I couldn’t resist folks. I penned an op-ed piece for Military.com yesterday based on the Obama administration’s reaction to the Great Christmas Day Underwear Bombing Caper.
Bottom line is that everyone discussing this attempted terrorist attack and the responses to it are talking about defense, and we hear nothing about offense.
I use the analogy of the MRAP scurry to describe the automatic reaction to pile more concrete into America’s TSA Maginot Line.
All the after-action testimony, recommendations and takeaways resulting from the attempted Christmas Day bombing by Nigerian jihadist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab will not get us one inch closer to preventing these kinds of attacks on our countrymen in the future. Everyone is conspicuously ignoring the simple fact that the only way to prevent such a plan from ever evolving into action is to detain or kill the people plotting it before they even get to the airport. But no one’s talking about any of that, and you surely won’t see it in any official mea culpa…
…But what the MRAP did not do was prevent an IED from exploding. The MRAP did not kill one single IED emplacer, nor did it destroy a single IED-making plant, fabricator or planner. Instead, what eventually stopped the IEDs from going off was killing and capturing the people financing, sheltering, building and putting the IEDs into the ground and drying up support for those who might follow. It was an aggressive offensive strategy that stopped the IEDs, not hunkering down inside a bank vault on wheels — snipers, not cold-rolled steel, proved the decisive factor.
In the piece, I tell Military.com readers not to bother reading the White House report or the list of changes mandated by the administration. But here, we gotta take a look at a few of them and try to contain our laughter.
Potus Directive Corrective Actions 1–7-10
More gadgets and gizmos for overworked (or voyeuristic) TSA screeners to see through our clothes:
Agressively pursue advanced screening technology, protocols and procedures, especially in regard to aviation and other transportation sectors…
Hey State Department, let’s just think about whether we should be issuing visas to dudes who we’re warned might be terrorists…?
Review visa issuance and revocation criteria and processes, with a special emphasis on counterterrorism concerns…
Time to reorganize an already reorganized (new) organization:
[DNI shall] immediately reaffirm and clarify roles and responsibilities of the counterterrorism analytic components of the Intelligence Community in syncronizing, correlating and analyzing all sources of intelligence related to terrorism.
…huh? Have you ever heard more bureaucratic drivel? All it’s missing is “synergize across platforms to increase revenue streams to facilitate top leveling and skill rebalancing.”
And this last one is my favorite:
[The NSA will] develop and begin implementation of a training course to enhance analysts’ awareness of watchlisting processes and procedures in partnership with the National Counterterrorism Terrorist Center and the Terrorist Screening Center.
Great, now the code breakers and cell phone signal listeners get to spend a Thursday and a Friday in “workshops” to “enhance awareness” of watchlists. I would love to have been in the meeting where this little morsel of “reform” was hashed out. How about a course on how to send a signal through AQ in the AP’s cell phones so their heads will explode when they’re coordinating an attack…oh, yeah, sorry — they’re “suspects.”
You get my point. Here’s my walkoff, now let the pile-on begin!
President Obama said in his Jan. 7 remarks after the release of the White House report on the Christmas Day attack that “of course, there is no fool proof solution” to preventing such an attack. Well, actually, there is. Leave a smoking hole from a Reaper drone where the next Abdulmutallab sets foot instead of relying on some overworked TSA screener to interpret what’s in someone’s underwear at an airport security stop.
– Christian
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree that the best defense is a good offence, however those that neglect their defensive measures because they count on their offence winning the day usually don’t make it to the end of the game.
We need to be more cost conscience with regard to anti-insurgent, wars and homeland security. We need to put aside our PC and act the old fashion way: killing, pain, and fear. Bullets, Carpet Bombs and if necessary Neutron.
This is coupled with profiling would put and end to this nonsense. Some are governed my extreme violence and unless we are willing to beat them at their game, how do you expect them to participate in ours?
So you say this is extreme or inhuman? It is. However, based upon insider knowledge of the tools working in this current admin, my first recommendation, unfortunately, is the actions we will end up exercising because of the current inability, inaction and effete performance in said fields.
Respectfully.
A neutron bomb, eh? And who do you suppose we lob one of those at? Are we not currently fighting and committing tremendous resources to the war on terror? Are we not already employing bullets and carpet bombs? Get real, please, there is no one on this earth currently who we would ever dare unleash a nuclear weapon on as a first strike, and CERTAINLY not against a NON-STATE ACTOR. I am all for killing these bastards, but I don't think allowing our passions to take us to insanity is the answer (though I share your strong sentiments against these people).
And about profiling: yes, clearly a young muslim male is much more likely to blow up a plane than an old lady coming as a tourist from France. However, the issue with profiling is the inefficiency of it. Killing these people on the battlefront, utilizing our intelligence wisely, and employing better screening methods should be the answer (a little profiling here and there is not necessarily a bad idea, my friend, it is just not going to cut it alone, that's all).
The advanced screeners are the last defense to having someone board a plane with a bomb. It's foolish to rely so much on offense to kill your enemies before they attempt to strike. And as was the case with the underwear bomber, a simple typo was enough for him to slip by our intelligence from properly flagging him ahead of time.
The trick to getting by security is to have a very complicated name that no one can pronounce or even spell.
Abulmutallab set foot in international airports in Nigeria and the Netherlands, I think launching missiles at either of those would cause more problems than it solves.
No offence? The 8 CIA operatives killed in Afghanistan were playing defense? Read the Long War Journal about the increase in the number and lethality of drone strikes. Didn't Obama commit additional troops to Afghanistan? Largely for our defense I'm sure.
I'm not understanding the MRAP analogy. The cargo planes and ships that brought our troops and equipment to Afghanistan also didn't stop a single IED either.
The only thing clear about this piece is the agenda of the author. Don't turn this usually useful blog into "drivel".
So, I'm not an expert on airport security or the international agreements that go into it, but what pull does the TSA have in the Netherlands? I'm guessing it has exactly zero pull in Nigeria. So, how exactly does beefing up all our TSA security procedures here in the US help protect us from a guy that gets on a plane in Nigeria, or China, or the Netherlands, or wherever? I'm really not trying to be snarky (OK, maybe a little), I'm really curious to know how this works. What does the TSA have to do with ANY of this?
Ahhh…it took only eight comments to get a lecture on how to run the blog and drop down the rabbit hole of "agendas" and "politics." For that, I thank you Paul.
Did Obama say anything — ANYTHING about an offensive strategy to confront the attempted terrorist attack on 12/25? More defense, more bureaucracy, more "consulting" and "sharing." even when he said "we are at war" his prescription for confronting future Nigerian rich boys was to explain to them that we are not all bad…?
Hell yeah the CIA is taking it to the enemy — in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Where was the administration's strategy for doing the same in Yemen or other havens we don't hear much about. And I'm having a hard time not making the analogy to Clinton's increased use of TLAMs…better to not get your hands dirty.
MRAP anaolgy is sound — lemme simplify it for you. Offense (IEDs) counteracted by defense (MRAPs) did not defeat the offense (IEDs). Snipers/surge (offense) did. Equating a C-17 to an MRAP is apples to oranges. C-17s weren't fielded as a direct response to IEDs, were they?
My only agenda is pile up the bodies of the jihadists who would relish nothing more than seeing both yours and my smoldering bodies hanging from a bridge. Shutting off the map screen 30 minutes before touchdown and scoping my junk in an x-ray machine ain't gonna git 'er done.
At the end of this blog post the author suggests we play more offense by blowing up more terrorists with drone strikes. Is the Obama administration not doing that already? Because everything I've read states that they are launching more drone strikes than Bush did.
Very good point SwissFreak…not sure about that…maybe some of our readers can weigh in on that…?
Lots more uav strikes. Strategypage has had an article recently on the number of strikes and how they have grown over the years. Lots of reasons for the increase in the number of strikes. Those are also covered by the article.
So Christian, to stop more Underwear Bombers, who should we be siccing our drones on exactly? This guy's dad (who warned us in the first place)? The data center that hosts the server that runs the website that this guy posted on? Nigeria?
There is no way to stop a determined suicide bomb organization like Al Qaeda except by taking away their will to attack. We're addressing that through the current use of directed force. The president is addressing that by meeting with military strategists and directing the flow of troops to and from Afghanistan. The military is addressing that by working with the Afghanis and with precision attacks using drones and SF. The only defensive control that we have is over our airports. There's a perceived threat, demonstrated in another country's airports, we address it in ours, to be safe. It would be foolish to not upgrade our security to defend against a similar bypass at another person's checkpoint. Bottom line, the determined suicide bomber comes from a certain direction, we address it; he attacks from another direction, we in turn address that. Arm-chair quarterbacking all the things that could or should be done really does nothing more than make some folks feel more important than they are.
I've worked at the world's busiest airport for the last 4 years, and TSA is nothing more than security theatre. All it does is make things look secure. The truth is, airports are not secure at all. I know someone who accidentally brought in the slide from a handgun and live ammunition into the airport, because she left them in her bag after she went to the range before work. Luckily, her husband works there too as a cop, and she got him to take them from her. The reality is, people who work at the airport go through no screening after their initial hire, which event hen is nothing more than a 10 year background check and fingerprinting. I personally had access to the international terminal, the ramp, and on both sides of customs at one point or another in the last 4 years. We all know the people who are after us are more than patient enough to get a sleeper here who can then get a job at the airport. How easy would it then be for them to hand off some guns, or a block of C4?
This is the truth. At best, the TSA provides marginal security against the last attack at the expense of wasted time, stolen luggage, humiliated passengers, and bankrupt airlines. Even with the new security restrictions the TSA still wouldn't stop a repeat of 9/11. The only things that have really improved security since then are the reinforced cockpit doors and the fact that the passengers now know to fight back. Expect the TSA to also be useless against the next attacks–for example, a bomber targeting the huge crowd of people waiting to get screened at the airport.
I don't know about the anti-Obama slant of the original post, btw. What is the guy supposed to do, announce our offensive strategy on the evening news? He's already taken the fight to Yemen, and I've read elsewhere that this failed attack resulted in a lot of intel on AQ.
This is the truth. At best, the TSA provides marginal security against the last attack at the expense of wasted time, stolen luggage, humiliated passengers, and bankrupt airlines. Even with the new security restrictions the TSA still wouldn't stop a repeat of 9/11. The only things that have really improved security since then are the reinforced cockpit doors and the fact that the passengers now know to fight back. Expect the TSA to also be useless against the next attacks–for example, a bomber targeting the huge crowd of people waiting to get screened at the airport.
This is the truth. At best, the TSA provides marginal security against the last attack at the expense of wasted time, stolen luggage, humiliated passengers, and bankrupt airlines. Even with the new security restrictions the TSA still wouldn't stop a repeat of 9/11. The only things that have really improved security since then are the reinforced cockpit doors and the fact that the passengers now know to fight back. Expect the TSA to also be useless against the next attacks–for example, a bomber targeting the huge crowd of people waiting to get screened at the airport.
Every one we kill, hatches two more.
The way to stop these terrorist attacks, is to take away thier reason to attack the US in the first place. You don't see hardly any attacks on other countries unless there is already a war going on (Chetnya, Kashmir, Sri Lanka etc). I mean when was the last time they tried to attack Canada, Switzerland or New Zealand. The reason is that other countries don't go around pissing of other countries by either invading them, or supporting their corrupt goverments, or pumping arms into thier region.
I think if the US acted more responsibly like say the Chinese, and its citizens stopped acting like a bunch of scared old women sceeching like the 'terrorist' were going to cut thier heads off in thier sleep, 99% of these pin prick attacks would never happen.
Also you need to stop acting like an isolated attack many decades before just happened yesterday, like the USS Cole etc. the US acts like a women who drags up an argument that happened a year ago into a current dispute.
So IMHO, stop scaring yourselves shitless and get a life.
WRONG. We get attacked, first and foremost, because of our steadfast support to Israel. The support which enabled Israel to exist, and the support which we swore to preserve. The only way to stop these terrorist attacks, as I said earlier, is to take away their will/ability to attack.
I wasn't going to reply to your other comments, but I replied to your first, so…
China? Really? You think we should be more like China? So outright oppression and suppression are the answer? You're an idiot.
Whether incidents like the tragedies of the Cole and WTC happened yesterday or 10 years or 20 years ago doesn't matter. The perpetrators of those crimes are still out there and are still plotting their next move. So we plot ours. Until those individuals are in the ground or in prison, we need to continue to hunt for them. And your laissez-faire attitude for justice is quite disturbing.
The overall tone of your post is disrespectful and immature. I only respond so that others don't mistake your troll drivel WRT the terrorists' reasons for attacking to be anything remotely resembling fact.
Insofar as saying that the sniprers defeated the IEDs, well who said they are defeated anyway. The only reason there are not many IED attacks in Iraq is that the US is getting the hell out of there as fast as it can. The insurgents won the war, why attack a fleeing enemy. Its like the German Wermach doing a deal with the Italian partisans in WW2 to allow them to retreat back nto Gemany unmolested. If the insurgents act up, it will force the US to fight them, so just let the US retreat. There is no difference to the insurgents if you kill an American soldier so he leaves in a plane, or if he leaves voluntarily in the back of a truck
In Afghanistan, the IEDs still are the biggest killer of US troops, and still deny the abilty of the US to move anywhere in the contry at will.
This is a pretty silly post. As someone mentioned above, who are you going to kill with all this "offense" in the first place? And, isn't Obama already fully on the offense with strikes in Yemen, more drone attacks in his 1st year than Bush's entire tenure, and tripling the Afghan commitment. What more do you want, unless you mean worthless chest thumping. Yeah, that'll really scare the terrorists. Maybe we should knock over another Muslim country not currently involved in the GWOT. I don't like the look of them darn Tunisians!
Pete, the IED attacks, along with the other mayhem in Iraq went down before the US started its drawdown. The Iraqi government still stands. The attack numbers are still down, even with the recent uptick. There are still quite a few US troops in Iraq even now.
If you think other nations have not suffered Islamic terrorism you are willfully ignorant. For Example, just who has Thailand invaded recently?
I agree with Christian that (over) concentrating on defense is foolish. I also would like to point out that relying soley on cruise missle to kill or deter terrorists really did not work out for the US in the nineties did it?
The terrorists/Jihadist believe they will eventually win because the West is already showing a desire to give up the fight beyond cruise missile strikes and stupid airport checks. They think in decades while we think in months and years. And we are proving them right when they assert that they love death while we love life, i.e. their will to win is stronger than ours.
Rifle308
This is honestly a ridiculous post and a perfect example (along with the Georgia/Israel author's dream scenario) of why i have been coming here less and less.
Done with this site,
So let me get this straight…You're upset about two posts out of 12 I uploaded last week on DefenseTech. One was clearly an opinion piece I wrote for my other boss, Military.com that I merely posted here for audience discussion and the second was an admittedly thin "rumor" piece that poses some interesting questions about foreign relations in former Soviet Republics — AND I posted ver batum the response from the GA gov and you're "done with this site" after that?
I'm sorry Japanese minisubs, iPhone drones, Brit rifles, aircraft carriers, JSFs and Arab nukes don't meet your intellectual needs. I'm a big boy, I can take it.
Too much of teh stoopid in this one. Blowing crap up will stop lone idiots? I don't think so…
I was going to post another snarky message to Christian about his lame politics, but i will jump in with some info that might help.
I live in Amsterdam, and there is obviously no TSA here, THANK GOD! my friend used to work for the TSA and he was one of the most useless people i have ever met, the fact he actually made manamenet in TSA says everything about how bad they are. anyway, i digress.
Screening though Ams aiport (schipol) is one of the most intense i have ever been though, and i have traveled quite a bit… I have literally seen screeners lift womens breasts (though the clothing) and grope underneath them to see if anything was hidden. If they pat you down its not a wand and a smile, its a serious frisk… i have had my male regions groped many times, and its never fun.
I do not understand how this guy got though… he would be on a high priority watch list just cause of where hes from (holland is paranoid). I have heard he did not even have all the proper paper work.
This wole thing screams inside job, and there are plenty of people non sympathetic to US interests here in holland.
Well written article and great website. Very informative. Keep up the good work!