We will not ever, of course, absolutely know the answer, but I would also highlight that European counterterrorism capabilities at that time were growing much more effective and continued to [do] so. What is your assessment? Have you been surprised by the growth of the Islamic State in Africa in particular? Where do you think we may see jihadi threats coming from next?
Younger: It is really difficult to speculate. Broadly speaking, I would say that the threat is less than it was, and I would link that to the successes we have had in terms of suppressing the networks in Syria and Afghanistan.
This is combined with a much more effective counterterrorism machine across the technical, foreign, and domestic spaces that are much better integrated than they were. Our counterterrorism capability is an order of magnitude more effective and capable than it was in the past. Set against this reality are two issues. One, as the Manchester attack illustrated, b a spontaneous, non-directed attack is just as devastating as networked plots.
Terrorism is now more spontaneous and delegated, but that does not mean it is less dangerous, something the Manchester attack sadly showed. But terrorism of this sort is a different type of problem, and in some ways, it has now reverted to being much more conditioned or sensitive to the domestic conditions in the target country, rather than being primarily something that is directed from abroad in the U.
There is no real cause to pause and celebrate that fact because Africa and the Sahel are looking dangerous and difficult. In addition, there is, of course, Afghanistan.
All without any meaningful allied consultation. The consequences are [evident]: harrowing scenes at the airport; Afghans who chose to support us left behind; and the loved ones of our fallen soldiers asking what it was all for. And they are strategic: this sends a damaging message. I was in Afghanistan in the period after the Soviets left.
What does that say? Even in these circumstances, though, it is important to retain some balance. The idea that this somehow represents the end of American power is grossly overdone. When it comes to counterterrorism, we would be wise to remember that U. Their work, capability, and partnership will become more important, not less. Most importantly, however crass U. The causes are ultimately political, and so must be the end game. It became obvious a number of years ago that nation building, Western style, was either wholly impracticable or beyond the resources allied nations were prepared to commit.
A way had to be found to integrate politically the powerful Pashtun nationalist faction represented by the Taliban. But the leadership to do this, including in Afghanistan, was not there. I do believe that the comparatively light Western military presence could have been maintained much longer and used much more effectively as a bargaining chip. But it was not the solution. What does this mean for the threat? That depends on what the Taliban do next.
They have sought to project a reassuring message, but history teaches us to approach this with caution. Right there you have a worked example of what happens when Afghanistan is left unsupported and to its own devices. There are a few factors that make the current situation different. So while they might be conflicted, I imagine this will weigh on their considerations.
Afghanistan itself is also a very different place and the population has very different expectations than they would have had in the s. So not everything is the same, making a clean comparison complicated. My main plea is that we remain engaged across the intelligence, defense, security, diplomatic, humanitarian piece. CTC: With the U. What is their long-term view of Afghanistan and the terrorist threats there, and how do you think they will try to mitigate them?
They will undoubtedly enjoy the reputational damage that this causes the Western coalition, but beyond that, I cannot see how this is going to improve their security situation in any way. Most obviously, China has a border with Afghanistan. We do not have any physical border there. We are a long way away, and yet we have been the ones essentially being custodians of security.
Clearly, there is going to be a lot of thought going on in Beijing about how what is now an open flank is going to be dealt with.
With Russia and Iran, it is a pretty similar story. With Pakistan, we have just seen exactly the successful, radicalized, Pashtun Islamist takeover [in Afghanistan], that much of their security apparatus has facilitated and worked for over years, seeing, as they did, a stable Afghanistan as a source of strength to India.
CTC: In this era of great power competition, there is concern that countries might start to use or increase their use of terrorist groups as proxies to strike against each other, especially in a situation with an asymmetrically powerful United States. How do you see this issue? To what degree might shifting prioritization away from counterterrorism to great power competition impact counterterrorism capability?
Younger: I think states and terrorism have always been intertwined to some degree because terrorism happens in geographies. When the history is written, you will probably see that the U.
But what is certain is that great power competition introduces a potential existential threat in a way that counterterrorism does not. What terrorism does, which is almost as difficult and certainly as pernicious, is undermine the social fabric of our countries.
This is why governments take it so seriously and why there is so little tolerance of it. But clearly when it comes to conventional destructive power, an international conflict is a far more significant issue. To look at the question of use of terrorist proxies: With the advent of hybrid warfare, states, and most prominently non-democratic states, have become adept at integrating all aspects of national power into their security toolkit.
Relationships with militant groups can and have become another of those tools. You cannot rule out the possibility of these things being used to attack us. Look at the way Russia has used militant groups in the Ukraine. CTC: The recent U. Younger: These are difficult attacks to mount, so I would say they are unlikely, but they are very high impact. So it is a classic example of low-likelihood, high-impact threat, which is the sort of problem that is very difficult to deal with.
Younger comes from a military family. His father had a very distinguished military career. He was born in Westminster, London on 4 July He was educated at Marlborough College and graduated from the University of St Andrews with a degree in economics.
Younger takes pride in his Scottish heritage. Younger was sponsored by the British Army through university. He was commissioned into the Royal Scots on 5 September as a second lieutenant on probation. As a University Candidate he was a full-time student at university and trained in his spare time. On 10 December , he transferred to the Scots Guards. On 16 June , his commission was confirmed and dated to 5 September ; this signified the start of his full-time military service.
He was granted seniority in the rank of second lieutenant from 9 April He was promoted to lieutenant, which was back dated to 5 September , and was granted seniority from 9 April He was promoted to captain on 5 April On 10 April , he transferred to the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, thereby ending his active military service.
Ranked on the list of most popular Businessman. Also ranked in the elit list of famous celebrity born in United Kingdom.
Alexander Younger celebrates birthday on July 4 of every year. In Younger said cyber-attacks, propaganda and subversion from hostile states pose a fundamental threat to European democracies including the UK. Her initial career as a beautician bore her TV career. Her fame and influence as a prop beautician helped her a lot to secure her TV career.
The TV series that she has hosted are aforementioned above. They are profs of how Sarah has been doing all along in her career. No woman is honored if she does not have a husband. To prove to the world that she is an honorable woman who has high moral standards, Sarah married her longtime boyfriend, Alexander Younger. Sarah Richardson, with her husband, Alexander Younger. She met the love of her life, and after falling for each other, they dated for quite several years before eventually deciding to settle down.
They later got married and made a family. Today they are parents of two beautiful daughters: Robin March and Fiona August He is now 51 years old, but his net worth is still at large. Alexander Younger is a well-established Canadian businessman. He was born in to Robin Younger and Patricia Younger. Currently, Sarah Richardson husband Alexander Younger is 51 years old, and he got married to Sarah in
0コメント