Economic Warfare Strategy

Rob,

I like to start by providing a link to an important research story "From the Horse's Mouth: Unraveling Al Qaida's Target Selection Calculus"

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/070417.htm

Quote:

---

Such an analysis of what al-Qa`ida tells the world—and, most importantly, what it instructs its recruits and would-be cell members—indicates that al-Qa`ida's target selection calculus is motivated by a far more ambitious, sophisticated and sinister motive: to destroy the economy of the United States and other Western powers by striking economic targets in the West and in the Muslim world. The network asserts that doing so curtails the American presence and influence in the Middle East and will end Western military and diplomatic support to regimes in the region. This ambition serves the final objective of severing American and Muslim alliances and bringing about the removal of all Western influence from the Middle East, as well as the overthrow of current Muslim regimes.

The calculus of primarily attacking western targets of significant economic value is bluntly discussed in al-Qa`ida's political publications which aim to "educate" the Muslim world about al-Qa`ida's objectives and methods. These publications elaborate in sinister detail the network's intention to empower individual cell members with the training and skills required to sustain al-Qa`ida's global Jihad.

---

This well researched article clarifies beyond dispute (in my opinion) that Al Qaeda has an overarching strategy based on economic warfare that we as a nation have yet to grasp, and even worse we act like an Al Qaeda patsy by supporting his strategy with our predictable, large, expensive, and ineffective responses to Al Qaeda attacks. Looking at it from an economic view point, it is as though Al Qaeda cuts us once, then we cut ourselves a thousand times reacting (or potentially over reacting). The article explains their effects based strategy clearly, and paraphrasing one example, the explain that if we attack one airport the enemy is obligated to spend millions/billions of dollars protecting all airports, not just in the west, but worldwide. This makes me wonder if the failed plot to blow up 11 planes in the UK was truly a failure, since the reaction was the same as had the plot been successful. Once the terrorist place a bomb in one mall, what will our response be? Federal laws mandating added security measures in every mall? Who will pay for that?

Our challenge is to find ways to effectively counter this strategy, but the equation is hard to defeat. As Robb stated in his book there are significant economic asymmetries. The one example he gave that I recall is an attack on an Iraqi pipeline that probably cost around $2,000.00 to execute, but resulting in a loss of $250 million in revenue. When they export these tactics to the West the economic asymmetry will be significantly worse. The challenge is to develop "cost effective" defenses, but I'm not sure that is even possible at this time.

Bill,
Great article & way to start the discussion with a great one. AQ’s 8 point plan is well articulated and borrows some from the psychology of people's war - in that it qualifies victory as being apparent/fulfilled, its just a matter of those taking up the Jihad to follow the instructions. It is a powerful psychological tool that fits with its decentralized nature - as long as you do these things and believe, we'll win"

I think it also brings up why contention for the Middle East and "traditional" Muslim lands are important. If you start removing some of the plan’s milestone type points, the prophetical tone of the plan is more open to debate, much as Lee mused about whose side God was really on. We must cast doubt as to AQ’s motivation and the pre-destination of the plan’s success.

I agree about the anti-terrorism measures being costly, but I'm not sure about its overall impact on our economy. I can't give you a good reason, other then to say that some of the monies spent have had positive side effects in other ways, such as disaster preparedness, public safety, the criminal justice system, Information security efforts, and maybe a few others - how much of that has come from an interest generated to protect ourselves against AQ and how much is not transferable – I don’t know. It is certainly costing an incredible sum in Iraq in terms of resources and focus, but the effort there would also seem to counter AQ's points 2,3 & 4 of their strategy - I think the trick here though is to find a better way to do this (both in Iraq and around the world)- maybe through proxies and allies.

What is really interesting to me is how much AQ identifies America through its economy. I think that really deserves some attention. I just wonder if Osama really believes it, or it is a kind of propaganda aimed at enhancing the infidel image? England was often misjudged by linking its will to its economy. We always hear that we are culturally ignorant about the East, but I wonder how many bad assumptions AQ made about us based on their belief system? Can we exploit that to our advantage?

Reading their plan also made me wonder how much of it was targeted at me the "infidel" reader? How much was meant to scare businessmen, consumers, from participating in the globalize world and from scaring Muslims who might have interests outside the Muslim world? It is a very good piece of strategic IO from that perspective since they are able to target so many audiences.

I think the way forward is to expand and strengthen economic ties across the board. If AQ has so much to offer lets put it on the table. I think the attraction of the caliphate is that it promises reconciliation for the disenfranchised and the truly ideological (ultra-conservative/radical). It promises a reward for believing in the Caliphate - you don't have to go to school, compete and succeed, you only have to believe and wage jihad - your problems real or imagined are not your fault, they are the fault of the infidels led by the Zionist and the United States - any and all things that come from the infidels are bad because they are not Godly.

We must help demystify the AQ credo and work to expose it as perversion of Islam, while at the same time investing into the same people that AQ is trying to recruit from. I don't think we can, or must we reach them all, what we need to do is create the conditions for stability that offer Hope, self-respect, opportunity, and something to lose by following Jihad vs. gaining Paradise. We must replace an ideology of hatred with something else. This is a two part equation – discredit the message from AQ, and offer something better. A person who does not have self-worth is easy picking for AQ. If you detract from the appeal of the message, then you take away the consumer base (put in capitalist terms:D). If you take away the consumer base then you reduce the weight of the movement and move AQ away from the tipping point they need for a truly mass movement of individual global guerillas working in concert to achieve systems failure.

We (all those interested in stability) must show that the way to Paradise is not through the AQ interpretation of the Qur’an, but through more benevolent forms of self sacrifice, and also through providing more moderate examples of faith. That tolerance, pluralism, and secularism are not juxtaposed to faith, but are simply conditions in which faith can be demonstrated. That it is OK to inter-act with other cultures and religions and discuss the different paths to God, and that of your faith’s own merits, it will spread. Here I think Robb’s point about the evolution of the nation-state is going to be different then we know it is right. Things are going to change one way or the other, but that does not mean it has to morph into a caliphate, nor does it mean the absence of government. I think government is a necessary evil in that we need some structure an organization to have a society.

I in no way mean to imply this is easy, or that I've articulated it well, just that I think the problem set requires something more then a strategy of shield and hammer because that is perhaps too costly to sustain for a decades long struggle, and that it is one of technological one -up manship. I'd prefer to see us adopt a balanced strategy that made at much use of free-markets and humanitarianism (both traits of the West) as sorts of asymmetric advantages as much as our military capabilities.

Hope I did not get to windy:o – but the subject had my two brain cells rubbing together real hard.

Well - I'm going to charge on to CH 4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

This well researched article clarifies beyond dispute (in my opinion) that Al Qaeda has an overarching strategy based on economic warfare that we as a nation have yet to grasp, and even worse we act like an Al Qaeda patsy by supporting his strategy with our predictable, large, expensive, and ineffective responses to Al Qaeda attacks. Looking at it from an economic view point, it is as though Al Qaeda cuts us once, then we cut ourselves a thousand times reacting (or potentially over reacting). The article explains their effects based strategy clearly, and paraphrasing one example, the explain that if we attack one airport the enemy is obligated to spend millions/billions of dollars protecting all airports, not just in the west, but worldwide. This makes me wonder if the failed plot to blow up 11 planes in the UK was truly a failure, since the reaction was the same as had the plot been successful. Once the terrorist place a bomb in one mall, what will our response be? Federal laws mandating added security measures in every mall? Who will pay for that?

---

I agree that we as a nation have failed to grasp the strategy; we certainly haven’t come to grips with it at the national decision-making level. However, there are not a few within the community that have been well aware of this for quite a long time – and have experienced just a bit of frustration at the predictable knee-jerk manner in which we react to both incidents and threats.

And at another level, there is a huge crowd of parasites here in the U.S. that knowingly exploits this type of knee-jerk reaction with fast-food consultant advice and ad hoc training opportunities that, amazingly, are bought up by people who you think would know better. This crowd of “experts” purposefully perpetuates this predictable manner of reaction because they profit from it.

Then there’s the massive lot of semi-trained and inexperienced analysts throughout the community who immediately react with a flood of so-called analysis and IBs as to their perception of the impact of the “new tactic”. They’re like a syndicated news article – they all read the same, just under different agencies’ letterheads.

This is truly an example of the crime theory of “displacement” in reverse. As illustrated by the quotes in the article, the bad guys understand our method of reaction – but what is unstated in the piece is that fact that, with finite resources, we almost always strip/reduce some potential target (whether of physical security, or redirecting intel assets) in order to focus on the “new” threat. This raises the question as to whether the incident/threat is purely targeted at forcing us to expend more of our treasure in the process of bleeding our economy – or whether it is a feint/probe, to further their knowledge of our reactions and how we shift resources to deal with threats.

Given the rich target environment and their failure to take advantage of certain very lucrative targets both domestically and overseas, I hesitate to give them much credit toward the latter interpretation. However, there are truly smart guys among the SOBs, and we can’t bet the farm on continued failure to exploit weaknesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Our challenge is to find ways to effectively counter this strategy, but the equation is hard to defeat. As Robb stated in his book there are significant economic asymmetries. The one example he gave that I recall is an attack on an Iraqi pipeline that probably cost around $2,000.00 to execute, but resulting in a loss of $250 million in revenue. When they export these tactics to the West the economic asymmetry will be significantly worse. The challenge is to develop "cost effective" defenses, but I'm not sure that is even possible at this time.

---

The counter is not a fortress reaction – this is not only economically unfeasible, but it is simply impossible to secure everything. You can’t drink the ocean. The “cost effective defense” is aggressively attacking the networks. We are doing this, to an extent, but not as much as we should (in my personal, biased opinion). I am referring to the combined intelligence, law enforcement and special operations effort to disrupt and destroy Al Qa’ida command and operational cells.

Being an old HUMINT’er, I naturally tend to lean toward intelligence driven ops. But I believe in this matter I am not really being parochial when I say this is truly the only effective way to approach mitigating this threat. Given that the effort needs to be truly collaborative, we are still (almost criminally so, in my opinion) hamstrung by lack of effective intelligence sharing across the spectrum and real communications interoperability doesn’t exist - efforts to fix these issues remain fragmented.

In any case, there is no such thing as an outright “defeat” of an enemy of this nature – but we can sufficiently mitigate the threat by disrupting and destroying elements of the network until his moment has passed.

This reminded me of an interview I once heard with a guy had been a F-105 pilot in Vietnam he add up the cost of a few sorties of fighters vs the cost of the few small boats or trucks that they would destroy. Concluding that part of our problem there was that our bottom line was so out of line with our enemy.

Still I don’t know for a relatively poor state or not-state group to be attack the US’s economy seems like it might be hitting us at our strongest point. . .then again we the national debt is what $8 trillion?

Quote:

---

Still I don’t know for a relatively poor state or not-state group to be attack the US’s economy seems like it might be hitting us at our strongest point. . .then again we the national debt is what $8 trillion?

---

Thats a good way of looking at it. I think it's less our economy that's a strong point though, and more our capitalistic tradition. America is nothing if not ruthlessly capitalistic, sometimes unethically so, as Jedburgh pointed out with all the bogus "analysis for hire". So how can we leverage that tradition and our deep pool of business talent to both harden our economy and go after the enemy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stu-6

This reminded me of an interview I once heard with a guy had been a F-105 pilot in Vietnam he add up the cost of a few sorties of fighters vs the cost of the few small boats or trucks that they would destroy. Concluding that part of our problem there was that our bottom line was so out of line with our enemy.

---

Yup. Robb's big on talking about ROI (return on investment), isn't he? The figure that always gets me, don't remember where I got it but it was somewhere reputable, was that 9/11 cost Al Qaeda about $500,000 and did, at conservative estimates, $500 billion in damage to the U.S. economy.

Heh, I used some of Robb's work on this subject for a recent Master's paper.

The conservative estimate was $80B, with $500B being the highest figure.

I think he's on to something - the costs of waging high tech war, whether conventional or not, is becoming unsustainable even for us. If AQ or other terror groups continue to attack us with cost/benefit ratios similar to 9/11, then we are in trouble.

The good news is that these kinds of attacks are exceedingly rare, and there are very few that I can imagine that would have the same impact as the 9/11attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Granite_State

Yup. Robb's big on talking about ROI (return on investment), isn't he? The figure that always gets me, don't remember where I got it but it was somewhere reputable, was that 9/11 cost Al Qaeda about $500,000 and did, at conservative estimates, $500 billion in damage to the U.S. economy.

---

My dumbass reply would be;

I don't think that they will ever hit us hard from the economic side of the house.

Our economy is too fluid to make this happen. Make us have tighter security at the airports, more security related jobs....more money for the average joe to spend.

SDI didn't kill us but it sure played havoc on the Soviets.

National debt.....when we sink, the world sinks.

Now hit us on our freedom, that's our critical vulnerability.

I just look at our national debt and wonder how long this will last. Outside of a 18 month blip after 9/11, we haven't had a prolonged slump in the economy since the late 80's. I can't see defense spending being at the same levels when we leave Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ski

Heh, I used some of Robb's work on this subject for a recent Master's paper.

The conservative estimate was $80B, with $500B being the highest figure.

I think he's on to something - the costs of waging high tech war, whether conventional or not, is becoming unsustainable even for us. If AQ or other terror groups continue to attack us with cost/benefit ratios similar to 9/11, then we are in trouble.

The good news is that these kinds of attacks are exceedingly rare, and there are very few that I can imagine that would have the same impact as the 9/11attacks.

---

What I have trouble understanding is why Al Qaeda hasn't used small scale terrorism to completely change our understanding of homeland security, and cause massive economic damage in the process. Car bombs in Houston, suicide bombers in shopping malls, another DC sniper, etc. Obviously they were severely damaged after we invaded Afghanistan. My understand of Robb is that he would talk about symbolic terrrorism, and how nothing except a nuke will top 9/11, and thus Al Qaeda can't live up to their own standards.

But given hysteria and paranoia that even semi-regular attacks on U.S. soil would have, and our open borders and easy access to guns, I still don't completely get why this hasn't happened. The ROI for these kind of attacks would be tremendous, in terms of the security measures citizens would demand, consumer confidence, versus the handful of men and weapons required.

And that's not even addressing the effect this would have on our freedoms, as Nichols said.

Independent, non-related, small scale attacks would offer a huge ROI for our foes, and not surprisingly it is what their strategists wrote in their umbrella strategy. For whatever reason those opting into the movement have not pursued this strategy. This strategy would not only have an economic impact (not immediately, but the additional security costs, lost business because people are scared to go shopping would add up over time, and it would be boom for Amazon and other .coms, so maybe our economic model would simply adjust), but the second order effects are also significant. It would impact our freedom, because the State would have to apply harsher security measures, and it would create fissures in our society, with some demanding mass arrests and special rules for all Muslim Americans, which could push several thousand more fence sitters into the extremist camp. Of course this is a worst case scenario, and would only happen if we had an incompetent administration.

Granite

This is speculation and nothing more:

I think AQ has succeeded in drawing us into the Middle East and that was their organization's #1 goal from the start. It allowed for them to attack us with greater ease and support - they live in the region and don't need to send people into a foreign culture. If OBL really believes that he can bankrupt the US, he's done a good job for the last 6 years. We're spending well over half a trillion dollars a year on the military, and all of that is deficit spending. It'll have to be repaid by you, me, and our children one day.

I also think they haven't attacked here in the US because it would give political support to Bush and Co. I remember reading an article about the 04 elections, and there were a few quotes from CIA analysts stating that the Bush victory was exactly what OBL and AQ wanted. I suspect that they are waiting until after the 08 elections to see who is the next President, and then they will rewrite their strategies.

Finally, getting us into Iraq solidified the belief in many Arab's minds that the US is just another Western imperialist power, and we are to be resisted. It's one hell of a propaganda tool.

The SITTEMP that Bill Moore describes is also my biggest fear - but I think AQ is more than satisified with how the last 6 years have gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Granite_State

The ROI for these kind of attacks would be tremendous, in terms of the security measures citizens would demand, consumer confidence, versus the handful of men and weapons required.

---

But will the effect be the same each time? Robb talks about the “diminishing returns of terrorism”, as in at what point does a target population get desensitized to the terror and the ROI decreases?

Related briefs of JRobb's: Why al Qaeda hasn't attacked the US since 9/11, TERRORIST DEATH-MARCH

I think the ROI will remain consistent, or more likely increase over time as second and third order effects add up, while the psychological impact will decrease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ski

Granite

This is speculation and nothing more:

I think AQ has succeeded in drawing us into the Middle East and that was their organization's #1 goal from the start. It allowed for them to attack us with greater ease and support - they live in the region and don't need to send people into a foreign culture. If OBL really believes that he can bankrupt the US, he's done a good job for the last 6 years. We're spending well over half a trillion dollars a year on the military, and all of that is deficit spending. It'll have to be repaid by you, me, and our children one day.

I also think they haven't attacked here in the US because it would give political support to Bush and Co. I remember reading an article about the 04 elections, and there were a few quotes from CIA analysts stating that the Bush victory was exactly what OBL and AQ wanted. I suspect that they are waiting until after the 08 elections to see who is the next President, and then they will rewrite their strategies.

Finally, getting us into Iraq solidified the belief in many Arab's minds that the US is just another Western imperialist power, and we are to be resisted. It's one hell of a propaganda tool.

The SITTEMP that Bill Moore describes is also my biggest fear - but I think AQ is more than satisified with how the last 6 years have gone.

---

Your speculation makes perfect sense, Bin Laden wanted us to bleed ourselves dry like the Soviets, just predicted the wrong country. But as well as things have gone for Al Qaeda in Iraq (more their ideology than their fighters), doesn't it make sense to attack us at home at the same time?

And not sure I get your political point, if they wanted Bush to win, then attacking, and giving further support to this administration as a result, seems like the right play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

I think the ROI will remain consistent, or more likely increase over time as second and third order effects add up, while the psychological impact will decrease.

---

Agreed. I'd love to hear from anyone with extensive knowledge of IRA, Basque, or even Palestinian terrorism, bearing in mind that the first two are probably far smaller entities than Al Qaeda (sub 100 active Provisional IRA gunmen/terrorists at some points).

Granite

Politically, AQ doesn't need to waste scarce and critical terrorist teams to strike against the Bush Admin. They already have their desired results, and another attack against the US would just solidify American opinion against them.

The next President may withdraw from the Middle East or shift the fight into the intelligence, SOF and law enforcement arena. AQ would not have the luxury of fighting us in the ME, and the US would save hundreds of billions if not trillions by withdrawing from Iraq. It would negate OBL's grand strategy overnight.

Robb posted a comment about this attack on his website today. This is a very traditional insurgent attack, and behold, they're not Islamists, but good ole leftists. I have no idea what the return on investment was from this attack yet, and we probably never will get accurate figures, but it should be a few million dollars worth of bang for the buck. Not only is there lost production, damage to the pipeline that needs repaired, but a huge investment in deploying security forces in an attempt to secure the pipeline(s).

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ...tml#cnnSTCText

Quote:

---

Mexico vows to increase pipeline security after blasts
Story Highlights
There were explosions at a natural gas pipeline early Tuesday

A leftist rebel group has claimed responsibility

No oil exports were affected by the blast, officials said
MEXICO CITY, Mexico (Reuters)-- Mexico said on Tuesday it would tighten security at strategic installations after a shadowy leftist rebel group claimed responsibility for a rash of fuel pipeline explosions.

The four blasts shut down pipelines supplying natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, crude oil and gasoline to the domestic market.

But none of the blasts affected oil exports and no injuries were reported, according to state oil monopoly Pemex.

---

Quote:

---

but good ole leftists.

---

Bill

You made me smile with that one :wry:

One might think all leftists are extinct; maybe they will mate with the Islamic extremists and we will get a new version of "Liberation Irhabists".

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

...a very traditional insurgent attack, and behold, they're not Islamists, but good ole leftists....

---

India's Naxalites are another bunch of forgotten lefties out there still causing trouble. When India does make the terrorism news, it tends to be due to the Jihadis executing a high-profile bombing, but it is the Naxalites who are conducting sustained, persistent, attacks - like the one which killed 24 police officers today.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has actually ruled West Bengal state in India for over 30 years, winning successive elections repeatedly. Lately it has embraced foreign investment and have, ironically, faced much armed opposition from the Naxalites.

PM Manmohan Singh has called the Naxalites "the single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our country", which is a pretty big declaration given India's long history of insurgencies.

edit: Decent Economist summary of the Naxalite movement in its most recent incarnation, with a good mention of how a "popular" movement of anti-Communist militia has sprung up and escalated the level of violence in the countryside.

And then there are the Nepalise Marxists as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ski

And then there are the Nepalise Marxists as well.

---

...if you have the opportunity to go back and look at actions during their operational peak, they offer an IED study that is distinct from that in Iraq. But the conflict there has quieted down significantly, although there are still issues.

Good background on those guys from ICG, 18 May 07: Nepal's Maoists: Purists or Pragmatists?

Quote:

---

Nepal’s Maoists have changed their strategy and tactics but not yet their goals. In 1996 they launched a “people’s war” to establish a communist republic but ten years later ended it by accepting multiparty democracy; their armed struggle targeted the parliamentary system but they are now working alongside their former enemies, the mainstream parties, in an interim legislature and coalition government. Their commitment to pluralistic politics and society is far from definitive, and their future course will depend on both internal and external factors. While they have signed up to a peaceful, multiparty transition, they continue to hone alternative plans for more revolutionary change....

---

This could well be a leftest group, but I think they may have some new friends. When you consider Chavez's hostility toward Mexico and the US and his "strategic partnership" with Iran as well as bringing in the new central American leftists into that partnership, it is very possible that this is an indirect attack on the US energy supply by two countries who want to drive up the cost of oil. Iran has certainly used proxies in the past to achieve its objectives and I would not rule out its involvement at this time. Since the US is Pemex's best customer, I think it would be a mistake to rule out the involvement of Iran and Venezuela, especially on the funding end.

Hi Merv,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merv Benson

This could well be a leftest group, but I think they may have some new friends. .... Since the US is Pemex's best customer, I think it would be a mistake to rule out the involvement of Iran and Venezuela, especially on the funding end.

---

Hmmm, possible, but there is also the interesting note that there were no casualties. That is a little closer to the other types of popular leftist uprisings, eg the Zapatistas. The money may be filtering in, but I suspect that it is purely a marriage of convenience if it exists.

Marc

Merv,

In today's world it is easy for numerous groups with different agendas to network and support each other where there are common points of interest, or a profit to be made. Unfortunately with our current myopic view of strategic threats to the U.S., if you're not an Islamist you just don't make the list, no matter how hard you try (sorry North Korea). So what do we do, we automatically draw illogical links to Islamists, so we can draw attention to a problem. I think our nation's leaders have led much of America into a dangerous group think dynamic, where we're all extremely paranoid, thus we see the evil hand of Al Qaeda or Iran everywhere. What makes it worse is in most cases it "could" always be true to some degree, so it is hard to disprove. Sort of like WMD in Iraq, or AQ ties to Iraq, prior to our 2003 launch of OIF. I remain amused why educated men (and women) cannot collectively think rationally.

I think a communist insurgency in Mexico (without any Islamist influence) is a threat to our national interests on a number of levels. If it spreads (others were relatively easily defeated/suppressed) it could lead to increased legal and illegal migration, humanitarian issues, a hostile, or least not friendly gov on our southern border, etc. It is way to soon to make any claims like this, because this movement could be a flash in the pan, but the point is we have to look at all potential threats to U.S. interests, not just Islamists (which I know wasn't your point).

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

...I have no idea what the return on investment was from this attack yet, and we probably never will get accurate figures, but it should be a few million dollars worth of bang for the buck. Not only is there lost production, damage to the pipeline that needs repaired, but a huge investment in deploying security forces in an attempt to secure the pipeline.....

---

Gas pipeline attack in Mexico forces factories to shut down

Quote:

---

....At least a dozen companies including Honda Motor Co., Kellogg Co.'s, The Hershey Co., Nissan Motor Co., and Grupo Modelo SA were forced to suspend or scale back operations because of the lack of natural gas, the daily newspaper Excelsior reported. They said they faced millions of dollars in losses.

Vitro SAB, a Mexican company that makes glass containers, said the shutdown of two plants would cost it about $800,000 a day. Vitro said in a statement that it was increasing production at other plants in Mexico to minimize effects on customers.

Total business losses were being estimated at more than 70 million pesos ($6.4 million) a day, Excelsior reported, citing unidentified sources. The association representing Mexican industry said Wednesday it was looking into the extent of the explosions' financial impact....

---

From Barnett's book review at

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblo..._we_trust.html

Quote:

---

I think John's dissection of guerrillas inside the Gap is very powerful, but that when he cites--by extrapolation--similar capacities for system disruptions and system perturbations in the advanced world, he doesn't prove his case very well. Again, to me, his argument there reminds me of Marx's description of capitalism getting to a certain stage and then just collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. Keeping a failed state failed is not the same as crippling a functioning state with a growing economy. If it were, they'd be revolutions going on all over the Core regularly, when in reality change and adaptation is achieved more smoothly than John believes any nation-state capable of, even following huge expansions of technology like we've just endured again, but certainly not for the first time, in America's history.

Where John's criticism of states makes more sense to me is inside the Gap (I don't see states "hollowing out" inside the Core like John does--indeed, the most globalized states have the biggest and best and most powerful governments). There I do think his guerrillas can rule, under certain circumstances, by negation. But in the Core, by and large, I see these guerrillas as more nuisance than all-encompassing threat, so John's ROI arguments don't rock my boat, because the vast majority of such efforts by bad guys will never rise above the everyday noise level of routine failure and breakdowns, and when they do, they force change that's beneficial in far more ways than simply defeating terrorism, so the notion of being bled dry by guerrillas is--to me--unconvincing.

---

Perhaps this has a certain wisdom in it. Let's suppose you added up the average yearly losses in the United States due to natural disruptions of our various networks (electricity grids, etc.) by tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. Ignoring the intervention in Iraq, which I think most people here regard as a self-inflicted wound, just how much damage has AQ done per year within the U.S.? Is it equal to that done by natural causes?

Robb seems to believe that many of our networks are brittle. How brittle are they, really, in percent terms? This shouldn't be too difficult to estimate: Our power grids are hit regularly all over the country by lightning, wind, ice storms, etc...these random insults are probably less costly than targeted ones, but still it would give us some quantitative sense of what economic resilience has already been built into such networks.

I bet relevant estimates exist. I will ask some colleagues.

It dawned on me that lastdingo was arguing something similar to what Robb says above toward the end of this thread:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=3395