Terror? Call The Cops?

The Geek has always objected to the current administration's Great Global War on Terrorism. As the Geek and numerous others have pointed out ad nauseum, the idea of declaring war on a specific tactic of war is absurd at the least, and flat out counterproductive at worst.

Comes now the famed think tank by the sea in Santa Monica, Rand Corp, to say in a prolix and almost well based study that using military force against terror employing groups is not justified by historical experience. (Go to the following and click on through for the entire pdf document http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html )

The conclusion of the political science types is simply that the majority of terror employing groups have ended their campaigns due to either political or police measures taken by their opponent. The researchers note pointedly that military action (narrowly defined adds the Geek) has been successful in defeating terror employing groups only seven per cent of the time,

None of this is either objectionable or surprising. Provided that the term "military action" is defined to include the use of special operations forces in tightly targeted missions, the employment of military units in a constabulary role and the use of military reconnaissance, surveillance and intelligence assets to support both police and political actions.

The employment of heavy, conventional military units in a "counterterrorist" or "anti-terrorist" role is not justifiable on an historical basis. The Geek is tempted to go further than did the lads at Rand. He is willing to go to the extreme and assert that the batting average for conventional forces in either role is zero. Maggie's drawers. Zip. The big goose egg.

In making this assertion the Geek parses between the use of infantry units in a constabulary role emphasizing presence, limited killing and an orientation toward psychological enervation of the adversary and more traditional military operations. The pressure of constant harassing presence by security forces not only severs connections between a terror employing group and the surrounding population. The constabulary also introduces operation-impairing friction between the component cells of the blackhats.

Think of it as a cop-on-the-beat approach on steroids.

Realise also that it is a mission that can rarely--if ever--be effectively performed by US troops. Cops, regardless of what they are called, must be familiar with the geographic and human terrain of their area of responsibility. This means that US forces are inappropriate outside of the United States.

The inappropriateness of employing US military assets for this purpose within the US can pass by without comment as being self-evident except under exceedingly rare conditions unlikely to occur outside of a Dick Cheney nightmare.

The use by the United States of stand-off weapons such as Tomahawk missiles that were so beloved by the Clinton Administration is also unjustified by the historical experience. Even when target intelligence has been both timely and accurate, the reaction time has been too lengthy to provide for useful results.

While it is true that the reaction loop time can be diminished by the National Command Authority giving prior approval to forces in the area to launch and further reduced when the next generation of supersonic missiles comes on line, the use of such advanced technology is unlikely to prove successful in ending or even diminishing a terrorist oriented group's will or ability to continue.

"Get real, Geek!" You object.

"Get a grip on this," replies the Geekmo.

The cultural matrix which has been producing terror employing groups and is most likely to do so in the future is unimpressed by death per se. It is most unimpressed by death coming from a cowardly distance. So the use of stand-off weapons in and of itself is counterproductive.

(The Geek suggests to the deep thinkers out in Santa Monica that they take a close look at this hypothesis. The results might be useful albeit disturbing to the Air Force hand that feeds them.)

Even the Predator fired Hellfire missiles which have proven delightfully useful in killing assorted black turbans from Yemen to Pakistan suffers from the drawback of being seen down range as the weapon of a coward. The crux here is simple: To win it is necessary to out macho the opposition. To make them afraid of you--up close and personal.

Understanding this key feature of the human terrain points to a critical mission for military assets. This is the use of special operations personnel for targeted operations based on actionable intelligence against key members of the terror employing group. The goal is simply neutralization. (That term is employed to cover all the possibilities from arrest to killing to simply assuring that the target(s) disappear from human ken.)

Having said that the Geek is of the view that one of the best uses of American intelligence capacities is to support the efforts of friendly foreign governments in counter- and ant-terrorist operations. Only in the event that the foreign government proves unable or unwilling to act upon US provided intelligence in a timely and effective manner should US assets be employed operationally.

It should go without saying that the highest priority of US intelligence should be the detection of threats directed at the US or its citizens overseas. The connections between overseas and domestic intelligence as well as between the entire intelligence community and American domestic law enforcement have been improved since 9/11. They need to be improved more as is indicated in the sub-text of the Rand study.

At home we are only as safe from the actions of a terror employing group or individual as the local police. The Geek notes with interest a large number of terror oriented groups, individuals and actions that were not investigated by the Randies but which occurred within the United States. In the overwhelming majority of these--dating back to the 1880s--local police either thwarted the threat or detected and arrested the perpetrators.

Ultimately a terror act by a non-state actor is not an act of war. It is a violation of the law, a breach of the peace. Cops exist to prevent breaches of the peace and arrest law breakers. The Randies are correct in underscoring this. We should all do the same.

The boys by Santa Monica Bay might also have demonstrated from their study of nearly a thousand terror oriented groups and their actions one salient fact. It's a fact that should make all of us feel better about life.

History shows that most terrorists are even more stupid than most crooks. If we trust the cops to deal with the second groups, we can trust them to do more about the first.

Terror? It's a crime. Not a war.