Full Version: How to win the War on Terror?
I did a bit of searching around, and I don't think this question has really been asked yet. We have touched on it in numerous threads where people suggest that either Kerry or Bush will be better at fighting terrorists. I'd like this question to deal primarily with strategy and ideology, not politics.
There are many successful and unsuccessful strategies and examples to draw from - I'd like to bring those into this discussion.
So, there are two very simple questions that needs to be asked:
1. What are your conditions for victory in the war on terror?
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
There are many successful and unsuccessful strategies and examples to draw from - I'd like to bring those into this discussion.
So, there are two very simple questions that needs to be asked:
1. What are your conditions for victory in the war on terror?
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
Interesting topic, Cube.
1. What are your conditions for victory in the war on terror?
First of all, I think the "war on terror" needs to be defined more clearly.
The President is hesitant to characterize the war on terror as a "war against Islamo-fascists who want to target the United States of America". That is precisely how I would define it.
As has been said, you cannot combat a strategy like terrorism. You can combat an enemy: Islamo-fascist terrorists and the states that support them.
In this sense, the victory conditions would be to defeat state sponsors of terror and discourage future attacks on the US using terrorist tactics.
WMD proliferation is a strong element in this process. Identifying states who have WMD capability and a willingness to use them or supply them to terrorists is a key. Putting pressure (economic and military) on these states is essential. Acting without the consent of the UN may be necessary.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
I think that the key is targeting states that harbor terrorists. A terrorist organization without a place of safe haven is less of a threat.
Bush's plan targets state sponsors of terror, which I support. He has also used the intelligence agencies effectively, with thousands of arrests in the last 3 years.
I agree with Ambassador Richardson's Forward Strategy Against the Apostles of Hate. It involves not only killing terrorists, but also bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East. It may not be the easiest plan, but in the long run, I think it will be successful.
1. What are your conditions for victory in the war on terror?
First of all, I think the "war on terror" needs to be defined more clearly.
The President is hesitant to characterize the war on terror as a "war against Islamo-fascists who want to target the United States of America". That is precisely how I would define it.
As has been said, you cannot combat a strategy like terrorism. You can combat an enemy: Islamo-fascist terrorists and the states that support them.
In this sense, the victory conditions would be to defeat state sponsors of terror and discourage future attacks on the US using terrorist tactics.
WMD proliferation is a strong element in this process. Identifying states who have WMD capability and a willingness to use them or supply them to terrorists is a key. Putting pressure (economic and military) on these states is essential. Acting without the consent of the UN may be necessary.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
I think that the key is targeting states that harbor terrorists. A terrorist organization without a place of safe haven is less of a threat.
Bush's plan targets state sponsors of terror, which I support. He has also used the intelligence agencies effectively, with thousands of arrests in the last 3 years.
I agree with Ambassador Richardson's Forward Strategy Against the Apostles of Hate. It involves not only killing terrorists, but also bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East. It may not be the easiest plan, but in the long run, I think it will be successful.
I don't think it's a war and I don't think it can be won. However, I think we can make the world (and us) much safer.
1. Secure our borders, ports, and other areas leaving us vulnerable.
2. Hold an anti-terrorism summit with all world leaders. Failure to participate means you have chosen not to help fight terrorism.
3. Create an international counter-terrorism intelligence agency fed by all major intelligence agencies in regards to terrorism issues.
3. Establish well defined steps each country is to take with measurable goals. If any country does not have the resources, get it to them even if it means sending some of our forces.
4. Ensure each country does their part to help identify and bring terrorists within their borders to justice. A bullet to the head works for me.
5. Put every leader that fails to comply with these world efforts on notice: any attacks on us or the world coalition by terrorists within their borders will be considered to be state sponsored terrorism and an act of war. We reserve to retaliate in kind. If the country is as active as possible and we are attacked, then we would have been attacked no matter what we did. Give that country additional resources to eradicate the problem area.
When the world starts policing their own back yard, the world gets safer. When people around the world figure out they will die if they choose to ignore terrorist activities around them, the world will be safer.
I just don't see how it can be done any other way unless we give up all our freedoms.
1. Secure our borders, ports, and other areas leaving us vulnerable.
2. Hold an anti-terrorism summit with all world leaders. Failure to participate means you have chosen not to help fight terrorism.
3. Create an international counter-terrorism intelligence agency fed by all major intelligence agencies in regards to terrorism issues.
3. Establish well defined steps each country is to take with measurable goals. If any country does not have the resources, get it to them even if it means sending some of our forces.
4. Ensure each country does their part to help identify and bring terrorists within their borders to justice. A bullet to the head works for me.
5. Put every leader that fails to comply with these world efforts on notice: any attacks on us or the world coalition by terrorists within their borders will be considered to be state sponsored terrorism and an act of war. We reserve to retaliate in kind. If the country is as active as possible and we are attacked, then we would have been attacked no matter what we did. Give that country additional resources to eradicate the problem area.
When the world starts policing their own back yard, the world gets safer. When people around the world figure out they will die if they choose to ignore terrorist activities around them, the world will be safer.
I just don't see how it can be done any other way unless we give up all our freedoms.
1. What are your conditions for victory in the war on terror?
A successful "War on Terror" is and will remain the same type of pipe dream that the "War on Drugs" turned out to be if we see it as a war in which we eradicate all the terrorists. Terrorism has existed for quite some time, the term seems to appear in the latter part of the 18th Century. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist -- you can see examples of this in this century with the fight over Israel and Palestine. My personal definition of a terrorist includes the terrorizing of innocent civilians in order to achieve political goals. I would argue that a freedom fighter restricts his targets to the governmental and military. Almost without exception, this would categorize as a terrorist group, in my mind, virtually every group that considered itself freedom fighters that has existed since the term "terrorist" came into being. So. Where do we go from there?
As long as there is a group willing to fight for a cause there is the potential for terrorism. So, to me, a victory would mean that terrorism was drastically reduced and contained.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
To achieve this victory we need to thoroughly understand the demands of the terrorists. What do they really want? What point are they trying to make?
We need to keep from proving the terrorists' point while engaging them. This will keep others from joining the cause. The other option is to make sure that people understand that the terrorist agenda is not a good cause. If you can keep from giving them a cause or discredit the cause, half the job is done.
We need to keep from negotiating with terrorists. Terrorists are willing to intentionally harm innocent civilians and should not be catered to (justified cause or not).
We need to commit to the idea that an enemy attacking government and military targets only can be recognized as not being a terrorist for purposes of negotiation or in terms of the treatment of prisoners. This is a different kind of world we live in when it comes to war. Most of the fights are against insurgent and fundamentalist groups -- not States -- and this needs to be addressed. The Geneva convention was created to deal with wars between States and it needs to be modified to deal with civil war and freedom fighters.
We need to recognize that a country knowingly protecting a terrorist group is a sponsor of terrorism, and if that terrorist group attacks us, that country has attacked us.
We, as a country, need to recognize that it is not our responsiblity to spread (read: force) liberty and freedom around the world, because you cannot do it by invasion. People need to be empowered to take liberty and freedom for themselves.
We need to recognize that these countries, for the most part, are sitting where we were when this country first began. It is an 18th Century revolutionary viewpoint. Most of these countries formed as such relatively recently -- and, in most cases, it was handled significantly less than ideally by the rest of the world. Of course, there will be birth pains. The problem is that we now live in a global community, so the revolution is no longer contained. I am not trying to romanticize terrorism, far from it. I am just stating that perhaps we should look at the revolutionary mindset that existed in the 18th Century in Europe and the New World for clues as to how to handle this new, more globally dangerous set of revolutions.
A successful "War on Terror" is and will remain the same type of pipe dream that the "War on Drugs" turned out to be if we see it as a war in which we eradicate all the terrorists. Terrorism has existed for quite some time, the term seems to appear in the latter part of the 18th Century. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist -- you can see examples of this in this century with the fight over Israel and Palestine. My personal definition of a terrorist includes the terrorizing of innocent civilians in order to achieve political goals. I would argue that a freedom fighter restricts his targets to the governmental and military. Almost without exception, this would categorize as a terrorist group, in my mind, virtually every group that considered itself freedom fighters that has existed since the term "terrorist" came into being. So. Where do we go from there?
As long as there is a group willing to fight for a cause there is the potential for terrorism. So, to me, a victory would mean that terrorism was drastically reduced and contained.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
To achieve this victory we need to thoroughly understand the demands of the terrorists. What do they really want? What point are they trying to make?
We need to keep from proving the terrorists' point while engaging them. This will keep others from joining the cause. The other option is to make sure that people understand that the terrorist agenda is not a good cause. If you can keep from giving them a cause or discredit the cause, half the job is done.
We need to keep from negotiating with terrorists. Terrorists are willing to intentionally harm innocent civilians and should not be catered to (justified cause or not).
We need to commit to the idea that an enemy attacking government and military targets only can be recognized as not being a terrorist for purposes of negotiation or in terms of the treatment of prisoners. This is a different kind of world we live in when it comes to war. Most of the fights are against insurgent and fundamentalist groups -- not States -- and this needs to be addressed. The Geneva convention was created to deal with wars between States and it needs to be modified to deal with civil war and freedom fighters.
We need to recognize that a country knowingly protecting a terrorist group is a sponsor of terrorism, and if that terrorist group attacks us, that country has attacked us.
We, as a country, need to recognize that it is not our responsiblity to spread (read: force) liberty and freedom around the world, because you cannot do it by invasion. People need to be empowered to take liberty and freedom for themselves.
We need to recognize that these countries, for the most part, are sitting where we were when this country first began. It is an 18th Century revolutionary viewpoint. Most of these countries formed as such relatively recently -- and, in most cases, it was handled significantly less than ideally by the rest of the world. Of course, there will be birth pains. The problem is that we now live in a global community, so the revolution is no longer contained. I am not trying to romanticize terrorism, far from it. I am just stating that perhaps we should look at the revolutionary mindset that existed in the 18th Century in Europe and the New World for clues as to how to handle this new, more globally dangerous set of revolutions.
1. What are your conditions for victory in the war on terror?
Elimination, or at least marginalization, of the movement(s) creating the groups sponsoring the terror. Currently, this would be primarily the militant Islamic movement. Winning the WoT would mean marginalizing that movement.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
This should be addressed from three facets. First, protecting ourselves as much as possible from their attacks. Enhancing homeland security and gathering the necessary intelligence to counter attacks before they happen would be the primary ingredients here.
Second, addressing the support these groups currently get. This would mean primarily controlling their flow of funds and making it so that no state openly (or, ideally, even covertly) supports them.
Third, addressing the underlying causes of this movement. I think this is primarily economic and social....most areas where this movement thrives are economically depressed and in an environment where these groups feel disenfranchised by the system. So, they need jobs and the ability to have a voice in their government. How does that saying go...empty stomachs fuel rebellions? Provide them with economic and political means of succeeding, and the base of terror will go away. There is another area which must be addressed, which is the indoctrination these people receive from their mullahs. While addressing the economic and social concerns would diminish the effect these people have, it would still be strong enough to call for separate action for the WoT to ultimately succeed.
Elimination, or at least marginalization, of the movement(s) creating the groups sponsoring the terror. Currently, this would be primarily the militant Islamic movement. Winning the WoT would mean marginalizing that movement.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
This should be addressed from three facets. First, protecting ourselves as much as possible from their attacks. Enhancing homeland security and gathering the necessary intelligence to counter attacks before they happen would be the primary ingredients here.
Second, addressing the support these groups currently get. This would mean primarily controlling their flow of funds and making it so that no state openly (or, ideally, even covertly) supports them.
Third, addressing the underlying causes of this movement. I think this is primarily economic and social....most areas where this movement thrives are economically depressed and in an environment where these groups feel disenfranchised by the system. So, they need jobs and the ability to have a voice in their government. How does that saying go...empty stomachs fuel rebellions? Provide them with economic and political means of succeeding, and the base of terror will go away. There is another area which must be addressed, which is the indoctrination these people receive from their mullahs. While addressing the economic and social concerns would diminish the effect these people have, it would still be strong enough to call for separate action for the WoT to ultimately succeed.
1. What are your conditions for victory in the war on terror?
There can be no "war", there is no "terror" as a single entity, there can therefore be no conditions under which it can be won. Terrorism is too fluid; it lacks infrastructure, and it is ubiquitous all over the globe. Fighting it, as a concept that does not exist, as we are currently trying to do, will end up increasing terrorism, simply because our current tactics causes far too much suffering for innocent people, and too much international dislocation to be productive.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
See answer to 1.
There can be no "war", there is no "terror" as a single entity, there can therefore be no conditions under which it can be won. Terrorism is too fluid; it lacks infrastructure, and it is ubiquitous all over the globe. Fighting it, as a concept that does not exist, as we are currently trying to do, will end up increasing terrorism, simply because our current tactics causes far too much suffering for innocent people, and too much international dislocation to be productive.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
See answer to 1.
1. What are your conditions for victory in the war on terror?
My conditions for victory in the war on terror would be the dissipation of the seemingly rising anti-American movement that draws people willing to sacrifice their lives to kill innocent people in order to strike out at the United States.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
I think the way to win the war on terror is multi-faceted. It needs to involve action by the United States military when necessary to punish autonomous states that support terrorists or fail to allow them to be brought to justice if they are located inside their borders.
It also needs to include diplomacy and a serious attempt to understand the
culture(s) that produce(s) this type of animosity against us.
It involves more police work including a revision of international law to adjust for the ability to capture members of non-national groups trying to hide in the margins of the world. It involves a new approach in intelligence in which the little fish are captured as their involvement in terrorism becomes known. It involves a high level of cooperation with other nations to make sure that intelligence is best used to capture terrorists.
We need the help of governments throughout the world to get this done. These governments are located in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. It would help if all countries we hope to be involved feel secure about our intentions. Using terms like Islamo-fascists will not help. It will help create a cycle of violence like the one Israel is caught in now.
What we need to recognize is that some people (to paraphrase John Stewart, I think) would rather be under the rule of Saddam Hussein than see their sister walking down the street in a bikini.
Terrorism will always be around. We can help all nations out that deal with terrorism by altering international law to make capturing or extraditing terrorists easier and taking the blinders off of the remaining dark spots in the international finance black market, whether it be the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, or Panama.
For our part, we could score an incredible amount of good will in the Middle East by finding a way to help create a two-state solution in Israel.
My conditions for victory in the war on terror would be the dissipation of the seemingly rising anti-American movement that draws people willing to sacrifice their lives to kill innocent people in order to strike out at the United States.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
I think the way to win the war on terror is multi-faceted. It needs to involve action by the United States military when necessary to punish autonomous states that support terrorists or fail to allow them to be brought to justice if they are located inside their borders.
It also needs to include diplomacy and a serious attempt to understand the
culture(s) that produce(s) this type of animosity against us.
It involves more police work including a revision of international law to adjust for the ability to capture members of non-national groups trying to hide in the margins of the world. It involves a new approach in intelligence in which the little fish are captured as their involvement in terrorism becomes known. It involves a high level of cooperation with other nations to make sure that intelligence is best used to capture terrorists.
We need the help of governments throughout the world to get this done. These governments are located in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. It would help if all countries we hope to be involved feel secure about our intentions. Using terms like Islamo-fascists will not help. It will help create a cycle of violence like the one Israel is caught in now.
What we need to recognize is that some people (to paraphrase John Stewart, I think) would rather be under the rule of Saddam Hussein than see their sister walking down the street in a bikini.
Terrorism will always be around. We can help all nations out that deal with terrorism by altering international law to make capturing or extraditing terrorists easier and taking the blinders off of the remaining dark spots in the international finance black market, whether it be the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, or Panama.
For our part, we could score an incredible amount of good will in the Middle East by finding a way to help create a two-state solution in Israel.
Hi, I'm a student from Belgium, and I would like to give my opinion about things.
The war on terrorism cannot be won by the Americans PERIOD.
The war on terrorism is a matter of world wide collaboration.
Getting revenge on Bin Laden is an American issue. But the war on terrorism is a global issue. Kerry wants to make it a global issue, and that's why he has my support on that. (I'm not an american, so posted this is about all the support i can give)
When Bush says that the terrorist hate the American Freedom. He is RIGHT!
Terrorist HATE the fact that Americans have the freedom to do whatever they want without the possibility to bring them to justice or force them to face an international court.
It is impossible to bring Americans to justice when international crimes are commited, so when there are no legal ways, don't be suprised when people become very angry and do things in illegal ways, or when they are very very very angry take airplanes and fly them into buildings. What else do you expect?
I don't approve anything these terrorists have done in the past and in the present, but if the US wants to play an important international role, you should be able to be brought to justice if you do things wrong.
The only way to stop terrorist is to give up your freedom to do anything in the world without having to bare the consequences, do things the international way, support and respect international courts.
You can't expect to be able to do anything you want while trying to dictate to rest of the world with what they can't and must do.
You want to be the absolute leader in the world while not allowing others to critisise you. Is that what Bush means with terrorist that hate the american freedom? well, if that is the case ... I also hate the american freedom.
American Freedom doesn't mean you should be able to do what you want without being able to bring americans to justice. You cannot expect the world respecting the USA if you demand to be untouchable whatsoever.
Until the USA doesn't recoginize the internation court of law in Den Haag I will not be able to accept American world leadership.
I don't know what Kerry's point of view is on this issue, but I do know that what Bush did is what creates hatred towards the USA.
Please Americans! at least go out and vote tomorow. Your vote doesn't only affect Americans, your vote affects everyone in the world!
Homeland security and peace can only be achieved by earning respect in the world by letting the USA to be brought to justice for the mistakes that it made in the past.
In my mind, that's the only way!
Vote for the person that you think will gain respect in the world. Because this is the only defencemechanism that will work on the long run in my mind.
Please remember although I mention Kerry in my post, what I've said doesn't reflect Kerry's policy nescesarily ... i'm just giving my view on the subject, that's all.
If you want to know what the candidates opinions are about the subject, check their websites. Please be objective at all times.
The war on terrorism cannot be won by the Americans PERIOD.
The war on terrorism is a matter of world wide collaboration.
Getting revenge on Bin Laden is an American issue. But the war on terrorism is a global issue. Kerry wants to make it a global issue, and that's why he has my support on that. (I'm not an american, so posted this is about all the support i can give)
When Bush says that the terrorist hate the American Freedom. He is RIGHT!
Terrorist HATE the fact that Americans have the freedom to do whatever they want without the possibility to bring them to justice or force them to face an international court.
It is impossible to bring Americans to justice when international crimes are commited, so when there are no legal ways, don't be suprised when people become very angry and do things in illegal ways, or when they are very very very angry take airplanes and fly them into buildings. What else do you expect?
I don't approve anything these terrorists have done in the past and in the present, but if the US wants to play an important international role, you should be able to be brought to justice if you do things wrong.
The only way to stop terrorist is to give up your freedom to do anything in the world without having to bare the consequences, do things the international way, support and respect international courts.
You can't expect to be able to do anything you want while trying to dictate to rest of the world with what they can't and must do.
You want to be the absolute leader in the world while not allowing others to critisise you. Is that what Bush means with terrorist that hate the american freedom? well, if that is the case ... I also hate the american freedom.
American Freedom doesn't mean you should be able to do what you want without being able to bring americans to justice. You cannot expect the world respecting the USA if you demand to be untouchable whatsoever.
Until the USA doesn't recoginize the internation court of law in Den Haag I will not be able to accept American world leadership.
I don't know what Kerry's point of view is on this issue, but I do know that what Bush did is what creates hatred towards the USA.
Please Americans! at least go out and vote tomorow. Your vote doesn't only affect Americans, your vote affects everyone in the world!
Homeland security and peace can only be achieved by earning respect in the world by letting the USA to be brought to justice for the mistakes that it made in the past.
In my mind, that's the only way!
Vote for the person that you think will gain respect in the world. Because this is the only defencemechanism that will work on the long run in my mind.
Please remember although I mention Kerry in my post, what I've said doesn't reflect Kerry's policy nescesarily ... i'm just giving my view on the subject, that's all.
If you want to know what the candidates opinions are about the subject, check their websites. Please be objective at all times.
1. What are your conditions for victory in the war on terror?
My conditions for victory are: No matter what country, corporation, or individual carries out attacks against civilians, it is considered terror. And the punishment is so severe and swift that no one will dare carry these attacks out anymore. Not in the name of God, profit, national security, democracy, or in any other name.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
Define it so that, when the CIA trains death squads, that's terror. When cluster bombs are dropped on civilian areas, that's terror. When Exxon-Mobil's security forces murder villagers in Indonesia, that's terror. Then America needs to lead the world in punishing terror, ceasing to practice terror, and promoting an end to terror.
While that means destroying the Bin Laden's of the world, it also means destroying monsters who are American or who work with Americans (as Saddam did for so long).
That way, the world will see that we don't have a double standard, and more nations and people will work with us.
It won't be easy. I know it won't be in my lifetime, but it could be done.
My conditions for victory are: No matter what country, corporation, or individual carries out attacks against civilians, it is considered terror. And the punishment is so severe and swift that no one will dare carry these attacks out anymore. Not in the name of God, profit, national security, democracy, or in any other name.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
Define it so that, when the CIA trains death squads, that's terror. When cluster bombs are dropped on civilian areas, that's terror. When Exxon-Mobil's security forces murder villagers in Indonesia, that's terror. Then America needs to lead the world in punishing terror, ceasing to practice terror, and promoting an end to terror.
While that means destroying the Bin Laden's of the world, it also means destroying monsters who are American or who work with Americans (as Saddam did for so long).
That way, the world will see that we don't have a double standard, and more nations and people will work with us.
It won't be easy. I know it won't be in my lifetime, but it could be done.
Al Qaeda as a network does not exist. There have been no legally sound convictions of any terrorists in the US or the UK that are members of this non-existant network.
Are you aware, for instance, that every "suspect" captured in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance and handed over was worth thousands of dollars in reward money. All the Northern Alliance did was claim these individuals were Al Qaeda and they got the cash. In reality they had no evidence of this whatsoever.
The approach now is to imagine what a "suspect" is wanting to do and then detaining them without trial - as Ashcroft as explained to congress. This is a relentless circle which leaves us with no possible end as it would logically take us to the attitude that the second we are no longer at high alert status we will be "vulnerable" to attack. How can it end?
For more on this, see this BBC documentary - the third and final part should be available in about 48 hours: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
This is the homesite of this program: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3970901.stm
It features first hand interviews with Perle, Kristol and Kagan together with high-ranking ex-CIA staff and other expert commentators.
Schooly
Are you aware, for instance, that every "suspect" captured in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance and handed over was worth thousands of dollars in reward money. All the Northern Alliance did was claim these individuals were Al Qaeda and they got the cash. In reality they had no evidence of this whatsoever.
The approach now is to imagine what a "suspect" is wanting to do and then detaining them without trial - as Ashcroft as explained to congress. This is a relentless circle which leaves us with no possible end as it would logically take us to the attitude that the second we are no longer at high alert status we will be "vulnerable" to attack. How can it end?
For more on this, see this BBC documentary - the third and final part should be available in about 48 hours: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
This is the homesite of this program: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3970901.stm
It features first hand interviews with Perle, Kristol and Kagan together with high-ranking ex-CIA staff and other expert commentators.
Schooly
QUOTE
Al Qaeda as a network does not exist. There have been no legally sound convictions of any terrorists in the US or the UK that are members of this non-existant network.
Wow, I almost spit my drink out when I read that one. Dont tell that to the spec. op's in Afghanistan who have been killing them since 2001. Do you really believe that?
Go here for more information about Al-Qaida.
http://www.specialoperations.com/Terrorism...s/al_qaeda2.htm
What are your conditions for victory in the war on terror?
You cannot cut off the head so you have to cut off the legs.
The fall of Islamo-Facism's support throughout the world while using military force when absolutely necessary. Once the countries that support the cause have been reformed or overthrown only then will the ideal of Islamo-Facism have it's leg's cut off.
Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
The best way to explain it is outlined in my post here
The Bush doctrine is a modern day mirror of the Truman doctrine against Communism.
The Truman Doctrine, authored by George F. Kennan, was:
QUOTE
a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies . . . by the adroit and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points.
The Truman Doctrine was officially announced by Truman in 1947 with the pronouncement:
QUOTE
"it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure."
The "Cold War" was far from entirely cold, and 100,000 American soldiers died fighting it. It lasted until the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact fell apart in 1989.
Elioit A. Cohen, a leading military strategist, says that we are in nothing less than World War IV, and this war involves:
QUOTE
...a mixture of violent and nonviolent efforts; that it will require mobilization of skill, expertise, and resources, if not of vast numbers of soldiers; that it may go on for a long time; and that it has ideological roots.
According to Norman Podhoretz:
QUOTE
If the Truman Doctrine unfolded gradually, revealing its entire meaning only in stages, the Bush Doctrine was pretty fully enunciated in a single speech, delivered to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
It was then clarified and elaborated in three subsequent statements: Bush’s first State of the Union address on January 29, 2002; his speech to the graduating class of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on June 1, 2002; and the remarks on the Middle East he delivered three weeks later, on June 24. This difference aside, his contemporaries were at least as startled as Truman’s had been, both by the substance of the new doctrine and by the transformation it bespoke in its author.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm
Norman Podhoretz lays out the Bush doctrine by providing a set of speeches made by Bush :
QUOTE
of the "global terrorist network" that had attacked us on our own soil, he [Bush] said:
"We have seen their kind before. They’re the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies."
"Great harm has been done to us...We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment."
"The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us. Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."
"I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them."
"For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy."
"Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march."
"This conflict will take many turns, with setbacks on the course to victory. Through it all, our confidence comes from one unshakable belief: We believe in Ronald Reagan’s words that 'the future belongs to the free.'"
1. What are your conditions for victory in the war on terror?
The marginilization of groups like Al Qaeda and the calming of youth in the Islamic world is the first step. The only way to defeat an enemy is to know him very well. We hardly have any clue what drives the rabid hate that would defeat someones own instinct for survival and allow him to blow himself to smithereens. Worldwide secular governments would help.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
The critical point is to find a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine. Before we can do anything else meaningful we have to make these two find a soltuion. The Jewish settlers must leave Gaza...sorry but it a necessary compromise. The common Palestinian must start to desire peace and end terrorism.
Get more American Muslim and Muslim clerics speaking loudly about the need for peace. No one will listen to the militants as long as they use terror. The road to peace is through negotiation not terror.
Create a UN committee composed of governments desiring secular existences and let them be an example on true religous freedoms.
The marginilization of groups like Al Qaeda and the calming of youth in the Islamic world is the first step. The only way to defeat an enemy is to know him very well. We hardly have any clue what drives the rabid hate that would defeat someones own instinct for survival and allow him to blow himself to smithereens. Worldwide secular governments would help.
2. Given those conditions, what is the right way to win the war on terror? Please explain your answer.
The critical point is to find a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine. Before we can do anything else meaningful we have to make these two find a soltuion. The Jewish settlers must leave Gaza...sorry but it a necessary compromise. The common Palestinian must start to desire peace and end terrorism.
Get more American Muslim and Muslim clerics speaking loudly about the need for peace. No one will listen to the militants as long as they use terror. The road to peace is through negotiation not terror.
Create a UN committee composed of governments desiring secular existences and let them be an example on true religous freedoms.
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Nov 4 2004, 04:05 AM)
QUOTE
Al Qaeda as a network does not exist. There have been no legally sound convictions of any terrorists in the US or the UK that are members of this non-existant network.
Wow, I almost spit my drink out when I read that one. Dont tell that to the spec. op's in Afghanistan who have been killing them since 2001. Do you really believe that?
Go here for more information about Al-Qaida.
http://www.specialoperations.com/Terrorism...s/al_qaeda2.htm
You'll probably find they've been killing some of the small number of individuals who are left from "al Qaeda" or, more likely, the Taliban. The Taliban are not al Qaeda. Foreign fighters coming to resist the invasion are also not necessarily al Qaeda, just "concerned Muslims" wanting to help their "brethren" out. Put it this way, as much as your politicians may gain from you thinking otherwise, those two facts about a person (i.e. being either a foreign fighter or Taliban) do not automatically make them al Qaeda and should not be assumed as such without some other evidence.
Is it not somewhat strange that not one terrorist has been found guilty of actively planning any post-9/11 attacks in either the UK or US? If the danger was so prevalent wouldn't we have seen scores of convictions?
Is it not just possible that merely the ideas behind Islamic terrorism, rather than a tangible network is all that connects any given attack?
Still, you clearly responded without watching the program I linked to. It's really worth a watch.
The logic, which you didn't respond to, that if you now arrest someone who you think may commit a terrorist act without testing the evidence (and how can a person disprove a claim they were going to do something?) then you open the door to a self -perpetuating war on terror. If you stop arresting people before they "do things" by sunsetting Acts like the Patriot then you will feel you will be attacked because your "defenses are down". So you never bring them down ever. Hence my question, how can the war on terror ever end?
QUOTE(Schoolboy @ Nov 4 2004, 09:43 PM)
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Nov 4 2004, 04:05 AM)
QUOTE
Al Qaeda as a network does not exist. There have been no legally sound convictions of any terrorists in the US or the UK that are members of this non-existant network.
Wow, I almost spit my drink out when I read that one. Dont tell that to the spec. op's in Afghanistan who have been killing them since 2001. Do you really believe that?
Go here for more information about Al-Qaida.
http://www.specialoperations.com/Terrorism...s/al_qaeda2.htm
You'll probably find they've been killing some of the small number of individuals who are left from "al Qaeda" or, more likely, the Taliban. The Taliban are not al Qaeda. Foreign fighters coming to resist the invasion are also not necessarily al Qaeda, just "concerned Muslims" wanting to help their "brethren" out. Put it this way, as much as your politicians may gain from you thinking otherwise, those two facts about a person (i.e. being either a foreign fighter or Taliban) do not automatically make them al Qaeda and should not be assumed as such without some other evidence.
Is it not somewhat strange that not one terrorist has been found guilty of actively planning any post-9/11 attacks in either the UK or US? If the danger was so prevalent wouldn't we have seen scores of convictions?
Is it not just possible that merely the ideas behind Islamic terrorism, rather than a tangible network is all that connects any given attack?
Still, you clearly responded without watching the program I linked to. It's really worth a watch.
The logic, which you didn't respond to, that if you now arrest someone who you think may commit a terrorist act without testing the evidence (and how can a person disprove a claim they were going to do something?) then you open the door to a self -perpetuating war on terror. If you stop arresting people before they "do things" by sunsetting Acts like the Patriot then you will feel you will be attacked because your "defenses are down". So you never bring them down ever. Hence my question, how can the war on terror ever end?
If you read my entire post, you will have your responce on how to "win" the war on terror.
Of course we never convicted Al Capone of being a mob leader, he must not have been one.
I agree that not all of those branded with the name are actually in the group. Though I disagree that the group does not "exist".
QUOTE
Still, you clearly responded without watching the program I linked to. It's really worth a watch
Was it directed by Michael "Anti-American" Moore?
Welcome Right-is-Right. Since you're new you likely didn't realize that one-liners are against the Rules because they are not considered constructive. Please remember to bring substance to the debates.
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Nov 5 2004, 12:20 PM)
If you read my entire post, you will have your responce on how to "win" the war on terror.
Of course we never convicted Al Capone of being a mob leader, he must not have been one.
I agree that not all of those branded with the name are actually in the group. Though I disagree that the group does not "exist".
I didn't say they didn't exist as a group, I said they don't exist as any tangible network. They are not a global network.Of course we never convicted Al Capone of being a mob leader, he must not have been one.
I agree that not all of those branded with the name are actually in the group. Though I disagree that the group does not "exist".
Is it not strange that no one, not one soul, has been charged with any post 9/11 terror activity (specifically planning attacks) in the US or UK? You seem not to want to address this bizaare fact. Capone was operating when he couldn't be convicteed very easily. Now, with the Patriot act and the like it should be virtually a snap to convict real terrorists. Or have I missed something?
Terrorists exist, sure enough, but it is in their interests to make themselves look potent and Bush happily going along with this request by constantly giving them a "war" and talking about the grave threat they represent is exactly what they want. When in reality, they are disparate, angry bunches of young men with far less capacity that we give them credit for.
Also, your analysis of the genesis and, therefore, the "legs" of Islamic terrorism as embodied by al Qaeda is deeply flawed. This was not a governmental genesis and governments in practice do little to fund it. The real money is Bin Laden's own, donations by Muslims around the world and other things such as charities.
Secondly, the ideology they work on is a total hatred for all Muslim governments that involve themselves in democracy or non-Sunni fundamentalist rule. So how bringing democracy to the middle east would help, I have no idea. The kernel of the movement began in Egypt, when it found democracy. They assassinated Sadat : http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2515841.stm in 1981. They saw the "corrupting" influence of Western values and democracy on Muslims. Bin Laden's mentor and best friend was the mastermind. This was a totally insane but radical group of Muslims who believed that only they were true muslims. Other similar groups fell apart by killing each other (like in Algeria) when they each thought the other were not acting like true muslims. It was chaotic. But they were popular amongst ordinary muslims for a while until they chose to murder civilians indiscriminately (they were not true muslims and could, therefore, be killed in their eyes) and the masses protested.
So this tiny clique of deranged but highly intelligent Muslims are holding your people to ransom with virtually KGB style rights violations with the help of the American government and their own carefully crafted videos. As Bin Laden himself said:
"[It is] easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies...we, alongside the Mujahideen, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat...So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."
You look at the deficit, the spirally cost of Bush's wars and you see a seed of truth in this. In the same speech, however, Bin laden lied about coming up the idea of 9/11 himself when he didn't. But then, who involved in all this hasn't lied at some point? Bush claimed credit for the Dept of Homeland Security even though he had opposed it.
Schooly
P.S. the programme has nothing whatever to do with Micheal Moore or anyone similar.
Ok, I had just written an extremely long and I thought quite convincing post and it disappeared somewhere on the internet, so I'm going to take another stab at it.
Lets look at what containment REALLY meant shall we:
NSC-68 identified the vaporific expansion of the Soviet Union in the late 40's, and outlined a position that entailed very little military pressure, with military intervention as a last resort.
How is this anything like the "War on Terror"? So far two distinct military operations have been undertaken, with no attempt to curtail the political and social implications of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.
While aphorisms like "you need to cut it off at the legs are nice", the second they become ANALYSIS you're in trouble. The fact is that Islamic movements across the world are deeply established social and political expressions of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people. Some of these turn violent, some of them don't. Rather than attempt to answer why, we're content to just try and sandblast them out of the collective consciousness of Muslims everywhere.
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Nov 3 2004, 10:05 PM)
The Bush doctrine is a modern day mirror of the Truman doctrine against Communism.
The Truman Doctrine, authored by George F. Kennan, was:
QUOTE
a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies . . . by the adroit and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points.
The Truman Doctrine, authored by George F. Kennan, was:
QUOTE
a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies . . . by the adroit and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points.
Lets look at what containment REALLY meant shall we:
QUOTE(Me)
The psychology of the Soviet Union is an interesting subject. What people have to understand is that the communist philosophy dictated that the Communists were right; and it was only a matter of time before the Communist revolution would sweep across the globe. There was no philosophical pressure to expand forcefully into capitalist strongholds; only the desire to foster communism wherever it reared itself. George Kennan, the man who drafted the policy of containment, likened Soviet Communism to a cloud of gas; it would expand into whatever space opened up for it, but it couldn't and wouldn't apply hard force to boundaries erected in its place.
NSC-68 identified the vaporific expansion of the Soviet Union in the late 40's, and outlined a position that entailed very little military pressure, with military intervention as a last resort.
How is this anything like the "War on Terror"? So far two distinct military operations have been undertaken, with no attempt to curtail the political and social implications of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.
While aphorisms like "you need to cut it off at the legs are nice", the second they become ANALYSIS you're in trouble. The fact is that Islamic movements across the world are deeply established social and political expressions of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people. Some of these turn violent, some of them don't. Rather than attempt to answer why, we're content to just try and sandblast them out of the collective consciousness of Muslims everywhere.
We have no intention s of winning the war on terror few have the courage to name the enemy http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/17130 but it is to late .
The ummah will absorb the active military wing back into the fold and "radical islam" real islam will fade into memory “good islam” will insist on increased immigration because muslin countries want muslins to immigrate .Islam does one thing all muslims particaipate IT SPREADS
example of how it works on the street levelWhen they have the numbers America will fall.
The ummah will absorb the active military wing back into the fold and "radical islam" real islam will fade into memory “good islam” will insist on increased immigration because muslin countries want muslins to immigrate .Islam does one thing all muslims particaipate IT SPREADS
example of how it works on the street levelWhen they have the numbers America will fall.
QUOTE
NSC-68 identified the vaporific expansion of the Soviet Union in the late 40's, and outlined a position that entailed very little military pressure, with military intervention as a last resort.
How is this anything like the "War on Terror"? So far two distinct military operations have been undertaken, with no attempt to curtail the political and social implications of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.
While aphorisms like "you need to cut it off at the legs are nice", the second they become ANALYSIS you're in trouble. The fact is that Islamic movements across the world are deeply established social and political expressions of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people. Some of these turn violent, some of them don't. Rather than attempt to answer why, we're content to just try and sandblast them out of the collective consciousness of Muslims everywhere.
How is this anything like the "War on Terror"? So far two distinct military operations have been undertaken, with no attempt to curtail the political and social implications of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.
While aphorisms like "you need to cut it off at the legs are nice", the second they become ANALYSIS you're in trouble. The fact is that Islamic movements across the world are deeply established social and political expressions of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people. Some of these turn violent, some of them don't. Rather than attempt to answer why, we're content to just try and sandblast them out of the collective consciousness of Muslims everywhere.
Very true however I dont see how this is unlike the War on Terror. The "cold" war was far from cold. Over 100,000 US troops died to stop the expansion of communist influence (a far cry from the casualties today). They where not directed at the main sponser of communism but only to "withdraw" the influence and contain the expansion by placing troops in geographically important area's. NATO was the driving force behind this. Iraq border's many important countries of the war. Place troops in geograhpically important area's to "contain" the threat's expansion while influencing the driving force behind our most powerful weapon which is Democracy. The terrorist's entering the country are a reaction to this. This allows us to place them within a border to hunt them down instead of them being out of our reach.
We tried the alternative with Saddam in the beggining and it came to stab us in the back.
While Afghanistan is important because it was the base of operations for UBL's main sponser it is also a country that is not a major power in the region and it's influence doesnt necessarily go beyond it's borders. In short it will not allow the pressure required in the region which is what we need to avoid military intervention in the outlaying countries that border it.
I recommend a movie called "The Voice's of Iraq". It details what exactly is happening in Iraq now and how it affect's the entire region.
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?moviei...018153&trkid=73
My first proposition is that we correctly label this...this...this "war" the War on Terrorism, no the War on Terror.
Many good points and I can't say I know exactly how to control the situation.
My comments would be that
1) You don't invade countries to stop terrorism.
2) You treat the fight as a more clandestine opertion. You take out the leaders of said orgnizations. You find the funding and cut that off.
3) Hmmm...what is a terrorist? This is open for interpretation.
Shoot, got to go help make breakfast....
Many good points and I can't say I know exactly how to control the situation.
My comments would be that
1) You don't invade countries to stop terrorism.
2) You treat the fight as a more clandestine opertion. You take out the leaders of said orgnizations. You find the funding and cut that off.
3) Hmmm...what is a terrorist? This is open for interpretation.
Shoot, got to go help make breakfast....
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.