Hydras, Networks and Diseases

[Rob Thornton]

There is a great discussion on the Global Guerilla Blog ref. Terrorist Networks by J. Robb.

We are seeing something similiar on the local level. The Mosul IA and partner CF unit are having some great successes here lately. As a side, I think the two have finally come to an understanding on each other's information collection and analysis strengths and weaknesses and are complimenting each other better. There has been so much success in exploitation lately that it has caused me to wonder how you'd go about defining a decisive point in terms of transitioning some efforts from security to stability? Is it just a matter of a decrease in AIF activity (you might be missing something if this is the measuring stick)? Is it total numbers of cells broken up, materiel seized, AIF killed? Is it an increase in local economics and civilian cooperation? Its subjective, but I think its important because changing perception may be critical to bringing stability through building local capacity.

We discussed this with our IA counterparts and used the hydra (for Marc -its interesting that although they are not real familiar with Greek mythos - they do know what a hydra is - maybe from other stories/myths). I picked the hydra because I was trying to find a model that offered regeneration for the AIF, could be discussed in more visual/simple terms then say web networks or diseases, and could be portrayed as "killable".

The question is how much of the network (and its cells / hubs) do you have to neutralize or destroy in order to make the whole thing null? After that I think the question is how to establish conditions so it does not come back (as much as possible). The former seems like one of assessment through understanding, the latter one of transitioning to a security and stability plan that has elements of IO etc. I'd hate for us to become what has been called a "victim our successes" and all we did was create a respite through which the hydra regenerated without our knowledge. I don't think we want to get into a cycle of attrition where ISF/CF winds up treating recurring symptoms i.e.: AIF regenerates through being able to use the same IO because we were unable to bring about the types of changes where many of the arguments for active or passive support are dried up - jobs, basic services, opportunity.

Any thoughts you guys have would be great.