This Week, Pure and Uncut: September 19, 2014

After another eventful week of foreign policy, the weekend is finally here again. Here’s a quick list of some of the more interesting news and commentary articles from this week. Like the rest of Drugs and Thugs Blog, the topics addressed will focus on narcotics trafficking, international criminal organizations, insurgencies, and terrorism. 

‘Ndrangheta Boss in South America: From OCCRP, news that Italian organized crime boss Pantaleone Mancuso of the Calabrian ‘Ndrangheta was arrested in Argentina near the Iguazu Falls while trying to cross over into Brazil. This is of course encouraging news on its face, but it is noteworthy where Mancuso was captured. The Iguazu Falls are located in the Triple Frontier of South America, an area where Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina meet. The region is known to be a hotbed of various illicit networks, including narcotics traffickers, Hezbollah financiers, and gun runners. 

Covert Boots on the Ground: From David Ignatius at The Washington Post, a post on the process in which Obama can have Specials Forces operators in Iraq without having the proverbial “boots on the ground.” This power exists the Title 50 of the US Code, which allows the military to operate under the direction of the CIA in certain circumstances. The process is known as “sheep-dipping” in intel circles and was used most notably in the Abbottabad raid in May 2011. 

CT or COIN?: From Jonathan Lord at War on the Rocks, a pointed critique on Obama’s rhetoric towards ISIS. Counterinsurgency has become synonymous with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars of the previous decade and counterterror seems less complex. Additionally, pretending that the campaign against ISIS is one against terrorism allows Obama to back it legally with the AUMF from 2001, even though ISIS is “not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same people that directed the 9/11 attacks.” 

AQ Calls for Jihadist Unity: From The Long War Journal, reports that AQAP and AQIM have called on ISIS and other jihadist groups in Iraq and Syria to collaborate against the US. It appears that AQ is trying to regain credibility and prestige that had been lost to ISIS over the summer. In recent weeks, AQ has also announced a new branch of the terrorist organization in the Indian subcontinent. 

El Chapo in Court: From Marguerite Cawley at InSight Crime, news that Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, recently captured head of the Sinaloa Cartel, will testify against a fellow Sinaloa operator. This development should strike fear into other Sinaloa higher-ups, as it appears that Chapo has entered into some sort of deal with the Mexican government. 

Blood Diamonds: From The Small Wars Journal and by Peter G. Chirico and Katherine C. Malpeli, a long-read on conflict mining in Africa and the networks distribute the gems. This is not a niche industry, as “In Africa alone, an estimated 9 million people are directly involved in the sector”, and it clearly exacerbates wars and insurgency in the region. 

Complex Operations: From National Defense University, the latest PRISM journal, with articles on illicit networks (John Arquilla), organized crime (Wibke Hansen), nuclear terrorism (Feroz Khan and Emily Burke), and Hezbollah (Matthew Levitt, Celina Realuyo). This is an atypical inclusion compared to my usual Pure and Uncut post selections, but there are many excellent articles related to drugs and thugs in this edition and it is well worth the read. 

For comments, thoughts, concerns or criticism, please email me at conormlarkin@gmail.com or follow me on Twitter @ConorMLarkin (Drugs And Thugs Blog)

Enjoy the weekend, and thanks for reading.

This Week, Pure and Uncut: September 12, 2014

Another weekend, another recap post. Here’s a quick list of some of the more interesting news and commentary articles from this week. Like the rest of Drugs and Thugs Blog, the topics addressed will focus on narcotics trafficking, international criminal organizations, insurgencies, and terrorism. Admittedly, I could have made an entire post focused on ISIS, but in the interest of diversified reading material, I’ll try and maintain some balance between the topics. 

Questions on Iraq and Syria: David Ignatius at The Washington Post lists the concerns that increased action in Iraq and Syria pose for the US. Although Obama has explained his rationale, Ignatius emphasizes the real concerns in an expansion of the US role against ISIS. 

Ukraine, Russia, and the Ceasefire: From The Economist’s Eastern Approaches blog, a piece on the tenuous ceasefire between Russian-backed rebels and Poroshenko’s government. 

Thirteen Years On: From War on the Rocks, Clint Watts analyzes the differences between and current threats of the old guard al-Qaeda and the new upstarts ISIS. 

Mexican Cartel Alliances: InSight Crime’s Elyssa Pachico continues the reporting first noted last week that many cartels, including the Beltran Leyva Organization and the Zetas, have allied against the Sinaloa Cartel. 

Economists and Vice: From OCCRP, the EU announced that drug trafficking and prostitution, among other shadow economies, should be included in their reports on economic growth.  

For comments, thoughts, concerns or criticism, please email me at conormlarkin@gmail.com or follow me on Twitter @ConorMLarkin (Drugs And Thugs Blog)

Enjoy the weekend, and thanks for reading.

To Degrade and Ultimately Destroy

It is highly likely that anyone reading this blog has already watched President Obama’s press conference last night, read all of the tweeting heads’ takes on the speech, and digested the new policy. Like all topics I try to take on with this blog, there has always been plenty of ink, digital and otherwise, spilled on this topic, even though the speech isn’t even a day old. It’s extraordinarily difficult to say something novel in the foreign policy realm when events change so rapidly and there are so many voices out there. With that caveat noted, here’s the Drugs and Thugs Blog take on the US’s new policy for ISIS. 

First off, it appears that although Obama has outlined a new strategy, one that he admitted he didn’t have the other week, this doesn’t appear to be a truly watershed change in policy. It is certainly interesting that the US is now going to begin air strikes in Syria, especially with last year’s non-strike against al-Asad in mind, but Obama made clear that these strikes will be on ISIS-controlled territory only. Any hope that the US would take on al-Asad directly has been dashed. In that sense, then, this is just a marginal expansion of our current policy in Iraq; the US provides the air capabilities, local forces take care of the ground efforts. The new training programs announced by Obama seem to be of the sort that we have undertaken for over a year, which makes their mention in Obama’s speech largely a non-issue. The call for a “broad coalition” to combat ISIS is optimistic, and might lessen the burden that the US has to carry, but it remains to be seen as to which countries will cooperate. 

Any increase of American involvement in such a conflict, especially one in which the US is so deeply invested, invariably results in accusations of mission creep. Obama characterized the widening of American efforts basically as a Counterterrorism Plus program, much like our operations in Yemen and Somalia. This is effectively a system in which the US avoids large-scale boots on the ground, but instead provides special operations soldiers and airstrike capability, as a modern day “nukes and spooks” strategy. The worry built in to this strategy is twofold: first, the US might be drawn deeper into the conflict. Second, and contradictorily, airstrikes alone might not be enough to destroy ISIS. If Obama wants to degrade ISIS’s standing, airstrikes and local help might be plenty, but it is hard to believe that it would be enough force to fully destroy ISIS, as Obama’s strategy calls for. Additionally, characterizing this mission as similar to Yemen or Somalia is patently absurd. The US has undertaken more airstrikes in Iraq in the past month than in Yemen since 2002 combined. It is easy to understand Obama’s rhetorical attempt to calm fears of a US return to Iraq, but it is disingenuous to claim that it will be such a low-level involvement against ISIS. 

One of the more interesting angles in our new policy against ISIS on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border is the strange partners that we now find ourselves allying with. In fighting against ISIS, we have already tacitly lined up with Iran, who fear any further encroachment by a radical Sunni group in their allied Shia government in Baghdad. Although both the US and Iran have denied cooperation, it is clear that at least strategically, Washington and Tehran’s aims align in this instance. Now that Obama has expanded the mission to Syria, we now are effectively supporting al-Asad’s regime in their civil war. This is all the more interesting when noting that the US came close to launching attacks against al-Asad just a year ago. Finally, our drive in tackling ISIS appears to have lined us up with, unlikely enough, al-Qaeda. Struggling for relevance in the shadow of their former affiliate, al-Qaeda released an announcement last week proclaiming their new branch in India. By working to destroy ISIS, we might have removed al-Qaeda’s biggest challenger for recruits and influence. 

All of these concerns being noted, there is one final question that continues to bother me, best written by David Ignatius earlier this week. “Is the United States walking into a trap that has been constructed by the Islamic State — launching attacks that will rally jihadists around the world? From everything the jihadists proclaim in their propaganda, we can sense that they have been dreaming of this showdown.” On this day, 9/11/14, of all days, we must be cautious to the dangers that come when combating radical Islamists. Thirteen years on, I’m not sure that we’ve really developed an effective strategy. 

This Week, Pure and Uncut: September 6, 2014

Another weekend, another recap post. Here’s a quick list of some of the more interesting news and commentary articles from this week. Like the rest of Drugs and Thugs Blog, the topics addressed will focus on narcotics trafficking, international criminal organizations, insurgencies, and terrorism. 

Presidential Strategy and ISIS: First off, an article from Steve Coll at The New Yorker on Obama’s strategy on Syria and Iraq. Coll examines Obama’s rationale for limited attacks, but ends the article by stating that, “To defeat ISIS, but also to reduce its source of strength, will require the President to risk his credibility on more than just air strikes.” 

Hezbollah, Cocaine, and Suriname: InSight Crime has a great piece on Suriname’s president’s son, who has just pleaded guilty for terrorism and drug trafficking charges as a result of an undercover operation by the DEA. Bouterse was the chief of Suriname’s counterterroism office. Additionally, FP published a fascinating piece on this back in February. 

Mexican Cartel Alliances: Another InSight Crime article on a potential summit of cartel leaders which might have resulted in an understanding between the Zetas, Beltran Leyva, Jalisco, and Juarez cartels. This realignment of cartels is clearly focused against the dominant Sinaloa Cartel. This could have serious implications on Mexican narcotrafficking going forward. 

al-Qaeda Expansion: A The Long War Journal article on Zawahiri’s recent announcement of a new al-Qaeda branch in the Indian subcontinent. This new branch will report to Taliban leader Mullah Omar and appears to have many smaller groups under its aegis, as reported here. This expansion appears to have been a direct response to ISIS’s recent announcement of a caliphate in Iraq and Syria, which could indicate even more internecine competition between the two jihadist groups. 

Covert Invasions: Slate’s Joshua Keating writes on the similarity in tactical style between Iran’s operations in Iraq and Russia’s in Ukraine. “Covert operations in warfare are nothing new, but these appear to be a bit different: military operations conducted in full view of the international media but without the official acknowledgment of the governments ordering them.” 

The Bosnian War and Western Radicalization: Finally, from War on the Rocks, Jonathan Bronitsky writes on the role that the Balkan Wars had on radicalization in the UK long before the current ISIS conflict. He argues that, Homegrown radicalization in Europe didn’t start because of American military intervention in the Middle East, and it certainly wouldn’t end with America’s retreat from the world stage.” 

For comments, thoughts, concerns or criticism, please email me at conormlarkin@gmail.com or follow me on Twitter @ConorMLarkin (Drugs And Thugs Blog)

Enjoy the weekend, and thanks for reading.