17 Comments

1. gumshoe:

“we don’t hate americans,

just the american government”

isn’t this the formula of just about

every polemecist in the

global political game??

does anyone have a hard time

picturing the glee of the terror-masters

when watching americans bicker,

argue,cast doubt on one another…

conduct endless,CYA commissions,

strut and pose for political points,

fight over the Patriot Act,

loss of civil liberties,etc???

in the case of the USA,

unless one is totally cynical

and conspiracy-addled

(Diebold! stolen elections!),

the gov’t IS the american people.

the global-caliphate-seekers take solace

in the fact their techinques create and continue

domestic political strife in the countries they infest and harrass…

it is “proof” to them that “man-made laws”(democracy) are no match for

Sharia and the revelations of Mohammedanism.

the people who wish to continue in their denial

about the nature of Mohammedanism

(without having read its founding documents)

continue to do their part to drag us over the cliff.

the prospect of a century-long global religious war is not an attractive,let alone utopian,prospect for most thinking human beings.

and yet,we find ourselves sharing the globe with a community of people who feel such an agenda is

“the only one possible”.

i wonder,were the terror limited to the confines

of a country other than one’s own,

what efforts *would* we approve of,on the part of

other gov’ts,to stamp out the murder of civilians in the public square,on buses,in subways,in restaurants??

indeed, what actual steps have proven effective

in the past to halt the activities of the bloody-minded??

who is actually serious and earnest about the threat to the average citizen?

the clamor for a

“clear coherent,effective strategy

against terror”(directed at George Bush),

such as i read in a Boston Globe editorial today,read as juvenile idiocy at several levels,

not the least of which is:

“1)tell your enemy your strategy in advance,

and 2)find yourself three steps behind and 3)blocked at every turn

[ 4)organize a committee to find out what went wrong]“.

the disappointment for some

is that their preferred(rutted)

path to Action simply doesn’t work

in ALL circumstances:

they simply can’t Talk(and Write)

their way to a Terror-free World,

and this seems to baffle them.

*no* effective strategies or solutions,

just the heaping of criticism and

the ongoing drone of BDS.

Oct 8, 2005 - 10:30 am 2. Ron Wrght:

Roger,

A CLUE!

NYPD having been once burned doesn’t want to put all it’s eggs all in one basket. The federal domestic “three and two letters” still suffer from anal retentive tendencies and lack the ability to quickly move hot intel info. They also hold info close to their vests and are relunctant to share for fear of compromising pending investigations. Old habits are hard to break.

NYPD has sent its own personnel worldwide to develop their own intel network because it doesn’t wish to rely soley on the feds for information. Does Katrina ring any bells? Who’s going to take the heat for a successful attack.

We are no longer in the “Cold War” and the paradigm or frame of reference re these sorts of things needs to change. Unless there is a danger of exposing a deep undercover operative, any info of substance should pass in real time to those who are in a position to act to prevent, deflect, deter or mitigate an attack.

The consequences of allowing a successful attack are too great. The relative risk relationship is upside down. The bombers usually blow themselves up so who is there left to prosecute.

If the info leaks and causes the enemy to change/delay operation, so what. This should be considered a win.

The mission is to prevent an attack from happening in the first place. The concept of “first responders” is inherently flawed as it implicitly allows the enemy first strike capability.

The term should be “first responders” at least for the law enforcement community.

NYPD

Oct 8, 2005 - 10:33 am 3. Terrye:

Better to err on the side of caution I say.

Maybe the feds are worried about people not taking them seriously if they put out too many warnings.

But nonetheless, it is never really credible until the explosion.

I don’t think waiting for that is a good idea.

Oct 8, 2005 - 10:49 am 4. TedM:

What Roger said should be the final word.

No other comment is needed and disagreement with him is unworthy.

I have been responsible for evacuating 3000 employees from an office building across from Penn Station. You don’t want that responsibility. And it always comes down to Roger’s words,” I’m with Mayor Bloomberg on this one. I bet Giuliani is too. Anyone responsible for that many people (eight million NEw Yorkers) can’t turn away when confronted with information like this. Would you?”

Oct 8, 2005 - 11:14 am 5. jerry:

Roger:

As I explained in an earlier thread that there is a balance between caution and false alarms. There are ways to improve your security short of going to GQ based on uncertain information. If nothing happens either because the plot was not real or the plotters were detered then the public and the police will be less diligent the next time an alert is called.

Oct 8, 2005 - 11:49 am 6. Justin Time:

No, Roger. For every splodydope there are a thousand wannabes. It’s a lot less hassle to pretend to blow yourself up than actually to do so. The security services are overwhelmed with investigating plots. It’s a tough call deciding what is a credible threat. Politicians have to rely on the professionals, and I expect leaders to heed that advice: to have the guts to order evacuation when advised so, and to reassure and play down the threat when the risk is very low.

Nothing causes our enemies to create more false alarms than seeing a successful false alarm with major disruption and news coverage. This results in our security services having to search through a bigger haystack for that explosive needle.

It’s encumbent upon our politicians, therefore, not to handicap the people whom we need to protect us from this very real threat.

Oct 8, 2005 - 2:23 pm 7. Ron Wrght:

Frist Preventers and not First Responders

Re my previous post sorry I was typing on the fly. The last sentence should say:

The term should be “first preventers” at least for the law enforcement community.

The NYPD is an artifact that scrolled off my screen.

Local law enforcement agencies are the “boots on the ground” in the US in the GWOT. For further on this paradigm shift in the role of law enforcement see:

HSPIG Link

Oct 8, 2005 - 2:46 pm 8. David Thomson:

Oct 8, 2005 - 3:29 pm 9. Ed Poinsett:

One can cry Wolf too many times, but there’s a balance, and the mayor was right to err on the side of caution. At this point in our terror tenure, we also learn a little bit more about our capabilities from these unscheduled “training sessions”.

Oct 8, 2005 - 4:17 pm 10. Old Grouch:

Regarding the warnings, IMO what happened– and the way it happened– was intentional and a lot of the turf-staking that Roger noticed is part of the associated choreography! No really…We know that every bit of information that is made public also gives the enemy data on how much we know about his operations. It follows that, in continuing conflicts like the GWOT, we face a constant game of “does-he-know- that-I-know- that-he-knows?” (We’ve all read spy novels: We all know the drill.) While it’s not a zero-sum game, to win we have to balance:the current value of taking action based on what we knowthe future value of what we may learn if our sources remain intact.So while the public deserves to know (because it’s unethical to expect people to assume additional risk without warning them of it), and while there are good “pack-not-herd” reasons for mobilizing the public, the trick is to achieve this while giving the enemy a minimum of useful data concerning what “we know” about him.Now official announcements have high value to the enemy. They imply penetration of the terrorists’ cell structure, and the more details officially revealed the easier it is for the terrorists to determine the source of any leaks, and eliminate them. (And official attempts at disinformation are hard, because the terrorists already know how much we say is true — meaning accurate w.r.t. their activities). To preserve our sources, official announcements must be vague and general.But “vague and general” isn’t too useful: “Be alert on mass transit” leaves unanswered the question of “Be alert for what?” How to solve the puzzle…?Well, an answer would be to break the warning into parts, then disseminate the pieces through several paths, each varying in authority and credibility. Maybe (just to speculate) like this:Pick an official source (like the mayor) to announce the bare bones of the warning: New York Subways, sometime in the next few days. (The mayor doesn’t even have to be in on the plan, you just have to know that he’ll talk!)Officially stonewall on everything else (FBI: “It’s classified.”). Cast the mayor’s announcement as unauthorized: That will draw more attention to it. (”He shouldn’t have done it.”) Convey “displeasure” to pundits who will either attack or defend the mayor: Their POV doesn’t matter, you just want to generate a lot of attention.Meanwhile, observe the media/blogosphere/public speculation about the alert. If the speculation doesn’t include the known details of the plot, engage in some “strategic leakage” to insure they get mentioned. The inaccurate speculation doesn’t matter all that much: With 3 million people, somebody’s sure to pay attention to “your” details.And, since the real plot appears in the midst of a roar of (mostly inaccurate) speculation, the terrorists won’t be able to tell if the true information is something we know, or was just a coincidence!Cast your mind over the speculations from the last few days. There’s been a lot of plausible, detailed stuff: 19 bombers, using briefcase bombs (not backpacks), on the subway (not, say, the LIRR), or possibly bomb-filled baby carriages. Friday or Saturday night (Yankees’ games?)…There may be more truth out there than we realize! And all the fulminating only serves to draw more attention to the speculation. And it’s all deniable. (Prez: “I never said that.”)Naaa, they can’t be that clever, can they? I’ve been reading too much Neil Stephenson. Yeah, that’s it.

Oct 8, 2005 - 6:02 pm 11. Ron Wrght:

Old Grouch,

Point On!

You’ve made my point with regard to the Blogos and it’s intrinsic ability for imagination, innovation, and creativity. Your level of tactical thinking ability I’m afraid exceeds that of those in our federal bureaucracy. I hope someone clues them in to read this and other blog sites that ponder these substantive questions.

My thoughts from previous comments here:

This is exactly my thoughts re decentralized, organic/dendritic networks, that build from the bottom. They don’t have to wait for the bureacrats to first become aware of danger/ disaster, assess priority, developed ops plans, and then give orders to carry out plans. Anyone in area that can offer assistance can immediately act e.g. like radio “mesh” tech now emerging.

[...]

I’ve commented on this before here, re the tremendous power of the Blogos. This concept can be applied to our domestic response in the GWOT. I’ve termed this, “Mission Focused Strategic Communications.” This is just plain common sense to any experienced street cop but you know everything must have a buzzword nowadays

[...]

RLS Link

The the Blogos essentially is an organic, intelligent, interactive, distributive, network that can be focused on complex human problems or in more common terms “puzzles.” The Blogos can find solutions, correlations, understanding, and bring order to widely diverse, seemingly unconnected bits of information or data across all fields of human intelligence, thought and understanding.

[...]

RLS Link

Oct 8, 2005 - 6:25 pm 12. jedrury:

Roger:

No rational human can object to an abundance of caution. Yes, you are right.

It is a bit off point but what is odd in this whole issue is that, without the free access to the Frank Rich and Nick Kristof’s of the Times, the rest of cyberspace don’t give a flying **** to what they are saying.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king; in cyberspace, no one is listening to Pinch and his silly crew of writers so if they are complaining as we are not reading. If a tree falls in the forest, no ears are there to hear.

Oct 8, 2005 - 7:18 pm 13. jerry:

Ron:

There is one problem with your paradigm. The Blogos actually have to have access to the data, which given the nature of intelligence they don’t have. What works for uncovering Rathergate does not work for restricted information. The Blogosphere only has public domain to work with so it can be a mechanism for disseminating rumor and false or misleading information. the IC is trying to mimic the blogosphere with what has been termed horizonatal integration of the intelligence agencies. Hopefully, this program will bring to the IC what the network of bloggers brings to politics.

Old Grouch: I doubt very much that the terrorists picked dates when the Yankees would be in town. AQ planning takes months to years to bring a plot to fruition. Unless Osama is a Yankees fan I doubt that this entered his mind. I am also skeptical that AQ would choose a weekend to carry out attacks. They are out to cause maximum casualties and would chose the morning rush hour to attack.

Oct 8, 2005 - 7:44 pm 14. Old Grouch:

Yeah, I was being a little facetious about the ballgames: AQ would have had to be certain the Yanks would make the playoffs (not unlikely, but no sure thing, either).Meanwhile, how about some “strategic leakage”:

The threat to New York’s subway system originated in Iraq and involved the use of explosives hidden in bags or baby strollers, officials familiar with the investigation told CNN.A previously reliable source tipped authorities to a terror plot involving 15 to 20 people, one official said….Other details of the possible threat emerged from a Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by The Associated PressThe memo, according to the AP, said the attack was to take place on or around Sunday and involved timed or remote-controlled explosives hidden in briefcases, suitcases or baby strollers.The memo, issued Wednesday to state and local officials, said that Homeland Security and FBI agents were skeptical, the AP reported.But the memo provided four pages of advice about averting a possible attack, according to the AP. – CNN &nbsp(10/08/05, 9:37 a.m.)

Leak to CNN or the AP. Next time they can post an anonymous comment on Rantburg.And no, I am not and never have been a participitant in any national security apparatus. Nor have I played one on TV or on the internet.

Oct 8, 2005 - 8:27 pm 15. Ron Wrght:

Jerry,

You have a point. Actually I was speaking in a broader sense of using the Blogos as a collective think tank to refine concepts and ideas on how to win this war which is more a war of information and ideologies.

In the narrow sense, yes you are quite correct that the Blogos doesn’t have access to the “inside” inforamtion. But I tend to believe people give the government more credibility and competence than it deserves. At least domestically it’s a lot of smoke an mirrors.

Actually I believe the Blogos has more relevant info sometimes than what circulates in official domestic governmental channels. I know I’ve seen stuff on the net and passed it along to others who should be in the “know,” but it was obvious they heard it first from me. That doesn’t give me confidence in their abilities. Katrina is an example of how info doesn’t flow around very well within the fed bureaucracy.

We still harass old ladies at airport terminal gates. The relative risk of them being suicidal Islamfascist agents is nil. Further our PCism is going to be are undoing with our lax border policy. OTMs caught on our side of the border deserve more than being cited and released to our immigration courts if they don’t appear on one of the watch lists.

I have some personal experience with the “watch lists.” I don’t believe for one minute that AQ would attempt to slip someone across the border if they knew they were on a list. They are going to send “newbies” who are clean as the driven snow. This is all “feel good” stuff that doesn’t do anything for real security.

I would much rather be honest with the American people and give them resonable profile info on potential enemy agents. While enemy agents can be of several ethnic backgrounds there is a strong likelyhood they will come from the area of the former Islamic Empire which stretches from Western Africa thru the Middle East, Asia to the Phillipines.

AQ et al have trained using the IRA model. Cells consist of four to five males. There are financial, logistics, and operations cells. They operate independently of each other. They will stand out in our society from their behaviors that citizens will notice. They almost always travel together for operational security and to prevent “deprograming” of individual members. They will have large sums of money and generally pay cash for purchases. They don’t appear to have regular jobs. They will use rental cars. They will pay rent several months in advance. They will stay low profile and keep to themselves.

They will stay in one place for a number of months at a time. The 9/11 hijackers were seen by apt managers and neighbors.

In short they will be seen. It’s like America’s Most Wanted. It only takes one call to trip a cell. I would much rather take out a cell before it becomes operational and strikes.

Oct 8, 2005 - 8:40 pm 16. HA:

Keith Olbermann further revealed himself as an inhabitant of the Angry Left fever swamp by suggesting the NYC alert was a politically motivated distraction from Plamegate. This in spite of the fact that federal officials downplayed the threat while local officials took it seriously:

http://newsbusters.org/node/2031

Apparently, at MSNBC hysterical rumour-mongering is a qualification to host a prime-time show.

Oct 9, 2005 - 4:35 am 17. MarkD:

How seriously was it treated anyway? I didn’t see any bags getting checked in Penn Station. Today. You know, the day of the heightened alert…

Oct 9, 2005 - 9:07 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: