- In his videotaped entry into the US election campaign
last week, Osama bin Laden said that al Qaida plans to continue the policy
of "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. He said that "we,
(meaning al Qaida) "alongside the Mujahidin, (the US-sponsored Afghan
fighters against the USSR) "bled Russia for 10 years, until it went
bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. Already, as bin Laden calculates
in his message, the numbers are stacked against the United States. He says
that the total cost of the 9-11 operations were about $500,000. But US
costs and losses from those events and their aftermath exceeded $500 billion.
Therefore, as bin Laden figures it, al Qaida can get a million dollars
worth of bankrupting energy out of every dollar it spends against the United
States.
-
- What bin Laden has fingered is the wildly differing costs
between running al Qaida, the US-designated principal world terrorist organization,
versus running the world,s most powerful military organization (the United
States armed forces plus associated intelligence, communications and logistical
support, the national security community, and expensive service contractors
such as Halliburton). While the actual numbers are anybody,s guess, depending
on what one chooses to count"or not to count"against the War
on Terrorism, the cost/investment differences are phenomenal.
-
- Bin Laden numbers may not even be ballpark. Last year
the President dubbed Iraq as the "principal front in the War on Terrorism.
That war, in principle, was initiated to eliminate or contain al Qaida.
Costs of Iraq operations alone have been zooming up toward $200 billion;
that quagmire is hardly over, and it does not include the costs of 9-11
or of War on Terrorism activities elsewhere in the world. In that light,
bin Laden may radically have undervalued al Qaida,s $500,000 investment
in 9-11. His return eventually could be five million or more on the dollar.
-
- But the key to the bin Laden calculus is not his numbers.
One must ask: What does he expect to happen? How can he be so sure that
the United States will do battle with al Qaida at such an extravagant and
costly level of engagement?
-
- Here bin Laden has done a character analysis, it would
seem, and he has reached critical judgments about the key players. What
is he betting will happen?
-
- His first judgment has to be that he believes the United
States will continue the War on Terrorism until he, Osama bin Laden, is
the last man standing. His second judgment probably is that the United
States will continue to use its military capabilities as the central anti-terrorism
weapons, meaning the United States will not put terrorism where most governments
put it, as a law enforcement problem. His third judgment may well be that
US intelligence, and that available from third countries, will not improve
materially. His fourth judgment, no doubt, is that the American public,
having re-elected George W. Bush as their wartime President, will put up
with"and pay for-- the game by whatever rules Bush chooses to play.
Bin Laden appears to have expected that Kerry, if he had won, would have
played by the same rules.
-
- The striking feature of the bin Laden tape is his cool,
confident, even avuncular delivery. There is a touch of sadness in some
of his lines, as if he regrets how badly the American people have been
misled, and he thinks he knows how the game will end. Talking around US
leadership to the American people, looks like a clever ploy, but it is
not a ploy if he believes, as he well may at this stage, that American
leadership is not reachable.
-
- The wellspring of his confidence, however, is the asymmetry
of terrorism warfare. With his $500,000, bin Laden recruited, sustained,
and trained 18 or so people to steal and use more than a hundred million
dollars worth of equipment they needed for the 9-11 operations. All of
that was done more or less in plain sight. The chance that another attack
of comparable severity could be mounted has not been much altered, if at
all, by the War on Terror. In a world population of 6.5 billion people,
the entire membership of al Qaida and affiliates in at least half a dozen
countries are virtually invisible. When they strike, where they strike,
and how they strike are largely their calls. Why, bin Laden made fairly
clear: The treatment of the Palestinian people by Israel is the core complaint,
and nothing is happening to make it go away or diminish. Nothing in the
Bush or Kerry campaigns suggested a retreat from totally one-sided support
for Israel.
-
- Bin Laden can expect that the War on Terrorism will go
on, if necessary, for at least four more years, because Bush promised to
fight that war vigorously, and more than half the voters favored him. Bin
Laden knows that the battlefield is tilted in his favor, because most of
the weapons and the forces in the American military arsenal are either
too bulky or too visible to succeed against stealthy adversaries. He knows
that with his affiliated members and cells scattered across several countries,
the ability of even a unilateralist United States to attack is limited.
He surely knows that, as most of the world,s media have pointed out, US,
British and other Coalition forces are over-extended in a scruffy tangle
with insurgents in Iraq. Few if any forces therefore are available for
operations in any new battle zone.
-
- But in the end, bin Laden has made a judgment about American
leadership. He obviously does not foresee a change in game plan. He assumes
no attempt at dialogue or negotiation. He does not say so, but he appears
to assume that the fairly light pattern of attacks worldwide will be sufficient
to keep Americans focused on the War. He obviously does not believe that
the enormous asymmetry of forces"his scattered clusters numbering
15-20,000 al Qaida members versus the world,s only superpower"will
cause US leadership to change its habits. He believes that continued fighting
of the War on Terrorism by the present means will break the US bank, but
he does not appear to think that fear of breaking the bank will stop the
American President. Ultimately, bin Laden does not have to do much but
stay alive. Our defeat, as he sees it, will be self-inflicted.
-
- **********
-
- The writer is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer
of the US Department of State and former Chairman of the Department of
International Studies of the National War College. He will welcome comment
at wecanstopit@charter.net
-
-
- Comment From Name Withheld 11-9-4
-
- Dear Mr. Arnold,
-
- I've just finished your article posted on the "Rense"
site. Very clearly you're a bit more "in the know" than the adverage
bear. As many folks who've worked in the fields of Counterterror are aware,
"follow the $" is a prime directive.
-
- I have some questions however.
-
- #1 Why should we believe that Osama Bin Laden is, in
reality, a "free-will" agent of the Mujahedin, or genuinely a
trusted agent of the Muslim Brotherhood? Mr. Bodanzkey attempted to make
that case in his book, but I didn't feel that it was convincing. Why?
-
- Simply because I credit the CIA with a bit more savy
in maintaining their "field agents" than does the adverage American
citizen. And, that infamous standard "Once in, always in" has
never been disproven as falacious. Why would they let OBL go?
-
- #2 For argument's sake, I will suppose that OBL is,
in fact, working "free". Then, why would he not realize the great
vulnerability of this Nation's "small towns culture", & thusly
why would he not foist an op during this Election season? I submit, that
you are correct that he HAS, in deed, correctly read the "psyce"
of this Nation, and thusly, he realizes the susceptability of the "common
fo! lk" to a genuine threat to their own neighborhood causing them
to panic & over-react. Any further thoughts on the legitimacy of that
scenario?
-
- #3 Do you believe that there is NO LONGER a legitimate
antiterror unit or capability in the US Military establishment? What of
S.E.A.L. TEAM 6? I submit that we in deed have just such a capability &
force structure at hand, but, very possibly, [due to poor maintinance or
program upgrades] this capability has been deminished or is, [for whatever
reason] being withheld. Any thoughts?
-
- Thankfully yours, Name Withheld
-
- Reply From Terry Arnold 11-9-4
-
- I suspect that you are more "in the know" than
you allow, given your vocabulary and your questions. The three issues
you raise are tricky, because they have several different plausible levels
of response.
-
- Number one: Why should we believe that Osama is a free
agent? Among the scenarios I dabble with, he is not a free agent in all
cases.
-
- He might , for example, work for Mossad, and anyone who
believes that Mossad and its employers are not up to stabbing us in the
back should read more widely and deeply, especially on the Internet, among
other things should know the facts of the attack on the USS Liberty.
-
- He could, for example, work for the Saudis, one or more
of the extended royal covey princes who have their own ideas about how
to chase the US out of the Middle East. In that instance, the tale of Osama
as the outcast son of George H.W. Bush/Carlysle Group bin Laden family
connections could be true at the same time that some other prince(s) adopt
him as their stalking horse.
-
- He could, for example, work for the Russians, but that
would be an ironic wrinkle in the already murky tale of the the defeat
of the Red Army by ragtag Mujahidin.
-
- It is also tempting to think he might work for the Chinese,
because his kind of destruction of the focus and the resources of the United
States is enormously beneficial to Bejing's power ambitions for the future.
-
- On the Internet there is an enormous amount of argument,
speculation and information (all of it hard to nail down) that he is a
US tool, and continues to work for the CIA, as he reportedly did in Afghanistan.
Your guess on that is as good or better than mine.
-
- In the end, however--in my estimate at least--the simplest
answer is that he is his own person.
-
- Your question two is about tactical choices: What targets
best suit the realization of his agenda? Small town America serves that
purpose if all he wants to do is make us uncomfortable. But any determined
terrorist can do that without the alleged membership, organization and
working capital of Osama. Attacking some small town in Idaho-- for instance
the stomping ground of the largely defunct Skinhead movement--would certainly
make people of the state whopping mad, and it would annoy Washington, but
not to the extent of starting or even continuing the war.
-
- The threat, as bin Laden probably would define it, would
have to be US system/life threatening to achieve that. His explanation
of why he chose the Towers is consistent with this. But the larger truth
is having done that, all he has to do is stand there, looking threatening,
to keep the system on its toes. He does not have to waste bullets, so
long as we consider him a threat. The bogey man theory of this is he does
not even have to be real.
-
- Your third question is very interesting, but the answer
is complicated. Yes, I think we have a very capable military counter-terrorism
strike force. However, its principal utility lies in incident response,
or, given very timely and accurate who, how, where, when intelligence,
a very good counter-terrorism tool indeed. The problem is that both those
situations are at the margin of the real world.
-
- The real world consists of a widely dispersed--terrorist
groups in 70 or more countries--and loosely defined--bombs, kidnappings,
arson, hostage takings and resource acquiring crimes-- threat pattern.
The main weight of it centers on risks for Americans living abroad, not
for people in the United States. While we have been struggling with terrorism
for decades, Osama is the only one (at least as non-state actor) we have
ever considered a significant threat to the United States itself, and that
is based on one example.
-
- But the nub of your question lies with the character
of the battlefield. Terrorism poses the loosely configured enemy I have
described against an army standing out in the open. That will never work,
and everybody with any sense of the problem knows it is not the answer.
In fact, many serious people, including Terry Arnold, believe that there
is no answer to terrorism on the battlefield. But if there is no answer
on the battlefield, then we are wasting our money on the most elaborate
military organization on the planet, unless we have some other enemy nobody
has mentioned other than our own stupidity.
-
- Osama probably has figured out, maybe gambles on the
probability that our investment in increasingly costly and elaborate military
systems and strategies will both deceive us into believing we are strong
when we are not, and prevent us from examining the human misery, repression,
injustice, and lack of participation that are the energy sources for much
of the terrorism that strikes when people have had enough. At the same
time, the point of my article, is we will bankrupt ourselves. He and others
who believe as he does, whether he works for them or not, will have won.
-
- Thank you for your note. You are one of the reasons
I write.
-
- Terry Arnold
- Comment
From Name Withheld
11-9-4
-
- Dear Mr. Arnold,
-
- I've just finished your article posted on the "Rense"
site. Very clearly you're a bit more "in the know" than the adverage
bear. As many folks who've worked in the fields of Counterterror are aware,
"follow the $" is a prime directive.
-
- I have some questions however.
-
- #1 Why should we believe that Osama Bin Laden is, in
reality, a "free-will" agent of the Mujahedin, or genuinely a
trusted agent of the Muslim Brotherhood? Mr. Bodanzkey attempted to make
that case in his book, but I didn't feel that it was convincing. Why?
-
- Simply because I credit the CIA with a bit more savy
in maintaining their "field agents" than does the adverage American
citizen. And, that infamous standard "Once in, always in" has
never been disproven as falacious. Why would they let OBL go?
-
- #2 For argument's sake, I will suppose that OBL is,
in fact, working "free". Then, why would he not realize the great
vulnerability of this Nation's "small towns culture", & thusly
why would he not foist an op during this Election season? I submit, that
you are correct that he HAS, in deed, correctly read the "psyce"
of this Nation, and thusly, he realizes the susceptability of the "common
fo! lk" to a genuine threat to their own neighborhood causing them
to panic & over-react. Any further thoughts on the legitimacy of that
scenario?
-
- #3 Do you believe that there is NO LONGER a legitimate
antiterror unit or capability in the US Military establishment? What of
S.E.A.L. TEAM 6? I submit that we in deed have just such a capability &
force structure at hand, but, very possibly, [due to poor maintinance or
program upgrades] this capability has been deminished or is, [for whatever
reason] being withheld. Any thoughts?
-
- Thankfully yours,
Name Withheld
-
-
- Reply From Terry Arnold
11-9-4
-
- I suspect that you are more "in the know" than
you allow, given your vocabulary and your questions. The three issues
you raise are tricky, because they have several different plausible levels
of response.
-
- Number one: Why should we believe that Osama is a free
agent? Among the scenarios I dabble with, he is not a free agent in all
cases.
-
- He might , for example, work for Mossad, and anyone who
believes that Mossad and its employers are not up to stabbing us in the
back should read more widely and deeply, especially on the Internet, among
other things should know the facts of the attack on the USS Liberty.
-
- He could, for example, work for the Saudis, one or more
of the extended royal covey princes who have their own ideas about how
to chase the US out of the Middle East. In that instance, the tale of Osama
as the outcast son of George H.W. Bush/Carlysle Group bin Laden family
connections could be true at the same time that some other prince(s) adopt
him as their stalking horse.
-
- He could, for example, work for the Russians, but that
would be an ironic wrinkle in the already murky tale of the the defeat
of the Red Army by ragtag Mujahidin.
-
- It is also tempting to think he might work for the Chinese,
because his kind of destruction of the focus and the resources of the United
States is enormously beneficial to Bejing's power ambitions for the future.
-
- On the Internet there is an enormous amount of argument,
speculation and information (all of it hard to nail down) that he is a
US tool, and continues to work for the CIA, as he reportedly did in Afghanistan.
Your guess on that is as good or better than mine.
-
- In the end, however--in my estimate at least--the simplest
answer is that he is his own person.
-
- Your question two is about tactical choices: What targets
best suit the realization of his agenda? Small town America serves that
purpose if all he wants to do is make us uncomfortable. But any determined
terrorist can do that without the alleged membership, organization and
working capital of Osama. Attacking some small town in Idaho-- for instance
the stomping ground of the largely defunct Skinhead movement--would certainly
make people of the state whopping mad, and it would annoy Washington, but
not to the extent of starting or even continuing the war.
-
- The threat, as bin Laden probably would define it, would
have to be US system/life threatening to achieve that. His explanation
of why he chose the Towers is consistent with this. But the larger truth
is having done that, all he has to do is stand there, looking threatening,
to keep the system on its toes. He does not have to waste bullets, so
long as we consider him a threat. The bogey man theory of this is he does
not even have to be real.
-
- Your third question is very interesting, but the answer
is complicated. Yes, I think we have a very capable military counter-terrorism
strike force. However, its principal utility lies in incident response,
or, given very timely and accurate who, how, where, when intelligence,
a very good counter-terrorism tool indeed. The problem is that both those
situations are at the margin of the real world.
-
- The real world consists of a widely dispersed--terrorist
groups in 70 or more countries--and loosely defined--bombs, kidnappings,
arson, hostage takings and resource acquiring crimes-- threat pattern.
The main weight of it centers on risks for Americans living abroad, not
for people in the United States. While we have been struggling with terrorism
for decades, Osama is the only one (at least as non-state actor) we have
ever considered a significant threat to the United States itself, and that
is based on one example.
-
- But the nub of your question lies with the character
of the battlefield. Terrorism poses the loosely configured enemy I have
described against an army standing out in the open. That will never work,
and everybody with any sense of the problem knows it is not the answer.
In fact, many serious people, including Terry Arnold, believe that there
is no answer to terrorism on the battlefield. But if there is no answer
on the battlefield, then we are wasting our money on the most elaborate
military organization on the planet, unless we have some other enemy nobody
has mentioned other than our own stupidity.
-
- Osama probably has figured out, maybe gambles on the
probability that our investment in increasingly costly and elaborate military
systems and strategies will both deceive us into believing we are strong
when we are not, and prevent us from examining the human misery, repression,
injustice, and lack of participation that are the energy sources for much
of the terrorism that strikes when people have had enough. At the same
time, the point of my article, is we will bankrupt ourselves. He and others
who believe as he does, whether he works for them or not, will have won.
-
- Thank you for your note. You are one of the reasons
I write.
-
- Terry Arnold
|
