Reflections on 9/11 and the Future of the U.S. War on Terror

It has been 18 years since the horrific attack on the World Trade Center by the Islamic terrorists, al-Qaeda. The actions of a group of extremists forever changed the world and U.S. foreign policy. Since that day, Hudson scholars have been at the forefront of creating policy and producing research to confront global terrorism and enhance U.S. national security. 

Hudson's Current Trends in Islamic Ideology, edited by Eric Brown, publishes research by leading experts on Islamic extremism. In "How Al-Qaeda Works," Current Trends contributors Daveed Gartenstein-Ross & Nathaniel Barr write:

The years following the 9/11 attacks and preceding the Arab Spring marked a period of tumult for al-Qaeda. The jihadist organization lost a number of key commanders after the United States invaded Afghanistan, including several involved in planning operations outside the region. Though al-Qaeda did prepare a credible large-scale plot against commercial aviation in August 2006 and nearly brought down an international flight over Detroit in December 2009,1 the organization went multiple years without a successfully executed terrorist attack in the West. For an organization that had to a certain extent staked its credibility on its ability to sustain an armed struggle against the “far enemy,” this hiatus damaged its reputation. Compounding these problems was al-Qaeda’s Iraq affiliate, which had stubbornly ignored the al-Qaeda leadership’s guidance to tone down what they deemed to be excessively violent methods. After overplaying its hand, which provoked an organized backlash from Iraqi Sunni communities, al-Qaeda in Iraq collapsed. In turn, its collapse was a blow to the al-Qaeda organization as a whole.

Though gains have been made in the eighteen years since the horrific attacks, peace remains out of grasp. Hudson's Husain Haqqani has been closely following current U.S. negotiations with the Taliban. In his latest column for The Print, Amb. Haqqani evaluates the recent stall in peace talks, writing:

By pulling the plug on the ongoing talks with the Taliban, US President Donald Trump has pre-empted a bad deal that was unlikely to bring peace to Afghanistan. All accounts of the tentative agreement negotiated by special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, indicated that it was heavily focused on giving the Taliban what they most want – a timetable for withdrawal of American troops. A genuine peace deal would prioritise ceasefire, not US withdrawal.

Amb. Haqqani also considers what it will take to restart peace talks in the Financial Times, saying:

Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistan ambassador to the US and South Asia expert at the Hudson Institute, said that for talks to resume “the Taliban would have to end or substantially reduce violence, and US negotiators would have to give greater weight to the Afghan government than Mr Khalilzad has so far done”. 

Mr Haqqani added that “President Trump seems to be signalling that he is not ready for the peace at any price approach that has become associated with Mr Khalilzad's negotiations thus far”. 

Aparna Pande discusses what President Trump's ideal resolution looks like in the Financial Times, saying:

“Mr Trump would like to leave Afghanistan in a situation which looks like a victory to him, where he can withdraw his troops and leave behind an Afghanistan which look stable,” said Aparna Pande, South Asia expert at the Hudson Institute, a think-tank. “He does not want to leave an Afghanistan that ends up looking like an Iraq.”

And in an interview on Fox News, Rebeccah Heinrichs discusses the best path forward in America’s longest war after recent peace talks with the Taliban collapsed.

Hudson Highlights

New Episodes of the Realignment

Listen to the latest episodes of The Realignment. In last week's episode Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle gave her defense of capitalism and the markets, and this week Marshall and Saagar sat down with Hudson's own Michael Doran to discuss the shifting American foreign policy consensus. 

Commentary

China's Influence Campaign, 5G Investment, and U.S.-China Negotiations

Michael Pillsbury discusses the ongoing U.S.-China trade talks in POLITICO:

“We’re at very low levels of pressure compared to what could be done,” said Michael Pillsbury, an outside adviser to Trump on China and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Additional tariffs are an option, but Pillsbury said the administration could take more targeted measures — such as eliminating waivers that allow Chinese companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to bypass auditing and financial disclosure requirements required for American firms.

…

“Steps that would inflict pain on China’s national champion companies might bring them around to a binding deal,” said Pillsbury.

…

A deal is achievable if China were to come to talks ready to accept commitments it rejected in May that would force Beijing to alter its laws, Pillsbury said.

“A lot of what is going on now is how to make a trade agreement legally binding,” he said.

In an interview with Fox Business, Rebeccah Heinrichs discusses the report that the government is moving to block an undersea cable backed by US tech companies and a Chinese partner over security concerns.

Jonas Parello-Plesner discusses China’s influence campaign in the New York Times: 

“The Chinese want to build these options with political, academic and business elites,” said Jonas Parello-Plesner, the former Danish Foreign Ministry official who reported the apparent recruiting attempt by the Chinese that began over LinkedIn. “A lot of this thrives in the gray zone or the spectrum between influence-seeking and interference or classical espionage.”

People who have just left government are especially vulnerable because they are often looking for new employment, he and other former officials say.

…

“If I were LinkedIn, I would proactively do my homework now,” said Mr. Parello-Plesner, who has researched China’s foreign interference operations as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and wrote about his encounter last year. “This was just the tip of the iceberg.”

Parello-Plesner also discussed his encounter in an interview with NPR’s Here and Now.

In a new Hudson memo, Bill Schneider considers the global implications of China's investment in 5G technology. 

Asia-Pacific Diplomacy

Patrick Cronin discusses the U.S.'s military base expansion plans in Asia-Pacific in Defense News:

The Secretary did not expand on what that may mean; reporters traveling with Esper were able to see his short opening speech but were not present for a question and answer session with students. But Patrick Cronin, a regional expert with the Hudson Institute, pointed to several possibilities for expanded bases in the Pacific.

“The U.S. is right to work on a more distributed set of access points throughout the Indo-Pacific in geographically strategic locations, where diplomatic and development support from the U.S. and allies and partners can ensure sustainable engagement to build capable partners and strengthen deterrence,” Cronin said. He pointed to Singapore and the Philippines as two classic allies who could stand to have U.S. presence built up. In addition, he identified Thailand’s U-Tapao Royal Thai Navy Airfield, as well as broad improvements in Vietnam.

“As Vietnam [and] U.S. celebrate 25 years of normalization next year, we need to keep expanding exercise activity and port visits,” he said. “And there are access arrangements, perhaps not as public, in Malaysia and Indonesia. Beyond defense, these are also areas where some development and investment can occur that is sought from the local countries and wins public-private support for the U.S. and like-minded partners.”

Tensions in Kashmir

Aparna Pande discusses Kashmir tensions in Nikkei Asian Review:

But some analysts say India's advantage with regard to Kashmir lies in differing perceptions about Pakistan and India in the region. "India's diplomatic leverage has grown over the years, not just because of its economic and security relationships with all its neighbors but because Pakistan's support of terrorism has hurt its cause both with South Asian countries and others," said Aparna Pande, director for the Initiative on the Future of India and South Asia at the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

Upcoming Events

In Case You Missed It

Scholarship