A Non-Partisan Question Of Tactics In Fighting The War On Terror

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by americanexpo, Jun 10, 2004.

?

Who Could Better Wage The War On Terror?

  1. Law Enforcement

    2 vote(s)
    16.7%
  2. Military

    10 vote(s)
    83.3%
  3. Not Sure, Depends On Funding, Planning And Execution

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. americanexpo
    Online

    americanexpo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Well recently the State Dept. had to embarassingly admit its report on terrorism that indicated terrorist attacks had decreased recently was incorrect, in fact terrorist attacks are increasing in number and scope.

    Now you can see this as political cannon fodder for enemies of the Bush Admin. Or you can see this as an indicator that perhaps the tilt towards using the military primarily to fight terror needs to be reexamined. In an era where the FBI has routinely bungled nearly every major case or assignment its been assigned, this is not a comforting realization if you're looking for other options. However, we may reach a point soon where we have no other viable options.

    I've always thought that the military (i'm in the navy), while highly skilled and able, should be the backup for a primarily law enforcement (international in its scope and makeup) led "campaign against terrorism." In essence, cops and detectives could be much better used against terrorists than military force. To do this would require a massive effort on the part of Interpol, the FBI, and the other main law enforcement agencies in the world, as well as individual countries such as China, Russia and India. The good news is that this is not nearly as impossible as getting troops from these countries to join in an American led war against terror that stretches from Iraq to Afghanistan to Syria. Indeed, law enforcement agencies and individual officers work very well together, especially with good leadership and logistic support, outperforming in comparision with mixed and matched internationalized military forces.

    On everything from running informers to gathering intelligence to apprehending terrorist suspects, it should not be a revalation that law enforcement can and does do a better job than the military. There is also much less cost involved, far fewer diplomatic manuevers and drives involved and far less attention from our enemies themselves. It is also far easier to support, plan and handle adversity when utilizing law enforcement rather than the military. While this does not count in invasion/liberation scenarios such as Afghanistan and Iraq, it most surely does in Russia, China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and other nations. China would more than likely never agree to stage US troops on its soil, but how about FBI agents or NYPD counterterrorism detectives?

    The American people have in their mind an image of those fighting terrorists: a brave soldier, whether he be American,British, Polish or perhaps even Iraqi or Afghan. Given the much publicized (and deservedly so)incompetence of our own FBI, this is not surprising. But in places like Germany and Britain, the image there is of a law enforcement officer. Just last week the terrorist mastermind of the horrific Madrid bombings was apprehended by police in Italy. In the future, Americans should consider what a truly reformed FBI (or brand new law enforcement service) could accomplished, especially in close and effective cooperation with agents and agencies from other nations.

    And lastly, there are very brave police officers in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan and Indonesia, among many others, who are stifiled by an often corrupt department and system that prevents them or hinders them from going after known and suspected terrorists. Imagine if rather than asking a nation like Indonesia to consider staging US troops, a question that would enrage much of the population and fan nationalist and religious furor, we asked if we could embark on a massive cooperation and training program with their police to catch and stop terrorists? This request would draw much less attention, cost much less money and involve far fewer resources. But it could be even more lucrative in the aftermath than utilizing the miltary all the time.
     
  2. Shazbot
    Offline

    Shazbot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    175
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Houston
    Ratings:
    +7
    I guess it depends a great deal on the circumstances. I am reminded, after reading your post, of a very good movie called The Siege. In the movie, in response to terrorist cells operating in NYC, the military is called in, declaring martial law on the whole city, and systematically going house to house apprehending possible terrorists. The military's strategy was ineffective as it was not designed for such a delicate operation. In the words of Bruce Willis' character in the movie, "The army is a broadsword, not a scalpel."

    Then we see a situation like terrorism in Iraq. Kind of different ball game. Instead of small, well-hidden terrorist cells, we've got militias. In this game, almost anyone can be the terrorist, and we've got to be ready everywhere, all the time. Now, a combination effort between an occupational military and a well-coordinated FBI-like organization could bring some nice results. Let the military deal with the holed-up militants, and the car-bombers, while the law enforcement goes and finds them where they begin - at their homes.

    -Douglas
     
  3. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Another interpretation of increased attacks is that we're winning and the enemy is getting desperate. IS that possible in your view? If not, why not?
     
  4. The Worried One
    Offline

    The Worried One Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    42
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +0
    I find it that more attacks means we're losing, not that we're winning. If we can't control these things from happening guess what? their plan works. To say that because their attacks are becoming more numerous means they are growing in number, getting more supporters, not that we're winning and they're throwin everything they've got at us.
     
  5. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    more attacks is just an escalation of hostilities until a sizable number of bodies has gathered on both sides.
     
  6. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    Somehow I don't think Saddam or the Taliban would have been agreeable to freely roaming FBI agents within their countries.

    In friendly countries like Germany and Italy, we are employing FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agents in full co-operation with Interpol, New Scotland Yard, et cetera.
     

Share This Page