Hobson's Choice

The recent attacks in Great Britain got me thinking about terrorism, specifically foreign terrorism. Here’s what I’m coming up with – I’d really like someone to point out my errors.

Assumption #1: In our society, constructing an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) with sufficient power to kill or maim large numbers of people is a trivially simple exercise.

Analysis: High-powered explosives are somewhat controlled. However, ammonia-based explosives are simple to make from easily-available materials. Gasoline, propane, and other fuels can also be used to develop explosive devices. Ample material to provide fragmentation effects can be found in any hardware store or junkyard. While mass purchases of some of these materials (e.g. ammonia-based fertilizer) might be controlled, a series of smaller purchases over a longer period of time could provide raw materials for an IED of any desired size.

Assumption #2: Emplacing such an IED is also a trivially simple exercise.

Analysis: So-called “important” targets are increasingly protected. Government buildings, large office buildings, airports, power plants, chemical facilities…the list of protected sites is seemingly endless, but the key word is “seemingly.” Schools, shopping centers, fairgrounds, parade routes, smaller office buildings, restaurants, bars – even just an area on the road that frequently suffers traffic jams – are all possible targets for a terrorist attack. There’s just no way to protect all of them.

Assumption #3: Foreign terrorists bear sufficient enmity against the United States that any form of engagement between our country and theirs is sufficient to encourage terrorist acts against us.

Analysis: This one is purely my opinion – but I think it is nonetheless correct. Our support for Israel, our financial and political involvement with several Middle Eastern countries, and the immense popularity and availability of our entertainment media all provide ample sources of outrage for Islamic fundamentalists. While other sources of foreign terrorism in the U.S. may exist, they are so much rarer that I don’t see a need to analyze the roots of their hatred for us.

Conclusion: Foreign terrorists will continue to attack our nation and our allies as long as any significant contact remains between our culture and theirs. While some attacks may be stopped through luck, good police work, or incompetent terrorists, others will inevitably succeed. This may someday be stopped by the foreign culture adopting more democratic and liberal principles – but that will not be soon, and is unlikely to come from our direct intervention.

Responses:

1. Status Quo. We can accept some level of innocent casualties as a cost of doing business in the regions from which the terrorists come. While our intelligence and police forces will improve their capabilities, so will the terrorists. As long as our basic political structure is unchanged, our open society is vulnerable to attack. The question becomes – how many dead citizens are a fair price for supporting Israel, exporting TV shows, and importing oil? And how long are we willing to pay that price while we wait for them to turn away from violence?

2. Disengage. That entails cutting down our crude oil usage by about two thirds, to live off our own domestic production – if we continue to import any oil at all, the fungible nature of the product means that some of it will come from the Middle East. It means cutting off Israel from our support – and thus likely leading to the use of one or more nuclear bombs when Israel is forced to defend itself without the threat of allies coming to assist. It means cutting off all immigration, student visas, and even tourist visas from the area, lest some of them become contaminated by our culture and then return to spread that contamination. I suppose we can ask the countries involved to handle censoring TV, books, and movies, and provide our assistance in censoring the Internet. Politically and economically, I think this one is beyond any realistic expectation.

3. Retaliate. Announce to the world that any country or culture that attacks us with acts of terrorism will in turn be attacked. Violently, and without too much regard for the nature of the targets. I’m pretty sure that we could strike fear into the heart of the most rabid terrorist – if a ten to one casualty ratio isn’t enough, how about a hundred to one? Thousand to one? An air raid over Mecca and Medina? We have the physical means to do whatever it takes to get their attention. Only political will and morality prevent it.

Of course, such violence breeds anger and resentment, which breeds more terrorists. That could end up as a genocidal war.

Is there a flaw in my assumptions? My conclusion? A fourth response? I don’t like any of the answers I’ve come up with – I could really use another one. Anyone?

Is Anyone Surprised?

It appears my guess that the British sailors were abused and coerced into giving false confessions has been confirmed. I am gratified to see that the Royal Navy does not cave in to captors as easily as the Iranians claimed. However, the 15 sailors and marines – and their families – have my most profound sympathies for the experiences they endured. It is most unfortunate that the Iranian people will only hear the lies of their government, and not the truth now revealed.

I also feel sure that someone will soon compare the treatment of the British sailors to the treatment of U.S. prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. They will further compare the falsehoods the Iranians publicized to the errors (or possibly even lies) about weapons of mass destruction that led to our invasion of Iraq. Let me point out a few differences. Any mistreatment of our own prisoners has been used to acquire real intelligence, not as a publicity stunt, in an effort to defend our country. Those prisoners have not been exposed to publicity, nor required to betray their countries or beliefs in front of their own people and the world. And most important of all, the errors and evils of our government are regularly revealed to our citizens through a free press, providing the opportunity for our citizens to change our government in response.

Looking Through The Bars

There’s a couple things that bother me about the British sailors captured by the Iranians.

First, who really thinks that your average sailor knows where he is at any given point? Are they looking at road signs out there? No. The only people who really know where the ship is are the navigators and whoever they might tell at any given moment – the commander or duty officer, maybe a few others on the bridge. The vast majority of sailors on any ship just know that “we’re two days out from point A, on a 10-day cruise to point B.” They could no more point out their location accurately on a map than they could swim the rest of the way. Two of the displayed hostages, Capt. Air and Lt. Carman, may indeed have known their position. However, I note that THEIR televised statements include some weasel-words – Capt. Air said that they were “apparently” in Iranian waters, according to GPS coordinates supplied by the Iranians. Since the British government disputes the Iranian-claimed position in the first place, using a captive to parrot those same coordinates doesn’t lend much authority to them. In addition, it appears that at least three of the four hostages that have been televised (including Capt. Air) are Royal Marines, not sailors – and therefore MUCH less likely to have accurate knowledge of their position. (I’m not sure whether Ms. Turney is a sailor or marine – shockingly, I can’t find any reports that include her or Mr. Summers’ rank. I guess the journalists involved aren’t that concerned with the earned titles of mere enlisted folks.) In any event, these 15 sailors and marines were a boarding and inspection party sent over in a small boat launched from a larger ship - so they probably didn't know much about their position beyond "the target ship is THAT way, and our home ship is back the other way." And yet we are expected to take their claims of invasion and their apologies at face value?

The second issue concerns me even more, though. We in the U.S. military have a Code of Conduct that outlines the correct behavior for us if captured. (See especially Article 5.) I feel sure that the British forces have something similar. That code does NOT allow for us to make statements in support of our captors’ claims, or indeed to cooperate with them in any way. And yet 25% of the captives have been convinced to make public statements – including two officers, expected to set the example for more junior folks. Bluntly, if they were motoring their boat up river several miles inland and were captured while tying up to the Ayatollah’s personal dock, I’d still expect them to stay silent. What I’ve seen so far doesn’t look much like the results of coercion…but I really can’t imagine any other way to get that many military professionals from a single small group to simultaneously betray their country. (If you can think of one, no matter how outlandish, please post it in the comments!) If the current Iranian claim is confirmed, that all 15 have “confessed,” then that merely makes my point even more strongly. Any diplomatic actions the British or the U.S. consider should bear this in mind – the hostages are NOT being well-treated, no matter what they or their captors may say.

In any event, I strongly feel that the British government should hold out against this ridiculous state-sponsored kidnapping. Hopefully, Iran will back down under diplomatic pressure – that would be best for all concerned. But if they don’t, I believe that this act does justify a military response – and if they go into Iran, whether for a rescue or a full-blown attack, I believe that the U.S. should support them to the hilt. As they have for us, time and time again.

Planning Ahead

There have been several stories in the media lately claiming that the Pentagon is updating plans for an attack on Iran.

Well, duh.

For those of you whose knowledge of the military is based on Hollywood movies, let me fill you in. Every unit in the Army, from the Battalion level on up, has a section devoted to planning. The other services have similar systems. Those planners naturally focus on responses to the most likely future events. At the lower levels, that’s all they have time for. At higher levels of command, though, the planners think about all sorts of possible operations, and write up plans to carry them out if and when it becomes necessary.

Naturally, if a potential trouble spot starts to look more troublesome, the planners haul out the old paperwork, blow the dust off of it, and update it to better fit the current situation. And also naturally, when the military writes up a plan to respond to a trouble spot, they write it up as a military solution. That doesn’t mean they particularly want to carry it out. It doesn’t mean they think a military solution is the best or the only option. It simply means that if things go bad in the political and diplomatic arenas, and the civilian leadership gives the order to take action, a good soldier does not intend to be caught saying, “Um, well, we’re not sure if we can do that, let me get back to you in a week or two…”

I’ve never seen the files of plans in the Pentagon, but I suspect that if the press got a look at them, our diplomats would be working overtime for years to smooth the ruffled feathers. There are probably plans in the files to carry out all sorts of horrible operations, too dreadful for anyone to contemplate – but the planners have to contemplate them, that’s their job. There may be plans to bomb Iran, and to invade it. Odds are pretty good that we have plans to attack China. To bomb either India or Pakistan, or both, in case their bickering goes nuclear. There’s probably plans to invade France or Germany, too – those protests they have from time to time might blow up, after all. There might even be plans on the books to destroy or conquer Canada, just in case they get tired of us stealing all their acting and comedic talent and declare war on Hollywood – which, unfortunately, we are still obligated to defend.

In the United States, the military functions under civilian control. We maintain plans to do all sorts of horrible things, because we never know what sort of stupidity our civilian leaders may get us into. All we know for sure is that when it starts to get ugly, it’s our job to fix it. And when that happens, we don’t have time to start from scratch.

Thus Oil Does Make Cowards of Us All

I have long believed that our dependence on petroleum for our industry and economy has forced the United States into damaging positions in international affairs. Certainly, our current adventure in Iraq has other reasons to justify it. But would we truly have been concerned with Hussein’s genocidal tyranny if we didn’t need cheap Iraqi oil to fuel our cars and factories? Our record in Africa suggests that we would not. And while I suspect that nothing less than the conversion of the United States government to an Islamic theocracy would truly satisfy Bin Laden, I also know that if we were not so intimately involved in the Middle East, much of his, Al Qaida’s, and other “Islamic” terrorists’ venom would be directed elsewhere.

The current nuclear crisis in Iran, however, truly shows just how much the power of oil corrupts. We all know that the only country to feel the full horrifying effect of nuclear weapons is Japan. As a result, their national identity, public opinion, and government policy includes a massive horror at the spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world. Despite this, the response from Japan regarding Iran’s apparent intent to produce the materials needed for their own atomic bomb has been mild at best. Why? As this article in the L.A. Times reports, 16% of Japan’s energy imports come from Iran. They cannot afford to make an enemy of such a major oil supplier…and as a result, they are forced to betray their own beliefs.

There’s only one possible answer, for Japan and for us. We need to develop alternate energy sources, not only to cover the growing demand, not only because the oil supply is limited and will someday run out, but to free us from the oil umbilical that forces us to meddle in countries that hate us. Where’s Daniel Shipstone when we need him?

If you didn’t get that last sentence, read Friday by Heinlein. Then read everything else he ever wrote – it’s worth your time.