RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.

Countrymen,

Bob Krumm produced this post, to which I commented as follows:

Have you ever been in the line?

The concept of “lone-wolf” is a red herring. Who benefits from the use of such a concept? Those supporting the “lone-wolf.”

Who isn’t networked? Even a mendicant begs food and uses man-made shelter. And aren’t berries and caves nodes of the network of life? The concept of a “lone” anything is a howler and, when inside OR and strategic and tactical intel and decision-making cycles, dangerous and possibly seditious.

The flak-holes and army of davids metaphors are interesting and useful to a point — e.g., the federal prosecutor’s illustration of back-charging a distributed network to collapse or degrade it, a tactic common also in battle AOs. They do not reach the heart of the problem, which in the first metaphor is suppressing the AA batteries and in the second metaphor defeating the army/network, davids or otherwise.

So-called “lone-wolf” operations can have a range of origins, possibly including several specifics from within that range. Not in that range, or the specifics of it, is an individual acting on their own. Every single one of us and every single node of life is networked, david-sized or otherwise.

Islam is an enormous network comprising countless david-sized networks all with clearly visible, loudly proclaimed, fully meant leadership and goals. Even the various flavors of Islam call Islam a nation, and indeed the only global, one-world nation, comprising the only legitimate (meaning specifically, God-sanctioned/willed) religion, culture and morality. Islam also comprises Islamic nation states run by families networked in geo-strategic associations with non-Islamic nation states and their ruling families.

So in itself, Islam is a jumble of claim and fact pushed and pulled by clerics and scholars on the one hand (pushing the one-world nation/ummah of Islam, with themselves at its center, of course) and ruling families on the other (pushing hegemonistic geo-strategic agendas related to Islam but also if not more related to their own greed for power and luxury).

None of that is taken seriously by US strategic leadership or analysis. Who’s weak? Who’s winning?

The things not seen here, typically, are the Islamic clerics and scholars, who are comparable to the AA batteries in the first metaphor, and the Islamic ruling families, who are comparable to the army of davids in the second metaphor. Instead of looking at these sources of Islamic aggression of both the seemingly “lone-wolf” and the “large-scale” kinds, US national strategic resolve focuses, almost entirely, on swatting flies, namely, the numerous proxies groups, comparable to those flack holes that are seen, who are supported by and do the bidding of nation states and their ruling families, on the one hand, and who are egged on ideologically and hidden tactically by clerics and scholars on the other hand.

In only one case, so far, has a nation state and its ruling family been the target of US strategic resolve: Iraq. Nothing at the Saudis, nothing at Iran, nothing at China (and here), nothing at Russia, nothing at Syria, nothing at Afghanistan, nothing at Venezuela, nothing at Mexico — all supporting attacks, through proxies, on the USA.

AQ has indeed been weakened, as has Taliban, but both are mere proxies. Their Iraqi support was removed but their Saudi and other supports remain in place. There has been, back to the metaphor, no suppression of “AA fire” from famiglia Saud. In fact, famiglia Saud has been welcomed to set up “AA batteries” inside the USA (e.g., lawfare, “advisors” all over US departments and agencies, student groups, inter-religious advocacy and propaganda). This to appease Islam under the cover of Constitutional freedoms. In consequence, the nation’s “bombers” (its line military) are taking plenty of gratuitous “flak” and losing a whole lot not only in KIA but also in destruction of social and familial structure. Less than 1% of USA population bears the security burden, such as it is, for the over 99%.

All while “leaders” and analysts obsess about flies: AQ, Taliban, Haqqani. A Roman aphorism applies here: Aquila non capit muscas: the eagle does not hunt flies.

And then there is China (and here), and Russia, and Iran …. Not even on the radar for stopping their hegemonic activities against the USA. Analysts and strategic decision-makers should serve three or four tours in the line with a rifle shooting back before they are considered qualified to pick topics for review.

Second comment on 26SEP11:

“The money angle would not work to identify the lone nutjob, but not much would – anyone who thinks Major Hassan would not have gone off if his emails to the Middle East had all bounced is fooling themselves.”

Hassan was long-since profiled from multiple directions as a “nutjob.” His command structure left him in place. There was every opportunity to stop him. Careerism in his command structure is the culprit, maybe saved some careers but ended many. Selfishness is dangerous to those in its AO.

“As an aside, from a WMD standpoint, lone-wolf attacks would be relatively difficult due to the technology necessary.”

Yes, and points to the state-sponsorship necessity mentioned by Owen J. Example: the weapons grade anthrax Saddam provided for the attacks in USA after 11SEP01. Classic one-two punch using different attack systems, aka towards “full spectrum warfare.”

And with China, Russia and Iran in WMD developments, are USA analysts insouciant or smug about that, as they were regarding Saddam?

Just before 11SEP01 came Dark Winter:

“BTW: I personally (and professionally) think Stratfor is out to lunch most of the time – I stopped reading them years ago.”

Me too.

So with all this analysis, some even pointing to the key fact, state-sponsored attacks on the USA, why did Bill Clinton decide the 1993 WTC attack was a legal not a warfare problem? Presumably he knew of the analysis.

With all this analysis, how did KSM’s team get through on 11SEP01? Presumably CIA’s CTC knew the analysis, but what, wanted it to say something else and said that instead?

With all this analysis, why did GWB tell the nation to go back to the malls rather than putting her on war footing? Presumably he knew nations do not fight global wars unless they are all in on the project. Presumably he knew the multi-national profile of Caliphist supporters. Someone told him less than 1% of the population could fight a global war while over 99% had a food fight amongst themselves, porked-up and snorted dope?

With all this analysis, how did Nissan get through at Hood? He was a known quantity.

I propose one answer for all four of those questions: careerism. And down the line, compounded careerism by refusing to admit the disastrous effects of previous careerism, and correct them. I think there are some darker factors as well, but careerism will do as a diagnostic to reform the whole deformity, darker factors included.

The nation has been flummoxed and hurt by her analytical component. Her intellect has failed her and she sorrows in pain while blows continue to rain down on her because that intellect is self-serving rather than serving self-less-ly. Her injuries are self-allowed.

This enemy that calls itself Islam is not a mystery, not vague, not stateless and not omnipotent. It is a known known. There are about it no unknown unknowns or even known unknowns except at the tactical level. Strategically, it is a known known. It has no ineluctable historical destiny to rule the world or even a small part of it. Neither are or do the other nation states attacking the USA.

This war has been going on for ten years inconclusively. That is insane. TSA is a risible metric of that. No analysis can justify that laziness. It’s time to win the war and it’s time the analytical power of the nation did their job to make that happen. Sudden and relentless reform indeed.

Please bear with my stentorian tone. See through it if you would please and take the underlying points under consideration.

Update 1: An example.

Update 2: Related: What To Do About Homegrown Terrorists

Update 3: And Al Saud intends to keep it up.  See also here.

Update 4: An interesting comment string arose at Instapundit when Glenn Reynolds referenced Mark Cunningham on the subject of what The Fraud should say about Islam.  I commented as follows, making an important observation regarding the effect of religion on affairs:

Were I to take Cunningham’s essay as serious thought — and I think it is not — I would say his face is too close to the canvas, he has seen a couple of swirls of paint and yelled, “Eureka!” Were he serious, he would pull back to ponder the whole canvas or at least more of it than has caught his fancy. His enthusiasm would, shall we say, moderate.

Serious, productive thought cannot come from other than a monastic. Men and women bearing the daily burdens and cares of life, such as Cunningham, simply cannot and will not create intellectual and moral forms that benefit anyone lastingly. They are too busy, and justly so, one hopes. Such men and women can use such forms once they are created, but create them they can not and will not. Those stepped way back from the canvas — monastics — do that. The truth is the whole.

AMDG – VICTORY