PRI's The World » National security

US national security team changes

The World — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:00:30 +0000

Anchor Marco Werman discusses the coming changes to President Obama’s national security team with author and analyst Tom Ricks. Changes are expected in leadership roles at the Pentagon, CIA and Central Command, which oversees the war in Afghanistan. Download MP3

Tom Rick’s blog at ForeignPolicy.com

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. President Obama today announced a reshuffling of his national security team. He nominated CIA Chief, Leon Panetta to replace outgoing Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, at the Pentagon; and General David Petraeus is Obama’s pick to take over at the CIA.

Barack Obama: These are the leaders that I’ve chosen to help guide us through the difficult days ahead. I will look to them and my entire national security team for their counsel, continuity, and unity of effort that this moment in history demands.

Werman: The U.S. military and diplomatic leadership in Afghanistan is also changing. All these appointments will need to be confirmed by Congress. Tom Ricks is Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington, and author of several books on defense issues, including The Gamble: General Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq. He says the move sheds some light on President Obama’s goals going forward.

Tom Ricks: I think the Panetta move, sending him to the Pentagon, is a signal that he is quite determined to bring down the defense budget. Panetta’s background in Congress was as a pugnacious guy. He was at one point chairman of the budget committee. So, I think at the Pentagon what you’re seeing is Obama wants a guy who’s gonna manage a sharp decline in the defense budget and keep the lid on the place. Petraeus I know pretty well and I think it’s a bit of a puzzlement why they’re sending him over to CIA. It’s not a natural fit, but he is a smart, hardworking guy. I think it was time to get him out of Afghanistan. They’ve been working him hard for years. Most people wouldn’t think of the CIA as a rest and relaxation post, but for Petraeus I think it kind of will be. It also maybe a signal that what they want to do is bring down the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, and as they do, increase the CIA’s percentage of operations there. So, it would be a natural fit in that way.

Werman: I mean the appointment of Petraeus is one of the most interesting ones of this shift. He’s of course, Mr. Counter Insurgency, having helped design and implement huge changes to the way America fights its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whereas the CIA is supposed to be about spying and intelligence. Are we seeing a blurring of the lines here?

Ricks: We kind of are. I think there’s a legitimate worry on the part of people like Andrew Bacevich at Boston University, that we’ve seen a militarization of foreign policy and this is then a corollary, the militarization of intelligence operations. That said, the parallel between the two and the sense in this is what Patreaus realized is that counter insurgency is much more about intelligence than it is actually about going out and shooting military weapons. I remember what one smart company commander said to me on day in Iraq, he said, ‘I have 150 guys who pull triggers and 2 guys who to intelligence. What I really need is the opposite — 150 guys who gather intelligence and then 2 guys who act on it and go out and pull triggers.’ So I think in that sense Petraeus understands the centrality of intelligence and I think the CIA will be very receptive to that.

Werman: As head of Central Command, General Petraeus has reportedly authorized U.S. special operations troops to collect intelligence in places like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, and Yemen. All are non-war zones and outside the military’s traditional purview. In many ways this would seem to be in competition with the CIA. Has that won Petraeus many friends in the agency?

Ricks: Well, I’m not sure it’s so much competition as the CIA, like a lot of the U.S. military, is probably getting pretty tired for having operated at high speed for 10 years since 9/11. A lot of people are looking for some help here. And I think what you saw with special operators pulled in, to augment and complement and to even protect CIA operations. Don’t forget also that in Afghanistan Patraeus has played a role in overseeing the drone strikes that are being conducted frequently in Pakistan against suspected Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. So, he’s been working pretty closely with them in Afghanistan, and before that in Iraq for several years now.

Werman: Tom Ricks, Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security helping us get a handle on the significance of the leadership changes announced today in the President’s national security team. Tom Ricks, thanks so much.

Ricks: You’re welcome.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Obama’s national security strategy

The World — Thu, 27 May 2010 20:34:37 +0000

Download MP3
The Obama administration released its formal strategy on national security today. The document reflects some changes from the Bush era, but for some of the President’s supporters on the left, it fails to go far enough. The World’s Matthew Bell reports.

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World. The Obama administration unveiled its official strategy on national security today. The document marks the first formal update on U.S. security priorities since 2006. The Obama strategy mixes diplomatic engagement, economic discipline and military power to bolster America’s standing in the world. In some ways it marks a repudiation of Bush era policies. But as The World’s Matthew Bell reports, there is plenty of continuity as well.

MATTHEW BELL: This is a grand strategy document; 60 pages on the broad sweep of U.S. national security priorities. Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security advisor under Jimmy Carter. He says the Obama strategy represents a smarter, more complex understanding of America’s place in the world.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It’s more realistic. It’s less imperialistic. It is more multilateral. It is less – - in its approach.

BELL: But Peter Feaver says knocking President Bush for having a simplistic black and white view of the world is a false caricature. Feaver served on the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. And he says there are many similarities between this President’s national security strategy and the last one.

PETER FEAVER: The embrace of unilateral use of force as an option, which was also of course in President Bush’s. The skeptical but necessary embrace of institutions that need to be reformed. That’s exactly from President’s Bush’s. Down the line, it’s really quite remarkable how continuous it is with the Bush National Security Strategy of 2006.

BELL: Feaver says a big difference is the way this document explicitly ties the health of the U.S. economy at home to American strategy abroad. And he applauds the administration for doing so. But international relations expert, and retired Army officer Andrew Bacevich of Boston University says that part of the Obama strategy doesn’t go far enough.

ANDREW BACEVICH: One of the most obvious results of the Bush administration’s approach to strategy is that ends and means really came to be out of whack. And most fundamentally we ended up with too much war and not enough warriors. What I don’t see in the new strategy is a clear recognition of this gap between means and ends and any clear understanding of the imperative of closing that gap.

BELL: Bacevich says the Obama strategy does represent a move away from the grandiose ideology of the Bush era and he welcomes that shift. But with trillion dollar budget deficits at home, he says, this President, too, is being overly ambitious when it comes to setting national security goals.

BACEVICH: And I’m not trying to suggest that renewal at home should see us turning our back on the problems in the world, but I do think that there needs to be a very sober recognition of the very real limits of what we can achieve.

BELL: Political scientist Michael Desch of Notre Dame University says the Obama strategy hits a lot of the right notes. But he also feels it falls short on delivering on real transformational change.

MICHAEL DESCH: The document makes a lot of hay about dealing with the world the way it is and to a realist like me that sounds good. But then after acknowledging the world the way it is the vast majority of the document is about shaping the world the way we’d like it to be.

BELL: But it’s important to keep the scope of this document in perspective says Zbigniew Brzezinski. He says the national security strategy is not a road map for specific foreign policy challenges such as North Korea or Iran or the Middle East peace process.

BRZEZINSKI: The statement of intentions is good, the broad definition. The problem is fine. But you don’t get much guidance as to what specifically the administration will be doing.

BELL: And on that score, Brzezinski says, many things are still very murky. For The World, I’m Matthew Bell.

Investigation into failed NYC attack continues

The World — Thu, 06 May 2010 20:31:30 +0000

Download MP3
Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday that suspect Faisal Shahzad’s cooperation with US agents is continuing as investigators delve into the attempted Times Square bombing. The Pentagon said it was encouraged by Pakistani cooperation in the case. Authorities in Islamabad are looking into possible connections between Pakistani extremist groups and Shahzad. Matthew Bell reports.

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World. The Pentagon today said it was encouraged by Pakistani cooperation in the case of the Times Square Bomb plot. Authorities in Islamabad are looking into possible connections between Pakistani extremist groups and the suspect in the attack, 30-year-old Faisal Shahzad. Shahzad is in U.S. custody in New York facing terrorism charges. He has waived his right to appear before a judge within 48 hours of his arrest and he is said to be cooperating with investigators. We’ll speak with Pakistan’s ambassador about the case, but first The World’s Matthew Bell has this update.

MATTHEW BELL: Faisal Shahzad has allegedly admitted that he received terrorist training in Pakistan’s northwest region of Waziristan. Pakistani officials say they’re investigating possible links between Shahzad and several militant groups, including the Pakistani Taliban. When that group supposedly claimed responsibility right after Saturday’s Times Square bombing attempt, South Asia expert Marvin Weinbaum says he was very skeptical, but at this point he’s less so.

MARVIN WEINBAUM: Given what we see right now, it’s pretty clear that he did have connections there. That he did meet with people who we would describe as Taliban and conceivably other jihadi groups. What remains to be seen here is whether, in fact, they orchestrated the attack that he undertook in New York City. That’s another matter.

BELL: Investigators are said to be trying to figure out who might have given Shahzad the money to buy the vehicle and the materials to build the bomb, and then where the cash came from for the plane ticket he bought hours before his arrest. In Pakistan there were reports today of several suspects being detailed and questioned by authorities. Marvin Weinbaum, who is with the Middle East Institute in Washington, says the Pakistani government is keen to show that it’s cooperating with the investigation.

WEINBAUM; What we’re, I think, witnessing in Pakistan now is their reaction, perhaps even their overreaction, the modus operandi for the Pakistanis very often is when in doubt, arrest anyone conceivably involved. What we’ve seen in the past is a wholesale arrests by a wholesale release of people.

BELL: Perhaps Shahzad received just a bare minimum of terrorist training in Pakistan and then he acted alone. In any case, Weinbaum says this story could turn out to be a huge embarrassment for Pakistan.

WEINBAUM: We could very well find that we would trace his training to groups that still enjoy the patronage of the Pakistan government, so it’s a very complicated situation.

BELL: Pakistan’s Interior Minister today said he doubts that Faisal Shahzad was acting alone. The minister declined to speculate on any possible links to Pakistani militants. But if there are proven connections between the Times Square plot and Pakistani extremists, South Asia expert Christine Fair of Georgetown University says it wouldn’t be the first case of its kind. She says so-called home grown radicals with connections overseas are a growing threat.

CHRISTINE FAIR: My fear is that this is the beginning of something which is going to be more serious and more frequent in the future.

BELL: Fair cites several cases of U.S. terrorist suspects with links to Pakistan. And she says it’s a sign that American and Pakistani authorities need to start cooperating more closely than ever. For The World, I’m Matthew Bell.

NYC bomb suspect ‘nearly escaped US’

The World — Wed, 05 May 2010 20:29:42 +0000

Download MP3
Details have emerged of how Pakistan-born Faisal Shahzad, who is suspected of plotting to bomb New York City’s Times Square, was arrested while trying to leave the US. Shahzad was allowed onto a Dubai-bound plane at JFK Airport on Monday, despite being on a no-fly list. It was only when customs agents checked passenger names 30 minutes before take-off that he was noticed and arrested. Officials say Shahzad admits his role in Saturday’s failed attack and now faces terrorism and explosives charges. The World’s Matthew Bell reports on changes being made to the way no-fly lists work.

MARCO WERMAN: As we mentioned earlier, suspect Faisal Shahzad has reportedly admitted he’s the would-be bomber in the Times Square case. But officials stress they’re still trying to verify his story. Meanwhile, another question looms large over the investigation, how was Faisal Shahzad able to board a plane leaving the country when his name was on the government’s no fly list? Today the U.S. government announced some changes to the way the no fly lists work, but as The World’s Matthew Bell reports, some suggest that’s not enough.

MATTHEW BELL: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was asked during a news conference yesterday, how could the prime suspect in a major terrorism investigation, whose name had just been added to a no fly list, be allowed to get on a plane headed for Pakistan by way of Dubai? Bloomberg pointed out that its federal authorities, not New York City Police who manage the government’s no fly lists.

MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: I just don’t want to speculate how that happened. Clearly, the guy was on the plane and shouldn’t have been.

BELL: In response to what looked like a near escape, Washington tightened its no fly list procedures today. The airlines are now required to check the names on government no fly lists within two hours of being notified of important changes. Previously they had 24 hours to make sure that any new names on the government list didn’t match up with names of ticket holders. For example, Faisal Shahzad’s name was added to the banned list on Monday morning, but later that day he was able to buy a one way ticket, with cash, to South Asia, then go through security and get on the plane. The system seems to have failed and the changes announced today are aimed at fixing the problem, but that’s not reassuring at all to Michael Greenberger. He directs the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland. Greenberger says the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt was also followed by promises to fix the system of passenger screening and it never happened.

MICHAEL GREENBERGER: We were assured the system was fixed. This self-evidently demonstrates the system isn’t fixed and its small comfort to the American people that somebody is under surveillance, has now admitted to his guilt in this matter, and could have gotten onto that plane. It’s a sign of a weak and failing system.

BELL: Others see the changes announced today as better than nothing.

JUAN ZARATE: It’s a helpful change I guess. But it still is, if the system relies on the airlines themselves to be diligent.

BELL: And that’s a problem, says Juan Karate. He’s a counter-terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Ultimately, he says, the government and not the airlines should have more direct control over checking no fly lists. But he adds that the problem is deeper than that.

ZARATE: The real vulnerability in a system like this is that you’ve got a system that relies on the identification of individuals via name and assumes that they’re going to be using their name and their proper identification. You’ve got a problem, though, with people using false documents, false identities. In those instances, a watch list, a no fly list that’s a name based system is only as good as the integrity of the names.

BELL: The Transportation Security Administration is making changes with a new system called Secure Flight. Under that program the TSA, and not the airlines, would be responsible for checking names on no fly lists against passenger manifests. It should be completed by the end of the year, but here’s another problem; despite all the attention on airline security in recent months, there’s still no permanent Director at the TSA. The position has been vacant since January 2009 thank in part, to political fighting between the Obama administration and Congress. For The World, I’m Matthew Bell.

Times Square bomb suspect charged

The World — Tue, 04 May 2010 20:40:06 +0000

Download MP3
A Pakistan-born US citizen has been charged with terrorism over the failed car-bomb attack in New York’s Times Square on Saturday. Faisal Shahzad, 30, was also charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, according to documents filed at Manhattan federal court. Shahzad was arrested on a Dubai-bound plane at JFK airport on Monday. Earlier, President Barack Obama vowed that Americans would “not cower in fear” after Saturday’s bombing attempt. He said the incident was a “sobering reminder of the times in which we live” and vowed that justice would be done. Matthew Bell reports.

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World. U.S. authorities have brought formal terrorism charges against a suspect in the failed bombing attempt on Times Square. Thirty-year-old Faisal Shahzad is a U.S. citizen born in Pakistan. Officials say he admitted receiving bomb making training in Pakistan. He is being charged on multiple counts, including attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. Shahzad allegedly planted a crude bomb in an SUV and drove the vehicle into one of the busiest parts of Manhattan on Saturday. U.S. officials say if the bomb had detonated as planned, it would have killed many bystanders. President Obama made a short statement today about the investigation, as The World’s Matthew Bell reports.

MATTHEW BELL: The President said U.S. officials are learning everything they can about the alleged plot, about the suspect in U.S. custody, Faisal Shahzad, and whether he has any connections to terrorist groups. Mr. Obama added that this incident is another sobering reminder of the times in which we live.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Around the world and here at home, there are those who would attack our citizens and who would slaughter innocent men, women and children in pursuit of their murderous agenda. They will stop at nothing to kill and disrupt our way of life. But once again, an attempted attack has been failed.

BELL: The President said the plot failed because a few ordinary citizens were vigilant. They reported suspicious activities to the police and then, Mr. Obama said, authorities at all levels, local, state and federal, worked in a swift and coordinated fashion to apprehend the suspect. He was pulled off a plane at JFK Airport last night, shortly before it was scheduled to take off for Dubai. Finally, the President had some words of praise for New Yorkers. He said once again they have reminded Americans how to live with their heads held high.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We know that the aim of those who try to carry out these attacks is to force us to live in fear, and thereby amplifying the effects of their attacks, even those that fail. But as Americans and as a nation, we will not be terrorized. We will not cower in fear. We will not be intimidated. We will be vigilant and we will work together and we will protect and defend the country we love to ensure a safe and prosperous future for our people. That’s what I intend to do as President, and that’s what we will do as a nation.

BELL: In the nation of Pakistan, there were reports of several arrests today in connection to the Times Square plot. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was asked about those reports during news conference this afternoon. He said he was in no position to confirm any arrests in Pakistan. Holder declined to say if there were other suspects in the case, or if Faisal Shahzad was connected with any foreign terrorist groups. The Attorney General did say, however, that authorities are looking into a number of leads.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: The investigation is ongoing and I wouldn’t want to reveal at this point any of the information that we gleaned from him other than to say that he has been talking to us and providing us with useful information.

MALE VOICE 1: Has he admitted involvement in this?

HOLDER: He has done that.

BELL: Holder said the failed car bombing was an attempt to carry out a terrorist attack aimed at killing as many people as possible. Shahzad is being charged with terrorism and the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. Holder said investigators are looking at evidence found in the suspect’s car and at his Connecticut home. The Attorney General also praised law enforcement and Homeland Security officials for a job well done. Counter-terrorism expert, and former FBI official, Matthew Levitt echoes that sentiment.

MATTHEW LEVITT: The fact that they were able to run down these leads this quickly, stopped the suspect from escaping the country, just hours really after the attack, running down all kinds of leads, to me, as someone who is former FBI counter-terrorism, is impressive. And I think that should give American citizens a lot of comfort. No less important, by the way, is the role that regular citizens played in helping the authorities do their job.

BELL: The Times Square car bomb plot is also stoking an ongoing and highly politicized debate about the best way to prevent terrorist attacks. Levitt says the issue is often framed in a misleading way.

LEVITT: There is this debate which paints a black and white picture between a law enforcement approach to counter-terrorism and a military approach to counter-terrorism. I think it’s a false distinction. Counter-terrorism demands the strategic approach that involves the use of all tools of national power. And on a case-by-case basis assessing in which case the right tool is most applicable.

BELL: President Obama might have had that debate in mind today when he said the FBI and its partners have all the tools they need to conduct the investigation into Saturday’s attempted bombing. For The World, I’m Matthew Bell.

Body scanners raise questions

The World — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:35:21 +0000

Download MP3
Airports across the US this week are beginning to install a controversial new body scanning device to keep passengers safe. But some question whether the devices are the answer for a host of reasons, from privacy to efficacy. Ronen Attai is the general manager of the Israeli Security Academy just outside Tel Aviv.

MARCO WERMAN: Airports across the U.S. this week are beginning to install a controversial new device to keep passengers safe. One hundred fifty body scanners will be in place by the summer. But some question whether the devices are the answer for a host of reasons from privacy to efficacy. Ronen Attai is the general manager of the Israeli Security Academy, just outside Tel Aviv. His private company trains airport security staff all over the world. And Mr. Attai we’ve got these scanners this week going into Boston and O’Hare airports in Chicago, and then there’ll be more installed over the next few months. Interestingly though, the Ben Gurion airport near Tel Aviv, considered one of the safest in the world doesn’t have one of these body scanners. Why not?

RONEN ATTAI: Because in Ben Gurion in general we are using a different kind of system. Actually, we’re using a concept that built up from five elements that record security and not basing all our security on any kind of technology.

WERMAN: So do you think these scanners will significantly improve airline security in the U.S. then?

ATTAI: I am very happy about any technology coming into the aviation security, but I think this is coming maybe just to fulfill the need of the citizens to see any response of the government for the last incident. But I don’t think it will major improve the aviation security in the States.

WERMAN: Alright so you said five main elements in Israel’s security program for airlines. What are those five elements?

ATTAI: Actually we start from the intelligence, gathering information before even the passenger comes into the airport. The moment that he buys his ticket, we actually try to analyze a couple of elements. If he buys a one way ticket we ask ourselves why. And of course like you do, we are looking at the list of the people that we don’t want to see them on flights and we make sure that this guy cannot pass our gates and come into the airplane.

WERMAN: Don’t you think though that, let’s take the example of the Nigerian man who tried to blow up a U.S. commercial passenger jet on Christmas Day, if the Amsterdam airport had a full body scan screener, don’t you think that he never would have made it on the plane?

ATTAI: Maybe yes, but as you know today explosives or the enemy is very smart and he used the explosive in a very interesting way. As you see, this guy of Nigeria and there is another example that we see here in Israel, not in airport, but in security check points. Suicide bomber, a lady this time, she was using long underwear that was soaked in explosive that melt into the underwear. And the personal detector led her to a side area, she tried to operate her explosive but for our luck this device didn’t work.

WERMAN: What about the actual qualitative side of the personnel who work in the Israel airport. One gets a sense here in the United States sometimes that there’s a very thin line between the security people and other jobs that they might be doing in the service sector whereas I feel the two times that I’ve been through the Israel airport that those people are actually probably pretty closely tied to the Secret Service.

ATTAI: Our personnel, we operate in many ways. For example, when you are walking into the airport there is a guard that you see. They are armed and they are looking at you, but when you are inside the airport, there are people undercover searching for your suspicious mark. Maybe extra tense, sweating, or any kind of suspicious sign. And second, we put another people before you come even to check in point, they are using what we are calling profiling.

WERMAN: Mr. Attai you said it yourself, one thing that a lot of critics do hold against the Israeli security system is that it does rely pretty heavily on racial profiling which is something that poses potential civil rights violations here in the United States.

ATTAI: I know and I think this will be one of the major problems if you want to implement our system in your country. But actually, we find it working. Until this moment, as you said, Ben Gurion is one of the most secure airports in the world.

WERMAN: Ronen Attai, general manager of the privately run Israeli Security Academy just outside Tel Aviv, thank you for your time.

ATTAI: Thank you.

Radicalized at a British university?

The World — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:15:12 +0000

The alleged attempt by a Nigerian man to blow up a US airliner on Christmas Day sent a shock through the security system. Prosecutors say Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (pictured) tried to detonate a bomb sewn into his underwear. Ever since, American authorities have been trying to fix the intelligence gaps that allowed him to board the plane in the first place. Abdulmutallab’s former university in London is launching its own review into whether he became radicalized there. The World’s religion editor Jane Little reports. Download MP3

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World. U.S. Intelligence officials have delivered this warning, Al-Qaeda may attempt an attack on the United States in the next three to six months. That testimony before Congress comes about a month after a Nigerian man allegedly tried to blow up a U.S. airliner. Ever since then, authorities have been trying to fix the intelligence gaps that allowed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board the plane in the first place. Meanwhile, Abdulmutallab’s former university in London is launching its own review. The World’s Religion Editor, Jane Little, reports.

JANE LITTLE: Lunchtime at University College London and its cafeteria is packed with students of many ethnicities and nationalities. You need top grades to study here. Last year U.C.L. was fourth in a prestigious university ranking behind Harvard, Cambridge, and Yale. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab studied engineering and business finance here from 2005 to 2008. During that time, he served as president of its Islamic Society. Now, an independent enquiry is looking into whether his radicalization began here.

MALCOLM GRANT: The whole process by which a young man is converted from being a mild mannered and devout Muslim into a potential mass murderer is I think of profound importance and a great worry to anybody.

LITTLE: Malcolm Grant is the president of U.C.L. He says the investigation will look at the whole of Abdulmutallab’s time at the university. It will also consider whether academics should keep a tighter rein on students and whom they invite to speak on campus. But, Grant adds, that raises some difficult questions.

GRANT: Should we be forever monitoring and trying to oversee and indeed as some have suggested, spy upon our students? Should we attempt to do as we have been doing already, which is to maintain a freedom of speech on campus, to expose all speech to challenge and not to move in to suppress it?

LITTLE: Those concerns don’t impress one of the U.K.’s top security experts. Anthony Glees heads the Buckingham University Center for Security and Intelligence Studies.

ANTHONY GLEES: Individual tutors have got to engage with their students as individuals, and if they detect signs of political extremism they have to challenge them. Academics cannot turn a deaf ear to the political attitudes of their students.

LITTLE: In 2005, the year of the July 7th London bombings, Glees published a report, “When Students Turn to Terror: Terrorist and Extremist Activity on British Campuses.” In it he warned that universities had become recruiting grounds for Islamic extremism. At the time, he was widely accused of exaggeration. Now, he claims he’s been vindicated with several former students in Britain implicated in terror offences.

GLEES: Universities have been seen as safe sites for recruitment by Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda associates. These people who want to destroy our way of life have noticed that students are rarely observed in the modern university.

LITTLE: One Muslim scholar, who warned of the dangers of student radicalization, suggested that universities should not have a separate space for Muslim prayers where the extremists can take over. In fact, U.C.L. doesn’t have one. But it does have an active Islamic Society.

LOTIFA BEGUM: Here we’re raising awareness for Islam and we’re going to have a few events next week. It would be really fantastic if you came along. Thank you.

LITTLE: Lotifa Begum is a politics student here. She wants to explain to non-Muslim students what real Islam is about, which she says is not violent extremism. The annual Islamic Awareness Week has taken on extra resonance in the wake of all the media attention she and fellow Muslim students have been getting. It’s unwelcome attention and most are reluctant to talk, wary of reporters who they say portray them as potential terrorists. Begum is tired of it.

BEGUM: We as a society are carrying on with our activities as usual because we have no affiliation with any such kind of behavior.

LITTLE: Another member of the Islamic Society, Asif Hussein, is in his final year studying law, and like Lotifa he says he’s never met an extremist on campus.

ASIF HUSSEIN: Most people at U.C.L. are quite driven in their field of academic study. It’s really difficult to get into U.C.L., and so people don’t want to waste their time here either just lounging around doing nothing or inciting extremism, whatever. They’re here to get a degree, to get a job and further their careers.

LITTLE: So you have never met an Abdulmutallab type figure?

HUSSEIN: I never have, no, no.

GLEES: I would say that if they deny ever having come across a radical, they have lost all sight of the meaning of the word radical. I would put it the other way that you’re very unlikely to come across a student at an Islamic Society who isn’t a radical.

LITTLE: Anthony Glees’ assertions will likely upset more than a few Muslim students in the U.K., whether or not there is any credence to his claims. Meanwhile, the former U.C.L. student, Abdulmutallab, now awaiting trial in the U.S., has ensured that the students and their academic institutions are under scrutiny as never before. For the World, this is Jane Little in London.

The state of national security

The World — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:30:11 +0000

President Barack Obama will deliver his first State of the Union address tonight before Congress. The economy and healthcare reform are sure to be high on the President’s agenda. But he will also likely focus on counter terrorism measures. The World’s Jason Margolis tells us what the President might say, and what some counter terrorism experts say he should say. Download MP3

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. President Obama delivers his State of the Union address before Congress tonight. It’s an important speech for the President. The White House says he’ll be looking to address public anger over the economy and the now stalled heath care reform push. But President Obama is also likely to spend some time talking about his administration’s counter-terrorism efforts. Here’s more on that from The World’s Jason Margolis.

JASON MARGOLIS: When President Obama addressed Congress for the first time last February he mentioned the words terrorism or terrorist just three times. He’ll use those words more tonight for two reasons says Dartmouth government professor Linda Fowler. First, the failed Christmas Day bomber reminded people about the risks of terrorism. Second, Fowler says fighting terrorism is a good topic for a State of the Union.

LINDA FOWLER: Unfortunately the State of the Union has just degenerated into one of these where the opposition party sits in surly silence on it’s hands and the party that shares the party of the President stands up and cheers wildly at everything. And it’s a very artificial situation. But being tough on terrorism is something that everybody would have to stand up and applaud for.

JASON MARGOLIS: Tonight’s speech may have the usual elements of theater, but the State of the Union still matters to counter-terrorism experts like Eric Rosenbach. Rosenbach directs the Belfer Center for International Affairs at Harvard.

ERIC ROSENBACH: I think the State of the Union is important, particularly for national security issues because you see the themes and the most important items that the President wants to emphasize to the American public.

JASON MARGOLIS: Rosenbach says tonight’s speech serves as an outline as the President’s national security priorities looking forward. The speech is also a chance for the President to look back, to highlight the administration’s recent successes says Michael Jacobson at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

MICHAEL JACOBSON: I think you’ll hear some about the progress in tackling the terrorist threat and in dismantling some of the terrorist networks. I think you’ll probably also hear about some of the ratcheting back of some of the practices used during the Bush era.

JASON MARGOLIS: Regarding the failed Christmas Day bomber, Jacobson expects the President to point out the gaps his administration uncovered in the U.S. intelligence community.

MICHAEL JACOBSON: And I think you’ll hear the President say that they have identified what those gaps are and that they are moving aggressively to try to fix them.

JASON MARGOLIS: On that topic Eric Rosenbach adds that the President will also likely emphasize another point he’s made before.

ERIC ROSENBACH: That the United States does not want to sacrifice the things that made America a great country. In the past we may have gone too far and infringing on the rule of law. We need to stay true to our beliefs and that’s a message that really has resonated well with a lot of Americans. I think he needs to emphasize that again.

JASON MARGOLIS: Tonight the President will mention the usual nations we’re accustomed to hearing about, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. You can bet on that. But Mr. Obama will also likely mention a country almost never acknowledged during a State of the Union address, Yemen. Gregory Johnson is a Yemen expert at Princeton. He says the approach to combating Al Qaeda in Yemen is very different than the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan. He says the President shouldn’t lump the three nations together, but Johnson adds, tonight is not the night to explain the nuances of U.S. strategy in Yemen.

GREGORY JOHNSON: I don’t really think that the State of the Union is the appropriate forum to really get into explaining Yemen to the American people nor is, am I certain, is the individual who is supposed to do that as opposed to just mentioning that Yemen is obviously a significant priority for the United States as it has been for the past several years and that his administration will continue to pay very close attention to what’s going on.

JASON MARGOLIS: One security topic the President isn’t likely to dwell on is Drones. Although unmanned Drones have become a cornerstone of the U.S. anti-terrorism strategy, the President probably won’t say much about the program tonight simply because the U.S. doesn’t officially acknowledge Drone strikes in Pakistan or Yemen. For The World, I’m Jason Margolis.

“We are at war”

The World — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:38:04 +0000

Download MP3
In his report about the attempted Christmas Day airliner bombing, President Obama said “we are at war against al Qaeda.” The unclassified summary stated that US intelligence officials had received unspecified “discrete pieces of intelligence” to identify Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as an al Qaeda operative and keep him off the flight from Amsterdam. The World’s Matthew Bell explores what the President means by being “at war”.

JEB SHARP: I’m Jeb Sharp and this is The World. The Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner made his first appearance in a US court today. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was formally charged with attempted murder and the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. His lawyer entered a not guilty plea on his behalf. The foiled attack prompted President Obama to order a sweeping review of security measures, and to state publicly yesterday that the country is “at war with al Qaeda.” As The World’s Matthew Bell reports, the president’s words were reassuring to some, and troubling to others.

MATTHEW BELL: In the aftermath of the failed airline attack outside of Detroit, President Obama has faced no small amount of criticism for not acting, or speaking, like a wartime president. Conservatives say he doesn’t use the word terrorism enough. He doesn’t talk about the enemy. He likes to pretend we’re not at war. Mr. Obama might have been trying to take these criticisms head on when he said this last night.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them.

BELL: In an appearance on C-SPAN this morning, terrorism expert Juan Zarate said he welcomed the President’s comments. Zarate served as deputy national security advisor under George W. Bush.

JUAN ZARATE: We’ve got to remember who the enemy here is. We’ve got a transnational movement trying to radicalize people around the world, including American citizens, and they continue to try to attack us, in big ways and small ways. And so we’ve got to keep our eye on the ball, and I think that’s something that President Obama I think reasserted yesterday, which was healthy and good.

BELL: Zarate’s former boss often reasserted that the nation was at war against a terrorist enemy. And here’s a sampling.

GEORGE W. BUSH: This is long term battle, war… different kind of enemy than we’re used to, but we’re going to smoke them out… a war against all those who seek to export terror… and we’re adjusting our thinking… and a war against those governments that support or shelter them. Terrorists know that Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. This is a long war against terrorist activity.

BELL: Intelligence expert James Carafano at the Heritage Foundation has been critical of what he sees as reluctance on the part of President Obama to talk about the nation being at war against al Qaeda.

JAMES CARAFANO: And the reason for the reluctance I think is purely political, is a lot of people on the left who didn’t like the Bush approach. They didn’t want to hear him say that, and they’re just disappointed.

BELL: Carafano welcomed President Obama’s blunt acknowledgement that the country is fighting a war.

CARAFANO: It’s important to acknowledge it for a couple of reasons. It’s the justification for military detention. It’s the justification for military operations worldwide, and it’s a statement that we’re powerful and we’re going to defend ourselves. So there’s lot of reasons why it’s important to do that. And to be reluctant to do that, just because people on the left don’t like that, to hear those words, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

BELL: Carafano says president Obama should have gone even further in his remarks yesterday.

CARAFANO: I thought it was very disappointing last night. The President didn’t link the military operations in Afghanistan to winning the war on terror. It was a perfect opportunity to kind of reinforce the importance of his decision, but rather than remind people of that, he didn’t even mention it.

BELL: That phrase, “war on terror,” though is something this President has mostly stayed away from. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t take the threat seriously, says Middle East expert Marc Lynch at George Washington University.

MARC LYNCH: What he has done though in the past has been quite appropriately to have a much more subdued and matter of fact, pragmatic kind of rhetorical approach to al Qaeda, which I think is the right way to weaken that organization.

BELL: Lynch says presidential rhetoric about the grave threat posed by al Qaeda are counterproductive. It only serves to exaggerate the group’s importance. He says it also undermines one of President Obama’s stated goals of re-making America’s relationship with the Muslim world.

LYNCH: For example the response to Captain Underpants, the failed bomber. The original response in most of the Arab media was complete and total indifference. It was just not seen as a major issue. Obama’s response and the American media frenzy around it has become a major story. And now they’re much more focused on it. And so, in a sense, what I think the American political debate has done is to transform what was one in a long series of al Qaeda failures into what can only be characterized as a success for them.

BELL: Lynch says President Obama’s talk about waging war on al Qaeda marks a rhetorical return to the Bush era, and he says that’s a mistake. For The World, I’m Matthew Bell.

The President’s report on Flight 253

The World — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:21:21 +0000

Download MP3
President Obama has spoken of the intelligence failures uncovered by the White House inquiry into the attempted Christmas Day airliner bombing. He said the government had the relevant information – scattered around the system, as he put it – to possibly prevent the attack, but failure to follow up on the information, coupled with a failure of analysis, had left the US exposed. Anchor Jeb Sharp talks with The World’s Matthew Bell about the President’s speech.

BBC coverage
Declassified report
FAQ Jet bomber case
Best of BBC: “I boarded a plane with an aerosol can”

JEB SHARP: I’m Jeb Sharp. This is the World. President Obama said today the government has to do a better job of connecting the dots when it comes terrorism threats. And he said the nation’s terrorism watch lists need to be strengthened. The President spoke today at the White House, at the end of the urgent review he ordered in the failed airline bombing on Christmas Day. The World’s Matthew Bell has been following the story. He’s here in the studio with me now. . Matthew, it didn’t seem as if there was a whole lot new in the statement, and yet it contained a powerful message.

MATTHEW BELL: That’s right. In terms of the plot, we’ve known so much, so many fine details, for days now, about how this thing seems to have played out. The most important part of the speech, and the part that really struck me came at the end, and it’s when the President appeared to address criticisms from the right, from conservatives who’ve said that this President doesn’t seem to be taking the issues of terrorism and talking about being at war so straightforwardly. So here’s what he had to say.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them. And we’ve made progress. Al Qaeda’s leadership has hunkered down. We have worked closely with partners, including Yemen, to inflict major blows against al Qaeda leaders, and we have disrupted plots at home and abroad and saved American lives.

BELL: So what I’m hearing there is the President trying to take control of this issue and say, “Look I’m at the helm. This is the bottom line.”

SHARP: What did he actually say about the investigation and the problems?

BELL: He laid out a few details and obviously there are going to be more in that report that was put up on the White House website today. I’ll break down a couple of them. He said intelligence leads have to be followed up on. For example, when the Detroit bombing suspect’s family talked to US officials in Africa, said that he’d been radicalized, that appears to have been dropped at some point. He talked about strengthening the analytical process in the intelligence world. He talked about strengthening the criteria to add people’s names to watch lists. When you look at details like chatter evidently coming out of Yemen, that there was a Nigerian operative tied to al Qaeda, involved in some operation. And then you look at some of the other information that was out there about this guy, you wonder, why wasn’t his name put on this no-fly list? Well, that’s going to be addressed evidently. The President said changes have been made, but there are more, and this is an evolutionary process.

SHARP: And the President has made it abundantly clear for days now, and again, in this statement, that he is really unhappy about what happened. What did he have to say about accountability?

BELL: That was another theme in this statement. He basically seemed to be trying to say to me, “The buck stops here. I’m the one ultimately responsible and my people understand that they are responsible, and I’m holding them responsible for this issue.” The report, as he flagged earlier, this was about a screw up. This was about an intelligence screw up. Here’s a little bit more of what the President had to say about what went wrong.

OBAMA: The US government had the information scattered throughout the system to potentially uncover this plot and disrupt the attack. Rather than a failure to collect or share intelligence, this was a failure to connect and understand the intelligence that we already have.

BELL: So there you have it. This is the President and the administration that came into office saying, “Look, we are going to be transparent. We’re going to lay everything out.” And I think that’s part of what you’re hearing right now.

SHARP: This comes at a pretty interesting moment. We’re one year into the presidency. The President seemed to want to underline this whole incident today and move beyond it. What’s ahead, Matthew Bell?

BELL: It’s interesting, isn’t it, that yeah, he’d like to move beyond this particular plot. But when you start looking at the plot and all the details, it’s this thread that you kind of pull, and there’s so many connections here, right? There’s the Yemen connection. There are huge questions about what is US policy toward Yemen and this group al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula there? What about Afghanistan? What about US policy toward the Muslim world? These are all huge national security priorities that are connected for the Obama administration and for this President.

SHARP: The World’s Matthew Bell, thank you so much.

BELL: You’re welcome.

Entire program – January 6, 2010

The World — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:55:50 +0000

Download MP3

Today on The World: The debate over how to fix the way US intelligence agencies process the information they collect; also, why one region in Spain – Catalonia – is considering a ban on bullfighting; plus – Chinese violin-makers are turning out top-quality instruments…and making Italian violin-makers nervous!

Failure “to connect the dots”

The World — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:50:24 +0000

Download MP3
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has promised action after sharp criticism from President Barack Obama over the failed attempt to blow up flight 253 on Christmas Day. Blair said the intelligence community had to boost efforts to prevent new types of attacks. Mr Obama had earlier told senior officials that the failure to anticipate the attack was a “screw-up”. The intelligence community had failed to “connect the dots”, Mr Obama said in a statement, adding: “That’s not acceptable, and I will not tolerate it.” Matthew Bell looks at the fallout after the President’s remarks.

BBC coverage
FAQ Jet bomber case
Best of BBC: “I boarded a plane with an aerosol can”

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World. President Obama says systemic failures in the intelligence community led to the attempted downing of a Detroit-bound airliner. And tomorrow the White House is expected to release new details about that foiled attack. It plans to put out an unclassified version of a report into intelligence failures. That report is expected to include recommendations on how to fix those problems. The World’s Matthew Bell reports.

MATTHEW BELL: White House spokesman Robert Gibbs today sidestepped a question about what new details might come out of the review being released tomorrow. But he said the President has been clear about one thing; this review will not be a pretty picture. It’s about an intelligence failure.

ROBERT GIBBS: We understand that this was a systemic failure. We understand that information we had in our possession, information that likely could have prevented or disrupted the incident on the 25th of December from happening.

BELL: Most importantly, Gibbs said the President is looking at necessary steps to prevent something like this from happening again. Intelligence Expert James Carafano at the Conservative Heritage Foundation says the Administration is missing the point. He says it’s a mistake to go about fixing the intelligence system by trying to prevent the most recent style of attack. Carafano compares it to France’s attempt to fortify its borders against a German invasion ahead of World War II. The network of trenches and fortifications failed, because the Germans simply went around it.

JAMES CARAFANO: It’s kind of this Maginot Line approach that if we build this perfect system, we’ll never get attacked again. Well, if we build a perfect system, the day after it’s built it’s not going to be perfect any more.

BELL: Carafano says the key to success in the intelligence business is to constantly evolve and stay at least one step ahead of your enemy at all times. It’s a never-ending process, he says. The system will really never be entirely foolproof, and that doesn’t play well politically.

CARAFANO: This is a job you have to be on game on the time. And it’s not like you can make the sports analogy because in baseball and football you can lose a couple of games and still win a championship. You know, here you have to be like every single time.

BELL: The White House says President Obama was blunt when he spoke to his national security and intelligence team yesterday. This was a screw up that could have been disastrous, he was quoted as saying, and that is not acceptable. Former CIA official Paul Pillar says the President’s language might annoy some members of the intelligence community. But he says most professionals understand the politics of this issue. The real lesson here, Pillar says, should not be to launch another round of reforms in the intelligence system.

PAUL PILLAR: Reorganizations or trying to fix governmental systems or procedures is not going to prevent terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks against Americans.

BELL: Pillar says things like aviation security, intelligence sharing and watch lists are all important, but they are only parts of an overall counter-terrorism strategy.

PILLAR: There are all the other things as well including policies and practices that affect the likelihood that people either at home or abroad will be radicalized, and will try to act out their anger against us. It includes the military action overseas. It includes countless other law enforcement, financial control and other measures that come under the heading of counter-terrorism.

BELL: Pillar says there’s no such thing as a systemic fix to prevent any and all terrorist attacks. But this specific case has some alarming elements to it, says Intelligence Expert James Lewis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

JAMES LEWIS: The fact that the fellow bought his ticket with cash should have been an immediate alarm bell. You know, putting aside his father coming in, which was also a good tip, but an international ticket with cash? Why wasn’t he immediately popped onto some secondary review list?

BELL: Experts say that information sharing among U.S. Intelligence agencies has improved since September 11, 2001. But apparently not enough to prevent this latest attempt, and that’s raising tough questions about what needs to change. For The World, I’m Matthew Bell.

New travel rules questioned

The World — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:22:12 +0000

Download MP3
New security screening procedures ordered by President Obama focus on passengers travelling from high-risk countries. Many countries on the US list are predominantly Muslim. University of Michigan professor Juan Cole tells anchor Marco Werman why he doesn’t think that’s such a good idea.

MARCO WERMAN: Airline passengers bound for the U.S. could be facing more new security measures soon. President Obama said so yesterday. Travelers have already been experiencing new procedures ordered by Mr. Obama since the failed airline bombing on Christmas Day. The new rules mean enhanced screening for passengers traveling from nations that the U.S. considers to be high risk. One of those nations is Nigeria, where the would-be Christmas bomber came from. Most of the other countries on the list are predominantly Muslim. Juan Cole is with the History Department at the University of Michigan. He’s not convinced that publicly targeting travelers from those countries is a good move.

JUAN COLE: I think this is a blow to U.S. relations with the Arabs and Muslim worlds and, you know, you could argue that well it’s a blow but it needs to be done for security reasons. But then, it seems to me such an arbitrary step that I can’t imagine that it improves security. First of all, they announce the list. Do you think that if Al-Qaeda wanted to get up another airline attack, they won’t have the list in front of them. So the next guy they choose is going to be, God forbid, a Tunisian or Moroccan or somebody that’s not on the list. So it’s poor counter-terrorism and it is a form of profiling. Frankly, it’s racist.

WERMAN: How do you deal with the reality, though, that air travelers from some countries may pose greater risks without alienating those populations from those countries? Is it possible?

COLE: Well, it’s not a proven premise. Al-Qaeda is not an ethnic group. It is a radical ideology that is attractive to all kinds of people. So it’s not that kind of organization where it’s useful to profile it by ethnicity. And it’s terrible counter-terrorism because if you put your efforts into profiling by ethnicity, then you’re going to miss the warning signs. You know, good counter-terrorism is always like police work, detective work. You look for how people are behaving. This recent bombing attempted over Detroit Christmas Day is a textbook case. The guy bought his ticket with cash. It was a one-way ticket with no return. He didn’t have any luggage. He was a young single male. I mean, if he had been Belgian and done that, he should have been pulled aside. So those are the kinds of things you want to look for, not country of origin. So I think it’s a huge step backwards and it just makes traveling to the United States from those countries a hassle.

WERMAN: I mean, you call it a hassle, but it could also be very humiliating for the countries involved.

COLE: It is humiliating and people get their backs up, but it is also just a hassle. When you get pulled out for an interview, it can sometimes be an hour and it’s always the same interview. You know, “What do your parents do? Where were you born, etc.” And I know people who already have been subjected to a certain amount of this who just found it so excruciating that they simply started declining to come to the United States. One of the countries on the list is Saudi Arabia. There are large numbers of peoples in Saudi Arabia with a lot of capital who like to invest in the U.S., and who simply won’t because they won’t subject themselves to this procedure every time they come in.

WERMAN: Do you think that’s a consideration for the White House that they might be losing capital from places like Saudi Arabia when they enact measures like this?

COLE: I think it should be a consideration, and not only do they lose financial capital, but they also lose cultural capital and soft power. In most Middle Eastern countries there are technocrats and politicians who were educated in the United States. And since they know the country well, they have ties to it, it benefits us in our foreign policy that they become minister of justice or whatever in Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon. And people will be a little more reluctant to come to the United States for studies if every time they go back and forth they’re going to be hassled. And that’s a loss, and if they go to China or Russia instead down the road, you know, it is a weakening of American soft power.

WERMAN: Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan. His most recent book is “Engaging the Muslim World.” Thanks very much for your time.

COLE: You’re very welcome.

Yemen, the new terrorism front

The World — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:16:01 +0000

Download MP3
Yemen has become a hotbed of radical Islamic militant activity. Many of Osama bin Laden’s former associates now live there. Anchor Marco Werman finds out more from Sudarsan Raghavan, Baghdad Bureau Chief for the Washington Post, who’s in Yemen and met bin Laden’s former personal bodyguard.

Sudarsan Raghavan’s article in the Washington Post

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI, and WGBH/Boston. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was indicted today on six counts for trying to blow up an American airliner. Abdulmutallab failed in his attempt as the plane was about to land in Detroit on Christmas Day. The incident has focused new U.S. attention on Yemen. That’s where the would-be bomber says he got his explosives and training. But Yemen was already in the sights of American counter-terrorism officials. The country to the south of Saudi Arabia is considered a hotbed of radical Islamic militant activity. And a number of former associates of Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden currently live in Yemen. Washington Post correspondent Sudarsan Raghavan is in the capital Sanaa. He recently met a man in Yemen who used to be Bin Laden’s personal bodyguard. Raghavan explains how that man entered Al-Qaeda’s inner circle.

SUDARSAN RAGHAVAN: He was born in Saudi Arabia to Yemeni parents and he essentially got radicalized in Saudi Arabia, and he was also very much influenced by the Palestinian struggles against Israel in the 1980s and early ’90s. And that convinced him that he should go to Bosnia first to fight Jihad there. And then he went to Somalia, then Tajikistan, and he finally went and lived in Afghanistan where in ’96 he met Osama Bin Laden.

WERMAN: What exactly was his role in Al-Qaeda? I mean, aside from being Osama Bin Laden’s personal bodyguard for some time, what else was he doing?

RAGHAVAN: Well, he did fight a bit. You know, he was fighting with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance. The Afghan rebels who were trying to overthrow the Taliban. He also ran sort of a public relations thing for Al-Qaeda. He ran this kind of guest house where new recruits would come and he would get the recruits. He had a bit larger role than just being a bodyguard, and what people told me his main role was to basically protect Bin Laden. Bin Laden really trusted him.

WERMAN: And what is Al-Bahri [PH] doing now?

RAGHAVAN: He’s sort of a business consultant. He works, you know, for small businesses. That’s basically it, and he does do a little bit of this sort of trying to influence the young Yeminese into perhaps not entering Jihad. But his main focus, you know, he’s like every other Yemeni. He’s basically, you know, from what I understand he just finally, he got a living.

WERMAN: You describe a situation where Al-Bahri was shot in the leg and then nursed back to health by Osama Bin Laden himself. Does he still have any current connection with Al-Qaeda or Bin Laden?

RAGHAVAN: Well, he says he doesn’t and I do believe him. He was in Yemen when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked killing 17 American sailors back in 2000. And he said he was just there on a visit, but he ended up being picked up by the Yemeni Intelligence and put in jail because of his connections. And there, FBI agents actually interrogated him after the September 11th attacks. And according to the FBI agents, he divulged a great amount of information about Osama Bin Laden, about Al-Qaeda’s leadership and structure. So now he sees himself basically as possibly his own life might be at risk from Al-Qaeda. So he does say that he has no contacts with Osama Bin Laden or with Al-Qaeda, and from people I’ve spoken to who know him it seems pretty true.

WERMAN: It’s interesting that post-9/11 FBI interrogation because you met with Al-Bahri just a day or two before the Christmas Day attempted bombing of that airliner going from Amsterdam to Detroit. I’m just wondering what you think Nasser Al-Bahri’s story can tell us about the Nigerian man who allegedly tried to pull off that bombing?

RAGHAVAN: Well, I think what it does show is why Yemen is an attractive place for the young impressionable would-be Jihadists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. There are thousands of men like Al-Bahri, who fought in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they returned to Yemen. They’re not fighting any more, but they have sympathies to Al-Qaeda still. In such a climate it’s very easy for someone like Abdulmutallab to meet the right people, to meet the right contacts who can then put in with Al-Qaeda militants who are planning an operation against the United States.

WERMAN: And Sudarsan, I mean you’re there in the capital Sanaa. I’d just be curious to know what your impressions are of this place that’s under such a klieg light at the moment.

RAGHAVAN: Right. Sanaa is actually, you know, I found it quite safe. I’ve been able to move around quite a bit. The Yemenis have been very friendly here. It is a place that is under heavy security, but it was like that even before the Christmas Day attempted bombing. There’s been, you know, just last year the U.S. Embassy here was attacked with a car bomb and the armed gunmen. So it’s a very deceptive city. From first glance it looks very normal. It’s a bustling Arab city and lots of taxis, honking horns, but when you step back a bit, you realize how dangerous the city could be. How if you happen to be somewhere at the wrong place at the wrong time, something can blow up, somebody can get kidnapped. I mean, there’s been plenty of examples of such incidences in the past few years.

WERMAN: Sudarsan Raghavan is Middle East correspondent for the Washington Post. He spoke with us from Sanaa, Yemen. Thank you very much for your time, Sudarsan.

RAGHAVAN: My pleasure.

The Jordanian connection

The World — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:47:08 +0000

Download MP3
The suicide bomber who killed seven CIA agents in Afghanistan was an al-Qaeda double agent, media reports say. He is said to have been a doctor from Jordan, arrested there a year ago. He was then reportedly recruited by the Jordanians and CIA, who wrongly thought they had turned him, and given a mission to find al-Qaeda leaders. Marco Werman talks with the BBC’s Saad Hattar in Amman about Jordan’s role.

BBC coverage
Central Intelligence Agency
Background Brief: Taliban insurgency