|
Post by JOEBIALEK on May 16, 2004 18:49:53 GMT -5
Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands. The war on terrorism between the United States and the terrorists is a conflict never experienced before in American history. Some would argue that the guerrilla tactic used by both sides in the Vietnam war is the same kind of tactic employed by the United States and the terrorists. The difference, however, is that the military tactic employed by the terrorists is a corrupt evolution from guerrilla to terror (from non-conventional to non-ethical). However the U.S. is not willing to take the war on terrorism to the appropriate level. In the movie "Untouchables", Jim Malone advises Elliot Ness that "when dealing with the Mafia, if they send one of your's to the hospital, you send one of their's to the morgue" and then asks "what are you prepared to do?" Perhaps a more appropriate question should be what would Machiavelli do? The U.S. military needs to withdraw all conventional forces immediately from Iraq. The whole premise for going to war with that country was to disarm it of its' weapons of mass destruction (which the U.S. sold them). I supported the war effort because I believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth. Unfortuneatly, it appears the American people were deceived into fighting a war for oil and almost 750 crack U.S. troops have been killed helping to promote greed rather than defend the homeland. Once the military withdraws, it can regroup and reformulate better combat tactics to be used in the war on terrorism. Accordingly, the U.S. needs to begin training anti-terrorist cells (with Arabic code names that translate into al-gabang, al-gaboom etc). These cells will be sent into countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya for the express purpose of covert operations to find, kill and terrorize all pro-terrorist cells. As for prisoners, they should be drugged with sodium pentathol until they provide information and then be executed. At the end of the day when the terrorist comes home to find his family and house blown to smithereens, he may begin to re-consider the consequences of his actions. Unfortuneatly, innocent family members of these terrorists will have to face the same fate many U.S. citizens did on September 11, 2001. The question that remains before the American people however is what are YOU prepared to do?
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on May 16, 2004 20:13:24 GMT -5
Joe,
"I supported the war effort because I believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth."
In what way did they sell it to you that convinced you? What methods, looking back were most effective in making you believe their claims?
"The question that remains before the American people however is what are YOU prepared to do?" If you had to choose between 1000 Americans dying and 2000 Arabs dying ( everything else being equal ) which would you choose?
You say that terrorism is non-ethical and then state that we should do worse to them than they do to us. Wouldn't that make us even less ethical? Isn't ethics something that, by definition, we should always strive to abide by?
"The U.S. military needs to withdraw all conventional forces immediately from Iraq." By when what date or by what event?
"These cells will be sent into countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya for the express purpose of covert operations to find, kill and terrorize all pro-terrorist cells. "
The main problem with doing this may be finding them and making sure they really are pro-terrorist. Also, getting it wrong and/or collateral damage may turn fence-sitters into sympathisers of the opposition, turn sympathisers of the opposition into active hostiles and may make the job of people who are more or less modern ( potential or actual allies ) more difficult.
"As for prisoners, they should be drugged with sodium pentathol until they provide information and then be executed." Sometimes, people taken as prisoners became prisoners because their neighbour/ brother-in-law/business competitor etc didn't like them. Hence the need for a trial.
"At the end of the day when the terrorist comes home to find his family and house blown to smithereens, he may begin to re-consider the consequences of his actions."
Or, if he is already a zealot, it may not matter to him anyway. Many of them do not live for the City of Man but only for the City of God ( if you'll allow an Augustinian image ). For an example of the ineffectiveness of this type of technique, see the Israelo-Palestinian conflict. Collective punishments, house demolitions, torture are all used. Yet, Hamas et al are still strong.
I'm not arguing for always using white gloves. Nevertheless, the moral highground can be useful. I'm glad to see recovering hawkoholics who are still ready to use coercion to solve some problems.
If you haven't watched Operation Swordfish with Travolta, I think you should.
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on May 16, 2004 20:21:03 GMT -5
This is my suggestion. It's not exhaustive. Feel free to punch Popperian holes.
Field Manual 90-8 of the US Army ( counter guerrilla operations ) as well Col. John Boyd's fourth generation warfare paradigm mention that while the military aspect of a strategy is vital, it has far less importance than it did during say, WWI, WWII or the Korean War.
The other parts are social, economic and political.
The social aspect could be emphasised by giving technical and financial support to secular liberal organisations in countries with importance Muslim populations. Islamists are lost, we will never convince them of anything, but what we can do is make people who would have become activists merely sympathizers, would-be sympathizers fence-sitters and would-be fence-sitters allies.
Ethnic hatreds are seldom wiped out. They can realistically be expected to transform themselves into a simmering tension actualised through politics and social movements instead of boiling hatred actualised in violence. One way to wipe it out is intermarriage and friendships with the other group. This can be encouraged through TV, editorials, donations to socially influential people etc.
Economic: Bribe the ruling elites of Islamic countries into opening their markets or generally working for a more open society just as Egypt was bribed into peace with Israel. Open more American Universities around the world to form an elite that will not be anti-American, show people who might think otherwise that the US's main foreign policy goal is not oil by giving short and long term help to brown people who don't happen to be sitting on natural resources.
Political: Lobby liberal democracies into contributing as well. Same applies to not so liberal countries. Staging coups is a possibility but "it could have been worse than that ruthless dictator we supported" will not work for long and gives an impression of cynicism. Strengthen people like Musharaf while ensuring that he's going in the liberal direction and that he's not double-dealing. Find the next Ataturk and give him as much help as he needs.
Military: Do Osirak-type missions. Attack the sacred cows of the ruling elites that help Islamists ( e.g.: bombing S. Hussein palaces, a.k.a. gunboat diplomacy ). There was a man killed in Yemen by a Predator launched Hellfire missile. That's a great way to do it. Do recce on recruiting spots and infiltrate the networks ( if Walker could do it, why can't the CIA? ). Give logistics support, fire support, training, C4I to secular and more or less liberal parts of Islamic countries. Much could be learned about assassinations and kidnappings from Mossad, if that hasn't already been the case.
|
|
|
Post by Theodore Doxford on Aug 9, 2004 0:59:54 GMT -5
The USA cannot and should not pull out of Iraq or Afganistan.. Your country like it or not, is the number 1 power in the world and it's the USA's duty to try to maintain some kind of civilised society in both those countries.
As for combatting the terrorists ...I think that education is the only way in the long term. The west must supplant the religious schools that are set up in developing countries,these schools set up by believers are the root of all evil.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Aug 9, 2004 13:35:46 GMT -5
It's always the other guy, isn't it? The guy with the most money, or the most power, or whatever. The USA doesn't have a duty to it at all. It is a calculated venture, with the benefit for the US being calculated as greater than the cost. There is no notion of duty in it. The US has the potential to effectively fight terrorism, and it is in their benefit (according to the Bush admnistration) to do so.
Don't come with this 'they have a duty' socialist rap.
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Aug 9, 2004 14:06:11 GMT -5
Vertigo,
I don't think Theo is much of a socialist.
Notwithstanding the part about being the number 1 power, are you saying that a country can go around invading other countries and, once it has overthrown the order that was in place before the invasion, it does not have to take responsability and make sure it doesn't degenerate into a bigger Lebanon?
May a country, only looking at its own interests, turn another country into a failed state and then throw up its hands at the resulting mess?
"It is a calculated venture, with the benefit for the US being calculated as greater than the cost. There is no notion of duty in it. " Sure, but here, you're being descriptive, whereas Theo ( and I ) are being normative.
|
|
|
Post by Theodore Doxford on Aug 9, 2004 14:30:32 GMT -5
It's always the other guy, isn't it? The guy with the most money, or the most power, or whatever. The USA doesn't have a duty to it at all. It is a calculated venture, with the benefit for the US being calculated as greater than the cost. There is no notion of duty in it. The US has the potential to effectively fight terrorism, and it is in their benefit (according to the Bush admnistration) to do so. Don't come with this 'they have a duty' socialist rap. The USA is the only country that has the power ..Militarily and economically to mold the world. The rest of us can only talk the talk. The USA is like the god of this planet ;DIt can do as it wants...the difference being ..that the USA does exist and can do things...so the USA has a duty to make the world a better place. On a personal level ,I am sure that if you had the power... you would feel the need to make the world a better place... . As for being a socialist...well sometimes I am.... sometimes I am not...At the moment I cant stand them.
|
|