In the wake of the recent bombings in London we're seeing a lot of the usual rhetoric about what the terrorists hate and why it's really liberals who are to blame for all of this. Over at the E-Group, wsam gives Mark Steyn a well-deserved spanking for the latter.
But wouldn't it be nice if some of the usual suspects would stop bloviating about Islamofascists (note: not a real word) and actually try and see what lessons we can learn from the events in London? Billmon at the Whiskey Bar is and he points to another blog that he finds helpful.
Setting off bombs in subways is a pretty crude application of this technique. But [John Robb at Global Guerillas] saw signs in the first London attack that the terrorists (as young and inexperienced as they appear to have been) are learning:
This group even added their own innovation to the development of the systems disruption model (for other groups to adopt in the future): the bombs were exploded while the trains were in the tunnels rather than in the stations. This maximized disruption at the expense of body count.Presumably, as the Al Qaeda network becomes more adapted to "open source" operations, and as more experienced terrorists return from Iraq and pass the lessons learned on to new recruits, bombers will become more effective at identifying pressure points. In which case future attacks are likely to be progressively more targeted at knocking out infrastructure rather than causing mass casualties.
It may already be happening: Al Qaeda wanted to kill a large number of people in the first London attack -- to send a big propaganda message to the G8 summit. Today's bombs, on the other hand, may have been intended primarily to disrupt. If or when they start hitting electrical substations and telephone exchanges, we'll know our junior league terrorists are starting to get the hang of it.
This isn't to say that billmon and Robb are necessarily correct in their analysis but it's refreshing to see people actually try and understand what's happening instead of trotting out the usual clichés and bluster and then calling it a day.
pogge, I've been following the London attacks on my li'l maps and through the BBC, and while I am interested in the underlying structure of billmon's / robb's thinking, I see some problems in the details.
Timing the explosions for the tunnels rather than the platforms should maximize later disruptions -- except I can't quite see that those were the right tunnels, and besides, on the Tube, hand detonation would be the only way you could be sure where the train was gonna be -- the system is notorious for being un-timeable right now.
In terms of the way the Tube works, the first set of targets were semi-peripheral, and yesterday's were really peripheral -- if you are looking for Robb's effect.
And it is looking as though yesterday's fizzles weren't intended: deteriorated materials sounds more and more likely. And further: only one of the Tube bombs was detonated in a tunnel, and even then, only seconds away from a platform; and the bus bomber appears (from CCTV photo) to have left his pack on the empty upper level of an almost empty bus heading into one of the poorest sections of London.
It still looks to me as though whoever planned these attacks was thinking more metaphorically than Robb is, and not as practically as he is. I could be wrong, but it still looks to me as though the planners care more about symbolic effects (the four directions) than about truly effective disruption.
PS to pogge: your first link -- to the E-Group -- is not working for me, pogge. Not that I can't get there m'self, but I thought I'd let you know.
Link fixed, skdadl. Thanks.
I haven't been following the bombings in London as closely as you have. I just wanted to note that someone, somewhere, is trying to analyze events for whatever we can actually learn about strategy and tactics instead of taking the opportunity to bash favorite whipping boys.
Oh, pogge, I agree: that is very important. I am sitting here trying to figure out the logic.
From what we've heard today, there certainly seem to be enough significant contacts in London that they would know 'way more than I do about what might be "effective" places to bomb -- but then I am not thinking in the way that they are. Clearly, I'm not. So I'm trying to figure out what the hell they are thinking. It still looks symbolic to me, but there are lots of details that I find puzzling even in that context.
I admit: I know and really love that city, and like most people who do, the Tube system is a funny kind of symbol of the whole thing for me. I am also a sucker for detective stories, and these attacks have produced so much material information, now being analysed by so many experts, that it is possible to follow the story that way.
I acknowledge, with sorrow: every day in Iraq, more and worse attacks are happening, at a much greater human cost, and I am not following them in the same way. I am not getting the same information, so I can't follow them as detective stories. I know that that's wrong. But here we are -- useless. :-(
Hey Pogge,
Another made-up word that is being used frequently by the rabid right wing pro-war hawks is "moonbat".
Check out Eeyores take downs on that particular terminology.