Is there anthing that the US can do to win the war on terror without taking action to end the hatred against America? I don’t see how any actions by the US can stop terrorism. Military action aagainst terrorists seems to be creating as many terrorists as it destroys. So can the war on terror be successful without ending the hatred of America? What can be done to end the hatred of America if it must be ended?
If the war on terror is conceived of wholly or substantially as a military struggle, then it can’t be won. I’m open to correction here, but I think the only way in which terrorism has ever been successfully supressed solely with the use of force has been through the use of massive, overwhelming, indiscriminate force directed against an entire population. The Nazis and Stalin’s Russia both suppressed resistance which used terrorist tactics by resorting to such measures as population deportation, the mass murder of admittedly innocent hostages in reprisal for terrorist attacks, etc.
Even if a democracy was prepared to resort to these tactics, they are not politically sustainable in a free society. And, in any event,.there’s no guarantee that such tactics would work; just that they have worked in the past.
Short of that, I don’t think there’s any example of terrorist movements being defeated or brought to an end without signficant efforts to address the social/political/cultural factors which give rise to them, and this is probably the only possibly effective tactic available to democracies. There’s no guarantee that this tactic will work either.
I’m not saying that the use of force has no role in suppressing terrorism; just that it won’t succeed where it’s the only measure, or the main measure, adopted. The tactic most likely to succeed involves political action adressing the grievances and conditions which give rise to the problem, while using force to contain the problem and support the political action you are taking. If it works at all, this takes a while; in the meantime you have no choice but to sweat it out.
The French in Algeria sucessfully dealt with “terrorists”, but it was so bloody and violent an action that the French themselves got sick of it. So I agree with UDS in that “use of massive, overwhelming, indiscriminate force” would be necessary and self defeating in the end…
The US, answering the OP, must resort to less visible and less militaristic means of combatting terrorism. Police Work... selective bombing... not invading countries that don't have terrorists... working with Arabs. AQ thrives on media and the perceptions created of americans. Its like a propaganda war of sorts... and the US is muking it badly as regards Arabs. Bush tends to focus on what the US population feels about the war.War on Terror is a nonsensical and propagandist misnomer: one can no more declare war against a loose affiliation of international criminal organisations than against a cartel of dodgy bookmakers.
Neither is “hatred of the US” particularly universal, perhaps even amongst these criminals. It might characterise Al Qaeda and Hamas accurately, but probably not ETA, Chechen Separatists or the Real IRA. It is questionable whether Iraqi fighters are even engaged in “terror” at all, at least those who target troops or infrastructure rather than civilians in particular.
If there is a legitimate grievance, as with vast Palestinian refugee camps, occupied sovereign nations, illegal Israeli settlements or extrajudicial detention and prisoner abuses, let it be addressed.
If not, as with Bin Laden’s schizophrenic megalomania, all one can do is one’s utmost, within the law, to prevent atrocities.
No.
Well, Tim McVeigh was an American citizen and he only killed about 160 people, so I don’t know if he counts as a terrorist. Really if he had thought things through, though, maybe stolen a truck rather than rented it, he might have never been caught. It’s interesting, last week in the parking lot of the Piggly Wiggly there was a truck with a trailer and about half a ton of Ammonium Nitrate. I walked up to it to look at one of the bags just to be sure. But hey, it’s planting season here in SC and I don’t think anyone knows what ANFO is around here anyway, so we’re safe.
Agree.
Attacking and invading countries in the name of “war on terror”, and display of raw military might against unarmed people, will only create more terrorists. Some success is possible using covert operations. As well, the issue is more dependent on political resolutions.
I agree that this is a major point. Also SentientMeat’s description of the terrorist organization. I’m reminded of major changes in warfare that were made necessary by new attack strategies. A thousand years ago you fought a war by lining up should to shoulder and quite literally held the line against an enemy. That all went to hell forever with the introduction of the repeating rifle. Now we have an enemy that is entirely guerilla and difficult to spot. Huge columns of armor and masses of troops are now only targets for indirect fire and suicide bombers…or they are simply avoided in favor of attrition & demoralization.
The OP restricts us to not addressing ending the hatred. Superior human intelligence to identify individuals; superior visual/aerial intelligence to identify training camps & remote bases; and superior guerilla search & destroy techniques. To reduce the number of “martyrs” no bodies should be left for enemy discovery and to minimize antiAmerican sentiments these operations should be absoulutely sterile & covert. The only sign that anything is going on would be that the bad guys are simply disappearing. No accolades, no shock & awe, no sabre rattling back in Washington. Just a peaceful United States trying to bang out a decent trade agreement here & there, and establish cordial relations with old enemies.
But we have yet to find a leader capable of pulling this off.
They should have said “war on al-Qaida and their supporters”, and stick to it, otherwise, the enemy will always look to bite the US on the bottom and say, “We’re still here”. That what the murder of Berg was about.
If the “War on Terror” means “Catch or Kill Osama”, then maybe.
If the “War on Terror” means “Stop Islamist extremists from attacking America again”, I’d say the chances are pretty close to nil. That war will be “won” perhaps scores or hundreds of years from now when this festering boil within Islam is lanced by Islamists. External opposition can only succeed militarily by mass (i.e. genocidal) extermination, a strategy we are unlikely to take.
If the “War on Terror” means “Put an end to the targeting of civilian non-combattants for the purpose of furthering a political agenda”, we lost before we started, as we inevitably wind up doing the same thing, essentially, when we go to war.
The only thing that can be done to end the hatred of America is the destruction of America. The left is working on that as we speak, so don’t you worry…
The war on terror can be won, but not the way we’re doing it now. The problem is, they are willing to die for their cause, and we are not willing to kill them! We insist on being compassionate and understanding. We backed out of fallujah, we resist the bombing of mosques even when they’re filled with terrorists with guns and shoulder missiles.
Yup. Clean air, cleanwater, safe workplaces, living wages, affordable health care, people in love getting married. By golly you found us out. All those things are just designed to destroy America. Once Kerry is elected, the great witchcraft ceremonies will begin to re-animate Stalin’s corpse.
I see. We should win the war on terror by killing the terrorists in ways that are guaranteed to create more terrorists? So do you advocate depopulating the Middle East to achieve peace?