'War on terror' has been a 'disaster': British think tank

[Chucky]

'War on terror' has been a 'disaster': British think tank


LONDON (AFP): The US-led "war on terror" has been a "disaster" and Washington and its allies must change their policy in Iraq and Afghanistan to defeat Al-Qaeda, an independent global security think tank said Monday.

The Oxford Research Group (ORG) said in a report that Western strategy since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States had failed to extinguish the threat from Islamist extremism and even fuelled it.

"Every aspect of the war on terror has been counterproductive in Iraq and Afghanistan, from the loss of civilian life through mass detentions without trial. In short, it has been a disaster," report author Paul Rogers said.

Read More
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/wars/War_on_terror_has_been_a_disaster_British_think_tank130013665.php

[Thor]

Politicized nonsense.

[muck]

No it's not, they have some valid points, and actual measures of GWOT really even fuelled extremism. Admittely, I don't know the alternative either.

[JasonH]

Just look at it like this...

It's a big **** sandwich and we're all gonna hafto take a bite out of it.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

It's a total c0ck up.
The Bush administration have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by invading Iraq.
One can only assume that they were deliberately seeking to prolong it.

[Sloppy Joe2]

No it's not, they have some valid points, and actual measures of GWOT really even fuelled extremism. Admittely, I don't know the alternative either.
regardless of our response, it would have the same effect of fueling the fire. that was half of AQ's strategy

[Thor]

No it's not, they have some valid points...
Yes it is. GWOT has evidently been a success. The only nations who have suffered a backlash from it are those who have showed linance. In some cases not sufficient military force have been employed, and other strategial or tactical mistakes have been made, but this simply underlines the underlying need itself.


...and actual measures of GWOT really even fuelled extremism
No, however it is true that GWOT has brought something to the surface that needs to be stomped down. But believing that these views is part of some new movement or some new world view that wasn't already there, and that it would go away if you just would sit down have a little chat with it's supporters, simply displays a great deal of ignorance regarding history and especially post-colonial history as well as the general character of the problem. Had the fighting not been in Afghanistan and Iraq it would have been in Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan and certainly in your own country.

There are three ways to stop or avoid mass destruction your home country: Neutrality, in which you look the other way and let the problem grow; Submission, in which you let the extremists set the agenda in their own countries as well as in yours; A Global War on Terror, in which you with both words and actions stand up for your own values, and your right to not having to live under the threat of mass destruction, and take the fight to the extremists speaking the only language they understand. I know which one I choose.

[gaijinsamurai]

The GWOT would have so far been more successful, IMHO, if certain neocons hadn't hijacked it for their own lofty goals of bringing Democracy to Iraq. But, "what ifs" are really hard to predict. Maybe we'd be bogged down in Afghanistan and having half the world's Muslims hating us even without the invasion/occupation of iraq.

(I expect a scathing reply from 2_sheds for being such a naive liberal!)

[I can't think of a name]

Even without Iraq how would the US justify the current levels + the ~130,000 in iraq troops in A-stan? How much do people think should be there that the US is not putting there?

Other nations are free to pick up where the US is lacking in OEF.

[Nizark]

Broken record time-
Iraq is the only real problem since it sucks up so much of our resources. Imagine 100,000 us troops and damn near all of our SF in A-stan instead of the 25K we currently have. NATO would have control of probably the whole country instead of simply Kabul.
But whatever...we need a real tangible win, ANYWHERE in the GWOT and soon, or else the American people will care even less about this just cause, VS Iraq.

[GREEN-OWL]

if the war isn't over, how the f*ck would those f**gots know if western strategy is working. excuse my language but these ass holes piss me off.

[velvet-cream]

It's hard to judge the success of such a "war". If we did nothing outside our own borders and just focussed on internal security, would the terrorists have bombed London and Spain?? (there are a whole heap of other acts such as bali etc). The answer - we'll never get one.

What I would say is our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have not gone as originally planned. I think everyone knows that.

[Jaeger07]

"There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited."

-Sun Tzu (From the Art of War) :|

[TheBelgian]

I think the GWOT has defenitely fueled mulsim extremism, but it's also made the west more pro-active in combatting this extremism. So, silver lining

[Thor]

"There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited."

-Sun Tzu (From the Art of War) :|
Almost all empires have been built through protracted wars.

[ViktorNavorski]

LONDON (AFP): The US-led "war on terror" has been a "disaster" and Washington and its allies must change their policy in Iraq and Afghanistan to defeat Al-Qaeda, an independent global security think tank said Monday.So what so special about this one compare to other "think tanks" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_think_tanks).

[TheBelgian]

Almost all empires have been built through protracted wars.

And almost all have been destroyed by them...

[Thor]

And almost all have been destroyed by them...
Not really, but nothing remains the same forever. You have to evolve with the times or be evolved by the times.

[TheBelgian]

Not really, but nothing remains the same forever. You have to evolve with the times or be evolved by the times.

Yeah, I couldnt agree more. Thats why the US's tactics had better evolve too, and fast, or in the end we'll have nothing left to show for this GWOT except for millions of new, pissed off fanatics.

[Billy No Mates]

I dont know if its a disaster but it doesnt seem to be going to plan,at the moment it seem to be precipitating the thing its supposed to be preventing .

[theholeinthedonut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sloboda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Research_Group

[muck]

Their political point of view does not necessarily indicate falsity of their report.
Global war on terrorism is not going according to plan at the moment and it is feeding extremism. That is a fact. But this fact was expectable.

And again, I fail to see an alternative but to enforce terrorism. The US surely have screwed success a bit due to their attitude and their pathetic division of the world into bad and good, black and white. They have thrown the ball to the extremists because they can GWOT now make looking like a Westerners counterpart of the Holy War. This is not another crusade, it should be just a cold-hearted and unemotional, precise hunt.

[Jaeger07]

Almost all empires have been built through protracted wars.

No, they have been built through a series of speedy victories. No empire has been built after a prolonged war with another group. Many empires has been at war for a long time, but only the speedy victories have benifited them.

I can name a heap of examples.

But i cant think of one protracted war that benefited the participants.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

That article is absolute rubbish.

A few particularly idiotic bits:



The Oxford Research Group (ORG) said in a report that Western strategy since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States had failed to extinguish the threat from Islamist extremism and even fuelled it.
"Every aspect of the war on terror has been counterproductive in Iraq and Afghanistan, from the loss of civilian life through mass detentions without trial. In short, it has been a disaster," report author Paul Rogers said.


Refresh my memory here, but I thought that a war that was a "disaster" involved your cities being reduced to smoldering rubble, and your people driven from their lands. Evidently a "disaster" to these douchebags is feeling terribly icky about things.



"Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs -- the mistakes already made will be completely overshadowed by the consequences of a war with Iran."


Yes no matter what Iran does, it's imperative we don't go to war with them. No matter what weapons they get, and who they extort, or nuke, we can't tolerate feeling any worse about ourselves.


In addition, mass detentions of suspected extremists, torture, prisoner abuse and the "extraordinary rendition" of suspects for questioning in third countries outside US legal jurisdiction was a useful propaganda weapon.

To who? Everybody that hated us continues to hate us. It's only a useful propaganda weapon against elements of our own society.


Rogers said the United States and its allies needed to better understand the roots of the Al-Qaeda movement and its support base and systematically undercut it through policy changes at every level.

Indeed- the least painful way to end a war is always to give the enemy what they wanted to begin with.


But he said even if that were successful, it would still take at least a decade to make up for mistakes so far.

I'm sure they'll be cross with us for some time. We'll have to remember to send them fruit baskets after every Ramadan for like 10 years.

[velvet-cream]

I'll try to play devils advocate here, without ranting on with too much anti US rhetoric. I do agree with some US actions, but not all of it.


That article is absolute rubbish.

Refresh my memory here, but I thought that a war that was a "disaster" involved your cities being reduced to smoldering rubble, and your people driven from their lands. Evidently a "disaster" to these douchebags is feeling terribly icky about things.


Depends from where you come from. If the US was the centre of the universe and nothing else mattered, you will be right. However, I can safely say there are many buildings, towns and cities in the Afghanistan and Iraq that have been reduced to rubble. Some of these places would have been better off without the war. And I will be sympathetic to an Iraqi or Afghani who says the war has been "disasterous" to them. Why do we care about the Iraqis? Well if you believed Bush's agenda, OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) was suppose to be, in part, for the benefit of the Iraqis.



Yes no matter what Iran does, it's imperative we don't go to war with them. No matter what weapons they get, and who they extort, or nuke, we can't tolerate feeling any worse about ourselves.

I think this is a question of degree. If the Iranians decide to extort the rest of the world by stopping export of oil, that's their sovereign right. But if they start nuking other countries, then of course, we should take direct action. However, we must learn to take caution and get our facts straight before going in.




In addition, mass detentions of suspected extremists, torture, prisoner abuse and the "extraordinary rendition" of suspects for questioning in third countries outside US legal jurisdiction was a useful propaganda weapon.

To who? Everybody that hated us continues to hate us. It's only a useful propaganda weapon against elements of our own society.

It's two ****ged:

Yes, the insurgents are using it as a propoganda weapon against our own (Western) society. Just look at the support at home for the war in Iraq. It's declined since 2003. I personally believe the practice of rendition and the prisoner abuse scandals have a lot to do with it.

In addition, I personally believe it is useful for the insurgents to further their cause and recruit more fighters. When you ask to who - I would also say the family, friends and acquaintances of those adversely affected by our actions, or merely suspected of been an insurgent. Fair enough, those who are caught red handed fighting should be locked up. But it would be naive to think we are infallible. I'm sure we've detained people who were not insurgents, and given them some rough treatment. And if we treat them any less than how we treat "suspects" back in our western society, this perceived hypocritical double standard will no doubt be used by the insurgents.



Indeed- the least painful way to end a war is always to give the enemy what they wanted to begin with.

I'm sure they'll be cross with us for some time. We'll have to remember to send them fruit baskets after every Ramadan for like 10 years.

Well it depends what the "enemy" wants. If all they want is self determination, it's not an unreasonable ask. I can't think of a single nation of people who enjoy being occupied and told what to do by another country with a distinctively different culture.

It's vitally important for us to understand the roots of the Al-Qaeda movement. Why do you think the insurgents have some support from the local population? Because they (the insurgents) can offer, or attempt to offer something to the local population that we (the West) cannot.

However, if we can somehow give the local population what they want, or show to them the insurgents are offering something they cannot give, then we've really nailed it. If we can deny the enemy that support, then they won't be able to recruit anymore fighters.

Obviously, it's a lot more complex than this, but there's no point fighting them without understanding why the enemy wants to fight. Because the enemy will just recruit more souls to die. And if we go that route, it won't stop until nearly everyone in that country is dead.

May be that's what some people want... as long as it doesn't happen on our (western) soil...

ps- if all it takes to end the war is to send them a fruit basket every Ramadan, of course we'll take it. I think there will be plenty of mothers and fathers here at home willing to personally make and send hampers for the rest of their life just to get their sons and daughters home safe and sound.

[Kippari]

That monkey in the White House and his cabinet are the disaster. What have they done except invaded a couple of countries (Afghanistan was rightfully neutralized though), deepened the hatred in the muslim world and alienated their foreign supporters and a large part of the U.S. citizens?
And what's with the dividing world into good and bad? I mean "The Axis of Evil", that's something you could expect a five year old to come up with, not a government. You don't give me the candy, you're evil? That's not even all, there's the GWOT. It really cracks me up to see that all they can come up with is a war against a state of mind. Let's declare war on sadness while were at it!:) The rethoric really is straight from a children's book.:cantbeli:

[TwoFistedFlava]

[quote=2Sheds_Jackson;2803272]

Yes no matter what Iran does, it's imperative we don't go to war with them. No matter what weapons they get, and who they extort, or nuke, we can't tolerate feeling any worse about ourselves.

They're not saying we shouldn't go to war no matter what, they said we should avoid war at all costs and there's a big difference so I don't think your argument is valid.

[shocker1]

They're not saying we shouldn't go to war no matter what, they said we should avoid war at all costs and there's a big difference so I don't think your argument is valid.
Not that I agree with 2sheds but isn't saying "not going to war no matter what" and "avoiding war at all costs" saying the same damn thing?

[TwoFistedFlava]

Not that I agree with 2sheds but isn't saying "not going to war no matter what" and "avoiding war at all costs" saying the same damn thing?

It can definately be construed as the same thing, but avoiding war implies that we will try other options until going to war appears to be the only solution. I just really hope that our politicians are able to see other options for dealing with Iran, and don't jump right into another quagmire.

[shocker1]

It can definately be construed as the same thing, but avoiding war implies that we will try other options until going to war appears to be the only solution. I just really hope that our politicians are able to see other options for dealing with Iran, and don't jump right into another quagmire.
I hope so too and I think we have missed some real opportunities to take the high road against the Iranians. However one must put into account the principles of Iran's Islamic Revolution and the words of the Ayatollah. They think of us as the great Satan, the anti-christ of their world. I support talks with them and offers of reconciliation. I just do not think the Iranians will take that no matter what is going on.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Depends from where you come from. If the US was the centre of the universe and nothing else mattered, you will be right. However, I can safely say there are many buildings, towns and cities in the Afghanistan and Iraq that have been reduced to rubble. Some of these places would have been better off without the war. And I will be sympathetic to an Iraqi or Afghani who says the war has been "disasterous" to them. Why do we care about the Iraqis? Well if you believed Bush's agenda, OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) was suppose to be, in part, for the benefit of the Iraqis.

IMHO this distorted perspective is a result of the oversocialization which our society produces. How exactly are we to judge any war to be a success, when we insist on viewing it through the eyes of the enemy? I'm sure we could call WWII a "catastrophe" if we insist on viewing it from the perspective of a Japanese or German civilian. But when I grew up, we still had the courage to call it a victory. "Us vs. them" is a necessary perspective in war and it clashes with our social indoctrination.



I think this is a question of degree. If the Iranians decide to extort the rest of the world by stopping export of oil, that's their sovereign right. But if they start nuking other countries, then of course, we should take direct action. However, we must learn to take caution and get our facts straight before going in.

Well nobody is threatening war because of their oil policy. It's the fact that they've decided to develop nuclear technology in secret, coupled with their support of terrorist groups that's the issue. I agree that we want to be as "sure" as possible - but we'll never be 100% until it's too late to act.


Yes, the insurgents are using it as a propoganda weapon against our own (Western) society. Just look at the support at home for the war in Iraq. It's declined since 2003. I personally believe the practice of rendition and the prisoner abuse scandals have a lot to do with it.

I don't really know if all the abuse/gitmo stuff has done more harm than good. I don't have enough info to know what information we got vs. what action we were able to take vs. what attacks we prevented vs. how much support at home was eroded due to the practice. This war is a political process - and it surely lives or dies based on political tides.

Well I think that any time you decide to take up arms and start killing people, you're going to make them angry with you. This idea that somehow we can conduct a friendly, happy war without making people mad at us is just silly. It's an attempt at a straw man by the media - a fake picture set up so it can be knocked down for effect.



Well it depends what the "enemy" wants. If all they want is self determination, it's not an unreasonable ask. I can't think of a single nation of people who enjoy being occupied and told what to do by another country with a distinctively different culture.

It's vitally important for us to understand the roots of the Al-Qaeda movement. Why do you think the insurgents have some support from the local population? Because they (the insurgents) can offer, or attempt to offer something to the local population that we (the West) cannot.

However, if we can somehow give the local population what they want, or show to them the insurgents are offering something they cannot give, then we've really nailed it. If we can deny the enemy that support, then they won't be able to recruit anymore fighters.

Obviously, it's a lot more complex than this, but there's no point fighting them without understanding why the enemy wants to fight. Because the enemy will just recruit more souls to die. And if we go that route, it won't stop until nearly everyone in that country is dead.

We understood what the Nazi's wanted, didn't we? Would it have been just as wise to simply give the Nazi's what they wanted in order to avoid conflict?

This idea that somehow they are just like us, and all they want is bread and a clinic down the street is very naïve IMHO - and it goes again to our oversocialization. We're trained to see things through other people's eyes in order to avoid conflict. But in so doing, we transpose our own beliefs and systems into that person - we make them just like us. Islamic militants are not just like us. They have no compunction when it comes to slicing off the heads of noncombatants, torching dogs, and other lovely things.



ps- if all it takes to end the war is to send them a fruit basket every Ramadan, of course we'll take it. I think there will be plenty of mothers and fathers here at home willing to personally make and send hampers for the rest of their life just to get their sons and daughters home safe and sound.

The fruit basket doesn't end the war. It's just our yearly tribute to the victor, to avoid reprisals after they've won. It just says "so sorry for having resisted you". Personally, I'm not willing to give them what they want.

[bluffcove]

What endstate do the coalition wish to achieve.

Are we nearer that endstate now than immediately before the invasion of Afg?

QED?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well that's a demonstration of success. I'm not arguing that it's been a massive success - just that's it's not a "disaster". From the perspective of the US, one could easily site the lack of other spectacular 9/11 style attacks over the last 6 years as a measure of success though.

[MonkeyLibFront]

Well that's a demonstration of success. I'm not arguing that it's been a massive success - just that's it's not a "disaster". From the perspective of the US, one could easily site the lack of other spectacular 9/11 style attacks over the last 6 years as a measure of success though.

Thats a logical fallacy

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Thats a logical fallacy

Oh please do tell. Tell me why the lack of terror attacks is not valid criteria for measuring the success in a war designed to stop terror attacks. If we never have another one, you'll sit there and still proclaim the war of terror a "disaster"? Sure, makes sense.

[shocker1]

Oh please do tell. Tell me why the lack of terror attacks is not valid criteria for measuring the success in a war designed to stop terror attacks. If we never have another one, you'll sit there and still proclaim the war of terror a "disaster"? Sure, makes sense.
One could also say that the terrorist like us being a divided house and know another big attack would just make it 2001 all over again. To me that is why they have not attacked again. It is not like it is hard to sneak into this country and operate under the radar.

[bluffcove]

London Madrid, Richard Reid, Bali, Ricin plots, no fluids in hand baggage.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

London Madrid, Richard Reid, Bali, Ricin plots, no fluids in hand baggage.

do those incidents = a disaster?

If they do, then we'd better step up the GWOT, because we can't tolerate these disasters can we? We'd better throw more money into it, and more troops, and somehow tie every line item in the budget to fighting this nonstop calamity that's being perpetrated upon us.

In reality, it's just about the same level of violence that we saw even before 9/11 when nobody gave a crap.

[shocker1]

I think he was directing that towards my devils advocate statement.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

The GWOT would have so far been more successful, IMHO, if certain neocons hadn't hijacked it for their own lofty goals of bringing Democracy to Iraq. But, "what ifs" are really hard to predict. Maybe we'd be bogged down in Afghanistan and having half the world's Muslims hating us even without the invasion/occupation of iraq.

(I expect a scathing reply from 2_sheds for being such a naive liberal!)

My personal view is that it was better to precipitate the end of Saddam's regime under some control (I use the term loosely) with foreign troops to supervise / effect the demise and help stabilize the country post-conflict.

By the time we (the US and allies) took out Saddam, he wasn't a decent hedge against Iran anymore and his weakness was destabilizing the whole region. Add to that the mischief he would continue to inflict against the US and our allies using smuggled/stolen oil revenue.

By attacking Iraq, we weakened Syria (who was receiving Iraqi oil) and gained some allies in the north of the country (although creating a few new problems at the same time) We also are next door to Iran, which has its own set of advantage and disadvantages. And we practically eliminated the chance that Iraq would acquire WMDs.

I also believe the argument that we shouldn't have started a war in Iraq before we had "finished" Afghanistan presupposes that we could have solved everything by simply pouring enough money into the country. I think there are a lot of "things" that will take time as well as money to solve in Afghanistan.

[Stonewall71]

(edit).................

[MonkeyLibFront]

Oh please do tell. Tell me why the lack of terror attacks is not valid criteria for measuring the success in a war designed to stop terror attacks. If we never have another one, you'll sit there and still proclaim the war of terror a "disaster"? Sure, makes sense.

I never made a judgment on how the war on terror is going or if its a disaster, just pointing out the logical fallacy.