JOURNAL: System Disruption Accelerates in Iraq

Just days after bin Laden endorsed a strategy of leveraged system attacks (global guerrilla warfare) as a means of economically attriting the US, a massive nearly simultaneous three pronged attack was made on the Iraqi oil system. These attacks disrupted oil flow to Turkey (for export), to an internal refinery (for domestic gas production), and from a major oil field (including damage to an important well head). The attacks produced extensive damage to critical equipment. Additionally, a senior Iraqi oil official was assassinated in his home (which falls into Halliburton attacks). Global guerrilla warfare is now using afterburners.

Comments

[john neff]

I stumbled on this website when I was researching current articles about scale free networks. This is really interesting stuff....I hope there are some members of the current (and future) Bush administration reading this content. It seems to me that they are using 3d generation tactics against a 4th generation foe.....jcn

[Joe]

We will find him and destroy him. It's only a matter of time. I think we need to put a little more effort in bin Laden alone.

[Watching Them, Watching Us]

Who believes that destroying Osama bin Laden will end either the Islamic extremists' "jihad" or the "war" on terrorism/tourism/civil liberties ?

If you destroy OBL, then someone else will be chosen as the bogeyman to take his place, and he will have become a martyr for his cause.

"And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ."

(from the Al Jazeera translation of OBL's recent video)

[Nathan]

Watching-- I think you are right about movements creating a self-perpetuating system of replacing leaders. Killing one creates another--look at Palestinians. But it is also a demoralizer when your leader bites it. If the price of being an anti-US guerilla leader is always death then less people want the job. Look at how psyh-ops use snipers to kill every third truck driver in a convoy--after awhile very few people are willing to be the 3rd truck driver and internal structure/discipline breaks down.
UBL alive (if he is) is the man who attacked the U. S. and got away with it. UBL dead is the man who attacked the U. S. and was hunted down and killed. Maybe martyrdom should just be the defacto prize in being a terror leader--not a long and successful life?

[Watching Them, Watching Us]

As with all dictators , death is too good for Osama bin Laden and would be some kind of victory for him and his death cult followers. This especially so since he is obviously not directly involved in the day to day tactical planning of any terrorist attacks, so any of these currently in the pipeline would not be disrupted by his immediate death.

He needs to be captured and prevented from committing suicide, and put on public trial and to face the testimony of his victims.

I was also alluding to the symbiotic relationship between the terrorists and the military/industrial/ government/media complex, rival religous fanatics, politicians etc. who need a bogeyman to scare up money from the taxpayer, and to increase their income, recruitment or political support.

If and when Osama bin Laden is out of circulation, why will they not simply nominate someone else as the focus of, and partial justification of their activities ?

[nathan]

You've convinced me. I agree capture is better than kill, most ecspecially in the cases of symbolic leaders/structures.
Hopefully by taking out experienced leaders,lets say capture as I agree this is better, but if you can't then kill. You denegrate command structure until all that's left are the dregs as oppossed (sp) to a veteran and capable leader like UBL. UBL in a cage is better than UBL dead, though. Absolutely.

[non-Disneylander]

You Disneylanders are the most amazing bunch of characters! It's always Sauron UBL this, Uruk-Hai terrorists that, anything except trying to see the world without your Captain America glasses — although I see on this site you use some cool sounding expressions like "scale-free networks", "system disruption", "the emerging marketplace of violence" (my favorite) and whatnot to rehash the same old cowboy rethoric. Very 2004, indeed.
PS — I was surprised not to find any references to Zaraqwi.

[nathan]

Sometimes you find yourself on a side, even if you didn't choose it. We now have an enemy. You don't respond to violence by saying "Gee those guys have a really good point." You discuss options, find weakness, exploit weakness, kill them. Afterwards you say, "what was that point you were trying to make?"
Discussing possibilities, keeping a dialogue open, keeping mental processes flexible--this is a good thing.
You sound like you’d be happy if we revictimized the victim. Saying “cowboy rhetoric” and suggesting that seeing things only through “Captain American Eyes” brought 9/11 on ourselves is exactly like saying a woman deserves to get raped because she wore a “sexy” dress. The onus is on the criminal not the victim. And if the victim gets up and kicks the criminal’s ass? Don’t cry for the criminal.
Now if you have some kind of intellectual point to make--make it. As a form of argument your post wasn’t just dumb, it was worse if you want your ideas taken seriously--it was silly.
Besides, have you been to Disneyland? It’s great. I really like the new Tower of Terror.
P.S. Zaraqwi is a disgusting but somewhat interesting footnote when this is considered on a global scale. He's like Jeffery Dahmer in a cheesy black outfit.

[not-a-disneylander]

to nathan:

well, the way I see it, my point couldn't be clearer: people like you are blind to reality, and no amount of fancy systems thinking is going alter that fact. It would be merely pathetic if you weren't armed to the teeth and ever so ready to "kick ass", an expression you couldn't refrain from using that's a perfect example of the cowboy ethic I was refering to.
Anyway, my point about your blindness to reality is made much more forcefully than I'll ever be able to by one of your countrymen, known as The Black Commentator. I suggest you spend some minutes reading one of his excellent articles, that includes the following quote:
"Outside of the centuries-old American cocoon, much of reality simply does not compute."

http://www.blackcommentator.com/39/39_cover.html

By the way, I have been to Disneyland, the LA one. As for the new "Tower of Terror", which I didn't know about, it just proves my point that most that's written here is just so much hot air: on its heading this site mentions "the emerging marketplace of violence", implying it's some some new kind of stigmergic (?) concept, as if Disneylanders hadn't invented that marketplace a long time ago and always been its dominant players… you're just envious now you got competition.
One last thought: I wonder how long it will be before a 9-11 theme park opens in the USA…

[nathan]

"One last thought: I wonder how long it will be before a 9-11 theme park opens in the USA…"
That was funny, I laughed out loud, truly--not being a smartass. I assume it is a crack at commercialism/free market capitalism/and advertising. The only other way it could be taken is that you think Americans as a country, saw 3,000 dead people as so blasé that we’d take our kids to an amusement park about it. That would make you stupid. I assume your not.
I do however find that you have a problem articulating your points based on reason. From the joke, I assume your intelligent enough to defend your beliefs coherently without resorting to emotional tirades or school yard names. So this leads me to believe that either you assume your world view/belief system is so common place and widely held that you don’t have to write sentences with a clear subject or that you can make passing references to opinions and treat them as fact. I’ll go through your post here and tell you what it sounds like your saying to me, if I’m incorrect let me know, as I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. Here we go:

“well, the way I see it, my point couldn't be clearer: people like you are blind to reality, and no amount of fancy systems thinking is going alter that fact. It would be merely pathetic if you weren't armed to the teeth and ever so ready to "kick ass", an expression you couldn't refrain from using that's a perfect example of the cowboy ethic I was refering to.”
First, you fail to define “reality.” The fact that it “couldn’t be clearer” serves to strengthen the suspicion that you hold a narrow view of what acceptable “reality” is, and that you expect not only that most people will know what this is, but that they will agree with you. Secondly you chose to comment on the “kick ass” comment, repeating it out of context, and ignoring the subject matter from which it was stated. This points towards either an unwillingness to admit that victims have an intrinsic right to defend themselves, or that in some vague way you understand violence is necessary at time, but just not when America does it.

“Anyway, my point about your blindness to reality is made much more forcefully than I'll ever be able to by one of your countrymen, known as The Black Commentator. I suggest you spend some minutes reading one of his excellent articles, that includes the following quote:
"Outside of the centuries-old American cocoon, much of reality simply does not compute."
One, I hope for my sake in reading your response to my post that you write better than the angry, ill-researched, ethnocentric, emotional ramblings of BC. Second even granting what he said to be true (I don’t, but to advance our discussion, I’ll concede it in order to make a larger point) what is not answered by his manifesto is important. If America were to loose superpower state what would happen? A utopia of international cooperation where everyone played fair in the pursuit of resources? Dream on. Power abhors a vacuum. All that would happen is that a China or a France or Timbuktu would rise in its place. Viewed in such a light America has the rite of any organism in this world to battle to thrive and not concede power over to another power. I get it, down with America. But just because you want someone put down doesn’t mean they’ll roll over. Two, as long as America plays on an international stage--their “cocoon reality counts,” bet on it.

“By the way, I have been to Disneyland, the LA one. As for the new "Tower of Terror", which I didn't know about, it just proves my point that most that's written here is just so much hot air: on its heading this site mentions "the emerging marketplace of violence", implying it's some some new kind of stigmergic (?) concept, as if Disneylanders hadn't invented that marketplace a long time ago and always been its dominant players… you're just envious now you got competition.”

This is pure rant. Ranting never proves a point. A clearly constructed argument based on foundational principles and advanced reasonable to a coherent conclusion proves points. However you are right; much of what is being written here is “hot air.” Don’t forget to include yourself.

Here’s the conclusion I’ve attempted to piece together, this is not a judgment but merely me trying to “see” you clearly. Like I said; not trying to put words in your mouth.
1)You distrust free market economy concept. You are an internationalist; that is you believe every country deserves an equal voice in world affair not taking into account contribution, resource, influence, population or capability--everyone by virtue of being born on the same planet intrinsically deserves equal consideration. 2) If America were to loose superpower status this would be a good thing because either: A) communal utopia of shared resources without international competition would emerge or; B) Your not naive and realize someone else would come to power, but hey, anyone but the U.S. And, finally, I’m not sure how to interpret your views on use of force. Either it is America is the source of all violence and if we went away Eden returns, or violence is never the answer no matter provocation or interest.

Close, or way off? Like I said, not putting words in your mouth, am trying to figure out exactly what your argument is.

[Watching Them, Watching Us]

The BC website referred to above struck me as quite nicely designed, but rather racist and selective in its view of even USA history.

I do not see how it helps to shed any light on the current motives and strategies of either the international terrorists, or those who oppose them or those who seek to profit from the conflict.

If the USA is the source of all evil repression, then why are there civil wars and terrorist insurrections in the Russian dominated Caucasus ? e.g. Chechnya, Georgia etc. ? It is impossible to argue that Russia is a client state of the USA.

[not-a-disneylander]

to nathan:

thank you for your answer and apologies for my late reply.

first of all, I'd like to say that, much as I'd like to, I'm not going to comment on your whole post, or debate all your points, for the simple reason that it doesn't come easy to me to express my thoughts in writing, much less not in my native language (I'm from Portugal), and it would be too exhausting and it would take too much of my time to do so, at least just in one post.
So allow me to take up at the moment just this question of yours:

"If America were to loose superpower state what would happen?"

That's a very good question, and my answer is, obviously, I don't know. But that's not the point at all, in my mind, in fact that's exactly that kind of thinking that's at the root of the problem with the US. Think of a driver losing control of a powerful car at high speed — what's the point of him considering what the consequences of a serious crash would be? The situation is out of his control, the best he can do is try to minimize the damage.
You see, under the reasoning underlying this question is the supposition that America can do anything it wants to its own satisfaction just because it's, well, America the good and big and powerful, as portrayed in countless Hollywood movies. And the fact is that's far from the case, as the deepening hell in Iraq is ample proof.
Getting back to your question again, I gather the "correct" answer would be "Terrible things would happen if America would lose its superpower status". So it apparently follows that, as it cannot afford to, America should continue doing exactly what's making it lose (and fast) its superpower status! — this doesn't make any sense to me. (I gather we're talking mainly about the possibility of the US losing the war in Iraq; on that I can only add that even 2 years ago that would have been an unthinkable proposition, and that it's at least ironic that the invasion of Iraq, whose main objective was in my mind to subjugate the world by example, and affirm beyond any doubt the complete hegemony of the US, is having just the opposite effect…)
What you also fail to realize is that, rightly or wrongly, the non-US world (who are, after all, over 90% of the planet's population) is more and more TERRIFIED of the USA, and are asking a very different question: "Who is going to protect us from the USA and its cosmic amounts of WMDs of all kinds?" Do you think, seeing what's happening in Iraq, we should be worrying about the possibility that Iran may in a few years, have nukes? Gimme a break… Do you think we are cartoon characters, or what? On the contrary — I can WELL understand Iran's position! I would do the same if I were in their situation, that's for sure — in the lonely superpower world, it's the BEST BET to insure the Pirates stay away…

[not-a-disneylander]

If the USA is the source of all evil repression
---
The USA is not the ONLY source of evil repression, it's just the MAIN one. Being the main power on the planet out to establish "full-spectrum dominance", having abolished international law, currently commiting genocide in Iraq (just the first victim, we're told), it's the MAIN source of worry for any sane world (non-US) citizen. What's so difficult to understand about that?

[nathan]

I congratulate you on communicating so clearly in a langue that is not your own. It is a feat I would not be able to do myself and I respect it in others. I see our true differences not on the points in and of themselves, but on the world view we each have when observing the same facts. For example.

"If America were to loose superpower state what would happen?"--
--"That's a very good question, and my answer is, obviously, I don't know. But that's not the point at all, in my mind, in fact that's exactly that kind of thinking that's at the root of the problem with the US. Think of a driver losing control of a powerful car at high speed — what's the point of him considering what the consequences of a serious crash would be? The situation is out of his control, the best he can do is try to minimize the damage.
You see, under the reasoning underlying this question is the supposition that America can do anything it wants to its own satisfaction just because it's, well, America the good and big and powerful, as portrayed in countless Hollywood movies. And the fact is that's far from the case, as the deepening hell in Iraq is ample proof."

One point. What I suggested was given that America's place would simply be replaced by another nation(s) as a Superpower it is ridiculous to postulate it as a moral question. If a competition exists then all players have a “right” to be there. You make a colorful analogy with your race car. I argue that I have seen no proof that America is either driving to “fast” or is “about to lose control“. Neither do I see Iraq as a “deepening hell.” I see it as a war, which is by nature, a fluid event. When you are at war enemies engage in combat. The fact that combat is occurring does not meaning the situation is beyond American capabilities. I have a suspicion that if you or I were to sit down and read the same article or watch the same news broadcast we would turn to each other and both say that it just proved our point. (Something along the lines of: HEADLINE: American kills 1300 fighters in Fallujah. I would say something like; “hey, that’s 1300 cornered and killed.“ And you might say, “See, there were 1300 valiant soldiers of Allah willing to fight America, you’re losing the world.) By the way, if you find Hollywood movies egocentric then Portugal should create its own movie capital of the world.

You write:
“Getting back to your question again, I gather the "correct" answer would be "Terrible things would happen if America would lose its superpower status". So it apparently follows that, as it cannot afford to, America should continue doing exactly what's making it lose (and fast) its superpower status! — this doesn't make any sense to me. (I gather we're talking mainly about the possibility of the US losing the war in Iraq; on that I can only add that even 2 years ago that would have been an unthinkable proposition, and that it's at least ironic that the invasion of Iraq, whose main objective was in my mind to subjugate the world by example, and affirm beyond any doubt the complete hegemony of the US, is having just the opposite effect…)

Again I phrase my argument in such a manner. I simply said that the vacuum left would be filled. From that viewpoint America doesn’t need to apologize for being a Superpower or for working to stay one. From your frame of mind a France or a China, or even an Iran as Superpower, might be a more pleasing scenario, granted, but all competitors have a right to compete. (Yes this includes fundamentalist Islam, they have a “right” to compete, but don’t cry for them if they choose to do so in ways that hurt them as a people.) Also, I see no true evidence, only wistful hopfulness on the part of some, that America is loosing Superpower status "fast." Don’t exaggerate my points or change their focus in order to come up with arguments. Define “loss” in Iraq? Like, we’re driven in bloodied humiliation and the Taliban emerges in Iraq? Seriously I am an international affairs/anthropology student--I watch and research news all day long. I see zero evidence of loss. I see simply, war, fluid, dynamic, and violent.

You write:
“What you also fail to realize is that, rightly or wrongly, the non-US world (who are, after all, over 90% of the planet's population) is more and more TERRIFIED of the USA, and are asking a very different question: "Who is going to protect us from the USA and its cosmic amounts of WMDs of all kinds?" Do you think, seeing what's happening in Iraq, we should be worrying about the possibility that Iran may in a few years, have nukes? Gimme a break… Do you think we are cartoon characters, or what? On the contrary — I can WELL understand Iran's position! I would do the same if I were in their situation, that's for sure — in the lonely superpower world, it's the BEST BET to insure the Pirates stay away…

I do not fail to “realize” this view exists. I do reject the logic behind it as spurious. To answer this in historic frames, let me paraphrase your man, the Black Commander. “America did arrive on the world stage in the unique position of having all of its resources intact post WWII.” (I’m writing this assuming your taking an EU viewpoint not a Portuguese one, as WWII was not your country’s finest hour, as you treated the Nazi threat much as you now do the Islamic fundamentalist one). What did the US do with those resources? Rebuilt and then defended Europe at the cost of trillions of dollars. The Kremlin has fallen, it is historical fact that the USSR was expansionist, not a matter of opinion--this is not to “rub your nose” in WWII or to “gloat,” it pertains to my following point.

Because America, and Britain, spent so much on arsenals for the EU’s defense (and, yes of course, our own) it allowed European countries to spend their tax dollars on socially liberal programs and ideals. Things which were nice for its peoples. They were allowed to look at the world as a non-competitive place because they were safe under an umbrella of protection--which they grew to bitterly resent even in the face of logic. When the umbrella was removed and the Cold War was won (using tactics that were angrily contested by the populations of European countries who benefited in the end from them) the EU emerged thinking concessionest policies were a viable possibility on the world stage, even when savagely attacked. Under America’s protection you were allowed to regress to a state of child-like innocence.

My point by the above is this. Because of the state of grace that your EU evolved under you can now, with complete sincerity, think America has WMDs for the same reasons North Korea or Iran does. This would be pathetic if you weren’t so willing to roll over to anyone who threatens violence at you. Those WMDs were built under MAD, the policy Europeans hated and the policy which won the Cold War. Iran has stated to the world why it wants nukes. It wants to blow Israel of the map. This is not hyperbole nor is it opinion and rant, this is researchable fact. What do you “WELL understand” about that point? It took 9/11 for us to invade another country. Perhaps the lesson is, don’t attack America. Not that we’re “pirates.”

Continuing;
“The USA is not the ONLY source of evil repression, it's just the MAIN one. Being the main power on the planet out to establish "full-spectrum dominance", having abolished international law, currently commiting genocide in Iraq (just the first victim, we're told), it's the MAIN source of worry for any sane world (non-US) citizen. What's so difficult to understand about that?”

A couple of things. Executing women in an international soccer stadium and supporting the export of terrorist who attack and killed 3,000 people is evil. Using military force to remove such a government and put on in place one that allows women to vote is not. Genocide is the elimination of an entire race of people. What’s happening in Iraq is a war, one in which a greater majority of Iraqui’s are, to one degree or another (with many simply apathetic by nature), supporting the U. S. efforts. It is not genocide. America outspends, dollar for dollar, every other country in the world in international aid. Nothing evil there.

However I have a feeling I just wasted my breath, as it were. Those points don’t resonate, truly, or deeply with you. You have stated that America is the “MAIN source of evil” in the world. Not the terrorists. Somehow their violence is always justifiable. You will overlook the grandest gestures towards humanity as a mask for greed. You will seize upon the slightest mistake or mishap as proof positive of diabolic intentions. It is you who see America in terms of “cartoon images.”

What is ironic is that it was American effort, sacrifice, and dedication that allowed you evolve this mind set in the safety of your own, ethnocentric arrogance. Don’t worry, we’ll keep fighting in Fallujah so that the noble warriors of Allah won’t be free to take over any schools full of children in Portugal.

I have extreme doubts that even if I’m able to logically and forcefully refute the logic of your world view that you’ll change it. What I do think is that this a great opportunity to discuss ideas and ideals, thank you.

[mark]

Well that took my slow self 30 minutes to read ... worth it though!