U.S. Drone Attack Strategy Against Al-Qaeda May Be Wrong 433
An anonymous reader writes "A new study (abstract) in the journal Informational Security evaluates the U.S. military's strategy for killing off al-Qaeda's leadership using remote drone strikes. The study argues that the strategy is ineffective, calling into question both the military's rationale for doing so and the allocation of defense funds to run it. Essentially, there are two different types of terrorist organizations: those held together by a small number of charismatic leaders, and those who have developed their own bureaucracy, almost like a business. 'Companies don't fall apart when they lose their CEO or CFO; other people are being trained to do that job and there are institutional mechanisms preserving the knowledge the CEO brought to the table. Also, rules create clear lines of succession, so destabilizing struggles over who gets to take over the group's leadership become less likely.'
Intelligence on al-Qaeda indicates it's more of a bureaucratic group — unsurprising, since terrorist organizations that have been around for a while tend to evolve that way. Since the drone attacks started, there has been no significant correlation between successful strikes and a reduction in al-Qaeda attacks. 'The case for the drone program, at its heart, is that killing significant numbers of underlings AND a small number of high-level leaders is severely weakening the group's operating ability. Jordan's study suggests that al-Qaeda just isn't the kind of group that can be beaten that way.'"
Intelligence on al-Qaeda indicates it's more of a bureaucratic group — unsurprising, since terrorist organizations that have been around for a while tend to evolve that way. Since the drone attacks started, there has been no significant correlation between successful strikes and a reduction in al-Qaeda attacks. 'The case for the drone program, at its heart, is that killing significant numbers of underlings AND a small number of high-level leaders is severely weakening the group's operating ability. Jordan's study suggests that al-Qaeda just isn't the kind of group that can be beaten that way.'"
Re:If you have the opportunity (Score:2, Informative)
Garbage in Garbage out (Score:3, Informative)
This study assumes they know who they are killing. Considering the number of wedding parties they have struck and also admissions that they sometimes do not even know the names of who they are killing there is an alternative conclusion. You do realize that it is common knowledge that they record all the phone calls, text messages etc. so it is very unlikely unless you have a very stupid terrorist that they are going to pick up the phone and talk about some terrorist plot. The NSA cannot listen to a phone call that never took place. The alternative conclusion is that they are often killing the wrong people. Killing people bases on evidence that would not be considered strong enough to uphold a parking ticket.
Venture Capitalism for Terror (Score:5, Informative)
They are just now realizing this? I read a book [wikipedia.org] written all the way back in 2004 that described al-Qaeda as not a terrorist group, but more like a venture capitalist firm. All of these groups-Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, all the local al-Qaeda groups- aren't all actually part of al-Qaeda. Instead, they come to al-Qeada with a plan and essentially ask them for money. If al-Qaeda agrees, they give them the money and let them claim affiliation. Cut off the head of al-Qaeda, the successor still has access to all the funds. Cut off the head of one of the other groups, and that group might fall apart (or just get a new leader), but all of the other groups remain unaffected. To take down terrorists groups you can't go for the head, you have to go for the base (see what I did there?). Go after the funding sources, whether that be blood diamonds, sheiks dripping in oil money, drug production, etc. Go after the recruitment base (predominately young, educated, ideologically motivated but politically or economically disaffected men) and the structure will collapse from the ground up. Drone strikes do nothing for the former, and do the opposite for the latter.
Remember what bin Laden did in the war against the Russians: he wasn't a fighter, he ran a support structure in Pakistan that funneled fighters, weapons, and money to the Mujaheddin. Why would you think he would have started an organization that did anything different?
Re:Correlation vs correlation (Score:3, Informative)
There's an Islamist group in Nigeria right now, Boko Haram, whose name means "Western education is sinful". Their stated goals are to end education of girls.
"They hate our freedom" is very appropriate.
Re:If you have the opportunity (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If you have the opportunity (Score:1, Informative)
To my knowledge this kind of situation happens very rarely, if ever. There is no question that there are some cases where you wouldn't use drones, but that doesn't mean they should never be used. If there are safer alternatives for accomplishing the same goal then they should be used instead, usually there aren't.
Your example is extreme, but in the vast majority of cases it is clear to everyone (except perhaps small children) that these are bad dudes and it should just be common sense not to hang around them or do business with them. I have little sympathy for them, just as I would people who hang around organized criminals and get caught in the crossfire.
Re:If you have the opportunity (Score:3, Informative)
While I agree they think they're the good guys, they don't have a lot of credibility in this. The fact is, they started this war, and they've been waging it since the very beginning of islam when their warlord prophet told them hundreds of years ago to kill or enslave all the infidels. When they slaughter innocents, they're not thinking, well, the ends justify the means in a war against imperialism. No, they're thinking those are all guilty people because they don't pray to allah, and nothing is a crime if it's committed against somebody who isn't a muslim. They don't see the difference between a soldier and a civilian. All are valid targets in their ideology.
There is no negotiation that will satisfy them, only our complete surrender and enslavement (along with forced conversions and executions) will satisfy them. Western democracy is incompatible with their ideology, and their ideology, like ours, wants to see the entire world following it. We need to treat them like the existential threat that they are, just as we did with fascism and communism in the last century, and defend ourselves with all the tools at our disposal. I'm not saying we need to nuke mecca or anything, but we do need to empower secular muslims so they can police their fundamentalist neighbors. Right now the secular muslims are terrified and can't even speak openly against the actions of jihadists. In the meantime, the fundamentalists have to be battled openly with all our might.
Re:If you have the opportunity (Score:5, Informative)
His scenario happens all the time. It's not rare at all. And it's a small village! You hang out with who you hang out with. If they ARE militants, they have guns and men. Are you going to stand up to them? Hell no.
You need to read more. Vice has some excellent videos from the ground over there. Check 'em out on Youtube.