Announcing America's New Counter-ISIL Strategy

The CEO of Alfidi Capital paid close attention to tonight's national address articulating a new strategy against ISIL.  Third Eye OSINT stream-of-consciousness reaction to its major points was powered by pure genius.  Stand by for a recap.

Making the case for emerging threats in the MENA region means understanding their sociocultural context.  Radical Islam animates ISIL, pure and simple.  Claiming it is not an authentic Islamic force invites ridicule in the souks of Cairo and Riyadh.  

Citing barbaric tactics and genocide correctly places the threat in a category requiring international response.  This supports international conventions dating back decades and more recent responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine.  

Air strikes are easy against equipment we recognize, i.e. captured US materiel.  The US can quickly exhaust its high-value target list of easily identifiable vehicles.  The harder part is destroying ISIL's very mobile C2 network of bad actors.

I like the word "destroy."  The US must DESTROY any armed force that threatens violence against our homeland, national leadership, or citizens abroad.  The widely-shared photo of someone outside the White House displaying ISIL's flag on a smartphone proves how easily a threat can reach our own C2 nodes.  

The national leadership endorses strikes in Syria.  Terrorists deserve no safe havens.  Training and equipping proxy forces is not as easy as rhetoric makes it sound.  The moderate Syrian opposition is mostly cut off and surrounded in many areas where it was formerly active, according to open source reporting.

I'm pretty sure I could assess Iraqi armed forces' condition from my laptop, using open media.  US advisers knew the condition of the Iraqi partners they trained all throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Western journalists who have covered Iraq since the US troop withdrawal in 2011 knew about the endemic corruption and incompetence in the Iraqi military.  NPR's Fresh Air broadcast today discussed this in detail.  

Excuse me . . how and why are we enlisting Arab nations' help?  Many Gulf sheikhs privately funded Syrian radicals who joined ISIL.  Wealthy Kuwaitis and Qataris were willfully blind to the misuse of donated funds intended for humanitarian projects in Syria.  There's nothing secret there and it's all in open source media.  

Ruling out US ground forces lengthens the time needed for a counteroffensive.  Unready Iraqi forces cannot carry the load until they can reconstitute in safe havens far from ISIL-controlled areas.  This means extensive retraining under American supervision in either Kurdistan or the Shiite south of Iraq.  

Referencing America's economic and scientific strength is obviously intended for a foreign audience, especially the Ebola comment.  Foreign intelligence services will review the inventory of America's aid programs mentioned and ask their American ambassadors how they will benefit by joining this coalition of the willing.  

Ending with "vanquished from the earth" is a good call that articulates a desired end state. The US is in "it to win it" but only with air power for the time being.  Air campaigns against highly mobile urban insurgencies are not effective without ground forces conducting COIN in liberated territory.  US planners will eventually realize the need to introduce competent ground forces.  Active-duty US military members should not make vacation plans for 2015.  

The American response to ISIL's emergent threat was delayed by a politically-driven unwillingness to acknowledge its potency.  Echoes of that unwillingness remained audible in tonight's address.  The National Security Council's mission is to synchronize threat warnings with a whole-of-government response to threats.  Political operatives who supplant foreign policy professionals among NSC staffers are incapable of providing thereat warnings or staffing strong responses.  The tragedy of America's new counter-ISIL policy is that it came long after the threat was obvious.  It is still incomplete without a US ground force option.  

This concludes today's commentary.  Have a nice evening.  

US Conservatives Ally With Boko Haram And Refuse to #BringBackOurGirls

Boko Haram, a radical Islamist terror gang, abducted hundreds of Nigerian girls several weeks ago.  The women of the US Senate gathered in support of the #BringBackOurGirls social media meme.  This is so obviously a good idea that you'd think every decent American could see the wisdom in claiming the moral high ground.  Alas, America's loudest conservative pundits registered their objections to the photo below.

Leading voices on the Right have denounced the photo and its meme as weak and pointless.  They have no idea how wrong they are.  Napoleon Bonaparte said it best:  "The moral is to the physical as three to one."  He meant that claiming the moral high ground is an absolute advantage in fighting a conflict.  It clarifies strategic goals to allies and gives domestic morale a boost.  The West is in a multi-decade struggle with radical Islam.  Every time we demonstrate the moral clarity of Western Civilization, we rally neutral people in the developing world to our cause and force jihadis to explain their atrocities.

The anti-female rhetoric I've heard from my conservative colleagues on this photo is disgusting.  They sound pathetic by trotting out old misogynistic stereotypes that working women have tried hard to banish.  The language some Americans have used to describe the Senators is the kind of verbiage a Salafist sheikh might use to describe his harem.  That is not the face America should present to the world.

These hashtags aren't just photo ops anymore.  Social media that goes viral now drives strategic decision making.  This is the power of "information operations" and I assure you that plenty of people in the US national security establishment take crafting these narratives very seriously.  If you disagree, consider how the US will benefit once we share credit for the girls' safe return.

I'd like to know if any of my fellow conservatives see the irony in all of these anti-hashtag comments in light of the Democratic Party's charge that the GOP engages in a "war on women."  I've seen a bunch of comments criticizing women for wanting girls to be safe.  Meanwhile, the US is doing what it can to help Nigerians bring them back.  Do any of you see how getting behind this message sends a powerful signal to Africans who wonder whether the US stands with their hopes?  Seriously, I'd like some answers.

Do any of you conservatives know what millions of Africans are saying right now?  They are openly questioning the radical Islamic groups that have grown throughout the continent.  They do that specifically because of this incident's notoriety.  Getting Americans on the right side of that message is a powerful adjunct to our diplomacy.  Do you people really not see this?

This isn't about Benghazi.  I'm less interested in placing blame for past oversights than in solving a present problem.  American leaders made plenty of missteps in the Cold War but our bipartisan foreign policy won in the end partly because our messaging to the world was based on a morally sound foundation.  Messages of freedom, dignity, and prosperity matter, just as Ronald Reagan taught us with "Morning in America."  Ronald Reagan also taught us that America would not tolerate Islamic terrorists getting away with the Achille Lauro hijacking; he told other would-be murderers, "You can run, but you can't hide."  I believe the Gipper would be totally on board with hunting down Boko Haram fighters and rescuing their captive girls.

I'm throwing it down right now, people.  Anyone who disagrees with what these women Senators have to say in their hashtag should put up a photo of themselves with a #Don'tBringBackTheGirls tag.  I dare you to do something that stupid.  See how well that plays in 2016 when Hillary's operatives run the "GOP anti-women" canard all over again.  I am amazed that Republicans are willing to cede the moral high ground to both Democrats and Boko Haram out of pure spite.  Conservatives should be better than this if they are to convince Americans that the GOP is fit to govern.

It is true that US foreign assistance programs are sometimes messy.  It is difficult to advance a freedom agenda in authoritarian countries.  We succeeded in countries like South Korea and Thailand even though they had military governments for part of their modern history.  Engagement is hard.  The alternative is to cede contested countries to powers that have clear anti-West agendas.  I'll take the 50% solution if I think it can get to 100% with continued US involvement.

Republicans can't seem to say anything positive about Administration figures who have this crisis on their radar.  Hmmm, the Democrats are doing nothing but tweeting?  I guess the Democratic President who directed our national security team to work with the Nigerians doesn't count.  I know exactly how capable the US can be and that's why all of the partisan criticism I'm seeing here is handcuffing the GOP.

Partisanship during the Cold War stopped at the water's edge, and our bipartisan foreign policy won that competition with the Soviet Union.  Today's conservatives (thanks to some Tea Party nutcases) have so little positive news to offer America that they can't resist harassing our own female political leaders.  American conservatives have done a whole lot more than make themselves look like fools.  They have missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate American resolve in the face of the violent jihadi movements they claim to hate so much.  The conservative loudmouths criticizing the #BringBackOurGirls meme have a profoundly immature understanding of information operations.  They have in fact aligned themselves in support of Boko Haram.  

The Haiku of OSINT for 12/17/13

Afghan endurance
Stay to fight terrorism
Grow your beard longer

The Haiku of OSINT for 04/19/13

Manhunt for bombers
Find blood trail and heat image
Track down and capture

Asymmetric Implications of Boston Marathon Bombings

One of the alleged suspects of the Boston Marathon bombings is now in custody.  Cooperation among multiple law enforcement agencies and some crowdsourced tips helped identify the likely perpetrators very quickly.  The after-action reviews of the tactical effort should be interesting.  The larger implications of this incident also deserve exploration.

Two amateur insurgents with no apparent formal military training assembled improvised explosive devices (IEDs) from common household items.  Whether they had access to live networks of Al-Qaeda or Chechen bomb makers is likely irrelevant.  Designs for explosive devices are within the reach of anyone with an Internet connection and knowledge of household chemistry.  A trip to the local mall yields pressure cookers, circuit boards, nails, and other implements.  Preventing the assembly of hardware is impossible.  Deterring human actors is the more fruitful route.   

These two amateurs generated a police response that shut down the economy of a major American city for more than a day.  The city of Boston was under siege from an internal threat.  A transportation network shutdown of more than three days would have seriously affected the city's ability to sustain itself, based on my hip-pocket guess of the days' of supply available at most major grocery stores.  

The incident received national-level attention.  The federal government's strategic decision cycle was tied directly to a tactical response for about five full days.  This focus probably accelerated the final resolution but  left the nation vulnerable to strategic surprises in other domains.  The damage to the U.S. economy and infrastructure from the attack was nowhere near the level of the 9/11 attacks yet the national response was significant.

Aspiring terrorists will learn a great deal about the asymmetric effects of attacking a high-profile public event.  Two IEDs launched a major response from the national security apparatus.  Terrorists planning future incidents now have clear incentive to launch multiple simultaneous attacks in different locations.  American policymakers must now model scenarios for multiple attacks in multiple locations that are sustained over time.  That is one worst-case scenario around which America must build a resilient and flexible security architecture.  

The good news is that national policy makers have shown an open interest in learning from other nations' experiences with high-profile urban terrorism.  Washington is reaching out to Moscow.  This is very good news.  Russia has decades of experience dealing with Islamic militancy in Chechnya.  The Russians have lessons to share with us in counterinsurgency and law enforcement if we are willing to learn.  The dialogue can be a basis for restoring trust in other areas of the American-Russian relationship that have deteriorated since 9/11.

Speaking of Chechnya, it is high time for the U.S. intelligence community to review the transit patterns of Chechen nationals as they enter and depart the U.S.  The details are properly left to the operators and analysts.  Throw in Dagestan and Ingushetia too, you know, just in case.  This is how we can help Moscow in return for their help.

In the week after 9/11, I recall speculating to a few of my colleagues that the most likely follow-on attacks would look like the car bombs the IRA used in Northern Ireland.  I was too early with that prediction.  We can credit the sharp work of the intelligence and law enforcement communities since 9/11 for the fact that follow-on attacks by Islamic radicals have taken so long to manifest.  The good guys rounded up the most obvious bad guys early on.  The new crop of bad guys is less obvious but just as deadly.  

Analysis Of Eric Schmitt, "Inside The War On Terror"

Tonight I attended a lecture at the Marines Memorial Club by Eric Schmitt entitled "Inside The War On Terror," co-sponsored by the World Affairs Council of Northern California (as so many of these fine intellectual shin-digs are these days.  Mr. Schmitt was promoting his book Counterstrike: The Untold Story Of America's Secret Campaign Against Al-Qaeda.  Get ready for my thumbnail, stream-of-consciousness impressions.

His discussion of the tricks U.S. intelligence operatives used to root out terrorist activity show that innovation is alive and well within the U.S. government.  We can be proud that America's operatives are using open-source websites to attract jihadi followers who disclose their intentions, and that American linguists posing as jihadists on the same sites are intellectually agile enough to sow doubt and confusion among jihadis.  God bless the U.S.A.

Mr. Schmitt fielded some audience questions on the effectiveness of the homeland security apparatus erected since the 9/11 attacks.  It is obvious, at least to yours truly, that the vast amounts of national treasure wasted on security theater like airport X-rays are a victory for Osama Bin Laden's strategy of forcing us into bankruptcy out of fear.  Mr. Schmitt endorsed the British and Israeli approaches to resilience, where the government teaches the population to bounce back from expected attacks rather than cower in fear of the unknown.  The main difficulty I see with such an effort in America is that it would require unwinding much of the internal security bureaucracy we've built over a decade.  Try telling defense contractors that their subcontracted services are no longer required and watch that effort die on the vine as campaign contributions dry up. 

Mr. Schmitt noted his astonishment that some educational institutions offer degrees in "homeland security" as a serious academic discipline.  I didn't get the chance to explain this phenomenon after the lecture.  You see, online diploma mills have begun offering homeland security majors to veterans looking to spend their generous G.I. Bill educational benefits.  Their hook is that a degree in homeland security is a gateway to hiring by Uncle Sam's myriad alphabet soup agencies.  I've seen some anecdotal evidence that agencies are beginning to buy into this line too, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and a self-funding cottage industry in education.  God bless the U.S.A.

Mr. Schmitt's most important revelation was that terrorism can be deterred, provided the U.S. can locate radical Islam's centers of gravity.  I was waiting for him to use the phrase "information operations" even though he described its principles accurately.  Arab notions of pride, honor, and manhood are viable targets for information operations.  He noted a few success stories from Iraq.  In one story, a terrorist fighter with a bounty on his head was hard to locate.  The U.S. lowered the bounty to make him seem like a nobody, wounding the guy's pride.  When he used a cell phone to complain about his lowered status to fellow jihadis, the U.S. located him and rolled him up.  Another story was the plight of a teenage Iraqi girl forced to wear a suicide vest.  When the U.S. caught her and turned her, she became a local media phenomenon for hosting some kind of Oprah-like call-in show that brought shame to would-be suicide bombers.  Suicide attacks then dropped dramatically before the U.S. 1st Armored Division vacated that particular sector of Iraq. 

IMHO, Mr. Schmitt and other observers show us that the U.S. can win the war on radical Islam by fighting smarter with information operations in the lead and kinetic efforts used sparingly in support.  If we had gone that route after the initial invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, our combat footprint in each country would have been lighter, the wars would have been shorter, and our casualties much lower.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.  God bless the U.S.A.