JOURNAL: Vulnerability to Systempunkts

When the entire country of Georgia was cut off from natural gas supply for weeks through the destruction of two collocated pipelines (a couple of hours of work), the assumption of many in the West is that our more complex system would prevent that level of vulnerability. This is a bad assumption. While it is true that Western countries do maintain more of a reserve capacity (up to 45 days in LNG storage depots, although this depletes over the winter) than Georgia (1 day), the vulnerability of centralized routing still exists. Most US natural gas is transported via pipeline from the New Orleans area or Canada. The vulnerability of this "long supply line" can be seen in this example of open source research put together by John Young of Cryptome: Washington DC area natural gas system. Europe has similar vulnerabilities.

Comments

[dbf]

The link to the Washington DC area natural gas system is broken: I imagine the target docuemnt has been removed by someone who got a clue, or the site is swamped with stigmerically educated terrorists. While I don't disagree on your analysis as to how renegate groups are operating, and the challenges faced in dealing with them, it seems to me that you're essays are pretty short on solutions. The piece on Alexander and the Scythians is about all I've found on that topic here. In fact, the more I read of your site, the more it looks like a likely first stop for the Jihaddist. A veritable 'how to' cornucopia, a one-stop-shop for the isolated cell group wondering how it can be most effective.

I would appreciate it if you devoted a bit more space to suggesting creative ways to deal with the threats posed by the global guerillas, especially if such ways did not lead us further down the road to a totalitarian police state.

[John Robb]

No, the link works. It is a big page and it takes a bit of time to load.

[John Robb]

DBF. You need to define the problem correctly before you can build a solution. Further, the solution to GGs is not going to come from me, it's going to come from my readers. I get lots of feedback from people in the field, dealing with what they thought were intractable problems relating to terrorism. They point out how my work has enabled them to think of new ways to solve these problems. The fallacy is that there is some "grand plan" that will save us all. There isn't.

[wtofd]

dbf, aren't you shooting the messenger? Do you have some solutions of your own?

As for the "one-stop-shop" you are over-stating the case. If the GG in the Caucuses or the Niger river delta ever cite JR as inspiration I'll buy you a six pack. Until then, let's focus on learning, not stifling comment.

[Adam]

DBF,

I'd like to point out that nothing factual in this blog - such as attack methodologies - would surprise anyone. Whats important here is the theory that ties the facts together.

Guerilla warfare has long fascinated militaries. Heck, under my coffee cup right now is a 1950s Swiss military guide to guerilla warfare called Total Resistance which was printed worldwide. I picked my copy up for £1 at a university 2nd hand sale and I've seen it at survivalist/militia shops in the US. It includes, among other things, direct simple laymans advice for guerilla warfare. For example sabotage against electric systems requires a length of chain, a grounding fork, a weight. Link these together, throw chain over electrical system (don't forget to let go), bang.

Interested in buying it? http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0873640217/qid=1139040456/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-1655086-6926034

Theres plenty of similar works available. Now that is the kind of thing that a guerilla would be interested in getting hold of. In Iraq its slightly different. National service meant that every Iraqi had 3 years military training, which included urban warfare - how much training or advice do you need to shoot a rocket into a pipeline?

As for solving the problem... good luck. Its like saying that history ends. I mean lets stop a moment - in your view what is the problem? Islamic fundamentalism? Well that was largely supported by the US as a bulwark against Communism. For pure comedy value try this: Hamas was supported by the Israelis as an alternative to the PLO prior to the Intifada in 1987. Oops.

Todays solution is tomorrows problem. There will always be people who feel that they can get more from applied violence. We're in a long war, and it'll take a decade or two to even see who all the players are. After that the entire thing should shake out over a couple of centuries. As Mao said: What do I think of the French Revolution? I think its far too early to tell...

[wtofd]

Too early to tell. Brilliant.

Adam, how'd that Hamas thing work out for the Israelis? I know the Palestinians have an election coming up and Hamas might win a few seats in Gaza...wait, somebody just handed me Ha'aretz...what? You're kidding me?

It's almost as if violence begets violence.

[Stephen]

I for one am glad Mr. Robb has this site and us willing to share some of his insights on the "problem". The mathematics of self-organization are working in favor of the GG's but it doesn't have to be that way. Modern governments don't seem to be able to do much more than "blow shit up" and "build democracy" so real solutions are going to come from some where else.

I'm going back to lurk mode now until I have sonething worthwhile to say.

[enigma_foundry]

Actually, the systempunkt vulnerability exists across many activities other than energy. It also lies in pharmacuetical production for example, where the entire world's supply of a given necessary ingredient or a bulk intermediate pharmacuetical may be dependent upon one production facility, and within that facility there is a very small number of extremely specialized equipment (that is very difficult to replace) upon which that production is dependent. So a systempunkt attack, correctly conceived could quite easily lead to serious disruption of medicine production.

Note that the research establishment also has an extremely narrow intellectual bottle neck in the certain key institutions (CDC, NIH) or even certain key individuals who would play major roles in a disease outbreak.

I would expect that an attack on this research infrastructure will very likely be the first sign that a biological weapons attack has occurred. (Recall earlier postings in which I had hypothesized that a slow acting, but highly lethal and contagious, virus/prion disease would be the chosen mode of biological attack, rather than the well publicized possibilities of anthrax or small pox) Also possible is multiple simultaneous biological weapon attacks, with the disease such as small pox providing the cover for another disease, say airborne human-analogue of equine herpes virus.

[enigma_foundry]

"Modern governments don't seem to be able to do much more than "blow shit up" and "build democracy" so real solutions are going to come from some where else."

"I would appreciate it if you devoted a bit more space to suggesting creative ways to deal with the threats posed by the global guerillas, especially if such ways did not lead us further down the road to a totalitarian police state."

Yes, DBF this is really important, but not the focus of this site as it was conceived, but a necessary part to understand the possible results of GG actions, and therefore relevant. I would reccommend the book below as a good start towards understand the process at work:

http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s7663.html

[RyanLuke]

Mr. Robb, the analysis you provide is essential. But the argument that it could be used by those planning violence and destabalization seems to me to also be correct, at least to some degree. The strength of the "bazaar of violence" it that any good idea will propogate, whatever the source. However, if those who aspire to protect human rights and human beings in general do not use the open source techniques of information distribution (even if it means that enemies may learn from them), we will be at a serious disadvantage against those who use these techniques.

In 4GW the moral level is the strongest. The ability of enemies to learn tactics from our discussions is inconsequential if we represent a stronger moral vision.

We are now seeing the decline of the state as a powerful motivating force - thus the ascendance of global guerillas. I do not think that the "solution" to global guerilla warfare can be found be a state. The state simply does not have the motivating moral force to acheive victory in this type of conflict.

It seems to me that victory in this conflict requires a powerful moral vision that transcends national and religious boudaries. A moral vision that unifies us. To formulate such a vision requires a huge broadening of perspective. In 4GW the very notion of an easily identifiable "us" fighting an equally easy to define "them" is an illusion. A victorious vision needs to transend the "us vs them" mentality to find common human ground.

[P-]

'It is possible to create a desired effect with little to no destruction of the target system(?)'

(PS. John i hope you won't mind if i added a question mark)

Has this question been satisfactorily answered yet?

I thought it depends among other things on the target, its' context and value of the vulnerability of the target poses to the larger picture/system that it serves. But some degree of destruction or the very least a history of vulnerabilities has to exist.

(Just a 1st try at the question which i'm sure i've made some mistakes on)

[Shloky]

Solution to GG?

Easy. Make the state more efficient than non state actors or GG's.

;)

[Smothers]

This entire site makes me quite afraid of what havoc the Communists will wrack inside this country, if given the chance. Oh wait, wrong boogeyman! I mean Al Queda!

I mean, really-a very uneducated person can take a drive around their community and see that our vulnerabilities are pretty glaring and out in the open. You don't need a terrorist training manual, website, or military education to drive up to a gas pipeline in Missouri and blow it up.

We are not being blown up, gassed, and shot in our malls, sporting events, and homes because NO ONE is trying that hard to get at us. What this site proves beyond a doubt is that it is VERY easy to disrupt major and minor systems wherever they are found. Common sense, then, tells us that we actually NOT UNDER ATTACK, and if we were under attack, there is not a lot we can do about it.

Furthermore, we can expand this logic to understand why we are not under constant attack. Oil and natural gas pipelines, public places, and water supplies are all extremely vulnerable to attack from guerillas. These targets are soft, and can inflict massive damadge and high casualties. If Al-Queda or whoever hates us wanted to destroy america and kill americans, this is the way to go. Attack soft, high value targets that have a high yield.

The problem with these targets is while they could contribute to the destruction of America, they have NO symbolic value At all. NONE. If you blow up a bus full of children, you prove no point. If you crash an airplane into the pentagon, you look like a hero to the muslim street at large.

So if it is easy to destroy america, why is no one doing it? Is it not the point of the terrorists? What is their goal, then?

[TM Lutas]

A quick google for the term "risks digest" should bring up a nice forum that has been looking at all sorts of risks for years and years. They also come up with solutions. I wish JR would follow that approach a bit more. In any case, you'll find that the idea of systempunkts (not under that name) was talked to death years ago on that forum.

[John Robb]

TM and Smothers: So was the north south gap, but it became the "Pentagon's New Map." So was TCP/IP and networking but it became the Internet. Nothing is new but everything is new if looked at in a different way.

[Adam]

"Adam, how'd that Hamas thing work out for the Israelis? I know the Palestinians have an election coming up and Hamas might win a few seats in Gaza...wait, somebody just handed me Ha'aretz...what? You're kidding me?"

Yep. You'd be right. On the other hand the plan was to eliminate Fatah using Hamas so - from a highly specialised point of view - it could be said to have worked. Its rather like curing cancer by introducing bubonic plague...

On the other hand this isn't untypical of the results of Western planning:
Overthrow Iranian democracy and install the Shah, get Ayatollah Khomeini.
Overthrow the Iraqi government, get Sadaam Hussain.
Install the House of Saud and get... the House of Saud.

To use an Americanism, its like Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby...

Smothers said:

"So if it is easy to destroy america, why is no one doing it? Is it not the point of the terrorists? What is their goal, then?"

This is a harder question to answer than you might think so this makes it a little long. People write books on this subject, so I apologise to everyone.

Al Quaeda, despite the US's propaganda, isn't actually a group of psychotic killing machines. More accurately I should say that they aren't entirely a group of psychotics.

Bin Ladens goal is extensively covered in the literature, and his writing isn't actually bad in translation (I don't speak Arabic). An expensively tutored, well educated man he has a solid knowledge of Middle Eastern history and it tends to show. Some of his parallels are a little thin - for example the US are not the Mongols and the Syrian and Egyptian armies are not going to reenact the annihilation of the Mongol horde.

Bin Laden sees the Muslim world as continually invaded and divided by outside (specifically Western; British, French and American) forces. Currently among these are the Americans in Saudi Arabia and the Israelis in Palestine. Bin Laden has repeatedly complained about the occupation of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. Therefore for Bin Laden to succeed, AQ must overthrow the Western created nation-states in the Middle East and unite them into a single, pan-Islamic state - a reborn Ottoman empire.

If you accept the idea that overthrowing the near enemy (the Western backed dictatorships like Egypt) isn't possible - and Zawahiri, formerly of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, suggested that this was because of US backing for Egypt (around $3bn a year) or Israel ($too much to count a year) - then its US backing that is the problem; so attack the far enemy first.

I suppose that as an analogy the US could be viewed as the logistics point for the Middle Eastern dictatorships, and Al Quaeda are simply attacking the fuel dumps. Since the United States was propping up the governments of Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia then Al Quaeda would hit the United States first.

AQ operational goals are, arguably:
a) Show that the West, and its values, are hypocritical, shallow and ultimately meaningless especially when compared to the self-sacrificing, deep and meaningful values of fundamentalist Islam as demonstrated by people willing to die for them
b) Build enthusiasm for an Islamic fundamentalist superstate among the Muslim populace
c) Convince Muslims that the US military and political structures could be defeated
d) Convince Muslims that they did not have to accept the secular and powerless Middle Eastern dictatorships erected by the West
e) Draw the US into a guerrilla war in Afghanistan, just like the Russians were suckered

Al-Zawahiri's recent messages show that he still has faith in that strategy by the way. And why not? Replace the word Afghanistan with Iraq and its been a winner.

So Al Quadea has never really been interested in a war in America as a war with America. In fact their war aims are simply to do with knocking the Americans (and all Westerners) out of the Middle East in a 'Yankee, Go Home' manner. And its worked. Lets put it this way; who thinks that it'll be safe to pop over to Iraq for a holiday with the wife and kids anytime in the next few years? About 10 years back it actually was safe to go on holiday to Iraq, strange but true.

At this stage therefore Al-Qaeda has succeeded in several of its main goals. It had been trying to convince Muslims that the United States today is exactly the same as any colonial power. The US only wants to invade Muslim nations, steal Muslim oil, torture Muslim men, and sexually abuse and humiliate Muslim women and children. I think we can all accept that this ones a winner for AQ; what most Muslims found hard to accept, Iraq showed otherwise.

At the moment the US is desperately trying to get out of Iraq. If the US succeeds it will be a huge victory for Bin Laden (or at least his self-appointed troops in Iraq; I've no idea if they are actually in communication). If the US fails it will remain a bleeding sore for the US military.

Of course the biggest win has already occurred - Iraq is no longer a secular Western facing nation and this is the biggest win that Islamic Fundamentalism has had since 1979. Its no longer beyond the boundaries of sanity that Iraq, Syria and Iran could ally in an Islamic superstate, a 21st Century EU based on oil. They'll either hang together or hang separately. Had I written that in 2003 a rubber room with optional long-sleeved canvas sweater would have been prepared. This political change would not be good news at all for the West, it would change the post 1919 Western foreign policy. Divide and conquer only works if they're divided and we're conquering - it looks very different when the boot is on the other foot. Bin Laden's dream of a caliphate is - I think - impossible to accomplish. But with secular Iraq gone, it is closer to reality. We all saw this week the generalized hatred for US policies and Western hypocrisy among Muslims, and that shows how far the once extreme position of AQ has become normal.

Bottom line: AQ isn't coming to America and it doesn't care about America. America was attacked to hit the supply lines for the Middle East, and that makes it interesting for the US. Its why the Bush government are not spending money on port security because that cash is needed in Iraq and elsewhere. On the other hand its bad security that makes an attack more likely. Its a balanced risk. The good news for Bush is that no one he cares about is taking that risk.

You'll have noticed Bin Laden made a truce offer the other day. This is, in traditional Islamic teaching, your last chance for peace before they attack. We're nearly 5 years into this long war and the signs are not good at all.

[jon]

Adam,
I agree with most of what you said about AL-Q and Bin Laden. However, I see them as being a bit more aquisitive, in terms of territory than they used to be. If I remember correctly in one of his communiques from last year or the year before either he or Zawahiri talked about making Spain a Muslim state again.
I agree that our invasion and occupation of Iraq has been the greatest recruiment tool for the Mujahideen since the Russians invaded Afghanistan.

[Adam]

Jon,

You'd be right and its more to do with medieval history, Andalucia was part of the Islamic world before El Cid began the eventual defeat of the Moors in Spain in 1099 - with the last Spanish Muslim settlement falling in 1490.

Mind you the Spanish did then decide to expel all of the Moors and the Jews. For those that like their ironies the Jewish gunsmiths expelled turned up in the Ottoman Empire and Sultan Beyezid II (1481-1512) couldn't believe his luck. How many other rulers get sent the people that build state of the art weapon systems? Unsurprisingly Ottoman military technologies jumped forward with massive factories on the Bosphorus which produced the sophisticated weapons that then spent many happy years knocking the bejesus out of Catholics in the Balkans and the Mediterranian.

Anyway Bin Laden sees this as a Western injustice; whether the Spanish see it in quite the same way is pretty unlikely.

[Business babe]

I for one, am ok with you not giving us the answers-I'm just thankful for the ability to understand what is going on with this kind of warfare! It's confusing, and you help me remain an informed citizen!

[enigma_foundry]

"This entire site makes me quite afraid of what havoc the Communists will wrack inside this country, if given the chance. Oh wait, wrong boogeyman! I mean Al Queda!

I mean, really-a very uneducated person can take a drive around their community and see that our vulnerabilities are pretty glaring and..."

well, I suppose one could have said that on Sept 10, 2001.

However the commentor is exactly right in the those in power in USA are using the threat to extend their powers in ways that have almost nothing to do with stopping the threat from the terrorists. I am unsure if Mr. Robb is part of that crowd or not.

The really threat to US security is the 40+ millions without adequate health insurance, who would be the targets of a correctly conceived bio-terrorism attack.

So, to defeat terrorism we really have to address the synergistic effects of terrorism with the present US power structure. Right no theUS power structure is doing basically nothing to present a bio-terorist attack, because the defenses against such an attack run counter to their preconceived notions of the proper role of government in a so-called "free-market" economy and because if such an attack were to occur it would secure their power base permamnently.

So, defeating the Republicans and the terorists are linked.

[John Robb]

I have a long term "vision" article coming up in the next issue of Fast Company magazine called, "Power to the People." It goes beyond politics. It's either unsettling or hopeful, depending on your viewpoint. It is neither (more of the same but better run) Barnett utopianism or (everything falls apart) 4GW pessimism. Somewhere in between. We muddle through.

[Shloky]

Smother's real question was- why hasn't al Qaeda completed the innovation cycle transforming them into GGs.

Adam hit most of the specifics- simply put, AQ doesn't have to evolve. To achieve its goals it can stay within a 4GW framework.

So far.

[John Robb]

Al Qaeda's role isn't as a primary warfighting entity but rather as a instigator and shaper of local conflicts. Their tempo of attacks is slow and it is therefore difficult to see change.

Given the ongoing statements from the organization over the last year,

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/11/journal_bin_lad.html

we can expect to see moves towards GG systems attacks in the future.