THE NEXT ATTACKS ON AMERICA

Osama bin Laden offered a truce to America last month. This is an Islamic tradition prior to an attack. He coupled that offer with a threat of an impending attack. We should anticipate (To clarify: this is prudent and not predictive) that new attacks on US targets will occur soon. IF or when terrorists attack the US again, how will the attacks be accomplished? Which targets will be selected? When will it occur? There has been lots of speculation on these points. So far, this speculation has been useless, due to an inability to separate the probable from the possible. The key to knowing what is probable is found in a deep understanding how warfare is evolving. With this as a starting point, it is possible to discern the broad outlines of any future attack.

The Factors Framing the Next Attack

The timing, target, and nature of the next strategic attack on the US is shrouded in uncertainty. Its arrival will be a black swan -- an unexpected event that can't be anticipated with any degree of assurance. Despite this, there are some factors that will shape its arrival:

• The diminishing returns on symbolic terrorism (attacks on populations or national symbols). Read: "Terrorist Death-March" It details how the returns from terrorist attacks on symbolic targets diminishes unless the scale and scope is constantly increased.
• The organizational limitations of al Qaeda and other groups. Read: "The Optimal Size of a Terrorist Network." This brief provides insight into the limitations on terrorist group size due to the actions in Afghanistan and the GWOT.
• A shift in objectives towards economic coercion. Recent strategy statements from al Qaeda (always a good guide for future activity) and the experience of Iraqi guerrillas has moved the debate among prospective attackers towards attacks on systems rather than symbols.

A Crude Shape Emerges

Here's what we can discern from these factors:

• It's clear that given the organizational limitations of al Qaeda and other prospective attackers that the network that will make the next attack on the US will not be as large and complex as the one that carried out 9/11. This creates hard limits on what can be accomplished through symbolic terrorism -- since operationally complex operations like 9/11 or the use of WMDs are beyond the capabilities of any network that can be fielded (of course, when dealing with black swans, anything is possible).
• Any potential symbolic terrorist attack that is less impressive than 9/11 will be a devastating blow to the moral momentum of the attacker. The diminishing returns from symbolic terrorism dictate this.
• The combination of the above with a growing recognition of the value of economic coercion will drive the development of alternative plans. These new plans will likely be focused on systems disruption.

What this means

Here's a likely scenario: The networks used by the terrorists in any future strategic attacks on the US will be small, decentralized clusters. Many of the clusters, like what we saw in London and Madrid, will be homegrown and only loosely affiliated with external groups. Instead of symbolic targets, these groups will hit infrastructure networks. Much of the instruction and research passed to these groups will be done through the Internet. Unlike 9/11, these networks will have operational cell sizes of 2-3 members with only a remote support system. Since the tools and training necessary for infrastructure attacks are crude, the moral burden of these attacks can be meager (these attacks don't have to result in the deaths and dismemberment of random civilians), and the chance of capture is relatively small, the pool of potential participants is quite large.

Their operational method won't be focused on training for a single wasting attack but on repetitive attacks within a radius from a safe location. They will focus on systempunkts that provide them the opportunity for cascades of failure across multiple systems. Widespread blackouts, natural gas cut-offs, water shortages, and more. These infrastructure systems won't be attacked once but on multiple occasions and timed to coincide with repairs (which radically multiplies the impact on economic systems). The net result of this effort will be that each attacker will have the capability of inflicting hundreds of millions (if done correctly, billions) in economic damage to the US before they are neutralized (typical of the leverage we see in global guerrilla returns on investment).

The impact of these attacks, particularly if they are numerous (attracting copycats?) and spread out over an extended period of time will be severe. Given their lack of symbolic content (and the potential that they will be relatively anonymous), the moral benefit to US cohesion will be small. Initial outrage against the attackers will quickly turn against the government itself, with severe repercussions (particularly if the government's response is crude and deemed ineffective). Globally, these attacks will put at risk the US position as a safe haven for investment and may result in a large outflow of capital as the market's moral sentiment cracks.

Comments

[W. Zimmerman]

It seems to me that a far more reasonable conclusion from your analysis is that the U.S. will win the the strategic war against terrorism.

[tim fong]

Here's an actual infrastructure attack in Australia on a sewage system.

http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,108738,00.html?source=x10

[daCascadian]

A little conjecture

How do we know that the currently running events in the Islamic world (The CartoonWar ?) are not an example of one of the next form(s) ?

Not something started by the global guerrillas but used (fueled) by their network(s) once the initial spark was struck; as I recall, one of their stated purposes is to drive the western capitalist system into "bankruptcy"

So how much $$$ has Denmark/the EU "lo$t" due to this CartoonWar ?

I suspect it is a healthy amount (at least one dairy products corporation has ceased being able to do business in the area according to the MSMedia)

Why use resources to create when you can "piggy back" ?

Just some idle thinking on the spur of the moment sparked by reading your entry

"...the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion...but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." - Samuel P. Huntington

[John Robb]

As a student of war, I agree totally with the last point.

With Osama's offer of a truce in the air, we should all be thinking about the form of the next attack on the US. I am less concerned with the actual damage and more concerned with the "effects" it will cause.

[jim moore]

It seems to me that the most obvious target would be the petroleum refineries. Lots of explosive material, big economic impact, lots of people from the middle east have with experience with petroleum and it presents an opportunity to make a lot money through "insider" trading.

Houston, you have a problem.

[John Robb]

Jim and DC, you get it. Doesn't even have to be the refinery. It could be any one of dozens of subsystems, pipelines, power sources, etc. All work as a means of cascading failure. For example, taking out the oil fields in Saudi Arabia isn't done by attacking well defended oil extraction conduits but by disabling the water pumping system (injected into the fields) or the fragile electrical system (that powers the entire system).

Remember, the most successful part of the GG operation in Iraq is the systems disruption that feeds demand for black market power production (1 MW and growing) and gasoline. The way this ports to the international scene is to use futures/options and insider trading as a means to profit from the attacks. These feedback loops create their own "weather."

[wk]

If the terrorists have the stomach for it, there is really only one type of attack that provides maximmal effect with minimal input. In a word, Beslan.

[James Bowery]

With an attack on a power center like the WTC, there is at least the perception that the people killed are responsible for conditions the Islamics are reacting to. Targeting children as was done in Beslan is more akin a false flag operation and there was already enough speculation about that with the WTC.

The guerrilla school called the Iraq war is producing skills more in line with oil infrastructure disruption.

Something I could see happening is a synthesis of this and ecoterrorism as a means of inducing indigenous copycats and having confusion over who is responsible. Attacking oil refineries in a way that causes firestorms would work in a manner similar to some of the incedniary attacks in the LA area by ecoterrorists. Arabs are quite numerous in the area already so they can operate relatively anonymously and in numbers. Wait for a Santa Ana, torch some major LNG tanks in the Long Beach area and many small fires upwind.

However, unlike Dresden its likely the affected areas could be evacuated of population in time by simply travelling at right angles to the Santa Ana. The Long Beach area is, however the major Pacific Rim trade route bottleneck so it would shake confidence in the US by the major holders of US Treasuries.

[Mark Norman]

wk, I think you've identified one form of symbolic terrorism that is not subject to diminishing returns. Fortunately, it won't happen. Attacks on schools will significantly increase cohesion in the targetted country, and the terrorists won't want that.

[rob's reality check]

rob, what would it matter if WTC7 was a controlled demolition ? Nobody died, nobody cares about the building falling down, nobody has used it for propaganda purposes or leverage. In summary it's destruction resulted in no loss and no gain for anyone.

Meanwhile there is no conspiracy theory website that can in any way provide an alternate scenario which accounts for four groups of al Qaeda trained men simultaneously boarding flights which coincidently were each in turn were hijacked and crashed. This is why these details are ignored so that far less significant "coincidences" can be speculated about as though they even rate next to that one.

Stop reading fiction and mistaking it for non-fiction rob. It doesn't bother me that you look gullible, but I really am sick of this ridiculous crap invading every discussion on terrorism.

[notrob]

Regardless of all that, there's sinister shit going down right here in the US and it's not because of a bunch of rubes from Afghanistan (or SA).

Halliburton, Cheney's company, just got awarded a 385 million dollar contract for setting up concentration camps here in the US.

Will it be the next attack on america or the one after that that will result in martial law?

What does it take for you people to pull your heads out of your asses on this? Aren't you supposed to be the Freedom Party? Aren't you supposed to be the Tough Guy Party? But as soon as there's a little firecracker pop that wastes as many as die from a typical mudslide, you prostrate yourself before Der Fuherer and throw your (and our) civil liberties to the winds.

I often wonder who you people are.

[rob]

with all due respect,and I do think your anaylysis excellent on many points.
I just havve a problem with the official 911 story.Too many flaws and things that do not add up.
If one aspect of the offical yarn is a lie we have to ask ourseves why.
I visit your site every once and a while and just feel that your latest post is based on a false premise.

you asked.

what would it matter if WTC7 was a controlled demolition ?

to me it matters little.It does however indicate that weeks if not months of preperation took place to place the charges,,,the same must be true of the towers,,,all this would indicate that 911 was partially if not wholly an inside job and that the "war on terrior" is also a phoney one in the sense that the "enemy" is an Orwellian one.

The aircraft impacts were for dramatic effect and to indicate an enemy.The placed charges were to make sure the building all came down.

anyway.Thats all I have to say on the matter.

more evidence can be found here.

http://www.911truth.org/

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

best regards rob.

[rob's reality check]

",,,the same must be true of the towers,"

But you've seen the collapse of the towers a million times and they collapsed from the top down in a very uncontrolled manner, completely destroying surrounding buildings so you know this isn't true. In another amazing coincidence, this collapsing started right from the point of impact where those hijacked planes struck.

So in reality the reason "it must be true of the WTCs" is that this is required to make a connection that isn't there so a much more entertaining fiction version of events can be retold when the non-fiction version involving 3000 deaths wasn't catchy enough.
Stop posting this rubbish.

[rob]

your logic is flawed.

IF WTC7 was b"puuled as Larry Silverstein claims.Then the towers were also "pulled"

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv

[controlleddemolition]

If you look at good video of the towers going down-- I have done this many times and from many video sources-- you can easily see explosions going off a number of floors down from the collapse area.

Furthermore, for three buildings to collapse like this would be the first time ever that skyscrapers collapsed by fire.

There are so many things that are fishy about 911-- ie no plane parts at the Pentagon site, impact zone inconsistent with plane impact and instead consistent with BROACH warhead impact, next to no debris at the Flight 93 crash site-- so, so many things.

When people deny that, I question their motivations.

Operation Northwoods offers a wonderful blueprint for the 911 attacks. Gulf of Tonkin incident represents historical precedent for bogus cassus belli.

[John Robb]

Please take the 9/11 was fake discussion offsite.

[jon]

I don't know what the next attack will be. I think the economic model is right, but I think the next attack will be carried out by Muslims that are American citizens. From AQ's point of view, prefereable if they were born in America. Even better would be to find some white, converts to Islam. So our law enforcement can't focus on the Muslim community. I think they want to limit our freedoms, as a way lessen confidence in the American government here and throughout the "Western" world.

[rob]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

[james]

Hang on. Do you have any proof that your claim is true? Has bin Laden, or anyone else in the Political Islam movement offered a truce prior to any other attack on the U.S. or elsewhere?

I don't recall any such instance. Please substantiate your claims.

[Adam]

John,

I do seem to be in the habit applauding you for your timing. No reason to change now I guess. I was halfway through this article that an excited colleague insisted I read 'there and then' when I got bored and wandered over to Global Guerillas. No reason I should be the only one to suffer.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

Granted, its only a Congressman, a Texan, and a Republican but he does seem rather concerned about economic attacks... (to help people move quickly through this article one interesting section starts: Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed)

It occurs to me that empires collapse due to money problems, not military ones. Logically it follows that going for the money flow would be the most effective attack on an empire. Certainly thats what caused the British empire to collapse, bankruptcy.

[jon]

They have offered numerous warnings. To Europe before either the Madrid or London bombings. To the US they didn't offer a truce, but they made warnings saying that their fight wasn't with the American people, but with the governement. However, we would be attacked because we still supported our government and they(the US gov't.) were still doing bad stuff. This was stated I believe more for his "home" audience than a world audience, to allow for the attacking of innocents, especially women and children, which is banned by the koran.

[james]

Jon, so this statement: "Osama bin Laden offered a truce to America last month. This is a religiously mandated action prior to an attack. We should anticipate that new attacks on US targets will occur soon." is just fanciful, isn't it?

If they haven't offered a "truce" in advance before, how can you be so sure?

Isn't part of their strategy to instill fear, even without attacking? Aren't you playing into their hands by predicting with such a degree of certainty a new attack?

[James Bowery]

Adam, ultimately it is military strength, not monetary strength, that decides the winner of a conflict. The Goths for example were warrior tribes that did not have much monetary strength but they did have zeal. The same can be said for the Vikings. What conquered them in turn was not money, which they happily plundered, but mythology. In the case of Islam it isn't clear Christianity can serve the same purpose and I'm not sure even Hollywood can. Islam is already a universalist religion and appears more likely to conquer the Hollywood than Hollywood conquer Islam.

The reason mythology is so crucial in these empire wars is it imbues a larger multiethnic mass with unified tribal identity and zeal -- something civil society can't do effectively with money and mercenaries.

[John Robb]

"... they are planning an attack soon on the United States,” said Richard Clarke, a former White House anti-terrorism chief. “Would he say that and risk being proved wrong, if he can’t pull it off in a month or so?” Clarke asked.

[Shloky]

James -

First - can the fragmentation of the nation state as a goal be seen as another empire war?

Second - Military strength is the primary means of winning a conflict but only after crippling the support (read economic) system. Strength can be created through resource allocation. The tired hydra metaphor comes to mind.

Third - I think you overstate the case for mythology. The State Failure 101 brief on this site explains it well at the macro level. Maslow and whatnot.