-Caveat Lector- http://www.zolatimes.com/V5.50/understanding_war.html
Understanding the Terrorist War Some Reflections on Strategy by B. Gold There comes a time when we must put aside our moral sentiments and consider matters with the cold calculus of war. Let us consider the realities. It is immediately obvious that there is a vast disparity of strength between the US and the terrorists. This is the first and singular fact to consider. If this wasn't the case, there would be no need for terrorism. The enemy would simply negotiate what it wanted from a position of strength or they would pursue open warfare. The fact that they do not and can not is an indication of their weakness. Accordingly, their war from the shadows is in itself an admission of weakness. They are seeking the classic advantages of stealth and cunning while they minimize the US's military, political and economic advantages. This disparity of strength is even more glaring when we consider the issue of Jihad. Much talked about and threatened, its actual history is one of utter failure. This history clashes with the common perception of Jihad as a new and unprecedented threat. In actuality, the clerical faction that is promoting Holy War has been actively engaged in this practice for close to a century. Militants have been calling for Jihad ever since the Jewish colony was established in Palestine after the First World War. A call that intensified after the foundation of Israel and its successful war of national survival in 1947 and 48. The plain truth is that these calls for Jihad have failed and are continuing to fail. They have generated extremist groups, terrorism, mobs and political agitation. Nevertheless, in no case and at no time has there been anything resembling a mobilization for general warfare much less full blown religious warfare. These facts are the key to understanding the terrorist strategy. The hard bottom line is that they can not win this war in any meaningful sense and they know they can't win. They know that winning is beyond their capabilities. However, the possibility exists that the US will win the war for them. That if the US is manipulated cunningly enough, if its weaknesses are exploited shrewdly enough, it just might deliver the victory that is beyond their own strength. This article examines this possibility and that strategies that flow from it. Psychological Warfare Their basic strategy is to use psychological warfare to gain the victories they can not accomplish in the field. The raid on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon are examples of this strategy in action. These raids were calculated to gain the maximum amount of attention and generate the maximum amount of emotional response. They achieved this goal. However, if one puts aside one's understandable moral outrage to consider these raids militarily they are far less impressive. First, they have had very little impact on America's actual military, economic or political strength. True, they killed a serious number of people, even a shocking number by current peacetime standards, but the casualty figures are not particularly impressive compared to bombing casualties in Britain or Germany during the Second World War. They also destroyed a number of large buildings � but the US is not short of large buildings and can demonstrably build more. The raid, despite its human and material damage, was aimed at America's emotions. The very symbolic nature of the targets and the symbolic nature of the date (911) underlie this basic intent. Further, we must note that these were merely raids not invasions or campaigns. As such, they maximized the raider's advantages of surprise, preparation and planning. Much has been said of their success. However, when one has unlimited time to prepare, can pick when, were and how and it is an initial strike against an enemy at peace success is not so impressive. Given so many advantages success � at least in the tactical sense � is not particularly difficult. The same can be said of the Anthrax attack. Mailing a few letters with poison is not difficult. We can also note that the targets, politicians and media types, are justly famous for over-reaction and moral panics. Clearly, this attack's main aim was not to produce casualties�so far 4-5 dead in a nation of 300 million. Its aim was psychological, to destroy our sense of proportion, to inflate our assessment of risk and to push us into reaction. Its aim is clearly to influence public policy and its targets in politics and the media were selected for that purpose. The terrorists are clearly trying to generate a political response by the much larger and stronger US. Their hope is that the US will respond with ham-handed stupidity and create the victory that is beyond their own strength. They operate in the hope that the US will adopt practices so in tune with a moral panic and so out of tune with the realities that the policies will be self-defeating. In short, these are sucker punch operations. Tactically they do damage. Strategically they invite a self-defeating response. Accordingly, they are aimed at some fault lines in American society. It is also notable that these fault lines are largely self-inflicted by the US on the US and created by beliefs heavily connect to what certain political elites "want" and only loosely connected with what is actually possible. Let us look at some of them in detail. Risk Aversion For at least two decades, America has been pursuing a radical policy of risk aversion. How and why this has happened is too big and complex an issue to deal with here. Suffice to say that safety, or just as often the appearance or claim of safety, has been a potent driver of political agendas. Know betters who could not "persuade" America to follow their preferences and authoritarian who have always felt that the common person "NEEDED" more structure and control have driven this sensible concern to unsustainable, indeed ludicrous extremes. In a country of 300 million a rational of "if it saves just one life" is insane. Let us consider what the terrorist can reasonably expect from this fault line. A policy of safety everywhere, all the time, is structurally impossible. No such thing has ever existed in human history and is not possible now. However, a country that tries to attain this will generate huge frictional costs as more and more resources are diverted to the unproductive activity of static security measures. Further, such a policy is futile; no conceivable security system can protect everything all the time. Raiders with the advantage of picking when, were and how will always find a weak link. Even if weak links did not exist, such a dispersed defense would be dispersed to the point that a determined raider would simply punch through it at the critical time and place. If the US's primary consideration is safety the result will be an immense diversion of time, energy, manpower and wealth into activities that are not in themselves productive. A good example of this is the current escalating drive for airport "security." As each "problem," "loophole" and "vulnerability" is countered with more procedures, safeguards and precautions the system will become ever slower and more expensive. The final result � assuming the enemy didn't simply concentrate a suitable force to punch through at a particular point of time and place � would be an enemy who simply smiled at our immense diversions of power and picked a different type of target. An enemy that sucker punched the US into the adoption of a domestic zero risk policy would triumph as we ground our economy to a halt in "security mode." Yet, such an outcome can only be avoided by rejecting a twenty-year trend towards a safety first, risk adverse culture and all the legal structures that enforce and support such a culture. Generate Internal Dissent The American Hegemony that followed World War II has been accompanied by domestic criticism of policies that were an inseparable part of that drive for World Hegemony. Although it can be argued that the post war situation left America little choice and that its policies were not only justifiable, but essential; these policies have their critics. The use of military forces has been the most common flash point for that criticism. If the US combined a policy of military operations with a policy of intolerance for dissent then a Vietnam War type reaction could result. As the "emergency" dragged on, a number of issues such as immigration, dependence on foreign industry and resources and the underlying rational of "free trade" would come into question. A domestic policy overreaction could generate an official attitude of viewing Americans as little more than "potential terrorists" in much the same way that the war on drugs has led to official attitudes of the citizen as "drug suspect". Should the US create draconian enough domestic policies and decided that everyone is a suspect (a small step from the current drug war mentality) then a domestic opposition is inevitable. A ham handed "enemy at the gates" response to domestic dissent and a "police state" criticism of official policies could easily radicalize any opposition or dissent - however moderate its origins. An immense diversion of national energy into suppressing "dissidents" and enforcing ever expanding regulatory frameworks would cripple any effective response to terrorism and disrupt America's ability to function. This would inevitably raise the question of whether "American Hegemony" was worth the price of an American "police state." Given the current political divisions and tensions in the country the results could be brutal. Continued hit and run raids against high profile or symbolic targets could then be used to push the situation towards ever more radical responses and an ever-wider framework of regulatory controls. Such a course of events � if pursued to their logical conclusion � would result in political gridlock and economic disaster. No modern, highly industrial state can be ruled from the top, nor can it be successfully micro-managed through over-control of the civil population. The structural difficulties that defeated the Soviet attempt at an over-controlled state distrustful of its own people would be, if anything, more problematic in a country with America's traditions. Emotionalism Raids and other incidents designed to raise the maximum emotional response are clearly part of the terrorist's strategy. Their hope is that America will think with its emotions rather than its brains. This is based on an astute analysis of the American political process with its heavy emphasis on emotional approaches to national policy. It also recognizes the vulnerability of an elected government to the demands of an emotional electorate. The willingness of political oppositions and people with political agendas to play the emotion card compounds this problem. America has seen a long series of laws and policy responses generated by the need to "do something." In many cases even the people enacting these "responses" are perfectly aware that they would not and will not prevent the problem they are supposedly addressing. One of the strategic requirements for winning a war is the seizing and maintaining of the initiate. No nation has ever won a war by "reacting" and "responding." Politics driven by intense emotion and politically harnessed emotion would inevitably yield the initiative to the enemy by pushing America into a pattern of do first and think it through latter. The result would be both domestic turmoil and a crippled war effort. If the terrorist are able to generate an emotional tidal wave that overwhelmed reasoned response they could cripple the war effort. De-stabilize the East Another war aim is to destabilize the Middle East. To understand this strategy we need to remember that most of these countries are democracies in name only and divided between powerful factions. The default position for their politics is a faction compromise centered on the cult of a strong man. As long as the strong man can suppress dissent, give the factions "enough" of what they want he remains in power. If he fails he is out and some other strongman with a new faction alliance takes over. In most of these countries moderate dissent or reformers (sometimes known as a loyal opposition) are silenced or imprisoned. In virtually all these countries, a powerful faction of politicized clerics is a force to be reckoned with. Given the religions bent of the population the government cannot silence the clerics as they do other critics. The usual compromise is that the clerics give their support in return for the government's support of their religious issues. The government also reinforces the clerics religious authority in return for theological support of established order. It's important to remember that this area has a long history of religious rulers (theocracy) dating back to Mohammed. Given a chance the clerics would be delighted to take over and absolutely crush any secular authority. Heavy-footed blundering by infidel troops in their territories has the very real potential to destabilize the whole region. With so many powerful factions used to playing political hard ball, this is a very real danger. A series of American blunders could create enough turbulence to set the groundwork for a real Jihad. Pakistan (never too stable) is already starting to fragment under this pressure. If enough states fall under clerical control a critical mass of political will could be generated in an area where the glory days of the Caliphate, Islamic unity and world power status are not forgotten. The terrorist are also trying to establish a critical mass of anti-American sentiments through populist movements and bring extreme religious governments to power from the ground up. Governments that might put aside local grievances and establish an anti-western alliance. To understand why this is possible one must examine the area's history. Since the Collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War 1 the Western powers (they no more distinguish the US from the rest of the West than we distinguish the different Arab states) have created protectorates, colonies, areas of influence, and countries as they damn well saw fit. This has seldom been in accord with local sentiment or local well being. They remember our gun boat diplomacy and how we played god with them in their weakness and it does not make them love us I assure you. Further, since the Second World War and the rise of US hegemony they have been on the receiving end of US policy (we may draw a distinction between US foreign policy � driven by the interests of American elites � and the "American people" but they by and large do not). In most cases US cold war policy was to fight communism by all means and at any cost. In practice, this policy, however worthy or necessary, meant that America (like all previous great powers) fought as it must not as it ought. In practice this meant US support of the local strong men and dictators. The usually deal was very simple. The dictator supported US foreign policy and crushed any local communists � or opposition that could be labeled as communist. In return the US supported the dictator domestically and used US economic and military strength to prevent any challenge to his rule. This may have been a wise policy in terms of geo-politics and it may have been an unavoidable cost of the cold war. However, to those who bled and suffered under the brutal rule of the local strongman these policies appear as little more than unmitigated American hypocrisy and sneering contempt for the "wogs." To many of these people, America's tremendous truths seem little more than lies and propaganda. If anyone can't figure out why many hate our guts and feel that they have cause to do so I suggest you enquire into the history of these post war strongmen and the terror and suffering they inflicted on their own people. Again, it could be argued that these policies were necessary to fight the greater and more dangerous enemy of communism. In addition, it can be argued that the lack of a modern or moderate opposition gave the US little choice. Both arguments have a great deal of truth in them. For those who suffered under a US backed tyranny and saw their hopes and the lives and hopes of their children crushed such arguments carry little weight. We can also note that the rulers of these countries have spared no effort to blame the West and the US for their failures. In countries with wholly controlled media and brutal attitudes towards dissent, many have never heard any other story. This is an interpretation of history that appeals to local prejudice and excuses the disastrous incompetence and favoritism of their own rulers. If these peoples can be convinced that the West has decided to make a frontal attack on their traditions, their hopes and their lives Jihad becomes a very real possibility. De-Stabilize the West The hope that America will destroy itself. This is a shrewd reading of American history and psychology. It takes advantage of the fact that the US has experienced a long history of struggle between a top down authoritarian tradition and a bottom up individual liberty tradition. (Loyalist of the all-powerful crown vs. "we the people," slave vs. free states, individual liberties vs. federal centralization of power etc.) The hope is that NY and other incidents will allow official authoritarianism to triumph over the counter tradition of individual liberty and individual initiative. The war on drugs with its clear acceptance of the citizen as "suspect" and its ever-escalating assurance that we are just "one civil liberty" from victory is a grim warning of what they consider possible. The willingness of the judiciary to enlist in the war on drugs and the incremental abandonment of the judiciary's Constitutional role of safeguard against executive branch excess reinforces this understanding. An astute observer might judge that centralized power, a centralized power of elites who hold the American people in contempt is already winning. If the "war mentality" supporting this trend can be radicalized the authoritarian trend in US history might triumph. The current Bush administration's "Patriot Act" has already installed the full apparatus for a police state. One can argue, with some truth, that this a "temporary" measure in an emergency. One can also argue that these powers will be used with great restraint, reluctance and caution. There is absolutely no evidence that is actually happening. Indeed, evidence is rapidly accumulating that the authorities are thoroughly panicked and are moving in the direction of some really nasty excesses hoping that a few terrorists will be nabbed in the process. If this development, the shift from citizen as drug suspect to citizen as terrorist suspect is not nipped in the bud two strategic victories become possible. In the short term, a continuation of this mindset will utterly separate a large part of the population from any loyalty to the government and its policies. It will generate a response based on the terrified realization that it is far more important to rescue the Republic from domestic dangers and check the march of executive authoritarianism than to fight people half a world away. A collapse of American political will into faction fights between those who belief government exists to serve the people and those who believe the people exist to serve the government would destabilize America and create a power vacuum in the Middle East. Rulers who backed the West in return for support would have to change allegiances or be overthrown. This would set the stage for clerical extremists to take power. In the long run a centrally run authoritarian state, if such a thing were successfully established � would smash America. Even if it could be established without disruption and the creation of counter-forces (an impossibility) it would still destroy America. The fundamental lesson of the 20 the century is that modern industrial societies can not be successfully run from the center. They are too complex and dynamic for simple top down power to be effective. There is not the slightest indication that the US would be successful where the Soviet Union failed. A close reading of history indicates that dynamic, innovative and immensely specialized societies require a governmental attitude of trust and respect for the citizenry. History demonstrates that this governmental attitude is not a frill or "a nice to have" but the understanding required for sound policy decisions. An American government that attempts to win the war on terrorism with command and control policies will make itself into a Soviet and the more it moves in that direction the more it will find itself confounded by the insoluble problems of the late and unlamented Soviets. If we examine the above analysis, we can see that the terrorist's victory depends not on their own strength but on the impact of American reaction. That their strategy is cleverly and astutely organized around a deep and careful analysis of fault lines in the American body politic. It is, in short, a strategy of sucker punch operations to generate tactical successes and strategically beneficial reactions. It has one potentially fatal weakness, it absolutely depends on the enemy not having the smarts or the discipline to act rather than react. It assumes that the strategic initiative can be maintained and the giant kept off balance by repeated raids that feed public fear and frustration leading to mindless authoritarian reaction at home and abroad. Success depends on the victim never developing the smarts or the discipline to stop being a sucker. They're counting on that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce Gold is a professional researcher and analyst with a Master's in Intellectual History. He is the author of InfoWar in Cyberspace: Researcher on the Net. The book is a primer for students, researchers and Internet activists. It can be found at http://www.booklocker.com/bookpages/brucegold01.html. -30- from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 5, No 50, December 10, 2001 ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, All My Relations. Omnia Bona Bonis, Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
