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

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
An article from Islam Online?

Yes. I heard about the story and Islam Online was the first site I found with a discussion of the report.

Later, I found the report itself (along with a summary) on the Rand Corporation website. The link toRand is in Post #26.

[DaShi]

The only way we can win the War on Terror is to win the War on the War on Terror.

[ramseya]

I think it's important to note the old tagline from mutual funds... "Past results do not guarantee future performance"

Just because only 7% of the terrorist groups sampled were defeated through military force does not mean that military force hasn't been or won't be effective against Al-Qaida.

What does the Rand Corporation propose we do right now going forward besides calling it "counter-terrorism" instead of "war on terror"?

I'm really doubtful that Iraqi or Afghan police (is there even an Afghan police force?) can handle the very well-armed and quite fanatical terrorists (of course Iraq wasn't brimming with terrorists until after Saddam's ouster but that's a different point). Throw in the fact that they are well-funded by certain nations, and the police will be straight out-gunned.

We're not talking just car bombers and molotov cocktail-throwers like terrorists in the past. These terrorists are pseudo-military in their weapons and funding.

[Theben]

[ramseya]

What does that mean?

[Theben]

It's part of your hazing.

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by PLATO


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.

Dont need to infiltrate AQ, just hire Afghans to let us know where they are. The Taliban was not as supportive of AQ as you may think, we were dealing with the Taliban to set up AQ a year before 9/11 but we were slow to launch any large attack on their base. If you cant prevent the rabbit from running, dont make em run until you can. Thats where we screwed up... We should have accepted the invitation of the Taliban to present our evidence against AQ and used that time to plan, bribe and get our troops in place.

The result of invading is a disaster, there's just no way around it.
We bled the Russians there and now we're the ones trying to keep the government in power, and just as then, Pakistan is safe harbor for the people we're fighting. Frankly, where AQ was on 9/11 is kinda irrelevant since any group of men can plan and pull off such an attack whether they're in some cave or an apartment in Germany, or the USA. A relatively small group of people attacked us on 9/11 and now we're nationbuilding in two hellholes while AQ sits in Pakistan.

George Bush fell into the same trap Carter set for the Russians...

[GePap]

Come on people, how stupid this term is should be self-evident... I mean, "war on terror"? Its like saying "war on horror" or "war on wonder" (both terms that were once interchangeable with terror). It is a meaningless platitude that because of it's very formlessness can be harnessed to include anything and everything, making it never ending and also completely unwinable.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by ramseya
What does that mean?

He's saying hello and that he is happy to see a new poster.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by ramseya
...I'm really doubtful that Iraqi or Afghan police (is there even an Afghan police force?) can handle the very well-armed and quite fanatical terrorists ...

You must have missed that whole Sunni-Awakening thingie, where the locals kicked the snot out of al Qaeda in Iraq.

You also missed an earlier post of mine, where I state:

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.

Leaving out for a moment those few areas where there is an insurgency (Afgahnistan/Pakistan, Iraq, Western Indonesia), police & intelligence actions will be more effective in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America.

[ramseya]

Okay. I was kind of under the impression that most counter-terrorism activities right now, under the Bush administration, are being done by police authorities, Homeland Security, and the CIA. The military is only in Iraq and Afghanistan, where there are insurgencies, as you said.