TERRORIST DEATH-MARCH

A death-march is a term used in the software development world for projects that fail despite extreme sacrifice (time, effort, money, health, etc.) by the project teams. Terrorism as we know is a death-march project. The reason is that traditional terrorism suffers diminishing returns the more that it is used. The reasons for this include:

• Desensitization of the audience. Traditional terrorism, like violent crime, will increasingly become part of the fabric of daily life for targeted populations. Over time, people will "tune it out" and return to the travails of daily life.
• Declining media coverage. In response to a decline in interest among targeted populations, the media will relegate terrorist incidents to the back-page. This is already going on in regards to casualties in Iraq. The operative term in news is NEW.
• A lack of "evergreen" damage. Outside of the psychological impact (which declines due to overuse) of terrorist attacks, there is little lasting damage to the target. Occasionally, there is collateral damage to economic infrastructure or systems. However, this type of damage takes the backseat in planning to a "high body count."

To compensate for this decline in effectiveness, terrorists have developed a series of work-arounds. These include:

• Increasing lethality (increasing scale). A general trend in terrorism, since the seventies, has been an increase in the median lethality per attack. Higher body-counts compensate for the desensitization of target populations and generate the needed media coverage. However, the increasing proliferation of groups (via the bin Laden and Hamas VC/incubator system) may deplete the "currency of scale" through more numerous and less well planned small attacks.
• A wider venue (increasing breadth). Terrorists have extended their reach to new geographies. The attack on Spain (and planned attacks on the UK) as well as the hostage crisis in Iraq (Japan, China, Russia, Germany, etc.) has served to increase the psychological impact of terrorism. New "start-ups" will serve as a way to quickly exploit this "opportunity space" and as a result, these attacks will suffer the same diminishing returns they do in the traditional venues.
• Selective targets with political potential (increasing focus). Attacks that have political consequence -- during the final days of an election or during a symbolic holiday for example -- have proven effective. However, the political learning curve is often quick.

These work-arounds to the quicksand of diminishing returns won't work in the long-run. At a point in the near future, traditional terrorism will fail to offer the means necessary to terrorize. It will hit the limits of conventional munitions and techniques to continue scale increases. It will also run out of new (breadth and focus) targets to attack. At that point, terrorists will either innovaten (enter rational decision making) or continue on a grinding death-march using traditional methods (an effort that leads to dissolution). Here is what this means:

• One path of innovation will be to acquire a nuclear weapon. However, it is unlikely that terrorists will gain access to nuclear weapons in any relevant time period. Nuclear weapons, despite the pulp fiction to the contrary, are difficult to obtain and deploy. So, its likely that the nuclear path is a dead-end.
• Another, more viable terrorist innovation will be to adapt tactics to provide evergreen returns on effort. This next generation terrorism will consist of sustained attacks on systems. The evergreen return: dislocation and economic damage. These new methods will serve to bridge the gap between conventional terror and nuclear terror.
• A new emphasis on systems disruption will catch existing counter-terrorist forces unaware and unprepared. These security forces are constrained by historical precedent without reference to the major changes going on in the nature of the terrorist forces arrayed against us.

Comments

[Robert Pratt]

First, great website. Deep, cogent writing always lends credibility to any medium.

But although I agree with most of your article "The Terrorist Death-March", I feel that several important considerations have been ignored. And I do not mean purposefully.

The idea that terrorist networks can engage in sustained attacks on targets is untenable, even should the creative minds exist to promote them.

First, terrorist networks have intelligent and capable people. Fortunately for us, these people are concentrated at the top, and number perhaps 2-3 dozen individuals worldwide. I say it is fortunate, because the nature of their business means they cannot maintain corporate-like structures with frequent, predictable reporting, regular cash flows, etc.

Most, but not all of those people at the top of their respective organizations are known. New individuals seem generally to be able to effectively plan an attack once, after which they are quickly exposed. This forces them to engage in intermittent communication, devise standing orders and protocols for their foot soldiers that enable them to act on their own for extended periods of time.

No officer in any government, corporate, or military setting would ever like to be in this position, because it leads to sloppy behaviour. Police in England had no trouble tracking down the flat where bomb-making materials were used.

In short: People who would require supervision in any normal environment are placed in an extraordinary environment and then left alone.

Second, the nature of suicide bombing means that each time an attack is made, new recruits must be found, molded, taught, and eventually brought around to thinking that suicide in the name of Allah, or for a cause, is in their best interest. Terrorist networks are quite capable of finding individuals who are disenfranchised for any reason - economics, socially, religiously, politically - but minor modifications in how we in free societies treat people who are disenfranchised would make this a difficult endeavour. In any case, it takes a great deal of time to fully recruit any individual footsoldier to the cause. And sometimes, a great deal of money.

The fact that the 2nd 'attack' on London was not a suicide bombing should illustrate this point. Suicide bombers cannot be used ad infinitum. The 2nd attack on London stopped the London transit system, but only around those areas that were directly affected. Yes they were transport hubs, but the effect will still answer to the law of diminishing returns.

Third, the number of active terrorists on the ground who are planning attacks is proscribed by the limitations on communications between members of any terrorist organization, and between members and their leaders. There are also limits on financial resources that can be delivered. Of course, the top leaders have no problem with finances. The issue is in delivering these funds to where they will be needed.

Worldwide, banking systems are becoming more complementary. Even previously 'secret' jurisdictions such as the Cayman islands and Switzerland have made important concessions in the past, and are moving towards more openness. They understand that what is good for business is honest expertise. They may still offer tax considerations, but the day of the secret bank account in a world bank is almost over.

Fourth, while the shock that the bombers in London were British-born of Pakistani descent was real, this will only concentrate minds better. It was a one-off, because by and large, Muslim communities in western societies are family-conservative, but socially liberal. What I mean by this is that they understand that they live in a pluralistic society with dozens of different belief systems, and that generally our only requirement is that your belief system must not involve the physical or psychological harm of another. If you can adhere to this one requirement, you will not be harrassed, and most western countries have enacted laws to punish those who will harrass, or promote hate.

That the London bombers were British citizens will awaken everyone, including the majority of Muslims in all western countries, that they need to look to their own as well. They enjoy the fruits of our civilization, and are citizens. They will not easily give up the freedom to live as they choose.

And that is an important point. The freedom to live as they choose, and not how some mullah they never heard of chooses.

Finally, it seems that 2/3 of the world does not know how we who are the lucky got to be here, despite a lot of freely available information. In their societies, information is secret and hidden, the leaders are above the law, and yet make the law. I understand Kim Jong Il loves his liquor, and loves a lot of it at once.

We are multi-party democracies that adhere to the rule of law, but more importantly, we all adhere to certain basic principles in devising that law. Our simple, basic requirement is that your beliefs do not hurt your family physically or psychologically, or hurt anyone else.

I do not believe that there is ANY organization capable of sustained attacks on the infrstructure of any western country.

What I do believe is that each time they do so, they will seal their doom more effectively, because the history of all of us shows that we are at our best when we are threatened, and despite our individuality and our differences, we can act as one when it is necessary.

I will ramble here a bit....edit as you see fit.

Afghanistan was strike 1. It made them believers in our capability, and in their own weakness. Strike 2. Iraq. illegal in many eyes, but his brutal regime tortured people to death with vile methods that only very creative minds can imagine. Electric shock to the genitals, hands, arms, legs cut off and tied so the victim does not die. Or quick, and only eaten by a tiger in a few minutes. Use your imagination more. Imagine the whims of an absolutely brutal leadership caste. I try but I cannot. They revelled in their absolute power.

Strike 3 will be when we engage in large scale operations in countries we consider friend, but for whatever reason, political, religious....cannot find those who would seek to kill only in the name of killing.

I am thinking Syria, Pakistan, Egypt...and a few others. That Iraqi's actually voted in those areas that weren't terrorized is proof that whatever their affiliation, they still want to live as free citizens in a free society.

In our Dark Ages, it was the Muslims who were the beacon of light and knowledge and plurality. Let's help them remember that. Let us bring the light back to them as they carried it for us for 400 years.

Sincerely, and always, Cheers!

Rob