News & Commentary
One First Line of Defense
Instead of the typical slow holiday news cycle, the week between Christmas and New Year's featured near non-stop coverage of the Christmas Day terrorist attack on Delta Northwest flight 253 from Amsterdam. Yet in all of the talk, one aspect was relatively unexplored: The brave actions of Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, the respected Nigerian banker who contacted American authorities to report his son's disturbing radicalization, and what the U.S. government's failure to take his warnings seriously means for others who might be considering reporting love ones who have joined the jihad.
According
to the U.S. State Department, Mr. Mutallab met with U.S. Embassy
officials in Nigeria on November 19th to relay concerns he had about
his son. In response, the embassy officials followed procedures-sending
a "Visas Viper Cable" containing Mutallab's information about his son
to the State Department in Washington, DC, where it was then forwarded
to the National Counterterrorism Center for their review. Asked by
reporters if the cable contained the information that Mr. Mutallab's
son, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had a valid visa to enter the United
States (valid until 2010), State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly stated
"the Visas Viper Cable, it doesn't require the embassy to report that
the person has a visa. It requires them to report on the person's name,
date of birth, place of birth." Asked why the State Department didn't
take the extra step to cancel his visa, Kelly simply stated that the
State Department "absolutely has the authority to revoke [visas]" but
added that "it's not [State's] responsibility."
So, to review, while Mr. Mutallab took the extraordinarily
courageous step to go to the American Embassy to report that his son
had become more radical and might present a threat to himself and
others, the embassy official did the absolute minimum in reporting this
through official channels. The State Department bureaucrat sent only
what protocol required, but didn't bother to consider what extra steps
might be prudent, such as reviewing his visa status or revoking his
valid visa in order to make it, at the very least, a little more
difficult for him to enter the United States.
From the State Department's perspective, everything required by
law was done. From Mr. Mutallab's perspective, this was a devastating
failure. Is there anything more difficult for a parent to do than
report his child to authorities knowing the potential ramifications? It
must have been heartbreaking for Mr. Mutallab to contact the American
authorities and he should be highly praised for his actions.
Undoubtedly, Mr. Mutallab wasn't only trying to prevent the loss of
innocent life, but he was trying to protect his son. He likely hoped
that his son might one day renounce his commitment to violent jihad,
and was trying to prevent his son from taking actions that would make
it impossible for him ever to join normal society. I'm sure Mr.
Mutallab is relieved that his son's attack was unsuccessful. Yet he
must be devastated that his son, though still living, is a casualty,
with no real hope of redemption.
The U.S. government failed Mr. Mutallab. This is tragic, since Mr.
Mutallab did exactly what reasonable people hope other reasonable
people will do. Report their children to the authorities if their
children begin doing illegal or dangerous things, especially when those
things that could result in the harm of innocent others. Think of this
nation's collective reaction to Columbine-why didn't those parents
report their children or take measures to stop them?
Right now, numerous entities that are supposed to be involved
in preventing terrorist attacks against the United States are reviewing
what went wrong in the case of the Christmas bomber. The State
Department should consider carefully not only how they let down the
American people, but how they let down Mr. Mutallab. They should
recognize that encouraging this type of bravery is critical to the
defense of our country.
The State Department spends millions of dollars each year on high-gloss
public diplomacy campaigns which include radio and television
programming, news articles, billboards and other advertizing and in
some places polling and focus groups. The point of these campaigns is
to improve the image of America abroad and to help build trust between
Americans and people around the world. Failing to act on information
brought to Embassy officials by concerned parents of radicalized
children is not only a security failure; it's a public diplomacy
failure.
We need a groundswell of people who openly reject jihad and radical
Islam and are willing to report to the authorities those who preach and
act out violently. That begins with building trust with those who might
be considering approaching U.S. officials with information, and trust
begins by assuring those around the world that we will take their
information seriously.






1 Comment
Rochelle Fortier Nwadibia | January 5, 2010, 4:34pm | #
Thank you for such a thoughtful analysis. I appreciate your expression of the type of country we should be, both here and abroad and your focus on relationships and responsibility that is meaningful.