http://muldowney.photo-illusions.com

Posted by: downey at January 8, 2008 07:55 AM

The technology of the Internet is facilitating everything: including shopping, insurgency, information, terrorist collaboration, military manuals, etc. It can't be "taken out". It is already nodeless. It has hit the "critical point"...the point at which no amount of external interference can effect it. There are nationless organizations and sites springing up by the thousands each month. Let's just use it to spread disinformation where we need to. After all, our Thug Administration has perfected the "disinformation" technique. Learn from them.
We're not "creating terrorists" as so often claimed by posters, but we have certainly created a thorough training ground in Iraq. With standard weapons and internet "gleaned" information, they have created a highly mobile, transparent fighting force with one goal...kill the US soldier. If not a US soldier, kill the other tribe's people. All the same, practice KILLING.
The only "ideological crap" that the groups we're fighting in Iraq have to buy into is..... kill the the infidel. And we are it.
Asking a poster to "Please don't post opinions unverified by facts" is assinine. All opinions are needed and, by right, we are assured that we can post them in this democracy. Mind and opinion control is for budding "Mein Kampfers".
Re: Vietnam. "If the press had encouraged us to perserve (sic), rather than capitulate...etc.,etc." I think after 56,000 dead and hundreds of thousands maimed the US was ready to leave a war generated by lies (something new?). Nothing about that war would have been "averted" except the continued killing and agent-oranging of each country we invaded.
Some more crap..."I'm not defending "Bush from his Stupidity" because that simply isn't so. He is our leader, and we expect him to lead."
Ohh...sh*t! You're making me sick.

And again..."That does not entail asking your opinion, Ed, it entails taking the information he had at hand at the time and solving a problem. He did that. We expect our leaders to strike out and defend our nation when it is under attack - and he did that with the forces he had at hand."

Boy are you delusional. You just wanna suppress everybody's opinion except yours. Do you read? Are you in touch at all? Maybe, I should ask..ARE YOU CONSCIOUS? This is a democracy! He does not get to "strike out" whenever he feels like it. We debate, FORM OPINIONS, and vote on releasing our armed might to pillage and destroy a country! OK?

"The world outside of the US is teaming with Warlords, Bullys, Thugs or what ever you want to call them."
Oh, really? Gosh...an US OR THEM political observation. Check out this administration, mein Fuhrer, This is the epitome of dictatorship. Our THUG ignores the people, the congress, his generals,...etc,etc, ...and continues support of HIS mindless bestial "war". It is costing us $100Million per week, 100 dead GIs a month, untold hundreds a month of maimed and wounded guys and gals. Geez..what's the matter with me? I'm just not the "PATRIOT" I used to be.

Posted by: Dean Livingston at February 15, 2007 12:22 PM

For those of you who wish to complain about the losses we suffer over there, REMEMBER THAT THOSE MEN AND WOMEN GAVE UP THEIR LIFE WILLINGLY SO YOU CAN SIT SAFE IN THE STATES WITHOUT A TERRORIST DETONATING A BOMB IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

This is a variation on the old "Walk and Chew Gum" argument combined with the so-called "Flypaper" strategy, and it is devestatingly inaccurate. This idea is based on a false perception of scarcity. The argument goes something like this:

Because the U.S. military is fighting a broad, disparate insurgency (which is made up of both nationalist "resistance" guerillas as well as Al-Qaeda-type international terrorists from other countries) in Iraq, terrorists will not be able to attack us in the U.S.

Think about it for a second - why the hell not? Even if one million or two million or three million terrorists flock to Iraq to fight U.S. soldiers there (and we are NOT seeing anything close to numbers of this magnitude), why would this prevent five, ten, or twenty terrorists from entering the U.S. to attack us here? In fact, I believe the prevalence of this half-baked idea makes it more likely that we will be attacked while the war in Iraq is going on. Think about it from the perspective of information war - if the U.S. public believes we can't be hit while we're fighting overseas, and media types and government officials keep saying it on TV (which is broadcast around the world 24/7), isn't it at least possible that some AQ or other terrorist network cell member thinks to himself: "Oh yeah? You can't be hit? I'll show you!"

That may be farfetched, so I'll back down from that precipice to a much more stable one - the belief that we can't be hit with another terrorist attack while we're at war in Iraq makes us, as citizens, complacent, and complacency is dangerous.

News flash: We CAN be hit again, no matter how many terrorists are in Iraq fighting us.

Our soldiers are brave and they're doing a great job with the crappy hand they've been dealt. But that doesn't mean the military's civilian leadership is pursuing sound policy (see, for example, "flypaper strategy").

Sorry for the rant.

Posted by: Yasonyacky at August 30, 2005 06:24 PM

Folks, let me ask you a question.. Could it be, that the question is not whether we are smart enough, but, are we out smarting ourselves?? I often wonder if it is not possible that we are forever seeking some grande, extraordinary new defensive/offensive weapon to cause a spectacular end to all conflict.. Much as was the case in the ending of WW2.. Could it not be, that there is a perfectly simple, noncomplex solution out there, that would leave all the Great Military Minds scratching their heads, and saying "why didnt I think of that" ?? With all the nanotech, backscatter, jamming, and impulse systems coming of age, could it not be that we just need to pull the door to get it open, instead of push it ??

Posted by: Wild Bill at August 13, 2005 10:59 PM

"The vast majority of "terrorists" fighting us now in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had never done anything hostile towards us before. We're now *creating* "terrorists" (people who have a reason to hate us) faster than we're killing them." Posted by: Ed Cogburn at August 12, 2005 05:08 AM

Terrorist attacks before 9/11

August 9: A suicide bomber in Jerusalem kills seven and wounds 130 in the Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing; Hamas and Islamic Jihad claim responsibility.

2000
October 12: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors.

The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.

1999
December 14: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots

December: Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb US and Israeli tourists in Jordan and pick up 28 suspects as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots

1998
January 3: Gunmen open fire on Shi'a Muslims worshipping in an Islamabad mosque, killing 16 people injuring 25.

1997
November 17: Luxor Massacre – Islamist gunmen attack tourists in Luxor, Egypt, killing 62 people, most of them European and Japanese vacationers.

1995
Bombings in France by a GIA unit led by Khaled Kelkal kill seven and injure more than 100.

1994
December 24: Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by GIA members who planned to crash the plane on Paris but didn't succeed.

1993
June: Failed New York City landmark bomb plot.

February 26: World Trade Center bombing kills 6 and injures over 1000 people.

1986
September 5: Pan Am Flight 73, an American civilian airliner, is hijacked; 22 people die when plane is stormed in Karachi, Pakistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

It goes on ED COGBURN... With Libya being a major player before that. We didn't create these people. WE have forgotten what they have already done. Take the time to follow up each of these incidents with the link provided and understand who the participants are how they are rleated and how some of the attacks were building blocks for attacks like the world trade center and 9/11. It's not just about us as Americans it's about the world as non Islamic radical believers.

The groups we still fight in IRAQ today are ones that buy into the ideological crap that is espoused by the members from previous groups. These are related entities through ideology and with the Internet are now effectively bound together, rather than loose groups with less efeective means of communication and have less of a communications asset. This form of communication is a great asset to them, just as it has been for the women of Iraq.

Posted by: aam8234 at August 12, 2005 11:59 AM

The over-all article and its links is the better value than the original inspiration from the Marine Major. Although the comments on the original article are correct with respect to the dramatic increase in foreign fighters in Iraq (OSS and its partners have done an OSINT study of the foreign fighter population), the Major's core idea is correct and consistent with what we are seeing elsewhere.

Answering the person that asked why we can't mobilize distributed hackers to support CIA and the Pentagon, and why American computing power cannot be applied, there are three aspects to this:

1) 90% of the world, including US hackers, want nothing to do with CIA lawyers and CIA security, both of which are so entrenched in Cold War mind-sets as to make them virtually dysfunctional if not pathological in modern open society.

2) CIA and the rest of the IC are stove-piped bureaucracies--cows lcoked into a feeding trough that secrets are put into--they are no more capable of turning into mustangs grazing the range than George Bush is of morphing into Jimmy Carter.

3) US computing power today is largely broken because it is too expensive, too proprietary, too isolated, and too narrowly focused. Only Google offers a scalable distributed global web architecture for multinational multiagency multidisciplinary multidomain information sharing, and this (M4 IS) is heresy in the eyes of the US intelligence and conventional military mind--they would rather lose than go open source.

Posted by: Robert David Steele at August 12, 2005 09:46 AM

to Ed Cogburn;
Please don't post opinions unverified by facts. You stated "We're now *creating* "terrorists" (people who have a reason to hate us) faster than we're killing them." Give an example of a Terrorist we've created or quit your platitudes. If you are talking generalities - eliminating the safe-haven of Iraq for terrorist recruitment, reorganization, training and planning that it was prior to 9-11 has got to be a big positive. Wedging our forces and intelligence between Syria and Iran is also a big plus. Diverting Lybia from it's terrorist support shouldn't be forgotten. Even in Vietnam, it should be remembered that the Vietcong were never so close to defeat than after the Tet Offensive "victory". If the press had encouraged us to perserve, rather than capitulate the decimation of the South Vietnamese, and possibly the Cambodians could have been averted. But I digress.
I'm not defending "Bush from his Stupidity" because that simply isn't so. He is our leader, and we expect him to lead. That does not entail asking your opinion, Ed, it entails taking the the information he had at hand at the time and solving a problem. He did that. We expect our leaders to strike out and defend our nation when it is under attack - and he did that with the forces he had at hand. To think the hate against America sprang up from our attack on Iraq ignores the history of the world prior to 9-11. We didn't become the "great satan" the day after we cross the border (nor do I think that your opinion of Bush was suddenly changed by that event - you didn't like him before either). Our adversaries don't like us, our philosophy, or our success. When adversaries say they like the American people, but they hate our Government (or Bush, or whomever) they are lieing. They don't like us, they wont avoid killing us, and if they could make us poor, ignorant and enslaved - they would. The world outside of the US is teaming with Warlords, Bullys, Thugs or what ever you want to call them. Just like the Gangs in this country, they thrive on intimidation of other people through brute force. That is the lesson of history - if you are not willing to fight for something, someone else will take it away. The US currently is manning the "moral High-Ground" and the world is watching. The French and Germans can endorse a savoir faire philosophy because they are impotent to change the world. But Great Britain endorses us because they know from experience that to improve the world you must diminish tyrany. We must persevere until the job is done. Freedom for all.

Posted by: bt at August 12, 2005 08:17 AM

I came here from a link, and as a member of the Open Source community, the comparison being made here is misleading and dangerous. There is no connection between the methods of the Open Source software community and Iraq's rebels/terrorists other then the thing that has made both successful: The Internet. That is what's allowing highly decentralized "organizations" (that very word is actually inappropiate) to succeed where they couldn't before. There is no implied conflict in Open Source methodology, just loose, sometimes chaotic, often unorchestrated cooperation among like-minded individuals.

"If we had taken the time to build up our forces first, the terrorists could very easily have regrouped and attacked us again."

Oh please. The vast majority of "terrorists" fighting us now in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had never done anything hostile towards us before. We're now *creating* "terrorists" (people who have a reason to hate us) faster than we're killing them. If you think thats a good thing, you've apparently forgotten that we're a democracy, and democracies have a very hard time fighting unnecessary wars of attrition with no end. Using the term "war" to describe our fight with terrorists was the first mistake, the second was beliving Afghanistan was an example of the rule, and not an exception. Most of this comments section sounds like a bad attempt to defend Bush from his stupidity. Its sad to still see even military personnel continue to ignore the underlying cause of this problem, and spend all their time talking about, and or blaming, technology instead. The problem here is as old as warfare itself, epitomized in the saying "know thy enemy". We had to learn this lesson the hard way once already, but tragically, it seems we must do so again, because many of this generation's "leaders" studied law or business, but never history.

Posted by: Ed Cogburn at August 12, 2005 05:08 AM

Anyone else noticing the irony of hating the United States and everything its stands for while using the very technology that the US military made possible to spread that hate?

I can't be the only one that sees that...

Posted by: nightgod at August 12, 2005 01:04 AM

There were a lot of FUBAR's going into this, BUT (and this is a big BUT) the Marine is right. It was a conscious choice made on the part of the administration. If we had taken the time to build up our forces first, the terrorists could very easily have regrouped and attacked us again. War is hell. That is a simple and greatly understated fact. For those of you who wish to complain about the losses we suffer over there, REMEMBER THAT THOSE MEN AND WOMEN GAVE UP THEIR LIFE WILLINGLY SO YOU CAN SIT SAFE IN THE STATES WITHOUT A TERRORIST DETONATING A BOMB IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I do not pity our soldiers. I do not cry when they die. I rejoice that they were brave enough and loved this country enough to die so that my wife and daughter can be safe. In Biblical terms, Jesus said, "Greater love hath no man than this, to lay his life down for another." The soldiers of this great nation do not just love the U.S. but they love us. And they are willing to pay the ultimate price for us to live. So stop complaining and whining! Be thankful that someone was willing to die for you. As for the insugency; they are becoming more technologically advanced, they are adapting at a rapid rate, and they are waging a PR compaign against us. Yes we need to wage a better PR war. Yes we need to wage a better technological war. Yes we need to adapt faster. AND WE ARE! The problem is not with the administration or with the military or even with Iraq. IT IS WITH US! Americans in general have an attention span that can be measured in minutes, hours and days. We have forgotten why we went over there. As far as I am concerned, the media should be forced to reply the 9-11 attacks at least once a week to remind us. They took them off the air because they were considered too graphic. Have you taken a look at video games, or movies or even television lately? Violence is something today's youth understands. Do not insult our soldiers, their families, the victims of 9-11 or this nation by forgetting why we are there because I can guarantee you that they haven't.

Posted by: John at August 11, 2005 10:56 PM

b and ALex suggest that the web will be AQ's undoing becouse it can present opportunites to argue the potential terrorist away from violence. I disagree.
Once your into the world of AQ terror sites you can ignore the web pages with counter arguements that you done want to hear.

Posted by: Aaron at August 11, 2005 01:30 AM

Agree with you on John Robb, he's been a fav of mine for a while.

Hey, maybe you covered this already - could you say the techniques our military uses, as described in the New Yorker's story from last year, Battle Lessons: What the generals don't know qualify as open source too?

Posted by: AF at August 10, 2005 10:08 PM

Just so happened that Iraq was very conveniently located between Syria and Iran, and nobody would cry over their leader (outside of Chirac and Kofi Annan). As trite as "I'd rather fight 'em there than in Kansas" sounds, I think there is a grain of truth to it. As JSAllison so aptly says above, I guess we just have to keep stomping.

Posted by: Maj David High at August 10, 2005 04:37 PM

First, to C-Low: Thanks for the promotion to general, I can use the pay raise.

Addressing Byron Skinner: My letter was written outside the town of Hit last Christmas Eve. It wasn't written to "blame" anyone, but rather to explain the human element for friends and family back home kept uninformed by a myopic media. Much has changed in the last 8 months -- only this morning Fox began running footage of a "terrorist documentary". The enemy has leaped ahead in sophistication and the very terrain has shifted, especially after Fallujah. By saying that an act of violence could come from a dozen disparate motivations, I explaining that it took us time to learn how their tribal society works...and we're still learning (i.e., that "the man to see" in a town was not the mayor or police chief, but rather the sheik and the cleric). Your blithe comment/critical remark makes me believe you read only the excerpted paragraph from my long letter.

To all: Insurgencies against occupiers have found success throughout history, but NEVER against a democratic, domestic majority. The Israelis don't enjoy relatively greater security because of technology alone; more significant in their successes is their fantastic intelligence (especially their HUMINT infiltration) and a policy of disporportional, surgical response. You shoot a AK at me, I answer with a Hellfire on your Toyota.
While the battle of Fallujah was shaping up, 1st MarDiv was concentrating combat power around that city. My battalion, minus 2 rifle companies, had to fill the void left by 2 battalions. We were stretched, it was difficult and challenging, but every Marine knew our mission's purpose (in tactical parlance it's called an "Economy of Force" mission). We were purposely undermanned to enure sucess in Fallujah. (Plus, any Marine would be ashamed to complain, knowing what our brothers were facing there.) In layman's terms, it's "acceptable risk".
The mantra of "Bush screwed up/was unprepared for post-combat" is getting old. Just as those who whine "no WMD" don't get it. The professionals within DOD and State HOWLED about the dangers of striking so soon, and they were heard. The risk of unpreparedness was understood. But preparing (logistically & diplomatically) an additional year while letting the terrorists keep the initiative was considered a greater risk. War is, essentially, managing dilemmas better than your opponent -- every choice is going to be negative to SOME degree -- and danger, whether to the endstate or to friendly lives, will always be present. This administration made a conscious decision to take the offensive and initiative and accept the risk of unpreparedness for reconstruction. Time was important. By the way, "reconstruction" is not accurate; construction is what we are in fact doing, not only in infrastructure, but in society. Iraqis have never seen a competent, benevolent central government, and thus relied on the centuries-old trbal system. Nationhood is not a strong concept for an average citizen there. When we tried to contract building projects to locals, we had to explain the concept of bidding; the tribal sheik and the dictator had always decided how projects were assigned. Merit and personal accountability are also concepts strange to their culture, and that makes it very hard to establish competent police and military forces. Lastly, a war/battle plan NEVER survives first contact. He who adjusts fastest at the right spot wins. Every day in Iraq is adaptation in TTPs (tactics, techniques, and procedures) by both friend and foe -- only at 21st century speed. My bloviating is finished. And yes, the electronic interconnectivity described above IS scary as hell; it is at the heart of the enemy's adaptiveness. That interconnectivity has also grown immensely simce I wrote my original letter last December. Semper fidelis.

Posted by: Maj David High at August 10, 2005 04:28 PM

Just one more comment in this debate and I'm out of here.

Small Jamming deviced are common in Israel and are available over the internet to anybody other the Americans. They can't be shipped into the United States.

These deives are used in most public conveyances in Israel, that's why making a Mobile Phone call is so hard in that country.

This technology along with RFID's on automobiles (Homeland Security is now using this on the Mexican border now) could save a lot of American and Iraqi lives.

The only reason why the U.S. Colonial Administrators chose not to use this lifesaving technology is that the Mobile Phone and Win-Fi infrastructure franchises for Iraq are Saudi owned.

The picture of President Bush holding hands with a Saudi Prince on the Ranch in Texas is worth a thousand lives.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at August 10, 2005 02:13 PM

The generals point I think was that their is no organized insurgency as much as a divided wild west style criminal free-for-all with a mutual bad man nobody thier really cares for US or the US. The point is that just as in LA or any other X big city the police cant and never will eliminate crime or gangs or mafia groups. Our goal in Iraq was to take down Saddam (everyone agrees a destabalizing force in the middle east) replace him with a some what democratic gov (note arab democracy is a first and will look like early US democracy think 1800's US culture) maybe in 50+yrs women will have equality and all the other things we today accept as normal behavior. The point is something close to Turkey will be stabalizing to the ME were Saddam was just waiting to get strong enought to again do something stupid and destabalize the region. As to the connection of Al Queda and Saddam, I doubt Saddam was barking orders to Bin Laden However it is a proven fact that Saddam DID
1) openly declare hate and support for all who hated the US
2) Paid $25,000 Checks to Suicide Bombers families in Isreal (how long before that practice would have been transferred to Al Quedea as-well)
2) Was a general loon with kids even worse that as soon as we pulled out of no fly would have again slaughtered the Kurds & Shia and then once built back up attacked a neighbor again like he did over and over in the past. (everyone knows our huge military precense in the ME is a lot of the problem attacking Iraq was a pull out stradigy for the ME were we were in a quagmire since 91' and Bush 1's punk out to do what had to be done when we had a monsterous coalition. Yeah some would have dropped out but a lot would have stayed on at least more than today)
3) Many Al Queda had either used Iraq as a transit point or healing place 93' World Trade bomber Zarq ect....
4) Then this reason enough for me alone (After 9-11 Saddam made a national address to the people celebrating the attack on America) In WW2 the Japaneese and Germans didnt like each other but they did both hate Britian. And the US and especially Britian did not like even openly declared Soviet Union a enemy. Hell both of us sent troops and support to fight the Bolshavist pre-soviet-union. But we both hated the Axis powers more. Saddam even if he wasnt a ally today of Al Queda it would have just been a matter of time.

This disorganized terrorist/nationalist sunni racist/bathist/common criminal/opportunist insugency we have rolling in Iraq will wither and die once we begin to draw down and become less and less visible. The hardcores are coming from the neighboring nations giving us a good opportunity to bleed them and thier resources not to mention it not Iraq were would they be going? All we need to do is hold on long enough to train the Iraqi forces so we can pull back to the bases as quick reaction support against major threats and in case any neighbors get jumpy. Bush FUBARed this phase bad real bad
1) he didnt properly prepare the people he gave a best case senerio (garanteed failure) he should have give worst case in the begining simple harping over and over Iraq phase would be 8yrs long with over 20k dead worst case senerio.
2) that mission accomplished crap should have been 2 part 1-one mission accomplished in fast effective assault and conquer new standard / 2-now we move to the HARD part occupation of a hostile territory were it is inbread to hate us and our cultural ways long hard bloody.
3) Information lock from the begining the news and info should have been restricted like GW1 every week or so we should get briefing (swartzkolf like) of what went good and bad since last brief. The terrorist bombs always happen to go off just in time for the US 9am news cycle morning shows Hmmmm wonder why? Terrorism is only effective if it can terrorize its enemy freedom of speech is good but in war it is war.
4) You would think that after Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq that the military would figure out that todays wars are not won on the battle field we have that on lock they are won on the US media shows and just like Coca Cola has advertisers the military should to. The military needs to wake up to the fact that they need a dedicated PR advertising team Corporation style to sell whatever action the military is doing currently. Example thier should be a line up of military leausons ready with awarness of the situation on the front waiting to go on all of the news shows and they should be requesting to get on if not asked. When on they should represent the military prospective on the ground dont try to be impartial after all it dont matter If should have or this or that Political they should only comment on todays operations and sucesses and goals. PR is very very very important in a Democracy. Bush thinks the power comes from the gov that is as*-backwards it comes from the poeple. Bush should be rallying the people up for war they attacked us multiple times 93' world trade cole embasies ect... we either need to convert, accept a growing death toll of our civilians (each attack gets more effective from 93' on), or stand up and FIGHT do whatever it takes to either defeat this enemy of make them respect us not as a paper tiger but as a Barbarian like they used to call us. We dont need them to like us we need them to fear our retribution.

Posted by: C-Low at August 10, 2005 12:19 PM

Are people actually scared of information and knowledge? Its been open-access at libraries for decades for anyone who would like to read up on military tactics and training. Even now, you can visit Globalsecurity.org and read all the US Field Manuals (from Artillery to Z) as Alex pointed out. Even a read of a spy novel would reveal some tricks. So what's the problem?

It is common knowledge that the internet is routinely monitored, so why do people assume resistance fighters would use it to communicate?surely their communications would also be subject to the same surveillance.

I'm also surprised that most of you seem to have missed the english resistance sites run by Americans (unit371), Canadians (jihadunspun) et al who host videos, forums allow people to TALK without fear of persecution.

I also think its ironic that the internet bills these guys are running up are being paid to american communications companies such as Comcast.

Finally, no one owns the internet so please leave it alone. I'm happy with it, thanks.

Posted by: Steven Snell at August 10, 2005 10:41 AM

Trying to attack websites is missing an important point about the internet - it's not the protocols or the mechanics that matter, it's the social agreement to exchange information in a particular way. (The End-to-End philosophy)

They could just as well use similar structures with different data bearers - trees of telephone calls, email lists, couriers. Not as well, mind. And another point: the marginal cost of mirroring a website is not very high. I'd suspect it costs us more to shut one down than it costs them to set one up.

Also, much of the information isn't in "jihadi websites". If you need information about making explosives, the properties of mobile phone base stations, or US tactical doctrine, you can find it on the web without going anywhere officially Suspicious. It's all about ad hoc groups who subscribe to the ideology of the jihadi movement (which spread pretty well pre-web), use the huge availability of technical information, and coordinate at the lowest possible level.

Posted by: Alex at August 10, 2005 10:03 AM

It's easy enough to take down these sites, but they will just move them somewhere else.

There is a serious effort to collect information from these internet spaces (Web sites, FTP sites, Email lists, etc)

There is a serious effort to corrupt the information on these ineternet spaces

Taking the internet away in Iraq is a step back from the goal we are working toward. Beyond that China has never had good luck useing firewall to keep infomation out, there is always a way around them.

All of this together means that this has to be a fight for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Once we have that the Terrorists can't win.

Posted by: The Cenobyte at August 10, 2005 09:49 AM

At higher levels of conflict your goal (one of many) is to break the will of the opposing leader group. If there is no defined 'leader' than you are reduced to breaking the will of the individual actors. This seems to be the situation that the author is describing. Previously al-qaeda has been described as an idea more than a distinct organization and this seems to track with that.

So we're faced with large numbers of locusts and no definable point of origin, no center of mass to operate against. Guess we'll just have to keep stomping.

Posted by: JSAllison at August 10, 2005 09:43 AM

There is a very positive aspect missing.

The Internet also allows to effectivly argue against terrorism in Muslim communities. It allows dissidents in dictator countries to communicate. It allows discussion and proliferation of counterterrorism methods.

It would take years for John Robb's ideas to trickle down to those who need to know them without the Internet.

It is just another form of communication which works for BOTH sides. Just as printing did after Gutenberg.

Posted by: b at August 10, 2005 09:35 AM

why arent we shutting these sites down? becouse we cant. These sites are fully mobile, changing locations regularly. frequently hosted on hijacked systems. Theyve been under attack. it hasnt shut them down.

Nicholas asks: why cant we shut down their access in Iraq? maybe we can. but the implication of the first wapo article, and its a really scary implication, is that disafected muslims all over the worlds will start forming terrorist cells and comitting terrorist acts with no contact, training or recruiting with any member that we might consider an AQ leader.

Posted by: Aaron at August 10, 2005 01:04 AM

To address the question of "Wireless Sites" and closing them down.

When was the last time a "Command Detonated Bomb" was set off in Israel?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at August 10, 2005 12:08 AM

I actually saw a fantastic show the other night on the Discovery-Times Channel about al-Qaida's media strategy and U.S. efforts to counter it. There was an entire segment on one man, an IT worker in Colorado (who apparently can read Arabic) He finds sites that espouse hatred and terrorist ideals, then tracks down the host. Once the host receives an e-mail informing them that one of their hosted sites is being used for al-Qaida propaganda and informational purposes, the sites are almost immediately removed. Beliefs or not, it's probably bad business to host terrorist sites.

Posted by: AF at August 9, 2005 09:40 PM

In many ways, it is the Democratic Internet Ideal: A redundant, distributed communication mechanism.

It brings up the real question: Within Iraq at least, why should the Internet be free? China does a pretty good job keeping the net restricted, why don't we buy the same things from cisco and have our puppets, err, the Iraqi constitutional authority, set up a censorship regimn.

The biggest weakness from the Insurgents point of view is that the data does have to be reachable by a wide audience, thus instances are easier to find and shut down. Covert channels are good for communication among known entities, but aren't so good for broadcast dissemination of informaiton.

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at August 9, 2005 07:59 PM

Wow - such a democratic bunch of insurgents; it sounds like early internet theorists talking about disintermediation and decentralization.

Posted by: DM at August 9, 2005 07:31 PM

replying to David:

Yes, it should be fairly easy to take down these sites, but that should be weighed against the value in keeping them alive to conduct surveillance (not hard if they're using an open forum) and to insert disinformation (as Steve pointed out).

Shutting them down may mean that they move to another means of communication that is not as easy to monitor or disrupt.

Posted by: Geoff at August 9, 2005 07:16 PM

The Major's remarks are interesting. Although his points may in fact be valid he appears to want to lay blame for the insurgency in Iraq anyplace but as a massive counter intelligence failure.

Although inter group information passing is surely critical to a successful insurgent operations it is not a sure fire formula for success. The knowledge of where to plant an IED, the time when the American's are not looking to install the decice, what type of target are you going to be attacking and the expected protection of that target are what is giving the insurgents tactical success.

Information security with in the American forces has clearly been braoched. The insurgents are in fact sitting in on mission planning. Until this problem can be solved the insurgents are in control and can operate at will.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at August 9, 2005 07:05 PM

I assume, and this is a big assumption, the "network" is a little more complex than a few webpages that could easily be brought down. Do we know if they use other protocols to pass information? Ftp perhaps? Anyhow, I think it's worth looking into.

Posted by: Bret at August 9, 2005 05:50 PM

Maybe we, as concerned patriots could volunteer our "services"... I can think of a few people who'd do it just for the he** of it....

Posted by: David at August 9, 2005 05:38 PM

My question is this. With all the computing power the US posseses, why are these sites still running? Are there no hackers out there willing to lend their skills to the CIA/USMilitary for an actual good cause??? Speaking as someone in the webdesign industry, its really not that difficult to make a site drop, unless someone's spent buttloads of $$$ to protect it(i.e. corporate networks)......

Posted by: David at August 9, 2005 05:36 PM

I wonder if the military/CIA/whoever is spamming them with lies, advertisements and dangerous half-truths? I've set up several message board type communities and that's always a tremendous problem.

Seemingly it would be quite easy to spread enough disinformation to make the whole network unreliable and dangerous.

Posted by: Steve French at August 9, 2005 05:31 PM

Great article!!

Posted by: jessica at August 9, 2005 03:39 PM