Response to the 4 discussion questions with 150 words each or more

1.The greatest strength terrorists have is the ability to keep operations and personnel secret. Secrecy also posses the biggest issue with terrorist leadership. Terrorist had to change their organizational structure to small decentralized units or cells to maintain secrecy. These decentralized structures ensure they compartmentalize operations so if one cell is compromised it does not bring the whole operation down. This separates leadership in the structure making communication more paramount. The challenges to leadership is effectively communicating to provide information to the rest of the cell.

Additionally, how can the leadership communicate with supporters to obtain funding or new followers. How can they obtain additional weapons and equipment without communicating with their suppliers. In reviewing the material in our textbook it focuses on funding primarily. After reviewing sources online and knowing what breaks down most in the military, communication seemed like the most exploitable. Funding has been a big part of finding plots and cells, but the need for secrecy hinders all aspects of leadership and communications.

Terrorist groups have turned to utilizing email, encrypted texting applications, Facebook, Twitter, and on-line gaming consoles as means of communication. US Cyber command is targeting these communication by rerouting funding and issuing fake commands (Fortune Tech, 2016). Just like corporate CEOs, terrorist leadership searches for talent through recruiting, or find means of funding and support, address logistical needs, and provide direction to subordinate elements.

This is not a one solution problem that works in all instances, I will still agree with following the money to leadership. In eastern Afghanistan and other similar theaters we rely on human intelligence because much of the communications are done face to face among small groups. This approach would not be very beneficial in those cases.

On the home front and more developed areas we see this emergence of cyber related communications which provides the least amount of linkage between leadership and cells. This realm is very exploitable if we continue to focus efforts here. The military through Cyber Command and other government departments have been working on developing a more robust cyber capability to exploit means of communication for terrorist. Military leadership and most Soldiers that spend any time in training exercises or on patrols know the issue that repeatedly arises is the ability to communicate with higher.

At the federal level we need to allocate more funding, training, and positions associated with cyber-forensics and counter-terrorism. State and local should work with federal to ensure law enforcement can establish a tie-in to exchange information with the federal authorities concerning these terrorist threats. Information exchange can be impeded, making dissemination to state and local law enforcement almost impossible in a timely manner unless safeguards are in place.

This is an area that must be examined also. State and local are the ones with on ground knowledge and are likely the ones who will be the first to respond to potential threats. Each county or parish in each state of the US needs to have a point of contact developed to make this cooperation possible between federal, state, and local authorities.

2.We've all heard that money is the root of all evil, well when it comes to terrorism that statement isn't too far from the truth. Operational Planners at all levels and yes, even terrorist's operational planners must factor financing into their operations; without funding there is no operation. Our military worries about funding much in the same way an IED Cell Leader in Helmand Province does. So, how and with what resources can we leverage that need for funding into a vulnerability?

Well step one is to identify the primary funding stream and decide one of a few options: co-opt the source of funding, corrupt the source of funding, or remove the source of funding. The course of action chosen will depend on the level of resources we have at our disposal to "get after the problem". For the sake of this post I'll use the Taliban in Afghanistan as an example and assume we have federal law enforcement assets available to apply to the problem. So,

step 1: Identify the Primary Funding Source and in this case for the Taliban it's drugs. Sure they get funding through corruption of contracts, kidnapping as well as both legal and illegal businesses but the Lion's Share of the Taliban's money comes from opium and hashish.

Step 2: Figure out what to do about this. Countering the drug trade, especially in Afghanistan, comes with second and third-order effects. For example, the Taliban doesn't farm the Poppy's used in opium production directly, they pay a poor local to do it and the money is that guy's livelihood. If we approach the problem with a sledgehammer and just smash the opium and marijuana crop well, we've just created additional problems for ourselves: we removed that farmer's ability to feed his family and likely turned that guy against us indefinitely.

So, in the short term we need a plan replace that farmer's ability to provide for his family in other ways. However, in the long term the only way to eliminate that funding stream is to eliminate customers for the Taliban's product. This is where federal law enforcement comes in. We need a better way to manage the drug problem in this country sadly, there is no "silver bullet" for this...the problem is just too big.

It will require a mult-pronged approach using things such as: harsher sentences for traffickers, enhanced border security, better rehabilitation programs for addicts and dare I say it...legalization. Yes, I know that last one is a sensitive topic but I'm not talking about legalizing heroin, I'm talking about legalizing and decriminalizing marijuana. Take the money we save not having to combat illegal pot, issue federal licenses to grow, distribute, and sell it, and then tax it to the moon and put that money back into the pocket of law enforcement to combat the legitimate Schedule 1 Drugs.

Afghanistan generates 70 to 90 percent of the world's heroin and is the top producer of hashish and the Taliban generates the majority of its estimated 1 billion dollar annual budget through the smuggling and sale of those two products. Should we try and stem the flow at the source? I don't think so, this is the approach we've taken since the problem began and we are simply bailing water out of a leaking boat, we need to get the boat to shore. Eliminating the product's end user is the only way to stem the tide.

3.Various forms of media used as a weapon by terrorist groups are:
-Terrorist attacks can be dramatized by the media to gain sympathizers
-The influence of social construction of reality; propaganda
-Due to personal competitiveness, reporters can be embedded around enemy military and/or operations to report hot stories first, which weakens security of the mission

The effects of these media forms use by terrorist can generate fear amongst the citizens locally or globally and help to inspire and recruit people to join in on terrorist activity. For example, the March 2004 terrorist attacks with a series of bombs onboard commuter trains in Madrid, killed many and it was wide spread over the media. The extensive media coverage was watched all over the world and gave the impression that terrorist attacks must be spectacular to gain international media exposure (White 2014).

In addition to media, terrorist take advantage of the internet to attack enemy networks for information (cyber terrorism), extend communication and reporting, and utilize more methods to recruitment. The power of the Internet enhances terrorist striking power because it allows terrorists to run virtual organizations, websites with its' own server, and set up cyber cafes that are untraceable communications (White 2014).

This has not been easy for the U.S to defend itself against this non-traditional security threat due to technological advances. Cyber attacks such as, the cyberattack on the Office of Primary Management's server, which contains personal and family information on citizens with security clearances, have forced the U.S. to do further cyber research and analysis to counter cyber terrorism and provide education to the public to protect themselves from terrorist hacking and recruitment.

4.I am of the school of thought that terrorists and their organizations should not be allowed access to social media, the only upside to them having access is that it can provide current or real time information to the government or military, but there are other technologies present that can help with that. Social media and media give terrorists a known platform to operate from that potentially increases the fear mongering and political messages they desire and it is controlled or ran by American companies.

I feel strongly that anyone that has or is willing to commit acts of terrorism against the US or any other people lose their rights to be protected by the constitution, I understand that some of those in the US that are natural born citizens or here legally have a right to freedom of speech but it's the intent or actions that should bring regulation or denial of rights. The media companies can use software to limit or stop any kind of postings that is deemed offensive or dangerous.

"A Rand Corporation review of 63 terrorist incidents between 1968 and 1974 showed that terrorists achieved 100% probability of gaining major publicity (Bell, 1978). Media coverage of some of these episodes was ethically problematic, helping terrorism or contributing to the prolongation of violent episodes." (Almagor, 2005)

"The media and the government have common interests in seeing that the media are not manipulated into promoting the cause of terrorism or its methods on the other hand, neither the media or policymakers want to see terrorism, or counter terrorism, eroding constitutional freedoms including that of the press--one of the pillars of democratic societies. This appears to be a dilemma that cannot be completely reconciled--one with which U.S. society will continually have to struggle." (Perl, 1997)

The issues that underlie this topic are important, from one side we do not want to limit media from responding and reporting on terrorist issues and attacks, but on the other hand there should be a limitation on how terrorists use media as a tool to further their agenda. The only strategy I can see as beneficial would be to limit or deny terrorists and their organizations from social media access.

With the use of social media for hazard and disaster education and information sharing I feel that they are great outlets to spread information, "social media has begun to play an integral role in emergency preparedness, response, and recovery." (Bullock, Haddow & Coppola 2016)

The down side to terrorist threats is that normally there is only one side presented of false information posted without proper facts and information, it doesn't help that there are a multitude of satire pages out there that make up fake or derogatory articles that look real and are shared over social media. The use of Facebook for warning of natural disasters and the newish *check in* option for those in the areas of disaster is a good idea but not everyone will have access to these types of services during natural or man-made disasters. The use of a SMEM (Social Media in Emergency Management) group is a great idea and can be extremely effective.