What an arse

[Upchurch]

See, Random and I disagreed on a lot on this issue, but he at least understands that saying we have to kill jihadis is not the same as saying we have to kill all Muslims. You, obviously, do not (or you do, but enjoy building men out of straw).

Where did he say anything about killing all Muslims, King O' The Strawmen?

Likewise, however, you seem to think that all jihadis are terrorists. You know, the ones we're actually at war with?

 

[Jenkins]

See, Random and I disagreed on a lot on this issue, but he at least understands that saying we have to kill jihadis is not the same as saying we have to kill all Muslims. You, obviously, do not (or you do, but enjoy building men out of straw).

I have no interest in trying to get Islamists to adopt western cultural values, because they are not interested in adopting any western cultural values. In fact, they hate western cultural values so much they are willing to die in the attempt to overthrow those values. It does not follow that because I want to have murderous Muslims killed rather than have them kill me, that I want all Muslims killed.

If a Christian zealot bombs an abortion doctor's offices and kills people, I am not interested in having him adopt my values. I want him put to death. By your silly reasoning above, that means I should want all Christians put to death. My mother-in-law would object to that.

That's not the way I meant it. Of course you don't mean we should indiscriminately wipe all of them out, and I never meant to imply that. My original post was more curt and ambiguous than I intended it to be, so maybe we can get back on track.

The terrorists that do mean us harm can come from the rest of that innocent population. Using brutal tactics, IMO, serves more to swell their ranks than as a deterrent. The end of the war will only truly be in sight when their rate of recruitment greatly slows; which is, really, the only way I can think of to win a war that doesn't seem to be against a particular country or countries, but against a group of radicals united by their hatred for what they perceive as being our way of life. To that end, I hope closing Guantanamo will be successful as a symbolic gesture.

 

[BPSCG]

The terrorists that do mean us harm can come from the rest of that innocent population. Using brutal tactics, IMO, serves more to swell their ranks than as a deterrent.

Again, this is an unfalsifiable claim. If killing terrorists wherever we find them reduces their number by, say 90%, you could always claim that making nice to them would have reduced their number by 95%. If we could somehow kill them all, you could claim that it could have been done faster and cheaper by making nice to them.

And, of course, if the number of terrorists were to actually rise, you'd point your finger and say, "See? It's just as I told you!" Your claim (and it's not just yours - I'm simply responding to your post) can not logically be disproved.

There is, however strong logical and empirical evidence that your claim is wrong.

The logical evidence:
We keep hearing that the Islamists are only a tiny minority of all Muslims, that the vast majority of Muslims disapprove of fundamentalist Islam because it is just as intolerant of mainstream Islam as it is of Christianity. The Taliban were noted for their viciousness against traditional Afghan Muslims; Al Qaeda in Iraq lost a lot of its support when it became apparent that they were just as happy to torture, maim, and kill Muslim Iraqis as they were to torture, maim, and kill American soldiers - perhaps even more so.

So if the vast majority of Muslims in fact want nothing to do with murderous Islamists, and in fact live in fear of them, then why would the fact that someone is killing Islamists "swell the ranks," as you put it, of the jihadis? That is not logical.

The empirical evidence:
Al Qaeda in Iraq was noted for its brutality. The Bush/Petraeus surge succeeded in virtually destroying al Qaeda in Iraq. Fighting the Islamists in Iraq, far from "swelling their ranks," had the effect of uniting local Iraqi tribes to join the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq, and provide for their own local security, in the "Awakening Movement." If fighting al Qaeda in Iraq was going to swell the ranks of the terrorists, then the "Awakening Movements" should never have happened (and note that the first "Awakening Movement" was the idea of a Muslim tribal leader - it did not come from the U.S.).

Note that my claim is not falsifiable either. But at least I have evidence to support it, as opposed to the increasingly tedious repetition of the chant that, "Killing terrorists only increases their number." If you think so, show us the evidence.

 

[Upchurch]

Couple of problems:

Using brutal tactics, IMO, serves more to swell their ranks than as a deterrent.

...why would the fact that someone is killing Islamists "swell the ranks," as you put it, of the jihadis? That is not logical.

How do you get "killing Islamists" out of "using brutal tactics"? Another straw man argument.

Jenkins said "brutal tactics". In relation to Guantanamo, which he specifically mentioned, this obviously means prisoner abuse and probably torture.

So if the vast majority of Muslims in fact want nothing to do with murderous Islamists, and in fact live in fear of them, then why would the fact that someone is killing Islamists "swell the ranks," as you put it, of the jihadis? That is not logical.

Actually, that is not logical. Just because the majority of Muslims want nothing to do with terrorists does not mean their ranks cannot be swelled from the minority of Muslims. There are a lot of Muslims in the world, after all.

 

[Merko]

[imprisoning terrorists rather than killing them]Your caveat pretty much proves his point: most of the time it is NOT possible.

First, I think you're quite wrong in this assertion. Second, even if you were right, it would not prove that point at all. Our intent should not be to kill them. If we can't avoid it and it's the only way we can protect ourselves, then we should do it only with regret. Otherwise we are no better than them.

Killing people should never be the objective of war. Yeah, um... that's pretty much the definition of ignoring the realities of war. Killing people is, and always will be, the essence of war.

Only if it's a genocidal war. Normally, there is another objective. Often it has to do with the control of territory. Killing people is often completely avoidable, and even when it is not avoidable, it should never ever be the objective.

But us bloodthirsty Americans, our intervention in the former Yugoslavia was just like the Madrid bombings. Yup, it's a real pickle to try to pick between Americans and Islamic terrorists.

Fortunately America is not run by people like you. There are plenty of sensible Americans who do not advocate killing for the sake of killing, and who stand up for freedom and human rights. Even during these dark Bush/Cheney years, it is obvious that there have been many courageous generals, judges and other government operatives who have moderated the madness and made sure that your country did not fall irreparably into disrepute.

My question was a 'what if' question. If the US was run according to the (lack of) principles you appear to advocate, then I would see no reason to support the US over islamic terrorists. Fortunately it is not so.

Yeah, um... let me know when you've got a plan for how to arrest terrorists hiding out in Waziristan. Preferably a plan with some chance of success.

I think you're probably talking about Pakistan. Here's how: you drive a wedge into the talibans, many of which are tired of the pounding they have taken during the last 7 years. The taliban, although unpleasant, are not like al Qaeda. They are not primarily interested in killing Americans (or Europeans, or Jews). They have a 'positive' agenda as well. Give them an acceptable exit, and I'm convinced they can be persuaded to deliver a lot of top al Qaeda leaders. The more difficult question is how to deal with Afghanistan: to simply hand it over to the taliban would be a disaster of course, and the taliban would never accept any democratic solution (neither is Afghanistan ready for democracy).

I'm no pacifist and military strikes, when there is verifiable information to act on, are not to be ruled out. But I think their efficiency is grossly overstated in the general debate.

 

[Ziggurat]

If we can't avoid it and it's the only way we can protect ourselves, then we should do it only with regret. Otherwise we are no better than them.

Nonsense. Wanting to kill people who pose a direct threat to your life is not at all equivalent to wanting to kill people because they don't follow your particular beliefs.

Fortunately America is not run by people like you. There are plenty of sensible Americans who do not advocate killing for the sake of killing

Neither did I. That's a strawman and an ad hominem in one.

I think you're probably talking about Pakistan.

"Probably"? Don't you pay any attention to the news? Of course I'm talking about Pakistan. Where did you think Waziristan is?

Here's how: you drive a wedge into the talibans, many of which are tired of the pounding they have taken during the last 7 years. The taliban, although unpleasant, are not like al Qaeda. They are not primarily interested in killing Americans (or Europeans, or Jews). They have a 'positive' agenda as well. Give them an acceptable exit

Their "acceptable exist" is a reconquest of Afghanistan. Thank you, no.

and I'm convinced they can be persuaded to deliver a lot of top al Qaeda leaders.

They had that option before. In fact, we only demanded the handover of ONE Al Qaeda leader. Did they do so? No. They were quite willing to go to war (a war they must have known they could lose) to avoid that. Now that they have much less to lose by refusing, why would they give up even more? Because we can offer more? No. There is precious little we can afford to offer them that they want.

The more difficult question is how to deal with Afghanistan: to simply hand it over to the taliban would be a disaster of course

That much is true. But that's exactly what the Taliban want, so how do you expect to be able to negotiate for Al Qaeda from them?

And while it's true that Al Qaeda is not synonymous with the Taliban, I don't think you've got any appreciation of how deeply they are connected. In particular, Al Qaeda's leadership is deeply intermarried with families of the Taliban leadership. This was a deliberate strategy on Al Qaeda's part to ingratiate themselves with the Taliban, and it worked. The Taliban will not turn on Al Qaeda, definitely not for anything we could ever afford to give them.

 

[Corsair 115]

When someone is willing, nay, even eager, to strap on a bomb and blow himself up in a very public place, or fly an airplane full-speed into a building, the only possible deterrent is imprisonment, because that is the only thing that would keep him from his goal...

Perhaps it would be more efficient to find a method which would deter an individual from signing up as a suicide bomber in the first place. Once he's signed up deterrence is too late. In other words, choke off the supply of recruits.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The logical evidence:
We keep hearing that the Islamists are only a tiny minority of all Muslims, that the vast majority of Muslims disapprove of fundamentalist Islam because it is just as intolerant of mainstream Islam as it is of Christianity. The Taliban were noted for their viciousness against traditional Afghan Muslims; Al Qaeda in Iraq lost a lot of its support when it became apparent that they were just as happy to torture, maim, and kill Muslim Iraqis as they were to torture, maim, and kill American soldiers - perhaps even more so.

So if the vast majority of Muslims in fact want nothing to do with murderous Islamists, and in fact live in fear of them, then why would the fact that someone is killing Islamists "swell the ranks," as you put it, of the jihadis? That is not logical.

The logical evidence:
We keep hearing how math graduates are only a tiny minority of all Americans, that the vast majority of Americans find it difficult and boring.

So if the vast majority of Americans want nothing to do with math, and in fact think it's geeky, then why would an increase in pay and benefits "swell the ranks" of math teachers? That is not logical.

 

[Ziggurat]

So if the vast majority of Americans want nothing to do with math, and in fact think it's geeky, then why would an increase in pay and benefits "swell the ranks" of math teachers? That is not logical.

Nice attempt at a parallel, but you've unintentionally revealed the real reason that killing jihadis won't swell their ranks. Paying an activity higher wages makes the activity more attractive. Increasing the mortality rate of an activity makes it less attractive. One is a positive incentive, one is a negative incentive. See the difference?

 

[Scootch]

Hey Dr. A, I want to say first off while I may disagree with your politics you do have style and a point of view I do respect.
I don't think americans reject math because it is geeky, but just too darn hard (what with fractions and all) and choose not to do it.
Just like most Muslims can't strap a bomb to themselves because it is too hard (what with the killing and dying and all) and not to mention to kill someone is a sin to most religions, islam included.
Scootch

 

[Dr Adequate]

Nice attempt at a parallel, but you've unintentionally revealed the real reason that killing jihadis won't swell their ranks. Paying an activity higher wages makes the activity more attractive. Increasing the mortality rate of an activity makes it less attractive. One is a positive incentive, one is a negative incentive. See the difference?

Apart from the fact that dying in battle is an incentive to Muslim fanatics, that was not quite the parallel I was trying to draw. The more evil the mad mullahs can paint the USA, the more people will be incensed to take up arms against it.

 

[dafydd]

Have any of you pro Guantanamistas ever thought about why people become suicide bombers. I'm not condoning it, but would you have the guts to do it? And for the Americans,what would you have done if your country had been taken away from you and you had been forced into refugee camps for years and years.The USA will have difficulty in claiming the moral high ground as long as Gauntanamo is open.If there is any evidence against the detainees then have trials and let is all hear it. Of course the USA has just put pressure on a British court and prevented it releasing documents concerning the illegal detention and torture of a British subject.As for new suicide bombers,the British government tried detention without trial for the IRA in the 1970's and it proved to be the best recruting sergeant that the IRA ever had.

 

[Ziggurat]

Apart from the fact that dying in battle is an incentive to Muslim fanatics

But it isn't, or at least not under any old conditions. They don't just want to diem they want to die while doing harm to their enemies.

The more evil the mad mullahs can paint the USA, the more people will be incensed to take up arms against it.

Well, no. The far bigger problem is not whether or not we're disliked, but whether or not terrorism appears to work. They can hate us all they want, but if they think terrorism will do them no good, they won't engage in it. Conversely, they can be indifferent to us, but if terrorism is seen to help them, they'll still do it. As bin Laden himself said, people follow the strong horse. I know this offends people's sensibilities because people don't want the world to work this way, but it is showing weakness, not cruelty, which will endanger us.

 

[Dr Adequate]

But it isn't, or at least not under any old conditions.

The condition would be fighting people who (they are convinced) are enemies of God and Islam.

They don't just want to diem they want to die while doing harm to their enemies.

They would certainly prefer it that way; but Allah gives marks for effort. Moreover, unless they go into battle wielding damp sponges and well-cooked spaghetti, some of 'em are going to succeed in doing harm.

Well, no. The far bigger problem is not whether or not we're disliked, but whether or not terrorism appears to work. They can hate us all they want, but if they think terrorism will do them no good, they won't engage in it. Conversely, they can be indifferent to us, but if terrorism is seen to help them, they'll still do it. As bin Laden himself said, people follow the strong horse.

The trouble is that when they engage in their otherwise doubtless ultra-rational calculation of the costs and benefits of engaging in a holy war, they figure in a factor that we would not necessarily recognize, namely that God is on their side.

If they really based their actions on the actual facts pertaining to whether or not they're going to win, they'd all stay home. Or challenge us to compete in something they could beat us at, such as camel-racing.

I know this offends people's sensibilities because people don't want the world to work this way, but it is showing weakness, not cruelty, which will endanger us.

Neither weakness nor cruelty sounds appealing. How about moral superiority combined with overwhelming military might?

 

[Ziggurat]

They would certainly prefer it that way; but Allah gives marks for effort.

Except it's not really Allah that they're trying to impress. That's how they rationalize it, and that rationalization is important, but what's really going on, the same reason men the world over are willing to put their lives on the line. "men embrace death — causing it, or marching into it — as a decision made before an audience". Getting killed by the enemy without personally accomplishing anything in OK, as long as what you're part of does. You have to think that the audience is watching, and likes the show. But if all you're doing is losing, they won't. The social aspect of terrorism cannot be discounted or ignored, and that aspect can be very much affected by things like success rate.

Moreover, unless they go into battle wielding damp sponges and well-cooked spaghetti, some of 'em are going to succeed in doing harm.

Doing some harm is not enough. It never was. Why on earth would it be?

The trouble is that when they engage in their otherwise doubtless ultra-rational calculation of the costs and benefits of engaging in a holy war, they figure in a factor that we would not necessarily recognize, namely that God is on their side.

Is he? May not look that way if they're dropping like flies and we appear immovable. And your own arguments about our actions encouraging terrorists are predicated on the idea that belief in God wanting them to wage holy war is NOT the sole motivator, and anyone amenable to motivation is also amenable to dissuasion.

Neither weakness nor cruelty sounds appealing. How about moral superiority combined with overwhelming military might?

Funny: I think that's exactly what we are showing.

 

[rwguinn]

Have any of you pro Guantanamistas ever thought about why people become suicide bombers. I'm not condoning it, but would you have the guts to do it? And for the Americans,what would you have done if your country had been taken away from you and you had been forced into refugee camps for years and years.The USA will have difficulty in claiming the moral high ground as long as Gauntanamo is open.If there is any evidence against the detainees then have trials and let is all hear it. Of course the USA has just put pressure on a British court and prevented it releasing documents concerning the illegal detention and torture of a British subject.As for new suicide bombers,the British government tried detention without trial for the IRA in the 1970's and it proved to be the best recruting sergeant that the IRA ever had.

You don't win wars by dying for your country. You win wars by causing the other somebitch to die for HIS country.
I thin General Patton said that once... At least, he did in the movie.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Except it's not really Allah that they're trying to impress. That's how they rationalize it ...

That's a funny use of the word "rationalize" ... yes, yes, I know what you mean, but still ...

... and that rationalization is important, but what's really going on, the same reason men the world over are willing to put their lives on the line. "men embrace death — causing it, or marching into it — as a decision made before an audience". Getting killed by the enemy without personally accomplishing anything in OK, as long as what you're part of does. You have to think that the audience is watching, and likes the show. But if all you're doing is losing, they won't. The social aspect of terrorism cannot be discounted or ignored, and that aspect can be very much affected by things like success rate.

I didn't say that we shouldn't try to beat them. However, we might try to avoid acting as their recruiting arm at the same time.

Doing some harm is not enough. It never was. Why on earth would it be?

Well it seems to satisfy some of them. I mean, they do actually keep blowing thinks up.

Is he? May not look that way if they're dropping like flies and we appear immovable. And your own arguments about our actions encouraging terrorists are predicated on the idea that belief in God wanting them to wage holy war is NOT the sole motivator ...

That depends on whether they're putting our actions under the category of things that God hates.

... and anyone amenable to motivation is also amenable to dissuasion.

Well, let's hope.

Funny: I think that's exactly what we are showing.

I think an element of stupidity has also crept in. At least we can rely on Obama not to use the word "crusade" too often.

 

[Jenkins]

We keep hearing that the Islamists are only a tiny minority of all Muslims, that the vast majority of Muslims disapprove of fundamentalist Islam because it is just as intolerant of mainstream Islam as it is of Christianity. The Taliban were noted for their viciousness against traditional Afghan Muslims; Al Qaeda in Iraq lost a lot of its support when it became apparent that they were just as happy to torture, maim, and kill Muslim Iraqis as they were to torture, maim, and kill American soldiers - perhaps even more so.

Still, they come from somewhere, even if it's from a small portion of their population. Guantanamo (and the stigma's that are associated with it) made for an easy propaganda target.

You're right, it's difficult to prove (and not speculate) that brutal methods intensify recruitment, but history might be useful.

Are there any history buffs out there that can discuss historical precedent? All I have is a vague memory of history classes mentioning that brutal tactics from some British generals limited the number of Loyalists during the Revolutionary War. Dafydd already mentioned the IRA.

Al Qaeda in Iraq was noted for its brutality. The Bush/Petraeus surge succeeded in virtually destroying al Qaeda in Iraq. Fighting the Islamists in Iraq, far from "swelling their ranks," had the effect of uniting local Iraqi tribes to join the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq, and provide for their own local security, in the "Awakening Movement". If fighting al Qaeda in Iraq was going to swell the ranks of the terrorists, then the "Awakening Movements" should never have happened (and note that the first "Awakening Movement" was the idea of a Muslim tribal leader - it did not come from the U.S.).

Well, no. The far bigger problem is not whether or not we're disliked, but whether or not terrorism appears to work. They can hate us all they want, but if they think terrorism will do them no good, they won't engage in it. Conversely, they can be indifferent to us, but if terrorism is seen to help them, they'll still do it. As bin Laden himself said, people follow the strong horse. I know this offends people's sensibilities because people don't want the world to work this way, but it is showing weakness, not cruelty, which will endanger us.

I agree, using our military is important, both to stop current threats and to discourage future ones. I don't see it as a dichotomy between unchecked force and ethical limitations, though. Both hurt their recruitment.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. The best way to wage a war on an ideology is to use all the methods you can to make your side seem like the attractive one. Limiting yourself to one method is just a handicap. It's like medicine--only treating the symptoms of a disease isn't as effective as also considering what the cause is.

<possible derail>
It's not completely analogous, but this discussion also reminded me of arguments about the death penalty. I can't link yet, but some studies have shown that in many cases the death penalty is not effective as a deterrent. Crime is caused by many things, and thoughts about consequences are often not a factor if the perceived need is great enough. They conclude the solution, instead of harsher penalties (or perhaps in tandem with them), is to address what caused the crime in the first place.
</possible derail>

 

[Ziggurat]

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I didn't mean to imply it did, only that the logic of arguments that fighting them only makes them stronger is unfounded.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I didn't mean to imply it did, only that the logic of arguments that fighting them only makes them stronger is unfounded.

I don't think that anyone, other than straw people who live in your head, suggested that we shouldn't fight them.

It would, however, be nice if we abandoned our role as their recruitment arm and propaganda division.