Authors note: I was tired when I wrote this. If I get time later I'll revise and proofread.
In the last few weeks U.S. airstrikes carried out by drone aircraft have killed a number of al-Qaeda leaders and field commanders – all of them Egyptian. Here are the unlucky recipients of the Hellfire suppository:
Abu Khabab al-Masri (Midhat Mursi)
Abu Mohammed Ibrahim bin Abi Farag al-Masri
Abdul-Wahab al-Masri
Abu Islam al-Masri
Abu Saeed al-Masri
It is assumed that all of the aforementioned individuals are Egyptian since their names contain al-Masri which translates to ‘the Egyptian.’ Adding to the intrigue is the rumor that the Ayman al-Zawahiri was either killed or wounded in these attacks. This will be discussed later.
The first individual to capture headlines with his death is Abu Khabab al-Masri whose real name is Midhat Mursi. Mursi was often described as a top chemical and explosives expert who spearheaded al-Qaeda’s research into chemical weapons. The now infamous video of al-Qaeda gassing a dog was one of Mursi’s experiments. Mursi is also believed to have had a hand in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole by training the suicide bombers that carried out the attack. The martyrdom statement release by al-Qaeda was signed by Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, an aid to al-Zawahiri and bigwig in al-Qaeda, who would be killed a week later.
The second major strike took out the familiar face of Abu Saeed al-Masri who is also known as Mustafa Abu al-Yazid. I say familiar because he has become the face of the frequent videos released by al-Qaeda’s media wing As-Sahab since the disappearance of Azzam the American (Adam Gadahn). Al-Yazid was referred to as the Chief Financial Manager of al-Qaeda by the 9/11 commission and was possibly the third in command of the terror organization. Al-Yazid was known to be a close associate of al-Zawahiri for many years since they were imprisoned together after the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981.
CIA Planning For Al Qaeda 'Succession Crisis'
In late May of this year, the AP reported that the CIA was planning for a succession crisis among the leadership of al-Qaeda as mentioned by CIA Director Michael Hayden in an interview. According to Hayden, “A number of Egyptians are part of al Qaeda's top echelon and may struggle for power among themselves.” This of course assumes that bin Laden would either be killed or captured. The belief among many in the counterterrorism community is that al-Zawahiri would be the man that would replace bin Laden but there are others who may fight for the mantel in the event of his capture or death.
It is this uncertainty that makes this whole affair notable. Any one of these men could have been killed and it would have made headlines and been quickly forgotten, but when five men all from the same country get killed it is necessary to try to learn why. One possibility is that the CIA has managed to turn an al-Qaeda member to give up the locations of the senior leadership. Another possibility would be signs of internal strife, and finally an outside force may be trying to absorb the organization.
The possibility of the CIA turning someone is remote for several reasons, but not impossible. The regions of Pakistan that many al-Qaeda and Taliban have been operating from are isolated and not exactly conducive to this type of operation. Additionally, the operation would have to contend with the Pakistani ISI possibly relaying information about CIA operations to the Taliban.
Internal strife is a very real possibility – and one that is not foreign to al-Qaeda. Sheik Abdullah Azzam, a former leader of the Arab Afghans and one time spiritual leader to Usama bin Laden, was killed by a car bomb shortly after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. Many believe that bin Laden was behind the assassination since Azzam would have been far too influential in the al-Qaeda startup. The killing of the Egyptians may be nothing more than bin Laden trying to clean house, but his reliance on al-Zawahiri may cast doubt on this theory. It is possible that al-Zawahiri himself may well be a target of internal factions.
Since taking refuge in Pakistan, al-Qaeda has been working with several entities, many international, but mostly local Pashtuns. Mahmood Shah, a former security chief of Pakistan's northwestern ethnic Pastun tribal areas said, "Al Qaeda is the main machine behind the insurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban, the Chechens and the Uzbeks, are used as foot soldiers as cannon fodder but the actual machine is al Qaeda." Such a statement should not be taken lightly. If al-Qaeda has asserted itself in these regions the possibility of resentment would not be out of the question. Since the ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan the tribal regions of Pakistan have become a nasty battlefield and civilians are paying the price.
Right now the circumstances that led to the deaths of the Egyptians are still a mystery and I doubt that it is merely a coincidence. The wildcard in this mess seems to be the condition of al-Zawahiri. I believe that he is still alive, but for confirmation he’ll need to release a video tape and discuss some current events. If he has been injured or killed we could see some drastic changes in the shape of al-Qaeda in Pakistan. For now all we can do is sit and wait.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Georgia, Iraq and the Reemergence of the U.S. – Russian Divide
Over time the name or the economic system of a country may change, but the geopolitics of the nation remains pretty much the same. Such is the case of Russia and by extension Russian – US relations. The Cold War was fought mainly through proxies and relied heavily on nuclear deterrence. If ever a war broke out with the U.S. the Soviet doctrine was to deploy their tanks (and they used to have a lot of them) and occupy Europe. The theory was that with a large tank fleet invading Europe the U.S. would be forced to use a tactical nuclear strike to stop it thus plunging the world into a nuclear war. Since a nuclear war can ruin your whole day, both superpowers employed several measures to prevent that from happening. The Cuban missile crisis was all that was necessary for that to happen.
Back then Europe was considerably smaller (the Warsaw Pact powers made it that way) and Russia was significantly stronger than what it is today and that strategy may have worked.
Today the Russian doctrine is to control as much of the European economy as possible by controlling the oil and natural gas supply. If ever NATO appears to present too much of a threat the Russians can wage economic warfare by cutting off the oil and natural gas supply.
Enter Georgia
Georgia, a former Soviet state, has a strong western friendly government and wants NATO membership. Russia sees that as a threat and will do much to stop NATO membership for the former Warsaw Pact countries. Since Georgia is a small nation that resides outside of Europe proper it is a perfect target for the Russians to reassert themselves militarily. Adding to mix is a fuel pipeline that goes through Georgia to supply Eastern Europe, and Russia wants to control it. This strategy is two fold. One, it helps the Russians wage economic warfare against Europe, and two it brings the former Eastern Bloc back under Russian influence.
Russia saw the opportunity to pick a fight using South Ossetia. They granted Ossetians Russian citizenship in the early 1990’s and have been selling them weapons for years. Unbeknownst to most people the Russians have had their invasion forces on the border of South Ossetia, in addition to the peacekeeping forces already in the province, in preparation for an invasion for about 5 months. The Russians, either through the FSB or Special Operations troops, have been supporting Ossetian troops against the Georgian government hoping to make Georgia respond militarily.
Prior to the invasion the Ossetians and the Georgians were exchanging artillery fire for about three days before a small Ossetian offensive took place. The Georgians thought that this was a precursor to the coming Russian invasion and were forced to take the bait – just like Moscow wanted them too.
When Georgia went into Ossetia the Russians decided that this was the perfect time to go in under the guise of protecting Russian citizens. The underlying plan was to invade Georgia, discredit the pro-Western government, and set up a government that will be more favorable to Moscow without actually engaging in a long term occupation. Russia wanted to use a proxy government as opposed to bringing Georgia back within Russian borders so that the intervention would appear legitimate.
The Russian Invasion
Some observers have stated that the Russians successfully used a combined arms approach during the invasion. Through the lens of the reporters on the ground it looked that way, but under further scrutiny those claims don't add up. The Russians may have used several elements of their military but they didn't act in concert as you would expect in a true combined arms attack.
The mechanized infantry went in with a large number of troops and tanks that operated independently of other forces. The Russian navy struck Georgian ships in the Black Sea while the air force struck strategic targets – namely fixed military installations and political targets. A combined arms approach would have included the navy and air force striking tactical targets, in addition to striking strategic targets, to aid in the advance of ground forces. This approach did not take place.
What did happen was an approach that was similar to that of WWII complete with the inability to communicate between all forces. From a military perspective it appeared slightly embarrassing for the Russians since the Commander of the ground forces had to rely on war correspondents for the current positions of his troops in other parts of the country.
Many have stated that the U.S. didn't respond militarily because they simply couldn't. The U.S. currently has about one quarter of its army in Iraq and is also working in Afghanistan in a smaller capacity. That opens up the air force and the navy to respond. Since it appeared that the Russians did not have command and control of their invasion force the U.S. could have responded with air strikes against the Russians for at least a day before the Russian air force could respond.
Instead of responding militarily the U.S. played the waiting game because the Russian response to NATO or U.S. intervention is unknown. This strategy has allowed the Russian troops to do what they do best – pillage and burn. Because the Russian military does not have command and control over their troops looting by the Russian military is already taking place in front of the cameras of the international media.
The U.S. response on August 13 proved interesting. Bush has order the Pentagon to put together a humanitarian effort to get medical supplies to the Georgian people. This strategy puts the Russians in a precarious situation. If any harm comes to U.S. troops on a humanitarian mission, especially in the face of Russian looting, Moscow will be hurt internationally – and very badly. What would happen is a classic case of operational blowback.
The U.S. Invasion of Iraq – Similarities and Differences
Many people internationally have expressed bewilderment at the U.S. reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia when the U.S. invaded Iraq. To explain this we have to lay down a few rules about geopolitics:
• Wars are fought for primarily three reasons: geography, economics, and politics – usually in that order
• Politics includes matters of secular politics, religion, culture, and history
• All nations fight for their self interests – no exceptions
• All nations look to better their positions either regionally or internationally through diplomacy, the military, or economics
The Russian invasion of Georgia was primarily fought over geography. Georgia straddles the Caspian and the Black Seas which allow for transport of fuel without crossing Russian borders. The more energy lines that Moscow controls the better their strategy will work against Europe if it is ever needed.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq was also fought over geography. Prior to the 9/11 attacks the region of southwest Asia that stretched from Afghanistan to Syria is something I like to call rogue regime row. Since the U.S. had a presence in Afghanistan with a reluctant ally to the south, the Americans still faced a strategic problem in the form of the Jihadist war. Iran, the most active state sponsor of terror, is a large country that is not conducive to an invasion. An invasion of Iran would have left Iraq and Syria – both Baathist regimes – able to cooperate should the need ever arise. Both nations supported terror, even if it wasn’t al-Qaeda, and could pose a long term problem. Invading Syria would have left Iraq and Iran as a continual threat to the Middle East since both nations have a habit of warring and supporting terror. Iraq was the best solution in a field of bad choices.
The Emerging Results of the U.S. Invasion
Invading Iraq has fundamentally changed the Middle East by isolating Syria to the west and isolating Iran to the east. Syria got the better end of the deal and is trying to make the most of it with France and Turkey helping to foster dialog with Israel. Israel, Jordan, and Egypt have benefited from their respective peace deals and it now appears that Syria wants a try and benefit from the arrangement as well. Syria has long played the role of rogue nation, but with an economy that is going, and has gone, nowhere little incentive is left for Syria to align itself with Iran. Iran has played patron to Syria in a number of areas, but Syrian President Bashir Assad may be feeling the pressure from such an alliance. With a stabilizing Iraq, the Syrian – Iranian alliance may become a thing of the past.
Syria – It may sound strange that a stable Iraq would hinder the Syrian – Iranian alliance, but once again geography plays an important role. Through 2006 it appeared that Iraq was doomed to fall under the influence of Iran and thus allow the Ayatollahs free reign over much of the ME. Syria may have been hedging its bets in forming the alliance although the two nations had little in common politically or economically. In fact the relationship may be defined by the common interest in funding and arming Hezbollah and keeping their common enemy, Israel, off balance. Now that Iraq is stabilizing Iran doesn’t have an avenue to become a regional power, thus negating the underlying reason for the Syrian – Iranian alliance.
Syria was dealt a blow when the international community demanded that all Syrian troops be removed from Lebanon. Lebanon was economically and militarily important for the Syrians thus making the withdrawal all the more difficult. From an economic perspective Syria was able to use Lebanon as a means of gaining greater access to Mediterranean trade, while also allowing Syria to use Lebanon as a battleground should war with Israel erupt. The military strategy was a terrible one, but it was the only option available since Israel controlled a valuable piece of real estate known as the Golan Heights. The Golan Heights give Israel direct access to Damascus which is a mere thirty miles from the Syrian – Israeli border. Recently Lebanon and Syria have formally agreed to establish full diplomatic ties. This removes the stigma that the Syrians view Lebanon as nothing more than a Syrian province. Since this agreement is still new the long term relationship is still cloudy.
The Golan Heights may be the key to a peace agreement between Syria and Israel, but it is not the only factor that will dictate success. With a stable and possible power rising to its east, Syria would effectively be cut of from Iran and forced to make nice with all its neighbors. This may be the motivation behind creating a peace deal with Israel. The French who have historic ties to Syria have made several offers to help Syria return to the international community the most visible being the Mediterranean Union. The Mediterranean Union is more of a platform for the nations of Northern Africa, Southern Europe, and part of the ME to work towards peace rather than any cooperation that could actually achieve these goals. For the Union to achieve any results economic incentives must be presented. This is crucial for Syria.
Another important factor that must be taken into account for an Israeli – Syrian peace to succeed is the halting of Syrian support for terrorism. For Syria this is an easy move; for the Israelis this is an absolute necessary for security. Without Iran acting as a patron to Syria the support for terror can end and the Israelis can force Syria to deal with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is the only serious threat to Israel from the north, but the terror organization relies heavily on Iranian and Syrian weapons imports and to a greater extent the 500 million dollars a year in Iranian financial assistance.
The current negotiations between Israel and Syria are being handled by Turkey and have produces some tenuous results in the form of several assassinations. The first assassination was carried out by Syria and removed Hezbollah commander Imad Mugniyeh from the terrorist party. This may have been done for two reasons. The first was that Mugniyeh had plenty of Israeli blood on his hands and the second reason is he may have been behind the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. More recently Brig. Gen. Mohammad Suleiman, the man responsible for facilitating Syrian support for Hezbollah, was shot to death on a beach resort near the Syrian port city of Tartous. It appears that Suleiman was also responsible for the Syrian nuclear reactor that was destroyed by the Israeli air force in September 2007. Both of these assassinations may be an attempt by President Assad to clean house.
But the main sticking point of the Golan Heights remains. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has made statements alluding to the possibility of ceding Golan, but since he has announced his resignation amid charges of corruption the peace process is on hold for now. Two of the candidates vying for his position have stated they will still work for a peace deal with Syria. The third major candidate, Benjamin Netanyahu, has stated that he would not give up the Golan for peace. The Golan Heights are of strategic value to whoever holds the territory and Netanyahu may fear a Syrian military occupation of the Golan plateau that overlooks several Israeli villages. What is clear is that Israel will not cede Golan without a guarantee of demilitarization of the area. This leaves Syria in a difficult position – unable to survive economically without foreign support and unable to maintain the status quo without Iranian assistance. We are at the point where something has to give, soon.
Iran – Iran is now vulnerable to international sanctions over its nuclear program. With a strong Iraq, Iran can now be put under a naval blockade. For the rest on Iran see my previous article.
The reasoning behind the U.S. invasion has become irrelevant not because it isn’t important, but because the deed has been done. The U.S. needed to find the best way to hamper the Jihadist war by changing the dynamics of the Middle East and Iraq has proven to be the best answer. While some violence continues in Iraq it is hardly enough to threaten the Iraqi government. In essence the Iraq war as we have known it over the past few years is over. The U.S. will withdraw three of the 15 combat brigades in September and will probably withdraw another two in January or February. The current agreement between the U.S. and the Iraqi government calls for the withdrawal of all combat troops in three years – a more than reasonable goal.
The Continuance of the U.S. – Russian Divide
The Jihadist movement no longer poses a strategic threat to the U.S., but their ability to kill people remains. The situation in Afghanistan has proven to be a problem for the U.S. but that doesn’t mean it can’t be handled. The improving situation in Iraq and a manageable situation in Afghanistan couldn’t have come at a better time for the Americans.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union the U.S. has worked hard and spent a great deal of money to bring Russia into the international community as a democratic partner. Unfortunately it couldn’t last forever. The U.S. and Russia will always be adversaries because of geography – a problem that can’t be reconciled. The U.S. will always be bound to Europe politically and economically and the Russians will always pose a threat to Europe because the Russian – European border does not lend itself to Russia’s security. In essence what is old is new again and it will be just as ugly as the last time.
Back then Europe was considerably smaller (the Warsaw Pact powers made it that way) and Russia was significantly stronger than what it is today and that strategy may have worked.
Today the Russian doctrine is to control as much of the European economy as possible by controlling the oil and natural gas supply. If ever NATO appears to present too much of a threat the Russians can wage economic warfare by cutting off the oil and natural gas supply.
Enter Georgia
Georgia, a former Soviet state, has a strong western friendly government and wants NATO membership. Russia sees that as a threat and will do much to stop NATO membership for the former Warsaw Pact countries. Since Georgia is a small nation that resides outside of Europe proper it is a perfect target for the Russians to reassert themselves militarily. Adding to mix is a fuel pipeline that goes through Georgia to supply Eastern Europe, and Russia wants to control it. This strategy is two fold. One, it helps the Russians wage economic warfare against Europe, and two it brings the former Eastern Bloc back under Russian influence.
Russia saw the opportunity to pick a fight using South Ossetia. They granted Ossetians Russian citizenship in the early 1990’s and have been selling them weapons for years. Unbeknownst to most people the Russians have had their invasion forces on the border of South Ossetia, in addition to the peacekeeping forces already in the province, in preparation for an invasion for about 5 months. The Russians, either through the FSB or Special Operations troops, have been supporting Ossetian troops against the Georgian government hoping to make Georgia respond militarily.
Prior to the invasion the Ossetians and the Georgians were exchanging artillery fire for about three days before a small Ossetian offensive took place. The Georgians thought that this was a precursor to the coming Russian invasion and were forced to take the bait – just like Moscow wanted them too.
When Georgia went into Ossetia the Russians decided that this was the perfect time to go in under the guise of protecting Russian citizens. The underlying plan was to invade Georgia, discredit the pro-Western government, and set up a government that will be more favorable to Moscow without actually engaging in a long term occupation. Russia wanted to use a proxy government as opposed to bringing Georgia back within Russian borders so that the intervention would appear legitimate.
The Russian Invasion
Some observers have stated that the Russians successfully used a combined arms approach during the invasion. Through the lens of the reporters on the ground it looked that way, but under further scrutiny those claims don't add up. The Russians may have used several elements of their military but they didn't act in concert as you would expect in a true combined arms attack.
The mechanized infantry went in with a large number of troops and tanks that operated independently of other forces. The Russian navy struck Georgian ships in the Black Sea while the air force struck strategic targets – namely fixed military installations and political targets. A combined arms approach would have included the navy and air force striking tactical targets, in addition to striking strategic targets, to aid in the advance of ground forces. This approach did not take place.
What did happen was an approach that was similar to that of WWII complete with the inability to communicate between all forces. From a military perspective it appeared slightly embarrassing for the Russians since the Commander of the ground forces had to rely on war correspondents for the current positions of his troops in other parts of the country.
Many have stated that the U.S. didn't respond militarily because they simply couldn't. The U.S. currently has about one quarter of its army in Iraq and is also working in Afghanistan in a smaller capacity. That opens up the air force and the navy to respond. Since it appeared that the Russians did not have command and control of their invasion force the U.S. could have responded with air strikes against the Russians for at least a day before the Russian air force could respond.
Instead of responding militarily the U.S. played the waiting game because the Russian response to NATO or U.S. intervention is unknown. This strategy has allowed the Russian troops to do what they do best – pillage and burn. Because the Russian military does not have command and control over their troops looting by the Russian military is already taking place in front of the cameras of the international media.
The U.S. response on August 13 proved interesting. Bush has order the Pentagon to put together a humanitarian effort to get medical supplies to the Georgian people. This strategy puts the Russians in a precarious situation. If any harm comes to U.S. troops on a humanitarian mission, especially in the face of Russian looting, Moscow will be hurt internationally – and very badly. What would happen is a classic case of operational blowback.
The U.S. Invasion of Iraq – Similarities and Differences
Many people internationally have expressed bewilderment at the U.S. reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia when the U.S. invaded Iraq. To explain this we have to lay down a few rules about geopolitics:
• Wars are fought for primarily three reasons: geography, economics, and politics – usually in that order
• Politics includes matters of secular politics, religion, culture, and history
• All nations fight for their self interests – no exceptions
• All nations look to better their positions either regionally or internationally through diplomacy, the military, or economics
The Russian invasion of Georgia was primarily fought over geography. Georgia straddles the Caspian and the Black Seas which allow for transport of fuel without crossing Russian borders. The more energy lines that Moscow controls the better their strategy will work against Europe if it is ever needed.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq was also fought over geography. Prior to the 9/11 attacks the region of southwest Asia that stretched from Afghanistan to Syria is something I like to call rogue regime row. Since the U.S. had a presence in Afghanistan with a reluctant ally to the south, the Americans still faced a strategic problem in the form of the Jihadist war. Iran, the most active state sponsor of terror, is a large country that is not conducive to an invasion. An invasion of Iran would have left Iraq and Syria – both Baathist regimes – able to cooperate should the need ever arise. Both nations supported terror, even if it wasn’t al-Qaeda, and could pose a long term problem. Invading Syria would have left Iraq and Iran as a continual threat to the Middle East since both nations have a habit of warring and supporting terror. Iraq was the best solution in a field of bad choices.
The Emerging Results of the U.S. Invasion
Invading Iraq has fundamentally changed the Middle East by isolating Syria to the west and isolating Iran to the east. Syria got the better end of the deal and is trying to make the most of it with France and Turkey helping to foster dialog with Israel. Israel, Jordan, and Egypt have benefited from their respective peace deals and it now appears that Syria wants a try and benefit from the arrangement as well. Syria has long played the role of rogue nation, but with an economy that is going, and has gone, nowhere little incentive is left for Syria to align itself with Iran. Iran has played patron to Syria in a number of areas, but Syrian President Bashir Assad may be feeling the pressure from such an alliance. With a stabilizing Iraq, the Syrian – Iranian alliance may become a thing of the past.
Syria – It may sound strange that a stable Iraq would hinder the Syrian – Iranian alliance, but once again geography plays an important role. Through 2006 it appeared that Iraq was doomed to fall under the influence of Iran and thus allow the Ayatollahs free reign over much of the ME. Syria may have been hedging its bets in forming the alliance although the two nations had little in common politically or economically. In fact the relationship may be defined by the common interest in funding and arming Hezbollah and keeping their common enemy, Israel, off balance. Now that Iraq is stabilizing Iran doesn’t have an avenue to become a regional power, thus negating the underlying reason for the Syrian – Iranian alliance.
Syria was dealt a blow when the international community demanded that all Syrian troops be removed from Lebanon. Lebanon was economically and militarily important for the Syrians thus making the withdrawal all the more difficult. From an economic perspective Syria was able to use Lebanon as a means of gaining greater access to Mediterranean trade, while also allowing Syria to use Lebanon as a battleground should war with Israel erupt. The military strategy was a terrible one, but it was the only option available since Israel controlled a valuable piece of real estate known as the Golan Heights. The Golan Heights give Israel direct access to Damascus which is a mere thirty miles from the Syrian – Israeli border. Recently Lebanon and Syria have formally agreed to establish full diplomatic ties. This removes the stigma that the Syrians view Lebanon as nothing more than a Syrian province. Since this agreement is still new the long term relationship is still cloudy.
The Golan Heights may be the key to a peace agreement between Syria and Israel, but it is not the only factor that will dictate success. With a stable and possible power rising to its east, Syria would effectively be cut of from Iran and forced to make nice with all its neighbors. This may be the motivation behind creating a peace deal with Israel. The French who have historic ties to Syria have made several offers to help Syria return to the international community the most visible being the Mediterranean Union. The Mediterranean Union is more of a platform for the nations of Northern Africa, Southern Europe, and part of the ME to work towards peace rather than any cooperation that could actually achieve these goals. For the Union to achieve any results economic incentives must be presented. This is crucial for Syria.
Another important factor that must be taken into account for an Israeli – Syrian peace to succeed is the halting of Syrian support for terrorism. For Syria this is an easy move; for the Israelis this is an absolute necessary for security. Without Iran acting as a patron to Syria the support for terror can end and the Israelis can force Syria to deal with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is the only serious threat to Israel from the north, but the terror organization relies heavily on Iranian and Syrian weapons imports and to a greater extent the 500 million dollars a year in Iranian financial assistance.
The current negotiations between Israel and Syria are being handled by Turkey and have produces some tenuous results in the form of several assassinations. The first assassination was carried out by Syria and removed Hezbollah commander Imad Mugniyeh from the terrorist party. This may have been done for two reasons. The first was that Mugniyeh had plenty of Israeli blood on his hands and the second reason is he may have been behind the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. More recently Brig. Gen. Mohammad Suleiman, the man responsible for facilitating Syrian support for Hezbollah, was shot to death on a beach resort near the Syrian port city of Tartous. It appears that Suleiman was also responsible for the Syrian nuclear reactor that was destroyed by the Israeli air force in September 2007. Both of these assassinations may be an attempt by President Assad to clean house.
But the main sticking point of the Golan Heights remains. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has made statements alluding to the possibility of ceding Golan, but since he has announced his resignation amid charges of corruption the peace process is on hold for now. Two of the candidates vying for his position have stated they will still work for a peace deal with Syria. The third major candidate, Benjamin Netanyahu, has stated that he would not give up the Golan for peace. The Golan Heights are of strategic value to whoever holds the territory and Netanyahu may fear a Syrian military occupation of the Golan plateau that overlooks several Israeli villages. What is clear is that Israel will not cede Golan without a guarantee of demilitarization of the area. This leaves Syria in a difficult position – unable to survive economically without foreign support and unable to maintain the status quo without Iranian assistance. We are at the point where something has to give, soon.
Iran – Iran is now vulnerable to international sanctions over its nuclear program. With a strong Iraq, Iran can now be put under a naval blockade. For the rest on Iran see my previous article.
The reasoning behind the U.S. invasion has become irrelevant not because it isn’t important, but because the deed has been done. The U.S. needed to find the best way to hamper the Jihadist war by changing the dynamics of the Middle East and Iraq has proven to be the best answer. While some violence continues in Iraq it is hardly enough to threaten the Iraqi government. In essence the Iraq war as we have known it over the past few years is over. The U.S. will withdraw three of the 15 combat brigades in September and will probably withdraw another two in January or February. The current agreement between the U.S. and the Iraqi government calls for the withdrawal of all combat troops in three years – a more than reasonable goal.
The Continuance of the U.S. – Russian Divide
The Jihadist movement no longer poses a strategic threat to the U.S., but their ability to kill people remains. The situation in Afghanistan has proven to be a problem for the U.S. but that doesn’t mean it can’t be handled. The improving situation in Iraq and a manageable situation in Afghanistan couldn’t have come at a better time for the Americans.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union the U.S. has worked hard and spent a great deal of money to bring Russia into the international community as a democratic partner. Unfortunately it couldn’t last forever. The U.S. and Russia will always be adversaries because of geography – a problem that can’t be reconciled. The U.S. will always be bound to Europe politically and economically and the Russians will always pose a threat to Europe because the Russian – European border does not lend itself to Russia’s security. In essence what is old is new again and it will be just as ugly as the last time.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Military Strikes against Iran? Not Likely - At Least for Now
This morning the Jerusalem Post and the Kuwait Times reported that two U.S. aircraft carriers were in route to the Middle East with one going to the Persian Gulf and the other going to the Red Sea. This is an interesting development indeed. Currently the U.S. has the USS Abraham Lincoln Aircraft Carrier Strike Group and the USS Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group in the Persian Gulf already. This type of deployment can mean two things: the U.S. is planning a military strike against Iran, or the U.S. is continuing the military feint in an attempt to drive home the point that Iran needs to cooperate in international discussions over its nuclear program.
Over the last few years the U.S. has been moving naval strike groups in and out of the Persian Gulf in support of ongoing operations in Iraq and also to send a message to Iran. For the most part only one aircraft carrier strike group is present in the Gulf at any given time. When two carriers are put in place it allows for 24 hour operations so there is no gap in airstrikes should they take place. The additional presence of guided missile cruisers allows for the launching of cruise missiles for strikes against hardened targets. Since three carriers will ultimately be in place it would appear the strikes against Iran are immanent, but that may not be the case.
It is normal for the U.S. to move military muscle around to give the impression that an attack is immanent only to pull back and do it again several months later. This tends to wear down an adversaries response time as the movements are viewed as routine. When the U.S. finally does attack the enemy response is significantly degraded and the attack has a greater chance of success. It is possible that’s all that is happening here. Iran recently missed a deadline for indicating it was seriously ready to discuss ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. While Iran has missed every deadline in the past the further Tehran gets in advancing its nuclear program the more pressure the U.S. and Europe are likely to apply.
Currently a military strike against Iran is unlikely, at least in the short term. President Bush is engaged in a farewell tour in Asia and attending the opening of the Olympic Games. It is unlikely that the U.S. would strike Iran while the President is out of the country. The U.S. has also discussed opening an interests-section office in the capital of Iran that will allow for direct talks between the two nations. This is just below full diplomatic relations. Tehran has been receptive to the idea, but nothing concrete has taken place. Most recently the U.S. sent the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs to the negotiating table in Geneva, another factor that looks as if the diplomatic process will continue – at least for a little while longer.
Iran’s Domestic Problems
Iran is in bad shape economically. Inflation is around 20 percent, unemployment is in the double digits, and 18 percent of the population lives in extreme poverty. The Iranian nuclear program has increased these problems by bringing international sanctions against Iranian banks and its wealthiest citizens. Additional problems include government sponsored gas subsidies in the face of high oil prices. Iran may be a top exporter of petroleum, but is also a major importer of refined products such as gasoline. Because of these problems Iran is increasingly vulnerable to international pressure and possibly revolution.
When discussing Iran it is often prudent to discuss the nature of its military. The primary mission of the Iranian military is to maintain order within the country and repel invaders should it become necessary. Although Iran does not have the capability to project a conventional military force it engages in the exportation of the Islamic revolution through the use of its al-Quds Force (Jerusalem Force) – a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Iran is an ethnically diverse nation that often times faces domestic problems typically revolving around treatment of ethnic and religious minorities. It is these problems that consume most of the Iranian military effort.
The Iranians did try to use unconventional forces in Iraq in an attempt to force the U.S. to leave so that Tehran could spread its influence in Baghdad. What happened to the Iranians is known as operational blowback. Iran never had a good hold over the Shiite Muslims in Iraq and was known to provide weapons, money, and training to both Sunni and Shiite militants. This persisted until the U.S. surge proved too much for the Iranians to oppose. The employing of the Sunni Awakening councils and the political leverage used by al-Maliki over the Shiites also did much to force Iranian influence out of Iraq. While Iran wanted to use the support of the various factions fighting the new Iraqi government to spread influence it instead has suffered the opposite. Many Iraqis are distrustful of Tehran and have instead shown an increased loyalty to Baghdad.
The U.S. felt as if it had to negotiate with Iran over the future of Iraq and engaged in several rounds of talks in Baghdad. But with the success of the surge and the consolidation of power in the Iraqi government the Iranians were on the outs. The U.S. also received more than it bargained for. The Iraqi government and military have become strong enough that they want to know how and when the U.S. will withdraw its military force. Currently the U.S. is looking at withdrawing 3 of the 15 brigade combat teams this September with further cuts to be announced in January. This move by the Iraqis is a good sign that the government in now confident enough to stand on its own and the continued presence of foreign troops is becoming a political liability. It is this strength in Baghdad and the new Iraqi army at 137,000 strong that has created a situation the Iranians have long feared.
What a Strike Might Look Like
With Iran as isolated as it is and with international sanctions steadily increasing over the nuclear program one would think that military action is inevitable when in fact the opposite is true. Israel has made statements that it will not allow Iran to construct a nuclear weapon and will use force to stop it. For any strike against the nuclear facilities it would require air and naval attacks on 2 of the 11 hardened sites protected by advanced Russian air defenses.* Currently Israel does not possess any long range heavy bombers for an air attack and would have to rely on fighter/attack aircraft with a refueling stop in Turkey. Another aspect to the attack would require naval support most likely in the form of cruise missiles. Israel has three dolphin class submarines capable of firing Popeye turbo cruise missiles at a range of just over 900 miles. Cruise missiles are meant to be a weapon used for high value targets that need to be hit with surgical precision, but with only two of the three submarines launching missiles (only two are known to operate in the Persian Gulf) the attack may only cause limited damage.
A U.S. led operation is really the only possibility should a military confrontation with Iran take place. The Pentagon has stated that it could destroy the Iranian military in three days. To accomplish this, the U.S. can move two aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf that allow for 24 hour operations supported by bomber and naval fire. It is conceivable that the U.S. could carry out this operation, but that would mean sacrificing the progress made in the talks with Iran over the future of Iraq. It’s doubtful that the Iranians could respond by supporting another insurgency in Iraq, but it could do enough to cause problems. Currently Iraq is not supporting any action against Iran and has told the U.S. it will not allow any cross border attacks. It is unclear whether any Iranian retaliation in Iraq would draw Baghdad into a larger conflict, but it would be best if Iraqi involvement in an action against Iran not take place. Iran and Iraq have a long history of animosity and any Iraqi action could lead to a groundswell of Iranian nationalism.
Another possibility for an Iranian response would be through Hezbollah. Iran funds Hezbollah at about 500 million a year plus supplements in the event of a war with Israel. In the event of a military attack, Iran would want to get its moneys worth. Hezbollah is the most adept and capable terrorist organization in the world and could launch attacks against U.S. interests globally. Any action taken against the Iranian nuclear program must consider this possibility and employ methods to counter the Hezbollah threat.
The Iranians have also threatened to close the Hormuz straits in the event of a military attack. While this makes for good fodder for the media because of the 16-17 million barrels of oil – about 40% of daily global oil consumption – that travel through the strait each day the possibility of Iran doing this effectively is remote. The last time the Iranians and the U.S. had a military engagement in the Persian Gulf was in 1988 and things work out so well for the Iranian navy. The operation was known as Preying Mantis and resulted in a large portion of the Iranian navy being destroyed in a single day by U.S. naval ships. Iran may try to use mines in the strait, but with U.S. and other naval war vessels in the area the attempt would be a token gesture at best.
Is Another Iranian Revolution Possible?
Currently Iran has more problems than answers. These political problems, both internal and external, are being handled by the officer corps of the IRGC. This has taken place by replacing 9 of the 21 cabinet members with IRGC officers and allowing these men to crush dissent. The Iranian people have not taken this change lightly and the proper application of support by the U.S. or other western nations may bring clerical rule to an end.
In fact this support is already taking place. Congress has already approved 400 million dollars to this very enterprise and it appears as if American military and intelligence personnel are working in Iran. The purpose of this funding is to foment domestic unrest and undermine the Iranian nuclear program. Operations such as this are fraught with risk and blowback is a very real possibility. With the increase of the military in domestic politics the theocratic regime could be replaced with a military dictatorship. This outcome is not in the interest of the Iranian people the U.S. or any other nation in the ME.
Many powerful people have called for reform in Tehran not the least of whom is Hossein Khomeini, the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini has asked for President Bush to come and occupy Iran like the U.S. did in Iraq. He has also stated that ‘freedom must come to Iran in any possible way, whether through internal or external developments.’ These words are not to be taken lightly and represent the feelings of a great many Iranians. Regardless of local support, the change in political and economic systems of any nation is a difficult enterprise – even in the most pro-American country in the ME.
The Wildcards – New Intelligence and Developments
Of course without access to classified estimates and the possibility that new developments in the Iranian nuclear program can take place a military strike could happen. At this point it is unclear what the tipping point would be. Iran has already enriched about half of the uranium needed for a nuclear weapon, but of course a nuclear weapon isn’t worth much if it is too big for any of the Iranian delivery systems. The best it could be used for is as a disincentive to invade with a ground force. In any case it is unlikely that the U.S. would use much of a ground force in the event of an attack on Iran. In all actuality the attack would probably resemble the airstrikes that took place at the beginnings of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns with the use of Special Forces to make contacts and create alliances with the local population to bring down the government.
In the end a U.S. strike would have to topple the government or at least dispatch the Iranian scientists involved in the nuclear program. The survival of the regime would allow for the rebuilding of the nuclear facilities and only serve to delay the nuclear program. If the scientists were removed or the regime collapsed the nuclear issue would cease. In the past few years both American and Iranian leaders have used strong rhetoric over the nuclear issue, but rhetoric should never be confused with policy. And while it appears as if a military strike is about to take place other developments lean toward continued diplomacy. What will happen in the next few months and with the new President however, remain to be seen.
*Iran’s uranium enrichment is taking place at the Natanz facility, while the suspected weapons program is taking place at the Esfahan [Isfahan] Nuclear Technology Center.
The following maps show the location and purpose of Iran’s declared facilities
Over the last few years the U.S. has been moving naval strike groups in and out of the Persian Gulf in support of ongoing operations in Iraq and also to send a message to Iran. For the most part only one aircraft carrier strike group is present in the Gulf at any given time. When two carriers are put in place it allows for 24 hour operations so there is no gap in airstrikes should they take place. The additional presence of guided missile cruisers allows for the launching of cruise missiles for strikes against hardened targets. Since three carriers will ultimately be in place it would appear the strikes against Iran are immanent, but that may not be the case.
It is normal for the U.S. to move military muscle around to give the impression that an attack is immanent only to pull back and do it again several months later. This tends to wear down an adversaries response time as the movements are viewed as routine. When the U.S. finally does attack the enemy response is significantly degraded and the attack has a greater chance of success. It is possible that’s all that is happening here. Iran recently missed a deadline for indicating it was seriously ready to discuss ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. While Iran has missed every deadline in the past the further Tehran gets in advancing its nuclear program the more pressure the U.S. and Europe are likely to apply.
Currently a military strike against Iran is unlikely, at least in the short term. President Bush is engaged in a farewell tour in Asia and attending the opening of the Olympic Games. It is unlikely that the U.S. would strike Iran while the President is out of the country. The U.S. has also discussed opening an interests-section office in the capital of Iran that will allow for direct talks between the two nations. This is just below full diplomatic relations. Tehran has been receptive to the idea, but nothing concrete has taken place. Most recently the U.S. sent the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs to the negotiating table in Geneva, another factor that looks as if the diplomatic process will continue – at least for a little while longer.
Iran’s Domestic Problems
Iran is in bad shape economically. Inflation is around 20 percent, unemployment is in the double digits, and 18 percent of the population lives in extreme poverty. The Iranian nuclear program has increased these problems by bringing international sanctions against Iranian banks and its wealthiest citizens. Additional problems include government sponsored gas subsidies in the face of high oil prices. Iran may be a top exporter of petroleum, but is also a major importer of refined products such as gasoline. Because of these problems Iran is increasingly vulnerable to international pressure and possibly revolution.
When discussing Iran it is often prudent to discuss the nature of its military. The primary mission of the Iranian military is to maintain order within the country and repel invaders should it become necessary. Although Iran does not have the capability to project a conventional military force it engages in the exportation of the Islamic revolution through the use of its al-Quds Force (Jerusalem Force) – a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Iran is an ethnically diverse nation that often times faces domestic problems typically revolving around treatment of ethnic and religious minorities. It is these problems that consume most of the Iranian military effort.
The Iranians did try to use unconventional forces in Iraq in an attempt to force the U.S. to leave so that Tehran could spread its influence in Baghdad. What happened to the Iranians is known as operational blowback. Iran never had a good hold over the Shiite Muslims in Iraq and was known to provide weapons, money, and training to both Sunni and Shiite militants. This persisted until the U.S. surge proved too much for the Iranians to oppose. The employing of the Sunni Awakening councils and the political leverage used by al-Maliki over the Shiites also did much to force Iranian influence out of Iraq. While Iran wanted to use the support of the various factions fighting the new Iraqi government to spread influence it instead has suffered the opposite. Many Iraqis are distrustful of Tehran and have instead shown an increased loyalty to Baghdad.
The U.S. felt as if it had to negotiate with Iran over the future of Iraq and engaged in several rounds of talks in Baghdad. But with the success of the surge and the consolidation of power in the Iraqi government the Iranians were on the outs. The U.S. also received more than it bargained for. The Iraqi government and military have become strong enough that they want to know how and when the U.S. will withdraw its military force. Currently the U.S. is looking at withdrawing 3 of the 15 brigade combat teams this September with further cuts to be announced in January. This move by the Iraqis is a good sign that the government in now confident enough to stand on its own and the continued presence of foreign troops is becoming a political liability. It is this strength in Baghdad and the new Iraqi army at 137,000 strong that has created a situation the Iranians have long feared.
What a Strike Might Look Like
With Iran as isolated as it is and with international sanctions steadily increasing over the nuclear program one would think that military action is inevitable when in fact the opposite is true. Israel has made statements that it will not allow Iran to construct a nuclear weapon and will use force to stop it. For any strike against the nuclear facilities it would require air and naval attacks on 2 of the 11 hardened sites protected by advanced Russian air defenses.* Currently Israel does not possess any long range heavy bombers for an air attack and would have to rely on fighter/attack aircraft with a refueling stop in Turkey. Another aspect to the attack would require naval support most likely in the form of cruise missiles. Israel has three dolphin class submarines capable of firing Popeye turbo cruise missiles at a range of just over 900 miles. Cruise missiles are meant to be a weapon used for high value targets that need to be hit with surgical precision, but with only two of the three submarines launching missiles (only two are known to operate in the Persian Gulf) the attack may only cause limited damage.
A U.S. led operation is really the only possibility should a military confrontation with Iran take place. The Pentagon has stated that it could destroy the Iranian military in three days. To accomplish this, the U.S. can move two aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf that allow for 24 hour operations supported by bomber and naval fire. It is conceivable that the U.S. could carry out this operation, but that would mean sacrificing the progress made in the talks with Iran over the future of Iraq. It’s doubtful that the Iranians could respond by supporting another insurgency in Iraq, but it could do enough to cause problems. Currently Iraq is not supporting any action against Iran and has told the U.S. it will not allow any cross border attacks. It is unclear whether any Iranian retaliation in Iraq would draw Baghdad into a larger conflict, but it would be best if Iraqi involvement in an action against Iran not take place. Iran and Iraq have a long history of animosity and any Iraqi action could lead to a groundswell of Iranian nationalism.
Another possibility for an Iranian response would be through Hezbollah. Iran funds Hezbollah at about 500 million a year plus supplements in the event of a war with Israel. In the event of a military attack, Iran would want to get its moneys worth. Hezbollah is the most adept and capable terrorist organization in the world and could launch attacks against U.S. interests globally. Any action taken against the Iranian nuclear program must consider this possibility and employ methods to counter the Hezbollah threat.
The Iranians have also threatened to close the Hormuz straits in the event of a military attack. While this makes for good fodder for the media because of the 16-17 million barrels of oil – about 40% of daily global oil consumption – that travel through the strait each day the possibility of Iran doing this effectively is remote. The last time the Iranians and the U.S. had a military engagement in the Persian Gulf was in 1988 and things work out so well for the Iranian navy. The operation was known as Preying Mantis and resulted in a large portion of the Iranian navy being destroyed in a single day by U.S. naval ships. Iran may try to use mines in the strait, but with U.S. and other naval war vessels in the area the attempt would be a token gesture at best.
Is Another Iranian Revolution Possible?
Currently Iran has more problems than answers. These political problems, both internal and external, are being handled by the officer corps of the IRGC. This has taken place by replacing 9 of the 21 cabinet members with IRGC officers and allowing these men to crush dissent. The Iranian people have not taken this change lightly and the proper application of support by the U.S. or other western nations may bring clerical rule to an end.
In fact this support is already taking place. Congress has already approved 400 million dollars to this very enterprise and it appears as if American military and intelligence personnel are working in Iran. The purpose of this funding is to foment domestic unrest and undermine the Iranian nuclear program. Operations such as this are fraught with risk and blowback is a very real possibility. With the increase of the military in domestic politics the theocratic regime could be replaced with a military dictatorship. This outcome is not in the interest of the Iranian people the U.S. or any other nation in the ME.
Many powerful people have called for reform in Tehran not the least of whom is Hossein Khomeini, the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini has asked for President Bush to come and occupy Iran like the U.S. did in Iraq. He has also stated that ‘freedom must come to Iran in any possible way, whether through internal or external developments.’ These words are not to be taken lightly and represent the feelings of a great many Iranians. Regardless of local support, the change in political and economic systems of any nation is a difficult enterprise – even in the most pro-American country in the ME.
The Wildcards – New Intelligence and Developments
Of course without access to classified estimates and the possibility that new developments in the Iranian nuclear program can take place a military strike could happen. At this point it is unclear what the tipping point would be. Iran has already enriched about half of the uranium needed for a nuclear weapon, but of course a nuclear weapon isn’t worth much if it is too big for any of the Iranian delivery systems. The best it could be used for is as a disincentive to invade with a ground force. In any case it is unlikely that the U.S. would use much of a ground force in the event of an attack on Iran. In all actuality the attack would probably resemble the airstrikes that took place at the beginnings of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns with the use of Special Forces to make contacts and create alliances with the local population to bring down the government.
In the end a U.S. strike would have to topple the government or at least dispatch the Iranian scientists involved in the nuclear program. The survival of the regime would allow for the rebuilding of the nuclear facilities and only serve to delay the nuclear program. If the scientists were removed or the regime collapsed the nuclear issue would cease. In the past few years both American and Iranian leaders have used strong rhetoric over the nuclear issue, but rhetoric should never be confused with policy. And while it appears as if a military strike is about to take place other developments lean toward continued diplomacy. What will happen in the next few months and with the new President however, remain to be seen.
*Iran’s uranium enrichment is taking place at the Natanz facility, while the suspected weapons program is taking place at the Esfahan [Isfahan] Nuclear Technology Center.
The following maps show the location and purpose of Iran’s declared facilities
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Terrorism and Underwear
I can’t make this stuff up, but a little humor in an otherwise serious topic is occasionally necessary. A Pakistani newspaper is reporting that terrorists are starting to use suicide underwear since security personnel usually only search the upper body. Here is the story in its entirety:
Terrorists develop ‘suicide underwear’
By Imran Asghar
RAWALPINDI: Would-be suicide bombers could be using explosives “underwear briefs” rather than explosives jackets to evade “conservative” body searches, sources said on Wednesday.
Sihala Police College forensic lab sources told Daily Times that the study of recent suicide attacks showed that suicide bombers used “explosives-laden” under-garments, briefs in particular, to carry out the attacks.
The sources said that the explosives could weigh between five kilogrammes to seven kilogrammes, made deadly by adding glass splinters, metal ball bearings and bullets. The law enforcers normally search upper body parts sparing the “privates”, the sources said, hence assailants are increasingly using the lower body parts to dodge the searches. The sources said that forensic experts were trying to devise methods to pre-empt suicide bombing. The experts have achieved successes in “Post Bombing Investigation,” the sources said, adding that resources are sharpening “Pre Bombing Investigation” techniques.
I guess we’ve come to the point in the war on terror where security personnel must be trained to differentiate between skid marks and explosive materials.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Iran’s Secret Nuclear Reactor
On July 29, a Kuwaiti newspaper, Al-Siyassa, ran a story claiming that the Iranians were building a new nuclear reactor in an urban area without disclosure to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The newspaper claims the source of this information comes from a classified email sent by Brig. Hassan Jalaliyan of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) to Mohammed Kayafir, manager of the Mehab Qudus Company for Construction and Supervision. Here is the English translation:
From the IRGC Commander in the city of Al-Ahwas to the director in charge at the Mehab Qudus Company for Construction and Supervision Mr. Mohammed Kayafir
Re: The nuclear reactor at Al-Zarqan
Greetings,
I thank you for the good services of the Mehab Qudus company, and at the same time I must remind you of the following items:
1. All construction materials must be transported from the warehouses to the construction site in top secrecy.
2. As part of the doctrine of caution, we reiterate yet again that during the transport of all required materials, you must ensure that this [transport] does not arouse the suspicions of any citizen in the region through which you are moving.
3. In general, it is absolutely forbidden to hire any Arabic speakers or any citizen from Khozestan in the framework of the 'Al-Zarqan Nuclear Reactor' construction project. You must ensure that all manpower, including the driver, the accountant, the warehouse manager, the laborer, the technician, or the guard, comes from the northern provinces.
In conclusion, we say yet again that all the construction work in this project must be carried out under absolute secrecy.
From the aide to IRGC commander in the city of Al-Ahwaz, Hassan Jalaliyan.
Why the Kuwaiti Government is worried (and it should be)
In the past the Kuwaiti government has expressed concern that a nuclear accident at the Bushehr nuclear plant would contaminate Kuwait City and the northern areas of the Persian Gulf. During a symposium at a US based think tank, Sami al-Faraj, president of the Kuwait Center for Strategic Studies and an advisor to the Kuwaiti government and the secretariat-general of the Gulf Cooperation Council on how to prepare for potential nuclear accidents in Iran, stated that:
“…the Gulf is a closed sea where environmental factors are important. The Gulf's currents flow counterclockwise. In case of a nuclear accident at Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant, southern Iraq and the whole of Kuwait City, including all of Kuwait's six desalination plants, will be in danger. Iran refuses to provide any information on what it is doing; therefore Kuwait has no way to control what is coming from the Iranian side. Even aside from the technical competence of the Iranian nuclear program, the region in question is prone to damaging earthquakes. Any Iranian nuclear accident would endanger three million people in Kuwait, two million of whom are expatriates who speak 128 languages. It would be a very complicated task to warn the population in the event of an emergency.”
If Al-Siyassa’s sources are correct this would mean that the new reactor is being constructed directly over an active fault (the Ahwaz Fault) even closer to the Iran – Kuwait border. Another earthquake such as the one that struck Bam, Iran in 2003 would be devastating to the region. The last two earthquakes to hit near the Ahwaz Fault occurred in 1977 and 1980. The decision to build a nuclear reactor in this region without disclosure is irresponsible at best. Al-Siyassa claimed that the reactor was built in this area to use the civilian population as a human shield to protect the facility from a military attack.
From the IRGC Commander in the city of Al-Ahwas to the director in charge at the Mehab Qudus Company for Construction and Supervision Mr. Mohammed Kayafir
Re: The nuclear reactor at Al-Zarqan
Greetings,
I thank you for the good services of the Mehab Qudus company, and at the same time I must remind you of the following items:
1. All construction materials must be transported from the warehouses to the construction site in top secrecy.
2. As part of the doctrine of caution, we reiterate yet again that during the transport of all required materials, you must ensure that this [transport] does not arouse the suspicions of any citizen in the region through which you are moving.
3. In general, it is absolutely forbidden to hire any Arabic speakers or any citizen from Khozestan in the framework of the 'Al-Zarqan Nuclear Reactor' construction project. You must ensure that all manpower, including the driver, the accountant, the warehouse manager, the laborer, the technician, or the guard, comes from the northern provinces.
In conclusion, we say yet again that all the construction work in this project must be carried out under absolute secrecy.
From the aide to IRGC commander in the city of Al-Ahwaz, Hassan Jalaliyan.
Why the Kuwaiti Government is worried (and it should be)
In the past the Kuwaiti government has expressed concern that a nuclear accident at the Bushehr nuclear plant would contaminate Kuwait City and the northern areas of the Persian Gulf. During a symposium at a US based think tank, Sami al-Faraj, president of the Kuwait Center for Strategic Studies and an advisor to the Kuwaiti government and the secretariat-general of the Gulf Cooperation Council on how to prepare for potential nuclear accidents in Iran, stated that:
“…the Gulf is a closed sea where environmental factors are important. The Gulf's currents flow counterclockwise. In case of a nuclear accident at Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant, southern Iraq and the whole of Kuwait City, including all of Kuwait's six desalination plants, will be in danger. Iran refuses to provide any information on what it is doing; therefore Kuwait has no way to control what is coming from the Iranian side. Even aside from the technical competence of the Iranian nuclear program, the region in question is prone to damaging earthquakes. Any Iranian nuclear accident would endanger three million people in Kuwait, two million of whom are expatriates who speak 128 languages. It would be a very complicated task to warn the population in the event of an emergency.”
If Al-Siyassa’s sources are correct this would mean that the new reactor is being constructed directly over an active fault (the Ahwaz Fault) even closer to the Iran – Kuwait border. Another earthquake such as the one that struck Bam, Iran in 2003 would be devastating to the region. The last two earthquakes to hit near the Ahwaz Fault occurred in 1977 and 1980. The decision to build a nuclear reactor in this region without disclosure is irresponsible at best. Al-Siyassa claimed that the reactor was built in this area to use the civilian population as a human shield to protect the facility from a military attack.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Update: Iraq
In my article, “The Beginning of the End?,” I noted that many foreign fighters have chosen to leave Iraq and engage in jihadist activities in their home countries. I also stated that this was nothing new and the world witnessed the same situation at the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. When the Soviets left, the international jihad movement was at a crossroads and was forced to make a choice between going back to their normal lives and wait for the call if they were needed again or take the jihad to apostate regimes in Muslim countries. While a homogenous decision did not take place, many found they could not return home because they were marked by their country of origin and forced to flee to countries that were more open to fundamentalist Islam. This is the situation of many terrorists forced to leave Iraq.
In the late 1980’s, many of those who fought in Afghanistan followed Usama bin Laden to the Sudan. Today, both Sudan and Somalia are playing host to the jihadists that nobody wants. On the one hand it is nice to see the remnants of al-Qaeda run out of Iraq, while on the other the people of Africa are now forced to suffer. Since the jihadist exodus out of Iraq, attacks in Sudan against the enemies of the Omar Al-Bashir regime have increased substantially (it appears as if a prosecutor for the International Criminal Court is seeking to indict Al-Bashir for genocide and war crimes). It is still too soon to tell if the two phenomenons are correlated, but it does appear to be too much of a coincidence.
Troop Drawdown
Many news outlets across the U.S. are reporting that the Bush administration is debating on whether to accelerate the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This is another subject I have commented on. For the Iraqi government to succeed the U.S. must get out of the way as much as possible and let the new government spread its influence. The U.S. has repeatedly contended that the reduction of coalition forces depends on the security situation. The following photos show the progress the U.S. and Iraqis have made in expelling foreign fighters and increasing security. This may be the situation needed for the U.S. to go ahead and begin the drawdown of coalition forces.
Note: Recent operations in the Mosul area have removed this as a haven for al-Qaeda. The presence of insurgents is now far less than represented on this map.
In the late 1980’s, many of those who fought in Afghanistan followed Usama bin Laden to the Sudan. Today, both Sudan and Somalia are playing host to the jihadists that nobody wants. On the one hand it is nice to see the remnants of al-Qaeda run out of Iraq, while on the other the people of Africa are now forced to suffer. Since the jihadist exodus out of Iraq, attacks in Sudan against the enemies of the Omar Al-Bashir regime have increased substantially (it appears as if a prosecutor for the International Criminal Court is seeking to indict Al-Bashir for genocide and war crimes). It is still too soon to tell if the two phenomenons are correlated, but it does appear to be too much of a coincidence.
Troop Drawdown
Many news outlets across the U.S. are reporting that the Bush administration is debating on whether to accelerate the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This is another subject I have commented on. For the Iraqi government to succeed the U.S. must get out of the way as much as possible and let the new government spread its influence. The U.S. has repeatedly contended that the reduction of coalition forces depends on the security situation. The following photos show the progress the U.S. and Iraqis have made in expelling foreign fighters and increasing security. This may be the situation needed for the U.S. to go ahead and begin the drawdown of coalition forces.
Note: Recent operations in the Mosul area have removed this as a haven for al-Qaeda. The presence of insurgents is now far less than represented on this map.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
A Conspiracy of One
Authors note: The study of lone wolf terrorists is an area that receives little academic attention and yet has far reaching implications for the public. In this paper I use large terrorist movements, small groups, and spree killers as context in an attempt to highlight the differences between lone wolves and other terrorists. Additionally, this paper will discuss the prospects of lone wolves who are unaffiliated with one another and yet are bound through a common ideology to perpetrate self sustaining random violence – also known as low intensity conflict. This tactic is propagated in the Governance in the Wilderness by al-Qaeda’s chief theoretician, Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji.
First you feel nervous about riding the bus. Then you wonder about going to a mall. Then you think twice about sitting for long at your favorite café. Then nowhere seems safe. Terrorist groups have a strategy—to shrink to nothing the areas in which people move freely—and suicide bombers, inexpensive and reliably lethal, are their latest weapons. Israel has learned to recognize and disrupt the steps on the path to suicide attacks. We must learn too
--BRUCE HOFFMAN 2003
When it comes to terrorism – and any form of mass violence – the carnage of a successful attack can be contagious. What the author means by this is that other societal outsiders will try to replicate or expand upon a successful attack. A recent example is the Virginia Tech massacre that resulted in the deaths of 33 students and faculty. In the days and weeks that followed numerous threats were issued and several attempts were made to instigate violence at schools across the nation. Threats to attack public places occur on a daily basis, but in the wake of violence these threats or actual attempts at violence increase primarily because of media exposure. Societal outcasts, whether they are terrorists or disturbed individuals, seek to air their grievances in order to bring attention to their cause and today’s carnage oriented media is the perfect outlet. Unfortunately, as large terrorist groups fold under pressure from law enforcement and military the rise of lone wolves and small groups made up of like-minded individuals, thus diversifying the terrorist threat is inevitable.
The Strategy
The opening statement by Bruce Hoffman is a perfect example of how terrorists seize upon the successes of others to sow fear into the target population. The purpose of this is to force political change by using the population to lean on their government. In the example provided by Hoffman, Palestinian terrorist groups that operate independently can feed off a successful suicide bombing perpetrated by another group. First the attack may come from Hamas, followed by Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and finally Islamic Jihad until the violence becomes self sustaining without any prior or continuing coordination among like-minded groups. Lone wolves and small violent movements all have the power to cause havoc in the same way and spread influence far beyond their inherently small numbers.
Take for instance the Anthrax letter attacks upon the U.S. from September to October 2001. A total of seven letters containing anthrax were mailed during this attack resulting in 22 people becoming infected and five eventually dying from the infection. These seven letters resulted in numerous building evacuations nationwide, a change in the routing of mail in four states, and hysteria by anyone receiving mail that looked as if it might have come into contact with a powdery substance. Granted, these attacks and the following reaction came on the heals of the 9/11, but we must also consider the reaction to the poisoned Tylenol bottles from the 1980’s. The deaths of seven people in the Chicago area led to a nationwide recall of 31 million bottles with a retail value of 100 million dollars. The attacks were simple and did not require extensive training, but the fallout from the attacks went well beyond the scope of the threat.
Size Does Matter
Bad pun, I know, but lone wolves and small groups do suffer from problems because of their size. While some lone wolves have been successful, one example is George Metesky, others have had limited success either because their grievances limit the target pool (these are known as single-issue terrorists), the target pool is so large that spotting trends is difficult, or because of a lack of training. In other instances the targets have taken measures to protect themselves or their property. In the case of Eric Robert Rudolph training wasn’t the issue but instead the precautions taken by his targets and the pressure applied by law enforcement. Unable to carry out any further attacks, Rudolph was forced to live in the North Carolina wilderness for five years before being apprehended. Rudolph did not have any formal training in the manufacture of explosives, but instead overcame this obstacle by stealing explosive material (as opposed to using improvised explosives with commercial chemicals) and using open source material to create an explosive device.
The Unabomber is another example of an individual terrorist having minimal impact. Theodore Kaczynski sent out 16 mail bombs and managed to kill three people, but his attacks did not produce any of the results he sought (Kaczynski was anti-technology) because his target pool was so large that patterns were difficult to distinguish. These patterns are used to find a common theme among targets in an attempt to learn the perpetrators motivation. What further hurt his cause, as if the bombs weren’t enough, was the lack of any publicized motivation. Kaczynski didn’t mail out his manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future, until after his last bomb was mailed. Ironically, his publishing of the manifesto led to his capture. While lone wolves may not kill in great numbers they do manage to avoid apprehension because of their loner mentality.
Small terrorist movements also suffer from many of the same challenges that lone wolves do. A prime example is the Minnesota Patriots Council attempt to use ricin to poison a Deputy U.S. Marshall and a local Sheriff in retaliation for serving papers to a Council member. The Council had managed to produce .7 grams of ricin (enough to kill a least a hundred people), but failed to create a sufficient delivery system. The plot unraveled because of a marriage dispute that led to the arrest and conviction of four Council members under the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act. The Council may have been successful in extracting the ricin, but because it chose a biological weapon it brought undue attention that may not have come if the group had relied on small arms for their assassination plot.
One small group that stands out is the Washington Beltway snipers. The two men that perpetrated the attacks simply used a Bushmaster version of an AR-15 and shot people at random for three weeks in October 2002. The attacks did not require much training beyond what John Allen Muhammad received in the military, but nonetheless left the Washington D.C. area in a state of fear. It is these types of attacks that prove to be the most successful for small groups and the fear that the attacks generate goes well beyond the scope of the threat. Small groups cannot be everywhere, but then again they don’t have to be; they just have to seem to be everywhere.
The ELF/ALF Model and the Modern Jihadist
The movement for freedom is rapidly approaching the point where for many people, the option of belonging to a group will be nonexistent. For others, group membership will be a viable option for only the immediate future. Eventually, and perhaps much sooner than most believe possible, the price paid for membership will exceed any perceived benefit. But for now, some of the groups that do exist often serve a useful purpose either for the newcomer who can be indoctrinated into the ideology of the struggle, or for generating positive propaganda to reach potential freedom fighters. It is sure that, for the most part, this struggle is rapidly becoming a matter of individual action, each of its participants making a private decision in the quietness of his heart to resist: to resist by any means necessary. It is hard to know what others will do, for no man truly knows another man's heart. It is enough to know what one himself will do. A great teacher once said "know thyself." Few men really do, but let each of us, promise ourselves, not to go quietly to the fate our would-be masters have planned.
--LOUIS BEAM
It is hard to improve upon the words of those people who wish to do others harms. In this case a white supremacist, Louis Beam, discusses in his work ‘Leaderless Resistance’ that the “struggle is rapidly becoming a matter of individual action.” What Beam means by this is that large movements attract attention while individual actors can hatch a plot in their head and execute it without fear of someone leaking the details to law enforcement. It is this idea that the modern ecoterrorist groups have used to their advantage. Movements such as ALF and ELF do not, and as far as I know have never, employed a hierarchal or pyramid structure. Instead, the movements depend on the internet to spread propaganda, indoctrinate, and instigate radicalism among the mainstream environmentalist movement – just as Louis Beam described for the white supremacist movement.
Many terrorist groups in the past have undergone transformations from hierarchal structures to cellular networks and finally to small movements or individual actors when pressured by individual governments. This process, which I call adaptive reconstruction, is born out of necessity not for the survival of the group, but more for the survival of the ideology. It is natural for people to congregate in groups for reasons of self preservation because a group, or tribes before the invention of the nation-state, can work together to better accomplish the needs of the individual. These needs – according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – include biological and physiological, safety, belongingness and love, esteem, and self-actualization. While it is possible for an individual to meet the biological and physiological needs; a group is better suited to meet the rest of the needs. The internet however, has shifted this paradigm.
The internet, and other means of modern communication, cannot fully replace the desire to form a physical group, but what it can do is provide information to people in search of belongingness to a movement. The modern jihadist has realized this. Not only have small groups tried to perpetrate attacks without the physical support of professional terrorists (theological and theoretical support not withstanding), but individuals as well have gravitated to the global jihad without any formal training. These individuals attended mainstream mosques and yet were radicalized by information provided on the internet. In this case the desire to belong to a group is somewhat fulfilled by being a member of a mainstream congregation, while simultaneously adding a divine purpose to their lives by joining other jihadists in cyberspace. While this phenomenon is occurring worldwide it has manifested in Great Britain substantially.
The most recent attempt was carried out by a mentally ill convert to Islam. The man, Nicky Reilly, carried three bombs into the bathroom of a family restaurant but failed to cause any damage other than to himself. The plot failed only because one of the devices detonated prematurely. Police suspect that Reilly was chosen because of his mental illness – a tactic that has garnered quite a bit press in the Iraq theatre. But Reilly is not alone in the lone wolf game. In April of this year, British police arrested a 19 year old student thanks to a tip from his Imam (the suspect had numerous burns on his hands) that led police to confiscate three improvised explosive devices from his apartment. Just a few months prior another arrest was made, this time the suspect was found to be stockpiling chemicals and other bomb making materials. It is believed that this man, Hassan Tabbakh, was in fact, Britain’s first jihadist lone wolf bomber (though he had yet to carry out an attack).
Are Suicide Tactics Next?
In the age of on demand information, escalation of tactics and weapons can occur without regard to success or failure of past attacks. Suicide tactics are inexpensive to carry out – usually around 150 dollars at the Home Depot – and work to influence public movements. The suicide bomber also adds to the psychological element of the attack because the idea of someone killing themselves to harm you is quite discomforting. But the question remains; would a small group or lone wolf carry out such an attack? Both are unlikely scenarios, but the Nicky Reilly case may prove to be the future. As stated previously, the use of the mentally ill as a tactic is something that has been occurring over the last few years. Unfortunately children and the elderly have also been used to carry out suicide attacks – sometimes without their knowledge. This approach allows the orchestrator of the attack to try again with another patsy or simply claim ignorance.
Suicide tactics also include lone gunman who wish to be killed by security forces while killing as many bystanders with as possible. This has worked well in the western world and the defense against such an attack is difficult. In the past few years the U.S. has witnessed such attacks in schools and malls – all soft targets – and it is unlikely to end. Spree shooters, regardless of motivation, often act alone, but that does not mean they will not inspire others. Following the Virginia Tech massacre, police stopped several individuals from carrying out similar attacks. These were not just threats, but plans that had gone operational only to be reported by concerned family members and friends.
Conclusion
Violence begets violence and often motivation can be inconsequential in lone wolf attacks. But in the case of terrorist groups that adaptively deconstruct into smaller movements, motivation may prove to be the factor that ensures indiscriminate violence can be sustained. After all it is motivation that separates terrorists from spree killers or other practitioners of mass violence by definition. The desire of terrorist movements is to influence government decisions through public opinion and the use of sustained random violence can accomplish this; at least temporarily. History shows us that all terrorist movements eventually fail because the violence employed alienates the population – a population that terrorists rely on to accomplish their goals. Of course simply resting on historical occurrences is hardly a viable counter-violence strategy, but the lesson we should take away is that they fail because of the intolerance for indiscriminate violence by the population.
Psychiatrist Jerrold Post postulated that individuals become terrorists in order to join terrorist groups and commit acts of terrorism. While the good doctor admits that this is an extreme position (Post studies terrorism with the theory that political violence is driven by psychological forces) he makes an important point. Terrorists engage in terrorism as a means to give purpose to their life (Maslow’s self-actualization), but the forces that work against them is death, apprehension, internal infighting, or success. Death, apprehension, or infighting is the most likely outcome, but success is an interesting proposition. As previous stated terrorists always fail not only because of outside pressure, but success – the accomplishment of the terrorists stated goals – negates the purpose of the group. What this means is that the outcast that had his individual needs met will once again be an outcast and forced to find another accepting group. This is utterly impossible from many terrorists. Once again we can turn to history to find examples of terrorist groups continuing violent acts after their demands have been met. The IRA, ETA, and PFLP all continued to engage in terrorism after each political success.
Most instances of terrorism and mass violence can be prevented. This cannot be overstated. Lone wolves and small groups survive as long as they do because family and friends have a hard time believing what is apparent – we know an individual that is disturbed and needs help. Earlier I mentioned that the Unabomber was only caught after he published his manifesto. It was his brother that recognized the phrases and prose when the document was published and yet he still struggled with the realization that his brother was a terrorist and must be turned in. In the event that an act of terrorism occurs it is important to watch for other individuals to capitalize on the media frenzy. They may use a variety of tactics to ensure that the attack works, but the signs they show before an attack will give them away.
When you report something that appears out of the ordinary you cannot be wrong. As Gavin de Becker stated, “You can only be wrong if you place your personal pride above your personal safety.” Simply speaking up can stop an attack regardless of size or complexity.
Until next time stay safe.
First you feel nervous about riding the bus. Then you wonder about going to a mall. Then you think twice about sitting for long at your favorite café. Then nowhere seems safe. Terrorist groups have a strategy—to shrink to nothing the areas in which people move freely—and suicide bombers, inexpensive and reliably lethal, are their latest weapons. Israel has learned to recognize and disrupt the steps on the path to suicide attacks. We must learn too
--BRUCE HOFFMAN 2003
When it comes to terrorism – and any form of mass violence – the carnage of a successful attack can be contagious. What the author means by this is that other societal outsiders will try to replicate or expand upon a successful attack. A recent example is the Virginia Tech massacre that resulted in the deaths of 33 students and faculty. In the days and weeks that followed numerous threats were issued and several attempts were made to instigate violence at schools across the nation. Threats to attack public places occur on a daily basis, but in the wake of violence these threats or actual attempts at violence increase primarily because of media exposure. Societal outcasts, whether they are terrorists or disturbed individuals, seek to air their grievances in order to bring attention to their cause and today’s carnage oriented media is the perfect outlet. Unfortunately, as large terrorist groups fold under pressure from law enforcement and military the rise of lone wolves and small groups made up of like-minded individuals, thus diversifying the terrorist threat is inevitable.
The Strategy
The opening statement by Bruce Hoffman is a perfect example of how terrorists seize upon the successes of others to sow fear into the target population. The purpose of this is to force political change by using the population to lean on their government. In the example provided by Hoffman, Palestinian terrorist groups that operate independently can feed off a successful suicide bombing perpetrated by another group. First the attack may come from Hamas, followed by Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and finally Islamic Jihad until the violence becomes self sustaining without any prior or continuing coordination among like-minded groups. Lone wolves and small violent movements all have the power to cause havoc in the same way and spread influence far beyond their inherently small numbers.
Take for instance the Anthrax letter attacks upon the U.S. from September to October 2001. A total of seven letters containing anthrax were mailed during this attack resulting in 22 people becoming infected and five eventually dying from the infection. These seven letters resulted in numerous building evacuations nationwide, a change in the routing of mail in four states, and hysteria by anyone receiving mail that looked as if it might have come into contact with a powdery substance. Granted, these attacks and the following reaction came on the heals of the 9/11, but we must also consider the reaction to the poisoned Tylenol bottles from the 1980’s. The deaths of seven people in the Chicago area led to a nationwide recall of 31 million bottles with a retail value of 100 million dollars. The attacks were simple and did not require extensive training, but the fallout from the attacks went well beyond the scope of the threat.
Size Does Matter
Bad pun, I know, but lone wolves and small groups do suffer from problems because of their size. While some lone wolves have been successful, one example is George Metesky, others have had limited success either because their grievances limit the target pool (these are known as single-issue terrorists), the target pool is so large that spotting trends is difficult, or because of a lack of training. In other instances the targets have taken measures to protect themselves or their property. In the case of Eric Robert Rudolph training wasn’t the issue but instead the precautions taken by his targets and the pressure applied by law enforcement. Unable to carry out any further attacks, Rudolph was forced to live in the North Carolina wilderness for five years before being apprehended. Rudolph did not have any formal training in the manufacture of explosives, but instead overcame this obstacle by stealing explosive material (as opposed to using improvised explosives with commercial chemicals) and using open source material to create an explosive device.
The Unabomber is another example of an individual terrorist having minimal impact. Theodore Kaczynski sent out 16 mail bombs and managed to kill three people, but his attacks did not produce any of the results he sought (Kaczynski was anti-technology) because his target pool was so large that patterns were difficult to distinguish. These patterns are used to find a common theme among targets in an attempt to learn the perpetrators motivation. What further hurt his cause, as if the bombs weren’t enough, was the lack of any publicized motivation. Kaczynski didn’t mail out his manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future, until after his last bomb was mailed. Ironically, his publishing of the manifesto led to his capture. While lone wolves may not kill in great numbers they do manage to avoid apprehension because of their loner mentality.
Small terrorist movements also suffer from many of the same challenges that lone wolves do. A prime example is the Minnesota Patriots Council attempt to use ricin to poison a Deputy U.S. Marshall and a local Sheriff in retaliation for serving papers to a Council member. The Council had managed to produce .7 grams of ricin (enough to kill a least a hundred people), but failed to create a sufficient delivery system. The plot unraveled because of a marriage dispute that led to the arrest and conviction of four Council members under the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act. The Council may have been successful in extracting the ricin, but because it chose a biological weapon it brought undue attention that may not have come if the group had relied on small arms for their assassination plot.
One small group that stands out is the Washington Beltway snipers. The two men that perpetrated the attacks simply used a Bushmaster version of an AR-15 and shot people at random for three weeks in October 2002. The attacks did not require much training beyond what John Allen Muhammad received in the military, but nonetheless left the Washington D.C. area in a state of fear. It is these types of attacks that prove to be the most successful for small groups and the fear that the attacks generate goes well beyond the scope of the threat. Small groups cannot be everywhere, but then again they don’t have to be; they just have to seem to be everywhere.
The ELF/ALF Model and the Modern Jihadist
The movement for freedom is rapidly approaching the point where for many people, the option of belonging to a group will be nonexistent. For others, group membership will be a viable option for only the immediate future. Eventually, and perhaps much sooner than most believe possible, the price paid for membership will exceed any perceived benefit. But for now, some of the groups that do exist often serve a useful purpose either for the newcomer who can be indoctrinated into the ideology of the struggle, or for generating positive propaganda to reach potential freedom fighters. It is sure that, for the most part, this struggle is rapidly becoming a matter of individual action, each of its participants making a private decision in the quietness of his heart to resist: to resist by any means necessary. It is hard to know what others will do, for no man truly knows another man's heart. It is enough to know what one himself will do. A great teacher once said "know thyself." Few men really do, but let each of us, promise ourselves, not to go quietly to the fate our would-be masters have planned.
--LOUIS BEAM
It is hard to improve upon the words of those people who wish to do others harms. In this case a white supremacist, Louis Beam, discusses in his work ‘Leaderless Resistance’ that the “struggle is rapidly becoming a matter of individual action.” What Beam means by this is that large movements attract attention while individual actors can hatch a plot in their head and execute it without fear of someone leaking the details to law enforcement. It is this idea that the modern ecoterrorist groups have used to their advantage. Movements such as ALF and ELF do not, and as far as I know have never, employed a hierarchal or pyramid structure. Instead, the movements depend on the internet to spread propaganda, indoctrinate, and instigate radicalism among the mainstream environmentalist movement – just as Louis Beam described for the white supremacist movement.
Many terrorist groups in the past have undergone transformations from hierarchal structures to cellular networks and finally to small movements or individual actors when pressured by individual governments. This process, which I call adaptive reconstruction, is born out of necessity not for the survival of the group, but more for the survival of the ideology. It is natural for people to congregate in groups for reasons of self preservation because a group, or tribes before the invention of the nation-state, can work together to better accomplish the needs of the individual. These needs – according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – include biological and physiological, safety, belongingness and love, esteem, and self-actualization. While it is possible for an individual to meet the biological and physiological needs; a group is better suited to meet the rest of the needs. The internet however, has shifted this paradigm.
The internet, and other means of modern communication, cannot fully replace the desire to form a physical group, but what it can do is provide information to people in search of belongingness to a movement. The modern jihadist has realized this. Not only have small groups tried to perpetrate attacks without the physical support of professional terrorists (theological and theoretical support not withstanding), but individuals as well have gravitated to the global jihad without any formal training. These individuals attended mainstream mosques and yet were radicalized by information provided on the internet. In this case the desire to belong to a group is somewhat fulfilled by being a member of a mainstream congregation, while simultaneously adding a divine purpose to their lives by joining other jihadists in cyberspace. While this phenomenon is occurring worldwide it has manifested in Great Britain substantially.
The most recent attempt was carried out by a mentally ill convert to Islam. The man, Nicky Reilly, carried three bombs into the bathroom of a family restaurant but failed to cause any damage other than to himself. The plot failed only because one of the devices detonated prematurely. Police suspect that Reilly was chosen because of his mental illness – a tactic that has garnered quite a bit press in the Iraq theatre. But Reilly is not alone in the lone wolf game. In April of this year, British police arrested a 19 year old student thanks to a tip from his Imam (the suspect had numerous burns on his hands) that led police to confiscate three improvised explosive devices from his apartment. Just a few months prior another arrest was made, this time the suspect was found to be stockpiling chemicals and other bomb making materials. It is believed that this man, Hassan Tabbakh, was in fact, Britain’s first jihadist lone wolf bomber (though he had yet to carry out an attack).
Are Suicide Tactics Next?
In the age of on demand information, escalation of tactics and weapons can occur without regard to success or failure of past attacks. Suicide tactics are inexpensive to carry out – usually around 150 dollars at the Home Depot – and work to influence public movements. The suicide bomber also adds to the psychological element of the attack because the idea of someone killing themselves to harm you is quite discomforting. But the question remains; would a small group or lone wolf carry out such an attack? Both are unlikely scenarios, but the Nicky Reilly case may prove to be the future. As stated previously, the use of the mentally ill as a tactic is something that has been occurring over the last few years. Unfortunately children and the elderly have also been used to carry out suicide attacks – sometimes without their knowledge. This approach allows the orchestrator of the attack to try again with another patsy or simply claim ignorance.
Suicide tactics also include lone gunman who wish to be killed by security forces while killing as many bystanders with as possible. This has worked well in the western world and the defense against such an attack is difficult. In the past few years the U.S. has witnessed such attacks in schools and malls – all soft targets – and it is unlikely to end. Spree shooters, regardless of motivation, often act alone, but that does not mean they will not inspire others. Following the Virginia Tech massacre, police stopped several individuals from carrying out similar attacks. These were not just threats, but plans that had gone operational only to be reported by concerned family members and friends.
Conclusion
Violence begets violence and often motivation can be inconsequential in lone wolf attacks. But in the case of terrorist groups that adaptively deconstruct into smaller movements, motivation may prove to be the factor that ensures indiscriminate violence can be sustained. After all it is motivation that separates terrorists from spree killers or other practitioners of mass violence by definition. The desire of terrorist movements is to influence government decisions through public opinion and the use of sustained random violence can accomplish this; at least temporarily. History shows us that all terrorist movements eventually fail because the violence employed alienates the population – a population that terrorists rely on to accomplish their goals. Of course simply resting on historical occurrences is hardly a viable counter-violence strategy, but the lesson we should take away is that they fail because of the intolerance for indiscriminate violence by the population.
Psychiatrist Jerrold Post postulated that individuals become terrorists in order to join terrorist groups and commit acts of terrorism. While the good doctor admits that this is an extreme position (Post studies terrorism with the theory that political violence is driven by psychological forces) he makes an important point. Terrorists engage in terrorism as a means to give purpose to their life (Maslow’s self-actualization), but the forces that work against them is death, apprehension, internal infighting, or success. Death, apprehension, or infighting is the most likely outcome, but success is an interesting proposition. As previous stated terrorists always fail not only because of outside pressure, but success – the accomplishment of the terrorists stated goals – negates the purpose of the group. What this means is that the outcast that had his individual needs met will once again be an outcast and forced to find another accepting group. This is utterly impossible from many terrorists. Once again we can turn to history to find examples of terrorist groups continuing violent acts after their demands have been met. The IRA, ETA, and PFLP all continued to engage in terrorism after each political success.
Most instances of terrorism and mass violence can be prevented. This cannot be overstated. Lone wolves and small groups survive as long as they do because family and friends have a hard time believing what is apparent – we know an individual that is disturbed and needs help. Earlier I mentioned that the Unabomber was only caught after he published his manifesto. It was his brother that recognized the phrases and prose when the document was published and yet he still struggled with the realization that his brother was a terrorist and must be turned in. In the event that an act of terrorism occurs it is important to watch for other individuals to capitalize on the media frenzy. They may use a variety of tactics to ensure that the attack works, but the signs they show before an attack will give them away.
When you report something that appears out of the ordinary you cannot be wrong. As Gavin de Becker stated, “You can only be wrong if you place your personal pride above your personal safety.” Simply speaking up can stop an attack regardless of size or complexity.
Until next time stay safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
