Almost three months and over eighty-eight million barrels of oil later, the extent of the BP oil disaster continues to grow in the Gulf of Mexico. The event created a domestic and international crisis for the Obama administration (some of their own doing, some of it not). Many presidents have faced a crisis in their tenure. How the crisis occurs or evolves can often be traced to two failings, a failure of process or a failure in politics: the “process” constituting the predetermined protocol for response to any given situation to achieve a desired end, and “politics” being the rhetoric and actions guided by a person’s opinion.
One president who faced a few notable crises in his short administration was President John Kennedy. Two in particular clearly demonstrate the problems when process and politics fail. The first was Kennedy’s decision to place missiles in Turkey which sparked the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis. It was a strategic move in the political chess match that was the Cold War. The Soviet Union responded by placing missiles in Cuba. Military protocol risked pushing the crisis into full blown war between the United States and the Soviet Union at several points during the crisis. Politics would eventually end the crisis when the Kennedy crafted a deal where the Soviets would remove missiles in Cuba immediately, and the US would remove their respective missiles in Turkey several months later.
Later that year a failure of process would bring about a crisis between the US and the United Kingdom. The US military viewed the Skybolt missile as an outdated and unnecessary nuclear deterrent to the Soviets. The UK viewed the Skybolt missile as essential to their defense. A failure in the process of developing strategic missile plans failed to include the British and led to a crisis in what was otherwise a routine phasing out of outdated weaponry. Eventually, the Nassau agreement between the US and UK ironed out differing opinions on the future of missile defense systems.
Just as President Kennedy had to deal with shortcomings in process and politics, President Obama must deal with similar failures in the continuing oil crisis both domestically and internationally. The domestic crisis is the product of a failure in process, while the international crisis – with Britain – is a product of politics, both local and federal.
Domestically speaking, the Deep Horizon rig explosion mutated from a workplace accident, to a limited natural disaster, to a full blown economic and environmental catastrophe as a result of a failure in process. BP was not prepared to deal with the remote possibility that the blowout preventer would fail. They were not prepared to respond to a large leak 5,000 feet below the surface of the ocean. On the part of the US, the government was not prepared to respond to a large scale oil spill. They lacked boons, boats, and people. Bureaucratic red tape either slowed or prevented the dissemination of those supplies, including the use of international skimming boats.
On the other hand, the crisis with the UK was sparked by a failure in politics. The slow and frustrating process of stopping the leak and cleaning up the spill had the unintended consequence of sparking an international crisis. Constituents were frustrated. Elected leaders needed to show they were doing something – it is an election year after all. Congress held hearings, political and media officials repeatedly referred to BP as “British Petroleum” which hasn’t been British Petroleum in ten years, BP officials were paraded in front of television cameras, New Orleans ran a public relations campaign aimed at bringing back tourists that included such slogans as "This isn’t the first time New Orleans has survived the British", some called for the boycott of BP stations, and President Obama promised to kick someone’s “ass”.
The oil spill and political storm resulted in the rapid decline of BP’s stock price (now rated just above “junk” status). Unfortunately, BP stock happened to make up a sizable percentage of the already cash strapped British pension system. The price of BP’s stock was bound to drop as oil continued to spill and wash up on pristine Gulf Coast beaches. The political rhetoric only ratcheted up the level of the crisis. Newspapers in London were splashed with headlines of the “wave of anti-British sentiment sweeping America”. Some in Britain, particularly those in the Conservative Party, already suspected President Obama of anti-British sentiments due in part to comments in his autobiography and the act of returning a bust of Winston Churchill, a gift on loan from England to America. The administration’s response seemed to only confirm their suspicions. The tension has since waned in the past couple weeks with the end to the hearings, and the toning down of political point scoring.
The oil spill itself was not the fault of the Obama Administration, or any other administration. However, the do share responsibility for the ensuing crisis as the spill exposed failures in process and political response. Hurricane Katrina should have served as a warning for the potential problems that occur when the process fails. The BP oil spill should act as a reminder to plan for the unexpected, maintain communication with all parties involved, and to be flexible.
The failure in politics is a much more tricky issue to tackle. Administrations change. Solutions to process are much easier to pass along than solutions to politics. Throw in an important, tightly contested mid-term election year and many politicians are going to consider the relationship of the US and the UK secondary to their own and their party’s own reelection bids in November. The answer then is to simply teach and expose the shortcomings of playing politics - and hope our leaders are paying attention.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Somalia: Where Piracy Meets Prayer Mats
During the first week in May, Somalia’s hard-line Islamist militant group Hizbul Islam stormed the pirate enclave of Harardhere and demanded an end to the “dirty business” of piracy. Hizbul Islam members marched about the streets carrying guns and threatening to punish the pirates and free any captive crew members they encountered. The pirates had already skipped town, however, retreating to another pirate town several miles up the coast. Hizbul Islam did not pursue them, content to stay in the vacated Harardhere and rattle their swords from there.
Pirates have brought millions of dollars from ransom payments to Somalia’s unpaved and underdeveloped coastal towns, but they have also brought luxury and vice that clashes with the Muslim population. Luxury vehicles, big screen TVs, prostitutes, and alcohol are all common themes in the pirate narrative, and both Hizbul Islam and rival Islamist group al-Shabaab have vowed to rid the country of the un-Islamic activity. Behind the scenes, however, it appears that the Islamic militants are content to take hush money under the table. Al-Shabaab is believed to have provided weapons training for the pirates, as well as protection from authorities and general free range in militant-controlled territory. The militants are also rumored to demand taxes from the pirates, and this may have been the fault line that sparked the recent conflict between the two parties. According to local residents, both Hizbul Islam and al-Shabaab scouts had gone to Harardhere to demand taxes, which the pirates refused. Both groups then appeared to be advancing on the town, to collect their taxes by force, but Hizbul Islam beat its rival to the punch.
In addition to collecting taxes, Hizbul Islam had another motive for moving into Harardhere. The move was likely an attempt to gain a territorial advance at the expense of al-Shabaab, who earlier ousted Hizbul Islam from the lucrative port town of Kismayo, further south along the coast. Once in Harardhere, Hizbul Islam seemed keen to establish its Islamic credentials as well, insisting that its presence would bring the town back under Islamic shari’a rule. For Hizbul Islam, this includes public executions and amputations for convicted criminals, as well as a strict enforcement of cultural regulations, such as no music, now soccer, and no Western aid agencies.
Both Hizbul Islam and al-Shabaab tout a staunchly anti-Western agenda and seem in constant competition to be the “harder-line” of the two. Both are offshoots from the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), which briefly ruled the country after warlords overthrew the brutish dictator Siad Barre in 1991. Hizbul Islam is led by Sheikh Hasan Dahir Aweys, a former ICU cleric and hard-line Islamist who split with the current president, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, whom he accuses of being a puppet of the West. It seems puzzling, therefore, that on May 9, Hizbul Islam vowed to free two British hostages who have been held captive by pirates for more than six months. Paul and Rachel Chandler, a British couple in their 50s, were kidnapped when pirates hijacked their yacht of the Seychelles archipelago last October. The Chandlers’ captors separated them after British Special Forces botched a rescue attempt, and their mental and physical health has been deteriorating steadily since. Paul Chandler is losing his sight to an eye infection, and his wife Rachel alternates from staring into space and screaming her husband’s name in a shrill voice. The pirates demanded a $2m ransom for the couple, which they later reduced after friends and family members failed to come up with the money. The pirates also came close to releasing the couple without a ransom payment, but this never materialized. The pirates are now demanding a ransom just to cover their costs, which they claim is $60k a month.
According to a reporter who spoke personally with the Chandlers’ captives, they are afraid that Hizbul Islam may indeed attempt to rescue the hostages and “fly them to their homeland without taking any ransom.” In this case, the pirates would be out their costs and the 6 months of time they lost when they could have been hijacking more ships. Rescuing British hostages, however, seems inconsistent with the militants’ staunch anti-Western ideology. Extorting taxes from the “un-Islamic” pirates is no less inconsistent, however, but this does not seem to daunt the hard-line militants. In the 20 years of chaos in Somalia, pragmatism has proved to be the key to survival, whereas idealism is as dead as the thousands of Somalis who have perished in the conflict.
Pirates have brought millions of dollars from ransom payments to Somalia’s unpaved and underdeveloped coastal towns, but they have also brought luxury and vice that clashes with the Muslim population. Luxury vehicles, big screen TVs, prostitutes, and alcohol are all common themes in the pirate narrative, and both Hizbul Islam and rival Islamist group al-Shabaab have vowed to rid the country of the un-Islamic activity. Behind the scenes, however, it appears that the Islamic militants are content to take hush money under the table. Al-Shabaab is believed to have provided weapons training for the pirates, as well as protection from authorities and general free range in militant-controlled territory. The militants are also rumored to demand taxes from the pirates, and this may have been the fault line that sparked the recent conflict between the two parties. According to local residents, both Hizbul Islam and al-Shabaab scouts had gone to Harardhere to demand taxes, which the pirates refused. Both groups then appeared to be advancing on the town, to collect their taxes by force, but Hizbul Islam beat its rival to the punch.
In addition to collecting taxes, Hizbul Islam had another motive for moving into Harardhere. The move was likely an attempt to gain a territorial advance at the expense of al-Shabaab, who earlier ousted Hizbul Islam from the lucrative port town of Kismayo, further south along the coast. Once in Harardhere, Hizbul Islam seemed keen to establish its Islamic credentials as well, insisting that its presence would bring the town back under Islamic shari’a rule. For Hizbul Islam, this includes public executions and amputations for convicted criminals, as well as a strict enforcement of cultural regulations, such as no music, now soccer, and no Western aid agencies.
Both Hizbul Islam and al-Shabaab tout a staunchly anti-Western agenda and seem in constant competition to be the “harder-line” of the two. Both are offshoots from the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), which briefly ruled the country after warlords overthrew the brutish dictator Siad Barre in 1991. Hizbul Islam is led by Sheikh Hasan Dahir Aweys, a former ICU cleric and hard-line Islamist who split with the current president, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, whom he accuses of being a puppet of the West. It seems puzzling, therefore, that on May 9, Hizbul Islam vowed to free two British hostages who have been held captive by pirates for more than six months. Paul and Rachel Chandler, a British couple in their 50s, were kidnapped when pirates hijacked their yacht of the Seychelles archipelago last October. The Chandlers’ captors separated them after British Special Forces botched a rescue attempt, and their mental and physical health has been deteriorating steadily since. Paul Chandler is losing his sight to an eye infection, and his wife Rachel alternates from staring into space and screaming her husband’s name in a shrill voice. The pirates demanded a $2m ransom for the couple, which they later reduced after friends and family members failed to come up with the money. The pirates also came close to releasing the couple without a ransom payment, but this never materialized. The pirates are now demanding a ransom just to cover their costs, which they claim is $60k a month.
According to a reporter who spoke personally with the Chandlers’ captives, they are afraid that Hizbul Islam may indeed attempt to rescue the hostages and “fly them to their homeland without taking any ransom.” In this case, the pirates would be out their costs and the 6 months of time they lost when they could have been hijacking more ships. Rescuing British hostages, however, seems inconsistent with the militants’ staunch anti-Western ideology. Extorting taxes from the “un-Islamic” pirates is no less inconsistent, however, but this does not seem to daunt the hard-line militants. In the 20 years of chaos in Somalia, pragmatism has proved to be the key to survival, whereas idealism is as dead as the thousands of Somalis who have perished in the conflict.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Homegrown Extremism
Author: Lauren Wells
Today is the fifteenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing. In 1995 Timothy McVeigh, with the help of Terry Nichols, parked a U-Haul truck loaded with 4,800 pounds of explosive material just outside the Murrah Federal Building killing 168. The anniversary comes at a time when a man has recently flown his small plane into the Austin IRS building killing one person and when nine members of a militia were arrested on suspicion of plotting to kill police officers. Many are concerned about the growing intensity of political rhetoric in our country and how that manifests itself in the form of right-wing, anti-government terrorism.
Domestic terrorism is not a new phenomenon. To the contrary, extremism has a long and varied history in the United States which has played host to several extremist groups and individuals. Motivations for violent action have ranged from anarchism, socialism, animal rights, and environmental activism, to racial hatred, anti-abortion, and anti-federalism agendas.
For the most part, leftist terrorism has waned extensively from its heyday in the 1970’s. However, environmental and animal rights based terrorist organizations remain very active, causing more financial harm than casualties. A brief look at the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database reveals that the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) are responsible for a large percentage of terrorist attacks perpetrated in the past twenty years, at least in terms of numbers and cost of damage.
After the fall of the Soviet Union and several notable events in the US, there was a shift toward right-wing, or anti-federalist, focused individuals and groups. The Sothern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) tracks domestic extremist and hate groups in the US. In a recent publication, the SPLC reported that right-wing organizations, often called “Patriot” groups, really increased after the Branch Davidian incident in 1993. It should also be added that the shooting at Ruby Ridge and the adoption of various national gun laws in the mid-1990’s have also been used as rallying cries for many “Patriot” groups. The movement generally died down by the turn of the century, but again resurging in the past year; reportedly growing 244 percent in 2009. And while “Patriot” groups have been active for the past twenty years, their activity level has remained low. Some researchers have suggested that these militia groups act more as a political protest movement, rather than a push for violent action. Instead, the majority of anti-government terrorist activity has come from “lone-wolf” terrorists.
One and two party actors have historically been responsible for larger and more deadly attacks. The most well known “lone-wolf” terrorists being Timothy McVeigh and his accomplice, Terry Nichols. Prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh and Nichols were previously members of a Michigan militia group, even starting their own militia group at one point. However, at the time of the bombing, neither planning, nor action was carried out by any one organization, but two individuals acting on their own accord.
Again in 1996 Eric Rudolph, acting alone, detonated a bomb in the crowded Centennial Olympic Park during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. While he had previously bombed abortion clinics, Rudolph targeted what he viewed as “global socialism” and hoped his actions would cancel the games. In 2001, several anthrax laced letters were sent to various political and media outlets killing five and injuring seventeen. The FBI’s primary suspect, Bruce Ivins, was a researcher at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. He killed himself in 2008 prior to being charged with the attacks. Less than a year later, Luke Helder sent pipe bombs to various individuals across the Midwest. Helder was found to be too incompetent to stand trial, but had made several anti-government statements in reference to the motive behind his attacks. Most recently, Joseph Stack III flew his small plane into the Austin IRS building after posting a lengthy rant against the US government and the IRS on the internet.
It is evident that while anti-government sentiment is not the only form of homegrown extremism facing the US, right-wing terrorism is certainly active and is on everyone’s mind. It is too early to tell whether the rise in militia membership will lead toward increased incidents of terrorism. Historically speaking, these groups have not been directly responsible for large acts of terror, but their rise in membership does appear to coincide with the rise in individual acts of terror. This would make sense in that the same social and political climate drives the two. So what should be done about the rise in anti-government extremism?
It is a difficult situation and authorities must walk a careful tightrope. They must balance awareness and law enforcement to prevent future attacks with restraint. If federal authorities were to crack down on militia groups, they risk exacerbating the problem. Militia members and supporters view their existence as constitutional. Any action that could be perceived as unnecessarily would be viewed by supporters as a constitutional violation and further “proof” of the growing intrusion of the federal government. This would ultimately lead to increased militia membership and act as motivation for future lone-wolf terrorists as Waco in 1994 did for Timothy McVeigh.
Last week, Former President Bill Clinton made waves when he said that in the current political climate, public officials should be careful what they say. He argued that people need to take responsibility for the consequences of their words. He is exactly right. When politicians and media personalities use language such as the need for state secession, watering the tree of liberty with blood, and the increasing tyranny of government, it gives credence to extremism and fringe organizations. And while increased membership in militias is not a direct concern, it does warn of the increased possibility of “lone-wolf” actors who turn to groups for similar ideology but become frustrated by their lack of action. Perhaps the only problem with Mr. Clinton’s comments was his intended audience. Just as equally important, Democratic politicians and media personalities should be cautious in their language. By labeling opponents as crazy or their concerns as ridiculous there is a risk of further radicalizing the far right. All public officials must be aware of their words and the potential power they have.
Today is the fifteenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing. In 1995 Timothy McVeigh, with the help of Terry Nichols, parked a U-Haul truck loaded with 4,800 pounds of explosive material just outside the Murrah Federal Building killing 168. The anniversary comes at a time when a man has recently flown his small plane into the Austin IRS building killing one person and when nine members of a militia were arrested on suspicion of plotting to kill police officers. Many are concerned about the growing intensity of political rhetoric in our country and how that manifests itself in the form of right-wing, anti-government terrorism.
Domestic terrorism is not a new phenomenon. To the contrary, extremism has a long and varied history in the United States which has played host to several extremist groups and individuals. Motivations for violent action have ranged from anarchism, socialism, animal rights, and environmental activism, to racial hatred, anti-abortion, and anti-federalism agendas.
For the most part, leftist terrorism has waned extensively from its heyday in the 1970’s. However, environmental and animal rights based terrorist organizations remain very active, causing more financial harm than casualties. A brief look at the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database reveals that the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) are responsible for a large percentage of terrorist attacks perpetrated in the past twenty years, at least in terms of numbers and cost of damage.
After the fall of the Soviet Union and several notable events in the US, there was a shift toward right-wing, or anti-federalist, focused individuals and groups. The Sothern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) tracks domestic extremist and hate groups in the US. In a recent publication, the SPLC reported that right-wing organizations, often called “Patriot” groups, really increased after the Branch Davidian incident in 1993. It should also be added that the shooting at Ruby Ridge and the adoption of various national gun laws in the mid-1990’s have also been used as rallying cries for many “Patriot” groups. The movement generally died down by the turn of the century, but again resurging in the past year; reportedly growing 244 percent in 2009. And while “Patriot” groups have been active for the past twenty years, their activity level has remained low. Some researchers have suggested that these militia groups act more as a political protest movement, rather than a push for violent action. Instead, the majority of anti-government terrorist activity has come from “lone-wolf” terrorists.
One and two party actors have historically been responsible for larger and more deadly attacks. The most well known “lone-wolf” terrorists being Timothy McVeigh and his accomplice, Terry Nichols. Prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh and Nichols were previously members of a Michigan militia group, even starting their own militia group at one point. However, at the time of the bombing, neither planning, nor action was carried out by any one organization, but two individuals acting on their own accord.
Again in 1996 Eric Rudolph, acting alone, detonated a bomb in the crowded Centennial Olympic Park during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. While he had previously bombed abortion clinics, Rudolph targeted what he viewed as “global socialism” and hoped his actions would cancel the games. In 2001, several anthrax laced letters were sent to various political and media outlets killing five and injuring seventeen. The FBI’s primary suspect, Bruce Ivins, was a researcher at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. He killed himself in 2008 prior to being charged with the attacks. Less than a year later, Luke Helder sent pipe bombs to various individuals across the Midwest. Helder was found to be too incompetent to stand trial, but had made several anti-government statements in reference to the motive behind his attacks. Most recently, Joseph Stack III flew his small plane into the Austin IRS building after posting a lengthy rant against the US government and the IRS on the internet.
It is evident that while anti-government sentiment is not the only form of homegrown extremism facing the US, right-wing terrorism is certainly active and is on everyone’s mind. It is too early to tell whether the rise in militia membership will lead toward increased incidents of terrorism. Historically speaking, these groups have not been directly responsible for large acts of terror, but their rise in membership does appear to coincide with the rise in individual acts of terror. This would make sense in that the same social and political climate drives the two. So what should be done about the rise in anti-government extremism?
It is a difficult situation and authorities must walk a careful tightrope. They must balance awareness and law enforcement to prevent future attacks with restraint. If federal authorities were to crack down on militia groups, they risk exacerbating the problem. Militia members and supporters view their existence as constitutional. Any action that could be perceived as unnecessarily would be viewed by supporters as a constitutional violation and further “proof” of the growing intrusion of the federal government. This would ultimately lead to increased militia membership and act as motivation for future lone-wolf terrorists as Waco in 1994 did for Timothy McVeigh.
Last week, Former President Bill Clinton made waves when he said that in the current political climate, public officials should be careful what they say. He argued that people need to take responsibility for the consequences of their words. He is exactly right. When politicians and media personalities use language such as the need for state secession, watering the tree of liberty with blood, and the increasing tyranny of government, it gives credence to extremism and fringe organizations. And while increased membership in militias is not a direct concern, it does warn of the increased possibility of “lone-wolf” actors who turn to groups for similar ideology but become frustrated by their lack of action. Perhaps the only problem with Mr. Clinton’s comments was his intended audience. Just as equally important, Democratic politicians and media personalities should be cautious in their language. By labeling opponents as crazy or their concerns as ridiculous there is a risk of further radicalizing the far right. All public officials must be aware of their words and the potential power they have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)