Excellent article on why SOF didn't act before 9/11

[Trident-za]

It's a very long article, but well worth the read.... by the way - I had a problem getting my proposed title to "fit". The article explains many of the reason for why SOF didn't ACTIVELY pursue counter-terrorist operations before 911. Scary stuff in a way - politics is not just about Dems vs Rebs. The last statement is an oversimplification, but true nonetheless....


http://www.getfitnow.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=76;t=000110

[Argyll]

Great article mate........thanks !

[Merik]

A whole book can be written off of exactly what that guy was talking about.

[usa320]

good read indeed.

[NcDeuce]

Nice find

[Kitsune]

Sorry but I have to disagree. (Typical...)
This article seems to be a bit naive, as is this whole idea of combating terrorism with SOF. As is this whole "war against terror".


Whatever people may say, whatever this article says....terrorism is a kind of crime. It is a crime like murder, rape, arson, assault and battery...more dangerous perhaps, but still a kind of crime.
Why don't you just use SOF to kill murderers? Send SWAT units in to kill them before they can kill and thats it. Why don't you do it? Because its rubbish. It simply doesn't work that way!

Murderers are often working alone, that's different you say? OK...take organised crime then: Mafia, the american, italian, japanese, chinese, russian or vietnamese one. Why not simply killing them with SWAT or SOF teams? Kill them all and be done with it...
It doesn't work !!! Its not that simple. And not because of lack of trying. How long is the "war against drugs" waging now? 15 years? And ? Still drugs in America, right? And that despite DEA and CIA (ah, well)...trying so hard.

It will be same with terrorism. No chance of winning the war gainst of terrorism. As you have no chance of winning the "war against murder", the "war against drugs", the "war against rape", the "war against smuggling" and so on. Because it is no war. That is just a figure of speech.

And thats why there will be no easy solution like "now we let all SOF units loose and show'em". To use these units to do this you need a very special situation: Accurate Intel about terrorist's whereabouts. Enough prep time.
And even then there are many possibilites how to mess things up: What if the terrorists are meeting in an allied nation, let's say Britain. Inform local authorities? Could take time...or they do not agree with the idea of an attack, and then? Or going in anyway? Without asking? What if your guys are seen, or caught by local police? The British would be mad at you (and so would you if SAS/SBS would start killing people on US soil without informing american authorities). The damage done could be greater than the gains. A few dead terrorists but a damaged working relationship with the Brits...

What if those terrorists are trained in a "rogue state"? Well, Delta kills them...and those Iranians then claim your guys killed civilians. They even show pictures of dead women ! Nobody would believe them? After this Iraqi WMD stunt...whos gonna believe the US? Or remember Clintons cruise-missiling of a harmless plant in Sudan? US authorities claimed for quite a time that it was a chemical plant...they were wrong.
In the end AGAIN the damage to international relations could be greater then the gains.

The terrorists will regrow. The more people hate the US the faster. They regrow as murderers or drug dealers.
Terrorism has existed before 9/11. And it will still exist in 2100. I am not saying that battling it is futile. Police is fighting against crime all over the world. But it is no war, nothing that can be won. Well, perhaps in 2100 there will exist neural implant chips that will prevent us from thinking evil thoughts and doing evil deeds...but until that "happy" time we will have to accept it: as long humans have free will, some will choose evil over good. And some of these will become terrorists.
I know what I say will not popular. Especially not here and now. But the fight against terrorims is mostly a defensive one. The idea: "Go out there and get them! Take the battle to them!" is nice, is exactly what a terrified victim of terrorism WANTS to hear. "Let them suffer, take this fear away from me and put it unto them!" But it is not possible. As with any crime. There is no absolute safety. And there will never be. (Until this brain implant is invented, that is ;) )

I am not saying that Counter Terrorist Units are superfluous or something. They have a role in this. Hostage Rescue. And sometimes when the time and place (and intel) is right, and the risk is worth it, a terrorist leader can be assassinated or unfriendly extracted. This will not be the end of terrorism. But it will help to keep the level of terrorism down the same way arresting a murderer keeps down the numbers of murders.

9/11, I think, was more of a one time "lucky shot" for the terrorists (a hell of one, agreed). It was NOT the beginning of a new era. It possibly does not even mean that terrorism is on the rise. Otherwise there had been other attacks of this magnitude. Or do you really think Bush has prevented them by attacking Iraq?
I think there is the danger that certain people use 9/11 and the "war against terrorism" as a pretext to justify certain actions of theirs...and that IS no help.
As if all American leaders before Bush had been complete idiots not to use these SOF units or to cooperate with other nations instead of simply going in. They had reasons to do what they did. And good reasons at that.

My 200 cents...

[usa320]

So the fagbag that you are thinks we should sit around and wait until someone sets off a nuclear weapon in new york city, killing a few million at least, and then arrest the guy...

That logic is the only naive thing here.

These terrorists need to be killed. Fast.

[Kitsune]

I apologize. Of course there is a solution, but I haven't seen it. Probablyl since I am just a fagbag :( .

But luckily usa320 found the solution to solve the problem of international terrorism.


These terrorists need to be killed. Fast.

Would someone inform the western governments please? Thanks.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Terrorism is an innate consciousness; you cannot kill off extreme ideologies with your own violence.
If you are to use special operations against targets, knocking off a suicide bomber isn’t going to achieve much except glorifying his cause.
I’m all for killing the hand that feeds terrorism, but running around in other nations backyards slotting people left right and middle is going into the realm of counter-active behavior.

This has been a Mocking Loudly comment.

[hank]

Kitsune - those are some good points, but there are a lot of differences between murder and other serious crimes and terrorism.

First - it is very uncommon for a group of murderers to get together in a foreign courty and for years plan how to hijack a plane and fly it into a building. I can think of no other murderers that have ever done that. Quite frankly it would be damned unlikely that two murders would ever even meet each other and know about it unless they were involved in gang or something like that. Murderers in this country tend to be loners who don't interact or people you never suspect.

Second - the terrorism we faced on 911 was unique to even the relatively knew idea of terrorism. Centralized control ranging thoughout all the continents with sophistacated coordination capabilities has simply not been seen by us before. Maybe the Russians have experienced similar problems, but not us. Even Europeans have not really seen the level of coordination we now face. Unitl now, terrorism was sporadic and involve a small group of men who acted in unison with only one action in plan. Think about the differences between 911 and the 1970's hijackings - other than the use of planes they are not really alike at all. Al Quaeda poses a unique problem b/c we can;t really give them what they want. Used to,a terrorist wanted a prisoner os $1MM - now they wnat you to leave the mideast all together - we can't comply.

Third- domestic laws will deter, or attempt to deter, criminals. will the Patriot Act deter Osama? Not likely - therefor traditional criminal law principles will likely be ineffective.

You may be right - I have no answers nor do I pretend t o have answers. But trying to lump what happened on 911 as normal crime is problematic at best.

You are right that any direct military involvement on US soil is difficult. There are legal as well as social isues at play when you turn any part of the military loose on your population. It is reasonable to expect that with ths increased entry restrictions that Al Quaeda will look to US citizens next. Whatever they will do, it won't likely be a repeat of anything they've done previously. Osama doesn't seem to try the same trick twice so anything we do will necessarily involve predicting future behavior. Criminla law rarely deals with acts that have not happened before.

hank

[Argyll]

These terrorists need to be killed. Fast.

Lets start of with names,aliases,aliases for aliases
then we'll move onto Location,geographically,physiology
then we'll move onto possible location,Groups,affiliations ,contacts
then we'll move onto............see where this goes,the one thing you need for all of this to come together is Hard fact Intelligence...without that you'd be quite happy with a shoot to kill policy in a foreign land,where mistakes will be a plenty?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news 320 but SOF on their own are not enough to stop a dirty bomb from being deployed anywhere,you simply cannot kill the ideal,you also simply cannot give your SOF Carte Blanche to roam the World taking out supected bad guys,I hear your logic,but in practical terms it just is not that easy.
Jesus we knew all the players in NI but we had to sit back and wait for them to be caught in the act or about to commit an act likely to endanger the lives of you ,your comrades or the civilian population.........it is called ROE,it's there to protect YOU from prosecution if it goes wrong,do you think these men if caught would escape such prosecution?

There are some very good points in that post,but kitsune has pointed out some chilling similarities.......why the big concern over terrorism in your home country when more people die through drug related incidents,probably as many as 9/11 annualy States wide,yet because it was the path they chose ,that makes it all right?
Take down the Cartels and maybe,just maybe the streets will be free from the substances that ruin thousands of young lives each year,is that not worth it?................or is there a case for appeasement over the Drugs situation in the USA?I'm prety sure the LE guys would love to see the streets clean and free from drugs........wouldn't you?

[hank]

Argyll - the drug analogy is good but there is an assumption that I think you miss. Will destroying the cartels stop the demand? Not likely. That is why we will never win the war on drugs and why every time we ge an Escobar another springs up in his place. So long as people in our country will pay for drugs - there will be people willing to die to get it here. There is really know answer b/c we seem incapable of stopping the demand for drugs. The idea that no cartels = no drug problem totally glosses over the fact that a high percentage of the weed in this country is grown domestically.

I was visiting my father-in-law in VT two summers ago and while we were there the State Police confiscated a ton of weed being grown in a clearing in the woods about 200 yards from his house. Amazing - why do they do it? its profitable. Same with the cartels.

Your problem with is so similar to Al Quaeda except AQ is global - there are people in NI who will never quit until you leave and that ain't going to happen - it amy ebb and flow but it will never go away. Do you agree?

hank

[Argyll]

100% Hank...........the war on Terror will never be won in my lifetime,a great idea,but practical..nope.

There are lots more AQ type of groups out there only too willing to keep terrorism going.

A Bold idea but one with so far a Billion Dollar failing,AQ is still there,their intent is still there,their leaders are still there(for now ;) ),their infrastructure is still there,and the volunteers keep coming,and their goals are still the same

[hank]

what about the drugs - do you think we'll ever really win that one. Whe nI was younger I thought we would, but not now. The demand is as high, literally ;) , as ever.

hank

[Argyll]

sorry mate I meant to agree with you on the drugs thing too! :oops:

[MetalBoy]

My 2 cents...

It is true that using the military to wipe out known terrorists will not solve the problem of terrorism at all, I agree with that. Killing terrorists Moussad style in the shadows is a great way to get rid of the people who are actively trying to attack the west through acts of war(yes I believe terrorism a form of war and sadly probably will become the major source of war in the foresseable future). THese scumbags are not going to be dettered through the nrmal sense of justice found in our legal system. Look, if people are willing to give up their lives for a cause wouldn't they take the chance of being caught and ad see that spending time in prison is acceptable?

However military action against those people already beond the point of no return, (IE suicidal terrorists and their leaders), is only one front on the emerging "war" on terror.

The other front needs to involve the global community standing up and looking at regions such as the Middle East where conditions foster the growth of desperate people being brainwashed to hate. In this the world commuity must come together to get rid of the conditions that lead people towards terorism. Idon't preend to know exactly how to do this but I think one way would be to pour tons and tons of aid and cash to support schools, medical care, and gettingg work programs to get people to become productive. In general we need to give people hope of living better lives in regions such as the Middle East and Africa.

Another important step may be to get rid of dictators that take advatage of their people and spread oppression.I think that this is what the Bush administration had in mind in deciding to invade Iraq, in that if we can get a big plan moving to bring hope to the Middle East terrorism will slowly become less of a problem ( in the long run). Sadly this probably means that we will see an increase of terroris activity in countries such as Iraq, but in the long run its worth it to spread hope to the region that people can live their lives and express opposition through open legitimate sources instead of through a pound of plastic explosive.

So my argument is basically that in the short run special operattions are greatly neccesary to get rid of immediate threats, but in the long run the world needs to change the environment of the region to delegitamize acts of terror as acceptable means to create change.

Whew, sorry bout the long post, hope it wasnt too boring.

[hank]

Metalboy - i think you've got a grat point - haves v havenots is going to have to give or the havenots are going to come take ours - deal with the root in some meaningful way while you fight the killers lest another group of killers will take over

hank

[martinexsquaddie]

I think a lot more needs to be done to foster Democracy In either emerging Democracys or the tyrannys that are left.
Forget the forced regimne change.
fostering the idea of rule of law, free press, Human rights. states that sign up to those tend not to be havens for terrorists.
Boring and tedious yes effective eventually.
running around slotting potential bad guys not terribly bright unless you have some sort of proof.
(as my brother said we've been told to look out for people who've cut themselves shaving they may have had beards :lol: )
mind you if you are going to run around slotting beared terrorists theres a bloke called gerry lives in belfast overdue a vist :)

[Ian H]

Spreading democracy around the world may not be the best solution, for one thing there is very little tradition of democracy in many of the countries of the Middle East, where most of the current anti-terrorism policies are based. Democracy is widely viewed by more radical Islamists as being an American invention, used to secularise society, and expose it to Western values through the international media etc. It is probably easier to promote the redistribution of wealth and the economic development of states, than political change, which is more likely to be resisted. Also, democracy so far has been introduced to the Islamic world soley through invasion and occupation, which is an affront to Islamic pride, ie. 'Christians think they know how society should function better than us, and they are forcing it on us.'
Certainly military action is necessary in some cases, but I believe more emphasis than currently should be placed on encouraging other civilizations not to see the West as Imperialist with its values; give people a chance to like us before we bomb them.
Just some thoughts.

[martinexsquaddie]

I'm not advocating enforced Democracy. But supporting home grown Democratic efforts.
given the choice most people want a say in how there goverments are run.
Islamic radicals have only got a toehold as there seen as the only option
but they can't run goverments look at the mess they made of iran there not popular and there not going to last