[OK, This on the surface has little to do with information security, (So you could delete this now if you're not interested) but if you're like me, you have been glued to CNN, MSNBC, TechTV or any of the other 24 hour a day news channels in the last week, for me its been mainly CNN. Lately it seems like every defence analyst that has ever submitted a paragraph to Janes has been on CNN and more than half of them are just completely clueless, so good information on the future war is getting to be hard to come by. Staying with basically with what C4I stands for (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence) or as its also known, "The Battlefield Big Picture" I do want to give everyone here the big picture, solid open source intelligence from several different viewpoints to look at things and make quality decisions. This viewpoint is from a person I do respect from afar, yet to meet, and look forward to reading future briefings whenever he publishes them. - William Knowles - 9.22.2001] Briefing Paper Asymmetrical Attack on America & Possible Responses by Brian Boquist - September 17, 2001 Upon the request of a member of Congress, the following paper was written in regard to the recent attacks on the United States of America. The positions held in this paper are based on first hand experience operating against asymmetrical warrior societies in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Colombia, Sudan, and a host of experiences over 24 years of military and international business operations on five continents. They are not my thoughts alone but rather those of men who have fought this kind of war over the past decade. Ten years ago, LTG Paul Riper and LTG Edward Rowney expressed concerned that we might not understand the future threat. Less than a decade ago, MG Harley Davis pressed hard for US special operations forces to maintain regional and cultural orientation so to focus on unconventional war as a basis to respond to the 21st Century threat. Three years ago, Colonel Charles Dunlap, USAF, conducted a series of lectures on Information Operations and Asymmetrical Warfare. As a result, the US military started addressing the IO portion of this threat. Today, author, Ralph Peters, LTC retired, and Professor John Keegan both have written and lectured on the asymmetrical war to be waged in the future. As Mr. Peter's basically said in the Wall Street Journal last week, the future war is here today but nobody listened. The term asymmetrical warfare is less than three years old. Simply put it means total unconventional war where a smaller terrorist or warrior society wages war against a larger conventional country defeating it by focusing on its relative weaknesses. It is total war with no rules waged by an enemy that has zero regard for human life, ethics, justice or any norms of decency. It will be waged on the streets of America with women and children being the primary targets. It will be a war of terrorist propaganda. We started briefing this in 1999 to US Army Special Forces Command. After three years, until few days ago, few people at Defense, State or elsewhere listened. A copy of the 1999 briefing is attached. You can skim these in two minutes, as they are critical. The number one point is 95% of the world is not like us, do not think like us, and do not believe in the values of America. In relation to our briefings, a War College level paper outlined the exact scenario of the defeat of the United States of America. The reality is it has begun. They are winning right now. I will find a copy of this paper for you. The terrorist goal against the US is to defeat the "will of the people" and inflict economic damage beyond our level of acceptance. Terrorists now believe the US will cave or surrender rather than suffer casualties: examples are Lebanon, Somalia, Kosovo etc. where we will accept no casualties, and try to negotiate out of every hostile act. Right now, the country is economically paralyzed. Every rumor stalls the government and instills public fear. TVs are filled with "terrorist" experts from corporate America and various police agencies. While good intentioned, this is war. The notion of justice, liberty, freedom, and human rights does not exist to these modern warrior societies. We have seen two types of warrior societies emerge: "economic" and "fundamentalist" of which you've seen two yourself i.e. the RUF in Sierra Leone (economic) and the Islamic (fundamentalist) of the past week. The fundamentalists have no fear or concept of death in a western sense. Both groups have years to decades of combat experience in total war. They operate in smaller groups with exceptional coordination but can mass in the thousands. This is not a legal or justice issue at all. It is total war with no rules whatsoever completely outside the bounds of nation states. Past responses. I'm going to avoid the exceptional law enforcement successes of the past few years, and past week. Instead, my focus is the Clinton Administration's military responses used for political statements. Note this is not anti-Clinton but rather eight years of history. However, nothing has changed in military thinking or leadership. The same overall government bureaucracy still exists. Our responses have been to target hard installations or locations with cruise missiles or air strikes. These attacks make good news stories, you can see the destruction, but really does not destroy terrorist infrastructure. What it does is create terrorist martyrs. The point is these warrior societies operating outside of nation state governments have flourished. The "feel good" military strikes and law enforcement have had visible effects but these armies have grown, expanded, and become more capable. Thus strikes have not succeeded. Note in January, nearly 400 of their emissaries met in Lebanon, and again in April and/or June to coordinate activities. Attendees are the who's who like Bin Laden, Hizballah, Gama'at al-Islam, Al-Jihad, Palistine Jihad, Hamas, Abu Nidal, Democratic Republic of Congo, Revolutionary United Front, National Islamic Front, Colombia's IRA, etc. etc. You will note many of these operate freely in the USA, Mexico and Canada. So freely, the FAA gave some of them licenses to fly. Today, we hear of the "same old same old" response. The building of a coalition to respond. NATO chapter 5, possibly UN chapter 7, and other "moral" commitments. This is similar to Gulf War coalition but Islamic nations will not successfully go this far. Recall, 95% of the world is not like us. These nations, NATO and Islamic, will morally help but in specific long-term support, a general world war, this support may likely vaporize over time. The reason is simple; the new asymmetrical societies will threaten these countries, or attack them, to send the message not to help. The "out" for these countries is "violence does not beget violence." Remember, the so-called terrorist coalition operates across the face of the Earth so their reach is very great. Thus these nations may lend moral support but stay neutral in terms of military support or military access in the long term. In the next few weeks, it might look like they will cooperate but as time passes this support will decrease. It is not the Gulf War; there is no occupying force. Everyone is talking about "strikes" and "swift military responses" but we need to look at the options in terms of actual sustained capability in the US military if not NATO. First, we have had huge troop cuts in the past decade as have our supposed allies. We have the equal of ten plus air force style divisions that are short of cruise missiles and have few production lines for bombs. We have warships and carriers restricted to watered Earth. We have roughly twelve active divisions (10 USA, 2 USMC +/-), 5 SF groups plus 2 ARNG SF groups, 13 ARNG separate brigades, and a USMCR division. The active units are over committed and understrength as are the reserve units. We have major troops deployed, that cannot be moved, in Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, Colombia, and Middle East. While we have troops in hundreds of other places around the world these troops could be moved without major security disruptions.. Recall, it took seven months to move into the Gulf to fight a war. We were completely unopposed in this preparation. We had to activate the CRAF for air movement, and special sealift, which was non-American simply to get by. Now, our forces are half the size and twice committed in terms of places and operational tempo. Two immediate lines of rhetoric have risen. The disaster occurred because of a lack of funding to intelligence, and funding of defense. Money is not the answer. In the intelligence area the issue is human intelligence collection. Money will not fix the lack of human intelligence as we need people. Unfortunately, we need both American manpower and sources. Terrorist sources are not nice people. Congress and others wanted a "nice human rights respecting" intelligence system without "sources" who were not bad guys. You want to get inside the terrorist organizations then you need a terrorist to do it. The bottom line is it takes experienced people to jump-start the effort, people who have left since the Carter Administration, and up through the Clinton Administration. We have no time to "seed" for the future. We need to recall "old men" who still know the terrorist opposition. People who worked police, intelligence, commercial or military operations over the past twenty-five years. Anybody who might know somebody who can help. Team the "old guard" with new people to get America a quick start. This is going to be a long war; we don't have time to start training "new" people from scratch. The same applies to military contacts in any of the potential terrorist countries; Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi, Sudan to name a few. A review of foreign officers attending schools, seminars or forums over the past twenty years should be completed. Find the US officers or soldiers who attended the same events, and try to make a match with someone who can re-establish a friendship. A captain twenty years ago may be a general today. A colonel ten years ago may be an important businessman with contacts today. As to businessmen, who in American business has operated in these countries, and whom do they know? As was said last week, "you are either with us, or you are against us." The same applies in American business. You want the privilege to be American, then pay the price. As to the military, all the fancy technology will not help us either. Because of our lack of willingness to lose troops i.e. we will not accept casualties, the cuts have been in the combat troop area. A recent soldier poll result indicated 52% of women in the military opposed warfighting in the military, and 30% plus of men in the military opposed warfighting. We have feminized society so the military reflects society. These very educated asymmetrical terrorist societies have noted the US unwillingness to accept casualties. At this point, we need to interject a bit on the types of tactics that will be used to "defeat our will to fight." Peters, Dunlap and others, outlined hypothetically how propagandists would use the media to broadcast pictures of captured white female soldiers being dragged through the streets naked and publicly whipped, or how gang raped female soldiers would be displayed naked in cages. Note the use of "white" women is not a racist issue but simply the most effective avenue to spread terror. The black POWs would face the same treatment. To the authors, and readers, this may have been simply an illustration. However, it is factual. In West Africa and Asia, these same types of tactics for waging the propaganda war have been refined over the past five years by economic and fundamentalist warrior societies. These warriors cut off the breasts of women and hands of children then sent them into villages to spread fear. In fact, they cut of body parts in the thousands. Ambassadors Hirsh, Wright, Jeter, Melrose, and Congressmen Wolf, Hall, Cooksey and Payne can confirm these type of common atrocities in Sierra Leone, and Sudan. Keep in mind, infidel women are considered property by many of these movements. Bin Laden's allies are deeply involved in modern day slavery. Men are not kept for slaves but rather women for use as concubines, extra wives (up to four), and servants. This fundamentalist warfare ideology in practice says the "means" are justified if the "end" result is the death of the Americans. There are no rules. There will be no American POWs in the end. The men will be killed once the propaganda value is gone, and women will be sold as slaves. This leads us to what are our real ground capacities. Note the air war of the past decade has led us to this point. Yes, bombing is fine, carpet-bombing is an option, but other than "feel good" it will not solve the problem. As said elsewhere, it will create "martyrs." Also, the number of bombs and missiles for aircraft are limited, as we have not produced many lately. Let me address actual rifle shooting combat capability in conventional terms. Here is what is available in 90 days but includes all troops in Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Middle East. Twelve AC divisions, 13 ARNG separate brigades, another USMCR division. Later we would get some ARNG bottom tier divisions as replacements. So in round terms it is 16 divisions, 3 brigades each division, 3 battalions to the brigade, 3 companies to the battalion, 3 platoons to the company, 3 squads of maximum 11 men per squad. This is 42,768 rifle shooting front line soldiers in an ideal world. However, the understrength of the Army is in these ranks. Up to 6000 short in fact. Further, some divisions only have two brigades, and some brigades have less battalions. Plus take out Korea, Bosnia and Kosovo, and possibly others. Further, it assumes Congress will mobilize nearly 100% of the Army National Guard and US Army Reserve i.e. over 400,000 reservists. Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo and Middle East must be addressed at this point. The US weakness in terms of "will power" and military may come out in the next few months. This will increase the potential aggressiveness of North Korea which is a rogue terrorist supporter. Bosnia and Kosovo based troops are faced with numbers of Islamic radical opponents if not terrorist allies. The troops in Kuwait, Saudi and UAE protect our jet fuel access to wells in Kuwait and Saudi. Note we need the Kuwait and Saudi crude for jet fuel production. Worse, these nations could take a neutral position in terms of military action. In fact, terrorists could do the same to these three nations as has been done to us. Also note the FARC could step up oil line attacks in Colombia to block exports to the USA. The mid-conclusion is we have limited conventional force numbers to deploy, and while bombing the "daylights" out of targets might be an option, the final results will not be great. Obviously, we could raise new divisions but recall the JCS has told Congress it takes two years to train such a division. We would be talking about ten or more new divisions, which may still be fairly useless in this situation. Recall, all the success claims in Kosovo of targets bombed turned out to be less than 25% of actual destruction. Since this is the opening days of a "total war" against the USA, the feel good actions and public displays of bombings will have little real impact against these asymmetrical organizations. However, bombing may be critical to improving the morale of the American public. Do not discount bombing for public relations and psychological benefit of sustaining the "American will to fight." As Afghanistan is at the top of the news, keep in mind nobody in two centuries has successfully invaded or operated in this country. The British and Russians have been defeated. The Russians lost 12,000 plus then pulled out. In the Russian case, their military had access to over 1000 kilometers of shared border from which to operate. Americans, and Russians, have no such common border now. The likely only neutral or passive access to Afghanistan for the US ground forces would be through Pakistan. The closest southern ground access from Karachi seaport is 1028 kilometers, and the northern access to the Khyber Pass toward Kabul is over 1929 kilometers north by road. These small roads would be through Islamic territory that would be passive at first then possibly hostile. One or two roads would have to handle 95% of the logistics going north. Further, the Government of Pakistan stability may well be threatened by the presence of Americans. Noteworthy is Uzbekistan's offer of assistance but it is landlocked by former Soviet republics. This leaves the question of how would conventional forces get to Pakistan if it were a launching point for ground operations against Afghanistan. How would they be sustained. The distance is farther than by the sea and air route to the Gulf War during 1990-91. We have less shiplift and less airlift today. It would take a year to get half the size of the force raised in the Gulf War to Pakistan, and during this time support would erode, and local Islamic forces would turn against America. Further, our heavy forces are tied to fuel restrictions due to a lack of fuel trucks and general truck transport let alone heavy tank truck transport. So not only is the sealift farther, it would require a truck transport capability larger than that of the Gulf War. As a side note, Congress already knows the dismal readiness of our aircraft and helicopter fleets. Has someone thought about Winter conditions at 8000-12,000 feet in these mountains? What are the immediate (six months) options besides air strikes. The US has over 52 agencies involved in counter-terrorism thus coordination is poor at best. Our intelligence system is so bureaucratic, as is Defense, the ability to react quickly on the ground is limited. What is clear, is the country must form a leaner, meaner, faster moving unconventional military-civilian force who has the authority to operate outside the bureaucracy. This cannot be a law enforcement force, and should have no such mentality. Again, this is total war. However, the military's experts in unconventional war are limited, and special operations forces are under strength as many good men have left the service. The only quick way to enhance special operations is to recall those personnel but this is of questionable value if they return to Army, Navy or Air Force commands. The bureaucracy of inaction exists in the commands of these same forces. Part of the problem is technology now allows DC (DOD, DOS, NSC) to be involved in every detail and action. Thus everyone is second-guessed in advance, which results in inaction. Thus a combination of military special operations strike forces, and civilian forces capable of intelligence gathering and unconventional warfare support need to mobilized. While some special operations forces can strike at terrorist cells around the globe, we have many allies fighting terrorist governments and fundamentalists regimes. Simply put, we do not have enough forces to go around. So the use of civilian advisors and logistics experts who came from special operations to support our allies on the front lines against terrorists makes sense. Specifically, such examples may be the Afghan resistance, Liberian resistance, Sudanese resistance, Iraqi resistance, Colombian government, Philippine government, and a host of African arenas plus a few in Asia. These terrorist groups are linked, and these societies must all be attacked. Terrorism is a Medusa not a single entity. Keep in mind, if Bin Laden is killed, his replacement, and followers, will continue on to reign terror. It may not be wise to eliminate the first head until our intelligence system is ready to track the other existing heads, and the new head that would replace Bin Laden. It is worth noting, American special operations forces have suffered the same brain drain and retention problems as the rest of the military. They have been run ragged and wasted for political purposes. If the first or second tier of a long-term war is to be the special operations forces, the operational tempo must be lashed immediately. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld both have expressed a desire to reduce US overseas deployments. Now is the time for action. SOF forces need to be pulled back to prepare for a long campaign. They need rest, retrofit, reorganized, and training time to prepare. This includes putting soldiers into language schools from SOF forces and the conventional military. Additionally, we need to press civilians with foreign language capability into action. In the end, you will be asking for miracle not a victory if the operational tempo is not cut in half to prepare for the long road to victory. The notion of involving multiple tiered civilian forces to support this new war cannot be discounted. If the USG determines Iraq is connected with Afghanistan and Bin Laden, coupled with Bin Laden financial resources out of Sudan, the threat is simply too large for any military force or command. The Medusa must be carved into manageable pieces. Not only must the actual terrorists be targeted, but so must their auxiliary and underground organizations that provide logistics and finance. This will be ugly as some close oil allies are on the list of passive and financial supporters. The USG has supported many of these governments due to their oil production, hosting of military bases, and large defense industry purchases. These countries have to make a choice. It will be tough as many of these oil regimes only exist because of US military support, and the USG ignorance of their human rights violations and undemocratic rule. Many of the Arab oil states are dictatorships in reality. This is tricky as Islamic rebels have legitimate reasons to overthrow these governments. The question Congress, and Americans, must ask: are we willing to let terrorists kill Americans in the streets of America in exchange for supporting oil regimes that passively and financially support terrorists? To date, the USG has been unwilling to hold these countries accountable. The fullest of Secretary Powell's diplomatic skills will be put to the test if these countries are to be brought into even a passive support role. The concern we should have is whether the military and diplomatic response is going to be symbolic or real. Even if tactical nuclear weapons were used against a select nation state, it will not end the threat. This is raised for two reasons; to avoid military casualties somebody may raise the nuclear issue, and more importantly, the Middle East oil countries must stop supporting these groups under the table. These new asymmetrical fundamentalist societies have extended families and large business assets in countries across the Middle East. Further, there is a growing extension of this system in the South Pacific Islamic nations. All of these organizations and countries must be acted upon simultaneously and with synchronization. Thus the need for extraordinary organizational measures to be implemented in this time of unprecedented danger. Simply put, it is time to put ourselves in the moccasins of the enemy. We need to start thinking outside of the box. Not only do we need to build an international coalition but also we need to build an internal coalition of new thinkers, old operators, and America's fighting men. Not since World War II's Manhattan Project have we needed such action to create a 21st Century version of the OSS. In fact, it is exactly the old Office of Strategic Service that needs to be recreated. Remember, USAID started out this way in the 1960s. It can be done, and in the end it will be done if we are to save this country. Likewise, intelligence must be centralized. Information overload is created by dozens intelligence gathering entities with no central clearing house at the Presidential level. Again, we need to think outside of the box. The US Commission on National Security proposed the creation of a Homeland Defense Agency a year ago March. Such radical schemes were not well received by the "established" bureaucracy. Neither will the idea if even a temporary OSS task force. However, the "old men" that left do not trust the existing bureaucrats or leadership. While they left for various reasons, the "leadership" could not convince them to stay. In many cases, they were "cut" because they would not conform to the "kinder gentler" approach required by Congress and several Administrations. Now, we need to get those "skeletons" and "dinosaurs" out of the closet, press them into service, and defend our nation not on our soil but in their own backyard. The alarm has been raised; it is time for the wake up call. In closing, the question is are we prepared? Does the U.S. Government understand the real threat? How to respond? Do we have a plan? This past January, the U.S. Commission on National Security gave a report to President Bush arguing that a "catastrophic attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also demoralization that could undermine US global leadership. In the face of this threat our nation has no coherent or integrated government structure." They said it to the President, not me. Having raised all these issues, it needs to be stated the vast majority of the Moslems of this world are just as peace loving as the average Americans. Unfortunately, the largest terrorist societies are fundamental Islamic, thus it is going to look bad in religious terms. Always remember, 95% of the world does not think like us nor share our values. Don't be deceived by our own media, the international press is not treating us well at all. America will go it alone in the end. Prepared by Brian J. Boquist, ICI of Oregon Foundation, Salem, Oregon, telephone 503-589-1437, facsimile 503-371-7285, www.icioregon.com, dated September 17, 2001. Mr. Boquist is an international businessman, farmer, rancher, and father of six children. His company operates in high risk countries around the world. Their foundation specializes in peacekeeping and unconventional warfare education. He commanded infantry and special forces units in several branches of the military rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. In June, he was a panel member at the National Intelligence Council forum on African militaries. He was the Republican challenger in Oregon's 5th Congressional District in the last cycle. *==============================================================* "Communications without intelligence is noise; Intelligence without communications is irrelevant." Gen Alfred. M. Gray, USMC ================================================================ C4I.org - Computer Security, & Intelligence - http://www.c4i.org *==============================================================* - ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org To unsubscribe email majordomoat_private with 'unsubscribe isn' in the BODY of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Sep 22 2001 - 04:41:10 PDT