Monday, May 26, 2008
A handful of guys with box cutters
Today, we are a nation at war, and we have been continuously for the past seven years. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, thousands of lives have been lost, and realms of tragedy we don't know about have been created.
The start of this all was a single incident. That incident followed decades in which the United States viewed war as something that had to do with technology and spending, unmanned missiles and bomber drones. Meanwhile, there was less and less attention paid to soldiers, the humans who died in the Revolution, the Civil War, the War to End All Wars, and then the wars that followed that.
There must be some kind of cruel irony in the fact that the first successful attack on an American city in the past century was accomplished by fewer than twenty men whose most sophisticated weapon was a box cutter. For those of you who never stocked shelves, a box cutter is a stubby knife used to rip open boxes. They are a ubiquitous tool for many people who make American commerce work, and it used to be legal to carry them onto planes.
So, those 17 guys carried box cutters onto four planes, and used them to bring down several enormous buildings. All of the aircraft carriers, all of the NSA surveillance satellites, all of the robotic weapons and stealth bombers and advanced tactical systems, the trillion dollars worth of machines, were helpless against that bagful of humble box cutters.
I wish I could say that America learned from that, that what happened was that we realized that we had suffered a great loss at the hands of individual (evil) creativity, not technology, that our post-human technology had been turned against us, but we did not. Instead, we continued down the same course. Our soldiers are kept in humiliating conditions, deprived of decent health care, and too often treated as an afterthought. Why? Well, giant weapons systems-- there's real money in that, I guess, the flow of our money that goes from government to contractor to sub-contractor with little bits dropping off at each stage.
So now we have a whole new Department with a huge budget, all-new sophisticated weapons on the way, control of Iraq, etc. etc. And what do they have?
Not much really... their numbers are down, I read, and they are losing power where they are. In a few years they may be ground down by our technology to a fraction of what they were... maybe if we continue to succeed, they will be down to just a handful of motivated individuals with box cutters.
Comments:
<< Home
I think the hardest thing for the United States to grasp, and it's apparent we haven't yet, is that we are fighting a war against an ideology, and a war against an ideology cannot be won with guns and bombs and strategery.
# posted by 
: 2:48 PM
: 2:48 PM
Excuse me, but isn't a little jarring to go straight from star wars geek trivia to this?
# posted by : 3:08 PM
: 3:08 PM
So, how do you win a war against an ideology?
Seems to me the problem is simple enough. We can't stomach severe collateral damage as a part of war anymore. So, we have to spend billions of dollars developing smart bombs and non-lethal weapons and various other technology because we can't just fly in and fire bomb Baghdad like we did to Dresden in WWII. Because of this, wars are longer, more expensive, and generally more difficult to fight.
They, and by "they" I mean the bad guys, don't have that concern, which allows them to fly jets into buildings killing thousands of citizens with no regard to collateral damage. This makes them very dangerous. It is the same reason that terrorists in Libya, Syria, Palestine hide their missiles heavily populated areas. They have no respect for the difference between combatants and civilians, and they know that if Israel fires on those population centers international TV will show pictures of "innocent" dead palestinian children, and that will bolster their cause.
So, we can stop spending the money, but we don't have the stomach to fight the kind of wars that less civilized and less industrialized countries are willing to fight on the cheap.
Seems to me the problem is simple enough. We can't stomach severe collateral damage as a part of war anymore. So, we have to spend billions of dollars developing smart bombs and non-lethal weapons and various other technology because we can't just fly in and fire bomb Baghdad like we did to Dresden in WWII. Because of this, wars are longer, more expensive, and generally more difficult to fight.
They, and by "they" I mean the bad guys, don't have that concern, which allows them to fly jets into buildings killing thousands of citizens with no regard to collateral damage. This makes them very dangerous. It is the same reason that terrorists in Libya, Syria, Palestine hide their missiles heavily populated areas. They have no respect for the difference between combatants and civilians, and they know that if Israel fires on those population centers international TV will show pictures of "innocent" dead palestinian children, and that will bolster their cause.
So, we can stop spending the money, but we don't have the stomach to fight the kind of wars that less civilized and less industrialized countries are willing to fight on the cheap.
# posted by : 3:57 PM
: 3:57 PM
Having just finished watching "Charlie Wilson's War" recently, it seems that it started in the 1980's when the CIA put those Stinger anti aircraft or whatever guns in the hands of the Afghanis in order to help them shoot down the Soviet helicopters.
Not unlike Saddam, Osama was at first just a bully but he was our bully so we ignored him... then he started to be a big deal and then we ignored him during the first Gulf war and he got realllllly mad at the US and wanted us to get out of Saudi Arabia, and when we did not leave he got mad at us "infidels."
Clearly I am no middle east expert.... but is seems to have started long before those lunatics walked into Walmart and bought box cutters. AND I think we are partly responsible because we as a nation, the FBI the CIA and the people who are supposed to be looking for this stuff - we were WARNED many many times about this happening, that they were taking flying lessons without being concerned about learning how to land... and the plot was even given to them I think, but they chose to ignore it. Also Clinton had a chance to Kill Osama but did not do it because of the fear of killing children that were nearby. Osama KNOWS this. He knows this and uses children as human shields.
Not unlike Saddam, Osama was at first just a bully but he was our bully so we ignored him... then he started to be a big deal and then we ignored him during the first Gulf war and he got realllllly mad at the US and wanted us to get out of Saudi Arabia, and when we did not leave he got mad at us "infidels."
Clearly I am no middle east expert.... but is seems to have started long before those lunatics walked into Walmart and bought box cutters. AND I think we are partly responsible because we as a nation, the FBI the CIA and the people who are supposed to be looking for this stuff - we were WARNED many many times about this happening, that they were taking flying lessons without being concerned about learning how to land... and the plot was even given to them I think, but they chose to ignore it. Also Clinton had a chance to Kill Osama but did not do it because of the fear of killing children that were nearby. Osama KNOWS this. He knows this and uses children as human shields.
I've been reading a book on the history of al-Qaeda, which is completely fascinating how they came to be where they were at 9/11. The book is called The Looming Tower (Mr. Justin Scott and Andrew Tueguel recommended it), and is really worth the read if you have the time.
# posted by : 8:14 PM
: 8:14 PM
How very sad that there exists whole societies of people whose next life is the better one. Whose day to day existence is filled only with the work of Sisyphus, if there is any work at all. Whose whole being is filled with hatred of people who, by luck, or by accident of birth, or by their own industriousness, have carved out a more palatable life than the one they were born to live – and because of this difference, this difference alone, become targets of those otherwise idle hands.
Woe to them who dare to live better than their fathers. Woe to them who dare to dream lives larger than the grains of sand beneath their feet. Woe to them who worship the same God with another name. Woe to them who cannot kill without discrimination. Woe to them and their innocent children who are tainted by their birthright. These are easy targets for men with box cutters, who dream their own dreams of a better life only after death.
Charismatic leaders have always created their own following, many times corrupting the ideologies that have a more universal truth, supplanting those truths for more self serving ends. There are visionaries that see life aplenty, and those that see their only victory in the death of others, and perhaps their own as an instrument of that fate. I would like to think that perhaps the one visionary who saw His own death as a victory for others to lessen our own burdens, and shed our own shackles, and live our one life more abundantly makes more sense…but, I won’t kill you for thinking I’m wrong. I guess that’s the difference.
Woe to them who dare to live better than their fathers. Woe to them who dare to dream lives larger than the grains of sand beneath their feet. Woe to them who worship the same God with another name. Woe to them who cannot kill without discrimination. Woe to them and their innocent children who are tainted by their birthright. These are easy targets for men with box cutters, who dream their own dreams of a better life only after death.
Charismatic leaders have always created their own following, many times corrupting the ideologies that have a more universal truth, supplanting those truths for more self serving ends. There are visionaries that see life aplenty, and those that see their only victory in the death of others, and perhaps their own as an instrument of that fate. I would like to think that perhaps the one visionary who saw His own death as a victory for others to lessen our own burdens, and shed our own shackles, and live our one life more abundantly makes more sense…but, I won’t kill you for thinking I’m wrong. I guess that’s the difference.
# posted by : 12:58 PM
: 12:58 PM
How do fight an ideology? With a better ideology. NOT by blindly bombing everyone to the stone age and then preening and crowing about it and wearing flag lapel pins. We have learned nothing from 9/11. We never tried.
RFDIII
RFDIII
# posted by : 4:27 PM
: 4:27 PM
Ideological wars and asymetric warfare are nothing new. We actually pioneered guerilla warfare in Western society, but it went on long before. The Romans consistently used overwhelming force to crush societies they didn't like and did very well until they got caught up in their own internal political issues and allowed their military to decline.
They were also willing to burn an entire city and sow salt over it, spend months building a giant ramp to wipe a small band of Jews, and enslave entire peoples when it suited them.
I don't think our technology is the problem, I think our inability to engage in warfare as warfare is our problem. It's gotta be no-holds-barred or you give the bad guys hope. Better to crush them thoroughly and then extend mercy once they are already broken, as we did with our enemies after WWI, as Alexander did with Persia.
If we don't have the stomach for a real fight anymore, then we better spend the $$$ to keep ahead of everyone else, because that's our only strategic advantage that will let us fight while staying removed from the actual combat.
Diplomacy will never work unless our enemies want to talk out their issues, but our true enemies aren't interested in talking in good faith. Robot armies might could change their attitudes. That's my solution, anyway. How demoralizing must it be to be invaded by robots and know that the people you hate aren't bothered enough to even show up in person. Plus, Robots are just so cool.
They were also willing to burn an entire city and sow salt over it, spend months building a giant ramp to wipe a small band of Jews, and enslave entire peoples when it suited them.
I don't think our technology is the problem, I think our inability to engage in warfare as warfare is our problem. It's gotta be no-holds-barred or you give the bad guys hope. Better to crush them thoroughly and then extend mercy once they are already broken, as we did with our enemies after WWI, as Alexander did with Persia.
If we don't have the stomach for a real fight anymore, then we better spend the $$$ to keep ahead of everyone else, because that's our only strategic advantage that will let us fight while staying removed from the actual combat.
Diplomacy will never work unless our enemies want to talk out their issues, but our true enemies aren't interested in talking in good faith. Robot armies might could change their attitudes. That's my solution, anyway. How demoralizing must it be to be invaded by robots and know that the people you hate aren't bothered enough to even show up in person. Plus, Robots are just so cool.
# posted by : 5:00 PM
: 5:00 PM
Well, the argument could also be made that more than just internal political squabbling caused the fall of the Roman Empire...the power of superior armies from the east, religions that competed with the civic devotion to the Emperor as a deity, and the unwieldy nature of the huge extent of the Empire also contributed to the fact that it probably would not ever be able to be maintained. Also, I would hardly hold up the armistice from WWI as an example of extending "mercy" to the vanquished; it could be argued that the punishing retribution exacted against the Germans led directly to the rise of deep-seated German resentment and the ultimate rise of the Nazi party.
It might be the case that instead of a "no-holds-barred" philosophy which quite honestly has not worked out in the long run in the past, we might to actually build more subtle forms of defense. One can argue with different issues of Israeli defense policy, but I have always been an admirer of their flag carrier, El-Al's, security system, which well predated 9/11. Besides the inevitable questions, scrutiny, bag checking, etc., they have always invested large sums in skilled, trained staff on the front line that are superb in analysis in terms of psychological profiles, checking passengers carefully, etc.
But this, of course, would require that funds actually be invested upfront in the front lines of defense, i.e., airline security, instead of funnelling it all into bombs, planes, etc. As in our domestic health care policy, we cannot seem to invest the money sufficiently in preventive measures and protocols, and end up paying big time in on the other end.
Post a Comment
It might be the case that instead of a "no-holds-barred" philosophy which quite honestly has not worked out in the long run in the past, we might to actually build more subtle forms of defense. One can argue with different issues of Israeli defense policy, but I have always been an admirer of their flag carrier, El-Al's, security system, which well predated 9/11. Besides the inevitable questions, scrutiny, bag checking, etc., they have always invested large sums in skilled, trained staff on the front line that are superb in analysis in terms of psychological profiles, checking passengers carefully, etc.
But this, of course, would require that funds actually be invested upfront in the front lines of defense, i.e., airline security, instead of funnelling it all into bombs, planes, etc. As in our domestic health care policy, we cannot seem to invest the money sufficiently in preventive measures and protocols, and end up paying big time in on the other end.
# posted by : 6:50 PM
: 6:50 PM << Home
