Proof we are winning the war on terror

[Chemical Ollie]

Terrorism is a police and intelligence matter in normal cases, and a special forces matter in extreme cases. Tanks and aircraft should not be involved.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Terrorism is a police and intelligence matter in normal cases, and a special forces matter in extreme cases. Tanks and aircraft should not be involved.

[lord of the mark]

we shouldnt use aircraft in Afghanistan? Why not?

[lord of the mark]

Police cant operate where there isnt already some degree of order, or where large numbers of fighting men resist. Where the state in power refuses to cooperate, or is ineffective. And there is nothing magical about special forces - they can help, but only to a limited degree.

Look at the many fronts of the WOT. In afghanistan conventional forces are required. In the mountain country of NW Pakistan conventional forces are required. In parts of the Sahel local conventional forces are acting with the support of US special forces. Theres no one method thats effective everywhere.

[Sandman]

You're conflating terrorists with guerillas.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
You're conflating terrorists with guerillas.

Cause, you know, groups that use terrorism never use other tactics.

Sometimes they actually fund, plan, and organize terrorism from bases that they defend with guerilla tactics.

[MosesPresley]

Washington Bureau

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11407689.htm

The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

[Pekka]

That's true though.. terrorists who are centralized in some key locations would use guerilla tactics to defend it, this would be especially true if war was raging, in peace time they would rather maybe have mobility and not have any permanent bases that could be easily attacked or at least located and used for intelligence gathering..but like now, in Iraq and stuff, you might want to have few permanent bases with training etc, it woudl be doable, adn defend it and not just move it away first.

[lord of the mark]

however theres also been significant achievments. In afghanistan, the new regime has made significant political process, and has now had a successful parliamentary election.

Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, and terror attacks on Israel are lower than theyve been in years, and prospects for peace greater.

Significant political change has been achieved in Lebanon, Syria has withdrawn, and as of today the Lebanese army is moving to disarm terrorist groups.


The GPSC seems weaker in Algeria, and has failed in its attempt to expand into the Sahel.

On the other hand Indonesia continues to have difficulty dealing with JI. Saudi is making uncertain progress against AQ within Saudi. Pakistan is the key uncertainty, where many arrests have been made, and the govt seems to have expanded its control in the frontier territories, but where significant amounts of violence still take place, and there are very complex political issues. In thailand the terrorist threat seems to be growing.

Its a large and complex war. I wouldnt wager too much on one letter, or on one statistic.

[Admiral]

I can't help but feel that we are missing the broader point. The idea that a military problem has to have a military solution, or a nonmilitary problem a nonmilitary solution, is silly. Terrorism springing from Muslim foundationalism is a clear and present threat to the West. But does this mean that we need to handle it militarily? It may. At the risk of making an obvious point, terrorism should be handled in the way that would best solve the problem. From everything we know now, we were right to use military force in Afghanistan. But that does not mean that military force is always the solution, or should be the only aspect of the solution. In Isreal, military force has been singularly ineffective.

We will never win "the war on terror." Terrorism has existed as a tactic for at least the past 2000 years. Do we honestly think that by invading two Middle Eastern countries we can turn the tide? But does that mean we should not do everything in our power to limit terrorism? Of course not. Crime is a problem that we will never solve, but we still have police on the streets. While I think LoTM is being overly optimistic, especially in regards to Afghanistan, the war on terror is not a complete failure. There are signs that the Middle East is becoming somewhat more stable and open. We can leave Iraq tomorrow, as certain members of both sides of the aisle are now advocating, but that would be immoral of us. Iraq is our mess, we turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorism and sectarian violence. We have a moral obligation to fix it, and if we can't, to nevertheless try our best.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Cause, you know, groups that use terrorism never use other tactics.

Sometimes they actually fund, plan, and organize terrorism from bases that they defend with guerilla tactics.

Terrorism has no fundamental need for bases. Attack guerillas who are on the same side using military means if you want, but don't be surprised to see terrorism continue regardless of whether their 'training camps' have been levelled.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Admiral
I can't help but feel that we are missing the broader point. The idea that a military problem has to have a military solution, or a nonmilitary problem a nonmilitary solution, is silly. Terrorism springing from Muslim foundationalism is a clear and present threat to the West. But does this mean that we need to handle it militarily? It may. At the risk of making an obvious point, terrorism should be handled in the way that would best solve the problem. From everything we know now, we were right to use military force in Afghanistan. But that does not mean that military force is always the solution, or should be the only aspect of the solution. In Isreal, military force has been singularly ineffective.

.

Terrorism has declined in Israel from 2002. It seems apparent to me that this is due to a combined strategy, that incorporated diplomacy and politics, more or less conventional military ops, internal security mechanisms (like the fence) and special operations, in ways that mutually reinforced one another.

Our failures in the WOT, have been due to weakness in using such measures in mutually reinforcing ways.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Terrorism has declined in Israel from 2002. It seems apparent to me that this is due to a combined strategy, that incorporated diplomacy and politics, more or less conventional military ops, internal security mechanisms (like the fence) and special operations, in ways that mutually reinforced one another.

My understanding is that while Isreal has been using military responses since the beginning of the Intifada. Isreal changed strategies in 2003, and started pursuing a more comprehensive plan including diplomacy and politics, and this directly related to the decline in terrorism.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Proof we are winning the war on terror

Originally posted by The diplomat

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/07/pentagon.al.qaeda/index.html

We've intercepted a letter from America's #2 where he admits that America is low on money, has lost popular support for key leaders, and faces defeat in Iraq. He also writes that the tactics of invading sovereign countries without good cause are alienating the Muslim masses, Americans, and pretty near everybody else.

Corrected.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



So i guess youd dislike a war on aggression too. Or a war on genocide. Since those are all tactics and methods as well.

Yes, I would. Both those are moronic statements as much as a war on terrorism is.

For everyone's sakes wars should be left simple and defined. NO "war vs Genocide" Instead, war vs. X regime attempting genocide. Nice, simple, gets the job done, and everyone knows when its over an can judge its efficacy.