War on Terror - HowTo
Quite some time back, I posted a suggestion on SlashDot:
http://slashdot.org/~Anne.O.Neimaus/journal/77327
I got some replies, but still don't think the subject has been fully explored.
Thus, I am reposting it here:
The so-called "War on Terror" is currently a monumental boondoggle - costing hundreds of billions of dollars, yet producing little in tangible security results. I have a proposal for really conducting a "War on Terror", with measurable results, for the same (or even less) money.
A. The Problem
Guerilla/Terrorist networks evolved specifically as a "low-budget" counter to the imense centralized power available to modern states. The decentralized "cell-network" system, combined with the "just plain folks" camouflage within society at large, makes it almost impossible to bring our country's overwhelming firepower to bear in any meaningful manner. We can totally erradicate any one cell, once we find it - destroying less than one percent of an international network, while simultaneously performing recruitment for the enemy ("big bad U.S. stomping all over ordinary folks like our former neighbors", etc.). Sure, we could just revert to a "scorched earth" policy - but I doubt any sane American would support wholesale genocide as a "solution" to Terrorism.
Thus, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq - basically, because we could actually find it. We can't seem to find Al'Qaeda, because it exists on a totally different scale from a nation-state.
B. The Proposed Solution.
The biggest military advantage the U.S. has - and this has proven true in both WWII and the "Cold War" - is our economy. Currently, no other nation even comes close - and no loosely-coupled distributed organization is even in sight of the same league. We are attempting to leverage this by spending hundreds of billions in fielding an army, invading other countries, and supporting a conquering occupation. It doesn't work for the previously-given reasons.
Suppose, however, that we directly attack the cell-structure necessary for a global terrorist organization to exist. Make it so members of a cell don't trust the other members - much less putative members of a totally different cell. Then, the worst-case scenario is you have a bunch of totally-disorganized independant terrorist wannabes, rather than the startlingly-effective international hydra we now face.
My proposal: a cool million dollars per head. Heck, what are there, maybe 10,000 operatives - that's a commitment of 10 billion - less than one tenth of what we've already sunk into this rat-hole. Maybe there are (gasp) 100,000 operatives - still less than half of our known outlay. Tack on some "key personnel" rewards of 1 billion per head, and the whole world is literally after these guy's hide. Their own mothers would seriously consider turning them in.
C. Issues
OK - what's to keep Akmed from shooting his lover's husband, then claiming the victim was an Al'Qaeda operative? Suppose we took another 100 billion and set up a claims-investigation bureau? We ought to be able to vette most claims with those kinds of resources. No proof, no pay. However, we want to be pretty easygoing on this issue - the objective is to destroy Al'Qaeda, not to save a few bucks. After all, the current system pisses away millions per day without even a credible claim that we're getting Al'Qaeda members.
What if Al'Qaeda members turn in others, just to get rich? HELLO? THAT'S THE OBJECTIVE, HERE! We don't care who the fink is, nor do we particularly care about their past - we just want the organization as a whole broken.
What if they are even more clever, and "sacrafice" several of their own to finance other operations? Well, this is a bit trickier - however, somebody has to come forward to collect the reward. That somebody can now be monitored and tracked - they aren't annonymous any more. Furthermore, that kind of money doesn't just disappear into the cracks - its movement can also be traced. We don't pay out in small, unmarked bills - we do direct deposit to somebody's registered account. It literally becomes a poison pill, if refunneled into the "operation".
Also, it is reasonable to expect stoolies to want some sort of protection for themselves and their families. We should definitely provide it - maybe a really nice "gated community" with high security, on some Pacific Island, for example. They are safe, live well (and we actively advertize this fact), and in a known location. We can easily track them when (and if) they decide to wander elsewhere (be it 'vacation' or 'business'). If they are true informants, they live in mortal fear of Al'Qaeda's reprisals. If not, we still have them by the short hairs.
Why should anybody get that rich for just doing their civic duty? Why should we pay, rather than incarcerate, Al'Quaeda stoolies? Because we literally don't care about individuals, one way or the other - we are attacking the organization as a whole. A few nouveau riche in a fortified community somewhere seems a much better price than paying the same total dollars to Haliburton, just to get hundreds of American soldiers killed, thank you very much!
D. Conclusion
I proposed this shortly after the September 11 attacks, but nobody listened. It would probably have worked much better then, but no corporations (like Haliburton) get rich from this. Now, I'm publishing the idea to all and sundry. I still think it could work, although Al'Qaeda is probably more "hardened". It wouldn't totally wipe out all radical revolutionaries - but it would still shatter the massive network that makes them so damned effective and dangerous.
What do you think?
posted by Anne O'Neimaus @ 2:12 PM
4 Comments:
"What do you think?"
It's tactically unsound. How would you suggest going about it? I wasn't sure if you were being serious or satirical... jokes on me I guess. You got the first paragraph right, in any event.
Well, I'm being semi-serious. I have no particular qualifications or expertise in the area. However, it seemed clear from the very beginning that the so-called "War on Terror" was going to be an unmitigated disaster.
This was an off-hand attempt at a "thinking outside the box" solution, that would cost no more than the initial deployment to Iraq, and would hopefully have at least as much chance of succeeding as the Bush/Cheney approach. Hopefully with less total loss of life, as well.
The whole premise of this idea is that if we offered the kind of money for rewards that we blithely spend for ill-advised military operations, we would be offering enough incentive to actually break up the trust-system requisite to functional terrorist cells. We would also be offering enough that outside military units (whether national or mercenary) would seriously consider going after some targets. A billion dollars is a lot of money, even to most small nations.
Again, I fully accept that this may be a totally ridiculous, off-the-wall approach.
However, if I were going to implement it (or something like it), I'd take about half the total money, and invest in an investigative organization. The purpose of this organization would be to do two things:
1. Confirm claims, and pass confirmed information to the appropriate authority (police, military, whatever seems reasonable for apprehending and/or neutralizing a confirmed terrorist).
2. Monitor informants. There is always the possibility that such large rewards will be collected by the terrorists themselves, setting up "fall-guys" in order to finance their ongoing operations. However, one of the things we are really pretty good at, is "following the money", once we know to watch it.
I propose that all paid-off informants be monitored for the rest of their lives, to see if they are engaged in or connected with terrorist activities. That should significantly cut down on the number of specious claims. Heck, with the kind of enemies they just made, some might not even mind the monitoring, along with some help in disappearing to a nice, quiet (well-monitored) retirement island somewhere in the South Pacific, or up in the Rockies, or where-ever.
I don't think that this is a good idea at all. It would be too difficult to discover who was or was not a member of AQ or any other terrorist group after a person with no monitoring has already killed them.
Culturally, this idea would work much better in the west than in the Islamic world. A strong concept of tribal loyalty and protection of guests has thus far prevented any major rewards for Taliban or AQ members from being collected - save that for Al-Libi.
A substantial reward for domestic treason would indeed turn up a fair number of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers - and domestic law enforcement would then be in a much better position to carry out follow up investigations and could even carry out a trial.
Well, in terms of this admitedly far-fetched proposal, we have never offered any "major rewards". A fellow could set his whole clan/tribe up in a pretty nice tropical island for a billion dollars.
<< Home