You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Terror Networks & Islam
Al Qaeda's Missing Maritime Threat
2005-06-09
June 9, 2005: Western Intelligence services have long asserted that Al-Qaeda has an ambitious maritime capabilities program. Reportedly, operatives have received swimming and scuba training for demolitions and suicide attacks. Al Qaeda is also reported to own or control an estimated two dozen merchant ships world-wide, and is generally believed to make heavy use of dhows and other small vessels to move personnel, resources, and equipment around in Middle Eastern waters. In addition, it is believed that al Qaeda has trained personnel in small boat operations, for both individual attacks, such as the one that crippled the USS Cole, and in swarm (many, even a dozen or more, boats) attacks, with rumors that they have even conducted training in the United States.

So why haven't we seen much evidence of al Qaeda activity at sea? Certainly there are more than enough targets. Large numbers of American, NATO, and coalition warships are active in Middle Eastern waters, supporting operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and all across the Arabian Sea and adjacent areas, waters also frequented by large numbers of tankers and other commercial vessels. Nevertheless, since large scale operations began in the region in late-2001, in Afghanistan, there appears to have been only one attack on a commercial vessel, against a French tanker off Yemen over two years ago. And four years of intensive MIO (Maritime Intercept Operations) in the region has managed to intercept only a handful of suspect vessels and personnel, with little evidence of any ties to al Qaeda. It is, of course, possible that the high density of the coalition maritime presence has had a serious deterrent effect on al Qaeda's maritime operations. But al Qaeda has shown itself to be rather immune to deterrence in other situations. Given the movement's track record, one could reasonably expect that they would deliberately set up a situation in which a MIO turned into a disaster, when the intercepted vessel blew itself and the boarding party up. But this has never happened, despite thousands of opportunities.

Have al Qaeda's maritime resources have been seriously over-estimated, or have Coalition maritime security measures seriously impeded their employment, or are they holding back for some future operations? It's unclear, but at the moment, al Qaeda's naval threat is more theoretical than real.
Posted by:Steve

#4  I would guess that a lot of Dhow and Merchant ship owners were all gung ho and making promises of support on Sept 11 and now after the collapse of the Taliban and Iraq they aren't returning Al Queda's phone calls.

I few other merchant ships were probably duped and taken by Chinese pirates and are now repainted and sailing under a different name.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2005-06-09 14:29  

#3  I'm with pappy, the worldwide war on al-qaeda has stressed their resources. They havent done anything major outside of Iraq in some time. The doomed Iraq mission is draining their savings account and dessimating their volunteer ranks. They can't afford to take their attention or resources away from the Iraq theatre. The funny part is that the dumb bastards travel from all over the planet, spending their own money, and making a very perilous journey, only to be killed by U.S. Marines once they get there. Al-qaeda has gone from a slippery, hard to engage organization
to one that comes to us for their reward. While they most assuredly would like to plot attacks in America, the bulk of the jihadis seem stupid enough to go to iraq and afghanistan and cash in their chips.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2005-06-09 12:25  

#2  I'll go with the vessels and personnel being dedicated to logistics, out of necessity.
Posted by: Pappy   2005-06-09 11:36  

#1  Put me down for 50 on overestimated.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-06-09 10:37  

00:00