RANGER AGAINST WAR: Prodigal Son <

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Prodigal Son

The administration likes to point out that we're fighting them there, so, you know...and what's more, there have been no attacks since 9-11. A great victory, they claim. However, while the first statement is patently false, the second is obviously correct. But to claim that the absence of further attacks issued from the U.S.'s invasion of Afhanistan and Iraqi is the old post hoc fallacy...you know, the flutter of a butterfly's wings in Australia phenomenon.

I never hear the point mentioned that the absence of a further attack is not contingent upon U.S. security procedures, or the policies of Homeland Security, or the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.


The terrorist group Al Quaida simply had to get the ball rolling, and they did so on 9-11. No further attack from them could cause a more profligate or prodigal expenditure of our national treasure.
Moreover, they have neither the operational capability nor support network in place to facilitate high risk, significant attacks. These groups can afford "to chill" for 6 to 10 years, until opponent operation readiness degrades, due to hypervigilance and the tendency to "stand down" after a period of domestic safety.


This is why terrorism pays. Al Quaida accomplished its desired result, namely, to affect a larger audience beyond the target, at a nominal cost. Americans are naive and/or misled to believe that they wanted solely to kill Americans.
Al Quaida does not have the capabilities to carry out such a sustained attack; their numbers are estimated at 1,500. In one diabolically brilliant, cost-effective act, they used our materiel and a few willing suicides to wrap a superpower up tight.


Al Quaida does not now need to attack further to cause terror. U.S. policy and overreactions create this disproportionate response through "chicken little" policies. They have effected a self-perpetuating drain of resources, both in terms of monetary and human capital, with no end in sight.


Generally speaking, Islamists in America are not violently opposed to our society, nor do they wish to see it destroyed. That's why they're here, and not there. Our Islamic communities are not radicalized as in Europe. Even if they were, they would lack easily accessible escape routes after the commission of an attack.


For a group to mount an attack, there must be money, documents, travel arrangements, cover, housing, surveillance, reconnaisance and transportation. The money, documents and travel can be from overseas connections, but all else must be locally available. Also, all groups (except suicides) want an easily accessible escape route. This is lacking in America, so attacks will probably be suicidal. Otherwise, all pre-operational requirements are the same, regardless of escape strategy.

Suicidal attacks will not use the normal support apparatus evident in regular terrorist ops. Therefore, there will be pre-operational intelligence indicators that an attack is imminent. This was the case in 9-11, and it will be the case in any future attacks. Intelligence and police functions are the counter to this threat. Armed military guards in airports are only feel-good efforts; armed guards did not deter the 9-11 attackers.

Contrary to all the t.v. and movie hype, terrorists will not carry AK-47's or handguns. These weapons are too obvious, and that is not in the nature of the threat. But the next attack upon America must be dramatic and newsworthy; otherwise, Al Quaida realizes it won't get continual airplay, and free media feeds are their best weapon, both in terms of amplifying their power, and as a recruitment tool.


I do not envision an airplane/airport scenario, other than possibly a group forcing U.S. authorities to shoot down a U.S. passenger plane over U.S. territory. Possibly, I would envision a FedEx or UPS courier jet being utilized as an attack platform, since they can be more easily broached by hostile groups. Both scenarios would require minimum participants and would be more difficult to detect.


Any future attackers will be Westernized, educated and familiar with western society and functions. Therefore, looking at British, French and German Islamic persons would be well-advised.
Future attackers will not come directly from Egypt, Suadi Arabia, Pakistan or Afghanistan. This was generally true for the 9-11 participants, and will continue to be so in the future. This familiarity of culture is essential to bypass internal security measures.

International cooperation is the key to prevention of future domestic attacks. This attitude seems to stick in the craw of Lone Gun Bush, but it is the only possible route to security. It won't be o.k. to shoot your way out of this corral.

Jim and Lisa

6 Comments:

Anonymous Martin K said...

Its aslo important to remember what the goals of Al quaeda are, as laid down in their mission-statement:

1) US forces out of Saudi Arabia
2) An end to the occupation of palestine
3) US out of Iraq

With a tactical asessment of about 20 years, and a stated method of seeking to bleed the US to death as it did the russians in Afghanistan, it seems their plans are evolving nicely.

Saturday, December 2, 2006 at 9:14:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lurch said...

But....but...but... what you're advocating is a law enforcement approach to an anti-terror strategy and that is not the Bu$hCo way. As Tip O'Neil famously said, "All politics is local." GHW Bush said, "All poliics is business, and all business is politics."

The resources of America's Defense Industry will be strained to the breaking point over the next 20 years replacing all the military equipment expended in Iraq, and now you want to suddenly switch strategies and put the emphasis on police forces?

As you said, a-Q can afford to wait while we spend ourselves into insignificance.

Saturday, December 2, 2006 at 2:23:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Lurch,
9/11/01--everything changed that day. What changed was the U.S. approach to terrorism counreaction, in the blink of an eye, or the flash of several airplanes, if you prefer.

I still feel the old approach, to which rest of the world still adheres, is the correct model. There was a time rule of law meant something to this nation. Thanks again.

Saturday, December 2, 2006 at 4:25:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Roger that, Martin. The U.S. did not dismantle the Soviet Union; rather, their Afganistan misadventures and militray overreach did. Sounds familiar.

Saturday, December 2, 2006 at 4:27:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Martin K said...

Its hard not to become a conspiracy theorist in a world where these people live and act. Stories like http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1962245,00.html concerning the fiscal maneuvers of the early administration of Iraq leaves me baffled:. I quote:
"Mr Bowen's office found that nearly $9bn in Iraqi oil revenues could not be accounted for. The cash was flown into the country in shrink-wrapped bundles on military transport planes and handed over by the ton to Iraqi ministries by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) run by Paul Bremer, a veteran diplomat."

What they did was to fly in bricks of cash and simply hand them out, and never mind specification or reciepts, thank you. I mean, WTF? How did *that* plan get through military high command? "So, sir, how are we going to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, sir?" "Well fly in 9 billion in cash, give them to our friends, then we'll fire the Iraqi army and send them to unemployment. That should fix it". "But sir..." "No buts, private, off you go".

And nobody gets more than a slap on the wrists if they get caught, of course. I mean, these are republican criminals, not your everyday purse-snatcher. You cant expect them to do *serious* jail, can you? After all, theyre not nigg...

Sorry for ranting, it just keeps on amazing me. I do not understand how a system can evolve wich does not have any checks or balances, and lets people put into order at best halfassed, at worst downright professionally criminal plans like this. I knew Rummy had fired all the intelligent intelligence people, but did he fire every honest accountant as well?

Sunday, December 3, 2006 at 12:13:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Martin,
I am as amazed as you. As you say, where is the oversight, and where is honesty. I feel as Diogenes did.

And in the meantaime, hnest veterans must fight to get medical benefits they have earned.

Sunday, December 3, 2006 at 9:26:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home