If you beleive that diplomacy nor police work are necessary in order to finish Terrorism, only military action is necessary please post below.
By military means I suppose in this “Scenario” that the US has unlimited bombing acess to any country and a generous amount of money. (yep a lot) Little or no diplomacy or negotiations involved in reducing/stopping terrorism also… only killing and dissuasion through violence.
I am certain that some do. They are deluding themselves.
A more interesting question might be if anyone believes the war on terrorism can be won without military means.
There is no peace without justice but can everyone agree on what constitutes justice?
Please cite anyone who believes this or has stated this. The argument is that police work and diplomacy ALONE cannot defeat terrorism, and I believe this wholeheartedly.
If you think police work can solve this, answer this: How many terrorists have been convicted and put in jail in the last 20 years? A hundred? Two hundred?
Do you really think having two hundred people convicted is any kind of deterrant at all to al-Qaida? Thousands of people went though the camps in Afghanistan alone. Do you think they are even remotely scared that they might get caught and do time?
And are you going to give them a ‘fair trial’? If so, does that mean the U.S. has to expose its intelligence methods and provide access to sources to the terrorist’s lawyers? Do you think that’s a good thing to do? Do we have to read terrorists their Miranda rights, and follow all of the rules of evidence?
And what if the countries they are in refuse to extradite them? What if the police are actively helping them? Do you know how many terrorists have gone through a ‘revolving door’ after being arrested and wound up back on the street? Remember the hijackers of the Achille Lauro? Remember what happened to that ‘police effort’? They were released from jail and ran.
Or consider this: The Clinton administration tried the ‘law enforcement’ approach to terrorism for 8 years. How would you evaluate the success of that?
Would it be classified under ‘diplomacy’ for the USA to have avoided training/supporting these terrorists (mujahedin) in the first place?
Although that is certainly a legitimate question, it’s not particularly enlightening. Most terrorists were not trained by us, and what training they did receive was not in suicide bombing techniques, airplane hijackings, hostage-taking, etc.
And the Mujahadin were not terrorists anyway. They were soldiers in guerrilla warfare.
But its irrelevant since the US is not doing the WoT solely through such means. You just don’t see a whole lot of the diplomacy. Its going on, but its behind the scenes and done quite quietly. You don’t hear about the US advisors who have helped set up the emerging government in Iraq, or made a sweet deal with Libya.
Don’t turn the question around… nowhere is it implied military action has no part in fighting terrorism.
Clinton did launch tomahawks and did try police action. Between him and Bush there wasn’t enough attention given to terrorism. Clinton might have been more effective with more force used… the same way Bush might have given Star Wars less attention.
Now back to the issue... Military means alone... anyone defends it ?I normally don’t wade into these arguments, but a particularly seditious person I know once remarked that the best way to defeat communism would be to do exactly what the communists feared: seduce the entire population with inexpensive consumer goods and convenience foods (i.e., infect them with Western sensibilities). They wouldn’t stand a chance. IMO that’s been happening in China for a decade or so.
Same thing with the terrorists. Get a cargo ship 20 miles off-shore and pommel them with DVD players, iPods, Game Boys and Big Macs. They’ll eventually relent, grow lazy and docile, and start watching Friends reruns (and yelling at their daughters for dressing like Britney).
Even disregarding the toys I listed above, how angry could people get if their pantries were full and their homes were well-furnished?
You do know that Osama is a multi-millionaire and many of the 9/11 terrorists were well off middle class men don’t you.
It’s not all about poverty and anger sometimes these people actually do it for principles*
*fucked up principles but principles none the less
Osama is only the brain... if the young arabs have something better to look forward than becoming martyrs then Osama wouldn't have many soldiers and grunts to do his dirty work.Are you seriously expecting anyone on this board to answer yes? Do you even have a cite from anyone in the **entire world ** who has ever said this? I think you could post this in GQ, and the factual answer would be “no”.
Well then let’s go a step further.
Does anyone beleive Terrorism can be stopped mostly with Military means ? Little effort by other means.
Why don’t you just cut to the chase and tell us that you think this is what Bush is doing?
Well I think Bush is seeking a mostly military solution and I wanted to hear from Bush supporters how they saw it as sucessful.
Since no one is defending the military solution I must wonder why people consider Bush good in defense… and probably inciting more terrorism than he is quelling. Also when you go full military you don’t need allies… and Bush seems reluctant to go the diplomatic way.
OK, now we get to the crux of the matter, and I think you do have a debate! Here, I’ll phrase it for you:
"What is the proper mix of military, police (intelligence), and diplomatic measures needed to fight terrorism? Is Bush using the right mix?"
I think the effort in Afghanastan needed a military response, but I think most other activities are more in the police and diplomatic arena, with a good sprinkling of special forces actions when possible and necessary. I don’t count the war in Iraq as part of the war against terror (in fact it is probably counter-productive).
The problem with rating Bush is that there is a lot of diplomatic and intelligence work that is not visible to the public.
Though I agree the diplomatic and intelligence part aren't that visible... the emphasis rhetorically and campaign wise by Bush has been his tough military attitude. Diplomacy has been hurt and resources stretched by the Iraq adventure.
So why do so many take Bush’s “Tough on Terrorism” babble as fact ? Terrorism isn’t mostly militarily solvable or even a lot. I’d say military action is the last step and relatively minor when it comes to taking out terrorists. After all you need to know where they are…
Why does anyone believe any politician’s babble? Why do people believe Kerry’s babble about Benedict Arnold CEOs?
People buy the “tough on terrorism” stance because military action is something that is very visible. I don’t see it as surprising at all.
But I do agree with you that the military (except in Afghanistan) should have a smaller role than intelligence work in fighting terrorism. And when the militiary is involved, it should be small Delta Force type actions. We’re not fighting governments so much as independent operators.
The Bush administration is using ‘strong diplomacy’. Diplomacy backed by threat of force, rather than diplomacy that appeals to the other side’s ‘better nature’ or promises of goodies.
‘Strong Diplomacy’ implies the threat of military force if equitable solutions cannot be reached. For it to work, at some point you actually have to carry through on a threat. From that standpoint, overthrowing Saddam becomes a diplomatic tactic when dealing with, say, Libya.
Bush has been engaged in all sorts of diplomatic actions that have been quite successful. For example, he has gotten Musharref in Pakistan to do so much of the U.S.'s bidding that he’s under threat from militants in his own county. We’re already talked a lot about Libya.
I think to key point to defeat terrorism is to shrink the economic difference between the rich and the poor, including that of rich countries and the poor countries. Terrorism probably won’t go away as long as the gap between rich and poor exists and widens.