Sanctuary or Ungoverned Spaces:identification, symptoms and responses

[Bob's World]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/as...411386630.html

Drone Strikes continue. Measures of performance are clearly high; measures of effectiveness are another matter entirely. Depends on our ends; and if the ends are what the President has told us, then drone strikes in Pakistan should be limited to AQ proper and foreign fighters. Perhaps it is just sloppy reporting that labels these targets as simply "Taliban." My fear is that it is sloppy intel, analysis and targeting.

As the article points out, the official position of Pakistan is to protest these strikes. That is fair, sure they occur with their knowledge and consent, but they have their own audience to play to, and the mis-match between US interests and Pakistani interests regarding the Taliban will always generate such a mixed position for Pakistan.

It did raise a red flag in my mind though as they added that the Pak Intel is assisting with some of the targeting. The question we should ask is, who is it that the Pak intel wants the US to kill for them?? Remembering that sometimes the intel guys don't necessarily take all their commands from the President, and that even the civilian government's position on the Taliban is probably about 180 out from our own.

This is one more reason to limit the targets of these strikes to AQ proper (Arab members of bin Laden's core group) and foreign fighters who come to fight with AQ. I suspect that there is a closer alignment of interests in regards to those targets. Better effects toward the ends the US President gave us, and better intel and support with less conflict of interest for Pakistan.

Far better if we only kill 5-6 guys a year if they are the right guys toward the right effects; than putting up big numbers of kills that may well be taking us in the opposite direction of where we need to be.

[carl]

Ryan Crocker does not mince any words when discussing the current situation in Afghanistan in this story.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...-reckoned.html

Lastly and most interesting to me Amb Crocker said it is possible that another 9-11 could be launched from a Taliban II controlled Afghanistan and he said this about promises.

Crocker also warned of a possible bloodbath if the U.S. pulls out before ANSF is ready to take over. "Who gets it in the neck? It's all those people we made all those promises to, starting with the women" of Afghanistan who have struggled for civil rights and education in the male-dominated society, Crocker said.

This was a very interesting story.

[carl]

Here is a link to the video of Amb Crocker's remarks to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/09...ghanistan/drea

I haven't watched it yet. I only read the story quoted in the post above.

[carl]

That is what Amb Crocker said in the presentation I linked to. He said the links between the two are still strong and if a 9-11 were to occur here again, it would most likely originate from a Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

You all MUST listen to this presentation. He does not mince words. It is the best thing I've heard on this in a long long time.

[Dayuhan]

I also have to wonder about the basis for the opinion that another major terrorist attack would likely be planned in the Af'/Pak region, rather than in, say, Yemen or Somalia or Egypt or Western Europe. It may indeed be so, but it would be interesting to know the reasoning or evidence behind that opinion.

I do think that an American withdrawal from Afghanistan would increase the likelihood of major terrorist action, mainly because AQ desperately needs to have the US out there attacking and ideally occupying Muslim nations. If we deprive them of that they will try to provoke us again. I don't see that as a reason to stay in Afghanistan, just as a reason to expect what's coming, try to prevent it and prepare responses that do not involve feeding AQ with the means they require to thrive.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Carl

That is what Amb Crocker said in the presentation I linked to. He said the links between the two are still strong and if a 9-11 were to occur here again, it would most likely originate from a Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

You all MUST listen to this presentation. He does not mince words. It is the best thing I've heard on this in a long long time.

I think the comment about another 9/11 coming out of a Taliban controlled Afghanistan is the only comment he made that I didn't concur with. Maybe or maybe not, but they don't need this type of safehaven to facilitate that type of attack. I suspect the Americans for the most part are prepared to stay the course by providing funding to sustain the Afghan security forces after we withdraw most of our combat power. It is cheap insurance.

Excellent presentation.

[JMA]

I think the comment about another 9/11 coming out of a Taliban controlled Afghanistan is the only comment he made that I didn't concur with. Maybe or maybe not, but they don't need this type of safehaven to facilitate that type of attack. I suspect the Americans for the most part are prepared to stay the course by providing funding to sustain the Afghan security forces after we withdraw most of our combat power. It is cheap insurance.

I thought the most important historical tidbit he pointed out was that the USSR installed government and security forces didn't fail until the Afghan government couldn't/wouldn't pay their soldiers, which was the beginning of the end. I suspect that was due to the USSR pulling the rug out from under their feet. A mistake we don't want to make.

Excellent presentation.

Bill, with respect. Think Vietnam.

Is it only Americans who think that this will be anything other than a rerun of that debacle?

[carl]

People often say that attacks on the scale of 9-11 can be done from somewhere else, Yemen, Somalia, Western Europe etc. I have never bought that. Amb Crocker explained why it can't be done from Yemen. Western Europe is crawling with proficient police forces and intel services who are paying attention and whose individual officers and agents dream of being able to nab an AQ guy. If AQ wanted to use the area that used to be Somalia, they would have to get the Somaliland gov to go for it, which it probably won't, or the Puntland gov to go for it which probably won't and if they went to Mog the Ugandans would kill them and if they went south the Kenyans would kill them (both with copious help from us) and that would leave them with only thorny scrubland presided over by who knows who with access to nowhere.

They are in the best and probably only place for them in the world now, Pakistan mostly, because the Pak Army/ISI doesn't mind them too much. If Taliban took back Afghanistan there would be an even better place for them. This isn't before 9-11 anymore. Everybody is paying attention. They haven't gone anywhere else because they can't. The advantage of having a place where the authorities not only won't come after you but actually support you can't be done without.

[Bill Moore]

Attacks that did not require a safe haven in Afghanistan
1995 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway
1995 Oklahoma City Bombing
2002 Bali Bombins
2004 Madrid Train Bombings
2004 Beslan school hostage crisis
2005 London bombings
2006 Mumbai train bombings
Thousands of terrorist attacks in Iraq, now Syria.
Contrary to the Ambassador's claims, Al Qaeda in Yemen have been developing some cutting edge tactics and techniques for conducting terrorist attacks against airlines.

Future attacks will not require a safe haven since Al Qaeda is now largely decentralized and its core becoming less relevant. Terrorists historically have often found safe haven in major western cities by practicing good operational tradecraft and operations security measures. Safe haven for an insurgency and terrorists are two different animals. An intelligent mass murderer could develop a 9/11 like plot in his home and with funding facilitate the development of a cell to conduct the attack. Many will fail, just like the 9/11 should have in hindsight, but due to human error and dumb luck some will succeed. Training for the attacks could have taken place in U.S., much like the actual 9/11 hijackers did with flight school, martial arts training, etc. (flight simulators, recon airport secuirty, etc.). No doubt having Afghanistan was nice, but it isn't necessary to facilitate a major terrorist attack, and now operating from Afghanistan if more likely to result in compromise than success. We would be foolish to assume that any one piece of dirt is critical, and excessive focus on that piece of dirt will blind us to threats emerging from other parts of the world. We created a narrative that we can't escape from.
Future so called safe havens will definitely include parts of the many of the new Arab Spring countries, Yemen, Iraq, Mali, Indonesia, Philippines, Mexico, Somalia, etc. They will include the world of cyber which result in radicalized individuals in our own cities.

The Ambassador has a wealth of experience on point in a lot of rough areas, but like all he is subject to personal biases and clings to the narrative that he was part and parcel in creating.

[carl]

Bill:

Nope, Amb Crocker is right. AQ hasn't changed its ideology, nor has Taliban nor has Pak Army/ISI. If Taliban & Co were to reacquire Afghanistan, I see no reason at all why they would not resume doing what they had done before.

This is a semantic point but I'll bring it up. Amb Crocker referred to another 9-11. I referred to another 9-11. None of the attacks you mentioned were on the scale of 9-11 nor were any of them intended to be on the scale of 9-11. Now to your list.

I think you may be casting your net a little bit wide when you throw in Beslan, and Oklahoma City. Yes obviously attacks can be planned and carried out by other people in other places than Pak Army/ISIland and Afghanstan but the context of the discussion is AQ or AQ affiliated or sympathetic organizations. If you are going to include Beslan, OKC and Tokyo why not throw in the attack on Mecca or the Red Army Brigades in Italy or killing of the guy in Sarajevo that started WWI? And if you are going to include Iraq and Syria why not include Vietnam, Algeria, Cyprus and all the terror associated with the war in central Africa in the 90s and 2000s?

I did read that some of the London train bombers traveled to Pakistan for training. The failed Times Square bomber traveled to Pakistan for training and the guy from Denver who wanted to blow up the subway traveled to Pakistan for training. And the Mumbai attack was planned and run by the ISI from Pakistan. So I think that if you want to run a big op, especially a big complicated one, are AQ or affiliated, there is only one place in the world you can do that from and that is Pak Army/ISIland now, and Afghanistan if Taliban & Co get their bloody mitts on it again.

AQ in Yemen may be able to sneak an explosive cartridge on a cargo plane or make jockey shorts that might go bang but those are not ops on the scale of 9-11. In order to do something like that you need a country that likes you to live in. Cyber planning always sounds good but people still have to train somewhere, practice somewhere and make things somewhere. About the only place they can do that now, in the context of which we are speaking, is Pak Army/ISIland or perhaps Afghanistan again in the future.

We would be foolish to think that any one piece of dirt the only one that is needed to do bad things from. But we would be equally foolish to not to recognize that one particular piece of dirt is critical, and has been critical if you are looking at a particular type of big attack.

Ultimately though, the point isn't that is it possible that something big could be pulled off from somewhere else. Amb Crocker said that if Taliban gets Afghanistan back, AQ will be back with them. The last time that happened, it was not good.

[Dayuhan]

AQ in Yemen may be able to sneak an explosive cartridge on a cargo plane or make jockey shorts that might go bang but those are not ops on the scale of 9-11. In order to do something like that you need a country that likes you to live in.

Ramzi Yousef hatched an ambitious plan to blow up airliners, assassinate the Pope, and fly a commercial jet into Langley from an apartment in downtown Manila. He might have pulled it off if he hadn't gotten sloppy.

[carl]

Ramzi Yousef hatched an ambitious plan to blow up airliners, assassinate the Pope, and fly a commercial jet into Langley from an apartment in downtown Manila. He might have pulled it off if he hadn't gotten sloppy.

He did indeed. He also attended an AQ training camp in Afghanistan I believe. He hid out in Pakistan for a while. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is his uncle. And he finally got picked up in Pakistan. So I would say, his case buttresses my point.

[davidbfpo]

This thread was titled 'Ungoverned spaces & State, Non-State, State Sponsored opportunities vs. our Interests' and features a wide debate on a key issue in Small Wars / irregular warfare / insurgency the use of safe havens or sanctuaries / sanctuary.

In the OEF-Afghanistan forum are two threads that cover the issues: Stand back from doing "something" about sanctuaries? - which covers more than Afghanistan (and the cross-border question into Pakistan) and 'Sanctuary (or perhaps just area) denial operations at the Afghanistan village level' which on inspection appears specifically Afghanistan-related.

There's 'History Lesson: CSI OP#17 Out of Bounds, Transnational Sanctuary in Irregular Warfare', from 2008, which will be merged to here.

'What is a Guerilla's Center of Gravity?' touches upon sanctuaries, but is about a guerilla's COG and has been left alone.

Posts 302-312 have been copied from the 'Green on Blue' thread and then edited for the purposes of this thread - removing Afghan specific lines.

[Dayuhan]

He did indeed. He also attended an AQ training camp in Afghanistan I believe. He hid out in Pakistan for a while. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is his uncle. And he finally got picked up in Pakistan. So I would say, his case buttresses my point.

They go to the places that are available. Take those places away, will they cease to exist or will they simply go somewhere else?

Also worth bearing in mind that if our efforts to deprive AQ of safe haven drags us into extended occupation of Muslim lands, constant friction with Muslims, and a constant static presence in places where out people can be targets, we are probably giving AQ more than we are taking from them. I have little doubt that AQ wants and needs to maintain US occupation of Muslim territory.

[carl]

They go to the places that are available. Take those places away, will they cease to exist or will they simply go somewhere else?

They will try to go somewhere else. The point is that none of the places they may try to go will be as propitious as the place they are in now. Less propitious in their business means dead.

Also worth bearing in mind that if our efforts to deprive AQ of safe haven drags us into extended occupation of Muslim lands, constant friction with Muslims, and a constant static presence in places where out people can be targets, we are probably giving AQ more than we are taking from them. I have little doubt that AQ wants and needs to maintain US occupation of Muslim territory.

And if our efforts to deprive AQ of safe haven don't drag us into extended occupation of Muslim lands but just deprive AQ of safe haven, we, and the world, are quite better off. If by some miracle we can pry them out of Pak Army/ISIstan and Afghanistan doesn't open up for them, there aren't any good places to go.

[slapout9]

'What is a Guerilla's Center of Gravity?'

David is this a report? I can't seeem to find it

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan

Also worth bearing in mind that if our efforts to deprive AQ of safe haven drags us into extended occupation of Muslim lands, constant friction with Muslims, and a constant static presence in places where out people can be targets, we are probably giving AQ more than we are taking from them. I have little doubt that AQ wants and needs to maintain US occupation of Muslim territory.

That is exactly right, we're not disrupting in AQ by keeping conventional combat forces in Afghanistan, we're creating more terrorists due to the conflict of cultures and collateral damage that our foes can and do use to generate support for the jihad. A quick review of the history that Carl took liberty with. The Muj formed in response to the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan, and now it continues in response to the U.S. occupation. We saw the same response in Iraq, and I suspect we will still see blow back from that venture in the future. Afghanistan wasn't a safe haven because we didn't occupy it, it was a safe haven because we didn't attack the terrorists there. We can attack, disrupt, and pursue without occupying and attempting to nation build.

Our overt occupation of Muslim lands is absolutely essential to AQ and related groups' propaganda. Best to transition this war to the shadows, which we are now well prepared to do. We weren't well prepared to do this prior to 9/11. Afghanistan won't become a safe haven that we won't disrupt again.

[Dayuhan]

They will try to go somewhere else. The point is that none of the places they may try to go will be as propitious as the place they are in now. Less propitious in their business means dead.

Or else it means you adapt. Without a safe haven they will not be able to do the jihadi grunt training they used to do in the camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They may still be able to mount terror attacks.

And if our efforts to deprive AQ of safe haven don't drag us into extended occupation of Muslim lands but just deprive AQ of safe haven, we, and the world, are quite better off. If by some miracle we can pry them out of Pak Army/ISIstan and Afghanistan doesn't open up for them, there aren't any good places to go.

Hypothetically that would be wonderful, but that's not how it's worked out. We have been dragged into extended occupation of Muslim lands, and we have not deprived AQ of safe haven. Possibly we have in Afghanistan, but they have other places.

In a sense we have made ourselves safer by giving them what they wanted: once we are committed to extended occupation, the last thing they want to do is boost our resolve, so they've little incentive to mount further major attacks. If we withdraw, that risk returns.

[slapout9]

Our overt occupation of Muslim lands is absolutely essential to AQ and related groups' propaganda. Best to transition this war to the shadows, which we are now well prepared to do. We weren't well prepared to do this prior to 9/11. Afghanistan won't become a safe haven that we won't disrupt again.

That should be tattooed on the inside of our senior leaderships skulls (both elected and non-elected). Highlight was added.

[Madhu]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore:

Our overt occupation of Muslim lands is absolutely essential to AQ and related groups' propaganda. Best to transition this war to the shadows, which we are now well prepared to do. We weren't well prepared to do this prior to 9/11. Afghanistan won't become a safe haven that we won't disrupt again.

To which Slap replied:

That should be tattooed on the inside of our senior leaderships skulls (both elected and non-elected). Highlight was added.

I mentioned this elsewhere, but I seem to be the odd one out in that I agree with carl's diagnosis to some extent but disagree with his cure....

What I mean is that safe havens are not "inert" lumps of soil, simply spaces on a map, and are not necessarily interchangeable. Safe havens have a meaning to the people that use them --emotional and personal and ideological -- and some safe havens have access to militaries, especially retired military well trained in certain activies and arts. These safe havens have well-developed networks that reach back to other parts of the world, whether it be Europe, Africa, or simply back into cyberspace.

I no longer trust assessments on intelligence from, well, pretty much anybody (that is not directed at anyone here : ) ) I mean, who knows, you know?

All that being said, I agree that conventional forces and occupying forces are the wrong way to go, they infuriate the local people (naturally so) and the results do not justify the expenditures in blood and treasure. In short: it don't work.

But on the "one safe haven is the same as the other" stuff, I'm not so cavalier....I look at it as nodes within a network that have a certain prominence to them, which may change over time, but then again, the node may have a meaning outside of our mirroring look at them; seeing what we want to see.