Terrorism is not cheap

[albion]

Just say no to all that "boxcutter" b.s!<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Accounting for Terror: Debunking the Paradigm of Inexpensive Terrorism</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>An increasingly accepted argument holds that terrorism has become a cheap enterprise. Louise Richardson, executive dean of the Radcliff Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, made just that case while testifying before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 2003. “The crucial point to bear in mind about terrorism, of course, is that it is cheap,”<br><br>[...] The image of inexpensive terrorism is often conveyed in the newsmedia. After the July 7, 2005, London transit bombings, ABC News aired photographs of bombs found in one terrorist’s car; they were made from glass bottles packed with explosives and nails. The photos were terrifying—bomb components made from seemingly ordinary household materials. The Economist wrote, “The young men who tried but failed to detonate homemade bombs on London’s transport system on July 21 packed explosives into cheap plastic containers . . . the sort of things that housewives use to store leftover curry.” <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The impression left was that suicide terror attacks are frighteningly simple operations using everyday items—not the kind of operations that run up large expenses.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>[...But] terrorist attacks incur costs besides operational expenses in the days and weeks before the attacks. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Networks and infrastructure in place before the attack is planned are essential for a terrorist attack. Therefore the cost of establishing and maintaining that infrastructure has to be factored into any estimate of the cost of terror attacks.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>[...] Treasury Department under secretary for terrorism and financial crimes Stuart Levey noted in August 2004, “The cost of financing terrorist activity cannot be measured by the cost of a primitive destructive act. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The maintenance of those terrorist networks, like al-Qaeda, which threaten our national security, is expensive . . . groups like al-Qaeda must spend money for many purposes—to recruit, train, travel, plan operations, and bribe corrupt officials, for example.”</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> Taking into account the infrastructure on which groups like Hamas and Hizballah must spend money greatly increases the price tags of individual attacks.<br><br>[...] And unlike human sources, which can intentionally deceive, Levey notes “The simple fact remains that the money trail generally does not lie.” Stemming the flow of funds can delay or prevent attacks—even when the costs of bullets and explosives remain relatively low.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2389">www.washingtoninstitute.o...p?CID=2389</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[marykmusic]

It's a well-known fact among military minds that guerrilla warfare can be low-tech. General Paul van Riper showed how it could be done in early 2003:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>For instance—and here is where he displayed prescience—Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to Red troops, thereby eluding Blue's super-sophisticated eavesdropping technology. He maneuvered Red forces constantly. At one point in the game, when Blue's fleet entered the Persian Gulf, he sank some of the ships with suicide-bombers in speed boats. (At that point, the managers stopped the game, "refloated" the Blue fleet, and resumed play.) Robert Oakley, a retired U.S. ambassador who played the Red civilian leader, told the Army Times that Van Riper was "out-thinking" Blue Force from the first day of the exercise.<br><br>Yet, Van Riper said in his e-mail, the game's managers remanded some of his moves as improper and simply blocked others from being carried out. According to the Army Times summary, "Exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue, and on several occasions directed [Red Force] not to use certain weapons systems against Blue. It even ordered him to reveal the location of Red units."<br><br>Finally, Van Riper quit the game in protest, so as not to be associated with what would be misleading results. As he explained in his e-mail, "You don't come to a conclusion beforehand and then work your way to that conclusion. You see how the thing plays out." He added, somewhat ominously in retrospect, "My main concern was we'd see future forces trying to use these things when they've never been properly grounded in any sort of an experiment."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Read this story <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2080814/" target="top">here.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> --MaryK<br><br> <p></p><i></i>