Apologies, and clarification
First off, I apologize for not fully introducing myself in my initial post, I do not usually use any type of open source for academic research and am therefore largely unfamiliar with basic courtesies. Indeed, I did not believe that I could use this type of evidence until my thesis adviser, a retired Air Force Intel Officer and current Poli Sci professor, pointed me to this site as an excellent resource, which it has proved to be.
In introduction, I am a college senior and ROTC MSIV and company commander, I recently branched MI, my first choice, and have submitted my TS clearance and list of duty stations.
In no way did I intend to violate OPSEC, and I do not believe that I have, as my question focuses on what the insurgents already know, what their sources are. I already know that they download and read our own FM's, books, and blogs. I am more concerned with any European connection as I previously stated. Western academics and media often overlook our own storied history with terrorism (IRA, ETA, Red Brigade, Baader-Meinhof, etc).
Once again I would appreciate any help with this question from anyone who has been there and done it.
If you would like, please email me at REMOVED BY MODERATOR USE PM FUNCTION TO CONTACT USER.
Thanks again.
Post your thesis outline ...
in summary, bulletpoint format - e.g., chaps 1-5, whatever, with a brief synopsis under each point - headings and short paragraphs. That will give people here an idea of whether they have anything they can share with you.
I wouldn't post stuff like email address here - recall you're posting to the wide, wide world - and you'll show up on Google. If someone wants that, they will PM you.
Fill out the About Me form - use mine as an example of straight forward (other folks have better senses of humor).
No Open Sources?? and some thoughts for your project
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NewMI2LT
I do not usually use any type of open source for academic research and am therefore largely unfamiliar with basic courtesies. Indeed, I did not believe that I could use this type of evidence until my thesis adviser, a retired Air Force Intel Officer and current Poli Sci professor, pointed me to this site as an excellent resource, which it has proved to be.
Surely this statement did not come out the way you meant it to and I say this half in jest. I do not know how you could do any type of academic research without using open sources (and since you have only applied for your security clearance I would question how you could have been using classified information for all your research). But I do not think that is what you meant and I assume from the context of your post that you meant you do not usually use sources such as Small Wars Journal or solicit assistance via the Internet. But looking back over your statement about not using open source for academic research is slightly humorous.
But I do wish you luck. I would not be too worried about OPSEC but if I were advising you I would say be careful that you have not already written your conclusion without the data to back it up. Sounds like your "real thesis" is that no one is seeing the links that you think you see and because of this we are missing something in our execution of the war on terrorism. I would caution anyone doing research to have a foregone conclusion as it will taint your search for and analysis of the facts.
However, my belief is that the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) being used by the enemy are not all that unique or new. The use of terror, the techniques to cause terror in the hearts and minds of people and governments are not that new. Sure they are adapted to today's technology and there are certain adaptations due to specific cultural influences but in the end the TTPs are all variations on a theme. Now if you accept such a thesis then you have to ask, "so what?" E.G., so what if today's terrorists are using the TTPs is the Red Brigade and Baader Meinhof or others? How is that going to help us? Yes it would be nice to be able to predict (or more realistically, anticipate) what might happen in the future but we should also realize that the range of TTPs, likely targets, and timing are made up of infinite variations making any type of prediction impossible. There are only about 5 things that we can do to be successful against terrorists (and insurgents):
1. Deny sanctuary
2. Deny mobility
3. Deny access to resources
4. Separate the population from the terrorists/insurgents (denying them support that provides sanctuary, mobility, and resources)
5. Conduct comprehensive (or holistic or all source) intelligence activities that facilitate targeting but also includes infiltration into terror networks which is the only way we can really have any chance of any kind of anticipatory action.
But I would ask you even if you can "prove" that today's terrorists have read and adapted the TTPs of European terrorists how that will help us?
Here is another example for you. Mao, Giap, and Ho Chi Minh developed their revolutionary theories and operational strategies based in part on studying the greatest insurgency ever successfully executed: the American Revolution. Mao, in particular, studied George Washington in some depth. We knew that, but did that help us to prevent Mao from defeating Chaing? Could it have helped us? I doubt it.
Again, I wish you the best in your research.
I strongly concur with John
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John T. Fishel
I learned a long time ago to be very cautious about taking classified sources too seriously. Technical stuff (classified) is often very good but at the same time very limited. Today, you can get stuff as good or better than we got during the Cuban Missile Crisis from Google Earth! But you still can't look inside a cave in Afghanistan. HUMINT from espionage nets is essential for denied areas (like the old USSR) but a good reporter usually gets better stuff than official reporting whether from the Embassy or intel agencies in relatively open societies. One problem is that the foreign correspondents are fewer than in the old days and don't have enough time on the ground to develop the kinds of sources their predecessors did. That said, there are many more unofficial observers on the ground today and they have access to the internet. Still, you have to be careful of using what you find on the net.
Bottom line is that some of the best stuff on Al Qaeda, for example, is from open sources like Peter Bergen, Rohan Gunaratna, and Raymond Ibrahim's The Al Qaeda Reader. Note that all the world's intel agencies were surprised by the Mumbai attacks but I wouldn't be shocked to find that they were predicted in some open source (I have no knowldge that they were but it would not surprise me).
Cheers
JohnT
And in addition, when we use classified information and write classified reports the audience that can be influenced is narrow. Use as much open source as possible and keep your reports unclassified and you have a better chance of making a positive contribution.
In the intelligence realm we think "having a need to know" and compartmentalization. When we think about information from an operational perspective we think "who else should know." E.G., who needs to know that information in order to achieve an operational or strategic effect in accordance with the campaign plan.
People are enamored with classified information and think it lends credibility to what they are writing but 1) most of the classified information can be found in open sources and 2) just because it is classified does not necessarily make it more credible than open source information. John is exactly right. The researchers he mentions (and I would add Bruce Hoffman and Marc Sagemen among many others - and like it or not journalists are also some of the best information providers) provide some of the best threat analysis that we have and they write for open source consumption. Don't discount their writings just because they are not classified.
Observations, Endnotes, & Bibliography worth considering...
H. John Poole's 2004 Tactics of the Crescent Moon (ISBN 0-9638695-7-4)
Pick Abu Buckwheat's Brain