Terrorist Strategy: Bottom Line

[Superman]

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).

[Icemaster]

OK, I'll bite.

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

[techweenie]

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.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Icemaster

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

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[RoninLB]

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.

[Superman]

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)

[techweenie]

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.*

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

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.

[Superman]

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.

[Superman]

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)

[azasadny]

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?

[CamB]

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.

Originally posted by CamB

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?

[BillyIdaho]

...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.

[Don 944 LA]

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 .

[RoninLB]

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.

[Moses]

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

[CamB]

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.

You want what I really think? Saturate the country in foreign troops. Make the place secure, rebuild the infrastructure and get out.

Cam, we have common ground!