Observations regarding Wednesday's terrorist attack in London.

They say old habits are hard to break; in many circumstances, I certainly agree.  My career as an Intelligence Officer had just gotten off the ground when 9-11 turned everything upside down.  No doubt espionage and intelligence collection would be more important than ever, and an essential part of the process has always been about understanding the target.  Now that I'm retired, I get my details from the news, just like everyone else.  But things have come a long way since my days as a rookie Intel Officer, and I can always find a treasure trove of useful information by switching from one news channel to the next.  Having spent time in Europe, I am familiar with the various press agencies, and during the Nice terror attack of last July, my knowledge of French kept me watching the live news bulletins directly from France.

Aside from the horrific terrorist attack in Brussels on March 22, 2016, which killed thirty-two civilians, the last three prolific terror attacks on European soil took place in Nice, Berlin, and most recently in London.  I have separated these three from the Brussels incident for a number of reasons.  The terrorist group known to the west as ISIS has long made use of vehicular weapons. For years, Iraqis and Syrians have been victimized by car bombs which purposely target large public events, including holiday celebrations and funerals.  ISIS will continue to use this method of delivering death because it's a basically simple way to cause a high number of casualties.  Rigging a vehicle with explosives and attaching a detonator does not take a munitions expert, and it's just about impossible for security in some countries to disrupt this manner of attack.  In Nice, Berlin and London, though, no explosives were used.  The perpetrators used their vehicles as weapons, flooring the accelerator and running down civilians with no warning.  In all three attacks, the perpetrator intended to exit the vehicle after coming to a halt, to continue their rampage with either handguns or knives.  It's important to note that these three attacks were carried out by one person.  No doubt, other persons either new of the attack beforehand and/or provided assistance, but the actual event itself was carried out by one individual.  The perpetrators were not rank-and-file ISIS operatives, but rather Islamic Extremists who had made contact with like-minded persons through Social Media.  For some time, law enforcement in the United States has been rightly concerned with the possibility of well-trained, terrorist sleeper cells embedded on our communities.  The reality is, as we open our borders to refugees who have traveled directly from countries which are known to harbor large numbers of ISIS operatives and sympathizers, we increase the possibility of either type of attack.

Most police officers in the United Kingdom are unarmed, as are law enforcement personnel in a number of European countries.  From my perspective, as long as the policy suited each respective country, then its a good thing to have fewer weapons on the streets.  I assume that this policy is being reconsidered, given that Police Officers have certainly become targets, and they should have the right and the ability to defend themselves.  The London attacker used a car and two knives to brutally kill four people.  A society can go to extreme lengths when trying to create a weapons-free environment, but time and again we are reminded that a person who is intent on harming another person will always be able to find a weapon.  Its much easier for the perpetrator to carefully choose what type of normally innocuous instrument to use as a weapon, but more difficult for the victim, when being attacked, to make a split-second decision on what to use for self-defense.

I chose to highlight the three vehicular attacks in Nice, Berlin and London, because they do not appear to be intricately-planned, resource-intensive attacks.  ISIS was not directly responsible for any of the three vehicular attacks in question, although they do deserve total responsibility because of their efforts through Social Media to encourage these type of attacks.  What is so frightening is that ISIS can claim responsibility and benefit from these heinous events, without actually having to utilize valuable, professional operatives, who are free to continue hiding in plain sight, until all the pieces come together to conduct a Brussels and Paris style attack, one that is heavy on resources and personnel.  It may be too late for Europe, but it is essential that the United States government take all necessary precautions regarding the resettlement of refugees from areas of conflict.  The Executive Order that has caused such an uproar, does nothing more than delay resettlement of refugees for three months. I believe National Security and the integrity of our international border are worth the effort.      

ISIS and its Global Strategy

Since The start of the new year, the world seems to be paying less attention to ISIS.  So many of us were sitting on pins and needles during the various New Year's celebrations in New York, Paris, London, and other great cities around the globe, hoping not to hear any breaking news stories about terrorist attacks.  We made it through the new year basically unscathed, and I think that with a huge sigh of relief, many of us went back to "business as usual" before the October 2015 Paris attacks and the December 2015 shootings in San Bernardino.  The fact that the mainstream press in the United States seems intent on pushing the narrative that ISIS is being beaten on the battlefield, so its OK to do non-stop new stories about Donald Trump and the circus that has become the Republican nomination process (the Republicans are the circus, even though the Democrats are going to nominate a potential felon in Hillary Clinton or an outright lunatic in Bernie Sanders).  Why is the press so intent on downplaying the threat by ISIS?  Because Barack Obama told us that the threat was being exaggerated.  The press always responds in a defensive posture to everything Barack Obama does.  No doubt if he farted at a State Funeral, the press would blame the White House Chef.  So Obama says that we aren't headed to World War III, and that ISIS is not a threat to the United States.  I assume that the family members of U.S. citizens killed in San Bernardino, California, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, by persons claiming allegiance to ISIS would disagree; I know I do.  ISIS has a series of strategies, each one going into effect after the previous has been accomplished (or altered by events).  ISIS has reviewed the current state of the battlefield, which has it in possession of one-third of Iraq and one-half of Syria, and decided that the time is ripe to exploit its surprisingly successful international outreach efforts.  The monsters making the decisions at the top of this organization are no dummies, nor will they put their equities at risk for ideology's sake (are you listening, President Obama?)  We are entering a new phase in the battle with ISIS, and it includes the introduction of a new strategy.

ISIS believes that the key to successfully expand its brand of worldwide-revolution is to dedicate resources to its budding operations in nations with strong Islamic traditions.  This includes all the nations of North Africa, and it includes Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia.  Most of these nations are in no military position to fight off a serious ISIS invasion, at least not without assistance in the form of "troops on the ground".  ISIS rakes in an incredible amount of money on a daily basis.  Why the Obama Administration has not been able to dent this flow of financial assistance is a mystery to me, because so many pundits in the media seem to know the various sources of this support.  Regardless, ISIS is intent on spreading the conflict outside of the borders of Syria and Iraq.  It has been testing its ability to project itself with operations in Libya, West Africa, and Indonesia, and results have been encouraging.  ISIS knows that any attention drawn to Southeast Asia or North Africa, will draw the enemy away from the battlefields of Iraq and Syria.  So by increasing recruitment and eventually, attacks in Tunisia, Libya, and Pakistan, ISIS will be not only spreading the Caliphate revolution, but also forcing the United States and its lock-step European partners to devote resources and attention to other allies and battlefields.  I'm still not sure where Russia fits into the picture; with all the hubbub and hardware that Putin brought to his Syria adventure, I expected much more in the way of battlefield victories by now.  Assad's internal opposition will eventually disappear completely under the weight of daily Russian attacks, and Putin will be obliged to either leave Syria or attack ISIS.

Obama must be aware that ISIS is expanding all over the globe, and yet he still makes public claims diminishing the threat that ISIS actually poses.  If they are so "insignificant", Mr. President, then why haven't we been able to defeat them?  True, we haven't really tried.  What a joke this Administration's entire Syria policy has been.  We still don't know what became of the millions of taxpayer dollars and the "Free Syrian Army" we were training in Jordan to take the place of U.S. infantry.  Obama still has one more year in office; no doubt it will be dedicated to domestic politics.  We all know that an Executive Order of some sort will be in place before the November election.  The uproar this will cause will certainly distract us all from the activities of ISIS in North Africa and Southeast Asia, but what a mess it will leave for his predecessor.