Posts Tagged ‘Mali’

Mali separatist group declares end to ceasefire

November 29, 2013

(Reuters) – Mali’s MNLA Tuareg separatist group said on Friday it was ending a ceasefire agreed with the government in June and taking up arms following violence in the northern city of Kidal.

The declaration follows a series of incidents including clashes on Thursday between Malian troops and stone-throwing protesters who blocked a visit by the prime minister to the northern rebel stronghold of Kidal on Thursday. Several demonstrators were wounded but there were conflicting accounts of how they came about their injuries.

“The political and military wings of the Azawad (MNLA, MAA and HCUA) declare the lifting of the ceasefire with the central government in Bamako,” said a statement by Attaye Ag Mohamed, one of the MNLA’s founders.

“All our military positions are on alert,” said the statement, which asked the international community to witness that the government was to blame for hostilities on Thursday.

The west African country is in the process of restoring democracy after a coup last year led to al Qaeda-linked Islamists taking control of the north.

A French-led military offensive routed the Islamists but tension remains between the central government and Tuareg separatists demanding an independent homeland they call Azawad. The two sides are due to open negotiations over the status of the restive desert region.

(Reporting by Adama Diarra; Writing by Matthew Mpoke Bigg;)

UN rules out swift peacekeeping deployment to Central African Republic

November 28, 2013

Deputy secretary general said that even with a speedy security council resolution it would take months to deploy a team

By Mark Tran
The Guardian

MDG : CAR : Central African Republic refugees

Refugees cook food in Bouca. The town is home to a Catholic mission that has been aiding refugees alongside  Médecins Sans Frontières. Photograph: Juan Carlos Tomasi/MSF/EPA

A UN peacekeeping force would take at least two or three months to deploy in the Central African Republic (CAR) even if there was a speedy UN security council resolution, Jan Eliasson, the UN deputy secretary general said on Wednesday.

The chronically unstable and landlocked country has plunged into chaos in recent months after a coalition of rebels overthrew the government in March. Eliasson, who was attending an EU development conference in Brussels, said the brutality and sectarian violence in the worsening crisis, could degenerate into widespread atrocities.

Given the time it would take to send peacekeepers, the UN is banking on a quick deployment of troops by France, the former colonial power, to restore some semblance of order as they did in Mali when Tuareg and jihadist rebels threatened to advance on the capital Bamako.

French officials this week expressed readiness to reinforce the 400 troops already in the capital Bangui. “France has already indicated sending 800 more troops to bring its total to 1,200, that will improve security,” said a veteran UN diplomat.

The world has paid little heed to the deteriorating situation in CAR, despite warnings from humanitarian organisations. But  reports of the savagery inflicted upon civilians is making the crisis increasingly difficult to ignore. Since seizing power, Seleka rebels have been accused by human rights groups of committing abuses including killings, rapes and conscription of child soldiers.

“It is a hugely critical situation. On Monday, I made one of my most dramatic reports to the [UN security] council,” Eliasson said. “It was not an early warning, it was a late warning.”

The violence in the mineral-rich but impoverished country has turned increasingly communal, pitting the mainly Muslim Seleka rebels against Christian militias. The French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, warned this week that if CAR imploded as a result of a power vacuum, instability could threaten all the countries in the region. These include Chad, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Cameroon.

The UN is counting on France acting as an effective stop-gap measure until an African Union force is deployed but it is unclear how quickly such a contingent is deployed amid questions over funding. There are 2,500 African regional peacekeeping troops in CAR. This is due to be increased to 3,600 by January. But they are stretched thin and struggling to maintain order in a land mass bigger than France where villages are often inaccessible by road.

Eliasson stressed the need for humanitarian workers to have access to those in need. “What we need are eyes and ears on the ground so they can have a calming influence,” he said.

In his report to the council on Monday, Eliasson said virtually the entire population of 4.6 million people was enduring “suffering beyond imagination”, and a third of the people are in dire need of food, healthcare, sanitation and shelter”.

Ban ki-Moon, the UN secretary general, last week presented the council options for supporting the AU-led operation financially and logistically, as well as the option of transforming it into a UN peacekeeping operation. Ban said he would back a UN force with nearly 11,000 soldiers and police if the crisis worsens.

France Sends 1,000 Troops to Central African Republic

November 26, 2013

PARIS (AP) – France will send 1,000 troops to Central African Republic under an expected U.N.-backed mission to keep growing chaos at bay, the defense minister said Tuesday – boosting the French military presence in Africa for the second time this year.

Jean-Yves Le Drian made the announcement a day after a top U.N. official warned of mass atrocities and possible civil war in CAR, one of the world’s poorest countries, which has been in turmoil since rebel groups joined forces in March and overthrew the president. The rebels have been accused by rights groups of committing scores of atrocities including killings, rapes and conscription of child soldiers. France’s top diplomat said last week the country was “on the verge of genocide.”

“It’s in collapse and we cannot have a country fall apart like that. There is the violence, massacres and humanitarian chaos that follow a collapse,” Le Drian told Europe 1 radio. “It will be a short mission to allow calm and stability to return.”

French soldiers pictured on patrol in Bangui on October 23, 2013, are to receive reinforcements under a new agreement between France and the Central African Republic (AFP/File, Pacome Pabandji)

In Mali, France has about 2,800 troops taking part in an operation that began after rebels and al-Qaida-linked militants moved to take over the capital last winter.

Le Drian dismissed any comparisons between the Mali and CAR missions.

“In Mali there was an attack of jihadists, terrorists who wanted to transform Mali into a terrorist state. This is a collapse of a country with a potential for religious clashes,” he said. “France has international responsibilities, is a permanent member of the Security Council, has history with Central African Republic, and the United Nations is asking us to do it.”

France already has some 420 soldiers in Central African Republic – mostly to protect the airport in the capital Bangui. The country has asked France to increase that force and French diplomats have announced plans to circulate a draft Security Council resolution that will call for additional support for the 3,000-strong force led by the African Union now in the country.

A French defense official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the mission, said the U.N. mandate would authorize French troops to end the massacres and restore order throughout the country.

France hopes that a resolution will be passed before the start of a summit in Paris next week focusing on security issues in Africa, French diplomats have said.

The expanded French deployment would happen after that. France would accompany an African force of troops from neighboring countries, and the French mission would be expected to last about six months, Le Drian said.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius last week said Central African Republic is “on the verge of genocide.”

“It’s total disorder. You have seven surgeons for a population of 5 million, an infant mortality rate of 25 percent in some areas and 1.5 million people who have nothing, not even food, and armed gangs, bandits, etc,” he told  France 2 television Thursday.

A French soldier explains to Vietnamese (er, Malian) children why he thinks he is in their country

A French soldier talks to  Malian children

At the United Nations on Monday, French ambassador Gerard Araud said an increased French deployment would be “a bridging force” until an African force is fully operational – when France would take a back-up role.

France, a former colonial powerhouse in West Africa, has a greater military presence in the region than any other Western country – with thousands of troops in places including Senegal, Chad, Ivory Coast and Gabon.

In a briefing Monday to the Security Council, U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson said the situation in CAR was deteriorating so fast that a U.N. peacekeeping force may soon be the only option.

He said the country is becoming “a breeding ground for extremists and armed groups” and never-before-seen sectarian violence between Muslims and Christians.

Associated Press writer Jamey Keaten contributed to this report.

Follow Lori Hinnant:

Eds: Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations, and Jamey Keaten and Sylvie Corbet in Paris contributed to this report.

Kenya attack: Army defuses bombs as dozens more feared dead, Some terrorists “holding out” — Maybe 50 more dead — British woman helped terrorists?

September 24, 2013

By Richard Lough and Duncan Miriri

NAIROBI |          Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:14am EDT

NAIROBI (Reuters) – Somalia’s al Shabaab Islamist group said on Tuesday its militants were still holed up in a Kenyan shopping mall they attacked at the weekend and there were “countless dead bodies”, raising fears the death toll could be higher than 62.

Kenyan security forces were searching for the al Qaeda-linked attackers who are believed by Western sources to include Americans and possibly a British woman who may be the widow of a suicide bomber who took part in an attack in London in 2005. Al Shabaab rejected suggestions that foreigners were involved.

Sporadic bursts of gunfire and an explosion marked the fourth day since the militants stormed into the Westgate center in Nairobi during a busy Saturday lunchtime, spraying bullets and lobbing grenades.

Helicopters buzzed over the complex, which is popular with foreigners and prosperous Kenyans. Al Shabaab says it launched the attack in pursuit of demands that Kenya withdraw troops from Somalia, where they have battled the Islamist group. President Uhuru Kenyatta has vowed to stay the course there.

The attack has come at a time when several violent Islamist groups from Mali to Algeria, Nigeria to Kenya – tapping into local grievances but all espousing an anti-Western, anti-Christian creed – are striking at state authority and international interests.

“There are still gunmen in the building,” said an intelligence officer, who asked not to be named, speaking near the mall, which is surrounded by troops. Asked if there were still hostages, he said: “We are not sure yet.”

As Kenyan authorities asserted that the end of the siege was “very near”, al Shabaab said its militants were still holding out in the Westgate center and their hostages were still alive.

“There are countless number of dead bodies still scattered inside the mall, and the Mujahideen (fighters) are still holding their ground #Westgate,” the group said on its Twitter feed.


“The hostages who were being held by the Mujahideen inside #Westgate are still alive, looking quite disconcerted but, nevertheless, alive.”

It described its fighters as “unruffled and strolling around the mall in such sangfroid manner”.

People who earlier helped remove bodies from the mall said they believed there were still many lying there yet to be removed, suggesting that the death toll could rise.

The Kenyan military said its forces were carrying out “mop up operations” in the building.

The Interior Ministry earlier said security forces were in control of the mall and that all the hostages had been released.

A trickle of survivors left on Monday, but the fate of those still missing was unclear. It was also unclear how many of the militants had been killed or captured.

The government said on Monday three had died and a television report on Tuesday said “six of the remaining attackers” were killed. There has been no clear official tally.

An army spokesman said 11 soldiers had been admitted to hospital, and of that number three had died.

Images from closed-circuit television inside the mall during the attack, published in a Kenyan newspaper on Tuesday, showed two militants, casually dressed and wearing ammunition belts. One held an assault rifle. Al Shabaab confirmed that the two men were part of the group that attacked Westgate.

Kenyan Foreign Minister Amina Mohamed told the U.S. PBS Newshour television show that “two or three Americans” and a British woman were among the militants.

She said the Americans were “young men, about between maybe 18 and 19″ years old. She said they were of Somali or Arab origin and had lived in “in Minnesota and one other place”.

Al Shabaab, which said it had been in communication with its members in the mall, dismissed the minister’s comments.

“Those who describe the attackers as Americans and British are people who do not know what is going on in Westgate building,” al Shabaab’s media office told Reuters.


A British security source said it was possible that Samantha Lewthwaite, the widow of Germaine Lindsay, one of the suicide bombers who killed more than 50 people on London’s transport system in 2005, was involved in the Nairobi siege.

When asked about reports that Lewthwaite, dubbed the “white widow” by the British media, was directly involved in the attack in Kenya, the source said: “It is a possibility. But nothing definitive or conclusive yet.”

Lewthwaite is thought to have left Britain several years ago and is wanted in connection with an alleged plot to attack hotels and restaurants in Kenya.

U.S. security sources said they were looking into information from Kenya that residents of Western countries, including the United States, may have been among the militants.

U.S. President Barack Obama, whose father was born in the east African nation, offered help, saying he believed Kenya – the scene of one of al Qaeda’s first major attacks, in 1998, and a neighbor of chaotic Somalia – would continue to be a regional pillar of stability.

Kenyan officials have tried to reassure the country that they are in command of the situation. Officials said there would be a news briefing on the situation later on Tuesday.

“We continue to appeal for calm, keep vigil and avoid Westgate area,” the Ministry of Interior said on its Twitter account.

The attack on the mall is the worst such incident in Kenya since al Qaeda killed more than 200 people when it bombed the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi in 1998.

When fighters from its Somali ideological counterpart stormed the mall on Saturday, they hit a high-profile symbol of Kenya’s economic power.

Kenya has sent troops to Somalia as part of an African Union force trying to stabilize the country, which was long without a functioning government, and push back al Shabaab.

It has also suffered internal instability. President Kenyatta, who lost a nephew in the weekend bloodbath, faces charges of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court for his alleged role in coordinating violence after disputed elections in 2007. He denies the charges.

British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said he believed six Britons had died in the attack. Other known foreign victims are from China, Ghana, France, the Netherlands and Canada. Kenyan officials said the total death toll was at least 62.

Conflicting comments have fuelled speculation about the attackers’ identity. While the foreign minister said there was a woman attacker killed, Interior Minister Joseph Ole Lenku had said on Monday they were all men but some had dressed as women.

(Reporting by James Macharia, Edmund Blair, Duncan Miriri, Matthew Mpoke Bigg and Richard Lough; Pascal Fletcher in Johannesburg; and Steve Holland in New York; Writing by Edmund Blair and James Macharia; Editing by Giles Elgood and Will Waterman)


Is this “The White Widow”?

Kenyan troops battle Islamists making their final stand in a deadly shopping mall siege, on the fourth day of the attack by Al-Shabaab militants said to include Americans and a British woman.


15.00 AFP news agency has released this passport used by Lewthwaite to travel into South Africa. It is believed she used a forged passport with the name Natalie Faye Webb:

14.48 Kenya says 11 soldiers injured in Westgate operation and three have died.

14.08 Ravindra Ramrattan, a London School of Economics alumnus, is among the victims, according to the Trinidad Express.

Friend Josh Weinstein has written a tribute:

I found out yesterday that a friend was killed in the senseless, horrible attack in Nairobi. He was a great person and meant a lot to many people. He had a profound impact on so many people’s lives that I would not even begin to understand how to chronicle it all….

I met Ravi early on in my time in Nairobi. I remember thinking that this guy was exceptionally smart. Subsequently, I found out he had bachelors degree in mathematics from the University of Cambridge, a masters degree in financial economics from Oxford, and another masters in econometrics and mathematical economics from the London School of Economics.

After teaching statistics to graduate students at the London Business School for a year – at the tender age of 26 – he decided to move to Kenya to commit himself to the cause of poverty alleviation.

13.58 Our correspodnent Aislinn Laing says she has just spoken to a police officer at the City Morgue who says they’ve been told to expect 50 more bodies from the mall.

13.25 This video appears to show a fire blazing at the mall and a partially collapsed roof:

al-Qaida: Have local affiliates have become stronger than central leadership?

August 7, 2013


The Jerusalem Post
Experts differ on leader Zawahiri’s degree of control, say local affiliates have become stronger than central leadership.

Veteran jihadist Mokhtar Belmokhtar

Veteran al-Qaida  jihadist Mokhtar Belmokhtar   Photo: REUTERS

A number of questions surround the shadowy events unfolding in Yemen over the  last couple of days, not least of which is this: Why would al-Qaida attack now?

One possible reason could be that the United States killed the second-in-command  of affiliate organization al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Abu Sufyan  al-Azdi, in a drone strike in Yemen last year.

He was reportedly wounded  in the October 2012 strike and died a few months afterward.

Jihadists  recently called for revenge, and the terrorist organization’s affiliates in Iraq  and Somalia are expressing their anger over his killing, according to Site, a  jihadi monitoring website.

There could also be a connection with the  recent appointment of a Yemeni AQAP leader, Nasir al-Wuhayshi, as general  manager of al-Qaida, effectively making him the No. 2 man in the  organization.

Could the new threat be based on orders from al-Qaida  leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who gave a speech that was posted on jihadi forums on  July 30, claiming that attacks on the US, including the recent Boston bombings,  were revenge for Muslims killed in US-led wars?

Zawahiri met bin Laden in the 1980s when both men joined the fight against the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan

Ayman al-Zawahiri. Photo: REUTERS

“I call on every Muslim in every  spot on Earth to seek with all that he can to stop the crimes of America and its  allies against the Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Mali and  everywhere….Every Muslim in every spot on Earth must work to defend  the blood of Muslims that is being shed by America and its allies, and their  sanctities that they are violating, and their villages and homes that they are  destroying, and their wealth that they are stealing,” said Zawahiri according to  the Site monitoring group.

Ely Karmon, senior researcher at the Institute  for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) and at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya’s  Institute for Policy and Strategy, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday that he  believes Zawahiri is “the weakest part of al-Qaida because most of its military  leaders have been killed and he is isolated in Pakistan  somewhere.”

Consequently al-Qaida affiliates have become much stronger,  he said, adding that he was skeptical that Zawahiri had given the order for the  attack in an open telephone conversation that the United States intercepted. It  is much more likely that the latest warnings – as well as ongoing attacks by  al-Qaida affiliates in the region – are the initiative of local groups and not  based on orders from above, said Karmon.

Another opinion is that Zawahiri  is trying “to prove al-Qaida’s capability is still intact and [that] he retains  control over its franchises,” wrote Anna Boyd, a senior Middle East analyst at  IHS Country Risk.

However, Karmon said the recent conflict between the  al-Qaida affiliates in Iraq and Syria demonstrated that Zawahiri was not  responsible for everything that was happening, and he was often forced to  respond to events after the fact.

In that conflict, the Iraqi affiliate  tried to unite with the Syrian al-Nusra Front, but the latter rejected the move  and Zawahiri was forced to deal with the dispute.

According to Karmon,  AQAP is the strongest al-Qaida affiliate. He noted that the organization had  succeeded in conquering several cities in Yemen, taking advantage of internal  conflicts.

These include the Sunni-Shi’ite battle going on in the north  of the country against the Shi’ite Houthis, who are supported by Iran, as well  as the historical conflict between north and south Yemen. Another lingering  conflict resulted from the 2011 uprising against former president Ali Abdullah  Saleh, who was replaced by Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

Also, Hadi visited US  President Barack Obama last week, which could be an added motivation for the  recent terrorist attack warnings.

Boyd believes that AQAP’s operational  network is weak and that it is unlikely to attack an embassy anywhere outside of  Yemen, “where its core capability is focused and where the risk is  severe.”

Saudi intelligence has effectively prevented it from  reestablishing a base inside Saudi Arabia, she said.

“Its ability to  mount attacks beyond the Arabian Peninsula has depended on recruiting single  foreign operatives,” or “on plots that require no operatives traveling outside  Yemen,” she wrote. Boyd also mentioned the failed 2009 plane bombing by a  Nigerian student on a flight to Detroit, and the attempt to ship bombs on  courier flights to the US.

Karmon finds it strange that the US decided to  shut down embassies – a move that is essentially a “prize to terrorists,” he  said. This decision seems to be an overreaction and might have been influenced  by the fatal attack against the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last  year.

Another interesting point, said Karmon, is that it remains unclear  why the US leaked so much information regarding the terrorist plans and the way  in which they were uncovered. Publishing the material could serve as a  deterrent, letting the terrorists think the US was aware of their plans, but it  could be counterproductive, he asserted, as the enemy could also use this  information.

Each al-Qaida affiliate is trying to enhance its position  without any over-arching coordination, Karmon concluded.

This reality  means that it will be much harder for the US and other intelligence agencies to  uncover plots that are often not directed from above.

Patrol gunmen from Al-Qaeda  near the Algerian border

An al-Qaeda gunman on patrol near the Algerian border Photo: REX FEATURES

Back To The Future: With Syria in Flames, Radical Islam All Around, President Obama Chooses To Discuss “Cold War Postures”

June 23, 2013

Commentary by Mona Charen


An estimated 93,000 people have died in Syria’s metastasizing civil war. Hundreds of thousands of that conflict’s refugees strain resources and stability in neighboring countries. Iran continues its steady march toward nuclear weapons development. North Korea menaces its neighbors and episodically threatens to launch nuclear missiles at Los Angeles. Turkey, long lauded by Obama as a model for the region, is violently cracking down on peaceful demonstrators. Slow growth and high unemployment hobble the world’s most advanced economies as growing bureaucracy and crippling debt take their toll. Islamist movements are making gains in Mali, Indonesia, Pakistan and Iraq after gaining power in Egypt and Tunisia. The Taliban is boldly flying the flag of the “Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan” (the name of the country when they controlled it before 9/11) from their new offices in Doha. China is aggressively expanding its navy, engaging in barely concealed cyber espionage on American businesses and government and manufacturing territorial disputes with neighbors in the South China Sea. Russia is sliding steeply into tyranny, and Islamic terrorists have recently scored two victories — one on the streets of Boston and one in London.

Yet the president of the United States thinks the issue that urgently requires his attention is reducing the nuclear arsenals of Russia and America. Speaking in Germany to a crowd of 4,500 invited guests — a small fraction of the 200,000 who gathered to adore him in 2008 — the president reprised his stale “citizens of the world” platitude. He also returned to a theme he favored as a senator and presidential candidate: “We may no longer live in fear of global annihilation, but so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.” Accordingly, the President will seek “negotiated cuts” with Russia to reduce our nuclear arsenal by one-third from levels agreed to in 2010.

The president talks of moving beyond “Cold War postures,” but by focusing on nuclear arsenals, he seems to be the one in a time warp. Is he longing to revisit or even rewrite the history of the Cold War? Does he wish he could have been in Reagan’s place at Reykjavik? Obama would doubtless have cheerfully agreed to abandon the Strategic Defense Initiative, as Reagan declined to do. And what then? Would the world have been safer? What about the little detail that we won the Cold War? Perhaps he’d like to rewrite that, as well?

Obama invokes the goal of “ridding the world of nuclear weapons.” Sorry, but this is sophomoric. You might as well favor outlawing fire. He does, alas, have the power to weaken our nuclear deterrent. That’s what we get for reelecting him despite overhearing the whisper to Dmitri Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” after the election. But the idea of setting a good example for the other nuclear powers is sheer childishness. Will Pakistan, India or, God help us, North Korea, be moved by our example? Were they in 2010, the last time Obama reduced our arsenal? This kind of thinking is unworthy of the leader of a great nation and frankly, a little frightening.

It’s also worrying that Obama has proved such a terrible judge of character. Bad enough that he alienated Netanyahu and embraced Erdogan. He continues to portray the thuggish Vladimir Putin as a worthy partner.

In the space of the last year, Putin has signaled that he may withdraw Russia from the post-Cold War treaty governing conventional forces in Europe and from the 1987 IMF treaty. He has threatened that if the U.S. gives even 10 missile interceptors to our ally Poland, Russia will have to “get new targets in Europe.”

For the first time since the Cold War, Russia has resumed heavy bomber sorties.

Since achieving power, the former KGB colonel has poisoned British citizen Alexander Litvinenko, who died in London, and Ukrainian leader Victor Yushchenko, who was maimed but survived. At least 14 journalists who challenged Putin have been assassinated. One in suburban Maryland was shot in the groin. Business leaders have been exiled and jailed. Ukraine, Estonia and Georgia have been bullied. Press freedoms have been radically curtailed. Russia has agreed to build two new nuclear reactors in Iran.

Putin has shown contempt for the naive Obama. Last month, Putin kept Secretary of State John Kerry waiting for three hours when Kerry visited to ask his cooperation on Syria. After the meeting, Russia announced that it was sending Assad the S-300 air defense missile system.

World leadership is not for beginners. It requires something beyond tabloid celebrity and dorm room musings.


By Charles Krauthammer:

Al-Qaida Jihadists Likely Have Surface to Air Missiles

June 11, 2013
In this March 29, 2013 photo provided by the French Army's images division, ECPAD, a French soldier holds the launch tube of an SA-7 surface-to-air missile before its destruction in Timbuktu, northern Mali. The knowledge that the terrorists have the weapon has already changed the way the French are carrying out their five-month-old offensive in Mali. They are using more fighter jets rather than helicopters to fly above its range of 1.4 miles (2.3 kilometers) from the ground, even though that makes it harder to attack the jihadists. They are also making cargo planes land and take off more steeply to limit how long they are exposed, in line with similar practices in Iraq after an SA-14 hit the wing of a DHL cargo plane in 2003. (AP Photo/ECPAD, Olivier Debes)

A French soldier holds the launch tube of an SA-7 surface-to-air missile before its destruction in Timbuktu, northern Mali. The knowledge that the terrorists have the weapon has already changed the way the French are carrying out their five-month-old offensive in Mali. They are using more fighter jets rather than helicopters to fly above its range of 1.4 miles (2.3 kilometers) from the ground, even though that makes it harder to attack the jihadists. They are also making cargo planes land and take off more steeply to limit how long they are exposed, in line with similar practices in Iraq after an SA-14 hit the wing of a DHL cargo plane in 2003. (AP Photo/ECPAD, Olivier Debes)

TIMBUKTU, Mali (AP) — The photocopies of the manual lay in heaps on the floor, in stacks that scaled one wall, like Xeroxed, stapled handouts for a class.

Except that the students in this case were al-Qaida fighters in Mali. And the manual was a detailed guide, with diagrams and photographs, on how to use a weapon that particularly concerns the United States: A surface-to-air missile capable of taking down a commercial airplane.

The 26-page document in Arabic, recovered by The Associated Press in a building that had been occupied by al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb in Timbuktu, strongly suggests the group now possesses the SA-7 surface-to-air missile, known to the Pentagon as the Grail, according to terrorism specialists. And it confirms that the al-Qaida cell is actively training its fighters to use these weapons, also called man-portable air-defense systems, or MANPADS, which likely came from the arms depots of ex-Libyan strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi.


EDITOR’S NOTE — This is the fourth story in an occasional series based on thousands of pages of internal al-Qaida documents recovered by The Associated Press earlier this year in Timbuktu, Mali.


“The existence of what apparently constitutes a ‘Dummies Guide to MANPADS’ is strong circumstantial evidence of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb having the missiles,” said Atlantic Council analyst Peter Pham, a former adviser to the United States’ military command in Africa and an instructor to U.S. Special Forces. “Why else bother to write the guide if you don’t have the weapons? … If AQIM not only has the MANPADS, but also fighters who know how to use them effectively,” he added, “then the impact is significant, not only on the current conflict, but on security throughout North and West Africa, and possibly beyond.”

The United States was so worried about this particular weapon ending up in the hands of terrorists that the State Department set up a task force to track and destroy it as far back as 2006. In the spring of 2011, before the fighting in Tripoli had even stopped, a U.S. team flew to Libya to secure Gadhafi’s stockpile of thousands of heat-seeking, shoulder-fired missiles.

By the time they got there, many had already been looted.

“The MANPADS were specifically being sought out,” said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director for Human Rights Watch, who catalogued missing weapons at dozens of munitions depots and often found nothing in the boxes labelled with the code for surface-to-air missiles.

The manual is believed to be an excerpt from a terrorist encyclopedia edited by Osama bin Laden. It adds to evidence for the weapon found by French forces during their land assault in Mali earlier this year, including the discovery of the SA-7’s battery pack and launch tube, according to military statements and an aviation official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to comment.

The knowledge that the terrorists have the weapon has already changed the way the French are carrying out their five-month-old offensive in Mali. They are using more fighter jets rather than helicopters to fly above its range of 1.4 miles (2.3 kilometers) from the ground, even though that makes it harder to attack the jihadists. They are also making cargo planes land and take off more steeply to limit how long they are exposed, in line with similar practices in Iraq after an SA-14 hit the wing of a DHL cargo plane in 2003.

And they have added their own surveillance at Mali’s international airport in Bamako, according to two French aviation officials and an officer in the Operation Serval force. All three spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment.

“There are patrols every day,” said the French officer. “It’s one of the things we have not entrusted to the Malians, because the stakes are too high.”

First introduced in the 1960s in the Soviet Union, the SA-7 was designed to be portable. Not much larger than a poster tube, it can be packed into a duffel bag and easily carried. It’s also affordable, with some SA-7s selling for as little as $5,000.

Since 1975, at least 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by different types of MANPADS, causing about 28 crashes and more than 800 deaths around the world, according to the U.S. Department of State.

The SA-7 is an old generation model, which means most military planes now come equipped with a built-in protection mechanism against it. But that’s not the case for commercial planes, and the threat is greatest to civilian aviation.

In Kenya in 2002, suspected Islamic extremists fired two SA-7s at a Boeing 757 carrying 271 vacationers back to Israel, but missed. Insurgents in Iraq used the weapons, and YouTube videos abound purporting to show Syrian rebels using the SA-7 to shoot down regime planes.

An SA-7 tracks a plane by directing itself toward the source of the heat, the engine. It takes time and practice, however, to fire it within range. The failure of the jihadists in Mali so far to hit a plane could mean that they cannot position themselves near airports with commercial flights, or that they are not yet fully trained to use the missile.

“This is not a ‘Fire and forget’ weapon,” said Bruce Hoffman, director of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University. “There’s a paradox here. One the one hand it’s not easy to use, but against any commercial aircraft there would be no defenses against them. It’s impossible to protect against it. … If terrorists start training and learn how to use them, we’ll be in a lot of trouble.”

In Timbuktu, SA-7 training was likely part of the curriculum at the ‘Jihad Academy’ housed in a former police station, said Jean-Paul Rouiller, director of the Geneva Center for Training and Analysis of Terrorism, one of three experts who reviewed the manual for AP. It’s located less than 3 miles (5 kilometers) from the Ministry of Finance’s Budget Division building where the manual was found.

Neighbors say they saw foreign fighters running laps each day, carrying out target practice and inhaling and holding their breath with a pipe-like object on their shoulder. The drill is standard practice for shoulder-held missiles, including the SA-7.

As the jihadists fled ahead of the arrival of French troops who liberated Timbuktu on Jan. 28, they left the manual behind, along with other instructional material, including a spiral-bound pamphlet showing how to use the KPV-14.5 anti-aircraft machine gun and another on how to make a bomb out of ammonium nitrate, among other documents retrieved by the AP. Residents said the jihadists grabbed reams of paper from inside the building, doused them in fuel and set them alight. The black, feathery ash lay on top of the sand in a ditch just outside the building’s gate.

However, numerous buildings were still full of scattered papers.

“They just couldn’t destroy everything,” said neighbor Mohamed Alassane. “They appeared to be in a panic when the French came. They left in a state of disorder.”

The manual is illustrated with grainy images of Soviet-looking soldiers firing the weapon. Point-by-point instructions explain how to insert the battery, focus on the target and fire.

The manual also explains that the missile will malfunction above 45 degrees Celsius, the temperature in the deserts north of Timbuktu. And it advises the shooter to change immediately into a second set of clothes after firing to avoid detection.

Its pages are numbered 313 through 338, suggesting they came from elsewhere. Mathieu Guidere, an expert on Islamic extremists at the University of Toulouse, believes the excerpts are lifted from the Encyclopedia of Jihad, an 11-volume survey on the craft of war first compiled by the Taliban in the 1980s and later codified by Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, who led a contingent of Arab fighters in Afghanistan at the time, paid to have the encyclopedia translated into Arabic, according to Guidere, author of a book on al-Qaida’s North African branch.

However, the cover page of the manual boasts the name of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.

“It’s a way to make it their own,” said Guidere. “It’s like putting a logo on something. … It shows the historic as well as the present link between al-Qaida core and AQIM.”

Bin Laden later assembled a team of editors to update the manual, put it on CD-ROMs and eventually place it on the Internet, in a move that lay the groundwork for the globalization of jihad, according to terrorism expert Jarret Brachman, who was the director of research at the Combating Terrorism Center when the al-Qaida encyclopaedia was first found.

N.R. Jenzen-Jones, an arms expert in Australia, confirmed that the information in the manual in Timbuktu on the missile’s engagement range, altitude and weight appeared largely correct. He cautions though that the history of the SA-7 is one of near-misses, specifically because it takes training to use.

“Even if you get your hands on an SA-7, it’s no guarantee of success,” he said. “However, if someone manages to take down a civilian aircraft, it’s hundreds of dead instantly. It’s a high impact, low-frequency event, and it sows a lot of fear.”


Associated Press writer Lori Hinnant contributed to this report from Paris, and AP journalist Amir Bibawy translated the document. Callimachi reported this article in Timbuktu, Mali and in Dakar, Senegal.


The document from al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb in Arabic and English can be seen at

Rukmini Callimachi can be reached at

Obama can’t declare the war on terror over, war is a two-way street

May 31, 2013

By Charles Krauthammer

“This war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises . . .”

— Barack Obama, May 23

Nice thought. But much as Obama would like to close his eyes, click his heels three times and declare the war on terror over, war is a two-way street.

That’s what history advises: Two sides to fight it, two to end it. By surrender (World War II), by armistice (Korea and Vietnam) or when the enemy simply disappears from the field (the Cold War).

Obama says enough is enough. He doesn’t want us on “a perpetual wartime footing.” Well, the Cold War lasted 45 years. The war on terror, 12 so far. By Obama’s calculus, we should have declared the Cold War over in 1958 and left Western Europe, our Pacific allies, the entire free world to fend for itself — and consigned Eastern Europe to endless darkness.

John F. Kennedy summoned the nation to bear the burdens of the long twilight struggle. Obama, agonizing publicly about the awful burdens of command — his command, which he twice sought in election — wants out. For him and for us.

He doesn’t just want to revise and update the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which many conservatives have called for. He wants to repeal it.

He admits that the AUMF establishes the basis both in domestic and international law to conduct crucial defensive operations, such as drone strikes. Why, then, abolish the authority to do what we sometimes need to do?

Because that will make the war go away? Persuade our enemies to retire to their caves? Stop the spread of jihadism?

This is John Lennon, bumper-sticker foreign policy — Imagine World Peace. Obama pretends that the tide of war is receding. But it’s demonstrably not. It’s metastasizing to Mali, to the Algerian desert, to the North African states falling under the Muslim Brotherhood, to Yemen, to the savage civil war in Syria, now spilling over into Lebanon and destabilizing Jordan. Even Sinai, tranquil for 35 years, is descending into chaos.

It’s not war that’s receding. It’s America. Under Obama. And it is precisely in the power vacuum left behind that war is rising. Obama declares Assad must go. The same wish-as-policy fecklessness from our bystander president. Two years — and 70,000 dead — later, Obama keeps repeating the wish even as the tide of battle is altered by the new arbiters of Syria’s future — Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. Where does every party to the Syrian conflict go on bended knee? To Moscow, as Washington recedes into irrelevance.

But the ultimate expression of Obama’s Dorothy Doctrine is Guantanamo. It must close. Must, mind you.

President Barack Obama talks about national security, Thursday, May 23, 2013, at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. Declaring America at a "crossroads" in the fight against terrorism, the president revealed clearer guidelines for the use of deadly drone strikes, including more control by the U.S. military, while leaving key details of the controversial program secret. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

President Barack Obama talks about national security, Thursday, May 23, 2013, at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. Declaring America at a “crossroads” in the fight against terrorism, the president revealed clearer guidelines for the use of deadly drone strikes, including more control by the U.S. military, while leaving key details of the controversial program secret. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Okay. Let’s accept the dubious proposition that the Yemeni prisoners could be sent home without coming back to fight us. And that others could be convicted in court and put in U.S. prisons.

Now the rub. Obama openly admits that “even after we take these steps, one issue will remain — just how to deal with those Gitmo detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks but who cannot be prosecuted.”

Well, yes. That’s always been the problem with Gitmo. It’s not a question of geography. The issue is indefinite detention — whether at Gitmo, a Colorado supermax or St. Helena.

Can’t try ’em, can’t release ’em. Having posed the central question, what is Obama’s answer? “I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved.”

That’s it! I kid you not. He’s had four-plus years to think this one through — and he openly admits he’s got no answer.

Because there is none. Hence the need for Gitmo. Other wars end, at which point prisoners are repatriated. But in this war, the other side has no intention of surrender or armistice. They will fight until the caliphate is established or until jihadism is as utterly defeated as fascism and communism. That’s the reason — the only reason — for the detention conundrum. There is no solution to indefinite detention when the detainees are committed to indefinite war.

Obama’s fantasies are twinned. He can no more wish away the detention than he can the war.

We were defenseless on 9/11 because, despite Osama bin Laden’s open written declaration of war in 1996, we pretended for years that no war against us had even begun. Obama would return us to pre-9/11 defenselessness — casting Islamist terror as a law-enforcement issue and removing the legal basis for treating it as armed conflict — by pretending that the war is over.

It’s enough to make you weep.

Read more from Charles Krauthammer’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Charles Krauthammer

Al Qaeda an evolving threat despite Obama’s boast

May 30, 2013

In the months before President Obama declared al  Qaeda was “on a path to defeat,” his aides were telling Congress that the terrorist network was expanding and was capable of inflicting mass  casualties in the U.S.

While perhaps not a direct contradiction of the president’s near-claim of  victory last week, their testimony painted the picture of a robust collection of  al Qaeda franchises causing death and  destruction in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, MaliSomalia and Afghanistan.

By Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times

President Barack Obama talks about national security, Thursday, May 23, 2013, at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. Declaring America at a "crossroads" in the fight against terrorism, the president revealed clearer guidelines for the use of deadly drone strikes, including more control by the U.S. military, while leaving key details of the controversial program secret. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

President Barack Obama talks about national security, Thursday, May 23, 2013, at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. Declaring America at a “crossroads” in the fight against terrorism, the president revealed clearer guidelines for the use of deadly drone strikes, including more control by the U.S. military, while leaving key details of the controversial program secret. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Terrorism analysts say that as the U.S. conducted a concentrated air war via  armed Predators against al Qaeda’s core  leadership in Pakistan’s tribal areas for more  than a decade, the group’s Islamic chieftains decided to diversify.

“I totally disagree with the premise that al  Qaeda is on the path to defeat,” said retired Army Gen.  Jack Keane, who has advised U.S. commanders in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. “Quite the contrary, al Qaeda has  deliberately decentralized its operations, not because of the relentless attacks  we have had on its national leadership in Pakistan, but because its strategic objective is to  dominate and control Muslim countries in the region. As such, al  Qaeda must extend its geographic reach, which is not only successful but is  expanding.”

Three al Qaeda franchises are most notable:  al Qaeda in Iraq,  which has rebuilt and stepped up attacks since the last American troops left in  2011 and has moved fighters into Syria; al  Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), a North Africa-based network aligned  with Ansar al Shariah, which carried out the deadly assault on the U.S.  diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya; and al  Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a Yemen-based cell that sponsored the failed 2009  airliner attack by “underwear bomber” Umar  Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Free Syrian Army fighter

Syria. Photograph: Reuters

Gen. Keane’s assertions that al  Qaeda remains powerful seems to be supported by administration witnesses  earlier this year.

“The threat from AQAP, particularly with airliners, has not dissipated over  the years,” FBI Director  Robert S. Mueller III told the Senate Select Committee on  Intelligence. “There’s still that threat out there. The individuals who were  responsible for the previous attempts are still there.”

Matthew Olsen, who heads the National  Counterterrorism Center, said al Qaeda is still  trying to recruit attackers in the United States.

“We definitely have seen, both from the al  Qaeda core in Pakistan as well as AQAP in Yemen, an effort to reach out beyond those regions  into the United States to radicalize individuals who are here, who may be  susceptible to that kind of a message,” Mr.  Olsen testified. “They may be simply wayward knuckleheads, but they may well  be inspired by that message and seek to carry out an attack.”

Retired Marine Gen. James N. Mattis, in  his final testimony to the House Armed Services  Committee as head of U.S. Central  Command, called al Qaeda “a real  threat.”

Navy Adm. William H. McRaven, who  directs U.S. Special Operations  Command, which targets individual terrorists and cells, testified that it is  not enough to target a single al Qaeda group  because the network establishes alliances with like-minded Islamic extremists.  He explained the challenge in just one part of the world: North Africa.

“I certainly think we understand the complexity of the al  Qaeda network,” he said in Senate testimony.  “And if you look in Africa as an example, you have al Qaeda in the Islamic Lands of the Maghreb, and  we know that they are partnered or linked with Boko Haram out of Nigeria. So you certainly  cannot isolate a single organization, whether it’s al Qaeda in the Islamic Lands of the Maghreb or Boko Haram, and expect to be able to solve the  problem either locally by going after that problem in a particular country or by  individual entity. If you deal with AQIM, you probably have to deal with Boko Haram.”

Last week before an audience at the National Defense University, Mr. Obama  delivered a speech designed to claim victory, and reset the counterterrorism  battle by abandoning the globalist theme of the George W. Bush  administration.

“Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our  effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror,’ but rather as a series of  persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent  extremists that threaten America,” the president said.

And he made a significant claim. “Today, the core of al  Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on the path to defeat,” he said. “Their remaining operatives spend more time  thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct  the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They’ve not carried out a successful attack  on our homeland since 9/11.”

According to a Heritage Foundation study, Islamists have plotted 54 times to  strike American since Sept. 11, 2001, the day al  Qaeda operatives flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.  Three other plots were carried out, the most recent the Boston Marathon  bombings.

CIA Director John O. Brennan, Mr.  Obama’s former counterterrorism adviser, seemed to paint a more dangerous  picture of al Qaeda during his Senate confirmation hearing than the president did during his recent speech.

“We remain at war with al Qaeda and its  associated forces, which despite the substantial progress we have made against  them, still seek to carry out deadly strikes against our homeland, our citizens  and against our friends and allies,” Mr.  Brennan said.

He conceded that, rather than pulling back, al  Qaeda is expanding: “I will say that if you look out over the last four  years, what happened in a number of places, such as Yemen and other areas, where there was in fact a  growth of al Qaeda, quite unfortunately.”

Gen. Keane said that while al  Qaeda’s core has been badly damaged by the loss of senior leaders, including  Osama bin Laden, it has established itself in other countries where it did not  exist on Sept. 11, 2001. He listed the countries — Libya, Syria, IraqSomalia, Mali, Yemen — where al Qaeda spinoffs are growing.

Al Qaeda has returned to Iraq after it was defeated in 2009, is the fastest growing rebel group in Syria,  has established a bona fide sanctuary in [the West African nation of] Mali and attempted to seize the capital, and established a clear sanctuary in eastern  Libya where no actions have been taken against the  al Qaeda affiliated group, Ansar al-Shariah,”  the retired general said. “In Somalia, we have  enjoyed some success, and in Yemen it’s at best a  draw.”

Al Qaeda’s No. 1 objective to be able to  control and dominate the region is to drive the U.S. out of the region. The  harsh reality is the president of the United States is voluntarily doing just  that,” Gen. Keane said.

Read more:


Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Somebody Needs To Remind President Obama He Cannot Just Declare The War on Terror Is Over

May 28, 2013

By P. J. O’Rourke
The Weekly Standard

President Barack Obama talks about national security, Thursday, May 23, 2013, at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. Declaring America at a "crossroads" in the fight against terrorism, the president revealed clearer guidelines for the use of deadly drone strikes, including more control by the U.S. military, while leaving key details of the controversial program secret. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

President Barack Obama talks about national security, Thursday, May 23, 2013, at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. Declaring America at a “crossroads” in the fight against terrorism, the president revealed clearer guidelines for the use of deadly drone strikes, including more control by the U.S. military, while leaving key details of the controversial program secret. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

“You’re stupid,” is not something even his most severe critics usually say to President Barack Obama. But on Friday morning I picked up the Wall Street Journal and learned that the president had given a speech about the war on terror saying, “This war, like all wars, must end.”

That story was at the top of the front page. Immediately below was a photograph of flowers being laid at a makeshift memorial near the Woolwich Royal Arsenal where machine gunner Lee Rigby was hacked to death by terrorists.

This war, like all wars, must end when someone wins it. The president—speaking at the National Defense University, of all places—said, “the core of al Qaeda . . . is on the path to defeat.” And so it may be. But meanwhile, the core of al Qaeda, its aims and its beliefs, is also on the path to Boston and London and any number of other places.

On page 7 of Friday’s Journal was the headline, “Suicide Bombings in Niger Linked to Mali Islamist Group.” On page 9 was a report of terrorist Hezbollah militias aiding the terrorist Assad regime in attacking the rebel-held Syrian city of Qusayr where the rebels themselves are allied with yet more Islamic terrorists. And on pages 4 and 8 were more bad tidings from that perpetrator, abettor, and friend of terrorism, Iran. Iranian fundamentalists, in the chokehold they have on the country’s political system, are improving their grip. And, “according to current and former U.S. officials,” Iran has “escalated a campaign of cyberassaults against U.S. corporations. . . . The hackers were able to gain access to control-system software that could allow them to manipulate oil or gas pipelines.”

All that on a slow news day.

In 2001 Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, a declaration of war on terrorists and nations that harbor them. In his speech the president said, “I look forward to engaging . . . in efforts to refine and ultimately repeal the AUMF’s mandate.”

I like the president’s use of the word “efforts” here, as though he’s merely trying to be stupid. He doesn’t need to try. Earlier in the week he signed new policy guidance for drone strikes. In the future we will use lethal drones only on terrorists who are a “continuing and imminent threat to the American people” and not on terrorists who are a “significant threat to U.S. interests.” Although, assuming tremendously stupid efforts will be made to tell the two kinds of terrorists apart, maybe I’m wrong about the president not needing to try. The policy guidance also stipulates that there “must be a near certainty” that civilians won’t be killed or injured in a drone strike. Imagine how stupid a WWII Army Air Corps briefing officer would have had to be to say that to his B-17 pilots.

Maybe we pundits don’t tell President Obama, “You’re stupid,” because we are proudly showing off our sensitivity to the negative stereotypes that hurtful language engenders in a way that we didn’t feel was necessary when we were telling Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush, “You’re stupid,” even though actors, WASPs, and Texans are burdened with their fair share of negative lamebrain stereotypes.

More likely it’s because we pundits prize signs of intelligence. We take every opportunity to display our own signs, and President Obama exhibits the same wordy, wonky, academic intelligence indicators that we do, so we don’t call him stupid.

As if the two things were mutually exclusive. I know quite a few fellow members of the news analysis and commentary business, and I have it from the highest-placed sources, on the record, that each and every one of our children is a genius. And yet, if we pundits were to gather together our sons and daughters, during their teenage years, and close them for a night in a dimly lit room full of beer and drugs and comfy futons, I can assure you that evidence of stupidity would be found the next morning.

But the most likely reason that we don’t call President Obama stupid is that it’s such a cul-de-sac of a word. Stupid gives the pundit nothing to perform punditry upon. Call a man ignorant and you have license to show the world your vast fund of knowledge and wise him up. Call a man misguided and you transform your column or blog post or TV appearance into a valuable and beneficent German shepherd with a handle on its back and you lead the poor soul in his blindness. Call a man, best of all, wicked and you get to don the sacramental vestments, climb into the pulpit and thunder forth with such a sermon as to bring him weeping to the font of righteousness or cause the Lord God Almighty to strike him with a thunderbolt in his pew or something fun like that. But call a man stupid and . . . there it is.

And there it is: Dopey stimulus, obtuse bailout, noodle-headed Obamacare, half-wit Dodd-Frank, damfool IRS Tea Party crashers, AP and Fox News beset by oafish peeping Toms and the Benghazi tale told by an idiot. One could go on. Stupid is a great force in human affairs. And the great force has a commander in chief.

P.J. O’Rourke is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.


Soldier in London “hacked to death, beheaded” by Islamists. The suspect named by sources as Michael Adebolajo, left, and the second alleged killer Michael Adebowale (right).

Sweden this past week saw six nights of violence from immigrants, many from Islamic areas.

Britain Pakistan

Undated photo issued by the British Ministry of Defence of an RAF Typhoon Aircraft of the type that has escorted a passenger plane into Stansted Airport in southern England following a possible terror incident on board Friday May 24, 2013. British media reported the flight was a Pakistan International Airlines passenger plane flying to Manchester, England. (AP Photo/ MOD via PA)

(CBS News) President Barack Obama is laying the groundwork for a major shift in the fight against terror.

In his policy speech on Thursday, the president said the United States will focus more on smaller terror networks and homegrown extremists.

Should President Obama end the war on terror?

The speech acted as a kind of “realignment of forces,” pointed out Bob Schieffer, CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of “Face the Nation.”

In his speech, the president renewed his call to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and announced new guidelines to govern the use of targeted drone strikes on foreign soil.

“It’s a redrawing of strategy on how we’re going to confront terrorism,” Schieffer said. “The president said yesterday — the quote that everybody is picking up is that, ‘This war, like all wars, must end,’ but you just cannot declare ‘this war is over.’ It takes two to tango, as it were. The war will be over when the terrorists stop attacking us.

“And I think the government’s going to have to be very careful that this is not misread by those on the other side,” Schieffer continued. “This does not mean, as I understand it, that we’re going to stop tracking down these terrorists or any of that kind of thing or confronting them when we find them. It means that, for one thing, we’re going to bring this large force of people home from Afghanistan and use those resources in a different way. But there’s going to be a lot of controversy about this. … A lot of Republicans are going to say ‘this is premature, this is not yet over,’ and that it will be misunderstood.”

But, the speech, Schieffer pointed out, was a long time in coming and now, he said, “at least, we have something of the president’s vision of where we go and how we go from here.”

For more with Bob Schieffer — including what he calls “outrageous overreach” in Washington, watch his full analysis in the video above.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,005 other followers