How should America go about winning the war on terror ? Your suggestions

[Ned]

Drachasor, what is this "credibility" issue with the US broadcast network?

[Natalinasmpf]

OK, Natal. Osama bin Laden did not form his organization and attack the US repeatedly over the '90s because of our actions in Iraq beginning in 2003.

He attacked the US in the 90's when it was revealed that the US wanted to "intervene" more for the Arab and Muslim countries than just fighting the Soviet Union....that was the past, because the US was attempting to suppress the Arab Nationalists which can be drawn in analogy to Hitler's hatred of Jews.

The thing is, the Iraq war and the combat in Afghanistan has been severely beneficial for him (ironically): such great incitement. Its like the Treaty of Versailles for Hitler. Now, further incitements, like the depression of 1929 onwards for Hitler, may eventually cause the already declining, raging sentiment to explode. (Well we already have seen the beginning of this).

Osama didn't have as much popularity in the past, and he was the source of a lot of this trouble. That doesn't change the fact, that TODAY, a lot of the current situation is in REACTION to the

The US may not be the major reason for the ORIGINAL source of the hate (although you have to blame it slightly for taking perhaps in insenstive/undemocratic approach in attempting to persuade Muslim governments to suppress Arab nationalist extremists) - but that doesn't mean the US isn't a source of major fuel for this raging fire of hate right now.

Yeah, but there will also be people on the other side saying that the preachers of hate are medieval.

But hate speech will still be there! Hate speech will coincide with a young democracy in a country that is war-torn. Rebuttals will be there of course, and the rational arguments will be there to dissuade the people, but hate speech will still be present. Thus, you cannot fulfil the conditions of "no hate speech and democracy" (which hate speech might eventually stop persisting to a negligible level in an older democracy)....BUT you can fulfill the conditions of "rational masses mostly unaffected by hate - and the conditions of democracy" both at the same time...

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ned


Well, the religion is undergoing a fundamentalist revival that is the antithesis of the Renaissance.

This is one thing I happen to agree with - the revival of fundementalism is taking palce on a large scale , with popular support , to the Islamic religion .

A good article examining some of the causes is given here .





I am thanking the laws of sociey/god for tha fact that the Muslims in my country are not fundamentalist , and are not really too affected by this revival . The network of fundamentalist clerics has not yet managed to spread it's plague here , and most probably never will , because of the upward social mobility offered by the structure of our democracy .

Hell , the president of the nation ( the Hon'ble Dr. Abdul Kalam ) is a Muslim . This secularism and lack of discrimination is what lets the Muslims adopt to modernisation and not be ghettoised . They are slowly coming out of thier self-imposed ghetto . India is an example of how Islam and democracy ( but not strict/puritan/fundamentalist islam ) can peacefully co-exist .







I'd recommend everyone to read that article . Even if it is written with an explicit ideological veiwpoint in mind , it is still insightful and objective .

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
Drachasor, what is this "credibility" issue with the US broadcast network?

It starts with the network being called "Al Hurra" which means "The Free One," a name so blatantly full of propaganda it is hard to get over. It tends to be blatantly biased towards America, and it doesn't maintain a very good neutral stance. Hence it gets a very, very poor reception in the Mid-East:

http://www.masnet.org/articleinterest.asp?id=1030

http://www.rnw.nl/realradio/features/html/us040609.html

http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=284471&lang=e&dir=news

It is very, very easy to find more info about this too.

-Drachasor

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Clinton threatened all sorts of calamities on Saddam if he didn't cooperate. Saddam just laughed. He had the measure of the man.

Kerry is no different from Clinton.

Remind me again, Ned, what does Saddam have to do with terrorism?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ned


Well, the religion is undergoing a fundamentalist revival that is the antithesis of the Renaissance.

Why? Renaissance was not at all secular movement.

The Enlightement perhaps

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Remind me again, Ned, what does Saddam have to do with terrorism?

He funded it.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He funded it.

Any specific example?

[Heresson]

Linked to terrorism or not, Saddam was evil enough to overthrow him.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Any specific example?

Saddam supported the widows and children of the Palestinian suicide bomber variety of terrorists after the bombers ceased to be.

[Dinner]

My hard nosed plan to harm terrorist sponsors and set up functioning states in Iraq & Afghanistan:

1) Massively increase military and economic aid to Iraq and Afghanistan so they can field large, modern, well equiped, and well trained militaries.

2) Have those governments ruthlessly use their militaries to attach and destroy all parties which support or advocate violence against the government. Tactics like those used Americans during the Philipinnes Insurection and the French used during the Battle of Algiers should be extensively employed by local forces.

3) Repeal 1st world farm subsidies in exchange for free trade agreements with third world countries. This will greatly increase trade and wealth in all countries which take part. The increase in wealth will improve the standard of living in poor countries thus showing people the current system can deliever the better life style they desire.

4) Force third world countries to streamline their government red tape which stiffles economic growth and leaves people in poverty.

5) Work with and assist borderline dictatorships like Pakistan in order to gain their support in suppressing Islamic Fundimentalist. Sure they're not the nicest guys but if we must shake hands with the devil if we are to win.

6) Arrange for Arafat to be deposed and assist the rise of a new Palestinian leadership who will actually be interested in signing a comprehensive peace treaty with Israel. Give that government the financial support it needs to improve the living conditions of Palestinians as long as it ruthlessly attacks terrorist groups. Force Israel to respect the Palestinian territories as long as the PA is going after terrorists in good faith.

7) Invest in oil production in non Arab and non muslim countries. Do everything possible to increase oil production in western countries.

8) Force automakers to make more fuel efficient cars even if it costs more. Invest heavily in mass transite and raise the tax on fuel to encourage people to buy less foreign oil.

9) Go nuclear and replace foreign oil for power generation where ever possible.

10) Force Saudi Aradia and other "friendly" Arab states to stop subsidizing wahabism and other hate filled fundimentalist versions of Islam. Make market access contingent upon them doing so.

11) Slowly, slowly, slowly push for greater freedom in Arab states but have them outlaw Islamic Fundimentalism. This was done successfully in Turkey but it took generations to accomplish; we can't expect anything better from the Arab states. Allowing direct elections for nonfundimentalist MPs is a good start.

12) HAve the world bank give more interest free development loans for infastruction development in third world counties since this will spur trade and improve economic activity.

13) Any country which doesn't follow the plan, like Iran, needs to immediately be made an example out of. The first step would be world wide sanctions including oil exports but if that fails then military threats (backed up by real action if necissary) must be used. People need to know that if they work with us then their lives will get better but if they work against us then their lives will get much worse very quickly.

[Zkribbler]

To win the War on Terror, we must:

(1) Redefine the war. It should have always been the War on al Qaeda -- they were the people who attacked us.

A War on Terror has as much chance of being won as did the War on Poverty, the War on Crime, and the War on Druges. These are evils which we must perpetually struggle against, but because these are perpetual struggles, you don't declare "war." We need to refocus our "war" efforts to something winnable...and al Qaeda, we can whip.

(2) Set a tentative date for withdrawl from Iraq -- say, June 30, 2005.

When major combat was over, there were aproximately 1,500 terrorists in Iraq. Today, there are 20,000 -- despite the fact that we've killed thousands. Our very presents in that country is a recruiting tool for the terrorists. By setting a "fixed" date, most of the steam will be taken out of the enemy's recruiting drive. -- I mean, why would you sign up to risk your life to drive the Americans out, if we've already said we're going.

BTW: The reason that I've used the phrases "tentative date" and "'fixed' date" is to give wiggle room if it looks as if the date will have to be extended -- upon the request of the Iraqi goverment.

(3) Impliment the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Actually, I'm a little premature in recommending this. I'm reading their report now but have yet to get to their recommendations. But based upon their excellent report so far, and based upon the fact that the recommedations were both biparty and unanimous, I'm guessing that they're very well thought out.

(4) Kick George W. Bush so far out of office that he doesn't bounce until he gets to Crawford, Texas.

He lacks the intellect, the understanding, and the imagination necessary to win this war. He will only take us off on more counter-productive diversions like Iraq.

[St Leo]

How should America go about winning the war on terror ?

1. Declare victory.

2. Go home.

QED.

[Dinner]

BTW my suggestions are all from a "real politic" point of view and are predicated upon the following assumptions:

1) That immediately emplacing true democracies in Arab countries will simply result in the election of Fundimentalist governments. Thus instead a partial democracy, a la China, where people are allowed to choose between a limited list of pre-approved candidates is preferable. Over time as the populus becomes less religiously fundimentalist more and more democracy could be implimented.

2) Greater freedom of speech is desirable as long as it doesn't defend or prop up fundimentalism. Economic advancement is far more important at the intial stages. Like Korea, Taiwan, Greece, Turkey, and others political freedom would come later.

3) Like in China people will support dictitorial governments as long as that government continually improves the living standards of the people.

4) Crushing fundimentalism should be the first priority thus the national governments must build their authority by militarially crushing militants with in their borders.

5) Freeing up trade and ending subsidies will generate more trade and more trade creates more wealth.

6) Moving away from Arab oil makes economic and political sense for the nonArab world.

I'd love to instantly create true democracies in the Arab world but I don't see how that can be accomplished while crushing fundimentalism thus the policies I suggested above.

[Zkribbler]

Lots of interesting suggestions, Oerdin, but uh . . .

Originally posted by Oerdin
Tactics like those used Americans during the Philipinnes Insurection and the French used during the Battle of Algiers should be extensively employed by local forces.

. . . both of these countries eventually won their independence.

BTW: Both Lancer and Dolores are looking forward to a visit by you.