Opening of part three comments
So--let's get the party started
posted by Tom at 5:53 PM
For the Courage of the Founders
Discussion
Don't Stand Too Close
Special Operations Expertise • Combating Terrorism • For the Courage • Curriculum Vitae
Articles & Documents • Resources • Discussion • Contact • Home
10 Comments:
If nothing else this section has made me think about what perspective I use in evaluating world events and national policy. Mr. Rancich made several points in this section that were of particular note for me.
On page 63, he states, “Before money is applied to security….hard analysis should be conducted to show the future value of that investment relative to other opportunity costs.” – I’m not sure how many people actually get the fact that our willingness to be “safe” is in part an economic concept.
On page 64, Mr. Rancich states, “It was the United States’ lack of mental fortitude and strategic planning that allowed psychological effect to far out reach our ability to deal with the stress inflicted; that is the element that must be corrected.” – This statement got me to thinking about what I encountered in the days following 9/11. I’m sure everyone has a 9/11 story and I’ll be brief in describing mine. On 09/11, I was in an airplane on the taxi way turning onto the runway to take off, when the pilot announced what was happening. I was in Las Vegas for a friend’s wedding and was headed to Hawaii for two weeks vacation. Needless to say we weren’t flying anywhere and six wedding guest got to spend the night in a honeymoon suite at the Monte Carlo with the bride and groom. Anyway…..my travel plans changed and instead I rented a car and took a cross country road trip home through ten different states. I explain this to give context to my upcoming comments. During that trip, I encountered the very best of America in every city, every hotel, every restaurant and on every highway. I encountered people of all walks of life who were united together along common ideals of resilience, reflection, perseverance, and to a much lesser extent anger and vengeance. American pride was not diminished in anyway. If anything people seemed bound and determined not to let this incident stop us. I can only ponder where we went wrong that we lost that mental state and shifted are focus off those ideals. Rather than focusing on those values and ideals that are fundamental to our nation we chose to focus on retribution instead. Where would we be today if as a nation we harnessed that mental attitude and used it as the basis for our response to terrorism? I was again reminded of the importance of a nation’s collective psyche when Mr. Rancich states, on page 70, “this is not a battle against opposing forces. This is a battle of opposing ideas.” Ideology is such an important tool in uniting people and winning in your cause.
On page 66, Mr. Rancich looks at Amendment VI with respect to Moussaoui and comments, “Terrorists need two things to survive – oppression and instability.” Thoughts that jumped out at me when reading this, was that we as a nation have become more oppressive of our own people and have created instability in nations elsewhere; and the terrorists didn’t have to do all that much to make that happen. I can only think of the possibilities of how things could be different if we invested the money were spending fighting terrorists in to measures geared to improving human conditions, education and other stabilizing remedies.
On page 67, Mr. Rancich asks a very difficult question. One in which made me pause. “What amounts of casualties and damage are acceptable in a free society and what numbers are not acceptable?” His point that “liberty and zero tolerance for unwarranted death cannot exist” was rather simple, yet rather profound when looking at a national strategic approach. And I must agree when he says that, “the acceptable threshold before taking totalitarian action or sacrificing personal rights and liberties must be high.” While reading his discussion of this issue, I thought about what is occurring in Pakistan and the notion that in attempt to “stabilize” a nation, the leader suspended the rule of law; the very law that gives people their personal rights and liberties. In a sense, although on a much smaller scale, we as individuals have allowed that to happen here in the U.S. by not holding our government – the President and Congress, and even the judiciary – accountable for Constitutional infringements. This brings to mind the whole discussion of closing the prison in Guantanimo. In my limited understanding, one of the key rationales for keeping the “enemy combatants” there is to keep them outside the reach of judiciary’s jurisdiction, and so if they close it then where do they take the prisoners because they do not want to bring them within the juridiction of the US courts. That we allow exceptions to constitutional provisions because “this certain class of people” aren’t entitled to them seems contrary to the objective nature of our Constitution. The irony is that the rule of law is so ingrained in our society that it is the very thing the government is afraid of.
Kat
Section 3
Let me start by saying this was one of my favorite sections of Tom's book. I love to sit and debate politics with people and voiced several of my opinions on radio talk shows during the last presidential election. This one is shaping up to the be same way .. but I digress, back to the topic. Being born and raised in Canada and coming from a family steeped in politics and now living in the U.S., it amazes me that more Americans do not fully understand or care to understand the truths and realities of the Constitution. It is on a whole taken for granted. I myself forgot one of the most important parts as noted by Tom in regards to the Presidential oath of office "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." I believe we as a whole expect the President to be infalible, when in truth he is a human that MUST obey his Oath of Office, which we preceive as being something totally different that what it actually entails. The pressures of the Office and all it entails can be lost in the politics of everyday congress and lobbying. The President needs to be above these pressures and have a staff in place that can properly support him in all aspects of this.
Another point I would like to address is Tom's comment on Pg 45 "The most likely way that the United States is going to decline is by failing to be able to develop a sound long-term plan to maintain world dominance." This is an imperative that the United States MUST complete. As talked about in our earlier discussions the U.S. is showing a steady decline in academics as well as economic/labor factors. We need to ensure that our children have the education necessary to continue to compete in the world market in the future and to keep jobs in the hands of Americans instead of out-sourcing to third world countries. By allowing terrorism to become such a huge focus, our government is agreedly taking away necessary funds to implement proper education at all levels for our youth. As stated on page 46 "The United States has lost the strategic focus and acumen that it had." Absolutely...
So we come to the point, should the Constitution be updated? At this time there have been several amendants to the Constitution, most of the amendants have little or no effect on the average citizen (with exception of the voting amendant in 1971). At this time I do not believe there is a need to change the overall character of the Constitution and especially not by those currently holding offices in our government at any level. There is entirely too much dissention among the ranks, and anything of value put forth now would be lost in the conflicts currently surrounding our politicians.
Overall I think that at this point in history we as American's and our government need to become more focused on the big picture. We need to learn from our past experiences, failures and move on. As Tom stated regarding terrorism and getting the message out to Americans and the 'terrorists' , "It will allow the public to make informed, prioritized decisions based in real fact instead of theoretical perception...". If only it were that easy, with numerous citizens taking their queus from the entertainment industry how do we get the correct message across without sounding preachy or over the top ourselves?
Whew, it's a start and I can't wait to hear what some of you think in this section. There is plenty more I would like to say but this post is getting lengthy and I apologize.
02-26-08
Some ideas from this section
-Many of the pages deal with the US Constitution. on page 51- "The terrorist attacks did not impact or damage the Constitution" Well didn't it? We got the US P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act as a result of the 911 attacks. Some view this Act as an adverse to the Constitution.
-IMHO, the attacks by terrorists are against the US Constitution. And here's why - The War Against Radical Islam Dominence of the World (You see I call it like it is- ) is 2 areas of strategies
1.terrorist acts (by ture Believers)
2. the USE of OUR law to gain the Control of our government. One of the objectives of radical Islam is to Have World Sharia.
Think this can't happen in a Western country and culture? It is happening and has happened in the UK. From this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/nsharia29.xml"-Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes,
"In his book Islam in Britain, Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, says there is an "alternative parallel unofficial legal system" that operates in the Muslim community on a voluntary basis.
"Sharia courts now operate in most larger cities, with different sectarian and ethnic groups operating their own courts that cater to their specific needs according to their traditions," he says. These are based on sharia councils, set up in Britain to help Muslims solve family and personal problems. Ok, Brown says "it won't happen"- (me adding- because it already has!)
Sharia councils may grant divorces under religious law to a woman whose husband refuses to complete a civil divorce by declaring his marriage over. There is evidence that these councils are evolving into courts of arbitration."
Recently (In Feb 2008) Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm
"
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable" Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
So my question is: do you think that radical Islam is an attack against the US Constitution? Could they use our laws to gain Sharia?
I'll have more comments later, about what the Constituion and this section. I'm reading "Real Change" by Newt Gingrich now- wow- he says there were 9 changes in the system of government since the US's beginning. And real change is possible. Well, we'll see.
Feb 27,2008
Some news about the GWOT and our Congress today. Thought that this was in line with For the Courage Discussion. Two bills from Sen Feingold
"Feingold's first Iraq bill would require troop redeployment, and after 120 days, troop activities would by law be limited to personnel security, tracking Al Qaeda and training duties. The second bill would require the Bush administration to send to Congress a plan for fighting Al Qaeda globally, and would also limit military reserve deployment rotations to once every four years.
Feingold said.“Congress needs to end the president’s failed strategy in Iraq, so that we can focus on improving our homeland security and denying Al Qaeda a safe haven in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere.”
UPDATE Feingold has issued a statement to Politico explaining the timing of his Iraq bills.
"We don’t need to wait for another report from Gen. Petraeus to figure out what our next move should be regarding Iraq,"
Feb 28,2008
Great posts everyone!! It's interesting to see what resonates with each of us, in each section. Like Kat, I felt there was so many points to comment on, so much to think about.! JC, thanks for sharing your 9/11 story, it's one of the aspects that makes this country so great... our ability to come together when we need to. Debbie, I was really shocked when the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested Sharia Law.. One person said you wouldn't be able to separate out the good bits from the bad. My personal opinion is, Britain has laws, laws that govern it's citizen, if you live in Britain, you follow British laws, you don't get your own set.
Tom For the Courage is amazing work ! In this section alone I had eight stars , three smiley faces, one I love this, one favorite, 2 excellent points, one great point, and one agreed ,one yikes, and 3 question marks,( anybody else writing in the margins?) Tom, For The Courage is informative, and thought provoking, thanks for writing it!
Tom wrote... What if there was a casino on the pier in Yemen? (pg 60) I laughed out loud at the thought of a casino on the pier in Yemen ... it was one of my favorites :) What an EXCELLENT question and a persuasive point!! I posted that comment before, as this is a reread for me. There are many excellent points in this section, but the casino on the pier in Yemen is a favorite, it's such a simple question but it communicates in 11 words what the essence of our strategy with regard to terrorist and terrorism should be!
Tom wrote.."It will allow the public to make informed, prioritized decisions based in real fact instead of theoretical perception and it will begin to tell the truth to the terrorists—that they can kill some of us but they can not destroy Us—or even
significantly impact us.(pg 57) this point got a love this :) I like the idea of telling the terrorists, you can't destroy us, it makes sense strategically, and Tom says will force them into action...Tom wrote..." Any chance or opportunity to force the terrorists to act or put pressure on his organization is good. The United States will desire, as a matter of record in the strategic plan, to force terrorists into
action.'" This point got a I hadn't thought of this , but it makes great sense!
Section 4 “Acknowledging the truth of 9/11”
Kat
This section starts out with Tom’s assessment of many terms and definitions being used to describe terrorism and it’s role in American’s lives. I agree with Tom’s belief that the current use of many of these words has put unnecessary stress and/or gives stronger credence to the terrorist’s fundamentals. Again, by responding with words inaccurately used by both our officials and those in the media, we are crediting a situation that is not really there. The events that Tom mentions surrounding the elevated status during the holidays in’03, caused raised levels of response even in my own department. Minimum manpower levels were raised causing officers that would normally have had the time off to be ordered to work them. Available security details for off-duty officers escalated because the citizens believed what they were hearing. All which increased costs to an already financial strapped municipality.
We definitely need a system in place to better manage and determine what a real threat should be considered. No, I do not believe there is an imminent threat to the U.S.. Yes, I do believe there will be another attack but we cannot continue to lead our lives in constant fear ‘something’ might happen. By establishing a proper imperative as Tom suggests, I think we can give the American people a system to put in place that they can have faith in. I think that is all the American people will need. They have the innate ability to put their trust in almost anything, no matter how cynical we may seem. By giving them something that shows the continued strength of our country they will have the knowledge they are secure to move on with their daily lives.
If you show the American people the numbers overall regarding the loss of life as Tom has put forward on page 68, I agree they will see the larger scope of what will be a continued ‘war on terror’. It is not something we wish to think about in our own daily lives (this group is the exception) but it is a fact we as American’s must face. There will always be a group of people looking to bring down the U.S. or cause as much damage as possible. We are a super power, so this cannot be allowed to happen and will not happen. But we must accept there will be a loss of life because of those wishing to do harm. No I don’t want to lose another family member or a friend, but if and when it does happen I will honor that person as they deserve and continue to support my country, military and ALL of it’s people.
OK, one more point in the section, on page 77 Tom refers to several more definitions including threats, WMD and WME. I receive phone calls all the time from citizens complaining of being threatened and wanting police protection now. After I initially question the caller as to their safety, I then ask “Does this person have the means to carry out this threat”, in most cases … no. One example, I received a call from a very emotional male stating he received a phone call from a customer that stated he was on the way to his office to shoot him. Again, after initial questioning I asked the caller if he felt the threat was real he was adamant it was. I then inquired as to where this subject lived to determine how long it would take him to arrive at the office. The suspect lived in Malibu California … well my caller worked in Livonia Michigan, was this a realistic threat, no. Was it to my caller, absolutely, but after explaining it was probably a 6 hour flight and he wouldn’t be allowed to bring any weapons on board the caller was satisfied it was not a real threat. But to him at the time he truly feared for his life. If we can all learn to stop, step back and take a longer look I believe that we will find the means necessary to defeat our own responses to the terrorist’s threats.
3-12-08
Just read an interesting blog about the IT skills of terrorists and AQ. It is from this link http://jeffypop.multiply.com/journal/item/7/A_Master_Hackers_Opinion_Of_Our_Nations_Internet_Security A Master Hackers Opinion Of OUr Nations Internet Security.
This interview that has a "master" hacker who works for GOA from otherside of the USA.
The article is pretty long, but IMHO so interesting
Here's some the key AQ points:
"Al Qaeda -- what do we know about their capabilities?
They are the prototype of the next generation terrorist group, which the world is only beginning to see right now. They are willing to take the time and energy and money to learn whatever they want to learn to be effective, to carry out the operation.
Al Qaeda uses information technology and computers for a number of purposes. We know that they use them for communications. The FBI has two terabytes of data sitting that they're running analysis on. Everyone is very, very happy in the intelligence committee when an Al Qaeda computer is seized because they know that that's used for plans and communications.
... Al Qaeda as a network has known connections to ISI, Inter Services Intelligence, which is Pakistani intelligence, which then has contacts established to some of these hacker groups, that are then operating against other targets.
The belief is that if you accept that there is a connection between Al Qaeda and the ISI, and that the ISI would be, for example, operating against the Indians, Al Qaeda then has a conjoint interest with the ISI, either against India or other targets that Al Qaeda would be able to gain access to or task those computer hackers to do what they need done."
"You mentioned that we have in our hands from laptops two terabytes, or whatever, of material. Do we know what that stuff is, or are we still stymied by the fact that they were sophisticated enough to code it?
As an example, the U.S. and British intelligence acquired in Manchester a copy of Al Qaeda's tradecraft manual. In the version that the U.K. and the U.S. released to the public of this tradecraft manual, the section on Al Qaeda's use of cryptography was removed because nobody wanted the world to see that Al Qaeda was communicating to its own members how to use cryptography. ...
Give me one example of sophisticated cryptography using communications?
As an example of Al Qaeda using sophisticated technical means to communicate, one of the members of Al Qaeda was receiving what looks to be spam e-mail. That spam e-mail was not structured the way other spam e-mail is. I don't want to go into the forensic details on that. But, what it was is it looked like a link to a sex site where there was an image. And every time the piece of spam e-mail was sent, it was actually a mailbox flag. Because what that meant is that somebody had changed the message inside the image. The image was the same, the byte count was different. What happened was that the person receiving the message knew to go and pull the coded information back out because it was new. It was a mailbox flag. That's extremely sophisticated, and that's extremely difficult to track back using electronic means.
The basic information is that using a Web-based electronic dead drop, essentially, Al Qaeda members were clueing each other in that they were exchanging coded secret messages and planning information across what looks to be normal Web sites, and then they were informing each other of this through electronic mail. So there was no way for somebody intercepting the mail to figure out what was going on or looking at the Web site."
So what does it say about their ability to translate this into using cyberspace as a method of hitting us tactically?
If you looked at Al Qaeda as sort of going from the core outward, the communications amongst the core members -- bin Laden and his inner circle -- is occurring using non-electronic means because they recognize that intercept technology from the U.S., and the U.K., and other players is extremely sophisticated.
Where Al Qaeda gets interesting is, once you move out of that core, they become very high tech, because the group is acting without positive control, without somebody delivering specific orders. You'll hear this referred to as the franchise model, where Al Qaeda has partners or loose connections with other groups who will operate independently, who are given support. Those organizations are coordinated with using very, very sophisticated technical means. The technical means that they would use are such that they are already a participant in the very same communities that are exchanging computer vulnerabilities, vulnerable systems, other sorts of attack information, including knowledge of how to attack U.S. infrastructure.
So, the very fact that they're using very, very sophisticated communications technology, it doesn't happen in a vacuum. It occurs as part of a community. The same community that exchanges once set of information, is exchanging other information. I can't believe that Al Qaeda is only listening to a very, very small part of the chatter in the community and ignoring all the rest.
How do you know this stuff about their communications?
I've been tracking Al Qaeda and actually bin Laden and his group forward since the late 1980s. And it's simply because as a group that is operating in what can be referred to as best practice, they really are very good at what they do. I'm always willing to learn from somebody who may learn something that I should know. So I've been watching them for quite a while. And they are very, very good at everything from money laundering, to secure communications. And to underestimate them at any point in time is suicidal."
But again, the naysayer says that with cyberspace there are no body bags. It seems pretty bloodless.
... There's a quote from T.E. Lawrence, who was writing about the Arabs at the turn of the century who made the comment that weapons were viewed as only as effective as the amount of noise that they made. So the Arab troops that he was attempting to support thought that cannon were great weapons. They thought they were incredibly effective. They weren't. They killed your mobility.
So again, it was that view, unless there's an explosion or there's a large sound, it's not effective. If the way you view operational effectiveness is body bags, then fine. Stay in the conventional kinetic realm. If you want to get the job done, go into IO.
Forgot to add the date of my LOOOOONG Internet Security comment.
It was March 25,2008
I had a couple questions on this section.
Tom wrote (pg 77)...
“Without the ability to clearly represent the exact and true situation, to include all that is known and what things are unknown.”
I'd love a concrete example of this thinking because I'm thinking if it’s unknown how can you know…. How do you plan for unknowns? what am I missing here?
And Tom wrote..
“ A person who threatens has a different mind than one who builds a weapon that is a threat.” Tom can you tell us more ? How does this apply or not apply to Osama Bin Laden ?
I found the differentiation of WME and WMD to be useful. I agree with Tom he wrote( Pg 76) “Weapons of Mass Destruction was mentioned previously.Without semantics and assignment of specific definition, the term is used to describe everything from a minor amount of anthrax or nerve agent to the most powerful of nuclear weapons. The problem is that in current usage the term demands attention; attention which may not be warranted."
Tom wrote (pg 65)
“The intent of terrorism is specifically to inculcate fear in the target population and affect the psychology of the society.”
IMO, this point cannot be said enough. Every time we think about terrorism, hear of a potential threat, watch or read something about terrorism in the media, listen to the government or hear about an attack we need to remind ourselves of the “terrorist intent.” Especially considering what Tom wrote on pg 79
“Keep in mind, to move toward victory the terrorist does not have to kill people, he only needs to keep the target responding within the parameters and perception that the terrorist has created.
On pg 67 Tom wrote…
“The statement: “If this saves one life, it is worth the effort?” cannot be the national threshold.”
I think it’s salient point and I agree….and he wrote
“ because action and security may have to be deferred to ensure that the terrorist idea is being defeated.” Pg 74
and I was thinking yes, yet when I read pg 68 that “The Soviets lost 20 million…” “…..an acceptable threshold is not in the thousands –and may not even be in the tens of thousands”
I want to say forget it, I have difficulty saying Yes to that point, even though I know logically it should follow. I know we find 43,000 motor vehicle deaths a year to be an acceptable level, as we go with the plans we have in place to keep driving safe, we don't panic, and over haul the whole system or throw an inordinate amount of money in to attempting to making roads safer…( although maybe we should do more than we do. )
No, we accept that lost of 43,000 some fellow citizens per year, every year, and have for quite a few years. Not that we don't feel for them, their families, and wish is wasn't so because we do. But, our lack of focus on it, our lack of overhauling the whole transportation system, by our lack of demanding cars be safer etc, we are in essence accepting that level of loss on a yearly basis. Saying we find that loss acceptable. So then I have to ask myself, why are the potential deaths of citizens from a potential terrorist attack unacceptable but 43,000 motor vehicle deaths are acceptable ? Why are we more focused on what might happen then on what is already happening on a daily basis ? Fear of the unknown? I don't have a good answer and I hate to consider that it does indeed boil down to fear !
4/2/08
Lisa, when you mentioned how much you liked the notion of putting up a casino in Yemen (I too love that notion), I just filed it away as something only Tom would think of ... but this morning I read Jay's comments about looking at the stark, dusty Iraqi landscape and yet he and his teammates wondered if someday the ports of Iraq might be vacation destinations.
Isn't that what Tom means when he talks about the importance of America remaining a dominant world power ~ not just our military power but the power of our ideas and ideals have to remain on a superpower platform. It's maintaining a beneficial influence on the world that is perhaps what's meant?
Monday, 21APR08
Post a Comment
<< Home