Terrorists are Outthinking Us
 

Terrorism's triumphant techniques
By RALPH PETERS
N.Y. Post
January 4, 2010

Our terrorist enemies are out-thinking us. It's not only embarrassing, but deadly.

The Taliban's latest innovation was on display again last week, when a suicide bomber, reportedly garbed in an Afghan army uniform, killed seven Americans, including a CIA mission chief.

The terrorists are "inside the wire." Everywhere. From eastern Afghanistan to Texas. And we're stalled. For all of our wealth, technology and power, our enemies have the strategic and psychological initiative.

The low-tech nature of most reported combat in our recent conflicts obscures the advent of four powerful innovations in warfare. Unfortunately, three of those revolutionary techniques belong to our enemies.

The single breakthrough we've exploited has been Unmanned Aerial Vehicles -- UAVs, commonly known as "drones." They're a terrific stand-off targeting tool.

Our enemies, though, have mastered new forms of the tactical fight -- with strategic effects. They still lose every classic firefight, but they are pioneering the means to win without directly confronting our combat troops.

The first terrorist and insurgent innovation of this conflict era was the bulk employment of suicide bombers, dirt-cheap weapons with a high probability of success -- the poor man's precision arsenal.

Their second innovation was another cheap-but-powerful tool, the Improvised Explosive Device, the IED or roadside bomb. We still can't beat it.

Then, over the last year or so, we've seen the ever more frequent use of their most insidious psychological weapon: the suicide assassin disguised as "one of ours."

This is an anti-morale nuke. Our linchpin effort in Afghanistan is the development of Afghan security forces. (The Obama Doctrine: "When they stand up, we'll run like hell.") And building up the Afghan army and police relies on trust between our trainers and advisers and "their" Afghans -- as well as between Afghans themselves.

Last year, we saw incident after incident in which a Taliban cadre within the Afghan security forces gunned down our officers at meetings (the Brits took a really bad hit), turned their weapons on our combat troops or, most devastatingly, blew themselves up when we embraced them as comrades.

Don't let this weapon's low-tech nature fool you. This is the big one. President Obama's desperate "strategy" for Afghanistan relies on building trust -- between Afghans and their government, but above all on the security front.

Our enemies have done what we refuse to do. They've analyzed the problem objectively and engineered ruthless solutions.

And we won't even block their Internet sites.

We make up fairy tales about the power of development projects to deter religious fanatics. We impose rules of engagement on our troops that protect our enemies. We ground our air power. We grant terrorists "legal" rights with no basis in existing law.

And our enemies do whatever it takes to win.

I want to see every one of those enemies dead. But I have to acknowledge their commitment, their maddened courage and their genius at waging war for peanuts.

Our troops in the field know all too well what a self-imposed mess we're in. But the gulf between our grunts and their generals is immense and growing wider.

It's a (literally) bloody disgrace that our ragtag enemies innovate faster and more effectively than our armed forces and the legion of overpaid contractors behind them. They ask themselves, "What works?" We ask ourselves what the lawyers will say.

The crucial difference?

Our enemies believe in victory, even if we don't.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "The War After Armageddon."

SOURCE:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...YSGsOwdQedWS1N

It is history repeating itself. The Colonials in the Revolutionary War with their pitchforks managed to fend off a numerically superior, logistically superior, and better funded enemy. Some would say we won because the British forces fought like "gentleman" and were not as ruthless. The matter of fact is we overcame and adapted. The one refuses to overcome or adapt. The administration is so out of touch with reality, history, and common sense that it boggles the mind. The question remains how bad does it have to get before someone says "Hey, wait, maybe I'm doing the wrong thing". Hopefully when '12 gets here things will really change.

what's particularly assing-me up: I reviewed some policies this morning from IZ and AFG. Our tactical geniuses REQUIRE weapons to be unloaded inside the wire!!! Insanity.

I simply refused to walk around without a functional weapon over there.

Kind of like the Balad GO stopping counter-fire in the hopes that "if we didn't shoot back at them, maybe they won't shoot at us". Must have been a freakin' Rhodes scholar.

Ralph Peter-son needs too slow his roll...
 

ONE incident and he writes a thesis?:confused:

I went down on a ruck-suck march one-time so...training is NOT productive in the developement of QPs?

Our problem is that; our I/O ops sucks ass!:mad:

Stay safe.

Sounds like I have lots to look forward to in my future :rolleyes:

And here I thought the advantage to being deployed vs. there as a civie was I would at least be armed when deployed. Should have known better...

I guess this is really the heart of the problem, isn't it? If I understand Guy's post correctly, he suggests that the current approach is productive. I don't have enough background or information to express an opinion.

What I wonder about, though, is why the Western powers cannot seem to subdue the terrorists. If our methods are working, why do the terrorists seem to be getting stronger? And if our methods are not working, how long should we continue to apply them? Or - are my perceptions defective? Are the terrorists weakening?

I hear the talking heads and spokes people from this administration talk about fielding more "Drones". These "Drones" are a wonderful piece of technology that can give us a tactical advantage. I'm still waiting for a this administaration to field an effective strategy.

The truth...
 

I'm quite happy with alot of you folks NOT being locked & loaded.

90% don't leave the wire however, PTSD (VA) claims are higher than the people who do "leave the wire.":confused:

Stay safe.

:)

On our FOB with had 4 ND's from the Active 4th ID folks...and they thought us Nasty girls were bad..we had none on my FOB :eek:

I couldn't help myself
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZWRe9DFYZ8&feature=fvw

WD

I'm quite happy that way too - as long as a few are armed and ready (preferably the 10% that do leave the wire). However when the enemy ignores "green zones" and uses the back doors into our facilities, I feel that there should be a heavily armed presence by qualified individuals, regardless of whether they are on fire guard or working out in the gym.

Now, give me a year downrange and lets see if I still feel the same.

Back in my box. :munchin

-out

JMO....We toy at War through an attempted Clean & Tidy Police Action. We have too many ROE and we won't allow another Dresden.

We are screwed. We should have been more ruthless about 8 years ago and then stopped.

Now we're left with a bunch of china that we didn't break and that no one wants to own. And a humungous bill.

Oh, and we keep apologizing. What happened to the city on a hill? Let's hire an Italian or Indian or some other person with a shred of inspiration to run a real strategic communications campaign.

“It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”
Niccolo Machiavelli, Italian writer and statesman, 1469-1527