Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: energyplay who wrote (57500)	12/22/2004 9:33:06 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 74559

<<Re: AQ attack on the US>> ... seems little point for now, as they, whoever they are, or perhaps all of them, appear to be quite busy back in their homeland. Mess Tent Attack: What Is the Best Response? stratfor.biz Dec 22, 2004 Summary New details emerging from the Dec. 21 attack against a mess tent at a military base outside of Mosul suggest that a suicide bomber might be to blame. If this turns out to be true, there are several potentially troubling implications for the security of facilities in Iraq. Perhaps of the most concern is how difficult these problems will be to overcome. Analysis Commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, told reporters Dec. 22 the use of a planted explosive or suicide bomber in the Dec. 21 attack against the mess tent in Camp Merez was "a possibility." Reporters quoted the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, Brig. Gen. Carter F. Hamm, as saying a bomb packed with pellets was used in the attack. The Islamist militant group Ansar al-Sunnah claimed responsibility for the incident and said it was in fact a suicide attack. This is not the first time a bomber has penetrated the heart of a U.S. military facility. A similar attack occurred in the heavily fortified Green Zone in October. The lessons learned and implications from that attack are similar to those that will come about from the Camp Merez bombing. The obvious reaction would be to lock down the facility to anyone but U.S. military and U.S. contractor personnel; unfortunately this is a virtual impossibility. The presence of Iraqi nationals is required to ensure the menial but necessary tasks of maintaining a military facility are done and done cheaply. This runs the gamut from run-of-the-mill maintenance to servers and employees in compound dining facilities. Refusing these contractors entry would place the onus of daily tasks on the military itself, tying up soldiers from conducting security missions -- a tradeoff commanders are likely not keen to make. From a public relations perspective, employing locals also is seen as necessary to keep public opinion from turning wholly -- and violently -- against the U.S. occupation. The second alternative would be to conduct extensive background checks on all Iraqi national employees. Unfortunately, this also is a virtual impossibility. Individual records on Iraqis are non-existent or woefully poor. This means any background checks will have to focus on word of mouth from already trusted Iraqis or simply done on faith. Obviously, that is not the best system to employ when considering the potentially disastrous effects it might have. Considering the resources available for vetting employees, it is not likely this process will be reformed any time soon. Finally, clamping down security at facility entrances might also be considered. Increasing security checks of individuals is a hassle, as it requires increased manpower and creates bottlenecks of traffic into a facility -- a tempting target in itself for insurgents. Even this tactic is not foolproof. Bomb components can be smuggled in individually, Iraqi security guards might not be as reliable as would be expected and the amount of traffic means something is likely to slip by security screeners. Interestingly, the U.S. military was about a month away from finishing a hardened dining facility at Camp Merez when the bombing occurred. If this was indeed a suicide bombing, the effect within a hardened facility would have been magnified, as the blast wave from the bomb would have been contained within a relatively small space. In this instance the soft-skinned tent might have actually saved lives. In the end the only real way to effectively prevent similar attacks like this is to strike at the source -- meaning the U.S. military will need substantively better intelligence on the insurgents if there is any hope of quelling the violence in the near future. Unfortunately it seems the insurgents have the upper hand in this department. Copyright 2004 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved