Afghanistan Policy Under Trump, New America DC

Afghanistan Policy Under Trump

September 7, 2017

11:30 am – 1:00 pm
Where

New America

740 15th St NW #900

Washington, D.C. 20005

On August 21st, President Trump announced his new Afghanistan strategy, calling for the deployment of more troops and a conditional regional process. Yet many details of the strategy remain vague and Afghanistan continues to face an ongoing political-military crisis, as moves towards the 16th year of American military involvement in the country. What impact will the Trump strategy have, and where does Afghanistan stand today.

To discuss these issues, New America welcomes Peter Bergen, Vice President of New America, John Dempsey, a fellow with New America’s International Security Program and former senior advisor to Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke and his successors in the State Department’s Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, where he oversaw U.S. government rule of law and elections policy in the region from 2009-2016 and Ioannis Koskinas, a senior fellow with New America’s International Security Program who has been based in Afghanistan for the past seven years, to discuss these questions. Koskinas focuses on foreign policy issues with an emphasis on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the Levant. Koskinas is the CEO of the Hoplite Group, a company focused on sustainable and innovative solutions to complex problems, in the most challenging environments and harshest conditions. The event will be moderated by Awista Ayub, Deputy Director of New America’s Fellows program and author of Kabul Girls Soccer Club and prior to joining New America worked as the director of South Asia programs at Seeds of Peace.

Follow the discussion online using #AfghanCrisis and following @NewAmericaISP.
Participants:

John Dempsey
Fellow, New America International Security Program

Ioannis Koskinas, @Gianni_in_Kabul
Senior Fellow, New America International Security Program
CEO, Hoplite Group

Peter Bergen, @PeterBergenCNN
Vice President, New America
Moderator:

Awista Ayub
Deputy Director, New America Fellows Program
Author, Kabul Girls Soccer Club

Trump, the Generals and the Afghan Decision, CNN.com

For Trump’s generals, this is personal
Peter Bergen

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

Updated 7:50 AM ET, Tue August 22, 2017

Peter Bergen says many of the President’s top advisers have served in Afghanistan or have personal ties to the war
They know that an abrupt withdrawal would be a mistake and they prevailed in discussions with President Trump, Bergen says

“Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.” This article has been updated with commentary on President Trump’s speech on Afghanistan.”

(CNN)The seriously deteriorating situation in Afghanistan — and what to do about it — is a deeply personal issue for Trump’s top national security advisers and generals.

In the months after the 9/11 attacks, Trump’s secretary of defense, retired Marine four-star General James Mattis, led the deepest assault from a ship in Marine Corps history near the key Taliban city of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.

Trump’s National Security Adviser Lt. General H.R. McMaster served in Afghanistan, leading an anti-corruption task force there in 2010.

Trump’s top military adviser, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, was the commanding general in Afghanistan in 2013.

And General John Kelly, the retired four-star Marine general who is now Trump’s chief of staff, lost a son in Afghanistan, 29-year-old Marine 1st Lt. Robert Kelly who was killed by a landmine there in 2010.

Four days after his son’s death, in a speech in St. Louis, Kelly said that the United States’ war against jihadist terrorists will go on for a very long time. “The American military has handed our ruthless enemy defeat after defeat, but it will go on for years, if not decades, before this curse has been eradicated,” he said at the time.

So when it came to developing a new strategy for Afghanistan, the generals brought a degree of commitment to the longest war in US history that their commander in chief, at least initially, did not share.
In 2013, for example, Trump tweeted, “Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.”

The generals had a different view of what was at stake.

Generals Mattis, Kelly and Dunford have fought alongside each other since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Then-Major General Mattis, then-Brigadier General Kelly and then-Colonel Dunford led the Marine force that went into Iraq in March 2003 during the initial US invasion of the country.

All of them experienced the visceral sense that US forces leaving Iraq at the end of 2011 helped pave the way for the collapse of the Iraqi army in the face of ISIS’s campaign in Iraq in 2014.

None of them wanted the same scenario to play out in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is at its strongest point since 9/11 and a virulent local affiliate of ISIS has established itself.

These Marine generals also know how hard-fought were the battles in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, where 349 Marines died in a campaign that began there in 2009 and ended in 2014.

Now 300 Marines are back in Helmand because the Taliban have recently regained territory the Marines had seized there several years ago. The Taliban also control or contest about a third of the Afghan population, around ten million people.

Monday night President Trump delivered an unusual prime-time address from Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia about what his Afghanistan and larger South Asia strategy will be.

The well-delivered, well-written and well-argued speech largely reflected the consensus views of the generals and of the American national security apparatus.

As President Trump conceded in the speech, “My original instinct was to pull out. And historically, I like following my instincts.”

But Trump acknowledged that “a hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum for terrorists, including ISIS and Al Qaeda, would instantly fill just as happened before Sept. 11. And as we know, in 2011, America hastily and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq. As a result, our hard-won gains slipped back into the hands of terrorists.”

Trump also had stern words for Pakistan, a common theme of the American military: “Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos, violence and terror.”

Trump also made clear the American commitment to Afghanistan will be conditions based: “A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I’ve said it many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin or end military options.”

This was an implicit criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to Afghanistan. President Obama surged tens of thousands of additional US troops into Afghanistan in 2009, but he also simultaneously announced their withdrawal date. The Trump administration isn’t planning to repeat what it sees as a grave mistake.

But he also said, “America will work with the Afghan government as long as we see determination and progress. However, our commitment is not unlimited, and our support is not a blank check. ”

Trump’s national security advisers and generals with deep experience in Afghanistan had advised against the complete withdrawal that was Trump’s first instinct and also against the notion of using contractors as substitutes for US soldiers.

Both these options were on the table as the Trump national security team discussed the options in Afghanistan.
Those options were being pushed, in part, by Trump’s chief strategist Stephen Bannon, who was forced out of the White House on Friday.

Bannon didn’t attend the final war cabinet meeting on Afghanistan that Trump hosted at Camp David on Friday.
A decision to use American contractors in battlefield roles would face a number of legal obstacles, not least that they would be subject to Afghan laws.

For these reasons, privatizing the Afghan war and outsourcing it to contractors or withdrawing completely were really non-starters during the war cabinet’s deliberations on Afghanistan.

The United States’ key strategic goal in Afghanistan is to prevent the country from being taken over by jihadist groups such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS, allowing the country to be once again used as a launching pad for attacks against the United States and its allies, as it was on September 11, 2001.
So far, that goal has cost the lives of 2,403 American soldiers.

Trump’s top national security advisers and generals understand both the stakes and the costs of the Afghan War well, because they have been personally deeply affected by it.

In the end, Trump came around to their view.

Future of War conference, ASU and New America, Reagan Building, DC

April 9, 2018 Washington, D.C.
Future of War Conference 2018
About

April 9, 2018 Washington, D.C.
Future of War Conference 2018
About

About the Event

New America and Arizona State University invite you to the 2018 Future of War Conference on April 9 in Washington, D.C. Leaders from government, military, journalism, academia, and the private sector will explore pressing issues in international security and defense, including:

What would a war with North Korea look like?
Do future conflicts require new Geneva Conventions?
How can the U.S. make sure it wins the cyber war of 2028?
After ISIS, what comes next in the Middle East?

This conference is one of the signature events of the Future of War project—a partnership between New America and Arizona State University—which brings together interdisciplinary experts working to develop new paradigms for understanding and addressing the changing character of war and systematic violence.

To request an invitation, please email events@newamerica.org with your name, affiliation, and title.

Note: schedule is subject to change.
Speakers
Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster

U.S. National Security Advisor

General Mark A. Milley
General Mark A. Milley

Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army

Gen. Stephen Wilson
General Stephen W. Wilson

Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force

Peter Bergen
Peter Bergen

Vice President and Director, International Security and Future of War Programs

sharon-burke_person_image.jpeg
Sharon Burke

Senior Advisor, International Security Program and Resource Security Program

Matt Cavanaugh
Maj. Matt Cavanaugh

Fellow, Modern War Institute at West Point

Eliot Cohen
Dr. Eliot A. Cohen

Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies, School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University

Davidson
Dr. Janine A. Davidson

President, Metropolitan State University of Denver

Davulcu
Hasan Davulcu

Associate Professor, School of Computing, Informatics and Decision Systems Engineering at Arizona State University

suzanne-dimaggio_person_image.jpeg
Suzanne DiMaggio

Leader, Track 2 Initiative

Easterly
Jen Easterly

Managing Director, Morgan Stanley

Freakley
Lt. Gen. Benjamin C. Freakley

Professor of Practice of Leadership and Special Advisor to the President, Arizona State University

Hathaway
Oona A. Hathaway

Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law and Counselor to the Dean, Yale Law School

Kilcullen
Dr. David Kilcullen

ASU Future of War Senior Fellow

Gianni Koskinas
Gianni Koskinas

Senior Fellow, International Security Program, New America

robert-m-lee_person_image.jpeg
Robert M. Lee

Cybersecurity Policy Fellow, New America

Magsamen
Kelly Magsamen

Vice President for National Security, Center for American Progress

Nurkin
Tate Nurkin

CEO and Founder, OTH Intelligence Group LLC

O’Brien
James O’Brien

Senior Vice President of University Affairs and Chief of Staff, Arizona State University

douglas-ollivant_person_image.jpeg
Douglas A. Ollivant

ASU Future of War Senior Fellow

Oweidat
Nadia Oweidat

Assistant Professor, Kansas State University

Ricks
Tom Ricks

Senior Columnist, Task & Purpose

Rosen
Nir Rosen

Special Adviser for Syria and Iraq, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

daniel-rothenberg_person_image.jpeg
Daniel Rothenberg

Professor of Practice, School of Politics and Global Studies at Arizona State University

Schake
Dr. Kori Schake

Deputy Director-General, International Institute for Strategic Studies

Shapiro
Dr. Scott Shapiro

Charles F. Southmayd Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy, Yale Law School

peter-warren-singer_person_image.jpeg
Peter W. Singer

Strategist & Senior Fellow, New America

anne-marie-slaughter_person_image.jpeg
Anne-Marie Slaughter

President and CEO, New America

Terry
Dr. Sue-Mi Terry

Senior Fellow for Korea at the Center for Strategic and International Studies

ian-wallace_person_image.jpeg
Ian Wallace

Co-Director, Cybersecurity Initiative, New America

Watts
Clint Watts

Robert A. Fox Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute

Yasseen
H.E. Ambassador Fareed Yasseen

Ambassador of the Republic of Iraq to the United States

Schedule

8:00 AM – 8:30 AM
Registration
8:30 AM – 8:40 AM
Welcome and Opening Remarks
Anne-Marie Slaughter President and CEO, New America
James O’Brien Senior Vice President of University Affairs and Chief of Staff to President Michael Crow, Arizona State University
8:40 AM – 9:25 AM
What Does the Army of the Future Look Like?
General Mark A. Milley Chief of Staff, U.S. Army
9:25 AM – 10:10 AM
How Can the United States Ensure It Wins the Cyber War of 2028?
Jen Easterly Managing Director and Head of the Cybersecurity Fusion Center, Morgan Stanley
Peter W. Singer Strategist and Senior Fellow, New America; Author, “Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War”
Robert M. Lee Founder and CEO, Dragos Inc.; Cybersecurity Fellow, New America
10:10 AM – 10:20 AM
Break
10:20 AM – 11:05 AM
How Will the Air Force Fight in Future Space, Air and Cyber Domains?
General Stephen W. Wilson Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force
Peter W. Singer Strategist and Senior Fellow, New America; Author, “Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War”
11:05 AM – 11:25 AM
Is Afghanistan Already Lost?
Gianni Koskinas CEO, the Hoplite Group; Senior Fellow, International Security program, New America
Candace Rondeaux Professor of Practice and Center on the Future of War Senior Fellow, ASU
11:25 AM – 11:35 AM
How to Harness Big Data to Respond to Violent Extremism?
Hasan Davulcu Co-director, ASU Center for Assured and Scalable Data Engineering; Creator, LookingGlass
11:35 AM – 12:15 PM
Do U.S. Generals Have Too Much Power?
Kori Schake Deputy Director-general, International Institute for Strategic Studies
Eliot A. Cohen Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Janine A. Davidson President, Metropolitan State University of Denver
MAJ Matt Cavanaugh Fellow, Modern War Institute at West Point
LTG (Ret.) Ben Freakley Professor of practice of Leadership and Special Adviser to the President, ASU
12:15 PM – 1:00 PM
Lunch
1:00 PM – 1:40 PM
After ISIS: What Is Next in the Middle East?
H. E. Ambassador Fareed Yasseen Ambassador of Iraq to the United States
David Kilcullen ASU Future of War Senior Fellow, New America; President and CEO, Cordillera Applications Group
Nir Rosen Journalist and Author, “Aftermath: Following the Bloodshed of America’s Wars in the Muslim World”
Nadia Oweidat Assistant Professor, Kansas State University; Senior Fellow, New America
1:40 PM – 1:50 PM
#War: Tracking Russian Influence Operations on Twitter
Clint Watts Robert A. Fox Fellow, Program on the Middle East, Foreign Policy Research Institute
1:50 PM – 2:30 PM
How Does North Korea See the Future of War?
Sue Mi Terry Senior Fellow for the Korea Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Sharon Burke Director, Resource Security program, New America
2:30 PM – 3:00 PM
How Should the Pentagon Use Artificial Intelligence?
Michael D. Griffin Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Department of Defense
Evanna Hu Technologist and Founding Partner, Omelas
Stephen Rodriguez Senior Fellow, New America
3:00 PM – 3:20 PM
Are North Korean Decision Makers Rational?
Suzanne DiMaggio Leader, U.S.-North Korea Track 1.5 and Track 2 Diplomacy Initiatives; Fellow, New America
Anne-Marie Slaughter President and CEO, New America
3:20 PM – 3:30 PM
Break
3:30 PM – 4:30 PM
What is the Future of U.S. National Security?
Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster National Security Advisor
Peter Bergen Director, International Security program, New America; National Security Analyst, CNN
4:30 PM – 4:50 PM
Can International Law Prevent Future Wars?
Oona Hathaway Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law and Counselor to the Dean, Yale Law School
Scott J. Shapiro Charles F. Southmayd Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy, Yale Law School
Daniel Rothenberg Professor of practice, School of Politics and Global Studies and Co-director, Center on the Future of War, ASU
4:50 PM – 5:30 PM
How Does China See the Future of War?
Kelly Magsamen Vice President for National Security and International Policy, Center for American Progress
Tate Nurkin Former Executive Director for Strategic Assessments, Jane’s by IHS Markit
Tom Ricks Senior Columnist, Task & Purpose; Author, Churchill and Orwell; and ASU Future of War Senior Fellow, New America
Venue

Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center
1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Pavilion Room
Washington, D.C. 20004

Future of War 2018 will be held in the Pavilion Room of the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center in Washington, D.C.
Directions
By Car

Enter parking garage from any of the three entrance ramps
Follow posted GREEN signs for the Atrium elevator banks
Take Atrium North or Atrium South elevator to “G” Ground level
Exit the Atrium elevator and turn right
Walk to the intersection near the Environmental Protection Agency office lobby (in the Ronald Reagan Building) and make a right
Follow the corridor to the Pavilion elevator banks on the right hand side
Take the Pavilion elevators to the Second “2” Floor

By Cab or Metro from Metro Center (Red Line)

Enter the Moynihan Plaza at the corner of 13th and Pennsylvania Avenue
Walk towards ARIA Restaurant (orange awning)
Enter the building through the door on your right just before the restaurant
Once you are through the security checkpoint walk to the Pavilion elevator banks on your left
Take the Pavilion elevator to the Second “2” Floor

By Cab or Metro from Federal Triangle (Blue, Orange and Silver Lines)

Follow signs inside station to Ronald Reagan Building
Once inside the building, walk straight down the corridor to the ATM and turn right
Follow the directional signage toward the Conference Center
Once you reach the Business Center turn left
Walk to the Pavilion elevator bank and take the elevator to the 2nd floor

New America® is a registered trademark

Contact Jobs Policies and Procedures Creative Commons

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

2018 Global SOF Symposium, Tampa, Florida

2018 Global SOF Symposium

GLOBAL SOF FOUNDATION
U.S. and international special operations leaders will gather on February 19-21, 2018 for an exclusive event to focus on strategic security issues, innovation, and relationship-building.
A full agenda featuring international thought leaders, technical experts, and transition education will provide attendees with a unique experience
Attendees include: active duty and retired military and police, government civilians, industry, academia, journalists, and non-governmental organizations
Previous year’s event attracted 400 attendees from 25 nations

Jaipur Literary Festival, Diggi Palace Jaipur, India

25th – 29th January, 2018
Diggi Palace Jaipur
contact@teamworkarts.com

24th – 29th January, 2018 at Diggi Palace, Jaipur
The Greatest Literary Show on Earth

Registrations are now open!

The 2018 edition of the Festival will bring together a dizzying array of voices and cerebral conversations.
Register Now

24th – 29th January, 2018 at Diggi Palace, Jaipur
The Greatest Literary Show on Earth

Described as the ‘greatest literary show on Earth’, the ZEE Jaipur Literature Festival is the world’s largest free event of its kind.
Equity and democracy run through the Festival’s veins, placing some of the world’s greatest minds, humanitarians, historians, politicians, business leaders.
Read More

The Jaipur Literary Festival is part-circus, part-postgraduate seminar and part-revolutionary assembly.

Special Operations and Modern Warfare, ASU, UT, Global SOF and NA, New America DC

For Trump’s generals, this is personal. CNN.com

For Trump’s generals, this is personal
Peter Bergen

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

Peter Bergen says many of the President’s top advisers have served in Afghanistan or have personal ties to the war
They know that an abrupt withdrawal would be a mistake, Bergen says

“Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.””

(CNN)The seriously deteriorating situation in Afghanistan — and what to do about it — is a deeply personal issue for Trump’s top national security advisers and generals.

In the months after the 9/11 attacks, Trump’s secretary of defense, retired Marine four-star General James Mattis, led the deepest assault from a ship in Marine Corps history near the key Taliban city of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.

Trump’s National Security Adviser Lt. General H.R. McMaster served in Afghanistan, leading an anti-corruption task force there in 2010.

Trump’s top military adviser, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, was the commanding general in Afghanistan in 2013.
And General John Kelly, the retired four-star Marine general who is now Trump’s chief of staff, lost a son in Afghanistan, 29-year-old Marine 1st Lt. Robert Kelly who was killed by a landmine there in 2010.

Four days after his son’s death, in a speech in St. Louis, Kelly said that the United States’ war against jihadist terrorists will go on for a very long time. “The American military has handed our ruthless enemy defeat after defeat, but it will go on for years, if not decades, before this curse has been eradicated,” he said at the time.

So when it came to developing a new strategy for Afghanistan, the generals brought a degree of commitment to the longest war in US history that their commander in chief, at least initially, did not share.

In 2013, for example, Trump tweeted, “Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.”

The generals had a different view of what was at stake.

Generals Mattis, Kelly and Dunford have fought alongside each other since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Then-Major General Mattis, then-Brigadier General Kelly and then-Colonel Dunford led the Marine force that went into Iraq in March 2003 during the initial US invasion of the country.

All of them experienced the visceral sense that US forces leaving Iraq at the end of 2011 helped pave the way for the collapse of the Iraqi army in the face of ISIS’s campaign in Iraq in 2014.

None of them want the same scenario to play out in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is at its strongest point since 9/11 and a virulent local affiliate of ISIS has established itself.

These Marine generals also know how hard-fought were the battles in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, where 349 Marines died in a campaign that began there in 2009 and ended in 2014.

Now 300 Marines are back in Helmand because the Taliban have recently regained territory the Marines had seized there several years ago. The Taliban also control or contest about a third of the Afghan population, around ten million people.

Monday at 9 p.m. ET, President Trump will make an unusual prime-time address from Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia about what his Afghanistan and larger South Asia strategy will be.

Trump’s national security advisers and generals with deep experience in Afghanistan have advised against a complete withdrawal and against the notion of using contractors as substitutes for US soldiers.

Both these options were on the table as the Trump national security team discussed the options in Afghanistan.

Those options were being pushed, in part, by Trump’s chief strategist Stephen Bannon, who was forced out of the White House on Friday.

Bannon didn’t attend the final war cabinet meeting on Afghanistan that Trump hosted at Camp David on Friday.

A decision to use American contractors in battlefield roles would face a number of legal obstacles, not least that they would be subject to Afghan laws.

For these reasons, privatizing the Afghan war and outsourcing it to contractors or withdrawing completely were really non-starters during the war cabinet’s deliberations on Afghanistan.

Trump officials are tight-lipped about what Trump will announce on Monday night, but he is likely to endorse something close to what the National Security Council plan for Afghanistan has been for the past few months. By mid-June, Trump’s approach to the Afghan War was emerging and it was different from President Obama’s in an important respect.

Trump seemed to be committing US military forces to an open-ended deployment in Afghanistan, according to a senior US official familiar with the plans.
While Obama surged tens of thousands of additional US troops into Afghanistan, he also simultaneously announced their withdrawal date. According to the US official, the Trump administration won’t make the same mistake.

Trump on Monday night will likely also announce some form of conditionality for the expanded US presence in Afghanistan, setting benchmarks, for instance, to reduce corruption in one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

Trump may also mention Afghanistan’s mineral wealth as a “return on investment” that the United States can help to exploit.

Tapping Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth is a challenge because of the declining security situation and Afghanistan’s rudimentary road infrastructure, but it was one of the key items that Trump and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani discussed when Ghani called Trump to congratulate him on his election to the presidency, according to a senior Afghan official.

When Trump speaks on Monday night, the additional American forces he will likely announce he is sending to Afghanistan are not going there to do anything close to “nation building.” But they are providing triage to help reinforce the Afghan army, which faces its gravest challenge yet from the Taliban.
The United States’ key strategic goal in Afghanistan is to prevent the country from being taken over by jihadist groups such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS, allowing the country to be once again used as a launching pad for attacks against the United States and its allies, as it was on September 11, 2001.

So far, that goal has cost the lives of 2,403 American soldiers.

Trump’s top national security advisers and generals understand both the stakes and the costs of the Afghan War well, because they have been personally deeply affected by it.

Vehicle attacks have taken a horrific toll since 2014, CNN.com

Vehicle attacks have taken a horrific toll since 2014
Peter Bergen

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

0
Story highlights

More than 120 people have been killed in vehicle ramming attacks in the West since 2014, including Thursday’s in Barcelona, writes Peter Bergen
Terrorist groups have favored these low-tech attacks since they require no training or expertise, Bergen writes

“Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.””

(CNN)The attack on one of Barcelona’s historic streets Thursday is the latest in a series of vehicle ramming incidents in the West that have killed 129 people since 2014.

At least 14 people were killed and 80 injured when a van, which witnesses said was traveling at a high speed through the tourist area, mowed down people in Barcelona.
Since 2014 there have been 14 vehicle ramming attacks in the West, according to a count by New America, a nonpartisan think tank.

Like school shooters, terrorists learn from other attacks. Vehicle attacks have become a method of choice for terrorists in the past three years since they require no training or expertise and they inflict just as much terror as more conventional tactics such as bombings.

Three years ago, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, ISIS’ spokesman, called for attacks in the West using vehicles as weapons.
The most lethal response to this call came in Nice, France on July 14, 2016. A terrorist killed 84 people when he smashed his truck into crowds celebrating Bastille Day, France’s revolutionary anniversary.

The large majority of these vehicle ramming terror attacks have been ISIS-inspired, but the tactic has also been recently adopted by terrorists motivated by other ideologies.

In June, an anti-Muslim fanatic killed one person and injured 11 others when he rammed a vehicle into a group of Muslims who were celebrating Ramadan outside a mosque in north London. According to witnesse,s the man allegedly shouted, “I want to kill all Muslims. … I did my bit.”

On Saturday, a right-wing extremist killed a woman when he rammed a car into a group of people protesting a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Vehicular attacks are not entirely new. The Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula called for such attacks in 2010, in its English-language webzine, Inspire. In 2006, Mohammed Taheri-Azar injured nine people when he drove a Jeep Cherokee into a crowd on the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill campus. Palestinian terrorists have also made frequent use of the tactic.

But what is new is the frequency of these vehicle-based attacks.

ISIS’ official news agency, Amaq, has claimed the Barcelona attack as having been carried out by “soldiers of the Islamic State.” This is a formulation that ISIS uses when militants inspired by ISIS but not trained by the group have carried out an attack. As yet, there is no independent corroboration of this claim.

Spain has not seen a jihadist terrorist attack since the multiple bombings on Madrid’s commuter train system that killed 191 people in 2004.
Follow CNN Opinion

Spain also has been somewhat insulated from the strain of ISIS-directed and ISIS-inspired terrorism that has plagued other European countries such as France, Belgium and the United Kingdom.

That is in part because Spain has not experienced the large numbers of “foreign fighters” drawn to fight with ISIS that other European countries have. France has accounted for an estimated 1,500-plus fighters for ISIS. French authorities in July said that 271 of those ISIS fighters had returned to France.
According to a 2015 estimate by The Soufan Group, which tracks foreign fighters, the total official number of fighters from Spain who had traveled to fight with ISIS was 133, and a high end unofficial estimate was 250.

In the wake of Charlottesville and Barcelona, many will be asking how to prevent such vehicular attacks in the future. The sad truth is that, given the vast number of potential targets and the ease with which these attacks can be carried out, there isn’t much authorities can do other than to restrict traffic around high profile events and highly symbolic targets.

The key to preventing future attacks is enlisting peers and family members, who are often the first to detect radicalization and plot planning, to inform authorities of their concerns.

One Mission: How to Build a Team of Teams, New America DC

One Mission: How to Build a Team of Teams

September 15, 2017

12:15 pm – 1:45 pm
Where

New America

740 15th St NW #900

Washington, D.C. 20005

Too often, companies end up with teams stuck in their own silos, pursuing goals and metrics in isolation. In his new book, One Mission: How Leaders Build a Team of Teams, Chris L. Fussell channels his experiences, in the military as a 15-year Navy SEAL veteran and in the corporate world, into a practical guide for developing strategies to create the type of “team of teams” that General McChrystal applied against al Qaeda in Iraq and was described in their previous book Team of Teams.

Fussell is a senior fellow with the International Security program at New America. He spent 15 years as an officer in the Navy SEAL Teams, before transitioning into the private sector. Fussell is now a Partner at McChrystal Group, an advisory services and leadership development firm headquartered in Old Town, Alexandria.

During his active duty career with the SEAL Teams, Fussell deployed multiple times to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other nations in the Central Command region. From 2007-2008, he served as Aide-de-Camp to General (Ret.) Stanley A. McChrystal, then Commanding General of the Joint Special Operations Command. In addition to his latest book, Fussell coauthored Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World, with General McChrystal.

Follow the conversation online with #OneMission and by following @NewAmericaISP.
Participant:

Chris Fussell, @FussellChris
Author, One Mission: How Leaders Build a Team of Teams
Senior Fellow, New America International Security program

Peter Bergen, @PeterBergenCNN
Vice President, New America

Charlottesville killing was an act of domestic terrorism, CNN.com

Charlottesville killing was an act of domestic terrorism
Peter Bergen
By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst
Updated 9:18 AM ET, Sun August 13, 2017

Story highlights
Peter Bergen: Incident shows that political violence in the US takes many forms
That includes right-wing terrorism — which should be condemned as such

Peter Bergen is a CNN National Security Analyst, a vice president at New America and the author of “United States of Jihad: Who Are America’s Homegrown Terrorists and How Do We Stop Them?” The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.

(CNN)On Saturday, a 20-year-old man from Ohio allegedly rammed his car into a group of people gathered to protest a white nationalist rally, killing a 32-year old woman and injuring 19 others. If James Alex Fields Jr., of Maumee, Ohio, indeed intended to harm the counter-protesters, then his act deserves to be branded domestic terrorism.

Political violence in the United States takes all shapes and forms and on Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia, we saw one of its manifestations, militant right-wing terrorism.

New America, a non-partisan think tank that tracks political violence, finds that jihadist terrorists have killed 95 people in the United States since al Qaeda’s attacks on 9/11, while the attack in Charlottesville brings the number to 68 people that have been killed by far-right terrorists in the States during the same time period.

Other forms of political violence have also emerged in the past couple of years. Black nationalist terrorists have killed 8 people in the United States since 2016, while in June a terrorist motivated by extremist anti-Trump views shot at a Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, critically wounding Rep. Steve Scalise who is recovering.

In December a man shot a weapon inside a pizzeria in Washington because he believed a conspiracy theory that the pizza joint was in fact a secret front for a child sex ring run by senior Democratic Party officials. Luckily, nobody was hurt in that attack.

And jihadist terrorists continue to kill Americans. In January a security guard was killed in Denver by a terrorist who appears to have been motivated by jihadist beliefs.

These terrorist attacks by right-wing, left-wing and black nationalist terrorists remind us that terrorism is not only the preserve of those who are motivated by the ideology of Osama bin Laden and ISIS.

The attack in Charlottesville deploying a car as a weapon is a new twist for right-wing terrorists in the United States. Jihadist terrorists have used vehicles as weapons frequently, for instance, in recent months in London killing 13 in two separate incidents and in 2016 in Nice, France, killing 84, and in Berlin killing 12.
On Saturday President Donald Trump condemned the attack in Charlottesville in a general terms, but didn’t specifically call out the white nationalists who had convened the rally and who are responsible for the death and injuries that occurred there.

Trump said, “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides.”
In 2016 Trump opined on CNN “I think Islam hates us” and he has repeatedly condemned “radical Islamic terrorism,” but he has been noticeably silent about the actions and beliefs of the white nationalists and alt-right militants of the kind that rallied in Charlottesville on Saturday.

Indeed, since Trump took office — and before the Charlottesville incident — far-right militants have killed three people in two separate incidents in New York City and Portland, Oregon; a black nationalist terrorist also killed three and a jihadist militant killed one person, according to New America research.

The lack of acknowledgement and condemnation of militant right-wing terrorism echoes another area of silence by Trump. He has not condemned those behind the bomb that detonated at a Minneapolis suburban mosque a week ago. The perpetrators have not been identified in that case. Luckily the bomb injured no one, but so far the reaction to the attack by the usually voluble Trump has been to say nothing.

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton described the mosque bombing as “an act of terrorism.”

Let’s see if Trump offers the same kind of condemnation of the terrorist attack in Charlottesville.