New at Reason
How, Jim Henley asks, do you defend a country against small stateless bands of terrorists in an era of open-source warfare?
Comments to "New at Reason":
Jamie Kelly | February 18, 2008, 3:15pm | #
open-souce warfare?I believe there's a typo there.
It should be open-sauce warfare.
Nick | February 18, 2008, 3:18pm | #
"open-sauce warfare"May You Be Touched by His Noodly Appendage.
RAmen.
thoreau | February 18, 2008, 3:24pm | #
the long-term hope of coping with the global guerrilla phenomenon lies in finding ways to stop pissing each other off so much.APPEASER!
:)
Jamie Kelly | February 18, 2008, 3:24pm | #
I just stepped in a puddle of Dondero's saliva.He's drooling over the thought of declaring war on everybody.
Jay D | February 18, 2008, 3:36pm | #
Letters of Marque and Reprisal!John Wayne | February 18, 2008, 3:46pm | #
You buy yourself some second-ammendment-protected guns and blow the suckers away. If we all carried guns, everybody would be safe. No terrorist wants to fuck around with somebody who's carrying a piece. You talkin´to me, buddy? Blam! Take that, you fucking rag head!the innominate one | February 18, 2008, 3:49pm | #
Jamie: that's not saliva!The answer is obviously open-source anti-terrorism efforts. Loosely organize all the Internet Tough Guys and get them to war-spam terrorist networks into oblivion.
Jen O'Side | February 18, 2008, 3:58pm | #
There's really only one way to end the Islam problem...Brandybuck | February 18, 2008, 4:00pm | #
Hey editors, can you ditch the IMVU ads and bring back the Snorg girls?We should take off and nuke the place from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Bob Munck | February 18, 2008, 4:04pm | #
"cost the attackers an estimated $2,000 to produce. ... The effects of this attack were over $50 million in lost oil exports. The rate of return: 250,000 times the cost of the attack.”Typo. It's 25,000 times.
Lost_In_Translation | February 18, 2008, 4:20pm | #
cost the attackers an estimated $2,000 to produce. ... The effects of this attack were over $50 million in lost oil exports. The rate of return: 250,000 times the cost of the attack.I could issue a bomb threat from a local telephone to an airport, have it shutdown for 30 min while they sort out the hoax and have spent $1.00 in change for >$250,000 in travel disruptions.
Destruction is alot easier than creation.
thoreau | February 18, 2008, 4:23pm | #
It's worth noting that in the Table of Contents for the print edition, it reads like this:How do you defend a country against small stateless bands of terrorists? Jim HenleyChuck Norris fears Jim Henley!
thoreau | February 18, 2008, 4:42pm | #
How about, small stateless bands of defenders?That's certainly what the Internet Tuff Guys regard themselves as. Me, I'd rather not stake my safety on Little Green Fascists.
Mad Max | February 18, 2008, 4:44pm | #
joe,I think I have your guy:
http://www.marvel.com/universe/Spider-Man_(Peter_Parker)
Chris Potter | February 18, 2008, 4:47pm | #
cost the attackers an estimated $2,000 to produce. ... The effects of this attack were over $50 million in lost oil exports. The rate of return: 250,000 times the cost of the attack.That's not a rate of return; the attackers didn't get $50 million deposited in their bank accounts. Bang for the buck, perhaps.
thoreau | February 18, 2008, 4:52pm | #
Ah, but what if some evil genius was sponsoring the terrorists, and he had plans to short sell stock in that oil that was disrupted?Sounds like a 24 plot to me.
LarryA | February 18, 2008, 5:02pm | #
I can see it now. Al Qaeda stages a devastating open-source warfare attack on Washington, D.C., completely disrupts the city’s physical and social infrastructure, resulting in the destruction of the government of the U.S.They thereby earn the eternal gratitude of the American people.
R C Dean | February 18, 2008, 5:02pm | #
How about, small stateless bands of defenders?joe, you anarchist, you.
Not volunteering, are you?
Me, I'd rather not stake my safety on Little Green Fascists.
Me neither. Although, to really carry out the analogy, we would have to provide our gang of "stateless" defenders with the kinds of haven and material support that the "stateless" attackers have. At that point, of course, we would be held responsible for everything they do, even though Syria, Iran, etc. are never held responsible for the actions of their pet "stateless" actors.
J sub D | February 18, 2008, 5:22pm | #
How about, small stateless bands of defenders?Close, Mad Max. But joe called for a stateless bands of defenders?I think I have your guy:
http://www.marvel.com/universe/Spider-Man_(Peter_Parker)
Isn't Yassir Arafat a "success" story among militants and terrorists?
Shannon Love | February 18, 2008, 6:30pm | #
The idea of "stateless" agents is a myth that arose during the Cold War as means of disguising from the general public the role the Soviet Union played in fostering and directing most of the terrorism of the day. In reality, all such groups are either rebels operating from a definitive ethnic region or covertly supported and directed by States. Such groups can be eliminated by attacking the patron State or by assisting they state they are rebelling against.I also don't see any evidence that "open source" warfare really works in any systematic manner. No group has ever forced a major policy change in a major power without the backing of another equivalent power. (vietnam&afghanistan) neither have they had much success in winning against smaller states. About the only victory post-9/11 terrorism can point to is causing Spain to abandon the people of Iraq and that was a decidedly minor victory.
Kolohe | February 18, 2008, 6:34pm | #
this threshold will finally reach its culmination—with the ability of one man to declare war on the world and win(emphasis *mine*)
Somebody has forgotten his Clauswitz and Sun Tzu.
Kolohe | February 18, 2008, 6:36pm | #
But remembers a certain king of EpirusKolohe | February 18, 2008, 6:54pm | #
From their cradle in post-Saddam Iraq, the methods of open-source warfare have spread to Pakistan, Russia, Nigeria, and beyond.Is Robb saying that this only started in 2003? Because the idea of open source (or 4th gen warfare) is certainly older as illustrated by William Lind and his peers themselves whom first started writing this in '89 or so - decades after the phenomenon had been firmly established. Plus, most obviously, there was that unpleasantness in downtown Manhattan sometime around the beginning of the the decade.
And FWIW, I think the characterizations of the first three generations of warfare are off.
thoreau | February 18, 2008, 7:05pm | #
About the only victory post-9/11 terrorism can point to is causing Spain to abandon the people of Iraq and that was a decidedly minor victory.Well, leaving aside your disingenuous characterization of Iraq, there's also the fact that the election outcome reflected the incompetence of the Spanish government as much as anything else. The gov't tried to insist that it was the work of Basque separatists when all evidence pointed to other elements, and so the Spanish voters got rid of a government that was clearly stumbling in its response to the attack.
And, as I understand it, the government was already pretty unpopular before the bombing, and the party that won had already pledged to withdraw from Iraq before the bombing, so they were simply following through on a popular agenda rather than responding to the bombing.
Mad Max | February 18, 2008, 8:40pm | #
"Close, Mad Max. But joe called for a stateless *bands* of defenders?" [link]The problem with those guys is that they violate the dress code. Of course, that might be an advantage. The enemy sees them and says, "look, Abdul, that guy is wearing nothing but a pair of green shorts, and the chick is half-naked!" They will be so busy focusing on that, their reaction time will be slowed, and they'll be beaten.
"And behold, Achmed, the infidel in the skimpy, tight shorts is clearly buff, but I can see no sign of a male organ. Perhaps he is a eunuch, or has been taking too many steroi - AAAAAAGH!" (as the superheroes beat the terrorists to a pulp)
Shannon Love | February 18, 2008, 8:50pm | #
thoreau,The gov't tried to insist that it was the work of Basque separatists when all evidence pointed to other elements...
Actually, one government spokesman made an off the cuff assertion that it might be Basque separatist and the media reported that the government had officially. As soon as the government issued an official statement the opposition cried "they lied!" and the triumphed in the election a few days later. It's was a neat trick which demonstrates the power of a dishonest and biased media.
However, you are correct that those in Spain opposed to fighting for democracy their were already poised to win. The bombings only had any effect because they occurred so close to the election and could be used by the anti-Iraqi democracy opposition to quickly gain power. If the election had been a few weeks off, the government might have had time to correct the record and the attacks could have had no effect whatsoever.
thoreau | February 18, 2008, 9:08pm | #
However, you are correct that those in Spain opposed to fighting for democracy their were already poised to win.Democracy: Good enough for Iraq, but lousy for Spain!
Let me ask you this: Given that you've long called for media outlets to (voluntarily, not coercively) refrain from reporting details about terrorist attacks, what do you think the Spanish media should have said about the nature and affiliations of the attackers?
Oh, and FWIW, I seem to recall that Spain successfully captured, tried, convicted, and punished the bombers. Bravo to Spanish law enforcement!
Adam872 | February 18, 2008, 9:15pm | #
There is an interesting presentation on terrorism and how to deal with it here:http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/Atran07/index.html
It's all about understanding the motivations of the attackers and not using conventional techniques to combat them. It's well worth a read.
Sonic Charmer | February 18, 2008, 9:27pm | #
Robb's main skill seems to be an uncanny ability to look at a rather obvious, crude and banal phenomenon that (however much damage it causes) really pretty simple and not at all difficult to understand in the first place (terrorism) and needlessly dressing it up in fancy, opaque terminology that makes it seem infinitely more complex, advanced and coordinated than it actually is. Occam? Who's that?He's really quite good at it, I understand he has an actual career doing this; certain types of people must be impressed by it. I find it a somewhat irritating parlor trick myself, which too often veers close to adulation. Sure, the kid down the street may have tee-peed my house but does that really make him a self-actuated stateless systems-disruption node? (Or whatever.)
Heinrick | February 18, 2008, 9:31pm | #
I hope he doesn't really expect us to develop multiple redundant systems. That would not be very cost effective. It is like the hospitals. If we ever get hit with a bioligical attack, the hospitals don't have anyone extra they can call in, just their regular staff.Frank Castle | February 18, 2008, 10:26pm | #
I can take care of it for you . . .as long as you don't ask too many questions
R C Dean | February 18, 2008, 11:16pm | #
From their cradle in post-Saddam Iraq, the methods of open-source warfareWhat utter tripe. What does he think the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all their myriad kin and spawn have been doing for the past 40 years?
Robert | February 18, 2008, 11:41pm | #
We should take off and nuke the place from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.How do you know they didn't sneak someone onto your space ship?
Ebeneezer Scrooge | February 19, 2008, 1:49am | #
Over time, perhaps in as little as 20 years, and as the leverage provided by technology increases, this threshold will finally reach its culmination—with the ability of one man to declare war on the world and win”ooooowwwww, it's the myth of The Lone Wolf again, children. Aren't you afraid?
Except, if you wanted to disrupt "systems", then the "leverage provided by technology" was arguably there with the development of gun powder. And yet I don't recall reading about "Harry The Bad Ass vs. Belgium" wars, or any other Lone Wolves, in my history books.
Oh, but just you wait boys and girls, it's going to happy within 20 years!
Robb rejects the Bush administration’s favored counter-terror strategies of untrammeled surveillance at home and “pre-emptive” war to transform civilizations abroad. He instead favors decentralized, flexible infrastructure and security networks such as “plug-dumb,” two-way electrical grids where end-users can store, produce, and sell back electricity, improving redundancy and diversity.
Robb is also an freaking idiot.
This "redundancy" he "advocates" is expensive when it's possible. And in a number of practical ways it's simply not possible.
However, I suggest one of our current presidential candidates hire Robb asap, because he knows just how to "move the people".
Bingo | February 19, 2008, 1:49am | #
Letters of marque and reprisal, let the LGFers and "Jesus-wants-us-to-have-the-Middle-East" Evangelicals ship themselves over there.I mean, we would have basically created an American version of Al-Qaeda, but at least it would be more cost effective and we could disavow any sort of formal relationship with them.
Just another apocalyptic selling the sky falling. They are always wrong, but man, can they sell books to worry-warts, conspiracy buffs, and anyone with a pessimist's knee-jerk negative world-view!
joe | February 19, 2008, 9:27am | #
Shannon Love = Pre-9/11 thinkingAlways fighting the last Cold War.
Paul | February 19, 2008, 12:55pm | #
Hmph, sounds like a perfect world for "open source defense".Hey, I wonder if there's anything in the Constitution which might provide for such a concept? Wondering...
Hmm...
Nothing springs to mind...
An_Arab | February 24, 2008, 9:16pm | #
You people will never understand, until someone does to you, what Israel did to us. Then I would like to see how many of you "civilized" westerners will NOT resort to terrorism.Japan bombs a navy shipyard and takes out 2000 military personel, and you see it fit to vapourize 200,000 of their civilians.
Then all the sudden when we bomb Israelis because of what they have done to us, we are called terorists and fanatics.
Well fuck all of you.
If defending one-self, our country, religion, homeland and empire is fanaticism, then yes - we are all fanatics.
NUKE ISRAEL.
Long Live the Arab Empire
Allahu Akbar
An_Arab | February 26, 2008, 5:45pm | #
'Me', I know they both created you, but dont confuse the Almighty with your mother.