DeM Banter: I was fortunate to hear Mr Hirsh speak about a year ago in DC…and I have been pondering his talk ever since… his premise…AQ continues to morph and we are on about AQ4.0 right about now…yet we continue to ponder and fight AQ1.0 and the operating system has totally changed. Oh…all this as we look to cut defense and as we do…the enemy just waits. When there is an attack…the public will look to the military and say…”what happened? You let us down.” I can assure you the military does not want that to happen and continues to make the impossible possible…the issue is…when you make the impossible possible…everyone comes to expect the impossible…and eventually… it is…
View Original / Michael Hirsh / Defense One
Ever since the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama and his senior lieutenants have been telling war-weary Americans that the end of the nation’s longest conflict is within sight. “Core al-Qaida is a shell of its former self,” Obama said in a speech in May. “This war, like all wars, must end.” That was the triumphal tone of last year’s reelection campaign, too.
The truth is much grimmer. Intelligence officials and terrorism experts today believe that the death of bin Laden and the decimation of the Qaida “core” in Pakistan only set the stage for a rebirth of al-Qaida as a global threat. Its tactics have morphed into something more insidious and increasingly dangerous as safe havens multiply in war-torn or failed states—at exactly the moment we are talking about curtailing the National Security Agency’s monitoring capability. And the jihadist who many terrorism experts believe is al-Qaida’s new strategic mastermind, Abu Musab al-Suri (a nom de guerre that means “the Syrian”), has a diametrically different approach that emphasizes quantity over quality. The red-haired, blue-eyed former mechanical engineer was born in Aleppo in 1958 as Mustafa Setmariam Nasar; he has lived in France and Spain. Al-Suri is believed to have helped plan the 2004 train bombings in Madrid and the 2005 bombings in London—and has been called the “Clausewitz” of the new al-Qaida.
Whereas bin Laden preached big dramatic acts directed by him and senior Qaida leaders, al-Suri urges the creation of self-generating cells of lone terrorists or small groups in his 1,600-page Internet manifesto. They are to keep up attacks, like multiplying fleas on a dog that finds itself endlessly distracted—and ultimately dysfunctional. (A classic Western book on guerrilla warfare called The War of the Flea reportedly influenced al-Suri.) The attacks are to culminate, he hopes, in acts using weapons of mass destruction.
Recent terrorist attacks against U.S. targets, from the murderous 2009 spree of Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood to the Boston Marathon bombings last year, suggest that al-Suri’s philosophy dominates al-Qaida’s newly flattened hierarchy. The late Yemeni-American imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who preached this strategy and induced Hasan’s attack, is said to have developed his ideas from al-Suri’s. Meanwhile, with new refuges in North Africa, Syria, and Yemen, jihadists have much more territory from which to hatch plots unmolested.
Yet the politics at home are changing as the threat abroad is growing. The revelations dribbled out by fugitive leaker Edward Snowden have outraged members of Congress and world leaders, including those of close allies such as Germany and France. They say they are aghast at American overreach. Writing in Der Spiegel, Snowden justified himself this way: “Instead of causing damage, the usefulness of the new public knowledge for society is now clear, because reforms to politics, supervision, and laws are being suggested.” Thanks to him, Congress will almost certainly rein in the National Security Agency’s data-trolling methods—though it’s not yet clear how much.
But the agency’s opponents may not realize that the practice they most hope to stop—its seemingly indiscriminate scouring of phone data and emails—is precisely what intelligence officials say they need to detect the kinds of plots al-Suri favors. For the foreseeable future, al-Suri’s approach will mean more terrorist attacks against more targets—albeit with a much lower level of organization and competence. “It’s harder to track. Future attacks against the homeland will be less sophisticated and less lethal, but there’s just going to be more of them,” says Michael Hayden, the former NSA director who steered the agency after 9/11 toward deep dives into Internet and telephonic data. Adds Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, “I think al-Qaida’s capabilities for a strike into the United States are more dangerous and more numerous than before 9/11.” For better or worse, the only hope to track them all is an exceptionally deep, organized, and free-ranging intelligence apparatus, experts say.
Intelligence officials who are well briefed in the technical aspects of NSA surveillance also note that global communications are vastly more complex than they were as recently as 9/11, not just in terms of speed and bandwidth but also in the kinds of digital paths they can take. Messages can travel partly by air and partly by cable, for example, and the NSA must keep up. “If you take the diffuse physical environment [of more failed-state havens] and you layer that with the diffuse communications environment, and then you layer that with the diffuse ideological environment—more lone wolves, for example—that makes for a far more generally dangerous environment,” says a knowledgeable U.S. government official who asked to remain anonymous.
All of which means that despite very legitimate questions about whether the National Security Agency is going beyond what the law and Constitution allow, Americans probably need the NSA now more than ever.
The Peril : READ MORE
2 Replies to “The Next Bin Laden by Michael Hirsh”
Bill, maybe I need another cup of coffee…I’ll apologize up front…I can’t help but be blunt (cynical?) this morning.
1) Did anyone really believe that cutting off a head was going to end this? The Ancient Greek myth of the Hydra maybe? Apparently, the last 70 years of modern guerrilla warfare have taught us nothing? Was this scenario not predictable even at the end of the last century?
2) Numerous business client’s have expressed their success as “We make the impossible possible.” Yes, their stakeholders put ever increasing pressure on them to continually do so. Fortunately, they have set strategy and engaged people in a way to sustain this innovation. They really don’t have any other option if they want to stay in business or keep their jobs.
There are many crossovers between business and the military… not sure this is one of them. In business…it would seem when the impossible was made possible…that would generate an income stream associated that might enable the next “impossible” feat. In the past…in war…when there was treasure gained from the venture–this might have been true…we take no treasure today (and I am not necessarily advocating we should), but our funding stream continues to shrink as the threat continues to grow. I ponder us saying the war against AQ is over…just because we say the war is over…does not mean it is. There will be no treaty signed on the USS Missouri this time. So if we pack up our toys and go home…does the mean the war is over? Or does it mean we have simply retreated from the battlefield? Interesting times…