Death by a Thousand Cuts

See all those security lines? Just because al Qaeda's recent attacks haven't succeeded doesn't mean the terrorist group's overall strategy is failing.

BY DAVEED GARTENSTEIN-ROSS | NOVEMBER 23, 2010

"Two Nokia phones, $150 each, two HP printers, $300 each, plus shipping, transportation and other miscellaneous expenses add up to a total bill of $4,200. That is all what Operation Hemorrhage cost us… On the other hand this supposedly 'foiled plot', as some of our enemies would like to call [it], will without a doubt cost America and other Western countries billions of dollars in new security measures."

Thus begins the lead article in the latest issue of Inspire, the English-language online magazine produced by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the jihadi group's Yemen branch, which was released Saturday. The cover features a photo of a UPS plane and the striking headline: "$4,200." It is referring to the recent cartridge-bomb plot, and specifically the great disparity between the cost of executing a terrorist attack and the cost to Western countries of defending against asymmetric warfare -- costs now numbering in the billions of dollars a year and climbing. The magazine warns that future attacks will be "smaller, but more frequent" -- an approach that "some may refer to as the strategy of a thousand cuts."

The slick packaging may be new, but al Qaeda's emphasis on bleeding the U.S. economy is not. From Osama bin Laden's earliest declaration of war against America, al Qaeda has linked its attacks to the U.S. economy. He and other salafi jihadi thinkers had long believed that economic power was the key to America's military might; they thus saw weakening Western economies as their path to victory. When bin Laden declared war against the "Jews and crusaders" in 1996, he emphasized that the mujahideen's strikes should be coupled with an economic boycott by Saudi women. Otherwise, the Muslims would be sending money to the enemy, "which is the foundation of wars and armies."

In October 2001, just after he put this strategy to work by striking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, bin Laden spoke with Al Jazeera journalist Taysir Allouni (who is now imprisoned in Spain, following his controversial conviction for cooperating with al Qaeda). The terrorist leader emphasized the costs that the attacks imposed on the United States. "According to their own admissions, the share of the losses on the Wall Street market reached 16 percent," he said. "The gross amount that is traded in that market reaches $4 trillion. So if we multiply 16 percent with $4 trillion to find out the loss that affected the stocks, it reaches $640 billion of losses." He told Allouni that the economic effect was even greater due to building and construction losses and missed work, so that the damage inflicted was "no less than $1 trillion by the lowest estimate."

In his October 2004 address to the American people, bin Laden noted that the 9/11 attacks cost al Qaeda only a fraction of the damage inflicted upon the United States. "Al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event," he said, "while America in the incident and its aftermath lost -- according to the lowest estimates -- more than $500 billion, meaning that every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars."

John Moore/Getty Images

 

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is director of the Center for the Study of Terrorist Radicalization at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Ph.D. candidate at the Catholic University of America.

JKOLAK

10:28 AM ET

November 24, 2010

Right. Al-Qaeda can't show

Right. Al-Qaeda can't show it's face publicly anywhere, and we're losing.

 

FRANK MOODY

6:51 PM ET

November 24, 2010

Who is "Al-Qaeda" and how do

Who is "Al-Qaeda" and how do you know they don't show their face publicly?

Every time we capture or kill the "no. 2 of Al-Qaeda" we have a new one within a week.

In the mean time, we have terrified Americans giving up liberties for a façade of "safety" that neither works in favor of Americans, and in fact works against our general interests.

To me, when government officials grope upstanding American citizens without probable cause for so-called "safety", the terrorists already won.

 

MARIK7

12:01 PM ET

November 26, 2010

Absolutely

You are totally correct on both counts. It is especially clear that we are losing this war, if by "we," you mean the majority of middle-class Americans. Certain segments of society, such as the firms that we have privatized the war to and for, are winning, of course, but the overall picture is economic, and that picture is a pretty ugly one. You can think about it the next time you get groped or your tax money goes to pay interest on debts the nation incurs in trying to wage wage against bin Laden.

 

KONKER

10:28 AM ET

November 27, 2010

Won

This argument should have greater prominence in the US media. "We will not let the terrorists dominate our way of life...restrict our civic freedoms and rights etc". You hear this line in Europe a lot, where the security services and people do their utmost against terrorism and at the same time the countries continue as normally as possible. The German authorities said the same last week. It may be because the European countries have experience of war, with threats of potential annihilation plus other forms of terrorism in living memory... they have a much more mature and rationale response. The US should stop acting like a threatened and frightened adolescent.

 

PHILIP HENIKA

11:05 AM ET

November 27, 2010

America Slow to Defend Human Rights and to Build World Peace

Konker is correct is his/hers suggestion that America has acted more like a spoiled child rather than a seasoned diplomat in the matters of the defence of human rights and the building of world peace. Europe, for example, convened their Convention of Human Rights in 1950 whereas America waited unitl 1969. The reasons for the delay in America were twofold. We started the Cold War with Russia with the display of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And two, America was still very much a segregated society in terms of civil rights. I debate this because of the contention that the defence of human rights and the building of world peace are valid counterterrorism measures which until only recently have been adopted by the US. The test, as I stated below, is the Obama's Administration's "clear-hold-build-transfer" strategy in Afghanistan for which the jury is still out and rightly-so. Yes, America is behind other regions in world with re: to the defence of human rights and building world peace but the signs are here: the Carter Center, the Gates Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, the 2048: Humanity's Agreement to Live Agreement Project etc.

 

MARTY MARTEL

3:00 PM ET

November 24, 2010

US chose to have a death by thousand cuts

US chose to have such a death when Bush administration recruited terrorist state of Pakistan that created this haven for terrorists in Pakistan to begin with.

Bush administration could have avoided a death by thousand cuts if it would have carried out the threat by Richard Armitage ‘to bomb Pakistan to stone age’ to Musharraf back in 2001. Afterall US knew at the time that it was Pakistani government that had planned, facilitated and carried out 9/11 attacks.

But Armitage forced Musharraf to join US fight against terrorism against Musharraf’s own wishes by such a threat as mentioned above. And the rest is history as the saying goes.

Musharraf decided to play the duplicitous game of ’running with the hares while hunting with the hounds’ with US. Even now US knows it but continues to pour billion after billion in that terror center of the world with no and in sight.

 

ANDOR_1

3:53 PM ET

November 24, 2010

US chose to have a death by thousand cuts

It started well before the Bush Administration recruited the Pakistani terrorists.
Please, read Mr Brzezinski confession, "How Jimmy Carter and I started the Mujahideen.

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/brzezinski-how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

 

FRANK MOODY

7:14 PM ET

November 24, 2010

don't forget about Reagan's

don't forget about Reagan's involvement in the Iran-Contra affair. That couldn't have helped things either.

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/dah_04/dah_04_02141.html

 

MARIK7

12:05 PM ET

November 26, 2010

Really?

It seems to me that there's a moral issue here. Bombing a nation as you suggest inevitably kills people who are no part of that nation's ruling and military elite. Killing such people is called murder. I would suggest that there are many practical and moral reasons for avoiding murder. Of course, many of history's nations have practiced murder on a grand scale. I think of Nazi Germany and the Communist USSR, among others. I'd rather not join them myself.

 

PHILIP HENIKA

12:43 PM ET

November 26, 2010

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Japan Firebombs

Marty Martel:

Just a reminder that America chose to murder the Japanese people with the firebombing of 64 cities and two nuclear weapons. America essentially dehumanized the Japanese people to same extent that Hitler dehumanized the Jews and Stalin dehumanized dissidents. America did choose to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because, for one reason, the cities had been untouched by firebombs i.e. these cities were the optimum laboratory for the test of destructive power of the two nuclear weapons. The Japanese were thus reduced the rank and file of laboratory rats.

 

PHILIP HENIKA

1:57 PM ET

November 26, 2010

Two Lies by Truman Administration

Kunino:

The Truman Administration claimed that the firebombs and nuclear weapons dropped on Japan were on military targets and to save American lives. However, it was claimed by General MacArthur that not one American life would be lost with his proposed invasion in March 1946. Second, the design and materials of Japanese residences were tested in the US for the optimal incendiary before the Japanese cities were firebombed. I debate these issues because our government has been quick to lie and slow to build peace around the world. I debate these issues because this pattern of behavior repeats itself - the Bush Administration -quick to lie and not just slow but no to build peace.

 

PHILIP HENIKA

2:21 PM ET

November 26, 2010

Clear-Hold-Build-Transfer

Kunino:

You inferred 'lab' testing in Afghanistan...

What is being tested in Afganistan by the Obama Administration can be summed with the hyphonated word "clear-hold-build-transfer" e.g. clear the Taliban and keep them returning, help Afghanis to build communites to stem the tide of recruitment into the Taliban and transfer authority re: law enforcement to the Afghanis. An objective assessment of "clear-hold-build-transfer" shows what you would expect - working to a certain extent here and there e.g Marjah where the Taliban were cleared and a community leader was appointed to express the needs of the community of Marjah.

 

PHILIP HENIKA

11:53 AM ET

November 26, 2010

PNAC Empowerment, Security and Intelligence

The book "Cultures of War" by Dower documents the rise of influence and power of the Neoconserative lobby the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). A September 2000 manifest on "rebuilding" America's military suggests an expansion of America's WMD and even includes precedents for space war. The document was signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz i.e. the future VP, DOD and Deputy DOD. In 2001 the Bush Administration rapidly severed the existing bureaocracy and established one of their own - decision-making was reduced to very few. The result with regard to intelligence was a matter of descriptors i.e. intelligence re: the 9/11 attacks was ignored and intelligence re: the Iraq war was intentionally falsified to justify the war. The result with regard to security was also a matter of descriptors i.e. the 9/11 attacks were considered acts of war and not simply the actions of criminals.