Terror(ism) is a tactic or strategy, not an enemy in and of itself. As such it cannot be defeated, it can only be more or less effective in the hands of its users.
Stalin was probably the most effective at using terror. I’d put Joe McCarthy at the other end of the terrorist “rainbow”, in terms of how governments (or people in government) weild terror.
There are plenty of times that terrorist “acts” have been defeated, but terrorISM is here for as long as I can forsee. To defeat it, you have to prevent the existence of people who would use it, not merely remove some “unfair” conditions which encourage terrorist acts. Fear is a basic human motivator, and until we reach some nirvana-ish future, people will use it against others. If not by the “have nots” trying to get a fair shake, then by the “haves” trying to keep what they have or get more. And if the potential terrorist has enough money and/or charisma (or even a just cause), we have a terrorist cell and a conspiracy.
That’s why, in my opinion, the “war on terrorism” is a crock. But that’s another thread.
Jimm: can you give some examples when “negotiation” ended terrorism? See, the kind of dude that turns to terrorism, that sick, twisted mindset- does not fit well in a peaceful society. As a terrorist, he was powerful & respected- but as just another citizen in a peaceful nation, he is unemployed & powerless.
Next- killing a terrorist stops THAT terrorist from another bombing. Sure, there are more terrorists coming on line- but that is not because we killed the old ones- if we did not kill those, there would be the OLD & the new terrorists. What has created so many terrorists in that area is the belief that Osama is invulnerable, & that the USA is a paper tiger.
Finally, as long as there are sick radical dudes that hate, and are willing to die for that hatred- there will be terrorists. No “war” can stop that. What the “war” can do is stop nations from supporting & backing terrorists. And, once we do that, there will still be pipe bombs on schoolbuses, but no more expensisve, well trained dudes that can crash jets into skyscrapers- or the same crazies with nukes.
Dammit, and I thought I was going to get the Barbary pirates in first.
First example of ‘sending in the Marines’ in U.S. history (though the Corps had an earlier incarnation during the Revolutionary War) and the first real display of power outside the Western Hemisphere.
When I heard the Corps was dropping into Afghanistan, that’s the first thing I thought of - storming the Barbary strongholds off Tripoli.
In some cases, it can be done, but it requires ruthless action. This example might not fit perfectly, depending on how you draw lines on insurgents vs. terrorists, but it makes the point.
President Assad of Syria faced an uprising by a domestic group known as Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s. This group carried out bomb attacks and assassinated a number of Baath party members and eventually made an attempt on Assad’s life. When the group started a full uprising in the town of Hama, Assad’s military bombed the town for about a month, moved in, killed 20,00 people, and bulldozed the town to the ground. No more Muslim Brotherhood.
Also, the next webpage isn’t exactly Islam-friendly in the least, so I won’t vouch for it all that much, but it has a few extra details of the unpleasant variety.
This was the approach the Soviets took. The Soviets, back in their day, were seldom subject to terrorist attacks because they had such a hard-nosed attitude about it. There was no margin in terrorism against the Soviets because all it earned the terrorist was massive retaliation. I recall reading some time ago (sorry, no cite) about some pirates who attacked a Soviet “fishing boat” (these often doubled as spy ships) back in the late 70’s off of West Africa. One morning, the fishing trawler motors up to the dock towing a boat, cuts the boat loose, dumps a dozen or so bodies on the dock and sails away. That pretty much ended piracy attempts against Soviet shipping.
DrDeth
“See, the kind of dude that turns to terrorism, that sick, twisted mindset- does not fit well in a peaceful society.” This quote bothers me a little. It is literally true that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. For example, many people that became highly respected Israeli leaders engaged in acts that we would probably call terrorist today.
One of the things the international debate desperately needs is a clear definition of “terrorism.” Right now, we have an “I know it when I see it” definition. If we label it “terrorism” every time some group commits a violent act, we cheapen the terrorist label. (Think of “eco-terrorism,” for example.)The point here is that “terrorism” can be sick and twisted or it can be calculating and thoughtful. It can be discriminating or it can be mass murder. If it’s thoughtful and discriminating, like assasinating a military or political figure, it may not be terrorism at all. I’m certainly not saying its meritorious, but it’s in an entirely different class than flying an airplane full of innocent passengers into a skyscraper.
If you are using the Barbary Pirates as a parallel to the present situation, then you better be patient. It took over 30 years for that situation to be calmed down. The U.S. did start hostilities back in 1798, but no treaties were signed until 1816 I believe. And took until the 1830s for the whole practice of state sponsored piracy to be ended.
You misread my question and my comments. I said I couldn’t think of any examples where military means had succeeded. I also said that military ‘solutions’ tend to be “less successful” than negotiation in countering terrorism. I didn’t say that non-violent tactics would “end” terorism.
Some examples have now been provided to show that there can indeed be a military solution to terrorism (though the Thugee and the Barbary Pirates could hardly be called terrorists, though, could they? They were criminal gangs, and their motivation was financial).
However, I can also give you two significant examples wherein terrorism has been severely limited by negotiation and diplomacy: the ANC seem to be pretty quiet these days;), and the IRA have just had cement poured all over a large arms cache by UN weapons inspectors.
jk1245 seems to follow the CBS/Fox Network implication that Al Qaeda is a single entity that can easily be defeated, whereas it seems pretty clear that it’s a loose network of similarly-oriented affiliates, some of which are in Western nations in sleeper cells (and therefore can’t be identified to eliminate simultaneously like “cockroaches”). And since some of the 9-11 hijackers were apparently from the Egyptian branch of Islamic Jihad, I think the assertion that Egypt has been “eliminating” terrorism is somewhat hasty.
Finally, it is generally accepted that the greatest recruitment tool the IRA ever had was the introduction of internment and the militarisation of Northern Ireland by the British Army. msmith537 argues that new recruits to terrorist networks occur “if the conditions are ripe”. I’m of the opinion that across much of the Middle East and South Asia, they are very, very ripe.
Just quickly off the top of my head British internment of Boer non-combatants extremely curtailed the effectiveness of Boer commandos and the US effectively eliminated the threat of Native Americans to its expanding citizenry.
You seem to be tied to a narrow definition of terrorism as it applies to the modern political landscape. Terrorism is nothing more than the targeting of civilian populations to achieve a political goal - kind of like how we fire bombed German and Japanese population centers to reduce their enthusiasm for war.
I guess you’ve got a major point there, Mr/Ms B. Gardner: this debate can’t properly take place until one has successfully defined terrorism… and that’s a whole different GD…!
Well- on the need for a definition of terrorism, I agree. That is why I feel that most of the acts the Isrealis committed, early on, were more on the lines of guerrilla warfare, and less terrorism- but the line is hazy, I will admit. Even the IRA- for a while they bombed mostly at least semi-military or political targets. Now, it is of doubtful morality when you bomb a police station- and also kill several innocents who were only visiting. But the PURPOSE was to attack a “military” target. There can be no doubt that bombing a schoolbus, on the other hand- is terrorism. Even the bombing of the Pentagon could possibly be just over that fuzzy line into “guerrilla warfare”- but the WTC is simply terrorism.
The kind of dudes who bomb schoolbuses are the kind who are “sick & twisted”. The kind who bomb police stations- well, maybe they are not.
