JOURNAL: Global Guerrilla Math II

For global guerrillas, size (the number of group members) doesn't matter. In fact, it is a liability. Strategic global guerrilla groups will remain small. The reason is that larger groups are vulnerable. They couldn't maintain the high level of operational security (OPSEC) necessary to stay alive if they were any larger. Size isn't necessary for impressive results. Global guerrilla tactics of network disruption provide extreme levels of leverage. Additionally, attrition can easily be compensated for. Frankly, Islamic global guerrillas have an unlimited number of recruits to draw from, more than enough to replace any losses. They can now afford to take only the best. On the tactical/local level within failed states (Iraq for example); global guerrillas can create the conditions necessary for the rapid proliferation of groups via a bazaar of violence. These local GG clones both amplify (through stigmergic imitation) and protect (through white noise) global guerrillas operating in the country.

Comments

[praktike]

OT:

"KSM presents himself as an entrepreneur seeking venture capital and peo ple. He simply wanted al Qaeda to supply the money and operatives needed for the attack while retaining his independence. It is easy to question such a statement. Money is one thing; supplying a cadre of trained operatives willing to die is much more.Thus, although KSM contends he would have been just as likely to consider working with any comparable terrorist organization, he gives no indication of what other groups he thought could supply such exceptional commodities."

p. 154

Monopsony?

[praktike]

(911 report)

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf#page=171

[John Robb]

That's excellent thanks. This is an excellent example of the global guerrilla venture capital model. Of course, if he had his own cadre, it would have been easier to get money and administrative (intelligence, documents, safe houses, etc.) support from OBL.

[praktike]

But the question, it seems, is whether a "healthy" buyers market has emerged since that time. I think it was Michael Ware (TIME Bureau chief) who has made the point that this may be the case in Iraq. The jihadi video he came across suggests that funders want proof that their money isn't going to be "wasted."

[John Robb]

There is always going to be a demand for proof of a good ROI from these investments. It's part of the essential robustness of the "bazaar" of violence in Iraq.

I think that given the quantity and quality of the attacks we have seen so far, there is a "healthy" competitive marketplace.

[chuck]

I think now it's proven that it was not healthy.

[gemma]

Great post, came over this nice stuff today.