No Retirement Home for Terrorists

In the late evening of February 12, 2008, a car bomb exploded in a residential area of Damascus Syria killing the vehicles occupant and a passerby. The occupant of the vehicle was none other than Imad Mugniyah. I posted an article about the man back in October because of his reemergence in Lebanon training future jihadists for further attacks on Israel and possible attacks against U.S. targets should the U.S. engage Iran militarily. Currently the discussion of the Mugniyah assassination has turned to a classic game of ‘whodunit’.

Perhaps the most likely candidate, on the surface anyhow, would be Israel. While Mugniyah has killed many Israelis in the past it is more likely that Israel would have killed him to hinder the training effort currently underway by Hezbollah. The U.S. also had reasons for targeting Mugniyah, not the least of which was the 1983 attack in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines. While some may argue that the U.S. is prevented from carrying out assassinations because of two executive orders signed by Presidents Ford and Reagan; the current authorization for the use of force passed by congress after the 9/11 attacks would give the President the leeway to pursue this action.

Two other possibilities also come to mind: France and Argentina. France is a possibility because they too lost 58 soldiers in the 1983 attack in Beirut and suffered additional attacks from Hezbollah within their borders. France has the connections in Syria as well as the moxie to pull off this type of attack. On the other hand Argentina also is a possible candidate, but in the end is unlikely. Mugniyah has been implicated in the AIMA attack in 1994 and the 1992 attack against the Israeli embassy in Argentina. Argentina recently released the final report on the AIMA bombing prompting Interpol to issue warrants for Mugniyah’s arrest as well as some Iranian intelligence operatives.

After the predator strike against al-Qaeda operatives that perpetrated the Cole bombing in Yemen, the U.S. is one of the more likely candidates. I currently do not have any evidence to support this, but it is possible that the assassination was orchestrated to put further pressure on Iran during ongoing talks over the future of Iraq. Regardless of who is responsible for this assassination one truth of terrorism still holds: There is no retirement home for terrorists.

The following is the October post on Mugniyah:

Back to the slaughter, Imad Mugniyah makes a comeback.

But did he ever really go away? Probably not, but the man has managed to keep a very low profile. Imad Mugniyah was mentioned in a previous posting as orchestrating the bombing of the Marine and the French Paratrooper barracks back in 1983, but he has done so much more. Mugniyah has been involved in the April 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon; the 1984 bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex in Lebanon; the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847; numerous kidnappings of Westerners in Beirut throughout the 1980s; the 1992 and 1994 bombings of the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires; the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing; and the 2000 kidnappings of 3 Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon and of Israeli Colonel Elchanan Tenenbaum, who was lured to Kuwait under false pretenses and then taken to the Hezbollah enclave in southern Lebanon. It is also possible that he was involved in the killing of U.S. Army Colonel William Buckley. My estimation is that he has been personally responsible for attacks killing over 480 people in his more high profile attacks. As such, he has been wanted by the FBI since 1985.

So why bring him up now? Unfortunately Mugniyah has shown up in Lebanon’s Bekaa valley training terrorists to strike at the U.S. should an attack on Iran take place. This man’s continued existence has bothered me for some time primarily because of the multiple Hezbollah cells that are present in the U.S., many of whom have more than likely been trained by Mugniyah. Mugniyah’s reemergence, if one can call it that, would prove to be a useful deterrent to a U.S. led attack on Iran. This man has managed to pull off difficult assignments in a short amount of time for both Hezbollah and Iranian intelligence, and a couple of suicide attacks in the U.S. would not be hard to imagine. In order to counter this move made by Iran it is necessary to once again directly target the man for assassination or capture. While this attempt may not be successful it could help disrupt the training of future jihadists. In fact, now would be a very good time since Hezbollah is still trying to rebuild its military wing that was severely hurt during the war with Israel just last year. In any case, it’s better late than never.

Analysis of Iran NIE

On December 3, the National Intelligence Council released a new National Intelligence Estimate regarding the nuclear intentions and capabilities of Iran. I have waited until now to comment on this estimate to better gauge the response by politicians, media, and other sources. Although I set my expectations low for an intelligent response to the new estimate I was still disappointed. The two most popular interpretations of the estimate include ‘Bush lied’ and ‘intelligence community undercuts Bush.’ While these responses were not surprising in the least; what I found truly confounding was the lack of an attempt to consult those familiar with intelligence to better explain the findings.

In sharp contrast to media reporting some folks who are familiar with NIE’s, and intelligence in general, attempted to make sense out of the recent finding. Although I disagree with some of their respective commentary it is nice to know that the capability for rational thought still exists. For the most part, the commentators that I respect asked questions surrounding the value of the new intelligence as well as the timing and the source. What I found to be lacking in the questions raised were questions about the motive of the White House to agree to declassify this NIE. More on this in a moment.

Here are some quick facts about the NIE:

The title of this NIE is Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities.

The document is over 150 pages, although only two and a half were declassified.

The NIE states that Iran suspended their nuclear weapon program in 2003.

The NIE states that the suspension was in response to international pressure.

The NIE believes that the Iranians abandoned the program because the costs outweighed the benefits.

Stephen Hadley, the National Security advisor to President Bush, and John Michael McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, have made statements in the recent past stating that future NIE’s would not be declassified.

Here are some questions that I have about the NIE:

What international pressure was applied to Iran in 2003 that forced them to abandon their weapons program?

Why did the U.S. rely on recent intelligence that has been reportedly rejected by some of our European and Middle East allies?

If the Iranians abandoned their weapons program in 2003 why did the 2005 NIE report that the program was ongoing?

Why was this NIE declassified after Hadley and McConnell stated that future NIE’s would remain classified?

Why did the Iranians pursue a nuclear weapons program in the first place?

The NIE raises many other questions, but these are some of the most pressing questions that need to be addressed. Let’s explore these questions starting in reverse order.

Why did the Iranians pursue a nuclear weapons program in the first place?

Disregarding the insane ravings by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, it would seem that the possession of nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to outside invasion. I discount Ahmadinejad because the country of Iran is primarily run by the Supreme Leader and the Shura council who handle foreign affairs with the position of President handling many domestic affairs such as the economy. The Supreme Leader has the final say in most matters and serves as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. That being said it is doubtful that the Iranians had planned to use these nuclear weapons for any forward deployment. If the Iranians did manage to develop a nuke it would be a crude weapon and could not be fixed to any missile in their arsenal. If we were to assume that the regime did manage to acquire a nuclear weapon with outside support the use of the weapon in conjunction with a missile to target Israel or the Europeans, it would put the revolutionary regime in the cross hairs of the U.S. and Israel. This is not the goal of Iran.

Why was this NIE declassified after Hadley and McConnell stated that future NIE’s would remain classified?

I believe that the NIE was declassified to send a message to the Iranians. First of all, if the Iranians were still pursuing a nuclear weapons program it would be years before they got close to producing a weapon and even longer before they could produce any meaningful arsenal. Secondly, if the Iranians have indeed suspended their program it would take even longer for weapons production. From the perspective of the United States, an Iranian nuclear weapons program serves as more of a long term national security challenge that can be dealt with at a later date, while finding a solution to the current situation in Iraq is a more pressing issue. By declassifying this document, the U.S. is telling Iran we do not have any desire to attack you militarily in the near future.

If the Iranians abandoned their weapons program in 2003 why did the 2005 NIE report that the program was ongoing?

Gathering intelligence inside Iran is a notoriously difficult challenge. Iran is a country that is primarily focused on internal security and the preservation of the revolution. As such, foreigners are difficult to get in country and getting the right individual that would understand what they are looking at is even harder. That being said, it is possible that the 2005 NIE was based on old intelligence or intelligence so ambiguous as to prevent the intelligence community from making a more accurate assessment.

Why did the U.S. rely on recent intelligence that has been reportedly rejected by some of our European and Middle East allies?

Once again it appears that the NIE was not only an intelligence estimate but a message to Iran that military action would not be taken in the near future. Irregardless of the current state of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, it would be some time before the country could produce anything meaningful. Additionally, the U.S. may want to talk with the Iranians about a solution for Iraq. It is in the interest of both nations that the Iraqi nation stabilizes in the near future. By the U.S. stating that it does not believe that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon; it takes away a possible bargaining chip that could be used by Iran in possible negotiations. It is worth restating that Iran was funding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan along with the U.S. right through 9/11. The Iranians also cooperated with the Afghan invasion by sharing intelligence with the U.S. On the Iraqi front, Saddam Hussein was a significant national security challenge for the Iranians. Iran was devastated by the Iran-Iraq war and could only benefit by the U.S. invasion. By recognizing common interests, the U.S. and the Iranians could come to an accord, albeit quietly, over the situation in Iraq.

What international pressure was applied to Iran in 2003 that forced them to abandon their weapons program?

From 2002-2003, the U.S. was more involved with Afghanistan and preparing for the invasion of Iraq to put any meaningful pressure on the Iranians to end their nuclear ambitions. The Iranians may have been persuaded to end any WMD programs after the run up to the Iraqi invasion just as Muammar al-Gaddafi in Libya did. This is a real possibility given the cost-benefit statement in the NIE. Additionally, the leaders of Iran and North Korea went into hiding for several weeks during the initial invasion of Iraq because they feared the U.S. would move into their nations next.

Conclusion:

I believe that regardless of the current state of the Iranian nuclear weapons program it is irrelevant because of the time it would take for them to produce a weapon. I also believe that the latest NIE is more a message to Iran than an intelligence estimate that requires immediate attention. Given the behavior of the Iranian President it is understandable how an Iranian nuclear weapon could be perceived as an immediate danger, but the reality is very different. The Iranian regime may make overly eschatological statements, and their support for terrorism certainly doesn’t help, but it is a rational actor when it comes to the preservation of the revolutionary government. From this perspective it becomes clear why the White House would release this intelligence estimate in the face of its previous statements about Iran. I have little doubt that the U.S. is looking for regional actors to aid in the political stability of Iraq. The U.S. military has performed exceptionally well and has managed to keep the violence in Iraq relatively low, but this cannot last indefinitely without a political solution. Iran on the other hand desires a stable Iraq but cannot control the various Shi’ite factions in Iraq and it certainly cannot accept a predominately Sunni government. The cooperation between the U.S. and Iran may be the key.

The War over Fourth Generation Warfare (continued)

Areas of Agreement

The strangest thing about the argument over the validity of 4GW often deviates from the original points the authors were trying to get across; warfare is not only changing, but opening up new avenues for attack by use of modern technology. With the advent of the internet and subsequent advance of new communications that use internet technology it is now possible for very few people to wreak disproportionate havoc upon a stronger enemy.

Perhaps the single issue that turns most people off is the assertion by many proponents of 4GW is that warfare conducted with the use of airplanes, tanks, and battleships will be entirely replaced by low intensity and electronic warfare. Some military analysts have even gone further and attempted to make the point that electronic and information warfare, collectively referred to as netwar, will be the one and only form of warfare in the future. Unfortunately, this is a product of Western psychological projection and doesn’t consider the views of non-Western thought on warfare. For the most, part antiwar sentiment resides in the Western world and netwar may be conducive to crippling a more powerful enemy; however that does not mean that our adversaries will lose the desire to challenge the U.S. on the battlefield.

Another Interpretation

While breaking down past conflicts into generations in an attempt to better study the constantly changing face of warfare it is not completely necessary to interpret the new areas that warfare will inhabit. I usually describe warfare as being a spectrum; one without starting and endpoints, but a spectrum through which one player can attack another by various avenues. It is this realization that should be used to describe the attempts by various nations and non-state actors to target the U.S. electronically. The upside of this type of attack is the actions of a few people can cost the target billions of dollars in prevention methods and cleanup after a successful attack. Not only does the attack have a decent probability of success, but it allows the perpetrators to get away more often than not.

While the debate over 4GW is likely to continue for some time it is imperative that the West not become overly fixated on this type of warfare, but realize that the enemies of democracy will use any number of methods to undermine freedom.

The War over Fourth Generation Warfare

Outside of the Pentagon and military analyst circles, the theory of fourth generation warfare (4GW) is rarely heard of let alone discussed. Unfortunately the 4GW theory is not debated as often as it should be, and when it is discussed the debate only focuses on the theories proponents and those who completely deny the viability of the theory. I fall some where in the middle as I believe that the foundations of the 4GW theory are flawed, but the proponents have brought the possibilities of a protracted asymmetric war into sharp perspective. This is an important discussion with regards to the current war on terror and the billions being spent by the Pentagon to transform the military to confront the possibility of asymmetric wars of attrition.

Fourth Generation Warfare: A Primer

For the sake of brevity I will quote directly from the article that started it all.

“While military development is generally a continuous evolutionary process, the modern era has witnessed three watersheds in which change has been dialectically qualitative. Consequently, modern military development comprises three distinct generations.”

“First generation warfare reflects tactics of the era of the smoothbore musket, the tactics of line and column. These tactics were developed partially in response to technological factors — the line maximized firepower, rigid drill was necessary to generate a high rate of fire, etc.— and partially in response to social conditions and ideas, e.g., the columns of the French revolutionary armies reflected both the élan of the revolution and the low training levels of conscripted troops. Although rendered obsolete with the replacement of the smoothbore by the rifled musket, vestiges of first generation tactics survive today, especially in a frequently encountered desire for linearity on the battlefield. Operational art in the first generation did not exist as a concept although it was practiced by individual commanders, most prominently Napoleon.”

“Second generation warfare was a response to the rifled musket, breechloaders, barbed wire, the machinegun, and indirect fire. Tactics were based on fire and movement, and they remained essentially linear. The defense still attempted to prevent all penetrations, and in the attack a laterally dispersed line advanced by rushes in small groups. Perhaps the principal change from first generation tactics was heavy reliance on indirect fire; second generation tactics were summed up in the French maxim, "the artillery conquers, the infantry occupies." Massed firepower replaced massed manpower. Second generation tactics remained the basis of U.S. doctrine until the 1980s, and they are still practiced by most American units in the field.”

“While ideas played a role in the development of second generation tactics (particularly the idea of lateral dispersion), technology was the principal driver of change. Technology manifested itself both qualitatively, in such things as heavier artillery and bombing aircraft, and quantitatively, in the ability of an industrialized economy to fight a battle of materiel (Materialschlacht).”

“The second generation saw the formal recognition and adoption of the operational art, initially by the Prussian army. Again, both ideas and technology drove the change. The ideas sprang largely from Prussian studies of Napoleon's campaigns. Technological factors included von Moltke's realization that modern tactical firepower mandated battles of encirclement and the desire to exploit the capabilities of the railway and the telegraph.”

“Third generation warfare was also a response to the increase in battlefield firepower. However, the driving force was primarily ideas. Aware they could not prevail in a contest of materiel because of their weaker industrial base in World War I, the Germans developed radically new tactics. Based on maneuver rather than attrition, third generation tactics were the first truly nonlinear tactics. The attack relied on infiltration to bypass and collapse the enemy's combat forces rather than seeking to close with and destroy them. The defense was in depth and often invited penetration, which set the enemy up for a counterattack.”

“While the basic concepts of third generation tactics were in place by the end of 1918, the addition of a new technological element-tanks-brought about a major shift at the operational level in World War II. That shift was blitzkrieg. In the blitzkrieg, the basis of the operational art shifted from place (as in Liddell-Hart's indirect approach) to time.”

“In broad terms, fourth generation warfare seems likely to be widely dispersed and largely undefined; the distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between "civilian" and "military" may disappear. Actions will occur concurrently throughout all participants' depth, including their society as a cultural, not just a physical, entity. Major military facilities, such as airfields, fixed communications sites, and large headquarters will become rarities because of their vulnerability; the same may be true of civilian equivalents, such as seats of government, power plants, and industrial sites (including knowledge as well as manufacturing industries). Success will depend heavily on effectiveness in joint operations as lines between responsibility and mission become very blurred. Again, all these elements are present in third generation warfare; fourth generation will merely accentuate them.”

Additionally, 4GW was broken down by some of the proponents into the following three points:

1. The loss of the nation-states monopoly on war.

2. A return to a world of cultures and states in conflict.

3. Internal segmentation/division along ethnic, religious, and special interest lines within our own society.

Rebuttal:

First off, any examination of warfare cannot ignore the exploits of great military leaders such as Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Joshua the Israelite, Sun Tzu, or even George Washington. The impact these men had on warfare is still relevant to this day, regardless of the advent of new technologies.

Secondly, the nation-state has never held a monopoly on warfare. If they did, civil wars and political coups would be a thing of the past. Also, the influence of terrorism and revolutionary groups would have minimal impact or be completely nonexistent and they are obviously not.

Thirdly, the world cannot return to a state of conflict because it has never left. In the last twenty years alone conflict has been a way of life in Africa, while many Asian and South American nations have been ravaged by wars of attrition between nation-states and non-state actors. In Europe the conflict in the former Yugoslavia has forced many Western nations to patrol their own backyard.

Finally, the U.S. has always been divided along racial and religious lines. In fact, many sociologists have stated for years now that the U.S. is more of a mixing bowl as opposed to a melting pot. Religion has always been a fiercely debated topic in the U.S. as evidenced by Mitt Romney’s run for the Presidency and previously with JFK.

Tomorrow I will comment on where I agree with the proponents of 4GW as well as a counter definition that better defines the current state of warfare.

U.S. has Contingency Plan for Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons

When I wrote about bin Laden’s call to attack Pakistan and more recently about the probability of a civil war in that nation, the one thing that I sought to highlight is Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. I’m pleased that it only took a couple of weeks for the media and government officials around the world to begin discussing the possibility of these weapons falling into the wrong hands. Thankfully some folks in the Pentagon have put together a plan to deal with this problem should it arise. One of the articles I came across quoted a U.S. official as saying that the whereabouts of some of the weapons are unknown. If this is indeed fact, then unfortunately it may already be too late.

The Pakistani army is, for the most part, responsible for the safeguarding of the nuclear arsenal and it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which has many supporters of the Taliban, is also involved. While the involvement of the ISI is almost certainly a problem in any contingency plan; the low moral of the army is another factor that may lead to trouble. The army has taken severe casualties fighting in the tribal areas where al-Qaeda and the Taliban currently reside and could fracture in the face of a political upheaval. One of the few things holding the army together is Musharraf’s desire to continue to wear his army uniform. If Musharraf decides to remove himself from the army, as many dimwitted talking heads in the west are telling him to do, it is very possible that the forces aligned against him would view this as a sign of weakness and try to topple his government. I do not believe that the pro-democracy forces in Pakistan stand a chance against the militant Islamists in the region. In fact, I’m not sure how Bhutto is still alive and am fairly certain she won’t be around much longer. The day she returned to Pakistan an attempted assassination via suicide bomber ended up killing 136.

In the face of anarchy in Pakistan and the fracture of the army, the U.S. would have to rely on military commanders opposed to the Islamists or intelligence from nations such as India and the U.K. to hunt down the nuclear arsenal to keep it out of the Islamists hands. The contingency plan for this scenario is still classified and the only thing I can do is speculate as to how the operation could play out. At this point it’s the only thing anyone can do.

As to the ISI having pro-Taliban and pro-al Qaeda elements in the ranks one thing should be mentioned. Prior to 9/11, the head of the ISI, Mahmoud Ahmed, order Omar Sheik to wire 100,000 dollars to Mohammad Atta, one of the hijackers that carried out the attacks. Once this was reported by the Wall Street Journal, Ahmed was forced out of his position. The 9/11 commission did not investigate this connection.

In other news: A women who immigrated to the U.S. and overstayed her visa has pleaded guilty to charges of using falsified documents to obtain employment with the FBI as a special agent and also with the CIA. She managed to obtain a security clearance and used the information in the FBI and CIA databases to find out what the U.S. had on her family. She is also charged with tax evasion and sending the proceeds to Hezbollah. Sleep tight!

A Little Humor

Every now and again its possible to find humor in even the most serious of topics. Last Friday a Muslim Sheik was sentenced to five months hard labor for fighting in public. What makes this story stand out among other terror related news is the statement made by the Judge at the trial. According to Malawi's Daily Times the judge, "admonished the five as the fight had dented the reputation of Islam as a religion of peace." Now if you read the counter at the top left of this page the number of Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 is about to reach 10,000. As I'm sure you are, I'm confused as to which information harms Islam more. For the full article click here.

The Kahane assassination

On this day in 1990 an oft forgotten, but influential, Rabbi was assassinated in New York. Meir Kahane was the founder of the Jewish Defense League and Kach, a group that would eventually be labeled a terrorist organization. Kach began life as a political party in Israel and would eventually capture a seat in Knesset. Because of Kahane’s inflammatory rhetoric, Kach would be labeled a racist organization was ultimately banned from the Knesset. In 1994, four years after Kahane’s death, Kach was labeled a terrorist group and outlawed in Israel. The event that caused this was the Hebron massacre when an adherent to Kach killed 29 Palestinian Muslims while they were at prayer.

What makes this assassination particularly interesting is the connection to individuals involved in contemporary terrorism. The accused assassin, El Sayyid Nosair, would be acquitted of murder, but would later be convicted as a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing among other charges. Nosair was convicted along side the notorious Sheik Rahman; otherwise known as the Blind Sheik. Both men received funding for their defense from an up and comer in the terrorist world, Osama bin Laden.

Upon Kahane’s death the Kach movement splintered into two groups; one under the name of Kach and the other run by Binyamin Kahane, Kahane’s son, known as Kahane Chai. Binyamin Kahane would later be assassinated in 2000 in a strange twist of fate. Binyamin, along with his wife and children, were gunned down by members of Force 17 while driving to their home. The members of Force 17 claimed to not know the identity of the people they attacked and later stated it was luck that their victim was Binyamin Kahane.

Force 17 is a group within the Palestinian Fatah movement that has been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks as well as the protection of the Yasser Arafat until his death. Currently the U.S. has been attempting to supply arms to Force 17 to curb the political consolidation efforts of Hamas. Unfortunately many of these weapons find their way into the hands of Hamas terrorists, while the arms that Force 17 does manage to receive are used to attack Israel.

Either coincidence or something else the assassination of Meir Kahane is truly a strange story.

Further notes:

Political leader of the LTTE, Liberation Tigers of Tamil, was killed in an air strike by the Sri Lankan military.

Pakistan looks as if it is about to deteriorate into a civil war. It may become incumbent upon the U.S. or India to remove or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear weapons before they fall into the hands of people who will use them.