Terrorism Discussion V2

I have learned through experience that it isn't wise to claim E_S doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to foriegn policy. It is however, entertaining to any bystanders.

 

I would point out that President Bush has a Masters degree, and suggest then, only halfway jokingly, that according to the standards outlined in this thread, he is incapable of being wrong about leadership.

Bush first President to hold an MBA?

HERE

Is my above observation a foregone conclusion?

 

And due personal reasons - the loss of a loved one - I'm being subdued.

Apologies for those expecting a slaughter.

E_S

 

Ender_Sai, I don't care what degree you have, you haven't produced results. You want to make a difference, then why don't you try talking to Osama bin Ladin and the extremists, on THEIR terms. I assure you, you'll get a completely different view than the one your touting now, about economic aid and how it can solve the majority of these problems. BTW, I served in Georgia and Chenneya, fighting insurgents. Shrapnel almost cut open an artery, from an ambush. So please excuse my comments if you don't wish to hear what must be done to stop these terrorists.

 

That you think Terrorism is something naturally developed in the modern age and that we should manage it and accept it?s presence in the short-term is suspect at best.

Then again I have difficulty respecting the gloating of a person who has characterized his Masters Thesis on the basis of spurious connections between unknown operationalized variables.

Perhaps if you went somewhat more into depth about your hypothesis and the specific evidences you think support it we could take the debate beyond generalizations.

We would gladly test the validity of your hypothesis, if you ever actually decided to present it in detail.

 

To be fair, an MBA will help you run a business. If you try and run a nation like you'd run a business, though, you're likely to encounter problems.

 

Quellonis - using the ham-fisted policies of the Russian government as an example of how to fight anything is likely to cause those of us who pay attention to world affairs to go , followed by . Given that one of the largest sources for terrorist weaponry is Russian soldiers being paid hard currency, and given that the Russian state is content to use whatever savagery it can to kill terrorists, including killing their hostages or shooting journalists who are a minor annoyance, you'll forgive my not accepting the Russian experience as, well, helpful?

That's an excellent misreading of what was clearly said, and I do love the conservative habit of rewriting minor sentiments to make them seem less valid and thus to make your idea(s) seem more valid.

Terrorism is a symptom, a bi-product, of politics today. You'll notice, I'm sure, how terrorists have fully taken advantage of the modern age? Using cell phones, internet cites, and as the 9/11 report put it, their passports, as "weapons"?*

Whenever you have a situation where ideology and disenfranchisement exist side by side, the likelihood that people will turn to politically or ideologically motivated violence is much, much greater. You are entitled to disagree if you wish, but I think you'll find that to be the case. Africa illustrates this perfectly - you can't be disenfrachished if there's no establishment to shut you out.

So yes, I don't think it is possible to eliminate it. If people have an idea and feel they're being shut out, they may very well resort to violence if their cause is important enough. I mean, aside from being the great unwashed, groups like Baader-Meinhoff or Action Directé basically felt that their views were a) right and b) ignored, and they gladly took up arms and the ubiquitous Soviet aid and made a bloody great nuisance of themselves. And despite solid antiterrorism capacity in France and Germany, which eventually broke these and dozens of similar group's backs, terrorism never really went away.

It did, however, evolve.

The thing is, I don't think it's possible to eliminate terrorism fully. Such a sentiment may appeal to a domestic market seeking both reassurance and something which sounds like an episode of a good TV show or a film, but it's like trying to wipe out radical left thought. For many, outside the west, there's even a romantic content - our good friends, the Russians, have volumes of poetry exalting the virtues of the terrorist from the Soviet Union days...

So yes, we manage it. Preventative solutions to minimise, contain and manage known hotspots, and intelligence and CT-trained special forces responses to existing areas.

But since you disagree with such an un-bellicose policy, what's your alternative? How does your solution account for what happened in London? And how does mine?

E_S

 

Terrorism has existed for thousands of years. Its current tactics are a by-product of modern technology and their strategic aims are as varied as ever.

That they utilize modern technology is an argument for their ability to adapt, not that they have been produced by modern-politics.

The Filipino insurgent-terrorists utilized Dynamite IEDs, sniper ambushes, small-unit hit and fade tactics, and employed a general strategy of attrition and political subversion. The Viet Cong employed newer versions of the same weapons but the same overall tactics and with the exact same strategic aim. The same is true with the Iraqi Insurgency.

Terrorism is neither a definite by-product of the modern age nor does terrorism?s utilization of modern technology somehow confer upon them a uniqueness as of yet unseen.

All Terrorist-Insurgent groups throughout History have employed similar tactics in the same goal, influence of popular support through a war of attrition and subversion.

Military stratagems to deal with these insurgents have changed little from the later 19th Century to the early 21st, the weaponry and the venue have changed, little else.

Counter-insurgency/terrorism forces establish safe-zones cleared of enemy influence, provide for civilian rule to garner local popular support, improve local political and economic situations to win support, force insurgency groups to consistently maneuver, and slowly pacify the non-safe regions of the country.

As America did in the Philippines, and America attempted with some success in Vietnam, and as American forces are attempting now.

That modern terrorism is somehow a unique by-product of the modern age and incomparable to military history is an idea I wholly reject.

Reliance upon Counter Terrorist Special Forces?
If I am not mistaken you have already lectured me on how, in your view and theory, specified violence against terrorists does nothing to help the situation and signals a failure of policy.

You now however are advocating containment and special-forces reactionaries?

I doubt economic aide packages and ideological outreach would adequately address Terrorist-Cells operating within our own Nations.

Perhaps they would help address the prevention of new groups, but that is only an ?if?.

Terrorists that are already operating and taking lives are not going to be convinced by outreach.

 

I, and every single CT academic/policy analyst/expert I've come across would seriously disagree with your continued insistance than guerilla = terrorist. Certainly, for a point, terrorists existed as urban guerillas but I'd take exception with the fundamental inaccuracy of labelling Castro's movement 1955-1959, as terrorist. The VC certainly were not terrorist, not matter how your nationalist heart wishes it were so (why, I can't fathom - to vindicate the flawed Vietnam war, perhaps?)

And if you had any interest in accuracy, which if you're painting the VC as terrorists and not guerillas I would say that you don't, then we'd have to call the American Revolution a terrorist insurgency. Right?

And yes, we can trace terrorism back to the original assassins, the French Revolution, or Lenin's bolsies. But if one were to, say for a change, pay close attention rather than selective attention, to terrorist from 1967-2006, one would see several distinct phases. Those phases were categorised by a basic sharing of tactics - for example, the 1970's was big on hijackings, the 1980's big on bombings, the 1990's, suicide bombings, the 2000-2006 hyperterrorism or hyperterrorist-inspired acts of "theatrical" terrorism. They, however, also share a common ancestry with La Terreur.

Ideology and disenfranchisement.

Although it sounds simple, it's deceptively so. That combination literally varies from person to person, and is never a 50:50 split. Usama, for example, is only disenfranchised in the sense his desire to see Sayyid Qutb's khalifa realised with "devout" (read: Slavish) muslims everywhere is rejected widely.

And no, Icehawk, IF you had been paying attention - note, the conditional "if" - you'd have seen I chided you for suggesting Teh Military was the best arm of the whole-of-Govt. CT package for dealing with terrorism. It's not, it's reactive. It's the reactive part, and reactionary policies aren't leadership.

You fall into the fundamentally flawed trap of using words like "containment", ie you use Cold War thinking to solve counterterrorism. As this essay illustrates, that's frought with problems.

The thing is, we're not specifically talking containment. Nor appeasement, so the Patriot's Cold War Dictionary for Demonising an Argument You Don't Like has to be binned, my friend. We're saying that the most effective weapon a terrorist leader like Usama bin Laden has is the number of people willing to die for his cause.

I mean, if Usama had no followers, noone to act on his orders, what is he? Not much.

I ask "why" people would chose to follow someone like UBL, or whomever, and I ask - can we actually give them a disincentive for joining.

Given that the threat of force as a deterrant is an abject, demonstrable failure in anything from the Death Penalty to the insurgency in Iraq gaining momentum in the face of US troops, "we'll kill you!! " then your ideas can't be said to be viable, helpful, or workable.

So, we have to try something else.

The IRA's strength has been dwindling for 15 years, coincidently at the same time British military offensives were scaled back and per capita GDP in Ireland has been growing. By all accounts, it's a different place.

Now, I think that if people have more to live for, they're less willing to throw their lives away on someone else's vision. So I figure if we look at ways to bring free markets into key states where ideology and disenfrachisement drive a thriving extremist scene, we may start drying the well of young, able-bodied fools being seduced into someone else's causes.

And look, it may not work but we haven't tried it. I think, though, it's better than beating a dead horse by vicariously living my GI Joe/Splinter Cell fantasies out through foolhardy military adventurism given the ridiculous cost.

E_S

 

Terrorism?

How do you operationalize that particular word?

Define It.

Would a guerilla group that employs Terror as a primary weapon, as you have defined it, not be a Terrorist-Insurgency?

A guerilla movement that ambushes a military unit in the desert or jungle is a simple insurgency.
A guerilla movement that slaughters civilians as an accepted tactic is a Terrorist Insurgency.

General Washington did not order the Wives and Children of loyalists executed, in so far as I am aware.

The crux of your argument lies herein.

What happens if these Terrorists/Insurgents are fighting for their vision and that happens to coincide with the likes of Osama?

They are not buying into terrorism because they?re poor, they are becoming Terrorists because they despise the West and want to hurt it as much as possible.

What then?



Also, once again?you do not listen, or you purposefully mischaracterize.

Force, in my view, is not a deterrent.
It is a reactionary measure to remove existent violent militants.

If there are 20,000 armed Terrorist insurgents in Iraq, hunt them down and wipe them out.
That is a tactical measure to deal with the current problem.

Employment of Social Benevolence programs is a theoretical means to prevent the creation of more.

Remove the violent militants militarily and try to prevent the creation of more.

As I have said ad infinitum.

Obviously because those in charge are simply ignorant of the way things work in the world and see the world as one giant Tom Clancy novel.

Or at least that is what you have insinuated.

My former History Professor was a Retired Colonel in the United States Air Force with a Master Degree in Middle Eastern History, decades of experience in the region, and a Defense Consultant to this day.

Unitary Benevolent Social Aide was never once considered a viable option to deal with Terrorism.

Perhaps a stepping-stone, but not the solution.

He was ever the proponent of military intervention against Terrorists.


It is not a new idea Ender_Sai, but it is somewhat idealist.

 

And of course, the notion of US indirect provocation was spurned by most when reviewing 9/11 (notably not Paul Pillar). So you'll forgive me if I follow sources that prove themselves?

Tell me, if Bob Baer says we need to find a way to get unemployed kids away from the Mosques, and that the imams in said mosques are saying America wants to take over the middle east, what do you and your vaunted retired Army Colonel - the army, the reactive CT component - say to him?

"Sure, we'll get them out - and into body bags!" ?

Icehawk, I am reluctant to be so elastic on terrorism as you which means I may not categorise some things as terrorist merely to appeal my finely tuned nationalist sentiment. I would define terrorism as politically motivated, clandestine violence against non-combatant targets, designed to achieve, in whole or in part, a political outcome.

This means, sadly, that the CIA's tactics in Castro's Cuba - blowing up container ships in Havana, setting fire to sugar-cane fields to cripple the economy - should count as a terrorist action.

I don't feel merely "killing civilians" is enough, because what's the difference between the VC punishing southern sympathisers and Robert S Macnamara recommending the firebombing of Japanese cities because they're wood and will burn better?

Or do we keep your intentionally nebulous definition with the caveat that since God made America is His image, everything America does is perfect and could never be considered as evil?

I would also point out here that in theory, at least, guerillas should be winning the "hearts and minds" of the civilian populace - at least according to Dr Guevara de la Serna. Granted, even he failed to follow his own advice, but he was photogenic so something something.

The VC, I won't call terrorist. They were fighting a civil war against an elected government. They weren't trying to force political change, they were out in a roughly organised force - as contrasted with Irish Republicans, who fought in tiny pockets and often badly against British forces.

Now, onto some other points.

You say "what if they're not buying in because they're poor, but despise the west" - we come to London.

Why do they despise the West? Nothign they've said indicates a jealousy and hatred of Freedom, so why could/should/would they despise the West, Ice-Hawk? Is it because they have a recessive evil gene which makes them that way?

But part of the attractiveness of these ideologies is rooted in the theatrical dimensions - if Usama's ideology wasn't as overhyped (ZOMG SPECTRE!!1!) and inflated to near charicature state, would it be as attractive? We don't know. I can't help but think, though, if we had contained these, and if the Cold War neocons you seem to, in part, think like hadn't been so damned foolhardy and stupid with Iraq, would we have this situation?

We don't know, because they tried the "I liek Rambo" approacha nd made counter-terrorism a military problem. Not just, made the military part of the CT "package", but made the army go fix them Aaay-rabs.

Works a treat, doesn't it.

Now, let's talk about your RTS solution, shall we?

You say, 20,000 terrorists - hunt them down.

They exist, why? Because of the aforementioned evil gene?

What happens when, and it will happen because frankly the US army seems to attract a sub-class of soldier who was born light on brains and only got lighter, a bunch of rednecks degrade some insurgents, take photos grinning like the hillbilly morons they are, and they get published? Of course, no such thing could happen, right? But assume, it did, at say a prison. Or assume some of them do what American boys in Korea and Japan also don't do, and rape some underage girl? Or assume, say, they massacre civilians "by mistake"

Because of the actions of a few people who should frankly be sterilised, just to contain that stupidity within a generation, the entire US army's campaign got harder. Why? Because those images will play into the hands of the ideologues in neighbour

 

Having actually been there, I can tell you that the majority of iraqi insurgents are in it for the money. They're not particularly ideologically committed, nor are they blind fanatics. There are, of course, some like that, but they're far from being a majority.

 

?They exist, why? Because of the aforementioned evil gene??

Suffice to say that they do exist Ender, for what ever reason they provide.

We have to deal with the ones that exist, ergo Military action.

Nice to know that the majority of American Soldiers are ignorant redneck hicks.

For a moderator you seem unable to police your own posts for flame baiting.

 

Working good so far, isn't it? Oh wait, terrorism is up because we went in half-cocked. Heh, I forgot about that one.

Care to point out where he said that a majority of American soldiers are that way? What he said is that the Army tends to attract that "My daddy's daddy fought the Hun, and they let me shoot guns too. Yeehaw!" type. And the National Guard (which those particular inbred hicks were a part) seems to revel in having them in their ranks. Having grown up on military bases, I think I know the type. They don't get very far in the military and usually don't serve too long, but they do some damage while they're in. They aren't a majority by any standard, but they are there, and they hurt the U.S.




Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell: Weak on Defense!

 

Ender has consistently derided any view that considers military intervention as ignorant and does so in thinly veiled insults about posters being children with a video game, amongst other example.

It?s flame baiting and it?s beginning to annoy me.

The trading of derisive language is not debate and I would much appreciate it if we could avoid it.



General Powell?s viewpoints are not one?s you should be trying to marry to your own.
The Powell Doctrine is one of overwhelming military strength applied as quickly and viciously as possible in an attempt to quickly and completely defeat an enemy force.

The moment diplomatic and economic suasion fails Powell brings the American military down like a ton of bricks upon any force standing in the way of our National Interest.

Interesting opinion.
That the military has announced every military service branch is meeting or exceeding its activite duty and reserve recruiting and retention goals for the October fiscal year 2006 report are in direct contention with that particular claim.

Only the reserve forces are showing any real attrition at this point, and even then the Marine Corps Reserve and the Air Force Reserve exceeded their goals and the Army National Guard, Air National Guard, and Army Reserve were all within 5%pts of their goals.

The conventional wisdom that Iraq is seriously damaging and draining the manpower of the American military is about as accurate as conventional wisdom usually is.


Now Ender, I know you thought you were being precocious by claiming my ?20,000 Insurgent? estimate was an RTS scenario, but it fails utterly.

Initial research on the scope of the Iraqi Insurgency seemed to indicate that there are some 20,000 to 40,000 core Iraqi Insurgents. It is estimated that those 20k-40k core fighters are able to call on some 160k-180k part-time fighters, for a total insurgency strength of ~200,000.

Some intelligence reports lay the initial blame for the insurgency on former-Republican Guard Units and Fedayeen which were disbanded after the American victory over the Ba`athist Regime. To this day the Ba`athist groups still exist, but may well have been overcome in significane.

Now those part-time fighters are likely able to be influenced if they think the Insurgency will fail in Iraq.
Economic persuasion coupled with an improving Iraqi Political future and a belief the insurgency is failing may be able to convince them to give up the fight.

Those 40,000 Core fighters however are determined to cause as many American and Iraqi deaths that will lead to the retreat of US Forces and the fall of the new Iraqi Democracy.

Even if I considered your Social Benevolence program a highly effective strategy and assumed economic and political stability could remove the part-time fighters from Iraq you still have a massive problem.

40,000 armed and organized terrorist-insurgents can cause massive problems in a State.

In contrast the Viet Cong Insurgency that engaged in the Tet Offensive was ~80,000 strong.

At the end of the day there must still be a military response to the core-fighters.

 

Reading through this interesting debate it occurs to me that you are talking about two different issues. Ender is talking about counter terrorism while IceHawk is talking about counter insurgency. While counter terrorism does not require a significant military role counter insurgency often does.

 

Not quite, I still hold that military intervention against Terrorism is also of prime tactical importance, even to the point of deposing State-funders and supporters of Terrorism in general.

And what happens when the Terrorists form and act as an insurgency group, as they have in Iraq?

 

1. I agree that military intervention can have a tactical role in counter terrorism but not a prime role. Strategically it is even less important.

2. I would say that what is happening in Iraq is not terrorism but insurgency and civil war where terrorist tactics are widely used. I therefore don't think that traditional counter terrorism is likely to be effective and thus see a larger military role as being reasonable.

For the record I was strongly against the Iraq war partly because I regarded it as strategic madness.

 

The Strategic Madness of King George

There was a great quote from James Baker recently to the effect that

"I used to get asked all the time why we didn't go all the way to Baghdad to take out Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War...

..."Guess what? Nobody asks me that anymore."

 

Reading through this interesting debate it occurs to me that you are talking about two different issues. Ender is talking about counter terrorism while IceHawk is talking about counter insurgency. While counter terrorism does not require a significant military role counter insurgency often does.

I think it is also important to further separate the degree of terrorist action.

Specific terrorism, or what is known as limited terrorism is almost completely different than the concept of hyperterror.

For examples of limited terrorist activity, look to the old Black September Organization/FATAH, or how Abu Nidal used to operate. Fatah called thmeselves a resistance group, and strangely enough, used to focus their attention to Jordanian policies. Running in and kidnapping a bunch of athletes, or shooting some people in an airport is a specific action that can be countered with a specifc response.

However, hyper-terror, which has only flourished in the last 10-15 years, does require a broader response. Military action is completely appropriate to deal with hyper-terror, because in almost, if not all, instances, such activity requires state sponsorship. The elevation in action needs an elevation in response.

Of course the problem in perception occurs when the lines are blurred. Afghanistan/Sudan most certainly offered state sponsorship to a terrorist organization and without military intervention, they would continue to. Iran is another example with a different host of consequences. Iraq wasn't a direct state sponser, but rather a serious raison d?être for hyper-terror justification. How does one handle terorist activity that may have a parallel with civil action and/or resistance goals?

 

Sudan's a difficult one to categorise, Mr44.

It's worth noting, and often isn't, that Sudan has actually offered a substantial contribution to the counter-terrorist front; they collaborated with the DGSE to hand Ill'ych Ramirez Sanchez over, and they offered Usama up to the Saudis in 1996 or so.

But yes, we're being entirely superficial. I should point out for people like Usama, there's little clear solution. I should point out I do realise that whilst I'm sayingt he market should play more of a corrective role in terrorism, that this doesn't apply to Usama and that's ok.

I'm content for there to be a bin Laden - ideologues from wealthy backgrounds are usually more committed than anyone else, see also: Guevara - I'm not advocating ways of stopping those guys from popping up. I'm trying to find ways to deny them their most valuable resource.

Men.

Usama is so insignificant a threat on his own, it's embarrassing to see the cult of fear we've afforded him in the West. Mainly because it perpetuates his meme, but that's another point. Without, essentially, the ignorant to die for his cause, he's another loud angry wealthy kid with some unhealthy ideas and obsessions. With people to die for his cause, well... We know what happens there.

But yes, DK is right. I'm talking about terrorism, you're blurring the lines with insurgency Icehawk. Although the insurgents in Iraq aren't typical guerillas and are striking like terrorists, they're not really one of the other. They're anarchists, at best, give that I don't think even they know what they're trying to achieve outside a broad withdrawl of US forces.

As DK said, counter-terrorism does not requre a significant military role. Which is what I've been saying, but you've been very busy rewording my posts to change the meaning, Icehawk. Counterterrorism requires a whole of government approach and for my part, I can list the agencies that are involved in Australia in the CT package: Australian Secret Intelligence Agency (ASIS), ASIO (Australian Security & Intelligence Organisation), Australian Federal Police, Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Dept. of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), Dept of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS), Australian Customs Service (ACS), Attorney General's Department (AGD), Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO), and the Department of Defence.

To suggest Defence is the overriding agency in our case, with SE Asia and Indonesia factored in mind, is frankly incorrect.

The army cannot tell you what is being said in a mosque in Jakarta, or Kuala Lumpur, or Riyadh, or Damascus.

The navy cannot tell you the movements of people across borders, which is important given the 9/11 Commission report found a passport to be a terrorist's most valuable weapon.

The airforce is pretty limited in seeking regional cooperation by like minded states.

I mean, sure, it plays well to an audience ostensibly more interested in the illusion of safety and progress than in actual safety and progress, but is that what you want?

Oh, and Icehawk, no the US army isn't full of people like that. It just does have it's subclass of redneck morons who think stupid **** is funny which makes the whole army's life much harder. DarthBoba is quite clearly not a redneck, nor a hillbilly. He's also someone you ignored as his experiences with OEF and OIF don't say what you want them to say...

But because of those idiots like the hicks at Abu Grahib, his life got a hell of a lot harder. And if you're sitting on your arse in a neighbouring state, those images become representative of the entire US Armed Forces in Iraq. That plays really well into their hands, and it makes people like DarthBoba in more danger than they needed to be.

I also really find your casual dismissal of "why" they're there to be frightfully short-sighted. I mean, if you don't know why, then you're basically being reactive which is not only incredibly poo

 

But yes, we're being entirely superficial.

In most cases, I think this is a simple, but accurate statement.

 

Ender, you blatantly said that killing terrorists is a failure of policy and that it should be avoided as an unproductive goal.

I have little need to reword your arguments when the basic philosophical foundation has been avoidance of military, or generally violent, response.

Which is ironic since it was you who pointed out the efficiency and effectiveness that violent response against Terrorists produce with the example of Operation Entebbe.

Given terrorists that have been able to kill thousands of people in America, hundreds world wide (including 88 Aussies in Bali) and insurgents capable of using violence to effect American elections half a world away and the sophistication and organization required for such operations, you give Terrorists and Insurgents very little intellectual credit.

On the one hand al-Zarqawi considered his goal to be deliverance from injustice and oppression, obviously by western nations, Christians, and Jews. His goal seems to simply be killing infidels and maintaining fundamentalist Islamic influence in Iraq.

Obviously the Ba`athist insurgents and other former regime elements are attempting to overthrow the new Democracy and reestablish the former regime.

Muqtada al-Sadr seems to be using his al-Mahdi militia in an attempt to increase his own influence in the Iraqi State to satisfy some personal political goals for his future in Iraq.

Ansar al Islam seems specifically motivated to oppose the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, a secular Kurdish group. This group has had ties with Al-Qaeda since its inception and has undertaken insurgency activities.

The Army of Muhammad was responsible for the August 19, 2003 bombing of a U.N compound, claiming that the United Nations does not actually exist, that it was simply a tool of American interest, and specifically stated they planned to seize control in Iraqi cities after forcing an American withdrawal. They also stated they opposed the Iraqi Governing Council because they considered it not-elected and not-Iraqi as it was staffed by exiles.

Etc etc?.

Ironic tirade coming from the man who just conceded that he has no idea what the goals of the insurgency and terrorists in Iraq are?

I take it I am now supposed to call you a ?big ol` bleeding heart liberal? or some such based on your economic-centrism.

My dismissal of their reasons for fighting was not out of ignorance but out of prioritization, sonny.

The simple fact is that there are 40,000 core-fighters consisting of multiple divergent groups, guerillas, former-soldiers, religious militants, terrorists et al.

With 150,000 American soldiers and 300,000 ISF on the ground I think it would be a somewhat wiser policy to immediately address the existing violent terrorists and thin their numbers with pacification tactics.

Unlike you I do not consider killing terrorists a failure of policy.

Is that 3 times you?ve avoided the question of how to address those 40,000 core-fighters, or is it the 4th? I lost track?


I already addressed DarthBoba?s point dear boy, perhaps too subtly.
As I said, the Iraqi Insurgents consist primarily of ~160,000 part-time fighters. It is only the core-40,000 that are truly ideologically committed, ergo unresponsive to economic and political suasion. That is roughly in agreement with his point I believe.

 

Um, "economic centrism".

Icehawk I would submit ignorance is never a defensible position to take.

I haven't pretended for some time I'm not a dedicated neolibera. I make no apologies for the fact. So bleeding heart, hardly. But it's good to see said Cold War dictionary getting a workout.

Now, it's interesting that many hawks play a similar game - intentional misrepresentation. You intentionall misrepresent what people say in order to make them seem less viable in their opinions.

Consider the following, and the emphasis is mine:

And your response:

What are we to conclude from this, IceHawk?

And re: DarthBoba's point - he pointed out most were motivated by what, precisely?

It's not that I don't trust your interpretation of posts, it's just that - well, no, I don't trust your interpretation of events. Having caught you out at it changing events as recorded here, I'm left wondering if you either have just projected onto my posts what you want to hear, you're trying to misrepresent it to make me look weaker and you, better; or you're just having a laugh at everyone's expense?

And what's amusing is that you have no strategy either for how to stop the 40,000 swelling to 50/60/100,000 as this cluster-**** continues, but lambast others for their failings.

Icehawk, if there were no neocon hawks, the world would be a safer, but much, much, much less amusing place.

And if people who think like you hadn't been allowed to plan the Iraq war as a misguided and wasteful step in the war on terrorism, maybe this discussion wouldn't be required.

E_S

 

If you believe the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq don?t even have a purpose the implication is that you don?t know what purpose they hold Ender.
Besides, that little statement was clearly satirical, meant to point out yet again your repetitious name-calling. (Or didn?t we notice the smiley?)

In Reference to DarthBoba?s observation?

I emboldened the relevant parts for you, as you missed them the first dozen or so times.

Interesting, why do you refuse to issue a tactic to deal with the core-fighters?

You issue sweeping generalizations about the failures of what you call neo-conservative hawks (Giving the old Cold War vernacular a dusting off yourself?), talk about a world without war in their absence, dismiss any strategy that is centered on military force, banter on how Iraq was a destined failure (Vietnam too) and refuse to answer any direct questions.

I?ve already made clear my stance on how to deal with the existent core-fighters and prevent the growth of more.
The entire point of the analogy to the Filipino-campaign was to stress social, political, and economic aide to the populace at large while concurrently constantly engaging and attempting to pacify the enemy fighters.

Make it clear insurgency and terrorism end with the deaths of those involved and provide a political and economic alternative for the young men and women of the country you are involved in.

Doubtless you will yet again fail to respond to the question, though I shall ask it again. (Baiting you, I know )

How does your primary strategy of social benevolence and desire to not kill terrorists deal with the 40,000 core-fighters in Iraq?