War on terror doesn't work

[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

>

 

[dilloduck]

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

>

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" ?

 

[Diuretic]

How about a complete re-think of policy?

 

[dilloduck]

How about a complete re-think of policy?

What policy ? We don't need no stinking policies !!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How about a complete re-think of policy?

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?

 

[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.

 

[editec]

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?

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

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 ?

 

[jreeves]

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

>

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....

 

[editec]

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

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.

Do we get to vote for these thinkers or are we just stuck with them like presidential candidates ?

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

 

[sealybobo]

pretend we didn't abandon afganistan so al queda could take over again. I know we are still there but we are spread too thin and didn't finish the job.

imagine if we invested so people were working in afgan. we didn't cause they don't have oil. so their biggest economy is drugs.

imagine if we surrounded tora bora on 4 sides instead of 3.

imagine if we didn't blow international support by invading iraq for oil. pakistan would have nothing to say if we bombed terrorists training in their mountains. now we aren't the good guys anymore.

bush and the gop congress were in charge from 2000-2006 and did all this on purpose. look at pnac. this is like the war on drugs. never ending war and that's what they lke. they refuse to stop doing things that create terrorists. mccain is part of the problem.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

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

As for troops fighting in Iraq the plan ALL ALONG has been to pull them out as soon as possible. Only you leftoid dumb shits think we want to fight in Iraq for 100 years. The plan all along has been to stabilize the Country and allow the Iraqis to take over external and Internal defense.

There is nothing NEW to that plan. We just finally figured out how to get the ball rolling.

 

[editec]

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

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

As for troops fighting in Iraq the plan ALL ALONG has been to pull them out as soon as possible. Only you leftoid dumb shits think we want to fight in Iraq for 100 years. The plan all along has been to stabilize the Country and allow the Iraqis to take over external and Internal defense.

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

There is nothing NEW to that plan. We just finally figured out how to get the ball rolling.

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

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.

 

[editec]

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.

Translation -- I didn't read the article, I have no idea what I'm talking about, and I hate intellectuals on general principle.

Have I about hit those points you wanted to make for our benefit?

So noted.

 

[dilloduck]

Translation -- I didn't read the article, I have no idea what I'm talking about, and I hate intellectuals on general principle.

Have I about hit those points you wanted to make for our benefit?

So noted.

Wrong--I read the article, I know what I'm talking about and I don't just take the word of the RAND corporation as the gospel truth. Are you for just eliminating branches of government from having to do any of their own thinking? Hell ,we could just capitulate to RAND and do whatever it is they suggest.

 

[midcan5]

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....

You didn't go back far enough, remember Beirut? And 911 didn't happen during Clinton's watch, and the first attack came after those guys who ran from Beirut. Need some hints.

 

[helpseeker]

it starts in young and early ages.

2:63-66, 5:59-60 und 7:166 are not secret. young childeren are taught stuff like this. nunmuslims are not allowed in moshees in germany. and young muslims do not tolerate anything. they laugh about european law about judges about policemen about everything what is not íslamic.

young muslims 6-10 y.o. do not learn anything in scool because their parents say: "european scool, maths physics chemistry avionis means nothing. its better to learn religious moaning. and when there is a woman teacher at their scool it is even worse. it is not rare in europe that young muslims condemn their woman teacher. their parents wouldnt waste a thought to talk with those dhimmies.
""praise da hamas an da hissbullah! dema destroyed dem two towa! haha! haha!"" that is what many young muslims in europe trust in. it is disgusting.

its easy for imams and mullahs to find victims among those to brainwash.

sympathy for terrorism evelops in early years.

 

[editec]

Wrong--I read the article, I know what I'm talking about and I don't just take the word of the RAND corporation as the gospel truth. Are you for just eliminating branches of government from having to do any of their own thinking? Hell ,we could just capitulate to RAND and do whatever it is they suggest.

Stop attempting to rewrite what I said to change the subject, sport.

RAND is a tool of the government.

It calls upon those other banches of government to work with it.

Your viseral objection to anything you percieve as academia or intelligensia is noted, but kiddo, you pretty clearly miss the point.

Those are the same people running the other parts of the government, too.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Well, RAND may be very correct. But it makes no difference, because I'm SURE War is more lucrative than policing.