Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Transformation Through Training Issue No 7 July 2015 29 force an individual terrorist has immense asymmetrical power and the circumstances in which he is most likely to employ it to its full effect is in a long-term offensive with 6000 flights going in and out of the UK in a typical 24 hour period and in range of shoulder launched missiles it is merely a question of time. In summary the opportunity to employ counter-insurgency measures could be lost were there to be another mass-casualty attack and the ability to reign in the militants with it. The alternative to the status quo at present is hence either to go on the offensive and intensify counter-terrorism measures with draconian legislation or alternatively to defragment the threat with a surge of forces and take direct control of the lives of the populations targeted by the terrorists. If the British are to develop successful counter- insurgency strategies for the countrys built-up racially diverse Muslim communities its strategists must understand that it is pivotal on such an ideological component. Just as Al Qaeda and Islamic State are competing for the hearts and minds of British Muslims so too must the Crown. PART IV Defragmenting the Threat The Pragmatic Model The ultimate aim of defragmentation is not integration or social cohesion but the development of common ground around which allegiances to the Crown can be rallied when called - it is not designed to draw an end to Jihad or the dedication of oneself to a foreign cause nor to assimilate the citizenry of the United Kingdom. Whilst the consequences of defragmenting may provide context for the above its goals are independent of any racial or religious agenda and unconcerned with the root causes of terrorism. The reason for this is that defragmenting is not about terrorism or the defence of the realm per se but the sovereignty of the nations parts. Under the assumption that integration is the answer to the phenomenon of nationals adopting loyalties beyond the Crown counter- terrorism measures have been intrinsically designed to thwart the violent and non-violent ambitions of British Muslims questioning the world into which they have been born. Not only is this counter-productive and an inducement to abandon their inheritance but an assault on the pluralistic nature of British sovereignty. Whilst integration and desegregation are indeed key to the progression of a nations identity neither are about the social engineering of a generation based on an artificial interpretation of a culture. The components of the country are simply too fluid too complicated too diverse and too intricate in their nature to define understand and appreciate for them to be stopped in time disassembled and reassembled to please a generation. Defragmenting is hence neither the disassembly nor reassembly of communities but the protection and enhancement of their clock-like components a protective casing to prevent the fragmentation of the identities and values that each cog and spring represents and that are crucial to the equilibrium of the nation. The aim is therefore to create a protective cover in which the independent performance of each component can be accessed and enhanced for its symbiotic qualities. Adapting to the unique dynamics of the threat to these cogs and abandoning the doctrine of counter-terrorism is not however without collateral damage and although liberal is a muscular response that forcefully takes ownership of and incorporates into the security apparatus of the state the communities targeted by the enemy. Moreover as a counter- insurgency measure its targets are deeper than those of counter-terrorism and include not just the returnees and the militants but their parents their families and familial links abroad. Given the nature of the task in hand and the controversial nature of the proposal the mechanics of defragmenting the threat need to be put into perspective. The reason for this is that despite the complexity of the phenomenon the mission is overtly simple in definition - to win over any constituency that has been infiltrated by forces beyond the Crown and to secure its allegiance. Defragmenting has no other ambitions it is not to improve the rights of women within these communities to improve levels of education or to reduce any propensity or predilection for anti-social behaviour or criminal activity. Nor is it to instil any Anglo-centric notion of justice liberty or freedom none of which are deemed prerequisites to allegiance. Interpreting the battlespace as a map of human terrain and exploiting it for the purposes of allegiance alone is not only proactive but devoid of the religious cultural and racial baggage that characterises counter-terrorism. Hence instead of attacking civil liberties each time the country is faced with an act of terrorism defragmenting means protecting them - taking advantage of the situation by offering a bridge from the diabolical to the moral and draining the enemy of its human resources. Defragmenting is hence an innovative integrated and strategic theory designed to kill an insurgency in its early embryonic stage. It is a response to a threat that is too fragmented to cope with in its entirety - so spread out amidst the available data that there are too few contiguous intelligence leads at any one specific threat to target to locate engage and destroy in time. Defragmenting the