Article

2003-01-19 Terror Networks

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Paul 2003-01-19 08:17 pm|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Attack U.S. warships with rubber boats? Where did I read recently that a U.S. support ship, passing through Arab waters, turned .50-cals on a group of guys in boats who wouldn't turn away? They did after they realized we were paying attention.

Attacking tourist ships or commercial vessels is more plausible and, strategically, extraordinarily dangerous for Al Queda, and Muslims, generally. Imagine the scenario: a cruise ship is sunk by a suicide boat. Hundreds of U.S. and other western nationals are killed. The country is already in a hair-trigger mood and doing stuff like this is exactly the kind of provocation that results in hard-core smackdown. The Indonesians sure got a change of heart after Bali, didn't they?

There are all kinds of responses possible after such incidents. If we know where the boat was launched, and it wouldn't take too long to figure that out, we could declare war on the country that allowed it. We could, once we know the perpetrators, find their families and kill them (don't think we would? that's now, but if all gloves come off). We can play reverse terrorist on them, picking out targets of opportunity we happen to like in places they don't want us to hit...like their home villages)

At some point, you go to total war mentality. You simply don't CARE anymore who is in the way. That is what Al Queda is looking for, because they dream that in a confrontation between the U.S. and the Muslim world, the Muslims win. What they simply do not understand is that, pushed too hard, the U.S. will not be merciful or particular. We will see things for what they are: their culture versus our culture. I like our chances.

Posted by R. McLeod 2003-01-20 00:18:55|| 2003-01-20 00:18:55|| Front Page Top

#2 Actually, the use of dhows packed with explosives was a method used by a former Marine Commander in a set of wargames to send a rapid response naval invasion of Iraq to the bottom. There were a lot of complaints that the wargames were rigged (i.e. the ships were re-raised and the wargames resumed), but that misses the point of wargames: To figure out the holes in plans so you can refine them and engagement policies. The wargames were restarted BECAUSE the planners knew there had to be more flaws in their plans, and they wanted to find them all in one swoop. (The marine commander complained, but I think its because he was a consultant and wanted to run his hours up.)

In fact, the response of the US support ship (by pirates, not Al Qaeda) was, no doubt, due to changes made in rules of engagement stemming from those wargames.

Den Beste, at U.S.S. Clueless, talks about the Jacksonian strain of the US when war occurs: Fight honorably when the enemy fights honorably, but reserve the right to take the gloves off and fight dirty when the enemy fights dirty. (The Geneva conventions, he points out, apply only to signatories that agree to fight according to Convention rules. The rules cease to apply to signatories that violate the rules, AND excuses their opponents from convention rules also! For all his treachery, even Hitler feared to break the Geneva convention rules. The Japanese broke the rules with impunity, so we were not condemned when we used chemical weapons against them (flamethrowers). Don't forget that when discussing the morality of dropping the atomic bombs on military targets situated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.).

Posted by Ptah 2003-01-20 08:58:02|| 2003-01-20 08:58:02|| Front Page Top

09:03 mhw
08:59 mhw
08:58 Ptah
08:13 Ptah
07:09 Mark Byron
06:50 Ptah
06:44 Ptah
06:42 Ptah
06:41 Ptah
06:37 marcf
00:22 Fred
00:18 R. McLeod
23:28 VAMark
22:34 Anonymous
22:32 Anonymous
21:43 Peter Stan
21:33 Peter Stan
20:35 Frank G
20:19 blooKat
19:31 Paul
18:44 Ptah
18:42 Anonymous
17:29 mojo
17:26 mojo