One way to get information on terrorists is to have many, many agents, who blend in with the torrorists ethnicity, to gather information. So why not conduct ourselves so as to be thought of as a good influence in the world. That way, those in the general population around the terrorist would be much more likely to report suspicious activities to their governments. At the same time, conduct our relations with those governments so that they would want to act on information they receive.
Yes, our acting like good world citizens will not stop the hatred of the extremeists. But most people aren’t in that category and we really need to seek the help of that large majority.
Bluster and bluff GW’s “go it alone” plan in which we attempt to find terrorists by going through luggage at airports and threatening preventive war all over the world is insane. I would point out that those who try to control the rest of the world by military force often end up on a lonely island in the middle of the ocean. Think Napoleon.
How long do think it would take to build up that kind of good will? How will you build up that good will in the communities where you most need it - the radical Muslim communities? Many muslims have a strong dislike for the the secular west in general and America is particular. How are you going to convince them that part of the world bringing McDonalds, Nike, and secularism is not evil and that these particular Muslims should give up on bringing about the Dar al-Islam?
Completely independent of U.S. actions, many governments in the Middle East are justifiably not seen as trustworthy by their populations, and many people in those populations are not likely to report suspicious activities due to that lack of trust. If the police are corrupt or tyrannical, you might not want to attract their attention even if it will same hypothetical lives in some thousands-of-miles-distant country.
Aside from that, I’d say the U.S. acting like a good world citizen is a good enough idea on its own merits, sans the effect on terrorism.
Good points all, but how long will it take us tp root out terrorists by invading countries?
Sadly, what you say is true. However, I’m convinced that our current method as outlined by GW, namely wage preventive war, isn’t working and can’t work. The question is how do we handle this over the long haul? I don’t think we can afford to spend money and lives in increased security, i.e. watching each other, indefinitely without losing what it is we are trying to save.
George W. Bush is 100% certain that is our current policy. If you are not for us, you are against us, and if you are against us, we will destroy you. Stay the course.
That is not not going to stop terrorism especially when we invade the wrong countires. But neither is your plan. Really nothing short term is going to stop it. There is a certain part of the Muslim world that will not accept the secular West having any influence in the Middle East (and perhaps anyplace). And since terrorism is a highly effect method it is not likely to stop anytime soon.
O, Columbia! the gem of the ocean,
The home of the brave and the free,
The shrine of each patriot's devotion,
A world offers homage to thee.
Thy mandates make heroes assemble
When Liberty's form stands in view;
Thy banners make tyranny tremble,
When borne by the red, white and blue.
I’m interested in the fact that GW says, over and over when lack of progress in Iraq is brought up, that this supposed war on terror will take years and years. Yet when an alternative is suggested it is criticised because it won’t bring quick results.
Sure, the atmosphere has been so poisoned that changing attitudes will take years and years but the longest journey begins with one step.
I’m not suggesting that we immediately drop all increased transportation security measure in favor of a sweetness and light approach. I do think that a mad rush to form a whole new federal agency based on hasty guesses as to what would be effective was a mistake. Perhaps it would have been a good idea to study how other countries do it, like Israel for example.
Uh, nope; I disagree, Israel hasn´t managed to get rid of terrorist attacks so IMHO it would be a bad idea to look that way for solutions.
Look at the UK with IRA or Spain with ETA for directions, keyword: negotiations. That doesn´t mean inconditional surrender to terrorist demands or tolerance for attacks but to seek to adress any reasonable grievance. Some of those would be irrational or unfeasible, held by fanatism or sheer lunacy; it´s the job of the interested party then to demostrate that to the recruiting pool for the terrorist, make the society from where they come from see the sadistic, insane and/or self-serving actions of fanatics that resort to killing innocent people to further a despicable agenda or quench their own bloodthirst.
Politically sensitive though the idea is, negotiation is the best way forward, and is currently being mooted re. Iraq.
In fact, the US have recently said (cite?) that they will speak with insurgent groups in Iraq (apart from Al-Qaida) to discuss a resolution.
On a wider level, however, the goal of a united Ireland or a free Basque region are somewhat different in scale to the goal of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, or Sharia law in Europe… it’s hard to see what would be negotiated here?
“Can we have a worldwide islamic caliphate?”
“Nope”
“Right then… jihad it is”
Indeed, that´s why you have to appeal to the non-fanatical/loony majorities to undermine the wacko´s support, make them see the unreasonable demands they want. Eventually the radical elements will become isolated among a population that will see them for what they are. That´s the point where terrorism begins to end.
Oddly enough Nike, McDonalds, Coca-Cola and the like were doing pretty well in the middle east - very popular aspirational products, just like in the rest of the third world. However each successive US or Israeli miss-step has resulted in more anti-US boycotts, more negative publicity, more exhortations to switch to Mecca-Cola or other local brands. Similarly, most extremist Islamic organisations are ‘resistance’ groups that define themselves by opposition to meddling by the secular west in their own affairs. Without incompeten foreign policy pouring oil on the flames for half a century, it wouldn’t be ‘many’ muslims. It would be a tiny lunatic fringe equivalent to White Supremacists in the US.
It’s US politics that are hurting western products and values, not the other way around.
And generally speaking, popular insurgencies or terrorist movements only ever seem to end in 3 ways:
[ol]
[li]They win and drive out the occupier[/li][li]A negotiated compromise is agreed that may be closer to the stated goal of the occupier, the insurgents, or somewhere in between[/li][li]The insurgency is crushed by a massive application of force and terrorisation of the general population[/li][/ol]
In order to avoid 1), and assuming 3) is out of the question, that only leaves negotiation. Bearing in mind that it’s taken 30 years of talking to get Northern Ireland to a state of semi-normality after a far less intense conflict than Iraq, I don’t hold out much hope.
The problem is how does one act like a “good world citizen” in such a way as to make everyone happy. The United States and by extension the West weild a great deal of economic, social and military power. We influence the rest of the world not just by what we do but what we do not do. Subsequently, we are also blamed by are inactions as much or more than our actions.
An example would be the recent conflict in Lebenon. Many people feel we should have done MORE to resolve that dispute. By not doing more, we are perceived as giving support to Israel (which we do).
It’s tough but I think that not saying we are going to do this whether you like it or not and you are either in it with us or we will regard you as against us would be a start.
It also wouldn’t hurt to listen once in a while rather than doing all the talking. On of the main gripes of those who attacked on 9/11 was that we have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. Surely there must have been some hint of displeasure at this and if there was it was apparently ignored.
Since the US is relatively new at trying to work with people rather than order them around, there will doubtless be a lot learning on our part as to just how to go about it.
. I would point out that those who try to control the rest of the world by military force often end up on a lonely island in the middle of the ocean. Think Napoleon.[/QUOTE]
Ah but on the other hand think of the emperor Chin , Alexander the Great,Julius Caeser,Genghis Khan and (nominally)Queen Victoria !
My personal experience of why many 3rd world cultures hate the west is that it is not actually based on any noble sentiments like right or wrong but common or garden jealousy,why does the West have all the wealth and power when they KNOW that they are better then us ?That and their contempt for our self effacing ,apologetic presentation of our actions .In a lot of the world if you`ve won that makes you good (in both senses) and you dont hesitate to tell everyone that.
In my personal opinion I think the rule of immigration on Muslims is rather lose- lose situation. I believe that if we do not allow Muslim extremists in the country then this will eventually lead to all of these Muslims extremists socialising with each other and therefore plot against Christian countries such as the US and England away from careful surveillance of secret intelligence. However if we allow these Muslim extremists in our country then they as part of a Muslim ‘community’ will socialise together as well. So I suggest we keep these extremists away from influencing their communities and often young Muslim kids. In the Muslim community there is a lot of hysteria that they are being stereotyped and this is often true, however we as a world should not tip toe around the situation that terrorism is real and recent terrorist acts come from the east against the west or against each other. I feel that the general Muslim community aren’t doing enough to stop these extremists, they welcome them in their mosques, they pray alongside them and socialise with them. The best way is to isolate these extremists away from the general Muslim community and the general public and most importantly away from other extremists. However if you do have to keep these extremists together they must be under tight restrictions and heavy surveillance. The problem is how you identify a Muslim extremist; this is where we should ask more help from the Muslim community in helping identify potential extremists.
