My own opinion is that Terrorism is a police issue and should remain. They Army’s role in terrorism should be the same as its role in civilian life generally, to act in aid of civil power if and when needed. I believe one of the mistakes in the last 10 years has been transfering anti-terrorism responsibilities to the military. Before it was very properly a police and intelligence issue.
“Terrorism” as a category is far too broad to be pigeon-holed as either a police or military issue.
The immediate, local effects are a police (and other first-responder) issue. As is the investigation and pursuit of in-country suspects.
The investigation of foreign-based suspects is neither a police nor necessarily military issue. The intelligence community should be the driving force here.
Dealing with foreign-based terrorists is a military issue, either covertly or overtly, depending upon the circumstances. While it is nice to think that we can rely on international cooperation when it comes time to take care of the bad guys “over there” that’s not necessarily a viable option.
I agree with you under most circumstances.
Then there are times when terrorists are supported by a government, such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The police work was done but the suspect could not be apprehended. In those situations, if possible, military intervention is necessary. Osama bin Laden is dead in spite of two government’s support and/or negligence and that is because of intelligence and military intervention.
Israel deals with a similar situation with Hamas, or Turkey/Iran with the PKK (I forgot the Iranian version). It could be argued that diplomacy would work better in these situations, rather than military action.
Choosing among the ways in which a government may use force to solve a problem is the right question and discussing the context makes the most sense. To arbitrarily limit all the possible ways to act with force as a government seems short-sighted and doomed to failure.
Yes.
Terrorism is a government issue. The government uses the various bodies under its control - police, military, intelligence - to deal with it, in accordance with the law.
Re Osama. The majority of terrorists who have been caught have been caught by police, KSM for instance. Furthermore as is stated in the OP, I did’nt say that the military have no role, but I think that the military should be involved in Counter-Terrosism like it is involved in the maintainance of public order; rarely and as a last resort. .Since 9-11 governments have been much more willing to employ the military. The military is not setup either in organisation or in physce for counter-terror operation.
Some countries have paramilitary police forces that specialize in handling these kind of situations - the Gendarmerie in France, the Carabinieri in Italy or the Border Police in Israel. They combine (or at least are supposed to combine) police discretion and control with military capabilities. In countries that have these sort of forces, you tend to see relatively little military intervention in domestic terrorism situations.
I don’t know if there are any examples, anywhere in the world, of a terrorist campaign being brought to a close by police or military action, or any combination of both. Terrorism is a political issue, and can only be successfully addressed by political action to deal with whatever it is that is giving rise to the terrorist campaign.
That’s a false dichotomy. The police and military are just two of the tools the political level employs to implement its policy.
Sri Lanka comes to mind.
On re-reading your OP I see that you are describing the military’s role as what it’s job typically is in countries that exert civilian control over the military.
Could you give some example of governments being more willing to use the military when police work would have solved the problem? For example, has Pakistan changed its use of the military to address terrorism since 9/11? Is the USA using the military in places where the police would be more efficient? Are you raising an objection cross-border military action by nations in the pursuit of terrorists?
I think the only place where police are more efficient than the military is within the borders of its country or when there is a good relationship with a country that is acting as the base for terrorists. This seems to be the pattern in countries dealing with terrorism, both before and after 9/11.
Actually, it is a floor wax and a desert topping.
That is to say, sometimes it is a police issue and sometimes a military one. However, I think the military option should be more of the covert, special forces type action rather than going in and conquering a whole country because there are a few terrorist camps there. Because then, you’re stuck with the whole damn country to fix. And some countries don’t really want to be “fixed” the way we fix things.