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?