Second Amendment Essential To Fighting Domestic Terrorism

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Feb 18, 2009.

  1. First, let's look at the likely scenario:

    The Coming Swarm
    JOHN ARQUILLA
    Published: February 14, 2009
    Monterey, Calif.

    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.

    While it’s true that the assaults in Kabul seem to be echoes of Mumbai, the fact is that Al Qaeda and its affiliates have been using these sorts of swarm tactics for several years. Jemaah Islamiyah — the group responsible for the Bali nightclub attack that killed 202 people in 2002 — mounted simultaneous attacks on 16 Christian churches in Indonesia on Christmas Eve in 2000, befuddling security forces.

    Even 9/11 itself had swarm-like characteristics, as four small teams of Qaeda operatives simultaneously seized commercial aircraft and turned them into missiles, flummoxing all our defensive responses. In the years since, Al Qaeda has coordinated swarm attacks in Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Turkey, Yemen and elsewhere. And at the height of the insurgency in Iraq, terrorists repeatedly used swarms on targets as small as truck convoys and as large as whole cities.

    This pattern suggests that Americans should brace for a coming swarm. Right now, most of our cities would be as hard-pressed as Mumbai was to deal with several simultaneous attacks. Our elite federal and military counterterrorist units would most likely find their responses slowed, to varying degrees, by distance and the need to clarify jurisdiction.

    While the specifics of the federal counterterrorism strategy are classified, what is in the public record indicates that the plan contemplates having to deal with as many as three sites being simultaneously hit and using “overwhelming force” against the terrorists, which probably means mustering as many as 3,000 ground troops to the site. If that’s an accurate picture, it doesn’t bode well. We would most likely have far too few such elite units for dealing with a large number of small terrorist teams carrying out simultaneous attacks across a region or even a single city.

    Nightmare possibilities include synchronized assaults on several shopping malls, high-rise office buildings or other places that have lots of people and relatively few exits. Another option would be to set loose half a dozen two-man sniper teams in some metropolitan area — you only have to recall the havoc caused by the Washington sniper in 2002 to imagine how huge a panic a slightly larger version of that form of terrorism would cause.

    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.

    For the defense of American cities against terrorist swarms, the key would be to use local police officers as the first line of defense instead of relying on the military. The first step would be to create lots of small counterterrorism posts throughout urban areas instead of keeping police officers in large, centralized precinct houses. This is consistent with existing notions of community-based policing, and could even include an element of outreach to residents similar to that undertaken in the Sunni areas of Iraq — even if it were to mean taking the paradoxical turn of negotiating with gangs about security.

    At the federal level, we should stop thinking in terms of moving thousands of troops across the country and instead distribute small response units far more widely. Cities, states and Washington should work out clear rules in advance for using military forces in a counterterrorist role, to avoid any bickering or delay during a crisis. Reserve and National Guard units should train and field many more units able to take on small teams of terrorist gunmen and bombers. Think of them as latter-day Minutemen.

    Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Turkey and Yemen all responded to Qaeda attacks with similar “packetizing” initiatives involving the police and armed forces; and while that hasn’t eliminated swarm attacks, the terrorists have been far less effective and many lives have been saved.

    As for Afghanistan, where the swarm has just arrived, there is still time to realize the merits of forming lots of small units and sprinkling them about in a countrywide network of outposts. As President Obama looks to send more troops to that war, let’s make sure the Pentagon does it the right way.

    Yes, the swarm will be heading our way, too. We need to get smaller, closer and quicker. The sooner the better.

    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.”



    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/opinion/15arquilla.html?_r=1
     
  2. Barack Hussein is alrady the top terrorist:mad:
     
  3. The author of the above article understands the problem , but in typical big government fashion, not the solution. We will never have enough police or security forces available to deal with this type of scenario. Certainly they will not be there in time to rescue a group of defenseless people being systematically slaughtered by terrorists. The response of security forces in crazed killer type situations is not encouraging either. Typically they establish a perimeter, waste precious minutes, even hours, tryng to determine what the tactical situation is. We saw it in Columbine, ditto Virginia Tech. It's a useful approach for a bank hostage situation but deadly when dealing with terrorists or crazies.

    Consider this woman's story:

    Description

    On October 16, 1991, Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!", then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. During the shooting, he approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill[1] and in general, after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse, but "a hundred feet away in [her] car", her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed. (Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person. One patron, Tommy Vaughn, threw himself through a plate-glass window to allow others to escape. Hennard allowed a mother and her four-year-old child to leave. He reloaded several times and still had ammunition remaining when he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head after being cornered and wounded by police.

    Reacting to the massacre, in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law allowing Texas citizens with the required permit to carry concealed weapons. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the Luby's massacre and both of whose parents were shot and killed. Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996. The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush and became part of a broad movement to allow U.S. citizens to easily obtain permits to carry concealed weapons.

    **********

    Better yet, listen to her testimony to congress. http://www.popmodal.com/video/1049/Suzanna-Gratia-Hupp-explains-meaning-of-2nd-Amendment

    *****************

    Obviously the single most effective way to deal with the "swarm attack" techinque is to have plenty of armed citizens ready to take defensive action. The mere knowledge that a shopping mall might be filled with 10 or 15 armed citizens would likely deter this type of attack. Luckily most states have recognized this and enacted "right to carry" laws, but now liberal gun banners have made disarming Americans one of their highest priorites.

    The choice is pretty simple. Live in fear, dependent on a government that might decide not to use force to put down a riot, that might decide to try to negotiate with terrorists. Or, be in a position to protect yourself and your fellow citizens.

    What kind of congressmen and president would try to deny us that right?
     
  4. my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, is a poisen pill on tyranny

    the founding fathers were humble guys - they knew what they created might not stand. they remembered how they created it, and left to posterity to the moral right and physical means to reclaim it if necessary

    removal of gun rights, therefor, is the canary in the coal mine
     
  5. In the Wild Wild West in the 19th century it was very common for the people to check their guns with the sheriff when they visited the town...that was the law of a particular town.

    Wonder how many of those who had to check their guns cried like bitches about a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.

    Obviously today's southern rednecked type thinks the civil war was an act of domestic terrorism by the north...

    No surprise at all that one of the imperial grand wizard klannish around here at ET wants an armed vigilante mob who can act without any concern for the law and our justice system...AAA of course was the one who said Jeb Bush should use the National Guard in Florida to violate a court order because he didn't agree with the judicial process in America---opting instead to ignore the law and use the National Guard to protect a brain dead body with force if necessary.
     
  6. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Absolutely GD right!
     
  7. Huh?

    Is there anyone on this planet or the next that is talking about removing our guns?

     
  8. I don't get what the big deal is anyway.

    If people want guns, legal or not, they get them.

    Just look at the gangs in the inner city.


     
  9. Guns are to right wing like abortion is to the left. Both are sacred cows but neither will ever be touched by the other side. Yet both are always used to raise fear and loathing with the their al Quaeda (the base)
     
  10. Magna

    Magna Administrator

    AAA,

    Please provide me links to back up your claim. I'm talking about Congressmen, Senators, etc. or serious journalists (not far-left bloggers on Daily Kos or a similar website). I ask because I live in a state that permits handguns without registration, open carry at all times, and concealed carry with an easy to obtain permit. So I would definitely be interested if some respectable group is making the elimination of these rights "one of their highest priorities". Thanks.
     
    #10     Feb 18, 2009