Crusader Corner: The Islamic State in Europe; Terrorist Without Borders, Counter-Terrorist With All Borders

Belgian investigators have taken a beating since failing to disrupt the Brussels bombings last week. They took more than four months to locate Salah Abdeslam in the very neighborhood he grew up in. Belgian investigators also missed the network’s talented bomb maker, Najim Laachraoui, who escaped arrest on Friday only to resurface the following Tuesday at the Brussels airport where he and one other terrorist detonated suicide belts. Three others executed suicide bombings in the Maelbeek subway station almost simultaneously. The attacks, initiated so quickly after the arrest of Abdeslam, have revealed Belgium has the inability to handle an expansive terrorism menace in its borders. Across Europe, they are not alone in this deficiency.

Belgium, like most other European countries, suffers from a counterterrorism capacity problem. Far too many European passport holders trotted off to the Islamic State’s ranks in Syria and Iraq in recent years. They now return emboldened by the Islamic State’s well-rooted facilitation network and empowered by years of combat experience. This deadly combination has and most assuredly will continue to generate terrorist attacks directed and inspired by the Islamic State.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone. European security services have long been concerned (although perhaps not concerned enough) about foreign jihadist fighters returning home to disenfranchised diaspora communities that turn a blind eye to their nefarious activities. While Europe’s counterterrorism capacity has been stretched, failing to anticipate the growth of the Islamic State in Europe ultimately speaks to incompetence. Syria’s foreign fighter inflows and the resulting creation of sophisticated and capable terrorist networks was not probable, it was inevitable. Failing to anticipate and prepare for this eventuality has left Europe vulnerable to a trend that could have been avoided had intelligence been shared and a united front created across the Union.

Individually, certain European countries like the United Kingdom, France, and Germany have vast counterterrorism experience and effective integration of intelligence and law enforcement. As a whole, however, the European Union’s counterterrorism efforts are a patchwork of bureaucracies, capabilities, and regulations. Smaller countries have free ridden for years on the enforcement efforts of larger states. The Islamic State’s returning foreign fighter networks exploited the seams of the European Union, striking the continent where it is weakest. Belgium, like other smaller countries in Europe such as Denmark and the Netherlands, has witnessed large migrations of fighters to Syria and Iraq. These countries don’t have sizeable intelligence organizations or sufficient investigative capacity to pursue experienced Islamic State networks slipping across borders and communicating surreptitiously.

Read the Remainder at War on the Rocks

Crusader Corner: No Perfect Defense

With all of the “Noise” surrounding the Brussels Terror Attack, here is one interview with a Brit Spook that offers some useful intel and information. -SF

The Cipher Brief: First Paris, then San Bernardino, then Brussels.  How widespread are Islamic State networks in Europe, and can we expect these kind of attacks to continue?

Quite clearly the recent history of attacks, certainly those in Paris and Brussels, shows a very substantial increase in threats linked more or less exclusively to the Islamic State (IS).  The threats are linked to IS’s control of resources and territory in Iraq and Syria and its clear, stated intention of developing an attack capability in Europe and the United States.  Almost inevitably, therefore, there will be groups developing attack capabilities that are varied, linked into central planning in Syria, and carried out by adherents and sympathizers in European capitals and the United States.  And these threats will be linked to the large scale movement of people, particularly around Europe. The Paris attacks showed that all of these factors applied.   What matters, then, is the real operational capability of each individual group, and knowing that is a matter of acquiring detailed information.  There’s been a marked increase, sadly, in the threat, and it has to be taken extremely seriously.

TCB: What do you make of reports that these are sophisticated explosives using TAPT (triacetone triperodoxide) and showing all the hallmarks of the same bombmaker?

I would expect it to take some time for a clear definition of the explosives used and for the identity of the bomb maker to become clear.  So it seems to me to be quite early on to be reaching a judgment on that.  It’s difficult to say more from the outside.

TCB: Will attacks on this scale change the way of life in Europe in terms of conducting business, travel, personal security, and so forth?

On the one hand, one might think so.  It has been the subject of quite a bit of comment.  On the other hand, previous experience in previous years shows it doesn’t necessarily have that effect.  The key issues with attacks of this scale and regularity is the degree to which the security authorities are able to adapt to the new threat or changing threat, and whether they can gain some kind of control or show they can control the situation.  What is damaging is when a feeling develops that a violent terrorist threat is not under control, and therefore, can occur at any time and take [a country or populace] by surprise.  So it all comes back to the effectiveness of the security apparatus in the countries’ concerned and the people’s confidence in them.

TCB: What would you tell your Prime Minister about the threat to the United Kingdom and Europe in the wake of the attacks, and what are the next steps in preventing attacks?

Well, sadly—and I’m not saying anything you don’t already know—there is a very serious threat, and attacks could come at any time.  Nobody is in a position, or could hope to be in a position, to say anything else under the circumstances.  And clearly, an effective response will depend upon good and insightful intelligence, both information obtained and analysis of data, that comes in various ways.  An effective response will also require the most efficient, skillful sharing of relevant information in Europe and internationally with the governments and authorities concerned.  Quite clearly, this is a multinational threat and has to be dealt with in that way.  There is nothing fundamentally new about that, it’s the experience we’ve been having for many years.

TCB: Will these attacks spur greater cooperation on counterterrorism in Europe and with the United States.

There already is very extensive and deep cooperation and sharing of intelligence as well as mutual support.  It’s important that people understand that very, very extensive sharing and cooperation structures already exist and have been built up over many years.  Of course, it can always get better.  No doubt, deficiencies could be highlighted. So it is quite easy for commentators to say we need to learn to share intelligence better between agencies and between countries.  Fine.  But you have to know it already actually happens.  There is no perfect defense against such a threat.  At the same time a great deal of knowledge and skill has been developed over the years, and a great deal of the threat has been disrupted and prevented.

We face a higher degree of threat, that is clear. Obviously, it’s a big worry. But experience shows we can get on top of these things, respond to them and achieve a level of success. There is no need to be defeatist. It’s important to keep calm and rational.

Read the Original Article at The Cipher Brief