The Shadow Chasers
The Australian, quoting the private think-tank Strator says that terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah (JI) may be developing techniques to attack smaller and even individual targets in an evolution of its tactics. Militant websites described "how to target individual Westerners on the streets of Jakarta and listing locations frequented by Westerners ... smaller, less complex attacks that were significantly easier to mount than the more intricate co-ordinated operations such as the first Bali bombing ... the latest Bali attack kept with JI's year-long attack cycle, there are indications that the group could shorten that cycle". (Azahari, suspected of planning the two Bali bombings and an attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta was tracked down by an elite Indonesian anti-terror unit assisted by Australian Federal Police, according to an earlier article in the Australian.)
JI may be developing new tactics to blunt the attack against it mounted by the United States and Australia, in part of what might be called the hidden front against terrorism. The Washington Post devotes an extensive article to describe what resembles massive police operation aimed at rolling up terrorist cells all across the globe.
Days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Tenet outlined a global campaign against terrorism to President Bush. It included invading Afghanistan to wipe out al Qaeda's main base of operations as well as a "Worldwide Attack Matrix" detailing operations against terrorists in 80 countries. The matrix also listed priority countries where al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan were likely to flee during a U.S. invasion.
The Washington Post article favorably contrasts the Tenet method of providing "extensive inducements to offer foreign services" to catch terrorists to Porter Goss' more "unilateral" approach.
When Goss took over, he said he valued these partnerships but announced a goal of improving what he called "unilateral" intelligence collection and operations. "We have gotten more unilateral, though still not as much as I'd like," he told employees in a staff meeting. "It's getting the right kind of people trained in the right places under the right cover against the right targets."
There are plans to send more case officers into the field and to increase deep-cover positions that would require officers to spend longer periods, and perhaps their careers, in one country, integrated into the culture and, in some cases, cut off from the traditional embassy-based CIA station.
However that may be, by some accounts, Australia has combined aspects of the two approaches in its particular area, developing close links with the indigenous security agencies while employing its nationals directly. An article from the Sydney Morning Herald describes how Australian Federal Police (AFP) officers teamed up with their Indonesian counterparts to catch Azahari.
When the net finally closed around the fugitive Jemaah Islamiah bomb maker Azahari Husin this week after a three-year hunt the Australian Federal Police were there, alongside their Indonesian counterparts. The federal police commissioner, Mick Keelty, said yesterday that hand-picked federal police officers were a core element in the "joint tracking team" that picked up Azahari's trail a few days ago and finally pinned him down to a hideout in the East Javanese resort town of Batu.
Another Sydney Morning Herald article, (showing among other things a female Australian Federal Police officer doing forensics at the Azahari death scene) said the tracking team learned learned of Azahari's new tactical methods by sifting through captured material.
"We now have a better understanding of Jemaah Islamiah," Mr Keelty told a counter-terrorism conference in Sydney yesterday. "It does reveal sophisticated surveillance, sophisticated intelligence and recruitment techniques, and actually spells out how and why targets are selected. There's intricate detail on explosive devices, and what to do for fail-safe detonation." The cache also revealed that JI "debriefs" members on terrorist attacks to learn from their mistakes. The latest Bali bombings showed JI is deliberately using smaller devices after facing criticism for the large number of Indonesians killed in previous attacks, like the bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta last year.
The huge scope of operations against terrorist cells in Southeast Asia can be seen in US Ambassador Henry Crumpton's (Coordinator for Counterterrorism) October 22 press conference in Manila. In this long press conference, Crumpton describes a war whose battlefields are the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia and whose combatants include not only the security forces of these countries but also elements from the USA and Australia.
Commentary
These global low-intensity operations complement the high-intensity battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. If operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom aimed at toppling the state sponsors of terrorism, actions such as those in Southeast Asia are directed against the terrorist cells themselves. Debate over the Murtha resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq has been curiously divorced from the context of the global strategy against terrorism; as if the reestablishment of a haven Iraq would have no effect on other parts of the War on Terror.
It's also interesting to observe that Azahari, like Zarqawi in Iraq was under pressure to modify his tactics to avoid the backlash generated by excessive collateral damage caused by massive bombs. One wonders whether the enemy practice of using civilians as shields, as discussed by an anonymous Marine in the Washington Times, far from being the stroke of military genius, may in fact cost them the war.
The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties, so therefore schools, hospitals and especially mosques are locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi government. Kidnapping of family members, especially children, is common to influence people they are trying to influence but cannot otherwise reach, such as local government officials, clerics or tribal leaders, etc.
posted by wretchardthecat at 11/22/2005 02:48:00 AM
51 Comments:
In WWII, following the defeat of their massed daylight bombing attacks, they Germans first switched to night attacks on Great Britian, and when those became too costly as well, started "Tip and Run" attacks where individual fighter planes with a single bomb would dart across the Channel, drop a bomb in a British neighborhood, and run for home.
Eventually, when the British got the measure of the new attacks, the Luftwaffe switched to lone attacks by fighter-bombers at night.
The Tip and Run attacks were much harder to stop than the day or night attacks by bombers, and they did much less damage, not really affecting the war effort in any way.
But while they were unpredictable and thus harder to stop the new attacks were a sure sign of defeat. They did it in a small way because they were unable to do it in a big way.
And so it is with the new terrorist attacks. They know they are losing.
so moslems are going to grab a infidel and murder him or her off the street... this is war right?
welcome to israel...
The brutal murder of 28-year old Israeli woman, Katie David Oct 22 was exposed as a terrorist act when two Israeli Arabs from Baqa al-Garbieh were indicted at Haifa district court Monday, Nov. 21
November 21, 2005, 11:21 AM (GMT+02:00)
They dragged her to a wood near Hadera in central Israel, stabbed her 27 times, inflicted 12 blows to her head with a blunt instrument and then ran over her body with a car.
Sept 29, 2004 - Yuval Abebeh, 4, and Dorit Aniso, 2, both of Sderot, were killed by a Kassam rocket fired from Gaza.
Yuval and Dorit, cousins and children of recent immigrants from Ethiopia, were visiting their grandmother. They were playing outside the house, on Haggai Street, under an olive tree, when hey were directly hit by the Kassam rocket. Suffering massive injuries, both died shortly afterwards in hospital. About 30 people were wounded in the attack, for which Hamas claimed responsibility.
nope this aint terrorism?
From big bombs to a knife in the dark.
The first Murderer's Guild of the 21st Century, but not the last, I think.
Welcome to the Time Machine.
Thanks for pulling together this great story. It certainly puts the lie to the childish argument that Iraq is a "distraction" and "Why haven't we found Osama yet." This shows we are confronting a self-declared global enemy - globally. 80 countries - whew!
On the other hand, it shows that this is a world war, however much our liberal friends would like to pretend it's only about a small group who managed to attack the US on 9/11.
Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable.
Desert Rat, call your office.
My opinion? This is exactly the way to do it, for both sides (Iraqi and American).
It has ALWAYS been 80 countries, that is nothing new.
The Goals of the Terrorists have not changed, just the tactics.
There are, as nahncee said last thread, bad guys everywhere, in every country.
We have them here in US. By themselves each cell is just another criminal gang or inept individuals.
According to McVeigh's lawyer on Discovery Chan., Nichols and McVeigh were unable to construct and detonate their first IED attempts. It was not until after Nichols returned from the Philipines, where he recieved instruction from Mohammedan experts, that he and McVeigh could
detonate their prototype IED. They then progressed to their VBIED and attacked the Federal building in OK City.
This pattern holds true, I think, across the Globe. In reality it is the terrorist infrastructure that is the real danger. Their infrastructure is not built around equipment but is, instead, knowledge based in individuals. aQ translates to the "base or source" meaning, IMO a communal intelligence.
If the root of the knowledge is destroyed, the Global Insurgency will die, for a while.
This is best exampled by the experiences gained from Mr Che'.
After his death, while he adorns the front of t-shirts to this day, his "revolution" was stymied for decades. It is only now, with a new generation of 'revolutionaries' that Socialism is on the march again, in South America
The idea that we should not hunt down and kill Osama or Dr Z, that some how they are unimportant or better left alone or to be 'watched' is grossly mistaken.
Without leadership the terrorists are just thugs, with leadership they are a movement.
That will be, I think, the eventual lesson of the Francofada. If the Mohammedans are able to provide leadership to French thugs the riots will prove to be more than 'racial" or "economic".
Thugs utilized as useful idiots and mobilized in the Jihadist Cause by effective LEADERSHIP may change the whole equation.
rwe
I must disagree that their change of tactic is a sign of defeat. Perhaps in the Iraq campaign, the expansion into Jordian hotels is a sign of terrorist weakness, but no more than the loss of Samarra, Tel Afar, or Ramadi.
In the over all Mohammedan Conflict, in Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Iran & Pakistan the Mohammedans are as secure and strong as ever.
In France they are beginning the march, just taking a breather, while they regroup for Round 2.
wretchard wrote:
"If operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom aimed at toppling the state sponsors of terrorism, actions such as those in Southeast Asia are directed against the terrorist cells themselves. Debate over the Murtha resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq has been curiously divorced from the context of the global strategy against terrorism; as if the reestablishment of a haven Iraq would have no effect on other parts of the War on Terror."
That is an awfully big IF. The notion that OIF was toppling a state sponsor of terrorism is false. Iraq has become a haven for terrorism since the fall of Saddam, it would hardly be "reestablished" upon withdrawal. A US withdrawal may very well decrease the hold of terror groups in Iraq because " Zarqawi in Iraq was (would be) under pressure to modify his tactics to avoid the backlash generated by excessive collateral damage caused by massive bombs." Besides, with the US gone, whom would he attack? Or are you afraid of the Bush/Cheney canard that Osama, Zarqawi, or Zawhiri will actually become the leader of Iraq?
s. sir
Isolated, individual attacks do indeed sow a variety of terror, at a grass roots level.
Thinking back to the "Beltway Boys"
Mohammed had the market on terror sewed up in DC, for awhile.
If there had been 5 sniper teams, instead of 1, spread geographicly across the US, instead of concentrated in DC. That could have been an effective terror tactic.
If four bombs exploded daily, for a week, at varied hours but the same clock time, (like 3:00pm day 1, 8:00am day 2, etc) in varied georaphic locales but by having the attacks rolling across every time zone in America like a wave, the effect in California would, by day 4 or 5, be terrified hysterics.
The bombs would not have to be large, just have 28 total. Four time zones, 7 bombs each. Four teams total each traveling from city to city, within their assigned time zone.
If a small group, less than 10, attacked a city center or small rural town the effect could be terror. The LA bank robbery a few years ago, where the robbers had AK's etc. is an example, there were only 2 shooters in that incident.
Death by a thousand cuts, a different tactic than decapitation, but perhaps more effective in spreading terror.
This pattern holds true, I think, across the Globe. In reality it is the terrorist infrastructure that is the real danger. Their infrastructure is not built around equipment but is, instead, knowledge based in individuals. aQ translates to the "base or source" meaning, IMO a communal intelligence.
Precisely. And that infrastructure exists in many places in this country. While the cuties at CNN put the "X-marks-the-spot" on Cheney and the Congress dithers and plays games with itself.
We will wake eventually to the sound of bombs going off and then, when the dust settles, the old finger-pointing game will start. In fact, given how skilled some players have become, they'll probably be pointing before the dust settles.
Depending on which scenario or one of many other options were played out. The bombings, to a degree, would be more difficult.
But in each case a Combat Team of less than 20 could without a "catastrophic event" terrorize US. Planning required, of course.
If the Jihadists are changing tactic because of a lack of support or logistics, that would be one thing, the Mohammedan Wars would be all but over. If, on the other hand, it is for PR, tactical or political reasons, well...
Given the Compounds & Centers that are available within the US to the Mohammedans, obtaining sufficent quantities of small arms and adequate stockpiles of ammunition would not be difficult.
That 18 year old in PA, the double homicider, is reported to have had some 50+ weapons in his home. The Mohammedans could match that, in a Baghdad minute. It would be more than enough, to start.
Look to Russia, the school take over, the theater in Moscow.
What if there had been no intention of negotiation, which there seems to have been in Russia, what if the Objective had been carnage. Pure & Evil.
If the attackers are better prepared, kevlar, helmets, reliable weapons, etc. and well trained, the patriotic civilians could be hard pressed. The LA cops certainly were, by just two mercenary bank robbers, whose objective was escape, not carnage.
Why not Osama? NOW
Given the woeful lack of intelligence on the insurgents in Iraq, is it really possible that we are diverting any serious amount of intelligence manpower to Australia or even South East Asia beyond what we would normally have in our embassies there in any case? And if we did, is this a policy that would be popular with the soldiers in Iraq? Which Colonel wants to be told that he can’t replace his recently killed and wounded intelligence assets because we can’t divert any more valuable intelligence resources out of Bangkok? And which career intelligence officer is going to want to lose a promotion ten years from now because he was sipping lattes in Sydney instead of hunting Zarqawi in Iraq? Unlike many of our upper-middle and upper class, five deferment Dick-style cowards, career intelligence officers are volunteering in droves for service in Iraq.
When German General Erich von Falkenhayn launched his portentous attack on French position north of Verdun, he wasn’t actually looking to make a breakthrough and march on to Paris, he was instead hoping to create a mechanism, a self-sustaining process, that would bleed the French Army white. Nine months later he realized that you don’t bleed enemy white by trying to hammer him with a sledge hammer, it takes a little more subtlety that the Germans were able to muster.
During the same war, Lawrence of Arabia actually did find a much more elegant way to actually bleed the Ottoman Empire white. I’ll let John Robb: tell the story:
Lawrence's guerrilla campaign (for more on this read the fantastic book on Lawrence's strategy by Liddell Hart) against the Ottoman Turks was focused on the disruption the Turkish rail system. However, his approach did not seek the total collapse of the rail system. In Lawrence's view, it was more important to control the rate of flow on the rail system than to shut it down entirely. If he had shut down the rail system, the Turkish troops that depended on it for supplies would have been withdrawn (and would have been used to reinforce the front against the Brits in Sinai/Palestine). In contrast, by restricting its flow, the Turkish troops remained in place but didn't have the resources to do anything but remain in their garrisons. In essence, Lawrence used disruption to produce two desired effects (for more on this read the brief on effects-based operations): the paralysis of a large segment of the Turkish army and complete freedom of movement in 99% of Arabia.
And so it is with militant Islamic terrorism today, whose ultimate goal is the complete drainage of the lifeblood of the US military. Given the understandable reluctance of US military officers and politicians to flee a field of battle while under fire, militant Islam has an absolute veto over any US withdrawal from Iraq. No one should doubt that they have the will to brandish it ruthlessly -- up until the day they finally achieve their ultimate objective; to send the US Empire to the same resting place as the Ottoman Empire.
There is no better evidence of this dynamic than yesterday’s endorsement of the Murtha Plan by all three main Iraqi factions in Egypt, the first time in history that they have all agreed on anything:
Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a ``legitimate right'' of resistance.
The final communiqué, hammered out at the end of three days of negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League, condemned terrorism, but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.
There exist no people on earth with more to lose in the event of an eventual US withdrawal than these clowns. Remember what the mujahadeen in Afghanistan did to the Soviet puppets when the finally got their hands on them? Wasn’t pretty was it? Well, not to worry, these asshats know the insurgents hold the US military’s departure tickets and Zarqawi and Co. aren’t likely to be passing out these tickets to ride any time soon.
Iraq has become a haven for terrorism since the fall of Saddam
What a canard. Having some Marine kick in the door of your hideout and filling your face with .223 is hardly what AQ would advertise to it's recruits as a "haven." Why is it so difficult to understand that Iraq is an Islamic terrorist epicenter because Iraq is today's biggest stake? There were very few Japanese combat soldiers on Guadalcanal before the Marines invaded it in 1942. Japan reinforced it to engage the Marines. To suggest that it was wrong for the USA to have invaded Guadalcanal because the enemy decided to fight there is as ridiculous as today's leftie arguments about Iraq.
ash
go read your C. Hitchens. He seems to agree with you on most things, not this.
I could run the litney of reasons why you are wrong, but Hitchens does it better, and of course, he was there, in Iraq, preinvasion and met with the Terrorist Operatives, himself.
Perhaps first hand accounts from internationally renown Marxist Journalists don't hold water with you, oh well.
President Talabani had made the point while in Germany. There is a legitimate "resistence" and "criminal" terror. He sees them as distinct.
He was there, in Cairo, as well.
The Iraqi Government sees attacks upon our and their troops a "legitimate".
It is time to leave them to their task, as soon as viable.
Mr Cahalbi has said this year '06, would be better than '07 for US to start leaving.
I guess neither Mr Chalabi nor Talabani know Iraq better than US, though.
Maybe they did not see the wink, just the nod.
Ash asks, "Besides, with the US gone, whom would he attack?"
Er, how about you and your family, for starters? Zarqawi is not likely to abandon terror if the US withdraws. More likely, he would be emboldened and seek to expand the franchise beyond Iraq.
rwe is right that the shift noted by Wretchard is a sign of failure, but I fear it is simultaneously a sign of adaptability on the part of the terrorists: if one mode of terror becomes too hot, they shift to another mode.
So, then, if they've degenerated into one-on-one attacks -- knives in an alley -- how is this form of murder more terroristic than the Cosa Nostra or the Beserkers in India or even the Vikings? All of those groups had "leadership", too, and if you don't have an "ism" to fight behind nor a flag to wave overhead, then aren't you merely a punk criminal getting your jollies out of theft and mayhem ... and where's the terror in that?
Iraqi Factions Seek Timetable for U.S. Pullout
"Even if there is no agreement, we will have accomplished a conversation," Iraq's interim president, Jalal Talabani, said Sunday. Mr. Talabani and other senior members of the government refrained from taking a direct part in closed-door sessions of the three-day conference.
The meeting ultimately centered on Iraq's insurgency and its causes, seeking to goad Sunnis to lay down their weapons and join the political system, while forcing Shiite politicians to acknowledge Sunni grievances.
On Sunday, Mr. Talabani said he was willing to meet Iraqi insurgents if they dropped their weapons.
. Iraqi Factions Seek Timetable for U.S. Pullout .
---
Well, times do change:
Used to read comments to keep check on the MSM.
Now the BS and MSM "journalistic" tricks here have become so commonplace that I go to the New York Times in order to discern facts from the various fictions spun here.
Notice the Times Headline: Factions Seek Timetable...
This was a CONFERENCE in Cairo in the midst of the SUNNI CONTROLLED Arab League of Nations.
Many of the *statements* made by these various individuals were of the same tone as statements made by US Politicians, depending on their audience.
GWB uses different language when he is at a celebrity roast than when he is addressing a group from Focus on the Family.
Are we to infer heavy Global Implications from these choices of different words?
I have yet to see that there anything officially put on paper that endorsed violence against ANYBODY.
They simply said the insurgents had a right to express their differences and concerns through the political process.
(Kinda like GWB and Cheney did the last couple of days on the homefront.)
All the wishful thinking here to the contrary is just that, wishful thinking.
"I have yet to see that there WAS anything officially put on paper that endorsed violence against ANYBODY."
stuart
There are, at best estimate, no more than 5,000 Foreigners engaged in the Iraqi battle.
The Sunni Insurgents are, according to Iraqi President Talabani, engaged in a legitimate civil battle with an occupying force.
Check Kevin's link to the Cairo Summitt.
For a stateless force of less than 5,000 men to tie down 150,000 US troops for 2 years, taking it, we are often reminded to the "breaking point" with multiple deployments, etc.
Causing the Republican Party in the Senate to 'split' with the President on War Goals.
That sir, is not defeat.
It is, according to their published plans, Their Plan.
Discount the Sunni Insurgents, the Iraqis do, and we have stretched our assets to fight and train Mohammedan assets from KSA, Morroco, Jordan, Syria, Algeria and France to name a few.
nathan has said the Z man is the Terrorists best recruiting tool and he may well be right.
But what if he is wrong and US troops are their best recruiting tool. What if Z's importance and stature is because of US. How much stature would fighting Mr Chalabi or Allawai bring him?
Who REALLY believes that Z and his 5,000 can make Iraq a safe haven for terrorists if the Iraqis, all of the factions, decided he should be gone. I do not.
The evolving tactics show that the big splash terrorist incidences are more difficult to mount. One can be weary of visiting popular night clubs and being in large crowds of Westerners, but the notion of being targeted as a lone civilian plying the shop stalls will have a truly chilling effect on tourism.
I should hope that the tactics of the counter-intelligence people will become equally as cruel using assassination and effective torture techniques. What should be sure, once an individual is detained, interrogated, and determined to be a terrorist, they should never be allowed to see the light of day again. Unilateral operations are nearly impossible to compromise and provide a counter-chilling effect to those who’d target individuals.
One could argue that such brinksmanship will eventually turn the public against the government and it is for that purpose that the terrorists strive. But as long as governments are measured in their response to terrorism, it is the terrorists that have to win the hearts and minds of their fellow citizens.
Ash,
I don't think Zarqawi could ever lead Iraq, now that the Shi'ites and Kurds have their own power bases. That's the most lasting effect of OIF, the fact that the Sunni terrorism can never inherently control the country again.
But suppose some other terrorist force was about to gain control over the Iraqi state. The logical implication of the liberal line on Iraq is that such a development would not constitute a cassus belli. That's why Saddam was 'not a legitimate cause' for war. Why should Osama, should he somehow gain control of Iraq or some other country? This brings up the inconsistencies of Iran and North Korea. Yet even so that would merely expand the argument to say that neither Iran, Iraq, North Korea and very probably even Afghanistan constituted situations calling for military action. The bar for military action under the liberal model is very high, so high that I wonder whether it can be defined, and I think that's a fair comment.
" ... The statement, while condemning the wave of terrorism that has engulfed Iraq, also broadly acknowledged a general right to resist foreign occupation. That was another effort to compromise with Sunnis who had sought to legitimize the insurgency. The statement condemned terror attacks and religious backing for them, and it demanded the release of innocent prisoners and an investigation into reports of torture. ..."
/////////////////////////////
" right to resist foreign occupation "
Will that be one of their first Constitutional Admendents or WHAT?
" ... While the wording stopped short of condoning armed resistance to the occupation, it broadly acknowledged that "national resistance is a legitimate right of all nations."
"This is the first time that something like this is said collectively and in public," Muhammad Bashar al-Faythi, spokesman for the hard-line Sunni Muslim Scholars Council, said Monday, referring to the timetable. "We managed to convince them of the importance of a timed pullout."
On Monday, Iraq's interior minister, Bayan Jabr, said American-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, adding that the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the United Nations Security Council earlier this month could be the last, The Associated Press reported.
"By mid-next year, we will be 75 percent done in building our forces, and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," Mr. Jabr told Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news channel
..."
This was all in the NYT piece too, doug.
If we are to leave by the end of next year, '06 and it takes around six months to leave, we start WHEN?
Dean Bocobo notes how terrorists are free to use landmines, which are prohibited by the Geneva Convention, on targets in the Philippines and get a pass from the local leftist-media. I don't doubt that knives in the dark, which if employed by others would be called 'murder' or 'assassination' would be similarly glorified under some other, more palatable name.
Seriously, terrorist violence in the 'wider war on terror in 80 countries', if aggregated, might be much larger than Iraq and Afghanistan put together, I think.
Kevin,
I wonder who is draining who. On the Southeast Asian front at least, there's now widespread awareness of the phenomenon of Islamic terrorist belligerency. Despite the best efforts of the media (and President Bush too) to keep the enemy nameless, among many governments the conscious focus of defense planning is against this precisely unnamed entity. Even the convenors in Cairo have had to use the "T" word.
It's precisely because of this that the enemy is having to adjust his tactics; having to defend against composite foreign-local hunter teams on their own turf.
An Iraqi request for a US withdrawal timetable probably means they believe an Al Qaeda or resistance victory is now impossible; that they can go it alone. Then Iraq will leave the high-intensity combat group and move to the low-intensity '80 countries' group.
The danger, as Papa Bear points out, is that the US can become a victim of its own success (not failure; that would have had a different signature) because small-scale terrorism, to which the enemy may eventually be driven, becomes subclinical. Terrorism begins to resemble crime and eventually we all go back to the slumber of the 1990s. I remember Albert Camus' closing line in the Plague after the doctor beats the epidemic back.
As Rieux listened to the cries of joy rising from the town, he remembered that such joy could always be imperilled. He knew what those jubilant crowds did not know but could have learnt from books: that the plague bacillus never dies nor disappears for good; that it can lie dormant for years and years in furniture and linen chests; that it bides its time in bedrooms, cellars, trunks, and bookshelves; and that perhaps the day would come when it would rouse up its rats again, and send them forth to die in a happy city.
One incident at a time, the effect can be diminished or controlled. Most folk do not understand the implications of Mr Nichols 'vacation trip' either.
Or the ElAl ticket counter attack in LAX.
That is why, if it were to be done, successfully, there would be multiple incidents, across the breadth of the country. To much, at once, to hide.
It would not take much skill or preperation, really. Mohammed had little of either.
But 20 of them, in 10 "nice" Crown Victorias, firing on a predetermined schedule, at targets of opportunity....
The American Hating Barbarians of Iraq, a photo essay by Michael Yon.
I would come up from Mexico and simply send a message via hitting a mall or sporting event - a few with AK-47s willing do die would do the trick - if they can learn to fly jets, they can learn Spanish and how to move in that culture - it wouldn't be that complicated - south american passports, fluent in spanish, plenty of cash to get a good used van, AKs, etc
Desert Rat,
Yep, I know the "80 countries" is not news, I was listening when Bush first described this new global war right after 9/11.
I was trying to mock those among us who chant that Bush causes terrorism, which is an argument akin to "fire trucks cause fires because they're always around fires."
Now, if we are fighting Islamofascists terrs in 80 countries, did Bush "recruit" them all? Did they all just pop up because we invaded Iraq? Hell, no!
And if we and they are fighting globally, catching Osama would be a good thing, but not a world-changing event. Just like capturing Saddam didn't stop the Baathists and Sunnis from fighting, we have to expect the same with AlQ. Likewise, if those chunks they are currently testing by "technical means" turn out to be Zarqawi, the war will still go on.
When an enemy declares global war on you, surrender is not the healthy response. Fighting back is. And we are. That's what we voted for in 2004, that's what we got. Thank God.
wretchard wrote:
"The bar for military action under the liberal model is very high, so high that I wonder whether it can be defined, and I think that's a fair comment."
Yes, I agree that is a fair comment and I would add that the bar appears ever so much higher after the fiasco in Iraq. I think the 'liberals' can be brought to the table and a reasonable bar height set if you appeal to their tradition of 'universal human rights' and remind them of their past affection for 'nation building'. If you couple these notions with some reasonable form of 'due process' and 'mulit-lateral action' I don't think you would find that they would be incapable of military action.
nathan
I really do remember you writing that, it was a seemingly strongly held opinion, as I recall, but all I can do is tell you what threads you did not write it in.
After reviewing many more then enough past threads to satisfy my curiosity, I beg forgiveness.
Ash,
What would be an example of this ideal war that liberals would support? Perhaps that wonderful nation-building exercise in Kosovo? That has led to no nation, was not supported by the UN, and of course had no strategic or tactical value to the US. Liberals supported that one, of course.
Imagine if all the effort that went into that exercise had been directed to our declared enemies in Afghanistan instead. There would have been no 9/11.
There may be another 9/11, but it won't come from wmd's from Saddam.
ash
Any way, seems like our greatest Civil Liberties challenge has been solved, the Poster Boy of unjust incarceration has finally been charged, in Florida.
Seems Jose Pedilla may have been part of a Terrorist cell, there in the Sunshine State.
No more SCOTUS case, now that he's been indicted. No mention of dirty bomb plots, either.
Tony,
Yesterday was the 10 year anniversary of the Dayton Accords and they are still hammering out a proper constitition in the Balkans whilst Karadzic and Ratko remain free. Even if there exist 'liberals' of the persuasion that Ash outlined , they cannot see past their Bush Derangement Syndrome to offer anything constructive. And if they could I believe they would be shouted down by the Democratic wing of the Democratic party or whatever the Deaniacs are calling themselves these days.
No Catastrophic Event Required
Mohammedan Genocide continues
This report, from Kofi no less, tells the sad tale of Darfur, where violence is escalating and over 2,000,000 people have been turned into refugees and tens of thousands have been murdered.
Kofi says only more "Talks" can solve the Darfur Genocide.
I, of course, disagree.
" ... In his monthly report to the Security Council on Monday, Annan said violence, killing and rape had increased in Darfur in September and October. Civilians have been forced out of villages, in some cases for the second or third time.
"The looming threat of complete lawlessness and anarchy draws nearer, particularly in western Darfur, as warlords, bandits and militia groups grow more aggressive," Annan wrote. ... "
" ... Tens of thousands of Sudanese have been killed since a revolt in Darfur began in early 2003 by non-Arab villagers who accused the government of neglect and repression.
The government is accused of arming Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, who killed, raped, burned down villages and forced more than 2 million people out of their homes. Khartoum has denied supporting the militia.
The African Union has a monitoring force in Darfur, the only bulwark against violence. Five of its peacekeepers were killed in October by armed groups, presumably rebels.
In June, Annan reported that civilian deaths had dropped since early in 2005, but his new survey said this was no longer the case and the United Nations would give details next month. ..."
The ICC, of which ash is fond, has sealed indictments against Sudanese citizens in regards the Genocide. It has, to date, failed to release those indictments or seek the apprehension of those named in them.
It is unknown whom is named, because the Indictments are still "sealed".
Between the ICC and Kofi's continued "talks" more and more civilians will be "cleansed" of Sudanese dirt or more accurately, their land or life.
This UPI Story is very informative.
The title is a little misleading,
"Politics&Policies:
N.Korea aids Iran nukes"
It really is about
Korea aids Iranian missle program: current capacities and capabilities.
There was one interesting line as to Iranian thinking concerning US preemptive air strikes.
" ... The United States' formidable and superior aerial firepower could not be used in the densely populated areas where many of Iran's nuclear facilities are reported to be situated ..."
Now what would have led the Mullahs to believe that their civilians would shield their facilities?
Thanks for mentioning the issue of land mine use by the New People's Army in the Philippines. It is instructive of the twin challenge facing GWOT on the ground in what I like to call an evolving Maphilindostan (for Malaysia, Indonesia and the Southern Philippines area of vast archipelagos in the Sulu Sulawesi Sea that AQ, JI and ASG are said to be trying to establish). The communist movement (mainly in Luzon and Visays) and the jihadists (mainly in Mindanao) are of course united by "The enemy of thine enemy is my enemy"). They will certainly divide up our carcass along those geographic lines, if for example the CPP/NPA/NDF were to come to power and gain control of Manila. Now there is a sense in which they already do..
I like to think of the communist insurgency in the Philippines as a kind of long-term infection, like HIV. This infection has not broken out into full blown AIDS in the sense that we still have a nominally democratic govt "running the country" but the CPP/NPA has so successfully infiltrated--nay dominated--the Media, the Professoriate, many parts of the govt and the "intelligentsia" that they are actually a kind of shadow govt. The issue I have made over landmines shows clearly how that works. They can actually broadcast the CPP's Central Committee's position on things (in this case they assert that they "only" use remote controlled land mines to blow people's feet off) right on the front page of the country's largest circ daily, and not have the countervailing calls of orgs like GenevaCall to ban such use of landmines be similarly aired. Such "proclamations" from the CPP heads enjoying their stay in Utrecht are really indistinguishable from govt statements in the same press because of the "Voice of Omnniscience" that such a paper has. I have recently done a big piece on the recent issue of six US servicemen accused of raping a Filipina in Subic and how the PDI is using this human tragedy to advance the goal of the Left to have the Visiting Forces Agreement scrapped.
The other worrisome thing about the Philippines now, is that the President has been fighting for her political life in the Gloriagate scandal, with much of the energies of the Palace dedicated to that fight during the last six months. She survived impeachment this year, but at terrible cost to democratic institutions, which have been devastated by the Palace's tactics. The Left is involved heavily in that struggle, but so are the democratic "Middle Forces" which are the only hope of the Philippines, later on, becoming a more firm and reliable ally in this region. These "Middle Forces" include former President Cory Aquino; the Senate President Frank Drilon; ten of her most trusted cabinet secretaries (who quit at the height of scandal last July; and major business leaders such as Jaime Zobel de Ayala, the heads of Major Religious Orders, and many other legitimate Civil Society people who have called on the President to resign and give way to democratic elections in the prescribed Constitutional proces.
The long and short of it is that the Philippines, though nominally democratic and once in the Coalition and then back in it again [sic!] is a effectively a "roguish state" -- It is not an outright state sponsor of terrorism, but the state IS pinned down by their control of the countryside through organized extortion and armed conflict, and by its own self-inflicted wounds.
Meanwhile, it is reported that one in three families already rely on remittances from overseas Filipino Workers and that nearly every one has relatives abroad. In other words, the awful conditions in the homeland have forced the Filipinos to flee to the Core in a diaspora that says, "Forget this sh*t, we can have a great life abroad. Let's get out of the Cargo Hold and move up to Economy, or since we are Doctors and Nurses and Teachers, we can even make it to Business and First Class. Just look at..."
With the social contract broken, and governance a divided thing between the regular Political Mafia and the Marxist Leninist Mafia, this carcass is being made into mincemeat in preparation for the People's Federal Democratic Republic of Maphilindostan.
djb
that is certainly a pessimistic outlook.
Are there redeeming factors or chance of improvement?
Does it all track back to Marcos or ?
Desert Rat, I didn't see in your expose on Kofi where he actually said 'talks' were the answer, maybe that is his opinion. In any case, are you suggesting that the US should buck up and go into Darfur and take care of the situation? Would that be in the US interest? Would it be worth the investment of blood and treasure?
I can't vouch for the ICC's effectiveness, I can only urge that the US support the institution and make it better. The US should encourage others to be active participaants, commit troops and financial funding so that the ICC could be a more effective institution and help it address problems such as we see in Darfur. What is the alternative? A go it alone US police force?
ash
From the story:
" ... The only solution was to conclude by the end of the year a "framework peace agreement" in the forthcoming seventh round of African Union-led peace talks in Abuja, Nigeria, Annan said.
"It should be made clear to all parties that the AU-facilitated peace talks in Abuja are the only vehicle for achieving a viable solution," he said. "Talks outside of this framework, where some of the parties are excluded, will never lead to any sustainable agreements." ... "
If I was King or Kofi
I'd take a Brigade or more of Gurkas into Darfur, replacing the African Union troops
and establish safe zones.
I'd have robust patroling out side those Zones.
I would attempt to serve the ICC Indictments
If the Government in Khartoum did not hand over the indicted or in any way hindered the serving of the indictments, I'd burn the city, raze it to the ground.
By non nuclear means
I'd have ordered an evacuation of the city. Setting up refugee camps for the prior residents of Khartoum, matching Darfurian per capita food allotments for the previous year.
I would hold the Khartoumians for at least 18 months, within the internment camps. At the end of that time, they would be released, left to their own devices.
I would set precedent for the
Pax Millenium.
but I'm neither.
Just for the sake of splitting hairs, I think Kofi was saying only those talks were the viable ones, not that talks were the only viable solution.
Wasn't it the US that insisted on African Union troops (as opposed to UN peacekeepers) at the time they (the US) were resisting the ICC referral in the Security Council?
I do not really know.
The lack of solution is paramount, not the reason the previous remedy was inadequate, except to improve upon the inadequacies. The African Union guys may be better troops than other UN Piecekeepers. The UN troopers in the Congo are farcical.
I'd get the best professional troops money could hire, Western Trained, English speaking, Gurkas from Nepal. During WWII 250,000 Gurka troops served with the Allies. 20,000 - 100,000 could be hired, now.
It would be worth every dime.
In the Sudan you'd recieve double the bang for your dollar.
1st. A shot across the bow to other African despots and wanna be despots. In that way OIF redux, but in Africa.
2nd. Take down an oppresive Mohammedan Government. In the Mohammedan Wars... a good thing.
The major difference I'd foresee from OIF is I'd use a greater degree of applied violence with the Sudanese if they did not turn a new leaf, which I would not expect.
Then there would be two examples of intervention, nice as in Iraq & nasty as in Sudan.
It would increase the Nation State anti terror sponsorship deterent, I think.
Wretchard and ffe: Shortly after the U.S. Presidental Election of 1968, two black men robbed a liquor store in Charleston, S.C. On the way out one of them said "We did this because Hubert Humprehy lost the election. You people let Mr. Humprehy down."
I consider that incident to be the point where crimimal activity became a legitimate from of protest to some. It was not about crimminals doing what crimminals do; if they were black it was a form of protest. Of course, most "protests" of this sort were black on black.
The impact on blacks in the U.S. was horrific. Crimminality became a key element of much of black culture.
If the Islamofacsists adopt the knifing as a means of warfare, they will destroy their own cultures quite thoroughly. Crimminality will became a feature of "True Islam" - and that will be that.
They will be indistinguishable from simple crimminals in both thought and deed.
No more SCOTUS case, now that he's been indicted. No mention of dirty bomb plots, either.
Another analogy to the Mafia -- they took out Al Capone on income tax evasion.
If the Bad Guy is locked up, do we *care* if he's locked up as a terrorist, or just because he's too ugly to look at? We could probably get most of them on charges like rape, or bestiality with a non-consenting camel, or spitting on the sidewalk if their dirty bomb goes missing.
Building on the "80 countries" theme - Islamofascists identify themselves as a cancer upon humanity by sowing systemic, global violence - they come to speak in one name, and in every country and in every language, that name is read the same: EVIL.
Cancer is worse than the worst infection, it's when the body itself seems to let parts of itself work against the whole.
Universally, culture-independently, cancer brings out the most extreme cures.
As Islamofascism continues to behave fatally against the body populace, it brings closer the day of its universal recognition for what it is. As that recognition rolls over the world, we'll fight this beast.
Islamofascism has already managed to make the two Cold War SuperPowers its most fervent enemies. It is obviously suicidal.
Either it will die, or civilization will die. History tells us: Civilization wins.
Cheney's Challenge:
Recognizing that the White House's trash-talking of its opponents had gotten a bit out of hand, President Bush and Vice President Cheney in the past few days have publicly acknowledged that dissent over the war is not in itself unpatriotic and that the administration's newest nemesis, Congressman John Murtha, is no Michael Moore.
Michael A. Fletcher and Jim VandeHei write in The Washington Post: "Vice President Cheney yesterday accused critics of engaging in 'revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety' in the Iraq debate, in a major speech that reflected the uncompromising style that has made him a touchstone for many of the controversies shadowing President Bush.
Cheney's Challenge
This form of facism sees itself as the only legitimate form of government. It seeks to destroy all other forms by any necessary means.
The cancer analogy appears particularly accurate.
So we need radiation therapy then.
Post a Comment
<< Home