Strategic analysis of the attacks

Great Debates
21

According to the Institute of Chartered Architects on the BBC last night, the WTC was unusual in that it had no internal support structure, but rather relied on the strength of its ‘skin’ to keep it up. The heat of the fire melted the steel girders that hadn’t been destroyed by the initial impact and which were supporting the upper 20-odd stories, causing the upper stories to fall straight down. I would speculate that the chances of the terrorists having known that were pretty slim.

Why the Pentagon but not the White House or the Capitol? This is pure speculation but the terrorists may have figured that they were more likely to hit the Pentagon than the White House/ Capitol as the latter two are known to be defended by Stinger missiles, and the impact of all of this would have been substantially less if we had been able to defend ourselves against even one of these attacks.

22

They want us all dead.

Very well planned and coordinated. Planes full of fuel (X-C flights) and the fact that when the 2nd plane saw that the N tower was still standing didn’t change course to hit it again so they would have a better chance of knocking it down then just dammaging both. It must have been dishearting for that pilot to see the tower dammaged but still standing.

23

The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was headed towards Washington. The White House or Capitol may indeed have been targeted. Missiles might not have been an effective defense against a ramming attack, anyway.

24

I am of the opinion that there has to be a well-funded, large organization behind this. Consider the following:

[ul]
[li]It takes substantial funding and resources to train pilots to fly commercial airliners. (The planes that were hijacked are not the sort of aircraft one goes to Joe’s Flight School for a weekend to learn to fly.)[/li][li]Despite the intimation, I believe that flying in to the side of a building at 300 miles per hour taking in to account cross winds and other conditions as well as the responsiveness (or lack thereof) of a large airliner was not a feat one could call “easy.”[/li][li]There had to be significant intelligence gathering apparatus to research, analyze and develop a plan to successfully circumvent the security measures of three large U.S. airports. (I grant US airport security is not impressive, but you have to know the regional oddities of three different airports.)[/li][li]There had to be individuals who were trained in the tactics of an assault on an airplpane and the security measures airlines have in place to deal with hijackings. (One report indicated some hijaclers were immediately killing the flight attendants knowing they were the ones designated with certain tasks in response to a hijacking.) That kind of training and research is not done without substantial financial resources and facilities.[/li][li]It is highly unlikely that someone would be able to do this research merely on a service like Travelocity because the crashes were timed to coincide as closely as possible, so there would be no doubt they were coordinated. To do that, the planes would have been chosen on the basis of an analysis of the distance to the target, the range and speed of the planes to get there at the desired time, the amount of fuel the planes would be carrying (all cross country flights so they would carry as much excess fuel to explode and do additional damage as possible), etc. That kind of planning is not something the average person could do because they are not familiar enough with the technical specifications of planes, air travel routes, navigation, etc.[/li][li]There were reports that the transponders of the planes were damaged so they would be more difficult to track. (Someone had to teach them how to do that.) I don’t know if that is true, or even if it would be effective, but it certainly hints at a network supporting these people that goes beyond a dozen or so fanatics with knives and laptop computers.[/li][/ul]
The above, as well as the possibility that the terrorists knew enough about architecture and engineering to feel confident that these actions would bring the buildings down, tell me that there were few countries and even fewer organizations with the capability to pull this off.

25

I’ve cited this interview with Osama Bin Ladin elsewhere but it does offer an overview into his mind-set.

I think the purpose of the attack had several goals all of which, naturally, pertain to an Islamic state of mind and how the foreign policy actions of the US are perceived by the likely perpetrators.

Revenge is right up there (particularly in the perceived US responsibility for the massacres in the Beirut camps), a need to restore confidence in their own peoples gained from a sense of ‘hitting back’, the disruption to the US markets, attacking symbols of oppression and, as Bin Ladin has said in interviews, to make the US people aware of what has been done / is being done in their name.

He also has a big issue with what he perceives to be a heavily Jewish influenced media’s representation of the plight of middle-Eastern Muslims.

For the foreseeable, plain and simple: Survival
As regards the 4th plane; None of the first three targets were symbols of democracy. We’ll probably never know where the fourth was targeted but I’d speculate at Langley HQ given the responsibility Bin Ladin feels that organisation holds.

26

Carefuly maybe, but not wisely. According to the Salon link:

Those airplanes didn’t just hit America, they hit more than two dozen other countries. And more still by way of economic ripples.

Hell. Economic tsunamis.

I’ve flown on a large passenger airplane once in my life, and didn’t pay close attention to the cockpit access but I was always under the impression that the cockpit was secured like a bank vault. If this is not the case, it is time to rethink security measures both in the airport and in the airplane.

Can flight attendants just waltz into the cockpit at will? This just seems flat-out stupid to me. If they can, I am surprised that more airplanes haven’t been turned into missiles.

27

I believe the strategic purpose of these attacks were to simply say “Hey, wake up America. 80% of the world is living a miserable life. And you, the biggest supporter of this injustice (by paying your taxes and voting to support the current US policies), are obliviously going about your day-to-day life as if nothing was happening”.

I do not know whether the perpetrators of this tragedy were Americans (a la Timothy McVay) or foreigners (a la Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hossein). In either case, I can see several reasons why the perpetrators would want to wake up Americans who are either overworked or are watching too much TV to care about what they are voting for, if voting at all.

If the perpetrators were Americans, they could be waking you up to care why you are voting for trillions of dollars to be spent on Star War defense, when with relatively few dollars they showed they could win in American soil at the rate of 5,000 to 12. After all, they killed 5,000 people, and only lost 12 guys – 3 per aircraft. Meanwhile, wake up to see why over 50 million American baby boomers have almost no security in their old age after 30 years of working and paying taxes. Note that the Social Security hardly pays half of your rent.

If the perpetrators were foreign, they tried to wake you up to the injustice which is going on in this world, backed by the policies of the US that her tax payers are supporting without questioning the purpose of their foreign policy makers. This includes placing the US military might and the multinational corporations’ resources in such a way to pay only $30 per barrel for foreign oil as opposed to, say, $3,000 per barrel. Wake up to see what the big 8 are doing to the rest of the world, and start holding your elected officials accountable.

In short, a simple wake up call could be the reason behind this horrible tragedy. Unfortunately, the next goal of these perpetrators could be to tilt a tanker or a train carrying NBC material in the US highways, or spreading fatal deseases through our drinking water supplies.

28

It is an open secret in DC that the Pentagon is defended by much more than a bunch of Stingers. But the Pentagon is a few blocks from National Apt. and even if they were on full alert, they couldn’t possibly down every aircraft in the neighborhood. I also doubt whether a Stinger would do more than annoy a jumbo jet on a kamikaze approach. It could destroy an engine. A salvo could eventually down the airplane. But firing anything at a passenger jet with American markings is a monumental decision, and that takes time.

29

Thrasybulus, I appreciate your reply. But I still don’t see that your observations necessarily require considerable size or funding.

Could not everything you mention have been accomplished by four disaffected ex-airline pilots, perhaps assisted by 4 experienced ticket agents and 4 flight attendants? I’m not suggesting that this was the case, but I do not see why size and complexity was necessary.

To the contrary, increasing the number of people involved increases the chance of slip-ups leading to detection.

Personally I hope there is a nation or large external group responsible toward which we can direct our anger. It will be very frustrating if, a la Oklahoma City, it turns out to be a limited number of kooks operating within our society.

30

One cell, thanks for the thoughts.

I started a GD thread “What rights would you give up?” where I’m stumbling over some similar issues.

Do we enjoy dual citizenship, of both the US and the world community? How do we balance the two?

31

IMO, a) to avenge a long-term, perceived wrong perpetrated by the US by a simple equation of body count; b) to create maximum disruption to the economic system that enabled the perceived wrong; c) to drive home to Americans as forcefully as possible that they are not safe in their homeland.

I base this on the apparent importance to the terrorists of extravagant loss of life, in addition to the obvious symbolic value of the targets. I believe that any additional actions that may take place are more likely to focus on loss of life than military or economic

I agree with other posters that the targets selected were “barn doors”, large and highly visible items that could even a semi-skilled pilot could be expecte to hit. It also seems likely that the aircraft that crashed in PA was intended for another high-profile target in DC: the Capitol or a second Pentagon strike. Speculation on my part, but assuming the overall timing of the attacks went according to plan, logically if the White House was a target at all it would have been the first struck, to maximise surprise.

With the images of the disaster in New York etched into our brains, follow-up actions (and I am sorry to say that I personally believe that there is a good chance of at least one follow-up event in the next 14 days) need not be nearly as spectacular or as well-organized.

I was in Paris during a wave of terrorist bombings in 1995. The bombers, members of a radical Algerian group, started their campaign by setting off a shrapnel-packed, homemade bomb on board a crowded suburban train at rush hour. For the next several months, additional bombs were set off in public locations, although with decreasing effect: partly due to increased vigilance by the security forces and the public, partly because the bombs themselves became more crude as the campaign went on.

The organization, of which about six members were ultimately found, was composed mostly of ‘sleepers’ who had been in France for some time. After several months, a specific controller was identified and was killed in a shootout with police, at which point the bombing campaign ended.

I am speculating here that the organization which carried out yesterday’s events had a similar structure, although perhaps on a larger scale. So, assuming the organization responsible has any remaining assets, I would expect them to expend them as soon as possible, before the authorities close in.

32

Whoops.

Should have read:

I believe that any additional actions that may take place are more likely to focus on loss of life than military or economic considerations.

33

I don’t think so. You have to include a pretty good working knowledge of:

[ul]
[li]Military Tactics: An assault on an airplane is not something you can do successfully without some training and coordination between the 4 or so terrorists on the plane. Could they be pilots with military training, yes. Do US Military Aviators receive training on how to hijack a plane? I don’t know.[/li][li]Structural Engineering: I find it hard to believe that the individuals involved had no clue or care about the effect nearly full tanks of jet fuel exploding on a building would have. Is it possible they just did it without a care as to what would happen? Sure, but given the timing they wanted to be sure they killed as many people as possible (planes fly at night that could have been hijacked for this purpose but they chose a time when the buildings would be full of people) so they would likely have chosen planes with near full fuel tanks for the reason of starting the fires that would help bring the buildings down. Regoinal commuter planes could have been chosen, and probably would have been easier to commandeer, but would have likely had a less devastating effect.[/li][li]Security Procedures: They had to have tried to anticipate what the reaction of the FAA, Pentagon security personnel, US Military, and the Airlines themselves would do. Would a pilot or ticket agent have that breadth of knowledge, probably with some but the others would need to be taught to them.[/li][/ul]

Is it possible you could find 4 pilots in the US today that have the experience, knowledge and patience necessary to be able to pull this off on their own? The odds are probably so infinitessimal that they would ever get together that it really isn’t worth the effort now to pursue.

I think you need to start evaluating the situation based on probablilities. If you can rule out those entities most likely to perpetrate this (a country like Iraq for example) then you move on to organizations (al Queda -sp?) and finally get to individual nutcases. Everything involved seems to point to a well-funded and well-trained group of individuals working on behalf of a cause or country. While we should remain open to the possibility that a group of McVeighs perpetrated this and not jump to conclusions, you do need to use limited manpower and financial resources in the most likely places first. And in this case I think that means Iraq and Osama bin Laden are at the top of the probability analysis.

34

Dinsdale, I have devoted some thought to the matter of who could be responsible just because I don’t trust the media talking heads and their automatic assumpiton that Osama bin Laden is responsible:

Quebec terrorists: I cannot recall its name, but I believe a Quebecois organization has committed several terrorist acts to further the cause of Quebecois independence. However, I think this group seemed to focus on Canadian terrorism; I cannot think of any acts perpertrated on American soil.

The Ku Klux Klan: I have never met a KKKer bright enough to pull something like this off. It may be a small cell, but I agree with Thrasybulus: these guys knew what they were doing and the planner was a criminal mastermind of the first water.

Right-wing groups including some militias, the Posse Comitatus, the Aryan Nation and wierdo kooks. Possible, but because one target was the Pentagon, I think it is highly unlikely. I think most of our right-wing kooks would rather target the UN building or Congress.

Eco terrorists: Again, this is very possible. Earth Liberation Front has pulled off many minor crimes without its members being caught, although one Bloomington, Ind., man alleged to be a member will soon stand trial on charges of spiking trees in the Hoosier National Forest. I put the Animal Liberation Front members in the same category as the KKK. However, I have a hunch this is not eco-terrorism

Assorted protestors against globalization, NAFTA, the WTO etc.: Possible, but these clowns seem to be too disorganized and dumb to pull off something of this magnitude.

FALN: I believe this is the acronym of a Puerto Rican terrorist group. It seems to me its fangs were drawn in the late 1970s, and I think it unlikely that FALN would attack New York because of the large numbers of Puerto Ricans living there. Also, I think FALN is likely to have limited success because the overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans want some sort of association with the U.S.

Shining Path: Seems to confine its activities to Peru. Also, I am unsure how effective this organization is after the embassy brouhaha a few years ago.

Latin America in general: I don’t see any of the right-wing groups pulling this off simply because that would force the American people to take a hard look at Latin American conditions. Also, their wealthy patrons are backed by some big U.S. corporations. Outside of Shining Path, I cannot think of any left-wingers who would commit such a crime.

Mexico: The Mexicans had a rebellion in one of their southern provinces a few years ago. I think the rebels have some reason to hate the U.S. because NAFTA hasn’t benefitted that region of Mexico, but I don’t recall them pulling off any prior action against the U.S. Their main gripe seems to be with Mexico City.

Columbia: I think Columbia has a couple of well-organized guerrilla movements, including the M19(?) group, and the Medellin cocaine cartel certainly has the resources and brains. To date I don’t know that the guerrillas have taken any action outside northern S. America, and a crime of this magnitude is not the style of drug dealers. However, this may have changed since Big Sugar has recently decided to step up the drug war in Columbia.

Cuba: No way. Since the Cold War is over, Castro knows the U.S. would invade if his government were found to be behind this.

IRA: Nahhhh. The IRA gets too much money and support from Irish-Americans.

ETA in the Pyrenees: A long shot since most of its activities seemed confined to Spain, and the U.S. is not especial friends with Spain.

The Baader-Meinhof Gang: Seems to me that the German police pretty much drew its fangs some time ago.

The Balkans: It’s possible that some group of Serb or Albanian terrorists might be behind this, but I find it highly unlikely. The Balkan terrorists seem to be more interested in slitting each other’s throats.

Russian & Eastern Europe: Am not well versed in affairs in these regions, but would imagine the instability offers too much opportunity for would-be terrorists to worry about the U.S. Why bomb New York when you can take over your own country? I know Chechnaya has been accused of sponsoring terrorism in Russia, but I think Chechnayan guerillas would not attack the U.S. since this country has been pressuring Russia to moderate its military activities in Chechnaya.

Africa: Again, I am not well-versed in African affairs, but most African organizations and governments seemed to be interested in their own continent. Libya seems to have quieted down in recent years and Algerian fundamentalists seem to confine their terror to that country and France.

Middle East: Several groups, including Islamic Jihad and Hamas, are capable of such actions. However, they seem to be confining their activities to Israel & the Middle East.

Iran: It’s possible some independent group was behind this, but I think Iran is an unlikely sponsor. Much of its populace and some in its government want a reconcilation with the West.

Iraq: Certainly a possibility.

Syria: Ditto.

China: Don’t think the Communist Party would permit existence of independent groups. Can’t think of a reason why the Chinese government would do this – it would be too provocative and bring the world to the brink of a third World War.

Japan: It’s obvious many Japanese resent the American military presence, especially in Okinawa, but I haven’t heard any reports of terrorist groups being formed.

The Phillipines: Moslem insurgents have kidnapped several Americans over the past couple of years, but they seem to be more interested in fighting for independence and/or crime for cash than in dissing the U.S.

To my mind, the No. 1 suspect has to be bin Laden, possibly with the cooperation of the Taliban. Then I would suggest:
2.) Some Columbian organization
3.) ELF
4.) Some Middle Eastern group, possibly in collusion with Syria and/or Iraq.

35

Many good points in this thread, if mainly speculative.
I believe that the targets were chosen largely for symbolic value: the icons of American capitalism and military might.
One additional point to consider: the choice of airlines to hijack–United and American. Good thing there isn’t an airline called “States”.

36

There’s a lot of good thought going into this thread. Thanks.

I understand that the postulates for this discussion, as to the scale and resources of the organization involved, are theoretical. They are simply the tenets under which I believe this will be a useful discussion. If the terrorists involved aren’t well-connected, if this wasn’t a large operation, it should be easily resolved; a detailed discussion on strategy would be unnecessary. However, I believe that you should never underestimate your opponent; by that measure, the premises of this discussion seem reasonable.

Let me review what’s been discussed so far.

There’s a strong consensus that one of the objectives of the attacks was to strike at national symbols, symbols of commerce and military might, in order to make us feel helpless.

There’s also agreement that the attacks seem designed to make us feel defenseless; at the mercy of this sort of attacks.

China Guy’s idea that people with foreknowledge of these attacks could clean up in the markets is sheer brilliance. Can anyone suggest a way that this could be traced back, to find out who profited from these attacks? Or would the trail be too well-concealed?

aegypt suggested the possibility of a frame-up; someone hoping the US would target a middle-Eastern country as a result of the attacks. I would think that would involve a more specific mechanism for placing the blame, and that has not yet emerged, but it’s certainly worth discussing.

Sealemon88 said:

Good thinking. If I gave you a dozen bomb squads and a hundred policemen, where would you station them? (I know, that’s getting down to tactics, but I think that Sealemon88 has pinpointed an excellent strategic point, and tactics are the next step. Eventually, I’d like to see this thread spin off a tactical discussion.)

The points made by El Kabong in reference to the Paris bombings are chilling. What if these are simply the first strikes, indicating that the enemy has their network in place and are ready for a sustained campaign of terrorism?

Do we feel at this point that we can narrow down the possible strategic motivation behind these attacks to the following?

  1. Fostering a sense of defenselessness by striking at high-profile, high-casualty military and economic targets.

  2. The disruption of world financial markets, and in confidence in American financial stability, possibly to the benefit of well-placed investors.

  3. To call the attention of the American people to the political and economic issues which, in the terrorists’ view, inspired these actions.

What scares me most is that this might be the beginning. In the words of Che Guevara, from his book Guerilla Warfare, the primary tactic involved at this point in a campaign of this nature is:

We can beat these terrorists, but first we need to understand their motivations and objectives, so that we can extrapolate their tactics.

37

Er, I’m supposed to fly USAirways to Europe at the end of the month. (gulp)

38

This is an absorbing thread. My thoughts switch between wondering what the ultimate objective of this cold fury can be and why no individual/group has claimed ownership of this plan.
Assuming, for the moment, that the terrorists were foreign, the group has a message it wants the US to know. Protecting those who participated who are still in the US can’t be a high priority. Unless, as has been suggested here, there are other events ahead. OTOH, if this were a domestic attack like Oklahoma - the worst possible scenario - the shock would shatter the national unity that has surfaced during the past hours. Nonetheless, a message was intended and has yet to be delivered. Anger needs to shout.
Foreign or domestic, once the decision was made to attack the US, the sure knowledge of retribution followed. They cared no less about the destruction of their group/country. Knowing that, a message becomes the objective.
If the ultimate strategy is economic,then the attack well may have accomplished this, at least for the rest of 2001.If it is destablilization of the American’s innate trust, it has obviously failed (for proof, check the goodness represented in the GQ threads). Perhaps, as horrifying as this attack has been, it will redirect our foreign and domestic policies,and strenghten the ideal of democracy - if the country and government remain prudent in all our actions.

39

I will go back to the U.S.A. next week (the FAA willing), And I will fly American as usual. If you fear terrorism, terrorism wins.

40

I’ll bite. IF (and that’s a big if) this is the start of a sustained campaign, I’d consider:

  1. Public ground transport, specifically Amtrak, commuter rail, major bridges and ferries (while security attention is focused on air transport)

  2. A symbol of the entertainment industry (exporter of our decadent ideas)

  3. a symbol of the domestic petroleum industry (the true face of American “imperialism” to many).

I think the above implies what general locations may be at higher risk.