War on terror doesn't work

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by midcan5, Aug 2, 2008.

  1. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,776
    Thanks Received:
    2,363
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,287
    I have said this so often that it is sort of nice that it is confirmed by others. Just nice because this stuff sucks no matter how you define it or fight it.


    U.S. Should Rethink "War On Terrorism" Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida

    "Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group's capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.

    Al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than it was during its prior history and the group's attacks since then have spanned an increasingly broader range of targets in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, according to researchers.

    In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase "war on terrorism," researchers concluded.

    "The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end," said Seth Jones, the study's lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "In most cases, military force isn't the best instrument."

    The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The most common way that terrorist groups end -- 43 percent -- was via a transition to the political process. However, the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow goals, rather than a broad, sweeping agenda like al Qaida possesses.

    The second most common way that terrorist groups end -- 40 percent -- was through police and intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups. Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information, Jones said."


    RAND | News Release | U.S. Should Rethink "War On Terrorism" Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida

    >
     
  2. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    OK let's call it something else then. Hwo about "the battle to keep the west from all having to submit to crazy muslim bullshit" ?
     
  3. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    How about a complete re-think of policy?
     
  4. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    What policy ? We don't need no stinking policies !!
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,517
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    What is to rethink? Perhaps we can just lay cement at the old World Trade Center and pretend nothing happened? Would that make it all go away?
     
  6. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    It simply astounds me that people who profess to love this nation aren't interested in the GOVERNMENT'S own think tank if it tells them something they don't want to believe.

    I tried to start a thread about this RAND report a day or two ago.

    It's fallen off the new posts list, or its so far down the list I never see it.

    Reality based policie discussions are verboten subjects, to some here, I guess.
     
  7. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617

    Are you completely daft?

    Wanting to win is WHY we should be considering things like the RAND study, RGS.

    Did you read it, or are you simply assuming that it must be defeatest?

    Its a formula to advance our foreign policy in Iraqw, not to abandon it.
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Our government's "think tank" ain't connected to any "act tank" . Do we get to vote for these thinkers or are we just stuck with them like presidential candidates ?
     
  9. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    Wait a second haven't we followed this policing policy in the past? Under Clinton, while AQ declared war, attacked the WTC the first time, attacked our interests abroad? Then 9/11 happened....
     
  10. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    What?

    You are somewhat confused about RAND corporation, I think.

    Rand Corporation is a tool of the government. They don't have a political agenda, their agenda is problem solving for whichever client within our government requests their services.

    These are the brainiacs, for example, who created our Mutally Assured Destruction policy for the DoD, which was the official strategic policy for NOT having a nuclear war with USSR for about fourty years. That policy is still in place, I suspect.

    They're very big into game theory math, by the way. They're out to WIN.

    Rand Corporation has been THE think tank our government created to study highly complex foreign and domestic problems, and to offer the best solutions that their teams of hard scientist and social scientists can devise, directly to their client..the government itself.


    No, of course not. It's a think tank filled with eggheads, not a popularity contest.

    Rand draws upon the best minds from industry, the military, and academia, that America has to offer.

    The executive has the power to act, of course, and they work for HIM.

    If you haven't read their findings and recommendations about Iraq, you ought to.

    I think you'd be impressed by just how hardheaded and realistic they are, to be honest.

    Their solution dovetails into Bushes policy right now, to a large extent.

    AT some point the war on terrorism has to become a police style activity.

    As the Iraq society stabilizes it serves no real purpose to have American troops on the ground.

    If the Iraqi police, the people who live there there and speak the language, are the people best suited to tracking down terrorists in Iraq.

    Now either we draw down troops (there is no standing army for them to fight) because what we did worked, or if we can't count on the Iraqi to keep terrorism (in Iraq) in check, then Bush's policies still have not succeeded.

    Don't you think Bushes policies are working?

    I thought the surge was working, and that's why both candidates are talking about troops drawdowns
     

Share This Page