With AQAP at home in an increasingly unstable Yemen, U.S. is likely to feel pressure to act

 There are probably very few people in America today who are eager to see the US military become more involved in Yemen; The perception among the general public is likely that this is yet another conflict in the Middle East where US interests are not entirely clear. Between  a rocky path to disengagement from Iraq and Afghanistan, to the carnage of the Syrian civil war to the chaotic aftermath of the operation to oust Qaddafi in Libya to the rise of  of ISIS, there are many reasons to be wary of yet another foreign campaign - after all, these are just a few of the most prominent regional issues filling headlines around the world.

And now comes Yemen.

While the sense of fatigue with military involvement in the region is understandable,  I would suggest that the situation in Yemen is neither entirely new, nor divorced from important US strategic interests. Yemen has long been a difficult nation to govern and in recent years has become home to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (commonly referred to as AQAP). Using Yemen as their base of operations AQAP has made at least two serious attempts to attack the United States directly:  once through the use of a suicide bomber (which was foiled by reportedly excellent cooperation between the intelligence agencies of the United States and Saudi Arabia and another time by concealing explosives in computer printer toner cartridges, with the intention of 

blowing up cargo aircraft over US soil.

Effectively combating extremism and terrorism requires a multifaceted approach and  in their analysis, some experts emphasize the role of   law enforcement and intelligence agencies as the most important element in this effort, while others would prefer to rely more heavily on the military, and still others believe that until root causes of social inequality and injustice are addressed we will never make meaningful headway. The reality is that countering violent extremism requires cooperation between actors and agencies at all levels (and in all areas) of society, but there is also a vital need to maintain as much direct pressure on the leadership of these groups as possible, and to deny them access to safe havens. As one radio commentator I heard on NPR put it, it's much easier for terrorist groups to plan and operate when they're not worried about local security forces or the military disrupting their plans or directly attacking them.

For this reason I think leaders in the American national security establishment will soon feel pressed to become more involved in Yemen, since theidea that a group which has a clear goal of attacking the U.S. can carry on its business with a sense of relative impunity is ultimately intolerable. The various conflicts I mentioned at the top of this piece still deserve our attention and are likely to evolve in unpredictable ways, but I wouldn't be surprised if continued instability and violence and Yemen begins to play a more prominent role in  overall US strategy in the region, especially as America and its allies look to blunt the ideological influence and operational capacity of AQAP.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Public radio and the public square intersect at WGBH in Boston

On the evening of Thursday, March 19 podcast experts, enthusiasts and producers gathered at the WGBH studios in Boston to discuss the rise and influence of this form of media. Image copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Of my many childhood memories, one that really stands out and has had a major influence on the person I am today is listening to National Public Radio in the car with my parents. I can recall vividly many chilly New England mornings when my father or mother would drive us somewhere and Car Talk or some other show would fill the air inside the car. It's a habit I picked up myself once I got my license and it continues to this day, although I suppose my listening habits have changed over time. Along the way I've added many new shows to my list of favorites, including The Moth Radio Hour, Fresh Air, On the Media and Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me! For anyone with a range of interests and eclectic tastes, NPR is one-stop shopping for humor and intellectual stimulation.

During my own sojourn through the thrilling (if somewhat financially perilous) world of freelance journalism many years ago I even did a short internship at WBUR in Boston for Here and Now, standing out on the street and recording brief comments from passersby to air at the start of the show. I strongly believe that virtually all of the shows on public radio play a vital and unique role in the health and well-being of civil society at every level, from the hyper-local discussions around this winter's MBTA troubles on WGBH's Boston Public Radio and WBUR's Radio Boston, to issues of national importance on the Diane Rehm Show and All Things Considered.

All forms of journalism are important for civil society, but at a time when newspaper readership is declining and the news that people consume is increasingly customized, homogenized and sanitized via narrowly selected social media channels, radio bucks that trend, something I was reminded of this last night when I attended an event called Boston Talks at the WGBH studios in Boston. The theme for the evening was "The Rise of the Podcast" and featured a number of engaging speakers from the world of podcasting.

There were a few things that drew me to this program, including the fact that I've been thinking about adding a podcast component to this blog. Also, two of the main speakers were the guys from the Fish Nerds podcast, brave souls who have caught and eaten every type of freshwater fish in the Granite State. I'd heard a piece they did on WGBH, and being an avid fisherman myself was intrigued by their epic (if at times slightly nauseating) quest to consume the range of finned denizens inhabiting New Hampshire lakes and rivers, from the undoubtedly tasty salmon to the culinarilly questionable Slimy Sculpin.

These were the two things that peaked my interest in the program, but it was the program itself and the other attendees that kept me there once I arrived - consciously or not, I think the organizers created a format which in some ways mirrored the pace and tone of a well-produced radio show. To wit, in between speakers there were breaks to mingle and meet fellow radio enthusiasts, producers and podcasters creating a fun, congenial atmosphere. This format also allowed for conversations to take place which a more frontal, one-way presentation, would not have allowed - for example I got to meet one of the Fish Nerds and trade recipes for pickled Pickerel, put a face to the voice of Edward B. Herwick III, talk New Hampshire politics with Peter Kadzis and learn a little about the evolution of the highly popular podcast Serial from producer Kerri Hoffman.

As I drove home from the event I kept thinking about some of the things I learned from Sree Srinivasan during a social media seminar at the Harvard Kennedy School last month, not only about the keys to effective tweeting and online engagement, but about the importance of using social media to connect to people and ideas in the real world. It's something I've given a lot of thought to recently and tried to integrate into my own work - both in my day job in the nonprofit sector and with this blog. For me, the Boston Talks event brought together the best elements of all of these things:  I made a couple of new contacts, got a better idea of what goes into a good podcast and stood in a space where radio, social media and "real life" interaction came together in a fun and interesting way.

Such forums are important for civil society because they encourage dialogue and interaction in creative ways, forcing individuals out of their personal media silos and into a kind of "town square" where they can encounter different opinions and perspectives. As someone who has planned (and attended) too many events of every shape and size to count, I think the organizers of Boston Talks have hit on a great formula for which they deserve praise, and I'm looking forward to attending future programs at WGBH.

Oh, and the whoopee pies were pretty good too.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

EdX course has me thinking about Snowden, Wikileaks and online education

One of my side projects this winter has been to try out an interesting course offered through EdX, a join initiative of Harvard University and MIT, which in many ways represents a significant step forward in online and distance learning. Over the next few weeks I'll be posting occasional pieces based on the work I've been doing for this class and reflecting on the overall experience of using this relatively new educational platform. The particular course I'm enrolled in, "Central Challenges of American National Security, Strategy and the Press," is offered through the Belfer Center For Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government being taught by Professors Graham Allison Derek S. Reveron and David Sanger, along with a dedicated group of teaching assistants who review the assignments and lead weekly discussion groups via google hangout  for the limited enrollment version of the course that I am taking.

When the course comes to a close I plan to post some final thoughts on the role of projects like EdX in higher education and civil society more generally, but for today I'd like to offer a few observations on the latest topic that we've been asked to tackle in this class, which is the role that leaks have played in foreign policy discourse, from Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers to Edward Snowden and Wikileaks. One thing I've been thinking about a lot is the fact that everything that Daniel Ellsberg leaked in the Pentagon Papers case was essentially historical - granted it was recent history at the time, but nonetheless the documents he brought to public attention did not, from what I can tell, compromise any on-going military or intelligence operations. By the time this information came to light it probably surprised no one that the American effort in Vietnam had essentially failed, having dragged down the Johnson presidency and taken the lives of tens of thousands of American soldiers and by some estimates close to half a million Vietnamese civilians. A strong argument could be made that by sharing the details of the war, as the US government saw them, with the American people, Ellsberg played a role in the long process of national healing which continues to this day in some ways.

In contrast, it's harder to tell what the motivation is behind the dissemination of information shared by Wikileaks, which seems, at first glance, to be less about transparency or adding to the historical record, and more about embarrassing governments and the people who lead them. Substantively, from what I have read, there aren't too many things that have come out which are all that surprising - anyone who pays close attention to the Middle East, for example, is not going to be shocked that Sunni Arab powers in the region are not thrilled with the idea of an Iranian nuclear weapon and would like the US to do something to prevent it.

The case of Edward Snowden is more complicated than Wikileaks, and perhaps falls somewhere in between the Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks, both in terms of the value to civil society as well as the threat his actions likely pose to national security. On the one hand, Snowden exposed serious overreaching by US intelligence agencies which appears to have led to data collection on a massive, unprecedented scale on the activities of American citizens. Whether or not such actions were technically legal, they seem to fall into an ethical and perhaps constitutional, gray area and Snowden's decision to bring these transgressions into the public eye are not without merit. On the other hand, his exposure of other programs which are likely very important in protecting vital US interests, along with his decision to flee the United States, passing through other countries where the data he is carrying has almost certainly been copied by foreign intelligence services, is deeply troubling. 

With Ellsberg we have the advantage of hindsight and some 40 odd years of history to back up the justification for his actions, but with Wikileaks and Edward Snowden that history is still being written. Forty years from now we will likely still be discussing the role of leaks in public policy, civil society and government - whether Wikileaks or Snowden are seen as positive or negative influences remains to be seen.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

At Boston University, Luis Moreno Ocampo draws a crowd to talk about Argentina, Iran and terror

Luis Moreno Ocampo, former International Criminal Court prosecutor spoke to a crowd at Boston University on February 22 about the 1992 attack on the Israeli embassy in Argentina, the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish Cultureal Center in Buenos Aires and the death of Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman. Image copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

After weeks of endless snow storms the sun finally appeared again in Boston today, and with it came a crowd of people gathered at Boston University to remember and discuss three tragic events in Argentina: the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992, the bombing of the AMIA Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires in 1994 and most recently the death of Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman. These three incidents are bound together not only in Argentine history but in the collective memory of Jewish Communities around the world as tragic examples of terrorism and violence directed at Jews. The program, which was sponsored by a wide range of organizations, including Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Boston offices of the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, El Planeta Boston, the ElieWiesel Center for Judaic at Boston University and the Argentine Jewish Relief Committee, drew leaders and community members representing many groups from the local Jewish and Latino communities.

Over the course of the afternoon attendees heard both an overview of the events as well as highly personal reflections from people whose lives were directly impacted by these assaults. The first speaker of the afternoon described the attack on the Jewish center, clearly outlining the crucial role that Iran and Hezbollah played in facilitating and carrying out these murders, as well as the role that corruption among Argentine government officials is alleged to have played in preventing revelations about the true role of Iran in these crimes. One particularly poignant moment in the program came in the form of remarks by Rabbi Claudia Kreiman, who lost her mother in this terrorist incident and addressed attendees in a pre-recorded video.

Luis Moreno Ocampo, a former Argentine prosecutor and the first prosecutor appointed to the International Criminal Court when it was founded in 2004 was the keynote speaker at the program. Ocampo took the stage next and began by noting that the Jewish community remains a target, saying that, "We are living in a world where pogroms are carried out differently."

In his remarks he spoke about the direct circumstances surrounding these violent incidents, touching on the complicated history and relationship between Israel, Hezbollah and Iran. He also reflected on his own personal experiences as prosecutor both in Argentina and the ICC, highlighting the difficulties often encountered in investigating international crimes, including the challenges found in competing national interests. Another key factor in attaining justice lies in fighting corruption at the societal level in Argentina, he said, noting, "Corruption is not just about individuals, it's about a network of people."

Toward the end of his remarks Ocampo specifically addressed the issue of the death of Alberto Nisman, telling the audience, "Even if he committed suicide, it was a consequence of the AMIA case," later adding that there is a compelling need for further investigation to determine the exact circumstances surrounding Nisman's death. Ocampo closed by offering his thoughts on the importance of the tireless pursuit of justice, whether at Nuremberg following World War II or in Buenos Aires in 1994.

As I sat in the room and thought about all of the innocent murdered and maimed by Iran and Hezbollah in Argentina (as well as many other places around the world), I couldn't have agreed more.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

The time is now talk about violent extremism in America, and around the world

One of the most pressing challenges when it comes to counter terrorism is combating the so-called “lone wolf” or “Home Grown Violent Extremist (also known as an “HVE”). This week there has been considerable news coverage of the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, and according to media reports, the troubling increase in the number of HVE’s- essentially self-radicalized individuals or small groups of individuals was one important topic of discussion. 

The thing that makes these individuals so hard to detect is that they haven’t necessarily had any direct in-person contact with representatives of terrorist organizations, but have adopted the violent ideology of groups like ISIS, Al-Queda, Neo-Nazi ,White Supremacist or anti-government groups nonetheless, often through exposure to social media. Further complicating matters, there are many more people who will view violent online propaganda without becoming violent themselves. As Bruce Riedel, Director of the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution noted in his report on this phenomenon, "...for the counter terrorist community, the issue is not whether an individual is “radical” or “extremist,” but whether they are violent and breaking the law. It’s likely that the prospective terrorist will hide the transition from radical to violent from all around him."

This presents a particular set of challenges for intelligence and security services around the world, since someone who travels to Syria to fight with ISIS and boasts about it on Facebook is much easier to spot than an individual who may have come to embrace the idea of violent jihad by watching Youtube videos of fighting in Iraq on their home computer.  The fact that these individuals exist in the west and are open to the distorted narrative of Islamist terror groups is not lost on the terrorist organizations themselves, as is evidenced by the high production value of the materials that ISIS and others have posted online. Clearly, they believe that they will get a return on the resources they are investing in highly-polished videos and the launch of social media campaigns,   as a tool both to recruit individuals to come and fight on the ground in the Middle East and Africa, as well as to inspire HVE's in Europe and North America. While world leaders are working on a range of initiatives, including expansion of police powers and criminal penalties for engaging in either type of activity, no government or leader has yet found a fully satisfactory solution to this multifaceted challenge.

For this reason, it is important that the Obama administration is taking the threat seriously and convening a diverse group of domestic and international stakeholders to discuss the problem of countering violent extremism, including the threat posed by HVE's. But the conference is not without some controversy, as reporter Juliet Eilperin noted recently in the Washington Post, writing that "... this attempt to enlist the aid of respected community officials has raised concern among Muslim American advocates who say that the Obama administration’s efforts have contributed to the perception that the majority of extremist threats arise from their ranks."  Such concerns highlight the sensitive nature of the topic and the balance that the administration must strike between security and respecting the rights and privacy of all ethnic and religious communities.

The need for sensitivity to this balance adds another important element to the conversation around combating violent extremism, which may point to the root cause of its apparent intractability: in open western societies and in nascent democracies around the world, how do we balance the need to address the clear and present danger of extremism, while safeguarding the rights of individuals?

That this summit has drawn not only senior government officials from around the world, but key civil society stakeholders including representatives from the Anti-Defamation League and The American Islamic Congress, as well as leading scholars on terrorism, including Professor Mia Bloom of UMass, Lowell and Dr. Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute on Near East Policy,  speaks to the fact that the administration views this problem in a holistic way. By including scholars, community leaders and NGO's, the White House is sending a clear signal that the answer to the question of how best to counter violent extremism will not be found solely with the military or law enforcement, but from a response by society as a whole.

While the White House and those gathered there are unlikely to come up with a complete solution to this challenge this week, with the right intentions and the right people in the room, perhaps the conversation can move forward just a little, and in my mind, that means some progress will have been made.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

Attacks in Denmark are just the latest signs of an assault on European Jewry and the idea of modern Europe

This past summer, as Israel and Hamas were engaged in a war, I posted a piece on this website about the intensely ugly and often blatantly anti-Semitic response to this conflict on the streets of Europe. In Paris a synagogue was attacked by an angry mob, in Belgium a doctor refusedto treat a woman who happened to be Jewish, based solely on her ethnicity, and in Denmark a Jewish school was vandalized. These are just a few examples of the kind of hate and violence which rapidly bubbled to the surface in July and August, cloaked in a filthy veneer of legitimacy by those who used opposition to the war between Israel and Hamas as an excuse for anti-semitism.

Many of these hate-filled individuals and organizations did not need the war for an excuse. Over the past few years brazen attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions have been on the rise. However, with constant media coverage of the 2014 Gaza war (much of it willfully distorted, either out of bias or because of real fear on the part of journalists as to what Hamas would do to them if they reported the truth) it became very easy in July and August for terrorist sympathizers to whip up ordinary people into a frenzy. The result was perhaps predictable: Anti-Semitic graffiti and signs in shop windows, physical assaults and vandalism.

Since the summer, the streets of Europe have remained less safe for Jews than those in America. Although many European governments have been very responsive and are working closely with the organized Jewish community to improve physical security, my sense from the media coverage is that it is probably more dangerous to wear a kippah (Jewish skull cap) today on the streets of Paris or Brussels than in Brookline, Massachusetts.

Last month, within the span of a few days, we saw the attack on the French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo and the anti-Semitic terror attack on the Kosher market in Paris. This weekend, another terrorist targeted a free-speech event in Copenhagen and then a synagogue where a bat mitzvah was taking place.

Clearly Europe has a major problem when it comes to Islamic fundamentalist extremism and those carrying out these violent attacks have two major targets: Jews across the continent and European civil society itself. In the short term, there is a serious need for increased physical security, counter-surveillance and better planning around all kinds of threats between the Jewish community and security services. Doing this will at least buy some time and provide some sense of safety while European leaders, at all levels of society, begin to tackle the deeper root causes of both threats. The people who want to kill satirical cartoonists, police officers and champions of liberty and free speech, need to be removed from society in the short term, but in the long-term governments must also be willing to work directly with the communities in which young adults are becoming radicalized, to divert them from a path of death and destruction.  Another key factor in limiting terrorism in Europe and the west lies in preventing European passport holders who go abroad to places such as Syria and Iraq, for both ideological indoctrination and tactical training, from returning to Europe. 

Europe cannot afford to ignore these incidents or what they may portend – if steps are not taken to safeguard the Jewish community, as well as the institutions of civil society and the liberal values that define modern Europe, the end results will be disastrous. The resulting chaos will ultimately spread beyond the borders of the continent, damaging societies around the globe and fueling further conflict.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.

In the assassination of Alberto Nisman, echoes of the region's past

Violence linked to the narcotics trade and gang activity has remained a consistent challenge throughout Latin America but the kind of politically-motivated clashes and coups which occurred across much of the region throughout the 1960's, 70's and 80's has largely faded from today’s headlines. To examine the final days of President Salvador Allende in September of 1973, for example, as he faced an all out state-sponsored military assault led by his own air force (and sanctioned by his fellow countrymen in the Chilean Senate) seems a somewhat surreal scene to imagine now. The nightmarish regime of GeneralAugusto Pinochet, which followed, is perhaps even more so.

With the recent apparent assassination of Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman, I can't help but hear an echo of the region's past, reminiscent of a time when revolutionaries and central governments alike turned easily to murder, torture and kidnapping to further their own political and ideological agendas. Efforts by all elements of society throughout the region to counter this culture of impunity have made strides in recent years, and yet less than a month ago the world saw that murder as a political tool remains an attractive option to some in Argentina.


Based on the excellent reporting that media outlets have done on this story, it certainly appears that Nisman had done a thorough job investigating the July 18, 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires, and was about to present compelling evidence that Iran had played a key role in the attack. The fact that he also apparently had uncovered evidence of efforts by high-level officials within the Argentine government (including potentially the current president) to conceal the hand of Tehran in this horrific act, has only fueled speculation around his untimely death.

As I have written before, the murder of Alberto Nisman is a tragedy on multiple levels - a profound personal loss for his family, friends and colleagues, as well as a denial of justice for the victims of the AMIA bombing - but as I listened to an NPR report earlier this week from Argentina, it struck me that his death has also created a trust deficit within Argentine civil society. It's not hard to see how a situation in which high-level government officials are involved with a cover-up of a state-sponsored act of terror, and this results in the murder of a prominent prosecutor whose death itself is highly suspicious, presents a recipe for a serious erosion of trust by the people.

In time, the crimes of those involved with the AMIA bombing and the Nisman murder may only continue to multiply, denying justice to the victims directly impacted, and casting a grim shadow over the leaders and institutions of this Latin American nation. How groups and individuals from all sectors of Argentine civil society respond will likely play a significant role in determining how this terrible series of events will impact the state of civil society in the weeks and months to come. 

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2015.