Hank B asked me how I would fight the war on terrorism.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81060&pagenumber=2
Here’s my quick answer.
------
Let’s start with a couple caveats.
1) I no longer am part of the intelligence community; therefore, my
guesses are only as good as anyone else’s’ guesses. Furthermore, much of
what follows already has been published on TFL - I’m not pretending
these thoughts are all mine.
2) Let’s make some points about Desert Storm.
a) There was no practical manner for us to force Iraq out of Kuwait by
ourselves. It would do no good to win a war against Iraq and loose the
economic and political “war” with the entire Middle East. Our U.S.
economy and much of our culture rely upon oil, etc.
b) Therefore, we were forced to separate Iraq from the Mideast (ie Arab)
community and form a coalition against Iraq. This was done under the
United Nations and the stated goal was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. We
had no permission to kill Saddam. We had the common sense not to
betray the fragile coalition which included such enemies as Israel and
various Arab nations and such outsiders as American, Brits, etc.
Therefore, it was, in practical terms, impossible to kill the Iraqi
government. And our hope that the Iraqi populace would rise up and
replace Saddam worked in Iraq just as poorly as it did decades before in
Cuba, ie zero results.
c) You state, “... The air campaign against Saddam didn't work - at least,
it wasn't conclusive - we had to send in ground forces.”
- The air campaign worked wonderfully. There were reports of Iraqis
surrendering to AIRCRAFT for God’s sake! Pilots didn’t know (at first)
how to herd the surrendering Iraqi soldiers toward coalition positions!
Iraqi forces were nearly destroyed before the bulk of American forces
invaded. (Special Forces teams had penetrated early and deeply into Iraq
beforehand.)
- The air campaign could not bomb Iraq into total submission because
much of the Iraqi government was off-limits to air strikes or buried
beneath civilian facilities too politically sensitive to destroy. (Some
exceptions were made.)
- To occupy real estate of any value, it still takes a man with a gun or - in
our blind, pseudo-intellectual modern parlance, a man or woman with a
gun. However, if I remember correctly, more coalition forces were killed
by friendly fire than by enemy fire. (I’m not sure of that, by the way.)
Many more members of the coalition would have died had airpower not
been used. It was fabulously effective and saved many lives (on OUR
side).
3) About nuking Canada and various of the United States. I hesitate to
speak for others; however, I believe such comments stress the need to
determine:
a) which states helped the terrorists inadvertently (as did Huffman
Aviation in Florida) and how do we prevent such inadvertent assistance,
and
b) which states knowingly aided and abetted the terrorists (so we can
label them “terrorist states).
Although there must be some consideration given to the extent of
involvement of each country, this decision-making process should be
nearly binary in nature.
-------
So let’s get to HankB’s question:
Exactly how would I prosecute this war,
a) in which our enemies stretch across several countries
b) which knowingly provide aid to the terrorists
c) with a military that's less capable today than it was during Desert
Storm? ...
d) [When reports state] the chances of a military coalition like we had at
Desert Storm seem to be diminishing. (I hope I'm wrong about that, but it
doesn't look like we can count on anyone except - maybe - the Brits.)
This would be my best effort with the information I believe to be true.
DEFINING OUR FRIENDS (building a strong coalition)
In the eyes of the world, President Bush is a Texan. Let’s make use of the
world’s stereotyped opinions of Texans. In public, President Bush should
come on a bit strong - play the role of cowboy, political conservative and
saber-rattler - kept under control by Cheney, Powell and other members of
Bush’s confidantes.
However, in the quiet, hardball arena of confidential negotiations, Bush
should be very firm but realistic. He should, as Powell put it, use the war
on terrorism as a watershed to determine which countries of the civilized
world will cooperate and eradicate terrorism and who will not. Powell
considers this decision to be binary - either a nation is with us or it will be
called a terrorist state. Other issues (e.g. economic, political, etc.) should
be kept separate from the war on terrorism.
We should share intelligence information about terrorism among the
countries of the coalition. (Those who abuse this privilege should be
expelled from the coalition and declared a terrorist state.)
Now we have identified who is with us and who is against us. We will
have dedicated coalition partners who cooperate. Those remaining are
either our enemies or those with whom we share no intelligence and for
whom we provide no protection.
------
REDUCING OUR VULNERABILITIES
OIL: Our biggest weakness is our dependence upon foreign oil. It is the
greatest cause of our national trade deficit and makes us subservient to
OPEC and other such nations.
- We should develop domestic sources of oil. We have a LOT of oil - not
just the bit we have in reserves but oil which has been found and never
tapped.
- We should develop sources of oil from countries willing to be part of
our coalition. Skip meddling in their internal affairs (human rights, etc.)
and stress the needs of our American economy.
- Simultaneously, we should develop alternative fuels to reduce our need
for oil. Ford Motor Company has a prototype vehicle which uses
abundant hydrogen as a fuel and exhausts only water. Ford says, “We
expect to deliver our first fuel cell-powered passenger cars for testing in
California this year.” (Ref For advertisement in National Geographic for
April, 2001, pages 18 & 19.) Surely other companies are rushing to
develop similar and/or competing technologies. The less we rely upon oil,
the less we must rely upon other countries and the more power we have to
force those countries to fight (rather than support) terrorism. Fer God’s
sake, if we can put a man on the moon AND bring him back safely, we
surely can develop some form of practical, alternative propulsion for cars
and trucks!
OTHER IMPORTS: We, as individuals, vote with our dollars when we
make a purchase. We should do the same as a nation.
- We should become as self-sufficient as possible.
- When we buy something, we should try to buy it from our friends in the
coalition against terrorism.
- To the maximum extent possible, we should boycott purchases (and
imports) from countries not supporting the war on terrorism.
WHO IS THE ENEMY?
CELLS: The key to the war is timely, accurate information about terrorist
and those who permit them to exist. The coalition, if it is to be effective,
must learn to share information with other coalition members.
Terrorist cells are extremely difficult to infiltrate. In many cases, cells are
made up of family members or close friends who have known each other
for long periods of time. They know how to keep secrets. Simply
FINDING such cells is difficult. Infiltrating them even more difficult.
The terrorists who hi-jacked our aircraft studied in our country and
learned perfectly legitimate occupations (eg pilot). Next time they could
learn water management (to learn how to poison our water supply),
become engineers (to learn how to bring down buildings or destroy other
targets of our infrastructure), or even practice medicine (to learn how to
infect us with horrible, fatal diseases).
Background investigations begin to infringe upon privacy, can be falsified,
and are ineffective against terrorists with no previous record or prior
intelligence attention.
Therefore, stopping terrorism at the “learning” level rarely would be of
value.
Certain raw materials (certain chemicals, etc.) could be controlled more stringently, but
even then, many materials which terrorists might need can be easily stolen.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81060&pagenumber=2
Here’s my quick answer.
------
Let’s start with a couple caveats.
1) I no longer am part of the intelligence community; therefore, my
guesses are only as good as anyone else’s’ guesses. Furthermore, much of
what follows already has been published on TFL - I’m not pretending
these thoughts are all mine.
2) Let’s make some points about Desert Storm.
a) There was no practical manner for us to force Iraq out of Kuwait by
ourselves. It would do no good to win a war against Iraq and loose the
economic and political “war” with the entire Middle East. Our U.S.
economy and much of our culture rely upon oil, etc.
b) Therefore, we were forced to separate Iraq from the Mideast (ie Arab)
community and form a coalition against Iraq. This was done under the
United Nations and the stated goal was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. We
had no permission to kill Saddam. We had the common sense not to
betray the fragile coalition which included such enemies as Israel and
various Arab nations and such outsiders as American, Brits, etc.
Therefore, it was, in practical terms, impossible to kill the Iraqi
government. And our hope that the Iraqi populace would rise up and
replace Saddam worked in Iraq just as poorly as it did decades before in
Cuba, ie zero results.
c) You state, “... The air campaign against Saddam didn't work - at least,
it wasn't conclusive - we had to send in ground forces.”
- The air campaign worked wonderfully. There were reports of Iraqis
surrendering to AIRCRAFT for God’s sake! Pilots didn’t know (at first)
how to herd the surrendering Iraqi soldiers toward coalition positions!
Iraqi forces were nearly destroyed before the bulk of American forces
invaded. (Special Forces teams had penetrated early and deeply into Iraq
beforehand.)
- The air campaign could not bomb Iraq into total submission because
much of the Iraqi government was off-limits to air strikes or buried
beneath civilian facilities too politically sensitive to destroy. (Some
exceptions were made.)
- To occupy real estate of any value, it still takes a man with a gun or - in
our blind, pseudo-intellectual modern parlance, a man or woman with a
gun. However, if I remember correctly, more coalition forces were killed
by friendly fire than by enemy fire. (I’m not sure of that, by the way.)
Many more members of the coalition would have died had airpower not
been used. It was fabulously effective and saved many lives (on OUR
side).
3) About nuking Canada and various of the United States. I hesitate to
speak for others; however, I believe such comments stress the need to
determine:
a) which states helped the terrorists inadvertently (as did Huffman
Aviation in Florida) and how do we prevent such inadvertent assistance,
and
b) which states knowingly aided and abetted the terrorists (so we can
label them “terrorist states).
Although there must be some consideration given to the extent of
involvement of each country, this decision-making process should be
nearly binary in nature.
-------
So let’s get to HankB’s question:
Exactly how would I prosecute this war,
a) in which our enemies stretch across several countries
b) which knowingly provide aid to the terrorists
c) with a military that's less capable today than it was during Desert
Storm? ...
d) [When reports state] the chances of a military coalition like we had at
Desert Storm seem to be diminishing. (I hope I'm wrong about that, but it
doesn't look like we can count on anyone except - maybe - the Brits.)
This would be my best effort with the information I believe to be true.
DEFINING OUR FRIENDS (building a strong coalition)
In the eyes of the world, President Bush is a Texan. Let’s make use of the
world’s stereotyped opinions of Texans. In public, President Bush should
come on a bit strong - play the role of cowboy, political conservative and
saber-rattler - kept under control by Cheney, Powell and other members of
Bush’s confidantes.
However, in the quiet, hardball arena of confidential negotiations, Bush
should be very firm but realistic. He should, as Powell put it, use the war
on terrorism as a watershed to determine which countries of the civilized
world will cooperate and eradicate terrorism and who will not. Powell
considers this decision to be binary - either a nation is with us or it will be
called a terrorist state. Other issues (e.g. economic, political, etc.) should
be kept separate from the war on terrorism.
We should share intelligence information about terrorism among the
countries of the coalition. (Those who abuse this privilege should be
expelled from the coalition and declared a terrorist state.)
Now we have identified who is with us and who is against us. We will
have dedicated coalition partners who cooperate. Those remaining are
either our enemies or those with whom we share no intelligence and for
whom we provide no protection.
------
REDUCING OUR VULNERABILITIES
OIL: Our biggest weakness is our dependence upon foreign oil. It is the
greatest cause of our national trade deficit and makes us subservient to
OPEC and other such nations.
- We should develop domestic sources of oil. We have a LOT of oil - not
just the bit we have in reserves but oil which has been found and never
tapped.
- We should develop sources of oil from countries willing to be part of
our coalition. Skip meddling in their internal affairs (human rights, etc.)
and stress the needs of our American economy.
- Simultaneously, we should develop alternative fuels to reduce our need
for oil. Ford Motor Company has a prototype vehicle which uses
abundant hydrogen as a fuel and exhausts only water. Ford says, “We
expect to deliver our first fuel cell-powered passenger cars for testing in
California this year.” (Ref For advertisement in National Geographic for
April, 2001, pages 18 & 19.) Surely other companies are rushing to
develop similar and/or competing technologies. The less we rely upon oil,
the less we must rely upon other countries and the more power we have to
force those countries to fight (rather than support) terrorism. Fer God’s
sake, if we can put a man on the moon AND bring him back safely, we
surely can develop some form of practical, alternative propulsion for cars
and trucks!
OTHER IMPORTS: We, as individuals, vote with our dollars when we
make a purchase. We should do the same as a nation.
- We should become as self-sufficient as possible.
- When we buy something, we should try to buy it from our friends in the
coalition against terrorism.
- To the maximum extent possible, we should boycott purchases (and
imports) from countries not supporting the war on terrorism.
WHO IS THE ENEMY?
CELLS: The key to the war is timely, accurate information about terrorist
and those who permit them to exist. The coalition, if it is to be effective,
must learn to share information with other coalition members.
Terrorist cells are extremely difficult to infiltrate. In many cases, cells are
made up of family members or close friends who have known each other
for long periods of time. They know how to keep secrets. Simply
FINDING such cells is difficult. Infiltrating them even more difficult.
The terrorists who hi-jacked our aircraft studied in our country and
learned perfectly legitimate occupations (eg pilot). Next time they could
learn water management (to learn how to poison our water supply),
become engineers (to learn how to bring down buildings or destroy other
targets of our infrastructure), or even practice medicine (to learn how to
infect us with horrible, fatal diseases).
Background investigations begin to infringe upon privacy, can be falsified,
and are ineffective against terrorists with no previous record or prior
intelligence attention.
Therefore, stopping terrorism at the “learning” level rarely would be of
value.
Certain raw materials (certain chemicals, etc.) could be controlled more stringently, but
even then, many materials which terrorists might need can be easily stolen.
Last edited: