A Credible Deterrent To Terrorism

Great Debates
1

What credible deterrent to terrorism exists, if any?

September 11 has brought us into a new age of moral and ethical considerations as we attempt to stabilize a world badly shaken by the heinous acts of a very few. Whereas in the past such acts were performed by governments that could be held directly accountable for their deeds, we are faced by a new breed of individual who has no compunctions about instigating the murder of people on a scale that once only existed during obvious wartime. Please do not conflate terrorist acts with war, regardless of any seeming similarity. Wars are fought by people in circumstances where imminent death is a known and accepted reality with the participants fully aware of that fact.

What happened in New York was the mass murder of innocent people who had not actively engaged in the crimes for which they were putatively being punished. To expect for us to behave as if we were on a continual war footing so that we can be held accountable in a similar fashion wholly justifies massive and annihilative aggression by us on a routine basis. We would have no alternative but to swiftly and violently eradicate those who were implacably committed to our downfall in such a fashion. By the logic of these terrorists, if they are allowed to believe we are actively in engaged in a war to corrupt the morals of their society than we are automatically obliged to assume a complete and total war footing against them. We would have no choice if this psuedo-religious mentality allows for using weapons of mass destruction against ourselves who maintain a nonaggressive stance in world politics.

The individuals who perpetrated this atrocity purposely disengaged themselves from any readily identifiable body of government in order to both discourage and deprive us of conventional avenues for military reprisal. What then remains as a method of deterring such acts? We are not allowed the option of continuing to permit such acts to go without dire consequence as we have done in the past. Numerous hijackings and fatal hostage situations have already happened where sufficient retaliation to completely deter future events of the same type was not meted out. Our reward for this was September 11.

The ultimately nature of such cowardly criminality is so premeditated and perverse that conventional methods of deterrence are not effective against it. To prevent a recurrence of such an atrocity we are obliged to arrive at some sort of credible deterrent to such a breach of the social contract. In normal society (if such a thing exists), the constabulary serves as a credible deterrent by peacefully policing the citizenry with the intent of interdicting criminal acts before or during their commission. Detectives are the ones who typically perform the investigation of crimes after the fact. Since a crime free utopic society does not exist police are viewed as a necessity in order to preserve a sufficient degree of peace whereby individuals may pursue life with liberty in an unhindered fashion.

Police serve as a credible deterrent to criminal activity because they are able to threaten the criminal with revocation of their freedom. What then is the proper method to suppress the actions of those who would not merely conduct themselves in such a fashion so as to infringe upon the liberties of a few but instead plot to precipitate the demise of thousands or millions of people? Such acts of mass murder are commonly perpetrated with the intent of proliferating a (putatively) religious or political viewpoint. The determination and dogmatic nature of such zealots is most often totally immune to the common modes of deterrence. Either through the equivalent of brainwashing or by way of purposefully twisted logic the perpetrators are given over to the belief that they will be rewarded or admired for such deeds after the fact, be it in an afterlife or in the history books.

When faced with this particular species of psychopath there is almost no possibility of appealing to reason. There is no potential loss of freedom or privilege that represents a significant and credible method of discouraging such a fanatic. Even loss of life during or after the fact does not constitute a viable method of changing their mindset. Preemptive termination of such individuals is such a disputable and disreputable form of prevention that it has little place in this equation. So again, what method of deterrence exists? The threat of prolonged pain and suffering is one if the few conditions that can actively dissuade a completely amoral individual before, during or after the fact of commission. As the common criminal is deterred by the loss of freedom that jail represents, so can pain assume the one form of wieldable deprivation that even the most dire forms of psychopathic mentality are deterred by. The reason I say that pain is one of few conditions is because I deeply believe that there must be some better solution to the problem of terrorism and its practitioners. A few fundamental factors apply;

[li] There will always be some humans who have no medical pathology to mitigate blame for their psychological pathology. These people will use any pretext to obtain their aims and are adept at justifying the most asocial behavior with frequently psuedo-religious interpretations.[/li][sup][I SAY *PSEUDO-RELIGIOUS* BECAUSE ALTHOUGH I AM A DEVOUT AGNOSTIC I’M STILL UNABLE TO EMPIRICALLY FIND ANY PLAUSIBILITY FOR A GOD OR COLLECTIVE SPIRIT THAT COULD REWARD TERRORIST ACTIONS LIKE 9/11.][/SUP]

[li] Please do not insert any obtuse arguments about education and prosperity being the solution. I know that they are the solution. It’s why I’m a libertarian style of capitalist. I think that freedom to pursue your legitimate livelihood is a fundamental human right. I adore the spread of education and view it as one of the supreme vehicles towards peaceful coexistence. Lack of information or education coupled with economic suppression easily breed the despair and “nothing to lose” mentality that facilitates the twisted thinking of terrorists and psuedo-religious maniacs anywhere.[/li]
[li] However pressing the need for long term peace and prosperity may be there is a more dire demand for prompt implementation of an enforceable deterrent. There are the terrorists that already exist and those that will continue to be until world prosperity can evolve that must be stopped. This is the group that the selected method of deterrence must be directed against. Terrorism represents a direct threat to the evolution towards prosperity for all. The reversion that terrorism represents calls back to an almost stone-age mentality of brute force over reason of any sort. Only direct imposition of an extremely strong deterrent can possibly reach the group in question. A foreknowledge that there is a truly horrific price to pay for crimes against humanity could easily be one of the effective methods of dissuasion. (Note that I make no moral evaluation of this at this time, I am merely pointing out some of the only workable solutions.)[/li]
[li] Those who complain of breeding up humans capable of torturing other people can easily be dismissed with a model involving computer operated and monitored interrogation methods. People should definitely not be directly involved in torture if possible. However callous this sounds it is a direct solution to the problem. However inefficient microprocessors are as interrogators they are quite adequate to the task of applying truly hideous quantities of pain to the human body.[/li]
[li] I also recognize that the implementation of prolonged torture of individuals apprehended and convicted of mass murder terrorism would easily contribute to a “take 'em all with you” sort of suicide bomber (to use a congruent example) that already exist. I do not think that the current crop of suicide bombers are of the “take 'em all with you” mentality being described here. They have not encountered the behavior modification that prolonged torture as punishment might contribute to. (AS in; “If I’m going to get tortured for this I might as well die in the act.”) I do directly mean that there are sufficient numbers of psychologically unstable humans that there will always be a dangerous contingent of humans capable of perpetrating the most incomprehensible crimes. To pursue a course of dissuasion that actively encourages suicide bombing in any way shape or form. This is why I am obliged to believe that there is another more effective deterrent to terrorism than prolonged extensive torture.[/li]The only reason to have mentioned such truly extreme solutions it to dispel any notions about how to go about applying such a dangerous solution to an even more dangerous problem. I am still unable to believe that torture represents to only workable (I did not say moral) solution. I hope to find a more effective way to resolve the problem that does not represent any further erosion to our current standards of humane and legally applicable penalty.

It is still difficult to imagine what other effective deterrent or punishment can be applied to these psuedo-religious terrorists. It is the purpose of this thread to examine other short term methods of actively dissuading terrorists from committing their crimes until a better degree of prosperity and freedom can eliminate such thinking. We may not be able to reach the goal of world improvement if we do not figure out some credible deterrent to terrorism. It’s too easy to imagine that the ultimate dream of the Al-Qaeda is falsely triggering a nuclear between NATO and China in order to facilitate the world domination of Islamic style Theocracy.

Such complete madness as Al-Qaeda has already demonstrated themselves to be capable of with September 11, dictates that we must find a credible deterrent. There is no immediate alternative to it. Attempting to retaliate after the fact is useless once enough damage has already been done. The level of disregard for human life demonstrated by the terrorists has now traversed a point of no return. The unthinkable has already been exhibited and it is incumbent upon us seeing as how the continuance of the entire human race easily hangs in the balance. We are forced to ascribe this level of threat to our enemy solely from their own willing measures. To impute less intent to their actions is complete idiocy. Al-Qaeda has demonstrated that they are a credible threat and we are now obliged to find a credible deterrent to that threat.

What is that deterrent?

2
  1. Accede to their demands? If it prevented another loss of life, then it would be worthwhile. The US was capable of maintaining security interests in the Gulf without Saudi bases prior to the attacks - who cares if the US gives them up?

The problem is the issue of positive reinforcement. By giving in to terrorist demands, then you tell terrorists that their methods work. And so they do it again.

Besides, acceding to their demands also means allowing Israel to be driven into the sea, and that can’t be allowed to happen.

  1. Torture (which I do not condone - torture betrays an inherent sadistic streak) and imprisonment represents negative reinforcement - lets deter you and your friends from doing it again. This is apparently what the jury had in mind when they sentenced the WTC bombers to gaol recently. “Prison is worse than the death penalty” one of the jurors said (words to that effect anyway). Think about what those guys will go through in a US gaol. But this is no deterrent - it would just make those comrades on the outside more mad.

  2. Do nothing? It would pass along the message that to the terrorists that the attack did no good for them. It would avoid the humiliating and real possibility of bombing the crap out of Afghanistan and not destroying al Qaeda. But it would also send a message that attacks on US soil bring no reprisals. It would also not slacken America’s desire for justice or vengeance.

  3. Find a solution to Israel-Palestine? This appears to be the main grievance for Islamic fundamentalists. I suspect that there is no prospect of a solution right now, until both Palestinians and Israelis are exhausted. Is this the key?

Thinking out loud, the way in which this form of terrorism operates is a win-win situation for terrorists:

  1. you won’t listen to us, and we don’t have your military strength, so we’ll kill thousands of your civilians;

  2. we are not a country and to find us you’ll have to invade a Muslim country with no direct involvement, and in doing so incur the wrath of Muslims;

  3. kill us and you will make us martyrs. Kill other Muslims while you are trying to kill us, and you create more fighters for our cause.

3

I do not agree that this is the main grievance. The biggist issue is that our culture is a direct threat to their dark ages mentality. The fragility of their ethnocentric egos makes them mentally unstable when confronted with the prospects of the Internet and scantily clad women in public places. The mere thought of a summertime beach crowd wearing swim suits is enough to drive these throwback Mullahs into a fit of uncontrollable rage. Israel is merely a more visible and tangible thorn in their side, and one that enables rationalization of militant footing. It is our moral freedoms and lack of overarching Theocratic rule that makes us the real enemy.

You have yet to posit any sort of deterrent. Am I to take it that we must continue with our historically ineffectual reactive policies and endure (and possibly risk succumbing to) terrorist attack and merely hope we are fortunate enough to peacefully evolve our way out of such danger?

4

I think you are right, although I would have put it more delicately. I think, from everything I’ve read, that generally Islam has an inferiority complex with the West: that it thinks of itself as inherently morally superior, and is frustrated by its technological inferiority (can give cites for those who want them, but it’ll have to wait until tomorrow). I think that this is magnified beyond rationalisation with extremists.

I haven’t put forward a master plan because I don’t know what it is.

Terrorism isn’t confined to Islamic fundamentalism of course - you have Basque separatists, FARC in Columbia, Tamil Tigers, etc etc. The only thing that seems to work anywhere is sitting down, talking out the issues, and having both sides be prepared to compromise. Its that last bit which is the hardest.

5

The only plausible deterence that I have been able to come up with is to make them dependant upon us and our way of life. In other words, we need to move some of our factories into Afghanastan and other Middle Eastern countries. Get them dependant on making money and living a more materialistic life. Once they are able to consitently put good food on the table, watch a color TV with little interference, and drive to work in a shiny new Afghan car, they would be much more hesitant to mess with America. As we’ve seen, these kind of attacks affect the economy and adversely affecting the economy means layoffs. Layoffs mean no more good food, no more cable TV, no more shiny Afghan car. They may still hate us, especially if they feel in our debt, but they wouldn’t do anything about it because it would directly affect their happiness.

We’ve done this in other countries, most notably Japan. We nuked them back to the middle ages, then invested billions of dollars into companies and infrastructure. They may not be a military superpower, but they are an economic superpower. Though I don’t know of any personally, I’m sure there are many Japanese that hate us, but they don’t do anything to us because they know it will affect their lifestyle.

It all comes down to the mighty dollar, or yen, or euro, or whatever. Humans are naturally materialistic. Hence all these wars for land. Once you have a little, you want more. Once the appetite is whetted, it never goes away. We have to turn them into what they hate: us. Once they are comfortable, then they will have more to lose. Look at Afghanastan. They have nothing to lose right now. Saudi Arabia hates us, but they are helping us because if we don’t achieve our goals, consumer confidence will be shot and demand for oil drops. That hurts Saudi Arabia. Therefore, they begrudgingly help us and keep up the American demand for oil. That’s what they really care about.

6

Are Muslims as materialistic and consumerist as Westerners and Asians though? Is consumerism a universal desire? Would that plan really work taking into account cultural differences?

7

I really think it would make a difference. The Middle East is a violent area. There are constant conflicts because of land disputes, power struggles, etc. This is all greed. It’s the “I want more” mentallity that I think is basic in almost every living being, from the animals that mark and defend their territory to us humans. I mean let’s lay it all out. Humans are greedy. That’s not always a bad thing. Greed can be what drives us to our highest potential. I can’t think of any instance were greed makes us better people, but that is why we have guilt. But that’s another post.

I think all people are at least a bit greedy, Muslims included. At least they wouldn’t shun having a comfortable life. I work with many Muslims that live a lot better than I do (drive $40,000 cars, have maids and nannies, live in the “expensive” neighborhoods, etc), and they see no problem with it. These aren’t just a few moderate Muslims. They pray to Mecca everyday, go to pray as a congregation on Fridays, strictly observe Ramadan, and everything else a good Muslim is supposed to do.

The only problem I can forsee is a situation similar to a story I once heard or read. (I don’t have a cite, I never thought I’d need to remember where I got this). The story goes that there was a business man who figured he could open a factory on an Indian (Native American) reservation. He figured that the people there were so poor, they would be happy to work for minimum wage and skimmpy benefits, therefore he would save money while helping out the poor Indians. He built the factory and got a lot of the tribe to work for him. Everything was going great, but after a couple of months, productivity started to fall off. It turns out that these people now had more money than they ever had before and figured that they didn’t need to work anymore and just stopped going to work. This might happen to the people of Afghanastan. Too much money too quick might make them say, “Thanks for all the money. See ya around.” and the American factories might not last. But I doubt it.

I’ve already cited Japan in my previous post, but I could easily make my case by pointing to Singapore, Taiwan, and even China. China is becoming more and more capitalistic by the year, and American and other forgien businesses are investing a lot of money into China. I think this is good. Only when we have China dependant on us, can we influence China into better human rights practices. When we are able to start threatening with money, then they are more likely to listen. But this is a bit of a tangent to the main point.

8

You may referring to the attempts by Fairchild Semiconductor (IIRC) to open a plant on a Navajo reservation.

Thanks to both of you for at least trying to respond to this admittedly difficult question. I find the thundering silence of these boards to be a searing indictment of the prediliction towards armchair quarterbacking too often displayed here. I have no illusions about the complexity of my suggestion for a credible deterrent. Sadly, economic prosperity (as noted in the OP) is far too long term to be a viable solution. There is a pressing need to immediately quash terrorism and it is incumbent upon all civilized nations to arrive at a mutually agreed upon method of doing so.

I will again restate that the intentions of bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are so injurious to the health of modern society that previously unacceptable measure may pose the only solution to this threat. I also find it impossible to overstate the threat that is represented by these fanatics and strongly urge the members here to begin considering this problem in detail. The moral and ethical issues are ones that will haunt us for decades to come if we fail to find some successful method of averting further atrocities like the one in New York.

9

Zenster wrote:

A devout agnostic? What, you go to Agnostic Church every Sunday, and reverently pray and don’t pray at the same time to a God that may or may not exist?

10

If you can’t take a joke please don’t try to impose one upon the rest of us.
Yes, I’m a devout Agnostic. GET A LIFE!

11

I agree that economic solutions are probably the best, most long lasting… and also that it won’t help right this minute.

I don’t agree at all with torture as a deterrent. After all, these people are willing to die anyway–they’ll just make sure they do. Not to mention the prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment…

However, if a terrorist doesn’t have any reason to believe his death will be “glorious” (that is, he believes he will certainly fail) then he has no motivation.

A far more immediate solution would be to plug the holes in our security. Unfortunately there is only so much we can do without abandoning our freedoms–and even if we curb access to fuel-laden airliners, biological agents, and fertilizer, there will always be ways to obtain those things from other countries and bring them here. Only a global security effort would be able to prevent, and we know not everyone is going to participate in that.

Honestly I don’t think there is a practical deterrent in the conventional sense. I think we need to infiltrate and work from the inside of these cells to thwart terror operations as they are being planned, before they can be carried out. Unfortunately, this will require sacrifice. Deep cover agents are very vulnerable, and fundamentalists are unlikely to turn to our cause. Many of our own will have to die, ostensibly to save others from future terrorist acts. But I have little doubt that if we have any brains at all in our government at the moment this has probably already started in earnest.

Frankly, I don’t see “war with all the host countries” as a practical deterrent because we simply can’t afford it. At least, not with the current political situation… And honestly I don’t think it would work anyway–the wasp will continue to sting us until we find the nest, get in, and destroy it inside and out. IMHO, we can only counter covert threats of this nature effectively with covert action in turn.

12

On Terror:

Well, since I was invited.

Firstly, the language of deterrence is not helpful in understanding the problem, except in regards to state sponsorship. That limits the choices. Conceptually we make a rather large mistake in explicitly conceiving this in terms of Cold War frameworks like ‘deterrence.’

Secondly, I have no easy answers. I am not even sure I have answers at all.

Thirdly, let me put this in a frank framework. When we are speaking of “Terrorism” here we are speaking of apocalyptic anti-West/anti"dar al-Harb" Islamic terrorism. It is mealy mouthed inananity to pretend that a loose concept like “terrorism” can be “combated” or even deterred.

Mind you, I am not critiquing the choices the Bush administration has made in terms of how to cast these actions. They have largely been shrewd. But in terms of analysis we need to lay aside the rhetorical cloak.

Now then, I’ve had rather long contact with "these folks’ — which is to say Islamists. I had ‘friends’ who were members of organizations which might best be described as radical. Not the most bloody minded of the groups, but close enough to make me nervous from time to time. But I always considered this as something of an insurance policy, to have friends everywhere in the spectrum. Why note this rather mundane personal detail? Because my comments are predicated not entirely on what I have read about Islamic radicalism — although I have tried to be well read (I’m afraid my readings are largely not in English, but certainly I’ve read the standards like Espisito etc.) — but also on what I have seen on the ground, and from conversations with the same kind of people.

That does not make me an expert, I only proffer some experience with the caveat ahead of time that I am but one individual.

There, then what about some meat?

Firstly, how to understand the motivations. I noted during the past few months a tendency among the pacifists — whose naivety in regards to the character of these people turns my stomach — to posit that 1st world oppression and poor economic circumstances are the real explanatory variables. They are not.

Economic deprivation certainly provides some of the foot soldiers and is a real, large component in some people’s motivations in the extreme end of the extremist camp. I would go farther and say that a large number of ‘moderate’ fundamentalists — folks whose fundamentalism would seem familiar to your ordinary garden variety fundamentalist Xtian — are indeed very motivated by frustrations with the clear incapacity of their governments and societies to grapple with economic, social, technological and most of all DEMOGRAPHIC change. These people need to have a voice in political processes, although their harkening to Caliphal times and tenuous acceptance of democracy is a genuine threat, not something concocted. How to do this is a very large question indeed. I have no easy answer, because frankly, each country will have to grapple with the problem in its own social and political tradition. But a degree of inclusion is a must.

(A side note, I do reject ** utterly ** the concept that the West is responsible for the MENA region’s economic straights. While colonialism certainly had varying — and sometimes large — influences on structural political problems, it is deeply revealing that the same kinds of issues in regards to nepotism, clannish economic groups based on blood ties rather than economic or personal merit, patriarchal and authoritarian political structures presently effect ALL the nations of the region, regardless of their colonial history — or in the case of as-Saudiyah, lack thereof. The fundamentals are much deeper than a brief colonial interlude. I could write my own analysis of this, but that would take rather more time than I have. Besides, some folks desire to pay me for that, so I have to devote more time to them.)

After economic deprivation, and in my experience, more important for those who make the step in to real radicalism as opposed to just conservatism, is the sensation that Islamic culture ** is ** superior and is being shat on by the West. It is a common theme, and one held even by non- radicals. Now, part of this is unsurprising. I imagine most people feel their culture is superior else they would change it. Rather, the component is toleration. For those who desire a return to a mythologized Caliphal period where all was well, Islam was united and the people were upright, toleration of the infidel is intolerable. Now in the prior statement anyone can pick out a number of false facts — that Islam was united from the get go, that the Caliphs were really all that, the subtle abandonment of the idea of comradely relations with Xtians and Jews, making them infidel because they “war” on “your” Islam. But that is the structure of the thinking. If you read French you might look up the writings of a certain Tariq Ramadan for commentary on this, and on the duties of Muslims to rethink atrophied ideas in light of a new world.

Once one accepts this kind of logic, going beyond this to violence is not terribly difficult. I would like to suggest, by the way, a fairly well-written and interesting article in the past week’s New York Times Magazine on suicide bombings which offers a small window if you will into this kind of world. I rather wish the author had gone outside of Egypt and Palestine and the Hamburg mosques, for my experience in regards to the former --I have none in regards to the latter— is you will find the most bloody minded thinking there. I have to say, I was not the least bit surprised about the Egyptian component. I’ve many bitter letters to my Arab friends about Egyptian society and its deep xenophobia.

Now the, I’ve seen it written here and elsewhere that these people are “crazy”, “illogical” etc. I think that’s not terribly helpful for understanding the issue. My experience has been that within their set of precepts/their fundamental assumptions, their thinkers are coldly rational and calculating. Nor are they cowards. Those of you who have said so, I understand why, but you are wrong. Membership in these groups is fundamentally dangerous. Egyptian, Algerian, Syrian security forces will kill like you are a rabid dog if they get wind of such activities. And merely to be suspected is to invite a beating within an inch of your life. One of these ‘friends’ of mine received just that — I rather suspect they also did not like his frequent contacts with me— for the mere suspicion. Torture. It wasn’t pretty. He continued his activities to my knowledge. That takes a degree of courage. Not a courage I necessarily admire, but I recognize it. I expect few of the posters here would have that in the face of what this bastard suffered. I don’t know that I would. These folks view themselves as soldiers for a just cause.

They rightly understand that in order to have the remotest hope of achieving their aims they have to be willing to take more hits than their stronger, better endowed enemy. They have to count on being able to suffer more until their enemy is tired. It worked before. I’ve not idly been advising folks to learn about Algeria, both the war for independence from 1952-1962 and the civil from 1992 forward. These are models.

I should add that the organizations that have survived are incredibly well-organized. The CIA man, what is his name Woolesly?, who’s been running around beating the Iraq drum and hypothesizing that ‘religious extremists’ just don’t have the organization skills, etc to mount these operations is ** an ignorant stupid fuck**. My experience with these organizations is that they are much better organized, better disciplined and more coherent than anything in the governments of the region, excepting the security forces. I have a chilling memory of this certain “friend” of mine visiting my apartment and sweeping it for bugs. Very well trained he, or so it rather appeared to my untrained eyes. At the very least, disciplined.

I also believe they are largely more talented than the security forces — due to conviction they attract motivated folks — who have the upper hand largely by weight of resources. I have been astounded by the funding that they can mobilize for soup kitchens, social activities etc. They get funds around at levels which I suspect are higher than our former CIA director imagines. Much of this is legit charity work, but it has in the past 15 years been accompanied by political action which the governments, largely corrupt and ineffective, have a hard time fighting. Note, this is generalizing on a regional level which I find to be a bit sketchy given large country to country variation but for the sake of time…

All this being said, these are human organizations. It is best not to blow them up into mythological comic-book/James Bond organizations.

Well, one could write more, but I think this gives the framework for the problem.

Then there is the problem of the media in the Arab world. It loves to blame all problems on the outside world, rarely examines the internal reasons — which in my practical, on the ground experience in the past decade tells me are the more serious ones. An aspect of Arab culture (note, * Arab * culture) is a rather poor receptivity to auto-critiques. There is a cultural tendency to externalize blame. Tendency, and I stress that. It is terribly dangerous to over-generalize. This feeds into the outward looking conspiracy theories which give all power to the jews (lord knows I wish I was a jew if jews had all the powers the jew-haters attributed to them… but that’s another story) and their minions. (Like me…)

How to fight this then.

First, I’m afraid that the West is going to have to live with much higher security measures as the first short term response. Addressing near-term threat can only be achieved through this. I am also afraid that to master the cell-structure that certain niceties in regards to the legal rights of such suspects. I say that with the greatest reluctance, but I suggest that readers reacting to this examine the French experience with Algerian based terror movements and the bombings of the mid-1990s.

Second, human intelligence. I am not nearly as pessimistic as some in regards to the ability to develop this. Infiltration and turning some members is possible, I believe. However, security agencies need to begin immediately developing people with the proper language and culture skills. Long term investment. And again, breaking into the cell-network will require … new developments in regards to extracting information from subjects. Were this a question of ‘ruling’ over something which is not ours, I would never entertain this thought. However, protecting one’s own house is another matter. Of course, I tie this with appropriate policies to address real grievances. Else you end up being Israel in an endless, numbing spiral.

Third, targeting based on good intelligence those who are at the top of the pyramids. That is kill the leaders. And bloody hell don’t fucking say anything about it. And further, I do believe this has to be non-military. I have the terrible sense that our Afghan policy is walking into disaster. Hesitations about the Northern Alliance, hesitations to take casualties, desire to rely on the low- risk/high tech… Disaster. In re the Northern Alliance, some posters have said they are ‘no better than the Taliban.’ Well, welcome to the real world folks. Sometimes you don’t get to make good choices, only less-bad ones. The Taliban are very bad and harbor a direct and imminent threat. The Northern Alliance are the other choice.

Third, long term investment in policies designed to limit the appeal of the extremists. That means many things. I have tried to imagine but have not arrived at something convincing to myself methods for the US to promote more positive Islamic theologians. Long-term economic reforms in the region are absolutely necessary, but they impose short-term costs which the anti- globalization crowd will yap on about ignoring the demographic trap.

Well to keep it short(er): a complex series of long-term policies which attempt to promote (a) healthier US images in the region including ** DIRECTLY **, positively and aggresively engaging Arab medias (esp. Al-Jazeerah) (b) promoting economic growth © population control (d) somehow promoting moderate Islam — however this would have to be secret and indirect.

Fraid that I have not done much to help.

But at least I won’t have to read any more moronic threads about the ‘threat’ of peanut traces in food for a very long time.

13

I used the term “deterrence” in order to convey the pre-emptive nature of how we must attempt to eliminate terrorism. Your mention of how ineffectual such a notion may be is well placed but I felt we needed to get the ball rolling somewhere with this vital discussion and I was willing to use a not necessarily accurate term to do so.

“I am also afraid that to master the cell-structure that certain niceties in regards to the legal rights of such suspects.”

When you wrote this did you perhaps intend to have it read in the following fashion?

“I am also afraid that to master the cell-structure that certain niceties in regards to [abrogating] the legal rights of such suspects [may be needed].”

Is this perhaps what you meant to write? I have no desire to misrepresent you in any way. But I am intensely curious as to the qualifications you make about these unspecified measures that need to be taken. I feel that what confronts us is a real-life version of having to fight fire with fire. The slippery slope of infringeing upon human rights seems to be almost guaranteed when attempting to effectively deal with terrorists. It is for that exact reason that my OP dealt with the distasteful subject of torture and whatever (dubious) efficacy its application might have.

You have pared down the complex issues of this problem admirably and I’m hoping that you will have the time to additionally suggest what sort of “new developments in regards to extracting information from subjects” will be required in your own opinion. Voice stress analysis and other new methods will possibly prove quite useful but it is hard to imagine anything short of sheer brute force that will prove effective for fighting terrorism in the near term.

Again, thank you for accepting my invitation into this thread. It is more than obvious that you have provided a superb thumbnail sketch of this problem’s nature. The cogencey and quality level of your replies are a breath of fresh air amidst the nattering that too often surrounds discussion of these subjects here.

14

Something like that. I am afraid that I know too little to make informed comments beyond this, other than to say careful study of the Algerian history, to an extent that of Israel would be prudent.

15

Collounsbury: Excellent post, as usual. But I have a small quibble ( maybe ).

Well, not the sole choice. That they are important allies of convenience I think goes without saying. Also undoubtedly they ( or at least some factions ) will need to be included in any successor government. But they can’t be the only answer, or even the main answer. Put aside that some of them are miserable butchers ( I’ll note Dostum’s charming habit of ‘drawing and quartering’ his enemies with tanks ), that they hold direct responsibility for the rise of the Taliban ( and much of the destruction of Afghanistan’s meager urban infrastructure ) through their infighting, and that they are probably incapable of acting as a coherent whole. It’s more that in purely practical terms, they lack the support to be the solution. They have very little backing from the Pashtun majority that has always held the balance of power in Afghanistan.

Nope, there are other factions ( and some of them pretty unsavory as well ) that will need to courted. I don’t think we can afford to put all our eggs in the Northern Alliance’s basket, more so now that their battlefield inadequacies are becoming a little clearer. Of course I don’t think the U.S. government is putting all their bets on the NA, so I am currently satisfied on that account.

I’m not sure we disagree on the above ( I rather suspect not ), but I just felt the need to clarify.

One thing we probably do disagree on is this…

I am just as reluctant to dismiss this as you are to suggest it. But my own personal moral qualms are just a little to great for me to overcome in this regard. Even if it means losing :frowning: . It’s funny - I’m not a pacifist. I am in favor of military action. I recognize and reluctantly assent to the unfortunate fact that innocent lives will inevitably be lost. I can countenance assassination of specific targets as a wartime necessity. I am tolerant of a small loss ( I will draw the line somewhere, though ) of domestic civil liberties in exchange for tighter security. But I can’t quite bring myself to accept torture and beatings of even known terrorists to gather information ( and as a deterrence, I think its value approaches nil ). Let alone the potential of working over innocents. IMO some ( please note, not all ) of the the tactics utilized by say France, in Algeria in the 1950’s/early '60’s, or by Israeli ( and Palestinian ) security forces today, are unacceptable breaches of basic human rights. For me, I’d rather we not survive as a society than take that step - Not that I think it will ever come to that.

Inconsistent of me? Probably. But this is one time my visceral reaction wins the argument. At least, for me.

snort Don’t be ridiculous. You’ve been an enormous help, in just the last day :slight_smile: .

It’s the CASHEWS man! Doesn’t anybody just how allergic some folks are? Why a good Chicken Korma is nothing but a plate full o’ hidden death! :smiley:

  • Tamerlane
16

No you are right, I was collapsing a rather longer commentary on what * appears * to be unnecessary short-term hesitations about assisting the Northern Alliance. They are without doubt largely particularist scum who certainly helped create the conditions which led to the Taliban.

However, there is no virgin birth in Afghanistan.

Everyone we deal with is going to be, to use Denzel Washington’s character’s phrase in Glory “all covered up in it.”

I suppose then my point was rather if one wants to find the perfect, socially acceptable group to support in Afghanistan, one may as well give up hope.

Torture…

Indeed.

Ah. I don’t honestly know that I can. I may be alone on this board in having seen the results of torture in the flesh. And in the eyes. The eyes.

However, on the other hand, those posters in New York. Those goddamned posters on so many walls in NYC could be just a start if al-Qaeda cells are not broken up.

And not just American lives. I’ve mentioned more than once I think the terrible massacre in northern Sudan by an Egyptian originating group, al-Higra wa Takfiir, of a mosque full of sufi-oriented worshippers. Gathered for the jumaa prayer. Their crime, not being the ‘right’ kind of Muslims. Being pacifist in orientation.

I’ve thought long and hard not only about our losses in New York but also about my dear, dear friends in the Middle East. Good decent folks who I love dearly, who would suffer… well look at Afghanistan … if al-Qaeda style folks took power.

And the terror my Algerian friends have lived through. A horror made worse in that one can barely say that the military-socialist state is better than the GIA.

I understand. I feel similarly, but then I’d rather not “we” cede ground to al-Higra wa Takfiir, or the GIA. That way lies horror. Of that I am convinced.

For that, I have begun to consider terrible choices. The discussion in re pacifism and the links to Orwell captures the ambiguity of my current thinking and feeling.

Bah. I’ve given some half-baked opinions based on a limited set of experiences.

Gah, if only I never here about the deadly threat of peanuts in school lunches, I shall die a happy man.

17

Tamerlane, I will share with you a detail about my composition of the OP. At the outset of writing it I was all set to advocate torturing terrorists as some sort of deterrent to their heinous acts. As I wrote the OP and walked through the details of the entire mess, I too came (again) to the realization that it was just plain morally reprehensible. I could not bring myself to bang the drum for such a measure, even against such scum as terrorists. I agree with you that if our free society is able to devolve back to methods of the Inquisition then we may as well abandon all progress and return to the caves we once inhabited.

That said, I still hope that there is some way for us to discourage and (preferably) pre-empt terrorism. I feel that it is critical to our world’s survival. The lack of restraint that Al-qaeda and maggots like bin Laden exhibit with their callous disregard for human life knows no bounds. The (however remote) possibility of these b@stards starting a nuclear war or even just instigating a single nuclear attack is so ghastly that they must be stopped. I am not talking about a long term plan to bring peace to the Middle East, I’m talking about here, now and today. We must find a way to destroy these maniacs and it may well involve unheard of measures to neutralize the further possibility of unheard of atrocities like that which occurred in New York.

I am wholly unable to accept anything less than the complete dismantling of all terrorist networks. Large, small and in between, we need to root them out and make the penalty for such conduct so harsh as to permanently discourage those who would consider it. As to how one humanely goes about combating inhumanity on a previously unknown scale, I would like to know. I do not see much alternative to some form of brutality as a method to do so. Again, we return to the issue of abandoning all of the strides towards civilization made in the past centuries.

If we allow the terrorists to operate with even the slightest degree of impunity, they have won. If we for any reason give up our relentless prosecution of the terrorists, they have won. If we surrender our hard earned civil liberties in the name of assailing them, they have won. There are so few avenues towards any sort of sure victory against these scum that I can only desire a complete obliteration of terrorists throughout the world. Their intentional redirection of all that is sacred to modern society against itself is so despicable as to make me wish slow death upon them all. This is the principal reason for this thread. As civilized human beings (a term more than a few people are probably unwilling to apply to me) it is incumbent upon us to find a path out of this labyrinth. The minotaur awaits our failure to do this and I cannot sit by idly and risk squandering the few chances we might have.

It is far too easy, and (as Collounsbury has so ably pointed out) deadly wrong for us to fault ourselves over the degenerate and corrupt socioeconomic structures that were imbedded in the Middle East long before America was even discovered. There has been bred up an intolerant monster swaddled in the robes of devout religiosity that has no holds barred in its attempts to revert all of modern society back to their stone age mentality. This cannot be permitted to happen. The short term risks are too vast to permit us to take a strictly long term view. There must be measures put in place that serve as the strongest possible disincentive to such a reversal of our world’s current advances.

If countries are unwilling to advance themselves past such barbarity they may need to be stripped of their right to rule. America may find itself an unwilling possessor of the club needed to bludgeon the uncooperative into line. Our might and military prowess automatically nominate us for this loathsome chore. How can we abdicate this monumental responsibility? I firmly believe this board has the collective brainpower to sort out this onerous task. The fact that so few have stepped up to the plate in this thread is disheartening to say the least.

I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude for both your’s and Collounsbury’s responses to this call for ideas. This is not to dismiss the reasonable and decent attempts made by other posters here, but it is with keen appreciation for the critical insights that you and Collounsbury are able to provide that I focus upon the two of yours’ efforts. A full fledged knowledge of the motivational structure underlying the mindset of those we are pitted against will be required in order to defeat their cruel aims. That you two are willing to direct your energies towards that end is something I am intensely grateful for.

18

Then you need to rethink. I do not believe it is possible to completely dismantle al-Qaeda. Cripple, yes. Dismantle. No.

Ah, you take my comments to far.

Current problems are not * necessarily * age-old. The issue is the capacity of traditional or at least historic forms of authority and political action to adapt to modern circumstances, including radically changed social structures.

What is appropriate in one set of circumstances may not be in another. 3% population growth, that is low death rates and exploding populations with rapid urbanization ** requires ** new responses. Past social structures were not degenerate but they are now inappropriate and rapidly failing.

Nor would I utterly lay aside some responsibilty derived from colonial interventions for current problems. No, there is some. However, they are not explanatory for al-Qaeda per se.

Zenster, you are falling into a pattern of thinking which does rather too far.

And this way, imperialism and its swamps lie. No, this is not going to work, Zenster. This line of thought is both failed – it was tried – and unhelpful as its answers lead us deeper into the morass.

If the Taleban wanted to keep to themselves, well I would not advocate intervention.

19

Yay, C returns! :smiley:

Zenster, I do not believe there is a general solution to “terrorism.” Its scope is simultaneously so small (a terrorist can be a single operative) and yet so large (many people have what they feel are legitimate grievances) that short of the decimation of the human race I think we will always have some form of terrorism.

Then the question becomes either: What about international terrorism? or What about this specific band of terrorists?

On the former question, it is theoretically possible—I think. We could very probably curb international arms trade over time, but then we come to the second question, and I think the answer is again “no.” What exactly could we do? This attack, and others that could be like it, are enacted by using the freedom and technology our country has against us. Fertilizer bombs, airplane attacks (if they can’t use knives they can use good pens, if they can’t do that they’ll just become pilots), pharmaceutical weapons… hell, a kid in a chem lab in college can make nitroglycerine without any trouble at all. Two kids could make bucketloads of it. Really resourceful chemlab kids could whip up some RDX or PETN (both crystalline explosives) in quantities that could take out buildings. So if we curb international weapon/arms hand-offs, we just make more resourceful terrorists.

20

Thank you ERL. I needed… time.

I rather do agree in large part with your analysis. I rather think that intelligence is the only real solution. And unfortunately the will to do some somewhat unpleasant things. Unfortunately our ability to do very nasty things has gotten rather ahead of us.