Symbolic Targets

Life is a meaningless nightmare of suffering,
and it's all over too soon
--Woody Allen
_____________________

[Note:  Ranger will be returning to his military roots this week. While Lisa had a lot of presence in posts over the past several years, she will now pull back to the role of copy editor. Readers may note the lack of gussying up. (But if you liked Rangerette's frilly-Kevlar style, you will still see it in her posts.) The writer will always be identified in the vanishingly-light tagline at the article's end. -- the editrix.]

The key point of terrorist activity is that their targets are soft and symbolic. That is why the craven activity of running down pedestrians with a van should not be surprising.

This clearly indicates that terrorism is NOT warfare because softness and symbolism does not designate legitimate military targets. When applying a military yardstick to terrorism we lull ourselves into a false sense of security, i.e., we will be protected by a powerful military that knows how to fight it.

Simple logic dispels that notion. Ask yourself: "How many al Qaeda No. 2's has the United States killed since starting its Non-War of Terror? Did any of those drone kills produce security here in the States?

If we think symbolic targets are not cricket for the use of terrorists, then why does the U.S. use them? Assassinating Osama bin Laden in his bedroom is a good example.

If OBL had been killed at the Battle of Tora Bora, that would have been legitimate as he would not have been a symbolic target, just another hostile on the battlefield. However, escaping death he moved on to sanctuary in Pakistan. (Good jihadists don't really get 72 virgins, but rather safe haven in Pakistan, the original "Sanctuary City" state.)

In his safe house, the aging OBL was no longer a military threat (if he ever was), but just a man in his jammies. He was a non-combatant symbolic target.

In fact, OBL was largely beyond symbolism at the point of his murder, and the action looked like a paltry act of vengeance. (However, the much-lauded operation sure provided Academy grist for a military film-makin' woman in EOE Hollywood.)

We seem to not know that vengeance is not military. It is Old Testament dogma which does not have any place in liberal humanistic thought.

This is why we will not defeat terrorism. First, it cannot be approached by classic military action. Every time a terrorist is killed, his replacement is close behind. In celebrating that which has failed, we have become emotional and betray the essential logic of war-fighting.

We choose for military myths over our legal codes and traditions.

A War on Terror will not be won by killing people in their bedrooms. If symbolic targets are not legitimate for terrorists, then how can they be legitimate for the U.S.?

Is this what warriors and war-fighting have become?


ed. coda:

Terrorists strike soft targets, unsuspecting and in an inferior posture. When the U.S. military "takes out" soft targets like OBL -- a man well-past his "use-by" date -- it has joined in their project.

The huzzahs which followed his 2011 death were anticlimactic, the cheers sounding like a 45 record being played on 33 1/3. The "hunt" for OBL kept a war project going for a decade, but the resulting mayhem has so far surpassed the man that the outlay of accomplishing his demise has little justification.

Most cultures create a military mythos in the form of an iconography to buoy cultural spirits over an essentially death-dealing project. The new Instamatic or Super 8 is a Smartphone aided and abetted by Facebook or YouTube. It is easy, like taking holiday beach pictures -- anyone can do it.

For Hitler, Leni Reifenstahl filmed it. For Islamic State, the graphic du jour is 9th century beheadings in the desert on Instagram, victims in orange, executioner in black (orange is the new black?)

An eager, desperate, salacious and obedient press gloms on and feeds it back to us in a bright-shiny package. Just like Capt. Renault, we are all shocked.

For the U.S., it is plucky West Virginian Jessica Lynch who went down shooting (not), being sent back from the checkpoint to the hospital to allow for the filming of her heroic four-service rescue. Football hero Pat Tillman was to be interred as the casualty of enemy fire, until his family questioned the plot line.

In a time when we have lost our way, we must make meaning and justification by any means necessary.

Where are we now vis-à-vis Islamic terror?

Accidental Terrorist

Men are not a new sensation
I've done pretty well, I think
But this half-pint imitation
Put me on the blink 
--Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered, 
Lornz and Hart 

[You're ugly] and you're boring,
and you're totally ordinary 
--American Beauty (1999) 

 Leaders proclaim a government
To last forever,
Then walls collapse and refugees
Come pouring over
--Farmer Sowing,
 Adam Kirsch
_________________________

Killings like the recent one in San Bernadino are often called “senseless”, “horrendous” and always, “terrorism” -- but is it so?

Even assuming that it was those things, was it “spectacular”? The San Bernadino attack feels like any of the other tawdry mass shootings conducted by criminally-insane, marginalized shooters. Sad to say, but as the character Ricky Fitts says in the film American Beauty, it was "totally ordinary," in the state of our new normal.

Regardless of what we call the event, it was a cold and calculated murder executed within the social circle of the shooters. It is possible it was an act of revenge by Syed Rizwan Farook against co-workers who criticized his Muslim religion. It was a terror-filled event, but Terrorism and terror are distinct terms. And since all terrorism is criminal activity, does it matter that these killers pledged allegiance to the Islamic State? If so, In what purview does it matter? Most assuredly, the killings were not an act of war.

There is a sense that this couple camouflaged their personal animosities and called it a “jihad”. This can be inferred because of the location they chose: instead of entering a federal building or a military compound, they attacked Farouk's co-workers at a Christmas party.

Contrast this action to the recent Paris attacks which were clear acts of terrorism as they affected an audience beyond the killing (i.e., the French government). Paris gained the Islamic State diplomatic recognition as an army, based on the reactions of the French government.

In comparison, there is no discernible evidence that the U.S. shooters were trained in soldierly skills or that they possessed any tradecraft or experience in the world of “sleeper agents”. Their bombs could not bomb (said in our best Inspector Clouseau.) Only unsophisticated bombers use pipe bombs, anyway. Only idiots would use metal, screw-on pipes.

Their home-made hand grenades were as bad as those of bombers manqué Reid and Abdulmutallab (the shoe and underwear bombers [not], respectively.) If they were tied in to the World Terror Network, their behavior violates the rule that Terror groups learn, cross-fertilize and don’t repeat the same stupid mistakes.

They used semi-auto rifles with 30-round magazines, with back-up pistols. When they entered the crime scene they had 60 rounds locked and loaded, yet achieved only 14 kills (my sympathy to those and their families) because they did not seal the avenues of approach. A professional would not have overlooked this fact.

Further, why did the shooters use M16 clones, versus AK47 semi automatics available in any gun shop in the United States? The AK47 is the terrorist weapon of choice in close quarters fighting, so the AK's absence would indicate that these two were not educated in a terrorist training camp.

Their escape route was not effective, either (echoing the mistake made by the Boston bombers.) During the final shootout they were reported to have had a large supply of rifle ammunition, but in the news photos, the ammo appeared in stripper clips, and not loaded into magazines. This is amateur behavior, as a trained fighter would have all ammo loaded into magazines, ready for the fight. (A soldier’s basic load is 140 rounds, in magazines.)

San Bernadino was another grotesque mass murder, of no consequence, committed by two bumbling idiots, two disturbed, vacuous and soulless individuals.

If this is the best that Islamic State can array against us, then they are of little consequence to the U.S. This is not a “bring it on” moment; this is a fact.

[cross-posted @ milpub.]

Isil Metrics

--Obama Strategy, Cardow (CAN) 

A glimmer of civilization in the
barbaric slaughterhouse we know as humanity 
--The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

A man may die, nations may rise and fall,
but an idea lives on.
Ideas have endurance without death
--John F. Kennedy

--What's that?
--It's a copy of the Qu'ran, fourteeth century
--Are you a Muslim?
--No, I'm in television 
--V for Vendetta (2005)
_______________________

In assessing the risk posed by the Islamic State (IS), the actors must be defined. History, rather than hysteria, provides the template.

IS can be seen as a terrorist group which is transitioning from criminality to organization, to the adoption of terror tactics; this is where most groups end their journey. The heinousness of their actions ends up alienating those whom they would seek to integrate into their movement. It remains to be seen whether terrorist groups originating in the Middle East will buck this tradition. After all East is East, and West is West.

The classic Euroterror groups of the 1970's and '80's never transitioned to warfare in the spectrum of conflict because they lacked the active and passive support of groups like IS to make it to the next level. Terror groups must kidnap for ransom, murder and collect new members to finance and keep the group viable. These activities allow the group to gain an identity while also fomenting a governmental overreaction, further cementing their facticity.

IS is not only participating in these foundational terrorist behaviors, it has captured large swaths of territory against minimal opposition. In most previous terror episodes, the home country (the site of the activity) is on-board with any counter-offense. This is not the case in the zones which IS is now controlling.

The only viable opposition comes again in the form of targeted aerial bombardment from the U.S. This is token violence which primarily serves to animate future recruits to the ISIL cause. The narrative is clear: the Big, Bad Wolf is bullying us again, but we in IS have cause and conviction. Who's afraid of the big bad wolf? Tra la la la la.

IS says, we will blame them for creating us ... and there is some truth, there. Not that brutality is ever justified, but the U.S. is a great scapegoat. They just need to show a bloodied baby in  swaddling cloth (possibly injured by their own); the U.S. stands with hands tied behind back by its Rules of Engagement.

It is not even a scratch: IS gains a millimeter of ground with each photo depicting blighted Arab people. Meanwhile, the U.S. stands riven, and continues to toss a few token military personnel into the fray to appear to do SOMETHING, because as Shrill Hill (Hillary Clinton) taunts, "doing nothing is not a plan".

IS is a terror organization which has accomplished all of the prerequisites to transition from criminal terror to established army. Terror organizations seldom engage in direct action against hard targets, nor do they jeopardize their senior operatives, rendering the application of traditional military actions spectacular failures. While the beheadings performed by IS are terror, the group has transitioned beyond being mere terrorists to a more conventional level. 

IS has fully transitioned, fighting armies like those of Syria and Iraq. Their defeat of Iraqi units indicate that counterinsurgency (COIN) and nation-building are not military fait accomplis. When a rag-tag army can defeat an army created by a world Superpower like the United States, it is clear that IS's recruitment, support and leadership are superior to those externally created.

Momentum and time is on their side, as IS is outpacing the U.S. ability to react, and the EU has failed to assume a role in countering them. It seems obvious that the only option is to let them run their course, or to encourage the EU to protect themselves while the villainy is playing out. The U.S. has an ocean and friendly borders on our side. Vigilence -- intelligence, police work / Interpol and the rule of law can do the rest, for us.

Some questions:

• What role is Qatar and Saudi Arabia playing?  The Egyptians? Are the latter Janus-faced peace-brokers, supporting IS violence sub rosa

• Is there cross-fertilization with Hamas?

• Was the ballyhooed Arab Spring the birthplace of IS?

• Why the official fiction that IS is a "Terror organization"? This creates a simplicity which does not exist. The story is, IS has crossed a line of horribleness beyond which even our good enemy -- al Qaeda -- would not cross.

• What will the U.S. do when IS shoots down a U.S. aircraft and executes the pilot?

• If the U.S. engages IS militarily, what does it do with the resultant prisoners? Do they receive Geneva Convention privileges as Prisoners of War? 

RAW guesses that fixating on IS is easier than dealing with our problems at home, which are far more complex than ideological blather.

Monsters, Inc.

--ISIS, Adam Zyglis

There's nothing more toxic or deadly than a human child.
A single touch could kill you.
Leave a door open, and one can walk right into this factory;
 right into the monster world.
 I won't go into a kid's room. You can't make me.
 --Monsters, Inc. (2001)

What had I done?
[w]e were all quite likely going to be killed,
or beheaded, and for a news story
that wasn't going to change the world.
We thought it was important.
We had the best intentions 
--War Journal, Richard Engel
___________________

A seven-year-old's understanding:


A neighbor's young son -- a rabid Star Wars fan -- once asked me to choose my favorite toy from amongst his vast collection of miniatures. I chose what appeared to be a fuzzy benign creature from among the field of oddities.

"I'm just gonna warn you that he's a monster," said Theo, in a cautionary statement.

"That's o.k. -- I think he's cute," said I.

"He eats people," said Theo.

"Well then -- I don't like him anymore," said I.

"He's a monster, and he does what monsters do. You chose him; you can't not like him for being what he is."

Lesson: Know the people you choose to partner with; if their behavior does not comport with yours, you will not change them. (Corollary: they will possibly change you, and not necessarily for the better.) It is Aesop's fable of the Scorpion and the Frog. This one idea is the distillation of half of the advice books on how to achieve a successful relationship.  

Ignore this advice, and the ability to say you forged a partnership will provide you cold comfort. Review the past 12+ years of United State's foreign policy and come to your own conclusions.

From the mouths of babes. Word.

Assymetrical Warfare

 There are only murderers in this room!
This is the life we chose, the life we lead.
And there is only one guarantee:
none of us will see heaven 
--Road to Perdition (2002)

 Going forth with weeping,
sowing for the Master,
Though the loss sustained
our spirit often grieves 
--Bringing in the Sheaves, 
Knowles Shaw 

 What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun
--Ecclesiastes 1:9
 __________________

The military pundits who bandy about terms like "asymmetrical warfare" and "4 G warfare" are entertaining but dead wrong.

The principles of war have not changed since the institutional study of war began, and the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) proves this.

The 14 June 2014 ISIS incursion into Iraq is yet more proof of "everything old is new again", and it shares a pedigree with many previous actions, including those of Quantrills' Raiders, Sherman's March to the Sea, Mao's China campaigns, the Viet Minh against the French, Castro in Cuba, and the National Liberation Front (NLF) fighting the U.S. and its Republic of Vietnam proxies.

A gloss:

--Quantrell was an irregular creating terror and killing for little of military value, sharing the behavior of al Qaeda prior to its push into Syria and Iraq.

--Sherman marched to the sea sans a logistical tail, living off the land while destroying Southern infrastructure, proving the inability of the Confederate States of America (CSA) to protect their deep territory. ISIS/ISIL are following this template, too.

--Mao transitioned from guerrilla and unconventional warfare to conventional, establishing the Red Chinese dynasty in the process. The NLF in Vietnam followed Mao's strategy, too.

The Sunnis are following a similar campaign. They are proving that power comes from the barrel of a rifle, but unlike the U.S., they know where and when to apply this power.

--The Viet Minh progressed through all stages of the spectrum of conflict, defeating the French in conventional warfare. Ditto Castro is Batista's Cuba.

All successful asymmetrical campaigns share similar strategies: they have popular support and interior lines of defense, and they enjoy a support base and safe haven outside of the battle zone. (Sherman is the exception in that he lacked popular support, though he did have an organized army.)

The U.S.'s combat in Iraq and Afghanistan has been therapeutic violence to placate America's need for vengeance, but vengeance is not a policy.

Vengeance is not a principle of war; it is a road to perdition.
_____________


Next: The beginnings of the PWOT and how we lost the war.

God Save the Queen

Martin McGuinness telling the Queen,
"Slan agus beannacht" ("goodbye and godspeed")
____________________

Britain's Queen Elizabeth II shook hands with "former Irish Republican Army (IRA) commander" Martin McGuinness late last month, called by the press "the ultimate moment in Northern Ireland peacemaking." This is remarkable in many ways.

First, it reinforces RangerAgainstWar's position that warring parties must eventually reach an accord. The IRA, dubbed variously a terrorist organization and a revolutionary military organization has been fighting Britain for the unification of Ireland for almost 100 years. They did this by targeting British interests in a low intensity conflict (LIC) using terror tactics.

Reconciliation and political accommodation are necessary to address long-standing grievances. Although the official party line in the U.S. and Britain is that we do not negotiate with terrorists, this stand is obviously not unequivocal. The English abandoned their military approach to Northern Ireland in favor of a non-military one.

Facing the end of empire, the English are loathe to succumb to the terror, and have given as good as they got. The IRA were painted as thugs who murdered innocent civilians, though they often put out a warning before their bombings. The Queen suffered the murder of her cousin, Lord Mountbatten.

At least, NYT columnist MoDo called it "murder"; in fact, it was a targeted assassination. This parsing of terms is important, since in the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) the United States kills people every day but never calls it murder; instead we interdict, neutralize or eliminate a threat.

Next, is the recognition of former IRA leader Martin McGuinness as a "Commander", lending military legitimacy to the group. During the struggle, England refused to recognize the military nature of the IRA and so did not grant Prisoner of War status to captured IRA personnel (much as the U.S. fails to accord this designation to those whom it fights in its current wars in the Middle East.)

When was the last time anyone called anyone in the al Qaeda chain of command a "Commander", or afforded them any military dignity? We make reality by the labels we bestow.

It is instructive to note that many world leaders have started their careers on the terror side of the equation. Luminaries like Gerry Adams and McGuinness have attained center stage and are now viewed as legitimate power brokers. This morphing into positions of legitimate leadership is the logical course for a LIC leader to follow.

This event suggests that the PWOT © has been a colossal cock up, and must eventually be settled by non-military means.

Terms of Endearment

By all that you hold dear on this good earth,
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
--Aragorn's speech at the Black Gate
Lord of the Rings, J. R. R. Tolkien

Where you've fallen, you will stay.
In the whole universe this one
and only place is the sole place
which you have made your very own
--On the Wall of a KZ Lager,
Janos Pilinszky

Everything a lie. Everything you hear,
everything you see. So much to spew out.
They just keep coming, one after another.
You're in a box. A moving box
They want you dead, or in their lie
--A Thin Red Line (1998)
__________________

When considering terrorism or the militarization of a society, the American Revolution is a good place to start.

Let us address terms so simple nobody knows what they mean, though they use them like common coin.

In the spectrum of conflict, what is terrorism – a term which should have been defined before basing a worldwide war upon it. What is a “conflict”? Is peacekeeping (PKO) an “act of war”? Is the latter a military or a political action? Both?

Is a revolution the same thing as a rebellion? Are rebels considered soldiers? Are revolutions wars? Are Civil Wars revolutions? Are revolutions guerrilla wars or unconventional wars? Can they be all three, and be so at the same time? Can a revolution be a conventional war?

Can Counterinsurgency be a conventional war? Does winning hearts and minds have any relevance to the battlefield? Do won hearts translate to positive action? Are hearts as fickle as minds?

If COIN is not a viable mode of warfare, then what is? Is COIN terrorism counteraction? Does a nation invade another in a presumptive strike to avoid a possibility of terrorism emanating from that source? Do such invasions affect hearts and minds negatively? Do invaders ever bring peace? Are invasion and peacekeeping polar opposites, or are they the same?

If COIN is not a valid theory, then what is? Are invasions sound preemptive policy? If COIN is not the prescription for terrorism, then what is? Are military options even viable? Are there any examples of successful military operations against terrorists on a national level? Are all armies based upon terror?

Is all military power terrorism? Is institutional (governmental) violence more legitimate than non-state use of terror?

Further, are police actions wars? Are they conflicts? Can both sides be right in a war? Are wars ever justified? If so, when? Is there “good” versus “bad” killing? Is assassination an act of war?

Do warriors conduct a legitimate form of violence? Are soldiers warriors? Are warriors covered by the Geneva Conventions? Are terrorists soldiers? Are partisans soldiers? Do partisans use terror as a tactic? Are Hellfire missiles a form of terror?

Are these questions answerable? Do we define these terms currently in a meaningful manner? Do our Army manuals address and reflect these questions? Do our leaders think in these terms?

If the American Revolution was legitimate, then why are not other revolutions? Why does the U.S. support some revolutions, start others via covert operations, and oppose others (sometimes doing all three concurrently)?

Why is a Civil War not right for Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was right for America? Why do we use sneak attacks after fighting a war, especially since we were “sneak-attacked” at Pearl Harbor? Is sneakiness o.k. for our Special Operations?

Are Black Operations legal? Why are they classified?

A few idle thoughts for your consideration.

Forgetting

Am I the one who lives on,
or the other, who died?
--In a Cemetary, Steinn Steinnarr

Although it looks like a tomato,
it's kind of a notional tomato.
I mean, it's the idea of a tomato
--Food, Inc., (2008)

Remember Pear Harbor
-- Keep America Alert!

Remember the Alamo!

Remember the Maine!

--U.S. Fighting Mottoes
___________________

"We'll Never Forget" is such a feel-good, quasi-tough motto -- but it's more accurate to say, we will never understand.

Remember 9-11 has gained mythic status in the U.S. popular mind because it is facile, like popping a top on a Coke Zero (and just as nutritious). Realism is not an easy sell in a country that likes dirty, pretty things without complication.

The events of that day were criminal, and 3,000 +/- people were killed; but they died in discrete events. Being a nation with a couple of hundred years of experience and a codex of laws, we know how to deal with such hits. What we are unwilling to confront are the ongoing killing blows our society absorbs every day, attacks which are largely preventable.

Among these:

• 200,000+ die from sepsis in the U.S. annually

• ~300,000 die from obesity-related illness
  

• ~100,000 Americans die annually from medical malpractice

• ~25,000 die from gunshot wounds

• ~25,000 are killed on the roads at the hands of drunk drivers rampaging the roads

• ~400,000 die from tobacco-related illness

• Diabetes is rampant, yet we continue to mainline soda, ice cream, high fructose corn sweetener (HFCS) and tons pastel yellow, blue and pink packets of chemical sweeteners, their innocuous, sweet colors belying the fact that they compromise our insulin response. (Of course, we have drugs for the ruination, keeping Big Pharma in the pink)

• Our drinking water is contaminated, our food dusted with fungicides, insecticides, herbicides, pesticides and other carcinogens

• We have cell phones attached to our heads which may or may not cause cancer, but certainly disrupt the brain's chemical signaling.

• About 1,700 children die from abuse and neglect annually; ~1,200 women die as a result of domestic violence. (The FBI estimates a woman is beaten every 15 seconds in the US.)

Terror is not the threat we fear. The threat is smiling at us appealingly from our marketer's shelves.

Lest we forget.