JOURNAL: Bin Laden and Economic Attrition

Very interesting elements from the rest of OBL's video (from a transcript that includes the missing 14 minutes). This is strong support for global guerrilla warfare (which uses system attacks to cause economic attrition -- see my earlier journal entry on this). Here's what he said:

"All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration." NOTE: See Superpower Baiting for more on this topic.

"All that we have to do is to send two  Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies. This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the Mujahideen, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat."

"So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy ." "...for example, al-Qaida spent $500 000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost – according to the lowest estimate – more than 500 billion dollars."  "Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs."

Comments

[Jay Campbell]

John, this bin Laden speech certainly validates the theories you have been knitting together here. On reading it I ran over here to make sure you'd seen it. Great work.

[Charles Cameron]

Hi John, all…

If I may back up a bit, before returning to this point...

Bruce Sterling gave a ringing endorsement to your blog (which I also much appreciate), but followed up with a comment which left me feeling that Sterling has only half the picture. He wrote:

:: The problem with 4th Generation Warfare theorists
:: is that they still think that Al Qaeda susses out
:: the global situation much the way that they do.
:: This just isn't so. Al Qaeda thinks of themselves
:: as a madrassa, a seminary for martyrs. They don't
:: analyze systemic vulnerabilities in terms of single
:: points of failure or leveraged returns on
:: investment.

http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/sterling/index.blog?entry_id=498758

Al Qaeda does indeed see itself through the lens of a passionate Islamic dedication, in my view – that's the half that Sterling vividly gets, as does "Anonymous", while many other western observers miss it almost completely – but Al-Q also does its homework on such topics as fourth generation warfare, as evidenced by the citations from such sources as the Marine Corps Gazette and Parameters in the footnotes to "Fourth-Generation Wars" by Abu 'Ubeid Al-Qurashi.

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=middleeast&ID=SP34402

And -- to return to the current topic -- as we're seeing here, it also and quite specifically takes note of ROI, as exemplified by bin Laden's comment, which I'll quote in just a little more detail than before to bring out one final irony:

:: And it was to these sorts of notions and their like
:: that the British diplomat and others were referring
:: in their lectures at the Royal Institute of
:: International Affairs (when they pointed out that)
:: for example, al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event,
:: while America in the incident and its aftermath
:: lost-according to the lowest estimate-more than 500
:: billion dollars, meaning that every dollar of
:: al-Qa'ida defeated a million dollars by the
:: permission of Allah besides the loss of a huge
:: number of jobs.

So: let's get it all straight: Al-Qaida members are not only religiously devoted in various passionate ways that may exceed our grasp – they're also savvy to 4GW and ROIs, and do their homework.

Even when some of the analysis is done for them by the Royal Institute of International Affairs!

[John Robb]

Thanks Jay! Charles, you are right on!

[nathan]

I think John has got it just right. The parallels between this global conflict and the Cold War seem apparent in several areas, as a general statement. In the end Afghanistan, MAD theory, and the bluff-threat of Star Wars pushed an intellectually insufficient economic system like the Soviet Union’s “war communism” into collapse. In that case the U. S. mostly just went toe-to-toe or dollar-for-dollar and a market economy won out against that convoluted and mathematically improbable system communist Russia was clunking along on. Bin Laden, as in his own words, saw this manifest itself in Afghanistan. He was smart enough to learn a general lesson from a specific example. He (in terms of efficiency) is doing an even better job as he is using a jujitsu approach (the 1 dollar to 1 million dollar example). I think that it might even work if the western powers attempt to fight this war on a defensive only posture. All it takes then is “for two Al Quida operatives to race somewhere, raise the flag and we move heaven and earth to kill them,” and it costs a hundred million dollars. They could stick and move and bleed us dry.
However a free market economy is not a war communism economy. We can hold out for a whole hell of a lot longer than a Soviet Union, unless we lose the hearts and minds of the American people in which case a capitulation candidate could be elected. (this is not a discussion or political statement about this year’s election, just a general philosophy point).
The only answer is a combination of massive intelligence efforts and extreme, blood thirsty even, aggressive action. We are premiere at economic espionage, marry that to a policy of punitive assassinations to all people helping jihadists at all levels and the support structure evaporates over time--not all guerrilla insurgencies are successful, for god’s sake. But the lessons from those conflicts that were won, clearly show that it takes a high, high level of aggression to defeat them. If I may make a rather ugly and politically incorrect point; the Native American insurgencies against the U. S. government stand as an example. Warrior for warrior, maneuver warfare to maneuver warfare, the Indians were pretty damn tough. Once the warrior was disconnected from his food source (the buffalo) from his base of operations (destroyed villages or heavily monitored reservations) the warrior fell to slow, steady attrition. Yes this is a horrible example--but still an example of how a big power fought a driven, ruthless, phantom enemy, and won.
Find the buffalo of the jhiadist (sp) drive them to extinction. Find the Taliban tee pee villages and burn them, this may be what it takes, victory may be this ugly. But it may be the only way. Besides, afterwards they can open up casinos and live very well, lol.
Anyway, if western powers fight a defensive war then this kind of present economic judo can’t help but win, it is the superior strategy, though America can holdout a lot longer than the Soviet Union. Only extreme aggression will win in this case.

[Strategic Armchair Command]

Well, the concept of "extreme aggression" can be interpreted many ways, but considering it in general, I'm not so sure it's a great idea. Extreme aggression almost always leads to very bad unintended consequences that backfire on the 'aggresssor'. It feels a bit like a blunt tool approach that smashes more innocent people then guerrillas. In fact, the Soviets used extreme aggression in Afghanistan and lost. We don't need extreme aggression. We need extreme precision -- which would also be efficient.

As for cavalry vs. indians, I don't know enough about those wars to be sure, but even if the Indians were outnumbered, I think they were more 'conventional' skirmishes rather that real guerrilla warfare, perhaps until the end when only a few indian bands were left.

[Strategic Armchair Command]

While Bin Laden has talked about economic guerrilla warfare before, he has really seemed to place a premium on it now. I wonder if this is because he has found it difficult to actually carry out military attacks against the US, but has realized that the one successful aspect of his campaign has been to cost the US financially. He seems to be honing his strategy.

[nathan]

You maybe right about economic focus, Bin Laden may have seen a soft underbelly and gone for it as opposed to fighting at this from the start. However if your going to make assumptions about a foe, assume he’s smarter, stronger, faster than he is, instead of the opposite. . .
I agree that pinpoint accuracy is superior to blunt flailing. Does it however become the litmus test in the use of force? Especially if your enemy is not so surgical? I would equate this to stepping into a boxing ring following the Marcus of Queensbury’s Rules after tying your right arm behind your back. Now your opponent gets in the ring. All limbs unrestrained and fighting No Holds Barred.
Precision is nice. Precision is to be preferred but in war there is a place for the hammer as well as the dagger.
While a person eager to split hairs might argue that the plains Indians used maneuver warfare I think that the Indian Wars are held up historically as the quintessential examples of guerrilla warfare. It was a copying of Indian tactics that led to the fledging American victory against British “conventional” troops. The Indians never agreed to set piece battles, they rode around and attacked soft targets or isolated troop formations, hit and run, hit and run. It certainly looked nothing like the Civil War/Napoleon model current at the time and so was certainly “unconventional” warfare. Skirmish can be synonymous with guerrilla if the skirmish battle not part of larger tactics used to pin point enemy location for a massive “regular” attack.
Extreme aggression can be wedded to extreme precision, but not irrevocably. The Indian Wars were fought with a whole-hearted (rather savage and racist) extreme aggression. And America won. Again and again the example of Vietnam is used. Vietnam is war while violent (aren’t all wars by definition?) but where the government decided to impose restrictions on itself. Individual commanders might have been harsh but the policy overall was setup in such a way that military concerns were not given free command. And America lost.
On the surface your trepidation is right. What nice person would embrace the fact that in all guerilla wars only about 10% of casualties are ever combatant? (that percentage is a few years old). Sadly your right; innocents might be killed. While in a war, and given no other choice but this one: their dead innocents or yours, which do you choose?

[Marcello]

"Find the buffalo of the jhiadist (sp) drive them to extinction. Find the Taliban tee pee villages and burn them, this may be what it takes, victory may be this ugly"

The soviets tried that approach, it did not work very well if memory serves me.The russians are doing something like that in Chechenya.It is not working very well.Were/are the soviets/russians soft? Shelling cities soft? Burning down villages soft? Raping women soft? Systematic torturing soft? Spreading a country with landmines soft?

What if then your buffalo hunt leads us in Saudi Arabia? Do we bomb them and watch oil prices going throught the roof and our economies down the floor? Or perhaps you will tell me that the people who have given us the success story that is Iraq will handle a post invasion of Saudi Arabia flawlessy?

"We are premiere at economic espionage"

Yes,after all terrorists financial networks have no secrets for us...

"I think that it might even work if the western powers attempt to fight this war on a defensive only posture. All it takes then is “for two Al Quida operatives to race somewhere, raise the flag and we move heaven and earth to kill them,” and it costs a hundred million dollars. They could stick and move and bleed us dry"

Re read what you have actually written, they are trying to bait us into an OFFENSIVE.“for two Al Quida operatives to race somewhere, raise the flag and we MOVE HEAVEN AND EARTH TO KILL THEM” means that we are going on the OFFENSIVE.And that is what they want, overextend us and then bleed us dry.Our leaders may be indeed be right about the flypaper theory, but they got the roles wrong.

This hung go rhetoric does nothing to solve our problems.If put in practice it would only create guerillas faster than we can kill them.
There is only one way to make such policy work and that is bringing it to its logical consequences: the complete extermination of the civilian population.Or at least putting it under your direct control.Nothing less will do.If everyone is dead or under your boot then nobody can rebel.We can all agree on that, I believe.
The problem here is that the target population is not a few nomadic tribes that can be put in concentration camps like we did in Lybia and you did in the USA, thus making further resistance impossible.
We are dealing with a billion of muslims.ONE BILLION.
That limits our options rather severly.We cannot put them in reserves like the indians.We cannot wall them off like the israelis with the palestinians.We cannot deport them like Stalin did with the chechens.So what is left?
Nuclear carpet bombing,that's it. Even that is a non small feat.How do plan to secure most of the oil facilities while you rain nuclear fire over the gulf states? What do you do with states which have muslim minorities?

Therefore putting the enemy population out of the question is impractical for the reasons described above.
That is even if you are willing to go down history as the mass murderers who made the nazis look like as tea party.

We can try Nathan hammer (and the sickle?) approach and find ourselves fighting an attritional warfare against an enemy which outnumbers and outbreeds us by a wide margin.I do not see that ending up well.

Or we can try more indirect approaches to attempt to cut them from their support.Not every insurgency is a success, that is right.But counterinsurgency is a difficult businness.You have to play your cards well. And not creating a recruiting drive for the enemy by bombing first and asking questions later would be a good start.

[nathan]

The soviets tried that approach, it did not work very well if memory serves me.The russians are doing something like that in Chechenya.It is not working very well.Were/are the soviets/russians soft? Shelling cities soft? Burning down villages soft? Raping women soft? Systematic torturing soft? Spreading a country with landmines soft?

Let us be very clear on one historical point. Look at books written and look up newspaper accounts of that time. The Afghan's were doomed. The Afghan's had been reduced to less capability than the current Taliban, by a great margin. They had lost. Then what happened? The CIA with money, U. S. Special Forces bringing in the stinger missile system that brought the very HiND helicopters that had made the slaughter of Afghan's a forgone solution done in fireballs. Tide of war changes Afghan's now can fight back. The Soviet method was working, they just couldn't beat the U. S.

What if then your buffalo hunt leads us in Saudi Arabia? Do we bomb them and watch oil prices going throught the roof and our economies down the floor?

War is fought using a combined arms theory. Not just land sea air, but intelligence, propaganda, covert operations. Do you bomb a Saudi prince and his oil wells who is funding Al Quida? No. Do you assassinate him? Yes.

"We are premiere at economic espionage"
Yes,after all terrorists financial networks have no secrets for us...

Are we flawless, no. Are we still the best. Yes.

Re read what you have actually written, they are trying to bait us into an OFFENSIVE.“for two Al Quida operatives to race somewhere, raise the flag and we MOVE HEAVEN AND EARTH TO KILL THEM” means that we are going on the OFFENSIVE.And that is what they want, overextend us and then bleed us dry.Our leaders may be indeed be right about the flypaper theory, but they got the roles wrong.

I understand your confusion. Instead of using terms like offensive and defensive think of it as proactive vs. reactive. In the above scenario, and also in a traditional "defensive" posture you are REactive. Reactive is stupid. Proactive is good.

Therefore putting the enemy population out of the question is impractical for the reasons described above.
That is even if you are willing to go down history as the mass murderers who made the nazis look like as tea party.
We can try Nathan hammer (and the sickle?) approach and find ourselves fighting an attritional warfare against an enemy which outnumbers and outbreeds us by a wide margin.I do not see that ending up well.

A bit emotional written, but a valid point. However by "taking it to its logical conclusion" you have jumped ahead several steps on the continuum and structured the argument as an either/or dichotomy. One may marginalize a population without exterminating it. Break your population down by geographic area, don’t save 1 BILLION as if it were unified. Manipulate the internal politics so that they fight each other--hardly a stretch.
Point by point, tactic by tactic we could go back and forth. I stand by the statement that if you look at successful anti-insurgency campaigns from history they share common factors. Fighters are cut off from non-fighters, usually with a high collateral damage body count. Once that happens systematic killing takes place. Successful anti-guerilla campaigns are proactive vs. reactive. The victory ignores political outcry at the harshness of their tactics.
I could tell from the tone of your post that the idea of warfare this ugly disturbs you. Probably because you’re not a psycho. I don’t parrot this policy because I’m a murderous bastard gleeful cheering the deaths of women and children. I believe that history of successful campaigns bear out my beliefs. Are all campaigns fought this way successful? Of course not. Are any of those campaigns that were successful fought in using different strategies? No.
As a base to your argument ask yourself this question? Suppose I am correct about tactics (I could be wrong, not everyone agrees, I’m the first to admit), but suppose for a moment that I am right. If you had to be this ugly to win, would you choose to loose? If the answer is you’d rather loose than be brutal than our argument isn’t about tactics, but about philosophy. You can teach anyone HOW to fight, but you can’t make them WANT to fight.

[nathan]

Marcy, I didn't take it personal when you likened my simultaneously to communist and fascists, which is highly improbable as they are diametric opposites. However I don’t think you really meant it when you said:
“This hung go rhetoric does nothing to solve our problems.”
The sentence seems to imply a negative yet the word “rhetoric” is something of a compliment. I quote Webster’s; 1: the art of speaking or writing effectively; specific; the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times 2 a: skill in the effective use of speech b: a type or mode of langue. Is this what you meant? Thank you. ;>
The only negative associated with the word is : insincere or grandiloquent (to use big words) speech. I promise I’m entirely sincere, and I promise not to use big words.
I hope this lightens the mood. . .

[Marcello]

"Do you bomb a Saudi prince and his oil wells who is funding Al Quida? No. Do you assassinate him? Yes."

What if the source of funds is instead more widespread
than a couple of princes we can take care of?

"Are we flawless, no. Are we still the best. Yes"

Being the best (amongst who?) and up to the task are not the same thing.
Terrorism financing seems to make large use of traditional channels we appear to have preciously little intelligence about.

"A bit emotional written, but a valid point. However by "taking it to its logical conclusion" you have jumped ahead several steps on the continuum and structured the argument as an either/or dichotomy."

What happened to the indians? Yourself said that they were cut off from their food supply and put in concentration camps.That is not really practical with today massive populations.Again, what is left? I see only nukes.No,actually not even that.

"One may marginalize a population without exterminating it. Break your population down by geographic area, don’t save 1 BILLION as if it were unified. Manipulate the internal politics so that they fight each other--hardly a stretch."

So that would be your strategy to do the equivalent of putting the indians in the reserves?
If you think you can turn them easily on each other you are in for troubles.The problem is that people do not tend to fight among themselves or let themselves be easily manipulated when some foreigner is hammering them like you are suggesting we should do.Rallying around the flag in presence of an external threat is not an american exclusive.
Muslims especially are susceptible to this and tend to forget borders (usually artificial ones and imposed by us anyway) and pick up the rifle.How inconvenient for us.
But it happens so we have to deal with it, possibly by using tactics which do not turn the whole world muslim population into a Bin Laden constituency.

"Point by point, tactic by tactic we could go back and forth. I stand by the statement that if you look at successful anti-insurgency campaigns from history they share common factors. Fighters are cut off from non-fighters, usually with a high collateral damage body count. Once that happens systematic killing takes place. Successful anti-guerilla campaigns are proactive vs. reactive. The victory ignores political outcry at the harshness of their tactics."

And yet again how do you exactly cut off the population from the fighters in a situation like, let's say, Iraq? Please,tell me.Stating what has happened in the indian wars and waving the hand is not a solution.Those were relatively small populations.Do we put twenty millions of iraqis in reserves? How?
The israeli forces are almost completely absorbed by the task of guarding the pens they are putting the palestinians into.I do not dare to imagine what would be the manpower requirements for doing that to Iraq.
Do we make them fight each other?We are trying just that in Iraq.It does not look like is working terribly well.
Maybe, just maybe, watching the USAF pounding your village redefines you priorities about who your enemies are at the moment.It is a thought worth considering.
We can well ignore political outcry.But muslim countries cannot.Are you prepared to pick up the pieces of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan if their regimes collapse? Are you prepared to see saudi oil infrastructure compromised by islamic terrorists?

Really, you have to get used to the idea that we are not in the american West circa 1870.Nor in the Philippines circa 1900.What worked then is not guaranteed to work now.Indeed the opposite is probably true.We live in a world of massive populations,economical interdependecy and instant communications.On top of that we are dependent on a commodity from whose sources we cannot afford to be cut off for a significant amount of time without paying a massive economical price.That gives problems that the USG back then simply did not have to worry about.

Regarding the moral question, that is a separate matter.
But one should define first who exactly are we fighting, for what reasons and with what objectives.If we invade a country one the sole basis that the local leader was an evil man who ran torture chambers which should be replaced with a democratic govrnment then I dare to say we have to win without having to resort to methods which are standards for african wars.If that is not possible then we have no businness being there.If we are fighting an organization like Al Qaeda we have an other question.
And so on.

[nathan]

Marcello, before addressing your points in specific let me point out some generalities. I have noticed a tone that in general is dismissive of America’s capabilities and tends to over inflate to the point of making them seem unstoppable, the Al Quida/Iraqi/“Moslem” opponent. As in (not a specific quote just illustration of over all tone) you don’t phrase things like “Hey America could do a better job at. . .it is instead; America will never. Or; our enemies are capable war-makers but we need to exploit this weakness. . .instead it is; America will never. . .” Add into this your use of terms like “Hung go, flag waving, etc, etc,” and you have given (to me at least) the impression of not minding in the least if America “lost” this conflict. This changes the nature of the disagreement we are having. In war, if not necessarily in politics or economic diplomacy in order to fight efficiently one must pick a side (even if you don’t agree with everything about your “side”), it is impossible to straddle the fence in the name of “fairness” and expect to win. Terms like gung ho or rallying around the flag are trite in peace time, they are not trite when you’ve been attacked. They are, in fact, the only way to achieve a set of mind that allows for victory. After victory allow yourself the luxury of being “fair” or complicated, not while trading blows.
Also I made the first statement so it is up to me defend my points, fair enough. You are however taking the intellectually easier task of shooting holes in proposals instead of offering proposals of your own. Still, I made the first statement, so ok. Now:
“What if the source of funds is instead more widespread
than a couple of princes we can take care of?:” Marcello, what is widespread? A network of ten, of a hundred, of a thousand? We can kill them all if that is what is called for. Plus, in reality, one death goes along way, financial backers aren’t suicide bombers. Make support risky to your life and the face of the equation changes. Right now they face harsh words. Bury a few.
"Are we flawless, no. Are we still the best. Yes"
“Being the best (amongst who?) and up to the task are not the same thing.
Terrorism financing seems to make large use of traditional channels we appear to have preciously little intelligence about”
I don’t even, truly--not being a smart ass here, what we are arguing about. Electronic intelligence/warfare, number crunching, computer hacking--really we are the best minds with the best toys--you know like saying water is wet, it’s wet. We’ve had massive success on a law enforcement front alone, who knows what the NSA and CIA are doing. Is it on going, sure, no ones says Al Quida is just going to give up. But really, this is like say their Air Force is just as good as our.
“What happened to the indians? Yourself said that they were cut off from their food supply and put in concentration camps. That is not really practical with today massive populations.” It has been done with the Taliban. It has been done with the Sunni population. For all intents and purpose the Sunni’s are they contained in a reservation.
“If you think you can turn them easily on each other you are in for troubles.”
Marcello, again you are speaking of Muslims as unified. In Iraq one of the problems of stability is that both the Kurds (north) and Shiites (South) are interested in civil war, both against the Sunni. If it was in our interest to fan the flames (in this case it is not) they would be at each other’s throats. This after the infidel invaded “all of their” country. Is Iraq a bloody problem? Yes. Do we face unified Moslem resistance? Not even close. Globally we are facing not Moslems but Sunni Moslems. Of the Sunni Moslems it is those who expose wahabism (sp) that are the fighters. Some may talk a good game, some may let a terrorist sleep on their coach or feed him a meal or donate 5 bucks, but the shooters are over whelming subscribers to this limited interpretation of Islam.
"And yet again how do you exactly cut off the population from the fighters in a situation like, let's say, Iraq? Please, tell me. Stating what has happened in the indian wars and waving the hand is not a solution. Those were relatively small populations. Do we put twenty millions of iraqis in reserves?” How? Intellectual/philosophic reservations would work just as well. Expanding on my example about Sunni/Shiite division. Covertly use influence and funds to prop up those clerics of Shiite who speak out against Sunni. Do the same with those Sunni opposed to Wahabism. Covertly start operations to discredit, bribe, black mail assassinate those vocal Wahabists. Overtly start funding/building schools that are at least open to ideas of pro-democracy. These divisions are deep, exploit them, keep the battles in the Sunni triangle, we have to fight them somewhere, that is a good place. This is macro, on micro; clan and tribal differences are even more “personal” and thus more easily poked.
“Maybe, just maybe, watching the USAF pounding your village redefines you priorities about who your enemies are at the moment.” Sure, but if you are defeated and capitulate, your priorities are null and void. Military force doesn’t win hearts and minds, it produces victories.
“We can well ignore political outcry. But Muslim countries cannot.” Not true. Pakistan is doing so very politically difficult things. Libya has been brought to heel. Syria is a huge pain in the butt, but not in the open.
“Are you prepared to pick up the pieces of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan if their regimes collapse? Are you prepared to see Saudi oil infrastructure compromised by Islamic terrorists?” We did so in German 2x, in Japan, in a handful of African countries, in Greece in the ‘50’s. Is it fun and easy? No. Are we capable? Yes.
“Really, you have to get used to the idea that we are not in the american West circa 1870.Nor in the Philippines circa 1900.What worked then is not guaranteed to work now. Indeed the opposite is probably true.”
You seem to be arguing that we can learn nothing from history. You are alone in this intellectual position. The battle of Thermophyle is still taught at West Point. Is this because American Generals expect to fight a bunch of modern battles in a narrow mountain pass in Greece? Of course not. But use of terrain as a tactic is just as pertinent today as it was then. You seem to have the specific mixed up with the big picture. When I said take away Al Quida’s buffalo I didn’t literal mean herds of bovine. I mean exploit their weakness, no matter how distasteful it might be to do so. This seems to tie in to what I said in my opening; you talk as if you didn’t think Al Quida has any weakness, or as if you don’t want them to. . .
“Regarding the moral question, that is a separate matter.
But one should define first who exactly are we fighting, for what reasons and with what objectives.” Sorry, this is a cop out to avoid making a firm stand. Motivations or causes of a war (speaking specifically to war now) aside, once your in it, you are in it. There is only two results; you win or loose. Are you willing to do what ever it takes to win?
“If we invade a country one the sole basis that the local leader was an evil man who ran torture chambers which should be replaced with a democratic government then I dare to say we have to win without having to resort to methods which are standards for african wars. If that is not possible then we have no business being there.” You and I may personally agree on the subject of Iraq. However that isn’t why we invaded. (do we need to rehash why? We are there and loosing now would be disastrous to the U.S) Also it is in our global strategic interests to have lynch pins geographically like Afghanistan and Iraq.
Let me close by defining “extreme aggression” a bit more succinctly. That term can be general enough to cause consternation. I’ll use this example; In 1979 Jimmy Carter was president and there were several dozen hostages in Tehran. He launched an aggressive reaction--he attempted to invade, rescue by force and escape with the hostages. It failed. He flatly refused the “extreme aggression” option. His spec-war advisors said “hey rescue is tough, don’t know if we can pull it of. But the CIA has given us some Intel that suggests that kidnapping the Ayatollah has about an 80% chance of succeeding. We can trade him straight across with no fuss and keep the whole thing secret” Carter replied; “We are America, we don’t do that to Holy Men.” A lesson from history.

[evariste]

Powerful validation from the top man himself.

[Marcello]

"I have noticed a tone that in general is dismissive of America’s capabilities and tends to over inflate to the point of making them seem unstoppable, the Al Quida/Iraqi/“Moslem” opponent."

Our superiority is founded primarily on superior technology.That carries the day when we are fighting conventional battles.Such advantage is for a significant part eaten away in a counterinsurgency scenario.On the other hand things like willingness to kill yourself and birthrates are big equalizers (hint, look at chechen women fertility rate and you will see why the russians have the problems they have).
Our national security bureaucries are then particularly vulnerable to being tricked by a ruthless foe capable of thinking out of the box.911 being a case point.So,no
we do not have all the advantages we appear to have on paper.

"I don’t even, truly--not being a smart ass here, what we are arguing about. Electronic intelligence/warfare, number crunching, computer hacking--really we are the best minds with the best toys"

That is part of the problem.In the muslim world are still widespread financial networks that would leave our gadgets with very little to hear.Because they are not electronics based (that is how immigrants money get back to theifamilies in places like the Horn of Africa, for example).We need more human intelligence (and yes,that is one of my modest proposals by the way).

"Marcello, what is widespread? A network of ten, of a hundred, of a thousand? We can kill them all if that is what is called for."

Just like we can easily stop drug traffickers by killing them all, I imagine.And yes terrorism is financed even in this way, so it is a pertinent example.In real life things are not that simple.

"For all intents and purpose the Sunni’s are they contained in a reservation."

Someone ought to tell them that, because apparently judging from the strings of attacks they are mounting they missed that.

"Covertly use influence and funds to prop up those clerics of Shiite who speak out against Sunni. Do the same with those Sunni opposed to Wahabism. Covertly start operations to discredit, bribe, black mail assassinate those vocal Wahabists. Overtly start funding/building schools that are at least open to ideas of pro-democracy. These divisions are deep, exploit them, keep the battles in the Sunni triangle, we have to fight them somewhere, that is a good place. This is macro, on micro; clan and tribal differences are even more “personal” and thus more easily poked."

It sounds like a good plan.It might even work, but only if you enable the fissures to develop.When you start to pound cities with bombs and indirect fire people will tend to put apart their differences and face the common enemy.A predictable pattern.Guerilla groups which have nothing in common and would normally kill each other are collaborating to drive us out.Again nothing of new.

"In Iraq one of the problems of stability is that both the Kurds (north) and Shiites (South) are interested in civil war, both against the Sunni"

The shiites want power, not civil war.And some of them have alredy turned their guns on us (Al Sadr anyone?).That is an additional problem for us.The Kurds are an other headache along the way.

"Sure, but if you are defeated and capitulate, your priorities are null and void"

I seem to recall that Iraq was defeated in 2003 but evidently some iraqis have missed the capitulation part.

"Pakistan is doing so very politically difficult things."

Musharraf sits on a tottering throne (one of these days one of those assanination attempts will succeed and I do not dare to think about what happens next), and so his saudi colleague and Mubarak.Are you willing to bet that they will manage to hold on if we, let's say, start to get medieval on the iraqi population? Maybe they will but that is not a bet I am willing to make.

"Are you prepared to see Saudi oil infrastructure compromised by Islamic terrorists?” We did so in German 2x, in Japan, in a handful of African countries, in Greece in the ‘50’s. Is it fun and easy? No. Are we capable? Yes."

Sorry to break the bad news,but things are not going well in Iraq on that front.Our ability to mantain oil infrastructure operating in face of enemy sabotage is at the best mixed, as it has been documented on this website numerous times.If such attacks happened in Saudi Arabia the consequences for oil prices and the world economy would not be something I enjoy thinking about.An oil shock like that of the 70's is something that I would prefer to avoid in the current economical climate.If the USA gets a cold we get a flu, so do not assume that I am wishing for an american defeat.

[nathan]

"Our superiority is founded primarily on superior technology.That carries the day when we are fighting conventional battles.Such advantage is for a significant part eaten away in a counterinsurgency scenario. On the other hand things like willingness to kill yourself and birthrates are big equalizers (hint, look at chechen women fertility rate and you will see why the russians have the problems they have).
Our national security bureaucries are then particularly vulnerable to being tricked by a ruthless foe capable of thinking out of the box.911 being a case point. So,no
we do not have all the advantages we appear to have on paper.
I agree 100% with what you just wrote. We need to emulate outside the box (extreme aggression) thinking. We can do this as well as anyone.
That is part of the problem. In the muslim world are still widespread financial networks that would leave our gadgets with very little to hear.Because they are not electronics based (that is how immigrants money get back to theifamilies in places like the Horn of Africa, for example).We need more human intelligence (and yes, that is one of my modest proposals by the way).
We may have to agree to disagree on this point. (however you’re right more human intel) I just don’t see this as a failure, but rather as a work in progress.
“Just like we can easily stop drug traffickers by killing them all, I imagine. And yes terrorism is financed even in this way, so it is a pertinent example. In real life things are not that simple.”
Since an aggressive president who openly fights corruptuion in his own governement and FARC has been in place in Columbia things look a lot better statistically along the border as far as tonnage being down. Not what I want but compass pointed in right direction.
“Someone ought to tell them that, because apparently judging from the strings of attacks they are mounting they missed that.” Yes, but not outside of Sunni triangle. We have a contained battlefield.
“It sounds like a good plan. It might even work, but only if you enable the fissures to develop. When you start to pound cities with bombs and indirect fire people will tend to put apart their differences and face the common enemy.” I agree. There is an inheirent, assumed flexibility in what I am talking about. Fallujah we tried to fineness--no luck. Now we pound.
“The shiites want power, not civil war. And some of them have alredy turned their guns on us (Al Sadr anyone?).That is an additional problem for us.The Kurds are an other headache along the way.” Here I disagree. Kurds aren’t a headache, they’re an ace in the hole. Al Sadr? We lured him out of a holy site we were to nice to pound and back into a slum by pretending to give in. Then we surrounded him and prepared to use the hammer. He agreed to turn in his arms for the equivlant of being allowed to be mayor of Sadr City. Carrot and stick, brought to heel. Yes Shiite want more power, and yes they were looking at Sunni’s with knife and fork in hand, civil war.
"Sure, but if you are defeated and capitulate, your priorities are null and void"
I seem to recall that Iraq was defeated in 2003 but evidently some iraqis have missed the capitulation part.” Yes some. Reduction then systematic killing. Work in progress.
“Musharraf sits on a tottering throne (one of these days one of those assanination attempts will succeed and I do not dare to think about what happens next), and so his saudi colleague and Mubarak. Are you willing to bet that they will manage to hold on if we, let's say, start to get medieval on the iraqi population? Maybe they will but that is not a bet I am willing to make.” Marcello, what is a bet your willing TO make? One where everything is all the way roses for us? Here’s the game, play it.
“Sorry to break the bad news,but things are not going well in Iraq on that front. Our ability to mantain oil infrastructure operating in face of enemy sabotage is at the best mixed, as it has been documented on this website numerous times.” Absolutely correct. Hence my belief in a change of focus in policy.
“If such attacks happened in Saudi Arabia the consequences for oil prices and the world economy would not be something I enjoy thinking about. An oil shock like that of the 70's is something that I would prefer to avoid in the current economical climate.” Your correct. Al Quida started as an anti-western influence movement with in Saudi. Had he been allowed to go unfettered just such a thing might have occurred. Now, if he is alive, he’s in a mud hut. As far as the Princes go; covert ops work on plausible deniability. Al Quida is killing people there now. To the world it could look as if Al Quida killed Princes. To Princes in the secret cabal, well the message would be clear.
“If the USA gets a cold we get a flu, so do not assume that I am wishing for an american defeat.” Glad to here you say so. Can I then extrapolate that you are wishing for an American victory?

[nathan]

"Powerful validation from the top man himself."
Did you mean Jimmy Carter was the top man, evarsite?
Surely not ;>

[evariste]

nathan. Heh :o)