The Not O.K. Corral

--Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (1957)

Lord, I don't care where they...
Bury my body
Cause my soul is gonna live
With God, oh, oh, oh yeah
--Bury My Body, The Animals

There ain't no grave
Can hold my body down
There ain't no grave
Can hold my body down
--Ain't No Grave, Johnny Cash

Ranger Joke of the Day:
There is a new drink in SOF clubs called the OBL:
It's two shots and a splash
___________________

Ever since my involvement with terrorism in the military and as a Department of Army civilian (DAC), the reaction has always been to militarize the problem, thereby simplifying it via reductionism.

The standard 0-3 reply was, "shoot 'em and kill 'em," to which Ranger would reply to blank looks, "When was the last time a GI shot a terrorist?" The U.S. has not progressed beyond that brute reaction, and now a GI has shot a terrorist. We should consider the response logically versus emotionally, remembering that two Navy SEALS from Seal Team 6 are hardly standard issue GIs, just as Osama bin Laden was hardly a standard terrorist.

Terrorists by nature are not gun fighters. Not because they lack courage but because they have no need to be. Gun fights are simply not evocative enough for them to risk for the minimal payback. Terrorists that use guns are devolved rather than evolved groups.

A terrorist will never willingly engage in a gunfight save in desperation. It is not to their advantage as they lose initiative, the ace-in-the-hole of a terrorist. They select the time and place of their operations, which will always be against a soft target, ensuring their success. Terrorists will always lose when engaging a government force, and will never do so willingly. This fact defines terrorism: Seeking success with minimal risk and expenditure of assets.

Compare the cost of the operations of 9-11-01 with the $100's of Billions spent to hunt down and kill OBL. The crashed helicopter alone outspent by orders of magnitude the entire operations of 9-11 -- where is the cause for rejoicing in that?

Guns are used by low-level groups for training and criminal activity to finance the group's operations. These groups and activities are easily countered, hence such scenarios are eschewed; if there is gun play it is by low-level, expendable members. Al-Qaeda training camps turn out these people on the cheap, much as Ft. Benning turns out riflemen daily.

Probably, al-Qaeda need not kidnap or rob banks as it enjoys a widespread passive support network contributing funds to its coffers. Since al-Qaeda operations are usually performed by unpaid personnel, operating costs can also be minimized. When was the last time any U.S. warrior or intel-type worked gratis?

Moreover, these riflemen are NOT terrorists -- they are utilized as insurgents and low-level guerrilla types to fight Low Intensity Conflicts (LIC), and are expendable as used condoms. They are the personnel who kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are neither Terrorists nor evil incarnate. They can be called warriors just as easily as an Army PV3 riflemen.

We mistakenly think we are killing Terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan when we are actually just administering post factum abortions upon militants. Militants may be affiliated with and sympathetic to al-Qaeda, but they are not terrorists -- al-Qaeda operatives are too valuable to waste in firefights. Just as the director of the FBI does not engage in street shootouts, so don't high-level al-Qaeda assets. Militants ≠ terrorists.

After Trillions of dollars expended, the U.S. is forced into basic gunfighter mode (which al-Qaeda leadership is smart enough to avoid), and is ecstatic over killing OBL in the most famous rifle shootout of May 2011.

If U.S. policymakers cannot think beyond armed response and individual gunfights, then we have lost the "war on terror". Every death we inflict diminishes the U.S. both morally and financially; each is a negative tally on our scoreboard.

If terrorism is warfare, it must be more than individual gunfights with unarmed adversaries.

Friendly Terrorists

When you wish upon a star,
makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires will come to you
--When You Wish Upon a Star, Harline and Washington

Sprinkle some fairy dust on the bastard
--The Troggs, overheard on bootleg recording

_________

And 40 years on, the republican party takes up the Troggs' approach.

More goodies from the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page (Who is a Terrorist?, 10/27-28/07.)

Can anybody buy this obfuscation? This is not tricky, friends: If they want to blow you out of your shorts, then they are not your friends. We suppose in the backstabbing world of the WSJ-readin' movers and shakers, it is not so easy to differentiate friend from foe.

What the Journal meant to say is, you're a terrorist, unless you work for us. Then you are helping, "freedom fighters, agitating for causes that the U.S. government supports." Yes folks, in the conservative stratosphere, it is the bald-faced. Blink, and things are what you say they are.

The article celebrates last week's State Department waiver of terrorist designation for those who have supported terrorists who've aided U.S. causes, "like Cuba's Alzados -- who provided 'material support' to fighters trying to topple repressive governments," per our designation repressive

While the decision "won't help the freedom fighters, whom the law still dubs terrorists, congress is working on the problem." They reassure us that some senators are trying to insert a clause into a bill "that would let the government pardon both freedom fighters and those who gave them material support." One man's meat is another's poison.

Of course, the rational answer to the supposed dilemma is, if they are freedom fighters opposing repressive governments, AND they use terror tactics, then they are terrorists. If you're Gregory Hines and you use terror tactics, you're Gregory Hines, tap-dancing terrorist. That you have dancing facility which brings pleasure to audiences does not erase the fundamental fact that you are a terrorist (albeit an entertaining one.) Plain and simple.

Saying that some terrorists are not really terrorists because they are good terrorists, "killing for causes the U.S. supports," belies the bogus nature of the entire Phony War on Terror (©).

Most insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan view themselves as freedom fighters opposing a repressive foreign army of occupation and repression. Another simple, if inconvenient, fact. It all boils down to whose ox is being gored.

Ranger believes that definition of a terrorist does not reside upon the ideology of the terrorist. There are no moral relativity clauses invoked when terrorists conduct their illegal activity

A stray example: When Carlos Posada blew up a Cuban airliner this was a terroristic act, even though it was aimed at Cuba, a regime the U.S. doesn't like. But he was a CIA operative in that act of terrorism, so his terror was of the good sort. Inconveniently, 53 innocent Cubans died in that explosion.

Hint: Posada has never been punished for his part in this bombing, and still lives freely in the U.S., Castro is still in power, and those people are still dead. Yeah, democracy is messy.

Isn't freedom swell?