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.'"
The article in the 2nd link is a joke (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is another situation on Slashdot like talking about electric cars where some people don't understand what the real reason for them is. Slashdot talks about electric cars and then someone inevitably says "The manufacturing isn't carbon neutral. It spews tons of pollutants into the air. And the electricity that powers the cars isn't carbon neutral either. It doesn't reduce greenhouse gases to have electric cars." and so on. The point of electric cars is not at all to reduce greenhouse gases or that they are supposedly made in environment beneficial ways. The point is to reduce dependance on foreign oil, which just happens to mostly belong to countries that are US hostile and Western hostile.
The US government may claim that the strikes are to cripple Al Queda, but that's not the real point. The real point is to kill bad guys. Anwar al-Awlaki was a constant thorn in the US government's side, managing to even recruit US born terrorists to his cause. He's dead now. He can't personally recruit any other Americans or work to destabilize Yemen any more. Dead terrorists may be replaced by less competent terrorists. That's a win for the US. Younger people may not know, but the US and Western Europe have both tried the "let's do nothing" approach in the 70s and 80s and all that accomplished was that terrorists got emboldened to do even deadlier things because they believed that they'd never be held accountable. Killing some of them may convince some people who haven't joined that joining them may be a really bad idea. There's value in that.
Yes, you pretty much are... (Score:2, Interesting)
Am I the only one thinking things might have been much worse if no terrorist leaders had been taken out at all?
Yes, you pretty much are...at least, I hope so, because you're wrong.
Groups like A Queda need an external focus. Without an enemy, they aren't going to be able to motivate their rank-and-file every day, and the US is kind enough to provide that focus. Drone attacks are only part of it - the US is busy mucking about all over their back yard: Libya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria...
Before anyone says "but 9/11", let me: Why did they pick the US as a target? Because the US has been mucking about in their countries for decades.
Go home, leave them alone and let them rot in the desert. Especially now that the US could realistically stop buying Middle-Eastern oil, the US has an incredible opportunity to just pack up and leave.
Re:Correlation vs correlation (Score:5, Interesting)
Very good articulated and supported point which is valid, however, the targeting is no longer the guys with an idea. Meaning, 5 years ago you'd have targeted the emplacers (the guy with a shovel, or in your analogy, an idea). With time, the lesson was learned the effect was small and it is relatively ineffective. Now, you go up the chain and after those who enable others to become more effective. Let me give an example, let's say AQ has three targets in the US: A general officer, a private and an NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer).
Taking out the General is symbolic but has very little impact on the effectivness of the US Army. If you take out a private, there are 10-20 others identically trained and with similar levels of proficiency. However, the NCO leads several squads. The NCO is a trainer, mentor, coach, knowledge manager and adult babysitter.
Taking the NCO out has a real effect on the battlefield as General Officer orders may not get correctly implemented, new troops may not come up to speed (read: battle effective) as fast, etc.
So, the best target for having an effect on battle is the NCO. The US and NATO are not after the General or the Privates... yes if there's a target of opportunity, a real threat, and the RoE/LoAC allows, a shot is taken, but the active targeting is at the NCO level. I wish I could be more specific but I won't. Just as most of what you read in mainstream or see in the movies about computers, technology, etc is wrong, so is the supposed, "wanton carnage from UAVs bombing everyone." I spent 3 years watching hundreds of strikes and you couldn't even apply most of what I read here to the exceptions, much less the "norm." People read a few articles and suddenly are experts on tactical military operations 1/2 way around the world (ignoring the few who incorrectly refer to it as "strategic bombing").
Re:If you have the opportunity (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't care about "cowardly attacks", I care about effective. Cowards who run and hide when they see others in need should be beaten severely. Men in bunkers taking action... they are protecting themselves. If they do what's needed, then they are an asset to us all.
I don't believe these actions are effective. They don't solve the problems at hand. Sometimes people need to die to restore peace and order; but this particular mode of execution causes indiscriminate collateral damage. We kill innocents, and we don't always know if there's any positive impact to killing the target in the first place. There is innocent blood on the hands of our nation's so-called leaders, those who should be our public servants but have taken it upon themselves to be our masters.
Sometimes innocent blood is an unfortunate cost of necessary war; and sometimes it's the cost of your arrogance and stupidity. We are facing the latter, as near as anyone can tell, and it is sickening.
Re:If you have the opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)
You really think they wouldn't use those weapons regardless? Their religion tells them to kill the infidels, not just the infidels' military. They're following a warlord prophet who slaughtered and raped his way across the whole middle east. Either you convert or you're enslaved or you die. I don't want to convert and I don't want to be a slave, I imagine you don't want to be either, so it's kill or be killed.
We didn't start this war, let's not forget, and I certainly don't want us to have to commit genocide to end it. But they are intent on wiping us out, and there is no peace to be made since their ideology is directly opposed to our ideology. They cannot permit us to exist. They are like communism, or fascism before that. They are an existential threat that cannot be reasoned with. All we can hope for is the secular muslims to gain enough power and numbers so they stop being afraid of the fundamentalist elements of their religion, and police their own. Until they do that, we have to defend ourselves. That means killing terrorists. Sometimes those terrorists hide among civilians. Do we want to tell them that if they do that, we won't ever fight them? Do we want to tell them that we have no stomach for this conflict, and they can take hostages, and blow up civilians, and we'll just surrender?
Let's also not just take their word for it either, when they claim civilians were killed in a drone strike. They have every reason to lie, and they've been caught falsifying evidence before.
Re:If you have the opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)
Strategic bombing contributed materially to the defeat of Germany, if only from the resources Germany used opposing strategic bombing. It wasn't possible against Japan until the decisive naval battle had already been fought and won by the US, but the nukes appear to have given the Japanese a way to surrender without losing too much face. It took a lot of resources, but it wasn't until late in 1944 that the Western Allies could have used those resources more directly against German forces.
It's only going to work in a total war situation against a defined enemy relying on a functioning modern economy, and it would only really be worthwhile if there was a strategic barrier (like the English Channel) that prevented more direct use of airpower. Nowadays, you have to add in "against a non-nuclear power", so it's not real useful anymore except for providing a credible second-strike capability, and missiles are better at that.
Re:Correlation vs correlation (Score:4, Interesting)
The Allies won WWII because the US had substantial natural resources *and* industrial production capability that was not damaged in initial volleys. Guerrilla warfare is different, which is why using "shock and awe" or "invisible hand" get tricky.
Ultimately to defeat "terrorism," you need to create cultural ties to societies that "hate our freedom." (Gag!) Education is a strategy, as are religion, charity, entertainment, and simple brainwashing. Immigration seems to have some effect, but not much.
The goal should not be for everybody to be best buddies, but to at least tolerate each other with *mutual* respect. To that end, it seems like Americans are in much better need of education than whomever else.
Re:If you have the opportunity (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree they are ineffectual, because they don't understand us and never will. Their ideology is opposed to understanding others. I don't believe they can win.
I also don't believe fascism or communism could have ever won. We still considered those threats to be existential threats. Not because they could actually destroy us, but because it was their stated goal to destroy us. The same is true of fundamental islam. We ignore them at our own peril, of course, because while they can't win the war, they can certainly cause a lot of damage fighting it.
I also agree with you that we need to give the secular and cultural muslims (cultural in the way that there are cultural Christians who exchange presents at Christmas but don't go to church every Sunday) a chance to thrive and suppress their fundamentalist neighbors. Right now our strategy of doing so is by killing the fundamentalists. Can you think of a better strategy? I would really like to hear of one, and I'm sure our military would too. Sadly, when we try to ignore the problem, instead of preempting their attacks, they blow up our embassies, naval ships, and skyscrapers. When all we did was bomb their training camps, they stopped training in camps and started training in civilian centers. When we invaded a country overtly supporting them, they moved across borders into countries that are only covertly supporting them. Should we go to full scale war in a dozen countries? It seems a lot cheaper, and less dangerous, and yes, even less impactful to the civilians in those countries, if we simply launch a small, targeted missile from a drone.
But if you have a better idea, please, do tell.