RAND Corp: "War on terrorism" has been a failure. Thought?

[brickbacon]

As this article explains:

The Rand Corporation, a conservative think-tank originally started by the U.S. Air Force, has produced a new report entitled, “How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qaida.” This study is important, for it reaches conclusions which may be surprising to the Bush Administration and to both presidential candidates. To wit, the study concludes that the “war on terrorism” has been a failure, and that the efforts against terrorism should not be characterized as a “war” at all. Rather, Rand suggests that the U.S. efforts at battling terrorism be considered, “counterterrorism” instead.

And, why is this so? Because, Rand concludes, after studying 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, that military operations against such groups are among the least effective means of success, achieving the desired effect in only 7% of the cases. As Rand explains, “[a]gainst most terrorist groups . . . military force is usually too blunt an instrument.” Moreover, “[t]he use of substantial U.S. military power against terror groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local population against the government by killing civilians.”

Shouldn’t this report promote some discussion regarding the strategies we use to combat terrorism at home and abroad? Or more broadly, how we deal with “crime” of any sort?

RAND elaborates on their website. Specifically about current conflicts on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group’s capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.

Al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than it was during its prior history and the group’s attacks since then have spanned an increasingly broader range of targets in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, according to researchers.

In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase “war on terrorism,” researchers concluded.

“The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end,” said Seth Jones, the study’s lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “In most cases, military force isn’t the best instrument.”

Will this prompt our politicians to talk about the wisdom of undertaking a costly, undefinable, and (largely) unwinnable war instead of debating strategies and tactics (ie. the surge)?

[tagos]

The trouble is - we knew this before Sept 11th but ignored it an way. The way to get rid of malaria mosquitoes is the drain the swamp they breed in not run around swatting them. Especially when incompetent, who-gives-a-fuck-who-else-gets-killed-in-the process, approaches breeds new mosquitoes and expands the swamp.

[Ale]

There are simply not enough "Duh!"s in the world to characterize this.

[marshmallow]

This is another example of confusing the policy for the surface froth.

The Terror War has been wildly successful. Now, if you’re focusing on the idea of reducing terrorism then you’ve already failed conceptually. Do you honestly think that’s why we have 150,000 troops in Iraq? Do you think bombing caves in Afghanistan will have any effect on terrorism? Organs of our own government released reports which said that occupying countries in SW Asia would increase terrorism. And so it did.

To quote Robert Higgs:

As a general rule for understanding public policies, I insist that there are no persistent “failed” policies. Policies that do not achieve their desired outcomes for the actual powers-that-be are quickly changed. If you want to know why the U.S. policies have been what they have been for the past sixty years, you need only comply with that invaluable rule of inquiry in politics: follow the money.

When you do so, I believe you will find U.S. policies in the Middle East to have been wildly successful, so successful that the gains they have produced for the movers and shakers in the petrochemical, financial, and weapons industries (which is approximately to say, for those who have the greatest influence in determining U.S. foreign policies) must surely be counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

[tagos]

@marshmallow

This is another example of confusing the policy for the surface froth.

The Terror War has been wildly successful. Now, if you’re focusing on the idea of reducing terrorism then you’ve already failed conceptually. Do you honestly think that’s why we have 150,000 troops in Iraq? Do you think bombing caves in Afghanistan will have any effect on terrorism? Organs of our own government released reports which said that occupying countries in SW Asia would increase terrorism. And so it did.

To quote Robert Higgs:

True, but wait for the howls of outrage.

[Hyperelastic]

When I hear “conservative think tank”, I usually think of Cato or the Heritage Foundation, which both have as a stated goal the promotion of political ideas generally regarded as conservative. The Rand Corporation makes no such claims. They are no more conservative than, say, MIT.

[gonzomax]

The anti terrorism army was designated a war so it would confer on Bush the war powers he wanted. He was able to bypass the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because we were at war. We were not and are not now. But he still has all the powers he could seize.

[mswas]

@Hyperelastic

When I hear “conservative think tank”, I usually think of Cato or the Heritage Foundation, which both have as a stated goal the promotion of political ideas generally regarded as conservative. The Rand Corporation makes no such claims. They are no more conservative than, say, MIT.

Yes, the height of Rand influence was actually during the Kennedy administration when Robert McNamara came in with his Randite ‘Whiz Kids’ and reformed the Pentagon’s military hierarchy so that the various services could work together more cohesively.