United States Rush to Counter Libyan Terrorist Threat

Since the fatal terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, the Obama Administration has lived under a dark cloud. The White House is facing pressure from opposition Republican who are clamoring for an explanation on how security could be so poor during the incident and why government officials were so slow to describe the assault an act of terror.

Republicans have called on President Barack Obama to apologize and acknowledge that he is ultimately responsible. Peter King, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has been bolder than many of his colleagues in demanding the resignation of Susan Rice as the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations. Her earlier comments on what precipitated the attack, King says, were “misinforming.”

In the aftermath of the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Rice insisted that the unrest was sparked by agitations over an anti-Islam film. It has since become evident that no protests were actually staged in the city and that the assault on the American presence there was premeditated. Read more “United States Rush to Counter Libyan Terrorist Threat”

Haqqanis Classified as Foreign Terrorist Organization

After extensive dialogue and discussion within the Obama Administration, the State Department has formally placed the Haqqani network on its list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday that the Haqqani network “meets the statutory criteria of the Immigration and Nationality Act for designation as a foreign terrorist organization.” The decision was reportedly made just two days before Clinton submitted her opinion to the Congress, illustrating how long it took the administration to wrap up the process.

On the face of it, designating the Haqqanis as a terrorist organization should have been an easy decision to make. The group is, according to American military officials in Afghanistan, the most sophisticated branch of the Afghan Taliban insurgency, responsible for the deaths of perhaps hundreds of servicemen and -women. Thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed in bombings that Haqqani fighters planned and carried out. Many of them, including the July 2008 suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, have targeted Afghan government installations.

NATO central command headquarters, the United States embassy and Afghan ministries have all been targeted by Haqqani militants over the past three years, all of which have been embarrassing for the coalition as it attempts to secure the capital from insurgent violence.

Nevertheless, officials worried that a formal designation of the group would rankle the feathers of the Pakistani government which has maintained contacts with the Haqqanis for decades. Pakistan is now the closest it has ever been to the “state sponsor of terrorism” category.

The United States are loath to make the connection but the connection is there. The Obama Administration will now have to justify why Pakistan is not on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Given the damning remarks that former American military officials have made on the Pakistan-Haqqani link, it will have to make that case quickly and effectively.

Will the label hurt the Haqqani group in any substantial way? The answer is debatable, for most of the group’s senior leaders are already designated as individual terrorists. The likelihood that the Haqqani business empire will now be targeted in the Persian Gulf, where most of the organization’s profits are made, has increased. Those who were previously working with the Haqqanis on financial matters may think twice about engaging in similar business transactions. But the ruling may not do much to stop the many businesses that Haqqani leaders conduct illegally, including extortion, illegal tax collection, kidnapping and smuggling.

Time will tell on whether the terrorist organization label will make it more difficult for the group to mount attacks in Afghanistan and shelter other militants in Pakistan. But if the past record is any indication, the Haqqanis will still remain a powerful force inside of Pakistan’s tribal regions, secluded from American and NATO ground forces.

India Pays a High Price for Its Silence on Terror

India’s silence on attacks by Islamic terrorist organizations against Israeli citizens on its soil can bring it no benefits. Far from it, it could actively harm Indian diplomacy.

Monday’s assassination attempt on the wife of an Israeli diplomat not five hundred meters from the prime minister’s house in New Delhi, which injured her and three Indians, prompted muted condemnation from the Indian government. Evidently, the perpetrators felt completely at home carrying out this operation in a country that at least institutionally appears has no hassles with the butchering of Jewish civilians.

Last year, India’s response was similarly one of deafening silence when the Palestinian ambassador praised the “martyrs” who carried out a terrorist attack in the Israeli city of Eilat, killing six civilians and injuring thirty, as a “quality operation.”

For some strange reason, the mandarins at the Ministry of External Affairs believe that turning a blind eye to such atrocities bolsters India’s West Asia credentials and prevents attacks at home. It is a short sighted form of appeasement that masquerades as diplomacy.

The convenience of gaining a vote bank at home by tacitly accepting the unacceptable has put India in a diplomatic bind from which there is little face to be saved. On one hand both the Americans and Israelis will be demanding explanations from the government as to how this could happen in a high security area and why India did not express indignation when the Palestinian ambassador was encouraging more attacks on Jews?

In the absence of concrete clues, the shadow of suspicion has been cast wide. India now has little option but to investigate the Palestinian mission in light of their ambassador’s past statements. That alone sours the goodwill the Palestinian cause had in New Delhi.

So what now of India’s support to said cause? Should any Palestinian involvement become clear, their expulsion or imprisonment would by India’s own yardstick of silence cost the country its much valued hypothetical Arab “street cred.”

Should it turn out that India’s Iranian “friends” and/or their Hezbollah allies colluded in this event, the matter becomes much worse. New Delhi can complain to the high heavens that Pakistan does not give it the right of hot pursuit into their territory. But there are about 850 Indian troops stationed in Lebanon under United Nations mandate. If India receives credible intelligence of Hezbollah planning an attack, does it send its forces in Lebanon on a seek and destroy mission? If not, all its talk of “hot pursuit” into Pakistan turns out to be just hot air. The country loses what little military credibility it has.

What of India’s hard fought oil and gas concessions from Tehran? After all, it doesn’t want to “subsidize those who engage in terrorism” against it which is the main argument New Delhi raises in objection to the construction of pipelines through Pakistan.

The pressure that European nations and the United States have exerted on India to give up its trade with Iran will not be harder to resist. If indeed Iran is proven to be responsible for this week’s attack and India does not give up its lucrative trade with the Islamic republic, it encourages the Iranians to go ahead with more such attacks on Indian soil.

India has been very keen to avoid any pointed criticism of Iran by the international community at large but will now have no option but to directly point fingers at Tehran or lose both credibility and trust with the West by effectively hushing up the incident.

What India’s diplomats need to realize is that words are cheap and terrorists and regimes who support them are not floppy eared Labrador puppies. A well-timed and eeven-handed condemnation of the Palestinian ambassador, possibly his expulsion, and frequent demarches to the Iranian ambassador every time his president engages in antisemitic rhetoric would have been the cheaper options. Today, thanks to its pusillanimity, India will have to pay a very heavy price, diplomatically, politically and in all probability economically.

Listing Haqqani as Foreign Terrorist Organization

Pakistan and the United States are strong intelligence allies against Al Qaeda’s core organization — evident in the capture of numerous terrorist operatives since Washington unleashed its War on Terror shortly after the 9/11 attacks. But the relationship is not without its sore spots. The United States have pressed, and continue to press, Islamabad on a whole range of issues, from cracking down on anti-Indian militant groups to reforming the nonexistent Pakistani tax system.

The main point of contention between the two allies since at least 2008 has been the Pakistani government’s connections with the Haqqani network, the most deadly force in Afghanistan’s eastern mountains and the group that boasts the most operational experience — first as an anti-Soviet force funded by the United States and now as a resistance force against NATO troops.

Regardless of which perspective one looks through, both countries have used the same arguments to put forth their positions on the Haqqani network. From Washington’s point of view, the Pakistani military and its intelligence directorate (the ISI) coddle the Haqqanis in the hopes of using the group as a proxy force in Afghanistan. The ISI-Haqqani connection weighs heavier on the minds of Obama Administration officials these days, as Afghanistan prepares for an era without Western intervention.

The Pakistanis retort the accusation by simply denying that any relationship exists while giving Washington the cold shoulder for even suggesting that there may be a partnership.

The Obama Administration demands that the Pakistani military take action against Haqqani bases in the tribal areas. The Pakistanis respond to that demand in their usual fashion, arguing that the military’s commitments in other parts of the country make it all but impossible to launch more operations against more militant groups.

The back and forth can get quite heated, so much so that former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, stated unequivocally during a United States Senate hearing that the ISI not only remained an active supporter of the Haqqani network but played a key liaison role during the recent attack on the American embassy in Kabul. 

After the tense rhetoric and after a few weeks pass by, American and Pakistani political and military leaders usually meet to discuss their grievances in a civilized fashion. The relationship is patched up to limp another day.

But what happens if the United States decide to throw a wrench into the entire process by debating whether to add the Haqqani network to its list of foreign terrorist organizations? Indeed, this is the question that American and Pakistani officials must be asking themselves today for an increasing number of senators and administration officials are supporting the notion of putting the Pakistani and Afghan-hosted network into the same club as Al Qaeda.

The suggestion is more than due, for the Haqqanis exhibit the same characteristics that the United States State and Treasury Departments consider integral to a successful terrorist organization.

Like Al Qaeda, Haqqani fighters target civilians in populated areas, even as they pursue American and coalition soldiers at checkpoints, military bases and patrols. High value buildings and international forums, especially in the Afghan capital of Kabul, have lately been prime real estate for Sirajuddin Haqqani and his followers — all targets that receive an enormous amount of media attention when hit. The group also works with other militant outfits in Pakistan, blending its operatives into their ranks and coordinating resources with Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban for maximum effectiveness.

There is one fundamental difference, however, between Al Qaeda and the Haqqanis. The former has been the focal point for the American counterterrorism community for the past decade. The latter has been an enigma to American policymakers during that same period. The organization espouses a dangerous fundamentalist ideology yet apparently not fundamentalist enough to receive the same amount of time, resources and attention as Al Qaeda. Only when the security situation in Afghanistan got messy enough did American firepower focus more on Haqqani activities.

Placing the Haqqani Network on the list of foreign terrorist organization will most likely not result in anything consequential for the group. Chances are that Sirajuddin, Badruddin and the rest of the Haqqani brothers do not have much in the way of assets in American banks, nor are they likely to visit the United States, Australia, or Switzerland anytime soon.

But what may change is Pakistan’s attitude toward their current proxies, who have now been branded by the United States government as international terrorists no better than Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Anwar al-Awlaki. The label will most likely fail to completely obstruct the flow of ISI-Haqqani cooperation but it would at least set the pretext for more aggressive American military action (i.e. more drone strikes) along the Afghan-Pakistani border should the Pakistani military prove unable or unwilling too distance themselves from the group.

The Ambiguous War on Terror Continues

The attacks of September 11, 2001 were a watershed moment for American foreign policy. It prompted the United States to assert their influence around the world through both covert and overt military operations in the name of counterterrorism. Ten years later, has the war been won?

There is a good argument to be made that it has. The mastermind of 9/11, Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, was killed this May by American special forces. His organization has been all but crushed and certainly denied the ability to strike against the American homeland or even against American forces stationed abroad in a concentrated fashion. No terrorist attack against the United States has been successfully carried out in the wake of 9/11.

The uprisings across the Arab world might also herald an end to the War on Terror. As longtime dictators were toppled in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia this year with Syria’s authoritarian regime under unabated popular pressure to reform, there is a chance for democracy and secular nationalism to take root in the region. For youngsters in the Islamic world, Al Qaeda no longer represents an ideology that speaks to their interests and aspirations. They want democracy and economic opportunity — like Westerners do. Read more “The Ambiguous War on Terror Continues”

Gunman Targets Norway’s Social Democrat Party

An explosion in the Norwegian capital on Friday left eight dead and many injured. A bomb went off near the prime minister’s office in the late afternoon. Soon after, the perpetrator killed dozens of youngsters gathered for a Labor Party summer camp on a small island west of Oslo where former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland had just spoken. The killer identified her as his primary target on Monday.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg was scheduled to speak at the island on Saturday. He was not in office during the blast and remained unharmed as did Brundtland but at least 68, many of them teenagers, perished in a killing spree.

Police detained the gunman who was described as tall, blond and a right-wing extremist. The 32 year-old criticized “cultural Marxists” in a lengthy essay that he had posted online and championed a “crusade” against Islam in the Scandinavian country. He blamed the Labor Party for letting Muslims “colonize” Norway and accused it of “treason.”

Police believe the gunman drove to the island after the explosion in the capital.

This post was updated with corrections and new information.

Al Qaeda Terrorist Convicted in New York

The Obama Administration’s counterterrorism policy just received a terrible setback. After a five day jury deliberation only a few blocks from where the World Trade Center towers once stood, a civilian jury decided to convict a known Al Qaeda operative on a single count of conspiring to destroy American government property with an explosive device.

The defendant in question was a man named Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani who law enforcement experts believed played an instrumental role in Al Qaeda’s 1998 suicide bombing on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Some 224 people were killed on those attacks, among them twelve Americans.

According to American counterterrorism officials, Ahmed Ghailani was one of the operatives involved in the plot. Throughout the trial, New York prosecutors claimed that he personally bought the explosives that were used in the attack, then skipped town to Pakistan once the operation was orchestrated. He has been on the American government’s terrorist list since. Pakistani authorities managed to capture him only six years later when he was subsequently transferred to a CIA interrogation facility for questioning.

So after all of this evidence, why was Ghailani convicted on just one count?Or, to put it more dramatically, why was a member of Al Qaeda acquitted of 284 other charges, including murder, conspiracy to commit murder and terrorism?

Part of the answer concerns the lack of evidence directed against Ghailani in the first place. There was a whole lot of speculation as to his involvement but the actual proof was hard to come by. The star witness in the trial — a man named Hussein Abebe who claimed to have sold Ghailani the explosives — was excused from testifying by the presiding judge. That left a wide gap in the prosecutor’s case.

Something else that could be responsible is the nature of civilian trials in general — something that Republicans and New York legislators have been consistently hammering the Obama Administration on.

In contrast to military tribunals or military commissions that handle the bulk of war related crimes, civilian courts are governed by strict rules that provide defendants with a whole range of rights. Whereas a military commission may have permitted evidence based on CIA interrogations, civilian trials are more inclined to throw that evidence out. This is precisely what Judge Lewis A. Kaplan did with respect to Ghailani, arguing that he was tortured numerous times by the agency throughout his detention.

In the end, the trial will probably be seen as a failure by most. A terrorist being declared innocent on 284 charges while being convicted of only one leaves a bad taste in the Obama Administration’s mouth, particularly since the president has stressed his intention to continue to try captured terrorists through the regular court system.

In the end, justice was in fact served. Ghailani faces a minimum of twenty years in federal prison, with the possibility of a life sentence during his January 25 hearing.

The result wasn’t pretty, but the civilian courts did their job, convicting a killer on the one hand while upholding the rule of law in the process.

Do American Military Bases Foster Terrorism?

To date, the United States have approximately seven hundred military bases across the globe, with hundreds of American service members stationed at each location. Okinawa, Japan, consists of 39 American military facilities alone. Thousands of American soldiers remain stationed on the Saudi Peninsula for deterrence purposes. Fewer than 30,000 are currently in South Korea and an additional 60,000 call Germany home. These numbers don’t even include the bases in Afghanistan and Iraq; the covert facilities in Pakistan, nor the aircraft carriers that skim across the waters of the Persian Gulf on a daily basis.

Ask any strategic planner involved in American military deployments, and I suspect that most would argue that these bases, even the smaller ones, are extremely useful for maintaining American hegemony in crucial parts of the globe. Exerting military pressure serves American interests, they may say, and bases are a surefire way of living up to American treaty commitments.

The states which host American bases are largely happy with the arrangement as well. Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates in particular view a American presence as a cheap way to deter regional rivals from engaging in any funny business. To be sure, the Iranians would think twice before launching a strike against a country defended by American soldiers who are ready to respond tenfold.

American military facilities on foreign soil seems like a win-win scenario. In exchange for protection, Washington is allowed a certain amount of discretion in pursuing objectives that boost the interests of the United States more broadly. But this arrangement, according to Robert Pape — the pioneer in the study of suicide terrorism — is slowly starting to expire. People are getting fed up by the large presence of American soldiers in their homeland. South Koreans and Okinawans are complaining about occupation. Violent protests have erupted in the Middle East and South Asia, with military bases the primary targets. And last but certainly not least, Osama bin Laden continues to cite the US “crusade” of Saudi Arabia as a cause for his operations against American civilians.

Is it time for policymakers in Washington to rethink the value of American bases, particularly in Asia where most of the world’s troubles are concentrated? Pape certainly thinks so. In fact, he believes, not without reason, that the proliferation of suicide terrorism globally is a response to a feeling of helplessness and foreign occupation by the United States. Of course, whether this rationale justifies terrorist attacks is entirely debatable. But common sense logic means little when the people perpetuating these types of attacks firmly believe in the claim.

Removing American military facilities from peaceful areas such as Europe and Japan would remove the underlying logic of suicide terrorism. Indeed, shutting down bases would save the United States an enormous amount of money, for the cost of maintenance is quite large. More American soldiers would be able to travel home and spend much needed time with their loved ones, while US support in states as Japan may increase. But at the same time, American global power — at least explicit military power — would decrease in regions deemed vital for American national security. And with the Pentagon worried about Chinese predominance in the Pacific, closing bases in Japan doesn’t appear to be a worthwhile option. It may even be counterproductive.

There are two sides to every story. One side will inevitably lose the debate. But it’s a debate that we should have, particularly when Defense Secretary Robert Gates is searching for ways to save money and cut wasteful spending.

European Terror Plot Thwarted

European intelligence services have intercepted a terrorist plot to strike London and cities in France and Germany in imitation of the Mumbai attack of 2008. Pakistani militants are reported to have been tracked by spy agencies “for some time” in preparation of a similar assault.

Sky News reported on Wednesday that plans to attack different European cities simultaneously in commando style raids have been “severely disrupted” thanks to intelligence sharing between European and American agencies.

The attacks in Mumbai, India occurred in November 2008. Pakistani terrorists at the time coordinated shootings and bombings across the city, killing at least 173 people and wounding more than three hundred.

The news of the planned attacks coincided with the second evacuation of the Eiffel Tower in Paris in one week. Sky News’ foreign affairs editor Tim Marshall noted that the tower wasn’t necessarily a target, “but it shows how nervous the French are,” he added.

In September, the United States have been undertaking more drone attacks against Pakistan than during any previous month. Twenty missiles strikes against suspected terrorist targets in the country’s northwestern tribal area of Waziristan have been recorded. According to Marshall, “a number of these attacks were designed against the leadership of this particular plot, which had an Al Qaeda and possibly some sort of Taliban connection projecting into Europe.”

Several of the plot’s organizers are reported to have been killed in these drone attacks which is why, in the United Kingdom, the terror threat hasn’t risen from “severe” to “imminent”.

A British government official anonymously told the Associated Press that the plot was “in its embryonic stages” and “still active” on Wednesday. According to CNN, the conspiracy came to light after a man captured in Afghanistan tipped off investigators to a potential “Mumbai style” plot in Europe. Financial institutions, including banks and stock exchanges, could be possible targets, said one American federal law enforcement source.

Despite concern over a potential terror plot, American and German officials maintain that they have found no evidence of an imminent attack in either Europe or the United States.

America’s Shadow War on Terror

The heavy military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is driving terrorists to seek shelter elsewhere. In almost a dozen “failed states” in Africa and Asia, they find conditions to meet their needs, granting different terrorist networks fresh safe havens from where to launch attacks against the United States and its allies which are left with the nigh impossible task of nation building in countries too safe for terrorists but too violent for civil society to take shape.

America’s “shadow war” on terror around the world would seem to contrast sharply the administration’s imminent retreat from Iraq and its scheduled departure from Afghanistan starting less than a year from now. No matter hopes of another “surge”, this time against the Taliban but executed by the very general, David Petraeus, who successfully subdued the insurgency in Iraq in 2007, the United States are preparing for defeat in Afghanistan as the notion of allowing the Taliban a foothold in the south and southwest of the country gains widespread acceptance.

Shifting the focus of the counterterrorism campaign to Central Asia, West Africa, Pakistan and Yemen does make sense though. While terrorist networks, Al Qaeda included, operate in Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent, in Iraq, they don’t operate from it. The mountainous and porous border separating Afghanistan and Pakistan represents an excellent stronghold for the insurgents to organize and coordinate their efforts from instead. Similar conditions — a terrain that is difficult for traditional armed forces to penetrate and the near or total absence of government — prevail in parts of Algeria, the Sudan, Somalia and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. The New York Times reports:

In roughly a dozen countries — from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics crippled by ethnic and religious strife — the United States has significantly increased military and intelligence operations, pursuing the enemy using robotic drones and commando teams, paying contractors to spy and training local operatives to chase terrorists.

The stealth war that began during the Bush Administration has expanded considerably under President Barack Obama, without explicit congressional approval; indeed, often without being publicly acknowledged.

In West Africa, the administration has found an unlikely ally. Long opposed to the American war effort in Iraq, Paris declared “war” on Al Qaeda after a French aid worker was murdered by the terrorist network’s North Africa branch in July. President Nicolas Sarkozy promised that the perpetrators would “not go unpunished,” his rhetoric being matched with an attack upon a terrorist base camp in Mauritania.

France has long been discreet about its counterterrorism efforts in the region, quietly cooperating with former colonies as Algeria, Mali, Mauritania and Niger to curb the growth and evermore violent campaign waged by what is now known as the Al Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb. Formerly dedicated to overthrowing the government of Algeria, this coalition of Salafist militants has, in recent years, killed dozens of Algerian and Mauritanian soldiers and police officers and abducted and murdered European tourists and humanitarian aid workers.

In Central Asia, particularly in Tajikistan, landlocked between Afghanistan and China, the United States are intensifying intelligence gathering missions and building up a military presence. Besides Tajikistan, the Pentagon is participating in strategic construction projects in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Each of these states is struggling with ethnic division and a specter of foreign interference as both China and Russia have an interest in extending their influence in the region.

Pakistan and Yemen are each plagued with resistance movements that are able to operate almost autonomously in remote parts of the countries. Pakistan’s hopeless predicament is perpetuated as long as Islamabad can’t decide whether to continue to act as an American ally, attempting to crush the insurgency along its western frontier at the risk of civil war, or seek some sort of peace agreement with the Taliban and its affiliates, which would leave it badly compromised in the unlikely event that the United States manage to impose a central authority in Afghanistan, ruled from Kabul, possibly by Hamid Karzai.

In Yemen, the Americans have been carrying out missile and fighter strikes against suspected terrorists camps and strongholds as they have in Pakistan. According to the Times, American officials believe that they are benefiting from “the Yemeni government’s new resolve to fight Al Qaeda” but it is difficult to tell whether they realize that there are two different wars going on in the country: one against Al Qaeda in the central south, another against a Shiite uprising in the north. The Yemeni government, no matter its “resolve,” is using foreign funds to quell the northern rebellion while negotiating with Al Qaeda about a ceasefire, pretending the two conflicts are intertwined.

Pakistan, too, has been taking American dollars and spending them simultaneously on fighting some militants and funding others. Mauritania, in 2005, urged the West to supply it with military equipment in order to combat “the terrorist surge in the African Sahel.” Other governments in Central Asia and West Africa may soon come to realize the rewards to be reaped from being designated a battleground in the War on Terror. The United States, in the process, risk becoming party to local power struggles, forced to pick sides that could further undermine its standing with radical Islamists who quarrel with their secular though often oppressive national leaders.

The risks, according to the reporters of The New York Times, are great indeed. They include:

the potential for botched operations that fuel anti-American rage; a blurring of the lines between soldiers and spies that could put troops at risk of being denied Geneva Convention protections; a weakening of the congressional oversight system put in place to prevent abuses by America’s secret operatives; and a reliance on authoritarian foreign leaders and surrogates with sometimes murky loyalties.

America is no stranger to the latter and should avoid making that mistake yet again, in part because it is exactly what fuels anti-Americanism. Having the American military regarded by local populations as an instrument of their own authoritarian government plays right into the rhetoric of extremists who like to portray the United States as an imperialist power, determined to conquer and subjugate the Muslim world.

Surgical strikes against individuals and organizations that threaten the United States are perfectly justifiable and preferable to full-scale wars that cost America dearly and put entire peoples in harm’s way. But time and again it has proven a mistake to enlist foreign governments in that endeavor. Any state pursues its own interest. It would be unrealistic to demand of countries which harbor terrorist that they imperil their own security and social order because it might serve the United States.