Terrorists are, generally, useless.

[weemadando]

The Case for Calling Them Nitwits
They blow each other up by mistake. They bungle even simple schemes. They get intimate with cows and donkeys. Our terrorist enemies trade on the perception that they’re well trained and religiously devout, but in fact, many are fools and perverts who are far less organized and sophisticated than we imagine. Can being more realistic about who our foes actually are help us stop the truly dangerous ones?


By Daniel Byman and Christine Fair


IMAGE CREDIT: FRANK STOCKTON

IN THE YEARS after 9/11, the images we were shown of terrorists were largely the same: shadowy jihadists who, even when they were foiled, seemed always to have come terrifyingly close to pulling off a horrific attack. We’ve all become familiar by now with the stock footage of Talibs in black shalwar kameezes zipping across monkey bars or, more recently, perfecting kung fu kicks in some secret training camp. Even in the aftermath of the botched Times Square bombing earlier this spring, the perception persists that our enemies are savvy and sophisticated killers. They’re fanatical and highly organized—twin ideas that at once keep us fearful and help them attract new members.

But this view of the jihadist community is wildly off the mark. To be sure, some terrorists are steely and skilled—people like Mohamed Atta, the careful and well-trained head of the 9/11 hijackers. Their leaders and recruiters can be lethally subtle and manipulative, but the quiet truth is that many of the deluded foot soldiers are foolish and untrained, perhaps even untrainable. Acknowledging this fact could help us tailor our counterterrorism priorities—and publicizing it could help us erode the powerful images of strength and piety that terrorists rely on for recruiting and funding.

Nowhere is the gap between sinister stereotype and ridiculous reality more apparent than in Afghanistan, where it’s fair to say that the Taliban employ the world’s worst suicide bombers: one in two manages to kill only himself. And this success rate hasn’t improved at all in the five years they’ve been using suicide bombers, despite the experience of hundreds of attacks—or attempted attacks. In Afghanistan, as in many cultures, a manly embrace is a time-honored tradition for warriors before they go off to face death. Thus, many suicide bombers never even make it out of their training camp or safe house, as the pressure from these group hugs triggers the explosives in suicide vests. According to several sources at the United Nations, as many as six would-be suicide bombers died last July after one such embrace in Paktika.

Many Taliban operatives are just as clumsy when suicide is not part of the plan. In November 2009, several Talibs transporting an improvised explosive device were killed when it went off unexpectedly. The blast also took out the insurgents’ shadow governor in the province of Balkh.

When terrorists do execute an attack, or come close, they often have security failures to thank, rather than their own expertise. Consider Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab—the Nigerian “Jockstrap Jihadist” who boarded a Detroit-bound jet in Amsterdam with a suicidal plan in his head and some explosives in his underwear. Although the media colored the incident as a sophisticated al-Qaeda plot, Abdulmutallab showed no great skill or cunning, and simple safeguards should have kept him off the plane in the first place. He was, after all, traveling without luggage, on a one-way ticket that he purchased with cash. All of this while being on a U.S. government watch list.

Fortunately, Abdulmutallab, a college-educated engineer, failed to detonate his underpants. A few months later another college grad, Faisal Shahzad, is alleged to have crudely rigged an SUV to blow up in Times Square. That plan fizzled and he was quickly captured, despite the fact that he was reportedly trained in a terrorist boot camp in Pakistan. Indeed, though many of the terrorists who strike in the West are well educated, their plots fail because they lack operational know-how. On June 30, 2007, two men—one a medical doctor, the other studying for his Ph.D.—attempted a brazen attack on Glasgow Airport. Their education did them little good. Planning to crash their propane-and-petrol-laden Jeep Cherokee into an airport terminal, the men instead steered the SUV, with flames spurting out its windows, into a security barrier. The fiery crash destroyed only the Jeep, and both men were easily apprehended; the driver later died from his injuries. (The day before, the same men had rigged two cars to blow up near a London nightclub. That plan was thwarted when one car was spotted by paramedics and the other, parked illegally, was removed by a tow truck. As a bonus for investigators, the would-be bombers’ cell phones, loaded with the phone numbers of possible accomplices, were salvaged from the cars.)

A similar streak of ineptitude has been on display in the United States, where many of those arrested on terrorism-related charges possess long criminal records and little sense of how to put a nefarious idea into action. A group of Miami men schemed (often while smoking marijuana) to attack targets in South Florida as well as the Sears Tower in Chicago, but they couldn’t get their hands on explosives and were uncovered when the FBI easily penetrated their ranks.

If our terrorist enemies have been successful at cultivating a false notion of expertise, they’ve done an equally convincing job of casting themselves as pious warriors of God. The Taliban and al-Qaeda rely on sympathizers who consider them devoted Muslims fighting immoral Western occupiers. But intelligence picked up by Predator drones and other battlefield cameras challenges that idea—sometimes rather graphically. One video, captured recently by the thermal-imagery technology housed in a sniper rifle, shows two Talibs in southern Afghanistan engaged in intimate relations with a donkey. Similar videos abound, including ground-surveillance footage that records a Talib fighter gratifying himself with a cow.

Pentagon officials and intelligence analysts concede privately that our foes also have a voracious appetite for pornography—hardly shocking behavior for young men, but hard to square with an image of piety. Many laptops seized from the Taliban and al-Qaeda are loaded with smut. U.S. intelligence analysts have devoted considerable time to poring over the terrorists’ favored Web sites, searching for hidden militant messages. “We have terabytes of this stuff,” said one Department of Defense al-Qaeda analyst, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It isn’t possible that they are encrypting messages in all of this stuff. Some of these guys are just perverts.”

Tawdry though this predilection for porn may be, it is not necessarily trivial. There is, after all, potential propaganda value in this kind of jihadist behavior. Current U.S. public diplomacy centers on selling America to the Muslim world, but we should also work to undermine some of the myths built up around our enemies by highlighting their incompetence, their moral failings, and their embarrassing antics. Beyond changing how the Muslim world perceives terrorists, we can help ourselves make smarter counterterrorism choices by being more realistic about the profile and aptitude of would-be attackers. More and more, as we work to disrupt training efforts, the jihadists we face are likely to be poorly prepared, and while that won’t always ensure a bungled attack, it suggests that terrorists are likely to select targets that are undefended and easy to hit. The United States has spent billions on port security since 9/11, even though terrorists have shown little interest in ports as targets and even less ability to actually strike them. In contrast, even small investments in training for police and airport-security personnel can make a big difference, as these are the people most likely to encounter—and have a chance to disrupt—an unskilled attacker.

The difference between a sophisticated killer like Mohamed Atta and so many of his hapless successors lies in training and inherent aptitude. Atta spent months learning his trade in Afghanistan and had the help of al-Qaeda’s senior leadership—a fact that underscores the importance of rooting out al-Qaeda havens in Pakistan. After all, fighting terrorism is a chore made simpler when we can keep the terrorists as inept as most of them naturally are.

[Temujin]

You know I've tried explaining some of this to people in the past, but I just get looked at with disbelief. I remember reading some detailed accounts of the more well executed operations, and it's surprising how much of their success came down to blind luck, as well as revealing just how lacking in competence and common sense some of these guys are. Even the success of 911 was a marvel when you consider how many times they should have been caught along the way considering the number of red flags that were raised.

Bush Co. tried to make these morons out to be Cobra Command, when they're really Achmed the Dead Terrorist.

[Flagg]

Pretty much. The thing is, the way our media and government response works, they don't have to be good at it. Instead of "Incompetent Terrorist Burns Dick Off" we get "Airliner Almost Blown Out of The Sky By Terrorist!!!!!!!!!!!". A bunch of dumbasses who don't even have guns or access to explosives hatch a "conspiracy", get busted through the internet and it's like Jack Bauer killed an entire Al Quaeda cell at the last minute before they nuke downtown LA.

[Skgoa]

Just take a moment to think about how messed up and disconnected from reality someone has to be to blow himself up. And now add to that the glaringly obvious fact that Terrorism doesn't work - in almost every circumstance its very counterproductive.
So yeah, there is a strong selection bias for them being the stupidest of the stupid.

[Zed]

And now add to that the glaringly obvious fact that Terrorism doesn't work - in almost every circumstance its very counterproductive.

It's worked in multiple cases - the establishment of Israel was facilitated by terrorism (cfr. Menachem Begin), the liberation of France from Germany was facilitated by terrorism, the fall of apartheid was facilitated by terrorism (cfr. Nelson Mandela).

[MKSheppard]

Ah, the old "they're so incompetent we don't have to worry" argument.

I like how he leaves out the following successful attacks:

2004 Madrid Bombings: 191 deaths and 2,000~ WIA

2005 London Bombings: 56 deaths and 700 WIA

2008 Bombay/Mumbai (depending on what you call it) attack that killed 175 people and shut down decently large city for a goodly period of time. And that was carried out with a bunch of cheap guns, cell phones, and GPS devices.

Or the fact that Abdulmutallab's device which failed to go off was a mixture of PETN and TAPN, the same explosives used by Richard Reid back in 2001; and PETN was a major component of the 2005 London bombings.

Or that he was carrying 1.5 times the amount of explosive that Richard Reid was back in 2001.

We were only saved from a mass casualty attack because apparently AL Q is still learning the whole "use acid as a detonator" and has yet to perfect it as a reliable method.

Looking at Richard Reid's failed 2001 attempt; it seems that it failed due to his TATP fuze train being damp from perspiration -- Reid wore his explosive shoes for a whole day due to a flight delay -- the French were suspicious enough of him to hold him for a day and give him a "make up" ticket for the next day's flight.

So this is probably why Abdulmutallab was using acid instead of a TATP fuze train.

But think about it. If Reid had been smart enough to remove his shoes so that the fuze train would have been dry -- we'd have not known specifically HOW Al Quaeda brought down Flight 63 unless we launched a very expensive salvage operation that raised enough of the fuselage to localize the explosion to Reid's seating area.

And FYI; just a week or so ago, a 12 year old Afghan Suicide bomber struck a wedding near Nagaan, and killed 40~ people, along with wounding 74~ others.

So yeah, they're out there -- and we have to be vigilant and not count on them being total fucking morons all the time....because all it takes is some guy saying:

"Achmed, why the fuck are we screwing with bombs? Just send a bunch of guys in through the Mexican border along with some guns, and they all execute independently planned attacks on whatever target is in their area on a set date and time, like say 10 AM on August 31st..."

Can you imagine the chaos that would happen when no less than eight simultaneous attacks on orphanages, schools, etc happen that morning, all over the US?

[weemadando]

Yeah, Shep, I realise all that. And it is true that we have to be lucky all the time and they have to be lucky once.

But the simple fact is that they have a wonderful tendency to go catastrophically wrong all on their lonesome.

[haard]

Also, something I picked up from Bruce Schneier's blog a while ago: foreignaffairs.com.

To border on becoming unacceptable by established risk conventions /...../ For the United States, this would mean experiencing attacks on the scale of 9/11 at least once a year.

[Temujin]

I remember one report or article a while back that showed how more deaths occurred every year in the US via auto accidents than have occurred over the past couple of decades worldwide due to terrorism; and a lot of those incidents included recent activity in Iraq as part of the insurgentcy. Aside from a few spectacular incidents like 911, terrorism is really overblown as a threat. But as the Power of Nightmares showed, politicians are all to eager to use it to their advantage, and the media are all too happy to go along in their quest to sensationalize everything for ratings.

[Skgoa]

And now add to that the glaringly obvious fact that Terrorism doesn't work - in almost every circumstance its very counterproductive.

It's worked in multiple cases - the establishment of Israel was facilitated by terrorism (cfr. Menachem Begin), the liberation of France from Germany was facilitated by terrorism, the fall of apartheid was facilitated by terrorism (cfr. Nelson Mandela).

And thats why I wrote "almost".

[Hamstray]

Just take a moment to think about how messed up and disconnected from reality someone has to be to blow himself up. And now add to that the glaringly obvious fact that Terrorism doesn't work - in almost every circumstance its very counterproductive.

1. It's intended to be counterproductive.
2. It seems to be working: Terrorists want to destroy "western" and democratic values -> their actions caused the tightening of security and trends towards a police state which is compromising civil liberties.

[Zed]

And now add to that the glaringly obvious fact that Terrorism doesn't work - in almost every circumstance its very counterproductive.

It's worked in multiple cases - the establishment of Israel was facilitated by terrorism (cfr. Menachem Begin), the liberation of France from Germany was facilitated by terrorism, the fall of apartheid was facilitated by terrorism (cfr. Nelson Mandela).

And thats why I wrote "almost".

And unless that 'almost' is quantified, it's fairly meaningless.

[Coyote]

But, hey, incompetent or not, we can still have a "war on terror" that funds a lot of security measures at airports. And could anyone have pushed the Patriot Act through to passing if we really knew that the person we were trying to protect ourselves from was too busy humping a horse to be a threat?

[Mayabird]

The point of these articles should be to make paranoid Bubba Redneck less scared that his trailer park will be nuked by eeeevil terrorist masterminds who want to take his guns and freedom from his cold, dead hands, not to say that ultimately terrorism is no threat at all.

[Jaevric]

The point of these articles should be to make paranoid Bubba Redneck less scared that his trailer park will be nuked by eeeevil terrorist masterminds who want to take his guns and freedom from his cold, dead hands, not to say that ultimately terrorism is no threat at all.

Also, the point of the article seems to me to be that the whole "War on Terror" is strengthening these organizations by overstating the threat to the public -- including potential supporters of terrorism, who would probably be less eager to provide funds to these organizations if it seemed to be a waste of money.

Which is more likely to get volunteers and funding -- an organization that appears to be made up of trained, motivated professional killers or an organization that is most famous for it's idiot recruits giving new meaning to the phrase, "Tap that ass" while a military sniper team is recording them and probably debating between hysterical laughter and putting the poor donkey out of its misery?

[Knife]

The point of these articles should be to make paranoid Bubba Redneck less scared that his trailer park will be nuked by eeeevil terrorist masterminds who want to take his guns and freedom from his cold, dead hands, not to say that ultimately terrorism is no threat at all.

While I agree with you, that showing terrorists less like SPECTOR and more like foreign redneck gun freaks, I'm not so sure that will be comforting for local trailer park American rednecks. Easing their fears by showing them the 'enemy' looks just like they do, won't go over so well, I think.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Fear in American media? Pfft, s'yeah right.

[Starglider]

2. It seems to be working: Terrorists want to destroy "western" and democratic values -> their actions caused the tightening of security and trends towards a police state which is compromising civil liberties.

I think you meant to say, 'They Hate Our Freedom!'

Back in reality, the usual grievances for Islamic terror are US support for Israel, Saudi Arabia, the invasion of Afghanistan (and to a lesser extent Iraq), backing anti-Islamic forces in Pakistan or Somalia etc. The main goal is to have US influence out of these regions, so that they can impose their horrible Islamofascist regiemes without opposition. This has been a complete failure so far, although I grant there have been some local wins in pushing NATO forces back into defended strongpoints.

[General Zod]

The point of these articles should be to make paranoid Bubba Redneck less scared that his trailer park will be nuked by eeeevil terrorist masterminds who want to take his guns and freedom from his cold, dead hands, not to say that ultimately terrorism is no threat at all.

While I agree with you, that showing terrorists less like SPECTOR and more like foreign redneck gun freaks, I'm not so sure that will be comforting for local trailer park American rednecks. Easing their fears by showing them the 'enemy' looks just like they do, won't go over so well, I think.

What actually would 'ease their fears' then? The Bush administration has done such a good job winding them up I'm not sure much will.

[Admiral Valdemar]

These people were ready to take on the US guvmint itself in the '90s. All they've done is rallied their fear and loathing behind a foreign enemy rather than that one they conveniently remember when it comes to gun ownership etc. Remember how it was all home grown militias before it was Achmed the Arab? Now it's al-Qaeda all over the place, like COBRA. Only less successful.

[Temujin]

Well with the scary black man they believe is a secret Marxist Muslim as President now they want to have Revolutionary / Civil War 2.0, win or at least secede, then go on to erradicate the Islamic threat, take their oil, and make the world safe for the United Tea Party States of SPARTAFREEDOMERICA!

[The Yosemite Bear]

should we tell FOX that they had Bongs not bombs next time?

[Vendetta]

Also, something I picked up from Bruce Schneier's blog a while ago: foreignaffairs.com.

To border on becoming unacceptable by established risk conventions /...../ For the United States, this would mean experiencing attacks on the scale of 9/11 at least once a year.

If there was a 9/11 scale attack once a week you would still have more chance of being killed in a road traffic accident.

[weemadando]

I was listening to a report on (I believe) NPR, about how the next stage in attacks that "experts" believe AQ will launch will be nuisance attacks. And I can't think of anything more effective.

Why risk inflaming outrage and public opinion further against you and giving the great satan more leverage, when instead you can have a constant stream of "false alarms" being set off. What happens if every major airport in the US is getting shutdown for hours each day due to checkins, but failure to boards my someone with a blatantly race-baiting name (Mohammed Mohammed for example)? Or if every day there were tens, if not hundreds of letters around the country with cornstarch in them getting delivered to various gov't offices thus running HAZMAT units ragged and causing regular delays in the daily duties of the bureaucracy. Abandoned bags at train and bus stations etc. All simple stuff that always turns out to have been a false alarm. How long would people really put up with such constant interruptions to their daily lives for what is false alarms before getting overly pissed at the security precautions?

[Darth Fanboy]

Because anyone in a security position should reasonably expect that one day one of the nuisances cross the line into the real thing, and it's better to be careful all the time and let people be inconvenienced than to let up and have people die to make a point. I mean what if you had a bunch of followers just leave a bunch of suitcases all around an airport, or have a bunch of people wearing fake bombs march into a crowded building. What it is is escalation without the body count, and while it would disrupt the United States, the US could interpret a stream of nuisance attacks as practicing or covering for the real attack.

In the mean time more attacks, nuisance, lethal, or otherwise, would just invite even greater scrutiny from the US and allied countries also affected.