Terrorism Discussion V2

I'm not the only one who thinks that the root of the issue is a perception gap, not US 'exageration'

I'm looking up the official US Government Policy paper that I read a year or two ago...short version is *of course* there are comprehensive policies fighting terrorist methods and organizations around the world. The focus is on the US and on the middle east, but it would be just a foolish to believe that the US isn't doing anything else in the rest of the world, as it would be to think that the rest of NATO and other nations are not making real contributions to the effort.

 

The focus is on the US and on the middle east, but it would be just a foolish to believe that the US isn't doing anything else in the rest of the world, as it would be to think that the rest of NATO and other nations are not making real contributions to the effort.

I wasn't implying that we weren't doing anything except in those areas. I was implying that the Middle East seems to be getting a disproportionate amount of attention.

 

Well, a disproportionate amount of the problem comes from that area.

The largest trans-national problem areas outside the Middle East are North Korea (presence in South Korea), India-Pakistan (presence in Afghanistan), and....what? Most of the other trouble spots are intra-national (Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Congo, Indonesia, Nepal, etc) and not directly tied to terrorism.

I'm sure I'm missing something, but that's just the way I see it.


It could be that the issue is with the media's portrayal of US efforts internationally, or just that we're tired of the US Govt constantly engaging in issues in the area. I dunno.


Certainly, I think there is some inherent silliness in the concept of terror alerts, and their true purpose. And while it is inevitable and necessary for safety and terrorism to be domestic (partisan) political issues, it still seems very distasteful at times.

But to lump these things in with conspiracy theories about population control and letting 9/11 happen so that a giant oil-grab can happen is, frankly, below the level of discourse I'd expect from educated people.

 

Anyone explain to me the reasoning why the Saudis (Bin Laden Family included) were able out of the US on 9/13/2001 and everyother plane was grounded?

They never did live two days after. They left when the ban was lifeted. Also just because they are Saudis or are Bin Ladens family members dose not mean they know where he is at. The guy was living in a cave somewhere in the middle east.

 

One thing that's struck me is just how ineffectual the most public face in the war on terror has been.

The US Military.

I don't want to create any false impressions, so I'm going to be blunt here. The current US defense budget is not only unconscionable, it's unnecessary.

Consider Iraq.

No conventional military engagement between the US and any other force is going to be an even one. The US holds superiority in force projection and technology, and so any engagement is simply going to be pissing in the wind. So what happens when the world's mightiest, richest, best equipped army goes head to head with a woefully underfunded third world army? Total defeat.

And thus the reason for the terrorist tactics of the insurgency in Iraq. The reason the Iraqi insurgency couldn't successfully replicate, say, the Iranian or Cuban revolutions is that the American forces could not be engaged equally enough to create an advantage to exploit. That is, the only way to achieve some semblance of your goals is to launch a campaign where the US can't control the battlefield.

You use terror tactics.

And so people lament the proliferation of terror in Iraq, forgetting what Mr Bush Snr said about turning Iraqi into an "unwinnable guerilla war". Heck, even I argued beforehand that terrorism would rise as a result of the US presence in Iraq.

I don't want it to appear that I'm suggesting the US is responsible for terrorism - I'll leave that piece of fiction to leftist academics - but what I am saying is that part of the reason the US is exaggerating (ostensibly or for real) - the terrorism issue is because the idealistic part of the American psyche doesn't want to acknowledge that these guys are there for a reason.

They are going to want to fight and the only way they can make a dent in the armour of the US fighting machine is to look for that week spot - the Achilles Heel, if you will - that denies the advantage the US military would otherwise have.

Now, I've been controversial, so I await responses...

E_S

 

Which is also supported by the concept of friction warfare, Clausewitz's warrior-philosopher concept.

 

Ender, I think what you said goes along with the definition of war: A continuation of politics by other me

Terrorism is much the same. It is the continuation of politics by other means.

 

For reference.

The Bin Laden airflight left the US on Sept. 20th 2001.

 

Of course. But if the only way to fight that war, for in this case political means (Iraq), is terrorism, what does that say to us?

E_S

 

Of course. But if the only way to fight that war, for in this case political means (Iraq), is terrorism, what does that say to us?

It says to me that political means were not achieving objectives for the U.S. and military means (once the war was started) was not achieving objectives for the opposition.

 

E_S said...I don't want to create any false impressions, so I'm going to be blunt here. The current US defense budget is not only unconscionable, it's unnecessary.

Weakness invites agression. It is a fact of nature, on the school playground or in world politics.

We are the backbone of the defence of the free world. Nobody, and I mean nobody, would give a damn about any UN resolutions except for the fact that they may well have to face the American millitary.

For that I accept your thanks.

 

And yet the might of the US military can't defeat the insurgency. I seem to recall a milestone was reached this week, with 1,500 dead American soldiers.

(If weakness invites aggression, what does that say of the Iraqi military?)

The US, without the massive injection of funding after 9/11, still would have had the best funded and equipped military in the world.

The US still held this position on Sept 10th, 2001.

The increased funding is like installing a security system in your house after it has been robbed. It doesn't undo what was done, nor in all probability will it prevent it. It does, however, assure you and let you sleep at night.

You'll have to offer something of substance, J-Rod. That was the condition of this thread and I don't think we need to make exceptions just yet.

E_S

 

And yet the might of the US military can't defeat the insurgency. I seem to recall a milestone was reached this week, with 1,500 dead American soldiers.

Progress is being made. Elections have been held and more will come. We are defeating the insurgency everyday.

The US, without the massive injection of funding after 9/11, still would have had the best funded and equipped military in the world.

The US still held this position on Sept 10th, 2001.

The increased funding is like installing a security system in your house after it has been robbed. It doesn't undo what was done, nor in all probability will it prevent it. It does, however, assure you and let you sleep at night.

We had to increase funding. We have to fight a war in Iraq and still stand ready to face other threats.

And why haven't we been hit since 2001? Could it be that the weakness they perceived (That we wouldn't defend ourselves) no longer exists? I believe so.

You'll have to offer something of substance, J-Rod. That was the condition of this thread and I don't think we need to make exceptions just yet.

Hey! That hurt! Sure I was a smart ass about it, but the point was of substance.

But so was my point on page one about how slanted the article was and the numbers in Europe were simular to the numbers in the US as the the belief of the threat of terrorism.

But you chose to ignore that.

 

I didn't because it was sandwiched between a bunch of other posts between logins.

Furthermore, it's simply whitewashing the data for an overall mean which isn't accurate.

The simple fact that an insurgency arose in a liberated nation proves, I feel, that increased numbers for the US military was an utterly futile gesture.

E_S

 

Furthermore, it's simply whitewashing the data for an overall mean which isn't accurate.

An overall mean doesn't give a average?

The simple fact that an insurgency arose in a liberated nation proves, I feel, that increased numbers for the US military was an utterly futile gesture.

A. How does this show the threat was exagerated?

B. What would you have recommended if not increased military presents?

 

a. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. The threat is "real" because mistakes keep generating new enemies.

b. I would have bend over backwards to get the international, offical sanctioning of the UN, if it's only on paper, to undermine the idea it's an exercise in US imperialism. Whilst the UN certainly lacks legitimacy in American eyes, it's not the same for the rest of the world.

E_S

 

I would have bend over backwards to get the international, offical sanctioning of the UN, if it's only on paper, to undermine the idea it's an exercise in US imperialism.

That could not have happened due to the bribes that were accepted.

Got any other ideas?

 

The simple fact that an insurgency arose in a liberated nation proves, I feel, that increased numbers for the US military was an utterly futile gesture.

Unless you subscribe to the notion that *even more troops* on the ground would have restricted the initial impact of the insurgency and its ability to survive (nevermind the political consequences of using 3X as many footsoldiers).

I think that one interesting way to look at the US's leveraging of military power, when they already dominate that arena, is that it is the only conflict arena where they dominate. Huh, you might say? Well, if the US has a huge advantage in that category, but in, say, espionage and counter-espionage they have a level playing field or a disadvantage, you would be expected to try to leverage as much benefit from the monopoly arena as possible.

Hence the invasion of Afghanistan to dismantle Bin Ladin's network and prevent another network from filling the void, instead of trying to do the same via spec forces and assassins and spies and financial measures and multinational words and sanctions. The US *could* apply military force, and did so. Hence the invasion of Iraq, in order to minimize long-term terrorism threats and attack the fundamental roots of the political problem, by using an imperfect, but still dominating, military solution.


You ask if the use of military results in more 'terrorism', should that tell us something? Well, for starters, that we are using the wrong terminology (War on "Terror", instead of identifying the armed ideology) or benchmarks to track success.


Finally, the use of military force and the elevation of it to a primary field of conflict, despite how that might not make sense, is a perfect illustration of the perception gap I posted about earlier. While I'd agree that it is inefficient and not the best way to deal with the problem, it is precisely *beacuse* the US has a monopoly advantage on military power that it tries to leverage that advantage to win the wider arena of conflict. Since other nations would have great difficulty doing this, all they see is the inefficiency and imperfection of the methods chosen.

And both sides have a point.

 

That could not have happened due to the bribes that were accepted.

Care to elaborate further on these bribes (who was taking them, why etc.)?

 

Care to elaborate further on these bribes (who was taking them, why etc.)?

Read the Deulfur Report. Also, separate investagative reporting has turned up even more names.

 

Well, a disproportionate amount of the problem comes from that area.

The largest trans-national problem areas outside the Middle East are North Korea (presence in South Korea), India-Pakistan (presence in Afghanistan), and....what? Most of the other trouble spots are intra-national (Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Congo, Indonesia, Nepal, etc) and not directly tied to terrorism.

I disagree. There are attacks occurring in Europe (e.g., the Spanish train attack), as well as long-standing conflicts in Russia, Africa, and Central and South America (part of the issue I think is whether we are using a concept of terrorist as "insurgent or isolated attack group" or terrorist as "any entity using terror tactics to attain or maintain power"). The IRA just surfaced again with assassination offers, too.

 

I think one definition/qualification is to concentrate on groups/conflicts where violence is exported to its neighbors, region or globally. Al-Qaida is clearly a global Terrorism issue, whereas an armed nationalist uprising in country X would not be a major terrorism issue.

Like someone (you?) said, it's not the method by the goal/objective/group that dictates how concerned the US is, and how concerned the global community at large may be.

For example, Spain is easily lumped in with the wider campaign vs. "armed islamism" and the terror groups and states which support the ideology and goals. If the Spanish attack were ETA, it would be more of an internal matter for Spain (and its neighbors) to manage, unless they asked the US for help. Or unless ETA started bombing US ships in the straights of gibralter, and germen discos, and greek resort islands. At that point, the US and NATO would get involved, no matter what the Spanish prefer. Ditto for the IRA.

Before we start quibbling over the details, I'd argue that most of the Terror groups based and supported from the Middle East are global in nature and goals (whereas FARC and ETA and IRA and many of the examples you cite are local/national problems, where terror tactics happen to be employed). PArt of the reason why they are global and not national are the political conditions in the Middle East, which just happens to be one of the things the US is trying to influence. And overall, this explains the US concentration on the region.

 

One thing that boggles me....the use of the word "terrorist" in reference to any enemy combatant in the Middle East.

Hannity...Bush...Cheney...Kerry...Rice. All of 'em do it. Its a word thats been beaten to death here on the JC Forums, as well.

What is a terrorist? Are the people our soldiers are fighting really terrorists? Would the enemy use "terror" tactics if they had tanks, bombers, and missles like we do? I don't think so.

I think terrorist is an often mis-used word in these times. "Terrorist" is what the big army calls the little army.

Surely the people our soldiers are fighting don't use the tactics they do simply because they want to scare people.

I think they do it because they don't have anything else that would work. Is the U.S. a "terrorist nation" because we attacked Iraq? I don't believe so. Then how is it that "they" are terrorists for carrying out an attack on the U.S.?

Like I said...they don't have hi-tech resources like we do. They can't launch air-strikes, or tank warfare. The only means "they" have to strike is by stealing passenger jets and crashing them into buildings.

The shortsighted will probably say I'm "sympathizing with enemy"..but thats not true. I hope the troops do their jobs admirably, and get the hell out of there.

I'm just sick of the word "terrorist" being thrown around by party-line drones.

 

I think the word " terror " has become a tool. At this point, right now, it does two very dangerous things at the same time: elevates fear and likens our enemies to mindless thugs.

 

So devil, your arguement is that in warfare anything is acceptable?

Such arguements disgust me, not only for their blatant contempt for life but for their blatant contempt for reason.

Sure they're guilty of mass murder, actively targetting civilians in attempting to create large body counts, but that's okay because they don't have smart bombs. It's okay that they specifically targetted morning flights, that they didn't hit the towers until they would have been full of people, in deed that they targetted civilians at all instead of, oh lets say, the Norfolk naval base, or west point, or any of a hundred thousand military targets. Thats all okay, because they're poor.

I really don't have words to describe the depths of loathing I have for those who can't find it in them to condemn those who commit mass murder for religion and target civilians for slaughter to make political statements.

But hey, that's just me. I'm sure reasonable people can disagree over if it's wrong to murder children.