The Internet: A Portal to Violent Islamist Extremism

[Jedburgh]

Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on The Internet: A Portal to Violent Islamist Extremism, 3 May 07:

Michael S. Doran, Deputy Asst Secretary of Defense for Support for Public Diplomacy

LTC Joseph H. Felter, Director, USMA Combating Terrorism Center

Frank J. Cilluffo, Associate VP for Homeland Security, Director, Homeland Security Policy Institute, GWU

[Stan]

From Russia's Daily Online Kommersant: Chief of staff of the National Antiterrorist Committee Vladimir Bulavin called the Internet an aid to terrorists and criminals.

At a working meeting between the special services of Russia and Azerbaijan, Bulavin stated, “We have a common headache and misfortune. That's the Internet, which was probably thought up by the world community for the better, in its own way, but has, unfortunately, turned into an encyclopedia and aid for terrorists and bandit elements.” Bulavin said that the Russian and Azeri special services discussed how to fight that phenomenon.
“Even on the bilateral level, we cannot defeat that phenomenon,” Bulavin said. “Therefore, we intend to introduce the issue at the meeting of the FSB of Russia with its foreign partners, which will take place in September 2007 in Khabarovsk. Representatives of almost 90 enforcement agencies from 59 countries will take part in that meeting.

Bulavin also stated that the special services of Russia and Azerbaijan discussed joint action to counter international terrorism, guaranteeing the security of electricity- and heat-generating facilities, cooperation at the border, informational security and personnel training.

[SteveMetz]

"When Osama bin Laden issued his videotaped message to the American people last month, a young jihad enthusiast went online to help spread the word.

The global jihad is as close as YouTube, which features videos like an ode to suicide attacks, a message 'to black Americans' from a bin Laden lieutenant, and an Iraq insurgency promotional message.

'America needs to listen to Shaykh Usaamah very carefully and take his message with great seriousness,' he wrote on his blog. 'America is known to be a people of arrogance.'

Unlike Mr. bin Laden, the blogger was not operating from a remote location. It turns out he is a 21-year-old American named Samir Khan who produces his blog from his parents’ home in North Carolina, where he serves as a kind of Western relay station for the multimedia productions of violent Islamic groups..."

Personally, I think the United States ought to consider armed intervention in North Carolina. If we could somehow turn it into a democracy, it could spark further democratization in the region. And that would undercut this sort of support for terrorism.

But seriously, this is one more example of how information technology has altered the strategic landscape by blurring the distinctions between fantasy and reality in the minds of delusional young males. I still believe we are approaching a time when the United States will be forced to treat people from terrorism-producing states like Pakistan and the Arab world as we did those from the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War, i.e. as requiring special control and surveillance.

[Rockbridge]

The fine line between free speech and providing aid and comfort to the enemy has been crossed. I've always been a fan of deportation. The "black Chinook" needs to be sent out to get this guy.

Our legal system simply doesn't have a mechanism for dealing with these types of people. Are they enemy collaborators or are they simply voicing their opinions? Either way, they bear watching at the very least.

[SteveMetz]

The fine line between free speech and providing aid and comfort to the enemy has been crossed. I've always been a fan of deportation. The "black Chinook" needs to be sent out to get this guy.

Our legal system simply doesn't have a mechanism for dealing with these types of people. Are they enemy collaborators or are they simply voicing their opinions? Either way, they bear watching at the very least.

On the afternoon of September 11th I said that THE great debate of coming years is whether we can survive with an 18th century constitution and a 20th or even 19th century conceptualization of war in the 21st century. I agree with you that we need to relook our notion of free speech. Our traditional idea is that we're willing to accept constrictions of our freedoms during time of war. That was OK when wars were abnormal and episodic. But how does that play out if war is persistent, maybe even perpetual? As a nation, we have not yet had this debate.

[Old Eagle]

Hadn't considered the challenge in these terms before. But if all (persistent) conflict takes place within the information environment, as our doctrinal manuals proclaim, there are major implications.

Theoretically, one solution is indeed to restrict freedom of expression, but the other is to get better than the bad guys at this game.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

On the afternoon of September 11th I said that THE great debate of coming years is whether we can survive with an 18th century constitution and a 20th or even 19th century conceptualization of war in the 21st century.

Yup. The thing is that what has really strained your constitution isn't war per se, but a complete shift in the communications and cognitive environments. The environment which produced your constitution was one of a literate elite and middle classes, but restricted numbers of works. This led to a definition of "cultural literacy" which was broad based and highly reflective and reflexive. It also led to a situation where people knew what "clear thinking" (in the sense of logical thinking) was and recognized its limitations (i.e. change the assumptions, change the outcome).

Ever since you folks shifted to a Managed Society, things have changed (consider the effects of shifting from oral debate and letter writing to local papers vs. the employment of radio and, later, television - broadcast media rather than interactive). The Managed Society pretty much had put the last nail in the coffin of your constitution by about, say, the mid-1960's and then proceeded to go into its own death throws in the late 1960's - early 1970's. The spin offs, however, such as a large bureaucracy, large corporations, "recognized thinkers" and a two-party system which stifles actual debate and thought, are still with you.

Now you are in the Information Society - a form of social organization that is closer to hunting and gathering behaviour and meaning construction than anything else. And, given the spread and reach of 'net based communications, that means the search for meaning is global. What is even worse is that the "traditional" forms of meaning available in the US, many of them centered around individualism and/or service to an ideal, had been appropriated by the Managed Society and either "tainted" or warped by them.

I agree with you that we need to relook our notion of free speech. Our traditional idea is that we're willing to accept constrictions of our freedoms during time of war. That was OK when wars were abnormal and episodic.

I'm going to sound a bit like Buckle (or Jared Diamond) here, but it really has little to do with the "abnormal and episodic" nature of war - it has to do with communicative closeness. The US, like Canada, Australia and New Zealand had a major advantage during the 19th and early 20th centuries - we were all a long way away from anyone who wanted to schmuck us and protected by oceans. Nowadays, our communications environment is closer to that of the Germanies in the 17th century and it is our communications environment that is the environment in which and through which we construct or sense of meaning and identity.

But how does that play out if war is persistent, maybe even perpetual? As a nation, we have not yet had this debate.

That is a key question, Steve. My take on it is that in many ways you need to centre that debate on the what it means to be "American" - the positive forms of identity. One of the keys to that is freedom of speech, but not freedom of action (i.e. you can talk in favour of the irhabi but not materially support them). The debate does need to be held and it will, IMHO, be a very long one.

[Schmedlap]

Originally Posted by SteveMetz:
I agree with you that we need to relook our notion of free speech. Our traditional idea is that we're willing to accept constrictions of our freedoms during time of war. That was OK when wars were abnormal and episodic.

Originally posted by marct:
I'm going to sound a bit like Buckle (or Jared Diamond) here, but it really has little to do with the "abnormal and episodic" nature of war - it has to do with communicative closeness. The US, like Canada, Australia and New Zealand had a major advantage during the 19th and early 20th centuries - we were all a long way away from anyone who wanted to schmuck us and protected by oceans. Nowadays, our communications environment is closer to that of the Germanies in the 17th century and it is our communications environment that is the environment in which and through which we construct or sense of meaning and identity.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I think you missed it here. I think that our society realized, as recently as WWII, that a war is US against THEM. Since then, it has become fashionable and sometimes even a prerequisite to being recognized as an enlightened thinker in America to be overly self-critical of your own country. To decry America as an imperialist, greedy, destructive force in the world is the acme of enlightenment in many influential academic circles. To decry America as inherently racist and prejudiced against minorities is a necessary perception that must be perpetuated for various victims' rights groups.

A fissure has developed between many Americans and our civil society. It is partly due to the aforementioned trendiness of self-loathing and partly due to a higher standard of living and cushiness about our society that allows impressionable youths and disconnected academics to ponder about, and convince themselves of, nonsensical ideas about the evils of America. When a person no longer sees himself as a member of civil society, but rather views civil society as an obstacle to his immediate personal gratification or an inconvenience or as a tyrant that he has constructed in his mind, then it is tough to foster the "US versus THEM" mindset necessary to enforce behavior in the way that Lincoln or FDR did.

Can you imagine the response if Bush set up internment camps for Arabs and/or Muslims like FDR did in WWII? Can you imagine suspending Habeas Corpus like Lincoln did? Most important of all, can you imagine if the interned citizens still swore allegiance to America as the Japanese did in WWII?

You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but you can run a propaganda machine for an international terrorist organization that seeks your destruction.

[wm]

On the afternoon of September 11th I said that THE great debate of coming years is whether we can survive with an 18th century constitution and a 20th or even 19th century conceptualization of war in the 21st century. I agree with you that we need to relook our notion of free speech. Our traditional idea is that we're willing to accept constrictions of our freedoms during time of war. That was OK when wars were abnormal and episodic. But how does that play out if war is persistent, maybe even perpetual? As a nation, we have not yet had this debate.

I think we need to remember a significant insurgent goal and the tactics used to achieve it. Insurgencies succeed by causing the people to give up their allegiance to the current government. A way to do this is to use methods that change perceptions as to the legitimitacy of the current governing institution or party. Insurgents seek to undermine the perceived legitimacy of an incumbent government by causing that government to change the country's status quo in ways perceived as negative by the country's citizens/inhabitants. For example, the repression of the current freedom of expression enjoyed in the United States would be at least a tactical victory for the bad guys out there. It becomes tough to advocate for and defend liberal democracy around the globe when one is repressing its tenets at home.

The fact that we as a nation have not had the debate Steve notes might indicate that the citizens (those the government is supposed to serve) do not see a need to change how the government protects the values the people want protected.

[Rockbridge]

It becomes tough to advocate for and defend liberal democracy around the globe when one is repressing its tenets at home.

I couldn't agree more, and certainly don't advocate heading down the slippery slope to suppressing 1st Amendment rightts. If we go that direction, somebody might decide that SWJ needs to be suppressed.

That being said, if his overt support for terrorists was made widely known in his hometown, his life might be a bit less pleasant. If all of your neighbors know what that you're openly advocating the armed overthrow of their government and destruction of their society, they might not be too friendly.

[marct]

From MEMRI

In a message posted March 2, 2008 on the Islamist forum Al-Ikhlas (hosted by Piradius.net in Malaysia), a member calling himself "abumuslim22" urged his fellow forum members to engage in "media jihad," and provided advice and safety tips.

More...

Much more at the link.

[Bill Moore]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...9471721&page=1

A private Israeli intelligence company told ABC News Monday there was a surge of online discussions in extremist Islamic forums about blowing up planes three weeks before Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to bring down Northwest Flight 253. The discussions recommended using "improvised detonation chain" devices, exactly like the one used onboard the Detroit-bound flight.

"These discussions were about the exact same technique used on the Detroit flight," he said. "There were very detailed instructions on how many grams of chemicals to use, so as to avoid detection. They also talked in great detail about what liquids should be used."

More at the article, but the take away for this post is this article IMO clearly illustrates how the internet has changed the character of this war by enabling any extremist community of interest (local or global) to collaborate and collude (to facilitate rapid learning and operational planning), which in turns rapidly increases their proficiency (forcing us to the same), thus the speed of co-evolution (cat and mouse) increases. Also known as the Red Queen Effect.

At the same time he claims there have also been terrifying online exchanges about using aerosols filled with biological agents to attack planes.

"These are not kids talking about using biological agents to attack planes. These are two very sophisticated participants who are experts in chemical and biological agents."

Again, more detail in the article. The author also notes that the extremists basically swarm to these internet sites after an attack, or attempted attack, to discuss ways to do better next time (post operation self critique).

The implications identified in this article should be enough to wake most up to some rather frightening implications of what the future holds for us. Are we prepared to operate effectively in this environment?

[marct]

Hi Bill,

The implications identified in this article should be enough to wake most up to some rather frightening implications of what the future holds for us. Are we prepared to operate effectively in this environment?

The extremely short answer is "no, but...". Strangely enough, this process has been going on for about 25 years now using the 'net, and even longer in other areas (I've done a fair bit of work on how it impacted HR). The kludges that developed in the HR area are also being replicated in the military / security area, which just goes to show that Darwin was right !

Okay, let me pull this apart a bit. There are two central "problems" that are driving this phenomenon at the structural level. The first is that many necessary resources have been "locked" in "hard" organizational structures (classic, centralized and bureaucratic organizations). This "locking", however, has also allowed for an increasing split intra-organizationally between those parts of the organization that monitor the environment and those that "produce" the organizations "product". Increasingly, there is a divergence between the interests of these organizational sub-sections (cf Nuala Beck's Shifting Gears). So, in order for people to access the resources they actually need (vs. what they are told they need), they go increasingly outside of the formal system.

In the case of HR, this would mean that people looking for jobs would avoid the HR hiring process and people looking to hire would frequently do the same (using personal referral networks, setting up "pirate" hiring boards, etc.). In this case, the resources are being accessed via these "pirate" discussion boards which, in many ways, are analogous to the SWC .

I said there were two central "problems", and this brings us to the second one, which is how do you communicate with people who have the resources (knowledge, information, etc.) that you need? One of the ideas behind the establishment of centralized bureaucratic organizations was to create a formal communications structure: a common language (e.g. doctrine, etc.), expectations of who should "know" something (the concept of an office vs. a person), and methodologies for communications (e.g. procedures, memos, etc.). When this communications structure becomes less than needed to meet the immediately important environments of those effected by it, people will start to go outside of it; which is what the irhabi crowd is doing and, also, what the SWC crowd is doing.

So, when you ask "Are we prepared to operate effectively in this environment?" and I said "no, but...", what I was getting at was that it is actually impossible for an organization with relatively poor communications structures to compete with one that has much better information structures. Now, here's where the "but..." comes in....

In order to effectively compete, you have to formalize the organizational use of those communications structures that are outside of the organization. This means that the organization has to give up some of its core tenets, such as centralized control over the "message" and the forms of communications. This is already happening with the US forces to some degree, and that is a change that I am really happy to see.

There are, actually, some organizational changes that could be made as well but those, as the saying goes, are "beyond the scope of this paper" .

Cheers,

Marc

[davidbfpo]

Bill,

I too read this news report and wondered why the Israeli company Terrogence went public - as it appeared to be "bolting the door after the horse bolted". The story says:

...the threats were serious and sent a warning to his company's clients worldwide which include in his words, "Western governmental agencies.

Some Israeli analysis has been way off, like OBL was moving to Iraq and I wander what sort of company this is. In this field do you really want to give away anything, unless it is self-promotion? A quick Google search gave no clues on this company.

[Bill Moore]

I too read this news report and wondered why the Israeli company Terrogence went public

David, I always wonder the same, but giving them the benefit of the doubt they could simply be providing a public service by going public because they lost faith in our bureaucracy to act on this information.

As for some wacko Israeli analysis, you always have to be aware (especially from Israel's right) of their attempt to disguise analysis with an attempt to influence. I'm confident they're not the only ones (seems like the UK did something similar once or twice ). Debka.com is a good example, they have a lot of good information blended with an occassional doze of disinformation.

Not sure what anyone would have to gain personally by leaking this, so I'm not as suspect about this particular post. This isn't classified information, it is a company that does open source research.

Marc, I'm still thinking about your post, but definitely an interesting response. Bill