Quote:
Originally Posted by tankdriver
1. I would agree that it is impossible to keep our means and methods secret until the enemy is beaten. As they (Franks?) so often said, the enemy gets a vote. The enemy will adjust.
I'm not saying publicize everything we plan, but we go into it knowing that the enemy will adjust, and it may not matter if he does because we've chosen the right means and methods.
2. I would argue that 1)the satphone+backdrops were not successful in capturing or killing him, and that 2)we have compromised the effectiveness of OBL's communications.
3. I do think it was stupid to publicize the satphone thing, but it's not the end of the world. I don't think it should've been redacted from documents, or used to kill cases before federal courts, as the Nat'l Security issue has been used and abused by the administration.
|
1. That is how things are done -- assume everybody knows everything and then make contingencies for each potentially compromised source, means, and method. It doesn't always work. However, the more effectively that the secrets are kept, the greater the likelihood of success and the fewer people get stuffed into body bags. I prefer Americans not die. Secrecy protects America's military and clandestine and covert operators and operatives. Not having the sources, means and methods compromised increases the probability of success. Also, and a very significant consideration, maintaining secrecy concerning sources, methods and means keeps the cost to the taxpayer down.
2. Of course they were unsuccessful in capturing & killing top Al Qaeda officers early in the war -- that's the whole point. Had our means and methods NOT been compromised it would have allowed our armed forces and clandestine services to continue in their use of those means and methods. However, goofballs in Congress, in on-air interviews, undermined the efficacy of those particular tools. If a person's location can be reduced to 500 ha to 1,000 ha, it means that remote observation systems suddenly have great value. Locating any small object using remote sensing is extremely difficult and highly time-dependent. Remote systems cannot monitor a particular part of the planet 24/7 with resolution sufficient to differentiate an individual, especially a moving individual. Nor can remote systems identify an individual even if he or she is detected. Ancillary sources aren't just important, they are absolutely critical. Otherwise, we end up killing innocent people every time we pull the trigger. That's a hell of a way to run a war.
Remote sensing is an extremely stupid way to pursue an individual. Remote sensing is great for terrain info and detection and disposition of equipment. But it cannot substitute for eyeballs on the ground.
For your own test go to Google Earth and look at the mountain range from say, .... the Khyber Pass to Iran. Use the 3-D mode. Imagine trying to find and identify a group of people in those mountains without using ancillary data sources.
B