[iwar] [fc:Fourth.Generation.Warfare]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-09-20 20:36:50


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2136-1001043392-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10855 invoked by uid 510); 21 Sep 2001 03:37:15 -0000
Received: from n20.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.70) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 21 Sep 2001 03:37:15 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2136-1001043392-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.1.224] by n20.onelist.org with NNFMP; 21 Sep 2001 03:36:54 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 21 Sep 2001 03:36:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 31515 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2001 03:36:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 21 Sep 2001 03:36:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Sep 2001 03:36:51 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id UAA06283 for iwar@onelist.com; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:36:50 -0700
Message-Id: <200109210336.UAA06283@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 20:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Fourth.Generation.Warfare]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

    Date: September 20, 2001
Subject: #425: Track Records Don't Count in a Town that Likes Pretty Faces
=====================================
[Comment #: 427  ]
Discussion Thread - See the Compendium of Articles on Fourth Generation
Warfare at the Defense &amp; National Interest Website:
<a href="http://www.d-n-i.net/FCS_Folder/fourth_generation_warfare.htm">http://www.d-n-i.net/FCS_Folder/fourth_generation_warfare.htm>

Chronological Archives:
   http://www.d-n-i.net/
    http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/
=======================================
Fourth Generation Warfare ceased being an abstract concept on Sept 11 with
the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and what may have been
an attempted attack on the White House or the Capital.  As is usually the
case, the talking heads, the defense intellectuals (we call them
intellaaaaaaaaaaactuals), and the Oracles In The Cave have been hitting the
airwaves dispensing their instant wisdom to the American people.

But one thing is different this time: The People are afraid.

Only weeks before the 9-11 Atrocity, many of these experts were confidently
predicting Revolutions in Military Affairs, where all-knowing, all-seeing
technologies would ferret out the enemy and destroy him with unerring
precision weapons, robotically fired from safe sanctuaries in a bloodless
technowar.  Yet, these gurus don't even know with certainty who attacked us
or why. 

Almost 6,000 Americans are dead; the World Trade Center is a pile of rubble;
even the Pentagon was hit (something Hitler was unable to do). The whole
country became traumatized as it watched in horror as the attack unfolded in
Technicolor.  Yet the same gurus who in August claimed they could see
clearly twenty years into the future, who were writing action plans for
spending hundreds of billions of dollars on their visions of the techno
revolution, are now hitting the airwaves, dispensing their instantaneous
wisdom on a subject that was totally absent from their technovisions and
their funding recommendations -- Fourth Generation Warfare (aka 4GW)

They are doing a gross disservice to a traumatized public, a disoriented
public, a People desperately in need of information to contain their growing
fear of the unknown - the very deep kind of fear that Franklin Roosevelt
poetically described when he calmed the nation in his first inaugural
address by saying "Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have
to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror, which
paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

A better way to calm the fear and build the commitment for the sacrifices
that will undoubtedly be necessary is to repair the national OODA Loop.  A
good step in that direction would be to listen to the voices in the
wilderness that were actually much closer to the mark than the Oracles in
the Cave, who are now doing all the talking.  A better understanding of the
nature of 4GW will help our nation build the collective Orientation now
needed to synthesize and prosecute an action plan that decisively
neutralizes this threat, without inadvertently triggering the death spiral
of world-wide religious war.

No one has all the answers, but thoughtful people have been thinking and
writing about the 4GW problem since October 1989.  For the last several
years now, the webmaster of the Defense and the National Interest Website
has been assembling a compendium of their thoughts and essays on a special
page dedicated to 4GW.  It can be found by clicking
<a href="http://www.d-n-i.net/FCS_Folder/fourth_generation_warfare.htm">http://www.d-n-i.net/FCS_Folder/fourth_generation_warfare.htm>.

I urge the readers to begin repairing their OODA Loops by reading and
thinking about "The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation," which
was published in the October 1989 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette (an
article that has been distributed at least three times in earlier Blasters)
S You can go to it directly by clicking
<a href="http://www.d-n-i.net/FCS_Folder/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm">http://www.d-n-i.net/FCS_Folder/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm>.

Attached below for your study and contemplation is the most recent article,
The Next Conflict, (published this summer well before the September 11
tragedy).  Read it as well.

Careful readers will note that one the authors of the 1989 article, Colonel
Gary I. (G.I.) Wilson - a man I am proud to call my friend -- is still
busily beavering away in the trenches.
Too bad GI Wilson is not a talking head, but then, track records don't count
in a town that likes pretty faces and false profits. [pun intended].
Chuck Spinney

------[Begin 4GW Reading Program]-----

The Next Conflict
By Col. G.I. Wilson, USMCR; Maj. Frank Bunkers, USMCR; SGT John P. Sullivan,
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
Intum Magazine [written in Summer 2001, before Sept 11 Attack]

Our world, including the way we wage war, is rapidly changing.  This article
briefly explores what lies ahead and suggest ways to interface between
military, public, and private agencies involved with intelligence and
information gathering to mitigate the impact of those changes.

We face a mixed bag of threats to international stability ranging from
fourth generation warfare to "stateless" or asymmetric warfare.   Two
central ideas shape what we see as emerging with fourth generation: the
nation-state's loss of its monopoly on war and the return to a world of
cultures in conflict.  Martin van Creveld in his, The Transformation of War,
argues that the modem paradigm for warfare, in which nation-states wage war
for reasons of state, using formal militaries that fight other organizations
similar to themselves is historically unusual.

Throughout most of man's history, war was non-Trinitarian.  Families waged
war, as did tribes, cities, religions, and even commercial enterprises.
They fought for cropland, loot, women, slaves, and for sacrificial victims
to their gods.  Often there was no formal army; all males strong enough to
carry weapons were warriors.  Indeed, an entire people can be a military
instrument; mass migration is no less effective today than it was against
the Roman Empire.  In all probability, future conflict will increasingly be
non-Trinitarian and Trinitarian military forces will prove ineffective.


Complex Challenges

One face of the chimera is environmental decline.  For example, water is a
factor in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict [Spinney's Note: see Comment 425,
"The Struggle for Israel's Soul,"
<a href="http://www.d-n-i.net/FCS_Folder/comments/c425.htm">http://www.d-n-i.net/FCS_Folder/comments/c425.htm>] The intelligence
community predicts that by 2015 the availability of water and food,
population pressures, and disease will increasingly affect our national
security.  The unclassified report Global Trends 2015 indicates ecological
deterioration could eclipse ideological conflict as the dominant security
concern throughout the world. Many conflicts attributed to ethnic
differences have environmental underpinnings.  The number of wars resulting
from environmental decline and the ready availability of weapons is expected
to rise sharply in this century.

Our nation expects the U.S. Marine Corps and the intelligence community to
overcome the challenges of less conventional and more aberrant fourth
generation warfare.  Our central security concern of the past half-century,
communism has moved from center stage while the massive civil conflict and
the rise of rogue nations possessing ominous agendas, has moved in from the
wings.  Equally important, we must recognize that many future manifestations
of fourth generation warfare remain unidentified.  Thus, the accurate
analysis, and prediction of terrorism, and other fourth generation warfare
activities are necessary to ensure national security.  The chimera looms
ahead, not all of its faces identifiable, but most of them spiked and
dangerous.

The rapid diffusion of information, people, and technology aids the
proliferation of advanced weaponry. The threat of weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of rogue elements is real.  Future targets of
choice are nonmilitary.  Beyond the focus on terrorism, demographic
pressures contribute to environmental degradation, sapping economies and
undermining political stability.  Every nation depends upon their natural
resources for survival and trade.  Thus, we ask, does the disruption of any
other foundation more surely lead to conflict?


Competition for Food, Water, Energy, and Information

Competition for food, water, energy, and information are likely catalysts
for future conflict.  Either natural or political events might trigger an
expeditionary response.  Conflict may include intrastate strife,
trans-border raids, or eco-terrorism like Saddam Hussein's burning the oil
fields during the Gulf War.

Water and oil are only two examples of resource conflicts. One in five
countries suffer from water shortages.  Conflicts already brew over such
rights and will worsen without workable agreements for all global resources.
And, as history promises, some of those agreements will fail. When they fail
when will we intervene, politically, economically, or militarily to secure
the rights of an ally? At what point will these issues threaten our own
standard of living through the increased cost of exports and imports- or,
even the struggle over water resources in the American West?

The recently published FM 3-100.4, Environmental Considerations in Military
Operations, examines the affect of water on conflicts in the Middle East,
saying:

In the West Bank, population growth in the Jordan River basin increased
demand for the scarce supply of fresh water.  Over pumping the aquifers
depleted the water supply and degraded some aquifers by causing saltwater
intrusion from the Mediterranean. Because 40% of Israel's ground water
originates in the former occupied territories, Israel sought to protect its
water supply by limiting water use during the occupation of the West Bank.
The stringent restrictions on water use imposed upon Jordan, Syria, and
Lebanon became another point of tension in the conflict of the 1960's to
1970's.


Fourth Generation Warfare and Over Reliance on Technology

Meeting fourth generation warfare threats head-on requires a commitment to
forward thinking and military readiness.  The Marine Corps Vision Statement
provides insight on how leadership, bold, innovative people, and technology
can be key to adapting naval expeditionary forces for fourth generation
warfare.

Innovation and bold thinking advanced our military capabilities for decades,
ensuring the Corps' position as the world's premier force in readiness. We
must call on these attributes again, while guarding against over reliance on
technology, to meet the demands of new global challenges and ever-increasing
demands on our limited resources and operational forces.  Recent events show
us that advanced technology warfare is ineffective against terrorism and
fourth generation opponents.  Advanced technology warfare only works when
the enemy plays the same game; however, advanced technology warfare cannot
simply ignore terrorism and fourth generation warfare.

Fourth generation warfare emerges from a broad range of destabilizing
factors ranging from borderless regional gangs to attacks on financial
infrastructure by international organized crime. A novel threat-blend of
crime and war is coalescing, posing new operational and intelligence
challenges. 


War and Crime are Increasingly Intertwined

The intertwining of war and crime yields ethnic enmity, refugees, and
criminal exploitation. Conflicts are often fueled by criminal enterprises.
These criminals are traditionally low-tech in nature, but are beginning to
exploit technology.  Access is facilitated by money from organized crime;
thus, blurring the distinction between war and crime.

The cyber revolution empowers small non-state actors and favors networks.
"Netwarriors" have already emerged.  The Zapatistas use it for propaganda.
Anti-global trade activists use it to coordinate violent demonstrations.
Seattle was just the beginning; violent netwar, as a facet of fourth
generation warfare, is already here.

Transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) are increasingly networked and
control large sums of money.  At least a trillion and a quarter US dollars
flow through TCOs each year.  Drug cartels have already openly fielded
political candidates in Colombia.  It is not hard to imagine these entities
actually capturing a state (and its war making capabilities).


Trends

There are far too many intangibles to forecast the ability of these groups
to affect world stability.  In our wired world organizations of humble
political or economic means may perform high-impact actions with
unforeseeable consequences. For the Corps, as illuminated in the Marine
Corps Vision Statement, the operational challenge is to ready our forces to
address a broad spectrum of unexpected, and largely ambiguous threats.  The
Marine Corps Concept for the 21st century is the window which casts light on
future missions and gives a keen appreciation for fourth generation warfare:
the unexpected and undefined threats.


Intelligence Personnel Can Underwrite Our Ability to Succeed

Operationally focused Marines and skilled intelligence personnel can
underwrite our ability to succeed in fourth generation warfare venues. As
Col Ennis notes in the Oct 99 Marine Corps Gazette,

The first step in operationalizing intelligence needs to be physical
integration of intelligence personnel within critical warfighting functions.
In a move aimed at gaining better understanding of the operator's
requirements, the Marine Corps recently effected a change in the Marine
Expeditionary Force (MEF) G-2 organization that will result in the physical
integration of dedicated intelligence cell into key functional sections of
the MEF staff.  Dedicated intelligence cells (still subordinate to the MEF
G-2) will soon be embedded within the G-3's current ops, future ops, and
force fires sections; and within the G-5's plans section.


No Shortages of Threats

Clearly there are no shortages of threats to stability and security.  While
our military is without challenge on the conventional battlefield, the new
forms of conflict can erode our advantage if we do not innovate and adapt.
The end of the Cold War shattered the bipolar-superpower hold on the world
that made it a fairly stable place with well-understood rules.

Those with conflicting cultural or religious ideologies are likely to
challenge us according to their rules, not ours.  Their modus operandi blurs
the distinctions between crime and war, criminal and civil, combatant and
non-combatant.  These emerging challengers will embrace unconventional means
not amenable to conventional responses.

Today, there are few rules and even fewer people playing by the ones we
have.  The world is held hostage by cultural and ethnic conflicts once
buried under the weight of the superpowers. We have witnessed the results:
death, destruction, destabilization, and desolation.


Advanced Technologies: Once the prerogative of the few

Advanced technologies once the prerogative of the few are now finding their
way into other hands. The genie of proliferation, like the genie of
information, is out of the bottle to stay. High-tech applications for waging
war: advanced software simulation, GPS data, and high-resolution satellite
imagery are commercially available to anyone who can pay the price. Most
worrisome are terrorists seeking weapons of mass destruction.  Adaptive
terrorist tactics are surfacing that are central to the asymmetric threats
we face today.

Col Vincent J. Goulding, USMC in Parameters, Winter 2000 - 2001 writes,
"Asymmetric warfare..." is "...as old as warfare itself...."  Col Goulding
highlights the dangers in preparing only for the forms of warfare that suit
us: high-tech, mechanized combat on gently undulating plains.  Col Goulding
concludes that we are inviting future enemies to engage us in such places as
teeming urban slums, where a simple RPG fired from behind a fruit stand can
destroy a $4 million armored behemoth while live on CNN.

Asymmetric tactics focus on negating the advantages conventional military
forces.  It seeks ways to defeat our high-tech with low, or no, tech;
leveraging our addiction to technology into vulnerability.  This has lead
terrorists to seek chem-bio weapons and small nuclear devices.  The threat
is not the possibility of a military defeat, but rather with the destruction
of civilian urban areas.  To be sure the United States faces increased
threats from domestic and potentially transnational terrorist organizations
with motives and methods not before seen.

While technological advances are being pursued to fortify our fighting
capabilities to deal with methods not yet seen, we must not ignore
operational and tactical solutions to these challenges.  In some situations
low-tech operational solutions are viable alternatives to complex high tech
systems. We must safeguard against the over reliance on technology by
emphasizing people over things. This is especially true in dealing with some
global threats.

The Marine Corps, law enforcement, and the intelligence community recognize
there is a broad class of threats that endangers security around the world.
The likelihood of a rogue state or non-state entity will use weapons of mass
destruction against U.S. interests is growing.  In answer to this, the
United States Marine Corps is boldly expanding its cooperation with other
services and agencies to provide a world-class chem-bio and consequence
management response capabilities.


Blurring Between War and Peace

Ours is now a world without front lines. The United States homeland is
increasingly susceptible to attack. The potential assault goes well beyond a
terrorist with a truck full of explosives.  Weapons of mass destruction,
cyber attacks, directed energy weapons, explosives, and information
operations can all appear at once; with distinctions between foreign and
domestic, cyber and physical, criminal and military blurred and ambiguous.

This post-modern conflict may be so ambiguous and continuous that the
conventional descriptions of an operational environment may all but
disappear. As William S. Lind et al noted in Oct 89 Marine Corps Gazette,
The distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing
point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable
battlefields or fronts. The distinction between "civilian" and "military"
may disappear.


Where Does Intelligence Fit In

Where does intelligence fit into this complex, shifting mix of emerging
threats? Col T. X Hammes in the Sept 94 Marine Corps Gazette explains,

Fourth generation war will require much more intelligence gathering and
analytical and dissemination capability to serve a highly flexible,
interagency command system. At the same time, the fact that fourth
generation war will include elements of earlier generations of war means our
forces must be prepared to deal with these aspects tooStherefore, it will
be essential for national leaders to make an accurate analysis of the war
they are about to enter. The complex mix of generations of war with their
overlapping political, economic, social, military, and mass media arenas
makes determining the type of war we are entering more critical than ever.

Intelligence must determine the type of war we face and thwart those who
wish to undermine our national security. Simply put; intelligence needs to
provide I&amp;W and HUMINT to discover the terrorist's plans and intentions.  We
must provide intelligence for a variety of threats and missions, in a milieu
characterized by changing technology, changing tactics, and changing
information needs. 

In the current environment, national strength is measured not just in
military might but also in information. Intelligence exists to provide
warfighters with a decisive advantage. Intelligence alerts the commander to
opportunities and dangers they face. It identifies trends that combat
leaders need to think about while there is time to shape and/or influence an
outcome. Intelligence must give us the clearest possible insight into
situations, players, and hidden agendas so our leaders can decide quickly
how, or even if, to engage.

Intelligence must also be able to warn of any surprises a warfighter may
have to face. Lack of situational awareness is a major impediment to
executing appropriate actions and applies not only to fourth generation, but
also to complex crisis management events. We face a range of threats:
terrorism, crime, asymmetric and cyber warfare.

We need to understand their dynamics and consider them in the context of
urban operations. For example, understanding three-dimensional terrain
features and density are vital pieces of information when faced with a
rescue mission in a third world mega-city, inhabited by gangs, criminal
free-enclaves, and sprawling favelas. A world of constant change demands
constant intelligence updates. Adapting and improvising must be a way of
life.

How do we do all this? A new intelligence paradigm needs to be crafted.
Forging this capability will require defining the threat environment,
collaboration between the military services and a variety of actors
(including the intelligence community and non-traditional players such law
enforcement), experimentation, and finally implementation.  As a starting
point, we will need to fully explore the emerging operational environment:
What are its characteristics and boundaries; which are its actors; what
means are at their disposal; and, what are their corresponding capabilities
and intentions?  This will help quantify risk and provide insights into
deterrence, containment, and early engagement of threats.

We must develop tools and approaches to sort pertinent information from
noise.  Additionally, we need to illuminate the mission essential tasks of
potential adversaries by exploiting both traditional tools and the
contemporary information infrastructure through better use of open source
intelligence (OSINT), deception, and development of cyber-intelligence
(CyberINT) and HUMINT. Combining traditional tools, HUMINT, OSINT and
CyberINT can assist in identifying the precursors and indicators of violence
that may trigger military response.  Adopting the concept of "Deep I&amp;W",
that is extending sensing to capture trends and potentials prior to an overt
threat in order to minimize the OPFOR advantage, is essential.  To do so,
sensing, surveillance and reconnaissance efforts will require a flexible,
integrated analysis and synthesis component.

Adapting to novel and emerging threats requires a blend of old and new
skills. Anticipating the new faces of war and nature of the next conflict is
arguably the most important task facing Marines and our intelligence
community.  The task is exceedingly difficult. Clark L. Staten, Executive
Director &amp; Senior Analyst Emergency Response &amp; Research Institute (ERRI)
concludes, "The nature of global conflict is changing. It is the considered
opinion of the ERRI that there is a general paradigm shift underway in
regard to how future conflicts will unfold".

We need to focus sharply on what lies ahead.  We need to further develop our
OSINT, HUMINT, and cultural intelligence capabilities and integrate them.
Our intelligence must focus more on cultural and social paradigms, not just
military order of battle. We need to expand relationships with civilian
experts such as the Marine Corps and the Potomac Institute for Policy
Studies did with the co-creation of the Center for Emerging Threats and
Opportunities in December 2000.  The center's focus is on exploring
innovative ways to deal with nontraditional threats to our national
security.  Working with military, public, and private agencies, the center
conducts research into operating force capabilities required by the Marine
Corps and joint warfighters for small-scale operations and contingencies
around the world.  This kind of exploration could help multiple disciplines
develop new intelligence applications and approaches to emerging fourth
generation threats and fight the quickly mutating chimera that inhabits the
intersection of crime, terrorism, and war.

The intersection of crime, terrorism, and war, is witnessing a need to
address the intelligence requirement for Homeland Defense. In today's
changing environment the Department of Defense, has announced meetings of
the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Intelligence Needs for
Homeland Defense.  According to a General Accounting Office report here is
inadequate security at 11 major U.S. military facilities that leave the
bases vulnerable to possible terrorist attack and theft of military
equipment.

In testimony before Congress in June of this year, Maj. Gen. David Bice,
Commanding General of the Marine Corps station at Camp Pendleton in
California commented,  "There is a shortfall in resources. Everything done
to date has been at the expense of something else."

For the most part there is no CONUS Base, Post or Station force structure
for robust I&amp;W and critical information capabilities to address asymmetrical
attacks involving international terrorism that may transcend our borders,
domestic terrorism, and WMD on military and facilities and infrastructures.
Increased reliance on military civilian employees and contractors only adds
to complexity of the issue.

The reaction of the civilian and contractor employees to attack on CONUS
bases associated with deploying operational forces cannot be overlooked;
especially with regards to the large number of base civilian and contractor
support to deploying operational forces which could be exploited if not
addressed and covered in AT, FP, and intelligence efforts.

The threat to the CONUS installations posed by terrorists' attacks involving
IED and/or weapons of mass destruction could overwhelm CONUS bases and our
capabilities to handle a domestic crisis and consequence management events.
The United States faces increased threats from domestic and transnational
terrorist organizations with emerging motives and methods not before seen.

The dangers we face may be unprecedented in their complexity for we are
seeing more and more terrorists looking to acquire technology for hostile
purposes.

The Assessment of the Impact of Chemical and Biological Weapons on Joint
Operations in 2010 Defense Intelligence (Short Title: CB 2010) exposes
serious vulnerabilities that could be exploited by asymmetrical employment
of chemical and biological weapons both in CONUS and in the operational
theater on our power projection system and therefore degrade our nation's
ability to respond.

Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson, Intelligence Director, Defense Intelligence
Agency, in his Statement Before The Senate Select Committee on Military
Threats and Security Challenges Through 2015 notes,  " Terrorism remains the
'asymmetric approach of choice' and many terrorist groups have both the
capability and desire to harm us".

-------[End]-------


Chuck Spinney
Archives of past commentaries or reports can be found at
Defense &amp; National Interest Website:
<a href="http://www.d-n-i.net/">http://www.d-n-i.net/> or Infowar at
<a href="http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/">http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/>

[Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only.]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XrFcOC/m5_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:46 PDT