Can Decapitation Kill the Beast?

The good news is Atiyah abd al-Rahman, al-Qaeda's number two, was killed recently by a U.S. drone attack in northwest Pakistan.  The Obama administration has been making the argument that since Osama Bin laden was killed in May, the terrorist group may be in its last throws. A few more successes like Bin Laden and al-Rahman and it is game over.

This seems to be more wishful thinking and political rhetoric than sound strategic analysis.  Although I do not fully discount the possibility of intentional misinformation directed at the enemy, it is not likely given liberal's past opposition to potential disinformation tactics discussed during the Bush administration.

The administrations optimism might reflect a misunderstanding of militant Islamism and its adherents. al-Qaeda and similar terrorist groups are not really analogous to the mafia crime families Americans are so familiar with because of "The Godfather" and "The Sopranos." Strip away its mythos, rituals and posturing and the Mafia is a business.  Make the cost of doing business too high through wire taps, arrests and prosecutions and you can cripple it.

Al-Qaeda is not a business concerned with risk versus profit. It is a group attached to a movement - a religious-ideological imperative animated by a sincere belief in the justness of their cause. Militant Islamism exists in a world defined by Allah, the Koran, Mohammed's life and fourteen centuries of history that teaches the waging Jihad until there is nothing but Islam.  There were long stretches of time when this imperative was suppressed by strong infidels, but it always simmered below the surface. Unfortunately we are living in a period where militant Islamism has boiled to the surface with a vengeance.

Conditions are favorable for an ascendent militant Islam that cows Muslims and is misunderstood and even coddled by the largely liberal, multicultural West. Terrorist groups on a mission from God can be destroyed, but is highly doubtful targeted killings and other limited counterterrorism tactics alone will bring strategic victory.  I am a little suspicious that the Obama administration's tactics and rhetoric are designed to allow it to make the case, in time for the 2012 election, that it has effectively neutralized al-Qaeda and won the "Overseas Contingency Operation" formally known as the War on Terror.

Disband the CIA

Congratulations to the dedicated and hard working Central Intelligence Agency and military personnel who worked for years to find Osama Bin Laden and make the mission that killed him possible.  There is a lot of credit to go around going back six or seven years as bits of intelligence were culled from informants, ease dropping, interrogations and captured documents. This is all good news - the bad news is that twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union the CIA has lived out its usefulness as a Cold War institution that looked out on relatively static, bipolar world defined by the United States vs. the Soviet Union.

Static is not a word used much to describe the world after 9/11, but words like upheavals, fluid and fragmented fit pretty well. Since the 1940's the agency has become bureaucratic tangle of regulations, interests and turf battles - a stereotypical Washington concern that employs some spies. Friction and inefficiency define civilian government and although the military is far from perfect, putting intelligence back in the hands of the military is the best solution.

Military intelligence is as old as militaries and worked pretty well much of the time because the military was producing intelligence for use by the military. The CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence etc. only add layers and often barrier between the gathering, analyzing, dissemination and eventual use.  "Streamlining" needs to be a watch word just as "jointness" and "net-centric" are.  The fewer the agencies, organizations and people between the collector and user of the intelligence the better.

National security would benefit from a lean intelligence apparatus composed of Army Intelligence and Naval Intelligence.  This reset leaves room for entities like the National Security Agency which is already run by the pentagon. Existing laws would have to be modified by congress to accommodate these changes that would make U.S. intelligence more nimble and more accountable.

Limits of Counterterrorism Operations

The spectacularly successful raid into pakistan by SEAL Team Six that killed Osama Bin Laden highlighted what is best about targeted counterterrorism raids in the War on Terror - a high risk operation that reaped a big reward.  Unfortunately the recent operation in Afghanistan that resulted in the death of more than thirty special operations troops, including more than twenty SEALs underscores the high risk nature of aggressive operations that usually find commando units out numbered and out gunned by enemy forces at the point of attack.  According to accounts Army Rangers needed assistance so the big CH-47 twin rotor helicopter carrying the SEALs was diverted to help them and at some point was shot out of the sky by a Taliban RPG.

Don't forget to take a look at some of my articles at eHow.com and Listosaur.com.

An Army of One

The Army replaced its slogan, "An Army of One" with "Army Strong," but it may someday need to go back to it with development continuing on the XOS Exoskeleton. The weapon system is being created at Sarcos-Raytheon, a U.S. military facility in Utah and could just change the face of warfare forever.

It can walk, climb stairs and run with hydraulic components duplicating and augmenting the soldier's movements. While the XOS has a long way to go, it is not hard to imagine where the Army would like to take this: the Mobile Infantry power suits of "Starship Trooper" fame. Perhaps in a decade or so these suits could be tank, gunship, cannon and infantry platoon all rolled into one. If this technology was made to work than the Army would theoretically only need about 1,200 grunts instead of the 49,000 it currently fields.

Hiding in Plain Sight

There is no doubt that the U.S. military has a lot on its plate including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, transformation and looming budget cuts.  With all of this to deal with you have to wonder why the services have no been able to get their act together when it comes to camouflage.

 The particular digital patterns used by the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force seems like a minor issue at best. Maybe so, but why then is everyone still on a different page? The Army decided on a digital greenish-tan pattern, the Marines went with a more brown variation, but both continue to perform studies and are considering making changes. The Navy rolled out an eye-catching, but inexplicable sci-fi, bluish-green pattern that seems designed to blend in with the ocean.  The Air Force also went digital, but in a salute to nostalgia, opted for a tiger stripe pattern.

The military services have preached jointness and inter-service cooperation for the last two decades and they made some progress, but cooperating on a workable and economical camouflage uniform is a bridge too far. If they cannot solve this  then how are the really tough decisions regarding future weapon systems, force structure and strategic planning going to get done?

U.S. Army Marine Corps?

The last time the Marine Corps conducted an opposed amphibious landing was at Inchon, South Korea in September of 1950.  A lot has changed in sixty-one years, but the Marine Corps remains. What is to come of the Corps as the 21st century unfolds? Lt. General Dennis Hejlik wants to retain COIN skills as the Corps is steered back to its traditional role and away from its post 9/11 role as a conventional infantry outfit.  The problem is that the Marines' traditional role is amphibious assaults of defended beaches and its apogee came on Iwo Jima in 1945.

Today's missile technology makes an Inchon or an Iwo Jima type lading almost inconceivable today. This means hover crafts amphibious troop carriers are obsolete and amphibious assault ships are inefficient as currently configured. They need to be redesigned as helicopter/osprey assault ships or perhaps their function could be transfered to some existing and future aircraft carriers.

The Marine Corps must embrace a COIN role and its well positioned to do so as it is a lighter, more nimble force than the Army. More accurately, the Corps resembles the lighter Army units such as the 101st Air Assault and 82nd Airborne so it might make sense to blend the Corps into the Army. (Before Marines start sending me threats they might consider why it would be worse to be part of the Army than to be part of the Navy.) While the glory days of the past cannot be recaptured, with some reorganization, the Corps can remain a vital part of America's military in the 21st century.