Terrorism in the USA:threat & response

[SWJED]

3 July Washington Post - Attempts Seen As Model for New Attacks On U.S. Soil by Karen DeYoung.

The next terrorist assault on the United States is likely to come through relatively unsophisticated, near-simultaneous attacks -- similar to those attempted in Britain over the weekend -- designed more to provoke widespread fear and panic than to cause major losses of life, U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials believe.

Such attacks require minimal expertise and training and are difficult to prevent. Although British investigators have not claimed al-Qaeda involvement in the latest incidents, officials here said they may constitute a "hybrid" phenomenon, in which al-Qaeda inspires and guides local groups from afar but establishes no visible operational or logistical links.

"What is a direct link?" asked one counterterrorism official. "Is it couriers? Messengers?" U.S. officials "from very senior folks" on down, he said, are watching as the British work to reconstruct the attacks and trace their origin...

[SteveMetz]

3 July Washington Post - Attempts Seen As Model for New Attacks On U.S. Soil by Karen DeYoung.

It certainly bears watching but if this slate of buffoons in UK is any indication, we're dealing with the terrorism "D" team at this point.

What leaves me eternally perplexed is exactly what those guys are thinking. I'd love to talk to them and say, "Please connect the dots between murdering people on the streets and the conversion of the English to Islam and the adoption of sharia law." Do they really think millions of English are going to say, "Yowzee--a religion whose adherents murder women and children. Sign me up for that!"?

[Graycap]

Do they really think millions of English are going to say, "Yowzee--a religion whose adherents murder women and children. Sign me up for that!"?

I don't think so. I think that they only want the Great Britain State to over-react in front of a choice: security vs normality. Do you want business as usual? No problem you will have all the bombs you can think of. Do you want security? Goodbye swinging London and multiculturalism.

Whatever choice you make the risk to have a social breakdown is real. After that to impose sharia law at islamic minority will be easy once it will be equal to say social security. And when we will have a portion of a western state run by sharia we will know that war will be on our soil.

Just my two cents..

Graycap

[CPT Holzbach]

The English will overcome this just fine. They handled many years of IRA terrorism, shootings, and bombs. The real question is will we be smart enough to learn from them?

Tomorrow Ill be calling for people to tar and feather the hated English overlords. But for today, I say let's study what they do about these attacks and learn something.

[Jedburgh]

It certainly bears watching but if this slate of buffoons in UK is any indication, we're dealing with the terrorism "D" team at this point....

I second Steve's comment; relatively unsophisticated is an overstatement regarding these clowns. But that observation is offset by the point made in this 3 Jul 07 article in The Economist:

Britain under threat: Even failed attacks may promote terrorists’ interests.

....Attempted bombings like these recent ones may not be carried out by the most effective al-Qaeda operatives, but even failed strikes take up a huge quantity of time from intelligence officers and police, potentially distracting them from other planned attacks. In Britain MI5 is expanding substantially, from 1,800 staff in 2001 to a projected 3,500 in 2008. But growth takes time, as does the training of new officers and the recruiting of informers. Meanwhile the number of suspected terrorist networks is growing exponentially, roughly doubling every year since the invasion of Iraq in 2003....

[Abu Buckwheat]

It certainly bears watching but if this slate of buffoons in UK is any indication, we're dealing with the terrorism "D" team at this point.

What leaves me eternally perplexed is exactly what those guys are thinking. I'd love to talk to them and say, "Please connect the dots between murdering people on the streets and the conversion of the English to Islam and the adoption of sharia law." Do they really think millions of English are going to say, "Yowzee--a religion whose adherents murder women and children. Sign me up for that!"?

Oh I really second this great post! This was horribly amateurish! I pray to god that AQ inspired terroristskeep up this level of incompetence ... however we should be cautious that mistakes are always learned by others and corrected. Still this was not much of a threat but they exposed themselves and now they will pay the price.

[Old Eagle]

Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't seen more of this type of attack.

1. Amateurs are sometimes successful. Please don't write them off out of hand.

2. AQ has varying levels of influence on operations:
-- Those that are centrally planned by the A team
-- Those that are "nominated" from the field and then get support ($$, planning assistance, etc) from higher up
-- And those carried out by copycat/wannabes

3. We win by good police work and rule of law, even in the intelligence work that goes into prevention. It appears (obvious to me) that NSY/MI5 were onto some of this plot, but couldn't wrap it up before hand as they have some of the other recent attempts. If we sacrifice our freedoms and way of life in the name of security, the bad guys win.

4. The good news is that both the US and UK have decent LE and judicial systems. Both societies are very resilient.

[Merv Benson]

I think it is a reflection of the lack of depth at the operational level. The guy who originally thought up the idea of limo bombs using propane cannisters was already in jail in the UK.

I am sure the deficiencies in the plan were also compounded by the arrogance of doctors who think that because they are smart in medicine they are smart in other "operations." An interview with one of the professors of the "brilliant" neurosurgeon leader of the group discloses earlier manifestations of hubris. This led to many errors that just kept compounding.

I would also point out that unlike the Iran-Hezballah operation in Karbala, these guys got no practice time with training to see if their device would even explode. At this point the Shia terrorist appear to be much more "professional." However, even their operations in Iraq are suffering from the roll up of "secret cells." BTW, anyone know how the Iranian-Hezballah cells came to be called "secret cells?" I thought all terrorist cells were supposed to be secret.

[120mm]

I am sure the deficiencies in the plan were also compounded by the arrogance of doctors who think that because they are smart in medicine they are smart in other "operations." An interview with one of the professors of the "brilliant" neurosurgeon leader of the group discloses earlier manifestations of hubris. This led to many errors that just kept compounding.

In my other life, I play a mild-mannered airplane mechanic. With as many doctors I count as customers, you have no idea how fricking funny (and true) this is.

[Stevely]

Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't seen more of this type of attack.

1. Amateurs are sometimes successful. Please don't write them off out of hand.

And success breeds imitators, and maybe even studied failure does too. They may have been "clowns" but I think the number is 7 now of the 12 in custody are medical doctors, so they are not stupid people by any means, just inexperienced. With the internet and other modern communications tools, the enemy is going to have his own "lessons learned" capability, and the quality of advice available to amateurs like these will only get better. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to create a lot of mayhem, and thus it is very disturbing to see MDs involved in this business. We may not be so lucky the next time. It's disturbing to see the enemy's ideology attracting people who really ought to know better, and I think it is a sign of worse to come.

[Bob's World]

It certainly bears watching but if this slate of buffoons in UK is any indication, we're dealing with the terrorism "D" team at this point.

What leaves me eternally perplexed is exactly what those guys are thinking. I'd love to talk to them and say, "Please connect the dots between murdering people on the streets and the conversion of the English to Islam and the adoption of sharia law." Do they really think millions of English are going to say, "Yowzee--a religion whose adherents murder women and children. Sign me up for that!"?

Excelent point; however I think it is more instructive to view the use of islamic based ideologies to motivate Muslim populaces today in a similar light as communist ideologies used to motivate populaces in SEA in the sixties that were striving to throw off colonial governments. Or perhaps more accurately, the protestant christian ideologies that were used to throw off the Catholic governance of the Holy Roman Empire over Europe a few years back.

While religion is at the root of the ideology in two of the cases, in all of the cases the role of ideology is to motivate the populace to support the insurgency, while at the same time taking a position that the counterinsurgent is either unable or unwilling to co-opt or concede.

We get too focused on the message, and lose sight of the purpose and effect. It does not matter if it is an accurate portrayal if Islam, what matters is that it is effective in getting people to join the cause. What we must do is break down the message, and where we can, agree or co-opt the platform as our own. We must then, not attack the message, but instead compete a more effective message in that same marketplace of ideas.

You don't buy Toyotas over Chevys because Toyota runs a major ad campaign attacking Chevy. You buy Toyotas because they build a better product and sell the benefits of buying that product.

So, are we building a better product and if so, are we selling it?

I believe the populace-based ideology crafted by our founding fathers is a piece of timeless genius. I recommend we step back from some current concepts of what America is and go back to our roots, and start selling that.

[120mm]

In the book, "What Muslims Really Want" by the Gallup organization, they show that the great majority of adherants to Islam really, really like the fundamental precepts of America's political system.

So, I think Bob's World has an incredibly salient point, right there.

[Bob's World]

For those interested, I went into greater depth on this in an article posted back in April.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/mag/2008...cal-battle.php

[jmm99]

re: SGMGrumpy's post.

This is one that has plagued my imagination since Oklahoma City. So much toothpaste has exited the tube as more and more people are trained in nasty tactics. It stands to reason that some of them will use those tactics in their "real world" lives - and not as part of some AQ- or Hez-linked org.

The havoc raised by two simple operations - anthrax letters and DC snipers - proves that our nation is very over-reactive to these things. The consequential economic and psychological damage far exceeds the immediate damage done by the operations.

I see this as a problem that will continue - and will probably grow. Thanks for giving us a headsup on this incident.

[jmm99]

120mm
In the book, "What Muslims Really Want" by the Gallup organization, they show that the great majority of adherants to Islam really, really like the fundamental precepts of America's political system.

In drawing conclusions from such polls, I believe it is important to analyze them in terms of BW's concept making a distinction between principles and values. Adding some of my words here:

1. Principles (the abstract theories - e.g., all men are created equal).

2. Values (the culmination of valuation processes; that is, the reductions to real world practices of the abstract principles).

I think (having read a few) that these polls tend to ask whether there is agreement with the abstract principle. As an example, UBL, Zawahiri and Maududi would agree that "all men are created equal" - in fact, it is fundamental to their ideology. Where they go with that principle is different from where we go in its valuation process.

The problem is obvious. That "foreign guy" agrees with all of my principles, but then does a 180 in what he does - as compared to what I do - "What a f...ing liar. Can't trust these damn furriners." Etc.

------------------
BW: would like to do a line by line on your April article - not necessarily on a thread. Have to think about that one - also still owe you a PM on Quakers, with some thoughts that have some relevance to this and other topics.

Further PS: Another distinction has to be made between fundamental ideology (which at most evolves) and "tactical manipulation of causes" (which may or may not affect the fundamental ideology) - Galula's take on that I've cited in another thread.