Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 69

Thread: Are we caving to AQ threats?

  1. #21
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Posted by Surferbeetle,
    As we sometimes do, I disagree with you regarding limiting the definition of offense to just military action.
    Steve, thanks for catching this (Ken must be napping), I didn't mean to write it this way, so I added "doesn't".

    It’s interesting to think about why Yemen is coming to the forefront of media consciousness at this time.
    I think it is pretty clear why Yemen is moving to the front and center for media attention is because the threat appears new (news) to many (unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan), yet those in the know have been concerned about Yemen for a long time (at least since the attack on the USS COLE).

    So what can we learn about effective security and cost containment from Israel?
    Not sure at this point, I saw a special on Israel's procedures and they don't appear to be cheap by any stretch of the imagination. Also how many planes does Israel have in their fleet compared to the U.S.? The scale of the problem for us is considerably larger.

    More often than not, however, I am a ‘people are more important than hardware’ fan.
    I wasn't making reference to DOD, but defense of our borders, ports, airlines, trains, etc. They type of technology I was talking about was more effective baggage scanners, more capacity to detect WMD in our ports, etc. Focused on TSA, Air Marshals, Coast Guard, Customs, Border Patrol, etc. A combination of well trained and motivated security personnel enabled with effective technology is the only acceptable combination for the wealthiest nation on the planet. We have mis-spent billions attempting to develop foreign security forces (I say mis-spent because the efforts are often ineffective), while leaving our home front under invested in.

  2. #22
    Council Member Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Between deployments?
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Bill,

    I would agree on the security issue before 1983, but since then the Embassies have become more and more like fortresses. There are ways for the Ambassador to protect his folks without completely closing and announcing that it was in response to an AQ threat. Enhancing the perception of their threat does not enhance our security.

    Kind of like announcing that we will not send troops -- once the announcement is made it takes the option off the table just when we want AQ to be less sure about what we are doing, not more. And if the YM's request assistance, we are in a position of turning them down or going back on our word. Why put ourselves in that situation? It's unnecessary and does not advance our cause in any way. And as SteveO rightly points out, we have had troops there on training missions, so why say that we aren't sending troops when they are already there?

    AQ has failed wherever it has tried to take over, now even YM is attacking them in a big way. So why do we act like we are the ones under siege?

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Agree to disagree

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on the Embassy closure. I don't see it as a big deal, simply a prudent measure. I'm sure the Embassy there is hardened (not all are), but employees have to go through a choke point at the gate that exposes them to an attack. Much like the CIA employees who were killed by the nut case as they were in line waiting to enter Langley. It doesn't hurt to take a day to enhance your security measures. In the military we always assume Department of State is cowardly, but that is far from the truth. Not only do they live in harms way around the clock, they frequently live there with their families. That doesn't mean we always agree with their judgment or policies, but they are not the type to pull up their dresses and run away when there is a threat.

    Why do you assume the President saying we won't send troops was not a coordinated statement that was mutually agreed upon with Yemen's government? Why should we over react by sending combat troops without first determining if there is even a requirement. There have been failed plots against our commercial airlines from England also, should we send combat troops? I'm simply stating we might be the ones exaggerated the threat.

    Having a handful of troops training there is different than overtly deploying combat troops. As mentioned earlier in this thread we don't want to get caught up in their internal civil war, we just want to smash AQ. That means we need to avoid getting lead by the nose into a trap. IMHO this administration seems to get that.

    AQ has failed wherever it has tried to take over, now even YM is attacking them in a big way. So why do we act like we are the ones under siege?
    Again I don't think closing an Embassy for a day or two is acting like we're under seige. If my memory serves me correctly once upon a time in relatively recent history we closed our embassy in Paris for a day or two due to threat information. We were hardly under seige in Paris. Just taking prudent security measures. You may be privy to additional information, but based upon what I'm reading in the open press this isn't a big deal. Let AQ bark a little about it. GEN Petreous (sp?) was quoted as saying in one of the articles that Yemen had very good intelligence on AQ and was sharing it, so we'll see who is going to bragg at the end of the day.

    As for AQ failing to take over, well I guess that depends upon how you define take over. AQ generally forms parasitic relationships with host governments (like Sudan and Afghanistan previously) or other resistance groups with like minded objectives, so they do effectively establish safe havens in places like Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and I suspect other locations. They don't need to take over the government to be effective. Hell they have even penetrated the U.S. with their ideology (several recent attacks conducted by U.S. citizens on U.S. citizens), and of course they have penetrated Europe. I think defining their success by their ability to take over a country is a bit conventional. They're more like a virus that requires a host to survive and then multiply and spread. IMO if you're weak the last thing you want to do is actually take over a state and be responsible for it and expose yourself to our conventional superiority.

    It's going to a be long, long fight, so IMHO we need to get past the chest beating and simply start killing this virus off as quietly as possible. AQ is not the only threat to our national interest. We need to put it in perspective and stop artificially inflating their sense of self importance by over reacting. Just find'em and kill'em, and don't plan on any victory parades.

  4. #24
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking Us ORFs nap a lot...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Steve, thanks for catching this (Ken must be napping), I didn't mean to write it this way, so I added "doesn't".
    Just to clarify, I did not mean that offense must be / is always military. Quite the contrary, offense can mean to disrupt, delay, argue as well as to attack or assault and offensive effort can be active or passive; action or stasis. It can be by military, LE, Intel or Diplomatic or other elements; it can be overt, covert or clandestine or a blend of any or all those three.

    It is my belief that all those many variations and more must be used, that we are capable of using a multitude of methods and only lack political will all too often.
    I think it is pretty clear why Yemen is moving to the front and center for media attention is because the threat appears new (news)...
    That and the fact that the media is largely clueless...
    A combination of well trained and motivated security personnel enabled with effective technology is the only acceptable combination for the wealthiest nation on the planet. We have mis-spent billions attempting to develop foreign security forces (I say mis-spent because the efforts are often ineffective), while leaving our home front under invested in.
    I agree with your last point insofar as the waste on foreign security forces. I do not agree with your implication that more money spent on our own border security is necessary or even desirable.

    We've spent plenty -- we've just wasted much of it because there too our efforts are often ineffective. Forty Billion bucks on TSA has accomplished little. Customs and Border Protection has a number of problems. Training is in some cases marginal at best and there are political and psychological constraints that impact border and travel security and the personnel responsible for that security. Congress is unwilling to make the hard choices and the various Administrations have been unable to convince them of the need to do so.

    This nation is too large, too diverse, too committed to individuality and our political process is too discombobulated for us to EVER be 'secure.' That's not all bad -- if the government would just stop trying to be Big Brother and stop treating the populace as a bunch of incompetents, life would be better. Flying commercial might even get to be fairly easy and enjoyable once again...

  5. #25
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    Precisely! One particular internet commando claimed the President was "surrendering to AQ." While his was an attempt to start a political food fight, it displayed a basic ignorance of some pretty standard security principles.
    And let me add having served in and around six embassies, two in war zones, that closing does not mean evacuating. They may reduce staff lower than it is already. But so far they have not said they are withdrawing the mission or the Ambassador. The Birits have pretty well matched us in their wording.

    The idea that an embassy is anything resembling a security outpost is way off base. If they have credible information enough to get both mission chiefs to recommend/accept closing the missions, they made the right call.

    Tom

  6. #26
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Here's how CBC is spinning it

    The British and U.S. embassies in Yemen have closed because of the threat of attack from an al-Qaeda affiliate linked to the failed Christmas Day attack on a U.S. passenger aircraft. The U.S. Embassy posted a message on its website Sunday saying it was closed "in response to ongoing threats by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to attack American interests in Yemen."
    The U.K. Foreign Office later said it, too, had shut its embassy in the capital Sanaa "for security reasons."
    More...

    Tom, while you are quite right that "closing" doesn't mean "evacuating", that distinction just isn't made by most of the civilian population outside of people who work with foreign affairs types. If you look at the first paragraph of the CBC story, the implication is that the US is running away because of a (failed) threat.


    I've argued in other places that there is a serious difference in perception of what exactly constitutes the AO between Western and AQ perceptions and, to me at least, I think that this type of action will be spun by AQ and their fellow travellers both as a tactical victory and as continuing "proof" that the US is "weak".
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  7. #27
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Here's how CBC is spinning it


    Tom, while you are quite right that "closing" doesn't mean "evacuating", that distinction just isn't made by most of the civilian population outside of people who work with foreign affairs types. If you look at the first paragraph of the CBC story, the implication is that the US is running away because of a (failed) threat.

    I've argued in other places that there is a serious difference in perception of what exactly constitutes the AO between Western and AQ perceptions and, to me at least, I think that this type of action will be spun by AQ and their fellow travellers both as a tactical victory and as continuing "proof" that the US is "weak".
    All of which while true does not change the security aspects that take priority over what it looks like to AQ or the media...both of whom would indeed make IO hay if there was an attack against the mission(s) that actually suceeded.

    Sometimes you have to make the call to put lives over image; in the longer term, if this results in a cleared deck for the mission, as in reduced staff, then all the better.

    As for weakness, let the Predators do the talking...

    Tom

  8. #28
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Tom,

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    All of which while true does not change the security aspects that take priority over what it looks like to AQ or the media...both of whom would indeed make IO hay if there was an attack against the mission(s) that actually suceeded.
    Quite true. I suspect that a better way to spin it for the Western media would have been along the lines of "reducing operation to protect civilian employees", rather than using words like "close" or "shut down". I suspect most people would view that as just prudent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Sometimes you have to make the call to put lives over image; in the longer term, if this results in a cleared deck for the mission, as in reduced staff, then all the better.
    Again, no problems with that. My gut guess is that this is part of a flea swarm style of IO attack. AQ et al. have nothing to loose and, with the surprising admissions about security, they probably will launch some long shot attack just in case it might work - an IO force multiplier as it were designed to reinforce perceptions of a lack of security. They have already managed to disrupt air travel over the holidays as well as cost the west millions as a result of that disruption - a pretty good return on the investment of one idiot!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    As for weakness, let the Predators do the talking...
    Hmmm, well, I wouldn't complain . At the same time, I would strongly suggest that it is time for a little "social theatre" on the home front; snatch and grab some of the SOB's and put them on trial (not GITMO).

    Cheers,

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  9. #29
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    I suspect that a better way to spin it for the Western media would have been along the lines of "reducing operation to protect civilian employees", rather than using words like "close" or "shut down". I suspect most people would view that as just prudent.
    Marc,
    Nice idea and that may in fact have been how the embassy worded its announcement. But, today's sound-bite journalists seem to be more interested in writing a story that supports a certain agenda rather than reporting facts and letting the readers make their own judgements. In other words, the story probably would have gotten spun no matter what. Tant pis .

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White
    if the government would just stop trying to be Big Brother and stop treating the populace as a bunch of incompetents, life would be better.
    Ken's on to something very important here IMHO, but I think we could replace his "Big Brother" with "a parent" and replace "incompetents" with "young children." Then his assertion would apply not only to government but also to the media.
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  10. #30
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    Nice idea and that may in fact have been how the embassy worded its announcement. But, today's sound-bite journalists seem to be more interested in writing a story that supports a certain agenda rather than reporting facts and letting the readers make their own judgements. In other words, the story probably would have gotten spun no matter what. Tant pis .
    That's a good point, WM. That said, there's a lot to also say about the idea of aggressive strategic communications to try and counter some of that bias. I don't know if that would actually work, but it is certainly worth a shot, and a lot better than sitting around doing not much .

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    Ken's on to something very important here IMHO, but I think we could replace his "Big Brother" with "a parent" and replace "incompetents" with "young children." Then his assertion would apply not only to government but also to the media.
    Oh, definitely he's on to something. Take a look at Tom Kratman's epilogue essay in Carnifex on the Family of Humanity and who gets to play parent...

    If I were cynical (), I might note that it is in the interests of self-proclaimed elites (i.e. those who haven't earned that status, I have no problems with real elites) to do their best to convert the populace into a bunch of ignorant sheep. Once that's done, they are much easier to rule, and the selection process for elites becomes a form of noyeaux combat rather than a real meritocracy.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  11. #31
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default That means Alfred Krupp and Otto Von Bismarck discovered the

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    If I were cynical (), I might note that it is in the interests of self-proclaimed elites (i.e. those who haven't earned that status, I have no problems with real elites) to do their best to convert the populace into a bunch of ignorant sheep. Once that's done, they are much easier to rule, and the selection process for elites becomes a form of noyeaux combat rather than a real meritocracy.
    secret and FDR as well as many other real elites have tagged onto the pseudo elite bandwagon.

    I, not at all regrettably, am totally cynical on that score -- those idiots cannot be trusted to govern because they become self annointing, self perpetuating and are, quite simply, dangerous. Take a look at the shambles they have made of the US K-12 education system to foster ignorance and skew goals.

    WM is on target in that the media -- in their cupidity, and stupidity -- are a significant part of the problem. More would be 'elites'...

  12. #32
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default Orwell in 2010?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    WM is on target in that the media -- in their cupidity, and stupidity -- are a significant part of the problem. More would be 'elites'...
    A question, which probably is inapropriate for this board, arises:
    Is the media an elite (AKA an Aristotlean natural leader/master) or is some other "elite" manipulating it. Circling back to Ken's early comment about Big Brother, who is at the other end of those tubes that deliver assignments to today's reporters, reporters who seem to have a similarity to Winston Smith at the Ministry of Truth?
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  13. #33
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    A question, which probably is inapropriate for this board, arises:
    Is the media an elite (AKA an Aristotlean natural leader/master) or is some other "elite" manipulating it. Circling back to Ken's early comment about Big Brother, who is at the other end of those tubes that deliver assignments to today's reporters, reporters who seem to have a similarity to Winston Smith at the Ministry of Truth?
    Honestly, I think it's just profitable not sinister.

  14. #34
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
    Honestly, I think it's just profitable not sinister.
    My take too--people looking to add their net worth. (Two media moguls who have major cable news holdings currently are around $4B and $2B. respectively. Initials are RM and TT in case more clues are wanted).
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  15. #35
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I don't think they're smart enough

    to be sinister...

  16. #36
    Council Member Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Between deployments?
    Posts
    22

    Default It isn't either/or

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Sometimes you have to make the call to put lives over image;
    I've never thought that these decisions are either save lives or save image. The actions and words should be integrated so as to reinforce each other and do both.

    We know that AQ has been trying to spin our drawdown from Iraq as an AQ victory but no one is buying, even in the most virulent websites, because it is so dissociated from reality. They will try to do the same with any weakness (perceived or otherwise) we show in the region. That weakness will be used to build their cred with potential recruits and to gain funding.

    Better to tell the population something like: "There is a credible threat from AQ who would not refrain from killing innocent Muslim civilians in their efforts to attack us. Particularly vulnerable would be the people lined up for visas, so in response to AQ's demonstrated callous disregard for human life, we will restrict consular activities for X period to appointments only in order to minimize the threat to the people while continuing to provide necessary services."

    The result is that the Embassy remains open, no one can say we were intimidated by AQ and we demonstrate our compassion and resolve to aid the YM people -- AQ is the bad guy and we are the compassionate, resolute ones which has the added benefit of being actually true. Even if we only service a handful of YM's, it doesn't matter. We turn the tables on AQ, we make our point, and we safeguard our people.

  17. #37
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Better to tell the population something like: "There is a credible threat from AQ who would not refrain from killing innocent Muslim civilians in their efforts to attack us. Particularly vulnerable would be the people lined up for visas, so in response to AQ's demonstrated callous disregard for human life, we will restrict consular activities for X period to appointments only in order to minimize the threat to the people while continuing to provide necessary services."
    Yeah, so in other words we closed the embassy to public business.

    They're going to crow regardless. Or not, who cares. Who is the audience that is going to care? Does the Yemeni public care? Does the U.S. public?

    I have become increasingly less convinced of the utility of IO massaging, especially IO that involves torturing the English language like some kind of Pravda press release principally so we can feel better about ourselves.

  18. #38
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Tequila,

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    They're going to crow regardless. Or not, who cares. Who is the audience that is going to care? Does the Yemeni public care? Does the U.S. public?
    Hmmm, how about the Canadian, Australia and British audiences?

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    I have become increasingly less convinced of the utility of IO massaging, especially IO that involves torturing the English language like some kind of Pravda press release principally so we can feel better about ourselves.
    Personally, I happen to agree with your point about torturing the language. I would far rather see something like what CM proposed, in both the press and in reality, than a "We're closing" message going out. As long as that actually is the reality, it's not playing Pravda.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  19. #39
    Council Member Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Between deployments?
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Tequila,

    I feel about IO like Ghandi felt about Christianity: [it is] a good thing but it needed people to try it. We don't even make the attempt at pointing out the inhumanity of our enemies and tying our actions to it. It isn't tortured syntax to say that we are limiting, not closing, our Embassy to prevent our enemy from targeting the population. It is what we really believe. Isn't it?

  20. #40
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Hmmm, how about the Canadian, Australia and British audiences?
    Personally I doubt very much whether any portion of those audiences care very much whether the U.S. embassy in Yemen is open for business or not.

    Besides, the embassy is actually closed, according its own website. They're not taking appointments, either.

    Now if CM or yourself know a good reason as to why they should remain open besides IO purposes, I suppose you'd better let the DSS know. Note that the British and French have closed their embassies as well. It might pay to remember that AQAP launched a major complex attack on our embassy in 2008 to include an attempted storming, so it's not like there isn't some history here.

    There's a big difference between "caving" and taking sensible precaution. And what exactly are we "caving" in to? Did AQAP demand that we shut our embassy temporarily for security reasons?

Similar Threads

  1. Muslim's Blunt Criticism of Islam Draws Threats
    By SWJED in forum Government Agencies & Officials
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-16-2006, 12:19 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •