Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

"Open Source" Insurgents Rise

aq_page.jpgA few days ago, a Marine Corps major, David High, argued that the fight in Iraq isn't really an insurgency at all.

There is not a web of like-minded (much less amenable) patriots gaining succor and inspiration from the populace. There are a thousand disparate cabals and petit punks and opportunists, each with competing motivations and interests... The permutations are endless and motivations intertwined.

All of which, from what I've understand, is interesting and true; I've heard reports of more than 75 distinct groups fighting the U.S. over there. But it's also kind of irrelevant. Because these insurgents may not need a cohesive ideology to thrive. Technology, in many ways, has taken its place.

It used to be that a small group of ideological-driven guerilla leaders would spread information, tactics, training, and cash to their followers. No more. Internet-enabled insurgents with only the loosest of real-world connections can now share all of that freely online. These guys don't have to like each other. They don't have to agree with one another. They don't even have to interact, really. All they have to do is post material to the Net. John Robb -- who's doing some of the smartest thinking and writing around on the subject -- calls it "Open Source warfare."

Without using the term themselves, the Washington Post has just finished a must-read three-part series on these Open Source guerillas. Here's a snippet from today's final installment:

An entire online network of Zarqawi supporters serves as backup for his insurgent group in Iraq, providing easily accessible advice on the best routes into the country, trading information down to the names of mosques in Syria that can host a would-be fighter, and eagerly awaiting the latest posting from the man designated as Zarqawi's only official spokesman.

"The technology of the Internet facilitated everything," declared a posting this spring by the Global Islamic Media Front, which often distributes Zarqawi messages on the Internet...

This and other Arabic-language forums hosted discussions on the latest news from Iraq, provided a place for swapping tips on tradecraft, circulated religious justifications for jihad, and acted as intermediary between would-be fighters and their would-be recruiters...

Many postings to the boards were not official statements from al Qaeda but unsolicited advice, such as the recent notice called "the road to Mesopotamia" posted on an underground Syrian extremist site, in which one veteran offered a detailed scouting report, down to advice on bribing Syrian police and traveling to the border areas by claiming to be on a fishing trip.

The bulletin boards also make information quickly available from Iraq, where fighters are gaining combat experience against the U.S. military. In one case cited by John Arquilla, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in California, would-be insurgents in the Sahara Desert were able to ask for -- and receive -- information from the ground in Iraq about how best to build bombs.

In this way, the new Iraqi "non-insurgency" may be tougher to beat, ultimately, than the more ideological guerillas of the past. With such a diverse band sharing information so quickly, there's no one "leader" or group of leaders to eliminate. In fact, taking out the most visible leaders might only make the Open Source network more efficient, by eliminating unnecessary nodes.

Some might read Major High's comments, and take comfort. Me, I'm nervous as hell.

THERE'S MORE
: Major High -- and a whole lot of other people -- respond in the comments section. Be sure to read.

Latest Comments


The technology of the Internet is facilitating everything: including shopping, insurgency, information, terrorist collaboration, military manuals, etc. It can't be "taken out". It is already nodeless. It has hit the "critical point"...the point at which no amount of external interference can effect it. There are nationless organizations and sites springing up by the thousands each month. Let's just use it to spread disinformation where we need to. After all, our Thug Administration has perfected the "disinformation" technique. Learn from them.
We're not "creating terrorists" as so often claimed by posters, but we have certainly created a thorough training ground in Iraq. With standard weapons and internet "gleaned" information, they have created a highly mobile, transparent fighting force with one goal...kill the US soldier. If not a US soldier, kill the other tribe's people. All the same, practice KILLING.
The only "ideological crap" that the groups we're fighting in Iraq have to buy into is..... kill the the infidel. And we are it.
Asking a poster to "Please don't post opinions unverified by facts" is assinine. All opinions are needed and, by right, we are assured that we can post them in this democracy. Mind and opinion control is for budding "Mein Kampfers".
Re: Vietnam. "If the press had encouraged us to perserve (sic), rather than capitulate...etc.,etc." I think after 56,000 dead and hundreds of thousands maimed the US was ready to leave a war generated by lies (something new?). Nothing about that war would have been "averted" except the continued killing and agent-oranging of each country we invaded.
Some more crap..."I'm not defending "Bush from his Stupidity" because that simply isn't so. He is our leader, and we expect him to lead."
Ohh...sh*t! You're making me sick.

And again..."That does not entail asking your opinion, Ed, it entails taking the information he had at hand at the time and solving a problem. He did that. We expect our leaders to strike out and defend our nation when it is under attack - and he did that with the forces he had at hand."

Boy are you delusional. You just wanna suppress everybody's opinion except yours. Do you read? Are you in touch at all? Maybe, I should ask..ARE YOU CONSCIOUS? This is a democracy! He does not get to "strike out" whenever he feels like it. We debate, FORM OPINIONS, and vote on releasing our armed might to pillage and destroy a country! OK?

"The world outside of the US is teaming with Warlords, Bullys, Thugs or what ever you want to call them."
Oh, really? Gosh...an US OR THEM political observation. Check out this administration, mein Fuhrer, This is the epitome of dictatorship. Our THUG ignores the people, the congress, his generals,...etc,etc, ...and continues support of HIS mindless bestial "war". It is costing us $100Million per week, 100 dead GIs a month, untold hundreds a month of maimed and wounded guys and gals. Geez..what's the matter with me? I'm just not the "PATRIOT" I used to be.


Posted by: Dean Livingston at February 15, 2007 12:22 PM


For those of you who wish to complain about the losses we suffer over there, REMEMBER THAT THOSE MEN AND WOMEN GAVE UP THEIR LIFE WILLINGLY SO YOU CAN SIT SAFE IN THE STATES WITHOUT A TERRORIST DETONATING A BOMB IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

This is a variation on the old "Walk and Chew Gum" argument combined with the so-called "Flypaper" strategy, and it is devestatingly inaccurate. This idea is based on a false perception of scarcity. The argument goes something like this:

Because the U.S. military is fighting a broad, disparate insurgency (which is made up of both nationalist "resistance" guerillas as well as Al-Qaeda-type international terrorists from other countries) in Iraq, terrorists will not be able to attack us in the U.S.

Think about it for a second - why the hell not? Even if one million or two million or three million terrorists flock to Iraq to fight U.S. soldiers there (and we are NOT seeing anything close to numbers of this magnitude), why would this prevent five, ten, or twenty terrorists from entering the U.S. to attack us here? In fact, I believe the prevalence of this half-baked idea makes it more likely that we will be attacked while the war in Iraq is going on. Think about it from the perspective of information war - if the U.S. public believes we can't be hit while we're fighting overseas, and media types and government officials keep saying it on TV (which is broadcast around the world 24/7), isn't it at least possible that some AQ or other terrorist network cell member thinks to himself: "Oh yeah? You can't be hit? I'll show you!"

That may be farfetched, so I'll back down from that precipice to a much more stable one - the belief that we can't be hit with another terrorist attack while we're at war in Iraq makes us, as citizens, complacent, and complacency is dangerous.

News flash: We CAN be hit again, no matter how many terrorists are in Iraq fighting us.

Our soldiers are brave and they're doing a great job with the crappy hand they've been dealt. But that doesn't mean the military's civilian leadership is pursuing sound policy (see, for example, "flypaper strategy").

Sorry for the rant.

Posted by: Yasonyacky at August 30, 2005 6:24 PM


Folks, let me ask you a question.. Could it be, that the question is not whether we are smart enough, but, are we out smarting ourselves?? I often wonder if it is not possible that we are forever seeking some grande, extraordinary new defensive/offensive weapon to cause a spectacular end to all conflict.. Much as was the case in the ending of WW2.. Could it not be, that there is a perfectly simple, noncomplex solution out there, that would leave all the Great Military Minds scratching their heads, and saying "why didnt I think of that" ?? With all the nanotech, backscatter, jamming, and impulse systems coming of age, could it not be that we just need to pull the door to get it open, instead of push it ??

Posted by: Wild Bill at August 13, 2005 10:59 PM


"The vast majority of "terrorists" fighting us now in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had never done anything hostile towards us before. We're now *creating* "terrorists" (people who have a reason to hate us) faster than we're killing them." Posted by: Ed Cogburn at August 12, 2005 05:08 AM

Terrorist attacks before 9/11

August 9: A suicide bomber in Jerusalem kills seven and wounds 130 in the Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing; Hamas and Islamic Jihad claim responsibility.

2000
October 12: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors.

The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.

1999
December 14: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots

December: Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb US and Israeli tourists in Jordan and pick up 28 suspects as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots

1998
January 3: Gunmen open fire on Shi'a Muslims worshipping in an Islamabad mosque, killing 16 people injuring 25.

1997
November 17: Luxor Massacre – Islamist gunmen attack tourists in Luxor, Egypt, killing 62 people, most of them European and Japanese vacationers.

1995
Bombings in France by a GIA unit led by Khaled Kelkal kill seven and injure more than 100.

1994
December 24: Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by GIA members who planned to crash the plane on Paris but didn't succeed.

1993
June: Failed New York City landmark bomb plot.

February 26: World Trade Center bombing kills 6 and injures over 1000 people.

1986
September 5: Pan Am Flight 73, an American civilian airliner, is hijacked; 22 people die when plane is stormed in Karachi, Pakistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

It goes on ED COGBURN... With Libya being a major player before that. We didn't create these people. WE have forgotten what they have already done. Take the time to follow up each of these incidents with the link provided and understand who the participants are how they are rleated and how some of the attacks were building blocks for attacks like the world trade center and 9/11. It's not just about us as Americans it's about the world as non Islamic radical believers.

The groups we still fight in IRAQ today are ones that buy into the ideological crap that is espoused by the members from previous groups. These are related entities through ideology and with the Internet are now effectively bound together, rather than loose groups with less efeective means of communication and have less of a communications asset. This form of communication is a great asset to them, just as it has been for the women of Iraq.


Posted by: aam8234 at August 12, 2005 11:59 AM


The over-all article and its links is the better value than the original inspiration from the Marine Major. Although the comments on the original article are correct with respect to the dramatic increase in foreign fighters in Iraq (OSS and its partners have done an OSINT study of the foreign fighter population), the Major's core idea is correct and consistent with what we are seeing elsewhere.

Answering the person that asked why we can't mobilize distributed hackers to support CIA and the Pentagon, and why American computing power cannot be applied, there are three aspects to this:

1) 90% of the world, including US hackers, want nothing to do with CIA lawyers and CIA security, both of which are so entrenched in Cold War mind-sets as to make them virtually dysfunctional if not pathological in modern open society.

2) CIA and the rest of the IC are stove-piped bureaucracies--cows lcoked into a feeding trough that secrets are put into--they are no more capable of turning into mustangs grazing the range than George Bush is of morphing into Jimmy Carter.

3) US computing power today is largely broken because it is too expensive, too proprietary, too isolated, and too narrowly focused. Only Google offers a scalable distributed global web architecture for multinational multiagency multidisciplinary multidomain information sharing, and this (M4 IS) is heresy in the eyes of the US intelligence and conventional military mind--they would rather lose than go open source.

Posted by: Robert David Steele at August 12, 2005 9:46 AM


» View All 32 Comments

» Post a Comment