Does anyone beleive "War" on Terrorism can be acheived only through military means?

Great Debates
21

Because it’s just obvious that Khaddafi wasn’t budging an inch until Bush invaded Iraq. Right. And he certainly wasn’t interested in trade with Europe.

And of course Musharref cooperated with the US after 9/11 because he was afraid of being invaded as well. After all, he had previously been so chummy with fundamentalist Islamists. And Pakistan has practically no army.

Ye gods, Sam, do you truly believe this stuff? It’s all well and good to carry a big stick, but the recommendation is usually to walk softly. And even if we bought this “strong diplomacy” crap with regards to Libya and Pakistan, it has bugger all to do with any real, current terrorist threats. Tell me, Sam, when was the last time brute military force won decisively against an assymetric threat, short of being used to implement an out and out genocidal solution? Tell us about these radical militants who have been cowed into submission by the threat of force. Regale us with tales of how the British put an end to IRA bombings with military force. Tell us all about how Napoleon rid himself of the original guerillas (not the first to use the tactics, but the first to be called guerillas) by stern use of his military might. Explain the intricacies of Somoza’s brilliant tactical demolition of the FSLN. Enlighten us with the strategic genius utilized by the Afrikaaners to get rid of the ANC once and for all. Give us the statistics showing how Israel’s hardline stance against Hamas has completely eliminated attacks by their militants, and outline how Russia’s approach in Chechnya is putting a quick end to the troubles there. Spin us a lovely yarn about how the Romans used their Legions to put down the Jewish Revolt (well, okay, the Romans did succeed, but they had to slaughter a million Jews and burn Jerusalem to the ground to do it).

In short, history tells us that brute military force is virtually useless when faced by an assymetric threat, unless you’re willing to use it to wipe out that threat’s entire base of popular support. Do you dispute that? If so, explain how I’m misunderstanding history. If not, explain why this time is different.

22

He is not seeking a military solution , that would be far cheaper than what he is doing now. It would be far cheaper to simply glass the middle east and accept collateral damage, than whats currently in place.

The president represents the nation , should the population of the US demand a military solution , it would be forth coming. Allies were requested , in some cases they have come through , ala Afganistan , other times they have not , ala Iraq , maybe when it comes down to taking Syria , Allies will be there.

Declan

23

Well why aren’t allies “joining up” ? World diplomacy isn’t such a haphazard thing that allies “have not come through”. Maybe they had good reasons not to do so ? Maybe the US should be playing leader not local bully ?

As for Sam’s post… Grosnak hit it back perfectly. Tough talking and military showmanship doesn’t make for effective governance… unless you playing dirty, for keeps and your a nazi or a dictator. Russia and Bush are handling terrorists the same way… and failing.

Mushareef is in dire straits due to his alliance and has barely escaped a few assassination attempts. The result might be a Pakistan in the hands of Islamic Clerics… and the nukes too. As for Libya it has been buckling for ages. Compensation for Panam 107 wasn’t negotiated yesterday.

Though it must be made clear that strong armed policies can and do work... but Bush is only carrying a big stick... clumsily using it on the wrong targets (Iraq) and offering little in terms of a carrot. Without clear alternatives (carrots) you just create more hostility. Iraq was a US ally for example and was taken down with excuses of WMD... great example to other that want to "collaborate". Again to much emphasis to military and not other solutions.
24

The larger goal of using international politics to affect the support of terrorists seems to be the only way to really deal with the problem. If they don’t have any money or power then they can’t do an awful lot. Military action can be one way of removing support, and this looks like what the US and UK is doing now.

I honestly think it is an abysmal policy, but probably the most effective one once the hatred has been culitvated.

25

I do not think It takes a lot of money and power to plant bombs in public places like you see in Israel or Spain. A small group with access to some dynamite and a cell phone can make a bomb which can blow up a train or building.

I think Iraq has been a huge setback in the fight against Muslim terrorism. Afghanistan was a different matter because they were sponsoring and protecting those behind 9/11 and everybody but the most fanatical anti-Americans supported American action in Afghanistan.

But subsequent events are turning some people who were pro-American or neutral into anti-American. The tougher you get with Muslims without justification, the more Muslims will turn anti-west. And millions of them already live in Europe and the USA. What are you going to do? The people who did the attacks in madrid had lived in Spain for a long time before they decided to do it. It is crazy to think attacking Muslims around the world is going to make anything better.

In my opinion it is silly to say this is a new thing, this so-called “war on terror”, and it needs anything different.

people have short memories because there was a wave of terrorist attacks in Europe in the 70s and the world did not go into this paranoia and hysteria.

IMHO the way to deal with present events would follow these points:

  1. Forget the notion that all terror attacks can be prevented. They can’t. Not any more than all murders, robberies or wife beatings. States should dedicate efforts to prevent terror attacks proportionate to their likelihood and consequences but we need to assume than once in a while some will succeed. Asking the state to guarantee you will not be the victim of a terrorist attack is as silly as asking the state to guarantee you will not be shot dead in a robbery.

  2. Intelligence and infiltration are the first line of defense and the most valuable.

  3. Use immediate and overwhelming punishment against any group or country which sponsors terrorist activities. But their has to be clear and indisputable evidence. Iraq is an example of how using force against a country which had nothing to do with terrorism just dilutes the issue and the US loses support from other countries.

  4. Bend over backwards to make friends or at least coexist with countries which may have different points of view and which may be on bad terms with the USA. present policies are making enemies out of neutrals.

What points 3 & 4 mean is that you are doing your best to reduce the number of enemies to the bare minimum and you can deal with them with force. At the same time you are enticing countries to be friends as you demand little from them. But the present policies are doing the opposite: By attacking Iraq on weak pretexts and lies, America is losing support of neutral and even friendly nations. By saying “you are with me 100% or you are against me” it provides little incentive for nations to compromise.

The notion that Muslim extremism can be fought by bombing Muslim countries is just silly. It is seen as unjust and it is pissing people off everywhere, including in the countries doing the bombing. There are plenty of people in this countries who can be pushed to become terrorists themselves. What are you going to do about that? The notion that you can seal off the bad guys outside of the country is just silly.

We need to defuse the tension, not to escalate it. It has not worked for Israel and it will not work for us. The present policy will only have the effect of making things worse.

26

sailor:

Right, but as you also pointed out that there are countries where the state sponsors terrorist groups like Afghanistan. I think that although its maybe not a great idea to bomb the country in any case, removing state support for terrorist groups does limit their power and influence.

As for resources remember that they don’t just need money to launch attacks, they need money to advertise, recruit and train members etc… Also limiting their resources makes the risk of them aquiring expensive materials eg. uranium much smaller.

27 
Well said... I'm a good example of a pro-American turned into Anti-Bush and sligthly anti-American now.
28

Well, I think Terrorism could be defeated by purely military means - if you are willing to use enough force. Israel could end its Palestinian problems once and for all by simply killing every Palestinian. The US could end fundamentalist Islamic terrorism by breaking out the nukes, and killing every Muslim on the face of the Earth. Granted, these solutions would be immoral, and no one sane person would propose actually carrying out these situations, but

If violence isn’t solving your problems, you just aren’t using enough of it.

29

I’m new to the board but I have been reading these “Iraq” and “Terrorism” debates for awhile.

One thing that I have been wondering about is the bad rap that diplomacy has been getting lately. People say “…That’s one reason we relied too much on diplomacy and too little on the threat of force prior to 9/11…” (just a random example). I have been thinking for awhile that it might be just the opposite.

Diplomacy was working great against Bin Laden. He had been expelled time and again from this place or that. Finally, in Afghanisten, he had made himself so unpopular, that

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Backg/Backg3b.htm (1998, Jun-Jul)

Just days later, Clinton sent his cruise missiles and ruined the whole thing.

(Originally I read this whole story in the Wall Street Journal, Friday, August 2, 2002, “Al Qaeda Had Sour Days in Afghanistan, But a U.S. Attack United bin Laden, Omar”; I have it saved, no URL)

Even when people say that diplomacy failed, it is not the fault of diplomacy, but of American stupidity and stubbornness. cite cite

Consider also the great advantage had this diplomacy worked: Saudi Arabia would have executed Bin Laden (for treason) meaning nobody would be “angry” at Americans for dispatching him.

Maybe it’s an exaggeration to say that terrorism could be contained entirely with diplomacy (i.e. convincing allies to fight for you). But boy, how much better off we could have been.

Well said indeed. And really depressing to realize how far along this process has come now.

30

Great post… thanks “Frank”. Indeed America seems to be able to piss off Arabs at the wrong time all the time. One good aspect is that Sunnis and Shia seem to be more respectful of each other with the Fallujah gun battle raging ! Talk about uniting your enemies…

31

Just going on the OP here, Yes the War can be ‘acheived’, we have it. Now going on can a victory in the war be acheived, yes it can depending on how you define victory.

The OPEC nations have enormace wealth through oil sales. Quite a bit of the wealth finances terrorist orgs. Through military means we could easially take all oil fields and serverally cut into such orgs finances.

32

If we were to eradicate all human life in the Middle East, terrorism would still exist. The Middle East is not home to all that is evil. For instance, Timothy McVeigh committed a quite heinous and effective terrorist act in April 1995. It’s cocievable that he could have pulled it off and never been caught. Condi Rice has said that no one could have thought that someone would have flown an airplane into a building, but that was part of the plot of a Tom Clancy novel in 1994. In the late nineties, Robin Cook wrote a book about a former Soviet Union bioweapons plant worker growing anthrax in his garage. I’ve heard of terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland all of my life. Any individual or group, large or small, can commit mayhem without going to too much trouble or effort. If someone were so motivated and took the time to think things through, they could commit untold mayhem and nothing could stop them.

That which has been, shall be. That which has been done, shall be done. And there is no new thing under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9

33

I lived in DC for 16 years and, during that time, a number of friends visited me, some from Europe, some from China. A friend even visited with a grioup of about 20 Chinese work colleagues who were in the US on business. I took all these people on tours of Capitol Hill and other landmarks and used the ocassion to explain to them the basics of western democracy like the principles of

  • Rule of law, nobody is above the law
  • Human individual rights & limitation of government power.
  • Separation of powers
  • International law

I was proud that I could make a good presentation of these concepts while I showed them the landmards that best represented their implementation.

You only have to read my posts for the last year to see how I believe the US government no longer represents those ideals and has lost all moral authority. I believe the present American government is, frankly, anti-American in the things it is doing.

hlanelee: If we were to eradicate all human life in the Middle East, terrorism would still exist.

I agree. I do not understand the concept of “war on terrorism” any more than I would understand a “war on land mines”. Terrorism is not a cause, it is not an end in itself, it is a means, a method, a tactic, used by many different groups for many different ends. As a concept, the US government “war on terror” is even stupider than the “war on drugs”. The problem is not a “war on terror”. That is a really stupid simplication. The problem is finding ways to resolve conflicts without using force. And we all need to learn about that, including some western governments.

34

Western governments already do understand it. Democracies do not make war on one another. They only make war on dictatorships. And I see little point in trying to use peaceful methods when it comes to dealing with people who got their very power from the use of force, not by the will of the people. Such people are not likely to deal in good faith and generally see willingness to negotiate as weakness.

It does not necessarily follow that we should make war on all dictatorships. I’m only pointing out the folly of thinking that we can deal with dictatorships the same way we deal with fellow democracies.

35

Yep, America sure learned that lesson from those dozens of revolutions it incited and tyrants it installed who later turned on us. Hoo-boy. Well, so we only got millions of people killed and threw half the planet into civil war to learn that lesson, but man, we’ve sure stopped overthrowing dictatorships and installing corrupt leaders to head psuedo-democracies that will serve our regional interests…

Hm, wait… WE’RE STILL DOING THAT! Shock (and awe)!

May I point out the folly of dealing with international terrorist groups by killing a lot of their cousins now? Oooh, can I?

Simple fact of the matter - this isn’t the kind of politics or gunboat diplomacy anyone is used to. Our best bet is simply not pissing off the terrorists.

Am I afraid of them? Not really. I just think they have a point to their argument, which could be better made if they didn’t kill a few thousand people every so often.

Oh, wait, they DID make that point for half a century! Golly gosh darn, sure glad we learned not to play imperialists invaders.

Man, I can’t wait until the people in Latin America and Southeast Asia finish up their civil wars and realize who screwed them. They’re going to be PISSED.

36

Oh, and Africa. Something tells me that they might have a few bones to pick with people.

Europe, I’m looking at you.

37

That’s what’s called a polemic. Short on fact, high on hysterics.

The only point I think really needs to be addressed is your idea that the world is in civil war and when they’re done, it will be heck to pay. At least in South America and Asia, that hasn’t been the case since the 80s. Most of South America and Asia are peaceful, democratic, stable, and friendly with the US. Africa is very friendly with the US, and you are one of the few to accuse the US of fomenting unrest in Africa. Even America-haters recognize that Africa’s problems, if due to outside powers, originated with Europe, not the US. The only nation in Africa that the US got significantly involved with was Angola, a nation we now have excellent relations with. It’s called letting bygones be bygones. Third Worlders are not all barbarians who resort to violence for revenge as you portray them to be. At this point, only the Arab world behaves this way on a consistent basis.

38 
We aren't all barbarians... but I think the point being made was that if we are treated as barbarians by patronizing super powers we might resort to violence once the act is over.  I agree that Arabs were the least "behaved"... but then they are in the area considered the most strategic. 

Your view of we have to deal with these countries differently from democracies surely doesn't make a nice case for creating normal relations for the future.
39

No, I said that when they realize who caused all of their problems, they’ll be pissed.

Like our good buddies El Salvador? I’m glad to see that we’re getting along with the psuedo-democracies that we paid and trained to overthrow the old governments and take power. And South Korea - boy do they love us!

Yep, Somolia is a vacation resort.

Um, yes. That is why I said, “I’m looking at you, Europe.” Oh, excuse me, did I interrupt your cherrypicking?

You have GOT to be kidding me. Angola has been in civil war for 40 years, has a dictatorship they call democracy, an otherwise nonfunctional government, and is a victim of the diamond wars - and it is all peechy keen because we have “excellent” relations with them?

Now I think you are really kidding me. “Ooops, sorry for getting a few million people killed. Woah, was that funny. Oh well.”

While we’re at letting bygones be bygones, why not forget that whole 9/11 thing?

40

Touché !! Hit the mark perfectly. Pride is only for the powerful it seems ?