The Morris Dees Strategy: Waging Economic War on Terrorism.

     In the early days of this War on Terror, the talking heads and bureaucrats touted the new and unique ways such a conflict would be fought: that assets of the military and law enforcement would work in conjunction to prosecute the war. Why not add lawyers to the mix?

I have great faith in the ability of those soul-less, shape-shifting creatures of the night we call attorneys to find a way forward in devising a strategy of international litigation, to bring civil suits in various countries, or perhaps somehow in American courtrooms, against go those individuals or groups who train, harbor, provide aide to, radicalize, or provide the venue (mosques, private residences) for radicalizing  persons or groups who go on to commit acts of terror.  Groups or individuals who are the subject of these kinds of suits would have to spend huge amounts of money defending against the charges and, if unsuccessful, would be required to pay the resulting judgements. 

     Morris Dees' Southern Poverty Law Center successfully used a similar strategy to break the back of the KKK and Neo-nazi hate groups. If we view Al Quidea as just a hate group on a grand scale, why can’t it work in this 21rst Century kind of war? 

     Some who choose to commit acts of terror are motivated by cash incentives from various sources and these are often passed on to loved ones left behind to improve their lot in life. If would-be terrorists could see that families of those committing acts of terror are going broke defending themselves in civil trials for receiving assets from terror-related sources, there would surely be some level of deterrent factor.

     Clerics who become aware of radical elements in their communities might be quicker to identify these rouge actors to police if they knew that their own land and other assets could be seized to pay civil judgements if they are connected to terrorists.  If not, they may at least tell would-be terrorists to find other digs, making it harder for them to conduct business. The fear of loss and the suspicion this strategy of civil litigation for terror might raise within the more radical elements of society can also be deemed a method of psychological warfare.

     In the end, seizing assets to pay huge awards for civil damage stemming from terrorism may not solve the problem, but any impact at all is a good thing and it would provide a symbolic way of striking back at terrorists.  

Of related interest:

 

On the trail of al-Shabab’s Kenyan recruitment 'pipeline' By Peter Taylor BBC News

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24263357


‘Misha,’ the man accused of radicalizing Boston Marathon bomber, denies influence
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-accused-radicalizing-boston-bomber-breaks-silence-article-1.1330008 


Banned Muslim cleric likely radicalized Woolwich attacker
http://www.timesofisrael.com/banned-muslim-cleric-suspected-of-radicalizing-woolwich-attacker/ 
 

Space Cowboys meets Terminator: the F-16 as UCAV

     The US Air Force has just successfully tested a remote-piloted F-16. Brilliant, but why? Press coverage indicates they may be used as target drones for pilots to train putting holes in, but there are even greater possibilities for this breakthrough. Numerous stories about drone pilot shortages and how the Air Force isn't sure about how to recruit for these roles. The question whether they should be using huge cash bonuses to lure fighter pilots to become drone pilots or if they should finding computer gamers for these positions seems to be hotly contested at the Pentagon. Perhaps using the F-16 as a viable alternate to the Reaper and the Predator solves this problem. While these drones have certain advantages like being able to remain on station for hours until needed, the F-16 as Uninhabited Air Combat Vehicle (UCAV) can carry a cannon and significantly more ordinance. Furthermore, the improved fuel economy that would come from removing the cockpit canopy and life support systems would allow the jet to remain airborne longer.

Three points to consider before you dismiss the idea:

1. There are hundreds of trained, vetted, experienced, retired F-16 pilots who would leap at the chance to serve again.

2. Further cost savings for the D.O.D could be found in the privatizing of this role. A Private Military Company offering pilots as contracted technicians saves the government on the cost of recruiting, training, vetting, and most importantly frees them of the burden of providing the kinds of health, education, and retirement benefits they have to provide to military pilots.

3. Surplus F-16's are numerous. A cursory look at satellite photos of Davis-Monthan Air Force base earlier today (who knows when the photo was actually taken) revealed well over two hundred F-16's sitting in storage. That is the the equivalent of several squadrons of planes, already paid, for that could now be retrofitted with the necessary hi-tech hardware for a fraction of the cost of new drones.


Of course it is still early days, but could the wave of the future be a blast from the past? 

For Further Reading:

F-16 Uninhabited Air Combat Vehicles by Kenneth E. Thompson, Major, USAF