I can think of lots of times when a military solution hasn’t defeated terrorism. I can’t think of any examples where it has. Can anyone else?
If you want a simple answer, then maybe this can be moved to General Questions. But since this question is in Great Debates, I’ll reply that I think it’s nearly impossible to completely eliminate terrorism, but military action (combined with political and other actions such as freezing finances, intelligence gathering, etc.) can be effective for marginalizing terrorism.
Can you give me an example of when and where this has worked?
Are you talking about times when a military action stopped or prevented a terrorist attack?
1976 - Israels raid Entebbe, Uganda to free hijacked Air France airplane passengers (like the Charles Bronson movie)
2001 - Saudi Arabian security forces stormed a Russian plane and freed more than 100 hostages at Medina airport
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/03/16/turkey.hijack.04/index.html
2001 - Philippines Military Rescues U.S. Hostage
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200104/13/eng20010413_67638.html
I could go on but I don’t feel like searching the web all day.
You need to specify what you mean by ‘defeating terrorism’. As I pointed out, there have been specific incidents where military/police force has been used successfully to stop a terrorist act. Of course there have also been dismal failures like the Munich Olympics and the failed Desert One Iran hostage rescue mission.
Killing terrorists does not create new ones. Each terrorist killed or captured is one less building or plane or bus that gets blown up.
A military solution by itself isn’t effective unless acompanied by a political solution that addresses the underlying causes. Of course many terrorists simply have unreasonable goals so the only solution is to wipe them out.
Of course I acknowledge that individual attacks are continually prevented worldwide. It seems to me (and maybe this should be in IMHO) that terrorism, while it can’t be defeated utterly, can be diminished, but I’ve only ever observed this to happen following negotiations, rather than military intervention. As for ‘wiping them out’, it appears to me to be a bit like flatworms. You cut one in half and it turns into two; the more you kill, the more you make.
So to clarify my OP, has a terrorist group (and any terrorist affiliates that share the same goal), ever been destroyed by military action?
On what authority do you have this?
examples - (1) the British put down a Communist insurgency in Malaysia in the 50s. (2) Communist insurgents in Greece were put down in the 40s. (3) The Italian Red Brigades were eliminated in the 70s-80s after they kidnapped and killed former Prime Minister Moro. (Possible) (4) France’s Action Directe and Germany’s Baader-Meinhof Gang were eliminated, though I admit I’m fuzzy on the details. (Possible) (5) Japan’s Red Army Faction has disappeared - again, I’m fuzzy on the details.
Arguably, a sxith - the PLO was essentially eliminated as a military/terrorist force by the Israelis after the invasion of Lebanon in the 80s. Palestinian terrorism continued, of course, but by different organizations.
Sua
Like jjimm, I find this statement quite incredible.
You think that, for example) by finding bin Laden and killing or incarcerating him, the world will instantly be a safer place?
Do you think people are born terrorists then, and can’t become terrorists?
Propaganda and recruitment don’t exist?
To put it bluntly, in answer to the OP, the modern concept of terrorism is extremely new and no one has really attempted a far reaching military expedition to try and quell it on the scale that the US is doing now. So, really, there is not much precedent either way.
I think the prime example is the British use of the SAS throughout Asia and elsewhere.
The thing is, the public at large generally doesn’t know what the SAS did in places like Aden and Indonesia. SuaSponte’s fuzzy recollection is fuzzy for a reason: the details are kept very quiet, and shrouded in a protective clothing of contradictory stories and disinformation.
However, we have reason to believe that the SAS has played a counterterrorist role in places all over the globe. That role appears to include some not-so-pretty things like assassination.
Whatever it is that they’re up to, one of my pals who should know such things summed it up to me like this: “when there are SAS boys up in the hills, things get real quiet, really fast.”
For a decent answer to my question.
The ‘Malaya Emergency’ anti-communist fight did indeed succeed, though it lasted twelve years; interesting to note that the MCP/MPAJA, as with many other terror groups, were trained by the very people they ended up fighting. Was this an example of terrorism though? They weren’t terrorists when they were fighting the Japanese, they were ‘guerillas’ and ‘resistance’…
The PLO example doesn’t get past my OP clarification, because their affiliates are still in action.
However, I find the European examples particularly interesting, as these groups do indeed appear to have been wiped out utterly. This raises the question - did they disappear because they were defeated in battle, or is it because they didn’t have large enough groundswell of support to sustain them through a military-style attack?
I tend to disagree: what we’ve witnessed recently is bigger by a huge degree, and the suicide element is growing (NB this tends to negate msmith537’s sweeping statement), but to me it looks like the same old terrorism that has been experienced in other parts of the world for decades. So there is precedent. I still think that, on balance, military action (and ‘counterterrorism’ - fire to fight fire?) seems to be less successful than diplomacy and negotiation. Margaret Thatcher said “we do not negotiate with terrorists”, but we now know that she was doing this in secret at the same time.
Egypt has been successful (so far) in greatly reducing (even eliminating) terrorism since the Luxor attacks in 1997. There has been some outcry over their methods, but as Capt. Willard might say “They must’ve hit the right people”.
Of course, the problem with saying someone has successfully “eliminated” terrorism is that one person with a grenade can falsify that statement. It will most likely be impossible to completely eradicate terrorism, just as it is most likely impossible to eradicate all crime. However, it is possible to greatly reduce it, as Egypt has shown.
On the authority that if I cut one criminal in half, the pieces don’t literally grow into two like the brooms in Disney’s Fantasia. What seems to happen, however, is that if the conditions are ripe for terrorism to occur (like in Israel) that terrorist groups have plenty of recruits.
Andy - If we kill Osama and his entire network the world would be a safer place. Would another group spring up to replace him? I don’t know. It would seem that there isn’t a limit on the number of terrorists that can operate at any given time so if another group was going to begin operations, if would do so regardless of Osamas status. The reason that terrorist groups seem like ‘flatworms’ is that they operate in small pockets or cells. So, like roaches, you have to kill them all at once or they pop up somewhere else.
Try and remember that the concepts of “terrorism” and “war crimes” as we understand them are relatively modern and a direct result of internationally codefied rules on acceptable wartime behavior. Prior to such agreements it was all simply “war.”
As to effectively combating it the Romans were very good at elminating terrorism (attacks on Roman non-combatants or ex-patriate populations). Uprisings in Gaul, Palestine, and Anatolia were brutally supressed and “terrorism” was effictively eliminated in these provinces. The Romans made a practice of ruthlessly chastising any intransigence which was why a lone proconsul with a handful of lictors could dictate to foreign leaders without a legionaire in sight.
Terrorism presents difficulties in the modern sense in that by definition terrorists have renounced the civilized rules of warfare whereas we are constrained by them. If you wanted to chuck the rules you could end terrorism tomorrow.
Said B. Gardner, perhaps prophetically:
Sofa King,
Still, a relatively mild response compared to the “Roman way.”
If we were to behave as the Romans routinely did we would simply nuke a few population centers, occupy the oil fields, and kill or enslave anyone who disagreed.
Uprisings are not the same as terrorist attacks. In the old days if you wanted independence you got an army together and fought the army that occupied your land. If you failed you would probably be dealt with harshly by the government, and often this helped prevent future uprisings.
Nowadays, with this thing we call terrorism, the enemy is vague and elusive. It is like guerilla warfare, which is a relatively recent invention, except that “terrorism” can be bended so that it includes any type of behaviour that the government doesn’t like.
I agree that you can only hurt the efforts of terrorists, but you can never destroy the rationale that drives terrorism, and as long as that exists some will believe in it and use it.
jjimm, I meant extremely new when compared to the total history of manking. Like the last 60-70 years 
You are mistaken, Eternal. Do you honestly think that only in the last 150 or so years that people figured out how to terrorize a civilian population? Please, read some history.