Originally Posted by midcan5

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

>

Originally Posted by Diuretic

How about a complete re-think of policy?

Originally Posted by Diuretic

How about a complete re-think of policy?

Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt

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?

Originally Posted by editec

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.

Originally Posted by midcan5

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

>

Originally Posted by dilloduck

Our government's "think tank" ain't connected to any "act tank" .

Originally Posted by editec

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

Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt

Except it IS Bush policies that worked and continue to work in Iraq. or did he suddenly quit being President a year ago?

Originally Posted by editec

Huh? Isn't that the very question I asked? Are Bush's policies working?



Ah yeah...and isn't that exactly what Rand is suggesting, too?



You didn't read the Rand Report on Iraq, did you?

Just like you didn't read, or didn't understand, what I wrote above, either.

You just go off half cocked imagining that everyone is a lefty and calling them unpleasant names.

You need to grow up, man.

Originally Posted by dilloduck

Stop being a pseudo-intellectual worshipper. These "braniacs" aren't always right no matter how many times they tell themselves that. Since they work for " the government" which is doing a hell of a poor job representing the people, I'm not impressed.