Why the "War on Terror" is a dead end

[Leif Roar]

(I posted most of this in a reply on another thread. It was rather off topic as I had misread the question raised.)

The first thing we should do is to realise that the "War on Terror" rethoric is counter-productive and abandon it. We should realise that terrorism is a danger that faces any free nation and that while this danger can be reduced it can never be eliminated.

On the home-field, the way to defend against terrorism is the way most nations have been doing it for decades. Gather intelligence about potential threats, track suspected terrorists, try to learn their plans. Defend vulnerable installations, perform such security procedures and standards as are useful to prevent or limit attacks, and does not unduly limit the freedom of the citizens. Have trained units of police or military that can respon quickly and competently to the terrorist actions that we are not able to prevent before they take place. Finally, have emergency services that are trained and equipped to handle the aftermath of any attack we're not able to stop.

On the political scene, work to marginalise terrorist organisations by isolating them from political and financial support. Deny them bases and safe havens of operations through diplomacy, cooperation with other nations and, when necessary and unaviodable, direct military action (re Afganistan.)

Work to gain the support of the populations the terrorists recruit and find support in, by countering the terrorist's arguments and helping to resolve such grievances as make the population respondent to the terrorist's rethoric. Tread lightly and avoid to alienate people needlessly.

Yes, we tried to do all this prior to 9/11, and it failed us then. That doesn't mean that the fundamentals are wrong -- only that we weren't good enough at performing them. No, doing all of the above to the best of our abilities will not guarantee there's not another 9/11 sometime in the future -- but then nothing else can guarantee that either.


Now, as to why the "War on Terror" rethoric is counter-productive. Talking, and in turn, thinking about the actions we take against terrorism as a "War" brings us into a military mind-set that just do not fit the real situation. Just the word "War" makes us think of a limited period of predominantly military activity, a fight along clear fronts, progress made by winning battles and taking ground from the enemy. A war is something that ends; it has a victor and a loser -- we start it, we fight it, we conquer the enemy and we're through. Mission accomplished; time to go home say hello to the wife.

There's never going to be a victory against terrorism. Terrorism is a concept, a strategy. We might as well declare a war on ambushes or surprise attacks. We could hunt down and kill every single member and sympathiser of Al Qaida, and in five, ten, twenty years time some other group with a real or imaginary grudge against us decides to resort to terrorism.

Terrorism isn't something we fight; it's something we have to prepare for and deal with, every day, all around. It's similar to the way we have to prepare for and deal with forest fires, traffic accidents or crime. Thinking about it in terms of war and "winning" just doesn't make sense, and makes us lose track of all the non-exciting, non-jingoistic, non-marketable things we actually have to do to be able to deal with it efficently.

 

[Ed]

(
Work to gain the support of the populations the terrorists recruit and find support in, by countering the terrorist's arguments and helping to resolve such grievances as make the population respondent to the terrorist's rethoric. Tread lightly and avoid to alienate people needlessly.

.

How? Specifically, how? All of this sounds good, critisisims of the US et al. might be warrented but, I have yet to hear any cogent, reasonably detailed alternatives to our foreign policy to date. It is mostly shallow bitching, as far as I can see.

 

[Leif Roar]

Re: Re: Why the "War on Terror" is a dead end

How? Specifically, how?

That depends on the particulars of the situation, doesn't it? The reasons and situations behind ETA are different from those behind Al Qaida, and the support for Al Qaida in Pakistan might be for different reasons than the support for Al Qaida in Saudi Arabia.

For what it's worth (which isn't much as I'm no expert on the Middle East,) in my opinion the invasion of Iraq was a huge blunder. It destabilised the region, alienated many Islamic groups further, created an environment for the recruitment and training of terrorists where none had been before, and gave Al Qaida an opportunity to portray their opposition to the US as a matter of opposing "an enemy of all Islam."

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Ed
How? Specifically, how?

1) Decrease the the demand and price of oil by increase conservation, taxes on oil, open new nuclear plants. This is will dry up the supply of money for terrorists.
2) Quit supporting tyrants because of their oil. This stop us from being the oppressors.
3) Force the oil tyrannies to mend their way. One tyranny at a time, we need to raise a tarriff on their oil until they start respecting human rights. For example, the west should put a $10 a barrel tarriff on oil from Saudi Arabia. If they improve their political situation, the tarriff should drop. If not, the tarriff should steadily rise. Tyrants would have the choice of ceding power peaceful or having a revolution because of the looming poverty.
4) Quit supporting non-oil tyrants like Musharif and Putin unless they behave. The west is able to survive without them but they are doomed without us.
5) Support anti-poverty schemes in all democracies and support NGOs in non-democracies.
6) Legalize drugs.

CBL

 

[rikzilla]

(I posted most of this in a reply on another thread. It was rather off topic as I had misread the question raised.)

The first thing we should do is to realise that the "War on Terror" rethoric is counter-productive and abandon it. We should realise that terrorism is a danger that faces any free nation and that while this danger can be reduced it can never be eliminated.

Yes, terrorism is all those things, but why is it "counter-productive" to war against it? Personally I think it's too vague. I believe it'd be better to call it a war against militant islamic extremism. Yet this could also be called vague. The truth is that this isn't a war at all. It's a blood feud, and blood feuds tend to go on forever.

On the home-field, the way to defend against terrorism is the way most nations have been doing it for decades. Gather intelligence about potential threats, track suspected terrorists, try to learn their plans. Defend vulnerable installations, perform such security procedures and standards as are useful to prevent or limit attacks, and does not unduly limit the freedom of the citizens. Have trained units of police or military that can respon quickly and competently to the terrorist actions that we are not able to prevent before they take place. Finally, have emergency services that are trained and equipped to handle the aftermath of any attack we're not able to stop.

Ahh, we can all agree on that until, again, we get to specifics. To you I say "Patriot Act!" To me you'd likely say "unduly limits freedom!" Now we get to carp about who defines "unduly".

On the political scene, work to marginalise terrorist organisations by isolating them from political and financial support. Deny them bases and safe havens of operations through diplomacy, cooperation with other nations and, when necessary and unaviodable, direct military action (re Afganistan.)

What? You do not dare encourage laughter by speaking the name out loud?? Here, I'll do it for you: The United Nations!

This simply won't work because we know that it didn't work before. The UN is an empty shell, refilled with corruption. We know this as much as we know Rove is the slimeball that outted Plame.

Work to gain the support of the populations the terrorists recruit and find support in, by countering the terrorist's arguments and helping to resolve such grievances as make the population respondent to the terrorist's rethoric. Tread lightly and avoid to alienate people needlessly.

It's called fostering democracy. It's the obvious thing we're doing right in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, we tried to do all this prior to 9/11, and it failed us then. That doesn't mean that the fundamentals are wrong -- only that we weren't good enough at performing them. No, doing all of the above to the best of our abilities will not guarantee there's not another 9/11 sometime in the future -- but then nothing else can guarantee that either.

The Soviet Union's failure can similarly not be explained as a failure of Communism. You see; real Communism was never attained due to the fact that real people with real craven self-interests were involved in implementing it. If only we could get the human failings out of the picture Communism would be the best of all possible systems! Yeah; "we weren't good enough at performing them" ...and when will we ever be? When will we be able to trust the UN not to feast at the bottomless trough of greed? Have we Ayn Rand's "new man" available??? Would we want him if we did?

Now, as to why the "War on Terror" rethoric is counter-productive. Talking, and in turn, thinking about the actions we take against terrorism as a "War" brings us into a military mind-set that just do not fit the real situation. Just the word "War" makes us think of a limited period of predominantly military activity, a fight along clear fronts, progress made by winning battles and taking ground from the enemy. A war is something that ends; it has a victor and a loser -- we start it, we fight it, we conquer the enemy and we're through. Mission accomplished; time to go home say hello to the wife.

True, this is why "blood feud" fits reality better than war. I read this from Lee Harris, author of : Civilization and It's Enemies :

Immediately after 9/11, the general consensus was that we were at war. And yet this evocation of the concept of war bothered me because it did not quite fit. Wars were things that Westerners did. They were fought for economic reasons or for territorial expansion; they were instruments of policy; they had a point and an objective. You knew when a war started, and you knew when it was over. On both sides of a war you had diplomacy -- the breakdown in diplomacy normally started wars, and a recommencement of diplomacy inevitably signaled their termination. Finally, wars, when they were fought, tended to resolve into a series of increasingly climactic battles, allowing each side to keep score of its position, as in a game of chess, and ending in some well-established gesture, like waving the white flag or slaughtering your enemies en masse.



If you try to make the random and scattered terrorist attacks since 9/11 fit into this pattern, you will soon realize that it takes a good bit of twisting and squeezing to make these events match the profile of Western warfare. Indeed, when I wrote "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology," I argued that war was not the appropriate model to employ in order to gain an understanding of the enemy that we faced -- and yet at the time I was still unclear what model of conflict would make more sense.

After the London bombing, I feel more than ever that the war model is deeply flawed, and that a truer picture of the present conflict may be gained by studying another, culturally distinct form of violent conflict, namely the blood feud.



In the blood feud, the orientation is not to the future, as in war, but to the past. In the feud you are avenging yourself on your enemy for something that he did in the past. Al Qaeda justified the attack on New York and Washington as revenge against the USA for having defiled the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia by its military presence during the First Gulf War. In the attack on London, the English were being punished for their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.



In the blood feud, unlike war, you have no interest in bringing your enemy to his knees. You are not looking for your enemy to surrender to you; you are simply interested in killing some of his people in revenge for past injuries, real or imaginary -- nor does it matter in the least whether the people you kill today were the ones guilty of the past injuries that you claim to be avenging. In a blood feud, every member of the enemy tribe is a perfectly valid target for revenge. What is important is that some of their guys must be killed -- not necessarily anyone of any standing in their community. Just kill someone on the other side, and you have done what the logic of the blood feud commands you to do.



In the blood feud there is no concept of decisive victory because there is no desire to end the blood feud. Rather the blood feud functions as a permanent "ethical" institution -- it is the way of life for those who participate in it; it is how they keep score and how they maintain their own rights and privileges. You don't feud to win, you feud to keep your enemy from winning -- and that is why the anthropologist of the Bedouin feud, Emrys Peters, has written the disturbing words: The feud is eternal.



We in the West cannot imagine a war that goes on forever; but those for whom the blood feud is the established mode of settling difference cannot imagine a world without it. We are puzzled when they attack us viciously on a single day, and then wait for years before they attack us again -- an irrational policy from the point of view of Western military strategy, but perfectly sensible when seen from the point of view of the blood feud. If your sole interest lies in annoying and irritating your enemy, and not in vanquishing him, then the sporadic and the occasional attack makes more sense to you than a systematic frontal assault.

Blood feud seems to work better with reality....

There's never going to be a victory against terrorism. Terrorism is a concept, a strategy. We might as well declare a war on ambushes or surprise attacks. We could hunt down and kill every single member and sympathiser of Al Qaida, and in five, ten, twenty years time some other group with a real or imaginary grudge against us decides to resort to terrorism.

True.

Terrorism isn't something we fight; it's something we have to prepare for and deal with, every day, all around. It's similar to the way we have to prepare for and deal with forest fires, traffic accidents or crime. Thinking about it in terms of war and "winning" just doesn't make sense, and makes us lose track of all the non-exciting, non-jingoistic, non-marketable things we actually have to do to be able to deal with it efficently.

Like fostering democracy?

The real answer lies with islam itself. When influential imams come forward to condemn terrorism as un-islamic; that's when we'll see some progress. The lack of condemnation from the imams...and from the Arab street in general is very telling. We're just in the beginning stages....get used to it.

-z

-z

 

[Orwell]

1) Decrease the the demand and price of oil by increase conservation, taxes on oil, open new nuclear plants. This is will dry up the supply of money for terrorists.
2) Quit supporting tyrants because of their oil. This stop us from being the oppressors.
3) Force the oil tyrannies to mend their way. One tyranny at a time, we need to raise a tarriff on their oil until they start respecting human rights. For example, the west should put a $10 a barrel tarriff on oil from Saudi Arabia. If they improve their political situation, the tarriff should drop. If not, the tarriff should steadily rise. Tyrants would have the choice of ceding power peaceful or having a revolution because of the looming poverty.
4) Quit supporting non-oil tyrants like Musharif and Putin unless they behave. The west is able to survive without them but they are doomed without us.
5) Support anti-poverty schemes in all democracies and support NGOs in non-democracies.
6) Legalize drugs.

CBL

Surprisingly, I agree with most of what you say. And I agree with Leif Roar too. But I would add, regarding Middle East policies:
7) Don't support every dumb thing the Israeli government does. Encourage them to respect human rights and to be fair to Palestinians.

Oh, and Rikzilla: I think you should breath deeply, count to ten, meditate or something like that before posting about "terrorism". You sound extremely agitated, It would probably do you some good!

 

[Skeptic]

If, contrary to all common sense and historitcal experience, war against Islamic terrorism makes it grow, while understanding/ignoring it would make it shrivel away... how come it came into existence at all, and how come it grew in the, say, 50+ years from the end of WWII to 9/11 when it was effectively ignored, and even in some cases supported, by the west?

For that matter, consider the opposite case: suppose the US had a magic bullet that would instantly cause every single Islamist to disappear. That would be of course the ultimate weapon against Islamism, but on the "the harder you fight the stronger they become" theory, if the US had and used such a weapon, the next day Al Quaeda would magically rise from its ashes and quickly gain total victory.

Also, if this theory works, why does Al Quaeda attack the west in the first place? After all, its attack against the west breed resentment to it. Again, if this logic is followed conclusively, Al Quaeda should have spent the money and training of 9/11 to send every New Yorker a Koran with a small box of chocolate, saying in Arabic "happy New Year, Infidel!", or something.

I find it exceedinly difficult to believe that Islamic terrorism, and only Islamic terrorism, is the single group of violent people in the history of the world which are defeated by their enemies showing weakeness in fighting them and made strong by their enemies showing strength in fighting them.

It just doesn't make any sense, except perhaps as pro-Islamist propaganda of the "Star Wars" type: "If you strike me down, Darth Vader, I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine..."

 

[Rob Lister]

1) Decrease the the demand and price of oil by increase conservation, taxes on oil, open new nuclear plants. This is will dry up the supply of money for terrorists.
2) Quit supporting tyrants because of their oil. This stop us from being the oppressors.
3) Force the oil tyrannies to mend their way. One tyranny at a time, we need to raise a tarriff on their oil until they start respecting human rights. For example, the west should put a $10 a barrel tarriff on oil from Saudi Arabia. If they improve their political situation, the tarriff should drop. If not, the tarriff should steadily rise. Tyrants would have the choice of ceding power peaceful or having a revolution because of the looming poverty.
4) Quit supporting non-oil tyrants like Musharif and Putin unless they behave. The west is able to survive without them but they are doomed without us.
5) Support anti-poverty schemes in all democracies and support NGOs in non-democracies.
6) Legalize drugs.

CBL

Good recommendations all, but...
1) It depends on the funds from which terror is funded. It probably comes off the top, not the bottom. If so, 1) will have little or no effect. What was the total cost of 9/11 to the terrorists?

2) That's fine until you run into the problem of allowing a horribly dangerous tyrant to take over a reasonably moderate tyrant. Ref: Iraq/Kuwait

3) Will have no impact whatsoever. The oil is simply sold through a middle man. The car can't tell where it comes from.

4) Not sure how that relates.

5) Not sure how that relates.

6) Not sure how that relates except as it goes to funding terrorist operations. If so, see 1).

 

[Chaos]

If, contrary to all common sense and historitcal experience, war against Islamic terrorism makes it grow, while understanding/ignoring it would make it shrivel away... how come it came into existence at all, and how come it grew in the, say, 50+ years from the end of WWII to 9/11 when it was effectively ignored, and even in some cases supported, by the west?

For that matter, consider the opposite case: suppose the US had a magic bullet that would instantly cause every single Islamist to disappear. That would be of course the ultimate weapon against Islamism, but on the "the harder you fight the stronger they become" theory, if the US had and used such a weapon, the next day Al Quaeda would magically rise from its ashes and quickly gain total victory.

Also, if this theory works, why does Al Quaeda attack the west in the first place? After all, its attack against the west breed resentment to it. Again, if this logic is followed conclusively, Al Quaeda should have spent the money and training of 9/11 to send every New Yorker a Koran with a small box of chocolate, saying in Arabic "happy New Year, Infidel!", or something.

I find it exceedinly difficult to believe that Islamic terrorism, and only Islamic terrorism, is the single group of violent people in the history of the world which are defeated by their enemies showing weakeness in fighting them and made strong by their enemies showing strength in fighting them.

It just doesn't make any sense, except perhaps as pro-Islamist propaganda of the "Star Wars" type: "If you strike me down, Darth Vader, I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine..."

Right, it doesn´t make sense. And do you know why? Because this is not at all what anybody has been suggesting.

What people HAVE been suggesting is that going out of your way to piss off - if not kill outright - the only people who actually have the power to make fundmentalist terrorism go away - the moderate muslims - is the wrong strategy for fighting the war on terror. As things are now, they have the choice between the guys who kill muslims, and the guys who are rumored to blow up strangers half a world away.

 

[Orwell]

If, contrary to all common sense and historitcal experience, war against Islamic terrorism makes it grow, while understanding/ignoring it would make it shrivel away... how come it came into existence at all, and how come it grew in the, say, 50+ years from the end of WWII to 9/11 when it was effectively ignored, and even in some cases supported, by the west?

For that matter, consider the opposite case: suppose the US had a magic bullet that would instantly cause every single Islamist to disappear. That would be of course the ultimate weapon against Islamism, but on the "the harder you fight the stronger they become" theory, if the US had and used such a weapon, the next day Al Quaeda would magically rise from its ashes and quickly gain total victory.

Also, if this theory works, why does Al Quaeda attack the west in the first place? After all, its attack against the west breed resentment to it. Again, if this logic is followed conclusively, Al Quaeda should have spent the money and training of 9/11 to send every New Yorker a Koran with a small box of chocolate, saying in Arabic "happy New Year, Infidel!", or something.

I find it exceedinly difficult to believe that Islamic terrorism, and only Islamic terrorism, is the single group of violent people in the history of the world which are defeated by their enemies showing weakeness in fighting them and made strong by their enemies showing strength in fighting them.

It just doesn't make any sense, except perhaps as pro-Islamist propaganda of the "Star Wars" type: "If you strike me down, Darth Vader, I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine..."

Are you sure you are replying to the correct thread?

 

[peptoabysmal]

[B
The first thing we should do is to realise that the "War on Terror" rethoric is counter-productive and abandon it. We should realise that terrorism is a danger that faces any free nation and that while this danger can be reduced it can never be eliminated.[/B]

What would you have us call it then? Slap-fight on terror? War is where you identify an enemy and try to defeat that enemy. Is that not what we are engaged in?
What do you have to support your claim that the rhetoric is counter productive?

On the home-field, the way to defend against terrorism is the way most nations have been doing it for decades. Gather intelligence about potential threats, track suspected terrorists, try to learn their plans. Defend vulnerable installations, perform such security procedures and standards as are useful to prevent or limit attacks, and does not unduly limit the freedom of the citizens. Have trained units of police or military that can respon quickly and competently to the terrorist actions that we are not able to prevent before they take place. Finally, have emergency services that are trained and equipped to handle the aftermath of any attack we're not able to stop.

Sure, it worked before WWII and before 9/11. Oh wait, I see that later in the post you realize the fallacy of this argument. Nevermind...

On the political scene, work to marginalise terrorist organisations by isolating them from political and financial support. Deny them bases and safe havens of operations through diplomacy, cooperation with other nations and, when necessary and unaviodable, direct military action (re Afganistan.)

Yeah, they've gotten might uppity hiding in caves. Diplomacy and cooperation fails when you are trying to use it to rationlize to hateful minds filled with religious rhetoric. The only thing that has so far actually denied them bases and safe haven has been the coalition forces or other military action.

Work to gain the support of the populations the terrorists recruit and find support in, by countering the terrorist's arguments and helping to resolve such grievances as make the population respondent to the terrorist's rethoric. Tread lightly and avoid to alienate people needlessly.

Which conflict should we have not engaged in to prevent 9/11?
And, how exactly, do you reason with this:
"We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson. "
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Yes, we tried to do all this prior to 9/11, and it failed us then. That doesn't mean that the fundamentals are wrong -- only that we weren't good enough at performing them. No, doing all of the above to the best of our abilities will not guarantee there's not another 9/11 sometime in the future -- but then nothing else can guarantee that either.

You know it is a flawed argument, yet you persist. Repeat it enough times and it becomes true? Is that how it works?

Now, as to why the "War on Terror" rethoric is counter-productive. Talking, and in turn, thinking about the actions we take against terrorism as a "War" brings us into a military mind-set that just do not fit the real situation. Just the word "War" makes us think of a limited period of predominantly military activity, a fight along clear fronts, progress made by winning battles and taking ground from the enemy. A war is something that ends; it has a victor and a loser -- we start it, we fight it, we conquer the enemy and we're through. Mission accomplished; time to go home say hello to the wife.

How long did WWII take? Are we still afraid of Nazis?

There's never going to be a victory against terrorism. Terrorism is a concept, a strategy. We might as well declare a war on ambushes or surprise attacks. We could hunt down and kill every single member and sympathiser of Al Qaida, and in five, ten, twenty years time some other group with a real or imaginary grudge against us decides to resort to terrorism.

Give the terrorists what they want and in five, ten, maybe twenty days, they will want something else.

Terrorism isn't something we fight; it's something we have to prepare for and deal with, every day, all around. It's similar to the way we have to prepare for and deal with forest fires, traffic accidents or crime. Thinking about it in terms of war and "winning" just doesn't make sense, and makes us lose track of all the non-exciting, non-jingoistic, non-marketable things we actually have to do to be able to deal with it efficently.

So... grab your ankles and prepare for the worst while hoping for the best?

There are groups who have been plotting the death of civilians for the last decade or so for political purposes. We either deal with with them now or deal with them later. We can't go back in time and wishing or hiding our heads in the sand won't make them go away.

 

[Orwell]

Well, I read this morning that the men who blew themselves up in London were all British-born... How do you engage in "war", "blood feuds", whatever, against these people? Are you also at "war" with, I dunno, Timothy McVeigh types? The problem with this "war" rhetoric is that, when you think about it, nobody is quite certain against whom, specifically, they're at "war"... Terrorism is not something done by a specific group of people that can be easily identified as the "enemy".

The reaction from Skeptic, Rikzilla and Pepto to Leif Roar's post is puzzling: Skeptic and Rikzilla sounded like they didn't even bother to read Leif's post, and Pepto tried to make parallels between Leif's arguments and... Pre-WWII appeasement.

 

[Leif Roar]

Re: Re: Why the "War on Terror" is a dead end

Yes, terrorism is all those things, but why is it "counter-productive" to war against it?

To talk about it (and as a result to think about it) as a war, gives us the wrong focus. It makes us use military terms, and focus on the military side of the defense against terrorism, when military terms are often imprecise and downright inappropriate to describe the problem and when the military aspect is only one of many aspects in the defense, and not the most important one.

Personally I think it's too vague. I believe it'd be better to call it a war against militant islamic extremism. Yet this could also be called vague. The truth is that this isn't a war at all. It's a blood feud, and blood feuds tend to go on forever.

There are some very good reasons why we should not respond to terrorism as if it was a blood feud -- primarily since that would be a good way to turn it into one, and no rational person would want that. Historically speaking blood feuds were long, out-drawn, bloody affairs that only ended when both sides were sick of blood. It has no place in the politics of a modern, enlightened state.

Ahh, we can all agree on that until, again, we get to specifics. To you I say "Patriot Act!" To me you'd likely say "unduly limits freedom!" Now we get to carp about who defines "unduly".

I don't know enough about the patriot act to judge if it is unduly restrictive or not. My point is merely that we must be careful that the security mechanisms we choose to introduce do not stifle the society and way of life that they are supposed to protect. We can not "destroy the town in order to defend it."

What? You do not dare encourage laughter by speaking the name out loud?? Here, I'll do it for you: The United Nations!

This simply won't work because we know that it didn't work before. The UN is an empty shell, refilled with corruption. We know this as much as we know Rove is the slimeball that outted Plame.

I don't see what relevance the UN has to what I wrote. Cooperation with other nations can and is be done through numerous venues and inside of several frameworks; the UN is only one option.

It's called fostering democracy. It's the obvious thing we're doing right in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fostering democracy is one way that can be done, but it is not the only way and not always the most efficent way. It must also be done right and with a light hand -- a heavy handed approach to just about anything is likely to garner more animosity than stability.

The Soviet Union's failure can similarly not be explained as a failure of Communism. You see; real Communism was never attained due to the fact that real people with real craven self-interests were involved in implementing it. If only we could get the human failings out of the picture Communism would be the best of all possible systems! Yeah; "we weren't good enough at performing them" ...and when will we ever be? When will we be able to trust the UN not to feast at the bottomless trough of greed? Have we Ayn Rand's "new man" available??? Would we want him if we did?

I fail to see the relevance or what point you're trying to make here.

True, this is why "blood feud" fits reality better than war. I read this from Lee Harris, author of : Civilization and It's Enemies :


Blood feud seems to work better with reality....

Blood feuds is something we've left behind a long time ago, for good reasons, and replaced by the rule of law.

True.


Like fostering democracy?

Yes.

The real answer lies with islam itself. When influential imams come forward to condemn terrorism as un-islamic; that's when we'll see some progress. The lack of condemnation from the imams...and from the Arab street in general is very telling. We're just in the beginning stages....get used to it.

So what should we (the Western world) do to encourage this to happen?

 

[RandFan]

Well, I read this morning that the men who blew themselves up in London were all British-born... How do you engage in "war", "blood feuds", whatever, against these people? Are you also at "war" with, I dunno, Timothy McVeigh types? The problem with this "war" rhetoric is that, when you think about it, nobody is quite certain against whom, specifically, they're at "war"... Terrorism is not something done by a specific group of people that can be easily identified as the "enemy".

It is true that not ALL terrorism is done by a specific group or people. However there is much terrorism that is done by specific groups or individuals. Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, The Taliban, Al Zarqawi, IRA, Folun Long, Hamas, PLO, etc. Such a statement is just demonstrably wrong.

This isn't to say that you don't have a point you do. There are terrorists who are not directly tied to anyone and are unknown. You cannot carry out a "war" against an unknown entity.

However "war on terror", as has been pointed out but not responded to, means more than just a war. It is an effort to stop terrorists. There is nothing intrinsic about a word, term or phrase that precludes it from being used in a way other than what it was originally intended. Language is dynamic, words change (see dictionary). If we want to call a rose a car it doesn't change the rose. If we want to call our efforts to stop terrorism "war on terror" there is no reason we can't.

I find such pedantic complaints silly and besides the point. What effing difference could it possibly make? We know what is meant. War on terror means to use any and all means possible to secure us from terror. As George Bush has said from day one it won't be easy, it won't be 100% effective and it will require different methods for different circumstances. This IS what we call the war on terror. It is to a degree rhetorical propaganda but it is not without function. Because it serves that function it will continue to be used and we will continue to know what is meant by it. You don't have to like it but there it is.

 

[Leif Roar]

Re: Re: Why the "War on Terror" is a dead end

What would you have us call it then? Slap-fight on terror?

"The ongoing work of preventing and defending ourselves against terrorism." I'm afraid it's not as sexy as "War on Terrorism" and it doesn't make for good sound bites, but it is much more accurate and less distorting description of what we're actually doing.

War is where you identify an enemy and try to defeat that enemy. Is that not what we are engaged in?

That is one of the worst definitions of war I've seen. Furthermore, that is only one aspect of the tasks we are engaged in to work against terrorism.

What do you have to support your claim that the rhetoric is counter productive?

I think I explained my reasoning behind that claim fairly extensively in my original post.

Sure, it worked before WWII and before 9/11. Oh wait, I see that later in the post you realize the fallacy of this argument. Nevermind...

There is no fallacy here. I am not arguing that doing what I described in my initial post will prevent every and all act of terrorism.

We do not give up on the form of police work we've been conducting for the last two hundred years merely because the police was unable to prevent a murder, so why should we give up on the form of anti-terror work we've been conducting merely because it was unable to prevent a terrorist action?

Yeah, they've gotten might uppity hiding in caves. Diplomacy and cooperation fails when you are trying to use it to rationlize to hateful minds filled with religious rhetoric. The only thing that has so far actually denied them bases and safe haven has been the coalition forces or other military action.

Hardly. To take just one example, cooperation with Pakistan has severly limited Al Qaida's ability to operate freely there.

Which conflict should we have not engaged in to prevent 9/11?

I fail to see the relevance of the question. I suspect you're arguing against a position I do not hold and have not expressed.

And, how exactly, do you reason with this:
"We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson. "

By showing the people who might have listened to that statement that the US is not how Al Qaida depicts it. You counter bad reasoning with good reasoning; bad facts with good facts.

No, you'll probably never convince the extremists. You can, however, convince the doubters and the possible recruits -- the people the extremists depends on for their survival and support.

You know it is a flawed argument, yet you persist. Repeat it enough times and it becomes true? Is that how it works?

As I've explained above, the argument is not flawed. Preventing terrorism is in many ways just like preventing accidents: Every accident can be prevented, but not all accidents can be prevented. Likewise with terroism -- every act of terrorism can be prevented, but not all acts of terrorism can be. When an accident happens we learn from it, we study why the existing routines and procedures didn't prevent it and if we value it worthwhile we improve our routines and procedures. We most emphatically do not throw away all our existing work towards preventing accidents and declare a "War on Accidents."

How long did WWII take? Are we still afraid of Nazis?

I fail to see the relevance of the question. World War II was a war; the so called "war against terrorism" is not. World War II was conducted against nations with conventional armies; we fought against Germany, Italy, Romania, Japan - not "Nazism" or "Facisim."

Are we still afraid of nazism? Yes, as a matter of fact we are. Well, maybe not "afraid" -- neo-nazism isn't strong enough to be an actual threat, but we're still wary of it and we work continiously at preventing it from gaining acceptance and strength.

Give the terrorists what they want and in five, ten, maybe twenty days, they will want something else.

Of course. Which is why I do not advice that we give in to the terrorists. Frankly, I'm amazed that you've managed to read that out of my original post.

So... grab your ankles and prepare for the worst while hoping for the best?

No; and again I fail to see how you could read that from my original post. Work at preventing the worst from happening, but realise that even our best will sometimes not be good enough, so also prepare for that it will happen.

There are groups who have been plotting the death of civilians for the last decade or so for political purposes. We either deal with with them now or deal with them later. We can't go back in time and wishing or hiding our heads in the sand won't make them go away.

I fail to see how this is in contradiction to anything I've said.

 

[Orwell]

It is true that not ALL terrorism is done by a specific group or people. However there is much terrorism that is done by specific groups or individuals. Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, The Taliban, Al Zarqawi, IRA, Folun Long, Hamas, PLO, etc. Such a statement is just demonstrably wrong.

For the most part, no one really knows who belongs to these organisations. Although the identity of a few leaders is sometimes known, usually not much is known about the foot soldiers.

This isn't to say that you don't have a point you do. There are terrorists who are not directly tied to anyone and are unknown. You cannot carry out a "war" against an unknown entity.

That was my point. And I would argue that that is the general case when you're talking about terrorist organisations i.e. I believe that, in the case of Al-Quaeda for instance, what you have is a very loose, cell like, organisation.

However "war on terror", as has been pointed out but not responded to, means more than just a war. It is an effort to stop terrorists. There is nothing intrinsic about a word, term or phrase that precludes it from being used in a way other than what it was originally intended. Language is dynamic, words change (see dictionary). If we want to call a rose a car it doesn't change the rose. If we want to call our efforts to stop terrorism "war on terror" there is no reason we can't.

The word "war" gives the wrong idea. A war is a the waging of armed conflict against an enemy. If you don't know, for the most part, who the enemy is, it is hard to wage a "war". I tend to think of terrorism as a security problem, not a war.

I find such pedantic complaints silly and besides the point. What effing difference could it possibly make? We know what is meant. War on terror means to use any and all means possible to secure us from terror. As George Bush has said from day one it won't be easy, it won't be 100% effective and it will require different methods for different circumstances. This IS what we call the war on terror. It is to a degree rhetorical propaganda but it is not without function. Because it serves that function it will continue to be used and we will continue to know what is meant by it. You don't have to like it but there it is.

Yeah, it will continue to be used, and, I'm afraid, abused. I find the term "war against terrorism" to be demagogic. Demagogy is generally a method of convincing a listener by appealing to the person's common sense and leaps of logic. In this sense, demagogy is not a lie, since it doesn't use false facts directly, but rather brings the unsuspicious listener to draw the appropriate conclusion himself.

And the appropriate conclusion that the terms "war on terrorism" brings the listener to is that we're in some kind of no holds barred battle, where, in the name of winning the war, we need to make sacrifices. That's the kind of thinking that usually the word "war" evokes, along with large scale military actions, soldiers in uniform, defeat, victory, armistices, peace treaties, surrenders, etc. Do any of these things make sense when you are fighting terrorism? I'm willing to bet you that the employment of "war on terror" rhetoric made the invasion of Iraq much more palatable to the average American! And how many times have you heard the "we're at war" justification as a defence against human rights abuses?

Also, you might think that you know what is meant by it, but your opinion of what it means is going to differ from that of others. To some, it means "blood feud". To others, it refers to "a security problem". Because we don't quite know against whom we're supposed to be at war with, the word "war" in this context is too vague, and too easily abused.

 

[RandFan]

For the most part, no one really knows who belongs to these organisations. Although the identity of a few leaders is sometimes known, usually not much is known about the foot soldiers.

True but it hardly means we can't take affirmative action to stop terror.

That was my point. And I would argue that that is the general case when you're talking about terrorist organisations i.e. I believe that, in the case of Al-Quaeda for instance, what you have is a very loose, cell like, organisation.

Yes, but this is true of many things like organized crime etc. We gather intelligence and work to stop terrorism. That it is difficult is not a reason to think we can't target it and try and stop it.

The word "war" gives the wrong idea. A war is a the waging of armed conflict against an enemy. If you don't know, for the most part, who the enemy is, it is hard to wage a "war". I tend to think of terrorism as a security problem, not a war.

Well you are certainly entitled to an opinion. That we don't know the name of every foot soldier doesn't mean we can't try and effect change. And your contention that the word "war" gives the wrong idea is just that, a contention. I see no reason to agree with you and you certainly make no argument why I should agree with you. I don't at all see it as only a security problem. I think it was seen as a security problem pre 9/11 and that WAS the problem.

Yeah, it will continue to be used, and, I'm afraid, abused. I find the term "war against terrorism" to be demagogic. Demagogy is generally a method of convincing a listener by appealing to the person's common sense and leaps of logic. In this sense, demagogy is not a lie, since it doesn't use false facts directly, but rather brings the unsuspicious listener to draw the appropriate conclusion himself.

This is itself just empty rhetoric. You give us no reason to agree with you but your assertions.

And the appropriate conclusion that the terms "war on terrorism" brings the listener to is that we're in some kind of no holds barred battle, where, in the name of winning the war, we need to make sacrifices.

Possibly but you have not established this but only asserted it.

That's the kind of thinking that usually the word "war" evokes, along with large scale military actions, soldiers in uniform, defeat, victory, armistices, peace treaties, surrenders, etc.

Assumes that the word "war" can't evoke any other images which it most certainly does with the modifier "on terror".

Do any of these things make sense when you are fighting terrorism? I'm willing to bet you that the employment of "war on terror" rhetoric made the invasion of Iraq much more palatable to the average American! And how many times have you heard the "we're at war" justification as a defence against human rights abuses?

I don't deny that the term is used in part for propaganda purposes.. On the contrary I concede it. Welcome to the real world. I'm not against some of the efforts to diminish terror in the world even some of the more controversial issues including propaganda. Though to be honest I find some of them troubling.

Also, you might think that you know what is meant by it, but your opinion of what it means is going to differ from that of others. To some, it means "blood feud". To others, it refers to "a security problem". Because we don't quite know against whom we're supposed to be at war with, the word "war" in this context is too vague, and too easily abused.

Bottom line, it is just your opinion that it is too easily abused. I think any negatives are far and away offset by the positives. IMO, war on terror is on the whole a good term and I can't see any reason to stop using it.

 

[Orwell]

True but it hardly means we can't take affirmative action to stop terror.

Nobody is even hinting that you shouldn't take affirmative action to stop terrorist attacks.

Yes, but this is true of many things like organized crime etc. We gather intelligence and work to stop terrorism. That it is difficult is not a reason to think we can't target it and try and stop it.

Yes, but that's precisely the whole point: you don't use large armies to fight organised crime.

Well you are certainly entitled to an opinion. That we don't know the name of every foot soldier doesn't mean we can't try and effect change. And your contention that the word "war" gives the wrong idea is just that, a contention. I see no reason to agree with you and you certainly make no argument why I should agree with you. I don't at all see it as only a security problem. I think it was seen as a security problem pre 9/11 and that WAS the problem.

How exactly do you see it then? And why was it bad that terrorism was a security problem before 9/11? Are you suggesting that if terrorism is considered a security problem, this somehow makes it harder to fight? Even if the war on terrorism had been declared before the 9/11 events, it is not at all clear that the events could have been avoided! Remember, hindsight is always 20/20!

This is itself just empty rhetoric. You give us no reason to agree with you but your assertions.

I just explained to you why I thought the words "war on terror" were demagogic, and in the process I gave you a definition of demagogy. Maybe you'd prefer a simpler definition. Demagogy: impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace. Or, if you prefer: H. L. Mencken defined a demagogue as "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

Assumes that the word "war" can't evoke any other images which it most certainly does with the modifier "on terror".

So, what images does the words "war on terror" evoke in you?

I don't deny that the term is used in part for propaganda purposes.. On the contrary I concede it. Welcome to the real world. I'm not against some of the efforts to diminish terror in the world even some of the more controversial issues including propaganda. Though to be honest I find some of them troubling.

Bottom line, it is just your opinion that it is too easily abused. I think any negatives are far and away offset by the positives. IMO, war on terror is on the whole a good term and I can't see any reason to stop using it.

I wonder how you are able to judge the positives vs. the negatives of the "war on terror". We don't really know much about this famous "war"... What exactly are the objectives of this "war on terror"? Are we accomplishing them? Are we winning it? Are we loosing it? What does "winning it" means exactly? Who knows!

 

[RandFan]

Nobody is even hinting that you shouldn't take affirmative action to stop terrorist attacks.

And that affirmative action we call "war on terror". Again, a rose by any other name...

Yes, but that's precisely the whole point: you don't use large armies to fight organised crime.

Who said you needed a large army to fight a war? This is just silly? BTW, when law enforcement aggressively took on organized crime they called it a "war on organized crime". One of the advantages of this term is that it separates a stepped up concerted effort from past ones.

How exactly do you see it then? And why was it bad that terrorism was a security problem before 9/11?

It fostered the environment that led to 9/11.

Are you suggesting that if terrorism is considered a security problem, this somehow makes it harder to fight?

Certainly if you only see it as a security problem.

Even if the war on terrorism had been declared before the 9/11 events, it is not at all clear that the events could have been avoided! Remember, hindsight is always 20/20!

Of course but there is little question in my mind that we would have given higher priority to many things that we failed to notice.

I just explained to you why I thought the words "war on terror" were demagogic, and in the process I gave you a definition of demagogy. Maybe you'd prefer a simpler definition. Demagogy: impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace. Or, if you prefer: H. L. Mencken defined a demagogue as "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

If "war on terror" only appealed to prejudices and emotions then I would agree. And smilie or not I find your quote offensive. There are people who have sworn to destroy the United States. Terrorists flew 2 planes into the world trade center and destroyed it. This is not a simple or benign problem. It does not need to be demogogued. The threat is real and we ignore it at our peril. Furthermore we did amass an army and we did take the fight to Afghanistan and fought combatants using weapons of war. We are currently engaged in a war with people who are using terror as a tool to fight the United States. Denying all of this in an attempt to not appear to be a demagogue is just silly and stupid.

So, what images does the words "war on terror" evoke in you?

Aggressively dealing with terrorists and a willingness to use armed forces and intelligence.

I wonder how you are able to judge the positives vs. the negatives of the "war on terror". I mean, if it is a war, then it has objectives, winners, loosers... But we don't really know much about this famous "war" now, do we? What exactly are the objectives of this "war on terror"? Are we accomplishing them? Are we winning it? Are we loosing it? What does "winning it" means exactly? Who knows!

I think it is possible to come to some understanding of these things. However I'm not sure why I must answer them to justify using "war on terror"? Just because the definition of "war" is narrowly defined in your understanding does not mean that it must be for the rest of us. Furthermore we do have long and short term goals and many of those goals include the military.

BTW, your pedantic complaint smacks of the time we called Vietnam a police action. It was laughed at and scoffed at and now historians, anchors, pundits, commentators, etc. simply call it a war. It was a war. Hyper-technicalities are just offensive.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Why the "War on Terror" is a dead end

How? Specifically, how? All of this sounds good, critisisims of the US et al. might be warrented but, I have yet to hear any cogent, reasonably detailed alternatives to our foreign policy to date. It is mostly shallow bitching, as far as I can see.

There have been plenty of alternatives.

1) Work with the UN, rather than against it. Bush Snr did that, the US came out the other end much better off.
2) Don't open up a war on two fronts. That one's so old it should never need repeating.
3) Show more respect for other nations.
4) Listen to your own conservatives with a brain, eg, Powell, rather than freezing them out because they told you exactly what was going to happen, only you didn't want to hear it.