Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:25:15 -0400 To: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com> Subject: Ominous article: Military response may target technology Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:07:49 +0100 From: "Hallam Rebel" <Hallamrebel@ukgateway.net> Subject: Ominous article: Military response may target technology
A chilling op-ed from today's Telegraph (an interesting counterpoint to their "Free Country" campaign). Remind me what Ben Franklin had to say on the subject of freedom vs safety generally:
"Military response may target technology (Filed: 13/09/2001)
John Keegan, Defence Editor, looks at the options available to the Bush administration
PRESIDENT BUSH has announced that the United States will take military action against those who have perpetrated the "acts of war" which led to the destruction of the World Trade Centre. He has not specified a time, nor has he threatened any particular geographical target.
There lies the difficulty. Acts of war have been committed but the enemy is waging not war but "asymmetrical warfare", a form of violence which apparently cannot be matched by conventional military response.
"Asymmetrical warfare" has been popular with strategic analysts for years, but, in so far as it had any substance, it took the form of theoretical and difficult articles in obscure military journals.
Suddenly, "asymmetrical warfare" knocks down giant buildings and kills thousands. America urgently needs to discover how to get on to an equal footing with the asymmetrical warriors.
It will not be impossible. For once, in a presidential statement necessarily composed largely of platitudes, Mr Bush spoke several profound truths: that, against a state bent on retaliation, as America is, its enemies will not be able to hide forever and cannot hope for permanently safe harbours.
The idea which gives terrorism so much of its psychological power, that its agents operate in free space, without bases, without residencies, is completely wrong.
Terrorists, like any other group of human beings, need places to live and work and, in their case, to train. Such places may lie in remote areas and be concealed in difficult terrain but they exist, can be found and will be hit.
What military means will the Americans use? Air power has near immediacy of response, outreach to any distance from the country's shores and, a recent development but a now established quality, high precision.
Missile bombardment has the same characteristics but, if retaliation became protracted, it would be limited by numbers. Air-dropped bombs, even of the smart sort, are far more plentiful.
If American intelligence decides, sooner or later, that it knows the Islamic group responsible, an air or missile attack, separately or combined, on a training area is likely to follow.
There are several in south-eastern Afghanistan. They have been attacked before but not with determination. America is now likely to persist and, if attacked repetitively, effective damage would be done. Washington also has the option to employ its now very effective Special Forces in a penetration role.
The Israelis demonstrated at Entebbe the feasibility of such intrusions even at very long range and, though America failed memorably in the hostage rescue attempt in Teheran, its Special Forces are now far more efficient and better equipped.
Terrorists, who do not enjoy the early warning and air defence capabilities available to conventional forces, are vulnerable to surprise attacks.
Bombardment and penetration operations might both entail the violation of national sovereignty. It does not seem probable that America is in a mood to care.
Indeed, if American intelligence is able to establish state complicity in the outrages, Mr Bush may well resolve to mount major conventional operations, Gulf war-style, against the culpable government.
At the outer limits of the effort to restore symmetry to war-making, it is possible to glimpse what might be thought an almost inconceivable military measure: interference with electronic communications.
The internet and the mobile telephone have become so central to everyday life that it might be thought impossible to carry on without either. It should be remembered, however, that neither existed 20 years ago and the world managed perfectly well.
Pessimistic intelligence analysts have always warned that the development of completely free communication, beyond government control, could easily give rise to evil consequences.
So it undoubtedly has in this case. The mobile telephone and email, probably encrypted, must have been the means by which the atrocities were co-ordinated.
The American intelligence community must undoubtedly now be considering measures to take management of radio telephone communications under state control, and the distributors of email as well.
Those who will not obey would suffer the consequences, for their installations do indeed provide conspicuous and fragile targets.
Those include satellites. Offensive action against what seem to be the links of modern life may also seem the most improbable of military options.
But the links have just shown themselves to be those of death also. When death stares in the face, the harshest choices become acceptable."
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/