Is our current strategy against terrorism working?

[Whaleboy]

In history, has there EVER been an example of force, of military action, ever succeeding in stopping terrorism?

I havent found any such case. All I have found is military action serving to incite terrorism, and started either on the whims of revenge from the population who are the victims of terrorism, or for political reasons to be seen as doing *something*.

In the light of the increasing power of organisations like Project for New American century, a group made up of neo-con Reaganites, who have been waiting for "another Pearl Habour", to serve as an excuse to expand the military, economic and political influence of the USA around the globe, in a sort of post-colonialist empire.

I believe that in order to stop terrorism, we must attack the root cause, the thing that is agitating the people to the extent that they feel trapped, limited, oppressed, and out of that rises extreme groups, who can achieve popularity, who evolve into menaces like Al Qaeda. In that case, we should change the expansionist, PNAC-esque foreign policies of the worlds major powers, we should reverse the effects of neo-colonialism, and we should help to repair those nations like Zimbabwe, damaged by colonialism, without proper rebuilding into independent nations, that allow dictators like Mugabe to remain in power. That way, by making the potential terrorists prosperous, happy, with a feeling of autonomy etc etc, one removes the friendly audience for terrorists, who in turn will die out after a while.

Has there ever been an example of force working against terrorism?

[Cruddy]

Re: Is our current strategy against terrorism working?

Originally posted by elijah
In history, has there EVER been an example of force, of military action, ever succeeding in stopping terrorism?

...

I havent found any such case. Has there ever been an example of force working against terrorism?

Only real example I have is Malaya late 40s-early 60s? Military force on it's own wouldn't have worked, but together with cease fire/peace talks/taking the revolutionaries into the political system, it worked.

I don't think military solutions on their own work... more a case of minimising the attacks while the political route is worked out.

I don't really see intervention in Afghanistan having a permanent effect until aid/redevelopment programs are OK'd by the Afghan leadership, that is the warlords. Having a mayor of Kabul (Karzai) is all very well, but if he sticks his head too far out of Kabul he's liable to get it blown off right now.

[Dinner]

The Philippine insurrection is an example of where a western Army successfully put down a guerrilla force which used terrorist style bombings and sabotage. The French also one the original battle of Algiers where the rebels were, for all intents and purposes, nothing but a bunch of terrorists.

Of course in both of those wars the winners, both American and French, didn't exactly follow the modern idea of respecting human rights. Nope, they won for the soul reason that they were willing to be absolutely ruthless. The tortured, imprisoned, round up, relocated, or other wise detained anyone whom they even suspected of knowing the slightest bit of information. They also used the old Mongol tactic of mass punishment where if an attack or attacker came from a village then the whole village was burned and the people imprisioned unless they ratted out the culprits.

Nice little clean wars they were not, but, they are examples of how terrorist using forces were defeated in the past.

[Imran Siddiqui]

we should reverse the effects of neo-colonialism, and we should help to repair those nations like Zimbabwe, damaged by colonialism, without proper rebuilding into independent nations, that allow dictators like Mugabe to remain in power.

Here is the problem. Trying to do anything in Zimbabwe will be seen as colonialism, even if it is for good. Apparently the people don't seem to dislike Mugabe, even if he is a prat.

The main problem is that in trying to do good in the world, you come off being seen as a colonial power. I say, who cares. Let them see us as 'colonial', there are important things to do out there.

[Worthingtons]

Using Military action, while expensive on resources gives the Military something to do.

With your proposals we would simply bankrupt ourselves.

[Jac de Molay]

The only problem in the WoT are that the groups being sought are too amorphous to be stopped by conventional militaries. You can put a dent here and there, but theyll keep popping up like a bad STD.

[Whaleboy]

Trying to do anything in Zimbabwe will be seen as colonialism, even if it is for good

Of course, but I meant we should have when we (the British) pulled out.

[Whaleboy]

The Philippine insurrection is an example of where a western Army successfully put down a guerrilla force which used terrorist style bombings and sabotage

But that was a military force, not sociological-caused terrorism like current Islamic fundamentalism etc.

[Whaleboy]

Military force on it's own wouldn't have worked, but together with cease fire/peace talks/taking the revolutionaries into the political system, it worked

So carrot and stick? The problem there is that the stick was offered before the carrot, thus people died in the interim, still, that approach worked.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course, but I meant we should have when we (the British) pulled out.

Even then... I mean, when the British pulled out the people of Rhodesia (before the name change) didn't want anything to do with the British trying to improve the infrastructure. They heard they were going home, so they wanted them out.

Rebuilding is seen as colonialism.

[Defiant]

One could argue that the American Indians became terrorists when they started raping, killing and pilaging settlers up and down the western frontier and over hundreds of years the military beat them into ultimate submission as they pose absolutely no threat now. A difference with the American Indian times to now, is we colonized right behind the military victories.

[Whaleboy]

But before we pulled out, we should have given them the instruments and institutions of state, instead of forcing them to manage on their own. Can we really be suprised the post-colony nations have lame economies and dictators?

[Dinner]

Look up the battle of Algiers. The French broke the primary terrorist network by torturing every terrorist they captured until he gave up the man above him. They kept that up until they got to the big man himself then they shot him.

[Whaleboy]

over hundreds of years the military beat them into ultimate submission as they pose absolutely no threat now

Is that acceptable, then and now, is it plausible?

[Sandman]

Sending a conventional army to fight terrorists is a bit like expecting the coastguard to put out fires. Terrorism is better controlled with police-type institutions, because it's more like organised crime than an enemy army, whatever pretentious name the group has.