After reading the article posted by Chris on Sunday, I wanted to hear what others had to say specifically about the perceived lack of cost-efficient counter-terrorism.
I found the following sentence interesting: "Spending ever-more money making targets 'harder' is actually a poor choice."
It's easy to see where the authors are coming from--every time we fortify one target, we leave plenty others without defense. And there just isn't enough money to fortify everything. However, if the authors are advancing the notion that all fortification is futile, I would strongly disagree. As Schneier (or Heymann) mentioned, certain targets such as air travel merit special attention. After all, on 9/11 the control by terrorists of four airplanes killed thousands of Americans, greatly damaged the economy, and succeeded in creating mass fear and uncertainty.
It is undeniable that, "Increased counter-terrorism measures simply transfer terrorists’ attention elsewhere." But this does not always make costly counter-terror programs a failure. On the contrary, I find it reassuring that terrorists are having to turn away from their first-choice targets to secondary preferences. I think it is also fair to assume that terrorists will attack the best targets first, the next-best targets second, and so forth. As long as terrorists are having greater difficulty carrying out attacks against their preferred targets (which are most likely to kill civilians, damage property, hurt the economy and create fear), then I'd say the counter-terror measures which focus on fortifying potential targets are fulfilling their purpose.
I believe that the drastic inefficiency that appears to exist in our current counter-terror agenda is largely due to the hidden costs of fear. Part of the reason Americans are willing to submit to annoying security measures is because they feel threatened by the possibility of a terrorist attack and are willing to sacrifice for the feeling of security. I think that the question is: How much is America willing to pay to feel secure? The answer: a lot.
What do you think? Are counter-terror strategies worth the cost they impose? What role does fear play in the price of counter-terror? Is it warranted? How can counter-terror strategies be more cost-effective?
Monday, March 17, 2008
Furore over Muslim terrorism claims
http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=727578
I read this article on how an academic professor made claims agains Muslims in South Africa. Prof Hussein Solomon, director of the University of Pretoria’s Centre for International Political Studies said, "South Africa was becoming a “breeding ground” for terrorists." This comment has outraged Muslims in South Africa. There are death threats on his life and his family's. The Media Review Network (MRN), a Muslim media watchdog, this week demanded an apology from the academic. In this article it discusses how people in South AFrica think that there is no evidence for this remark. However, Professor Solomon states several causes and will not back down. This article deals with terrorism because for one it is calling a state a sponser of terrorist (state sponsered). Also by Professor Solomon's remarks this could work out for the terrorist, because it looks like the people are backing them up by going against PRofessor Solomon. I was wondering if anyone knew what other problems this could cause in the region now, that it has created tension, let me know what you guys think,
Thanks
Austin Conners
I read this article on how an academic professor made claims agains Muslims in South Africa. Prof Hussein Solomon, director of the University of Pretoria’s Centre for International Political Studies said, "South Africa was becoming a “breeding ground” for terrorists." This comment has outraged Muslims in South Africa. There are death threats on his life and his family's. The Media Review Network (MRN), a Muslim media watchdog, this week demanded an apology from the academic. In this article it discusses how people in South AFrica think that there is no evidence for this remark. However, Professor Solomon states several causes and will not back down. This article deals with terrorism because for one it is calling a state a sponser of terrorist (state sponsered). Also by Professor Solomon's remarks this could work out for the terrorist, because it looks like the people are backing them up by going against PRofessor Solomon. I was wondering if anyone knew what other problems this could cause in the region now, that it has created tension, let me know what you guys think,
Thanks
Austin Conners
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Counter-Terrorism Measures
I found this great article in the Daily Times, a Pakistani newspaper. You can find the article here.
This article highlights a very interesting study done by the Copenhagen Consensus which studies the cost-benefit ratio of different counter-terrorism methods employed by Western gov'ts. The results show that has gov't increase security in one area or threat, terrorist organizations are adapting and attacking other targets.
The study shows that increasing the counter-terrorism budget just 25% worldwide would cost the US at least $75 billion over the next 5 years. If we overestimate the result of this and assume a 25% drop in terrorist attacks, this would only save the international economy $22 billion. The costs would be three times the expected benefits. This is only a 30 cent return for every dollar spent on counter-terrorism efforts. The article estimates that in this best case scenario, only 105 lives would be saved each year. Compare that with the 30,000 deaths on US highways annually, and it almost doesn't seem worth it.
The study proposes a solution however. If governments around the world cooperated to cut of the finances of terrorist organizations and networks, then expensive, large-scale attacks could be eliminate. This would be hard to do because some countries prefer to work autonomously, but the authors estimate that this would cost only $128 million annually (read the article to find out how they got this number). Preventing one large scale terrorist attack could save over $1 billion dollars. The returns could be several times the initial investment.
In short, the US and other Western countries need to rethink how they are investing counter-terrorism fund and seek get better returns and benefits for their money, in the form of lives saved.
This article highlights a very interesting study done by the Copenhagen Consensus which studies the cost-benefit ratio of different counter-terrorism methods employed by Western gov'ts. The results show that has gov't increase security in one area or threat, terrorist organizations are adapting and attacking other targets.
The study shows that increasing the counter-terrorism budget just 25% worldwide would cost the US at least $75 billion over the next 5 years. If we overestimate the result of this and assume a 25% drop in terrorist attacks, this would only save the international economy $22 billion. The costs would be three times the expected benefits. This is only a 30 cent return for every dollar spent on counter-terrorism efforts. The article estimates that in this best case scenario, only 105 lives would be saved each year. Compare that with the 30,000 deaths on US highways annually, and it almost doesn't seem worth it.
The study proposes a solution however. If governments around the world cooperated to cut of the finances of terrorist organizations and networks, then expensive, large-scale attacks could be eliminate. This would be hard to do because some countries prefer to work autonomously, but the authors estimate that this would cost only $128 million annually (read the article to find out how they got this number). Preventing one large scale terrorist attack could save over $1 billion dollars. The returns could be several times the initial investment.
In short, the US and other Western countries need to rethink how they are investing counter-terrorism fund and seek get better returns and benefits for their money, in the form of lives saved.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Secret Captures by CIA
This article is about the secret capture of Muhammad Rahim a guy who helped Usama hide out at one point and a bunch of other nasty terrorist activity. The intresting part of the article is that the CIA had secretley detained and interrogated him back in April 2007 only now after almost a year of intergation does he get turned over to the military and guantanmo bay. So my question : We capture people for the intellegince but why not say we captured them ? Doesnt this give fuel to the counter-stratgies we have been talking about ? Why not tell everyone ?
Friday, March 14, 2008
Colombia and Scheier
In class today we talked about the irony in the Scheier piece. Scheier said the targets we try to protect from terrorism are physical, economic, and social, and yet we unwisely spend money and give up civil liberties in our attempts to combat terrorism. So we're actually in some sense attacking two of the three targets which we're trying to protect.
This week's Economist had an article about Colombia's bombing of a FARC camp just across the border in Ecuador ("On the warpath"). Scheier's point can be seen in the current situation in South America, too. Colombia--like the US--wants to protect itself physically, economically, and socially. Yet it is spending a lot in its drive to eliminate the FARC and has violated civil liberties. Surely the bomb which killed Mr. Reyes was expensive, as was the Super Tucano plane. I'm not sure what the Colombian-US deal was, but President Uribe's forces were using US intelligence (whether or not they had to pay for it, or were just given it, I'm not sure). As for civil liberties, even if those of the Colombian people were not violated, surely the territorial integrity of Ecuador was when Colombian forces bombed a FARC camp about a mile inside the country (and did not get permission from President Correa of Ecuador).
So, rights and money are still ironically being used in the fight to protect them. However, the situation in Colombia may be a bit different from that in the US. It seems that Colombia may be able to permanently cripple the FARC and is on the path to doing so, whereas the US, according to Scheier, is not getting as much security as it should be for the price it is paying.
This week's Economist had an article about Colombia's bombing of a FARC camp just across the border in Ecuador ("On the warpath"). Scheier's point can be seen in the current situation in South America, too. Colombia--like the US--wants to protect itself physically, economically, and socially. Yet it is spending a lot in its drive to eliminate the FARC and has violated civil liberties. Surely the bomb which killed Mr. Reyes was expensive, as was the Super Tucano plane. I'm not sure what the Colombian-US deal was, but President Uribe's forces were using US intelligence (whether or not they had to pay for it, or were just given it, I'm not sure). As for civil liberties, even if those of the Colombian people were not violated, surely the territorial integrity of Ecuador was when Colombian forces bombed a FARC camp about a mile inside the country (and did not get permission from President Correa of Ecuador).
So, rights and money are still ironically being used in the fight to protect them. However, the situation in Colombia may be a bit different from that in the US. It seems that Colombia may be able to permanently cripple the FARC and is on the path to doing so, whereas the US, according to Scheier, is not getting as much security as it should be for the price it is paying.
Terrorism and WMD's
We have discussed in class the probability of terrorists obtaining and using WMDs to achieve their goals. Recently, a man posted two specific ways to cultivate anthrax on a pro Al-Qaeda public forum. According to the article, the cultivation of anthrax is not extremely difficult, and anthrax is extremely inexpensive to produce... "Production costs are low; one kilogram of anthrax bacteria costs about $50 even though a lethal dose can be as little as one millionth of a gram." The man who posted on the forum included detailed microscopic photos of the bacteria in different phases of the production. It is alarming to think that such information is readily accessible in public forums. Although making anthrax as a weapon is dangerous and somewhat complicated, it is not impossible. As the article states, the equipment and know-how to produce anthrax are not available to "most jihadis." At the end of the anthrax production post, the man concludes by saying "wait for my next detailed posting on how to build a Cessna 128 aircraft" (used for chemical dispersion in agriculture). Even though it may be difficult and improbable for terrorists to produce and use WMDs, I believe that sooner or later, WMDs, probably biological weapons, will be used in the future by terrorists. I don't think that it is just because of this post of instructions, I'm sure Al-Qaeda knew most if not all of the information in that post, but it is becoming more accessible to anyone who desires it. There are further commentaries to be read at these websites.
Peaceful Jihad
The President of Indonesia (largest Muslim population in a country), calls for an "Islamic Renaissance." Link
"Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called for greater democracy and efforts to improve the plight of Muslims and spread Islamic values..."
"History tells us that Muslims in the past contributed immensely to the march of civilization through groundbreaking achievements in the sciences, as well as in arts." But Yudhoyono added that Islam was now "on the defensive."
If you look at the history of Islam you see the balancing between making Islam first in sciences and technology and this is another example of it. But there is two ways that Islamists try to make this possible: Violent or peaceful expansion. The President's view of it seems to be the best and most effective as violent expansion turns many people away.
~ Greg
"Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called for greater democracy and efforts to improve the plight of Muslims and spread Islamic values..."
"History tells us that Muslims in the past contributed immensely to the march of civilization through groundbreaking achievements in the sciences, as well as in arts." But Yudhoyono added that Islam was now "on the defensive."
If you look at the history of Islam you see the balancing between making Islam first in sciences and technology and this is another example of it. But there is two ways that Islamists try to make this possible: Violent or peaceful expansion. The President's view of it seems to be the best and most effective as violent expansion turns many people away.
~ Greg
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Speaking of financial analysts...
...we have another contest! I have replaced the header graphic at the top of the blog, and I have a few questions to ask about the international terrorist pictured here.
Here are the contest rules: The first student with a correct answer to any of these questions gets a brownie point. Students answering more than one question are disqualified from the contest. All answers must come in comments appended to this post.
Questions:
1. Where does this man currently reside?
2. In what country was he (probably) born?
3. What coercive interrogation method has the CIA admitted using to get information from this man?
4. Where is the famous university alumni page on which he should appear?
5. What is the name of one person he has beheaded?
6. What relative of his is also a famous international terrorist?
Good luck!
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Financial Analyst
In TUFP and in class we talked about financial controls in combating terrorism. Someone mentioned that his dad was a financial analyst. It sounded interesting to me so I went looking through some job descriptions on the FBI website. In the professional staff section they have a specific number for financial analysts 1160. Then I went to USAJOBS.com to find out more about this position. The FBI isn’t the only agency looking for financial analysts, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, National Park Service, Federal Deposit and the Army all had openings. The duties describe this position as dealing with white collar crime investigating large corporations domestic and international. The analyst has to look over individual transactions, bank statements, and insurance claims. In light of the recent discoveries about Mayor Spitzer and how he got caught (suspicious money transfers) I thought this was relevant. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1) I believe that is how we have caught and froze accounts belonging to terrorist networks like al-Qaeda operating out of charities. Does anybody know why on P.93 in TUFP it says we have not frozen any funds from Syria?
Monday, March 10, 2008
Hammas and Iran
We have mentioned in class that Hezbollah is sponsored by the Iranian government. A couple of the authors we have read have described different layers of their involvement including military training and monetary contributions. A recent article in the Jerusalem Post found here describes a similar connection between Hammas, Iran and Syria. Recently in a meeting of the Shin Bet, Israeli intelligence agency, an official described this link. Later that week an unnamed Hammas leader described in greater detail the relationship.
He stated that members of Hammas were filtering into Syria, where passport restrictions are less extreme, and meeting up with Hezbollah operatives to recieve weapons training from the members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Members who are rated high in the exercises are then filtered from Syria to Iran for even greater training and then sent back to Palestine. The Hammas leaders claims that at least 650 individuals have been trained in this manner, and that the organization now has 15,000 fighters.
This link between Hammas and Iran may be more of a recent development, but it indicates a dangerous direction for Israel's future, if it's enemies are combining together and sharing assets in this manner.
He stated that members of Hammas were filtering into Syria, where passport restrictions are less extreme, and meeting up with Hezbollah operatives to recieve weapons training from the members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Members who are rated high in the exercises are then filtered from Syria to Iran for even greater training and then sent back to Palestine. The Hammas leaders claims that at least 650 individuals have been trained in this manner, and that the organization now has 15,000 fighters.
This link between Hammas and Iran may be more of a recent development, but it indicates a dangerous direction for Israel's future, if it's enemies are combining together and sharing assets in this manner.
Random Terrorism Links
I know there was some concern over just what the government can view as far as our searching the internet, well here's some insight as far as that. Here's also some new technology used to prevent terrorist attacks in airports through new methods of X-Ray technology. Finally, here's talk about a manual on torture. This is from howstuffworks.com which will explain plenty of other ideas that might be of interest relative to terrorism as well.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
We've been studying different causes of terrorism this semester, so I found it very interesting to read the results of a study done that states that Australia anti-terrorism tactics might actually cause terrorism.
The study states that all too often the Australian police are so aggressive in their tactics that they can actually cause Muslims to radicalize and turn to terrorism.
One research said that the current "the more aggressive the better" line of reasoning is actually doing more harm then good, and a community-based approach would be much more effective.
Check out the article here
China vows to strike first in combating terrorism
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/09/content_7751602.htm
This article I read was dealing with China and their policy on terrorism. It discusses how lately China has been attacking first before anything happens. Wang Lequan, chief of the Xinjiang regional committee of the Communist Party of China said, ""We are prepared to strike them whenever they are found planning their activities." An example is that China have done to prevent terrorism is, Police smashed a terrorist gang in January in Urumqi, capital of Xinjiang, killing two and arresting 15 others, one year after they destroyed a terrorist training camp in the Pamir plateau, killing 18 terrorists and capturing 17. I wonder if this new counterterrorism actions could help China's and United States relations. However, I do question the real intent for China's actions. With the Olympic Games coming to China soon, I think that this new break down on terrorism, may not be for the purpose of cracking down on terrorist, but for economic purposes. Let me know what you guys think about this new China view on terrorist.
Thanks
Austin Conners
This article I read was dealing with China and their policy on terrorism. It discusses how lately China has been attacking first before anything happens. Wang Lequan, chief of the Xinjiang regional committee of the Communist Party of China said, ""We are prepared to strike them whenever they are found planning their activities." An example is that China have done to prevent terrorism is, Police smashed a terrorist gang in January in Urumqi, capital of Xinjiang, killing two and arresting 15 others, one year after they destroyed a terrorist training camp in the Pamir plateau, killing 18 terrorists and capturing 17. I wonder if this new counterterrorism actions could help China's and United States relations. However, I do question the real intent for China's actions. With the Olympic Games coming to China soon, I think that this new break down on terrorism, may not be for the purpose of cracking down on terrorist, but for economic purposes. Let me know what you guys think about this new China view on terrorist.
Thanks
Austin Conners
Saturday, March 8, 2008
PKK
This article is about the recent increase in the Turkish offensive against the PKK. Basically, Turkey has invaded northern Iraq, but the Iraqi government is okay with it, as long as it only lasts a couple of weeks and they don't go deeper than 20 miles into the country. Turkey wants to eradicate the PKK from the northern Iraqi mountains once and for all. This seemed like a joke to me at first, but after reading the article, I feel the Turks will probably be more successful than I originally thought. Apparently, most Iraqi Kurds have stopped supplying the PKK with weapons and information. With the public tide turning against the PKK in Iraq and with Turkish soldiers supplied with western military equipment and intelligence, the Turks are on good ground relative to the PKK. This reminds me of the recent turning of the tide against the FARC in Colombia. It seems that these people want stability and are turning against terrorists who get in the way. Iraqi Kurds are more autonomous than perhaps ever before, and they don't want to lose their new position. Although some could argue they are informally losing the independence they have by allowing Turkey to violate Iraqi sovereignty, I think Kurdish cooperation is actually wise. They gain international status because the Turkish government is working with them--instead of in spite of them--and they can get rid of a terrorist organization which has--to many people--attached a negative connotation to their ethnicity.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Jet vs. Nuclear Reactor
We talked about this in class today, and it reminded me of a video I saw on the internet once. Enjoy.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
East Jerusalem Terrorist
In class we have had alot of discussion concerning the media's influence in terrorist groups activities. Particularly we discussed how media can influence how the general public views the attack. The focus of a news article can increase the incentive of terrorists to use violence to get in the media. These media biases can help generate support in the population. Today there was an attack by a single gunman in Jerusalem. I am including two links; one to a story in the Jerusalem Post, and the other from Al Jezeera English. Comparing the two different stories shows different biases in the two organizations.
The first link, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546422275&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull , is tot he Jerusalem Post. This article focusses on the victims of the shooting. It talks of people crying, "Help Us, Help Us!" Further it describes students hiding under desks, a forceful police response that neutralized the terrorist. It also describes a small terrorist group in East Jerusalem, the Galilee Freedom Battalions - the Martyrs of Imad Mughniyeh and Gaza. The focus of this report tries to downplay the capabilities of another attack and upplay the government response. The overall tone is condemning.
The second link, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9D9C103A-8E02-45EF-A335-46DB5BAAF766.htm , contains a a very different perspective on the attack. Although the article starts by talking about the victims, a majority of the article seems to focus on the terrorist, his group and their motivations, as well as possible allies, or at least groups that agree with the tactics. This article even includes a section where they discuss the views of a faction of the population who blame Olmert for the attack, because of recent Israeli action in East Jerusalem. This article has a more understanding feel, and seems as though it would be a great propaganda tool for the group.
The first link, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546422275&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull , is tot he Jerusalem Post. This article focusses on the victims of the shooting. It talks of people crying, "Help Us, Help Us!" Further it describes students hiding under desks, a forceful police response that neutralized the terrorist. It also describes a small terrorist group in East Jerusalem, the Galilee Freedom Battalions - the Martyrs of Imad Mughniyeh and Gaza. The focus of this report tries to downplay the capabilities of another attack and upplay the government response. The overall tone is condemning.
The second link, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9D9C103A-8E02-45EF-A335-46DB5BAAF766.htm , contains a a very different perspective on the attack. Although the article starts by talking about the victims, a majority of the article seems to focus on the terrorist, his group and their motivations, as well as possible allies, or at least groups that agree with the tactics. This article even includes a section where they discuss the views of a faction of the population who blame Olmert for the attack, because of recent Israeli action in East Jerusalem. This article has a more understanding feel, and seems as though it would be a great propaganda tool for the group.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Violence Leaves Young Iraqis Doubting Clerics
I found this article to be absolutely fascinating. The youth of Iraq are seeing the consequences of Islamic extremism and they are becoming disillusioned with the ideology and religion as a whole. I think this general feeling can be seen in a statement by a moderate Sunni cleric when he says, "In the beginning, they [the youth] gave their eyes and minds to the clerics; they trusted them,”It’s painful to admit, but it’s changed. People have lost too much. They say to the clerics and the parties: You cost us this.” Because religious terrorism tends to kill more people than other types, the general public feels the effects of the terrorism much more heavily. And as shown in this quote, the youth of Iraq are tired of the attacks and killings and they are beginning to blame the religious ideology that provides the legitimacy for the terrorist organizations. This article suggests that in Iraq, the religious terrorist organizations are losing the support of their constituencies, especially in the younger generation-- the very people who are supposed to be the future supporters and members of the organization. So, as this article states, the terrorist organizations are changing their approach. Instead of offering an ideology, they're offering money to gain more recruits. Perhaps this suggests that in Iraq, efforts should be more focused on economic relief and fighting poverty, as well as promoting more moderate strains of Islam. Anyway, just interesting to think about. Let me know what you think...
Terrorist Group FARC and WMD's
The timing of this article in the New York Times today coincides perfectly with our class discussion on terrorist groups' efforts to obtain WMD's. The article describes how the Colombian government obtained information from a laptop captured in the raids in Ecuador that killed FARC leader Raúl Reyes. The group was in negotiation to purchase radioactive materials in order to build a "dirty bomb." The purchase would be financed by money obtained from drug smuggling. Colombia also alleges that money given by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to the group would have contributed to the purchase of the material.
Perhaps these developments shed some light on the class discussion we had regarding the feasibility of terrorist groups acquiring WMD's. Whether FARC is able or would have been able to acquire the necessary materials to build a dirty bomb remain to be seen, but the fact that they have gotten close to doing so lends credibility to Bett's argument and perhaps disproves Dolnik's rational that crazy groups like FARC can't get a hold of WMD's.
It seems like in light of these new developments, we should renew our class discussion on the possibility of terrorist use of WMD's. It seems to me that the risk is still small, but large enough that governments around the world should not let their guard down and should increase their preparations to protect their civilians in the event that some group like FARC does acquire WMD's.
Perhaps these developments shed some light on the class discussion we had regarding the feasibility of terrorist groups acquiring WMD's. Whether FARC is able or would have been able to acquire the necessary materials to build a dirty bomb remain to be seen, but the fact that they have gotten close to doing so lends credibility to Bett's argument and perhaps disproves Dolnik's rational that crazy groups like FARC can't get a hold of WMD's.
It seems like in light of these new developments, we should renew our class discussion on the possibility of terrorist use of WMD's. It seems to me that the risk is still small, but large enough that governments around the world should not let their guard down and should increase their preparations to protect their civilians in the event that some group like FARC does acquire WMD's.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Farc and Venezula
I found an interesting article here : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=524314&in_page_id=1811
The article discusses the current situation in South America. Specifically, the Colombian government recently killed a leader of the Farc who was hiding just across the border in Ecuador, without Ecuador's permission. This has angered Hugo Chavez and Venezuela; possibly because they fear similar action in Venezuela. From what I can gather, Chavez is a huge supporter of the organization and there seem to be fairly clear ties between the Farc and his country. Recently he has attempted to change the world view of his relationship with the the Farc to the of mediator instead of collaborator. He claims that the recent release of Farc hostages is a direct result of his requests from the organization. In response to the death of the Farc leader Chavez has moved a large portion of his military to the Colombian border threatening war.
This is perhaps one of the most extreme examples of state sponsored terrorism that I can recall. To my knowledge Iran has never deployed its own military in response to an attack against Hezbollah, though it has threaten to become involved when Israel chases the terrorists across the Lebanese border. This article claims that America supports the Colombian efforts. In the wake of shattering relations with Venezuela, the US-Colombian relationship has evidently strengthened. Currently the US has a small force in Colombia working to hinder the drug trade.
The article discusses the current situation in South America. Specifically, the Colombian government recently killed a leader of the Farc who was hiding just across the border in Ecuador, without Ecuador's permission. This has angered Hugo Chavez and Venezuela; possibly because they fear similar action in Venezuela. From what I can gather, Chavez is a huge supporter of the organization and there seem to be fairly clear ties between the Farc and his country. Recently he has attempted to change the world view of his relationship with the the Farc to the of mediator instead of collaborator. He claims that the recent release of Farc hostages is a direct result of his requests from the organization. In response to the death of the Farc leader Chavez has moved a large portion of his military to the Colombian border threatening war.
This is perhaps one of the most extreme examples of state sponsored terrorism that I can recall. To my knowledge Iran has never deployed its own military in response to an attack against Hezbollah, though it has threaten to become involved when Israel chases the terrorists across the Lebanese border. This article claims that America supports the Colombian efforts. In the wake of shattering relations with Venezuela, the US-Colombian relationship has evidently strengthened. Currently the US has a small force in Colombia working to hinder the drug trade.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Chavez & Correa amass troops on the Colombian border
In response to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe's military assault on a FARC camp in Ecuador, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa amassed troops on the Colombian border. Chavez and Correa are incensed because they say Uribe violated Ecuador's sovereignty. Chavez announced that if Uribe tried to take similar actions on the Venezuelan border, then Venezuela would go to war.
The Colombians claim they were attacked from across the Ecuadorian border by FARC rebels and acted in self-defense. Furthermore, Colombian Police Commander Gen. Oscar Naranjo says that Colombian forces found electronic documents in FARC's camp that tie President Correa to Raul Reyes, the FARC's former leader. If Naranjo is telling the truth, then this is likely a case of a state's (i.e., Ecuador's) active support for terrorism as a foreign policy tool.
By using a terrorist group as the unofficial arm of the state, a government can launch attacks against an adversarial state while maintaining its own irreproachability. For example, this is a tactic being used by Iran in the current Iraqi conflict. By clandestinely sponsoring a terrorist organization that has common objectives with the state, a government may attack an enemy state indirectly.
The victimized state then would have a few options: it could choose to attack the sponsoring state directly, in which case it would need conclusive evidence of the connection between the terrorists and their sponsor state--the absence of which would cause the victim-state to appear to be the aggressor (like in the current situation in which Colombia will be perceived as the aggressor unless it can prove that Ecuador knowingly allowed FARC to attack Colombians from its border).
A second option for the victim-state could be to attack the terrorist organization, but if the terrorists are hiding across the state's border, then it would have to justify violating the other (sponsoring) state's sovereignty by providing some type of evidence that it was, indeed, acting in self-dense (e.g. Colombia's "self-defense" argument).
Finally, the victim-state could choose to do nothing except wait for the terrorists to strike again; however, this approach would make the victim-state appear weak not only in the eyes of the terrorists and those of the sponsoring state but also in the eyes of the victim-state's own citizens.
Thus, if one state is confident that it could attack another state indirectly via a clandestinely-sponsored terrorist organization, and if the sponsoring-state is confident that any connections between it and the terrorists would either not be revealed or be nebulous, at best; then the sponsoring-state may, in fact, allow such an attack to take place--knowing that the victimized state would likely be incapable of gathering enough hard evidence to sufficiently justify a proportional retaliatory strike against the sponsor-state.
This may be what is occurring in South America right now with Ecuador (and maybe Venezuela) as the sponsoring state(s), FARC as the proxy, and Colombia as the victim. Then again, this whole line of reasoning could be complete rubbish. What do you think?
The Colombians claim they were attacked from across the Ecuadorian border by FARC rebels and acted in self-defense. Furthermore, Colombian Police Commander Gen. Oscar Naranjo says that Colombian forces found electronic documents in FARC's camp that tie President Correa to Raul Reyes, the FARC's former leader. If Naranjo is telling the truth, then this is likely a case of a state's (i.e., Ecuador's) active support for terrorism as a foreign policy tool.
By using a terrorist group as the unofficial arm of the state, a government can launch attacks against an adversarial state while maintaining its own irreproachability. For example, this is a tactic being used by Iran in the current Iraqi conflict. By clandestinely sponsoring a terrorist organization that has common objectives with the state, a government may attack an enemy state indirectly.
The victimized state then would have a few options: it could choose to attack the sponsoring state directly, in which case it would need conclusive evidence of the connection between the terrorists and their sponsor state--the absence of which would cause the victim-state to appear to be the aggressor (like in the current situation in which Colombia will be perceived as the aggressor unless it can prove that Ecuador knowingly allowed FARC to attack Colombians from its border).
A second option for the victim-state could be to attack the terrorist organization, but if the terrorists are hiding across the state's border, then it would have to justify violating the other (sponsoring) state's sovereignty by providing some type of evidence that it was, indeed, acting in self-dense (e.g. Colombia's "self-defense" argument).
Finally, the victim-state could choose to do nothing except wait for the terrorists to strike again; however, this approach would make the victim-state appear weak not only in the eyes of the terrorists and those of the sponsoring state but also in the eyes of the victim-state's own citizens.
Thus, if one state is confident that it could attack another state indirectly via a clandestinely-sponsored terrorist organization, and if the sponsoring-state is confident that any connections between it and the terrorists would either not be revealed or be nebulous, at best; then the sponsoring-state may, in fact, allow such an attack to take place--knowing that the victimized state would likely be incapable of gathering enough hard evidence to sufficiently justify a proportional retaliatory strike against the sponsor-state.
This may be what is occurring in South America right now with Ecuador (and maybe Venezuela) as the sponsoring state(s), FARC as the proxy, and Colombia as the victim. Then again, this whole line of reasoning could be complete rubbish. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)