Training for the Jihad (merged thread)

[SoiCowboy]

RTK, its no worries here. I like short and to the point. Will do on the urls.

Stan, I wasn't thinking about 18 wheelers, more like dumpsters and beer trucks that can get away with being large and in a town center. As you say with the anarchists and their dynamite, whats old is new again. The difference (as far as I can see) is this time, you can innovate much faster.

[Jedburgh]

...a lot of US institutions, like the Department of Justice and some of the US Army's doctrine writers, are about 20 years behind the curve....

I strongly disagree with this statement. By pre-OEF/OIF standards, doctrine has been developing at an amazing speed. Most importantly, entirely new FMs, TMs & TCs have been developed (for subjects that were never previously addressed in doctrine - especially regarding the IED threat, and on SSE, which is closely related), and the drafts put out to the key stakeholders out in the field with relative rapidity. It still takes a while for the drafts to be worked and re-worked (inital draft, draft, final draft, final approved draft, etc.) into final approved doctrine - but that is due nearly as much to the evolving nature of the threat as it is to administrative processes required for the doctrine to be approved and published for implementation.

And, despite your statement in the paper, you ain't gonna find most of these on GlobalSecurity.org, Cryptome.org or FAS.org.

[SoiCowboy]

I hadn't thought about the rewrites/updating of doctrine. I know that sounds stupid because they might have nailed it recently.

The first doctrine manual that comes to my mind is:

US Army (15th August 2005), A military guide to terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, TRADOC DCSINT Handbook No.1, Version 3.0

Because it cites the anarchist cookbook as a source for instructions to make homemade bombs.

I'll go away and look up some of the more recent ones. I think I've read some from 2004/5/6.

[Tom Odom]

I hadn't thought about the rewrites/updating of doctrine. I know that sounds stupid because they might have nailed it recently.

The first doctrine manual that comes to my mind is:

US Army (15th August 2005), A military guide to terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, TRADOC DCSINT Handbook No.1, Version 3.0

Because it cites the anarchist cookbook as a source for instructions to make homemade bombs.

I'll go away and look up some of the more recent ones. I think I've read some from 2004/5/6.

Try a bit more finesse on whether you are talking doctrine or TTP. Doctrine by definition is longer term. TTP--my business--is short term and often pushes doctrine in front of it like a bow wave. That has been very true for the past 5 years. You are correct that some doctrinal quarters are less amenable to change and indeed I still hear tensions expressed between "real War" and "COIN stuff". Sometimes the tensions between the doctrine side and the TTP side erupt into full disputes.

The other issue is manning. The old days where every proponent had a stable of doctrine writers is no more; they are short staffed and working priorities. In this regard, TTP chasers like me fill in the needs.

Best

Tom

[Jedburgh]

I hadn't thought about the rewrites/updating of doctrine. I know that sounds stupid because they might have nailed it recently.

The first doctrine manual that comes to my mind is:

US Army (15th August 2005), A military guide to terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, TRADOC DCSINT Handbook No.1, Version 3.0

Because it cites the anarchist cookbook as a source for instructions to make homemade bombs.

I'll go away and look up some of the more recent ones. I think I've read some from 2004/5/6.

The TRADOC DCSINT Handbook series are not doctrine. They are essentially reference materials that provide background on select subjects along with limited lessons learned. CALL materials are also not doctrine - however, they focus on capturing valuable TTPs and lessons learned that often are later translated into doctrine. "Doctrine" that addresses the IED threat in the Army will be found in published Field Manuals (FMs) and Training Manuals (TMs), with a few other designations not mentioned.

[SoiCowboy]

Well there we are then. I'm using the wrong terms and I stand corrected.

[Jedburgh]

If you're not aware of it, this one has been around for a few years. It was down for quite a while, but it appears to be running again:

The Explosives and Weapons Forum: A Weapon of Mass Instruction

[SoiCowboy]

Thanks. Well aware of them. They're more technical than the average pyro, though they still come across as a bunch of elitists.

[Stan]

Stan, As you say with the anarchists and their dynamite, whats old is new again. The difference (as far as I can see) is this time, you can innovate much faster.

Certainly true, but then forensic science has also come a long way. This may not hold true in Iraq, but look how quickly a forensic post blast found Yousef (sp?) in the 93 WTC bombing, or better yet, how quickly McVeigh & Nichols were caught.

The Tube bombings took a bit more time, but again forensic science also caught up with them.

I'll still check around for some current stats as promised.

I'll close with echoing what Jedburgh posted:

Such sites as GlobalSecurity.org, Cryptome.org or FAS.org are at best references and barely touch the surface. While you may find the chemical combinations and terms for explosives, much like the IRA in the early 70s, you won't find out just what percentage translates to hghly unstable. Those manuals are all classified, tried and true.

I don't know what the DOJ is doing, but I do know that the Army is not behind the curve.