MarcGopin.com

AP: New al-Qaeda leader lived in U.S. for years – USATODAY.com.

— A suspected al-Qaeda operative who lived for more than 15 years in the U.S. has become chief of the terror network’s global operations, the FBI says, marking the first time a leader so intimately familiar with American society has been placed in charge of planning attacks.

Adnan Shukrijumah, 35, has taken over a position once held by 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was captured in 2003, Miami-based FBI counterterrorism agent Brian LeBlanc told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview. That puts him in regular contact with al-Qaeda’s senior leadership, including Osama bin Laden, LeBlanc said.

Shukrijumah (SHOOK’-ree joohm-HAH’) and two other leaders were part of an “external operations council” that designed and approved terrorism plots and recruits, but his two counterparts were killed in U.S. drone attacks, leaving Shukrijumah as the de facto chief and successor to Mohammed — his former boss.

Before turning to radical strains of Islam, Shukrijumah lived in Miramar with his mother and five siblings, excelling at computer science and chemistry courses while studying at community college.

This is the part that enrages me and makes me wonder what nonviolent defense is there here:

He had come to South Florida in 1995 when his father, a Muslim cleric and missionary trained in Saudi Arabia, decided to take a post at a Florida mosque after several years at a mosque in Brooklyn, N.Y.

This is the part that interests me, makes me wonder about nonviolent defense against this.  Rest assured, if those of us who think in nonviolent terms about our neighbors and our world do not deal with terrorism then someone else will, and always does.

I am thinking frankly of the father, of the training of a cleric in Saudi Arabia, of the sermons, of Wahhabist Islam. It is true that any kid who is troubled can be radicalized by the web, but parents matter a lot, and my Muslim friends know very well the redemptive potential of religious parents and leaders, and the destructive potential, on young minds.

If I were a Muslim cleric in the United States, I would work hard for the next twenty years to firmly establish with my colleagues American guidelines and qualifications for giving sermons, an American form of Islam that can have great variety in custom, practice, liberalism and conservatism, but where some things and some overseas texts are out of bounds, off limits. I know many who are struggling in this direction, and we must be supportive. Otherwise the fearful Americans waiting in the wings to blame someone for a modern frightening world will gain the upper hand. Thank God we have a political party in charge now that does not sensationalize these stories. But we cannot be complacent because trouble is always brewing in politics unless one is vigilant.

Note this extremely well-argued realist piece from Robert Pelletreau and Ed Walker in the Boston Globe. All of my experience in Syria suggests to me that most of their points are accurate and should be appealing to the more rational side of the Bush team in its last months. It can only help the reputation of the Republicans to aggressively pursue a new approach to Syria right now. It could be the foreign policy success that has eluded them for eight years. Here is an excerpt:

Dr. Sami Taki, a close associate of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said in late July that Syria might change its alliance with Iran if Syria achieves peace with Israel.

The United States stands to gain a great deal from an Israeli-Syrian agreement. Having served as US ambassadors to five Middle East countries, we are convinced that a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace is essential to American national security interests. As the United States tries to rebuild its image, influence, and prestige in the Arab and Muslim worlds, it needs to help bring about peace between Israel and all its neighbors.

The Bush administration should start this process. If it can dispatch the third highest person in the State Department to participate in a meeting with Iranian officials, it can certainly encourage the talks between Israel, its friend and ally, and Syria. And even though the presidential election is two months away, the transition period between Election Day and inaugural day is important in determining a new administration’s priorities. If the new president sees the prospect of progress along any section of the Israeli-Arab front, he is more likely to get involved in these efforts at the beginning of his administration.

Syria impacts many American interests. Chief among them currently is Syria’s engagement in Iraq and stabilizing the Iraq-Syria border. As Iraq shows signs of gradual stability, American-Syrian talks in parallel with Israel-Syria talks might yield agreements producing substantial benefits for Baghdad while helping to relieve Syria of the enormous Iraqi refugee burden it is carrying.

Additional American interests include Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon and in the Israeli-Arab conflict, and Iran’s ability to undercut American efforts on the Israeli-Palestinian peace track, the core challenge of the Arab-Israel peace process.

If an Israeli-Syrian agreement is reached, the United States will emerge as one of the winners, along with Israel and Syria. Iran and Hezbollah will be the losers.

But such an agreement cannot be achieved without the United States. Syria wants the United States in the room, facilitating matters, offering security-related guarantees, and melting the frozen Washington-Damascus relationship. Some argue that Syria wants a warm relationship with the United States more than it wants the Golan Heights from Israel. However, if Damascus wants a positive relationship with Washington, cooperation over Iraq and respect for Lebanon’s independence are essential.

Iran, of course, is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Syrian peace with Israel implies a fundamental change in the Damascus-Tehran relationship. Syrian President Assad will need someplace safe to land as he moves away from the embrace of an Iran still hostile toward Israel. That someplace is the United States.

The one issue that I take exception to is overdrawing the need to isolate Iran and Hezbollah. The argument is that pulling Syria away from Iran and Hezbollah will somehow improve the geopolitical and security situation. I know the Syrians. Their relationship with Iran and Hezbollah is strategic not religious. On the other hand it is long-standing and involves many economic interdependencies. Besides, they, along with much of the world do not take kindly to imperialistic efforts to move chess pieces around and manipulate adversaries. They have their commitments and relationships. What is more accurate to say is that a profound improvement in Syrian/American relations, a removal of America’s investment in regime change in Syria, will have a number of salutary effects. Firstly, I am convinced it will improve the human rights situation in Syria because most of the deterioration is due to an absolute terror on the part of the elite that coups are all around them, funded by the United States and elements in Saudi Arabia. Second, peace with the U.S. and a peace process with Israel will vastly strengthen more moderate forces in Teheran, in Hamas and in Hezbollah. All three will have to reevaluate how out of step they want to be with the new trend of the region toward accommodation. This is the goal of a Syrian/Israeli/American rapprochement.

A young Pakistani man who I met recently said to me, “If Pakistan is safe the world is safe, if Pakistan is in danger then the world is in danger, because we have “atom.” And Pakistan is in deep danger.” He was sincere, persuasive, brilliant, but also blunt in that special way that survivors whose lives are in danger tend to be. He was also on a mission to rediscover the religion of his youth, an Islam he could be proud of. He watched helplessly in his lifetime as the contest for Pakistan and Afghanistan that ensued between the Soviet Union, Iran, the United States, and Saudi Arabia morphed into a bloody battle in the name of religion.

The young man, who we will call Malik, has been searching to restore the earlier Islamic culture to his native Pakistan, but the forces arrayed against him are enormous. This is what Malik reported to me as a graduate of several of the more extreme madrasas. Religion is a tool but criminality is the root of the matter. There are three major sources of funding for jihadis now: kidnapping wealthy children, drug sales, and the misguided ideologies of a small group of wealthy Pakistanis with nationalist designs on the region, from Kashmir to Afghanistan, who take advantage of poor youth.

At least half of the recruits of extreme madrasas have no interest in the ideology but are there to make a living. That having been said, once they are “on the team” they are bound to a dark world of thugs disguising themselves as righteous leaders who train their teams to debate and defeat their religious competitors. If necessary they kill rivals who may pray in a slightly different way, or dress a slightly different way. In other words, this is gang warfare for personal gain of unscrupulous leaders, some of whom are sufficiently hypocritical that they traffic in stolen boys for personal sexual use. Piety is nowhere to be found.

If this is the environment what is the strategy of the United States’ aid package? The government of the United States and the government of Pakistan are addicted to aid in the form of excessive military hardware. It satisfies only corrupt constituencies in both countries. A fraction of that aid redirected at the building of schools could make a major dent in jihadi training.

The Saudis are already pumping in significant money into more moderate madrasas, but they have the capacity to do much more with the surplus in oil revenues. It is a good bargain. Pakistan can be a testing ground for the Saudi King’s new emphasis on interfaith relations. His most recent groundbreaking statements on interfaith relations would make it very easy to fund madrasa education in Pakistan that emphasizes an embrace of Sunni-Shi’ite relations, for example.

Malik’s vision is for interfaith harmony, but he is so angry at the hypocrisy of the jihadi leadership that he wanted me to tell the world in his name what is going on. We engaged intensely for hours, and then I looked him in the eyes and said, “I am going to pull rank on you. I am fifty, and you are half my age. When I was your age I was angry too, but engaging in a negative campaign will put you in danger with your own people, as I did with mine. There is nothing constructive in dying.” He said unsurprisingly, “I am on a mission, and it is ok to die for a mission.” I said, “Why fight against them for two years and then die, when instead you can lead the way positively for the next half a century in fostering a noble Islam?” That gave him pause.

The United States has done enough damage to the millions of Pakistani youngsters caught up in the left-over ravages of the Cold War. Reverse the aid package: redirect the majority of the billions in current aid into education, jobs and health, and give peaceful Islam a chance. Set up a major Pakistani-American private sector council to advise and direct the aid in a way that will create job opportunities in both countries. This is the real way to undermine the jihadi leadership, stabilize Pakistan, and make us all safer. More importantly, Malik deserves to live a long life, and so do his spiritual dreams.

Dr. Moshe Maoz, one of the most senior Israeli authorities on the Islamic world has this to say recently on common Saudi and Israeli interests:

The interfaith conference King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia convened in Madrid on July 17 is the first such conference held by this religiously strict kingdom. Jews were among the participants, including a rabbi from Israel. In 2002, when Abdullah was still crown prince, he made a significant move toward Israel that was adopted by the Arab League’s 22 members: recognizing Israel, including diplomatic relations, if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders and a Palestinian state is established with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Indeed, the Saudis’ realistic attitude toward Israel’s existence is not new. Back in May 1975, King Khaled told The Washington Post that his country was prepared to recognize Israel’s right to exist within the 1967 borders on condition that a Palestinian state was established between Israel and Jordan (Haaretz, May 26, 1975).

	Advertisement

This move was apparently influenced by Israel’s victory in the Yom Kippur War in 1973, after which Egypt and Syria accepted UN Security Council Resolution 338 (which also included Security Council Resolution 242 from November 1967 that was accepted at the time by Egypt and Jordan). Resolution 338 meant indirect recognition of Israel.

It is important to encourage these pragmatic Muslim trends, which represent a centrist stream in Islam. This is a way to combat new extremist Islamic streams represented by the Shi’ite Iranian regime and Hezbollah on the one hand, and Al-Qaida and other radical Sunni groups on the other. These seek to destroy Israel and strike at Jews; in their actions and writings they embody anti-Semitic Muslim tendencies drawn from old Christian anti-Semitism and from tendentious interpretations of the Koran and the Hadith.

These fanatic Islamic elements endanger not only Israel and Jews, but also pragmatic Arab and Muslim regimes like Saudi Arabia. Accordingly, Israel and Saudi Arabia (and other Arab and Muslim countries) have a common interest in neutralizing and limiting the extremist Islamic influence and its deadly attacks.

One of the main ways of doing so is Israeli-Saudi cooperation toward a fair and agreed-on solution to the Palestinian problem and the question of Jerusalem.

Moshe Maoz is serious about finding common realist interests for Israel and its neighbors, unlike the ideologues currently in the White House and in control of a so-called pro-Israel lobby. As I wrote recently, what appears to be pro-Israel is actually anti-Israel. He understands, like many Israelis whose voices are not heard globally, that Israel’s long-term survival depends on an utterly new and equal relationship with Palestinians in the context of comprehensive peace with the region’s Arab states.

Wahabism is generally a short-hand expression for conservative Saudi Arabian religion. It has become synonymous in the West, but also in the Islamic world, with a very repressive form of Islam that is responsible, at least in part, for the growth of militarism in the name of Islam. I must confess that over the years I generalized about Saudis and their religion, while actually knowing very little about their culture or their religion. I heard many bad stories from Muslims and non-Muslims alike, but I did not really take the time to ask Saudis themselves. In truth, Saudi Arabia is an extremely conservative society with many religious laws in place that I do not agree with. But that did not give me the right to malign a culture in its entirety. That was reverse bigotry in the name of tolerance.

Imagine the cognitive dissonance of an entire hall full of prominent religious representatives from all over the world when the King of Saudi Arabia gave an inaugural address to the recent Saudi-sponsored, Muslim World League conference in Madrid. The speech turned out to be an impassioned plea for interfaith tolerance and an utterly new Saudi approach to other religions. The conference, which I attended, shocked me in the new and bold way in which the Saudis were embracing the world religiously and spiritually.

Every private conversation with Saudis present, as well as other high level Saudis in recent weeks, proves to me that that the King has launched a new era in Saudi approaches to religion as such. They are determined, in a word, to de-couple religion from politics. They will remain a country that is based on the Koran as its constitution, but the leadership is making a statement to the world that they are determined that religion will be a powerful international force only for peace, only for moral improvement, and not as a political weapon.

This is clearly at variance with at least some significant and powerful religious figures inside Saudi Arabia, and it will not be easy to wrest the entire educational and religious system from old, adversarial approaches to other religions, and other kinds of Muslims. But the King has opened a new chapter, it is deliberate and it is permanent for as long as he reigns. This is an opportunity that the global interfaith community must seize.

The Pope and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

The most challenging connection between religion and politics that persists regards the Jewish/Islamic relationship precisely because Israel is in possession of the third holiest Islamic site, as well as the fact that the vast majority of Palestinians are Muslims who have been suffering displacement and war with Israel for over sixty years. Now the Saudis also quite boldly offered Israel a peace treaty in 2002, and got the entire Arab League of twenty two states to go along with them. Israel has yet to respond to this offer.

A condition of the Madrid conference was that religion be seen as separate from politics. They did not invite Palestinians or Israelis in order to de-couple political from the religious global concerns. Many of the progressive rabbis in attendance understood that, respected it, and they did a marvelous job of interfaith peacemaking. But some rabbis refused to respect these boundaries, and felt the need to insert Israel wherever they could. They also over-reacted to one statement about Zionism and Judaism which was in no way meant to be pejorative or accusatory. It raised an issue for future discussions, but some of the reactions bordered on the hysterical.

Inserting Israel into the discussions was a mistake for two reasons: 1. Israel has proven that it can take care of itself militarily and politically, and does not need unpaid ambassadors, 2. The conference leaders were wisely trying to de-couple religion from politics precisely so that we can give both politics and world religions a chance to work out their relationships without entanglement with one another. We must respect this strategy and give it a chance.

I was very well aware at this conference that Saudi Arabia, like any state, is concerned with improving its image in the world. But anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Saudi Arabia knows that the price that the king was paying for the conference was substantial, and subequent death threats have proven this. Whenever you engage diplomacy internationally it is important to understand the role of public relations motivations in the events you participate in, but you also have to see objectively the risks and authentic motives involved on all sides. This is the only way to engage constructively but cautiously.

The Madrid conference was about the future of world religions as a resource for violence or a resource for peace, for belligerence or for cooperation. Jewish progressive rabbis, forward looking Catholic cardinals, Buddhists, and Saudi sheikhs were all in agreement that this was a historic moment expressed to the world in the most generous and honorable way conceivable. How does a Wahabi do interfaith relations? It turns out that he does it with grace, honor, and vision. And if this kind of gesture can come from the most conservative Islamic society on the planet it is time for every major religion to put their house in order and embrace global religious cooperation for civility, for tolerance, for justice, and for peace.

Read Alex and Qifa’s important analysis of Syria’s next steps, especially if it wants to neutralize its dangerous conflict with Saudi Arabia, and if it wants to continue its positive momentum as a regional player. And note further down Alex’s important responses to Joe M.’s cogent critiques. Alex writes some interesting words of advice:

In politics, the tail may indeed often wag the dog, but grass-roots support never hurt a political cause. Syria’s reputation in journalistic, academic, NGO, policy, and think tank circles is among the worst in the region, this despite the fact that her neighbors are hardly a confederation of Jeffersonian democracies. The extent to which this reputation is justified remains a hot topic, about which people can agree or disagree. However, there is no doubt about the fact that the Syrian government — historically — hasn’t done itself any favors in the publicity department. By accelerating reforms in a visible fashion, Bashar al-Assad might begin to address this problem, anticipating a period in which Syria’s image might be an important factor in the context of peace negotiations. Cultivating the reputation of a reformer who enjoys widespread popular support can only make it easier for figures such as Sarkozy, Obama or McCain to embrace the Syrian leader without worrying about how such a move will play among their constituents.Potential reforms might include:

• Beginning to release certain widely-respected political prisoners
• Introducing more effective anti-corruption measures
• Passing the much-anticipated New Parties Law, which would permit the participation of other political gatherings in national elections … to be followed two years later by free municipal elections.
• Liberalizing the press and easing restrictions on Internet sites.

And here are Alex’s excellent responses to Joe M.’s understandable critiques. Here is where Alex brings his recommendations and analysis into sharp relief. He demonstrates the critical importance of gestures, both at the highest levels, between heads of state, but also at the popular level, such as releasing key political prisoners. These are the gestures that provide evidence of possible new futures, new relationships, the building blocks of nonviolent approaches to change between adversaries:

Joe M

I will try to answer some of your challenges.

1) We are simply recommending mentioning the Saudi peace plan more often … we are proposing a symbolic gesture towards the Saudi king. Something that makes him more comfortable meeting again with the Syrian president who is half his age and who called him a half-man.

The Arab peace plan is not more than a title and a generic wording of UN resolutions 242 and 338. It is really the Thomas Friedman plan that King Abdullah adopted after meeting Thomas.

But Syria needs to assure the Saudis that Syria is not trying to completely block them out of the solution of all the conflicts.

Look .. the Saudis are very uncomfortable … they watched all their Gulf “allies” show up at the Damascus summit despite active lobbying by Saud Al-Faisal to prevent them from going. The Saudis are not sure what is their role in the region if they are not even needed to finance a solution since by now Kuwait/Dubai/Qatar are rich enough and independent enough to replace Saudi Arabia.

2) We are indeed optimistic, to some degree, about the Syrian/Lebanese/Israeli track … in Turkey they practically reached an understanding regarding all core issues.

But there are many other parties that can, and probably will, try to sabotage the process.

As for Hizbollah and Israel … there is an understanding between Syria/Hizbollah and Hamas about the final solution. Syria is sticking to that understanding and will not disappoint her friends. They all have many incentives to settle everything at once.

After many long rounds of negotiations with Syria .. Kissinger, Carter, baker, Clinton … and after two attempts to isolate, instead of negotiating with, Syria (durng the 1983-1988 Reagan admin, and the 2003 to 2008 Bush admin) … America and Israel know by now that talking to Syria means one thing .. accepting a regional comprehensive solution based on UN resolutions.

I am hoping that Israel decided to go for it.

If not, or if the many anticipated changes in Israel will bring more stubborn leadership .. then we’ll see. But for now, I am relatively optimistic about everything.

Badea Abu Al-Naja and Michael Cousins write important pieces on the revolutionary conference that has just taken place in Madrid sponsored by the Saudi Custodian of the Two Holy Places and the World Muslim League. In attendance were hundreds of prominent religious participants representing all the major religions of the world. The event was inaugurated by the two kings of Saudi Arabia and Spain, and the entire cabinet of Saudi leadership. I was there and can attest to the accuracy of these reports. The organizers bent over backwards to demonstrate a new era in Saudi embrace of world religions, and an attempt to develop a non-political track of interfaith engagement that would enhance global cooperation.

The level of responsiveness to participant concerns was at times astonishing. One day there was a very respectful comment from two people, including Rabbi Arthur Waskow, that it would be good if women could be included the next time on the panels. Immediately, the next day, a woman speaker appeared on the program with very powerful and persuasive evidence on the importance of women in interfaith dialogue. Rabbi Waskow has written an excellent piece on the conference as well, putting to rest some of the nastier efforts in the press to downplay the significance of the event.

Throughout the three days, and even after the event has concluded, some of us are still deeply engaged with the Muslims present, exchanging information and opening up worlds of information to each other, from information on the inner workings of American Jewish politics to the inner realities of the Madrassas of Pakistan. We have been in in-depth conversation with Saudi journalists, Saudi sheikhs, and Pakistani activists. I was also on Saudi Television last night and was amazed by the respect that I was shown. This is the essence of how and when religion can become a bridge of peace in a complicated world.

In particular, from my experience with senior Saudi officials in the last two weeks in several venues, I get the impression that the leadership of Saudi Arabia at the highest levels has made a strategic decision that now is the time in their history to open up to the world. Considering the dangers that currently abound, the disastrous war in Iraq, the still unanswered Arab League call to Israel for comprehensive peace, the dangerous state of relations between Iran and the United States, the dangerous state of affairs in Pakistan and Afghanistan, I think that they have decided to launch a new era in Saudi history.

This official embrace of the global trend toward interfaith relations and cooperation is the most profound indication to date that the Saudis want to put behind them any use of religion for political purposes that leads to violence and extremism. The heavy price for this Cold War tactic, that was led by the CIA in many cases, has left us with a disastrous set of violent results in many Muslim countries. From private conversations and recent public events that I have witnessed, it is abundantly clear that the Saudis are signaling Washington that the era of using Islam for geopolitical purposes is over. No more pitting of Wahabbis and Deobandis in Pakistan against Shi’ites as a tactic against Iran, for example.

Thank God this era is over. The senior Saudi leadership in a single set of days has moved right past acceptance of the de-politicization of religion all the way to a whole-hearted embrace of multi-faith engagement and cooperation. And now if we have new leadership in Washington we can put to rest the use of Islam-and religion in general-as a violent American international tactic as well. Americans have to face the painful fact that this American Cold War tactic led eventually led to the creation of thousands of jihadis like the 9/11 hijackers. Military and policy professionals in Washington call 9/11 “blow back”. What a callous, primitive phrase. It is much more than blow back. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been wasted, a generation of young people destroyed, by exploiting religion for political and military purposes. It is a new day, an Islamic Vatican II, when the Saudi Kingdom treats Shi’ites, Jewish rabbis, and Buddhist nuns with honor and respect. I saw it with my own eyes. I hope the American Vice President and the National Security Advisor are paying attention. Islam is not for sale anymore.