Global Security & Intelligencer

OPERATION EPIC FURY: IS IT JUST AND LEGITIMATE WAR?

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 20:04:00 -0700

Operation Epic Fury Press Briefing, March 19, 2026

Photo by Benjamin D Applebaum

Background

Never Again.

Since 1979, with the invasion of the US embassy in Tehran and the initial hostage taking of 66 Americans, and down to the 52 staff held captive for 444 days, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has been waging an asymmetric warfare against the United States, with the latter launching Operation Epic Fury in February 2026 after 47 years of passivity of the US Government (USG).

To the vociferous anti-Trumper crowd in the Western World, the United States’ military campaigns in Iran violate international law. The war is met with total indignation on social media, mainstream media, and even in the halls of the US Congress. From the first salvo of air attacks on February 28 to this day, the relentless accusation against President Trump of ushering the country into another forever war is also echoed overseas. Leaders of the European Union and NATO, especially Spain, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, have castigated President Trump for not informing them of his plan to invade Iran, then distanced themselves later on from the United States’ military campaigns, stating that the Iran War is not their war.

The Democrat Party’s calls to end the war and its condemnation of sending the Americans’ sons and daughters to harm’s way grew louder even more when the former Director of NCTC, Joe Kent, resigned from his position, claiming that in his good conscience he could not support Operation Epic Fury because there is no imminent threat from Iran.

If the USG considered the IRI as a State-Sponsored Terrorist Regime--referring to a foreign government providing supplies, training, and other forms of support to non-state terrorist organizations--the Iranian government should then be treated with a higher degree of concern. More so, the IRGC and its proxies, like Hezbollah, are considered to be Religious Terrorists—groups that use violence to further what they see as a divinely commanded purpose and who value death more than life itself.

Following the expiration of a 10-day deadline for the Islamic Republic of Iran to comply with nuclear and security demands of the USG, President Trump ordered the launch of Operation Epic Fury on February 28, in coordination with the Israel IDF’s Operation Roaring Lion.

The operation is a large-scale, coordinated US military and cyber campaign aimed at the systematic degradation of the IRGC’s offensive capabilities. The USG has articulated four primary military objectives for the campaign:

Permanent Denuclearization: To ensure the IRGC never obtains a nuclear weapon by neutralizing remaining and reconstituted nuclear infrastructure.
Destruction of Missile Infrastructure: To raze the IRGC missile industry to the ground by destroying missile stockpiles, launchers, and production factories.
Neutralization of Naval Forces: To annihilate the IRGC Navy and other security infrastructure used to project power and threaten regional stability, especially in the Strait of Hormuz.
Degradation of Proxy Networks: To significantly weaken IRGC’s regional "terrorist proxies," including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, preventing them from further destabilizing the Middle East.

I disagree with Joe Kent. Based on my assessment of the pugnacious relationship and antipathy of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United States, the Shiite regime, which calls the United States the Great Satan, poses imminent danger, not an immediate threat, to the Americans. I arrived at this conclusion using the analytical process called CHIPS (© 2016)—Capability, History, Intention, Pronouncement, and Situation. CHIPS is a strategic analytical method that I used to assess the Islamic Republic of Iran’s overall composition and the threat it poses to US national security.

This study uses Open Sources, which are derived from periodicals, research studies, and news publications; as such, this presentation can be identified as an Open Source Intelligence (OSINT).

Capability

How strong are the IRI security forces? The IRI security infrastructure is divided into three forces: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the regular Islamic Republic of Iran Army (ARTESH), and the volunteer militia known as BASIJ. For this study, this paper will cover only the IRGC and its Quds Force, as they have the capacity to affect and threaten the US government’s national security both domestically and abroad.

IRGC is Iran's elite military, intelligence, and economic powerhouse, with an estimated 125,000-210,000 personnel, focusing on the Ayatollah Regime’s survival, asymmetric warfare, and regional influence. It also controls Iran's ballistic missile arsenal, drone programs, and the Quds Force (QF), which manages proxy networks across the Middle East and East Asia, like Hamas (Gaza), Hezbollah (Lebanon), Hashd al-Sha'abi (Iraq), National Defence Forces (Syria), Houthis (Yemen), Zainabiyoun Brigade (Pakistan), and the Fatemiyoun Division (Afghanistan), to name a few.

Before Operation Epic Fury, the IRGC possessed the Middle East's largest missile arsenal, boasting roughly 2,500 missiles, including advanced long-range ballistic and cruise missiles (e.g., Sejil, Khorramshahr-4) and over 2,000 drones. The arsenal was designed for saturation attacks on regional targets and to maintain a second-strike capability. This study focuses on the IRGC’s Force Projection Capability beyond Iran.

Missile Capabilities

IRGC Aerospace Force: Operates Iran's largest-in-region missile inventory and UAV capabilities, featuring underground missile silos, enabling strikes across the Middle East.
Ballistic Missiles: The arsenal included weapons with ranges of up to 2,000 km, capable of striking targets throughout the region. Key missile models included the Sejil (1,550-mile range), Kheibar (1,240-mile range), Ghadr, and Khorramshahr.
Cruise Missiles: Advanced long-range anti-ship missiles were deployed to create a defensive barrier and threaten shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz.
Missile Cities: The IRGC maintained extensive underground storage facilities for these missiles, ensuring survivability against initial strikes.
Precision: Recent exercises highlighted improved precision in striking targets, as evidenced by attacks on Israel and Gulf Cooperation Council countries.

Drone and Naval Capabilities

UAVs (Drones): The IRGC relied heavily on one-way attack drones (similar to the Shahed series) for offensive operations.
Navy Assets: The IRGC Navy operated hundreds of fast-attack boats and naval drones intended to threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
Regional Proliferation: The IRGC was noted for providing advanced drones and missiles to regional allies like Lebanese Hezbollah.

Strategic Posture

Second-Strike Doctrine: The arsenal was configured so that even if a first strike destroyed 50% of the IRGC weapons, over 1,000 missiles would remain to retaliate and overwhelm regional defenses.
Production Capability: Iran's rate of producing new missiles and drones was outpacing the ability of regional defenses to create interceptors.
Missile Response: In the initial days of the conflict, the IRGC demonstrated its capability by launching over 500 ballistic missiles and 2,000 drones.

Quds Force is also active in the Western Hemisphere, focusing on intelligence gathering, clandestine operations, and the development of logistical networks. The QF operators are concentrating on Venezuela, the Tri-Border Area (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay), and on establishing anti-US influence in the region. IRGC-QF also has a presence in Mexico and Canada, as reported by the news media. There is no doubt that the existence of IRGC-QF operators at the United States’ doorsteps elevates the terrorists’ threats to homeland security.

History

The IRI Government, through the IRGC, has engaged in a long-term, asymmetric campaign against the United States since the 1980s, primarily using proxy militias, intelligence operations, and naval harassment to avoid direct conventional war. Key actions include training insurgents in Iraq, attacks in Lebanon, and provocations in the Persian Gulf, aiming to force US military forces' withdrawal from the Middle East.

Key Historical Conflict Points

1979 US Embassy Invasion and Hostage Taking: The crisis lasted from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981, during the time of President Jimmy Carter (D). Iranian militants seized the US embassy in Tehran, initially taking 66 Americans hostage, and while several hostages were released early, 52 Americans were held captive for 444 days.
1983 Car Bombing in Beirut: Islamic Jihad, an Iran-backed terrorist group, staged a suicide car bombing at the US Embassy in Beirut, killing 17 Americans.
1983 US Barracks Bombing: The IRGC was instrumental in forming, training, and funding Hezbollah, which carried out the 1983 US Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, killing 241 US personnel.
1984 Kidnapping of William Buckley: Hezbollah, supported by the IRGC, kidnapped William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, Lebanon. He was held for approximately 15 months and subjected to brutal torture intended to force him to reveal CIA intelligence networks. Some intelligence reports also suggest he was moved to Tehran, Iran, where he was tortured in the basement of the Iranian foreign ministry. The interrogation has resulted in the decimation of the CIA network in Lebanon and had a big effect on the intelligence collection in the Middle East Operation. Ali Larijani was the IRGC Commander in the 1980s and supervised Hezbollah in Lebanon.
1987-1988 Tanker War: The IRGC Navy mined the Persian Gulf, resulting in Operation Praying Mantis, where the US Navy forces destroyed Iranian oil platforms and naval ships.
2003–2011 Iraq War: The Quds Force supplied Shiite militants with advanced roadside bombs, leading to the deaths of over 600 US service members.
2016 Capture of US Navy Sailors: The 2016 US–Iran naval incident happened on January 12, 2016, during the Obama administration. IRGC forces captured ten US Navy sailors after two riverine command boats drifted into Iranian territorial waters near Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf.
2020 Assassination of Qasem Soleimani: The US killed Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad, a major escalation in the conflict. Soleimani is reported to be the mastermind of the roadside bombings in Iraq.
Ongoing Regional Shadow War: The IRGC continues to support proxy forces in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen that target US military bases with drones and missiles.

The IRGC's strategy focuses on "guerrilla warfare" and "low-intensity conflict," aiming to inflict costs that make the US presence unsustainable in the Middle East, rather than winning through conventional battle. But this kind of war escalated in 2026 when the American forces launched Operation Epic Fury.

Intention

The IRGC intends to expel US military forces from the Middle East, retaliate for the killing of Qassem Soleimani, and counter US influence in the region through asymmetric warfare. Their strategy involves targeting US personnel and interests, supporting proxy militias, and employing cyber warfare against US infrastructures.

Key aspects of the IRGC's intent and actions include:

Asymmetric Warfare: The IRGC-QF utilizes regional proxy militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen to attack US coalition forces and allies. Rough estimates indicate that the IRGC and its proxy network have been responsible for the killings of more than 1,000 Americans since 1979. This total includes US military personnel, diplomats, and civilians killed in various attacks across the Middle East and elsewhere over the past four decades.
Retaliation and Terror Plotting: Following the 2020 killing of Qassem Soleimani, the IRGC has vowed revenge, plotting attacks on American personnel, civilians, and former officials in the Middle East and around the world.
Targeting US Assets: The IRGC frequently engages in harassment of US naval vessels, including high-speed boat approaches and drones.
Cyber Attacks: The IRGC operates a robust cyber program capable of, and has engaged in, attacks on US infrastructure and intelligence-gathering. IRGC hackers had successfully infiltrated Donald Trump’s 2024 Presidential Campaign email system, launched major DDoS campaigns against US financial institutions, and even destroyed Las Vegas Sands Casino’s servers in retaliation for the political comments made by the owner. Recent cyberattacks by the IRGC and affiliated groups against the United States have escalated sharply since late February 2026. The IRGC often operates through front groups or private contractors to maintain plausible deniability, and these are:

§ § Handala: Focused on data destruction rather than extortion; recent attacks claim retaliation for kinetic strikes.

§ § Seedworm (MuddyWater): Active in cyber espionage and long-term network infiltration of USG and private-sector targets.

§ § Pioneer Kitten: Known for targeting the healthcare, satellite, and defense sectors.

§ § APT42: Specializes in "rapport-building" spear-phishing, often impersonating journalists or think-tank employees to harvest credentials from USG officials.

Exporting Revolution: A core, enduring mandate of the IRGC is to defend the Ayatollah’s regime and project power against the US and its allies overseas. IRGC and its proxy, Hezbollah, have established a strategic foothold in Venezuela with the intention of creating a long-term hub to advance Iranian interests in the Western Hemisphere and establish a presence near the United States. The US DEA long accused the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah of using Venezuela as a base for drug trafficking and money laundering schemes in collusion with Venezuelan officials and local cartels. The proceeds from these illicit activities help fund Hezbollah's operations in the Middle East.

The US officially designated the IRGC as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in April 2019 due to its involvement in these activities.

Pronouncement

Based on reports leading up to the Operation Epic Fury, the IRGC and Iranian leadership issued several stark warnings and declarations against the United States, positioning themselves as prepared for a "full-scale hybrid war."

Key pronouncements and actions by the IRGC and Iranian officials before the 2026 war included:

The Morbid Chant: Since 1979, the IRI government has been chanting DEATH TO AMERICA. The chant "Marg bar Amrika" is a widely used political slogan in Iran, often chanted during parliamentary sessions.
"Finger on the Trigger" Warning: IRGC commanders warned that their forces were "more ready than ever, finger on the trigger," as US warships headed toward the Middle East.
Retaliation Threats: The IRGC stated that any US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities would trigger a response that would "cause deep regret.”
Escalation Signaling: An IRGC commander warned that the IRGC's deterrence posture meant that a strike on its infrastructure would prompt a faster, broader response than in past engagements, focusing on "horizontal escalation" against US forces across the Middle East.
Dismissal of US Objectives: As tensions peaked, the IRGC dismissed claims that U.S.-led military campaigns were achieving their goals, asserting that Iran would "determine the end of the war."
"Great Satan" and Regional Threat: The longstanding designation of the US as the "Great Satan" was reaffirmed, with then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warning that any US attack would spark a regional war.
Accusation of "Full-Scale Hybrid War": The IRGC stated they were actively engaged in a "full-scale hybrid war" and would not be intimidated by US pressure.

Before the 2026 war, Iran had also officially designated US military forces in the region as terrorist organizations (following a similar designation of the IRGC by the US in 2019) and accused the US of creating, rather than reducing, regional instability.

Situation

The situation that led to Operation Epic Fury on February 28 was a combination of stalled diplomatic negotiations, Iran's continued nuclear and missile ambitions, and immediate maritime escalation.

Military Situation

US Military Buildup: Under Operation Epic Fury, the US conducted its largest military buildup in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq War. This included the deployment of three aircraft carriers, a dozen supporting ships, fighter jets, bombers, and air defense batteries.
Intelligence Assessments: The US and Israel concluded that Iran was within weeks of possessing a nuclear weapon. This assessment served as the primary justification for the subsequent Operation Epic Fury and Operation Roaring Lion (Israel).
Regional Escalation: Before the war, Israel had conducted near-daily airstrikes against Iranian-backed Hezbollah targets in Lebanon for nearly a year. Tensions had also been fueled by the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks that killed more than a thousand Israelis and subsequent regional fighting.
Asymmetric Posture: Iran maintained an asymmetric strategy, relying on drones, fast-attack boats, and a network of regional proxies (the "Axis of Resistance") to counter conventional US and Israeli power.
Western Hemisphere, Mexico, and Canada Presence: The IRGC utilizes a "direct air bridge" to Venezuela to transport personnel, weapons, and senior intelligence members into South America. Precise numbers of IRGC-QF members are not publicly disclosed. Still, they are estimated to number between 5,000 and 15,000 personnel globally, with a covert presence focused on intelligence gathering, networking with criminal organizations, and logistical support. Reports in early 2026 indicate that the Quds Force has attempted to recruit cartel-linked individuals to attack US officials and Iranian dissidents in the US mainland and Mexico. IRGC-QF operatives targeted the Israeli ambassador to Mexico in late 2024, showing an active intelligence and operational capability within the country. Based on reports in 2024 and early 2026, an estimated 700 individuals linked to the IRGC are operating or residing in Canada.
Missile Force Projection: In March 2026, the IRGC attempted to strike the US-UK base at Diego Garcia, 4,000 km (roughly 2,500 miles) away, using two-stage, long-range ballistic missiles (possibly modified Khorramshahr-class). While the attempt failed—with missiles either failing or being intercepted—it demonstrated a major expansion in force projection beyond their declared 2,000 km limit.

Political Situation

Diplomatic Failure: Last-minute "last-chance" negotiations in Geneva between the Trump administration and Iranian officials failed to produce a new deal to replace the JCPOA, which Trump had dismantled in 2018. Three rounds of high-stakes negotiations in February 2026—in Muscat, Oman, and in Geneva, Switzerland—ended in a stalemate. Iran refused to accept a "zero-enrichment" policy or to include its ballistic missile program in a new deal.
Trump's 10-Day Ultimatum: President Donald Trump issued a 10-day ultimatum for Iran to comply with US demands regarding its nuclear program. The operation was launched following Tehran's refusal to meet these conditions.
Iranian Internal Pressure: The IRI government was facing severe economic pressure from sanctions and widespread domestic unrest before the war began, and the United States saw it as a window of opportunity to launch the military campaigns along with Israel.

Nuclear Situation

Uranium Stockpile: Based on reports from March 2026, the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi acknowledged that the IRGC possesses a stockpile of around 441 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, which international experts and reports note is enough to produce material for 10–11 nuclear weapons. The stated amount is approximately 441 kg of 60%-enriched uranium, which is a short technical step away from 90% weapons-grade levels.
Quantity for 10 Bombs: IAEA Chief Rafael Grossi stated in October 2025 that Iran's stockpile of approximately 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium was enough for ten nuclear bombs if enriched further.

Conclusion

Based on intelligence assessments in June 2025, following Operation Midnight Hammer attacks on Iran’s three nuclear sites—Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, US and Israeli officials claimed massive damage to Iranian nuclear facilities. Still, other assessments and IAEA input suggested that significant capabilities survived, and while infrastructures were damaged, not all of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile was eliminated.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed to CBS NEWS that around 440 kilograms of 60%-enriched uranium is under the rubble, and Iran has no plans to retrieve the near‑weapons‑grade material. This is the same Araghchi who, on February 26, claimed that Iran deliberately limits its ballistic missile range to 2,000 km. However, this claim contradicts reports from March 2026, which suggest Iran demonstrated a 4,000 km range by targeting the British base on Diego Garcia, bringing European targets like London, Madrid, and Munich within reach.

On February 26, the US Intelligence Community assessed that IRI was only weeks away from enriching enough uranium to produce a low-level nuclear device. Likewise, Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, as reported by the Associated Press said, “The significantly increased production and accumulation of high enriched uranium by Iran, the only non-nuclear weapon State to produce such nuclear material, is of serious concern” and that “approximately 42 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium is theoretically enough to produce one atomic bomb, if enriched further to 90%.” One device could be used by IRGC-QF and/or Hezbollah operators in North America or the Western Hemisphere (See Situation-Western Hemisphere, Mexico, and Canada Presence).

Finding that the IRI negotiators, led by Abbas Araghchi, were not amenable to the USG's demands, the final round of nuclear negotiations involving Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff concluded on February 26, 2026, in Geneva, where they reportedly described the Iranian proposal presented on the final day as being "full of holes." Araghchi’s team walked out of the negotiation table. This validated the old report by Al Jazeera on June 4, 2025, when Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei firmly stated that Iran will not abandon its uranium enrichment, rejecting US demands for a complete halt. Khamenei described calls to stop enrichment as "nonsense" and asserted it is crucial for Iran's energy independence and technological progress.

Two days after the nuclear negotiation ended, the US Intelligence Community and Israel's Mossad received information that the senior leadership of the then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would meet in one building in Tehran at the same time, which led to President Trump approving the launch of Operation Epic Fury, as both USG and Israel saw the “window of opportunity” in front of them, which might not happen again.

Considering the IRGC’s capability to enrich uranium into weapons grade in weeks, ability to produce ballistic missiles at a range of 2000 kilometers (now revealed to be 4000 Kilometers), its history of asymmetric warfare with the United States since 1980s that killed thousands of Americans, its intention of targeting US national security interests here and abroad with proxies or otherwise, its pronouncements of killing the American infidels and Death to America, and the intelligence assessment that IRGC can choke the world economy via Strait of Hormuz, it is unlikely for Joe Kent to say that Iran does not pose imminent threat to the United States (or even to the Middle East and the rest of the world).

When it comes to nuclear issues and threats, especially from a country labeled as a State-Sponsored Terrorist Regime, the USG generally considers “all bets on the table” to mean, in national security terms, that all military options, peace negotiations, diplomatic proposals, or political risks are under consideration, or in play. It indicates a situation in which everything is exposed, and no option is off-limits. This reminded me of my Hostage Rescue Operations class when a student raised this scenario: A terrorist group has kidnapped the President of the United States, and if their demands are not met, they would kill the President and detonate a portable nuclear bomb on the mainland. What would be the USG’s response? Our CIA instructor replied in one sentence: Find the portable nuclear bomb at all costs and let the President die, if he cannot be rescued alive. You got my point. Nuclear threat is a paramount concern to the US Government.

The United States is dealing with a regime that has a nihilistic mindset, akin to a religious terrorist that uses violence to further what they see as a divinely commanded purpose. The suicidal behaviors of the religious terrorists deepen the degree of concern about their existence because of their religious adherence to jihad (holy war). Their willingness to die for their cause makes them dangerous, as exemplified by the suicidal operations of the al-Qaeda members on 9/11.

If an Islamist regime could kill 35,000 plus of its people in January 2026 for protesting, execute more than 2000 Iranians in 2025 for religious violations, and send 36,000 schoolchildren to their deaths as "human-wave" attacks, including clearing minefields, as part of IRGC tactics during the Iran-Iraq War, would the IRGC-QF hesitate to kill hundreds of thousands "American infidels" using a nuclear bomb? Or strike the “Zionist Regime” or hit the blasphemous Madrid, Paris, London? The presence of hundreds of IRGC-QF operators at the United States' doorsteps should raise a great alarm for the USG. Remember, it only took 19 al-Qaeda members to bring the United States to its knees and change the way Americans live their lives after 9/11. This must never happen again. Ever.

Going back to Joe Kent’s assertion that the Islamic Republic of Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States, I would say that his assessment was more of a personal protest than an official pronouncement, as he was compartmentalized from intelligence briefings weeks leading up to Operation Epic Fury due to leaking intelligence reports, and that created stigma.

But, granting that Joe Kent did not know the imminent threat, as he was the man on the outside looking in, I would present that before 9/11, the US Intelligence Community had no intelligence about the 19 Saudi Arabian nationals planning to crash four airplanes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon building, and possibly the White House, where the plane landed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. No intelligence on hitting the country. Nada.

What is the chance that some IRGC-QF or Hezbollah sleeper cells (if they are not here in the States already), who are based in Canada or some countries in the Western Hemisphere, stage some attacks much bigger than 9/11? A suitcase bomb in New York? A nuclear radioactive materials in Los Angeles? A truck bomb in Boston?

So, on that fateful morning on September 11, the world stood still, and the Americans said: Never Again. In terms of national security matters, it appears the Trump Administration follows the Bush Doctrine, which asserted the United States’ right to launch preemptive or preventive war to dismantle terrorist threats abroad before they could reach the US mainland. It establishes the right of the United States to use military force against perceived threats before they materialize into real attacks. Take it to them before they can bring it home. It shifted foreign policy toward unilateral action and regime change, seeking to destroy threats where they lived, before the enemies could bring their evil plans to decimate hundreds of thousands of Americans in the homeland using a nuclear device or otherwise; thus, the Operation Epic Fury.

I will end with this quote from Edmund Burke: When good people do nothing, evil and injustice triumph. Inaction allows harmful forces to grow unchecked, and in the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its devilish tentacles have spread throughout the world for 47 years, and along with the IRGC-Quds Force and Islamist proxies, they need to be cut off. The global apathy towards the Ayatollah's regime is often considered complicity, enabling evil to thrive and leading to significant negative consequences, thereby proving that the world's neutrality amounts to a form of surrender, but not with the United States of America.

Never Again.

The Current State of the IRGC and its Capability to Wage War

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Mon, 16 Mar 2026 22:04:17 -0700

USS Abraham Lincoln, American Aircraft Carrier

Based on news reports and open sources, as of March 16, 2026, the United States' military operations, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, launched against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), have significantly degraded Iranian military capabilities, particularly in the missile, drone, and naval sectors.

Key Damage and Operational Impacts:

Command and Control: The US military forces have struck the IRGC headquarters, with reports claiming the destruction of Central Command centers and a decapitation strike on leadership, specifically the elimination of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei. Approximately 48 senior Iranian officials (i.e., political, military, and intelligence leaders) were killed in the opening strikes. Also, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) reports that over 6,000 IRGC members have been killed and roughly 15,000 wounded since the start of Operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion.

Key IRGC and Military Figures Killed:

o General Mohammad Pakpour: Commander of the IRGC Ground Forces.
o General Hossein Salami: Commander-in-Chief of the IRGC.
o Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh: Chief of the IRGC Aerospace Force.
o Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi: Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces.
o Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh: Minister of Defense and former Air Force commander.
o Admiral Ali Shamkhani: Former Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and senior IRGC strategist.
o Major General Mohammad Bagheri: Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces

• Missile and Drone Capability: US Central Command (CENTCOM) and the White House reports state that Iranian ballistic missile capacity has been functionally destroyed, and drone manufacturing facilities have been hit hard.

• Missile Launcher Destruction: US and IDF forces focused heavily on transporter-erector- launchers (TELs) as they prepared to launch, reducing Iranian missile salvos by up to 90%. By March 11, roughly 60% or more of Iran’s ballistic missile launcher arsenal was destroyed or rendered inoperable.

• Infrastructure Destruction: Over 6,000 targets were hit across 30 provinces, including high-value, hardened underground missile silos and storage tunnels, such as the major site at Khorramabad.

• Drone Program Degradation: One-way attack drone capabilities were severely crippled, with official reports showing a 90% reduction in attacks in some assessments and an overall 95% reduction in functionality, partly due to the destruction of hangars and runways at key bases like Konarak.

• Naval and Infrastructure Assets: CENTCOM reports that over 100 Iranian vessels have been destroyed by US forces, including strikes on Kharg Island ( where 90% of Iran's oil export comes), which have destroyed Iranian naval mine storage facilities, missile storage bunkers, and 11 ships at the port.

• Noted IRGC Naval Ships Destroyed: IRIS Shahid Bagheri (Drone Carrier), IRIS Makran (Forward Base Ship), Soleimani-class Warships, IRIS Dena (Frigate), and vessels from the Jamaran, Sahand, Sabalan, Bayandor, and Alvand classes have been confirmed as struck or destroyed.

• The IRGC's Naval Headquarters: Several urban command structures have been dismantled. Extensive damage has been reported at key naval installations, including Bandar Abbas and Konarak, where satellite imagery shows destroyed buildings and sunken vessels after the US air strikes. At least 26 minelaying vessels have been destroyed (16 near the Strait of Hormuz and 10 at port), significantly weakening Iran's ability to blockade the waterway.

• Infrastructure Damage: Joint US-Israeli air strikes have caused substantial damage to Iranian military sites, with some reports from the Iranian Red Crescent claiming damage to tens of thousands of residential and commercial buildings.

The Operation Epic Fury has targeted over 3,000 locations to disable Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile arsenal, and naval power.

Key Data on Air Operations (As of March 16, 2026):

Total Targets Struck: More than 6,000 targets identified by the Pentagon.
Initial Wave: On February 28, nearly 900 strikes were launched within 12 hours.
Duration: The campaign is in its 17th day of sustained air attacks. Assets: Operations involve 125+ aircraft, including 52+ refueling tankers, stealth fighters, and bombers.

The campaign has focused on degrading Iran's air defenses, command and control sites, missile production facilities, and naval vessels.

Nuclear Sites Damage

Natanz: The Natanz nuclear production facility sustained severe damage, with satellite imagery showing the destruction of above-ground facilities, including the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant.
Fordow: The Fordow fuel enrichment plant was rendered inoperable following targeted strikes on June 21, 2025, with further damage reported during the 2026 Epic Fury campaign.
Isfahan & Research Sites: The Isfahan metallurgy facility suffered major damage, and additional strikes have targeted the Parchin explosive research facility and the Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Tehran.

Given the magnitude of destruction against the Iranian political and military leaderships, as well as the suppression of the IRGC's capability to defend and launch a counter-offensive against the US and Israeli forces, would the war last for another two weeks or would the current Ayatollah (if he is still alive) agree to sit at the table and cede to the United States' demand to stop Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program?

President Xi Jinping and The Generals of the Red Table

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:46:00 -0800

General Zhang Youxia. Photo courtesy of BBC.

So, what’s going on in China, where unprecedented purging has happened this month of January?

A military purge due to a failed coup, a senior party leader's purge due to questionable loyalty to Xi Jinping, or a CMC purge due to global humiliation brought by substandard Chinese armaments? Or all of the above? Is corruption the CCP/PLA’s generic excuse to incarcerate or terminate generals who have fallen from Xi Jinping’s grace?

According to open sources, roughly 93% of generals who were active at the beginning of 2025 have since been relieved from their command posts or are no longer in public view, leading to the assumption that they are either incarcerated or executed. But no credible evidence to support these reports, though.

Recent news states that General Zhang Youxia, a close ally of Xi Jinping and top-ranking vice chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), was placed under arrest for "grave violations of discipline" in January 2026.

Reports also indicate that 29 of 44 senior military officers appointed to the Central Committee in 2022 went missing--suggesting a significant, widespread roundup of ranking party members and signaling a massive purge within the PLA.

A similar investigation was launched against General Liu Zhenli, the chief of staff of the commission's Joint Staff Department. While this constitutes a major purge aimed at ensuring loyalty to Xi Jinping, there is no credible, publicly available information confirming the arrest of about 3,000 soldiers and their families who are loyal to General Zhang Youxia. Have they launched a coup d’état but failed?

The investigation into General Zhang Youxia, a member of the 24-person Politburo, indicates an escalation of President Xi Jinping's efforts to consolidate power over the armed forces. Clearly, there is a rupture in the Party structure, and Xi Jinping is focused on removing disloyal generals, even if it means promoting inexperienced officers to higher positions. A loyal and less corrupt leadership, but with questionable military capabilities? How would that stand on Xi Jinping’s planned Taiwan invasion in 2027?

President Xi Jinping’s extensive purging of senior PLA generals, including top rocket force commanders and his former top ally, General Zhang Youxia, drastically undermines the PLA's operational readiness in the near term. By decimating the high command and leaving key Central Military Commission positions vacant, these actions create a fragmented command structure, likely making the invasion of Taiwan riskier or less likely in 2027, the year set by Xi Jinping.

Central Military Commission Gutted: As of January 2026, nearly the entire uniformed leadership of the CMC has been purged. Of the six uniformed commanders appointed to the body in 2022, five have been formally removed. Following the January 2026 investigations into General Zhang Youxia and General Liu Zhenli, CMC is now reduced to two members: Xi Jinping and the anti-corruption watchdog, General Zhang Shengmin.
Recent Wave (2023–2026): Over 50 high-ranking military and defense officials have been purged since an intensified campaign began in 2023.
October 2025 Mass Expulsion: In one of the largest single crackdowns in decades, the Communist Party expelled nine top generals on graft charges in October 2025. These included, among others:

Gen. He Weidong: CMC Vice-Chairman and Politburo member.
Adm. Miao Hua: Director of the CMC’s Political Work Department.
Adm. Wang Houbin: Commander of the Rocket Force.

Defense Ministers: Two former defense ministers, Li Shangfu and Wei Fenghe, were purged and expelled from the Party in 2024 for corruption.
Rocket Force Target: The purge heavily targeted the Rocket Force, which oversees China's nuclear and conventional missiles, with at least six generals from this branch removed by late 2025.

The United States had the largest defense budget in the world in 2025, with projected spending of $997 billion, while China ranked second at $314 billion. China is focused on modernization, and its budget is primarily allocated to developing and acquiring advanced military hardware, including stealth fighters, drones, and ballistic missiles. With this large amount of money reaching the hands of vulnerable generals, the abuse of public office for personal gain likely affected China’s defense manufacturing industry, leading state-owned and state-controlled corporations to produce defective and substandard military hardware and armaments.

Significant evidence indicates that systemic corruption within the Chinese People's Liberation Army has led to the manufacturing of substandard armaments and defective equipment. Corruption, particularly within the elite Rocket Force, led to incidents such as missiles filled with water rather than fuel, silos with malfunctioning doors, and even some exported defense products that malfunctioned severely during the war.

For example, the JF-17 Thunder Fighter, CH-4 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, F-7 Aircraft, F-22P Frigates, C-705 Missiles, FM90(N) Missile System, and VT-4 Main Battle Tank have experienced significant malfunctions, technical failures, and poor performance in both training exercises and in real-time conflicts. During the Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran’s Chinese-made radars YLC-8B and JY-27A and HQ-9B Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) have failed to engage the planes from the US Air Force, leaving the three Iranian nuclear sites defenseless to the Americans’ GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators. And just recently, the Chinese-made radar systems JY-27A, JY-1/JYL-1, and Type 305A/H-200, as well as the anti-air missile FK-3, have failed to detect the US military forces penetrating Venezuela in the dead of the night, which led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro under the Operation Absolute Resolve.

Xi Jinping, as paranoid and proud as he is, will not allow himself to lose face on the global stage, and that is what happened after Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Absolute Resolve. In Chinese culture, "Losing face" (diū liǎn) refers to a severe loss of reputation, honor, and social standing caused by public embarrassment. Thus, Xi Jinping directed his anger at his senior leaders in the Central Military Commission, and the purging began, as I think it did.

Is NATO Still Relevant With The United States?

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:46:00 -0800

European Union Members

(Source: By SiBr4 - https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30352945)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created in 1949 primarily to counter and curtail the foreseeable expansion and influence of the USSR (and then the Warsaw Pact Countries) in Europe after World War II.

The demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1989 and the breakup of the Warsaw Pact countries, considered as the “A” list nations in terms of threats to the US national security interests, has caused the United States’ foreign policy on defense to pivot slowly and strategically to the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East, and with the current administration looking closely at China, North Korea, and Iran while still maintaining its radar on the USSR, now simply called as Russia.

As the saying goes in geopolitics, there are no permanent friends but only permanent interests. So, after the USSR’s disintegration, three former Soviet Republics, i.e., Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, 11 Warsaw Pact Countries, i.e., Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia, as well as Finland (a former Soviet territory), Sweden (historically neutral), and Germany have changed their allegiances as Soviet satellite countries and became part of NATO.

The political and military realignment of the former Soviet satellite countries into the Western coalition is akin to a tectonic shift, transforming communist/socialist states into democratic nations and thereby lessening the threat posed by Russia to the United States.

Again, there are no permanent friends but only permanent interests. The United States fought against the Italian, German, and Japanese forces in World War II. Now these three countries are trading partners and military allies of the Americans. Russians who fought alongside the Americans in World War II to defeat the German forces became the United States’ archenemy. Still, its political clout and military capabilities (except for the nuclear warheads) around the world have diminished.

According to open sources, over the past 75 years, since NATO's creation, the United States has contributed an estimated $21.9 trillion to the alliance’s defense budget, significantly more than the 32 members. An estimated $36 billion was spent on direct protection of Europe, including troop presence and infrastructure, in 2018. What about the aid to Ukraine? As of 2025, the US government had appropriated approximately $187 billion to Ukraine to fund its fight against Russia, thereby lessening the logistical burden on the European Union members and NATO forces.

Right after World War II, the United States, through the Marshall Plan or the European Recovery Program, started an initiative to help 16 European countries get back on their feet and provided around $13.3 billion ( (equivalent to over $130 billion today) to “rebuild economies, prevent communist takeovers, and create strong markets for U.S. goods, offering funds for food, fuel, machinery, and technical assistance.” The Marshall Plan was a total success, given how Europe has become an economic powerhouse today.

The United States has done so much for the European Union and NATO, and with the deafening calls from the Europeans for the American Forces to leave their continent because of the Greenland issue, the Trump Administration must take the ingrates and anti-American peoples’ proposition seriously and let them protect their continent this time against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

While the United States is funding trillions of dollars on the defense and security of Europe, it’s allowing the European Union members to concentrate and allocate their spending in building powerhouse economies like those in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The parasitism relationship between the United States and the European Union must stop. The Europeans can now handle the Russians in Ukraine without the United States' military aid and protection. Can they do it, really?

For the last time, there are no permanent friends but only permanent interests. Now, the Europeans consider the Americans as their enemies, while the United States’ national security interests have now shifted to the Western Hemisphere, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific Region. The primary threat is no longer Russia but China. American allies such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines welcome the presence of US military forces in the region, forming alliances similar to NATO. There is no better time to move the US troops and military infrastructures from Europe to the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and, of course, Greenland.

By the way, Europeans are saying that there were about 1000 soldiers from the European Union who died in the United States' GWOT in Iraq and Afghanistan, so the Trump Administration must shut up and give up its interest in Greenland. Let me say this, though: around 250,000 American soldiers died in the European theater during World War II, trying to protect and liberate the continent from the war machines of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

Yes, You Can Be A Published Author, Too!

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Mon, 29 Dec 2025 14:40:00 -0800

(The spy novel Project GrandSlam & The Zhongguo Orchestra is rated Five-Star by the Readers’ Favorite.)

So, do you want to write a book? A full-length novel? I’m telling you it’s not an easy goal. But if you have discipline and perseverance, yes, you can be a published author, too.

Okay, let me tell you this to motivate you. It took me 15 years to finish my novel, Project GrandSlam & The Zhongguo Orchestra—ten years of daydreaming and five years of actual writing.

Yes, those ten lost years didn’t amount to anything except that they filled my dream basket with buts and ifs. Doubts were my unwelcome visitors and later became my unwanted companions. In those fledgling years, my enthusiasm for writing waned, and at times, a week passed by without even a single page to credit. Unbelief led to procrastination. I almost gave up on writing and thought of letting Project GrandSlam & The Zhongguo Orchestra die a natural death. I prepared for its wake and was ready to mourn its passing.

You see, unlike other writers who pride themselves on a BA in English or an MFA in Creative Writing, I admit I have neither one of those coveted degrees. Nevertheless, the dearth of writing skills didn’t discourage me from moving on; on the contrary, it bolstered me even more to work harder. Who Dares Wins, just like what the SAS motto says.

To hone my writing skills, I became a self-educated writer. I read some "How to Write" articles online and borrowed reference materials from the library. I also bought books on creative writing and slowly built myself a mini library. I went further and subscribed to magazines like Writer’s Digest and Poets & Writers. A writer must be a reader first!

Some of the books I read were How to Write a Thriller, Grammatically Correct, 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, Rewrite Right, St. Martin's Guide to Writing, Writer to Writer, Self-Editing for Fiction Writers, Plot & Structure, and other self-help books. I also read the works of some great novelists, such as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Frederick Forsyth, Robert Ludlum, and Ken Follett. Tom Clancy showed up later in my writing life.

If you want to improve your writing skills, you must study the great works of those master storytellers.

My manuscript didn't come out easily. I juggled everything in life – family, full-time job, and church activities. Writing always showed up at the bottom of my schedule. Especially during the times my son had out-of-state soccer tournaments!

I got my solitude only when everyone at home (or at the hotel) was asleep. My creative juices usually flowed from ten at night to one in the morning. So, imagine it was hard for me to go to my real job the following morning, half-dead like a zombie.

The last two years of writing Project GrandSlam & The Zhongguo Orchestra were a grueling experience for me. I felt like I’d sailed into the unknown depths of literary seas, fishing for elusive words that often escaped my convoluted mind. It was an arduous struggle from the start, and more than anything else, the process tested my patience and sanity. Really.

My indomitable will compelled me to endure those difficult years. And during these times, a small voice, which could have been from an angel, cajoled me relentlessly, saying, "You have a good story to share with the world, so don't give up." Well, that was my daughter.

So, I pressed on, and I worked harder than ever before. My creative thoughts flowed naturally this time. I saw how my story metamorphosed from a lethargic draft to a promising manuscript. Afterwards, I started forming Beta Readers—friends who’d provided critiques of my manuscript without getting any compensation. Bless their souls. The last year was nerve-racking for me, given all the writing and rewriting and editing, and everything that came in between that cycle.

Finally, my novel Project GrandSlam & The Zhongguo Orchestra came out, but not without experiencing the blood, sweat, and tears of writing. Oh, the joy and pain of writing!

You see, some writers have natural flair, and their literary wells overflow with an abundance of words. Those skilled ones could produce a novel in three months or even in one month! You heard about NaNoWriMo? I really envy those gifted writers. Me? I’m just an ordinary guy with two simple writing traits: discipline and perseverance – two enviable qualities that helped me complete my spy novel, and two non-fiction books titled Creating the Department of Homeland Security: A Public Policy Process and Managing the Philippines’ War on Terror from 1969 to 2005: A Case Study in Public Administration.

Let me share with you some points to ponder from Andre Jute, the author of Reverse Negative. In his book Writing a Thriller, he said, “A Nobel laureate told me that, within a six block radius of the pub we were in, there were a hundred better writers than either of us . . . The difference between us, as published writers, and them as unpublished writers . . . was merely that we sat down and wrote a page a day or ten pages a day . . . and they didn’t.” He also said, “The writer’s greatest virtue is never to give up. If you were born stubborn, obstinate, and plain pig-headed, you have a good start.”

So, do you really want to write a book and become a published author? Well, the only thing that can stop you from achieving your goal is—You! Take this advice from an ESL author. I hope my story will motivate you to write if nothing else. Quit dreaming and start writing!

*The spy novel Project GrandSlam & The Zhongguo Orchestra is rated Five-Star by the Readers’ Favorite and available in paperback and eBook at Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and Rakuten Kobo.*

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Mon, 11 Aug 2025 15:40:00 -0700

Since 1969, the Philippine government has been battling Communist Terrorists, yet it has not gained complete control of the security situation in the country in 2005. Considering the experiences gained in the long years of fighting terrorism, the police and the armed forces should have decimated the CPP/NPA and its Sparrow Unit and Alex Boncayao Brigade. It could have successfully established peace and order throughout the nation, but the internal conditions during the period dictated otherwise.

The influx of foreign Islamists in Mindanao, like the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), and their association with the local terror groups, such as the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), has aggravated the already combustible situation in the South. Subsequently, their close collaboration has become a serious threat to national security. ASG’s operational ties with JI and the Al-Qaeda network developed stronger as time went by, with bombings in Metro Manila and other parts of the country as their signature accomplishments.

So, what kept the Philippine government from winning its War on Terror, considering its counter-terror infrastructure, anti-terror policies and programs, and seasoned police and military forces? What served as obstacles to the War on Terror that forestalled strategic successes? How did the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches miss the opportunity to collaborate in the War on Terror using the concepts and theories in public administration, as well as the utilization of the best practices in public governance?

The purpose of this case study is to analyze the anti-terrorism policies and programs of the Philippine government from 1969 to 2005 and examine why the governmental agencies responsible for enforcing them struggled to execute their mission, which consequently denied them complete victory.

This case study also focuses on the challenges faced by the Intelligence Community in its counter-terrorism operations. It presents how the system of governance hinders the Philippine government from achieving strategic success in the War on Terror. Along this line, this book will examine how the prevailing culture in Philippine politics from 1969 to 2005 has impacted the intelligence operations against domestic and foreign terrorist groups.

: Available on eBook and Hard Copy. Order via amazon.com.

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 11:05:00 -0700

For nine years, from the first bombing of the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, to its second attack on September 11, 2001, the United States encountered ten major terrorist attacks on the US mainland and the United States' interests overseas. These attacks have resulted in the total death of 6101 and injuries to 19,735 people.

The blame game and political mudslinging from the Republican and Democratic parties have not produced any positive results to address the problems of terrorism. On the other hand, the crisis highlighted the years of a dysfunctional relationship within the Intelligence Community, which the United States Congress revisited through its fact-finding commission, ultimately leading to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The establishment of DHS was a public policy statement by the United States government to counter threats to national security. It was the proactive approach of the Bush Administration to its domestic policy on terrorism. DHS carries out all the federal government's terrorism activities and programs.

The DHS was the result of a policy choice by elected officials, and their policy output led to the creation of the Department. On the other hand, the policy impact was the effect of both the policy choice and policy output, which was to protect the homeland against terrorist attacks from both domestic and transnational groups. The process of establishing DHS went through six stages in the public policy process, and these are: Agenda Setting, Policy Formulation, Decision Making, Implementation, and Evaluation.

Available on Amazon.com. Get your eBook or Hard Copy or Both.

Duterte, China, and the West Philippine Sea: The President's Betrayal

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:27:00 -0700

You can’t make this stuff up, can you?

While in office, former President Rodrigo Duterte sought to have the Philippines become a province of China, and he undermined the Philippines’ territorial claim over the West Philippine Sea.

Did Duterte serve the interests of the Philippines during his presidency, or promote China's foreign policy in Southeast Asia? I believe it’s the second premise, and that’s a shame because his foreign policy was preeminently pro-CCP and supportive of Xi Jinping's. He turned his back on the Philippines' traditional ally, the United States.

Do you recall Duterte's public pronouncement in 2016, when he said, “It’s time to say goodbye to Washington.” (Foreign Policy, November 2, 2021)

Duterte exhorting Xi Jinping to make the Philippines one of China’s provinces is somewhat reprehensible, if not treasonous.

The West Philippine Sea and the expanse of the South China Sea aren’t only strategically important to China’s military expansion in the Indo-Pacific region. These areas are abundant in mineral resources, including oil, gas, and other forms of natural gas, and rank among the largest in the world. Additionally, 12 percent of the global fish catch originates from these coveted waters. Moreover, approximately 21 percent of global trade passes through the West Philippine Sea and the South China Sea, amounting to approximately $3.4 trillion in annual trade.

(Photo Credit: GeoCurrents -- geocurrents.info.blog)

As has been debunked, China has no legal or historical claim to the entire South China Sea, despite its relentless propaganda campaigns. Its assertion of maritime ownership to the West Philippine Sea and/or the entire is based solely on the map published by the Republic of China in 1947, which was titled "Map of South China Sea Islands," whereby it demarcates the Chinese’s territorial claims with the eleven dashes, extending from Malaysia in the south up to Taiwan in the north. Later, it was downgraded to the nine-dash line in 1952, when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) assumed control of the government from the Kuomintang.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, an international tribunal, ruled in 2016 that the Philippines is the rightful claimant to the West Philippine Sea, which encompasses the Spratly Islands. This ruling is significant because it upholds the principles of international law and maritime rights as set out in UNCLOS. But China, which didn't participate in the trial, defies this international court order with its relentless military provocations and incursions into the Philippine territory.

Even with the Hague's ruling, Duterte still sided with China and declared in 2021 that he'll 'throw away' the Philippines' arbitral win versus China, “Sa usapang bugoy, sabihin ko sa iyo ibigay mo sa'kin, sabihin ko sa'yo putang ina, papel lang 'yan. Itatapon ko 'yan sa wastebasket.” (Phil Star, May 6, 2021)

China's People's Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN) military aggressions against the Philippine Coast Guard and the local fishermen's boats aren't only unlawful but dangerous as well. It warrants robust condemnation by the United Nations (UN), particularly given China's repeated mockery of the legal frameworks set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Unfortunately, even the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are hesitant to express their official views on the PLAN's bullying or Grey Zone tactics in the West Philippine Sea, given China's primary trade partner status in the region.

But the Philippines has found some great allies in the United States, the AUKUS alliance (comprising the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia), and the First Island Chain countries (including Japan and Taiwan), which have been vocal in their support for the Philippines and in their condemnation of China's aggressive actions and military adventurism in the region.

Might isn't right when a powerful country like China flexes its military strength to harm and bully a small but sovereign nation like the Philippines.

It's about time the government of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. asserted the Philippines' sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea. This isn't just a task for the Filipino government leaders but a responsibility that all Filipinos must relentlessly pursue. Filipinos must unite as a nation behind the Sun and Stars and stand together in defense of their country's sovereignty.

After the contentious extradition to the Netherlands, Duterte is now languishing in jail and finding himself in trial before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for his alleged “crime against humanity” while serving in public office, notably as the Davao's Mayor and President of the Philippines; Filipinos are hoping the elusive justice must prevail in the court of law, even though Duterte's administration has deprived thousands of their legal rights to seek justice--the same rights being afforded to him by the ICC.

Five Stars! The Reader's Favorite Book Review of Project GrandSlam & The Zhongguo Orchestra

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Mon, 19 Sep 2022 11:09:00 -0700

https://readersfavorite.com/book-review/project-grandslam-the-zhongguo-orchestra

Project GrandSlam & The Zhongguo Orchestra by Jos Ilagan is a political thriller with strains of religious themes. York Ryder is a photojournalist tasked to cover US Secretary of State John Berzowski’s diplomatic delegation to the Philippines. However, things don’t go as planned, and before they knew it, Berzowski is killed and there are bomb threats.

Ryder was then given a new assignment: figure out who killed the secretary, locate the bombs, and make sure the killers don’t get a chance to kill anyone else. With the USA allies offering no help, Ryder works with the CIA and National Intelligence Coordinating Agency to figure out who did it. Turns out Hong Kong’s Kowloon Dragon is behind it all, and their next target is the President of the United States. The Kowloon Dragon has major plans, and it looks like York Ryder has to stop them before it is too late.

Entertaining from the very start, Project GrandSlam & The Zhongguo Orchestra opens with an intriguing scene and makes you wonder if Ryder is more than just a photojournalist or a government agent. However, it is also a nod to Ryder’s capabilities as a journalist and as a reliable protagonist for readers.

The story is very complex and intriguing. Readers are always looking for the next clue, the next twist, and the next turn; however, they are never able to guess what will happen next.

Author Jos Ilagan maintains the suspense of the story even when we know the culprit. You can never guess what will happen next and if Ryder will be able to get the job done or not. The characters are well-rounded, they have space to develop and grow, and this is all a reader needs from an author! Fantastic!

A Basic Study of Postal Bomb: A Guide to Personal Security Measures

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Tue, 9 Jul 2019 21:27:00 -0700

Personal Security Measures: How to Protect Yourself from Postal Bomb

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Mon, 2 Apr 2018 22:50:00 -0700

(Photo Credit: The Atlantic, March 30, 2018 Issue)

The spate of bombings that took place in Austin, Texas from March 2 to 20 this year had put the nation on edge. Five package bombs exploded. Two people killed. Five critically injured.

For three weeks the lingering questions in the minds of law enforcers were: Is this another Ted “Unabomber” Kaczynski-style operation? Is the bomber (or bombers) domestic-bred or from a foreign group? What’s the bomber’s motive or objective?

The news report later revealed that the bombings were the handiworks of Mark Anthony Conditt, a self-professed psychopath who detonated a bomb and blew up himself when the police pulled him over on March 21.

Now, would this kind of terroristic act also happen in a place like Santa Clarita Valley? Yes, it could. In my eight years in counter-terrorism operations, I would say terrorists know no boundaries—they strike in rural and urban areas, in populated and isolated places.

Postal bomb is one of the methods used by terrorists in sowing chaos. A bomb of choice could be in the form of explosive or incendiary device. They come in envelopes no thicker than one-fourth inch or packages not more than twenty-two pounds in weight.

So, what do we do to protect ourselves and our families? Two words—be vigilant. Always be observant at home and at work for any suspicious mails.

Below are pointers in handling postal deliveries. Although they’re designed for persons working in sensitive-government positions overseas and for executives in multinational corporations, personal security, however, is everyone’s responsibility, and so the succeeding guidelines apply to all even to the Santa Claritans.

The bomb can explode when opening the mail so one must be aware of the following tell-tale signs in handling a letter or a package.

● Do you normally receive letters or parcels from domestic or abroad? Pay attention to the foreign name and address of the sender.

● A key to look for is the postmark. Do you recognize the writing? Is it written in foreign style?

● Is the letter or parcel balanced? If it’s lopsided, treat it as a suspect.

● If the weight is excessive for its size, treat it as a suspect.

● Are there any small holes that could’ve resulted from wire punctures?

● Are there any grease or stain marks that could’ve caused by explosive sweating?

● Is there an unusual scent or aroma coming from the letter or parcel, something like the smell of almonds?

● In case of a letter (usually in brown envelope), check if there’s a stiffer that holds the content flat—like cardboard or metal.

● If the feel isn’t like just a folded paper inside, treat the envelope as a suspect.

● Check if there are any unusual outlines if you hold the envelope up to the light.

● Is the flap of the envelope sealed completely? Usually there’s a small gap on both sides. If so, treat it as a suspect.

What to do and not to do when you receive a suspected postal bomb in the office or at home:

● Place the letter or the parcel on the flat surface.

● Make sure to place it in an open space away from the house or office. If not possible, leave it on the flat surface, and then open the windows and doors.

● A bomb explodes strongly when it’s in a closed room.

● Clear the area of all persons immediately.

● Call the Security Staff if you’re in the office to make proper determination of consequent steps.

● When at home, call the LASD-SCV for determination and assistance.

● Don’t bend the envelope or the package.

● Don’t open the letter or the package.

● Don’t place the letter or the package in the water.

What’s the chance of Austin-like incidents happening in Santa Clarita Valley? Not even one-percent. So why this article? Just a heads-up so you or your family members won’t become part of the 0.99-percent targets. There will always be copycats. Remember Thanh Cong Phan from Washington who mailed postal bombs to US military facilities and to the CIA HQS at the time Conditt is wreaking havoc in Texas?

Lastly, I would’ve you think twice of letting your minor children get the packages from your porch or mail box. I’m sure they want to help, and you want to see them off their Xbox and PlayStation. I never let mine. Paranoia? Friend, we’re living in different times.

Please take note, security is always inconvenient, but it’ll keep you and your loved ones safe.

Beijing Goes Global: China to Expand Marine Force

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:53:00 -0700


(PLA Navy Frigate Yueyang. Photo by MC Specialist 1st Class Shannon Renfroe, Wikimedia Commons	)

Hereunder article from Daniel Lang tells of an interesting topic about the strategic plan of the Chinese government to expand its military clout worldwide. China's People's Liberation Army (Navy) is going global. With its adventurous island-grabbing in West Philippine Sea, PLA (N) is now making its presence in Africa.

So, from constructing an airstrip on a reclaimed area in Spratly Islands, the Chinese is now building a navy installation about four miles from Camp Lemonnier--United States' military base of Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa.

In my book The Zhongguo Orchestra, I have discussed China's long-term objective of displacing the United States as the primary global power; and with the PLA increasing its military budget and expanding its armed forces, the Chinese keep the American military planners in Pentagon glued on their drawing tables as they strategize to counter the looming threat from Beijing.

Below is Lang's article.

For most of its recent history, China has largely been a land power with no significant naval capabilities. They haven’t been able to exert much military influence beyond their coastline for hundreds of years. In fact, one of the reasons why Western powers had no trouble bullying China during the 19th and 20th centuries, was because the Imperial Navy under the Qing dynasty was incredibly weak. With that in mind, it’s no surprise that lately, China has been putting a lot of effort into building an effective overseas naval force.

Not only have they been busy constructing their first combat-ready aircraft carrier, the Chinese have also been developing new aircrafts to accompany it. Of course, a navy can’t really exert much military influence if it doesn’t have soldiers to deploy. That’s why Chinese officials have recently announced that they are preparing to rapidly expand the ranks of the People’s Liberation Army Marine Corps.

Chinese media is reporting the People’s Liberation Army’s ambitious new plans following the announcement of a 7 per cent increase to $AU200 billion in defence spending last week. Among the details to emerge is a move to boost China’s marine corps — highly trained and well equipped troops intended for rapid deployment and offensive missions launched from the sea — from an existing 20,000 troops to more than 100,000.

Chinese officials have stated this is to protect arterial maritime trade routes and enforce its growing overseas interests.

“What growing overseas interests” you might ask? Well, China has been in the process of building their first overseas military base in Djibouti, on the Horn of Africa. And that base is expected to be completed this summer.

Marine Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, commander of AfriCom, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he expected the Chinese base on the Horn of Africa to be operational later this summer. Without getting specific, Waldhauser said he recently met with Djibouti’s President Ismail Omar Guelleh “and expressed our concerns about some of the things that are important to us about what the Chinese should not do at that location.”

The Chinese base would be about four miles from the U.S. base at Camp Lemonnier, one of the Pentagon’s largest and most important foreign military installations, where about 3,000 U.S. military personnel and contractors are assigned to Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa.

Given that base’s close proximity to Camp Lemonnier, China’s intentions are obvious. They want what the United States has, which is a vast overseas empire, and an expeditionary force that can reach any coastline in the world. They want to compete with our current role in the global theater. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough room in the world for two countries carrying out that role. We may very well be witnessing the first stages of a new conflict between the United States and China.

(Authored by Daniel Lang, Beijing Goes Global: China to Expand Marine Force by 400%; First Overseas Military Base Almost Complete, March 17, 2017. From SHTFplan.com)

Personal Security Measures: A Guide on How to Live and Work Safely in Abroad (Part 1)

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Sun, 22 May 2016 23:28:00 -0700

(Image courtesy of Pixabay)

On January 2016, the US Department of State had issued seven travel alerts and warnings for the Americans who are going to Mexico, El Salvador, Haiti, Uganda, Sudan, Niger, and Burkina Faso. The USDOS advised the travelers of the risks they would encounter in these countries. Tourists are even cautioned to consider not going at all or to postpone their plans to a later date.

Accordingly, the reasons for issuing the notification was due to “unstable government, civil war, ongoing intense crime or violence, or frequent terrorist attacks.” The announcement also mentioned of “an election season that is bound to have many strikes, demonstrations, or disturbances; a health alert like an outbreak of H1N1; or evidence of an elevated risk of terrorist attacks.” On both publications, the USDOS pointed out the possible terrorist attack. This kind of threat would intensify as the years go by notably with the expanding clout of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in the Middle East, and the al-Qaeda (AQ) in the African continent.

For the American tourists, they can always forego their vacation plans and depart when the security condition in their destinations changed for good. This could also be said for those company executives who are on a planned business trip. But for those expatriates living overseas, they do not have the luxury of altering their schedules; instead, they will need to raise the level of their security awareness to protect themselves and their household from physical harm.

Executives of multinational corporations would be the most likely targets of criminal and terroristic acts, not only for financial gains but also for political objectives because they are construed as conduits of so-called American imperialism.

One of the critical assets of a corporation is its personnel—primarily the managers or those assigned on sensitive assignments. As such, appropriate attention must be given to the safety and protection of the executives and their families, particularly in high-risk countries where crimes are rampant and where terrorist groups operate unabated.

The security operation is of universal application, but some techniques may need to be applied to address the threat condition. A security precaution required for a given situation would depend mostly on the nature of the threats, which could be assessed on several factors.

So, in this article, I am going to outline the Personal Security Measures that you--the American expatriate--could apply to mitigate your risk of becoming a victim of criminal or terrorist group. I will discuss the precautionary security measures you can take while in the field, in the office, and at home. These guidelines come in the simple Do’s and Don’ts, which are uncomplicated that you and your family members can perform daily.

As a caveat, the security measures presented herein should serve as guides only, as no one is more concerned with the protection of your well-being than yourself. So, the greater the security awareness you put into the task, the greater the degree of your safety will be. Remember, even the professional security practitioners find it hard to stay on full-security alert on a 24-hour basis. As such, it is crucial for you to identify and recognize vulnerable situations when traveling to work, staying at home, or even doing recreational activities with your family. For instance, you might be defenseless when pumping gas in a local station, opening the door to callers, or traveling on a deserted highway. It is, therefore, important to always be on the lookout and not to lower your guard down.

Remember, attackers operate using the element of surprise, and if you take that component away from them, the criminals or terrorists will find you operating on higher ground, if not leveling the threat to a manageable degree.

The following are basic personal security guidelines that lay down the foundation on the Do’s and Don’ts that I am going to discuss in the succeeding chapters. These guiding principles are:

1. Always be alert to the suspicious conduct of person/s around you, in the vicinity of your home, or near your office.

2. Always be sensitive to the areas of threat arising from your personal dealings, as well as those resulting from your official business. Inform your immediate superior, staff (who should be aware of the situation), and family members. Report the threat to the police at once either by phone or in person.

3. Always remember that an attack would succeed if the perpetrator caught you unaware. If you were on guard, the attacker would stop and think twice. This brief interval is precious, as it will give you time to take evasive actions or call for assistance.

4. Summon for help at the first sign of danger when something is about to happen or when the act is occurring. Shout, sound the motor horn or blow the whistle to call the attention of the people around you! When you can’t do this yourself, tell your family or friends to sound the alarm.

5. Always remember that raising the alarm is an effective means of slowing or hindering the perpetrator from pressing on his attack.

6. If you and your family plan to go out of town in a period of days, inform your trusted neighbor or friend in the community to look after your house. Have your lookout call you and/or call the police when they see unusual activities happening in and around your house.

7. While traveling to work and going back to home, make sure not to establish observable patterns that would enable a potential attacker to predict your future movements, construct an attack-plan based on it, intercept you in conditions unfavorable to you, or isolate you from summoning assistance.

8. Only provide an interview or conduct a business transaction with a properly accredited person in the office during the business hours, or in the presence of your staff or trusted person.

9. While on the field, you must not stay overnight in a place or in conditions that would isolate you from persons able to provide help or summon assistance.

10. When attending social functions, be cautious on your conversations with the locals and with expatriates of other countries. If your position in the company is sensitive in nature, do not disclose anything about your official functions/duties, particularly to the publishers of commercial or social directories. You may not know who among the guests are working for the criminal or terrorist group.

Please bear in mind that your family and household staff may, at any given time, also be the target of the criminal or terrorist group. So, the Personal Security Measures I am going to share on this blog apply to them as well.

Personal Security Measures: A Guide on How to Live and Work Safely in Abroad (Part 2)

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Fri, 5 Feb 2016 10:21:00 -0800


(Photo courtesy of Pixabay)

     The desire to stay alive is innate in human behavior. This inherent conduct is true even for animals, like the mother Hen securing herself and her chicks from the predacious Hawk hovering in the sky. Self-preservation is a natural instinct, and it is an intrinsic part of human’s defense mechanism.
     Although I don’t subscribe to Darwinism, yet the philosophy of “survival of the fittest and the elimination of the unfit” applies to personal security. If you live in a high-risk country, you are vulnerable to attack--not only against your personal being but also of your family and your property. Thus, the best defense against the malefactors is to keep yourself and your family protected even at home.
     Remember what Sir Edward Coke said in The Institutes of the Laws of England in 1628? Coke declared, "For a man's house is his castle, and each man's home is his safest refuge." This adage has no time expiration. It was a spot-on maxim centuries ago, and it is still true even today.
     In the olden days, a King would order his royal guards to keep a vigil in the towers to protect the castle from invaders, and at times, he would instruct the gatekeepers to raise the drawbridge to prevent the enemies from gaining access to the castle. This same security philosophy is applicable today, and even without the luxury of having a regiment of royal guards at your disposal, you can protect everyone at home using simple steps as outlined below.
     The following are necessary home-safety measures that you can use in securing your house and safeguarding your family from intrusions. Remember, the guidelines below are adaptable to various settings—whether you live in rural area or in urban center.

Do’s

     1.    Fit locks to outer doors. Ideally, exterior doors should be of solid construction. If the doors have glass fixtures, cover the doors with blinds or curtains from the inside.
     2.   Know where you keep the door keys.
     3.   Use strong chains or bars on outer doors and gates.
     4. Check visitors through a peephole or from adjacent windows before opening the door.
     5. Fit window locks on ground-floor windows and on any windows on upper floors, especially those hidden from the view of the passers-by. Any openings/windows not normally used can be permanently secured by screwing the window to the frame.
     6. Hang a non-see-through curtain in rooms commonly used by the family.
     7. Light the approaches to your house and garage. Make sure the exterior lights are placed out of reach. Check the lighting system from time to time. A time-delayed type of system is ideal.
     8. Leave a porch light on or in the area of the front door during hours of darkness. A motion-detector lights are excellent in the yards.
     9. Always have reserve lighting equipment available in your home, such as flashlights, candles, and hand lamps. Make sure you have spare batteries. A cheap gasoline-powered generator is ideal if you live in the suburb.
   10. Consider also the use of other types of security lighting system for use in emergency situations. Lights placed at strategic points make it difficult for the attackers to hide in the shadows or behind the shrubberies.

Personal Security Measures: A Guide on How to Live and Work Safely in Abroad (Part 3)

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:56:00 -0800

(Image courtesy of Pixabay)

     In this article, I will discuss the security measures in protecting your home and keeping your family safe from intruders, as well as screening your household staff and selecting party caterers and repair men.

     1.    Leave a “courtesy light” at the porch or front door from dusk to dawn. A light with a dusk-to-dawn sensor is highly recommended.
     2.    Consider the use of other types of security lighting system for use in emergencies. Lights placed in strategic areas around the house would make it difficult for the would-be-assailants or robbers to hide in the shadows.
     3.    Keep the boundary fences in good condition and make sure they block the rooms in the house that are often used.
     4. Remove or trim shrubberies around your house, particularly shrubs near paths and driveways to make concealment of persons or devices difficult.
     5.    Make a safety check each night before retiring to ensure that all doors and windows are locked.
     6.    Treat late callers with high suspicion.
     7.    Consider keeping a dog. A barking dog will warn you of strangers or trespassers.
     8.   Know your domestic helpers. Let them fill out a Personal History Statement (PHS) or other similar forms. Take their pictures yourself, if not, ask for their current pictures. This will serve as a deterrent to those who have criminal plans.
     9.    Conduct due diligence. Verify the information declared by the helpers on their PHS.
    10. Avoid walk-in helpers or helpers dropping names of an acquaintance who are not available for verification.
    11. Schedule the works/repairs in your residence and never leave the workers in the house on their own.
    12. Exercise utmost care when holding parties or gatherings at your home. Workers, helpers, and caterers should be properly checked before the function. Be wary of those last-minute substitutions.
    13. Prepare an action plan or emergency plan in case of intrusion or other threats. The plan should involve the protection of family members as well as the helpers in the house and also of the household pets.

Introduction: The Nation Under Siege (Creation of the Department of Homeland Security)

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:07:00 -0800

(World Trade Center. Photo courtesy of Wally Gobetz, Wikemedia Commons)

The notion that the United States is invincible from a foreign-terrorist attack was proven wrong after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, which later referred to as the 9/11. The successful terrorist operations carried out in New York and Washington DC by the members of al-Qaeda (AQ) have revealed to the world that even a powerful country like the United States is not secured from a suicidal terrorist group.

The results of the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon building not only claimed the lives of 5,350 Americans and foreign expatriates, but they also resulted in the injuries of 6,500 people. These figures do not include the lives of 44 passengers and the flight crew of United Airlines Flight 93 killed when they crashed in the outskirt of Shanksville, Pennsylvania while bravely wrestling control of the plane from the terrorists.

The terrorists' operations on 9/11 have revealed the softer sides of the security and intelligence apparatus of the United States government. The much-heralded invincibility of the US Intelligence Community (IC), considered as the best in the world, was later on regarded by the public as an incompetent organization. The IC members' ineptitude raised serious concern about the capability to provide the policymakers with accurate and timely intelligence on future terrorist operations in the United States.

There are several factors that can be considered why the IC failed to preempt the AQ plot. One of these was the lack of a strategic plan to counter the emerging threats of global terrorism coming from the ranks of the Islamist terrorists after the Cold War. The IC members, particularly the FBI and the CIA, have failed to adjust to the changing geopolitical landscape of the world after the collapse of the Berlin wall—which consequently united the two German countries—and of the break-up of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) into independent States.

The political change has shifted the global alliances that even former Warsaw Pact members (i.e., communist states) became part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This transformation had left the United States with no traditional military enemies to engage with. The threat to United States' national security via conventional warfare or through missile strikes from the distant European shores has lessened.

The lowering of guards created false security, which apparently affected the collection of intelligence data because of the pressure to disband the CIA in the aftermath of the downfall of communism in Europe. The Democratic Party leaders called for the abolition of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and to transfer its foreign intelligence activities to the US Department of State as well as the CIA’s paramilitary operations to the Pentagon.

The demise of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries—considered as the “A” list nations in terms of threat to national security—has caused the United States’ foreign policy on security to shift to the “B” list nations (e.g., Iraq and North Korea) and to the “C” list nations (e.g., Bosnia, Somalia). Accordingly, the immediate attention given to the “B” list nations is to preempt these countries to fill the void left by the “A” nations and to counter the proliferations of weapons of mass destruction. Security experts claimed that, because the focus of the IC resources in the past decade was shifted to the “B” list nations, the IC had never seen the emerging threats coming from the Islamic radical groups, particularly the MAK—the forerunner of AQ network, after the Soviet-Afghan war.

There were estimated 40,000 displaced had-core mujahideens, who came from various Muslim countries around the world to fight in Afghanistan. With no more war to win and no more battle to fight, these seasoned fighters went back to their respective countries and became leaders of terrorist groups in their localities. For example, the late Abdurajik Abubakar Janjalani, who founded the notorious Abu Sayaff Group in the Philippines, was a veteran of the Soviet-Afghan war. Others had surreptitiously relocated to the West and secretly formed cell groups in Germany, France, and Spain. These developments were not seen by the IC as a gathering threats to the security of United States until the 9/11 attacks happened.

Before the 9/11, there were 14 organizations that comprised IC—six from the civilian sector and eight from the military sector. Its mandate came from the Executive Order 12333 (United States Intelligence Activities), which provides, among others, to “collect information concerning, and the conduct of activities to protect against, intelligence activities directed against the United States, international terrorist and international narcotics activities, and other hostile activities directed against the United States by foreign powers, organizations, persons, and their agents.”

The US Intelligence Community members were as follows:

Civilian Sector

1. Central Intelligence Agency

            2. Federal Bureau of Investigation
            3. US State Department
            4. Treasury Department
            5. Energy Department
            6. Coast Guard

            Military Sector

1. Defense Intelligence Agency

            2. National Security Agency
            3. National Reconnaissance Office
            4. National Imagery and Mapping Agency
            5. Army Intelligence
            6. Navy Intelligence
            7. Air Force Intelligence
            8. Marine Intelligence

Agenda Setting: The State-Centric Approach (Creation of the Department of Homeland Security)

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:58:00 -0800

(United States Congress, Photo by Susan Sterner. Wikimedia Commons)

Prominent leaders in the US Congress have demanded explanations from President George W. Bush why the federal government failed to detect, monitor, and negate the terrorist attacks. The most vocal critic on this issue was New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) when she told the reporters on May 16, 2002, that “the public demands answers immediately . . . And the people of New York deserve those answers more than anyone.”

The Director of the CIA and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were not spared from the blame-game either. In the midst of this political turmoil, the people demanded accountability. There was a public outcry for the resignations of DCI George Tenet and Director Robert Mueller. The actions and inactions of their organizations were reflective of the way they led and managed the CIA and the FBI before the 9/11 attacks. The public clamor for an explanation of what caused the massive intelligence and security failure has not only reverberated in the streets of America but also rang in the halls of US Congress.

Rep. Peter Goss (R), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, himself a former CIA Intelligence Officer, said that “over the years, success in the FBI meant ‘to go out and apprehend criminals’ prosecute them and ‘get them off the streets’ . . . that approach is still needed but with terrorism, there is a new element of integrating overseas intelligence to prevent acts inside the United States.” Likewise, Rep. Jane Harman (D), a ranking member of the intelligence committee, said that “the CIA, which by law operates overseas, and FBI, which operates within the United States, have to rethink their separate roles when it comes to dealing with terrorism. . . I still see a separate law enforcement and intelligence function, but if we stop at the border's edge, we may not be preventing terrorism.”

The political activists and the Democratic Party leaders demanded that the Bush Administration be held accountable for the 9/11 tragedies as they happened under his watch. The Republicans countered that the terrorist plan was hatched during the time of the Clinton Administration, which had failed to detect and negate the attack including those that had happened before 9/11.

On the span of just nine years—from February 26, 1993, in the first bombing of the World Trade Center, to its second attack on September 11, 2001—the United States had encountered ten major terrorist hits on US mainland and on US interests overseas. These attacks have resulted in the total death of 6101 people and injuries to 19,735. The blame game and political mudslinging from both parties have not produced any positive results to address the problems of terrorism. On the other hand, the crisis had spotlighted the years of dysfunctional relationship in the IC, which were then revisited by the members of the US Congress through the fact-finding commission.

The US Congress noted the professional jealousies in the IC and this harmful rivalry among the members had hampered the coordination and sharing of information about the terrorists. Reports gathered by the media, the revelations of FBI whistleblowers, and the results of the congressional investigation have concluded that there were operational leads in the hands of the IC members, and had that information been shared with one another, it could have been used to negate the AQ network from carrying the attacks.

Moreover, the congressional leaders had also seen the weakness of the FBI in analyzing and assessing the raw information coming from the field offices. For instance, Special Agent Kenneth Williams of Phoenix FBI Field Office wrote a five-page memorandum on July 10, 2001 about a possible attack on the United States. His report did not reach the key Bureau officials. Senator Richard J. Durbin (D), who attended the closed-door congressional hearing when Williams testified before the Judiciary Committee, learned that the memorandum did not go up to the chain of command. Durbin commented that the report was “never treated seriously within the FBI, never circulated, never analyzed, nor referred to the CIA."

The responsibility of securing the mainland from terrorist attack is the primary assignment of the FBI. However, the FBI had no strategic plan to address the rising danger posed by the Islamist terrorists that time. The Bureau came up with a draft assessment entitled “FBI Report on the Terrorist Threat to the United States and a Strategy for Prevention and Response” in September 2001. The lack of strategic planning on terrorism has clearly reflected in the Bureau’s organizational behavior towards terrorism.

The FBI serves as the federal government’s lead agency in charge to respond, investigate, and prosecute terrorists. However, it will only pursue the terrorists after they struck, not while they are still in the planning stage. As an example, a request to conduct manhunt on AQ operative Khalid al-Mihdar in the United States was denied by the Bureau heads because the FBI Special Agents are criminal investigators and not intelligence operators. Al-Mihdar was one of the terrorists that crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon building.

The 9/11 tragedies created a groundswell in the US Congress to review the FBI’s role as the lead agency that oversee the efforts in counter-terrorism because its organizational culture and operational thrusts are not suitable for counter-terrorism. It took the lives of thousands of people for the federal government to finally admit that there is a need to create an organization that will focus mainly on countering the threats of terrorism in US mainland. Thus, after so much discussions and hesitations, the proposal to create a super organization that is distinct from the FBI and CIA has been proposed to the members of the US Congress by the Bush Administration. The US Congress, on the other hand, had its own version of a domestic agency, which was incorporated later on in the White House’s proposal.

Policy Formulation: The Key Government Players (Creation of the Department of Homeland Security)

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:50:00 -0800

(President Bush Addressing Joint Session of Congress. Photo from Wikimedia Commons)

Even before the 9/11 tragedies, there was already a call for major changes in governmental structures, infrastructures, and processes that relate to protecting the homeland from terrorist threats. During the Clinton Administration, a bipartisan commission known as the US Commission on National Security for the 21st Century (Hart-Rudman Commission) had existed to review, among others, the US national security apparatus. The 14-member Commission were headed by former Senators Gary Hart (D) and Warren Rudman (R). The Commission stated, “The combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S. homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter-century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine US global leadership. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures.”

The Commission recommended the creation of a super organization to be called the National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) that would be in charge of “planning, coordinating, and integrating various US government activities involved in homeland security.” The Commission pointed out that was very important to consolidate the various organizations in the federal government as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Bureau of Customs to name some. The NHSA, as envisioned, will be created by Congress and will be funded by the body, too. The Commission submitted its final report to the US Congress in February 2001.

On April 2001, US Representative William Thornberry (R), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, introduced House Resolution 1158, which called for the creation of NHSA. The resolution did not gain support from his peers. Some House Resolutions and Senate Bills were later on submitted to the US Congress purposely to create a domestic security agency.

Days after the terrorist attacks, President Bush, in his address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, announced the creation of the Office of Homeland Security (OHS). The OHS is created under the Presidential Executive Order and function to “coordinate executive branch’s efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States.” Bush hand-picked his personal friend Pennsylvania Governor and former Congressman Tom Ridge to direct the OHS.

Many believed the OHS had not met its mission and had not operated freely under its functions because of the way the organization was designed. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D) said, “This is the most important responsibility the federal government will have in the near future, and to give Mr. Ridge less power in this office is just not what the nation needs.”

On September 21, 2001, Senator Bob Graham (D) introduced S. 1449 that will establish the National Office for Combating Terrorism (NOCT). It gained seven co-sponsors, and they were Evan Bayh, Richard Durbin, Barbara Mikulski, Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Nelson, and Susan Collins. The Bill proposed that the NOCT be established under the Executive Office of the President and to be modeled after the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). US Representative Alcee Hastings (D) introduced a counterpart bill in the House of Representatives under H.R. 3078. Senator Graham and Representative Hastings reportedly “promoted the findings of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction under Gilmore Commission.”

Having seen the weakness of the OHS, Senator Lieberman gained a co-sponsor to introduce S.1534 which will establish the Department of National Homeland Security (DNHS). Together with Senator Arlen Specter (R), Senator Lieberman sent the proposed bill to the US Senate on October 11, 2001, which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. The Bill 1534, among others, will transfer the authorities, functions, personnel and assets of several agencies in the federal government that deal with security and disaster operations. The Agencies were affected were the FEMA, United States Custom Service, Border Patrol of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), United States Coast Guard, Critical Infrastructure Office and the Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection of the Department of Commerce, and both the National Infrastructure Protection Center and the National Domestic Preparedness Office of the FBI.

A year later, on May 2, 2002, after refining and widening the scope of his original resolution, Congressman Thornberry joined with Senator Lieberman to introduce H.R. 4660 and S. 2452 that will establish the Department of National Homeland Security and the National Office for Combating Terrorism. Thornberry got 40 co-sponsors and Lieberman got 5 co-sponsors after two Senate amendments in the proposed bill.

On June 6, 2002, President Bush appeared on the national TV for a televised address from the White House to call for the members of the Congress to create a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, which was envisioned to be the central agency that will consolidate the domestic security apparatus against threats of terrorism. Leaders from both parties accepted the announcement in a positive manner and promised to work a bipartisan bill to make sure of speedy passage in the US Congress. In response to the President’s request, Representative Richard Armey (R) introduced H.R. 5005 on June 24, 20002 that will establish the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and for other purposes.

Decision Making: Analyzing the Costs and Benefits (Creation of the Department of Homeland Security)

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:43:00 -0800

(US Capitol, Washington DC. Courtesy photo by Andrew Bossi. From Wikimedia Commons)

The DHS was established amidst strong challenges and oppositions from union leaders, political activists, and civil libertarians and from members of Congress themselves. The monetary costs of establishing the DHS became a big issue. Oppositions said that that Bush Administration has created a “big government” that added burden to the tax-paying public for the big expenditures. Also, the fear that DHS would infringe the civil liberties of the citizens were sounded-off by the civil libertarians. There were trade-offs on the costs and benefits of establishing the DHS, but in the end, the benefits of security to the nation had outweighed the cost in monetary obligations.

The Bush Administration’s original plan was to have different personnel systems in the DHS. The plan will allow the Homeland Security Secretary to regulate the pay schedule, performance measures and termination policies. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGA) opposed this as the proposal accordingly would diminish the rights of the federal employees to form and join unions.

However, the Senior Executive Association (SEA) supported the President on the ground that “the organizational challenges inherent in creating this new Department and the importance of its mission to all Americans necessitate maintaining current Presidential authority related to national security exclusions from collective bargaining.” Because of the controversy on the civil service issue the legislative proposal has created and the fear that the legislative proposal would be stranded in the Senate, the Republican House leaders Dick Armey and Rep. Rob Portman modified the H.R. 5005 to include the traditional rights of the employees.

The American Civil Liberties Union was very vocal against the establishment of DHS because of the fear that it would operate in secrecy and with no public accountability. On their press release on June 25, 2002, ACLU legislative counsel Timothy Edgar said, “If you like the idea of a government agency that is 100 percent secret and 0 percent accountable, you'll love the new Homeland Security Department . . . The Administration's plan exempts the new agency from a host of laws designed to keep the government open and accountable and to protect whistleblowers."

One of the oppositions to H.R. 5005 is Congressman Ron Paul, who said, “Congress was led to believe that the legislation would be a simple reorganization aimed at increasing efficiency, not an attempt to expand federal power. Fiscally conservative members of Congress were even told that the bill would be budget neutral! Yet, when the House of Representatives initially considered creating a Department of Homeland Security, the legislative vehicle almost overnight grew from 32 pages to 282 pages- and the cost had ballooned to at least $3 billion.”

Moreover, some Democratic Party leaders like Senator Tom Daschle opposed certain provisions of the bill. He was against giving the pharmaceutical companies who make vaccines the protection from liability. He did not like the creation of a research center in the Texas A&M University for Homeland Security programs. He also contested the holding of secret meetings by the advisory committee that will favor the corporate lobbyists and the protection from liability of the companies who make anti-terror technologies or products. The Democrats found a supporter in Senator John McCain (R). The opponents to the provisions contend that the Bush administration had politicized the establishment of the DHS by catering to the interests of the special groups.

The consolidation of other government agencies into the Homeland Security was not met favorably by congressmen in charge of the committees that supervise the affected offices. The agency-transfer would mean losing oversight, influence, and budgetary control. Because the Congress has the control on the budget of Homeland Security, it was not surprising that the establishment of DHS fell to the whims and caprices of congressmen who worried more about losing their clout over their committees than the threats the terrorists posed to the nation.

The process of identifying the costs of establishing the DHS and the benefits coming from its existence were debated passionately throughout the deliberations in Congress and in the public hearings by the committee. The positive angles, as well as the negative sides of establishing a central domestic anti-terror agency outside the FBI, was seriously studied. In the end, the benefits DHS will provide to the nation outweighed the monetary costs and complexities of consolidating other federal agencies into one organization.

H.R. 5005, which had 118 co-sponsors, was passed in the House of Representatives by a YES vote of 295 and a NO vote of 132. H.R. 5005 was received in the Senate on July 30, 2002, and was passed with an amendment by a YES vote of 90 to a No vote of 9 on November 19, 2002. The H.R. 5005 was subjected to 409 amendments in the House and the Senate floors, and finally on November 25, 2002, H.R. 5005 was signed by President Bush. H.R. 5005, otherwise known as the Homeland Security Act of 2002, had paved the way for the largest reorganization of the federal government since the passage of the 1947 National Security Act that created the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Implementation Stage: Integration of Government Agencies (Creation of the Department of Homenad Security)

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:36:00 -0800

(US Customs and Border Protection, from Wikimedia Commons)

After President Bush had signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the H.R. 5005 became Public Law no. 107-296. After the policy formulation has transpired, the policy implementation came next. Peters said, “ Once a piece of legislation or a regulation has been accepted as a legitimate public law, in some ways the easiest portion of the policymaking process has already transpired, for government must then put the legislation into effect.” The effect of the legislation established the DHS, which created the newest and second largest executive department second to the size of Department of Defense. The policy of the government on anti-terrorism has now been implemented through the DHS.

The DHS is consists of four line directorates, which are the Border and Transportation Security (BTS), Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR), Science and Technology (ST), and the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP). The US Secret Service and the US Coast Guard remained intact and report directly to the DHS while the INS Adjudications and Benefits Program reports directly to the Deputy Secretary.

The BTS is composed of the US Customs Service (Treasury), The Immigration and Naturalization Service (part) (Justice), The Federal Protective Service, Transportation Security Administration (Transportation), Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (Treasury), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (part)Agriculture), and the Office for Domestic Preparedness (Justice).

The EPR is comprised of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Strategic National Stockpile and the National Disaster Medical System (HHS), Nuclear Incident Response Team (Energy), Domestic Emergency Support Teams (Justice) and the National Domestic Preparedness Office (FBI).

The ST directorate includes the CBRN Countermeasures Programs (Energy), Environmental Measurements Laboratory (Energy), National BW Defense Analysis Center (Defense), and the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (Agriculture).

Lastly, the IAIP was formed from Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (Commerce), Federal Computer Incident Response Center (GSA), National Communications System (Defense), National Infrastructure Protection Center (FBI) and the Energy Security and Assurance Program (Energy).

Evaluation Process: Performance Measures and Goals (Creation of the Department of Homeland Security)

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:16:00 -0800

(FDNY Firefighter on Ground Zero. Photo by Preston Keres, USN. Wikimedia Commons.)

Peters said, “The first step in evaluation is to identify the goals of the program, but even this seemingly simple task may be difficult, if not impossible.”

The DHS has set of strategic goals that are defined by the words: Awareness, Prevention, Protection, Response, Recovery, Service, and Organizational Excellence. The goals are clearly stated publicly and the next step was laying out performance measure to evaluate the goals. Federal agencies are mandated by law under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) to set goals, measure performance, and report their accomplishments.

On a report to President Bush and the Congress, the Gilmore Commission said, “the United States needs an improved homeland security strategy to strengthen security communities facing the greatest risk, improve the use of intelligence, increase the role of the state and local officials, and sharpen disaster response capabilities.”

The Clinton and Bush Administrations had enacted 87 percent of the recommendations of the Gilmore Commission on security related matters. The Gilmore Commission was headed by former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III.

The important recommendations of the Commission are as follows, “Combine all departmental grant making programs into a single entity in DHS; establish an interagency mechanism for homeland security grants, revise the homeland advisory system to include a regional alert system, training to emergency responders about preventive actions, and specific guidance to potentially affected regions; establish sustained funding to enhance EMS response capacity for acts of terrorism; and establish comprehensive procedures for sharing information with relevant state and local officials”

Conclusion: The Policy Choice, Output, and Effect (Creation of the Department of Homeland Security)

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:48:00 -0800

(DHS Coat of Arms, from Wikimedia Commons)

The creation of DHS was an avowed public-policy statement of the federal government in protecting and securing the homeland. It was the pro-active approach of the Bush Administration on its domestic policy on terrorism. DHS carries all of the government’s anti-terrorism activities and programs.

DHS was a product of the policy choice of the elected officials, and their policy output had resulted into the creation of the Department. On the other hand, the policy impact was the effect of both the policy choice and policy output, which is to protect and secure the homeland from another terrorist attacks. The process of establishing the DHS went through five stages and these are the: agenda setting, policy formulation, decision-making, implementation stage, and evaluation phase.

To legitimize the policy choice of the Bush Administration, the legislative proposal H.R. 5005 was submitted to the Congress for enactment into law. The choice to confront the terrorists through a new government agency was not a result of an outburst of emotion over the tragic incidents of 9/11, rather, the choice to establish the DHS was the outcome of careful studies and recommendations made by congressional leaders, commissions, political think-tanks and by the Bush Administration. There were also insights and suggestions from the civil libertarians, union organizations and even from officials of the affected government offices. All were taken and reviewed for considerations during the public hearing.

The policy output was the result of the policy choice made by the federal government. Quoting Peters again, he said, “Policy outputs are policy choices being put into action.” The choice to confront head-on the threats from homegrown and transnational terrorist groups had resulted in the formulation of counter-terrorism programs that will prepare, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks. This policy output had resulted in the consolidation of 180,000 federal employees from around 50 agencies who are involved in homeland-security efforts.

Policy output also means policy action of the government on anti-terrorism, such as the development and training of the DHS personnel on techniques in covert operations, improvement of the technological equipment in the field to monitor the activities of target personalities, and to maintain active coordination with the IC members.

The policy effects--intended results of policy choice and policy output--have been the protection of the people from terrorist attacks and the apprehension of the terrorists operating inside the United States. Moreover, according to Peters, “the policy effects may be influenced by the success and failures of the policy choice and policy output.”

DHS cannot win the fight on terrorism alone. The support and guidance of the originators of the policy (i.e., Bush Administration and the US Congress), were important ingredients in the success of its anti-terrorism programs. The homeland-security managers are given the important tasks of running the second biggest department in the federal government and the expectation for them to lead the agency in combating the terrorists has never been so great.

REFERENCES

CDI Terrorism Project, Chronology of Major Terrorist Attacks Against U.S. Targets, Retrieved 10 May 2004

Intelligence Reforms 1900s, CIA Specific Reforms Proposal.

How Will the Post Cold-War Era End? Background Observations for Session on "Defense Against External Enemies" Visions of Governance for the Twenty-First Century, by Bretton Woods and Ashton B. Carter, July 20-23, 1997

Executive Order 12333 – United States Intelligence Activities, Federal Register,

Carl Limbacher, Hillary Demands “Immediate” answers on Bush 9-11 Heads-Up, Newsmax Retrieved May 16, 2002

St. Petersburg Times On-Line, “Goss: FBI Not Capable of Preventing Terrorism,” St. Petersburg Times, Retrieved May 27, 2002

CDI Terrorism Project, Chronology of Major Terrorist Attacks Against U.S. Targets,

Phil Brennan, “We could have prevented 9-11, Congressional Intelligence Chairman Says.”

Don Van Natta Jr., and David Johnston, “Anti-U.S. Views at Pilot Training School Prompted Agent’s Alert”, The New York Times, May 22, 2002

Ibid.

Pearce, Jean. The ACLU’s War on Homeland Security, FrontPageMagazine.Com, 11 June 2003, Retrieved 11 May 24

US Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File, Executive Summary of US Commission on National Security Report, 31 January 2001, Retrieved 11 May 2004

Executive Summary of US Commission on National Security Report, US Department of State

New Bill Aims to Create Homeland Defense Agency, National Guards Association of United States, Retrieved April 2001

Executive Order Establishing Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council, Retrieved 08 October 2001

Daalder, Ivo H, and Destler I.M., Organizing for Homeland Security, Statement Before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, Retrieved 12 October 2001

S. 1449, Bill Summary & Status for the 107th Congress, Retrieved 13 May 2004

Scardaville, Michael, Principles of Creating an Effective U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The Heritage Foundation, 12 June 2002, Retrieved 18 May 2004

S.1534 (To Establish the Department of National Homeland Security) 107th Congress, 1st Session, October 11, 2001, Retrieved 12 May 2004

King, John, Wallace, Kelly, and Meserve, Jeanne, Bush Wants broad ‘Homeland Security’ overhaul, CCN.com, 7 June 2002, Retrieved 18 May 2004

Mescolotto, Andrew N., SEA States Opposition to Nelson, Breaux, Chafee Amendment, Retrieved 26 May 2004

ACLU Says Homeland Security Department Long on Secrecy, Short on Needed Accountability, ACLU Press Release, June 25, 2002, Retrieved 13 May 2004

Congressman Ron Paul, 13 November 2002, U.S. House of Representatives, Retrieved 19 May 2002

Loughlin, Sean, Democrats question items in Homeland bill, CNN Website, 18 November 2002, Retrieved 14 may 2004

Bill Summary & Status for the 107th Congress

King, John, Wallace, Kelly, and Meserve, Jeanne, Bush Wants broad ‘Homeland Security’ overhaul, CCN.com, 7 June 2002, Retrieved 18 May 2004

Peters, Guy, B., American Public Policy (Promise and Performance), CQ Press: Washington DC, 2004

DHS Organization, Who Will be Part of the New Department?, Department Of Homeland Security, Retrieved 18 May 2004

Peters, p.168

The DHS Strategic Plan – Securing our Homeland.

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

Bennet, Jeremy, 18 Dec 2003, Gilmore Commission Releases Final Report on Homeland Security, Government Technology, Retrieved 12 May 2004

Peters, p4.

Peters, p.5

A Basic Study of Threat and Threat Groups

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Sat, 5 Dec 2015 23:18:00 -0800

(Eifel Tower after the Paris Massacre. Courtesy of XtoF, Wikemedia Commons)

Let me ask you this—do you know anything about the Abu Nidal Organization, the Black September, the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, and the Venezuelan-born Illich Ramirez Sanchez aka Carlos the Jackal? If you answered "Yes" to this question, I would think then that you are from the old generation.

If you recalled the intermittent campaigns of terror in Europe and in the Middle East in the 1960s and the 1970s, you would surely agree the al-Qaeda attacks in the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon Building were unprecedented in the annals of terrorism compared to the pre-9/11 era.

Now, if you answered "No" to the above question, I would assume that you are from the 1980s, 1990s or from the early 2000s. You—from the younger generations—who have a slightest idea about terrorism, have now become aware of the horrible consequences of ideological extremism gone berserk after the Paris Massacre and the San Bernardino Carnage.

In light of the recent terror activities in France and the United States, those who seek to understand the intricacies of threats and threat groups would find this topic informative because this article discusses the various types of terrorism.

Terrorism is a relative term, as other people would say. We heard so much about the truism “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” People in the United States might condemn Usama bin-Laden as a terrorist, but to some people in the Muslim world, he was glorified like a hero ala Che Guevarra. (Regan 2005).

Robert S. Barbers defined terrorism as a “cause, attempt, or threat of destruction of properties or death by showing terror to the public, disturbing peace and order internationally or domestically due to ideological, political, religious, ethnic or cultural belief.” (Barbers 2004).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation defined terrorism as “a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social goals.” (Cooper 1995).

Another definition of terrorism is “the use of covert violence by a group for political ends and is usually directed against a government, but is also used against other ethnic groups, classes or parties. The aims and objectives may vary from the redress of specific grievances to the overthrow of a government and the seizure of power, or to the liberation of a country from foreign rule.” (Lacquer 1977).

The definitions of terrorism entail conceptual and syntactical. It is not surprising that alternative concepts with more positive connotations—guerrilla movements, underground movements, national liberation movements, commandos—are often used to describe and characterize the activities of terrorist organizations, thus establishing their activities on a more positive and legitimate foundations. (Ganor 2005).

In the past decades, numerous terror groups came into existence to advance their struggle either for economic, political, or religious battles. Security experts have categorized these groups into six major types, namely: the nationalist-terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, left-wing terrorism, right-wing terrorism, anarchist-terrorism, and religious-terrorism. (CFR 2004).

1. Nationalist-Terrorism is a “form of terrorism through, which participants attempt to form an independent state against what they consider an occupying, imperial, or otherwise illegitimate state.” (Wikepedia 2005). The nationalist-terrorists are individuals who resort to terrorism as a means of achieving independence from foreign control. These groups include the Basque Separatists-ETA (Euskadi ta Askatasuna), which fought for independence from Spain; the Irish Republican Army, which fought against the British rule; and the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, which wages war against the Turkish government.

2. State-Sponsored-Terrorism refers to foreign government providing “supplies, training and other forms of support to non-state terrorist organizations. One of the most valuable types of this support is the provision of safe haven or physical basing for the terrorists' organization.” (Terrorism-Research 2005). The groups belonging to the state-sponsored terrorism are the Japanese Red Army, which was once financed by Libya; and the ANO, which was once bankrolled by Saddam Hussein before his defeat in Operation Iraqi Freedom. (U.S. Department of State 2004).

3. Left-Wing Terrorism “seeks to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism or anarchism. Extreme cases of radical environmentalism verge on ecoterrorism, which is pushed primarily by left-wing radicals” (Wikepedia 2005). The BMG and the Brigada Rossi (Red Brigade) are examples of groups associated with left-wing terrorism. The Communist Party of the Philippines/New Peoples Army (CPP/NPA) falls under this category also and has been fighting for the eradication of the capitalist society of the Philippines since 1969.

4. Right-Wing Terrorism, also called as neo-fascist terrorism, is known for their “reactionary violence to what is seen as perceived threats to a group's value system. Right-wing terrorist ideology tends to be a belief in a religious, political, or ethnonational superiority while often supporting the status quo” (Wikepedia 2005). The Ku Klux Klan, the South Africa’s Warriors of the Boer Nation, and Russia’s Skiff are groups that engage in right-wing terrorism.

5. Anarchist-Terrorism has originated in the late 1800s, and through the years has developed into a different philosophical idea. Anarchism “in its most general meaning, is the belief that the rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. The word anarchy, as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a stateless society with voluntary social harmony” (Wikepedia 2005). Through the years, the real meaning of anarchist-terrorism has changed, and its definition evolved into something new that now carries a violent connotation. The present-time anarchists are identified with violent demonstrations and they have been constant protesters in the World Trade Organization meetings. Anarchists co-exist with eco-terrorists, and eco-terrorism is a neologism from anarchist-terrorism. Some of the anarchist-inspired groups are the Animal Rights Militia and also the Green Anarchists, which was formerly known as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).

6. Religious-Terrorists “use violence to further what they see as divinely commanded purpose.” (Wikepedia 2005). The Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah, the doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo of Japan, the al-Qaeda (AQ) network and its affiliates, Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), the Abu Sayyaf Group, and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are examples of organizations engage in religious-terrorism. The suicidal mindset of the religious-terrorists deepens the degree of concern of their existence because of their religious adherence to jihad (holy war). Their willingness to die for their cause make them dangerous as exemplified by the suicidal operations of al-Qaeda on 9/11 and of ISIS attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. The heavenly rewards—72 virgins and 80,000 servants—are incentives to the Islamist recruits to engage in martyrdom. (Warraq 2002).

In recent years, there was a gradual and steady shift of mode of attacks from conventional to a more sophisticated form of terrorism using biological and chemical weapons. For instance, the religious-terrorist group Aum Shinrikyo used a chemical weapon-like Sarin (deadly nerve agent) and Botulin Toxin in the 1990s to spread terror in Japan. (Olson 1999). Security experts consider religious-terrorism as the most dangerous kind compared to the other types of terrorism because the religious members are the ones most likely to procure or develop weapons of mass destruction and use them in pursuit of their messianic or apocalyptic visions. (Hudson 1999). Associated Press reports indicated that ISIS has a branch dedicated to creating chemical weapons. (AP 2015).

The modern day terrorists are no longer confined in one geographical area as exemplified by the operations of JI and AQ networks in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. (CFR 2004). Past terrorist events suggest that the AQ network is also active in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. For instance, The bombings in London on July 7, 2005, has confirmed the overseas infrastructure of AQ network in Europe, which was reported supervised by one Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, a British national of Syrian-descent. (Fielding and Walsh 2005). JI, AQ, and ISIS are transnational terrorists, which means, “involving or operating in several nations or nationalities.” (WordNet 2.0 2005).

After the 9/11 attacks, the emergence of transnational-terrorists and the imminent danger they present to global security did not escape the attention of the United Nations (UN). On its proactive stance, the UN prodded its members under the UN Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1378 to work closely with one another in the global war on terror. The call to form security alliances was answered favorably by the democratic nations around the world as they looked up to the United States for leadership.

Post Paris Attacks: Countering Terrorism from the Intelligence Production Side

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 20:42:00 -0800

(A Dynazoom, circa 1960s-1970s. Used by the CIA intelligence analysts for viewing of satellite and aircraft films. Wikimedia Commons.)

On July 10, 2001, FBI Special Agent Kenneth Williams of Arizona Field Office wrote a five-page memorandum about a possible attack on the United States by Middle Eastern students enrolled in flight schools in the country. (Van Natta Jr. and Johnston 2002).

            Williams reportedly came up to this conclusion after interviewing some Arab students who had expressed great animosity towards the United States.
            Senator Richard J. Durbin (D), after the closed-door congressional hearing where Williams testified before the Judiciary Committee, was surprised when he learned that the memo did not go up to the Bureau's chain of command and  was “never treated seriously, never circulated, never analyzed, nor referred to the CIA.” (Van Natta Jr. and Johnston 2002).
            The reason why the Phoenix Memo did not get its proper attention was due to the weak analytical capability of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to process raw intelligence report that time. Director Mueller admitted this handicap when he said, “What did not happen with the memo from Phoenix points squarely at our analytical capacity. Our analytical capability is not where it should be…” (Mueller 2002). Unlike the Central Intelligence Agency, the FBI on pre-9/11 era was a reactive agency being a law enforcement unit and not a proactive on its terrorism coverage like the CIA.
            The FBI, by not having competent intelligence analysts devoted to counter-terrorism matters, had failed to thwart the terrorists’ attacks on the homeland. This fiasco had triggered a major overhaul of the US Intelligence Community apparatus and most of the upgrade had been directed to the hiring and training of new pools of intelligence analysts. The necessity to train new recruits and develop others to become adept in their field are crucial to the success in the war on terror. Since then, each USIC member had elevated its fight against terrorism to the next level by improving the capability of its personnel to produce critical analysis and provide timely intelligence to the end-users in the federal government.
            Why are the intelligence analysts important in counter-terrorism operations? The intelligence analysts—whether in the military units or civilian agencies—create a clear and big picture of the terrorist groups' intents and plans by piecing together the little information collected via overt sources and covert methods. The analysts “sift through the giant haystack of information . . . to find the little needles that are really important.” (Hess 2001).
             Moreover, the intelligence analysts perform link analysis and timeline analysis to monitor the trends of terrorists activities/operations at home and overseas. The similarities of data obtained from open source intelligence (e.g., newspapers, think-tank reports, speeches, the internet) and from covert sources (e.g., action agents, wiretaps, surveillance) would show patterns and trends, which could become a baseline in predicting future attacks. The threat analysis helps the decision makers in the government, especially the President of the United States and the National Security Council, prepare a proactive national strategy and anti-terrorism policy to address the threats of radical Islamists here and abroad. Similarly, the threat analysis gives the top brass in the military and the heads of federal law enforcement units the opportunity to prepare tactical counter-measures to preempt the destabilization plans of the enemies.
            What had happened in Paris on November 13^th was the best example of a government who had failed to act on the available intelligence. It was reported that the Iraqi government warned France of imminent attacks from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  Could we say that the info from the Iraqis was “never treated seriously, never circulated, never analyzed” just like the Phoenix Memo?
            The intelligence analysts should be aware of the local, national, and global threats vis-à-vis requirements of the policymakers to produce timely and actionable intelligence. To accomplish their tasks, the analysts must lay down the hypotheses that need to be confirmed and disproved—including the plausible hypothesis and deception hypothesis. Some hypotheses lack immediate support (i.e., intelligence gap), and this vacuum needs to be filled-in to get the full picture of a threat. (Heuer 1999)
            To predict future events, the intelligence analysts explore and evaluate the collected information through the process of assumptions and interpretations using their hypotheses as guides. And the hypothesis that has the highest probability or possibility of occurring is passed on to the decision makers for appropriate action. The analysts continue to monitor the hypothesis they chose even as new information comes in daily from the field. The fresh information collected from covert and overt sources may open new possibilities or probabilities. As such, the analysts may change or modify their initial predictions or may suggest an acceleration of occurrence of such events to the end-users.
            The capability of the intelligence analysts to draw hypotheses from raw information and come up with a critical interpretation that could predict possible or probable terrorists’ action is vital to the homeland security. With the recent threats from multi-national terrorists such as ISIS and al-Qaeda, the work of the intelligence analysts has never been so critical in the protection of the United States government interests and installations, personnel, and American citizens overseas.   sDg.

Then and Now: The Goals and Objectives of Terrorism

jo1ranger@gmail.com (Jos. Ilagan) — Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:04:00 -0800

(US Embassy building in Dar Es Salaam after the 1998 bombing. Courtesy of WikimediaCommons.)

After the Friday the 13th massacre in Paris, people wonder why certain extreme religious groups (or political groups) resort to violent acts and destroy properties in the pursuit of their goals and objectives. Only a handful of terrorists carried the attacks, but the carnage had resulted in the death of 130 innocent people. To understand why those committed individuals would carry such terroristic acts, the reader must understand what terrorism is all about.

Terrorism is a relative term as some people would say. We heard so much about the truism “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” People in the United States branded Usama bin-Laden as a terrorist, but those in the Muslim world regarded him as a hero ala Che Guevarra. (Regan 2005).

There is no precise meaning of terrorism and political scientists define it in many forms, depending on what side of the political spectrum they belong.

However, terrorism—even if defined with a political slant or with a positive overture---has always resulted in the deaths of innocent people and the destruction of public and private properties.

Dr. James M. Smith, former Director of the United States Air Force Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), once said, “Terrorism is a physical attack intended to produce a psychological effect.” (Smith 2003). On the other hand, Gorski said, “Terrorism intends to cause a chronic state of psychological vulnerability and instability in the targeted population. Death and destruction are merely a mean to achieve these ends.” (Gorski 2002).

By and large, terrorism is a form of psychological warfare that intends to diminish the will of the people and influence their collective frame of mind against the established government.

Given the preceding, the terrorists seek to cause "political, social and economic disruption, and for this purpose frequently engage in planned or indiscriminate murder.” (Lacquer 1977).

A terrorist leader once said, "A terrorist is like a bee and the government is like a man; when the bee keeps stinging his target on the various parts of his body, the man will attempt to slap the bee from every direction until he loses control of himself. "

In their fight, the terrorists want the democratic government to act recklessly to their bloody handiwork. The goal is to pressure the government to impose draconian measures that would lead to the curtailment of civil liberties and constitutional rights of the people. For example, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the United States government had enforced stringent controls in the airport and harbors in an attempt to ferret out suspected terrorists and to stop them from inflicting further damages to the homeland. But then again, the 19 al-Qaeda members had different objective on their minds, which was to “use violence to further what they see as divinely commanded purpose.” (Wikepedia 2005).

The imposition of rigid security measures and the limitation of movements in public places had received unfavorable response and condemnation from progressive groups. For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union decried the post 9/11 security controls as “blatant discrimination and state-sanctioned bigotry to outright physical brutality,” which allegedly targeted the people of Arab-descent living in the United States. (Porter 2002). The terrorists' goal is to portray the United States government as helpless and incapable of protecting the security and well-being of its citizens. And by sowing terror and creating destruction, the terrorists hope to stir up the government to use unpopular extra-legal measures (e.g., martial law) and anticipate the citizenry to rise up.

Augusto Angcanan Jr., a retired Filipino police general, suggests a positive way to deal with terrorism, and he shares his opinion in the following statement. Angcanan said, “Terrorism is the means to an end, not an end in itself. Let alone, terrorism can accomplish nothing in terms of political goals; it can only aim at obtaining a response that will achieve those goals for it. Said another way, terrorist violence is aimed not so much on the target upon which the initial act is committed but to much wider audience who will view and interpret the act. The success of terrorism is due in large part to the miscomprehension of the strategy by its opponents, which is a failure to focus on the critical issue of how to respond properly to provocations and threats. Brutality and repression are induced responses that will alienate the government from the masses, thus set the stage for revolution. In dealing with the problem of terrorism, paramount is the rule of law and our respect for human rights.” (Angcanan 2005).

Terrorists do not place a demarcation line between themselves and their targets because they consider everyone and anything as front-line targets. There are no women, children, and old folks in their psychotic eyes. Buildings and structures--whether private or public-- are not exempt for destruction if it would advance their struggle. In this regard, they would kill and destroy in an indiscriminate fashion and in vicious disregard of human lives and properties. Terrorists sow terror acts in the hearts and minds of the people as means to advance their ultimate cause whether for political, religious, or economic reasons.

From the 1960s up to the 1980s, the struggle for worldwide revolution and transformation of social order were the dominant themes of the decades. The battle was between Capitalism and Communism. It was the United States of America versus the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. The fight was against two competing political ideologies. It was also a war of attrition between the State of Israel and Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization.

For three decades, some communist-leaning groups and PLO factions came into existence, and the rest was history. Each group had its own objectives yet had similarity in its protracted war against the United States and the free world—the use of terrorism as a form of weapon to fight its target-government enemies. Groups like the Black September, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Baader-Meinhoff, and Brigada Rossi made their political statements through assassinations, bombings, hijackings, and kidnappings. Their ilks come and go, but history shows these terror groups hardly ever grab hold of power and always fail to accomplish their ultimate aspiration. (Lacquer 1977).

After the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the battle had shifted from political to religious issues with the creation of transnational religious terror groups like al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, Boko Haram, and the recent Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It appears the definitions above of terrorism no longer apply to these current crops of terrorist groups. Or are they still?
The communist leaning groups fought for political and societal causes and not for a religious war like what the world is facing right now. The old-era terrorists killed their targets, not themselves. Now, the modern terrorists not only kill innocent people but also themselves. Strapping their bodies with bombs and blowing up themselves in public are now common occurrence whether in the urban areas like Paris or in the rural spots like Kabul.

The terrorists of the past always bargained with the Western governments to achieve their goals and to raise global awareness to their cause (e.g., PFLP clamoring for a Palestinian state). This isn’t true with the current terror groups nowadays. ISIS didn't bargain with the United States when it beheaded the American journalist Steven Sotloff, and neither talked with the United Kingdom when it killed British aid worker David Haines. Boko Haram members kidnapped hundreds of girls and they too didn’t negotiate with the Nigerian government. Instead, the group killed their victims unmercifully. The Taliban didn't seek a trade with the Pakistani government when it killed 132 people in Peshawar.

The genocides of Christians in Iraq and Syria by ISIS are testaments that the goals and objectives of terrorism have clearly changed. Today, all the Islamist-terrorists wanted is to kill infidels and demolish all landmarks that symbolize Christianity and Western civilization. And asking the American government and the European Union for concessions or telling the free world to capitulate to their demands is not their game anymore.

To know the current crop of Islamist-terrorists better is to understand the pronouncement of Hussein Massawi, a former Hezbollah Leader, when he said: “We are not fighting so the enemy will offer us something. We are fighting to wipe out the enemy." sDg.