Terrorist Strategy: Bottom Line
 

Simple question. Or maybe I'm missing something. Please, I'm not going to be satisfied with double-talk and word-twisting that does not answer the question. Actually two questions. The second will be a chance to tell me what question I should have asked. Here goes:

What do we intend to accomplish using weapons in the fight against terrorism (War with Iraq)? As I see it, there are are just two potential answers to this question (aside from the double-speak that could simply confuse the issue).

1) Kill all the terrorists.

2) Scare the terrorists into not attacking us again.

Please chose one. If there is a third broad category of potential outcomes, please fill me in.

I think each potential desired outcome has its problems/weaknesses, but instead of getting ahead of myself, I'll just ask the question first, and we can get into the details later. I would ask Dubya, but he's not speaking to me lately (perhaps it was something I said).

OK, I'll bite.

What's the alternative? Should we use the comfy chair instead?

Well, the first problem is that "terrorism" is a behavior.

Many supporters of 'good' causes as well as 'evil' have used terrorism. So I find the very notion of a war against a behavior (terrorism, littering, illiteracy) as silly.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

terrorists have existed since day one.. the game now is a holding action till Iraq can deal with it themselves. Indonesia just elected a new ruller in a Muslim democratic election. He'll close down those "breeding ground" religous schools and force the "against terrorism in theory" Muslim leaders to really denounce terrorism. Those girlie-men leaders are co-conspiritators imo.

fwiw.. there are about 3-4 murders every day in NYC.

1) Kill all the terrorists

2) Scare them into not attacking us any more.

3) ?????

(BTW, this is the kind of thinking/discussion that would occur if someone made a plan)

Superman, you can redily see the problem if you change the word 'terrorist' into 'rapist' or 'burglar' or 'litterbug.'

No one is born a terrorist. It's a tactic that some employ. There are even terrorists in democracies (McVeigh, Kaczynski). The Zionists bombed a hotel when they were trying to get Israel established. Are Israelis therefore "terrorists?"

Criminals should be stopped, prosecuted; executed as ncecessary. Since no one is a terrorist until they commit a terrorist act, the only way to accomplish #1 is to kill everyone who might become a terrorist. And I'm not sure that isn't *everyone.*

3) Divide and destroy the terrorist infrastructure to render it harmless. Take away the funding and communications and you cripple the ability of the network to function.

There's the forest beyond the trees.

Nice to hear from you techweenie, as always, but gosh...I know that stuff. Remember me? I'm just trying to flush a discussion out of the bushes. Neither of those two outcomes is reasonable or workable. But the discussion will get interesting in a real hurry if I can actually get the Bush fan club to participate with something other than name-calling, etc.

For example, Ron brings a very very interesting point. His notion is that, slowly, over time, we can support and build administrations (like Indonesia's) that actively pursue an anti-terrorism value in their countries. This is a great idea, for example:

He'll close down those "breeding ground" religous schools and force the "against terrorism in theory" Muslim leaders to really denounce terrorism.

Of course, if the neocons were tempted to admit the logic and practicality of this strategy, they'd have to overcome two immediate problems. One is that the strategy outlined above is called "diplomacy" and "foregin policy." That's the kind of thing that Kerry has in mind and they know it and they have been pretending that it's tantamount to french kissing BinLaden. The other problem is that there was virtually no terrorism activity in Iraq until we stepped in under Dubya. So, by ousting Saddam, we have destabilized that entire country, and fertilized its ground for future terrorism activity. And as if that were not enough, we are also giving Muslims more excuse to demonize my country and target it for hatred. Hmmmmmm.

But first things first. I want to see neocon answers to my two question. If we don't take this one step at a time, they'll wiggle and evade with rhetoric.

Mark, I think infrastructure can be replaced. Fairly easily. Heck, we probably did Osama a favor in a way. Now, he's mobile and the better he gets at it, the harder he'll be to catch. Terrorists will have all the tools they need for their active hatred. That's what I think.. Respectfully. See you guys tomorrow.

Super,
I think you have to look at how the British handled and pretty much broke the back of the IRA. It took years and cost many lives, but agree or disagree with Britain's position, they accomplished their goal. The IRA of today is a virtually nonexistant. The US war on terrorism will take years and cost many lives, but with constant pressure, the threat can be significantly reduced. As I wrote in the previous post, it's the forest the we must focus on.

(note: I do not advocate the British or the IRA's position, I'm only using this as an example)

Wasn't the motto of 1st Air Cavalry something like "Kill em all, let God sort them out"? Isn't that what we're talking about here?

The only way to stop terrorism (IMHO) is to either make it unacceptable (which you'd think it would be, but it apparently isn't because it receives support), or take away or change the motive.

Personally, I'd focus my effort on number 2. This doesn't mean give the terrorists what they want, it means stopping them from wanting it bad enough to be terrorists for it.

Can you explain what you think they want and how you propose to stop them from wanting it?

As long as ideologies on both sides...
 

...remain the same, nothing will change.
Israel will always be the US's pet, and a certain portion of Muslims will have a desire to kill Infidels, especially those associated with the Zionists.

The question is simply who will yield first their position first.
Any other question/discussion is hyperbole.

The USA has chosen it's path - eliminate all those who oppose them. It's an uphill battle - every day the USA is on Muslim soil, the desire to kill infidels spreads and the resistence grows more clever, if not stronger.
Perhaps the USA can crest this hill on the path they have chosen, but I doubt it.
Compare dealing with religious extremists to putting a sock in a dogs mouth, and then tugging on it - the harder you pull, the harder the dog pulls.
Soon, you either pull the dogs teeth out (if it's a really mean dog), or you rip the sock in half. The sock is usually what yields first.

I don't see the Muslim Extremist's losing their teeth anytime soon.

not to sound like a fool, but just wanted to point something out.

Your #2 answer :
2) Scare the terrorists into not attacking us again

" Scare " is EXACTLY what the terrorist do...
Do one thing that scares people into thinking you will do another...
This in turn SHOULD put worldwide focus on the supposed attrocities that their people are suffering. Thereby making the initial act worthwile ...
The whole end justifies the means..... Sacrafice of the few to save the many ... etc etc etc yada yada yada

Terror - ist

again, this is just my opinion .

although I find it difficult to relate to 1,000 or 3,000yrs ago.. I can easily relate to the American Indian terrorist and the mass Army,s failure to stop them. It was the new "local" that changed the landscape. Large Army power is inconsistant with killing terrorists. In Afag small groups seek and destroy and leave without getting much of a notice.. this is poitically and diplomatically correct imo. Newscasters of large Army situations are another story.

These current terrorists have to be killed. The brain based aptitude for copy-catting leads to empathy with the leaders. They are brain programed to infer what their leaders are feeling and thinking. Stop the brain washing as in my last post is basic to a final outcome.

So the bottom line imo is to accept that we are at war. The structure of war is timeless. The victors understand this. Any politically settlement is a sign of weakness and will be exploited.

Iraq must be a political and economic success or it's only a matter of time till we get nuked.

fwiw.. terrorist leaders want Kerry to win 'cause they know that eventually he'll have to cater to his anti-war base. The time slack will enable them to regroup and refund their operations.

We really can't stop a screwball from blowing himself and a busload of people into pieces, but we must stop a castrophy from happening.

ps in last sentence.... but we must stop Another castrophy from happening.

You forgot the solution the Muslims favor. We should all repent and convert to Islam.

Answering Mark...

I guess to some extent I'd drawing a distinction between:

- genuine terrorists (extremists) --> the original problem and probably only solveable (made manageable?) by ensuring that all society doesn't condone or tolerate that sort of thinking. Really, I don't know how to do this - look at McVeagh, it can still happen with no real motive other than baseless hate; and

- Iraqi insurgents, who want the Coalition troops to go away. This latter category apparently contains a lot of young men with no money, intermittent electricity and water, no job and not much hope. Remember that a lot of these guys aren't "radicals" --> they just want sovereignty and don't believe they will ever get it while their country is under foreign control. I guess these guys fall into the category of grounded hate - it might be faulty logic to you and I, but they're not necessarily bad people.

At the end of the day, WTF do I know. You want what I really think? Saturate the country in foreign troops. Make the place secure, rebuild the infrastructure and get out.

its the only alternative to not having invaded in the first place IMO.

Cam, we have common ground!

well..I was readin the news paper and the leader guy of the zarqwi or however it is spelled is not a negotiator..hes one of those extreme islam dudes who is so extreme, if his followers are caught reading anything else except the Koran they get beaten.

He doesnt negotiate, or can be forced to negotiate. The only way to change things is to fight him and kill him. Let him die..once someone realizes that his leader isnt so powerful....they just might back down..

yet its hard to resist those 72 virgins up in heaven:rolleyes: life must be dam hard over there if you want the easy way out to commit suicide to have imaginary sex in spirit...

Okay, so it sounds like no one here really believes we will be able to exterminate the bad guys. It also seems as though folks here believe we will not scare the terrorists into not attacking.

I'm not sure we're really damaging them much at all. If terrorists swarmed into Iraq once the invasion began, as we heard, then they did this just to have some fun. If I were a terrorist leader, I'd let the Americans battle the insurgents (who are not terrorists, but rather are nationalists who feel like they are defending their homeland) and stay out of it. Americans killing Muslims is only going to make marketing easier for the real terrorists who, I would suspect, are safe somewhere outside Iraq.

So, if all this is the case, if the bad guys are doing what strikes me ast the smart thing, then how do we stop terrorism?

as per a previous post.. small team search and destroy. It's happening now in Afag right now. No political problems, no news coverage, no acknowledgement.

Muslem leader unwitting conspirators and their schools is a political problem.

ok, i am in.
you cant scare a terrorist, so given those two choices, i pick #1. kill them. but maybe not only in the sense of ending lives. osama is apparently a rich guy, kill him financially, and i bet he makes alot less noise. turn him poor.

I can agree with that. The model for this was played out in front of a world audience and many were watching when it happened, though there were no stories. After the Munich Olympics murders (was it 1972?) the Israeli Mossad simply hunted those guys down, one by one, and shot them where they were found. Sleeping. Getting into their cars. Smoking cigarettes on the sidewalk. One minute everything's fine, the next minute there's brains all over the wall. Terrorists should understand that this is how it ends. Quietly. at four in the morning.

Also, supporting responsible Muslim governments seems like a good idea. In fact, they can probably effect the best kind of change more easily than any other kind of leader. And how 'bout those angry ME youths who have, and whose moms have, unreliable running water, electricity, no jobs, no hope.....? Would it make sense to improve his situation? Job, money and water for mom, etc.

And how about education? Think education could make a difference?

problem is, I have not heard these ideas from the current "administration." I'm sure they're a lot smarter than I am, so they know how the shooting of Iraqis helps us get closer to these goals. Plus, it makes Steve and others feel like we're "getting even."

Now here's a question for ya, Supe...

You say you "haven't heard these ideas from the current administration", and quite honestly, I don't believe I have either, specifically, but....is this because the current administration hasn't voiced these ideas, or is it because the media hasn't reported the administration having these ideas?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to turn this discussion in another direction, because I think we have stumbled acros some common ground that most of us seem to agree on. I'm just asking what I consider a valid question.

Randy

Yep, valid question. And yep, we're finding common ground. I'll answer your question this way: There are aspects of this Iraqui situation that could potentially make some sense. Once stabilized, like in twenty years or something, Iraq could prove to be a better world citizen than under Saddam. And it is good that we're prepared to help them with infrastructure.

but I'll also add this: The current administration has, and has had, every opportunity to outline its deeper strategy and if it had one, it would have. And I think the notion that our actions there were for the purpose of fighting terrorism is a HUGE stretch, since nearly (except for a couple of guys here) everyone accepts that there were no terrorist organizations operating in Iraq under Saddam (no dictator would tolerate that). So, frankly, I have a personal belief that this war was declared for other purposes, and I further believe that Dubya was kinda rolling the dice in terms of outcomes. I think he felt that he would deal with situations as they arise. In other words, make it up as he went along. I think he's guilty of poor planning, just like he's guilty of not managing his information sources responsibly.

But I'm not trying to change the subject either. And I agree that we're getting to some of the roots of our beliefs, and finding the common ground we knew was there all along. Or at least, some knew.

The solution is what they do SAW OFF THIER HEADS...............................

It's pretty scary when Supe starts saying stuff I can agree with. Supe, you're alright when you put aside the doubletalk and rhetoric.

I agree with the hunt/kill strategy. We need three things: Fear, Surprise, Ruthless Efficiency, and an almost fanatical...FOUR! There are FOUR things.

Hey I thought you were going to that thing this weekend. What are you still doing here.

Huh? I'm not going anywhere this weekend. Oh, and be careful about agreeing with me. There are those here who think I'm a cross between Satan and Mr. Magoo with my brains leaking out my ears. And if they think I generally favor much more socialism, they're right. So, be careful. My thinking's not supposed to make any sense whatsoever. Just trying to protect your reputation.

I've been saying this since day one & it still holds true. No need to kill them all. We just need to kill them untll the bull***** stops. If we take fire from a building be it a mosque, apartment house, office complex or whatever, it should cease to exist. After you blow up enough mosques or apartments buildings, the people who dont want their ***** blown up will start to be more scared of us than they are of the terrorists & will co-operate, or possibly die. Either way works. Words dont matter to these people but force does.

Right now a good freind of mine is in Faloujah delivering greetings from America via a Marine Corps 155 howitzer. We are killing them at about 100 peace lovers to 1 American soldier. Apparently that is not enough to get the point across. Maybe 500 to 1 will do it. But if it takes 10,000 to 1 then thats what we need to do. We need to make them look at this like the old line about banging your head against the wall. The best thing about it is how good it feels when you stop.

So... Mule, it sounds like you believe we can scare the terrorists into not attacking us any more? That appears to be a minority opinion.

Mule, I think you have the best strategy. The part about leveling any building that shots are fired from. The Japanese nutcase leaders would have fought till the end in WW2 and huge numbers on both sides would have perished had we not launched massive fire bombings followed by the nukes. We need to use our troops and weapons that are over there to launch no holds barred type strikes whenever and wherever conflicts arise. Screw diplomacy and political correctness, these terrorist types will never be peacefully changed into nice guys. Massive unforgiving blows must be dealt to these barbarians. When these guys see news reports showing the US losing the stomach to finish this job, they are only emboldened.

Many of these guys have moved in from other countries to do battle with our troops. It seems that we have collected quite a few active terrorist types in one location. We need kill as many as we can while they have gathered here so nicely for us.

OK I'm done venting now.

Ummmm, Tim......You start out agreeing with Mule, but then you make this statement:

"these terrorist types will never be peacefully changed into nice guys."

Which is it? Do you think we can scare the terrorists into not attacking us any more? Or do you think we can exterminate them all?

Sure it's fun to shake your fist and talk tough and toss beer cans at the TV. But at the end of the day, what is our strategy/goal? Scare them into submission, or kill them all, or what? The choices are just those, outlined in the first post.

Kill as many as we can while they are congregated together in one area.

Can we scare them? I do not know if the word scare is quite appropriate.

If we can get to a point where a terrorist knows for certain, that if he commits one of these barbaric acts, the United States will respond immediately with a substantial barage of killing and destruction on all that he holds dearly, maybe he will think twice.

If the results of the terrorists actions bring the mighty US and Isreal to their knees begging for mercy, the terrorists win. If the US's fierce, unadulterated responses to terrorist acts cause massive losses to the terrorists, they may choose a less painful path.

So, eliminate as many as possible while they have gathered so nicely for us, then show them how painful their future endeavers will be.

By the way, I when on occasion I drink beer, I like it in bottles.

I see terrorists and terrorism as the tip of the spear.

Sure you have McVeigh like nuts, who pretty much act on their own. But the groups we face like al Quida, and now in Iraq the old baathist party and random sheiks with random militas and etc are pretty much the point men for larger groups with larger agendas.

This type of organized terrorism will stop when it is no longer and effective tool for getting what they want. When we are uncompromising that no ends will be met with such means (and when they stop giving Nobel "peace" prizes to people like Arafat), then this problem will diminish.

Part of this is holding any and all supporters of such acts as directly responsible. If this means 5000lbs GPS guided smart-bombs and deporting those that support such groups well so be it..

right on gaijinda, especially the part about terrorism being a tool to get them what they want.

We may just be quibbling about semantics. Instead of "scare," let's substitute a term like "intimidate." Either way, the question is the same. Do you support our military efforts because you believe that if we clobber them good enough, they will stop?

See, I'll warn you that many folks do not believe that. Many of us believe that military actions like our current efforts in Iraq are the real reason for their hatred of us, and the more we do it, the more determined existing terrorists will become, and the more new recruits they will receive. I'd further assert that young ideological men without running water or electricity, or education or hope, are simply going to fly off the handle when someone invades their country. This is just as predictable as kicking a beehive. Do we need to debate what the bees' reaction will be?

If we CONSISTENTLY pummel them for their efforts, eventually they will learn that only bad things come from their efforts (kind of like training a dog). The problem is that for too long we have been too wishy washy in our dealing with these animals. This crap has been happening for many years, not just since we removed Saddam. We can sit at home shaking and waiting for the next act of terrorism, or we say enough of this crap and do something about it. Either way, we will probably get hit again, but if we do nothing I can almost guarantee they will continue.

I do not kick bee hives I spray them from a safe distance with wasp and hornet spray till they are dead.

A failed gov't needs a common enemy to keep the population focused. Libya, Iran, etc must support the terrorists to prevent an ecomomically successful democracy next door in Iraq.

gaijinda words "This type of organized terrorism will stop when it is no longer and effective tool for getting what they want." means, imo, eliminate the local dictatorship fuel who will have no influence "for getting what they want".