Here is to spell out US anti-terrorist policy in a way that government can’t seem to address head on with crisp explanation. Against a backdrop of Americans taking action against terrorists, implementing foreign policy that has evolved to a precise state, there are complaints from Libya and Afghanistan.
In Iran, the new President asks for new ideas from Americans regarding their relationship too. So, let’s be more clear and certain.
America is a part of the free world. The“free world” no longer refers to just anticommunist nations, it is to all of those who embrace democracy and human rights. On one side of the red line are free people, working to maintain and to sustain freedom. On the other side is a host of people trapped and enslaved by various forms of constraint against human rights and liberty.
Some nation states are hostile to human rights and liberties. Worse, they have armed themselves for a fight against advocates of the free world as is the US by foreign policy. Some nation states harbor terrorists and insurgents that are bent on projecting terror and assault against the US and free world allies, and those who are struggling to advance across the red line toward democracy and freedom.
Some terrorist organizations have risen to the level of becoming declared threats to America’s national security, and in response to that, the US is in an active state of war. That means that at any time the US deems it proper, necessary, and opportunistic, it will attack terrorists employing any means at its disposal at its discretion.
Host nations may or may not be informed in advance of military actions, depending upon the level of trust and cooperation between nation states and free world advocates and participants.
Here are two instances in the news today that speak to this policy and explanation.
Attacks against Afghanistan villages continue by US and Nato forces because terrorists and insurgents continue to operate there. President Hamid Karzai protests, however, he has been unable or unwilling to effectively repulse and eliminate terrorists operating in his state. That is why Americans invaded Afghanistan to begin with.
No amount of official protest will have an effect on the situation, only effective police and military action by the Afghanistan government and a strongly motivated population to combat terror in their state.
"Hamid Karzai blasts US and Nato over attacks as security talks drag on
Afghan president says foreign military coalition is demanding the right to 'continue to attack our people and our villages'
Staff and agencies
theguardian.com, Monday 7 October 2013 21.22 EDT
Hamid Karzai has ruled out signing a security deal with the United States until disagreements over sovereignty are resolved. In angry remarks, the Afghan president condemned the Nato alliance for a military occupation that had caused "a lot of suffering, a lot of loss of life and no gains because the country is not secure".
At a press conference where he discussed the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that keeps foreign troops in Afghanistan, Karzai was questioned about a Nato airstrike on 5 October in Nangarhar province that the Afghan government claimed killed five civilians. He cast doubt over whether the agreement would be renewed.
Karzai said: "The United States and Nato have not respected our sovereignty. Whenever they find it suitable to them, they have acted against it. This has been a serious point of contention between us and that is why we are taking issue of the BSA strenuously in the negotiations right now," Karzai said.
Libya remains in a much less advanced state of government maturity. Tribes and vigilantes patrol much of the country. As such, it is a haven for radical extremism and terrorism.
The US has invested in assisting the new Libyan leadership and will continue to exercise its right to locate, capture and kill terrorists that it perceives are threats to American national security.
"White House defends al-Qaida capture in Libya as US ponders legal options
Abu Anas al-Liby waits to learn if he will be tried in federal court that indicted him in 2000 or face a military commission
Spencer Ackerman in Washington
theguardian.com, Monday 7 October 2013 12.28 EDT)
The Obama administration strongly defended its unexpected capture of an alleged al-Qaida operative from a Libya street at the weekend, but said on Monday that officials had yet to decide what form of legal process he will face.
Abu Anas al-Liby, indicted by the US 13 years ago for his role in embassy bombings that killed more than 220 people, is in the brig of a US navy ship somewhere in the Mediterranean, waiting to learn if he will be tried in the New York federal court that indicted him, or face a military commission.
Libya, wanted for the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, was seized as he parked his car in Tripoli on Saturday, in a raid condemned as a "kidnapping" by the Libyan government.
US administration officials would not provide any timeline for the legal process relating to Libya's detention. The last known time the administration detained a terrorist suspect aboard a navy ship, it did so for over two months before handing that suspect to a federal court in New York. Some administration officials expect Liby will undergo a similar process.