Posted on 02/15/2009 6:29:32 PM PST by gridlock
WITH three Afghan government ministries in Kabul hit by simultaneous suicide attacks this week, by a total of just eight terrorists, it seems that a new “Mumbai model” of swarming, smaller-scale terrorist violence is emerging.
The basic concept is that hitting several targets at once, even with just a few fighters at each site, can cause fits for elite counterterrorist forces that are often manpower-heavy, far away and organized to deal with only one crisis at a time. This approach certainly worked in Mumbai, India, last November, where five two-man teams of Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives held the city hostage for two days, killing 179 people. The Indian security forces, many of which had to be flown in from New Delhi, simply had little ability to strike back at more than one site at a time.
(snip)
So how are swarms to be countered? The simplest way is to create many more units able to respond to simultaneous, small-scale attacks and spread them around the country. This means jettisoning the idea of overwhelming force in favor of small units that are not “elite” but rather “good enough” to tangle with terrorist teams. In dealing with swarms, economizing on force is essential.
We’ve actually had a good test case in Iraq over the past two years. Instead of responding to insurgent attacks by sending out large numbers of troops from distant operating bases, the military strategy is now based on hundreds of smaller outposts in which 40 or 50 American troops are permanently stationed and prepared to act swiftly against attackers. Indeed, their very presence in Iraqi communities is a big deterrent. It’s small surprise that overall violence across Iraq has dropped by about 80 percent in that period.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It is the best defense against tyranny, and it is the best defense against terrorism.
But don't ever expect to see that sentiment expressed in the pages of the New York Times.
Oh, believe me, the Afghan population is armed. Just which way they will point them is up for debate...
Also, we have armed responders already, scattered all over the country. They are called “police.” Not that I don’t agree with you that an armed citizenry can respond even faster.
Also, what the Times doesn’t say is that India is far more gun-shy than even the craziest western society. There were dozens of police on the scenes of some of the shootings, but they were armed with batons. I think the Indian government still suffers from Ghandi syndrome.
>Arquilla, naturally, ignores the very best defense against swarm terrorism, which is an armed populace.
Israel, Sweden... and SUPPOSEDLY us.
You really don’t want to let those folks at the NYTimes get arms. They’ll just go into hissyfits and shoot each other.
They are not eating at the retaurant before tests can be conducted.
Interesting.
So the NY Times finds a backhanded way to admit that it was wrong about the Surge...and that Iraq is won.
Amazing.
Lol.
U.S. Envoy Reaches Out to Iran During Afghan Visit
NYT | 2/15/09 | By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Posted on 02/15/2009 6:36:50 PM PST by Flavius
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2186477/posts
L
I think you're absolutely right.
This author is in dreamland.
Where are the police going to get the equipment and training for such a task, much less the desire to tackle such a task.
The Police already have military equipment. Havn’t you heard the bitching about the “militarization” of police departments.
The real reason police won’t make it work is because police will treat terrorist attacks as a crime and not a military action.
Civilian body counts will be very high be cause cops will be trying to make arrest rather than kill terrorist.
The Police already have military equipment. Havn’t you heard the bitching about the “militarization” of police departments.
The real reason police won’t make it work is because police will treat terrorist attacks as a crime and not a military action.
Civilian body counts will be very high be cause cops will be trying to make arrest rather than kill terrorist.
The Swiss are armed to a degree that Americans never have been. It worked for them for centuries.
“Where are the police going to get the equipment and training for such a task, much less the desire to tackle such a task.”
Many larger cities already have police with the needed equipment.
To clear a building often takes only the equivalent of an army squad. Police often have bullet proof vests and assault rifles. Add in flash/band grenades, gas and gas masks, etc. and they are already equipped.
As for “the desire to tackle such a task”, may I suggest that while all too many police departments have had far too many scandals, to assume that some corrupt cops mean that the rest do not have ‘the right stuff’ would be an incorrect assumption.
The equipment needed to deal with Muslim (or other varieties of nut case) terrorists isn’t that expensive.
Having local cops as first responders to terrorism is more desirable than waiting for a more distant Army team for the following reasons:
1. Close by means fast response time. Minutes count, if the terrorists are not to set up and secure the areas they targeted.
2. Local forces are far more easily kept in check.
3. Local officers are more motivated, in that their friends, neighbors, etc. may be in harms way.
There is quite a literature on this subject. Happy Googling and reading.
>The Swiss are armed to a degree that Americans never have been. It worked for them for centuries.
This is true; it is also something I would like to see changed. (The US being civilian-armed, not Sweden being disarmed.)
The P-90, is a good weapon for general populous, I think. The Belgians designed it for their tanks and rear-echlon personnel. (Even though it has been adopted by some special-forces units and SWAT teams.)
1) It is simple to take apart, clean, and reassemble; only 4 parts.
2) The sighting mechanism, while odd at first, proves to be very accurate and intuitive; good for people who intermittently fire/train with the weapon.
3) Short overall length, even with the civilian version’s longer barrel; this makes for better CQB.
4) Lightweight, meaning you can carry more ammo and cover longer distances w/o tiring as much.
5) Low/light recoil; this makes for quicker target-reacquisition; also that would be a plus for people of a smaller build, like women.
The downside to the P-90/PS-90 is that it costs a pretty penny and the ammo isn’t exactly cheap/common.
I’m thinking, for [rifle] effectiveness, would probably be something along the lines of a .38 (or maybe the .303 or .30-06) cal long-gun. That’s not exactly cheap either, but it’s not as expensive as a PS-90. The commonality/availability of ammo for it here is a definite plus.
The downsides would be that it is a longer gun, and heavier, which would limit its usefulness in CQB. (CQB is likely one of the main battlegrounds of urban warfare.)
The plus-side is that it is a more massive round and therefore carries more energy (and, distance). Meaning it would be better than the above for longer-ranged attacks.
I’m not really a fan of the 9mm, but it is common enough for handgun prices and is a fairly inexpensive round as compared to the .45 ACP. (Though the .45 ACP is a nice, solid bullet.)
If we’re talking revolvers, then I’m a bit partial to the 357 magnum; the Colt Python I’ve fired was an excellent example of gunsmithing/engineering.
That’s one European example we should follow.
So the NY Times finds a backhanded way to admit that it was wrong about the Surge...and that Iraq is won.
Amazing.
At the end of the editorial you'll find:
John Arquilla teaches in the special operations program at the Naval Postgraduate School and is the author of “Worst Enemy: The Reluctant Transformation of the American Military.”
Op-Ed Contributor means this is a guest editorial. He may have gotten some token renumeration for it, but he's not on the NY Times' regular payroll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.