not be used in this matter. Both hosts hope that the worst of the riots are behind us. They then go on to discuss the OPED by Senator Tom Cotton and the reaction by the Times staffers juxtaposed to their reaction to the Siraj Haqqani’s OPED that they posted. To be clear, Haqqani is an internationally declared terrorist and declared enemy of the U.S. Insurance policies do not cover civil disobedience? They then provide their perspective on the current state of affairs and the hope that cooler heads prevail. The conversation then turns to the lack of leadership in the military. They are highly critical of the senior leadership, the generals, ability to handle complex situations as proven by their performance in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• The conversation then continues centered around the article N.: Taliban “regularly consulted” with Al Qaeda throughout negotiations with U.S. that we previously discussed. The Taliban has tried to hide / minimize their ties al Qaeda at times to aid the negotiations but ultimately the ties are pretty undeniable. They bring up the potential that the Leader of the Taliban is potentially dead from COVID-19? Roggio and Joscelyn state that some of the U.N. report has not been independently corroborated and that some of the information is being withheld. Specifically, there are details surrounding the Hamza Bin Laden death (location, time and details about the meeting with the Taliban) that have not been corroborated. Did this happen in Pakistan? Again, they say that there is no evidence that there is a split between the Taliban and al Qaeda. They ultimately state that the DoD no longer wants to continue the fight in Afghanistan and these articles show direct evidence that the negotiations are simply a cover for a withdrawal agreement.
• The conversation then moves on to discuss the article N.: Thousands of Pakistanis fight in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban.

Whew, that was a lot to cover and some of it definitely recapped previous discussions but I wanted to get these out. So as a summary, terror attacks have not stopped, al Qaeda seems to be on the upswing (particularly in Africa), how you fight terror can have consequences, there are problems in Latin America, and the Taliban have external support and will probably not help in the fight against al Qaeda. There is some really good stuff here. If you agree or disagree with any of my analysis please drop a comment below and we will discuss!