Knowing thy Al Qaeda Enemy - Time (Money), Money, People
I just finished reading the infamous John Kerry interview that appeared in the Times Magazine this weekend.
I won't bother with the mischaracterizations from the Twitchy campaign that led me to search for the article in the first place. Waste of time. The article is interesting because it shows an understanding of terrorism by Kerry that, i wasn't aware of and that is worthy of serious consideration. It reflects a studied and more realistic approach. So, I am wondering how does he begin to communicate this? Because apparently, that is the problem. I will say though - it pisses me off to no-end when pundits say, "I have no idea where Kerry stands..." on this or that issue. Usually, it's because they were not listening or they have no bothered to read his publications on the matter. but, I digress. I am trying to fashion a communicable message from what interpret from that article.
question: When was the last time al-Qaeda attacked a military target? Forget Iraq for a second, because that, without Dubya's misadventures, would not exist? And how many times has Al-Qaeda threatened or attacked US military strength directly. I can think of the USS Cole off-the-cuff. Everything other attack has been targeted at civilian and diplomatic structures, and each attack is a deliberately and carefully planned exercise which uses time, money and people. Time is probably the biggest cost (factor) here, followed by money then people. Time must also be calculated in dollars and cents. Benjamin Franklin said, "Time is Money." It costs money, to feed/educate/motivate and train a patient militant. So that is the nature of the enemy: Money, money and people.
Issue One: Money and more Money
Take, the worst attack, how much did that cost? $250 000 (estimate). In other words, without access to the 250K, there could not have beeen a 9/11. There perhaps could have been something on a smaller scale, but certinly not that big. Somebody had to pay for those flight lessons, identify suitable militant leaders who could speak (some) English, bring them here, house and feed them. So, if you preemptively find/kill/ remove the (potential) suppliers of the 250K then you have eaten at the first and second biggest contributor to terrorism. Correct? So going after Osama Bin Forgotten makes sense. Except, he is not the only financial sympathisers to the cause, there are many others, known and unknown. The biggest challenge is being able to detect these people and attacking the channels they use to funnel money to their terrorist master plans. Correct?
This is not a problem you assign to the US military. This is a problem for intelligence not just in America, but across the globe. Think Inter-pol on steroids and local intelligence agencies on THG. This is also a problem for systems-people, technology systems, I mean. Oh by the way, you also need a lot Arab-speaking intelligence and systems - otherwise you are fucked. If there was any sembalnce of reality in the war on terror, there would be a boon for learning Arabic: dot.com start-up salaries for those who spoke Arabic, looked Arabic or black.
Issue Two: People ( The Recruits)
This is a more complex problem, but bear in mind that without money, you can't support the influx of people into the movemment. It's no accident that the movement is flooded by unemployed young people.
I am guessing here, but:
1) Old-fashioned spy-ware, people infiltration into the movement. Again you can't do it with white people who speak English. Your best bet: Arabs and black people who speak Arabic. John Kerry has suggested more special forces - okay, sensisble enough.
2) Constructive engagement with poorer nations of this world. This is never going to fly with insularists, but the fact of the matter is, while the rest of the world lives in abject poverty and America and its allies continue to prosper, rightly or wrongly, there will always be willing recruits - religion is just a motivational tool, and framework to make sense of the battle. The bad news is obvious, pick your own. The good news is, you merely have to be seen engaging in promising actions that inspire hope to begin making headway. Keyword: hope.
3) Fix the fucking Israeli-Palestine conflict; if the South Africans could negotiate their shit, these folk can do the same. For so long as this is a problem, and Israel get however many billion dollars from the US for its defense every year, there will be plenty religious zealots to act as potential recruits. This is so, whether you agree or disagree with the said religious zealots. You want to sort out the people factor, fix this particular problem. It's NOT the people who agree with you who attack you.
[you can take these in any order of priority-- you should probably tackle them all at once though]
4) Educate military personnel in Arabic culture and sensitivies, just in case you wind up in an Iraqi-type situation.
Issue three: USING THE MILITARY
I won't bother with the mischaracterizations from the Twitchy campaign that led me to search for the article in the first place. Waste of time. The article is interesting because it shows an understanding of terrorism by Kerry that, i wasn't aware of and that is worthy of serious consideration. It reflects a studied and more realistic approach. So, I am wondering how does he begin to communicate this? Because apparently, that is the problem. I will say though - it pisses me off to no-end when pundits say, "I have no idea where Kerry stands..." on this or that issue. Usually, it's because they were not listening or they have no bothered to read his publications on the matter. but, I digress. I am trying to fashion a communicable message from what interpret from that article.
question: When was the last time al-Qaeda attacked a military target? Forget Iraq for a second, because that, without Dubya's misadventures, would not exist? And how many times has Al-Qaeda threatened or attacked US military strength directly. I can think of the USS Cole off-the-cuff. Everything other attack has been targeted at civilian and diplomatic structures, and each attack is a deliberately and carefully planned exercise which uses time, money and people. Time is probably the biggest cost (factor) here, followed by money then people. Time must also be calculated in dollars and cents. Benjamin Franklin said, "Time is Money." It costs money, to feed/educate/motivate and train a patient militant. So that is the nature of the enemy: Money, money and people.
I raised the military attack question for the simple reason that military forces are usually designed with opposing military forces in mind. If you are unlikely to ever face an opposing military force (in the form of Al Qaeda batallions and brigades, or whatever), then the military option at best is a backup plan. Use that , if you can't think of anything else to do, or if for some reason the enemy convenes an organized batallion or whatever (i am showing my girlie knowlegde about the military here). You could harldy use the US military against those 19 hi-jackers pre- their commandeering of those flights. No amount of pre-emptive military action could have stopped that lot, they were mostly here in the US anyway - once the decision to plan the attack was conceived. So, the military option while dramatic is not necessarily the most effective in this case. So, follow the money.
Issue One: Money and more Money
Take, the worst attack, how much did that cost? $250 000 (estimate). In other words, without access to the 250K, there could not have beeen a 9/11. There perhaps could have been something on a smaller scale, but certinly not that big. Somebody had to pay for those flight lessons, identify suitable militant leaders who could speak (some) English, bring them here, house and feed them. So, if you preemptively find/kill/ remove the (potential) suppliers of the 250K then you have eaten at the first and second biggest contributor to terrorism. Correct? So going after Osama Bin Forgotten makes sense. Except, he is not the only financial sympathisers to the cause, there are many others, known and unknown. The biggest challenge is being able to detect these people and attacking the channels they use to funnel money to their terrorist master plans. Correct?
This is not a problem you assign to the US military. This is a problem for intelligence not just in America, but across the globe. Think Inter-pol on steroids and local intelligence agencies on THG. This is also a problem for systems-people, technology systems, I mean. Oh by the way, you also need a lot Arab-speaking intelligence and systems - otherwise you are fucked. If there was any sembalnce of reality in the war on terror, there would be a boon for learning Arabic: dot.com start-up salaries for those who spoke Arabic, looked Arabic or black.
Issue Two: People ( The Recruits)
This is a more complex problem, but bear in mind that without money, you can't support the influx of people into the movemment. It's no accident that the movement is flooded by unemployed young people.
I am guessing here, but:
1) Old-fashioned spy-ware, people infiltration into the movement. Again you can't do it with white people who speak English. Your best bet: Arabs and black people who speak Arabic. John Kerry has suggested more special forces - okay, sensisble enough.
2) Constructive engagement with poorer nations of this world. This is never going to fly with insularists, but the fact of the matter is, while the rest of the world lives in abject poverty and America and its allies continue to prosper, rightly or wrongly, there will always be willing recruits - religion is just a motivational tool, and framework to make sense of the battle. The bad news is obvious, pick your own. The good news is, you merely have to be seen engaging in promising actions that inspire hope to begin making headway. Keyword: hope.
3) Fix the fucking Israeli-Palestine conflict; if the South Africans could negotiate their shit, these folk can do the same. For so long as this is a problem, and Israel get however many billion dollars from the US for its defense every year, there will be plenty religious zealots to act as potential recruits. This is so, whether you agree or disagree with the said religious zealots. You want to sort out the people factor, fix this particular problem. It's NOT the people who agree with you who attack you.
[you can take these in any order of priority-- you should probably tackle them all at once though]
4) Educate military personnel in Arabic culture and sensitivies, just in case you wind up in an Iraqi-type situation.
Issue three: USING THE MILITARY
The military option should be the least concern for any administration, and I m not being glib. Why? the US Military is the strongest in the world! Any questions? Identified enemies can be taken at will, really. This ultimately goes without saying. Dubya is not responsible for US military strength. He isn't. Strong on terror, doesn't actually mean he makes the military stronger. It is given to him that way, just like it would be given to Kerry or anyone else that way. It's actually very easy to be "strong on terror" by calling on the military. The difficulty is in making calculated moves on when and when not to use the military, and in finding alternatives that will work in fighting or reducing terrorism. Sending the man and women into battle while you watch idly from the WH on TV, (pronouncing, "Iraq is hard work") is hardly strong, nor indeed heroic. The label strong really refers to the fighting men and women. They are strong on terror. Any questions?
posted by knikik at 6:46 AM
<< Home