Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Bright Future: A Counter-Terrorism Strategy

How do we beat this?

The motto of my platoon at Infantry Officer's Basic Course (IOBC) was "Mix Metal and Meat". CPT Migone was our platoon tactical officer. He was this crazy ex-SF medic who was a bit of a maverick, and he was very insistent that our jobs as infantry officers was going to be killing people, blowing shit up, and breaking things. Maximum destruction.

At best, I was an average infantry officer, but I was branched detailed intelligence which meant that I only had to serve as an infantry guy for a couple years. Then I switched over to intelligence, and discovered that I was pretty good at it. And I am damn good at leveraging intelligence assets to maximize destruction. I can "decide, detect, and deliver" on your ass with the best of them. I'm going to figure out a way to find you, and then some of my buddies who were better than average infantry-types are going to pay you a visit in the middle of the night. A platoon of screaming CPT Migone's kicking in your door. Game over.

However, in the GWOT, blowing shit up and breaking things has its limits. We have to be smart as well as hard. Destruction only gets you part of the way to victory. So how to do we win if mixing metal and meat can't be our only course of action?

A HUMINT'er buddy of mine who works in the Pentagon has some great ideas about how to win the counter terrorism fight. He got permission from his bosses to publish this unclassified briefing that he came up with that summarizes some of his ideas. He was gracious enough to let me post the brief. I've included his slides and notes. My comments will appear after the show.

So here is some death by power point:

This presentation is intended to demonstrate how we can win the GWOT and what we must change to ensure that we win.

Short answers: yes - no - yes

Army CI and the entire DoD cannot address all the root problems of terror. However, we need to be aware of them and work together with others who can address root problems outside the DoD's sphere of influence.

In March 2005, Richard Clarke, former Counterterrorism advisor to the National Security Council, described the Muslim terrorist population as existing in concentric circles. He estimated the inner most circle of hard core terrorists members of al-Qaeda, contained not more than approximately 400 to 600 members. The next circle included who Clarke referred to as the “jihadists” contained approximately 50,000 to 200,000 members, these are people who "believe in their perverted views of Islam and are willing to die for it."

In the third circle are the millions of supporters of the jihadists who are found giving money to aid their activities. The fourth and outer circle is the rest of the Islamic world, a billion or more people who oppose the jihadist movement. Ultimately, Clarke believes that the way to begin to bring an end to terrorism is through communicating a different set of values to those within the third circle. This is probably a correct assessment and key to our success in the GWOT.

The Washington Post, 27 April 2005, front page article, U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise in Terrorism, reported the State Department has decided not to make public the figures documenting the upswing in deadly attacks. The Post reports the number of significant attacks, including the Breslan, Russia school massacre, grew from 175 in 2003 to about 655 in 2004. Terrorist incidents in Iraq rose from 22 in 2003 to 198 in 2004.

It would probably take divine intervention to stop a suicide bomber who has been dispatched on his mission of death. Other than that, we can possibly intervene to some extent at all other points in the terrorist operational cycle. We cannot expect to conduct such interventions without coordination with other government agencies, allies, and possibly non-government organizations. We should focus our efforts on the large terrorist support base, Clarke's third ring, to interrupt recruiting, financing, and operational support activities.

Our intervention into the terrorist operational cycle should consider all needs but we should focus on the needs 3 through 5 because this is where we can have the greatest impact. Many terrorists come from middle-class or even affluent families thus fulfilling the first group of needs. Most terrorist come from fairly stable (albeit repressive) societies and strong families thus fulfilling need group two and some of group three. The problems of low self-esteem individually and as a group along with diminishing expectations and loss of opportunities for personal success, leads to the anger and hostility that defines the lack in need groups four and five. We can help change the perceptions of terrorist supporters in Clarke's third ring in regards to need groups four and five.

A Muslim mother will not encourage her child to become a suicide bomber if that mother has a vision of a bright future for that child.

A Muslim youth will not be attracted to terrorist groups if that youth enjoys sufficient self-esteem, has a good job, and is achieving his expectations in life.

We have few expert linguists and practically no cultural experts who can help us understand the root motivation of the terrorists.

The World Bank has determined that the education of women and girls is a decisive factor in improving a region's economy and stability.

Excluding vast regions of the world from gaining the prosperity that they see on TV and the Internet increases tensions.

We believe we are making progress towards acceptance and respect of Muslims but we still need to convince the Muslim world of our progress.

Open communication with the Muslim world is critical to winning the GWOT but will also be among the most difficult challenges based on various barriers seen on the roots slide, e.g. cultural, religious, language, history, etc. We may want to talk to the people in the third ring of moderate terrorist supporters but their mullah, sheik, or government may not permit that communication.

As long as we treat the Palestinians differently than we treat Israel we will have a problem in that region. If we say we promote democracy and yet support autocratic Islamic governments we are seen as hypocrites.

We need to get ahead of the terrorist operational cycle.

We need to focus on achieving world peace not increasing military superiority.

We need to address those areas first that will remove the moderate sympathizers from the terrorist support base in the third ring, then work on co-opting the radical supporters in the second ring, and as a final step, open a channel for rehabilitating terrorists. The final step might not be possible.

Carl von Clausewitz's On War makes it emphatically clear that we must understand the nature of the conflict in which we are engaged. At the moment, as a nation, we neither understand the conflict, nor do we understand the motivation or goals of those Islamist terrorists who threaten us.

"Find them and kill them"has not worked very well. We need to focus on the root causes of the terrorists' and their support groups' dissatisfaction with their situation and try to determine whether we can alleviate the pressure points that drives the new recruits into the clutches of the terrorist groups.

We need to work with all available US organizations, other nations, and international humanitarian aid groups that can help address the root causes of terror.

We need to move the moderate people from ring three to become the new opponents of terrorist jihad in ring four.

As long as the Islamist terrorists believe they are working towards a justified ultimate goal of a better world they will continue to fight. (The Muslim concept of the restoration of the Caliphate equates in some aspects to what Christians might recognize as establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth.) If these same terrorists and their supporters are included in the world's functional core as described in Barnett's book, they might lose some of their fervor and become more satisfied with the less than perfect world in which most of us live. Both the Bible and the Koran warn against such religious complacency but a moderate view of God's revelations seems to have worked well in most of the Christian world and will probably work in the Muslim world as well.

Mao taught that insurgents must swim as fish in the sea. Hammes expands on that theme in his description of Fourth Generation Warfare. We need to make that sea smaller and less hospitable for the terrorists by making life better for those who now support the terrorists. Multi-national networking is key to success in this area as elements excluded from the globe's functional societies are drawn into the global effort to make a better world for everyone.

The CLRC appears to be ready to launch as part of DoD's recently announced Defense Language Transformation Road Map.

Key Pentagon decision makers support the idea that DoD anthropologists are critical to our understanding of the cultures that support Islamist terrorists.

For years, the DoD supported a huge Russian language and Soviet Studies program. We need a similar emphasis now on Muslim studies and Arabic, Farsi/Dari, and Turkic languages.

Muslim scholar exchange programs will go a long way to increasing mutual understanding.
The World Bank has several women's educational programs in place but more are needed in specific areas. This might be a tough sell in some societies. markets various products from cottage industries in Afghanistan and other places in the third world.

If every Muslim youth had free access to the world of ideas made possible by the Internet it would be far more difficult for radical fundamentalists to turn them into terrorists.

The need for linguists has been recognized. To remedy the problem, I propose that we recruit native fluent or near-native linguists and train them to be CI/HUMINT operators and CT analysts, rather than trying to struggle with the futility of turning non-linguists into native speakers.

We have many allies with exceptional capabilities that are willing to help in the GWOT. Yet that help is largely untapped due to the institutional paranoia and xenophobia of the DoD and other government agencies that mark almost every CT document, even things as innocuous as reports concerning obsolete foreign telephone books, SECRET NOFORN.

The underground democratic movements in Iran and Syria should be receiving full US support.
We need to work towards establishing a culture of respect for the law in all areas that support terrorists.

If the Army could control all of its CI/CT efforts from a one-stop-shop perhaps we could get a better handle on what is needed to prosecute the GWOT. Other elements of the Army and then DoD would probably follow suit.

Three and one half years after 9/11 we are still not fully connected throughout the various US agencies with CT responsibilities, our CT collection is haphazard and based on serendipity rather than good planning, our reporting is uneven, and our analysis and data mining efforts still lack the tools needed to succeed. When the next terrorist attack happens, the American public will justifiably want to know why so little progress has been made since 9/11. Why is there no one-stop-shop and critical cross-check analysis for finished intelligence products in the CT community?

Implementing the positive steps outlined in this brief will help win the GWOT.

My thoughts:


Okay, some of you may be rolling your eyes and thinking that this is just a bunch of touchy-feely bullshit. I disagree. We can't kill everyone. JDAMs are expensive, and I want Zane to grow up in a country with a reasonably solvent government so I think some of these ideas are really worth exploring as policy.

Some things that I think stand out in this brief:

Slide 3, Consider the Roots: Mythology does play a big part in how societies act. Look at the minutemen project on the border. How much of the rugged individualist-Rambo-Chuck Norris Bad 80's movie-bullshit do these guys buy into? Now don't get me wrong. I buy into some of that rugged individualism myself. After all, I am a Texan with a Colt .45 in the nightstand. But, you don't see me packing my bags and heading towards the border.

Slide 7, Terrorists are Humans: Self-Actualization needs - realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences.

Let's face it. War makes you feel "self-actualized". Nothing compares to it. Of course, I'd rather be home in front of my computer drinking a cold Shiner Bock, but having a combat patch--even if I was a total REMF--is pretty cool.

I'm a middle class white kid from a middle class family. I have a beautiful wife and baby, a college degree, a nice home, and a good job. I get to participate in my government, exercise my freedom of speech with this blog, and I live in luxury compared to most people in the world. But, I still felt compelled to join the Army and do shit like jump out of perfectly good airplanes.

So how seductive would the idea of being a "Jihadi" be to some kid from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan who doesn't have the same opportunities that I have? He might not have a pot to piss in, but at least he can say that he stood tall and fought the great Satan. Powerful stuff.

Slide 8, Means of Intervention: Open communication with the Muslim world is critical to winning the GWOT but will also be among the most difficult challenges based on various barriers seen on the roots slide, e.g. cultural, religious, language, history, etc. We may want to talk to the people in the third ring of moderate terrorist supporters but their mullah, sheik, or government may not permit that communication.

So how to we communicate openly with the Muslim world? One word: blogs.

Slide 9, Adopt Best Practices (1): We need to address those areas first that will remove the moderate sympathizers from the terrorist support base in the third ring, then work on co-opting the radical supporters in the second ring, and as a final step, open a channel for rehabilitating (emphasis mine) terrorists. The final step might not be possible.

More on that here. At what Hammoud al-Hitar is up to in Yemen is worth following. Bottom line: you can't jail everyone either.

Slide 11, Positive Steps (1): type cottage industries

So I clicked on over to overstock's site, and guess what? They have a page titled worldstock where you can buy stuff from around the world. The is a page for Afghanistan, and its got some pretty cool stuff.

Right now, we are dumping tons of money into eradicating opium in Afghanistan. In the process, we're pissing a bunch of people off. Our track record of eradicating drugs in Latin American ought to clue us in that we need to change tactics. Why is our country not promoting Afghani products in a big way? How much revenue would be generated in the president got up on the bully pulpit and told everyone to go to overstock and buy an Afghani rug? Growing poppies might loose its appeal if you're too busy expanding production in other areas.

Some meaty ideas here to chew on. Thanks to my buddy for letting me post his hard work and deep thoughts.


At April 28, 2005, Anonymous Bobby said...

That's an interesting slide show, and definitely needs to be given consideration.

My own thoughts are that there are two "campaigns" in the Global War on Terror-- a "strategic" one that targets the root causes of terrorism and a "tactical" one that attempts to defeat the existing terrorist effort such as we face today (and into the future). And they're not necessarily one and the same-- one can be winning the first and losing the second, or vice versa-- but they should be conducted in tandem with one another since, ultimately, one will fight the second (forever) if the first is not secured.

But it's good. I'm definitely from the "we can't possibly kill as many terrorists as they will build" school of thought, although I do believe there are "tactical" measures we can take to defeat their "industrial base" and change the formula into our favor.

Unfortunately, too many decision-makers in the military come from the "body count" school of thought and truly believe that we can win the war by killing all of the terrorists. Thus, they spend the preponderance of their effort "whacking moles" when they surface, and not really having much of an impact.

This, at least, is a very good foot in the door to get discussions going about what we should be doing and if what we're doing even resembles that.

At April 28, 2005, Blogger J. said...

Bobby, have you read Hammes' "The Sling and The Stone" yet? He says the exact same thing near the end (just got three more chapters go go) about a strategic 4GW campaign and an operational and tactical 4GW campaign. Important aspect being that each level has different goals and different messages. So yes absolutely we need to engage at the strategic level while holding our own at the tactical level.

Simple stuff but amazing how policy makers aren't getting wise to it.

At April 28, 2005, Anonymous Bobby said...

No, I haven't read it, but on the strength of your recommendation and the review posted on, I just added it to my shopping cart. It looks good-- you know they take a lot of flak, but those Marines do turn out some of the most revolutionary military thinkers.

At April 29, 2005, Blogger Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg said...

Wow! Really increadible work, and great post!

Here are a few of my thoughts (in regard to the slide show):

First- are we ever going to stop "terrorism?" I don't know- are we ever going to stop stabbings? Terror is a tactic, not an object, and so no, we can never defeat a tactic such as terrorism. As Zinni stated- "it would be like the Allies declaring a war on Kamikazees in WWII."

Excluding vast regions of the world from gaining the prosperity that they see on TV and the Internet increases tensions.

One problem that we often have when we look at the root causes of terrorism, is to make the mistake of assuming that Mulsim's want the type of "progress" that they see on TV and the internet. Actually, I would say that a large portion of mulsims see the consumerism and hedonism of American culture as evil.

You mention "open communications" but are we really willing to listen to criticism of American Capitalism by Muslim leaders? Communications is a two way street, and I really doubt, in a nation with a large percentage of Christian fundementalists, and an even bigger population of ignorant and/or racist dimwits, that your going to get any conversation going between our two cultures.

Maybe the solution is to help them build their own communications infrastructures, which focus more on their cultures from their own standpoint. But maybe this would just lead to a further sepreration of our two cultures. But maybe it would help them to quit focusing so much of their energy on us, and get back to the internal debate that will determine the future of their culture, which I see as those who want a return to Classic Islamic rule- i.e. extremely tolerant (did the Jews ever live under a more friendly regime than the Ottomans? Not as far as I can tell), open minded, embracing of science and all sorts of thinking, etc vs. radical islamic extremism which itself is NEW and a REACTION to modernization, colonialization, and the decline of the power of Islamic States. If we, as a culture, can learn that Islam has a rich history, filled with some very enlightened regimes (as well as some not-so enlightened ones), and help Muslim scholors who want to return to this type of era, than we can probablly make a lot of inroads in the M.E. But I myself believe that the Neo Cons and Theo Cons see only a characture of Islam...

As long as we treat the Palestinians differently than we treat Israel we will have a problem in that region. If we say we promote democracy and yet support autocratic Islamic governments we are seen as hypocrites.

For the first part of this, I absolutely agree. Until the U.S. can be seen as an honest broker in this (largely symbolic) struggle, we're not going to make much progress in the "hearts and minds" department.

For the second part of this, I really want to caution that we not put too much currency in the value that Demcracy in other nations will have for peace between us and them. Who do you think would be elected if the Saudi's got to vote? Do you really think that it would be someone more moderate? I highly doubt it. Let us not forget that, prior to seizing complete power, the Nazi Party was elected in Germany. Democracy does not equal stability or garuntee safety- however we absolutely should be demanding human rights in these nations, regardless of the type of government there, and this IMHO would be a great boon to our standing in the area.

Carl von Clausewitz's On War makes it emphatically clear that we must understand the nature of the conflict in which we are engaged. At the moment, as a nation, we neither understand the conflict, nor do we understand the motivation or goals of those Islamist terrorists who threaten us.

Halleluiah! It seems poor old Clauswitz has been temporarily relegated to the shelves of the National Archives. You'd think that Bush and Co. would really comprehend this and other great lessons from ol' Carl, but they seem to have lost sight of what the real goals are anyway. The defining of goals and the creation of benchmarks towards success are completely lacking right now (granted, this is due in large part to teh nebulous nature of non-tradtitional warfare).

And on to your comments, Chris-
re:Blogs- I'm with you, I think that this goes a long way to giving people the power to express themselves, and communicate with others whom they would otherwise not be able to talk with. I do wonder whether this would favor moderates over extremists (after all- how popular are Free Republic, LittleGreenFootballs and the rest of the Fascist/rascist corps of American blogs?). Either way, I think that we should absolutely be putting a ton of resources into bringing the M.E. online, and providing avenues for their thinkers to express themselves. This is a prime example of our ability to flex our muscle (in this case our tech and econ muscles) without appearing as either patronizing or a bully.

re: What motivates islamic extremists- I don't think a PHD in psychology could have put it better. Violence is gratifying, and even more so when it is done in the name of some supreme "good" or cause. Belonging to a group is also, as you point out, a big motivating factor in getting people to kill (or aiding their willingness to be killed).

re: the failing drug war in Afghanistan and Columbia- we will never learn some things. The "horror" of opium is too much to treat this subject reasonably, at least when it's not prescribed, and your not a big-fat, lying-with-every-word, right-wing, talk-radio personality. Rush Limbaugh illeagaly using prescription opiates, and Oxycoton is by far the strongest opiate available (stronger then Heroine), a slap on the wrist. A poor inner-city kid booting up in the bathroom of a McDonalds- a threat to the American way of life. Why not just force Pharm companies to buy their opiates straight from the Afghani farmers? They could get double what they make now, and the drugs would be regulated...

At April 30, 2005, Blogger Mycroft said...

I read quickly, but what I think this presentation lacks is a discussion of how killing terrorists fits into the long term effort against terrorism. The short term benefits are obvious.

Offhand, there are at least two ways to look at the contribution the current war on terrorism brings to the political struggle to defeat the appeal of terrorist ideologies. First, there is the discrediting of their ideology. Second, there is the greater public awareness of terrorism's nature that the war brings.

The current Al Qaeda ideology, such as it is, is descended from the teachings of Sayyid Qutb, who borrowed a lot of his ideas from Communism. Specifically, he borrowed the "historical inevitability" idea that was so much of Communism's appeal -- literally, "God is on our side."

Pre-9/11, this was a large part of Al Qaeda's appeal and conviction -- the sense of inevitable victory, magnified by a popular fiction about the nature of the Afghan War. This viewpoint cannot survive repeated defeat in the field, which is what we are inflicting upon them.

Secondly, there is, even among non-radical Muslims, the sense of the Ummah, or broader Islamic community. By forcing terrorists to fight us in Muslim communities abroad -- by changing the venue for massacres from shopping malls to bazaars, from nightclubs to mosques, we're giving the broader population they recruit from a chance to watch them up close and personal. Many Muslims don't like what they're seeing -- the enemy is barbaric, evil, and obsessed with the power that killing gives them. Already there are cries that they have brought war to the House of Peace, and this hurts them immensely.

At May 01, 2005, Blogger Curzon said...

Great info, although a little long to fully digest in one blog post. Thanks for sharing.

At May 03, 2005, Blogger Younghusband said...

Death by PP is right! Gonna have to print this off and take a closer look. Thanks.

At May 10, 2005, Blogger Zayyed said...

Kris, interesting article. But this kind of philosophy underlines the missing crucible in determining "victory" in this type of conflict. Americans chose a quantifiable means to account for success in battle, or as Mr. Rumsfeld has said "a metrics," to judge how the American offensive is doing.

One can not hope to defeat a force focused on the killing of innocents through force. Such a tactic puts the innocents within the crosshairs of both forces. Now it is up to those innocents to pick a side and we expect them to come to ours? Conflict invokes the "fight or flight" response in all people. Often people do things that are "illogical" during these times in their lives. The fight against terrorism is not one won by force. There have been other "terrorists" and extremists throughout history, the Assassins of Crusader era Iran/Syria, the Mahdi army of Sudan (1880's), Stern Gang of Palestine (1930-40's), etc. Only two things happen with these kind of groups: they are anihilated by a "total" war (involves the liquidation of about 90% of a specific population, i.e. Assassins vs. Mongols) or they win!

But what is winning to the current incarnation of "terrorists?" UBL believes in a vision of the New Caliphate where Muslims live under one state and enjoy the fruits of their victory. Or some like Zarqawi envision a smaller piece but with similar ideas about absolute power. Americans view this vision as lunacy, because who would want to live under such rule? Well... some of the richest times for the Islamic Empire of old was under this kind of system. Coupled with the influence of one's tribe over everyday life, (already existing hierarchy), then all the "everyday Hajji" is left to think about is who is atop the power pyramid? Maybe a pious man is not such a bad idea after all.

In terms of the "Ummah," (Muslims everywhere), it is difficult to make sense of what the West says they would like to see. Is it Democracy, Stability, or both? But whatever it is it has not been articulated very well. But this other guy has a definite idea of what I should do and asks only that I reject the West. "Bright Future" would certainly address this internal conflict within the Ummah, except that it is coming from the West.

"Bright Future" reminds me of a grandiose plan to take care of all the world's orphans by building 1000 US funded orphanages throughout the world. But then who’s going to run them, US Missionaries?! Again back to the crucible, that this conflict between the West and Jihadists needs a policy of “engagement.” Are we so sure?

I am not an advocate for doing nothing; nothing is useless! But a war against a loosely defined enemy that uses it’s countrymen as both cover and as “numbers” to demonstrate their power? Inside Clarke’s graph concerning the “location” of the terrorists within society, seems to remind me of a tumor growing inside a body. As with cancer treatments, a doctor can not take initiative against this cancer without fully understanding the nature and complexity of this newly living tumor. Truly, I believe this is what most everyone likes about “Bright Future” is that clicks with that part of us that knows we must understand before acting.

So back to victory. Muslims congregate much more often to the Masjid than Christians do to church. The fact that this is an influential place is not lost on any of us, however how to incorporate the Masjid and Madrassa into an overall strategy is not one the Americans are equipped to answer. PSYOPS? Intel? Coersion? Bribery? None would work. What about an honest outreach using correct protocol? Al-Azhar is both a “Mosque” and a University located in Cairo Egypt. Once it was the center for religious learning in the Muslim World. Everyday this very issue comes up, but not in the same tone. Victory demands that we participate in the debates, here, as well as Cairo University and at all universities. “Jihadists” consider themselves in superlative terms in regards to their own religion. They are not, however, the most religious; that distinction will always go those who need religion the most to actually guide them each and every day. (The 99 year old Italian lady who has outlived all of her peers and some of her children or the Egyptian father of four young children who works at with the airline industry and wonders if his children will be killed in the coming war between the state and Islamic Jihad) This is a pious person, and they can find flaws in the Jihadist’s piety. You, me and the rest of the Middle Class pragmatic western world is never going to get there.

But killing is still killing and wrong in nearly all religions. The moral high ground revolves around the killing of innocents. American bombs do it, Jihadist attacks do it, Israeli tanks do it. We are now indeed wrapped in a cycle of violence, that keeps us from our goal, Victory. With no one seeking the high ground the key target audience, pious, educated Muslims, will never be reached. Instead the relative size of this key demographic will shrink due to attrition (The longer the “war” goes on the longer this group will fatigue due to pull from both sides of the Middle Eastern political fence (those who support the state, and those who support a different way (Jihadists)).

So victory. Couldn’t tell ya. But it certainly involves the positive aspects of the Islamic faith and hitting the Jihadists where they are weakest, their faith. Perhaps a visit to al-Azhar by President Bush… wait, no that wouldn’t be a good idea at all.

At May 10, 2005, Blogger Kris Alexander said...

Thanks for the comments everyone. Zayyed ought to be out to be out blogging somewhere.

At December 13, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I concur it is an interesting comment; however, ensure that you maintain some sanity when pondering such an endeavor. Those items commented on regarding social, economic, and ethnic influences remain prevalent to the psyche. Herego - if creating such a "powerhouse" of trained personnel from the respective population will also bring about problems that require a true CI presence to place them in handcuffs. I recall someone trying a "powerhouse" approach years ago - yeah, thats right - the individual taken in was responsible for assisting in the planning and conduct of the bombings in Kenya back in 1998. So before your intellectual minds get too far ahead of themselves, make sure you put some thought into assuming some responsibility and ensure that those selected, are vetted, and undergo polygraph examinations (lifestyle and CI). I would also add, those polygraph examinations should also take place frequently, because you just don't know when dis-illusionment is going to occur, as was the case of the former Army expert on terrorism and the middle east, who turned skills gained against American targets in East Africa. Ya'll have a nice day, and think before you open your traps with great intellectual ideas. This is almost as bad of an idea as the FBI Director saying he does not want personnel experienced in dealing with international terrorism to assume lead positions within the FBI. Just remember - a college education does not equate to intelligence. Monkeys...


Post a Comment

<< Home