Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rubin Reports

Instead of this kind of nonsense, the two key elements of counterterrorism are as follows:

First, it is not the quantity of material that counts, but the need to locate and correctly understand the most vital material. This requires your security forces to understand the ideological, psychological, and organizational nature of the threat. Second, it is necessary to be ready to act on this information not only in strategic terms but in political terms.

For example: suppose the U.S. ambassador to Libya warns that the American compound there may be attacked. No response.

Then he tells the deputy chief of mission that he is under attack. No response.

Then, the U.S. military is not allowed to respond.

Then, the president goes to sleep without making a decision about doing anything because of a communications breakdown between the secretaries of Defense and State, and the president goes to sleep because he has a very important fundraiser the next day.

But don’t worry — because three billion telephone calls by Americans are daily being intercepted and supposedly analyzed.

In other words, you have a massive counterterrorist project costing $1 trillion, but when it comes down to it, the thing repeatedly fails.

To quote the former secretary of State: “What difference does it  make?”

If one looks at the great intelligence failures of the past, these two points quickly become obvious. Take for example the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941: U.S. naval intelligence had broken Japanese codes — they had the information needed to conclude the attack would take place. Yet a focus on the key to the problem was not achieved. The important messages were not read and interpreted; the strategic mindset of the leadership was not in place.

Or, in another situation: the plans of Nazi Germany to invade the USSR in 1941, and the time and place of the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944, were not assessed properly, with devastating results. Of course the techniques were more primitive then, but so were the means of concealment. For instance, the Czech intelligence services — using railroad workers as informants — knew about a big build-up for a German offensive against the USSR. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin overrode the warnings. Soviet analysts predicting a Nazi invasion were punished.

Nothing would have changed if more material was collected.

So what needs to be in place, again, is a focus on the highest-priority material, on analyzing correctly what is available, on having leaders accept it and act upon it. If the U.S. government can’t even figure out what the Muslim Brotherhood is like, or the dangers of supporting Islamists to take over Syria, or the fact that the Turkish regime is an American enemy, or if they can’t even teach military officers who the enemy is … what’s it going to do with scores of billions of telephone calls?

If the material is almost limitless, that actually weakens a focus on the most-needed intelligence regarding the most likely terrorist threats. Imagine going through billions of telephone calls, rather than following up a tip from Russian intelligence on a young Chechen man in Boston who is in contact with terrorists. Or going through the communications between a Yemeni al-Qaeda leader and a U.S. Army major who is assigned as a psychiatrist to Fort Hood.

That is why the old system of getting warrants and focusing on individual email addresses or sites or telephones makes sense, at least if it is only used properly. Then those people who are communicating with known terrorists can be traced further. There are no technological magic spells: if analysts are incompetent, blocked from understanding the relationship between Islam and terrorism, hindered by political correctness and fear of career costs, and leaders are unwilling to take proper action, who cares how much data was collected?

At a time when American leaders and the social atmosphere are discouraging citizens from reporting potential terrorism (the photo-store clerk, the flight-school instructor back before September 11, the brave passengers who jumped a hijacker and then had to worry about lawsuits because they violated someone’s civil rights, the attempts to take away citizens’ guns by laws that wouldn’t stop terrorists), how is a giant facility in Utah going to do a better job?

Decision-makers and intelligence analysts only have so many hours in the day. There can only be so many meetings, only so many priorities. And the policymaking pyramid narrows rapidly toward the top. There is a point of diminishing returns for the size of an intelligence bureaucracy. Lower-priority tasks proliferate; too much paper is generated and meetings are held; the system clogs when it has too much data.

Note the parallel between this broader terrorism policy and the current philosophy of airport security. In both cases, everyone is considered equally suspect. Profiling is minimized. Instead of focusing on the hundred who might be of special interest, a great deal of time, attention, and resources has been spent on 10 million others.

The increased costs of security, Obama has told us, amounts to $1 trillion. Of course, people would say that such money was well-spent. Yet — in security, as in every other aspect of government — money can be spent well or badly, even counterproductively.

Al-Qaeda is even saying openly that it is switching to a strategy of encouraging isolated attacks. Within 24 hours, a British soldier is murdered on a street in London after he seeks and fails to obtain terrorist training in Somalia, and a French soldier is attacked. In Toulouse, France, a terrorist kills or cripples soldiers and Jewish schoolchildren. There are dozens of examples.

Vast amounts of money and resources, though, are being spent in preparing for an exact replay of September 11. And remember that the number of terrorists caught by the TSA hovers around zero. The shoe, underpants, and Times Square bombers weren’t even caught by security at all, and many other such cases can be listed.

In addition to this, the U.S.-Mexico border is practically open.

The ultimate problem is that the number of terrorists is very low, and of the ones who aren’t insane, their characteristics are pretty obvious — about 99 percent of them are revolutionary and violent Islamists.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Good analysis, Mr. Rubin. JSenta already nailed it, but my response is: "What a wonderful way to use fear-based marketing to pull the wool over our eyes and institute an 'intelligence' system that's intended to do nothing more than spy on law-abiding Americans, with the intent of slowly and completely stealing our Liberty?" And make the enemy gun owners, returning military veterans, and anybody who still supports the Constitution. Conspiracy theory? No, it's all been said and done already.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What happens if the underlining assumption of collecting metadata on phone calls (to apprehend Islamic terrorists) is false? What if that is not the goal? What if Obama believes his own rhetoric -- that right-wingers and members of the Tea Party and ex-military personnel are as dangerous as certain members of a "religion of peace." So wouldn't finding out who those "enemy" Americans are be worth a trillion dollars to an Obama? Yep, a real "bargain" for the con man in the WH.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Spooks and Peepers scanning systems
Here's my thoughts in case you missed 'em
DHS to NSA
FBI and CIA
Building Meta-data Bases
Scooping up our every traces

Director Clapper, you say: "Trust us.
It's for defense, and sometimes justice."
Yes, Mister Clapper, we can see
What a powerful tool, such data could be
But if anything I trust you less
Than I ever did the IRS

And how hard would it really be
For a tactics fan of Alinsky
To morph a track from the wee hours of morn
Into a search for kiddie porn.
So take your Surveillance State Preservers
And shove them up your Secret Servers
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (40)
All Comments   (40)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
This current scandal should have every American wondering if they still live in a free country. How can we claim to be a beacon of freedom and have a constituional right to privacy when the government is spying on every citizen. The stasi, KGB and gestapo were amateurs compared to this administration. I suppose this comment is being monitored and fed to the appropriate agency for punitive action.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well golly, I guess domestic spying isn't about keeping is safe from terrorist attacks, just like the Affordable Health Care Act is neither affordable nor about health care!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This is what happens when you switch from Humint to Signit as a main source of intelligence gathering. The great state of Isreal still relies heavily on Humint and has good results.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You guys really should join the Democrats, you make about as much sense. Yes, every farm boy who ever fought for American liberty was really just conspiring to take away your guns.

Come next: how have a strong military won't win any wars.

Maroons.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If security was the real issue then the communications of anyone going to a masque would be monitored, including video/audio of everything that goes on there. You don't go looking for KKK members in black churches, so where, would you go to find muslime terrorists?

We have to come to grips with the fact that islam isn't a religion, it's a political movement, and one that is entirely incompatible with any form of democratic government, especially ours.

"If" some say security is worth limited liberty, how then can they not say it is also worth profiling?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
OUTSTANDING ARTICLE BY BARRY RUBIN

to which I add:

Barark Obama the biggest and baddest of big government liberal presidents, who's ideologically fixated on bigness (big is beautiful, bigger is better), has applied his blind love for bigness and big government to the NSA's counter terrorism programs- turning the effective fishing pole used by George W. Bush to catch terrorists into a gigantic expensive ever expansive net intrusively gobbling up tons of info from our telephones and internet. And what does Obama have to show for it? 13 dead and 30 injured at Ft. Hood; 4 dead and 280 injured at Boston; 4 dead in Benghazi; 1 dead and 1 injured in Little Rock; and near catastrophes at Times Square and on Christmas Day 2009. Obama's post-9/11 record next to Bush's is abysmal and proves that bigger isn't better when countering jihadist terror.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You nailed it - especially with this sentence:

"There are no technological magic spells: if analysts are incompetent, blocked from understanding the relationship between Islam and terrorism, hindered by political correctness and fear of career costs, and leaders are unwilling to take proper action, who cares how much data was collected?"
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Is anyone going to ask these questions of Dianne Feinstein, Obama, and the other defenders of this dragnet?

While I'm asking depressing questions, is there a Republican presidential prospect who will dare to profile instead of storing my e-mails for eternity?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Fight against Terrorism was never more than a fig leaf. Serious terrorists have known about electronic surveillance for years.

The NSA (hi, guys!) and its backers were always more interested in "business opportunities" and political blackmail. Secretly amassed personal data on regular Americans is of no use in fighting terrorists.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The bottom line is that the fools running our country don't know what to do with info when they have it. They stick their heads in the sand & do nothing. It is a ship of fools with info provided by a ship of fools. Info isn't the problem. The incompetent people we have interpreting it IS the problem! See the 911 terrorists that overstayed their visas. State knew about this, but because they didn't do anything nearly 3,000 people died. Nuff said!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All