We are at War, How Bout Acting Like It?

[nmm]

July 22, 2005

And Then They Came After Us

We

[Highway6]

He does a nice job of putting forth his argument for the bigger picture.

The lack of attacks on China and India was an interesting aspect I'd never thought of before.

But what is your solution ?

Assuming America is the only target assures terrorism against Europe. Civilizations will either hang separately or triumph over barbarism together. It is that simple

[RedScare]

This is an overly simplistic view of radical Islam. By lumping all of the attacks together, it gives the impression that this is one worldwide Islamic army....and it is not. The British terrorists were locals. The lame Miami group was local. al Zarqawi apparently took little or no direction from al Qaida. By lumping them together as one, the US and others garners support for war, but does little to deal with the problem, and in some instances, gives these splintered groups more credit than they deserve.

The best approach to dealing with these criminals is to treat them as criminals, not soldiers. The undercover intelligence and police work of the US and Europe thwarts more acts of terrorism than mobilizing an army, and it is done more efficiently and with less collateral damage. It is not nearly as impressive from a political standpoint, but far more effective. Therein lies the problem. With numerous 24 news channels and an action-movie mentality, Americans demand action...and reward the government that gives it to them. Only the blind would say that there is less terrorism in the world today than before the invasion of Iraq, but it had widespread support when it began.

The good news is that Europe and the US already do cooperate closely in undercover police investigations. Quietly taking out instigators stops many plots before they can even be hatched. The lack of publicity robs radical jihadists of the fuel to recruit more followers. If we could only get the same cooperation from US media and citizens, more progress could be made. When the cable news goes to 24 hour coverage on a moment's notice, and the populace is terrified on cue, it only works to the opponents' advantage.

Terrorism only works when the populace is terrified.

[Highway6]

This is an overly simplistic view of radical Islam. By lumping all of the attacks together, it gives the impression that this is one worldwide Islamic army....and it is not. The British terrorists were locals. The lame Miami group was local. al Zarqawi apparently took little or no direction from al Qaida. By lumping them together as one, the US and others garners support for war, but does little to deal with the problem, and in some instances, gives these splintered groups more credit than they deserve.

If we could only get the same cooperation from US media and citizens, more progress could be made. When the cable news goes to 24 hour coverage on a moment's notice, and the populace is terrified on cue, it only works to the opponents' advantage.

Terrorism only works when the populace is terrified.

What would have to happen to have you terrified, red ?

Some random person getting beheaded halfway across the world. It makes me sad, it doesnt terrorize or terrify me. That doesnt make the action any less deplorable. It doesnt make the beliefs upon which this action took place any less perverted.

While I agree with take on cooperative investigative and police work..

You act as if nothing has happened in the past 5 years to justify being terrified... or is it not terrified enough to justify the actions we have taken ?

The entire populace are sheep, eh? Regardless.. but just because people jump when told to jump doesnt mean there aren't reasons to jump.

It doesn't matter if a beheading of an innocent is labeled terrorist or assasination, it doesnt matter the taking out of a subway in london is called an act of terror or massmurder.

Lumping the attacks together.. Hanson didnt state it was one worldwide Islamic army.. it doesnt matter if one is Al Qaeda and one is a local nameless cell and one is a dissalusioned american... it is all hostile action based on a shared belief system.

Also.. you complain that it garners support for war. War isn't just fighting with armies against solidiers.

We have "War on drugs". nothing to do with enemy soldiers. We have the "Fight Againt Aids".

War is also your " undercover intelligence and police work of the US and Europe thwarts more acts of terrorism".

Semantics or choice of word shouldn't matter. War can mean any problem or situation that merits taking action.

In this case, it is a struggle against a series of beliefs... and one that many believe we should garner support to fight against.

[RedScare]

What would have to happen to have you terrified, red ?

Some random person getting beheaded halfway across the world. It makes me sad, it doesnt terrorize or terrify me. That doesnt make the action any less deplorable. It doesnt make the beliefs upon which this action took place any less perverted.

While I agree with take on cooperative investigative and police work..

You act as if nothing has happened in the past 5 years to justify being terrified... or is it not terrified enough to justify the actions we have taken ?

The entire populace are sheep, eh? Regardless.. but just because people jump when told to jump doesnt mean there aren't reasons to jump.

It doesn't matter if a beheading of an innocent is labeled terrorist or assasination, it doesnt matter the taking out of a subway in london is called an act of terror or massmurder.

Lumping the attacks together.. Hanson didnt state it was one worldwide Islamic army.. it doesnt matter if one is Al Qaeda and one is a local nameless cell and one is a dissalusioned american... it is all hostile action based on a shared belief system.

It matters greatly in the response. Hanson stated his opinion in the title. Wars are only waged against other governments. al Qaida is nothing more than a street gang...and a very loosely organized one, at that. Enlisting the military to fight crime is bad policy, and worse tactics, especially when it is the response sought by the criminals. It only validates the tactics.

And this is not a shared belief system. Terrorism is a tried and true tactic, used by numerous small groups against the government. The IRA did not share the beliefs of al Qaeda. Neither did the Basque separatists. Frankly, neither does the PLO...or the Iraqi insurgents. But, they used terrorism to attempt to sway public and government opinion.

I recognize that the government response is to lump it together, but that doesn't make it correct. It merely makes it easier for the citizenry to approve the government's use of force...and hide the real reason's for the use of that force.

[Highway6]

It matters greatly in the response. Hanson stated his opinion in the title. Wars are only waged against other governments. al Qaida is nothing more than a street gang...and a very loosely organized one, at that. Enlisting the military to fight crime is bad policy, and worse tactics, especially when it is the response sought by the criminals. It only validates the tactics.

And this is not a shared belief system. Terrorism is a tried and true tactic, used by numerous small groups against the government. The IRA did not share the beliefs of al Qaeda. Neither did the Basque separatists. Frankly, neither does the PLO...or the Iraqi insurgents. But, they used terrorism to attempt to sway public and government opinion.

I recognize that the government response is to lump it together, but that doesn't make it correct. It merely makes it easier for the citizenry to approve the government's use of force...and hide the real reason's for the use of that force.

I edited my response.. some of which you missed.

War is not just action taken against a government.

The Cold war didn't include direct hostilities. It was economic, intellignece, arms race. It also lead to civil war in countries where sides polarized ialong similar lines to the US and Soviet Union. It expanded to be a war against the communist belief system and the spread of that belief system. Yes it manifested itself in other Wars such in Korea and Vietnam, but it was also a intelligence war back home and abroad to stop the spread of a belief system.

PLO, IRA, Al Qaeda.. you are right. These arent governments.

War can be a term used to refer to a campaign against something, without territory to capture or an authority to defeat.

I do agree in that there are many forms of terror and maybe it is too general a term.

Should we just relable the entire thing ?

Change it from "War on Terror" to "Islamofascist Conflict" ?

[RedScare]

I edited my response.. some of which you missed.

War is not just action taken against a government.

The Cold war didn't include direct hostilities. It was economic, intellignece, arms race. It also lead to civil war in countries where sides polarized ialong similar lines to the US and Soviet Union. It expanded to be a war against the communist belief system and the spread of that belief system. Yes it manifested itself in other Wars such in Korea and Vietnam, but it was also a intelligence war back home and abroad to stop the spread of a belief system.

PLO, IRA, Al Qaeda.. you are right. These arent governments.

War can be a term used to refer to a campaign against something, without territory to capture or an authority to defeat.

I do agree in that there are many forms of terror and maybe it is too general a term.

Should we just relable the entire thing ?

Change it from "War on Terror" to "Islamofascist Conflict" ?

Legally, war is undertaken against a government. Semantically, "war" is used for any number of things. When government speaks, the semantics can be huge. "War" was used in this instance for a semantic reason. I think that this should change. The criminals should know that they garner no more respect than arrest, trial and imprisonment, just as any garden variety thug gets. To say otherwise gives the aspiring terrorist more credibility than he deserves.

The government has used these terms to inflame or rally the public against these criminals. The downside is that the public is not the only group listening. To raise these groups to the level of opponents in a "war", encourages them that their tactics work. Conversely, quiet investigation and arrest, or even a stealth assassination of particularly organized ringleaders, gives no such publicity, and therefore, no recuiting rhetoric.

Admittedly, clandestine police work is not sexy, or politically expedient. But, a political leader truly interested in eradicating the problem would do what is best for his constituents, not what plays well on TV. It's time for us to do this right, as opposed to what sounds good on TV.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

PLO, IRA, Al Qaeda.. you are right. These arent governments.

Nope but have governmental support in some form. Its time to stop coddling the clowns and kill them! Simple as that. I have no interest in a legal song and dance. It serves no purpose other than allowing these murderous jackasses to live and breathe just that much longer. Any jackass that arises against this nation and carries out attacks against the US and US interest should be removed from the planet as you would remove a stain. Total and complete erradication. The backward hand holding and coddling crap has come to bite us in the ass. If i hear one more talking head get on TV and say how we should try to find out why the terrorist hate us, i think i will puke.

[RedScare]

Its time to stop coddling the clowns and kill them! Simple as that.

It serves no purpose other than allowing these murderous jackasses to live and breathe just that much longer.

Good plan. That should take care of it.

[Highway6]

Admittedly, clandestine police work is not sexy, or politically expedient. But, a political leader truly interested in eradicating the problem would do what is best for his constituents, not what plays well on TV. It's time for us to do this right, as opposed to what sounds good on TV.

Okay..

You make some good points eventhough i dont agree with everything you've said.

So how does that translate into "doing what is right" from this point forward ?

So no talk of, we shouldn't have gone to war in iraq.. we are there.

Red, assuming you won the presidency and took over next week..

What actions would you do that we are not doing now ?

What would you stop doing ?

If you insist on playing your actions to what is right and necessary and not what looks good on tv? Our media, both sides won't have that.. so how do you deal with them?

Good plan. That should take care of it.

We've heard your thoughts.. now lets hear your plan.

Well.. no one here has a full plan thought out.. thats not our job.. but i do wanna hear specific actions you would implement and those you would stop?

[RedScare]

Red, assuming you won the presidency and took over next week..

What actions would you do that we are not doing now ?

What would you stop doing ?

Probably the first thing I would do is stop calling it a war on terror. I would immediately boost our intelligence agencies, and work even closer with those groups who actually understand Arabic. I am confident that we do some of this already. But, I'd cut out the cowboy talk. Government rhetoric being all most foreigners ever see, I'd tone done the war talk. It invites Davids to attack Goliath.

One of the country's biggest weaknesses being our energy supply, I would invest heavily in research and subsidies in technologies aimed at reducing our oil dependence. Nuclear power, wind and solar, increased efficiency in our vehicles, all of this reduces energy use, and therefore, our reliance on the Middle East.

As for Iraq, I'd start moving the troops to the sideline, i.e. Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. 90% of the violence is local, much of it aimed at us. The killing has increased since al Zarqawi's death. Timelines will have no effect on anything. If the civil war continues unabated after our exit, there is a better chance of a coalition going in to calm it down if we are not part of it, since the US is the lightning rod.

I'd create clandestine strike forces to take out those gang leaders who threaten to become too popular. Better to quietly eliminate the head of the beast than deal with the aftermath. This ultimately saves lives and quells uprisings. The criminals know the leader is dead, and likely know the cause, but have no big event to rally around. It crushes their morale.

Diplomacy is a big part of all of this. Telling the world we value freedom, while torturing our prisoners causes more harm than good. Keeping the Army at home defending our shores does not incite anger. Our actions must resemble our words.

As I said before, this is pretty mundane stuff. I'd be crucified on FOX News for being soft on terrorism. This is to be expected. Ratings soar when bombs blow up. But, shrinking the target by not being as obnoxious, will make the US much safer in the long run.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Weak

[Highway6]

As for Iraq, I'd start moving the troops to the sideline, i.e. Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. 90% of the violence is local, much of it aimed at us. The killing has increased since al Zarqawi's death. Timelines will have no effect on anything. If the civil war continues unabated after our exit, there is a better chance of a coalition going in to calm it down if we are not part of it, since the US is the lightning rod.

What if you are wrong though...

a)Killing doesnt stop. Insurgents focus more now on the new Iraqi government now that we are out of the way. If their goal is not just killing American until we leave, but undermining everything we've done there... they use our sidestep maneuver to step up the killings and chaos.

Then what do you do.. you have to bring the troops right back in from the sideline countries. You've wasted money and time. You've lost ground you had control of.

You also risk seriouly damaging whatever good relationship we have with the new gvt officials there that do see the need for our protection.

b ) If it is aimed only at us.. what is to stop the killing from following us and getting a whole other country and populace involved ?

[RedScare]

What if you are wrong though...

a)Killing doesnt stop. Insurgents focus more now on the new Iraqi government now that we are out of the way. If their goal is not just killing American until we leave, but undermining everything we've done there... they use our sidestep maneuver to step up the killings and chaos.

Then what do you do.. you have to bring the troops right back in from the sideline countries. You've wasted money and time. You've lost ground you had control of.

You also risk seriouly damaging whatever good relationship we have with the new gvt officials there that do see the need for our protection.

b ) If it is aimed only at us.. what is to stop the killing from following us and getting a whole other country and populace involved ?

a) Chance we must take. The current plan is getting nowhere. Besides, much of the violence is Shia police death squads exacting revenge on Sunnis. If that continues, Sunni retaliation will continue. The US military should get out of the way while that plays out. We cannot take sides in that fight. At a certain point, other nations will be compelled to try to help. a 3 state solution may even be proposed, though this seems a poor alternative. It might be the only way to keep these power struggles from continuing.

b. These fights are largely local. It does not export well. Further, taking the fight to another country with an established government and a populace that does not want it will not play well. The big concern is only a).

[johncoby]

July 22, 2005

And Then They Came After Us

We

[TheNiche]

Besides, much of the violence is Shia police death squads exacting revenge on Sunnis. If that continues, Sunni retaliation will continue. The US military should get out of the way while that plays out. We cannot take sides in that fight. At a certain point, other nations will be compelled to try to help.

Right...and we all know how willing the UN is to go to places fractured by civil unrest...if and when the UN troops get there, we all know how much more disciplined and efficient the guys in blue helmets will be...

One of the pet peeves of many of the countries that we've been militarily involved with since Vietnam is that we only support them when it benefits us and then drop the whole matter like a hot potato with no regard for the ramifications of our interference. It strikes me that what we're witnessing right now is widespread but largely disorganized incidents of civil violence...but I also get the sense that the U.S. military presence is acting as a lightning rod that prevents Iraqi factions from organizing against each other in an effective way. If we were to leave and then the whole matter exploded into true civil war (a very much more bloody proposition), wouldn't it seem to the Iraqis kind of like we were responsible for lighting a fuse and then walking away?

Seems like it would perpetuate the problem. If we keep a military presence in the country and are visibly trying to fix the infrastructure and political issues despite taking heavy casualties, then at least then we'd be perceived as trying to put things right.