Why terrorism will fail

Your logic is sound, but your application is flawed.

I agree, those who engage valid targets to bring about a distinct result are legitimate partisans.

A Baathist member who bombs a military convoy isn't doing anything different that anyone else wouldn't do, if he believed that such action would expel the invaders or hamper their operations.

In fact, I would wager that any attack that succeeds against us is a "shame on us" situation for not having enough security.

However, that has not happened in your examples. The last 5 targets engaged by Hamas has not been against the IDF. 4 have been against civilian buses, and 1 was directed at a civilian restaraunt.

Those attacks were not designed to bring about a policy change, or interfere with IDF operations, they were designed to punish, and that is what characteriszes them as terrorist..

How can a 9 year old girl sitting in a Pizza palor effect Israeli policy? Her death was pointless and morally wrong.

The situation in Iraq has developed along the same lines. The last 2 attacks have been directed at the UN and a civilian religious leader, the 2 very entities that coul dhelp bring stability..

You are wrongly looking at the results of force, not the application..

 

^^ Thats what I was trying to get at, perhaps I worded it all wrong. Military forces are acceptable, when a Palestinian militia group used a suicide bomber against an IDF tank, other than Bush, and Sharon, no one took it as terrorism. The tank was in Hebron I think.

I agree the terrorist blowing up innocents is what makes them a terrorist. Its all in their target.

 

Terrorism does not have to affect civilians to be terror. The expanded US Title Code definition now allows for military targets not directly engaged in warfare to be considered non-combatant for the purposes of the law.

What, though, is the difference between a terrorist and a guerilla fighter, people?

E_S

 

I would agree with your first paragraph..

To answer your question simply, terrorism is action taken under its namesake.

The Library of Congress Report on Terrorism defines terrorism as(simplified):

Violence perpetrated against symbolic targets designed to bring about a psychological impact.

Guerillas, freedom fighters, partisans, et al.. undertake action which directly impacts a specific group.

For example, the French Resistance during WWII would take action against valid military targets(supply convoys, fuel depots, etc..), as well as valid civilian targets( railways, Vichy officals, power lines, etc..), which were are designed to directly impact the Nazi effectiveness to conduct operations.

The partisans did not specifically target German citizens who had no offical capacity, just to punish the Nazi regime.

Another example, Hamas uses the suicide bomber to install fear into the Israeli civilian population.. Their goal is to take away the security that the average citizen feels within their country, in other words, punish Israel for its situation..

If Hamas was to target IDF officals, training camps, forward bases, etc.. to show that keeping these bases in Palestinian territories was unsustainable for the IDF, their actions would be viewed differently..

 

anyone who willingly supports the Israeli occupation of the occupied territories is as much a part of the problem as the IDF or the militant settlers. the line between civilian and military targets is totally arbitrary: both are cogs in the same machine and both are legitimate targets.

IMHO, of course.

 

Uh oh, prepare for battle dizfactor.

The Palistinians haven't really got a military unit, they only have terrorism to combat with. And if some individuals decide to attack Isrealis... well, you can't blame the whole for the acts of a few, can you? But Sharon and Bush do.

 

The Palistinians haven't really got a military unit, they only have terrorism to combat with.

exactly. and, honestly, if they did have a military, it would but them at a tactical disadvantage, because it would give the Israelis a bigger target to hit. on a similar note, the Iraqis have been more successful without a formal army than they were with one. more coalition troops have been killed since the so-called end of the war than were killed before it, and a good portion of those killed before were killed with guerilla tactics.

in the 21st century, major powers don't go to war. they're too interdependent in terms of trade and the danger of nuclear annihilation outweighs any potential gains. but modern military technology is such that minor powers can't go to war with major powers in conventional terms and expect to be successful. asymmetrical warfare is the only possible response, and, contrary to the thread title, it is very successful and should be expected to proliferate in the future.

terrorism is cheap and impossible to fight directly. you can't stop people from setting up a cheap bomb-making operation and totally disrupting the everyday life of your society with suicide bombings. then what do you do?

terrorism forces the target society to choose between turning itself into a police state (which really doesn't work, anyway) and getting bombed into submission, where either choice completely screws them over. no one wants to go shopping or travel or do anything else when they're afraid (of either terrorists or the authoritarian state power which is supposedly fighting the terrorists), and in a consumer-driven economy that's just death. plus, it frustrates and angers voters, which causes political turmoil in representative democracies, but with no obvious visible target to vent it on, all the anger turns inward.

look at all the damage a relative handful of terrorists have done to the most powerful country the world has ever seen with flying lessons and a few box cutters. box cutters! 9/11 set in motion a chain of events which has practically crippled this country. the economy is a shambles, and the political infighting is nasty. we had mass political protests on the scale of the height of Vietnam protests. in our flailing about looking for enemies to vanquish, we managed to alienate approx 85% of the population of the world, and not only are we not any safer, we're actually more vulnerable. box cutters! you have to be in awe to some degree. bin Laden was brilliant.

terrorism is the most effective form of warfare in the 21st century and the only possible response to the global military dominance of the major powers.

 

So, what you are saying is that terrorism is the replacement for the military for the Palestinians. In other words, the Palestinians are in a military battle with Israel. Essentially they are at war.

Why is it again that we don't want Israel to use full force considering that they are in a war?

 

"terrorism is the most effective form of warfare in the 21st century."



If you really believe this, then let me ask you a simple question..

If terrorism is so successful, why has it never achieved any results?

Name one instance where any terrorist act has actually "bombed anyone into submission.."

Have the small scales attacks forced the coalition to flee from Iraq?

Has the Palestinian attacks beat Israel into submission?

Did the twin tower attacks force the US to cower in fear from Al-Queda?

Terrorism will never be successful because its very nature is self limiting. The attacks have to be big enough to get noticed, but small enough to preclude a major retalitory strike.

Blowing up a bus here, or ambushing 2 soldiers there is not going to bring about any sort of policy change.

Simply put,terrorism is extremely ineffective as an extension of foreign policy.

Unless, for some reason, you support killing people just for the sake of killing...

 

Why is it again that we don't want Israel to use full force considering that they are in a war?

first of all, they are using full force. the West Bank is already as bad as the Warsaw Ghetto. if they used any more force they'd have to set up gas chambers and fire up the ovens.

second of all, they are the aggressors, not the defenders. if they want the war to stop they should cease their aggression. if they don't, they deserve whatever comes to them.

If you really believe this, then let me ask you a simple question..

If terrorism is so successful, why has it never achieved any results?

Name one instance where any terrorist act has actually "bombed anyone into submission.."

the IRA forced the British into a peace process which entailed major concessions on their part. terrorism and guerilla warfare drove the US and eventually Israel out of Lebanon. guerilla warfare drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and Chechen terrorism is causing them major problems. terrorists and guerilla paramilitary groups practically own Columbia. guerilla forces in the south of Mexico have been the core of an immense and fast-growing populist movement there. that's just off the top of my head.

Have the small scales attacks forced the coalition to flee from Iraq?

they've made it impossible to govern. they've caused the US authority to look the bunch of bumbling idiots they are, especially when it comes to providing basic services - right now the US is promising the Iraqis that prewar levels of electricity will be restored by the end of next month, and most people feel they're being foolishly optimistic. they've caused most of the international aid agencies to leave or reduce their presences to a token force. they've caused people to resign from the interim government in fear for their safety. they've forced Bush to go back to the UN to beg for help, and essentially handed Chirac Bush's testicles to squeeze as he chooses. they're causing the cost of the occupation to skyrocket. they've caused complete failure of morale among coalition forces (whole units have been placed on suicide watch, angry letters and editorials from the front line are appearing in even official channels, there have been suicides, and protests organized against the war by soldier's families). and, last but certainly not least, the US has been utterly humiliated on the global stage and has lost incalculable amounts of political capital. the Iraqi resistance is spectacularly successful.

Has the Palestinian attacks beat Israel into submission?

not yet, though they've come close. we can only hope.

Did the twin tower attacks force the US to cower in fear from Al-Queda?

one, the fact that we aren't "cowering in fear" doesn't mean we've actually managed to do anything productive. the Taliban have regained control of most of southern and eastern Afghanistan, whereas we can barely hold on to Kabul, and al-Qaeda recruiting has increased tremendously. the fact that we're responding doesn't help if the response is thoroughly ineffective.

two, 9/11 has had a massive negative impact on the American economy. it practically killed the financial, travel, and hospitality sectors. our (completely brain-dead) response so far is causing the federal government to bankrupt itself and has inspired the circle of idiots in charge in the Bush Administration to get us involved in a wide variety of increasingly distastrous adventures abroad, which are increasing political divisions at home, costing us allies abroad, and costing us a hell of a lot of money.

9/11 has also been spectacularly successful. America is limping, and its enemies smell the blood in the water...

Terrorism will never be successful because its very nature is self limiting. The attacks have to be big enough to get noticed, but small enough to preclude a major retalitory strike.

Blowing up a bus here, or ambushing 2 soldiers there is not going to bring about any sort of policy change.

Simply put,terrorism is e

 

If you think Israel is currently using full force, I suggest you look up past conflicts in the region.

Your assesments about Lebanon, the IRA, Afghanistan, et al.. are so over simplified I don't even know how to respond..

You're right, We have done nothing productive in Afghanistan or Iraq, and I see now that car bombings are the future of force projection.

Think how much money we can save.. All we need to do is abolish our military and replace it with a couple of guys in some TNT ladened Dodge Trucks..

 

Blowing up a bus here, or ambushing 2 soldiers there is not going to bring about any sort of policy change.

Yes, that's exactly why we were sooo successful in Vietnam.

 

No, what I am saying is that there is a diffence from those who have legitimate concerns about foreign events, and those who are blinded by their dislike for Bush.

A vocal minority of posters here dislike Bush, and therefore solely focus on the negative aspects of his actions, ignoring the reality. (We'll call them Deanites..)

What appears to be happening is that the situation is going better than anticipated, so rather than acknowledge that fact, exaggeration and hyperbole are used.

For instance, someone previously posted that after she wrote a school paper, she concluded that Bush's actions were the same as Hitler's, during WWII..

Where is the persepective in that statement?

WWII involved 22+ million troops across mulitple theatres, ivolving nearly every country in the world. The action we took in 2 inter-related countries somehow is on the same scale?

"we had mass political protests on the scale of the height of Vietnam protests."

During the Chicago DNC in 1968, MEWV mobilized 100,000 protestors who illustrated their growing unity, and brought about real social change.

In Chicago, in 2003, 300 antiwar protestors matched down LSD, ending up at the loop Starbucks. But somehow the scale is the same? Where,in Bizarro World?

"The guerillas in Iraq are turning the situation into a Vietnam bloodbath"

An average of 5,000 soldiers were being killed every year for 10 years in Vietnam. During the heaviest fighting in 1968, 550,000 troops were stationed there..

So far we have lost 300 troops, half of those to accidents, yet somehow the terrorists are bringing America to its knees there.. How does Vietnam and Iraq even belong in the same sentence?

It took the founders of our country 7 years to finalize the Articles of Confederation into the Constitution..

After V-E day, we actively occupied Germany for 4 years, allowing their country to rebuild into the economic powerhouse that it is..

After instituting a complete regime change in a 2 week direct conflict, we have been rebuilding Iraq for 5 months. Because it did not immediately change to Candyland, we are stuck in a quagmire?

Like I pointed out, it took my municipality 7 months to build an addition to our public library..

"the West Bank is already as bad as the Warsaw Ghetto"

The fact is that Israel is not going to go away, but any critcism that does not focus on both sides is simply not valid.

Where is the same criticism of Jordan for treating the Palestinians the same way?

Apearently, being voraciously anti-Bush means you have no more room to retain facts or to think logically..

I don't know if statements like this are more concerning, or just heart breaking:

"Has the Palestinian attacks beat Israel into submission? Not yet, though they've come close. we can only hope."

"bin Laden was brilliant."

"they'd have to set up gas chambers and fire up the ovens."

It's sad really...

 

No, Bush is an idiot, his "negative" actions are a very common thing. That tax break thing, that's a joke. I think I'll type out that whole lewis black segment for ya, in the tax thread, of course.

 

well, I at least appreciate you for proving my point...

 

Your ignorance is astounding, Mr44.

"If terrorism is so successful, why has it never achieved any results?"

I know its already been pointed out, but look at Ireland.

And do you really think there would even be a peace plan if the Palistinians weren't fighting back? Nobody would know or care about their situation.

 

No, I can have an objecting viewpoint despite what I personally think of the President. He doesn't know **** about anything domestically.

 

Kaine,

that statement was admittedly an oversimplification, though, perhaps taken out of context. What in any of my prior posts here suggests that I am ignorant that terrorist attacks happen?

We were talking about terrorism as a tool for force projection, on the same level that such projection acts as a tool of foreign policy..

Everyone understands that acts of terrorism can reinforce and popularize the beliefs of certain groups, as such a result is included in the very definition of terrorism..

However, can terrorist acts be considered "the most effective form of warfare in the 21st century?"

I think not..

Terrorist acts cannot bring about rapid social change, or promote a swift policy shift. For such limited actions, the scope is impossible..

That is not to say that limited results cannot be achieved by specific terrorist activities.

But, that is why I observed that all of those examples of terrorist activities do not illustrate the successful application of force.

The bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beruit is the perfect example.

Sure, we redeployed our forces to more secure locations, but did that act force us to engage the Islamic Jihad in any sort of dialog? Did it result in a net gain for the Palestinian people it supposedly represented?

The answer is a resounding no..

All it did is result in us directly supplying the IDF with upgraded F4 fighter jets and air to ground missles. The Israeli Golany-95, Palsar-435, and Palsar-374 units were designed to wipe out Islamic Jihad operatives located in Lebanon, and did so for 20 years.

Israel did not flee from Lebanon, it pulled its troops out due to agreeing to UN resolution 425. It was a concession that both sides agreed to.

If you want, I can provide facts for all of the other examples that were given..

Your very example of the IRA illustrates my point. The modern struggle in Ireland can be traced back to 1798. Even if we jump to the 20th century, the roots of the IRA have been conducting operations since 1919..

Do you really think operations that take over 80 years to bring about results(I'm using the 2001 Good Friday agreement as an ending point)can be considered successful policy projections?

If the IRA used completely non-violent methodology, they could have achieved the same results in 80 years...

Dr King achieved it in 10 years, and he did it by changing people's hearts, not blowing them up..

Hamas has been blowing up buses for 40 years now? Are they any closer to achieving any of their goals?

Do you honestly think that by attacking 2 soldiers here and there, Iraq will fall back into Baathist hands? That conclusion is simply asinine

Terrorism is becoming de-legitimized as a policy tool, not validated...

If you would like to debate conclusions based on the historical facts, fine. If not, just admit that your goal is to negate anything Bush does, and save us the time...

But I suppose that using such facts appears to be ignorance to you..

 

Mr44 is broadly right, terrorism rarely manages to achieve solid goals or aims, though it does depend on how a terrorist is defined. Terrorists, even when state sponsered or affiliated to a state, usually only can help undermine morale, and cannot 'win' anything on there own. Indeed, I can't think of a single example of terrorism doing this. The IRA has been quoted as an example, but this simply isn't true, to be blunt. It was they who came to us asking for dialogue precicely because their campaign was going nowhere - and I say this as someone who thinks Tony Blair has been too soft on these thugs. Most of the concessions made have been designed to appease concerns within the Catholic community as a whole, not the IRA in particular (for example dismantling observation posts). That's not to say that the IRA hasn't won concessions (the thought of these people being let of jail turns my stomach), but just how much has it gained on the central idea of a unified Ireland? Nothing, the British government has not changed its line at all.

The only way that terrorist can win is if they are backed by some degree of conventional force, or if they are able to engage their enemies in a conventional way as well - Vietnam springs to mind here. The US was not defeated by 'terrorism' alone (though this helped sap public support) but because it was engaged in a full scale war with a hostile nation, which because of political restrictions it could not defeat at the time.

 

Up for Kaine..

 

Why Terrorism Works

By Irwin N. Graulich
Sep 4, 2003

Stop thinking like a Westerner and you will begin to understand terrorism.

There was virtually no guilt trip for destroying the great cities of Nazi Germany, Japan or Korea, including the unfortunate victims of war known as "innocent civilians." Once upon a time democracies knew their enemies and were able to determine general target locations. There was no moral problem with bombing Berlin, Dresden, Hiroshima or Nagasaki, although they resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties. Yet today, when 5 civilian deaths are produced in Iraq or 2 Palestinians are wounded by rubber bullets, the event becomes a worldwide tragedy. Even worse, the targeting of a Hamas terrorist has become synonymous with assassinating a head of state. Why?

How did terrorism manifest itself into freedom fighting and what are the reasons it has emanated from the Muslim world? When a once great civilization and religious culture fails miserably, it has only 2 choices. Go out of business or delude itself into believing it has not failed at all, by producing a new false reality of physical strength and spiritual greatness. Thus terrorism was born to compensate for a hatred of the good and successful, who are also superior in virtually every way. Muslim religious leaders are its major proponents because they see the flaws and fraudulence of their own belief system which is a frightening concept.

The previously mighty, powerful Arab and Muslim world has fallen into the dustbin of history. It no longer produces anything of value, wisdom, discovery or progress. Those amazing Arabian armies of the desert have been reduced to the laughing stock of West Point studies, with the six strongest Arab nations together being totally decimated by a tiny Jewish nation of largely Yeshiva boys.

Furthermore, this little Jewish state has become one of the leaders in scientific and technological breakthroughs, while the countries that retain a good portion of the world's oil wealth have trouble building a shopping center. Israel is a hard enough pill to swallow, but America's success cannot even fit into their mouths.

As Western democracies progressed into the 21st century, much of Arab/Muslim civilization reversed course back into the 16th century. No more great Muslim warriors; no more medical breakthroughs; no more beautiful writings. The development of modern warfare has made every Arab and Muslim country the "butt" of military jokes. The well known videotapes of large battalions of soldiers crying and surrendering to the Israelis waving their hands in the air, or the "brave, great" Iraqi soldiers giving up to journalists during the Gulf War have become embedded into everyone's mind, especially fellow Muslims. Their dignity was destroyed and thus terrorism was born. However, there is something wrong with a mentality that is embarrassed because a tyrant like Saddam was defeated.

Terrorism is a type of warfare where the perpetrators can truly never lose. Since terrorists are made up of many independent cells and events, there is no unified army to defeat and no flag to surrender. Even more incredible, the supportive local populations who most certainly have knowledge of or harbor them, become innocent civilians. Bomb factories, young men living in apartments with AK-47's and no jobs, people shooting rockets and machine guns blasting; yet the neighbors know nothing. Give me a break!

The brilliance of terrorism is that it separates the population from its army so that the foundational populace is absolved of any sins. And thus you can now have a nation like Iraq being separated from Saddam's Baathist regime in which the Iraqis bear absolutely no responsibility, except for 55 people in a deck of cards. Unfortunately many Iraqis were part of the problem, but terrorism and a terrorist dictatorship has allowed them to hide. This strategy also entitles troublemakers to blame their rescuers for the entire predicament. Throw in the term "occupation or occupier" into the mix, and the total responsi

 

What a stunningly arrogant and condescending article, diving into that sneering racism that seems to be so acceptable nowadays against muslims. And because of this, it manages to get just about everything wrong.

His basic position seems to be that the idea of fighting a war with any kind of proportionality or consideration is 'morally wrong';

Fighting terrorism has led to an immoral concept--the fighting of a compassionate war. Such an idea is a moral outrage.

From this and his earlier ranting, what does he propose to do? carpet bomb the palestinians every time a bomb goes off?

He has a skewed image of what the arab 'man in the street' sees;

America and Israel, represented by Christianity and Judaism, are the moral mirrors held up to the face of the Islamic world. They see our successes and our decency. They see how American soldiers treated Iraqi soldiers who were wounded. They see how some Palestinians are treated in Hadassah hospital and how a modern Israeli society has been built in only 55 years. America and Israel are just too superior morally, intellectually and technologically. No one could be that good or successful.

Ignoring the usual flag waving 'aren't us christians and jews so much better than them smelly arab types', it might just occur to him that the muslim view of the west is very different. They saw children hit by american bombs, the poverty caused by UN sanctions, the double standards applied to Israel by america, the constant humiliation and punishment of palestinians by Israel, the support given by the West to the assorted despots that plague that part of the world. That is what they see, whether one agrees with that view or not. Rich, prosperous, yes, I'm sure most Arabs would love a chance at liberal democracy, to have a shot at those freedoms. But you know, I wonder who they see as most in the way of that? hmmm. And so radical Islamists feed off that resentment, and turn it to their own ends.

And I find his argument about "innocent civilians" to be ironic, and it'd be funny if it wasn't so damn tragic. Because, you see, this is the exact justification that these terrorists use for the murders of innocent people - there are no innocents in a war. That war must be total, and absolute. I take it, therefore, that he accepts September 11th as a valid and proportional act? Humm... don't think so.

And so, he totally misses the point about terrorists. You see, he's right in a narrow way - using his methods of total war and crushing defeat, winning against terrorists is impossible, unless one advocates genocide. Which I hope he wasn't. Terrorists can never win, it is true, because - and this is the one point he is right about - terrorism springs from weakness, not strength. It can provide morale boosters perhaps - but if this is what he is implying would be a victory for terrorists, he is wrong. For that is not what these terrorists themsleves fight for - be it the establishment of an Islamic state, the destruction of Israel, or whatever, and these goals will never be obtained by terrorism alone.

So how do you win against terrorists? Hearts and minds. Crack down hard on terrorists to be sure, but address the issues that cause people to support them. This won't stop the nut cases who just want to kill, but it does mean that there will be no-one to support, hide, or fund them. Fear alone never works, it just causes more and more recruits and supports.