Paradox
In "Combating Terrorism" I discuss terrorism as a paradox---that paradox is woven throughout the different layers and activities involved in both terror campaigns and fighting terror campaigns
So, to Lisa's question--how does this “The terrorist is, at a very basic level, an unconventional warrior. For the unconventional warrior, security is simply a planning consideration.” mesh with your statement ." That terrorists are inept?
Being unconventional is not synonymous with being competent. Throughout the manuscript I have attempted to point out or delineate between tactical and strategic---in a competant and viable plan, tactics support operations and operations fulfill strategy---so a dumb example--when West Marine (tm) institutes the tactical policy of taking anything in return--they know individual stores are going to lose cash on fraudulent returns----but that loss supports the strategy of being the friendliest easiest to deal with marine store in the country---that is good thinking. SO in the question you pose, you are comparing a comment I made about tactical operations and a comment about operational/strategic acumen--different things. When special operators or unconventional warriors are given a mission, it is there job to accomplish the mission---NOT point out all the ways the mission can not be accomplished. So the specific point was--when I am presented with security, I just have to plan around or through it--not be deterred by it---the Maginot Line was a great deterrent right until Hitler decided to go around it. But the problem that organizations like Al Qaeda have is that they have been unable to build an organization that can actual sustain those tactical operations---that is where they are inept. And--to a point that hinders and transfers into their tactical operations
The United States is simply too big, too robust and too good at making money during tragic circumstances to be vulnerable to a threat like terrorism" I want to ask Tom, if you see that statement as valid in terms of Al Qaeda and other terror groups only? Or if that includes terror attacks by a nation-state also? For some reason Iran comes to mind. Or does that change the whole ball game and we call that war not terror attacks ?
Well unfortunately we like to call just about any act of violence a terror attack--unless we are the instigators of the violence. If the actions are carried out and acknowledged by a nation state the problem becomes easier--- our Nations military and political structure is designed to fight other nation states ( or enter in trade etc). However, the premise still stands. Compare the experience of driving in one direction for twelve hours in the United States and in Europe---in Europ you cross several borders--in the US---you get across Kansas---the point being that the shear size and robustness skews the vulnerability.
So, to Lisa's question--how does this “The terrorist is, at a very basic level, an unconventional warrior. For the unconventional warrior, security is simply a planning consideration.” mesh with your statement ." That terrorists are inept?
Being unconventional is not synonymous with being competent. Throughout the manuscript I have attempted to point out or delineate between tactical and strategic---in a competant and viable plan, tactics support operations and operations fulfill strategy---so a dumb example--when West Marine (tm) institutes the tactical policy of taking anything in return--they know individual stores are going to lose cash on fraudulent returns----but that loss supports the strategy of being the friendliest easiest to deal with marine store in the country---that is good thinking. SO in the question you pose, you are comparing a comment I made about tactical operations and a comment about operational/strategic acumen--different things. When special operators or unconventional warriors are given a mission, it is there job to accomplish the mission---NOT point out all the ways the mission can not be accomplished. So the specific point was--when I am presented with security, I just have to plan around or through it--not be deterred by it---the Maginot Line was a great deterrent right until Hitler decided to go around it. But the problem that organizations like Al Qaeda have is that they have been unable to build an organization that can actual sustain those tactical operations---that is where they are inept. And--to a point that hinders and transfers into their tactical operations
The United States is simply too big, too robust and too good at making money during tragic circumstances to be vulnerable to a threat like terrorism" I want to ask Tom, if you see that statement as valid in terms of Al Qaeda and other terror groups only? Or if that includes terror attacks by a nation-state also? For some reason Iran comes to mind. Or does that change the whole ball game and we call that war not terror attacks ?
Well unfortunately we like to call just about any act of violence a terror attack--unless we are the instigators of the violence. If the actions are carried out and acknowledged by a nation state the problem becomes easier--- our Nations military and political structure is designed to fight other nation states ( or enter in trade etc). However, the premise still stands. Compare the experience of driving in one direction for twelve hours in the United States and in Europe---in Europ you cross several borders--in the US---you get across Kansas---the point being that the shear size and robustness skews the vulnerability.
posted by Tom at 7:38 AM
6 Comments:
F I N A L L Y ! ! !
Fired UP to read the WHOLE book - you ARE dead-on Tom - as a former Navy SEAL I hear you LOUD and CLEAR!
The issues you are tackling should not be for the few - this should be a MAINSTREAM discussion from our teachers to our next generation of warriors and leaders - this is the kind of strategy discussion that American leadership should be engaged in!
My only comment to you is DAMN THE TORPEDOES, FULL SPEED AHEAD! No more procrastination on this - GET IT IN THE HANDS OF AMERICAN EDUCATORS ASAP!
CHARLIE MIKE - ALDEN
Looks like some people over here are coming round to your way of thinking
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6916739.stm
LG
Looks like some people over here are starting to think along the same lines as you
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6916739.stm
LG
Thanks Tom, for answering my questions!
A paradox...that makes sense, got it now. Not surprised I missed that, I'm a little fuzzy on how tactics, operations and strategy overlap, and yet are separate. I need to reread part one and I was waiting to do so until I had read part two but when I read your answer "Well unfortunately we like to call just about any act of violence a terror attack..." I'm wondering how you define a terror attack ? Will my reread of part one answer that question ? It's interesting how people define things, for instance when I read "unconventional warrior", the first image that comes to my mind is US special forces, and the competence with which they work, as that is how I am most familiar with it being used. So when I read it with respect to terrorists where it literally means "not conventional" I have to remember that does not imply the same level of competence that I have always associated with the term unconventional warrior. I can't wait for part two!
Following up on your comments to Lisa, it's perhaps a sign of the lack of understanding terrorists have of American history ~ there is a tradition of profiteering when our country is attacked. And maybe we don't like to think of ourselves that way but we'd be lying to ourselves if we didn't admit that we are both willing and able to do just that. You said once "that when we are attacked--a whole bunch of people make money---and that is something that we--and certainly the terrorists--don't understand." In colloquial terms, everytime we're attacked, we make money. Even writing that seems too harsh a statement but it's true. Maybe because we don't like to think of ourselves as profiting from the misery of others?
Is that a sign of our strength? That kind of equivocation?
I second Alden's comments with an addendum! I think this book and discussion should also immediately go to all media outlets in the U.S. NOW! The general public and our existing and future elected officials should also be in on this. (On an equal time basis given to the Hollywood scene and primetime coverage slots - at least!)
First, we should be screaming for this for ourselves. Second, our Armed Forces, and their families, would know from this discussion that we are equally dedicated to their calling, sacrifice and their mission.
Post a Comment
<< Home