Quote:
Originally Posted by myboynoah
Probably something like that, but I wonder if it has more to do with listening, or marking something or someone in some new fangled way and then tracking it or them, in combination with imaging and human intelligence (not Americans, but Iraqis). Everything must start with some kind of human intelligence to verify what is being seen, heard, or traced.
I don't see why this nullifies the advancements made under the surge. Certainly the surge will have made such an effort more effective.
|
Why I discredit listening: too much manpower required, too much intelligence sharing with the Iraqis. Heavens knows we don't have the speakers to do that kind of surveillance, and I doubt we have a tele-bank of listeners, in the hundreds or thousands.
Marking. That's interesting. But whom or what would be marked?
There might be a pattern of cell phone use that is different for Al Qaeda. Like calls to Pakistan for example. Triangulate the signal. Repeated ad nauseum, and you have some information.
My real-time imaging idea with computer algorithm and risk stratification does not use any significant human intelligence to identify targets, other than what city or neighborhood to look at.