Profile of al-Qa'ida and Analysis of U.S. Homeland Security Domestic Policy - Term Paper Example

Introduction Before assessing the ideology of Al-Qa’ida, it is important to the origins of this organization. There is no clear information as to how and when it emerged, and what events led to its emergence. There are different theories and information regarding it. Some say that Al-Qa’ida (Arabic word which implies “the base”) was originated by Osama bin Laden after he fought as a volunteer (who supposedly had the support of United States) in Soviet-Afghan war of late 1980s. There was no apparent opposition between these volunteers, who were mostly Muslims, and the United States (US). However, by the end of this war in 1988, bin Laden, his instructor Dr. Abdullah al-Azzam (who also participated in the war) and their companions started contemplating about the Islamic militancy association that had formed during the war. This is where Al-Qa’ida originated, which became explicit in its anti-US approach when the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wanted to give space to US troops to monitor the Iraq-Kuwait war (Kenneth Katzman, 2005). Other view is a slightly different version of the above, where Al-Qa’ida is said to have originated by Azzam as “al-qaeda al-sulbah (a vanguard of the strong)”. It was much later in 1998 when bin Laden and his associated were linked to US bombings that they formed Al-Qa’ida (Burke, 2004). This paper will focus on the events that followed the formulation of al-Qa’ida and the enmity between the West and this Islamic organization, which caused the great security syndrome. The latter part of this paper focuses on the security measures inside US homeland and an assessment that whether the policies are capable of shedding off the security threats posed to the nation, or not. AL-QA’IDA: Ideology Whatever the real story behind the emergence of al-Qa’ida may be, there is no doubt that it is an Islamic organization (not necessarily a terrorists’ network) that is at a strong oppositional position against the United States, and has been considered a major threat to US homeland for a long time, most explicitly since the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001. Al-Qa’ida does not work as an open militant force nor does any publicity that could contain its ideology or manifesto. However, its ideology and objectives are evident from most of the statements released by the group members, top leaders or Osama bin Laden himself. Since the beginning, it has been clear that al-Qa’ida is an anti-US group with explicit statements of opposition. After the end of Soviet-Afghan war, Osama bin Laden first expressed this opposition, and stopped the Saudi Arabian government from aiding the United States and allowing the US troops inside the territory. In 2004, bin Laden considered fighting in Iraq as an amazing chance for the “jihadists to engage and defeat the United States” (Christopher M. Blanchard, 2007). According to Burke (2004), the object of al-Qa’ida is not to conquer the world and rule it like kings of the past, rather to weaken the power of the West for the reason that “an aggressive West that is supposedly trying to complete the project begun during the Crusades and colonial periods of denigrating, dividing, and humiliating Islam” (Burke, 2004). Bin Laden’s aides al-Zarqawi and al-Zawahiri have repeatedly and explicitly rejected the intervention of US in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the democratic reforms introduced in these countries. Targeting Standing in complete opposition to the Crusader-Zionist project that is supported by the United States, Israel, the US and their allies become the major targets of al-Qa’ida. Explaining the task against the Israel as “blessed”, statements of al-Qa’ida leaders have revealed a desire to restore Jerusalem. The Library of Congress (2007) reveals in its report: In January 2006, Al Zarqawi claimed responsibility for a rocket attack on northern Israel, which he claimed was personally ordered by Osama Bin Laden. He described the attack as “the beginning of a blessed action to strike the Zionist enemy at the heart of its existence.” Ayman Al Zawahiri stated in March 2007 that “Palestine was a land of Islam and it is an individual duty for every Muslim to liberate it.” In April 2007, Islamic State of Iraq leader Abu Omar al-Baghdadi stated that the conflict in Iraq has “paved the way for invading the Jewish state and the restoration of Jerusalem.” (Christopher M. Blanchard, 2007). Tactics Since the emergence of al-Qa’ida as an opposing-West organization, it has used varied tactics and approaches. In the 1990s, the attacks mainly consisted of bombings or killings that mainly related to US assets outside the territory, not in the homeland. However, the attacks of September 11, 2001 were an unexpected escalation to the already growing conflict and enmity of al-Qa’ida and the West. Since then, al-Qa’ida has not only rebelled alone, but many small, powerful and weak organizations have joined hands with it in this task. The preferred methods of attack since 9-11 changed drastically, where the real jihadi objectives came about by using suicide attacks as a means of “Muslim martyrdom” to attack the United States. But as far as US homeland security is concerned, its territorial peace has not been disrupted. The US assets and allies outside the territory have had several attacks. Along with this, bin Laden has also called for unity among the Muslims by removing all their ethnic, lingual, regional or sects’ differences. Capability It is said that al-Qa’ida is spreading strongly and making its ground amongst the Muslims. Since the invasion on Iraq, the United States has lost its credibility among the Muslims of this region, a factor that has contributed to the strength of al-Qa’ida. Over the past few years, it has gathered in Yemen and spreading across the region. However, al-Qa’ida does not itself come to the forefront, rather works through its small allies or subsidiaries that are working in different areas of the region, mainly “Iraq and its border regions; Yemen and the Horn of Africa; the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; and the Indonesian and Philippine archipelagos” (Gunaratna, n.d.). Some terrorism analysts and experts, however, also suggest that the attacking ability of al-Qa’ida has greatly weakened since the 9-11 attacks (Kenneth Katzman, 2005) where these small organizations have become powerful at al-Qa’ida’s name. Establishing the Threat: Attacks Since the start, al-Qa’ida has used different and advanced techniques in its attacks. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Homeland Security Department of the US repeatedly publishes reports and bulletins that probe into the strategies and tactics of al-Qa’ida attacks. Some methods of attack described are parking a vehicle filled with explosive materials, suicide attacks, “combinations with leaking gas cylinders” etc. (Press, 2004). Some people, while expressing and narrating their personal experiences and opinions, say that al-Qa’ida works “as a mafia” in the Islamic State of Iraq, and has a significant influence on the locals primarily due to their violent tactics (al-Mosuli, 2010). Establishing the Threat: Statements and Propaganda In short, although al-Qa’ida explicitly condemns the West and is a direct enemy of the US, the Library of Congress Report (2007) highlights the strategic framework of al-Qa’ida as: “Jihadist action must have a clear “thought or idea that outlines its means and objectives.” Al Adl recommended that Al Zarqawi and others declare that their strategic “objective is to reintroduce the Islamic way of life by means of establishing the state of Islam that will solve the entire problems of the nation.” This objective should be supported ideologically by “a circle of judicious men and scholars” and propagated by “a special da’wah (Islamic outreach) authority.” The goal is to better enable the jihadist movement to employ “the [Islamic] nation’s potentials, including human and financial resources” by attracting more supporters.” (Christopher M. Blanchard, 2007). HOMELAND SECURITY and DHS Policy The attacks of September 11, 2001 were a serious blow to the security of US homeland and made even the most minor of citizens to feel insecure inside their own homeland. It was not just an attack on the security and assets inside the territory, but also a huge setback on the image of the United States as a superpower, and the leader of the world that was (and still is) considered to be uni-polar. After the turbulent situation that prevailed between the US and al-Qa’ida during the decade of 1990s, with several US assets attacked outside the country, 9-11 was among the first of the attacks that directly affected it inside the territory. Hence, it was incumbent on the government of United Stated of America to formulate a strict policy to ensure safety of the American citizens and to restore their trust in safeguarding their basic rights. With regard to this need, all existing intelligence and security agencies were alerted, their management was strengthened and interdepartmental contacts were made to ensure maximum out. Also, new agencies and departments were formed, who could focus on small details and ensure the security of US homeland. In this connection, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has also been working to ensure a secure, freer America where its first priority is the safety of its citizens. This department was created to diffuse the activities of those who try to disrupt the normal life of citizens of the US. The DHS stays prepared against any sort of calamities, hazards and disasters inside the United States homeland and has the confidence of the citizens to fulfill this task. According to the DHS: “Americans are a resilient people. We have overcome great adversities in the past, and we will do so again. Regardless of what challenges may come, we will work tirelessly to protect our country… unified to ensure the security of the American people – a Department that will continue striving to protect our homeland while ensuring the strength of our economy and preserving our cherished American freedoms and liberties” (Security, 2010). Law The Department of Homeland Security, in collaboration with the Government of United States and other security and intelligence agencies, continue to devise plans to have better methods and mechanisms to ensure safety of the citizens. These departments together keep an eye on the events inside and outside the US territory and any unusual circumstances or activities that may disrupt the normal lives of its citizens. In addition to the DHS, Office of Homeland Security, the National Security Council along with the intelligence agencies like Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) work together at an inter-departmental approach to ensure a secure homeland. These offices and departments are always at work to counter any act which goes against the peace standards or is deemed suspicious. They have different teams and formulate their laws to work at an organised manner. Explosive Detection Dog Teams, Federal Air Marshal, Protective Investigations Program, Policy Coordinating Committees and United States Coast Guard are all a part this task (DHS, 2010). Executive Action and Strategy Post September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, it was incumbent upon the Bush administration to establish a strong security system for the US citizens, keeping in view the threat posed to the nation. These attacks added the burden and responsibilities of the security and intelligence agencies, who were already working to secure the US homeland and its assets abroad from the threat that al-Qa’ida and other militant organizations had posed. After 9-11, a reorganizing of the different security and intelligence departments became mandatory. Despite the establishment of the DHS and the Office of Homeland Security, the US Congress called for the establishment of a Homeland Security Office (or mechanism) inside the White House. Moreover, it was important to assess whether the task could be fulfilled by the departments in an independent manner or collectively. After much debate and thorough analysis, it was decided to work on an interagency model, rather than a departmental one, for the threat that posed the nation now was far greater than it used to be in the past. Also, especially with the fact that the US was about to launch a war against the suspected militant organizations, precisely al-Qa’ida, the danger was greater than any other situation. With regard to this, the US Commission on National Security proposed in its report of January 2001, a grand National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) formed by joining the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), US Customs Service (the Treasury Department), the US Coast Guard (the Department related to Transport) and the US Border Patrol (Justice Department). The vision for this grand merger was to work in collaboration with the Government of the US, and to coordinate its activities in responding to the acts of terrorism for national security. In this way, several recommendations were put forward with a view to establish a mechanism to ensure maximum safety of the United States. The departmental model was rejected by all for its various problems, namely the great number of agencies required for the huge task, and to diverse the tasks among the various departments. Hence, it would eventually be mandatory to ensure coordination between the departments. Secondly, the interagency model was preferred to avoid any loopholes in the working of departments, to avoid the dominance of any one department and of direct control over any one and less on the other. Furthermore, all departments have equal access to resources and hold equal importance when it comes to national security working. Among all this, however, it was important to establish consensus among all the different departments, the legislative and executive office while formulating policies. It became mandatory, therefore, and somehow a more difficult task to bring all the departments, the legislative and executive to congruency, but for the security of US homeland, all had to agree at the optimum policies (Newmann, Sep., 2002). POLICY ANALYSIS: The US Patriot Act – An Introduction The US Patriot Act was passed by the Senate in the aftermath of 9-11 attacks, with a view to ensure US homeland security. It has the following components: 1. In order to probe into large scaled organised crime and drug transportation, this act allowed more powerful mechanisms and measures to fight the crime. In the past, it helped the terrorists and smugglers grow rich together and engage into the acts of terrorism by getting access to weapons and other aids. It: Allows the security agencies and investigators to keep an eye against the crimes that can lead to terrorist activities. It enables investigators to probe into acts that may involve offensive materials like chemical-weapons, killing Americans abroad, and the use of weapons of mass destruction. Allows the investigators to act as detectors to track terrorist networks and activities. Many new mechanisms were introduced under this act which ensured a more sound system to track the terrorists. Ensured tracking the terrorists in mechanisms that did not tip off the terrorists, who could, otherwise, destroy evidences or flee to escape offences. Gave access to the agents to request the court to issue an order to provide past business or financial records in case of suspect in terrorist cases. 2. As per the interagency model, the Patriot Act allowed different agencies and government departments to share the information and work together to connect any relevant information and act accordingly. It allowed the different agencies and departments to focus on their respective areas and then make links among the information, which produced a more accurate result. 3. After the implementation of this act, it was possible to use up to date technology to find or locate any terror suspects, any use of weapons of mass destruction or any illegal activities in the US. The same was used to locate the killers of Daniel Pearl. It: Gives a license to the agents to use search warrant against any place where a terror-activity took place. Prior to this act, an agency was limited to its district while producing search warrants. It enables the citizens to request for assistance according to the law in case of computer hacking to take action against the suspects and also monitor the trespassers in computer privacy. Hence, a national agency was formed to counter computer crime. 4. Under the US Patriot Act, the punishments against terror crimes were all reviewed and increased for the people who were proved to be involved in terrorist-related activities. The new tough penalties apply both at home and outside the country, even on those who support and help in terrorist operations. Hence, it: Avoids nourishing of terrorists and related activities in the homeland because of the serious offences and punishments that result in doing so. It also created many terrorist offenses against acts which include destruction of aircraft, use of weapons of mass destruction, sabotage of nuclear facilities and bombing of government property. Augmented a number of penalties for plots that were related to terrorist operations or included under the category of terrorist offences like arson, attacking communications systems, extending any form of support or aid to terrorists etc. Previously, the number of offences against these and many other crimes was minimum. Enabled punishing “terrorist attacks on mass transit systems”. Enabled giving punishments to bioterrorists. The US Patriot Act received widespread recognition and was widely accepted by legislation as well the executive and the intelligence and security agencies (Department of Justice, USA). Analysis The US Patriot Act was one of the many security acts passed after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. According to the Department of Justice, this act has “enhanced our ability to prevent, investigate, and prosecute acts of terror” (Department of Justice website). Since the implementation of this act, there have not been many terrorist activities and suspects inside the US territory. The US security agencies have been extra wary of the events that take place inside the US homeland, and the various acts of people in the country. Although this act might have helped the US fight off terrorist activities inside the United States, this has made the life of foreigners living in the US much more difficult than it used to be. This applies not just to the businessmen, government official and tourists that come inside the country, but also the students that come from all over the world, most importantly from South Asian regions or around. When I used the term “extra wary” above, it literally meant so, because even at a slightly different move of a Pakistani like tossing and listening an iPod outside the White House, he can be subject to severe interrogation from the security agencies, and keep under full surveillance (Suskind, 2008). These acts have kept many foreigners, especially South Asian Muslims or simply Muslims, in jail for years, under tough interrogation and worse circumstances. This has not eliminated any terrorist acts, but simply destroyed the lives of many innocent Muslims (even American citizen Muslims) and even produced more terrorists in retaliation. Hence, a mere recommendation would be to formulate citizens-friendly acts, and not just formulating those laws, which make a security agency a hungry violent dog in search of a prey; this was all the intensified scenario. Conclusion Although many people say that al-Qa’ida has weakened over the years after 9-11, the US Government does not seem to be accepting this fact and is still in the great security syndrome, making the lives of its many Muslim citizens worse. The measures are fine as long as they do not make the innocent people’s lives difficult. In short, the US Government also needs to reformulate its policies in accordance with the changing world political scenario, a major part of which is awareness among the people, which is making them anti-US and not bringing them in its favour. Bibliography al-Mosuli, S. (2010, June 7). Al-Qaeda Turns to Mafia Tactics in Mosul. Retrieved July 1, 2010, from Institute for War & Peace Reporting: http://www.iwpr.net/report-news/al-qaeda-turns-mafia-tactics-mosul Burke, J. (2004). Al Qaeda. Foreign Policy, No. 142; Published by Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC , 18-20+22+24+26. Christopher M. Blanchard, C. R. (2007). Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology. US: The Library of Congress. DHS. (2010). Law Enforcement by the DHS. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from Department of Homeland Security: http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/law-enforcement.shtm Gunaratna, R. Post-9/11 Evolution of Al Qaeda. Singapore: International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies (IDSS), Nanyang Technological University. Justice, D. o. (n.d.). What is the USA Patriot Web. Retrieved July 1, 2010, from Department of Justice Website: http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm Kenneth Katzman, C. R. (2005). Al Qaeda: Profile and Threat Assessment. US: The Library of Congress. Newmann, W. W. (Sep., 2002). Reorganizing for National Security and Homeland Security. Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, Special Issue: Democratic Governance in the Aftermath of September 11, 2001 , 126-137. Press, A. (2004, December 30). Bulletin Details Al Qaeda Tactics. Retrieved July 1, 2010, from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142884,00.html Security, D. o. (2010, March 17). DHS - Strategic Plan. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from Department of Homeland Security: http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/strategicplan/ Suskind, R. (2008). The Way of the World. New York: HarperCollins. Read More