U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign AffairsSubcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade

Is al-Qaeda Winning? Grading the Administration’s Counterterrorism PolicyApril 8, 2014

SummaryOn April 8, 2014, The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade met to discuss al-Qaeda. Testimony on behalf of the U.S. government was provided by

The Honorable Joseph LiebermanFormer United States Senator

The Honorable Jane HarmanDirector, President, and Chief Executive Officer, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Seth Jones, Ph.D.Associate Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center

Frederick W. Kagan, Ph.D.Christopher DeMuth Chair and DirectorCritical Threats ProjectAmerican Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

Mr. Benjamin WittesSenior FellowGovernance StudiesThe Brookings Institution

Opening Remarks – The Honorable Ted Poe (R-TX)The hearing utilized a broad scope to focus on the state of al-Qaeda around the world. In his opening remarks, Congressman Ted Poe identified al-Qaeda as a “JV squad of wannabes” that could stand to expand its power. He noted that the current administration cannot get on the same page about the exact threat that al-Qaeda poses. Some have dismissed al-Qaeda while others hold it as a primary concern.

Al-Qaeda, Poe said, devastated Iraq. Poe also noted the Algerian gas plant takeover as something that the United States should keep in mind.

In Syria, 11,000 foreign fighters have joined the fight against Assad, including many potential terrorists from Europe and the United States. From Syria, al-Qaeda could destabilize the entire Middle East and work its way through North Africa. Poe iterated that al-Qaeda is “playing a long-term game,” and the United States still questions whether it is in the game. Al-Qaeda, Poe said, actively seeks ways to strike the United States both at home and abroad. Poe further described al-Qaeda as a “global organization that is not on the path to defeat,” and the United States cannot develop an approach to defeat them unless we acknowledge that.”

Panel I

According to Brad Sherman, the Iranian government is the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. Sherman discussed 9/11 as the turning point for Islamic extremism, which was a consistent theme throughout this hearing. Sherman continued to say that the total abolition of al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism is “a lot to expect.” Al-Qaeda hasn’t had the capacity to strike the United States again thanks to its resources and personnel, but that does not mean that Islamic terrorism isn’t alive and well.

In his prepared statement, Senator Joe Lieberman explained that there is no longer a major government focus on the threat of terrorism, a grave error in his opinion. He noted that thanks to the vigilance, determination, courage and creativity of national security professionals and elected leaders across both the Bush and Obama administrations, terrorism hasn’t been as obvious as a threat; however, it remains one. Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, he said, “remain a ruthless, determined and adaptive adversary” that is not disappearing any time soon. Lieberman continued by saying that our progress in the fight against terrorism is “fragile and reversible,” and that the underlying ideology of Islamist extremism is neither defeated nor exhausted.

Al-Qaeda and its affiliates exploit Muslim-majority countries weakened or fragmented by conflict and neglected by the international community: They first went to Afghanistan in the 1990s and returned to Yemen and Somalia in the 2000s. Syria, Libya and Iraq are its current targets for exploitation. The situation in Syria most alarming, he said, because the failure of U.S. policy there is by far the most profound. This holds major implications for national security.

Al-Qaeda is actively trying to recruit Westerners, indoctrinate them and see them return to their home countries with an extremist mission. Therefore, in the words of Lieberman, Syria is the most dangerous “terrorist sanctuary” in the world because the United States has no “coherent or credible” policy for dealing with it.

According to Lieberman, current plans include: Afghanistan: Choose not to squander gains and keep sufficient military presence to sustain increasingly

capable Afghan National Security Forces in shared fight against terrorists. Libya: Build up Libyan army and security forces. Iraq: Make it clear we are willing to support Iraqis against al-Qaeda with U.S. airpower and embedded

advisors on the ground to encourage political reconciliation Syria: Provide militarily relevant support to non-extremist rebel forces and reopen debate about limited

use of American airpower.

Lieberman concluded by saying that the United States must discredit violent Islamist extremism as a worldview. The enemy is not the terrorists themselves, but violent Islamist extremism as an ideology because it justifies a totalitarian political system by perverting a great world religion. Lieberman described the struggle with al-Qaeda as the “end of the beginning,” but insisted that the United States is nowhere near finished and that “much danger and difficulty lie ahead.”

Jane Harman, former Democratic representative for California’s 36th congressional district, discussed how the U.S. must continue to reevaluate its strategy to counter terrorism and consider answers to the following questions:

How has the threat evolved over time? Are we giving al-Qaeda too much credit? How will the long-term consequences of a war-torn and destabilized Syria impact our strategy?

Harman wants to “tell the right story about America”; that is, eliminate its reputation of “drones, Gitmo, gun violence and spying” to promote a proper image.

She continued to iterate that the 10,000 foreign fighters in Syria could be Islamic extremists, and reiterated Lieberman’s ascertainment that Syria is the most threatening terrorist sanctuary in the world. Harman further

noted that although unfortunate, “the way we will most adequately intervene in Syria is when there is a terrorist attack against us.” Moreover, Syria could be “the sequel to Afghanistan.”

After Harman’s statement, there was much discussion of Islamic extremism and al-Qaeda to Asia.

Congressman Adam Kinzinger said that the United States is essentially stuck on the Syria conflict because it must either “support a brutal dictator [Assad] or al-Qaeda [the opposition]. It is difficult, then, to determine best practices toward intervening with the opposition and “tribal societies.”

There was much talk among all of the witnesses and panelists that having Islamic scholars guide the U.S. government would be a good idea, because we will need a better understanding of the Islamic ideology if we are to win the argument. (Jane Harman)

Additionally, Yemen is a model for what could happen in Syria – That is, the “bad guy” left the government and there is a much more peaceful society, although not entirely so.

The hearing participants also noted how there must be further discussion on al-Qaeda and how the United States ought to position itself against terrorism and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.

Congressman Scott Perry (R-PA) noted that much of America has lost track of the discussion on al-Qaeda because of more “current” issues such as the economy and the missing jetliner. Moreover, not all terrorist attacks are full-blown 9/11-like tactics -- “There is a real al Qaeda threat in lower tactic attacks and homegrown terror - not just in the United States, but it is in the United States”

Panel IIThe latter half of the hearing focused on specific tactics in fighting al-Qaeda and terrorist groups, including special operations forces and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).

Dr. Seth Jones opened the second panel by explaining that there exist different groups that each serve as a threat to the United States:

Next, Jones iterated that the United States will face a persistent threat from all angles: North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia in terms of al-Qaeda and other Salafi-jihadist groups. This diagram, used in Jones’ testimony, denotes the presence of al-Qaeda around the world:

Dr. Jones further explained the role of special operations forces: “Effective U.S. counterterrorism strategy needs to involve a range of military, intelligence, financial, law enforcement, diplomatic and other tools from across the U.S. government.”

He went on to denote significant trends in terrorism: The most significant threat, Jones said, is a group operating in Yemen, the core of which is involved in plotting in Europe and elsewhere. Congress, he said, should continue to play a critical role in helping to support the conduct of counter terrorism efforts by special operations forces to protect U.S. national security. Special operations forces, then, would help build partner capacity and conduct foreign internal defense with countries in Africa and the Middle East.

Jones concluded by saying that the persistent nature of terrorism threat to the United States suggests that special operations forces should remain a key part of the struggle against al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.

In his testimony, Benjamin Wittes discussed the vitality and adequacy of AUMF for the conflict the United States is fighting with al-Qaeda. AUMF provides legal authority for virtually every military action.