Military solution on terrorism is doomed

[Ordie]

A military solution to a war on terrorism is doomed

Deepak Chopra,Ken Robinson
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
It's a sore temptation to hunt down Osama bin Laden - one of the most consistent campaign promises made by President Obama - and yet there are strong arguments against it. U.S. forces would have to penetrate deep into provincial Pakistan and perhaps even conduct house-to-house searches. Such incursions would destabilize Pakistan's already shaky regime and inflame the extremist element. More troops would have to be committed to the Afghanistan war zone, with no positive outcome in sight. And making a martyr of bin Laden would probably incite a crop of new terrorists as deadly as he and his cohorts.
But the most compelling reason is that any solely military solution to terrorism is doomed to fail. Right now, U.S. intelligence knows that the jihadist movement is endemic in the extremist sects of Islam. It exists from neighborhood to neighborhood, dinner table to dinner table, across a vast swath of the globe. Although terrorism is a tactic, what lies behind it is an idea, and once an idea seeps into people's brains, bombs and mortar attacks won't defeat it. That's why Israel's overwhelming military superiority to Hezbollah and Hamas hasn't defeated those movements and never will - this is an enemy for whom death is a victory of the spirit.
Our only hope against Islamic terrorism is to police it in the short run, and offer a more enticing idea in the long run. Peace and social reform are both enticing ideas. Changing our strategic relationship with corrupt regimes that receive significant foreign assistance from the United States is a second important step. The United States must shift its anti-terrorism policy in those directions. Because the United States kept pursuing a military solution, the 2004 presidential election was a poisoned chalice. Whoever won it would be plunged into the quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq. The 2008 election was better. Both candidates pledged to leave Iraq, Republican Sen. John McCain under the face-saving banner of "victory;" Democratic Sen. Obama under the more realistic banner of ending an unjust war that should never have been started.
There is a military difference between "deploying" more soldiers to Afghanistan and "employing" them within the country - in an effective way. If President Obama insists on troop buildups in Afghanistan and a promise to hunt down bin Laden, we must all recognize that a country should not pursue two contradictory ideas at the same time: one, that terrorism is stateless, and two, that military forays into foreign states are productive. The chief reason to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, once we entered and found chaos, is humanitarian, as it has been for at least five years. Both are failed states; both are rife with violent extremists. Age-old hatreds won't die easily in either region, and yet the United States can't stand by and let those hatreds turn into genocide and endless combat.
The United Nations and NATO must rally to carry out the humanitarian goals that need to be pursued. But that's not the same as deluding ourselves into believing that we are defeating terrorism. Bush's war on terror was a horrendous mistake, an ideological delusion and a failed tactic. It alienated most of the world and created as many extremists as it defeated. Obama knows all this. Now it's time for him to lead us out of a self-created quagmire. The United States can't have it both ways, talking peace but maintaining a hostile military presence in the region, neither Pakistan, nor Afghanistan has a government seen as legitimate by its population. Neither has the ability, or the national will to police its borders, or seriously confront extremism, or foreign fighters. History has already taught us how these endeavors end, and they do not end well. No matter how just our cause, we are seen as aggressors, and may just as likely suffer the death of a thousand cuts, just like Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, the British Empire and the Soviet Union. Without establishing a foundation of legitimacy, and hope, or any semblance of the rule of law, a purely military strategy will likely be defeated in the end.

Source:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/03/ED4K15LN6J.DTL&type=printable

[Jobu]

Policing terrorism as the solution? We tried that pre-9/11.

It didn't work.


I'm in favor of Bush's strategy as he put it on Sept. 20, 2001:


Americans are asking, "How will we fight and win this war?" We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

[Ordie]

^^^^
We made more enemies than friends in the process.

The British approach in treating terrorism as a crime gets better results as it is targeted, backed by legal means.

[commanding]

I often wonder if sometimes the "game" stays the same thru history and the names of the acts, and the scale of the deeds changes. For instance what we now call "terrorism" seems to me to almost be what they used to call "anarchists".
"terror of the deed"
ref:
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_terrorism

I am stunned by how many political leaders were assassinated by anarchists in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Bombings of cafes by anarchists, etc.

[Alpheus]

I think the author doesn't understand how the war on terror works. There are places in the world where a purely legal approach simply won't work. Take A-Stan for example. What should we have done, send in the police and some lawyers? The military is the only method able to go in and catch these guys. Catch or kill them, and put the survivors on trial. The legal problems of how/where do you try them then arises, but only because the military got 'em in the first place.

Plus the author needs to get with the times in regard to Iraq. Iraq just had effectively peaceful elections, and is in way better shape than A-Stan. Iraq isn't a failed state. It isn't perfect, but it's on its way to becoming a beacon of hope in the ME.

[Laworkerbee]

^^^^
We made more enemies than friends in the process.

The British approach in treating terrorism as a crime gets better results as it is targeted, backed by legal means.

That was against the IRA, a completely different animal, are we so sure the same approach will work against Islamic extremists?

I'm still on the fence and would like to see a third way.

[sinophile]

^^^^
We made more enemies than friends in the process.
The British approach in treating terrorism as a crime gets better results as it is targeted, backed by legal means.

Really, and what exactly is the British approach? As I recall they used extralegal means to take down the IRA, and are presumed to do so against Islamic terrorism. Which Britian are you thinking of?

[Kilgor]

The goals of the IRA are different to those of Islamic extremists, dont even bother comparing to two.

[sinophile]

The goals of the IRA are different to those of Islamic extremists, dont even bother comparing to two.

Funny, because I spent some tiresome years of my life on these issues and the comparison is quite clear to me. The nominal goals for both were independence, self-determination and religious equality. Among the radical elements the motivations and tactics were the same. In fact, Islamic terrorists went to school on the IRA -literally, with the IRA providing training and material.

The US/UK response to these issues has become quite similar, because the US learned tremendously from the British experience. Unfortunately, it appears the US slept through the British class on ruthless subversion over overt military action - or so it would seem to me from reading the newspapers these past few years.

Regardless, the US failure is one of too much public accountability for its actions and not too little IMHO.

[brainplay]

Funny, because I spent some tiresome years of my life on these issues and the comparison is quite clear to me. The nominal goals for both were independence, self-determination and religious equality. Among the radical elements the motivations and tactics were the same. In fact, Islamic terrorists went to school on the IRA -literally, with the IRA providing training and material.

Might want to spend a few more years on those issues then. Islamic terrorists went to IRA school for tactical training, not social interaction. The goals you listed don't coinside with anything we have today especially on the western domestic side when those are already handed to them on a silver platter. You can't claim any of those goals for the middle east side unless you specifically point out Iraqi insurgents. Even then much of that was a power grab by various factions.

[Firefly26]

^^^^
We made more enemies than friends in the process.

The British approach in treating terrorism as a crime gets better results as it is targeted, backed by legal means.

Agree, not with the article though. We have been way too sloppy in aprehending these guys. Alot of the reason Iraq is going much better right now is our forensic approaches to ieds and keeping track of evidence of extremists. We don't have enough people in Afghanistan to get it to the level that we have in Iraq right now, but hopefully in a few years it will get there. When you have evidence, you have credibility and can't be portrayed as the oppressor. It's going to be a pain in the ass, but neccessary step.

[Adux]

How is legal position going to work in a Pakistan-Afghanistan scenario; Moreover in cases of others countries, they wont go beyond paperwork.

[Firefly26]

How is legal position going to work in a Pakistan-Afghanistan scenario; Moreover in cases of others countries, they wont go beyond paperwork.

The Iraqis are beyond paper work in many cases, whether the Afghans decide to is up to them. They probably will, but it will be with alot of kicking and screaming. Pakistan is too dismal to think about though... Once the train up effort for the ANP is as robust as it is in Iraq, the curve of effectiveness will start to reverse itself back upward. Once people see how definitive evidence collected with the smallest amount of training is, even with a lack of witnesses; the trend will sell itself. I don't want to go into any specifics here.

[EDIT] Basically the military has already started to incorporate these forensic practices to discover a devastating effectiveness in Iraq. This Author's article is not based on enough information and on too much opinion. It's very 2003-4.

[DaveDash]

^^^^
We made more enemies than friends in the process.

The British approach in treating terrorism as a crime gets better results as it is targeted, backed by legal means.

Firstly, No. These people were your enemies anyway, and many have been for the last (almost 40) years now. It just took, what, 5(?) or however many attacks (4 of which happened since 1991) on your country before you decided to do something about it.

Secondly, what you actually did do, is put the fight in their back yard so your soldiers and (unfortunately) their civilians are at the tip of the spear, and NOT your fire fighters back home or YOUR civilians. I'd argue your soldiers are much better equipped to deal with the problem that American civilians going about their business in CONUS.

Thirdly, what this article suggests is what was basically tried prior to 9/11, and look, here we are now.

I don't think anyone, even people in the Bush administration, thought that this problem would be tackled only with a military solution. I question the actual point in this article.

The author of this article seems to be living under a rock (among having quite a few clear biases), because he is also not quite up with the play in Iraq. Iraq has been turned around BECAUSE in part the U.S. realised a military solution was not going to win it.

I also highly question the authors comment "The chief reason to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, once we entered and found chaos, is humanitarian, as it has been for at least five years"

Im sorry, what babble is this? Does the author have absolutely NO concept of the strategic importance of however many U.S. troops sitting on top of a huge oil reserve, with a friendly Iraqi government ensuring oil is still traded in the dollar, the strategic location of BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan, and so forth and so forth?

Lame article.

[Adux]

Dave,

I just noticed it is Deepak Chopra, I hope you heard his tirade against America on National Television. Why you feel these people have no strategic thinking is, because they have no business being in strategic thinking in the first place. This white flag waving liberal left hippie's will only show the way for America's demise. Sorry for being unproffessional in the post, but most military proffesionals have no business listening to Deepak Chopra in the first place.

[2RHPZ]

Military solution on terrorism is doomed

Well, actually it seems there is one exception (at least so far).

There is a Military Solution to Terrorism: The Sri Lankan Example (http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/13955)

[ting]

Well, actually it seems there is one exception (at least so far).

There is a Military Solution to Terrorism: The Sri Lankan Example (http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/13955)

Sri lanka has only started to fvck up. What is going to happen is that the army will kill a lot of tamil tigers and tamil civilians, and the leaders of the tamil tigers will go under ground. If there is no acceptable political solution for the tamils there will be terrorism since they are too weak to hold territory.

[sjinadasa]

Sri lanka has only started to fvck up. What is going to happen is that the army will kill a lot of tamil tigers and tamil civilians, and the leaders of the tamil tigers will go under ground. If there is no acceptable political solution for the tamils there will be terrorism since they are too weak to hold territory.

You are assuming that there will be NO political solution, which would mean we would f*ck up. But I'm pretty damn sure that we've leant our lesson in the last..oh i don't know, 3 odd decades or so. Terrorism would never have anything other than a military solution. The more you give into terrorist demands, the more obnoxious their demands get.

[Ordie]

You are assuming that there will be NO political solution, which would mean we would f*ck up. But I'm pretty damn sure that we've leant our lesson in the last..oh i don't know, 3 odd decades or so. Terrorism would never have anything other than a military solution. The more you give into terrorist demands, the more obnoxious their demands get.

Fighting terrorism cannot be exclusively fought through military means. There needs to be a social, political and economic means to "take the water away from the fish"*.

(*My apologies to Mao)

[ting]

You are assuming that there will be NO political solution, which would mean we would f*ck up. But I'm pretty damn sure that we've leant our lesson in the last..oh i don't know, 3 odd decades or so. Terrorism would never have anything other than a military solution. The more you give into terrorist demands, the more obnoxious their demands get.

Yes I am assuming that their will be no political solution. I hope to be surprized but I fear I won`t.

[1curious]

An interesting opening article.

I agree with many of his conclusion but, at the same time, he failed to suggest a workable solution. Particularly, with respect to so called “failed states” . I don’t think dwelling on the semantics if the “war on terror” is really a war is useful.

Despite some differences in approaches, the European and the American view in Afghanistan is essentially the same - that of an enforcement action. Military (the US) vs. police (European) is just a matter of weapons and tactics choices.

IMO, the main mistakes we made in Afghanistan (and eventually corrected in Iraq) were not lack of understanding of the importance of humanitarian factors but, opposite, letting those factors cloud our commitment and being too ideological and not sufficiently pragmatic.

I know many will disagree, but we should not have wasted time on claiming high moral ground - freedom, democracy etc - (that is a matter of perception anyway), but should have been involved in what Petreaus finally figured out -- building local coalitions with both our detractors AND supporters.

This is the only solution in Afghanistan too. Taleban, in one shape or another, will have to be represented.
And those in Pakistan allied to Taleban will have to be delt with politically AND/OR militarily. It will be THEIR choice. So far we have not done much to make that choice sufficiently weighty and worth a serious look for them.

[Adux]

I dont think ever there was a point during War on Terror when political, social and economical solutions havent been implied/used along with that of the military solution, There are some cases which needs exclusive use of force. Afghanistan is such a case. One can take Pakistan, which is known for its support extremist elements and direct connections, yet the USA chose to give them political and economic assistance. Saudi Arabia another terrorist hotbed, yet a political solution was found there,
Just because the problems arent there in the open, doesnt mean the US hasnt dealt with it behind the scenes.
War on Terror is far more complicated, serious, and imperative than that of Yoga/Wellness Hippie like Deepak Chopra!

[AlexMartin2]

Osama bin Laden is still alive. FAIL?

[Clayton Gold]

... There are some cases which needs exclusive use of force. Afghanistan is such a case...

History has proven you terribly wrong on this claim.

In fact, all the militaries currently in that theatre contradict you.

[Ordie]

War on Terror

The first step is to get rid of that term.

Terrorism is a method, not the subject.
It would be akin to FDR declaring war on airplanes because they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Let's be specific on who we are targeting and not to generalize.

[Ordie]

History has proven you terribly wrong on this claim.

In fact, all the militaries currently in that theatre contradict you.

The Malaya Emergency is used as a case study in counter insurgency warfare.

[Adux]

The first step is to get rid of that term.

Terrorism is a method, not the subject.
It would be akin to FDR declaring war on airplanes because they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Let's be specific on who we are targeting and not to generalize.

I dont know how an intelligent man as yourself could write such a ludicrous statement. I dont know how are both even comparable.

I am going to open a can of worms here, the only reason why we are confused in this war especially at this juncture is cuz of the Iraq war. Which I believe had nothing to do with War on Terror, I would refer you to Dave's post, why I would assume USA did it, and as nation-states, long term strategy isnt pretty or humane.
Fighting terror is not black and white, heck why a state sponsorer of terror like Pakistan who had private Saudi funds, as well as official funds for chechan operations be left out of gambit of war on terror is politics, convenience and compliance. I understand that to an extend!

[Laworkerbee]

The Malaya Emergency is used as a case study in counter insurgency warfare.

True, but if one tried to follow what was done in the Malaya Emergency today human rights groups would scream ethnic cleansing since villagers in that conflict were forced from their homes into "protected" hamlets.

[Adux]

History has proven you terribly wrong on this claim.

In fact, all the militaries currently in that theatre contradict you.

Acutally Ranjith Singh wouldnt agree with you.
Anyways I can see that you mis-understand, post-9/11 USA after asking the Mullah Omar led Taliban government to hand over OBL failed, there was no other option than attack, After the success of any military operation (invasion), Social, political and economic assistance has to follow, as military wont win otherwise.

[Alpheus]

The first step is to get rid of that term.

Terrorism is a method, not the subject.
It would be akin to FDR declaring war on airplanes because they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Let's be specific on who we are targeting and not to generalize.

No can do. Change the term to something like "War on radical Islam" or something, and you'd be called a racist/islamophobe before you could blink.

[Ordie]

I dont know how an intelligent man as yourself could write such a ludicrous statement. I dont know how are both even comparable.

Terror is a means not the source.

This terminology has its history in American politics. When American politicians feel compelled to create and motivate action on an issue, they declare "War" on the problem and create a "Tzar" position to lead that effort.

For example: The "War on Drugs" is led by a "Drug Tzar"

[Adux]

Terror is a means not the source.

This terminology has its history in American politics. When American politicians feel compelled to create and motivate action on an issue, they declare "War" on the problem and create a "Tzar" position to lead that effort.

For example: The "War on Drugs" is led by a "Drug Tzar"

What is the source in your opinion?

[timetraveller]

Terror is a means not the source.

This terminology has its history in American politics. When American politicians feel compelled to create and motivate action on an issue, they declare "War" on the problem and create a "Tzar" position to lead that effort.

For example: The "War on Drugs" is led by a "Drug Tzar"

I agree .. it's the same principal in the UK where they announced a Top Police Official to take charge by going after the Drug dealers etc in the end it was Epic fail .

[Alpha-17]

^^^^
We made more enemies than friends in the process.

The British approach in treating terrorism as a crime gets better results as it is targeted, backed by legal means.

BS. The British no longer control most of Ireland, remember? And the Brits pulled out of their section of Iraq, just when we were starting the surge. Look whose strategy seems to be winning now?


Funny, because I spent some tiresome years of my life on these issues and the comparison is quite clear to me. The nominal goals for both were independence, self-determination and religious equality. Among the radical elements the motivations and tactics were the same. In fact, Islamic terrorists went to school on the IRA -literally, with the IRA providing training and material.

The US/UK response to these issues has become quite similar, because the US learned tremendously from the British experience. Unfortunately, it appears the US slept through the British class on ruthless subversion over overt military action - or so it would seem to me from reading the newspapers these past few years.

Regardless, the US failure is one of too much public accountability for its actions and not too little IMHO.

Independence? Religious equality? Dude, what are you smoking? Radical-Islam wants nothing of that. They want domination, and Religious control. There can be no other religions for them. Don't beleive me? Watch a couple of Hamas or AQ Propaganda videos. You won't find anything about co-existence in any of those.


The Iraqis are beyond paper work in many cases, whether the Afghans decide to is up to them. They probably will, but it will be with alot of kicking and screaming. Pakistan is too dismal to think about though... Once the train up effort for the ANP is as robust as it is in Iraq, the curve of effectiveness will start to reverse itself back upward. Once people see how definitive evidence collected with the smallest amount of training is, even with a lack of witnesses; the trend will sell itself. I don't want to go into any specifics here.

[EDIT] Basically the military has already started to incorporate these forensic practices to discover a devastating effectiveness in Iraq. This Author's article is not based on enough information and on too much opinion. It's very 2003-4.

Yes it is. We're not up to CSI level, but we are certainly trained in a lot of methods that the Police use.


The first step is to get rid of that term.

Terrorism is a method, not the subject.
It would be akin to FDR declaring war on airplanes because they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Let's be specific on who we are targeting and not to generalize.

No, it would be the same as FDR declaring war on Facism... oh, wait, we more or less did.


Terror is a means not the source.

This terminology has its history in American politics. When American politicians feel compelled to create and motivate action on an issue, they declare "War" on the problem and create a "Tzar" position to lead that effort.

For example: The "War on Drugs" is led by a "Drug Tzar"

Never heard of the "Drug Tzar".

[yourmonkeybutler]

There are places in the world where a purely legal approach simply won't work. Take A-Stan for example. What should we have done, send in the police and some lawyers?
Lol, so that gives you the right as being the bigger power to go to another country and rip the **** out of it?
What a stupid statement.

[yourmonkeybutler]

Basically "the war on terror" will never ever be won.
It was a catchphrase for the loony bush administration to wage war in the middle east and occupy oil and gas fields for there own purposes.
I'm going to get shot to pieces for this comment I'm about to make i know it.
But, when 9/11 started, if you ask me, America shouldn't of even gone to war over it.
They should of countered it by not allowing foregne nationals from wherever to enter the states.
I know alot of people died 3500 was it in the trade towers?
But since then, how many more millions of died because of the "war on terror:.
Bit of a difference if you ask me.
Only my opinion.
And what's always got me is, how come seeing how the nationals of 9/11 hijackers were "ALL" Saudi Arabians, why wasn't Saudi Arabia invaded?
All complete and utter bollocks if you ask me.
Just an excuse to go to war to expand empire and take oil.

[Laworkerbee]

youremaster

You are without a doubt the biggest ****ing moron I've seen post on this forum in ages.

Congrats,

[Atlantic Friend]

Anti-terror operations don't have to be EITHER military OR law-enforcement. These are two different tools that are required in the toolbox, to deal with different problems, at different times, in different places.

Any pretention to win the WOT (or whatever one wants to call it) through only one of these tools is bound to fail.

[Ordie]

BS. The British no longer control most of Ireland, remember? [quote]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Much of the "Troubles" was confined in N. Ireland and England.

[quote]And the Brits pulled out of their section of Iraq, just when we were starting the surge. Look whose strategy seems to be winning now?

Basra didn't implode



No, it would be the same as FDR declaring war on Facism... oh, wait, we more or less did.

No, Congress specifically declared war on Japan and Germany




Never heard of the "Drug Tzar".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_czar

[Adux]

awaiting your reply!

[Dodge]

I often wonder if sometimes the "game" stays the same thru history and the names of the acts, and the scale of the deeds changes. For instance what we now call "terrorism" seems to me to almost be what they used to call "anarchists".
"terror of the deed"
ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_terrorism

I am stunned by how many political leaders were assassinated by anarchists in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Bombings of cafes by anarchists, etc.

Fixed your link, one http:// too many there mate!

[clean]

And the Brits pulled out of their section of Iraq, just when we were starting the surge. Look whose strategy seems to be winning now?


It's the Brits strategy that's winning now. A strategy born in N. Ireland, Malay, Oman, Borneo. It's just that the US adopted it.

[KilRemgor]

'Terror' in the past (throughout most of 20th century) was usually either a state-run way of dealing with ethic minorities/rebels/enemy population/etc. by inducing general fear (Nazi terror on occupied territories, Stalin purges, Japan fire bombing by USAF, etc.), or a quite practical way of crime groups to extort something from governments (think of all the famous plane hijackings; there were realistic demands to get money, safe haven, release of prisoners etc., not just to kill someone).

Terror is the same today, just two halves of it were interwined. It is state-supported way of inducing general fear among target populations, but done by crime groups like AQ. This way it has the goals of state-run terror yet done by non-state groups; this way, anti-US states can strike US and its interests using cheap and quite effective means.

In this mix-up form it is far harder to defeat than any of its halves alone. Moreover, it is cost-effective. Countering state-sponsored terror will cost far more than improving one's terror capabilities to overcome the counter, and even the almighty USD printing machine may fail when tasked to win such a battle.
So a logic of Bush administration was, if this incarnation of terror requires sponsor states to effectively work, by 'punishing' them to various degree (up to invading them) states supporting terror may be forced to reconsider their stance, and without their support, terror levels would've fallen to a level manageable by normal means.
There is some logic there, why waste billions of USD on better police/anti-terror techs/education/help to countries where terrorists are recruited if they will be countered by mere thousands of USD from terrorist sponsors - why not just make the source behind them disappear with less effort (or at least perceived so)?

However, the problem is that US' position and role in the world is the source of states that promote terror, if referring specifically to 9/11 and anti-US terror. For anti-Israel terror or anti-India, the same principles apply; terror is going to be used as long as there's someone relatively strong and someone relatively weak wishing to bring the stronger one down.
So there are 3 requirements for the 'game of terror':
1) A stronger nation/group that is percieved as threat, oppressor, messing with one's internal affairs, holding someone's rightful land, draining someone's resources, destroying culture, etc.
2) A weaker group that perceives the stronger the way described above;
3) Some political/social will and capabilitity to turn the perception into suicide bombings.

So from a simple logic, there are three possible conclusions to the War on Terror, all effectively ending terrorism:
1) Elimination of all the terror-supporting states and groups by either literal elimination (thus negating factor two) or by making them reject the terror ways (accepting US domination or being relatively well-fed to be calm, thus negating factor three).
2) Elimination of US dominant position and other percieved factors that are behind the terror logic. Thus, terror will no longer necessity for its sponsors. For example, if US gives up its interests and projects in ME, it will remove factor one.
3) Some kind of 1 and 2 combined (think of it as a draw in a war).

So actually the 'war on terror' is war in a sense that is has a specific 'battlefield', goals and conclusion.

Which of the above happens is not yet clear.

[Clayton Gold]

Acutally Ranjith Singh wouldnt agree with you.
Anyways I can see that you mis-understand, post-9/11 USA after asking the Mullah Omar led Taliban government to hand over OBL failed, there was no other option than attack, After the success of any military operation (invasion), Social, political and economic assistance has to follow, as military wont win otherwise.

I misunderstood nothing. The post that I quoted was very clear.

Either way, thanks for elaborating. I agree.

[Alexandr]

terrorism is tactics
you can not start war against tactics,GWAT is something surreal
imagn war against some other tactics,for example GWACB - Global War Against Carpet Bombings.....how much sense it brings?

[Moriarti]

You are an idiot - and so am I for even responding to your drivel - but this ought to be fun -


Basically "the war on terror" will never ever be won.
It was a catchphrase for the loony bush administration to wage war in the middle east and occupy oil and gas fields for there own purposes.

You are right about the name Global War on Terror

Global = World

War = War

World War III

Terror is a tactic, the enemy is Islamism.

Should be WWIII vs Islamism


You are wrong about the motivation - IF we wanted total control of the oil/gas we would not have given Iraq sovereignty thus removing the $6B per week that the Iraqi government makes off of oil revenues, and we would have at least let companies from the US, UK and AUS bid on mineral/oil exploration rights - as it is NONE of that has happened - nor will it.

I'm going to get shot to pieces for this comment I'm about to make i know it.
But, when 9/11 started, if you ask me, America shouldn't of even gone to war over it.

And when someone starts a "conversation" with you by punching you in the face as hard as they ca, perhaps you should not fight back.


They should of countered it by not allowing foregne nationals from wherever to enter the states.

Ethnic cleansing? Great Idea - Ask the Native American Nations or the Nisei how that went the last few times we did it.

I know alot of people died 3500 was it in the trade towers?
But since then, how many more millions of died because of the "war on terror:.

Millions? *IF* that is true - there have been FAR more killed by Islamists since 9/11 than by the allied military - check your stats Jr. BUT Since in modern times the war actually started MANY years before 9/11/2001 - your idiotic point is moot.

Bit of a difference if you ask me.

No one did.

Only my opinion.
And what's always got me is, how come seeing how the nationals of 9/11 hijackers were "ALL" Saudi Arabians, why wasn't Saudi Arabia invaded?
All complete and utter bollocks if you ask me.

And because ALL of the Oaklahoma City bombers were white boys from Michigan we should bomb Detroit? You are an idiot. Islamists, not Arab Muslims did it.

Just an excuse to go to war to expand empire and take oil.

See Above - Idiot.

[clean]

terrorism is tactics
you can not start war against tactics,

Didn't really start a war against tactics. We responded with a military option against tactics that were used against us. Embassy bombings in Africa, USS Cole, and obviously 9/11. The military option is not the only one in use right now. We've attacked their financing, interupted and intercepted their communications, and injected money into various economies to try and get the next generation to have more options.

[Alexandr]

So you insist that GWAT was sucsessfull?
In not trying to point finger and say "HAHA",we,Russia,face terror (radical islamic,anarchists,ect) enouth to compare.

[clean]

So you insist that GWAT was sucsessfull?
In not trying to point finger and say "HAHA",we,Russia,face terror (radical islamic,anarchists,ect) enouth to compare.


I don't insist anything. Was successful? Last I checked it wasn't over. Hell, man, Russia's in the same boat. What's their answer?

[Laworkerbee]

In not trying to point finger and say "HAHA",we,Russia,face terror (radical islamic,anarchists,ect) enouth to compare.

That's good because the Russians and the West face a common enemy, too bad our countries can't work together and coordinate on objectives.

[commanding]

Terrorist, these Taliban ski masked dudes in Pakistan holding Pakistani policeman (in a mosque?).....ya know why they wear the ski masks?
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd255/lancero111/fevereiro09/20090204152509ENLUS0162412812337611.jpg

Caus they are afraid...that's why. They are afraid they will get picked up, caught and be terminated with extreme prejudice. I feel badly for the poor Pakistani policemen...sure the "Stockholm syndrome" is setting in with them. I hope the ski-masked taliban Tinkerbells, get their keesters blown off.
by the way, who ever is charge of the Mosque they are in, deserves the same.

[Laworkerbee]

Terrorist, these Taliban ski masked dudes in Pakistan holding Pakistani policeman (in a mosque?).....ya know why they wear the ski masks?

Pretty sure they are since they have taken off their shoes.

[clean]

Is the Puma knit hat part of the Paki PD uniform?

[benbach]

Terrorism has no state, the war on terror is just a way for the Oceanians to have a perpetual war and an enemy for years to come.

Terrorism will exist so long as war does, and I dont see war going anywhere any time soon.

best of luck though

[DS73]

This article is idiotic and is based on a number of false premises imagined or misunderstood by the author. I wonder if this idiocy is general, and prevails among "political experts".
Small and not exhaustive list of ASSumptions:

1. Statement that killing insurgents or OBL makes more terrorists:
It is not that trivial and he would have hard time proving that.

2. Believe that US are looking for "solely military solution to terrorism:
This is completely baseless and has no relation with reality. The stabilization of Eu-US relations with Libya is sufficient but not unique example.

3. Completely deranged explanation of the result of 2004 elections':
This guy has very short memory if he thinks that A'stan had any relevance in american politics back then. Iraq was also "won"

4. The idea that ISAF does not do humanitarian actions:
I have no idea where it comes from. The whole idea of ISAF to be there is to build state legitimate in eyes of local population and compatible with international law. They use all available means (humanitarian included) to do that. At the moment humanitarian actions require more protection and that is exactly why this "surge"(what a stupid word) is needed. Again it is a common news recycled in any meaningful report about A'stan. What this guy is reading?

5. Silly idea that Iraq,A'stan wars made more enemies:
He has to prove it. That is to show that yesterday friends or neutrals became enemies. He is going to have very hard time doing that.

6. This idea that terrorism is stateless:
While the idea obviously is an open source, all terrorist acts are based on some territory, population and financial resources. They follow some territorial (even in such general case as Islamic fundamentalism) claims, they are tied to some cultural ground and receive money and support from specific possible to identify sources.
All these fantasies about lonely deranged groups remain fantasies. In any more or less policed state such people get caught too quickly before doing any meaningful damage.
So far all existing terrorist acts are directly related to training camps in A'stan and Wahhabi ideology. Pretty obvious place, country and money.
Of course the results are halfhearted if Pakistan and SA involvements are not addressed and wahhabi ideology characterized as it should: religious form of fascism.

[sinophile]

This article is idiotic and is based on a number of false premises imagined or misunderstood by the author. I wonder if this idiocy is general, and prevails among "political experts".


You are 100% correct, the author is snorting fairy dust.


"Our only hope against Islamic terrorism is to police it in the short run, and offer a more enticing idea in the long run. Peace and social reform are both enticing ideas. Changing our strategic relationship with corrupt regimes that receive significant foreign assistance from the United States is a second important step."

Uuuugh... Such idealistic suicidal stupidity.

[Adux]

Terror is a means not the source.

This terminology has its history in American politics. When American politicians feel compelled to create and motivate action on an issue, they declare "War" on the problem and create a "Tzar" position to lead that effort.

For example: The "War on Drugs" is led by a "Drug Tzar"

Ordie

I await your reply on what these sources are?

[Adux]

Pakistan's adherence to the ethos of War on Terror is a complex case, There are multiple centers of power in the government, polity, society and military who has different ideas regarding US, and WoT. Dont be misled by a few Pakistani policemen being caught, There are few who fight because they were ordered, there are only very few who fight because they believe in WoT which essential is for establishing secularism in my opinion, and also most surrender since they dont have to fight them!

[Johnny_H02]

Deepak Chopra my ass, whats he doing speaking on "real" things? Doesn't he write Religion/Self Help books? Whats next John Keegan's Secret to Eternal Happiness.

Stay in your lane dude.

[Ordie]

Ordie

I await your reply on what these sources are?

Here you go.

This is a clip of an interview with George Lackoff. For the rest ofthe article click on the link.




You've said that progressives should never use the phrase "war on terror" - why?
There are two reasons for that. Let's start with "terror." Terror is a general state, and it's internal to a person. Terror is not the person we're fighting, the "terrorist." The word terror activates your fear, and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want. The "war on terror" is not about stopping you from being afraid, it's about making you afraid.
Next, "war." How many terrorists are there - hundreds? Sure. Thousands? Maybe. Tens of thousands? Probably not. The point is, terrorists are actual people, and relatively small numbers of individuals, considering the size of our country and other countries. It's not a nation-state problem. War is a nation-state problem.
What about the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty"?
Those are metaphorical. Real wars are wars against countries, and in the "war on terror," we are attacking countries. But those countries are not the same as the terrorists. We're acting at the wrong level. Meanwhile, by using this frame, we get a commander in chief, as the Republicans keep referring to Bush - a "war president" with "war powers," which imply that ordinary protections don't have to be observed. A "war president" has extraordinary powers. And the "war on terror," of course, never ends. There's no peace treaty with terror. It's a prescription for keeping conservatives in power indefinitely. In three words - "war on terror" - they've enacted vast political changes.

Source: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml

[ZeroZen]

military solution is an important against war on terror. Even terrorist look after to military solution for terror objective. You can't take or this solution out of the equation, Eintein will blow his mind.

[Adux]

Here you go.

This is a clip of an interview with George Lackoff. For the rest ofthe article click on the link.



Source: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml

Ordie,

A very naive and idealistic views, completely ignores when terrorism is used by the nation-states as a matter to promote state-policy or interest in other nation's territories, examples Pakistan, Iran, Syria etc!

[commanding]

title of thread:Military solution on terrorism is doomed

as I said before there will always likely be terrorists. HOwever to state that a military solution is doomed, to me hints that the military should not be involved. So who do you send to apprend guys like Mohammed Atta who are driving a van filled with explosives at an oil refinery? Policemen with a 40 caliber glock handgun? Lawyers with a briefcase and a MonteBlanc pen?
I think the trail to defeat and kill terrorists, is a highly trained military and intelligence services working hand in hand. Since there are a limited number of them, the more eliminated, the better chance your children and grandchildren have of living to adulthood.

[Ordie]

Ordie,

A very naive and idealistic views, completely ignores when terrorism is used by the nation-states as a matter to promote state-policy or interest in other nation's territories, examples Pakistan, Iran, Syria etc!

There are no absolutes in having a point of view.

"Terror" is a value word that evokes emotion. It's called framing the issues.

[Adux]

There are no absolutes in having a point of view.

"Terror" is a value word that evokes emotion. It's called framing the issues.


I can agree with the second statement, but I think it is the author who has absolutes, not me as I am ready to accept his point of view, but I think his view is not complete. He is actually narrowing the definition of terror and what are the means at the disposal of terrorist(groups,individuals, or nations)

[Ordie]

He is actually narrowing the definition of terror and what are the means at the disposal of terrorist(groups,individuals, or nations)

He's a UC Berkeley linguist, that's his job.
If your interested in politics and communications, his books are good.

As for a definition, its very subjective.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here:

A "Terrorist" can be the same as a "Freedom Fighter" depending on which side of the issue you belong.

For example, a Tamil may view the LTTE as "Freedom Fighters", while the Singhalese views them as "Terrorist".

In your opinion, is Chandra Bose a Nazi Facist Collaborator or a National Indian Hero?

[DS73]

He's a UC Berkeley linguist, that's his job.
If your interested in politics and communications, his books are good.
As for a definition, its very subjective.

There is nothing subjective.
Political terms are always sided, and deal with said side opinion. So when US is saying they are interested in stopping terrorism actions, they mean terrorism from their state POV. not chines, argentinian, philipinno etc.
American POV. Actions that're considered to be criminal by US and cause harm and havoc to US or allies states.

This guy is an elf, and should continue dealing with his elf activities. I have doubts he exerts a lot of command in his field studies as well.

[Adux]

For example, a Tamil may view the LTTE as "Freedom Fighters", while the Singhalese views them as "Terrorist".

In your opinion, is Chandra Bose a Nazi Facist Collaborator or a National Indian Hero?

The methodology in my opinion defines it! Indian National Army fought just like any other army , they didnt put suicide bomber into some random British Club etc! Rules of War has been carried out by both forces, both INA as well as British Forces.
As a former soldier, there are reasons why you would respect A Soviet Soldier but you will not give the same respect to lets say IRA, FARC or Al-Qaeda!

[Ordie]

The methodology in my opinion defines it! Indian National Army fought just like any other army

I view them as cowards who wanted an easy way out of a Japanese prision in Thailand.

The British Indian Army was a volunteer force. If they had anti-colonial nationalist tendencies, they shouldn't have joined in the first place.

They were mostly used as political propaganda fodder, while thier counterparts fought valiantly at Monte Cassino and Kohima.

[Ordie]

As a former soldier, there are reasons why you would respect A Soviet Soldier but you will not give the same respect to lets say IRA, FARC or Al-Qaeda!

Sailor to be exact.

We used the term "Commie" during the Cold War as a means to de-humanize them. It was an idelogical rationale used to get us motivated.

[Kaplanr]

I view them as cowards who wanted an easy way out of a Japanese prision in Thailand.

The British Indian Army was a volunteer force. If they had anti-colonial nationalist tendencies, they shouldn't have joined in the first place.

They were mostly used as political propaganda fodder, while thier counterparts fought valiantly at Monte Cassino and Kohima.

Then how would that explain the Palestinian Jews who joined the British Army while still wanting the British out of Palestine. The easy answer is the obvious one vis-a-vis the Nazis, but there were also Palestinians (we were before they were ;)) who fought in Burma, etc. Ben-Gurion's dictum 'We will fight the White Paper as if there is no war, and fight the war as if there is no White Paper" sends a message that one can serve two masters.

[Adux]

I view them as cowards who wanted an easy way out of a Japanese prision in Thailand.

The British Indian Army was a volunteer force. If they had anti-colonial nationalist tendencies, they shouldn't have joined in the first place.

They were mostly used as political propaganda fodder, while thier counterparts fought valiantly at Monte Cassino and Kohima.

Cowards ready to go fight and die? So certain death is cowardice?
There were far more recurits who deserted the British Indian Army as well as people
Actually INA was found a talent pool in Japanese prisons. That is all. Dehumanizing of Bose and INA has a lot to do with M.K.Gandhi, Congress Party, Elitism and British Indian Army. Remember the deal, help us out in World War II, India gave 2 million soldiers, and we will give you freedom, That was the British promise, Bose was running contrary to that pact between UK and Indian leaders.

Ordie,

You have opened a good topic, before you go on your usual way, lets drop this subject.

[Adux]

Sailor to be exact.

We used the term "Commie" during the Cold War as a means to de-humanize them. It was an idelogical rationale used to get us motivated.

No it aint exactly de-humanizing(definitly not to the extent of a terrorist), it was motivational, There was healthy respect between the two armies. Heck you have yourself told me that before in some thread!

[Ordie]

Then how would that explain the Palestinian Jews who joined the British Army while still wanting the British out of Palestine. The easy answer is the obvious one vis-a-vis the Nazis, but there were also Palestinians (we were before they were ;)) who fought in Burma, etc. Ben-Gurion's dictum 'We will fight the White Paper as if there is no war, and fight the war as if there is no White Paper" sends a message that one can serve two masters.

Is the Irgun considered a terrorist organization for the bombing of he King David Hotel in 1946 on the premise of its methods? Or a liberation force with the eventual goal of establishing a Jewish State?

Prime Minister Clement Atlee at that time called it as a terrorist act. I don't know what Israelis refer it in thier history books.

There's no clear answer...

[Ordie]

No it aint exactly de-humanizing(definitly not to the extent of a terrorist), it was motivational, There was healthy respect between the two armies. Heck you have yourself told me that before in some thread!

What they fed us in terms of rationalizing the situation and what we actually did were two different things.

During my tenure, the tensions were dying with Glasnosts and Perestoika. During our deployments every Eastern European Communist government were collasping. At that same time Panama came into the picture and later on Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

[Adux]

Is the Irgun considered a terrorist organization for the bombing of he King David Hotel in 1946 on the premise of its methods? Or a liberation force with the eventual goal of establishing a Jewish State?

Prime Minister Clement Atlee at that time called it as a terrorist act. I don't know what Israelis refer it in thier history books.

There's no clear answer...

Terrorist.

[sinophile]

There are no absolutes in having a point of view.

"Terror" is a value word that evokes emotion. It's called framing the issues.

Actually there are absolutes. Relativism is destroying the Western world. Its the autoimmune disease of the West. Unfortunately Ordie, your test results came back positive... you're infected.

[Ordie]

Actually there are absolutes. Relativism is destroying the Western world. Its the autoimmune disease of the West. Unfortunately Ordie, your test results came back positive... you're infected.

Do you have any good meds for this?

"I confused things with their names: that is belief."
-Jean Paul Sartre

[Laworkerbee]

Actually there are absolutes. Relativism is destroying the Western world. Its the autoimmune disease of the West. Unfortunately Ordie, your test results came back positive... you're infected.

That was pretty God damned funny. If Ordie is infected I want to be as well, I may not agree with Ordie all the time but that is basically because the man is more enlightened than I am.

[sinophile]

Do you have any good meds for this?

"I confused things with their names: that is belief."
-Jean Paul Sartre

"There are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, and the third is useless."

"...that you should never let things get out of hand in order to avoid war. You don't avoid such a war, you merely postpone it, to your own disadvantage."

Machiavelli has the cure. I cite two excerpts from The Prince, but I think you've read it already and humbly suggest you have a go at his lesser known work, The Discourses.

[budgie]

^^^^
We made more enemies than friends in the process.

The British approach in treating terrorism as a crime gets better results as it is targeted, backed by legal means.

I agree. In the short term, military options are there to defeat terrorists, not terrorism itself. After all the recidivism rate for dead terrorists is nil. However in the long term removing the structure, the conditions and motivations that cause terrorism is a broader task. It's good to have guns but they will not solve all our woes.

[Adux]

Ordie,

I have to agree, for couple months you have become over-idealistic which in my opinion has narrowed your mind, rather than opening up new avenues!

[Ordie]

Machiavelli has the cure. I cite two excerpts from The Prince, but I think you've read it already and humbly suggest you have a go at his lesser known work, The Discourses.


Thanks

What's unique about Machiaveli was that he was on the losing side most of the time and much of his works is a lesson learned analysis.

[Ordie]

Ordie,

I have to agree, for couple months you have become over-idealistic which in my opinion has narrowed your mind, rather than opening up new avenues!

I like to be an iconoclast from time to time for the heck of it.

[Adux]

I like to be an iconoclast from time to time for the heck of it.

Well you are loosing two things, 1) An intelligent, practical, no-nosense, non-idealistic answers you use to give, 2) Your fans!

[sinophile]

Thanks What's unique about Machiaveli was that he was on the losing side most of the time and much of his works is a lesson learned analysis.

It is the great irony (and saving grace) of Niccolo Machiavelli that he fell victim to being not "machiavellian" enough. This is a lesson leaders from Nancy Pelosi to Vladimir Putin would benefit from, to the extent they are interested in a legacy that endures. Its also why I believe Bush will be remember, while Clinton will be forgotten.