Hunters and Killers
The recent, successful effort by Seal 6 to eliminate bin Laden began a discussion of “hunters and killers.” For some of us who have addressed this form of combat, news of the successful mission was not a surprise. For others, it might be of interest to consider one means by which we are going to war. This new approach to deal with our enemies should make us all proud.
Under the traditional concept of war, two or more opposing armies face off in battle. They maintain enemy and friendly “lines.” The armies are immediately recognizable by their uniforms. There is a constant battle to take land or other prizes of war and hold them. There is a constant attempt to reduce the capabilities of one’s opponents. This requires taking out supply lines, weapon systems, strategic positions and enemy soldiers. All of this is undertaken, to the extent possible, without incurring collateral damage including loss of civilian life and loss of non-military targets. That was then, this is now.
We began to see differences in traditional warfare in Vietnam. We see it again in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, New York City, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia. In fact, it is everywhere. Instead of combatants wearing uniforms, they wear non-descript clothing and seek to blend into their surrounding, most often areas of civilian population. They are not as interested in gaining territory and holding it. There are no restrictions on their targets, including civilian population centers. In fact, using civilians as human shields is commonplace. They do not seek victory in the form of a surrender from their enemies. They seek to wear down their enemies through tactics centering on terror. They continue to fight for the mantra of Islam that all infidels must be eliminated on the way to the Islamic caliphate.
It seems clear that fighting terror tactics cannot be done with conventional tactics and weapons. A different course of action is needed. Hence: hunters and killers. As discussed in an earlier paper, the intelligence capability of our government has been in steady decline since the days of Senator Frank Church in the 1970s. Until recently, our intelligence came from photographs taken from the satellites and reports from people at NSA who spend their days reading newspapers. Human intelligence has been all but eliminated. Fortunately, under the Bush Administration, this began to change. They adopted the concept of hunters and killers. This is a simple concept. First, a major effort is undertaken to gather human intelligence by a variety of methods, identifying the location of potential targets, such as bin Laden. Once the hunters have identified a target, the killers take it out. Killers use a variety of means of taking targets out including the drones which have been so successful, bombs from aircraft, strikes such as Seal 6 and snipers.
To their credit, the Obama Administration has significantly expanded their hunter/killer capacity. Further, they have increased the use of drones to inflict damage. Further still, they have expanded their incursions into Pakistan. Further still, they have consolidated this capability at the CIA. These are all important moves to assist in securing our safety. This approach should be the model of counterterrorism. This technique requires intelligence teams on the ground in the areas where attacks will be undertaken. This will require some cooperation with the governments in the area. Will that be available to us?
That we have this capability and have used it to take out bin Laden should bring a great deal of pride to Americans. It is even more encouraging to assume that the hunters have developed a long list of targets and the killers are preparing to take them out. A finger in the eye of the liberal do-gooders is the fact that the intelligence gathered to find bin Laden included that from “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Clearly, the lead to the couriers began with the “waterboarding” of Kalid Sheikh Mohammed. Similar interrogation techniques even led to the capture of Mohammed. These and other examples prove that enhanced interrogation techniques work and keep us safe. The former Director of the CIA has made clear that a substantial amount of knowledge about the terrorists came from such techniques. Common sense supports the conclusion that treating terrorist as criminals and providing Miranda Warnings and trying them in criminal courts does not work.
Perhaps, we have reached the point where heroes who keep us safe are considered for medals, not investigations and prosecution. Perhaps, our intelligence operatives will be encouraged to do their tough jobs, not avoid activities that will subject them to criticism. A good first step might be the cessation of the investigation of CIA personnel. First, the Attorney General needs to come around. This may be tough as he spends most of his time protecting the bad guys. Second, we must have the courage to ignore those who are offended by these programs which lead to targeted killings.
Many of these steps have raised the ire or apparent ire of Pakistan. They have suggested they will not play nicely with us in the future. They are likely suggesting that the United States violated the Charter of the United Nations prohibitions on one country carrying out military operations in another country without consent. This seems to be just one more of the hundreds of reasons justifying the conclusion that there is no reason for the United Nations. Well, there are many who wonder why we have considered the relationship with Pakistan important, especially to the tune of $3 Billion annually in foreign aid as well as “reimbursement” for expenses incurred in assisting us in the war against terror. There can be no question that Pakistan has played a minor role in assisting us with the Taliban and Al-Qaida. However, they have had access, through their intelligence agencies, to information about the location of bin Laden as well as other enemies for a number of years. They have not provided us with this information and, in fact, have provided us with mis-information. They have provided financial and other resources to the Taliban and al Qaeda to support their terrorist activities. Further, they have not provided information which could have been significant in saving the lives of many of our soldiers who were subject to ambush. After the raid on bin Laden, Pakistan refused, initially, to return the tail section of the downed helicopter and refused, initially, access to bin Laden’s wives. Importantly, Pakistan identified (outed) the CIA representative in Pakistan. Great allies.
So why do we care about Pakistan? First, much of the supplies for the NATO troops are sent through Pakistan. I do not know whether there is an acceptable substitute. Second, they are a nuclear power and if the current government were destabilized, these weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists and those who support terrorists. I do not know whether these weapons are centralized and could be taken out with air strikes. The Pakistanis will fight to maintain these armaments due to their continuing conflict with India. Third, there continues to be a concern about an alliance between Pakistan and China. These are significant issues. On the other hand, I am not sure there is anything we can do to assure the nuclear weapons do not end in the wrong hands. Maybe it is to our interest, and the interest of India, to take out the weapons. It may be logistically more sophisticated than the same mission in Iran but it may be necessary. Further, I am not sure there is any way to prevent the alliance between Pakistan and China. After all, the two countries jointly approached Afghanistan and strongly suggested that they end their relationship with the United States. They suggested that Afghanistan, Pakistan and China would be able to bring the Taliban into the fold through peaceful efforts. Clearly, this will not be a pro-Western alliance.
In the end, we are improving our ability to deal with terror and those who would subject us to terror. On the other hand, we know we cannot rely on Pakistan for assistance in the war with the terrorists. Unless we can find new supply routes to Afghanistan and neutralize the Pakistani nuclear capability, we may need to continue to bribe them. In the end, however, we know we have the means to deal with certain terrorists and that is a good thing.
