Project White Horse Forum

The Fall entry page for Project White Horse depicted the technology, events and people of the 20th century, contrasted with people and crisis events of the emerging 21st century, all overlaid with the comment “how you think about the future determines what you do in the future.”

PWH offers that the dynamics of this century – 1) results and application of scientific progress – mainly information technology, 2) Globalization, 3) Mother Nature’s defense of her turf in response to man’s progression, and 4) actions of the non-state fighters of fourth generation warfare – create a linked problem set possibly un-faced by civilization to date. Effort to date has been intended to highlight key and sometimes overlapping elements and offer that when taken together they form the beginning of a minimum knowledge set necessary for adaptable response in a tumultuous new century. 

Continue Reading »

 Speach by Robert Mueller, Director FBI, to the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City, 28 Sept, 2007

Two weeks ago, not far from here, bells tolled at Ground Zero. We commemorated the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. And we marked the passage of another year without a terrorist attack on American soil.

It is important to pause and reflect on how we reached this milestone, so that we can better understand what we must do to reach another one. This task grows more complicated with every passing year.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the focus of the nation was crystallized. Our objective was clear:  We knew who, and where, our enemies were, and we had to go after them—from their training camps to their finances to their leaders. In many ways, the solution was straightforward. This is no longer the case.

Six years later, the fight against terrorism has evolved in ways both subtle and dramatic. It is far from over. The terrorist threats we face have changed, but they have not diminished.

Read FBI Director Mueler’s speach: http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/mueller092807.htm

From Ed Beakley

In light of religion’s impact on the 21^st Century, consider the following upcoming special by Christiane Amanpour on CNN and article in the same context by Dr. Walid Phares, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies  ****************************************************************************************  CNN Presents: God’s Warriors

  Jewish Warriors August 21  Muslim Warriors August 22 Christian Warriors August 23 9PM EDT By Christiane Amanpour http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/gods.warriors/  ********************************************************************************************************** Military Jihad in Modern Times is Illegal 
By Dr Walid Phares   Senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) in Washington, D.C Director of the Future Terrorism Project of the FDD  Visiting fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels. His most recent book is Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West. 

World Defense Review
August 01, 2007  The argument that the Muslims have “sensitivities” regarding the issue of historical jihad, which therefore cannot be criticized or maligned, is at odds with the current structure of international relations and laws. 

As long as a world consensus exists on the nonreligious nature of international relations, the political and legal dimensions of the historical jihad cannot be played out in the international or public policy affairs of modern society.  One cannot argue, for example, that jihad is the equivalent of self-defense in the modern international system. Self-defense doesn’t relate to any theological concept. But if self-defense in Islamic religious law covers oral insults to Islamic values, then Muslim governments or a future caliph could declare wars of “self-defense” based on mere statements made by individuals and groups (thus, the Danish cartoons would have justified jihad against Denmark in the name of “self-defense”). Similarly, if to some Christian sects self-defense could be linked to an “end-time” theology, or if future religious groups through self-defense could be a response to a divine order to reshape humanity by force, these interpretations could lead to a collapse of the planetary order. In sum, the basis of twenty-first-century peace is to abandon the racial, religious, and cultural legitimization of wars. International society, with its various nations and cultures, including the Muslim ones, has agreed on this since 1945, at least in principle.

Read the Article

http://www.defenddemocracy.org//in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=512471  

 

 

 From Ed Beakley, Project White Horse 084640 Director and Editor

Research and writing for both the website and in-work book are based upon the premise that the effects of 1) information technology, 2) the flattening of the world through globalization, 3) Mother Nature, and 4) the emerging and steady state non-state nature of warfare, combine to create a unique and extremely troublesome problem set for decision makers at all levels in the 21^st Century. Much has been written, websites and organizations abound on each of these subjects individually, indeed to the point of information overload. In that light,Project White Horse 084640 focuses on providing some perspective and articles focused on increasing learning related to building resiliency for citizens and First Responders.

I submit to you that the education and experience that our fathers and grandfathers needed to understand their world in the face of Germany and Japan in World War II and then the USSR in the Cold War was sufficient for debate and action, and indeed survival. I firmly believe that our experience base, educational background, and gained knowledge from the computer age is necessary but insufficient for a different kind of “four horsemen” in this new century. An active learning, unlearning, relearning process is required.  

 

Given the quarterly nature of the website additions, I have determined to provide on occasion links to articles I find of particular interest in the research and consider as relevant to developing resiliency in the face of the frontier at our doorstep.  As always your thoughts are most desired.

 By Frank Borelli

Not long ago I read through the book, “Terror At Beslan: A Russian Tragedy with Lessons for America’s Schools” by John Giduck  The book so convinced me that we in law enforcement are training for the wrong threat (Active Shooter) that I doubted my own thought process. So, to double check my understanding, this past week I attended a presentation by John Giduck given at a conference in Washington, DC. What I found was that not only did I understand the book correctly, but the situation is worse than I actually perceived it. 

Through his presentation, Mr. Giduck explains the terrorist thought process and how the attacks / sieges they’ve committed have been motivated, planned and performed. Yes, I said “sieges”. As Mr. Giduck explained:

There are two types of prevalent terrorist attacks -
The Decimation Assault – such as suicide bombings, drive by shootings, etc.
The Siege – otherwise known as a Mass Hostage Siege.

Recent history shows us two that were reported in the popular media: The taking of over 800 hostages at the NordOst Theater in Moscow, and the taking of over 1,200 students, teachers and parents at the school in Beslan.

As Mr. Giduck pointed out: the Beslan siege had a larger number of hostages than that of the NordOst theater. Every time the terrorists attack they have to do something bigger and better. Follow that to the logical conclusion and that means that IF or WHEN they take over a target in America, the number of hostages will HAVE to be in excess of 1,200. 

Read the Article 

http://www.borelliconsulting.com/articles/multerdoctrine.htm 

 By Robert D. Kaplan 

Some truths are so obvious that to mention them in polite company seems either pointless or rude. What is left unstated, however, can with time be forgotten. Both of these observations apply today to the American way of war. It is obvious that a military can only fight well on behalf of a society in which it believes, and that a society which believes little is worth fighting for cannot, in the end, field an effective military. Obvious as this is, we seem to have forgotten it. 

Remembering will help us in several ways. First, it will show us that the greatest asymmetry in our struggle with radical Islam is not one of arms or organization or even of ideology in any simple sense, but one of morale in the deepest sense. Second, it will provide an insight into the state of civil-military relations in our own country, which is a growing problem many of us refuse to acknowledge. And third, it will show us why some kinds of wars—“in-between” wars, I call them—have become inherently difficult for the United States to fight and win. 

 As Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz said: While a good society should certainly never want to go to war, it must always be prepared to do so. But a society will not fight for what it believes, if all it believes is that it should never have to fight. 

 

Read the article 

http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=289&MId=14 

 By David J. Kilcullen 

Despite our rather rosy hindsight view of World War II, there was considerable dissent at the time about the war’s aims, conduct, and strategy. But virtually no one disagreed that it was indeed a war or that the Axis powers were the enemy/aggressors. 

Contrast this with the war on terrorism. Some dispute the notion that the conflict can be defined as a war; others question the reality of the threat. Far-left critics blame American industrial interests, while a lunatic fringe sees September 11, 2001, as a massive self-inflicted conspiracy. More seriously, people disagree about the enemy. Is al-Qaida a real threat or a creature of Western paranoia and overreaction? Is it even a real organization? 

Is al-Qaida a mass movement or simply a philosophy, a state of mind? Is the enemy all terrorism? Is it extremism? Or is Islam itself in some way a threat? Is this primarily a military, political, or civilizational problem? What would “victory” look like? These fundamentals are disputed, as those of previous conflicts (except possibly the Cold War) were not.

British General Rupert Smith argues that war—defined as industrial, interstate warfare between armies, where the clash of arms decides the outcome—no longer exists, that we are instead in an era of “war amongst the people,” where the utility of military forces depends on their ability to adapt to complex political contexts and engage non-state opponents under the critical gaze of global public opinion.

The new threats, which invalidate received wisdom on so many issues, may indicate that we are on the brink of a new era of conflict. Finding new, breakthrough ideas to understand and defeat these threats may prove to be the most important challenge we face. Read the article

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0507/ijpe/kilcullen.htm 

 

Dean Barnett

 

In the 1960s, history called the Baby Boomers. They didn’t answer the phone.

Confronted with a generation-defining conflict, the cold war, the Boomers–those, at any rate, who came to be emblematic of their generation–took the opposite path from their parents during World War II. Sadly, the excesses of Woodstock became the face of the Boomers’ response to their moment of challenge. War protests where agitated youths derided American soldiers as baby-killers added no luster to their image.

Few of the leading lights of that generation joined the military. Most calculated how they could avoid military service, and their attitude rippled through the rest of the century. In the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s, military service didn’t occur to most young people as an option, let alone a duty.

But now, once again, history is calling. Fortunately, the present generation appears more reminiscent of their grandparents than their parents.

It is surely a measure of how far we’ve come as a society from the dark days of the 1960s that things like military service and duty and sacrifice are now celebrated. Just because Washington and Hollywood haven’t noticed this generational shift doesn’t mean it hasn’t occurred. It has, and it’s seismic. 

Read the Article

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/904pffgs.asp