OpEd:
Smarter Military Engagements Of Terrorist Cells
January 4, 2010 by Kyle BradyTags: Afghanistan, America, Counterterrorism, Iraq, Terrorism, War, Yemen
As required by the FTC, a Full Disclosure is available - this piece adheres to the Code of Ethics
The reasons for entering Afghanistan were more legitimate than those for Yemen, but the operation was botched as the focus was shifted to Iraq – liberating a people from a dictator is a grand idea; however, the Iraqi mess has distracted the United States from the original goal. Modern terrorism, by definition, exists as a series of cells that vary in size and geographic distribution, making traditional war impossible and large-scale assaults difficult. If the guiding idea behind Afghanistan and future engagements is to address terrorism before a devastating attack can be executed or, perhaps more intelligently, to prevent the organization from flourishing in the first place, a better strategy is required.
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq – the list of nation-states that are home to terrorist organizations and their training camps is a long one that does not stop where the mainstream loses the ability to recognize names. How is a country supposed to battle terrorism in a large number of locations worldwide, even if it is the largest and greatest military strength? The logistics, and cost, of such actions far outweigh whatever benefit may be achieved – it is for this very reason that the military, most especially its leaders, should draw inspiration from operations more common during the Cold War than during Vietnam.
The current military process in Afghanistan, and formerly in Iraq, is to allow small units of ground forces to move freely and pseudo-independently, with air support called in as needed. Why can this strategy not be taken to the obvious next step? Rather than move a significant number of resources to support such large operations, consideration should be given to a more covert and swift attack methodology that would use wholly independent ops units to achieve goals such as the assassination or capture of terrorist leaders. This sort of activity has been the cornerstone of much of America’s strength in the last few decades and still continues today – it needs only be expanded.
Since the rogue groups that wish harm to the Western World do not announce their intentions prior to their actions or “play fair”, there is no need for counterterrorist operations to follow the normal rules or procedures of warfare. Such operations would not target nations, but rather cells or groups within nations and therefore do not pose any threat to sovereign rule – operations could be planned, conducted, and recouped in a matter of days by a few small units of highly trained and specialized individuals, without the targets ever being aware of a Western military presence. The nation that was host to such operations would be briefed afterwards.
This does admittedly sound like something out of Jason Bourne, but Hollywood is often based on fact – there would be no James Bond lone wolf carrying out such missions, but, in any case, this scenario is far from fiction. In fact, there is no reason why such a strategy should not be carried out, as the military, financial, geopolitical, and national security benefits would be far greater than current multi-tier deployment. Striking fear into the hearts of organizations that claim this as their singular goal would go a long way to appease those consciences that do not appreciate the West’s overwhelming presence in certain modern arenas.
Other than a loss of income to the military industrial complex, there is no reason not to deploy smarter military engagements of terrorist cells to benefit citizens and nations worldwide – President Obama and the rest of the Western World’s leaders with vested interests should choose brains over brawn in the ever-more-worrisome terrorist situation.
Kyle can be found on Twitter and MySpace, or reached via email.
