Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 70

Thread: Before Abbottabad: hunting AQ leaders (merged thread)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default Before Abbottabad: hunting AQ leaders (merged thread)

    I wanted to poll the SWC for input on a thought I've had for a while, and it centers on our vilification of Al Qaeda and, in particular, one Osama Bin Laden.

    Has our inability to produce verification that we have captured/killed OBL, actually worked against us in terms of actually bolstering the confidence of current and potential terrorist actors around the world?

    Or put another way, could we have avoided a Catch-22 by simply saying that we would seek to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice, without using by-name references? Do we face a credibility gap because we haven't produced OBL's remains, and are terrorists out there confident that if OBL can remain aloof in the hinterlands of Afghanistan/Pakistan, then they stand a chance as well?

    I ask these questions from the perspective of future IO, as I wonder if we would be better served reducing the rhetoric. I read a lot from folks (military included) who believe that Afghanistan should have always been the main effort, and since that chapter has not closed, their attitudes about Iraq will always remain lukewarm.

  2. #2
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    I think the failure to catch and kill OBL in the immediate wake of the invasion of Afghanistan was a major strategic failure. It revitalized jihadism when its main representative evaded capture to taunt us again and again. It showed potential jihadis that even when fully roused from its slumber, the U.S. was not invincible.

    A combination of other factors has sustained jihadism. OBL has become a cultural marker now, an Islamist Che Guevara. Killing or capturing him now would still be a major tactical victory, but it would not be the potential deathblow to Islamism that it would have been back in 2001.

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

    Default

    Hi JC,

    That's a really good question - and a touch one. My suspicion is that, yes, there was too much aimed at Bin Laden (and Saddam Hussein), but not for the reasons you listed. From what I can see, a large part of the personalized rhetoric was aimed at the home audience, not the foreign one. I have a (totally unconfirmed) suspicion that part of the frustration with the current war in Iraq could be described as "We got SH, why isn't it better?".

    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/

  4. #4
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    I think we should have avoided names, but that's more because of the rapidity with which terrorist groups can spawn new leaders (and I consider AQ to be more of a hybrid terrorist group/TNI than a true insurgency). I agree that the knee-jerk use of OBL was intended for domestic consumption, but it was a bad call.

    There's still too much of a tendency on the part of some to want to view everything through the lens of World War II. "Get Adolf and it's over." Well...it don't work that way now and hasn't for some time. When dealing with a decentralized cellular opponent, there ain't just one head you can cut off. But that urge lead us straight to Iraq (IMO) when we should have stayed focused on Afghanistan (agree with your friends there, JC).
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

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

    Default

    JC

    From the IO perspective, you are absolutely correct. Fixation on an individual as a target for revenge is never good; you are for one thing staking your credibility internally and externally to getting the target. If you don't you lose in both arenas. If you do, you may still lose in the external arena by creating a martyr.

    From a war of ideas perspective, personalization of the fight has similar flaws. You say you are fighting for ideas and liberty then stick to the ideas and the liberty to express them. Getting into the demonization oif a figure like OBL adds to his credibility in the sectors he most wishes to cultivate.

    Although it would have been near impossible to do immediately after 9-11, certain use of humor and sarcasm would better serve our purpose. Here WWII does apply because we did use such tactics to diminish key personalities like Hitler.

    Put another way, we talked the talk about OBL after 9-11 but we never walked the walk. And yes it does affect us.


    Tom
    Last edited by Tom Odom; 05-16-2007 at 06:12 PM.

  6. #6
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Whether it was a good or bad move is definitely open to debate.

    The fact of the matter is that we put a face on Terrorism, which gave the folks at home a "someone" to rally against. I suspect that a review of Orwell's 1984 might be instructive. After Winston Smith is arrested, he finds out the arch-enemy of the people(Goldstein is the name, I believe) is really a fiction created by the folks in power to give the people in the street a target against whom to direct their anger.

  7. #7
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    That's what I'm trying to dissect wm...did the benefit of putting a face on terrorism really bear any fruit, relative to a credibility loss? Did the balance of the scale favor us, and then shift as Afghanistan lingered, or was the balance always favoring the extremist

    I know folks are somewhat inclined to say that we shouldn't cry over spilt milk, but put our shoulder squarely into the business of finishing what we started. I read/hear that over and over again, but I believe we need to look at these "moot points" in order to make more informed decisions in the future. This is just one of those points that intrigues me.

    Don't get me wrong, I am all about making sure we have our share of boogeymen to use as a target reference points. I just think we need to be very judicious when we decide to set priority targets, cancel them, and roll to a new one.
    Last edited by jcustis; 05-16-2007 at 06:21 PM.

  8. #8
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    JC

    Although it would have been near impossible to do immediately after 9-11, certain use of humor and sarcasm would better serve our purpose. Here WWII does apply because we did use such tactics to diminish key personalities like Hitler.
    Agreed, Tom, but we also have the PC sensitivities now that didn't exist during WWII. I suspect that attempts at humor or sarcasm would be branded as racist almost immediately, whereas they were not during WWII. It would have to be very carefully done, if it were to be done at all.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  9. #9
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Steve

    I was thinking of DeNiro's now classic skit on Saturday Night Live...

    Besides as a former FAO I am expected to suggest possible cross cultural gaffs...

    Seriously, I agree 100%; it would have to be done carefully but it could be done. The Arabs I have worked with do have a sense of humor that is quite developed, subtle and at once crude when it fits their mood.

    overall though I believe the salient issue in this thread is the "rush to speak memorably" versus a more cautious but necessary "imperative to speak convincingly".

    Best

    Tom

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    If he was caught today, it would be as important to us in the Western camp as the recent capture of 3 GIs in Iraq is to the jihadist camp. I suppose there are a rare few who would actually think that the capture of OBL would result in major cessation of jihadist attacks all over the planet. I for one have never had a problem believing that the jihadist camp simply wants us and our way of life dead and we need villains and heroes more than they do. They are more ideologically pure and driven and it shows in their tactics. I rather doubt his freedom has inspired very many to take up the fight, not nearly as much as fiery speeches in mosques, fatwas and videos have. If I were born in Iraq or Iran or Syria or Egypt or any number of other places, I would be fighting the West instead of waving the flag here.

  11. #11
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Aha!

    From what I can see, a large part of the personalized rhetoric was aimed at the home audience, not the foreign one.
    So is there a lesson to be learned there as well? Is home consumption strictly home consumption, and do we need to think deeply about what goes out across the airwaves, youtube, and liveleak? I'm trying to come up with a few Cold War analogies about perception vs. reality. That's what really started this idea.

  12. #12
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    We always need to consider perception versus reality, especially with IO-type operations. One good Cold War parallel could be the rhetoric about "wars of national liberation." By seeing every insurgency as Communist backed or inspired, we backed ourselves into supporting some rather questionable folks, and gave the Soviets a free hand when it came to propaganda.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  13. #13
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi JC,

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    So is there a lesson to be learned there as well? Is home consumption strictly home consumption, and do we need to think deeply about what goes out across the airwaves, youtube, and liveleak? I'm trying to come up with a few Cold War analogies about perception vs. reality. That's what really started this idea.
    Oh, it's definitely a perception vs. reality dichotomy . I'm not sure, however, that the Cold War has that many good analogies for today's communications environment.

    First off, I would suggest that there really is little difference between a "home" and a "non-home" information market - at least in the sense of them being reasonably isolated and, hence, amenable to differing messages.

    Second, I suspect that no "unified" message strategy, a least in the conventional sense, will work - there are just too many alternate venues for dissenting voices to appear.

    Third, and coming out of these two, I would suggest that there has to be a fair degree of decentralization of content production but grouped around as specific philosophical or ideological stance. Something along the lines of "We will track down the irhabi responsible for 9/11", followed by a tiny explanation of the word irhabi, and a call for Islamic states to support the suppression of them. Leave individuals out of it and cast it as a general world problem, even for the home audience.

    Just some thoughts off the top of my head...

    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/

  14. #14
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    LawVol your welcome. except for some of the more hi-tech stuff I have used every technique in there. All boils down to my original 3F sometimes 4F technique. It is not complex it is just hard work, labor intensive as the accountants say. Oh yea want to find OBL no problem, he has a whole bunch of kin folk and a construction company in Saudia Arabia. Who IMHO are in this whole GWOT think up to their eyeballs. Me Goesh and Stan and Jedburgh and Tom and RTK and Rob Thornton and Marct could find him. Might need some Air Support from you... Doing anything the next couple of years?? Gotta go.

  15. #15
    Council Member Sargent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    I wanted to poll the SWC for input on a thought I've had for a while, and it centers on our vilification of Al Qaeda and, in particular, one Osama Bin Laden.

    I think we ought to have turned his world upside down and defied him to come to America on a speaking tour to sell his position in the free market place of ideas. Offer him complete security. And keep making the offer, and keep making him decline.

    Ok, this is a bit wacky, but the point I'm driving at is that, to a degree, the ideas the AQ et al are selling aren't all that great. They really haven't made anything much better for the people they purport to serve, support, or represent. Who thinks that the Taliban did a good job with Afghanistan? Who thinks that the work that they did in Pakistan has really improved the lives of anyone who has attended one of their Madrassas? And their big idea is to replicate this model across the world? I don't really know that many people really _want_ this. However, what they like is that he stands up to America. What the young men who join the movement like is that he gives their lives some bit of purpose, something to do. But if he were forced to really sell his ideas, the flaws in the grand design would be made breathtakingly apparent.

    He's a great strategist, but he really has a terrible idea. If he were made to have to rely on the idea rather than the strategy his stock would fall.

    As much as 9/11 and the loss of the WTC pained me personally, I think we conflated a great tragedy with a great threat.

  16. #16
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    That may turn off the American listening public, but I really don't think that idea would hinder his ability to recruit in the least. What he's appealing to is emotional, not rational, and if he's a good speaker the idea could easily backfire.

    There are a number of historical examples to back this up, but I'd like to look quickly at just two. The first are the European terrorist groups of the 1970s and 1980s (some of which still exist today). How many Germans really believed that the Red Army Faction wanted to "free" the workers? Or how many Italians thought the Italian Red Brigades had the same goal? Not that many in real terms. But they both could tap into just enough resentment, idealism, and urges to destroy the "system" that they managed to keep a flow of recruits coming. The second example is Hitler. I'm not saying Bin Laden is "evil" in the same sense, but many in Germany (and the rest of the world) figured that his message was too nonsensical to be believed. It was, but he was also a hell of a speaker and audience manipulator. By the time some folks figured that out, it was too late.

    Messages can be tailored. Hitler understood this, as did Stalin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, and other revolutionary leaders. They also understand that just because we (and I use the term in a very generic sense) think their message is absurd doesn't mean that others will feel the same way. And if they can win over a few of the others they come out ahead.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  17. #17
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Steve, your right OBL gets his talking points form God we get ours from....well wherever we would get them from, which is exactly my point attempting to engage this guy in anyway that gives him a public platform is playing his game....buy his rules.....and you can only loose.

    Sargent, I agree with you that he gained a great deal of respect for standing up to the US. Which is exactly why we should not call it a war! We turned a mass murderer into a great General who is leading his rag-tag rebel army in total defiance of the only superpower on earth. Again he can only win from this position and we can only loose. This is exactly how small criminals become big guys. Just go pick a fight with the biggest guy on the block! It doesn't matter if you win or loose in rational terms, the fact that you are willing to fight gives you a great deal of status and sets you up to draw support from the enemy. It gets people thinking maybe I should switch sides because this guy is just crazy enough to pull it off, so lets go jump on the winning team so to speak.


    Law Enforcement is a process not a war. It that sense you never need to win you only have to enforce the law as long as that law exists-hence no time limit. By taking away the status of war from OBL you automatically deny him victory from the start, he can not win the war because there isn"t one. President Bush had the right idea from the very start he should be Wanted Dead or Alive as a criminal mass murderer.

  18. #18
    Council Member Sargent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    That may turn off the American listening public, but I really don't think that idea would hinder his ability to recruit in the least. What he's appealing to is emotional, not rational, and if he's a good speaker the idea could easily backfire.

    The concept is mostly meant to be illustrative of what sorts of things need to be done to take his movement down a peg. I grant that his appeal to the young men is not something that we're likely ever going to be able to touch -- and probably don't need to directly -- although you can reduce the size of the pool of the potentially willing. Nevertheless, the willing to be recruiteds are not the primary targets in this case -- it's the vast populations who sit on the fence or just to his side of the fence. Head to head, most people in the world pick the American/Western idea (in part, if not in whole), hands down -- even though it is far from perfect itself. If Afghanistan had had free immigration, who would have moved there to live under that regime? I think if you couple that idea with a dose of humility and empathy in American policy, the Bin Ladens and AQs of the world don't really stand a chance.
    Last edited by marct; 05-20-2007 at 03:39 PM. Reason: fixed quote

  19. #19
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Another issue with this would be that when you grant someone a speaking tour in the US you're more or less saying that you believe their cause is legitimate. Any sort of sponsorship can be constituted as an endorsement. It might also allow him to reach into areas that might otherwise be difficult for him, and if the guy's a good speaker....well...we've seen historically where that leads.

    Interesting discussion, though.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  20. #20
    Council Member Sargent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    Another issue with this would be that when you grant someone a speaking tour in the US you're more or less saying that you believe their cause is legitimate. Any sort of sponsorship can be constituted as an endorsement. It might also allow him to reach into areas that might otherwise be difficult for him, and if the guy's a good speaker....well...we've seen historically where that leads.

    Interesting discussion, though.
    We allow all manner of reprehensible sorts to speak and demonstrate freely in this country. It doesn't mean that anyone necessarily grants them legitimacy, it just means that even the idiots are allowed to sell their ideas here. It's that freedom that's meant to keep the firebrands in check -- the other side will always be able to speak out in opposition. I recall that the Fascists were making some pretty good inroads prior to our involvement in WWII -- but in the end, people just didn't want that.

    In the end, I don't think OBL would entice more people here than we'd gain elsewhere by standing firm on our freedoms. But that's just a gut response -- maybe it's just the idealist in me.

Similar Threads

  1. Urban / City Warfare (merged thread)
    By DDilegge in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: 05-21-2020, 11:24 AM
  2. Assessing Al-Qaeda (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 286
    Last Post: 08-04-2019, 09:54 AM
  3. OSINT: "Brown Moses" & Bellingcat (merged thread)
    By davidbfpo in forum Intelligence
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 06-29-2019, 09:11 AM
  4. The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)
    By Fabius Maximus in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 03:23 PM
  5. Gaza, Israel & Rockets (merged thread)
    By AdamG in forum Middle East
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 08-29-2014, 03:12 PM

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
  •