TERRORISM: How to Take Apart a Terrorist Network

September 17, 2001; How to Take Apart a Terrorist Network- International terrorist organizations are nothing new. They have existed since the 11th century. The first one, back when the world was a smaller place, was the Hassassins (or "hashasheen") of 11th century Iran. A minor noble with a grudge and excellent organizational skills created a network of suicide assassins that were used for many decades until the Mongols came along and destroyed their “impregnable” mountain fortress. The Mongols were not afraid of suicide assassins, but were annoyed by them. Back then, annoying the Mongols was almost always fatal. Our current crop of suicide terrorists do not have a single fortress to go after, so the Mongol approach of overwhelming force applied to one objective will not work. But the fearless Mongol attitude towards terrorism should be remembered.

By the 19th century we had the first modern international terrorist network; the anarchist movement. This was one of the several collectivist movements to come out of the 19th century (along with the more lethal fascist and communist ideologies.) Anarchists believed that "property is theft" and a hundred years ago were killing quite a few crowned and elected heads of state (including U.S. president McKinley.) Bombings were also used, against capitalist targets (like Wall Street, where thirty were killed by a 1920 explosion.) Most Anarchists were peaceful (if loud), and the small radical faction had plenty of places to hide. Many innocents were imprisoned and several executed in the mania to suppress the radical anarchists. None of these efforts succeeded. What killed the anarchist movement, and it's radicals was old age (the original 1890s crop were not completely replaced), police action (some were caught), improved working conditions and working conditions and Stalin (who ordered the communists to kill their Anarchist allies to eliminate a suspected rival during the Spanish Civil war.) There are still a few anarchists left, but most are academic twits who would rather preach than act, or street thugs who take their anarchy literally.

Religiously inspired suicidal radicals are not new, but they usually appear in the form of large, organized, groups. Think the original armies of Islam (led by men who knew the Prophet Mohammed personally) or the Crusades (instigated by popes). Religious do not like fanatics, as they are usually heretical as well. Such is the case with most of the current crop of Islamic radical terrorists. The religious beliefs of these murderers is condemned by the mainline Islamic clergy. But if you attack these radicals, you inspire a feeling among many Moslems that Islam itself is being attacked. Just as the anarchists hid among working class people who did not agree with anarchist ideas, so do the Islamic radicals seek refuge among Moslems. This is why the anarchists did not hurt working class folks (not always successfully) and the Islamic radicals try to spare Moslems (again, with mixed success.) But the people get the message. These radicals may be SOBs, but they are OUR SOBs.

In short, there has not been any successful effort in the past to destroy an organization like the one we face now. But that's mainly because there have been so few challenges like this. The campaign can be won, for any threat that appears can be dealt with. Success will be measured by small victories, not large ones. The Bin Laden organization is just that kind of challenge. It is highly organized as well as being well dispersed. But like any man made structure, it's many components can be attacked and destroyed or damaged.

To begin with, there is Afghanistan, which contains the training camps that provide volunteers with the skills and knowledge that make them so lethal. The camps can easily be destroyed by B-52s flying out of Diego Garcia (3,000 miles to the south) and carpet bombing them. But then we can expect the camps to be rebuilt in populated areas, as the terrorists know the U.S. reluctance to kill civilians. But this was commonly done during most wars in the last century. Civilians living near military installations quickly realized they did so at their own risk. Many left, and many of those who didn't, died.

And then there is the option of invading Afghanistan. This is often seen as a hopeless proposition because "Afghanistan has never been conquered." That is not true. Afghanistan has been invaded and conquered many times. In fact, Afghanistan is, geographically and ethnically, part of more powerful nearby empires. Eastern Afghanistan has often been controlled by one Indian empire or another. Western Afghanistan has likewise been part of Iranian empires in the past (and most of the people living there today speak a dialect of Iranian as a result.) But the main reason Afghanistan exists is because there's not a lot worth conquering. The locals live a tough life, and are a pretty rough bunch as a result. So are similar peoples (Indo-Aryan and Turkic nomads) living to the north of Afghanistan. The main reason any nearby empire bothered to march into Afghanistan was to preserve the valuable trade routes (the "Silk Road") to China. Normally, the merchants would pay protection money to the various Afghan tribes along the route and everyone was content to leave it at that. But when one or more tribes would not stay bought, Iranian (usually) or Indian armies would march north to punish the tribes. That done, the army would return south. There was not reason to garrison Afghanistan. There was, so to speak, no there there. But now there is a sanctuary for terrorists. An American army can march in and, amid much bloodshed (Afghan's are not bulletproof), a traditional arrangement can be reached; bombs or bread. For the last few year, about half the famine relief aid going to Afghanistan has been paid for by America. If the Afghans want more relief from the current three year drought, they can keep the terrorists out. Remember, Afghanistan is not a nation, but a collection of hundreds of tribes, clans and towns that are often at war with their neighbors. Some will make a deal, the ones that don't get bombed when terrorists are found operating in their midst. The terrorists believe that Americans have no stomach for this approach. And they may be right. But as long as terrorists operate in Afghanistan, Americans die at home.

The rest of the terror network is vulnerable to less violent attacks. Other nations that tolerate terrorist training camps have historically been more hospitable to the "bombs or bread" approach. The only exception is Iraq, which may require an invasion (bombs alone won't do it.) Iraq's neighbors, willing to lift UN sanctions against Iraq during the 1990s, are not as enthusiastic with that approach anymore. There have been shooting incidents on the Iraq/Saudi border. Iraq has stepped up it's attacks on Iran (via Iranian rebels based in Iraq) and insisting that Kuwait is a lost province that must be returned to the motherland. Invading Iraq while promising the removal of Saddam and his Baath party, and the subsequent removal of UN sanctions, would have a fair amount of popularity among the majority of the populating (the much abused Shias and Kurds.)

The elimination of the open camps, which would now have to operate underground (and less efficiently) would leave the most difficult to find part of the network. Thousands of Bin Laden trained terrorists exist in Islamic and non-Islamic nations. They control millions of dollars in cash and hundreds of caches of explosives, weapons and other equipment. But without the camps, it is much more difficult for the terrorists to build, or obtain, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The dispersed network is vulnerable to detection and being taken apart one terrorist, or cell of terrorists, at a time. This requires the cooperation of many nations with local terrorists. These local concerns, and the realization that the local terrorists might be more vulnerable with international help and cooperation, is an attractive proposition to many governments. This can work, as it has worked against international criminal organizations.

And then there's the religious angle. The terrorists play this one well, for they do believe they are on a sacred mission. But most other Moslems do not agree with the terrorists. Yes, there is resentment against the West, and even more resentment against the dictators and autocrats that run most Moslem nations. Anti-terrorists efforts are just going to have to live with this. The religious angle has been more bark than bite, and when you are dealing with terrorists who have so much blood on their hands, it doesn't take a theologian to figure out whose side God is really on.

The author forgot to mention America's first terrorist: John Brown. His goal was to incite the slaves to rebel against their owners and he had the financing of six industrialists from the north east. Read about it in the excellent history: THE SECRET SIX by Otto Scott. (There is another book by the same title, but different author. Be sure and get Otto Scott's.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.