Fighting to Win

[hist2004]

Fighting to Win
By: Bill O'Reilly
Thursday, May 27, 2004

Genghis Khan was perhaps the most successful warrior the world has ever known. During the 13th century, he conquered most of civilization with an army of less than 100,000 Mongol horsemen. According to Genghis' biographer, Jack Weatherford, the warlord's philosophy went this way: "Warfare was not a sporting contest or a mere match between rivals; it was a total commitment of one people against another. Victory did not come to the one who played by the rules; it came to one who made the rules and imposed them on his enemy."
Osama Bin Laden is unquestionably one of history's greatest villains, a man who has ordered the deaths of thousands of civilians to fulfill a perverted vision of religious thought. Does anyone doubt that, if given the chance, Bin Laden would commit mass murder by using a nuclear device or a chemical weapon to annihilate as many people as possible? Would any rational person dispute that?

The answer, of course, is no. Bin Laden wants to kill as many "infidels" as he can. And so America is locked in a war against this maniac and thousands of terrorists who agree with his philosophy.

But is America fighting that war the way Genghis Khan would fight it? The question is almost absurd because the answer is so clear: not a chance. This country has nothing close to a "total commitment" in defeating terrorism. We are divided on tactics as well as ethics, and the terrorists know it.

Writing in The New York Times, Elizabeth Alexander, the Director of the National Prison Project for the ACLU, puts forth: "The Pentagon-approved interrogation techniques that deprive prisoners of sleep and force them to stand in stress positions for extended periods are both disturbing and illegal.

"It is time for the military to unequivocally ban such officially sanctioned abuse of prisoners."

Make no mistake, the ACLU wants captured terrorists to have the same rights as American criminals do. So sometime in the future it's very possible that a captured terrorist, who has knowledge of an impending chemical or biological attack, would be interrogated as a bank robber would be. You could not deprive the suspected terrorist of "sleep" nor make him or her unusually uncomfortable.

My questions: Do you think that's a sane strategy? And do you think the ACLU is looking out for you and your family?

The kind of theoretical nonsense that the ACLU and others are putting out there must be giving Osama and his boys huge laughs. Look, fair-minded Americans are embarrassed by Abu Ghraib and never want anything like that to happen again. We are better than the terrorists. We should never violate human rights in any circumstance.

But a middle ground must be found and fast. The terrorists have no rules, they kill at will. But we, the primary targets, have all kinds of boundaries, many of which put us in danger.

President Bush and Congress should have declared a formal war shortly after September 11th, along with defining new rules of incarceration and interrogation to fit this unique combat situation. U.S. military courts should handle cases of accused terrorism, and harsh interrogation techniques should be approved when there is an "imminent" danger.

A divided America playing by obsolete rules of engagement is not going to win the war against Bin Laden and his mass murderers. We need to wake up and wise up. As Genghis Khan well understood, it is defeat the enemy or die.

Regards,
Hist2004

[duck]

How about putting O'Reilly´s junkie pal Rush Limbaugh in jail and making him the block A bitch? The War on Drugs is still there, why not try the Genghis Khan rules there too?

[hist2004]

How about putting O'Reilly´s junkie pal Rush Limbaugh in jail and making him the block A bitch? The War on Drugs is still there, why not try the Genghis Khan rules there too?

Great come back Duck, what does Rush Limbaugh have to do with the
article, you wouldn't be against the war on terror by any chance??

Regards,
Hist2004

[duck]

Nope, but I'd like to see Mr.O´Reilly go ahead and beat a detainee to death rather than advise others to do so. Why hasn't he enlisted yet?

[hist2004]

Alot of people claim O'Reilly speaks for the GOP. I hardly think so, he
criticizes the administration all the time, unlike Limbaugh & Hannity. O'Reilly has already stated what happen at that prison was wrong, but putting a terrorist in a stress position to get information is fine with me. If you don't think so, talk to the victims families after the next attack and see what they would have preferred.

Regards,
Hist2004

[duck]

Alot of people claim O'Reilly speaks for the GOP. I hardly think so, he
criticizes the administration all the time, unlike Limbaugh & Hannity. O'Reilly has already stated what happen at that prison was wrong, but putting a terrorist in a stress position to get information is fine with me. If you don't think so, talk to the victims families after the next attack and see what they would have preferred.

Regards,
Hist2004

I've got family on the line if something happens, frequent flyers etc. But hey, Genghis Khan was infamous for the stress position?

[hist2004]

I'm sure you realize his point..we're in a war like it or not. Many people
in this country don't believe it, or are divided because their party is not
in power..what the veterans of World War II must think of us...I'll give
you the last word (as O'Reilly is fond of saying).

Regards,
Hist2004

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I think O'Reilly is spot on with this. A new standard must be developed. It is not sane to treat terrorists the same as pickpockets. There is a middle ground between doing nothing & torture.

[duck]

Great post. Point taken.

[Sway]

Nope, but I'd like to see Mr.O´Reilly go ahead and beat a detainee to death rather than advise others to do so. Why hasn't he enlisted yet?


haha great points duck and jackson.....but i like what duck said about advising others to do so...:)some people talk the talk...but when it comes to walking the walk...they quiet up :)

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Here is what Ralph Peters has got say on the subject of dealing with terrorism and terrorists. :)

From Ralph Peters' book, "When Devils Walk the Earth"

[How to deal with terrorists.]

1. Be feared!

2. Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you possibly can. Although tactics may be similar, strategies for dealing with practical vs. apocalyptic terrorists can differ widely. Practical terrorists may have legitimate grievances that deserve consideration, although their methods cannot be tolerated. Apocalyptic terrorists, no matter their rhetoric, seek your destruction and must be killed to the last man. The apt metaphor is cancer: you cannot hope for success if you only cut out part of the tumor. For the apocalyptic terrorist, evading your efforts can easily be turned into a public triumph. Our bloodiest successes will create far fewer terrorists and sympathizers than our failures.

3. Do not be afraid to be powerful. Cold War-era gambits of proportionate response and dialog may have some utility in dealing with practical terrorists, but they are counter-productive in dealing with apocalyptic terrorists. Our great strengths are wealth and raw power. When we fail to bring those strengths to bear, we contribute to our own defeat. For a superpower to think small, which has been our habit across the last decade, at least, is self-defeating folly. Our responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp!

4. Speak bluntly. Euphemisms are interpreted as weakness by our enemies and mislead the American people. Speak of killing terrorists and destroying their organizations. Timid speech leads to timid actions. Explain when necessary, but do not apologize. Expressions of regret are never seen as a mark of decency by terrorists or their supporters, but only as a sign that our will is faltering. Blame the terrorists as the root cause whenever operations have unintended negative consequences. Never go on the rhetorical defensive.

5. Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable. Focus on keeping or enhancing the support from allies and well-disposed clients, but do not waste an inordinate amount of effort trying to win unwinnable hearts and minds. Convince hostile populations through victory.

6. Do not be drawn into a public dialog with terrorists, especially not with apocalyptic terrorists. You cannot win. You legitimize the terrorists by addressing them even through a third medium, and their extravagant claims will resound more successfully on their own home ground than anything you can say. Ignore absurd accusations, and never let the enemy's claims slow or sidetrack you. The terrorist wants you to react, and your best means of unbalancing him and his plan is to ignore his accusations.

7. Avoid planning creep. Within our vast bureaucratic system, too many voices compete for attention and innumerable agendas, often selfish and personal - intrude on any attempt to act decisively. Focus on the basic mission: the destruction of the terrorists with all the moral, intellectual and practical rigor you can bring to bear. All other issues, from future nation building, to alliance consensus, to humanitarian concerns are secondary.

8. Maintain resolve. Especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, experts and diplomats will always present you with a multitude of good reasons for doing nothing, or for doing too little (or for doing exactly the wrong thing). Fight as hard as you can within the system to prevent diplomats from gaining influence over the strategic campaign. Although their intentions are often good, our diplomats and their obsolete strategic views are the terrorist's unwitting allies and diplomats are extremely jealous of military success and military authority in their region (where their expertise is never as deep or subtle as they believe it to be). Beyond the problem with our diplomats, the broader forces of bureaucratic entropy are an internal threat. The counter-terrorist campaign must be not only resolute, but constantly self-rejuvenating in ideas, techniques, military and inter-agency combinations, and sheer energy. Old hands must be stimulated constantly by new ideas.

9. When in doubt, hit harder than you think necessary. Success will be forgiven. Even the best-intentioned failure will not. When military force is used against terrorist networks, it should be used with such power that it stuns even our allies. We must get over our cowardice in means. While small-scale raids and other knifepoint operations are useful against individual targets, broader operations should be overwhelming. Of course, targeting limitations may inhibit some efforts but whenever possible, maximum force should be used in simultaneous operations at the very beginning of a campaign. Do not hesitate to supplement initial target lists with extensive bombing attacks on nothing if they can increase the initial psychological impact. Demonstrate power whenever you can. Show; don't tell!

10. Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot (do not give them a chance to surrender, if you can help it). Contrary to academic wisdom, the surest way to make a martyr of a terrorist is to capture, convict and imprison him, leading to endless efforts by sympathizers to stage kidnappings, hijacking and other events intended to liberate the imprisoned terrorist(s). This is war, not law enforcement.

11. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the terrorists. That is the argument of the campus, not of the battlefield, and it insults America's service members and the American people. Historically, we have proven, time after time, that we can do a tough, dirty job for our country without any damage to our nation's moral fabric (Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not interfere with American democracy, values or behavior).

12. Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but: do not let the prospect of civilian casualties interfere with ultimate mission accomplishment. This is a fight to protect the American people, and we must do so whatever the cost, or the price in American lives may be devastating. In a choice between them and us, the choice is always us.

13. Do not allow the terrorists to hide behind religion. Apocalyptic terrorists cite religion as a justification for attacking us; in turn, we cannot let them hide behind religious holidays, taboos, strictures or even sacred terrain. We must establish a consistent reputation for relentless pursuit and destruction of those who kill our citizens. Until we do this, our hesitation will continue to strengthen our enemy's ranks and his resolve.

14. Do not allow third parties to broker a peace, a truce, or any pause in operations. One of the most difficult challenges in fighting terrorism on a global scale is the drag produced by nervous allies. We must be single-minded. The best thing we can do for our allies in the long-term is to be so resolute and so strong that they value their alliance with us all the more. We must recognize the innate strength of our position and stop allowing regional leaders with counterproductive local agendas to subdue or dilute our efforts.

15. Don't flinch. If an operation goes awry and friendly casualties are unexpectedly high, immediately bolster morale and the military's image by striking back swiftly in a manner that inflicts the maximum possible number of casualties on the enemy and his supporters. Hit back as graphically as possible, to impress upon the local and regional players that you weren't badly hurt or deterred in the least.

16. Do not worry about alienating already-hostile populations. --(Ed: "OR ANTI-WAR SENATORS ASPIRING TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF OUR GREAT NATION.")

17. Whenever possible, humiliate your enemy in the eyes of his own people. Do not try to use reasonable arguments against him. Shame him publicly, in any way you can. Create doubt where you cannot excite support. Most apocalyptic terrorists, especially, come from cultures of male vanity. Disgrace them at every opportunity. Done successfully, this both degrades them in the eyes of their followers and supporters, and provokes the terrorist to respond, increasing his vulnerability.

18. If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear, using clandestine means and, whenever possible, foreign agents to provoke them to break cover and react. Do not be squeamish. Your enemy is not. Subtlety is not superpower strength but the raw power to do that, which is necessary, is our great advantage. We forget that, while the world may happily chide or accuse us-or complain of our inhumanity-no one can stop us if we maintain our strength of will. Much of the world will complain no matter what we do. Hatred of America is the default position of failed individuals and failing states around the world, in every civilization, and there is nothing we can do to change their minds. We refuse to understand how much of humanity will find excuses for evil, so long as the evil strikes those who are more successful than the apologists themselves. This is as true of American academics, whose eagerness to declare our military efforts a failure is unflagging, or European clerics, who still cannot forgive America's magnanimity at the end of World War II, as it is of unemployed Egyptians or Pakistanis. The psychologically marginalized are at least as dangerous as the physically deprived.

19. Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances. Counter-terrorist operations must, above all, be relentless. This does not necessarily mean that military operations will be constantly underway sometimes it will be surveillance efforts, or deception plans, or operations by other agencies. But the overall effort must never pause for breath. We must be faster, more resolute, more resourceful and, ultimately, even more uncompromising than our enemies.

20. Never declare victory. Announce successes and milestones. But never give the terrorists a chance to embarrass you after a public ****ouncement that the war is over.

21. Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation will be powerful and uncompromising. You will never deter fanatics, but you can frighten those who might support, harbor or attempt to use terrorists for their own ends. Our basic task in the world today is to restore a sense of American power, capabilities and resolve. We must be hard, or we will be struck wherever we are soft. It is folly for charity to precede victory. First win, and then unclench your fist.

22. Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror themselves. Turn the tide psychologically and practically. While this will not deter hard-core apocalyptic terrorists, it will dissipate their energies as they try to defend themselves and fear will deter many less-committed supporters of terror. Do not be distracted by the baggage of the term assassination. This is a war. The enemy, whether a hijacker or a financier, violates the laws of war by his refusal to wear a uniform and by purposely targeting civilians. He is by definition a war criminal. On our soil, he is either a spy or a saboteur, and not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Those who abet terrorists must grow afraid to turn out the lights to go to sleep.

23. Never accept the consensus of the Washington intelligentsia, which looks backward to past failures, not forward to future successes.

24. In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West's. Ultimately, no potential target can be regarded as off-limits when the United States is threatened with mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about protecting Americans.

25. Do not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion. Begin with the study of the classical world, specifically Rome, which is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire's attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed!

[Kitsune]

That is utter poppycock. :roll: (That goes for both, Bill and Ralph...)
This "brilliant" strategy is downright guarantee to backfire...one really should try to resist the temptation of seeking the simple solution, how much it may appeal to some minds. Otherwise America will find itself bogged down in an endless worldwide attrition war, that is sure to wear it down. And it is highly questionable to "learn" from Romes fate, times have changed since then. The USA are not the Roman Empire, solutions the Romans have used will probably not work for America, because the values behind both societies are quite different.


But that is just my opinion...

[DPGLAW]

I hate the ACLU, they are a bunch of moronic and obviously insane lawyers. I hope that one day they get attacked, or are threatened with attack, by a terrorist group. Then we will see how they feel about interrogation techniques and their usefulness.

I would bet anything that if there was a threat against the ACLU they would not have any problems with the current interrogation methods. They are always whining about something stupid, i.e. Amadu Diallo (Spelling?) just to name one. There are many others that I could name but to avoid inciting a flame war I will refrain from naming some other situations whihc they made into a big deal that weren't. In addition, how is it that the AMERICAN civil liberties Union has any right to call for any changes to be made to our military operating in Iraq or any other non-AMERICAN area of operations.

I only hope that we use WHATEVER techniques are necessary in our interrogation of these raghead terrorists. They do not deserve any semblence of civil rights and torture of them to obtain life-saving informaiton should not be an issue.

[Trigger]

kitsune are you so heavily biased against anything remotely conservative that you refuse to see at least some logic to O'Rielly's and Peter's statements?

Why is it 'utter poppycock'? Because you don't agree with it?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I hate the ACLU, they are a bunch of moronic and obviously insane lawyers. I hope that one day they get attacked, or are threatened with attack, by a terrorist group. Then we will see how they feel about interrogation techniques and their usefulness.

Funny you should say that-

Alan Dershowitz, the ultra leftie civil liberties lawyer actally came out for torture under certain circumstances, right after 9/11. Here's a link

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

He's prolly a member of the ACLU (not sure). His argument made sense to me...which surprised me since most of what he goes on about makes my skin crawl.

If the ACLU is all about protecting freedom - seems to me that the ultimate "freedom" is life itself.

[Kitsune]

@Trigger:

I am biased against the Neocons?
You bet I am... :-*$

But with good reason, they are systematically destroying America...


As for the "logic"...I agree that the ideas here are logic, or in other words consistent.
But that does not mean that they are right or will work. For example, the German Nazis ideas had also a certain logic. But were they right? did they win?

Its always like this: You start from a premise and work from it, elaborate, create a strategy. But how logical this elaboration may be done, if the premise is wrong, the rest ist wrong.

It is true: If you are in a fight for your survival, you should fight it with all you have. But that is the wrong premise. You aren't.
9/11, how devastating it seemed, was more of a lucky shot, not something those guys can do at will. So there is no "total war against terrosism" and Osama Bin Laden ist not some Supervillain. Treating him as such, fighting against terrorism as if it would be a total war for survival is wrong.
By heeding the advice of these two guys above, America will behave like a elephant in a china store...destroying more things than it saves.

[catdat]

Win what? The "War on Terrorism"(tm)? I'm waiting for anyone to explain how we'll know if we've won...

Until then regardless of what the ACLU says (btw suggesting the ACLU has as any say at the Hague is like suggesting Iraq was responsible for 9/11) as signors of the Geneva Convention we have responsibilities. Remember repect, morals etc.? If you are still as desperately clueless to the conventions as Peters and O'Reilly then check out this site:

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

No amount of fascist redneck whining is going to remove us from the protocols so get used to it. There are ways to interogate and stay within the proytocols. O'Reilly would love to take his SS uniform out of the closet and strut around. Thank god you people aren't in charge.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I would like to add that although I am a big fan of Ralph Peters writings I am in no way a conservative / right-winger. Just in case some of you folks out there thought I had went over to the dark side. p-)

[Kitsune]

The dark side of the power very seductive is...
(Couldn't find a smiley that looked like Master Yoda, sry.)

[Sayeret]

Kitsune wrote:


It is true: If you are in a fight for your survival, you should fight it with all you have. But that is the wrong premise. You aren't.
9/11, how devastating it seemed, was more of a lucky shot, not something those guys can do at will. So there is no "total war against terrosism" and Osama Bin Laden ist not some Supervillain. Treating him as such, fighting against terrorism as if it would be a total war for survival is wrong.
By heeding the advice of these two guys above, America will behave like a elephant in a china store...destroying more things than it saves.

What do you expect the United States to do, sit back and allow the Al Qaeda to carry out an attack whenever the hell they want since they can only do it so often. Do you think that the Al Qaeda hasn't tried to attack the US since 9/11/01? The United States would not survive if it allowed the Al Qaeda to continue to attack it. If the terrorists got antharax and starting spreading in cities in the United States they could kill millions. Do you remember how much fear the DC snipers caused? The US would fall apart if it lost a few million people in a single attack. My question for you is how do you want the United States to fight terrorists?

[CPL Trevoga]

Kitsune wrote:

[quote]IThe United States would not survive if it allowed the Al Qaeda to continue to attack it. If the terrorists got antharax and starting spreading in cities in the United States they could kill millions. Do you remember how much fear the DC snipers caused? The US would fall apart if it lost a few million people in a single attack. My question for you is how do you want the United States to fight terrorists?

I think love can conquer all. woot Make love not war. :-*$

[Kitsune]

I quote myself (its from a thread with a similar topic):

Kitsune wrote:

Sorry but I have to disagree. (Typical...)
This article seems to be a bit naive, as is this whole idea of combating terrorism with SOF. As is this whole "war against terror".


Whatever people may say, whatever this article says....terrorism is a kind of crime. It is a crime like murder, rape, arson, assault and battery...more dangerous perhaps, but still a kind of crime.
Why don't you just use SOF to kill murderers? Send SWAT units in to kill them before they can kill and thats it. Why don't you do it? Because its rubbish. It simply doesn't work that way!

Murderers are often working alone, that's different you say? OK...take organised crime then: Mafia, the american, italian, japanese, chinese, russian or vietnamese one. Why not simply killing them with SWAT or SOF teams? Kill them all and be done with it...
It doesn't work !!! Its not that simple. And not because of lack of trying. How long is the "war against drugs" waging now? 15 years? And ? Still drugs in America, right? And that despite DEA and CIA (ah, well)...trying so hard.

It will be same with terrorism. No chance of winning the war gainst of terrorism. As you have no chance of winning the "war against murder", the "war against drugs", the "war against rape", the "war against smuggling" and so on. Because it is no war. That is just a figure of speech.

And thats why there will be no easy solution like "now we let all SOF units loose and show'em". To use these units to do this you need a very special situation: Accurate Intel about terrorist's whereabouts. Enough prep time.
And even then there are many possibilites how to mess things up: What if the terrorists are meeting in an allied nation, let's say Britain. Inform local authorities? Could take time...or they do not agree with the idea of an attack, and then? Or going in anyway? Without asking? What if your guys are seen, or caught by local police? The British would be mad at you (and so would you if SAS/SBS would start killing people on US soil without informing american authorities). The damage done could be greater than the gains. A few dead terrorists but a damaged working relationship with the Brits...

What if those terrorists are trained in a "rogue state"? Well, Delta kills them...and those Iranians then claim your guys killed civilians. They even show pictures of dead women ! Nobody would believe them? After this Iraqi WMD stunt...whos gonna believe the US? Or remember Clintons cruise-missiling of a harmless plant in Sudan? US authorities claimed for quite a time that it was a chemical plant...they were wrong.
In the end AGAIN the damage to international relations could be greater then the gains.

The terrorists will regrow. The more people hate the US the faster. They regrow as murderers or drug dealers do.
Terrorism has existed before 9/11. And it will still exist in 2100. I am not saying that battling it is futile. Police is fighting against crime all over the world. But it is no war, nothing that can be won. Well, perhaps in 2100 there will exist neural implant chips that will prevent us from thinking evil thoughts and doing evil deeds...but until that "happy" time we will have to accept it: as long humans have free will, some will choose evil over good. And some of these will become terrorists.
I know what I say will not popular. Especially not here and now. But the fight against terrorims is mostly a defensive one. The idea: "Go out there and get them! Take the battle to them!" is nice, is exactly what a terrified victim of terrorism WANTS to hear. "Let them suffer, take this fear away from me and put it unto them!" But it is not possible. As with any crime. There is no absolute safety. And there will never be. (Until this brain implant is invented, that is )

I am not saying that Counter Terrorist Units are superfluous or something. They have a role in this. Hostage Rescue. And sometimes when the time and place (and intel) is right, and the risk is worth it, a terrorist leader can be assassinated or unfriendly extracted. This will not be the end of terrorism. But it will help to keep the level of terrorism down the same way arresting a murderer keeps down the numbers of murders.

9/11, I think, was more of a one time "lucky shot" for the terrorists (a hell of one, agreed). It was NOT the beginning of a new era. It possibly does not even mean that terrorism is on the rise. Otherwise there had been other attacks of this magnitude. Or do you really think Bush has prevented them by attacking Iraq?
I think there is the danger that certain people use 9/11 and the "war against terrorism" as a pretext to justify certain actions of theirs...and that IS no help.
As if all American leaders before Bush had been complete idiots not to use these SOF units or to cooperate with other nations instead of simply going in. They had reasons to do what they did. And good reasons at that.

My 200 cents...

[mocking_loudly_died]

If you want information bad you use a deniable third party, AKA Egypt.

[Sayeret]

Sorry but I have to disagree. (Typical...)
This article seems to be a bit naive, as is this whole idea of combating terrorism with SOF. As is this whole "war against terror".


Whatever people may say, whatever this article says....terrorism is a kind of crime. It is a crime like murder, rape, arson, assault and battery...more dangerous perhaps, but still a kind of crime.
Why don't you just use SOF to kill murderers? Send SWAT units in to kill them before they can kill and thats it. Why don't you do it? Because its rubbish. It simply doesn't work that way!

Murderers are often working alone, that's different you say? OK...take organised crime then: Mafia, the american, italian, japanese, chinese, russian or vietnamese one. Why not simply killing them with SWAT or SOF teams? Kill them all and be done with it...
It doesn't work !!! Its not that simple. And not because of lack of trying. How long is the "war against drugs" waging now? 15 years? And ? Still drugs in America, right? And that despite DEA and CIA (ah, well)...trying so hard.

It will be same with terrorism. No chance of winning the war gainst of terrorism. As you have no chance of winning the "war against murder", the "war against drugs", the "war against rape", the "war against smuggling" and so on. Because it is no war. That is just a figure of speech.

And thats why there will be no easy solution like "now we let all SOF units loose and show'em". To use these units to do this you need a very special situation: Accurate Intel about terrorist's whereabouts. Enough prep time.
And even then there are many possibilites how to mess things up: What if the terrorists are meeting in an allied nation, let's say Britain. Inform local authorities? Could take time...or they do not agree with the idea of an attack, and then? Or going in anyway? Without asking? What if your guys are seen, or caught by local police? The British would be mad at you (and so would you if SAS/SBS would start killing people on US soil without informing american authorities). The damage done could be greater than the gains. A few dead terrorists but a damaged working relationship with the Brits...

What if those terrorists are trained in a "rogue state"? Well, Delta kills them...and those Iranians then claim your guys killed civilians. They even show pictures of dead women ! Nobody would believe them? After this Iraqi WMD stunt...whos gonna believe the US? Or remember Clintons cruise-missiling of a harmless plant in Sudan? US authorities claimed for quite a time that it was a chemical plant...they were wrong.
In the end AGAIN the damage to international relations could be greater then the gains.

The terrorists will regrow. The more people hate the US the faster. They regrow as murderers or drug dealers do.
Terrorism has existed before 9/11. And it will still exist in 2100. I am not saying that battling it is futile. Police is fighting against crime all over the world. But it is no war, nothing that can be won. Well, perhaps in 2100 there will exist neural implant chips that will prevent us from thinking evil thoughts and doing evil deeds...but until that "happy" time we will have to accept it: as long humans have free will, some will choose evil over good. And some of these will become terrorists.
I know what I say will not popular. Especially not here and now. But the fight against terrorims is mostly a defensive one. The idea: "Go out there and get them! Take the battle to them!" is nice, is exactly what a terrified victim of terrorism WANTS to hear. "Let them suffer, take this fear away from me and put it unto them!" But it is not possible. As with any crime. There is no absolute safety. And there will never be. (Until this brain implant is invented, that is )

I am not saying that Counter Terrorist Units are superfluous or something. They have a role in this. Hostage Rescue. And sometimes when the time and place (and intel) is right, and the risk is worth it, a terrorist leader can be assassinated or unfriendly extracted. This will not be the end of terrorism. But it will help to keep the level of terrorism down the same way arresting a murderer keeps down the numbers of murders.

9/11, I think, was more of a one time "lucky shot" for the terrorists (a hell of one, agreed). It was NOT the beginning of a new era. It possibly does not even mean that terrorism is on the rise. Otherwise there had been other attacks of this magnitude. Or do you really think Bush has prevented them by attacking Iraq?
I think there is the danger that certain people use 9/11 and the "war against terrorism" as a pretext to justify certain actions of theirs...and that IS no help.
As if all American leaders before Bush had been complete idiots not to use these SOF units or to cooperate with other nations instead of simply going in. They had reasons to do what they did. And good reasons at that.

My 200 cents...

Things like 9/11 and the madrid train bombing happen because people don't take terrorists and try to stop them using the police. If Clinton took the first WTC bombing seriously 9/11 might not of occured but since he expected the police to handle any further problems thats why 9/11 did occur. What do you expect the US to do if the Taliban won't arrest or kill the terrorists in Afghanistan, send in the LAPD? :lol: You don't have to accept it, as you sit in a nice home in some Western country, but terrorism is a major threat in the Western world.

[Midav]

hist2004: This is one of the best posts, if not the best, that I have read in a long, long, time.

America needs to wake up and smell the flowers--for what they really are.

Thank you and I am printing out a copy.....

... because I happen to have a copy machine at my disposal..... ;)

[OB Kenobi]

[quote] Things like 9/11 and the madrid train bombing happen because people don't take terrorists and try to stop them using the police. If Clinton took the first WTC bombing seriously 9/11 might not of occured but since he expected the police to handle any further problems thats why 9/11 did occur. What do you expect the US to do if the Taliban won't arrest or kill the terrorists in Afghanistan, send in the LAPD? :lol:

I don't think many people criticize attacking Afghanistan (other than that Bush screwed it up and let Bin Laden escape), what people criticize is attacking Iraq, Bush subverting civil rights, Halliburton's criminal activities, the wanton torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, many of whom were innocent, and Bush's preoccupation with oil and his complete disregard for the environment.

All those things could have been handled very differently, Bush chose the most foolish approach imaginable, he said "Bring it on."

I don't really like the idea of an AWOL, rich daddy's boy, cokehead, alcoholic who hasn't done an honest day's work in his life and can't even ride a bicycle playing with our lives and our money this way. He lied his way into getting his war and now he and his corporate buddies are making a fortune off it of it while the rest of us have to clean up the mess.

Once again, why did we attack Iraq and not deal with Al Qaeda? You mean our buddy Pakistan wouldn't help? Or our buddy Saudi Arabia wouldn't help? So how the hell does Bush expect to win in Iraq, surrounded by all our "buddies"?

[hist2004]

rich daddy's boy, cokehead, alcoholic who hasn't done an honest day's work in his life and can't even ride a bicycle playing with our lives and our money this way.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to Kerry :) …check into his background…he wants to bow at
the alter of the U.N. (Let the U.N. decide how we use our Military? Remember Somalia?) Then
ask France, Germany, and Russia may I? Have you read about the Oil for food scandal? Bribes
ranging up to 7 Billion. that’s Billion…


Once again, why did we attack Iraq and not deal with Al Qaeda?

U.N. resolutions my friend, which Saddam violated from 1991 onward.
After 9/11, the President decided he wasn't going to wait for the next attack
like the previous U.S. policy towards terrorism from 1979-2001.

Regards,
Hist2004