"War on Terror" is a failed strategy ... Rand Corp.

[BeBMan]

Now they only need to get rid of other cases of misuse of "war", like in "war on the middle-class" "war on x-mas" etc.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
But seriously, what this is getting at isn't so much dropping the label as changing tactics. Threat them as a criminal problem rather than a military one.

I don't have a problem with such a tactic, but if the criminals have military strength, you don't send bobbies.

[PLATO]

It should not be treated as either exclusively a police or exclusively a military problem. It should have the proper application of both as needed and the situation warrants.

[Felch]

Was Afghanistan really preemptive? I think the article's writer got their recent history a little twisted up.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Felch
Was Afghanistan really preemptive? I think the article's writer got their recent history a little twisted up.

You're right. The invasion of Afghanistan was not pre-emptive because there was never any perceived threat that they were about to attack us. Rather, their Teleban overlords were sheltering their al Qaeda allies, who had attacked us. So, it was more of a punitive thing.

[Felch]

Yeah, punitive is more like it. I'm not saying we were facing an existential threat, but it's like punching a cop. He's going to beat your ass.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
The word "war" has certain connotations. One imagines WWII or the American Civil War -- a conflict with a (relatively) discrete beginning and end and with a (relatively) discrete foe.

Using "War on Terror" created (and continues to create) the impression that those things exist -- an end to hositilities and a foe to defeat. Neither of those things exist.

A word like "criminal" brings to mind police and courts and justice. And, more importantly, a tedious neverending process, which is what any attempt to curb global terrorism will be.

QFT

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I don't have a problem with such a tactic, but if the criminals have military strength, you don't send bobbies.

Indeed.

Generalissimo Reno never had a problem treating a loony bunch of Christian recluse Texan fundamentalists or a Cuban refugee like a military problem.

[Berzerker]

Afghanistan, imho, was a clear example of when to use the military

Why? Just chased AQ back into Pakistan where it became a policing matter while we got stuck holding the bag. Much smarter to wait and try to keep AQ sitting there out in the open while we infiltrate the country.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Why? Just chased AQ back into Pakistan where it became a policing matter while we got stuck holding the bag. Much smarter to wait and try to keep AQ sitting there out in the open while we infiltrate the country.

Infiltration of AQ has never been really sucessful. The reason to use the military in Afghanistan is that you had overt government support of a terrorist organization that had just attacked US territory and caused 3000 deaths. This one seems pretty clear here.

The fact that they just ran to Pakistan doesn't change the fact that you simply cannot have a government around that is aiding in terrorist attacks. If the Pakistani government were overtly aiding them as well and we did nothing there, then you may have a point. Obviously, that is not the case.

[Zkribbler]

I read the summary of the full report last night: LINK

It did say that, when terrorist activities rise to the level of being an insurgency, military action is needed. But, it cautions, it's better to use U.S. troops in a training role and leave the fighting to local troops, who know the area, people and local customs better than our troops would.

[Dinner]

An article from Islam Online?

[BeBMan]

Rant Corp., is this where Wiglaf works?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I agree that they will always see themselves a holy warriors.

The critical thing is how those around them see them. If even we are calling them jihadists, those around them are more likely to see them as Defenders of the Faith. If we, the Pakistanis, Afghans and others are searching for murderers, the locals will be less likely to give them aid and shelter.

I'm guessing this is the major reason, 40% of terrorist movements are destroyed using police tactics while only 7% are destroyed by military action.

Give us some background on those statistics. Are those police measures being used in environments where both the terrorists and their target reside in the same nation?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Whoha


Give us some background on those statistics. Are those police measures being used in environments where both the terrorists and their target reside in the same nation?

Right. The Summary of the Report is based upon all the insurgencies in the last...er...40 years if I remember right. Local police action against terrorists who had not risen to the level of being insurgents was the most effective way of ending the terrorists problem. Military action tended to be conterproductived because its heavy handed and serves are a basis for recruiting more terrorists.

Once terrorism turns into an insurgency, police usually do not have either the manpower nor the firepower to combat it, and so then troops are necessary. However (as I stated in an earlier post), local troops tend to be more effective than foreign troops.