Peter, has it occurred to you that such a siege mentality and withdrawal into fortress embassies is exactly the response the terrorists want to provoke?
The action is in the reaction
Peter, has it occurred to you that such a siege mentality and withdrawal into fortress embassies is exactly the response the terrorists want to provoke?
“[S]omething in his tone now reminded her of his explanations of asymmetric warfare, a topic in which he had a keen and abiding interest. She remembered him telling her how terrorism was almost exclusively about branding, but only slightly less so about the psychology of lotteries…” - Zero History, William Gibson
Why the Benghazi Consulate Attack Will Blind the U.S. - The instinct to protect U.S. spies and diplomats will mean limiting their access to human intelligence throughout the restive Middle East, by Robert Baer. TimeWorld, September 25, 2012.
People unfamiliar with espionage may wonder, given the risk, what the downside is of making locals go to Americans. The problem is a basic one: any local with dangerous information worth having won’t risk passing through a security cordon. Even if the would-be informant were willing to risk being seen by hostile lookouts while approaching a U.S. facility, that person simply could not be sure that the American guards aren’t working for the enemy.
The damage caused by Benghazi isn’t limited to making it harder for the local mole or informant to hand over a packet of documents or a nugget of information to his American handler. Any good spy has to immerse himself in the local milieu — just as a great diplomat like Ambassador Stevens was doing. Night and day, the capable spy is out meeting with locals, having schooled himself in their language and customs. As soon as he gets off the plane at his new destination, he’ll start learning his way around the streets. It means endless driving, getting lost and finding your way back. And it’s always done alone, with no safe way to reach out to a local for help.
“[S]omething in his tone now reminded her of his explanations of asymmetric warfare, a topic in which he had a keen and abiding interest. She remembered him telling her how terrorism was almost exclusively about branding, but only slightly less so about the psychology of lotteries…” - Zero History, William Gibson
How we can use a fortress embassy to defeat terrorism
The terrorists want to kill the US Ambassador or other embassy staff whenever they like so they prefer weak embassy security or perhaps no embassy at all.Originally Posted by bourbon
The terrorists also want to prevent the establishment of new foreign military bases and to close any existing bases and drive out all foreign military forces.
So a new super-secure military fortress embassy is exactly the response the terrorists don't want to provoke. They want us to surrender and withdraw from the countries concerned altogether, not to secure our defences so our diplomats can stand up and speak out for the friendship and alliance we offer to the people of those countries.
I also wish to take issue with your suggestion that the establishment of a new fortress embassy represents some kind of mentality of "siege" or "withdrawal" or disengagement from diplomacy with the local people of the host country.
To explain that the converse is the case, that such a fortress embassy base could be ideal for a renewed and more intensive engagement with the local people of the host country, (which on the face of it, I admit, may seem to be a strange statement to make) I do need to reveal much about the nature of the war on terror which may be obscure. It's a long explanation so please bear with me. If any of this requires further clarification or explanation please do ask.
People almost everywhere, and Libya is no exception, view their country, the world, via the media - TV, radio and the internet. The person-to-person diplomatic meetings that matter for local people are the meetings which are reported in the media.
What's most important for diplomacy with the people is getting our ambassadors and other diplomats on TV watched by the people, seen in a favourable light, having friendly meetings with popular local people etc. That's how you connect with local people these days.
Now let's take a look at what is going wrong with our diplomatic "connecting with local people" attempts.
The terrorists who killed the US ambassador in Benghazi were able to do so because they had the distraction, cover and support of an angry mob.
It was the fuss and incitement to violence which was broadcast on Egyptian satellite TV which is watched in Libya (and across North Africa and the Middle East) which stirred up the Benghazi mob.
The incitement to violence was on the pretext of a supposedly "offensive" video which had been uploaded on YouTube for a while and could have sat there for years and never come to public attention. It was the Egyptian satellite TV coverage that suddenly blew the whole issue up.
The Egyptian satellite TV channel chose to bring that particular video to the attention of their TV viewers. They had no intention of ever bringing to the attention of their viewers any of the very friendly and diplomatic videos made by US Embassy staff in the region attempting to connect with the local people.
That TV channel was not trying to be diplomatic or make friends with Americans or westerners but trying (and succeeding) in prosecuting their jihadi terrorist war against us "infidels". That was an enemy propaganda broadcast.
Egypt's NileSat was used to incite the mob which besieged the US Consulate in Benghazi and gave cover for the jihadi terrorist group which killed US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
It seems on this occasion the mob was incited to violence by a Saudi-funded Egyptian satellite TV channel called "Al Nas" -
- by someone called "Sheikh Khalad Abdalla".
Atlantic Wire: The Egyptian Outrage Peddler Who Sent an Anti-Islam YouTube Clip Viral
Last edited by Peter Dow; 09-27-2012 at 02:10 AM.
NileSat, know your enemy
This same NileSat's satellite was used to incite terrorism in Iraq against US and coalition forces. Al Zawraa TV was a pro-terrorist TV channel broadcast on Egypt's NileSat into Iraq and the whole Middle East to drum up support and recruits for terrorism against our forces there. NileSat was used by the enemy to help to kill 4,400 US soldiers and wound 32,000 in Iraq.
YouTube video - Al Zawraa Iraqi-terrorist satellite TV broadcast on NileSat
NileSat Know your enemy
Satellite TV "footprint" maps showing where on the ground TV signals from the NileSat satellites can be viewed.
We need to be thinking about stopping the anti-American, anti-Western propaganda being broadcast by our enemies and replacing it with friendly TV.
It should be possible for the European companies who set up the NileSat satellites (there are about 4 satellites, 2 companies) to change the ground control station from which the NileSat satellites take their uplink TV signal feeds. Of course they will need pressure from the European governments before they will do that.
So there is a diplomacy job for the US State Department to speak to European governments to get them to apply governing, legal, financial (and if all else fails military) pressure to require the satellite companies such as Astrium and Eutelsat to take control of those satellites out of the hands of the Egyptians and into maybe NATO hands.
So I would recommend that the Americans appoint a good US diplomat to take on that task to get Europe fighting terror instead of broadcasting it. However, if Europe fails to take action to confiscate control of the NileSat satellites then by all means the US President should hand the matter over to the US military Space Command to take those satellites out by all means necessary.
I have taken some time to draw up this map showing the main players in the NileSat terror broadcasting situation. I hope this explains what is going on.
The map of Egypt's NileSat satellite TV terror TV - LARGE 1222 x 812 pixels
So if the uplink satellite link for NileSat is removed and replaced, where should the new satellite uplink be stationed? Well it could be Cyprus, Crete, Malta, Turkey or Israel maybe but to receive North African TV signals for uplink it would be useful to have a satellite uplink site in North Africa. But it would have to be well defended because our satellite TV uplink will be a target for the jihadi terrorists. It's not ideal having such a critical facility somewhere in a city where it will attract mortar fire.
Where better than a North African military base, in Libya perhaps, the site for the fortress embassy, to put a satellite uplink to broadcast friendly satellite TV to connect to local people throughout North Africa and even into the rest of the Arab Middle East?
A quote from U.S. Embassy in Baghdad Not Yet Finished But Ready to Grow | Fox News shows the problem that even the strongest fortress base sited in an urban environment like the green zone of Baghdad is vulnerable to indirect fire such as from mortars.
Setting up in an unpopulated area makes defending from indirect fire a practical possibility. Ideally, you'd want to broadcast via your uplink to satellite TV, live meetings between the ambassadors and other diplomats and local VIPs, or have them interviewed live by the world media journalists, sitting in the open air, wearing T-shirts, sipping their lemonades or colas or whatever, calm, confident, in control. It's impossible to do that if you have incoming mortar fire, right?Living in a high security situation, personnel have been asked recently to wear helmets and flak jackets when walking around outside the buildings. The request followed an increased level of mortar attacks against the area in May and a homicide bombing inside a Green Zone cafeteria in April that killed eight people.
On May 19, all congregation outdoors was prohibited "due to the threat of indirect fire (IDF) against the embassy compound," according to a memo from the U.S. Mission in Iraq, reprinted in The Washington Post.
If you want to connect with local people that's how to do it in style. That's how we win the war on terror - by outsmarting the terrorists, by not being in the least terrorised and looking the part.
Last edited by Peter Dow; 09-27-2012 at 02:12 AM.
I cant help but think that an american news channel ran by the govt for the purpose of propaganda in the arab world would do anything other than confirm the hegemony/imperialism narrative that our opponents propagate on their own channels.
This plan along with the afghanistan plan seems to take a list of reasonable tasks like "improve consulate security" and "increase exposure to moderate/pro american news media" and crank the amp up to 11.
That wasn't what I was proposing, though it sounds like a good idea worth considering.
What I am proposing is pulling the plug on our opponents' channels by seizing control of the satellites which are now used to broadcast them.
If you are having difficulty understanding my proposal then imagine turning on your TV and trying to tune in to an enemy channel but not being able to because the satellite is no longer sending that channel's TV signals to your TV. That.
Making an example of a number of obvious enemy channels will give a lesson for the remaining channels to be a lot fairer about the great good which American influence has brought and offers to the world, or else.
Mmm ...
You mean the thread I started in SWC OEF Afghanistan forum - How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)
Please do post your comments, replies, about that thread in that thread where I am much more likely to address specifics about it.
If you've got a green zone in the middle of nowhere you need the amp turned way up to get noticed!
Shutting down enemy satellite TV channels is more like confiscating the enemy's amps.
Last edited by Peter Dow; 09-27-2012 at 10:40 PM.
The lesson might just be to make your deals with, say, ChinaSatCom.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Well if European satellite companies confiscated NileSat satellites because of pressure from European governments then presumably Chinese government pressure could prevent Chinese companies replacing NileSat with Chinese satellites?
Whatever the countries of origin for the satellites, the same "or else" should apply if diplomacy and international agreement fails to confiscate improperly regulated satellites.
The issue is inciting, organising, sponsoring terrorism, acts of war against us which are killing our people.
Broadcasting peaceful, non-threatening material is not the issue.
It's physically possible OK.
Satellites can be
- jammed by overloading the satellite receiver with a high intensity signal (possible, been done)
- zapped with a laser (possible, not sure if been done)
- robot wars in space - a killer satellite that hunts down prey satellites (possible, not sure if been done)
- blasting with anti-satellites missiles (possible, been done but litters orbit with debris)
Well the general approach to defensive actions in the war on terror was outlined in the Bush Doctrine.
A state or a commercial company should not expect to have its wishes to use its state or private property to kill people respected. It should expect to be stopped, one way or another.
We should respond to those killers thus.
If you kill people using satellites and provide the lame excuse "Oh, it's state sovereignty", or "Oh, it's private property". It won't wash. It's not OK. It's never OK.
If you kill our people then it's our responsibility, it's our business to stop you by any means necessary.
Well the NileSat satellites are provided for Egypt by European companies with German and British components, shareholders, facilities etc. but the French components are the biggest contributor country to those European satellite companies I believe.
European national and European Union governments should impose tighter regulation of our own satellite TV industry to stop incitement to terrorism on satellites they make, sell or hire out.
Europe, the USA and all responsible members of the international community ought to be looking to institute a global regulatory framework.
It raises the same kinds of issues as regulating the arms industry. There are big profits to be made so companies would rather not be regulated and to hell with the consequences for peace and security.
The big profits mean the companies can buy corrupt political influence to prevent responsible regulation.
From a British republican perspective I would say that it is unrealistic to expect the United Kingdom with a very incompetent head of state, Queen Elizabeth, to be the state which leads the way to a solution of these issues.
British republicans like myself with the internet can try to offer leadership in terms of education to the select few such as the members of this forum but the UK state in many ways is a viciously anti-British state so don't expect too much help from the kingdom.
The people of Britain are being brainwashed to accept the harmful monarchy by state control of broadcasting the same way the Arab people are being incited to support terrorism by state control of broadcasting.
I don't think it is "derailing" the thread. Satellite TV is central to the issue of diplomatic security and the security of us all.
Humanity will simply be unable to deliver security for the people while irresponsible states are prosecuting their wars globally using satellite TV.
We need a blacklist of irresponsible states who simply are not allowed by the United Nations, by the international community, by the free world, to be states calling the shots with satellite TV.
Yes those countries with blacklisted states can still have some channels broadcast on satellite TV - but only channels which are supervised by other states, by multinational organisations to ensure responsible broadcasting.
Last edited by Peter Dow; 09-29-2012 at 01:15 PM.
So we are to seize by military force/electronic warfare any satellite television station that broadcasts un-American/anti coalition material? Even if this is possible how would you respond to people pointing out that the 'murica violated the sovereignty of states and seized the private property of numerous countries around the globe. what if the tv station was german? or british?
I dont mean to derail the thread towards the satellite plan.
SratFor comments on the subject:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/diplo...608fcc7da4867d
Obviously not the last word on the subject (nothing ever is), but a real-world look at the situation and potentially some fodder for discussion.Diplomatic Security in Light of Benghazi
It has been more than two weeks since the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, yet the attack remains front-page news. One reason is that it has become unusual for a U.S. ambassador to be killed. After the 1968 assassination of John Mein in Guatemala -- the first ever U.S. ambassador to be assassinated -- several others were killed in the 1970s: Cleo Noel Jr. in Sudan in 1973, Rodger Davies in Cyprus in 1974, Francis Meloy Jr. in Lebanon in 1976 and Adolph Dubs in Afghanistan in 1979. However, following improvements in diplomatic security during the 1980s, no U.S. ambassador has died as a result of a hostile action since Ambassador Arnold Raphel, who was killed in the plane crash used to assassinate Pakistani President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in August 1988...
It's worth noting that even if the decision had been made to construct a fortress in the desert it would still be under construction, and there would still be a need to have diplomatic boots (well, ok, diplomatic Gucci shoes) on the ground...
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Peter, as Steve Metz has already said in another thread of yours:
I would offer that you have gone to great lengths to ignore the reality that one does not focus on the MOST DANGEROUS course of action that any enemy may employ, but the MOST LIKELY. It is a time-proven measure that allows one to apply the resources at hand; whether it be at 10 diplomatic mission or 100 does not matter.A wise strategy is one where the expected benefits--increased security--justify the expected strategic costs (blood, money, lost opportunities). This does not meet that standard.
I could button an ambassador up in a 70-ton main battle tank to reduce the risk from a wide range of threats as he moves about a host country, but there are a host of other reasons why that approach would be neither practical or prudent. As the saying goes, "just because you can does not mean you should."
I will give it to you that you've applied a great degree of thought to your position. Are you related to anyone with the last name of Sparks?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks